Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was an Uncle Tom

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.

The Mirzas were Traitors Vol. 1

I am reading a book written by William Wilson Hunter titled The Indian Musalmans (1872). Hunter relates the story of Syed Ahmad Barelvi and how he rallied the Muslims of India, Afghanistan and Bengal to do jihad against Ranjeet Singh and the Sikhs. Hunter explained how the British were afraid of what jihad could do to their businesses. Jihad was a very dangerous concept and the Hunter thought that the British ought to have been aware of it. They also needed to find a way to quell any thoughts of rebellion amongst the Muslims. Hunter writes that legally a Muslim could not do jihad against a ruler who allowed Muslims to practice their religion peacefully. This was the strategy of the British once they came to power.

It is my opinion that Mirza Ghulam, who came from a long line of traitors, was commissioned not by Allah but by the British. I will provide documentation of these tendencies from a family in Qadian, India.

“On June the 11th, 1849, Mr. J. M. Wilson, Financial Commissioner, Lahore, wrote from Lahore to Mirza Ghulam Murtaza: ‘I have perused your application reminding me of you and your family’s past services and rights. I am well aware that since the introduction of the British Government you and your family have certainly remained devoted, faithful and steady subjects and that your rights are really worthy of regard. In every respect you may rest assured and satisfied that the British Government will never forget your family rights and services which will receive due consideration when a favourable opportunity offers itself. You must continue to be faithful and devoted subjects as in it lies the satisfaction of the Government as well as your own welfare.’ (Life of Ahmad by DARD pg. 17)

As you can see from the above quote, the British not only were indebted to the Mirza family but they were anxious to repay them for their services. Also, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s father and uncles were in the Sikh army as they killed other Muslims. While Muslims were being killed this Mirza family that was fighting alongside the Sikhs!

“He [the father of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad] then, with his brothers, entered the army of the Maharaja, and performed efficient service on the Kashmir frontier and at other places.” (Life of Ahmad by Dard pg. 16)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s brother: “General Nicholson gave Ghulam Qadir a certificate, stating that in 1857 the Qadian family showed greater loyalty than any other in the district.” (pg. 17)

WE CAN WHAT WE WILL DO—CIRCA 1883

Ahmadiyya – A New Religion

The team behind TheCult.info has been working very hard behind the scenes to secure some hitherto buried nuggets of Ahmadiyya history, unrevealed in English until now.

Recently, we made a startling discovery. The image says it all. And shortly, we will make available the full source of the book from which this audacious claim was made.

How did our ancestors fall for this man?

The Last Messenger?

Beliefs of the Early Muslims

بسم الله الحمد الله و صلاة و سلام على رسول الله

The earliest Muslims!  What did they believe?  They were closer to the prophetic cup of guidance than any modern-day Muslim.  I mean, we are talking about people whose grandparents might have known the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم personally.  So, one can reasonably conclude that what the earliest Muslims believed is closer to the true beliefs of Islam.  But, how do we know what they believed?  Do we just guess?  I mean, all groups of Islam quote the Qur’an and all believe they are the logical ones.  How do we know who is upon the truth…?

Lets go 1100 years into the past to Baghdad, the heart of the Muslim world.  There are all sorts of internal conflicts, political disputes, new sects and ideologies proping up left and right.  Even the khilafah was been taken over by a deviant sect for a few generations. [From Mu’tasim to Ma’mun]

Many of the early groups, with their deviant theologies and beliefs, such as the Mu’tazilites, the Qadariyya, the Jabariyya, the Jahmiyya and even some early groups of the Shi’a do not even exist anymore.  But, in this mix, the mainstream Muslims lived, practiced, spread their teachings based primarily on the Qur’an and prophetic tradition, and most relevant to this analysis, wrote books summarizing and codifying what they believed to distinguish themselves from the other deviant sects of Islam.

Within the first 200 years of Islam, a great scholar named Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Tahawi رحمه الله codified the beliefs of the mainstream Muslims, to the exclusion of the other deviant sects.  The name of his creed is called ‘Aqidah al-Tahawi.  This text survived in its complete form to this day and is accepted by all orthodox Muslims, regardless of the relatively minor differences they have between them.  It is worth noting that Ahmadis consider themselves to be a “subsect” of the mainstream Sunni Islam. [Ref 1 below]

I did a quick google search and found it available on multiple sites here:

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/tahawi.htm
http://alghazzali.org/resources/articles/aqeedahNotes.pdf
http://www.central-mosque.com/aqeedah/tahawi.htm
http://www.alhaqq.net/AqeedahAtTahawiyyah.PDF

Some copies offer commentary, and the English translation is slightly different from place to place, but the meaning is essentially the same.

Ahmadis could argue that this text is man-made and is not binding upon them.  That is technically true, but it holds a very high degree of authority, because it was written during the earliest period of Islam during the greatest period of scholarship, intellectual pursuit and religious purity (within Orthodox Islam).  If there are disputes amongst the Muslims, both believing they are following the Qur’an, the prophetic traditions, and logic, it is safest to refer back to what the earliest Muslims believed before such deviations and alterations in religion.

I want my Ahmadi friends to read what the earliest Muslims believed about prophethood around point 30.  What you will notice is that the concept of the continuation of “non-law-bearing” prophets never existed amongst the earliest Muslims.  Instead, al-Tahawi made the unconditional statements that anyone who claims to be a new prophet after Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم is upon “falsehood and deceit”.

This means that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a false prophet and is to be rejected.  Muhammad عليه صلاة و سلام is the last of the prophets, there are no prophets after him.

May Allah guide the Ahmadis to Islam.  Ameen!

[Ref 1] Welcome to Ahmadiyyat, The True Islam, page 205
http://www.alislam.org/books/ahmadiyyat/WelcomeBook2ndEd.pdf

Was Mirza Persian?

Narrated in Sahih Bukhari, Book 31, Hadith 6177

“Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: If the din were at the Pleiades, even then a person from Persia would have taken hold of it, or one amongst the Persian descent would have surely found it.

The Ahmadis often argue that this hadith refers to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.  How, you ask?  Because he revived Islam and was of Persian ancestry.  So, does this hadith refer to him?  Lets analyze.

Historically, the Persian people carried the banner of Islam for hundreds of years.  Many of the great scholars of Islam, in its various sciences from Fiqh (codified law), to ‘aqidah (theology), to Arabic grammar, to spirituality were Persian.  For example, Imam al-Ghazali, Al-Zamakhshari (The great scholar of the Arabic language) and many many others.

Now, they argue, that another Persian man has come to revive Islam.  Whether or not he really revived Islam aside, was Mirza Persian?  …was he really?  Lets analyze.

According to the modern definition of nationality, the Ahmadis might have a valid argument.  If they can show that his ancestry hailed from Persia, then he is Persian.  But, this understanding of race and nationality is not in accordance with the Islamic understanding.  It is based off of the nationalistic European understanding of race and ethnicity that crept into the collectively Muslim psyche during the periods of colonization.  But, this is not how Muslims historically understand nationality.

Traditionally, nationality was based on where someone lived, not where their ancestry hailed. For example, the great companion Suhayb ar-Rumi’s background was Arab from the village of al-Thani.  At a young age, he was captured and sold as a slave into the Byzantine empire and lived amongst them, but eventually returned to Arabia.  Even though he was ethnically Arab, he was called a Roman.  Likewise, Ahmad ibn Ibrahim “Ibn Nuhaas” the author of Kitab al-Jihad [not of the pen!], was called Al-Dimashqi (the Syrian) because he was originally from Syria and when he relocated to Egypt, he was called al-Dumyati (a city in Egypt).  His nationality changed based on his area of residence.

Were people cognizant of their ancestory?  Yes, of course.  But, that was less important, more of a minute- a trivial detail.  Nationality was based on your place of birth and/or your place of residence (depending on who you asked).  If your great great grandparents were from Samarqand (modernday Uzbekistan), but you were born and raised in Iraq, you were Iraqi.  If you moved to Al-Andulus (Spain) and settled there, you were Aundulusi.  At most, your ancestry mattered two to three generations back.

How does Mirza measure up to this standard?  Mirza never left India for any significant amount of time [not even to perform Hajj].  He lived and died in India.  His father Mirza Ghulam Murtaza, grandfather Mirza Ata Muhammad and great grandfather Mirza Gul Muhammad were all from India.  He even referred to himself as ” Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani”  Based on this classical understanding, Mirza was 100% Hindi (Indian), not Persian. Therefore, the narrations about the Persian people and how they will revive Islam have nothing to do with him.

And we put our trust in Allah that He made guide the Ahmadis to Islam.