The previous peoples rejected their prophets.  That’s true and testified to in the Qur’an.  Lets analyze by juxtaposing the rejection of ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه صلاة و سلام, the rejection of the Prophet Muhammad عليه صلاة و سلام by the Quraysh and the rejection of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad by the Muslims.

In Surah Nisaa, verse 158 Allah says:

And for their saying, ‘We did slay the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah;’ whereas they slew him not, nor did they bring about his death upon the cross, but he was made to appear to them like one crucified; and those who differ therein are certainly in a state of doubt about it; they have no certain knowledge thereof, but only pursue a conjecture; and they did not arrive at a certainty concerning it.
- The official Ahmadi translation of the Qur’an by Muhammad ‘Ali

They openly admitted that ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه صلاة و سلام was al-Maseeh, the Messenger of Allah.  But, their kufr (in this case, rejection) stemmed out of their desire to maintain political and social control over the masses of Bani Isra’eel.  So, they rejected ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه صلاة و سلام even though they knew he was truly from Allah.

Now lets move to the Quraysh.  On the day of the Battle of Badr, Abu Jahl was asked if Muhammad عليه صلاة و سلام was known to be truthful or was a liar.  He said, “Woe to you! By Allah, he is truthful. He never told a lie in his life. But if the Family of Qusay enjoyed the privileges of leadership, guardianship of the Sacred House, the honor of providing pilgrims with water and the honor of Prophethood, what would be left for the rest of Quraysh to be proud of?” He knew the Prophet Muhammad عليه صلاة و سلام was truthful, but he rejected him out of tribalism and arrogance.

Now lets compare the Muslims and the rejection of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.  I can talk about myself personally.  I have nothing to gain or lose from rejecting MGA.  I live in America; no one cares what I believe in or don’t believe in.  I do not reject him out of arrogance, I do so out of conviction.  We believe in our hearts that he was a false prophet, an open enemy of Allah.  Debate with us as they may, we have evidence to support us.  Having said that, the argument of “you reject him just as the previous nations do” fails, because the motivations for rejecting him are completely different than the past nations.  One is out of arrogance, the other is out of conviction.  In fact, we reply by calling the Ahmadis to embrace Islam!

This is also a weak argument because it is reactionary and lacks insight.  Just because previous nations rejected their prophets, should we blindly accept all claimants to prophethood?  Or al-Maseeh?  Or al-Mahdi?  That’s irresponsible.  The soul is not a game to play like that.  Use the ‘aql (intellect) Allah has given us.

Ahmadis will argue that he fulfilled the signs of al-Mahdi, so we should use our intellect to objectively analyze his claims and realize his truthfulness.  I don’t want to get into a tangent on why Ahmadis cannot conveniently make everything that disagrees with them into a metaphor, so lets analyze the signs of al-Mahdi that cannot be interpreted as metaphors.  Just to name a few:

• Al-Mahdi will be named Muhammad ibn Abdullah
• Will come from the Tribe of Qahtaan (which still exists to this day)
• Will flee Madinah to Makkah and will seek refuge in the Ka’aba
• Will take the Bay’ah (pledge) between the Rukun and the Maqam of Ibrahim at the Ka’aba
• Will never claim to be al-Mahdi, but will be recognized by others as such.  Traditionally, the scholars understood that if someone openly claimed to be al-Mahdi, he was not al-Mahdi.

For more signs, perhaps Ahmadis would be interested in the perspective of al-Mahdi by the Muslims in this scholarly and gripping lecture series by Shaykh Yasir Qadhi, The Mahdi: Between Fact and Fiction.

http://www.islamicgoodsdirect.co.uk/the-mahdi-between-fact-and-fiction-yasir-qadhi-cd.html
[I support copyright laws, but under the fair-use policy, but I am willing to provide Ahmadis with excerpts of this lecture series, specifically about the signs of al-Mahdi, upon request.  Leave your e-mail address below and I will reply to you, in sha Allah]

May Allah guide our Ahmadi friends to Islam
All Muslims, say Ameen!

On the 26th of November, 2004, I embraced Islam after a period of intense study. Two weeks later, I made my announcement publicly at the Khatmenabuwwat Academy in London, after speaking with Maulana Sohail Bawa about my decision. Why did I choose this avenue for my announcement? That’s quite simple to answer. Can you think of any other channel that would have got my message out worldwide more efficiently?

The reasons I made a public announcement were two-fold. First, it would give courage to other Qadianis who were scared of the consequences of leaving the cult they were born into, through no fault of their own. Second, it would send a message to the leadership of the Ahmadiyya that I was not afraid and that their usual smear tactics against the outspoken in their ranks would not work on me. (It was interesting to see how many Qadianis subsequently asserted that I had been “kicked out of the jama’at”, despite my very public, and very unexpected departure)

After leaving, at first, I had considered keeping myself to myself and being content with my own decision. Then I realised that since I had been given the gift of Islam, it was now incumbent upon me to spread the message and to invite my former co-religionists to the right path, away from the misguidance and kufr of Qadianism. I thus started writing.

Only three months after becoming Muslim, I wrote “Life After the Cult”, which was a public letter to any Qadiani who was considering jumping off the sinking ship of their false religion and swimming to the shore of Islam. It gained a widespread audience. Around the same time, I began contributing heavily to the ahmedi.org forum and soon became a moderator. After around three thousand posts under various names, I left the forum and started making a series of videos on YouTube. My channel, shahidkamal, gained a steadily growing audience and came to the attention of the top levels of the Ahmadiyya who did their best to try and stop my work, but by the grace of Allah (SWT), their attempts failed.

Most recently, I have started, with some fellow Muslims, a new web site called TheCult.info, where there is an active blog and forum and also a wiki. We are using as many modern tools as possible to spread the message of Islam and to show the ugly truth of Ahmadiyyat, so that everyone, Muslims and Qadianis, can see the difference for themselves.

I have been shocked, if not entirely surprised, by the horrendous abuse and vitriolic hatred directed towards me by Qadianis. I only pray that those who still reason, will see for themselves what is right and what is wrong, that they will reflect and that insha’Allah, they will revert to the only deen acceptable to Allah (SWT) - and that is Islam.

Work continues on new articles, videos and book projects and insha’Allah, I want to make it my life’s work to attract as many Qadianis to Islam as possible, remembering always, that it is Allah (SWT) alone who grants hidaayah. May He give it to all Qadianis, insha’Allah.

Please remember me in your du`a.

Wassalaam,

Your brother in Islam,

Shahid Kamal Ahmad

References:

1. http://alhafeez.org/rashid/shahid.htm
2. http://www.alhafeez.org/rashid/shahid2.htm
3. http://www.ahmedi.org
4. TheCult.info
5. TheCult.info/blog
6. TheCult.info/forum
7. www.youtube.com/shahidkamal

To see the details of this event, yet another miserable, but ultimately fruitless attempt by the governmentof Britain and the Qadianis to sow falsehood and division in the ranks of the Ummah, something that the divide-and-rule merchants have been trying to do since the heydey of the British Empire (a tactic now brilliantly exploited by other fascists around the world), you might want to look at this PDF press release by the Qadianis.

Want to know more?

i didnt want to do this but kamal u asked for it- Let the truth become known-
exosing SHahid:

The reason he is no longer a muslim is because after his father died of cancer (Allah bless him) Shahid WANTED a loan from jamat for the costs, etc. And so Jamma’h rejecteed this cuz just exactly what does he think this is, lol . and so he got so mad that he suddenly realised the Prophets of Allah were fraedulent and so he left islam. That is the story of this man. have a nice day. Truth!

I don’t know which rock these people crawl out from under, but this is the kind of filth these people like to spread. This is their cult.

I don’t normally respond to such filth, but for the record:

1. I am a Muslim, alhamdulillah. I stopped being a kaafir in 2004.
2. I paid for my father’s funeral, which was in 1999. 5 full years before my reversion.
3. I asked Mirza Tahir for a loan (not a hand-out, but a loan) back in the late 1980s. He told me to buy some Premium Bonds!
4. I reverted to Islam after a period where I was actually serving Qadianism more than ever before.

So when Qadianis threaten to beat people up and kill them, when they make children cry because of the evil things they say, when they make mothers cry because of the evil things they say and do, when they humiliate children, when they spread falsehood of such a filthy nature, one has to ask, who is really the persecutor and who is the persecuted?

Peace unto those who follow the guidance.

Let me say from the start, I am against the persecution of Ahmadis.  Not only is it morally wrong, evil and unjust, it undermines the da’wah efforts of the Muslim to the Ahmadis.  No Ahmadi centers should be destroyed, no Ahmadi should be insulted, and no Ahmadi should be prevented from declaring the Shahada (Kalima).  I would personally defend any Ahmadi who was being attacked by a Muslim simply because he was an Ahmadi.

Having said that, is their persecution really as bad as they portray it? Lets objectively analyze.

Facts According to ThePersecution.org

Are they really persecuted? In 2001, the Ahmadis declared that their population was 200 million worldwide. That is roughly ~20% of all Muslims.  Considering their alleged massive population, and outcry of terrible persecution, one would expect the number of murders of the Ahmadis to be in the range of 100,000 - 150,000 innocent people.  But, according to their own statistics from the year 2000, the number of Ahmadis murdered was 12.  Yes, 12.  Don’t get me wrong, each soul is precious.  But, given their international outcry of horific persecution, I honestly expected a little more than 12.  In 2001, the figure dropped to 9.  In 2002 it dropped to only 4.  Again in 2003, the figure decreased again to 2.  [They did not report any figures by year after 2003]

If we go by the figures they provide, from 2000 to 2003, the number of innocent Ahmadis murdered only for their faith was 0.0000135% of their total population.

In 2003, they reported that the number of charges brought against Ahmadis exclusively based on their religion increased 376% from the previous year. 376%, huge increase right?  Not necessarily.  If you have 2 reports in year one, and you increase that to 4 reports in year two, it is a 100% increase.  I’m sure you can see where I am going with this.  A 376% increase does not mean anything when your figures are low to begin with.

Recently, Dr. Abdul Mannan Siddiqui, a medical doctor from the US was murdered.  I stand with the Ahmadis in condemning his murder.  But, notice how widespread this story has become.  Any Ahmadi who even marginally attends their services has heard about it.  Why?  Because it is such a rare occurrence that when it happens, it is big news.  Everyone knows about it.

Compared to Muslims

I remember as a child in Ramadhan, during the Witr of Taraweeh, the Imam would recite “Allahuma ‘Aizz al-Islaama wa al-Muslimeen fi Soomal, wa Kashmir, wa Falasteen wa Sheshaan” meaning “O Allah, [give] honor to Islam and the Muslims in Somalia, and Kashmir and Palestine and Chechnya.” Every year the number of countries on that list grew and grew until he just says “fi kulli makaan” meaning “in every locality”.

Look at Palestine.  The number of Palestinians who die from Israeli state terrorism in one month alone exceeds the entire number of Ahmadis killed from 2000 to 2003.  After the two Chechen Wars, 12% of the entire Chechen ethnic group was dead.  In the mid 90s during the Bosnian wars, roughly 38,000 Bosnians died.  Don’t even get me started on the mass rapes.  Ya Allah, in Iraq, roughly 96,000 of our brothers and sisters died as a direct result of my country’s military (I am an American) since the war started (and that figure is considered very low, only what can be confirmed).  If I keep looking up statistics, I will start weeping.

Its not just about Deaths

The Ahmadis could argue that actual loss of life is not the only metric to measure persecution.  It manifests itself in many forms, social and legal, sometimes in very subtle ways, etc.  That’s absolutely true.  But, even then, can the Ahmadis claim to have been more persecuted than the Muslims?  In 2003, they claim 23 Ahmadis were subjected to miscellaneous laws against their faith and 17 Ahmadis were in prison by the end of the year.  Now consider just one city in Palestine, where the residents undergo daily abuse by the Israeli terrorists; preventing them water, sexually abusing young women, beating the young men, making them wait long hours in endless lines to travel short distances, random searches, destruction of infrastructure, etc, etc.  The suffering from one small village alone in Palestine is worse than the entire Ahmadi population combined.

Motivation

I believe there are two reasons why the Ahmadis dramatize their persecution.

First, it acts as a tool to keep members in their religion.  Communities under considerable, but not extreme pressure tend to unify and grow stronger.  By extreme pressure, I mean like European Jewry in the 1930s and 40s.  By considerable pressure, I mean African-Americans from the 20s to 60s, when the Black Nationalist movements begun.  The Ahmadis have exploited their sense of persecution to build and strengthen their communal bonds.

Second, there is a hadith that says those upon the truth will follow the way of the Prophet and his companions. The Ahmadis interpret this to mean those who are persecuted as the earliest Muslims were persecuted. So, if they can show that they are persecuted, they argue, it is proof that they are upon the Truth. There are obvious problems with this.  First, “following the way of the prophet” refers to his Sunnah, not being subject to abuses by others.  Second, the earliest Muslims did not sit back and vercify their suffering.  Sabr (patience) was only the first stage.  They migrated to Madinah, took up arms and fought back against the Quraysh (and not all battles were defensive).  With that aside, even if we use their interpretations, the Muslims are far far more persecuted, even per capita, than the Ahmadis worldwide.  If that is their interpretation of the Hadith, then it is clear that Islam is the Truth and Ahmadiyya is falsehood.

May Allah stop and punish those who bring even the slightest bit of harm against the Ahmadis and may He guide the Ahmadis to Islam.

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

Let’s humour the Qadianis for a while, shall we? Let’s imagine for a moment that this was a real revelation to a real prophet.

1. Why was this name not revealed to the Last Prophet, Muhammad (saw)?
2. Since when can an Arabic name be constructed in this way? Especially with the calling tool “ya” being incorporated into the amalgamated resultant mess? The calling tool “ya” simply cannot be used in this way as part of a proper name in Arabic.
3. Why is the translation so deceptive? After all, “ya la shareek” means quite simply “Oh no associate”. If you wanted to say “Oh Thou without an associate” you would say ““ya man la shareek lahu” in Arabic.
4. Never mind the nonsense “yalesh” or “yalash” or “yalaash”, why does the expression “ya la shareek” never appear in any Arabic text in history? Could it be because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever?
5. The names of Allah are part of the Islamic lexicon. No new names would have been revealed after the demise of the Last Prophet Muhammad (saw). This new name is proof that Qadianism is a new religion.

For more, please read brother Fuad’s excellent article.

Peace unto those who follow the guidance.

Ahmadis believe that Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم is the Last Law-Bearing Prophet…  Wait, what?  Law-Bearing Prophets?  What’s that?  Non-Law-Bearing Prophets?  Huh?  Where is that distinction mentioned in the Qur’an?  Well, it isn’t.  Its a theory by some of the ‘Ulema of the subcontinent, employed by the Ahmadiyya.  Based on this they believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a “Non-Law-Bearing Prophet”.  This concept of law-bearing and non-law-bearing prophets is far too seldom critiqued.  Below is a discussion on the topic of law-bearing vs non-law-bearing prophets, and its (lack of) evidence in the Qur’an.

The following argument was taken from The Qur’anic Evidence: Truthfulness of The Promised Messiah, by Ansar Raza, Chapter 3, “The Possibility of Prophethood”, under Question 1.

Ahmadi Argument:

تِلْكَ الرُّسُلُ فَضَّلْنَا بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ مِّنْهُم مَّن كَلَّمَ اللّهُ وَرَفَعَ بَعْضَهُمْ دَرَجَاتٍ وَآتَيْنَا عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ الْبَيِّنَاتِ وَأَيَّدْنَاهُ بِرُوحِ الْقُدُسِ وَلَوْ شَاء اللّهُ مَا اقْتَتَلَ الَّذِينَ مِن بَعْدِهِم مِّن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءتْهُمُ الْبَيِّنَاتُ وَلَكِنِ اخْتَلَفُواْ فَمِنْهُم مَّنْ آمَنَ وَمِنْهُم مَّن كَفَرَ وَلَوْ شَاء اللّهُ مَا اقْتَتَلُواْ وَلَكِنَّ اللّهَ يَفْعَلُ مَا يُرِيدُ

These messengers have We exalted some of them above others; among them there are those to whom Allah spoke; and some of them He exalted in degrees of rank. And We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs and strengthened him with the spirit of holiness. And if Allah had so willed, those that came after them would not have fought with one another after clear Signs had come to them; but they did disagree. Of them were some who believed, and of them were some who disbelieved. And if Allah had so willed, they would not have fought with one another; but Allah does what He desires.
- Muhammad ‘Ali translation, Surah Baqarah, Chapter 255

This verse hints at the two different kinds of prophets: law-bearing and non-law-bearing. Notice where the verse says, “among them there are those to whom Allah spoke”. There is no such thing as a prophet to whom Allah did not speak. So, this part of the verse refers to the laws which certain prophets received. These are the law-bearing prophets. The verse continues by saying “and some of them He exalted in degrees of rank.” This part of the verse refers to non-law-bearing Prophets, who were honored by Allah, but did not bring forth any laws for their nation to follow. This verse is evidence that the Qur’an speaks of law-bearing and non-law-bearing prophets.

Muslim Response:

This is an attempt by the Ahmadis to interpret the Qur’an according to their pre-conceived notions of what they want it to mean, rather than reading the text as-is.

The crux of the refutation of this argument lays in an important distinction between the methods Allah employs to communicate to his prophets. What is known from the Qur’an is that Allah sent inspiration to all of the Prophets, but did not necessarily speak to them all.

For example, in Surah Baqarah verses 164 and 165, Allah says:

إِنَّا أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ كَمَا أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَى نُوحٍ وَالنَّبِيِّينَ مِن بَعْدِهِ وَأَوْحَيْنَا إِلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإْسْحَقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَالأَسْبَاطِ وَعِيسَى وَأَيُّوبَ وَيُونُسَ وَهَارُونَ وَسُلَيْمَانَ وَآتَيْنَا دَاوُودَ زَبُورًا

وَرُسُلاً قَدْ قَصَصْنَاهُمْ عَلَيْكَ مِن قَبْلُ وَرُسُلاً لَّمْ نَقْصُصْهُمْ عَلَيْكَ وَكَلَّمَ اللّهُ مُوسَى تَكْلِيمًا

164. Surely, We have sent revelation to thee, as We sent revelation to Noah and the Prophets after him; and We sent revelation to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and his children and to Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and We gave David a Book.

165. And We sent some Messengers whom We have already mentioned to thee and some Messengers whom We have not mentioned to thee - and to Moses Allah spoke at great length

In verse 164, the Qur’an says Allah sent revelation (أَوْحَيْنَا) to the prophets. Then, in verse 165, the Qur’an specifies that Allah spoke to Musa (كَلَّمَ اللّهُ مُوسَى). Notice the distinction between revelation and speech. This is because Musa was one of the few prophets who spoke to Allah directly, without the intermediary of an angel. For example, Surah Ta-Ha starting from verse 12, describes the entire conversation between Allah and Musa. Again in Surah Nisa verse 165 Allah speaks to Musa. Likewise, Allah spoke directly to the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم during the journey of al-Mi’raaj and even negotiated the daily prayers down to five.[1] [2] This is what is meant when Allah says he spoke directly to some of the prophets.

The verse continues by saying “and some of them He exalted in degrees of rank.” All prophets are honored, but some are honored above others. For example, al-Azam min ar-Rusul, the greatest from amongst the Prophets, are Muhammad, Ibrahim, Musa, ‘Esa and Nooh عليهم السلام.

The Ahmadis have attempted to interpret speech as laws, and honored as non-law-bearing. This outrageous extrapolation is simply not the meaning of the verse, cannot be implied from the text of verse, nor was the agreed upon by any of the traditional scholars of Islam.

Ahmadi Response:

وَمَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ أَن يُكَلِّمَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَّا وَحْيًا أَوْ مِن وَرَاء حِجَابٍ أَوْ يُرْسِلَ رَسُولًا فَيُوحِيَ بِإِذْنِهِ مَا يَشَاء إِنَّهُ عَلِيٌّ حَكِيمٌ

And it is not for a man that Allah should speak to him except by direct revelation, or from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger to reveal by His command what He pleases. Surely, He is High, Wise.

The Qur’an says that there are only three mediums Allah uses to communicate to humanity: through direct revelation, from behind a veil and through a messenger (ie, angel). There is no fourth medium. So, direct speech is not a valid medium of communication between Allah and his prophets. This implies that there was an intermediary between Muhammad and Musa عليها السلام in both examples, such as an angel.

Muslim Rebuttal:

When the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم spoke to Allah, he did not see him. He could only see the veil of light. [3] This is confirmed because Abu Musa al-Ash’ari رضي الله عليه said that the veil, separating Allah and the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم is light. [4]

Similarly, Surah Al-A’raaf verse 144 proves that Musa عليه السلام did not see Allah. And, Surah Ta-Ha does not suggest that there was any sort of angelic intermediary, whatsoever.

For those who place a sense of trust in classical Islamic scholarship, this interpretation is agreed upon by all of the books of Qur’an exegesis that I researched, such as Tafseer Jalalayn (written by someone whom the Ahmadis believe was a Mujaddid), Tafseer ar-Raazi, Tafseer Ibn Katheer (written by the student of someone whom the Ahmadis believe was a Mujaddid), Tafseer at-Tabari (one of the earliest books of Tafseer ever), and many others.

Next Ahmadi Argument:

إِنَّا أَنزَلْنَا التَّوْرَاةَ فِيهَا هُدًى وَنُورٌ يَحْكُمُ بِهَا النَّبِيُّونَ الَّذِينَ أَسْلَمُواْ لِلَّذِينَ هَادُواْ وَالرَّبَّانِيُّونَ وَالأَحْبَارُ بِمَا اسْتُحْفِظُواْ مِن كِتَابِ اللّهِ وَكَانُواْ عَلَيْهِ شُهَدَاء فَلاَ تَخْشَوُاْ النَّاسَ وَاخْشَوْنِ وَلاَ تَشْتَرُواْ بِآيَاتِي ثَمَنًا قَلِيلاً وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ

Surely, We sent down the Torah wherein was guidance and light. By it did the Prophets, who were obedient to Us, judge for the Jews, as did the godly people and those learned in the Law, because they were required to preserve the Book of Allah, and because they were guardians over it. Therefore fear not men but fear Me; and barter not My signs for a paltry price. And whoso judges not by that which Allah has sent down, these it is who are the disbelievers.

- Surah Ma’idah, Verse 45

As the verse explains, first Allah sent the Torah, through a law-bearing prophet, that contained the laws for the Jews to follow. Then, he sent a succession of non-law-bearing prophets who judged according to the Torah. This verse implicitly explains the distinction between law-bearing and non-law-bearing prophets.

Muslim Response:

If this verse was taken in isolation, the Ahmadis would have a tenable position, but further analysis weakens their belief.

According to the Ahmadis, ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام is a “non-law-bearing prophet.”[5] It is true that he came to confirm the Torah. But, consider Surah Ale ‘Imraan verse 51, where ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام says:

وَمُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيَّ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَلِأُحِلَّ لَكُم بَعْضَ الَّذِي حُرِّمَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَجِئْتُكُم بِآيَةٍ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ فَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ وَأَطِيعُونِ

‘And I come fulfilling that which is before me, namely, the Torah; and to allow you some of that which was forbidden unto you, and I come to you with a Sign from your Lord; so fear Allah and obey me;’

This verse brings forth three objections to the Ahmadi position. First, while ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام fulfills the Torah, but per the mandate of Allah, he also modified and altered the existing laws. Some of the scholars of Islam comment that this means he allowed certain foods that were previously impermissible and made work permissible on their Sabbath. Either way, he was authorized to modify law. This would effectively make him a “law-bearing” prophet.

Second, consider that in the Islamic legal system there are two sources of law: the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم, preserved through the books of hadith. The obligation to obey the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم is outlined in dozens of verse, such as Surah Alee ‘Imraan verse 133 where Allah says:

وَأَطِيعُواْ اللّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ

And obey Allah and the Messenger that you may be shown mercy.

Allah used the word أَطِيعُواْ, the command form of the word obey, and from this one can gather that it is legally incumbent upon all Muslims to obey his commandments. Next, consider that this same root-word is used with regards to ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام. He tells the Bani Isra’eel to fear Allah and َأَطِيعُونِ (obey me). The obligation upon Bani Isra’eel to obey ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام makes him a “law-bearing” prophet just as the obligation upon the Muslims to obey the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم, in addition to the Qur’an, makes him a “law-bearing” prophet.

This analysis is not specific to ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام. Even if not all prophets were given revelatory scriptures, all prophets gave orders, and their commandments were incumbent upon their communities, thus making them all “law-bearing” prophets.[6]

And We have sent no Messenger but that he should be obeyed by the command of Allah. And if they had come to thee, when they had wronged their souls, and asked forgiveness of Allah, and the Messenger also had asked forgiveness for them, they would have surely found Allah Oft-Returning with compassion, and Merciful.
- Surah Nisa’ Verse 65

Conclusion:

It is entirely possible that there is a distinction between law-bearing and non-law-bearing prophets, and even some modern Muslim scholars have commented on this idea. But, any conclusion thereof stems from deduction, not manifest evidence.

Even if there truly is a distinction between law-bearing and non-law-bearings prophets, there is no concise explanation anywhere in the Qur’an. But, such a distinction is foundational to Ahmadiyya, as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be a “non-law-bearing” prophet. If Ahmadiyya is the True Islam, as they claim, that would mean Allah mistakenly left out a fundamental pillar required to accept one of his later prophets, or ciphered this belief in what seems to be otherwise unrelated verses, effectively dumbfounding the masses of those who believe in the Qur’an sending them to hellfire.

No, the guidance from Allah is clear. The concept of “law-bearing” and “non-law-bearing” prophets does not exist anywhere in the Qur’an. Any argument which uses this as a pillar rests on weak grounds and is subject to dismissal, including the entire Ahmadiyya religion.

May Allah guide our Ahmadi friends to Islam.

A sign that reads “behind these walls is the Moubarak Mosque” is the only clue on a street in the French town of Saint-Prix to the presence of the first mosque to be built in in the country for the Ahmadiyya movement. The modern building blends in with the others in this residential neighbourhood. 

Thierry Kponou, a member of the community, said: “The word Moubarak means ‘benediction’ and ‘thank you’. This is really an appropriate name for a mosque built with the help of so many people!” 

These people are the Ahmadis, a community that considers itself Muslim, though rejected by mainstream Islam. 1,000 Ahmadis live in France. Most settled here 26 years ago in the town of Saint-Prix. They reject the idea of Holy War and advocate peace. 

Omar Ahmed, a mosque official, said the community is founded upon “love for all, hate for no one. We embrace all the concepts related to this philosophy: mutual aid, solidarity. This has been our path for more than a century.” 

The movement was founded in 1889 in India by Ghulam Ahmad, who claimed to be the Mahdi, the promised messiah. The 20-million-strong community is now established in 193 countries across the world. Despite distinctive beliefs, their spiritual culture is similar to Islam. 

Ashfaq Rabbani, president of the Ahmadiyya community in France, said: “We pray five times a day. We fast, observe the Ramadan, celebrate Eid. It’s all the same: the Ahmadiyya community respects the five pillars of Islam and accept the Koran as the holy text. The only difference is that we believe that Ghulam Madhi is the promised messiah.” 

It is for this belief that the Ahmadis were labelled “non-Muslim” by the Organization of the Islamic Conference in 1973.

Masroor Ahmad, the caliph and fifth successor to the self-proclaimed Mahdi, came from London to inaugurate the mosque. He is the community’s supreme leader, similar to the pope for the Catholics. 

Ahmed Nasser, an Ahmadi missionary, said: “We say that the messiah is here to shine his light on what religions have taught us and to reunite all these religions.” 

Discriminated against in many countries, particularly Pakistan, the Ahmadi have generated a lot of anger, mostly among extremist Muslims.

The mayor of Saint-Prix, Jean-Pierre Enjalbert, was at first against the idea of an Ahmadiyya mosque in his town, but later changed his mind and gave his approval. 

Said Enjalbert: “What reassured us is the fact we’ve got to know them through all these years, had time to observe them, see how they act. I came to many meetings, listened to what they had to say and learned what their message was.” 

Thanks to satellite TV and the Internet, the Ahmadiyya message is reaching beyond borders and local censorship. Broadcasting 24 hours a day, their TV Channel airs the inauguration ceremonies for each new mosque live. The next one is due to open in Berlin this week.

We quoted an article from a Pakistani newspaper to invite discussion. At no point in that blog entry (to which the original writer at ahmedi.org linked to, but which the admin deleted for fear that any silent Muslim readers of that Islam-bashing forum still remaining might come here) did this site make a stand on the issues. There is a debate in the comments section about the article and that’s how it should be. 

After all, ahmedi.org has a long history of publishing all kinds of material by all kinds of writers, but now the Qadiani admin calls us a hate site whilst he continues to bleed Muslims from his site and promote, encourage and shelter Islam-bashers like the quite disgusting phippi46 (now sumuque) and the hateful “Mullah do Plaza”

What a sad day it is that a site that once welcomed Muslims, now only has very rare contributions from Muslims on an ad hoc basis. The site is a shadow of what it used to be because the admin of the site got it into his head that Muslims are terrorist scum. Sound like Qadiani logic to you? That’s because it is.

Those who left ahmedi.org after being scorned, ridiculed, censured and censored are branded hate-merchants, despite their enormous contributions to that site’s success in its halcyon heyday. Coming from a Qadiani who despises Muslims whilst claiming to speak for them, that is rich.

We at TheCult.info do not promote hatred of anything but evil. We are proud to stand up to tyranny, hypocrisy and oppression. We are proud to be Muslims and we welcome Muslims to our site. We also welcome Qadianis to Islam. May they keep coming, as they have been, insha’Allah.

Peace unto those who follow the guidance.

More Qadiyanis serve in the Israeli Armed Forces than Pakistan according to a book, ‘Israel: A Profile’, by a respected Jewish Professor I.T Naomi. He stated: ‘… and the Ahmadi sect of some 600 people from Pakistan can also serve in the (Israeli) army…’ To many analysts Qadiaynis are a political issue and have always been a security problem? In India Qadiyanis have collected and donated thousands to the Indian Army fund after Kargil.

On 15th February 1987, Pakistani Foreign Minister, Sahibzada Yakub Khan declared in the National Assembly that there were 328 Qadiyani officers of different ranks in the Pakistan Armed Forces. According to his report 1, Lt. General, 5 Brigadiers in the army and 1 similar rank in the Air Force = 6, Colonial 10 Army, 2 Navy, 3 Air Force= 15, Lt. Colonials 56 Army, 6 Navy, 11 Air Force = 73, Major 135 Army, 5 Navy, 16 Air Force = 156, Captain 58 Army, 5 Navy, 14 Air Force = 77,  Total 328.

600 Qadiyanis serve in the Israeli Armed Forces according to a book, ‘Israel: A Profile’, by Professor I.T Naomi,  and 238 in Pakistan armed forces.

“Give peace to the Ahmadis if you want peace in Karachi”, a senior Qadiyani leader said to me

Now the question is after 20 years where are these officers? How far up have they gone? What is their current status in the armed forces and intelligence agencies? “Qadiyanis were created for political reasons and also to confuse the Muslims especially on the matter of ‘Jihad”, said a senior analyst.

‘Give peace to the Ahmadis if you want peace in Karachi’, in 1995 a very senior Qadiyani leader said to me while sitting in one of his fully licensed restaurant at Wilmslow Road, Manchester. It was the time when Benazir Bhutto’s government was doing ‘operation clean up’ in Karachi under interior minister Naseerullah Babar.

I had an invitation to attend a conference on Human Rights at the United Nations in this context a close friend took me to see Mr. Altaf Hussain at his London offices in August 1995. They showed us some videos about the bad treatment to their workers in Karachi. In the context of ‘Jinnahpur conspiracy’ allegations, I suggested Mr Altaf Husain, ‘don’t say anything which you cannot take back like Mujeeb-ur- Rehman’s six points’. As liver damage caused by drinking alcohol and smoking of hashish are irreversible.

Tariq Aziz reportedly Qadiyani relative of Rehman Malik and former president Musharaf’s National Security Advisor has been hired for the ‘track two diplomacy with India’. His rank and salary would be equivalent to a federal minister. No wonder MQM and PPP are reportedly planning to move a motion in the parliament to undo the declaration of Qadiaynis as non Muslims by ZA Bhutto led Parliament on 7th September 1974.

On 8th September 2008, Mr Altaf Hussain said, ‘a widespread conspiracy against the MQM of sending fax letters and emails to individuals and to Imam Bargahs and Mosques domestically and internationally inciting hatred and provocations against Shiite and Ahmadi sects to malign the image of the MQM and falsely portray it to be against Shiite and Ahmadi sects”.

Altaf Hussain prayed for the forgiveness of Mirza Tahir Ahmad Qadiyani leader, who died in London few of years ago. One wonders why Altaf did not attend his funeral? As a matter of courtesy one expects to say condolences provided the other side accept? Sir Zafrullah did not attend the funeral of Muhammad Ali Jinnah (father of the nation) conducted by a Sunni Muslim. Altaf Hussain prayed for the forgiveness of Qadiyani leader Mirza Tahir but have they accepted his condolences?

Impact magazine wrote: ‘The National Assembly (in 1974) would go to remove a long standing but an unnecessary anomaly. The decision would serve only to formalise the defacto even de jure position. The problem had arisen not because the Muslims in some fit of orthodoxy or fanaticism wanted to ‘excommunicate’ any group of people. Its origin, on the other hand, lay in the assumption by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadiyan of Messiahship, and prophethood  and as a consequence, branding those who did not believe in him to be outside the pale of his Islam.
The Qadiyani view of their relationship with Muslims was well summarised by their second caliph, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad:

“Our worship has been separated from the non –Ahmadis, we are prohibited from giving our daughters (in marriage) to them and we have been stopped from offering prayers for their dead. What then left that we can do together? There are two kinds of ties: one religious the other mundane. The greatest expression of the religious bond is in common worship and in matters mundane, these are the ties of family and marriage. But then both are forbidden (haram) to us. If you say that we are permitted to take their daughter (in marriage), then I would reply that we are allowed to marry the daughters of Christians as well. If you say why do we Salam (salute) to non- Ahmadis, then the reply to this is that … the Prophet (Muhammad) has said Salam to the Jews… Thus the Promised Messiah (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) has separated us, in all possible ways, from the others; and there is no kind of relationship which is particular to Muslims and we are not forbidden from (entering into) that”, (Kalimatul Fazsl’, by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in Review of Religions).

In 1935 that Sir Mohammad Iqbal, a poet philosopher asked the British Government to declare the Qadiyanis as separate community just as they done with the Sikhs. Sir Iqbal said, ‘the Qadiyanis while pursuing a policy of separation in religion and social matters’, however, anxious to remain politically with the fold. The Qadiyanis will never take initiative for separation’, argued Sir Iqbal because their small number (56,000) according to 1931 census would not entitle them ‘even to a single seat in any legislature. The Qadiyanis asked the British Government that, ‘our rights too should be recognised like those of Parsees and Christians reported (Al Fadhi 13th November 1946).

“It was common knowledge that Jalaluddin Qamar, the Ahmedyah Missionary of Rabwah had been serving in Israel since 1956 when Ch. Muhammad Sharif was called back to Pakistan from Israel. All Qadiyani missionaries who had been formerly posted in Israel since 1928 namely J.D Shams, Allah Dita Jalundhari, Rashid Ahmed Chaughtai, Noor Ahmad and Ch. Sharif lived in Rabwah after serving in Israel. Their families had mysterious contact channels when they were in Israel”, wrote Bashir Ahmad in ‘Ahmadiyah Movement: British Jewish Connection.

As far as Jewish help and support is concerned, Mirza Mubarak Ahmad, grandson of the Qadiyani prophet has himself acknowledged in his book ‘OUR FOREIGN MISSIONS’,  PP. 79-80 in the following words: “The Ahmadiyya mission in Israel is situated in Haifa at Mount Karmal. We have a mosque there, a mission house, a library, a book depot and a school”.

According to latest reports ‘Altaf Hussain is receiving instructions from foreign players including Indians and $ millions from the business community in Karachi’.  He had many meetings with US diplomat Robin Raphael reportedly. Therefore when Altaf Hussain says, ‘LOC should be made permanent border’.

He seemingly follows Indo-US line on Kashmir according to Milligazette.com, ‘US Intentions in Kashmir’ by M. Ahmad Kazmi:

“The US policy-makers in the post-cold war era seem to be increasingly aggressive to implement the Dixon Plan in Kashmir for attaining ultimate target of having a foothold in the region and to use Kashmir as their main operations station. Before going into the US activities in the region it would be useful to understand the broad framework of the Dixon Plan. Named after its author Sir Owen Dixon, who was the UN representative for India and Pakistan in 1950, the plan envisages a division of Kashmir between India and Pakistan. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru favoured this plan, but it was a non-starter because Liyaqat Ali Khan, the then prime minister of Pakistan, rejected it. The US policy makers have resurrected this plan in recent years with some refinement. In the first phase, the idea of recognizing the Line of Control (LOC) as an international border is being mooted through different quarters”.

A senior analyst said, ‘Altaf Hussain’s latest filtration with the Qadiyanis is not a coincident? So what is he up to? Start civil war in Karachi? Cripple the economy? If Altaf Hussain goes down that route then Government of Pakistan should ask for his extradition, closure of so called ‘international secretariat’, international investigation into MQM funds starting from London, Dubai, Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, Canada and United States. Otherwise it will not be possible to provide a safe route to NATO and allied forces 80% supplies and 40% fuel delivered in Afghanistan via Karachi port? United States and allies need to inform the world what are their real objectives in Afghanistan?’

(Dr Shahid Qureshi is senior award wining investigative journalist and writer on security, foreign policy, and terrorism based in London)

Clearly, there are not 600 Qadianis in the Israeli army. I doubt that there is even one. Estimates put the total number of Qadianis in Palestine at around 600 to 1000. They do have their own satellite station there (expensive, I wonder how they fund it?) and it broadcasts in Arabic, obviously not trying to “convert” Jews at all.

One should ask why the Qadianis there get special treatment and why they never have a bad word to say about the world champion of oppression and tyranny.