Yalesh is Yalash is Satan

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.