Category Archives: Literature

Chanda: An Introduction to Financial Sacrifice

Posted on by

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

Lets talk about Chanda! But first, a word from our sponsors:

اتَّبِعُوا مَن لَّا يَسْأَلُكُمْ أَجْرًا وَهُم مُّهْتَدُونَ
Follow those who do not ask of you [any] payment, and they are [rightly] guided.
Surah Yasin, Verse 21


The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم directed us to pay 2.5% of one’s end of year savings. This is the absolute minimum Allah has commanded us to give, which is distributed directly to the poor, not even to the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم. While giving is good, and truly necessary in some circumstances, the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم never made a general mandate to give money except to the poor.

However, the Ahmadiyya faith has created a new law: Chanda. Often described as a “financial sacrifice”, Chanda is a fee paid by all Ahmadis merely for being Ahmadi. This fee, a tithe, is given directly to the religious authorities. Tithes were not a practice of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم, and thus constitutes a new religious innovation – a new law created in the faith, despite the claim that Mirza Ghulam was a “non-law-bearing” prophet.
Continue reading →

Attacking the fundamentals of Islam to defend Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

Posted on by

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

In one of his works, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani attributes a hadith to Imam al-Bukhari’s collection which does not exist in it. See Rohani Khazain vol.6 p.337 (هذا خليفة الله المهدى)

In their bid to defend Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, his followers take a lot of pain. Malik Abdul Rahman, author of the much celebrated Ahmadiyya Pocket Book, not only clutches at straws but goes even further to put doubt to the very fundamentals of Islam to justify the gimmicks of the false claimant of prophethood.

In the Ahmadiyya Pocket Book, pages 517-518, he comes up with various arguments to dilute the issue and presents the worst possible alternatives.

He alludes to two Ahadith of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم:

Narrations about the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم erring about the number of raka’ahs:

Firstly, there is a narration in which the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم mistakenly said the final salaam of ritual prayers (salaah) at the end of two raka’ahs instead of four raka’ahs..

Continue reading →

The Four False Prophets, Part I: Al-Aswad al-’Ansi

Posted on by

بسم الله الحد لله و صلاة و سلام على رسول الله و على آله و سلم

The Four False Prophets
Al-Aswad Al-’Ansi Tulayhah al-Azdi Sajjah bint al-Harith Musaylimah al-Kaddhab

This is the first installment in a series of articles on four of the early false prophets from the time of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم and Abu Bakr رضى الله عنه. In it, we will discuss their rise, opposition by the Muslims, and eventual defeat.

During the 12th year after the Hijrah, Al-Aswad al-’Ansi (الاسود العنسي) from ‘Ans, Yemen claimed to be a prophet. He started his movement slow and secretly, but later grew to engulf all of ‘Ans. At the time, Yemen was ruled by Persian Muslims, notably Shahr bin Badhaan, whose father Badhaan had accepted Islam after receiving a letter from the Prophet Ahmad صلى الله عليه و سلم. But Al-Aswad’s forces attacked the Muslims, killed Shahr, and his forcefully married his Shahr’s wife Azaad.
Continue reading →

The meaning of خاتم (Khaatam) in Lexicons/Dictionaries

Posted on by

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

(This is a re-post of an article by the same name in 2008, but given our now much larger readership base, its worth bringing it back up)

Malik Ghulam Farid, an Ahmadi Murabbi, compiled his own dictionary of the words of the Qur’an titled, Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an. Under the Publisher’s Note (page 5 on the pdf), it claims to be entirely based off of Lisan al-’Arab, Taaj al-’Aroos, al-Mufridaat fi Ghareeb al-Qur’an, Arabic-English Lexicon by E.W. Lane and Aqrab al-Mawarid. On pages 222-223, regarding the word خاتم, Farid wrote:

خاتَمٌ also means the best and most perfect; embellishment or ornament; the hollow of the back of the neck: وَلَكِن رَّسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ But he is the Messenger of Allah and the seal of the Prophets (33:41)

I openly challenge the validity of this entry by Farid.

Continue reading →

Poetry in the revelation of Allah?

Posted on by

What does the Qur’an say about revelation and poetry?

In Surah 36, verse 69 Allah clearly states that the Prophet (pbuh) was not taught poetry:

“And We have not taught him poetry, nor does it behove him to be a poet. It is but a Reminder and a Qur’an that expounds and makes things plain.”

Surah 36:69

Below can be found the commentary on this verse taken from the alislam.org website:

“It is inconsistent with the dignity of a Divine prophet that he should be a poet, because poets are generally given to idle dreaming and making castles in the air. Prophets of God have before them very high and noble ideals and programmes. The verse, however, does not mean that all poetry is bad and that all poets are dreamers, but it does mean that a Divine Prophet is far too dignified and spiritually exalted to be a mere poet.”

The Qur’an also states the following:

“That it is, surely, the word brought by a noble messenger. And not the word of a poet; little is it that you believe!”

Surah 69:41

So it is clear that the word of God has nothing to do with poetry. Indeed, even the Ahmedi commentary seems to agree with this notion. The Qur’an is a miracle from Allah, in that no man-made poetry can compete with it.

What did Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claim Allah revealed to him about poetry?

Mirza’s claimed revelation also seems to confirm that prophets do not receive mere poetry:

Tadhkirah (4th Edition) p.729

Sample ‘revelations’ from Allah to Mirza:

Below I present two so-called ‘revelations’ that can be found in Tadhkirah. Apart from the fact that the underlined portions make no sense in the context of the surrounding ‘revelation’, there is an even bigger problem. As we shall soon see:

Tadhkirah (4th Edition) p.625-626

Tadhkirah (4th Edition) p.691

So, what’s the bigger problem? Well, Mirza stole this so-called revelation (the red-underlined portions) from pre-Islamic poetry. Namely, from a poet called Labid ibn Rabi’ah.

Who was Labid ibn Rabi’ah Al-Ameri?

He was a companion of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), when he heard the Qur’an recited he immediately embraced Islam and gave up poetry altogether. When he was once asked to recite some poetry the former master-poet replied: “What! After the Qur’an?”

His poetry was so renowned by the Arabs that one of his poems is contained in the Mu’allaqat. His finest poem, when recited at Ukaz (competitions in poetry were held there), caused all the people present to prostrate themselves before him in admiration.

The poetry of Labid:

The above Arabic poem is called the ‘Golden Ode’ and is Labid’s finest work. A translation of it can be found here. It was translated into English in the book Arabian Poetry by W. A. Clouston in 1881.

The verses underlined in red correspond exactly to the underlined revelation taken from Tadhkira. Almost letter for letter.

Strange?

Didn’t Allah tell Mirza that the poets have no access to what he says? Didn’t Allah tell us in the Holy Qur’an that the words of God are not poetry?

Why would Allah send The Messiah to spew pre-Islamic poetry at us? The author of that very same poetry stopped composing when he heard the Qur’an!

The answer is obvious. Allah didn’t reveal Labid’s poetry to Mirza. Mirza stole them from Labid’s poetry and passed them off as revelation. He was not a prophet of God. He was in fact a fraud.

Ahmedis! At the very least take stock of your situation and think! Would Allah really give us man-made poetry as revelation? Would Allah contradict His own words in the Qur’an when he says that revelation is NOT poetry?

I pray that Allah guides you to the right path and fills your hearts with the truth. Ameen.

(With thanks to br. Fuad who provided the source material for this article)

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.

Open Letter – Part 3 – Pen and Knowledge

Posted on by

There was a time, under leadership better suited for the times, when Ahmadiyya did something with the little money that they reeled in.  Although most of what they did was ultimately useless, at least the chanda-payers saw it being invested somewhere.  So, the agricultural research in Sind came to naught except create real-estate wealth for the Mirza Family; and the buildings and gardens of the post-graduate ‘degree college’ in Rabwah (Chenab Nagar) are in ruins (never completed); for decades, jars of preserved specimens remained locked up in a room in ‘Tibiya College’ (medical school).  In an era of unprecedented quality in private education in Pakistan, and close to 100 universities in the country, the Ahmadiyya are still complaining about the nationalisation of their T.I. school and college in 1974.

Similarly, the ‘King of the Pen’, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, failed to inspire any writers or ‘Pen jihadists’ as the Ahmadiyya like to call themselves.  Not a single writer of repute, not a single author of any renown, nor a single poet of recognition.  After all, Urdu is spoken in India, and there is cross-over between Urdu and Hindi literature.  Even if Pakistanis persecuted them, someone from their ranks could have been recognized in India.  So barren is the literary landscape of the Ahmadiyya, that it is surprising, even taking into account the absolute literary mess of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s writings.

So, while the Islamic world is busy writing and publishing, and Muslims are among the thought-leaders of today, Ahmadiyya are the ‘true Muslims’ sitting in their little town and creating endless numbers of ‘Sultan-ul-Qalam societies’.  Is this jihad with the pen?  Amazing.  Not quite, if you look at the latest numbers that I have got (top-secret document leaked from Rabwah): 88,000 Ahmadis in Pakistan, 62,000 in India and 2,000 in Bangladesh.

So, while the alma mater of Dr. Abdus Salam, Government College, Lahore, Pakistan,  has created a prestigious Abdus Salam School of Mathematical Sciences in 2003 in his honour, those that cry ‘persecution’ have done nothing except write articles and letters condemning Pakistan for not recognizing its learned son.  GC Lahore, one of the oldest and most prestigious institutions, has also named the Salam Chair in Physics in 1999.

So, dear Ahmadi friends and family, while Chanda collection has gone up 1500 times since 1974, all you get is MTA and homeopathic ads in Alfazl (picture below, retrieved from Alfazl 13 March 2010).  Why do you want to relegate your offspring to supporting this family business?

(Ad: Guaranteed complete eradication of Asthma, guranteed treatment of Hepatitis B and C — all using homeopathy with ‘oxygen therapy’ on machines imported from Japan — using ultrasound and ECG)

Yalesh is Yalash is Satan

Posted on by

Who was Mirza’s god?

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

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

(Tohfa Golarviyya, p. 69, footnote)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Tajalleyat-iIlahiyya pp. 2-3)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace unto those who follow the hidaayah.

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.

Takfīr – Declaring others Kāfir

Posted on by
Bismillah,

This is one of the most touchy topics between Muslims and Ahmadis, inspiring the most enmity and ill-feelings between the two religions. But, I think that this important topic that should be discussed in a civil, respectful yet firm manor.

First, a definition. Roughly speaking, Takfīr (تكفير) means to declare someone not a Muslim. This dangerous task is only done to save the Muslims from falling into deviant or otherwise corrupted interpretations of Islam which would render them non-Muslims.

I do not call individual Ahmadis kāfir. I never have and, in sha Allah, I never will. The reason I do not is because I personally know Ahmadis who are only Ahmadi by-name, but in reality they are Muslims. They only bear the title “Ahmadi” because they were born into the faith. I do not claim to know what is in the hearts of Ahmadis. Instead, I declare the religion itself to be Kufr. Meaning, the religion Ahmadiyya is not Islam. I judge the religion, not the individual adherent of the religion. This is why we call Ahmadis from Ahmadiyya and to Islam.

Lets compare this to the writings of Mirza Bashir-ud-Deen Mahmood Ahmad, the second “khalifah” of Ahmadiyya. In his book The Truth about the Split, he wrote about the issue of Takfīr. The following are three quotes, starting from his highly questionable quote moving to his most extreme declaration.

On page 74 of the book, he wrote:

Now, as we hold that the revelation which came to the Promised Messiah are such that their acceptance is obligatory on mankind in general, to us, the man who rejects the Promised Messiah is a kafir agreeably to the teachings of the Holy Quran, although he may well be a believer in all the other truths of religion because the presence even of one of the necessary conditions of Kufr is sufficient to make a man kafir.

In this quote, Mahmood Ahmad declares Muslims who do not believe Mirza Ghulam is the Maseeh as kaafirs. Now consider the following quote. On page 162, he wrote:

Then in my own words. I summarised the purport of the quotations as follows: “Thus, according to these quotations, not only are those deemed to be kuffar, who openly style the Promised Messiah as kafir, and those who although they do not style him thus, decline still to accept his claim, but even those who, in their hearts, believe the Promised Messiahas to be true, and do not even deny him with their tongues, but hesitate to enter into his Bai‘at, have here been adjudged to be kuffar.“

In this quote, Mahmood Ahmad re-declares Muslims to be kufār, but then takes the additional step to even declare those Ahmadis who have not formally given him the Bay’ah (pledge) are not Muslims. This quote is more aggressive. Lets now look at the most extreme quote. On page 70, he wrote:

These changes, according to Maulawi Muhammad Ali, relate to three matters; … (3) the belief that all those so-called Muslims who have not entered into his Bai‘at formally, wherever they may be, are kuffar and outside the pale of Islam, even though they may not have heard the name of the Promised Messiah.

In this most extreme statement, Mahmood Ahmad declares 1.2 billion Muslims to be kufār, even if they have not heard the name Mirza Ghulam. Ironically, most Ahmadis become upset that the religion itself has been declared a separate religion, distinct and unique from Islam.

(There are other statements of this nature by Mirza Ghulam himself, but I’ll save those for another post)

To my Ahmadi readers, do not accept this aggressive declaration of Kufr from those whom you invest your faith in. Instead, leave this false prophet and his misguidance and embrace the traditional path of Islam. Islam is in your blood, take back what Mirza Ghulam stole from you. I would be honored to call you my brother- not in Ahmadiyya- but in Islam.