The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Archive for the ‘Ahmadiyya issues’ Category

Submitted by Waris.

There is some interesting information about the decision of National Assembly of Pakistan under which Ahmadies were declared Non-Muslim. The relevant discussion is at 12 minute to 15:30 minute.

http://pkpolitics.com/2010/01/03/najam-sethi-special-3-january-2010/

According to this discussion, Qadianis were partly responsible for what happened. According to Hafiz Pirzada this decision could have been avoided if Mirza Nasir Ahmad had not gone to National assembly and said that prophets can come after Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him),

People of my generation who were not born at that time do not know much about the facts of the proceedings of NA. One question that arises in my mind is that whether our jamaat was forced to make presentation in NA or we were given a choice to stay out. Can someone shed some light on this matter?

Submitted by Bashir.

George Sale was the first person to translate the Quran into english. I recently read his translation and was intrigued in terms of the story of Jesus. In my honest opinion muslims always believed that Jesus would physically return to this planet. The way he left was a gray area in Islamic thought. As we all know, some muslims thought that Allah caused Jesus to die before he left, whereas the majority believed that he was ascended whilst still alive. The reason that the majority of the muslims believed that Jesus must have left physically was because of the traditions that explained a physical return.

This is how George Sale translated 4:157

“and have said, Verily we have slain Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of GOD; yet they slew him not, neither crucified him, but he was represented by one in his likeness; and verily they who disagreed concerning him were in a doubt as to this matter, and had no sure knowledge thereof, but followed only an uncertain opinion. They did not really kill him; but GOD took him up unto himself: and GOD is mighty and wise. And there shall not be one of those who have received the scriptures, who shall not believe in him, before his death; and on the day of resurrection he shall be a witness against them.1 Because of the iniquity of those who Judaize, we have forbid-“

Some of this translation by George Sale has extra words which help the reader understand the verse. Obviously, Mr. Sale got the impression from this verse that muslims believed that Jesus wasn’t crucified, but instead, there was a person who was crucified in his place, pointing towards the substitution theory.

This is how George Sale translated 3:55

“When GOD said, O Jesus, verily I will cause thee to die, and I will take thee up unto me, and I will deliver thee from the unbelievers; and I will place those who follow thee above the unbelievers, until the day of resurrection: then unto me shall ye return, and I will judge between you of that concerning which ye disagree.”

Obviously, Mr. Sale’s translation exposes the position of Islam and the status of Jesus. The way that Jesus left this planet was a gray area. Muslims explained the best way possible. There were some muslims who thought that Jesus died when he left, nonetheless, Jesus’ return was to be physical, not spiritual.

Ibn Abbas who is the father of Tafsir, he wrote:

((And remember) when Allah said: O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me, and am cleansing) saving (thee of those who disbelieve) in you (and am setting those who follow you) follow your Religion (above those who disbelieve) with strong argument and triumph (until the Day of Resurrection) then I shall make you to die after descent; it is also said this means: I shall make your heart die to the love of the life of this world. (Then unto Me ye will (all) return) after death, (and I shall judge between you as to that wherein) in religion (ye used to differ) to argue.

Submitted by Rashid.

Holy Quran, Chapter Al-Kauthar, Verse 3:
“Surely thy [Holy Prophet Muhammad’s] enemy is cut off.”

The word ‘abtar’ (from ‘batr’, meaning ‘the cutting off of a thing entirely’), as applied to a beast, means ‘one whose tail is cut off’. As applied to a man it conveys several significances, for instance, ‘in want’ or ‘poor, suffering loss, one whom all good or prosperity is cut off, having no offspring or progeny’ (LL). All good is cut off from him because he walks contrary to the ways in which good can be attained. (Holy Quran commentary by Maulana Muhammad Ali).

The verse addressed Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS, but it also applies to other appointees of Allah. Just the way Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS enemy was made ‘abtar’, we see the same happened to charismatic Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who through his 2nd amendment to 1973 Constitution behaved as enemy of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Mujaddid of 14th Islamic Century.

ZAB had two sons and two daughters. Both sons are dead. Through one son he has one grandson. His politically active daughter Benazir Bhutto is dead. I don’t know what future holds for ZAB only grandson through his son. His grandsons through his daughters, including Bilawal Zardari don’t have Bhutto as their last names (although he changed his name, for political purpose, after death of his mother to Bilawal Zardari Bhutto).

According to founding members of ZAB’s Pakistan Peoples Party, i.e. Dr. Mubashir Hassan, Abdul Hafiz Pirzada, the current PPP led by Asif Zardari is NOT ZAB’s PPP. Given the state of political leadership of even this version of PPP, it is very much doubtful that it will remain as viable political party in future.

ZAB has become abtar both biologically and politically.

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.

Problems I face as a member of LAM And suggestions to resolve them

In my talks with our jamaat (LAM) opponents on Internet or in person, I realize repeatedly that they believe that our jamaat has the same beliefs as that of Qadiani Jamaat. Here are couples of examples:

“the same is with Mirzaees whose reasoning falls behind the scope of fundamental tenets of Islam. How ridiculously the fanatics of this cult have remarked about non-Mirzaees being Kafirs! ….. If this be so all Muslims who are not Mirzaees should be Kafirs!”

“I may take your point in that Muslims other than Mirzees were declared Kafirs by his [HMGA] son. But what I am trying to say is that this entire lot is ONE and DISTINCT and has to be viewed as a WHOLE.”

And then in their support they bring quotes from Qadiani Jamaat publications authored by their Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and his brother Mirza Bashir Ahmad. Such as:

1) “So whatever has been ordained in the Holy Quran about non-belief in a Prophet, the same applies in the case of Mirza Sahib.” (Al-Qaul-al-Fasal, p. 33).
2) “If we don’t believe in him as a Prophet then a dangerous flaw occurs (in iman [faith]) which is enough to render one a ‘kafir’.” (Haqeeqat-un-Nabuwwat, p. 204).
3) “It is obligatory for us not to consider non-Ahmadis as Muslims.” (Anwaar-e-Khilafat, p. 90).
4) “… and one who does not believe in the Promised Messiah, whatever his reasons for this non-belief, he is kafir.” (Zikar-e-Illahi, p. 22).
5) “The third matter to which he (Maulana Muhammad Ali) calls my attention is the issue of ‘kufar and Islam’. He says the path of peace is that we consider non-Ahmadis as Muslims, but I say ‘the path of peace is that we accept the decision of the Holy Quran. The Holy Quran calls the non-believers in a Prophet a kafir, and the same Allah calls Mirza Sahib a Prophet’.” (Haqeeqat-ul-Amar, p. 17).
6) “Is there any such irreligious non-Ahmadi who will marry his daughter to a Christian or a Hindu? You call them kafir but in this matter he is better than you in spite of being a kafir, but you even being Ahmadi marry your daughters to kafirs.” (Maliakatullah, p. 46).
7) “We met a person in Lucknow who is a great scholar. He said ‘many of your adversaries falsely propagate about you that you call us kafir. I cannot believe that a person of your vast capacity would be saying so.’ Sheikh Yaqub Ali was talking to him. I told him, ‘you tell him that we in fact call him a kafir.’ On hearing this he was much astonished.” (Anwar-e-Khilafat, p. 92).
8 ) All such Muslims who have not entered in the Baiat of the Promised Messiah, whether they have not heard the name of the Promised Messiah, are kafir and out of the pail of Islam. That these beliefs have my full concurrence. I readily admit. (Aaina-e-Saddaaqat. p. 35).

His younger brother Mirza Bashir Ahmad, M.A., surpassed him when he wrote:
“Every such person, who believes in Moses but does not believe in Jesus, or believes in Jesus but does not believe in Mohammed, or believes in Mohammed but does not believe in the Promised Messiah, is not only a kafir but a confirmed kafir and out of the pail of Islam.” (Kalamatul-Fasal, p. 110)

My question is, How we can resolve this problem? Perhaps our Qadiani Jamaat friends should think about rejecting these statements, and accept that mistakes were made by authors of these books.

This will help not only LAM members, but will also definitely help Qadiani Jamaat friends immensely. Qadiani Jamaat friends will find this very helpful in their efforts to be recognised as Muslims, which they seek to do by quoting the Holy Quran and Hadith to prove they fulfill criteria to be declared Muslim.

In this regard, I look forward to suggestions from our jamaat and Qadiani jamaat brothers and sisters. Thanks.

Submitted by Usman.

It is a well known phenomenon that in Pakistan whenever any person or party desires to discredit a public figure (usually for political motives) one of the ways of doing so is to declare him/her a “Qadiani” or at least show his/her connections to the “Qadianis”. I think even General Zia was once accused of this (perhaps explaining his zeal to enact anti-Ahmadi legislations). Now a new trend has emerged, whereby allegedly corrupt politicians are now playing the “Qadiani” card to save themselves.

A senior PPP leader and a sitting minister was recently accused of taking Rs. 35 million in bribes (www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=25765).

Note that the accusation was made under oath in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Now in any civilized country a minister, if faced with such a shameful scenario, would immediately resign and officially clear his name before even daring to run for public office again. But in Pakistan the said minister has promptly declared that this is all a “Qadiani” conspiracy (www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=25800), because he is apparently a major “hurdle” in the “nefarious designs” of the Qadianis. He then elaborates that this has something to do with his pro-blasphemy law stance (notorious for resulting in persecution of minorities including murder) and him being “Wakeel-e-Khatm-e-Nabuwat and Aseer-e-Namus-e-Khatm-e-Rusul”.

In the end he says that he is ready to “offer any sacrifice for the defence of Islamic status of the constitution and honour of the holy Prophet (PBUH) and such tactics could not deprive him of this honour.” It is actually quite sad that a Govt. Minister accused of financial corruption (in a poor country which has one of the highest rates of child mortality this is a horrendous and inhuman crime) is linking the accusation to an attack on the honour of The Holy Prophet (pbuh). May Allah have mercy. Some one famous said (I can’t remember who): “Religion is the last refuge of the scoundrel”!

I also look at this as another “Zour avar humla”; that a person who is “Wakeel-e-Khatm-e-Nabuwat” is being publicly exposed as corrupt and dishonest.

Submitted by Usman.

I would like to refer to the following news story appearing in The Daily Times News Paper (25 Nov 2009) in Pakistan titled “Roundtable conference on extremism in Pakistan: Extremism in S Asia rooted in British imperialism”

Attention is drawn to the title and the following excerpt (my emphasis):

“Noted historian Prof Dr Naeem Qureshi chaired the roundtable, which was attended by Dr Tahir Amin, Dr Tariq Rahman, Dr Ayesha Siddiqa, Dr Nazir Hussain, Simbal Khan and Shabana Fayyaz, Dr Razia Sultana of the QAU’s History Department and Zafarullah Khan of the CCE as panelists …

… Dr Qureshi traced the roots of extremism in South Asia to the advent of British imperial rule and the Muslims’ reaction to foreign rule; some sought to accommodate modernity, while others repudiated it…”

It appears that some experts are now admitting that the Muslim reaction of the time in India to British Rule is the root cause of the current extremism causing havoc in the region. We also know that at that time the two most prominent critics of the Muslim reaction were Sir Syed (embracing modernity) and HMGA (invalidating an armed Jihad against the British). Of these gentlemen I believe HMGA was the one who based his arguments on the Quran itself.

In any case both of them were branded heretics for saying what they said. HMGA is still accused of being a “British” agent for speaking contrary to the Muslim reaction to British rule. Although the quoted article mentions “embracing modernity”; in the context of religious extremism, it is not difficult to see that it is the Jihad factor which has played a key role as far as being the root cause of extremism is concerned. Readers are referred to “English Govt. and Jihad” by HMGA for an eye opening and prophetical (disclaimer: prophetical in the linguistic sense of foretelling a future event) expose of the subject. Unfortunately the Muslims of subcontinent rejected his words then, and are now being forced to admit the veracity of those very words by current events.

I think HMGA said (perhaps Dr. ZA can give a reference) where Allah revealed that he will show HMGA’a truthfulness with “forceful aggression” (“zour avar humlon saiy”).

Note by Zahid Aziz:
Usman is referring to a revelation of the Promised Messiah: “A warner came into the world, but the world did not accept him. But Allah will accept him and will show his truth zor avar humlon say (lit. very strong attacks)”. The “attacks” could be of any kind. They may even be not in support of him as such, but general violence in the world. For example, the jihadist attacks of today have shown his truth by making even his opponent Muslim Ulama declare the same concept of jihad as he presented. After attacks in U.K., the anti-Ahmadiyya Ulama in U.K. declared the loyalty of British Muslims to the British government (something they condemned HMGA for).

Submitted by Omar.

Excerpts taken from Maulana Muhammad Ali’s book The Promised Messiah (English Rendering by Sheikh Muhammad Tufail Sahib)

[All bold emphasis mine]

1. Assessing the truth of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s mission:

There are many people who are bent on opposing Mirza Ghulam Ahmad without thinking of, or understanding the true nature of his mission. They never take the time to ponder whether he was beneficial or not to the cause of Islam and Muslims in general. Remember well, that the question of good and bad is a question of actual facts and not one of religious beliefs and opinions. At the moment, I do not want to discuss what the claims of Hazrat Mirza are and whether they are in any way opposed to the beliefs of the Ahl-i Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah. This question can only be raised when there exists a doubt about it. When he has declared not only once, but scores of times that his beliefs are the same as the beliefs of the Ahl-i Sunnah, the question of discussing these beliefs does not arise. Thus the point at issue is only whether Hazrat Mirza has been harmful or beneficial to the cause of Islam and the Muslim world.

2. He did not create dissension among Muslims:

In what ways has he been harmful? The greatest charge attributed to him is that he has damaged the solidarity of Islam by creating a new sect. This is even asserted by intelligent Muslims, but they never take the trouble to look into the facts. Did unity among Muslims exist before him? The fact is that Muslims were fighting against one another over things of minor importance, thus sundering and disrupting the unity of Islam. The condition in India was such that cases of quarrels over the saying of Amin in a loud or low voice were brought before the High Court. Pronouncing one another as unbelievers (kafir) was the main occupation of the Muslim `ulama. Where was the unity of Islam which was damaged by Hazrat Mirza? Perhaps somebody can lay the charge that with the appearance of Hazrat Mirza on the scene, the differences among Muslims were further augmented. If he had, in fact, drawn the attention of his followers to the trivial matters over which Muslims were already fighting, then, this new sect or new Movement should undoubtedly be blamed for expanding the dissension among Muslims. But in spite of this, a storm of opposition was raised against the claims of Hazrat Mirza and pronouncements of heresy were issued against him and a lot of his time was wasted in clarifying his position. Still, he turned the greater part of the activities of his followers towards defending and propagating the message of Islam in India and abroad. He wished the ulama were patient with him for some time and see whether his mission was for the good of Islam or not, and if it damaged the interest of Islam, they would have been justified in their campaign against him, but no one really listened to him. In spite of all that, he produced valuable literature about Christianity and the Arya Samaj – and this was extensively used even by his opponents for the defence of Islam against the powerful onslaughts of the Christians and the Arya Samajists.

Another contemporary movement among the Muslims which came into existence at the same time was that of the Ahl-i Quran (People of the Quran). As this movement was not based on the Quranic verse, He sends down angels with revelation by His command on whom He pleases of His servants (16:2), therefore all its energy was spent on the minor internal problems in which Muslims were already deeply engrossed. If it is said that this movement of the Ahl-i Quran, in fact, increased the existing dissension among Muslims, it would be nearer to the truth. But a movement which was particularly made the target of attacks by the ulama of Islam and did their best to destroy it completely, was a movement which, in fact, became the source of strengthening the cause of Islam. Instead of entangling itself in internal skirmishes, it stood in defence of Islam against its external foes. To say that this Movement has enlarged the gulf of dissension among Muslims is to close one’s eyes to relevant facts. The day all Muslim sects unite against the foes of Islam and spend their time and energy in the defence and propagation of Islam, as Ahmadis have done, dissension in Islam will disappear. Hazrat Mirza revived the principle that if there are ninety-nine signs of disbelief (kufr) in a person and only one indication of Islam, that person should still be considered a Muslim. This has laid down a solid foundation for the unity of Islam. If this principle is accepted by Muslims, it will have far-reaching effects on them and will give back to them their lost power and glory.

Some people, by neglecting the distinction between sectarianism and difference of opinion, regard all differences of opinion as an attempt at creating disharmony and discord in Islam. The Quran says:

As for those who split up their religion and became sects, thou hast no concern with them (6:160).

The meaning of splitting up the unity of religion and becoming divided into sects is obvious, but some people have a wrong understanding of this verse. It does not and could not mean that Muslims should not differ with one another in any respect. It was, however, not surprising to find differences of opinion in a nation that was spread all over the world. The Holy Prophet had declared difference of opinion to be a mercy for his ummah, which shows that in difference is also hidden the secret of the progress of the ummah. Difference only comes into existence by the expression of an opinion which in turn helps to clarify and improve the intellectual and mental faculties of a person. Islam advocates unity, but unity in the principles of religion. In other matters in Islam, there is wide scope for differences. Becoming divided into sects and having differences of opinion are not one and the same thing. Sectarianism is a curse but difference of opinion is a blessing. The companions of the Holy Prophet themselves differed on certain questions although the Quran was revealed in their presence, and the words of the Holy Prophet reached their ears and they were direct recipients of spiritual blessings from him.

3. What is Sectarianism?:

The Kharijites [1] were the first who were responsible for the creation of sects in Islam. There have been reports in which it has clearly been mentioned about them that they shattered the solidarity of Muslims, not because they differed with the companions of the Holy Prophet on some matters, for difference existed among the companions also, but because it was they who started takfir (pronouncement of unbelief) among Muslims. At that time, Hazrat `Ali and Hazrat Mu’awiyah were engaged in a battle. The Kharijites sided with `Ali but they demanded that `Ali should declare Mu’awiyah and his collaborators kafirs (unbelievers) and outside the pale of Islam. Hazrat `Ali refused to do so and clearly said:

“They are also our brothers who have revolted against us; we do not declare them unbelievers or transgressors (fasiqs).

If some thought is given to the verses of the Quran on this point, it would be clear that Muslims have been forbidden from two things; these are, from becoming divided into sects and from splitting up the religion. Both of these are the result of takfir. Any group that declares the other to be kafir (perhaps that group is greater in number and calls itself the greatest group among Muslims), when it indulges in the takfir of the professors in the Kalimah (there is but One God and Muhammad is His Messenger), has indeed created divisions in the ranks of Islam and has destroyed the basis on which Muslims could unite. When the essence of religion is confined to a few problems in which one group differs with the other, and the principles of faith are completely neglected, this is how the religion is split. The result is that all one’s energy is wasted on matters of peripheral importance. The parties are so engaged in such trivial differences that nobody cares whether the foundation of faith itself is being destroyed. The basis of sectarianism is, therefore, the pronouncement of unbelief (takfir) against Muslims. The sad aspect of the story is that when people start condemning one another over minor differences, the strength of the nation becomes weak. Power which ought to have been used for the progress of Islam is frittered away in trying to decry one another.

When the Quran laid the great foundation of Islamic brotherhood and stated: Innamal mu’minuna ikhwatun (Verily the believers are brethren – 49:10), it did not overlook the possibility of the rise of honest differences among Muslims. At the same place it was pointed out that if two parties of the believers quarrel, make peace between them (49:9). Now, both the contending parties have been considered believers here. This is the lesson which Muslims have forgotten today. The tolerance which Muslims were expected to show towards the followers of other religions should have been observed to a greater extent among themselves. They ought to have learnt to respect the ideas of others and to tolerate differences of opinion among themselves. But their present condition is such that the moment a person differs from them on any point he is immediately declared to be an unbeliever and a heretic. To torture and molest him in all possible ways is regarded as a deed of great virtue. The main problem is not that among Muslims there are people who differ in their opinions, which is, however, one of the essential requisites for the progress of Islam, but that Muslims cannot tolerate honest difference of opinion. On the other hand, the companions of the Holy Prophet showed great broadmindedness regarding the diversity of views among themselves.

If, however, a people differ with other people on some matters and they prefer a different opinion, this cannot be called sectarianism. When on account of this difference, one brother Muslim is declared an unbeliever and is subjected to persecution, which is mistakenly thought to be a meritorious deed and a source of great reward (thawab), it is then that the evils of sectarianism take root in a society. A person is not guilty of sectarianism when, having complete faith in the Kalimah and the Quran as the Word of God, he considers some of the ideas or customs and habits of Muslims as being against the Quran and Hadith. If this is sectarianism, then the scope for the reformation of Muslims will be closed. The day when Muslims are delivered from the curse of takfir, the day when they cease making plans for destroying one another, their differences will indeed be a blessing in disguise.

[1] Literally means “those who went out.” Kharijites were members of the earliest of the religious sects of Islam which rose during the time of Hazrat `Ali, the fourth Khalifah. They were known for their fanaticism, extremist proclamations and terrorist actions. They branded everyone who disagreed with their point of view an infidel and outside the pale of Islam. (SMT)

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.

Akbar raises a few objections:

1- Claimant of Mujaddidiyat should NOT claim, rather people should call him. I guess his understanding is that if Governor of a province or state when gets appointed by King or president, he should NOT acknowledge it rather wait for people to send him mercy petitions and other documents for his signatures. What if a false person claims to be a Governor or his few friends start calling him governor… shouldn’t king or president take action against such con artist, and punish him? Is Akbar going to accept any such con artist as his governor?

2- He objects why HMGA was NOT informed Isaa AS has died when he was appointed Mujaddid. I wonder if he knows there are many other Mujjaddids before him who were not informed all their lives that Isaa AS has died.

3- He seems to have objection why HMGA made different claims and at different times. He does not realize that HMGA made only one claim of appointment i.e. Mujaddid of 14th Islamic century. Claim of messenger, just like Rasul Allah SAWS is a lie fabricated against him. Claim of Mahdi is not an appointment claim.

4- He objects why HMGA did not publish 50 volumes of Barahin-Ahmadiyya and only published 5 volumes. Akbar very conveniently forgets to mention HMGA published so much other material and books, he was involved in discussions etc and NEVER rested or wasted his time. He forgets to mention that how much of his time was wasted by his detractors and opponent Mullahs in India. Regarding money that was donated to him for Barahein-Ahmadiyya publication. All that money was used in publication of this book. And much more was used in preaching of Islam. Akbar hid the fact that when HMGA passed away his children and wife depended on Ahmadiyya Movement for their survival.
HMGA did NOT keep any money for himself or his family.

5- He hid the fact that HMGA books, many of them translated are available online on Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement websites. But he uses Qadianis website as punching bag.

6- He talks about his problems with Qadiani jamaat, but attacks HMGA. Just the way atheists who have left Christianity had problems with Christian church and doctrines and instead attack Jesus. He is happy leaving Qadiani jamaat, but is hiding the fact that he is NOT leaving qadiani belief of Isaa AS death. He knows if he makes mistake of telling his belief, he will kicked back by his “new” religion followers.

7- Just like any opponent of Rasul Allah SAWS who are unable to appreciate his mission, start making false allegations on his character, Akbar did the same with HMGA.

8- He stated the doctrines of Qadiani jamaat khalifa 2 and his brother and accused HMGA of making them. He accuses HMGA for prohibiting his movement people from praying behind other Muslims, whereas fact is that HMGA himself prayed behind other Muslims e.g. Jamia Mosque, Delhi. He accuses HMGA for prohibiting his movement people from marrying other Muslims, where as fact is that he attended marriage ceremonies and Nikah (marriage sermon) was conducted by Maulana Noor Ud Din when Ahmadi girl was married to non-Ahmadi Muslims, e.g. two sisters one got married to HMGA’s son Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and other to a non-Ahmadi.

I wish this Iqra TV program invites Dr. Zahid Aziz to get Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement point of view.
Here are links to 8 part videos of this program on you tube:

Part1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HDY3OZwgp0
Part2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnbuXwTCtCo
Part3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du1ogVm_f_8
Part4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjko30ksgCY
Part5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDDUsvgkd3k
Part6:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8nkg1sVaEs
Part7:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj7fizFUH6k
Part8:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHoDxnTh9cM

Rashid Jahangiri has informed us in a comment elsewhere on this blog that Shahid Kamal Ahmad in his appearance on Iqra TV accused Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib of “cursing” 1000 times in a book in Arabic, and Rashid asked: I will be thankful if Dr. Zahid Aziz or someone else can tell us context of these “1000 curses”.

It is the accuser who should provide details of his accusation. For example, the prosecution in a murder case cannot present the case by saying: “The accused has committed murder, but we don’t know who he murdered, when he committed the murder, where he did it and why he did it”!

Shahid Kamal Ahmad should show us the place where Hazrat Mirza sahib wrote “curse” a thousand times. We will then demand that he present just twenty lines of the preceding Urdu text and twelve lines of following Urdu text, and declare that according to his present beliefs as a Muslim the persons mentioned in that text are innocent and do not deserve curse.

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.

A former Qadiani Shahid Kamal Ahmad, appeared as guest on IQRA TV, UK.

I would leave it to readers to watch and enjoy. There is much in this 1 hour 20 minutes show. I wrote a quick comment that I posted on Shahid Kamal Ahmad website that also hosts video of his interview:

http://thecult.info/blog/2009/11/04/shahid-kamal-on-good-morning-with-iqra/#comments

Shahid Kamal Ahmad:

You obviously chickened out when you got a hint that some one may get invited to refute your lies. You started giving your explanations and asserting that you are NOT here for debate.

Few points:

1-You purposely lied and hid the fact that many books and their translations of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (HMGA) sahib, are available online at official websites of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (LAM) Head Quarters (www.aaiil.org) and its branch websites (e.g.: www.ahmadiyya.org ; www.muslim.org). Instead of this you are basing your lies on websites of opponents of HMGA.

2- To support your lies against HMGA you took help of books not written by HMGA such as ‘Kalmatul-Fasal’ and ‘Tazkira (Tadkirah)’. And it seems fair to you to use such logic. If this is the case then you should accept claims of Jesus as WRITTEN IN CHRISTIAN GOSPELS by people who claim they are spreading words of Jesus. You should accept that (Nauzubilah) Jesus was “son of God”!

3- You repeatedly bunked, and tried to hoodwink ‘The issue of Jesus death’. You very cunningly figured if you openly and honestly state your belief regarding Death of Jesus, no matter how much you kiss-up to opponents of HMGA, you will be right away kicked out by the same HMGA opponents.

4- On issue of ‘Kalima-Shahada’ you did NOT tell us how you accepted Islam, by performing what ritual/ exercise? We know when a Christian, Jew or Hindu accepts Islam they only recite ‘Kalima-Shahada’.

5- It is clear you have no idea of Sufia (Mystics) terminology and what revered Sufia in Islam have written. And then you have audacity to question HMGA writings addressed to Sufia using Sufi terminology.

6- In your support of use of violence against Qadianis you gave JUSTIFICATION by referring to Jews who commit violence against Muslims. By this you are fulfilling the picture of ‘Ulama-e-Sue’ as portrayed by Rasul Allah SAWS. Briefly: Muslims will follow Jews in wrongdoing.

THANKS for at least telling the PARTIAL TRUTH that HMGA was NOT agent of British Rulers.

Shahid: In the end I must say, you are cunning enough to use Qadiani doctrine to attack HMGA.

Here is challenge for you and your host on Iqra TV:
Can you people invite Dr. Zahid Aziz, member of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (LAM), based in UK? He is creator and Webmaster of LAM—UK branch website.
I make a prediction: You people will never make this mistake.