The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Error by A.R. Dard in Ismu-hu Ahmad prophecy

The following has been submitted by our friend Bashir.

There are many controversies that exist between the AMI and the AAIIL. One of these are in terms of Ismuhu Ahmad (IA).

M. Ali clearly wrote in over 7 books that this prophecy which occurs in the Quran (61:6) refers to the Holy Prophet Muhammad in totality and in a certain sense refers to HMGA as well. HMBMA wrote the opposite, or at least it appeared that he wrote the opposite. Later in 1954 HMBMA explained 61:6 just as M. Ali did. Very strange I must say. In HMBMA’s commentary on the Holy Quran he did not translate chapter 61, Malik Ghulam Farid translated that portion of the Quran.

Qazi Muhammad Nazir (1965, Truth Prevails) explained this contradiction:
“Between this passage (Anwar Khilafat) and the statement before the Inquiry Commission, on the surface, there appears to be a slight difference more in words, than in the meaning and sense. There is no real difference between the two.”

I can’t say that I agree with this explanation. QMN admitted that there was a difference in words. At least he admitted that there was in fact a contradiction.

I found another contradiction. Last night I was reading Life of Ahmad by Maulana A.R. Dard. This book is the most comprehensive book on the life of HMGA. Dard was commenting on the era of 1891. This is in Chapter 21, the title of the chapter is ‘Claims to be the Messiah’.

Dard writes on pg. 235-236:

Ahmad (as) also explained that his advent was foretold in the Holy Quran (Al-Fatihah 1:7; Al-Nur 24:56, Al-Muzzammil 73:16).
The following verse of the Holy Book refers clearly to Ahmad (as): ‘And remember when Jesus, son of Mary, said, O children of Israel, I am Allah’s messenger unto you, fulfilling that which is before me of the Torah, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger who will come after me. His name will be Ahmad (as). And when he will come to them with clear proofs, they will say “This is a clear fraud”‘ (61:7).

This book was published in 1948. Why was Dard claiming that HMGA was IA? Maybe he got the same impression as me. Maybe Dard read HMBMA’s books from 1914 to 1922. HMBMA hadn’t commented on IA since 1922.

HMGA did not claim to be IA, both groups agree on this concept. But DARD is claiming that in 1891 HMGA claimed to be IA. Where did Dard get this from? This appears to be a major error by Dard.

“A Present to Kings” by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad

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.

Id-ul-Adha Message from Head of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement

At this link please read the Id-ul-Adha message, December 2008, from Hazrat Ameer Dr. A.K. Saeed, Head of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement.

Open letter to Malik Safiullah of Toronto, Canada

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.

AAIIL and finality of prophethood (by Bashir)

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.

Comment to Michael Moore

Rashid Jahangiri has submitted the following.

My email to Michael Moore.

Famous American filmaker and activist Micahel Moore on CNN program Larry King Live, Nov 19, 2008 show, predicted ‘the end of capitalism’. You may watch him near the end of video:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/

I sent him this email:

Dear Mr. Michael Moore:

On Larry King Live, 11/19/08 show, you predicted current economic situation in our country as “the end of Capitalism”. In 1942 an intellectual in Muslim world, Maulana Muhammad Ali authored a book ‘The New World Order’. On pages 38 to 53 he writes ‘The Economic Problem’. In these pages, on one hand he predicted the bankruptcy of Stalin’s Soviet Union, by pointing out flaws in communist system. And this he predicted against the strong economic indicators of Stalin’s 5-year plan. On the other hand he predicted the bankruptcy of Europe’s Capitalism. Interestingly, he also gave the solution to the economic problem. He provides the middle ground i.e. The Islamic Economic System, is the solution. Listening to you, I had to say, Maulana Muhammad Ali’s both predictions came true.

You may like to read few pages of his book The New World Order by Maulana Muhammad Ali. Link:
www.aaiil.org/text/books/mali/newworldorder/newworldorder.shtml

Yours truly,

Divorce and Muslim law

Our friend Usman Malik has submitted the following.

I thought this may be of interest to the Blog community.

Link to Daily Times

The story outlines the sharp reaction from the Mullahs against the recommendations by the CII (Council of Islamic Ideology) regarding amending the divorce laws in Pakistan. The CII has apparently recommended that:

1 – If the wife demands divorce in writing then the divorce will become effective after 90 days regardless of whether the husband grants it or not.
2 – Any divorce must be registered with the state authorities in written form to have proper legal status…..similar to the registration of the Nikah.

See this link.

The Mullahs have been up in arms and without citing any arguments from the Quran or Sunnah, have termed the proposals an attack on Islam etc etc. The PPP government predictably has distanced itself from the proposals and has promised to increase the strength of the CII board (fill in some vacant spots) and review the proposals. No points for guessing which way the “enhanced” CII board may go. I am wondering if any one can throw some light on the Islamic position regarding these proposals. On the face of it these seem reasonable, or at least the 2nd one does.

Dr Zakir Naik

Rashid Jahangiri has submitted the following.

On ‘Pak Tea House’ blog an article on Dr. Zakir Naik is posted:

Muslims In Introspection Mode… Now a Fatwa on Dr. Zakir Naik
by Sadia Dehlvi

This is the Link

I wrote following comment that awaits moderation:
“Secret” of Dr. Zakir Naik’s “scholarship”.
From where Dr. Zakir Naik gets his “knowledge”?

ZN impresses Muslims and Hindus by Memorizing ONLY ONE BOOK. Actually he has TV program [on PeaceTV, UK] name based on this book.
Book name:
MUHAMMAD IN WORLD SCRIPTURES
by Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi (in 3 volumes)
You can read it online here.

Actually, if you open the above book, on line, and listen to ZN speech (i have done it online) his quotes that impress listeners come in order from the same book. It is different thing that he lacks moral courage to acknowledge his source of knowledge.

You can see the original Urdu version:
Meesaq-un-Nabiyyeen:
by Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi

Online link

“Two phases” of Promised Messiah

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.

Read interview with Yahya Bakhtiar about 1974 proceedings

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.”