Yuku free message boards

My response

---

The above claims are unfounded and based on confusion.

1. We receive frequent communications from members of the Qadiani Jamaat saying: We are right because we are far more numerous than you. They say this numerical superiority is the absolutely conclusive proof of their truth and constitutes Allah's judgment that their beliefs are right. According to them, their numerical superiority suffices by itself to nullify and refute all our arguments relating to beliefs.

It is therefore incredible to suggest that the Qadianis have never used this line of argument, but that it is the Lahoris who use it about themselves.

2. What we have claimed is that the majority of members of the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya (7 out of 13) were on the Lahore side. Most likely Tahir Ijaz has confused this as meaning "the majority of Ahmadis".

Even Mirza Mahmud Ahmad did not allege that "Lahoris wrote very early after the split (Paighami Sulha) that the majority of Ahmadis were actually on their side!" According to Paigham Sulh in March 1914 as quoted by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in "The Truth about the Split", p. 345 and 357, more than 1000 persons entered into his bai`at while about 100 gathered against him in Lahore. (This Lahore meeting offered to accept Mirza Mahmud Ahmad as Head of the Jamaat if he agreed to remain within the rules of the Will of the Promised Messiah.)

3. What Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote in "The Split" in 1918 about who formed the Lahore Jamaat is:

"A large number of the educated members of the community ... formed themselves into a separate society" (p. 1 and 2).

He mentions those who accepted Mirza Mahmud Ahmad as being "a section of his (the Promised Messiah's) followers" (p. 8). There is no claim here of Lahoris being the majority of Ahmadis. Regarding those people who were turning away from Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, he mentions Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi, and then says that he is: "not the only man who has renounced the bai`at of M. Mahmud. Numbers of educated Ahmadis did the same before him" (p. 10). These are all very mild and measured statements, none of which suggests that a majority of Ahmadis became Lahoris. To convey the fact as to how many people accepted our standpoint is very far from saying that "we are right because so many people agree with us".

4. Tahir Ijaz is also confused about the "200 mostly influential Europeans". The Maulana never claimed that they were "with him and not the Qadiani side". What Maulana Muhammad Ali actually wrote is this:

"The important work which is being done at Woking where nearly two hundred, mostly influential, Europeans have joined the ranks of Islam ... are due to the activities of the members of the Lahore section" (p. 2).

The missionary work at Woking (started in the time of and under the advice of Maulana Nur-ud-Din) was the propagation of the basic teachings of Islam without reference to the special beliefs of the Ahmadiyya movement, as the people of England did not have even elementary knowledge of Islam. No convert was being initiated into the Ahmadiyya Movement, let alone being taught the difference between Lahoris and Qadianis! Anyone who knew anything about the Woking Mission knew that this was what the mission did. It is utterly absurd to say that Maulana Muhammad Ali was claiming that these converts were becoming Lahoris rather than Qadianis, when they were not even Ahmadis or asked to become Ahmadis.

In the above passage what the Maulana is saying is that, the Lahore Anjuman having been created, it was "now earnestly working for the propagation of Islam", and the two main such works were the running of the Woking Mission, which had gained 200 converts, and the publication of the translation of the Quran. He is saying that we are not just an organisation created in opposition to Qadianis, but are positively following the Promised Messiah's mission of the propagation of Islam to non-Muslims.

5. The wild exaggeration of their own numbers by the Qadiani Jamaat has become clearly evident in the last five or six years. The annual conversions year by year were declared to be 10 million, 20 million, 40 million, 78 million, etc.

In January 2000 at the 10 million stage (of total members), I projected forward as to how the Qadianis would inflate these figures year after year. Please see this topic.

My projection for 2003 was 160 million. We were then abused by Qadianis and called liars, as you can see. When Mirza Tahir Ahmad sahib died in April 2003, the Qadiani Jamaat size was announced as 180 million. So we were right! The last claim I saw was of 200 million, or that 1 Muslim in every 7 or 8 Muslims in the world is a member of the Qadiani Jamaat.

Perhaps the Qadianis will now realize the absurd position they are heading for. Who knows, may be they will heed the Lahoris' warning and give up exaggerating to save themselves from future embarrassment.

My response

---

Regrettably, Dr Tahir Ijaz ignores our arguments and shifts his ground to other allegations. His first paragraph consists of unsubstantiated assertions. He alleges that it was "the Lahori party who developed the habit of exaggerated (downright fabricated) figures early after the split". So this explains why the Qadiani Jamaat, 80 to 90 years later, publishes "exaggerated (downright fabricated) figures" of their numbers as 200 million. According to Dr Tahir Ijaz's explanation, the Qadiani Jamaat is justified in fabricating figures because the Lahoris did it first!

If Lahoris started to use a wrong "line of argumentation", then the primary and main reply of the Qadianis should have been to say that the line of reasoning is wrong. "Turning the argument against them" should only be a secondary reply. According to Dr Tahir Ijaz, the Lahoris said "we are right because we are more than you", and the Qadianis responded only by saying: "No, we are right because we are more than you", and never challenged the basis of the alleged Lahori argument!

Then there are all those Qadianis who are writing to us these days, again and again, saying: "our beliefs are right because we outnumber you very greatly". Obviously they are not doing it in response to any propaganda by Lahoris about numbers (or are they all reading Paigham Sulh issues of 1914?). They are doing it because they have been instructed by their Jamaat to present this point again and again.

Regarding the statements that Tahir Ijaz quotes from Ainah-i-Sadaqat, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad also wrote in the same book:

Quote:

---

"When I became Khalifa, at that time very few people accepted me. Most Jamaats held back because of the misconceptions spread by them (i.e. by Lahoris)."

---

If this is correct, then no objection can be raised against the Lahori statements that Dr Tahir Ijaz quotes.

Dr Tahir Ijaz misrepresents what he has read in "The True Facts about the Split" (p. 45, 46), suppressing the texts that don't suit him. Maulana Muhammad Ali never wrote that, if it is not our numbers, then it is the increasing budget of our Anjuman which is proof of the truth of our beliefs. He is speaking of the Sadr Anjuman before the Split, of which he was Secretary. He is explaining how Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and his associates were opposed to him as Secretary and to other Lahore members of the Sadr Anjuman. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad was now also calling these people as having been hypocrites and self-seeking all along. Yet, says the Maulana, under these same people the work and income of the Sadr Anjuman expanded so much from the time of its creation to the Split. He adds with humility: "I know not how, nor do I pride over it ... It was not my work, yet I spared no pains in whatever I could do for it".

The question he poses is, Has that Anjuman continued its progress under Mirza Mahmud Ahmad? Before Tahir Ijaz gave his own reply he should have read on. Maulana Muhammad Ali writes: "I again do not deny that in his practice of piri-muridi he has a roaring business, the income through presents and offerings has also increased ... several departments in imitation of the government have also been started", but the question that he asks is: How much progress has been made by the Sadr Anjuman which was declared in Al-Wasiyyat by the Promised Messiah as his successor? According to Al-Wasiyyat, all the income of the Jamaat was to be under the charge of the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya, to be spent as determined by the Anjuman. But Mirza Mahmud Ahmad brought it in his personal control, to be spent at his whim. So when Dr Tahir Ijaz says "the budget is sky-rocketing", that budget is not in the control of the mechanism created by the Promised Messiah. The "budget sinking" is the budget of the Anjuman created by the Promised Messiah.

It is also a misreading or, sad to say, perhaps deliberate distortion of Dr Tahir Ijaz to allege that Maulana Muhammad Ali has sneered at the Qadiani community by calling it "poor", as if they are poor compared to us. The Maulana has used the same words in his writings about the Lahore Jamaat, for example: "A poor Jamaat built a house of God in this city". Repeatedly this expression has been used in our literature about us. The word "poor" is used in relation to the expenditure that is being incurred.

Despite my correction, Dr Tahir Ijaz repeats his statement about "200 influential Europeans solidly in their corner". As I have already corrected him by quoting the actual book, I am bound to say with great regret that he is repeating a false allegation when he says that Maulana Muhammad Ali claimed that 200 European converts in England had been won over to the Lahori side and not the Qadiani side. The Maulana wrote that they joined the fold of Islam (of course Dr Tahir Ijaz may have thought that "fold of Islam" means the Ahmadiyya Movement because Qadianis regard other Muslims as kafir!)

He alleges that the Maulana wrote the Split in English "to reinforce their education on top of what Kamaluddin may have taught them." But just compare this with what Mirza Mahmud Ahmad writes in "The Truth about the Split":

"Khwaja sahib had abstained carefully from making any reference in his lectures to the Promised Messiah, ... Khwaja Sahib would studiously avoid all mention of the Promised Messiah, ... the converts won through the activities of Khwaja sahib (i.e. in England) had no connection whatsoever with the Promised Messiah".

So according to Qadiani logic, on the one hand Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din never mentioned the Promised Messiah in his preaching, but on the other hand, to "reinforce the education" that Khwaja sahib was giving these converts, Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote the Split to inform them that the followers of the Promised Messiah were divided into two sections and the Lahore section was the true one! According to the Qadianis, the Lahore policy was "don't mention Ahmadiyyat to the converts to Islam but do remember to tell them that Ahmadiyyat is split into two".

As to "humble ones were made eminent and many eminent ones were made humble", one fails to see any eminence in the present Qadiani Khalifa even after listening to numerous khutbas and speeches by him over the past year. And the late Mirza Tahir Ahmad has no eminence because of leaving a legacy of absurd exaggerations about the numbers of his Jamaat.

When in January 2000 on this discussion forum I projected the Qadiani conversion figures (please see this topic) forward to the next ten years (showing that in 2003 they would claim to be 160 million) I was only illustrating what would happen if they continued along this absurd path of baseless exaggerations. I didn't believe that they would actually be so foolish as to carry on in this way. But they did, and claimed to be 180 million in April 2003. The Qadianis would have benefitted from listening to the advice of Lahoris to refrain from giving these embarrassingly falsely inflated figures.

Zahid Aziz

My response:

---

Sorry if I misrepresented you, but as you joined in the discussion I was having with a member of your Jamaat, I assumed you were trying to justify his argument about numbers. He wrote: "our numbers grow by millions every year unlike yours which are very small ... " [etc.] But if your standpoint is that first the Lahoris wrongly indulged in exaggerations and later the Qadianis started the same wrong practice, then you should make your view clear.

You refer to my "opinion" that most Qadianis employ this number argument. My opinion is based only on the frequent e-mails we receive from the Qadianis. Some further examples, which you can read in this forum, are:

1. "How do you answer the following... Why is your group (Lahori group) not as successful as the Qadiani group? ... They have larger numbers, their 24 hour TV station, huge numbers of 'conversions' ..."

2. "After all, millions and millions of modern day Qadianis can't be wrong compared to what the number of Lahoris is (a few hundred perhaps)."

3. "i wanted to congratulate u for up loading the most hideous lies that i have ever read in my entire life. well done! just a little question...why is that no one even knows about ur little lahori movement"

I presume I can refer all such people to you and you can tell them that most Qadianis don't use this argument. They are more likely to believe you than believing me.

As to your claim that "It was none other than Mirza Mahmud Ahmad who cautioned against using this as a sole and primary main line of argumentation", the following is what Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote in an article published in Paigham Sulh on 24 March 1914 while still in Qadian:

Quote:

---

"It has also been said to me that if a large number of people are on one side then it is God's support. Look what happened after Jesus. Didn't a large number overwhelm a smaller number and overthrow the true religion?"

---

So the Lahoris rejected this reasoning about seven years before Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote the above line. In his famous speech on 12 April 1914, published as the book Mansab-i Khilafat, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad declared about himself:

"A man says: 'God has made me khalifa', and he is supported by events in that a large section of the Jamaat submitted to him" (p. 48). So that is his proof of being appointed khalifa by God.

Regarding the quote from Mirza Mahmud Ahmad ("This is a futile method of arguing..."), you have failed to notice that in the same place his accusation against Maulana Muhammad Ali is this:

Quote:

---

As for his statement that a majority of the enlightened [original Urdu: ahl-i ilm] Ahmadis are opposed to my views ...

---

So even according to Mirza Mahmud Ahmad's own allegation, the Maulana was not using mere numbers as the sole criterion but possession of knowledge as well. Your allegation in your first post was that the Lahoris claimed that "the majority of Ahmadis were actually on their side!" But Mirza Mahmud Ahmad says here that the Lahori claim is that the majority of ahl-i ilm Ahmadis are on their side.

However, Maulana Muhammad Ali doesn't even say "majority of educated Ahmadis" in the section of The Split that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad is referring to here. As I showed in my first response, he writes: "A large number of the educated members" and "Numbers of educated Ahmadis". Mirza Mahmud Ahmad distorts the Maulana's statement into "majority of educated Ahmadis", and Dr Tahir Ijaz further distorts it into "majority of Ahmadis"!

The Maulana's mention of the "dissatisfaction that is becoming more and more pronounced" against the doctrines of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad within his own Jamaat, is far from being an embarrassment for our Jamaat. It is, in fact, a matter of great pride for us because your Jamaat has gradually had to abandon those doctrines. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad himself retracted his main wrong doctrine (declaring other Muslims as non-Muslim) in front of the Munir Court of Inquiry in 1954. His answers at that Inquiry can be read in a Qadiani Jamaat publication available online. Then Mirza Nasir Ahmad, Khalifa 3rd, during a press conference in Europe in 1979, went further by declaring that he regarded even those Muslims to be Muslim who call Ahmadis as kafir. Mirza Tahir Ahmad, Khalifa 4th, in his writings and answers on MTA, distanced the Jamaat completely from calling other Muslims as kafir. This is why your Jamaat members are today taken by surprise when Mirza Mahmud Ahmad's views from his books such as Ainah-i Sadaqat are quoted to them, as happened with the last poster.

Lastly, as to your comment about "which way the wind was blowing" in early April 1914, note that the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat Islam Lahore was founded in May 1914. Your own statement confirms that the Anjuman started life with the most meagre of human and material resources (along with a half of the original Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya as created by the Promised Messiah). Starting right from scratch with such limited resources, this makes the Lahore Anjuman's subsequent services to Islam through its literature and missions absolutely extraordinary.

My Response:

---

We have reached the stage where the readers of this forum can judge for themselves whether your allegation in your first post is proved or has been shown by me to be baseless. They can judge whether your sarcasm and psychological analysis of "complexes" proves anything.

You accuse our Jamaat of lying about numbers. You have not answered how this can be a defence for your Jamaat's repeated, false announcements about its membership in the past few years. Remember, you joined this discussion to defend your Jamaat against this charge of falsification. Your Jamaat's membership is claimed to have multliplied 20 times in 4 years (1999 to 2003) from 10 million to 200 million.

Regarding "enlightened" members (a term not coined by us), it may be noted that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in his "Mansab-i Khilafat" speech of 12 April 1914 bemoans the fact that many of his Jamaat members lack basic knowledge of Islam (p. 27-28). He stated:

Quote:

---

"I saw that a man who was taking the bai`at did not even know the Kalima".

---

With this being the calibre of the masses entering into his bai`at, perhaps this is why the concept of "enlightened" members was raised.

Maulana Ahsan Amrohi refers to the "majority of the trustees appointed by the Promised Messiah" because the Promised Messiah had instructed that the administrative affairs of the Jamaat would be decided by the "majority opinion" of these very trustees. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad had now taken these matters in his own control. So Maulana Ahsan is quite right to mention it. This majority has nothing to do with establishing religious truth but running the management of the Movement. It is the Qadiani Jamaat which believes that when its electoral college chooses a khalifa by majority vote, that majority decision represents the decision of Allah Himself.

Since Maulana Ahsan is talking about religious issues, he immediately adds (after the words quoted by Tahir Ijaz):

Quote:

---

"I mention this (i.e. the majority) only by way of thankfulness for a blessing, otherwise even if none of the Lahore friends were with me I would not care, as I have been taught the prayer: My Lord, leave me not alone".

---

So he says that even without this majority of trustees, even without anyone with him, he would do the same!

If "numbers" is not your Jamaat's primary line of argumentation, how is it that your members are fully convinced (as they keep on telling us) that their numbers have now reached such a level that it is impossible for a movement with false beliefs to increase its membership so rapidly?

As to "the revolution of change supposedly occurring before Muhammad Ali’s eyes", I have already shown in the last post that a revolution of change has occurred, starting at the Munir Court of Inquiry, and now most of your members don't even know that your Jamaat ever declared other Muslims as non-Muslim.

If you wish to "discuss thoroughly" the issue of takfir with me, I am happy to do it provided that your Jamaat affirms beforehand that your beliefs as expressed in that discussion can be taken to be the beliefs held by your Jamaat and that your Jamaat will be bound by the standpoint you express.

But I am surprised that you are even holding this discussion because I understand that your Jamaat hierarchy has prohibited all members from taking part in such discussions and this is why the website www.ahmadiyya.com was closed down.

---

P.S. On the point about "enlightened" members, Mirza Masroor Ahmad in his khutba of 21 May says about Lahoris at the time of the Split: "They got many educated people to follow them". (Al-Fazl International, 4 June 2004, p. 6)

Just some quick points to reiterate what I have been saying.

Dr Tahir Ijaz has had to modify his first claim that Lahoris said "that the majority of Ahmadis were actually on their side!" since Lahoris never said "majority of Ahmadis". Where Mirza Mahmud Ahmad has countered the "majority of enlightened Ahmadis" argument, Maulana Muhammad Ali is being misquoted since he never wrote "majority" or "enlightened", but a "large number of the educated members of the community". This is why I quoted Mirza Masroor Ahmad because what he has said is the same as what Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote.

According to Qadiani belief, the man chosen by the majority of their electoral college is Allah's own choice and whatever he says about doctrinal truths is right and binding over the whole Jamaat.

If Dr Tahir Ijaz's position on takfir is only quotations then I suggest people read for themselves the relevant section in Mirza Mahmud Ahmad's Truth about the Split (Part One) on the Qadiani Jamaat website, in which he quotes his own article and explains what he meant on takfir (and whether other Muslims are "perfectly legal Muslims" or "veritable Kafirs").

They can then compare this with his answers at the Munir Court of Inquiry as published by the Qadiani Jamaat available online to see what is "urban legend" and what is true.