The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and MattersSee Title Page and List of Contents

See: Project Rebuttal: What the West needs to know about Islam

Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam

Read: Background to the Project

List of all Issues | Summary 1 | Summary 2 | Summary 3

September 7th, 2014

Sept 7, 1974 –Sept 7, 2014 Forty Years of Injustice to Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement.

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri

Sept 7, 1974 –Sept 7, 2014 Forty Years of Injustice to Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement.  Signs for those who have fear of Allah in their hearts.

Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement elders NEVER called any reciter of Kalima-Shahada a Kafir, neither by their tongues nor by their pen. LAM supported Pakistan freedom movement, after that never interfered or took sides in national politics. LAM had NO role in Rabwah railway station incident in summer of 1974. This is supported by LAM’s representatives’ testimony in proceedings published by Government of Pakistan in October 2012 under title: Proceedings Of The Special Committee Of The Whole House Held In Camera To Consider The Qadiani Issue. (The National Assembly of Pakistan 1974 Proceedings). This is evident by the fact that state prosecutor Attorney General of Pakistan NEVER raised accusation that questions beliefs and role of LAM. Still travesty of justice was done and LAM became innocent bystander victim of tussle between Qadiani-Khalifa Family, their followers and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto & religious politicians. Below are some facts that shed light on Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (ZAB) personal life and condition of Pakistan, before and after 1974 Pakistan National Assembly 2nd Constitutional Amendment.

In 1971 ZAB took reign of power. Pakistan was dismembered, humiliated by India. Pakistani nation was demoralized. Pakistan armed forces were demoralized. One hundred thousand, perhaps largest number in military history of world, officers, soldiers, sailors and airmen were prisoners of war. Economy was in shambles. Within few weeks and months ZAB started turning around the country. He boosted the morale of civilians and military. Pacts were made with friendly countries to turn economy around, backbone industries were started, and military hardware was procured. In matter of months prisoners of war started coming home. Foundation of Pakistan’s Nuclear Program was laid. Stature of Pakistan rose in third word and Muslim countries in particular. Islamic Summit was hosted in Lahore, in February 1974. Only time when head of states of all Muslims countries gathered under one roof. ZAB's middle class comrades at helm of different departments and ministries were making steady strides in an effort to make Pakistan a leading country in the world.

After 1974 second amendment in Pakistan’s Constitution there was diametrically opposite change.  ZAB close comrades started leaving him one after the other.  Those who stayed in his party like Abdul Hafeez Pirzada (he was parliamentary affairs minister in 1974 and responsible for NA Proceedings,  contracted another marriage the day ZAB was hanged), Mumtaz Bhutto (was interested in marrying widow of ZAB to get control of his Pakistan People’s Party), Kausar Niazi who said, “Peoples Party is not property of Bhutto family”. None of them came to rescue ZAB from gallows. No wonder when ZAB daughter Benazir Bhutto returned to Pakistan from exile she said, “I don’t need uncles (referring to ZAB friends who did not quit PPP)”.

After 1974, in Pakistan religious extremism flourished, religious opposition to ZAB constantly increased, economy overall remained in decline, PPP popularity continue to decline, law and order situation overall remained in decline, image of Pakistan in international forums continue to remain in decline, unemployment and poverty increased. Street drugs addiction and terrorism increased.

Now let’s look at personal life of ZAB. ZAB as Prime Minister of Pakistan was a very powerful person domestically, he was charismatic, popular and intellectual leader loved by his fans. Internationally he was highly respected statesman, in particular Muslim countries. He was declared non-Muslim (Kafir) by Chief Justice of Lahore High Court. When he was put to death, he was constitutionally Prime Minister of Pakistan. The person who hanged him belonged to lowest socio-economic rank in Pakistan. He was Christian and was Choora (janitor who hand pick human waste and clean toilets and sweep streets). He was awarded Rupees 5 bonus for ‘job well done’ by Government of Pakistan. After ZAB's death photographs of his private parts were taken to find out if he was an uncircumcised Hindu.

People who have fear of Allah SWT in their hearts can find many signs in last 40 years in life of Pakistan and people who committed injustice with LAM.


23 Responses to “Sept 7, 1974 –Sept 7, 2014 Forty Years of Injustice to Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement.”

  1. On this 40th anniversary of that black day of infamy in the religious history of the world, the National Assembly and the political and religious leadership of Pakistan are far too involved in political tussels among themselves to commemorate their achievement. The country is ungovernable, with its government being denounced as a gang of criminal usurpers by millions of the public. That same National Assembly is under siege by the public.

  2. September 10th, 2014 at 1:24 pm
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Dawn online published an article on September 6, 2014, 'A leaf from history: Bhutto awarded death sentence' by Shaikh Aziz. 

    Following are couple of its paragraphs:

    The verdict, for many in Pakistan, especially the PPP supporters was unexpected. The dejected PPP workers began protests in Rawalpindi and Lahore, where the protesters set ablaze a few vehicles. Protests were also held in Sukkur, Larkana and Hyderabad. The participants were tried under martial law regulations and punished with jail terms and lashes. But the protests did not gain much strength; only young workers joined the protests. Unfortunately, the absence of the PPP leaders was very conspicuous and created speculations among the workers as well as the general public. Some in political quarters thought that had the PPP leaders taken a firm stand the verdict could have been different. (Bolding is mine).


    The court proceedings had begun on Oct 11, 1977 and the prosecution had presented 42 witnesses. The former FSF director-general Masood Mahmood had surrendered as an approver. Though the other accused — Mian Abbas, Ghulam Mustafa, Arshad Iqbal and Rana Iftikhar — presented defence witnesses, Bhutto did not present any witness. He had boycotted the proceedings from Jan 9, 1978 and refused to engage any counsel. Perhaps Bhutto was anticipating a sympathy sentiment of a high degree from the general public. (Bolding is mine).

    Bhutto had trust in his companions and general public. I wish he had known unless Allah help is there, no one counts.

  3. I remember at the time that it was commonly expected that Z.A. Bhutto's execution would lead to widespread agitation in Pakistan which would shake the country to its core. But nothing happened, almost not a whimper.

  4. October 5th, 2014 at 8:30 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Pakistan in TOP TEN Fragile States Index (aka Failed States Index) 2014.

    FFP (Fund For Peace, a think tank) publishes it annual Fragile States Index. In its 2013 Index Pakistan was ranked 13th. In 2014 it is included in Top 10 countries that are considered Fragile (aka Failed) States in the world. See this link.

    Sad thing is Pakistan, whose foundation was supported by Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement elders in addition to giving IDEA OF TWO NATION THEORY (in The Light) and IDEA OF CREATION OF PAKISTAN (in Woking Muslim Mission), is now toping failed countries of the world. This all happened with in 40 years of Pakistan declaring her benefactors as non-Muslim (Nauzubilah).

  5. October 6th, 2014 at 5:41 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    My understanding is Imran Khan knows difference between Qadianis and Lahore Ahmadiyya Movment.

    Recent youtube clip:

  6. Salaam.

    I know it's been mentioned before, but the Qadianis are promoting Lahori beliefs.

    For example they quote Hazrat Mirza Sahib as having said

    "…my belief from the beginning has been that no person becomes a kafir or antichrist by denying my claim. I do not apply the term kafir to any person who professes the Kalima…"

    but they don't mention that Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad had takfired all who didn't believe in the prophethood of Hazrat Mirza Sahib. The article also does not mention Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad's belief that his father was a Prophet.

    I don't know what to make of this development. Perhaps the current leadership of the Rabwah jama'at have changed their beliefs to the true beliefs held by Hazrat Mirza Sahib?

    It seems a great pity that these erroneous beliefs were promoted in the first place considering all the fitna that has ensued. Or perhaps it is part of God's plan to spread the name of Hazrat Sahib in order that people are given an opportunity to evaluate his ideas and thereby gain a better understanding of what Islam is really about …  Allahu 'Alim.

  7. October 9th, 2014 at 6:10 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Thank you Regis. In one of our meetings recently we discussed this very article.

    The statement from Hazrat Mirza sahib which you have quoted from their article occurs in his book Tiryaq-ul-Qulub (see Ruhani Khaza'in, v. 15, p. 432). In 1915 the Qadiani leadership declared that in this book he had expressed his earlier claim of not being a prophet, which he later changed to claim of being a 'prophet':

    Hence, in his book Al-Qaul-ul-Fasl, published on 30th January 1915, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote:

    “In short, the reference quoted above proves that until the publication of Tiryaq-ul-Qulub, [the writing of] which began in August 1899 and ended on 25 October 1902, his belief was that he has partial excellence over Jesus and that his being called prophet means a kind of partial pro­phethood and deficient prophethood. But afterwards … he learnt from God that he excels the Messiah in all qualities and is not the recipient of any partial prophet­hood, but is a prophet. … Thus it is absolutely unallow­able to use any writing before 1902 as evidence because the Promised Messiah has given the decision that, as regards his belief about prophet­hood which he expressed in Tiryaq-ul-Qulub, later revela­tion made him change it.” (Al-Qaul-ul-Fasl, p. 24. This book is on their website in the collection Anwar-ul-‘ulum, v. 2, book no. 8. See page 285.)

    However, shortly afterwards the Qadianis found it useful to quote the booklet Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala in their favour to show that he claimed to be a prophet, which was published in November 1901. So they had then to explain how in Tiryaq-ul-Qulub, published in October 1902, he was still stating that he was not a prophet! In explanation of this, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and his Jama‘at took great pains to try to prove that the book Tiryaq-ul-Qulub was in fact written in 1899, and thus pre-dates Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala.

    In the volume of Ruhani Khaza'in which contains Tiryaq-ul-Qulub, i.e. volume 15, the compiler of the volume has devoted three and a half pages (p. xii to p. xv) to proving that all of this book, bar the last two pages and the title page, were written in 1899. Sworn testimony of two calligraphists (equivalent to modern typesetters) is provided to the effect that one of them had calligraphed the book long before 1902, and the other had completed it in 1902 with the last two pages and the title page. The whole world can easily read this on their website.

    However, Allah thwarted their plan because someone pointed out that in his book Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, published in 1907, Hazrat Mirza sahib related an incident from 1904, that he was asked in a court case: "Is your rank and status as stated in the book Tiryaq-ul-Qulub?" He says that he replied: "Yes, by the grace of God this is my status, and He has bestowed it upon me." (Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 22, pages 277–278).

    Now the Qadianis became more desperate. When publishing Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, they added a footnote at this point to say that his mention of the book Tiryaq-ul-Qulub is an error of memory by him and that he was actually asked about the book Tuhfa Golarwiyya, pub­lished in September 1902. The whole world can read that compiler's footnote in Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 22, page 278.

    After doing all this to prove that "it is absolutely unallowable" (as Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote) to use any statement about his status from the book Tiryaq-ul-Qulub, we now see they are quoting him from this very book as writing:

    "my belief from the beginning has been that no person becomes a kafir or antichrist by denying my claim".

    But that belief "from the beginning" was overturned in November 1901 according to the Qadianis. I am afraid there are only two possible reasons why they are now presenting this quote: shamelessness or ignorance.

  8. October 11th, 2014 at 3:17 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Qadiani TV (MTA) Host Says: Hazrat Masih Mu`ood (HMGA) continued to claim he is Mujadid until his last days.

    In MTA program to answer Dr. Tahir-ul-Qadri's accusations against Qadianis, the Qadiani host makes claim and provides proof that HMGA did NOT change his claim of Mujaddid till his death.

    Please watch at 4 minutes.

    Lies of Tahir ul Qadri Exposed!

    I think there is change in official Qadiani policy. They have started presenting Lahore Ahmadiyya Beliefs as their own, without acknowledging. May be Allah SWT is forcing them to come to TRUE claim, beliefs, and mission of HMGA. Unfortunately 100 years are lost.

  9. Thank you Rashid. Please watch from 4 minutes to 5.30 minutes. The Qadiani presenter displays on the screen a reference from Haqiqat-ul-Wahy showing that Hazrat Mirza sahib was presenting his claim as that of a Mujaddid even till the publication of that book in May 1907.

    Blog readers may now refer to an article I wrote a few years ago when some Qadianis put to me some quotations from this same Haqiqat-ul-Wahy and said that these proved that he was claiming to be a prophet. Here is the link.

    Please remember that Qadianis always have an "escape clause" whenever they appear to be implying that he did not claim to be a prophet. Their escape clause regarding mujaddid has in the past been that a mujaddid can also be a prophet because Hazrat Mirza sahib has in one writing called the Holy Prophet as the greatest mujaddid.

  10. A valued friend writes:

    The Qadianis have had their escape hatches and have been using them for a long time, namely hiding behind the beliefs of the very people that they tried to throw out of the fold of Ahmadiat. But sooner or later they are going to find out that none of their escape hatches can save them.
    In 1984, at my workplace in Pakistan, there was a Qadiani who worked in another department, but was in close contact with me. He kept stressing that one of Gen Zia's sons was on the verge of becoming a Qadiani. I did not have much experience about their duplicity (although I would say that that particular Qadiani was one of the ignorant and blindly believing members who accepted whatever their leadership was telling the rank and file Qadianis). I told my father about this claim about Gen Zia's son, and he told me that the Qadianis are very good at exaggerating or indulging in propaganda. For some weeks that particular Qadiani kept on repeating that the conversion of Gen Zia's son was imminent. Then he became silent. Today I regret not asking him about what happened with that conversion.

    Now for years having observed them, I could not agree with you more that the Qadianis cannot be trusted and will rely on some escape hatch or clause should they decide to revert back to their original beliefs. That Mirza Mahmood himself accepted a Lahori into his jamaat who did not believe in HMGA's prophethood but continued with his Lahori beliefs even after joining the Qadianis, speaks volumes about their principles and beliefs. The whole question of HMGA's "prophethood" was nothing but a power-grab ploy.
    What is so odd is that at the time of the split, HMGA's "prophethood" was of primary significance. Non-Ahmadi Muslims remaining Muslims revolved around accepting HMGA as a prophet. But today, while anwering objections, the Qadianis will rely on any argument to explain their beliefs and do their best to hide HMGA's so-called claim to prophethood and will even claim that they are the only ones who do not call other Muslims kafir! It is only when Lahoris remind them of their early beliefs that they revert back to them. It is almost an after thought for them. As previously discussed on the blog, many of the newer generations of Qadianis do not even know that HMGA supposedly held different beliefs about his status at different times in his life.

  11. As-salaam alaykum,

    I am truly sorry to bother you about this but I read (on an anti-Ahmadi site) that Mirza Sahib allegedly wrote the following:

    "There is great difference between me and your Hussein, because I am getting every moment help from God, but Hussain? Just recall the plains of Karbala! Till now you are crying, so just ponder!" (Ejaz Ahmadi, Page 69 R.K. Vol 19 Page 181) 

     "O Shia nation! Don't insist that (Syedna Imam) Hussain is your saviour because I tell you truthfully that today there is one among you who is greater than Hussain." (Dafe alBala P.13, R.K. Vol.18 P.233) 

    ''My journey is every time in Karbala and 100 Hussain are in my pocket’’ (Nazool-e-Masih page 99 roohani khizayen Vol 18 Page 477)

    Usually when these sites level such attacks, there is a rebuttal somewhere on the web from either the Qadianis or yourselves. However I have not found any for these. I assume that they are either mistranslated or taken out of context but I was hoping someone would be able to give me further information, and reassurance.



    As-salaam alaykum,

    Let me please reiterate that I am a genuine seeker and not a troll or an ill-wisher.

    I have had an interest in Islam for the last 16 years – barking up many trees. I have looked at various different sects but I always returned to the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement as it was Maulana Muhammad Ali’s Qur’an translation that I purchased at the Theosophical Bookshop in my city, as well as his ‘Religion of Islam’, that precipitated my search.

    I have also been looking at Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad over the last year and a half. There are many reasons I like Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. I like the fact that he discovered Nanak’s cape, I like his ideas about Jesus in Islam. I have tried his system and had faith in him and it works. I felt a sweetness of Islam that I had not felt since I first started to practice Islam 16 years ago.

    I like the optimism of Ghulam Ahmad’s teachings. Allah is nourishing everything to perfection, the sun is rising in the West – such optimism is badly needed in these days of carnage and unbridled capitalism destroying our environment and humanity.

    Ghulam Ahmad’s religion is modern and rational, he had a penetrating insight and explains hidden truths in the Qur’an and hadith, so it is not unlikely that he is the metaphorical Christ who comes at the end of the Prophetic age. He broke the cross by keeping missionaries away from Qadian. Indeed he had many similarities to Jesus including use of metaphor, his appearance 1400 years after the Prophet (as Jesus appeared 1400 years after Moses) and his having to bear the brunt of his Pharisaic co-religionists who accused him of blasphemy. I know about the signs such as the eclipses predicted by the fifth [Shia] Imam and I appreciate his use of Shaykh al-Akbar ibn Arabi in support of his claim.

    I also appreciate that Hazrat Mirza was a staunch defender of Islam and could back up his statements with Qur’an and or Hadith, Sunna, irfan, Bible, Vedas and many other sources – this in an age long before information was freely available as it is today. He was undoubtedly an inspired genius who set up a progressive Anjuman – yourselves – who possess authority and keep religion relevant. I have read about his personal life – he was kind to orphans and most forbearing considering all the rubbish metaphorically thrown out the window onto him, and his enemies died in disgrace.

    He identified Gog, Magog and the Dajjal – and many rehash his interpretations without giving him credit. He meant well and he had to do what he did because there was no one else to do it. Islam is in danger today as it was then. Sunnism is an untenable religion. Sunnis are stuck with false interpretations of many Qur’anic verses (eg. allowing sex with female prisoners of war) and also hadiths which allow sex with barely pubescent girls. Shi’ism is equally untenable: no Mahdi is going to materialise out of the unseen.

    Mirza Ghulam Ahmad repudiated all of that – and his influence is wide. Not just in the Sunni world but in the West the Nation of Islam was influenced by his teachings. There would be no Malcolm X without Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Imagine the condition of Islam in the post-9/11 era had the Nation of Islam not penetrated into popular Western culture! Ghulam Ahmad also prophesied many things that came true including the Cold War and the foundation of Turkey.

    I am willing to accept the ‘naqas al-uql’ statement as an observation of prevailing conditions (even though it references an infamous hadith). The Muhammadi Begum issue doesn’t worry me and I accept the interpretation that it was a device to bring the family to Islam – and that happened. Yes, he was pro-British but this was in the context of the aftermath of Sikh rule – and he did say that they were Gog and Dajjal. Compare that to the Wahhabis who are reaking havoc around the world today who were actively abetted by the British as a means to destabilise the Ottoman Empire. Some of the other things Hazrat Sahib did such as sending out unsolicited books, cursing, making statements which seem grandiose etc. are not problematic to me. I put them down to a certain eccentricity. Jesus (alaihi salaam) did these things too.

    So I ask about the Hussain thing because I read that Hazrat Mirza belittled Jesus but then read on your site that these statements were completely taken out of context and were said in a debate with Christians belittling their ideas of Jesus and not Jesus himself. I merely seek assurance that this is the case with Hussain too.


  12. Dear Ragis,

    I have put your two comments together. What you say in your closing para is the right situation. Since receiving your first comments containing the quotes about Imam Husain, I have been sketching a proper reply with references to show how oppponents of Hazrat Mirza sahib are employing the same distortions here as they do in the case of his statements about Jesus.

    While I complete that reply, let me refer you to the reply given by Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din in 1909 regarding the 3rd quote about Imam Husain. Please see this link and read from where he says: "A shiah was incensed by reading the following verse of poetry by Hazrat [Mirza] sahib:…"

    You could look up the famous saying "Every day is Ashura and every land is Karbala", for example at this link. If this is going on daily, how many Imam Husains are there!

  13. In October 1905 Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad issued an announcement, which began:

    “Let it be known that I have learnt from a postcard sent by someone that some foolish men who describe themselves as belonging to my Jama‘at say about Hazrat Imam Husain that, God forbid, because he did not enter into the bai‘at of the khalifa of the time, namely, Yazid, therefore Husain was a rebel and Yazid was on the side of right. ‘May the curse of Allah be on the liars.’ I do not expect that such evil words would come from the lips of any righteous person from my Jama‘at.”

    He went on to say:

    “I inform my Jama‘at by this notice that we believe that Yazid was of an impure nature, bent low upon this world, and unjust. The sense in which a person can be called a believer, such a meaning did not apply to him. … He was blinded by love for this material world. Imam Husain, on the other hand, was perfectly pure, and is without doubt one of those eminent persons whom God purifies by His own hand, and fills with His love, and no doubt he is one of the leaders of the dwellers of paradise. To bear even an iota of malice towards him leads to loss of faith. The righteousness, love for God, patience, steadfastness, piety and service to God shown by this imam is an excellent example for us. We are followers of the guidance which was received by this innocent one. Destroyed is the heart which is his enemy, and successful is the heart which shows love for him in the practical sense, and through perfect following reflects within himself all the images of his faith, morals, courage, righteousness, perseverance and love of God, like the image of a handsome man appears in a clear mirror. Such persons are concealed from the eyes of the world. None knows their worth but those who are from among them. The eye of the world cannot recognise them because they are far from the world. This was the reason for the martyrdom of Husain, because he was not recognised. Which holy, righteous one has been loved by the world during his life, that Husain should have been loved? In short, it is the height of misfortune and lack of faith that a person should denigrate Husain, may Allah be pleased with him". (Majmua Ishtiharat, v. 3, p. 544-545).

    These are instructions he issued in public to his followers, and this was in 1905, after the quotes which are objected to had been published.

    Regarding the verses of poetry quoted from Ijaz-i Ahmadi (RK, v. 19, p. 181), these were addressed to Shiah extremists and he clearly mentions their beliefs. On that very page he writes:

    "The heavens may split apart at the gravity of what you say, if the time for their splitting had not been fixed. Was Husain superior to all the prophets? Was he the intercessor [i.e. way to God] for all the prophets and the most venerable of all? Beware, that the curse of God, Who guards His own status, is upon the man who lies by exaggerating and does not see."

    On the previous page he writes in the poem:

    "You consider Husain as the best of all men, better than all those created by God. As if he were unique among humans, and God purified him, all others being impure. These are the words of the Christians about Jesus. … Do you exaggerate in the praise of a servant as is done with Jesus, and give him the rank of prophets?"

    He prefaces this lengthy poem by a note in which he writes:

    "What I have written in this poem about Imam Husain, may Allah be pleased with him, or about Jesus, peace be upon him, is not human doing. Evil is the man who uses his tongue out of his own desire against the perfect and righteous ones. I believe that no person can survive even one night after using bad language against a righteous one like Husain or Jesus. He is caught by the warning 'He who opposes a saint of mine'. Blessed is he who understands the Divine purposes and ponders over the ways of working of God." (RK, v. 19, p. 149)

    Note that the prayers "may Allah be pleased with him" and "peace be upon him" are in the original book by Hazrat Mirza sahib (in case someone thinks I have added them in the translation).

    I think this is sufficient to dispel completely the false charge and impression that Hazrat Mirza sahib spoke disparagingly about Imam Husain. On the contrary, he regarded Imam Husain as among the most righteous persons who ever arose in Islam.

  14. As-salaam alaykum,

    Thanks for your reassuring response. Thanks for the link too. I had missed it as the line there is translated as '100 Husains in my shirt'.

    Interestingly, this very poem was raised at the 1974 proceedings but with barely an explanation for it as far as I could see.

    So, just to get it clear in my head:

    In the first quote, Mirza sahib uses the term ‘your Hussein’ referencing the Shia habit of mourning the perfidy of those who said that they would support Imam Hussain but left him to fight with a small number on the plains of Karbala. He exhorts their modern equivalents not to do the same to him as they did to Imam Hussain.

    In the second quote Hazrat Sahib remonstrates that he is greater than Hussain as he is the Masih and Mahdi, one who heralds a new age for humanity. He was telling this to those Shiah who are emotionally attached to the personality of Hussain, those who say that ‘every day is Ashura and every land is Karbala’. If such is the case then there are many like Hussain, but there is only one Mahdi and Masih.

    The third quote has been explained by Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din as referring to the malice directed towards the Messiah as if there were 100 Hussains sheltering in his shirt.

    I humbly thank you for taking the time to look up and translate those references up. It means a lot to me. I am but a fledgeling on this path. May Allah (SWT) grant the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement success. Amin.


  15. I think some points need to be remembered here.

    1. Some of this was written in response to abuse he received from an extremist Shia leader. In Ijaz-i Ahmadi, just two pages earlier (p. 179) he writes in the margin of the poem: "In response to the attack from Ali Hai'ri Shia". This was a well-known Shia religious leader of the time. In the poem he writes at that point:

    "O you who are abusing, today there is none who can abuse as you can abuse. I see nothing in your hand which induces you to this pride.

    You swear at me, and I know not why you swear at me. Were you hurt by my words regarding Husain that you have become so inflamed?"

    2. In the cases of both Jesus and Imam Husain, their followers had exaggerated their status so much that it was derogatory to the Holy Prophet and even contrary to the concept of the oneness of God. Hazrat Mirza sahib therefore pointed out the mortal frailities of these great figures to show that they were not unique among mankind.

    By the way, once a Christian raised the objection to a great Muslim scholar, who lived a few decades before Hazrat Mirza sahib, as to why the Holy Prophet did not ask God to save his grandson Husain. The Muslim scholar replied: He did ask God for that, but God replied that at this moment I am busy in thinking about the fate of My own son! In other words, he replied that if my Prophet could not get his grandson saved by God, then your God could not even save His own son!

    So when Hazrat Mirza sahib pointed out to Christians the failures faced by Jesus against his opponents and to Shias the failures faced by Imam Husain, he is not insulting or disrespecting either of these great figures, but showing that their followers' exaggerated views about them cannot be correct.

    3. Most importantly, we see here the low mentality and fraudulent techniques of the opponents of Hazrat Mirza sahib. It is absolutely clear that he did not insult or berate Imam Husain; on the contrary, he accorded him the greatest respect. Yet these critics are circulating these quotations to condemn him as having insulted these holy men, and thereby incite people against him. Those who originated these allegations, decades ago, deliberately coined this false propaganda. But those who came after them blindly believe the propaganda which they read and they gleefully circulate it further, without any interest in finding out if it is true.

  16. As-salaam alykum,

    Dr. Aziz you are right, and I thank you for this further information. I ask readers to please forgive me if I have said anything that caused offence.

    I understand that Hazrat Sahib once learned from a Shia teacher and that he also used Shia sources to adduce his claim. For example the Mahdi's descent was predicted for 1240 (Mirza Sahib being born in 1250), and in a town called Kadea (as close to ‘Qadian’ as București is ‘Bucharest’ in English) – both hadiths, I understand, derived from Shia sources.

    The greatest sign, however, is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s methodisation of Islam. The tactics used against Mirza Sahib parallel those used against Jesus. They even fed his followers to lions.


  17. Dear Regis, your thoughtful questions and observations are always very welcome here.

  18. Jazak Allah khair Dr. Aziz.

    I do in fact have another question, this time about Condition #2 of the Bai’at. What word is used in the original Urdu/Arabic for ‘rebellion’?

    According to the Rabwah jama’at’s ‘Conditions of Bai’at’ the Promised Messiah said:

    Fighting (in the Holy city of Mecca) is a heinous thing, but to hinder men from the ways of Allah and to be ungrateful to Him, and to expel the righteous men from the Sacred Mosque is more heinous in the sight of Allah. And rebellion, that is, interfering in the peaceful living, is worse than killing… ( Jang-e-Muqaddas, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 6, p. 255)

    Is the word here then ‘fitna’? (as in 2:191)

    It would be good to find out more examples of what ‘rebellion’ may constitute. I assume here that the Promised Messiah [alaihi salaam] is only speaking of armed resistance and not such things as striking for better conditions or Martin Luther King’s ‘Freedom Rides’.

    Even if we are talking only of armed resistance would it then be a breach of the conditions of bai’at to engage in armed resistance to a ruling authority – no matter how oppressive it is?

    I'm thinking of something like the armed resistance of the Partisans against the Nazis in the former Yugoslavia, or armed resistance against a certain new state in the middle east.


  19. The Promised Messiah is here quoting in Arabic the verse 2:217 and then translating it into Urdu.

    (Incidentally, it is not relevant to your point, but whoever has translated this into English has misunderstood the words shahr haram written by the Promised Messiah in his Urdu translation. This translator has treated shahr as the Urdu word for 'city'; hence rendered them as 'Holy City of Mecca'. In fact, shahr here is the Arabic word, as in the Quran, meaning 'month'. The correct translation is: 'Fighting in the sacred month'.)

    The verse (2:217) uses the word fitna, but the Promised Messiah has translated it into Urdu as baghawat, which of course means 'rebellion'.

    In the second condition of the bai`at, the Promised Messiah refers to fasad and baghawat. What he is rejecting is the belief that Muslims, in his country and in his time, were under a religious obligation to fight against the non-Muslim rule of the British government. There was, in fact, a more general belief that Muslims were required by Islam to fight against any non-Muslim rule they lived under and to replace it with rule by Muslims. He explained that Muslims, under the rule under which he lived, had full freedom to practise and preach Islam and therefore to rebel against it as a religious obligation is not allowed by Islam.

    More generally, the same principle applies to Muslims today living under non-Muslim rule which grants them freedom of religion, and in particular under Western systems of government.

    He was at pains to prove that Islam can spread while being entirely devoid of material, political or military power, merely by the attraction of its teachings. This would be the proof that in the Holy Prophet Muhammad's time also, Islam spread not by fighting and conquest but by its spiritual power.

    There are of course many just struggles in the world where Islam and its spread is not an issue. The conflict in those cases is not Muslim versus non-Muslim, with Muslims trying to establish Islamic rule by fighting. As far as I know, the Promised Messiah allowed people in such situations to act according to their own judgment.

  20. Dear Dr. Aziz,

    Jazak Allah khair for that answer. It makes complete sense and I am most grateful.


  21. November 3rd, 2014 at 6:30 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Pakistani Political Commentator Criticizes ZAB 1974 Decision on Deciding Who is Muslim.

    Rauf Klasra, a political commentator and columnist, has criticized Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s decision as Prime Minister of Pakistan and Head of Government to decide who is Muslim among Pakistani Muslims and who is Kafir.

    Please watch at 2mins and 45 secs.

  22. November 16th, 2014 at 8:00 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Remembering the (real) PPP

    Pakistani daily English newspaper Dawn online edition published a blog ‘Remembering the (real) PPP’ by Abbas Hasan.

    This blog sheds light on objectives and life style of PPP founding leaders. It also gives a facsimile of PPP leaflet in Urdu language that reflects its secular approach in matters of religion. The author writes:

    “The leaflet in Urdu reproduced below sought to counter Jamat-i-Islami’s argument and point out that inequality rather than religion was the key issue facing Pakistan.”

    Translation of title of leaflet: Next election is not the war between Kufar and Islam, rather it is war between destitute and powerful.

    Anyways history is witness what Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto did and how he trampled PPP’s founding cardinal principles. One prime example of it was September 7, 1974 Pakistan National Assembly decision and ZAB claim to its credit.

    Link to blog:

    Today another blog on Ahmadiyya Issue is published.

    ‘Ahmadiyya Issue: Setting Niazi free’ by Nadeem F. Paracha.

    This blog sheds light on how Ahmadiyya Community (here he means as supported by history Qadianis) supported PPP and ZAB in 1970 election. It also reminds that Wali Khan leader of NAP (National Awami Party, previous name of current ANP-Awami National Party) abstained from voting on 2nd constitutional amendment in 1974.

    “However, Kausar [Niazi] succeeded in making the Ahmadiyya community choose the PPP over NAP and vote for the PPP across Pakistan. This also helped Naizi to win the election from his Sialkot constituency where he received over 90,000 votes.”

    “Barrister Azizullah Shiekh mentions in his memoirs that NAP's leader, Wali Khan, was still simmering from the way the Ahmadiyya leaders had broken their deal with NAP and had instead favoured the PPP. Azizullah writes that when he asked Wali Khan why NAP had remained quiet on the issue, he was told (by Wali): 'Let them (the Ahmadiyya) go to the ones they voted for …”

    Link to blog:

  23. I was once informed by someone that Maulana Kausar Niazi, sometime in the 1960s, made a speech at the AAIIL Headquarters at Ahmadiyya Buildings, Lahore, and it was very impressive.