The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and MattersSee Title Page and List of Contents

See: Project Rebuttal: What the West needs to know about Islam

Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam

Read: Background to the Project

List of all Issues | Summary 1 | Summary 2 | Summary 3

September 4th, 2008

Comments from anti-Ahmadiyya “Crankthatskunk”

An anti-Ahmadiyya writer has sent addressed to me a couple of comments using the above name and has wondered if I have the courage to publish them. I have inserted them as comments to this post. I wonder if he has the courage to disclose his identity

77 Responses to “Comments from anti-Ahmadiyya “Crankthatskunk””

  1. Comment 1 from “Crankthatskunk”:

    Mr. Zahid Aziz,
    I think you are the person responsible for many articles on your Anjuman’s website.
    I really thought that you will be at least worth having a debate, but after reading your responses to Hassan’s posts, it is quite evident to me, you are no different from any other Quadiani. You have absolutely no valid arguments to support your claims or support the writings of Mirza, except conjecture. Same old word game, Mirza played all his life, I am, I am not.
    I am still searching for a Quadiani who is remotely truthful. But I think my search will be in vain. I was amongst those Muslims who knew absolutely nothing about your cult. And I mean both your Anjuman and Jamat, I consider both of you the same except that your anjuman to be hypocrite of highest degree. When I started to read your Mirza’s literature I was open minded. I started to research after coming across some one in my life albeit by chance whose wife belongs to this cult.
    As my reading progress, I just got alarmed, and realised you guys are the worse thing ever happened to Muslims. Most of us probably are aware of Quadianis but never bothered to read this heretic writings. I am glad that I did and now I vow to spend my spare time as much as I could to counter your cult.
    It seems you censor posts on this blog, I hope you have courage to let my posts appear without tinkering with them.

    Comment 2:

    I think you guys are halfway house. You deliberately and knowingly hide the truth that Mirza didn’t declare himself as Prophet. Anyhow, nothing Mirza wrote could be justified. I have started to write articles recently on my blog after debating on some Quadiani Forums. One of your cultists Mr. Mushtaq Malik provides short cut to your Anjuman’s article but he is not articulate enough to debate. Well I am here now, by chance but I am here. Let’s hope you guys could offer something worth while. Not just same old rhetoric on Mirza. I have done extensive research on Mirza and I am of the opinion that he was one of the biggest liars I have read in my life. Prove me wrong if can.
    Here is the link for my article on “ Removal of an Error”.

  2. 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.

  3. CRANK! What up ???  I’m 29 years old, from California.  I represent the younger generation.  I assume by your name that you are a young man like me.

    I could answer many of your questions.

    I think you should really study the aaiil before you judge them.  I am an ahmadi of the mainstream group(q).  I have studied the aaiil inside and out.  I have asked Zahid 100’s of questions, I assure you, Zahid is fit for any debate. 

    This situation is not easliy learned.  It took me 3 years to grasp the issues.  And i have read every english book on the topic.  I also had Tahir Ijaz and Zahid Aziz help me along the way.  Ijaz is an ahmadi like me, while Zahid is a member of the aaiil.  Both are wonderful scholars.  Both know about the split.

    There is no way that you hvae a clue of what you are talking about.  You need to relax.  You should ask questions and learn more, don’t pre-judge the aaiil. 

    I understand that your hostiliity towards the ahmadis(q) is on the topic of prophethood.  You should think hypothetically, what if HMGA was not a prophet, and just a muhaddas?  Then what?  Does it affect his coming??  Does it affect anything at all??

    Here are some facts for you:

    -the ahmadis(q) were the ones who stressed the prophethood of HMGA.  They were the ones who made it an issue.  Before 1914 this was never an issue. 

    -the ahmadis(l) had never dreamed of “real prophethood” after the HP.

    -ahmadi ba;it forms dont require that you believe that HMGA was a prophet. 

  4. 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.

  5. Thank you for this brother Abdul Momin. How does this view about Jews square with a generally prevailing belief, expressed also by Maulana Maudoodi in his Tafhim-ul-Quran, that when Jesus returns, he will collect an army of Muslims to fight Dajjal and the Jews, and will kill them all in battle?

    This Crank… fellow also talks about the origin of the word Messiah. How then did this word happen to occur in the Quran? Did the Prophet also incorporate false Jewish concepts in the Quran (God forbid)?

    In view of his opinions, I think it’s Mr Crank… who needs to prove that he is a Muslim and not an opponent of Islam, rather than Ahmadis needing to prove it!

  6. 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.

  7. September 5th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
    From Crankthatskunk:


    The problem is very simple for me. I and majority of honest and truthful people judge others on the basis of credibility.

    Keeping aside, different claims of Mirza, he is not fit to be a decent human being. My problem is that I have not seen one decent and honest Quadiani, it does not matter what side of the aisle he/she sits. To judge someone’s character, his/her integrity is of the prime importance. Mirza lack that integrity. I have absolutely no doubt that he was not a righteous person, or a decent and honest human being. I can prove this many ways.

    As for Mr. Aziz, I can gather from his initial responses that he will be dealing with he is, he is not. Word play like Mirza did all his life. This is never going to work on me. I am laughing after reading Aziz’s response. I have drawn the right conclusions after reading his responses to the earlier posts by others. I can see from his responses and from the conditions he has put down in his post to me; he is reluctant to be exposed. Not only this, but he is already assuming that he will be victorious. This is a sure sign of foolishness.

    Allah clearly decreed in Quran that He has made It easy for human to comprehend. Anyone who plays word game with Word of Allah, against such open decree of Quran is a misguided person.

    His conditions for debate are so ridiculous that no sane person will ever pay attention to them or to him. His intelligence is so obvious to observe; it seems he has completely missed my point.

    If he is such a Scholar as you stated then why doesn’t he start to prove me wrong by providing proofs in support of the quotation I have given in my article from the writings of Mirza regarding his grandfather?

    There is no mystery of Islamic teachings or Quran in that quotation. It is a simple matter of integrity. I challenged all the Quadiani to produce one authenticated proof from Sikh’s literally resources or from independent and credible historical sources that what Mirza wrote is true.

    This is a perfect test for Mr. Aziz to show how great scholar he is. Once he can exonerate Mirza from this then we will discuss more of Mirza’s lies.

    Intellectual and academic discussions and debates are wasted on people like Mirza. His writings have no academic value in literally sense or otherwise. He comes across amateurish and ill informed, he was hell bound to prove few points which were necessary for him to fool innocent and uneducated people of rural Punjab. In his endeavour to do so, he has repeated himself over and over and over, with twists. No independent scholar has ever bothered to write about him. Nor any one in his right mind would consider Mirza’s writings worth pondering. In my estimations all of his collection could be put in a small booklet of no more than few pages.

    This is the truth of the matter. Quadianis can build whatever castles they want in thin air, the reality is very painful for them.

    Challenge I pose to Quadianis is for them to prove first that Mirza can be an honest person. He was rude, he lied repeatedly, he showed classic signs of crooks, he had no knowledge of any kind whatsoever, and he certainly was a plagiariser. When you analyse his writings you come to these conclusions rapidly.

    The best Mr. Aziz could do is to twist his words. How that is going to exonerate Mirza only people like Aziz know. I know one thing, I utterly dislike people who do not have the decency to call spade a spade, on the contrary they are hell bound to prove it is something else, not because they think or believe it is something else, but because they are crooks and have twisted minds, they are looking for their own benefits.

    Mirza fits this category perfectly. Honest and truthful people don’t go around the block to prove things which are ridiculous and downright lies.

    This is my problem with Mirza; I do not find him remotely credible. Therefore, it does not matter what claims he made, he is just a liar. Pass this hurdle if any of you can. We will discuss something further if you ever pass this hurdle to prove credibility of Mirza.

    Let me just add; it is a classic habit of Quadianis, that they always bring irrelevant topics and irrelevant people into discussion. We are not talking credibility of any other person(s) here, only of Mirza. Proving that someone else did exactly this or wrote exactly this is not a proof of honesty of Mirza. Credibility is a personal thing, any one else being misguided or being a liar, does not exonerate Mirza.

  8. September 5th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
    From Crankthatskunk:

    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.

  9. September 6th, 2008 at 3:09 am
    From Abdul Momin:

    I suggest that in future people like the Crank- be also required to  tell us which sect in Islam is the correct one that they would have us follow. Just telling us that our beliefs are wrong is not enough. We need to know which one of the many “rightly guided and true Muslim” sects we have to follow in order to become true or good Muslims or just plain Muslims, and what kind of declaration we have to make to become Muslims. 

    Obviously we cannot adopt the  beliefs of all the Muslim sects. We can only adopt the beliefs of the one saved sect that people like Mr Crank belong to.

  10. September 6th, 2008 at 11:27 am
    From Crankthatskunk:

    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.

  11. If you didn’t want a debate why did you post an attack addressed to me, calling us “hypocrites of the highest degree”? You knew that I would reply, and you would reply, and so on, and it would become a debate; only this debate is chaotic without any rules and I suggest an organised debate where you don’t just hurl accusations. You have refused to discuss the basic issues of whether we are Muslims and whether we have done service to Islam.

    You ought to consult a lawyer first about whether the kind of document you want me to issue has any value whatsoever. I assure you that you could not possibly take anyone to court who issues such a statement. There are millions of people in U.K. who mock and ridicule the royalty, and no one can take them to court.

    By the way, the Queen’s name is certainly used by those who are not the Queen. Prosecutions of anyone by the British government are called “Regina versus so and so”. The Queen is supposedly taking the accused to court, when actually someone else is doing it without even the Queen knowing.

    For you to give the analogy of the Queen for our Holy Prophet Muhammad is in fact a gross insult to the Holy Prophet. The Queen is only a figurehead with no power and merely follows what others such as the Prime Minister ask her to say and do. Is this your concept of the Holy Prophet Muhammad that he merely said and did what his so-called servants told him to?

    Now in turn I challenge you to issue a legally binding statement under your name declaring that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was wrong to advise Muslims living under British rule to live as peaceful, law-abiding, loyal citizens, and he was wrong to tell them not to wage a jihad of war against British rule, and therefore you personally pledge to do the opposite of what he advised. Just place this statement on your blog. The British authorities will find your identity even without you disclosing it and you may be charged with a criminal offence.

    Your blog brought Iqbal into the discussion by presenting his views as authoritative for you. I challenged you to a debate on all his views, but you are running away.

    You contradict yourself at the end by asking me: “Are you trying to say that quotations from Iqbal are incorrect? Why you think he wrote such harsh words for Mirza and his writings?” So Iqbal is an authority for you! Because he condemned Hazrat Mirza sahib therefore that is an argument in your eyes. Why not then have a debate precisely on the point as to all Iqbal’s writings on Hazrat Mirza sahib and Ahmadis?

    So you believe only in the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad. Well, there are Muslims believing in the same who quote from the Quran that a Muslim must kill non-Muslims wherever he finds them. Do tell the world on your blog if you are going to start doing this.

    Mr Crank…, you have had plenty of occasion for your ranting on my blog and I also gave the link to your blog. In future I will only publish any comment from you that relates to your acceptance of debating with me on the topics mentioned.

  12. 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.

  13. September 6th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
    From Abdul Momin:

    From me only this much is worth responding as far as the Crank- is concerned:

    ‘But believe me I do not blame lost souls like you.”

    So why did he start off a rant in his article as well as first post telling us that we knowingly carried out false propaganda? He introduced his presence here by asking us to read his article full of hate and resentment. This clearly showed a defeatist mind, not a thinking mind. A thinking mind can change someone’s opinion, and also be prepared for the possibility of his own opinion being changed. But not someone with a defeatist mind.

    He was blaming us wasn’t he? Whether we are “lost souls” or found souls let Allah be the Judge of that. The Crank- is not going to be asked by Allah on the Day of Judgement what Abdul Momin did in this life or what he believed or why he believed what he believed. Let the Crank- worry about his own soul and let Abdul Momin worry about his.
    The Crank- should crank up his own knowledge and learn how to discuss or debate an issue. First he should learn that he cannot act as debater as well as judge at the same time. Secondly, people debate issues, not books or articles. Thirdly if he has to say something unpleasant he can still say it without appearing unpleasant. Let him try this same method that he tried here with any other sect or religion on this planet and let him find out how many people – from those he calls lost souls or whatever – he can change to his point of view. 

    If his opinion about us was already formed as he has clearly shown in his article, did he come here expecting us to rubber stamp his views? Only someone living in a fool’s world would expect that!

  14. 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.

  15. Hi All,

    I have done some research about Crankthatskunk and discovered that he is showing this ridiculous attitude in many other forums which are not part of the AAIIL site. His strange fascination/fetish for the Butler test has been shot down time and time again by other members yet he continues to harp on about the test created by him through his warped mind.

    Rather than continuing to debate with one who brays like a donkey, it is only logical that Crankthatskunk be ignored because he is not out to discuss the issue rationally; rather, he is simply seeking to slur the works of MGA and the AAIIL. For us to devote our time trying to reason with an insane being, it is wiser to leave him in his corner to scrounge out the truth himself/herself.

    His blog site has attracted attention – but not by those seeking knowledge. What he has done however, is attract anti-Islamic people to his site who read his ridiculous blogs and then increase their hate for Islam.

    I believe there is a line somewhere in the Quran which says something about the devil tempting us away from our true mission by coming as some form of distraction – I think we have a little devil in our midst and he must not be allowed to discourage us or sway us from our mission.

  16. 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!

  17. September 7th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
    From Abdul Momin:

    Dear brother Zahid Aziz. Thanks for clarifying this. Now that I understand what this lunatic was trying to say, I have no hesitation in stating that this is the height of lunacy.

    In any commercial organization a subordinate routinely passes down orders to other employees from their common supervisor or manager. The manager may instruct his subordinate (e.g Team Leader) just once. From time to time that subordinate may then pass that order down as he sees fit (e.g an order concerning  discipline and punctuality issues). So it is as if that manager is passing that order every time. The manager delegates his authority but not his responsibility, to the subordinate. If any employee fails to obey that order, he might have to face the manager. In this case, nobody even considers that subordinate to be a servant of the manager.

    In the case of HMGA, he calls himself a slave of the Holy Prophet many times. So to be splitting hairs about a non-issue can only be the work of someone who has a lot of time for nothing.

    There is a funny definition of an expert. According to this definition “an expert is a person who tries to know more and more about less and less until finally he knows everything about nothing“. I think this is an apt description for this fella.

  18. 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.

  19. There seems to be a trend of such comments appearing every few days from unknown persons saying: Lahoris are even more wrong than Qadianis. One wonders why?

    The Lahori view of Hazrat Mirza sahib’s claims is much more dangerous in anti-Ahmadiyya eyes because it places his claims squarely within the accepted Islamic theology.

    There are flashes of Pakistani style in his comment despite his name; for example, the words “sahab” and “plateform” for platform.

    It seems that, according to this poster, in the after life Allah will first punish us for believing in Hazrat Mirza sahib at all, but then Allah will give us extra punishment for not believing in some things he said!

    As we have been answering this specific allegation for over 90 years, and answered it also in the South Africa court case (about believing that Jesus had a father), I will take a different approach here.

    I ask the poster: does he believe that Jesus was born without a father? If so, is he willing to say that Hazrat Mirza sahib was right in expressing this belief? That would make us happy.

    I may point out that the Lahori belief on this question, as we stated in the above court case, is merely that it is a valid interpretation to hold that Jesus had a father. We presented the explanation given by Maulana Muhammad Ali from his Bayan-ul-Quran. (Please see this link.)

  20. 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?

  21. I have read the explanation of the aaiil on this topic.  There is still some research to be done. 


    HMGA wrote in Mawabur Rahman(1903) that this idea of his was part of the ahmadi doctrine.  That should have sealed the deal.  Even HMN(noorudin) changed his belief after HMGA specifically wrote about.  Some people even complained to HMGa about this belief of HMN.  It is an amazing fact that HMN didnt agree with HMGA for 20+ years.  I have to ask, why was HMN defiant????  Did he ignore HMGA??? 

    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.  I just cant fathom how M. ali differs on this topic.  I want to know as to how M. ali came to this conclusion.  Was there a meeting by the aaiil in 1914/1915 on this topic??? 

    By the way, all members of the aaiil believe that Jesus had a father, i havent heard one of who doesnt.   Let’s not go there.  To say that some members of the aaiil don’t believe this is strange.

    I think in a court  case this change in belief would be damaging to the aaiil.  I think this change by m. ali could lead to prove other changes.  This change by the aaiil raises a red flag.  I must admit to that. 

    In my opinion, I think that all humans after adam and eve were created from Sperm.  But, my opinion doesnt matter.  As an ahmadi(l or q) HMGA’s opinion matters.  

    When i contemplate as an independent researcher, I come to the conclusion that Joseph was the father.  When I think as an admirer of HMGA, I agree with HMGA. 

    Just my thoughts…………

  22. 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.

  23. While we are on the subject of the immaculate conception of Jesus, it might be interesting to note that this whole idea about the virgin birth of Jesus has its roots in Christainity. In the Old Testament, according to Isiah 7:14 (King James Version):

    “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Im-man’-u-el”. 

    I thought “virgin” might stand for a chaste woman, but according to a Jewish Rabbi:

    “The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an “alma” as giving birth. The word “alma” has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as “virgin.” This accords Jesus’ birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods”.

    After discussing a couple more verses from the Old Testament which are – according to the Rabbi – mistranslated from the Old Testament by Christain theologians, the Rabbi asks:

    ‘From where did these mistranslations stem? St. Gregory, 4th century Bishop of Nanianzus, wrote: “A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire.” ‘


  24. 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.   

  25. I personally know of a respected elder of aaiil who once mentioned in a discussion at our mosque in Lahore, that he believed Jesus to have been born without a father. When he was asked why, he said that in his case he believed so because his Murshad (MGA) believed it, and it was left at that.

    How Jesus(as) was born is not essential to the mission of MGA, that he died like all human do certainly is.

    Bashir wrote: ”When I think as an admirer of HMGA, I agree with HMGA.” 

    I only wish other “admirers” of MGA agreed with him in all that he wrote!

  26. 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.

  27. Virgin birth phenomenon has gone from total impossiblity (thus requiring a natural-law breaking miracle to occur) to improbability – fatherless births have been described now in other species by zoologists. Can’t dismiss the possibility in humans. We can be a little open minded about it.

    In 3:36, Allah declares He alone knew who Maryam truly was, though she was a female. It is a cryptic passage if you read on.

    Perhaps Maryam, mother of Jesus had male and female elements, ie hermaphrodite, or chimera, and later through some unknown mechanism, self-fertilized, creating the virgin birth.

  28. 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) :

  29. Is it safe to say that upwards of 95% of the aaiil believe that Jesus had a father???

    By the way, nobody responded to my comments as to why HMGA made this belief as past of his doctrine, circa 1903.

    Also, is there any other doctrine of HMGA that we dont have to believe in???? 

  30. 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.

  31. I must admit I am not familiar with relationship that HMGa had with his followers. 

    Let me read what you have given me.

    Once again, thanks for the insight.  I will review the data that you submitted.


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

    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 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.

  33. ZA:  You just solved the question of the split!!!!

    Ok, maybe that is a bit of a stretch, hear me out…..

    If it is possible for followers of HMGA to have open views about some of his doctrines, then why not prophethood, kufr and Ismuhu ahmad. 

    After 1914 HMBMA and M. ali etched there interpretations in stone, both claiming that they had the correct interpretation.

    HMN should have done this in 1908!!!

    Hypothetically speaking, what if HMBMA always thought that HMGA was a true prophet of GOD.  Just what if ……….

    Belief in HMGA’s muhaddassiyyat was not in the ba’it form.  Neither was the belief that HMGA was a full-fledged prophet.  I think Mufti Muhammad Sadiq said it best in his discussion with Shibli. 

    So, the aaiil contends that these three doctrines were the brainchild of HMBMA.  What if HMGA left these open for his followers to decide.  Just what if….

    Obviously the father of jesus has no parallel to the other 3 doctrines.  My point is, if followers are allowed to develop their own interpretations, then there are bound to be differences.  Followers should not be allowed to behave in this manner.  If followers are afforded this luxury, chaos will be abundant.

    Maybe the split happened because HMGA left many things open for debate.  HMGA left his followers without a manual of beliefs.  Without this manifesto his followers were allowed to create their own doctrines and vice versa.  The consequence being that HMBMA(alleged) invented changes as well as M. ali(invented). 

    And its so hard to find out which one is correct.  I’m 3 years in and soemtimes very confused.  I sometimes think that maybe HMGA was a prophet the whole time(1891 to 1908), but he never wanted to accept it.  It wasnt a big deal to him….. maybe…. 

    In conclusion, no sent one should allow this to happen.  Every Mursal(sent one) should understand this humanistic trait.  They have a responsiblity to prevent this from happening!!!!

  34. 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.

  35. Bashir, you have jumped from one extreme to the opposite. Hazrat Mirza sahib explained all issues to do with his mission clearly and repeatedly (death of Jesus, continuity of revelation, meaning of jihad, etc.)

    Regarding interpretation of Quranic verses such as those about histories of prophets, which are unrelated to his mission and also don’t have any practical consequences, he did not set anything in stone. E.g. Ahmadi scholars in his time differed about whether a phrase in the Quran about Moses means “strike the rock with your staff” and water will flow from it (traditional meaning) or “march on to the rock with your staff”, a meaning liked by Maulana Nur-ud-Din.

    Also it is well known that when some follower asked him a question about a matter relating to fiqh (e.g. details of what to do or not to do in prayer), he usually asked someone else such as Maulana Nur-ud-Din or Maulana Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan to pronounce on it. His concern was that prayer should be said in the true spirit, therefore he tended not to attach importance to ritualistic questions.

  36. 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).

  37. One thing that needs to be understood is that there are some beliefs which are fundamental in nature. Whether we like it or not, about some beliefs we do not have a choice when it comes to a difference of opinion. For example, we do not have a choice of believing in the Trinity and still remain in the fold of Islam. Similarly, according to Islam, a Muslim must believe in all of God’s prophets. So if it was possible for the continuation of prophethood in Islam, Muslims would have no choice but to accept each and every prophet sent by God. Everytime one was rejected, a group of people would be forced out of the fold of Islam. If this were a sizable # of people, they in turn would say that the group accepting the new prophet are the real non-Muslims. So in a way, this is a real blessing that Muslims do not have to make this choice. Of course, Muslims still call each other non-Muslims. But their differences when examined, do not really amount to a difference in the fundamentals. There is still the belief in the one true God, Prophet, Book, Qibla, Day of Judgement, etc.

    Again it must not be forgotten, that the differences which lead to the Split, started as a political difference between members of the unified Ahmadiyya jamaat. It is not hard for me to imagine that politics took hold of some people to such an extent, that they started to hate everything that the other side – (their presumed adversaries) – stood for. One close associate of HMGA made such a good impression on non-Ahmadi Muslims as an Islamic missionary that it required the creation of a theological dispute – calling non-Ahmadi Muslims Kafir – in order to create a distance between non-Ahmadi Muslims and Ahmadis. Then a justification had to be provided for this. Elevating HMGA to a prophet provided just that. Consequently, the Ahmadi jamaat was hijacked – with tragic consequences.

    There is nothing new about something like this happening in history. The latest example of this is the country of Pakistan. It’s founder was not a Mullah. But a very staunch secularist. But today that same country has been hijacked by the most extreme people who actually happened to oppose the creation of Pakistan and its founder. Those who opposed it are today the guardians of its ideology. When people want to create new facts, they can do so anytime provided they have a sufficient number of followers to help them.

  38. 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.

  39. ZA: I understand that there is a major difference in prophethood vs. the father of Jesus.  I totally get that.  I totally see that these two concepts are not parallel.  Prophethood is a not a minor point.  Neither is KUFR or Ismuhu Ahmad.   

    The aaiil theory is that HMGA totally elaborated on the latter ideas.  Historical facts show that this is not the case.  I think that HMGA was not crystal clear on this point.  If HMGA was crystal clear, the split would not have happened.

    I think that HMGA made a genuine effort by creating the Anjuman.  But this leadership system was unfortunatley dismissed.  Later in 1925 HMBMA admitted that the system of khilafat was not a creation of HMGA. 

    Similarily I think the HP should have been clear on leadership after him.  I think the HP should have raised a congress.  Because of this un-certainty, there was a split in Islam. 

    In conclusion, unless the leader of a religion is clear as to his succession, there will be problems.  The family of that leader will always feel entitled to the throne.  As is the case with Shias.  It is argued that the ahmadis(q) have also followed the same pattern.  I havent concluded as to yet.

  40. 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”.

  41. Bashir, here is a little factoid:

    Two of the khulafa of Holy Prophet (sa) (Hazrat Ali, Hazrat Usman) married daughters of Holy Prophet and the other two (Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Umar) gave their daughters to Holy Prophet for marriage.

    the Khilafat was very much in the family!

  42. 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 at page 171).

  43. For Tahir Ijaz:

    Thats another un-fair parallel that some people have tried.  Abu bakr, Umar and Uthman were not the sons of the HP.  If the HP had any sons they surely would have beeen the khalifas.  The fact that the HP didnt have any sons, this fact, solved the question itself.  People from 3rd world countries generally behave in this manner.  I am not critisizing this idealogy, I’m just acknowledging it. 

    Now, these three men were not blood relatives of the HP.  They were close companions.  They were pious men who had no blood relation.  I cant fathom how you would try to parallel this.  But any debater can debate anything.  I am not a debate specialist.  If you choose to use this as your argument, good luck. 

    In the case of the Khalifa-tul Masih’s, after HMBMA they have all been blood relatives of HMGA.  There is no doubt about it.

    Hazrat Mirza Nasir Ahmad commented in the 1974 congressional hearing that when he was elected as khalifa in 1965 the other nominees were also from his family.  So, in 1965 only the family members of HMGA were nominated for the seat of khilafat.  I am not sure what the case was in 1984.  I am sure of Mirza Rafi Ahmad, but, I am not sure as to who else was nominated.  Do you know ???

    It seems that non-family members are not even nominated.  Also, where is the record of the voting???  Who were the members of the electoral college that voted???  Why is this data not published??? 

  44. 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.

  45. Tahir:  

    Hereditary succersorship has ended.  This is the 21st century.  This is democratic society.  The people of today dont want to be ruled by a family.  The people of today want a say in the affairs of their states. 

    I also pray that the family of HMGA is blessed.  I also hope and strive for this.  But this should not be a factor when choosing a khalifa.  Unfortunatly, I think it is.   

    But, everyone should pray for every family.  You act like the family of HMGA is perfect, thats a stretch.  I am sure that every family has some people who are not religious.  The standards are very high that people set. 

    I think 3rd world culture is to blame.  I think politics are to blame.  I think the khalifa should be the best man for the job. 

  46. 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.

  47. To continue:

    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.  When Hazrat Ali became khalifa, chaos erupted.  The muslims in general were opposed to the appointment of Hazrat Ali as khalifa.  I think Hazrat Ayesha did some sort of Jihad against Ali.  Personally, I cant believe that muslims were capable of these atrocities. 

    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.  An outsider can say, why does this always happen in leadership scenarios??  I think this was a trend that was common in all non-civilised societies.  As human beings have evolved, this trend has lost its global acceptance.

    Also, HMGA created the anjuman in 1906.  It appears that HMGA was also leaning towards a deomcratic system of leadership.  That complicated matters.  It must be remembered that HMN gave the anjuman the management of the kitchen, this was at a time when HMBMA was totally against the anjuman and the powers of it.  It is very important to note that HMBMA was against this decision.  Noordudin didnt care.  He gave the anjuman more power!!!!  HMN went from almost disbanding this anjuman, to giving it more power than ever.

  48. 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….. 

  49. For Tariq:

    I read Sir Muhmamad Zaf Khan’s book about HMN.

    He writes on page:  100

    The birth of Jesus as without a father had been a
    somewhat controversial question. Maulawi Nur-ud-Din ra had held the view that Jesus had a father. The
    Promised Messiah
    as, in his book Mawahibur Rahman,
    announced that it was part of his doctrine that Jesus
    had been born without a father. On reading this
    Maulawi Sahib ra discarded his view and fell into line
    with the view propounded by the Promised Messiah
    He frankly confessed this change of view in his book

    We need to see the book where HMN confessed to this.  What do you think????

  50. 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)

  51. Bashir, to the detractors of our Ahmadiyya jamaat, they will never be satisfied in regards to our leadership. If in the future a non-family member of the Promised Messiah is chosen as Khalifa,  the statement from the enemies will be, ‘look,  even the Qadianis have distanced themselves from this family’! It is not going to be, ‘wow what a great community’!

  52. 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.

  53. Tahir, My point has been that the best person for the job should be selected.  Facts prove that of last 10 nominees for the job of khalifa only 1 or 2 have been from outside of the family. 

    God should bless other people as well as the family of HMGA.  In islam the most respected family is of course the syed’s.  No family is perfect, to raise any family to perfection is ignorance.

  54. 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.

  55. The principle under which prophethood was bestowed upon the Israelites is given in the Quran:

    “And when his Lord tried Abraham with certain commands he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you a leader (Imam) of men. (Abraham) said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the wrongdoers, said He.” (2:124)

    The vast majority of the fellow Israelites of these prophets were in this category of wrongdoers. The Israelites who worshipped the golden calf were just as much Abraham’s descendants as were Moses and Aaron. Jacob had twelve sons, of whom ten were jealous and wrongdoers. Solomon’s son ruined his great kingdom.

    The example of the Israelites shows that people can remain on the wrong path and hard-hearted despite their families being blessed with so many great prophets.

  56. 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)

  57. Tahir:  I am not questioning whether the current khalifa was the best man for the job or not.  I will guarantee you this, khilafat will not go to another family.  The day it does, there will be another split. 

    Once the khilafat leaves this family it will not go to another family.  It will be given to the best man for the job, regardless of skin color or family status.  This will not sit well with alot of people.

    Pakistani culture is very “third world”, this will always cause problems when selecting a leader.  Unless pakistanis learn to be civil this pattern of will not end–that my friend is the problem.

  58. 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. 

  59. I was only presenting as examples that Allah may choose to bless a family – whether prophethood examples I cited or the Khulafa of Holy Prophet who were all related by blood kinship and marriages.  In our opinion, same is happening now.

    So the charge about family khilafat does not bother us in the least.

  60. 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. 

  61. Tahir, if you were a member of the electoral college would you vote for a “less qualified” family member, or a “very capable” non-family member.  First think about this:

    “They did not make their sons their Caliphs, as people enslaved to filthy lucre and sunk in misguidance, always do.”—-HMGA “Sirrul Khalifa” July, 1894

    Also by the way, In the same book I quoted above, HMGA wrote that only Abu Bakr was referenced to in the famous ayat-i-istikhlaaf.

    He writes:

    “In short, the relevant Quranic verses quoted earlier point to Hazrat Abu Bakr’s Khilafat and to no one else. Ponder over the point as deeply as you can. Fear God and fear His wrath. Think deeply over the matter.”

    “In the circumstances, there is hardly any ground for doubt that all this applies to the Khilafat of Hazrat Abu Bakr only and to none else.

    “Although, he was not prophet himself, yet he had been endowed with the potentialities of prophets”

  62. 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. 

  63. “We all know that Syed Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan was the one who nominated HMBMA.”…and later on regretted his decision when he came to know of his real beliefs.

  64. 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.

  65. Bashir, I am not sure what you mean. You have pasted the relevant text from his book and then Dr. Zahid Aziz has given some quotes from the book Nuruddin and made some very relevant points.

    What exactly is it that you would like for me to review in that statement?

  66. 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. ………………

    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!

  67. To conclude the topic, I state that I hope history doesnt repeat itself in terms of the Shias.  It’s an established fact that the Shias even consider the Imam Mahdi as a direct family member of the HP.  This trend  doesnt match the values and attitudes of the 21st century human.  Hopefully people of the 21st century will realize that this is a barbaric trend. 

    M. ali stated that the ahmadiyya(q) khilafat was a “pir-dom”, he stated that HMBMA was establishing a “gaddi”(seat) on khilafat.  I have no personal opinion on this.  I must say the truth, the truth is that 3 khalifas after HMBMA have indeed come from his family as M. ali told us that it would.  Friedman also shared the same sentiment.

  68. 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:
    Part 2:
    Part 3:

  69. Bashir, Tahir: is this term “Ummati-Nabi” ever used by HMGA anywhere in his writings exactly as that?

  70. 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?

  71. Tariq:
    On the forum maintained by opponents of HMGA, there is a thread that challenges Qadianis to provide reference from HMGA writings where he used “Ummati-nabi” as ONE word. Qadianis could not provide any reference. It became so obvious that even moderator, who is opponent of HMGA, also commented, based on convoluted replies of Qadianis, that HMGA did not use such word.
    Sad thing is that Qadianis and their Khalifas that they continue to believe and use word “Ummati-nabi” for HMGA.

  72. 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.

  73. In his book “Prophet or Mujaddid”, Maulana Muhammad Ali has used the phrase Ummati Nabi as equivalent to “Aik Pehlu Se Ummati Aur Aik Pehlu Se Nabi”. The later phrase itself is defined as Muhaddasiyat as shown from HMGA’s writings by the Maulana.

    See pages 26-32

  74. 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.

  75. In my research I came across this astounding fact, i.e.  HMGA never calling himself ummati-nabi.  I didnt know that it had already been discovered and discussed.  In EGKI HMGA never wrote anything in terms of ummati aur nabi.  This was a definition that HMGA created in 1891.  If HMGA was a nabi after 1901, he should have developed a new argument.  He never did that.  Why would HMGA change his position on prophethood, but continue to use the same arguments.  Then he published two books in which he reffered to himself as non-prophet, Tiryaq ul qulub and Khutbah Ilhamiyah. 

    I actually argued this topic with a fellow ahmadi(q) in early 2007.  It’s amazing how I wasnt the only person to discover this.  This guy kepy asserting that ummati aur nabi means ummati nabi.  I told him that they were different.  In my opinion ummati-nabi is a classification that is gray in definition, while ummati aur nabi means that these are polar opposites. 

    Ummati aur nabi means that:  I am a perfect follower and I am an imperfect nabi.  But I can be called a nabi in a certain sense.  That sense was always classes as imperfect, metaphoric, partial, reflective and counter-type.  HMBMA argued that the sense changed in 1901, it went from imperfect to perfect.

  76. 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.

  77. Muslim kings have been called zillullah, or the shadow of God.

    Neither the Quran nor Hadith anywhere mention zilli, buroozi, ghair tashri`i nabis. Even shari`ah in the sense of Islamic law, as this term is widely used, is not mentioned anywhere in the Quran or Hadith.

    According to Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din, the term majaz is not found before the 3rd century of Islam.