Qadianism (Ahmadiyyat) in the News
Profiling Islam as Terrorism
A little sting and a few ‘useful idiots’
…The ideologues of colonialism had the greatest problem with two things:
the Book and the Sword, the Qur’an and the Jihad; and they
made little secrete of their cherished design to steal or blunt these two
greatest ‘weapons’ in a Muslim’s armory. They felt that as long as Muslims
continued to hold the Qur’an as their absolute frame of reference
and were willing to lay down their lives in the way of Allah, it would be
very tough trying to cow and control the Islamic world. It would be a great
help, suggested a German expert, if we could push the Qur’an aside
and bring the Muslim woman outside. All orientalist scholarship and colonialist
engineering has since been geared towards achieving the twin objectives.
What about Jihad?
The inventive boys of the colonial dirty tricks department came up with a
brilliant idea. Why not give Muslims a modern, new surrogate prophet and
let him deal with the question of Jihad. And they did.
They picked a half-educated, retarded and sycophantic moonshi (petty
clerk), Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani (1838-1908). They made him believe that
he was an inspired person and let him acquire the profile of a polemicist,
who defended Islam in face of Christian missionary attacks, and then graduated
him from being a religious reformer to messiah, a resurrected Jesus (Alaihis
Salam) and, finally, a shadow prophet.
The shadowy prophet declared that Islam consisted of two parts: one, obedience
to God and, two, obedience to the British government. He duly announced that
‘there is no Jihad of the sword after my coming’, and ‘should anyone
raise his hands against the infidels and call himself a ghazi [an
Islamic soldier], he would be regarded as an enemy of Muhammad, Sall-Allahu
alayhi wa Sallam.’ An ‘enemy of God,’ he said on another occasion.
Mirza and his disciples did serve the Empire to the best of their capacity,
but as long as the Book was there, no one could change or remove even a comma
from the rules and teachings of Islam…
(Impact International, Vol. 29, No. 2, February 1999, p. 6)
Response of Ahmadis
Letters to the Editor, April
Jihad and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani
It is not my intention to comment on the veracity of the whole article,
‘Profiling Islam as terrorism’ (Impact, February 1999), but
would take issue with the author’s treatment of ‘Hazrat Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad’, founder of the ‘Ahmadiyya Muslim’ community, and the claim that it
was planted by the then colonialist powers.
This lie has been posed often enough without ever producing an iota of
The pronouncements about Jihad that the author has tried to associate
with ‘Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’ are also twisted, out of context and completely
inaccurate. He simply did the same thing which was mentioned by the Holy
Prophet of Islam (may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in Bukhari
regarding the postponement of Jihad at the time of the advent of the
Ataul Mujeeb Rashed
Your cover story, Jihad & Terrorism, (Impact, February
1999) was wide off the mark. Jihad has been interpreted in many ways
by both the Muslim and non-Muslim world, and there will be many Muslims who
find your interpretation unacceptable.
Don’t go around making excuses and blaming the founder of the ‘Ahmadiyya
Muslim’ community for the failure of the Muslim world it is after
all well over a 100 years old now!
Dr. Muhammad Iqbal
(Quotes and unquotes added in the two preceding letters.)
Impact International Responds
Letters to the Editor, April
‘Agent’ and ‘messiah’
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad started his ‘prophetic’ career first as a preacher and
polemicist who tried to answer Christian missionary attacks on Islam. This
lasted eight years (1880-1888). In December 1888, he published an advertisement
(sic) that God had deputized him as a renovator (mujaddid) of Islam.
Three years into ‘mujaddidship’, in 1891 he announced the demise of
Jesus (Alaihis Salam) and declared that he was the ‘Promised
Messiah’. Mr. Rashed says it was in his position as the ‘Promised Messiah’
that, as mentioned in Bukhari, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had decreed ‘the postponement
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not ‘postpone’ war. He had abrogated ‘the Jihad
of the sword’. However, the Hadith narrated by Abu Hurayrah (radhi-Allah
unhu) in Bukhari (and Muslim) reports the Prophet saying that definitely
shall the Son of Maryam descend unto you as the Just Ruler; he will break
the Cross and kill the swine and end the war (Harb). Another narration
uses the word Jizyah (Jihad exemption tax payable by non-Muslims)
instead of Harb, and says he will abolish Jizyah.
Mirza was neither the Son of Maryam nor someone who did or even attempt to
do any of the things which ‘Promised Messiah’ was expected to do. He did
not abolish war (by establishing justice), he abolished Jihad. He
did so even before he had declared himself the ‘Promised Messiah’. (He had
already written,) ‘Since 16 years, I have been regularly emphasizing that
the obedience of the Government of Britain is obligatory (fardh) upon
the Muslims of India and that Jihad is haram’ (forbidden), he wrote
in February 1899 which meant that he forbade Jihad in 1883, eight
years before his ‘Messiahship’. Why?
He admitted he could ‘pursue his mission neither in Makkah, nor Madinah;
neither in Syria, nor Iran or Kabul save under this Government [e.g. British]
for whose good fortune we pray’. On 24 February 1898, Mirza sent a fawning
petition to the British Lt-Governor of the province. In the petition, he
referred to his loyal services to the government of Britain and reminded
him that he was their ‘own plant’ (khud sakhtah pauda) and, then went
on to request that his followers be given special consideration by officials.
The Mirza’s ‘khalifah’ and son, Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, wrote proudly
in the cult’s paper Al-Fazal dated 1 November 1934 that: ‘The whole
world considers us to be the agents of the British. That is why a German
minister who attended the opening of an Ahmadiyya building in Germany was
asked to explain as to why did he go to the function of a community which
was the agent of the British.’ IMPACT.
(Impact International, Vol. 29, No. 4, April 1999, p. 6)