The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Archive for the ‘Ahmadiyya issues’ Category

Our friend Bashir has sent a submission under the above title. Due to its length I am posting it as a comment here. The writer has asked any enquirers to contact him for further information, as he has called this submission an abridged version.

In copying and pasting his submission, I could not carry through his use of italics and bold font for certain text. So my apologies to him for that.

I won’t comment on this except to say that the reports of who said what to whom, and when, and who reported it, don’t provide a sound way of drawing valid conclusions.

Zahid Aziz

After receiving the following question by e-mail, I asked the enquirer’s permission to reply to it on this blog. He agreed to this. So here is the question:

It being really informative to visit your site. I have a question in my mind. If Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani is considered only a Mujadid and not an Umati Nabi then it is not incumbent upon us to accept his teachings as it is only the Being of Nabi that we are bound to obey according to ArkanE Aiman.

Waiting for ur reply
Thanks in anticipation!
Tahir Mahmood Advocate

My reply is as follows.

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib issued the ten conditions of the bai`at in 1888. No follower or opponent believes that he had claimed to be a prophet at that stage. Yet he was taking people into his discipleship, who no doubt had to accept him as teacher. In 1900 he announced that his followers would be known as Muslims of the Ahmadiyya Sect. Even those who consider him as a prophet acknowledge that at that time he had not claimed to be a prophet. Yet he had many followers who accepted his teachings.

And what are his teachings which they must accept? He declared:

“I instruct my Jama‘at that they should believe in this Kalima Tayyiba from the bottom of their hearts: La ilaha ill-allah Muhammad-ur Rasulullah, till they die, and that they believe in all the prophets and all the books whose truth is established from the Quran Sharif, and that they accept as being obligatory: saum, salat, zakat and hajj and all that has been prescribed as obligatory by Allah Ta`ala and His Rasul, and that they accept as being forbidden all that has been forbidden, and follow and adhere to Islam in a correct and proper way.

To sum up, it is obligatory to accept all those matters regarding belief and practice on which there was consensus (Ijma) by the pious ones of the olden times, and which are considered to constitute Islam by the consensus opinion of the Ahl as-Sunna.” (Ayyam-us-Sulh, p. 86-87)

If by his teachings you mean the main differences between him and other Muslims, then please remember that he proved his different interpretations on the basis of the Quran and Hadith, and not on the basis that because he is a prophet therefore he must be accepted. Regarding the death of Jesus and his own claim to be Promised Messiah, he declared to the Ulama:

“I admit this myself that if my claim to be Promised Messiah is against the clear rulings of the Quran and Hadith, and in fact Jesus is bodily alive in heaven, and will descend to the earth at some time, then even if my claim is supported and confirmed by thousands of my revelations, and I show not just one but one hundred thousand signs in support of it, all these are worthless because no claim or sign is acceptable if it is opposed by the Quran and authentic Hadith.” (Majmua Ishtiharat, v. 1, p. 242, as on the alislam.org website)

Regarding another main difference with other Muslims, that of the continuity of revelation, he wrote:

“Those who deny ilham coming in this Umma have not pondered over the Quran nor met those who receive ilham. You read many verses in the Book of Allah, the Holy Quran, that Allah spoke to some men and women, and commanded them and prohibited them but they were not prophets or messengers of the Lord of the worlds. …

If people doubt my ilham and wonder how Allah can speak to someone in this Umma who is not a prophet, why do they not make the Quran the judge in this dispute, and refer the matter to Allah and His Messenger if they are believers?” (Hamamat-ul-Bushra, p. 283-284)

He also wrote in the above book:

“Non-Quranic sources must be judged on the basis of the Quran, whether it is a hadith of the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu alaihi wa sallam, the vision of a holy man (wali) or the revelation of a saint (qutb), for the Quran is a book whose authenticity is guarded by Allah and He said: ‘We have revealed the Quran and We are surely its guardian’.” (p. 121)

Therefore he made people accept his teachings by proving them from the Quran, and not by saying that they must be accepted because he is a prophet.

We accept his teachings on the basis of the following verse of the Quran (which he has alluded to above):

“O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day.” (4:59)

We consider him as included in the category of “those in authority from among you”. Perhaps you could clarify whether you take him to be the “Messenger” referred to above in the words “obey Allah and the Messenger”.

Zahid Aziz

The mention of this Maulana’s name (d. 1949) leads me to make readers of this blog aware of the following interesting facts, which today seem utterly incredible.

This inveterate opponent of the Ahmadiyya Movement used to appear in debates against the Arya Samaj and Christians in the 1920s and 30s, and represented Muslims alongside Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi, a life-long missionary of the AAIIL since 1914 (who was also my maternal grandfather). What used to happen was that some local Muslim organisation in a particular area would contact Islamic bodies (including AAIIL) to provide scholars who could debate with the opponents of Islam. The AAIIL would often send Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi, while that local organisation would also have obtained the services of Maulana Sanaullah.

So Maulana Sanaullah was on the same platform and in the same team representing Muslims with a well known Lahori Ahmadi scholar (who had taken the bai`at at the hands of the Promised Messiah in 1907)!

As an example, we have a booklet entitled Munazira, published by the Anjuman Nusrat-ul-Islam of Hyderabad, Sind (an orthodox Muslim body), being the account of a debate between the Arya Samaj and Muslim representatives in January 1929.

Here is the link. (Opens in new window)

On the first day, Maulana Sanaullah appeared against a Pandit (see p. 14). On the second day, Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi appeared against another pandit (see p. 24). The speeches of all the representatives are reproduced.

Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi told us (including me) many anecdotes about Sanaullah’s replies at the debates which were sometimes silly. For example, an Arya asked “Can Allah create another God like Him if He is all-powerful?”, implying of course that there would then be two Gods. Sanaullah replied: Yes, Allah can create another God like Him, but the created God will say ‘I am not the real God’, so there would still be only one God. Maulana Abdul Haq said to us: I knew what a blistering reply the Arya would give to this foolish response, and so he did. The Arya said: This means that either the first God is wrong because he didn’t manage to create a God like him, or the created God is wrong because he is saying I am not a real God! So there is a conflict between the two Gods, one saying “I have created a God like Me”, and the other saying “No, I am not the real God”!

Once Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi published a challenge addressing Sanaullah and saying: You said in a gathering in my presence: “I (Sanaullah) have made a lot of money by opposing Mirza”. Can you deny saying this?

I want to raise a quick point about Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala for a brief discussion, without lengthy posts.

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad writes at the very beginning that a follower of his had to face embarrassment in front of an opponent because the opponent said:

“The man whose pledge you have taken claims to be a prophet.”

The follower replied: “No, he does not.”

In response, the opponent presented something which reduced the follower to embarrassment.

The question is: Which statement of Hazrat Mirza sahib did the opponent present that caused the Ahmadi to be defeated? Presumably it would be a statement dating before the publication of Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala. It would be interesting to find out how the opponent knew that HMGA claimed to be a prophet before HMGA wrote this pamphlet.

Zahid Aziz

Post submitted by Bashir

In my studies about the split(which are purely academic) i have noticed many glaring inconsistencies in terms of storyline and argumentative strategy. Hesistantly, i must say most of these are from the ahmadis(q). If i am allowed to point out each and every one, i surely will.

When ahmadis explain as to why HMGA didnt understand that he was a prophet until 1901 they present the story that the HP also didnt understand his mission in its entirety until god slowly revealed this to him.

We(q) argue that the HP thought that he was just a prophet for his family, then for mecca, then for the whole world etc etd etc.

This is an unfair parallel. Anybody who has read about the split knows that this paralel was created out of desperation.

The HP(saw) never mis-understood that he was a prophet. That was not the issue, the issue was related to the specifics of his mission. The HP(saw) didnt write that he wasnt a prophet for 23 years. That didnt happen. The HP(saw) never wrote that a person who laid claimed prophethood was a kafir. He never wrote that it was un-islamic to claim prophethood.

Our belief(q) is that for 21 years (1880 to 1901) god continously called HMGA a perfect prophet. But, HMGA continously misunderstood this rank of his. This doesnt match with the misunderstanding of the HP.

The misunderstandings are of different nature. One person(the HP) misunderstood the details of his mission. The other person misunderstood that he was a perfect prophet of god. It must be noted that no other prophet ever suffered from the same misunderstanding. If so, please show me!!!!!! I would love to be proven as wrong. M. ali wrote that is HMBMA could prove that other prophets committed the same error, m. ali would burn his books.

So why are ahmadis(q) presenting this as a parallel?? The answer is that there is no other way to substantiate this mistake(alleged) of HMGA. I am concerned with this method of argument. This shows desperation. The pattern does not sit well in my heart.

Here is what HMGA wrote on the matter:

Ijaz Ahmadi (November 15, 1902), p. 24

“And some people say that if there is an error in understanding an inspiration (ilham) then the whole matter becomes dubious and it is apprehended that perhaps the prophet, messenger or muhaddath has also misunderstood his claim. Such a thought is mere nonsense and only mentally deranged persons can talk like that.”

P. 26
The truth of the matter is that the faith(yaqin) that is installed in the heart of a prophet about his prophethood is such that the arguments thereof shine like the sun and rush on in such great numbers that this fact becomes absolutely clear. And in some minor details, even if he makes a mistake in his exercise of judgement (ijtihad), this is not injurious to his faith. Things which are brought near a person and are placed near his eyes, his eyes don’t err in identifying them and definitely know about their true quality and quantity. And such a judgement is correct and such an evidence is even accepted by the courts. But if something is not brought close and is at a distance of half a mile or so and it is asked from a person what that white thing is, it is quite possible that he may consider a man with white clothes as a white horse or a white horse as a man(with white clothes). Similarly, prophets and messengers are shown about their claims and teachings from very near and this done so repeatedly that not a shadow of doubt is left about them. But in some partial matters, which are not of great importance, their spiritual vision comprehends them from a distance, and such phenomena do not occur frequently; therefore, sometimes their vision makes a mistake in distinguishing them properly.

Bashir : The most depressing fact is that HMBMA, QMN and the aurthors of khlilafat and nubuwwat never commented on this.
In fact no ahmadi(q) author has ever written a detailed explanation to this.

Bashir: This book was written in 1902. Why would HMGA write like this just after a change in his beliefs(alleged). EGKI was published NOV 1901. Its the same era.

Somebody help me!

Our respected, learned brother Abdul Momin had submitted the following as a comment on the post “False Statement by a Maulana in South Africa”. Due to its length and comprehensive nature, I have added it as a new post.

There was the Nawa-i-Waqt of Hameed Nizami, its founder, and a staunch supporter of the creation of Pakistan. From the Munir Commission report, it is obvious that the Nawa-i-Waqt that he founded was highly objective in its reporting. Having been a supporter of the creation of Pakistan, he must have been fully aware of the credentials of the new proponents of the “idealogy” of Pakistan -the Ahraris -who opposed Pakistan’s creation tooth and nail, and were bent on creating mischief during the disturbances and riots of 1953 in the Punjab.

After Hameed Nizami, the stewardship of this newspaper fell into the hands of Majid Nizami. For this person, any thing said against the Ahmadis is considered the gospel truth. So it comes as no surprise when one reads about the views of some obscure mullah in South Africa as reported in the Nawa-i-Waqt. Since Majid shares the same surname with Hameed Nizami, for years and even decades, I wondered how it was possible that one relative could have taken a position against the Ahmadis so much at variance with that of his relative (if indeed he was his relative). Recently I managed to find some information about this Majid Nizami in an article at the following link:

http://www.nation.com.pk/majid-nizami.html (link opens in new window)

According to this article, this Nizami is the younger brother of Hameed Nizami. It states:

“In 1962, owing to the martial law imposed by Ayub Khan and his takeover of the country, the pressures on Majid Nizami’s beloved brother Hameed Nizami, became too intense for him to bear, resulting in his sudden demise.”

Also according to this article:

“During his stint as a student at the Islamia College, Majid Nizami took an active part in the Pakistan Movement from the platform of the Muslim Students Federation. In recognition of these services, Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan awarded him the honour of Mujahid-e-Tehrik-e-Pakistan along with a sword as a symbolic gesture”.

So Majid Nizami must have well known who the opponents of Pakistan were at its creation, when he took over the editorship of Nawa-i-Waqt. He is staunchly opposed to friendly relations with India as well, as the above article states:

“Owing to the illegal occupation of Kashmir, he remains a fierce and open opponent of friendly relations with India, unless and until the issue is resolved according the UN Resolution on Kashmir. Having visited nearly every country on the world map (most of Europe, including Eastern Europe and Russia during his years in London), Majid Nizami refuses to visit India, even when invited by various Pakistani delegations to accompany them. He cites Bangladesh as being a direct creation of India and believes that India never accepted partition and is relentlessly conspiring to undo Pakistan and undermine its strength.”

Elsewhere, I have read about Majid Nizami’s views concerning the Ahmadis. His pet (rather petty) argument is that HMGA was a “British Agent” to create “disunity” amongst the Muslims. Again when one reads the above quoted article, one finds:

“Majid Nizami proceeded to England in 1954 after obtaining his M.A. degree. Here he remained a student of International Affairs at the University of London and attended Grey’s Inn for the Bar. During this time he wrote consistently for the Nawa-i-Waqt and even before he left for London wrote the famous editorial column SareRahe for two years in Lahore. At the same time he diligently assisted his brother Hameed Nizami in the day-to-day running of the affairs of the business. While in London, Majid Nizami acted as a political reporter for Nawa-i-Waqt and in doing so met many heads of state and other notable world leaders.”

After the death of his brother in 1962, the articles states:

“Majid Nizami’s returned to Pakistan and vowed to follow in his brother’s footsteps. It was early on in Ayub Khan’s dictatorial regime that Majid Nizami took over the reigns of Nawa-i-Waqt. With great courage he opposed the military government and in the presidential elections fearlessly backed the Quaid’s sister, the Madr-e-Millat, Fatima Jinnah as the opposing candidate to the then Foreign Minister”.

It is indeed strange that a person refuses to go to India because it has not reconciled itself with the creation of Pakistan, yet manages to spend 8 years in England (and only returns back to Pakistan when his brother passed away) – a country which tried to “subvert” Islam by introducing a “new prophethood” in it. Not only that, for years after Majid took over, Nawa-i-Waqt has been spewing anti-Ahmadi hatred and giving prominent coverage to everything that comes out from the mouths of the Tahafuzz Khatam-e-Nabuwwat people- the reincarnation of the Ahraris.

Why have the Ahraris been forgiven their anti-Pakistan stance? Could it be that since all those anti-Ahmadi and anti-Pakistan Mullahs were later also in direct opposition to President Ayub Khan, Mr Nizami (far from being an intellectual as the above article would have us believe) just follows the age old saying: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend?”

It was by complete chance that, during my return flight from Lahore on 31st May, a fellow passenger discarded a copy of the well-known Urdu newspaper Nawa-i-Waqt of that date, and I picked it up. By further chance, my eye struck a short interview in it with one Maulana Mufti Zubair Bayat, introduced as President of the Jami`at-ul-Ulama of the Natal province in South Africa. The Maulana was interviewed during a visit to Makka where he was performing Umra.

A question he was asked by the interviewer was: “How many Qadianis are there in South Africa, and what line of action are the Muslims there taking in order to defeat the mischief of Qadianiyyat?”

The Maulana gave the following reply:

“A few years ago, Muslims in South Africa instituted a court case against Qadianiyyat in the High Court. They made it clear that the Ahmadiyya community is not a sect of Islam but is a new religion. They have no connection with Muslims; in fact, the Qadianis are a non-Muslim group. The High Court of South Africa considered the beliefs of the Qadianis and, being sensitive to the feelings of the Muslims, it ruled in favour of Muslims by declaring the Qadianis as kafir. On the side of the Muslims, Ulama from Pakistan such as Maulana Manzoor Ahmad Chinioti and others played an important role.” (Daily Nawa-i-Waqt, Lahore, 31st May 2008, p. 20, lower half, column 3)

The Maulana is from South Africa and therefore cannot plead ignorance for his mis-statements in this reply. While being on Umra in Makka, he has uttered a number of absolute untruths in his reply. Due to my involvement in our Cape Town court cases, I know it for a fact that the Maulana has made the following misrepresentations:

1. No “Qadiani” was at all involved in any such court case in South Africa. In one case it was a member of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement and in another it was a Sunni imam who was being persecuted by the ulama because he regarded Ahmadis as Muslims.

2. The “Muslims in South Africa” never instituted any court case against any Ahmadi. Both court cases were instituted against the Ulama.

3. No court in South Africa has at all, ever, ruled that Ahmadis (or Qadianis for that matter) are kafir. In fact, in the case that concluded in 1985 the court ruled that Lahore Ahmadis, the plaintiffs, are Muslims. The court ruled that the Ulama were defaming our members by calling them kafir, and it prohibited them from continuing this defamation.

4. The claim of the Maulana that “Muslims in South Africa” filed a suit is quite shameful for the following further reasons. (a) The Ulama vigorously submitted to the court that the court, being secular, was not qualified to determine who is a Muslim. (b) When the court ruled in favour of the Ahmadi plaintiff, the Pakistani Ulama who had been helping the Ulama in South Africa published statements that “the judge was a biassed Jew” and as “Qadianis are agents of Israel” therefore he ruled in their favour.

But now history is turned on its head and we are told that the Ulama actually themselves asked the court to determine if Ahmadis are Muslims, and the court gave a ruling in favour of the Ulama . What happened to the “biassed Jewish judge” story that was splashed in Pakistani newspapers in November 1985 by these Ulama?

No wonder the ulama of the latter days are described in Hadith as the worst creation under the sky.

I and others are prepared to make a statement sworn on the Holy Quran that the facts I have put forward above are true and within our personal knowledge. Is the Maulana prepared to swear on the Quran that his reply is true?

Zahid Aziz

Our friend Bashir has sent the following post:

Referring to my previous post:

There seems to be one thing that i left out. HMGA legally made the Sadr Anjuman his successor. The jamaat panicked upon the death of HMGA. They decided to choose Hazrat Maulvi Noorudin as their leader and gave him the title of khalifa.

This seems to be done as a precaution. There was one member of the sadr anjuman who didnt accept this. He never took bait at the hand of HMN. HMN did not ex-communicate him. In 1914 he joined the aaiil. This person later accepted bait at the hand of HMBMA in the 1940’s. I think his name was Maulvi Ghulam Hasan (not sure).

This was the proof that there was opposition to an autocratic system of khilafat. M. ali and others admired HMN so much that they considered him to be an exception to the rule. I agree with their admiration.

Even HMGA said about HMN, “If only everyone was Noorudin”.

Thats why m. ali and other afforded HMN with exceptionary privileges.

Blog Editor: Yes, Bashir, it was Maulvi Ghulam Hasan Khan of Peshawar. He was father-in-law of Mirza Bashir Ahmad (the middle son). Despite this, he joined the AAIIL in 1914 and was in it till about 1940. He died in 1943. I know several of the Maulvi sahib’s grand-children and great grand-children, as they are my wife’s cousins. See his photo here.
(Opens new window.)

Mirza Wali Ahmad Baig was a missionary sent by the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha`at Islam Lahore to Java in 1924 to counteract Christian missionary activities against Muslims. He stayed there till 1937. As a result of his highly successful work, Muslims of that country rose out of their slump and despondency and were able to counter the attacks of the Christian missionaries. The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement expanded in large numbers, the Holy Quran and other essential literature of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Anjuman was translated into Dutch, and a strong, magnificent Jama‘at was established.

In this connection, Dr Hamid Rahman, a learned member of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement in the USA, has recently sent me a brief account that Mirza Wali Ahmad Baig related to him in the 1960s, showing the high respect in which he was held by President Sukarno (d. 1970), the famous figure who became the first President of Indonesia in 1945, and was President till 1967.

I quote Dr Hamid Rahman below:

This incident was narrated to me by Mirza Wali Ahmad Baig sahib in 1969 or thereabouts when I was taking lessons from Mirza Wali Ahmad Baig sahib in German in Karachi.

Actually there were two incidents.

1. Mirza Wali Ahmad Baig sahib had come to know Sukarno well during the time he was our missionary in Indonesia. Sukarno was at the time leading the fight for independence in Indonesia against the Dutch, and Sukarno had received some lessons from Mirza Baig sahib in Islam. He therefore looked upon him as his teacher.

Immediately after partition, Mirza Wali Ahmad Baig sahib got stranded in India. He wanted to come to Pakistan but it was impossible to get a visa to Pakistan because of all the bad blood between India and Pakistan. The Pakistan High Commission had turned his visa application down several times. Just when all of Mirza Wali Ahmad Baig’s attempts at getting the visa had been frustrated, Sukarno, now as the President of Indonesia and a close friend of Nehru in the nonaligned movement, came for a visit to India. Mirza Wali Ahmad Baig sahib learnt that Sukarno was going to say his Friday prayer in Jamia Masjid Delhi. So he went and waited for him on the steps of the Jamia Masjid. When Sukarno arrived with his entourage, Mirza Wali Ahmad Baig was able to catch his attention; no doubt a voice from the onlooking crowd beckoning to him in Indonesian must have been the reason. But Sukarno recognized him immediately and came over to talk to him. Mirza Wali Ahmad Baig asked for his help to get him a visa to go to Pakistan. Sukarno immediately issued instructions to his embassy staff to take up the matter immediately with the Pakistan High Commission and to see to it that his teacher got a visa. The visa was given to Mirza Wali Ahmad Baig sahib and he came to Pakistan.

2. Much later during the administration of Ayub Khan and I think it may have been soon after the 1965 war when Indonesia sent its submarines to guard the coast of Pakistan to prevent a surprise attack by India from the sea, Sukarno came to visit Pakistan. He sent a message to the Pakistan Government that during his visit to Pakistan, he would like to meet his teacher Mirza Wali Ahmad Baig. The Pakistan Government, of course, was totally oblivious to the existence of a Mirza Wali Ahmad Baig and the matter was entrusted to the Intelligence Branch to find him, which they did.

On the day that Sukarno was to arrive, Mirza Wali Ahmad Baig was taken in an Intelligence Branch jeep to the airport and put in the line up of the dignataries on the tarmac with whom Sukarno would shake hands. As President Ayub led Sukarno to the dignataries, he had a formal handshake for everyone but when he came to Mirza Wali Ahmad Baig, he shook his hands and then bent down to touch his knees, apparently a mark of respect in Indonesia for one’s teacher.

Contrast this with today’s situation.

1. Please see here a report in the world-renowned Economist magazine of London on the Indonesia situation. (Link opens new window)

2. Here are the comments of a blog called The American Muslim. (Link opens new window)

3. This statement on the “World Muslim Congress” blog is well worth reading. It is linked in the above sources but you may miss it there. (Link opens new window)