The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Indonesia: Another earlier news from Jakarta Post

Before this news (see next item), there was an earlier item of news from Indonesia actually quoted on the the Qadiani website www.thepersecution.org itself.

See: http://www.thepersecution.org/world/indonesia/08/01/jp04.html

This is quoted from The Jakarta Post, Jakarta, 4th January 2008. It is stated within it:

“Junior Attorney General for Intelligence Affairs Wisnu Subroto said the AGO would treat the letter from the forum [i.e. the anti-Ahmadiyya organisations] as a recommendation in the body’s meeting, along with the recommendation from the Indonesian Ulemas Council submitted previously.

The government needs to hear all the information from all parties, including from Ahmadiyah members. During the last meeting with the AGO, Ahmadiyah leaders explained they did not recognize Mirza Gulam Ahmad as a prophet, but merely as a pious leader.

“Many groups, including the forum’s members, believed the clarification was just a game being played by the Ahmadiyah leaders to escape being banned (at that time),” Wisnu told The Jakarta Post by phone.

This is a statement from a government official appearing in a newspaper in Indonesia, and then reproduced on a Qadiani website. If it is not correct, the Qadiani website could have added their own comment to clarify that they did not say that “they did not recognize Mirza Gulam Ahmad as a prophet, but merely as a pious leader”.

Qadianis in Indonesia DROP belief in Hazrat Mirza as prophet

News is being received that the Qadiani Jamaat in Indonesia, when presenting their beliefs to government officials, have issued a statement omitting their belief that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet. Their statement acknowledges that the Holy Prophet Muhammad was the last Prophet and that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is their teacher or murshad.

Please read the following link:

http://www.indonesiamatters.com/1539/ahmadiyya/

If this is fully confirmed then once again the founders of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement have been vindicated. Perhaps in the 100th anniversary year of his death Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has been exonerated and cleared of the stigma and false charge of claiming to be a prophet.

Since the Split occurred in 1914 the Qadiani Jamaat has been forced, over the years, to retract its following false beliefs:

• That the ‘Ahmad’ mentioned in the prophecy of Jesus, recorded in the Quran, is not the Holy Prophet Muhammad but Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
• That all other Muslims, except those who take the Pledge of the Promised Messiah, are kafir and excluded from Islam.
• That for Ahmadis to hold janaza prayers for any other Muslim, whomsoever it may be, is prohibited.
• And now, that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet.

Jalsa, December 1907

In Badr, 26th December 1907 on page 5, there is a report about the arrival of members in Qadian for the annual gathering and the preparations for this gathering.

At this link you can view, in pdf format, the scanned image of the page from Badr where this report is printed.

Many of us knew a person who attended this Jalsa! This was Hazrat Dr Saeed Ahmad Khan, late Head of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement, who was either 7 or 8 years old at the time. He came to Qadian with his father, Maulvi Muhammad Yaqub, and they stayed in Qadian till March 1908.

On page 9 of the same issue it outlines the purposes of the Jalsa and the general form that it usually takes.

At this link you can view that part of page 9 in pdf format. (In this scanned image the first two paragraphs are rather light but still legible.)

Date of Eid-ul-Adha, December 2007

As so often in the past, the Saudi Arab authorities announced a date for Eid which caused confusion all over the world. The date of Eid-ul-Adha had been expected by all Muslims to be either Thursday 20th or Friday 21st December 2007. I compute dates of Ramadan and the two Eids in advance for the Lahore Ahmadiyya branch in the U.K. We had set this Eid-ul-Adha as Thursday 20th some four years ago.

Saudi Arabia has now announced that Eid-ul-Adha is to be on Wednesday 19th December. This has led many Muslim organisations around the world to change their earlier plans and hold Eid on this date.

The Muslim astronomical website www.moonsighting.com has quoted this announcement and then given their own comment as follows:

---

Official Decision and Announcement of the High Judiciary Council of Saudi Arabia:

Since the moon of Dhul-Hijjah was sighted Sunday, December 9, 2007 evening here in Saudi Arabia, we shall be completing twenty nine (29) days of Dhul-Qi’dah, inshaa’Allaah.

… and the Muslim Ummah shall be celebrating ‘Eid al-Adha on Wednesday, December 19, (10 Dhul-Hijjah 1428), inshaa’Allaah.

Comment by Moonsighting.com:

The moon was not even born on Sunday, December 9, Maghrib time in Saudi Arabia, and moon actually set 23 minutes before sun set at Makkah.

According to the research conducted by Moonsighting.com the Universal date for Eid-al-Adha is on December 20, 2007 (Thursday) because actual authentic sighting was confirmed from Mauritius, Tanzania, South Africa, and Barbados on Monday, December 10, 2007.

(See: http://www.moonsighting.com/1428zhj.html)

---

Thus it was impossible for the new moon to have been sighted in Saudi Arabia on the 9th as claimed. As it had not even been born, it means that neither by calculation nor by actual sighting could the moon be considered new on the 9th (and hence Eid-ul-Adha on the 19th).

It would also have been impossible to sight it by eye on the evening of 10th December in most parts of the world (including Saudi Arabia), and only on the basis of calculation could it be accepted as new for 10th December (giving Eid-ul-Adha on 20th). This is why in many countries Eid-ul-Adha is being held on 21st December.

If the Saudi authorities accept the evidence of their eye-witnesses who claimed to have seen the new moon on 9th December 2007, then they should also announce that the calculations of the moon’s movement and position as accepted by astronomers and others have been proved incorrect. Are they prepared to do that? Why do they not come forward to claim credit for disproving these predictions of modern science? They should be easily able to claim several Nobel prizes for correcting the universally-accepted data published by scientists.

Qadiani Jamaat places book “Kalimat-ul-Fasl” online

The Qadiani Jamaat has placed on its website the book Kalimat-ul-Fasal by Mirza Bashir Ahmad (younger brother of the second Khalifa Mirza Mahmud Ahmad). You can read it here:

http://www.alislam.org/urdu/pdf/Kalma-tul-Fasal.pdf

This is the book in which the Qadiani doctrine is presented most vigorously and emphatically that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a prophet just like Moses, Jesus and the Holy Prophet Muhammad, and that any Muslim who does not believe in Hazrat Mirza sahib is (1) a kafir, (2) a full-fledged kafir, (3) excluded from the fold of Islam, and (4) that Ahmadis must treat other Muslims in the same way as if they belonged to a religion of the past like Christians, and that Ahmadis should only say assalamu alaikum to other Muslims in the same way as a Muslim can sometimes greet a non-Muslim with this greeting.

It is laid down in this book absolutely blatantly that Ahmadis must not have any religious or social dealings with other Muslims in the ways that a Muslim is meant to have dealings with his fellow Muslims.

If you want to know what caused the split in the movement in 1914, read this book written in 1915.

The Qadiani Jamaat has spent decades trying to distance itself from the views expressed in this book, so I don’t know if they have completely lost their senses by making it available online. It is the perfect gift to the opponents of the Ahmadiyya movement and gives them all the grounds for declaring Ahmadis as kafir.

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad accepted as Mujaddid

In Badr, 31st October 1907, pages 5-6, there is an article by an Ahmadi answering the question “Why did you accept Hazrat Mirza sahib?”.

The scanned image of this article is at this link as a pdf file.

The author repeatedly refers to Hazrat Mirza’s claim as mujaddid in accordance with the Hadith report about mujaddids and seeks to prove the truth of this claim.

For example, he writes:

“If someone … argues that the first fifty years of a century constitute the head of the century, so it is not necessary to accept Mirza sahib as mujaddid  at the very beginning of the century, the answer is as follows. Since the teaching of Mirza sahib is consistent with the Quran and authentic Hadith, and thousands of signs have appeared in its support, it would be foolish to wait for fifty years for a mujaddid. However, if his teaching had been against the Quran and Hadith, then this objection would have been worthy of acceptance. …

No opponent can raise a valid objection against the teaching of Mirza sahib. The objection is only on his claim to be Messiah and Mahdi. The opponents say: if Mirza sahib had not made this claim to being Messiah and Mahdi, the Muslims would generally have accepted him as the mujaddid of the time, but these claims have prevented us from accepting him as mujaddid. In reply, we say respectfully that if you accept Mirza sahib as mujaddid of the time, this will not harm your faith in Islam. Considering that all other prophets died, what is the wonder in the death of Jesus? And since all those sent by God have been appointed in this way, and none descended from heaven, what is the wonder in Mirza sahib being appointed as such a time of need?”

It is plain from this that the claim of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is being presented in this article, just seven months before his death, as that of mujaddid of the century. Other Muslims are said to take exception to his claim of being Messiah and Mahdi, and this is why they do not accept him as mujaddid. However, the author argues that the claim of being Messiah and Mahdi should not prevent his acceptance as mujaddid. Therefore it is clear that mujaddid is his real claim.

When are dreams from God and when from the devil?

In Badr of 21 November 1907, a letter by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is printed in connection with the receiving of dreams and revelations by ordinary people, and whether they can be considered to be inspired by God or not.

I have uploaded the original Urdu page to this blog in pdf format.

Please read by clicking here.

I hope to translate it into English later.

Accusation against us by a Qadiani Jamaat member

A member of the Qadiani Jamaat in California has alleged that the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jamaat has falsely inserted the following statement into its English translation of the book Kitab-ul-Bariyya by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad:

“I was born towards the last days of Sikh rule in 1839 or 1840.”

The reason for this accusation is that in their own Jamaat’s literature they read that the Promised Messiah was born in 1835 (of course we also accept that date). Qadiani Jamaat members appear to think that any statement in our publications which happens to conflict with something in their publications must be a deliberate falsehood. This gentleman claims that he has read through Kitab-ul-Bariyya and did not find any words like the above in it.

I have responded by simply making a sworn statement that I have read this book on the Qadiani Jamaat’s own website, and these words in Urdu are present in it. I have asked the accuser to make a similar sworn statement that he has read the book and that these words are not in it and that “Lahoris” or Zahid Aziz have falsely inserted them. I have asked that he can also try getting his accusation published in his Jamaat’s organs.

Perhaps his Jamaat would care to comment.

Metaphorical use of “Son of God”

In Badr of 7th November 1907, under the title What is meant by progeny of God? Hazrat Mirza sahib is reported as saying the following:

Allah has said, addressing me, “You are to me in the place of My progeny”. He has not said here: “You are My progeny”, but said “in place of My progeny”, in other words, “like My progeny”. This is, in fact, a rejoinder to Christians who believe Jesus to be the son of God in the real sense, while God has no progeny.

God has not brushed away in totality the claim of the Jews that “we are the sons of God and His beloved ones” (the Quran, 5:18), but said that they do not deserve these titles. It is, in fact, a figure of speech whereby God uses such terms to honour his chosen ones. It is just as it is stated in hadith reports that God becomes the eyes or the hands of the man whom he loves, or that God says: “O My servant, I was thirsty and you did not give Me water. I was hungry and you did not feed Me”. Similarly it is written in the Torah that Jacob is the son of God, even his prince. All these are figurative expressions which are found generally in all the books of God and in Hadith.

God has used such words about me as well, as a rejoinder to Christians, because despite these words I never make such a claim that, God forbid, I am the son of God. In fact, I regard making such a claim as an act of heresy.

As regards such words which God has applied to the prophets, the most excellent and the highest ranking title has been given to the Holy Prophet Muhammad. For, God said to him: “Say: O My servants” (the Quran, 39:53). Now it is obvious that the people thus addressed were the servants of God, not servants of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. These words show how broad is the scope of application of such words by way of metaphor.

---

Hazrat Mirza sahib here declares unequivocally that despite being called by God as “like My progeny”, he does not claim to be the son of God, as this title is only by way of metaphor. The same explanation applies to his being called “prophet” by God.

Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi, like John the Baptist

In another brief item in Badr of 7th November 1907, Hazrat Mirza sahib is reported as saying:

“Just as before Jesus, the prophet John the Baptist was martyred while preaching the oneness of God, similarly before me in this very land of Punjab Sayyid Ahmad was martyred while preaching the message of the oneness of God. This was another similarity, which God fulfilled.”

Hazrat Mirza sahib bore likeness to Jesus. That was the basis of his claim to be Promised Messiah. Here he states that Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi (d. 1831) in the same way bore likeness to John the Baptist, who is known in the Quran as the prophet Yahya. If Hazrat Mizra Ghulam Ahmad is the Messiah then Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi was his forerunner, his John the Baptist. This clearly shows that a religious leader among the Muslims can bear likeness to a prophet of the past without himself being a prophet, since no one considers Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi to be a prophet.