Author Archives: rationalist

Did Ahmadiyya Fail with the African Americans?

Posted on by

Ahmadiyya doctrine has been in the inner cities of the USA circa 1921(See Moslem Sunrise, 1921 edition). They were the only ever missionary society that sold Islam “large-scale” in the USA. At that time, Mahmud Ahmad was the Khalifa and he was very aggressive with his marketing in terms of the global sales network of the Ahmadiyya Movement, i.e. Ahmadiyya dogma.

Mufti Muhammad Sadiq was sent to the USA as a missionary. He was a well respected confidant of MGA and was sure to bag his prey. Upon arrival in the USA, the Mufti quickly began to work with peoples of all colors and developed a group of converts. African-Americans were particularly attracted to the garbled message that the Mufti taught and mistook it for Islam. At the time, African-Americans were being trampled over and were looking for a religion that would preach equality. They began to join Ahmadiyya and by the 1940’s Ahmadis could claim between 5,000—10,000 Ahmadis (See Marabell and Turner).
By the 1950’s most of the African-Americans were on their way out and were particularly upset with the fact that African-Americans were made murrabi and weren’t allowed to hold top leadership positions in the USA jamaat (see Amina McCloud).

More and more Muslims were beginning to emigrate from the Middle East and they were teaching a more orthodox interpretation of Islam. African-Americans began to leave en-masse, they also finally learned that MGA claimed prophethood and in Islamic terms that was heresy (See Amina McCloud).

By the 1970’s, Ahmadiyyat had faded significantly in terms of their advance on the US population. Less and less African-Americans were joining and the children of those that had joined in the 1930’s were disinterested in Ahmadiyya dogma and lifestyle. If you looked recently, the national Khuddam Ijtema and Jalsa’s here in the USA have less than 3% African-Americans.

Nowadays, Ahmadiyyat in the USA is relying on immigration to help fuel this enormous cash cow which is called the USA Ahmadiyya Movement.

A new claimant to prophethood in the Ahmadiyya

Posted on by

In this video the Ahmadiyya pscyhe is on full display.  We are able to see the fruits of the labor of MGA and hsi recent successor Masroor Ahmad.

My question to Ahmadis is simple.  Will you accept this Ahmadi as a prophet?  Will you climb over glaciers of ice to meet this Zahid Khan charachter?  Will Masroor Ahmad meet with him to discuss his claims?

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Misappropriation of Funds –Vol. 1

Posted on by

This short article will highlight a significant attempt my Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in terms of misappropriation of funds. It is clear as day that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad totally defrauded all of his followers and created a family business called Ahmadiyyat. I will highlight the “Langhar Khana” or free kitchen that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself operated and the circumstances therein.

It is my conclusion that the funds that were allocated for the Langhar Khana were used by the family of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in a variety of ways. I will present cogent data that will allow the reader to draw the same conclusion.

In 1898, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad gave the British govt. a brief layout of his economic position in connection with his newly formed religion:

“The income from my followers during the year assessed is about Rs. 5,200. The average annual income is about Rs. 4,000. I say this from memory. There is no written record… The income from my followers is spent under different heads. The chief of them is Langar Khana.” (see Dard, Life of Ahmad, page 596)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was compelled to admit that the management of his “free kitchen” was the highest expenditure for which he allocated funds. Subsequent events will allow the reader to come to the realization that the excess monies from this “free kitchen” were used to support Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s growing family as well as other private expenses.

In 1906, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad created the Sadr Anjuman which was poised to control all the economic affairs of the community..except the Langhar Khana. In 1908, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad went to Lahore for preaching and other related matters. In his absence, Maulana Muhammad Ali was placed as “in-charge” of the free kitchen. This was the first time that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad allowed any other person to peek into the economic operation of the free kitchen. I will present some references that prove that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his family misappropriated funds.

Just 12 hours before the death of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad he was found to have misappropriated funds by one of his chief followers, that was Maulana Muhammad Ali. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad claims to have witnessed this entire controversy. After the death of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the 1st Khalifa (Noorudin) managed the free kitchen, in 1911-12 he turned over the control of the free kitchen to the Sadr Anjuman, this enraged the family of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, particularly Mirza Mahmud Ahmad who was the main representative of the family and in a private letter that was written from Mirza Mahmud Ahmad to Maulvi Noorudin (the Khalifa at the time) he wrote:

“….And the Promised Messiah on the last day of his life, just a short while before his death occurred, said: The Khwaja Sahib and Maulvi Muhammad Ali mistrust me and say that I misuse and misappropriate the funds of the jamaat. This they should not have done, for the result thereof would not be good. He further added: Today the Khwaja Sahib came to me with a letter from Maulvi Muhammad Ali and said: Maulvi Muhammad Ali writes that the expenditure of the free kitchen is not much, and what then becomes of all the money that is received? And when the Promised Messiah returned home, he gave expression to his resentment, saying, These people suspect that I am dishonest and deceitful. What concern have they with this money? And if I were to cut off all connection and separate, all this income will automatically stop and cease…….” (see True Facts about the Split by Maulana Muhammad Ali, page 21, 22)

http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/mali/truefactssplit/truefactssplit.pdf

This is proof that there was conflict in terms of the financial matters of the community. This reference proves that one of the top followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad observed that the funds that were allocated for the free kitchen were much more than was needed. And the excess monies were not returned for re-distribution. In conclusion, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad willfully misappropriated all funds that he received from all of his blind followers, but he took special exception to the free kitchen. He kept his hands firmly on this income stream and tried to keep the management of it with his family. Here is what he wrote:

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Tadhkirah.pdf

Page 1055

“The Promised Messiah said: God has told me that so long as the management of the public kitchen is in my hands it would continue to run. But that if I were to commit it into their hands, it would be closed down within a few days.1267 [Friday Sermon delivered by Hadrat Khalifatul Masih II on February 12, 1915, al-Fadl, vol. 2, no. 109, February 25, 1915, p. 6]”

“1267– Note by Maulana Abdul Latif Bahawalpuri: The reference is to the people who criticized the expenses of the public kitchen. Hadrat Khalifatul Masih II said: When the Promised Messiah was in Lahore, one of the critics wrote a letter to his friend saying that actual expenditure of the public kitchen was much less than its income, and some of the money was spent on the family and friends of the Promised Messiah. …The letter was sent to Lahore a few days before he passed away, and the Promised Messiah was greatly grieved upon hearing about it. (al-Fadl, volume 1, number 50, May 27, 1914, page 21). He said: ‘The writer is totally senseless and un-informed. He should realize that the guests are coming here [in Lahore]. Very few people are visiting Qadian at this time. He should have added the expenses made in Qadian and Lahore.’ [al-Fadl, vol. 2, no. 109, February 25, 1915, p. 6]”

In 1914, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad became khalifa and the first thing that he did was taken control of all the financial affairs of the Sadr Anjuman. This was the method that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad employed as he snatched the control of the monies of this religion. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad continued to follow in the footsteps of this father as he totally defrauded the blind followers that remained stuck in this hideous religion. I leave with one final reference that should allow all readers to understand why Ahmadiyyat is nothing more than a pseudo ponzi scheme:

Mirza Mahmud Ahmad reports that some top ahmadis had this to say about Mirza Ghulam Ahmad:

“Himself the Promised Messiah lives in ease and comfort, but unto us the sermon that we should cut short and curtail our expenses, and come to his aid and contribute.” (see True Facts about the Split by Maulana Muhammad Ali, page 21, 22)

Ahmadiyya and Nationalism

Posted on by

As an ex-Ahmadi I was always naïve to the organization that I paid 6.25% of my earnings to.  I never once questioned the dynamic of the organization in terms of loyalty to european colonialism or the lack of drive to emancipate the oppressed.  The exodus which led me out of Ahmadiyyat was based on the belief system as well as the character of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian.  Not once did I realize that loyalty to those who crave natural resources was in fact a prerequisite of membership for this business/religion.  After much research, I realized that Ahmadiyyat modeled it’s own economic aspirations in parallel to British Colonialism.  In this quest, MGAQ distorted Quranic verses to fit his business endeavor and disguised it as the revival of the deen through colonial supported prophethood.  Here is what MGAQ wrote on the subject in question:

“The Holy Qur’an commands, ‘Obey Allah and obey His Prophet and obey those in authority among you.’ Believers are to obey those in authority, besides God and His Prophet. To say that ‘those in authority’ does not include a non-Muslim Government would be a manifest error. For, a government-or authority-whose ordinances are in accordance with the Shariah (that is, they are not in conflict with it) is ‘authority from among you.’ Those who are not against us are amongst us. The Qur’an, therefore, is unequivocal on the point. Obedience to governmental authority is one of its imperatives.” (Works and Speeches, Vol. (i), p. 261)

Just recently, an individual by the name of Naseem Mahdi, who is an Ahmadi, made some statements on FOX news to the effect that Muslims needed to stand up and denounce terrorism and in turn support the country in which they lived.  In the same breath he announced that this was a directive of the Quran and the Sunnah.  He was asking all Muslims who live in the USA to support the US foreign policy without question or concern, he wanted Ahmadis to know that he considered it an Islamic directive to support the USA in their foreign policy.  All this stems from the yearnings of MGAQ over 100 years ago.  MGAQ wanted to support the British in any shape or form, this was not a queer perspective that Naseem was presenting, in fact it was the rhetoric that the Islamic world had condemned over 100 years ago. 

MGAQ argued from Chapter 4 verse 60 (in the Ahmadi numbering system).  MGAQ contended that this verse had global appeal inasmuch as it explains that a good Muslim will obey any ruler who is above them in any circumstance and in any country, more specifically British India.  This policy was irregardless if the ruler was just or not, MGAQ presented it as a standing policy of support.  MGAQ didnt care that european colonialism was killing the innocent and stealing gold and diamonds.   This was not part of his formula of faith. 

The Ahmadis have purposely not used the biggest piece of the puzzle in terms of understanding Chapter 4:60.  There is a hadith in the traditions of Imam Bukhari that explains the context of this verse. 

Here it is:

Bukhari

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 108:

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

The Verse: “Obey Allah and Obey the Apostle and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority.” (4.59) was revealed in connection with ‘Abdullah bin Hudhafa bin Qais bin ‘Adi’ when the Prophet appointed him as the commander of a Sariyya (army detachment).

This hadith explains that this verse is conditional inasmuch as it means that if a Muslim is a soldier he should obey the orders of his respective captain or seargent or whoever is in charge over him.  It must be remembered that 99.9% of young Muslim men were in the military in those days, military service was mandatory in the classical period of Islam as well as almost every culture in the earth.  The Ahmadis have distorted this verse (as well as many others) in an attempt to be loyal to the Europeans and receive a kick-back.  It bothers me so much that any “so-called” Muslim would be willing to distort the word of Allah to fit his or her economic needs. 

I then found a paper written by Mirza Bashir Ahmad which was written in the early 1960’s.  In this paper he argued that Ahmadis can kill Ahmadis for the sake of their respective country.  He elaborated on his father’s fascination with connecting their family business/religion with the country that they were in.  Mirza Bashir Ahmad and his brothers considered it essential to the life of Ahmadiyyat that all members of this cult should support the country in which they live.  As Ahmadis spread to different parts of the globe it became essential for the growth and life of Ahmadiyyat to support any and all countries that it was doing business in. 

Here is the quote:

“One imaginary situation is often posed. Two countries, both with Ahmadi populations, go to war, Ahmadis in the two countries profess loyalty to their respective Governments. What are Ahmadis going to do in such a contingency? Will they still side with their respective Governments and engage in mutual killing? The question is not a new one. Neither for us, nor for the rest of the world. Our answer has always been this: Yes, even in such a contingency, Ahmadis will remain loyal to their respective Governments. This belief of ours is not of our making. It is a belief taught by God and explained by His Prophet. It is a belief we cannot alter or dilute. If loyalty to their respective Governments results in the killing of Ahmadis by Ahmadis, well that is there and, there is nothing more to be said or done. It is but a consequence, an obligation entailed by our religious belief. Principles have priority over persons. Persons may be sacrificed for the sake of principles, not principles for the sake of persons. Such mutual killing will be forgiven by the Wise and Merciful God of the Qur’an. It will be the result of His own teaching, of conditions, over which we have no control.”  (The Question of Divided Loyalty Some Parallels from History by Mirza Bashir Ahmad) http://www.alislam.org/jihad/loyality.html

Firstly, the Mirza brothers encouraged Ahmadis to kill one another.  That is just an unbelievable factoid that rips at the fabric of brotherhood in terms of the teachings of Islam.  Here is a hypothetical question: If Mirza Mahmud Ahmad was enlisted in the Indian army and Mirza Bashir Ahmad (his brother) was enlisted in the Pak army. If they met on the battlefield would they try to kill each other for the sake of their country?  I seriously doubt it.  These rules don’t apply to the “royal family”, only the subjects.  It is sickening to read this type of foreign policy.  It is even sickening to see how the Mirza brothers don’t care if Ahmadis begin to start killing Ahmadis.  All they care is that their business investment in all countries continues to thrive. 

After researching the many theories that Ahmadis present as they argue for nationalism, I decided to research this idea myself.  My research results showed that generally Islam is one nation and one culture, a Muslim should never attack another Muslim under normal circumstances.  A Muslim fighting another Muslim should never be encouraged.  This type of lifestyle is frowned upon by the theoretical position of the Quran and Hadith. 

When the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah came to pass.  Allah informed Muhammad (saw) and the other Muslims that it was Allah who had in fact stopped the Muslims from going to war with the Quraysh.  The reason that Allah had stopped the Muslims from engaging in battle with the Quraysh was because Allah did not want Muslims to kill Muslims.  Here are the words of Allah, from alislam.org:

 [48:26] It is they who disbelieved and hindered you from the Sacred Mosque and the offering which was prevented from reaching its place of sacrifice. And had it not been for believing men and believing women whom you knew not and whom you might have trampled down so that harm might have come to you on their account unknowingly, He would have permitted you to fight, but He did not do so that He might admit into His mercy whom He will. If they had been separated from the disbelievers, We would have surely punished those of them who disbelieved with a grievous punishment.

The words of Allah clearly shows that Allah is concerned with Muslims killing Muslims, and Allah even caused the Muslims to turn away from Mecca, just because Allah feared that some innocent Muslims who were living in Mecca might be killed. 

Please be advised that Allah never said that the Muslims of Mecca must support the Quraysh in their battle against Islam.  Allah never authorized Muslims to fight Muslims for the sake of nationalism.  Mirza Bashir Ahmad studied the Quran his entire life, but it seems that he totally missed this point.  I am at a loss for words in terms of how it is possible for someone to read the word of Allah and yet encourage Muslims to kill Muslims. 

The Ahmadis are very keen to point towards Jihad and announce that Jihad is conditional, as if this is some type of new discovery.  In fact, almost every injunction in the Quran has conditions that are attached to it.  A very brief conditional injunction is the eating of swine.  Muslims cannot eat swine, unless there is nothing else to eat.  Similarily, a Muslim must Fast during the month of Ramadhan, unless they have some illnesess that prevent them from doing so, like diabetes. 

The verse that the Ahmadis reference here is conditional.  There are other Quranic verses that must be taken into consideration when understanding this particular verse (4:60).  Here they are:

3:74 “And obey none but him who follows your religion;’ — Say, ‘Surely, the true guidance, the guidance of Allah, is that one may be given the like of that which has been given to you’ — ‘or they would dispute with you before your Lord.’ Say, ‘All bounty is in the hand of Allah. He gives it to whomsoever He pleases. And Allah is Bountiful, All-Knowing.”

3:101 “O ye who believe! if you obey any party of those who have been given the Book, they will turn you again into disbelievers after you have believed.”

3:150 “O ye who believe! if you obey those who have disbelieved, they will cause you to turn back on your heels, and you will become losers.”

6:117  “And if thou obey the majority of those on earth, they will lead thee astray from Allah’s way. They follow nothing but mere conjecture, and they do nothing but lie.”

In conclusion, it is obvious that the Ahmadis have taken 4:60 totally out of context.  If a person studies the entire body of the Quran he will quickly learn that a Muslim should never kill another Muslim.  The verses that I presented in conjunction with 4:60 as well as the authentic hadith lead me to understand that 4:60 is highly conditional.  The first condition is that this is a military order and it was used to remind the soliders that they MUST obey those in-charge over them, we all know how Muhammad (Saw) had lost some teeth towards the end of the Battle of Uhud and the reason was that some soldiers failed to obey the orders of those above them, this verse in Surah Nisa was revealed just after this battle and is a reflection of the military society that Islam was born into.  This is main context of this verse. 

Secondarily, a Muslim must live in an Islamic nation that is just and is Islamic in every way shape or form and has a positive aqeedah.   Allah would never authorize any Muslim to fight with those who plunder and persecute the weak.  Allah would never authorize any Muslim to support a regime that has historically killed innocent men and women for the sake of gold and trade.  Allah would never allow any Muslim to work together with those had a hand in raping innocent women and killing their babies. 

I end this paper with a Hadith that explains Muslim vs. Muslim combat.

Sahih Bukhari

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 354:

Narrated ‘Ubaidullah bin ‘Adi bin Al-Khiyar:

That Al-Miqdad bin ‘Amr Al-Kindi, who was an ally of Bani Zuhra and one of those who fought the battle of Badr together with Allah’s Apostle told him that he said to Allah’s Apostle, “Suppose I met one of the infidels and we fought, and he struck one of my hands with his sword and cut it off and then took refuge in a tree and said, “I surrender to Allah (i.e. I have become a Muslim),’ could I kill him, O Allah’s Apostle, after he had said this?” Allah’s Apostle said, “You should not kill him.” Al-Miqdad said, “O Allah’s Apostle! But he had cut off one of my two hands, and then he had uttered those words?” Allah’s Apostle replied, “You should not kill him, for if you kill him, he would be in your position where you had been before killing him, and you would be in his position where he had been before uttering those words.”

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was an Uncle Tom

Posted on by

In the history of European conquest one person stands out as having supported the Europeans more than anyone else in recorded history.  That person is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian.  In one book he even described his loyalty as second to none (see “My attitude towards the British Govt”).  This individual and his forefathers totally turned their backs on their fellow brothers in the Indian subcontinent during the fall of Islam and the rise of the European War Machine.  It is amazing that an alleged “prophet” could totally turn his back on the oppressed people of the Indian subcontinent and then support the European War Machine based on the idea being that since these Europeans were offering religious freedom, somehow this exempted them from behaving humanely towards the technologically challenged.  Mirza Ghulam Ahmad indirectly and directly supported the European war machine based on one ideal.  And that is religious freedom.  Mirza Ghulam Ahmad argued that since they offered religious freedom, no people should fight against them.  Mirza Ghulam Ahmad indirectly argued that it was acceptable for them to tax the people of India (without representation), and steal gold and diamonds from Australia and South Africa and kill innocent indigenous people all around the world.

This story of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is an economic one and it started indirectly as the USA was created.  In the late 1700s the Brits lost the Americas to the new settlers who complained about taxation without representation.  The Brits were charging the new settlers of the Americas a tax-rate without allowing these settlers to have any members in the British congress.  A schism was created and the settlers won the war against the Brits.  Similarily, the Brits were taxing Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs in the Indian subcontinent, yet they disallowed any of these Indians to hold a seat in any British congress or presidency.  They basically confiscated all the taxable land and resources of India, then made Indians pay tax on their earnings.  Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his family swooped in and were able to get land grants and good jobs because of their abandoning attitude towards their own people.  Any invading force is always looking for traitors and the Mirzas stood up to help them.

The reason that the Brits looked elsewhere after their failure in the Americas can simply be described as an economic endeavor.  The Brits lost a huge stream of capital (the Americas) and were reeling from this loss.  They needed a new way to create vast amounts of capital.  They focused in on the Indian Ocean and the spice trade, they also gauged the value of South Africa and realized that this was the most important trade post in the entire world.  They also realized the geographical importance of Australia.  At this point (mid 1840s) the Brits hadn’t found gold and diamonds in Australia or South Africa.  They were killing the indigenous for the rights to trade and land.

The Brits knew that South Africa was the most important country where a port needed to be built.  South Africa was at the mouth of the Indian Ocean as it connected to the Atlantic.  Every ship had to pass and stop through South Africa before continuing on to Europe.  The British annexed the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa in 1806.  The Brits had only envisioned this as a port and an important trade stop.  In 1867 diamonds were found and in 1884 gold was found.  The Brits began a series of wars in which they almost totally killed the black man in South Africa.  Not only did they take the black man’s land, but now they were stealing the precious natural resources that were buried beneath South African Soil.

Similarily, in the 1850’s a gold rush began in Australia, which 60 years led the British govt. to pass a law in 1901 (the same year that MGAQ claimed prophet-hood) that only whites could emigrate to Australia.  Nonetheless, the whites began killing millions of Aborigines and proceeded to steal their natural resources.

In India, first the Brits succeeded in dethroning the Mughal Empire, then they placed a minority group, i.e. the Sikhs in control.  When they grew impatient with the Sikhs they removed them from power and assumed control of the entire subcontinent.  The Brits were on a roll, they controlled South Africa, India and Australia, essentially they controlled the entire Indian Ocean.  The Brits had recovered the capital stream that it lost to the new settlers in the Americas.

It was under this environment that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was raised.  Instead of educating Muslims about the true intent of the Brits, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad asked Muslims to honor these people and pay them homage for being good people and allowing religious freedom.  Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was not just paying lip-service, he was dead serious!

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was asking Muslims to give up on the silly ideas of Jihad and join these Brits and be their loyal subjects.  While the BOER war was going on in South Africa, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad attempted to collect money and send it to South Africa.   Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was asking Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs to support the Brits in their quest for global domination.  Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was asking all Indian people to stop fighting the Brits and be friendly towards them, in the meantime the Brits were killing Africans and Australians for gold and diamonds.  Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was asking Muslims to stop thinking about fighting for their country and religion, but, ironically he supported the Brits as they killed humans for gold and diamonds.

I was reading a newly found book of MGAQ entitled “My attitude towards the British Govt” and made the following observations:

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad alleges that all the maulvis of India claim that the spreading of Islam with the sword is part of the religion.  What a baseless claim, he forgets to mention that we MUST offer Jizya to anyone who doesn’t accept Islam and then protect and guard those people and treat them fairly.  This Jizya is compensation for not joining Islam, this Jizya was compensation for their men not joining our military.  In comparison to Christianity, Islam is an extremely peaceful religion.  Do the math!

Unlike the European barbarians who raped the Americas with the flag of Christianity waving in the backround, Muslims were kind and didn’t brutally kill those were lesser in terms of technology.   In contrast, these Europeans killed everybody, they raped every girl, they killed many children.  And the best argument that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad could give was that the maulvis were wrong?  MGA was totally kissing ASS and asking for favors and money from these people, and he got it.

Then he goes on to write that the Quran doesn’t sanction for an all out war against unbelievers.  That is totally absurd!  The Quran tells us that if the unbelievers are aggressive and bold and kill innocent Muslims (or people in general), in that case we can do an all out war.  But that premise or idea isn’t rare in terms of people and culture.  My question is, how did the USA respond when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor?  Was the USA innocent in WW2?  Did the Japanese bomb Hawaii for no reason?  No, the USA was selling arms to Britain and France and getting rich doing it, ever heard of the Industrial Revolution?  The Japanese were trying to get rid of the supply source.  In other words the USA was aiding and abetting against the Japanese and the Germans, that is an act of war for any country, in any time and in any circumstance.

The USA unleashed the two biggest military explosions in the history of the planet in response to the aggressiveness of the Japanese, ever heard of an atom bomb?  Then they hurled Japanese-Americans into concentration camps until further notice, they didn’t even ask these people who they sided with.  I think the Islamic response to similar circumstances is very relaxed in comparison.

So please don’t call Islam violent when the British Govt. and other white people made it a hobby to loot and pillage other cultures and people.  Africa is still stuck in political problems because of the white man did there! Nelson Mandela was in jail for 20+ years because he stood up to the descendants of the Brits and the Dutch.

In the same book, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad continues to snitch on the Muslims of India as he tells his MOM (the Queen) that these Muslims are awaiting a personality that will crush and kill the Christians.  Mirza Ghulam Ahmad forgets to mention that the Muslims don’t like the white man based on their history of conquest and destruction.  Mirza Ghulam Ahmad fails to criticize the white man for their aggressive behavior in Australia, Africa or the Americas.

He continues to write that “these Muslims” are awaiting an atrocious personality called Mahdi and Messiah who will spill Christian blood throughout the world.  Mirza Ghulam Ahmad continues to describe Muslim theology as extremely dangerous in terms of British business in India.  He also continues to admonish the Civil and Military gazette for blaming him (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) as an agitator, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad says that he is clearly on the side of the white man and his been his benefactor since at least 1857 when his father helped the Brits.  He continues to assert that “these Muslims” are only paying lip service, they are not really on the side of the white man.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad asserts over and over again that he has published books in Persian, Arabic and Urdu in an attempt to stop Muslims from thinking about rebelling against the Brits.  Mirza Ghulam Ahmad continues to tell the Brits that he is in fact concerned about their advancement in the world.  Mirza Ghulam Ahmad writes that the Brits are a favor from Allah.  Mirza Ghulam Ahmad continues to try to convince the Brits that he is their right hand man whereas these other maulvis are lying about their true intentions.  Mirza Ghulam Ahmad asserts that there is no other Indian in the entire country who is more loyal to the Queen than he is, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claims that he is second to none in loyalty.

He writes further that the Qur’an is totally against raising a man to divinity and that Allah has allowed this nation (which supports shirk) to govern over all Muslims.  He continues to write that he has tried to “up-root” the ideas of JIHAD which could be a detrimental towards British business in the region.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad backpeddled on calling the Europeans DAJJAL.  Mirza Ghulam Ahmad writes that he only means DAJJAL in a restricted sense.  He says that in his own estimation DAJJAL only means alloy, and that he only means this word in the sense that Christianity was corrupted, not in the sense of an evil empire.

He ends by calling the Christian preachers DAJJAL in a very restricted sense.  He also gives no indication that any other person helped him write this.  It appears that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself is a scholar of English and his written this manifesto himself.

In conclusion, based on reading of this book of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad I was inspired to write the above material.  Any conquering nation, as they began on their conquest they always look for the ‘sell-outs’, they found an entire family worth in Qadian, India.

In the 1917 the Brits double-crossed every Muslim on the planet when it issued the Balfour Declaration and began allowing Jews to enter into a Muslim country.  This double-crossing became the garden for defaming Islam.

The declaration was made in a letter from Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, an obviously Zionist organization. The letter reflected the position of the British Cabinet, as agreed upon in a meeting on 31 October 1917. It further stated that the declaration is a sign of “sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations.”

And these were the people that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had written about?  This decision by the Brits has given Islam the worst reputation of any religion ever.  And this was a situation where the Muslims of Palestine were innocent.  The Brits created a situation which has given the Muslims grief for the past 100 years.  This situation probably played a part in triggering the heinous attack of Sept. 11, 2001.

In my opinion it was the Brits who have defamed and put Islam into a corner.  And there was one of us from Qadian, India who supported them whole-heartedly.  In all of my research on Ahmadism, this one fact has left me with a bad taste in my mouth.  The reality of Ahmadism as it was created under the rule of the British is the most harmful attack on Islam since the Crusades.  I pray to Allah that he returns Islam to its pristine purity.  I pray that Allah allows Muslims to see the facts and inculcates into the hearts of men, that every Muslim should be educated.   From Morocco to Japan, from London to South Africa and from Alaska to Antarctica.

Khatim vs. Khatam in the Holy Quran

Posted on by

This is a small research project that I conducted based on a hunch. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad claimed that the word Khatim had different meanings than Khatam based on the pronunciation of the word. I had a hunch that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad was incorrect, I just couldn’t believe that Allah would allow a small vowel to change the meaning of a verse so much. If it had a small difference than I would not have suspected anything. But, Mahmud Ahmad wrote that the difference was major. Mahmud asserted that the word Khatim meant LAST. This paper proves that mahmud Ahmad was totally incorrect and that Allah used the word Khatim in terms of a seal.

Ahmadis claim that they use the Quran over all other sources of knowledge in terms of Islam. I conducted a study that is based on the Quran. The methodology was simple, I went to alislam.org and ourbeacon.com and searched the occurrences of the word seal/sealed/sealing and copied them down and began researching the context and pronunciation.

The very first instance where Allah uses the word K-T-M chronologically is in Chapter 42 and 45. It is uncertain as to which of these chapters were revealed first. Chapters 40-47 all begin with HA-MIM, they were all revealed very early on at mecca. In 42:24, Allah uses the word Khatim as he speaks to Muhammad (saw) and tells him that Allah could seal his (Muhammad’s (saw)) heart to protect it from the disbelievers. The 5-volume commentary by Malik Ghulam Fareed acknowledges that Allah used the word Khatim to describe the sealing of the heart of Muhammad (saw) to protect it and make it devoid of all mercy. This was a protective and unbreakable seal that was designed to protect the heart of Muhammad (saw). Khatim does not mean last in this case.

In Chapter 45:23, Allah uses the word Khatam to describe the sealing up of the hearts/ears/eyes of the disbelievers. Allah says: “who will guide them after Allah has condemned them?”

For the 3rd and 4th instance please refer to 83:25 and 26, in these successive verses Allah discusses the sealing of a drink that will be served in the hereafter. Allah promises to Muslims that the chosen ones will be seated on couches in a state of bliss and will be served the best drink which will be sealed to protect its taste, and it will be sealed with musk to protect its pureness. The words here are pronounced MUKHTOOM (25) and KHI-TA-MU (26). Even though these words are pronounced differently they still carry the same meanings as khatim or khatam.

Next is 36:65, wherein Allah again speaks of the Khatim that will be set on the mouths of the Kafirs on the day of judgement as they stand trial in the court of allah. This khatim will stop the disbelievers from speaking. Khatim cannot mean LAST in this case.

The 6th instance is in 6:46, this is where Allah speaks to the Kafirs yet again and warns them that he could take away their vision and hearing and Khatam their heart, then Allah says, “who could bring it back to you?”

The 7th instance is occurs after hijra, this is 2:6, where Allah again admonishes the Kafirs and says that their hearts have a khatam on them. Allah says “khatamallahu their hearts”.

The final instance of the use of the word KTM in the Quran is the famous 33:40. We have to use the same definition that was established in the previous 7 instances. Allah tells Muslims that Muhammad (saw) does not have any sons, but he is the KHATAM of the prophets. He is the sealer of the prophets.

The words seal/sealed/sealing occur in the Quran an additional 11 times. But, the letters KHA-TA-MEEM weren’t used exclusively by ALLAH when describing the sealing off of something. There is another Arabic word that translates into the english word seal/sealed/sealing. That word also has variations. It uses the root of TA-BA or T-B, with 2 variations. YUT-BA and NUT-BA are the variations. The English equivalent would be Y-T-B or N-T-B.
In conclusion, it didn’t matter how KTM is pronounced, it always has the same meanings. Even when the sound was changed, for example khatim, or MUKTUM or KHI-TA-MU, Allah nonetheless used the letters K-T-M when joined to mean the sealing off of something. It seems that Mahmud Ahmad tried to pull a fast one on his followers. Obviously, Mahmud Ahmad lied about the meanings of khatim and khatam. Hopefully, this article proves to the reader that these words are interchangeable and mean the exact same thing. I hope Ahmadis read this and realize the truth. I hope Ahmadis understand that I am not a major scholar, I only conducted a simple research project and printed my results. May Allah guide the Ahmadis to Islam.

“MGA, the only reject-able prophet” (circa 1954)

Posted on by

               Once upon a time in India there was a prophet who was sent by Yalesh. This prophet was sent in many capacities, Yalesh tried to explain to him that he was a prophet and the second coming of Esa {as} (circa 1884). MGA had many issues with his GOD and just could not understand the revelations that were descending upon him and misunderstood almost everything that Yalesh ever told him. The problem was that Yalesh wasn’t a good communicator and his prophet had lots of trouble understanding revelations from this newly formed GOD.

              Six years after MGA died (1914), his eldest son revealed to the world that MGA was a true prophet and not a simple muhhaddas (circa 1901). Mahmud revealed to the world that MGA had suffered 20 years of mis-communication. MGA’s eldest son knew this secret of MGA. Yalesh had cleverly disguised the true nature of the prophethood of MGA. Yalesh was afraid that the muslim backlash would hurt this infant company that he had created. Yalesh had tasked Mahmud with the endeavor of totally explaining the nature of MGA’s prophethood. After all, Mahmud was un-employed and under-educated, he needed something to occupy his time.

             From 1915 to 1922, the Mirza brothers explained that the deniers of MGA were PAKKAY (fully cooked) kafirs, they referenced the Quran when explaining this. They explained that all messengers of Allah had to be accepted by the Muslims, they also explained that the rejection of even one prophet of Allah made any person a KAFIR. They carefully didn’t explain a rogue idea of “MOMIN-ISM”.

            Mirza Bashir Ahmad wrote in 1916: “Any such person, who believes in Moses but does not believe in Jesus or in Jesus but does not believe in Muhammad or believes in Muhammad but does not believe in the Promised Messiah, is not only a kafir, but a confirmed (pakkay) kafir and out of the pale of Islam”—Kalamatul Fasl pg. 110

            In 1954, the Muslims of Pakistan decided to attack the ahmadis. Led by Maulvi Maudoodi they burned homes and rioted in the streets, they demanded that the new govt. of Pakistan declare this cult to be non-Muslim. Muslims were now running their own country (Pakistan) and they were highly offended by the Ahmadi sentiment towards them. Essentially, the Mirza brothers/company were in a tight spot, they needed to move away from their hard line ideas, they needed to move away from slandering the Muslims of the world in general and the Muslims of India/pakistan to be specific.

          The Mirza brothers decided to create the only reject-able prophet! This was the solution that would keep their business running. After all, Tahir Ahmad’s college tuition In England was going to be very high and Mahmud would be paying heavily to possibly bribe the office of enrollments (see Man of God by Ian Adamson, pg. 51). It must be borne in mind that Mahmud had over 50 other children and grand children that needed schooling and needed to learn about the family business/religion to keep it running. In 1957, Tahir Ahmad returned to Pakistan after failing in European colleges (see Man of God by Ian Adamson). Amazingly, he was made head of the newly founded waqf-e-jadid program. He was able to manage the money of this program and get the work experience of the family business.

              Back to the story, 1400 years ago Allah admonished the Jews and Christians for not accepting Muhammad (saw) as a true messenger of Allah.
Allah tells us (taken from alislam.org):

[4:151] Surely, those who disbelieve in Allah and His Messengers and desire to make a distinction between Allah and His Messengers, and say, ‘We believe in some and disbelieve in others,’ and desire to take a way in between,

[4:152] These indeed are veritable disbelievers, and We have prepared for the disbelievers an humiliating punishment.

               Allah has basically told us that the rejection of even one prophet of Allah is grounds for any person to be declared a KAFIR. Somehow, the Mirza company was able to create a prophet that didn’t fall into the parameters of what Allah tells us a prophet is. In the verses above allah clearly tells us that the Ahmadis fall into the category of those people who: “desire to take a way in between”, in the next verse Allah tells us that these people are Kafirs. I have to conclude that Ahmadis are Kafirs based on the info as provided by Allah.

              On the one hand Ahmadis agree that all prophets must be accepted, but then they explain that their own prophet, namely MGA, doesn’t fall into this category. The prophethood of MGA made sense the way it was explained from 1915 to 1922 in terms of the Qur’an, but the prophethood of MGA that has been explained circa 1954 just doesn’t make sense at all. Reject-able prophets don’t exist in Muslim thought process.

              In conclusion, the Mirza company back-peddled and created a reject-able prophet when the pressure was upon them, therefore discrediting the prophethood of MGA. The Mirza brothers never imagined that Muslims would come into power, they dictated their belief system in terms of British India. British India was a perfect medium for their harsh attitude towards Muslims.

             Furthermore, Muslims have never heard of a prophet that was sent by Allah that didn’t need require unconditional acceptance. As strange as this sounds, Ahmadis honestly are telling the Muslim-world that the rejectors of the prophethood of MGA are only non-momin, and that doesn’t make sense at all! Allah has never created a “reject-able” prophet, but it appears that Yalesh has! Yalesh sent this prophet to Qadian, not Allah!

WE CAN WHAT WE WILL DO—CIRCA 1883

New Tadhkirah vs. the old–they play games with books

Posted on by

In the old version of Tadhkirah (2004 edition) there was an ilham on page 346:

God almighty has conveyed it to me that every person to whom my call is conveyed and who does not accept me is not a Muslim and is accountable to God for his defult (Letter addressed to Dr. Abdul Hakeem)(April 1906).

In the new version of the Tadhkirah this revelation does not exist!!! It seems that Masroor is at again, he has purposely re-published a new version of this book so that some controversial revelations might be suppressed.

On a side note, MGA had denied ever making this statement.

In Haqiqatul Wahy(1907) p. 178 he writes:

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!

MGA must have forgot what he wrote in that letter to Dr. Hakeem Khan, a year after writing the letter he totally denied it.

The first edition (of Tadhkirah) was compiled by a committee, headed by Mirza Bashir Ahmad, appointed by Khalifatul Masih II and was published in 1935 (see the preface of the current edition).

After the death of MGA his followers must have accidentally uncovered the truth. And now Masroor is trying to suppress this information.

“Christ and the Crucifixtion” by Todd Lawson

Posted on by

“Christ and the Crucifixtion” by Todd Lawson

Todd Lawson recently released a thoroughly researched book titled Christ and the Crucifixion. In this research book, Lawson analyzed Surah al-Nisa’, Verse 157 (4:158 in the ahmadi Quran) and the historicity therein. Lawson takes us on a journey through the thought process of over twenty-five mufassireen (interpreters of the Qu’ran). Lawson gives the reader an opportunity to view what Muslim scholars had to say on the subject.
This is a very troubling development for Ahmadiyyat. This research project shows that, historically for generations, 99.9% of Muslims believed in four things:
a—That ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه اسلام was never on a cross
b—Another person was put on the cross
c—-Jesus physically ascended to heaven
d—-Jesus will physically descend
There was even an account of Al-Zamakhshari (d. 538/1144). Zamakhshari was of Mu’tazalite persuasion and was known to hold “rationalistic” and non-traditional tendencies (Lawson, 100). The author comments on Zamakhshari , writing:
“Al-Zamakhsari relates the famous story of how Jesus asked his disciples for a volunteer to be killed in his stead. God cast the likeness of Jesus upon a disciple who was subsequently crucified and killed. The exegete mentions that some believe this to have been Judas, who was substituted for Jesus and crucified as punishment for his betrayal. That this account is unsatisfactory of Al-Zamakhsari is evident when he details the confusion of the witness of these events: ‘some said that Jesus was killed and crucified, and some said, “If that is Jesus, where is our companion, or if that is our companion, where is Jesus?” Some said he was raised to heaven and some said that the face, is the face of Jesus, but the body, is the body of our companion” (pg. 101, Lawson).
Amazingly enough, when defining Aal Imran, verse 54 Zamakhasari wrote that mutawafikka meant death. Lawson writes the impression of Zamakhasari: “The Jews then agreed to kill Jesus, and God informed Jesus that he would raise him to heaven and purify him of association with the offenders”.
3:55 by Al- Zamakhsari:
“Lo, God said: “Oh Jesus! Verily, I shall cause thee to die, and shall exalt thee unto me, and cleanse thee of (the presence of) those who are bent on denying the truth…………….”

In summary, Zamakhsari believed:
a—Jesus was never on the cross
b—Allah caused Jesus to die before He wafaa’d him to heaven, physically
c—Jesus will physically return
d—Someone else was hung on the cross, not ‘Esa عليه السلام
This proves that in the past there were some Muslims who believed that ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام had died according to Surah Aal Imran verse 54, but that did not change the other underlying factors of the substitution theory. In other words, just because Jesus died, does not change the fact that he will physically return, nor does it change the fact that someone else was hung. Nor does it mean that he travelled to India!
In my opinion, it appears that some Muslims believed that ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام died the day after his disciple was hung. Jesus was able to meet some of his companions before he was physically raised. The Muslim scholars who wrote that ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام died, they all believed in the “substitution theory”. They never thought that he lived more than a week after the attempted hanging.
Mirza Ghulam and other Ahmadi leaders have also quoted Imam Malik in terms of the death of ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام. They have written that Imam Malik also believed in the death of ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام. It seems that Imam Malik believed that ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام died just a few days after his likeness was cast upon another, it also appears that Imam Malik believed that ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام had physically ascended to heaven and will physically re-appear. Further, Imam Malik believed that ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام would return as a “non-prophet”.
Ahmadiyya thought has cleverly masked the totality of the beliefs of the ones that they quote. May Allah guide them back to Islam!
Todd Lawson is an Associate Professor at the University of Toronto. His accolades are as follows:
• PHD (1987) McGill University
• M.A. (1980) McGill University
• B.A. (1976) University of British Columbia

WE CAN WHAT WE WILL DO–CIRCA 1883

The Mirzas were Traitors Vol. 1

Posted on by

I am reading a book written by William Wilson Hunter titled The Indian Musalmans (1872). Hunter relates the story of Syed Ahmad Barelvi and how he rallied the Muslims of India, Afghanistan and Bengal to do jihad against Ranjeet Singh and the Sikhs. Hunter explained how the British were afraid of what jihad could do to their businesses. Jihad was a very dangerous concept and the Hunter thought that the British ought to have been aware of it. They also needed to find a way to quell any thoughts of rebellion amongst the Muslims. Hunter writes that legally a Muslim could not do jihad against a ruler who allowed Muslims to practice their religion peacefully. This was the strategy of the British once they came to power.

It is my opinion that Mirza Ghulam, who came from a long line of traitors, was commissioned not by Allah but by the British. I will provide documentation of these tendencies from a family in Qadian, India.

“On June the 11th, 1849, Mr. J. M. Wilson, Financial Commissioner, Lahore, wrote from Lahore to Mirza Ghulam Murtaza: ‘I have perused your application reminding me of you and your family’s past services and rights. I am well aware that since the introduction of the British Government you and your family have certainly remained devoted, faithful and steady subjects and that your rights are really worthy of regard. In every respect you may rest assured and satisfied that the British Government will never forget your family rights and services which will receive due consideration when a favourable opportunity offers itself. You must continue to be faithful and devoted subjects as in it lies the satisfaction of the Government as well as your own welfare.’ (Life of Ahmad by DARD pg. 17)

As you can see from the above quote, the British not only were indebted to the Mirza family but they were anxious to repay them for their services. Also, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s father and uncles were in the Sikh army as they killed other Muslims. While Muslims were being killed this Mirza family that was fighting alongside the Sikhs!

“He [the father of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad] then, with his brothers, entered the army of the Maharaja, and performed efficient service on the Kashmir frontier and at other places.” (Life of Ahmad by Dard pg. 16)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s brother: “General Nicholson gave Ghulam Qadir a certificate, stating that in 1857 the Qadian family showed greater loyalty than any other in the district.” (pg. 17)

WE CAN WHAT WE WILL DO—CIRCA 1883