ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Intro
In the early 1880’s (via BA-3, page 231), MGA stated that the person mentioned in Ayah 18:65 is Khidr ﷺ, that damaging the ship, killing the boy, and repairing the wall were actual events and that Al-Khidr was not a prophet. In 1884 (via BA-4, page 428), MGA alleged that Al-Khidr was a recipients of revelation from Allah and was apprised of the secrets of the unseen through wahy-e-i‘lam” (revelation of knowledge). On page 429 of the same book, MGA alleged that it also goes without saying that if the revelations of Khidr and the mother of Musa were certain and equivocal.

Just recently, an Arab-Ahmadi, who was a top scholar of Ahmadiyya, has publically left Ahmadiyya. His name is Hani Taher, and he worked with MTA as an Arab-Scholar. Many blogs have reported his apostacy from Ahmadiyya. In the past, he had even beefed with my sister site, thecult.info, he was known for defending Ahmadiyya endlessly and getting to paid to do it.

Mr. Tahir seems to have quoted the Ahmadiyya inconsistency on 18:65 of the Quran, in other words the story of the famous Al-Khidr. There is no clear consensus of opinion in Sunni-Islamic thought, however, it is open to interpretation, and generally it could be agreed upon that Al-Khidr was either a prophet or some type of special servant. Sufis have a unique position and Shias have some unique positions on Al-Khidr. Obviously, this topic has been open to interpretation for many years.

Nonetheless, the Ahmadi position on Al-Khidr is that he was actually Muhammad (saw) (nauzobillah)(see page under verse 18:66). This is per the official 5-volume commentary of the Quran by Ahmadis which seems to have been published in 1988 (see the preface) and was written and prepared by Malik Ghulam Fareed. It is interesting to note that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad was unable to write a commentary by himself and needed the help of his employees aka Ahmadi-Mullahs. Mahmud Ahmad claims to have written 2 commentaries on the Quran, a smaller one, and a bigger one. However, Mahmud Ahmad seems to have never written a complete commentary of the quran in urdu, which is odd, since his contemporary, Muhammad Ali, had finished his in 1917, in english and his urdu version was then published a few years later.  Nonetheless, Mahmud Ahmad seems to have written in his Smaller-Commentary on the Quran that Al-Khidr was actually Muhammad (saw) (nauzobillah).

This is the current Ahmadi viewpoint on the topic of Al-Khidr. That much we know. So what was Hani Tahir’s issue then? His issue was that MGA’s writings on this topic were being purposely suppressed in an attempt to lie and promote the view of Mahmud Ahmad. However, this info wasn’t made readily available to Hani Tahir. Since the books that held the view of MGA on Al-Khidr were Urdu-only books and they had never been translated into English, nor were they planned to be. However, in 2014, Ahmadiyya published Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya, volumes 1-3 and the Al-Khidr data became available to the english reading people of the world.
Continue reading “Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and 18:65 (18:66 in the Kadiani Koran) and was Al-Khidr a prophet?” →

Intro
I had recently mentioned in a FB posting that Ahmadiyya had a history of violence/eroticism. I wanted to briefly cover Ahmadiyya in the 1930’s, in terms of the sources and scenarios. So here goes:

In the late 1920’s, almost every British govt. official believed that Qadiani branch of Ahmadiyya would soon seek to create a state of their own (see “History of Ahmadiyya”, vol. 7, page 414). Mr. Obrein made his personal thoughts known to most of the British leaders of the Punjab (see page 169). In fact, the Ahmadi khalifa met the Governor of the Punjab, Sir W.M. Hailey and told him about his ideas of globalization. Mahmud Ahmad was very bold in those days and felt like the British govt was his partner in crime. The facts that I will play out in the next few paragraphs proves my point.
Continue reading “Ahmadiyya and its violent past, the early 1930’s” →

Intro
MGA only mentioned Opium once in all his and his team’s writings. That reference occurred in 1903, as MGA was addressing a Hindu mela in Qadian (see page 347). MGA was addressing the Hindus of Qadian and totally denied using Opium for any reason, and in fact, he spoke ill of Jesus Christ (the god of the Christians) as well as Esa (as) (a special messenger/prophet in Islam). This type of criticism is shunned in Islam and Muslims are ordered to never belittle the Gods of other religions. Nevertheless, here is the only reference from MGA and his teams writings that specifically address opium use :

• “I remember an incident and which is that I have Diabetes for several years. I urinate 15-20 times daily and sometimes I urinate 100 times per day. Due to sugar in urine, I also get infection in urine and due to excessive urination I become very weak. Once a friend suggested that Opium is beneficial in Diabetes, therefore there is no harm if I use it as medicine. I answered: ‘It is very nice of you to have sympathise with me but if I form a habit of taking Opium than I am afraid that people will joke that THE FIRST MESSIAH WAS AN ALCOHOLIC AND THE SECOND ONE AN OPIUM ADDICT.'”

Naseem Da’awat, Roohani Khazain vol.19 p.434-435, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani (this book is not in english).
Continue reading “MGA lied about his Opium use” →

Intro
The Ahmadi-mullahs have trained every single Ahmadi that “Qadiani” is a derogatory term and anyone that uses it is some type of extremist and should be shunned altogether. However, this is not true, the fact is, in 1914, there was a split in the Ahmadiyya movement and two opposing ideologies were created. Obviously, there is no malice when a person calls an “Ahmadi” a “Qadiani” or a “Lahori”. In fact, the Qadiani branch called the “Lahori-Ahmadis” as “Paghamis” for over 30 years and the Lahoris returned the favor by calling them “Qadiani” since 1914. It seems that Ahmadis dont have a problem calling each other names, however, they complain to the world about a nonsense issue and create additional nonsense issues that will somehow show them as a persecuted community. As we all know, Ahmadis were debating the claims of MGA, Takfeer, his successorship, and the future of Ahmadiyya from 1909–1914. This was the era of the Khilafat of Noorudin, who’s sons were later ex-communicated and publically shunned. In fact, Noorudin even blurted out that Mahmud Ahmad hadnt understood the topic of Takfeer (1913) and had ordered Muhammad Ali to write a conclusive essay on the matter and thus put the matter to rest (1913). However, Noorudin died before any formal policy was introduced, and thus Ahmadis created different and competing ideologies in terms of MGA. Ironically, after 1923, the Qadiani branch adopted the Lahori-Ahmadi position on Takfeer and thus complicated their beliefs, similar to how Mormons dropped Polygamy for statehood with America.

Even in 1920, the Qadiani-Ahmadi’s were proudly calling themselves as Qadiani’s and Mahmudi’s (See the ref in the below).
Continue reading “Wonder why we call them Qadiani?” →

Intro
As an avid reader of global politics, business, economics, religion and sports, I felt the need to properly explain what is blasphemy in general and what is it per Islam and the Abrahamic religions, and finally, what is its application in 2016. This essay will also briefly cover the Ahmadiyya approach to blasphemy and its wider significance in Ahmadiyya polemics vs. the known universe.

Firstly, blasphemy was a crime in almost every organized community of humans dating back to at least Greek culture and Socrates. Socrates was put on trial for blasphemy and impiety, and promoting Atheism and other anti-govt ideas. In that era of our species, simply speaking against your government aka the King was always against the law and death is a common penalty, in fact, see the life of Esa (as). Can you imagine if your King was Muslim or Christian? Obviously, if any King made Islam or Christianity as state religion, then, they would surely enforce blasphemy. If a government did arise that refused to recognize religion, then blasphemy laws would surely die out. However, anti government behavior would be watched and evaluated.

Just like every other government in the world, Islamic governments also had laws vs. blasphemy and they come from the Quran. Nonetheless, the Quran appears to be vague on the matter of blasphemy, however, the hadith tell us as follows:

The Prophet said, “Who is ready to kill Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf who has really hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Do you like me to kill him?” He replied in the affirmative. So, Muhammad bin Maslama went to him (i.e. Ka’b) and said, “This person (i.e. the Prophet) has put us to task and asked us for charity.” Ka’b replied, “By Allah, you will get tired of him.” Muhammad said to him, “We have followed him, so we dislike to leave him till we see the end of his affair.” Muhammad bin Maslama went on talking to him in this way till he got the chance to kill him. Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah

Further, all 4 of the schools of Islamic thought (sunni) also believe that blasphemy should be punishable by death.  As well as Shia schools of thought.  However, even Judaism has a similar practice as well as Christianity.  So Islam is not unique in this regard, in fact all of the Abrahamic religions and random governments have had the same practice.

The Ahmadiyya approach has been to lie.  They refuse to both acknowledge the hadith on blasphemy, or even call them totally false.  Moreover, it is unclear whether MGA ever wrote on blasphemy, however, MGA was always quick to pray for anyone to die if he suspected that they blasphemed Muhammad (saw), which is equivalent to the ruling by the 4 schools of thought.   So Ahmadis are now tasked to show us what MGA actually wrote on the topic.

Conclusion

Blasphemy only changed upon the inception of the US government, however, it remained in smaller forms or in political forms.  Nowadays the United Nations is working on eliminating blasphemy, however, that is an impossible task.

So what should Muslims around the world in terms of blasphemy?  Well, there are many laws in the Quran that most Muslim countries simply dont follow, or have added many exemptions and etc, however, this is nothing new, in terms of theft, the Quran is clear that the thieves hand should be cut off and this was the law in Arabia before Islam had arrived, however, hadith reports tell us that additional rules can also be applied to this injunction, such as setting limits on the value of the stolen goods and etc.

I have presented many facts in the case of blasphemy, I now ask the reader to judge for themselves.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags