Intro
Personally, I call all Ahmadis as Ahmadis, I try not to differentiate between them, however, I understand that there are many sects of Ahmadiyya and that they all have separate names and run separate non-profit organizations. In fact, we consider Ahmadiyya to be a fraud comparable to Lance Armstrong or the tobacco cover-up.

Nowadays, Ahmadis are trained by their Ahmadi-Mullahs to never speak to Muslims about their faith. 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.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Here is an importance reference from a neutral source of information, Maulana Abu Kalamazad eventually became India’s first Minister of Education from 1947 to 1958, here is how he explained the split in Ahmadiyya:

“For some time, there had been two parties in this Movement over the question of takfir. One party believed that non-Ahmadis are Muslims even though they may not believe in Mirza sahib’s claims. The other party, however, declared openly and clearly that those people who do not believe in Mirza sahib are kafir absolutely — inna li-llahi wa inna ilai-hi raji‘un. The head of the latter party is Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, and this faction has now made him khalifa but the first group does not accept this. The writing published in this connection by Maulana Muhammad Ali, and the wonderful and admirable courage he has shown in expressing these views while staying in Qadian, where the heads of the other party live, is truly an event which shall always be regarded as a memorable event of this year.”  (See Al-Hilal, dated 25 March 1914, edited by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad) (Also See “A Mighty Striving” by Mumtaz Ahmad Faruqi, page 111, online edition).

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.

______________________________________________________________________________________________
What was the Al-Hilal Magazine?
The Al-Hilal (Urdu: هلال ‘The Crescent’) was a weekly Urdu language newspaper established by the Indian leader Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and used as a medium for criticism of the British Raj in India. The first issue came out on 13 July 1912. The newspaper also espoused the cause of the Indian independence movement and exhorted Indian Muslims to join the movement. The newspaper was shut down under the Press Act of 1914. “Al-Hilal (The Crescent), published in Calcutta, ushered in a new chapter in Urdu journalism and immediately appealed to Muslims in the city”.

The Al- Hilal covered a range of issues related with theology, politics, wars and scientific advancement besides its critical coverage of the Raj in India and it went on to become a very popular newspaper, reaching a peak circulation of over 25,000, a new record for Urdu journalism in those days. The paper played a catalytic role in shaping Muslim opinion against the Raj, a fact acknowledged by many stalwarts of India’s freedom struggleMahatma Gandhi, in 1920, wrote in his publication, Young India, about how Azad used Al-Hilal as a medium for critiquing the British Raj.[2] One online source, ‘Oxford Scholarship Online’ says,”Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was a scholar, intellectual, and nationalist who fought against British imperialists by drawing inspiration from the Koran”.[3]

In his Discovery of IndiaJawaharlal Nehru describes Azad and his contribution through the Al-Hilal this way: “Abul Kalam Azad spoke in a new language to them in his weekly Al- Hilal. It was not only a new language in thought and approach, even its texture was different, for Azad’s style was tense and virile, though a little difficult because of its Persian background. He used new phrases for new ideas and was a definite influence in giving shape to the Urdu language, as it is today. The older conservative leaders among the Muslims did not react favourably to all this and criticized Azad’s opinions and approach. Yet not even the most learned of them could easily meet Azad in debate and argument, even on the basis of scripture and old tradition, for Azad’s knowledge of the happened to be greater than theirs”.[4]:381

The British colonial government disapproved of the Al Hilal and demanded securities from it under the Press Act before finally confiscating its press in 1914. The Al Hilal thus ceased to exist after being in operation for only two years. Azad, in turn, started another Urdu weekly, the Al-Balagh in 1914, which too came to an end in 1916 following Azad’s internment at Ranchi.[4]:382

The press that printed the Al Hilal was later bought by Mufti Shaukat Ali Fehmi, to start his Urdu monthly ‘Din Dunia‘. The press continued to be in use for almost five decades, publishing Urdu books and magazines till the 1990s when lithographic printing became obsolete. The Fehmi family then contacted universities, Urdu academies, museums and even the then President Shankar Dayal Sharma to ensure the preservation of Azad’s legacy. Finding no success, the press ultimately ended up being sold for scrap.[2

______________________________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion

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.

Despite the strategies of the Ahmadi-Mullah. We will continue educating Ahmadis in terms of Ahmadiyya and Islam.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Links and Related Essay’s
here: https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/09/27/ahmadis-are-divided-into-so-many-groups-that-the-main-group-has-to-be-called-qadiani/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/01/29/qadiani-ahmadis-vs-lahori-ahmadis-sectarianism-within-ahmadiyya-2018-version/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1478-1913.1959.tb02378.x

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/01/18/in-1923-mirza-basheer-uddin-mahmud-ahmad-the-ahmadi-khalifa-he-ordered-ahmadis-to-stop-doing-takfir-on-muslims/
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Tags
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog