The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Jesus prophesied to his followers:

“Be on your guard! You will be taken to courts and beaten with whips in their meeting places. And because of me, you will have to stand before rulers and kings to tell about your faith.” (Mark 13:9)

Other translations of the same passage are:

“Watch out for yourselves. People will hand you over to the councils. You will be beaten in the synagogues. You will stand before governors and kings because of me so that you can testify before them.”

and:

“You must be careful! There are people who will arrest you and take you to be judged for being my followers. They will beat you in their synagogues. You will be forced to stand before kings and governors. You will tell them about me.”

This, then, is yet another likeness between the Israelite Messiah and the Messiah of Islam.

At least Pontius Pilate had some decency and tried indirectly to save Jesus, but when he failed to persuade the Jewish leaders and their followers, this happened:

“When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, ‘I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.’ And all the people answered and said, His blood be on us and on our children.” (Matthew 27:24-25)

But the Pakistani Pilate, rather than washing his hands, claimed credit for the sentence passed against the Messiah of Islam.

Also notice above the words: “And all the people answered and said…”. Sounds familiar?

Read the statement by Abdul Hafeez Pirzada (Law Minister), presenting the final resolution, on pages 3072-3074:

“… the nation could ill afford to divide itself on such a vital issue … we had to … look and search for a consensus so that the nation should not be divided on such a vital issue and the decision of the National Assembly should come unanimously and by consensus. It is my proud privilege … to state … that such consensus and unanimity has been arrived at.”

Ponder on: “His blood be on us and on our children”.

The only relevant question in this context is, did he or did he not faithfully, accurately and completely articulate the beliefs of LAM?

@Umar:
Dear Qadiani Jamaat friend,
This thread is about testimony of marhoom Abdul Manan Omar sahib in Pakistan National Assembly in 1974. This thread is NOT about life and beliefs of Abdul Manan Omar sahib. But if you insist to know about him, I recommend you to read what he himself said about his life and beliefs, WHILE UNDER OATH, in National Assembly.
Please read FROM PAGE 1834 TO 1840. There he has answered to questions regarding his beliefs while in Qadian and Rabwah, his reasons for working under leadership of Qadiani Khaliaf 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad. Still if you have questions, I would request you to please post your questions in the following thread. You can go there by clicking the link. There you will be able to read marhoom Abdul Manan sahib interviews, in which he has answered question in much detail. Again, in interviews he has answered questions about his life in Qadian and Rabwah, his beliefs and much more.
Interview with Maulana Abdul Mannan Omar
http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2011/06/29/interview-with-maulana-abdul-mannan-omar/

 
@ Dr. Zahid Aziz:
 
“No one is now alive who can explain the composition of the Lahore Ahmadi delegation, or the accuracy and quality of the answers given by them.”
 
I have information:
 
LAM delegation included following people:
 
1-      Maulana Sadr-ud-Din sahib(Head of LAM)
 
2-      Abdul Manan Omar sahib (main witness of LAM)
 
3-      Masood Baig sahib (General Secretary of LAM)
 
4-      Mirza Latif sahib (librarian-to assist in finding references from HMGA books)
 
5-      Mirza Salim sahib (librarian-to assist in finding references from HMGA books)
 
Chaudhry Fatah-e-Muhammad Aziz sahib, was able to hear the entire testimony on audio hook-up in the office of secretary of National Assembly.
 
Accuracy and quality of answers of LAM witness were certified by Maulana Sadr-ud-Din sahib.  If anyone disagrees then I would request that person to kindly point out question in reply of which LAM witness answered different from that of HMGA beliefs, claims, and statements.

In the 1974 NA hearings, a prominent PPP member, minister and author of a book about Ahmadiyyat, on 5th September 1974, declared anti-Ahmadiyya Ulama as holding the rank of prophets!

See this page, and read red-lined passage (Pages 2666-2667 of proceedings, p. 1487 of the pdf file).

Malik Muhammad Jafar (see link about his life) was presenting a series of recommendations to the government about combatting Ahmadiyya influence. Here he is presenting his last recommendation, which was for the government to set up an organisation to propagate the finality of prophethood in order to make Ahmadis leave Ahmadiyyat. In the course of it he says:

“How did it happen that in an Islamic society a man claimed prophethood, whose claim had so many contradictions, as well as in his other matters, and in everything, with so many things wrong, yet despite all this educated persons in Islamic society, scholars, members of Sayyid families, people such as Maulvi Nur-ud-Din and Maulvi Muhammad Ali, joined this Jamaat?

About our ulama there is an order in the Quran to Muslims that they should have a group — and this is about the ulama — who show people the right path. Then there is a hadith about the ulama [Arabic]: The ulama of my Umma hold a status equal to the prophets of the Bani Israil. What a great status …”

Where I have written “[Arabic]”, the transcript just contains the same bracketed word, without quoting the hadith.

In the world of bizarre contradictions this must win the first prize: that ulama preaching the “absolute and unconditional” finality of prophethood with the Holy Prophet are described as holding a status equal to prophets!

Another point arising from his statement is his recognition of the scholarship and eminence of Maulana Nur-ud-Din sahib and Maulana Muhamamd Ali sahib. This shows that the Assembly was not unaware of their renown.
 

 
Apart from what the above implies on its own, there is a further twist I bring to your attention. Since the same hadith has been presented by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in support of his claim, during the second South Africa court case our opponents claimed in the court room that this hadith is not authentic and not found in any books of Hadith. So our team (I wasn’t in it), under Hafiz Sher Muhammad sahib, worked throughout the night to find references in books of Muslim scholars (e.g. Mujaddid Alif Sani) who have quoted and accepted this saying, even though it is not in any book of Hadith.

If we then had access to these proceedings, obviously we would have put this forward. I can tell you that if in those days our advocates in Cape Town could have read these proceedings, our opponents would have been trounced by them. Zia-ul-Haq had released them to our opponents for their benefit.

Major error of fact by Yahya Bakhtiar. His case collapses almost before it begins!

At this link please see a couple of pages from the summing up of the case by Yahya Bakhtiar. I have red-lined in the margin the four quotations from Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad given by him. (pages 2689-2690 of proceedings, although page numbers are not visible, and these are pages 1498-99 of the pdf file.)

According to the theory presented by YB, Hazrat Mirza sahib expressed these views “at this stage, from 1875-76 to 1888-89”. YB says further on page 2691 “at this stage he had not proclaimed that he was a promised Messiah or prophet”.

The first quotation is from Hamamat-ul-Bushra, published 1894.

The second quotation, as indicated by YB, is from Kitab-ul-Bariyya. That was published in 1898.

The third quotation, as indicated by YB, is from Izala Auham. That was published in 1891.

The fourth quotation is actually dated by YB at “20th of Shaban”.  I don’t know from where Yahya Bakhtiar got his elementary education but a date is not complete without a year (for example, it is incomplete to say that Z.A. Bhutto was hanged on 4th April). The year of that quotation is 1314 A.H. and the very opening words of the ishtihar are: “Yesterday 24 January 1897”.

So the quotations he gives are all after the so-called first stage, and well after the time he claimed to be Promised Messiah in 1891. YB’s first stage ends in 1888-89, and two of his quotations “from the first stage” are from 1897 and 1898!

Therefore Yahya Bakhtiar’s case, founded on dividing Hazrat Mirza Sahib’s beliefs into stages, collapses right at the outset. Al-hamdu li-llah.

I think the reason why these proceedings were classified as secret and not to be released for decades by Z.A. Bhutto must be that he was aware of the ridicule that these would be subjected to, from a legal, constitutional, religious and even plain logical point of view, and would not stand up even to cursory scrutiny.

Below is an excerpt from an article in Daily Times, Lahore (Monday, October 22, 2012). While the author comments about Ahmadis in general, he essentially is talking about Qadianis who insist on themselves as a separate community/sect. His last three sentences do give a hindsight 20/20 moment to make one pause. But, in big scheme of things, it is incumbent on one to speak for the truth, if and when it is needed. As identified before in the thread by Dr. Aziz, Jesus appeared before Pilate and Jafar Tayyar (son of Abu Talib) before Negus. The last episode of such appearance is of Ahmadi’s before the NA:
 
COMMENT : The 1974 NA proceedings on the Ahmadi issue — Yasser Latif Hamdani
 
While the deep state is recognised and rightly so for its nefarious role in keeping the general will of the people subservient to the vested interests of those who hold the strings, it must also be stated that some of our worst decisions have had nothing to do with the deep state. Consider the role of Pakistan People’s Party’s (PPP) in 1974 when it declared Ahmadis to be out of the fold of Islam, which has since created sectarian monsters in Pakistan of which there seems to be no solution any more. The in-camera proceedings of the National Assembly — especially the cross examination of the two Ahmadi delegations, one from the Qadiani Jamaat and the other from Lahori Jamaat — are now common knowledge thanks to a public interest writ petition no. 7283/2010 by one Bashir Ahmad Khan adjudicated by his Lordship, Ijaz Chaudhry, then of the Lahore High Court. This report is an eye-opener as to how far the ‘liberal’ PPP went in its efforts to declare an entire community out of the pale of Islam.
 
The argument of both Ahmadi delegations was simple and straightforward: whatever the personal views of a sect within Islam, the state had to remain neutral and respect each sect’s interpretation. In other words, if a person professes to be a Muslim, the matter becomes one between him and God Almighty. The first Ahmadi delegation led by Mirza Nasir Ahmad forthrightly put forward that there were two definitions of Muslims: one, the political category whereby all sects should be considered within the ‘Millat-e-Islamia’ and the second, a religious category that is to be left to each Muslim sect and would not be the business of the state. Only this way can an endless conflict with regards to takfir after takfir could be avoided and political unity of the Muslim peoples be ensured.
 
Instead of addressing these issues, Yahya Bakhtiar, the then attorney general, repetitively attacked Ahmadis on essentially two counts, i.e. Ahmadis’ views on other sects and on Ahmadis’ insistence on being counted as a separate sect or group of Muslims. By making the whole proceeding about Ahmadis’ religious beliefs and not the question of law, i.e. whether the state had any right to interfere in the individual’s religious beliefs, Mr Bakhtiar and the PPP conceded a point that hitherto the Pakistani state had refused to concede to the clergy, i.e. a majority can decide the beliefs of a minority constitutionally. This is hogwash and a throwback to the days of the execution of Sir Thomas More, who was executed in 1535 for his ‘Catholic’ beliefs in a Protestant England or earlier the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The problem with that is — other than the fact that we do not live in antiquity or even the Middle Ages — Pakistan’s National Assembly is constitutionally not the religious assembly of all the Islamic world. Islam does not recognise a clergy and finally, and most importantly, Pakistan is not self-avowedly a sectarian Sunni or Shia Muslim state, which Protestant England was, and the United Kingdom in theory still is. Indeed, even if we concede that Pakistan is an Islamic state, its constitution takes pains to establish Islamic provisions are to be interpreted and applied according to each sect.
 
The second plank of Mr Bakhtiar’s argument was that Ahmadis had submitted themselves to a separate community and therefore it was alright to declare them out of the fold of Islam. He relied heavily on the fact that at the time of partition, the Ahmadi community gave a separate representation before the boundary commission, overlooking the fact that the Muslim League had given time from its own allotted time to the Ahmadi community to give its representation, which was a supplemental representation given to counteract the Sikh case for Nankana Sahib. The proceedings also contain absolute historical untruths by leaders like Mufti Mehmood, the father of Maulana Fazlur Rehman, against Ahmadis to the effect that Ahmadis somehow were opposed to the creation of Pakistan. On the contrary, Ahmadis, as a jamaat (party), had been instrumental in the Muslim League’s victory in the 1946 elections, and this was duly recognised by Quaid-e-Azam and the Muslim League. It is for this reason that Jinnah had chosen Zafrullah to plead the Muslim case before the Boundary Commission. Meanwhile, Mufti Mehmood had been until partition a leading worker for the Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind and the Congress, having opposed the creation of Pakistan throughout, as did most of the Islamic divines who in 1974 deposed against the Ahmadis.
 
The 1974 proceedings expose the dual-faced bigotry of the mullahs and their ability to lie blatantly. The same mullahs, of course, later became the recipients of the funds that were released by Messrs Beg, Durrani and Younas Habib. In many ways, the proceedings are also a damning indictment of the PPP and its liberal protestations. Far from being liberal or secular, the PPP comes across as a prejudiced and biased majoritarian party. In retrospect, the decision by Ahmadis to even submit themselves to such examination and exercise in futility was a tactical mistake of immense proportions. Perhaps they assumed that reason might still prevail over ignorance and bigotry. They were wrong.

Here is another interesting exchange from the proceedings. I translate it below from Urdu, but note that where “Mr Chairman” says “Not allowed” and again “Not allowed, not allowed”, these words are given in English in the record.

Link to pages 3002-3003 of proceedings (p. 1543 of pdf)

Chaudhry Shafa`at Khan Chohan says (starting from last two lines of page 3002):

There is no doubt that Mirza was a false prophet and this has been proved in this House. I believe we can make the decision to declare his followers as a minority. But in this connection I will say that those few, in fact 113 ulama, who issued a fatwa in 1970 declaring the People’s Party and its leaders to be kafir ….

Mr Chairman: Not allowed.

Chaudhry Shafa`at Khan Chohan: They are also liars.

Mr Chairman: Certainly not. Not allowed, not allowed.

Chaudhry Shafa`at Khan Chohan: I will say just one thing.

Mr Chairman: For at least one day, just be cautious. This politics will continue in the future.

Chaudhry Shafa`at Khan Chohan: Along with this I say that as there is unity among Muslims today, then at least in the matter of fatwas the Constitution should disallow any Muslim from declaring any sect as kafir.

Mr. Chairman: If such speeches are made, then unity will not remain.

Chaudhry Shafa`at Khan Chohan: As far as the present issue goes ….

Interruption.

Mr Chairman: Thank you very much. That’s all.”
  

 
It is clear what is happening here.  Chaudhry Shafa`at Khan Chohan, a member of the People’s Party, is saying that since Ahmadis are now to be declared as kafir (i.e. the rest of Muslims are therefore Muslims by the same principle), therefore the earlier fatwas of the ulama declaring the People’s Party and Z.A. Bhutto as kafir are false. As you see, instantly the Chairman of the House says: You are not allowed to say this! Chaudhry Shafa`at Khan Chohan then says that as there is unity among Muslims today (i.e., unity that Ahmadis are kafir and all the rest are Muslims), therefore the Constitution should also prohibit any Muslim to declare any Muslim sect as kafir!

The Chairman responds that this way you will break the unity, and cuts him short.

But, Blog readers, Chaudhry Shafa`at Khan Chohan’s argument (I don’t know if he was being serious or sarcastic) is that now, having excluded Ahmadis, we know who all the Muslims are. So all of them should be Muslims according to one another!

No wonder, then,  that they prevented this point from being pursued, as this will break the “unity” between the socialist, secularist People’s Party and the conservative Islamic parties.

An interesting letter on the subject. found here:

http://pakteahouse.net/2010/01/27/attention-madam-speaker-of-the-national-assembly-of-pakistan/
 

More and more Muslims are running away from “your country” to Western countries where they become part of a minority. Please explain how they “deal with” being a minority in UK, USA, etc. They “deal with it” by declaring that they are loyal to the non-Muslim country in which they are living, i.e. by their own standards they become British agents, American agents, etc.

I have come across people living in USA and UK who are Muslims according to the Pakistan Constitution, and they are trying to hide and conceal that they are Muslims because Muslims are often under suspicion by the authorities. One said to me, after the 7/7/2005 incident took place in London: When I travel by public transport, I try not to look like a Muslim. So that’s how you deal with being a minority!

Talking about minorities, remember the pre-Bangladesh Pakistan which existed till 3 years before 1974? I do. Who was the minority in that Pakistan? Yes, the minority was the province which became the new Pakistan. You are that minority, the minority defeated humiliatingly by India.

If we have no right to call ourselves Muslims, someone should question your right to call yourself Pakistani. Pakistan was what was created by Mr M.A. Jinnah. You are a minority who can be said to have usurped the name Pakistan.

To release this record was a great mistake because now we and the world can scrutinise it, and the whole world and history will ridicule these proceedings!

Commonalities between Hanuman (the Monkey god of Hindus) and Qadiani Khalifa
Malik Muhammad Safi-Ullah (aka Rind Malik), is an active Qadiani based in Canada. He sends emails, but makes sure there are no other email addresses so ‘Reply All’ cannot be sent. So I am posting reply to one of his emails on this forum.

In his email dated 10/25/2012 he writes in reply to question by Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar in 1974 NA proceedings, Qadiani Khalifa 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad replied: “Khalifa is made by Allah”.

I wonder what QK 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad had replied if Attorney General had made comment, “by this corollary Hindus are true in their belief when they say their Monkey-god Hanuman is also made by Allah.”

So, next time when Qadianis think of preaching to Hindus they should remember, Hindus deity Hanuman is also made by same Creator who makes Qadiani Khalifas.

During the 1974 proceedings…the Lahoris came and refused to answer any questions, much like the blog.  Here is the proof:

Page 1634

“..I asked him some questions about Mirza Sahib’s claim.  He was not answering and was avoiding; and so I left the subject with a view to come back  to the subject.  Again he was avoiding.  I left it.  I went to a third subject.  And now I am coming back to the same subject again.  But I have to give up the subject because the man insists on delivering speeches which he has prepared.”

Mirza Nasir acted in the same way.  This is more than ample proof of Ahmadiyyat.  
 

Bhutto’s government knew that it was their false propaganda that they had triumphed in the NA and proved Ahmadis to be non-Muslim. That’s why they imposed a ban on publishing these proceedings. Other people, in particular later generations, actually believed the false propaganda, and therefore have unwisely allowed them to be published. Little did they know how ridiculous, flawed, baseless, and unprincipled the proceedings will look when people read them!

Even Lahoris admit that Qadianis are a danger.  Even Lahoris admit that Qadianiat is a fake religion.  

Just admit it…the Lahoris never came to this assembly with an idea to tell the truth.  

And we know you people dont answer any questions.

And that little South Africa case of yours was a sham…did any Muslims even show up to the hearing??

So tell me…who is a bigger threat, Qadianis or the general body of Muslims in Pakistan?  And…who do you hate more?

Remember…Lahoris have been anti-Qadiani circa 1914. 

And why do you call terrorists my friends?  Are you calling me a terrorist?  Do you consider all Muslims as terrorists?

The biggest threat to Muslims is most probably the US presence in Afghanistan.  However, you refuse to condemn those people.  Moreover, when you were in South Africa you didn’t condemn the Brits and you still don’t.  You only condemn Muslims and promote a version of Islam that is friendly with the Europeans.  

However, you seem to ridicule and condemn your own country men regularly.  And this is simply based on your hate for them.  You appear to be overly upset that your own country men have called your religion a sham and a threat to society.  

Further, Lahoris had every opportunity to represent Islam in the West.  They had the Woking Mosque under their wing of management and influence for 50+ years, however, this mission had no long term effect.  

In 1914, Muhammad Ali and Kamalaaluddin were right.  Ahmadiyyat needed to move away from Mirza sahib, his family and his writings.  These guys did exactly that…however, the family of Mirza sahib continued to peddle their product as a means of sustenance for their family.  This caused major problems for the LAM.  Because of the business aspirations of Mahmud Ahmad, Ahmadiyyat was forever exposed.  

As a result of the above…your religion was also called Kafir in 1974.   

Yes, i agree, you condemn Muslims at every opportunity.  That much is clear. You should think as to who has caused all of this conservatism in Islam.  The answer is the western powers that you admire so much.

Do you think that the Christians in Pakistan or Arabia are genuine in their pledges to the govt?  Was Muhammad Ali and Kwaja Kamalluddin sahib genuine in their pledges of 1909 to Maulvi Noorudin sahib??  The question of genuine is absurd.  A poor man will pledge his loyalty to whomever is feeding him that day.  You may not ever understand this because you were upper class, as most Lahoris were in India.  

Further, the internal problems of Muslims in Pakistan is none of your business since you are not a citizen of Pakistan, i.e. a Muslim.  Moreover, if I examined the internal problems of Ahmadiyyat, i.e. Lahorism vs Qadianism, I would recover similiar sentiments.  

Yes..I agree, you people sold Islam on a global scale.  Muhammad Ali got his royalties and so did Kamaalludddin.  In the end, it was all about capitol gains.  There was nothing genuine in your approach.  The Qadian side of the house did the same…and both of us agree that it was a sham.  

Muhammad Ali may have written about Mirza sahib throughout his life.  However, he disagreed with some of his concepts, i.e. the immaculate conception.  In my opinion, he watered down Ahmadiyyat in terms of Takfeer and prophethood in an attempt to give it more appeal.  Muhammad Ali may have mentioned Mirza sahib here and there…however, how many books of Mirza sahib were sold from the Woking?  

Muhammad Ali continued to debate the Qadianis because he had no option.  They were selling the same product.  Pepsi and Coke are always entangled similarily.  

In 1953, Justice Munir did you people a favor.  You people had sooo much influence in politics….

And now you call me a coward.  However, there isnt 1 youtube video of you giving a speech or a talk on anything.

You are beyond hilarious and hysterical.  

Admit it, the Lahori delegation was disingenuous at the Assembly meeting.  They never answered questions nor did they ever want to.  As a member of your blog commented, the Lahoris had inside information.  

You are truly a coward.  Are the native americans genuine after getting their country stolen?  Were they even genuine for any of those treaties or we they trying to survive?

Grow up….you behavior is childish.  

@Muslim 1,

Since you are not a citizen of Israel, you cannot condemn Israeli atrocities against Palestinians. The internal problems of Palestinians in Israel are none of your business.

Oh Mr. Zahid Aziz you have spun yet another series of arguments.  This is precisely why the Ulema has always said that to beat an Ahmadi in arguments is very hard…you people are experts in twisting and turning.  

Further. if we ever got you people on the stand genuinely, we could prove that Mirza sahib claimed prophethood and you are a watered-down version of him.  

Moreover, during the time of Mirza sahib in British India, Ahmadis were quick to tell on their fellow brothers in terms of allegiance to the oppressor.  In fact, your precious Mirza bragged about helping the oppressor suppress the independence movement of 1857.  

In conclusion, you are always ready to point fingers at your own people, however, you will never blame the British for anything that they have done wrong.

“Further. if we ever got you people on the stand genuinely,…”.

Who is this “we” that you are talking about? Does it include you?

The leading anti-Ahmadiyya Ulama did have our Hafiz Sher Muhammad sahib on the stand in Cape Town for a number of weeks in September-October 1987 under cross examination by their advocate. So it’s happened before.

I am prepared to be put on the stand by you. Do proceed with legal action. But remember that to take legal action you will have to do it under your name. You can’t take legal action as “Muslim1”, and you will have to appear in person in court. Remember also that both parties have to take the stand, so you (or the people called “we”) will also have to take the stand and be cross-examined.

I am ready and waiting. I will answer the other allegations in your last comment from the witness stand. Since you intend to proceed with legal action, it is not proper to continue discussing here any issue which will be raised in court. Please do post here a list of names of the “we” who want to get me on the stand.

(PS: To nail the lie of “Muslim1” (among his numerous lies) that “you will never blame the British for anything that they have done wrong”, I refer readers to the letter by Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din published in the Review of Religions (Qadian), May 1913, read at the meeting of the All-India Muslim League, Lucknow, about the attitude towards the Muslim world in England. See this link.)

At the start of his last comment Muslim1 writes:

“This is precisely why the Ulema has always said that to beat an Ahmadi in arguments is very hard…you people are experts in twisting and turning.

Further. if we ever got you people on the stand genuinely,..”

So he believes that it is “very hard” to beat an Ahmadi in arguments, yet he wants to put us on the stand! It’s this kind of bizarre illogical reasoning that makes Muslim1 and his fellows hold the other beliefs against us that they do.

@Lutf:
“Why would Peerzada later claim that Malik Jaafar was an Ahmadi?”

Malik Jafer Khan belonged to Qadiani family. He was by birth Qadiani. He turned against Qadiani Khalifa and by extension against HMGA, just as:

1-      QK4 Mirza Tahir Ahmad’s right hand man Shaikh Ahmad Karim (owner of website ahmedi.org) . He was the person who pushed and shoved QK4 brother Mirza Rafi Ahmad, and threw him outside the room where QK4 was elected to office of Qadiani Khalifa. Remember: Mirza Rafi Ahmad was contender for the office. Compare QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad statement in Nation Assembly in 1974, where he tried to create an impression of very “loving”, “sincere”,  “fair”, “peaceful” atmosphere at the times of election of Qadiani Khalifa.

2-      Chaudhry Akbar Ahmad, the Spokesman of Khatam-e-Nabuwat Academy-UK. Considered “scholar” by Mullah TV station TakbeerTV, UK. The same man was creator and webmaster of now defunct Qadiani discussion forum ‘ahmadiyya.com’ from Canada.

3-      Shahid Kamal Ahmad former Qadiani Khuddam member and now creator of website thecult.info

As I find time I will write a post about conversation between Malik Jafar Khan and Abdul Manan Omar sahib, regarding anti-HMGA book authored by Malik Jafar Khan.

@ All Ahmadis

What is this court case that you people are referring to or begging for??? I am not even in the UK….

Further, all you people will do is lie and say that Mirza sahib never claimed prophethood. We will spend 2 years alone debating this with no end in sight.

How can Muslims debate with Ahmadis with Ahmadis will lie throughout the interrogation process?? Its a double negative.

For example, Lahoris agree with Muslims that the Mirza brothers called Muslims Kafirs from 1911 on…however, the Qadianis will never agree. They will put a spin on the entire matter.

So..based on that…what is a debate gonna solve?

Regarding the comments of Muslim1 addressed to me and to “all Ahmadis”, blog readers will immediately see that Muslim1 is now totally contradicting himself.

Now he writes:
“I never said that the Muslims in the UK are NOT loyal citizens.”

Well, he has repeated the comment he made in response to my statement when I wrote:

“Thousands of them [i.e. Muslims] every year are swearing the oath of allegiance to Britain when acquiring British citizenship!”

He commented that their swearing the oath was not “genuine” and gave examples of oaths of loyalty which he considers as not being genuine.
    
He asks now:
“What is this court case that you people are referring to or begging for?”

It is the one that he himself wanted when he wrote: “Further. if we ever got you people on the stand genuinely,”.

He says:
“How can Muslims debate with Ahmadis”.

So why is he posting here?

It is patently obvious that  Muslim1 is now running away on all the points he himself put forward!

@Muslim1:
It is obvious you cannot read Urdu. Your knowledge about HMGA is based on what you have heard from Qadianis, and Anti-HMGA/ anti-LAM people ; and what you have read in English by Qadianis, and anti-HMGA/ anti-LAM people.
Listen “Rationalist” ask your parents to read Urdu text on pages 1699 and 1700 of NA proceedings. You will find it was anti-HMGA/ anti-LAM attorney general Yahya Bakhtiar who was conforming that Qadiani Khalifa 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad changed his definition of Takfeer while on witness stand and testifying in National Assembly in 1974.

According to Muslim1, we can’t mention his obvious contradictions because our Founder is also alleged to have made contradictions. By that principle, when Muslims mention contradictions in the Bible to Christians, the Christians could simply reply: “Lets not go there because there are also contradictions in the Quran”!

1.  “…after reading the Assembly report …”. So why did the government of Pakistan conceal this report from the public for almost 38 years? And then only released it due to court action. Why didn’t they publish it in 1974 to show the public what Lahoris were like?

2.  “With these facts now on the table”. How did they get on the table? You got them out by asking the government of Pakistan?

Muslims in Pakistan are not living in harmony among themselves. Various sects are attacking each other, killing one another even apart from the extremists. They are too busy in this to think about Ahmadis! 

3 & 4.
Number (4) was not a question you asked. You yourself admit in (3) that you were speaking rhetorically! There was no point in asking this as a question because you know that I would say yes, they were genuine in their oaths. As you now admit, this was a rhetorical statement by you.

You were saying: Just as Maulana Muhammad Ali and Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din took the oath of loyalty to Maulana Nur-ud-Din just for show and out of hypocrisy and cowardliness, while actually they were opposed to his leadership (in your view), so Muslims living in the West take the oath of citizenship hypcritically, deceptively and falsely, while inwardly being opposed to those countries.

Now you are running scared because of the fear of being sued by some Muslims for defamation!

5. No one has told me who you are. Perhaps you can tell me. If you were a “subject matter expert” you would have the confidence to appear under your own name, and you wouldn’t be hiding your identity to save your face from humiliation. No one accepts that you have any credibility to “educate the masses”.

You said earlier that I have no videos of speeches on YouTube. Do you have any of your educational lessons for the masses on YouTube?

@Rashid:
“The booklet ‘National Assembly Pakistan kee Special Committee ka Roobaroo Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-e-Islam Lahore ka Wazahati Bayan: by Maulana Sadr-ud-Din’ distributed among members of Pakistan National Assembly was ACTUALLY WRITTEN BY marhoom Abdul Manan Omar sahib”
What do you mean by “ACTUALLY WRITTEN…”? Was he the only one behind all those thoughts, then wrote it, printed, and then handed over to central anjuman, and central anjuman just mailed that to national assembly? OR that was collective effort/thoughts of many peoples, and then Abdul Mannan sahib put those words on paper?

I will show here that Muslim1 is not posing questions “genuinely and truthfully”. He is so blindly prejudiced that he is behaving in a deranged, irrational manner.

He says that because Ahmadis avoided answering questions at the Assembly, so the govt of Pakistan concealed the report to protect Ahmadis, otherwise more riots would have broken out against Ahmadis.

This is ridiculous. Why should more riots break out when the Assembly had in fact fulfilled the demands of the rioters! Seeing the report the rioters would be celebrating, not rioting, saying that they were now vindicated because Ahmadis can’t answer questions! The govt would also be able to justify to everyone that it was right to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslim!

No, the reason for concelaing the report was that we would find flaws in it, and I found three serious examples (see my various comments above: one, two, three) even on a random reading.

Muslim1 has now further defamed hundreds of thousands of Muslims living in the West by referring to their taking of oaths of citizenship as follows:

“Similarly, Kafirs would convert to Islam during war in an attempt to salvage their life. Muhammad (saw) approved of it, he said to honor it, however, if those same people apostacized, then, their punishment was the same as in the UK military.”

So according to Muslim1:

1. All these innocent Muslims in the West are in fact like kafirs and munafiqin of early Islam.

2. The Holy Prophet Muhammad, knowing that some unbeliever had accepted Islam only to save his life, and not accepted it genuinely, approved of such hypocritical acceptance, while he knew that it was a false and hypocritical profession.

3. Then such acceptors were further threatened by the Holy Prophet that if they went back to their real beliefs they would be executed.

Muslim1 has thus joined the haters of Islam by agreeing that Islam converted unbelievers by force, and they accepted Islam not because they believed in it, but just to save their lives, and the Holy Prophet Muhammad approved of and colluded in this.

All decent Muslims will see from this that it is these anti-Ahmadiyya zealots who pose the most serious danger to Islam and Muslims today.

He writes: ” I don’t even live in the UK.”

No, you live in the western US, although when sending some recent comments you have tried to shield behind anonymous proxy servers on the Internet.

To Muslim1: You have sent a typical raving comment introducing several issues in order to divert the discussion from the grave allegation you made about the Holy Prophet Muhammad, namely, that he accepted such unbelievers into Islam about whom he knew that they only accepted it to save their lives. And he knew that once they were in Islam they couldn’t get out of it!

Try reading 60:10 in the Holy Quran, which requires Muslims to test any unbelieving women who came fleeing from Makkah claiming to be doing it for the sake of Islam, to see if they really had some other motive.   

The only point from your sick comment I will mention is your opening:

“You have now been avoiding my question for almost over a week. Why was it that Maulvi Sadr-udin sahib came prepared with a speech that he didn’t even write and refused to answer questions?”

There was no speech written by someone else that Maulana Sadr-ud-Din read out. And nowhere does the report of the proceedings say about Maulana Sadr-ud-Din that he refused to answer questions. You have completely misunderstood all this.

You have said nothing about why you made such a serious allegation against the Holy Prophet. That is the point we will take up now, and the only comments published by you here will be those explaining why you made this allegation.

Four years ago on this blog we published an interview which Yahya Bakhtiar gave in 1994 to the editor of the Lahore magazine Athish Fishan, as reproduced in Paigham Sulh of May-June 1995. See this link. (Article begins at bottom of column 2 on the first page, marked there by red lines.)

On page 3, 2nd column, Yahya Bakhtiar says:

“… Begum Bhutto was sitting there. She said: Today you are declaring them as a minority, tomorrow you will declare Shiahs similarly, and then this will continue on and on. What is happening? Mr Bhutto said: My wife is unhappy. You should let them (the Mirza’is) go.”

Now read this about the trial of Jesus by Pilate:

“While he [Pilate] was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, ‘Have nothing to do with that just man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of him’.” (Matthew, 27:19)

It is a well known incident that Pilate’s wife told him to let Jesus go because of something frightening she had seen in a dream. Well, Mrs Nusrat Bhutto also feared for the future and said the same to the Pakistani Pilate.

(See also my related comment above.)

Enigma of “Muslim1” flight from Nevada to Australia
 
Here is some background information to solve the enigma of “Muslim1” posting from Nevada and Australia.
 
From 2002 to 2004 I use to write posts on http://www.ahmedi.org forum. My target audiences were Qadianis. I was exposing immoral personal lives, immoral beliefs, immoral policies and immoral actions of Qadiani Khalifas 2, 3, and 4. Especially that of QK 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad. By middle of 2004 owner of Ahmedi.org Ahmad Karim Shaikh was bought by Khatam-e-Nabuwat and other Mullah of Pakistani background. At that time focus of ahmed.org changed from educating Qadianis to attacking Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. One of the people who became active against HMGA and LAM and tried to defend Qadianis from getting knocked out by LAM poster, his name was A. Sadiq or M. Sadiq. He claimed to have Ph.D and called himself Doctor A. Sadiq or Doctor M. Sadiq. This man was based in Australia and perhaps was in teaching profession. He used his name as forum ID.  In few weeks he became “moderator” on the forum and picked his moderator ID “Muslim1”. His moderation was extremely IMMORAL. He used to write posts with his name ID, and delete/ edit my posts and even ban me with his moderator ID. He did not like his BLATANT LIES, MISQUOTES OF HMGA, and OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTES OF HMGA, exposed.  I use to tell him that you’re behaving exactly like Z. A. Bhutto and other members of National Assembly in 1974. He use to act at the same time as Prosecutor, Jury, Judge, and Executioner, along with making sure that fair chance is not given to defendant to make his point and defend against accusations and allegations. Lately he is not much active on ahmedi.org forum

In place of M. Sadiq or A. Sadiq there is another poster on ahmedi.org who has user ID “rationalist” and  also posts on this blog with names ‘Bashir’, ‘Islamic Knight’ etc. This guy like his predecessor moderator “Muslim1” has one user ID and different moderator ID.

I am certain this person “rationalist” posts on LAM blog from USA with name “Muslim1” and shares his name with M. Sadiq or A. Sadiq in Australia.

To avoid wasting more time, for myself as well as for esteemed blog readers, I am not going to publish any further comment submitted by Muslim1 whether in that guise or some other one. His views have been fully aired here now, and his venom and malice fully exposed.

Qadiani Khalifa 4 Mirza Tahir Ahmad’s quote on Whole Pakistan becoming Qadiani
 
Qadiani Khalifa 4 held belief and made claim that if 1974 Pakistan National Assembly proceedings are published WHOLE of Pakistan would become Ahmadi [i.e. Qadianis]. Now when proceedings are published, I worry how now Qadianis will treat us Lahori-Ahmadis. After all we are more danger to them, as we keep exposing their lies. What will happen to brother Shahid Aziz if he visits Pakistan. How he will retract from his lecture ‘More Qadiani Lies Exposed Again’?
 
There is a Qadiani Organization Official Publication of the following title:
 
A Review of the Pakistani Government’s “White Paper”: Qadiyaniyyat—A Grave Threat to Islam Replies to Some Allegations . A Deplorable Scheme of Falsification and Accusations against the Ahmadiyyah Muslim Jama‘at and its Background.  An English translation of the Friday sermon delivered by Hadrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad, Khalifatul Masih IV (rta) on January 25, 1985 at the Fadl Mosque, London
 
On pages 12-13 it is stated:

“Once a member of the National Assembly was asked why they do not publish the proceedings and expose the falsehood of the Ahmadiyyah Muslim Jama‘at, as they claimed that the National Assembly had unanimously given its verdict that the Ahmadiyyah Muslim Jama‘at, due to the beliefs it holds, is outside the pale of Islam. The member laughingly responded that the questioner should be grateful that they did not publish the proceedings, because if it were published, half of the Pakistani population would become Ahmadi.

I [Mirza Tahir Ahmad] understand that it was his modesty that made him utter this understatement. I believe that if the Ahmadiyyah viewpoint reached the people of Pakistan, then there would be no reason why the whole Pakistan did not become Ahmadi, except of course the unfortunate few who are forever doomed to reject guidance…

… But, in good faith, I presume that if the majority of Pakistanis … get to know the Ahmadiyyah position, then such people will become Ahmadi by the Grace of God.”

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/A_Deplorable_Scheme_of_Falsification_and_Accusations-20080812MN.pdf

Mirza Nasir Ahmad did NOT want 1974 NA Proceedings published
 
On pages 1506 and 1507 of 1974 National Assembly Proceedings (pdf page 779), there is dialogue between head of Qadiani Organization delegation QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad and Speaker of National Assembly (Chairman Farooq).

Speaker made it clear to Qadiani delegation that NOTHING should be made public by them that includes ‘how proceedings continued’, ‘what was the purpose’,  ‘what was the object’, and ‘publication of proceedings’.
 
In reply QK3 made comments: “Yes, NO publication should be made”; “we are very careful NOT to make it public, and InshAllah we will do the same in future”.
 
In the end QK3 said: “I want to thank every one of you. You have been very gracious and have done great favors on us”; “may the peace and blessings be on you”.
 
Given the above facts, how on earth Qadiani Khalifas 3 and 4 found audacities to challenge, in their speeches in presence of their Qadiani followers, Government of Pakistan to publish 1974 NA Proceedings. It is obvious QK3 and QK4 knew CHANGES IN QADIANI BELIEFS INSIDE THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY WILL COME INTO KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR QADIANI FOLLOWERS. This is the reason QK3 wanted to keep proceedings secret. And in public to their followers they were saying opposite. QK3 did NOT want to repeat what happened to his father QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad. In 1953 Munir Commission Inquiry was open to public. And when QK2 changed his belief it was reported by Lahori-Ahmadi elders in ‘Civil and Military Gazette’ newspaper. It created embarrassment for QK2. And he had to make false excuses in front of his followers. Little QK3 and QK4 knew that one day the secret proceedings of 1974 NA will be published and made available on internet for ALL Qadianis, by Qadianis themselves, to read for themselves. QK3 stated in NA he was treated very well and outside the delegation had nothing but rancour.
 
What more proofs our Qadiani friends need that their Qadiani Khalifas were guilty of uttering falsehood!

LAM Delegation Preparation for Representation in 1974 NA Special Committee.
Late Abdul Manan Omar sahib personally told me that when responsibility of LAM representation was put on him, he prepared 100 POSSIBLE QUESTIONS that could be asked, based on historic objections on HMGA. Then he prepared answers to them. Those Questions and Answers, along with references from HMGA books, were written in neat handwriting by a scribe.

Abdul Manan Omar sahib was so well prepared that when Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar started asking a question, Abdul Manan Omar sahib use to start replying it. Once Yahya Bakhtiar asked Abdul Manan Omar sahib, how come you start replying my question before I am finished with it? Abdul Manan Omar sahib asked in reply, are my answers not relevant to your questions? Y.B. replied, “No they are relevant”. Abdul Manan Omar sahib replied, “Even children in our Jamaat [LAM] know answers to these questions. They are old questions”.

In my earlier post in this thread, in regard to ‘Punishment of Apostasy in Islam’, Dr. Khalid Omar (Son of Abdul Manan Omar sahib) reminded me another detail. I add it below:

When Abdul Manan Omar sahib challenged Yahya Bakhtiar to produce single verse form Holy Quran that prescribes punishment for apostasy in Islam. Y.B turned to religious politician Mufti Mahmud in assembly to produce such verse. Mufti Mahmud replied, “It is NOT in Holy Quran”. Hearing such answer, Y.B. asked Mufti Mahmud, “Are you saying Holy Quran does NOT prescribe death penalty for apostasy”? (This detail is NOT transcribed in published proceedings).

Mr. Rashid, 

Can you explain how a man as intelligent as Abdul Mannan could believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet for 50+ years…then, suddenly have a change of heart??  

How is that possible?  And what about Maulvi Ghulam Hassan Khan Niazi…did he suffer from the opposite disorder?  You are a doctor right??
 

No, I believe the absurdity lies in the arguments put forward by Rashid Jhangiri, Ikram & co.

Abdul Mannan organised many major events for the Qadiani jamat, he wasn’t just any resident/on looker. He was deeply involved in the operation of the Qadiani jamat.

I do not believe he held the views back then that is claimed now. 
It’s a bit like the cardinals to the pope being atheist.
But this selective amnesia of claims of prophethood afflict the entire Lahore jammat. He was probably the perfect person to represent them in that case.

I remember reading some where that some followers asked if they could include Mirza Sahib in their namaz. The relpy from Noor-uddin was that the sharia had not changed so the namaz prayer could ot be altered. If he was not a prophet then how could his followers contemplate asking this question. 

@Umar
>>Abdul Mannan organised many major events for the Qadiani jamat, he wasn’t just any resident/on looker. He was deeply involved in the operation of the Qadiani jamat.
 
So did early Muslims of Makkah during annual pilgrimage of Hajj when they did full scale business with the pagans. Late Abdul Mannan Omar sahib was an orphan from a very early age of 4. His brother-in-law was QK-2. He grew up in Qadiani environment, but he kept the belief of his father, Khalifa-ul-Masih Nooruddin sahib, through his mother, which was that HMGA was not a prophet. A parallel example to some extent is family of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). While he was a Muslim himself, his uncle Abi-Talib etc. remained non-Muslims. Sooner or later a time comes when for personal safety people of a certain faith are forced to migrate, and late Abdul Mannan sahib did the same.
 
He never took bait of Qadiani Khalifas.
http://files.qarchives.com/ahmediorg/interview/InterviewMianManan_1_P8.gif)
 
He openly states that he worked under QK-2 in service of Islam, in the same manner as Companions of the Prophet worked under Umayyad khalifa Yazid (the unclean), with the sole purpose of keeping the unity of Muslim body. “I never followed any order of Mirza Mahmud which was against Islam” and he then gives the example of QK-2’s habit of social boycott of his opponents, which Mannan sahib states that he never followed.
http://files.qarchives.com/ahmediorg/interview/InterviewMianManan_2_P4.gif
 
>>I do not believe he held the views back then that is claimed now. It’s a bit like the cardinals to the pope being atheist.
 
We cannot argue an admitted speculation. On the contrary late Manan Omar sahib fully rebuts these kind of imaginations in his interview.
Urdu: http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/interview-of-late-abdul-manan-omar-sahib-by-rashid-jahangiri/
English excerpt – http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2011/06/29/interview-with-maulana-abdul-mannan-omar/
 

>>But this selective amnesia of claims of prophethood afflict the entire Lahore jammat. He was probably the perfect person to represent them in that case.
 
Amnesia is a technical term, but can be metaphorical as well, especially when used “selectively” but without any proofs. It is a self-soothing term for its user to smear others. Actually, Lahore Jamaat is exact opposite of amnesia. They do not utter imaginations, they refer to the facts. It was these facts and the truth that non-Lahoris (Sunnis of Pakistan and Qadianis as well) just cannot handle. How many Qadianis are believers of the alleged prophethood of HMGA from his own writings that they have read themselves? Whereas, Lahoris are non-believers of any claim of prophethood of HMGA, which is allegedly attributed to him merely for the fact that they have read HMGA, and not because their Amir told them so.
 
>>I remember reading some where that some followers asked if they could include Mirza Sahib in their namaz. The relpy from Noor-uddin was that the sharia had not changed so the namaz prayer could ot be altered. If he was not a prophet then how could his followers contemplate asking this question. 
 
This has been answered by Dr. Aziz above.

1974 National Assembly Special Committee Proceedings in Dawn news
In online Dawn newspaper (Saturday, November 24 2012) in article by Nadeem F. Paracha ‘Also Pakistan: The final cut’, cover of ‘Proceedings of the Special Committee of the whole house held in camera to consider the Qadiani Issue’ is published.

I wish the famous Pakistani columnist Ardeshir Cowasjee gets chance to read report section related to Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement. I am not sure how good is Cowasjee sahib Urdu reading skills. If he can read it would be nice. Few years ago I had email correspondence with him. It was totally new information for him to know that whenever LAM had to face our Muslim Opponent Mullah in an impartial court of law, LAM always won, including famous cases in South Africa. I sent him links to LAM-UK website hosting detail articles on South African Court case and reproducing of its decision in Pakistani Law Journal ‘Pakistan Supreme Court Cases, March 1986’ issue. I sought his help in getting the 1974 NA Proceedings published. I wanted him to write a column on the issue. He did not write one, but suggested me to contact then President Pervez Musharraf.

If Cowasjee sahib could read conversation between Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar and LAM witness Abdul Manan Omar sahib, I am sure he will quickly come to realize that Yahya Bakhtiar was behaving as a rapid person. He was not letting Abdul Manan Omar sahib complete his answer. Y.B. was clearly very uncomfortable to realize that he could not grill Abdul Manan Omar sahib the way he did to Qadiani Jamaat Khalifa 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad. Y.B. was clearly in distress to learn the truth that he himself was severely handicapped in matters of religion and was duped by false information fed to him by Mullah Politician members of National Assembly. He was quick to realize that he cannot build case against LAM and LAM interpretation of HMGA beliefs, claims and statements. And all his efforts were focused on ‘damage control’ by preventing LAM witness testimony come through. This he did by employing help of permanent and acting Committee Chairman and chairwoman, and by constantly interrupting Abdul Manan Omar under the pretext “of lecturing the house”.

http://dawn.com/2012/11/22/also-pakistan-the-final-cut/

Qadiani Jamat Friend Appreciation of Abdul Manan Omar sahib Testimony.
I am on a mass email list. The other day I received an email by Qadiani Jamaat friend. I do not who is this gentleman, but from his email it is apparent that he belongs to Qadiani Jamaat. He had a question and twice asked Qadiani Jamaat TV channel MTA program ‘Rah-e-Huda’. He did not get answer with reference from HMGA books. He repeated question in his email. His email address and email text:
“hannan ahmad” rockyhannan@hotmail.com
Quote:
i totally agree with mushtaq ahmed malik sahib’s statement about proceedings of national assembly. i have read the full given proceeding .mirza nasir ahmad sahib was quite confused in his statements and he was much confused regarding nabowat issue and kufr o islam ,,,,abdul mannan umar sahib was given very less time in this debate but he gave the best answers as i am not from lahore jamaat but can’t stop myself in this regard  from saying the truth..any how mirza mehmood sahib stated a term ummati nabi in hakeekat u nabowah but didnt give any refrence of hazoor a,s as he was giving the refrences of the terms used by hazoor a,s of nabowat ..hazrat maseeh e maud a,s proved that a nabi in shariyat e islam who brings wahi  e nabowat cannot be under any nabi of another wahi e nabowat of any nabi  from  the ayat of quran but i dont know why in an international programme like rah e huda it is answered that the wahi of mirza ghulam ahmad sahib is surely wahi of nabowat as i asked the question and they twice said this in that answer his wahi was of nabowat……can any one give refrence of this bold statement????
End Quote.

@ 4pac/Rashid – I hold in my hand the “Urdu Language Translation and Brief Meanings of The Quran”, “Dedicated to Husn-i-Bayan” by “Ghulam Hasan Niazi – Peshawari”. At this link you can view the images of the preface and the last page of the book.
 
‘Husn-i-Bayan’ means the ‘Eloquence of Expression’. This was the title given to Khwaja Kamaluddin in one of the ilhams (revelations) of HMGA, which he lived up to by his spell binding speeches, mesmerizing essays, books and magazines, which are full of aha! moments for the audience. He delivered speeches in person across the globe –  England, France, Egypt, South Africa, Burma, Singapore, India and others.
 
On the first page of the introduction, Ghulam Hasan sahib mentions his close association and company with Khwaja sahib. He acknowledges Khwaja sahib for his famous missionary work in England and his depth of teasing out the fine points of Quran. He recognizes the dedication of Khwaja sahib for propagation of Islam to the extent that he continued with his busy literary efforts to his death bed. It was Khwaja sahib who encouraged him to write an Urdu translation of Quran. So the author adds that he wrote the translation with brief explanations that carries within it the hue of Kamaluddin’s great ideas and philosophy.
 
With the above in perspective, no wonder he dedicated his work to Khwaja sahib which shows on the title page in bold. Since the introduction mentions death of Khwaja sahib, it is obvious that the said work was completed after 1932.
 
Ghulam Hasan sahib’s daughter, Sarwar Sultan was married in 1902 to Mirza Mian Bashir Ahmad, the younger brother of future QK-2 to be. Their nikah ceremony was performed by Khalifa-ul-Masih Nooruddin sahib (Al-Hakam, p. 10 – Sept 7, p. 14 Oct 1902 – pdf pages 548 and 653). Their son was M.M. Ahmad, the famous CSP officer (Wikipedia).
 
He along with Maulana Muhammad Ali and Khwaja Kamaluddin, six in total were expelled from Qadian by Resolution 213 dated 22 June 1916 (see p. 127, A Mighty Striving).
 
He later became the founding member of AAIIL (see p. 126, A Mighty Striving).
 
Subsequently, on November 16 1928, his son Abdul Lateef Khan was married to daughter of Mirza Yaqub Beg. Their nikah ceremony was performed by Maulana Muhammad Ali at Ahmadiyya Buildings mosque in Lahore.
 
Maulana Ghulam Hasan was the man who had refused to take the bai‘at at the hand of Maulana Nur-ud-Din after the Promised Messiah’s death because he believed that the Anjuman was the Promised Messiah’s successor and that it was an error to re-take the bai‘at at the hand of another individual…As to why, after adhering strictly to this standpoint for almost 32 years, he took the bai‘at at Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s hand, there is no need to go into the details of that. Anyhow, after he had taken this step Maulana Muhammad Ali, through Paigham Sulh, drew his attention to his previous beliefs and writings and asked him repeatedly on what basis he had taken the bai‘at, which he had been opposing for 32 years, and on what grounds he had joined the Jama‘at which he had labelled in his Quran commentary Husn-i Bayan as “a group of extremists” and “followers of falsehood”. However, in the answers that Maulana Ghulam Hasan published, he nowhere gave the arguments that had made him change his standpoint. In this connection Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote many articles in Paigham Sulh from March to June 1940, addressed to Maulana Ghulam Hasan, in which he compared the beliefs and the practical work of the two groups and clarified the issues of khilafat and of ‘unbelief and Islam’. (see p. 324, A Mighty Striving).
(Paigham Sulh, p.2&7 – March 8, p.2&8 – March 12, p.5-7 – April 13, p.5-6 – May 12, 1940 – pdf download)
 
Maulana Ghulam Hassan Khan Niazi enjoyed a position of respect in both the Jama‘ats. Since his beliefs regarding the status of the Promised Messiah and about the matter of the takfur of other Muslims were those which were held and advocated by the late Maulana Muhammad Ali and the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-e-Islam, therefore, most naturally Maulana Ghulam Hassan Khan Niazi’s sons and their descendents were and still are the members of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Anjuman…Hazrat Maulana Ghulam Hassan Khan Niazi passed away on February 1, 1942 at Qadian and was buried in the Bahishti Maqbrah Graveyard (earlier he had taken bai’at with the Qadiani Jama‘at while still maintaining the beliefs of the Lahori Jama‘at). He was 94 years at the time of his death. (The Hope Bulletin, p. 13 – May 2009, pdf link)
——–
With the above brief tidbits of history out of the way, Maulvi Ghulam Hasan sahib’s move to Qadian in his 90’s to live with his daughter for his care, is used by Qadianis for point scoring, and as a proof of QK-2’s truthfulness. While, they totally shy away from the underlying facts and a reverse example of Maulvi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi sahib (the senior most Jamaat member after Hakim Nooruddin sahib).
 
Contextual accounts of both these stalwarts are fully dealt with by Dr. Zahid Aziz in year 2003 on a different blog site, a must read – http://lahoreahmadiyyamessageboard.yuku.com/reply/76/Answer-to-Qadiani-allegations-against-Maulana-Muhammad-Ali#reply-76
 
Another source about Ghulam Hasan sahib is the book ‘A Mighty Striving’ in which you may search for his name or look up the index entry: “Ghulam Hasan Khan, Maulana”.

Maulana Ghulam Hasan Khan died in Qadian on 2nd February 1943 at the age of 94 years (having joined the Qadiani Jamaat three years earlier). On Friday 5th February 1943, at the Lahore Ahmadiyya centre at Ahmadiyya Buildings, Lahore, after giving the Friday khutba and prayers, Maulana Muhammad Ali led the janaza prayer for Maulana Ghulam Hasan Khan (in absence of body).

 
Objective and Position of LAM witnesses in 1974 NA Proceedings
 
@Arshad Hussain:
 
As far as LAM was concerned 1974 NA proceedings were TRIAL OF HMGA. It was NOT trial of LAM, Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib or Khawaja Kamal-ud-din sahib.
 
Objective of LAM witnesses, particularly of marhom Abdul Manan Omar sahib was to testify on behalf of HMGA. And his position was simply that of a witness.
 
On the other hand, Mullah and non-Mullah Politicians, with the help of Chairman and Chairwoman of NA Special committee, through their Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar (Y.B.) was to PROVE that Lahori-Ahmadis hold “SAME” beliefs like Qadianis regarding HMGA status and towards other Muslims, and the ONLY difference between the two groups of followers of HMGA was a POLITICAL ONE. They wanted to prove the QADIANI PROPAGANDA that in 1914 Maulana Muhammad Ali and other elders of LAM moved away from Qadian and split occurred because “Maulana Muhammad Ali wanted to become second Khalifa”. Yahya Bakhtiar repeatedly tried to achieve this objective. It was simply because it became clear to him and his supporters, based on beliefs and interpretation of LAM, it was IMPOSSIBLE to declare HMGA as claimant of Prophet-hood and heretic and by virtue of him LAM as non-Muslims.
 
This is the reason, whenever Y.B. quoted Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad or his brother Mirza Bashir Ahmad writings, Abdul Manan Omar sahib first politely told him that he is not responsible for their writings and finally had to say to  Y.B. that “You’re quoting me writings of MY ENEMY”. (These words are published in NA Proceedings).
 
Similarly, when Y.B. quoted Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib writing, in reply Abdul Manan Omar sahib said that he will look into it and send a written reply, after seeing the context. It is clear Abdul Manan Omar sahib did NOT prepare and intended to defend Maulana Muhammad Ali and Khawaja Kamal-ud-din sahibs. So it becomes obvious why he did not refer to books by LAM elders regarding 1914 split in movement.
 
Following is piece of information, you might be interested in:
 
Abdul Manan Omar shaib message to Mirza Nasir Ahmad.

Abdul Manan Omar sahib was the main person among the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement delegation to 1974 Pakistan National Assembly. He testified for about 10 hours over two days in 1974 proceedings. Before him QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad testified on behalf of Qadiani Jamaat. He testified for 13 days.

Few days before commencement of proceedings, Abdul Manan Omar sahib sent message to Mirza Nasir Ahmad. Abdul Manan Omar sahib personally narrated details to me. In his message he said, “This is in reality trial of Hazrat Masih Mauood (Promised Messiah), and yours and mine positions are of witnesses. If there is conflict between testimonies of witnesses, it can weaken the case for defense. In the beginning of my testimony, I will state that this is the trial of Hazrat Masih Mauood, and I will only defend him, so all questions should be related to him and references should only be from his books. And I will suggest you to do the same”. In reply message Mirza Nasir Ahmad said, “You can say that, but I cannot”.

As Abdul Manan Omar sahib started to testify he made it clear that no references should be given from speeches and writings of QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, or his brother Mirza Bashir Ahmad’s.

On hearing Abdul Manan Omar sahib’s disclaimer regarding Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and his brother Mirza Bashir Ahmad, attorney general turned to religious politicians (that included people like Mufti Mahmud Ahmad, Shah Ahmad Noorani, Professor Gafoor Ahmad etc), and asked them pointing to file in his hand: “All objections and references you people have provided are of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and his brother”. In reply they said, “This is all we have, just work with it”.

In two days altogether Abdul Manan Omar sahib did not testify even for 10 hours. Whereas Mirza Nasir Ahmad was grilled for 13 days. Over whelming majority of questions were based on statements and writings of his father Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and his uncle Mirza Bashir Ahmad. I am sure if Mirza Nasir Ahmad had paid heed to Abdul Manan Omar sahib advice, he could have spared lot of agony, and it would have further weakened Mullah’s case against Promised Messiah.

Rashid Jahangiri:
This then brings up the question:
Prior to the NA proceedings Abdul Mannan Omar sahib tries to work together with the Qadiani group.
During the proceedings he claims that the Qadiani groups are his enemy.

Do you not see something at all odd in the above?

Secondly his suggestion was not at all feasible.
The Qadiani jamat released extensive documents containing “proofs” prior to the proceedings that :
a) A new prophet could come after the holy prophet (pbuh)? using verses from the quran to make their point. (Verse 4:69 comes to mind)
b) MGA was such a prophet.

The prosecutor would only have to ask the question, MGA refers to himself as a prophet in his books. What is meant by this?
MGA himself used the term prophet to describe himself, for example when 2 of his followers were arguing over his status, one claiming that MGA was a real prophet, the other not willing to make this leap MGA interrupted them and told them “Nobody should raise their voice greater than a prophet”.
When the prosecutor asked Mirza Nasir Ahmad, Tahir Ahmad and their ‘Historian’  Maulana Dost Muhammad Shahid, what could they have said to explain this statement?

The Qadiani jamat would then have to almost repeat the writings of Mirza Mahmood Ahmad to explain their beliefs.

The incident that Umar is quoting is from Mahmud Ahmad, its from Haqiqat un Nubuwwa (1915). I’m sure you know that.

Mahmud Ahmad chose a dead person as his witness (maulvi abdul kareem). Maulvi Abdul Kareem died as a result of the many mubahilas that Mirza sahib was conducting.

The more proper question would be, Did the Amrohi ever clear up this story?

Moreover, there were many Ahmadis that were confused. They chose sides based on who their friends were…not doctrine. For example, Mahmud Ahmad showed that Amrohi had his son read some of Mahmud’s books in 1914 to him…Amrohi was happy with them. Maybe, and just maybe, Mahmud Ahmad reduced the pay of Amrohi as a murrabi, this may have caused Amrohi to leave Qadianiyat.

And oh by the way…The Quran never tells us to pray 5 times. Would you wish to toss that portion of Islam out of the window like you have done with apostacy?

Finally, did Abdul Mannan ever write down anywhere as to how he accepted Mirza sahib as a prophet for 40+ years hypocritically?

@ Ikram and other Ahmadis

I hope you people understand that you are now accusing Maulvi Ghulam Hassan Khan of hypocrisy. How many other Ahmadis do you wish to smear?

No Qadianis but supporters of Qadiani beliefs and claims
Readers of this blog must have noticed that there is a NOTICEABLE ABSENCE of Qadianis in this very important thread that exclusively tries to discuss 1974 NA Proceedings. Not even Qadiani jamaat friends like posters Dr. Tahir Ijaz , and many other from past, are writing. There was minor presence of Qadiani friend Lutf only once that too not regarding testimony of QK 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad. Reason is obvious, they know, the more they write the more they will embarrass their QK3 and their jamaat delegation.
On the other hand former Qadianis, who have become anti-HMGA like ‘4pac’ and “Umar” (other name of ‘Rationalist’, ‘Muslim1—Nevada version’), are quite active. These two are also not discussing LAM delegation testimony, but are acting as detractors. Wonder why? Answer is simple: They want to uphold Qadiani beliefs and claims in relation to LAM. Their main objective is NOT to help Qadianis “win” but they want to “destroy” HMGA. And they know they cannot achieve their objective as long as LAM is alive and kicking. And in their opinion, because of left over hangover from Qadiani intoxication, they somehow are under delusion that Qadiani arguments can “destroy” LAM.
@”Umar”:
Abdul Manan Omar sahib advice to QK3 was quite valuable. Had he paid heed, it would have saved him lots of non-sense question of Yahya Bakhtiar. But if QK3 had decided not to defend QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and his brother Mirza Bashir Ahmad, it would have practically meant they have ADOPTED LAM BELIEFS AND IN REALITY THEY ARE LAM. Just the way QK2 did in 1953 Munir Inquiry Commission.
During testimony Abdul Manan Omar sahib had stated that QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad was his enemy. He said this to stop Yahya Bahktiar from making him (Abdul Manan Omar sahib) defend QK3. Abdul Manan Omar sahib was under NO obligation to defend the STUPID writings of QK3.
I don’t understand why you find something odd in Abdul Manan Omar sahibs approach!
If QK3 had adopted the interpretation of HMGA writings and claims, he would have not given Yahya Bakhtiar chance to grill him for 13 days. And maybe, again, maybe it would have prevented such a harsh decision regarding both groups of followers of HMGA.
Only if you can read Urdu, you would have read, Yahya Bakhtiar repeatedly quoted from HMGA books to establish that he made claim of prophethood, the way Qadianis interpret, but Yahya Bakhtiar could NOT establish that with Abdul Manan Omar sahib. Simply because HMGA did NOT mean the prophethood that is interpreted by Qadianis.
@Arshad Hussain sahib,
I agree with you, the outcome would have not been much different than what it was, even if QK3 had followed Abdul Manan Omar sahib advice. It was a political decision from the get-go. Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan Peoples Party did not like his strong Qadiani supporters in 1970 elections starting a love-affair with his political enemy Air Marshal Asghar Khan of ‘Tahrik-i-Istaqlal’. ZAB knocked out Qadianis and LAM became innocent victim. LAM fault was it was ‘guilty by association’. LAM is follower of HMGA.

I am not a reference finder. Next time have your assistants do this work. I sure that since Anwarul Uloom was created, the references that we had quoted in the past are now inaccurate. As you know, your Qadianis friends have purposely done this to throw off the scent.

“At last that event did take place. In the year 1900, Maulavi ‘Abdul Karim, the preacher of the Friday sermon, gave a sermon in which he, used the words Nabi (Prophet) and Rasul (Messenger) for the Mirza. This caused great irritation to Maulavi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan Amrohawi. When Maulavi ‘Abdul Karim came to know of this, he gave another Friday sermon in which be addressed the Mirza, requesting him to contradict his belief, if he was wrong in considering him to be a prophet and Messenger of God. After the Friday prayers were over, Maulavi ‘Abdul Karim caught hold of the skirt of the Mirza’s apparel and requested him to correct him in his beliefs if they were erroneous. The Mirza turned around and said that he, too, held the same belief. Meanwhile, Maulavi Muhammad Ahsan had been greatly agitated by the sermon and in anger was pacing the floor of the mosque. On Maulavi ‘Abdul Karim’s return, he began to quarrel with him. When their voices rose very high, the Mirza came out of his house and recited the Qur’anic verse: “O ye who believe! Don’t raise your Voice above the voice of the Prophet.”

(This event is based on the report of a speech of Sayyid Sarwar Shah Qadiani at an annual conference held in Qadian, and published in al- Fadhl, Vol. X, No. 51, dated january.4,1923)

(See also Haqiqat al- Nubuwat, p 124.[published in 1915])

And

Seerat Ul mehdi part 3—by Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad
pdf Page 183 of 316

“Sheikh Abdul Haq sb s/o Sheikh Abdulla sb resident of wadala bangar, Tehsil Gurdast Pur, narrated to me in writing this incident that once an Iranian elder came to qadian and stayed for many months, I came again to qadian 3-4 months after his arrival. I saw him in Mubarak Musjid, It was probably Friday. After Friday prayers that Iranian elder requested mgaq to accept his bai’t. Huzoor said some other time or still wait some more time, upon this that Iranian elder started talking in loud voice which meant either accpet my bai’t or allow me to leave your place. He kept repeating these words in loud voice. At that time, moulvi Muhammaed Ahsan (late) stood up and read this ayat of Surat Hajrat:O ye who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet, and said that it was not befitting a faithful to raise his voice louder than nabi, this is disrespect you should not do this, but that Irani elder did not change his tone. Finally some men calmed him and took him outside the mosque, I don’t know if he stayed here or went and his bait was accepted or not. “

4pac:
“I am not a reference finder.” No, you merely present quotes with no concern for validating them.

The so-called event is certainly not mentioned on p. 124 of Haqiqat-un-Nubuwwat (original edition, 1915), and as far as I could see, not anywhere else in that book either. So its first mention is more than 22 years later in the Jalsa of 1922!

The second extract by 4pac contradicts the first one. In the first one, the verse “don’t raise your voice…” was read by Hazrat Mirza sahib in the alleged quarrel between Maulana Ahsan and Maulana Abdul Karim. In the second, it was read by Maulana Ahsan to an Iranian. And it is recorded in a book of proven inauthenticity.

In any case, it is plain commonsense that the teaching “O ye who believe! Don’t raise your voice above the voice of the Prophet” does not only apply with regard to the Holy Prophet but also with regard to other persons (such as leaders, teachers), particularly when such a teacher is performing the function of teaching the message of Islam as the Holy Prophet used to do, and is acting in the Holy Prophet’s stead. This is recognised by, for example, Maulana Maudoodi, who writes under this verse:

“Although this etiquette was taught for sitting in the Holy Prophet’s assembly and its addressees were the people who were living in his time, the people of the later ages also should observe the same respect and reverence on the occasion when the Holy Prophet’s name is mentioned, or a command of his is stated, or his sayings are explained. Besides, this verse also points out what attitude the people should adopt when talking to persons of a higher rank and status than themselves. A person’s talking before the men of a higher rank in a way as he talks before his friends or the common men, is in fact a sign that he has no respect for them in his heart, …”

And the only way of reminding a Muslim of this teaching, with regard to a non-prophet, is by quoting this verse, which says “…the voice of the Prophet”!

To Umar:

No, Mr Umar you were *not* referring to the incident from Al Hakam (about verse 9:127/128), because remember you wrote: “when 2 of his followers were arguing over his status”. There is no mention in Al Hakam of two followers arguing over his claim.

As to the verse you are now mentioning (9:127 or 128), I responded to this point one year ago in this comment. Hazrat Mirza sahib wrote that this verse (“messenger from among yourselves”) applies to: “those auliya who are known as rasul or nabi or muhaddas”.

Mr. 4pac, you people claim to have almost all Muslims, that is more than one billion people, on your side ranged against Ahmadis. Can’t they help you to find the reference!

The reference you have given to ‘Prophethood in Islam’ by Maulana Muhammad Ali where he quotes Haqiqat-un-Nubuwwah’s mention of Maulvi Abdul Karim is not the so-called incident mentioned by Umar. Where does it say in that quote from Haqiqat-un-Nubuwwah that a follower (i.e. Maulana Ahsan) had a quarrel with Maulvi Abdul Karim in front of Hazrat Mirza sahib about his claim?

Only a year before this so-called incident, Maulvi Abdul Karim had published an incident between a follower and Hazrat Mirza sahib you can read here in Malfuzat. Now tell us, why does Maulvi Abdul Karim say here: “I swear by God that this increased my faith about Huzoor”? What was this statement by Hazrat Mirza sahib which increased his faith? Do tell us by reading it.

It is pleasing to know that you have read the above book by Maulana Muhammad Ali because it is the greatest and most comprehensive work in the history of Islam on the finality of prophethood. If there was any confusion in Hazrat Mirza sahib’s teachings, Maulana Muhammad Ali could not have written such a lucid, coherent and clear book, proving the finality of prophethood.

Hazrat Mirza sahib never claimed to be Jesus. This is simply false propaganda. He always claimed to be maseel-i Maseeh.

It is you and your ulama who are suffering from “confusion on prophethood”. You are confused whether Jesus, upon his return as you believe, will be a prophet or a follower (just like Christians are confused about how much Jesus was God and how much a human).

You are so confused that your attorney in 1974 (as I showed above) gave quotations from Hazrat Mirza sahib to show that he believed in finality of prophethood only before 1890. But the quotations he presented in order to show the so-called “earlier belief” were from after 1890, one from as late as 1898!
 

 
“ Notwithstanding the change from time to time of the attitude of the public towards the claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, a reader of his writings cannot discover the least difference between the Ahmad of to-day and the Ahmad of the time of the Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya. … The one theme of all his writings is the superiority of Islam over all other religions because of the continuity of the gift of Divine revelation in this religion. It is on this that he laid stress thirty years ago, and it is on this that he lays stress to-day. …
His belief with regard to the excellence of the Holy Prophet over all other prophets has also been the same throughout, and we find it stated in his earliest writings in poetry as well as in prose that no Divine blessing can be attained except through the Holy Prophet. This is the doctrine which he teaches now when he says that no old prophet can come back, but that it must be a follower of the Holy Prophet who should be raised to the dignity of the Messiah, ”
— Maulana Muhammad Ali in the Review of Religions, June 1906, p. 253–254.

You are reaching “some fresh conclusions” now, after the anti-Ahmadiyya have had over a hundred years to consider these issues! In Pakistan they said in 1974 that they had finally settled a 90 year-old issue!

—“Further, it is not me who is being contradictory here, it is your Qadiani jamaat.”

But you have been presenting their version of events, about change of claim, as factually correct. So now you cannot continue doing that, and you should in the interests of truth tell Qadianis that they are being contradictory and that you yourself had to suffer embarrassment by accepting their version.

You saying to us “your Qadiani Jamaat” reminds me that when Muslims tell the critics of Islam that Islam is a peaceful religion, the critics tell them to look at the actions of people of “your religion”. Is it correct to say that people of “your” religion shoot girls who want to go to school?

—“Mr. Aziz, 990,000 million Muslims have no idea what Ahmadiyyat is. Nor do they have the academic ability to research your religion thoroughly for debate.”

Your claim is that the entire Muslim Ummah has declared Ahmadis as kafir. Of course this is through their religious scholars. That Ummah of over one billion must have a huge number of such scholars that you could call upon.

My question about the 1899 quote from Maulvi Abdul Karim was: Why does he say here: “I swear by God that this increased my faith about Huzoor”? A follower wanted to elevate Hazrat Mirza sahib’s status. Mirza sahib was furious and repudiated him, and expressed a lower status than what the follower wanted. And Maulvi Abdul Karim says this increased his faith! Why does he say that? This is a genuine question, to which you would know the answer if you removed your bias and malice.

—“Similarily, he claimed to be the “like-of” of Esa or “Maseel e Maseeh” in 1883 or 1884, 7 years later he eventually claimed to be “the-second-coming” of Esa…”

So you are suggesting that after 1891 he never expressed his claim as being that of maseel-i Masih?

—“Amrohi wrote his letter in this context, that is the context of trying to reel in an ex-Ahmadi.”

You say Amrohi only wrote it to convince the so-called ex-Ahmadi that there was no change in claim in “Ayk Ghalati ka Izala”. What would then happen if Ahmadis read the letter? Wouldn’t they be asking: why are you telling him this, when our belief is the opposite?

—“Yahya Bakhtiar made some minor referencing mistakes…you shouldn’t harp on those. Lets see how many mistakes you find in the above…”

Of course you don’t want me to harp on those because they demolish his case! YB wasn’t in a debate on a blog, he was presenting a case as attorney-general to a legislature which was going to pass a law, in fact amend the constitution, against a section of the population. Any such error by him has serious consequences. If you make a mistake, no one cares! If I point out any mistake by you, it is hardly any achievement by me that I found the mistakes of an ignorant, obsessive imbecile.

You claim to have a better mastery of the issues than Yahya Bakhtiar did. Above you also claimed to belong to an exclusive group which has the best understanding on these matters than anyone among 1 billion Muslims. These claims are ridiculous and in the realms of pure fantasy. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be hiding behind anonymous names because of your lack of confidence and your fear of embarrassment. Muslim organisations would be hailing your work.
 

 
You have in the meanwhile submitted another comment consisting only of a quotation from Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, which Qadianis present against us, and you ask the same question that they do.

(1) You are obviously ignorant of the fact that Maulana Muhammad Ali answered this in the very book whose link you gave me above. (2) You have already suffered embarrassment by presenting the Qadiani version of events and then had to blame them for the contradictions in it. You didn’t learn a lesson from it, did you? (3) Obviously you can’t think for yourself, which is why you are relying on Qadiani material!

I will focus on the point which shows the fraudulent and deceitful techniques employed by 4pac and his friends. They present an allegation or conjecture like a fact, while knowing they have little basis for it. When it is refuted, they pretend that they weren’t making that allegation, never admitting that they made a false allegation.

Regarding the claim to be Maseel-i Masih, he wrote above:

“Listen to me, you claim that your GOD was calling Mirza sahib as Esa since 1884, Mirza sahib claimed to be metaphorically born as Esa in that same era. At that point his claim was Maseel-e-Masih. He even denied being Esa in the same year….then. 7 years later he said that he was wrong all along.”

“Similarily, he claimed to be the “like-of” of Esa or “Maseel e Maseeh” in 1883 or 1884, 7 years later he eventually claimed to be “the-second-coming” of Esa.”

It is clear he is alleging that after 1891 Hazrat Mirza sahib stopped expressing his claim as Maseel-i Masih since he had, allegedly, progressed to the higher claim of being the second coming of Jesus.

Then when I asked “So you are suggesting that after 1891 he never expressed his claim as being that of maseel-i Masih?”, 4pac got worried and to pre-empt my reply he has now written:

“Did he claim to be Maseel e Maseeh after 1891…we haven’t seen any such reference. If there is…please post it. And make sure its not from a book pre-1891 that was published after 1891 like Izala Auham, Siraj Munir, and a few others.”

In other words he is so ignorant that, as he says, “we haven’t seen any such reference”, but this doesn’t stop him from making allegations.

He thinks that may be there is the odd reference, and is preparing to reply that those are in pre-1891 books published after 1891. He mentions Siraj Munir. He must be aware of the challenge I issued on this blog in response to Bashir (see link) when he made that allegation about this book. My challenge was: Give me the number of any page out of the one hundred pages of Siraj Munir, and I will show that it was written after 1891, in many cases several years after 1891.

Now 4pac has slipped up in his technique. He has clearly stated that Siraj Munir was a pre-1891 book, so there is no retreat left for him from this allegation. My challenge proves that he is wrong.

Also, the claim of being Maseel-i Masih is not only mentioned but argued and discussed by Hazrat Mirza sahib in his later books. Most people who have read his books know this. 4pac should find out such references by the research he claims to be doing!

But in the bizarre world of the deceitful anti-Ahmadiyya, like 4pac, when they make an allegation they don’t have to prove it, but the accused have to disprove it!

Then look at this double-dealing fraud:

“In Ahmadiya research, fresh conclusions come to us regularly, we cover a subject matter of quite possibly 100,000 pages.”

“I am claiming that in 2012, we have the internet!!! Most of your references are easily accessible.”

These are the people who have got Ahmadiyya literature banned wherever they could, especially in Pakistan where an Ahmadi can be arrested for distributing any such book including books by Maulana Muhammad Ali. And here he is telling us they are doing research in the same literature and how it is useful for it to be on the Internet!

Well, 4pac, it is not only you who have got the Internet (although you must deeply wish that only you people controlled it). Other lesser mortals have also got the Internet and can read all our books, even in Pakistan, which you banned people from reading. They can see how this literature served Islam.

What makes the Internet a useful tool to 4pac and his ilk is that, like other modern inventions, it also provides newer opportunities to deceive and defraud people, which 4pac and his friends are doing with relish.

Dear Lahoris,
 
—Firstly, why don’t you simply write an article on the ins and outs of the confusion that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib had on his claim to be the Promised Messiah?  Wouldn’t that solve this inquiry?  Then, would you allow a critique on that subject in terms of the claim of prophethood by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib?  Wouldn’t that solve all our controversies here?  Instead, you using the same technique that the Ahmadis used in the 1974 hearings.  You are avoiding and deflecting.  Insha Allah, I will try to tangle with you and post my answers to your inquiries. 
 
—-The questions posed by Zahid Aziz sahib are inconsequential.  It doesn’t matter what Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib did with his claim of Maseel e Masih.  What matters here is the fact that his God was trying to tell him that he was the Promised Messiah as early as 1882-3.  However, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib misinterpreted those revelations and then watered them down.  The exact same process happened with his claim of prophethood.  From 1891 to Nov. 1901 he misinterpreted his prophethood and thus watered it down and presented it to the world.  Later on, he explained that he had been a prophet since the beginning which is 1880. Moreover, I am sure that you know that the Qadianis back-date Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s prophethood to 1880 in some cases.  The same could possibly be said about his claim to Messiahship.  And remember….in 1891, after he claimed Messiahship, he didn’t require his followers to take a fresh bait. 
 
—-I am not sure what statements were made by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib in terms of Maseel e Maseeh after 1891, or after his claim of Messiahship.  However, I did see some statement in Izala Auham, as we all know, portions of Izala Auham were written before 1891, or before the claim of Messiahship.  I have this reference for your review:
 
Izala-e-Auham, Roohani Khazain vol 3 p.192
“I have never claimed to be the Messiah ibne Maryam. Anyone who accuses me of it, he is absolutely a liar and fabricator. I have been constantly announcing for the last seven to eight years that I am Maseel Maseeh, that is, Hazrat Issa AS’s certain spiritual properties and nature and habits and virtues has been given to me as well by God AlMighty.”
 
—After this the above statement, we have never seen any statement after 1891 wherein Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib claimed to be Maseel e Masih.  If you have them, please post them, Muhammad Ali listed 200+ references wherein Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib denied prophethood in 1915.  
 
—-I never got worried…why is this conversation about worry?  If you are honest, then honestly present your claims and don’t worry about the backlash.  If someone asks you for a detailed explanation of Maseel e Masih..why don’t you simply give them one?  And then, get ready for a rebuttal. I am not asking you for personal information here.  I am simply asking questions about your belief system.  You should give a proper response.  Please don’t gloss over the issue.  
 
—-As we all know, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib was in the habit of writing books and then publishing them at the opportune time.  Istifta is another example, portions of that were written in the late 1880’s, however, that pamphlet wasn’t published til after Lekh Ram died in 1897.  We all know that Tiryaq ul qulub was delayed.  And…Braheen e Ahmadiyyat vol. 5 was published in the winter of 1908.  However, there is no evidence as to when it was written.  There are no announcements to that effect, in fact, I was never able to find any news on its publishing as well. You would think that a book of that magnitude would have gotten some press in Ahmadi newspapers.  
 
—-Your challenge on Siraj Munir is again inconsequential.  Why do you keep up with this non-sense.  Can we focus on the issues here? 
 
—-Well…even if Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib mentioned his claim of Maseel e Masih in later books….what difference does it make?  You are again focusing the entire bulk of your time on inconsequential details.  The real issue here is the misapprehension of your founder in terms of his claim of Messiahship and the relationship with his claim to prophethood.  You have cautiously glossed over the crux of the matter here.  We want to learn more about your religion…we don’t know everything.  Our work continues, we were stung by the bane of colonialism, as a result of that, a small portion of us were led astray..our goal is to educate them.  Nothing more and nothing less.  However, everytime we engage the Ahmadis, we get nothing but misdirection and a lack of co-operation. 
 
—We are simply educating people about Ahmadiyyat.  Would you call a women’s rights group as anti-men? 
 
—Finally, I earnestly implore you to stick to the topic here.  Don’t go off track.  I provided a reference in the above from Izala Auham, honestly comment on that.  Tell us how and why this appeared in that book.  Then, tell us why Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had confusion on his claim of Messiahship.  Please. 

Sometimes you come across a writing which inspires and moves you. Here is such a passage by Maulana Muhammad Ali in his last booklet written in Urdu reflecting on his life’s work. (The bolding is mine.)

“All I can say about myself is that if Almighty God had not guided me towards this work, I would, like my fellow-students, have become at best a successful lawyer or judge. But the man who directed me to this work, then set me on this path, and guided me correctly is the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. At a time when I had gone into a worldly path, he not only pulled me out of the mire of this world but also created within me a light of faith that has stayed with me throughout this struggle. I declare it openly that if the Imam and Mujaddid of this age had not guided me, I was not capable of doing this work. I received a spark of the light which filled his breast.

The nineteenth century of the Christian era had drawn to a close. In exactly the year 1900, when I was on my way to Gurdaspur to start my law practice, with all arrangements completed, the premises rented, and my belongings and books moved there, my Guide took me by the hand and said: You have other work to do, I want to start an English periodical for the propagation of Islam to the West, you will edit it. What great fortune that, on hearing this voice, I did not hesitate for a moment as to whether I should start this work or the work for which I had prepared myself.

This periodical was issued on 1 January 1902 under the title The Review of Religions. In 1909 I began the English translation of the Holy Quran. When I look back today, after half a century, I fall before God in gratitude that He gave me such long respite and enabled me to do so much work.

In reality, this is not my work. It is the work of the one who took my hand and set me on this road. And not only myself, but whoever went to him he put a spark of the fire of the love of God in the heart of that disciple. Just like me, the late Khawaja Kamal-ud-Din too, by sitting at the feet of the Imam of the age, was blessed with opening the first Islamic mission to Europe at Woking, shedding such light on the teachings of Islam and the life of the Holy Prophet Muhammad that the entire attitude of Europeans towards Islam changed. Not only this, that Mujaddid produced thousands of people whose hearts ached with the urge to spread Islam, and who gave their lives and wealth to spread the Divine faith in the world.

To those people who harbour ill-feeling against the honoured Mujaddid, or who fail to give him the respect and love due to such a servant of the faith, I say: Has there ever been in the world a liar and imposter who filled the hearts of his followers with such an urge for the propagation of Islam, and to whom Almighty Allah gave so much help as to continue fulfilling his dreams and aspirations long after his death? In the beginning we did not have the longing that Islam should spread in the world. It was the yearning of the Imam of the age who set us on this work, and set us on it so firmly that the longing which was in his heart was disseminated to thousands of other hearts. . . .

Whatever work of the propagation of Islam we have done up to today, whether it is little or much, it is all the outcome of his inner urge which Allah had strengthened with the power of His own Will. And Allah caused the foundations of the propagation of Islam in English-speaking countries to be laid by the hands of a man who himself was a complete stranger to the English language.”
(Jama’at-i Qadian aur har Musalman kay li’y lahma fikriyya, pp. 8-11.)

This is far more effective than any dry discussion of beliefs and throwing references at each other. But as to hearts of stone, it will bounce off them without effect.

Thank you for posting this link. I have looked at the English translation which your friends have done “now”. I presume “now” means that the translation has been done since the National Assembly proceedings were recently published.

Please confirm that your translation of the proceedings of 27th August 1974, in which Lahoris were questioned, which is from page 354 to 415 of your pdf file, is a full and accurate translation of the National Assembly Proceedings for that day, which are on pages 1511 to 1717 (pdf file pages 783 to 886).

Please confirm, in particular, that the statements your translation attributes to Maulana Sadruddin correspond to what he is reported to have said in the National Assembly record, and similarly that the statements your translation attributes to Mirza Masud Baig correspond to what he is reported to have said in the National Assembly record.

Mirza Nasir Ahmad Acknowledgement of Qadiani Organizational Support for PPP in 1970 Elections.

In 1970 General Elections in Pakistan, Pakistan People Party (PPP) won. It is a known fact, although never acknowledged in public by Qadiani Khalifas, that their organization at organizational level, in form of votes, finances, and manpower supported PPP. That brought PPP into power and its Chairman Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto became Pakistan’s Prime Minister. (According to people who testified in Justice Samdani Inquiry Commission this nexus between PPP and Qadiani Organization is prominently identified. And it is the reason for PPP to not make it public to this day, to avoid embarrassment).

In recently published report of In-camera 1974 Proceedings of National Assembly, on page 117 (pdf page 70) Qadiani Khalifa 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad in order to establish a good size Qadiani population in Pakistan quotes a political party (opponent of PPP) that PPP won because 21 Lakh (2.1 million) Adult Qadiani Volunteers helped PPP.

In book ‘Last 323 Days of Bhutto’ by Col Rafi-ud-Din, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto told him that he declared Qadianis Kafir because they were acting as KING MAKERS the way Jews act in United States. It is also known fact in Pakistani Political History of 1970s that after Bhutto became Prime Minister, Qadiani Khalifa 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad and his brother later Qadiani Khalifa 4 Mirza Tahir Ahmad started political contact to build nexus with Pakistan Tahreek-e-Istaqlal Chairman Air Marshal (retired) Asghar Khan to keep Bhutto under Qadiani Khalifa pressure. Bhutto just outsmarted them. Unfortunately Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement became innocent bystander victim. According to Haqqiqat Passand Party leader Professor Chaudhry Ghulam Rasool sahib, it would have been much better if Bhutto had declared Qadiani Organization as Political Party and banned it. Confiscating their finances, publications and properties. This would have prevented LAM becoming victim and the government protection of fanaticism that is prevailing in Pakistan today.

Comparing the National Assembly proceedings with Rationalist’s presented English translation, if you reach top of pdf page 361 of his English version, the same question is being asked in the NA proceedings on page 1536 starting 7 lines from the bottom (pdf page 796).

The Attorney-General asks if Maulana Muhammad Ali entered into bai`at of Hakim Nur-ud-Din, and upon receiving the answer ‘yes’ from Mirza Masud Baig, the Attorney-general then asks: How could he then object (in 1914 against Mirza Mahmud Ahmad) that as I have taken bai`at of Mirza (Ghulam Ahmad) sahib I don’t need to take bai`at with the khalifa?

What reply does Mirza Masud Baig give?

According to Rationalist’s English version:

“(No answer… remains quiet)”

But according to the National Assembly transcript, Mirza Masud Baig replied (as translated into English by me below):

“I will say about this that the Maulana (Muhammad Ali) sahib himself answered this. He said: I took bai`at at the hand of Hazrat Mirza sahib and after that at the hand of Maulana Nur-ud-Din. Neither of them instructed me to declare Muslims as kafir. But Mirza Mahmud Ahmad instructs me to do it. Because of this belief of his, I cannot enter into his bai`at. If Mirza Mahmud Ahmad gives up this belief, I will not refuse entering into his bai`at.”

Going by their recent past form, people like Rationalist and 4pac are likely to reply that this difference in the two accounts is “inconsequential” and Zahid Aziz is again indulging in matters of trivial detail. Yes, in the bizarre world of anti-Ahmadiyya logic there is almost no difference between giving no answer and remaining quiet and giving a full answer! Blog readers can judge their mental condition from this.

Despite the circus of National Assembly proceedings of 1974, where the Prosecutor, Judge and Jury were the Mullahs, HMGA stood out as a Mujaddid from the testimony of AAIIL. The following is a summary by a reader who comments upon the observations of Justice Munir (of the famous Munir Enquiry Report of 1954) in his book, which is relevant to the current thread. Reader can judge for him/herself that ‘what a difference an impartial judge’ makes.
 
AL-AHMADIYYA, Letters, p. 14-15, June-July 1980 [pdf download]

 
“FROM JINNAH TO ZIA”
 
I have just read FROM JINNAH TO ZIA by Chief Justice Munir (Retd.). The title is apparently misleading, a more appropriate title would have been, “Munir Report, Ahmadis, Muslims and Pakistan”, but even this would not have been exact. Nevertheless the book was very interesting. It appears to present various aspects of Ahmadis in an impartial manner, in fact, a great part of the book is devoted to Ahmadis and there is also a mention of the agitation which led Chaudhary Sir Muhammad Zafrullah Khan to resign from his post of Foreign Minister of Pakistan. Justice Munir has quoted Maulana Muhammad Ali throughout the book. On occasions his commentary is quoted along with others. This may indicate that Munir recognises the Lahore Ahmadis as a progressive people, (this conclusion was made after a full reading). Munir is also very critical of many so called ‘Ulama, Maulana Abul Ala Maududi (who died recently) and many others who are now or were actively involved in the polities of Pakistan, but at the time of establishing Pakistan were deadly against it, abusing Jinnah, calling PAKistan (land of the pure), NA-PAKistan (land of the impure), etc. In fact Munir has thoroughly condemned these characters and indirectly, partially, exposed them as terrible opportunists.
 
Throughout his book he has stressed that Quad-i A’zam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was in favour of Pakistan being a Secular State with equal rights to the minorities, and it was only after his death that Liaqat All Khan decided to make a Constitution calling Pakistan a Muslim State.
 
With regard to a very important question “Who is a Muslim?” he has exposed the views of the ‘Ulama and it comes across very clearly that they have no one definition of Islam. In fact, one may conclude from some declarations that all Shi’ahs are non-Muslims or vice versa all non-Shi’ahs are non-Muslims!
 
While reading, it occurred to me, may be the late Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto declared Ahmadis not-Muslims as he was afraid that his government would eventually tumble like the one in the fifties when the then Prime Minister Khwajah Nazim-ud-Din decided that for the sake of law and order and its imposition he would clamp down on the agitators against the Ahmadis, instead of allowing their demand to be met. History has shown now that whatever way the decision went the government at that particular time came down prematurely. I do not know if the author’s writing was presented in such a way as to imply this, but this is my impression. I will send a copy to you for a detailed review in Al-Ahmadiyya.
 
Clifton, Karachi, Pakistan Basharat Ahmad Tufail

@Rationalist,

Why are you against LAM. After all they did not rob you or deny you education!

Blog readers may be interested to read that quotation from Al-Hilal, the magazine of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, which I referred to in the last comment. It was published in the issue for 25 March 1914. Translated from Urdu, it is as follows:

“For some time, there had been two parties in this Movement over the question of takfir. One party believed that non-Ahmadis are Muslims even though they may not believe in Mirza sahib’s claims. The other party, however, declared openly and clearly that those people who do not believe in Mirza sahib are kafir absolutely — innā li-llāhi wa innā ilai-hi rāji‘ūn. The head of the latter party is Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, and this faction has now made him khalifa but the first group does not accept this. The writing published in this connection by Maulvi Muhammad Ali, and the wonderful and admirable courage he has shown in expressing these views while staying in Qadian, where the heads of the other party live, is truly an event which shall always be regarded as a memorable event of this year.”

Note: This issue of Al-Hilal is available online at the website of the Digital Library of India. I have confirmed this extract by reading it from that website yesterday.

It makes one wonder as to what Islam and what faith do Rationalist et al. represent? What is the source of their inspirations? Their style of arguments and modus operandi are neither found in Quran, nor Sunnah. They stoop so low that that they will not hesitate to fabricate their evidence as outlined by Dr. Aziz above. It is this kind of behavior that Quran addresses:
 
29:11. Indeed, Allâh will bring to light those who believe, and He will also reveal the hypocrites.
 
29:12. And those who disbelieve say to those who believe, `Follow our way and we will bear (the consequences of) your sins (at the time of judgment), whereas they can bear nothing whatsoever of their sins. They are as a matter of fact liars.
 
29:13. (On the other hand) they will certainly have to bear the burdens of their own sins as well as (some) burdens (of leading others astray) over and above their own burdens. And they will be questioned on the Day of Resurrection about (the lies) that they used to fabricate. [Nooruddin]

A classic case of ‘digging one’s own grave’ by Rationalist. He proudly made tall claims and gave to world the following link:
 
http://www.khatm-e-nubuwwat.org/Books/Data/english/qad-defeated-in-the-Parliament/qad-defeated-in-the-Parliament.pdf
 
On page 8 of the above pdf we have the following excerpted para which refers to South Africa Case (see link 1, link 2) i.e. in 1982, a member of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement in Cape Town filed a civil suit against certain bodies of the Muslim religious leaders (principally, the MJC or Muslim Judicial Council) claiming that he is a Muslim and entitled to all the rights of a Muslim, but that these bodies are defaming him by branding the Lahore Ahmadis as unbelievers and apostates, and are also preventing him from exercising his rights as a Muslim because he is a Lahore Ahmadi. The Rationalist’s pdf on p. 8 states:

Years ago, a case was launched against the Qadiyanis in the South African court. Rabita Alam e Islami Makkah contacted the then President of Pakistan, General Muhammad Zia ul Haq to send a delegation to South Africa to assist in the proceedings of this case. The Pakistani government deputed Maulana Taqi Usmani, Mr. Muhammad Afzal Cheema, Syed Riaz ul Hassan Gilani, Maulana Mufti Zain ul Abedin and Professor Ghazi Mehmood Ahmad to South Africa. Aalmi Majlis Tahaffuz e Khatm e Nubuwwat (The International Organization to defend the Finality of Prophet hood) deputed Maulana Muhammad Yousuf Ludhianvi, Maulana Abdur Raheem Ash’ar and Mr. Abdur Rehman Yaqoob Bawa to represent it. General Zia ul Haq ordered to provide a copy of the complete discussion in the assembly regarding this issue in 1974 for reference. The copy of the discussion sent for reference to South Africa, combined with the personal notes of Maulana Mufti Mehmood, Maulana Ghulam Ghaus Hazarvi and Maulana Abdul Haq and the copies of daily proceedings provided to them, being the members of the assembly, this book is an authentic document bearing an authoritative and referral command on the topic.

What the above tells us is that full force of Pakistan government was behind the defendants. And, not only that, they were also provided with the “secret” transcripts of the National Assembly of Pakistan of the 1974 proceedings. These proceedings were so “secret” that (again from page 8 of pdf):

The Bhutto government did not publish this proceeding despite repeated commitments. Zia ul Haq, Junejo, Benazir Bhutto, Jatoi and Nawaz Sharif, none had the courage to publish this document.

How shameful for the Mullahs that despite the fact that they had weeks of proceedings from the forum of their own choice i.e. National Assembly in which the Judge, Prosecution and the Jury were all for-about-by Mullahs and they still could not prove Lahori Ahmadi’s as non-Muslim in a court of law. They could not defend “the finality” of Prophet Muhammad PBUH, the last of the prophets. Rather, they disgracefully withdrew their case. They should change the name of the organization of “Aalmi Majlis Tahaffuz e Khatm e Nubuwwat” to The International Organization to NOT TO defend the Finality of Prophet hood. Why did they not present the “greatest evidence” against the Lahoris in the court? Rather, one must state that their lawyers were wise enough not to present the National Assembly proceedings in front of the court. What chance did Nazi laws stood outside Hitler’s fiefdom?
 
Thank you Rationalist in proving one thing at least that the National Assembly proceedings could not be produced in a court of law. Rather, they have no value for a court of law. They cannot stand a day in court of Justice. No court of Justice will tolerate a sham trial and a political circus. We rest our case. Allah-o-Akbar!
 
If the Lahoris at that point had known that these proceedings were available to the defense in South Africa, the Lahoris would then had a merry day in court. A God sent manna from heavens. They would have subpoenaed them. They would have shredded the whole sham of National Assembly to pieces along with the Constitution of Pakistan. Alas! In terms of fishing stories – “The big one that got away.”
 
Maybe in future whatever Rationalist and his cohorts write or defame on the web might turn out to be a test case for libel to bring these National Assembly proceedings into a court of Law outside Pakistan. Maybe…

@ Zahid

GO and kiss white people’s asses again…you aren’t touching us.  If you were in India 100 years ago you might survive too..  Go to Peshawar with that non-sense..them boys will run you out of town.  

You see, Lahoris Ahmadis are those Indians who wish to embrace white-culture.  They will never condemn British behaviors in South Africa, however, they will fight to be Muslims…

Face it…your children dont care about Islam anymore…your mission failed.  

“Rationalist” writes: “GO and kiss white people’s asses again…”
 
HMGA and his followers in LAM are accused for over hundred years by Mullah for KISSING Empress of India, Queen Victoria of British Empire. HMGA was born and lived in country ruled by the QUEEN OF BRITISH EMPIRE.
 
Let’s see what “Rationalist” heros did, while they had choice to “Kiss or not to Kiss White Behind” of current Queen of British Empire:
 
1-Khatam-e-Nabuwat-Academy, UK Mullahs and their SPOKESMAN Akbar Chaudhry took oath on becoming Citizen of UK:

“I, (Insert full name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”

2-Ahmedi.org owner Ahmad Karim Shaikh and other Mullahs, including the famous “Shaikh-ul-Islam” Tahir-ul-Qadri took oath on becoming Citizen of Canada:
 
“I, [name], do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God”
 
3-M.Sadiq (or A. Sadiq who claims to hold a Ph.D and is some sort of Professor in Australia, who also wrote and moderated under user-Id “Muslim1” on ahmedi.org) took oath on becoming Citizen of Australia:
 
“I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD! ”
 
Oaths of Allegiances of UK, Canada, Australia, New Zeland:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom)
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(Canada)
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(Australia)

Living under the British rule was an idea that Allama Iqbal did not abhor, rather welcomed it.

“Iqbal expresses support for British rule over Muslims of India during his London visits in 1931–32. Says he never demanded a separate Muslim state outside British rule.” See this link with evidentiary proof from his letter to The Times of London and his speeches in London.

History has proven that each one of them, HMGA, Iqbal, Abdullah Yusuf Ali were right to appreciate the British rule for what it offered, if nothing else the freedom of religion, freedom of thought, equal justice and security for all – the basic ingredients of a state and a civilized society that were lost with the departure of the British in what is now Pakistan. How sad and un-Rationalist.
 

 
Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama was founded at Kanpur in 1894 in the first annual convention of Nadwatul Ulema (“Organisation of Scholars”) by Muhammad Ali Mongiri, Ashraf Ali Thanwi, Mahmud-ul-Hasan and Shibli Nomani with an idea to counter the challenge of western education. The institution was intended to be a modified version of Deoband.

Nadwatul-Ulema held its first convention on April 22–24, 1894 (Shawwal 15-17, 1311 AH) in Madarsa Faiz-e-Aam. It was attended by a huge group of scholars from all sects of the ummah and all corners of the sub-continent including Maulana Abdullah Ansari (Founder Nazim-e-Diniyaat, MAO College) and Maulana Shibli Nomani, who were teachers of Arabic and Persian at MAO College. Maulana Shibli Nomani proposed Maulana Mufti Lutfullah to chair the opening session. According to Nawab Sadar Yaar Jang Maulana Habibur Rahman Khan Sherwani, Maulana Ibrahim Aaroomi and Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalwi were representing Ahle-Hadis (Salafi) delegation, Maulvi Ghulamul-Hasnain were representing Shia delegation. Maulana Shah Muhammad Hussain presented the organization’s objectives and Maulana Shibli Nomani presented the working guidelines (Dasturul-Amal).

The foundation stone was laid by John Briscott Hewitt, Lieutenant Governor of India on November 28, 1906. (Wikipedia – link)

At least no British ruler ever laid foundation stone of a building in Qadian. Yet, the efforts of big hitters Mullahs of the time including the famous “big hater” Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalwi’s (who was at the forefront to declare HMGA as kafir) were supported and funded by none other than the British crown, something quite fundamentally un-Rationalistic.

An interesting fact remains that a significant number of “saviors”, be they the Presidents or Prime Ministers or Party Chiefs of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan not only reside in the West, some emigrate to the West, others find refuge in the West and still others have Western citizenship and have pledged allegiance to the Queen – totally un-Rationalist?

One such savior is “Allamah Doctor Professor Tahir-ul Qadri” from Canada who is an ‘expert’ on Quran and Law as he is a lawyer and was a professor of Law at University of Punjab.

In the following Danish TV video on YouTube from 1:20 onwards see for yourselves the self-contradictions, evasiveness, deflection, ambiguous non-answers, plain lying and wrong interpretation of Quranic Law by the said savior in context of Blasphemy. Some even claim for him to be a Mujaddid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv3UsiKC6g8&feature=player_embedded
 

Attorney General’s 10 Days preparation to Question Lahori-Party

1974 NA Proceedings page 501 (pdf file page 265):

There is conversation between Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiat and Speaker of National Assembly Sahibzada Farooq Ali. AG has asked Speaker to give him 10 days after he finishes questioning QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad, to prepare his questions for Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement witnesses.

I am confident a fair minded person with fear of Allah SWT in his/her heart after reading LAM witness testimony could conclude that AG did a poor job even after an extended break. This only proves that AG, ZAB (PM Bhutto), PPP, and NA of 1974 did atrocity on LAM. And looking at Pakistan’s deteriorating condition from any angle it only proves Pakistan and its Citizens are facing the consequences for the sins of their fathers in 1974.  Even though Allah SWT gave chance to Pakistanis to correct themselves with warnings for more than 20 years. It is so sad that Pakistanis have turned out be worse than nation of Prophet Younas AS.

Mirza Nasir Ahmad EVASIVE and CONTRADICTORY answers in National Assembly.

Abdul Hafeez Pirzada was Minister of Law in Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s PPP government in 1974. He was also one of the founding members of PPP and close confidant of ZA Bhutto. In run up to1970 elections he became close to QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad. In aftermath of Rabwah railway station incident PPP government planned to hold National Assembly trial of Ahmadis (Qadianis and LAM).  According to Haqiqat Passand Party (HPP. English translation: ‘Party of Realists’) founding member Professor Chaudhry Ghulam Rasool sahib (of village ‘Chuck # 35’ near Sargodha) Abdul Hafeez Pirzada sent message to QK3, advising him: “By law you do NOT have to come to the upcoming National Assembly trial, and you jamaat (Qadiani organization) will be declared non-Muslim (i.e. Kafir) minority regardless”.

Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, personally a secular person, wanted to return favor to QK3 for his help to PPP in winning 1970 general elections. He was sympathetic to QK3 and wanted to prevent QK3 from personal humiliation in National Assembly.

While reading QK3 testimony I umpteen times realized QK3 was giving EVASIVE and CONTRADICTORY answers to Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar (AG) questions, but I kept my self from posting my opinion on blog, until I came across following comment by QK3 sympathizer, a person none other than Abdul Hafeez Pirzada himself. In a follow up comment to Sahibzada Ahmad Raza Khan Qasuri [Member of National Assembly], in which he pointed out QK3 is repeating his answers. I am quoting Abdul Hafeez Pirzada comment in English language:

1974 National Assembly proceedings page 552 (pdf file page 292):
Quote:

Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada: Sir [Speaker of National Assembly], it has disadvantages [i.e. repeating answers]; it has also got some advantages because, from the point of view of the prosecutor also, you have repeat question sometimes; and the more they repeat an answer, the more CONTRADICTIONS are established. So, now that we have displayed so much patience, for about a days and a half. I think, we should bear with this, because you would appreciate that the witness is trying to be EVASIVE and, therefore, the Attorney-General has had to ask a question time and again. So, let us bear with it for about a day or a day and a half. We are now coming to the close.

End quote. Note: words within [] and in uppercase are mine.

If we set aside the important moot point whether 1974 National Assembly had right to declare Kalima-Shahada reciters as non-Muslim minority, after reading QK3 testimony I have come to conclusion that Qadianis, judged only on the basis of their own performance, deserved to be declared non-Muslim minority in Pakistan. Unfortunately, Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement became innocent by stander victim in this controversy.

Wikipedia link to Abdul Hafeez Pirzada:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Hafiz_Pirzada

Rashid,
If the Lahore Ahmadiyya movement is declared to be the only true momin muslims, all other muslim sects are declared to be muslim ( but unable to achieve the rank of momin – this is a lahore ahmadi belief) and Qadianis remain Kafir, would that bode well for the future of Pakistan?

Dear Umar, in about five hours’ time I will be saying janaza prayers for my mother, as prescribed by Islam. I can, and do, say the same janaza prayers for any departed kalima-reciter (which can be behind our own Imam or I could lead it myself), unless it came to my knowledge that the deceased openly reviled and abused the Promised Messiah.

When Dr Israr Ahmad died a couple of years ago, it was after he had admitted on television that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had done service to Islam against its opponents. Can you realise the courage that took? So we prayed for his soul.

And what are these prayers for the deceased? They are that Allah may forgive them and join them with true momins in the hereafter.

Attorney General Sought Help from Qadiani Khalifa 3 to Weaken LAM Defense.

Background Information:

Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement was also invited by Pakistan National Assembly to present their defense in the famous trial of Ahmadis in 1974. LAM presented an EXPLANATORY STATEMENT before their witness testified in NA. (Link to published statement). LAM written statement was submitted to NA and its copies were provided to NA members, while QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad was testifying on behalf of his Organization. Prosecutor i.e. Pakistan’s Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar, and perhaps other members of NA and Speaker Sahibzada Farooq Ali got chance to read LAM explanatory statement. Obviously they found that LAM stand and beliefs are opposite to Qadianis and absolutely rational and strong on issue of fundamental belief that Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS was THE LAST PROPHET OF ALLAH SWT, and NO NEW OR OLD PROPHET CAN COME AFTER HIM. This stand was so strong and powerful that it was damaging prosecution case of declaring LAM or Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib outside of pale of Islam. And in presence of such a defense any judgment contrary to it would be remembered as most biassed, unfair judgment in history of Islam and perhaps world. And it would only bring shame to Prosecutor, National Assembly and Government of Pakistan at the time. History will remember it as travesty of justice and a sham trial. And I am confident this was the real reason for keeping proceedings of the trial secret, until recently when its publication was forced under High Court orders.

So working on proverb ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend’, AG sought QK3 help in countering proofs, arguments, and reasons provided by LAM. As prosecution, judges and executioners wanted to establish as truth the GREATEST LIE OF ALL TIMES that HMGA made claim of Ummati-Nabi.

1974 NA Proceedings page 944 (pdf page 492):

AG: Mirza sahib [QK3] we have received a statement from Party from Lahore [LAM]. There are some issues on which I want your clarification. They say, “Mirza sahib [HMGA] NEVER made claim of prophethood”. This is very important issue. You [QK3] claim he [HMGA] made claim of “ummati-nabi” and “he [HMGA] was NOT. He NEVER made such claim”. I will request Speaker to give you one copy [of LAM statement]. Then I will ask you questions.
QK3: No one beside LAM has right to give clarification about their statement.
AG: You please take a look. Then I will ask you questions.
QK3: You give us LAM statement. We will prepare an answer for you.
AG: We need to clarify certain points.
QK3: What benefit this committee [National Assembly] will get by clarifying difference between Lahore Ahmadiyya Jamaat and ours?
AG: There is resolution that brackets both of you [Qadiani Organization and LAM].
QK3: It will be fair to me to explain in detail and that might be 200 pages and something.
AG: Mirza sahib, I do NOT want to file a rejoinder to what they have said……
QK3: No? What do you want then?
AG: ….. I want certain points that they have raised that Mirza sahib [HMGA] never claimed to be a Nabi….
Speaker NA: It is allowed. The copy [of LAM explanatory statement] may be given [to QK3].

My comment: Above dialogue makes it clear that how much scared Prosecutor, and National Assembly were from LAM and their conscience was bothering them, in their pre decision to declare LAM and HMGA a non-Muslim [Nauzubilah]. They stooped so low that they sought help from the very people (Qadianis) with whom they had the original confrontation.

Usman, the legal flaws you mention in your first paragraph must, I think, be part of the reason for suppressing the proceedings, because Bhutto must have known as a law expert himself that the world would ridicule and condemn the whole procedure on legal grounds.

You write: “The issue should have been what LAM believes and whether those beliefs are consistent with being a Muslim. Pure and simple.”

This is what I, as translator/interpreter in the South Africa case, thought we would be doing. But Hafiz Sher Muhammad sahib said he wanted to prove that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib was a Muslim, and allegations to the contrary against him were false. The judgment, of course, could only say that the party to the case was entitled to all the rights and privileges of Muslims.

After the first case was over, the Qadiani Jamaat produced a leaflet against us entitled “Moment of exultation or shame”, saying that we ought to be ashamed that we won by denying that Hazrat Mirza sahib claimed prophethood. Hafiz sahib wrote a reply to it, which I translated, saying to Mirza Tahir Ahmad, “I proved your grandfather to be a Muslim”!

Regarding your last paragraph about believing in person A, whose beliefs may be judged to be wrong while yours are correct, our maulvis do have this concept that if they declare someone as a claimant to prophethood or a kafir (according to their judgment, of course) then anyone believing him to be a Muslim becomes a kafir. So, not only LAM, but any other Muslim who considers Hazrat Mirza sahib as a Muslim, is a kafir. Hence that declaration on the ID card and passport form which they force everyone to sign who calls himself a Muslim.

This is also why they had to say in the 1974 amendment:

“A person who does not believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of The Prophethood of MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him), the last of the Prophets or claims to be a Prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him), or recognizes such a claimant as a Prophet or religious reformer, is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or law.”

By the way, there is a contradiction here.

When Muslims acknowledge “the absolute and unqualified finality of The Prophethood of MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him)”, and when anyone considers him as “the last of the Prophets”, it is obviously in some sense of the word prophet. But the clause goes on to say: “or claims to be a Prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever”.

The support given to the British by the Ottoman (Turkish) empire in 1857 would have been due to the famous Crimean war, 1853-1856, having just finished, in which the British and the French were allied with the Turks against Russia.

Prophetic Words of Ahmad Raza Khan Qasuri

Ahmad Raza Khan Qasuri is Pakistani Politician. His one fame to prominence is that on his accusation Prime Minister of Pakistan Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto went to gallows for murder of his (ARK Qasuri) father.

On last day of QK3 testimony between the session breaks he addressed the Chairman [Speaker] Farooq Ali Khan and thus it became part of record of 1974 NA Proceedings on Ahmadiyya trial. He complained to the Chairman that on his way to National Assembly an assassination attempt was made on him. It is in reported in English. What struck me is that what he said then was very prophetic. If we replace name of ARK Qasuri and put name of any follower of HMGA, it perfectly fits well. His address is more than two pages long. I reproduce portion of a paragraph:

1974 NA Proceedings page 1416 (pdf file page 734):

“Sir, if you will not protect us, because you are the symbol of democracy, you are the symbol of rule of law in this country, if you will not defend us, Sir who will depend [defend] us? And if we have to depend [defend] ourselves in this country, if everybody starts holding guns, then Sir, this country will not find anything, there will be no society and there will be no law. There will be absolutely chaos, there will be bloodshed. And Sir, we have already passed through a blood-bath [probably referring to blood-bath in Bangladesh before its breakaway from Pakistan]. We know what is a blood-bath and we don’t want blood-bath in this country.

Sir, if this type of incident takes place and if we feel that we are not protected by the rule of law, by the Administration, then we will have to protect ourselves. And when everybody started protecting himself, Sir, you know, it will result in total chaos, it will result in disintegration of the country. And, Sir, for God’s sake, let us save this country. This country is lying [laying] shambles. We are already finished totally.”

My comment: I don’t know what to make of it. Was it simply a coincidence or a preview of what the future held for Pakistan, and how National Assembly decision will impact tomorrow’s Pakistan? Was Allah SWT giving a message to elected representatives of Pakistan?

Members of Qadiani Delegation in 1974 NA on Qadiani Issue Proceedings

Qadiani delegation in National Assembly had five members. Purpose of people other than QK3 was to assist him in providing references:

1-QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad
2-QK4 Mirza Tahir Ahmad (in his speeches he has acknowledged he was part of delegation)
3-Abu-Al-Atta (his one sentence speech is reported in NA Proceedings)
4-Dost Muhammad Shahid (the Qadiani historian, on Qadiani TV MTA and on Youtube video has acknowledged being part of delegation)
5-I do not know who was this person.

I have seen QK4 Mirza Tahir Ahmad in youtube videos asking his Qadiani scholars to provide him references. That brings question in my mind what was purpose of QK4 to be part of delegation if he was always in need of Qadiani scholars. The only answer that comes to my mind is that he was already working on becoming next Qadiani Khalifa. And in order to establish his credentials over his brothers especially over Mirza Rafi Ahmad, he became part of delegation. As this brought him one step more close to the coveted position.  Qadianis hold belief that God makes their Khalifa. So, Mirza Tahir Ahmad was HELPING GOD TO MAKE HIM NEXT QADIANIS KHALIFA!

PM Z. A. Bhutto Received Payment in the Same Coins.

History repeats itself. Justice is first served in this life. What goes around, comes around.

In my life I have not seen anyone else on which these proverbs apply as perfectly as they did on Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (ZAB) of Pakistan.

1-ZAB declared Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (LAM) members Kafir (nauzubilah) in 1974 through 2nd constitutional amendment. ZAB was himself declared Kafir by Lahore High Court in its decision that gave death penalty to him. He was extremely hurt by this decision. He in his testimony in Pakistan Supreme Court stated his preference for being put to death by hanging then to be declared Kafir. He said that even a person like Hazrat Abu Sufian a bitter enemy of Islam when recited Kalima-Shahada was accepted as Muslim by Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS. (Reference: ‘Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto from Birth to Martyrdom’ by Sajjad Ali Bukhari). I am glad to know ZAB realized before being put to death by executioner Christian Tara Massih that recitation of Kalima-Shahada is enough for someone to be declared a Muslim.

2-ZAB allowed opponents of HMGA and LAM to publically say what they wanted, but testimony of LAM witness Abdul Manan Omar sahib was held In-Camera and behind Closed Doors. In Lahore High Court prosecution witnesses in ZAB trial testified in open court. Whereas ZAB testimony was In-Camera. ZAB was very angry with this unfairness and travesty of justice. (Reference: ‘If I Am Assassinated’ by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto).

3-ZAB was very proud of his Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar performance in 1974 NA Proceedings that declared LAM members Kafir (nauzubilah). ZAB was highly critical of the same Yahya Bakhtiar for handling his case. He accused him of incompetency and destroying his defense. (Reference: ‘Last 323 days of Bhutto’ by Col. Rafi-ud-Din).
I don’t know whether to call it co-incidents or there was divine hand behind his judicial murder:

I-ZAB in his book ‘If I Am Assassinated’ wrote names of LAM member and his relative through marriage whom he blamed for building a murder case on him.

II-ZAB’s final death sentence was signed by General Zia Ul Haq. He was son of LAM member.

III-ZAB was put to death by, a Christian hangman by religion, Tara Massih.

ZAB the most powerful man in Pakistani society at the time was put to death by people belonging to weaker segments of the society.

Why Pakistanis Are Crying Foul Play?

These days it is election season in Pakistan. Government officials appointed to scrutinize nomination papers of candidates are asking questions to verify whether they are Muslims or not. For these government officials it is NOT enough for a candidate to call himself/herself a Muslim or recite Kalima-Shahada to be declared and accepted as a Muslim. Many prominent politicians are getting disqualified for failing the oral exam in Islamic Studies. Now Pakistani politicians, political program anchors, and commentators are crying foul play. I see it as continuation of punishment of Pakistanis through the son of Lahori-Ahmadi i.e. General Zia ul Haq. Following is one such program on Dawn TV:

http://www.siasat.pk/forum/showthread.php?173735-Ansar-Abbasi-Proved-Asma-Jhangir-a-Liar-in-a-Live-Show

@Omar,

Akbar Chaudhry, a former Qadiani (MTA personality) and now anti-HMGA, anti-LAM, anti-Qadiani, and Khatam-e-Nabuwat-Academy-UK spokesman, on his website qern.org has posted the 1974 National Assembly Proceedings on Qadiani Issue. Here is the link:http://files.qern.org/1974/index.html

Ahmadis and Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan

Dr. Ali Usman Qasmi, professor at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) has authored, above named book.  I have not read his book, but from the interview, to The News, it appears he has relied extensively on 1953 Justice Munir Inquiry Commission Report and 1974 Pakistan National Assembly proceedings on Qadiani Issue published in 2012. If anyone has read this book, please give your feedback.

Link to Dr. Ali Usman Qasmi interview:

http://tns.thenews.com.pk/no-scope-counter-response-from-ahmadis/#.VP_elfnF-So

I received my copy of Dr. Ali Usman Qasmi book 'The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan', from amazon.com. In the very initial pages of introduction i get the feeling that author assumes that claims of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib as propagated by Mahmudis (those who believe QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad as "Musleh Mahud") and alleged by opponents of HMGA and [opponents of] LAM are true. Given this misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of author, i wonder how he can be impartial in his opinion. Anyways, i have to finish reading this book before forming my opinion about authors knowledge and impartiality.

Dr. Friedmann did not have access to the English translation of some of the more relevant books by Maulana Mohammad Ali. Especially Prophethood in Islam. He mentions this in one of his footnotes. A few years back one of our members contacted him to make him aware that the said book was available in English. Dr. Friedmann thanked him for this information but, if I recall correctly, indicated in his reply to the effect that he was not longer interested in further research on this subject.

In the book that Regis has referred us to (From Sufism to Ahmadiyya by Adil Hussain Khan) the author writes on p. 48:

"…he never openly claimed prophethood in the way that one might expect a prophet of God would do. Instead of making a forthright claim, Ghulam Ahmad would either qualify his claims with elaborate explanations or contextualize his prophecy with references to themes contrary to notions of prophethood in Islam, which only added to people’s confusion. Even in retrospect, making sense of the totality of these claims throughout Ghulam Ahmad’s career is a challenge due to numerous contradictions, deliberate ambiguity, and the general ambivalence with which Ghulam Ahmad evasively expressed his ideas." (bolding is mine)

This is nothing but the propaganda of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's opponents. Also, if someone doesn't "openly" claim prophethood, he doesn't claim prophethood in Islam because it is an essential part of the mission of a prophet "openly" to claim prophethood and leave no one in any doubt about it!

On page 51 he states:

"The existence of a muhaddath afer the death of the Prophet Muhammad is not incompatible with Islamic orthodoxy, but Ghulam Ahmad’s expansion of the qualities of a muhaddath were colored with the perfections of prophethood in such a way that they inappropriately overlapped."

Just compare what eminent Muslim scholars wrote, before and after the time of Hazrat Mirza sahib, about the rank of muhaddas.

Before his time…

Shah Wali-ullah of Delhi: “The rank of muhaddas is such that when a muhaddas arises, he does not have to follow conclusions derived by human reasoning, just as the sun eliminates the need for ordinary lamps. For he comes with revelation and the knowledge given to prophets.” (Tafhimat)

Sayyid Muhammad Ismail Shaheed: “The reason why apostleship (risalat) is sometimes ascribed to those who are muhaddas is that the Quranic verse, ‘We sent before you no messenger and no prophet’, is reported in a reading from Ibn Abbas with the words ‘and no muhaddas’ added”. 

“Some scholars of Hadith have said that in the report quoted from the Holy Prophet Muhammad about the number of prophets, the word 'prophets' (anbiya) refers not only to nabi but also includes those who are muhaddas.” (Abqaat).

And after his time…

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: “The most exalted group consists of those exclusively select, purified souls who are chosen by the Grantor of Divine grace and favour for momentous tasks. Their light of knowledge and action is derived from the fountain of prophethood, and they follow in the path of prophethood. These special persons are referred to in the hadith of Bukhari by the term muhaddas.” (Tazkira)

Maulana Mufti Kifayat-ullah (President of the Jami‘at al-‘Ulama, India, in the 1920s, known as Grand Mufti of India): “A muhaddas is he who receives the word of God by special revelation. Some scholars consider such a one to be a prophet of a low rank, and others consider him to be a saint of a high order.”

Hamza Yusuf Calls Pakistan’s Decision to Declare Ahmadis as Kafir a Political Issue

In a recently published youtube video Hamza Yusuf calls Pakistan’s decision to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslim minority a political problem. He also notes that Ismailis (followers of Prince Karim Agha Khan) do not even offer prayers like Muslims, but they are not declared non-Muslims because of their powerful political positions.

Knowing what Hamza Yusuf in last few years said about Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement and how under pressure retracted, makes me wonder if his answer in company of prominent American writers on Islam at a university forum is mere political expediency. Anyways please watch it in following clip:

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf condemns Pakistan's decision to declare Ahmadiyya non-Muslims

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FieqCwmbNQ

And he had to step into his 52nd year in January 1979 as per prophecy!

ZA Bhutto was a legal specialist, and master of law and constitution. Allah brought about his end through the legal procedure to show Who is the real Master of the legal process.

Also through his trial he came to admit that any kalima-reciter is a Muslim, when he himself was accused of being a Muslim in name only, and not at heart.

Dr. Zahid Aziz, 

What is the prophecy you are referring to? 

Hamid Nizami

The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Qasmi.

Page 89: In a meeting of newspaper editors, Hamid Nizami of Nawa'-I-Waqt brought the matter to the attention of I. H. Qureshi, the cabinet minister of central government. Nizami clearly pointed the finger at Mir Nur Ahmad as the chief architect of the whole propaganda machine. (Note 112).  Qureshi had already heard of similar rumors from other quarters and asked Nizami for proof. Accordingly, Nizami sent for the prime minister's perusal a file of provocative articles from newspapers supported by the government.

Note 112 (page 237): […] It should be noted here that, as opposed to the strong right-wing, anti-Ahmadi approach adopted by Nawa-i-Waqt later and continuing to date, its founding editor was much more liberal in his political disposition back in 1950s. He was strongly opposed to the demands for declaring Ahmadis a minority or for their removal from key positions. With regard to the latter question, he said before the court of inquiry that "this should not be suggested even in the case of Hindu citizens" ("Index Part III: Statements of Witnesses Nos. 107 to 123," 1116). Intriguingly, IGP Anwar Ali in his deposition described Hamid Nizami as belonging to the Lahori group of Jama'at Ahmadiyya ("Index Part IV: Statements of Witnesses Nos. 124 to 131," 1726).

Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hameed_Nizami

Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan

The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

Page 97: […] The representatives of the Punjab government sought permission and open backing from the central government "to resort to shooting and firing" in order to control the situation. This was fully supported from Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan representing the NWFP, who said that "time had come when Peerism, Mullahism and ecclesiasticism should be crushed for all time to come."

Comment: Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan was head of his faction of Pakistan Muslim League (PML—Qayyum Group). He was Chief Minister of NWF Province (now called KPK Province) from 1947 to 1953. He was political opponent of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (head of Pakistan People’s Party). Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in his political rallies used to use foul language to insult Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan, in a homosexual/ bisexual  connotation, based on part of his name 'Khan' in start and end of his name. Whereas history is witness that all three 'Peerism, Mullahism and ecclesiasticism' were instrumental in bring downfall to ZAB and creating current situation in Pakistan. Not to forget it was ZAB whose sexual parts were photographed after his death by hanging. It was he who indeed was insulted. No doubt protector of ones honor is only Allah SWT.

Wikipedia entry on KAQ Khan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qayyum_Khan

This existence of this letter was mentioned by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in his book Anwar-i Khilafat, published in 1916, in which he wrote:

“Again, there is a question as to the funeral prayers of a non-Ahmadi. Here we are confronted with the difficulty that the Promised Messiah gave permission in certain cases to offer prayers. There is no doubt that there are some references which lead to this conclusion and there is also a letter to this effect on which I shall ponder, but the practice of the Promised Messiah is against this.” (p. 91, original edition)

This book is on the Qadiani Jamaat website at this link. This reference is on page 148 of printed book, pdf file page 73, at the bottom of the page.

Maulana Muhammad Ali quoted the above passage in his English book Split in the Ahmadiyya Movement, published in 1918, and asked:

"But the question is, did M. Mahmud ever ponder on these fatwas and on that letter and did he announce the result to which deep thought on that point had led? Nearly two years have passed away since he uttered these words and he has been repeatedly asked to declare the result of his pondering but there is no reply." (p. 88)

In subsequent years Maulana Muhammad Ali continued to press Mirza Mahmud Ahmad on this point. In a short Urdu booklet, entitled Each and Every Qadiani invited to become judge, published in December 1940, he wrote:

"Fourth Fatwa: The letter written by the Promised Messiah which is either in the possession of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad or he has destroyed it, but whose existence he first admitted at the annual gathering in December 1915, and now in Al-Fazl of 23rd March 1940 in the following words: 'A man presented to me a letter written by the Promised Messiah about funeral prayers of a non-Ahmadi. After seeing it, I said: I have no answer to this'." (p. 5)

I should add that it is plainly absurd that, in such a matter, someone should treat just one unpublished letter as the basis on which to overturn his previous opinion. The conclusion you reach from his known and published writings cannot be reversed by something in a little known letter.

@Dr. Zahid Aziz, Nowhere mentioned Khwaja Nazir Ahmad was son of Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din.

LAM South Africa Case.

The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

Page 138: The Ahmadiyyah “heresy” was contested in many other court cases, both inside and outside British India. In Maullim and Another v. Marrikan (1925) from the supreme court of the Straits Settlement (Singapore), the court said, “The overwhelming evidence in this case is that the fundamentals of Mohammedanism are believed in by Ahmediyas who are also therefore entitled to be called Mohammedans and not Kafirs and that the points on which they differ from the orthodox are on the traditions which have never been considered fundamental”. (Note 60).  An important case in recent times was contested in South Africa in 1983-85. There, the dispute was over the religious belonging of the Lahori jama’at of the Ahmadis. The government of Pakistan under General Zia-ul-Haq offered help to the Muslim Council of South Africa in contesting this case by sending a team of legal and religious experts from Pakistan. Later, this team of experts refused to contest the case on the plea that an ecclesiastical issue could not be discussed in a secular court of law, and that too by a Jewish judge. The court nevertheless, went ahead with the proceedings as it was not unprecedented in South Africa for the courts to deal with doctrinal disputes where necessary. (Note 61). In its final verdict, the court upheld the rights of Ahmadis of the Lahori jama’at as Muslims (i.e., their right to pray in a mosque and be buried in a Muslim cemetery) and instructed their opponents to desist from distribution of propaganda material labeling them as non-Muslims and apostates. (Note 62). Since it was the religious doctrines of the Lahori jama’at – which did not consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad a prophet but only a reformer – that were under discussion, the court’s decision left question of beliefs of the Qadiyani jama’at unresolved.

Notes 60, 61, and 62 (Page 245): Cited in Zahid Aziz, ed. And trans., The Ahmadiyya Case: Famous Religious Court Case in Cape Town between Lahore Ahmadiyya Muslims and Sunni Muslims Religious Bodies; Case History, Judgement and Evidence (Newark: Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’at Islam Lahore, 1987)31-2, 37.

Comment: In another thread, on this blog, I have pointed out number of inaccuracies in Ali Usman Qasmi book.  There I have repeatedly made point that author Ali Qasmi is forming opinion of HMGA based on opinion of other authors. Where as in above quote he is telling readers that South Africa court agrees with LAM regarding claim of HMGA. So it is not correct to assume perhaps Ali Qasmi was not aware of HMGA true claim.

South Africa court case published in Pakistani Law Journal:

http://www.ahmadiyya.org/sa-case/pakjournal-0.pdf

http://www.ahmadiyya.org/sa-case/pakjournal.pdf

Two narratives of Rabwah incident, and ZAB dividend.

The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

Growing up in Pakistan I had heard one narrative from Qadiani circles that it was Nishtar Medical College students who used foul language for Ahmadi (Qadiani) girls, calling them Qadiani Hoors, waiting at train station in Rabwah. That infuriated Ahmadi (Qadiani) young men and fight broke out. Other narrative according to Qasmi:

Page 175: On 29 May 1974, a group of students from Nishtar Medical College, Multan were on a trip to the northern areas of Pakistan. When the train halted near Rabwah — the headquarters Ahmadiyya organization in Punjab — Ahmadis boarded the train and started distributing their missionary literature. A section of the students on the platform were infuriated and raised slogans against the Ahmadis and their spiritual leader. 

Page 176: Religious  extremists regarded Bhutto as sympathetic to the Ahmadis because the Ahmadis had supported the PPP during the elections of 1970. Before the elections, claim Ahmadi sources, Bhutto had met Mirza Tahir in expectation of receiving financial support for his campaign. Mirza Tahir was reportedly reluctant because Bhutto's list of candidates was comprised mainly of communists, who, warned Tahir, would take over Pakistan using Bhutto's popularity. Still, Ahmadis voted for the PPP in many areas primarily to keep out the religio-political parties. […] In the midst of rabid anti-Ahmadi sentiments from religious groups, Bhutto was eager to shed this baggage.

Comment: Above excerpt gives credence to what Professor Chaudhry Gulam Rasool (founding member of Haqqiqat Passand Party) narrated to me few years ago. According to Chaudhry sahib, as Bhutto became Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mirza Tahir Ahmad (later Qadiani Khalifa 4) started acting as if he too has become Pakistan's PM and believing he is King Maker. Mirza Tahir started interfering in Punjab's politics in particular. He also started getting licenses, which he would sell, to start mills. Chief Minister of Punjab Haneef Ramay was quite disturbed with such meddling by Mirza Tahir in provincial administration. So, when ZA Bhutto got first chance to get rid of Qadiani baggage he grabbed it, and in one stroke he finished the nuisance of Mirza Tahir Ahmad and Qadianis. He made them irrelevant in Pakistani politics. According to 'Last 323 days of Bhutto' by Colonel Rafi-ud-Din, Bhutto said,"Qadianis were King Makers like Jews in United States".

Full truth of the Rabwah Railway Station incident may be known only if and when the contents of the Justice Samadani commission were made public.

LAM Viewpoint in Writing.

The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

Page 185: On the recommendations of the steering committee, Jama’at Ahmadiyyah and the Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha’at-i-Islam Lahore were asked to present their viewpoint in writings. This was done by two parties in the form of detailed booklets. …

Page 186: The Lahori jama’at was similarly given an opportunity to prepare a written response and present it before the assembly. The case of the Lahori jama’at was different because they did not claim to believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet. As pointed out in earlier chapters, the likes of Maulana Maududi and Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi had refrained from calling the Ahmadis kafirs because the belief of the Lahori jama’at on the concept of khatam-i-nabuwwat was starkly different from Jama’at Ahmadiyyah. In their written submission, they strongly refuted the claim that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was or claimed to be a prophet, or that the Lahori jama’at believed him to be one. On the tricky question of the status of those who deny the finality of prophethood in any sense of the term, the Lahori jama’at response was rather evasive. They could have sided with the ulema members in condemnation of the Ahmadis as Kafirs. Instead they reiterated their emphasis on accepting all those as Muslims who recited kalima. (Note 4). The Lahori jama’at – other than the official statement – also printed other pamphlets for the consideration of the general public and members of parliament. In one such pamphlet, titles Ain-i-Pakistan aur Musalman Firqa Ahmadiyya (The constitution of Pakistan and the Muslim sect of Ahmadiyya), the Lahori jama’at appealed to Jinnah’s vision of religious freedom. Religiously, they found support from the tradition of the Prophet against false attribution of kufr and an all-inclusive concept of Muslim community based on the affirmation of kalima. (Note 5). The pamphlet also tried to highlight the political ramifications of declaring Ahmadis non-Muslims. The Ahmadis, it claimed, would gain as a minority because seats would be reserved for them in the assemblies. Also, such an action would create an enemy out of the Ahmadis, which – if it was to be believed that the Ahmadis were occupying key posts in the government – would be detrimental to the national interests of Pakistan. (Note 6). On the issue of khatam-i-nabuwwat, the Lahori jama’at again whole heartedly denied the attribution of prophethood to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. They termed any claimant to prophethood after Prophet Muhammad as kafir, but were evasive about the followers of a “false prophet.” For them the issue of Ghulam Ahmad’s prophethood was more a result of the excessive reverence of a section of his followers (ghali mutabiyyin), and were it not for the fact that their opponents continued to wrongly hold up their claims as being representative of Ghulam Ahmad’s own writings, these fanatics would fade away time.  The Lahori jama’at was clear about its stance of Ghulam Ahmad as a mujaddid – a person who revives the faith in every millennia. In support of their claim, they referred to his tombstone in Qadiyan, which describes him as the mujaddid sad chahr daham (reviver of the faith in the fourteenth century of the Islamic calendar. (Note 7).

In another pamphlet circulated just before the issue was taken up by the members of the National Assembly, the Lahori jama’at focused more closely on the question of khatam-i-nabuwwat. In that pamphlet they claimed to be the only sect who believed in the absolute finality of prophethood. The ulema and the followers of the Rabwah group, they claimed, had conditional beliefs in this regard. On this basis, the Lahori jama’at inferred – in a rather unusually aggressive tone – that if anyone was to be declared non-Muslim on the basis of rejecting the finality of Prophet Muhammad’s prophethood, it should be these two groups. (Note 8).

Note 4 (page 251): National Assembly Pakistan ki Special Committee kay Rubaru Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishat-i-Islam ka Wazahati Beyan (Lahore: Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha’at-i-Islam, 1974), 1-2.

Note 5 (page 251): Ain-i-Pakistan aur Musalman Firqa Ahmadiyyah (Lahore: Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha’at-i-Islam, 1974), 6.

Note 6 (page 251): Ibid., 7-8.

Note 7 (page 252): Ibid., 34-9.

Note 8 (page 252): Mohtram Member Sahiban Qaumi Assembly ki Khidmat mai Khuda aur uss kay Rasul sal’am kay Naampar Appeal (Lahore: Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha’at-i-Islam, 1974), 7.

Comment:

Author wrote, “On the tricky question of the status of those who deny the finality of prophethood in any sense of the term, the Lahori jama’at response was rather evasive”. [Emphasis is mine].

Here author, without giving justification for his opinion, uses word evasive for Lahori jama’at representative who insisted on accepting all those as Muslims who recite Kalima-Shahada. In other words he too wanted Lahori-Ahmadis to play God like “ulema” members of National Assembly. On the other hand author quotes Lahori-Ahmadis pamphlets printed for members of parliament. As he refers to them, so it is safe to assume he read them. Here he fails to give his opinion that holding beliefs, as expressed in pamphlets, they still deserved to be declared Kafirs!!! This only tells he is intellectually convinced declaring Lahori-Ahmadis Kafir was wrong, but lacks courage to write his opinion.

This allegation that while we in LAM call Hazrat Mirza sahib as muhaddas but then make it effectively the same as 'prophet' has been answered by me above in this comment above. I was answering the same allegation from the book From Sufism to Ahmadiyya by Adil Hussain Khan. Eminent scholars, both before and after the time of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, considered that a muhaddas could be included among prophets from the point of view of receiving revelation, without being a prophet, and they argued this from Quran and Hadith. But his revelation is a personal experience, and is not an authority in Islam.

In the context of the National Assembly proceedings, the relevant point is that we believe that one who does not believe in a muhaddas or mujaddid still remains a Muslim in the law and the society of Islam. As to such a person being a fasiq or unrighteous, an Ahmadi is also a fasiq if he does not say his prayers or violates any other injunction of Islam. The National Assembly was not deciding on who is a fasiq (although it would have been much more interesting if they had defined fasiq because it might have applied to nearly all its own members!)

Regarding the mention of the South Africa case, Maulana Taqi Usmani was never in the witness stand in either of the cases. His name was listed in the first (1983-1985) case as an expert witness for the Ulama. But in that case our opponents withdrew from the case. In the second case the person who was grilled in the witness box was Prof. Mahmood Ahmad Ghazi, which was in late 1987. There is a website created in his honour: http://www.mahmoodghazi.org

I believe the Ulama made Prof. Mahmood Ahmad Ghazi the "fall guy". Persons such as Taqi Usmani or Prof. Khurshid Ahmad, being public figures, stood to lose their reputation and the popularity which they depend on, back home in Pakistan, if they made fools of themselves in the witness box. Their own political opponents in Pakistan would have capitalised on it. Ghazi was an academic, with no such thing to lose or consequences to face.

Abdul Haq Baluchistani

The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

Page 189: The direct rejoinder to Mirza Nasir Ahmad’s Mahzarnama and his cross-examination in the assembly was mainly written by Maulana Ghulam Ghaus Hazarwi, aided by two members of parliament, Abdul Hakim and Abdul Haq Baluchistani.

Comment:

In Pakistan’s private TV channel ‘Dunya’ (world) program ‘Talash’ (search) on subject of Pakistan’s 1973 Constitution was presented. Dr. Mubashir Hassan, cabinet minister in ZAB administration, tells story of one Maulana from Baluchistan, who was member of Pakistan National Assembly in 1973, refused to sign the proposed 1973 Constitution in order to pass it unanimously. He was demanding cash money, as bribe. This Religious-Politician got elected to Pakistan National Assembly by defeating Z.A. Bhutto’s PPP candidate. Matter was taken to ZAB. He asked his minister to bring that Maulana to him, as he would himself give him cash bribe. ZAB had bundles of cash in form of Pakistani Rupees notes/ bills. Addressing the Maulana, ZAB asked him you want cash? Here it is. And he threw money in air so it spreads and scatters on carpet/ floor. Some money was thrown at distance. So Maulana had to get on his knees to pick money from floor. The ZAB purpose was to humiliate the Religious-Politician from Baluchistan. Those who are familiar with Pakistani Politics and Politicians can figure the said Maulana was Abdul Haq Baluchistani.

Watch program at 07:15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OprBXcyWc_0

Did Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar Know Meaning of Word ‘Etimam-e-Hujat’?

The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

Page 190: From the liberal constitutionalist credentials of Yahya Bakhtiyar followed the second set of problems. The AG did not have any formal theological training or even an understanding of the issues involved or their polemical history. In this regard he was entirely dependent on the support provided to him by the ulema sitting in the assembly. They were required to draw up detailed lists of the “objectionable” aspects of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s statements about himself, the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad, support of the British and the status of non-Ahmadi Muslims. They were also required to give references from the books and journals in which these statements were made. On many occasions the references given to him were either incorrect or cited out of context. The AG himself had to admit in the assembly – once the Ahmadi delegation had left the house after day’s proceedings – that some of the citations either “do not exist or […] convey a different impression from the small quotations which I was giving. I think it should be carefully studied before they ask me to put a question” (Note 27).

Page 191: In the parliamentary proceedings of 1974, on the other hand, the AG accepted his own ignorance of the subject matter and depended entirely on the knowledge of the ulema.

Comment:

I want to bring in knowledge of readers two points that late Abdul Mannan Omar sahib (witness for LAM) told me.

Abdul Mannan Omar sahib asked Attorney General (AG) that since here he is testifying for Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib, so whatever quotes he (AG) provides it should be from books of HMGA. Hearing this AG turned back to his “ulema” and pointed out that all quotes he has been given are by son (QK2 Mirza Mehmud Ahmad) of HMGA.  “Ulema” replied well this is what we have, work with it. AG tried more than once to push with his point using QK2 quote, but Abdul Mannan Omar sahib stopped him.

As author Qasmi points out AG lack of training and knowledge in matters of religion. It is also questionable how much understanding and command of Urdu language he had. Per Abdul Mannan Omar sahib, at one time AG asked him direct question seeking his (Abdul Mannan Omar sahib) opinion. What do you think of a person who practices all tenets of Islam but does not believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib, not even a Mujjaddid, do you consider him a Muslim? Abdul Mannan Omar sahib asked AG, has ‘Etimam-e-Hujat’ made on him? PLEASE NOTE: At this point Abdul Mannan sahib said, “God knows if he (AG) knew meaning of word ‘Etimam-e-Hujat’. Anyways, AG replied yes, yes, ‘Etimam-e-Hujat’ has been made on him. At this moment Abdul Mannan Omar sahib replied, “I don’t consider such a person decent person (Shareef Insan)”. ‘Etimam-e-Hujat’ means someone who has been convinced with reason. 

Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar Approach in Questioning QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad.

The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

Page 192: The AG's approach was threefold. He tried to establish the supremacy of the parliament, which had, in the first place, given the fundamental rights of free exercise of religion that Nasir Ahmad alluded to. This provision could be amended by a two-thirds majority of the parliament. …Secondly, the AG invoked the provision of subjecting constitutional or fundamental rights to questions of order and security. Coupled with this reasoning was his interpretation of religious freedom as a right which was absolute when practiced individually and in private but subject to possible limitations in public. He said, "….if you believe, if you have faith; but the moment you give an expression to that faith, that belief, you are likely to hurt somebody, you are likely to affect somebody …”.

Comment:

Suppose right wing political parties in European countries such as Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, Belgium etc win majority seats in their parliaments, and decide to use Pakistan’s Muslim Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar line of reasoning to make case that Holy Quran (according to their understanding) promotes violence and intolerance, mosques and Muslims praying hurts their feeling… so Holy Quran is declared banned book, with criminal persecution if found in someone possession, in their countries; Muslims are not allowed to have mosques like buildings and Muslims are not allowed to say Aazan (call of prayer) … what Pakistanis, and especially those who say since majority Muslim members of parliament  declare Ahmadis as Kafir, will say about majority Christian members of parliament in these countries? Will such Pakistanis accept it as fair decision?

The question about haqiqi musalman was absurd and the answer was even more absurd. There is no definition of this concept that one can apply, and it is not a matter of someone being either haqiqi or not. It is also beyond human knowledge, even beyond the knowledge given to prophets in their times whether someone was a true follower or not.

For sake of reply, he could have replied that Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din has said the following:

"Once a man asked me about a certain person as to what I think of him. I said he is righteous, venerable (naik hai, buzurg hai). He said to me: But he is an opponent of Mirza sahib. I said: So what? Those who opposed the commissioning of Adam are known as angels (mala'ika), and I haven't gone so far as to call him an angel (malak)." (Haqa'iq-ul-Furqan, p. 125, under verse 2:31)

He could also have replied: Let someone (like AG himself or Speaker of Assembly) at least claim to be a haqiqi musalman and I will consider his claim. How can I declare someone as haqiqi musalman who himself doesn't claim it?

Mehmudi Social Practices that landed QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad in Hot Water.

The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

Page 200: Similarly, Nasir Ahmad was asked why Ahmadis did not allow their daughters to marry non-Ahmadis and did not offer funeral prayers to non-Ahmadis. […] A discussion on the social exclusionary practices of the Ahmadis was an important part of the proceedings because it helped establish their otherness — not just in their religious beliefs but also as a different political and social community.

Comment: Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib had warned QK2 Mirza Mehmud Ahmad decades before, that by having Mehmudi beliefs (beliefs held by QK2 and his followers) and practices you people cannot remain part of Muslim-Ummah. That prophetic warning of Maulana Muhammad Ali did fulfill in 1974.

The amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan which was passed reads:

"A person who does not believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of The Prophethood of Muhammad (Peace be upon him), the last of the Prophets or claims to be a Prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after Muhammad (Peace be upon him), or recognizes such a claimant as a Prophet or religious reformer, is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or law."

This does declare anyone as "not a Muslim" who believes in the coming again of Jesus because such a person makes his belief in finality conditional and qualified by allowing a past prophet to come.

If Jesus were to come then even if he did not claim to be a prophet at that time he would still claim to be a prophet in some sense or description because he would have to announce that he is that same person Jesus (Isa) who is called a prophet in the Quran!

Note also that the amendment says: "…is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or law." So such a person could still be a Muslim according to Quran and Hadith!

With regards to Second Amendment in the Constitution as quoted by Dr. Zahid Aziz above, I see its close parallels to the Treaty of Hudaybiah, in which unbeknownst to Makkan, they with their own hands wrote terms which proved to be a death knell for themselves. Soon after the said Treaty the Surah Fath (Victory) was revealed. The Mullah, despite holding the pulpit and all the influence in the politics, has been unable to stop the mission of the Mujaddid, HMGA, which is be being Universalized with every next debate. Little did the Mullah know that the time will change and internet will be developed within a decade and a half and none of their nonsense will remain hidden or go unchallenged.

And when (various) people will be united together,…And when books and papers will be spread abroad, And when the heights will be discovered (Quran 81:7,10,11)

Now, all and sundry of Muslims are forced to accept the death of Jesus to establish the finality of the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon them), the true interpretation of Gog/Magog/Dajjal, Jihad by pen, Quran as the center of gravity for Islam without any abrogation of even a jot, validation of Hadiths in light of Quran, removal of any nonsense attributed to the pristine life of the Prophet etc. To the camp followers of Mullahs, all we ask them is to visit the lands under their sway and see with their own eyes the destruction at the hands of the Mullah and their evil ideologies:

We have destroyed so many townships because (the people thereof) were given to wicked ways so that they have fallen down on their roofs, and how many a well is completely deserted: (similarly) many a strongly built lofty castles (met the same doom because We destroyed their occupants).Why do they not travel in the land so that they should have hearts that help them to understand and ears which can help them hear? As a matter of fact (when going astray) it is not the (physical) eyes that are blind but blind are the hearts which lie in the bosoms. (22:45-46)

By any intelligent read of the said amendment, the Mullahs declared only themselves as ‘kafirs’ while they fully established LAM as Muslims, yet little will they accept their own folly. These are the ways of Allah. Allah-o-Akbar!

The cross-examination of the Lahori jama’at

The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.

Page 200: The cross-examination of the Lahori jama’at began on 27 August. They were presented in the assembly by the community head, Maulana Sadr-ud-Din (1881 – 1981), but he could not respond to questions because of old age. This was done on his part by Maulana Abdul Manan Omar.

At the outset, the Lahori jama’at outlined their three main differences with Jama’at Ahmadiyyah of Rabwah. Firstly, they claimed never to have recognized Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet. The terms zilli and baruzi were meant for non-prophets only. According to them, this trend of describing Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet was introduced only after 1913 by the second head of the united Ahmadiyyah community, Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mehmud. Secondly, they claimed never to have considered any denier of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad a kafir. Thirdly, they dissociated themselves from the caliphate of the Rabwah groups and expressed belief in the caliphate of the first four pious caliphs of Sunni Islam. (Note 76).

In his cross-examination, the AG [Attorney General] was mainly concerned about eliciting an indictment from the Lahori group against the Rabwah group for the latter’s belief in the prophetic status of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Abdul Manan insisted – citing refernces from Imam Abu Hanifa – that even if an individual had 99 attributes of kufr and only 1 attribute of iman, he was to be considered a Muslim. (Note 77). When asked about the status of those who accept a person’s claim of prophethood, Abdul Manan referred to Imam Ghazali, who had given the benefit of doubt to such followers of false prophets. He used Ghazali's argument that maybe such persons mistakenly understood the word nabi as  rusul (messenger), and from the term Khatamun Nabiyyun they derive the meaning "magnificent" prophet". (Note 78). It was only through ijma (consensus), argued Abdul Mannan, that these terms had come to be understood as signifying the finality of prophethood. At best, then, followers of such claimants of false prophethood should be considered guilty of denying the ijma, for which the decree of kufr was not applicable. (Note 79). This response, however, had certain inadequacies, which were exploited by the AG [Attorney General] as he asked them about their views of Musailma — the claimant to prophethood against whom jihad was fought under the direction of the first caliph. In the first instance, Maulana Omar addressed him as kazzab (liar; a commonly known epithet in Muslim history), and insisted that there was a  difference between a liar and a kafir. (Note 80). But almost immediately afterwards he added that Musailma was kafir because he was a claimant of new shari'at and established a parallel prophethood to that of Prophet Muhammad. (Note 81). This provided him a reason with which to argue against the indictment of Ahmadis of the Rabwah group as kafirs because — going back to his earlier remark — they simply misunderstood the meaning of the term nabi rather than believing in a prophet who abolished the shari'at of Prophet Muhammad. When asked by the AG whether the interpretation given by the Rabwah group for term nabi and its use for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad put them outside the fold of Islam, Maulana Omar refrained from comment. He insisted that it would be unfortunate if the religious beliefs of people were evaluated and interpreted by others. (Note 82). Like Nasir Ahmad, Maulana Abdul Manan Omar, too, did not accept nonbelievers of Mirza Ghulam as  haqiqi musalman provided they had received itmam-i-hujjat. (Note 83). This was despite the fact that the Lahori jama'at believed in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad only as a mujaddid and not a prophet in any sense.

Foot note 76 (page 255): Proceedings of the Special Committee (Saturday 24 August 1974), 1525.

Foot note 77 (page 255): Proceedings of the Special Committee (Tuesday 27, August 1974), 1549.

Foot note 78 (page 255): Ibid., 1552.

Foot note 79 (page 255): Ibid., 1552-3.

Foot note 80 (page 255): Ibid., 1560-61.

Foot note 81 (page 255): Ibid., 1562.

Foot note 82 (page 255): Ibid., 1577.

Foot note 83 (page 255): Ibid., 1700-1706

Comment:

Above excerpt is the full text on Lahore Ahmadiyya Movment testimony in Usman A. Qasmi book. In this text there are at least two inaccuracies, that I would like to discuss in separate threat specific for this purpose. I would request posters to hold their comments for now.

My purpose of posting above text is to make Mehmudis realize that despite the fact you people do not consider LAM members as Muslims. You prove it by your actions i.e. by not offering prayer behind LAM imam, and by not offering Janaza prayer of LAM members. On the other hand LAM representative in National Assembly was making all efforts to prevent national assembly members declaring you people (Mehmudis) as Kafir.

Please see my comment above about Malik Muhammad Jafar's statement as recorded in the National Assembly 1974 proceedings.

At this link I have placed a scanned image of the pages from Malik Jafar's book containing the above translated extract, along with the title page of the book. Read from last line of p. 312 over to p. 313.

Hafiz Sher Mohammad sahib marhoom had all the original books with him in Cape Town for the court case. After the case finished in November 1985, I had a couple of days before my return flight. I spent the time in making photocopies from his books of the quotations we had presented, like this one, which till today are in two box files. I could not have known then that a time would come when I would be scanning them in.

1. If Yahya Bakhtiar and Ali Usman Qasmi have used the spelling muhaddis (with an "i") instead of muhaddas then it is a clear error. The words muhaddas and muhaddis are different. Muhaddas is one who is spoken to, and muhaddis is one who speaks (compare employee and employer). So in Islam muhaddas is one spoken to by Allah while not being a prophet, while muhaddis is a specialist in the field of Hadith (because he relates a talk). Shah Wali-ullah of Dehli and others bear the title muhaddis.

2. It was Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who signed a statement in public after a debate in Lahore with a Maulvi in 1892 that "I wish to make it clear to all Muslim brothers that, if they are displeased with these words and if these words give injury to their feelings, they may regard all such words as amended, and instead consider me to have used the word muhaddas." (See link.)

And the reason why they "got annoyed" was, he writes, that they misunderstood his use of the words nabi and rasul, so he said that they could regard him as using the word muhaddas because it expresses the same meaning in Islamic technicality as nabi and rasul do in their literal form.

Please also read my earlier comment in the discussion above (link) where I have shown that when Yahya Bakhtiar presented his argument that before 1890 Hazrat Mirza sahib believed in finality of prophethood (but claimed prophethood in 1890), he gave quotations which he thought were pre-1890 but they are actually from later years when according to YB he had claimed to be a prophet! So the quotations presented by him only proved that Hazrat Mirza sahib did not claim to be a prophet in the later period. Hence his argument collapses by its own contradiction.

@Dr. Zahid Aziz:

I rechecked text in Ali Qasmi book. He has used spellings 'muhaddis'. In his book author has mentioned in more than one place that AG Yahya Bakhtiar depended on 'Ulema' in national assembly on understanding issue from religious angle. So, i am sure AG YB had no clue what was in reality claim of HMGA sahib.

I want to thank you for clarifying difference between 'muhaddis' and 'muhaddas'. This is very important and fundamental point. Thanks once again.

One should not be judgmental on someone who has not made claim of 'mamur-min-Allah'. Since AG YB has also become public figure and i have read comments about him. These kind of comments give credence to his very superficial knowledge of Islam, and Islamic terminology. 

Dear Mr Bashir, you write: "the reason I had mentioned in the past, that the people before me were ill-equiped to handle Ahmadiyya and its arguments is now proven".

This is reminiscent of what a person posting here in June as "Bilal" was saying, and I asked him then:

"As I understand it, your claim is that you are by far the most effective debator against the Ahmadiyya Movement who ever arose since 1891." (link)

He replied: "And I am not boasting of intellectual supremacy, I am boasting of technology that allows me to memorize less and research more." (link)

So we have two persons making the same claim of being the most effective anti-Ahmadiyya fighter who ever arose in history.  Do you want to compete with each other to prove who is the best?

And of course, it was Bilal and not Bashir who came up with his great discovery that it was in 1935 that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad announced that he didn't call other Muslims as kafir, and he insisted that the LAM amend its literature to reflect this discovery (see discussion in the above links).

But at least Bashir has admitted that all earlier opponents of Ahmadiyyat, including those in the National Assembly proceedings, were unable to prove Ahmadiyyat wrong, despite their claims of doing so. Therefore all their fatwas, constitutional amendments and laws, against Ahmadis were without any valid basis (as it was before Bashir's time).

Mr. Aziz,

It may surprise you that more than one person has taken advantage of the internet.  Stop mudslinging, which is typical Ahmadi argument style.

{Blog admin: Deliberate digression and abuse omitted}

I never said that the NA didnt you prove your religion as a family business or any other connotation.  I said that there were minor errors and gaps in research since Ahmadiyya data was written by many ghost-writers and a team of people that were obviously unaware of the changes of MGA's claims…and hence, there are many twists and turns that only a person with the internet can solve.

Finally, the reason I explained my resume was in response to your question of "what are you doing for Islam" or "what have you done to change the world" or "what are you doing to help people"…Further, I am so glad I grew up in the Bay Area…wherein I have friends from all backgrounds..and I love all of them irregardless of religion, and I dont pray for their death if they disagree with me…

Warm regards..

Bashir

In the e-mail exchange I mentioned above, Bashir wrote that Ahmadiyyat was a means of just creating jobs for "Pakistanis, who are normally not fond of the 40-hour work week".

He also said that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's message spread because: "people in general from 3rd world countries were never taught to think properly…they mostly have a backwardness that is hard to break."

On the same topic, Bilal, wrote on this blog: "But, as we know, most Indians are naive and use faith over reason." (link) Well, great minds do think alike!

Apart from these views being racist stereotyping, someone could say that if this is the reason why his message spread, it could also be why people opposed him so much more than accepting him!

Dear Saad sahib: I wish to draw your attention to the following point which should be of as much concern to your Jamaat as it is to us.

From my comment above, you will see that a Dr Afzal Upal has made various allegations against Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and I have replied to his article. On the issues involved, I think your Jamaat holds the same beliefs and views which I have expressed. Please read my response (link), or have it read by someone else in your Jamaat, and let me know if you agree with my replies.

Dr Afzal Upal certainly was a member of your Jamaat, and it appears that he still has a connection with your Jamaat, so it is very surprising that he had written such articles.

He is no longer an Ahmadi or part our Jamaat from what I have seen on the internet. I think he is probably an atheist.

If Mirza Ahmad Qadiani shahib was the promised masiha, Imam Mehdi or a prophet then all crows are white not black. Please use your brain and realize that he was not a masiha or prophet. He and his friends wanted to make British government happy by hurting Muslim community with this drama. They started saying that he was Imam Mehdi, Jesus or a new prophet. I didn't find any truth in these claims that's why I have stopped believing in him as a leader or a guide of my religious beliefs.  Thank you Allah for helping me finding the truth.

Muslims Swearing-in Allegiance to Queen of England.

Opponents of HMGA object on his praise and loyalty to Queen Victoria for ensuring freedom of religion for Muslims in then British India. Previously I have written posts on this subject in this thread.

Whereas the same opponents of HMGA are happy to tell the world that Government of Canada has allowed a Muslim woman Zunera Ishaq to take oath, while wearing niqab (face covering), of Canadian citizenship and pledge allegiance to another Queen of England i.e. Elizabeth, a decedent of Queen Victoria. This allegiance is not only limited to Queen Elizabeth but extends further to her progeny such as Prince Charles etc. I don’t know if HMGA knew anything about negative personal character of Queen Victoria, if there was any such, but in this era of information, opponents of HMGA are very well aware of personal character of progeny of Queen Elizabeth. I can only hope, against the hope, that these opponents of HMGA feel some shame for their unfair opposition to HMGA.

Please watch following Youtube clip:

Watch: Zunera Ishaq takes her citizenship oath https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBPhjG3IbyY

So when Maulana Nur-ud-Din joined as the first follower, giving up his lucrative employment as physician to a maharaja, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad single-handedly was able to enrich him to beyond the Maulana's previous earnings. And what benefits, comforts and facilities were available in the village of Qadian?

What did Maulana Muhammad Ali gain by turning down a career in law and settling in Qadian for a pittance of pay?

My grandfather Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi (whose book your Muslim friends are widely plaigarising to make money), who accepted Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, worked on a low salary as missionary and could have made millions as an academic.

I am pleased that you admit that it was Mirza Mahmud Ahmad who promoted his father from mujaddid to prophet. The "rank and file" did not whimper because it was their normal experience from other Muslims of India to follow the son as leader after the father.

As to Ahmadis claiming asylum in Western countries, your fellow-Muslims are wanting to falsely claim to be Ahmadis to claim asylum as I mentioned in my comment above. What does that say about non-Ahmadi Muslims? Would you say: "The rank and file of ordinary Muslims want economic benefits so badly that they are prepared to join Ahmadiyyat despite considering it to be a separate religion from Islam?"

I have received e-mails from your fellow-Muslims wanting asylum who write: "I want to join your religion". I am happy to put them in touch with you!

Since you, Mr Ali, live in England, a few miles north of me, don't you benefit from "British patronage"?

Mr Ali writes: "…majority of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's followers only joined his Jamaat because of the economic benefits …"

Have you thought what were they before becoming his followers? Yes, they were members of your community. So please try to improve the moral calibre of your own fellows so they don't sell their faith for money!

I have published your sick allegations for theraputic reasons so you can get that vomit out of your system. Feeling better now?

Anyone who has read Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din's writings can see the entirely different style and way of expression and explanation he has from that of Hazrat Mirza sahib.

You say we are not willing to translate any of Amrohi sahib's books "for the world to see". The "world" is you, is it? Hundreds of millions of Muslims, including vast numbers of opponents of Ahmadis (including Dr Afzal Upal), can read his Urdu books!

Why should you feel bound to reply to my article about Afzal Upal's paper? Surely, he himself should be replying.

Bashir Shah's record is as follows:

1. He has been posting here under several different false names (Bilal, etc.), to deceive us into thinking that these were all different persons.

2. In submitting some comments, he supplied the e-mail address of a staff member at his US college (one Margaret Howell) as his e-mail address.

3. He has been making racist and condescending remarks about Indians, Pakistanis and people from poorer countries generally. See my comment above. In Bashir Shah's last comment he writes in point (3): "if anything isn't in English it almost doesn't exist".

He has claimed to be working in what he calls: "my world, the world of academia". In that world, to pass such remarks about racial groups is a serious disciplinary offence which could lead to dismissal.

4. He has been calling the religion of Islam as backward in comparison with the USA system of government. He was speaking about Islam, not actions of some Muslims.

5. He sent me a paper by Afzal Upal, being delighted with his research conclusions. According to that paper, any claimant of revelation has ulterior motives of personal gain for claiming to receive revelation, and all such claimants are "self-deceived". The example cited in detail is Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, which is what made Bashir Shah so happy.

But Upal's analysis applies also to the Holy Prophet Muhammad and prophets before him. Upal actually writes that Hazrat Mirza's belief that "the truth had become distorted during the dark ages of Islam… is precisely the same process through which Muslims believe that Jesus and Moses’ teachings had been corrupted by the Christians and Jews over time" (p. 222). In other words, he means that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad used the same trick as the Prophet Muhammad before him did, to establish a new religious movement.

Upal also quotes a theory, as advanced by some, that those who claimed to receive Divine wisdom were suffering from "psychotic episodes" due to "certain mental illnesses such as epilepsy, hysteria, paranoia, and schizophrenia". It is clear that Upal regards this theory as a conceivably valid explanation, despite knowing that this was an accusation made against the Holy Prophet, and widely propagated by his Western critics.

While Bashir Shah is happy to see such so-called research papers and circulate them, he also writes to me: "The Muslims in my local community love me, in fact, I am the Faculty advisor for many Muslim Student Associations..and I provide guidance daily..and my interpretations of hadith and Quran are appreciated."

Has Bashir Shah shown his Muslim friends this paper and told them he recommends its conclusions?

6. Another article by Afzal Upal, which I myself found, is the one I have refuted. Please see my comment above. It is a most dangerous article for Muslims in the current world circumstances because it alleges that even moderate Muslim organizations are bound to support intolerance against other religions. It has been reproduced by the anti-Islamic website JihadWatch. According to that article, a Muslim defender of Islam by the pen such as Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is being intolerant against other religions if he merely replies to their vituperation in writing, but those who produce the abuse against Islam should be supported because of the principle of freedom of speech.

Bashir Shah says he wants to defend Upal's article against my refutation of it because no one has read more about Ahmadiyyat than him and he has "amazing critical thinking abilities". He doesn't realize that if an author is shown to be wrong in his conclusions based on his knowledge, and his supporter jumps in and says "I have more knowledge which proves his conclusions to be correct", the original article is still wrong! I could only reply to Afzal Upal's actual article in existence, not to some imaginary extension of it which only exists in Bashir Shah's mind.

The only way forward, which I had earlier suggested to Bashir Shah in an e-mail reply, is that instead of each of us rejecting the other's arguments unilaterally, we ask a senior academic colleague of Bashir to act as an impartial judge. So the only submission from Bashir that I will entertain now will be the contact details of such an academic. I will post to that person Bashir's above record and ask if Bashir Shah is at all a fit person even to take part in a serious debate.

Bashir Shah has sent another comment beginning with:

"In typical 3rd world fashion, you have ignored everything I wrote."

Well, I said I would ignore it, until we have a sort of referee or moderator as I mentioned.

Bashir's statement is more proof of his racist and denigrating stereotyping. It reminds me of a man who used to swear in every sentence. When he heard that someone had complained about his swearing, he said: "Which ******* ******* says that I swear?