Intro
There is a famous Ex-Ahmadi named Professor Dr. Is’mail A.B. Balogan, B.A., PH.D. (London) University of Ibadan, Nigeria. He was a Professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the University of Ibadan, Algeria, Dr. Balogun had dedicated his life to the cause of Ahmadiyyah and had raised through the ranks to become a top spokesman and ambassador for the Movement. Throughout the years, his well articulate and emotional speeches had motivated many young Ahmadis. Similarly, his public departure and the commotion and debates that pursued caused many educated individuals to realize the truth and abandon Ahmadiyyah. He wrote about Ahmadiyya in the early 1970’s. He also wrote in the Sunday Times about the dangers of Ahmadiyya. He verbally jousted with high ranking Ahmadi Murrabi’s in Nigeria. Molvi Ajmal Shahid, then the Amir of Ahmadiyyah movement in Nigeria, provided an extremely short reply in which he expressed his dismay at the “spiritual death of a brother (ibid., p. 97)” and Moulvi Naseem Saifi, the chief Ahmadiyyah missionary for West Africa, confirmed that Dr. Balogun had been very close and high in the administration and expressed his sadness that Dr. Balogun had abandoned Ahmadiyyah in favor of Islam (ibid., p. 99); other Ahmadi missionaries questioned his public withdrawal and, in an attempt at damage control, advanced a number of unbecoming and unproved accusations. This book seems to have been published in 1977 and from Lahore, Pakistan.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________What is this book about?
It’s basically a collection of his essay’s vs. Ahmadiyya in the year 1974, as well as his correspondance with Ahmadi Murrabi’s.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________Free download—Full Book
Ismail Balogun 1-41 (1)
IB, 42 to 62 (2)
IB, page 43 (2)
IB, 42 to 62 (2)
______________________________________________________________________________________________
He wrote about how the Saudi Embassy refused to give Nigerian-Ahmadi’s Hajj visas for the January 1974 hajj
In the preface of his book, he himself writes:
In October 1970, the World Muslim League at Mecca passed a resolution which says among other things:
“That the Ahmadiyya (Qadiani) group founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a group that has veered far from the path of Islam by reasons of certain of its beliefs and practices which are clearly contradictory to the well-known view point of Islam”
Consequent upon this resolution, the Government of Royal Kingdom of Saudi Arabia decided that Ahmadi’s from all over the world must not be allowed to perform the annual Pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina because they were considered as Non-Muslims……..
In Compliance with the Government’s decision, the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Nigeria refused bluntly in December of 1973 to allow Nigerian Ahmadis to perform Hajj in January of 1974. A hue and a cry ensued as a result of this refusal and many statements and counter statements were made in the Nigerian Press. The situation reached a point where I sincerely felt that the nation needed necessary information and guidance on the matter. At this point, there were indications that certain people aimed at maneuvering the situation into a governmental confrontation between Nigeria and Saudi Arabia.
As as Ahmadi then, I was naturally displeased with the attitude of the Embassy. But as a University teacher in the field of Arabic and Islamic studies I considered it a bounden duty to present the truth based on knowledge of Islam, …..
See—Preface to the attached book
_____________________________________________________________________________________________Dr. Balogan first wrote
Dr. Baolgan was an Ahmadi until January of 1974, he unexpectedly wrote an essay vs. Ahmadiyya, we have produced much of it in the below.
1———“The fact that Ahmadis hid their true doctrine from the membership at large is] evident in the fact that when one of the young educated Nigerian Muslims, who originally invited the Movement here, went to Britain for further studies and thereby came in contact with Indian Ahmadis, who resided then in Britain, he studied them at first hand and returned home only to withdraw his membership of the Movement. This was the late al-Haj L. B. Agusto of blessed memory.” (Sunday Times, Nigeria, Jan. 20, 1974; Ibid., p. 2).
2———-“Even though Ahmadiyya has been in this country for close to sixty years, I make the bold to say that, up till now, the vast majority of the adherents of the organization, within both the Movement and the Mission, are still in the dark about the details of its teaching, as well as its purpose. For example, it was only very recently, when stiff opposition to Ahmadiyyah started to rear its head in this country, that certain high-ranking Ahmadis knew for the first time that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be a Prophet.” (Sunday Times, Nigeria, Jan. 20, 1974; ibid., p. 3)“.
3———-“I could have raised all the points in this article with them (e.g. the Indo-Pakistani Ahmadi leadership) internally without any publicity; but experience has shown that such criticisms will automatically earn the critic either a long-term boycott or an outright excommunication. With any of these, no other member will be prepared to listen to him… I have stated my point of view, God is my witness, purely because of my awareness of the responsibility incumbent on me towards my fellow Nigerian Muslims in particular, and the world Muslims at large. My intention is not to oppose Ahmadiyyah; I have lived in it long enough to have a soft spot for it in my heart. But that notwithstanding, whenever a clash of opinion arises between Islam and Ahmadiyyah, it behooves me to declare for Islam without mincing words.” (Sunday Times, Nigeria, Jan. 20, 1974; ibid., p.17).
______________________________________________________________________________________________After Ahmadi’s were declared Non-Muslim by Pakistan he wrote
1—-“In my Childhood, I was brought up to revere the Indo-Pakistani Ahmadiyyah missionaries who guided and controlled our religious activities. When the mission came to our elders and, through the elders to us, we believed all that they told us in toto, because of the implicit confidence we had in them.
Their preaching appeared plausible to us and we accepted their arguments in good faith. They made references to Islamic books in order to substantiate their claims and we accepted the references without cross-checking them because of our confidence in them.
Their method was to alienate us against the orthodox Muslims in whom they found faults in the way they practiced Islam. The missionaries claimed to present “the true Islam” to us in the name of Ahmadiyyah.
They often impressed on us that the stiff opposition, which Ahmadis suffered in India before the partition and subsequently in Pakistan, was a conclusive proof of the truth of Ahmadiyyah. After all, no prophet is readily accepted in his own town or country. This also appeared plausible to us, hence we followed them with unalloyed confidence.” (Sunday Sketch, Nigeria, Sept. 29, 1974; Islam versus Ahmadiyyah in Nigeria, p. 85-86).
2———“My aim [in cross-checking the references offered by Ahmadi missionaries] was actually to strengthen myself against the gathering opposition to Ahmadiyyah. As a University scholar, I was conscious that my pronouncement in support of Ahmadiyyah must necessarily be backed with authentic references to Islamic sources.
In my cross-checking of the Ahmadiyyah missionaries’ references, however, my findings were rather disappointing.
Consequent upon my first article on the Ahmadiyyah problem in Nigeria (Sunday Times, 20 January 1974), the Ahmadiyyah Mission members wrote extensive rejoinders which gave me a further opportunity to examine, independently, more Ahmadiyyah claims and views than hitherto.
I must say, before God and man, that the more I scrutinized the claims and purported references for them, the more I discovered that the Ahmadiyyah Mission is deceiving the world and playing on the ignorance of many of their followers.
In many cases, they quote authors [scholars] who are explicitly opposed to Ahmadiyyah ideas; but so cleverly do they quote that they often give the impression that the authors support Ahmadiyyah views.
Examples of such distortions abound in the quotations made by Dr. Bhutta in his rejoinder (Sunday Sketch, 8 September 1974) to my article. It may interest the readers to know that Dr. Bhutta is himself a Pakistani Ahmadiyyah medical missionary.
It is only by going to the source references and reading what the Ahmadis had quoted within the context in which they are set that the reader, and the seeker after truth, will realize how much the Pakistani Ahmadiyyah missionaries try to deceive the world.” (Sunday Sketch, Nigeria, Sept. 29, 1974; ibid., p. 86-87).
3————“In order to buttress their claim about Khatam-un-Nabiyyin, the Ahmadis often quote the mystic Shaikh Muhyiddin Ibn ‘Arabi as saying, ‘The Prophethood that was terminated with the person of the Prophet of Allah(SAW) was no other than the Law-bearing Prophethood, and not Prophethood itself.’ (Futuhat al-Makkiyyah, Vol. II, p. 3)
This quoted statement appears on page 3 of the book, which contains over 700 pages. The book does not stop at the statement concerning the matter of Prophethood. On the contrary, it explains further at length, covering eleven pages, pages 252 to 262 inclusive, in the same volume, the different aspects of the Prophethood.
He says, among other things, that Prophethood exists among both animate and inanimate objects. With regard to human beings, he classified the Prophets into two: law-bearing prophets and follower prophets. He explains the functions of each category and concludes in both cases that, with the coming of the Prophet Muhammad, both categories have ceased to appear.
He says that what would remain for Muslims after Muhammad are speculators (Mujtahids) who would strive in their own different ways to explain the Shariah to the people according to their understanding of it. Such Mujtahids, he says, will NOT be called Prophets (Ibn Arabi, al-Futuhat al-Makkiyyah, Vol. II, pp. 254 and 255). This is certainly known to the Pakistani Ahmadi missionaries, but they hide it from their followers deliberately in order to entrench their own false idea on Prophethood…
Another example of the distortions by the Ahmadis for their selfish ends is contained in their official rejoinder to my article already mentioned.
On page 5, column 2, of Monday 11 February 1974 issues of The Truth, the Ahmadiyyah Mission quoted the following in support of the Prophethood of the Promised Messiah: ‘There is no discrepancy between the two, that he (the Messiah) will be a Prophet and a follower of the Holy Prophet(SAW) for the purpose of explaining the commandments of his Shariah, and to strengthen its way, even though he does so through his revelations.’ (Mirqat Sharh Miskat, Vol. 5, pg. 564)
This quotation has been extracted from the explanation of the Hadith in which the Prophet Muhammad had declared that there would be no other Prophet after him.
Indication. The Hadith, which is contained in Mishkat al Masabih, reports that the Messenger of God said to ‘Ali, ‘You are in the same position to me as Harun (Aaron) was to Musa (Moses): except that there is no prophet after me’. The Mishkat reports also that authentic books of Hadith are agreed on this tradition.
Now, in commenting on this authentic Hadith, Imam ‘Ali Qari, who was deceitfully quoted by Ahmadis, says:
“In the commentary of Muslim, some scholars say concerning his [the Prophet’s] statement ‘Except that there is no Prophet after me,’ that it is an indication that whenever ‘Isa b. Maryam [Jesus Christ] descends, he will descend as one of the arbitrators of this Community inviting people with the Law of Muhammad(SAW), and will not descend as a Prophet.I say that there is no inconsistency in his being a Prophet and being a follower to our Prophet(SAW) concerning the explanation of the rules of the Shariah and the improvement of his way even with revelation to him, as indicated by the saying of the Prophet: ‘If Moses were alive he would have no choice but to follow me.’
That is even though he is described as a Prophet and a Messenger; and in the absence of both of them (Prophethood and Messengership), there will not be any additional attainment.
Interpretation. So, the meaning is that there will not be any new Prophet after him because he is the Seal of all the Prophets that had gone before.
In it (the statement) is an allusion that, if there were to be a Prophet after him, it would have been ‘Ali; and it is not incompatible with what has clearly been related concerning the right of ‘Umar because the decision is hypothetical and suppositional.
It is as if he (the Prophet) says: ‘If there were to be a Prophet after me, a group of my Companions would have been Prophets; but there is no Prophet after me.’
This is the meaning of the Prophet’s(SAW) saying: ‘If Ibrahim had lived, he would have been a Prophet.’
As for the Hadith, which says, ‘The scholars of my Community are like the Israelites Prophets’, memorizers like Zurkashi, Asqalani, Damiri, and Suyuti have clearly said that is has no basis.”
This quotation is from the same book and on the same page referred to by the Ahmadiyyah Mission. That is: ‘Ali al-Qari, Mirqat al-Mafatih Sharh Mishkat al-Masabih, vol. 5, pg. 564.
It is clear from the quotation that the Mission has extracted what they thought would support their erroneous view from a commentary which, taken together, is explicitly opposed to the view. This is in order to give the impression that the author supports their idea.
In educated circles, such act is an errant distortion of an author’s view and thought. It contradicts the international law of copyright. It is, indeed, unacceptable as well as unbecoming of a mission that wants itself to be taken seriously.
From the Islamic point of view also, it is an abominable act. Consider, for example, Quran 2:59 [also 7:162], which says, “The transgressors changed the statement from that which was made to them; so We sent a pestilence from heaven upon the transgressors, for their having gone astray.’ A food for thought indeed for the Ahmadis!” (Sunday Sketch, Nigeria, Sept. 29, 1974; ibid., p. 91-95)
4——––“Furthermore, instead of being crossed with me, calling me names and making all sorts of conjectures about me because of my renunciation of Ahmadiyyah, let the Nigerian Ahmadis take my exposition to their Pakistani missionaries for verification or denial.
Assertions. If they deny my assertions, then demand from them the Arabic books (not Urdu translations) from which they took their quotations. Then, let independent Arabic scholars translate the relevant sections within their context.
If I am proved wrong, let my father reject and disown me, and let the Ahmadis collectively curse and “crucify” me. But if I am proved right, then it becomes incumbent on all Nigerian Ahmadis, including my relations, both by blood and affinity, to reconsider their association with Ahmadiyyah, pray fervently to God Almighty as I have done to show them the way of Islam and help them to follow it.” (Sunday Sketch, Sept. 29, 1974; ibid., p. 96).
______________________________________________________________________________________________Nigerian Ahmadis responded to Dr. Balogan
On page 5, column 2, of Monday 11 February 1974 issues of The Truth, the Ahmadiyyah Mission quoted the following in support of the Prophethood of the Promised Messiah: ‘There is no discrepancy between the two, that he (the Messiah) will be a Prophet and a follower of the Holy Prophet(SAW) for the purpose of explaining the commandments of his Shariah, and to strengthen its way, even though he does so through his revelations.’ (Mirqat Sharh Miskat, Vol. 5, pg. 564)
Mr. Al haj A. S. Olatunde vs. Ahmadiyya missionaries in Nigeria
“For some months now, I have been quiet. My quietness has come as a result of a very serious study I embarked upon in connection with a burning question.
The question began with an article published by Dr. Ismail Balogun of the University of Ibadan a few months ago. It concerned the belief of the Ahmadiyya Jamat that the founder of the organization was a kind of a prophet.
Dr. Ismail Balogun, who was born into the Ahmadiyya Community, advanced cogent arguments and reasons to support his rebuttal of the claim of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to Prophethood and the need to abandon the name Ahmadiyya to denote a class of Muslims.
A series of rejoinders came from many well-known Ahmadis. The most significant thing about the rejoinders is that they are unconvincing! They have been based on shifty premises.
Dr. Ismail Balogun came out again with a final reply to all the rejoinders. His final reply contained incontrovertible facts from various books of Islam and lexicons to support his stand that after the holy Prophet Muhammad there had not been and there would never be another prophet of any kind, at least in so far as Islam is concerned.
I want to make my personal stand clear now. I support Dr. Ismail Balogun. I agree entirely with his findings. And with him I declare that Muhammad is the last Prophet of God.
I also declare that I am not an Ahmadi. It is true that I have been closely connected with the Ahmadiyya Mission for many years. During my period of association with them, the question of another prophet after Muhammad was never a point of interest in our discussions.
I am sure with this, nobody will be in doubt any more about my stand. I want to remind all Muslims of an incident toward the close of the glorious life of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. It was the parting sermon he delivered on the Arafat in his last pilgrimage.
He said: “I am leaving unto you two noble things. So long as you will cling to them, you will never go astray. One of them is the Book of Allah and the other is the Tradition of His Apostle. Let him that is present tell unto him that is absent. Haply he that shall be told may remember better than he who has heard it.”
With me, the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet are sufficient. I am a Muslim and anything that will tarnish my Islam is rejected with all my heart.
If there is any person or any group of persons who have been showing me any favor because they thought that I was an Ahmadi, I pray, they should now withhold or withdraw their favors. I shall be satisfied with whatever favors it will please Allah to bestow on me as a Muslim, pure and simple. May Allah open our hearts to His Truth. Amen.” (Daily Sketch, Friday, Nov. 8, 1974; ibid. p. 118-119).
______________________________________________________________________________________________Links and Related Essay’s
https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/09/24/ahmadiyya-a-study-in-contemporary-islam-on-the-west-african-coast-by-humphrey-j-fisher-1963/
https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/?s=Balogan
Dr. Balogan, the famous African-Ahmadi who left Ahmadiyya in 1974
Who is Farimang Mamadi Singhateh? The Governor General of the Gambia (1970’s) and an Ahmadi
Who is Humphrey J. Fisher? The writer who wrote extensively about Ahmadiyya in Africa
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #atifmian
#mkanigeria #nigeria #ahmadiyyainnigeria
37 Pingback