Ahmadis in Pakistan

Re: Ahmadis in Pakistan

NuzuluMasih, I have jotted the biography of Ghulam Ahmad Mirza.

1) You did not answer to me which of the 4 school of thoughts he followed.


2) Please do explain to me the Birth of Jesus peace be upon him, according to Qadianis, with respect to understanding of different scholars.


As you mentioned rightly its the belief of Qadianis, they shouldnt be forced into religion which i agree with for this but not when you understand the Quran by your own desires.


*Please do answer, my above question in an objective manner. *

Re: Ahmadis in Pakistan

Ahmadi’s generally follow the Hanafi school of thought

Our belief about the birth of Jesus (as) is that he was born without the agency of a father and that this miraculous birth was a sign unto the Children of Israel. Although, the scenario of a fatherless birth is not scientifically impossible, and there are instances of such births in history, because Jesus (as) was a prophet of Allah and that his birth was a sign for Israel it was a miracle. It was a sign of his purity and righteousness and was in fulfillment of Allah’s promise to Mary (as) which was given to her from an Angel. Yet his fatherless birth does not support his divinity, as his birth was similar to that of the birth of Adam (as), according to the Holy Quran. I will Insha-Allah post the details soon.

You have purposely not viewed the quotes that I had presented in their true light. Why did you bring up the Nation of Islam? They are not Ahmadi’s, nor do they fulfill those aspects that the Scholars of Islam had put forth about the one true Jamaat. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad named the Community who believed him to be the Imam Mahdi (as) as the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, and we are the only Jamaat who bear this name. Also the quotes that I had presented clearly proclaim the Imam Mahdi as a prophet in status and as bearing the station of Messengership. He shall wear the turban of prophethood and his Community will be the representation of true Islamic teachings and values, and this is exactly how it came to pass, and came to pass in the exact time that it was prophesied to happen. The time, the place, the person, his teachings, and his Divine support and signs in his favor have all been fulfilled for those who would believe in RasoolUllah’s prophecies about him and his Community.

Just because you disbelieve does not mean that it is not the truth. How many a people before you disbelieved in the prophets of Allah and deemed their miracles and signs as magic and fraud, yet you openly follow the way of the disbelievers.

“Those who disbelieve it being alike to them whether thou warn them or warn them not they will not believe.” (2:7)

First of all, you have deviated from your original purpose of bringing up Aswad Ansi in the first place, ie, that he also amassed a large following as well but was false. Secondly, I indeed do know that Aswad Ansi was killed during the lifetime of Muhammad (saw), you simply misunderstood what I said. In fact I know that there are reports that Aswad Al Ansi was killed exactly a day before the demise of Muhammad (saw), and that his wife whom he married after killing Shehr, the son of Badhan, hated him and even yearned to avenge her late husbands death, and in fact favored the secret negotiations which the officers of Muhammad (saw) had opened up to the commanders of Aswad Al Ansi.

I think you simply misunderstood me when I said:

“Aswad Al Ansi was defeated and killed by the armies of Hadhrat Abu Bakr Siddique (rah), and his followers did not prevail against the Muslims”

It is evident that I did not mean that Hadhrat Abu Bakr (rah) killed Aswad Ansi himself, but that he obliterated Aswad’s armies who were still in opposition even after Aswad’s death, which is why I said that Aswad;s followers did not prevail against the Muslims.

Aswad was killed His armies were destroyed, yet you compared his followers to the followers of Ghulam Ahmad (as). But we can see that they were quickly wiped off the face of the earth by the will of Allah, yet the Ahmadi’s continue to spread and despite severe opposition, continue to flourish with prosperity, Alhamdulillah.

The next time you compare Ghulam Ahmad (as) or his Community with that of false claimants and their followings, do so with your eyes open, and only then will you see the apparent differences that Allah has made clear for seekers after truth.

The term An-Nabi has the connotation of prophecy. Those whom God chooses to represent Him are implanted with the knowledge of certain important events regarding the future. They are also told of things past, which were unknown to the people, and his knowledge of them stand as a sign of his being informed by an All-Knowing Being. Prophecy as such establishes the truth of the prophets, so that people may submit to them and accept their message.

The second term used in connection with prophets, is Al-Rasool or Messenger. This refers to such contents of the prophet’s revelation as deal with important messages to be delivered to mankind on God’s behalf. Those messages could be speaking of a new code of law, or they could simply be admonishing people for their past lapses in reference to previous revealed laws.

Both these functions unite in a single person, and as such all prophets can be termed as messengers, and all messengers as prophets.

Messengers do not necessarily bring a new Shariah, but they are those who also admonish people about the truth of the previous Law which had been tampered with and which had been corrupted. They can be those set straight the deviations which had slowly appeared in the Shariah, and thus do not have to bring a new Shariah, but cleanse the impurities of the Shariah which the people had innovated, thus loosing the original truth of their Shariah.

Thus I never said that Jesus (as) was not a Messenger.

3:49,50 supports the view that Jesus was not a Law Bearing Prophet and did not bring a new Law, when you read it with the verse 4:161:

“So, because of the transgression of the Jews, We forbade them pure things which had been allowed to them, and also because of their hindering many men from Allah’s way,”

And also with the verse 43:64:

“And when Jesus came with clear proofs, he said, 'Truly, I have come to you with wisdom, and to make clear to you some of that about which you differ. So fear Allah and obey me.”

Therefore the argument that you have taken quoting “to allow you some of that which was forbidden to you” does not mean that he changed or modified the Mosaic Law. The reference according the Holy Quran is only to those things which the Jews had themselves rendered unlawful for themselves, and which Allah forbade them due to their transgression and hindering men from Allah’s way. These verses show that there were differences among the various sects of the Jews regarding the lawfulness or otherwise of certain things and that by their iniquities and transgression they had deprived themselves and had been deprived of certain divine blessings. Jesus (as) thus came as a judge to decide in what matters the Jews had deviated from the right path and to tell them that the blessings of which they had been deprived would be restored to them if they followed him.

Among the Islamic sources the following support our interpretation:

“Jesus did not abrogate any portion of the Torah; he simply made lawful to the Jews those things about which they used to disagree among themselves through error.” (The Tafsir of Abu’l Fidaa Isma’il Ibn al-Kathir)

“The words “that which was forbidden to you” refer to those things which the learned men after Moses (as) had declared to be unlawful, giving the innovation the force of Law; Jesus restored the true commandments of the Torah, as they had been revealed by God.” (Al-Bahr al-Muhit by Athir al-Din Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Yusuf of Granada (Spain), alias Abu Hayyan.)

“Jesus followed the Law of Moses (as). He used to observe the Sabbath, and turn his face to the Temple and he used to say to the Jews, I do not teach you even a single word which is not in accord with the Law of Moses; I only remove from you the burden laid on you as a result of the innovations you made after Moses (as).” (Fath al-Bayan by Abu’l-Tayyib Siddiq Ibn Hasan).

There are many more as well who support this view and who reject your false view, and indeed as I have shown above, even the Quran supports the view that Jesus (as) did not bring a new Shariah.

Will you dare say that these great Scholars are liars, or that they do not have enough Knowledge?

You should be the one who should read the Tafsir of the early Islamic Scholars and Saints.

I will answer the rest after work Insha-Allah.

Re: Ahmadis in Pakistan

Assalam,

Jihad against the British Government in India?

Opinion of the Muslim Scholars of that time

Maulvi Abul A'la Maududi

"There is no doubt about it that when the British Governement in India, was trying to annihilate the Islamic Government in India, this country was indeed Darulharb i.e., the place where it is essential for the Muslims to fight against the Governement. That was the time when it was obligatory for the Muslims to fight against the Government and to struggle for the protection and security of the Muslim Government. Had they been a failure in the achievement of this purpose, they should have migrated to some other place. But what happened was that they were over-powered and the British Government was fully established here; the Mulsims started acting according to their personal law (religious laws) and felt free to do so. They continued living here and thus this country was no more Darul Harb." [Sood (Interest part I, footnote on pg. 77-78)]

Maulvi Hussain Ahmad Madani (A Muslim politician of great renown)

"If the supreme power in a country lies in the hands of the non-Muslims but the Muslims also have a share in the exercise of the power and they are free to perform their religious rituals and full respect is paid to their religious places and feelings, that country, according to Hazrat Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddis is Darul-Islam and it is incumbent upon the Muslims that they should take it as their own country and always think and wish well for it," (Naqshi Hayat, vol. II, p.11)

Maulana Shibli Nomani was also of the opinion that Jihad against the British was not lawful.

Shamsul Ulama Maulana Nazir Ahmad of Delhi (One of the translators of the Holy Quran) says:

"The Muslims were tortured in various ways by the Hindu rulers and some of the Muslim rulers who were unjust and cruel also put the Hindus to hardships. In short, this seems to be the destiny of God that the security of the whole of India lies in a foreign ruler who should niether be a Hindu nor a Muslim. He, infact, should be one of the Kings in Europe. It is indeed a great bounty of God that He has made the British people rulers of India." (Lecutres of the Maulana first published in 1890)

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan

"Since the Muslims were living in peace they could, in no case, come out for Jihad agianst the Government." (Asbab Baghawat Hind)

Maulvi Nawab Siddique Hassan Khan of Bhupal

"The Muslim theologians differ on the point of Indian being a country that should be taken as Darul Harab or Darul Islam becuase it is ruled by the British people. The Hanafiis who are in a large majority in this country are the people whose scholars and activists have issued religious decrees to the effect that this country is Darul Islam. And this country being Darul Islam how can any one come out for Jihad, rather, it should be said that to make up one's mind for Jihad here, is a major sin. Those who are of the opinion that this country is Darul Harb (this is the opinion of the Ulema of Delhi); they also opine that since the people are living in peace, it is not proper to come out for Jihad; of course, if they migrate form here to an Islamic country, they can wage war against the Government of this land. In short, neither the Muslims of today nor of the days gone by, have ever considered it lawful to wage war (Jihad) against the Government." [Turjuman Wahabiyya]

Maulvi Muhammad Hussain of Batala (Advocate of the Ahl-i-Hadees)

"The King of Turkey is a Muslim King but so far as law and order and administration are concerned (leaving aside the religious aspect) the British Government is also of no less pride for us, the Muslims more so for the people who are known as Ahl-i-Hadees, this Government is of a greater pride for peace and freedom of conscience (as compared with Turkey, Iran and Khurasan)" (Ishatus-Sunnah, vol. VI, p. 292)

Anjuman Himayat-i-Islam

Report published by them in 1903 contians the following announcement:
"The benevolence of the Government demands that we should always be loyal subjects. The Muslims, in fact, are doubly benefited by being the subject (of the British Government). That is, in addition to being subjects (and receiving benevolent treatment) they are also rewarded by God, for, we have been taught in the Holy Quran: [arabic] that 'we shoud obey Allah, and the Messenger and those who are placed over us as the ruling authority.' (4:60) May this Government, which is so benevolent stay in power for a long time to come, for, we have been comforted under this rule and we are living in peace. May we continue to be obedient subjects."

Syed Ahmad Brelvi

When Sayed Ahmad Brelvi, may God have mercy on him, (the Mujadid of the thirteenth century) was asked to why did he not wage war against the British Government. he replied: "Our real task that we have to accomplish is to establish the concept of the unity of God and the revive the practice of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, sallallaho alaihi wa sallam. This, we are doing without any let or hindrance. Why should, then, we wage war (Jihad) against the British Government" (Sawanih Ahmad p. 171) (Biography of Sayed Ahmad Brelvi)

Official Muftis of the Mecca

The following Muftis (the persons who issue decrees on religious affairs, mostly appointed by the Government) of Mecca also issued decrees to the effect that going to war against the British Government in India by the Indian Muslims was not lawful. These Muftis are;

Jamalud-Din bin Abdullah Sheikh Umar Hanafi

Hussain bin Ibrahim Maliki

Ahmad bin Zuhri shafi'ee

All of them opined that India was Darul-Islam. This fact has been mentioned by Shorish Kashmiri in his book entitled "Sayed Ataullah Shah Bukhari"

Maulana Zafar Ali Khan Editor, the Zamindar

"The Zamindar and its readers are of the opinion that the British Government is the shadow of God. They take cognisance of the kindness and royal bounties and thus they are whole-heartedly committed to be with this Government and if a drop of persipiration falls from the forehead of the Government, they are prepared to shed their blood (this is to show how loyal they are and how much spirit of scrifice they have)" [The Zamindar Nov. 9, 1911]

Hadhrat Ahmadas stated that the Holy Quran:

'gives the command to fight only against those people who prevent others from believing in God, and stop them from obeying His commandments and worshipping Him. It gives the command to fight against those who attack Muslims without cause, expel them from their homes and countries and prevent others from becoming Muslims. These are they with whom God is wroth, and Muslims must fight them if they do not desist.' (Nurul Haq, pt. p.45; Ruhani Khazain, vol.8, p 62)

He was of the opinion there is a time for Jihad with the sword and Jihad through other means. He not only believed in Jihad through physical means if conditions which justify it with the sword are found existent but also supported it. He stated that:

'As to the means and arrangements to be used, whether for physical warfare or spiritual warfare, whether the battle is by sword or by the pen, the following verse is sufficient for our guidance: 'Make ready for them whatever force you can.' In this verse God empowers us to employ against the enemy all suitable means and to use the method which we consider to be most effective.'22

However, he insisted that Islam 'commanded us that we should make the same kind of preparation to face the unbelievers as they do to confront us or, that we treat them as they treat us, and as long as they do not raise the sword against us, we do not raise it against them till then.'23

He argued that in the present 'age, the pen had been raised against Islam and it was through it that Muslims had been caused so much pain and suffering. Therefore, the pen should be the weapon of the Muslims.'24 He also 'believed it the duty of every Muslim to join this battle'25 but he did not disregard the injunction of undertaking Jihad by the sword nor abrogate it. On the contrary, he was of the opinion that Islam does permit 'the taking of the sword in opposition to people who take it up against Islam first and who embark upon slaughter first.'26 In his long exposition of the Islamic Jihad, he was quite insistent that under the prevailing conditions:

'The Jihad of this age is to propagate Islam and refute the allegation of the critics; to spread the beauty of the true religion, Islam, in the world, and to manifest the truth of the Holy Prophetsa to the world.'27

But this did not mean that Jihad by the sword now abrogated. On the contrary, Hadhrat Ahmadas stated clearly that under the present conditions:

'This is Jihad, until God produces different circumstances in the world.'28

These statements should therefore establish that Hadhrat Ahmadas did not discount the prospects of Muslims resorting to the use of the sword to conduct Jihad if conditions demanded. However, until then, he considered it against the essence of Islamic teachings to unnecessarily shed the blood of innocent people. He stated:

'The Holy Quran clearly forbids the use of force for the spread of the faith and directs its propagation through its inherent qualities and good example of Muslims. Do not be misled by the notion that in the beginning the Muslims were commanded to take up the sword. The sword was not taken up for the spread of the faith, but in self defense against the enemies of Islam and for the purpose of establishing peace and security. It was no part of the purpose of taking it up to have recourse to coercion in the matter of faith.'29

It is, however, sad that Hadhrat Ahmad'sas opponents cite his statements out of context to allege that he abrogated Jihad and Abdul Hafeez merely follows the wont of his predecessors who have, in the past, often accused Hadhrat Ahmadas of the same. Hence, he claims to cite the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community on the question of Jihad in his book Two in One30 without actually providing any reference of the statement he is alleged to have made because this sly pir of Gujjo knows that if one was to consult the original works of Hadhrat Ahmadas, one would find that what he actually said was:

'I have brought you a commandment which is that Jihad with the sword has been ended but the Jihad of the purification of your spirit must continue to be waged. I say this not on my own part but in order to proclaim the design of God. Reflect on the hadeeth of Bukhari wherein it is stated that the Promised Messiah would put an end to fighting for the faith. Accordingly, I command those who have joined my ranks that they should discard all such notions. They should spread peace on the earth, for this would cause their faith to spread.'31

Now, when Hadhrat Ahmad'sas aforementioned statement is studied in the context of his claim to be the Promised Messiah and the Hadeeth of Hadhrat Muhammadsa in which it is stated that the Promised Messiah will terminate all wars32 the authenticity of which Hadeeth has been numerously accepted by non Ahmadi Muslims33, one cannot see what feasible objection could Abdul Hafeez have to Hadhrat Ahmadas expressing such ophions which he clearly stated were within the framework of Islamic teachings and prophecies of Hadhrat Muhammad Mustaphasa.

Incidentally, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad'sas ophions in relation to Islamic Jihad have been shared by Muslims throughout the history of Islam. For instance, Hadhrat Imam Fakhr ud Din Razirh stated:

'As for the verse, Strive against them a great Jihad, some say that it refers to efforts in preaching while others say it refers to fighting. Some others say it includes both. The first meaning is most accurate because this verse was revealed at Mecca and the command to fight came after the emigration.'34

The famous Indian intellectual, Maulana Abul Kalam Azadwas also of the opinion that:

'There is a serious misconception regarding what Jihad is. Many people think that Jihad means only to fight. The critics of Islam too labor under this misunderstanding whereas to think thus is to utterly narrow the practical scope of this sacred commandment. Jihad means to strive to the utmost. In the Quran and the Sunnah terminology, this utmost exertion, which is undertaken for the sake of truth rather than personal ends, is indicated by the word jihad.'35

This view was shared by Sayyid Sulaiman Nadwi of Deoband who stated that 'Jihad is generally taken to mean qital and fighting, but this limitation of significance is entirely wrong.'36 He then proceeded to state:

'It means striving and effort. Its technical meaning is also close to this, that is, to undertake all kinds of struggle and exertion for the supremacy, propagation and defense of the truth and to make sacrifices and employ in the way of God all physical, material and mental resources which He has given to His servants, so much so as to sacrifice one's own life and that of one's family and nation. To oppose the efforts of the opponents of the truth and foil their plans; counter their attacks and be ready to fight them in the field of battle is also Jihad. Regrettably, our opponents have reduced the scope of this important and broad significance without which no movement in the world has or can succeed to merely war with the enemies of the faith.'37

Maulana Muhammad Hasan Rampuri also, was of the opinion that war is not Jihad, but qital and only arises now and then while Jihad is to strive to proclaim the word of God.38 Maulvi Abu Ala Maududi shared this opinion and hence he declared that 'in the terminology of the Shar'iah, qital and jihad are two different things'39 while an organ of the Jami'at Mile Sunnat explained that:

'Jihad is derived from Jahd, meaning literally effort and striving. In the technical sense, it is used for proclaiming the word of God and the supremacy of the success of Islam.'40

Hence, in view of such opinions, Muslim scholars of numerous persuasions have maintained that Jihad does not mean to be engaged in constant strife and blood shedding and killing of innocent people but it means to strive in several other ways in the cause of the truth - an opinion which Hadhrat Ahmadas had expressed and one on account of which people like Abdul Hafeez falsely allege that he abrogated Jihad. Maulvi Zafar Ali Khan maintained that 'Jihad is not simply that one should pick up a sword and dash out to a battlefield but it also includes struggle by speech and writing'41 and so did the late king of Saudi Arabia, Faisal ibn Saud declare:

'You have been called to raise the banner of Jihad in the way of God. Jihad is not taking up the guns or raising the sword. Jihad is to invite to the Book of God and the example of the Prophet; to hold fast to them and to stick to them despite all kinds of difficulties, distress and affliction.'42

It is also a recorded fact of the history of Muslims that despite differing views on many aspects of Islamic teachings, scholars and leaders of numerous sects have universally agreed that Jihad of every age is different and has to be conducted through means which are appropriate to the times. Hence, Maulvi Saeed Abinad of the Jami'at al Ula'a Hind censured the blood thirsty mullahs who insisted that Jihad must be essentially conducted with the sword only and stated that 'the Jihad of every age is different. At Mecca, there was one type of defense and at Madina another.'43 In our present age, however, the famous Muhaddith of Delhi, Allama Abul Haq Haqqani explained that 'to debate and argue with the heretics is also Jihad'44 since, as maintained by the one time leader of the Ahle Hadeeth in India, Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi:

'The age of the sword is no more. Now instead of the sword, it is necessary to wield the pen.'45

Since Abdul Hafeez finds Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi's views unacceptable because he finds him to be a controversial figure46 one can assure him that his views to the effect that the age of the sword was no more and this was the age of the pen was shared by the majority of the Muslim ulama of that time. This is evident from Abdul Hafeez's spiritual mentor, Maulvi Sanaullah Amritsari's statement in which he referred to that period of history and stated:

'As at that time our ulama had declared Jihad with the sword to be rebellion and insurrection, and to be haram, and the opponents of Islam were waging war by the pen, the need then was for Jihad with the pen.'47

This opinion was, amongst others, shared by Allama Muhammad Iqbal, held in high regard by Abdul Hafeez for his unfavorable statements against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. He stated that:

'The powers of Islam are not limited. There was an age of the sword. Today is the age of the pen. It attacks from within and without, and compels you from every angle to accept it.48

Incidentally, such views continue to be held by Muslims of several persuasions. Maulvi Zahid al Husaini, for instance, stated not too long ago:

'This is the age of Jihad by the pen. Today, the pen has spread much trouble. The person who does Jihad by the pen is the greatest Mujahid.'49

So did the Director General of the Islamic Foundation at Leicester declare that 'Jihad represents to Muslims all efforts to strive seriously and ceaselessly to fulfil the divine will in human life but:

'The war of aggression, Islam rules out, because Islam has come to bring an end to aggression and establish peace.'50

This is exactly the kind of Jihad against which Hadhrat Ahmadas argued. He censured the mullah who persisted in giving currency to a belief that 'the employment of the sword for the purpose of the propagation of the faith is a prescribed obligation' and stated that such 'false doctrines are utterly contrary to the Holy Quran and the teachings of the Holy Prophet of Islam.'51 Yet, although he insisted that the 'failure of the appreciation of the philosophy of Jihad has caused people to entertain serious misconceptions concerning it and has rendered the teachings of Islam open to criticism whereas Islam is a holy religion which is a mirror of the law of nature and manifests the glory of God52, he did not consider the use of necessary physical force contrary to Divine will. He believed that 'it is a great error on the part of Islam's opponents that they should imagine a revealed guidance to, under no circumstances, inculcate resistance to the enemy and that it should demonstrate its love and mercy only by way of meekness and gentleness since contemplation of the Divine law of nature clearly shows that such resistance is certainly pure mercy also because mercy does not manifest itself by way of gentleness and tenderness in all circumstances.' Nonetheless, he insisted that:

'No true Muslim has ever believed that Islam should be spread by the sword. Islam has always been propagated through its inherent qualities. Those who, calling themselves Muslims, seek to spread Islam by means of the sword are not aware of its inherent qualities and their conduct resembles the conduct of wild beasts.'53

It is, for instance, recorded in relation to Hadhrat Ahmad Shah Barelvi rh that when he was going forth to conduct Jihad against the Sikhs, a person asked him why should he go so far to fight against the Sikhs when the British were ruling the country and they were the deniers of Islam, he replied:

'The British government may be deniers of Islam, but they do not oppress Muslims nor prevent them from their religious obligations and worship. For what reason then should we fight jihad against them and needlessly shed the blood on both sides, contrary to the principles of Islam.'56

This option was shared by Hadhrat Sayyid Ahmad Shah Barelvi'srh disciple, Hadhrat Sayyid Muhammad Ismail Shaheedrh, who was, incidentally, martyred at Balikot while conducting Jihad against the Sikhs. when he was asked as to why did he not give a pronouncement of Jihad against the British, he replied:

'In no way is it obligatory to fight Jihad against them. Firstly, we are their subjects. Secondly, they do not interfere in the performance of our religious duties. We have every kind of freedom under their rule. In fact, if someone attacks them, Muslims must fight the attacker and not let their government be harmed a whit.'57

Sayyid Nazir Husain, the then Muhaddith of Delhi and the most prominent leader of the Jama'it e Ahle Hadeeth in India was a contemporary of Hadhrat Ahmadas. Although opposed to the entire realm of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's philosophy, he expressed an opinion that:

'The authority of the British in India is lawful and in accordance with the Quranic injunction: "0 ye who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger and those in authority amongst you" 'it is unlawful to wage war against the British Raj.'58

The Muhaddith of Delhi declared British India Darus Salam, i.e., the land of peace, and stated:

'Since the criterion of Jihad is absent from this land, to conduct Jihad here would be a means of destruction and sin.'59

Another prominent leader of India, Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan of Bhopal of the Wahabbi section of the Ahle Hadeeth censured those people who wished to create disorder in British India under the pretext of Jihad. He warned:

'Be concerned about those people who are ignorant of their religious teachings, in that they wish to efface the British Government, and to end the current peace and tranquillity by disorder under the name of Jihad. This is sheer stupidity and foolishness.'60

He referred to the period of the Indian mutiny of 1857 which fanned the flames of battle and stated that:

'If anyone lets loose such mischief today, he would also be the same kind of trouble maker and from the beginning to the end, he would stain the name of Islam.'61

The Nawab of Bhopal also declared that whosoever acted against the British Raj in India, he:

'is not only a mischief maker in the eyes of the rulers but he shall be the farthest from what Islam requires and from the way of the believers, and he shall be regarded as a violator of the covenant, unfaithful to his religion, and a perpetrator of the greatest sin. What his condition will be on the Day of Judgment will become evident there. '62

Such pronouncements by Muslim divines, scholars and leaders were neither few nor far in between. The author of Two in One may reject the opinions of Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi on the grounds that he had always been a controversial figure63 but that does not deny the fact that in 1875, he declared that:

'all religious wars against the British Government of India and against the authority which has granted religious freedom, is forbidden by and contrary to the law of Islam and those people who take up weapons against the British Government of India or against any sovereign who has granted religious freedom, and wish to conduct Jihad against them are all rebels and deserve punishment.'64

Apparently, Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi sent his said ruling in relation to Jihad against the British:

'to all the ulama of Punjab and other parts of India and well publicized it. He obtained the seal and signatures of approval of all the ulama of Punjab and India in support of the ruling that the taking up of arms by Indian Muslims and Jihad by them against the British Government of India was opposed to the Sunnah and the faith of monotheists.'65

In case Abdul Hafeez wishes to contest this claim, he ought to be advised that in an edict of 17th July, 1870, the ulama of northern India ruled that:

'The Musalmans here are protected by Christians, and there is no Jihad in a country where protection is afforded, as the absence of protection and liberty between Musalmans and infidels is essential in a religious war, and that condition does not exist here.'66

Similarly, such a Fatwa was also procured from the ulama of east India who declared India to be Darul 1slam67 and stated:

'Jihad can by no means be lawfully made in Darul Islam. This is so evident that it requires no argument or authority in its support. Now, if any misguided wretch, owing to his perverse fortune, were to wage war against the ruling power of this country, British India, such war would be rightly pronounced rebellion, and rebellion is strictly forbidden by the Islamic law. Therefore such war will likewise be unlawful and in case anyone does wage such a war, Muslim subjects would be bound to assist their Rulers, and in conjunction with them, fight such rebels.'68

Such pronouncements which declared India Darul Islam were also forthcoming from the Muftis of Mecca and Medina and other Arab divines including Sheikh Jamaluddin ibn 'Abd Allah, Sheikh Umar Hanif, Sheikh Anmad ibn Zihni Shafi and Sheikh Hussain ibn Ibrahim69 They issued such edicts because. as stated by the leader of the Jamaat e Islami, Maulvi Abul Ala Maududi:

'when the British supremacy was established and Muslims had accepted to live in India under their own personal law, this territory was no more Darul Harb.'70

What opinion would Abdul Hafeez now express in relation to all the aforementioned Muslim divines and leaders who agreed with Hadhrat Ahmadas that Jihad against the British rule was not permissible? Would he state that they too had abrogated this essential injunction of the Islamic faith?

Incidentally, while Hadhrat Ahmadas agreed with the ulama of the time that Jihad with the sword was not permissible against the legitimate government of India, he still considered India to be Dar ul Harb, i.e., a place of war where Muslims were under a religious obligation to conduct a different kind of Jihad. Hence he declared:

'This country is Dar ul Harb as against Christian missionaries. We should therefore not sit idle. But remember that our war is of the same kind as theirs. We should go forth with the kind of weapons with which they have come forth. That weapon is the pen. '71

REFERENCES

  1. Ibid., Majmu'a Ishtiharat, vol.1, p.360
  2. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Haqeeqatul Mahdi, p.28; Ruhani Khazain, vol.14, p.454
  3. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Malfoozat, vol.1, p.44
  4. Ibid., 219
  5. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Anjam Atham; Ruhani Khazain, vol.11, p.37
  6. Ibid., Loner to Mir Nasir Nawab quoted in Ruhani Kazain
  7. Ibid.
  8. Ibid., Sitara Oaisariyyah, p.10; Ruhani Khazain, vol.15, pp. 120/21
  9. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p.22
  10. Ahmad [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Government Angrezi aur Jihad; Ruhani Khazain, vol.17, p.15
  11. Sahih Bukhari: 55.44
  12. Maududi, Abul Ala. Finality of Prophethood
  13. Razi, Hadhrat Imam Fakhr ud Din. Tafsir Kabir, vol. iv, p.330
  14. Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam. Masala Khilafat, p.47
  15. Nadwi, Sayyid Sulaiman. vide. Sirat an Nabi, vol. v. p.199
  16. Ibid., pp.200/01
  17. Hasan, Maulana Muhammad. Sawanih Ahmadi p.108
  18. Maududi, Sayyid Abu Ala. Mashriq, Lahore, 12 October, 1965
  19. Da'wat 13 November, 1964
  20. Khan, Maulvi Zafar Ali. Zamindar, Lahore, 12 June, 1938
  21. Saud, Faisal ibn. Umm al Qura, 24 April, 1965
  22. Al Jami'at, 28 January, 1931, p.2
  23. Haqqani, Abdul Haqq. Tafsir Haqqani, vol. iv, p.112
  24. Batalvi, Maulvi Muhammad Hussain. lsha'atus Sunnah, vol. vi, no.12, Dec., 1883, p.364
  25. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p.68
  26. Amritsari, Maulvi Sanaullah. Iman, 1948
  27. Iqbal, Muhammad. Paigham e Sulh, 4 January, 1928
  28. Husaini, Maulvi Zahid al. Khuddum ud Din, Lahore, 1 October, 1965
  29. Ahmad, Prof. Khurshid. International Review of Missions, Oct, 1976, vol ixv, p.252
  30. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Government Angrezi aur Jihad; Ruhani Khazain, vol.17 pp.7/8
  31. Ibid., p.3
  32. Ibid., Tiryaqul Qulub, p.21; Ruhani Khazain, vol.16, p.167
  33. Ibid., Tohfa Qaisariyya, p.10; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 12, p.262
  34. Ibid.
  35. Barelvi, [Hadhrat] Sayyid Ahmad Shah. vide. Musalmanon ka Roshan Mustaqbil
  36. Shaheed, [Hadhrat] Sayyid Muhammad Ismail. vide. Hayyat Tayabba
  37. Husain, Maulvi Nazir. vide. Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, p.135
  38. Ibid., Fatwa Naziriyya, vol. iv, p. 472
  39. Khan, Nawab Siddiq Hasan. Taijuman e Wahabiyya, p.7
  40. Ibid., p.15
  41. Ibid., p.17
  42. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p.68
  43. Khan, Nawab Siddiq Hasan. Tarjuman e Wahabiyya, p.61
  44. Ibid.
  45. Hunter, W.W. The Indian Musalmans, p.218
  46. Ibid., p.122
  47. Ibid., p.219
  48. Kashmiri, Shurush. Ata.Ullah Shah Bukhari, p.131
  49. Maududi, Sayid Abul Ala. Book on Interests, pt 1, pp. 77/78
  50. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Al Hakam, vol. v, June 17, 1901, p.2

These are the views of religious scholars in Islam, yet their statements of Jihad by the sword are in agreement with the revelations and verdicts of the Promised Messiah (as) who supported all types of Jihad, but was prohibited to take up arms against a counrty which excersized freedom of religion, for such fighting would be aggression and would be conversion by way of compulsion, which, if you did not know, is against Islam and the Holy Quran according to 2:257, 10:100, 11:119, 18:30, 76:4, 6:108, 39:42, 42:7, 88:23.

Alas we can see that it is you who needs to start reading the right books, and you should start with the Holy Quran.

[QUOTE]
In Islam there is Jihad ut Talab (offensive) and Jihad ud Daf (defensive). When Muhammad salAllahualaihiwasallam sent the army of Zaid bin Haritha radiAllahuanhu to fight the Romans at Mu'tah, was that offensive or defensive? When Muhammad salAllahualaihiwasallam himself led the armies to fight at Tabuk, was that offensive or defensive? When Rabee bin Amir met with Rustum and delivered the letter from Sa'ad bin Abi Waqqas was that offensive or defensive? When Tariq bin Ziyad crossed over to Spain, was that offensive or defensive?
When the Muslim generals gave the non muslims three choices 1. Become Muslim, 2. Pay Jizyah, 3. Fight, was this offensive or defensive?
Why don't you use the brain that Allah has given you and think a little before you write all this.
[/QUOTE]

If you were properly informed and well read about the situatin of Tabuk, you would know that news was brought to the Holy Prophet (saw) that the greeks of the easter Roman Empire were assembling their forces on the syrian frontier. In reply the Holy Prophet thought it necessary to meet them, and marched at the head of about 30,000 strong inspired by defending their faith, and fighting for its freedom of practice. The mechinations of Abu Amir Madani, accompanied by the support and help of the Hypocrytes, were geared towards gowing to Syria to excite and provoke the Christian rulers and the Christian Arabs into attacking Medina, as well as spreading rumors that Medina was going to be attacked by Syrian forces. Abu Amir and the Hypocrytes wanted the Muslims to meet with utter deafeat, because they also discouraged Muslims from going in large numbers. So it was in response to the possibility of an ammassed Syrian army ready to fight Medina, that the Holy Prophet (saw) thought it necessary to meet them.

Yet the Holy prophet (saw) was not so ignorant to simply fight based upon rumars, which Abu Amir and the Hypocrytes hoped would have happened. When the Prophet (saw) neared Syria, he stopped and sent his men in different directions to report on the state of affairs. The men returned and reported that there were no Syrian concentrations anywhere. The Prophet then decided to return **, but stayed for a few days during which he signed agreements with some of the tribes on the border. **There was no war and no fighting, when the Hypocrytes heard of their failure of causing war between Muslims and Christians, they began to fear that their lies had been exposed, but they equipped a party and posted it on the two sides of a narrow pass some distance from Medina. When the Prophet (saw) and the Muslim army approached the spot, the Prophet had a warning by revelation that the enemy was in ambush on both sides of the narrow pass. The Prophet (saw) ordered his Companions to check it out. They found men hiding with the intent of attacking, but these men fled as soon as they saw the party sent forth by the Prophet (saw), and the Holy Prophet (saw) decided not to persue them.

The Tabuk Expedition was not offensive in the sense that the Holy Prophet (saw) randomly waged war upon the Syrians, but was an Expedition to meet those whose sought to were thought to have gathered an army with the intention of attacking Medina, which is why when the Holy Prophet (saw) learned that none where there at the border, he decided to return, but waited a few days, and that is why there was no fighting, or else the Holy Prophet (saw) could have entered Syria and waged war offesively and Allah would have granted them victory, but offensive war in matter of conversion was not allowed by Allah, and that is why the Prophet (saw) descided to return and there was no bloodshed.

You have misquoted the Expedition of Tabuk to suit your own concoction of offensive Jihad, wheras Allah has said in the Holy Quran that there is no compulsion in religion and that the Prophet (saw) nor any other person has the athority to comple men into the religion of Allah. 2:257, 10:100, 11:119, 18:30, 76:4, 6:108, 39:42, 42:7, 88:23.

Re: Ahmadis in Pakistan

Assalam,

Again sherafghan sahib has quoted the Battle of Muta out of context in a dire attempt to support his veiw of 'offensive Jihad'. This was not an offensive Jihad, but indeed was a punishment towards the Syrians who committed a henious cruelty.

In the seventh year of the Hijrah the Holy Prophet (saw) visited the Holy ka'ba in fulfillment of his vision, and upon his return to Medina the Prophet (saw) began to recieve reports that Christian tribes had ammassed on the Syrian border, instigated by the Jews and pagans, who ere preparing for an attack upon Medina. The Prophet (saw) dispatched a party of 15 men to find out the truth, who saw an army massing on the Syrian boder ehen they arrived on the scene. Instead of returning at once with the report they tarried. The zeal for expounding Islam got the better of them. Instead of listening to the exposition, the Syrian army took out their bows and starting shooting. However the fifteen brave Muslims remained unmoved and stood firm, it was 15 against thousands and the Muslims fell fighting, Allah be pleased with them.

In reply to this the Prophet (saw) planned an expedition to punish the Syrians for this cruelty, but recieved reports that the concentration on the border had dispersed. So the Prophet (saw) postponed his plans.

The Prophet (saw) sent the Emperor of Rome or the Chief of Ghassan tribe who ruled Busra a letter. This letter was carried by Al-Harth (rah) who was arrested tied up and then tortured to death by Shurahbil, a Ghassan chief acting as a Roman official. The Holy Prophet (saw) got to know of this evil crime and to avenge this as well as the earlier murders of the 15 sahaba, he raised a force of 3,000 and despatched it to Syria under the command of Zaid bin Haritha, Allah be well pleased with his soul.

As The Prophet (saw) walked along with the army to bid them farewell, he instructed, and when they reached a certain spot he said:

" I urge you to fear God and to deal justly with the Muslims who go with you. Go to war in the name of Allah and fight the enemy in Syria, who is your enemy as well as Allah's. When you are in Syria, you will meet those who remember God much in their houses of worship. YOU SHOULD HAVE NO DISPUTE WITH THEM, AND GIVE NO TROUBLE TO THEM. In the enemy country do not kill any women or children, nor the blind, nor the old; do not cut down any tree, nor pull down any building. (Halbiyya, Vol 3)."

This instruction of the Holy Prophet (saw) speaks for itself.

The Holy prophet (saw) did not send the 3000 Muslims under the command of Zaid (rah) to convert the Syrians or to spread Islam by way of the sword.

The Prophet first responded to the news of the Syrians who amassed an army to attack medina by sending investigators, who were brytally killed solely for preaching the Message of Islam. The Prophet (saw) sent an expedition in punishment of the injustice that The Syrian army had meted out to the 15 exemplary Sahabah's (rahm) as well as what evil had been done to al-Harth (rah).

In what manner of speech was this war offensive? Offensive means that the respective army should be the first to attack or be the first to deliver the blow, yet we find that it was not the Holy Prophet (saw) who was the first to deliver, but it was the Syrian army who was the first to attack.

You have not considered what happened previous to the expedition sent by the Holy prophet (saw), which has distorted your opinion on this matter. You must be mindful of what you allege against the Universal Prophet who was the Mercy sent unto all the worlds, and was not the sword sent to all the worlds.

Your misunderstanding of the situations of war have given birth to a dangerous belief, whose teaching is not found in the Holy Quran or Sunnah, and indeed is contrary to the verses of Allah's Book which repeatedly say that there is no compulsion in religion, and is contrary to the beauty that Islam teaches of religious tolerance and freedom of practice.

JazakAllah.

Re: Ahmadis in Pakistan

well in my opinion they are muslims.

Re: Ahmadis in Pakistan

So what happened to NuzulMasih, I really wanted to see the response to why Isa alaihisalaam is not a Rasul.

Re: Ahmadis in Pakistan

tahaffuz-e-khatm-e-nabuwwat=nizam-e-mustafa

zinda baad!!:D

Re: Ahmadis in Pakistan

Sheikh ul-Hadith Mufti Mohammad Irshad Nizami,
Agra, India
November 15, 2000

HASHISH FROM QADIAN

I. Background

Folks! This is the tale of the author's younger days. The clerics from Rabwah and Qadian came to him. He listened to them patiently and attentively. After that, as promised, the author did an in depth study of the creed of Ahmadiyat. Ahmadiyat is also called “Qadianiat” and “Mirzaiat.”

The Book of God enjoins upon us reflection and deliberation, so the author did a fair reading of most of the books from Ahmadiyat.

The outcome of the author's study is being presented here with due regard to the sentiments of all prospective readers. Hurting anyone's feelings is neither desired nor intended. With regard to the reader's time, unnecessary details will be avoided. I shall present brief excerpts from the Ahmadiya books and leave the judgment to the reader. My comments will be included as necessary. The caption of this writing is borrowed from the following couplet of Sir Allama Iqbal:

"Like the leaf of Hashish is the prophesy,

That invokes not Power and Majesty"

At the outset the author wishes to remind the reader that according to the Qur’an, “There is no compulsion in religion.” Islam does not permit violence or aggression under any circumstances. This book is intended to be an ideological discussion only so that our younger generation, non-Muslims, and even Ahmadis themselves, can make informed decisions regarding Ahmadiyat.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was born in the nineteenth century in the town of Qadian, at present in the Indian part of Punjab. His year of birth is not certain, but it is gathered that he was born sometime between the years 1835 and 1840. He started as an orthodox Mulla (a cleric) and held debates with Hindus and Christians. Around 1890, he started posing himself as a mystic and laid pretenses to clairvoyance (Kashf and Ilham in Sufi parlance). Then he claimed being a Mujaddid (a revivalist) of the new 14th Hijrah century. Up another rung of the ladder and he announced that he was the awaited reformer, the Imam Mehdi. He continued his climb to new "heights". The prevalent belief that Jesus Christ (the Messiah) will return was current amongst Muslims then, just as it is current today. The Mirza proclaimed that he was the Messiah whose coming back has been promised by God. In keeping with this claim, he invented for himself the title of the Promised Messiah.

While Thomas Edison was changing the world with his inventions (1888), the Mirza was busy with his own verbal innovations. For example, he professed to be a Zilli Nabi. Zilli denotes something unreal, a mere pretension, it also indicates a shadow. Not content with this, he added Baroozi, which signifies a virtual image, a look-alike, or a reflection. Much later, he declared that he was a prophet in his own right.

He contrived new meanings for the Qur’anic term "Khataman Nabieen", which, in Islamic terms, denotes the finality of the prophethood. Muhammad, the Exalted was the last of the prophets and there would be no prophet after him. According to the Qur’an, the message to mankind has been perfected in this Last Book of God. The Seal of Finality, Mirza misconstrued to be a Stamp of Approval from Prophet Muhammad himself.

His imagination wandered further:

"I am Muhammad".

"I am Muhammad incarnate."

"I too am the recipient of Wahi (word of God) and that is also the Quran."
(We shall present some specimens of that "Wahi" or "word of God" later).

These claims created agitation among people in general, and the clergy in particular. To counter that pressure, the Mirza adopted guerrilla tactics. When the pressure of public indignation mounted, he would chicken out and retract his words. When there was some slack in that pressure he would spring back. These guerrilla tactics lasted till the very end of his life (he died in Lahore in 1908 CE).

Mirza Ghulam lived between 68 to 73 years and spent his life promoting his scheme by making claims of divine support, denouncing his detractors in abusive, obscene terms, making threats of divine retribution, whining, interpreting dreams and announcing hit and miss prophecies.

II. Philosophy of Mirza Ghulam

What is Hashish? Hashish is Marijuana that comes from the hemp plant. Smoking or drinking Hashish causes intoxication. Why did Allama Iqbal term Ahmadiyat as hashish? The answer becomes evident when we read the sayings of Mirza Ghulam:

• It is "Haram" now to fight and shed blood for the "Deen".

Please note that Jihad, or fighting for Deen does not include aggression.
• (Due to my teachings) hundreds of thousands of people gave up filthy ideas (of Jihad). (Sitara-e-Qaisariya p.3)

• Submission to the British Government is enjoined upon the Muslims in India and 'Jihad' is 'Haram'. (Tableegh-e-Risalat vol. 3 p.196)

? The volume of what I have written in denunciation of 'Jihad' and submission to the British Government would be enough to fill 50 cabinets. (Sitara-e-Qaisariya p. 3)

Note: Contrast this with the Mirza's own verdict that whosoever rejects even one commandment of the Quran is a non-believer and an infidel!

Allama Iqbal had this to say about this crusade of Mirza Ghulam:

The Moses who, in stealth,

Would submit to power of the Pharaoh,

Is a curse upon his Israelites.

TWO EXPOSITIONS

Near the end of the 19th century, Dr. W.W. Hunter wrote in his book, The Indian Mussalmans: “The British government was convinced that verdicts by Ulema could not forbid Jihad. A claimant to prophethood would have to be sponsored for that purpose. The British had experienced during the 1857 CE uprising that the will for Jihad was very much alive in the Muslim heart.”

Nawab Ahmad Saeed Chhatari, who was, in the 1930s, Governor of the United Provinces of British India, mentioned in The Venom of British Imperialism, a strange building in the outskirts of London. This building housed a University where plans were made to distance Muslims from the true Islam. A high official of the Government of British India had arranged a visit by the Nawab to that University. This host of the Nawab of Chhatari, an Englishman, was a convert to Islam. During that visit, the Nawab came to know of the 19th century British plans to raise Mirza Ghulam as a new prophet (Secret Tunnel of Christendom-Urdu Digest, November 1992, p. 209)

III. The “Sultan of the Pen”

His writing prowess in Urdu, Persian and Arabic languages was pitiful. We shall present specimens of his writings later in this book. Of course; his followers regard him as the "Sultan of the Pen". Ironically, in this one-century of "Sultanate of the Pen", the followers of Mirza have failed to produce a single literary figure of note.

The Darkness in Focus

Let us now quote from the writings to make an objective assessment(Translated from his original Urdu):

? We curse anyone making a claim of prophethood. (Advertisement dated 20 Shaaban, 1314 A.H.)

But soon he is found claiming:

? In the word of God I have been named Muhammad and a Messenger. (Roohani Khazain, p. 18/207)

? I am Adam, I am Noah, I am David, I am Christ, the son of Mary, I am Muhammad. (Roohani Khazain, p. 22/521)

? Zahoorud Din Akmal's verse:

Muhammad has descended among us again,

And in his glory he is loftier than before!

? Aayil came to me. God gave Jibrael the name of Aayil (Aayil from “aana” which means “Coming” in Urdu) because he comes to me time and again. (Haqiqatul Wahi p. 103)

? God gave me the tidings that I would live up to be 80 years or longer (Muahibur Rahman).

But he died in 1908 when he would be in the range of 68-73 years of age.

? It is absurd that a person should receive inspiration (from God) in a language different from his own! (Chashma-e-Maarifat p.209)

And then a verdict quite the reverse:

? It is strange that some of the inspiration I receive is in languages quite unknown to me, for example, English or Sanskrit or Hebrew, etc.

? On March 5 1905 I saw an angel. When asked he said his name was Tichi Tichi! (Haqiqatul Wahi p. 332)

When you read this, a faint smile would be in order!

? It is written in Bukhari that a voice from the sky will announce (for Mirza Ghulam) that he is God's caliph Mehdi! (Shahadatul Quran p 41.)

Just think about it. How glorious this hadith is!

Turn page after page of all volumes of Bukhari and you will not find this quotation anywhere!

? Look up history and it tells you that (Prophet Muhammad) was the same orphan whose father died a few days after his birth. (Paigham-i-Sulh p. 9)

It is common knowledge that the Holy Prophet's father Abdullah had died before his birth!

? Treat this self-grown plant with special kindness and favor (Mirza Ghulam's letter to the British Lieutenant Governor February 24, 1898)

This letter should be viewed in the context of W.W. Hunter and Nawab Chhatari’s revelations.

Now get ready:

? The state of divination so engulfed Mirza Ghulam as if he was a woman and Allah was expressing His power of manhood. This is enough said for those who have discernment. (Islami Qurbani Tract No.34 Qazi Yad Muhammad Qadiani)

The author of Saboot Hazir Hain, M. Mateen Khalid comments, that in the entire history of mankind, not a single individual besides Mirza has ascribed this abomination to God (but there is more to it):

? Baboo Elahi Bakhsh wants to see my menstruation but Allah says you have no menstruation, there is that baby in you (Annexure to Haqiqatul Wahi, p. 581)

Presumably that baby refers to Jesus Christ.

The insult goes on:

? Spirit of Isa (Jesus) was infused in me like it was done in Mariam (Mary) and allegorically I was rendered pregnant. Not more than ten months had passed when I was made Isa from Mariam. That is how I became Jesus, son of Mary. (Kashti-Nooh p.47)

Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud, the son of Mirza Ghulam, who became the second "caliph", writes in Alfazl on January 5, 1933:

? About the revelation to the Promised Messiah (Mirza Ghulam) that he would die in either Makka or Madina, we would say that both are the names of Qadian.

The problem here is that Mirza Ghulam met his end neither in Makka, Madina nor in Qadian, but in a lavatory of the Ahmadiya Building in Lahore!

? Mirza Ghulam wrote that once he put some matter in writing and placed before the Almighty for signatures. God signed it unhesitatingly in red ink… the Almighty shook his pen and drops of ink fell on my (Mirza's) cloak (kurta). (Tiriaqul Qaloob p. 33)

? The Promised Messiah had a sweet tooth. He kept lumps of gur (coarse sugar) while carrying pebbles in his pocket to dry his urine. (Merajuddin Umar Qadiani in Annexure to Braheen-e-Ahmadiya 1/67)

? Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud the son of Mirza Ghulam writes in "Seeratul Mahdi" Vol. 2 that the Promised Messiah was suffering from hysteria and “miraq“ (psychosis).

With such serious mental problems, there would always be a risk of, eating the used pebble and using the lump of gur for hygiene!

? Masjid-e-Aqsa mentioned in the Quran is the Masjid at Qadian (Qadiani Journal Alfazl August 21, 1932).

Now a miracle dream of Mirza Ghulam:

? Mirza Ghulam prayed that a rock which rested on his head be turned into a buffalo! When he raised his head he saw that it indeed did turn into a buffalo. (Haqiqatul Mahdi p.10)

And his neck remained intact.

Try to make sense of this:

? Allah prays, fasts, awakens, and sleeps (Albushra 2/79)

? Mirza Ghulam raised funds on the commitment that he would write a book spread over 50 volumes. However, he stopped the work when only 5 volumes had been done. When he was asked about the discrepancy, he reasoned that “there is a difference of only a zero between 5 and 50!” (Preface to Barahin Ahmadiya 5/7)

Some Samples from the "Sultanate of Pen":

? A letter to a London friend (translated from Urdu), "I want an English style lavatory which has a low square chair with a pot in the middle. I feel giddy when I put pressure on my feet while squatting to ****.” (Collection of letters to Hakeem Muhammad Hussain Qureshi).

? My enemies are swine, and their women are *****es! (Najmul Huda p. 10)

? Whoever does not believe in our triumph is clearly fond of becoming a *******. (Anwarul Islam p. 30)

? People regard us as haram-eater! (Haqiqat-I-Ikhtalaf p. 50)

And how rightly!

? It is a miracle from God that mullas accepted my divinations and got stuck in my screw! (Arbaeen p. 2/21).

His successors are still busy trying to get people stuck in the same screw.

IV. The Love Bug

Now a long story made short. At age 53, Mirza fell in love with Muhammadi Begum, a 10-11 year old girl, among his relatives. He begged her parents for her hand in marriage. He bribed and threatened them to no avail; he divorced one of his wives (Phajja's Mother). Her sin? She did not approve of child marriage.

To further increase pressure on Muhammadi Begum's parents, Mirza persuaded his son, Fazal (Phajja), to divorce his wife, Izzat Bibi. This is because Izzat Bibi’s parents, who were related to Mohammadi Begum, censured Mirza for casting a lustful eye on a 10-11 year old child. When Mirza was 56, he wrote a letter to the parents of the innocent (ex) daughter-in-law (on May 20, 1891) "Was I a sweeper, janitor, untouchable (“choohra“, “chamaar“), that you felt it disgraceful to give away the girl to me (in marriage?). (Please note the sophistication of his language, and remember that the Qur‘an categorically forbids marriage before attaining adulthood of body and mind (4:21) Marriage is a solemn covenant.)

Time and again, he wrote letters, sent messages, and published predictions that Muhammadi Begum will eventually become his wife. If she was given in marriage to another man she would quickly become a widow.

Muhammadi Begum grew up to be as intelligent as she was charming. She got married according to her parents' choice, undeterred by Mirza's predictions and warnings. She and her husband Sultan Mohammad, lived a long and happy life.

Mirza comforted himself by stating that he had been married to Muhammadi Begum in the heavens (where he was meeting her every night!)

V. The Holy Dynasty

Who was the first caliph of the Mirza? That was Hakeem Nooruddin whom the Ahmadis call Abubakr Siddiq. However, not being from the family of the Mirza he remained only a stopgap caliph. In 1914 Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud, son of Mirza Ghulam became the second caliph. The third caliph Mirza Nasir Ahmad, and the current and fourth Mirza Tahir Ahmad, all belong to the progeny of Mirza Ghulam. Blind faith and reverence rob people of reason. Any Qadiani who fails to donate 16% of his earnings every month is considered a hypocrite. The household of Mirza remains exempt from this toll. The party that was ushered in London, has come back to its logical home, and are busy with their usual antics.

? Mirza Ghulam labeled the 1857 uprising, a mufsidah or disruption. With pride, he writes that his “father had provided fifty horses complete with riders, to the British Government, as help during India’s fight for freedom.” (Tuhfa-e-Qaisariya p.16)

? "The kite of an opponent was cut…then someone shouted “Jai” to Ghulam Ahmad!" (Majmua-e-Ilhamat-o-Mukashifat )

? The party of the 'Promised Messiah' are in fact sahaba the companions of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Alfazl, Qadian January 1, 1916)

Mirza’s Company

? Some members of my Jamaat are so uncivilized that living with wild beasts would be better than living with them (Shahadat ul-Qur’an p.2)

? One who assigns one tenth of his property for the cause of Ahmadiyat, will be buried in the Heavenly Graveyard (Bahishti Maqbara) of Qadian. (Alwasiat p.17)

The soil there is supposed to be silver, but won’t that heat up like hell?!

? The household of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad would be buried there unconditionally. (Provision No. 20 of Risala Alwasiat, p.25)

? We had no objection that the Promised Messiah committed adultery occasionally. What is objectionable is that the present caliph Bashiruddin Mahmood has made it his routine. (Daily Al-fazl Qadian, Darul Aman August 31, 1938.)

? I saw the Promised Reformer Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood committing incest with his daughter. I asked him about this. He said, It is permissible according to the Qur’an and hadith, but it is not to be made public. (Syedah Umm-e-Saliha, of Qadian, daughter of Syed Abrar Hussain-from "Memoirs" in the book Saboot Hazir Hain")

A couplet from the Promised Reformer, 2nd caliph Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood displays a remarkable admission of guilt:

I cannot tell you in what failings I am stuck,

The whole world would turn against me if I were unmasked!

(Kalam-e-Mahmood p.78)

VII. SOME MORE SPECIALS

? By God, the word revealed to me is the "Exalted Word" right from the tongue of the One Holy God! (Durr-i-Sameen, Translation of a lame Persian verse by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad)

? The Promised Messiah used to say that the books of Hadith are like a magician’s hat. You can produce anything out of it! (2nd Caliph Bashiruddin Mahmood, Alfazl July 15, 1924)

? If you want to see Muhammad, go to Qadian and see Ghulam Ahmad (Paigham-e- Sulh, Lahore Issue March 14, 1916 p.62)

? If Muhammad Hussain Batalvi's father could know that his seed would create such an Abu Jahl he would have severed his organ (Mirza Bashir, Al-fazl November 2, 1922)

Mark the language! Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi was one of Mirza Ghulam's antagonists.

Watch this claim:

? I say in all truth that I have not used a single word in the nature of abusive language (Azala 1/6)

And yet another gem of civilized language:

? O Maulvi Abdul Haq Ghaznavi, wild beast of the jungle! O evil, wicked person! You ate this **** of a lie to conceal the truth! O polluted person, O Dajjal! (Appendix to Anjam Athum p. 49-50)

? All but the offspring of whores have accepted my prophethood. (same)

? O maulvis, eaters of carrion and evil of spirit, O vermin of the dark! (Appendix to Anjam Athum p.21)

? Mention of Imam Hussain (in relation to me) is like relating human excrement to musk! (Ejaz-e- Ahmadi p.82, Roohani Khazain 19/194)

And Mirza reserved the most befitting abuse for himself:

I am a worm, my dear, not human,

The most stinking spot on the human body,

And the shame of people.

(Durr-e-Sameen p. 116)

Dear reader, have you ever come across an uglier verse in any language? A man calling himself a pinworm! Ahmadis try to explain this away as Mirza’s humility.

Another claim to civility in language:

? Far be it for me to utter anything bitter. (Asmani Faisla, Mirza Ghulam p. 10)

Yet again the reality:

? Maulvi Sanaullah Amritsari is a low-life, a swine, a dog, ******* and a wicked ****-eater! (Ilhamat-e-Mirza p. 122)

? Munshi Elahi Bakhsh has filled his book with ****.(Arbaeen 4/27)

Some "divine revelations"

(Roohani-Khazain and the like)

? (God said) My bounty will infect you.

(Is it a bounty or affliction, one wonders! )

? God said, "I show inebriation every ten days.”

? God's feeling did a great job (Who did what?!)

? Shaana Naasa Peration Omar Paratoos Yaani Parratoos Yaani Palatoos.

This is not a typographical error, supposedly, it is one of the glorious revelations to Mirza Ghulam. What does it mean? Perhaps even God has no idea.

? Allah says, "I shall also err.” (Haqiqatul Wahi p.103)

? O Ghulam Ahmad, you are from Our Water (Harf-e-Mahrmana by G.J. Barq, p. 341)

Congratulations! Well, we have another begotten son of God here!

Contents of the 72 Publications by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad:

One can only vainly search for decent ideas in the 72 works of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. The subjects of these publications are:

  1. Arguments on the death of Christ,

  2. Funny claims of prophethood,

  3. Senseless revelations,

  4. Stories of Abdullah Atham, Lekh Ram, and Muhammadi Begum,

  5. Assortment of dreams, signs and omens,

  6. Mud slinging of opponents

  7. Hit and miss predictions.

Mirza, The Medic Master

? Partridge meat can cause plague (Seeratul Mahdi Part II, p.132)

? If marriage takes place during pregnancy, it is possible that the seed of another may also impregnate (Arya Dharam p. 21)

Verdicts like these are an everlasting embarrassment to physicians among his followers.

Forced Amen:

? In 1903 Mirza was at the grave of a venerable person in an effort to make the dead person say "Amen". According to him, "I prayed that my life span should prolong by fifteen years. The dead person did not utter 'Amen'. (What happened then?) Only after tremendous wrestling the dead venerable uttered Amen! (Akhbarul Hukm-Qadian December 24, 1903)

But the Mirza expired after only five years. A forced "Amen" met a befitting end.

Wine:

? "Buy me a bottle of Tonic Wine from the shop of Plomer" (Khatoot-e-Imam banam Ghulam" by Hakeem Muhammad Hussain Qureshi)

A Verdict:

? "The Almighty revealed to me that whoever did not accept me was not a Muslim" (Akhbar Alfazl-Qadian January 15, 1935.)

This position taken by Ahmadis necessitates the publication of books like Hashish from Qadian.

? "Whoever does not acknowledge me, does not acknowledge God or the Holy Prophet (Haqiqatul-Wahi p.163)

Sir Allama Iqbal says, "A nation can survive only with unity of ideology. Even a revelation that splits unity is blasphemy".
VI. AN OBSERVATION

Centuries of blind following have robbed Muslims of reasoning to the extent where they tend to welcome men of low caliber as Mehdi, or Messiah. Sir Iqbal said, "a Muslim, whether a villager or an urbanite, is so naive; that 'Brahmins' of the Kaaba are worshipped like idols!”

It is tragic that about 40 generations have passed away waiting for the arrival of the Mehdi or the Messiah. Every false prophet that came along found a ready audience with some people while a vast majority opposed him. All our Ulema, supposedly the supporters of the doctrine of the Finality of Prophet Muhammad (the Exalted), found the village mulla, Mirza Ghulam too formidable a challenge. In spite of the guidance from great scholars like Jamaluddin Afghani, Mufti Muhammad Abdhoo, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Inayatullah Mashriqi, Ubaidullah Sindhi, Allama Iqbal, Allama Muhammad Asad, Abulkalam Azad and Imam Raghib Isfahani, our maulvi is still waiting for someone to come. Some of the clergy and Sufis are themselves claimants of sainthood.

Psychology, as a science, was not all that advanced in times of Allama Iqbal (He died in 1938). However, he had willed that a psychoanalysis of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad would be in order. Respecting the wishes of Allama Iqbal, an analysis will be presented later in this volume. However, an analysis of the Muslim masses is equally important to determine how an ignorant person of a very low I.Q. was able to deceive them so easily.

Our maulvis often debate with Qadianis only to get beaten or hardly stand their ground. This happens because he is a slave of silly traditions and hearsay. To quote an example, a scholar of the fame of Maulvi Maudoodi, in his Tafheemul Quran Vol. IV Page 163 implies, that the belief in a Promised One has no basis in the Qur’an. But then, Maudoodi falls for the superstitious dogmas of traditions! Mirza Ghulam admitted that the term “Promised Messiah’ is nowhere to be found in the Qur’an. Our maulvis should have asked him, who then but a liar could claim to be “The Promised One”.

VII. FLASHES OF BRILLIANCE

? In Tariaqul Quloob (p. 41), Mirza states that his fourth son was born in Safar, the fourth month of the Islamic calendar (Safar, is the second and not the fourth month). Compare this with his claim, in Paigham-e-Sulh (p. 32) that he says only what God puts in his mouth!

? In Arbaeen (3/21) Mirza Ghulam states that according to the Qur’an: “When the Promised Messiah comes, the Islamic clergy will harass him and they will declare him an “infidel“.

There is no such verse in the Qur’an, period. Watch his confession:

? There is no mention of the term ‘Promised Messiah’ in the Qur’an. (Shahadatul Qur’an p. 65)

? Our God is a pilgrim. (Baraheen 2/523)

? Three angels descended from the sky. One of them was named Khairati (Hayatun Nabi 1/95)

? (God said) You are like my son (Harf-e-Mahramana p.277)

A devious prediction:

In 1899 Mirza wrote in Taryaqul Quloob, p. 34 that God would bring two women in his matrimony, one a virgin and the other a widow. The "marriage with a widow" part of the prediction was never fulfilled.

Babu Manzoor Elahi of Qadian threw this apology: Nusrat Jehan Begum, was a virgin when married to the late Mirza and became a widow upon his death. And so the prophecy stood fulfilled! (Majmua-e-Ilhamat p.38)

The fate of another prophecy:

? Mian Manzoor Muhammad will beget a son and he will be named Bashiruddaula, Alam Kabab, Shadi Khan and Kalimatullah, WORD. (Albushra by Baboo Manzoor Elahi of Qadian 2/116)

It so happened that Mian Manzoor Muhammad had a daughter instead. Babu Manzoor Elahi valiantly tried to justify the prophecy as a metaphor.

The Essence of God

? God is a gigantic being, which has countless hands and feet, it has tentacles like the octopus which are spread over to all corners of the Universe! (Roohani Khazain 3/90)

Where else can one find this brilliant concept of God Almighty!

? Why does not God speak today? Is their something afflicting His tongue? (Ibid 21/312)

? I am myself God. (Aina Kamalat-I-Islam p.564)

? If anyone wants to see Muhammad,

One should see Ghulam Ahmad in Qadian,

Muhammad has descended among us again,

And is loftier in his glory!

? Mirza was Muhammad in his first coming and is Ahmad in his second one O! Rasool-e-Qadani, the Qur’an has descended upon you once again.(Qazi Zahoor-uddin Akmal, Badr, October 25, 1906)

Please note that “Rasool-e-Madani” is one of the respected titles of the Holy Prophet.

? The Prophet Muhammad and his companions used to eat cheese made by Christians, although it was well known that it contained lard. (Letters of Mirza Ghulam, Alfazl February 22, 1924)

? I have every Messenger hidden inside my shirt! (Nazool- il-Masih p.100)

Regarding Jesus

? Christ used to drink. He was a prodigal
alcoholic. He remembered God only near his death. His maternal and paternal grandmothers were all prostitutes and adulteresses. (Roohani Khazain 11/291, 10/297, 19/71, 10/296)

Disrespect of the Holy Companions

? Who were Abu Bakr and Umar?! They were not even fit to untie the shoelaces of Hazrat Ghulam Ahmad. (Monthly Al-Mahdi January, February, 1915)

? Hazrat Abu Huraira had the mind of an imbecile. (Ejaz-e-Ahmadi p.18)

? I hold a hundred Hussains in my collar all the time. The sacrifice of a hundred Hussains equals mine of every single moment (Nuzoolil Masih, p.99, Alfazl 13/26 January 1926)

? While I was in a trance, (Hazrat) Fatima placed my head on her thigh! (Azala p.11)

This last line has been presented with great reluctance.

? In the course of the revelation, I was given the name of "Sultan" Abdul Qadir. Like Jilani, (Radhi Allah Anhu), my foot is on the neck of every saint. (Tazkirah Majmua Ilhamat, 2nd Edition, p.706)

Did you notice the misuse of RAA, which is reserved for companions of the Holy Prophet?

Notable Verdicts

? Anyone who does not believe in the Promised Messiah (Qadiani) is a nonbeliever, indeed a hardened infidel and outside the circle of Islam (Kalimatulfasl by Mirza Bashir Ahmad Qadiani, another son of the Mirza, p 110)

? Our prayers were segregated from them (non-Ahmadis). To give them daughters in marriage is forbidden, we are not to participate in their funerals. So, what is left? (Kalimatulfasl by Mirza Bashir Ahmad, p.169)

? It is ordained that we should consider non-Ahmadis as non-Muslims and not pray behind them. To us they are deniers of an apostle of God. (Anwaar-e-Khilafat by Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood, p.90)

Time for a Smile:

? The Promised Messiah sometimes wore a “Gharara” (long skirt) (Seeratul Mahdi and other sources, Zikr-e-Habeeb p.34).

What a spectacle that would be!

? The Promised Messiah did not perform Hajj (pilgrimage), did not sit in Eitkaaf (prayer in seclusion), did not pay Zakat (alms), and did not keep a Tasbih (rosary). (Seeratul Mahdi 3/119)

? A maidservant put a lota, full of very hot water in the lavatory (what happened, so happened). When the Messiah returned from the lavatory, he spilt that hot water on the hand of that woman and said nothing (Seeratul Mahdi 3/243).

? Maid servants Rasul Bibi, Mai Fajjo, Munshiani, and the wife of Babu Shah Din used to stand guard over the Promised Messiah at night (Seeratul Mehdi 3/213).

? Pir Sirajul Haq killed many dogs in Qadian with poison. Lads on the street would tease him with the nick-name of “kuttay maar” (dog-killer). When he complained to the Promised Messiah, he said, "What is wrong with that? In the hadith my name is “Sooar Maar” (swine-killer); it is written that the Messiah will kill swine (Zikr-e- Habeeb by Mufti Muhammad Sadiq Qadiani p.162.)

? I am a chronically sick person. (Zameema-e-Arbaeen 3/4)

? God said, "Have We signed a contract for your health?” (Tazkirah Majmua Ilhamat p.803).

VIII. Q & A

Dear Readers:
Let’s now move on to the question and answer session that you may find interesting.

Q. What necessitated the writing of this book?

A. Since the Ahmadis preach their religion in the name of Islam, many unsuspecting folks still fall for their gimmicks. Numerous readers suggested that a book like this is the need of the time. It is of paramount importance that no person in the world should confuse

Ahmadiyat with Islam.

Q. The time of the third and the fourth so-called khalifas is not addressed. Why?

A. Mirza Ghulam was the founder and his son Bashir Mahmood was the builder of the cult. Those who followed, have been busy trying to justify the nonsense they have inherited. Of course, in the process they are creating their own trash.

Q. It is amazing that such a mindless movement has gained quite a following.

How?

A. Any task, good or bad, centered around an authority, tends to flourish. Due to the compulsory regular donations by the community their finances are strong. Cult mentality brings about a strange psychological phenomenon. The leader of the cult makes some bizarre claims. Some people see him as a man with special powers and rally around him. Then they tend to outdo one another in reverence and the vicious cycle goes on.

Q. I heard that they have a mission in Israel. Who finances them?

A. They do have a mission at Haifa in Israel. The Israeli government grants them freedom. Their headquarter in London enjoys all kinds of support from the British. They can rather easily obtain immigration on grounds of political asylum to many countries (USA, Canada, Europe). The primary source of funding for the cult is a mandatory 16% contribution by every follower. An Ahmadi not contributing to this fund is considered a hypocrite.

Q. Even with such low reasoning and knowledge, how come people like Sir Zafrullah Khan, Dr. Abdus Salam and M.M. Ahmad were among the followers?

A. Your question touches upon one of man's psychological failings. Religious beliefs have a rock solid base in one's psyche. One has to rise above one's self and examine those beliefs objectively. Only then can one rationality dislodge the unreasonable.

Allama Iqbal states:

The vision of Abraham is hard to attain

Temptation covertly creates idols in the hearts

Q. An Ahmadi and his wife say that Maulvi Maudoodi is wrong to write on page 4/163 of Tafheemul Quran that there is no mention of the Promised Messiah in the Quran. They refer to ayahs 4/159 and 43/61, and say that the Messiah will appear close to the Last Hour.

A. I agree that mulla Maudoodi is wrong. But Mirza Ghulam Ahmad also says in Shahadatil Qur’an on p. 65 that there is no mention in the Qur’an of a ‘Promised Messiah”

The ayahs that you have referred to mean:

4/159 Before one’s death, every one of the people of the Book should believe in Christ as a prophet of God and not His son.

43/63 Christ is a sign of the coming of Muhammad Mustafa who brought forth the most magnificent revolution in all history.

Q. What sort of end do you visualize for Ahmadiyat?

A. The party will fragment due to a conflict of interest. In 1914 it divided into two groups on the death of its first Khaleefa Hakeem Nooruddin. The Qadiani sect maintains that the caliphate should run in the family of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and the Lahori Sect wants to pull it out of that hold. Clashes over wealth, property and power have already begun.

Q. There have been debates going on for a hundred years. Why haven’t our orthodox Ulema been able to convince the Ahmadis?

A. Debates accomplish nothing. Only the Qur’an can make the Truth prevail. In debates, emotions run high and stubbornness tends to reign.

Q. Traditionally, the Ulema believe in the coming of Mahdi and the Messiah.

A. The orthodox Ulema, try to make this belief a fundamental article of faith which it is not (al-Qur’an 2:177). The enlightened Ulema see the reality and think otherwise. Such Ulema include Jamaluddin Afghani, Mufti Muhammad Abduhu, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Ubaidullah Sindhi, Inayatullah Mashriqi, Maulvi Abul Kalam Azad, Allama Muhammad Asad, and Allama Iqbal.

You may refer to my book titled When is the Messiah Coming.

Q. What is the reality about Mirza’s 50 cabinets full of books?

A. He claimed to have published as many books and posters against Jihad and for subservience to British rule that they would fill 50 cabinets. (Tariaqul Quloob p.27-28)

How can 72 books and some posters fill 50 cabinets? Only a Qadiani mind can comprehend this.

Iqbal said:

That leadership is a tribulation for the Millat of Islam
Which leads the Muslim into worshipping imperial powers

Q. Mirzais often claim that Bhutto and Zia ul-Haq met violent deaths as a sign of divine punishment, because these leaders had committed atrocities on the group.

A. Well, their contemporaries, Indira Gandhi and Mujjib-ur-Rahman did no such thing, yet they faced violent deaths. It is commonly observed that some wicked people die peacefully. It is absolutely non-Qur’anic to believe that the good depart from this world painlessly and vice-versa.

Q. What is Mubahila, and why is it mentioned so many times in Ahmadis' books?

A. This is one of the many fallacies of the Qadiani clergy. The word ‘Mubahila’ does not appear in the Qur’an. Its verb form “nabtahil” is mentioned in verse 3:61. The root word ‘behal’ simply means, "to sever ties”. In some situations it becomes appropriate to say, “lakum dinukum wa liyadin" (For you, your way; for me, my way. And time will tell what was right.). The Qur’an suggests this pragmatic test for people in dispute. Mullas have degenerated the word “behal” and curse to indicate damnation.

The Qadiani’s take the ayah 3:61 to mean that "You and I pray to Allah to curse the liar among us.” The Qur’anic meaning of the curse implies failure in one’s chosen efforts.

When The True Path degenerates into ritual religion, even the terminology becomes corrupt. The ayah (3/61) in the Qur’an is referred to as "Ayah Mubahila", by mullas of both sides. In this century the Ahmadiya cult is probably the only one indulging in “Mubahilas“. To be very brief, you may call “mubahila”, as a “damning contest”

Q. Why did Mirza fail to impress non-Muslims, like Hindus, Sikhs and Christians?

A. Mirza found a ready audience among Muslims because of:
? the popularity of a concocted hadith about the appearance of a revivalist (Mujaddid) in every century.
? their belief in a living Jesus Christ, and his return in the latter days.
? their belief in the dogma of a twin reformer, Mahdi.
? quite a few sufis of the past claiming divination.

Since the Muslim Ummah has learned no lesson the advent of more claimants is assured. One recent example, is Riaz Ahmad Gauharshahi of Kotri, Pakistan.

Q. What is the modus ope***** of Ahmadis today?

A. They preach their false doctrine in the name of Islam.
? They interpret verse 3/55 of the Qur’an to mean that Jesus Christ died a natural death. Here, the Ahmadis are correct for once. Sir Syed and several religious scholars explained this verse correctly, much before Mirza Ghulam.

? They bring forth a warehouse of wishful narratives and tradition.

? Their so called caliph and other leaders with vested interests, keep charming the crowds with the fantasy of dominating the entire world in the near future.

Q. What can be the best safeguard against their falsifications?

A. Recourse to the Qur’an, and affirmation that the Exalted Prophet Muhammad was the Final Prophet of Allah in every sense of the word. No person after him is to receive The Divine Message in any form. The Qur’an is the Guidance for all times.

Q. Qadianis claim that they were immune to Plague during Mirza's time.

A. Mirza did predict complete immunity against Plague for his followers. He called Ahmadiyat the Heavenly Vaccine (Asmaani Teeka) against Plague. However, Plague preyed upon his followers with impunity. Mirza then threw such apologies:

  1. The deceased was not firm in his beliefs; or

  2. Some Ahmadis are being martyred by Plague, just as some companions of the Holy Prophet were martyred in Ghazwas (The Battles of the Holy Prophet).

Q. Is there any mention of Allah, the Holy Prophet, or Makka and Madina, among Ahmadis?

A. Only to a small extent. Their focus remains on Qadian and Rabwah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and his so-called caliphs. Their intellectual life revolves around the death of Jesus Christ.

Q. The Ahmadis claim that the Mirza was a stalwart (pehlvan) of Islam.

A. The term “Pehlvan of Islam” can befit only small minds. Did he leave any impact on non-Muslims?

Q. Did Mirza Ghulam Ahmad bring about any significant reforms?

A. He was a man of low intellect. Perhaps even the Qadianis will fail to grant one theological or social reform of significance to him. He degraded women’s rights as illustrated by the story of Muhammadi Begum. He buried his followers deeper into religious rituals, sooth saying, dreams, omens and irrational thinking. The Law of Cause and Effect, The Rational Law of Requital, and the Law of Permanency of Natural Laws, seem to have no place in Ahmadiya philosophy. They place too much emphasis on “DU`A” asking Allah to do things for them.

Q. How can Ahmadiyat be judged most simply?

A. You will not find Ahmadis any different from the mulla-stricken, ignorant masses. In fact, since the whole cult is based upon deception and treachery, many negative personality traits are to be found in them. Distortion of facts and changing their statements to suit the need of the audience/situation are two examples.

Q. All Ahmadis that I have come across were from Punjab!

A. Mirza was from the District of Gurdaspur in Punjab. Allama Iqbal describes why most of them belong to that province (No offense is possible here since the great Allama and this author have close links to Punjab.)

The Punjabi Muslim

One who readily accepts novelty in religion,

Who quickly foregoes his chosen destination,

Joins not to analyze and explore,

Readily falls victim to false religious leadership,

If a predator throws a net of deception,

He quickly descends from the branch of his nest.

IX. PSYCHOANALYSIS

Allama Iqbal willed during his latter days that someone in the future should carry out a professional psychoanalysis of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to determine what mental disorder he actually suffered from. In respect to that wish of the great Sir Iqbal, I have consulted two American psychiatrists of great repute, Dr. Abid Mian of Orlando, Florida and Dr. John Zeman of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Both physicians are Board Certified in Psychiatry and Brain Disorders. They have studied different aspects of the life of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and their findings are presented as follows:

? Mirza was brought up in an orthodox village in India.
? He life was confined from the mosque to the home.
? He liked to participate in religious dialogues with Hindus and Christians.
? He frequently admitted to being an opiate user.
? Mirza admits to suffer from Depression and Psychosis.
? The events of his life reveal that he fluctuated between mania and depression. According to current terminology, his condition was that of a Bipolar Disorder or Mania Depression. In the bipolar state, at times, the patient goes into deep depression and suffers from a sense of worthlessness. An example of this state is when Mirza calls himself a pinworm. Coming out of this phase the patient has fits of hyperactivity. These fits are called mania. During mania, some patients display creativity. This is when Mirza wrote his seventy or so repetitious books.
? In the bipolar disorder the patient loses touch with reality and he dwells in a world of fantasy. Seeing angels like Tichi Tichi, Khairati and Ayail, is one example of this.
? The patient has visual hallucinations. He sees things, which do not exist. An example is Mirza's fall into a grave and his wrestle with the dead old man.
? The patient experiences auditory hallucinations as well. He hears voices from within his own mind. His ilham “Shaana Naasa Peration Omar Paratoos Yaani Parratoos Yaani Palatoos”, is a good example of such a hallucination.
? Making statements and then retracting them is one of the symptoms of bipolar disorder.
? If Mirza were alive today, he could be treated with Lithium and/or with ECT (electric shocks). This treatment would have lessened the inconsistency in his behavior and writings. However, the most effective remedy to stop his bizarre claims would have been total withdrawal of financial support. Another prescription would have been for the Islamic clergy of the time to take a resolute stand against him: Any claimant of prophethood or revelation from God, after the Holy Prophet would either be an imposter or insane.
? To conclude, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was afflicted with Bipolar Disorder. The British Government masterminded his advent to accomplish their own designs.

Another important question falls in to the realm of psychiatry. That is, how could so many people follow a man with such serious mental disorders? The experts state that in the phenomenon of mass hysteria, group members try to outdo each other in their reverence. The popularity of the "Whirling Dervishes" of Rumi furnishes a good example of such mass hysteria. Even eminent people like Sir Zafrulla Khan, Dr. Abdus Salam and M.M. Ahmad were not immune to this syndrome. In blind reverence one sees but does not observe. For example, when Sir Zafrullah Khan was told that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad used to wear the ladies skirt, Gharara, he simply called it the simplicity of the Messiah!

The Dilemma

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be the Promised Messiah. According to a weak tradition, the Messiah, in his second coming is supposed to slay the swine and break the cross. This fabricated hadith is supposed to signify restoration of the Law of Moses and the end of Christianity. Mirza Ghulam claimed to have accomplished both. Perhaps no comment is necessary here.

Mullas worldwide, however, are still waiting for the second advent of Jesus Christ, slaying of the swine and breaking of the cross.

Where did the mission of Mirza go in his life? Well, he held a dialogue and Mubahila with the Christian priest, Abdullah Atham, and was thoroughly beaten. Due to this, some of Mirza's followers converted to Christianity! These were:
1. Munshi Muhammad Ismail (convener of the debate)
2. Mirza Muhammad Yusuf, Secretary of the Debate and
3. Mir Muhammad Saeed, brother-in-law of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
(Reference Jang-I-Muqaddas p.211 and "Saboot Hazir Hain" by Muhammad Mateen Khalid p.495)

The Christians of Ludhiana and Amritsar hoisted posters announcing their victory as follows:
We shall thrash Mirza to the extent,
that he will forget all revelation

Lay your traps of deception on a different ground
The Namaz has ended, so lift your rug.

Let’s end this book by repeating Mirza’s very apt self-description:

I am a worm, my dear, not human,

The most stinking spot on the human body,

The spot of peoples' shame! (Durr-e-Sameen p.116)

BLACK & WHITE

First see the devotion of Sir Allama Iqbal:

I cannot even bear that someone comes and tells me that one day the Holy Prophet was wearing an unclean garment. (Rozgar-e-Faqeer, vol.1, p.113)

And now witness Mirza crossing all limits of respect:

Criticizing the ascension of Jesus he throws this comparison,

"God chose for the hiding (grave) of Prophet Mohammad (SA) a wretched place, which stunk, was dark and narrow, and was a place for the pollution of insects." (Tohfa-e-Gularvia p.112, Roohani Khazain vol.17, p.205 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian)

Re: Ahmadis in Pakistan

.

Re: Ahmadis in Pakistan

Can a Ahmadi/Quadiyani go for Haj? Do they perform haj with other muslims?????

Re: Ahmadis in Pakistan

[quote=joeking]
It is obvious that the LADY who posted the question does not really know what the Ahmadiyas believe in!
I am NOT a “MULLA” but have studied many religions and the facts are as follows:
1st: They believe that Mirza Ghulam Hmed of Qadiyan was a “Mujaddid” (i.e., some one who made a new Islam - in Arabic ‘Jadid’ means new and Mujaddid is the person who makes something new). Well, does not that mean that their Islam is new!!
2nd: Mirza Ghulam Ahmed od Qadiyan himself claimed to be another prophet. He said that Hadrad Mohammad SAW was just the ‘seal’ of prophets and not the last prophet. He translated ‘Khatim-un-Nabiyeen’ (Khatam in Arabic as well - as in Urdu is “The End” like in Kaam Khatam ho gaya) but he palyed on a second meaning of the word Khatam in Arabic and that is the “Seal or even Rubber Stamp”. Now, in the whole of the world and especially in the Arab World you complete a letter or Royal Decree or Edict, sign it and then seal it to close the document. It is placed in an envelope and again closed and then sealed… this means that no more changes, renewals or ammendments are allowed and the task is finished. Even in that sense The Khatim-un-Nabiyeen would be the person who would be the end of the line of Nabiyeen (prophets). So how come an new claimant of prophethood (as claimed by himself and believed by the group called Qadianis) emerges?
3rd: The funniest belief of all is that the man claims to be a Prophet and the Ahmadiyas say no he is not a Prophet (so he is liar or a false claimant) yet we believe that he is a Mujaddid!! Is it not funny, they call him a liar or a false claimant and yet believe he is what he did not ever claim to be.
4th: Mirza Ghulam Ahmed of Qadiyaan claims that the prophet Jesus (Christ) was not taken up to Heaven by Allah as written in th Holy Quran and rather, he ran away from the Romans and escaped, travelling all the way to Kashmir, where he lived for another 70 years before dying and being burried in Srinagar and that he has decendants including a living one who takes care of the tomb!!! You want the proof of that?? Just go to the website tombofjesus and see it (I am writing it like this because I cannot publish a URL!!) and see the claims for yourself!!
5th: Why did Mirza Ghalam Ahmed of Qadiayaan (and his followers) believe that? Because then Mirza Ghlam Ahmed could claim to be the Mahdi (or the Saviour) that Jesus would be on his re-coming to Earth sometime before the day of Qayamah.
Do you think that anyone who holds such beliefs is a Muslim and can be treated as a Muslim by the remaining Mulims?? There are quite a few sects in Islam but they all believe that Hadrat Muhammad SAW was the last prophet and that Islam, the religion that was started by Nabi Adam was completed by Hadrat Muhammad SAW. We believe that Allah sent over 100,000 prophets and sent them to all peoples and races but no more prophets are to come after Hadrat Muhammad SAW. If we can believe in 100,000 prophets then we could have believed in 100,001 prophets but this is against the very core of the Islamic belief in the finality of the Holy Prophet Hadrat Muhammad SAW and so they cannot be accepted as Muslims. Let them be Ahmadis or Qadiyani and let them not try to create splits in Islam and in the minds of the younger generations.
Marriage to Ahmadis and Qadiyanis is also not permissable even though a Muslim man may marry a Jew or a Christian woman but marriage to Ahmadis and Qadianis is neither allowed for a male or a female Muslim… unless the Ahmadi or Qadiyani properly and with a true heart converts into a Muslim.
I hope I have answered the question in full details and to the satisfaction of the LADY and all those who read this reply!!

[/quote:Safiya]

You have misinterpreted the word in Arabic **Mujaddid **as a person forming a new Islam (or any new religion/faith) . The word follows from Tajdeed that is renewal/reformation of an existing covenant/contract or order. **Not the creation of a new one! **Mujaddid is a social/religious reformer, not a new faith’s founder. Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiyani was never a mujaddid. He was called the dajjaal (Anti Christ) in his time by the majority of Ulema and his claims to prophethood were never accepted my the majority of Indian Muslims in his times. Mujaddids quotable in Islamic history are Hazarat Syed Abdul Qadir Gilani R.A. of Baghdad and Hazarat Shaikh Imam Ahmad Sarhandi of Punjab (India)also known as Shaikh Mujaddid Alif Saani.
With the creation of Pakistan many Ahmediyyas (also known as Mirzais) had migrated from Gurdaspur and other parts of India to Pakistan and formed their religious center at Rabbwah in District Jhang in Punjab. Many were crucial in safe administration of the newly formed nation from threats from India. A mention of Chowdhary Sir Mir Zafarullah Khan and Pakistan’s only Noble Laureate Dr.Abdus Salam is not out of place here. However their role in enriching and enstrengthening Pakistan has been long forgotten as have been Qayad e Aazam Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s sacred and cherished dreams of a Muslim dominant Pakistan where people of non muslim faiths like Hindus and Christians and Parsis and Ahmediyyas could co-exist in peace and prosperity. Wa Allahu Aalamum Bissawaabun!
The Ahmediyya deads were desecrated by exhumation of their graves dug in Sunni graveyards and the living of these hapless cult are subject to all kinds of inhuman insults and brutality in Pakistan. So much so that many of these have fled back to India. The Government of Pakistan officially rejects visa applications from outsiders who are Ahmediyyas.
Pakistan unfortunately has taken to religious bigotry in the last 3 decades and innocent blood is being shed every year in organised killings by Sunni and Shia fanatics whose religious sentiments are kindled to extremes by Pakistan’s Islamic clerics who have nothing to actually do with Islam.

Ahmediyya cult has its similarity in Iran where Muhammad Ali Baab and his followings staged a similar claim of new prophecy and order in Islam in the eighteenth century, and after being brutally put to extinction by the Qachaar dynasty in Iran such an uprising was again succeeded by another charlatan prophet in the mid nineteenth century, Bahaullah the father of the Bahaai faith. Extradited from Iran this second cult has its headquarters at Haiffa, Israel.

Sher of Mulla Obaidullah Shorkoti on Emperor Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar’s open forsaking of Islam and forming “Deen i Ilaahi” at Agra :-
"Shaah e maa imsaal dawaa e nabuwwat kardeh ast!
*Gar Khudaa khwaahad, pas az saaley, Khudaa khwaahad shudan!":hoonh: *

Re: Ahmadis in Pakistan

NuzulMasih, are you going off topic on purpose?
There are a lot of things that you said which can be debated, and you want me to debate on issues of fiqh. I will not debate with you on fiqh issues until you correct your Aqeedah and accept Islam.

Let me reiterate and bring this discussion back to the original topic at hand.
We know that when the Messiah returns, Islam will spread all over the world, and everyone will be Muslim and that there will be no more fighting. Since, everyone is Muslim their will be no need for fighting.
When the Messiah returns, he will follow the Shariah that was given to Muhammad salAllahualaihiwasallam and he will not create his own Shariah. Meaning the Messiah will not come with new laws, he will come to establish the Laws given to Muhammad. The only change that the Messiah is allowed to make in our Shariah is the abolishing of Jizya, and this is clearly documented in our books of Hadith. In essence this is not changing the Shariah because this clause in itself is part of our Shariah.

You have said that mirza ghulam abolished fighting.
In the Quran in 2:216 Allah says "Kutiba 'Alaykum ul Qitaal". The Ulama say that whenever Allah uses the words "Kutiba 'Alaykum" (Prescribed upon you) means that whatever comes next is a Fard.
Allah made Siyaam fard in the same manner, in 2:183 Allah says "Kutiba 'Alaykum us Siyaam" (Prescribed upon you is fasting).

If mirza ghulam abolished fasting then his kufr would become clear. Why is it that when he abolishes fighting that his kufr is not so clear?
He turned something that is prescribed by Allah in the Quran into haraam without any authority. Muhammad salAllahualaihiwasallam, the most beloved of Allah, did not have the authority to turn halaal into haraam or vice versa. Who gave this authority to mirza ghulam?
This change is not documented in our books of hadith, and so this is not what we would expect from the Messiah.
So I will say this again, that following mirza ghulam is shirk.

As for the battles and your claim that they were defensive, I had an idea that you would say that. Instead let's look at the incidents that occurred before the Battle of Badr. Muhammad salAllahualaihiwasallam heard that a large caravan of Quraish is returning to Makkah from Sham. So he immediately assembled as many Sahaba as he could to RAID THE CARAVAN. Then Abu Sufian who was with the caravan, heard of this and he sent word to Abu Jahl and changed the route the caravan was taking. After changing the route, Abu Sufian again sent a message to Abu Jahl saying that the caravan safe and the Makkan army can return but Abu Jahl insisted that the army continue. When Muhammad realized that the caravan has taken a different route and that the Muslims will soon be facing the army from Makkah. So, the Muslims did Shura and decided to face the army.
The initial intention of the Musims at Badr was to raid the caravan, but instead they ended up facing the army. Something else to note is that the Sahaba numbered more than 300 or so, (the numbers of the Muslims at Badr) but Muhammad salAllahualaihiwasallam wanted to move quickly to raid the caravan, that's why only 300 or so were able to get ready immediately. The Muslims were the first ones to set out with an army. It's up to you to decide if this was offensive or defensive.
If this is not sufficient evidence for you then I can present more information.

And again, I believe that you already know the above information but if you need any references then let me know which reference you require and I will post it.

Re: Ahmadis in Pakistan

achi bahas chal rahi hay, kya main bhi roman urdu main share kar sakta hoon

APARTHEID ISRAEL & QADIANISTAN!

MAURITIUS - Ref. Article “AHMADIYYAT” Qadiani Mubarak SOOLTANGOS
« Il n’appartient qu’à Dieu de décider qui est musulman » - It pertains to God alone to decide who is a Muslim
[email protected]

*** “le mauricien » Monday 8th June 2009***

To my Enemy and Mauritian countryman Qadiani Mubarak Sooltangos

Assalamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatulahi ta’ala wa barakatuhu!

First, you are blaspheming when you used the term “Ahmadiyyat” because your false prophet has confirmed that by “Ahmad” he meant Prophet Muhammad himself, peace and blessings be upon him, and that he was his physical re-incarnation, that is, he was Prophet Muhammad himself! *Astarghfirullah! *

I wish to warn you, my misled Brother in Humanity, that all authentic Muslims regard the followers of the imperialist British-made political Qadiani Sect as blasphemers and deadly enemies of Muslims and Islam, politically as well as spiritually. However, the only reason why I greet you with the Islamic greeting is because it is, on the spiritual level (not the political), my Islamic duty to invite you (all of Humankind) to come back home to the natural religion Islam, and to unite with the Ummah of Muhammad, not that of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad the Bhangwala, the Hashishwala or the Opiumwala false prophet and false messiah. On the political level, you and your Zionist-controlled Sect are amongst Muslim’s deadliest enemies and are traitors to Islam. Your ambition, unknown to most Muslims, is to take over and establish your dominance over Pakistani in the same manner as Jews have established theirs in Palestine, and Hindus theirs in Kashmir, and your people have been guilty of horrendous crimes committed towards Muslims in Hindustan, Punjab as well as Pakistan, and you use the same bloody Jewish/Zionist tactics and slogans. Many of the Qadianis are so innocent and naïve that they are not aware of their leaders’ political agenda, and that their Covenant is with the Devil and not with God.

Many of the members of your treasonous political movement acting under cover as a Muslim Sect (Sects are haraam in Islam!) who are not in the employment of the Head Quarters and Branches of your Punjabi MOSSAD Network, or benefiting from privileges and material advantages from whatever source (US, UK, IMF, etc.) have already returned to (orthodox) Islam, like most members of the Black racist Sect known as the “Nation of Islam” inspired by your false prophet, false messiah and false god Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of the then British-occupied Qadian. But, modern-day Minister Louis Farrakhan is by far an angel compared to all your Huzoors and incestuous, paedophile, homosexual and bisexual lying pseudo Caliphs-messiahs put together! I have personally met your Fourth CHABAD caliph Mirza Tahir Ahmad (died in 2003 and replaced by a fifth pseudo caliph-messiah Mirza Masroor Ahmad) and a Sunni Brother questioned him on camera. He is a bloody liar, and, like all Qadianis, a Muslim/Mullah/Mawlvi/Muhammad hater. Did you notice that the dynastic rulers of Qadianism have all Mirza in their names and not Muhammad? Should they not therefore better be called MIRZAÏS?

On another occasion, I was invited to your Qadiani huge training camp and burial place called “Islamabad” in Sheephatch Lane Tilford, Surrey U.K GU 10 2 AQ. MOSSAD Mirza and his disciples were saying they had the list of ALL (100% of) the Qadianis in the world on a database and that they were converting to their religion tens of millions every year, but MOSSAD Mirza was unable to provide any evidence at all. It was obviously a lie! The Qadiani claim that they number 200,000 000 is also another bare faced lie! But, MOSSAD Mirza does tell the truth sometimes when he admitted and lamented that Qadianis do not seem to be able to convert Muslim Mauritians to their religion!

As quoted by the Brother “sherafghan”

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
**
Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945**

*According to some sources, Dr Mehmood Ahmad Qadiani has announced in their centres (in Pakistan) that anyone who will convert one Muslim to Qadianism will be rewarded Rs 25,000 cash whereas if he converts an entire family, he will be rewarded from Rs. 200,000 to 500,000. *

Backed by the UK, the US, the IMF, India and Apartheid Israel, the Qadianis have established training camps, for example, in the jungle of West Java, in Qadian in East Punjab (under MOSSAD-RAW, the Zionist-Indian Intelligence Services). They already operate about 100 NGOs in Pakistan (controlled by the Qadiani Center at 16-18 Gressenhall Road London SW18 5QL and MOSSAD-KABABIR of Apartheid Israel) and are causing serious sectarian conflicts and using their influence (just like the Christian missionaries and evangelists) to convert desperate Muslims who have survived continuous bombings by the western military and their Pakistani and Afghan agents and those who have been struck by the Zionist orchestrated economic crisis.

The Qadianis have a plan to take over Pakistan to be their agent of International Zionism, and already had their people in top places since the creation of Pakistan, many under cover, including in the military. Once they are in control of nuclear Pakistan, they would join up immediately with India. In 1968, MOSSAD-CIA wine-drinking non-practicing so-called Muslim Musharraf (or Busharraf) got married and converted to Qadianism – a well executed Zionist plan. Did Jews not groom Barack Hussein Obama and got him a Jewish wife (how convenient!) and catapulted him from unknowndom to power as they did with Adolph Hitler?

“Start an International Qadiani Operation from January
Pakistan is an ideal state to promote Qadianism
Time has come to dominate the world
Attract people towards our jamaat by making them secular

Statement of Mirza Tahir
(Daily Ummat, Karachi. dated 1st December 2000, main front page)

The central leader of Jamaat Ahmadiyya, Mirza Tahir Ahmad Qadiani has issued instructions to start international Qadiani operation from January (2000). Addressing on Thursday (30th November) on MTA, Qadiani satellite channel, he said that now time has come that Qadianism dominate all over the world, for this Qadiani operation is being started from January 2000. He said: Get up and conquer the whole world. He said that I am very happy with the propagation of Qadianiyat in Pakistan and people are entering it in groups. He said that in Pakistan, people should be made to enter Qadianism by making them secular. Mirza Tahir said that the reports that have been sent to us by the preachers in Pakistan, it is clearly apparent that Pakistan is the most suitable country for propagating Qadianism. During his speech Tahir Qadiani lauded the efforts of Dr Anas Qadiani and Dr Mehmood Ahmad Qadiani who are engaged in actively propagating Qadianism in Pakistan and said that these persons have rapidly spread the Qadiani mission in Pakistan. Tahir Qadiani said that we are receiving some reports that Pakistani Government is planning to place hurdles in the propagation of Qadianism in Pakistan and wants to restrict Qadianis. (which means that until now there were no hurdles nor restrictions on Qadianis! - Rashid) but now it depends on you how you go ahead with the propagation of Qadianism. He said that our religion teaches us that whoever becomes a hurdle in the way of religion, demolishes it. He said that as the followers of Shia, similarly I want to get Qadianism accepted in Pakistan and soon we will (who are we? IMF? US? - Rashid) force Pakistani Government to formally accept Qadianism as a religion and give them religious freedom. In the end he said that the pace of propagation of Qadianism in Pakistan should be increased further, he said that in January he will address those Muslims who have entered the fold of Qadianism in Pakistan.”
**October 2000 - **From Alhafeez.org

REMOVAL OF QADIANIS FROM ARMED FORCES DEMANDED

2000, Oct. 14: Addressing the concluding session of the two-day 19th Annual Khatm-e-Nubuwwat Conference the chief of Jamiat-ul-Ulema Islam (JUI) Maulana Fazlur Rahman and other speakers demanded immediate elimination of the Qadianis from the armed forces, terming their presence an effort to destroy the Jihadi spirit of the forces.Maulana Fazlur Rahman said, "The Qadianis are being given key posts in different departments which gives the impression as if the government has been transplanted here to fulfil the US ambitions. Qadianism is grooming under the cover of the NGOs."

My enemy Qadiani Mubarak Sooltangos, I have read your article that appeared in the fascist, anti-Muslim, anti-Islamic, anti-Arab, and anti-Truth Mauritian newspaper “le mauricien”. My response will of course not be printed in that paper as its chief Zionist editor Gilber SS Ahnee has little to do with truth and information (like the other government controlled media), and because his policy has always been disinformation, propaganda, and hatred towards all freethinking and freedom-fighting Muslims and Arabs, and because “le mauricien” has been a free Zionist platform for Qadianis posing as Muslims to fool mainstream orthodox Muslims who are just trying to emerge from centuries of murderous British imperialism and colonialism. The imperialists received help from the treacherous drug-addict, paedophile and bisexual Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his followers.

I have also read Mr M. Rafic Soormally’s excellent piece that I found in the same newspaper « le mauricien » of 27 May 2009.

One thing is for sure. There is too much at stake for people like you to come back to their senses, but, as some say, God works in mysterious ways.

I am not discussing the FAITH of your people here. Faith is a strictly personal matter and I respect every one’s faith as long as it does no harm, and, I am not denying the right of other religions to exist.

But, I am talking of a purely internal Islamic matter where some Muslims turned apostates and traitors helped the enemies of their own fellow Muslims and of Islam to destroy the Khilafah, Islam and Muslims and create a new religion by blaspheming and usurping the name of Prophet Muhammad (Ahmad), peace and blessings upon him; usurping the names of and slandering his Companions (even that of Bibi Fatima RAA), may Allah be pleased with them all; slandering Muslims, Islam and Muslim Scholars in order to please the global ruling enemy and for personal gains.

Your EXTREME HATRED for what your people call “mad Mullahs, mad Maulvis” is well documented. Under Islamic Law, all religions are allowed to exist in peace, but not “Qadianism” as it is a political Sect of apostates and their descendants, of traitors, liars and hypocrites who have fabricated a new political religion they have falsely called Islam and usurped the name of Muslim, Muhammad **and Ahmad*. That Sect can thrive only in non (anti) Muslim countries and in Apartheid Israel, but it will (and should) never be allowed to operate as Islam and Muslim in any **free Muslim country. **You can hide behind your masters’ bogus human rights, bogus religious tolerance, bogus non violent ideology and secularism, true Muslims will never let you and your kind sleep soundly like we are doing to the criminal Jews and Zionists that are killing our people in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Pakistan. **By the relentless bombing and killing of thousands of Muslims and by demonising Pakistan, you hope Qadianism will take over, but this will not happen, insha’Allah! **Now, you are copying the Jewish Lobbies (AIPAC, CRIF, ADL, CHABAD, Jewish Chamber of Deputies, etc.) by inviting the Prime Minister of Mauritius **Nuvindranath Ramgoolam* to a dinner and ‘bribe’ him to be your mouthpiece of Qadianism to the people of Mauritius and slander orthodox Islam and mainstream Muslims. Bravo!

But, I have learned to NEVER argue with Qadianis on Islamic matters because they are expert liars, and will throw their whole Encyclopeadia Qadianica at you every time you ask them a very simple question. One such nut case is a Qadiani “student” from the USA, calling himself “NuzuluMasih” and who describes himself thus: “Religious, knowledgeable, intellectual, open minded, sentimental, affectionate, warm hearted” and whose hobby is “Spirituality, Religious debates, poetry, sports”. But, he ‘forgot’ to say politics!

*Like Jews, his people want a homeland and have chosen Pakistan, and the British and Zionists have vowed to give it to them!!!!!!! *

NuzuluMassih” (I wonder who anointed – masihized - those guys!) is also a preacher and a missionary of Qadianism. So, from experience, my advice to Muslims is: NEVER TO DISCUSS ISLAM WITH QADIANIS! NEVER! NEVER! NEVER!

If you ever have to talk to them, just ask them a few questions and demand very short answers. If they start flooding you with Islamic quotes and long texts, SAY NO! They are very easy to debunk, but not for the un-informed Muslim. It is like witchcraft. If you have no knowledge, please, KEEP AWAY! Don’t forget they are learning fast from the Jewish Cabal!

In the next part I will, insha’Allah, provide a few damning facts about Qadianism that do not need any expert interpretation. Any young student can understand them because they are straightforward. Both Pakistani Presidents who passed laws against them were murdered, one author who published a book denouncing the false prophet was murdered (find out his name…Elahee?), and that all books containing incriminating sayings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad have been systematically destroyed and replaced by new expurgated ones in English! They will show you books from their library bearing the same names, but the contents would be different. I have witnessed this myself. (Jews have often one set of books (or newspapers) in Hebrew (for the Jews) and one set in English for the Goyim (non Jews) but they do not match!)

(To be continued, God willing)

Ghyslaine ROC

Servant of God, and of no man or government!
Wednesday 10th of June 6009

Re: Ahmadis in Pakistan

^^ye kon garre murde ukhaar raha hai?

in RC language: chan pehli post wo bhi itni lambi...lolz

LOL

;)

RC

Re: Ahmadis in Pakistan

I see no point in resurrecting this thread.