The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Archive for the ‘Ahmadiyya issues’ Category

The above book has been placed online at the Qadiani Jamaat website. See books listed on the page: www.alislam.org/books/.

It is an English translation of a lengthy letter addressed by him to the Nizam of Hyderabad Deccan (Muslim ruler of that state).

I request our blog contributors to go through this 85-page book, which discusses at length the claims of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. It was written shortly after the author became Khalifa, probably in 1914 (it says on page 45 that 30 years have passed since the year 1300, and no one has claimed to be mujaddid of the century except Hazrat Mirza sahib; this would make it 1914 when this book was written).

I wonder if someone could find a place in this book where the claim of Hazrat Mirza sahib is given as that of prophet, or where it is said that prophets can come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad.

On page 2, in his “self-introduction”, he says that upon the death of Maulana Nur-ud-Din, God appointed him to be the second khalifa of the community. He then adds:

“I am not aware to which family God may choose to transfer this office after me.”

Note added on 10th December:

Here is the link to this book in Urdu, entitled Tuhfat-ul-Muluk.

Leaving aside Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s brief mention of himself as the second khalifa, this book is hardly any different from what a writer of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement might have written, then or now.

Please see the note at the end of this letter.

Dear Malik Safiullah sahib
assalamu alaikum

You have circulated a statement in Urdu entitled Humiliation and Disgrace of the Anjuman Ishaat Islam Lahore on the issue of the finality of Prophethood — An Eye-witnessed incident.

I also have received this from you directly, since my e-mail address has somehow been included on your circulation list. The subject of your e-mail is: Zillat o Ruswai-Sheer disgrace of Lahori Ahmadi Rep in Federal Shariat Court, Lahore.

For the benefit of our readers, I have made it available at this link.

You state that you were present at the hearings of the Federal Shariat Court in Pakistan in 1984, which was petitioned by a member of your Jamaat and, separately, by a member of our Jamaat.

According to your account, the judges listened with the utmost attention and interest to the submissions of your counsel, as if they were his students. But when the Lahore Ahmadi presented a point they dismissed him curtly and told him not to waste the court’s time but to go home and read Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala.

My first question to you is: What was the judgment in that court case, which you have not mentioned?

If the judges listened to your counsel with such great attention and interest, as if he was their teacher and they were his students, did the judges in their judgment agree with his arguments? Is there a single point of your Jamaat’s beliefs on which your counsel persuaded the judges to agree with him? Please do let us know.

You also write that the judges told the Lahore Ahmadi member that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib has written in Ayk Ghalati ka Izala that one window of prophethood is open.

My second question is, what is the name which Hazrat Mirza sahib has given to that window which is open? Has he named that window after a prophet or after a non-prophet? On this point, perhaps you may like to consult your own Jamaat’s translation of this booklet (page 4, footnote 9), as published on the alislam.org website.

Perhaps the judges preferred to listen to your Jamaat’s counsel rather than ours because your jamaat’s standpoint gave them more ammunition with which to denounce the Promised Messiah.

Wassalam
Zahid Aziz

Note (added on December 8):

Someone from the AMI (Qadiani Jamaat) has e-mailed me to say that I have not communicated this open letter directly to Malik Safiullah sahib, who is addressed here, so how can he be expected to reply? My letter is actually meant to be rhetorical. But if someone conveys it to him, I would be happy to receive his reply and publish it here. I do not want anyone to have the impression that I actually sent the above letter to him and he did not reply.

Our friend Bashir has submitted the following.

This short article shows that the AAIIL are the only sect of muslims that believe that the Holy Prophet Muhammad is the final prophet.

First let me start with the ahmadis(q). The ahmadis(q) believe that prophethood is open for the entire muslim ummah. They believe that God has not closed the door to the “ummati nubuwwat”. This is the type of prophethood that the AMI claim is achievable, in other words, if GOD desires, he can send us a follower-prophet. HMBMA wrote in HN (1915) to the effect that even 1000 prophets could come in the future. Of course this was an extreme statement, but word for word, that’s what he said. HMGA never said that.

The ahmadis(q) believe that the law-bearing type of prophethood is sealed off (khatam) as well as the independent type. They also believe that in the future, prophethood is available to whomever GOD chooses. They claim that nobody can tie the hand of God. The ahmadis cite Chapter 4 Verse 70. HMGA did not define this verse after 1901. HMGA only defined it before 1901, the irony is evident.

The sunnis/shiites believe that the HP is the last prophet. After the HP no “new” prophet is to appear. But, Jesus (an old prophet) will return, this does not effect their finality concept. The truth is this, HMGA discovered this contradiction in islamic thought. His ideas pre-1901 (or at least until 1901) beautifully reject this contradiction. In other words muslims believe that Jesus was the exception to the rule. Jesus was an old prophet that was to re-appear, the finality of the HP didnt effect the return of Jesus. When Jesus was to return he would still be the same prophet that he was, of course he would be follower of the Koran. HMGA wrote extensively on this topic, he wrote that this idea was bogus. It was an idea that totally contradicted the finality of the HP.

Lasty the AAIIL believe that the HP is in fact the last prophet. They reject the idea that when Jesus was to re-appear that he would be a prophet (of any type). They reject the “ummati nabi-perfect nabi” concept. In other words the AAIIL totally believe in that the HP is the final prophet. No other muslim sect believes this. The AAIIL believe that HMGA was an “ummati nabi-imperfect nabi” just like Hazrat Umar was an “ummati nabi-imperfect nabi”. The only difference is that HMGA was openly called nabi, while Hazrat Umar was not. The AAIIL believe in the continuance of revelation, but not the perfect-prophethood type. The saintly type of prophethood is what they believe in.

The one thing that confuses is that the AAIIL believe that muhaddases can appear, but no one in the aaiil has ever claimed divine revelation like HMGA. Not even M. ali had visions that were daily and continuous. From my knowledge m. ali never even claimed to be muhadas. No member of the aaiil has openly claimed this rank.

Bashir.

Our contributor Bashir has submitted the following as a new topic.

I have written all along that HMGA had 2 phases of his career. These two phases are very hard to contrast. The first phase would be 1891 to 1900. The second phase is from 1901 to 1908. The first phase was that of obscurity, while the second phase was that of success.

I had written in my personal research journals to the effect that in 1900/01 HMGA achieved success, this success changed his writing style. In other words after NOV 1901, HMGA held no punches. He didn’t shy away from the titles that were conferred to him. I researched for hours and hours and I concluded that HMGA must have changed his demeanor as well as writing style in 1901. But I could never understand the reason for this change.

We all know that HMBMA (1915 Haqiqat-un-Nubuwwat) wrote that HMGA had a “tabdili aqidah” (change in beliefs). We all also understand the position of the aaiil. With these two positions, I assembled the facts that related to the case. My conclusions were always that this was a successful time for HMGA.

Last month or so the AMI (Qadiani Jamaat) posted a small booklet online. The first English translation of this article was published under the title How to get rid of the Bondage of Sin, in the English edition of The Review of Religions, January 1902. HMGA must have written this directly after writing EGKI. M. Ali must have translated this into English. In this book HMGA did not include himself with the prophets. He mentions prophets as Adam to Muhammad(pg. 3). Not Adam to HMGA.

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/How-to-be-Free-from-Sin-20080806MN.pdf

Here is what I found:

Pg. 8

The Promised Messiah is to appear in two phases. The
first will be unremarkable, accompanied by all kinds of
tribulations. This will be followed by a period of glory,
before which a minaret must be built to comply with the
Tradition which says that the physical minaret will be a
reflection of the spiritual one.

HMGA also wrote:

Pg. 3

In short, a fierce clash between the darkness of the earth
and the light of heaven is imminent, as foretold by all the
Prophets, from Adam to the Holy Prophet.

Yahya Bakhtiar was the attorney-general under Bhutto who conducted the questioning in the National Assembly in 1974. In 1994 an interview with him was published in a Lahore magazine which was reproduced in Paigham Sulh, May-June 1995. We now have that issue online at this link (pdf, 1.2 MB). See from page 1 (bottom of col 2) to page 4.

Extracts from his replies:

“I had very good relations with Zafrullah.”

“I took the draft of the 1973 constitution to show Zafrullah in London and he improved its language.”

“The entire Assembly proceedings [of 1974] were held in secret, in order to avoid provocation of the masses.”

“If the proceedings are published it will go against the Qadianis. Let them be published if the Qadianis want them to be.”

In his book Tiryaq-ul-Qulub, in a lengthy footnote, discussing the significance of the ‘Aal’ of a prophet, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has contrasted the value and worth of being merely descended in the physical and family sense from a prophet with spiritual descent. Obviously, this applies to the family and followers of any spiritual leader.

Please read at this link. (Pdf file of 600k, opens in new window. For clarity, read at magnification less than 150% in Acrobat Reader.)

This is from Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 15, pages 363-366, footnote.

Rashid Jahangiri has submitted the following post.

Muhammad Asad (1900-1992): The Pakistani Connection.

On the Pakistani blog, All Things Pakistan, an article on Maulana Muhammad Asad is posted.
Now a documentary is made on his book, A Road To Mecca.

In October 2007, I wrote my comments. I am copying it here:

My two cents on Muhammad Asad.

1) Muhammad Asad, accepted Islam on the hands of Maulana Sadar Ud Din, Imam of Berlin Mosque, Germany, run by Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement. His name is still written in the registers of converts to Islam.

2) Muhammad Asad’s first translation of Holy Quran, was financed and published by Saudi king Ibn Saud. In more than one places in his translation/tafseer (commentary), and in particular Sura Al-Maaidah (Ch 5) verse 117, and Sura An-nisaa (Ch 4) verse 157 (foot note 172) [references are from the latest edition; its photo is in your article] Eisa AS (Jesus Christ) is DEAD. He will NO longer return in flash. Well, Saudi king did not like it and asked Asad to change it. Asad refused and said to the king: You are an Arab, your language is Arabic you translate it. King replied: I agree with what you say, but what should I do about Mullas? As Asad refused to change translation, the king said: I have no choice but to burn all copies of it. So, his first translation/tafseer of Holy Quran was burnt. Then Asad with his own finances published it, again. He published it (I think) only once. And it is with out index. The latest edition, the one you have posted, is with index. Interesting point is that when Maulana Muhammad Ali, an elder of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement in his English translation/tafseer of Holy Quran (first edition published in 1917), and in Urdu translation/tafseer ‘Biyan-ul-Quran’ said the same thing he was rejected by Muslims and his translation/tafseer was burnt by Al-Azhar university, Cario (it is another fact that the same university now translates his English and Urdu books into Arabic language for Arab readers). I guess Muslim thought is finally catching up as no one has objection to Asad translation/tafseer of Holy Quran.

3) Muhammad Asad in his book ‘A oad to Mecca’ has written chapter on Dajjal, which basically points to Caucasian Christian Nation of Europe and North America. Interestingly, the same point was raised LONG BEFORE, by elders of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement including Maulana Muhammad Ali, Muslims find difficult to accept it. Just like other points such as Jihad and Jinns. Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote a book: ‘Al-Maseeh-ud-Dajjal-o-Yaajooj-o-Maajooj’ (translation: The Anti-Christ and Gog and Magog). Here is the link:
http://aaiil.org/text/books/mali/gog/gog.shtml

Link to article:
http://pakistaniat.com/2007/04/16/muhammad-mohammad-mohammed-asad-message-quran-koran-road-mecca-pakistan/#comments

Link to documentary:
http://www.aroadtomecca.com/sub2.php?ID=3&S=E

Our active friend Rashid Jahangiri has posted a comment to us regarding the appearance of the above video on Youtube which shows a quote attributed to Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din, in which opponents of the khilafat are warned and condemned. A Qadiani Jamaat official, Dr. Nasim Rehmatullah, Chairman Ahmadiyya Internet Committee, has sent an e-mail in his official capacity asking people to take heed from this.

I have uploaded pages 4 and 5 of Badr, 11th July 1912, showing a part of Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din’s speech containing that quote (which begins: Khilafat kaisari ki dokan ka soda water nahin, ending with the mention of murtadds and Khalid bin Walid):

Here is the link. (Opens a 3 MB pdf file in a new window)

The extract quoted by them is on page 4, column 3, starting from the top. Now on the same page, read column 1 starting with the sub-heading Kiya koee khilafat kay kaam main rok hai?, and continue to end of column 2. The Hazrat Maulana declares:

“Even now I have in my hand a note in which someone has written that the Jamaat of Lahore is a hindrance in the khilafat. I say to the objectors: This is evil thinking. Leave it. First make yourselves sincere like them. The Lahore people are sincere. They love Hazrat Mirza sahib.”

In the next para, he loudly and forcefully warns those critics who objected that the Lahore Jamaat are a hindrance in the Maulana’s khilafat. He says at the end of this para:

“You are thinking ill of sincere people. You are hurting me. Fear God. I am praying for you. Don’t deprive yourself of those prayers”.

Regarding this “evil thinking” (bad zanni), he says in the same place on page 4 in column 2:

“The Holy Prophet has called one who indulges in bad zanni as a great liar. … Allah has called it a sin.”

On page 5, column 1, from line 5, he says:

“If you say that the people of Lahore are a hindrance to the khilafat, this is evil thinking (bad zanni) against my sincere friends. Give it up.”

Then read page 5, column 2, middle of the column:

“Give up the belief that Lahoris are a hindrance to the khilafat. If you do not, God will treat you like Musailama”.

As you can see, all through he has defended Lahoris. The Qadianis should be challenged to publish the part of the speech before and after the section they have quoted.

The persons who are condemned by Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din are those who were spreading false insinuations against the Lahore members (who later founded the AAIIL). These people were the supporters of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and canvassing for the khilafat to remain in his family. They have been indulging in this bad zanni, condemned and denounced by Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din, ever since that time till today.

Our friend Bashir has submitted the following for a new thread.

When the tomb of Jesus was discovered in Srinagar(1895 or 1896), it was argued by Maulvi Abdullah who was an inhabitant of Kashmir, that since this tomb was that of a prophet, that eliminated all muslims from the equation. The person buried in this tomb could not be a muslim. Muslims strictly believe that the HP was the final prophet, there were no more prophets to come. Muslims only had one prophet, on the other hand the jewish people had many prophets, in other words because of the concept of khatme-nubuwwat, this had to be a jewish prophet. When HMGA recieved this data he also used the ending of prophethood as his main argument in terms of proving that Yus Asaf was not a muslim.

In a letter written to HMGA(1895 or 1896), maulvi Abdullah writes:

http://www.tombofjesus.com/2007/core/founders/ahmad/Letter_of_Maulvi_Abdullah.pdf

“The word nabi is common between the followers of Islam and the Israelites, and as in Islam no prophet came after our Holy Prophet Muhammad, nor could one come, therefore the general Muslims of Kashmir are agreed that this prophet is from before Islam.”

“But because of the ending of prophethood, this excludes the Muslim people.
Therefore it is clearly proved that this prophet is an Israelite prophet.”

Then HMGA wrote a footnote to this published letter, in it he comments:

“But after the ending of prophethood, no further prophet can come in Islam. Therefore it is settled that he was an Israelite prophet.”

It must remembered very carefully that at this time(Q & L) HMGA did not consider himself as a full-prophet, instead, HMGA considered himself as a partial nabi only. One would think that after 1901 the ahmadis(q) would have been forced to move away from this particular line of reason. Maulvi Sher Ali(1903) & Maulvi M. ali (1909) continued to argue along these lines.

After 1901 this line of debate should have been corrected. This strategy of argument was no longer valid. The ahmadis(q) now considered HMGA as a full-prophet. Obviously the ahmadis(L) did not. Let’s take a look at the writings on this topic after 1901, did the followers of HMGA realize this change?

The first instance that I found is from ROR May 1903, Maulvi Sher Ali writes:

PDF 40/47 http://www.aaiil.org/text/articles/reviewofreligions/1903/reviewreligionsenglish190305.pdf

“The fact that he is known as a Prophet or Nabi refutes the idea that he was a Muhamadan Saint. No intelligent man would think that a person who was reputed as a prophet among the Muhammadans was a Muhammadan saint. Even if a Muhammadan saint worked miracles, they would take him as a Wali at best, and never a prophet. They believe that their HP is the seal of the prophets and that he is not to be followed by any other prophet…….and one who takes him as a muhammadan saint only, betrays his complete ignorance of the beliefs prevailing among the muhammadans”

“…..we do not know of any prophet who appeared in Kashmir in the last 200 years”

It’s obvious that Maulvi Sher Ali had not yet realized that HMGA was a full-fledged prophet. This is a 1 ½ year after EGKI was published. Maybe MSA didn’t realize what happened in EGKI. It is important to note that HMBMA wrote that all ahmadis knew of the “tabdili aqidah” theory in 1901.

Next, M. ali writes in ROR April 1909, the title of this article is “Islam as interpreted by the Ahmadiyya Movement”:

“He is universally known as a Nabi or a prophet among the muslims, and therefore he cannot be a muslim saint for no muslim saint has been called nabi after the Holy Prophet”

The owners of the “tomb of Jesus” website also felt the same contradiction, they felt the need to add this important note:

Tomb of Jesus Website Comments:

“The reader will note that in footnote 2 above, Ghulam Ahmad states that no prophet can come after Muhammad. Therefore, the inhabitant of the Roza Bal must have been a Jewish prophet. Later, though, as his followers believe, and as Ghulam Ahmad explained, God had repeatedly told Ghulam Ahmad that He (God) had appointed Ghulam Ahmad as a follower-prophet of Muhammad.
Ahmadiyya literature reflects that Ghulam Ahmad himself seemed quite stunned by these revelations from God, because, just as other Muslims, he had understood Islam to teach that there could be no prophet of any type coming after Muhammad].”

In conclusion, I feel that it is very strange that 2 top followers of HMGA did not realize a change from non-prophet to prophet in 1901. If MSA and M. ali would have realized this change(EGKI), they would not have written that Yus Asaf could not be a muslim prophet, because no prophets were to appear. They should have abandoned this line of reason. Is it fair to say that without this argument it is hard to prove that Yus Asaf wasn’t a muslim prophet? What if Yus Asaf was in fact an ummaati nabi? I hope the readers of this article ponder on these facts that I have presented above.

Our esteemed friend Abdul Momin submitted a comment which I am presenting as a new post. By a strange coincidence, I was mentioning exactly this reference to someone yesterday while thousands of miles away from him. His post is below.

In his book, “The Indian Musalmans”, W.W. Hunter frequently refers to Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed Barelvi as “the Apostle” or “the Prophet”. This book was first written in 1871. So he could not have been influenced by the writings of HMGA. After several references to Syed Ahmad Shaheed as “the Apostle” or “the Prophet” (which literally mean Rasul and Nabi respectively), WW Hunter explains in a footnote:

By the ‘Prophet’, I invariably mean Sayyid Ahmad. Technically he was an Imam (leader) from the political point of view, and a Wali (favourite of God) from the theological one. Strictly speaking the line of the true Prophets ended with Christ and Muhammad. (The Indian Musalmans page 12, Second Impression 2004 Publisher Rupa Co.)

There are examples given in “The Ahmadiyya Case” book about the South Africa case of followers of Muslim religious leaders refering to the leaders as Nabi. (Links to: Section 7, Section 8)

Now the question arises: how did WW Hunter, an Englishman and non-Muslim, associate the words “Prophet” and “Apostle” with Sayyid Shaheed? He also explains that he was, technically speaking, only an Imam and Wali (Coincidentally HMGA is also referred to as an Imam and Wali in his writings.)

Could it be that at the time of HMGA it was fairly routine for followers to refer to their spiritual leaders as Nabi or Rasul? This seems to be the most likely explanation. Mr Hunter must have learnt about this from Sayyid Shaheed’s followers. Perhaps this tradition is at the root of all this confusion about why some of HMGA’s followers referred to him as “Nabi” and “Rasul” in several of their writings, when in fact they did not consider him as a real prophet as Lahoris believe.

Also every quote I have read attributed to HMGA’s followers in which they have used the word Nabi or Rasul for him are from 1900 or afterwards. This would give us the misleading impression that since HMGA was alleged to have changed his claim from non-prophet to prophet around 1901, therefore his followes referred to him as Nabi or Rasul after this change in claim. But it would not surprise me in the least if they referred to him as Nabi even before the so-called change in his claims took place. In one of his pre-1901 writings, he advises his followers that these terms should not be used in their everyday talk concerning him. Perhaps there was a reason why he said this; maybe these words were used by his followers about him, even though they regarded him as only a Saint.