Open letter to Malik Safiullah of Toronto, Canada
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.
From Bashir:
A very interesting read. I wish more members of the AMI studied the split, or were at least willing to debate it. Whoever this guy is should show what his knowledge of the split is. Has he read all the books in connection with the split? What research has he done? Does he understand why the aaiil is shunned out of the qadiani debate?
I think ZA explained why the aaiil is always pushed to the side of this debate, enough said.
From Usman:
Understanding that Mr. Safiullah is a member of the AMI, the irony in his statement is almost laughable. If the attitude of the FSC judges is a criterion for seperating truth and false hood as he seems to imply towards the end; to borrow Bashir’s words – enough said!
From Mushtaq Malik:
Dr Zahid Aziz Sahib should also post the scanned copy of this statement in Urdu by Malik Safi Ullah of Toronto as well for the benefit of all the readers. Qadianies like Safi-Ullah Malik are well trained by their Khandani Khalifas more especially Mirza Tahir Ahmed to retreat and tell lies and deny the facts so easily. Therefore Malik Safi-Ullah can easily deny writing such a statement.
From Shahid Aziz:
If in Aik Ghalti Ka Azala HMGA changed his claim from that of a mujaddid to that of a prophet why is it that Mir Nasir Nawab drafted the inscription for HMGA’s tombstone with the words “mujaddid sad char Daham” or mujaddid of the 14th Century? Mir Nasir Nawab was MBMA sahib’s grand father and the person who initiated the problems in the jamaat. This inscription was approved by Hazrat Maulana Nur ud Din!
when this was pointed out to the Qadiani jamaat they changed the tombstone. However, when I visited Qadian I noticed that even the new tombstone does not say that HMGA was a nabi or rasul. why is that? The words “mujaddid sad char daham” have been removed, that is all.
From Abdul Momin:
Well, the Qadiani who circulated this email cannot even get the name of the Lahori petitioner right, so how much credibility can he have? By the way there were two Lahori petitioners, not just one, although only one of them – as far as I know – presented the AAIIL case. Having observed the Qadiani responses to the Lahoris over the past eight years on our discussion forums, I wonder if this Qadiani who claims to have watched the Shariat court proceedings even understood the Lahori arguments.
As far as the AAIIL presentation was concerned, the Lahori petitioner was actually commended by the Qadiani advocate. Whether this was because he had previously known the Lahori petitioner a few years earlier – he had visited his house on at least one occassion – or because he was genuinely impressed by his presentation, is not for me to say.
Regarding the AAIIL arguments, one of the Maulvi judges asked the Lahori petitioner why he was insisting that HMGA was not a claimant to prophethood; in Aik Ghalti Ka Izala HMGA had clearly claimed to be a prophet. The response was, “Let me solve this problem for you by a practical method: 70 members of the AAIIL issued a sworn declaration in 1914, that when AGKI was published it never occurred to them that HMGA had changed his claim from…………..”. For a court of law, what better evidence than to present a sworn statement in favor of a particular argument?
The question of that one window also came up. But let the Qadianis answer what that window is. But no one becomes a prophet by following that path. At least no did before HMGA.
(Note To All the Ignoramuses of the World: The “window to prophethood” which has misled you all along because you just do not like to study HMGA’s books in their totality, is in reality the one part of prophethood out of 46 parts called mubashirat or giving of good news. (Hadith: The vision of a believer is one of the 46 parts of prophethood) In plain language and logic, the part does not become equal to the whole, that is why the term partial prophethood was coined.)
Normally I would not like to use emoticons on a blog such as this one, but when I read the name Captain “Aftab” and the way he was “humiliated” by the SC judges, I find it hilarious. This is coming from a member of the same Qadiani jamaat whose members spread the rumour in 1984 that one of General Zia’s sons was on the verge of becoming a Qadiani!!! (What happened to that one?) One has no choice but to take these Qadiani statements with a grain of salt.
By the way the purpose of filing that case in the SC was never with the expectation of winning. That was impossible in the swamp that has become Pakistan, ever since people let go of their senses. The only purpose of filing that case was to be on record as having made an attempt to rectify a grievous wrong.
This same Captain “Aftab” before he passed away, visited Rabwah as well as the local Qadiani mosque in the early nineties to tell them how their wrong beliefs had damaged HMGA’s mission. One of his former subordinates who was a Qadiani and use to visit him at his house, asked him to go to a Qadiani mosque to present his views. One of Captain “Aftab” ‘s argument to the Qadianis was that HMGA had claimed to be a slave of the Holy Prophet. Therefore the slave cannot be equal to a prophet.
I wish he had been alive today in the age of the internet. His knowledge would have immensely benefited us all and shed more light on that case.
From Bashir:
Very interesting comments. I think there should be an official debate between the AAIIL and the AMI. I would love to see this debate. There should be a panel of nuetral judges. This would be amazing.
Unfortunatley, i think the AMI is of the opinion that they have bigger fish to fry. The AMI doesnt want to debate with the AAIIL.
From Rashid:
Honey Bees and Earth.
Qadianis look for any reason that can help establish PM-HMGA as “prophet”.
If we keep accepting what they say, it is quite possible, they expect us to accept Honey Bees and Earth as prophet, as at least per Holy Quran they had Wahi (revelation).
From Abdul Momin:
Question:
When we write the word Siddiq after the name of Hazrat Abu Bakr – as in Abu Bakr Siddiq – does “Siddiq” here have the same meaning as the word “Siddiq” that HMGA mentions in Aik Ghalti Ka Izala ( “the path of Siddiq” ) ?
From Zahid Aziz:
Hazrat Mirza sahib has written much about the high status of Hazrat Abu Bakr (e.g. in Tuhfa Golarwiya). At some stage I will collect those references.
In his Sirr-ul-khilafa he writes after quoting the khilafat verse of the Quran:
“By His grace, the Caliph will redeem them from a state of fear which has overtaken them. It is the Caliphate of Hazrat Abu Bakr only, which fully answers this description.”
“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.”
According to Hazrat Mirza sahib, it was Hazrat Abu Bakr, in the physical sense, and the Promised Messiah in the spiritual sense, who are the men who fulfilled to the highest extent the prophecy of the coming of khalifas of the Prophet Muhammad.
From Bashir:
IN reference to what ZA wrote:
My brother told me that he thinks that HMGA was referring to the SHIAS only. In other words this was an argument that given to counteract SHIA notions.
I told him that he need to actually read the whole book before commenting.
From Abdul Momin:
Thank you brother. As the Shariat Court case occurred over twenty-four years ago, I am trying to recollect the explanation that was given concerning the one window that is open – which is the path of the Siddiq.
As far as I can recall, the court was told that as Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq was not a prophet, therefore by following the path of Siddiq, HMGA was not claiming to be a prophet.
From Zahid Aziz:
That sentence in Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala reads:
“All the windows of prophethood have been closed, but one window, that of the path of Siddiq, is open, viz., fana fir-rasul. The person who comes to God through this window is made to wear, by way of zill, that same mantle of prophethood which is the cloak of the prophethood of Muhammad.”
It is clearly called fana fir-rasul and zill.
From Zahid Aziz:
The point made by Bashir’s brother has wider implications. He says Hazrat Mirza sahib gave an argument merely to counter Shiah wrong beliefs, but it does not mean that it is his own belief! Now Hazrat Mirza sahib wrote many books to counter Sunnis, Christians, Hindus, atheists etc. In fact a large part of his writings is in refutation of some other religion or sect. So that means none of those writings might be his own beliefs!
This is of course an allegation made by the opponents of Hazrat Mirza sahib, that he made various statements of belief (such as: I am a Muslim), but did not actually hold those beliefs.
Qadiani Jamaat members themselves present arguments that they don’t actually believe in. An example is of an acquaintance of mine who had a dream that Hazrat Mirza sahib said: You are in my Umma. When this was related by chance to a Qadiani Murabbi, he immediately replied: You were shown that dream to prove that he is a prophet because he said you are in his umma.
But of course Qadiani Jamaat members themselves don’t believe that Hazrat Mirza sahib has an umma! My friend could well reply: Yes, I will join your Jamaat if it declares that we are the umma of the prophet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad!
From Abdul Momin:
Yes, I have read that sentence in its totality. But in both cases Siddiq does not lead to prophethood. In the case of fana fir-rasul, the Qadianis seem to think that it does.
From Bashir:
The problem is this. Ahmadis(q) havent translated Sirrul Khalifa by HMGA, neither have they translated “Testimony of the Koran”. So ahmadis(q) have no knowledge of the facts. And of course they will never read the books translated by the AAIIL.
Actually what my brother meant was that this explanation can easily be taken out of context.
In Testimony of the Koran HMGA refers chapter 24:55 to the entire islamic ummah.
So HMGA applied this verse to:
a—Hazrat Abu Bakr alone
b—the entire muslim ummah
I think that this verse applies to Abu Bakr directly, and as a corollary it applies to the ummah.
I could be wrong.
From Zahid Aziz:
From the quotation I gave above, the pamphlet continues:
“His being a prophet, therefore, is not a violation of sanctity because he gets all this, not from his own person, but from the fountain of his Prophet, and it is not for himself but for the glory of that Prophet. It is for this reason that his name in heaven is Muhammad and Ahmad. It means that the prophethood of Muhammad was in the end given only to Muhammad, though in the manner of burooz, but not to anyone else. … In short, my prophethood and messengership is in my capacity as Muhammad and Ahmad, not on account of myself.”
It ends as follows:
“My own self does not come into it, but that of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, may peace and the blessings of God be upon him. It was on this account that I was called ‘Muhammad’ and ‘Ahmad’. So prophethood and messengership did not go to another person. What belonged to Muhammad remained with Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him.”
The point which he repeats is that he himself does not become a prophet. This concept of fana fir-rasul is what the Sufis of Islam had always been writing about.
From Abdul Momin:
I fully understand what HMGA wrote. If the Qadianis had not given their own meanings to HMGA’s quotes, there would never have been any need to explain AGKI. AGKI is full of denials of claims to prophethood. Because they have made AGKI and the meanings of words like fina fir-rasul a matter of dispute, and because the anti-Ahmadi Maulvis parrot whatever they say, I think it is perfectly legitimate to point out that the one person who is undisputably considered a Siddiq in the Sunni Muslim world, i.e Hazrat Abu Bakr, was not a prophet, therefore the path of Siddiq viz fina fir-rasul does not lead to prophethood. Of course during Hazrat Abu Bakr’s time, words like fina fir-rasul were not even invented. If he had lived in another era, he might well have become a fina fir-rasul, been endowed with the gift of prophecy and still have been called a Siddiq. But at the time of the Holy Prophet – in God’s infinite wisdom – there was no need for a follower of the Holy Prophet to make prophecies. A Khalifa in the physical sense was the requirement of those times because spiritually Islam was very much alive.
The orginal words used by HMGA in AGKI are Seerat Siddiqui. As far as I know, Siddiq means a truthful one. He could be a fina fir-rasul Khalifa like HMGA or be a truthful Khalifa like Hazrat Abu Bakr in the physical sense. But perhaps it is ordained that the world will never see a truthful khalifa like Hazrat Abu Bakr again, only spiritual khalifas like HMGA. In both cases we are talking about Siddiq as being the truthful follower of the Holy Prophet.
A web search reveals the following about the word Siddiq:
1. Sunni use Siddiq as a nickname for Abu Bakr, the first Caliph of Islam and the closest friend of Muhammad, while Siddiqa is used for his daughter and the Islamic prophet Muhammad’s wife Aisha.
2. Siddiq, means “truthful” in Arabic.
3. Sufi Term: Siddiq – Early day muslim who learned the unseen from Muhammad.
4. “Siddiq” was the name of the first Khalifa (Caliph) of Prophet Mohammad (in the Sunni view), Abu Bakr Siddiq.
From Zahid Aziz:
“Siddiq” is mentioned as a title of Hazrat Abu Bakr in a hadith in Bukhari. I quote from the online translation of Bukhari:
Volume 5, Book 57, Number 24:
From Abdul Momin:
Thank you for that, brother. Surely a title has a meaning. Anyway I’ve said what I had to say. That is all.
From Bashir:
I have always written that people will believe everything and anything. Religions spread because of human need. Human need is in a state of constant change. It varies from nation to nation.
Has the aaiil ever built a free hospitol or a free school? If so how many? I assure you that the christians have used this model to secure many converts. The ahmadis(q) did the same.
Impoverished nations are always looking for change. Any religious organization that is looking for growth will get that in these impoverished nations.
The ahmadis(q) had millions of converts from Bosnian descent from 1998 to 2002. Why?? The bosnians were desperate, their country was demolished.
33% of the worlds population is Christian. This religion was built on a lie. But look how it flourished!!! My point is that 33% of the earth’s population believe that a man died for them. That’s stupidity.
Another 18% are idol worshippers, i.e. the hindus. So what is the state of the average human on earth? The BAHIAS are at 7 million!!!
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
If ahmadis(q) beleive that there was a change in 1901, you cant stop them, even if the evidence is vague and inconclusive. It doesnt matter!!! Religious people are ignorant by nature, that’s my opinion. Is there any solution, I think not.
Another perspective is this, in Islamic thought, the only reason that Jesus was coming back to the world was to destroy Christianity. 100 Years after HMGA, Christianity is stronger than ever.
Christianity understands cultural change. Christianity is progressive. Islam is living in 610 to 1000 A.D.. Thats the problem. Christians watched the DA Vinci Code, do you think they cared…..
From Zahid Aziz:
In Malfuzat (Ruhani Khaza’in No. 2) vol. 1, there is a lengthy talk by Hazrat Mizra sahib within which he has dealt with the meaning of Siddiq and how and why it applies to Hazrat Abu Bakr. It explains what is Sirat-i Siddiqi. The talk is from 1899.
At this link (pdf, 630 KB), I have made available pages 372-382 from v. 1, and red-lined certain words that are most relevant in this connection. Please start from the foot of the first page.
From Usman:
“Christianity understands cultural change. Christianity is progressive. Islam is living in 610 to 1000 A.D.. Thats the problem. Christians watched the DA Vinci Code, do you think they cared…..”
Christianity is spiritually dead…that of course does not mean that Islam is sprirtually alive….but the successful christianity model of getting converts is not necessarily the ideal one.
From Zahid Aziz:
The methods by which Christianity would gain converts in the world is well described in Hadith reports about Dajjal: they would raise the dead to life and whoever they wish would eat and live, and whoever they wouldn’t so wish would die.
But this doesn’t detract from the service to humanity sincerely rendered by them. Only it shouldn’t be a way to induce people to accept your religious beliefs.
From Bashir:
Let’s face it, the AMI is the richest muslim organization in the world. They invest more money in “tabligh” than any other muslim society in the history of Islam.
Historically, religions spread because of investment. The more an organization invests, the more converts they get. This is an ideal.
HIndus dont preach, hence, their numbers dont grow outside of India.. Jews dont preach either…
Muslims and Christians preach. Muslims dont have an organized system of doing so. Christians do!!!!
The AMI has the most organized system of tabligh ever created. The AMI has built more mosques than any group of muslims ever!!!
Ahmadis(q and l) have an elaborate system of tabligh. The AMI had more money at their disposal, they grew faster….The AMI wnent to the GOLD COAST of Africa, the AAIIL didnt. The AMI had built over 120 mosques in the gold coast of africa by 1960.
Thats inconcievable, nobody will ever be able to match that. My question is, where did the AMI get so much money from?
From Usman:
Might be a good idea to look beyond Christianity and the AMI (both of which preach similarly corrupted versions of some truth), and go back to the original method of spreading the pure truth as adopted by the pioneers i.e. the Prophets. Ofcourse the rapid spread of early Islam could be the obvious model to follow; provided care is taken not to coorelate events in haste lest wrong conclusions are reached.
From T. Ijaz:
Bashir, about AMI and its rapid growth, this is due to handing out “A Present to Kings” by Khalifa II. Shhh! don’t tell anyone we really think Promised Messiah is a Prophet, since this will undo everything!
From Bashir:
Tahir: I dont even understandwhat you wrote. The AMI had growth in Gold Coast as well as the rest of africa.
Tha fazl mosque in london was built in 1924, by 1960 it was still the only AMI mosque in all of europe.
See Mirza Mubarak Ahmad in “Our foreign Missions”.