Allegations Against Ahmediyya

Re: Allegations Against Ahmediyya

sir aapka haq banta hai miene kab aapko roka....aaap bila takalluf apna mokuff pesh karrien...Urdu mien karrien..Panjabi mien karrien...koi masla nahin....

Lekin koshish karrien ke jo baat pehle ho chuki hai usse na dohraaien...mera maqsad bilaawajh ki behes mien parna nahin...balke aik koshish hai ke agar kisi ko koi aitraaz hai to pesh karre orr mien apni soch ke mutaabiq jitna achi tarah jawab de saka doon ga...aage parhne waale ki marzi maane na maane...agar aap wohi baatien jo ooper angrezi mien kahi gai hian unhien dohraana chahtien hain to mera khyaal hai iss ka koi khatir khawah faaida kam azz kam mujhe to nahin nazar aa raha...

jahan raha sawaal jawaab ka ooper waale mozu ka wo mene Aramis sahiba ko personal message kia hua hai taake wo kuch baatien clarify karr dien to mien apni final post pesh kar doon ga.

Re: Allegations Against Ahmediyya

thank

Re: Allegations Against Ahmediyya

go ahead detox....u also do not need MY permission. its public thread nothing personal. make what ever claims you have to. :D

Re: Allegations Against Ahmediyya

[QUOTE]

However If the doctor says its not Pandemic disease then whosoeve claims that he passsed away with Diarrhea and persisting should be called lier.

[/QUOTE]

i read the article and i wud like it if tipu cud produce hiyat e nasir...to see if mirza who clamed to be nabi was lying when he said he had' 'wabai hauza''

Aramis look I cannot go round in circle about this issue. As you would have noticed from above replies that I am not arguing. (perhaps apart from third reply I made to RC.

So here is what I have to say:

**He did not die of **CHOLERA.

Why? Because:

A reference from Hayaat e Nasir is irrelevent when a qualified DOCTOR is saying that he has not passed away from the pandemic diesease.

Hayaat Nasir is a Bibliography and in my personal opinion there can be a room for error in this. Second point is how did Hadhrat sb (A.S) got to know its CHOLERA? Even if he said that then it may have been incorrect thought.

More can be read about Pandemic Cholera at following page.
Cholera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](Cholera - Wikipedia)

 
The second issue arrises that Hadhrat sb (A.S) said that death from plague is punishment from Allah. And then I quoted some Ahadith saying the person who dies from CHOLERA is martyr.

[QUOTE]

 
Sahih Muslim
 
Chapter 51: ABOUT THE MARTYRS 
 
Book 020, Number 4705: 
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the, Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: While a man walks along a path, finds a thorny twig lying on the way and puts it aside, Allah would appreciate it and forgive him The Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: The martyrs are of five kinds: one who dies of plague; one who dies of diarrhoea (or cholera) ; one who is drowned; one who is buried under debris and one who dies fighting in the way of Allah.
 
Book 020, Number 4706: 
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira (through another chain of transmitters) that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Whom do you consider to be a martyr among you? They (the Companions) said: Messenger, of Allah, one who is slain in the way of Allah is a martyr. He said: Then (if this is the definition of a martyr) the martyrs of my Umma will be small in number. They asked: Messenger of Allah, who are they? He said: One who is slain in the way of Allah is a martyr; one who dies in the way of Allah, is a martyr; one who dies of plague is a martyr; one who dies of cholera is a martyr.
 
Ibn Miqsam said: I testify the truth of your father's statement (with regard to this tradition) that the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: 
 
The Holy prophet said that one who dies of amongst other things of DIARRHOEA OR CHOLERA will be counted amongst the MARTYRS OF THE UMMAH.

[/QUOTE]

 
The answer to above lies in following Ahadith: (I know I am copy pasting the same material again but this time with better presentation and understanding).
 

[QUOTE]

 
Sahih Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 86, Number 104: 
 
Narrated 'Amir bin Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas: 
That he heard Usama bin Zaid speaking to Sa'd, saying, "Allah's Apostle mentioned the plague and said, 'It is a means of punishment with which some nations were punished and some of it has remained, and it appears now and then. So whoever hears that there is an outbreak of plague in some land, he should not go to that land, and if the plague breaks out in the land where one is already present, one should not run away from that land, escaping from the plague." 
 
Sahih Muslim;-
Book 026, Number 5493: 
 
'Amir b. Sa'd b. Abu Waqqas reported on the authority of his father that he asked Usama b. Zaid: What have you heard from Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) about plague? Thereupon Usama said: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Plague is a calamity which was sent to Bani Isra'il or upon those who were before you. So when you hear that it has broken out in a land, don't go to it, and when it has broken out in the land where you are, don't run out of it. In the narration transmitted on the authority of Abu Nadr there is a slight variation of wording.
 
In the above mentioned SAHIH hadith the prophet has also clearly said that, PLAGUE WAS A “CALAMITY SENT TO BANI ISRAEL” AND IN ANOTHER A “PUNISHMENT WITH WHIH SOME NATIONS WERE PUNISHED”

[/QUOTE]

 
 
I have made my point. I dont have anything further to add to this subject.

Re: Allegations Against Ahmediyya

thats good that u firmly believe that mirza ghulam did not die of cholera....even though u said it meant shahadat at first......

mirza claimed to be a prophet and incarnation of many prophets etc as we have seen in many of his writings ...he also thought in his alham that he was god etc.

so if he was such a GREAT nabi how can he utter something thats not true.?????
i will try and find other reference to his saying too. i am sure this book is not the only one that mentions this.

till then...(may be!)

Re: Allegations Against Ahmediyya

lol..Aramis sahiba...I shall indeed wait for your post....lekin zara hola raath rakhyye ga....aap kabhi kabhi kabhi ghussa khaa ke dher saara material post kar deti hian or mien masoom jaan bichaara phans jaata hoon.

I have only one suggestion....just read what you are posting before you post with correct citations and references.

As for above that I wrote "the person who dies from pandemic disease is shaheed" I have also posted the Hadith in reply to that taake khaate ka patta hi saf ho jaaye!

:)

WHATEVER :snooty:

Re: Allegations Against Ahmediyya

so senseless

Ahmediyat was created by the help of the British in the late 1800s to divide the Muslims of India! period! The Qadianis are very loyal to the British Crown! They were against Indian partition and played no role in helping the Pakistan effort!

An objection that is raised is that the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement described himself as a tree planted by the British and that he flattered the British and praised them unduly, which shows that his claim to prophethood had been sponsored by the British.

This charge is entirely false. The Promised Messiah, peace be on him, used the expression 'a tree planted by the British' concerning his forebears with reference to the services rendered by them to the British. He has not employed this expression anywhere concerning his claim, or his status. He wrote:

*It is not possible to silence those people who seek to cover up the devoted services rendered by my father, Mirza Ghulam Murtaza, and my brother, Mirza Ghulam Qadir, extending over half a century, which are mentioned in Government letters and in Sir Leppel Griffin's book Chiefs of the Punjab, and the service rendered in my writings extending over eighteen years and to create a misunderstanding in the minds of the British authorities and to raise a doubt concerning a family that has been loyal to the Government and has wished it well. Some people are determined to convey to the Government false allegations on account of religious differences; or out of jealousy, or spite, or some personal motive. It is requested that the authorities should act with wisdom and caution and after due investigation and attention towards a family whose loyalty and devotion have been well established and concerning whom high officials of Government have always expressed the view in their letters that its members are the well wishers and loyal servants of the British Government and which is a tree planted by itself. (Tableegh Risalat, Vol. VII, pp.19-20)
*
It is quite clear that the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, did not describe his claim as 'a tree planted by the Government', but has used this expression concerning the services rendered by the members of his family and himself in the past. Concerning his claim, he had recorded in the same letter addressed to the Lieutenant Governor:

  I claim to be the Promised Messiah under Divine behest and having been honored by Divine revelation and inspiration.

With regard to his own advent he announced emphatically that he was a tree planted by the hand of God Almighty. He wrote:

I am not a tree that can be uprooted by them. If their first ones and their last ones, and their living ones and their dead ones, should all combine together and should pray for my death, my God would reject all their prayers and would throw them back at them as a curse. (Arbain, Nos. 4-7)

In a Persian verse he has said:

  O thou who runnest towards me with a hundred hatchets!
  Have fear of the gardener,
  For I am a fruit-bearing branch!

**
It can be asked why did he in any case express his loyalty and praised the British repeatedly in his books**? The answer is that some people continuously reported to the Government that he was a dangerous person, even more dangerous than the Sudanese Mahdi. For instance, Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Sahib of Batala wrote concerning him:

His deception is proved by the fact that in his heart he considers it lawful to put an end to the authority of a non-Muslim government and to plunder its belongings... Therefore, it would not be proper on the part of the Government to rely on him and it would be necessary to beware of him, otherwise such harm might be suffered at the hands of this Mahdi of Qadian as was experienced at the hands of the Sudanese Mahdi. (Ishaatus Sunnah, Vol. VI, 1893)
*
**To counter this propaganda, he had to state time after time in books that his community was loyal to the British Government.
*

Regarding the charge that he flattered the British, attention might be drawn to some of his writings. For instance, he says:

Some ignorant people have raised the objection, among them the Editor of Al-Manar, that as I live in a country ruled by the British, I, therefore, forbid Jihad. These stupid ones do not consider that if I had wished to please the Government with false declarations, why should I have affirmed repeatedly that Jesus, son of Mary, was delivered from the cross and died a natural death in Srinagar and that he was neither God, nor Son of God. Would not such of the British who are devoted to their religion be disgusted by this affirmation of mine? Then attend to this, ye stupid ones, that I offer no flattery to this Government. The truth is that according to the Holy Quran, it is forbidden to go to war against a government which does not interfere in any way with Islam or its practice, nor uses force against us in order to promote its own religion. (Kishti Nuh, p.68)

He states further:

This Government safeguards the lives and the properties of the Muslims and provides them with security against the attack of every wrongdoer... I have not embarked upon this enterprise out of any fear of Government or in the hope of any reward from it. All I have done is in accordance with the divine command and the command of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. (Nurul Haq, Part I, p.30)

He also states:

I have never desired that I should mention my continuous services to government officials, for I consider it my duty to declare the truth, not out of my desire for any return or award. (Tableegh Risalat, Vol. VII, p. 10)

Another statement of his is:

I do not flatter the Government as some ignorant ones imagine because I desire a return from the Government. On the contrary, I consider it just and a duty on account of my faith to express gratitude to the Government. (Tableegh Risalat, Vol. X, p.123)

Thus, whenever he praised the British, it was not out of flattery but was out of obedience to the direction of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, that he who is not grateful to man is not grateful to Allah. To call a justice-loving government a just government is an Islamic quality and is not open to objection.

It is surprising that when the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, pointed out some of the good qualities of the British he was charged with flattering them, but when numberless Muslin divines, both those who were his contemporaries and those who came after him, praised the British in exaggerated terms, no one raised a voice against it. Is that Islamic justice?

We set out below, by way of illustration, some of the declarations of Muslim divines and leaders who described the British Government as a divine blessing.

(i) Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Sahib of Batala, who was one of the divines and leaders of the Ahle Hadees, wrote:

It is not permissible for Muslim subjects to fight, or to help with men and money those who fight, against a government, whether Christian, or Jewish, or of some other faith, under whom the Muslims carry out their religious duties and obligations freely. For the Muslims of India it is forbidden to oppose or rebel against the British Government. (Ishaatus Sunnah, Vol. VI, No. 10)

He has also stated:

Brethren, this is not the time of the sword; at this time it has become necessary to use the pen in place of the sword. (Ishaatus Sunnah, Vol. VI, No.12)

(ii) Syed Ali-al-Hairi Sahib, the well-known Shia mujtahid, has stated:

We take pride in being subject to a Government under which justice and religious freedom are the law, the equal of which is not to be found in any other government of the world. Therefore, I declare that in return for this beneficence every Shia should be grateful to the British Government with a sincere heart and appreciate its beneficence. (Mauiza Tahreef Quran, April 1923)

(iii) Hazrat Syed Sahib Brelvi declared:

Our true purpose is the propagation of the Unity of God and the revival of the practice of the Chiefs of the Prophets, and that we carry out without hindrance in this country. Then why should we fight the British Government and shed the blood of both sides contrary to the principles of our religion. (Biography of Hazrat Syed Ahmed by Maulana Muhammad Jaafar Thanesar)

(iv) An-Nadwah, the organ of the Nadwatul Ulama, wrote:

The true purpose of this institute of learning is to produce clear-minded divines and it is the duty of such divines that they should be familiar with the blessings of the Government and should propagate loyalty to the Government in the country. (An-Nadwah, Vol. V, July 1908)

Again, the same organ wrote:

One day was observed as a holiday in celebration of the fifty years' Jubilee of the British Government and a telegram of felicitations was dispatched on behalf of the Nadwah to His Excellency the Governor-General. (An-Nadwah, November, 1908)

It is against this background that the Promised Messiah expressed his gratitude to the British Government. He set forth his reasons thus:

The Government has provided freedom for every people to propagate their religion and thus the people have gained the opportunity to investigate and reflect upon the principles of each religion and the arguments in support of them... That is the reason that we mention the beneficence of the British Government repeatedly in our writings and speeches. (Roedad Jalsa Dua)

Many of the Muslim divines and leaders obtained grants and awards from the British Government in return for their praise of the Government and their service to it. The Promised Messiah, peace be on him, did all this for the purpose of the propagation of the true Islamic teaching and sought or obtained no advantage of any kind from the British Government. Can the opposing Muslim divines point to a single instance in which the British Government conferred any benefit upon him in return for his praise of the Government? There is no such instance. He was a resident of Qadian and during his lifetime no facility, like the telegraph, or telephone, or railways, was provided by the Government. He lived in perpetual danger on account of the provocative writings and speeches of the opposing divines, but the Government never took any step towards his security, nor rendered him any financial assistance. There was no police or military unit in Qadian. He was repeatedly prosecuted on false charges but the Government showed him no favor. Would that be the attitude of a government towards one who, as has been alleged, was put up by government and was its spy?

When the Promised Messiah, peace be upon him, put forward his claim, the opposing divines for many years continued to charge him with being the agent of the Government and on the other hand reported to the Government that he was disloyal and intended to bring about a rebellion.

On one occasion he received a revelation in Persian to the effect that the British Empire would last only for eight years and that thereafter a period of weakness and disorder and decline would set in. He communicated this revelation only to some members of his Movement. When Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Sahib of Batala, who was always in search for something on the basis of which he might be able to establish that the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, was disloyal to and a rebel against the British Government, learnt of this revelation from a member of the Movement, he at once wrote an article justifying his assertion that he was a rebel who desired to bring about the end of the British Government and Empire.

In any case, is it not surprising that a person who, according to his opponents, had been put up by the British Government should convey to his followers that the days of that Government had been numbered? Had he been put up by the British he would have propagated in support of the strength and permanence of the Government rather than make a prophecy that the Government would not last for much longer.

Another matter that is worthy of note is that the British Government spent millions of pounds in the effort to establish Christianity in its colonial possessions. They published a vast literature in support of this effort and helped to train thousands of missionaries for that purpose. Under the auspices of the Bible Religious Society millions of copies of the Bible were printed in local languages *and were published freely and nothing was left untried for the propagation of Christianity and its firm establishment. Then does it stand to reason that on the one hand an intelligent Government should carry on such a tremendous effort for the propagation of its religion and on the other hand should put up a person who applied the ax to the roots of Christianity? Christianity is founded on the death of Jesus upon the cross whereby, it is alleged, he atoned for the sins of mankind. The Promised Messiah, peace be upon him, proved that Jesus did not die upon the cross and thus demolished the very foundation of Christianity. He challenged the principal Christian missionaries in India and established their falsehood. Can such a person be the agent of a Christian government?
*

All Christian missionaries were united in their opposition to the Promised Messiah, peace be on him.
If they knew that he was one of their own men, why should they have opposed him so strenuously? One of his well-known Christian opponents was Padre Thakurdas, He wrote and published books like the Review of Braheen Ahmadiyya, Izalatul Mirza Qadiani, Zunub Muhammadjyya, against the Ahmadiyya Movement. Padre S. P. Jacob wrote and published a book against him called The Promised Messiah. The Rev. Dr. Griswold wrote and published a book titled Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani against him. Leading missionaries like Fateh Masih, Waris Masih, Imadud-din, Sirajuddin, Abdullah Atham, and Henry Martyn Clark, worked their utmost in their Opposition to him. Abdullah Atham was an Extra Assistant Commissioner. If the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, had been put up by the British, was it for them to instruct one of their senior officers to oppose him? Dr. Henry Martyn Clark instituted a false prosecution against him charging him with conspiracy to murder. Was this the type of treatment which was to be expected from the Christians against an agent of the Government?

Till two years before his death the name of every visitor to Qadian was noted down by police agents. Most of the leading British officials looked upon the Ahmadiyya Community with suspicion and were opposed to it. The Governor of the Punjab, Sir Herbert Emerson, was well-known for his hostility towards the Ahmadiyya Movement. He encouraged the Ahrar in their Opposition to the Movement and backed them up. Does all this show whether the British officials were the friends of the Ahmadis or were opposed to them?

The Opponents of the Ahmadiyya Movement describe as an agent of the Christian British Government, one who dubbed Christian missionaries as Anti-Christ (Chashmai-Maarifat), and who proclaimed:

All Christians are without faith and as such they have no right to argue with anyone in the matter of faith, until they first prove their own faithfulness. Their condition bears witness that on account of the lack of those qualities which Jesus prescribed as the qualities of faith, either they are without faith or he was false who set down such qualities for them which are not found in them. In either case it is established that the Christians are utterly far away from and are deprived of truth. (Karamatus Sadiqeen, p.55)

Can one who wrote this be an agent of the British Government? The Promised Messiah, peace be on him, was the person who blocked the advance of Christianity, who proved the death of the god of the Christians, who established the truth of the Holy Quran in contrast with the Bible, whose missionaries are busy demolishing Christian citadels around the globe and who invited the Queen of Great Britain, who was the greatest sovereign of her age, to give up Christianity and to accept Islam. Addressing her he said:

Honored Queen and Empress of India, with humble respect we submit that in this time of joy, which is the time of your Diamond Jubilee, you should endeavor... to rescue the honor of Jesus from the stain that has been put upon it. (Tohfa Qaisariyah)
**
Can any reasonable person accept that one who had been put up, as alleged by his opponents, by a Christian Government to uproot Islam, should stand up and invite the mightiest sovereign of his time, Her Majesty Queen Victoria, to accept Islam?**

Source: Taken from my facebook page which contains database of some major allegations and their reply. Facebook address is written in my Signatures.

This is also baseless allegation. It was Jamaat e Islami who were against the creation of Pakistan. Ahmadies made all sacrafices as they could in creation of Pakistan.

I will try to get some fact and figures for your information.


Kindly view the following video: I will add more information as I get

Re: Allegations Against Ahmediyya

Just one note,

It was a follower of Musleh-Moud who had been sent to England to call your beloved leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah back, so Pakistan could be created. Your leader whom you love so much already lost his nerves in the All Indian National Conference and left the conference p*ssed off, seeing no chance to create such a state.

Re: Allegations Against Ahmediyya

^Do you not consider yourself a Pakistani? Why all this "your" leader?

And which conference are you talking about, be specific.

Re: Allegations Against Ahmediyya

calm down people...please avoid dodgy comments...I dont want my thread get locked...plz!!!!......so far it has been very decent and I dont want WW3...

Re: Allegations Against Ahmediyya

This allegation was presented in another thread by user mYsTeRiOuS_gUy.

This objections raised against the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement is that he reviled his opponents, he called them zurrayatul bagbaya and other harsh names which is inconsistent with the dignity of a prophet.
**
**This is an entirely false charge and has no substance.
The Promised Messiah, peace be on him, has not reviled anyone, but in certain cases he confronted some of his opponents with their true picture and that only when those opponents raised a storm of vituperation against him and reviled him and his followers in vicious language and issued declarations against him in terms of vile abuse. He then drew their attention to their vileness. To describe a blind person as sightless is not harsh or abusive.

In the Holy Quran, the Jews and the Christians have been described as the vilest of creatures and have been called apes and swine and the worshippers of Satan (5:61).

005.060
YUSUFALI: Say: "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!"
PICKTHAL: Shall I tell thee of a worse (case) than theirs for retribution with Allah? (Worse is the case of him) whom Allah hath cursed, him on whom His wrath hath fallen and of whose sort Allah hath turned some to apes and swine, and who serveth idols. Such are in worse plight and further astray from the plain road.
SHAKIR: Say: Shall I inform you of (him who is) worse than this in retribution from Allah? (Worse is he) whom Allah has cursed and brought His wrath upon, and of whom He made apes and swine, and he who served the Shaitan; these are worse in place and more erring from the straight path.

The Jews have been compared with a donkey carrying a load of books (62:6).

062.005YUSUFALI: The similitude of those who were charged with the (obligations of the) Mosaic Law, but who subsequently failed in those (obligations), is that of a donkey which carries huge tomes (but understands them not). Evil is the similitude of people who falsify the Signs of Allah: and Allah guides not people who do wrong.
PICKTHAL: The likeness of those who are entrusted with the Law of Moses, yet apply it not, is as the likeness of the ass carrying books. Wretched is the likeness of folk who deny the revelations of Allah. And Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
SHAKIR: The likeness of those who were charged with the Taurat, then they did not observe it, is as the likeness of the ass bearing books, evil is the likeness of the people who reject the communications of Allah; and Allah does not guide the unjust people.

A certain personality has been compared to a dog (7:177).

007.176YUSUFALI: If it had been Our will, We should have elevated him with Our signs; but he inclined to the earth, and followed his own vain desires. His similitude is that of a dog: if you attack him, he lolls out his tongue, or if you leave him alone, he (still) lolls out his tongue. That is the similitude of those who reject Our signs; So relate the story; perchance they may reflect.
PICKTHAL: And had We willed We could have raised him by their means, but he clung to the earth and followed his own lust. Therefor his likeness is as the likeness of a dog: if thou attackest him he panteth with his tongue out, and if thou leavest him he panteth with his tongue out. Such is the likeness of the people who deny Our revelations. Narrate unto them the history (of the men of old), that haply they may take thought.
SHAKIR: And if We had pleased, We would certainly have exalted him thereby; but he clung to the earth and followed his low desire, so his parable is as the parable of the dog; if you attack him he lolls out his tongue; and if you leave him alone he lolls out his tongue; this is the parable of the people who reject Our communications; therefore relate the narrative that they may reflect.

It cannot be said that God Almighty has reviled these people or has used abusive language with reference to them. These expressions were employed against them in view of their moral and spiritual condition.

In the same way the Promised Messiah has not reviled anyone. For instance, at one place addressing the maulvis he described them as the vile sect of maulvis (Anjam Aatham, p. 21) whereupon a clamor was raised that he had abused them, whereas he had only applied to them an expression employed in a hadees in which it is reported that the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, had said that the divines of the latter days would be the vilest of creation under heaven (Mishkat, Kitabul Ilm). The Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, having called the divines of the latter days the vilest of creation, how could the Promised Mahdi and Messiah be blamed for addressing them in those terms?

"Abuse is one thing and a correct description, however bitter and harsh, is quite another, It is the duty of every speaker of truth to convey the truth to an erring opponent even though he might thereby (Izalah Auham)."

At another place he states:

"My words had assumed some severity against my opponents in my writings, but I was not the one to start such severity. **Those writings were undertaken in reply to the severe attacks of my opponents.* They had used such harsh and abusive language as called for some severity. This can be perceived by the comparison which I have instituted between the harsh language used by my opponents -and that used by me in the foreword of my book which I have called Kitabul Bariyyah. As I have just stated the harsh language used by me was by way of retort. It was my opponents who first used such language against me, I could have endured their harsh language without making a retort to it but I had recourse to a retort on account of two reasons: *
**
**One, so that my opponents, being faced with severity in reply to their harsh strictures, might change their tactics and might revert in future to the use of civil language;* *
**
and two, that the general Muslim public should not be aroused by the defamatory and provocative language used by my opponents. (Kitabul Bariyyah, p. 10,11)"

So far as genuine divines and respectable people were concerned, the Promised Messiah has referred to them in his books in very good style. He states:

"In this book and in my other books there is no harsh word or indication against those respectable people who do not descend to abuse and meanness. (Ayyamus Solh, title page)"

He states further:

"We seek refuge with God against defaming righteous divines and civilized respectable people, whether they are Muslims or Christians or Aryas. We consider all of them worthy of honor. We are not concerned even with foolish people. Our severe language is employed only against those who have become notorious on account of their vile language and foul-mouthed utterances. We always mention in good terms those who are good and are not given to abuse and we honor them and love them like brothers. (Lujjatun Nur, p. 61)"

By way of illustration of the type of language used against the Promised Messiah we set out one specimen out of hundreds. Maulvi Muhammad Hussain of Batala described him as a secret enemy of Islam, a second Masailmah, Anti-Christ, confirmed liar, black-faced. He said:

"A rope should be drawn around his neck and he should be decked out with a garland of shoes round his neck and should in this condition be paraded in the cities of India. He is a satan, evil-doer, wicked, shameless, worse than Anti-Christ, a descendant of Hulaqui. (Ishaatus Sunnah)"

Confronted with hundreds of such abusive and offensive declarations, if the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, set up a mirror before their authors by way of illustrating their low morals, how is he to be blamed? He made no false charge against them, nor did he abuse them but only applied to them in its true import the prophecy that the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, had made concerning them.

Let us now examine the specific charges of defamation and abuse of the divines which have been urged against the Promised Messiah, peace be on him.

It is objected that he castigated the divines by applying to them the expression zurrayatul baghaya which, it is alleged, means `the progeny of prostitutes'. The sentence from which this term is taken occurs in “Ayena Kamalat Islam” and runs as follows:

"Every Muslim will accept me and will confirm my claim except the zurrayatul baghaya whose hearts will have been sealed up by God Almighty."

This is a prophecy that a time will come when all Muslims will accept him and confirm his claim except such wicked ones whose hearts might be sealed by God Almighty. Thus it is clear that it is not the divines who are referred to in this sentence. Therefore, their clamor that they have been abused by the use of this expression is entirely without cause. The well known lexicon,** Tajul Urus*, has given the **meaning of baghy, which is the singular of baghaya, **as a female slave whether of ill conduct or not.* Accordingly, the meaning of the expression zurrayatul baghaya would be the progeny of female slaves, that is to say, those who do not possess the manly quality of accepting the truth.

The Tajul Urus further states that to call a person `son of a baghayyah' means that he is deprived of guidance.

The Promised Messiah himself has interpreted the term as meaning a wicked person. On Saadullah of Ludhiana being mentioned, the Promised Messiah observed that in his poem in Anjam Aatham, he had said concerning Saadullah:

You have persecuted me out of your vileness and now if you do not die in disgrace, 0 wicked one ibn bagha I will not have been proved truthful in my claim.

*Thus according to the Promised Messiah, the expression zurrayatul baghaya meant the progeny of the wicked and not the progeny of prostitutes as is alleged by his opponents. The, Promised Messiah, peace be on him, has applied to his opposing divines the same expressions that the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, applied to them as a prophecy.
*

He said:

There will arise a great turbulence among my people and in their terror they will have recourse to their divines and suddenly they will find them in the guise of apes and swine. (Kanzul Ummal, Vol.VII, p. 90)

The Promised Messiah, peace be on him, desired peace with the divines and employed some harsh words against some of them under grave provocation. He addressed the following invitation to his opposing divines:

It has occurred to me again today that I should once more approach you for peace ... Both sides should make a firm promise that they and all those who are under their influence would refrain from the use of every type of harsh language, which would include the use of expressions like Anti-Christ, faithless, wicked for the other side. . . The honor of the other side should not be assailed expressly or implied-ly. If someone from one side should visit the other side he should be received with civility and courtesy ... I have arranged that no one from my Community will publish anything orally or in writing which might be defamatory or contemptuous of any of you, This arrangement would go into effect when you announce that you will be responsible for seeing that all those who are under your influence, or are deemed to be under your influence, will refrain from the use of any type of abuse, defamation or vituperation. If such an agreement is put into effect it would be quite easy to determine in future which of the two sides has been guilty of aggression. (Tabligh Risalat, Vol. 1, p. 8)

The fact is that the Arabic expressions like waladul baghaya, ibnal haram, ibnal halal, and bintal halal etc. are all idiomatic expressions connoting evil-doers and do not mean illegitimate descent.

It should be kept in mind that the use of harsh language against the enemies of truth and to ridicule them and to make a harsh retort in answer to their harshness has been a characteristic of religious polemics through the ages. There is a hadees related on the authority of Hazrat Ayesha, may Allah be pleased with her, that:

The Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, directed his Companions to compose satires against the Quraish as a satire would be more painful for them than arrows shot against them. He sent for Ibn Rawaha and asked him to compose a satire against the Quraish, which he did, but the satire did not please the Holy Prophet. He then sent for Kaab bin Malik and then for Hasaan bin Sabit. The latter composed a long satire the first verse of which was:

You have satirized Muhammad and I proceed to answer you on his behalf looking to Allah for a reward. (Muslim, Part 2, chapter 'Fazail Hasaan bin Sabit')

In a comment upon this hadees, Imam Novi has written:

One should not be the first to embark upon severity or ridicule of the pagans, so that Muslims should safeguard their tongues against undesirable language. But when the other side embarks upon abuse and there should be need of defense against their mischief, it is permissible, as the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, directed.

you are asking me which conference? I thought you know that all! lol
I'm so surprised! And then people come want to talk to us without the background knowledge!

Go and search if you care!

PS:

I don't consider myself Pakistani! I have left that behind! I'm a kafir anyway for you and all your brethren
On my Passport, I have cut Islamic! For me it's just Republic of Pakistan! Nothing more!

look at my brother d-tox..ed

I hope your work will be rewarded!

Re: Allegations Against Ahmediyya

salam alaykum

I had a dream some months ago..im in a classroom..and the topic was qadianism..and i get up ..go up to the blackboard..take a piece of white chalk and write K F R on the board....

I had earlier read ahadith abt how when Dajjal comes..the words K F R(kafir) will be written on his forehead and every muslim whether literate or illeterate would be able to read it..

:)

May Allah bless His beloved..my beloved..the greatest and most lovable human being..Muhammad SallAllahoalahiwasallam!:)the Last Messenger and Prophet!love him sooooooooooooo much!

Shall I infact tell you what your dream means?

Shall I tell you who is meant KAFIR in your dream?
Shall I tell you what does white board means in your dream?

No one here is denying your love for Holy Prophet SAW The seal of Prophet. You will never see an Ahmadi saying that they love Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian more then Holy Prophet of Islam Hadhrat Muhammad Mustapha SAW.

If you have any particular allegation on writings then please present them and I will answer. This thread does not accomodate the translation of your dreams. As you might have noticed from some of my questions above that dream can have two meanings; one to accomodate my interest and one to your's.

Re: Allegations Against Ahmediyya

Firstly..it was a BLACK board with white chalk on..

Secondly..i DID NOT ask for any dream interpretation lol

Thirdly..this thread is about qadianism and so just
wanted to mention what i personally experienced about it

Fourthly..my dream is quite obvious as to its meaning:)

Lastly ..i do not wana get into this debate abt qadianis..just wanted to relate the dream!

The End.