Search

ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Search results

"Mirza Bashir Ahmad"

Mirza Bashir Ahmad va. Muhammad Ali (1940-41) on the topic of Funeral prayers for non-Ahmadi Muslims

Intro
The Lahori-Ahmadi’s had a long running rivalry with their Qadiani-Ahmadi’s.  You can read lots of it on the internet.  However, today, we bring you an incident from 1940-1941 wherein the topic of funeral prayers for non-Ahmadi’s-Muslims was discussed between the 2 factions.

1941
Muhammad Ali writes, Qadianio ko Saalis Bun-nay kee Daawut”.  Muhammad Ali challenged any Qadiani-Ahmadi on this issue addressed to Qadiani Jamaat members. He asked if any single one of them could testify that:

“””‘In the time of the Promised Messiah and the time of Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din, that is before 1914, saying funeral prayers for non-Ahmadis was considered to be prohibited as it is now, and no Ahmadi community ever held the funeral prayers of a non-Ahmadi.’”””

Mirza Bashir Ahmad responded

A few months later in 1941, Mirza Bashir Ahmad wrote a book in reply which was more than 200 pages long, entitled Mas`ala Janaza ki Haqiqat. The standpoint in this book was that when the Promised Messiah wrote that janaza prayers of non-Ahmadis were allowed, he put such conditions on it that such a non-Ahmadi would in effect have to be an Ahmadi!

Mirza Bashir Ahmad wrote about these conciliatory statements of the Promised Messiah that: “The Promised Messiah gave people a bitter pill to swallow which he coated with sugar, but Hazrat Khalifat-ul-Masih 2 has given them the pill directly without sugar coating.”

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #ahmadiyyat #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #drsalam

 

In 1914, Mirza Bashir Ahmad simply called MGA a Mujadid, not a Prophet—Review of Religions of June 1914

Intro
In the Review of Religions of June 1914, Mirza Bashir Ahmad (the younger brother) has described being Mujaddid of the 14th century as the mission of Hazrat Mirza sahib. See this link.

 

Mirza Bashir Ahmad did Takfir on all Muslims and Lahori-Ahmadis (1916)

This was taken from the Lahori-Ahmadiyya website: http://www.ahmadiyya.org/qadis/takfir-kalimat-ul-fasl.htm

The Qadiani Jama‘at has placed on its http://www.alislam.org website, in December 2007, the book Kalimat-ul-Fasal by Mirza Bashir Ahmad published by them in 1915, and written only a few months after the Split of 1914. Below is a link to the book:

www.alislam.org/urdu/pdf/Kalma-tul-Fasal.pdf

The author, a son of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, was the younger brother of the then khalifa of their community Mirza Mahmad Ahmad. In this book are expressed, in the most stark and unambiguous language, those highly dangerous and extreme beliefs which were entirely unacceptable to many leading Ahmadis, who thereupon formed the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha‘at Islam in Lahore to preserve the real teachings and mission of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

Its online publication is surprising because for several decades, starting in the 1950s but more particularly since 1974 when Ahmadis were declared non-Muslim in Pakistan in the state constitution, the Qadiani Jama‘at had been distancing itself from these repugnant doctrines.

In summary, those objectionable doctrines are that:

  1. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet and messenger of Allah in a real sense just as Moses, Jesus and the Prophet Muhammad were prophets of God.
  2. All Muslims who do not follow him are actually unbelievers just as Jews and Christians are unbelievers in Islam.
  3. In practical relations in religious matters Ahmadis must treat other Muslims as being non-Muslims.

We quote below some extracts from this book showing how it presents the above beliefs. The original Urdu text is displayed below as images from the online book.

(Note: The version of this book on the Qadiani Jama‘at website has been taken from the March-April 1915 issue of the Urdu Review of Religions. The page references given here are to that version. The same pages from the magazine were also reproduced as a separate book, in which the number of each page is 90 less than the corresponding page number in the magazine.)

Mirza Bashir Ahmad begins a chapter as follows:

Kalimat-ul-fasal, p. 107

“In this chapter some Quranic verses will be mentioned which show that Allah has made it obligatory to declare faith in all messengers and has called as kafir those who do not consider it necessary to believe in all prophets.” (p. 107)

After quoting such a verse, he concludes:

Kalimat-ul-fasal, p. 110

“Thus, according to this verse, every such person who believes in Moses but not in Jesus, or believes in Jesus but not in Muhammad (peace be upon him), or believes in Muhammad but not in the Promised Messiah, is not only a kafir but a staunch kafir and is excluded from the fold of Islam.” (p. 110)

It is declared here that all Muslims who do not belong to the Ahmadiyya Movement are non-Muslims because they do not believe in Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet, just as Jews and Christians are non-Muslims for not believing in the Holy Prophet Muhammad as a prophet. Such a Muslim is declared as not merely a kafir but a pukka kafir, meaning staunch or firm kafir.

Later on he writes:

Kalimat-ul-fasal, p. 119

“It is a basic point that as the Promised Messiah is a messenger and prophet of God, he therefore has all the rights that other prophets have, and to deny him is the same as to deny any other prophet of Allah.” (p. 119)

Later in the book, Mirza Bashir Ahmad replies to several objections against his standpoint that the above were the beliefs of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

One of these objections is: If he is a prophet as the Holy Prophet Muhammad was prophet, then why did he not require his followers to recite a kalima in his name? Mirza Bashir Ahmad declares this to be a foolish objection and writes:

Kalimat-ul-fasal, p. 158

“The fool does not realise that ‘Muhammad is the messenger of Allah’ was put in the Kalima because he is the crowning head of the prophets and the Khatam-un-nabiyyin. By mentioning his name all other prophets are implicitly included. There is no need to mention the name of everyone separately. Admittedly, the coming of the Promised Messiah has created one difference, and that is that before his coming the significance of the words ‘Muhammad is the messenger of Allah’ included (besides the Holy Prophet) only the prophets before the Holy Prophet Muhammad, but after the coming of the Promised Messiah one more prophet was added to the significance of these words. … In other words, the same Kalima is still to be used for admission into Islam, the difference merely being that the coming of the Promised Messiah has added one more messengerto the significance of the words ‘Muhammad is the messenger of Allah’.” (p. 158; underlining here is ours).

It is plainly stated here that although members of the Qadiani Jama‘at proclaim the same Kalima in words as other Muslims, namely, “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah”, but they actually have in mind something more added to it, over and above what other Muslims believe. How can they then complain if the opponents of the Ahmadiyya Movement accuse them of reciting a different kalima?

Relations with other Muslims

Close to the end of this treatise, Mirza Bashir Ahmad answers the objection that if his standpoint is true, then why did the Promised Messiah still permit his followers to have those relations with other Muslims which are required exclusively between one Muslim and another, and are not allowed with non-Muslims. He replies:

Kalimat-ul-fasal, p. 169

“This objection shows the lack of knowledge of the objector. We find that the Promised Messiah has permitted us to have only that relationship with non-Ahmadis which the Holy Prophet Muhammad permitted with Christians.” (p. 169)

He goes on to give examples of how Ahmadis can only have those relations with non-Ahmadis which Islam allows Muslims to have with Christians or with Jews:

Kalimat-ul-fasal, p. 169
Kalimat-ul-fasal, p. 170

“… If you say we are permitted to marry their (other Muslims’) daughters, I say we are also permitted to marry daughters of Christians. If you ask, why do we say salam to non-Ahmadis, the answer is that it is proved from Hadith that sometimes the Holy Prophet Muhammad even said salam to Jews in response to them. … Therefore, in every way the Promised Messiah has separated us from other Muslims, and there is no relation which Islam requires exclusively between Muslims which has not been prohibited to us (with other Muslims).” (p. 169–170)

According to this explanation, when a member of the Qadiani Jama‘at says assalamu alaikum to a non-Ahmadi he does so only as he would to a Jew or Christian in some circumstances, only as a return of greeting, and not as a sign of the common bond of the brotherhood of Islam.

He then replies to another question under the same objection about relations with other Muslims:

Kalimat-ul-fasal, p. 170

“The objection arises here as to why the marriage of a woman who is an Ahmadi is not dissolved if her husband is a non-Ahmadi, or why is the inheritance of a deceased Ahmadi allowed to his non-Ahmadi son when a kafir is not allowed to inherit from a Muslim.” (p. 170)

In his reply he tells us that there are two kinds of commandments in Islam: those to be carried out by the individual and those that can only be carried out by the government or the law of the land. Then he writes:

Kalimat-ul-fasal, p. 170

“As matters of inheritance and dissolution of marriage fall under the law of the government, this is why the Promised Messiah wrote nothing about these. If he had possessed governmental power, he would have issued the same orders in these matters as well.” (p. 170)

Just ponder over this last statement! It is declaring, openly and bluntly, that if the Head of the Qadiani Jama‘at were to have the power to make laws in a country he would issue orders to the effect that non-Ahmadis should be treated as non-Muslims under the law of the land. So on what grounds can the Qadiani Jama‘at complain when they themselves are declared as non-Muslims under the law of the land in Pakistan?

All these extreme beliefs came back to haunt the Qadiani Jama‘at with a vengeance. They were declared non-Muslim in the law of the land by a government of non-Ahmadis in Pakistan in 1974 in exactly the same way as Mirza Bashir Ahmad has here proclaimed that his Jama‘at would do to non-Ahmadis if it should possess political power. They are prevented by the anti-Ahmadiyya groups from using or displaying the kalima because, it is alleged, they add Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in it by implication. Then there are the widely-reported assalamu alaikum court cases in Pakistan in which members of the Qadiani Jama‘at have been charged by the police with the crime of using this greeting, which is meant for use by Muslims. As quoted above, according to Mirza Bashir Ahmad when members of his Jama‘at say assalamu alaikum to other Muslims it does not mean they are regarding them as Muslims.

No doubt, all these repressive legal restrictions against them are highly unjust and a complete travesty of the teachings of Islam, and deserve total condemnation. But the Qadiani Jama‘at leadership themselves believe in directing the same unjust measures against all other Muslims.

“A Muslim is one who accepts all those appointed by God” by Mirza Bashir-uddin Mahmud Ahmad, April 1911

Intro
This entry is about the essay by the son of MGA, Mirza Bashir-uddin Mahmud Ahmad in his own magazine, the Tashhidhul Adhhan of April 1911 (see page 91).  This is the essay that solidified the “Qadiani” concept in terms of those Muslims who have rejected Mirza Ghulam Ahmad outright.

Quotes
https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/10/20/tasheeshazul-adhan-was-a-magazine-founded-by-mahmud-ahmad-in-1913/

Ahmad, the Messenger of the Latter days: By Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad (1924)


Intro

We have found another rare book by Ahmadiyya leadership, its from 1924 and gives us many clues as to the life of MGA.

MGA’s family only moved back to Qadian after Ranjit Singh died, i.e., 1839
Ahmadiyya leadership has lied for years and years about the birth-year of MGA.  MGA himself told the world that he was born in 1839 or 1840, he wrote that in 1897, in his famous Kitab ul Barriya.  In this book, Mahmud Ahmad is trying his best to argue that MGA was born in 1836 or 1837, however, he quotes Lepel Griffin’s famous, “Punjab Chiefs”, wherein Mr. Griffin tells us that it was only after Ranjit Singh Died in June of 1839 that MGA’s family was allowed to move back to Qadian.  Mahmud Ahmad, the Ahmadi Khalifa, thus disproves himself.  Mahmud Ahmad seems to quote the 1909 edition of Lepel’s Punjab Chiefs, which has a different name, “Revised as Chiefs and Families of note in the Punjab (1909)”.

Mahmud Ahmad’s quotation
(See page 6) “Mention must be made of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, younger son of Ghulam Murtaza and founder of the remarkable religious movement known as the Ahmadiyya.  Born in 1839, he received an excellent education, and in 1891 he declared himself to be the Promised Mahdi or Messiah of the Muslim faith…..”

Mahmud Ahmad lies about MGA being carried by Train to Batala
I have already covered this issue here: https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/12/02/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-died-of-an-opium-overdose-1908/.

Mahmud Ahmad doesnt mention anything about a death certificate at all.  That story seems to have began its circulation after 1924, as Ahmadis were covering up the indiscretions of  MGA.  The truth is….MGA’s body was carried from Lahore all the way to Qadian (see Muhammad Ali, 1916).

The PDF book
Ahmad The Messenger of the Latter Days

Bashir Ahmad Misri, Murdered Multani were Correct about Mirza Mahmud in 1937 – Viceroy Papers

Please accept my apologies for the long title. The events of 1937 in Qadian went all the way to the Governor of the Punjab and the Governor-General (Viceroy) of India. Recently released documents by the Indian government show that:

  • Abdur Rahman Masri and Fakhruddin Multani did accuse Mirza Mahmud of moral turpitude of a sexual nature
  • Mirza Mahmud had no response but to incite violence against them up to the point that the Deputy Commissioner Gurdaspur was thinking about charging him.
  • Incitement led directly to the murder of Fakhruddin Multani
  • Deputy Commissioner Gurdaspur had to threaten Mirza Mahmud in order to get his tone down and renounce violence
  • Masri and Multani were guarded by police and authorities advised them to leave Qadian for their own safety
  • Section 144 (unlawful assembly) was imposed in Qadian for many days and mass prosecution under section 107 (incitement, same charge that was brought against Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) was contemplated

See this page from the original.  Other pages and complete description is at Fakhruddin Multani’s page, and Masri’s account.

Bashir Ahmad Misri’s Mubahila with Mirza Tahir Ahmad

Taken from: http://ahmedi.org/eng-articles/misrimubahila.html

1st January 1989
Al Hafiz B.A. Masri
7 Hurst Road East Molesey Surrey KT8 9AQ England
To Mr. Tahir Ahmad Mirza Amir Jamaat Ahmadiyya 16-18 Gressenhall Road London SW18 5QL England

1.Your secretary Mr. Rashid Ahmad Chaudhry, has sent me a letter (undated) by Recorded Delivery daring me on your behalf to accept your challenge of Mubahilla which you gave to the opponents of Qadianism on the 10th June 1988. This letter, along with a copy your challenge reached me on the 5th of August 1988.

2. It gives me great pleasure to accept your challenge and to avail myself of this opportunity to expose the pious fraud of Qadianism once and for all.

3. Mubahilla is a sort of ordeal by prayer in which two parties beseach Allah to establish the truth or falsity of matter under dispute. Since Mubahilla is a grave matter of utmost solemnity, it is expedient that we should settle its articles and convenants directly between the two of us instead of negotiating through our secretaries to avoid any possibility of ambiguity or incertitude in the final result of it.

4. On page 4 of your challenge you have conceded that those who accept your challenge are free to single out any one clause out of the articles you have listed. I therefore choose to accept the articles which you have written on page 2 in these words: “The second aspect of this Mubahilla concerns the utterly false accusations and the mischieveous propaganda against the Ahmadiyya community.”

5. Since my accusations are about matters of moral turpitude and sexual promiscuity of a nature which is not generally thought fit to be mentioned to ears polite, it needs to be explained as to why I feel justified and morally obliged in making these immodest accusations as issue for this ‘Mubahila’.

6. Normally no individual has a right to sit in judgement on another individual. However when a person assume a position of trust and moral responsibility he becomes personalized as an institution and forfeits his prerogative as an individual. In any civilized society, Doctors of Medicine, School Teachers, Office Bearers of Destitute Homes and Orphanges, the functionaries of all such institutions become open to moral and ethical censorship, in addition to Statutory Law. One of the reasons why religious charlatans and impostors remain unconstrained from the exploition of simple and gullible people is that the Governments of Secular States do not feel inclined to interfere in matters spiritual. It is left to society at large to regulate the affairs of their respective religious institutions and establishments.

7. My second justification is that your Qadiani clique started violating the civilized norms of sexual ethics not as individuals but as an institution in the name of Islam. Stop calling yourselves as Muslims, give yourselves any appellation as a new religion and Muslims will gladly leave you alone.

8. My accusations are not against the generality of the Qadiani community. There are many among them who believe in the Qadiani doctrines honestly and sincerely, albeit mistakenly. We do not start kicking against the people of other faiths on the grounds of doctrinal differences. It is only when their lifestyle becomes a menace to the ethical fabric of a society that people put their foot down. If there are degenerates in this world who are willing to sacrifice the honour and chastity of their womenfolk and young boys out of devotion to the religious thugs, good luck to them. However the moot point of contention arises when unsuspecting and innocent victims fall prey to such deceits. In that situation you feel justified in shouting from the roof-tops: Snake in the grass!

9. It is with this sence of moral responsibility and genuine solicitude that I accept your challenge of Mubahilla to establish whether the following accusations are true or false. MY CLAIM THAT THEY ARE TRUE IS BASED ON MY PERSONAL KNOLEDGE GAINED DURING MY LIFE IN QADIAN WHERE I WAS BORN AND BROUGHT UP UNTIL 1937, WHEN I DENOUNCED QADIANISM. THE OATH OF MUBAHILA

10. You shall declare on oath, in the words laid down below, that the under-mentioned statements made by me are false to the best of your knowledge; and I shall declare oath in the same words that they are true to the best of my knowledge:

11. “I Mirza Tahir Ahmad (Son of Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmoud Ahmad s/o Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement), the present Amir of the Qadiani section of the Ahmadiyya Jamaat, declare it on oath in the name of Allah that to the best of my knowledge, the under-mentioned statements made by Al-Hafiz B-A Masri, s/o Sheikh Abdul Rahman Masri, are false and that I have no knowledge to the effect that they are true. I pray and beseech Allah that in case I am perjuring myself by willingly uttering this false evidence while on oath, I may be cursed by Allah and die within one year from the date of uttering and signing of this oath in the presence of six witnesses, three of whom shall be selected by me and three shall be selected by the said Al-Hafiz Basheer Ahmad Masri.”
Signed by: six witnesses Signed by Mirza Tahir Ahmad .

12.”I, Al-Hafiz Basheer Ahmad Masri (s/o Sheikh Abdul Rahman Masri), declare it on oath the name of Allah that, to the best of my knowledge, the under-mentioned statements made by me are true. I further declare it on oath in the name of Allah that Mirza Tahir Ahmad, the present Amir of the Qadiani section of the Ahmiadiyya Jamaat knows that they are true. I pray and beseech Allah that in case I am perjuring myself by wilfully uttering this false evidence while on oath, I may be cursed by Allah and die within one year from the date of uttering and signing of this oath in the presence of six witnesses three of whom shall be selected by the said Mirza Tahir Ahmad.”
Signed by: Six Witnesses Signed by Al-Hafiz Basheer Ahmad Masri. THE ADJURATIONS OF MUBAHILA

13. I, Al-Hafiz Basheer Ahmad Masri, give this evidence on oath in the name of Allah that: Your father, Mirza Basheer ud-din Mahmoud Ahmad (the eldest of the three sons of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who was the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, the Second Khalifa of the Qadiani section of the Ahmadiyya Jama’at) was a debaucher, fornicator, adulterer and incestuous i.e. guilty of habitual sexual intercourse even with women of near kin who are declared by not only the Islamic Shari’ah but also by all scriptural religions as inviolable (Haram). Your paternal uncle, Mirza Basheer Ahmad ( the second of the three sons of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) was a homosexual with a great sexual propensity for young boys. Your paternal uncle, Mirza Shareef Ahmad (the third of the three sons of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) was a homosexual with a great propensity for your boys. Your elder brother, Mirza Nasir (s/o Mirza Basheer- ud-Din Mahamoud Ahmad, grandson of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and the third Khalifa) was a fornicator and homosexual. Your maternal grand-uncle, Mir Muhammad Ishaque (brother of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s wife) held an oligarchial and celebrated position in the Qadiani community and was honoured with the title of Muhaddith, i.e. authority on Hadith (Sunnah and Tradition). He was a homosexual. As the man-in-charge of the orphanage in Qadian, the young orphan boys were helplessly at the mercy of his perversions.

14. I could go on listing many more names of people who held very high positions in the Qadiani Establishment, using their prestige and power to gratify their sensuous and perverted desires free of moral censure. However the real reason for writing these sordid details, even though it is an obscene subject, is to refute your assertion that the accusations are utterly false” and a “mischievous propaganda” against the “Ahmadies” while you know fully well that they are true.

15. As it is, I have confined the list of people in the above accusation to the Mirza family only in order not to confiuse the issue and thus to leave any loop-hole in it for to wriggle out of this Mubahila. Even within the Mirza family, I have left out many names of the second and the third generations for the same reason. The main reason for not including women of this family in this list is out of comassion. Although some of them have played a very active and willing role in this abomination and fraud, I consider them by and large as being the victims rather than the cluprits. Most of them had no choice and deserve pity.

16. The circumscription of the period of Mubahila to one year is meant to achieve definitive verdict of Allah. Leaving it open to generalities and to an unspecified period as you have done in your challenge, would leave the outcome of the Mubahila inconclusive. However, I am open to suggestions by you for any alteration in the span of time.

17. In case you try to seek shelter under the plea that you cannot vouch under oath for the good or bad moral conduct of those who are dead, I would point out that you have already agreed in principle to do so, on page 8 of your challenge in these words: “Since the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement is no longer in this world and it is neccessary that there should be a party to represent him, I and the Ahmadiyya community declare it with all our hearts and without any scruples that we accept this challenge of Mubahilla on his dehalf.”

18. If you are prepared to accept the challenge of Mubahilla on behalf of your dead grandfather, there is no earthly reason why you should not be able to accept a similar Mubahilla on behalf of your dead father, dead uncles and dead brother.

19. Apart from this the moot point at issue on which I am accepting your challenge of Mubahilla is not that you should represent your ancestors mentioned in paragraph 13. Your are being put on oath to vouch for yourself whether or not it is within your knowledge that your ancestors named in that paragraph were morally depraved and sexual debauchees. The reson why it has become necessary to drag these obscenities into the open is to prove that you as the head of a so-called religious denomination, know all these facts to be true and yet you are hypocritically misleading your followers and others and perpetuating the fraud of Qadianism in the name of Islam.

20. I hope you will appreciate that, by accepting your challenge of Mubahillah. I am giving you a unique chance of proving once and for all that my accusations are false. What you have to do is simply to declare on oath, in the words prescribed above in paragraph 11, that you have no knowledge that my above-stated accusations in paragraph 13 are true. I assertively insist that you know without a shadow of doubt that my accusations are true, so much so that on my part I am prepared unhesitatingly to stake not only my cerdibility but my life as well on it. More than that I am prepared to lay myself open to the eternal curse of Allah on myself, in case I am wrong or uttering a falsehood.

21. Mr Tahir Ahmad! Let us take our case to the Court of Allah, the Supreme Judge of the Universe and leave it to him to adjudge between us.
Signed: B.A. Masri. Al-Hafiz Basheer Ahmad Masri.
P.S. Since there are millions of Muslims who do not know Urdu,I would request you to do all your correspondence on this subject in English, which can be translated later into Urde, Arabic and other languages.
B.A. Masri.
BY REGISTERED POST To Mr. Tahir Ahmad Mirza Amir Jama’at Ahmadiyya 16-18 Gressenhall Road London SW18 5QL England.

A REMINDER It is noted that you have neglected to respond to my letter, accepting your challenge of Mubahilla. This was mailed to you by registered post on the 18th August 1988, and two months later there is still no reply from you. In case I do not receive a reply from you within two weeks, I shall have to make it known to the Muslim world that your challenge of Mubahilah was nothing more than a cheap con game and a confidence trick at which you people have become quite adept.
I would like to make this point clear that, until the oath of Mubahila has been pronounced and Allah’s Judgement has been invoked solemnly by both the parties, the Mubahilah does not become operative. I have to request you, in your own interest, not to try to have me killed, as your predecessors used to do when cornered in similar circumstances. Otherwise the consequences for you and your minions would be extremely disastrous.
The whole Muslim world has come to know what kind of people you are. They are getting fed up with your Qadiani fraud in the name of Islam and are not prepared to put up with it any longer. I am still hoping against hope that you would tell me when and how you would like both of us take the oath of Mubahila.

Signed: Al Hafiz Basheer Ahmad Masri.

 

The Ahmadiyya fatwa (opinion) on saying prayers behind a non-Ahmadi imam

Intro

Some quotes
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib was as much a prophet as was Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa(pbuh) in the nature of prophethood. So it is not permissible to pray for the salvation of a person who goes out of the circle of Islam by his denial of Mirza Sahib.”  (Al-Fazl, Qadian, Vol. 9, No. 30, Oct. 17, 1921)

“Chirag Din is a student of the Taleem-ul-Islam High School, Quadian. Recently, when he returned to his native place, Sialkot, his mother died. She had loved her son dearly, but since she was not an Ahmadi, Chirag Din did not attend her funeral prayers. He thus clung to his faith and principle. Well-done; Proud son of Taleem-ul-Islam. The movement (Quadianism) needs worthy sons like you. Well done.” (Al-Fazl, Qadian, Vol. 2, No. 129, Apr. 20, 1915)

“I believe that those who follow the lead of non-Ahmadis (Muslims) in prayers, it is not permissible to hold their funeral service. Similarly, those who have given their daughters in marriage to non-Quadianis and died without repenting, it is not permissible to hold their funeral service.”(Al-Fazl, Qadian, Vol. 13, No. 102, Apr. 13, 1926)

“If one asks ‘Is it permitted for us that funeral prayers be said for the children of Muslims’, I would say: No – just as it is forbidden to pray for Hindu and Sikh children as the religion must follow his parents.” (Anwar-e-Khilafat, Page 93)

‘To the question “What must be done to a Muslim who dies in a place where Qadianism is unknown? Should formal prayers be said?” I would say: “We do not know his full particulars but it would appear from his deed that he died in a state in which he was ignorant of Rasul of ALlah and His Nabi. Therefore, no prayers should be said for him. Nor would we say funeral prayers for a Qadiani who has followed a non-Qadiani in prayer or one who mixes with them by this action, he has left the pale of Qadianism.” (Al-Fazl, Qadian, May 6, 1915, Bashir-ul-Din Mahmood Qadiani)

“Fadl Ahmad, the eldest son of promised Messiah (Mirza Ghulam Qadiani) from his first wife, died, but he (Mirza Ghulam) did not say funeral prayers over his son as he (Fadl Ahmad) did not believe in his prophethood or in his prophecies, although he was obedient to his father in matters concerning day to day life.” (Al-Fazl, Qadian, Dec. 15, 1931 – Jul. 7 1943, Page 3)

“Hazrat Mirza Ghulam did not attend the funeral service of his son (late Mr. Fazl Ahmad) only because he was a non-Ahmadi (Muslim).” (Al-Fazl, Qadian, Vol. 9, No. 47, Nov. 15, 1921)

“Our prayer has been channeled and we are not allowed to marry our daughters to them. To say funeral prayers for them is also prohibited. What else remains that we share with them? Relations are of two kinds: religious and worldly. The former comprises prayers and the latter relates to marriage. Thus, following non-believers in prayer is forbidden and it is also forbidden that you make them your sons-in-law. Should you then ask: ‘then why do we greet them?’ Then I would say that even the Prophet(pbuh) used to greet the Jews. In short, our Imam (Mirza Ghulam) has declared has declared us a distinct sect in every respect. There is no ceremony which occupies an important position in Islam in which we have not been separated from others.” (Kalimatul-Fasl, Vol. 14, P. 169, Mirza Bashi Ahmed Qadiani)

“If a non-Ahmadi dies is it permissible to say” ‘May Allah pardon him and grant him admission in the Heaven?Answer: The infidelity of the non-Admadis (Muslims) is a proven fact and it is not permissible to pray for their salvation.” (Al-Fazl, Qadian, Vol. 8, No. 59, Feb. 1921)

“It is my considered religion: it is not permitted that you should offer prayer led by a non-Qadiani in any place whatsoever, whosoever he may be and however respected among the people he may be. This is an order from Allah and this is what Allah expects of you. Those who doubt this are considered deniers. Allah desires that a distinction be made between you and them.”
(Al-Fazl, Qadian, Aug. 28, 1917)

“God has revealed to me that it is forbidden – strictly forbidden – that you should say prayers led by one who believes me to be a liar or is wavering in his allegiance to me. Instead it enjoined upon you that you should follow an Imam from amongst you.”
(Arbaeen, Vol. 3, P. 28; “Tuhfa-e-Golarwiah”, P. 27, Mirza Ghulam Qadiani)

“No Qadiani is allowed to say prayers which are led by a non-Qadiani. People have asked this question again and again – is it permissible to pray behind them? I would say, whenever I am asked, it is not allowed for any Qadiani to pray behind a non-Qadiani. It is forbidden – not permitted – prohibited.”
(Anwar-e-Khilafat, P. 93)

“God has revealed it to me that the person who did not believe in me after having heard about me is not a Muslim.” (Al-Fazl, Qadian, Jan 15, 1935 – Al-Hukum, 4:24, Mirza Ghulam Qadiani)

“It seems that the Promised Messiah had also suspected that the word ‘Muslim’ which he used also for non-Ahmadis might be wrongly understood. So, he has made it clear in his writings occasionally that the word ‘Muslim’ which he used for also non-Ahmadis meant ‘those who claimed to be Muslims.’ hence, wherever he has used that term for non-Ahmadis, he means by it those who claim to be Muslims, for he could not have recognized those who denied him as Muslims under divine instructions.” (Kalimatul Fasl, Vol. 14, No. 3, P. 126, Sahibaza Bashir Ahmad Qadiani)

 

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid
#Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #ahmadiyyat #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog


Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had 5 written debates, NO ORAL Debates

Intro
We all know that MGA was unable to have oral debates with anyone, he stuttered terribly into his 50’s, his arabic was horrendous, and most of his speech was unintelligible.  MGA’s team did most of the writing on behalf of MGA anyway.  Further, Maulvi Abdul Karim Sialkoti was MGA’s mouthpiece, with Syed Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi working behind the scenes editing arabic and etc.

The hard evidence
1. March 1886 Hushiarpur with Master Murlidhar.
2, July 1891 at Ludhiana with Molana Muhammad Hussain Batalvi.
3. October 1891 at Delhi with Molvi Muhammad Bashir Bhopali
4. January 1892, at Lahore at Lahore with Molvi Abdul Hakim Kalanori
5. June 1892 at Amritsar Deputy Abdullah Athim.
Seeratul mahdi pages 219-220

The scans

Up ↑