Thursday, 19 September 2013

Lahore Ahmadiyya v Qadiani: a history of the Lahori split

Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad & Hazrat Mirza Nasir Ahmad
Contents

  Introduction
The sixth year after the passing of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was perhaps the single most controversial of any year that has occurred in the history of his movement. That year, Ahmadis became divided for the first time and with the emergence of two distinct sects. To this day these two remain the only sects of note within Ahmadiyya.

The first group called themselves the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and maintained Qadian as their base while the other group reformed in the city of Lahore under the name Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-e Islam Lahore. The split had been triggered by the death of the first khalifa, Hazrat Nooruddin. The Qadian party wished to continue with the institution of khilafat, which they believed to be a divine blessing, under the hand of Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, Khalifatul Masih II. The Lahore party desired a committee structure, or Anjuman. Apart from this there were other disagreements and allegations were made on both sides against the other.

Each party has published their own arguments and histories regarding the split, but as both groups reject the other’s literature outright there is no use turning to these. Instead, we shall examine each argument by relying on undisputed facts; mostly from documents published prior to the split and therefore accepted by both parties. Below is our timeline and analysis of events.


1880s- Revelations concerning Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s status
In the early 1880s, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad received a revelation in which Allah described him as:

'The Champion of Allah in the mantle of the prophets' (Baraheen-e-Ahmadiyya)

In the same book, he was addressed in revelations by Allah as 'Jesus' and was also described by those revelations as being 'like Moses'.


1886- Revelation concerning prophecy of the Promised Son and its explanation
In 1886 Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad traveled to the small town of Hoshiarpur specifically with the purpose of secluding himself, fasting and praying constantly for a divine sign to be granted by Allah. In answer to his prayers, he received the following revelation:

I confer upon you a Sign of My mercy according to what you begged of me. So I have heard your entreaties and have honoured your prayers with My acceptance through My mercy and made your journey a source of blessings for you. Therefore, a Sign of power, mercy, nearness is bestowed on you, a Sign of grace and beneficence is awarded to you and you are granted the key of success and victory.

Peace on you, O victorious one. Thus did God speak so that those who desire life may be rescued from the grip of death and those who are buried in the graves may come out of them and so that the superiority of Islam and the dignity of God’s Word may become manifest unto the people and so that truth may arrive with all its blessings and falsehood may flee with all its ills, and so that people may understand that I am the Lord of Power, I do whatever I will, and so that they may believe that I am with you, and so that those who do not believe in God and deny and reject His religion and His Book and His Holy Messenger Muhammad, the Chosen One s.a.w. may be confronted with a clear Sign and the way of the guilty ones may become manifest.

Rejoice, therefore, that a handsome and pure boy will be bestowed on you; you will receive an unblemished youth who will be of your seed and will be of your progeny. A handsome and pure boy is coming as your guest. His name is Emmanuel and also Bashir. He has been invested with a spirit of holiness, and he is free from all impurity. He is the light of Allah. Blessed is he who comes from heaven. He will be accompanied by grace which shall arrive with him. He will be characterised with grandeur, greatness and wealth. He will come into the world and will heal many of their disorders through his Messianic qualities and through the blessings of the spirit of holiness. He is the Word of Allah for Allah’s mercy and honour have equipped him with the Word of Majesty. He will be extremely intelligent and perceptive and will be meek of heart and will be filled with secular and spiritual knowledge. He will convert three into four (of this the meaning is not clear). It is Monday a blessed Monday. Son, delight of the heart, high ranking, noble. A manifestation of the First and the Last, a manifestation of the True and the High; as if Allah has descended from heaven. His advent will be greatly blessed and will be a source of manifestation of Divine Majesty. Behold a light comes, anointed by God with the perfume of His pleasure. We shall pour Our Spirit into him and he will be sheltered under the shadow of God. He will grow rapidly in stature and will be the means of procuring the release of those held in bondage. His fame will spread to the ends of the earth and peoples will be blessed through him. He will then be raised to his spiritual station in heaven.

This is a matter decreed. Your house will be filled with blessings and I shall perfect My favours unto you and you will have a large progeny from blessed women, some of whom you will find hereafter, and I will cause a great increase in your progeny and will bless it; but some of them will die in early age and your progeny will spread greatly in different lands.

Every branch of your collaterals will be cut off and will come to an end soon through childlessness. If they do not repent, God will send chastisement after chastisement upon them, until they are completely wiped out. Their houses will be filled with widows and God’s wrath will descend upon their walls.

But if they turn to God, He will turn to them in mercy. God will spread your blessings about and will revive a ruined house through you and will fill a fearful house with blessings. Your progeny will not be cut off and will flourish till the end of days.

God will maintain your name with honour till the day when the world comes to an end and will convey your message to the ends of the earth. I shall exalt you and shall call you to Myself but your name will never be erased from the face of the earth.

It will so happen that all those who seek to humiliate you, and are determined to cause you to fail and wish to ruin you will themselves be frustrated and will die in failure and frustration. But God will grant you complete success and will grant you all that you desire. I will cause an increase of your true and sincere friends and shall bless their lives and their properties and they will grow in number and they will prevail over the other Muslims—who are jealous of you and are hostile to you—till the Day of Judgment. God will not forget your supporters and will not lose sight of them and they will have their reward according to the degree of their devotion.

You are to me as the prophets of Bani Isra’il. You are to Me as My Unity. You are of Me and I am of you. The time is approaching, indeed it is near, when God will put your love in the hearts of kings and nobles till they will seek blessings from your garments. O you who deny and who oppose the truth, if you are in doubt concerning My servant, if you deny the grace and bounty that I have bestowed upon My servant, then produce some true Sign concerning yourselves like this Sign of mercy, if you are truthful. If you are unable to produce it, and be sure you will never be able to produce it, then be mindful of the Fire which has been prepared for the disobedient, the liars and the transgressors. (Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Ishtaharat, February 20th 1886)

Soon after, Ahmad himself explained the meaning of this prophecy:

In the Announcement of February 20, 1886 made by this humble one…there is a prophecy of the birth of a righteous son possessing the qualities mentioned in the announcement.…Such a son, according to the divine promise, will surely be born within nine years, soon or late, but certainly within this period. (Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Ishtiharat, March 22 1886)


1887- Mirza Bashir Ahmad I, son of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, is born


1888- Mirza Bashir Ahmad I, son of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, passes away
Following the passing of Mirza Bashir Ahmad I, the opponents of Ahmad raised a clamour that the prophecy had failed. In response, he published an entire booklet, a few dozen pages long, explaining the prophecy and an extract is below:

I supplicated again for further disclosure concerning this matter and it was disclosed to me today, April 8, 1886, by God Almighty that a son will be born very soon. Such period cannot exceed the interval of one pregnancy. (Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Sabz Ishtihar, 1888)

Like the extract above, the entire book is devoted to clearifying that the Promised Son could - in accordance with the prophecy - be born at any stage within the nine year period.  He also pointed out that nowhere did the prophecy say The Promised Son would be the first one born during that period and in fact goes on to say that the son who has passed away - 'Bashir I' - is not The Promised Son and this son is yet to come. It is also obvious from the entire book, in which Ahmad discussed the physical pregnancies of his wife, that the prophecy would be fulfilled with the birth of a physical son. 


1889- Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad is born


1889- Prophecy of the Split
It seems proper that I should make clear that all who have joined me in Baiat are not deserving of praise. Not yet. Some among them seem like dry twigs of a tree. These, my God, my Master will cut off from me and throw away as fuel wood. There are others who showed devotion and sincerity in the beginning, but who now seem indifferent. They have lost the warmth and enthusiasm of true followers. Like Bal'am, adapts in intrigue and false poses. Or, like decayed teeth, waiting to be extracted and trampled underfoot. They have tired and become corrupted by this vain world. I can tell you - they will soon be separated from me. Excepting such among them as God chooses to save anew with His own Hand. There are those of course whom God has given over to me permanently. They are the green twigs of the tree that is me. (Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Fathe Islam, 1889)


1891- Prophecy Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s son would be his spiritual successor
When his mission comes to its successful conclusion, his son, who will be his very image, will succeed him. That is, it is destined that God, the Exalted, will grant him a righteous son, who will be his exact image and will follow in his footsteps and thus remind people of his father. This is, in fact, in accordance with the prophecy that I have made about a son of mine. (Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Nishan-e-Asmani, 1891)


1892- Muhammadsa prophecised righteous son of the Messiah
Muhammadsa has foretold that the Promised Messiah will marry and have children. In this there is an indication that Allah will grant him a righteous son, who will resemble his father, and will not defy him, and will be one of the revered servants of Allah. The secret of it is that Allah does not give glad tidings to Prophets or Saints regarding their progeny, unless He has decreed the birth of righteous progeny. (Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Aina-e-Kamalat-e-Islam)

Once more, the above saying of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad makes it clear that the Promised Son would be a physical son. Had he not been a biolgical son but a spiritual son of no biological relation, there would have been no need to mention the wife of the messiah. 


1892- Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad prophecises prophetic son
We shall grant you success a second time and shall convert your fear into security. The moon of the Prophets will come and your affair will become manifest. Allah will make your countenance cheerful and will illumine your reasoning. Soon will a son be born to you and grace will come close to you. My light is near. (revelation from Allah recorded by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in Aina-e-Kamalat-e-Islam)

Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahamd had already been born, but now Allah revealed the prophecy of a second son to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, through his wife Hazrat Nusrat Jehan Begum and described him as 'the moon of the Prophets ' and as 'grace' from Allah.


1893- Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad is born
The prophecy of the Promised Son had stated the child would be called 'Bashir' and born within a nine year period. All three of Hazrat Sahib's son born within the nine year period (February 20th 1886 - February 19th 1895) were named 'Bashir'. Bashir I (1887), Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad (1889) and Mirza Bashir Ahmad (1893) are the three examples. However, none of the four sons he was father to outside of this period were given this name (Sultan, 1853, Fazal 1855, Sharif 1895 and Mubarik 1899). It is certainly unusual for a father to give three of his sons the exact same name. The fact he only did so with those born within the period of the prophecy is an absolute indication that he was certain one of these three sons would go on to fulfil the prophecy.


1893- Khwaja Kamaluddin Sahib accepts Ahmadiyya
Born in 1870, Kamaluddin was born in India and would later become one of the two most prominent founding members of the Lahori group. It is notable that both of them entered the community after the prophecy of the Promised Son and the nine year period during which it was fulfilled and so perhaps did not realise its significance as much as those who had entered the community earlier.


1897- Hazrat Maulvi Muhammad Ali Sahib accepts Ahmadiyya
Born in 1876 in India, Ali would later become a founding member and the first president of the Lahori group.


1901- Clearification of Status of Prophethood
All the doors leading to prophethood have been closed except the door of sirat-e-siddiqi. Thus he who comes to God through this door is clad, by way of ‘zill’ [complete devotion to the Holy Prophetsa and such self-effacement that a person begins to reflect the image of his Mastersa] in the same mantle of prophethood which is the mantle of the prophethood of Muhammadsa. As such, his being a prophet is not a matter for jealously, for he does not derive this status from himself but from the fountain of the Holy Prophetsa and, that too, not for his own glory but for the glory and majesty of the Holy Prophetsa. For this reason, in heaven he is named Muhammad and Ahmad. Thus the prophethood of Muhammadsa, in the final analysis, returns to Muhammadsa. (Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Eik Ghalti Ka Izala, 1901)

The Qadiani and Lahori Ahmadiyya sects have only two major theological differences. Firstly, the Qadianis adhere to the institution of khilafat whereas the Lahoris do not. Secondly, the Qadiani believe Ahmad was a prophet of God, but only by reflecting the qualities of Muhammadsa, while the Lahoris reject Ahmad’s prophethood and instead view him only as a saint. Ahmad made his own stance on the issue clear in the quote above.


1902- Revelation regarding the blessed status of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's family
The revelation 'Be grateful to Me that you have found My Khadijah' was the good news, several years in advance, of my marriage into a noble family of Sayyeds of Delhi…my wife was named Khadijah as she is the mother to a blessed progeny and a blessed progeny has also been promised to me. (Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Nuzulul Masih, 1902)

The revelation quoted above was originally published in the 1880s shortly before Ahmad’s marriage to Hazrat Nusrat Jehan Begum. Her children included Mahmud. She lived till 1952 and according to her biography has so far been blessed with 800 descendants, through her marriage with Ahmad. Throughout her entire life, this lady did not spend a single day associating herself with the Lahori group and constantly remained loyal to the Ahmadiyya Khilafat. In fact, of her 800 descendants not a single one has ever joined the Lahori group. Every one of them has remained attached to the Islamic Khilafat of the Ahmadiyya Community.

Bearing in mind that the Ahmadiyya Khalifas have regularly and explicitly claimed to receive revelation and to have been appointed by Allah to a spiritual status and that all four of these Khalifas since the Lahoris split from Khilafat in 1914 have been descendants of The Promised Messiah and his wife, it can be surmised that the Lahoris believe the entire progeny of Ahmad, led by the Khalifas, to be the worst kinds of liars and deceivers who claim a spiritual status and revelations granted by Allah and use their influence to oppose the 'truth' of the Lahori group.

This conclusion is supported by the fact that after the split Ali would describe Mahmud as a 'sinner', 'extreme wrongdoer', 'blind of moral vision', 'liable to the curse of God', 'black hearted criminal', an apostate, an 'advocate of falsehood', subject to a 'divine curse' etc. etc. in his book Tabdil-e-Aqida Kay Ilzam. As this and much worse is found published in the official literature of the Lahoris, they effectively reject all of Ahmad’s prophecies regarding his progeny, which is tantamount to declaring Ahmad himself false. Yet the Lahoris do not see the contradictions within their beliefs.


1902- Another of many revelations regarding Ahmad’s family
They desire to put out your light. They desire to attack your honour. I am with you and with the members of your family. (Badr Newspaper, November 7, 1902)


1905- Ahmad prophecises Khilafat
Allah manifests two kinds of Power. (1) First He shows the Hand of His Power at the hands of His prophets themselves. (2) Second, when with the death of a prophet, difficulties and problems arise and the enemy feels stronger and thinks that things are in disarray and is convinced that now this Jamaat will become extinct and even members of the Jamaat, too, are in a quandary and their backs are broken, and some of the unfortunate ones choose paths that lead to apostasy, then it is that God for the second time shows His Mighty Power and supports and takes care of the shaken Jamaat. Thus one who remains steadfast till the end witnesses this miracle of God. This is what happened at the time of Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiqra, when the demise of the Holy Prophetsa was considered untimely and many an ignorant Bedouin turned apostate. The companions of the Holy Prophetsa, too, stricken with grief, became like those who lose their senses. Then Allah raised Abu Bakr Siddiqra and showed for the second time the manifestation of His Power and saved Islam, just when it was about to fall, and fulfilled the promise which was spelled out in the verse:

And that He will surely establish for them their religion which He has chosen for them; and that He will surely give them in exchange security and peace after their fear. (Quran 24:56)

(Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, The Will, 1905)

Ahmad clearly prophecised a second manifestation of divine power after his death. The Lahori group claim that this referred to the Anjamun (executive body). However, the Anjuman had been set up by as early as 1906 with announcements of its activities in Al Hakam newspaper. However, Ahmad  stated in the passage above that the second manifestation would come after his death and he did not die till 1908, while the Anjuman was already in existence several years prior to this. Moreover, the passage itself states the coming manifestation will be like the manifestation of Hazrat Abu Bakr and that is the manifestation of khilafat and not of an executive committee.


1906- Maulvi Muhammad Ali Sahib praises Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad
Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad is only 18 or 19 years old. Such zeal for the faith and such eagerness in support of Islam as are manifested are something out of the ordinary. Not only on this occasion, but as I have observed on every occasion the sincere eagerness comes to the surface. It is not a casual matter that the heart of the youngster in his teens should be inspired by such eagerness and ambition, because that is the age of sports and games etc. Now inquire from those black hearted people who call Hazrat Sahib an impostor whence has this true eagerness entered the heart of this young man? Falsehood is utterly foul, it's effect should have been also foul and not so pure and bright as has no equal. If a person perpetrates an imposter, he might conceal it from outside, but cannot conceal it from his own children who are in his company all the time and observe every movement of his, listen to every word of his and observe the manifestation of his thoughts on all occasions. Thus where there is imposture it must become manifest sometime or other to the wife and children of the impostor. Oh yea unfortunate ones! Do reflect whether the children of an impostor, brought up during the period of his imposture can be like this. Are your hearts not human that they cannot understand such a verity and are not affected by it. What has happened to your understanding? Do reflect! Can one whose instruction bears such a fruit be false in his claim? If he is false, then what is a sign of a true one? (Maulwi Muhammad Ali Sahib, Urdu Edition of Review of Religions, March 1906)


1908- Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad passes away


1908- Hazrat Nooruddin becomes khalifa
In the days following the death of Ahmad, a meeting was convened in which a member of the Ahmadiyya Community made the following speech:

According to the command of the Promised Messiah set out in The Will we Ahmadis, whose signatures are appended below, are sincerely convinced that all present and future members of the Ahmadiyya Community should take the pledge of spiritual allegiance, to Hazrat Nooruddin, who is the most learned and most virtuous of us all and is the most devoted and oldest friend of Hazrat Imam who held him up as an excellent example, as he said: ‘How good would it be if every member of the community were a Nooruddin, So would it be if every heart were filled with the light of the certainty of faith.’ Hazrat Maulawi Sahib’s orders will be as binding upon us, as were the orders of the Promised Messiah. (Badr Newspaper, June 2nd 1908)

Nooruddin replied:

I have for some time reflected on what shall be our situation after Hazrat Sahib. That is why I have striven that Mahmud’s education may be pushed forward. There are three likely persons among the close relatives of Hazrat Sahib. There is Mahmud Ahmad, who is both my brother and my son. I have a special relationship with him. Then Mir Nasir Nawab, being Hazrat Sahib’s father-in-law, is entitled to his respect and our respect. The third one is his son-in-law, Nawab Muhammad ‘Ali Khan. Of the devoted servants of the faith there is Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan, who possesses outstanding ability. He is a descendant of the Holy Prophetsa. Then there is Maulawi Muhammad ‘Ali who serves in ways that I cannot even conceive of. All these are available in Qadian. This is a heavy, a perilous responsibility, which can be carried only by a commissioned one of God, who has wonderful promises of divine support which sustain him against backbreaking burdens. At this time it is necessary that men and women should become united. To achieve this, pledge your allegiance to any of the revered personages I have named; I shall also do so along with you. I promise you solemnly that if you choose any one of those I have named, I shall pledge my allegiance to him along with you, but if you insist on pledging your allegiance to me then note carefully that this pledge means total commitment. Pledging allegiance is a solemn and grave matter. He who takes the pledge subordinates all his freedom and the flights of his fancy to the will of another Remember, all good proceeds from accord. A leaderless people are dead. (Hazrat Nooruddin, Badr Newspaper, June 2nd 1908)

Immediately, all the Ahmadi Muslims present at the meeting offered their allegiance to Hazrat Nooruddin with the following words:

'...This day I take the pledge of spiritual allegiance at the hand of Nooruddin, accepting all the conditions prescribed the Promised Messiah for the pledge...' (Badr Newspaper, June 2nd 1908)

Shortly after the proceedings, Kamaluddin published the following notice:

Before the funeral prayer for the Promised Messiah all members of the community who were present in Qadian and whose number was twelve hundred, accepted Hazrat Nooruddin, may Allah keep him, as his Successor and Khalifa, according to the directions set out in The Will and in conformity with the recommendation of the members of the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya then in Qadian and the relatives of the Promised Messiah, and with the permission of Hazrat Ummul Muminin and took the pledge of allegiance to him. Of the members of the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya there were present Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, Maulawi Muhammad ‘Ali…This intimation is addressed to all members of the Movement, that on its receipt they should immediately take the pledge of allegiance to Hazrat Khalifatul Masih. (Khwaja Kamaluddin, Al Hakam, May 28th 1908)

The Lahori group have claimed they could not accept Mahmud when he later became the second khalifa because he had – they allege - commited the immoral acts in 1907 and these actions were brought to the attention of Ahmad, Nooruddin and Ali. These allegations resemble those the Muslim hypocrites at the time of Muhammadsa made against his wife Ayesha. The above passages prove the falsehood of these allegations; it is clear from Kamuluddin's own notice that Mahmud was already a senior member of the Ahmadiyya Anjamun within the lifetime of Ahmad. He would not have been accepted in such a position were he a person of immoral character. Secondly, Nooruddin would not have described him as his 'son' and nominated him for the khilafat after such an incident of immorality. 

Moreover, Kamaluddin clearly accepted the khilafat as the successor of Ahmad according to his will. Both he and Ali pledged their allegiance to Nooruddin in addition to the article Kamaluddin published above, establishing this institution. They claim the institution could not continue beyond Nooruddin as there were no suitable candidates left. However, this is untrue as Nooruddin himself named several suitable candidates during the election who were still alive when Nooruddin passed away, including Mahmud.


1908- Hazrat Maulawi Muhammad Ali Sahib accepts prophethood of Ahmad
We are firmly of the view that God can make any one a prophet, a faithful one, a martyr or a righteous one. What is needed is a seeker. He to whom we swore allegiance was righteous, a chosen one of God and a holy messenger. The spirit of holiness had achieved its climax in him. (Maulawi Muhammad Ali, Al Hakam, July 18th 1908)


1909- Hazrat Nooruddin states he will be followed an authoritative khalifa
Some of you say that they are not seeking to limit my authority, but wish to clarify and define the authority of my successor, but they do not reflect that he may be greater than Abu Bakrra and Hazrat Mirza Sahibas. (Hazrat Nooruddin, Badr Newspaper, October 21, 1909)


1910- Nooruddin resigns from Anjuman; appoints Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad
Within the lifetime of Nooruddin, the seeds of the split began to emerge. Those who would later form the Lahori group argued Nooruddin gained his authority from being the president of the Anjuman rather than from his being the khalifa. Nooruddin, in his wisdom, decided to circumvent these intrigues by simply resigning from his post on the Anjuman to clearify that his authority came from his Khilafat and not from the Anjuman. Moreover, he appointed Mahmud as the new president of the Anjuman.

The Lahoris argue that they could not accept Mahmud’s khilafat as he was not appropriate for the role. Yet, they accepted him as president of the Anjuman – according to their belief a higher position than khilafat - for four full years prior to the split. They also claim the Anjuman is the ‘divine manifestation’ Ahmad prophecised would succeed him after his death. Yet they allege Mahmud was of immoral character. What sort of divinely guided institution can be headed by a man of immoral character – who himself rejects the institution’s divine nature – for four full years?


1911- Khawaja Kamaluddin Sahib accepts prophethood of Hazrat Sahib
A prophet and messenger arose in your neighbourhood. It is up to you to accept him or not. (Khwaja Kamaluddin Sahib, addressing a meeting in India, Badr Newspaper, January 26 1911)


1911- Hazrat Nooruddin names Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad as his successor
I have learnt on the most reliable authority that in [Nooruddin's] will of 1911, he set out the name of [Mahmud] as his successor. (Maulawi Muhammad Ali Sahib, Haqiq-e-Ikhtilaf)


1911- Hazrat Nooruddin condemns Maulawi Muhammad Ali & Lahori doctrines
Harken! I am Khalifatul Masih and God has made me Khalifa. I had no desire at all to be Khalifa, but now that God has invested me with this mantle, I intensely dislike all dissension. Standing in this mosque, with the Quran in my hand, I call God to witness that I had not the least desire at any time to become a spiritual preceptor. But no one knows God’s design. He did whatever He willed. He united all of you at my hands, and He Himself, and not any of you, invested me with the robe of Khilafat. It is my duty to honour and respect it.

I do not desire from you money or anything else. I do not care whether any of you offers me greetings or not. Up to April last I used to pass on your personal offerings to me to Maulawi Muhammad ‘Ali, but someone misled him and he said these offerings belonged to the Anjuman and he, as Secretary of the Anjuman, was their custodian. Thereupon I stopped sending him these monies, out of regard for the pleasure of Allah, to see what would they do about it. Those who think like that are in error and have been guilty of disrespect. They should repent; I repeat that they should repent. If they do not repent they will be in evil case.

Keep well in mind that you have no authority to remove the Khalifa. If you perceive something in me that you esteem a fault, point it out to me respectfully. It is God who appoints a Khalifa; it is not the business of men. God made Adamas a Khalifa, and also Davidas. Therefore, none of you has the authority or power to remove me. If God desires to remove me, He will cause me to die. You had better leave this matter in God’s hands; you have not the power of removal. I am not beholden to any of you. He lies who says he has made me Khalifa. 

It hurts me when I hear it said that this is the age of constitutions and parliaments; Iran and Portugal and Turkey have all set up parliaments. I affirm that he who considers this movement parliamentary and constitutional should repent of his error. What comfort do you think has been procured for Iran and others by a parliament? Many were ruined under Muhammad ‘Ali Shah, and his successors are receiving ultimatums. Have the Turks slept in peace after setting up a parliament? I remind you again that it is clearly set forth in the Holy Quran that it is God who appoints Khalifas. When He appointed Adamas he said:

I am about to place a khalifa in the earth (Quran 2:31)

The angels raised objections, but what benefit did they derive therefrom? Read the Quran and see. If that was the case with the angels and they had to confess:

Holy art Thou, no knowledge have we save that which Thou hast taught us (Quran 2:33)

Then who are you to criticise me? You had better look into your mirrors. I remember well someone saying: A parliament has been established in Iran; it is the age of constitutions. Such sentiments are disloyal and disrespectful. Those who think like this were shown the consequences of constitutionalism, by the jealousy of God, in Iran itself. I repeat they should repent even now. I have not related all this in my defence. Allah knows well that I attach no value to your approval or disapproval or rejection of me. I have told you this lest any of you should become guilty of sin by falling a victim to suspicion. (Hazrat Nooruddin, Badr, July 11, 1912)


1912- Hazrat Nooruddin again refutes entire Lahori theology while praising Mahmud
Should any one say that the Anjuman has made me Khalifa, he would utter a lie. Such ideas lead to ruin, be on your guard against them. Listen with attention once more, no man or Anjuman has made me Khalifa, nor do I consider any Anjuman competent to make any one a Khalifa. No Anjuman has made me Khalifa, nor would I have attached any value to any Anjuman’s doing so. I would not so much as spit on any Anjuman’s repudiation of me.  No one has the power to deprive me of this robe. Who do they think was entitled to be Khalifa?

There is my very dear Mahmud who is the son of my master and my benefactor. Then there are his son-in-law Nawab Muhammad ‘Ali Khan, his father-in-law Mir Nasir Nawab, and his wife the Ummul Mu’minin. These are the only ones who may be deemed to have a claim to the Khilafat. Yet it is curious that those who assert that their right has been usurped do not reflect that they are all obedient and loyal to me. They have not presented their claim to these critics. The descendants and close relatives of Hazrat 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 [sons of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad] and as do Mir Nasir Nawab and Nawab Muhammad ‘Ali Khan [son-in-laws of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad]. 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 Muminin [wife of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad] 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 Hazrat Mirza Sahib’s family obey me as Alira, Fatimara and Abbasra obeyed Abu Bakrra, 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.

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. Hazrat Mirza Sahib 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 Hazrat Mirza Sahib can be closer to us than the others. 

He who believes in Hazrat Mirza Sahib and rejects me is like the Rafdis who reject the companions of the Holy Prophetsa. The matter is quite clear, but the idlers occupy themselves with futile contentions. Hearken! My prayers reach the Throne, and my Lord fulfils my designs even before I supplicate Him. To contend with me is to contend with God. So desist and repent. Hold your peace for a short while; then he who follows after me will deal with you as God wills. Some of the matters on which you differ have been pronounced upon by Hazrat Mirza Sahib. He who goes against his pronouncement is not an Ahmadi. (Hazrat Nooruddin, Badr Newspaper, July 11, 1912)


1914- Hazrat Nooruddin passes away & the Lahoris now reject Khilafat
On March 13th 1914 Nooruddin passed away. The Ahmadiyya Community gathered at it's headquarters in Qadian and almost all of the Ahmadis demanded Mahmud become their new khalifa. This was the obvious and near unanimous decision; after all, as seen from the quotes presented above, Ahmad had prophecised on so many occasions that his son would one day lead the community while Nooruddin had already suggested him as a future khalifa on several occasions. Moreover, the most prominent leaders of the community had publicly praised his high moral character including Ahmad, Nooruddin and even the future Lahori leader Ali. Further, as he had been president of the Anjuman for the previous four years, he already held one of the most senior positions within the community. 

Now, Ali and his followers became open in their dissent for the first time. They left Qadian and moved to Lahore. They formed their own breakaway sect and claimed that the Anjuman was the true 'divine manifestation' which Hazrat Sahib had foretold would come after him. Within the Lahori sect, Ali was appointed the worldwide president for the rest of his lifetime, while Kamaluddin became a senior leader.

However, the Lahoris are to this day confronted with a problem; on the one hand they claim that the Anjuman was a divine manifestation and on the other they must accept that around half of the Anjuman split from their Lahori group and remained loyal to the khilafat. What sort of divine manifestation has half of its founding members testify to its not being a divine manifestation?


1914- The Lahori's claim early victory
With regret one notes it is being said that two thousand disciples of the Promised Messiah have accepted his Khilafat. But the number of people, with any awareness of the context prevailing in Qadian, on the question of the Khilafat, who have come out in support of Khilafat, is so low that not to speak of forty supporters, the number hardly runs to a poor, insignificant ten. (Paigham-i-Sulha, April 19th 1914)

By this time, hardly one twentieth part of the membership of the Movement has accepted him as Khalifa. (Paigham-i-Sulha, May 5, 1914)

However, within a few months the general body of Ahmadi Muslims had made their choice:

The group, agreeing with Khawaja Kamal-ud-Din, which desires to work hand in hand with the general Muslims outside the Movement and which includes many Ahmadies in Lahore, has failed in its attempt; the Section accepting Mirza Mahmud Ahmad as Khalifa has defeated the opposition group in most places. (Al-Haq, Delhi, May 22nd 1914)

It appears that the Lahoris recognised their defeat and attempted a new strategy to gain control of the movement, as was once again documented in their own publications. Their plan culminated in their giving the following set of proposals to Mahmud:

Election of the Sahibzada is held to be valid, but he would not have the authority to call the already existing membership to take fresh bai’at, at his hand, there being no discernible need for anything of this kind to be done. We are ready to accept him as our Amir in this capacity. Nor would he be considered entitled to interfere in any way with the rights and previliges, and the prerogatives, of the Anjuman Ahmadiyya vested in that body by the Promised Messiah himself, holding that the Anjuman would be considered to have succeeded him as the overall supreme authority in the affairs of the Movement. A deputation comprising the following gentlemen should wait on Sahibzada Mahmud Ahmad to place these resolutions before him, requesting his agreement on the points involved. (Paigham-i-Sulha, March 24, 1914)

Of course, Mahmud rejected out of hand the proposal that a Khalifa appointed by God should give up his authority to a group of administrators. Importantly, the incident demonstrated that the theological differences that were later brought up by the Lahoris were really of no consequence. Had the theological differences really existed or had their been any truth to the objections to Mahmud’s character that the Lahoris would later create, they would have refused to even entertain the thought of accepting a man as Khalifa whom they considered not to be correctly following the teachings of Ahmad. The most logical conclusion is perhaps the Lahoris had no care for theological differences and were in reality struggling for power.
                                                                                                  
1944- The Promised Son Prophecy Fulfilled
In 1944, Mahmud saw a blessed dream. He interpreted this dream to mean that he was indeed a fulfilment of the prophecy of The Promised Son.


1944- Maulwi Muhammad Ali Sahib mocks The Promised Son
It is a long story and I cannot discuss the prophecy of the Promised Messiah in detail within a Friday khutba...If this evil requires to be corrected then I consider that each and every member of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Community is a Promised Son and would be right in making that claim. God the Most High has Himself testified to this in the revelation of the Promised Messiah: “Our purified members are in Lahore”. As to when the Promised Son will come, Allah knows best, but if a promised mischief-maker had to come then certainly the Mian sahib can make this claim. (Maulawi Muhammad Ali Sahib, Friday Sermon, 3rd February 1944)

In the month following the above extract, Ali devoted at least three whole sermons entirely to the issue to the prophecy of The Promised Son. In not one of these lengthy sermons did he manage to actually quote the prophecy and instead gave the excuse that there was not time - even though he spent hours discussing the prophecy during these sermons. Instead, Ali devoted these sermons to insulting Mahmud and making the claim that the entire Lahori Movement were a fulfillment of this prophecy or that it may be fulfilled at some later date.

Perhaps Ali refused to quote the prophecy, because he knew that it very clearly stated it would be fulfilled with a single righteous biological son, born to Ahmad within nine years and named Bashir. It certainly could not refer to a group of unrelated people or to someone born outside the nine year period. In 1944, when Ali delivered these sermons, more than half a century had already passed since the prophecy was made. Any open minded person on hearing the prophecy (quoted in full above) would conclude it could only refer to Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad. 

It is notable that despite the prophecy being only a few paragraphs and the Lahoris having devoted a huge amount of literature to mocking this prophecy over a period of years, as far as we can tell in our extensive research, they have not once managed to quote the full prophecy or anything more than a few decontextualised words from it in their literature. They also ignore the interpretations of the prophecy made by Ahmad himself.


1952- The Lahori Group acknowledge they have failed
Thirty-seven years have passed since the day we started our work here in Lahore; but it is discouraging to note that, so far, we have failed to emerge out of the four walls, hemming us in. On the part of the Qadian Section, the steady progress of that Section continues. We have, before us, a number of young men whose fathers, or grandfathers, were ardent members of the Movement, but that spirit and ardour seems to have flown out of their own hearts. (Al-Hajj Sheikh Mian Muhammad, Paigham-i-Sulha, February 6, 1952)

Conclusion
Anyone familiar with the method of scientific investigation knows that when you wish to design an experiment, you need to be able to compare your results to a second 'control' group. The control group will be identical to the thing you are testing, except they will be different in a single characteristic, which is the characteristic you wish to test.

As far as Ahmadiyya goes, we have been given a divine example of this perfect scientific method. We have two groups, the Qadiani group and the Lahori group, which were formed at exactly the same time. They were both extremely small and both followed Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. The only major difference between the two is that one had a Khalifa and the other didn't.

So, this was a perfect opportunity to test the divine help that Khilafat receives; if the group with the Khilafat failed then we could call this Khilafat false. If the group with Khilafat had some success, but the group without Khilafat also had similar success, we could still state the Khilafat has had no effect. However, if the group without Khilafat failed and the group with Khilafat enjoyed success, then it could be considered a sign of divine support for the Khilafat.
  
So, if we look at the state of the two parties in the 100 years since their separation, we see only one party progressing. The followers of the khalifa have become established in almost every country in the world, built thousands of mosques, built hundreds of free schools and free hospitals in some of the poorest parts of the world, had a Nobel Prize winner, had a head of the World Bank, had a leader of the United Nations, a leader of the International Court of Justice, numerous prominent religious, academic and secular leaders, a Grammy award winning musician etc. etc. The Qadiani group were also the first in the world to launch a 24/7 global Islamic TV channel in 1994 and perhaps to this day this channel remains the only advert-free Islamic channel in the world.
                                                                                                   
Meanwhile, independent researchers who have no association with Ahmadiyya found that there are millions and millions of Qadianis worldwide. Moreover, they admit that it is the fastest growing sect of the fastest growing religion in the world. Annually, there are over half a million new converts to the Qadiani branch of Islam Ahmadiyya. On the other hand, you only need to read through the literature and speeches of the Lahori leaders to see that they themselves are saying that the condition of their group is truly lamentable. Their numbers have dwindled to such an extent that we have it from a reliable source that at their international centenary annual convention in 2008 at their center in Lahore there were only 70 attendees from around the entire world, so it seems that there worldwide population struggles to muster even 100 members. The same year, the current khalifa of the Qadiani Ahmadis graced annual conventions in several countries. In Ghana there were 150,000 attendees, 30,000 in Germany, 30,000 in the UK, 10,000 in the USA, 20,000 in Canada. In previous years there have been 70,000 in India, 250,000 in Pakistan, and thousands more in countries such as Indonesia, Bangladesh, Australia, numerous African countries and even Israel.

Of course, the Lahoris argue that numbers of followers within a group makes no difference to the truth and this statement does have some merit to it. However, they must also bear in mind that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had been promised support and divine blessings from Allah for his truthful followers and that no divine movement has failed to increase in number and progress.

Then, when the present khalifa, Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad visited the Lahori Berlin Mosque in 2011, we have heard that they stated they were struggling to financially maintain the mosque and offered to sell it to him.

The most reasonably conclusion appears to be that Allah has judged between the two parties and has declared the truthfulness of the Khalifa. The Qadiani branch of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community will continue to pray for and lovingly invite our Lahori brothers and sisters to return home and reunite with us at the hands of khilafat.

145 comments:

  1. This is amazing. Compiling everything in a single blogpost is beautiful & very beneficial. May Allah Bless you for this great service.

    I actually know a few lahoris in-person & all I will say is Alhamdulillah Alhamdulillah Alhamdulillah we have Khilafat.

    Lahoris are just like any non-Ahmadi sect. No real leader. Promised Messiah (as) came & went. His teachings are in books & pamphlets but no one to actually explain or elaborate on them.

    I can write a lot on this subject but will just say this...
    Prophet Muhammad (SAW) came, his 4 Khulafa followed. After that Muslim Ummah had no leader for next approximately 1300 years. During this time the Ummah went astray, adapted wrongful customs etc. Holy Qur'an & Ahadith books were present yet Muslims paid no heed.
    Promised Messiah (as) came to explain the beautiful Holy Qur'an & teachings of Prophet Muhammad (SAW). If there was no one that followed him, then his explanations would be just words as well after a while which is exactly what has occurred with lahoris.

    I will end by just three small (paraphrased) quotes.
    "Promised Messiah (as) books are written in very complicated urdu and even if you master urdu, some are still very difficult to understand" - Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad (aba) [Ref: Waqf-e-Nau Class]

    "Promised Messiah (as) books use a very complicated dialect of urdu and finding equivalent phrases in English is very difficult which is why even Sir Zafrullah Khan sahib could not translate Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya entirely" - Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad (rh) [Ref: Q&A session in sweden]

    "Huzur (aba) remarked that there are a number of Fijian Ahmadis in Australia, some of our separated brothers who belong to the ‘Lahore Group’ are also settled here – a few of these came to see Huzur and Huzur felt they had an inclination towards the truth of the Jama’at but had some hesitation to come forward. Huzur said he had advised them to overcome this hesitation." [Friday Sermon 2006]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Ahmad/Jack Frost Sahibs

      Both of you have made interesting and important points.

      As Ahmad Sahib has pointed out, this sums it up best: 'I can write a lot on this subject but will just say this'.

      We felt exactly the same way. We could have presented so much more information, which support the Qadiani side, but there were several reasons we couldn't fit it in, the most obvious being the article is already very long.

      For example, the books 'The Truth about The Split' and 'The Truth Prevails' available on alislam have a much more detailed history and a much more detailed set of arguments and are great reference/background material for those researching this issue. Also, we read a lot of Lahori Ahmadi literature (eg. books by Maulvi Muhammad Ali Sahib) and we could easily have published extracts from these just to cruelly point out all the inconsistencies, contradictions and every example of these Ahmadi 'leaders' insulting and abusing in the foulest terms the children of the very man they claim to believe is Allah's Messiah.

      However, we wanted to keep it short and we also decided that as we bear no ill will towards our Lahori brothers and only feel love and sympathy towards them we will not make it too harsh.

      The reason I'm making this point is that if any Ahmadi who isn't fully aware of these issues and reads our articles and thinks 'oh it wasn't such a big deal' they should be aware that at the time it was a huge deal and was a really terrible tragedy, but due to our own limitations we have not been able to fully express the awful nature of the Split.

      Delete
  2. Just to add something extremely crucial. In the actual Urdu in Aik Ghalti ka Azalah, the Promised Messiah (as) says the following:

    cAll the doors leading to Prophethood have been closed except the door of Sirat-e-Siddiqi, in other words, Fana fir-Rasul".

    Fana fir-Rasul is the term he uses for his Nabuwwat, which means complete destruction of the ego and self and annihilation within the Prophet Muhammad (sa). It means he followed every single Sunnah of our Master Muhammad (sa) including physical sunnahs and inner sunnahs, and it is because of this that he was raised to the level of a reflection of the Prophet (sa) (also known as zill) and therefore an Ummati Nabi.

    This should be emphasized and understood by our Ahmadi Muslim brothers and sisters. He was not a Prophet independently on his own, but only through the Prophet Muhammad (sa).

    ReplyDelete
  3. And there is also another prophecy of the split by Hadhrat sahib that is maybe even more explicit in its content:

    God has conveyed to me that there would be a great split in my Movement as well, and mischief makers and those who are the slaves of their own desires will depart... It will be the time of my Promised Son (Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad). God has decreed these events in connection with him... Be sure to recognize the Promised Son.

    — Tadhkirah pg. 1066–1067

    ReplyDelete
  4. And there are quite a few narrations proving that early on, Hadrat Mawlana Muhammad Ali (ra) believed that the Promised Messiah (as) is indeed a Prophet, and believed firmly in Khilafat.

    Even in his later writings he writes that the Promised Messiah is a Buruzi Nabi.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @ The author of above article

    You should be very proud of yourself. It is very well written and probably the best one I have read on this blog.

    Love the placebo analogy.

    Penguin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Penguin

      That's very kind of you to say so.

      The Rash raised this issue a few weeks ago and some Ahmadis and people like za were discussing it so even though we hadn't originally wanted to talk about it, we thought it was necessary to do so.

      Don Vito did the original research by finding a comprehensive hour long discussion of this history by Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad on youtube. The problem was that the video was in Urdu and on this site we try to avoid presenting non-English language videos unless they have subtitles. The second obvious problem was that the references and quotes Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad had given were also in Urdu, so although we could reproduce his arguments the references and quotes were a lot more difficult. At that point Jack Frost found the biography of Hadhrat Maulvi Nooruddin which is written by Hadhrat Chaudry Zafrullah Khan Sahib is is referenced and has a lot of the stuff we needed.

      From there, The Robin and I were much more easily able to write the refutation. We used the arguments of Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad in conjunction with the references from that biography etc. It really was a team effort.

      And it is worth noting that the placebo argument was one of the five or six points presented by Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad in the video we watched...another example of the blessings of Khilafat!

      Delete
    2. The great man Mirza Tahir Ahmad, he had a way of getting through no matter how dense the challange was.

      I learned a lot from reading this artile so I am grateful to all of you mentioned in Batman's comment.

      And to Rash and likeminded - the placebo arguments puts things in perspective. Something to mull over while waiting to die.

      Penguin

      Delete
    3. @Penguin

      Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad was truly amazing. The way he explained that argument was very short and simple. He told the Lahori brothers to look at themselves and look at us and see what has happened since the split and make up their own minds as to who is and isn't getting divine favours.

      At the end of the whole answer, which was an hour long, he also said that this is enough now and any person with an open and honest mind who has listened to what I said will no what the actual truth of the matter is and I had listened and agreed with him 100%.

      I listened to the answer of Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad and basically I reckon he explained about six different arguments over the hour and obviously the above article is largely based on those explanations.

      Delete
  6. @ Admin/Author of article

    Echo what penguin said great article. long, readable and clear arguments. Any Aunty with issues need only be given the link to this article. Great work

    Phoenix

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Pheonix

      Thanks for the feedback. :)

      Delete
  7. @ All Ahmadis

    The truth is:

    Lahoris were embarrased to be Ahmadis. They were embarrassed to be led by a 25 year old who failed his matriculation and was accused of illicit behavior in 1907.

    They thus downgraded the claims of Mirza sahib and made a profit off of his dogma.

    Lahoris= Diet Ahmadis

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @The Rash

      So whenever You come , you show such a beautiful mentality that I left with wondering what kind of upbringing you got in young age.

      Do you know that our beloved prophet was illiterate yet he (as) was the king of all the prophets.
      so what the fuss about failing in matriculation then ?

      age 25 ??

      Now where it was written that age is a limiting factor in becoming a caliph ? Quran ? Hadith ? Bible ?

      all is the product of your imagination.

      accused of illicit relation ??

      May God curse on the liars.
      you have been told repeatedly that Quran bars the true believers in indulging such kind of allegations. but since when you ahve ever cared about the quran


      batman has rightly pointed out that how much you hate quran . You damn care of what God has written in his book . You damn care what Quran wants from us.

      as long as some allegation is satisfying your inner filthy nature , you are happy to throw quran or hadith demands.


      whats your religion ? ( Its not the Islam of course)
      do you really believe in GOD? ( then show it by your action. mater of truth is we do not see any thing in your comments which show that you honour the word of the God)


      -----------------------------------------
      They thus downgraded the claims of Mirza sahib and made a profit off of his dogma.
      ------------------------------------------

      again the same mentality of thinking everything in term of money. I wonder how much PROFIT you can see in the fights which were fought between Muslims and Kuffars.

      Why (according to your filthy nature) those fights were not the fought to get food and money ?

      ( The Rash, I wonder when will you sell yourself to JEWS for attacking Islam. The way you talk about money and the way you say that you can sell your faith for few pennies , I do not see any reason you would ever be able to resist the temptation to join their hands.
      but keeping in the abysmal performance over here, I do not see any bright prospect for you. )

      Pathetic Rash, So pathetic.

      Delete
    2. @ Khalida

      1. I was raised an Ahmadi....go and look in the mirror. My behavior stems from indoctrination at Jalsas and Ijtemas.

      2. I already explained this to you. 1400 years ago it was common to be illiterate. However, in British India, 100 years ago, if you had all the means and a good family, literacy was an easy goal. However, Mian sahib was a failure.

      2.a. Why dont you enjoin all Ahmadis to fail matriculaiton then. Since you applaude this thing. You might as well.

      3. Have you never heard of the incident of 1907?

      Mahmud Ahmad sahib writes that Kwaja Kamalludin was a hypocrite since 1896. He then says the same of Muhammad Ali. He basically says that these people were never really Ahmadis.

      I conclude that they were only Ahmadis for the financial potential. As we know, Muhammad ALi was the highest paid employee of Mirza sahib. He even fell into debt once and Mirza sahib paid off all of those debts with chanda money.

      Delete
    3. @The Rash

      You shouldn't make stuff up right after I have read virtually everything on a subject.

      1- Hadhrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad wasn't illiterate. What are you talking about? Did it pass you buy that there are about 20 books written by him including an enormous commentary of The Holy Qu'ran. He clearly had a masterful grasp of both Arabic and Urdu.

      2- He stated that he believed Maulvi Muhammad Ali had been a sincere Ahmadi Muslim. He never wrote anything of the sort you write.

      Delete
    4. @ batman

      1. I never said that Mahmud Ahmad sahib was illiterate. However, he was close. The school that he attended in Qadian....95% of India could have never had that opportunity. In fact, Batalvi, the famous opponent of Mirza sahib even sent his sons there in 1910, sir Muhammad Iqbal even praised the aura of academia there. Im fact, in 1910 or so, most of the school was non-Ahmadi.

      2. Mahmud Ahmad sahib didnt commentate on the entire Quran. In fact, he missed the most important surahs, 3-9 and of course he missed 33. Look it up.

      3. He claimed that in 1908, just days before Mirza sahib died...Muhammad Ali accused him of missapropriation of funds....what kind of Ahmadi is that? Do you call that sincere? Or do you call that hypocrisy and financial opportunism.

      4. The al-fazl wrote in the 1930's that Muhammad Ali was the highest paif employee of the anjuman.

      Delete
  8. @ All Ahmadis

    In my honest opinion...Mirza Tahir Ahmad sahib avoided all discussions that included the Lahoris because it is a black eye on the business ventures of Ahmadiyyat.

    Further, the attempted refutation by Mirza Tahir Ahmad sahib has no reference given. Again....this shoddy blog has proved that there is no academic integrity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What are you talking about? Why don't you try reading the article and seeing it's all referenced? You might also notice that none of it's written by Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad.

      As usual, your comment makes no sense.

      Delete
    2. @ batman

      Once again you fail to understand my question.

      1. I am asking for a reference to the Q&A session that Mirza Tahir Ahmad sahib held. Is it available in audio? Is it available in urdu text?

      THERE IS NO REFERENCE LISTED!!!!!!!!

      You need to take a college class on referencing young boy!!

      Delete
    3. @The Rash

      I struggle to believe you have a university education. It would shock me if you have even passed a single year as you clearly don't have a clue what you're on about.

      The Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad quote wasn't given a reference as 1- We already mentioned it is available on youtube 2- We mentinoed it's in Urdu 3- It only mentioned the video exists. The views expressed in the video were not part of the refutation so there was absolutely no need to give a reference.

      Your request is as stupid as me mentioning by the by that there is a video of a deer being dragged into a South African river by a crocodile on youtube and you demanding a reference.

      Delete
    4. @ batman

      And here comes the mud-slinging. How can you ever censor me? You are the one who starts it everytime.

      Academic lesson 1, if you claim that someone said something, you must give a reference.

      1. Where is the youtube link?

      And now you call me stupid? Years of Ahmadi training I guess....

      Delete
    5. @ batman

      A few years back, I had listened to this audio by Mirza Tahir Ahamd sahib:

      http://www.askislam.org/religions_and_beliefs/islam/sects/ahmadiyyat/question_369.html

      Where's your reference?

      Delete
  9. @Rash

    The Lahoris clearly had no theological issue, or problem with Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad otherwise they would have not offered to join with him and try and usurp power and authority. You would know this if you read the article with ample references to various writings and data.

    Phoenix

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ phoenix

      I am an expert on the split. You are wrong. The Lahoris felt that Ahmadiyyat needed to support Muslims (see Cawnpore incident of 1913), whereas Mahmud Ahmad sahib's policy was isolating from Muslims.

      This policy by the Lahoris obliged them to drop certain beliefs of Mirza sahib, i.e. Prophethood, Takfeer, Ismuhu Ahmad.

      My brain is bigger than yours.


      Delete
    2. @Rash

      Use your bigger brain and address the data above. Use an actual argument for once.
      Premise 1 (supported by data) ----> Premise 2 (Supported by Data)-----> Conclusion.

      Premise 1 and 2 should follow and not be totally unconnected statements. See Easy.

      Please don't present your worthless opinion in place of the above.

      Phoenix

      Delete
    3. @Phoenix/Rash

      I think Phoenix is correct- but Rash (for once) isn't wrong either.

      Khwaja Kamaluddin and Maulvi Muhammad Ali do certainly have seemed to have believed that they could 'water down' Ahmadiyya beliefs and win popularity with the Muslims. In this, Rash is correct.

      However, in the end you have to agree with Phoenix. There is documented evidence in the Lahoris own literature that they tried to rejoin with Hadhrat Musleh Maud. The theological issues weren't of particular importance to them, or they could never have agreed to accept a Khalifa who totally and openly agreed with everything they said.

      There only real issue seems to have been power. They wanted it in their hands and that was it.

      Delete
    4. @ Batman and Phoenix

      Those Lahori Ahmadis didnt care about religion....they were looking to turn a profit off of Islam and modernism.

      They created an Islam that was open to the western world and then wanted Muslims to accept them, that way they could reach a wider audience....

      However, they were wrong....the Qadiani side of the house became so popular that the Lahoris couldnt bend the beliefs of Mirza Sahib any longer.....after 1968, they declined rapidly.

      Delete
    5. @Rash/Batman

      What is interesting is that common sense would have dictated that with the Lahoris "watered down" version that should have appealed to to a broader consensus, they would have been more popular in both the existing Ahmadi Muslims and beyond. The Qadiani version had a number of rather difficult almost insurmountable hurdles:

      1. Promoting a PROPHET Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad AS when most traditional mass Muslims understood Khatam an Nabiyeen to mean final Prophet.

      2. The over zealous hate and vitriol generated by the above which continue today.

      3. Tradionalists not wanting to accept a simple man from the Punjab (NOT AN ARAB) was the foretold Messiah

      4. The wrong type of Messiah similar to Hazrat Isa AS time. The Muslims wanted a war hungry bloody messiah to kill Gog and Magog and lead his armies to the Promised land with Muslims ruling the world.

      5. The coming of the Promised Messiah AS in the form of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad AS went against the traditions which had been interpreted literally and were believed literally.

      6. Khalifatul Masih II AS was quite ardent and definitive in his beliefs and convictions especially when declaring those who rejected the one sent by Allah would doom themselves to disbelief. This was hardly an inclusive statement which is what the Lahoris wanted so they watered down the beliefs.

      Despite all the above the Qadiani Ahmadi Muslims flourished disproportionately as compared with the Lahori brethren. AFAICT this is an indication of divine favour as the article points out.

      Phoenix

      Delete
    6. @ Phoenix

      I agree...the Lahori policy should have worked...and, in fact, it did, Muhammad Ali became a millionaire off of royalties from the sale of his Qurans. That's all he really wanted anyways...

      Then, Lahoris were representing Muslims in the UK for 50+ years....they used Woking as their international headquarters.

      However, Muslims quickly learned that these Lahoris believed that Mirza sahib was an honest man....

      Like I said...they are Diet-Ahmadiyyat.

      In conclusion, the Qadian side of the house only began to flourish after the acquisition of Rabwah. Mahmud Ahmad sahib got super rich and people joined Ahmadiyyat in flocks. Moving to Rabwah to lease land at lower rates then the rest of the country.

      Delete
    7. @Rash Agree apart from your conclusion obviously.

      Why would the acquisition of Rabwah have made any difference??

      It is hard to imagine people would join Ahmadiyyat Islam given the obvious theological issues, for lower rent???

      Can you imagine that?? If my bank said we will halve your mortgage payments if you become Christian, I wouldn't exactly be genuflecting the next day. Given the very difficulty theological hurdles it is likely only genuine belief would create that kind of conviction

      It is more likely they genuinely believed despite the difficulties which in my eyes at least is a sign of divine favour. But that's me.

      Phoenix

      Delete
    8. @ phoenix

      Its the appeal factor. Ahmadiyyat was Islamic-modernism in the 1950's in Pakistan. It was islamic-liberalism. It was islamic-forward-thinking. It was a roadmap to being a successful person in the industrialized world.

      However, after Muslims began to read about the inner dogma...the con was up.

      Lahoris knew that Mirza sahib was a liability and moved away from him as much as they could....however, the sons of Mirza sahib would not move away from their father, no matter how weird his beliefs were.

      Also, We have to remember..some Ahmadis claimed that Mirza sahib was a law-bearing prophet.

      Delete
  10. @batman
    great post. I enjoyed reading it, though read it superficially only. The way ahmadiyyat progressed under the Rule of 25 year boy fill my heart with pure faith in the institution of khilafat.

    May God bless our beloved caliphs
    ammen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Khalida

      You shold encourage more Ahmadis to fail in highschool.

      Delete
  11. Brilliant as usual Mr Batman and Team!
    I enjoyed it so much that I read it twice. Keep up the good work, It may not be having too much of an effect on people like rash but people like me have learnt alot from this site. Alhamdolillah!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Salaam

      I have also read it twice and will read it again as I have learnt some points that I did not know thank you. This is very important for our youngsters as I know many of them are reading here now so well done @B,team you are definitely in the right direction for the sake of our faith and community Alhumdolillah.
      But I have to say there is a breath of fresh air around here LOL

      Delete
    2. @White Dove

      Thanks! The books Truth about the Split by the Second Khalifa and Truth Prevails by Faruqi Sahib have much more detailed histories, but we left most of that information out for the reasons stated in the article...just mentioning in case anyone wants to do further reading to get a full overview.

      Thanks for all your kind comments. Salam.

      Delete
    3. Alhamdolillah, nice to hear positive feedback. JazakAllah

      Delete
    4. @ batman

      Faruqi wrote Truth Triumphs, not Truth Prevails. That was written by Qazi Muhammad Nazeer.

      Have you been hallucinating or was it a typo??

      I told you....reading too much about Ahmadiyyat might drive you crazy.

      Delete
    5. Typo- mixed up my authors, thanks for pointing out.

      Delete
    6. @ batman

      You would have called me a liar and then a Kafir.

      Delete
  12. @ all Ahmadis

    Shaikh Hamza Yousaf has issued a clarfication of his earlier comments on Ahmadiyyat:

    http://sandala.org/blog/2012/10/06/sticks-and-stones-may-break-our-bones-but-fitna-really-hurts-us/#comment-7325

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Rash Sheikh Hamza Yousaf has been branded a Kafir by plenty of Muslims for his views on the Lahoris. no wonder he is flip flopping

      Phoenix

      Delete
    2. absolute peer pressure..seems he got a bit scared when he heard that he is being called kafir..lol, so much for a scholar...when university praises work of muhammad ali, he follows..then retracts his statement out of fright.

      !PEACE!

      Delete
    3. I used to like Shaykh Hamza...

      Delete
    4. RE: Sheikh Hamza

      Someone has emailed me asking for a refutation of Sheikh Hamza's views. I would be happy to publish one if someone else writes it, but I personally see no need and have no intention of writing it.

      The reason is simple. We already pointed out the hate campaign being conducted against Sheikh Hamza:

      http://cultgirlahmadiyya.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/finding-findings-fridays-file-xii-cult.html

      It seems he doesn't hold great convictions in his views and a few people calling him Kafir has scared him right out of them...it's not much of a surprise as the word 'Kafir' and 'Worth of Death' seem to be interchangeable when it comes to Ahmadis. It also shows he has a lot less strength in his beliefs than Ahmadis do, who regularly endure death for our beliefs.

      Yusuf's blog also reads like a long statement saying 'I know nothing about Ahmadiyya and don't pay attention to any of my views on the subject'. Of course we has paraphrased, but that is essentially what he has said and actually I commend him in his honesty.

      However, what I would point out is that it makes no difference to my life or anyone else's on this blog, as Yusuf had already clearly stated that he believed 'Qadiani' Ahmadis were kafir. The only change in his belief is that he has now thrown Lahoris into his little kafir-pit too, which might make a few of their group upset but doesn't really bother me...I'm happy for them to join me in Yusuf's kafir-pit and I hope it's a prelude to their joining me in the true Islam- Islam Ahmadiyya.

      None of it changes Yusuf's most important statements. He has openly admitted that Ahmadis have produced the greatest refutations of Christianity and at no point has he retracted that view. He has now even stated that Al-Azar, the most scholarly non-Ahmadi institution in the world today, endorses the works of Ahmadis, all of which are based on the work of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad:

      http://cultgirlahmadiyya.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/books-eik-esai-kay-teen-sawal-aur-un.html

      So fine, Yusuf has chickened out of his support of Lahoris. It's a shame for Lahoris and it's a shame for Yusuf's credibility as a so-called independent scholar, but it does probably suit his career. So be it. I wish Yusuf well and I console the Lahoris on their loss.

      Delete
    5. I've read Hamza Yusuf's blog, and I have to say that it a well written article with a good balance in it. Some are objecting that Hamza Yusuf labels Ahmadi Qadianis as kafir. But reading the whole article he's explaining why. He's a traditional Muslim who follows the consensus and respect the silsila (chain) of fuqaha going back to the Prophet (saw). He 's namely referring to Tahawi's creed, which is a text composed by one of the early Muslims in a time wherein many sects with different beliefs have been formed. In defending the future generations against these wrong beliefs and sects, he has composed this text which stipulates the basic beliefs of Ahle Sunnat wa Jamaat. One point reads as follows: 'Every claim to prophecy after him (saw) is a deviation and heressy' . The Aqeeda was written in ca 300 after hijrah.

      Nowhere does Hamza Yusuf incite violence against Ahmadis or even indicate that Ahmadis don't have the right to call themselves Muslims. In that sense, his view is less extreme than Mires Bashiruddin's statement that all Muslims are kafir and non-muslims by not accepting Mirza Sahib. In fact, Hamza showed respect for the Academic results by the Lahoris, and because he's very careful in declaring others as kafirs, he indicated that Lahoris are not kafirs because they didn't violate the above rule on prophecy. Later on, he realised that there's a consensus on Lahoris, which he wasn't aware of. As a traditional muslim he follows the consensus because he hadn't studied Ahmadiyya to the fullest to give his opinion on the Lahoris.

      He ends his blog by stating that he doesn't have any hate to anyone. Also not regarding to Ahmadis.

      Delete
    6. @za

      If my comment regarding Yusuf comes across as harsh or rude then I apologise, althought I also wished him well at the end.

      All I said in the comment- and I stand by it- is that it looks to me like Yusuf Sb doesn't know very much about Ahmadiyya and has admitted so in his blog. You yourself have basically come to the same conclusion in your own comment.

      By the way, did you get a chance to read the article above? It was written based on your own queries which raised a few weeks ago now regarding the split.

      If you have any questions regarding it, let me know.

      Delete
    7. I predicted all of this....

      I told you people that many Muslims who werent experts on Ahmadiyyat had given positive statements about your cult.

      It is very hard to be an expert on Ahmadiyyat. I dont reccomend anyone to try....it will affect morals and it might drive Muslims into Atheism.

      However, as a former-Ahmadi I am stuck and responsible for this defamation of world culture by the Mirza fmaily. Thus, I have no choice.

      Delete
    8. @the Batman, yes I have read your article on the split. It gives a complete overview as seen from the 'Qadiani' Ahmadi viewpoint.

      I remember that I asked something about the theological split between Lahoris and Qadianis on prophethood. Now I have read 'Truth about the split' by Mirza Bashirudin Ahmad sahib, the question has become more clear for me. How I see it is that Muhammad Ali was shocked by the article written by Mirza Bashirudin wherin he declared the whole Muslim community as kafirs and non-muslims. With his foresight he expected that at some point in the future this would revenge itself as it has happened in the history of Pakistan.

      After the split Muhammad Ali sahib just gave up and didn't spend much energy to holding the Lahori as an apart sect, but was aiming for annihilation with the large Muslim Community. That's why they don't play a marginal role. It hasn't to do anything with blessing or something like that, but with the policy the Lahoris performed thereafter.

      Delete
    9. @za

      I do not know if the following quotes will help u understand the position of Khalifatul Masih 11, but here goes:

      Book:
      Truth prevails..
      http://www.alislam.org/library/books/truth_prevails/chapter_7_section_2.html


      -----------------------------

      Hazrat Khalitfatul Masih II stated before The Inquiry Commission that the Promised Messiah is a Nabi, and to deny him constitutes kufr and he also explained that this kufr is not of the first kind which results from a denial of the Kalima "there is no one worthy of worship except Allah and Mohammad (saw) is His Apostle."

      ----------------
      When Khalifatul Masih 11 was asked: "Does not the denial of a true Prophet amount to kufr ?

      He replied: "Yes, it does amount to kufr. But kufr is of two kinds: one which throws a man out of the Millat ; the second which does not entail exclusion from the Millat. Denial of the Muslim Kalima is kufr of the first kind; while kufr of the second kind results from other minor denials, or wrong beliefs."

      In the Court of Inquiry, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih was asked: "Do you hold Mirza Sahib to be among the Mamurin, faith in whom is essential for qualifying a man to be called a Muslim?" He replied he had answered the question already, that a man who does not accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, he cannot be held to have gone out of the pale of Islam.
      -------------
      Hazrat Khalifatul Masih was asked: "Do you still hold the belief what you had written in the first chapter of A'ina-i-Sadaqat, page 35, that all those Muslims who did not yield a pledge of bai'at to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, even if they had never heard of him, they are kafirs, and outside the pale of Islam?

      The reply from Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II was:

      "It is evident from this statement itself that the people here I have in mind I take as Muslims. Therefore, when I use the word kafir, I have in my mind kafirs of the second kind which I have defined already, i.e., they are not driven or thrown out of the Millat. When I say they are outside the pale of Islam I have in my mind the view, by Mufradat-i-Raghib on page 240, where Islam has been shown to be of two kinds: one lower than the stage of Iman ; the other above the stage of Iman. In Dunal Iman, in the stage of lower than common Iman, are included people whose Islam remains at a level lower than a proper Iman and in the stage of higher than the common Iman are Muslims who stand at a level of distinction in their faith, higher than the common level. This is why I said that some people fall outside the pale of Islam, I had in my mind people who come under the category of Dunal Iman. There is an authentic Hadith in Mishkat as well, where the Holy Prophet said: `Whosoever helps a man who is unjust, he puts himself thereby out of the pale of Islam.'"

      ---------------------

      From 'truth about the split' bu khalifatul masih 11, pg 146:

      'It is true that we do not consider them to be Kafir billah (deniers of God) but how can we doubt that, they were kafir-bil-ma-mur (deniers of a God's messenger)?


      !PEACE!

      Delete
    10. @!PEACE!, I haven't read the book, but a true observer would notice that Mirza Bashirudin sb has changed his claim. In the truth about the split he has said that they're non muslims. And nowhere in that book he made the above distinction about kufr.

      Delete
    11. @ZA

      If the Lahori Movements aim was to " but was aiming for annihilation with the large Muslim Community."

      then this failed miserably as well. Neither has the main body of Muslims ever accepted them nor did the Qadiani Ahmadi Muslims ever get annihilated infact they grew disproportionately despite the obvious hurdles I have already talked about.

      I don't think you can say definitively the growth of the Ahmadiyya Jamaat is NOT a blessing. Certainly on the face of it with limited numbers and resources and very difficult theologcal hurdles the growth "could" be due to blessings from Allah.

      Phoenix

      Delete
    12. @za

      He hasn't changed his claim at all. Nowhere does he call them Muslims, in fact he repeatedly refers to them as Muslims throughout the book. He says they have done kufr of God's messenger- which is true. We have had this discussion before.

      You said you were going to do istikhara for two weeks. Did you manage to?

      Delete
    13. @Batman Is there a typo above???

      Phoenix

      Delete
    14. @Phoenix

      Oops yes. 'Nowhere does he call them NON-Muslims'- although he does question whether their Islam will be accepted in eyes of Allah (as they have rejecetd a prophet) he doesn't himself say they are non-Muslims and repeatedly refers to them as 'those Muslims who reject the Promised Messiah' etc.

      Thanks for pointing this out.

      Delete
    15. @za

      the last quote is from the book: truth abt the split..

      it is consistent with the first quote before the comission enquiry..so I dnt think he changed his claim

      !PEACE!

      Delete
    16. @PEACE, I know that the last quote was from the truth about the split. But this quote hasn't to do with being a Muslim or not. In fact as I remember this quote was also used to make a point by Bashiruddin Sb, namely that it is also applicable to Christians who believe in Allah, but not in the Prophet(saw). I will get the exact quote from truth about the split, where he's declared the Muslim Ummah as non-muslims.

      Delete
    17. @za

      I have the quote, u dnt need to go thru the trouble.

      AS u note above, he has later (during the enquiry comission) explained what he meant by non-muslim n 'outside teh pale of islam'.

      So there is no pt arguing really, bcoz this is simply a matter of whether u believe him to be truthful or not. We ahmadis believe him to be truthful, and when we read that he later clarified what he meant, we accept him as we trust in his integrity, honesty.

      But u dnt, u believe he was lying in frnt of the comission....Isnt that like claiming to know what's in somebody's mind n heart better than the person himself?

      we consider all his works together and then undertand the issue, u have chosen to understand it as u wish even though he has clealry stated that's what he meant in 'truth abt the split' and this is what ahmadis believe too.

      so, no arguing really.

      we trust his honesty, we believ in his words.

      u dnt trust his honesty n u chose to see him as manipulative.

      Not trying to be rude, but just stating a fact.


      Makes me think of the accusation on Hadhrat Muhammad (saw)..people say he married aisha when she was too young..we muslims try to explain to them that 1)firstly, she might not have been so young..2)even if she was, it was normal at that time..3)she was happy n nobody had objected...4)it was not a marriage of lust (god forbid!)..but non-muslims choose to believe that he wasnt a man of integrity...so we muslims believe in his integrity and righteousness, that's y we put this issue in a diff. perspective but non-muslims who do not believe him (saw) to be righteous choose to see lust in his behaviour (Astaghfirullah!)

      same thing happening here.

      !PEACE!

      Delete
    18. @phoenix, as I have pointed out, I haven't read the book truth prevails, so I can't comment on that. Now, personally I think that 'truth about the split'is so clear that there isn't any additional explanation needed.

      And if Mirza Bashirudin sahib comes with an other explanation later in his, then I have to conclude that he has changed his opinion on this. Nothing wrong with that.

      In any case, I want to give the quotes in the book that he has defined Muslims an not muslims, because there seems to be some doubt about that :

      'A Muslim is one
      who believes in all the Messengers of God.' The title
      itself is sufficient to show that the article was not
      meant to prove merely that those who did not accept
      the Promised Messiahas were deniers of the Promised
      Messiahas'. Its object rather was to demonstrate that
      those who did not believe in the Promised Messiahas
      were not Muslims

      Page 144. In the following pages he proves his objective with the sayings of Mirza Sahib.

      Delete
    19. Regarding the main subject of my article, I wrote
      that as we believed the Promised Messiahas to be one
      of the Prophets of God, we could not possibly regard
      his deniers as Muslims. It is true we did not consider
      them to be kafir billah, (deniers of God), but how
      could we doubt that, they were kafir-bil-ma’mur
      (deniers of a God’s Messenger)?

      page 146, no it is clear that Mirza Bashiruddin says that Muslims are non-muslims, but they're not deniers of God, and equating their level as the Christians and Jews.

      Delete
    20. @za

      For all of our benefit, please recount the six articles of faith in Islam. At the end of them let us know if you find Hadhrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad's statements at all in contradiction with those statements. No he did not change his opinion and I have already shown you in the past a video of Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad's in which he airs the same opinion which is the obvious fact that if Allah sends a prophet and a person does not accept him he 'disbelieves' and steps out of the pale of Islam. This is obvious and you can tell me it yourself. Tell me, what is the status of someone who calls themselves a Muslim but vehemently denies Jesus?

      This has always been the Ahmadi position and remains so. Hadhrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad also in that book continues to refer to non Ahmadis as Muslims throughout so to say otherwise is unfair. He simply points out the obvious facts that if Allah sends a prophet and a person rejects him, that person becomes a disbeliever in the eyes of Allah. That's a simple concept and there is no controversy in this as every single Muslim sect believes this.

      The only question is whether Hadrat Sahib was a prophet of God. It seems you are certain he wasn't so good for you, you have nothing to worry about in that case and I don't see why you are becoming so upset about a statement that you cannot possibly believe applies to you. There is no controversy whatsoever- accept for insincere controversy- either amongst the Ahmadis or non-Ahmadis about the status of one who rejects a prophet of God.

      As I have repeatedly explained now, the only question that has any controversy is of whether Hadhrat Sahib was truthful. I have made my conclusion and you have made yours. That's the end of the controversy and absolutely nothing to argue over here.

      Delete
    21. The above words apply not
      merely to those who take an active part in denouncing
      the Promised Messiahas; but every person who fails to
      accept him is NOT A MUSLIM

      PAGE 147

      Delete
    22. @the Batman, Ok, in that case it is really wrong to say that Ahmadiyyat don't consider Muslims as non-Muslims by not believing in Mirza Sahib. So we have to change our Kalimah every time when a new prophet comes?

      Delete
    23. No there is no change in the Kalima. And we do call other Muslims Muslims. However, their Iman is not full and cannot be in the eyes of Allah. That's the end of it.

      And before I discuss this pretty pointless subject further, first tell me, is someone who denies the prophethood of Jesus a full and proper Muslim or not?

      Delete
    24. @ All Ahmadis

      Ahmadis and Takfeer is a complicated matter.

      1. Ahmadis claim that if anyone calls Mirza sahib a Kafir, then they are a Kafir, not by their own words, but by the Fatwa of Muhammad (saw).

      1.a. Thus, in 2012, the entire Muslim world is Kafir based on this! Since, Ahmadis are banned from Arabia. And since, the entire Muslim ummah has declared Ahmadis as Kafir.

      2. In 1911 to 1922, the Mirza brothers called Muslims as Kafirs based on something different. That is, Muslims rejected a prophet.

      3. However, after 1922, the Mirza brothers changed their attitude and took up the Lahori position on the matter.

      In my opinion, both positions are unclear. The fact is, all Muslims consider Mirza sahib a liar, hence, in the Ahmadi position, all Muslims are Kafirs and outside Islam.

      Delete
    25. @ the Batman, it is really strange that you entitle a whole subject as pointless, while your whole Aqeedah is based on it. Can you follow your own argumentation? On the one hand you say that in view of Allah they are not musllins, but you still call them Muslims? That is called nifaaq.

      The subject was discussed because this blog item that was related to lahoris.

      Btw, have you performed Istikharah?

      Delete
    26. @Za

      The reason I call the discussion a pointless waste of time is because the only thing that matters is whether or not Hadhrat Sahib was truthful in his claim to being a prophet. If your conclusion is that he was not then what difference does it make what your status is or isn't in the eyes of Khalifas you have rejected? Why should you care? It should make no difference to you because you have already said they are false in their claim so what does it matter what their opinion of you is?

      And yes I did do Istikharah, as in performing the prayer advised by Hadhrat Sahib- did you?

      Delete
    27. And also I should add an apology here. !PEACE!'s explanation of these issues was better than mine and mine was lacking. My knowledge and ability to explain are limited and so if I have said something incorrect I apologise.

      Also, did you manage to read this post:

      http://cultgirlahmadiyya.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/beliefs-proofs-of-promised-messiah-iii.html

      Delete
    28. And my aqeedah is not based on this either. My aqeedah is based on the fact I believe that The Holy Prophet s.a.w. clearly and repeatedly told his followers that they must accept the Messiah when he comes. I believe he has come and so I have accepted him, because The Holy Prophet s.a.w. told me to.

      Delete
    29. @the Batman, I have to say that I don't understand that you insist that Mirza Bashirudin sahib in his book 'truth about the split' hasn't said that those who reject Mirza sb are not Muslims. It is written more than once with such a fierce language that you can't deny he was serious about this issue. When you point out that is not written, you somehow imply that we can't read for ourselves and we can't make a jugement about it. I even want to go so far that in the same book he hasn't called Muslims as Muslims, but referred to them as 'so called Muslims'. Another hint that he didn't consider them as Muslims.

      Yes, true it doesn't matter what your beliefs are, but if they're are not congruent with some books written by your Khulafa I really have to doubt the seriousness of those beliefs.



      Delete
    30. @za

      I have already told you that to the limits of my understanding I have answered this question. I have said there are limits to my understanding and knowledge- I could be wrong, so I can only give you my honest opinion which I have already given you. If you find that unacceptable, so be it but for me to change my opinion would be tantamount to me lying. It may be that my understanding is wrong, but I cannot pretend to have an understanding that I don't have just to please you.

      Also, if you think that me or other Ahmadis dwell on this subject you are wrong. If you go to the old posts on this site you will notice in the comments I outright said that Ahmadis did not believe any non-Ahmadi is a kafir whatsoever. That is because that was my understanding and like every other Ahmadi I know I had never looked into the issue carefully, because it did not effect my daily life and I had zero desire to go round calling others kafir- and no Ahmadi I know had such a desire.

      However, TD and Rash ever so 'kindly' pointed out quotes from the Truth about the Split and I drew slightly altered conclusions having read that. Whether those conclusions are correct or not, those were my conclusions and I have explained them to you. If you disagree with me that is fine, but I don't get where all this antagonism is coming from just because we have a difference of opinion.

      Delete
    31. @ All Ahmadis

      Again...the Ahmadi position on Takfeer is confusing.

      1. Ahmadis claim that all of those who call Mirza sahib a Kafir, are not Muslims per the fatwa of Muhammad (saw).

      Almost all Muslim groups have united in their fatwas on Ahmadiyyat. As a consequence, per the Ahmadi sentiment, all Muslims are Kafirs.

      Shaikh Hamza Yousaf called you Kafir. Is he now a Kafir in your opinion?

      Delete
    32. Jack Frost's comment below is the best on this issue:

      Khalifa II (ra) said the following:

      “There are a lot of difference in the definition of the kufr between Ahmadis and the non-Ahmadis in the way I have used the term for them. They consider the meaning of kafir as the denier of Islam in the way I have used it, but we do not give this meaning to word kafir.”

      “We believe that after a certain limit a man gets the right of being called a Muslim,but when he degrades even from that limit, though he can be called a Muslim, he cannot be considered a true Muslim. This is our definition of kufr and Islam.”

      “We do not consider kafir anyone who believes in the Prophet Muhammad (saw) as a prophet – when some one says that I believe in Hadrat Muhammad (saw) then how can I say that you don't believe in him? Our opinion is simply that denying the fundamentals of Islam is kufr and that person cannot be a true Muslim.”

      http://www.alislam.org/urdu/khm/KM16-17.pdf

      Delete
    33. @za

      You wrote:

      'After the split Muhammad Ali sahib just gave up and didn't spend much energy to holding the Lahori as an apart sect, but was aiming for annihilation with the large Muslim Community. That's why they don't play a marginal role. It hasn't to do anything with blessing or something like that, but with the policy the Lahoris performed thereafter.'

      You have answered your own queries. Truthful men on the path of God don't give up.

      'It hasn't to do with blessing'

      Even if you cannot admit the 'Qadiani' section have received blessings, you must admit that in 98 years the Lahori section has been going backwards and has been receiving the opposite of blessings. This in itself proves they had no divine favour and were not a divine jama'at. They were wrong. Simple as.

      And by the way, the biggest and most obvious testimony staring you right in the face is that the vast majority of the community remained with the Qadian section, despite the fact our beliefs were more 'difficult' ie. isolated us and made us the subject of persecution. Remember, these were the eyewitnesses to all the events. Only six years had passed since The Promised Messiah had passed away, the majority of Ahmadis were his companions and the vast majority of those chose a 25 year old boy.

      It is very simple. They were the eye witnesses at the time and their testimony is almost wholly with Hadhrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad Sahib. Almost wholly. That in itself shows you who the people who knew The Promised Messiah, Khalifa I, Khalifa II and the Lahoris best, the people who had lived with them for six years or more etc. it shows you who they considered truthful and who they considered liars.

      That for me is the end of this discussion. I have given you so many obvious proofs now that any historian with any degree of logic and honesty will not need anything further to see the clear decision on this issue. If you still have doubts then we shall respectfully disagree.

      Salam.

      Delete
    34. @ batman

      You still havent read Kamalludins book on the matter. It was the first book that directly spoke about the split. Mahmud Ahmad responded with Qaul al Fasl and then Haqiqat tun Nubuwwa, which are still in urdu.

      @ JF

      Stop quoting urdu only books. Give us better references.

      Delete
  13. clarification or retraction?

    He is now saying he was 'warning' people of M Ali's work? The video quite clearly indicated he was was praising his work. Must have been Mullah peer pressure lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ anonymous

      He hadnt read everything that Muhammad Ali wrote. Clear and simple.

      Delete
    2. @ Rash

      He's retracting his statement out of fear. Fear from the backlash of other Muslims.

      Ahmadis only fear God.

      Out of curiosity how many Khalifas of the Jamaat have had to retract statements? I'm guessing it's none and due to the fact that they are Heavenly guided. I can't say the same for 'scholars'.




      Delete
    3. @Freestyler

      Good point. Salam.

      Delete
    4. @ freestyler

      What did Mirza sahib do in 1901??? Didnt he retract all previous statements on prophethood??? Didnt Mirza sahib have a "tabdili-aqidah"???

      The same happened 10 years earlier in 1891 in terms of Esa (as)

      The same happened in 1896 when Mirza sahib claims to have located the grave of Esa (as) in Kashmir, he thus retracted statements that he previously wrote about the location of the grave.

      Shaikh Hamza Yousaf was mistaken...it happens. At least he was man enough to admit to it.

      Delete
  14. Can you please explain more about Huzur (aba)'s visit to the Lahori mosque last year. I have heard all the anti Ahmadi allegations but I'd be curious to hear our POV. My guess is that it was a show of goodwill on both sides and Huzur (aba) may have just accepted an invitation to appear briefly, nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Anonymous above

      Salam. I have as much info as you do now as I have put it in the article.

      As I understand it, Hadhur visited the Lahori Mosque in Berlin for fifteen or so minutes and invited them to 'Qadiani' Ahmadiyya. It was a goodwill visit, if that's how you wish to describe it. The Lahoris I understand have kept hold of the mosque and now are able to run it again.

      The visit was very polite and I understand the Lahori(s) who welcomed Hadur to the mosque were very polite and hospitable. That's all the information I have.

      Delete
    2. I don't know the exact details and perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it.

      My information came from hearsay- general gossip sort of thing- and then before publishing the article I tried to corroborate and did a google search and found that in June 2011 the Lahoris published an article (an extremely rude one) about the incident so it does seem it definitely happened.

      Delete
    3. @ batman

      Why didnt MTA pick up the story?

      Delete
    4. @ batman

      Almost everything you write is based on hearsay.

      Sorry...

      Delete
  15. I was quite surprised that Mr. Yusuf switched his position a bit, but one has to acknowledge his honesty in the matter. What is also interesting is that Mr. Yusuf's article is largely composed of the views of other scholars. No doubt that we must pay respect to those who have acquired knowledge but we can not monopolize Islam on them. Even though he( Hamza Yusuf) is a reputable scholar, I did not see much Hadith or Quranic verses in the article, his views were a composition of past scholars. I really hope that readers do not find complete comfort in his views because he called a few scholars and got their views, even though we are not aware of those scholars reasoning as per the subject.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ SA

      Did you mind when Mirza sahib changed his position on prophethood in 1901??

      Was that out of fear?

      Delete
  16. My dear brother za,

    I ask you as a humble brother in Islam, that you should read the books and life story of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Brother Jack Frost, I'm in a process of much reading. Things are becoming more clear for me.

      Delete
    2. @za

      I praise you for reading, but I have to admit I am offended in the extreme that you yourself have basically admitted that you sometimes ask us a question and then when several of us spend perhaps a month researching the answer and preparing a detailed discussion like the one above you do not seem to read it. I am basing this on your own comments recently in which you said you only skim articles, but this one and perhaps one or two others have been written specifically because of questions you asked and we undertook to answer and so I find it frustrating that you do not bother to follow read.

      Earlier in the comments on this post you made the claim that Maulvi Muhammad Ali Sahib left Ahmadiyya because he was offended by Hadhrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad's beliefs on the status of non-Ahmadis. Immediately I was upset because it showed you had not read the article or considered it at all and I resolved to try to ignore your questions wherever possible in future rather than waste people's time answering them. However, I have concluded that perhaps it is a weakness on my part rather than yours and so I should forget this and instead pray for my own forgiveness.

      Had you read the article, you would have noted the following statement of Khalifa Hadhrat Nooruddin made in 1912:

      '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 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.'

      Had Maulvi Muhammad Ali Sahib left Ahmadiyya because of issues with kufr, he would have done so in 1912. In fact, both Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Hadhrat Nooruddin made many statements to this effect in the presence of Maulvi Muhammad Ali Sahib, including the one above, but he never left. This conclusion of yours is one the Lahoris like to propagate, but which the speeches recorded in books and magazines of the era prove to be totally and utterly false.

      I humbly advise you again, read the article carefully and it will change your perspective and is a detailed, referenced and fair account which has taken out the element of bias by only using quotes which were recorded in publications before the split occurred.

      Also, please in future if you have already drawn a conclusion that you are determined to stick to and have no interest in fairly analysing what is presented to you, then do not ask us a question and instead only tell us the conclusion you have already drawn, i.e. do not ask 'why did the split occur' but instead say 'I have already concluded and resolved upon the opinion that the split occurred because of such and such a reason' as this will let us understand you better and not waste our time.
      TBC

      Delete
    3. @za (2)

      If any of my comment is unfair or unduly harsh, I apologise as that is not my intention. I am only upset because before this I found you to always be fair, but on this occasion I do not feel that way.

      Thanks and Salam.

      Delete
    4. Brother za,

      Read this: http://theartofmisinformation.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/the-dajjal-2

      Delete
    5. @the Batman, I can't remember asking 'why the split did occur', I can remember that I was saying something along the line that the split is somewhat hidden in Ahmadiyya literature. That was 2 months ago?, during that time I've read truth about the split, that has cleared up some things I was wondering.

      I've read your article somewhat 3 times. I've said in one of my comments above that is a great overview as seen by the 'Qadianis'. The article is not neutral, because many quotes are related to books or sayings by your founders that has been assembled after the split. And usually based on 'hear-say' . For example, when whas Tadhikratul Mahdi written?

      Please, when I supposedly ask a question, then don't consider it as an obligation to write an article about it. I'm sorry that you've experienced is as such, although I can't remember that I was asking this question. In general, I have always thanked you for your efforts and time.

      Delete
    6. Clarification:

      It is not my* article. An Ahmadi Muslim however did write it.

      Tadhkiratul Mahdi is not a book as far as I'm aware. Siratul Mahdi is.

      And how is the Dajjal article related to the split in any way whatsoever? It's about the Dajjal...from Ahadith and Qur'an.

      Delete
    7. @za

      Where has Tadhkiratul Mahdi been quoted in a single place in the article? Find me it and I will send you 100 pounds.

      It hasn't. You have come here with preconceived prejudices. The article has basically only quoted things that were available in literature pre 1014, ie. pre split. All of the speeches etc. quoted in the article were printed in Ahmadi magazines PRIOR to the split.

      The only exception- hilariously- is a quote from Pugham-e-Sulha from the 1950s, which is a Lahori publication. So I guess you can say that the article is biased towards Lahoris. It certainly isn't towards Qadianis.

      What you have said in that last comment is simply factually incorrect.

      And apologies if I misunderstood your question- yes it was from two months ago, which is the reason I was a little annoyed that you have clearly dismissed this article unfairly (as your latest comment only proves). It took two months to research and as several Ahmadi commentators have pointed out this article is probably the most comprehensive fact-based history either side have produced, in that we have dillegently avoided quotes which were made after the event by either side, except for the Pugham-e-Sulha article (reitirate, from the Lahori side not ours).

      So your allegation/assumption that this article was Qadiani biased, is totally unfair. The history is 100% accurate and 100% undisputable by either side, because it is all from publications that were available BEFORE the split occurred, publications that were accepted from both sides.

      Delete
    8. @za (p2)

      I should also apologise to you, because I shouldn't have assumed you hadn't read it if you have in fact read it three times. However, what I do stand by is that I think clearly you read it with factually incorrect preconceptions and from a biased perspective, as this is refleted in your comments.

      What I will also add is that the speeches of the First Khalifa in the article etc. were all recorded in neutral publications prior to 1914 and if you do not believe me I will find you the references. All of the stuff above is clearly dated, deliberately to show that it all occurred and was all recorded PRIOR to the split in neutral Ahmadiyya publications.

      Delete
    9. @za (p3)

      For example, the speech which I have quoted of Hadhrat Nooruddin's (ra) from both the article and the comment above was originally published and recorded in the neutral Ahmadiyya magazine called Badr on July 11, 1912. There can be no argument about it's content from either party. The same goes from the quotes of the Promised Messiah etc, they were all recorded in his books which were published many years prior to the split in 1914 and their references are given in the article itself.

      Delete
    10. @za (p4)

      Another extract from the article:

      Election of the Sahibzada is held to be valid, but he would not have the authority to call the already existing membership to take fresh bai’at, at his hand, there being no discernible need for anything of this kind to be done. We are ready to accept him as our Amir in this capacity. Nor would he be considered entitled to interfere in any way with the rights and previliges, and the prerogatives, of the Anjuman Ahmadiyya vested in that body by the Promised Messiah himself, holding that the Anjuman would be considered to have succeeded him as the overall supreme authority in the affairs of the Movement. A deputation comprising the following gentlemen should wait on Sahibzada Mahmud Ahmad to place these resolutions before him, requesting his agreement on the points involved. (Paigham-i-Sulha, March 24, 1914)

      Paigham-e-Sulha is the Lahoris official magazine. Now according to your theory, Maulvi Muhammad Ali left because he was appalled at Hadhrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahamd's views regarding the status of those who reject the Messiah. There are certain obvious questions that show that this view is not possible

      1- In 1911 both parties admit that Hadhrat Mirza Bashiruddin wrote an article opening stating these views
      2- In 1912 Hadhrat Nooruddin is on record- in a speech published in the same year in a neutral publication- stating the very same views
      3- In 1914 Maulvi Muhammad Ali first left the community and then he and the Lahori leadership openly published a proposal to accept Hadhrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad as Khalifa so long as they were guaranteed a share of the Khalifa's power, Astaghfrullah.

      The questions you need to ask yourself:

      1- when Maulvi Muhammad Ali Sahib was present in 1912 when the then first Khalifa announced the views that he supposedly found so offensive that they lead to him rejecting the second Khalifa, why did he not leave then?

      2- if Maulvi Muhammad Ali Sahib was really so adamant and offended by this issue, why was he more than willing in 1914 to accept the second Khalifa, when Maulvi Muhammad Ali Sahib knew fine well that this Khalifa had openly expressed and published these views.

      The idea is absurd. It is impossible that Mualvi Muhammad Ali was really that bothered about the status of the non-Ahmadi Muslims otherwise he could not have been willing to accept not one, but to khalifas who held these views as the leaders of the jama'at.

      The real issue was the who held the power of the jama'at. Maulvi Muhammad Ali realised he could not be Khalifa and so desired to ensure that the power be transferred to the Anjuman and he could hold control of the Anjuman. That was it, plain and simple and all the neutral sources (and even the Lahoris own sources we have presented through the article) blatantly point to this conclusion.

      Delete
    11. @the Batman, I'm very cautious now to believe in 'quotes' without seeing the source in written form. I have learned from Bahr al Muheet with regards to explanation Surah An-Nisa verse 70, where there has occurred a selective picking such that the meaning is totally out of context.

      I want also state that I can't read all your comments because they seem to be dispersed and difficult to track, due to the nature of the website (it isn't a forum). I'm not intentionally not reading your comments.

      Coming back to the neutrality. The first allegations by a neutral person against the Lahoris seems to be uttered your first Khalifa. All these citations are not in written form, but recorded from jalsa and khutbahs. Do you have a proof in written form of the following heading for example:
      1911- Hadhrat Nooruddin utterly castigates the Lahori doctrines

      Delete
    12. @za

      Those quotations are all from publications which were published under the instructions of Hadhrat Maulvi Nooruddin within his own lifetime. As far as I understand, they are still available in archives in either Rabwah, or more likely Qadian.

      Delete
    13. @the Batman, my remark about Tadhkiratul Mahdi was with regards to one of the Prophecies by Mirza Sahib on the split. In one of the comments... Seems to be written in Tadhkiratul Mahdi, collected some years after the split, not in written form, but from hear-say?

      Delete
    14. @za

      You do not need to read those quotes to see the fact the Lahoris were wrong. Just go and read the prophecies about The Promised Son. They have rejected one of the single greatest prophecies by The Promised Messiah. Read the book 'The Green Announcement' which is an English translation of his explanation regarding this prophecy and is available on alislam.org. The full prophecy is also contained within Tadhkirah which also has it's English translation available online. You can check it yourself and decide for yourself a sect who claim to follow Hadhrat Sahib but describe his Promised Son as 'cursed' and a scoundrel etc. whether they can be correct or not. Also this quote:

      'When his mission comes to its successful conclusion, his son, who will be his very image, will succeed him. That is, it is destined that God, the Exalted, will grant him a righteous son, who will be his exact image and will follow in his footsteps and thus remind people of his father. This is, in fact, in accordance with the prophecy that I have made about a son of mine.' (Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Nishan-e-Asmani, 1891)

      is from Nishan-e-Asmani which has it's English translation available online called Heavenly Sign. You can go read that too and decide if by rejecting this prophecy they have rejected Hadhrat Sahib outright or not. All these books are available in their original Urdu online.

      RE: Tadhkiratul Mahdi

      You call it hearsay, but that book was published by a companion of The Promised Messiah 7 years after he passed away. What is your opinion of Bukhari which was collected 200 years after The Holy Prophet s.a.w. passed away? If you condemn that then what must be your opinion of Bukhari?!

      Also, you made out like I used Tadhkiratul Mahdi in the article. I did not. I only used statements published prior to the split in publications both groups accepted. Nowhere have I quoted Tadhkiratul Mahdi and that comment was not mine so it is totally irrelevant. I did not ask you how carefully you had read other people's comments, I was discussing how carefully you had read the article.

      Delete
    15. @the Batman, Muhammad Ali sahib and Kamaludin sahib were also companions of Mirza Sahib, but according to you they deviated from the path and held another aqeedah. BTW, why don't you give them the titles (ra), as you do with the other companions? This is also a lesson to learn from. Not of any of the Sahaba of the Prophet deviated from the path and held another aqeedah. We all choose to (ra) for all of them, even when there some disputes between them, and these disputes were never about Aqeedah.

      As a neutral bystander why should I then give more priority or trustworthiness to one companion of Mirza Sahib than the other? This is not neutral.

      This covers also your remark on Bukhari, which is totally off-topic.

      Delete
    16. @za

      Yes fine you should give equal trustworthiness to one companion against another, but here you are giving equal trustworthiness to at most 10% of the companions against the other 90%- the 90% who remained with Khilafat. You are raising the status of Mauwiyah as an equal to Ali at the same time.

      Regarding r.a- this is silly. If you notice I don't usually put even a.s. after Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's name, so why would I make such an effort for Mualawi Muhammad Ali Sahib?

      And by the way, Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad did sometimes refer to him as r.a. and another Qadiani website recently did an article about him and also referred to him as r.a. There is no harm in it, I just don't do it because on this format of text I cannot get it to go in small letters next to the name, so it makes the text very difficult to read and follow it have letters with initials in the middle of it which aren't part of the text. Therefore generally I only do it with The Holy Prophet s.a.w's name because that is compulsory and for everyone else I just say it in my heart.

      You will also notice that almost every Muslim of any sect I know, if you mention the name of Hadhrat Abu Bakr they will not autmatically start saying r.a. aloud in the way that if you mention the name of The Holy Prophet s.a.w. they will say s.a.w. Therefore although it is the right thing to do, I leave it out on this site because I do not understand it to be compulsory.

      Delete
    17. @za

      And your example is a false example also. Regarding those two companions, their status was totally different to that of a Promised Son.

      The Promised Son was of such a status that prior to his birth at least one whole book was published and heavily advertised by Hadhrat Sahib stating that the righteousness of this son would be a testament to those of every religion of the truthfulness of Hadhrat Sahib.

      That is the end of the issue. How can you compare two random, if important, companions to someone about whom Hadhrat Sahib published so much literature stating he would be a sign of his truthfulness? This is a ridiculous argument and I cannot understand how you can find any sense in it.

      Delete
    18. @the Batman, well, just asking because I have never seen 'Qadianis' doing ra on Kamaludin and Muhammad Ali. And I know that most Sunnis do ra on Muawiyya (ra) and Ali (ra), even the disputes they had. Your comparison doesn't have any meaning. It is like you're saying that you are giving trustworthiness to killer of Hussain (majority) when killing Hussain ( ra) (minority). Don't understand why you would lower yourself to such a nonsense comparison.

      I can't be neutral on texts that have been written or collected after the split. Strange that you don't understand such a basic thing. BTW, I compared one companion to one companion. For me they're on the same level. But to be neutral you've to come with written texts before the split on the Lahori group...

      Delete
    19. @za

      I have told you so many times now that every single reference in the article is either from the Lahoris publications themselves or from a written text (magazines and books) which were published before the split. I have no idea what you're talking about. The references are within the article itself. What can I do apart from give you the references? I cannot do any more. If you believe a magazine published in 1912 was actually published in 1915 then what can I do? If you believe a magazine which is still the official magazine of the Lahoris to this day was actually published by the Qadianis, what can I do? You might as well argue that Hadhrat Sahib never existed and in fact all the books of his which are available were actually compiled in 1915 as well. This is ridiculous.

      Delete
    20. @the Batman, I'm talking about the following hear-say, which are supposedly uttered by neutral person (your first Khalifa) against the Lahori group and for your Second Khalifa:

      1) 1909- Conspiracies against the Khilafat begin to surface
      2)
      1911- Hadhrat Nooruddin utterly castigates the Lahori doctrines
      3) 1912- Hadhrat Nooruddin again admonishes the Lahoris

      Do you have any published text in a magazine about these allegations by a neutral person? Or is it just 'hear-say'?

      Delete
    21. @za

      Do me a kindness or two

      1- Do not go to sleep for a few minutes whilst I look up an answer for you

      2- Tell me, if I find bona fide pre 1914 references for those three speeches, what will your opinion be and will it change at all?

      Delete
    22. @! batman

      Kwaja Kamaluddins "Internal problems in the Ahmadiyyat Movement" (1914) is in english. Why didnt you reference that? That is the the first ever book on the split. Did you even know about it? I doubt it.

      Also, Noorudin praised Lahoris as well, as late as 1912. He even allowed Kwaja Kamaluddin to pray behind non-Ahmadis.

      Bottom line is...there were some Ahmadi scholars who were embarrassed about being Ahmadis.

      Delete
    23. 1- Reference for speech 'Conspiracies against the Khilafat':

      Badr October 21, 1909

      2- Reference for speech 'Hadhrat Nooruddin utterly castigates the Lahori doctrines'

      Badr February 1, 1912.

      3- Reference for speech 'Hadhrat Nooruddin again admonishes the Lahoris'

      Badr on July 11, 1912

      NOTE:
      Badr was and still is an official publication of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. It is the practice of the community since the time of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad that he would have his speeches published as books so that they could reach a wider audience. This practice is continued to this day and the present Khalifa often has his speeches published on alislam.org (where all the Friday sermons are still available, right back to the time of Hadhrat Maulawi Nooruddin) and also other speeches are often published in The Review of Religions.

      The Khalifa of the time is in full control of what is published in official community publications and certainly it is impossible that in an official Ahmadiyya magazine someone could forge and publish a speech of a Khalifa within the Khalifa's own lifetime. The idea is patently absurd, especially for such a high profile magazine as Badr.

      Delete
    24. @ batman

      However, you still havent referenced the Q&A session of Mirza Tahir Ahmad, which i have been asking you about for weeks now.

      I gave a reference to a Q&A sessiion that I knew about...waiting for you....

      Delete
    25. @the Batman, Thanks, that was what I was searching for :) It would be more beautiful, if you could paste the Urdu text or something to verify it. But I assume for know that it has been written in the magazine as you've quoted in your article. Thanks again.

      Delete
    26. @za

      Has your opinion of this issue changed?

      Regarding your issue with references, the answer I have already explained that that commentary was not written by Hadhrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, but was instead interpreted from his notes by a well-meaning Ahmadi Muslim after he passed away. It is very possible that this person simply misunderstood the notes and made a mistake. Or it is possible that the reference was something he himself had read and perhaps he was biased from an Ahmadiyya perspective and you are biased from a non-Ahmadi perspective and so he drew the wrong interpretation from the same text as you.

      The answer I sent you (with an email address of the person who gave me it) was from an Arab Ahmadi Muslim who has a masters degree from Al-Azar university. On this issue, I am ignorant. I do not understand Arabic beyond a few very basic words. You should contact him and have a full discussion.

      @The Rash

      The reason I don't give you references, even though I have them and it would take me five minutes if that to dig them out, is because we don't get along, do we. I feel it's better for both of us where I can to minimise our conversation and therefore minimise our fights and minimise our bad behaviour towards one another, don't you?

      However, as you have given me a reference that I have found highly useful and intend to use in an upcoming article, it's only fair I give you mine (You show me yours, I'll show you minte):

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF9VQsveQ30

      It's one of a six part answer, the others will come up if you open that page. Not sure why you needed me to dig it out, a basic youtube search would have found you it.

      Salam to both of you.

      Delete
    27. @the Batman, I can say that your point of view is totally backed up by sources. In that sense, I have to totally agree with you.

      About your tip to send an email. Insha Allah, I will do for sure.

      Salaam

      Delete
    28. @za

      Thanks. I am sorry it was my mistake, I should have put the references in the article from the start. Rash would have known better than to make such an elementary mistake.

      The gentleman who I understand runs that address is not only more knowledgeable than me (as I mentioned he is an Arab with a masters from Al Azar), but he also keeps a beard which is of a fist length so mash'Allah he has at least two advantages over me to begin. However, when I emailed him about this issue it took him a few days to get back as he is probably more busy than I am so just warning you to be patient if this is the case.

      Regarding Maulvi Muhammad Ali Sahib, one of the team (not me) says that their relative lived in Pakistan towards the end of Mualvi Sahib's life and that he came to Rabwah to visit Hadhrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad. I understand on that visit, which may have been the first time they had met in decades, Maulvi Sahib met Hadhrat Mirza Mahmud Sahib very politely and made something of a peace between the two.

      This is unrefrenced hearsay so I didn't include it in the article, but that is what I have been told.

      Delete
    29. @the Batman, In addition to the above, I have to say that I haven't studied the Lahori view yet. So to be fair I have also study that part to give my true opinion on this.

      Delete
    30. @ batman

      Wait wait wait...

      It seems that you said that Mirza Tahir Ahmad only commented on this topic once. Is that true? Is my reference different than yours?

      Delete
    31. @The Rash

      Here's what I actually wrote:

      'At the end of his answer, Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad informed the audience that as the question had been raised he had answered it, but he did not wish to discuss this subject again, as he rightly believed there were more important issues which the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community should be focusing on.'

      Nowhere did I write that this was the only occasion ever in which this question was addressed and yes our references are different.

      Delete
    32. To brother za,

      I understand Arabic to an extent as well, and would be able to answer your question about Bahr al-Muheet. However I have to study for a university midterm at the moment so I have no time to thoroughly analyze the issue.

      Rest assured however, that I skimmed through both Bahr al-Muheet and Ruh al-Ma'ani (as I thought you meant in your first question) in their original Arabic and found that both books state that Nabuwwat through fana' fir-Rasul can occur.

      Delete
    33. @ batman

      You gave me the impression that this was the only answer to this question.

      In terms of the reference that I gave..whats the difference in years between the 2 responses?

      Delete
  17. The reality of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at and Takfir:

    ‘From the very beginning it has been my faith that the rejection of my claim does not render anyone a kafir or dajjal… I do not call anyone kafir who pronounces the Kalima… If I am a Muslim in the Eyes of God, then those who call me kafir only render themselves kafir in accordance with the Holy Prophet’s edict in the matter… My faith in reality is that I do not regard any Muslim as a kafir.’ - Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) (Tiryaqul Qulub, pp.258-260)

    “The point is worth remembering that to call the denier of one’s claim as kafir is only the privilege of those prophets who bring a shari'ah and new commandments from God. But apart from possessors of shari'ah (sahib-e shari'ah), all the others who are muhaddith (one to whom God speaks), no matter how high a rank they may have with God, and be exalted with the robe of Divine revelation, no one becomes a kafir by denying them.”
    — Tiryaq al-Qulub, p. 130

    Khalifa II (ra) said the following:

    “There are a lot of difference in the definition of the kufr between Ahmadis and the non-Ahmadis in the way I have used the term for them. They consider the meaning of kafir as the denier of Islam in the way I have used it, but we do not give this meaning to word kafir.”

    “We believe that after a certain limit a man gets the right of being called a Muslim,but when he degrades even from that limit, though he can be called a Muslim, he cannot be considered a true Muslim. This is our definition of kufr and Islam.”

    “We do not consider kafir anyone who believes in the Prophet Muhammad (saw) as a prophet – when some one says that I believe in Hadrat Muhammad (saw) then how can I say that you don't believe in him? Our opinion is simply that denying the fundamentals of Islam is kufr and that person cannot be a true Muslim.”

    http://www.alislam.org/urdu/khm/KM16-17.pdf

    According to this, it means that Hadrat Muslih Maw'ud (ra) was clearly telling people that his opinion was that a person remains Muslim if he believes in all the fundamental pillars of Islam, however he does not remain a true Muslim unless he follows the Islamic injunctions properly, one of which is to accept the Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi according to the Prophet Muhammad (sa).

    So denial of the Promised Messiah (as) makes a Muslim a "kafir" in that sense alone, and not in the sense of a non-Muslim.

    A person only becomes non-Muslim when he clearly says "I am leaving Islam" or rejects some of its fundamental pillars, and clearly becomes a murtad.

    This is corroborated by further proof by Muslih Maw'ud (ra) in "Truth about the Split" saying clearly that:

    "It is true we did not consider them to be kuffar bi'llah (deniers of God), but how could we doubt that, they were kuffar bil-ma’mur (deniers of one of God's appointed ones)?" (Truth about the Split, pg. 146)

    Also the supposed letter by the Promised Messiah (as) to Dr. Abdul Hakim saying that he believes all those who reject his claim are kuffar, is false. The Promised Messiah (as) never wrote it, but someone else may have, or it's fabricated.

    This is very clear evidence that we do not believe in our non-Ahmadi brothers as kuffar, but as Muslims. Further proof is the fact that in the recent letters to King 'Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and the Ayatollah of Iran, Huzur calls them his "Muslim brothers in the Ummah": http://www.reviewofreligions.org/7152/letters-to-world-leaders-part-2/

    No sensible fair-minded person can reject such evidence or make a fuss after this, I hope.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Jack Frost

      Thank you. You have greatly improved my understanding of the issue.

      @za

      I asked Jack Frost to leave an answer as I hoped he may be able to explain this issue better than me and in my opinion he certainly has. I found these passages particularly enlightening:

      Khalifa II (ra) said the following:

      “There are a lot of difference in the definition of the kufr between Ahmadis and the non-Ahmadis in the way I have used the term for them. They consider the meaning of kafir as the denier of Islam in the way I have used it, but we do not give this meaning to word kafir.”

      “We believe that after a certain limit a man gets the right of being called a Muslim,but when he degrades even from that limit, though he can be called a Muslim, he cannot be considered a true Muslim. This is our definition of kufr and Islam.”

      “We do not consider kafir anyone who believes in the Prophet Muhammad (saw) as a prophet – when some one says that I believe in Hadrat Muhammad (saw) then how can I say that you don't believe in him? Our opinion is simply that denying the fundamentals of Islam is kufr and that person cannot be a true Muslim.”

      http://www.alislam.org/urdu/khm/KM16-17.pdf

      Delete
    2. @ Batman

      I have been asking you to translate Mirza Mahmud Ahmad's:

      "Musalman vohee hai, jo sub mamuru ko mantha hai"
      "A Muslim is only he who accepts all the sent ones"

      This was written in 1911. This is the key to the entire case. Until this is translated and analyzed, Takfeer and Ahamdiyyat will be a confusing topic.

      Lets see....

      Delete
    3. @ JF

      Do you know that the relevant pages of TQ were written before 1901?

      How did the claim to prophethood in 1901 affect Mirza sahib's ideas on Takfeer?

      When was the first time that Mirza sahib quoted Muhammad (saw) in terms of his statements on those who call Muslims Kafir? Wasnt it 1905-1906??

      Did you guys see how often Mirza sahib changed his ideas on different topics?

      Delete
  18. Mr. Wonderful flower man11 October 2012 at 03:29

    Salam Rash,

    I am wondering what do you make of the last ruku of surah baqarah that says regarding the believers:

    They believe in all the messengers and do not discriminate between any of them

    and the hadith:

    You cannot believe in me unless you believe in all the prophets (AS)?

    When Isa AS comes according to your aqeedah, those who reject them are they going to be kaafir?



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ mr. wonderful

      In Ahmadiyya, a Muslim doesnt have to believe in all the prophets of allah, the exception is Mirza sahib. Look it up. Mirza sahib is the only prophet per Ahmadiyyat dogma that can be rejected, yet a Muslim remains a Muslim.

      In terms of Islam...a Muslim must accept all prophets from Allah. When Esa (as) returns, the entire planet will accept Islam, hence the hadith that refers to the end of Jizya comes into play.

      And by the way...I have answered this rhetoric-question 100's of times. I remember getting spoon fed this question as an Ahmadi-youth.

      Delete
  19. Mr. Wonderful flower man11 October 2012 at 03:40

    Say, ‘Obey Allah and the Messenger;’ but if they turn away, then remember that Allah loves not the disbelievers. (3:33)

    And they say, ‘We believe in Allah and in the Messenger and we obey;’ then after that some of them turn away. But such are not believers. (24:48)

    The Arabs of the desert say, ‘We believe.’ Say, “You have not believed yet; but rather say, ‘We have accepted Islam,’ for the true belief has not yet entered into your hearts.” But if you obey Allah and His Messenger, He will not detract anything from your deeds Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.
    (49:15)

    [2:153] Therefore remember Me, and I will remember you; and be thankful to Me and do not do kufr.

    The promised Messiah AS commented on this verse in Fehmal Quran and says, this shows that the person who is "ghafil" or ignorant of the remembrance of Allah SWT and being grateful to Him, is a kufr.

    There are spiritual meanings to this as well. There were so many munafiq in the time of the prophet SAW and they called themselves Muslim but Allah SWT told prophet Muhammad SAW that they are not and Huzaifa RA wrote down their names.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ mr. wonderful

      How is any of this relevant to our discussion?



      Delete
  20. Mr. Wonderful flower man11 October 2012 at 04:05

    According to these verses,

    if the holy prophet SAW commanded to convey his salam to the imam mahdi AS even if you must cross the glaciers, does it make those who reject the imam mahdi AS and disobey his command as

    "some of them turn away. But such are not believers"? 24:38, 3:33

    And would there be a flaw in the aqeedah because "They believe in all the messengers and make no distinction in between them"

    so wouldn't that make them
    "true belief has not entered your hearts" 49:15

    hazrat masih maud AS had continuously asked Muslims to do a special prayer including surah fatiha and darud sharif, asking Allah SWT if he is true or not. Many Ahmadis all over the world are being told through dreams of hazrat masih maud AS's truth through dreams.

    Are the people who do not even want to pray to Allah SWT and remember Him and ask Him if Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the Imam Mahdi AS who was supposed to come to unite us and guide us, let alone thank Him in the end those who are said to not do kufr according to 2:153

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Mr. Wonderful

      You sound like the common Ahmadi with the common arguments.

      1. Muhammad (saw) never saw a glacier in his life?

      2. What hadith book is this from? Do you reference? Whats the chain of narrarators?

      3. Doesnt this hadith imply that the Mahdi is someone different than Esa (as)?

      Delete
  21. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ADMIN: The content of the comment above has been removed as it is not only against the rules of this site and of common decency, but it is also illegal and contains various defamatory opinions.

      Delete
  22. Just a clarification here. I would like to only say the truth and not misinformation. So with that said, it has come to my attention that I said a statement above which is not true. I insinuated that the letter of the Promised Messiah (as) to the apostate Dr. Abdul Hakim was fabricated or not real.

    However it is in fact real. And the Promised Messiah (as) said the following in exact words to Dr. Abdul Hakim sahib, when he decided voluntarily to leave the Jama'at:

    "At any rate, when the great God has revealed to me that everybody whom my Call has reached and who has failed to accept my claim, is not a true Muslim, and is liable to account before God, how can I at the instance of one individual, whose heart is steeped in a thousand darknesses, ignore the command of God. It is easier to cut off such a one from my Community. Accordingly from this date I hereby exclude you from the Community of my followers."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ JF

      You have alot to learn...Ahmadis dont teach you anything..

      Dr. Hakim predicted the death of Mirza sahib toooo

      Mirza Mahmud Ahmad quoted this very letter in his article on Kufr in 1911.

      I can teach you.......

      Delete
  23. Qadiyyani ... faith pre-fabricated with the help of English emporers..its a total manipulated religion to distort 'Islam' ...with hell all you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is funny! Your people call my Qadiani when I am Caucasian. Once a guy asked me if I am a Qadiani. I said no I am a Caucasian. He said no I mean sect. I said oh I am an Ahmadi. He said oh then you are Qadiani. So are you telling me that we have converted in to Pakistani?

      Delete
  24. I always wonder the Qadiani Naara LOVE FOR ALL, 'HATRED' FOR NONE that goes against the real spirit of Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Sahib when he says, 'No person can be a Muslim if he do not accepts the Nubuwwat of Hazrat Mirza Sahib' by which he throws the entire 1.7 billion Muslim population outside the pale of Islam!
    Isn't this a good example of hatred then?
    Qadiani flip-flopping is indeed a masterpiece.

    ReplyDelete
  25. wether they are lahori or ahmadi all are at the edge of hell

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hi there! Someone in my Myspace group shared this site
    with us so I came to take a look. I'm definitely loving the
    information. I'm book-marking and will be tweeting this to my followers!
    Wonderful blog and brilliant style and design.

    My blog :: beachbody hybrid

    ReplyDelete

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More

 
Why So Serious?