Anti-Ahmadiyya group claims victory for Qadiani Jamaat against LAM in Shimla debate of 1915
Earlier this month I received an e-mail sent by Mr Akber A. Choudhry to a list of people including me. It pointed us to his website (I say "his website" because the link he sent carries his personal copyright notice at the bottom) where a Qadiani Jamaat publication has been uploaded containing the proceedings of a debate between Qadiani Jamaat and Lahore Ahmadiyya representatives at Shimla (formerly spelt as Simla).
In this debate each party put forward its arguments before an impartial, non-Ahmadi Muslim arbitrator as to its interpretation of the claims of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. The arbitrator's verdict, printed in this book, is presented to show that he ruled that the Qadiani explanation of his claim, that he claimed to be a prophet, was correct.
I sent a preliminary reply to Mr Akber A. Choudhry's e-mail, but he gave no response. I have now compiled an article on the subject at this link.
I wonder if he will care to respond (I am sending him a link to this blog post).
His webpage says: "These proceedings represents the closest we will get to the original positions and it includes many very interesting references and interpretations."
This statement shows the gross ignorance which we have come to expect from anti-Ahmadiyya websites. The "references and interpretations" in these proceedings can be found extensively in Qadiani and LAM literature, including on the Qadiani and LAM websites, and were a matter of common discussion for decades.
Zahid Aziz
From Zahid Aziz:
I have just now sent Akber Choudhry the following e-mail:
Dear Mr Akber Choudhry,
assalamu alaikum
You have not replied to my two e-mails. Perhaps it is beneath your dignity to grace me with your response.
I wanted to inform you that Bashir Shah, the anti-Ahmadiyya activist, has posted the following opinion about my response on my blog:
"Akber C found something new, a new debate from Shimla, and I read your response, it was terrible".
Therefore I request you to place a link to my response on the same webpage where you placed the introduction to the Shimla debate of 1915 (i.e., at the page http://wiki.qern.org/mubahitha-shimla).
Please also add on that webpage Bashir Shah's assessment that my response "was terrible".
My response is at: http://www.ahmadiyya.org/qadis/shimla-debate.htm
I am sure you will be keen for your readers to see how terrible is my response.
From Zahid Aziz:
Akber Choudhry has replied to me, giving his views about the Ahmadiyya Movement, and I sent back a brief response. He considers my response to the Shimla debate booklet as written with "half eye shut". I have responded that that is all the more reason why he should give a link to it on his webpage, so people can see how woefully inadequate our replies are.
From Zahid Aziz:
Akber Choudhry has now placed a link to my reply on his webpage mentioned above under the heading 'Lahori Defense'.
From Rashid Jahangiri:
Another Deception Effort by Akber Choudhry.
Akber Choudhry while “showing” he is fair and honest person by posting link to Dr. Zahid Aziz rebuttal on his website made another deception effort. On his website in article ‘Mubahitha Shimla’ under sub heading ‘Lahori Defense’ he wrote:
“None of the three points he raises — deferred matter of takfeer, Qadiani debater becoming Lahori, and Qadianis retracting their beliefs — is a rebuttal. As we wrote above about the Lahori position, the article is indeed a deflection.”
The reality is that Dr. Zahid Aziz had emailed him:
Dear Mr Akber Choudhry,
assalamu alaikum
I am only writing to ask for clarification in view of your statement:
"Second, I would be most happy to include a link to your article if it addressed the issue head on. It does not. … Just putting ink to paper does not answer the question; the question has to be addressed from all angles in its totality as it has been discussed in totality in the Shimla discourse."
But what is the issue you want me to address? There are two separate points: (1) are the Qadiani arguments used in the debate acceptable and valid, and (2) does the arbitrator's verdict constitute a victory for the Qadiani Jamaat.
I understood that you wanted me to discuss point number (2). So primarily I dealt with that in my article. "The victory that dare not be claimed" is in my heading. I said in my introduction: "This is claimed by this anti-Ahmadiyya group to be a victory for the Qadiani Jama‘at."
If you, by saying "all angles in its totality", mean that I should be refuting the Qadiani arguments they used in the debate, then firstly I point out that there is a vast amount of our literature, most of it available on our websites, which refutes those arguments.
Secondly, if in my response I were to refute those arguments I would be trying to re-stage the same debate using largely the same points we made at that time. And you well know that the reply you would give me would be: Zahid sahib, the arbitrator has already rejected your case!
I have said before that if my reply is weak, evasive, etc., it is all the more to your advantage to give a link to it.
As you are in Pakistan, please try typing http://www.ahmadiyya.org in a web browser address bar. You will find that this website created by me is blocked by the telecoms regulatory authorities of Pakistan. This can't be because our case and arguments are weak!
Regards,
Zahid Aziz
In his comment ‘Lahori Defense’ Akber Choudhry is both acting as party to conflict (between him and Dr. Zahid Aziz) and judge at the same time. If he was an honest person he would have either not delivered his ‘judgment’ or at the very least provided Dr. Zahid Aziz reasons for not providing rebuttal to Qadiani arguments. The fact is that both Anti-HMGA people like Akber Choudhry and Qadianis need each other to survive.
From Zahid Aziz:
In case blog readers are wondering how Rashid Jahangiri acquired my e-mail to Akber Choudhry which he has quoted, it is not because he and I are under-handedly acting in concert.
It is because he was one of the recipients of the original message from Akber Choudhry, which I mentioned right at the top of this post where I wrote: "Earlier this month I received an e-mail sent by Mr Akber A. Choudhry to a list of people including me." So the entire e-mail exchange went to everyone on that list.
From Rashid Jahangiri:
As Dr. Zahid Aziz wrote, i was on the email list of email exchange between him and Akber Choudhry. I was expecting after receiving Dr. Zahid Aziz email Akber Choudhry will at least post his (ZA) reasons for not giving rebuttal to Qadiani arguments. From my repeated experience with Mehmudis (Qadianis who believe Mirza Mehmud Ahmad was Musleh Mahud) and anti-HMGA people (especially who have been a previous Mehmudi), i know honesty is the last thing to expect from them.