The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Archive for the ‘Ahmadiyya issues’ Category

The annual gathering of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Lahore took place in Lahore from December 25th to 27th, 2020. It has been taking place on around the same dates since December 1914, and is a continuation of the annual gathering or Jalsa instituted by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in December 1892.

The audio recordings of the speeches are available as follows:

• English
• Urdu

Professor Mahmood Ahmad Ghazi (d. 2010) of the International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan, appeared for the defence in a court case in Cape Town in 1987. The case was brought by a Sunni Imam, Sheikh Jassiem, against the Sunni Muslim Judicial Council (MJC) and its President and involved a discussion of the point whether Jassiem was right in treating Lahore Ahmadis as Muslims after they had been declared kafir and apostate by the MJC.

Professor Ghazi, who later became Rector of International Islamic University, Islamabad, a judge in the Federal Shariah Court, and later still the Minister of Religious Affairs in Pakistan, testified to prove that Lahore Ahmadis are non-Muslim.

In her judgment of February 1990, the lady Judge Van Den Heever, assessed Ghazi’s testimony as follows:

“He has been involved with various Pakistan government bodies…  As a witness Professor Ghazi has the disadvantage that he correctly concedes that where the government of the day supports an idea that idea flourishes. The Pakistan government having legislatively declared Pakistan Mirzais to be a non-Muslim minority, he himself would have problems on his return home were he to thump any but an anti-Ahmadi tub. That tub he thumped with great vigour, displaying his total bias against Mirza [Ghulam Ahmad]. He concedes that he has the “strongest possible” anti-Ahmedi feelings — a concession it was unnecessary to extract from him since he seldom missed an opportunity of running Mirza down. He was not prepared to give Mirza the benefit of any doubt whatever, to regard him as perhaps bona fide but misguided, but likened him to a “criminal” whose “justification” should not be taken as face value. Of possible interpretations put on Mirza’s words and actions, he always chose the worst. …

… his evidence was often illogical, inferences unjustified. Indeed, he appears to be more interested in the political than the spiritual aspect of Islam…

Advocate de Villiers’s comment to Ghazi “you do seem to make up rules as you go along” or words to that effect, was not without foundation. Ghazi has dual standards for apos­tacy and almost everything else, one for Mirza and one for others.” (pp. 93–95).

1. A man said to the Holy Prophet:

فَقَالَ الرَّجُلُ آمَنْتُ بِمَا جِئْتَ بِهِ، وَأَنَا رَسُولُ مَنْ وَرَائِي مِنْ قَوْمِي

“I believe in what you have been sent with, and I am a messenger (rasul) of my people whom I have left behind.” (Bukhari, hadith 63)

2. A man was sent to Abu Bakr with a command from the Holy Prophet. The man was called the messenger.

فَأَتَاهُ الرَّسُولُ

“So the messenger (rasul) came to him (Abu Bakr)” (Bukhari, hadith 678).

3. Regarding the same incident:

فَأَتَاهُ الرَّسُولُ فَقَالَ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَأْمُرُكَ أَنْ تُصَلِّيَ بِالنَّاسِ‏.‏

“So the messenger (rasul) came to him and said: The Messenger of Allah commands you to lead people in prayer” (Bukhari, hadith 687).

4. Uthman sent a messenger to call someone to him:

جَاءَ رَسُولُ عُثْمَانَ

“the messenger (rasul) of Uthman came…” (Bukhari, hadith 3696).

5. The Holy Prophet sent a man with a message to Ka‘b ibn Malik. Ka‘b narrated this incident, saying:

إِذَا رَسُولُ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَأْتِينِي

“when the messenger (rasul) of the messenger (rasul) of Allah came to me” (Bukhari, hadith 4418).

6. When the Holy Prophet called various clans of the Quraish to gather to listen to him:

أَرْسَلَ رَسُولاً لِيَنْظُرَ مَا هُوَ

Those who could not come “sent a messenger (rasul) to see what it was” (Bukhari, hadith 4770).

7. When the Holy Prophet asked Mu‘adh ibn Jabal certain questions and was pleased with his replies, he said:

الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي وَفَّقَ رَسُولَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ لِمَا يُرْضِي رَسُولَ اللَّهِ

“Praise be to Allah Who granted the messenger (rasul) of the messenger (rasul) of Allah that which pleases the messenger (rasul) of Allah” (Abu Dawud, book 25: ‘Judges’, ch. 11, hadith 3592)

Those readers interested in the pre-1914 Ahmadiyya beliefs about the claims of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad may find useful the latest addition to our website, which is accessible from this page of contents.

In the Lahore Ahmadiyya literature, a statement by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from an Arabic section in his (largely) Urdu book Haqiqat-ul-Wahy has long been given as follows:

“And I have been called nabi by Allah by way of metaphor, not by way of reality.”

(Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, Zameema, pp. 64–65; Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 22, pp. 688–689).

Someone came across the Qadiani Jamaat English translation of the complete book Haqiqat-ul-Wahy and searched for long to find this statement in it, and failing to find it he then asked me where it was. So I looked in the Qadiani English translation and found it in the following words:

“I have been granted the name ‘Prophet’ by Allah, not in its original sense [of being raised independently], but as a subordinate Prophet.” (p. 878)

The statement in Hazrat Mirza sahib’s book is exactly as we have been translating it, the word for metaphor being majaz and the word for reality being haqiqat. A person being called “prophet” by way of metaphor means that he is not a prophet, and Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has made this point further clear by adding: “not by way of reality.”

If there could be any doubt about what he means by metaphor and reality, it is removed by his expla­nation, earlier in the same book, of how prophets of God were called as ‘sons of God’. He writes:

“In the earlier scriptures the perfectly righteous ones have been called sons of God. This also did not mean that in reality (haqiqat) they were sons of God, for this is heresy and God is clear of having sons and daughters. The meaning is, in fact, that God had manifested Himself as an image in the clear mirror of (the hearts of) these perfectly righteous ones. …

As to Jesus being called son of God in the Gospels, if Christians had remained within the limit of saying that just as Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon etc. were called sons of God in a metaphorical (isti‘arah) sense in the books of God, in the same way is Jesus so called, then there would have been no objection. For, just as these prophets were called son metaphorically in the books of the earlier prophets, our Holy Prophet has been called God in some prophecies. The fact is that neither were all those prophets sons of God, nor is the Holy Prophet God. All these are meta­phorical expressions based on love.”

(Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, pp. 63–64; Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 22, p. 65–66).

Just as, in the earlier scriptures, prophets had been called ‘sons of God’ or even ‘God’ metaphorically, similarly it was by way of metaphor that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was called ‘prophet’ in his revelation and in a Hadith prophecy about him. According to Islam, the prophets did not become sons of God or God in reality by any stretch of the imagination. However, Christians took Jesus for son of God in reality, which was a great error. This amply illustrates what is meant by meta­phor as opposed to reality. Similarly, Hazrat Mirza sahib was not a prophet in reality, and it is a great error to consider him so.

It is clear that the Qadiani translation of this statement has no justification whatsoever. They have converted “prophet by way of reality” into “independent prophet” and converted “being called prophet by way of metaphor” into “being a subordinate prophet”, while the statement contains no mention of independent or subordinate at all.

— Zahid Aziz

A message was received at one of our websites on 5 December 2018 from a Muslim brother in Portugal, which we reproduce below with his permission.

I am a Twelver Shia Sufi Muslim. I am also an Islamic scholar and researcher of Islam and its sciences. I am also a researcher of Christianity, Hinduism, world history, international politics, and Neoplatonic Philosophy.

But I am first and foremost a Muslim, a true monotheist, and I do not ascribe partners to Allah Ta’ala.

And my sole authority is the Holy Quran, though I accept those Hadeeth attributed to Prophet Muhammad that match with the Book of Allah, Subhana-hu wa Ta’ala.

Now, the purpose of this letter is just to salute you and commend you. I consider you as 100% Muslims and it would be an honour to perform Salah behind an Imam of yours and to eat meat slaughtered by you.

I know with some degree of certainty the differences between your Movement, the Lahore Ahmadiyyah Movement (LAM), and the Ahmadiyyah Muslim Community (AMC).

You believe, like the Sunnis and the Shias, that Muhammad (saw) is the last Prophet sent by Allah Tabarak wa Ta’ala to all Mankind and so you belong to Mainstream Islam.

Regarding the AMC, they believe that Muhammad (saw) is the final Law-giving Prophet, the final major Prophet and the final Messenger. But they believe in the possibility of very small prophets belonging from the Muslim Ummah, who are totally submitted to the Holy Quran and the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad. These very small prophets they call “Ummati Nabi”.

Though I reject the AMC’s concept of “Ummati Nabi”, I also consider them as Muslims, and I would have no problem to pray behind them and to eat the meat they slaughter.

My justification for accepting the AMC as Muslims is the following:

If we were to consider the AMC as non-Muslims because they believe in the false concept of “Ummati Nabi”, then we would have to consider the Wahhabis as apostates and mushrik because they wrongly ascribe to Almighty Allah, hands, feet, face, and so on, while Allah is neither matter nor spirit, being totally transcendent, transcending even His Holy Names.

But I consider the Wahhabis as Muslims and I even pray behind them and eat the meat they slaughter, although here in Portugal the Wahhabi Community is almost non-existent.

The problem of nowadays Muslims is that they do not respect the minor differences each Muslim group has! Respecting these minor differences does not mean that one has to agree with these differences! One may disagree with them but we must respect them. And this has to be done peacefully.

I have some beliefs that are shared with you, and I have some beliefs which you may not share with me. These are:

— The correct punishment for Zina is 100 lashes, as prescribed by Surah An-Nur. In Islam, there was not, there is not, and there will never be, stoning to death.

— The Arabic Quran we have, including the zabar, zer, pesh, is the same Arabic Quran Prophet Muhammad left. This is clearly stated in Surah 75. Rasul-ullah (saw) left the Arabic Quran we have now, in written form, many months before his demise. So I dismiss completely those false theories that say that it was first Abu Bakr and then Uthman who collected the Quran! Prophet Muhammad wrote himself the Arabic Quran we have now under the guidance of Angel Gabriel (as), and he had a committee of scribes who, under the Prophet’s instructions, also wrote the Quran. Whenever Gabriel (as) brought a new revelation, he (as) would tell the Prophet (saw) where should it be placed in the written Quran. And when the revelation of the Quran ended, Gabriel (as) taught Muhammad (saw) the proper compilation of the Quran. So, one or two years before the demise of Muhammad (saw), the Arabic Quran was already in official written form. Narrations tell us that Prophet Muhammad placed one copy of the written Quran in his Masjid, so every Muslim could copy from it.

— The Holy Quran was revealed in the Arabic Language. Allah Tabarak wa Ta’ala explained in detail in the Holy Quran why He, the Only Reality, revealed His Book in Arabic. Our Master Muhammad (saw) knew only this language, and prior to the revelation, he could neither read nor write. But the purpose of the Holy Quran is for It to be properly translated into the languages of the world, so both Arabs and non-Arabs can have equal access to the Book of Allah Ta’ala. One who reads the Arabic Quran, without understanding Arabic, is performing a very good deed because he is reading the Word of Allah Ta’ala. But one who reads a good translation of the Holy Quran in one’s mother tongue is performing by far a more valuable deed than the one who reads in Arabic without understanding it. Because the purpose of the Quran is to be a message to all Mankind and Jinn. And in order for the Quran to reach all Mankind, it has to be properly translated. Muhammad (saw) himself gave the example when, after the Quran was complete, he ordered Salman Farsi to translate the whole Quran to Persian. Salman did so and Rasul-ullah (saw) approved his translation. During Islamic history, many Awliya-allah supported the reading of the translation of the Quran in one’s mother tongue. Some of them are Rumi, Shah Waliullah Dehlavi and Allama Iqbal.

Now, I would like to know what is your view on Tasawwuf and on Wahdatal Wujud.

I end this letter by saying that this is a letter of support for your group even though we have minor differences of opinion.

Sufi Riaz Ali Carmali.

At this link of the Woking Muslim Mission history website, I have uploaded both of these editions and brought out a certain point for comparison.

— Zahid Aziz

Abdul Bashir has submitted the following for this blog:

Lahore Ahmadiyya Community Admits a Mujaddid for the 15th Century will not come

https://youtu.be/4BJDTJK7m_k?t=13m35s

Transcription:

And I would say that for as long that as our Jamaat continues to look at its self, and others and carries on, this, system of reform that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad the Promised Messiah has setup.  Perhaps that there is maybe no need for a Mujaddid to come, because reform is being done

Today, 6th July 2018, Qadianis are claiming that a court in Malaysia has declared them as Muslim. See, for example, the facebook page Faizan e Ahmadiyyat.

Yet if you look at the link to a Malaysian newspaper given on the above facebook page, the news report says:

Thirty-nine members of the sect had challenged JAIS [Selangor Islamic Religious Department] for trying to charge them with shariah offences, on the basis that Islamic authorities in Selangor do not recognise Ahmadiah Muslims as Muslims.

The court ruled that the Selangor Islamic religious authorities have no jurisdiction over Ahmadi Muslims in the state.

…

In his submission previously, Paiva [lawyer for the Qadianis] said the community should be allowed to practise their faith since they were not considered Muslims by Selangor.

He said Jais could not attempt to charge the community with shariah offences when they had refused to recognise the Muslim sect as adherents.

…

“On the one hand, you say they are not Muslims; on the other hand, you are arresting them and taking them to the Shariah Court to face charges,” Paiva said.

So what happened was that the Qadianis went to court against the Selangor Islamic authorities saying: You can't charge us with committing offences against Islamic Shariah because you consider us as non-Muslims.

In another Malaysian newspaper the report begins:

KUALA LUMPUR, July 6 ― The Shah Alam High Court decided today that the Shariah Court has no jurisdiction over members of the Ahmadiyya community, as the Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais) has refused to recognise the Muslim sect as adherents.

What it means is that if a Qadiani commits an act which is an offence in Islamic Shariah (though not against the secular law of the land), he cannot be charged by the Islamic authorities because the jurisdiction of these authorities is limited only to Muslims!

— Zahid Aziz