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

April 5th, 2011

“Facts are Sacred”

Comment on Munir Ud Din Ahmad article by Rashid Jahangiri.

Dear Dr. Munir D Ahmad sahib,

I read your article ‘Ahmadi Authors and Publishing Houses’ on anti-HMGA website

You wrote:

“It is indeed one of the sad facts about the Ahmadiyya that it cannot tolerate independent authors. It already started during Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s time, when he got perturbed by the books of Dr. Abdul Hakeem Patialvi, who had taken an independent standpoint in the question that a human being can attain God’s favour and enter the Paradise without being a follower of the Prophet Muhammad.
He was rebuked by MGA, who also gave out the word that no independent publication by an Ahmadi will be allowed in future.”

Link to your article:

I would request you:
In your opposition to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib, YOU SHOULD NEVER FUDGE THE FACTS.

1- Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib (HMGA) NEVER discouraged independent thoughts and understanding of Holy Quran. Maulana Noor Ud Din held belief that a human fathered Jesus. This was different than that of HMGA belief.

2- In life of HMGA, ‘Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishat-I-Islam, Lahore’ was founded by companions of HMGA for propagation of Islam.

3- In life of HMGA ‘AAIIL’ published their Urdu language newspaper ‘Paigham-e-Sulah’.

As Khan Abdul Wali Khan titled his book ‘Facts are Sacred’. I request you to please keep it in mind. Don’t let your animosity towards HMGA fudge the facts.

I will also post this email on Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement blog:

Thank You,
Rashid Jahangiri.

42 Responses to ““Facts are Sacred””

  1. April 5th, 2011 at 6:12 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Both myself and Rashid Jahangiri are fallible human beings who can make mistakes (something I don’t think our anti-Ahmadiyya consider themselves to be).

    So I would point out that (see 3) Paigham Sulah was not started during the life of the Promised Messiah but the life of Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din.

    Our anti-Ahmadiyya opponents have reached such a state of total blindness through hate that they can utter the following statement:

    “It already started during Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s time, when he got perturbed by the books of Dr. Abdul Hakeem Patialvi, who had taken an independent standpoint in the question that a human being can attain God’s favour and enter the Paradise without being a follower of the Prophet Muhammad. He was rebuked by MGA, ”

    Please repeat again the reason why did Mirza Ghulam Ahmad get perturbed and rebuke Dr Abdul Hakim Khan!

    (In fact he also he refuted and denounced Abdul Hakim’s views, and expelled him from the Jamaat.)

    The anti-Ahmadiyya groups should now declare that they are so broad-minded that they would continue to include among their fold a person who preaches that it is not necessary to believe in the Holy Prophet Muhammad.

    But, unlike you shameless people who have no respect for the Holy Prophet Muhammad, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad roared like a lion in defence of the Holy Prophet Muhammad and the sacred Kalima of Islam against Abdul Hakim Khan. In his lengthy, 40-page refutation he wrote:

    “If all the books of God the Most High are looked into closely, it will be found that all prophets have been teaching: believe God the Most High to be One without partner and along with it also believe in our risalat (messengership). It was for this reason that the summary of the teachings of Islam was taught to the entire Umma in these two sentences: La ilaha ill-Allah Muhammad Rasul-ullah (There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah).”

    — Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, page 111; in Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 22, p. 114.

  2. Essentially Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (ra) is basing his arguments on Quran:
    21:24. …’ This (Unity of God) is the message of those who are with Me and the message of those (who have gone) before Me. The only thing is that most of them have no knowledge of the truth and that is why they have turned away (from it).

    21:25. And We sent no Messenger before you but We revealed to him, (saying), `The truth is that there is no other, cannot be and will never be One worthy of worship but I, therefore worship Me (alone).’

    21:26. And they say, `The Most Gracious (God) has taken to Himself a son.’ Holy is He. Rather they (whom they so designate) are (only His) honoured servants.

    21:27. They do not precede Him in speech and they only carry out His biddings.

  3. @ Dr. Zahid Aziz
    Thanks for correction, regarding start of Paigham Sulah publication.
    Maulana Noor Ud Din would have never allowed independent publication by Ahmadis, had this practice been banned by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib.
    Unfortunately, opponents of HMGA in their animosity totally distort the facts. It is further unfortunate to see this kind of behavior by people like Munir Ud Din Ahmad, Ph.D, who advises German government regarding Islam, Ahmadis, Pakistan etc. According to him he gives his expert opinion to German government.
    According to his autobiography ‘Dhalte saaye’, he knew very well about wrongs of Qadiani Jamaat in Rabwah. He was sent as Murabi (missionary) to Germany and once he established himself there, only then he quit his sponsoring Qadiani Jamaat and Qadiani Jamaat Khalifa 2.

  4. ‘Hadith in the Ahmadiyya Theology’ by Dr. Munir D Ahmad.

    Anomosity of Dr. Munir D Ahmad towards Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib, Maulana Noor Ud Din, and Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib is evident by his choice of words and the way he makes his case in article. I’m copy pasting this article with the purpose of preserving it and for ease of readers.

    Admin Note: Due to length of the article, I have saved it at this holding page on this blog:

  5. April 5th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    This article is full of distortions, but I will refer in particular to the following ignorance of the author:

    “Maulavi Muhammad Ali, the later Amir of the Lahori-Group, published already during the life-time of Ahmad two lengthy articles about the authenticity of hadith, in which he praised in his familiar apologeticall manner the unprecedented efforts of the Muslim scholars to collect hadith. His defense of the authenticity of hadith , which in fact comes close to the views of Ahl-i Hadith, is anything but a copy of the views of Ahmad…”

    and the bizarre reason for this is given as:

    “The only plausible explanation could be that the writings of Ahmad were meant for the Muslim readers, who were too much under the influence of the Ahl-i Hadith, whereas Ali’s duty it was to defend Islam and its institutions against Christian attacks.”

    He is ignorant of the fact that Maulana Muhammad Ali’s articles were in the Review of Religions, which appeared in both English and Urdu and was therefore read by Indian, Urdu-knowing Muslims. The Maulana could not write the opposite of what Hazrat Mirza sahib was writing about Hadith in Urdu.

    And how did these words slip out from Munir-ud-Din Ahmad’s pen: “Ali’s duty it was to defend Islam and its institutions against Christian attacks.”

    Perhaps it is because his paper was written so many years ago in 1973! Now he needs to re-assess his view that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad charged Maulana Muhammad Ali with the duty to defend Islam against Christian attacks!

    Then we have this gem of knowledge:

    “Notwithstanding the great reverence in which the Ahmadiyya holds hadith very little work has been carried out by the members of this community in the sector of ‘ilm al-hadith. Ali wrote “A manual of Hadith”, which is in line with his above mentioned articles.”

    Could Mr Munir Ahmad explain why so many other publishers than LAM have reprinted ‘A Manual of Hadith’ (without permission)? Why is it openly available in book stores in Pakistan, published by other publishers? The only reason is its enduring popularity among “Munir-ud-Din Ahmad defined” Muslims.

    Now let us look at some more of the “very little work” done by the Lahore Ahmadiyya:

    Here you will find a complete Urdu translation of Sahih Bukhari with extensive commentary in two volumes, by Maulana Muhammad Ali, assisted by scholar of Hadith Maulana Ahmad, amounting to over 1600 pages. Is this a little contribution?

  6. @ admin

    It iz amazing that my tactics of engagement were questioned earlier.  Rashid appears to have used other-than-honorable means of collecting data in this case.  Will this ex-qadiani even get a chance to defend himself here?  It seems that the LAM and Rashid or whatever alias he is using, is bent on surfing the internet and causing a nusiance more than anything.  And Mr. Aziz hasnt questioned him about his behavior?  What an impression has the net gotten of the LAM through Rashid’s tactics? 

    I will give these article a fair reading and post my thoughts.  And, I must say that the scholarship of Rashid is questioned..this guy didnt even know that the Pagham e Sulh was started in 1913.  Where have you have been?  Mars???  Maybe facts arent your strong point. 

  7. I make mistakes tooo, who says that we are error free????  You left me hanging on the Abdul Hakim story.  That thread is actually closed now. 
    Here is my summary:

    1.  Muhammad Ali in his urdu version of “radd i takfir…” appears to have elaborated on the letter of Hakim Khan a bit further.  He in fact authenticated it and reffered to it as a boastful act of MGAQ.  He appears to claim that the argument that MGAQ presented wherein he uses a hadith from Bukhari wherein it is written, ” if a muslims calls a true Muslims a Kafir than he himself automatically becomes a Kafir”, as the rule of thumb in the case of MGAQ and other Muslims.  It appears that Muhammad Ali is saying that this private letter to Khan is a time where MGAQ lost his senses and wrote contrary to his doctrine. 

    2.  MGAQ had a moment?

    Some other facts, In 1905, Dr. Abdul Hakim Khan wrote an urdu Tafsir of the Quran which was advertised in the Review of religions.  Do you have a copy of that?  It appears that MGAQ was very happy with this guy uptil then.  MGAQ appears to have lost his temper and wrote contrary to his doctrine in this PRIVATE letter. 

    This reminds me of the Muhammadi Begum affair.  It was the relatives of MGAQ who reported to newspapers about the private utterances of MGAQ.  This is how your founder was exposed to have bad charachter.  1 year after claiming to be the Messiah, your Messiah divorced his first wife only because she was against the 3rd marriage of your founder.  He didnt even have the decency to support them financially.   

  8. April 5th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    You are simply repeating lies. You can’t afford for it to be known why Abdul Hakim Khan was removed from the Jamaat because it will prove that you are an enemy of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Suddenly you know Urdu and can read Radd Takfir ahl-i Qibla!

    You are running away from the issue which you raised, and this is why you are diverting to other topics.

    Bilal Roberts makes accusation regarding marriage of the Promised Messiah. Yet he himself believes that Muslim soldiers fighting non-Muslims can capture their women and make them into ma malakat aimanu-kum, i.e. slave girls, and have sexual relations with them without marriage, and each Muslim can have any number of these girls as slaves.

    Wasn’t Martin Lings a Muslim? Read in his book “Muhammad” about how Martin Lings thinks, and how you think, the Holy Prophet Muhammad came to marry Zainab. He had to amend it in the second edition of this book. Your literature contains such filthy stories!

  9. What lies am I accused of repeating?  Please tell me and the world the exact reason why Abdul Hakim was ejected from Ahmadiyyat by your founder?  Why dont you have one of your young Ahmadis to do the translation work? 

    I dont know urdu, from your assertions…I came up with conclusions.  Have you ever heard of research and development?  Are they correct?  Are they incorrect?  Please elaborate sir….

    Here is the reference work on the Tafsir of Abdul Hakeem

    Interestingly enough in Oct of 1905 Abdul Hakeem published a commentary of the Holy Quran in english. This commentary is 900 pages. The Review of Religions even promoted it as “the first attempt by a Muslim to translate the Quran into English.

    here is the reference: … sh1905.pdf

    PAGE 404

    Is there anything else that needs clarification??????

  10. April 5th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    “What lies am I accused of repeating?” Isn’t it your lie that Maulana Muhammad Ali referred to this letter as a boastful act of Hazrat Mirza sahib, or that he said Mirza sahib had lost his senses?

    When Abdul Hakim Khan expressed a wrong belief, a dangerously wrong belief, and stuck to it, Hazrat Mirza sahib expelled him and denounced it. You will never translate those 40 pages because you will then be authenticating with your own hands what he wrote. If we translate it, you will ignore it or even allege that the translation is wrong.

    The fact is that when the enemies of Islam could not defeat Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s arguments in favour of Islam, they recruited people like Bilal Roberts to undermine Islam from within by highlighting unauthentic stories.

    Enemies of Islam said: Islam allows Muslims to lie about their faith. Up came their recruit Bilal Roberts and said: Yes, Abraham did it, and I follow his sunna.

    Christian opponents of Islam said: All prophets were sinners except Jesus. Up came Bilal Roberts and said: Yes, they were all touched by Satan.

    Muslims rightly criticised the Bible for containing dirty stories about prophets. Up came Bilal Roberts and said: These are also in Quran and Hadith. Allah caused a stone to run away miraculously with Moses’ clothes when he was bathing, so that Moses ran after it naked and his followers were able to see his private parts, and this was Allah’s doing! He can give you the quotation from Bukhari.

    According to the Bilal Roberts of this world, the Quran says that Solomon built a palace of a reflecting floor so he could see the legs of the Queen of Sheba and check if they had hair on them. These are the “miracles” they are so keen to relate.

    Then they proudly highlighted all kinds of inauthentic stories about the Holy Prophet’s marriages, e.g. he had some wives without marrying them, and (God forbid) stories of sexual stamina.

    This is the plan of the Bilal Roberts of this world, to undo and undermine the defence of Islam done by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and appreciated by the sensible and self-respecting Muslims outside his Movement.

  11. Isn’t it your lie that Maulana Muhammad Ali referred to this letter as a boastful act of Hazrat Mirza sahib, or that he said Mirza sahib had lost his senses?

    NO!!!!  I am assuming this info.  You havent responded to my assertion…I dont know what Muhammad Ali wrote in the urdu version of “Radd i Takfir….”  From the info that you have provided, it appears that my assertion is true.  Why dont you simply tell me the explanation that Muhammad Ali gave for this letter?  Why did MGAQ write it?  What was the purpose?  Are the contents of a boastful nature or are they accurate in terms of the doctrine of MGAQ?  And why is this data in the urdu version and not the english version?? 

    Then you go off on a rage of emotions.  Chill out mate!  Just answer the questions.  Its not like there are more than 5 people that blog here anyways.  Your leader doesnt even blog here, he probably doesnt even surf the internet. 

    You seem perturbed by me.  You seem upset that I am loaded with data.  I warned you….I am very qualified.  And Im not running either…

  12. @Bilal Roberts,
    I suggest you to come back to this forum ten years from now. Hopefully, we all are alive and healthy to discuss your objections. In these ten years you will hopefully gain mental maturity. You will start using your brain more than your emotions. You will be alert to possibility of your use by your fellow opponents of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib. In the mean time, hopefully you have learned to read and write Urdu, which will help you read the original books of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s and other elders of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement cover to cover. Also in the mean time more books of HMGA and other elders of LAM will become available online in original and their translations, on LAM websites.

  13. April 6th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Your trick is to present unfounded allegations as facts, hoping that the gullible might believe them or they may pass unnoticed. But when they are challenged, you claim that “I am assuming this”. You neither stated that you were assuming that “Muhammad Ali is saying that this private letter to Khan is a time where MGAQ lost his senses” nor did you have any grounds for making the assumption.

    “You seem upset that I am loaded with data.  I warned you….I am very qualified.”

    Really? You didn’t even know that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad mentioned the 1911 announcement by Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din in an English book, proving its existence!

    You have previously claimed that the Ulama are not qualified to refute Ahmadiyyat in the way that you are. Why don’t you prove your great expertise and research? There are many ways:

    1. You could try publishing a paper in a religious research journal, which would also list your qualifications on the subject.

    2. You could write a book and try getting a Muslim publisher to publish it and get it reviewed.

    3. You could try getting endorsed by some well known Muslim organisation as their accredited spokesperson on Ahmadiyya issues.

    But you will find that people will consider you as totally insignificant and pay you no attention and treat you as a crazy nut. Telling them how popular you are in Dallas among Muslims won’t work!

    In our Cape Town court case, the Muslim organisation against us called the best possible expert witnesses from Pakistan on their behalf. I gave you their qualifications in an earlier response. If there was a similar case in U.K. (where you reside), would you offer yourself as an expert witness to appear in court?

    You would have to appear as a real person and be cross examined. You will face ridicule if you gave answers like the ones you gave here.

    “Its not like there are more than 5 people that blog here anyways.”

    So your arguments are not getting much of a public exposure here. You can’t convert more than 5 people here, so why don’t you try it with a larger group? But you are scared. Anywhere else no one will pay you any attention. You are only coming here seeking attention.

  14. Oh Mr. Aziz…you have got it all wrong mate.  I have been trying to get you to talk, I have been trying to get you to explain to me in terms of what Muhammad Ali exactly said in his urdu version of “Radd i Takfir…”.  And you know this quite well, hence the magic show, hence the magic circus. 

    Quite simply………

    1.  What exactly did Muhammad Ali say in terms of this letter by MGAQ in his urdu version?  Please enlighten me.  Stop avoiding this question….

    This is a very simple question.  Why cant you answer.  Stop trying to attack me and my affiliations. 

    The reason that you wont answer my questions is because you are sure that I will use some of the data that you present against you. 

    Stop playing games….

    And yes…technically I dont represent any Islamic organization.  In general terms I represent Islam, I am a representative of Muhammad (saw).  In the most general sense of  the word…

    Why is this the highlight of this debate??  You need to answer the question that I posed. 

    Why did MGAQ write the content of the letter to Dr, Abdul Hakeem Khan? 

    1.  Was he boasting?
    2.  Was he accurate?
    3.  Was he mad at Khan?

    And how does this letter not contradict his other statements in terms of the deniers of MGAQ? 

  15. And your trick is to not answer my questions so I cant use your answers against you.  I requested answers to some questions that werent properly answered by your founder. 

    And now my posts arent going thru. 

    Lets get rid of the nonsense and stick to questions and answers.  Whadduyya think? 

  16. The question Bilal has to answer is this:
    Is it possible to achieve salvation by denying the prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (s) as Dr Abdul Hakeem Khan believed?
    Please answer this question.

  17. April 7th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Bilal writes: “you have got it all wrong”.

    Please answer whether it is correct or wrong that on this forum you have been stating that you are uniquely qualified, over and above the anti-Ahmadiyya Ulama of the past, to refute Ahmadiyya beliefs?

    Why don’t you present your unique research as one coherent paper or book and get it approved by the well-known anti-Ahmadiyya bodies and Ulama? Is it because they wouldn’t touch you with a barge-pole because you are just a volatile and unpredictable lunatic?

    In another thread you have claimed to possess God-like knowledge. Here you claim: “I represent Islam, I am a representative of Muhammad (saw).”

    What is your evidence that you represent Islam and the Holy Prophet? Just because you claimed it?

    If you represent Islam and the Holy Prophet, you should first of all represent them against those who call them false. Can you show where you have represented them against their Christian, atheist, Jewish, Hindu and other opponents?

    If you represent Islam, your knowledge should not be confined to just refuting Ahmadiyyat. It should extend to the whole of Islam. Does it?

    As to your allegation that I haven’t answered your questions, please see my following replies where I answered your questions the moment you raised them: (March 17) (March 29)

  18. at mr. Shahid

    I must say that you have an interesting question.  I havent fully read on this topic.  I did read somwhere in the writings of Muhammad Ali wherein he had written that the first stage of being a Muslim was to believe in Allah while the second stage was to believe in Muhammad (Saw). 

  19. Oh mr. Aziz, you have got it all wrong. 

    I am doing more work on the internet, in the back pages that is then you can imagine.  I dont have any work published by any Musilm organization.  Maybe in the future I will.  For now, my goal is to collect data and keep the Ahmadis talking.  As you may have noticed.  And I am not Crankthatskunk, you cant get rid of me so easily. 

    I never said that I have God like qualities.  It was your founder actually who said that he had an ilham wherein he thought himself to be GOD (nauzobillah) and was creating the universe or something crazy like that.  And…it was your founder who claimed that his promised son who be like as if Allah himself had appeared or something like that.  So before you accuse me of something, just remember that I am an “Ahmadi computer”, I have memorized lots of data and references from your unique religion. 

  20. You wrote:

    “As to your allegation that I haven’t answered your questions, please see my following replies where I answered your questions the moment you raised them”

    I have read through all the links that you posted.  I sill have not found an answer to my first question.  I will ask it again.  If I cant find your answer, why dont you copy and paste it again? 

    1.  Why did MGAQ write to Abdul Hakim Khan in 1906 that:

    “God almighty has conveyed it to me that every person to whom my call is conveyed and who does not accept me is not a Muslim and is accountable to God for his defult (Letter addressed to Dr. Abdul Hakeem)(April 1906).”

    I had a read a brief alibi by you and wrote that it was insufficient.  You had written that MGAQ wrote that he had never written as such in any book or poster, I had said that this was actually accurate, MGAQ had actually NOT written so in any BOOK or POSTER, it was a private letter. 

    I then asked you as to why the Urdu version of “Radd i Takfir..” had additional data in contrast to the english version.  You didnt answer that either. 

    What was the purpose of this statement in a private letter by MGAQ?  Was it data that was only for Khan?  Was it a boastful act by MGAQ?  Did a contradict his other doctrine that only those who call him Kafir are Kafirs?

    Stop playing games and answer the questions! 

    And remember in 1911, Mahmud Ahmad referred to the letter when he started his campaign. 

  21. Bilal
    The quotation from you which started this post started on this very point that HMGA expelled the Dr from the Jamaat for saying that a man can enter paradise even if he rejects the Holy Prophet Muhammad’s claim to be a prophet.

    Please tell us what you believe in this regard as it is hardly intellectually honest to rebuke the Promised Messiah for something about which you do not know much.

    Please answer the question: can a person attain to God and enter paradise despite rejecting the Holy Prophet Muhammad’s claim to being the prophet of Allah and therefore calling the Holy Prophet a liar (may Allah forgive me for using this word).

  22. @ Mr. Shahid

    This quotation has nothing to do with the personal/internal beliefs of Dr. Khan.  They can be whatever.  Why did MGAQ write to him in a private letter that it had been conveyed to him that all of those who reject him are Kafir????

    There is no relevance that I an figure out with the question that you posed to me.  Anyhow, I will try to answer it as best as I can. 

    Unless a person believed in LA ILLAH ILLAL LA MUhamadur Rasul ullah….

    He is not a Muslim.  My understanding of this obscure topic is not very much I must admit.  Muhammad (saw) brought Islam to us from Allah.   how is it possible to reject Muhammad (saw) yet accept Allah.  That is just non-sensical. 

  23. For the record, Dr. Zahid Aziz had also answered the allegation in reply to Bilal Roberts here and specified his article, Reply to certain quotes alleging that he called other Muslims as kafir wherein he has explained, “The whole reply shows that his words “he who does not accept me” are not general but apply to those who were followers of the Ulama who had declared Hazrat Mirza sahib and Ahmadis as kafir.”

    But alas, Bilal Roberts is like the critics of Islam and some Muslims whom cite select passages from the Qur’an to mislead the masses. For instance they may selectively quote, “Do not take the Jews and Christians for friends” (5:51) to give the impression Muslims are intolerant of other faiths, but when read in context one sees it is speaking of a certain type of people whom wished only to deride Islam (see 5:57-58) and make war with Muslims. (see 60:8) Or they may selectively quote “Fighting is prescribed for you” (2:216) “Fight in the way of Allah” (4:74) “Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day” (9:29) to give the impression Islam allows for aggressive warfare not taking into account that the condition is subject to conditions of self defense and against that of oppression (see 2:190, 22:39-40, 4:75). Or the critics may selectively quote a few verses which speak of “Islam” and “Muslim,” not taking into account its general broad application in the Qur’an and thereby create misunderstanding.

    Similarly, Bilal Roberts has taken one of the many statements of the Promised Messiah wanting to give a meaning to it that is completely unfounded.

  24. @ Omar

    Please dont tell me that this is the response to my questions:

    I have stated earlier in this discussion that his statement in that letter (“However, you have now written to Abdul Hakeem Khan that anyone who has received my message and has not accepted me is no longer a Muslim”) was put to him and he fully answered it in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy. See this link and read the answer to the first quotation.
    I also gave you above the link to the book where Maulana Muhammad Ali has quoted from and dealt with the letter, from page 10 onwards. The letter is quoted on page 11. Yet you keep on repeating that the Maulana ignored it!

    This is not an adequate answer.  This answer doesnt solve the problem. 

    1.  In the first paragraph, MGAQ only answered that he had never written so in any book or poster. 

    Thats not the question!!!!!!!!!!!  What about a private letter???????????
    Is there a disability that Ahmadis have in comprehension here??????
    Is my question soooo hard to understand???????

    2.  In the 2nd paragraph, What did Muhammad Ali say, I cant read urdu.  Simply tell me what his answer was????  IS that sooooo hard???? 

  25. April 8th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    You are utterly confused.

    “1.  In the first paragraph, MGAQ only answered that he had never written so in any book or poster.”

    Which “first paragraph” where he gave this answer to the question?

    “2. In the 2nd paragraph, What did Muhammad Ali say, I cant read urdu. Simply tell me what his answer was????”

    Well, you have written under the other topic:

    “Im not the Ulema of india. Im that new-age boy. I have the internet at my disposal, they didnt!!!!!!”

    So who can understand that passage: “the Ulema of India” or you?

  26. April 8th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    While Bilal claims I don’t answer his questions, a claim which is not true at all, he himself ducks our questions. He has not answered about his bizarre statement: “I represent Islam, I am a representative of Muhammad (saw).”

    1. What is the evidence that he represents Islam or the Holy Prophet, and not just himself and his twisted mind?

    2. Where else, and against whom else, has he represented Islam or the Holy Prophet?

    His first posts claimed about Ahmadis that “Muslims reject their affiliation with Islam” and “almost every Islamic country has revoked Ahmadiyyat the priviledge of being called Muslims.”

    But then he went on to claim that Muslim Ulama are not qualified to refute Ahmadiyyat: “The problem with the Ulema is that they dont have qualified people to advise them on Ahmadiyyat.” He also wrote:

    “I feel that I have a responsibility to the Muslims at large to present the true claims of MGAQ. MGAQ’s claims are very hard to differentiate. Most Muslims only have an elementary understanding of the claims of MGAQ.”

    (Above excerpts are under the post )

    So the question is: how did Muslims and their governments manage to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslim if they and their Ulama didn’t have a proper understanding of Ahmadiyya beliefs?

    It obviously means they succeeded not because of the merits of their case but for other, unfair reasons (e.g. threats, political pressure). So Bilal’s argument against Ahmadis that they are declared non-Muslim in Islamic countries becomes useless due to his own admission about the lack of knowledge by the anti-Ahmadiyya Ulama.

    Secondly, since according to him Ahmadis have been rejected by other Muslims and their governments and expelled from Islam, and this happened even before Bilal was born, what is he going to achieve now? Hasn’t the matter been decided to his satisfaction already?

    Bilal wrote earlier above: “And I am not Crankthatskunk, you cant get rid of me so easily.”

    When one of them is defeated, another rises up and says: I can do better than him. After Bilal, another will arise and say: I can do better than Bilal.

    Akber Choudhry was humiliated in the TV programme about Blasphemy that we discussed on this blog. Even the Christians appearing could answer better than him about Islam. When asked a question about if the Holy Prophet killed anyone for blasphemy, he spluttered: I am not a scholar of Islam, because he could neither say “yes” nor “no”. Could Bilal have done better?

  27. April 9th, 2011 at 5:42 am
    From Mohammed Iqbal:

    Bilal knows more about Ahmadiyyat than the Ulema and their advisers. Yet he doesn’t know Urdu! Isn’t this akin to someone claiming that he knows Shakespearian literature more than any other critics and yet he doesn’t know English?!

    Maulana Maudoodi and Maulana Abul Hasan Nadwi were two well known critics of Ahmadiyyat in the sub-continent. Does Bilal clim to know more about Ahmadiyyat than these highly revered  ‘Aalims?

  28. @ Mr. Aziz

    I am not confused.  Your founder was confused about his prophethood for 20 years.  Then he claimed that Nazir and prophet are synonymous.  What a quack!!!!

    When I wrote first paragraph…I meant from the 2 paragraphs that I quoted in the above.   Look at my post of April 8th, 2011 at 8:49 pm.  I quoted 2 paragraphs which appear to be answers to my questions.  I dealt with both of the equally. 

    Look…you DONT want to answer my question, because you know that whatever answer you give I will use it against you.  No matter what answer you give, YOU LOSE. 

    I will ask the question again:

    1.  Why did MGAQ write in a private letter to Mr.Khan that:

    God Almighty has conveyed it to me that every person to whom my call is conveyed and who does not accept me is not a Muslim and is accountable to God for his default”. (Letter addressed to Dr. Abdul Hakeem). [TADHKIRAH, PDF 519; recorded in March 1906]

    2.  What was the purpose of MGAQ writing this?  Doesnt this contradict his “Kufr-policy”??????

    No more alibis.  Dont refer me to the answer of MGAQ.  That is inadequate.  Dont refer me to the urdu version of “Radd i Takfir…”.  Write in your words.  Give me YOUR answer. 

  29. Here are some questions that make no sense in terms of Ahmadiyya affairs, i will answer them even though they dont relate to any part of any discussion, these are only technicalities, Mr. Aziz has been trained in the job of arguments only.  He has an ability to argue.  I dont.  I present facts.  Sometimes I am wrong and sometimes I am right. 

    1. What is the evidence that he represents Islam or the Holy Prophet, and not just himself and his twisted mind?

    Answer: None, you win. 

    2. Where else, and against whom else, has he represented Islam or the Holy Prophet?
    Answer: None, you win again. 

    3.  how did Muslims and their governments manage to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslim if they and their Ulama didn’t have a proper understanding of Ahmadiyya beliefs?

    Answer:  They should not have done so, IMHO.  This was the biggest mistake of the Muslim Ummah.  Ahmadis have been able to leave Pakistan em-masse and have been able to finance their mission because of these events. 

    If you have any other questions, provide me a list.  Im not like you, I am honorable in debate.

  30. @ Mr. Iqbal

    You fail to understand what the internet has done in terms of research work.  You might not have went to college during the last 15 years.  Learning has been transformed. 

    I dont necesarrily agree with Maudoodi on a number of issues, I dont quote him for anything.  I either quote someone totally or not at all.  I have issues with the aggessiveness of Maudoodi. 

  31. You know Mr. Aziz, the more and more that I read your comments, the more and more I realize that you are exactly like MGAQ.  MGAQ would lose debates, his prophecies would fail, but alas he would make it seem to his followers like he had won.

    The Muhammadi Begum affair is a major example of that.  He failed miserably to secure the hand in marriage to this girl, yet he went out of his way to issue death threats in his blind rage.  An honorable Muslim would have said OK to the response of Ahmad Baig, an honorable Muslim would have left family alone.  But MGAQ, because he was insane, and because he had just claimed to be Esa (as) (nauzobillah) divorced his wife only for the reason that she sided with those who didnt want to give their daughter to wretched imposter, i.e. MGAQ.  MGAQ even forced his son Fazl Ahmad to divorce his wife.  Then he disinherited Sultan Ahmad.  Islam doesnt even allow for disinheriting a son. 

    You are the zill of the charachter of your founder.  Thank you for proving that to me. 

    Regards, Bilal

  32. April 10th, 2011 at 8:40 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    The first part below is in response to Bilal’s comment beginning: “Here are some questions that make no sense in terms of Ahmadiyya affairs, i will answer them…”

    My comments on his answers.

    1 & 2. I was neither seeking to “win” on this point nor do I claim any “win”. I was trying to establish Bilal’s claim. I would have welcomed it if he had turned out to be a recognised Islamic speaker or writer who had represented Islam, because I would in effect be replying to his entire circle of supporters.

    3. He has not answered my question about how the anti-Ahmadiyya groups managed to get Ahmadis declared non-Muslim while being so deficient in anti-Ahmadiyya arguments as compared to Bilal’s expertise.

    He says Muslim governments/bodies should not have declared Ahmadis as non-Muslim because of the material advantages that Ahmadis got as a result. That would have been the height of hypocrisy! While believing Ahmadis to be non-Muslim they would not have declared them as non-Muslim for fear of some worldly reason! That would mean that maybe Shiahs or Wahhabis are also actually considered non-Muslims by the Pakistani government but they are not declared as non-Muslim for some similar fear (fear of Iran or Saudi Arabia).

    Still, it is interesting to see that Bilal holds that Ahmadis should not have been declared non-Muslim in Pakistan. This is at odds with his very first posts, in which he presented it as an argument against Ahmadis that they have been declared non-Muslim in Pakistan (and according to him, elsewhere as well).


    Below I reply to his comment which he ended by saying:

    “Dont refer me to the answer of MGAQ. That is inadequate. Dont refer me to the urdu version of “Radd i Takfir…”. Write in your words. Give me YOUR answer.”

    I comply with his request, as below.

    Praise be to Allah, we praise Him and send blessings and peace upon His Messenger Muhammad.

    My answer is the same as my answer to those critics of Islam who quote words from the Quran such as “kill them wherever you find them” and “do not take Jews and Christians for friends”, or hadith from Bukhari that the Holy Prophet was commanded to fight people till they become Muslims. These critics claim that these are the absolute, unconditional teachings of Islam.

    That answer is that all such statements are subject to, and limited and circumscribed by, the basic principles that have been taught and repeated in the same book. The Holy Quran mentions this rule in 3:7.

    Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad repeatedly stated, both before the letter in question and after it, and even close to his death, that he does not call any Muslim a kafir for not accepting his claim. As to what he wrote in the letter, this form of expression occurs in Islamic writings, namely, that a Muslim falling short of his duty is not a believer or even kafir. Here are just two examples from Sahih Bukhari:

    Volume 2, Book 26, Number 794:
    Beware don’t renegade (as) disbelievers (turn into infidels) after me, Striking the necks (cutting the throats) of one another.’

    Volume 8, Book 73, Number 45:
    The Prophet said, “By Allah, he does not believe! By Allah, he does not believe! By Allah, he does not believe!” It was said, “Who is that, O Allah’s Apostle?” He said, “That person whose neighbor does not feel safe from his evil.”

    These expressions do not mean that such persons are outside the fold of Islam, but they are not acting upon some aspect of Islam.

    Hazrat Mirza sahib has stated about his own followers that those of them who fall short of acting upon various general Islamic duties are “not a member of my Jamaat”. There is a long, continuous list of these shortfalls in his book Kishti-i Nuh:

    “Whoever does not wholly keep away from every sin and every evil, like [a list given here], is not of my Jamaat. Whoever is not constantly turning to prayer and does not rememeber Allah in absolute humility, is not of my Jamaat. Whoever does not respect his parents, is not of my Jamaat. … Whoever deprives his neighbour of the very least good in his power, is not of my Jamaat.”

    This does not mean that such a person ceases to be a member of the Jamaat but that he is not fulfilling the true requirements of being in it.

    Hazrat Mirza sahib’s statement that he who has received my call but does not accept me is not a Muslim and is accountable before Allah also applies to those who consider themselves as Ahmadis. Addressing his followers, he writes in the above book just before the above lines:

    “you must not rest satisfied merely because you have taken the bai`at in an outward form. The outward form means nothing. Allah sees what lies in your hearts, and He will deal with you on the basis of what He sees there.”

    (Note: “He will deal with you” = “accountable before Him”)

    We (including myself) who claim to have received his call, but do not act upon the Islamic teachings he listed, are just as accountable before Allah, as any Muslim who does not respond to his call.

  33. Thank you Mr. Aziz for finally responding to me.  In the future, lets cut out the technicalities in your dealings with the public.  I assure you that I am a respectable person.  I havent cursed anyone or behaved improperly. 

    I will analyse your answer further and give a proper and respectful response. 

    Bilal wants non-contextual gratification like a child. His rules of the game are heads I win, tails I win. It is the most immature Freudian stage. He is no different than the Islam haters as pointed out by Dr Aziz who read non-contextual excerpted verses and announce Q.E.D. that Muslims are duty bound to slay everyone and to hate Jews and Christians. People like Bilal are not interested in truth. They live off sound bites and yearn to create one of their own. This is idolatry in its purest form when one’s ego is an internalized deity that has to be bowed and sacrificed to no matter what the cost in terms of falsehood.
    This youtube clip quite eloquently responds to the questions of Bilal i.e.
    1. What is the evidence that he represents Islam or the Holy Prophet, and not just himself and his twisted mind?
    2. Where else, and against whom else, has he represented Islam or the Holy Prophet?
    Listen to the testimony of peers of Mirza Sahib by the mouth of one of his opponents Dr. Israr Ahmed. Panel testifies to Mirza Sahib’s character, quality of Islam in Qadian, his single handed role in countering Arya Samaj and Christianity (which was spreading like a wild fire globally and in India), role of Ahmadiyyat in creation of Pakistan, Pay attention to names which were giants of their time: Sir Iqbal, Sir Syed, Syed Mir Hasan, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Maulana Sanaullah Amritsari, Abdul Majeed Salik and Ghulam Rasul Mehr.
    Bilal go put on trainer wheels on your bike.

  35. April 11th, 2011 at 5:55 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    “Listen to the testimony of peers of Mirza Sahib by the mouth of one of his opponents Dr. Israr Ahmed.”

    It was because of this admission by Dr Israr Ahmad that when he passed away last year we prayed for forgiveness of his soul. You can see how sincerely he speaks in this clip. He exonerated Hazrat Mirza sahib in the end and recognised his service to Islam boldly and openly. May Allah grant Dr Israr Ahmad forgivess and accept the good in his own service of Islam as he saw fit to carry it out, Ameen.

  36. Bilal Roberts says,

    I assure you that I am a respectable person.  I havent cursed anyone or behaved improperly.

    Previously he had said,

    Im not like you, I am honorable in debate.

    He boasts about how respectable and honorable he is yet does not hesitate to speak of willful misdirection and lying.

    In terms of bending the truth.  If a Muslim encounters an evil organization, in my opinion, they can behave per the situation.  A little bit of misdirection wont hurt.

    I am working for the Muslims at large.  Even Ibrahim (as) lied 3 times in an attempt to save people.  But you people deny that as well.

  37. @ ikram

    You appear to be very upset my existence.  Why the hostility?  Ahmadiyyat has proved to be nothing but a nuisance to Muslim countries.  I, however, like Ahmadis and want to open the dialogue into your doctrine.  I strongly believe that this is the proper course of action in an attempt to minimize Ahmadiyyat, or the family business of the Mirza. 

    You are taking Dr. Israr out of context.  Didnt Mr. Aziz just respond to me that MGAQ wrote a letter to Dr. Khan wherein the contents are a figure of speech or some type of comments that are indecisive? 

    Dr. Israr was simply explaining in terms of the plight of the Muslims in those days.  He never said that MGAQ was an honest and good Muslim.  Yes, MGAQ did argue with hindus/christians and Muslims hadnt done that too much.  Muslims werent ready for the onslaughts.  MGAQ was well trained by the various religions that he met in his days in Sialkot. 

    And again, it would take these Muslim scholars years of ardent research to fully comprehend the entire crux of Ahmadiyyat. 

  38. at Mr. Aziz

    Im not done with you yet.  However, I do respect that courtesy that you have afforded me here on this blog. 

    You seem to tell the Muslims at-large, like me, that when we read the books of MGAQ we arrive at conclusions that are unfounded.  Yet, I accuse you of the same.  I accuse you of taking bits and pieces from Dr. Israr’s mini-interview and claiming that he thought MGAQ to be “overall” a good person.  Dr. Israr was only speaking of a few honorable objectives of MGAQ.  The truth is, these werent honorable attempts at all. 

    MGAQ and the Lekh Ram controversy proved that MGAQ only caused communal strife in India.  He should have been able to sway the hindus and sikhs into a mutual love of Islam.  Instead, the existence of MGAQ was nothing short of a nuisance.  


  39. April 12th, 2011 at 11:22 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    “Im not done with you yet.” — So that’s your standard of courtesy then!

    “… MGAQ only caused communal strife in India. He should have been able to sway the hindus and sikhs into a mutual love of Islam.”

    He taught that the Hindu ancient religious figures were true prophets of Allah, and Vedas were originally revealed books. According to you, that caused communal strife. But your belief is that they were all false claimants to Divinity who established a false religion. That creates harmony and good relations!

    He taught that verbal attacks on Islam, by Hindus and others, should be answered by word only. According to you, that caused communal strife. But your belief is that any Muslim is allowed by Islam to murder a critic of Islam, and that the Muslim who murdered the publisher Raj Pal in Lahore in 1927 or so (Ilm-ud-Din Shaheed), is according to you a martyr! Today, you and your kind call for the killing of anyone, anywhere, who insults Islam.

    He taught that the founder of Sikhism was a Sufi Muslim, who tried bringing Hindus closer to Islam. You believe that the founder of Sikhism was a false prophet founding a false religion.

    I was justified earlier in calling you an enemy of Islam because we see that in whatever situation Hazrat Mirza sahib defended Islam (against Dr Abdul Hakim’s wrong belief about salvation, against the vicious attacks of Arya Samaj upon Islam and the Holy Prophet), you condemn him for defending Islam.

    You and your friends are hiding behind this fake online identity because you cannot possibly have these beliefs ascribed to you which you are expressing here.

  40. Comment 1:

    Mr. Aziz, I will write my impression of your rebuttal in terms of what MGAQ actually said in that private letter to Dr. Khan. 

    1.  Firstly, we dont have the entire letter at our disposal.  Im sure there are other things in there that can prove to be useful. 

    2.  Secondly, it seems that you are saying that MGAQ’s policy is that only if a Muslim calls him a Kafir, only those Muslims were automatically Kafir per the famous hadith from Bukhari.   You are saying that this was the policy of MGAQ. 

    3.  You are claiming that the statements in this private letter were an example of MGAQ saying that people werent Muslim like Muhammad (saw) had said, and then you provided references wherein Muhammad (saw) said some people would be short of being Muslims if they didnt fullfil certain requirements.  But, Muhammad (saw) meant this in a general sense. 

    If what you are saying is true, then Mahmud Ahmad never called Muslims as Kafirs either.  When he did say it he only meant it in terms of who is Momin.  You just shot yourself in the foot buddy.  You have totally destroyed your arguments against the Ahmadis changing their beliefs in 1954 as Faruqi and Hafiz Sher Muhammad wrote in their books. 

    If what you are saying is true, Mahmud Ahmad never contradicted himself, he was just misunderstood, and the Qadianis have used this same argument against you people time and time. 

    Comment 2:

    1. First and foremost, MGAQ gave a death threat to Lekh Ram in 1886. MGAQ was so cunning a person that he didnt announce it formally. However, in 1893 or so, he announced the death threat formally to Lekh Ram, even though it had expired, MGAQ re-issued it, he recycled it. The murder of Lekh Ram was the height of communcal strife in India in this era (see Spencer Lavan). MGAQ even got his house searched by the authorities.

    2. Is this a proper method of engagement? I think not. But then, I see your methods, and it all makes sense.

    3. Guru Nanak was NOT a Muslim. Just because he had some arabic writings on his cloak that doesnt prove his religious orientation. Is this the best argument that MGAQ came up with? How do you think Sikhs felt about that? They werent happy thats for sure.

    4. MGAQ’s idea for creating a connection with the Hindus was to make their GODS as prophets?? Thats just stupid. They werent prophets. Yes, Allah sent prophets everywhere. Is this the best idea that MGAQ had? And…it didnt even work. What percentage of the hindu population joined the Ahmadis. I cant remember not even one famous Ahmadi who was previously a hindu or sikh.

    5. How dare you put words into my mouth. I never said that Muslims should kill anyone. It is fabrication by the doctor, he should produce any book or poster of mine wherein this is written.

    5.a. My answer is the same as your founders’ answer to Dr. Khan. Thats funny!

    6. MGAQ did not get into a battle of words with Lekh Ram. He issued a death-threat. The british govt was sooo tired of MGAQ’s antics that they legally made him stop these stupid death threats. And MGAQ began to issue them abroad.

    Ahmadis are the enemies of Islam. But Muslims must learn to be nice. We can easily beat you people with arguments. I think that 99% of Ahmadis havent studied the work of their founder.

  41. @Roberts Bilal,

    “MGAQ and the Lekh Ram controversy proved that MGAQ only caused communal strife in India. ”

    Because of your Anglo-Saxon name, may be you will realize you are absolutely WRONG when you accuse Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib of “MGAQ only caused communal strife in India”, after read reading a book by another Anglo-Saxon author.
    Arya Dharm
    Hindu Consciousness in 19th-Century Punjab
    by Kenneth W. Jones
    May be you realize that Lekh Ram was attacking Islam, Holy Quran, Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS, women of his house hold. Muslims of India were impotent to standup to Lekh Ram. It was only HMGA who stood up and with grace of Almighty Allah defeated Lekh Ram and his cohorts.
    Read following link to my post on the said book. May Allah SWT gives you capacity to see the truth and courage to acknowledge the truth.

  42. April 12th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Bilal Roberts has submitted two comments which I have published in one post for ease of reference. He has now lost in this debate and it is therefore over.

    He lost on principle when he admitted that he lies to us to cheat us, and he lost by exploiting his anonymity so that he could claim to hold any belief that suited him at the time to get out of a corner.

    It is the height of absurdity to say that the interpretation which I presented of the letter should then, according to me, also be the interpretation given to it by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad! He interpreted it just as you, Bilal Roberts, are doing it now. That’s how the split started.

    “Qadianis have used this same argument against you people time and time.”

    Yes, that’s right. The Qadianis said, from 1954 onwards, we never called Muslims as kafir, we were consistent all along, Lahoris are wrong to accuse us of changing. Well, if the Qadianis say that they were consistent all along in holding Lahori beliefs, why should we object! Provided they state their belief about this issue clearly and unambiguously.

    Comment 2:

    3. So the Sikhs weren’t happy to learn that Guru Nanak was a Muslim. But the Quran taught, and Muslims keep on repeating, that all prophets such as Abraham, Moses and Jesus were Muslim, and this makes Christians and Jews unhappy. So your belief obviously is that the Quran should not have taught this!

    You are exploiting your anonymity because you would never dare say this as a known person.

    4. “MGAQ’s idea for creating a connection with the Hindus was to make their GODS as prophets?? Thats just stupid.”

    What you are saying here is that it was also a stupid idea of the Quran to make the Christian god into a prophet. Again, exploiting your anonymity. Just dare to say that in your real personna before Muslims!

    5. I am sorry but your comment about me (“How dare you put words into my mouth. I never said that Muslims should kill anyone. It is fabrication by the doctor, he should produce any book or poster of mine wherein this is written”) isn’t very clever.

    When Hazrat Mirza sahib gave this reply, his books and posters were available to everyone to read, as having been written by him. You can’t point to any such publications.

    I ascribed to you the belief held widely by Muslims that verbal abusers of Islam should be killed, and this is even the law in Pakistan. You say you don’t hold this belief. How do we know? Muslims who have opposed this belief have been killed for opposing it. It is easy for you to say this anonymously just for the sake of replying to my argument. Try saying it by standing up before Muslims who support it. Again, exploiting your anonymity!

    “Ahmadis are the enemies of Islam. But Muslims must learn to be nice.”

    You will never dare tell any Muslim opponent of Ahmadiyyat to be “nice”. You have previously said about us:

    “If a Muslim encounters an evil organization, in my opinion, they can behave per the situation. A little bit of misdirection wont hurt.”

    This means that by your above statement you are merely tricking Ahmadis into a sense of false security by lying to them that you want Muslims to be “nice” to them, so that you can achieve your real purpose of eliminating Ahmadis physically.

    Plenty of your comments, with their lies, distortions, contradictions, vitriol, abuses, and veiled threats, have now been published here, and none more will be. Let readers make up their own minds about their value.

Leave a Reply