Intro
After claiming to be the Promised Messiah in 1891-1892 and alleging that to the best of his knowledge, he had not used even one word which can be called abusive (Izala Auham, pages 13–14; see Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 3, p. 109). Interestingly, MGA and his team of writers quoted 68:13 (68:14 in the Kadiani Koran) and translated “zaneem” as “the one who is a fornicator and bastard”. In 1891, MGA also said that “A momin isn’t someone who (frequently) curses (at people)” (See Izala Auham, Rk-3, page 456 and Bro Imtiaz’s explanation, 39:48 time stamp).

In 1892-1893, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad famously said:

“Every Muslim will accept me and will confirm my claim except the zurrayatul baghaya whose hearts will have been sealed up by God Almighty.” (See Aina-e-Kamalat-e-Islam, Roohani Khazain vol.5 p.547, At-tabligh, Urdu, Online English edition, page 524). In the 2025-English edition, “zurrayatul baghaya” is translated as the “progeny of the rebellious”.

In 1894, via an Arabic only book (with a translation in Urdu), Nurul-Haq (Part-1)(See page 263 Online English Edition). MGA wrote out the word “curse” 1000 times in psychopath style.

In 1898, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad accused Maryam of meeting and “hanging-around” (pirhna) with Joseph before her marriage with him.

In 1894, MGA said Muslims who are saying that the Christians won the debate are eager to be considered a bastard and is not legitimate (born out of wedlock)(See Anwarul Islam, p. 30).

In 1894, MGA said:

“””It should be known that each person who is ‘wald-ul-halaal’ [of legitimate birth] and is not from ‘dhurriyat-ul-baghaayaa’ [the progeny of prostitutes, stated in the Urdu text as ‘kharaab aurtoan … kee nasl’, meaning, the progeny of bad women] and [the] progeny of dajjaal, he will definitely accept one of the two things. Either he will abstain from lying and false accusations after this or [he will] produce a publication like this publication of mine.”” [RK, v. 8, p. 163; approximately middle of the page; Noor-ul-Haq](See Nur-ul-Haq (1894), volume 8 of Roohani Khazain, Part-1, Pg. 163).

In 1898, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad disputed the status of Esa (as)’s mother as “Siqqidah” in english as “truthful”. In this era, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad cursed at his critics, even calling them pigs, bitches and sons of prostitutes. Check out our detailed essay on MGA and how he called his deniers as “children of prostitutes”.

In 1902, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed that Jesus’ example of morals was quite worthless and misleading (See English-ROR February-1902, page-43).

In 1908, MGA said that disrespecting a prophet of Allah is Kufr (see Chashma-e-Ma‘rifat, Ruhani Khaza’in, Vol. 23, page 389 and 26:28 time stamp).

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________The quotes
______________________________________________________________________________________________1890
IZALA AUHAM PART 1 PAGES 9 ONWARD RK Vol-3, page 104-105

______________________________________________________________________________________________
1890
Izala Auham, RK, V-3, page 108

“”The first objection against this humble (MGA) is that, in my writings, I have used harsh language against my opponents. And this is what provoked them (i.e., non-Muslims) to write a  blasphemous book filled with abuses against Allah and Muhammad (Saw)””. 

Scans
______________________________________________________________________________________________1890
Izala Auham, pages 13–14; see Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 3, p. 109

“”””“I say truly, absolutely truly, that I have not, to the best of my knowledge, used even one word which can be called abusive. A misconception arises because most people fail to differentiate between hurling abuse and narrating the truth, and consider them to be the same. They regard what is the relating of a fact in its proper place to be abuse, solely because of a degree of harshness in it which is unavoidable when speaking the truth. Actually, the definition of abuse and offensive language is that it is something which is against facts and false, and used merely to cause hurt. If we label every harsh and hurtful statement as abuse solely because of its bitterness, unpleasantness and hurtfulness, then we shall have to admit that the entire Holy Quran is filled with foul language. The harsh words used in the Holy Quran to degrade the idols and to disgrace the idol-worshippers, and to curse and condemn them, are not such as would please the idol-worshippers. On the contrary, they would undoubtedly further spark off their rage. When God the Most High addresses the unbelievers of Makka and says:

“Surely you and what you worship besides Allah are fuel of hell” [21:98],

is it not included in abusive language according to the criteria coined by the critic? Likewise, is it not abuse in the opinion of the critic when in the Holy Quran God the Most High calls the unbelievers “the worst of creatures” [98:6], and says that they are even worse than the most disgraced and filthy of creations. Has not God the Most High said in the Holy Quran: “be firm against them” [9:73]? Has it not been stated to be a sign of the believers that they are “hard against the disbelievers” [48:29]?””””
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1890
(pages 14–15; Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 3, p. 109–110)

“”””When Jesus calls the respectable religious lawyers and Pharisees of the Jews as swine and dogs, and their most honourable leader Herod a fox, and compares their respectable priests and jurists to whores, and as regards the revered leaders, who were accorded the highest respect by the Roman rulers and made to sit with honour in the Roman courts, he speaks of them in these offensive, very hurtful and uncivil words, calling them illegitimate, adulterous, evil, dishonourable, faithless, fools, hypocrites, satanic, doomed to hell, serpents and brood of vipers — are not these words very serious, filthy abuse in the opinion of the critic? From this it becomes evident that the objection of the critic does not only apply to me and my books but in reality he has attacked all the Divine scriptures and prophets with a burning heart.””””
_________________________________________________________________________________________________1890
Izala Auham Pages 25-29 Ruhani Khazain Volume 3 pages 115-117

“How openly the Holy Quran uses harsh language cannot remain unknown even to the most unintelligent and ignorant of people. For example, the civilized people of today consider it the height of abuse to curse someone. But the Holy Quran pointedly curses the unbelievers. It says: “These it is on whom is the curse of Allah and the angels and men, of all of them, abiding therein” [2:162-163], and: “These it is whom Allah curses, and those who curse, curse them too” [2:160]. Similarly, it is obvious that to liken a human being to a beast is a form of abuse. However, the Holy Quran not only calls them beasts but declares that the unbelievers and deniers are worse than all the creatures on the face of the earth, as it says: “Surely the vilest of beasts in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve” [8:55]. In the same way, it is clear that it is against the manners of present day culture to make a particular person a target of abuse by taking his name or by referring to him, but in the Holy Quran God the Most High has applied to some the name Abu Lahab, and to some the titles dog and swine. Then Abu Jahal is well known as such.

Similarly, regarding Walid Mughira the harshest possible words are used which apparently are terms of filthy abuse, as it says: […Here the Quran 68:9–17 is quoted in Arabic…]. In other words, do not follow what these unbelievers say, who wish from the bottom of their hearts that you abstain from abusing their gods and disgracing their religion, so that then they shall also apparently approve your religion. Do not be misled by the slickness of their tongues. This man who has appealed for compromise is a man who takes false oaths, is of weak opinion, and a degraded individual. He indulges in fault-finding in others and causes division among people by back biting. He hinders from the path of goodness, is guilty of illicit sexual acts, in his character he is a man of the worst morals, and besides all that he is of illegitimate birth. Very soon We shall brand his snout, which has grown long like that of swine. By a long snout is meant adherence to the customs and codes of honour of society which are a hindrance to the acceptance of the truth.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1890
(pages 29–31; Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 3, p. 117–118)

“””””There is another wisdom in the use of harsh language, that it awakens dormant hearts and rouses those people who like to nod in agreement. … If the truth is declared to them bluntly, with all its bitterness and unpleasantness, the good result of this is that their pretense to agreement is at once removed and they openly express their unbelief and ill-will, as if their suppressed ailment now manifests itself as burning temperature. So this incitement which severely provokes the minds, although it may be highly objectionable in the view of an unwise person, but an astute man can well understand that it is this arousal which provides the first step towards the acceptance of truth. …

The strong language used by the prophets was really for the same purpose of arousal, so that a stirring be created in the people, they awaken from slumber by this jolt and start pondering and thinking about religion, they make a movement for this purpose even if it is in opposition, they establish a connection with those who are proclaiming the truth even if it is a connection of hostility. It is to this that Allah the Glorious refers in the words: ‘In their hearts is a disease, so Allah increased their disease’ [2:10].”””””
________________________________________________________________________________________________1891
Izala Auham, Rk-3, page 456

39:48 time stamp

“A momin isn’t someone who (frequently) curses (at people)”

Scan
________________________________________________________________________________________________1893
Aina-e-Kamalat-e-Islam, Roohani Khazain vol.5 p.547, At-tabligh
What is At-Tabligh? the first ever Arabic book by MGA and his team – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
Online English edition, page 524

“Every Muslim will accept me and will confirm my claim except the zurrayatul baghaya whose hearts will have been sealed up by God Almighty.”

Scan


______________________________________________________________________________________________
1893-1894
RK, v-7, p. 348, Hamamatul-Bushra
RK, v-7, p. 328, Hamamatul-Bushra-Arabic
https://youtu.be/AibVObyWGTM?si=Doa4ZJ2eXWfuSRbF

MGA says he doesn’t cuss at people (3:43 time stamp). MGA says that he doesn’t put on lanaat on those are who always give lanaat.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
RK, v-7, p. 360, Hamamatul-Bushra
https://youtu.be/AibVObyWGTM?si=Doa4ZJ2eXWfuSRbF

MGA says, “when I found Muslims to be the dogs (of the earth)”. 

Shamsuddin gave a really nice point. MGA said that he found the Muslims to be the dogs (of the earth) so if Qadianis are “Muslims” then they are dogs according to MGA as well. If they aren’t dogs then they aren’t Muslims according to MGA. In any case, they either need to accept that as per the sunnah of their prophet, Muslims can call them dogs as well or they need to accept MGA as immoral.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1894
Anwarul Islam, p. 30).  See also https://www.alislam.org/library/book/truth-about-ahmadiyyat/opponents-promised-messiah/

“”””He who indulges in nonsense against this clear decision and out of wickedness goes on repeating that the Christians have achieved victory and continues immodest and shameless and without replying justly to our decision will not refrain from denial and the use of loose language and will not admit our victory will make it clear that he is eager to be considered a bastard and is not legitimate.”””

Transliteration
“”jo humaree fatah ka kial nay hai, to, saaf samajae jai ga, isko waladul haraam ka shokh hai, aur  hilal zada nay hai”. 

Scan

See Nur-ul-Haq (1894), volume 8 of Roohani Khazain, Part-1, Pg.158 – 162, in the below.

The scans

1894
See Nur-ul-Haq (1894), volume 8 of Roohani Khazain, Part-1, Pg. 163

“””It should be known that each person who is ‘wald-ul-halaal’ [of legitimate birth] and is not from ‘dhurriyat-ul-baghaayaa’ [the progeny of prostitutes, stated in the Urdu text as ‘kharaab aurtoan … kee nasl’, meaning, the progeny of bad women] and [the] progeny of dajjaal, he will definitely accept one of the two things. Either he will abstain from lying and false accusations after this or [he will] produce a publication like this publication of mine.”” [RK, v. 8, p. 163; approximately middle of the page; Noor-ul-Haq]

Scan
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1895

Bro Imtiaz recently quoted it herein (see 42:15 time stamp). Bro Imtiaz showed how MGA used the word “Kanjaree” (prostitute) for the grandmothers of Eisa (as), the corresponding ref can be found in the online english edition of “Mi‘yarul Madhahib” (The Criterion for Religions, see pages 23-24).

“Mi‘yarul Madhahib” (The Criterion for Religions)(1895)
RK-9, page 480

“””…strangely enough, the Holy Ghost continued to descend upon him everyday and the Psalms continued to be revealed rapidly, yet neither the Holy Ghost nor belief in the Atonement of Jesus could prevent him from immoralities and he ultimately died steeped in these vices. What is even more strange is that Atonement couldn’t even save the maternal and paternal grandmothers of Jesus from illicit sex, though it could not but smear the pristine purity of Jesus’ nature, particularly when there were as many as three such grandmothers. Thus one ‘revered’ maternal grandmother of Jesus, who in one sense was also his paternal grandmother, was Rehab, the harlot, i.e., a prostitute. (See Joshua 2: 1) The second maternal grandmother, who, in one sense, was also a paternal grandmother, was named Tamar. She was a woman of easy virtue like professional prostitutes. (See Genesis 38:16-30) Another maternal grandmother of Jesus, who in one sense was also a paternal grandmother of his, is known by the name of Bath-Sheba. She was none other than the ‘pious’ one who committed adultery with David. 5 (See 2 Samuel 11).””””

Scan

______________________________________________________________________________________________
1897

[RK, v. 12, p. 235; 6th verse on the page; Hujjatullaah]

And you [`Abdul Haq Ghaznavee] danced like a ‘baghiyya’ [prostitute] in gatherings
And established me as a transgressor although you are the greatest of transgressors.

Taken from Nuzhat Haneef’s book on Ahmadiyya

[RK, v. 12, p. 231; 5th , 6th, and 7th verses on the page; Hujjatullaah]
O `Abdul Haq [Ghaznavee] you took the initiative in vile epithets
So, I will invite you to a feast similar to the gift you have presented with your desire.
And you called me a dog and you uttered vile epithets
O you wretched/vicious one, you crossed the bounds.
And a dog is a form and you are its soul
Hence a person like you barks like a dog and complains.
…
You engaged in verbal impudence in the manner of ‘baghaaya’
And O monster, you have wronged yourself.
…

Scan

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1898
Anjam-e-Atham, RK vol. 11, page 282

Scan
Original with correct Persian translation :

_____________________________________________________________________________________________1898

In a book wherein there was Urdu, Arabic and Persian, MGA and his team wrote:

“Our enemies have becomes the pigs of the jungle, and their women have become worse than bitches”

The Arabic transliteration
“‘Inna-al idda sarat khanazeer-ul-fala, Nisa hum min doone hinnah aklobo”

The Urdu transliteration
“dushman humaray bayabanauan ke khanzeer go gaey aur un ki aurtain kuttiyan se barrh gaee hain” (Najamul Huda, page 53).  

THE scan
_____________________________________________________________________________________________The scan-work from the Lahori-translation

______________________________________________________________________________________________
The reference, see page 22

http://aaiil.org/text/books/mga/najmulhuda/najmulhudastarguides.shtml

 

The quote typed out
“”I have a friend and I am filled with his love, 
And I have an aversion to all rank and dignity
I see that the world and its votaries are 
                                                       stricken with famine, 

But that the land of my Love never suffers

                                                                from want.  
Men incline toward worldly pleasures while I 
Incline towards the Face which gives delight 
                                                                   and thrill
I am attached to the shining skirt of my Beloved
So much so that what was dull and dark has 
                                                              been illuminated in me.
My foes have been turned into the swine of 
                                                              the wilderness, 

And their women have been converted into 
                                                             worse than curs.
They abuse me and I know not why
They abuse me.  Should I prove false to my 
                                   Friend or turn back to Him !
I have sworn that I will not part from Him, 

Even though the lions should tear my body
                                                  or the wolves. 
The kingdom of men depart with their death, 

But the kingdom of my Love for ever stays.”””
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Scans from alislam.org

In MGA’s revealed sermon, wherein they claim that the angels were with MGA, he used the phrase, “bhagaya”, many years later, as it was translated into Urdu, the Ahmadi translator translated “bhagya” to mean ‘bazaari aurtain’, or english, “loose women”. Listen to Amir Haq explaining it herein at the 30:00 mark.

My explanation of this quote, MGA essentially says: And all day they have wasted their lives in two things. They happily gift each other meat. With mutton and beef. And happiness and colourful weddings. And striving with themselves and laughing. Laughing with their teeth and showing their two front teeth when laughing.And they have interest in bazari aurtein (prostitutes?) and want to kiss them and hug them and then want to grab their back sides (asses)… and for the problems of Islam we say inna lillah.

Scan

_____________________________________________________________________________________________1906
Roohani Khazain Volume 20 – Chashma Masihi (alislam.org)

In Chashma-e-Masihi (see page 16, online english edition), MGA accuses of Eisa (as) of calling Jewish elders as “Waladul Haraam” (Children of Prostitutes). However, in the english, the Qadiani-Ahmadi purposely mistranslated it as “misbegotten”. Thus, MGA was saying that Jesus (as) was bad for saying this, however, 10+ years earlier, MGA was saying it. Check out Adnan Rashid explaining this quote herein.

Full mistranslated quote
“”But, strangely enough, Jesus did not act upon his own moral teachings. He cursed the fig tree when he found it to be barren, while he exhorted others to pray. And while he taught others not to call anyone a fool, he himself went to the extent of calling the Jewish elders misbegotten (Waladul Haraam), hurling abuses at them in every sermon and calling them foul names. A teacher of morals must first exhibit those morals in himself. Could such a flawed teaching, which Jesus himself did not follow, be from God?””

 

Urdu scan

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1907
Al hakam volume 11, 24 February 1907
Malfuzat, Vol. 9, page 101

Here razi claims mga translated “ibn e baghay” as “sarkash insan” (9:33 timestamp).

Scan

Scan from Al hakam volume 11, 24 February 1907

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1907-–Haqiqatul Wahy

MGA quotes his poetry from 1897, however, he purposely leaves out the lines wherein he calls Sa’dullah the son of a prostitute (Ibn Bagha).

MGA also mentions Sa’dullah as Sign#188 in Haqiqatul Wahy
Just a few pages after mentioning the idea that Sa’dullah’s lineage had been cut off, MGA goes on to assert that Sa’dullah’s death was even predicted by MGA himself.  MGA calls Sa’dullah as Munshi Sa‘dullah of Ludhiana. MGA was claiming that he published an announcement about the death prophecy vs. Sa’dullah, however, no such announcement exists, he also claims that Sa’dullah verbally cussed at MGA and slandered him and predicted MGA’s death, however, none of that data has ever been seen.

Muhammad Ali advised MGA to leave out the Ibn Bagha  and other quotes out of Haqiqatul Wahy, MGA also mentions this in HW. However, by 1935, Mirza Bashir Ahmad said: The lawyer was Khwajah Kamal-ud-Din. In al-Hakam, volume 38, number 7, February 28, 1935, pages 3–4, narrating the eye-witness accounts of Maulavi Muhammad Ibrahim Baqapuri (see the 2009 online edition of Tadhkirah).  

Seeratul Mehdi, page 31 part 1.

(42) stated to me by shaikh Abdurehman misri that once Hazrat sb (MGAQ) kept sitting after zuhur prayer in masjid of qadiyan…an. Few days ago hazrat sb has written that Saadullah will remain without progeny. His son that is alive today, is impotent, will surely not be able to take his name ahead. This humble self says that saadullah was worst enemy of hazrat sb and used to talk bad against him. But before publishing this “ishtihar” molvi Muhammad Ali advised hazrat sb that publishing such ishtihar would be against law. He said if Saadullah filed a suit in the court we would not be in a position to prove impotency of his son. Hazrat sb did not agree, when molvi Muhammad Ali insisted on his advise , hazrat sahibs face turned red he got infuriated and said “when a prophet gets himself armed and comes to battle field, he does not disarm him”.

The scan

______________________________________________________________________________________________
1908
Chashma-e-Ma‘rifat, Ruhani Khaza’in, Vol. 23, page 389

26:28 time stamp

“””..it is obvious that how much respect and reverence Muslims have for Hazrat Eisa (as) and him as God’s beloved messenger and chosen one, but when a bigoted priest does not stop disrespecting the Prophet Muhammad (saw), and if his foul language goes beyond the limit, only then a Muslim, who has been hurt by the priest’s words, gives a reply that the priest finds harsh, it is an accusatory answer, but still their method (of answering) does not go beyond the boundaries of respect, rather (Muslims) still keeps good intentions in his heart. Because in Islam, disrespecting a prophet is disbelief, and it is obligatory to believe in all the prophets. So Muslims face great difficulties because they have loved ones on both sides, but it is better to be patient with the ignorant ones. It is because it is severe disobedience to even hint an insult to any prophet and it is the cause of divine wrath…”

Scans

______________________________________________________________________________________________
1931
Al-Fazl, July-30-1931, from Qadian Darul Aman

“”‘They object on (MGA) Maseeh-e-Maod..if they had in their hearts then why they had objected. It is not an abuse. But people say that. (MGA) Maseeh-e-Maod.. had objected upon Hazrat Eisa (as). I say if to save Islam and there is a need that for all the prophets such standing be adopted then there is no loss in it…””

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Allegation of using “abusive” language about his opponents

https://www.muslim.org/allegs/abuse.htm

 

Allegation of using “abusive” language about his opponents

The false allegation that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has used abusive words about his opponents in his writings is commonly advanced against him. One place in which this accusation is refuted is in the book Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement by Maulana Muhammad Ali within chapter 12. Please select this link to go to that location.

The following two basic points are important in understanding this whole issue:

 

1. 1. In the Holy Quran, as well as in the Bible, strong language has been used against the bitter opponents of the message of the prophets. This language is not abuse but is used to portray the low moral condition of those opponents, which the prophets came to expose starkly. For example, the Quran says: “They are those whom Allah has cursed and upon whom He brought His wrath and of whom He made apes and swine, and who serve the devil” (5:60). Likewise, the prophets in the Bible denounce their people in stinging terms such as the following: “you sons of a sorceress, offspring of an adulterer and a prostitute” (Isaiah, 57:3), and “For on every high hill and under every green tree you have lain down as a harlot” (Jeremiah, 2:20). Further examples are given later on.

 

1. In the Hadith reports of the Holy Prophet Muhammad relating to the distant future, the Ulama of the latter days have been condemned in strong terms such as “apes and swine”. These were the very leaders of the opponents that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad faced and they fulfilled the Holy Prophet’s prophecies about the state of the Ulama of the latter days. Thus Hazrat Mirza spoke of the evil ones among them, and only the evil ones, in harsh terms.

 

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s own reply

What Hazrat Mirza has himself said in reply to this allegation in his book Izala Auham is as follows:

 

---

“I say truly, absolutely truly, that I have not, to the best of my knowledge, used even one word which can be called abusive. A misconception arises because most people fail to differentiate between hurling abuse and narrating the truth, and consider them to be the same. They regard what is the relating of a fact in its proper place to be abuse, solely because of a degree of harshness in it which is unavoidable when speaking the truth. Actually, the definition of abuse and offensive language is that it is something which is against facts and false, and used merely to cause hurt. If we label every harsh and hurtful statement as abuse solely because of its bitterness, unpleasantness and hurtfulness, then we shall have to admit that the entire Holy Quran is filled with foul language. The harsh words used in the Holy Quran to degrade the idols and to disgrace the idol-worshippers, and to curse and condemn them, are not such as would please the idol-worshippers. On the contrary, they would undoubtedly further spark off their rage. When God the Most High addresses the unbelievers of Makka and says:

“Surely you and what you worship besides Allah are fuel of hell” [21:98],

is it not included in abusive language according to the criteria coined by the critic? Likewise, is it not abuse in the opinion of the critic when in the Holy Quran God the Most High calls the unbelievers “the worst of creatures” [98:6], and says that they are even worse than the most disgraced and filthy of creations. Has not God the Most High said in the Holy Quran: “be firm against them” [9:73]? Has it not been stated to be a sign of the believers that they are “hard against the disbelievers” [48:29]?”

(Izala Auham, pages 13–14; see Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 3, p. 109)

---

He then refer his critics to the example of Jesus:

---

“When Jesus calls the respectable religious lawyers and Pharisees of the Jews as swine and dogs, and their most honourable leader Herod a fox, and compares their respectable priests and jurists to whores, and as regards the revered leaders, who were accorded the highest respect by the Roman rulers and made to sit with honour in the Roman courts, he speaks of them in these offensive, very hurtful and uncivil words, calling them illegitimate, adulterous, evil, dishonourable, faithless, fools, hypocrites, satanic, doomed to hell, serpents and brood of vipers — are not these words very serious, filthy abuse in the opinion of the critic? From this it becomes evident that the objection of the critic does not only apply to me and my books but in reality he has attacked all the Divine scriptures and prophets with a burning heart.”(pages 14–15; Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 3, p. 109–110)

---

(For reference, see the following places in the Gospel of Matthew: ch. 12 v. 39; ch. 21 v. 31; ch. 23 verses 13, 15, 17, 33.)

Giving examples from the Holy Quran, Hazrat Mirza writes:

---

“How openly the Holy Quran uses harsh language cannot remain unknown even to the most unintelligent and ignorant of people. For example, the civilized people of today consider it the height of abuse to curse someone. But the Holy Quran pointedly curses the unbelievers. It says: “These it is on whom is the curse of Allah and the angels and men, of all of them, abiding therein” [2:161-162], and: “These it is whom Allah curses, and those who curse, curse them too” [2:159]. Similarly, it is obvious that to liken a human being to a beast is a form of abuse. However, the Holy Quran not only calls them beasts but declares that the unbelievers and deniers are worse than all the creatures on the face of the earth, as it says: “Surely the vilest of beasts in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve” [8:54]. In the same way, it is clear that it is against the manners of present day culture to make a particular person a target of abuse by taking his name or by referring to him, but in the Holy Quran God the Most High has applied to some the name Abu Lahab, and to some the titles dog and swine. Then Abu Jahal is well known as such.Similarly, regarding Walid Mughira the harshest possible words are used which apparently are terms of filthy abuse, as it says: […Here the Quran 68:8–16 is quoted in Arabic…]. In other words, do not follow what these unbelievers say, who wish from the bottom of their hearts that you abstain from abusing their gods and disgracing their religion, so that then they shall also apparently approve your religion. Do not be misled by the slickness of their tongues. This man who has appealed for compromise is a man who takes false oaths, is of weak opinion, and a degraded individual. He indulges in fault-finding in others and causes division among people by back biting. He hinders from the path of goodness, is guilty of illicit sexual acts, in his character he is a man of the worst morals, and besides all that he is of illegitimate birth. Very soon We shall brand his snout, which has grown long like that of swine. By a long snout is meant adherence to the customs and codes of honour of society which are a hindrance to the acceptance of the truth.”

(pages 25–29, footnote; Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 3, p. 115–117, footnote)

---

Word zaneem in verse 68:13 of the Quran

In the above extract Hazrat Mirza has translated the last word of verse 68:13 of the Holy Quran, which is zaneem in the original Arabic, as “he is of illegitimate birth”. Below we show how some Muslim translators of the Quran have rendered this word.

1. There is an Urdu translation of the Holy Quran by Maulana Mahmud-ul-Hasan with commentary notes by Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, both of these scholars being very famous and renowned Ulama of the Indian subcontinent. An edition of this book is published by the Saudi Arabian government and presented free as a gift to pilgrims. It has a note on verse 68:13 (on page 749) whose image is displayed below:

The second half of this note says:

 

“The meanings of zaneem according to some classical scholars are wald-uz-zina and haramzaday. The unbeliever about whom these verses were revealed was such a person.”

The word wald-uz-zina means “illegitimate” and the word haramzaday is a common Urdu term meaning “bastard”.

2. In the English translation of the Quran by T.B. Irving (whose Muslim name is Talim Ali), verse 68:13 is translated as:

 

“brawling, and a bastard besides that”.

3. In the English translation of the Quran by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, the word zaneem is translated as: “base-born (of illegitimate birth)”, where they have inserted the words “of illegitimate birth” in parentheses.

Therefore, several orthodox Muslim scholars of the Holy Quran, of classical as well as modern times, agree that the Holy Quran used the term “illegitimate” and “bastard” to characterise an opponent of Islam in the time of the Holy Prophet Muhammad.

One purpose of using harsh language has been mentioned as follows by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad at the same point in Izala Auham as the above quotations:

 

---

“There is another wisdom in the use of harsh language, that it awakens dormant hearts and rouses those people who like to nod in agreement. … If the truth is declared to them bluntly, with all its bitterness and unpleasantness, the good result of this is that their pretence to agreement is at once removed and they openly express their unbelief and ill-will, as if their suppressed ailment now manifests itself as burning temperature. So this incitement which severely provokes the minds, although it may be highly objectionable in the view of an unwise person, but an astute man can well understand that it is this arousal which provides the first step towards the acceptance of truth. …The strong language used by the prophets was really for the same purpose of arousal, so that a stirring be created in the people, they awaken from slumber by this jolt and start pondering and thinking about religion, they make a movement for this purpose even if it is in opposition, they establish a connection with those who are proclaiming the truth even if it is a connection of hostility. It is to this that Allah the Glorious refers in the words: ‘In their hearts is a disease, so Allah increased their disease’ [2:10].”

(pages 29–31; Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 3, p. 117–118)

---

 

Another case in which use of strong language may be permitted is mentioned in the Quran as follows:

 

“Allah loves not the public utterance of hurtful speech, except by one who has been wronged” (4:148).

 

Thus a person who is wrongfully verbally abused is allowed by the Quran to use hurtful language in self-defence, provided that it conveys only the truth and is a measured and proportionate response. The link given at the beginning of this article from the book Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement gives some examples of the vile abuse that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was subjected to by his opponents. His response was much milder than their vituperative attacks.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essays

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/09/14/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-cursed-at-his-critics-even-calling-them-pigs-and-bitches/

Allegation of using “abusive” language about his opponents

https://www.muslim.org/allegs/abuse.htm

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/04/27/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-wanted-all-humans-who-reject-him-to-die/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/01/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-vs-batalvi-1891-1892-era-mga-sent-10-lanats-on-batalvi/

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote 1000 curses for this opponents

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote vulgarities in Arabic also, new research from Arab Ex-Ahmadi’s

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote that the Quran used harsh words…thus it’s ok to do so (1890-1891 era)

http://www.muslim.org/allegs/abuse.htm

______________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #trueislam