Please Click Link Below
A letter to AKShaikh. We present the email without showing the name and email of the writer.
Please click the link below.
A Publication for the Help of the Faith and Breaking of Relations with Relatives who are Opposed to Religion
(translated from pp.219-221 Majmooa Ishtiharat vol. 1)
Viewers will remember that I, due to the pursuit of a religious argument and while asking for a sign and under the order of God and His revelation, published an article about the daughter of a relative, Mirza Ahmad Beg s/o Mirza Gaman Beg: That it is decreed and decided by God that the girl will eventually be married to me, though it may be in her state of virginity, or after being widowed God brings her to me. The detail of all these facts are in the mentioned article.
The reason for this current publication is that my son named Sultan Ahmad and who is an assistant Tehsildar in Lahore, and his aunt (wife of father’s elder brother) who thinks of him like her son, are themselves now opposed to this. Taking the whole matter into their own hands, they are of the opinion that on the day of Eid or following it, the girl should be married to someone else. If this opposing action was bing taken by others, I had no desire or need to interfere – it was an order of my God – and He could make it happen with his Grace and Favour. But, the central forces around this action happen to be those whose obedience to me is is obligatory. I repeatedly tried to make Sultan Ahmad understand, and wrote many letters calling on him: “You and your mother should distance themselves from this matter or else I will leave you and you will have no right on me any more.” They did not even reply to my letters and exhibited a complete exasperation towards me. If they had injured me with a sharp sword, I would have endured it, but they have annoyed me very much with religious opposition and the anguish of religious antagonism. They have broken my heart to a degree that I cannot describe and they deliberately wished for my severe humiliation.
Sultan Ahmad is guilty of two heinous sins:
First, that he desired to oppose the faith of Muhammad (saw) and he desired the attacks of opponents on the religion of Islam, and in his opinion, he has laid this foundation on the hope that I will be pr oven a liar and the faith will be disgraced, and opponents will be victorious. He has not discriminated in striking out with an opponent’s sword. And this foolish person did not understand that God, the All-Powerful and the Protector-of-Honour, is the supporter of this faith and supports me also and he will never let his servant go to waste. If the whole world were to try to destroy me, He would brace me up with His hand of mercy because I am His and He is mine.
Second, Sultan Ahmad declared me, his father, to be an absolute nobody and set out to oppose me and then perfected this opposition, in word and in deed. He helped my religious opponents and wholeheartedly accepted the disgrace of Islam.
Since he accumulated both types of sins into his soul, he has broken the relation with his God and also with his father; and so did both of his mothers (biological mother and aunt – translator). So, now that they have not kept any relation with me, I do not wish to have any type of relation with them. I am afraid to become sinful if I keep any association with such enemies of the faith. Therefore today, 2 May ’91, through this publication, I want everyone to know that if these people do not drop that idea; and if they do not stop the proposal about the engagement and marriage of the girl that they are furthering with their own hands; and if they do not reject the person that they have proposed for the marriage; and if the marriage takes place with that person – then —
From the day of such marriage, I will disown and disinherit Sultan Ahmad, and from the same day, I divorce his mother(MGA’s first wife – translator). And if his brother, Fazal Ahmad (MGA’s other son – translator) , who is married to the niece of Mirza Ahmad Beg (father of the girl), does not divorce his wife on the same day that he hears of the marriage, he too will be disowned and disinherited. None of them will have any right on me after that. And after such marriage, all relations of being relatives, sharing happiness, and of empathy – will be gone, and there will be no sharing in any good, evil, sorrow happiness, weddings and funerals. This is because they themselves broke off relations and were willing to break them. As such, keeping any relation with them now is absolutely sinful and against the honour of faith and an action like duyyoothi – and a believer is not a duyyooth. (could not find the translation or root of this word – translator)
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
2 May 1891
Translated by Akber Choudhry from “Parliament mein Qadiani Shikast” by Allah Wasaya
Proceedings on 5 August 1974 – first session
In this case, written arguments had been presented. A special parliamentary committee consisting of the entire house went into special session on Monday 5 August 1974 at 10 a.m. The Speaker of the National Assembly, Sahibzada Farooq Ali Khan, was presiding:
(examination of the witness, Mirza Nasir starts)
Mirza Nasir: Thinking of Allah as Present and Watching, whatever I say shall be the sincere truth (an evidentiary oath in Urdu – translator)
Attorney-General: Can you please state the details of the background of your family.
Mirza Nasir: I would like to request some time for this. I will present it to you in written form tomorrow.
Attorney-General: That’s all right, but are you the paternal grandson of Mirza Qadiani?
Mirza Nasir: Yes, the son of his son.
Attorney-General: Please introduce yourself.
Mirza Nasir: I was told that I was born on 16 November 1909.
Mian Gul Aurangzeb: Sound is not carrying . . .
Chairman: Please set the microphone and volume.
Mirza Nasir: I was born on 16 November 1909. I believe there is a little bit of discrepancy in my high school records. I finished high school in 193, B.A. In 1934, and then I went abroad. I did my PhD. In 1938. From 1944 to 1965, I was the principal of Talimul Islam College in Qadian and Rabwah. In November 1965, the Ahmadiyya Jama’at (community – but will not be translated for clarity of proceedings) elected me to be their Imam.
Attorney-General: Are you the successor to Mirza Qadiani?
Mirza Nasir: Yes.
Attorney-General: Are you also the Amir-ul-Mu’mineen (commander of the faithful – an Islamic term for temporal and spiritual supremacy – used for whoever commanded or will command most of the Muslim nation)
Mirza Nasir: Yes, that term is also used about me.
Attorney-General: And also Imam, Khalifatul-Muslimeen (Caliph of the Muslims), Khalifatul Masih (Caliph or Successor to the Messiah), Amir-ul-Mu’mineen. Are these all offices of your highness?
Mirza Nasir: People come and address me as such. In reality I am Khalifatul Masih al-Thalith (third successor to the Promised Messiah).
Attorney-General: Can different individuals hold the three offices independently?
Mirza Nasir: No. One person occupies all three offices.
Attorney-General: What do you mean by Ahmadiyya Jama’at?
Mirza Nasir: Members of the Ahmadiyya Jama’at are those who have pledged allegiance to the third Caliphate. There may be other Ahmadis who do not pledge such allegiance but we do not consider them included in Ahmadiyya Jama’at.
Attorney-General: By the phrase “those who do not pledge allegiance”, do you mean the Lahori group?
Mirza Nasir: Yes, but they are not included in us.
Attorney-General: In other words, they are not members of the Ahmadiyya Jama’at.
Mirza Nasir: Yes, they are not members of the Ahmadiyya Jama’at which is also known as the Mubai’een (those who pledged allegiance).
Attorney-General: What is the total number of individuals from the body of your Jama’at who elect the Imam or Khalifa?
Mirza Nasir: I do not know of the exact number. It includes various groups: Office-bearers of the Jama’at organization; those who have pledged life-long service; district-level office-bearers; those who entered the Ahmadiyya Jama’at or Movement during the life of Mirza Sahib and are living. All of these are permanent members. There was an article on this in the Al-Fazl newspaper. I will send you a copy of it.
Attorney-General: Thank you. But, can only these individuals from the whole Jama’at vote in this election?
Mirza Nasir: No. For example, we have more than one hundred jama’ats in the Lyallpur district (present-day Faisalabad). They all have one Amir, who is the representative of that district.
Attorney-General: But what about those from the period of Mirza?
Mirza Nasir: It is due to the sacrifices of those who pledged allegiance during the time of the founder of the movement and out of respect for their status as elders – they are not elected – but are continuing from past times.
Attorney-General: Are members of the family of Mirza Qadiani members of this electoral committee without any due right, or is it their right because they are members of Mirza’s family?
Mirza Nasir: People do not understand the meaning of “family”. I am a weak person and I hope that I should be able to make you understand. What was meant by “family” were his three sons, and they have all died.
Attorney-General: Now the sons of his sons. This is a good principle – if not sons, then their sons can be present?
Mirza Nasir: No. No. No-one. If they participate, it is out of right. See, “family” means the three sons, and no fourth one.
Attorney-General: Was any other name proposed during your election?
Mirza Nasir: There is no such thing; no one can propose himself.
Attorney-General: Did someone else propose a name?
Mirza Nasir: Yes, two other names were proposed and they were both from my family. When I was elected, the other pledged allegiance to me.
Attorney-General: What is your concept of “Khalifa”?
Mirza Nasir: It is our belief that Khalifa is chosen by God – votes are casted by them (members of the election committee) but it is the will of God that is at work and God has influence over their minds and only he whom God wills will be the Khalifa. God’s hidden will is at work in this election. After election, he cannot be subjected to a “no-confidence” with votes. Whenever God wills, he can cause him (the Khalifa) to die.
Attorney-General: What is the position of a decision of the Khalifa?
Mirza Nasir: An order of the Khalifa is binding, but I do consult with others. I concur with any opinion of the majority.
Attorney-General: Can the Khalifa reject the majority opionion (of advisors)?
Mirza Nasir: Yes, of course.
Attorney-General: Can you be suspended?
Mirza Nasir: It is out of the question.
Attorney-General: When you are “Khalifatul Masih al-Thalith”, then why are you known as “Amir-ul-Mu’mineen”?
Mirza Nasir: Jama’ats outside (of Pakistan) are not used to (or cannot pronounce – translator) this term, so they say something like it; but officially it is “Khalifa”.
Attorney-General: And “Imam of the Jama’at”?
Mirza Nasir: The meaning of “Khalifatul Masih” is Imam of the Jama’at.
Attorney-General: If “Jama’at” refers to the Ahmadiyya, then are not others mu’mineen? (faithful, believers)?
Mirza Nasir: Now I understand. “Amir-ul-Mu’mineen” means the commander of those people who accept the claim of the one who claimed to be the Mahdi – those mu’mineen.
Attorney-General: That is, Amir of Ahmadiyya Jama’at?
Mirza Nasir: Yes, this is close (to the fact). There is no other meaning.
Attorney-General: He who is not in the Jama’at, is a mu’min? (believer, faithful)?
Mirza Nasir: This is a long discussion.
Attorney-General: How many of you are there?
Mirza Nasir: We do not keep records.
Attorney-General: Is your proselytizing activity only in Pakistan and India, or beyond that?
Mirza Nasir: We spread love and affection everywhere.
Attorney-General: How many are they who accepted your love and affection overseas?
Mirza Nasir: There is no record of how many.
Attorney-General: To someone who joins, do you give a form to fill out?
Mirza Nasir: Yes, the form of the pledge of allegiance.
Attorney-General: The number of such forms?
Mirza Nasir: There is no record kept.
Attorney-General: How many people became Ahmadis in the last 20 years?
Mirza Nasir: There is no record kept.
Attorney-General: There is no record of anyone who becomes a member?
Mirza Nasir: We do not keep such records.
Attorney-General: Any register?
Mirza Nasir: Not to my knowledge. Whether we count the forms to pledge allegiance, is also not in my knowledge.
Attorney-General: Have you ever been involved in politics?
Mirza Nasir: Never. We have never even thought about this.
Attorney-General: Has any of your members run for government office?
Mirza Nasir: Not at all; never even thought about it. As a jama’at (community), not in this country, nor in any country of the world, have we ever made anyone to run (for election).
Attorney-General: Is the “Khalifa” not the head-of-state in Islam?
Mirza Nasir: Huzur (Prophet Muhammad), peace be on him, and his “Khalifas” were indeed – in both the temporal and religious spheres. Worldly, religious and spiritual Imamat (leadership) was conjoined in their persons. After the advent of Mirza Sahib, his (Mirza Sahib’s) successors have spiritual Imamat (leadership) and this is our fundamental belief.
Attorney-General: That is, the Khalifa cannot even be the President or Prime Minister?
Mirza Nasir: No, nothing. We are not even interested in politics.
Attorney-General: OK, if there is a disagreement between the head-of-state and the Khalifa, then members of your Jama’at . . . . .
Mirza Nasir: This is a new question: if the law of the land and faith collide, what way should one choose? See, we are 10 million worldwide, and 3.5 to 4 million in Pakistan . .
Attorney-General: What was your membership at the time of the death of Mirza Qadiani?
Mirza Nasir: A few thousand maybe . . . (after consulting) … about 400,000 at that time. It is an estimate.
Attorney-General: What was the number in the 1901 census?
Mirza Nasir: Do not know.
Attorney-General: Something is wrong. In 1908, at the time of the death of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, your number was 19,000?
Mirza Nasir: In the census?
Attorney-General: This is a document published by the British foreign office in 1920 to serve as fact for the use of its offices . . . .
Mirza Nasir: That is their statement.
Attorney-General: It is a report of the British government. In any case, it is their certification that at the time, the number of this religious group is not more than 19,000 and then they were divided into two camps, and the number was decreasing.
Mirza Nasir: The information of the British government may have been wrong.
Attorney-General: Mirza Mahmud, in his book, “Ahmadiyyat and Islam”, published in 1959, wrote that : In 1908, the followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad could be counted in the hundreds of thousands.
Mirza Nasir: I said so, four hundred thousand.
Attorney-General: But according to the census report of 1908, you number 18,000
Mirza Nasir: OK, it is all right.
Attorney-General: Then in the 1921 census, the number is 30,000 and in 1930-31, the total number is 56,000. This last number has been admitted by your father, Mirza Bashir (sic) in Alfazl, 5 August 1934.
Mirza Nasir: He was exhorting the subscribers of the paper.
Attorney-General: And said, our number is 56,000 . . .
Mirza Nasir: Yes. I follow your reasoning. (understand)
Attorney-General: Now let us look at the Munir Report. In 1954, it shows your number as 200,000.
Mirza Nasir: In all of Pakistan?
Attorney-General: Yes, that is what he says. I think you completely ignored the census scheme and all of a sudden, jumped to 3.5 or 4 million.
Mirza Nasir: Census-takers are non-Muslims and show Muslims as being less in number.
Attorney-General: Not the census. I am talking about the Justice Munir Report – that your number in 1954 was 200,000. In a similar way, this number is also in the 1960 edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam.
Mirza Nasir: (published) from Lahore?
Attorney-General: No. From Holland.
Mirza Nasir: Which page has these statistics?
Attorney-General: Look at page 10. It says: according to the numbers provided by the Ahmadis (to the 1960 edition), their number at that time in the whole world, according to them, is 500,000. As such, there will be 200,000 in Pakistan, and this is what Justice Munir wrote.
Mirza Nasir: I do not know who gave these numbers.
Attorney-General: Munir wrote: “I have been told”.
Mirza Nasir: I do not know who told him.
Attorney-General: We can deduce that some interested party must have told him. Any way, the short story is that I can say that you do not number more than 200,000 in Pakistan, and you cannot contradict me with any document.
Mirza Nasir: But it is my estimate . . .
Attorney-General: But you cannot contradict me by documentary means. Or you can bring the register, but then it is feared that the secret will be out.
Mirza Nasir: No, but this will be when there is an accurate census.
Attorney-General: In other words, you too have your doubts after this discussion?
Mirza Nasir: A census will provide the right number.
Attorney-General: In other words, even you do not know the right number at this time and you admit your lack of knowledge. OK, you said in Friday Sermon on 21 June (1974) that “every person is free to pursue his or her faith. No power and no government can interfere in this exercise of this right, and it is the demand of Article 20 of the Constitution.” Have you said this?
Mirza Nasir: Yes, that was my speech. There is religious freedom and no one can interfere in it under Article 20.
Attorney-General: Not even the Assembly or the Government?
Mirza Nasir: No one.
Attorney-General: If a person lies to save his life, does Article 20 give him permission to continue lying? Is not right to lie to save one’s life?
Mirza Nasir: It is not right according to me.
Attorney-General: Very well, OK. Now, it is not right to lie; but when a man lies about which religion he belongs to, is it the meaning of Article 20 that he should continue to lie, because there is religious freedom?
Mirza Nasir: How do you know that he is lying?
Attorney-General: For example, let us say that I am the principal of a college. A Muslim, trying to take a seat reserved for minorities, shows himself as a non-Muslim. Now, according to you, everyone is entitled express his/her faith. So, if he lies, I should not do anything? OK, I ask you this: You have quoted parts of the Constitution related to religious freedom in your speech. I respectfully ask you: did you quote the whole article or did you forget to quote part of it?
Mirza Nasir: I left out the beginning of it which is already in every mind.
Attorney-General: Thank you. That part being?
Mirza Nasir: Conditional on legality and the principles of morality.
Attorney-General: Yes. Meaning that religious freedom is conditional on law, morality and public peace. Do you admit this?
Mirza Nasir: It is obvious. It is a given.
Attorney-General: Now, a man falsely states his religion to achieve wrong goals, can he be restricted or not?
Mirza Nasir: No one has the right to restrict religious freedom.
Chairman: Look, the answer should be according to the question, though the witness agrees with it or not. The answer and the question should be related. Please answer the attorney’s question.
Attorney-General: Sir, it is not about agreeing. There are thousands of people who mislead others in this world. Now, if they make false statements about their religion, will you restrict them or not?
Mirza Nasir: A swindler should be censured.
Chairman: An answer to the question is expected. The answer is not according to the question.
Attorney-General: The question is about what is shown (expression). A person deliberately lies for his own material gain, what is the opinion of the honourable witness in this matter? If you do not want to answer, it is your choice.
Mirza Nasir: I would not like such a person.
Attorney-General: But do you think that the government can restrict . . .
Mirza Nasir: I condemn the youth who falsifies documents.
Chairman: Leave it. The delegation is excused for 15 minutes. We will break. Please be back at 12:15.
Chairman: Respected members, you saw everything. I am satisfied with the approach of the attorney-general.
Various Members: Yes, we are too.
Chairman: We are thankful, this should be recorded. It is expected that most of what we discuss and the issues are important. There are other items that are peripheral, and they will also be dealt with. I am a lawyer myself and I am very satisfied and I take it that this is your opinion too.
Various Members: Yes.
Chairman: Then, we will meet again at 12:15
By Bashir Ahmed
The prime objective of all Prophets of Allah has always been to establish the Unity and Oneness (Tauheed) of Allah and to strive for the establishment of His ‘Deen’. Among the foremost subject matters that are often greatly emphasised in the Holy Qur’an are Tauheed and the Day of Judgement. The Holy Qur’an gives us a concept of Allah Who is the Most High and Exalted in status – Who is The First and The Last, The Evident and The Immanent, The Most Merciful and The Prevailing. He is The Knower of all that is either hidden or visible and He is The Sovereign, The Irresistible and The Supreme. And surely it is He Who is The Creator of everything. He is The Most High Whose grasp is over all visions but no vision can ever grasp Him in this world [see 6:103]. And if all the trees on earth were pens and the ocean were ink, with seven oceans behind it to add to its supply, yet would not the words and attributes of Allah be exhausted [see 31:27]. He is The One – Exalted in status – Whose Glory is declared by the heavens and the earth and all beings therein.
After this brief introduction, let us examine what Tauheed is all about. Tauheed is not only to verbally confess the Unity and Oneness of Allah but also to accept Him as the sole Cherisher, Sustainer and the only God from the bottom of one’s heart – and to give precedence to His decrees over one’s desires – and to obey His teachings, brought to us by His Prophets, in an exacted manner as ordered by Him – and not to cause any insolence, disrespect or blasphemy against Allah with either one’s deeds or words.
Throughout the history of mankind various factions among the nations have been associating idolatrous beliefs and dictums toward Allah SWT, and thus by doing so, they have been blameworthy of the blasphemy against the Exalted Status of Allah. At times, these blasphemies were either idolatry acts and beliefs or blasphemous dictums otherwise – as an example, to say that Jesus (pbuh) is the son of Allah or that He has begotten a son or that angels are the daughters of Allah etc. These kinds of dictums, no matter how meaningless and absurd they are and might not have anything to do with the reality, are extremely abominable to Allah. To declare someone as Allah’s son is such a great blasphemy that if the heavens rupture and the earth splits open [upon this blasphemy] even then it is a lesser thing (see 19:88-92). Similarly, the dictum that angels are the daughters of Allah is a great blasphemy and there will soon be accountability on the Day of Judgement (see 17:40). Moreover, it is Allah’s verdict that if the blasphemous people do no desist from such dictums then the painful punishment will befall upon them (see 5:72-73). Therefore, the servants of Allah should never even say something according to their whims and fancies that are inconsistent with the Most Gracious Status of Allah and that may lead to the blasphemy, insolence and disbelief [of Allah].
With all the above discourse, let us see what Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani writes on pages 103-105 of his book “Kitab-ul-Bariyyah”:
“God entered my body.…….and in this condition I was saying that we want a new System and new Heaven and new Earth. Thus initially I created Heaven and Earth in a condensed form in which there was no system or differentiation, then according to God’s wish, I created a system and differentiation, and I was watching that I have the power to create this. Then I created the Asmaan-e-Duniya (Lowest Heaven) and said that ‘We have beautified the world’s heaven with lamps’. Then I said that now we will create human from the extract of earth.…….”
Just ponder a little that a person born of a mere drop of semen is daring to claim that in his vision he himself became Allah and then even created the heavens and the earth. Obviously, a person may claim whatever either verbally or in writings, or he may utter extreme nonsense, yet it would neither actually cause him to eventually become the God nor this would be credible to the world. But, this kind of blasphemous, sacrilegious and heretic dictum will most certainly invoke Allah’s wrath as evident from the Qur’an: [If any of them should say, “I am a god besides Him”, such a one We should reward with Hell: thus do We reward those who do wrong] [21:29]
Regardless of what Mirza sahib actually meant while calling himself Allah, it is absolutely clear in the light of the Qur’an that he deservedly justified invoking of Allah’s wrath upon himself. The followers of Mirza sahib often try to hide his utterance of Divinity behind the curtains of Mysticism (Sufism). But to find excuses for sins is a greater sin itself. Firstly, it is wrong to ascertain the claims of a claimant of prophethood in the light of Mysticism (Sufism) and its philosophy. It would only be fair to judge the character, teachings and dictums of a claimant of prophethood according to the criterion of previous Prophets of Allah and the Noble Qur’an. It is as clear as the daylight that the cardinal principle of the teachings of all Prophets was to establish the Unity of Allah (Tauheed) and none of the true Prophets of Allah ever committed any such blasphemy. This makes it absolutely evident that Mirza sahib was entirely wrong in his claim of prophethood since he was guilty of repeated blasphemies against Allah – The Most High and Exalted. Another example [of blasphemy] at a different place is that Mirza sahib claimed that his status is like Allah’s son despite the fact that at various places Qur’an has sternly rejected such absurd and meaningless dictums, thoughts and beliefs. As mentioned earlier, to declare someone as Allah’s son or to present such an allegory is such a great blasphemy that if the heavens rupture and the earth splits open [upon this blasphemy] even then it is a lesser thing. But Mirza sahib, while plunging in his self-assumed ocean of magnificence, has repeatedly written those things in his whims and fancies that are utterly disrespectful to Allah’s Exalted Status.
In a bid to defend Mirza sahib’s sacrilegious writings, Ahmadis either take refuge in Sufism and spirituality or present extremely distorted translations of some Qur’anic verses. Those verses whose twisted translation is normally presented include “wa ma ramaita iz ramaita” [see 8:17] and the verses revealed on the occasion of “Bai’t-e-Rizwan” [see 48:10] – with which Ahmadis usually declare quite audaciously and shamelessly that [Nauz-Billah] Allah manifested Himself upon Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and personalised the Holy Prophet during “Ghazwa-e-Badar” and “Bai’t-e-Rizwan”. The Ahmadi explanation of these Qur’anic verses is bizarre, ludicrous and regrettable since Sahibul-Quran Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself and his companions never inferred those connotations that are presented by Ahmadis in defence of Mirza sahib’s writings. As regards Sufism, it might be sufficient at this stage to mention that most of the heretical beliefs and practices of Sufism cannot be proven from Qur’an and Ahadith. Moreover, one does not find strong and credible evidence against those dictums and traditions often attributed to famous Sufis that would firmly establish their association with them. Most of the dictums attributed to famous Sufis are actually found in those books that have not been authored by them. On the contrary, these books were actually written by others at much later stages after the deaths of those famous Sufis. Hence, the authenticity of such dictums is highly questionable in the first place, and secondly, even if those dictums are proven authentic then from religious point of view nothing is the ultimate argument (Hujjat) for us if it is in contradiction to the Qur’an and Hadith.
Since Sufism is a separate and contentious subject in itself, it is sufficient to mention here that the philosophy of Islamic Mysticism (Tasawwuf) has deep roots in the philosophical thoughts borrowed from the ancient Greek, Persian and Indian philosophers. When the books of philosophers from these countries were translated in the era of Abbasid Caliphate then the hypothesis that ‘God is present in everything’ was readily included in Islamic Mysticism (Tasawwuf). The borrowed philosophical thoughts and beliefs later on gave birth to those heterodox and heretical thoughts of Tasawwuf that ultimately resulted in the surfacing of “Fana Fillah” [to become inseparable from Allah] theory and some of the Sufis happened to utter words like “Ana-al-Haq” [I am God]. Nevertheless, all kind of heterodox and heretical thoughts and beliefs, whether associated with Sufis or Aulia-e-Karam or Mirza sahib, are equally deplorable and shall be liable for punishment on the Day of Judgement.
As regards Mirza sahib’s heretic writings, they deserve to be even more liable for scrutiny [in the light of the Qur’an and Ahadith] in view of his claim of prophethood. As evident from the given excerpt, he claimed to have himself become Allah in the vision and thus created the heavens and the earth. Mirza sahib’s claim of Divinity is not limited to the given excerpt only. He has even claimed “Kun fa Yakoon” in his so-called and fabricated revelations. But the most interesting part is that the same Mirza sahib, in spite of having claimed to become Allah and thus the creator of the heavens and the earth in his vision and the recipient of ‘Kun fa Yakoon’ type of revelations, failed miserably in his bid to marry his dream-woman. He passed away with his unfulfilled yearnings while completely losing his honour and dignity in the process.
In the end, I request all Ahmadi brothers and sisters to scrutinise Mirza sahib’s heterodox and heretic writings with a neutral mind and put them to the test of Qur’an and Sunnah and to supplicate to Allah to guide them to the righteous path. Aameen summa Aameen.
Article # 5: NEW books exposing DEBACHERY, ORGIES, PERVERT lIVES OF QADIANI KHALIFAS.
(By Rashid Jahangiri)
On my recent visit to Pakistan I was able to collect and buy some booklets and books, exposing the immoral lives of Qadiani Khalifas Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, Mirza Nasir Ahmad, Mirza Tahir Ahmad and other prominent Qadianis e.g. Chaudhry Zafarullah Khan etc.
(1)Booklets were provided to me by: Former Waqif-e-Zindghi and former Qadiani Jamaat member Malik Aziz Ur Rehman. He is REAL brother of famous Qadiani Mr. Malik Abdul Rehman Khadam Gujrati (Khalid-i-Ahmadiyyat), author of ‘Ahmadiyya Pocket Book’.
(2) Former Waqif-e-Zindghi and former Qadiani Jamaat member Chaudhry Ghulam Rasul from Chak 35 near Sargodha (alias Penteree sahib), about whom Qadianis in their publication ‘Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat’ volume 19 did public defamation of private citizen. He gave me the book SHEHAR-E-SADOOM (Translation: City of Sodomy) by Shafiq Mirza. This book is available in the book stores in Urdu Bazar, Lahore. Some religious Muslim leaders in Pakistan has contacted to Chaudhry Ghulam Rasul sahib, to file a law suit on his behalf against Mirza Tahir Ahmad and Qadiani Jamaat on his public defamation in their publication ‘Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat’ volume 19. He is thinking on what to do next in this regard. In the mean time he is also busy in writing a book to answer the allegations in the Qadiani publication about him.
(3) From the book stall in the departure lounge at Lahore airport, I bought book: QADIANIAT AUS BAZAR MEIN (Translation: Qadianiat in that bazaar) by Muhammad Mateen Khalid. This book gives detail about Chaudhry Zafarullah Khan in addition to details about the immoral life of Qadiani Khalifas II, III and IV and Mirza Nasir Ahmad son Mirza Luqman Ahmad whose affairs with his girlfriend and mother Dr. Tahira was well known among Qadianis. This book gives details about the homosexual behaviour of Ch. Zafar Ullah Khan too with another Qadiani, owner of Shezan Juices and Shahnawaz Motors.
(4) On the inside of the jacket of book mentioned in point 3, there is ad of another book: SABOOT HAZAR HEY (Translation: Proof is available) by Muhammad Mateen Khalid. This book ALSO contain details of Sexual Behaviour of Qadiani Higher Leaders.
(5) On the inside of the back cover of book mentioned in point 3, there is ad of third book: QADIANIAT SEY ISLAM TAK (Translation: From Qadianiat to Islam) by Muhammad Mateen Khalid. This book contains the details given by former Qadiani about the inside organizational misconducts and why they left the Qadiani faith. I was told there is book namely: SIASAT DANOON KEY MUASHKEY (Translation: Love Affairs of Politicians). I have been told, this book also gives details about sexual behaviour of Chaudhry Zafarullah Khan. I was not able to find this book in book stores in Islamabad.
Email address for the books mentioned in point 3, 4 and 5 is:
email@example.com Address of publisher and places to get these books, given in the books is: Fateh Publishers, 8-A Yousaf Market, Ghazni Street, Urdu Bazar, Lahore, Pakistan.
Tel# 7232336 and 7352332
e-mail address: firstname.lastname@example.org
Ilm-o-Irfan Publishers, 7C Mather Street, Lower Mall Road, Lahore, Pakistan. Tel# 7352332
In the light of so much literature published by general Muslims and available in book store in Pakistan exposing life of Qadiani Khalifas and their sons and daughters and other prominent Qadianis, I don’t know how Qadiani Khalifas can even dream of returning to Pakistan. I have belief that Qadianis jamaat days are over in Pakistan.
by Akber Choudhry (May 2003)
This series of articles is dedicated to finding the root causes of the current problems of the Ahmadiyya from a historical context. Throughout its short history, this community has been accused of lying and recently, lying about its membership.
The roots of this can be traced to the ambiguity that the community’s founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, employed in using the word “nabi”. In the second article on “nabi”, we saw that he agreed that it was not to be used before him – even though there were people in the Islamic world who possessed “prophet-like” qualities. We also compared ibn Arabi’s postulations on this subject.
Wrapping this up, we will follow on “shari'” or ‘imperative’ prophethood and “tabi'” or ‘follower’ prophethood and go on to show how ibn Arabi’s clarification makes sense, and to depart from that is illogical. We will show that the non-questioning demand of the Ahmadiyya of its followers is enforced through this dogma of “nabi”.
Then, we will try to analyze history from this theological perspective, and we will see how strategic and tactical errors have led to the predicament that the Ahmadiyya find themselves in — and try to find a way out for them – with altruistic intentions!
Finally, we will try to present a way in which followers of the Ahmadiyya can benefit from the greatness of Islam and together with Muslims, prepare to take Islam into the Information Age.
Note: References of all events will be available in the final book form of these articles, insha-Allah.
Despite all the confusion over the word ‘nabi’ – which we have tried to simplify — the Ahmadiyya have consistently said that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was not a law-giving prophet. Here again, there is unfortunate confusion over the common Urdu-comprehensible word – “Shariat” – and the automatic comparison to Musa and Muhammad as the “law-bearing” prophets.
This over-simplification is not quite accurate. Let us look at some examples from the Holy Qur’an:
Haroon, Ya’qoob, Is-haq and Ismail are examples of direct follower prophets. They followed in the footsteps of Musa and Ibrahim. On the other hand, Saleh, Hood, Nooh, Shu’aib did not follow anyone directly.
In the Holy Qur’an the difference is very clear and that is the observation that led ibn Arabi to make his observations. In the Holy Qur’an – a follower prophet never gets up and says “God says to me to tell you this”; whereas an imperative prophet’s first words are “God has sent me to you and God wants you to do this – or not to do that”. This is also part of the Islamic distinction between “rasool” and “nabi” – messenger and prophet. Now ibn Arabi’s classification will make more sense to the reader.
In Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s writings, there is no such distinction between messenger and prophet – and according to him – his revelations have been –
initially, depicting the idea of “appearance” – like “ A Warner came to this world, but . . . “
later on, direct “sending” – “We have sent you …. “
Despite mentioning his latter revelations, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad never stood up and declared his prophethood as the shari’ prophets of yore had done. His “clarifications” come very close to declarations, but in my opinion, not quite. However, in one book, he clearly says the obvious, “that whenever there is ‘do’ or ‘don’t do’ in a prophets words, he becomes shari” ! (see reference nabi #1)
However, the confusion regarding the mixing of rasool and nabi, and Shariat and Shari’, lent a sense of the imperative prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to most of his followers. Let us see how this is inherently illogical.
The Great Qur’an says: 4:82 : “Do they not ponder over the Qur’an? Had it been from other than God, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.”
This remarkable statement, in its logical reverse, spells out the fact that any human work of comparative size – and duration of compilation — is bound to have contradictions – and lots of them! And Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s body of work, spanning 28 years and thousands of pages, was no exception.
However, by interpreting his claimed revelations of the latter period in the strictest sense, the Ahmadiyya have NEVER endeavoured to resolve the contradictions and inconsistencies in his writings. Even the discussion of such things is considered an excommunicable sin. More on this on the following pages.
Simple contradictions like the death of Jesus are admitted by the Ahmadiyya and are fairly simple to explain. For example, before God told him that Jesus had died, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad believed that Jesus was still in Heaven. This is simple to understand. What has not been explained or reduced to non-rhetorical beliefs are the different angles with which he approached certain of his claims and beliefs, especially the ones regarding prophethood and the Muslim nation. As a substantial part of his writings were reactionary, and hastily put together, and his sayings (mulfoozat) were copied by others as he spoke, there are different angles discussed, and discrepancies abound.
My point is here it is the perception of “imperative” and “God-sent” prophet in the Ahmadiyya followers that forces them to take every word literally – and quote from different books and sayings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, depending on the situation. This led led to the schism in 1914 and is the cause of many of their existing problems, as we shall see shortly.
Combine Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s writings and sayings with the writings and rhetorical speeches of the subsequent heads of the Ahmadiyya, and it becomes an “untouchable” and “un-discussable” corpus – which in my opinion is the cause of the intellectual paralysis of the Ahmadiyya that we see today, and that is being exposed in the Information Age.
The irony is that some opponents of the Ahmadiyya now feel that the tables have been turned. One of the rallying points of the Ahmadiyya was the perceived superiority of their intellectual and logical stance. Also, they encouraged an impression among their followers that Muslims and their leaders were ignorant, corrupt and that Muslim society was full of utter chaos and illogical beliefs.
To aggravate the situation further, it is worth noting that the initial followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad were from the educated segment of society and people deeply concerned about the future of Islam. The offspring of that initial group is what forms the core of the Ahmadiyya community now, and the sense of frustration is almost palpable among some members of this core segment.
The Second Head of the Qadiani Ahmadiyya, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, studied the papacy of Rome in great detail, and many of the structures and procedures that he developed for his community were based on the lessons learnt from that institution. Reading his books and commentary on the Qur’an, his knowledge of and appreciation for the long-lasting and constant nature of the Roman Catholic Papacy is obvious. The concept of Rabwah, the Electoral College, missionaries, Khilafat Palace, a degree of pomp and ritual, translations, missionary techniques in Africa, Youth organization etc. are examples of such institutions and procedures.
However, he and his successors were unable to complete the organization of the community according to the pattern of the Papacy. Here are five characteristics of the Roman Catholic Church which throw light on our discussion:
Bitter experience of the church when it meddled into politics and science. A lot of grief and bloodshed occurred in Europe due to this. Eventually, the church was reduced to its current form. The Roman Catholic Church’s problems led to the Protestant problem. Only a few years ago did the Pope officially apologize for those events. Lesson: keep your work religious, organize on religious grounds, let people keep their ideas and national affiliations, and apologize early for any mistakes.
College of Cardinals: Cardinals are not part of the hierarchical power structure of the Church, but are like membes of Parliament. They are nominated from bishops and acquire high learning and are responsible for research, doctrine, dogma, state relations, etc. They are also the electoral college for the election of the Pope and most of them are potential candidates. Bishops and priests form the bureaucratic and ministry hierarchy.
A well-developed theology in the form of law and rules. Starting from the time when many gospels were declared apocryphal, to the Council of Nicea, to modern day communications such as apostolic constitutions, encyclical letters, encyclical epistles, apostolic exhortations and apostolic letters. These are well thought out and keep the Church’s positions clear, consistent, and open, even if they are controversial. This whole body is known as Canon Law and is similar to Fiqh in Islam. The Catholic Catechism is a handbook of beliefs known to all Catholics.
In times of great change in the World, the Catholic Church holds a council and holds deliberations for several years to make changes within its teaching but accommodating newer challenges. Vatican I was held from 1868-1870 (discussing rationalism, liberalism and materialism) and Vatican II was held from 1960 to 1965. All the documents produced from these immense conferences are available to anyone, and every belief, including the infallibility of the Pope himself, is up for debate, with voting. These, and other lesser councils and meetings are held with ritual and prayers to God for guidance.
Saints are canonized many years after their death – with a rigorous process that spans generations. Miracles have to be documented in detail and substantiated beyond doubt.
I wil leave it up to the leader to recognize the gaps in elaboration, discipline, openness, sincerity and consistency. The closest the Ahmadiyya come to non-bureaucratic consultative bodies are the International Shura and the Electoral College, which leave a lot to be desired.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s self-descriptions and opportunity missed – wisdom of ibn Arabi’s analysis, and Mulla Ali Qari
In the details of his arguments with other scholars and as part of his unique style of preaching, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad left a huge amount of writings and sayings about himself. From 1908 to 1918, there was an opportunity to depart from the rhetorical and iron out the inconsistencies and come up with a platform for going forward. But partly due to the paralysis described above – where it was considered a sin and a weakness of faith to question even a word of what a presumed prophet sent from God had said – it was not done.
THIS is the DILEMMA that any person who DECLARES his prophethood will face in Islam. The moment a person says, “God sent me to ask you to do this and not do that” or others perceive him to say that, Islam will be abrogated. A careful reading of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s work shows that he tried hard to stay within this line, but his effluent self-descriptions have led his followers and his opponents to draw wildly differing conclusions. There was a golden opportunity to reconcile his statements and draw up a chatecism, and relegate his rhetorical or extremely theological positions to the status of his personal opinions and NOT a creed of his followers.
And THIS is the reason why ibn Arabi said that hidden prophet-like characteristics will not be exposed after Muhammad (saw). This is what Mulla Ali Qari means when he said that anyone CLAIMING prophethood is automatically a disbeliever by the consensus of Muslims. A member of the Ahmadiyya, Hadi Ali, has attempted to write something about this quote, but like most Ahmadiyya literature, it is rhetorical, shallow and accusatory. And this is what Mirza Ghulam Ahmad meant when he said that for 1300 years prophet-like characteristics of God’s pious people could not be called prophethood and this is what he meant when he limited to calling himself a ‘muhaddis’.
Two of the issues that should have been addressed during that critical period:
If Mirza Ghulam Ahmad changed his opinions about certain essential doctrines, which of his statements will form the final doctrine of his followers. Is the rhetoric and highly theological discussion writing fit to be used in everyday speech? If he did not change his opinions, then distil his beliefs into canon law.
Which of his personal beliefs do the Ahmadiyya have to carry on as their belief? Which of his statements are not essential, but should be followed whenever possible? (e.g. Praying behind Muslims, marrying Muslims etc.) How do these beliefs and desirable commandments relate to the Holy Qur’an and Islamic Sharia?
Critical mass is a term in nuclear physics to denote the minimum mass in which a nuclear reaction can propagate by itself. At various times, from 1901 to as recently as 2001, the leadership of the Ahmadiyya has actively pursued the strategy that a sufficient number of followers will obviate the need to explain or argue about their religious beliefs. For an organization whose criteria for membership are quite high and record-keeping immaculate, it is a curiosity that they never release their official numbers. During such spasmsodic attempts to increase membership, pressure from the leadership results in borderline dishonest means to recruit.
Based on various estimates and, by constructing a model on the following rules – — Ahmadiyya do not offer prayer behind Muslims and have their own mosques
In Muslim countries, about 20 percent of the population in a mosque’s catchment area will show up for Friday prayers. 10% for non-Muslim countries. “Number of units” calculation is an accepted method in such estimates. A mosque can be considered a unit and a book (see bibiliography) puts the estimates of total mosques at 500.
the presence of no mosques in an area shows percentages below the above that can be ignored due to very sparse population or a non-active community.
number of missionaries deployed as preachers (also considered as units).
various laws in Pakistan that make accurate census figures hard to find.
Annual Gathering attendance in Rabwah in 1978, 1979 and ratio attending.
So, based on the historical documents, and recently, on the “mosque Friday theory”, our rough estimates are:
450,000 in 1960
600,000 in 1973
500,000 in 1982
extrapolated from Jalsa numbers
700,000 in 1994
Mirza Tahir Ahmad’s early Khilafat
800,000 in 2001
due to irregular recruitment in African countries, estimates are based on tribes, not confirmed whether active members
It should be noted that the official Ahmadiyya reported numbers of converts each year (not total) are in the tens of millions and considerable controversy surrounds those numbers.
Between 1930 and 1950, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad pursued a strategy of political power without pursuing numbers – and as part of that strategy, decided to move the HQ of the community to Pakistan; by 1950 that decision was being regretted in some circles.
Between 1950 and 1972, considerable missionary activity was conducted in Africa, especially West Africa, using the Catholic model of schools and hospitals. Considerable political gains were made but mostly in the animist coastal areas that have a laissez-faire attitude to religion. Another minor schism occurred in Nigeria. In areas bordering the Sahara, existing Muslim populations resisted the Ahmadiyya.
The Ahmadiyya schism happened in 1914 on these very ambiguous issues. The differences could have been reconciled but politics, power plays and theological extremism prevented it. The details are the topic for another paper.
The world as we know it changed between 1918 and 1968. The Ahmadiyya moved to Pakistan, a new-born Muslim state. World War II redrew the map of the world and the power structure. Aristocracy vanished. Communism took hold. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were razed. Colonialization was wrapped up. The United Nations was formed. Sexual liberation took hold of society. The Pope called the Vatican II council in 1960. Major social upheaval occurred in the 1960s in all parts of the world. Ironically, one of the Ahmadiyya’s proofs that this is the age of reformation is the sign of the last age, yet they were woefully underprepared for this tumultuous time and the dawn of the Information Age.
There was an opportunity in the 1960s to again consolidate the Ahmadiyya beliefs and learn from the events of 1953 and subsequent political events (more on those later) but that opportunity was lost due to the illness of the Second Leader and the development of a bureaucracy. Also, the force of personality of the Second Leader was no more and the community started to feel a sense of drifting.
Thus the information age dawned and the Ahmadiyya were not prepared. It was in the 1960s that general dissatisfaction with the administration and with a lack of strategic direction for the goal-oriented community started to emerge within the youth of the Ahmadiyya (in keeping with the global trend). Strict measures were used to enforce discipline and . Some acknowledgement of problems were made by the leadership, but the discontent was generally attributed to weakness of faith. It is at this point that the cult-like tendencies start to emerge and a gap starts to appear between the official statements of the Ahmadiyya and the perception on the street. A perception was created that the eventual ‘victory’ of the Ahmadiyya would come with the ‘defeat’ of the Muslims. I myself am a witness to the spread of that perception. All this was to avoid the issue of having to deal with the legacy of the personal beliefs of the previous leaders.
In summary: long-simmering problems of consolidation of beliefs were swept under the rug and various strategies to avoid dealing with those issues did not result in much success – i.e the critical mass strategy and political power strategy. One strategy that worked was that members of the Community attained higher education and were represented in substantial proportion in the military and civil leadership of Pakistan. Unfortunately, this successful strategy backfired as the social isolation created by the Ahmadiyya for themselves during the 1950s and 1960s in Pakistan created a distrust in Muslims for them.
US President Kennedy – a Catholic – was asked whether his loyalties to the Pope would hinder his work as the President. This is a natural question and great pains must be taken to avoid a conflict of interest. The newfound positions of power by Ahmadiyya followers were being welcomed and used by the Ahmadiyya leadership, which was both politically short-sighted and led to an inevitable involvement in politics.
Due to their unique beliefs, yet AGAIN, the Ahmadiyya followers stayed as a distinct social group from Muslims while achieving success in the corridors of power. Distrust and persecution were bound to follow.
In 1974, the Pakistani Parliament declared Ahmadiyya followers non-Muslims. The cause was “claiming prophethood and following a claimant of prophethood” and not anything else. Many political friends of the Ahmadiyya leadership, lawyers and the Pakistan attorney-general advised the Ahmadiyya leadership to back down and find a way out.
It should be noted that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his arch-rival, Muhammad Hussain Batalvi were once prosecuted in criminal court for threats against each other. The magistrate offered to dismiss the case if both parties signed an agreement to cease and desist and not to use certain words about each other – and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did sign that agreement.
It should also be noted that the Second Leader of the Ahmadiyya, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad also negotiated on a statement with opposing lawyers in 1953 during the Munir inquiry and softened his rhetorical stand and gave a more normal description of some ambiguous religious terms and words. The statement was carefully worded to answer the objections that were beign raised.
However, in front of this Parliamentary Committee, which was openly hostile, no attempt was made to broker a deal, or to retract the issue of “prophethood”. In fact the defense of the Ahmadiyya leadership was surprising to most of the attendees, and in which they never tackled the issue head-on, but rather gave a rhetorical account of what other people believed and had written.
The defence can be considered a valiant stand against persecution. My point, however, is that had the Ahmadiyya consolidated their beliefs earlier and tried to stay within the Islamic social circle, it would perhaps not have come to this.
Maybe there was no way to escape the unanimous mindset of the Parliament at that time, and various international political forces were also active in that decision, but there was nothing major at stake that could not be sacrificed at that point.
After having read the books and style of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad numerous times, it is my belief that had Mirza Ghulam Ahmad been in front of that committee, he would have retracted his earlier statements as inconsequential and reached a compromise. My assertion is based on the fact that he had once asked for all references to the word ‘prophet’ be removed from his books if it offended other Muslims (exact quote later).
Was it negligence, or was it ego born of the schism, or was it a fear of dilution of power by the Ahmadiyya leadership. If the Ahmadiyya became miscible with Muslims, the absolute monarchical power that the Leader’s office had slowly accumulated would be diluted.
In any case, I will, insha-Allah, try to prove my case in this and subsequent papers that it was a combination of all three, and the Ahmadiyya members were shortchanged by their leadership.
The Ahmadiyya leadership were quick to realize that abody blow had been dealt to the Ahmadiyya by its opposition. By that time, the ‘flower movement’ of the early 1970s and the Arab-Palestinian issue and the Arab oil embargo had changed the perception of Muslims in the minds of some people of the West.
The Bahai movement, which, despite consolidation of teachings by its leaders, was so far off the spectrum, that its leadership was re-inventing it as a universal peace-loving type of movement that allowed people of all faiths.
The Third leader embarked on trips to other countries during these years and in his press conferences and other meetings, emphasized the peace-loving nature of the Ahmadiyya. He also coined a phrase, “Love for All, Hatred for None” as a mantra for the increasingly cult-like Ahmadiyya.
The 1974 laws, persecution and a lack of direction brought even more fear, secrecy, paranoia and backroom political games into the Ahmadiyya bureaucracy. Many young Ahmadis left the Ahmadiyya or could not leave the social ties and became hypocrites, with atheism seething inside them. Atheism, in this situation, was a product of the transparent cult-like tactics being used by the Ahmadiyya leadership. When one’s frame of reference built by an intense religious experience during childhood is found to be hollow, and social ties and the fear of boycott are the only things remaining, hypocrisy and atheism are sometimes the only options for some people. The alternate is hard to accomplish – what I am typing right now! The world had changed, but the Ahmadiyya leadership had not changed.
Mirza Tahir Ahmad came on board as the Fourth Leader, and with a reform agenda. He did not fully realize the severity of the problems and in his first few years, which were spent adjusting to England and fixing the bureaucracy. A fresh hope was springing in the members of the Ahmadiyya, the apex of which was in 1988 with the crash of the helicopter of President Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan. He also contributed to the cult phenomenon with his obsession with homeopathy and how it could save the world.
With his force of personality, he also contributed to the cult phenomenon by getting rid of able advisors and surrounding himself with people who would agree with whatever he would say, further eroding the intellectual capital and level of the Ahmadiyya.
Now that he had the attention of his followers, he embarked on a very erudite series of sermons for a few yars, perhaps knowning that the belief system of the Ahmadiyya needed to be bolstered.
His program to dedicate children since childhood (waqf nau) was also born of the same conern that the belief systems were so corrupted that only the fresh minds of children could save them. But again he failed to realize that it was the basic lack of consolidation of beliefs that nothing could save.
He was a man of action, but succumbed to the temptation of critical mass after the fall of the USSR and Eastern Europe and saw it as a means to an end. However, the Albanians and Bosnians and Central Asians who became involved with the Ahmadiyya quickly slipped away once they found out about the true street beliefs of the Ahmadiyya, not the ones on the shiny brochures.
Help and aid for Bosnians was mixed with propagation, thus violating the Quranic model of feeding the hungry (without any other desire except for the pleasure of Allah).
He then turned his attention to Africa, especially the French part, as it was virgin territory and the Ahmadiyya opponents were not known for their French. The European setback was especially painful and he set goals for doubling the number of converts every year. He did not tell which year to stop in, and the reader can imagine the painful details of the pressures of exponential progression!
He then saw that dubious quantity without quality was unreal – so he started a movement almost identical to the one in the 1960s and 1970s — providing basic humanitarian aid to different parts of the world, but this time – WITHOUT the name of the Ahmadiyya – as an attempt at sincere humanitarian work. This organization is called ‘Humanity First’. However, the street-level belief systems of the Ahmadiyya are so distorted that, as this organization was collecting and distributing relief to the Bam earthquake victims, an Ahmadiyya preacher was overheard saying that the earthquake was part of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s prophecy and this has to happen to Muslims.
The European setback also gave him the opportunity to read the literature of the neo-opponents of the information age. He did some reconciliation with the Lahore Ahmadiyya group and went as far as to name the leader of the schism, Maulana Muhammad Ali, a ‘respectable man’.
In his question-answer sessions, he would regularly swerve away from the belief patterns of his predecessors, and some Luddites objected to that. He formally changed some translations of Qur’anic verses that the Second Leader, and his father, had done. Many people were up in arms, but he was emphatic that this was his opinion, and the Second Leader had his own opinion.
In this way, he tried to break the mold of this type of ancestor-following, but was not bold enough, or did not have time enough (Allah knows) to tackle the catechism of the Ahmadiyya. Also, the implicit belief (not overt belief) of the Ahmadiyya that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a “sent-Prophet” will not allow them to evaluate, edit, categorize or catechize the writings and sayings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. This is how serious the concept of “shari’” or “imperative” prophethood is, and ibn Arabi was right to say that it had ended.
Right from the first Web site of the Ahmadiyya in 1994 (started by me – for the record) there was a belief among the volunteers that this was a God-send to a community whose beliefs were always misunderstood. The reluctance and hesitation of the leadership preplexed them, and finally the leadership closed down all web sites. They were started but as of today only one official site is open and no dicussion is allowed. The Fourth and present, Fifth, Leader has instructed a moratorium on all discussions and all arguments with opponents.
One way to get out of this predicament is —
— instantly remove the cult mentality and let people live without fear
— then cultivate a culture of sincerity and honesty over a few years
— bring together the best God-fearing and oldest people in the Ahmadiyya who have extensively knowledge of issues and are intelligent, but not dependent on the leadership for their livelihood.
— Hold a council of a few hundred such people and hash out what has been postponed for many years. Keep the leadership away from this council.
It is my estimate that such a course of action would result in the Ahmadiyya becoming closer to Islam, while diluting the leadership of their powers.
The only other alternative is to keep moving away from Islam and develop a reputation for falsehood and lose the best and brightest of their future generations.
In the next article, we will pick up from here and discuss ways in which Ahmadiyya members can alter their individual lives to correspond to Islamic teachings even while under the mental control of the Ahmadiyya leadership.
…. to be continued.