The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

The current thread begs the fundamental question “Does God communicate with (ordinary) man?”
 
If such a communication was only limited to Prophetic chain which terminated with Muhammad (PBUH), then there was no intelligent need for God to discuss the nature of revelations with non-prophets, who had nothing to do with the revelations to begin with.
 
In general, Divine Intelligence is no different than human intelligence as He imbibed that spirit in Adam and there are numerous verses about it. It is our intelligence which prevents us from jumping from upper story as we do not have wings. The basic understanding of right from wrong is something that humans get from the wombs of their mothers, though it could be refined by secular endeavors in life. Even though human intelligence is on a smaller scale than Divine Intelligence, yet it is on the same plane, else humans would not capture the Divine message.
 
It is the Divine Wisdom which differs from human wisdom as the Divine Wisdom has the extra benefit of knowing about the future which humans do not possess. Therefore, any apparent loss that might emanate from a virtuous deed in present has long term gains to which God provides guarantees e.g. truthfulness, righteousness, seeking peace even at cost of deceit by the enemy which was demonstrated by Muhammad in Peace Treaty of Hudayibbya etc.
 
It is under this Divine Wisdom that prophets are chosen. And it is the same Wisdom which determined Muhammad to be the last of the prophets. In His infinite Wisdom, Allah addresses the common man with regards to His communication to each one of us:

42:51. It is not given to a human being that Allâh should speak to him except by direct revelation or from behind a veil or by sending a messenger (- an angel) who should reveal (to him) by His command what He pleases. Indeed, He is the Most Sublime, the All-Wise.[Note: veil also implies veil of sleep i.e. dreams as well as divine inspiration, which can be hidden to everyone else, but the recipient]

 
Then it addresses Muhammad (PBUH) specifically:
 

42:52. (Prophet!) just so (as We sent revelations to other Prophets), We revealed to you the Word by Our command. (Before this revelation) you did not know what the Divine Book was nor (which of) the faith (it teaches), but We made it (- Our revelation to you) a light, whereby We guide such of our servants as We will. And truly you are guiding (mankind) on to the straight and right path,

42:53. The path of Allâh to whom belongs all that lies in the heavens and all that lies in the earth. Behold! to Allâh do all things eventually return.

 
Mirza Sahib in his various writings emphasizes salvation by means of Quran. This spirit of salvation in Islam is reflected in the following verses:
 

2:2. 2. This is the only perfect Book, wanting in naught, containing nothing doubtful, harmful or destructive, there is no false charge in it. It is a guidance for those who guard against evil; [i.e. guard by action, which is the fundamental revivalist message of Mirza Sahib]

2:3. Those who believe in the existence of hidden reality, that which is beyond the reach of human perception and ordinary cognisance [-this is at the core of progressive secular life and scientific discoveries], and who observe the Prayer and spend (on others) out of that which We have provided for them,[-this is where the secularist transitions into Islam, when he starts to believe in Divine Wisdom and the rewards of present and future]

2:4. And who (also) believe in that (Message) which has been revealed to you and in that which had been revealed before you, and who have firm faith in the Hereafter. [-thus making a Muslim seeker of the truth no matter what its source is. In the fourteenth Islamic century, its revivalist source was the Mujaddid’s message of Mirza Sahib]

2:5. It is they who follow the guidance from their Lord [the guidance may be by direct revelation to the individual and/or the Quran, and/or Mujaddids in our times who explain and contextualize the Quran to us while removing the accumulated temporal dross in Islam], and it is they alone who are successful in attaining their object in this life and in the Hereafter. [This is a challenge to Allah Himself. A rightfully guided person cannot be but Successful]

Please see this link for details:

http://www.ahmadiyya.org/sa-case/evidence/s04.htm

The Holy Quran itself uses the word wahy for revelation to the mother of Moses (28:7, 20:38) and to the disciples of Jesus (5:111). They were not prophets. In these verses Allah says “I sent wahy to…” or “We sent wahy to…”.

Then, in his classical dictionary of the Quran, Imam Raghib defines wahy as follows:

Al-kalimatu-llati tulqa ila anbiya’i-hi wa auliya’i-hi wahy-un.

“The word of God which is communicated to His prophets and His saints is called wahy.”

Thank you for your kind remarks. Here is my explanation.

If you read the extract in Kishti-i Nuh mentioned by you, or elsewhere where this revelation is mentioned, you will see that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has mentioned the last verse of Sura Tahrim (ch. 66) as being the source from which this concept is derived, and he writes that, according to this verse, just as a spirit from God was breathed into Mary and Jesus was born as a result, similarly after a believer (or he himself in this case) reaches the spiritual stage of Mary, then a spirit from God is breathed into him to produce a Messiah.

So the question is, what is meant by the following words of that verse:

“…Mary, daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into him (or it) of Our Spirit (ruh)…”.

What was breathed in, and what was it breathed into?

Now you had enquired about the Lahore Ahmadiyya interpretation. I will refer you to the Qadiani Jamaat interpretation of the above words of the last verse of Sura Tahrim (ch. 66).

1. Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, Khalifa 2, writes in his Tafsir Saghir:

“People say Jesus is the spirit because he was placed in the womb of Mary. This is lack of understanding. The meaning of ‘ruh’, as we have explained earlier, is also ‘word’. Thus it only means: We sent our word to Mary, and by this revelation We gave her the news of the birth of the Messiah.”

http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=758&region=TS

2. In the 5-volumed English commentary on http://www.alislam.org it is explained under this verse that the words “into him (or it)” mean “into the believer” or “into an opening through which sin can find access”. See:

http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=2653&region=E1

So it is not any spirit being breathed by God into Mary to make her pregnant, but into the believer.

3. In the Urdu translation by Mirza Tahir Ahmad sahib, Khalifa 4, the above words are translated as:

“so We breathed into that (child) something from our Spirit”.

See: http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1052&region=UR

So here it is Jesus into whom spirit or revelation is breathed.

Here then we have three opinions from the very highest leaders of the Qadiani Jamaat, saying that the spirit breathed was not the spirit which made Mary pregnant with Jesus, and therefore apparently contradicting the view of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

Maulana Muhammad Ali’s interpretation is exactly the same as Qadiani Jamaat commentators I have quoted above. So it is rather incomprehensible that Lahoris are accused of going against Hazrat Mirza sahib’s views on this issue, when Qadiani Jamaat khalifas are themselves giving the same interpretation as the Lahoris!

The fact is that the similarity between Mary and the believer who becomes ‘Mary’ in this verse does not require the belief that Mary conceived Jesus without a male agency. The meaning of the verse is that just as revelation was breathed into Mary after her purification, and as a result of this prophecy Jesus was born, similarly a believer after becoming ‘Mary’ has revelation breathed into him and gives birth to the Messiah. You could say that Mary became pregnant by the revelation or prophecy she received, which is not related to the question of how she became physically pregnant.

With all due respect.  Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion.  And yes I am an Ahmadi. 

I reviewed all the data that you posted.  It seems that Muhammad Ali wanted to make this verse sound as if the fetus/embryo (Jesus) was already developed and Allah simply breathed into an already developed person the spirit as a sign that the child would recieve divine revelation.  At least thats my understanding of the data that you presented. 

Whereas, we believe that Allah had Jibrael breathe into the womb of Mary which caused her to get pregnant.  See the books of HMGA (as) for further details. 

As far as the references to my jamaats Qurans are concerned.  This is just a drop in the bucket.  What I mean is that the entire story of the birth of jesus is conveyed through a multitude of verses and books by HMGA (as).  Yes, Hazrat Musleh Maud (ra) did define this particular verse with some ambiguity which gives the reader several options.  However, in other places he explains the immaculate conception theory admirably. 

Furthermore, in a book by HMGA (as) called Chashma e Masihi, the PM (as) says:

“When thousands of insects are born by themselves during the rainy season, and Adamas  was also born without parents, it is no proof of Jesus’ eminence if he, too, was born in the same manner (page 29).“ 

In the revelation of HMGA (as) that I referred to, I am of the opinion that in 1884 when HMGA (as) received this revelation he defined it as to point towards the immaculate conception of Jesus.  As it obviously does.  Almost 20 years later he began to elaborate on this revelation as well as his divine ideas on the topic.  In fact, I hypothesize that he used this revelation to base his fatwa on the birth of Jesus. 
 

Dear Mr. Aziz,

I have reviewed your explanation.  Can we agree to disagree?  I feel that the revelation of HMGA (as) in 1884, wherein the ruh of allah was breathed into him (he was mary at the time), was of the same nature as this verse that we have been discussing. 

This ruh that was breathed into Hazrat Mirza (as) sahib caused him to become pregnant and give birth to Jesus, which was himself.  I feel that this revelation implies that Jesus was born miraculously.  It is thus impossible to remain an Ahmadi and deny this revelation of Hazrat Mirza (as) sahib.  About 7 years later, Allah told Mirza sahib (as) that he was himself Jesus.  In 1902, Mirza sahib (as) explained the entire story that allah was telling him as early as 1884 that he was Jesus, Mirza sahib (as) just failed to understand. 

Furthermore, the 5 volume commentary by Malik Ghulam Fareed gives the translation as such:

“We breathed therein of our spirit”. 

http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=2653&region=E1&CR=

I think Fatwa was the wrong wording.  I meant to say that in Mahawab ur Rahman (1903), Hazrat Mirza (as) sahib confirmed that he believed Jesus to be born miraculously. 

With all due respect intended.  Thank you for publishing my responses.  I hope I have been respectful. 

I will just point out that there is another verse in the Holy Quran, similar to the last verse of ch. 66, which is as follows: “she who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her of Our ruh” (21:91).

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad writes about this verse as follows (the bolding is mine):

“It is an error to think that the spirit (ruh) breathed into Jesus was exclusive to him, not shared by anyone else. In fact, this view almost amounts to kufr. … Undoubtedly Jesus was one of those who are born free of the touch of the Satan and the spirit of Iblis. His being born without a father was a separate matter, which has no connection with the holy spirit. In the world, thousands of worms and insects are born during the rainly season without a father, in fact without a mother or a father. Are they called progeny of the holy spirit? The progeny of the holy spirit are those who are conceived when the mothers are in the condition of perfect virtuousness of character and the fathers are of perfectly pure minds.” (Tuhfa Golarwiyya, see Ruhani Khazain, v. 17, p. 297)

So, being born without a father is not connected with the verses about ruh being breathed into someone.

Ruh in this verse is considered by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as “spirit”. However, it is translated in Qadiani Jamaat English translations (short commentary, five-volume commentary, and the Maulvi Sher Ali versions) as “Word”, and likewise in Tafsir-i Saghir and Tafsir-i Kabir as “kalam”. In Mirza Tahir Ahmad sahib’s Urdu transation it is “amr”.

So none of these translations by the top-most, Qadiani Jamaat leaders accord with the Promised Messiah’s own rendering! Maulana Muhammad Ali has translated it as “inspiration”, which covers the idea of spirit as well as revelation.

Mr Arshad, you may be aware that the verse you have quoted is also used by the anti-Ahmadiyya people against the Promised Messiah to say that he created a further sect in Islam. In fact, your own Jamaat’s repeated claim is that you are the 73rd sect of Islam.

Your needing to quote from Seeratul Mahdi shows your lack of knowledge. That same view is to be found in the Promised Messiah’s own books! Do you consider Seeratul Mahdi as an authentic source?

You have not answered why the Qadiani translations of the Quran translate ruh differently from how the Promised Messiah explained the same word, as I showed above?

The founding of the Lahore Jamaat was necessary for the revival of Ahmadiyyat. It was proved correct when the Qadiani Jamaat had to retreat from their position of calling all other Muslims as kafir. Does the Qadiani Jamaat now hold the views of Mirza Bashir Ahmad (the younger) expressed in his book Kalimat-ul-Fasal published 1915? See this link:

http://www.ahmadiyya.org/qadis/takfir-kalimat-ul-fasl.htm

For example, he writes about the Kalima of Islam:

“…the same Kalima is still to be used for admission into Islam, the difference merely being that the coming of the Promised Messiah has added one more messenger to the significance of the words ‘Muhammad is the messenger of Allah’ “.

What a highly dangerous statement, which amounts to saying that Ahmadis believe in the Kalima but with a difference that they include the Promised Messiah in it implicitly.

“If the sons of HMGA were as bad as you people claimed …”

What about the followers of Moses of even his own time worshipping the calf, and similarly followers of Jesus deserting him? Does it mean their missions failed?

Dear Mr Aziz,

The Ahmadiyya jamaat was created by Hazrat Sahib officially in 1900 or so.  Im sure you know the story.  In 1914, Muhammad Ali sahib and his friends broke away.  Hazrat Mirza Bashirrudin Mahmud Ahmad (ra) didnt break-away.  He managed the original organization.  These are the facts.  You are trying to write that the creation of the LAM as a seperate sect of Ahmadiyyat doesnt constitute the creation of a break-away.  Please correct me if I am wrong. 

Furthermore, in 1906 HMGA (as) wrote a private letter to Dr, Abdul Hakim Khan that was recently discusses on this blog wherein Hazrat sahib (as) called all people as Kafirs. 

You, yourself wrote that in this instance Hazrat sahib (as) was using a figure a speech.  He did not mean it literally.  The same answer is valid for the writings of Hazrat Mirza Bashirrudin Mahmud Ahmad and Mirza Bashir Ahmad.  Can u agree? 

Dear Mr Rashid,

Allah directly told Hazrat Nuh (as) that his sons were evil.  The parallel doesnt exist in terms of Hazrat Sahib (as).  In fact, Hazrat sahib called Mirza Bashir Ahmad as the moon of the prophets.  He also spoke highly of all of his off-spring.  Furthermore, he exempted his family from paying to be buried in Bahisti Maqbara.   

@Arshad:
 
“The parallel doesnt exist in terms of Hazrat Sahib (as).  In fact, Hazrat sahib called Mirza Bashir Ahmad as the moon of the prophets.  He also spoke highly of all of his off-spring.”
 
Open your “HOLY BOOK” Tazkira, and look for quotes of HMGA where he gave his visions, in which he saw his wife (mother of QK2), children, and his place of meditation and prayer in humiliating conditions, far from spirituality and in pursuit of worldly gains.
 
“Furthermore, he exempted his family from paying to be buried in Bahisti Maqbara.”
 
HMGA knew his children do not/ will not qualify spiritually, but out of his paternal love he thought by making it free for them to get them buried might save them from fires of hell. STILL NONE OF HMGA CHILDREN GOT BURIED in Bahisti-Maqbara, in Qadian. Despite having physical possession, financial strength, political connections NONE of children of HMGA got buried there. Instead they opened their FRANCHISE Bahisti-Maqbara (B-M) in other countries and cities. QK4 wish was to be buried in B-M in Qadian, and for this purpose his body was transferred into a different smell leak proof casket for airline journey, still Allah SWT created situations that he does not get buried there. Not that everyone who gets buried in B-M Qadian is bound for paradise, rather it was ONLY a wish of HMGA to have righteous people get buried together.
 
WHAT OTHER EVIDENCE YOU NEED TO GET CONVINCED THAT HMGA WIFE AND CHILDREN WERE FAR FROM SPIRITUALITY.

Dear Arshad: Please re-read your own quotes. HMGA is writing about noble genealogy of his and his wife’s families only. No where is he mentioning the earned nobility of his wife and his children.
 
As regards wives of Nuh and Lot, they too were descendents of at least one prominent one, may I say Adam! There is no merit in genealogy in Islam. Muhammad PBUH himself belonged to an idolatrous family. But having said that, belonging to a virtuous family has it advantages to excel spiritually, but through action only e.g.:
 
2:2. … It is a guidance for those who guard against evil; [i.e. guard by action]
 
What do you or your Jamaat has to say about Solomon’s prayer below?
 
38:35. He [i.e. Solomon] said (praying), `My Lord! grant me protection and bestow on me a kingdom that belongs to none (by inheritance) after me. You indeed are the Great Bestower.

Dear Mr. Aziz,

Didnt Hazrat Sahib (as) have the same issue with Muhammad Ali sahib?  Didnt Muhammad Ali also get really sick once and it was thought that he had the plague?  Im sorry for not having the reference handy. 

Werent there other Ahmadis who died from the Plague?  Doesnt that complicate this particular revelation of Hazrat Sahib (as).  We all know that almost every single prophecy of Hazrat Sahib (as) was conditional.  Why are we venturing into an area that will cause communal strife between Ahmadis? 

The split happened.  Lets not defame each other anymore than we have already.  Can we agree on that?  Lets not attack the personalities…we should stick to doctrine.  In the case of Rashid, I believe he has relatives that are Ahmadi like me.  His case may be different because of family issues.  He appears to be distraught over the split.  His life appears to revolve around defaming my jamaat. 

“Did Hazrat sahib (as) err in terms of the numbers? ”

What is your answer to this question? Surely as a follower of Hazrat Mirza sahib you must have some explanation of your own.

If you are saying that he erred and your khalifas erred in the same way, then remember that the facilities he had for keeping records in the village of Qadian in 1890 were nothing as compared to the computerised facilities your Jamaat had in the modern world in the years late 1990s to early 2000s during which the claim of 200 million was made.

Also, the “simple math” is not 60k/365 per day but 60k/(7*365) per day, which is 23 or 24.

@Arshad:
 
You suggested Dr. ZA: “Lets not attack the personalities…we should stick to doctrine.”
 
Qadiani jamaat does efforts to clear name of Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS from charges on his character by opponents of Holy Prophet.

Qadiani jamaat also makes efforts to clear name of HMGA from charges on his character by opponents of HMGA (although references to these charges are provided from Qadianis Holy Book “Seeratul Mahdi” by Qadianis “Qamar-ul-Anbiyya” Mirza Bashir Ahmad).

But when it comes to charges on character of Qadiani Khalifa Mirza Mahmud Ahmad BY HIS OWN NEAR, DEAR, RELATIVES AND STAUNCH FOLLOWERS (remember none of these charges were originally made by QK2 opponents), Qadianis say: “Lets not attack the personalities…we should stick to doctrine.”!

Arshad, a person who is NOT brainwashed and NOT willing to swallow what ever is fed to him by Qadianis Khalifa can see through Qadianis defense. Qadianis know character of their QK2 is NOT defendable. So, they look for excuse where they don’t have to defend him. Today after 29 years I talked to my Qadiani friend, and he used the same argument that you suggested, and he heard the same reply that I gave you. He was quiet after listening to my reply.
 
“In the case of Rashid, I believe he has relatives that are Ahmadi like me.  His case may be different because of family issues.  He appears to be distraught over the split.  His life appears to revolve around defaming my jamaat.”
 
Don’t try to color my opposition to your QK2 as based on some personal issue. Lives of LAM members do revolve around issue of carrying HMGA mission. And they face difficulties created due to QK2. This is the reason they point out the person who caused all this harm.

My father was the first one in family to accept HMGA as ‘mamur-min-Allah’. Thank God none of my immediate blood relatives lived in Qadian or in Rabwah. According to Syed Mubarik Shah (relative of QK5 wife) son of Syed Sarwar Shah, currently living in Hamburg, Germany, QK2 messed in 500 families living in Qadian and Rabwah. So, it is unfortunately, families of today’s Qadianis who paid price of going with QK2 in 1914.

Mr Arshad, instead of diverting attention on how many visitors Hazrat Mirza sahib received 120 years ago, which cannot be determined now, think of what can be determined very easily now, i.e. the number of members in your records worldwide. Is it more like 1 million or like 10 million or like 100 million? We are only raising this question because your Jamaat repeatedly raises it and presents it as an argument of its truth.

No one “suspected” that Maulana Muhammad Ali had plague. The Promised Messiah said he couldn’t have got it! Of his own relations he said, they did get it because of weakness of faith. He told them to repent.

What comparison does this have with the birth of Jesus issue? The Promised Messiah was proved correct before people’s eyes who saw that Maulana Muhammad Ali was actually perfectly well. Yet his relatives did not recover without his special prayers because they lost the protection promised by the revelation. These are known facts, not interpretations of an event in the distant past.

You say: “we do have freedom of expression and thought in the Ahmadiyya Movement”. What proof can you give of this claim? Can you show examples of people who are exercising this freedom by being able to openly express their opinions even if it disagrees with your Jamaat leadership? Can you show your own example that you ever expressed an opinion within your Jamaat which differed from the leadership, and you were allowed by them to do so?

Remember, freedom of expression is not being free to say the same thing as your Jamaat leadership! It is being able to say the opposite. Also, freedom of expression is not being free to say anything you like through this blog when no one knows who you are! It is being able to say what you like as a person known to your audience.

So please go ahead and express an opinion which is opposed to your Jamaat leadership’s view, and do it as an identifiable member of your Jamaat, and that will test whether your Jamaat allows freedom of expression or not.

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s ILHAM for Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Ali and other elders of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement:

On HPP channel video:
Qadianies insult the very pious and devoted friends of Hazrat Masih Maud. Mirza Mahmud Ahmed, Khalifa Sani and so-called Musleh Maud used derogatory and abusive remarks about Maulana Mohammad Ali and his Jammat Lahore.
لاھور کے اصحاب کی تکذیب

 http://www.youtube.com/ahmediyyagazette1#p/u/1/YfCv9UkxAr0

Apparently, the “Freedom of Speech and Expression” ingrained in Qadiani Jamaat is accepted by their leadership as long as it is directed towards Lahoris and not towards themselves.  This reminds me of the cliche of a joke:
 
A businessman from the United States of America is at a restaurant in Riyadh. He tells the local host that the USA is the best country in the world because of the freedoms it has. He says, “Take Freedom of Speech for example. I could stand in front of the White House in Washington D.C. and yell ‘President Bush is an idiot!’ and nothing would be done to me.”
 
The Saudi replies, “We have that same freedom in the kingdom. I could stand in front of King’s Palace and yell the same thing and nothing would be done to me either!”