Qadianism (Ahmadiyyat) in the News
Profiling Islam as Terrorism
A little sting and a few ‘useful idiots’
February/April 1999

…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 1999

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 proof.
  
  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 Promised Messiah.
  Ataul Mujeeb Rashed
  London, UK

• 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
  Bradford, UK
  (Quotes and unquotes added in the two preceding letters.)

Impact International Responds
Letters to the Editor, April 1999

‘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 of Jihad’.

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)