September 2019

Any Ahmadi who refuses to join Khuddam ul Ahmadiyya (MKA) is to be subjected to 3 days of complete social boycott

In an Urdu compilation book entitled, Mash-ale Rah (In english as “The torch that guides the way”), Vol. 1, Pages 208 and 209, the Ahmadiyya Khalifa, Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad ordered that if any Ahmadi fails to complete a khuddam ul Ahmadiyya task he is to be socially boycotted for one day [exception for grade 10 (or younger) students] and anyone who refuses to join Khuddam ul Ahmadiyya is to be subjected to 3 days of complete social boycott [remember khuddam ul Ahmadiyya includes children as young as 15]. Furthermore, we all know how Ahmadi’s are ordered to socially boycott ex-Ahmadi‘s, he also suggests a 7 year rigorous punishment for anyone who doesn’t show up for prayer.
In 1936, he also said: 

Mirza Basheeruddin Mahmud Ahmad

“We do not have the power to forcibly rectify the people and throw that person who does not obey our orders of the country like Hitler and Mussolini, and punish the one that is not prepared to listen and obey us. If we had power, then we would have done this within a day and not have let another day rise that we had these shortcomings in us but if we get power today we will implement our orders”.[1]

[1] M, Mahmood, Khutbat Mahmood, Vol.17 p.337, 29th May 1936

Links and Related Essays

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #trueislam

Jafar Zatalli, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Muhammadi Begum

In 1898, in MGA’s english and Urdu book, Kashif ul Ghita (In english as, “The Truth Unveiled”(1898), he mentioned how a person named Mullah Muhammad Baksh of Lahore had written foul and indecent language about MGA’s wife in a magazine called Jafar Zatalli, MGA also mentioned this newspaper in “A Hidden Truth” (Raz-e-Haqiqat)(1898). Syed Muhammad Hussain Batalvi was also involved heavily in this as was a certain Abul Hassan Tibiti (as-in from Tibet)(see Mujadid e Azim, online english abridged version). Per Ahmadiyya sources, these ishtahar’s vs. MGA were published from June–1897 to Aug–1898. MGA eventually published a prediction which claimed that some divine punishment would befall Syed Muhammad Hussain Batalvi, since he was helping the opponents of MGA.

MGA mentioned him in E’jaz-i-Ahmadi (I‘jāz-e-Ahmadi) 3 times.
Continue reading “Jafar Zatalli, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Muhammadi Begum”

Who is Syed Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan of Amroha, who worked as an Imam in Bhopal uptil 1891?

Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi was initially working as a Mullah in the state of Bhopal, he worked exclusively for Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan, who was the husband of the Queen of Bhopal, it seems that MGA sent him his Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya in 1880 or 1882, I am not sure which volume, however, Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan tore up the book and sent it back to MGA in that condition. This could have been 1885 also. In 1890, Nawab Siddique Hassan Khan of Bhopal died and it seems that Syed Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi was jobless. In 1891, he helped MGA with secret information about the debate with Maulvi Muhammad Bashir Bhopali.  After Noorudin died (1914), he left Ahmadiyya and it is unclear what religion he joined, however, it seems like he became a Lahori-Ahmadi. Muhammad Ismail Ghulam Kibria, Ahmad Hasan and Sayyid Muhammad Ya‘qub were his sons, Nawab Muhammad Ali KhAshab-e-Sidq-o-SafaAshab-e-Sidq-o-Safauneration for Molvi Muhammad Ahsan. In a letter to Nawab, MGAQ writes “whatever remuneration (payment) you have fixed for Molvi Ahsan, plz send a sum of 20 Annas to him to Qadian and remaining amount may be sent to his son Syed Muhammad Ismail to Shah Ali Sarai Amroha. As per Ashab-e-Sidq-o-Safa, which was written by Nasrullah Khan Nasir and Asim Jamali, published by Ziaul Islam Press Rabwah in 2007 and 2011. Ahsan Amrohi died in 1926.

He was a member of the Majlis-i-Ulema of Nawab Siddique Hassan Khan of Bhopal State in India.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________1891, October

Syed Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan of Amroha was still living in Bhopal.  He wrote letters to MGA and helped MGA with his debate with Maulvi Muhammad Bashir Bhopali.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________1891, December 27-29

Amrohi was at the first Jalsa Salana in 1891, he was seated on the stage, right next to MGA
See page 417—
Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi lived exclusively in MGA’s house (1892)

Just like all the people in the inner circle of MGA, he lived exclusively with MGA and led prayers in the Masjid Mubarak, Maulvi Abdul Kareem and Noorudin also led the prayers in this tiny mosque which was the personal office of MGA(see page 430).  MGA barely went into his own house and never taught his children anything about Islam.  It is unclear whether or not Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi’s children or wife also lived with him in Qadian, however, it seems unlikely.

In 1892, Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi became a paid Mullah of MGA and took the lead in several debates
Ahmadiyya sources tell us Amrohi was the first paid mullah of Ahmadiyya (See Dard), starting in late 1892, he then began touring the countryside and helping MGA with debates.  He also began editing MGA’s ilhams and other articles and books.

He disagrees with MGA’s claim of prophethood.

He defends MGA’s announcement of prophethood (Eik Ghalti Ka Izala), however, he only defends the part about MGA not being an independent prophet.
He wrote: 

Al-Hakam of 24 May 1902, Maulana replied in these words:

“Mujaddad, Muhaddath, and Nabi, all these words (pertaining to the Promised Messiah) are
synonymous, therefore elucidation in any of the two ways is correct and both these elucidations are found in the Book and the Sunnah-e-Sahiha. This clearly means that the Promised Messiah, according to the terminology of the Shari‘ah, is a Muhaddath and only in the dictionary meaning can he be called a Nabi.
He wrote: 

Al-Hakam of 21 October and 10 November 1903: 

“In the hadith, ‘Lam yabqa min an nabuwat-e-illal mubashsharat’ (Nothing is left of
prophethood except mubashsharat [good tidings]). Exception is continual or uninterrupted and al in al-mubashsharat is beneficial for distinction. Thus, in brief, the meanings of the hadith are that nabuwat has two parts: one pertains to commandments, whether those about fariaz o wajbat (duties and obligations), or about halal and haram (permitted and unpermitted), and the other part, which are mubashsharat (good tidings), under which all mubashsharat (good tidings), whether those pertaining to anzarak (warnings) or bashsharat (good news) are included. From these two parts, the part or type which relates to mubashsharat continues till the Day of Judgement. Evidently, when out of the two parts of nabuwat (prophethood) one part is continuous, therefore nabuwat-e-juzvi (partial prophethood) continues. Yes, nabuwat-e-kulli (complete prophethood) has been terminated.” (See the Hope Bulletin, a Lahori-Ahmadi newspaper, retrieved on 12-26-2019).

Ahmadiyya leadership published books by Maulana Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan of Amroha on 30th May 1907–See Al-Badr.  

Zikre Habib page No. 158-159. By Mufti Sadiq Qadiani

Qadiani Mufti Sadiq writes that once,during the last years of Hazrat Masih Moud (MGAQ), Molana Muhammad Ali Lahori, as Secretary (Administration), Sadar Majlis Anjuman, presented a resolution that Molvi Ahsan Amrohi may be removed from the post of Officer Maqbara Bahishti, and he may get the salary of Khateeb only. Both this humble self and Molvi Ahsan Amrohi were present in the meeting. The resolution was presented and was passed quietly without any debate. Then the Anjuman moved to other resolutions. After a few minutes Molvi Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi expressed his severe displeasure and walked away from the meeting. Next day when the copy of passed resolution was received to him, he refused to hand over the charge of the post. He made a hue and cry in the ground and lodged a complaint with Hazrat Sahib (MGAQ). Hazrat Sahib wrote to Molana Muhammad Ali Lahori that Molvi Ahsan Amrohi may not be removed from this post. Upon receiving this order, Molana Muhammad Ali showed his displeasure. Molana Muhammad Ali showed this order of Hazrat sb to me and said “I would leave this work and shall proceed on leave now, because it is no use to work if our passed resolutions are not honoured.”

May 26th, 1908, Nooruddin nominates Amrohi as a possible choice for Khalifa
As we all know, Amrohi was highly praised in Ahmadiyya, this is another example, further, by 1909, almost all of MGA’s closest team of writers were forced to move out of MGA’ house, it is unclear if Amrohi also had to move out, however, by 1915, he was living in his ancestoral town of Amroha.

He comments on Mahmud Ahmad’s famous essay on Takfir from April (See “Truth about the Split”).  “In my opinion, in the discussion on the subjects of Kufr and kafir, you have fully discharged your duty of conveying the message. Henceforth, there is no more need for you to devote your attention to this subject. As the Holy Quran says, ‘They can never do you any harm so long as you are yourself rightly guided’.”

He writes: “”Prophethood among the Followers of Muhammad”” by Maulana Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan of Amroha, Oct-1913, in Tashhizul Azhan.  
When Nooruddin died (1914), Amrohi was the first to nominate Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad for the Khilafat

However, just 2 years (1916) later he seems to have been bought out by the Lahori-Ahmadis, he switched sides even after reviewing Mirza Basheer-uddin’s books of 1915, which forcefully promoted the prophethood of MGA. Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad covered this topic extensively here (see page 195) and many others…

1914, April to December
He seems to go missing.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________1915, January

His son, Sayyid Muhammad Ya‘qub, reads “Qaul Al_Fasl” to his father (see Truth About the Split) and he approves of the prophethood of MGA.

Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad sent a deputation of ‘ulamas to Maulana Amrohi. Maulana Abdul Rahman Misri was one of the members of this deputation. He wrote that one day in a one-on-one discussion with Maulana Amrohi, he asked him when he paid attention to the
beliefs of the Lahore Jama‘at. Maulana in reply mentioned the letter of Qazi Akmal which diverted his attention to research the beliefs of both sections, and that when he found out that Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad was not willingly prepared to make amends in his beliefs which ran contrary to the MGA’s then he published a declaration of the renunciation of the bai’at which he had taken at the hands of Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, and thus he joined the fold of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-e-Islam, Lahore. Thereafter he also announced the dismissal of Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad from the Khilafat (See the Hope Bulletin, a Lahori-Ahmadi newspaper, retrieved on 12-26-2019).  

1915, roughly December
He wrote “Mubahsa-e-Rampur”, Qazi Akmal (one of the Khalifa’s secretaries, he was also the editor of Tashizazul Adhan)wrote a letter to him saying that Maulana, in his book, had supported the views of Maulana Muhammad Ali. It came as a big surprise to him as what he had written in the book was a presentation of the beliefs of the Promised Messiah.

The grandfather of the Khalifa, Mir Nasir Nawab goes around British-India and defames Syed Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi. Insiders tell the world that these two had a business deal in place, Amrohi would help Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad become Khalifa, and Mir Nasir Nawab would forgive his debt. It seems that Mir Nasir Nawab had let the Amrohi borrow lots of money in terms of a wedding, the Amrohi did not have the means to pay back the loan, he thought he could pay it back via getting the Khilafat for Mahmud Ahmad, he was wrong.

He seems to have written a letter wherein he denounced the Khilafat of Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad. We are unsure where it was published, however it as published as an introduction to a book by Muhammad Ali entitled, “Two Sections of the Ahmadiyya Movement” which seems to have been published in 1966.  See here–

He wrote two books, “Khatam-an-Nabiyin” and “Ismohoo Ahmad”, in which he explained that the beliefs of the Promised Messiah were not contradictory to the belief of Khatam-an-Nabiyeen in any way and the prophesy of Ismohoo Ahmad in the Qur’an pertains to the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. He also wrote “Al-Qaul-Al-Mummajjid”.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________He died in 1926

As per Ashab-e-Sidq-o-Safa, he died in 1926. He was 80+.
His books remain in Urdu and unexplored:

Book list


Links and Related Essays


#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #trueislam

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s comments on simply looking at women and hearing their voices

When it comes to women in Islam, Ahmadi’s are worse than the Wahabis of Saudi Arabia.  Rabwah is the only town in Pakistan wherein a full niqaab is required and Ahmadi’s all over the world are taught to oppress women.  Nevertheless, we have foudn 3 quotes from MGA which prove his extreme stance on women.  However, there are countless examples of multiple Khalifas directly violating those commandments. Now, I’m sure that an Ahmadi will think that Huzur has pure intention, that’s part of the doctrine after all, but does it matter? It clearly didn’t to MGA, he made it clear in all 3 books.


The following 3 quotes are from books of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the Ahmadiyya community. I believe it to be a fair representation of his views on this matter.

[philosophy of the Teachings of Islam]

“””””””””We have been positively commanded not to look at their beauty, whether with pure intent or otherwise, nor to listen to their musical voices or to descriptions of their good looks, whether with pure intent or otherwise””””””””””

[Noah’s Ark]

“””the Quran instructs against glancing at women under any circumstances, be it covetously or with pure intentions because one is liable to stumble on this account. In fact, your eyes should always be lowered when you confront a Non-Mahram. You should not be aware of the physical form of a woman except through an obscured sight, in the way a person’s vision is clouded in the early stages of cataract.”””””

[Lecture Lahore]

“””Holy Quran teaches us not to look at them(women) unnecessarily, with or without lust, for this is likely to lead us astray. Should such a need arise, we should keep our eyes half shut and avoid staring at them. This is the only way to preserve the purity of our hearts.

Listen, dear friends! No good can come out of the free mixing of the sexes and the exchange of lascivious glances, while we know that men and women are not free from their carnal passions. Indeed, it amounts to deliberately throwing them into a pit.”””

Links and Related Essays

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #trueislam

‘The Ahmadiyya Movement in India” by Barakat Ahmad Rajeke B.A. (1975) from Qadian, India

We have found yet another rare Ahmadiyya book, which happens to be in english, the son appears to be the son of a famous Ahmadi, Maulvi Ghulam Rasul Rajeke.  Nevertheless, we have posted the PDF of the book and will evaluate it in the near future.  After skimming it, we didn’t find anything controversial about it.  It can also be found on Amazon.

The full PDF
Ahmadiyya Movement

Links and Related Essays

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #trueislam

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and the “Bishop of Lahore” Rev. G. A. Lefroy

In February or March 1900, the Rt. Rev. G. A. Lefroy, the Bishop of Lahore, preached to the student community of Lahore at the Foreman Christian College. A report was published in the press. Sat Dharam Parcharak of Jullundur passed some adverse remarks on the speech. On May 18th, 1900, the Bishop addressed a public gathering at Lahore and his subject was ‘The Innocent Prophet’. After the lecture Muslims were asked if they liked to say anything on the subject or raise any objection. The Bishop had said that Jesus was the only innocent Prophet that had ever appeared. In response to the Bishop’s invitation Mufti Muhammad Sadiq explained the Islamic point of view. He drew the attention of the people to the saying of Jesusas himself on the point. ‘Why callest thou me good? There is none good
but one, that is, God.’ (Matth. 19:17) On the other hand, he said, the Holy Founder of
Islam was really an innocent personage. In fact, all the Prophets (as) of God were innocent and sinless (see Life of Ahmad by dard).
Continue reading “Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and the “Bishop of Lahore” Rev. G. A. Lefroy”

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and 4:159 (4:160 in the Ahmadiyya Quran’s), before the death of Jesus (as)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad stole many arguments from Sir Syed about the death of Jesus. Sir Syed seems to have been the first Muslim ever in history to change the translation of 4:159 in 1880 in his famous Tafsir. Sir Syed totally changed the translation of this verse, since he was looking to disprove that idea that Esa (as) hadn’t died yet. Sir Syed knew that 4:159 proved that Esa (as) hadn’t died yet, thus, he purposely mistranslated it to sound preposterous. MGA followed his lead, and in 1890, in Izala Auham, MGA used the exact same translation that Sir Syed used. In 1891, MGA’s first few debates after his wild claims also discussed 4:159, see his famous Delhi debate with Bashir Bhopali. From 1892 to 1901, MGA seems to have went quiet on the topic of 4:159. However, in the 1901-1902 era, (See Ijaz-i-Ahmadi, page 31, online english edition, Ahmadiyya editors have purposely mistranslated the word Ghabi herein) it came to MGA’s attention that Abu Hurairah had supported the idea that Esa (as) hadn’t died yet, via Tafsir Thana’i, in fact, Tafsir Thana’i was written by Maulvi Sanaullah, in his Tafsir he quoted Abu Hurairah via a super authentic Sahih Bukhari hadith.  MGA and his team of writers were thus forced to discredit the scholarship of Abu Hurairah and called him stupid (GHABI in Arabic) or lacking understanding. MGA then commented on 4:159 in 1906/1907 via Haqiqatul Wahy (see page 44, online english edition, which is purposely mis-translated in this case), wherein he presented the same belief as Sir Syed again. Again, he called Abu Hurairah as stupid, which the Ahmadi editors have changed to flowery language. Furthermore, MGA presented 5:64 (5:65 in the Ahmadi’s Quran’s) in Haqiqatul Wahy as evidence that Jews and Christians will not ALL be converted to Islam before the death of Esa (as)(see page 45 and page 855). Ahmadi’s have continued to use this verse in the same way in 2019. Interestingly enough, the official 5-volume commentary of the Quran by Ahmadiyya scholars doesn’t mention how 5:64 (5:65 in the Ahmadiyya Quran’s) means that the Messiah won’t convert all Christians and Jews to Islam before his own death. Ahmadi’s also present 22:55 (22:56) of the Quran as evidence that not all Christians and Jews will convert, however, this verse is talking about disbelievers, not Ahl-e-Kitab. Continue reading “Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and 4:159 (4:160 in the Ahmadiyya Quran’s), before the death of Jesus (as)”

Noah’s Ark: Criteria to be considered part of the Ahmadiyya community

The following is a quote from the Book “Noah’s Ark” which was written by MGA in the context of a plague outbreak in Punjab.

The overall message of the book was:

Join my community because God has revealed to me that whoever is part of my community will be statistically safer from the plague. And that will be a miracle . He followed that announcement by an outline of his beliefs in a section called “Our Teaching”. There, he has a section which talks about who counts as being part of his community. It goes as follows:

(The numbers were added for ease of understanding and the more ambiguous and harsher criteria has been bolded. No words has been added, removed or changed.)


  1. He who at the time of supplication does not believe that God has power over all things, except that which might be contrary to His promise, is not of my community.

  2. Whosoever does not give up lying and deceit, is not of my community.

  3. Whosoever is consumed by material greed and does not lift his eyes to look at the hereafter, is not of my community.

  4. Whosoever does not truly give precedence to religion over the world, is not of my community.

  5. Whosoever does not repent of every vice and every evil deed, such as drunkenness, gambling, lustful glances, deceit, bribery and every misappropriation, is not of my community.

  6. Whosoever does not observe the five daily prayers, is not of my community.

  7. Whosoever is not constant in supplication and does not remember God with humility, is not of my community.

  8. Whosoever does not discard the company of an evil one who influences him towards vice, is not of my community.

  9. Whosoever does not honour his parents and does not obey them in all matters that are not contrary to the Quran, and is careless in serving them diligently, is not of my community.

  10. Whosoever does not treat his wife and her relatives with gentleness and benevolence, is not of my community.

  11. He who refrains from doing even the least bit of good to his neighbour, is not of my community.

  12. He who does not desire to forgive an offender and harbours rancour, is not of my community.

  13. Every husband who deceives his wife, and every wife who deceives her husband, is not of my community.

  14. Whosoever breaks the covenant of Bai’at in any respect, is not of my community.

  15. He who does not truly believe in me as the Promised Messiah and Awaited Mahdi, is not of my community.

  16. Whosoever is unwilling to obey me in all that is good, is not of my community.

  17. Whosoever associates with my opponents and endorses what they say, is not of my community.

  18. Every adulterer, transgressor, drunkard, murderer, thief, gambler, deceiver, bribe-taker, usurper, tyrant, liar, forger and those who sit amongst them, and everyone who slanders his brothers or sisters and does not repent of his foul deeds, and does not abstain from evil company, is not of my community.


Firstly, If anyone who is part of the community got the plague, they could be scrutinized according to those criteria and inevitably, 1 would be found to be broken. This allows for the rationalization of all failures of the prophecy rendering it practically unfalsifiable. Any way things happen, its still going to be taken as a proof of the existence of God and his influence on our lives.

Secondly, if this passage was to be taken seriously, it makes the creation and growing of a community practically impossible. Most Ahmadis that I know would not qualify to be part of MGA’s community and given how harsh the criteria are, it is fair to extrapolate this to the whole of the community.

I know some people will say that this should be taken metaphorically, but this is not indicated in the way that the passage is written. The paragraph that follows the list explains why this should be taken as both literal and something serious.

All these are poisons. You cannot consume this poison and survive; light and darkness cannot exist together. Everyone who possesses a crooked disposition and is not straightforward with God, can never achieve the blessing that is bestowed on the purehearted.

So the question is, how is this passage reconciled with the fact that: the vast majority of people who would be considered part of Ahmadiyyat today do not meet the criteria set by the prophet they claim belief in?

Is the word of the prophet MGA not important?

Did the prophet MGA give an unrealistic recommendation as to how to determine who is in his own community?

Does the current philosophy value quantity more than quality?

Links and Related Essays

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #trueislam

Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad owned 49 kanals of land in Lahore in 1958

Per the ROR of Sep-1958, the Khalifa, Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad owned 49 kanals, 11 marlas, 105sq.ft. of land in what is known as 134 Acres Scheme, Samanabad, Lahore.  This was also jointly owned by a Mullah of the Ahmadiyya Movement, Ch. Fateh Muhammad Sayyal, M.A.

What is a Kanal?
kanal (ڪنال) is a unit of area used in parts of Pakistan and in India. In Pakistan different conversions exist in various areas: a kanal is generally considered equal to 5400 square feet, but it is equal to 4500 square feet in Lahore. In India it is generally considered equivalent to 4500 square feet or one-eighth of an acre. A kanal is a traditional unit of land area. In India it is used in the northern states of HaryanaPunjabHimachal PradeshJammu & Kashmir and North Eastern parts of Pakistan. Its use in India is in decline with urban land measurements standardizing on use of square feet, square meters and square yards.  Under British rule the marla and kanal were standardized so that the kanal equals exactly 605 square yards or ​18 acre; this is equivalent to about 505.857 square meters. A kanal is equal to 20 marlas.[1]

The Khalifa and his associate applied for exemptions on this land
It is important to note that the Khalifa was asking for exemptions on this land.  This could be property tax exemptions.  There is a clarification given that was published in the Pakistan Times, Page-3, 8-23-1958.

The full pdf
Land in lahore


Links and Related Essays

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #trueislam

Up ↑