The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

There is a sermon delivered by Maulvi Abdul Karim sahib, recorded in In Al Hakam Nov 24, 1902. On page 7 commenting on verse 9:127, “surely a Messenger has come unto you from among yourselves’, he stated:

 “in 1300 years (i.e since death of Holy Prophet), no one has had the opportunity to recite (this verse 9:127) before a congregation and God’s Rasul and mamur is actually sitting in front of him. Praise be to Allah, we are blessed”

It would thus appear he took the Promised Messiah as an actual Rasul, and the last time this blessed phenomenon occured was when the companions were with the Holy Prophet.

@ Tahir Ijaz and ZA

As we all know, TQ was written in 1899, except a few pages, and published after HMGA (as)’s claim to prophethood.  With this notion in mind….

It is believable that HMGA (as) changed his belief in terms of the verse quoted by Tahir Ijaz. 

I would ask Ijaz sahib to publish the reference from this sermon by Maulvi Abdul Kareem sahib. 

Furthermore, per the testimony of HMBMA in Haqiaitaun Nubuwwa.  Maulvi Abdul Kareem was the first Ahmadi to publicly announce the prophethood of HMGA (as).  There was a speech that he gave in early to mid 1901 wherein HMGA (as) was vehemently called a prophet. 

Later that day (or night), an argument broke out between Syed Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi and Abdul Kareem in front of the house of HMGA (as).  HMGA (as) eventually quoted a quranic verse as he silenced the argument.  That verse said something about not raising your voice in front of a prophet.  Im sure ZA knows it. 

Thank you

@ za

I understand your point.  Also, to some extent I agree with you. 

Here is my theory, I think that after 1901, many of the followers were unsure of the claim of prophethood of HMGA (as).  They were unsure of the variables.  When this topic finally came to a head in 1914….thats when we begin to see clarity. 

Furthermore, Braheen e Ahmadiyya vol. 4 continues to be published.  Does that mean that Ahmadis are confused in terms of the Ahmadiyya belief in terms of Esa (as)?  As we know, HMGA (as) wrote that Esa (as) was alive in the heavens.  Why would HMGA (as) continue to publish this after his Tabdili Aqidah in 1891? 

One more point., in 1904, Muhammad Ali was translating books of HMGA (as) into english that were written before 1901.  I think he quoted one such writing in his book, “How I used the word Nabi…”.   

Finally, Ahmadiyyat was at a crossroads after the death of HMGA (as).  There became 2 points of view.  The ideas were political.  The LAM wanted to be friendly with Muslims, HMBMA did not!  Coincidentally, beliefs were changed accordingly. 

I am not impressed with the argument that “TQ” (1899) should have been edited in 1902 before release. From 1901 to 1908 the Promised Messiah continued to expound (verbally and in writing) on concepts of nabuwwat on the basis of more revelations he received.  So much so that as early as 1902 we have khutba on the verse regarding ‘Rasul among yourselves’ by a prominent disciple.

It is interesting that the hottest and most fashionable topic among the Muslims of the 19th and early 20th century in regards to debates with Ahmadis was on death of Jesus.  From the 1920s/30s on it shifted more to Khatme Nabuwwat, such that now that is all we hear.  Death of Jesus is now a dead issue for most non-Ahmadis.   In Promised Messiah’s time, it was important, but also very vital for Promised Messiah of course, as breaker of the cross. Moreover, he considered it a type of shirk for Muslims to believe Jesus was alive.

@T Ijaz:
“From the 1920s/30s on it shifted more to Khatme Nabuwwat, such that now that is all we hear.”

If Qadianis had not ignited a new issue of Continuation of Nabuwwat, ALL Muslims of the world especially Pakistani Muslims had taken mission of HMGA to unimaginable success. It’s so sad 100 years has been wasted, just because of nonsense belief ‘continuation of prophethood’ as propaghated by Qadianis.

Maulana Abdul Manan Omar sahib (son of Maulana Noor-ud-Din sahib) use to say:
“I give credit of all the misinformation, and misunderstanding among Muslims about Hazrat Massiah Mauood, and their opposition to none other than Mira Mahmud Ahmad (Qadiani Khalifa 2)”. In last year of his life, he said with tears in his eyes, “because of this [Mirza Mahmud Ahmad] Kumbakhat (wretched) one century is wasted”.

The contrast between TQ and BA (v. 4) is this. When BA, v. 4, was first published, it represented the beliefs of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad at that time when he sent it for publication. When TQ was first published, which he sent for publication in October 1902, it is alleged he expressed in it a claim which he had changed a year previously and which was no longer valid at the very time he was signing off this book for publication.

When BA was later re-published, it was a commonly known, undisputed fact that he believed Jesus to have died. Anyone with even the least knowledge about Hazrat Mirza was aware of this. Moreover, the editions of BA published by Qadiani and Lahori Jamaats describe him on the cover page as “Promised Messiah”, thus giving the current belief. Furthermore, in RK volume 1, which consists of BA, v. 1 to 4, it is explained by the compiler by giving quotations from later books of Hazrat Mirza sahib that he gave up the belief that Jesus would descend. This is what someone reading RK would read in that very volume.

As to your allegations against Maulana Muhammad Ali, what relevance have these to the point under discussion? For example, did Hazrat Mirza sahib stick a piece of paper under the type-writer saying “I changed my claim to prophet in 1901”, and Maulana Muhammad Ali took away the type-writer with him with this evidence?

Your allegations have been answered repeatedly. See his biography, A Mighty Striving, pages 64-68 and 149-153. See also the Urdu book Mir’at-ul-Ikhtilaf, pages 56-61.

If allegations against the conduct of Maulana Muhammad Ali are relevant to this discussion, then the question arises: Are allegations against the behaviour of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad also relevant to this discussion? I understand from your posts of some time ago that you are carrying out an impartial, objective study of Ahmadiyya beliefs. Please exercise these qualities in this particular context.

@ ZA

My final thoughts on this subject would be:

Before RK was serialised or created, how many times was BA vol. 4 re-published?? 

And yes…HMGA (as) made a huge mistake by not understanding his status among the prophets circa 1880.  These were not merely Sufi concepts that he expounded on.  However, from 1891 to 1901 he did present them as Sufi concepts.

I have read the ROR quite intensely.  From 1908 to 1914 I get no other impression than the notion that HMGA (as) is a prophet.  I also get the impression that there was a gray area in this respect.

Finally, in the 1940’s Muhammad Ali refers to his writings of 1904 in the ROR as he defends his stance on prophethood.  However he doesnt mention that he was simply translating a book of HMGA (As).  However he presented it as his own unique writings.  This point shocked me. 

@ ZA

My point is that BA vol. 4 was published many times over before the RK edition was released with the proper footnotes.  Furthermore, Noorudin and Maulwi Abdul Kareem believed that Esa (as) died before they had ever even heard of the Mujadid and his BA.  Noorudin had met HMGA (as) before BA vol. 4 was published.  However, he asked to be his disciple.  There werent any issues there. 

As you know..im quite inquisitive.  I inquired about the religion I was born into.  My biggest obstacle was the split.  Thats where I started reading. 

Even Einstein said that his “steady-state” theory was the biggest blunder of his career.  HMGA (as) erred similarily.  Some Ahmadis, raised the status of HMGA (as) to that of a law-bearing prophet.  You see, 1908 to 1914 was a period of uncertainty.  The young religion of Ahmadiyyat was at a crossroads.  The remaining leaders had to choose a path for the future. 

One more point.  Syed Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi appeared to be the most confused follower of HMGA (as) of all time.  He initially sided with HMBMA, however, he had read his books and everything.  Then, he decided to switch sides as if he didnt understand a grain of Islamic theory in terms of prophethood.  He was also a paid employee of the Sadr Anjuman.  

Maulana Muhammad Ali presented those writings in ROR of 1904 as if they were his.  He never mentioned that he was merely translating a book of HMGA (as).  Read his book entitled, “How I used the word prophet….”. 

I can produce and endless supply of quotations from the ROR from 1908 that give the reader no other impression than that HMGA (as) is a prophet of some sort, not just a muhaddas.  And remember….the ROR was sent to almost every part of the British Empire, more specifically Africa.  In fact, many Ahmadis converted because of this newspaper. 

In QF, HMBMA made an error.  Simple and plain.  He knew that there was a change in terms of prophethood.  He began probing it.  

HMGA (as), began writing Siraj Munir before 1891, he didnt edit it when it was finally published in 1897.  I havent read that book.  However, its a wonderful example.   

Here is another reference from the same article:

“Ahmad was no exception to the general law which applied to all the great prophets of God” Page 155

There are countless other references that I had found when I was studying the split.  These 2 should be enough.  It must be noted that Sher Ali was the editor in this era.  Muhammad Ali was busy translating the Quran.  However, in those days everyone read newspapers profusely.  If there were errors on Sher Ali’s part, Muhammad Ali would have pointed it out. 

I am sure that when Muhammad Ali travelled to Dalhousie in 1909 to begin his paid-work, he was recieving all of the Ahmadiyya Newspapers regularly.   The asterisks that Muhammad Ali added in 1914 appear to have been late. 

This is the person who said above: “I agree with you ZA. I should probably avoid this discussion.” But now he has remembered that: “However, I consider myself an authority on the split.” We do get posters on this blog, each claiming to be the greatest authority against our beliefs.

I respond below to the above four separate comments from him in order.

I have already shown that re-publication of BA, v. 1-4, is no comparison for TQ, which he was actually completing the writing of in October 1902 by his own hand, and only three pages earlier he had expressed the claim which was allegedly already cancelled a year ago. What Maulana Nur-ud-Din or Maulvi Abdul Karim believed about the death of Jesus before BA, v. 4, (assuming your statement is correct) is of no significance, since death of Jesus wasn’t an issue relating to HMGA’s claim at the time. Becoming prophet from non-prophet is such an issue.

Bashir: “You see, 1908 to 1914 was a period of uncertainty.”

The “uncertainty” has continued in the Qadiani Jamaat till now! In 1914 they believed that HMGA fulfilled Jesus’s prophecy of the coming Ahmad, and challenged all Muslim ulama about this, then they started withdrawing this belief (see link). They declared all other Muslims as “kafir”, “outside the pale of Islam”, “pukkay kafir”, and retreated from this. But of course Bashir can’t see this “uncertainty”.

Bashir: “Syed Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi appeared to be the most confused follower… decided to switch sides…”.

He decided to switch sides when the Qadiani leadership told him to change his beliefs because Lahoris were publishing his earlier writings which, of course, he still held to.

But Bashir’s craftiness and bias is proved by the fact that he won’t describe Mufti Muhammad Sadiq as confused about prophethood. Why? Because M.M. Sadiq was a leading Qadiani, and Bashir has to defend Qadianis, whether he himself is a Qadiani or is virulently anti-Ahmadiyya. See these links about what M.M. Sadiq was writing as editor of Badr in 1909 and 1910.

If Syed M. Ahsan was so confused, why did HMGA ask him to publish an article to say that he had not claimed prophethood in “Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala”? And the editor of Al-Hakam (obviously not to be criticised by Bashir because he was a leading Qadiani) prefixed to it the following note:

“Below we reproduce an invaluable letter by Maulana Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan of Amroha which, although written by him as a reply to a postcard from Muhammad Yusuf of Amritsar, is in fact a fine exposition of that pamphlet which Hazrat Aqdas [Hazrat Mirza] published under the title Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala. The points of truth and knowledge contained in this letter need no explanation or advertisement from us — the name ‘scholar of Amroha’ is sufficient. But we should say that in this letter the scholarly gentleman is speaking with the support of the Holy Spirit. … Here is that blessed letter, full of knowledge.”

Bashir: “In QF, HMBMA made an error. Simple and plain. He knew that there was a change in terms of prophethood. He began probing it.”

Strange, that the date and writings in which he first claimed to be mujaddid were known to all, the date and writings in which he first claimed to be Promised Messiah were know to all, but the so-called Khalifa appointed by God had to start probing in 1915 when he claimed to be a prophet.

Bashir: “HMGA (as), began writing Siraj Munir before 1891, he didnt edit it when it was finally published in 1897. I havent read that book. However, its a wonderful example.”

You haven’t read it, so what is the source of your information that it was written before 1891? Please do tell us (unless, of course, you are bound to protect your source).

Bashir’s quotes from the ROR show his technique of propaganda. First, he basically says he will ignore as of no value any reference from ROR which supports our view. This is why he says “The asterisks that Muhammad Ali added in 1914 appear to have been late” and that “They would continue to list Muhammad (saw) as the LAST, however, HMGA (as) was also a prophet”. So he says he gives no weight to statements that the Holy Prophet was the last prophet occurring in the same place where the word ‘prophet’ is used for HMGA. What gives him that right?

Secondly, he conceals what doesn’t suit him. In the April 1913 article “Ahmad as a prophet” it is clearly stated in the footnote to the heading on p. 148: “… we intend to speak of the prophecies of Ahmad…” and the whole article is about prophecies made by him. So “prophet” means one who makes prophecies. And what about the advice in the first two pages of this article to Muslims to propagate Islam, send missionaries among non-Muslims, and correct Christian misrepresentations? What does that show about the writer’s views?

He, of course, doesn’t quote the “asterisks by Muhammad Ali”, which are as follows in the February 1914 issue: “The word prophet is used here not in the strict terminology of the Muslim Law, the holy Prophet Muhammad, may peace and the blessings of God be upon him, being the last of the prophets in that sense, but in the broad sense of one endowed with the gift of prophecy by Divine inspiration, a gift which is promised to every true Muslim by the holy Quran, and one which was possessed in an eminent degree by the late Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian.”

Bashir says this is “late”. If it had been in an earlier issue, Bashir would have said that this explanation was given early and doesn’t cover the later installments where ‘prophet’ is used in the real sense!

Regarding his quotes from the July 1911 issue, I provide here a scanned image of the text starting from the middle of p. 290 and going over to p. 291, where I draw attention to certain words by red lines. It says that HMGA “offered himself as an example” of what can be attained by following the Holy Quran and the religion of the Holy Prophet, and that everyone should follow that religion. It then says that he was a prophet because he published hundreds of prophecies, inspired by God. So ‘prophet’ is being used as meaning one who publishes prophecies.

Bashir, while quoting from the very same pages, failed to mention this.

Another propaganda technique of Bashir is to work into his words certain allegations that are not relevant even as allegations, on the principle that if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it, and if you throw filth some of it will attach even to innocent persons. He says:

“I am sure that when Muhammad Ali travelled to Dalhousie in 1909 to begin his paid-work, …”

(The self-styled authority has got his fact wrong here.) Also about Syed Muhammad Ahsan sahib he says: “He was also a paid employee of the Sadr Anjuman.”

But he doesn’t dare mention that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in 1914 directed that all donations should be sent to him personally.

Bashir claims to be an authority, and yet when someone obviously spoon-fed him that Siraj Munir was written before 1891, he didn’t even bother to read the book, and declared it to be a “wonderful example”. Run back to them and ask!

Admin Note: The following post by Ikram was sent before I had posted Bashir’s latest comment (see above).

What Bashir is telling us is that his beliefs are inelegant to begin with. Inherently his beliefs are ego-dystonic i.e. the reality he sees is incompatible with his inner sense of self. This creates a sense of anxiety for him. In order to validate the subjective nature of his “truth,” he reads while slicing and dicing writings of HMGA. Any straw of hope of non-contextual read of “prophet” is a life saver as it becomes a means for his beliefs to be ego-syntonic, thus reducing his anxieties. But, in the process he inevitably presents to the world a confused and inelegant HMGA. Last time I checked, HMGA was not devoid of faculty of verbal speech. How many speeches can one quote of his claiming himself to be a prophet of the likes of Muhammad or Moses? Factually, we hear the opposite in Jamia Masjid Dehli by his own mouth. Why wasn’t HMGA a full fledged “prophet” during his own lifetime? Because he was not. Who is more confused ? Bashir or HMGA?
 
No body will remember Bashir, but chances are that a person of a high stature like HMGA will be perceived in a distorted image. Bashir is not the first. There is a long chain of Qadiani institutions with its founder Khalifa-II onwards who did the same but with one difference. The Qadiani Khalifas have a personal secondary gain from such “prophethood” of HMGA. The foot soldiers like Bashir are just canon fodder who are satisfied to be sacrificial lambs on the altars of such dogmas. So it happened. In Pakistan they had and continue to literally sacrifice themselves. Internationally they have isolated themselves from rest of the Ummah. Internally they continue to undergo an ever increasing taxation by their Jamaat. The rank and file of Qadianis do this for the sake to make their delusional dogmas ego-syntonic. Khalifas know mind games and they pry on such zealots – Mind can be a terrible thing.
 
If for once Bashir starts his reading of HMGA to seek contextual and objective truth, he will find a very elegant HMGA who is no challenge to the seal and finality of prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH) and acceptable to Ummah at large. With such an approach, there is no element of ego-dystonia to begin with and the question of anxiety does not even arise. It is a natural bliss – Mind can be such a beautiful thing.
 
Note – usage of “Bashir” is just a figure of speech for an average Qadiani member.
 
 

Bashir wrote above: “Later on, HMBMA and Muhammad Ali were able to send missions openly and freely to all parts of the British Empire. While no other Islamic group had such a liberty.”

He could only have got this fake information from the anti-Ahmadiyya zealots.

Muslim groups were openly operating in England during the time of HMGA himself, and before Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din came to England. This is not only proved from general history, but in the Review of Religions itself (1902-1914) there were reports from such converts about Islamic work in England, and they were also being sent Islamic literature from Qadian. See this link and the comment by Maulana Muhammad Ali supporting the converts’ work in England in which he writes: “The cause of Islam in England should be the cause of every Muhammadan.”

Yes, the magazine which allegedly preached that “Ahmad is a prophet” who has now arisen, was supporting the work of propagation of Islam done by converts to Islam in England who had no connection with the “new prophet”.

If no other Islamic group had liberty, how did the Begum of Bhopal manage to fund the building of the Mosque at Woking, completed in 1889?

The building of a mosque in London itself was proposed in early 1900s. There is an article in ROR, Sept. 1912 entitled “A Mosque in London”, reprinted from a journal in England. There is an article in ROR July 1912 by an English convert (i.e. not an Ahmadi) entitled “Islam in England”.

When Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din went to England in September 1912, from day one he was working with the Muslims there (Indian Muslims living there, diplomats, business men, scholars, English converts).

When he had the Woking Mosque handed over from Leitner’s son to a trust, it was with the help of leading Muslim figures, and the first trustees were: Syed Ameer Ali and Mirza Sir Abbas Ali Baig (but no Ahmadi was trustee). See also here about Pickthall’s asscoiation with the Woking Mission.

It is simply false propaganda, swallowed by Bashir, that  “no other Islamic group had such a liberty”, when the fact is that other Muslims were the very ones who had the liberty.

The allegations raised against me by Rashid are totally absurd and false!!!  I want an apology!!!!  I have no idea why I am being targeted as such.  I asked some questions on this respectable blog and have been accused of Atheism and religious extremism. 

I fail to understand the point of Ikrams post.  I think psychologicalls the LAM members are the most destroyed.  They have been taught that the Messiah came into this world and message was destroyed.  And this is their religon.  If anyone needs cessation its LAM members.  There are only 6 that write here and a total global membership of possible less than 10,000 and dying fast.  

We were talking about books getting published late and super-confused Ahmadis.  How did it turn into charachter assasination?  Im not asking anyone to follow my religion.  

As we all know, HMGA (as) misinterpretted many things.  The Abdullah Athim prophecy is another example, so is the Muhammadi Begum saga.  HMGA (as) interpretted his revelations a certain way and did make mistakes along the way.  The LAM agrees with this concept.  Punishment was averted in the case of both of the above, Athim’s repentance was short lived.  Piggot is another example.  

My point about propogation is as such.  IMHO, the ROR is connected with the prophethood of HMGA (as).  Both were started roughly the same time.  What other Islamic missionary group was given liberty to send missionaries throughout the British Empire?  The ROR always called HMGA (as) a prophet.  The Muslim converts of England didnt follow Ahmadiyyat.  They didnt even care for it.  KK was converting people to Islam, not Ahmadiyyat.  His famous converts of 1913 didnt even care who HMGA (as) was.  Hence, KK was of the same opinion.    Later events proved it as true. 

If Bashir is protesting that he is not Rationalist, then Rationalist will also not like it that he is being considered the same as Bashir. If both of them post something about their background and identity then it will establish that they are different persons.

Regarding Bashir Shah, he has told us that he was born in Pakistan in 1979 in a Qadiani Jamaat family, he moved to US in 1980 and lives in California. His father did some work for the Qadiani Jamaat in Peshawar in 1964.

His views about Islam and the Holy Prophet Muhammad are publicly known. He has written that the views of anti-Islamic orientalists such as Sir William Muir about Islam are correct; and he has argued with our contributors on this blog about this. When he was asked by our contributors about his beliefs on Islam, he replied that Islam was a violent religion in the same manner as the UK and USA spread their domination around the world violently by killing vast numbers of innocent people. He said the Quran is poorly arranged, the Muslim society of the Holy Prophet and early times was a typical barbaric society of the time. He said that anyone who defamed the Holy Prophet did not live to tell about it. Leaving Islam at that time was like quitting religion in a barbaric society and so the punishment was death.

Bashir criticised the action of the Holy Prophet at Tabuk as follows:

“Why did the HP even ask for jizyah? Why didnt he deliver the message and go home? The people of Tabuk didnt need the protection of the HP, nor did they ask for it. If someone shows up to you doorstep with 1000 warriors, what would you do? Also, The HP accepted jizyah before allah even authorized its acceptance.”

Bashir told us that in his opinion the khilafat after the Holy Prophet didn’t work, and that the model of leadership in the USA was a better way than the khilafat of the four khalifas after the Holy Prophet.

No wonder, then, that Bashir is against the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement.

In addition to his delightful comments about us as above, Bashir has also e-mailed me directly. Here is the complete text of his e-mail:

I cant believe that you have associated me with those people. I nailed the LAM. I figured out that Muhammad Ali did it all for the money. And you accused me of what????

You dirty old man. Are any of your grandchildren still Ahmadi????

Being abused in this way is just a hazard of our work. Bashir’s mentality is now more openly revealed than ever. Why should we worry about his false charges and abuse against us, when he did not spare Islam and the Holy Prophet Muhammad (s.l.m.)?

I don’t believe Bashir has any user name ‘rationalist’, but he is a rationalist and tenacious researcher. I exchanged hundreds of emails with him couple years back,  regarding nabuwwat of the promised messiah.  He thoroughly scrutinized arguments presented by both sides, looking for clarity, which required thorough, well researched answers. I was subject to a lot of grilling by him in that search for clarity.

 Argumentum ad hominem as displayed in some of the posts against him are not fruitful

I have been writing on internet for many years now that Qadianis and anti-HMGA people are BED-FELLOWS. They both need each other to survive. They both hate LAM as they are worried for their going out of business, if people get chance to look at HMGA the way LAM is presenting him.

T. Ijaz and Bashir’s posts have once again supported my proposition. 

The world-famous Nadwat-ul-Ulama of Lucknow, India, founded 1891 for training Ulama, was openly supported by the British government of India. See this link.

They weren’t only given “liberty” to produce Ulama, they were given land and money by the British government, and the British governor personally laid the foundation stone of the school building. And Nadwah produced a lot of anti-Ahmadiyya ulama such as the famous Abul Hasan Ali Nadawi.

If that was India, then in London during British rule of India, Muslims were given land as a gift by the British government in 1940 to build a mosque, where today stands the Central London Mosque. See this link.

Another interesting point here is that Bashir’s allegation was directed against both Qadianis and Lahoris, since he wrote: “Later on, HMBMA and Muhammad Ali were able to send missions openly and freely to all parts of the British Empire. While no other Islamic group had such a liberty.”

We Lahoris have responded to his allegation in our above posts. What answer do Dr T. Ijaz and the Qadiani Jamaat have to his allegation? Or perhaps he is too much of a “tenacious researcher” for them to respond to!

Volume 2 of Mujaddid-i Azam has now been translated into English and will be published soon.

Regarding Pigott, a news appeared in the British press earlier this month. Please read it at this link to the Daily Mail, London.

As you will read, his whole sect folded up completely.

The following pasage from this news item struck me (bolding is mine):

"The sale of the London church in 2010, and uncertainty over who should be given the £1m proceeds of sale, that has sparked the court case.

When the trust deed was drawn up, no-one envisaged a time when the sect and its members would have long passed away.

Trustees who currently hold the £1million have now turned to the High Court for help, asking Judge Andrew Simmonds QC to solve the impasse."

Just wanted to add that the explanation regarding the Muhammadi Begum affair can be applied to the Piggot episode as well.

On p.260 of Mujaddid-i-Azam (English version) HMGA is quoted as saying:

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that this is what I implied, this implication would be my interpretation and not the word of God. My word and the Word of God are not the same. I am human and it is possible for me to err in interpretation (Hujat-ullah, p.10)

and

I do not consider my interpretations to be error-free. To prove me culpable, my accusers should present one of my revelations.

In the case of Piggot, HMGA saw "some books on which was written three times: 'Holy, Holy, Holy' followed by a revelation:

Allah is severe in retribution. They are not acting righteously.

The source for this information is quoted by the detractors as 'Badr Vol. I Nos. 5 and 6, Nov.8 and Dec. 5, 1902 p. 4'

The revelation itself certainly came to pass.