ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Intro
Nowadays, Ahmadi’s on social media pretend like themselves and their community oppose blasphemy laws, however, MGA was much different. MGA even smacked his beloved child in the face when it seemed to MGA that his young son (Mubarak Ahmad) may have said something which was against the respect of Muhammad (saw). MGA had a fanatical love of Muhammad (Saw), and he took it tooooo far. In Islamic theory, Muhammad (SAW) is just a messenger, a slave of Allah, that’s it, he wasn’t an example of domestic life, since he married more then 4 based on political custom and etc. Nevertheless, Ahmadiyya aligned themselves with the “Ahl-e-Hadith” aka “Wahabbis” on this subject, and many other topics like women, Hijaab and child marriage. MGA was in fact, a Wahabi and thus kept those mannerisms and made sure this sons and grandsons were bound to that lifestyle. MGA never opposed a punishment for blasphemy, his final word is recorded from 1895. Finally, what about MGA’s nasty writings about Jesus Christ? Moreover, Ahmadiyya INC opposed Salman Rushdie and his famous book “The Satanic Verses”.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________This story starts in 1895, as MGA supported the British-India blasphemy laws

In 1897 the “Sedition Act” was passed (see Dard, page 582), this also covered blasphemy. An ex-Muslim wrote a book in 1896 which attacked the domestic life of Muhammad (saw), thus, the Anjuman Himayat-i-Islam wrote a memorial to the British government wherein they asked the government to ban this book based on the new “Sedition Act”. MGA opposed this strategy, since MGA knew that this book was written in 1896 before the law was passed, and this was exactly what the British government wrote in response to the Anjuman Himayat-i-Islam’s memorial. The Anjuman Himayat blamed MGA directly for causing people to write as such vs. Islam, they blamed MGA and his silly death prophecies as the case of provocation, furthermore,  the newspapers Observer and Paisa Akhbar, two Muslim-owned newspapers published in English and Urdu respectively from Lahore at that time, took the position that MGA had instigated the abusive attacks on the Holy Prophet and Islam of the Christians and Arya Hindus by his aggressive attitude towards them (see Mujadid-i-Azam page 806). In fact, MGA’s death prophecy agitated Fateh Masih and caused him to write about the person life of Muhammad (saw). Furthermore, it should be noted that the Anjuman Himayat-i-Islam had been very close to many Ahmadi’s from 1884 to this event in 1898, in fact, Noorudin always spoke at their annual conventions and Muhammad Ali and Kwaja Kamaluddin were employees of this Anjuman since they worked at the Islamia College in Lahore, which was owned and operated by this same Anjuman, MGA seems to have overpaid Muhammad Ali to leave his job and come to work for MGA, in fact, it was once reported that Muhammad Ali was the highest paid employee of MGA, MGA even paid off many of Muhammad Ali’s debts.

Nevertheless, MGA only objected to asking the British government to ban this book because it was not very helpful to confiscate copies of the book Ummahat-ul-Momineen now that a thousand copies had already been distributed free to Muslims. The strategy of confiscating the book would only have been efficacious if the book had been confiscated before it was distributed and not after. When a book had been extensively distributed and its poison had done its work (see Mujadid-i-Azim). MGA said that there was no great benefit in confiscating the few remaining copies. On the contrary, there was definite harm because the right of reply to this book was forfeited with the confiscation of the book and this would prevent the aggrieved party from writing a reply to neutralize the pernicious effects of the impious and deceitful book.
The failure to respond would create doubts in the minds of people. The appropriate post distribution strategy was to give an effective reply to the book to save the public from the poisonous effects of the book. MGA reminded Muslims that their responsibility at this stage was not to ask the government for the confiscation of the book but to “give effective and courteous responses to their criticisms which were raised based on either ignorance or deceit—
responses that would show them our reality and culture.”  MGA’s objective in writing this memorandum was to stress that neither the government nor the Muslim public should consider their responsibility discharged if a few books were confiscated. The responsibility
of the government was to initiate serious reforms in this mode of debate and discourse, and forbid the use of hurtful and impious language. The responsibility of the Muslims was to rationally and comprehensively rebut these criticisms that were based on falsehood and to widely propagate the pious and correct picture of the Holy Prophet so that the deceit and lies of the Christian clergy and the Hindu Aryas would be exposed. This exposure would restrain them from making such charges in the future. In addition, petitioning the Government to ban this filthy mode of writing for the future was also appropriate. This was the reason why Hazrat Mirza sent a separate memorandum to the Government.

MGA then proposed to find someone who was qualified to write proper responses and etc, after going through a list of characteristics a person would need to fullfill this duty, MGA nominates himself, in arrogant fashion.  MGA nominated himself since he claims to receive divine guidance and thus has insight to better answer questions, all of this was written in MGA’s book, “Al-Balagh”. The Anjuman Himayat-i-Islam paid no attention to MGA’s suggestion and continued doing their work, in fact, they had published all the books of Noorudin uptil this 1898, then they abruptly stopped.  MGA was then silent on blasphemy for the rest of his life.  Unfortunately the government paid no heed either to the memorandum of the Anjuman Himayat Islam or to that of MGA. Many years later, the government enacted Section 153 b in the Penal Code that made it an offence to defame the founder of any religion.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________The quote
See Upal, “Moderate Fundamentalist” (2017), page 155.  

“””Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, for instance, claimed to be the first Muslim leader to initiate a petition (published on 22 September 1895) demanding that the British Indian government amend Indian Penal Code 298 to make it easier to prosecute anyone who blasphemes a founder of a major religion.”””

Also See Dard, pages 462-465, MGA had written a response to Fateh Masih who accused Muhammad (saw) of immorality in terms of of domestic life and he further criticized the Islamic concept of heaven. However, it was MGA who infuriated Fateh-e-Masih and thus caused him to write his book.  In 1898, the Anjuman Himayat-i-Islam accused MGA of being the core of the problem here, no one else. By 1898, Noorudin cut ties with the Anjuman Himayat-i-Islam, however, a few Ahmadi’s did not.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________Dard tells us, see page 581

“””The Sirajul Akhbar, dated 13/6/1898; the Singh Saba, Amritsar, dated 30/5/1898, and the Sat Dharam Parcharak, Jullundur, dated 15th Jeth, supported the course adopted by Ahmadas. Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan practically began to write a reply and a portion of it was even published in the Aligarh Institute, dated 6/4/1898, but he died and could not complete it. The Punjab Observer, Lahore, dated 6/5/1898, and the Paisa Akhbar, dated 14/5/1898, differed from Ahmadas. So he wrote a book entitled Albalagh or Faryad-e-Dard in which he refused the objection raised by the Anjuman through the two journals. He also pointed out that Ummahatul Mu’minin was not the only publication which needed a reply. The Arya Samajists and the Christian missionaries had been attacking Islam for the last 60 years. Therefore it was necessary to make a joint effort to counteract the whole of the mischievious propaganda. He suggested that one man should be elected and put in charge of the work. He should choose his own assistants. But care should be taken to elect a man who should be spiritually qualified and really competent to do the job well. Like the prophet Josephas, who offered to act as Treasurer in the days of the great famine, Ahmadas offered his own services for this purpose if the people cared to avail themselves of them. At the end of the book he also appealed to Muslims living outside India in Arabic and Persian.

This book was printed in Urdu at, the Diya’ul Islam Press, Qadian, without its title and was published after Ahmad’sas death. But its English translation, printed at the Victoria press Lahore, in 1898, was published at that very time.”””

This is the additional proof that MGA supported blasphemy laws
_____________________________________________________________________________________________MGA’s alleged announcement of May 4th 1898

Another interesting part of this saga is that the Ahmadiyya editors have created an announcement and attributed it to MGA (see page 409 and 410). However, there is no evidence that this announcement was actually published anywhere, in any newspaper on the date given, which is May 4th, 1898, in fact, the book, “Majmua-Ishtiharat”. which was its first edition was published in 1971. Initial compilation was done by Hazrat Mir Qasam Ali(ra), later more additions were made to this collection by Moulvi Abdul Latif Sahib. We are of the opinion that this announcement was placed in later on by Ahmadiyya Mullahs who were pressured by the Mirza family to do so. Furthermore, MGA never mentioned an announcement in “Al-Balagh” or in “Nuzul-ul-Masih”.  MGA and his team were very keen to claim to have “known” about something after the fact, which is typical-desi-dialogue-mannerisms.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________Sir Syed and MGA on this topic

“(Sir) Syed sahib agreed with me in three matters. Firstly, as regards the issue of the death of Jesus. Secondly, when I published the announcement that the British government has a greater call on our duty than the Sultan of the Ottomon empire, Syed sahib supported my article and wrote that everyone should abide by it. Thirdly, as regards this book Umahaat-ul-Momineen (a scurrilous book against the Holy Prophet Muhammad) his view was that a refutation should be written, and no petition be sent (to the government to ban it). His practical actions show this because he started writing a refutation as his preferred way of response. Ah! If Syed sahib were alive today he would most certainly have openly supported my view. Anyhow, in such matters (i.e., responding to abusive literature against Islam) the method of action adopted by Syed sahib is an excellent example to all decent Muslims which they must follow.” (Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 13, p. 402; bolding as in original.)
____________________________________________________________________________________________ In Nuzul-ul Masih, MGA wrote about this incident again

Nuzul-ul-Masih was published posthumously in 1908, it is alleged to have been written in 1902.  MGA repeated the exact same data that we had already quoted and what Dard quoted.  That is, MGA never mentioned any announcements on the topic, he wrote Al-Balagh wherein he responded with a 10-point criteria for someone who could write proper refutations, an MGA nominated himself as someone who fulfilled that 10-point critieria, nevertheless, the Muslims of India ignored MGA.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1923

The Qadiani-Ahmadi’s began attacking the Arya Samaj Hindu’s again and specifically, their founder, Dayananda Saraswati, see the book, “Unneesvi Sadi ka Maharishi” (A 19th Century Maharishi) by Mir Qasim Ali (1923). This prompted Hindu’s to write Rangila Rasul, and it prompted the British government to pass blasphemy laws which protected Muhammad (saw) and all other founders of religions from random people cursing at them. Ironically, in 1984,  Zia ul Haq added to this in his famous Ord-XX. Zia added 298B and 298C. Thus, and very ironically, Ahmadi’s are shown crying about the blasphemy laws that they helped enact. In fact, even MGA supported blasphemy laws back in 1895.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ In 1927, in British-India, See Upal page 155

In 1927, Ahmadis took the lead in agitating against publication of the book Rangila Rasul by Hindu author Raj Pal and demanded that the book be banned. One of the movement’s most prominent members, Sir Muhammad Zafrullah Khan, also spearheaded legal action against
the book. Defense of the honour of the Holy Prophet Muhammad has become such
an integral part of the Ahmadiyya identity that Ahmadis have been at the forefront
of demanding blasphemy laws around the world.

The primary organized opposition to the judgement was driven by the Khilafatists and the Ahmadis. Ahmadis printed posters in several cities urging a total economic boycott of Hindus in response to the perceived insult to their prophet. The then spiritual head of the Ahmadiya community, Mirza Bashir ud-din Ahmad, wrote to the British viceroy in support of an anti-blasphemy law where insult to the “prophet” should be clearly mentioned and made illegal.

In a cruel twist of karma, this is the same law that is used today in Pakistan to persecute the Ahmadiya community. The British introduced 295A, criminalizing future speech deemed insulting to religious groups, passed easily in parliament with widespread support. Lala Lajpat Rai, Hindu Mahasabha leader, called the legislation a “temporary measure” necessary to “satisfy some hyper sensitive folk”.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1944

Him and his editorial staff (A.Q. Niaz and Ali Mohammad [B.A. and B.T.]) have an essay in the ROR of Aug-1944 entitled, “Ahmadiyyat’s Contribution To The Development Of Corporate National Feeling in India”. In this essay, he lies and claims that Ahmadiyya is a purely religious organization. He mentions how the 2nd Khalifa told Muslims to never follow or listen to the Turkish Sultan aka Khalifa. He alleges that MGA had addressed the issue of blasphemy in 1895. He explains how MGA supported blasphemy laws in British-India in 1895. A.Q. Niaz alleges that MGA wrote a book called, “Hindu Dharm”, however, this book seems to be missing from the official records.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1956
https://twitter.com/tarikkhan83/status/1689218834052358144?s=46&t=HOv7BmPkPlJrWh8ccQpp4g

This was after KM2 played a pivotal role in getting the 295A legislation passed in United India.

In 1956, our Jamaat (under the leadership of Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad) demanded stricter blasphemy laws with increased jail time.

Scan

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Zia’s Ord-XX–1984, See Upal page 155

A century later Pakistan’s military dictator Zia-ul-Haq amended the very article to make blasphemy a capital crime in Pakistan. Ironically enough, a number of Pakistani Ahmadis have been prosecuted under the amended 298 for blaspheming prophet Muhammad by accepting Ahmad as a prophet after him!
_____________________________________________________________________________________________As recently as 2015, Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at advocated punishing people who blashpheme

Satirical depictions of religious leaders should be illegal, says Ottawa imam
_____________________________________________________________________________________________Links and Related Essays

Click to access tgr1.pdf

Mirza Tahir Ahmad lied about Ordinance–XX and his exodus from Pakistan

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/771276/

The Anjuman-i Himayat-i Islam and its relationship with the Ahmadiyya Movement

https://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2012/09/14/trivedi-case-sets-off-sedition-debate/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/11/06/the-message-or-a-cry-of-anguish-in-urdu-as-al-balagh-ya-faryad-e-dard-by-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-and-company-1898/

Blasphemy in Islam and the Ahmadiyya cover-up

MGA forced Noorudin to pretend to be Hanafi, even though he was a Wahabbi aka Ahl-e-Hadith

Maulvi Noorudin was an Ahl-e-Hadith aka Wahhabi type of Muslim

Satirical depictions of religious leaders should be illegal, says Ottawa imam

https://www.opindia.com/2021/04/the-assassination-of-mahashay-rajpal-the-publisher-of-rangeela-rasool-how-secularism-and-freedom-of-expression-died-along-with-him/amp/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2023/02/08/unneesvi-sadi-ka-maharishi-a-19th-century-maharishi-by-mir-qasim-ali-1923-this-caused-hindus-to-write-rangila-rasul/
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadiyyat #trueislam #ahmadianswers #ahmadiyyamuslimcommunity #ahmadiyya_creatives #ahmadiyyatthetrueislam #ahmadiyyatzindabad #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiyyamuslim  #mirzaghulamahmad #qadiani #qadianism