Al-Jazeera’s Stream discussion After-Thoughts

بسم الله الحمد لله و صلاة و سلام على رسول الله و على آله و سلم تسليما

After a recent approach by Al-Jazeera to the team at Thecult.info, today there was an excellent discussion between Akber Choudhry, the representative from the Ahmadiyya Awareness team, and Amjad Khan, a member of the Ahmadiyya religion on Al-Jazeera’s Stream programme. As the discussion progressed, it became clear that the points raised by Mr. Choudhry were causing Mr. Khan to become visibly uncomfortable. Most notably, Mr. Khan repeatedly lied on international TV concerning the following points:

  1. Mirza Masroor’s banning of individual Ahmadis’ Facebook pages;
  2. The Ahmadiyya doctrine that Muslims are not Muslims;
  3. Denying that they routinely associate average Muslims with the worst Islamophobic stereotypes (ie, ‘mullahs’ or ‘terrorists’);

This is the first time in a century that some of the Ahmadiyya beliefs and cult-like practices have been exposed to the full glare of the international media spotlight and faced with the bald facts, Mr. Khan and the Ahmadiyya were caught woefully short. We’re not surprised.

و صلى الله على سيدنا محمد و على آله و صحبه و سلم

Be Sociable, Share!

62 thoughts on “Al-Jazeera’s Stream discussion After-Thoughts

  1. It was quite appalling how the masses of Muslim tweets were ignored and then one was read out at the end only because they were made aware that they were being biased. In a short show you can not have a panel that do not know the first thing about the topic which seemed to be the case with both respective members.

    Above all Amjad Khan was caught lying and it seemed as though he had purposely chosen to adopt this tactic to deny everything as proof would not be sought live on air. Well Amjad, you were recorded, you blatantly lied and you know very well that this is the case. Shame on you.

    Well done to Akber Chaudry for withstanding an onslaught of bias from all angles. None of your points were answered, rather they were overlooked. Everything Amjad claimed was being refuted on Twitter, yet they chose not to pick up any of the feeds. The panel member some how came to the conclusion that the cult blog is the one that is alleging that Ahmadis are not allowed on Facebook yet he did not bother clicking the link on the very article you would assume he read. Akber quite clearly said he would give them the URL when Amjad kept lying about it yet they did not take him up on his offer. It does not bode well for the show and certainly not for a recorded liar in Amjad Khan.

  2. That’s certainly some spin of how the show went. I’m sure listeners can judge for themselves how “well” it went for the anti-Ahmadi cause.

    Mr. Khan called Mr. Chaudhry out on the lie that the Ahmadiyya Community “had banned all social media.” That IS a lie. They haven’t. Even the moderator pointed out how Ahmadis were Tweeting during the program! Mr. Khan said that the Ahmadiyya Community has an official Facebook and Twitter page, which is the truth. He also talked about how individual Facebook accounts have indeed been discouraged because of various security, privacy and other issues, which, too, is the truth. So I’m not really sure I accept the notion that Mr. Khan “lied” about Facebook. That’s a distortion of what was said. You ignore his complete and thorough answer.

    • May Allah bless you,

      Facebook is banned (not just discouraged) by the Ahmadiyya religion.
      The practice of making and maintaining individual facebook pages/accounts is not permitted. (Ref: Concluding address Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih V, Jalsa Salana Germany 2011, June 26th 2011).
      http://www.alislam.org/egazette/faq/facebook-policy/

      The ban on free speech and free thought extends to other forms of social media.

      May Allah guide us all to what is true.

      • Farhan sb

        Assalamo Alaikum

        firstly I would be thankful to you if you would stop say ‘Ahmadiyya Religion’ our Religion is Islam!!!! if wish not to use the word ‘ Islam’ in connection with us well that is up to you, but you could simply say ‘Ahmadiyya community’ it is hurtful! when you say Ahmadiyya Religion’.

        If you have listened to the speech by Hadrat Khalifatul Masih V (aba) he said ‘ he had requested for Ahmadi’s to abstain from using face book. the reasons given was safe guard ones private life, ie many people photos and many things are shown around the world. So it was not banned! in the way cult.info is putting it.

        Jazakallah

        Umar

        • @ umar

          You can put a twist on anything your leader mumbles. Your cult has been doing it for over 100 years.

          • Rationalist

            Seen as this is month of Ramadan and as a Muslim I must be fearful of almighty Allah (swt) what say noting but the ” Truth” never be afraid of the Truth Rationalist.

            salam

            Umar

    • And on the Facebook policy please read:

      The practice of making and maintaining individual Facebook pages/accounts is not permitted

      and the last FAQ how to delete the ACCOUNT 🙂

      • Facebook hasn’t been banned by Jamaat as is being portrayed here. If that was the case, then we would have completely boycotted it. But we have an official Facebook page and it’s also allowed for various other purposes. So for Chaudhry to say that Jamaat has banned Facebook was a lie and was properly answered by Amjad Khan.

        Other lies of Akbar Chaudhry:
        1). It is allowed for Muslim men to marry Ahmadi women in Pakistan.
        2). Ahmadi women aren’t allowed to vote.
        3). Ahmadi women don’t hold any offices.
        4). A new religion comes with every new Prophet. (wow seriously)
        5). Ahmadis try to promote that other Muslims aren’t peaceful and loyal to their respective countries.

        • @ Luqman

          And the backpeddling begins!!!!!!! Even though Masroor categorically made ‘Facebooking’ against the ‘A’….it seems that the Ahmadiyya hierarchy has deemed this a mistake and is now going back to the ‘with cautious use’ policy.

          Just like with every other policy that the ‘A’ messes up on….they have been trained to backpeddle. This is nothing new…MGAQ did the same with Jihad, calling Muslims Kafirs and many other topics.

        • Seriously, have you heard the speech of Mirza Masroor about Facebook? You seem to not care at all about the khalifa. He said you can’t be ahmadi and at the same side be on Facebook. What could be clearer than this???

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=w8uW9EhFBhU#t=1260s
          Watch between 21-25 min.

          All my parents. uncles, Amir and national tarbiyat secretary of my country who are urging me to delete my facebook account understood it wrong then? Did they?

          Maybe the “true” ahmadis are the ones who understand the banning of facebook means that Facebook is allowed and infact is open to everyone (except during Jalsa time) if we see the context. xP

          Concerning point 5. You can say Ahmadis are peaceful, loyal persons. But you claim Ahmadis are THE true Islam: Peaceful, Loyal, Loving, etc.

          By saying the latter statement, you automatically say muslims are violent and Ahmadis are an exception to it.

          • Nayar

            I am a convert to Islam! I did not accept Islam through the Ahmadiyya Jamaat, I came into Islam by mainstream Islam, I know that most of the Muslims around the world are peaceloving people who just want to live their lives in peace.

            but there is a reality! when I became an Ahmadi Muslim, suddenly! the hate and anger that I faced from many of the Muslims that I knew was so intense it was shocking! I used to do Dawa in Hyde park frist as a Christian and then as a Muslim, when I embraced what I believed to be True Islam ( please don’t me using this) Ahmadiyyat! I was told to my face by most every Muslim in Hyde park ” you should be killed” I was spat on, I was punced in the ribs, I was sworn at it very foul language, and that was many years ago!, and today it is still the same, actully the very first person I ever saw who was peacful towards Ahmadi’s was Farhan, it was a strange thing to see and hear.

            As far as Ahmadi’s behaviour is concerend you won’t see many Ahmadi’s being voilent, or saying Im going to kill you, or you should be killed! just look waht is happening in Pakistan to Ahmadi’s and other countries, the main stream Muslim leadership most of them, agree with the the call that Ahmadi’s are liable to be killed. I know this! I have many friends who are not Ahmadi and they often tell me that their Imams on a weekly bases just abuse Ahmadi’s in their mosques, and that many are getting fed up with it, as they want to hear about rightious things not about, that Ahmadi’s are Karfir,

            We dont hate other Muslims at all! yes we are fed up of being called Kahfir, or that we should be killed, or when you tell another Muslim you are an Ahmadi, suddenly their is a change on their face of hate! ( that is a fact)

            peace

            Umar

          • ‘Umar,

            Thanks for your comments. There is definitely some irrational anger towards Ahmadis, that’s true. But, this is a relative minority (ie, just as terrorism is a minority amongst the Muslims). The Ahmadiyya religion is largely unheard of outside of India-Pakistan, and most see it as the Indian version of the Baha’i faith.

            The people with our team take personal offense when Ahmadis are harmed or killed. Most of their families are still Ahmadi, so irrational hatred towards Ahmadis is like insulting their mothers.

            I’ve heard of Hyde Park – if you’re from there, you might have heard the term expression about following the Salaf (earliest generations of the Muslims). While some people sloganize [pardon the Z, I’m an American :-)] this statement, there is a lot of truth in it. The Ahmadiyya religion was invented 100 years ago, and its beliefs were not only not held by the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم and his companions, most of them were literally rejected.

            In this Ramadan, may Allah guide us all to what is true. Ameen

          • Nayar

            So you are an Ahmadi Muslim, who not told you family that you are talking against the al sunna Jamaah.

            Becuase if you are not an Ahmadi Muslim, why are your uncle, Parents and indeed Amir telling you to stop face book? and which country would that be.

            Umar

        • Luqman dont u know regarding your jammat official page excuses

          the JAMMAT said that to visit that page you dont need a Facebook account 😀
          so that expose your lies again.

          And I check a image posted by one of ur guy a reply from Nasim Mehdi which clearly say that Facebook accounts are not permitted

          so get ur facts right

          • I had never said that Individual Facebook pages for social purposes are allowed in Jamaat. My point was that we haven’t boycotted it as was being portrayed by Chaudhry at the program. But I’m assuming that everybody here has accepted the other four lies of Chaudhry !!!

          • @ Luqman

            Its like chanda. You ‘blanket policy’ is that Chanda is mandatory…However, its a soft policy, its not really enforced. The same type of management has existed in the ‘A’ for over 100 years. MGAQ and his sons say something, but they really mean something else….See Takfeer, Jihad, prophethood, etc etc etc…

          • @Luqman:
            I didn’t watch the video. So ,i don’t know about the other things Mr Chaudry said.

            But it really boils my blood when someone says Facebook is not banned.

            @Rationalist
            yeah, every ahmadi knows that Chanda Aam is O-BLI-GA-TO-RY along with other chandas as well. But you will find some ahmadis here and there saying it is not obligatory just for argumentative purposes with mainstream muslims.

          • Luqman only reason for which it is allowed is business and education purpose not for debates, discussion or social networking reason.

            so why are u denying fact that it is prohibited?

  3. Why don’t the hierarchy in the Ahmadiyya community (i.e. Mr Masroor, Mr Hayat and others) now head a public debate with Muslim scholars to deal with the theological differences between Mirzaism/Ahmadiyya and Islam?

    You were happy to send a relative unknown on to Al-Jazeera why not come back on to Al-Jazeera and have a debate once and for all. Anyone in the know doesn’t care about the international SECULAR laws used to defend against atrocities against ahmadi individuals.

    This mud slinging and individual point scoring is of no lasting interest to those struggling on the deen and Allah’s path.

    If Ahmadiyya is the ‘true’ Islam, bring your scholars to debate with Muslim scholars who argue otherwise.

    What say you Masroor and Co? Will you once and for all have your beliefs challenged on a NEUTRAL platform? Why not take up the opportunity if it should arise? I’m sure Al-Jazeera would be interested in a follow up debate.

  4. Its clear that Amjad Khan Lied about his belief.
    So whats the use of discussing stuff with a jammat/person who lie openly

    and only thing Amjad did was played persecution card well and the other ppl supported him on that so other ppl were bit biased towards Ahmadiyya.

  5. Its clear that Amjad Khan Lied about his belief.
    So whats the use of discussing stuff with a jammat/person who lie openly

    and only thing Amjad did was played persecution card well and the other ppl supported him on that so other ppl were bit biased in favor of Ahmadiyya.

    but atleast we can show the world that Amjad Khan the representative of Ahmadia was Liar and Jammat try to hide their beliefs

  6. Umjad Khan gave many lawyer-ish answers. He played in the gray areas. He said that Facebook isnt banned by the ‘A’.

    here is the video for all those who missed it. Its in the upper right hand corner.

    http://stream.aljazeera.com/

    2. He also said that women were allowed to vote. But..he didnt mention that they have a seperate and UN_EQUAL organization called Lajna. The USA lajna president doesnt even have a seat on the USA National Amila. In local jamaat’s women cannot give speeches in front of men nor can they be President of an entire local community.

    3. As far as the persecution goes. Our policy should be as such:

    We are against the persecution of any minority group. However, the Brits had a hand in harnessing an environment wherein the ‘A’ was created. They left in 1947 and handed the problem of Ahmadiyyat to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Ahmadiyyat caused communal strife in British India and were now handed over to Muslims in Pakistan to deal with. The Muslims in Pakistan have dealt with them the best that they can.

    More importantly, the ‘A’ would be dead without the persecution card. If it wasnt for persecution that ‘A’ would have NO appeal. The leaders of the ‘A’ have been using persecution as their biggest marketing tool circa 1974. In fact, they have been able to collect millions of dollars from their membership in connection with asylum cases.

    One more point of note. Umjad Khan was the key person involved in freeing the Ahmadis that were detained in Thailand. He was able to have his jamaat pay about 250k to get those 100 or so Ahmadis out of these and sent to the USA. He is a dangerous liar and should be treated as such.

  7. We in the UK are generally advised by our local teachers and those of knowledge to stay away from the TV and Radio programs (in representing Islam) – especially when the agenda is not in your favour.
    In this case – the show was going to take place and so it is better to send the best that you have (and alhumdulillah, I think we did quite well) – but it should aways be in the back of the Muslims mind that – they will come for you!
    The show, which appeared to have at least two other Muslims on there – did not side with Islam, rather, there was a tinted attack on us (and Ironically, the sister on the show is an Egyptian, and Al-Azhar have also declared Ahmediyya as non-Muslims – which is nothing to do with the governmental position).
    Anyway – I guess, general warning to the Muslims – unless you can be a Malcolm X on the TV – beware, they will come for you!

    • Good comment – thank you.
      Last line is defeatist. If we go along with that, then I guess Malcolm X descended from the sky – did not fight his way against the flow 🙂 Read his bio.

    • Thing is they deny facts openly so u have to be prepared to counter that on run time

      Mirza Ghulam said:
      “At any rate, when the great God has revealed to me that every body
      whom my Call has reached and who has failed to accept my claim, is not a Muslim
      (Truth About Split Page 147)

      Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad Writes:
      “Every person who fails to accept him(mirza Ghulam) is not a Muslim”
      (Truth About Split Page 147)

      “I wrote that as we believed the Promised Messiahas to be one of the Prophets of God, we could not possibly regard his deniers as Muslims”
      (Truth About Split Page 146)

      “not only are those deemed to be kuffar, who openly style the Promised Messiahas as kafir, and those who although they do not style him thus, decline still to accept his claim, but even those who, in their hearts, believe the Promised Messiahas to be true, and do not even deny him with their tongues, but hesitate to enter into his Bai‘at, have here been adjudged to be kuffar.”
      (Truth About Split Page 148)

      SO AMJAD AHMAD KHAN PROVEN LIAR

      and he just created the ONLY PROPHET WHICH CAN BE REJECTED

        • These are the complete references I have given the reference u can go and check them … I have copied it from PDF directly.

          and u can clear see what they are saying

  8. In my honest opinion instead of using skype they could have travelled to the Al Jazeera.Al jazeera being the part of anglo-american media conglomerate needed a strong rebuttal,speically when that ‘Hijabi’ presenter was put in place specifically for this purpose to give an impression as if some muslims are very confused about the issue.

  9. I have watched the longer version of ‘The Stream’ on subject of Ahmadiyya, on Al Jazeera English online. Both Amjad representative of Qadiani Jamaat, USA and Akbar Chaudhary representative of Khatam-e-Nabuwat, UK have made FALSE STATEMENTS.

    Previously, I have watched youtube videos prepared by Qadianis in which Pakistani Islamic scholar Dr. Israr Ahmad (marhoom), Dr. Mahdi Hasan, Dr. Mubarik Ali, Dr. Javed Iqbal discussed subject of Ahmadiyya. Today for the first time I came to know and watched longer version of the same program on youtube. Compared to both representatives on ‘The Stream’ Dr. Israr Ahmad has better presented the truth about Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib and has explicitly presented Lahori-Ahmadis (Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement) beliefs regarding HMGA, and their social practices.

    Link to:
    (12/13) Views on News (Classic Episode)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRN3mxw45Zs

    Link to longer version of ‘The Stream’ on Ahmadiyya:
    http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/believers-or-heretics-battle-between-mainstream-muslims-and-ahmadiyya-community

    • @ Mushtaq Malik

      I see you are back. Your Mirza was a weirdo aka business-man. He created a religion during the reign of British India. When the white man left…they left Pakistanis with the problem of Ahmadiyyat. The Pakistan govt has been forced to deal with this black eye for almost 70 years now.

      • Really…Why did Mahmud Ahmad allow Ahmadis to participate in his janaza prayers? Do you consider them Muslims? And who are you to define who is or isnt an Ahmadi? I thought you told us to let Allah decide? Are issuing an edict of Takfeer upon them?

        What about the 5 or so other splinter groups of the ‘A’?? Are they not worthy of being Ahmadi? Would you make them pay Jizya in an Ahmadiyya state?

        This is the big leagues BRO. Be careful what you write up here.

        • Rationalist

          Hardly the big league! the only (with respect) one person whom seems to have any Knowledge of Islam is Farhan. And your comment ” And who are you to define who is or isnt an Ahmadi?

          Well practise what you preach! inlight of your comment, may I then return the question ” who are you to define who is or isn’t a Muslim?.

          As for the the Lahori group I never said they should not be called Muslim, that is indeed between them and Almighty Allah (swt) but they are indeed not Ahmadi’s as they have rejected the divinely appointed Khliafat.

          As for the others you have mentioned, we are well aware ot them and I know one of them personally and their reasons for setting up their own ideas and concepts, just look at greater Islam so many groups have come from each other as splinter groups, you have Shia, and their splinter groups 5 Imamer’s 7 Imamer’s 12 Imamer’s and Ismailites.

          Brelvi, Dobendi, Naqsbandi, Tablighi Jamaat, Jamaat Isalmi, Salafi, Wahabi, and it goes on, and on and on,
          so don’t lecture me! on who I believe is belong to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat, you are in no postion to Talk! as far the big league! I have been debating with Imams and sheikhs for a long time, face to face in their Mosques, and in the public places like Hyde Park, and in Universities. If you consider yourself a big scholar then I invite you to meet in public our scholars face to face and debate the issues, instead of sitting at your home.

          Peace

          Umar

          • okay…this is getting a bit hostile. I’m not the one approving these comments, but since they’re up I’ll respect whoever approved them… I don’t approve of these “big league” comments from both sides.

            First, a few points:
            A) Despite its outward image, Ahmadiyya is not a unified religion. Beyond just the Lahori, there are numerous Qadian-Ahmadi splinter sects, such as Anwar-ul Islam Movement of Nigeria, Green Ahmadiyya, Jama’at Ahmadiyya Al Mouslemeen. Jamaat ul Sahih Al-Islam, and a few others. Ahmadiyya cannot even agree if Mirza was a prophet or not.

            B) You listed the Brelvi, Deobandi, Tablighi, Salafi/Wahabi, etc. I wish I could have a phone conversation with you. Yes, there are differences amongst us, but to classify even the Brelvi and Deobandi as different sects is simply incorrect. They agree on 99%, both are Hanafi, both follow the four Sufi orders of the Subcontinent, and both are Maturidi in ‘Aqidah. Their disagreements are on trivial issues that the average person would not even realize. Their infighting is a symptom of a failed economic and social situation, not a major major irreconcilable matter. In healthy social environment, they would have agreed to disagree, just as Ibn Taymiyya and ‘Izz al-Din ibn ‘Abd al-Salaam made amends.

            Ahl al-Sunnah, as an inclusive group, agree on nearly everything. What little they disagree on are ghair qat’ee (not clear) and in most cases VALID differences of opinion. Nearly all of them follow the same foundational texts, such as ‘Aqidah al-Tahawiyya. I don’t know how much you know about ‘Ilm al-Kalaam, but if you do, read “On the boundaries of theological tolerance” and “A return to purify in creed”, both by Imam al-Ghazali. This will help you understand that despite their outward differences, we Muslims are remarkably unified. If you associate with Ahmadis, you probably associate mostly with Pakistanis. Read this to help you with the Deobandi/Brelvi thing.

            No doubt there are differences amongst The People of the Sunnah, but any honest study of them will reveal that while they are emotionally and politically charged, they are so closely the same that if you were to blindfold your average Muslim and take him to any masjid in the world for a Dars, he would not be able to tell the differences.

            I say this not with ignorant of these matters, but as someone who has deeply been through them all…
            May Allah bless us all this Ramadan.

          • @ Umar

            I am a victim of the ‘A’.

            Let me apologize for the verbage, in my last post. However, I have studied Ahmadiyyat intensley, I am also an ex-Ahmadi. I know you more than you can imagine. Sometimes I might get over-excited. I remember vividly the hypocrisy inside the ‘A’. I lived with you people, I breathed with you people. My father and mother are still Ahmadis as our 80% of my brothers, sisters, cousins, uncles, aunties, nieces and nephews. I just want my family back. Thats why i am here.

          • @ Umar

            Why did Mahmud Ahmad allow Ahmadis to participate in the janaza of Muhammad Ali? Do you need a reference? I can search the ahmedi.org forums if you need the reference.

          • I can understand Br. Rationalist’s frustrations with A cult! I have witnessed it myself how this business thrives on fooling the gullible masses.

  10. I watched the program and first let me say, to Akber Chaudry, may Allah reward his efforts for being brave enough and committed enough to put himself on the line to speak the truth about the Ahmadi Jammat.

    With that being said, I found myself more frustrated than anything. A number of things factor in that made it hard for Akber Chaudry to get his points across:

    1) Amjad Khan (who spoke for the Ahmadis) is a lawyer. When anyone, including brother Chaudry, goes up on public TV to debate a lawyer then they need to put on a “lawyer’s hat” per se. Meaning, we have to not get caught up in debating whether we believe Ahmadis are Muslim or not. This actually ends up being a futile argument that wastes time because one does not have the proper allotment of time on such a prorgam to truly break down the definition of what the definition of a Muslim is according Ahl Sunnah wa al-Jammat. Ahmadis can easily burn time and confuse people by running circular arguements. When debating with Amjad, it’s better to debate him as lawyer per se; presenting facts and logical arguments.

    For example: Amjad Khan, during his opening speech, while defending that Ahmadis are Muslims said that Ahmadis, “make Hajj, pay zakat, fast etc. etc….” He said all this to “prove” that Ahmadis are Muslim. The problem with this argument is that any scholar of Islam can readily note and prove that just because one fasts, pays zakat, makes salat, etc., this alone does not deem one a Muslim. It’s a little more complex than this. Our dear brother Akber Chaudry got caught up in this futile argument. Better for him to say, “I am not a fuqaha or a mufti and I do not have the authority to say who is or who is not a Muslim, but I can tell you what Ahmadis believe…” and then proceed to hit them with facts of what Ahmadis write in their books!

    2) Our Muslim sister on the show is clearly uneducated about her deen. At one point she mentioned to both Amjad Khan and Akber Chaudry that they were both bringing up points in their argument that are “political…” and she mentioned something else that I cannot recall. She mentioned how Islam is spiritual and we need to separate it from the political and business, etc. Our dear Muslim sister (Dalila) on the panel is wrong! Sharia is a way of life. It encompasses the political, sharia deals with business contracts, it deals with marriage contracts, it deals with how to delegate a will, it deals with how to present a witness in court it, it deals with financial transactions, it deals with how to perform a wedding (nikkah). Islam is a way of life. For her to say on a national program that we must separate Islam from the political shows her lack of knowledge of the deen. Simply studying the basics of the 4 rightly guided Caliphs and how they ruled show us that Sharia encompasses all aspects of life both political and spiritual.

    To top it off, the Muslima host, Dalia, verbally admitted that she does not really know anything about Ahmadis. This is a HUGE problem when presenting a debate about aqeeda between Muslim sects; and make no mistake about it, the debate between Amjad Khan and Akber Chaudry comes down to aqeeda; the aqeeda of Ahmadi vs the aqeeda of Ahl Sunna wa al-Jammat. Basic Islamic fiqh teaches us that when discussing deen, before one speaks of it, one should have knowledge of what they speak of. Dalila did not need to be a scholar and she did not need to be a master of Ahmadi aqeeda, but she IS required, according to sharia, to know SOMETHING of Ahmadi belief (aqeeda) before she sits on a national program and espouses her opinion on Ahmadi. The Quran says, and I am summarizing, “is the one who knows similar to the one who does not know?” The answer is OF COURSE NOT! So, knowledge of the subect matter (deen) is needed before one espouses their opinion on it. Again, this is a BASIC Islamic fiqh. Dalila had no grasp of this concept; thus showing her lack of knowledge on Islam.

    Dalila should have properly asked Amjad and Akber to present the basic beliefs of Ahmadiyyat and Ahl Sunnah wa al-Jammat before proceeding to open up any further discussion between the two so that ALL the world watching could hear the facts of what Ahmadis believe.

    3) The panel did not let Akber Chaudry finish and complete his thoughts when he presented his arguments. They would cut him of when he was setting up a point and then jump to another topic not allowing Mr. Chaudry to complete his train of thought: for instance at one point, the black guy on the show, I can’t recall his name, interrupted Mr. Chaudry and started talking about Jews in Israel! I can see where he was going with his argument, but Mr. Chaudry should have not fallen for the trap, he should have kindly said something such as, “I am not here to debate the position of Jews and their rights in Israel, I am here to talk about the beliefs of Ahmadis as compared to the orthodox Muslim community” and then move on and complete his thought.

    Again, I commend Akber Chaudry for his work in standing up for truth. Inshallah next time he will be able to handle the terrain better. This also lets me know, as an ex-Ahmadi, that I and all ex-Ahmadis, need to continue studying our deen so that we can help our brother Akber who at times stands out their alone.

    May Allah reward him and ALL of you here on this website who stand up and speak out and speak up about the truth of Ahmadiyyat. May Allah bless you and reward you all in this dunya and the next life to come. Ameen

    • Dalia disappointed me. But as i said, having 2 Arabs in the debate was very futile and unprofessional, but i didn’t relly expect anything great from Al Jazeera.
      The only Muslims that have some fair knowledge of Ahmadiyya are from the Subcontinent and maybe some Africans. But even in this circle most people don’t know much about Ahmadiyya. NONE of the Turkish, Balkan, Arab and Persian Muslims i know even heard about Ahmadiyya. So how on earth can there be 20 million Ahmadis. That’s ridiculous.
      But my point being, having 2 Arabs that absolutely knows nothing about Ahmadiyya on a debate show was really pointless. They could have had people knowledgeable at least.
      From the beginning the Ahmadi was lying. The vast majority of Ahmadis don’t practice any sort of Islam what so ever. Most Ahmadis do not pray, fast or pay zakaat. They just pay Chanda and go to Jalsa Salana to glorify their leader.

  11. Ref: The Ahmadiyya doctrine that Muslims are not Muslims;
    And Mr Amjad Khan Advocate representing Ahmadiyya Jamaat, on Aljazeera TV said we Ahmadi Don’t consider non-Ahmadi as non Muslims.

    Can any Ahmadi or someone else please explain hypocrisy and plain deception in any other way?

    God Himself has testified the status of Prophet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib. The readers of this forum can decide if Ilhamat of Mirza GHulam Ahmad Sahib are Hujat or Not!

    “I (God) intended to appoint My Khalifa in this period, so I created Adam (MGA), who is going to renew the dead Deen and to implement the Shariah”
    [‘Haqiqat-ul-Wahi’, Page 107: http://www.alislam.org/urdu/rk/rk-22-80.pdf , PDF 110]

    “We (God) have sent a RASUL (MGA) towards you in a similar manner like we sent a Prophet (Muses) to Pharaoh”
    [‘Haqiqat-ul-Wahi’, Page 102: http://www.alislam.org/urdu/rk/rk-22-80.pdf , PDF 105]

    “Allah has revealed to me that he who does not follow me and does not give me his oath of allegiance and remains in opposition is disobeying the will of Allah and His Rasul and is Jahannami (doomed to Hell).” Collection of Posters, Vol. 3, P. 275; Mirza Ghulam Qadiani
    From the above mentioned few statements from the founder of the Ahmadiyyah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib clearly explain the status of non-Ahmadis in the eyes of Ahmadis.

    • @ MIyyan

      I have never really had the oppurtunity to work with you. Please email me at: islamicknight101@gmail.com

      The references that you find are awesome BRO. Especially this one:

      “We (God) have sent a RASUL (MGA) towards you in a similar manner like we sent a Prophet (Muses) to Pharaoh”
      [‘Haqiqat-ul-Wahi’, Page 102: http://www.alislam.org/urdu/rk/rk-22-80.pdf , PDF 105]

      I have hypothesized for years that MGAQ was planning on claiming to be a Law-bearing prophet. This was the reference that I needed. I estimate that if MGAQ would have lived until 1910..he would have made the claim to law-bearing prophethood.

      Have you ever researched Zahir uddin ? He was the Ahmadis who claimed that MGAQ was in-fact a law bearing prophet in 1911.

      • Rationalist

        All you said is baseless and has no foundation! the PM has never claimed to be a law bearing Prophet, and you know that!
        can you read urdu?

        and now you are playing God! nauzubillah by saying if had lived until 1910 he would have claimed law bearing Prophethood, all this shows is your lack of Islamic Theology and indeed your lack the doctrine of Ahmadiyyat.

        Umar

        • @ Umar

          I have studied the ‘A’ more intensely than you can imagine. In 1900, MGAQ mansukhed Jihad, kinda sorta. He was slowly introducing change. Just like in 1884 when he made an announcement that his God told him that he was a mujaddid, he also said that he had the characteristics of Esa (as). The reason for this was that he was planning to slowly intrododuce his claims. Then he did the same thing later with prophethood. At first he vehemently denied being a prophet (1891) but 10 years later he made the official announcement.

          I hypothesize that he was planning to do the same thing with Sharia based prophethood. He had already mansukhed Jihad, he claimed to be paralel to MUhammad (saw) (nauzobillah) and he had began to call Muslims as Kafirs. Everything was ready. In 1910, he would have said: “I was a law-bearing prophet all along, I just didnt understand it”.

          Remember, in 1901, when he laid claim to prophethood, he said that he had been a prophet for 21 years, but didnt understand it.

        • @ Umar

          Obviously, you have never read this:

          “The conferment of titles is the pleasure and the work of the Lord God. I have no share in it. As for the question why I have written like this? Why has this contradiction crept in? So, please, listen and understand with care. This contradiction is of the same kind as in Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya I wrote, at one time, that the Messiah, son of Mary, could descend from the heavens. Later on, however, I put forth that I, myself, am the Messiah expected to come in the later times. The basis of the contradiction in that case was the same. Although, in Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya itself, the Lord God called me Isa and also said to me that the tiding of my advent had been given earlier by God and His Apostle. Since, however, a portion of the Muslims happened to have become firm on the belief, and I myself believed the same, that Hazrat Isa would come down from the heavens, I endeavoured to take the Wahyi at the apparent level; in fact, I watered it down in interpretation, and clung to the former view I had shared with the rest of the Muslims; and this was the view I did my best to propagate in Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya. Later on, however, Revelations came down on me, like the rain from heaven, to the effect that I myself was the Promised Messiah, so eagerly expected to appear, with hundreds of wonderful Signs and the earth, as well as the heavens took their stand in support of my position; and brilliant manifestations forced me to perceive that I, myself, was the Masih expected to appear in the later times. Otherwise, my belief on these points was the same as I had stated in Barahin-i- Ahmadiyya… Similarly, to begin with this was my belief that in no way was I comparable in quality with reference to Jesus son of Mary. He was a Prophet, great among those chosen by the Lord. Even when something occurred, which seemed to establish my superiority over him, always I took it to imply some limited and partial preference. Later on, however, the Wahyi sent down on me by the Lord, like pouring rain, it did not allow me to remain clinging to this belief; and I found the title of Nabi clearly conferred on me, in a manner that I was a Nabi from one angle, an Ummati from another… Anyway, the long and short of it all is this that there is no contradiction in what I say, I but follow the Wahyi, from the Lord. Just as long as this awareness did not come to me, I continued to say what I had said at the outset. But when I was given this awareness, I began to say different from what I had said before. I am no more than a human being: I do not claim to be the Knower of the Unseen.” (Haqiqatul Wahyi, page 148-150) (SCAN NEEDED)

      • Mirza Ghulam said, “God Almighty has disclosed to me that whoever has been apprised of my advent and does not accept me is not a Muslim and is accountable to God.” (The Essence Of Islam, Volume 4, Page 87)

        • @ Farhan

          It should be archived that after MGAQ made this sweeping statement in a private letter in 1906…however, he denied it a year later. He denied ever writing as such in any book or poster, but he didnt deny writing it in a private letter. Here is what he wrote:

          See Haqeeqatul Wahy, p. 178,

          “Dr Abdul Hakim in his pamphlet Masih al-Dajjal and other writings accuses me of having written that anyone who does not believe in me, even if he has not heard my name or is living in a country beyond the reach of my call, is an unbeliever and shall go to hell. This is a patent fabrication by the Doctor. I have never said so in any book or poster of mine. It is binding on him to produce such writings of mine in which I have said so”

          However, 4 years later in 1911, in an articled entitled, “A Muslim is only he who accepts all Mamurs”, In writing this article Mahmud Ahmad authenticated the story of Dr. Abdul Hakim Khan and proved that MGAQ lied when he made the statement in Haqiqatul Wahy. Mahmud Ahmad produced the letter of MGAQ and began his campaign of calling Muslims as Kafirs. It didnt last long, in the 1930’s under the pressure from the Ahrars…Mahmud Ahmad backpeddled.

          You can read what Mahmud Ahmad wrote here (thank you XIA):

          http://www.alislam.org/urdu/au/AU1-9.pdf

          See page 316

      • @ Nasir Jan

        You need to read a bit more. Have you read the history of MGAQ calling others as Kafir? Do you know how it all started? Do you know that it progressed and subsequently climaxed in 1906? Do you know what his sons wrote on this topic from 1911 to 1922?? Do you know about Muhammad Ali and what he said about this topic from 1911 to 1950?

        You have lots of reading to do…

        And…I already know about Ahmadiyya thought. Ahmadiyya bans a thing or calls Muslims as Kafirs and then backpeddles. It is sooooo common. Here is another example: Chanda is mandatory…oh..well not really, however, we will continue to use the word mandatory even though we dont enforce it.

        Get the picture?

      • @ Nasir

        And finally….an Islamic state must define who is and who isnt a Muslim simply because of Zakaat vs. Jizya. Muslims pay Zakaat and must serve in the military. However, Non-Muslims pay Jizya and are exempt from military service. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON.

        FYI: During the Mughal empire..Hindus paid the Jizya and were exempt from military service.

        Now if you want a nation where there is seperation of Quran and state….good luck. It does happen, but as Muslims, we are obliged to promote an Islamic state.

  12. Very well presented by Mr.Amjad, definitely his points had weight and the other side had nothing to say. I wonder from where Mr Akbar gets the authority to “give judgement” of who is a muslim and who is not. and i wonder why blunder of Pakistan as a country to declare ahmadis as non muslims is portrayed as if done by all the Muslim countries? I wonder if God would refer constitution of Pakistan for decisions? Why on earth it bothers non ahmadi muslims if they think ahmadis r on the wrong path? what scares them?

    • Mirza Ghulam said, “God Almighty has disclosed to me that whoever has been apprised of my advent and does not accept me is not a Muslim and is accountable to God.” (The Essence Of Islam, Volume 4, Page 87)

      Do you condemn Mirza too?

      Ahmadis or their ancestors were once Muslims. The spiritual brotherhood was shattered by Mirza Ghulam. We want our brothers in faith back. Mirza had no right to take them from us.

      • @ Farhan

        These Ahmadis dont know any better. As long as I was an Ahmadi….nobody ever even mentioned the writings of MGAQ or his sons on this topic. They only refer to Mirza Nasir Ahmad and Mirza Tahir Ahmad’s views…

        Oh the irony….

          • Whats a lie? I was an Ahmadi for 25 years. No one ever told me about the writings of the sons of MGAQ in terms of Takfeer. 99.9% of Ahmadis only refer to the statements of Mirza Nasir Ahmad and Mirza Tahir Ahmad in terms of Takfeer.

            Explain your allegation. What are you accusing me of lieing about? I dont lie.

    • @muslims for peace – you can see that the presenters on Al Jazeera were also in favour of Amjad saab, they also appreciate the Job that the Ahmadis in the US are doing to counter misconceptions about Islam. The bottom line is God will decide who is a muslim and who is not.

      • @ Nas

        I share the same impression as you. It seems that the Ahmadiyya media machine contacted Al-Jazeera first. They appear to have talked their way into an interview. Maybe Farhan or someone can confirm this….

        The folks at Al-Jazeera were extremely sympathetic to the Ahmadiyya persepective. They didnt know of the communal strife that MGAQ caused in a diverse India. They didnt know that Pakistan actually went out their way to accomadate Ahmadiyyat in Pakistan by giving them a huge parcel of land next to a major river, railway line and major highway. No other Islamic firqa was given the same thing.

        It was the Ahmadis who created all of this negativity in Pakistan. Its all their fault. They are provoking the population to be violent against them. The Pakistani govt had no choice but to declare them as Kafir in 1974.

        In 1853 there was mass-rioting in the Punjab against Ahmadiyyat. That was only 5 years after the newly formed nation. Ahmadiyyat is a problem that India didnt want. They threw it on Pakistan. It is an embarrassing part of our history.

        • I ment 1953 in the above. Just 6 years after Pak was created. This proves that Ahmadiyyat caused communal strife in Pak. However, they should have stayed in India. No one forced them to move..

  13. Farhan sb

    Yes indeed I have met many Salaf’s or Wahabi’s so therefore as they came also after Islam, so your religion Salafism, I know many Imam’s who don’t accept Salafism and consider those who follow it to be, excuse the expression ” Kahfir”. So your religion is Salafism. ( please note I am not calling anyone who follows Salaifism Kahfir, I am only repeating what other non Ahmadi Imams have said to me in Hyde Park and when I also visit their Mosques to debate).

    My main point Farhan is if the PM has created a community and named it ” Ahmadiyyat” and by doing this you deem a new religion, even though he as made it clear he and his followers are Muslims, following the Qur’an and sunnah of the Prophet (saw). yet you name it a new religion, therefore Salaifism is also a new religion as the name of Prophet Muhammad’s (saw) religion is Islam.
    waslaam
    Umar

    wasalam

    Umar

    • And brother farhan’s main point is if you can condemn Muslims for calling ahmadi kafirs, then what about MGA?? Please explain to us, insteadof dodging bullets, what MGA meant when he called anyone who didn’t believe in him as Kafir?I’m confused. Help!!!!

Comments are closed.