Mirza Ghulam’s drawings mocking his enemies. References below.
Ruhani Khazain, Volume 22 (PDF page 532)
What do you think?
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.”
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:
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:
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:
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.
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)
As an ex-Ahmadi I was always naïve to the organization that I paid 6.25% of my earnings to. I never once questioned the dynamic of the organization in terms of loyalty to european colonialism or the lack of drive to emancipate the oppressed. The exodus which led me out of Ahmadiyyat was based on the belief system as well as the character of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. Not once did I realize that loyalty to those who crave natural resources was in fact a prerequisite of membership for this business/religion. After much research, I realized that Ahmadiyyat modeled it’s own economic aspirations in parallel to British Colonialism. In this quest, MGAQ distorted Quranic verses to fit his business endeavor and disguised it as the revival of the deen through colonial supported prophethood. Here is what MGAQ wrote on the subject in question:
“The Holy Qur’an commands, ‘Obey Allah and obey His Prophet and obey those in authority among you.’ Believers are to obey those in authority, besides God and His Prophet. To say that ‘those in authority’ does not include a non-Muslim Government would be a manifest error. For, a government-or authority-whose ordinances are in accordance with the Shariah (that is, they are not in conflict with it) is ‘authority from among you.’ Those who are not against us are amongst us. The Qur’an, therefore, is unequivocal on the point. Obedience to governmental authority is one of its imperatives.” (Works and Speeches, Vol. (i), p. 261)
Just recently, an individual by the name of Naseem Mahdi, who is an Ahmadi, made some statements on FOX news to the effect that Muslims needed to stand up and denounce terrorism and in turn support the country in which they lived. In the same breath he announced that this was a directive of the Quran and the Sunnah. He was asking all Muslims who live in the USA to support the US foreign policy without question or concern, he wanted Ahmadis to know that he considered it an Islamic directive to support the USA in their foreign policy. All this stems from the yearnings of MGAQ over 100 years ago. MGAQ wanted to support the British in any shape or form, this was not a queer perspective that Naseem was presenting, in fact it was the rhetoric that the Islamic world had condemned over 100 years ago.
MGAQ argued from Chapter 4 verse 60 (in the Ahmadi numbering system). MGAQ contended that this verse had global appeal inasmuch as it explains that a good Muslim will obey any ruler who is above them in any circumstance and in any country, more specifically British India. This policy was irregardless if the ruler was just or not, MGAQ presented it as a standing policy of support. MGAQ didnt care that european colonialism was killing the innocent and stealing gold and diamonds. This was not part of his formula of faith.
The Ahmadis have purposely not used the biggest piece of the puzzle in terms of understanding Chapter 4:60. There is a hadith in the traditions of Imam Bukhari that explains the context of this verse.
Here it is:
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.
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.”
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.
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).
ALL Arabic Writings Are from God (Yalaash)
Urdu ((Hazrat Messiah Mauod said “all my Arabic writings are type of Ilham since all have been written with special support from God. Sometimes I write many words and sentences without knowing their meanings, then I check in the dictionary after writing them to know their meanings)) – Seerat-ul-Mahdi , part 1, page 91 (Click Here)
Not a Nabi
Arabic ((I am NOT a Nabi)) – Rouhani Khazain, vol 5, Aina Kamalat al-Islam, page 383 February 1893 (Click Here)
Arabic Qadiani Wahi ((Oh Ya Nabi / Prophet)) – English Tadhkirah, p 884 (Click Here)
Arabic Qadiani Wahi ((You have been made a MURSAL / Messenger)) – English Tadhkirah, p 591 (Click Here)
The First Nabi
Arabic Qadiani Wahi (([We sent you] so that you may warn a people whose fathers were not warned)) – Tadhkirah, page 230 (Click Here)
The Last Nabi
Arabic ((Allah wanted to end the matter and to complete the building (of Islam) through the LAST BRICK. Oh you who are witnessing, I am that LAST BRICK)) – RK, vol 16, Khutba-Ilhamiyya, page 178 (Click Here)
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.