The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Archive for the ‘Ahmadiyya issues’ Category

In the year 1900, when the Urdu book Sīrat Masīḥ Mau‛ūd (Character and example of the Promised Messiah) by Maulvi Abdul Karim of Sialkot was published, after covering the topic of the title, the book included the text of a public lecture given by the author in 1898 on the subject: 'What reform work has been carried out by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad'.

This section of almost 70 pages is well worth reading. Therefore I have made it available at this link.

— Zahid Aziz

An academic researcher at a prestigious USA university writes to me praising the quality of the book 'A Mighty Striving'. She says:

"The book "A Mighty Striving" is very well done, the prose is flawless and flowing, and I like the combination of original source material with a narrative that is both descriptive and analytical."

This book is the English translation of Mujahid-i Kabir done by my late mother Mrs Akhtar Aziz and myself, with supplementary material and extra references added by me. The book Mujahid-i Kabir is the biography of Maulana Muhammad Ali in Urdu.

The researcher's topic is the history of the Anjuman Himayat-i Islam, a mainstream Muslim association founded in Lahore in the 1880s. The researcher comments as follows:

"The Anjuman-i Himayat-i Islam's relationship with the Ahmadiyya is very interesting, because it seemed to have changed much over time. In the beginning, there were close ties between both organizations, I think. As you probably know, Khalifah Hamid ad-Din was one of the founders of the Anjuman, and his son Khalifah Rashid ad-Din converted to the Ahmadiyya. His daughter Rashida married Mirza Mahmud Ahmad. In 1890, the Himayat-i Islam also published Ibtal uluhiyyat-i Masih by Nur ad-Din, with the permission of the author and for the "benefit of the people of Islam", as it says on the title page. It also publicly endorsed other Ahmadi writings in its monthly Risalah. In the 1890s, as you know, Khwaja Kamal ad-Din and Muhammad Ali taught at Islamia College.

I wonder though when the relationship changed, and why? There must have been a lot of interaction between the Ahmadiyya Anjuman in Lahore and the Himayat-i Islam, because since 1914, Islamia College and the Ahmadiyya Buildings were on the same street. Also, how does one explain the role of Muhammad Iqbal? He still had a positive attitude towards members of the Lahore group, such as Khwaja Kamal ad-Din in 1911 and even after that. Why did he change his position later on and attack the community?"

I may add that these are questions explored by real and proper acedemic researchers, who carry out serious, objective study. They are at the opposite end of the spectrum from bigots of little knowledge and no reasoning capability who seek the approbation of the common crowd.

The following has been submitted by Hussun Ahmad.

In the same speech of 1912 he [Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din] also says:

The descendants and close relatives of Hadrat Mirza Sahib are all devoted to me. I tell you truly that there is not one of you who obeys me as do my dear ones Mahmud, Bashir and Sharif, and as do Mir Nasir Nawab and Nawab Muhammad ‘Ali Khan. I do not affirm this to please them, but state it as a fact that they love me out of the desire to win the pleasure of God. I have heard the Ummul Mu’minin affirm a score of times that she deems herself my servant. Miyan Mahmud is grown up, he will tell you that he obeys me sincerely. A critic might say that he does not obey me sincerely, but I know for certain that he is truly, obedient to me, more than any one of you. All the members of Hadrat Mirza Sahib’s family obey me as ‘Alira, Fatima and ‘Abbas obeyed Abu Bakr even more so. Every one of them is so devoted to me that I cannot conceive any of them entertaining a wrong notion about me.

This speech also is interesting about the question of non Ahmadis. I was wondering if i could have the Lahore Jamaat interpretation of this?

Another question on which you differ and raise contentions is: What is the status of our opponents? Now listen carefully. The Word of God has expounded the principles with regard to the acceptance and rejection of a Prophet.

Whenever a Prophet has appeared there has been no difficulty with regard to the classification of those who believe in him and those who disbelieve. Casuistry apart, God Almighty has set forth clearly the principles of disbelief, faith and association of partners with Allah. There have been Prophets in the past. In each case there were those who believed and those who disbelieved. Have you had any doubt concerning them; and have you had any problem about the classification of those who did not believe in them? You have been told of the principles of belief and disbelief.

Hadrat Mirza Sahib (as) was a Messenger of God. Had he not applied the term Prophet to himself, he would have been guilty of rejecting the Hadith narrated in the compilation of Muslim in which the one who was to come was named a Prophet. The question of believing in him or rejecting him is clear. If one who rejects him professes to be a Muslim he is that much closer to you, as the Christians are closer to you than the Jews. In the same way the Muslims who reject Hadrat Mirza Sahib can be closer to us than the others.

This post is in further reference to the first part of my post of 2015 at this link, where I replied to the allegation that what Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad quoted as a verse of the Quran "does not exist".

There is a hadith in Sahih Bukhari, reported by Anas, whose translation by Muhsin Khan begins as follows:

Zaid bin Haritha came to the Prophet (ﷺ) complaining about his wife. The Prophet (ﷺ) kept on saying (to him), "Be afraid of Allah and keep your wife." Aisha said, "If Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) were to conceal anything (of the Qur'an) he would have concealed this Verse."

(See this link for the translation as well as the original Arabic.)

Does the statement given in this hadith, "Be afraid of Allah and keep your wife" (اتَّقِ اللَّهَ، وَأَمْسِكْ عَلَيْكَ زَوْجَكَ‏), occur anywhere in the Quran? According to the criterion applied to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's writings by his opponents, no such verse exists in the Quran which contains this statement.

Of course, what this hadith is referring to is the verse 33:37 which contains the statement: "Keep your wife and be afraid of Allah" (اَمۡسِکۡ عَلَیۡکَ زَوۡجَکَ وَ اتَّقِ اللّٰہَ).

No one with any sense of fairness or having the least commonsense would say that there is any material difference between the statement as quoted in this hadith and the same statement as it occurs in the Quran.

Will our opponents allege that someone in this hadith has quoted a verse "which does not exist"? Will our opponents say, absurdly, that the Holy Prophet had actually uttered the words to Zaid "Be afraid of Allah and keep your wife", but Allah when revealing the Quran misquoted the Holy Prophet and wrongly stated that the Prophet had said: "Keep your wife and be afraid of Allah"?

It is our opponents who now need to answer these questions.

However, to introduce a little commonsense into the matter, please read below.

The Life of Muhammad is the English translation of a voluminous Arabic biography of the Holy Prophet by the late Muhammad Husein Haykal of Egypt, one of the greatest writers of modern Arabic literature, and a renowned novelist, politician and journalist. The translation was done by Ismail Ragi Al -Faruqui, a reputable scholar of Islam.

The following passage occurs in this translation:

'The eternal truth is that man does not fulfil his iman until he has desired for his fellow man that which he has loved for himself, and has acted and lived in accordance with the principle, "The worthier among you in the sight of God is the more pious, the more virtuous … Work and realize the good, for God will reckon your achievement" and you will be given exactly what you have earned.'

(Bolding is mine. Chapter Conclusion in two Essays, Essay II, p. 569. Edition published by Shorouk International of London and Cairo, 1983)

Referring to the quotation in this extract (which I gave in bold text above), the translator has added a note at this point which is as follows:

"Qur'an, 49:13; 4:106. The author does not quote these words in the manner proper to Quranic words, but uses them as his own — a perfectly permissive literary feature in Arabic. The last part of the sentence not included within quotation marks sounds Quranic in construction and phrasing, but it is not of the Qur'an. — Translator."

(Notes and References, note 15 of Essay II, p. 611).

Shown below is a screenshot of this passage from the version of this book at www.archive.org (see link):

(In my printed edition, the translator's footnotes occur as endnotes at the end of the book, and not inserted within the text in red colour as in the pdf edition above.)

Haykal has given a quotation consisting of three segments beginning respectively as follows: (1) The worthier among you… (2) Work and realize the good… (3) and you will be given …

The translator says in his note that (1) and (2) are from the Quran, taken from 49:13 and 4:106, and that (3) is not from Quran although it sounds Quranic. He says that the author is using the words of the Quran "as his own", which is "a perfectly permissive literary feature in Arabic". This is a sufficient answer to those opponents who pick out a few places from the writings of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to allege, without any justification, that he has misquoted the Quran.

I may add here the following observation, as an aside, and not related to my main point.

Firstly, the translator has made an error in giving reference to 4:106. The verse of the Quran corresponding to the words "Work and realize the good, for God will reckon your achievement" is, in fact, 9:105.

Secondly, as regards segment (3) of Haykal's quotation ("and you will be given…"), I have looked up Haykal's original Arabic book and display from it below the image of the relevant text (this book is also available at www.archive.org and the text below is on p. 558-559):

Haykal's words in Arabic are: Wa lā tujzauna illā mā kuntum taksibūn.

I think this is a mixing of 36:54: Wa lā tujzauna illā mā kuntum ta‛lamūn ("you are only recompensed for what you did").

with 10:52: Hal tujzauna illā bi-mā kuntum taksibūn ("you are only recompensed for what you earned").

It is perfectly legitimate to say that, in this final case too, Haykal is quoting from the Quran, even though he has substituted a word from 10:52 into 36:54.

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri

Critics of HMGA object that he held belief that Eisa AS was physically alive till the time he got impressed by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (the educationalist and founder of Aligar Muslim University), and for his own personal gain and to establish himself as substitute of Eisa AS.

In my recent overseas trip, a thought came to my mind that I hope will satisfy HMGA critics. It was regarding Masjid al-Qiblatayn (Per Wikipedia: Masjid al-Qiblatayn (Arabic: المسجد القبلتین‎‎), or the Mosque of the Two Qiblas, is a mosque in Medina that is historically important for Muslims as the place where, after the Islamic Prophet Muhammad received the command to change the direction of prayer (qibla) from Jerusalem to Mecca, the entire congregation led by a companion changed direction in prayer. Thus it uniquely contained two prayer niches (mihrabs). Recently  the mosque was renovated; the old prayer niche facing Jerusalem was removed, and the one facing Mecca was left. The Qiblatayn Mosque is among the earliest mosques in Islam's history, along with Quba Mosque and Al-Masjid al-Nabawi, barring the Great Mosques of Mecca and Jerusalem, which are associated with earlier Prophets, in Islamic thought.).

Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS use to pray facing Masjid al-Aqsa i.e. Jerusalem. Although his wish was he should be facing Kabbah i.e. Makkah but he kept facing Jesusalam even after migration to Madina. He was doing this in tradition of previous prophets, or the accepted norms of time, until he was directly commanded by Allah SWT during the prayer.  To immediately implement Allah SWT command, while in state of prayer he walked towards the back of congregation and continued his prayer facing Makkah. It was 180 degree change in direction of Qibla.

Same was the case with HMGA. He held belief that Eisa AS was physically alive, as that was the accepted norm among Muslims, until he was directly corrected by Allah SWT. HMGA in this support provided reasons from Holy Quran.

HMGA was never directed by Allah SWT on the birth of Eisa AS. So he held the prevailing belief of fatherless birth of Eisa AS. He never discouraged others from accepting that Eisa AS was fathered by a man. Moreover mission of propagation of Islam and HMGA spreads with establishment of Death of Jesus and not Birth of Jesus.

Readers may be interested in this article.

This is a speech delivered at the annual gathering of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Lahore last December, in Lahore, Pakistan, via Skype.

It is well and deeply researched with much new and interesting information.

It will also help the blind opponents of the Ahmadiyya Movement who lurch from one extreme to the opposite. First they say that the Ahmadiyya Movement supported Western imperialism and called on Muslims to be submissive and servile to "the white man". Then they allege that the Ahmadiyya Movement was responsible for creating a Black organization in the US which taught that "the white man" was the devil. The behaviour of these opponents is either due to hyprocrisy or mental derangement.

S.M. Ikram has written several books on the history of Muslims in the Indian subcontinent in Urdu and English. In one of his books, Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan, he has mentioned the services to Muslims of the North-West Frontier Province by Dr Mirza Yaqub Baig in 1930. This book is also available as a reprint in India with the following title page:

I have extracted the two relevant pages and marked the passages that I am referring to by red lines in the margin. See this link.

(Note: The "Isemonger, I.G. Police" referred to in the footnote was Frederick Charles Isemonger.)

The same events are also mentioned in the Urdu biography of Dr Mirza Yaqub Baig, Ainah-i Sidq o Sifa. See the relevant pages at this link. The details in the two accounts corroborate and complement each other. 

Zahid Aziz

An example of this close relationship (and there are numerous other examples in print) is found in an article by Dr Mirza Yaqub Baig written in 1917 when a son of his died in infancy. He wrote:

"The heartfelt connection which the Promised Messiah had with me is known to everyone familiar with those times. When I took the final medical exam [to become a medical doctor] in 1897, he prayed for me, and received a revelation: 'You have passed.' Upon this, he said to me, and even wrote it in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy,: 'As there is very close relationship between me and Yaqub Baig, this is why I have been addressed in the revelation [as ‘you’] whereas Yaqub Baig is meant.'

Then the affection and kindness of the late Maulana Nur-ud-Din, khalifat-ul-Masih, is known to everyone, that he always considered me as his son. From the beginning of our connection he addressed me as 'son'. He maintained this relationship till the end. During his last illness, he would not take food or milk from anyone's hand except mine or that of Maulvi Sadr-ud-Din. And it is the grace of Allah that the very last sip he took was honey by my hand.

As to the late Maulvi Abdul Karim, it was the Promised Messiah himself who designated me as his brother, and Maulvi Abdul Karim treated me with fraternal affection till he breathed his last.

I cannot sufficiently thank Allah that He, the Almighty, provided me with so much opportunity to serve all these three elders during their lifetimes, and at the time of their final, fatal illness Allah granted me to serve them as their medical doctor." (Paigham Sulh, 22 August 1917, p. 5)

Note that it is not in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, as stated above, but in his book Nuzul-ul-Masih (p. 223, Ruhani Khaza'in, v. 18, p. 601) that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad mentions his revelation about Dr Mirza Yaqub Baig as 'You have passed'.

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri

In my blog posts I refer to two types of Qadiani Jamaat members. One type I call ‘Mehmoodies’ and other type I call ‘Qadianis’. Many people in Qadiani Jamaat feel offended by use of term ‘Mehmoodies’. Some even complained to our current Ameer of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (LAM). Some in LAM also think term ‘Mehmoodies’ is not appropriate. This is the reason in my blogs when I use term ‘Mehmoodies’ I write short explanation in brackets next to it. By Mehmoodies I mean those people in Qadiani Jamaat who held belief that ‘Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mehmood Ahmad was “Musleh Mahud” and do NOT believe Holy Prophet Muhmmad SAWS was the last prophet and many more prophets will come after him. Some Mehmoodies then raise objection that this set of beliefs is held by ALL members in Qadiani Jamaat. Interestingly some LAM members also erroneously believe that everyone who stayed behind in Qadian, and did not move to Lahore in 1914 at time of split in Ahmadiyya Movement of Masih Mahud Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, held the said belief.

Today I read a Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib quote from LAM member Mumtaz Ahmad Faruqui sahib book ‘Truth Trumphs’ (Urdu: Fatah-e-Haq), Second Revised Edition. This book published in 1965.

On page 2 of said book:

As to the other statement of 1914, it was given at a time when Maulvi Muhammad Ali and his friends had just left Qadian, but they still entertained hopes of effecting a reconciliation with Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, on the following terms:

According to the last Will of the Promised Messiah, the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyyah, Qadian (the Central Executive Body), would be considered as the supreme executive body whose decision shall be treated as final and binding.

Whoever is elected as an Amir or Head of the Community would take pledge from non-Ahmadis for admission into our ranks, but the already pledged Ahmadis were not to renew their “pledge” with him.

It was only on condition that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad accepted these fundamental conditions, that he could be accepted as Amir or Head of the entire Ahmadiyyah Community.

On page 5 of said book:

Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib statement published dated December 8, 1938:

Moreover Mian Sahib [QK2 Mirza Mehmood Ahmad] had solemnly declared that one could take bai’at even if one did not see eye to eye with him in certain matters [here it is means have difference in beliefs—RJ]. This being his declared formula that even such people may be regarded as his followers, as call the people Muslims, whereas Mian Sahib regards them as Kafirs. Even such people also are his followers who impute Kufr to people whom Mian Sahib regards as Muslims. As for the accusers they had been his followers for years together and were very close to him.

The above two quotes from Mumtaz Ahmad Faruqui sahib tells us Maulana Muhammad also held belief that there were people living in Qadian after the split in ‘Ahmadiyya Movement of Massih Mahud Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib’ in 1914 who decided to live in Qadian and did not move to Lahore and they did NOT do ba’it of QK2 Mirza Mehmood Ahmad, and they did NOT held beliefs of QK2 Mirza Mehmood Ahmad. This way Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib was making distinction between two types of people living in Qadian and later in Rabwah. One type is called Mehmoodies and other type is called Qadianis.

Interestingly in Urdu section of said book in introduction Mumtaz Ahmad Faruqui sahib writes on page 5:

Here I want to thank Maulana Shaikh Abdur Rehman Misri sahib and Maulvi Abdul Mannan Omar sahib M.A. They read manuscript of this book and gave helpful advice, and made some corrections. May Allah SWT reward them.

Both Abdur Rehman Misri sahib and Abdul Mannan Omar sahib had spent good years of their adult life in Qadian. It is obvious they knew Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib was correct when he wrote that NOT everyone living in Qadian under the head ship of QK2 Mirza Mehmood Ahmad held his beliefs or did his ba’it (pledge of allegiance).