The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Archive for the ‘Ahmadiyya issues’ Category

Photographs of this occasion are available at this link.

In an earlier comment, Mr Saad Malhi of the Qadiani Jamaat had written sarcastically:

Can you even populate the Berlin Mosque? (See link).

The Imam of the Khadija Mosque in Berlin (Germany), which is the mosque of the Qadiani Jamaat, headed by their Khalifa Mirza Masroor Ahmad, has made the following statement:

Anyone who has said the German “Glaubensbekenntnis”, “there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah”, just this one sentence, he is a Muslim. He pointed out that no person can call anyone unbeliever who does claim for himself to be a real Muslim. God decides and no person. The Imam stressed that this Kalima is the only condition to be a believer and a Muslim. The Imam said that you have to say this one sentence and then you are Muslim. He highly stressed that no one can call you an unbeliever if you claim for yourself to be a muslim. Only God decides.

This statement of the Imam clashes with the views expressed by their Khalifa number 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in his English book Truth About the Split  (see the 2007 edition available at the link https://www.alislam.org/book/truth-about-split/ of their own website).

He writes:

“(1) the belief that Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was actually a Nabi;

(2) the belief that he was ‘the Ahmad’ spoken of in the prophecy of Jesus referred to in the Holy Quran in Al-Saff 61:7;

(3) the belief that all those so-called Muslims who have not entered into his Bai‘at formally, wherever they may be, are kuffar and outside the pale of Islam, even though they may not have heard the name of the Promised Messiah.

That these beliefs have my full concurrence, I readily admit.” (p . 56)

“I wrote that as we believed the Promised Messiah to be one of the prophets of God, we could not possibly regard his deniers as Muslims.” (p. 146)

“such people as had failed to recognise the Promised Messiah as a Rasul even if they called him a righteous person with their tongues, were yet veritable Kafirs.” (p. 148)

“So, is the Imam of the Khadija Mosque correct or is the above book correct?

Famous Muslim saints and renowned spiritual figures in the history of Islam had applied the words nabi (prophet) to themselves and to certain great Muslims, and had used the word nubuwwat (prophethood) to refer to their rank. Their followers and devotees of the present time admit this, and they put forward explanations that this does not mean that these saints believed that prophets can come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad.

The Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, had used these words in exactly the same way and had himself given the clearest explanation: that it is allowable to apply them in a metaphorical or linguistic sense; while the fact remains that no prophet can come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad. The anti-Ahmadiyya Ulama and propagandists ignore his explanations and accuse him of denying the finality of prophethood, but in the cases of their own accepted spiritual leaders they resort to the same kind of explanations which he gave.

Here are two examples of this.

1. Farid-ud-Din Ganj Shakar (d. 1265) wrote in a poem:

“I am wali (a saint), I am Ali, I am nabi (a prophet)”.

See book Haqiqat Gulzar Sabiri, first published 1886, sixth edition, 1983, p. 414. This book is available online. See the relevant page at this link (first column, 3rd verse).

Thousands of people every year visit the shrine of Farid-ud-Din Ganj Shakar in Pakpattan, Pakistan, which is administered by a department of the government of Pakistan. Qawwali singers at the shrine sing this poem to the visitors.

Recently, a spiritual leader, Pir Nasir-ud-Din, has presented an explanation of this verse in the following video in Urdu:

https://fb.watch/gBEwjRSqC1/

(a) The Pir says he was asked by one of the qawwali singers to explain this verse because people raise objections to it. The Pir says he told him not to  concern himself with this and just keep on singing the verse (see video clip from 0:20 to 0:25 secs).

This, then, is the standard they apply to their own saints, that if you see them calling themselves nabi, just don’t get concerned and there is no need to answer anyone’s objections to it. In case of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, their standard is that this is a most serious violation of Islam and he must be condemned as kafir for doing it.

On the other hand Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did get concerned about his followers using the words nabi and rasul for him and he advised: “As these words, which are only in a metaphorical sense, cause trouble in Islam, leading to very bad consequences, these terms should not be used in our community’s common talk and everyday language” (see his letter in Al-Hakam, 17 August 1899).

(b) The Pir goes on to add, as a preamble, that these words were written by one of the spiritual elite, a special man of God, and the common people have started raising a hue and cry about it. But, says the Pir, what they are objecting to was written by a great Sufi saint who was a staunch and strict follower of the Holy Prophet. (See video clip from 0:36 to 0:56 secs.)

But the same principle is not applied to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. His opponents put aside the established fact that he was a great servant of Islam and focus just on his use of these words. In his case, no follower of his needs to devise any interpretation of why he used these words because he has given his own interpretation repeatedly and clearly.

As to the common people misunderstanding the use of these words, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote: “To use a word in a non-real sense, and to employ it in speech according to its broad, root meaning, does not imply heresy (kufr). However, I do not like even this much, for there is the possibility that ordinary Muslims may misunderstand it” (Anjam Atham, footnote, p. 27).

(c) According to the Pir’s explanation, Farid-ud-Din is not referring to his own person as an individual, but to the whole of humanity, meaning that it is human beings who have been created with the potentiality to become a saint or prophet. He also makes a distinction between the physical body of Farid-ud-Din and the spirit which was within it, the spirit which was full of light bestowed upon it by God.

This is not much different from the explanations given by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad about the use of the word nabi for him, that it applies in the sense of zill and burooz. For example, he wrote in Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala: “God has called me nabi and rasul again and again, but in the sense of burooz. My own self does not come into it, but that of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. It was on this account that I was called ‘Muhammad’ and ‘Ahmad’. So prophethood and messengership did not go to another person. What belonged to Muhammad remained with Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him.”

2. Jalal-ud-Din Rumi (d. 1273) in his widely-acclaimed and frequently-quoted Persian work Masnavi has applied the words nabi and nubuwwat to people among Muslims after the Holy Prophet Muhammad. An Urdu translation of Masnavi by Maulana Qazi Sajjad Husain was published in Lahore, with an introduction by the translator. It is dated 9 September 1974, which by co-incidence is just about the time that the Pakistan National Assembly declared Ahmadis as non-Muslim after concluding that their Founder had claimed to be a prophet.

In his introduction Maulana Qazi Sajjad Husain writes:

“According to Rumi there is a class of prophets and saints to whom more secrets are revealed than to the intellectual thinkers. He says: ‘Besides the intellect and the life of humans in general, there is another kind of life in the nabi and the wali’.” (p. 22)

Immediately after this, Maulana Qazi Sajjad Husain tells us that, while the ordinary people consider wahy as being granted only to prophets, and ilham as being the revelation to saints, yet Rumi “makes no distinction between wahy and ilham”. He adds that because the ordinary people believe that wahy only comes to prophets, Sufis use the term ‘wahy of the heart’ for revelations to saints. He quotes Rumi as saying that, although wahy is received by the saints: “To hide this from the ordinary people, Sufis call it wahy of the heart.” (p. 23)

We may note here that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is accused of claiming to be a prophet because he used the word wahy for his revelations. But as we learn here from Maulana Qazi Sajjad Husain, Jalal-ud-Din Rumi applies the term wahy to the revelation of the saints as well.

Then Maulana Qazi Sajjad Husain writes:

“The word nabi is generally used with a special meaning but Rumi uses the word nabi for reformers (muslihin) of a high rank as follows:

‘In the way of goodness, be anxious to render service to humanity, so that you may attain nubuwwat while being in the Muslim Umma.’

In Rumi’s terminology, the words nabi and wahy have such a wide meaning which is much broader than the technical meaning.”

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad also wrote several times about the “special meaning” or “technical meaning” of the words nabi and rasul, as distinct from their “wide” and “broader meaning”. These words applied to him, he stated repeatedly, in their wide and broad sense, and not in their special and technical meaning. He wrote:

“The words nabi and rasul [about me] are figurative and metaphorical. Risalat in the Arabic language is applied to ‘being sent’, and nubuwwat is to expound hidden matters or truths and fine points upon receiving knowledge from God. So, bearing in mind a significance of this extent, it is not blame-worthy to believe in the heart in accordance with this meaning. However, in the terminology of Islam, nabi and rasul mean those who bring an entirely new Law (shariah), or those who abrogate some aspects of the previous law, or those who are not called followers of a previous prophet, having a direct connection with God without benefit from a prophet. Therefore, one should be vigilant to see that the same meaning is not taken here.” (His letter in Al-Hakam, 17 August 1899).

So, at the very time in 1974 when the Pakistan National Assembly was deciding that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be a prophet because of using the nabi and rasul about himself, Maulana Qazi Sajjad Husain was writing the introduction to his Urdu translation of Jalal-ud-Din Rumi’s Masnavi, explaining in it that Rumi had applied these words to persons among the Muslims, and justifying Rumi’s use by giving the same reasons as those given by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. But it should be noticed that in case of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad he himself gave the explanation, and it was not the followers who came up with it later.

— Zahid Aziz

From: Honest Inquirer Saleem

Salam! I need some help.

On October 9, 1910, a delegation of Ahmadi scholars went on a tour of Uttar Pradesh and this delegation was headed by Hadhrat Maulavi Syed Sarwar Shah and included people like Hadhrat Mufti Muhammad Sadiq, Khawaja Kamal-ud-Din, and Maulavi Sadruddin. When the delegation arrived in Lucknow, it had a meeting with Maulana Shibli No‘amaani, who made a special reference to Maulana Hakeem Noor-ud-Deen, who, at that time, was the head of Ahmadiyya Jama‘at. Maulana Shibli No‘amaani said, “Maulavi Hakeem Noor-ud-Deen is a giant among scholars and I have a keen desire to meet him and, as a matter of fact, I had decided to leave for Qadian but the visit was put off due to an accident.” (AlBadr, October 27, 1910)

This is a very interesting statement by Shibli Nomani calling Maulana Noor ud Deen(RA) a giant among scholars. However when I showed this to a Deobandi he asked for a scan. I tried looking in the badr archives saved from aaiil.org but october 27 1910 and october 22 1910 are literally missing which is extremely strange since this website has quoted it before:

https://www.ahmadiyya.org/hmnd/nurdin-urdu.htm#1 

Here is the conversation between shibli nomani and muhammad sadiq above which is taken from al badr october 27 1910:https://www.ahmadiyya.org/qadis/sadiq.htm

Since I could not furnish proof he ended up saying that Noor-ud-Deen(RA) and other ahmadi scholars were nobodies.

Could you please attach the al badr october 27 1910 and october 22 1910 scans as a pdf or an image so it can not be lost to time. JazakAllah and I appreciate the preservation of history that is currently going on through this site.

An enquirer by the posting name of ‘Mujahidekabir’ has asked, regarding the following quotations in our publication The Death of Jesus (by Maulana Hafiz Sher Mohammad, translated into English by me), that the references have not been provided. These quotations are on pages 35-36 of the book available at this link.

I. The Khalifas

1. Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq, God be pleased with him, said:

Aina Musa, aina Isa, aina Yahya, aina Nuh,
Anta ya siddiq ‘as-in tub ila-l-maula al-jalil. 

“Where is Moses, where is Jesus, where is Yahya, where is Noah, [i.e., they have all died], So you, O sinner Siddiq, repent to your Glorious Lord.”

2. Hazrat Ali, God be pleased with him, said:

Al-mautu la walid-an wa la walad-an,
hadha-s-sabilu ila an la tara ahad. 

Kana-an-nabi wa lam yakhlud li-ummati-hi
lau khallad-Allahu khalq-an tablahu khalada. 

“Death spares not the father, nor the son, it is the path that leaves not anyone.

He (the Holy Prophet) was a prophet, yet he did not remain with his umma forever,

Had anyone before him lived forever, he (Holy Prophet) too would have lived forever.”

The first quotation can be seen at this link. This link gives a complete poem by Hazrat Abu Bakr. The verse we quote is the last one, and I copy and paste it below from that page:

این موسٰیؑ این عیسٰیؑ این یحیٰیؑ این نوحٍؑ
(کہاں ہیں موسیٰؑ کہاں ہیں عیسیٰؑ کہاں ہیں یحییٰؑ کہاں ہیں نوحؑ)

اَنتَ یا صدیقؓ عاصٍ تُب اِلٰی المولٰی الجلیل
(تو اے گنہگار صدیق توبہ کر بزرگ و برتر اللہ سے)

The second quotation is available at this link. Again, I copy and paste it below from that page:

المَوتُ لا وَالِداً يُبقي وَلا وَلَداً
هَذا السَبيلُ إِلى أَن لا تَرى أَحَدا

كانَ النَبِيُّ وَلَم يَخلُد لِأُمَّتِهِ
لَو خَلَّدَ اللَهُ خَلقاً قَبلَهُ خَلَدا

The anti-Ahmadiyya have alleged that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad recommended to the British government of India that British soldiers stationed in India should have prostitutes provided for them from Britain itself.

They have pointed to a passage in volume 1 of the book Mujaddid-i Azam, the biography of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad written by Dr Basharat Ahmad. This volume was published in Urdu in 1939 and its English translation was published as The Great Reformer in 2007. The passage in the published English translation is as follows:

“The British Government had allowed brothels in the military cantonments to service the needs of British soldiers. In order to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, the prostitutes were required to undergo medical examinations periodically. Later, under pressure from the puritanical elements of the British society, the compulsory medical examinations were made illegal. With the change of government in London, a movement was started to restore the medical exams and the London Times wrote several articles in its support.

When Hazrat Mirza learned of this, he published a notice in which he drew the attention of the government to the fact that it was only in Islam that fornication had been declared wrong and sinful under all circumstances. He petitioned the government to find ways to maintain the morals of its soldiers and to stop them from fornicating, but if this could not be done, then the government should import British prostitutes for the Britons. Indian women should not be used to satisfy the lasciviousness of the British soldiers.”
(v. 1, p. 572; underlining is ours. In the original Urdu book, see v. 1, p. 441)

I have underlined the words which are objected to by our critics.

1. Firstly, it appears that there is no writing by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad containing the underlined words. This suggestion of importing prostitutes was in fact made by an Indian newspaper which Hazrat Mirza has merely quoted in his book Arya Dharm. Before quoting it he has commented and emphasised that it is only Islam which prohibits every kind of fornication and provides teachings on its avoidance in all kinds of circumstances.

Therefore, we in the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement have no hesitation in acknowledging that an error has been made in Mujaddid-i Azam in attributing these words to him. Perhaps by a printing mistake some text has been omitted after the words “to stop them from fornicating”, which makes it appear as if the underlined words are being attributed to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

2. Secondly, it may be objected that even if Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not write these words, a close follower of his has done so and thinks it is appropriate advice. But why is this statement objectionable? It is simply saying that if you cannot refrain from this immoral practice then please do not involve our Indian community in it, but go and do it among your own people who regard it as legitimate. Just before this, this statement says:

“it was only in Islam that fornication had been declared wrong and sinful under all circumstances”

This is a practical approach which is adopted today by Muslims living in the West. When they find that certain immoral practices are being promoted by Western people, Muslims say to them: Go and indulge in these yourselves, but do not involve us or our children.

The Quran itself says that fornicating men and women should confine their relations between themselves, and keep separate from the believers (24:3). It also says: “Unclean things are for unclean ones and unclean ones are for unclean things, and good things are for good ones and good ones are for good things” (24:26). Can it be said that the Quran is approving of this immoral behaviour?

3. Thirdly, our critics would not have objected if the above underlined words of the statement had been different as follows:

“… but if this could not be done, then the government should do what many Muslim Ulama advocate to Muslims: that the women of the conquered countries be distributed among the soldiers of the conquering army for use as concubines (sex slaves).”

Why would our critics not object at all to making this recommendation? It is because most of them believe in the allowability of concubines. To show this, we quote from Maulana Maudoodi’s famous commentary of the Quran, Tafheem-ul-Quran, in his footnote 44 to verse 4:24. Maulana Maudoodi writes:

“(1) It is not lawful for a soldier to have conjugal relations with a female prisoner of war as soon as she falls into his hands. The Islamic Law requires that all such women should be handed over to the government which has the right to … … distribute them among the soldiers. A soldier can only have sexual relations with the woman who has been given to him by the govern­ment officially as his property.

(6) While the Shariah has imposed a limit of four on the number of wives (for one man), there is no limit on the number of captive women (for one man)…

(8) The official handing over of the property rights over a slave-girl to a man by the government has the same legal standing as the legal standing of Nikah. Therefore, there is no reason why a man who feels no aversion to Nikah should feel any aversion to sexual enjoyment with a slave-girl.”

Our critics should ponder whether, in accordance with their beliefs about concubines, the Muslim opponents of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad should have suggested to the British government that they adopt these so-called Islamic rules for their soldiers.

— Zahid Aziz

Someone by the name of Rifhan Mohamed Ibn Ahmad has sent the following submission, in relation to a thread from 2009.

The Prophet (pbuh) informed me (Hazrath Fatima) that any prophet that comes after another prophet lives half of the life of the prophet before him. And he said to me, Isa ibn Maryam lived for 120 years, so I see that I am going to leave (this world) as 60.

– Dala’il al-Nabuwwah 7:166 – Imam Bayhaqi (rh)

Apart from Dala’il al-Nabuwwah, this statement and its variations
have been narrated in other sources like Musnad Ishaq, al-Ahad wa al-Mathani, Sharh al-Mushkil al-athar and Mujam al-Kabir.

“Aisha (ra) said that, in his illness in which he died, the Holy Prophet (sa) said: ‘Every year Gabriel used to repeat the Holy Quran with me once, but this year he has done it twice. He has informed me that there is no prophet but he lives half as long as the one who preceded him. And he has told me that Jesus lived a hundred and twenty years, and I see that I am about to leave this world at sixty’.”

– Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 6, p. 160 Narrated by Fatimatuz-Zahra (ra)

Tabarani says concerning this hadith: “Its narrations are reliable, and it is reported in a number of different versions” Narrated by Aysha (ra)

– Mu’jam Tabarani Kabeer Hadith 18464,

– Tarikh Damishq 47/481-482 Ibn Asaakir

– Ibn Saa’d’s Tabaqaat Al-Kubra (2/195)

– Mawahib al-Ladinya, vol. 1, p. 42 and Hujjaj al-Kiramah, p. 428

In the Mustadrak Al Hakim, it is reported from Ibn Umar(ra) that Jesus lived to the age of 120 years. – Tafsir Kamalain

“As for what is related about the Messiah that he was raised up to heaven at the age of 33 years, there is no sound authority for this which one could turn to.”

– Zad al-Ma‘ad, vol. i, p. 20 Ibn al-Qayyim

“If Jesus and Moses had been alive, they would have had no choice but to follow me.”

– Kathir vol II, p 245 and al yawaqit wal Jawahir, part 2, page 24; Fath al-Bayan, vol. 2, p. 246; Tafsir Ibn Kathir, under verse 81 of Al Imran, Zurqani, Vol. VI, p. 54, Tibrani Kabeer.

This is an update to the news which I published below.

The page on www.ahmadiyya.org website about this case has been revised. I have added a number of scans from some original documents relating to the case. Please visit this link.

This new edition, revised and expanded by myself, is now available at Amazon:

Amazon UK

Amazon USA

Amazon Canada

The first edition was published in 1987, less than two years after the conclusion of the case.

— Zahid Aziz

Please see below report from Al-Fazl, 22 October 1913, of a visit by Abdullah Yusuf Ali to Qadian where he met the Head of the Movement Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din. It is reported that he was brought there by Dr Mirza Yaqub Baig, who was later a founder-member of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jamaat. Yusuf Ali was at the time in the Indian Civil Service of British rule of India, as stated in the report. Later, of course, he translated the Quran into English in the 1930s.

—Zahid Aziz

This is further to the point discussed in an earlier post about quotations from the Quran being given, in recognized Islamic literature, in words differing from how they occur in the Quran. (See the earlier post.)

There is a book by Shah Ismail Shaheed (d. 1831) entitled Abaqaat. In the original Arabic book we find the following:

Here a verse of the Quran is quoted in the words: Wa in min qaryat-in illā khalā fī-hā nadhīr — “There is no town (qarya) but a warner appeared in it”. To my knowledge the actual verse in the Quran (35:24) does not say qarya (town) but umma (people).

There is an Urdu translation of Abaqaat by Maulana Manazir Ahsan Gilani (about him see link 1 and link 2). In his translation this appears as follows:

(This is at the bottom lines of page 401 of his translation, see link).

He has even added before the quotation: “Similarly, the famous Quranic verse” before quoting Wa in min qaryat-in illā khalā fī-hā nadhīr. But this wording does not occur in the Quran!

There are indeed verses in the Quran (three as far as I know) which contain the words nadhīr and qaryat-in. These are 25:51, 34:34 and 43:23, but none of these has this wording.

Most probably, Shah Ismail Shaheed mistakenly recalled qarya as occurring in 35:24, and a century later the translator Maulana Manazir Ahsan Gilani did not realise this. Human beings make mistakes like these. It doesn’t detract from their high standing and we don’t throw unfounded accusations and slurs at them.

— Zahid Aziz