Yalesh is Yalash is Satan

Who was Mirza’s god?

From the 2004 edition of Tadhkirah, before we started quoting from it live on video after which they decided to modify it for 2009, we have:

While I was engaged upon the compilation of this book, I received the revelation (Urdu): Yalesh – is the name of God Himself. This is a new word which is not found in this form in the Quran or hadith or in any dictionary. It has been disclosed to me that it connotes ya la shareek (O Thou without an associate).

(Tohfa Golarviyya, p. 69, footnote)

(n.b. Br. Rationalist has of course picked up on the Tadhkirah changes in his piece here.)

There is the usual obtuse explanation for this manufactured rubbish, but it’s so mind-numbingly stupid that I will spare you its reproduction. No Mirzai can dispute that Mirza has claimed a revelation in which he understands that Yalesh is the name of God himself.

(For further reading, I refer you to br. Fuad’s excellent piece, here)

But who is Yalash? (They corrected the spelling in 2009 after br. Fuad corrected it for them of course…) You’d expect an entity that plays jokes on the recipient of revelation to have a wicked sense of humour. Just how wicked is about to be revealed.

Please refer to p737 of Tadhkirah, 2004 edition, for this revelation:

God says He would come secretly like a thief, that is to say, no astronomer or claimant of revelation or dreamer of dreams will be given any intimation of His coming except that much which He has revealed to His Promised Messiah or that which He might add to it. After these signs, the hearts of many will be drawn to God and away from the love of the world, and, the intervening obstructions being removed, they would be given to drink of the fountain of true Islam

(Tajalleyat-iIlahiyya pp. 2-3)

It is interesting that he gives Allah (SWT) who is free from all deviation or error, the attribute of a criminal, who under the strictest forms of hudood, would suffer hand-amputation. Can this be a positive attribute? Surely, any Muslim, indeed, any believe in the Allah (SWT) who revealed His make-up in Surat-al-Ikhlas would flinch at reading such blasphemous garbage.

Please turn to page 809 and let’s now consider what Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself thinks a thief is like:

Last night I saw in my dream that a robe which had a good deal of gold work on it had been given to me as a present from God, a thief ran away with it but someone ran after him and caught him and took away the robe from him. Thereafter the robe changed into a book of the name of Tafsir Kabeer and I was given to understand that the thief had run away with it in order to destroy the Tafsir.

The interpretation is that by thief is meant Satan, who desires to remove my writings from the notice of people, but that he will not succeed. The Tafsir (commentary) being shown in the form of a robe means, that it will be a source of honor and ornament for me. Allah knows best

(Al-Hakam Vol. X, No. 31, September 10, 1906, p. 1)

Clear, isn’t it? Mirza says that God comes like a thief, and around six months later, perhaps unwittingly, reveals that the interpretation of thief is Satan. Ergo, Mirza’s god, Yalash, is in fact, according to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself, Satan.

Peace unto those who follow the hidaayah.

Be Sociable, Share!

32 thoughts on “Yalesh is Yalash is Satan

  1. Lutf,
    I think the issue here is that “Yalash” makes no sense.

    To me, the most obvious problem is the prefix “Ya”. Allah’s name isn’t “YaRahman” its “al-Rahman”. ‘Ya’ is a separate word, not part of his name.

    Second, as Shahid explained, “Ya La Shareek” makes no sense. Its like saying in English “O No Associate”.

    Lutf, we’re not asking you to leave Islam, we’re asking you to leave Ahmadism. You would be our brother in Faith!

    • Lutf, please stop playing games and answer the question.

      Ya-La-Shareek – justify – and explain al-yalash and ya al-yalash – please. Nothing more from you is worth anything until you answer the points in the post instead of this broken record you played with me before, years ago.

  2. @Shahid:
    I would have been batter if you had done just what Lutf said – translate – لبیک لبیک لاشریک لک لبیک

    Just remember that the Jews make similar arguments and a play on the words about Gods personal name Allah. When they say Muslims don’t believe in the God of Abraham and Moses, they say that Allah can not be God’s personal name because ‘ilah’ was an idol and Muslim just started calling him ‘the’ god or ‘their’ god – and also that ilah or alah mean worship [of idol]. (Just Google it and many thousand references will show up.)

    Can we now celebrate that the Holy prophet’s saying is again proved true about the similarity between the Jews and and the ‘so called Muslim ulema’ of the later days…

    Just wondering…

    • You’re not just wondering. You’re being snide. And your argument is utterly irrelevant. You have addressed none of the points, but as usual, resorted to insults.

      • @Shahid:
        “You have addressed none of the points:
        You have no point, Shahid;
        You folks are are playing with the words, not Lutf. How in the word did you make yalash [ya lash] to yaallash [ya al lash] stretch?

        You see, It is all in your head.

  3. @Shahid:
    “utterly irrelevant”
    Aren’t we talking about Gods names? or play on words?
    and, I have mentioned the similarity of the two arguments.

  4. @ Lutf or love4all or whatever

    I will translate this sentenc (لبيك لا شريك لك لبيك) for you since it seems that you do not know Arabic at all

    • لبيك =Here I am! at your service
    • لا= No
    • شريك = Associate
    • لك = is there for you
    • لبيك = Here I am! at your service

    So the meaning of this sentence is: (Here I am! at your service. No associate is there for you. Here I am! at your service).

    Now, till me Mr. Lutf how does this make Yalaash a valid name of God? How does this make “Ya La Shareek” (يا لا شريك) a valid Arabic sentence? LOL! It seems that you have googled “La Shareek” (لا شريك) and found this Arabic sentence!

    My dear Lutf, (La Shareek) means (No Associate); of course you can find this in many Arabic sentences. But if you’ll say (“Ya La Shareek” = Oh No Associate) in any Arabic country, I can assure you that you’ll become a subject of local Arabic jokes for decades.

    • your arabic is chocking you;

      ‘ya la shareek’ is very commonly used in urdu where ‘la’ to mean ‘without’. people commonly say ‘khuda la-shareek hay’ or ‘ya la-shereek’, etc.
      just google it… you will find plenty – more than what you can shake a stick at.

  5. Dear All,

    Firstly, it has been conclusively shown that the expression “Ya La Shareek” is grammatically incorrect.

    Secondly, the abbreviation, Yalash, itself is highly objectionable as there is no prior such example of invoking Allah by an abbreviation of His attributes either in the Qur’an or in Hadith.

    Thirdly, is there a need to devise further attributive names of Allah other than those already mentioned in the Qur’an and Hadith? Ahmadiyya literature tells us that there is no such need. Kindly refer to the English Translation with Short Commentary for the verse 7:181.

    http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=351&region=EN&CR=

    7:181 And to Allah alone belong all perfect attributes. So call on Him by these attributes. And leave alone those who deviate from the right way with respect to His attributes. They shall be requited for what they do.

    Short Commentary on 7:181 by Ahmadiyya:
    The proper name of God is Allah; all the rest strictly speaking are His attributes. While praying one should invoke such Divine attributes as are directly related to the object of one’s prayer.

    Deviating from the right way with respect to God’s attributes may signify that God being the Possessor of all the best attributes mentioned in the Qur’an or the Hadith, there is no need to devise other attributes for Him, which are inconsistent with His Majesty, Dignity and all-comprehensive Mercy.

    Source: http://www.alislam.org [English with short commentary]

    • zahid/shahid/fuad, only if it was like this.

      The context again. This name was revealed to Promised Messiah (as) and it is obvious that this was not meant to replace or to be added to the existing asmaa’ e husna.

      The revelation was received by Promised Messiah (as) when he was writing about the death of Jesus (as). At this time, he was writing the commentary of the verse Al-Imran:60 which mentions the resemblence between Adam (as) and Jesus (as). The name Yalash stood for the quality of Allah as being La Shareek. i.e., He has no match.
      So this revelation showed Promised Messiah (as) a new argument to break the cross. No man can be unique, even Jesus (as) was not unique in his birth or death despite what christians say, and many muslims also believe.

      Such is the nature of revelation. It opens a new world of knowledge for the recipient, whereas rejectors can only mock to their own detriment.

      No Ahmadis use it in common speech or even refer to it in their writings. Again, in order to ridicle, you exagerate or conciously miss the point.

      • Of course you don’t use it in your writings, it would make you look stupid. You hide the writings of Mirza that make you look stupid, deleting them from the records as we expose them. A shameful cult.

        Sand in the eyes, utterly irrelevant, complete avoidance of the issues. Risible, as usual.

          • This is a uniquely Mirzai phenomenon. Faced with the light of truth, you run for cover in side-issues and bogus contextualisation that allows you to turn white into black, day into night.

            You have failed to address any of the issues. You have failed and Mirza failed.

            When finally nailed on the “take-my-gullible-followers-for-a-ride” grammar, you seek the comfort of confusion and distraction. It’s so transparent. You run off into the gutter of delusion when you have been shown the high road.

            Face the music and face the light. No more sand in the eyes. Your Mirza was a fraud and you stand utterly exposed in the mindless defence of this charlatan.

      • Ahmadis are really great at “context changing”. This is the basis of your religion. You changed the context of many Quranic verses as you pleased.

        Here you are trying to argue context.

        In 4:69 you ignore the context! My article exposed this…

        When MGA said LAnnat 1000000 times, you argued context.

        Your games are getting old buddy.

        Look, i get it! If any human wants to change a theory, he needs to change the context–this is ahmadi ‘modus operandi”.

  6. Mirza Masroor Ahmed delivered a series of Friday sermons from 2006 to 2009 on the Divinely Attributive Names of Allah. He covered almost all the attributive names except the one invented by Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiani.

    Yes, Mirza Masroor skipped “Yalash” and did not bother to explain this attributive name of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed’s god.

    Why did Mirza Masroor not shed any light on “Yalash”? Was he ashamed of “Yalash” or has Ahmadiyya disowned their god?

      • Wel. Now that you have been informed of the reason for revelation of this name, your argument is buried.

        • The name is nonsense. The reason does not make the name any less nonsensical and is just standard Mirzai misdirection.

          The name was proven to be nonsense, you abandoned your traditional mode of attack used for the last few years and badly humiliated and confused, you ran off into wild supposition and irrelevance. The only thing that is buried is your head in the sand my friend.

          I urge you to abandon this false creed and return to Islam.

  7. ===YALAASH THE GOD OF MIRZA===
    well the name YALAASH is not even mentioned by name in the Quran or Hadith or the Sunna so where did Mirza get this name from coz he surely didnt get it from the revelation from Allah maybe it came from the Tonic Wine or the Opium he used to take it then it really got him to his head thats the only logical explanation i can come up with man what a prophet aye,

  8. Shahid,

    I think your personal grudges and misgivings against Ahmadi Muslims always gets the better of you.

    Having said that, I perceive that your logic of discarding the revelation to the Promised Messiah(as) is based on Yalash not being explicitly mentioned in the Holy Quran.

    Now, we can cut this argument short if you are ready to acknowledge that the names of Allah that are mentioned in scriptures prior to the Holy Quran are also nauzubillah nonsensical in your opinion. This would also mean that you would have to disbelieve/discard in prior scripture.

    Fair is fair.

    here are a few examples from past scripture: Yahweh, Adonai , Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh. Elohim, Elyon, Roi, Shaddai, Shalom, Yah

    More on this later, but I would like hear your ramblings:)

    • Mahmood

      Your response represents the thought of a typical blind qadiani who does not want to see the fallacies of Mirza.

      Mahmood, where do we Muslim deny the names of Allah Tala? All beautiful names and attributes are for Allah Tala. How can you justify Mirza’s unt shunt by asking an irrelevent question?

      Why don’t you rebut the point raised in the clip and by other members that ” ya lesh or ya lash” is a gramatic non-sense. You help your case by proving that YALESH is a beautiful name and does make sense….

  9. @ MAHMOOD

    Do you anything useful to say? Is there anything that you can bring to the table of discussion that exhonerates your magician of a prophet?

    Ahmadis argue that the Quran abrogates all previous scripture (see Chapter 2, verse 107)

    http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=164&region=E1

    Your argument therefore holds no water whatsoever, BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD..

  10. [admin: You are treading on thin ice. Respect the rules of the blog, quit with the off-base allegations, dump the strawman attack and answer the points raised in the video, none of which you’ve addressed.]

    @pleezing, be honest with yourself for a change!

    If you don’t like the name Yalash because you have an unadulterated hatred of Ahmadiyyat, the true Islam. Then there is no need for furthering this conversation. I for one cannot address tis hatred of yours except through prayer to Allah to guide you.

    Now, there may be folks that have problems with name of Allah that appear “odd” from a Quranic perspective, but this does not invalidate these names even if “someone” thinks it doesn’t comply with their grammatical standards. Grasping for straws, honestly!

    The Quran is clear, that ALL beuatful names/attributes belong to Allah. Yalash in an unabbreviated form i.e. [ya la sharik] [O You without an associate].

    I bet you would not have a problem if I made the statement in praise of Allah “O You without an associate”

    @Rationalist: If you read your statement, you sound like the disbelievers of the time of the Prophet. Your statement exonerates us!
    ] وَعَجِبُوْۤا اَنْ جَآءَهُمْ مُّنْذِرٌ مِّنْهُمْ‌ وَقَالَ الْكٰفِرُوْنَ هٰذَا سٰحِرٌ كَذَّابٌ‌ ۖ‌ۚ‏
    “And they wonder that a Warner has come to them from among themselves; and the disbelievers say, ‘This is a magician, a great liar.” (38:5)

    • mehmood

      Again, you are unable to give a single convincing argument to justify “yalesh”…

      Ya whadahu lashareek is not YALESH or YALASH,,
      Your job is to show us that YA-LASH is not a non-sensical compound..

      Listen to the video…..

      And I don’t hate anyone, I always hope and pray for those who were deeived by Mirza’s fraud and LIES…. I hate those qadianis who LIE, deceive and distort quran….Bur thats nit the point,,

      Try again, shoiw us YALASH makes sense !!

  11. Admin, do you see me trembling? Move along dude..!
    I have better things to do than waste my brain cells on imbeciles..! Ciao!

  12. Mahmood…

    I showed you where the ahmadiyya company has written that the Quran abrogates all previous scriptures, thus, in the perspective of your company, muslims are not bound to anything that exists in any revelation as received by any prophet…. do you get that?

    MGA was nothing but a magician…he married a 7 year old to a 2 year old hoping that allah would save the life of his son…

    Thats blasphemy…thats david blaine type magic… MGA was not a prophet sent by allah..he was a prophet sent by Yalesh!

  13. The holy prophet had a great mindset… He was calm. In surah Al Baqarah, Allah Taala mentions that some verses have been revealed and you should not try to understand the meanings of these verses or words if you cant understand them as they are. So we muslims must not fight on quran verses. Oh brothers in islam, why should we fight with the ahmadiyyas? They are non muslims. They are like the Jews or anyone else outside the true religion of Allah Taala. SO LET THEM BARK!!! Whether its about yalash of khataman nabiyeen, its we muslim ummah who are on the right track alhamdoulilah. ALLAH TAALA WILL SEE TO IT THAT OUR FAITH AND RELIGION BE PROTECTED UNTIL THE QIYAMA!!! Insha allah.

Comments are closed.