Inaccuracies in ‘The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan’ by Ali Usmani Qasmi
Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.
Inaccuracies in ‘The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan’ by Ali Usmani Qasmi
Note to readers: As I read through this book, I will point out inaccuracies in it, from Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement perspective. I will myself provide correct information. Others are also welcome to provide correct information from LAM stand point. This thread is NOT to discuss whether LAM interpretation is correct or not. It is only to provide LAM perspective. Upon completion, I will make efforts to contact author Ali Usmani Qasmi, and invite him to justify his statements that LAM considers inaccurate. As I wrote elsewhere I feel author lacked knowledge about Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib, and it is not fair for him to base his knowledge on writing of someone else who himself lacks knowledge about HMGA. Here I mean Yohanan Friedman’s ‘The Prophecy Continues: Aspects of Ahmadi Religious Thought and its Medieval Background’ (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003). In my opinion approach by Ali Usmani Qasmi is NOT justified.
In Notes, Chapter II, page 231, author writes:
Quote:
2. For an overview of the theological and other religious views of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, I have relied heavily on Yohanan Friedman’s ‘The Prophecy Continues: Aspects of Ahmadi Religious Thought and its Medieval Background’ (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003).
End quote.
Inaccuracies:
Page 37: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad held the belief that the second coming of the Christ nullified the notion of Muhammad’s finality of prophethood as understood by the ulema opposed to him. Such a belief was also in contradiction to Ghulam Ahmad’s theory of prophethood, where by Prophet Muhammad was to be considered the last of the law-bearing prophets and owner of the seal of prophethood.
Page 37: The reason Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s writings led to widespread resentment against him was his additional claim of prophethood, not just that of messianic authority.
Page 37: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s “heterodoxy” lay in arguing not only for continuation of prophecies but prophethood as well. This meant reinterpreting the term khatam-i-nabuwwat – largely understood as “finality of prophethood” – as “seal of prophethood”.
Page 37: In addition, according to him, the phrase “seal of prophethood” indicates that no prophet can be true without being confirmed by the seal of Prophet Muhammad.
Page 37: But it was almost a decade before Mirza Ghulam Ahmad gave definite shape to his ideas about prophethood and his own prophetic status. Even after he had made various statements in this regard, his views remained ambiguous and purposefully nuanced to afford any possible interpretation, as evidenced by divergence of his followers after his death.
Page 37: It was only in light of the growing strength of his followers and the spiritual experience he claimed to have undergone that he made claims to prophethood. He claimed to be a reflective (zilli) and manifestational (buruzi) prophet who was approved by the seal of Muhammad on account of his spiritual excellence and services for Islam.
Page 38: A succinct summation of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s view on Muhammad’s prophethood, the term khatam-i-nabuwwat and his own prophethood is expressed in the following text, translated by Yohanan Friedman:
No law-bearing prophet can [ever] come [again]. A non-legislative prophet can come only if he is a member of the [Muslim] community. Accordingly, I am both a member of the [Muslim] community and a prophet. And my prophethood – this is to say the divine discourse [with me] – is a shadow of the prophethood of Muhammad. […] My prophethood is nothing except that. It is the muhammadi prophethood which became manifested in me.
This statement was made towards the end of his life. For those statements dating back to an earlier period of his life when he had denied being a prophet, he and his followers argued that he was only denying prophethood in the sense of being a law-bearing prophet or conveyer of new shari’at.
Comment:
Instead of individually correcting each inaccuracy, I would ask author to please read through different links provided in following link:
http://www.ahmadiyya.org/cont-hmga.htm
Inaccuracy:
Page 38: After Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s death, Hakim Nur-ud-Din (d. 1914) – his close aide and friend for many decades – was appointed as successor. He titled himself as a Caliph.
Comment:
Hakim Nur-ud-Din is on record of saying, “I never wrote with my hand word Caliph for myself”.
Inaccuracy:
Page 38: The nascent community of followers was split into two different groups even during Nur-ud-Din’s lifetime. One group was led by Maulana Muhammad Ali (1974—1951), […]. He was of the opinion that the Ahmadi missionary groups within India or abroad, must only emphasize the unanimous tenets of Islam. The writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad or the Ahmadi-specific aspects of religious doctrine should not be the main concern in such endeavors. Ghulam Ahmad son Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mehmud (1889—1965), who lead the other group, insisted that excluding Ghulam Ahmad from missionary efforts would be disastrous to the nascent Ahmadi community, as it would efface all the distinctive features of Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis. He said that Ahmadi preachers were hesitant to even mention the name of Ghulam Ahmad lest it would incite hatred. Nur-ud-Din’s death brought these differences into the open. Muhammad Ali insisted that the election of a new caliph should be postponed until certain modalities could be sorted out. This was opposed by Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mehmud, who had ample support among the members of the community to get himself elected as the caliph.
Comment:
Had Ali Usmani Qasmi read ‘Split in Ahmadiyya Movment’ by Maulana Muhammad Ali, his understanding of reasons would be different that what he wrote. All he needed to following link:
http://www.ahmadiyya.org/bookspdf/split/conts.htm
Inaccuracy:
Page 39: According to Friedmann, there must have been reasons of personal ambition for the split as well, and not just disagreement on organizational issues. Muhammad Ali had MA in English and had been associated with the Ahmadiyya since 1892. He could not possibly recognize the leadership of a person who was 15 years his junior and did not even have a proper secondary education.
Comment:
Although Ali Usmani Qasmi quotes Friedmann, had he read articles in following link under Discussion of the Qadiani Jama’at Beliefs, he would not be writing such demeaning comment:
http://www.ahmadiyya.org/cont-ahm.htm
Late Abdul Mannan Omar sahib (son of Hakim Nur-ud-Din) testified on behalf of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement, in 1974 Trial of Ahmadis in Pakistan National Assembly. According him, this he told me personally, Pakistan’s Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar in his effort to prove that both Qadiani-group and Lahori-group have same belief and split between them was not based on doctrinal differences and was merely a political. He wanted to prove that there were two contenders for post of head of Ahmadiyya Movement one was Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud and other was Maulana Muhammad Ali. So, AG Yahya Bakhtiar posed a question: How many candidates were there for position of head of Ahmadiyya Jama’at? To this late Abdul Mannan Omar sahib replied: There was only one candidate and it was Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mehmud.
From Rashid Jahangiri:
More Inaccuracies:
Page 39: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's claim of prophethood and reinterpretation of term khatam-i-nabuwwat, along with a number of his other religious views, caused deep offence to a wide section of the ulema. It challenged the well-established belief in Prophet Muhammad as the last of all the prophets. Even though Ghulam Ahmad clearly denounced anyone as kafir who believed in any law-bearing prophet after Muhammad, his own stance opened up an avenue for other claims to prophethood as well.
Comment:
Had Prof. Ali Usman Qasmi read following link, he would found HMGA did NOT make new claims after claiming Mujaddid.
http://www.ahmadiyya.org/claims/intro.htm
Page 40: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad invited criticism from many non-Muslims as well. During his lifetime, he was confronted with scathing criticism from Arya Samaj and from Christian missionaries. In his polemics with them Ghulam Ahmad prophesized the deaths of some of his opponents. In some cases these prophecies did come true with the death (in some cases by assassination) of figures like Padri Atham and Lekh Ram in the closing years of the nineteenth century. This created a lot of communal tension in the Punjab and at one time the government had to restrict Ghulam Ahmad from issuing any such prophecies. (Note 11).
Note 11 (page 231): For more details about Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s polemics with various Muslim and non-Muslim scholars and the resulting controversies, see Spencer Levan, The Ahmadiyya Movement: A History and Perspective (New Delhi: Manohar Book Service, 1974).
Comment:
Dr. Zahid Aziz please correct me, if i am wrong. HMGA was asked, as part of decision in court, to restrict prophecies, where opponent was Muhammad Hussain Bitalvi, and not because of fulfillment of death prophecies of Padri Abdullah Atham and Pundit Lakh Ram. I wonder why author did not write complete name of Padri Atham, perhaps to protect his previous religion Islam. Although author depends on opinion of Spencer Levan, it would have been better if prof. Ali Qasmi had done little bit of his own research and then given his own opinion, especially in this day and age when information is so easily accessible Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement websites. I doubt intention of author.
Page 41: More assuring for Ghulam Ahmad than the support of some Muslim scholars was the role of the British government in ensuring his protection against possible threats to his life or his activities as a scholar and preacher of Islam. For this reason Ghulam Ahmad, in his numerous statements, eulogized the benefits of British rule for India and called upon many Muslim scholars of various persuasions, was strongly opposed by those who regarded India as a land of kufar, as the British had grabbed it from the control of Muslim rulers. This interaction between the British government and Ghulam Ahmad — in which the British provided security for him, and he in turn made it religiously binding to Muslims to obey the British government — has given rise to wild conspiracy theories among opponents of the Ahmadiyyah community.
Comment:
British government in India as their policy was providing security to its citizens, regardless of his/ her religion. It was policy of ‘Freedom of Religion’ and ‘Freedom of Speech’ that benefited HMGA as it benefited his opponents. Unlike his opponents HMGA was telling British rulers on their face ‘Your God is dead. And accept religion of people whose God is alive’. He was not only saying this in India, but also stabbing into the heart of Christianity by publishing his writings in Great Britain, and North America. So, British government was NOT doing special favor to HMGA.
Page 42: If it is considered at all necessary to define the word, I would ask the Nazir [administrator] to give out the view point of his community towards the Muslims who are not Ahmadis. Are they not Kafir in light of the Fatwa given out so often by the Founder of Ahmadiyya community? I daresay it is the Fatwa alone which has dug a wide gulf between Muslims and Ahmadis; and which can not be bridged by simply defining the word "Muslim" in the way suggested by the Nazir. Such an amendment to the Constitution at the Annual Session is sure to cause a havoc and create religious and sectional controversies in the League. (Note 16).
Note 13 and 16 (page 231): Sadia Saeed, “Politics of Exclusion: Muslim Nationalism, State Formation and Legal Representations of the Ahmadiyya Community in Pakistan” (PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, 2010), 155. For details about the role of Ahmadis in the creation of Pakistan and their interactions with the main leadership of the Muslim League, I have relied heavily on Sadia Saeed’s work.
Comment:
It would have been much better and shown impartiality of prof. Qasmi, while giving quote from Sadia Saeed book if he had made clear, Founder of Ahmadiyya Community Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did NOT give Fatwa of Kafir towards the Muslims who were not Ahmadis. In fact it was HMGA son, Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mehmud who gave this Fatwa so often.
From Zahid Aziz:
"Mirza Ghulam Ahmad invited criticism from many non-Muslims as well. During his lifetime, he was confronted with scathing criticism from Arya Samaj and from Christian missionaries."
I don't have this book, but does the author say for what he faced this criticism? The clash between Hazrat Mirza sahib and these non-Muslims related to the latter's vituperation against Islam and the Holy Prophet, not to the claims of Hazrat Mirza sahib. Is the author unaware of this, or is he suppressing this?
As to being restricted by the government from issuing prophecies, he wrote this in response:
"It is true that I did make prophecies about the death, and so on, of certain men. This was not done by me unilaterally, but at a time and in the circumstances when these men, of their own accord and will, gave me written permission for such prophecy. Accordingly, I still possess these writings, by their own hands, some of which have been included in the record of the case of Dr. Clarke. But since even after this permission having been given, Dr. Clarke still mentioned those prophecies and concealed the true facts, so for the future I do not like to make any prophecies of doom on such requests. Rather, from our side the basic principle in future will be that if someone makes a request for such prophecies of doom, no attention will be paid to it, unless he produces a written order from the District Magistrate giving permission. This is a procedure in which there will not be left any room for deceit." (Announcement dated 20 September 1897, included in book Kitab-ul-Bariyya)
Hazrat Mirza sahib is under criticism by his Muslim opponents for prophesying the death, by the hand of God, of certain persons who exceeded all limits in abusing the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Yet his opponents themselves believe that such abusers should be killed by the hands of Muslims! In Pakistan there is a law of the land to this effect, allowing not only the legal authorities but even ordinary Muslims to kill such non-Muslims!
Even before that, there were instances such as the murder of Hindu publisher Rajpal by Ilm-ud-Din in Lahore in the 1920s after the latter had been listening to a khutba on this issue. He was hanged for murder, and is known as Ghazi Ilm-ud-Din Shaheed. The author of this book is professor at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS). He should visit the shrine of Ilm-ud-Din in Miani Sahib cemetery Lahore (which I have passed outside many times) and ask why people call him Ghazi and Shaheed.
Muslim Ulama have had a fatwa calling on Muslims to murder Salman Rushdie for more than 25 years.
Hazrat Mirza sahib was entirely opposed to such fatwas and acts by Muslims against abusers of Islam. Yet his Muslim opponents criticize him for merely making prophecies about what would befall from God upon such abusers, while they themselves murder and collude in murder of even innocent non-Muslims by falsely accusing them of blasphemy!
From Rashid Jahangiri:
@ Dr. Zahid Aziz
"Mirza Ghulam Ahmad invited criticism from many non-Muslims as well. During his lifetime, he was confronted with scathing criticism from Arya Samaj and from Christian missionaries."
I don't have this book, but does the author say for what he faced this criticism? The clash between Hazrat Mirza sahib and these non-Muslims related to the latter's vituperation against Islam and the Holy Prophet, not to the claims of Hazrat Mirza sahib. Is the author unaware of this, or is he suppressing this?
Answer: The author does not say for what reasons HMGA faced criticism from non-Muslims. Although, author bases his information on Spence Levan book, still it does not exonerates him from responsibility to provide information on reasons for criticism. On page 139 author talks about LAM South Africa case and refers to your book in this regard. So, it is hard to believe he was not aware of background information. (I will post this excerpt in another post). Unless author denies, it is safe to assume he is suppressing the truth.
From Rashid Jahangiri:
Absolute Inaccuracy
The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan by Ali Usman Qasmi.
The cross-examination of the Lahori jama’at
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 references 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:
Previously I posted the above excerpt in another thread. There I posted it in another context. Here I am posting to highlight another inaccuracy by author.
1-Author Ali Usman Qasmi writes: “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 83 (page 255): Proceedings of the Special Committee 1700-1706
Author has ended his opinion based on discussion at page 1706. If readers read page 1707 of Proceedings of the Special Committee, this is what they will read:
Mr. Abdul Manan Omar: … I have stated meaning of “itmam-i-hujjat”. After accepting a truth that this is a truth, he [someone] says, “I will not accept” then this is very bad thing.
Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar: Okay, tell me when Mirza sahib [Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad] uses word “Muslim” in his writings and he does not mean “Ahmadi”, are these people according to him haqiqi musalman or not?
Mr. Abdul Manan Omar: On some place they will be haqiqi and on some place not. This depends on condition of that person. Because when he [Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad] says “those who do not accept me”, then there are hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands of humans. So simply on this we cannot make a decision.
After above dialogue Yahya Bakhtiar brings in quote of Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mehmud Ahmad to support his [YB] point, which was obviously rejected by Abdul Manan Omar sahib.
So, it is ABSOLUTELY INACCURATE on behalf of author Ali Usman Qasmi to assume that Maulana Abdul Manan Omar sahib did not accept nonbelievers of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib as haqiqi musalman.
2-Author writes: 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.
According to Wikipedia entry on Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mehmud Ahmad: He was elected as the second successor of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad on 14 March 1914 at the age of 25, the day after the death of his predecessor Hakeem Noor-ud-Din.
So, author is WRONG when he assumes Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mehmud Ahmad was head of ‘United Ahmadiyya Community’ in 1913. He became head of Qadiani faction, and NOT of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement, on March 14, 2014.
From Zahid Aziz:
This is what happens in such unilateral, show trials when those in the witness box have no defence counsel or legal representation. A defence counsel would have objected to AG asking a question about haqiqi Muslims and asked the judge to rule it out of order. This was not a relevant issue, apart from the fact that one would first have to define a haqiqi Muslim, and explain what differentiates a haqiqi Muslim from one who is just a Muslim.
If AG wanted to know about haqiqi Muslims as distinct from other Muslims, he should have read Maulana Maudoodi's book Tahrik Azadi Hind aur Musalman, Part 2, consisting of his writings from 1939 to 1948, compiled by Maudoodi himself, who dates the Preface as November 1972. I have the 6th edition published 1987, from which I quote below.
Maudoodi divides Muslims into asli (real) Muslims and mere nasli (by descent) Muslims. In an article entitled Differences with the Muslim League he responds to some questions circulated by the Muslim League and writes:
"You are considering the entire Muslim community as 'Muslim', while 99% of its members are ignorant of Islam, 95% are deviating from it, and 90% are adamant that they will deviate from it and they neither want to follow the path of Islam nor achieve the purpose for which they were made Muslims." (p. 223)
Are these haqiqi Muslims in Maudoodi's eyes? Elsewhere he writes:
"Regretably, from the Quaid-i Azam of the League down to its most junior followers, there is not one person who possesses an Islamic mentality and Islamic mode of thinking, and looks upon various matters from an Islamic point of view." (p. 42)
"The people today known as Muslims have themselves forgotten that Islam is actually the name of a movement which arose for a purpose and with some principles, and the word 'Muslim' was coined for the group which should follow that movement and be its flag bearer. The movement was lost, its purpose was forgotten, its principles were violated one by one. Its name, after losing all its significance, is now the name of a racial and social community." (p. 33)
"I can say about myself that I found no attraction towards the form of Islam which I saw in the Muslim society around me. … If Islam had been the name of the religion which Muslims follow today, then perhaps I would have joined the heretics and the irreligious people. … I am in fact a new Muslim, and it is after careful investigation and scrutiny that I have accepted the belief about which my heart and mind testified that it is the only way of human success … I invite not only non-Muslims but also Muslims themselves to Islam, but by inviting them my purpose is not to make the so-called Muslim society survive and expand, as it itself has departed far from the path of Islam." (p. 24-25)
Therefore according to Maudoodi there is hardly any Muslim who is a haqiqi Muslim by any stretch of the imagination. And in particular, the AG Yahya Bakhtiar, who was in the Muslim League at partition, was not a haqiqi Muslim. So if AG is arguing that it is kufr to regard other Muslims as not being haqiqi Muslims, then Maudoodi should be convicted first.
From Zahid Aziz:
Thinking about Maudoodi's comment that the example of Muslims around him would have turned him away from Islam, I would say that I would consider that Muslim to be haqiqi who sets such a good example of being a Muslim that I want to copy his example. But thinking further, such a Muslim would be a good example in some respect, for example, one Muslim may be a good example for prayer, another (like Edhi) may be a good example in charitable work, yet another may be a good example in truthfulness, etc. Thus, another Muslim would be haqiqi in some respect, while the Holy Prophet Muhammad is haqiqi in every respect.
Therefore the answer to AG's question as to whether we regard other Muslims as haqiqi Muslims, is that there are people among them whom we regard as haqiqi in some respect or other, and we want to copy their example in those respects.
Of course, I am not under pressure in a hostile forum and have had more than enough time and notice to ponder on this question!
From Rashid Jahangiri:
@Dr. Zahid Aziz
As we read pages 1707 and 1708 of Proceedings of the Special Committee we comprehend that AG Yahya Bakhtiar tries to force Maulana Abdul Manan Omar sahib to accept that according to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib only his followers are haqiqi musalman. In support of his objective he reads QK2 Mirza Mehmud Ahmad interpretation of HMGA writing. Quote from QK2 statement is not complete. Regardless following statements are transcribed:
Mr. Abdul Manan Omar: God knows.
One voice: Allah SWT knows better.
One voice: God has not made us responsible (Urdu word: mukalif) to hold this scale.
One voice: God has not made us responsible to divide people.
The above “One voice” is not identified, but it is possible it could be of one of the member of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement who was there to assist Maulana Abdul Manan Omar sahib.
Reading this portion of transcription of Abdul Manan Omar sahib testimony, reader can easily extract AG was not letting him complete his answer, and as you said there was no defense attorney to stop AG from his “rapid fire” of questions. Even when ‘One voice’ tried to intervene that voice was suppressed and ignored.
One thing is clear from transcription of AG questions and LAM witness answers, that regardless of what LAM witness had said, AG goal was to put in same box LAM and Qadiani jamaat as far as issue of haqiqi musalman was concerned.
Regardless of what Abdul Manan Omar sahib said, or could have said if opportunity was provided, one thing was sure i.e. Government of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was determined to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslim with constitutional amendment.
My purpose of highlighting this inaccuracy is that author Ali Usman Qasmi gives his opinion without any qualification, and with disregard to what was actually said, and puts Lahori Jama’at with Qadiani Jama’at and writes “Maulana Abdul Manan Omar, too, did not accept nonbelievers of Mirza Ghulam as haqiqi musalman” I find this to be absolutely wrong and underhand attempt by author to justify declaration of Lahori Jama’at members as non-Muslims. I hope author Ali Usman Qasmi visits this thread and answer inaccuracies pointed out here.
From Zahid Aziz:
Haqiqi Muslim may be translated as "ideal" Muslim, and it is an ideal and goal. This is expressed in some basic hadith about faith as follows:
"None of you has faith unless I am dearer to him than his father and his son and all mankind."
"None of you has faith unless he loves for his brother what he loves for himself." (Bukhari, Book of Faith).
The Quran says:
"And those who believed and fled and struggled hard in Allah’s way, and those who gave shelter and helped — these are the believers truly (Arabic: haqqa)." (8:74)
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has also given a long list of qualities, without which a person cannot even be his follower. It includes:
"He who is not regular in the five daily prayers is not of my Jamaat. He who is not constantly supplicating before God, remembering Him with humility, is not of my Jamaat. … He who does not show gentleness and goodness towards his wife and her relatives is not of my Jamaat. He who deprives his neighbour of the least good is not of my Jamaat. … He who breaks in any way the promise he made when taking the pledge (to join this Movement) is not of my Jamaat." (Kishti-i Nuh).
There is no way of measuring whether a person complies with this criteria of the Quran, Hadith, and Hazrat Mirza sahib, and is a haqiqi Muslim, and no way of defining it in a law of the land.
If Hazrat Mirza sahib has said that no one but his followers can be haqiqi Muslims it means that those who do not act on the haqiqi, or true, picture of Islam, as revived by him in this age, they cannot be haqiqi Muslims. For example, if a person considers it sufficient to say prayers only as a bodily ritual, and does not accept Hazrat Mirza sahib's repeated teaching of praying from the heart, how is he going to become a haqiqi Muslim? If a Muslim, by holding those wrong beliefs which are exploited by the critics and detracters of Islam and the Holy Prophet, allows them to win against Muslims, and he could not care less about the defence of Islam, is he a haqiqi Muslim?
From Rashid Jahangiri:
Ban on Maulana Maudoodi's Books in Saudi Arabia.
According to BBC Urdu Online on December 2, 2015 Saudi Arabian English newspaper Arab News reports: Saudi Arab government has banned Maulana Maudoodi’s books.
In 2010 Bangladesh government banned his books.
Link to BBC Urdu on line December 9, 2015
Link to news analysis program ‘Zara Hut Kay’ on Pakistani news channel Dawn December 9, 2015. Please watch at 20:30