Mirza Bashir Ahmad wrote many controversial things about Ahmadiyya. He declared Takfir on the Lahori-Ahmadis as well as all Muslims in 1916, then he wrote how Ahmadis condone the rape of prisoners of war, he also wrote the infamous Seeratul-Mahdi wherein he accidentally confessed that his father (MGA) never led salaat, never read out a Khutbah Juma, chased and lusted after Muhammadi Begum and etc etc etc. He also wrote that the Ahmadiyya Khilafat wouldnt last pass the 4th Khalifa and would turn into a political Khilafat, Mirza Masroor Ahmad had to clean up that story in 2005. In a recent find, I have found an essay that Mirza Bashir Ahmad seems to have written in 1959 or 1960, in this essay he explains how it is possible for Ahmadis living in India to kill Ahmadis living in Pakistan and other countries. As we all know, India was at war with Pakistan in those days and thus many Ahmadis were in the Pakistani and Indian military and thus, a few may have even killed each other indirectly. Nonetheless, I copied and pasted the translation of Mirza Bashir Ahmad’s essay from here: https://www.scribd.com/document/79714502/The-Question-of-Divided-Loyalty-by-Mirza-Bashir-Ahmad
“”The Question of Divided Loyalty Some Parallels From History””
Translated from Urdu by Professor Mohammad Aslam
On closer view, however, Kennedy’s reply could not be correct even in Christian terms. Was not Jesus confronted by a similar question? And what was Jesus’ reply?Did he not say (Matt. 22:21-22) “Unto Caesar, Caesar’s and unto God, God’s”?Kennedy did not say this. Maybe, he did not wish to risk unpopularity with American voters. Maybe, if he had done so, American voters would have become confused,uncertain whether Kennedy was a good enough American. This does not make Jesus’reply, however, less clear or less correct. Loyalty belongs to different contexts. In each context it takes its own course. Determined to remain loyal in every context and honest to God in our judgment and understanding, we should have no difficulty,confront no conflict. Jesus, however, was speaking to the Israel, not to men in general.His reply was limited by his context, by his country and his people. He thought onlyof Caesar. He did not put the matter in universal terms. Islamic (or Ahmadiyya)conceptions are different. Islam (or the Ahmadiyyat) is universal. It is for all men, everywhere, in all sorts of contexts. The teaching of Islam sets forth the subject of loyalties in terms, which cover every condition and all circumstances. The principles of Islam are universal. They relate to all kinds of situations. Muslims, therefore, have no difficulties, no reservations on the subject. No anxiety, conflict or confusion. We can hold our heads high. We are neither ashamed nor uncertain as to what we must doin any given circumstances. This clear conscience, we owe to the grace of our God.We concede this with humility. Read the verse in the Holy Qur’an (4:60):
“O ye who believe obey God and obey the Prophet and obey those in authority from among you.”
The Arabic expression “in authority from among you” should not mislead any one into thinking that loyalty to authority is limited only to Muslim authority. No, not at all.The verse teaches obedience to authority as such. “From among” (Arabic min) also means over or of or in. The verse teaches decorum and discipline in public affairs. It makes loyalty to ruling authority an Islamic duty. Ruler and ruled are pictured in the verse as one group. Always, the verse implies, a community or people consist of both rulers and ruled. The ruled owe obedience to the rulers. This being so, it becomes idle to dispute over the meaning of the verse; to construe that rulers whom Muslims are to obey must be Muslims is simply absurd.
The Promised Messiah, Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement (on whom be peace),writing about the verse laid down very clearly:
“The Holy Qur’an commands, ‘ Obey Allah and obey His Prophet and obey those in authority among you. ‘ Believers are to obey those in authority, besides God and His Prophet. To say that ‘
those in authority‘ does not include a non-Muslin-Government would be a manifest error. For, a government-or authority-whose ordinances are in accordance with the Shariah (that is, they are not in conflict with it) is ‘ authority from among you.‘ Those who are not against us are among us. The Qur’an, therefore, is unequivocal on the point. Obedience to governmental authority is one of its imperatives.” (Works and Speeches, Vol. (i), p. 261)
So also in the Hadith , the Holy Prophet (on whom be peace and the blessings of God)says:
“He who obeys me, obeys God; he who disobeys me disobeys God. He who obeys his authority obeys me; he who disobeys his authority disobeys me” (Muslim, Kitab alImarah).
In this hadith the whole subject of obedience becomes illuminated. Loyalty and obedience belong by right only to God, Creator, Master, Lord of Men and Nations.Others have authority derived from Him. They reflect the Authority, which is God’s.A Prophet is vicegerent of God, a Messenger, bearer, of divine ordinances. To obey the Prophet is to obey God. Similarly one who has authority among men is responsible for discipline, for order among God’s creatures; a guardian of their lives,property and honor. Obedience to such a one is most pleasing to God. It is obedience to God. Obedience, at whatever level, is one and the same: it is obedience to God.Truly said the Holy Prophet, ‘Obedience to me is obedience to God and obedience toauthority is obedience to me.’