The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Archive for 2008

Our friend Bashir has submitted the following for a new thread.

When the tomb of Jesus was discovered in Srinagar(1895 or 1896), it was argued by Maulvi Abdullah who was an inhabitant of Kashmir, that since this tomb was that of a prophet, that eliminated all muslims from the equation. The person buried in this tomb could not be a muslim. Muslims strictly believe that the HP was the final prophet, there were no more prophets to come. Muslims only had one prophet, on the other hand the jewish people had many prophets, in other words because of the concept of khatme-nubuwwat, this had to be a jewish prophet. When HMGA recieved this data he also used the ending of prophethood as his main argument in terms of proving that Yus Asaf was not a muslim.

In a letter written to HMGA(1895 or 1896), maulvi Abdullah writes:

http://www.tombofjesus.com/2007/core/founders/ahmad/Letter_of_Maulvi_Abdullah.pdf

“The word nabi is common between the followers of Islam and the Israelites, and as in Islam no prophet came after our Holy Prophet Muhammad, nor could one come, therefore the general Muslims of Kashmir are agreed that this prophet is from before Islam.”

“But because of the ending of prophethood, this excludes the Muslim people.
Therefore it is clearly proved that this prophet is an Israelite prophet.”

Then HMGA wrote a footnote to this published letter, in it he comments:

“But after the ending of prophethood, no further prophet can come in Islam. Therefore it is settled that he was an Israelite prophet.”

It must remembered very carefully that at this time(Q & L) HMGA did not consider himself as a full-prophet, instead, HMGA considered himself as a partial nabi only. One would think that after 1901 the ahmadis(q) would have been forced to move away from this particular line of reason. Maulvi Sher Ali(1903) & Maulvi M. ali (1909) continued to argue along these lines.

After 1901 this line of debate should have been corrected. This strategy of argument was no longer valid. The ahmadis(q) now considered HMGA as a full-prophet. Obviously the ahmadis(L) did not. Let’s take a look at the writings on this topic after 1901, did the followers of HMGA realize this change?

The first instance that I found is from ROR May 1903, Maulvi Sher Ali writes:

PDF 40/47 http://www.aaiil.org/text/articles/reviewofreligions/1903/reviewreligionsenglish190305.pdf

“The fact that he is known as a Prophet or Nabi refutes the idea that he was a Muhamadan Saint. No intelligent man would think that a person who was reputed as a prophet among the Muhammadans was a Muhammadan saint. Even if a Muhammadan saint worked miracles, they would take him as a Wali at best, and never a prophet. They believe that their HP is the seal of the prophets and that he is not to be followed by any other prophet…….and one who takes him as a muhammadan saint only, betrays his complete ignorance of the beliefs prevailing among the muhammadans”

“…..we do not know of any prophet who appeared in Kashmir in the last 200 years”

It’s obvious that Maulvi Sher Ali had not yet realized that HMGA was a full-fledged prophet. This is a 1 ½ year after EGKI was published. Maybe MSA didn’t realize what happened in EGKI. It is important to note that HMBMA wrote that all ahmadis knew of the “tabdili aqidah” theory in 1901.

Next, M. ali writes in ROR April 1909, the title of this article is “Islam as interpreted by the Ahmadiyya Movement”:

“He is universally known as a Nabi or a prophet among the muslims, and therefore he cannot be a muslim saint for no muslim saint has been called nabi after the Holy Prophet”

The owners of the “tomb of Jesus” website also felt the same contradiction, they felt the need to add this important note:

Tomb of Jesus Website Comments:

“The reader will note that in footnote 2 above, Ghulam Ahmad states that no prophet can come after Muhammad. Therefore, the inhabitant of the Roza Bal must have been a Jewish prophet. Later, though, as his followers believe, and as Ghulam Ahmad explained, God had repeatedly told Ghulam Ahmad that He (God) had appointed Ghulam Ahmad as a follower-prophet of Muhammad.
Ahmadiyya literature reflects that Ghulam Ahmad himself seemed quite stunned by these revelations from God, because, just as other Muslims, he had understood Islam to teach that there could be no prophet of any type coming after Muhammad].”

In conclusion, I feel that it is very strange that 2 top followers of HMGA did not realize a change from non-prophet to prophet in 1901. If MSA and M. ali would have realized this change(EGKI), they would not have written that Yus Asaf could not be a muslim prophet, because no prophets were to appear. They should have abandoned this line of reason. Is it fair to say that without this argument it is hard to prove that Yus Asaf wasn’t a muslim prophet? What if Yus Asaf was in fact an ummaati nabi? I hope the readers of this article ponder on these facts that I have presented above.

You may like to read the article in The Daily Telegraph of London: Crows may be smarter than apes.

The Holy Quran says:

“Then Allah sent a crow scratching the ground to show him how to cover the dead body of his brother. He said: Woe is me! Am I not able to be as this crow and cover the dead body of my brother? So he became of those who regret.” (5:31).

Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi of our Jamaat was very interested in relating statements of the Quran about the natural world to scientific research and external knowledge (e.g. behaviour of the bee, the spider, the ant, what trees do, etc.), and wrote much about how God’s creation is superior to man’s and what moral lessons man can learn from each of these.

Below is the link to a You Tube video clip of a discussion on ARY One TV. Participating are Dr Javaid Iqbal (son of Allama Iqbal), Prof. Mahdi Hasan and Dr Israr Ahmad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVOMV7vDFck

Allama Iqbal’s praise of Hazrat Mirza sahib is mentioned and acknowledged.

Someone mentions that Abdul Majeed Salik was also an Ahmadi. But he was one of those whose being Ahmadi was not later provable. He wrote a brief life of Iqbal in the 1950s, Zikr-i Iqbal. Salik lived in Muslim Town, very close to Maulana Muhammad Ali’s house, and in the street where I was born. The street is now named after him.

They then discuss why Ahmadiyyat was admired by all these people. The reason they give is that Hazrat Mirza sahib stood up to confront Christian and Arya Samaj attacks on Islam. Dr Israr Ahmad mentions it with some stress and you can tell he is telling the turth from the heart.

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

During this month of Ramadan I plan to post one section (ruku) from a Part of the Holy Quran everyday for people to ponder on. The part from which a section will be selected will be Part 1 on the first day, Part 2 on the second day and so on for thirty days. The section could be any in that part. I will try my best to keep to this schedule.

The post will be a pdf file and will contain only the translation, with brief explanatory notes abbreviated and sometimes adapted from Maulana Muhammad Ali’s English commentary. Each link opens a new window.

Study for fast no. 30.
Study for fast no. 29.
Study for fast no. 28.
Study for fast no. 27.
Study for fast no. 26.
Study for fast no. 25.
Study for fast no. 24.
Study for fast no. 23.
Study for fast no. 22.
Study for fast no. 21.

Study for fast no. 20.
Study for fast no. 19.
Study for fast no. 18.
Study for fast no. 17.
Study for fast no. 16.
Study for fast no. 15.
Study for fast no. 14.
Study for fast no. 13.
Study for fast no. 12.
Study for fast no. 11.

Study for fast no. 10.
Study for fast no. 9.
Study for fast no. 8.
Study for fast no. 7.
Study for fast no. 6.
Study for fast no. 5.
Study for fast no. 4.
Study for fast no. 3.
Study for fast no. 2.
Study for fast no. 1.

The Ramadan message for this year by Hazrat Ameer Dr A.K. Saeed can be read at this link (opens in new window).

You may be interested in an article by an Indian Muslim researcher entitled Medieval Persian References to the Putative Israelite Origin of Afridi Pashtuns/Pathans.

He briefly mentions Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in it as well.

Read it at this link (opens new window).

I have introduced this new feature with comments which displays each comment (under a post) collapsed down to its first two lines. You can easily expand any of the comments and re-collapse them. I hope this is useful when the number of comments is large. If you prefer not to have this, please let me know.

Our esteemed friend Abdul Momin submitted a comment which I am presenting as a new post. By a strange coincidence, I was mentioning exactly this reference to someone yesterday while thousands of miles away from him. His post is below.

In his book, “The Indian Musalmans”, W.W. Hunter frequently refers to Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed Barelvi as “the Apostle” or “the Prophet”. This book was first written in 1871. So he could not have been influenced by the writings of HMGA. After several references to Syed Ahmad Shaheed as “the Apostle” or “the Prophet” (which literally mean Rasul and Nabi respectively), WW Hunter explains in a footnote:

By the ‘Prophet’, I invariably mean Sayyid Ahmad. Technically he was an Imam (leader) from the political point of view, and a Wali (favourite of God) from the theological one. Strictly speaking the line of the true Prophets ended with Christ and Muhammad. (The Indian Musalmans page 12, Second Impression 2004 Publisher Rupa Co.)

There are examples given in “The Ahmadiyya Case” book about the South Africa case of followers of Muslim religious leaders refering to the leaders as Nabi. (Links to: Section 7, Section 8)

Now the question arises: how did WW Hunter, an Englishman and non-Muslim, associate the words “Prophet” and “Apostle” with Sayyid Shaheed? He also explains that he was, technically speaking, only an Imam and Wali (Coincidentally HMGA is also referred to as an Imam and Wali in his writings.)

Could it be that at the time of HMGA it was fairly routine for followers to refer to their spiritual leaders as Nabi or Rasul? This seems to be the most likely explanation. Mr Hunter must have learnt about this from Sayyid Shaheed’s followers. Perhaps this tradition is at the root of all this confusion about why some of HMGA’s followers referred to him as “Nabi” and “Rasul” in several of their writings, when in fact they did not consider him as a real prophet as Lahoris believe.

Also every quote I have read attributed to HMGA’s followers in which they have used the word Nabi or Rasul for him are from 1900 or afterwards. This would give us the misleading impression that since HMGA was alleged to have changed his claim from non-prophet to prophet around 1901, therefore his followes referred to him as Nabi or Rasul after this change in claim. But it would not surprise me in the least if they referred to him as Nabi even before the so-called change in his claims took place. In one of his pre-1901 writings, he advises his followers that these terms should not be used in their everyday talk concerning him. Perhaps there was a reason why he said this; maybe these words were used by his followers about him, even though they regarded him as only a Saint.

Our friend Bashir has sent a submission under the above title. Due to its length I am posting it as a comment here. The writer has asked any enquirers to contact him for further information, as he has called this submission an abridged version.

In copying and pasting his submission, I could not carry through his use of italics and bold font for certain text. So my apologies to him for that.

I won’t comment on this except to say that the reports of who said what to whom, and when, and who reported it, don’t provide a sound way of drawing valid conclusions.

Zahid Aziz