The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Women not “weak of understanding” according to the Quran

Please consider the following consecutive verses of the Holy Quran (obviously the bolding is mine):

4:4 And give women their dowries as a free gift. But if they of themselves are pleased to give you a portion from it, consume it with enjoyment and pleasure.

4:5 And do not make over your property, which Allah has made a (means of) support for you, to the weak of understanding, and maintain them out of it, and clothe them and give them a good education.

4:6 And test the orphans until they reach the age of marriage. Then if you find in them maturity of intellect, make over to them their property…

4:7 For men is a share of what the parents and the near relatives leave, and for women a share of what the parents and the near relatives leave, whether it is little or much — an appointed share.

According to 4:4, a woman has the discretion to give a part of the mahr back to the husband at her pleasure. (In the Arabic original, "of themselves" is nafs-an, and "are pleased" is tibna.)

According to 4:5, the "weak of understanding" must not be given control of their property. It is in fact "your property" in the sense that you, the guardians, have control of it, for their benefit.

According to 4:7, when "maturity of intellect" (rushd) is found in someone then they must be given control of their property.

It follows, therefore, that women are not "weak of understanding", and have "maturity of intellect", otherwise they would not have been allowed to spend, out of their own pleasure and decision, the property possessed by them.

In 4:7 it is ruled that men and women shall both get a share from inheritance. Therefore a woman has the same ownership over it, as a man does over his share.

If it is true, as we understand, that in the law of Saudi Arabia a woman must always have a male as a guardian, in the same way that a child always requires a guardian, then that is against what is stated in the verse above.

Zahid Aziz

In dilemma over Peshawar killings response: blog readers please advise

In the wake of the Peshawar mass massacre, the last thing, the very last thing, I wish to do is to use it as an opportunity to score debating points over those who have quite rightly condemned this outrage and to bring up their past behaviour.

So I ask blog readers' advice. I read the news "Head of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community [i.e. Mirza Masroor Ahmad] condemns Peshawar School Attack and Prays for Victims". See this link.

I am sure he and his followers prayed for them with sincerity.

But should it not be pointed out that his community holds the belief, and practises it, that the janaza prayers of Islam should not be said by them (behind their own imam) for any non-Ahmadi Muslim? Is it not true that their Khalifa number 2 wrote the following directions for his followers:

“Now another question remains, that is, as non-Ahmadis are deniers of the Promised Messiah, this is why funeral prayers for them must not be offered, but if a young child of a non-Ahmadi dies, why should not his funeral prayers be offered? He did not call the Promised Messiah as kafir. I ask those who raise this question, that if this argument is correct, then why are not funeral prayers offered for the children of Hindus and Christians, and how many people say their funeral prayers? The fact is that, according to the Shariah, the religion of the child is the same as the religion of the parents. So a non-Ahmadi’s child is also a non-Ahmadi, and his funeral prayers must not be said. Then I say that as the child cannot be a sinner he does not need the funeral prayers; the child’s funeral is a prayer for his relatives, and they do not belong to us but are non-Ahmadis. This is why even the child’s funeral prayers must not be said.”

(Anwar-i Khilafat, p. 93 of the original edition; underlining is mine. This book is available on the Qadiani Jamaat website as number 5 from the link www.alislam.org/urdu/au/?j=3, see pages 150-151)

If this post is regarded as in bad taste at this delicate time, or if anyone is offended, I apologise.

Sincerely,
Zahid Aziz

Allegation that early issues of Lahore Ahmadiyya newspaper ‘Paigham Sulh’ presented Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet

The Qadiani Jama'at and also the anti-Ahmadiyya campaigners have been circulating one or two statements from early issues of the Lahore Ahmadiyya newspaper Paigham Sulh to allege that the founders of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Anjuman used to believe Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a prophet before they formed their own separate organization in Lahore after the split of March 1914. They have been circulating these statements for more than 80 years, generation after generation, and these allegations have been answered again and again.

After the late Professor Mahmood Ahmad Ghazi of the International Islamic University of Islamabad failed against the Lahore Ahmadiyya presentation in the 2nd Cape Town case in 1987, he published a book in 1991 entitled 'Qadiani Problem and Position of Lahori Group', in which (without mentioning the case at all) he too trotted out the same statement from Paigham Sulh, October 1913.

I have compiled a more detailed reply to this allegation than we have done in the past, and it can be read at this link.

My protest note on Wikipedia entry about Maulana Zafar Ali Khan

Needing some information about Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, journalist, editor of Zamindar, one-time admirer and in 1930s opponent of the Ahmadiyya Movement, I came across the Wikipedia entry about him. Someone had written in it:

He was against the Ahmadiyya Movement and waged a campaign against it in his daily Zamindar. In, 1934 when the British government banned Zamindar, Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, sued and got the government orders revoked by the court. He stood firm against Mirza Ghulam Ahmed and tried to falsify his claim of Prophethood through his rational columns. Essentially all Muslims consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmed a liar and his claim false.

I have added a protest note after this as follows:

To Wikipedia: I strongly protest at the inclusion of the ridiculous and obviously false propaganda statement that *all* Muslims consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as "a liar". Many eminent Muslims considered him a Muslim and servant of Islam. Maulana Zafar Ali Khan himself supported the Ahmadiyya movement as an Islamic movement before the 1930s. Maulana Zafar Ali Khan's maternal uncle Maulana Muhammad Abdullah Khan (d. 26th April 1935) was a scholar of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jamaat. This uncle's two sons, Maulana Mustafa Hasan Khan and Maulana Murtaza Hasan Khan were prominent Lahore Ahmadiyya missionaries and writers.

You can read my protest note in this Wikipedia entry just under the objectionable words.

Original copy of Al-Fazl

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.

Original Copy of Qadiani Newspaper Al-Fazal exposes character of QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad.

Mahmudis (those Qadianis who believe QK2 was Musleh Mahud) and their off shoots like Munir Ahmad Azam and his followers (Jamaat Ul Sahih Islam) accuse me of making false accusations of immorality of their QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad. It is true that what I have written or translated and quoted exposing immoral character of QK2, on internet forums, is from published books and leaflets in Urdu language authored by former Waqaf-e-Zindghi and Staunch followers of QK2. Followers of QK2 demand from me to provide Original copy of Qadiani Newspaper Al-Fazal, in which Friday sermon of QK2 was published.

Here it is. Go to the Qadiani Jamaat official website to the Urdu page:

Today I came across clip on you tube on Mullah TV channel in UK. In clip guest mullah read quote from the original issue of said Al-Fazal.

You tube clip ‘Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad Visits The Opera – Ahmadiyya’: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6ZOh2RJfe4

Hopefully follower of Mahmudi off shoot Munir Ahmad Azam cult who authored following post will also watch above clip and will ponder before alleging me of making false accusations on QK2:

http://sahih-al-islam.blogspot.in/2014/04/truth-about-allegations-on-khalifa-sani.html

Qadiani Khalifa and ISIS Khalifa

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.

QADIANI KHALIFA = ISIS KHALIFA

In 1914 Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad said that those who do NOT do his ba'it (pledge of allegiance) are KAFIR.

In 2014 ISIS Khalifa Baghdadi said that those who do NOT do his ba'it are KAFIR.

Today with what face Qadiani Khalifa 5 Mirza Masroor Ahmad, who holds belief that Qadiani Khalifa 2 was God's Divine Appointee, is criticizing ISIS Khalifa??????

Guardian article on Qadiani Khalifa 5 Mirza Masroor Ahmad, in which he is criticizing ISIS:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/15/islam-mosque-imam-ahmadiyya-isis

Berlin Mosque Open Day announcement on Berlin TV

See:

http://mediathek.rbb-online.de/rbb-fernsehen/abendschau/nachrichten-ii?documentId=24311102

It is the second news item in this bulletin, and it was filmed by them on Saturday 25th October.

You can see Hazrat Ameer Dr A.K. Saeed in a scene (there is a brief glimpse of me as well). As a result of the announcement, a large number of people came to the mosque Open Day today, Sunday (from where I am posting this).

Update on 8 November: The above link, being to a news bulletin, worked only for a few days after the broadcast, and no longer works.

Council of Islamic Ideology, Pakistan

Submitted by Tariq.

The Council on Islamic Ideology (CII) a government body in Pakistan created to bring the laws in harmony with Quran and Sunnah, recently sent a list of recommendations to that country’s parliament labeled “Code of Conduct”. This code of conduct is what it wants the parliament to adopt. Among them is the following – a news report about it can be read at this link:

“It is an un-Islamic and condemnable act to declare any Muslim sect a disbeliever and deserving of death,”

Does it also apply to all of the members of the parliament from 1974 who declared Ahmadis to be non-Muslims? Does it apply to the members of the CII itself who declare Ahmadis to be non-Muslims? Of course not!! It only applies to some other people who declare other sects of Muslims as disbelievers. Whom they themselves declare as disbelievers are as such.

How ironic!

Eid-ul-Adha, October 2014

Further to below, I have now uploaded my khutba. Please see this link.

At the end of the khutba you will find photographs of the Pakistan Moon Sighting Committee trying to observe the new moon at various occasions in the past two years.

Zahid Aziz

I extend Eid greetings to all our Blog readers and wish them Eid Mubarak.

At this link is the Eid-ul-Adha message by Hazrat Ameer Dr A.K. Saeed, Head of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement.

Our UK Jamaat is holding Eid tomorrow, Sunday, 5th October, prayers starting 11.00 a.m. UK time. This time it is my turn to deliver the khutba. I will upload it later the same day or on the following day.

Zahid Aziz

Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi on Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad defeating Christian missionaries

A quotation from the preface to the Urdu translation of the Holy Quran by Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, published in 1934, occurs in our literature. When translating the book 'The Death of Jesus' by the learned Maulana Hafiz Sher Muhammad, I translated this quotation as follows:

"In that period, Bishop Lefroy gathered an army of missionaries and left England, promising that he would soon convert the whole of India to Christianity. Having collected a great amount of money from the people of England, and assurances from them of continuing assistance in the future, he entered India and raised a big storm. His attack on the teachings of Islam was a failure … But the attack based on the argument that Jesus was alive in heaven in his physical body, while all other prophets were buried in the earth, was in his view proving to be effective upon the general public. At that juncture, Maulvi Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani stood up and addressed Lefroy and his group, saying: ‘The Jesus you talk about is dead and buried like other mortals, and the Jesus whose coming is prophesied is myself, so you must accept me.’ By this means he made things so difficult for Lefroy that he could not shake him off. In this way, he defeated all the Christian missionaries from India to England." (page 30)

Recently I came across a copy of that Urdu translation of the Holy Quran by Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi at the home of a friend in Suriname. I immediately had the relevant page scanned, and also some pages around it. You can read this passage in the original book at this link.

For greater context you can read pages 29-31 at this link.

Dealing with the history of Islam in India, the point he is raising is that, in his opinion, in modern times four men present "a bad example" of distorting Islamic teachings and causing sectarian rifts. These are the following:

1. Maulana Nazir Husain of Delhi, the founder of the Ahl-i Hadith sect. He is condemned by Thanvi for rejecting the four schools of Fiqh.
2. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. He is condemned for his rationalist interpretations of the Quran.
3. Maulvi Abdullah Chakralvi, founder of the Ahl-i Quran tendency, who rejected all Hadith reports.
4. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

After the extract quoted above, Ashraf Ali Thanvi writes that it was merely a ploy by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad against Christian missionaries to say that ‘The Jesus you talk about is dead and buried like other mortals, and the Jesus whose coming is prophesied is myself'. Having used this ploy, writes Thanvi, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was now stuck with adopting this as his actual belief, because he could not retract it: "Therefore till his death he adhered to this belief and kept on giving inappropriate interpretations of the Quran and Hadith".

He adds: "These four men have now died and have gone to the next world. The intention with which they did this work is known to Allah, and their accounting is with Him. But due to them it happened that ignorant Muslims were needlessly divided into factions. We wish these men had not done this, because it is possible to reply to your opponents while still maintaining the true beliefs…"

It is clear that Ashraf Ali Thanvi places Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in the same category as the other three men, as regards the rights and wrongs of what they were trying to do. He does not consider them as unbelievers and kafir, but as persons who tried to defend Islam although in the wrong way. Thanvi certainly does not say that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be a prophet and thereby went out of Islam.