In 1900, MGA and his team of writers decided to abrogate Jihad altogether. Ever since 1947, #ahmadis have been denying this, since they moved to an islamic country (Pakistan).

The story is as follows, initially, in 1891, when MGA claimed to be the Promised Messiah and in his book, “Taudhe Maram” in english as “Elucidation of Objectives”, MGA claimed that the famous sahih hadith on the Messiah repealing the Jizya only meant, “”The abolition of Jizyah is self-explanatory. It only means that Jizyah will no longer be required. Human hearts will spontaneously respond to the truth, rendering recourse to war unnecessary. Winds of change will blow and people will flock to enter the fold of Islam. The gates will be flung wide open; it will be an influx en masse. As a result, Jizyah will become obsolete, for no one will be left to pay it””.

9 years later, in 1900, MGA argued in “The British government and Jihad” and had it published on May 22, 1900 that the Messiah was prophesied to stop “religious” wars. However, this is a lie, in Bukhari the hadith says, ‘yada al-jizya’, not ‘yada` al-harb’. Even if it did say ‘yada` al-harb’, that would mean an end to “wars” (see Nuzhat Haneef) not “religious wars”. MGA wrote, ‘deenee jangoan kaa khaatimah kar day gaa’.

We have found 3 hadith from Sahih Bukhari which have the same report, and unanimously it reports the word “jizya”, not “harb”. It seems that MGA might have been referring to “Krehl’s edition of al-Bukhari” (1862), which reads jizya but mentions the other version on the margin. Al-Bukhari’s commentators deal only with the jizya version, though some of them also mention the other one (See Prophecy Continuous by Freidmann. See page 167, footnote 11, unconfirmed). Maudoodi seems to have (unconfirmed) agreed that there was another version which read as “harb”, but again, this was in terms of ending “wars”, not “religious wars”. Maudoodi is asserting that ending Jizya=ending war, since if everyone is Muslim, no would is even alive to pay jizya (Friedman and MGA admitted to this too). However, #ahmadis refuse to even acknowledge this position. Finally, it should be noted that MGA had called Abu Hurraira as stupid since he connected 4:159 to the return of Eisa (As). Abu Hurraira is the source of the information all three times.

MGA even quoted 47:5 of the Quran to support his view that the Messiah would end “religious wars”. Again, MGA and his team of writers lied, Chapter 47, verses 1–10 are about Muslims who were at war with the disbelievers in Mecca. MGA and his team of writers specifically quoted one small line from 47:5 and didn’t quote the entire verse or the context (See Tafsir ibn Kathir). Maudoodi also wrote that this hadith means “jizya will end”.

MGA and his team of writers don’t seem to have ever mentioned this argument again.

Sahih Bukhari

Volume 3, Book 34, Number 425:  Narrated Abu Huraira:  Allah’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims, who are in the protection, of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and no-body will accept charitable gifts.

Volume 3, Book 43, Number 656:  Narrated Abu Huraira:  Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts).

Book 55, hadeeth number 657

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (Jesus,) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non Muslims). Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it, and a single prostration to Allah (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it.” Abu Huraira added “If you wish, you can recite (this verse of the Holy Book): — ‘And there is none Of the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (i.e Jesus as an Apostle of Allah and a human being) Before his death. And on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness Against them.” (4.159) (See Fateh Al Bari, Page 302 Vol 7).
Abu Daud

Book 37, Number 4310:
Narrated Abu Hurayrah:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace_be_upon_him). He will descent (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.””
The Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal contains a hadith by Abu Huraira which has the words: “… he will abolish jizya (yaza`-ul-jizya) and war will lay down (taza`-ul-harb) its burdens”.
Sahih Muslim

_____________________________________________________________________________________________”Finality of Prophethood” by Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi. See the link:

This hadith from Bukhari is the very first hadith quoted by Maudoodi on this page and its ending reads:  “and he will put an end to war”.

Maudoodi then goes on to say:

“In another tradition the word jizya has been substituted for harb, “war”, i.e., he will abolish the jizya on non-believers.”
March towards the Doomsday by Dr Muhammad Sharif Chaudhry (who is obviously giving the non-Ahmadi interpretation of the return of Jesus):

He quotes the very same hadith from Bukhari near the bottom of the above webpage:

“9. Abu Hurairah reports that the Holy Prophet said: I swear by Him in Whose hand is my soul: the son of Mary shall descend among you, as a just ruler. Then he will break the Cross, and kill the swines, and put an end to war (in another Tradition, there is the word Jizyah instead of Harb (war), meaning that he will abolish jizyah);”

Yohanan Friedman
Prophecy Continuous by Freidmann. See page 167, footnote 11.  I quote:

“This version [using harb] appears in Krehl’s edition of al-Bukhari; the Cairo edition of the same reads jizya but mentions the other version on the margin. Al-Bukhari’s commentators deal only with the jizya version, though some of them also mention the other one.”

“The abolition of jizyah is explained in two ways: either it will lapse because all non-muslims will have to embrace Islam, or it will be made superflous by an unprecedented abundance of money in those days”

“Taudhe Maram” in english as “Elucidation of Objectives”

“””Perhaps, as a last resort, they would demand some acceptable explanation of the signs concerning the Second Coming of the Messiah as mentioned in authentic Ahadith. For instance, it is on record that the Messiah, in his Second Coming, will dismantle the cross, repeal the Jizyah18, and kill the swine19. It is also mentioned that at the time of his second coming evil
practices peculiar to the Jews will be conspicuous by their presence among Muslims20. I tell you that the destruction of the cross does not signify war or armed conflict. It only means the demolition, by spiritual means, of the religion of the Cross, and to incontrovertibly establish the untenability of its creed. The abolition of Jizyah is self-explanatory. It only means that Jizyah will no longer be required. Human hearts will spontaneously respond to the truth, rendering
recourse to war unnecessary. Winds of change will blow and people will flock to enter the fold of Islam. The gates will be flung wide open; it will be an influx en masse. As a result, Jizyah will become obsolete, for no one will be left to pay it. All this, however, will not happen at once; but its foundations are being laid here and now. Furthermore, the term ‘swine’ refers to the swinish humans who on that day will succumb to reason and be killed, as it were, by the sword of transparently clear arguments. It would otherwise be naïve to imagine that a Prophet of God would actually take to chasing and hunting swine in the jungles.”””
[RK, v. 17, p. 6; approximately first half of the page; Government Angrayzee aur Jihaad](Via Nuzhat Haneef)

“”[The command for jihaad is found in the Quraan, 22:40-41: Permission (to take up arms) is given to those against whom war is made …] But this command was specific to the era and the time; it was not for ever.””

[RK, v. 17, p. 13; starts approximately middle of the page; Government Angrayzee aur Jihaad](Via Nuzhat Haneef)

… I am surprised that, since these days no person kills the Muslims for the sake of [or in connection with] religion, then according to which commandment do they kill innocent people. Why do their maulvees not prevent [or prohibit] them from these improper acts due to which Islaam is defamed. …

[RK, v. 17, p. 15; starts at 3rd line from top; Government Angrayzee aur Jihaad](Via Nuzhat Haneef)

… Look I have come to you people with a commandment which is that from now on the jihaad of the sword is terminated but the jihaad to purify one’s soul [still] remains. And I have not stated this thing on my own. Rather, God intends this very thing. Think about that hadeeth of Saheeh Bukhaaree where it is stated in the description of Maseeh Mau`ood that ‘yada` al-harb’ [he will put an end to war], that is, when Maseeh comes then he will end religious wars.

Historically, MGA and his team wrote “The British government and Jihad” and had it published on May 22, 1900. This is the same era wherein MGA began to realize that he was in-fact a prophet. In this book, MGA forcefully wrote against Jihad. MGA asserted that the commandment for Jihad was time-specific and not forever. MGA seems to have waffled and was purposely unclear. Right after that book came Arba`een wherein MGA also claims that Jihad is finished from this time forward. MGA then discussed how he stopped Jihad in Tohfa-e- Goldrawiyah. However, Griswold noted in his famous essay vs. Qadianism that MGA had only temporarily stopped Jihad, since the conditions for Jihad were not present in British India. However, MGA quoted the hadith from Bukhari wherein it was written that wars would end during the time of the Messiah. MGA and his team were academically dishonest in this regard, the hadith from Bukhari explains how the Mahdi will convert the world to Islam, the Messiah would convert the Jews and Christians and thus, Jihad would end, and Jizya, since everyone would become Muslim. After MGA died, an Ahmadi claimed that MGA was a law-bearing prophet and had abrogated Jihad.

RK, v. 17, p. 443; marginal note; Arba`een Number 4, (Via Nuzhat Haneef)

[Marginal note:]“””Allaah Almighty has gradually decreased jihaad, that is, the severity of wars/fighting. In the time of Hadrat Moosaa [Moses] the severity was so much that even accepting faith could not save [one] from being killed and even infant children were murdered/killed. Then in the time of our Prophet, the blessings of Allaah and peace be on him, the killing of children and the old and women was forbidden and then for certain nations, their being saved from punishment was accepted merely by the payment of ‘jizyah’ [a tax levied on non-Muslims for exemption from military duty] in lieu of faith. And then in the time of Maseeh Mau`ood the command for jihaad was entirely abolished.””” (see  Nuzhat Haneef, page 171).

Some commentary from Nuzhat Haneef
“”””The Urdu words that I have translated as “the command for jihaad was entirely abolished” are ‘qat`an jihaad kaa hukm mauqoof kar diyaa gayaa’. I have provided the Urdu transliteration in case some readers suspect that I have used the word “abolish” incorrectly. The Urdu word ‘mauqoof’ means “Stopped; ceased; abolished; dismissed” and ‘mauqoof karnaa’ — the grammatical construct used by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad — means “To stop; to leave off; to abolish; to dismiss” [FEROZSONS, p. 748]. (It is possible to erroneously think that Mirza
Ghulam Ahmad might have meant “suspended” rather than “abolished” since ‘mauqoof’ can have that sense but that sense is found in the construction ‘mauqoof rakhnaa’, not in ‘mauqoof karnaa’.)

• The word ‘qat`an’ – “entirely” – used by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad makes it clear that he means abolishment or abrogation rather than suspension.

• Even if Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did mean that jihaad has been suspended rather than abolished, he is still contradicting his other statement quoted above because that does not even allow suspension.

• Although Mirza Ghulam Ahmad does not explicitly say here that he is the one who is abolishing jihaad, it is obvious that he is the one doing it since he, according to his claim, is the only Divinely appointed prophet present at the time.

• The fact that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is describing a change in religious commands is obvious from the rest of the passage. He explains how, in the Holy Prophet’s time, the killing of women and children was forbidden.  And he has stated at the outset that he is describing the progression put into effect by God. So, the next thing forbidden is killing of all people, not just women, children, and the old.  In case you still have some doubts regarding Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s abolishment of martial jihaad, I’d like to point out that he wrote a poem titled ‘deenee jihaad kee mumaanay`at kaa fatwaa maseeh mau`ood kee tarf say’ —

“The Fatwaa of the Prohibition of Religious Jihaad from Maseeh Mau`ood” [RK, v. 17, p. 77; Appendix of Tohfa-e- Goldrawiyah](Via Nuzhat Haneef)

The first and third excerpts above clearly show Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s position on the Quraanic permission for (defensive) martial jihaad: the permission was for a limited time and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has now brought a new commandment pertaining to religious wars. The second excerpt shows that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is against the misapplication of the permission for martial combat. I have no issue with this (i.e., his being against misapplication)
and do not deny that there are writings of his in which he explains the circumstances under which martial jihaad is allowed. (I do not know whether Muslims were, in fact, killing innocent people in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s time but if they were I have no problem with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s position.)

My issue is that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was not merely trying to correct a wrong interpretation of the concept of jihaad; he clearly says that he is abolishing martial jihaad, although he himself also said that no teaching of the Quraan can be terminated or suspended. The references already provided show this and I will provide one more a little further below.

But for now let me discuss one other issue brought up in the quotation above, in the last excerpt. In this passage Mirza Ghulam Ahmad mentions a hadeeth of the Holy Prophet related to war and the Maseeh Mau`ood. The following points need clarification:

• Mirza Ghulam Ahmad translates ‘yada` al-harb’ as ‘deenee jangoan kaa khaatimah kar day gaa’, i.e., “he will end religious wars”. Firstly, there is an error of translation in this. The Arabic word ‘harb’ means war, not necessarily religious war but Mirza Ghulam Ahmad translates it as religious wars. Secondly, the word has been used in the hadeeth in a construction that literally means “the war”; this can be understood as “war, in general”, or “all war”, rather than any specific war or any specific kind of war. So, if Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was really living up to this hadeeth, he should have managed to put an end to all war in the world.

• In any case, the hadeeth is not saying that the Maseeh Mau`ood will abrogate the permission to engage in war; it seems to say that, one way or another, he will manage to put an end to war. Applying this to martial jihaad in particular, we could take the hadeeth to be predicting that martial jihaad (although allowed) will not be conducted (due to the prevailing circumstances) in the time of, or even after, the Maseeh Mau`ood.

• In any case, according to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s own policy stated elsewhere, Hadeeth cannot be given precedence over the Quraan. If the Quraan has given a teaching regarding jihaad then it must hold regardless of what we might find reported as a hadeeth.  Now here is another passage from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, to further elaborate his position on jihaad, and show that he claimed that the new commandment about jihaad was from God:
___________________________________________________________________________________________  RK, v. 16, pp. 28-29; starts at 5th line from bottom of p. 28; Appendix to Khutbah-e-Ilhaamiyyah

“From this day, the human jihaad that was performed with the sword [i.e., martial jihaad], has been stopped by the command of God. Now after this whoever lifts a sword against a kaafir and refers to himself as a ‘ghaazee’ [a jihaad participant who is not martyred], he disobeys that Noble Messenger, the blessings of Allaah and peace be on him, who stated thirteen hundred years ago that upon the coming of the Maseeh Mau`ood the jihaads of the sword will come to an end. So now after my appearance there is no jihaad of the sword. … The one who fights evil with evil is not from among us. Save yourself from attack by the mischievous. But do not yourselves engage in mischievous confrontation.”

Here are some comments on this passage:

• It is clear from this passage that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is definitely canceling the permission for martial jihaad and he claims that it is being done by the command of God; he is not merely correcting a misconception about the existing permission for martial jihaad.

• Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has stated in another book that the teaching of the Quraan is till Resurrection. So, why is it that God is changing His teaching now?

• The sentence “Save yourself from attack by the mischievous” is somewhat confusing. One might think that it means that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is allowing defensive fighting. However, as the Ahmadiyya Movement itself emphasizes (as I will show shortly), the Quraan only allows martial jihaad in defense. So, if that kind of martial jihaad is also being allowed by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, then what is it that “[f]rom this day, … has been stopped by the command of God”? This new command of God must have stopped something that was originally
allowed in the Quraan. Since aggressive or offensive martial jihaad was never allowed, that could not be what is now being stopped. So, it must be defensive martial jihaad that is being stopped, since that is the only kind of martial jihaad the Quraan ever allowed.

(See Nuzhat Haneef)
ROR 1902-English edition

See page 47

“”We, as a sect, do not acknowledge any temporal ruler other than the British Government, as Khalifa of the Muslims….”

Via “History of Ahmadiyya” by Dost Muhammad Shahid, vol. 5, page 699.

Dr. Khan tells us in his academic work on Ahmadiyya (see From Sufiism to Ahmadiyya) that in 1947-48, Mahmud Ahmad changed his views on Jihad and totally contradicted Ahmadiyya dogma on the topic.

Ironically, in 1947, the 2nd Khalifa (Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad) authorized violent Jihad, as Muslims from Pakistan went to war with India (a non-Muslim nation) over Kashmir (a 98% muslim area). This is the point in history wherein the Qadiani-Ahmadi’s redefined their concept of Jihad. The offensive Jihad that was authorized was via the Furqan Force in Kashmir, this was an Ahmadi-only regiment. Ahmadi’s also had control of Azad Kashmir, via Ghulam Nabi Gilkar. Thus, the offensive Jihad of Ahmadi’s took place in Kashmir in 1947-1949.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________Another quote, from Bashir Ahmad Rafiq, “The Afghan Martyrs”
Via Report Majilis Mushawarat 1950

“Just as offering Namaz is compulsory similarly in this faith when the need arises it is equally compulsory to fight…. It should be clearly remembered that ‘Jehad’ is included in those matters which Islam declares to be an essential part of the faith. It has even been said that at the time of ‘Jehad’ whoever turns his back IS condemned to Hell. II 
Links and Related Essay’s

Ahmadis hate Nuzhat Haneef and all of their critics


Did MGA abrogate Jihad in 1900, as he became a prophet?

Ahmadiyya leadership authorized violent Jihad in 1947-48


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