The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

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).

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

‘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:

http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/hadith-in-the-ahmadiyya-theology-by-munir-d-ahmed

@ 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. 

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!

“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.

@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.

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? 

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.

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). 

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. 

@ 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. 

@ 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???? 

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 http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2010/11/24/yet-another-blasphemy-case/ )

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?

@ 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. 

@ 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. 

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.

 
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.

Bilal Roberts says,

I assure you that I am a respectable person.  I havent cursed anyone or behaved improperly. 
http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2011/04/05/facts-are-sacred/#comment-5372

Previously he had said,

Im not like you, I am honorable in debate.
http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2011/04/05/facts-are-sacred/#comment-5366

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.
http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2010/11/24/yet-another-blasphemy-case/

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.
http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2010/11/24/yet-another-blasphemy-case/

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.  

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.

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.