The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Archive for the ‘Ahmadiyya issues’ Category

Our friend ‘Bashir’ has submitted the following post.

Review of Religions, November 1914:

Article: The Ahmadiyya Movement and Ahmads place among the prophets, Number 2, By m. ataur rahman (member of Qadiani Jamaat)

“The philosophy of baruz has been clearly expounded in a long letter pregnant with truth and wisdom which in 1892 Ahmad addressed to Nawab Muhammad Ali Khan of Malerkota in order to resolve some of his doubts.”

Then in the very next installment of this series (Review of Religions, December 1914), he writes:

“Thus convinced, Ahmad set forth his philosophy of baruz in some of his later writings, and avowedly laid claim to the prophetic office”

M. ataur rahman contradicts himself in the span of one month. First he writes that HMGA explained the philosophy of baruz in 1892, then all of sudden, he claims that the true theory of baruz was explained by HMGA later in his ministry. What a contradiction!

This is the same time that Kwaja Kamaluddin had returned from England and wrote his book “Adruni Ikhtilaf…..” and after some weeks appeared Al-Qaul-ul-Fasl by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad.

It seems that m. ataur rahman didn’t know of the change in belief of HMGA in terms of prophethood. I don’t think he got the memo, because the memo was Al-Qaul-ul-Fasl.

It seems that Mirza Bashuddin Mahmud Ahmad was the only soul who knew that HMGA changed his theory of prophethood in 1900–1902.

At this link is a news report in the International Herald Tribune from Asspciated Press.

I quote below the text as well for your convenience. It is a development to be greatly deplored, whoever it may be against.

JAKARTA, Indonesia: A government team has recommended that Indonesia outlaw a Muslim sect that has come under attack from hard-liners as heretical, angering human rights activists who accuse authorities of cowing to pressure from extremists.

The Ahmadi movement has faced bans and persecution in Muslim countries around the world for its belief in another prophet after Muhammad. The group insists it should be considered part of Islam.

A government team of prosecutors, religious scholars and home affairs department officials concluded that the sect “had deviated from Islamic principles” and recommended Wednesday that the government ban it.

“Their activities are causing unrest among Muslims,” team leader Wishnu Subroto said Thursday.

The government was to meet Thursday to discuss the recommendation, media reports said. The team recommended Ahmadi followers be charged with “insulting a religion” — a charge that carries a five-year jail term.

A prominent human rights activist said any ban “cannot be justified and should be regarded as a serious violation of the constitution,” referring to clauses guaranteeing freedom of religion.

“This recommendation shows that board’s members do not understand the real function of the state,” said Hendardi, who goes by a single name.

Hard-liners have led an increasingly vocal campaign against Ahmadi in recent years, often vandalizing its mosques and the homes of its followers. In many cases, police made no attempt to stop the attackers.

“We are the victims here, yet we are being banned,” Yan Hussein Lamardi, a lawyer for the group, told Koran Tempo newspaper.

The Ahmadi sect is believed to have around 200,000 followers in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation. It was founded at the end of the 19th century in Pakistan where it is banned.

Indonesia is a secular country, with a long history of religious tolerance. But in recent years, a hard-line fringe has grown louder and the government — which relies on the support of Islamic parties in parliament — has been accused of cowing to it.

Due to the hard work of the Webmaster of www.aaiil.org the Judgment in what we informally call the “second” Cape Town court case, dated February 1990, is now online. It is the scanned image of the typed Judgment. Please access it from this link.

As the learned Lady Judge says on page 2:

“A marathon trial followed, the major portion of which dealt with the issue whether Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who died in India in 1908 was a Muslim or an apostate, and whether one of the two branches of his followers referred to herein as the Ahmedis … consist of Muslims or apostates.”

At this link is an overall summary of the court case, taken from the obituary of Hafiz Sher Muhammad that I wrote following his death in October 1990. 

There was an appeal by the anti-Ahmadiyya parties against this judgment, whose result came out in September 1995. You can read my coverage of the appeal and the false representation of it by the anti-Ahmadiyya parties at this link.

Last weekend I watched the western film “The Magnificent Seven” on a TV channel. This weekend the same channel is showing “The Return of the Magnificent Seven”, which isn’t so good.

I am reminded of this since, you may like to know, we have the “Return of the Pleezing One”, and he has repeated his objections to the statements by the Promised Messiah that he would fulfill the prophecy of carrying out his mission for forty years. I told him earlier that in fact he did carry out his mission for forty years, although in Nishan-i Asmani he did not correctly identify the starting point of his mission. In his obituary which appeared upon his death in the Review of Religions in its issue for June 1908 it is written:

“The period of his revelations thus extended fully over forty years and this may be said to be the period of his ministry.”

But as I told the Pleezing One earlier, we need to finish our discussion on the debate that he chose to start when he objected to the Promised Messiah’s language in Arya Dharm. The point we had reached in the discussion, at which the Pleezing One disappeared, was when I referred him to the Masnavi of Rumi and some of its sexually explicit language.

Please see this link.

(I took the trouble of going to a library to borrow the book by Afzal Iqbal that I have quoted in the above link.)

After the Pleezing One’s departure at this point, I provided further evidence of the high repute of Rumi among Muslims. Please see this link.

Thus he cannot easily dismiss Rumi, as he did, by saying that Rumi is no authority that he is bound by.

He should therefore continue that discussion, and let us know whether he now admits that his allegations against the Promised Messiah relating to the book Arya Dharm  were baseless and should be withdrawn.

I also have another suggestion. The next issue of U.K. edition of The Light will contain an article by me on how the mission and teachings of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in the service of Islam are as relevant now, if not more so, than they were when he died 100 years ago. (In fact, I am interrupting my writing of that article to post this.) I suggest that the Pleezing One studies that article, to be published in 3 or 4 weeks time, and lets us know where I am wrong in considering the Promised Messiah to have done great service for Islam.

If the Promised Messiah did not do any service for Islam, then even if 100% of his prophecies turned out to be exactly fulfilled, there would be no point in accepting him on that basis.

Readers will recall how the anti-Ahmadiyya writer using the name “Pleezing One” claimed that he was ready to reject the writings of Rumi, if we presented them in reply to his allegations against Hazrat Mirza sahib. For that discussion please see this link.

There was an article in the Urdu Daily Jang, in the London edition (28 February 2008, p. 4), in which the writer, Dr Safdar Mehmood, quoted an anecdote from Rumi’s Mathnawi. His first paragraph shows how highly Rumi is regarded. The point of the article is also of interest. Please read it here as a pdf file.

(Note: The first page of the pdf file shows columns 1 and 2 of the article, side by side. The second page shows columns 3 and 4, side by side. Please observe this order when reading.)

In the Press Release from the Qadiani Jama`at international centre as well as in the Khutba by Mirza Masroor Ahmad (see posts below in this blog) it is claimed that the Indonesian newspaper had issued a clarification of the original Qadiani Jama`at statement. Yet, it is quite bizarre that another official Qadiani Jama`at website, www.thepersecution.org, quotes later newsreports from the same newspaper to the same effect.

See this link to thepersecution.org.

It reproduces a report from The Jakarta Post, dated 5th February, which is as follows:

Govt to monitor Ahmadiyah sect

JAKARTA: The government has established a monitoring team to supervise the controversial Ahmadiyah sect.

“The team will gather information on to what extent Ahmadiyah has applied its ‘12 points of explanation,’ ” said Religious Affairs Minister M. Maftuh Basyuni during a hearing with the Regional Representatives Council here Monday.

Ahmadiyah was declared heretical by the influential Indonesian Ulema Council because the group recognized Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, its founder, as the last prophet, rather than Muhammad.

After a string of mob attacks on the group’s properties, Ahmadiyah’s leaders issued a statement containing “12 points of explanation”, including their acknowledgment of Muhammad as the final prophet.

The Religious Affairs Ministry on Jan. 24 issued a decree establishing the monitoring team. It includes officials from the Religious Affairs Ministry, Attorney General’s Office, Home Ministry and National Police.

“The team will report their findings to the religious affairs minister at least three months from the time the decree was issued,” said Maftuh. “At the moment, we still consider Ahmadiyah as heretical.” – JP

The newspaper is repeating the same report on 5th February, while the Qadiani Jama`at Press Release from London announces that the newspaper on 23rd January printed a clarification, i.e. that the earlier report of changing beliefs was not true.

There is also a Press Release on the Qadiani Jama`at website alislam.org dated 9th February, which near the end refers to the Indonesia events and says:

“Following the aforementioned newspaper article certain non Ahmadi Muslims and members of the Lahori sect celebrated what they perceived to be a change in the beliefs of the Community. However the content of the article was immediately rejected by the Jama’at and to its credit the said newspaper printed a statement clarifying the issue on 23 January 2008.”

I don’t think we celebrated. That 12-point statement was either based on ignorance of the beliefs of their own Jama`at or it was just a ploy to fool the Indonesian authorities. We would only celebrate if there was a true change of belief based on recognition of the past beliefs being wrong.

The Qadiani Jama`at should publish a copy of the newspaper’s statement of 23rd January which, they say, clarified the issue.

Through an e-mail sent to many people by a retired missionary of the Qadiani Jama`at, I have learnt of the khutba delivered by Mirza Masroor Ahmad on 8th February, the summary of which in English is at this link on their website.

On the events in Indonesia, the summary says:

“Huzur said there has been strong opposition in Indonesia for the past few years now. Ahmadi homes and Ahmadi mosques have been vandalised and burnt. In light of the persistence opposition and the way our Jama’at handled the matter the federal government made a treaty. The news of this pact spread to the internet via a newspaper. Huzur said some Ahmadis expressed themselves, admitting that they did not have the requisite knowledge, that in order to curb the mischief if we had to agree to certain things we should. They cited the reference of the incident of ‘Treaty of Hudaibia’ in which the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) had agreed to erase the words ‘Prophet of God’. Huzur explained that first of all it was the Prophet himself who had erased the letters, something that Hadhrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) could not bear to do. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) had explained that the treaty was being made with people who did not believe him to be a Prophet of God. Huzur said we have no business adopting flattery and take a step that would be embarrassing for the true and ardent devotee of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him). We consider Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani to be the Messiah and the Mahdi and we have no significance without this. Our beauty is in entering his community having accepted him as the Messiah. It is him who has taught us the ways and means to be absorbed in the love of the Prophet (peace and blessing of Allah be on him) and it was the Prophet himself who had given him the title of Messiah and Mahdi. Should we give up calling him Messiah and Mahdi to temporarily please others? Should we, despite being cognisant of all the Signs that have appeared in support of his truthfulness, try and appease the world? Be those who reject Divine testimony? Should we on one hand believe in the Promised Messiah (on whom be peace) but on the other hand not believe the revelation that was given to him which said ‘Certainly you are the Promised Messiah and the Promised Mahdi who was awaited?’

Huzur said denying the Messiah and the Mahdi is denying the Ahmadiyya concept. Huzur said the context in which a newspaper published the news in Indonesia gave people a chance to raise a hue and cry that Ahmadis have changed their viewpoint and do not consider Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad a prophet but consider him a Mujaddad (a reformer). In its communication with the government of Indonesia the Indonesian Jama’at did not even hint the above as indeed no Ahmadi can ever entertain this thought. Huzur said the Indonesian Jama’at is a Jama’at of the highest order and their sincerity is second to none. Accepting the clauses in the treaty with the government did not denote any weakness of faith, however, as the words of Messiah and Mahdi were not specifically used in it, the newspaper got a chance to appear smug.”

Immediately after the above, Mirza Masroor Ahmad targets the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement as follows:

“Huzur said he had clearly repudiated this in one of his Friday Sermons and the newspaper also clarified the issue but this gave the Lahore Movement a chance to show their inflexibility. Huzur said he would reiterate to the Lahore Movement and those who have not taken the pledge of allegiance to Ahmadiyya Khilafat to have some fear of God in terms of what our stance about the Promised Messiah is. Huzur remarked who has progressed in leaps and bounds: those who accept the Anjuman or those who consider Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the Messiah and the Mahdi? Who is established in 189 countries of the world? Who has Allah’s practical testimony with them? Those who accept him as a Messiah or those who consider him a guru? Huzur went on to read an extract from the writing of the Promised Messiah (on whom be peace) elucidating his own truthfulness as the Messiah and as a prophet. The Promised Messiah (on whom be peace) explained that the only instance in which he denied prophethood for himself was with regard to being a bearer of a new Shariah but said that he had knowledge of the Unseen from Allah and that he was indeed a prophet. Huzur asked does this leave any room for doubt. Huzur said with the greatest of respect he would ask his lost brothers to come and join in the spiritual revolution and take the message of this zilli (in shadow of/in subordination) prophet to the corners of the world. Huzur said if any one is witnessing the fulfilment of Divine promises it is those who accepted him as a prophet and then went on to accept his Khilafat as well.”

His statement that “this gave the Lahore Movement a chance to show their inflexibility” at least indicates that Mirza Masroor Ahmad and his Jama`at take notice of this blog, for it is only here (as far as I know) that the Lahore Movement has commented on the events in Indonesia. We are happy to know that our comments were of such strength and substance that Mirza Masroor Ahmad was compelled to refute them before his whole Jama`at.

Since the comments under the post “Arya Dharm” have grown to be too numerous and lengthy, I am creating this related post on the topic of the above book, which I have referred to in my comments under the “Arya Dhram” allegations post.

As this post is itself lengthy, I have now moved it off the main page to a comment on this page.

Click here (or click below on comments) and the full post will open up below this message.

Zahid Aziz

I am creating a separate topic for this. Our opponent has sent the following comment:

From pleeezing One:

ZAHID SAHAB, HERE IS THE PIECE OF WRITING FROM ARYA DHARAM:

REF: Arya dharam RK 10 page 73-74 pdf 75-76

” According to my suggestion, if I European hoers are provided for European soldiers, then, firstly there will be no risk of syphilis (VD) because perhaps these no such disease exists in Europe, secondly, they will be examined by desi doctors at the time of selection like any soldier. By this, there will be no need of medical exams anymore as both the parties will be free of disease and this will be a good arrangement to satisfy the soldiers’ sexual desires without the need of law of internal examination.

No one can deny the fact that, like in India there are prostitutes in England. Therefore, there will be no difficulty in arranging this. Rather, I am certain that European civilized prostitutes will gladly offer their services to keep the brave soldiers happy. And for the huge expenses that will incur on bringing them to and from India, the Indian citizens will feel no burden. When they pay huge amounts for military expenses, they will not disagree to pay this additional amount. Rather this will save the honor of Indian unfortunate women and brave British soldiers will stay happy and healthy.”

NEED I SAY MORE? CAN A NABI (OR MUHADDIS IN YIUR CASE) SAY SUCH THINGS?