The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Archive for December, 2008

I have decided to convert a comment that was submitted under another topic into a new post, so that the discussion is clearer to follow. The comment sent by a Mr Ali is quoted below.

OK, something I find very difficult to understand about ahmadis (both groups) is that they are claim that they are the ‘true muslims’ who are defending Islam against the onslaught from Christian missionaries. (The AMI ofcourse are forever flip flopping on the status of ghair Ahmadis depending on who is asking the question. Sometimes, when confronted with the fact that their MGA is a prophet, they will tell the truth and say that Ghair Ahmadis are non-muslims because they deny a prophet , other times they will claim that ghair ahamdis are kafir within the four walls of Islam, whatever that means)

Another claim they make is that the Dajjal is the western civillisation. Yet according to the Lahoris the messiah of Islam, and according to the Qadianis, a PROPHET of Allah offered his allegiance to the the then Queen of England, a country that was at the fore front of many of these Christian missionary activities that defamed the prophet Muhammad a.s pbuh.

Also even if you argue along the lines that the British were not harming him and were providing safety to Muslims in India from the Sikhs etc, how can you justify a PROPHET raising money for the British army to fight the Boer war in South Africa? That is in my opinion aiding the Dajjal.

Before we go of at tangents by the Lahoris pointing out that main stream muslims benefitted from British largesse in the shape of Regents Park mosque, it could be pointed out that the present day Qadiani benefitted by an order of magnitude more if you take into account their numbers.
Tha Qadianis had missions in British controlled Palestine, spreading the word of the new Prophet about a century ago. There is little doubt in my mind that the British goverment at the time had a hand in aiding the movement in a similar way to the Bahai movement.

The following has been submitted by our friend Bashir.

There are many controversies that exist between the AMI and the AAIIL. One of these are in terms of Ismuhu Ahmad (IA).

M. Ali clearly wrote in over 7 books that this prophecy which occurs in the Quran (61:6) refers to the Holy Prophet Muhammad in totality and in a certain sense refers to HMGA as well. HMBMA wrote the opposite, or at least it appeared that he wrote the opposite. Later in 1954 HMBMA explained 61:6 just as M. Ali did. Very strange I must say. In HMBMA’s commentary on the Holy Quran he did not translate chapter 61, Malik Ghulam Farid translated that portion of the Quran.

Qazi Muhammad Nazir (1965, Truth Prevails) explained this contradiction:
“Between this passage (Anwar Khilafat) and the statement before the Inquiry Commission, on the surface, there appears to be a slight difference more in words, than in the meaning and sense. There is no real difference between the two.”

I can’t say that I agree with this explanation. QMN admitted that there was a difference in words. At least he admitted that there was in fact a contradiction.

I found another contradiction. Last night I was reading Life of Ahmad by Maulana A.R. Dard. This book is the most comprehensive book on the life of HMGA. Dard was commenting on the era of 1891. This is in Chapter 21, the title of the chapter is ‘Claims to be the Messiah’.

Dard writes on pg. 235-236:

Ahmad (as) also explained that his advent was foretold in the Holy Quran (Al-Fatihah 1:7; Al-Nur 24:56, Al-Muzzammil 73:16).
The following verse of the Holy Book refers clearly to Ahmad (as): ‘And remember when Jesus, son of Mary, said, O children of Israel, I am Allah’s messenger unto you, fulfilling that which is before me of the Torah, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger who will come after me. His name will be Ahmad (as). And when he will come to them with clear proofs, they will say “This is a clear fraud”‘ (61:7).

This book was published in 1948. Why was Dard claiming that HMGA was IA? Maybe he got the same impression as me. Maybe Dard read HMBMA’s books from 1914 to 1922. HMBMA hadn’t commented on IA since 1922.

HMGA did not claim to be IA, both groups agree on this concept. But DARD is claiming that in 1891 HMGA claimed to be IA. Where did Dard get this from? This appears to be a major error by Dard.

The above book has been placed online at the Qadiani Jamaat website. See books listed on the page: www.alislam.org/books/.

It is an English translation of a lengthy letter addressed by him to the Nizam of Hyderabad Deccan (Muslim ruler of that state).

I request our blog contributors to go through this 85-page book, which discusses at length the claims of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. It was written shortly after the author became Khalifa, probably in 1914 (it says on page 45 that 30 years have passed since the year 1300, and no one has claimed to be mujaddid of the century except Hazrat Mirza sahib; this would make it 1914 when this book was written).

I wonder if someone could find a place in this book where the claim of Hazrat Mirza sahib is given as that of prophet, or where it is said that prophets can come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad.

On page 2, in his “self-introduction”, he says that upon the death of Maulana Nur-ud-Din, God appointed him to be the second khalifa of the community. He then adds:

“I am not aware to which family God may choose to transfer this office after me.”

Note added on 10th December:

Here is the link to this book in Urdu, entitled Tuhfat-ul-Muluk.

Leaving aside Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s brief mention of himself as the second khalifa, this book is hardly any different from what a writer of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement might have written, then or now.

At this link please read the Id-ul-Adha message, December 2008, from Hazrat Ameer Dr. A.K. Saeed, Head of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement.

Please see the note at the end of this letter.

Dear Malik Safiullah sahib
assalamu alaikum

You have circulated a statement in Urdu entitled Humiliation and Disgrace of the Anjuman Ishaat Islam Lahore on the issue of the finality of Prophethood — An Eye-witnessed incident.

I also have received this from you directly, since my e-mail address has somehow been included on your circulation list. The subject of your e-mail is: Zillat o Ruswai-Sheer disgrace of Lahori Ahmadi Rep in Federal Shariat Court, Lahore.

For the benefit of our readers, I have made it available at this link.

You state that you were present at the hearings of the Federal Shariat Court in Pakistan in 1984, which was petitioned by a member of your Jamaat and, separately, by a member of our Jamaat.

According to your account, the judges listened with the utmost attention and interest to the submissions of your counsel, as if they were his students. But when the Lahore Ahmadi presented a point they dismissed him curtly and told him not to waste the court’s time but to go home and read Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala.

My first question to you is: What was the judgment in that court case, which you have not mentioned?

If the judges listened to your counsel with such great attention and interest, as if he was their teacher and they were his students, did the judges in their judgment agree with his arguments? Is there a single point of your Jamaat’s beliefs on which your counsel persuaded the judges to agree with him? Please do let us know.

You also write that the judges told the Lahore Ahmadi member that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib has written in Ayk Ghalati ka Izala that one window of prophethood is open.

My second question is, what is the name which Hazrat Mirza sahib has given to that window which is open? Has he named that window after a prophet or after a non-prophet? On this point, perhaps you may like to consult your own Jamaat’s translation of this booklet (page 4, footnote 9), as published on the alislam.org website.

Perhaps the judges preferred to listen to your Jamaat’s counsel rather than ours because your jamaat’s standpoint gave them more ammunition with which to denounce the Promised Messiah.

Wassalam
Zahid Aziz

Note (added on December 8):

Someone from the AMI (Qadiani Jamaat) has e-mailed me to say that I have not communicated this open letter directly to Malik Safiullah sahib, who is addressed here, so how can he be expected to reply? My letter is actually meant to be rhetorical. But if someone conveys it to him, I would be happy to receive his reply and publish it here. I do not want anyone to have the impression that I actually sent the above letter to him and he did not reply.