July 2018

Maulana Nur-ud-Din’s visit to Lahore, June 1912

Dear readers, there was lots of turmoil in the Ahmadiyya Movement from 1909–1914. We have found data from the Khalifa’s trip to Lahore in 1912. It should be understood that the Khalifa only had one leg by this time and must have been carried on his charpai all the way to Lahore.  Nooruddin made some interesting comments in this era. Make sure you read the related essays.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________Where did we get the data from and translations?

Attacks those who said a family member should have been khalifa

Defends, not reprimands, Lahore Ahmadis

In mid-June 1912 Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din paid a visit to Lahore to lay the foundation stone of a building belonging to Shaikh Rahmatullah, a member of the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya appointed by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who later became a founding member of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama‘at at the Split in 1914.

According to the propaganda put about by the Qadiani Jama‘at, Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din had since early 1909 been greatly displeased with those who later founded the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama‘at and they allege that he kept on reprimanding them for their disloyalty. Indeed, they even quote from a speech he made during this visit, to the effect that he has been appointed khalifa by Allah and not by an Anjuman, and that he spits on an Anjuman which claims that it made him khalifa.

However, the Qadiani Jama‘at does not reveal the context of his comments nor the background to his visit. Therefore we provide below a more complete record from the pages of Badr, the Ahmadiyya community newspaper edited by Mufti Muhammad Sadiq who was with the Qadiani Jama‘at after the Split.

In his speech at the foundation stone laying, on 15 June 1912, Maulana Nur-ud-Din stated:

“My leader and my benefactor, the Promised Messiah, had promised Shaikh Rahmatullah that he would lay the foundation stone of his building with his own hands. It was the will of God that his promise should be carried out by a servant of his. The Shaikh sahib asked me to come. I am ill and in discomfort because of pain in various parts of the body, but there is an urge in my heart that I must fulfil the word of my beloved.”

(Badr, 27 June 1912, p. 4, col. 2. Paragraph entitled Promise of the Hazrat to Shaikh sahib)

How could Maulana Nur-ud-Din make all this effort for Shaikh Rahmatullah if he were so displeased with the Lahore members?

Pleased with Mosque of Lahore Jama‘at and its founders

The issue of Badr cited above contains a report of the Maulana’s visit to Lahore. It is reported in it:

“Hazrat Khalifat-ul-Masih [Maulana Nur-ud-Din] stayed at the residence of Dr. Mirza Yaqub Baig, which is situated within its [Ahmadiyya Buildings’] bounds…

“After arriving in Lahore, the first thing which pleased Hazrat Khalifat-ul-Masih [Maulana Nur-ud-Din] was the Ahmadiyya mosque, built in the middle of Ahmadiyya Buildings. He was the first to enter the mosque. After saying two nafal of salat, he said many prayers for the founders of the mosque, for their children, and for their future generations. He prayed so deeply that he said: I am sure these prayers of mine have reached the arsh of Allah. We congratulate the Jama‘at of Lahore on this good fortune. In the construction of this mosque, the entire Jama‘at of Lahore has participated, each according to his means. However, when it was being built we saw that the man who more than anyone else took pains over its construction and displayed the greatest zeal was our honoured friend Dr. Sayyid Muhammad Husain Shah. May Allah the Most High reward them all. After his return to Qadian, Hazrat [Maulana Nur-ud-Din] also expressed his pleasure over the mosque in his first talk on the Quran.”

(Badr, 27 June 1912, p. 3, col. 2.)

Here two founding members of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement are mentioned, Dr. Mirza Yaqub Baig and Dr. Sayyid Muhammad Husain Shah, who were, according to the the Qadiani Jama‘at propaganda, rebellious against Maulana Nur-ud-Din and whom he was castigating at this very time. But the reality is clear from this report, that the Hazrat Maulana was highly pleased with them. His own words from his speech at Ahmadiyya Buildings were reported in the next issue of Badr as follows:

“This is the mosque which has pleased my heart very greatly. I have prayed much for its founders and those who assisted in its building, and I am sure that my prayers have reached the threshold of God (arsh).”

(Badr, 4 July 1912, p. 6, column 3)

He ended this speech on the same note:

“Look at your differences. Will they lead you to meet God? If not, then accept what I say and live in harmony, and live in such a way that, when I see you, it would please me just as I was pleased to see this mosque.”

(Badr, 11 July 1912, p. 5, column 3)

This is the mosque where the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement established its headquarters two years later in 1914, after the Split.

Castigates those who wanted a family member to be khalifa

The speech made at Ahmadiyya Buildings during this visit, as mentioned just above, was published in Badr over the two issues of 4 July and 11 July 1912. In it, Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din castigated those who said about his leadership that the right of khilafat belonged to the family of Hazrat Mirza sahib but it went to one who was not entitled to it. The Maulana said:

“Even today someone said: There is a great division over the khilafat —those who were entitled to the right of khilafat did not get it, but it went to someone else. I said: Go and tell a Rafidi that the right belonged to Ali but Abu Bakr took it.”

(Badr, 4 July 1912, p. 6, columns 2 and 3)

By “Rafidis” are meant Shia’s who believe that Hazrat Ali was entitled to be the first khalifa on the basis of his close family relationship with the Holy Prophet, but that his right was usurped by Hazrat Abu Bakr. Maulana Nur-ud-Din is referring of course to those who wanted the family of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to inherit the headship of the Movement.

Maulana Nur-ud-Din went on to say:

“Now the question is: who has the right to the khilafat? One is my very dear Mahmud, who is son of my leader and benefactor. As son-in-law we can say Nawab Muhammad Ali Khan. Then as father-in-law there is the right of Nasir Nawab, or the mother of the faithful who is wife of Hazrat sahib. These are the people who can have the right of the khilafat.But it is strange that those people who argue about the khilafat and say that their right has been taken by someone else do not remember that all of these are obedient and faithful to me.”

(Badr, 4 July 1912, p. 7, col. 1)

And further:

“Listen! I never had the desire to become khalifa. … What happened after the death of Mirza sahib was the doing of God. I did not even imagine it in my mind, but it was required by the will of Allah for His purposes. I was made your Imam and khalifa and those whom you considered as having the right to it were made to submit to me. Who are you to object now? If you have an objection, go and raise the objection aginst God.…

Those who listen, let them listen, and listen well, and let them take this to those who are not listening: To raise the objection that the khilafatdid not go to those had the right to it is the belief of the Rafidis.Repent from it. Allah the Most High has Himself made that person khalifa whom He considered as entitled to it.”

(Badr, 4 July 1912, p. 7, col. 2. Words in bold are bold in the original.)

The people whom Maulana Nur-ud-Din is castigating are those who were saying that a member of the family of the Promised Messiah should have become khalifa instead of Maulana Nur-ud-Din. It is they to whom he is saying that God has made him khalifa, and not any human being or any Anjuman.

Maulana Nur-ud-Din has mentioned here only these persons belonging to the family as having the right of khilafat because his critics, whom he is answering, considered these as the persons as the rightful ones. As regards all those who were entitled to be considered for khilafat instead of himself, Maulana Nur-ud-Din mentioned them in his very first speech after becoming khalifa in May 1908:

“Among the relations of Hazrat [Mirza] sahib there are three men at this time. Firstly, Mian Mahmud Ahmad. He is my brother as well as my son. I have a special connection with him. In terms of family relationship, Mir Nasir Nawab holds a position of respect from us and from the Hazrat. The third near relation is Nawab Muhammad Ali Khan. Likewise, from among the servants of the faith, Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan possesses ability of the highest degree. He is a sayyid, and has performed such services of the faith that a man such as myself is put to shame. In his old age he has produced many writings in support of the Hazrat [Mirza sahib], as a unique service which only he could perform. After this is Maulvi Muhammad Ali who performs services which I cannot even imagine doing. All these people are present. From among outsiders there is Sayyid Hamid Shah and Maulvi Ghulam Hasan, and many other persons.”

(Badr, 2 June 1908, p. 8. Al-Hakam, 6 June 1908, p. 7-8)

Then, explaining how difficult it is to bear the burden of leadership, Maulana Nur-ud-Din says in this speech of May 1908:

“At this time it is essential for men, women and children to be under unity. For this unity, enter into the bai‘at of any one of these respected persons. I am with you. I am old and ill, and my nature is not suited to this. … You think this work is easy, but for the bearer of the burden it is very hard. So I swear by God, these pillars of the community whose names I have taken, elect any one of them, and I am ready with you to enter into his bai‘at.” (Reference as above)

The question here arises, if it is God Who has appointed him khalifa, and not people, why is he advising people to choose someone else? Moreover, it may be asked: Has any khalifa of the Qadiani Jama‘at, when being placed into this office, ever told people that there were other persons whom he considered as more worthy than himself?

Defends and exonerates Lahore members

In his speech at Ahmadiyya Buildings, Lahore, that we are dealing with in this article, Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din later on refers to the allegations being made against the Lahore members. He said:

“The third thing is that some persons, who are known as my friends and are my friends, hold the view and say that the people from Lahore are an obstacle in the affairs of the khilafat.…

It is said in the Holy Quran: ‘O you who believe, avoid much of suspicion, surely suspicion is in many cases a sin’, and the Holy Prophet has said suspicion is the worst kind of lie. Allah has given the teaching to refrain from thinking ill of others, as it will turn you into evil doers. The Holy Prophet has said that he who indulges in thinking ill of others is a great liar, so keep away from this. Even now I have a slip of paper in my hand on which someone writes that the Lahore Jama‘at is an obstacle in the way of the khilafat. I say to such critics, you are thinking ill of others, give it up. You should first of all try to make yourselves sincere as they are. The people of Lahore are sincere. They love Hazrat [Mirza Ghulam Ahmad] sahib. Human beings make mistakes and they too can make mistakes, but the works which they have performed, you should also try to do the same.

I say at the top of my voice that whoever thinks ill of the people from Lahore, saying that they are an obstacle in the way of the khilafat, he should remember that the Holy Prophet has referred to those who indulge in ill-thinking by calling it ‘the biggest lie’, and Allah says: ‘avoid much of suspicion, surely suspicion is in many cases a sin’, so it is called a sin by Allah. Thinking ill of others then leads to back-biting, and about that Allah says: ‘Do not backbite one another’. You mistrust the sincere ones and hurt me. Fear God. I pray for you, so do not deprive yourselves of my prayers.”

(Badr, 11 July 1912, p. 4)

“If you say that the people from Lahore are an obstacle in the khilafat,this is to think ill about my sincere friends. Give it up.…

Remember what I have said and give up thinking ill of others and causing discord. Whatever decision Hazrat [Mirza Ghulam Ahmad] sahib has given in any matter, do not speak or act against it, otherwise you will not remain Ahmadis. Give up the notion that the people from Lahore are an obstacle in the affairs of the khilafat. If you do not, then God will make your case like that of Musailima.”

(Badr, 11 July 1912, p. 5)

Maulana Nur-ud-Din has here laid down the rule that Ahmadis must abide by the decision of Hazrat Mirza sahib. His decision, as laid down in his Al-Wasiyya, is what the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement accepts on the issue of headship and successorship in the Ahmadiyya Movement.

From this speech the Qadiani Jama‘at only presents statements by Maulana Nur-ud-Din to the effect that he has been made khalifa by God. The context in which he made those statements is ignored by them. The fact is that:

  1. Maulana Nur-ud-Din has castigated those who were saying about him that the right of khilafat belonged to the Promised Messiah’s family but it was usurped and given to “someone else”.
  2. He has staunchly defended the Lahore Jama‘at leaders against their critics (the critics being supporters of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad), and highly praised them.

Editor of Badr made to apologise

We now refer to another point arising from this speech. The editor of Badr, Mufti Muhammad Sadiq, later a leading figure in the Qadiani Jama‘at, had to issue an apology on the instructions of Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din for printing a quotation from a reference book in an earlier issue of Badr which angered the Maulana. In Badr of 14 June 1912 (p. 2), he had quoted the entry about Mirza Ghulam Murtaza, father of the Promised Messiah, from the book The Punjab Chiefs by Sir Lepel Griffin. It was stated in this extract near the close:

“The khalifa of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a famous hakim, Maulvi Nur-ud-Din who was in the service of the Maharajah of Kashmir for some years. Not even one of the relatives of Ghulam Ahmad is his follower.”

Maulana Nur-ud-Din said about this in his speech:

“I was deeply grieved by the words in Badr that no relation of Mirza sahib is a follower of Nur-ud-Din. This is a serious error. The progeny of Mirza sahib are truly devoted to me.”

(Badr, 4 July 1912, p. 7, column 1)

“That journalist who writes that no relation [of Hazrat Mirza sahib] is a follower of mine should repent. He should ask the relatives of Mirza sahib.”

(Badr, 11 July 1912, p. 4, column 3)

The editor of Badr published a 1-page long apology as an addendum to the issue of 4 July, saying that he ought to have refuted the claim made in this quotation when he published the quotation.

If Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din had made a Lahore Ahmadiyya member apologise, it can be well imagined that the Qadiani Jama‘at would be publicising it as an example of treachery by the Lahore members. But here we have a prominent Qadiani Jama‘atmember, editor of Badr and later on a leading missionary of the Qadiani Jama‘at,being publicly told by Maulana Nur-ud-Din to apologise for printing words which undermine his position as khalifa.

As Maulana Nur-ud-Din mentions in his speech, there were people saying that the right of khilafat belonged to the Promised Messiah’s family but it had been given to someone else. The quotation reproduced in Badr, or its meaning as understood by Maulana Nur-ud-Din, would have strengthened their position. This was why he took such serious notice of, and such strong exception, to it.

————————————————————————————————————————————————–Additional quotes

“””The descendants and close relatives of Hadrat Mirza Sahib are all devoted to me. I tell you truly that there is not one of you who obeys me as do my dear ones Mahmud, Bashir and Sharif, and as do Mir Nasir Nawab and Nawab Muhammad ‘Ali Khan. I do not affirm this to please them, but state it as a fact that they love me out of the desire to win the pleasure of God. I have heard the Ummul Mu’minin affirm a score of times that she deems herself my servant. Miyan Mahmud is grown up, he will tell you that he obeys me sincerely. A critic might say that he does not obey me sincerely, but I know for certain that he is truly, obedient to me, more than any one of you. All the members of Hadrat Mirza Sahib’s family obey me as ‘Alira, Fatima and ‘Abbas obeyed Abu Bakr even more so. Every one of them is so devoted to me that I cannot conceive any of them entertaining a wrong notion about me.”””

“””Another question on which you differ and raise contentions is: What is the status of our opponents? Now listen carefully. The Word of God has expounded the principles with regard to the acceptance and rejection of a Prophet.

Whenever a Prophet has appeared there has been no difficulty with regard to the classification of those who believe in him and those who disbelieve. Casuistry apart, God Almighty has set forth clearly the principles of disbelief, faith and association of partners with Allah. There have been Prophets in the past. In each case there were those who believed and those who disbelieved. Have you had any doubt concerning them; and have you had any problem about the classification of those who did not believe in them? You have been told of the principles of belief and disbelief.

Hadrat Mirza Sahib (as) was a Messenger of God. Had he not applied the term Prophet to himself, he would have been guilty of rejecting the Hadith narrated in the compilation of Muslim in which the one who was to come was named a Prophet. The question of believing in him or rejecting him is clear. If one who rejects him professes to be a Muslim he is that much closer to you, as the Christians are closer to you than the Jews. In the same way the Muslims who reject Hadrat Mirza Sahib can be closer to us than the others.””

Links and Related Essays

Sir Lepel H. Griffin (1865), The Panjab Chiefs, Online: pp.381-2


#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #ahmadiyyat #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #drsalam #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Sialkot #Mosqueattack

“Kashful-Ikhtilaf” by Maulvi Sayyed Sarwar Shah (published February 1920), free download

Dear readers, we have obtained a rare book in the history of Ahmadiyya.  It’s called “Kashful-Ikhtilaf” by Maulvi Sayyed Sarwar Shah (published February 1920).  This is a book wherein two letters of Muhammad Sarwar shah are presented which explain the true account of the split.

Free download
Al Kushful Ikhtilaaf

Kashf-ul-Ikhtilaf, P. 13, by Sawar Shah Qadiani, via  

“I have a question for which I have no answer. Please provide me with one. Formerly, we used to tell our wives that we should live the lives of the Companions who ate meager and coarse food and wore rough cloth and donated whatever they could save to the cause of Allah. We urged them to do the same. By means of these admonitions, we used to collect money from people and from our wives and send it to Qadian. But, when our wives themselves visited Qadian and came to know of the state of affair first hand, they angrily returned and told us that we were untruthful. They said they had seen the manner in which the wives of the Prophets and Companions were living in Qadian! Not even a fraction of the comfort and luxury enjoyed by their wives was experienced by those outside (Qadian). This is despite the fact that the money is not remitted to them (for their personal use) but for expenditure in the cause of Allah. We shall spend on ourselves whatever we have as it is our money earned through lawful means. Hence, they said, we were liars who had been deceiving them for long and that they would never again be deceived by us. Thus, they refused to give us any money to send to Qadian… There is a favorite reply which you provide people; this can not hold in my case, as I know the truth personally.”
Kashf-ul-Ikhtilaf, P. 15, by Sawar Shah Qadiani, via 

“What a shame! You are aware how arduously the money of the people is collected; and then this money is not spent for the national purposes for which people donate it, after shaving off their expenditures for their bare necessities. Instead, the money is spent to gratify personal desires; and then, the amount of money is also quite large. It is so large that only if the money specified for public kitchen was managed properly, it alone would suffice to meet the requirements of those projects which have been started but are now in suspense due to the shortage of funds.”
Kashf-ul-Ikhtilaf, P. 14-15, by Sawar Shah Qadiani, via

“I have reliably come to know that the Promised Messiah (upon him be the salutation and peace of God) has expressed great sorrow that despite his declaration that it is the desire of God that the management of the public kitchen remain in his hands (Mirza was appropriating and directing the funds) and otherwise the public kitchen would come to an end, persons like Khwaja are constantly asking him to entrust the management of the kitchen to them and have invidious doubts about him.”

Links and Related Essay’s

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #ahmadiyyat #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #drsalam #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Sialkot #Mosqueattack

Nehru and the Ahmadiyya Movement

Ahmadi’s are not to be trusted, their allegiance is to the Mirza family, no one else, however, they will pretend to be loyal to their country, since they are ordered to.  In the below, we found some data on Nehru and Ahmadi’s.  Remember to check out Muhammad Iqbal and his comments on Ahmadiyya.

Related Essay’s

The quote
“I have no doubt in my mind that the Ahmadis are traitors both to Islam and to India.” Founding Fathers of Pakistan and India Muhammad Iqbal and Jawaharlal Nehru agree in 1936.


#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #ahmadiyyat #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #drsalam #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Sialkot #Mosqueattack

Who is Allama Muhammad Iqbal?

Read about Allama Iqbal and Ahmadiyya here:  We found lots of data from here:  We have pasted it in the below.

The data
Allama Iqbal was a contemporary of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad one of the greatest thinkers of British India in his era, and he had much to say about the Qadianis during the 1930’s.

“I consider all the Hadith reports relating to the Mahdi and the concepts of Messiah-ship and Mujaddids to be the result of Persian and other non-Arab philosophies. They have nothing to do with Arab thought or the true spirit of the Quran.” (written in 1932) (Iqbal Nama, Part II, Makatib Iqbal, (Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, 1951), pp. 230-232, Letter no. 87)

Ghulam Qadir, a Munshi from Siaklot, was an uncle of Allama Iqbal who was a convert to the Ahmadiyya religion.

Letter to Nehru
Letter to The Statesman

From Iqbal’s Poetry

اے وہ کہ تو مہدي کے تخيل سے ہے بيزار
نوميد نہ کر آہوئے مشکيں سے ختن کو

To Mahdi’s concept you seem averse,
Too fed up with this thought appear
This view for Muslims has the weight
That for Cathay has musk of deer.

(From Zarb-Kaleem, poem “Mahdi” in which he first alludes to what Nietzsche did for German nation as if he was ‘Mahdi’ for his people and then writes the above)
Tahira Parwez writes (October 2008):



Allama Muhammad Iqbal is the leading Muslim intellectual, poet/writer, and philosopher of all times. He was also the first Muslim pubic figure to highlight Ahmadiyya’s divisive potential and proposed a separate religious status for them. Ahmadiyya, as you may know, is a breakaway cult from the Sunni (predominantly Punjabi) Islam and was conceived by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, based in Qadian (India), in the late 19th and early 20th century. It fractured into two factions, Qadiani & Lahori, following Mirza’s death: Qadianis believe that Mirza was a prophet and consider Muslims who do not accept his mission to be Kafirs; Lahoris believe that Mirza was a Mujjadid and do not push Muslims outside the pale of Islam. Ahmadiyya have been declared non-Muslims by a general consensus of the Muslims and in most Islamic countries.

Nehru (1935) advocated, inadvertently, for Ahmadiyya while criticising some Muslim groups for lack of tolerance in inter-communal and religious matters. Iqbal responded by highlighting the importance of Muslim belief in the Finality of Prophethood of Muhammad (SAW), conceptual poverty of the Ahmadiyya mission and its potential for dividing the Muslims in their religio-socio-political outlook. Since then, Ahmadiyya have left no stone unturned to malign Iqbal’s personal, political and academic life. Rebuttal of Ahmadiyya propaganda regarding Iqbal’s religious identity is the scope of this article.

During Munir Enquiry (1953) into Punjab riots, an Ahmadi witness alleged that Iqbal was a closet Ahmadi and only renounced his Bayyat following political grievances in 1935. This witness was discredited when several discrepancies (Nawa-e-Waqt, 1954) emerged in his statement including a denial that he ever claimed Iqbal to be an Ahmadi. Since casting this first stone, several years after Iqbal’s death, Ahmadiyya propaganda machinery has kept churning out articles and books claiming that Iqbal & his family were Ahmadi and his late renunciation was politically motivated. Some writers, including Javed Iqbal (Iqbal’s son), have tried to clear the air but nothing has appeared in English to analyse the issue and set the record straight.

Iqbal was born and brought up in Sialkot, a small town in West Punjab (now in Pakistan). Mirza served there as a junior cleric in the Deputy Commissioner’s office before Iqbal was born. Mirza formed friendships and acquired some following in the town due to his early reputation as an Islamic missionary. When Mirza returned to Sialkot after launching his ‘prophetic mission’ from Qadian, Iqbal was busy at college. Either during or before this visit, Iqbal’s elder brother, Atta Muhammad, and his son, Shaikh Ijaz Ahmad accepted Ahmadiyya. Atta Muhammad renounced Ahmadiyya some years before his death and none of his other children accepted it. Ijaz died an Ahmadi but none of his children accepted Ahmadiyya. Ijaz is also the author of a fine book, Muzloom Iqbal – it confirms that Iqbal never accepted Ahmadiyya.

Iqbal’s relationship with his first wife was strained before and after they separated due to her temperament, and morbid pride in her higher socioeconomic background. Their first born, Aftab Ahmed, stayed with his mother and remained a source of anguish for Iqbal throughout his life. Aftab was sent to a boarding school for four years because of his difficult temperament; Taleem-ul-Islam at Qadian was chosen due to its academic reputation, discipline, and least expenses. Atta Muhammad took this decision, as Iqbal was abroad/away from his parental home in Sialkot. Aftab never accepted Ahmadiyya and even changed his surname from Ahmed to Iqbal early in his career as a successful barrister.

Iqbal established anti-Ahmadiyya credentials early in his youth. He published a poem in Persian highlighting his belief in the Finality of Prophethood of Muhammad (SAW) in 1902. Then, following harassment from an acquaintance turned Ahmadi preacher, he published an Urdu poem in Mukhzan (7/1902), which glorified Islam’s unifying nature and criticized schismic potential of Ahmadiyya. When someone misquoted Iqbal about the superiority of one Ahmadi faction over the other, he wrote (Paigam-e-Sulah, 1915) to certify his belief in Khatam-e-Nabuwat and having no expertise in Ahmadiyya beliefs or history. These examples show Iqbal’s discomfort towards Ahmadiyya despite his kind nature, which restrained him from getting into controversial issues.

Iqbal, like Sir Syed, believed in religious reform, modern education and political unity for Muslims. His views regarding Ahmadiyya were also in line with those of Syed, who opined that Mirza’s claims were useless and Muslims should ignore him to avoid washing dirty linen in public. That was the position until Iqbal experienced the shenanigans of Ahmadiyya while working with Mirza Bashir (2nd Khalifa of Qadiani faction) and his followers in the All India Kashmir Committee (1931-1933). Bashir and another Ahmadi were the head and secretary of the Committee. Iqbal received complaints that Ahmadiyya were using the Committee as a platform to carry out missionary activities in Kashmir. The best way forward, Iqbal proposed, was to formulate rules of business for the Committee. But Ahmadi members vehemently opposed Iqbal and others, making it clear in the process that their primary loyalty lay with their Khalifa (Bashir) for now and in the future. Bashir resigned eventually and Iqbal took over the chair temporarily before the Committee was dissolved, mainly, due to the Ahmadis leaving to follow Bashir. Ahmadiyya went on to form their own Tehrek-e-Kashmir and offered Iqbal the chair but he refused to be bitten twice.

Around the same time, Ahmadiyya of Qadian were raising their political game. They were staunch supporters of the Punjab Unionist Party, which was secular and very close to the British, under the leadership of Sir Fazal Hussain. In return, they sought patronage for Sir Zafar Ullah Khan, an Ahmadi stalwart & later 1st Foreign Minister of Pakistan. As a result, Zafar Ullah rose through the political ranks quickly and was made the president of Muslim League at its Annual Meeting in Delhi (1931) despite protests from local Muslims. Iqbal must have appreciated how Muslim League nearly disappeared from the political scene, under the leadership of Zafar Ullah and patronage of Sir Fazal, after proposed amalgamation with Muslim Conference. Zafar Ullah was also a surprise choice to represent Muslims & Punjab in the Viceroy’s Council (1935) instead of any other prominent Muslim leader. Contrary to Ahmadiyya propaganda, Iqbal was in failing health at that time and was never a candidate for the post.

Herbert Emerson (1935), the Punjab Governor, spoke about the need for tolerance towards Ahmadiyya (from Ahrar) and questioned the quality of Muslim leadership at a meeting of Anjuman Hemayat-e-Islam. Iqbal issued a statement clarifying the importance of Muslim belief in the Finality of Prophethood of Muhammad (SAW) and also asked the British to take some responsibility for the policies that hindered the emergence of quality leadership from Muslims.

Pandit Nehru (1935) also wrote three articles in The Modern Review of Calcutta teasing out similar issues, apparently, without realizing their sensitivity to Muslims. Ahmadiyya gloated at large before Iqbal published (1935) his legendary response: it tore into Nehru’s understanding of Ahmadiyya while educating the public, especially modern Muslims, about Ahmadiyya’s hidden agenda. He explained that Ahmadiyya’s real nature lay behind medieval mysticism and Qadianis felt nervous about the political awakening among Indian Muslims, which could defeat their designs to carve out a new Umma for their Indian prophet. Iqbal proclaimed that ‘…the socio-political Organization called “Islam” is perfect and eternal. No revelation, the denial of which entails heresy, is possible after Muhammad. He who claims such a revelation is a traitor to Islam’.

It is evident from the above that Iqbal, despite initial optimism, always felt uncomfortable about Ahmadiyya beliefs and designs. In prevailing circumstances, he had political and social interaction with them. He also took a long time before criticizing them publicly due to his mild nature and to avoid creating new fissures in the Muslim community. However, what he wrote clearly established that Ahmadiyya were traitors to both, Islam and Indian struggle for independence. To claim that he believed in Ahmadiyya cannot be further from the truth; and to create such evidence from propaganda literature is intellectually dishonest. Allama Iqbal and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad remain poles apart, and taking their names in the same breath is an insult to Iqbal and his followers.

Further reading:

Dr. Sir Muhammad Iqbal and Ahmadiyya

There is lots of data on this.  I wanted to present the Lahori-Ahmadi response to this.  Iqbal seems to have friendly with Ahmadi’s until the “All India Kashmir Committee” in roughly 1934.  Iqbal was a Quranist after he left Ahmadiyya.  He denied the return of the Messiah and the arrival of the Mahdi.  Also read here: Allama Muhammad Iqbal.  

The link

The data

1. When Allama Iqbal was ill in 1934, Maulana Muhammad Ali went to visit him. Dr. Iqbal related to him an incident showing the real beliefs of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Maulana Muhammad Ali refers to this in an English booklet entitled Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s Statement re. the Qadianis, as follows:

      • “But I would refer Sir Muhammad Iqbal to an incident which he himself so recently related to me when I paid him a visit during his sickness in October 1934. The Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, he told me, was then in Sialkot — he did not remember the year, but it was the year 1904 as the facts related by him show. Mian (now Sir) Fazl-i-Husain was then practising as a lawyer in Sialkot, and one day while he (the Mian Sahib) was going to see the Mirza Sahib, he (Sir Muhammad Iqbal) met him in the way, and after inquiring whither he was going he also accompanied him. During the conversation that ensued with the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, Mian Sir Fazl-i-Husain asked him if he looked upon those who did not believe in him as


    • , and the Mirza sahib without a moment’s hesitation replied that he did not.

“This fact which Sir Muhammad Iqbal himself related to me last year is a clear evidence that the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement is not responsible for the present Qadiani doctrine.”

2. Maulana Muhammad Ali also reported the following opinion expressed by Iqbal:

    • “Once a very eminent man, namely Dr. Sir Muhammad Iqbal, said that one finds [in Islamic history] many people who love the Holy Prophet Muhammad, but the only person who loves the Quran is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.”


      • (

Paigham Sulh

    • , 10 May 1935.)

3. Maulana Yaqub Khan, editor of The Light, gave the following account of a meeting he had with a prominent admirer and friend of Iqbal:

      • “I spoke to Maulana Sayyid Nazir Niazi. During the conversation he said that he had mentioned my reference (i.e. the incident related by Maulana Muhammad Ali in

Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s Statement re. the Qadianis

      • , given above) to Allama Iqbal. The Allama said that he had undoubtedly heard Mirza sahib say that he did not consider those who do not believe in him as being


    • . He [Iqbal] was prepared to testify to this before a gathering of thousands of people. The Allama also said that his statement published in the press related to the present controversy going on between the Qadiani Jama’at and the general Muslims. It was not directed against the Lahore Jama’at, nor did it comment on the beliefs of Mirza sahib. “Before this, our honoured friend Raja Hasan Akhtar had also told me that he had spoken to Allama Iqbal, and the Allama had said to him that his statement was not related to the Lahore Jama’at nor to the person of Mirza sahib. He had before him the picture of Ahmadiyyat being presented to the world today in the form of Qadianism.”


      • (

Paigham Sulh

    • , 19 November 1935)

Dr. Iqbal lived for more than two and a half years after the publication of these testimonies, and he read them. But he did not contradict them, nor did his followers ever do so, even though they lived on for a further thirty years or so.

Further views expressed by Iqbal in this period.1. Iqbal was reported as having said:

    •  “So far as I have understood the objective of this movement, the belief of the Ahmadis is that Jesus died like any other human mortal, and that the return of the Messiah refers to the coming of a man who bears a spiritual resemblance to him. This belief gives this movement a rationalist colouring.”


      • (Newspaper


      • , 13 February 1935.

Khutbat Madras

    • )

2. When Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote his book The Religion of Islam, Dr. Iqbal expressed the following view on it in a letter dated 6th February 1936:

    • “Thank you so much for your kind present to me of your new book

The Religion of Islam

    . I very much appreciate the gift. I have glanced through parts of it, and find it an extremely useful work, almost indispensable to the students of Islam. You have already written a number of books; one cannot but admire your energy and power of sustained work.”

3. Sayyid Nazir Niazi published a compilation of the daily conversations of Iqbal which took place in his presence. For the date 17 March 1938, shortly before the death of Iqbal, it is recorded:

    • “The Allama said: On the subject of prayer Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan and Mirza sahib went to opposite extremes. … Sir Sayyid held the view that one did not gain anything from prayer except inner consolation. On the opposite side was Mirza sahib who said that everything is possible by means of prayer: you keep on praying, and what you want to happen shall come about. … Mirza sahib went to an extreme. He prayed about every matter, and he received requests for prayer on every matter. So much so that, besides other things such as propagation of Islam, debates with other religions, insistence on the truth of Islam, this was another factor which attracted the hearts towards Mirza sahib. In any case, prayer is a part of faith.”


      • (

Iqbal kay huzur nashistain aur goftaguain

    • , vol 1, p. 360.)

It is undoubtedly true that the Imam of the age, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, considered prayer to be the chief means of establishing a closer connection with God. His followers also believe that only through prayer can any end be achieved. Prayer is one of the questions on which Hazrat Mirza has revived the original teachings of Islam, as he did in case of numerous other questions. What Allama Iqbal has said is entirely true.

Iqbal’s opposition was against Qadiani doctrines.Iqbal’s statements against the Ahmadiyya Movement near the end of his life were prompted by a conflict between the Qadiani Jama’at and the Ahrar movement, known as the Ahrari-Qadiani controversy, which raged during the 1930s. Sayyid Nazir Niazi, an admirer of Iqbal who has been quoted earlier, wrote in an article about the last illness of Iqbal:

    • “The views which the Allama expressed from time to time as a result of the Qadiani-Ahrari controversy now meant that he had to publish a detailed statement about the whole affair.”


      • (


    • , new edition. Magazine Urdu, ‘Iqbal’ Number, October 1938. Anjuman Taraqqi Urdu, Hyderabad Deccan, p. 312.)

Despite such intense opposition, when Iqbal’s attention was drawn to his speech in 1910 (in which he had described the Ahmadiyya Jama’at as a “true model of Islamic life”), the answer he gave is worth pondering over. He replied:

      • “I regret that I do not have that speech, neither the original English version nor its Urdu translation which was done by Maulana Zafar Ali Khan. As far as I remember I made that speech in 1911 or earlier, and I have no hesitation in admitting that a quarter of a century ago I expected good results to flow from this movement.… However, the true spirit of a religious movement is not revealed in a day, but takes years to be manifested properly. The mutual controversies between the two parties within the movement show that even those people who had personal connections with the founder did not know the direction the movement would take in the future. Personally, I became disillusioned with this movement when a new prophethood was claimed, a prophethood superior even to the prophethood of the Founder of Islam, and all Muslims were declared as


    • . Later my disillusionment developed to the stage of open opposition.”
      • (

Harf-i Iqbal

    • , pp. 122 – 123.)

This statement exonerates Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad because he died in 1908. In fact, it is directed against those who ascribe a prophethood to Hazrat Mirza superior to the prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Dr. Iqbal’s statement in his speech in 1910 at the Aligarh College, in favour of the Ahmadiyya Movement, was made two years after Hazrat Mirza’s death, and the split in the Movement on the issue of declaring Muslims as kafir took place in 1914, six years after his death. All these erroneous doctrines were coined by the khalifa of Qadian, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, after the death of Hazrat Mirza, and had not the least connection with his beliefs. On the contrary, Hazrat Mirza battled against such doctrines throughout his life.

It will have become clear to the readers from the various statements of Iqbal quoted above that, before Mirza Mahmud Ahmad declared other Muslims as kafir, the Allama held highly favourable views about the Ahmadiyya Movement and its Founder, and was deeply influenced by them. But cursed be political wrangles! A man even of Iqbal’s stature was so carried away by the Ahrari controversy as to be prepared to make statements denouncing the Ahmadiyya Movement and its Founder. On the other hand, it is not only proved from his extract quoted above, but all knowledgeable persons are also aware, that Dr. Iqbal began to be disillusioned with the Ahmadiyya Jama’at in 1914 when Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din died and Mirza Mahmud Ahmad ascribed a claim of prophethood to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, declaring that those who had not entered into his bai‘at were k r and outside the fold of Islam, thus dividing the Movement into two.

Previously, Allama Sir Muhammad Iqbal was not only an admirer of Hazrat Mirza and the Ahmadiyya Movement, but like his elder brother Shaikh Ata Muhammad he had formally taken the bai‘at. With all this evidence, every fair-minded, God-fearing person can see that, until the Ahmadiyya Jama’at split on the issue of calling Muslims as kafir, the Allama did not oppose the Movement. Moreover, no one can deny that despite his later intense opposition, he never severed his friendship and personal ties with the prominent members of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’at Islam Lahore. Indeed, on the occasions he made statements against the Ahmadis he also made it clear that his criticism was not directed against Hazrat Mirza or the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama’at.

The views he expressed about the leaders of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama’at in the last years of his life are instructive for those who think. He wrote the following words:

    “As to the Ahmadiyya Movement, there are many members of the Lahore Jama’at whom I consider to be Muslims who have a sense of honour, and I sympathise with their efforts to propa gate Islam. … But indeed, the passion for the propagation of Islam that is to be found in most members of this Jama’at is worthy of praise.”

All lovers of Iqbal, who celebrate ‘Iqbal Day’ every year, should ponder over these words. While he considered that most members of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama’at were “Muslims who have a sense of honour,” possessing a “passion for the propagation of Islam,” with whom he “sympathised,” his admirers condemn this Jama’at. Can this be called love for this great man?

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #ahmadiyyat #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #drsalam #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Sialkot #Mosqueattack

Links and Related Essays

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #ahmadiyyat #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #drsalam #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Sialkot #Mosqueattack

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wanted Muhammadi begum’s husband to be killed

Dear readers, we have covered the topic of Muhammadi Begum at length. Read all of these entries first. We have found some interesting information to add to this saga. As we were going through Hassan Odeh’s book on Ahmadiyya, we found this reference:

“We will kill her husband, as we killed her father, and will return her to you”

Tadhkirah, page 226. As quoted by Hassan odeh in 2000 in his book on Ahmadiyya, see page 96-97.
What did the Ahmadi’s change?

The word translates as kill, however, Ahmadiyya leadership decided to use destroy. The word in arabic is used is “mohlaikoon” it is derived from the word “halaaq” means halaaq kerna, or to say “main nay us murd ko halaaq ker diya, maar diya”.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________MGA and his team wanted other people to be killed also, Lekh Ram, Abdullah Athim and Dr. Clark
_____________________________________________________________________________________________The reference in the 2009 edition of Tadhkirah was changed from kill to destroy

The exact same translation was done in the 2004 edition of Tadhkirah, and the 1976 english edition (see page 138).  

The reference from the 1967 edition of Tadhkirah, URDU

Links and Related Essays


#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #ahmadiyyat #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #drsalam #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Sialkot #Mosqueattack

Fauzia Faizi confirms that the Mirza family is full of incest and rapists

The Mirza family are a group of sick people. MGA’s son, the famous Musleh Maud preyed on boys and girls. The British Government allowed him to do whatever he wanted. A few years ago, Fauzia Faizi did an interview wherein she described the inner workings of the Mirza family, Samina Khan, a German politician also weighed in. Fauzia Faizi also discussed how Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad was raping his own daughter and etc. Fauzia Faizi is the great grand daughter of a companion of MGA, Dr. Syed Abdus Sattar Shah. She is also the niece of Abd u Rehman Khadim (Author of Ahmadiyya Pocket Book).
The family of Fauzia Faizi Continue reading “Fauzia Faizi confirms that the Mirza family is full of incest and rapists”

Featured post

Who is Manzur Ahmad Chinioti?

Manzur Ahmad Chinioti was a major opponent of Ahmadiyya. He interviewed Hassan Odeh when he famously left Ahmadiyya in the late 1980’s early 1990’s. We have collected lots of the data and posted it in the below. Mirza Tahir Ahmad claimed that Manzur Chinioti died like a dog after getting hit many times in the face and losing his hearing. Listen here to Manzur Chinioti discussing his challenge with Mirza Tahir Ahmad.

It should be noted that in the very first edition of Arba’in, MGA and his team of writers wrote that “anbiya” had said that the Messiah would come in the 14th century, however, in the 2nd edition (1920), they wrote a footnote wherein it was stated that this was a clerical error and the word should have been “auliya”. Manzur Ahmad Chinioti explains this situation in this video. Watch my tik tok on this also. See our book review on Arba’in for details. Zia Rasul from the Aaqa Ka Ghulam youtube channel explains the entire story herein, see at the 3:30 mark).
Continue reading “Who is Manzur Ahmad Chinioti?”

Who is Mirza Rafi Ahmad? Grandson of MGA and son of Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad, 5th March 1927 to 15th January 2004

Mirza Rafi Ahmad almost became the Khalifa in 1982, when Mirza Nasir Ahmad died.  There is lots of controversy on this topic.  Official Qadiani-Ahmadi sources have never even commented on the controversy in this election.   Some Ahmadi’s seem to have began to follow Mirza Rafi Ahmad instead of the Khalifa.  This is where the details get sketchy.  Mirza Rafi Ahmad seems to have started his own sect of Ahmadiyya thereafter, it was called Green Ahmediyyat, whom his followers call “Mahmood-e-Sani Confidant of Ayub-e-Ahmadiyyat Harzrat Sahibzada Mirza Rafi Ahmed (AS)”. He is pictured below.  5th March 1927 to 15th January 2004.  He died in 2004, he was 76 years old.

Their website is

Mirza Rafi Ahmad’s speech in 1964

Mirza Rafi Ahmad’s biography
Mirza Rafi Ahmad

Click to access Seerat_HMRA_English.pdf

Additional links to data

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #ahmadiyyat #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #drsalam #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Sialkot #Mosqueattack

Up ↑