The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

My response is as follows.

In this month of Ramadan we are very busy carrying out our Islamic obligations, and that includes teaching the Quran as you can see from this blog. Mr Crank… is welcome to contribute his views on the extracts from the Quran we are studying.

If he wants to hold a debate with me, which I can do after Ramadan, he must identify himself. An anonymous person can say anything without having to bear responsibility for it (e.g. a previous such poster was prepared to denounce Rumi but he could never dare do it as a known individual).

Then since I would be appearing on behalf of our Jamaat, he too should appear on behalf of a known anti-Ahmadiyya organisation. Otherwise, if he gets beaten, someone else will come forward for debate, and then someone else, and so it will go on, with the same issues being debated. He says he has done “extensive research on Mirza”. Well, get that research accredited by the anti-Ahmadiyya Ulama or their organisations, and appear in the debate as their appointed representative.

Next specific topics need to be agreed and no deviation will be allowed when debating that subject. As he has written: “nothing Mirza wrote could be justified” let that be the topic.

Other topics could be:

1. Was Hazrat Mizra sahib a Muslim according to Islam?

2. Did he do any service to Islam or none whatsoever?

3. Are members of the AAIIL Muslims according to Islam?

4. Has AAIIL done any service to Islam or none?

As on his blog on the first page he writes that we falsely claim that Iqbal was sympathetic to our Movement, let us make that a topic. In fact, just that topic might suffice because he regards Iqbal as a great authority on Islam.

Mr Crank… could also get us a promise from the anti-Ahmadiyya ulama that if I prevail in these debates, they will campaign publicly to have Ahmadis declared as Muslim in Pakistan.

Once again someone jumps into a fray without having any idea of what he is fighting and for what. The best weapon these anti-Ahmadiyya opponents have is ignorance of the issues. With this weapon in hand they can shoot their mouths without worrying about any response because no response will make sense to them. Then they can claim victory that their objections remained unanswered (according to them).

That above article is truly laughable. Just to name a few instances of his ignorance the author writes concerning the Messiah:

1. “He will inspire everyone beginning with Jews”.
2. “He will demand and achieve greatness from all the humanity.
3. “He will enable return of Jews to the Holy Land.”
4. “He will re-build the Holy Temple.” 

Where the Jews are concerned, they are still waiting for the first coming of the Messiah. The person who claimed to be the first Messiah was Jesus, but most of the Jews did not get inspired by him, nor did they consider him great, rather he was cursed . The Jews were in the Holy Land at the time of Jesus so there was no question of their return to the Holy Land. Lastly, at the time of Jesus, the Holy Temple was intact, so there was no question of rebuilding it. 

The Jews rejected Jesus. Is the writer of this article also rejecting Jesus as the Messiah? . It is only because the Jews rejected Jesus that they have these future expectations of the Messiah. But they have already returned to the Holy Land (without the aid of any Messiah) from which they were forced out after Jesus!

Also, now the Jews want to rebuild the Temple which was destroyed in 70 CE (after Jesus) and they want to build it at the same site where the Dome of the Rock (Masjid Qubbat As-Sakhrah), exists. Is this what this self-styled guardian of Islam wants?

Maybe that is the kind of Messiah he is looking for.

Our disagreement with Mr Crank… may be easy to settle. On the blog link given in his comment the following is stated. Corrections in square brackets are by me!

“Quadianis especially Lahoris boost [boast] that Dr. Allama Iqbal was sympathetic to Quadianiat and he was impressed with literally [literary] merits of Mirza’s work. Some Quadianis make highly dubious claims that he actually accepted Mirza and was a Quadiani. We always thought that knowing the intelligence and thinking genius of Dr. Iqbal it is almost neigh [nigh] impossible for him to fall pray [prey] to someone as scrupulous [unscrupulous!] as Mirza who has no command of either the language or the subject matter, nor the works he produced could be classed as a literally [literary] masterpieces.”

Well, this passage is not a literary masterpiece for sure!

He regards Allama Iqbal as a great authority on Islam. We can prove to him that Iqbal was a very great admirer of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad all his life till about 1933 (25 years after HMGA’s death), and that he was an equally great admirer of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement even up to his death. See our book online: Dr Sir Muhammad Iqbal and the Ahmadiyya Movement.

Mr. Zahid Aziz,

I think you have forgotten one more condition in your post.

I should also declare you President of Pakistan after you win.
Are you for real??

1- First of all I think you failed to notice, I didn’t write that I want to have a debate with you. I wrote I thought that you will be at least worth having a debate, but after reading your responses to others, I realise you are no different from any other Quadianis.
This is your first mistake.

2- Secondly, you have unilaterally and wrongly categorised me as “Anti Ahmadiyya”. Mr. Zahid Aziz you have proven once again that you are no different from any other Quadiani. Who are you to categorise me? Let me correct you I am Anti Quadianiat. Do not label your cult wrongly. You can never prove this Ahmadiyya non-sense on the basis of Mirza’s name which was Ghulam-e-Ahmed not Ahmed. This is another proof of your twisted mind and deeds.

I have devised a test for Quadianis, I call it “Butler Test”.
I regularly challenge Quadianis to prove in a court of Law in the UK that Butler (or Driver for that matter) of the King (Queen) can call himself (herself) as King (Queen).

You are very keen to know my identity, I challenge you to provide me legally binding letter on official document of your Anjuman stating that Butler can declare himself/herself as King/Queen in the UK by removing Butler from his name.

Once you communicate this document to me, I will issue you a high court writ. This way you can find out my identity. What say you? Do you think you can take this risk to be humiliated in a court of Law?

Can you in your right frame of mind take this risk? You have no shame to declare your Mirza as Ahmed even though you know he was Ghulam-e-Ahmed. You and I both know you will never be able to win arguments in a court of law that a Butler can call himself King ignoring that he is the Butler of the King. Exactly this way your Mirza become Ahmed instead of Ghulam of the Ahmed. Distasteful people like you always play their word game, as usual. Mirza’s family was full of Ghulam’s of Prophet Muhammad SAW.
You will never be able to prove it as his family name either. Nor you can prove it in the linguistic sense.

Quadianis like you will never risk the wrath of British to pass the Butler test, but they have no second thoughts to associate white lies to Quran to claim that Mirza was foretold in Quran and also in Bible. Off course for heretics wrath of Allah is not important; but angering worldly Monarch does matter.
This is your second mistake.

Mr. Aziz you are completely and utterly misunderstanding and misjudging me.

3- You already assumed and based on your assumptions you have already chosen your favourite topics. I am not a so called Mullah, nor am I here to play your games. I have my unique style, you are mistaken if you think I am going to let you play your usual tricks and word games.
This is your third mistake.

4- You have already shown classical Quadianis trick to divert the attention from Mirza and his lies. My article is not on Iqbal and his writings, it was against the blatant lies of Mirza. Defend him, instead of bringing Iqbal or Rumi into the discussion or any one else for that matter. They all are irrelevant, when it comes to the twisted writings of Mirza.
This is your fourth mistake.

5- I am a Muslim, Islam does not recommend nor makes it obligatory on Muslims to have Church like organisations. This is for the cultist like you. I believe on Quran and Prophet Muhammad SAW. Everything else and everybody else is irrelevant and unimportant. This is another mistake you have made. My future article will be on this topic to prove other heresies of your Mirza and Quadiani cult.

6- What is the population of Lahori Quadianis in the world? What is the membership of your Anjuman around the world? You in your feeble mind think you are someone special. I think you are very keen to overestimate yourself. This is your another mistake.

It will be good for you to have a reality check. I have added whatever else I wanted to add in another post addressed to Bashir. I suggest you should start proving first that Mirza was a truthful person before jumping on your high horse. Show me Mirza is credible. The rest can wait. You think you can pass the first hurdle?

Let me add one more thing, this nick of mine is specially selected for your Mirza. After reading his books, first thing came to my mind was this guy stinks. There is no worse stanch in the world then Skunk. First I though to rhyme it with Sunk, to make it SunkthatSkunk. But on second thought, sinking someone is too easy and too quick. So I opted for Crankthatskunk. This nick is quite unique, and describe Mirza;s character perfectly, don’t you think so?

I know you can sensor my posts, so I am keeping the copies safe. I can post them on my blog and other forums. That way you will get more publicity albeit adverse. Choice is yours. Let’s make no mistake I am here to humiliate your Mirza and your cult.

I just read your other comments, I write everything in s hurry. I do not have time to revise or proof read my writings. I do not have time for it, nor do I find it necessary. This material is for my Blog, therefore, no need to go through this much pain.

Did I write anywhere that it is divine revelations from God Like your Mirza? He wrote utter rubbish in the guise of divine revelations with numerous mistakes. Have you failed to notice recently it has been proven without shadow of any doubt that he plagiarised his so called ilhams from poetry of Arabic poets and even from children stories books? This liar had the audacity to claim that Arabic was taught to him by Allah. Curse be he who associate white lies to Allah and His Word.

Mr, Aziz, instead of trying to score brownie points, deal with the real issues raised in my article. I do not care what you have posted on your Site. Are you trying to say that quotations from Iqbal are incorrect? Why you think he wrote such harsh words for Mirza and his writings? You probably got wrong ideas from his politeness. He definitely had a very clear idea about Mirza and your cult. This is the point I made it in my Article.

Mr. Abdul Momin,
 
My analysis after reading few posts on this blog was very accurate. None of you including Mr. Aziz have disappointed me, so far. You all are writing same old rubbish.
Please read the point I have written in my post to Aziz. This heresy of Quadianis will be exposed very soon.
I laugh reading twisted writings of the members of this Cult. But believe me I do not blame lost souls like you. Nothing else could be expected from people who follow a liar and heretic like Mirza. You are just a sheep following a wolf.

I wonder if Crank will have the courage to post Dr. Zahid Aziz’s replies on his blog as well. But that may be asking to much of him.

Crankthatskunk’s deep passion regarding Ahmadiyya issues and the effort on his/her part to seek answers (in his/her own way) can probably be considered a positive sign. May Allah guide Crankthatskunk on the path of wisdom so that he may channelize his energy in productive ways for the cause of Islam.

Thanks for this Dean. That’s exactly what I am doing and I have just deleted three new comments by him in the moderation queue.

Regarding his “butler test”, here is my further comment. The reasoning behind his test is that he thinks we consider a servant of the Holy Prophet Muhammad as being the Holy Prophet Muhammad. So can a servant of the Queen call himself as Queen, he asks.

But what we believe is that when Hazrat Mirza sahib, a servant of the Holy Prophet, calls upon us to follow some neglected teaching of the Holy Prophet (e.g. jihad by the Quran) then we follow that teaching as it is, in fact, the Holy Prophet who calls upon us to follow it.

Therefore I am prepared to make the following legally-binding statement to satisfy his Butler Test:

“I, Zahid Aziz, declare that if a servant of the Queen (be it butler, driver, a police officer or customs official) gives me a lawful instruction in the name of the Queen then I will follow that instruction as if the servant is the Queen”.

Now let him issue his High Court writ!

Reading the Blog here and other Lahori arguments about the Divine ship of Mirza Shab, one must be very naive to accept that Lahore Group actually followed Mirza Sahab.

For example Mirza Sahab believed that Isa was born without a Human Father, where Lahore Group belief He  had a Father !

Now can some one explain this to me please, why the so called true follower of Mirza Sahab are not following Him on this issue. Its like that Although Abu Bakr was the Best companion amongs the compenions of Muhammad, but He failed to realize He was a true Prophet !

You follow people or you don’t follow people, there is no middle ground to run your own show. Does it not imply that Lahories and just another deviant group of this New Religoin Ahmadiyya created by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian ? They don’t care what his teachings were or else, they just need a plateform to preach their own version of Islam like many do in this world today.

Well, if the Lahori explanation of HMGA’s claims is even considered as a more rational explanation of his claims, it complicates matters for all of HMGA’s opponents. It is so much easier to let the Qadiani Jamaat do all the dirty work for the anti-Ahmadiyya group regarding the beliefs of HMGA. This way all these people have to do is to sling mud at HMGA and all his followers, irrespective of his claims. 

The anti-Ahmadiyyas will not accept a single argument from the Qadianis about their being Muslims, but give them a blank check when it concerns the beliefs of HMGA, even though there is a third party to this theological dispute, who happen to disagree with both the Qadianis and the anti-Ahmadiyyas concerning the claims of HMGA.
Now if there are many groups of people who preach their own version of Islam in the world today as the above poster says, does it not imply that no one group has a monopoly over the truth? If the “true” Islam was so apparent to the world, why would there be so many groups preaching their own version?

Most people who hold this kind of opinion do not realize that -like any other issue in life – people can have a difference of opinion and beliefs concerning religion as well. How about some of these same critics instead of pointing out differences amongst Muslims actually try to focus on their common beliefs?

I don’t need to produce the extract from Mawahib-ur-Rahman for the simple reason that Maulana Muhammad Ali himself translated and published it in his book The Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement written in 1937. In fact, in the same place he gave two further extracts from HMGA showing his belief that Jesus had no father. (See this link and go to page 88 in the pdf version of the book.)

We presented the same extracts right at the beginning of our court submission, whose link I gave in my earlier post.

Hazrat Mirza sahib’s followers included great Islamic scholars and he respected their views and knowledge and allowed them to hold views different from him. This would no doubt sound strange to most Muslims including members of the Qadiani Jamaat.

Hazrat Mirza sahib always interpreted the Quran on matters like histories of prophets in the traditional way of the Muslim majority. Maulana Nur-ud-Din, and some others also, on these matters gave different, often new or minority Muslim interpretations.

If you think the AAIIL elders would hold any kind of meeting to decide the issue of Jesus’s birth then I am afraid you don’t understand us at all. On such matters we are individuals.

When Maulana Muhammad Ali was translating the Quran (1909-1916) into English he was daily seeking Maulana Nur-ud-Din’s guidance on the translation as well as the footnotes till almost his dying day in 1914. Maulana  Nur-ud-Din told him to express the view that it can be argued from the Quran that Jesus had a father.

There is no change by the AAIIL. In the court case we quoted what Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote in the early 1920s in Bayan-ul-Quran. We also quoted HMGA’s belief.

There have been a few members of the AAIIL who believed that Jesus was born without a father.

For ZA, thanks for the insight. 

HMGa mentioned: 
“One of the doctrines we hold is that Jesus Christ and
John the Baptist were both born miraculously …

1.  Why did HMGA write the word doctrines????

From what you wrote, I concur that there was no official meeting of the aaiil to discuss this matter.  M. ali just wrote it in his translation and published it.  He didnt confer with the elders of the aaiil before writing that Jesus had a father.  All the members of the anjuman unanimously agreed–is it safe to assume that.

I also concur that this is a small issue.  Any matter of difference means nothing.  Can i compare this to the Ismuhu Ahmad theory???  HMBMA wrote in AS(1922) that ahmadis didnt have to agree with his definition.  Is this a fair parallel???

Maybe its not, I just thinking outloud.

It’s hard to cancel a statement by HMGA in which he wrote that this belief was an official doctrine of the ahmadis.  If HMGA would not have written this in 1903 the situation would be different.

What other minor points of difference are possible.

A word to the wise:

If any sent one appears from GOD they should make a manifesto of their beliefs, before they die.  That way, the followers of this “sent one” will never go astray.  If HMGA would have done this, the split would not have happened.

Instead of writing Chasmi Mashihi in 1907, I think HMGa should have written down his beliefs in detail.   

Another point:

GOD never told HMGA as to whether Jesus had a father or not, OK, I understand this idea.  GOD also never told HMGA that jesus was buried in Kashmir.  This tomb of Yus Asaf was a guess by HMGA.   Was it????  Is there any ahmadi book(q or l) that discusses the events of this tomb discovery.  I havent seen one, please enlighten me.  Has the aaiil visited this tomb??  Has anybody done carbon dating???  Who re-built this tomb in late 1800’s and why??  There are so many questions that are unanswered….. 

Is it safe to compare this(Jesus’ father) situation with the tomb situation. 

I must say, as a rational thinker I find it very hard to understand how GOD never revealed to HMGA from 1891 to 1899 as to where the tomb of Jesus was.  A rational brain would think that when the revelation of jesus’ death arrived, other revelations would have also arrived.  Those other revelations in terms of the grave and the father.

For those interested, I suggest the folowing book on this subject by Dr. Basharat Ahmad. He incidently was the same person who wrote the famous biography “Mujaddid-i-Azam” of MGA (English transalation the Great Reformer – available on Amazon) :

http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/others/basharatahmad/birthjesus2005ed/birthjesus2005ed.shtml

You are unfamiliar, not surprisingly, with the atmosphere of free discussion that prevailed in the time of the Promised Messiah between himself and his followers. His company was not the court of an oriental despot, with sycophantic courtiers praising him to the heavens.

As an example, I refer to the statement by Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din during his dars of the Quran on 5th April 1909 on verse 2:259 of the Quran about the man whom Allah caused to die for a hundred years and then raised him to life.

The Hazrat Maulana interpreted it as a vision of the prophet Ezra. Both Lahoris and Qadianis interpret it in exactly that way. But the Hazrat Maulana says in this extract that the Promised Messiah told him that he had learnt from Allah that that man actually died. The Maulana relates that he raised an objection to this interpretation, which HMGA answered. Then he raised another objection, which HMGA answered. Then, says the Maulana, because he felt shyness and respect he did not raise the next objection which he had in mind.

It was the same shyness and respect for the Promised Messiah that led Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din to stop discussing the birth of Jesus with him.

See the extract here scanned from the original Badr.

You can see this on the Qadiani Jamaat website, starting from the bottom of this page going over to the top of the next page.

The following two articles, though lengthy, provide insight into the relationship between Hazrat Mirza sahib and his followers.

http://www.ahmadiyya.org/intro/pioneers/myb.htm

http://www.ahmadiyya.org/intro/pioneers/dr-b-ahmad.htm

Regarding the birth of Jesus issue, Hazrat Mirza sahib has written in the extract about “doctrines” which we are discussing, that “Jesus Christ and John the Baptist were both born miraculously”.

It is difficult to see how the manner of the birth of the little known John the Baptist (how many Muslims or Ahmadis even know this is Yahya?) could be a basic doctrine of the Ahmadiyya movement.

In the Fountain of Christianity (translation at alislam.org) Hazrat Mirza sahib writes: “When thousands of insects are born by themselves during the rainy season, and Adam was also born without parents, it is no proof of Jesus’ eminence if he, too, was born in the same manner. In fact, being born without a father deprives a person of certain faculties.” (p. 29 of online edition)

So the miraculous birth was less beneficial for the person born than a normal birth would have been. When we read about miracles of any other prophet, they gave them more power and worked in their favour, not against them.

The miraculous birth of Yahya is much easier to prove to its observers than the virgin birth of Jesus. Everyone could see that Yahya’s parents were aged. They knew it for a fact that his mother had reached an age at which conception was not possible. So for her to bear a child is an open miracle to the beholders.

In case of Mary, it is impossible to prove to the beholders that she had conceived without a male being involved. The only way of knowing this for certain would be if they had had her under observation 24/7 ever since she became capable of conceiving.

In case of the miracles of Moses and other prophets, at least the occurrence of the miraculous event could not be denied by the beholders as it happened before their eyes, though they did not accept why it occurred. But how can a negative event such as conception without a male be proved to the contemporaries? This of course is why the orthodox Muslims believe that Allah made Jesus speak to the people as a baby a few days old. But both Lahoris and Qadianis believe that this did not happen when Jesus was a few days old but when he was much older. Compare the footnotes of Maulana Muhammad Ali on these verses in chapter 19 and the footnotes in the Qadiani Jamaat shorter English commentary and they are almost identical. Both deny the “miracle” of Jesus speaking as a baby.

Bashir:  Hazrat Isa was a prophet, yet he obviously did not leave behind a clear “manual of beliefs”; with the result that his status as a mere mortal or the Son of God is disputed (It is easy to see HMGA’s similarity with Hazrat Isa here).  Go one step above from here.  Could not have Allah, if he so wanted to, given mankind a manual of beliefs so unambiguous that no chance of dispute or doubt would have remained.  History testifies otherwise.  This sort of goes back of to the discussion going on in the Quran Study.  If a set of beliefs is articulated, even supported with “clear signs”, yet there will be people who will refuse to believe.  Given this extreme scenario, it is not at all difficult to see that differences of opinion can and will occur, especially as, for reasons best known to Allah, divine communication apparently has deliberate room for interpretation (See Quran 3:7 )  So if Allah’s communication with humanity has this feature, and many prophet’s teachings have been corrupted to no end and some have been raised to the status of divinity, then a mujaddid cannot really be faulted if his followers end up having contrasting beliefs.  Another way of saying this is if we ask this question of a mujaddid, then the logical end is to ultimately ask a similar question of Allah?  And when we start questioning Allah’s line of reasoning as to why He has chosen a certain manner of communicating with and guiding mankind, then we are entering a realm of which we haven’t the faintest idea.

Za and Usman Malik:

I understand what you guys have written.  There are some things that were deemed important and others as un-important.  I understand that IDEA.

But, it sounds like in 1903(MR), HMGA deemed the “immaculate conception” as an important part of his “theoretical stance” in terms of Jesus. 

Even HMN(noorudin) confessed that he didnt previously believe in this theory.  But, since HMGA made it his doctrine, HMN decided to make it his doctrine as well.  Maybe HMN didnt in-force this IDEA….

HMGA didnt write after 1903 that it was OK for followers to differ on this topic.  M. ali was a very close follower of HMGA, maybe he saw things better than me.  Maybe M .ali is right, I dont know………..all i have is the data from MR(1903).
 

A correction: “immaculate conception” refers to the conception of Mary and not the virgin birth of Jesus. This concept was evolved to show that Mary was conceived without the stain or original sin. Calling the virgin birth by that name is a common mistake that a lot of people make.
Bashir wrote:
“Even HMN(noorudin) confessed that he didnt previously believe in this theory.  But, since HMGA made it his doctrine, HMN decided to make it his doctrine as well.  Maybe HMN didnt in-force this IDEA….”
For my information can you show me where he (HMN) changed his “doctrine” regarding the virgin birth of Jesus? Or for that matter changed his opinion in the matter that was being discussed in that particular instance. To me it looks like in that case he simply did not further push the point with HMGA out of shyness and respect.

Quote :

A correction: “immaculate conception” refers to the conception of Mary and not the virgin birth of Jesus.

Thanks for the correction. I had not given thought to this term in a very long long time (many years). I just went with the flow of Bashir’s comment where he wrote :

“Zahid Aziz should produce the exact reference from MR(1903).  I would love to read as to what HMGA exactly wrote.  I think that if HMGa wrote that jesus’ creation was an “immaculate one”, then all ahmadis should agree with HMGA”.

One wonders whether this succession by relatives is a principle or mere coincidence. Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din seems to have been an exception (but at least no relative of his can ever become khalifa)!

At the Holy Prophet’s death when Hazrat Fatima came to Hazrat Abu Bakr to ask for inheritance of the Holy Prophet, he gave her such a blunt reply that these closest relations of the Holy Prophet (Hazrat Ali and Fatima) were quite resentful for a few months.

Hazrat Umar, when khalifa, barred his son Abdullah ibn Umar, from  succeeding him. It was in reference to this that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad sahib said at the first Jalsa in December 1914 after becoming khalifa:

“Foolish is he who says that a hereditary seat has been established. I say to such a one on sworn oath: I do not even consider it allowable that the son should succeed the father as khalifa. Of course, if God makes him His appointed one, then that is a different matter. Like Hazrat Umar, I also believe that the son should not be khalifa after the father.”

(See this link on alislam.org at page 171).

The khilafat was in the family, blood relations or not (though they were distant blood relations due to being one tribe) – Allah often blesses a family. We believe it is the same now, though of course it is not a criteria for succession.

We are proud that the sons and grandsons of the ummati-Nabi are honoured , against the counter-prayers of the enemies of the Promised Messiah who wished his family go corrupt.

The tragedy of what happened to the grandsons of Holy Prophet (sa) is well known – and I tell non-Ahmadis all the time that though history cannot be erased , we are proud to honour the family of the prophet of the age.  By Allah blessing them, we have witnessed many signs at their hands.

Tahir Ijaz writes

“we are proud to honour the family of the prophet of the age”

Perhaps he could explain who is the prophet of the age. I believe that Holy Prophet (PBUH) is the prophet of all ages to come. He was the prophet of the age when HMGA was alive and he will be the prophet of all times to come.

I think that HMGA wanted his family and his leadership team to work together in harmony.  HMGA strategically created an association(anjuman) of which more than 4 members had no reason for inclusion. 

1.  HMBMA had not done much work for the community at age 17.  And he was not a scholar.
2.  Nawab M. ali Khan(son in law) had not done much work.  And he was not a scholar.
3.  Nawab Sahab(father in law) had not doen much work.  And he was not a scholar.
4.  Mir Muhammad Ishaq(brother in law) had not done much work.  And he was not a scholar. 

My point is that in comparison with Noorudin, Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan, M. ali and KK, these people were no where close to there commitment. 

But, I think HMGA wanted his top leadership people to work with his family.  Obviously that didnt happen.  Very sad story….. 

My first question is: Why was this a controversial issue? After all, HMGA himself believed in the birth without father, as did the vast majority of Muslims, with very few exceptions such as Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan. It could only be controversial because some respected followers did not hold this belief.

If Zafrullah’s statement is correct, why then did Maulana Nur-ud-Din write the following in the same book Nur-ud-Din:

“i. The Islam taught to us by that Divine Scripture, the Holy Quran, does not say anywhere that to become a Muslim you need to believe that Jesus had no father.

“ii. The Holy Prophet has not told us that a part of Islam is to believe that Jesus had no father.

“iii. Our beloved holy Companions, our four leaders of jurisprudence, and other great Imams, have nowhere instructed us that it is necessary to believe that Jesus was born without a father.

“iv. Our respected Sufi saints have not exhorted us anywhere in their teachings that to attain the ranks of Divine nearness, to accomplish self-reform, and to acquire noble morals, it is necessary to believe that Jesus had no father.

“v. Besides Jesus, how many prophets, messengers and appointed ones of God, have there been! Is the genealogy of any one of them recorded in the Holy Quran? In fact, God says, ‘None knows the hosts of thy Lord, save He’. So it is not necessary to know of the existence of everyone, let alone how they were born.”

(Book Nur-ud-Din, pp. 181 – 182)

It may be that only a family member can bring the Qadiani Jamaat to, what is in our view, the right path, and one might do so. When Mirza Tahir Ahmad sahib became khalifa, and also when the present khalifa was appointed, we tried to look at them without pre-judging them. There are grounds for believing that one day this split will be healed as a sign of the truth of the Promised Messiah. Most likely it will not happen in our lifetimes or even in our children’s lifetimes. But we must not have pre-conceptions about how it will happen, as God’s ways are most unexpected and unfathomable by man beforehand.

Bashir, Allah chooses the best person for the job. That is our belief.  I have no doubt that as the jamaat grows, khilafat will not only pass on to other family, but will be passed on to other nations.

It is intriguing to see the number of familial offices of prophethood mentioned in Quran – not that there is no other righteous person in the land, but that Allah blesses a family.

Examples are Ibrahim (as) and his sons Ishmael (as) and Isaac (as); Isaac’s son  Job (as) , and then Job’s son Joseph (as). Lot (as) was a nephew of Ibrahim (as).

Moses’ (as) father-in law was Shu’aib (as). Moses’ brother was Aaron.  Shu’aib was a great great grandson of Ibrahim.

John the Baptist (as) father was Zacharias (as). Isa (as) was a cousin of John the Baptist.

While the family members of a prophet can truly be rightly guided, there is no guarantee that this would be the case in every instance. One of Hazrat Adam’s sons killed his brother. The son and wife of Hazrat Noah acted treacherously or did not listen to the Prophet of God. Hazrat Lot was guided to safety by God but not his wife who was left behind to die with the other wrongdoers.

In the case of HMGA (not a prophet), what about his two eldest sons from his first wife?

Note by Blog Admin:

“Allah sets forth an example for those who disbelieve — the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot. They were both under two of Our righteous servants, but they acted treacherously towards them, so they availed them naught against Allah, and it was said: Enter the Fire with those who enter.
And Allah sets forth an example for those who believe — the wife of Pharaoh, …” (The Quran, 66:10-11)

I found this in my notes about khilafat, taken from Sirrul Khalifa(aaiil english translation):

“When they became Caliphs they did not fill their houses with gold and silver. Whenever they came by some, they passed it on to the Bait al-Mal (Public Treasury). They did not make their sons their Caliphs, as people enslaved to filthy lucre and sunk in misguidance, always do.”

I am not interpreting this, I just found this in my research.  I think it means that anybody who intentionally makes his son as the next khalifa is not a good person.  Intentionally being the keyword. 

Of course the whole purpose of these discussions on Khilafat or the status of HMGA is to “bother” people. There is really no other purpose to it.

A lot easier way to bother people would be to make prank calls on the telephone rather than waste time using arguments. 

Hazrat Abu Bakr was the best man for the job when the HP passed away.  But, the shias didnt want to consider “the best person for the job”.  They didnt believe in this concept.  The shias didnt care as to who was the best, they wanted one of their own. 

Thats really sad.  Tahir just commented that he supports this same concept.  Or a variation of it. 

I wanna know as to who the guy was who nominated Hazrat Mirza Nasir Ahmad, HM Tahir A and HM Masroor A.  I am really curious to know as to who the nominater was. 

We all know that Syed Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan was the one who nominated HMBMA. 

Tariq: did you review the statement from SMZK about the father of Jesus?

Also, it seems that people support the families of the ruling class, this is true cross-culturally.  I’m afraid that this has been the case with Islam and the shias, maybe its true with ahmadiyyat, I dont know…….

Its a trend that wont die.

Quote:
I think ahmadis should have learned from the mistakes of the early muslims.  I think we have a reversal of fortune.  In the sunni/shiite split the non-family supporters won the khilafat………….

In the ahmadi split, the family won.  It appears to be a total reversal of the previous split.  These two splits should be collectively evaluated when searching for results. ………………
Unquote.

I am glad that this observation has been made. In our previous discussion forum, there was a member of the other side by the name of Ouija who would accuse the Lahoris of being like the Shias because – according to him – the AAIIL had split from the main body of Ahmadis just like the Shias had split from the main body of Muslims!

For him, just this fact that corresponding to the Shias, the Lahoris were also fewer in numbers compared to the Qadianis, was enough  to brand us as the transgressors!

Mufti Mahmud speech on 1974 Pakistan National Assembly discussion.
  
Mufti Mahmud, the mullah Pakistani politician gave speech about 1974 PNA discussion that resulted in declaration of Qadianis and Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (LAM) members as non-Muslims in 1973 Pakistan’s constitution. This speech is available on YouTube.
 
Three things come out prominent in this speech:
1-Mufti Mahmud points out Qadiani Khalifa 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad and exposes how Qadiani beliefs are fundamentally wrong, besides ridiculing Mirza Nasir ahmad for his contradictory statements and explanations of Qadiani beliefs.
 
2- Mufti Mahmud points out how Qadiani belief of “Ummati-Nabi” (as one word) got Qadiani Khalifa 3 into trouble. And from there onwards QK3 could not justify any of his beliefs.
 
3-Mufti Mahmud nowhere questions beliefs of LAM. And nowhere he ridicules answers of LAM spokes persons Maulana Sadar Ud Din sahib or  Abdul Mannan Omar sahib.
 
It is unfortunate LAM became victim of political purposes of Pakistan’s Mullah-Mafia politicians and non-religious political parties politicians. The nation did not stop them from committing this huge atrocity. Allah SWT justice is that now both parties that joined hands in declaring LAM non Muslim are cutting each other throats and along with it nation is paying the price.
 Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbC-1dS3JEM
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB6EyFMkCyc
Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH_1bPINuGU

Tariq, I was just wondering if you read the relevant data that was presented?  That was all.  Nothing more, nothing less.  You never responded to my post, what was I supposed to think?

And yes, I read the data from ZA, I responded to that data, but by response was not posted.  I had written that it seems SMZK had decieved me at the least, and the general readers in general.  I think HMN’s(noorudin) book should be examined.  Does it have two contradictory statements?  I dont know, i havent read the book, if I could read urdu, I would have already read it…….

How about that…..

Secondly, I have always written that HMGA never called himself as an “ummati nabi”.  The closest that he ever came was BA Vol.5 where he wrote something to the effect that this was a compound name.  But he always insisted to be called, “an ummati from one angle and nabi from another”.  But he never said “ummati nabi”, that is a fact.

is there anything else I should clarify?

Bashir,

Thank you for your reply. I assumed that ZA’s post covered this issue well and did not feel the need to respond myself (since I don’t have that book). I did not realize that you were expecting a response from me. I do see that you had addressed the post to me. Sorry if there was any confusion.

On the issue of the compound phrase “ummati-nabi” I just wanted to know if there was a place that HMGA had actually used it. I have not come across it in any of his writings or any writings that pertain to the issues of the split (and these latter contain all manner of quotes from his writings).  I have not read all of his writings and was wondering if anyone had come across this phrase.

That booklet is a translation of a chapter from his Tehrik-i Ahmadiyyat. In the Urdu book as well, listing various terms such as zilli nabi, buroozi nabi he has written ummati nabi, although I notice he put this last term in quotation marks (perhaps meaning so-called), but not the others.

Certainly Hafiz Sher Muhammad sahib was most insistent on saying “ummati aur nabi” and not ummati nabi. In a article by him, I once translated his heading “ummati aur nabi” from Urdu as if it were ummati nabi and sent it to him in Cape Town. He had the translation amended to the term he had used.

He also challenged the Qadiani Jamaat to show anywhere where Hazrat Mirza sahib ahd used the term Ummati nabi.

Here is some more food for thought, my friend. One of the terms that makes members of the Qadiani Jamaat jump to conclusions is when they see the words zilli nabi. But how does HMGA define these words? He states:

Wilayat is the perfect zill (reflection) of prophethood. (Hujjat Allah).

So anytime we see the two words zill (in the form of zilli) and nabi in HMGA’s writings, should we think that these two words point to a claim to some kind of prophethood, or are they words which describe some kind of a relation?

Just as Rasul Allah and Nabiullah describe a relationship between a Man and God (Messenger of God or Prophet of God respectively), similarly zilli nabi means a Saint who is the perfect reflection of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Just as the Messenger or Prophet does not become some kind of deity through the use of the above words, similarly a Saint does not become some kind of prophet through the use of the words zilli prophet. Zilli Nabi are just relational words.