Maulvi Iftekhar Ahmed says only MGA could cuss, and accuses Muhammad (Saw) of using harsh language in comparison (naozobillah)

Intro
In this video, Maulvi Iftekhar Ahmed (working out of Germany) defends MGA for cussing at people, he argues that it was part of MGA’s “immense spiritual burden” of his revivalist mission (check out my video explanation). Thus, MGA was forced to curse, however, he then accused Muhammad (Saw) of the same (naozobillah) and thus nullified the entire argument. Further, he didn’t give the exact reference for Muhammad (Saw) speaking harshly and left it as unknown (see the accusations here on twitter and tiktok). It should also be noted that Maulvi Razi says that only MGA was allowed to cuss at people, call them harami and etc., #Ahmadis are not allowed to do so. For months and months, Ahmadi’s had argued that MGA didn’t cuss at people who rejected him (see the very first debate with Adnan and Noonan). They argued that MGA used these cuss words metaphorically. However, just a few days ago, Razi totally changed his position and admitted that MGA did cuss at people and call them “bastard”, “harami” and “children of prostitutes” (time stamp 1:50:50). Maulvi Razi was rebuking an Ahmadi for cussing at Adnan (see herein). Maulvi Razi quoted the 2nd Qadiani-Khalifa and his book, “Minhaj ul Talibeen” (1925)(“The Way of The Seekers”), however, he didn’t give the page number (we think it’s 76). Interestingly, in this book, the 2nd Qadiani-Khalifa admits that he would see kids in the Punjab cussing for sport (See page 76). He also admits that he had an old friend who was an opium addict (see page 75). This is strange since he lived in Qadian, which was supposed to be a religious environment, however, he still had friends that were addicted to opium and loved to see punjabi kids cussing in public.

Video Review

He starts off the video accusing opponents of Ahmadiyya of not understanding the context of the quotes that they represent. However, in his entire video, Maulvi Iftekhar Ahmed never contextualized any quote.

–Muslims were painted as idolator’s by Hindu’s? However, what is he referring to? He doesn’t say? Is he referring to the Satarya Prakash? And these were Arya Samaj Hindu’s who believed in one God and were against the British. In fact, in MGA’s response to the Arya Samaj, MGA attacked the Gods of the Hindus and forced them to respond in kind (see the testimony of Lekh Ram). In May of 1879, MGA announced that he was writing “Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya” vs. Pundit Dayananda and the Arya Samaj sect, of which Dayananda was the founder. In 1875, Pundit Dayananda had published “Satyarth Prakash” (The Light of Truth), this seems to be MGA’s response. Nevertheless, MGA began attacking the Arya Samaj and their leader Dayananda in his Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya, Part 1 and 2 (search the book for Hindus). The Barahin 1-4 was nothing more than a vicious attack on the God of the Hindu‘s. The led to the publishing of “Rangila Rasul”.

–His first quote is from Izala Auham, Part-1 (1890, page 109). However, he doesn’t give the context, he didn’t mention that this was written in 1890. How ironic is that? In this quote, MGA is saying that the entire Quran is filled with abuses.

–He then pivots to the Islamic injunctions on Qisas. He quotes 42:40 (42:41 in the Qadiani Quran), however, he doesn’t give any context. He doesn’t even quote MGA or any scholars of Ahmadiyya. MGA did quote it in Kitab ul Barriya (see the full quote in the below). He accuses opponents of MGA of having used harsh speech vs. MGA. However, he doesn’t give any quotes or any dates. He alleges that MGA was defending himself. This is a lie. Technically, MGA began cussed after he lost to Athim in 1893, marking a turning point. Maulvi Iftekhar Ahmed quotes the Quran, 2:65 (2:66 in the Qadiani Quran), 5:60 (5:61 in the Qadiani Quran), 8:55 (8:56 in the Qadiani Quran) and 68:13 (68:14 in the Qadiani Quran) in his attempt to say that even the Quran uses harsh language. He alleges that MGA was simply following this Quranic tradition of employing harsh metaphors and language to condemn spiritual states? Huh? He seems unintelligible herein.

–Maulvi Iftekhar Ahmed alleges that Muhammad (Saw) used harsh words (naozobillah). He quotes Mishkat Al-Masabih and alleges that Muhammad (Saw) compared “”corrupt religious scholars to apes and swine”” and accused them of being “The Worst Creatures Under the Canopy of the Heavens”. Maulvi Iftekhar Ahmed also explained how this was a “statement of fact”. However, he didn’t even give a proper reference so that we can double check it, he seems to have presented 2 quotes into one. We have only found this one in terms of apes (from Sunnah.com) and “worst creatures”.

–He then quotes Kitab ul Barriya and MGA’s admission that he did indeed use harsh language, however, in defense. Which is a lie! After MGA lost to Athim, MGA was raging! You need the quotes?

–He then quotes Mawahibur-Rahman (1903), page 16, Online English Edition. MGA was alleging that he was cursed at firstly, and he (MGA) remained silent. However, this is not exactly true. It was after the Athim debacle (1893).

–He then mentions “Righteous Opponents that MGA considered worthy of honor”? Who are they? We have never heard of any. Maulvi Iftekhar Ahmed alleged that MGA made a distinction between “righteous opponents” vs. “Outright Wicked Ones”, whose stubbornness and harsh words had to be confronted head on. Maulvi Iftekhar Ahmed also alleged that the harsh words by MGA were only directed at those specific opponents of MGA (the wicked ones). He quotes Al-Huda (see in the below).

–Maulvi Iftekhar Ahmed then alleges that MGA gave explicit instructions to Ahmadi’s to refrain from using harsh language vs. opponents. However, he gave no references at all. He then alleges that MGA’s forceful language was specific to the “immense spiritual burden” of his revivalist mission. Not a blanketed permission for Ahmadi’s to also do so.

–As he ends the video, Maulvi Iftekhar Ahmed quotes MGA from 1890 (this is from before MGA began openly cursing). It’s from Izala Auham, page-109 (see in the below). Maulvi Iftekhar Ahmed showed this at the end to give the viewer the impression that MGA never insulted anyone. This contradicts all the other arguments in this video.

–In conclusion, he summarized MGA’s language as “undoubtably blunt, confrontational,… calculated strikes…under divine direction”.

In 2024, Mirza Masroor Ahmad quoted 42:41 in a Friday Sermon in Dec (the 6th) and alleged that it was OK to also cut the food supply of that country in response.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1890
Izala Auham, RK, V-3, page 108

“”The first objection against this humble (MGA) is that, in my writings, I have used harsh language against my opponents. And this is what provoked them (i.e., non-Muslims) to write a s blasphemous book filled with abuses against Allah and Muhammad (Saw)””.

Scans
_____________________________________________________________________________________________1890
Izala Auham, pages 13–14; see Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 3, p. 109

“”””“I say truly, absolutely truly, that I have not, to the best of my knowledge, used even one word which can be called abusive. A misconception arises because most people fail to differentiate between hurling abuse and narrating the truth, and consider them to be the same. They regard what is the relating of a fact in its proper place to be abuse, solely because of a degree of harshness in it which is unavoidable when speaking the truth. Actually, the definition of abuse and offensive language is that it is something which is against facts and false, and used merely to cause hurt. If we label every harsh and hurtful statement as abuse solely because of its bitterness, unpleasantness and hurtfulness, then we shall have to admit that the entire Holy Quran is filled with foul language. The harsh words used in the Holy Quran to degrade the idols and to disgrace the idol-worshippers, and to curse and condemn them, are not such as would please the idol-worshippers. On the contrary, they would undoubtedly further spark off their rage. When God the Most High addresses the unbelievers of Makka and says:

“Surely you and what you worship besides Allah are fuel of hell” [21:98],

is it not included in abusive language according to the criteria coined by the critic? Likewise, is it not abuse in the opinion of the critic when in the Holy Quran God the Most High calls the unbelievers “the worst of creatures” [98:6], and says that they are even worse than the most disgraced and filthy of creations. Has not God the Most High said in the Holy Quran: “be firm against them” [9:73]? Has it not been stated to be a sign of the believers that they are “hard against the disbelievers” [48:29]?””””
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1890
(pages 14–15; Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 3, p. 109–110)

“”””When Jesus calls the respectable religious lawyers and Pharisees of the Jews as swine and dogs, and their most honourable leader Herod a fox, and compares their respectable priests and jurists to whores, and as regards the revered leaders, who were accorded the highest respect by the Roman rulers and made to sit with honour in the Roman courts, he speaks of them in these offensive, very hurtful and uncivil words, calling them illegitimate, adulterous, evil, dishonourable, faithless, fools, hypocrites, satanic, doomed to hell, serpents and brood of vipers — are not these words very serious, filthy abuse in the opinion of the critic? From this it becomes evident that the objection of the critic does not only apply to me and my books but in reality he has attacked all the Divine scriptures and prophets with a burning heart.””””
________________________________________________________________________________________________1891
Izala Auham, Rk-3, page 456

39:48 time stamp

“A momin isn’t someone who (frequently) curses (at people)”

Scan
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1897-1898
Kitabul Bariyyah,p. 10,11
The Opponents of the Promised Messiah (alislam.org)

“”My words had assumed some severity against my opponents in my writings, but I was not the one to start such severity. Those writings were undertaken in reply to the severe attacks of my opponents. They had used such harsh and abusive language as called for some severity. This can be perceived by the comparison which I have instituted between the harsh language used by my opponents -and that used by mein the foreword of my book which I have called Kitabul Bariyyah. As I have just stated the harsh language used by me was by way of retort. It was my opponents who first used such language against me, I could have endured their harsh language without making a retort to it but I had recourse to a retort on account of two reasons: One, so that my opponents, being faced with severity in reply to their harsh strictures, might change their tactics and might revert in future to the use of civil language; and two, that the general Muslim public should not be aroused by the defamatory and provocative language used by my opponents.”””
___________________________________________________________________________
1897-1898
Kitab-ul-Bariyyah, Ruhani Khaza’in, Vol. 13, pp. 87-88, via Essense of Islam

“””We had raised an objection to the current Gospels that the Gospels do not provide for the development of all man’s faculties and that even the portions of them relating to moral qualities are taken from the Torah. This caused great humiliation to the Christian priests. To this some Christians replied that:

Divine Books are concerned only with morals and that the punishment of offences is not appropriate for a Book of God, inasmuch as offences should be punished according to changing circumstances which are unlimited and it is not proper that there should be a fixed law laying down penalties. Every penalty should be such as is in accord with the times and is helpful for the warning and restraint of offenders. Fixed penalties are not beneficial for the reform of people. In the same way, civil, criminal and revenue laws should not be fixed and rigid, as they would create difficulties under changing circumstances. For instance, they might adversely affect commercial conditions which have become current and cannot be avoided, or a penal law might not be helpful where offenders have become accustomed to one kind of punishment, or may not be amenable to it.

I would say that this type of thinking proceeds from people who have not studied the Holy Qur’an with care. The directions contained in the Holy Qur’an with regard to civil, criminal and revenue matters are of two types. One, which lays down the details of punishment or of procedure, and the other which only prescribes the principle and does not lay down any specific direction. The purpose of the latter is to provide guidance for the meeting of new circumstances. For instance, at one place the Holy Qur’an lays down the rule of a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye. This is a detail. In another place, the principle is set forth:

‘The penalty for an offence is chastisement in proportion thereto.’—al-Shura, 42:41

On reflection we find that this principle is laid down for the widening of the law in cases where the specific law cannot be carried into effect. For instance, if a person who has lost his own teeth breaks the tooth of another, he ceases to be amenable to the rule of a tooth for a tooth, for he has no teeth himself. In the same way, if a blind person should destroy the eye of another person, he cannot be deprived of his own eye, for he has none. The Holy Qur’an lays down general principles to meet such cases and by doing so encourages everyone to deduce rules suitable to every case. It is a pity that the Torah does not follow this method and the Gospel is wholly deprived of this teaching. It only lays down a few moral exhortations, but they are not part of any code or system of law. The statement of the Christians that the Gospel has left legal matters to the intelligence of people is not a matter of pride, but one of remorse and shame, for whatever is not laid down as universal law and is not spelled out in terms of any regulatory principles, is liable to be misused and become an evil, however good its purpose might be.”””
___________________________________________________________________________
1902
Al-Huda, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 18, p. 314
AL-HUDA WA-TABSIRATO LIMAN YARA (1902), quotes and background info – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Razi alleges that MGA writes that he only used harsh language against those that are evil (18:00 timestamp).

Scan
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1903
Mawahibur-Rahman, page 16, Online English Edition
Bounties of the Gracious God the Holy Quran Regarding the advent of the Promised Messiah in the latter days – Shahadatul-QuranTestimony of the Holy QuranTestimony of the Holy Quran

“”I claimed that I am the Promised Messiah and the awaited Imam of the age. Allah has appointed me as the arbiter to resolve the discord among this Ummah and has granted me knowledge from Himself so that I might invite people towards the truth. However, they only responded with abuse, curses, rejection and oppression. They hurled every kind of abuse at me but I did not reciprocate and did not care about their discourse and their manner of speech. Yet they persistently grew in using uncivilized language about me, and flames of mischief also continued to rise high. They witnessed the signs but rejected them. They attacked me through false accusations and alleged shortcomings. They incited the mean and ignoble to insult me and invited Christians and other enemies of faith for their support.””
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Maulvi Iftekhar Ahmed quotes the Quran, 2:65 (2:66 in the Qadiani Quran), 5:60 (5:61 in the Qadiani Quran), 8:55 (8:56 in the Qadiani Quran) and 68:13 (68:14 in the Qadiani Quran) in his attempt to say that even the Quran uses harsh language.

Scan

______________________________________________________________________________________________
Mishkat Al-Masabih

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1931
Al-Fazl, July-30-1931, from Qadian Darul Aman

“”‘They object on (MGA) Maseeh-e-Maod..if they had in their hearts then why they had objected. It is not an abuse. But people say that. (MGA) Maseeh-e-Maod.. had objected upon Hazrat Eisa (as). I say if to save Islam and there is a need that for all the prophets such standing be adopted then there is no loss in it…””

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2024
https://youtu.be/J4oAwmcM1HA?si=Pv2AEOGAZ-S6Spbp

In 2024, Mirza Masroor Ahmad quoted 42:41 in a Friday Sermon in Dec (the 6th) and alleged that it was OK to also cut the food supply of that country in response.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s

MTA International on X: “Harsh LANGUAGE or harsh REALITY? A complete response to another futile and failed attack on the character of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as), The Messiah and Mahdi of the latter days. https://t.co/KLVZLVYj7O” / X

Iftekhar Ahmed, An Ahmadi Maulvi working in Germany doesn’t know much about Ahmadiyya – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

The history of #Ahmadiyya in #Germany – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

AL-HUDA WA-TABSIRATO LIMAN YARA (1902), quotes and background info – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Lekh Ram vs. the Ahmadiyya Movement – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog