“…And just as it happened at the time of Noah that a period of calm was granted after many people had been killed, the same shall happen now…that is… calamities shall recede.” (Divine Manifestations, Page 8 )

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/library/books/DivineManifestations.pdf

This is yet another false prophecy as there have been many calamities since the death of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Some major incidents have been listed below:

Worldwide
1918 – 1920 – The Avian Flu
It is often referred to as the Spanish flu which took place in 1918, 10 years after the death of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. It was an influenza pandemic that spread to nearly every part of the world. It is estimated that anywhere from 20 to 100 million people were killed worldwide, or the approximate equivalent of one third of the population of Europe, more than double the number killed in World War I.

1960 – ‘El Tor’ Cholera
El Tor is a causative agent of cholera which spread through Asia in 1963 and then into the Middle East, Africa and Europe. From North Africa it spread into Italy by 1973.

1981 – HIV – Human Immunodeficiency Virus
This deadly disease could lead to AIDS which is a condition in humans in which the immune system begins to fail, leading to life-threatening opportunistic infections. No cure has been found to eliminate this disease. The HIV infection in humans is now regarded as pandemic. As of January 2006, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and the World Health Organization (WHO) estimate that AIDS has killed more than 25 million people since it was first recognised on December 1^st, 1981.

Asia
1931 – Flood – China
It is generally considered the deadliest natural disaster ever recorded, and almost certainly the deadliest of the 20th century and in China. The human casualties are estimated from lows of 400,000 to highs of 3.7 million to 4 million.

1970 – Bhola Cyclone – Bangladesh
This was a devastating tropical cyclone that struck East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and India’s West Bengal on November 12^th, 1970. It was the deadliest tropical cyclone ever recorded, and one of the deadliest natural disasters in modern times. Up to 500,000 people lost their lives in the storm.

1974 – Smallpox – India
This is regarded as one of the worst smallpox epidemics of 20th century.

1976 – Tangshan Earthquake – China
This disaster took place on July 28^th, 1976 and is believed to be the largest earthquake of the 20th century by death toll. The number of deaths are said to be around 240,000 to 255,000. A further 164,000 people were recorded as being severely injured.

2002 – Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) – China
This was a respiratory disease in humans which is caused by the SARS corona virus. There were 8,096 known infected cases and 774 deaths (a case-fatality rate of 9.6%).

2004 – Tsunami – Indonesia
It was one of the deadliest natural disasters in recorded history, killing more than 225,000 people.

2010 – Floods – Pakistan
We are still feeling this presently and I am sure I do not need to remind people about the devastating effect this has had on the people of Pakistan.

Africa
2001 – Cholera – Nigeria
An outbreak of cholera in northern Nigeria led to the loss of up to 400 lives.

2003 – Plague – Algeria
An outbreak of plague occurred in the region of Oran, Algeria, from June to July 2003. Algeria had not reported this disease for 50 years.

2007 – Ebola – Congo
Prior to this, the last major Ebola outbreak struck in Kikwit in 1995, killing 245 people.

South America
1985 – Volcanic Eruption – Colombia
The eruption in Nevado Del Ruizel killed up to 23,000 people.

2000 – Dengue Fever – Various
During the summer of 2000, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua underwent outbreaks of dengue fever that also included cases of DHF and deaths.

North America
1952 – Poliomyelitis – U.S.A.
In the United States, the 1952 polio epidemic became the worst outbreak in the nation’s history. Of nearly 58,000 cases reported that year 3,145 died and 21,269 were left with mild to disabling paralysis. In 1977 there were 254,000 persons living in the United States who had been paralysed by polio.

2009 – Swine Flu – Mexico
Mexican officials stated that since March 2009, there have been over 1300 reported cases and put the death toll at 83.

Europe
1908 – Earthquake – Italy
The Messina earthquake took up to 200,000 lives on December 28^th, 1908 in Sicily and southern Italy.

1918 – Typhus – Russia
Typhus is any of several similar diseases caused by Rickettsiae which is an obligate parasite and cannot survive for long outside living cells. Typhus should not be confused with typhoid fever which is a completely different disease. During World War I typhus caused more than three million deaths in Russia out of 20–30 million cases.

1972 – Smallpox – Yugoslavia
The outbreak of smallpox in Yugoslavia was the last major outbreak of smallpox in Europe. The epidemic was efficiently and ruthlessly contained by enforced quarantine and mass vaccination. The 1982 film Variola Vera is based on the event.

2003 – Heat Wave – Western Europe
The 2003 European heat wave was one of the hottest summers on record in Europe, especially in France. The heat wave led to health crises in several countries and combined with drought to create a crop shortfall in Southern Europe. More than 52,000 Europeans died as a result of the heat wave.

Evidently, his claim that a period of calm would materialise after the plague and it would resemble the period of calm after the flood in the time of Hazrat Nuh (AS) was clearly false. Many calamities emerged after the plague and barely 100 years have passed since Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

May Allah (SWT) guide the Ahmadis back to Islam. All praise is due to Allah (SWT).

Related posts:

1. The Plague – Episode One The issue of the plague and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is...
2. The Plague – Episode Two Let us commence, inshaAllah, with the second episode of the...
3. Open Letter – Part 2 – Seismology and Epidemiology Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had never mentioned anything about earthquakes until...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

“Since the Punjab is closest to the residence of the Promised Messiah, and the Punjabis are the first to be addressed by him, that is why the Punjab has been the first to suffer from this epidemic.” (The Essence Of Islam, Volume 5, Page 104)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Essence-5.pdf

Punjab was the first to be afflicted with the plague? This is obviously not true as it broke out in Hong Kong from where it spread to India. Even in India it did not strike Punjab first and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad knows this himself:

“I have heard that when the plague broke out in Bombay…” (The Essence Of Islam, Volume 5, Page 92)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Essence-5.pdf

Even history testifies to this fact as the quote below from the ‘Plague Ports’ makes it perfectly clear that Bombay had been struck by this pandemic before Punjab.

“…bubonic plague found it easy to make its way from Canton to Hong Kong in 1894… The city of Bombay… was next to be visited by bubonic plague” (Plague Ports, Page 15)

Direct Link: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qw1M_3amPcQC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=false

“…plague raced north and west through to the rural parts of the Bombay Presidency and on into the Punjab…” (Plague Ports, Page 51)

Direct Link: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qw1M_3amPcQC&pg=PP1&dq

The image in the link below has been produced from the 1911 census of India for anyone disputing the location of Bombay and Punjab as one and the same. They are two distinct districts as illustrated by the map below.

“Map showing the area, density and population of the main political divisions.” (Census Reports, 1911)

Direct Link: http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_And_You/old_report/Census_1911.html

Quite clearly the plague did not strike Punjab first but broke out in Hong Kong in 1894. If Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was not referring to the whole world then even within India the plague epidemic broke out in the colonial port city of Bombay in September 1896 and spread from there to other parts of the country. Its initial impact was limited to port cities, particularly Bombay, but later also Pune, Calcutta and Karachi. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad simply deceived illiterate villagers by stating Punjab was struck with the plague first. To justify his lie he states that Punjab was first to hear his claims and reject them, thus the plague appeared in Punjab first. Based on such logic within the Punjab, Qadian should have been the first to suffer. In any case, it has been evidently proven that this is not true, the Punjab district was not the first to be hit by the plague. Ahmadis, I must ask if this is not deception then what is?

The Holy Qu’ran – 003.161 – Al-e-Imran (3) Ayah (161)
And it is not attributable to a prophet that he should act dishonestly and he who acts dishonestly shall bring that in respect of which he has acted dishonestly on the day of resurrection; then shall every soul be paid back fully what it has earned, and they shall not be dealt with unjustly.

May Allah (SWT) guide the Ahmadis back to Islam. All praise is due to Allah (SWT).

Related posts:

1. The Plague – Episode One The issue of the plague and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The issue of the plague and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is one which displays the egotistical nature of man as well the cunning psyche of a opportunist con man. I have thus decided one blog entry would be overwhelming as there are so many inconsistencies with this episode in the life of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. I will therefore make some simple observations in each episode in no particular logical order. Thus let us begin, inshaAllah, with the following quote:

“Another prophecy was that the plague would rage as an epidemic at the time to such an extent that seven out of ten people would die. Now has this sign appeared or has it not?” (Lecture Ludhiana, Page 61)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/library/books/ludhiana/LectureLudhiana.pdf

Is he talking about seven out of ten people in the world would die or seven out of ten people in India would die? Regardless, the following is written by Myron J. Echenberg:

“Between plague’s arrival in 1896 & 1921, an estimated 12 million Indians lost their lives, compared with 3 million in the rest of the world combined.” (Plague Ports, Page 51)

Direct Link: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qw1M_3amPcQC&pg=PP1&dq

Below are the figures for the population of India and the world in 1920-21:

“Population of India:
Year – 1921
Population – 251,321,213”
(Gandhian Perspectives On Population And Development by A.K. Sharma, Page 32)

Direct Link: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H-O42ZDX5GUC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA32#v=onepage&q&f=false

The above table states that the population of India in 1921 was 251.3 million. According to David Lucas below, the world population was approximately 2 billion in 1920.

“The population of the world was two billion (2,000,000,000) around 1920” (World Population Growth by David Lucas, Chapter 3, Page 1)

Direct Link: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/pubs/BAPS/BAPSChap3.pdf

The World
The world population in 1920 was 2 billion, thus if his prophecy of “seven out of ten people would die as a result of the plague” was accurate and duly fulfilled then accordingly, approximately, 1.4 billion people should have died worldwide as a result of the plague. However an estimated 15 million people died by 1921 throughout the world and thus his prophecy has failed if he indeed was referring to the whole world.

India
The population for India in 1921 was 251,321,213, thus if his prophecy of “seven out of ten people would die as a result of the plague” was accurate and duly fulfilled then accordingly, approximately 175,924,849 people should have died in India alone. However, an estimated 12 million people died as a result of the plague and thus his prophecy has failed on both counts, i.e. if he was referring to the entire world or if he was referring only to India. At this point I would like to remind you that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad said:

“Another prophecy was that the plague would rage as an epidemic at the time to such an extent that seven out of ten people would die. Now has this sign appeared or has it not?” (Lecture Ludhiana, Page 61)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/library/books/ludhiana/LectureLudhiana.pdf

The answer to his question is, “it has not” and therefore without a shadow of doubt, the prophecy of “seven out of ten” has failed.

May Allah (SWT) guide the Ahmadis back to Islam. All praise is due to Allah (SWT).

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

“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.”

Related posts:

1. The Mi`raj in Ahmadiyya Thought The Ahmadis deny that the Prophet (SAW) physically ascended to...
2. Out of Context Vol. 2 4:69 taken from alislam.org KORAN [4:70] And whoso obeys Allah...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In one of the many claims made by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, he declares himself the ‘Hindu avatar‘ awaited by the adherents of Hindusim. However, there seems to be an inconsistency in his claim. This particular contradiction highlights his understanding or as some may more accurately argue, deception, of the word ‘last’. He made the following claim in the year 1900.

“There is a prophecy in Hindu scriptures that in the latter days an Avatar would appear, who will possess the qualities of Krishna and will be his reflection. It has been conveyed to me that I am that person”. (Tadhkirah, 2009 Edition – Page 486)

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

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was adamant that he was the awaited avatar for the Hindus. Many Ahmadiyya arranged events hold up banners reading, ‘Krishna has arrived’ a misconception in itself, pushing forth the belief that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad came to guide the Hindus as stated below in 1904.

“…my advent in the present age is not for the reformation of the Muslims alone, but I have come to reform the people of all the three religions: Muslims, Christians and Hindus. Just as God has appointed me the Promised Messiah for the Muslims and Christians, so am I the Avatar for the Hindus”. (Lecture Sialkot, Page – 38/39)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/library/books/LectureSialkot.pdf

However, if he was the awaited avatar for the religion of Hinduism as he claims then how do Ahmadis reconcile this with the following statement?

“…Nanak undoubtedly came as a blessing to the Hindus. He was, as it were, the last Avatar of the Hindu religion”. (A Message Of Peace, Page – 6)

Direct Link: http://aaiil.org/text/books/mga/msgpeace/messagepeacepaighamsulh1993.pdf

Guru Nanak was born in the year 1469CE, approximately 370 years before Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. He died in the year 1539CE at the age of 69 and is the founder of Sikhism. The above translation is taken from the Lahori branch of Ahmadiyya, the Qadiani branch have translated the above as “the last bearer of a message from God for Hinduism” which in effect has the same undertone as declaring Guru Nanak the last avatar for the Hindu religion. The Qadiani translation is some what of a mystery as the Urdu transliteration (thanks to brother Zia Ahmad) reads “...aur yoon shamjo whoa Hindu mazhab ka akhri avatar tha. Jis nay is nafrat ko dur karna chaha tha jo Islam kay mutalq Hindion kay dilon mein thee” (Roohani Khazain, Paigham-i-Sulh, Volume 23, Page 446) which quite clearly translates as “…he was like last avatar of Hinduism”. It is quite strange that the Qadiani branch have translated this differently leaving out the word ‘avatar’ altogether. This book, as stated in the introduction of both versions, is the last written work of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

Conclusion
If Guru Nanak is the “last bearer of a message from God for Hinduism” and thus “the last avatar of the Hindu religion” then where does that leave Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? Prior to declaring Guru Nanak the last avatar of the Hindu religion, he himself declared that he was the avatar for the Hindus. It is almost as if the word ‘last’ has lost all meaning in Ahmadiyya. You cannot help but contrast how Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in the early stages of his life believed as all Muslims believe that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) is the last of the Prophets but then went on to declare that he is a Prophet himself abolishing his earlier belief and destroying all meaning of the word ‘last’ as he does in a less cunning manner with this claim. The Hindu religion is awaiting the return of their tenth and last avatar (who is in actual fact referred to as ‘Kalki‘ not ‘Krishna‘, a completely different entity) and if as per Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Guru Nanak is that ‘last avatar‘ then he diminishes his own claim of being the awaited Hindu avatar himself.

The blind argument that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad declared Guru Nanak to be the last avatar prior to claiming that he himself was an avatar is effortlessly refuted. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed he was an avatar in 1900 prior to declaring Guru Nanak the last avatar in 1908. The movement constantly produces oxymoron’s which a majority of their followers know nothing about, this is just another example. In conclusion, the question remains, who is the last avatar? Is it Mirza Ghulam Ahmad or is it Guru Nanak? Either answer would contradict the belief of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad yet in Ahmadiyya the answer can only be one of the two.

May Allah (SWT) guide the Ahmadis back to Islam. All praise is due to Allah (SWT).

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Alexandrina Victoria (1819-1901) was the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from the 20^th of June 1837, and the first Empress of India of the British Raj from the 1^st of May 1876, until her death. She became the Queen at the tender age of 18 and her reign lasted 63 years and 7 months making her the longest reigning British monarch. The time of her reign is known as the Victorian era, a period of industrial, political, scientific and military progress within the United Kingdom. She died from declining health on the 22^nd of January 1901, succeeded by Edward VII.

Queen Victoria had many titles included in her name and after the Indian Mutiny of 1857, the Government of India was transferred from the East India Company to the Crown and in 1877 Victoria became ‘Empress of India’ under the Royal Titles Act. She was also known as ‘Defender of the Faith’ due to her position as head of the Church of England, and she was also known as the ‘Supreme Governor of the Church of England’.

However, despite her clear allegiance to Christianity and her position as head of the Church of England, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was of the following belief:

“The honourable Queen, of whom we are the members of her country, chooses Islam in her heart rather than any other religion. I even heard more than this but I don’t want to mention it. However, the conclusion is that she is generous and Allah (SWT) has put the love of Islam in her heart and she wishes that Islam would spread in her country.” (Roohani Khazain, Hamama-tul-Bushra, Volume 7, Page 229/300)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/urdu/rk/rk-7-21.pdf

The above statement by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from ‘Hamama-tul-Bushra’ was made in 1894 and he unequivocally claims that Queen Victoria is a Muslimah. However, on the occasion of the ‘Diamond Jubilee’ to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Queen’s accession, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote a letter entitled ‘Tohfai Qaisariyya’, translated as ‘A Present to the Queen’. This letter which took the form of a book concluded with a prayer offered for the Queen. This prayer was published in Urdu, Punjabi, Persian, Arabic and English at the end of the book.

“…we earnestly ask Thee all powerful Lord to grant us one more prayer that our benefactoress the Empress, before leaving this world, may probe her way out of the darkness of man-worship…” (Rohaani Khazain, Volume 12, Tauhfa Qaisiria, Page 299)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/urdu/rk/rk-12-37.pdf

There is a glaring inconsistency within this letter which is dated 23^rd June 1897. In this letter Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is asking for one more prayer to the effect that the Queen, prior to her demise, leaves the falsehood of Christianity. However, just three years preceding this prayer/letter Mirza Ghulam Ahmad explicitly declared that this had been achieved as the Queen “chooses Islam in her heart rather than any other religion”. If that were true then how could he accuse her of being in the “darkness of man-worship”? Quite clearly Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had forgotten about his previous statement whereby his God allegedly told him that the Queen was a Muslimah. Is this something you would expect from one who claims he is divinely guided?

To serve as a reminder, he also had the following ‘revelation’:

I shall accept all your prayers but not in the matter of your collaterals. (Tadhkirah, 2009 Edition, Page 33)

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

Aside from the clear contradiction, was this prayer accepted? Did Queen Victoria become Muslim? Queen Victoria was at no point a Muslimah and Allah (SWT) knows best. She personally had the following inscribed above the mausoleum of her final resting place:

‘Farewell best beloved, here at last I shall rest with thee, with thee in Christ I shall rise again’. (The Official Website of the British Monarchy)

Direct Link: http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensoftheUnitedKingdom/TheHanoverians/Victoria.aspx

In addition to this, the Queen had the following desire before her demise:

Years later, when Canon (later Dean) Farrar served the Queen as chaplain, he visited her when she was sick. She had been reading a leaflet on the return of Christ and said, “Chaplain, what do you think about the return of Christ?” It is not known what the chaplain answered, but when he left he said, “Your Majesty, why have you asked me that?” “Oh,” she said, “I wish that He returns while I am still alive, because nothing would give me more joy than to pass on the crown of Great Britain and India to Him with my own hands.” In her youth, with most of her life still ahead of her, she crowned Jesus King of Kings and Lord or Lords; and then much later, in her latter years, with grey hair and with the many sorrows that she had borne, she wanted to give Him every crown that God had given her. When you grow older you might have less strength, but you have got more that makes you happy and more that you can share.

by Ernest A. Francis
Translated from the German: “Königin Viktoria”
Source: ‘The Pentecostal Testimony’, December 1980

I think we can all agree that at no point did Queen Victoria hand over the Crown to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. He of course made her well aware that he fulfilled the prophecy regarding the return of Hazrat Isa (AS) in his book ‘Tohfai Qaisariyya‘ as well as other numerous letters. One must consider, if she did not proceed to hand over the Crown to him then quite clearly she did not believe he was the second coming of Hazrat Isa (AS), thus she rejected his claim. With this in mind recall that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has stated that “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.” Therefore even his initial claim that God told him she is a Muslimah is pure deception even in terms of Ahmadiyya as she does not meet the Ahmadiyya criteria to be considered within the fold of Islam. Moreover, Allah (SWT) caused him to forget his claim that the Queen is a Muslimah and this was exposed three years after his initial claim in that he requested in a prayer that she leave “the darkness of man-worship” though according to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad she was already following Islam. This is not mockery, this is a reminder to Ahmadis to come back to Islam and leave the falsehood of Ahmadiyya.

May Allah (SWT) guide the Ahmadis back to Islam. All praise is due to Allah (SWT).

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

((My opponents wished my death; they spread the news everywhere about it, but my Lord gave the good news that I will live for eighty years or more. He also gave me an organization, sons and a shelter)) – RK, vol 19, Mawahib-ur-Rahman, page 21

Now let us try to find out the exact date of birth of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani (MGAQ) based on his own writings.

Year 1839 or 1840

MGAQ wrote: ((My birth took place in 1839 or 1840, during the last part of the Sikh period, and in 1857 I was 16 years of age or in my 17th year; my beard and mustache had not yet started)) – Rouhani Khaza’in, vol 13, Kitab ul Bariyyah, page 177

 

Friday, 14th of the Lunar Month

MGAQ wrote: ((This humble one was born on Friday, on the day 14 of the lunar month)) – Rouhani Khaza’in, vol 17, Tuhfa Golravea, page 281

During Phalguna Hindu Month

A follower of MGAQ, Mufti Muhammad Sadiq, wrote ((The Promised Messiah peace be upon him said “my month of birth was Phaagun/Phalguna (a month of the Hindu calendar); it was the day 14 of the lunar month; the day was Friday, and the time was the last part of night”)) – Zikr Habeeb, pages 238 & 239.

The date which satisfies all the above mentioned conditions is:

• Gregorian Calendar : Friday 1-March-1839 A.D.
• Islamic Calendar: 14 Dhu’l Hijjah 1254 A.H.
• Hindu Calendar: Phalguna 16, 1895 V.E.

Online Gregorian-to-Islamic dates conversion

http://www.rabiah.com/convert/convert.php3 OR http://www.islamicfinder.org/Hcal/index.php

Online Gregorian-to-Hindu dates conversion

http://web.meson.org/calendars

Personally, I don’t really trust MGAQ’s claim that he was born on Friday or 14th of the lunar month or during Phalguna. Apparently, MGAQ wanted to claim that his date of birth was somehow special, for Friday is a special day for Muslims, day 14 of the lunar month has a full moon night and Phalguna is a special month in Hindu religion. However, I have done this small research just to expose the lies of the Ahmadiyya leaders who finally claimed that MGAQ’s actual date of birth is 13-Feb-1835 based on his writings.

It is crystal clear that the Ahmadiyya leaders just wanted to push MGAQ’s date of birth far away from 1839/1840 to give him closer age to 75. However, the date 13-Feb-1835 which they suggested didn’t fall in the Hindu month of Phalguna.

Ahmadis claim that 13-Feb-1835 is 1-Phalguna-1891 V.E., while the correct calculation shows that 13-Feb-1835 falls in the previous Hindu month, exactly on 15-Magha-1891 V.E.

Here is the result as per http://web.meson.org/calendars

However, just for the sake of argument, if we’ll accept the Ahmadiyya’s false claim that 15-Magha in the calculations of http://web.meson.org is equivalent to 1-Phalguna, this will still expose their shameful lies. Based on the same Ahmadi’s false assumption, the nearest Friday 15-Megha to the years 1839/1840, 14th of the lunar month is 9-Feb-1838.

Here is the result as per http://web.meson.org/calendars

Moreover, based on the Ahmadi’s false calculations, the date 1-March-1839 can be considered 30-Phalguna-1895 V.E. since they should accept +/- 1 day accuracy for the Hindu lunar date calculations.

I wonder when the Ahmadiyya Cult’s leaders would stop their dirty tactics and their continuous attempts to hide the truth.

Related posts:

1. Mirza Ghulam, The Brave Prophet! Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani (MGAQ) claimed that he had received...
2. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was an Uncle Tom In the history of European conquest one person stands out...
3. “Gardens of the Righteous” – Gems of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad #1 Khushu` – Mirzai style “Dr. Mir Ismail narrated to me...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

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.

Related posts:

1. “Gardens of the Righteous” – Gems of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad #1 Khushu` – Mirzai style “Dr. Mir Ismail narrated to me...
2. The Lost English Books of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم I love books. I have always...
3. The Mirzas were Traitors Vol. 1 I am reading a book written by William Wilson Hunter...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

One of greatest Muslim philosophers and ideologues of all times, Dr. Allama Muhammad Iqbal, gave special attention to the idea Finality of Prophethood (Khatam Al-Nubuwwah) and at length wrote about its significance in the House of Islam.

Here are some quotes from him;

“I want rather to fix your gaze on some of the ruling concepts of the culture of Islam in order to gain an insight into the process of ideation that underlies them, and thus to catch a glimpse of the soul that found expression through them. Before, however, I proceed to do so it is necessary to understand the cultural value of a great idea in Islam – I mean the finality of the institution of prophethood…

The birth of Islam, as I hope to be able presently to prove to your satisfaction, is the birth of inductive intellect. In Islam prophecy reaches its perfection in discovering the need of its own abolition. This involves the keen perception that life cannot for ever be kept in leading strings; that, in order to achieve full self-consciousness, man must finally be thrown back on his own resources. The abolition of priesthood and hereditary kingship in Islam, the constant appeal to reason and experience in the Qur’an, and the emphasis that it lays on Nature and History as sources of human knowledge, are all different aspects of the same idea of finality…

The intellectual value of the idea is that it tends to create an independent critical attitude towards mystic experience by generating the belief that all personal authority, claiming a supernatural origin, has come to an end in the history of man. This kind of belief is a psychological force which inhibits the growth of such authority. The function of the idea is to open up fresh vistas of knowledge in the domain of man’s inner experience. Just as the first half of the formula of Islam has created and fostered the spirit of a critical observation of man’s outer experience by divesting the forces of nature of that Divine character with which earlier cultures had clothed them. Mystic experience, then, however unusual and abnormal, must now be regarded by a Muslim as a perfectly natural experience, open to critical scrutiny like other aspects of human experience.”

(The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Lecture V: The Spirit of Muslim Culture)

At another place he further says;

“The cultural value of the idea of Finality in Islam I have fully explained elsewhere. Its meaning is simple: No spiritual surrender to any human being after Muhammad who emancipated his followers by giving them a law which is realizable as arising from the very core of human conscience. Theologically the doctrine is that: The Socio-political organization called “Islam” is perfect and eternal. No revelation the denial of which entails heresy is possible after Muhammad. He who claims such a revelation is a traitor to Islam.“

And he does not stop here rather he goes on to answer some of the fundamental arguments of the Ahmadiyya. He says;

“Since the Qadianis believe the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement to be the bearer of such a revelation, they declare that the entire world of Islam is infidel. The founder‘s own argument, quite worthy of a mediaeval theologian, is that the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam must be regarded as imperfect if it is not creative of another Prophet. He claims his own Prophethood to be an evidence of the Prophet-rearing power of the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam. But if you further ask him whether the spirituality of Muhammad is capable of rearing more prophets than one, his answer is “No”. This virtually, amounts to saying: “Muhammad is not the last Prophet; I am the last.” Far from understanding the cultural value of the Islamic idea of finality in the history of mankind generally and of Asia especially, he thinks that finality in the sense that no follower of Muhammad can ever reach the status of Prophethood is a mark of imperfection in Muhammad‘s Prophethood. As I read the psychology of his mind he, in the interest of his own claim to Prophethood, avails himself of what he describes as the creative spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam and at the same time deprives the Holy Prophet of his ‘finality’ by limiting the creative capacity of his spirituality to the rearing of only one prophet, i.e., the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement. In this way does the new prophet quietly steal away the ‘finality’ of one whom he claims to be his spiritual progenitor.

He claims to be a ‘buruz’ of the Holy Prophet of Islam insinuating thereby that, being a ‘buruz‘ of him his ‘finality‘ is virtually the ‘finality‘ of Muhammad; and that this view of the matter, therefore, does not violate the ‘finality‘ of the Holy Prophet. In identifying the two finalities, his own and that of the Holy Prophet, he conveniently loses sight of the temporal meaning of the idea of Finality. It is, however, obvious that the word ‘buruz‘ in the sense even of complete likeness, cannot help him at all; for the ‘buruz‘ must always remain the other of its original. Only in the sense of reincarnation a ‘buruz‘ becomes identical with the original. Thus if we take the word ‘buruz‘ to mean ‘like in spiritual qualities’ the argument remains ineffective; if, on the other hand, we take it to mean reincarnation of the original in the Aryan sense of the word, the argument becomes plausible; but its author turns out to be only a Magian in disguise.”

(Islam and Ahmadism, p.8 pub. Da’wah Academy IIUI, Islamabad)

And it is precisely the same Magian spirit which Iqbal like his great predecessor, Ibn Khaldun, considered to be against the spirit of the Muslim culture. In his lectures he says;

“I have already indicated the direction in which the student of Islam should seek the cultural meaning of the doctrine of finality in Islam. It may further be regarded as a psychological cure for the Magian attitude of constant expectation which tends to give a false view of history. Ibn Khaldun, seeing the spirit of his own view of history, has fully criticized and, I believe, finally demolished the alleged revelational basis in Islam of an idea similar, at least in its psychological effects, to the original Magian idea which had reappeared in Islam under the pressure of Magian thought.”

(The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Lecture V: The Spirit of Muslim Culture)

And the importance and vitality of the same idea of ‘finality’ he beautifully sums up in a single poetic verse;

لا نبی بعدی احسان خداست      پردہ ناموس دین مصطفیٰ است

‘No Prophet after me’ is of God’s grace,

And veil the modest beauty of the Faith!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

* * بسم الله الحمد لله و صلاة و سلام على رسول الله و على اله و سلم تسليم * *

When Harūn al-Rashīd asked Abū Hanīfah’s student Qadhī Abū Yūsuf about the life of Imām Abū Hanīfah, he replied with the following: “As far as I know, Abū Hanīfah was extremely pious. He avoided all forbidden things. He remained silent and was absorbed in his thoughts most of the time. He answered questions only if he knew the answer; Was extremely generous and self-respecting; never asked anyone for a favor and shunned the company of anyone who was worldly-minded. He held worldly power and position in contempt. He avoided slander and spoke only well of others. He was a man of profound learning and was generous with his knowledge and with his wealth.” Upon hearing this, Harūn al-Rashīd said “You have described the most amazing man”.

Perhaps no other scholar’s legacy was more profound, in his intellect, Fiqh, ‘Aqīdah and Zuhud than that of Nu’mān ibn Thābit, better known simply as Imām Abū Hanīfah رحمه الله.

Imām Abū Hanīfah was born in Irāq in the year 80 AH. His lineage extends back into Persian origins. He grew up during a time of great expansion of the Islāmic state, when Islām was spreading to far new areas of the world and the authority of the Khalīfah had consolidated. During this time, religious knowledge was spread far and wide. In Kūfah, it was common place for literally all Muslims of a city, young and old, men and women, to attend daily circles of Islamic learning. This was the environment Imām Abū Hanīfah was raised in.

The Qur’ān and Prophetic traditions lay the framework for Islam. However, there are times when scenarios or questions arise that did not exist in the time of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم or his companions. These new situations may leave Muslims confused about what the correct beliefs or proper courses of action should be. These kinds of problems and doubts are what Imām Abū Hanīfah sought to address. He developed a methodological framework, based purely off of the Qur’ān and Prophetic traditions, that answered these types of questions. And this great framework of thought that Abū Hanīfah founded was what successive generations of scholars would pay homage to and follow.

Some Stories of his Wit!

Once, a Christian Roman soldier came to Kūfah to theologically challenge the Muslims. He stood at a high position and said he would pay a large sum of money to anyone who could answer three questions. 1) What was before God? 2) Which direction does God face? 3) What is God doing right now?

The scholars were perplexed, having no direct response to this in the Qur’ān. The young Abū Hanīfah got the attention of the soldier, saying he knew the answers. Unimpressed, the soldier invited him to speak. The young Abū Hanīfah asked the soldier to count down from 10.

The soldier counted “10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.”

Abū Hanīfah asked, what comes before 1? The soldier said, “There is no number before 1. 1 is the first number”. (We are talking about Natural Numbers. That eliminates 0 and negative numbers.)

Abū Hanīfah responded, “If mathematically there is nothing before 1, how do you expect there to be something before God? He is al-Awwal (The first)”

The soldier was impressed, and asked him about the second question. In which direction does God face? Abū Hanīfah said, “Which direction does a flame’s light go?” The soldier responded that it went in every direction. Abū Hanīfah said, “Allah describes himself in the Qur’ān as the lamp of the heavens and the earth, light upon light. He faces in all directions at once (ie knows all things)”.

Again, the soldier was taken back, not expecting such a response. What about the third question? What is God currently doing? Certainly this young boy would not know how to answer this question! Abū Hanīfah said, “While you were addressing the audience, you took the high podium. Now that I am addressing the audience, allow me to take the high podium.” The soldier and came down into the crowd and Abū Hanīfah climbed the podium the address the audience.

He said, “At this moment, Allah is taking someone who attempts to challenge Islam from a high position and debased him to a low position. And he is raising a person who is defending the Truth.” At this, the audience applauded at the brilliance of the young boy in their midst.

Islamic Law

Though he was a scholar in many areas, Abū Hanīfah is most known for his work in Islāmic Law. During his time, there were two “schools” of Islamic legal thought: Ahl al-Ra’i and Ahl al-Hadīth (not to be confused with the modern Ahl al-Hadīth). While Ahl al-Hadīth stuck to the transmitted texts and dared not make speculative opinions, Ahl al-Ra’i sought to “fill in the gaps” and used analogical reasoning to develop a framework for solving newly arisen questions and issues.

Imām Abū Hanīfah belonged to this school of thought. People would come to him and ask of  new questions. For example, (I’m making this example up) how does a Muslim pray when he goes close to the North Pole, where a single day might last 6 months? Who is a woman married to who thinks her husband has died so she does not seek a divorce, then remarries only to find out the first husband is alive? (This was a real question)

Abū Hanīfah would gather the experts of all the Islamic disciplines in his circles. When a question was posed, the attendees would engage in a lively discussion and fierce debate, each complementing the strengths and weaknesses of each other. A conclusion was reached and posited as the answer. Other times, he would ask questions to his students to sharpen their minds by forcing them to think about new questions.

His conclusions and legal framework were documented and became known as the Hanafī madhhab. Thus was the school of legal thought of Abū Hanīfah.

‘Aqīdah – Islamic Belief

While Imām Abū Hanīfah employed analogical reasoning, he recognized its limits and the flaws one could fall into in the area of theology. Abū Hanīfah witnessed the emergence of the first sects of Islām, notably the Khawārij and the Mu’tazilites. In response to this phenomenon, Abū Hanīfah wrote a theological text to outline the beliefs of the earliest Muslims in opposition to the first splinter sects of Islam. This text is known as Fiqh al-Akbar (The Greatest Understanding) and is still studied to this day.

Piety

Imām Abū Hanīfah was not only known for his intellectual development of Islam, he was also recognized as a ascetic, preventing his heart from connecting to the Dunya’.

For example, Abū Hanīfah owned and operated a textile firm, and was scrupulous in his transactions, ensuring that every dirham (a unit of currency) was legally earned. Once, he tasked a servant to sell a large volume of clothes and to ensure he informed the purchasers of slight defects in the fabric. When the servant returned with the money, he told Abū Hanīfah that he had forgotten to mention the defects to the buyers. Abū Hanīfah did not want any of his wealth to be tainted with illegal earned money, so he gave all the new wealth away as charity.

Abū Hanīfah would reject worldly positions of power. For example, the Khulafa’ of his time would offer him a high position in the government as judge, provided that he issue fatwa in favor of the un-Islāmic actions of the Khulafa’. Abū Hanīfah refused all positions of authority, preferring instead to finance his own studies and juridical activities. This was also done to prevent the attachment of power and wealth from affecting his impartiality in making legal rulings (Something the Ahmadi community completely rejects, as the Murabbis are paid by Mirza Masroor Ahmad and are not permitted to oppose anything he says or does).

Some believe that the “persian man” that the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم spoke about was referring to either Imām Abū Hanīfah or Imam al-Ghazālī.

Why do I say this?

As I always stress, Islām is not a new religion. Its roots run centuries years deep. However, Ahmadis tend to see their faith as only 100 years old, proudly boasting that their community was “Founded in 1889“ by Mirza Ghulam, rather than being 1431 year old, founded by the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم. While one could argue that this is more due to “Ahmadī culture” rather than its actual scholastic beliefs, culture does affect one’s outlook on his religion. Ahmadīs are deeply disconnected from this rich centuries old Islamic tradition. Instead, they usually focusing on the writings of the likes of Mirza Tahir Ahmad over, say, Imam Abū Hāmid al-Ghazālī.

Thus, I encourage my Ahmadi readers to read the works of Imām Abū Hanīfah, and the other scholars of the Islamic tradition.  For starters, I suggest you read Fiqh al-Akbar, with the accompanying commentary by Shaykh Muhammad Hasan al-Ninowy.

As always, may Allah continue to guide our Ahmadi readers from the false religion of Ahmadiyya to the religion of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم.

* * و صلى الله على صيدنا محمد * *

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.