you cant defend ahmadiyyat much longer…. your heart will turn, I predict that much….

This is your reference?? Are you serious? Even if this report is authentic (which i doubt), did he kill someone for his enemies??

The british paid muslims to die for them, the brits needed soldiers, they were doing whatever it took to get more soldiers. This is “war strategy”, the brits created disorder in the land, they even had muslims fighting muslim, what an EVIL RACE!!

How would you feel if ahmadis were killing other ahmadis?? Doesnt fell to good does it!!

WE CAN WHAT WE WILL DO—CIRCA 1883

British army which fought the mutineers of 1857 had a huge number of muslim soldiers. Pathans made sure that the British regained power in India. Same Pathans are the Taliban of today..

http://www.sunnipath.com/Library/Books/B0033P0006.aspx

Also, you totally miss the point here, the point is Muslim unity, muslim helping muslim. The Brits, Sikhs and hindus hated the muslims collectively. It was probably the brits that funded the Sikh dynasty of the 1800′s. It was probably the Brits that caused the meltdown of the Mughals.

How does all of that data not register in cerebral cortex?

The Brits were very dangerous people, they suppressed the muslims for years, almost 250 years later the muslims still have not been able to recover….

And the messiah supported these people???

Go play on the freeway or something…

WE CAN WHAT WE WILL DO—CIRCA 1883

Read this, dumb dumb:
“Just as before Jesus, the prophet John the Baptist was martyred while preaching the oneness of God, similarly before me in this very land of Punjab Sayyid Ahmad was martyred while preaching the message of the oneness of God. This was another similarity, which God fulfilled.” (Badr, 7th November 1907)

Have you even read the contents of this thread???

Surely this is not a claim for jihad because of religious oppression? Are not all Muslims in the West not allowed to say Adhan outside their mosques or homes. … and to respect the sensitivities of the community they live in? Otherwise….you are calling for jihad here in the West.

That’s my 2 pence worth. … keep the change.

Syed Ahmad Shaheed of Rai Baraili considered himself to be the Mahdi at one point in his life. It is unclear to me if he openly claimed it or just expressed his opinion. He was very clear on the matter of Jihad though. He declared war and fought it by defending muslim lands around the Sikh state of Punjab.

Anyways, that story aside.. read what he said about the British.

حضرت سیّد احمد صاحب بریلوی شہید جنہوں نے جہاد کیا اور جہاد کے لئے آپ سرحد کی طرف روانہ ہوئے اور سکھوں سے بھی لڑائی کی وہ ایک مقدس دل ضرور تھا جس میں مسلمانوں کی غیرت موجزن تھی لیکن جہاں تک انگریزی حکومت کا تعلق ہے اس کے متعلق وہ کیا سمجھتے تھے اس بارہ میں آپ کے سوانح نگار محمد جعفر تھانیسری کی زبانی سنئے۔ وہ ’’ سوانح احمدی کلاں ‘‘ کے صفحہ ۷۱ پر لکھتے ہیں :۔

’’ کسی شخص نے آپ سے پوچھا کہ آپ اتنی دور سکھوں پر جہاد کرنے کیوں جاتے ہو ؟ انگریز جو اس ملک پر حاکم ہیں اور دین اسلام سے کیا منکر نہیں ہیں۔ گھر کے گھر میں ان سے جہاد کر کے ملک ہندوستان کو لے لو۔ آپ نے فرمایا ۔۔۔ سرکار انگریزی گو منکر اسلام ہے مگر مسلمانوں پر کچھ ظلم اور تعدی نہیں کرتی ۔۔۔ اور نہ ان کو فرض مذہبی اور عبادت لازمی سے روکتی ہے ہم ان کے ملک میں اعلانیہ وعظ کہتے ہیں اور ترویج مذہب کرتے ہیں وہ کبھی مانع اور مزاحم نہیں ہوتی۔۔۔ ہمارا اصل کام اشاعت توحیدِ الٰہی ہے ۔ اور احیاءِ سنن سیّد المرسلینؐ ہے ۔سو ہم بلا روک ٹوک اس ملک میں کرتے ہیں ۔ پھر ہم سرکار انگریزی پر کس سبب سے جہاد کریں اور خلاف اصول طرفین کا خون بلاسبب گراویں یہ جواب باصواب سن کر سائل خاموش ہو گیا اور اصل غرض جہاد کی سمجھ لی۔ ‘‘

As for uncles and brothers of Promised Messiah (as), their actions were a result of their particular situation at that time. i.e., being the citizens of an “estabished” sikh state. The Kashmir campaign of Ranjit singh was against the Afghan rulers. Who are recalled as despotic rulers of Kashmir in history books. I have no problems with that. Even RusoolAllah (saw) took part in a battle taking side of Meccan idolators.