The Short And Sordid History Of Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam

– Subcontinent’s First Islamic Extremist Political Party

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

The role of Majlis-e-Ahrar (truly the real grandfather organization of all Islamic Extremist Parties in the subcontinent and also of all anti-Shia and anti-Ahmadi agitation in Pakistan subsequently) is the most significant when it comes to Militant Islam in the subcontinent. This was a pre-partition body of Nationalist Muslims who had sided with the Congress throughout the independence movement and had been part of satyagraha (this is significant) at the time they believed in secular nationalism and secular India and in 1931 formed itself as a Indian Nationalist Muslim body, separate from the Congress, but always in support of it and in staunch opposition to the Muslim League.

It started its anti-Ahmaddiya movement in 1933 … when it clashed with All India Kashmir Committee – a rival organization fighting against Dogra Rule in Kashmir. Besides Dr. Muhammad “Allama” Iqbal (who was till 1933 or so probably an Ahmadi and whose father and elder brother were staunch Ahmadis), the AIKC consisted of Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud – the second caliph of Jamaat Ahmaddiya… the rivalry of these two organizations turned Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam against the Ahmadis altogether. (Ironically Bashiruddin Mahmud’s presidency of the said organization turned Dr. Iqbal against Ahmadis as well but that is another story. Majlis-e-Ahrar is clearly the oddest Islamic movement in the subcontinent… it was for “secular” and “united India”, was extremely anti-Ahmadi and was also fighting for “Madh-e-Sahaba” (or the honor of Sahaba) against Shias while its president – another significant point- was a Shia Muslim by the name of Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar. So it was an Indian Nationalist “Secularist” anti-Ahmadi, anti-Shia, anti-Jinnah Movement led by a Shia Alim!!!! Ironies never cease. I hope my Indian friends are taking note: the Majlis-e-Ahrar was part and parcel of the Quit India Movement launched by the Congress and denounced the Muslim League for not taking part in it. Majlis-e-Ahrar’s greatest propaganda was against Mahomed Ali Jinnah … who they denounced as “Kafir-e-Azam”.

Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar  wrote the famous couplet: “Ik Kafira kay peechay Islam ko chora, Yeh Quaid-e-Azam hai kay Kafir-e-Azam”

Repeatedly Pakistan was described as “Palidistan”, “Kafiristan” and “Khakistan” by the Majlis-e-Ahrar. In 1946…. it’s candidates were soundly defeated by the Muslim League’s candidates. This is when Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar said “Madhe Sahaba can be a weapon against the League”- an obvious reference to Jinnah’s own background as a Khoja Shia Mahomedan (It is worthwhile to remember that Madhe-Sahaba is very much being used against Pakistan and Sipah-e-Sahaba is a direct result of this line of thinking).  When the Muslim League launched its Direct Action especially in Punjab against the Unionist government, Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam logically remained completely aloof from it (This is also very significant- I’ll come to it later… because Muslim League’s short sighted policy in Punjab also met its come-uppance) .

The creation of Pakistan and partition of India in 1947 came as a complete shock to the Ahrar leadership. They went underground, resurfacd in May 1948, announced that they were disbanding as a political party and would continue as a religious group only. They also declared that in political matters they would take Muslim League’s lead but refused to join it on account of “unIslamic views” of Sir Zafrulla and Mian Iftikharuddin. In Pind Daddan Khan in 1949, they raised two significant demands: 1. Ahmadis be declared Kafir. 2. No Non-muslims should be allowed to hold positions in the new state’s government (Please note above that till 1947, the same group was advocating a United Secular India and was completely fine with Hindus or any other group ruling India.

In 1949, the same year Sahibzada FaizulHassan – another crook (who later hobnobbed with Ayub Khan) from the Majlis-e-Ahrar declared that: 1. All women without Purdah- especially Raana Liaqat Ali Khan- were prostitutes. 2. Muslim women were raped in East Punjab because Quaid-e-Azam wanted to be the governor general of Pakistan. By 1950, Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam began to reinvent itself politically. Their objective was to gain state power…. for this purpose alone they formed Majlis-e-Amal (consisting of religious parties) …. which raised again the demand that 1. Ahmadis be declared Non-Muslim 2. Zafrullah being a Non-Muslim should be thrown out of the government. By 1953… they gave Khawaja Nazimuddin – the Prime Minister and the leader of the Muslim League- an ultimatum- either accept the demands or face civil disobedience i.e. “Raast-Iqdaam”… the plan for Raast Iqdam was modelled on the “Satyagraha” of the Quit India movement… with individuals offering themselves for arrest and so and so forth. But what is significant is the name “Raast Iqdam”… Raast Iqdam translates neatly into English as “Direct Action”… Muslim League was getting a taste of its own medicine and in this one stroke, Mullahs were about hijack the Pakistan idea… the same Mullahs who had not only stayed away from the League’s Direct Action but had opposed the Pakistan Movement tooth and nail. Khawaja Nazimuddin – himself a veteran of the League’s Direct Action- knew that civil disobedience in the subcontinent was never peaceful immediately arrested crooks in chief the leaders of the Majlis-e-Amal which led to open rioting in Lahore.

Munir Report is the most significant document in Pakistan’s history. It establishes the roots of Anti-Ahmaddiya movement in the erstwhile anti-Pakistan forces amongst the Muslim clergy who now used the age-old dispute to weaken the new state. It also exposes shameless opportunists like Daultana- a feudal politician with otherwise a largely secular and left-leaning world view (a Punjabi forerunner of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto) and a Punjab Leaguer- who encouraged the Ulema to strengthen his own position and then even had the audacity to suggest that it was happening because of Ahmadis’ attitude and because Pakistan had a vague religious basis for creation which gave too much power to the Mullahs. The last statement is significant, however. There was nothing vague about what Jinnah said on 11th August or repeatedly about the principle of equal citizenship… but the Muslim League leaders subsequently (including Sir Zafrulla himself) did deliberately create the vague religious basis legally when they passed the Objectives Resolution. However Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly had also passed a resolution promising equal citizenship without any bar and the right to profess and propagate one’s religion without any fear. And there was nothing vague about Nehru-Liaqat Pact between India and Pakistan, wherein, largely on Pakistan’s suggestion, the same principle was embodied. The Munir Report’s statement that “a party even of the background of Ahrar could bring down a government in the name of religion in Pakistan” … shows how urgent it was for Pakistan to be declared a secular state.

Furthermore,I think the pre-partition politics of civil disobedience of both Congress and the League was totally disastrous… and here one must give Congress the credit of having spawned, funded and encouraged what in my opinion was the first real terrorist group of the subcontinent i.e. Majlis-e-Ahrar. Given that LeT chief Hafiz Saeed is “intellectually and morally inspired” by Maulana Ataullah Shah Bokhari of the Majlis-e-Ahrar, not just Pakistanis but Indians are paying for the Congress’ encouragement of the Mullahs starting with the Khilafat movement and which continued throughout the 1930s and 1940s. Khawaja Nazimuddin, who was a profoundly religious man himself, refused the demands saying that the issue of whether Ahmadis are Muslim or not is upto the constituent assembly and two that Zafrulla was appointed by Jinnah himself and there was no way a Muslim Leaguer would remove him.

Pakistan today faces the same old enemy yet again but on a much magnified scale.  Pakistan must make a clear break with the crooks, cranks and madmen who continue to stab it in the back.    This battle is one that has to be fought on an ideological plane much more than on a military front.   Today Pakistan’s very existence is at stake because these crooks, cranks and madmen and their ideologies strike at the root of Jinnah’s Pakistan- a return to which idea can alone save us from our humiliation.


Filed under History, India, Pakistan, Partition

256 responses to “The Short And Sordid History Of Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam

  1. Rashid

    Ahrari Jamaat was originally a political movement. But as it lost political ground among Muslims, in effort to reinvent itself and gain acceptance among Muslims, it made Ahamdiyya Movement as Whip-boy.

  2. Ammar

    “Hoon Mureed-e-Khandan-e-Khufta-e-Khak-e-Najaf

    Mauj-e-Toofan aap laey jai gee sahil per mujhe

    Hey mujh bey amul key dil main dagh-e-ishq-e-Ahl-Bayt
    Dhoondta pirtha hey Zil-e-Daman-e-Haider mujhe

    Ronay wala hoon Shaheed-e-Kerbala key gham men main
    Kiya durey maqsad na dengey Saqiy-e Kausar mujhe”


    Was this fellow a Qadiani? His brother and nephew can be- but some one who praises Ahle-Bayt consistently in his poetry- both in persian and urdu and before 1933 also- and does not consider those figures (Ahl-e-Bayt) equivalent to prophet, how would he subscribe to the idea that some one else would be a prophet and would enjoy an exalted/higher status in his eyes compared to the personalities he has mentioned in the above verses and so many other such verses in his persian and urdu poetry.

  3. Pingback: The Short And Sordid History Of Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam … |

  4. awed?

    And you don’t think Qadianis have regard for these personages.

  5. Milind Kher

    Organizations like Majlise Ahrar, Hizb ut tahrir and others of their ilk flourish on hatred.

    However, this cannot be sustained. People who join such organizations on account of anger and frustration soon realize that these are losers and will have nothing to offer them.

    Moreover, suppressing Ahmadis and Shias may have also restricted the formation of a great talent pool which could possibly have taken the nation ahead.

  6. I think Qadiani issue has many other social and political perspectives….It was not just a sectaran issue and its opposition was mostly because of its pro british role….and as religious parties have always used the tactics of using religious sentiments with political motives…..To ignite the anti british sentiments through religious provocation it was an easy way to raise a flag against Qadianis….
    Qadianis have most of the time alienated theirselves from political activities…..But when Bashiruddin came as Head of Kashmir Committee to lead it was not tolerated and looked suspiciously because of their pro british Past
    YLH has always given way to controversies by his half boiled revelations as he did in the article about Iqbal…Now the comment section will be hit by the Kashifiat like stuff and the main debate regarding Ahrars will be left behind….
    Iqbal has once praised qadianis at Aligadh in 1911 but never was influenced with Ghulam Ahmed views and thoughts….
    As Iqbal has stated clearly in 1935 that the Ahmediat is a pale on the face of Islam.
    And Khalifa Mehmood has clearly condemned Iqbal for his support to Anti Qadianis Elements(Alfzal 30 may 1935)

  7. Hayyer

    Is there any reference available about Iqbal’s rejection of Qadian.

  8. As Sir Sayyed has worked for better understanding between the Indian Muslims and The british rulers but he spoke mainly the muslim elites…..
    Mirza Ghulam Ahmed started the same but in common and ordinary muslims to provide a religious ground for them to co operate with the british government he started his preaching….
    His claims about himself are ambigous both in favor of his status of reformer and a prophet….but Mirza Mehmood for better and strict control over his Jamaat has insisted on the status of prophet…
    Muslim league and Ahmadiat emerged from these two personalities Sir Sayyed and Mirza G Ahmed….
    Thatswhy all the elements opposing british were against them….and have played their role as Ahrar in religious disguise

  9. It is Iqbal speech in 1935 against them as Khalifa Mehmood has condemned it “poets and philosophers are with our opposition”

  10. Milind Kher

    The Qadiani rejection of the finality of Prophethood is a point that certainly alienates them from the rest of the community.

    However, the community by and large has educated and intelligent people whose talents can be used at productively at a secular level.

    As far as the religious angle is concerned, are they numerically large enough to be significant?

  11. Majumdar

    It is puzzling as to why the Mirzaees are condemned for their pro-British role. Post 1880s most of the leading Muslim (or for that matter any Indian) organisations co-operated on and off with the Brits. Most of Punjabi Muslims- especially the pir-feudal lot were fairly loyal to Brits throughout which I believe earned for the province the tag of being the most loyal province of the Empire. AIML remained loyal and active in service to the British cause during WW-II. Sir Syed was known for his loyalty and fondness for the Brits.


  12. Majumdar

    Milind babu,

    are they numerically large enough to be significant?

    That is irrelevant. Finally of Prophethood is a pillar of faith for Muslims and if you deny that and still insist on being called a Muslim, you are inviting trouble.


  13. Rashid

    Agents of the British?
    It has become a fashion to call Hazrat
    Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Promised
    Messiah, and Ahmadis agents of the
    British. However, our non-Ahmadi
    brother Muslims have not bothered to
    look in the mirror. At the time when
    India was divided into India and
    Pakistan, the armed forces and the civil
    service of that country was also divided
    between the two countries. Those who
    worked in that part of the armed forces
    or the civil service which formed the
    share received by Pakistan, had been
    loyal to the British. Were they all also
    British agents? Sir Syed Ahmad Khan
    founded the Muslim University at
    Aligargh. He was responsible for setting
    Muslims of India on the path to
    receiving modern education. He was
    offered a knighthood by the British
    and accepted gratefully. Sir
    Muhammad Iqbal, the poet
    philosopher credited with being the
    intellectual force behind the creation
    of Pakistan, was also offered and
    accepted a knighthood. They could
    have refused these offers by the British
    but they did not. Were they too British
    It is said that, with the exception of
    Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the
    whole of the Muslim population of
    India opposed the British rule of India.
    It is claimed that the British set up
    Mirza Ghulam Ahmad with the
    objective of destroying the Muslims’
    sense of jihad. It is astonishing that
    while it was openly declared that
    Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a heretic and
    outside the pale of Islam, at the same
    time it is claimed that all the Muslims
    who were rushing to jihad stopped
    because Mirza Ghulam Ahmad said
    that armed struggle against the British
    cannot be called a jihad in accordance
    with the Islamic law. If, non-Ahmadi
    Muslims believed that jihad in the
    sense an of armed struggle against the
    British was lawful, they should have
    gone ahead and taken up arms against
    them. Who was stopping them?
    Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was not given
    titles by the British. He did not have
    land and money showered upon him.
    Land and wealth was given to non-
    Ahmadi Muslims but they are not
    called British agents. Mirza Ghulam
    Ahmad, who tore Christian theology to
    shreds, even inviting the Empress
    Victoria of India to embrace Islam,
    was a British agent. Can you please
    tell us whether Qaid-i Azam
    Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Sir Syed
    Ahmad Khan, Sir Muhammad Iqbal,
    Maulans Shibli etc. conducted an
    armed struggle against the British.
    Tell us when and where did Maulana
    Maudoodi take up arms against the
    British. Syed Ahmad Shaheed and
    Shah Ismael Shaheed went across the
    length of India, through territory held
    by the British, to get to the Punjab to
    fight against the Sikhs. They did not
    fight the British along the way.
    Siraj-ud Dulla was the first Muslim
    to try and eject the British from India
    by armed struggle. At the height of
    the battle of Plassey when the British
    were about to be routed, Mir Jafar
    deserted Siraj-ud Dullah and went
    over to join the British because he
    had been promised money and lands.
    Please tell us which sect did Mir
    Jafar belong to. Was he an Ahmadi?
    When Tipu Sultan tried to eject the
    British from India, Mir Sadiq, a
    member of Tipu’s family, turned
    against him during a crucial battle
    and at a prearranged signal joined the
    British. Was he an Ahmadi? The
    Nawab of Hyderabad who supported
    the British against Tipu Sultan with
    money and soldiers. Was he an
    Ahmadi? During the last armed
    struggle to rid India of the British,
    the Indian War of Independence (or
    the Mutiny) of 1857 C.E., while
    Bahadur Shah Zafar’s army
    desperately tried to hold on to the
    Red Fort in Delhi, his own son was
    asking the British how much they
    would pay him to open the doors of
    the city! Was he an Ahmadi? Would
    our non-Ahmadi friends tell us
    which sect these traitors belonged to.
    When Bhadur Shah Zafar was tried
    for treason by the British, his
    defence was that he was a loyal and
    faithful friend of the British Crown
    and that it was the mutineers who
    had used him as a figurehead at gun
    2 May 99, Bulletin
    point. He went on to say that even
    while a prisoner of the mutineers, he
    did much to safeguard British lives and
    property! How many names and
    incidents do you want me to mention?
    Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad said that
    an armed struggle against the British
    could not declared to be a jihad in the
    terms of Islamic law. He did not say
    that Muslims should not try to become
    independent. Amongst the reasons he
    gave for an armed struggle against the
    British not being a jihad was that
    Muslims did not posses the means to
    carry out such a struggle. He said to
    attempt an armed struggle without
    adequate means was to endanger life
    and Islam does not permit Muslims to
    endanger their live needlessly. Was he
    wrong? For a start Muslims were not
    rushing to an armed struggle with the
    British. Even if they had wanted to do
    so, where were the means for such a
    struggle. Who was going to provide
    money and armaments? And who was
    going to provide training? Even after
    fifty years of independence Pakistan is
    not self-sufficient in any thing. Who
    was going to provide these resources
    before independence?
    Did Qaid-i Azam Muhammad Ali
    Jinnah not openly declare that
    Muslims are not going to fight the
    British but to negotiate independence
    in a peaceful manner? Why is it praise
    is heaped upon Qaid-i Azam for saying
    this but Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has
    abuse heaped upon him for saying
    exactly the same thing? Recently Mr
    Vakil Anjum (Punjab kay Firon – Punjab kay
    jagirdaroon kay arooj o zavaal key kahani
    (Pharoes of the Punjab – A tale of the rise and
    fall of the landowners of the Punjab, published
    by Feroze Sons, Lahore,) published a book
    in which he has given details of how
    all prominent families of the Punjab
    supported and helped the British and
    the rewards they received. A few
    examples are given below as a sample.
    1:- Family of Farooq Ahmad Laghari
    (the previous president of Pakistan)
    “In 1848 . . . when Edwards defeated
    the Sikhs . . . Sirdar Jallal Khan
    Laghari presented himself to the
    English with eighty of his loyal
    servants and assured them of his
    complete loyalty. . . . In 1875 C.E.
    Sirdar Haidar Khan Laghari went to
    the Qalaat expedition with Robert
    Sandiman. As a sign of pleasure, he
    was handed back the authority of the
    Magistrate and the British Government
    also awarded him the title of
    Nawab. . . .Sardar Jamaal Khan
    Laghari (Farooq Ahmad Laghari’s
    grandfather). donated ten thousand
    Rupees and had eighty people join the
    army during the World War.” (p 124-
    2: Firooz Khan Noon’s (former Chief
    Minister Punjab, Governor of East
    Pakistan and Prime Minister of
    Pakistan) family
    “During the War of Independence (the
    Indian Mutiny) of 1857 C.E. Khan
    Bahadur Malik Muhammad Hakim
    Khan, the head of the Noon family,
    was among the contingent of Malik
    Fateh Sher Tiwana. He took part in
    (fighting against) rebellion at Harnaul,
    Hissar and Bangali, amongst other
    places. In return for his services in
    1857 C.E. the English gave him a very
    large estate and Rs 275 per annum
    reward.”(p 339)
    3:- Malik Amir Muhammad Khan’s
    (former Governor of West Pakistan)
    “When the British came, Ali Yar Khan
    did not oppose them either. . . . He did
    not let Edwards suffer from a shortage
    of provisions or horses during his
    campaign in Banu and Dillipghar
    against the Sikhs. During the War of
    Independence of 1857 C.E. Muzaffar
    Khan and his son handed over several
    hundred loyal troops to the command
    of Edwards. As a reward for this
    Muzaffar Khan was given the title
    Khan Bahadur . . . Malik Atta
    Muhammad (father of Malik Amir
    Muhammad) deposited Rs. 100,000 in
    advance during the World War. Apart
    from this he gave them the present of
    several thousand soldiers. . . . He was
    given the title Khan Bahadur and apart
    from that many medals were given to
    him.”(p 423)
    4:- Mian Mushtaq Ahmad Gurmani’s
    (former Governor of West Pakistan)
    Mian Sheikh Ahmad . . . left out
    nothing in his loyalty to the British. In
    return for which he was given a Cloakof-
    honour and a pension. Mian
    Mushtaq Ahmad Gurmani was Sheikh
    Ahmad’s nephew.” (p. 162)
    Listen to what the rulers of Pakistan
    did after independence. “In its edition
    of January 1975 C.E. the New York
    Times printed this sensational news -item
    that the agency for spying overseas,
    CIA, every year provided tens of
    millions of dollars from its secret funds
    to some of the newspapers, religious
    organisations and political parties and
    their leaders in the deve loping countries
    of the Third World. According to some
    news reports, the names of the religious
    organisations, political parties and their
    leader which were omitted by the New
    York Times and which were in the
    Commission’s original report, included
    two of Pakistan’s semi-religious and
    semi political bodies and the head of
    state who was given $960,000 over a 14
    year period as a political bribe was
    President Ayub . . . He received $70,000
    per annum throughout his life.” (p 75)
    Pages 272 to 277 are titled, “Mirzais of
    Rabwah”. However, the author has not
    provided any evidence that Hazrat Mirza
    sahib or the Lahore Ahmadiyya
    Movement ever received any favours
    from the British Government.
    This was the Punjab. Lets take a look at
    the history of the Regent’s Park Mo sque
    in Central London, in their own words.
    “The Islamic Cultural Centre which
    includes the London Central Mosque has
    been established since 1944. It was
    officially opened by His Majesty King
    George VI in November 1944. The 2.3
    acres of site adjacent to Hanover Gate in
    Regent’s Park, was presented as an
    unconditional gift from the British
    Government to the UK Muslim
    Community in Britain to enable the
    latter, to build a mosque and an Islamic
    Cultural Centre, to conduct the affairs
    pertaining to their faith. A Mosque
    Committee comprising various
    prominent Muslim diplomats and
    Muslim residents in the United Kingdom
    gratefully accepted the gift which was
    intended mainly as a tribute to the
    thousands of Indian Muslim soldiers
    who had died defending the then British
    Empire . . .” Later it is stated in a
    chronology: “24 Oct. 1940: The
    Churchill War Cabinet authorised the
    allocation of a sum of up to £100,000 for
    the acquisition of a site for a mosque in
    London.” Strange: we are the agents of
    the British but they are giving £100,000
    to non-Ahmadi Muslims to build a
    mosque. Stranger still: those who in
    India were rushing to jihad against the
    British are dying for the defence of the
    British Empire all over the world! (Refer
    to the Islamic Culture Centre’s WEB

  14. yasserlatifhamdani

    Dear Majumdar,

    While your point is generally valid, from 1913 onwards the Muslim League was committed to self rule (one of the pre-conditions on which Jinnah joined the Muslim League- ironically at the insistence of his Congress mentors) and from 1937 onwards to complete independence.

    Both Congress and the Muslim League were officially considered to be the parties of the opposition to the British rule (notables who joined the Muslim League were often deprived of their jageer)… Muslim League is accused of being pro-British during the second world war by Indian nationalists on the grounds that it refused to back Congress’ quit India movement.

  15. yasserlatifhamdani

    “YLH has always given way to controversies by his half boiled revelations as he did in the article about Iqbal”

    My understanding is that Iqbal’s father was a staunch Ahmadi… and till 1933 or 1934 atleast Iqbal did not distance himself from Ahmadis.

    Anyway… as you point out… this is not the point of the discussion. Iqbal is irrelevant to me as I do not consider him of any consequence to Pakistan or Pakistan Movement.

  16. Majumdar


    That is right. Most Indian organisations – INC, AIML, Hindoos, Muslims alike co-operated/conflicted with the Britishers at various points of time (barring the likes of Bhagat Singh etc who were marginal elements) depending on circumstances. That is why this business of dissing Mirzaees for being pro-Brit is a bit puzzling.


  17. Those all who co Ordinated and co operated with British were on political grounds but from the first day Ahmedis did all this religiously and when they alienated themselves from the muslims by the orders of mehmood khalifa socially when he banned nikkah of Ahmedis with others and insisted on the prophethood….Ahrars have been provided grounds to propagate against them in their ateas of influence mostly the common and ordinary muslims…..
    Ur emotional copy paste stuff revolving around word agent has no relevance to the article and what I said in comments….
    As for as Co Operation and co ordination with british is concerned Rashid Ahmed Gangoohi gave fatwa in favor of joining Congress in the very begining of congress formations….
    I myself think our overreactive anti british sentiments have harmed a lot…

  18. yasserlatifhamdani

    “I myself think our overreactive anti british sentiments have harmed a lot…”

    It has harmed everyone… but especially Muslims of South Asia… because amongst the Hindus and other communities the anti-British sentiment was prevalent amongst the left leaning, European-inspired socialists and marxists… but amongst the Muslims, the dominating forces in the “anti-British camp” were always unabashedly anti-modernity, parochial and fundamentalist.

    This is why I am not enamored with the anti-imperialist “struggle” in the Muslim world… because even if there are some leftist and secularist elements … any such struggle is automatically open to a takeover by Islamists.

    Pakistan must chart a moderate pro-West course without becoming a client state… I know I’ll be lynched for it… but I feel that till the 1965 war, Pakistan was doing very well because it was quite clear on this at a government level.

  19. yasserlatifhamdani

    And this is also why the American strategy of shoring up Islamic extremists like the Jamaat-e-Islami against the Soviet Union was in the long run counter-productive and destructive for all.

  20. Milind Kher

    Majumdar Saheb,

    I agree with you that by describing themselves as Muslims they have shot themselves in the foot. This is especially because finality of Prophethood is a sensitive issue.

    Now the Druze believe in tanasukh (transmigration of souls). Now, that is against Islamic tenets too, but there has been no witch hunt against them

  21. Majumdar

    Milind babu,

    Now the Druze believe in tanasukh (transmigration of souls). Now, that is against Islamic tenets too, but there has been no witch hunt against them

    I am not sure the Druze are very popular with their other Muslim neighbours. But more importantly their Muslim neighbours have a bigger fish to fry (the Yahood) so Druze are the least of the problems for the time being. By contrast, in Pakistan after the departure of the Hindoo and the Sikh, Mirzaees are targets worthy of attention.

    Besides I believe the finality of Prophethood is a far weightier issue than trivial matters like transmigrations of soul.


  22. Here the stance hold by Abulkalam Azaad was the most objective as he has withdrawn all his personal inclinations for the indian cause but as for as Gandhi and Nehru are concerned they are obsessed with what they thought as their ideas….
    Nehru was rightly called by Sindhi sb as “Tezgaam internationalists” who cant see the ground realities and reservations of indian communities …..and Gandhi jee when at the helm of WWII Azaad decided to support british and allies in the War and Gandhi was obsessed with his Ideologies and sending letter to Hitler and world leaders to stop the War….

  23. mazbut

    It’s a news for me that Iqbal and his elders were Mirzais! Could YLH provide some reference to substantiate his ‘understanding’?

    As a Muslim I have no respect for anyone who deviates from the fundamental teachings of his faith, especially in denouncing the holy Prophet Muhammad as the last Prophet of Allah.

    I also think that Iqbal was the pucca fundamentalist of all eventhough YLH may not agree with me and assert him as of no consequence to Pakistan or its creation.

    The problem with extremism and fundamentalism is not people but bad leadership. A good shepherd can tend to 1000 sheep but where is the shepherd??
    Until one appears we will keep arguing among ourselves and fighting over history as we understand it!

  24. Hayyer

    That is a millenarian hope. In the meanwhile we can but pray.

  25. YLH

    Dear Mazhur sb,

    I don’t think there is any dispute on the fact that Allama’s father and elder brother were Ahmadis… this can be confirmed in one of the few authentic biographies of the man – Mazloom Iqbal- by Ijaz Ahmad, Iqbal’s nephew and a Qadiani Ahmadi. The issue is whether Iqbal himself was an Ahmadi or not for certain period in his life…

    Circumstantial evidence points to what I have said above. Ofcourse there is evidence to the contrary as well… i.e. Iqbal’s character was said to be highly questionable, marked by a lack of discipline and self control… it is said that he drank heavily and poorly … it also claimed that Allama Iqbal was involved in a rather infamous little incident with a prostitute in Lahore’s famed Heera Mandi. While every community has its fair share of such individuals, Ahmadis in general are puritan in their approach to Islam, whereas Iqbal was a libertarian in the good old Ghalib-ist tradition.

    As for the issue of whether Iqbal deserves to be considered of any consequence in the Pakistan Movement. I presume that most of Iqbal’s gungho admirers in India would want him to be of no consequence… after all it is the same Iqbal who – according to Nehru- praised Nehru as a patriot and denigrated Jinnah as a politician.

    However the fact that Iqbal was a gungho ideological Muslim who saw things in stark religious terms … libertarian as he might have been… is not in question either. Iqbal perhaps articulated the whole idea of the Islamic universalism better than anyone else. There is no question that he was one of the many who gave the idea of a separate unit for Muslims in the Northwest of India… and for it he had a rather extraordinary mission i.e. reform of Islam and to liberate it from the “stamp of Arab imperialism” …

    My point is that Iqbal’s vague articulation of this consolidated Muslim state/unit was one of many… as KK Aziz, Pakistan’s premier historian, proved amply. There are many others whose contribution to either the idea or the practical fulfillment of Pakistan was far greater than the Allama. Rahmat Ali was one. Mian Kifayet Ali, “a Punjabi”, was another… his “confederacy of india” originally titled Pakistan (name changed at Jinnah’s instruction) was used by Mr. Jinnah extensively… indeed his famous Lahore address in March 1940 is literally almost entirely out of Kifayet Ali’s book… (which shows that outside of Jinnah’s own liberalism and constitutionalism imbibed from John Morley and Dadabhoy Naoroji, his heroes during his time in England, Mr. Jinnah hardly had any ideas of his own- a very Edwardian barrister indeed) … then ofcourse… Liaqat Ali Khan was the chief organizer and his contribution in putting everything together can hardly be downplayed… Zafrulla Khan – the vetter-in-chief of the Lahore Resolution and most probably its author as well as Pakistan’s advocate before the boundary commission- is another person whose contribution to Pakistan is far greater than Iqbal … and what about Suhrawardy… or Abul Hashim… or Mian Iftikharuddin… or Hassan Reyaz … the list is endless. Why should any give credit to Iqbal then?

    Allama Iqbal’s contribution in trying to re-open the doors of Ijtehad is no doubt worthy of emulation but that is not enough to make him a founding father. Others like Pervez etc have done the same thing… Iqbal was not a success at law… most of his poetry is in a language understood not in Pakistan or India but in Iran… his exhortations of “ghairat” etc that the Ghairat Brigade and Media Mujahideen use today in the great tragedy being enacted in Pakistan today against the present government… sound very hollow when one considers that in his personal life, Ghairat was not a priority. Unlike Jinnah, Iqbal was not a man of integrity or of a sound financial sense. Unlike Jinnah, Iqbal was a failure at law… and unlike Jinnah, Iqbal lived off of the small mercies of British masters for whom he did on occasion write Qaseedas. As a poet he is no match for Ghalib or Mir who came before him …. or Jalib or Faiz who came after him…. even in Islamic imagery, he cannot compete with Altaf Hussain Hali. As a Islamic Modernist who “awakened” Muslims, he does not hold a candle to the contributions of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Syed Ameer Ali etc… and while some might insist on calling him a philosopher, could anyone with any sense compare him to any of the great philosophers in either the western and eastern tradition? And who was Iqbal anyway? He expressed such totally contradictory positions … Was he the admirer of Mussolini’s fascism or the believer in Islamic socialism? Did Iqbal think Kemal Ataturk was the genius of the age or did he think Ataturk had made a mistake in following the west ? Did he think Jinnah was merely a politician or the great white hope for all Muslims? Was Tarana-e-Hindi is position or was Taran-e-Milli?

    So what is it exactly that we want to champion him for? A confused legacy? A culture of hypocrisy ? False Ghairat? Military dictatorships which use his Mard-e-Momin imagery in the same way the Nazis used Nietzche’s Superman? Or vague notions of Islamic Ijtehad that have been buried by people like Dr. Israr in his name?

    Away with dreams and shadows… They’ve cost us dear in the past.

  26. aliarqam

    Bitter indeed but realistic…..though controversial….
    On 8 Nov, BBC urdu site referred to Jon Elia on Iqbal….he raised the same contradictions and Iqbal’s admiration of Shaheen(Falcon) he criticized him for this as the bird is hunter with no mercy for his prey…

    Do U have some reference to the Prostitute’s episode and heavily drunken Iqbal….I need it as someone has asked me of proving that

  27. mazbut

    Nice effort by an anti-Iqbal debater!!

    The author forgot to mention about his ‘affair’ with Attya Faizi…..I would like him to shed more light on it!

    Circumstantial evidence is weak evidence…I hope we can dig up some direct evidence to prove that Iqbal was a Kafir?

    Poor Iqbal would have definitely escaped malign had he not been a Panjabi!!

    I have heard the stories related to him before….does that make him a bad poet??

    yes, YLH is right; Iqbal was for pan-Islamism. His thinking evolved gradually (which is usually natural) until it culminated in its fullness. Iqbal’s Urdu poetry is more than enough to ‘stir the pot’- thank goodness that Pakistanis do not read his Persian Poetry and have left it either for the Iranians to research or for Hadeeqa Kyani to sing!

    Co-incidentally I hail from the same locality in Sialkot where Iqbal was born and where my ancestral house still stands about a 100 yds from Iqbal’s house. It’s strange that I found no evidence to the fact that Iqbal and/or his grand fathers were Mirzais, not even did my grand-grand mother and grand father let me know this ‘special secret’ eventhough they played with and befriended his family members!

  28. YLH

    First of all there is nothing circumstantial about the fact that Iqbal’s father and elder brother were Ahmadis. When I said circumstantial evidence I meant his own sectarian affiliation.

    I am not sure where kafir comes in from but atleast according to the “definition” given by Maulana Maududi in front of Munir and Kayani, Ahmadis cannot be considered “kafir” given their emphasis on “tauheed”. Ofcourse I don’t care.

    Even Dr. Javed Iqbal doesn’t deny that his cousins from Iqbal’s elder brother are all Ahmadis and so was their grandfather.

    I am not sure what locality you hail from but what I have written is a well known fact and stated by Iqbal’s own nephew Ijaz Ahmad in “Mazloom Iqbal”. Ijaz Ahmad was a Qadiani. Now you can continue insinuate that I am lying or you can bring something up to refute my statement. Either way I have said what I needed to say.

    And like I said Iqbal is hardly important for Pakistan.

  29. YLH


    Actually I don’t have anything concrete myself but I know someone who does. I have asked him to pay us a visit and enlighten us on the prostitute incident.

  30. YLH

    I don’t have any issues with iqbal’s personal life anymore than I do with Gandhi’s.

    My concern has always been that these two witchdoctors Iqbal and Gandhi have done so much damage to the subcontinent that I would rather the memories of Allama and Mahatma are buried forever.

  31. Ammar


    It is true that in his 1930 address, Iqbal spoke about the Muslims of North West and was one of the many people who spoke about seperate homeland. However, in his letter to Jinnah on 21 June 1937, he advised him about not just about separate state for muslims of North West but also for Muslims of Bengal. According to Dr. Aftab’s Ahmad’s article on Iqbal and Jinnah ( link below), Jinnah- Iqbal correspondence was published in 1942 with a foreword by Jinnah himself in which he wrote:

    “I think these letters are of very great historical importance, particularly those which explain his views in clear and unambiguous terms on the political future of Muslim India. His views were substantially in consonance with my own and had finally led me to the same conclusions as a result of careful examination and study of the constitutional problems facing India, and found expression in due course in the united will of Muslim India as adumbrated in the Lahore resolution of the All India Muslim League, popularly known as the ‘Pakistan Resolution’ passed on March 23, 1940.”

  32. Hayyer

    If these facts were to get generally known it would break the heart of many admirers I know.

  33. Milind Kher


    Possibly, if the Ahmadis declared themselves a separate non Muslim entity they may have escaped a lot of ill will and having others to declare them to be so. I agree that no one can declare themselves to be part of a system and yet differ so radically from a fundamental belief of the system.

    However, it is not on the finality of Prophethood that they differ. If you read MMA’s tafsir on the Holy Qur’an, you will see that he tries to explain away everything that we do not commonly experience, such as miracles, jinn, angels etc.

    We know very well that the tafsir of the Holy Qur’an has to be grounded in authentic sources that expound it, and not on our personal interpretation.

  34. Hayyer

    Incidentally, how Punjabi was Iqbal. His Kashmiri ancestry is well known. He was of Pandit stock of the Sapru clan originating in Saprein village in Kulgam tehsil (now a district) of South Kashmir. It is said that his grandfather converted. The question is, did they intermarry with Punjabis thereafter or is the Kashmiri lineage maintained?
    My intention is not to raise a controversy. I read somewhere of Iqbal himself saying that he was from Pandit Sapru stock. In Kashmir, where he is almost the national poet of sorts, some Muslims contest the Pandit origins.

  35. mazbut

    @ HH YLH Sahib

    Apart from the lack of information from my ancestry I have no direct evidence on hand to refute your circumstantial evidence I would prefer to leave this case as it is until some honest historian (Mubarak Ali??) unravels the truth. In the meantime I can only say that Mirzaism had begun to cast its strong influence on Muslims in Iqbal’s era ( and the same was later exposed to Iqbal and thereafter a campaign against these Murtids or Kafirs as they were referred to was started by Anwer shah Bukhari, his underdog Ataullah Shah Bukhari and others ). I recall a few instances wherein families were split up on this issue which apart from derogating the Prophet’s status ventured to regard all non-Mirzais as Kafirs and denounced Jihad. So, even if such a split had occurred in Iqbal’s father’s family should not be amazing ( at least for a while!)

    I believe much has already been debated about Mirzai-ism on public level and as they have been unanimously declared Kafirs or non-Muslims constitutionally by all religious as well as secular members unanimously, further indulgence in this matter would only be a waste of time.

    Apart from flaws of personal character you poignantly speak I cannot disagree to his status as one of the great poets of India. As you can see his vision broadened with time until he became a staunch follower of Rumi’s creed and won over.

    Am still waiting to hear from you on his failed ‘affair’ with Attiya Faizi!

  36. aliarqam

    I think as I have told Iqbal’s episode will deviate us from the topic……Come up with a separate article on Iqbal, we will discuss it there
    I have an old book on Iqbal’s life…I think Atia Faizi affair is there…will share with readers…..
    We forgot Ahrar
    Late Abdullah Malik had written a book on “Political movements of Punjab” He wrote an interesting account of Ahrar, Khilafat and Khaksars

  37. yasserlatifhamdani

    Mazhur mian,

    First of all PakTeaHouse is a completely secular forum- we cannot emphasize it enough. We at PTH do not accept derogatory language against any religious group, Muslim, Christian or otherwise. Therefore refrain from calling Ahmadis “Mirzais” which is something they take strong exception to and which is derogatory to their religious beliefs. We will not have you insult any community…. already enough has been done wrong in the country, we will not allow it on our website.

    As I do not claim any religious or divinely revealed knowledge, I cannot comment on whether Ahmadis are Kafir or not. However my very secular and temporal understanding of Islamic history and jurisprudence lends me to believe that by any tests prescribed by Islamic doctrine, Ahmadis cannot logically be kafir… besides I don’t know why you keep speaking of the derogation of the Prophet of Islam (PBUH)… because in so far as I have seen their doctrine, they elevate Muhammad (PBUH) far above even many mainstream sunni sects do. Anyway this is not the discussion but setting the record straight.

    As someone who has studied the constitution thoroughly however, I can state without fear that the national assembly acted ultra vires the power vested in it. Those who try and equate Pakistan’s national assembly to the British parliament are mistaken. Unlike the British parliament Pakistan’s national assembly is limited by the fundamental rights chapter of the constitution of Pakistan which take precedence. The question of the personal faith, profession and identification of any citizen is beyond the scope of the state. Furthermore the scheme of the Islamic provisions of the constitution of 1973 equally protected all interpretations of Islam by every sect and sub-sect…. the difference between Ahmadis and other Sunnis is ultimately one of interpretation of the words “Khatim-ul-nabiyeen”.

    Therefore the second amendment is ab initio void, unconstitutional, illegal and ultra vires the 1973 constitution’s own Islamic provisions.

    However this is clearly a minority view… and perhaps the course of action is to have this amendment overturned. As for the matter being settled… so long as we consider a past and closed transaction, Pakistan will continue to suffer because using this ridiculous and unconstitutional amendment … General Zia has already abolished religious freedom for all when he enacted the notorious Ordinance XX…. and then when Supreme Court upheld it … There is a great paper on this by Dr. Martin Lau, who I met in a chance encounted during the Lawyer’s Movement.

    One can only hope that just how the ridiculous and inhuman Dredd Scott decision and then Plessey V. Ferguson were overturned… Pakistan too shall one day grow up… and realize just how pathetic and ridiculous this amendment is and how it has made us the laughing stock of the world.

  38. mazbut


  39. yasserlatifhamdani

    Ammar mian,

    Yes well what Mr. Jinnah (being the consummate politician that he was) did not mention was how these “letters of great historical importance” were actually discovered.

    The incident is briefly touched upon in “Plain Mr. Jinnah” … a school master who was also a League worker would spend his summer vacations organizing Quaid-e-Azam’s library… he chanced upon the letters in one corner in 1941 or thereabouts.

    Interestingly…. in the same foreword you copied Mr. Jinnah also mentions that the record of his replies could not be found. How interesting that Jinnah did not save the replies in such a correspondence of great historical importance.

    I have read the letters and frankly the vague suggestions that Iqbal makes can hardly qualify him as a founding father. Waisay to Mian Kifayet Ali also claimed in an interview with K K Aziz that Iqbal visited him in his dreams in 1939 when he came up with the “Pakistan” scheme later re-packaged (at Jinnah’s insistence) as “Confederacy of India”.

  40. yasserlatifhamdani

    Mazhur mian,

    I understand that you live in Britain. How does it feel to be called “Paki thief”? Catch my drift?

    I think I have laid the facts plain above. The so called “Facts” you refer to are all politically motivated. The whole anti-Ahmaddiya movement in Pakistan was a political stunt by known enemies of Pakistan… who had been thumped by the Muslims of South Asia in the 1946 elections.

    If you want to continue to champion those crooks who have damaged Pakistan and continue to damage it, then so be it. But you cannot make derogatory references to any religious group.

    Also… what is this Punjabi Punjabi you’ve been doing from the first post? Is it religiously correct and Islamic to be ethnically parochial? I am more Punjabi than you… but I have civilized myself… so being a Punjabi is no excuse for stupid and idiotic behavior.

  41. mazbut

    @ yasserlatifhamdani

    No, I don’t live in Britain or anywhere outside Pakistan. I live in Karachi.
    As I told you I was born in Sialkot, in the same little area where Iqbal was born, infact in his immediate neighborhood ( I hope that’s not idiotic to tell!). When I say ‘Punjabi’ I simply mean to indicate ‘cultural identity’ to elaborate my view point in the contextual matter as understood by the simple folks there as stated without any speck of ethnic rivalry or superiority or anything aimed at that.

    It is surprising that people are proud of their names ; for example , the Agha Khanis are proud to say they are Agha Khanis. I really fail to understand EDITED

    This forum that you claim to being a ‘secular’ forum yet replete with Islam bashing and personality assassinations of national heroes is a paradoxical!
    Being a secular yusself it would be most undesirable of you to expect others to tow your line. Difference make all the difference….a rose looks better when intermingled with other flowers and hitched in a bouquet!

    You are a well read person but I hope you will not allow your emotions and personally fixed notions to overwhelm you!

    Iqbal has many admirers all over the world and
    your offensive remarks hurt them. Is that fair??

    Furthermore, I am not a Mulla not even a religious man…..I lived for decades EDITED at home or elsewhere I always refer to them as such…
    they do not seem to mind as they follow the creed o Mirza GM as I follow the creeed of Hazrat Muhammad and may take no offense even if someone called me Muhammadi; or Shias who follow the creed of Hazrat Ali and take pride in being called Alvis or Hussaini etc ; about the Agha Khanis I have already stated above. A spade is a spade….you can’t improve your status by changing your name unless you called it a shovel!

    I have no concern with ‘those crooks’ …..they are a creation of your own hands. You don’t understand them they wouldn’t you! Wait for a Messiah to come!

  42. yasserlatifhamdani

    Mazhur mian,

    I cannot speak on why Ahmadis dislike this reference but they do. If you want your comments published you will have to adhere to this rule.

    There is no Islam-bashing here on this board. Just like we’ve checked your offensive comments, we check comments by many people who attack Islam.

    The truth is that Allama Iqbal has been elevated to the status of a founding father by those forces who found Jinnah’s liberal secular constitutionalism unsavory. Allama is no national hero of mine… and even if he is a national hero to some, even national heroes should be open to scrutiny.

  43. yasserlatifhamdani

    And how are they of “my creation”? Please do answer this.

    Can you deny anything I have written about the Majlis-e-Ahrar and its insidious anti-Pakistan agenda?

  44. Ammar


    If Iqbal’s letter of 21 st Jue 1937 to Jinnah does include proposal about states for Muslims of North West and Bengal ( he writes: “Why should not the Muslims of North-West India and Bengal be considered as nations entitled to self-determination just as other nations in India?”) and later on 23 March 1940 Resolution also used the word “states”- which was changed in 1946 by Muslim League to “state”- so does that not mean along with other people such as Mian Kifayat Ali and others, Jinnah also incorporated the point of view of Iqbal in 23 March 1940 resolution- or else why would he write in the foreword:

    “His views were substantially in consonance with my own and had finally led me to the same conclusions as a result of careful examination and study of the constitutional problems facing India, and found expression in due course in the united will of Muslim India as adumbrated in the Lahore resolution of the All India Muslim League, popularly known as the ‘Pakistan Resolution’ passed on March 23, 1940.”

    The reason why I say this is becuase I fail to understand- as to how else Iqbal could have contributed to the Pakistan Resolution 1940 or what else did he need to do to be considered some one who had even little bit contribution to the resolution which was passed two years after his death?

  45. mazbut

    Clearly you want to ‘monopolize’ this board without listening to others and advocating one sect(EDITED) against the others. Sorry I would rather withhold my comments than suffer illicit and unreasonable imposition from you or anyone else!

  46. yasserlatifhamdani


    How am I advocating one sect against others? Can you point out how or where I have done that? The only thing I have asked you is to stop making derogatory comments against any community. No one appointed you God’s deputy … and just because a crooked and third rate Prime Minister played power politics in 1970s in a most machiavellian way doesn’t mean that I would allow you abuse anyone.

    And how am I “monopolizing” the discussion? Have you not been allowed to mouth off here? I have only removed your derogatory references to a minority sect’s religion. So far you’ve failed to tell us what you think of Majlis-e-Ahrar which was at the forefront of the movement to make murtids out of the sect that you hate so much.

  47. yasserlatifhamdani

    “so does that not mean along with other people such as Mian Kifayat Ali and others, Jinnah also incorporated the point of view of Iqbal in 23 March 1940 resolution”

    Let us assume hypothetically that this is true. Do we elevate Mian Kifayet Ali and others as we do Iqbal? If not why not? My only point is that Allama Iqbal’s idea was just one of many… that Iqbal has no significance in the Pakistan Movement and had there been no Iqbal, things would have turned out more or less the same way.

  48. Ammar

    “Let us assume hypothetically that this is true”…

    i have asked you about the linkage between the proposal of 21st June 1937 letter and 23 march 1940.. and you seem to be silent on that point…whereas Jinnah admits that ( “it finally led me to the same conclusions”) and has no problems in saying this but at this forum we seem to have a problem…….

    Personally I do not mind if Mian Kifayat Ali’s plan is also talked about as one of the documents which contributed to 1940 resolution…i do not know if there is a problem in giving him credit for that.

  49. Ali

    How can anyone support an Ahmedi like ‘Sir’ Allama Iqbal?

    Here’s a sequence for those who are blinded by the lies and ridiculously confused tantrums of Her Majesty’s Royal Knight, ‘Sir’ Allama Muhammad Iqbal, the so-called ‘poet of the east’:

    1) ‘Sir’ Allama Iqbal’s father was an Ahmedi
    2) ‘Sir’ Allama Iqbal’s brother was an Ahmedi
    3) Ahmedis were supporters of the British
    4) ‘Sir’ Allama Iqbal embraced knighthood, promising to serve the Royal British Crown till his last living drunken breath!

    The man exhumes treachery. He squandered all principles wearing ‘multiple dhotis’ – whichever impressed his sponsors.

    You may claim I am being biased. However, all anyone needs to do is read that master-trash titled ‘Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam’ – the entire foundation of ‘Sir’ Allama Iqbal’s political ‘philosophy’.

    The lectures were written and presented when ‘Sir’ Allama Iqbal was a devout Ahmedi!!!

    I am not too concerned about YLH – he supports that linear logic of ‘secularism’. However, some of you other flip-floppers and ‘Sir’ Allama Iqbal apologists really take the cake. On the one hand you’re rightly lambasting the renegade Islamic sect with its heretic beliefs, and then you turn around and DEFEND ‘Sir’ Allama Iqbal???

    Even if in your wildest far-fetched imaginations you make-believe and think the freak converted to mainstream Islam in the twilight of life, why are you blink to the following:

    1) Poetry: Iqbal flip-flopped on all issues. Socialism, fascism, Indian nationalism, pan-Islamism – whatever suited his Royal Masters!
    2) Philosophy (if you can call that garbage book ‘philosophy’): The six lectures of ‘reconstruction of religious thought in Islam’ (the finest book for Ahmedi indoctrination) were all written and presented when His Majesty’s Royal Knight was a passionate Ahmedi!

    One of the signs of the day of Judgment are that imposters and tricksters will be touted as heroes.
    I pray to Allah (SWT) that He gives us the courage to face the Truth and denounce liars.

    Jazakallah Khair…

  50. Ali


    Brother, you say we should call a spade a spade.

    Why are you then hell bent on apologizing for the main missionary of the Ahmedis – ‘Sir’ Allama Iqbal?

    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

  51. mazbut


    I did not abuse anyone nor use any derogatory remarks about anyone.

    I already gave you the reason for my calling a sect by the name of their lordship (Is Mirza a bad word?) and if they are ashamed of that I can’t help it ..
    Why do you call followers of Wahab Wahabis?
    Why followers of Agha Khan are content with them being called Agha Khanis?
    Why do Shias don’t mind being called Hussainis??
    Why the Sunnis don’t mind in their being called Hanafis, etc etc??
    Everybody is proud of his name except those narrow-minded ‘special people’ you tend to defend.
    I am astonished how blatantly you do character assassination of legends like Iqbal….to the loss of
    those who love him!!

    sorry, gotta go!

    I respect your thoughts and ideology and reasonably expect the same from you towards those who do not agree with you.As it takes two to tango, at least one of the parties may be mistaken or at different level of learning or information yet it cannot just be asked to ‘shut up’! Without bipartite or multipartite discussion and views in a debatable issue we cannot
    expect to reach any positive or unanimous conclusion.

  52. yasserlatifhamdani

    Ammar mian,

    I am not silent on it. Jinnah received such mail from thousands of people every week. There is no real link between the proposal between the Lahore Resolution and Iqbal’s letter … other than the fact that most Punjabi Muslims were thinking along those lines… Jinnah acknowledged the same in 1942 because of Iqbal’s stature as a poet of some note and repute.

    Had Iqbal’s letter been that important Jinnah would not have allowed to let it rot as he did.. and he would have at the very least saved his own reply. The issue is not with acknowledging Iqbal as one of the many- let us acknowledge that Iqbal’s idea was amongst those 88 ideas expressed for a separate state in the northwest between 1890 and 1930….. but the real issue is with making Iqbal’s confused and muddled poetry into something of a national ideology… which is unacceptable because Iqbal did not have anything to do with the making of Pakistan.

  53. mazbut

    @ Ali

    Iqbal was EDITED or not can be inquired from his son, Javaid Iqbal…who happens to be alive and kicking!

    Your wallowing in the mud to assert him as a EDITED is a failed attempt to spit at the moon!

  54. yasserlatifhamdani

    mazbut mian,

    “narrowminded special people”

    You know those narrowminded special people are as narrowminded as any other Sunni group.

    The point again is not why … but the fact that they do!

  55. mazbut

    @ yasserlatifhamdani

    I wish a capable and erudite man like you spent more time and energy on some better constructive work!

  56. yasserlatifhamdani

    I consider saving Pakistan from committing suicide a worthwhile endeavor.

    Ciao indeed.

  57. yasserlatifhamdani

    Ali mian,

    Far from it that I agree with a bigot like you but I must say that from the standpoint of bigots atleast you are consistent in your linear logic of bigotry.

  58. mazbut

    @ yasserlatifhamdani
    wish you good luck!

  59. Ali


    Sir Allama Iqbal, His Royal Majesty’s humble knight, dedicated his services for the crown without any hesitation.

    Even if we assume that Iqbal did enter mainstream Islam (whether it is Javed Iqbal’s testimony or someone else), then we know that at some point he was with the murtids. And his magnum opus were being recited during his murtid days. As were his so-called ‘philosophical’ outbursts.

    Whatsmore, one only needs to read the six lectures of ‘Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam’ to see the intentional mala fide attempt at confusing any reasonable person with self-contradictory logic – a hallmark of murtid-hood.

    Brother, if you categorize this logic as ‘spitting at the moon’, it is far more sound than your fascination with ‘pissing in the wind’.

    Our people should not be subject to devious lies of the murtid ‘Sir’ Allama Iqbal! Down with all Royal pimps!

    Jazakallah Khair…

  60. Milind Kher

    It is a very sad fact that sectarian bias is the strongest in the Ummah that knows that “All mankind are descended from Adam and Adam was made of dust” and that “All believers are equal like the teeth of a comb”

    Buddhists, Jains, Hindus and Christians all have sects, but they do not declare each other infidels, or massacre each other. Lessons in unity and brotherhood need to be drived from there. Does not the Holy Qur’an say that whoever unjustly kills a believer on purpose will be destined for hell?

  61. Ali

    Milink Kher:

    Buddhists, Jains, Hindus and Christians did not write garbage philosophy for Muslims hoping to pass it off as some ‘reformist’ book. Sir Allama Iqbal did. All his life he served the Crown and a faith that most Muslims will shun!

    Today, that man’s poetry and philosophy, inspired by his renegade faith that claimed to be spurring ‘reform’, is used as graffiti in all text books. The imaan of the ummah is corrupted by that ‘reformist’ religion. And whatsmore, the ‘philosophy’ of the ‘reformist faith’ is enshrined in Sir Allama Iqbal’s ‘Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam’.

    Let us remember, when Iqbal wrote all this he was a devout Ahmedi!

    Everyone from Imran Khan to Jamat-e-Islami has made it their ‘inspiration’.

    Fact is: Sir Allama Iqbal is the TROJAN HORSE of the so-called ‘reformist faith’ of Ahmedis that has been let into the homes of every God-fearing Momin. By chopping this trojan horse to size, we will free our minds.

    Jazakallah Khair….

  62. Milind Kher


    I agree with you that the abandonment of the concept of the finality of prophethood is an extremely serious breach. I do not have evidence to link Iqbal to the Qadiani faith. However, if that is true, he cannot serve to be an exemplar.

    However, the other serious complaint that I have is the treatment of Shias and violence against them. It happens in Pakistan, the Taliban did it to the Hazaras in Afghanistan, Saddam illtreated them in Iraq, tombs have been razed in Iraq and KSA. This is very sad and this lack of cohesion is dragging the ummah down.

  63. Hayyer

    Milind Kher:
    You are a good man. More peaceable interventions in debates such as these with Ali would surely benefit all readers.

  64. mazbut

    @ Ali

    language , language, please!

    We have others too on board whose bark is worse than their bite!!

  65. Milind Kher


    Thank you. I am always willing to intervene where I can achieve something positive in bringing about peaceful results.

  66. Ammar


    I do not know if there is any proof about Iqbal’s own Qadiani faith- although his brother Ata and nephew Ijaz belonged to that faith. However, what is also true is that in 1935 , Iqbal expressed strong anti-Qadiani views in his statement “Qadianis and Orthodox Muslims”. For the weblink please see:

    Later Nehru wrote articles on the issue also and entered into correspondence with Iqbal on this particular issue. His letter to Nehru on 21 st June 1936 expresses very strong opinion against Qadianis.


    Shias have faced persecution for the last 1300 centuries. It is not just in Pakistan, or Taliban in Afghanistan, under Saddam in Iraq or government of KSA. They have faced persecution since the advent of Umayyads and this trend has continued ever since.

  67. YLH

    Ammar, thank you for that link. While Allama sounds genuine for a minute when he speaks against a jealous god conception, everything he has written subseuently is exactly why we must distance him from the idea of Pakistan.

  68. Milind Kher


    I agree with you. The brutal killing of Awn and Muhammad, the murder of the sons of Muslim bin Aqeel, the killing of 6 month old Ali Asghar by Hurmula with a trident, the murder of the one day old groom Qasim and the spearing of 18 year old Ali Akbar who looked just like the Prophet (SAWA) are only some of the crimes committed by the Ummayyads. The only saving grace was that Umar ibn Abdul Aziz restored Fadak to the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.)

    Those were yet the very early days of Islam. Today, the world has evolved substantially, so there should be no scope for the killings that happen today.

  69. YLH

    So long as Iqbal is played up in Pakistan, Jinnah’s Pakistan is an utterly impossible realization…

    We must demolish the myth and fallacy of Iqbal’s “philosophy”…we should leave no stone unturned in defeating and demolishing the Iqbalian creed comprehensively!

  70. Milind Kher

    I saw that link on Iqbal.

    He is saying,

    “Government ki khair yaro manao

    Anal Haqq kaho aur phaansi na pao”

    He is implying that Mansur Hallaj was executed because he lived in a Muslim land, whereas under the Brits there is no such fear!

  71. YLH

    Precisely! And he is quoting Akbar Allahabadi.

    Therefore Iqbal was clearly at variance to the modernist tradition of Sir Syed, Ameer Ali, Aga Khan and ofcourse Mr.Jinnah himself.

    I knew something was amiss when he compared Ghazzali to Kant and when he denounced the Mutazilla but it is quite clear that Iqbal was not really the reforming Ijtehadi or the rationalist Muslim we like to imagine him.

    Had Mr. Jinnah been able to read Urdu poetry he would no doubt dismiss Iqbal as an irrational witchdoctor. Iqbal’s correspondence with Jinnah is therefore of paramount importance as a historical document… Iqbal spoke of social democracy as being the heart and soul of Islam…that democracy was a return to the roots for Muslims etc etc… Does that match up to the ramblings of Iqbal as per his article linked above?

  72. Hayyer

    To me Iqbal seems to come across as a deep conservative in that article linked. He is actually a statist; definitely not an ijtehadi-not just for Islam-for all Indian religions. You cant get more conservative than that.

  73. AZW

    @ Ali on November 17, 2009 at 3:31 pm

    1) ‘Sir’ Allama Iqbal’s father was an Ahmedi
    2) ‘Sir’ Allama Iqbal’s brother was an Ahmedi
    3) Ahmedis were supporters of the British
    4) ‘Sir’ Allama Iqbal embraced knighthood, promising to serve the Royal British Crown till his last living drunken breath!

    Ali, let me begin by saying that I have no blind devotion towards Iqbal. He was a philosopher and a decent poet. This thread should never have been diverted towards Iqbal. However in your comments you are conjuring up circumstantial wizardry to put Iqbal down.

    From my perspective, even if his father and brother were Qadianis, that does not mean he remained a Qadiani until late in his life, or when he was writing his series of famous essays.

    Lots of Muslim leaders received Knighthood from British, and that includes Sir Syed Ahmad Khan as well as Sir Agha Khan, one of the founding members of the Muslim League. This does not prove that they were sworn to blindly serve the British crown and were against the Muslim community.

    The man exhumes treachery. He squandered all principles wearing ‘multiple dhotis’ – whichever impressed his sponsors.

    You may claim I am being biased. However, all anyone needs to do is read that master-trash titled ‘Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam’ – the entire foundation of ‘Sir’ Allama Iqbal’s political ‘philosophy’.

    The lectures were written and presented when ‘Sir’ Allama Iqbal was a devout Ahmedi!!!

    Reconstruction of Religious Thought may be a substandard text or a case of flip flop. But this is your personal opinion. Kindly quote your source where you can say that he was a Qadiani when he wrote those essays.

    I am asking for the substance behind your accusations. I am asking you to satisfy your basic premise that Iqbal was an Ahmedi when he was writing his major works, or that he stayed Ahmedi until late in his life. I am sure if you can prove this premise, it will come as a shock to many who adore him, and even to the indifferent ones like me. It will definitely be quite a topic worth discussing then; otherwise this discussion seems to be currently nothing but a seemingly venomous Iqbal-bashing.

  74. yasserlatifhamdani

    A comment about Iqbal’s article… I actually agree with some of the theological criticisms that Iqbal makes of the Ahmaddiya movement, the concept of vengeful god etc…

    However what one disagrees with Iqbal is on his advocacy of the state coming to defend orthodox Hinduism and orthodox Islam and his concept that the orthodox core beliefs of Muslims inter alia finality of prophethood is central to the unity of the Muslim community. Such a conception is against the freedom of religion, conscience and thought… as well as recent historical evidence.

    Consider: On the issue of the unity in the community, Jinnah proved Iqbal wrong when he managed to bring together Shias, Sunnis, Ahmadis, Ismailis, believing and cultural Muslims on one platform… and Bhutto proved Iqbal wrong when Bhutto plunged Pakistan’s Muslim community into perpetual sectarian conflict after equipping the state with exactly the mission Iqbal wanted it to have vis a vis the finality of prophethood.

    We must recognize that Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan as a state where faith would be the personal business of the citizen and where anyone would be accepted as whatever he professes to be is at complete variance to Iqbal’s theo-utopia.

  75. Majumdar

    Yasser Pai,

    Jinnah managed to bring together Shias, Sunnis, Ahmadis, Ismailis, believing and cultural Muslims on one platform… and Bhutto proved Iqbal wrong when Bhutto plunged Pakistan’s Muslim community into perpetual sectarian conflict after equipping the state with exactly the mission Iqbal wanted it to have vis a vis the finality of prophethood.

    You are right that MAJ (pbuh) united all Muslims while ZAB sowed the seeds of disunity among sects. But the reasons are not what you wud suggest.

    When Jinnah brought all Indian Muslims under one platform the Muslims had a 800 lb gorilla to contend with- the Hindoo. Had all the Muslims (and quasi-Muslims) not hung together, the Hindoo wud have hung them separately.

    When Pakistani Muslim got divided under ZAB and Zia, the Pakistani Muslim was not facing any serious threat from the Hindoo (thanks to the Partition) so there was no particular need for the Shia, the Sunni and the Mirzai to accept heretics (as per each ones’ definition) as Muslims.

    For that reason, there is very little sectarian conflict among Muslims in India today inspite of the fact that India’s leadership has been no more enlightened than Pak’s- sadly, the 800 lb gorilla is still very much there.


  76. yasserlatifhamdani

    Be that as it may, it adequately shows that Iqbal’s assertion that finality of prophethood is central to Muslim unity is entirely irrelevant to recent record… where lack of consensus on the said issue did not stop Muslims of all kinds from coming together as one in face of the Hindu majority and where so called consensus on the issue backed by state power could not stop them from disintegrating.

  77. Majumdar

    Yasser Pai,

    ….where lack of consensus on the said issue did not stop Muslims of all kinds from coming together as one in face of the Hindu majority

    That is precisely the whole point – in 1946 there was a Hindoo majority- no great genius on MAJ’s part to unite Muslims. After 1947, there was no hostile Hindoo majority to contend with so they wud have fragmented anyway- Iqbal or no Iqbal.

    So, the only way you guys have to reunite all Pak Muslims is to somehow set up the 800 lb gorilla again. In that HP saeen’s wholehearted endorsement of Pak Army’s tactics of representing Talibs as Indian agents (on another thread) makes sense notwithstanding Adnan bhai or Civvie mian’s protests.


  78. yasserlatifhamdani

    That is again besides the point. If we concede that the factor is external, then Iqbal’s whole assertion is down the drain. And that is precisely what we are conceding above.

  79. Majumdar

    Not really. If we accept Iqbals thesis about the centrality of Prophethood all Muslims barring Mirzaees (who are not recognised as Muslims by many other Muslims) get united under one umbrella. And your idea that ZAB’s karnameys fragmented Muslim unity in Pakistan is not true at all. The fragmentation of Muslim unity in Pak was a consequence of the Iranian Revolution and the Afghan War which moblised large sections of Shias and Sunnis into militant organisations- ZAB’s Islamist amendments (incl. apostatising Mirzaees) had nothing to do with it.


  80. yasserlatifhamdani

    With all due respect… I think that has to be the most spurious and self serving logic expressed on this board yet.

    Let us re-cap and I’ll break it down so that you may adequately comprehend what I am trying to say:

    Iqbal’s assertion in the article appears to be that the finality of prophethood as expressed in orthodox dogma (there is an unorthodox concept of finality as well but that is not the discussion here) is central to Muslim community’s Unity.

    That Jinnah managed to unite Musims despite any fundamental agreement on this concept … and entirely on a political issue shows that when needed, Muslims can unite despite it in face of an external factor i.e. Hindu majority. This proves Iqbal wrong.

    Now … applying Iqbal’s logic (which you are unfortunately defending) … Bhutto supposedly brought all Muslims minus Ahmadis together on issue of finality of prophethood… well that unity did not withstand external factors of disunity.

    The only logical conclusion (it is entirely upto you whether you wish to be logical or not) is that finality of prophethood is not a marker and/or factor in Muslim unity.

    So I am arguing of the absence … not positive or negative impact of this idea.

  81. Majumdar


    OK. So far, so good.

    But then the other conclusion we draw is that Muslims get united only when there is a clear external enemy. So where do we now invent that enemy for Pak Muslims?


  82. Milind Kher

    Interestingly, Muslim Personal Law in India excepts Ahmediyas as Muslims. Whoever recites the kalima is a Muslim and the contention is that acceptance of prophethood is a part of the kalima and that finality of prophethood is superfluous to it.

    Hence, they flourish as respected members of society. Hindus don’t know what a Qadiani is and the Muslims accept them too.

  83. yasserlatifhamdani

    Perhaps there is no need for uniting a majority in their own country… since there is no need for mobilization of Muslims in Pakistan.

    What we need here is a unity for Pakistan based on a shared perception of a future where everyone regardless of religion, caste, creed, gender, sect is fully secure in every possible way… i.e. what we refer to as Jinnah’s Pakistan.

    The enemy of that idea is Iqbalian thought.

  84. yasserlatifhamdani


    I don’t think that is true….the deobandi ulema hate ahmadis and darul itfa deoband ha given fatwas against Ahmadis.

  85. Majumdar

    Milind babu,

    Hindus don’t know what a Qadiani is and the Muslims accept them too.

    Again the presence of the 800 lb pound gorilla. IMs can’t afford to lose their numbers by apostatising each other.

    And for all Hindoos, all Muslims are Muslims.


  86. Majumdar

    The enemy of that idea is Iqbalian thought.</i

    Quite interestingly while many conservative Muslims flay MGAQ, Sir Syed Ahmed and even MAJ (pbuh) for being British agents and try to raise Iqbal above MAJ as the creator of Pakistan, they miss the fact that the Brits knighted Iqbal, they did not knight either MAJ or MGAQ.


  87. Milind Kher


    I am not talking about the Ulema. I am talking about the rank and file of Muslims.

    We had a very senior person where I worked and every Muslim (including Ahl i hadith) there treated him as a bona fide Muslim. No one EVER discussed his being Qadiani.

    Maybe, it was a practical outlook, or (which is often the case), because extremely educated Muslims in India tend to be very liberal in their world view.

  88. Milind Kher

    @Majumdar Saheb,

    You are absolutely right. Very succintly put.

  89. Ammar


    I fully agree with you that it is unfair to call Iqbal Qadiani without any proof. Jamaat Islami, without any basis or proof, accuses people of being Qadianis. People on this form are also accusing Iqbal of being a Qadiani without any proof. There does not seem to be any difference between the two- when it comes to accusing people of being Qadianis without any proof!

    As for Iqbal’s statement, it was criticised by The Statesman in an article and Iqbal also wrote a rejoinder to that article ( weblink below). Iqbal also gives the example of Sikhs being declared a separate religous community by the government despite Lahore High Court judgement that they are Hindus and without any such appeal on behalf of Sikh community. The weblink to Iqbal’s rejoinder to criticism is given below:

    It would have been better if this issue had been settled by the government before Pakistan’s creation.

  90. yasserlatifhamdani

    I am afraid I have never come across very enlightened or liberal Muslims from India … in my encounters with them in the US or in the UK… since my sample space was international students… I am afraid I cannot agree with the statement made by Mr. Kher.

    Needless to say … in 2004, Indians visiting Pakistan discovered a very different

  91. yasserlatifhamdani

    I am afraid I have never come across very enlightened or liberal Muslims from India … in my encounters with them in the US or in the UK… since my sample space was international students… I am afraid I cannot agree with the statement made by Mr. Kher.

    Needless to say … in 2004, Indians visiting Pakistan discovered a very different country then they imagined…. especially the Muslims in Pakistan who were seen as far more liberal and modern than Muslims from India…

    It was a quite a scene watching Irfan Pathan’s extremely conservative parents rub shoulders with the Pakistani elite.

  92. Majumdar

    Yasser Pai,

    especially the Muslims in Pakistan who were seen as far more liberal and modern than Muslims from India…

    I don’t think this is true. There are many IM ladies who are acting nangi pungi in movies and marrying Hindoos/non-Muslims, dont think that is true about Pak Muslims.


  93. yasserlatifhamdani

    Majumdar mian…

    When someone like you who interacts with me on a daily basis almost has such freakishly inaccurate conceptions of Pakistan, what do we expect of others?

    For each “nungi pungi” Indian Muslim actress etc, I can raise you 10… a lot of skin is now quite common in Pakistani shows, fashions shows, drama serials and music videos – why if you scroll down, you might find good ol’ Fayeza Ansari in Pakistan Fashion Week…. and I don’t even need to go into Pakistan’s Urdu, Punjabi and Pushto film industries.

    Also… allow me to educate you on the other issue. Marriages with Non-Muslim men … especially Christian or Parsi (we are assuming that Ahmdis are Muslim) … are not uncommon in Pakistan. I do concede that marriages in the upper crust are usually with White men… for example Ayesha Alam the model married Brian O Connell of Junoon fame… who was a very staunch christian…

    There have been notable Pakistani women who have married notable Hindus like Lady Nadira Naipaul … or Actress Nur… or sikhs like Aroosa Alam’s marriage (which I can confirm from personal sources) with Maharaja of Patiala. Ofcourse on this count specifically (Muslim women marrying Hindu men) the numbers might be less considering that there are not many Hindus around.

    So why don’t you stop assuming ? 😉

  94. Majumdar

    Yasser Pai,

    I can raise you 10… a lot of skin is now quite common in Pakistani shows, fashions shows, drama serials and music videos –

    If you can give some video links as proofs, I will be more than happy to withdraw my comments.


  95. yasserlatifhamdani

    Video doesn’t work from my computer here at work… work embargo. You may revisit my Pakistan Fashion Week posts right here on PakTeaHouse.

    You are free not to withdraw your comments and continue to be wrong.

  96. Majumdar

    Video doesn’t work from my computer here at work… work embargo.

    OK. You can give me internet links on what is hot in Pakistan.


  97. Majumdar

    Thanks. Will be looking forward to the youtube links.


  98. Milind Kher

    @Majumdar Saheb,

    What YLH is saying is true. Pakistani girls are on display on many sites.

    Whether that is a sign of modernity / emancipation or is a contraindication can be debated

  99. yasserlatifhamdani

    And I don’t think it is necessarily…. perhaps a more general comparison of the artists, painters, poets, philosophers, writers, human rights activists, thinkers etc that have been produced by Pakistan v. Indian Muslim Community will also prove my point amply…

    One may for fairness omit references to writers/poets famous before partition (even though such an omission will hurt Pakistan more than Indian Muslim Community).

  100. Milind Kher

    Indian Muslims are more inclined towards sports and commerce than the liberal arts.

    This is why you have Irfan Pathan, Zaheer Khan, Sania Mirza and so many others.

    Also, you have some very wealthy businessmen like the Premjis, Khorakiwalas, Allanas etc who are internationally known.

    This still doesn’t mean that you don’t have outstanding musicians like A R Rahman, Amjad Ali Khan, Zakir Hussain (even if he is an NRI) and others. Excellent writers/journalists includeM.J.Akbar, Rafiq Zakaria, Saeed Naqvi etc.

    Yet, I concede that in this domain, Pakistan has a considerable edge. Compare the cultural and educational exposure that Pakistanis have got compared to Indian Muslims.

  101. Majumdar

    Comparison between IMs and PMs is a tad unfair. The cream of the IM community left for Pakistan and the rest was left a bit orphaned. Still the achievement of those who stayed put isn’t all that bad.

    About actors and musicians I hardly need to emphasise . In the film world particularly, they beat Pak Muslims hollow. In music I guess they are at least at par, although not being well-versed in this I wud rather not comment.

    Among authors and poets we have Qurratulain Haider, Rahi Masoom Raza, Nida Fazli, Ali Jafri, Rushdie (somewhat controversial though), Nazrul Islam, Vaikom Bashir and a lots of the Bollywood lyricists.

    Among painters and artists, MF Hussain.


  102. Majumdar

    Milind babu,

    Also, you have some very wealthy businessmen like the Premjis, Khorakiwalas, Allanas etc who are internationally known.

    You can add the Hamids of Cipla and Mirzas of Mirza Tanners (and no the Mirza Tanners guys are proper Muslims).


  103. yasserlatifhamdani

    Do you really think Zaheer Khan and Irfan Pathan hold even a candle to Imran Khan, Waqar Younis, Wasim Akram, Fazal Mahmood, Javed Miandad, Jansher and Jahangir etc etc? Sania Mirza did get to play international tennis and Pakistani women tennis players haven’t done well… but the 11 member Pakistan Women’s Cricket Team has done atleast as well as Sania Mirza has in tennis… furthermore Aisam-ul-Haq beat Federer in a double’s game (partnering with an Indian Hindu I think)…. I think that is an achievement Sania Mirza is unlikely to replicate…

    Amongst businessmen… other than Premji (whose father was one of the richest men of India even in 1920s) … for every successful Muslim businessman in India, Pakistan can raise 10 of equal or more stature… the Hashwanis, Manshas, AKDs, Monnoos, Saigols, Sharifs, Qazilbashes, Kasuris, Ahsanuddins, Adamjees, Habibs, Chiniotis, the various Memon families… endless list. (I am not counting the successful Ahmadis right now… like the Shahnawazes etc)

    As for writers… for one MJ Akbar, you have several Najam Sethis, Jugnu Mohsins, Ayaz Amirs, Ejaz Haiders etc… and let us not forget Pakistan’s tradition of progressive writers and Urdu poets…. faiz, fraz, elia, jalib, qasmi, niazi, zaidi, arif, kishwar naheed… it is an endless list.

    And for musicians… Nur Jahan, Nusrat Fateh Ali, Mehdi Hassan, amanat ali khan… (and the Pakistani pop industry which has taken Indian by storm)…. are there any equivalent Indian Muslims in India?

    I am afraid this is not a comparison that Indian Muslims can win …. Pakistan’s Muslim population on any standardized scale will be more modern, more secular in habit, sporty, successful and more liberal than India’s Muslim population. Individual exceptions are aberrations… and nothing else.

  104. yasserlatifhamdani

    I forgot painters and artists…. for every M F hussain we have a Sadequin…. or Zahoorul Ikhlaque or a Shahid Jalal….

  105. yasserlatifhamdani

    “Qurratulain Haider”

    Well you can’t even claim her… because she wrote Aag Ka Darya in pakistan…. and if you claim her, then should we claim Josh since he moved to Pakistan?

    But if we were to use this list… what about Saadat Hassan Manto? What about Ghulam Abbas? What about historians like KK Aziz, Ayesha Jalal, Dr. Mubarik Ali, Ahmad Hassan Dani? What about modernist and liberal/rationalist Islamic scholars like the real Fazlurrahman (of Harvard), Parwez, Ghamidi ?

    What about Eqbal Ahmad and Raza Kazim… Raza Kazim who has invented a classical instrument called Saghar Veena…. what about Aitzaz Ahsan?

  106. Milind Kher

    Development of talent requires access to the best education, a conducive cultural milieu and immense support.

    The Muslims, on account of being a minority in India have focused on religion.Because of this, they have not (barring the more priviliged ones) pursued liberal arts or cultural activities in a big way. These inevitably bring them into contact with many communities, and their insular mindset does not allow them to draw freely from other cultures and people.

    This situation is worsened by the sickening propoganda that the saffron brigade drums up against them.

    Having said that, the Muslims who have come up have done so against difficult odds, and almost always with the support of non Muslims.

  107. yasserlatifhamdani

    “The Muslims, on account of being a minority in India have focused on religion.Because of this, they have not (barring the more priviliged ones) pursued liberal arts or cultural activities in a big way. These inevitably bring them into contact with many communities, and their insular mindset does not allow them to draw freely from other cultures and people.”

    Well sir that is my only suggestion and submission. I am not arguing that Pakistani Muslims are of a better racial stock than Indian Muslims.

  108. Hayyer

    Majumdar Babu:
    Were you just fishing for links to Pakistani skin?
    Besides does skin and marriage translate into liberal. I mean, it is possible to be a liberal but observant Muslim who does not like showing skin or marrying out of the faith.
    Displaying flesh has less to do with a liberal attitude to sex, politics and religion and more with earning a living. I don’t suppose all those actresses and models who put their charms on display actually want men ogling them in real life. That out of date word ‘wanton’ used to describe such wants.
    Marrying outside one’s faith shows indifference to religion, no bad thing in my view, rather than liberalness of belief. Unless of-course love has prevailed over faith, but that is no indicator of liberality either.

  109. vajra


    I have deadlines and beg for time, but am convinced that I can sweep you off the board with a list of outstanding musicians from India who happen to be Muslim. Also we should be able to put up a very nice list of artists other than M F Husain, outstanding though he is, as well as film directors, actors, screenplay writers and musicians committed to film. We are talking post-independence India by your rules, and within that, we should be able to put up a brave show.

    Time till day-after-tomorrow, saar. If I don’t submit my work as promised and overdue, my dearest daughter will slaughter me.

  110. yasserlatifhamdani

    And an inevitable comparison in science, technology and economics must come up…

    Considering that the two inventors of mass destruction Dr AK and Dr. AQK cancel each other out…. we are left with our Nobel Prize winner Dr. Abdus Salam and Dr. Hoodbhoy in Physics…. and Dr. Mahbub ul Haq in Economics…. No equivalent specimens in Indian Muslim (including Ahmadis) community.

  111. Majumdar

    And for musicians…


    Allauddin Khan, Ali Akbar Khan, Zakir Hussain, Amjad Ali Khan, Bismillah Khan, Vilayet Khan, the Dagars, Allahrakha Khan


    AR Rahman, Ghulam Mohd, Ismail Darbar, Naushad, Khayyam, Nadeem


    Bade Ghulam Ali Khan, Mohd Rafi, Talat Mahmood, Talat Aziz, Suraiya, Shamshad Begum,


    Shakeel, Sahir, Naqsh, Majrooh, Javed Akhtar, Kaifi Azmi, Mahboob


  112. yasserlatifhamdani


    Do you really want me to start with Pakistani names on these counts?

    This is not a comparison you can logically win.

    So stop it.

  113. Majumdar

    Yasser Pai,

    …. we are left with our Nobel Prize winner Dr. Abdus Salam and Dr. Hoodbhoy in Physics….

    We know that Dr. Hood writes and knows a lot of politics but physics??? Is he really a scientist ‘cos I never seen write on physics except when he was dissing someone (a fave of Masadi sb apparently) for ordering some equipment on chowk (Not that it wud matter if he did ‘cos I dont know a thing on physics)


  114. yasserlatifhamdani


    “I have deadlines and beg for time, but am convinced that I can sweep you off the board with a list of outstanding musicians from India who happen to be Muslim.”

    And for each name you produce I’ll produce 10 of equal or better stature who are Pakistanis.

  115. Majumdar

    Do you really want me to start with Pakistani names on these counts?

    Sure. But I hope we can then make an inventory of how famous they are among the International community (ie among goras).

    Any Pak Muslim won a Grammy or an Oscar. We got three- Zakir Hussain, Rahman and Rasool Pookutty

    Btw, coming to painters, I missed Tyebji Mehta and SH Raza.


  116. yasserlatifhamdani

    Yes well I tried that line on Hoodbhoy once… and then people posted his citations… I’d say he is a world class physicist… not the only one though…

    Pakistan’s contribution to CERN also can be compared to equivalent Indian Muslim contribution… I think doodh ka doodh paani ka paani ho jaye ga.

  117. Majumdar

    of equal or better stature who are Pakistanis.

    As in World Famous in Pakistan???


  118. yasserlatifhamdani

    Mian Majumdar…

    You’ve got to be kidding me… Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan is much bigger both literally and otherwise than all three of those combined.

    Chances that any of those goras who gave them these awards would remember their names…. very minute…

    Chances that they know Nusrat Fateh Ali…. highly likely.

  119. Majumdar

    In science, I agree Pak Muslims beat IMs hollow.

    On biz- anyone of international stature??? Like Premji or Hamid (his vaccines have been giving MNCs sleepless nights).


  120. Majumdar

    Btw, in science u missed a genius called Dr. Sabieh Anwar of LUMS, a very sweet young lady on chowk has a huge crush on him.


  121. yasserlatifhamdani

    Oh yes…. Nusrat Fateh Ali is world famous in Pakistan only… what else majumdar? Typical Chowk pettiness rearing its ugly head. Remember here I have the delete button …. wink wink.

    I wonder why every second major song in Indian films these days (nay since the 1970s) is by a struggling Pakistani pop musician or artist?

    Don’t you have these great composers of your own?

  122. Majumdar

    Don’t you have these great composers of your own?

    Rahman is a struggling Pak pop artist???


  123. yasserlatifhamdani

    I have already answered the business claim above…

    Wasn’t Premji’s father one of the richest businessmen in 1920s as well? So how is that India’s achievement?

    Whoever this Hamid must be, he must be world famous… in India.

    Not like … oh I don’t know… Syed Babar Ali…who has been knighted by the Queen for god knows what reason or Hashwani or Mian Mansha or the Adamjees or Habibs or Dawoods or Dewans or Sehgals or Monnoos… they are all small fish after all… because you say so.

  124. yasserlatifhamdani

    No Rahman isn’t it… but given that you have this Rahman fellow winner of so many awards blah blah…. why are there so many Pakistani songs – either sung by a Pakistani playback singer… or a copy of a Pakistani song…. in your industry…

    Even our rejects have a following in India… what is that guy… Shiraz Uppal… even he has become a sought after artist in India… in Pakistan no one gives him time of the day. Not to mention … Rahim Shah… and that other fellow the fat guy I don’t even remember his name.

  125. yasserlatifhamdani

    Anyway… I think I have made my point amply. And the truth lies in what Milind Kher wrote above about Indian Muslims being insular as a minority.

    There is no point trying to hit your head against the wall of logic friends ….

    What is generally true of an India v. Pakistan comparison is equally true in reverse of a Pakistani Muslim v. Indian Muslims… except in sports and possibly infrastructure which Pakistan managed to pile up during Ayub and Musharraf’s hyper-capitalist dictatorships.

    The net gainers in the last 60 years have been the land of India, Indian Hindu majority and the Pakistani Muslim majority… and the net losers have been the land of Pakistan, Indian Muslim Minority and Pakistani minorities in general and sectarian minorities in particular.

    All comparisons will roughly follow these parameters.

  126. tahir

    Iqbal all his life believed Jesus is dead, like Ahmadis. Howcome, no body on this forum and no religious leader in pakistan questioned him for that?

  127. Ammar

    My comment since morning is awaiting moderation. I do not know why it is taking so long…..

  128. yasserlatifhamdani


    I c0uldnt find it in pending comments. Can you resend it….

  129. AZW


    I approved the comments just a few minutes back.


    Thanks for the links and thoughful comments. Please do contribute more of your thoughts at PTH.

    FYI: Any web links in the comments puts it in the purgatory until they are cleared by the moderators.


  130. yasserlatifhamdani

    Can anyone tell me why we are so hellbent on proving that Allama Iqbal was not Qadiani Ahmadi till 1933?

    First of all there is no doubt that his father and brother were Ahmadis… secondly … he was part of the All India Kashmir Committee which in essence was led by Ahmadis.

    And finally… Tahir above has pointed out a very significant fact about Iqbal i.e. he did not believe that Jesus was coming back- this is a core Ahmadi belief mind you…. and it goes against the widely held belief of Sunni Muslims.
    Indeed the second coming of Jesus is as
    touchy a topic as finality of prophethood (though ironically the second coming itself violates the finality of prophethood) for Muslims…

    I think we should at the very least not dismiss it out of hand because so far evidence points to a different direction and perhaps the balance seems to be in favor of the assertion that till 1933 or so Iqbal was probably a Qadiani-Ahmadi.

    There is no denying that Iqbal emerged as a vocal opponent of Ahmaddiya movement later on. Ahmadis generally tend to be unbalanced …. Look Z A Suleri who became the foremost persecutor of the Ahmadis after being brought up in the Ahmadi faith.

  131. Hayyer

    Whose is bigger? The list I mean.
    Dr. AK was no Doctor, except for the Honoris Causa. Dr AQK was no scientist either.
    Besides AK, Dr. or not had no role in India’s bomb. He is a missile man. His main project the vaunted quad of missiles flopped; only one may see production despite 20 years of trying.
    It bears remembering that after retiring from his Government job, and before becoming President he tried to get a Professor’s job in the Indian Institute of Science Bangalore. He was rejected because he is only a graduate in Science. They need Ph.Ds with published research.
    ‘Dr’ Kalam is the establishment show boy. He loves interacting with school children. Very wise I think because they can’t catch him out. This genius spoke of India manufacturing ram jets and scram jets when technical journals were still propagating the concept.

  132. vajra


    Were you serious about your comments? No, of course not, it is one of your horribly effective leg-pulls. But nevertheless i thought it was necessary to put on record that there were some musicians and singers worthy of mention.

    My quick list is a very scrappy one, and I have included those who were born before independence but continued performing and singing even afterward. Many of them are people I have listened to, and compiling the list was a hugely sentimental thing, as I sat doing it next door to a dying man who used to be in the front row on these occasions.

    Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive,
    But to be young were very heaven.


    Dagar Brothers:

    Nasir Moinuddin
    Nasir Aminuddin
    Nasir Zahiruddin
    Nasir Faiyazuddin

    Faiyaz Khan
    Bade Ghulam Ali Khan
    Munawar Ali Khan
    Raza Ali Khan
    Amir Khan
    Latafat and Sharafat Hussain Khan
    Iqbal Ahmad Khan

    Begum Akhtar


    Alauddin Khan
    Vilayat Hussain Khan
    Mushtaq Ali Khan
    Zia Mohiuddin Dagar
    Bahauddin Dagar
    Bismillah Khan
    Imrat Hussain Khan
    Ali Akbar Khan
    Amjad Ali Khan
    Shujaat Khan
    Rais Khan
    Shahid Parvez
    Abdul Majid Khan (Sarangiya)
    Amaan Ali Khan
    Ayaan Ali Khan
    Ameen Ali Khan

    Ahmed Jan Thirakwa
    Alla Rakha
    Zakir Hussain

  133. aliarqam

    “Tahir above has pointed out a very significant fact about Iqbal i.e. he did not believe that Jesus was coming back- this is a core Ahmadi belief mind you…. and it goes against the widely held belief of Sunni Muslims.
    Indeed the second coming of Jesus is as
    touchy a topic as finality of prophethood (though ironically the second coming itself violates the finality of prophethood) for Muslims…”

    It is not true…..There are so many peoples who do not believe in jesus coming back….it is not equal to finality of prophethood

  134. aliarqam

    Islamic scholars like Sheikh Mohammed Al-Ghazali, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, and Amin Ahsan Islahi argue that Jesus was indeed rescued but was given death by God before he was ascended bodily as God never allows to dishonor His messengers, even their dead bodies

  135. Hayyer

    We are talking of different genres. In Hindustani classical Pakistan cannot even dream of entering the lists. We are talking of the most elevated geniuses of all time.
    However in Ghazal and Qawali and certainly in Punjabi folk music Pakistan does provide competition. Quwali purists from UP would dismiss the Punjab school, as it is wont to, but for a Punjabi UP sounds weak. In Ghazal singing Begum Akhtar apart( she is supreme) the Muslim competition is too far back in the field. In Punjabi folk India is nowhere in the scene.

  136. Bloody Civilian

    Whose is bigger? The list I mean.

    should vajra be allowed to use the column format for his?

  137. Hayyer

    Vajra has nothing to hide.

  138. yasserlatifhamdani

    Dear Vajra,

    Thank you for the list but please note that I did not dispute that there have been musicians of Muslim background in India… The issue is not how many Indian Muslim musicians there have been… but whether Pakistanis as a whole have contributed anything to arts and culture and what has their contribution been when compared to Indian Muslims ….

    Pakistan has produced remarkable talent in Ghazal especially and in Qawwali…. Pakistan does not merely provide competition but beats hands down anything Indian Muslims have had to offer in the last 60 years. Iqbal Bano, Munni Begum, Farida Khanum, Nayyara Noor, Tina Saani, Mehdi Hassan, Habib Wali Muhmmad, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, …. etc are matchless.

    As for Hindustani classical… despite the fact that the classic gharanas of Dhrupad etc were not indigenous to Pakistan, Pakistan has done remarkably well in Hindustani classical music. Let me enlighten you that if there is any progress being made in the field of Hindustani classical it is being made in Pakistan. The Saghar Veena … i.e. the only modern musical instrument in the subcontinent invented in the 20th century… was invented in Pakistan in the 1990s…. National College of Arts’ Musicology department is keeping the fire alive… so is Raza Kazim’s “Sanjan Nagar” institute…. you cannot deny the original contribution of Pakistanis to this field.

    The point was part of a larger and more urgent point… which is in the context of Pakistani Muslims being more modern, liberal and worldly than Indian Muslims as a whole… several parameters were suggested… starting with “nungi pangi” dancing, women marrying out of the faith, to science and technology, thinkers, poets, writers, sportsmen etc … and in most comparisons Pakistani Muslims come out on top … and there are several other comparisons which I have not yet begun to write about. This ofcourse has nothing to do with any racial superiority but what Milind said about minorities being insular.

    Let me just end with one simple comparison: Find a site like PakTeaHouse or a liberal like Bloody Civilian amongst Indian Muslims online …. and well I’ll shut up.

    I hope we can move forward.

  139. Hades

    And Bangladeshi Muslims? Where do they stand?

  140. yasserlatifhamdani

    in arts and culture they – bangladeshis are miles ahead and largely the most secular kind of Muslims in all of South Asia.

  141. Hades


    the most secular kind of Muslims in all of South Asia.

    Now you’ve pissed of our Baangal man, Majumdarda.

    Let the list wars begin.

  142. yasserlatifhamdani


    Thanks for the information. Still if someone was to walk into a mosque and claim that Jesus was dead, wouldn’t he be accused of being a kafir or worse… an Ahmadi?

    I was not aware of the fact that even Ghazali believed this… Islahi also? Wow. I wonder what Maududi’s view was.

    Interesting that you mention Ghazali… in many ways Ghazali and Iqbal were similar. I shudder at the thought of Iqbal being used in a similar manner in the coming centuries.

  143. Vajra


    Ah, the penny drops. I went back and re-read the proceedings and realised that the starting point of this particular theme was YLH on the 18th at 3:57 pm.

    No, the list I provided has nothing to do with the liberating effects of losing minority status. I have seen the deadening effects on Hindus in Bangladesh, and the corresponding exuberant cultural efflorescence among the Bangladeshi Muslims.

    Yes, Hayyer has summed it up correctly in other aspects. I have nothing to add to his summation.

    No, Bangladeshi art and culture ought not to be summed up like that. They have completely lost their presence in classical music, and have made a thorough mess of folk music, and cinema is nothing to write home about; on the other hand, in literature and drama, their progress has been hair-raising. It is electrifying to see what they have done in these two fields.

    And lastly, I can neither find an equivalent of PTH – your example, YLH, is quite ridiculous in the context, by the way, because there should have been equivalents among Indians or in Bangladesh: it is fairest to call PTH sui generis, not least because of your gadfly presence – nor an example to match Bloody Civilian. However, the man is a freak of nature, very clearly, and would have been crucified or otherwise disposed off – earlier they used hemlock and saved the carpenter some work – in most other times and most other cultures. Some of the responses he provokes uneasily call to mind the word ‘tumi’ from pre-Columbian culture.

  144. Vajra


    Actually there are examples to match Bloody Civilian, but none to match his, erm, matchless articulation. No, seriously, his writing has really, really become outstanding. Getting to his level would be a stretch for anyone.

  145. Milind Kher


    I will completely agree with you that there is no IM online blog that can even hold a candle to PTH.

    The content of the blogs as well as the level of discussion is terrific. On many IM blogs, there are opinionated obscurantists who insist on peddling you their reactionary brand of Islam, and arrogate to themselves the sole right of interpretation.

  146. tahir

    An article on Iqbal and Ahmadiyya (available on internet) negates all those who deny Iqbal’s Ahmadiyya connection. Writer (a lahori ahmadi M. Muhammad Ali) of article claims to be very close friend of Iqbal.

    Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s Statement re The Qadianis:
    by Maulana Muhammad Ali

    [Dr. Sir Muhammad Iqbal, who was once a great admirer of the Ahmadiyyah Movement, issued in 1936 a long statement re the Qadianis. It was motivated mainly by political reasons and the views of the extremist Qadiani section were made the basis of this statement. Maulana Muhammad ‘Ali replied to it and explained the Lahore Ahmadiyyah standpoint and threw light on the correct beliefs and mission of the Founder of the Ahmadiyyah Movement in Islam The reply first appeared in the weekly Light, Lahore, and later in the form of a booklet entitled Dr Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s Statement re the Qadianis. Another detailed commentary was made in Urdu by Syed Akhtar Husain Gilani entitled ‘Allama Iqbal aur Tahrik-i Ahmadiiyat. — Editor]
    Dr. Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s statement on the controversy between the Qadianis and the orthodox Muslims has both a religious and a political significance, and from both points of view it has its values as well as its defects, but I am concerned only with its first aspect. Sir Muhammad Iqbal has done a great service to the cause of Islam by appealing to the solidarity of Islam as based on the Finality of Prophethood, but I must say — and this not without regret — that this service to the great cause has been more than neutralized by the remedy which he suggests to maintain that solidarity. In the first place he begs the British Government to interfere in the religious controversy between the Qadianis and the orthodox and to help the majority against an insignificant minority, and in the second place he wants to bring about unity among the Muslims by making as many rifts in their ranks as the Qadiani doctrine of the continuance of prophethood is likely to create, perhaps more.

    Solidarity is today the greatest need of the Muslim communities whether living in India or elsewhere, and the basis of this solidarity must undoubtedly be laid on the Finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad (may peace and the blessings of God be upon him). One of the greatest changes brought about by the advent of our Holy Prophet—I should call it a revolution—was that before him every nation and every age had its own prophet, but the Prophet Muhammad was the Prophet of all nations and all ages, and thus prophethood was made the basis of the unification of the human race. Different peoples owing allegiance to different prophets meant so many different standards under which the human race was divided into as many different groups, but one prophet for all nations and all ages meant all peoples gathering together under one flag. Finality of Prophethood in Islam did not mean that the sending of prophets for the upliftment of humanity was brought to a close as an arbitrary act; it signified that the racial and national differences which had grown up as a result of sending different prophets to different peoples and had thus divided humanity into water-tight compartments and become a bar to the further advancement of human civilisation, should be obliterated, and the whole human race living on this globe should feel as if it were a single unit. Both these ideas go hand in hand in the Holy Quran. On the one hand, we read:

    “Blessed is He Who sent down the Furqan upon His servant that he may be a warner to all the nations” (25:1).
    “Say, O people! I am the Apostle of Allah to you all” (7:158).

    “And We have not sent thee but to all the men as a bearer of good news and as a warner” (31:28).

    And, on the other hand, the significance underlying the advent of a world-prophet in place of the national prophets is thus made clear:

    “And peoples are naught but a single nation” (10:19).
    “And this your community is one community and I am your Lord” (23:52).

    “All peoples are a single nation” (2:213).

    “O people! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single being and created its mate of the same kind and spread from these many men and women” (4:1).

    Thus, the idea is put forward that the whole human race is but one family, and all tribal and racial differences are minimised by such declaration as the following:

    “O you men! We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know one another” (48:13).
    “And one of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your tongues and colours j surely there are signs in this for the learned” (30:22).

    The Finality of Prophethood has thus the unification of the human race as the underlying idea, and Sir Muhammad Iqbal hits the nail on the head when he declares that the solidarity of Muslims must be based on the Finality of Prophethood in the Holy Prophet Muhammad. The continuation of prophethood would make the whole change brought about by the universality of Muhammad’s mission and the consequent finality of prophethood in him meaningless. He is, however, mistaken in thinking that the idea of the continuance of prophethood before the Holy Prophet Muhammad is a Magian idea and not Islamic. I quote his words:

    “The concept of Magian culture, according to modern researches, includes cultures associated with Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Jewish Christianity, Chaldean and Sabian religions. To these creed-communities the idea of the continuity of prophethood was essential, and consequently they lived in a state of constant expectation. The result of the Magian attitude was the disintegration of old communities and the constant formation of fresh ones by all sorts of religious adventures.”
    I am afraid in the concluding words. Sir Muhammad Iqbal has not spared the prophets who are apparently identified with “religious adventures.” I am sure he did not mean this, as the continuance of prophethood before it came to perfection in the person of Muhammad (peace be upon him), is an essentially Islamic idea. All the great prophets were promised and the world kept waiting for them and was thus in a state of expectancy. The Jews had long waited for the advent of Messiah, and both the Jews and the Christians kept on waiting for the advent of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. A state of constant expectation cannot therefore be condemned outright as Sir Muhammad Iqbal has done. In fact, when we speak of finality we admit continuance and consequent expectation before it. According to the plain teachings of the Holy Quran, both, continuance of prophethood till a certain time and its finality, are parts of the same Divine scheme for the upliftment of humanity. A prophet, according to the Holy Quran, was sent to every nation when there were scanty means of intercourse, and there were nations to whom prophets were sent generation after generation to help their onward progress. One such nation was that of the Israelites, to whom a large number of prophets were sent, many of whom are named in the Holy Quran: “We gave Moses the Book and We sent apostles after him one after another” (2:87). This is further explained by the Holy Prophet himself according to a hadith contained in the Sahih al-Bukhari: “The Israelites were led by prophets; when one prophet died, another was raised after him; after me, however, there is no prophet but there shall be khalifahs, i.e., those who would continue my work” (Al-Bukhari, 60:50). It is a grave error therefore to condemn the continued coming of prophets in certain nations as an idea not based on Divine revelation but a Magian idea as is described by Dr. Iqbal.

    Sir Muhammad Iqbal is aware that we, the members of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-i-Islam, Lahore, have kept on fighting with the Qadianis for over twenty years about this very doctrine of the continuance of prophethood and its unavoidable result that all those Muslims who do not believe in the new revelation are kafirs. And therefore we consider his appeal, so far as the doctrine of the finality of prophethood is concerned, timely and opportune. I agree with Sir Muhammad Iqbal when he says:

    “Any religious society, historically arising from the bosom of Islam, which claims a new prophethood for its basis and declares all Muslims who do not recognize the truth of its alleged revelation, as kafirs, must therefore be regarded by every Muslim as a serious danger to the solidarity of Islam.”
    The solidarity of Islam is endangered not by the claims of this or that man or by the claims of a certain section or its leader; it is endangered by the tendency of takfir, by declaring those who believe in the Holy Prophet Muhammad as kafirs. A Muslim is one who declares his faith in the Holy Prophet Muhammad and to call him a kafir is to create divisions in the house of Islam that would shatter the idea of unity which, as already stated, is the idea underlying the finality of prophethood. But if the Qadianis are guilty of the heinous offence of shattering the unity of Islam by calling other Muslims kafirs, even the orthodox are not free of this guilt. A man of the learning of Sir Muhammad Iqbal should have given the right lead by denouncing the error itself, not by denouncing one section and defending the other when both are guilty of the same error. He should have also shown disapprobation of the campaign of vilification that is being carried on by some orthodox against the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement. No person should be vilified because his followers have gone astray, and Sir Muhammad Iqbal at any rate is not unaware that the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement is not responsible for the Qadiani doctrine that those who do not believe in his Mission are kafirs.

    I do not propose to enter into a discussion here as to whether or not the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement laid a claim to prophethood and as to whether or not he declared those Muslims to be kafirs who did not believe in him. This discussion I leave for a separate tract. But I would refer Sir Muhammad Iqbal to an incident which he himself so recently related to me when I paid him a visit during his sickness in October 1934. The Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, he told me, was then in Sialkot — he did not remember the year, but it was the year 1904 as the facts related by him show. Sir Fazl-i-Hussain was then practising as a lawyer in Sialkot, and one day while he (Mian Fazl-i-Hussain Sahib) was going to see the Mirza Sahib, he (Sir Muhammad Iqbal) met him in the way, and after inquiring where he was going he also accompanied him. During the conversation that ensued with the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, Sir Fazl-i-Hussain asked him if he looked upon those who did not believe in him as kafirs and the Mirza Sahib without a moment’s hesitation replied that he did not. This fact which Sir Muhammad Iqbal himself related to me last year is a clear evidence that the Founder of the Ahmadiyyah Movement is not responsible for the present Qadiani doctrine which, as Sir Muhammad Iqbal has rightly pointed out, is a serious danger to the solidarity of Islam.

    Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s evidence in this respect is fully borne out by the Mirza Sahib’s own writings and by his practice. In one of his writings published in October 1902 he writes in clear words: “From the beginning it has been my belief that no one becomes a kafir or dajjal by denial of my claim” (Tiryaq al-Qulub, p. 130). And in practice too he followed this view, for no less than four times (twice in writing and twice orally) did he direct or permit his followers to hold a funeral service over the dead Muslims who were not his followers. There is the most reliable evidence that he himself conducted such services in his lifetime, and his followers did the same in all the big centres where their numbers were sufficient, such as Lahore, Sialkot, Simla, etc., and the practice was only stopped by the present head of the Qadian section, the Lahore section being still faithful to the Founder in this respect.

    At any rate, Sir Muhammad Iqbal, who is personally a witness of the fact that the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement was not guilty of calling other Muslims kafirs, should have raised his voice against the campaign of vilification that is being carried on against him, especially because such a campaign is against the explicit teachings of the Holy Quran which condemns carping and fault-finding even against non-Muslims. The Jews and the Christians were among the bitterest enemies of Islam and they vilified Islam and the Holy Prophet, yet the Muslims were told to call them to the way of the Lord “with wisdom and goodly exhortation and have disputations with them in the best manner” (16:125). A fight on principles would be far more effective than the present campaign of vilification which is undermining the whole strength of Islam. M. Raghib Ahsan of Calcutta gives the right lead in the matter in his article published in the Ihsant dated September 1935. He says:

    “The question is, when one group is opposed to this basic principle of Islam, and strives against it under the pretence of different interpretations, what is the proper course for the Muslim community for the protection of self and the defence of the faith? In my opinion it is essential for the Muslims that they should not only be themselves firm on the doctrine of the Finality of Prophethood but also they should explain its significance and object so lucidly that even their children should become acquainted with it. The best way of subduing the opponents is to invite them to the right way with goodly exhortation and wisdom and even if it is necessary to have disputation with them, this best way should not be given up. The Muslims should on all account avoid severity and harshness.”
    If such noble lead had been given by a man of the position of Sir Muhammad Iqbal, much of the energy of the Muslims could have been spared for some constructive work.

    Qadianis do indeed deny the finality of prophethood but even the average Muslim has no real grasp of the idea of finality, as Sir Muhammad Iqbal rightly remarks. And how could he have it when he believes that a prophet, Jesus Christ, must come after the Holy Prophet? It is to be regretted that Sir Muhammad Iqbal has not cleared this point. Perhaps there was the fear of a hue and cry being raised against him by the mullahs and the mullah-ridden masses. If the Qadianis deny the finality of prophethood in Prophet Muhammad by bringing in a new prophet after him, even the orthodox set no value on finality because they insist on bringing in a past prophet, and one sees no difference between the positions of the two parties, the Qadianis and the orthodox. It was the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement who established the finality of prophethood in Muhammad on a firm basis by announcing in clear words that neither an old nor a new prophet can come after our Holy Prophet.

    The following quotations from his writings show how strongly he was opposed to the idea of a prophet appearing after the Holy Prophet Muhammad:

    “I have firm belief that our Prophet (peace be on him) is the last of the prophets and after him there will appear no prophet in this ummah, neither new nor old…only muhaddath will come” (Nishan-i-Asmani, p. 28).
    “Our Prophet (peace be on him) is the last of the prophets and no prophet can come after him, therefore in the Islamic law the muhaddath takes the place of the prophet” (Shahadat al-Qur’an, p. 27).

    “Can a wretched liar who claims prophethood and messengership for himself have any faith in the Holy Quran? And can any one who believes in the Holy Quran say that he is a prophet and messenger after the Holy Prophet Muhammad?” (Anjam-i-Atham, p. 27)

    It is true that the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement has used the word prophet metaphorically regarding a muhaddath and regarding himself, but metaphor and reality are two different things, and he has explained this at many places:

    “The Promised Messiah, on account of his being a muhaddath can be called a prophet metaphorically” (Izala-i-Auham, p. 349).
    “If muhaddathiyyat is called prophethood metaphorically, it does not mean a claim to prophethood” (Ibid., p. 422).

    “I have never claimed to be a prophet and a messenger in a real sense, and to use a word in a metaphorical sense and in a wider literary sense is no heresy” (Anjam-i-Atham, p, 27).

    “I have been called a prophet by God in a metaphorical and not in a real sense” (Haqiqat al-Wahyi p. 65)

    The Lahore section of the Ahmadiyya Movement sticks to that position. I am sure that Sir Muhammad Iqbal and many other enlightened leaders and ulama believe in a similar finality — a finality barring the coming after our Holy Prophet of any prophet whether old or new, and it is only fear of blind opposition that stands in the way of the true Islamic position being cleared up. It is deplorable indeed that the leaders of the Muslim community should not possess the requisite moral courage to give a lead to the masses. So long as this state prevails, the finality of prophethood cannot be established, and the unity of Islam will remain a mere dream. Let the leaders and the enlightened ulama take courage in both hands and face the masses with the central fact of Islam, the finality of prophethood. To talk of finality is useless; to establish it in the face of opposition is the real service of Islam.

    It is not sufficient to condemn this thing as Magian and that thing as Jewish. Facts must be faced. The Holy Qur’an is clear on the point that religion having been brought to perfection by the message of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, there was no need of a prophet after him, and he was therefore declared to be the Last of the Prophets. In spite of this, all books of Hadith are agreed that Jesus Christ must come. Many of the companions of the Holy Prophet report as having heard him speak of the advent of the Messiah, and all reliable collections of hadith have accredited these hadith. It is expected of every true Muslim to solve this confusion. Sir Muhammad Iqbal avoids it by condemning “the idea of the continuity of the spirit of Messiah as an absolutely Jewish idea.” The question is, who introduced this Jewish idea into Hadith? Nor is the appearance of the Messiah a solitary idea. There are the connected ideas of the appearance of the Anti-Christ and Gog and Magog, the latter also finds expression in the Holy Quran. Either all these ideas must be accepted or they must all be rejected as Jewish or Christian ideas. But if all of them are rejected, the result will be that we will have to reject a very large number of hadith, accredited by the best authorities, as spurious. This would give a severe blow to the reliability of hadith as a whole. It is true that there have been some religious adventurers who have denounced the whole collection of hadith, and who think that all the religious commandments contained in hadith are mere fabrications, but I am sure Sir Muhammad Iqbal is not one of them. Even European critics would not condemn Bukhari, and Bukhari has a large number of hadith relating to the advent of the Messiah and of Dajjal and Gog and Magog and other allied subjects.

    While condemning the continuance of the spirit of Messiah as “Jewish idea”, Sir Muhammad Iqbal does not seem to have given a serious thought to hadith which must entirely be thrown overboard if the prophecies relating to the appearance of the Messiah among the Muslims are to be rejected in toto. He is undoubtedly one Muslim leader whom the masses would follow blindly, and he should have directly faced the question whether the hadith containing prophecies about the Messiah, Dajjal and Gog and Magog, as contained in Bukhari and other reliable collections of hadith, should be accepted or rejected. But he apparently condemns the idea of the coming of Messiah without saying anything about the hadith which speak of it. If Sir Muhammad Iqbal does not accept the authority of the hadith, he should plainly say so; if he does, he should clear his position. And I may add that the mere fact that the Jews expected the coming of the Messiah does not entitle us to condemn that idea, The Jews also received a revelation, and the Messianic idea can be condemned only if it is shown that among the Jews that idea was not based on revelation. The fact is that the hope of a Messiah was given to the Israelite people by prophet after prophet, and there is not the least ground for supposing that it was not based on revelation.

    The only fault of the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement is that like a true son of Islam, he bowed his head before the authority of the Holy Quran and Hadith, and when he was satisfied that the finality of prophethood in the Holy Prophet Muhammad was a bar against the coining of Jesus Christ in person, whose death is in fact plainly spoken of in the Holy Quran, he, instead of rejecting the hadith, gave it an interpretation which made it conform to the principle of finality laid down in the Holy Quran. He did not reject the prophecies relating to the advent of Messiah but said that they meant, not the coming of Jesus Christ in person because he was a prophet and no prophet could come after our Holy Prophet, and also because he died like other prophets; but the coming of a Mujaddid or Muhaddath in the spirit and power of Jesus Christ. And in support of this interpretation he produced evidence both from previous sacred history and from hadith itself. The Old Testament contained the prophecy that Elijah would appear before the advent of Messiah, and when Jesus Christ was asked where Elijah was if he was the Messiah, he pointed to John the Baptist, explaining that he had come in his spirit and power. This was a clear case where the prophecy of the personal advent of a prophet was declared to be fulfilled in the appearance of quite a different man, because in spirit the two bore a very strong resemblance.

    The Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement also gave numerous arguments from hadith itself showing that it was a mistake to consider the prophecy as meaning the personal advent of Jesus, for where his advent was spoken of it was added by way of explanation, wa imam-u-kum minkum, meaning “And he is your imam from among yourselves.” The prophecy thus clearly showed that the Promised Messiah was not the Israelite Prophet Jesus but an imam of the Muslims from among themselves. Further corroboration of the two Messiahs being distinct personalities is contained in the hadith Al-Bukhari which gives different descriptions of the two Messiahs. The Israelite prophet Jesus Christ whom the Holy Prophet saw in his Ascension is described as having a white complexion and curly hair, whiles the Messiah to come as seen in a vision by him is described as being of a brown colour with lank hair. These two entirely different descriptions of the two personalities clearly show that they belong to two different races and are entirely two different persons in appearance. They receive the same name, Messiah, because they come in similar conditions and have the same functions, the one among the Israelites and the other among the Muslims. Just as the first Messiah came 1300 years after Moses, the second Messiah comes 1300 years after the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) who is plainly spoken of as the like of Moses, both in the Mosaic prophecy and in the Holy Quran. Again, as the Jews had lost their temporal power before the appearance of the Israelite Messiah, the Muslims have from a mighty ruling nation of the world being reduced to a condition of slavery in most countries before the coming of the second Messiah. Both nations expected a man with temporal glory who should lead them to material conquests, but both Messiahs were ordained to fill the humbler role of a spiritual reformer. And both were rejected in a similar manner. The Jews not only rejected their Messiah but also crucified him; the Muslims have been no less severe in their opposition. The two Messiahs bear a similarity even in their acceptance. The majority of the followers of the first Messiah raised him from prophethood to the dignity of Godhead, while the majority of the followers of the second Messiah have raised him from mujaddidship to the dignity of prophethood.

    I am fully conscious that Islam is a religion which does not ban reason, but at the same time it must be added that Islam is based on revelation and not on reason. The Quran and the Hadith are the foundations of the religion of Islam, and though it is true that hadith which contradict any principle laid down in the Holy Quran cannot be accepted, yet at the same time Hadith being an explanation of the Holy Quran given by the Holy Prophet himself cannot be lightly set aside, especially such Hadith as are contained in the Sahih al-Bukhari which by an almost unanimous verdict of the Muslim community is the most reliable book (Asah al-kutub) after the Book of God. It is easy to condemn the coming of the Messiah as a Jewish idea but what about the large number of hadith contained in Al-Bukhari and other reliable collections about the appearance of the Messiah among the Muslims, and the still larger number about other allied subjects such as Dajjal and Gog and Magog? The Holy Prophet’s word is the authority before which a Muslim must bow his head, and if the Holy Prophet said, and certainly he did say, that the Messiah must make his appearance among the Muslims, it is flouting the authority of the Prophet to say that the idea of the coming of a Messiah is borrowed from the Jews. The greatest Imams of Islam never thought of throwing off the yoke of Hadith, and that great luminary of Islam, Imam Abu Hanifa, is reported to have said: “Give up my word before the word of the Messenger of God.” Even if Sir Muhammad Iqbal may claim the dignity of a mujtahid, he cannot assume a role higher than that of Imam Abu Hanifa, and he must bow his head before the Hadith. He is at liberty to give his own interpretation to the words of the Prophet, that being the proper sphere of a mujtahid, but he cannot reject those words simply because the idea of the coming of a Messiah is distasteful to him.

    The remedy suggested by Sir Muhammad Iqbal is practical negation of the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). For, as I said at the very commencement, the unity of the human race is the great idea underlying the finality of prophethood which means that there shall be no authoritative revelation after Prophet Muhammad. It must be borne in mind that according to the plainest teachings of the Quran and Hadith, the advent of our Holy Prophet does not make the end of revelation but the end of authoritative revelation, or the Gibraelic revelation, so that Prophet Muhammad shall be the final authority in religion. The great idea was to bring all people under one authority and to gather them under one standard, in order to bring about the unity of the human race, the greatest requisite of human civilisation, not to end Divine communion. As the Holy Prophet has said, “There shall be people among his followers to whom God shall speak though they shall not be prophets” (Al-Bukhari: Kitab: Munaqib Umar). If God had ceased to speak to His righteous servants, it would have meant an end of religious experience, and of religion itself. On the other hand, the continuance of prophethood would have meant authority besides that of the Holy Prophet. Prophethood and authority go hand in hand: “And We have not sent a messenger but that he should be obeyed with the permission of God” (4:64). The whole difference lies in this that when God speaks to a man and grants him authority, he is a prophet; and when He speaks to a man but that revelation carries no authority with it, he is called a muhaddath in Islam. And the mujaddid that is promised at the beginning of every century is also a muhaddath. A muhaddath may be called a prophet only metaphorically, because God speaks to him, but he is not a prophet in a real sense, because his revelation is not authoritative and he is himself under the authority of a prophet. The final authority based on revelation rests with the Prophet Muhammad.

    Now let us see what this final authority has to say regarding the unity of his followers. Take the Divine revelation first and there it is declared in plain words: “Do not say to him who offers you Islamic salutation (salam), thou art not a believer!” That is the highest authority, the authority of the final Divine revelation. No Muslim who believes in the Holy Quran can say to another Muslim who accosts him with assalam-u-alaikum that he is a kafir and not a Muslim. The Holy Prophet himself on the highest authority—that of Bukhari—is reported to have said: “Whoever says his prayers as we say our prayers (salla salatana) and faces the Qiblah (in his prayers) and eats the animal slaughtered by us, he is a Muslim and for him is the covenant of God and His Messenger, so do not look lightly on the covenant of God” (Al-Bukhari: 8:28). Here is the plain verdict of the final authority in religion that any one who says prayers as directed by the Prophet and faces the Qiblah when saying his prayers is a Muslim. Yet our national poet and great philosopher says that the Qadianis must be declared kafirs. Do the Qadianis not say the same prayers as do other Muslims? Do they not face the same Qiblah in their prayers? If they do, and Sir Muhammad Iqbal is aware that they do it, then indeed they have the covenant with God and His Messenger that they are Muslims, and any one who declares them kafirs reject the authority of the Prophet Muhammad.

    Sir Muhammad Iqbal makes a fundamental mistake when he compares the Qadianis with the Bahais and declares the latter to be more honest. Error and honesty may often go together. Even a Christian who believes in Trinity and the Atonement of Christ, even an idol-worshipper, may be honest in his convictions, and even a Muslim may be dishonest in his convictions. No human being can decide who is honest in his convictions and who is not; it is only Mullah-mindedness which looks upon everybody differing with it as dishonest. If the Bahais reject the Holy Quran and the Holy Prophet Muhammad as the final authority in religious matters, that is their own concern, they may be honest or otherwise; and if the Qadianis accept Muhammad as the final authority and still believe in the coming of prophets after him against the plain teachings of the Quran and Hadith, it is not another Muslim’s business to say that they are dishonest. And even if they are, they are still Muslims and not kafirs on the plain authority of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, because they say their prayers exactly in the manner in which the Prophet said them and they face the Qiblah in their prayers. And the Bahais, even with a certificate of honesty from Sir Muhammad Iqbal, are not Muslims because they do not say their prayers in the manner prescribed by the Holy Prophet nor do they face the Qiblah, rejecting as they do the Qur’an and the Prophet Muhammad as final authority in religious matters. It is Muhammad’s certificate (may peace and the blessings of God be upon him), that matters in matters religious and not Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s.

    In fact, all those people who declare faith in the Kalimah — la ilaha illa Allah Muhammad ar-Rasul Allah (there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) —are Muslims whatever their differences may be. The person who believes in Muhammad has Muhammad’s authority that he is a Muslim, and to call him a kafir is to deny the authority of Muhammad as the Last Prophet of God. One wonders to see Sir Muhammad Iqbal lading so much stress on the finality of prophethood and at the same time denying the authority of the final Prophet. There were people in the Prophet’s time who were the most dangerous and sworn enemies of Islam, the hypocrites, who would not join the Prophet in defence of Islam, and yet they were looked upon by the Holy Prophet as Muslims because they said that they believed in him and said their prayers facing the Qiblah. Even their chief, ‘Abdullah ibn Ubayy, was honoured by the Prophet as being a Muslim. When ‘Abdullah died, the Holy Prophet said funeral prayers over his body in spite of opposition of Hazrat ‘Umar. Nor did the Companions of the Holy Prophet ever declare a believer in the Holy Prophet to be kafir, whatever their differences. The Kharijis were the first group in Islam who called their Muslim brethren kafirs, and they are spoken of as having shattered the unity of Islam — qad shaqqu asa-l-Muslimina. And every one who today declares a believer in the Prophet Muhammad to be a kafir also shatters the unity of Islam, whether he is one of the orthodox Ulama or a Qadiani or the great Muslim philosopher Sir Muhammad Iqbal. According to a saying of the Holy Prophet, whoever calls a believer in the Kalimah a kafir, is nearer to unbelief than to Islam. Man kqffara ahl-a la ilaha ill-Allah fa huwa ila-l kufri aqrab.

    And why are the Qadianis kafirs? Because, says Sir Muhammad Iqbal, they believe in the coming of a prophet after the Holy Prophet Muhammad. But all the orthodox do the same. The Sunnis and the Shias and the Ahl Hadith set as much value on the finality of prophethood as do the Qadianis, because they all believe in the coming of Prophet Jesus Christ, after the Holy Prophet Muhammad. So strong is this belief that men at the top of opposition to the Ahmadiyya Movement who honestly believe that Jesus Christ is dead and that he will not come to guide the Muslims have not the moral courage to say so and face the opposition. But a man of Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s position should not shirk his duty, if it was the call of duty which prompted him to join in the general uproar against the Ahmadiyya movement and declare the Qadianis as kafirs because they accept a prophet after Muhammad (peace be on him), With the same force as he has used against the Qadianis he should declare the orthodox Muslims kafirs because they also believe in the coming of a prophet after the Final Prophet. It is not just to have one balance to weigh the Qadianis and another to weigh the orthodox.

    There is yet another point in Sir Muhammad Iqbai’s statement which deserves to be noted here. He not only condemns the Qadianis and applauds the orthodox for one and the same belief, viz., that of the coming of a prophet after the Holy Prophet but also he condemns as kafir the only group of Muslims, the Lahore Ahmadis, who accept the finality of prophethood in the truest sense, rejecting the coming of either an old or a new prophet after him. It is true that he does not say so in his statement, but he gives unstinted support to the blind opposition and persecution which is being carried on against both, the Qadian and the Lahore sections of the Ahmadiyya Movement, If he really felt that a certain group ought to be condemned on account of its errors, he should also have raised his voice against blind opposition, to the Lahore section which neither believes in the coming of a prophet after Muhammad nor calls any Muslim a kafir.

    The Ahmadis are not the first group in Islam who have been declared kafirs; their predecessors in this line ate numerous. It is not yet fifty years since the Ahl-i-Hadith (or Wahabis) were unanimously declared to be kafirs by the orthodox, and yet today they are a part and parcel of the orthodox. Later still, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was declared to be a kafir. It is amusing to hear men of light and learning talk of fatwas of kufr against the Ahmadis obtained not only from Ulama in India but also from Arabia and other Islamic countries as if the disease which has sapped the energy of the Muslim community were peculiar to any one country. Previous fatwas of kufr were also endorsed by the Ulama of Arabia and there is nothing strange in the fatwa of kufr against Ahmadis being so endorsed. The Wahabis and the Naichris (followers of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan) have met with a similar treatment. It is plague which has infected the Ulama of every country.

    Takfir or the turning of Muslims into kafirs is as much the favourite occupation of the Ulama of the later period all over the Muslim world as tabligh or carrying the message of Islam to non-Muslims was that of their great predecessors in the earlier and glorious days of Islam. If, through their noble efforts, people entered Islam in companies, through the efforts of these latter-day upholders of the cause of Islam, Muslims are being turned out of Islam in companies. If all the noble—or ignoble—-doings of our Ulama, the fatwas of kufr, are gathered together, I do not think there will be a single person left who may be called Muslim! Sir Muhammad Iqbal himself is sure to share the fate of Maulvi Zafar Ali, of Zamindar, who has already been declared to be a kafir. I have not the least doubt that the moment Sir Muhammad Iqbal makes known publicly those beliefs of his in which he does not agree with the orthodox, he will be in the same camp with the Qadianis.

    I do not defend anybody who declares a Muslim to be a kafir, least of all the Qadianis who with one stroke of pen have turned four hundred or more million of Muslims out of the pale of Islam. But I say that even they are Muslims so long as they fulfil the conditions laid down by the Holy Prophet: “Whoever says prayers as we say and faces our Qibla … he is a Muslim and has the covenant of God and His Messenger.” Every Muslim must bow his head before the authority of the Holy Prophet and honour the covenant of God and His Messenger. It is due to this respect for the Prophet’s covenant that the great Imams have held that even if there are ninety-nine grounds for the kufr of a man and only one ground for calling him a Muslim, still he should be called a Muslim and not a kafir. That one ground is declaration that “there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger.” If even kafir can become a Muslim by the Kalimah, how can a Muslim be turned out of Islam in spite of this confession?

    The most humiliating part—for the whole—however, is that in which he implores the Government to interfere in the controversy between the orthodox and the Qadianis, and denounces it for not having interfered earlier and handled the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement in a manner similar to that in which Jesus Christ was handled by the Roman Government. I quote him:

    “In so far as Islam is concerned, it is no exaggeration to say that solidarity of the Muslim community in India under the British is far less safe than the solidarity of the Jewish community in the days of Jesus under the Romans. Any religious adventurer in India can set up any claim. This liberal State of ours does not care a fig for the integrity of a parent community provided the adventurer assures it of his loyalty, and his followers are regular in the payment of taxes due to the State.”
    There can be no two opinions regarding Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s meaning. He denounces the British Government because it did not hang the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement and thus rendered unsafe the solidarity of the Muslims under it, while the Roman Government of Jesus’ days is praised because it crucified Jesus for differing with the orthodox Jews and thus helped the Jews in maintaining their solidarity. Sir Muhammad Iqbal is a great student of history as well, and he must be sure of the fact stated here that Jewish solidarity was made safe under the Roman Empire by the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. How good the Romans were in Jesus’ days, argues Sir Muhammad Iqbal, as they crucified Jesus Christ on the orthodox lodging a complaint that his claim to Godhead endangered their solidarity. That was the proper way of dealing with a “religious adventurer” in his opinion. But religious adventurers are safe under the British rule which did not care a fig for the solidarity of the Muslims and send Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to the gallows!

    That this is what Sir Muhammad Iqbal means is clear on the face of it. But he makes himself clearer, if further clarity were needed, by quoting Akbar’s couplet:

    Pray for the Government, friends; Say, I am God and you will not be hanged!
    Evidently what Sir Muhammad Iqbal means is that the Government should have a heresy law on its Statute Book to hang every heretic; but then there will be a number of heresy laws, one for the Muslims, another for the Hindus, a third for the Buddhists, a fourth for the Christians, a fifth for the Zoroastrians, a sixth for the Sikhs. Or, maybe, he is of opinion that a heresy law is the special privilege of the Muslims alone whose religion, according to Sir Muhammad Iqbal, knows no tolerance. But even if Islam alone were granted this favour, there are a thousand grounds on which individuals and sects declare one another kafir, and perhaps there will be a thousand kinds of heresy in which it will be impossible for any judge to discriminate, though Sir Muhammad Iqbal safeguards the interests of the other heretical sects by saying that “their mutual accusations of heresy” are excusable because they do not affect the vital principles. But I do not think there is any vital principle of Islam more important for the solidarity of Islam than that which requires all persons to be treated as Muslims who confess a faith in the Kalimah, and that is the very principle which all heresy-mongers, to whatever sect they may belong, aim at destroying.

    What pains one most is that one should stoop so low as to invoke the aid of non-Muslim Government to set the house of Islam in order! Islam which, even according to a Christian writer, did not stand in need of temporal support from a Muslim ruler, never needed an Asoka or a Constantine for its onward progress in the world, cannot now maintain its solidarity, according to a Muslim poet and philosopher, without the helping hand of a Christian government. But I assure Sir Muhammad Iqbal that with the present mentality of our Ulama and great leaders to declare every other Muslim a kafir, even the helping hand of the British rule cannot convert the shattered Muslim community into a solid whole.

    [“The other great religions won their way slowly, by painful struggle, and finally triumphed with the aid of powerful monarchs converted to the new faith. Christianity had Constantine, Buddhism its Asoka, and Zoroastrianism its Cyrus, each lending to his cult the mighty force of secular authority. Not so in Islam. Arising in a desert land sparsely inhabited by a nomad race, previously undistinguished in human annals, Islam sallied forth on its great adventure with the slightest human backing and against the heaviest material odds” (The New World of Islam by Stoddard).]

    As regards his appeal for a heresy law, I do not think it would appeal to any sensible person in this 20th century. He writes:

    “I very much appreciate the orthodox Hindus’ demand for protection against religious reforms in the new constitution. Indeed this demand ought to have been first made by the Muslims who, unlike the Hindus, entirely eliminate the race-idea from their social structure. The Government must seriously consider the present situation and try if possible to understand the mentality of the average Muslim in regard to this issue which he regards as absolutely vital to the integrity of his community.”
    Does Sir Muhammad Iqbal seriously mean that the Government should make laws disallowing any reform in the old religious ideas? He agrees with the Sanatanists, he tells us, that there shall be no reforms in the orthodox religion, but even the Sanatanists have never condemned the Government for not having hanged Swami Dayanand or Keshub Chandra Sen or other reformers of that type, and Sir Muhammad Iqbal would be disappointed to find himself alone in demanding cross for reformers. What the Hindus want is protection against reforms which should be imposed on them by legislatures and they have never demanded that any one who arises with a message of reform among them should be sent outright to the gallows.

    Again Sir Muhammad Iqbal blames the Government for its toleration policy:

    “Is it then fair to preach toleration to the parent community whose integrity is threatened and to allow the rebellious group to carry on its propaganda with impunity even if that propaganda is highly offensive?”
    If any propaganda is really offensive, the Government has already ample powers in its hands to deal with it. One is however surprised that a man of Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s extensive reading should be unaware of the scurrilous literature that is being produced by the “parent community,” copying the methods of the Christian missionary and the Arya Samajist preacher against Islam, to which may be added the severe persecution of the almost insignificant numbers of the Ahmadiyya community and the boycott movement carried on against it. Boycott and vilification are both weapons which have always been used against truth, never in support of it, and yet a man occupying such a high position as Sir Muhammad Iqbal justifies the most drastic methods to be adopted to make life impossible for the Ahmadis. I do not think he is unaware of the fact that Ahmadis are being expelled from the Muslim societies where they have worked for years and years; they are being dismissed from services for no other offence than that they are Ahmadis; a complete boycott of them is being carried on; even their dead are not allowed to be buried in graveyards which have been used by them for almost half a century. And yet at this juncture in the life of the Ahmadiyya community, Sir Muhammad Iqbal comes up, not only to defend and further encourage the oppressing and persecuting majority but also to invoke the aid of the government for that majority to completely crush the insignificant minority of one in a thousand.

    The main theme of Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s statement is, one is surprised to learn, condemnation of religious tolerance, one of the brightest gems in the crown of Islam. He condemns the so-called enlightened Muslims because “they have gone to the extent of preaching tolerance to their brethren-in-Islam”—a sin, I think, for which they must for ever gnash their teeth in hell; he excuses Sir Herbert Emerson for preaching tolerance to the Muslims only because he has not been brought up in the culture of Islam, as if tolerance were un-Islamic: he condemns the British Government for being tolerant and liberal and praises the Roman Government of old for having no such scruples. What a pity that thoughts like these should be given expression to by a great exponent of a religion which lays down as its basic principle: “There shall be no compulsion in religion” (2:256). If these words have any meaning, they mean that no one shall be compelled to adopt a certain religious view. It is the Magna Charta of religious freedom for the Muslim and the non-Muslim alike. And Islam carried the idea of religious tolerance to such an extent that protection of the churches, where idols of Jesus and Mary were kept in those days, and of all other houses of worship was declared to be one of the first duties of a Muslim State. Can it be imagined that a religion, which gave Such freedom to those who rejected the Holy Quran and the Holy Prophet and worshipped human beings and idols, required a Muslim to be hanged because he differed with the majority in his religious views?

    However, Sir Muhammad Iqbal does not seem to be very serious about this matter. He speaks of the good old days when men were hanged for claiming Godhead, as it happened in the case of Jesus Christ and Mansur, and yet he considers Jesus a prophet and Mansur a saint! In translating Akbar’s Urdu couplet, he speaks of Mansur as “Persia’s mystic saint”, “a rebel” and “a religious adventurer” deserving to be hanged, and yet a prophet or a mystic saint! It is not impossible that Sir Muhammad Iqbal has a similar conception of the saint of Qadian. It was he who saw in the small band of followers of the saint of Qadian “a pure and unmixed type of Islamic culture” (Islami sirat ka taith namuna) and yet he is of opinion that he ought to have been hanged like the mystic saint of Persia. [This description of the members of the Ahmadiyya Movement was given by Dr. Sir Muhammad Iqbal at Aligarh; see Millat-i-Baidza per ek Imrani Nazar, p. 18, published by Marghub Agency, Lahore.]

    I am sure Sir Muhammad Iqbal issued this statement in haste. In one respect at least he has corrected himself. His first statement surely blamed the government for not having hanged the Founder and crushed the Ahmadiyya movement in its infancy, but on a second thought he found that this position was untenable and issued another statement that he wanted only that the Government should treat the Qadianis as non-Muslims. A little more consideration is sure to convince him that his new position is also untenable. If a person says he is a Muslim, the government has no business to issue a communiqué declaring him a non-Muslim even if the ulama declare him to be a kafir with all the force at their command. The Quran and the Hadith, as already quoted, are against Sir Muhammad Iqbal. The Prophet’s practice is also against him. Even the hypocrites in the Prophet’s time who were the sworn enemies of Islam and who openly disbelieved in the Prophet were never declared to be non-Muslims by the Muslim State under the Prophet himself, simply because ostensibly they subscribed to the Kalimah. Even the evidence of history is against Sir Muhammad Iqbal, for the heretics of to-day have very often been the saints of tomorrow. Syed Ahmad of Sirhind was thrown into prison by a Muslim ruler on the complaint of the ulama as a rebel of Islam, and yet the whole of India, and Afghanistan as well, accept him as the Mujaddid of the 11th century of Hijrah today. There are numerous such examples which I need not recount here. It is therefore not too much to “hope that even Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who set on foot a worldwide movement for the propagation of Islam will be accepted as a saint tomorrow.

  147. Majumdar

    Yasser/Shoiab bhai,

    in arts and culture they – bangladeshis are miles ahead and largely the most secular kind of Muslims in all of South Asia.

    I agree about the “secular” part. But about arts an culture I am unwilling to accept that BD Muslims are ahead of IMs. IMs beat BDMs hollow in music, films, dance and sports. It is perhaps only in literature that BDMs can compete with IMs. In business too BDMs have yet to create businesses which have impacted the world business scene unlike Wipro or Hamid’s CIPLA.

    Wasn’t Premji’s father one of the richest businessmen in 1920s as well? So how is that India’s achievement?

    Richest perhaps in context of the Muslim community not overall- they were possibly small fry compared to Tatas and Birlas in 1920s. Besides, the Wipro that Mr. Azim inherited was a vegetable oil cum soap manufacturer and a small one at that compared to biggies like Unilever. The transformation into an IT services giant was AP’s (and India’s) achievement, not his inheritance.

    Hashwani or Mian Mansha or the Adamjees or Habibs or Dawoods or Dewans or Sehgals or Monnoos… they are all small fish after all… because you say so.

    Of course, they are big but are they big players in the international scene? To illustrate what I am saying let me point out that Reliance and the Ambanis big as they are, they are really giants in the Indian context- they don’t have a huge impact on international business. But the two gentleman I am talking – their companies are small compared to the two Reliance groups- have had a far greater impact on international business.

    Wipro (and its other Indian peers) have had a huge impact on the way IT services business runs- they showed that offshoring to developing countries works.

    The ability of Mr. Hamid’s Cipla (whose annual turnover is prolly less than a pharma MNC’s quarterly R&D spend) to produce vaccines and AIDS drugs at bargain prices has triggered a debate about how pharma business must operate in developing countries, esp Africa.


  148. Vajra


    As an old-timer in the software services industry, and as an old Wipro-watcher, I must corroborate your account in all respects as far as it relates to business and industry. As an East Bengali hailing from the neighbouring village to Vajrayogini, Atish Dipankar’s village, I wish to corroborate your analysis of Bangladesh affairs today.

    Specifically, Wipro, that was Western India Vegetable Products as late as the 1970s, and started recruiting people for diversification, which led to IT the next year, in 1973, was a medium sized vegetable oil producer, which could not challenge any of the blue chips. Its current status is actually only as old as Vivek Paul’s leadership, under Azim Premji’s beady-eyed supervision, in much less than the last decade. Azim has turned out to be a visionary leader, although he tends to hold on to his share-holding rather more tenaciously than he holds on to his Chief Executives.

    I have personal experience of Wipro’s rock-ribbed commitment to ethics in commercial life, a very high level of ethics of almost a Puritanical sort, even if it meant taking a decision against its own commercial interests.

  149. yasserlatifhamdani


    Why don’t you stop pointing out exceptions etc… and come back to the discussion… Wipro and CIPLA whatever they are – are irrelevant to the discussion … that is like Pakistan pointing to Justice Bhagwandas or Cornelius and claiming that it is more secular than India.

    On any reasonable rational scale – Pakistani Muslims are to Indian Muslims, is roughly what India is to Pakistan in terms of science and technology, economy, liberalism, arts and culture etc (with the exception of sports and possibly infrastructure). There may be exceptions to both rules but this is the logic of our history.

    Also… don’t rule out Bangladesh. Literature, Arts and Culture cannot be quantified by grammys and awards. Bangladeshi culture is superior, more secular and liberal than the cultures of either Pakistani Muslims or Indian Muslims.

  150. yasserlatifhamdani

    …. Here is another more solid comparison…. on any American campus in my day (pre-9-11- I don’t know what the situation is right now but there are now visa restrictions I believe) …. Pakistanis as a whole were outnumbered by all Indians 1 to 4 … but Pakistanis outnumbered Indian Muslims 20 to 1….. these numbers held across the board.

    The situation is the same in the silicon valley today…. where Indians outnumber Pakistanis 4 or 5 to 1…. but Pakistanis in tech jobs outnumber Indian Muslims … by as much as 10 or 15 to 1.

  151. Majumdar

    Yasser Pai,

    Your point that all adjusted the sum total of PM achievement is substantially higher than IM achievment post 1947 is indisputable.

    But that BDM achievement is higher than IM achievement is highly questionable.


  152. yasserlatifhamdani

    Or… in terms of doctors…. if it take Pittsburgh as a testcase… Pakistani doctors are 1 to 5 Indian doctors… but there are atleast 20 Pakistani Muslim doctors (usually Agha Khan U or KEMC) to 1 Indian Muslim doctor.

    Perhaps Gorki sb can comment on this trend.

  153. yasserlatifhamdani

    “But that BDM achievement is higher than IM achievement is highly questionable.”

    Well BDMs were looted for 25 years…. but don’t worry they will catch up.

    But the original point was about “liberalism” and “secularism”. BDMs are certainly more liberal and secular.

  154. Milind Kher


    The question of secularism hardly arises as far as Indian Muslims are concerned. While they are patriotic and hardworking, in their mindset they are not secular at all.

    An overwhelming majority of them consider non Muslims to be kafirs, and therefore spiritually inferior.

    Not that the attitude of the Hindutva forces help, which always regard them as perpetually suspect as far as their patriotism is concerned. The myth of Muslim appeasement is always drummed up.

    In conclusion, it may be rightly conceded that Pakistani Muslims are substantially more evolved in their thinking than Indian Muslims.

    The saddest reality in India is that whenever a Muslim does particularly well, there are enough and more people in his community who will speak ill of him. So, he becomes someone to be shunned instead of emulated.

    We proudly parade SRK, Aamir Khan etc. Talk to a Muslim taxi driver and he will say, “Yeh kaisa Musalman hai, naach gaana karta hai, jo haraam hai. Hindu aurat se shaadi kiya” etc etc.

    Educated and distinguished Muslims will never do anything for the community. They prefer to associate with people of other communities who are similar in terms of socioeconomic conditions and education.

    It is sad, but one has to call a spade a spade.

  155. Majumdar

    Milind babu,

    The saddest reality in India is that whenever a Muslim does particularly well, there are enough and more people in his community who will speak ill of him.

    Well, to tell you the truth this was true about most Indians until maybe the 1990s- when liberalisation began. This is popularity referred to as the “crab mentality”


  156. Well BDMs were looted for 25 years…. but don’t worry they will catch up

    Actually, East Bengal has historically been crushingly poor even before West Pakistan did what it did. There’s even a sense of superiority that most West Bengali Hindus feel as compared to their EBH compatriots, although, in all honesty, most of that has all but disappeared now (apparently something similar exists as far as West Punjabis and East Punjabis go).

    On a really wide tangent, with no relation to the east and west parts of divided provinces, what do you know about Syed Amir Ali, Yasser. And where can I get any sorta info on the man?

  157. Majumdar

    Shoiab bhai,

    He was a judge, no? He has a road named in Cal after him.

    I believe WB Hindoos used to consider EBHs a rough and uncultured lot while EBHs used to consider WBHs lazy and degenerate. Dunno whether there are such strong feelings now. Most Bong Hindoos of our current generation (me and my wife included) are cross-bred.


  158. yasserlatifhamdani

    Well what do you wanna know…. I consider myself an authority on Syed Ameer Ali… author of the “Spirit of Islam” and “History of Saracens” (though his history is clouded by his Shia partiality in so far as Muawiyah is concerned), Muslim Modernist par excellence, Privy Council Judge, founding member of the Muslim League and the real father of Two Nation Theory…

  159. yasserlatifhamdani

    Interestingly…. Wikipedia lists me as an authority on Ameer Ali as well (I can assure you that I didn’t put my name there)

  160. Milind Kher

    Syed Ameer Ali was no doubt a modernist par excellence. I have read his “Spirit of Islam”.

    As far as Muawiya is concerned, his orchestrating raising of the Holy Qur’an on spears when he was losing at Siffin, the dubious manner of arbitration, therefter his trickery with respect to Imam Hasan and his conferring caliphate after him to his unworthy son Yazid are all mala fide acts.

    Why would it require somebody to have a Shia inclination to condemn him?

  161. Milind Kher

    @Majumdar Saheb,

    I would agree with you with respect to your observations on the “crab” mentality.

    It is good that India has managed to break away from that line of thinking, but there are still miles to go..

  162. Majumdar

    I am not an expert of history of Islam so maybe someone more knowledgable can shed a light on this here.

    A non-believeing Pak Muslim friend on chowk once remarked that Muawaiya, Yazid and his lot did a lot to spread Islam (and Muslim power) all over the world and yet the poor fellows have been dissed mercilessly by the Muslims while Imams Hasan (RA) and Hussain (RA) who did comparatively less have been raised to the skies.


  163. Majumdarda,

    He has a road named in Cal after him.

    Yup. Grew up very close to it, in fact. Amazing when you consider he was the “real father of Two Nation Theory”. But then Calcutta even has a “Suhrawardy avenue” which is a hop and a skip form SAA Avenue. You can, of course, blame the retention of these names on the “rough and uncultured lot” in Alimuddin Street (who was Alimuddin?)


    Well what do you wanna know

    A good source of info on the man (apart from the books he’s written)–secondary source, that is. I haven’t gotten past more than very superifical facts on the man, as far as the Web is concerned.

  164. Majumdar

    Shoaib bhai,

    Somehow I get the feeling that you know something very nasty about Syed Ameer Ali sb and you plan to reveal it soon to rattle Yasser mian.


  165. R

    @Milind Kher
    Hazrat Ameer Muawaiya (RA) HONEST POLITICAL MISTAKE.

    Personal life of Hazrat Ameer Muawaiya (RA) was ALWAYS very simple, even when he became Ameer-ul-Momineen (head of state). E.g. he use to wear formal silk/ expensive cloths when use to meet foreign dignitaries/ heads of states etc but he always use to wear his own cheap/ rough cloth cloths under them. There are many more details of austerity in his personal life etc.
    He was witness to transfer of power for first thirty years, which was except first, ALWAYS BLOODY. So he wanted to bring some smoothness and order in transfer of power. In his opinion he made the correct decision by handing over rule to his son. He thought he is avoiding chaos. It is different thing history proved that decision to be wrong. Political decisions could always be wrong. Important thing is whether they were done honestly or not.
    Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad use to call Yazeed as Yazeed-e-Paleed (Yazeed the dirty one).
    Lahore Ahmdiyya elder Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote a good book on first Caliphs:

  166. Milind Kher

    @Majumdar Saheb,

    Muawiya did a lot to appoint his cronies to key posts. There was very little he did to spread the message of Islam, as his own knowledge on the subject was very limited.

    Besides the massacre of Imam Husain (a.s.) at Karbala, Yazid also set fire to the Kaaba and held drinking parties on its roof. His initial reaction to the carnage at Karbala was to say “Banu Umayya has avanged itself on Banu Hashim”.

  167. Rashid

    November 16, 2009 at 11:34 am

    Your: “Those all who co Ordinated and co operated with British were on political grounds but from the first day Ahmedis did all this religiously”

    Aliarqam, you’re under WRONG impression that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (MGA) sahib and his movement until 1914, and then after its split and Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement was in ANYWAY more than a law abiding subject and citizen of British Raj. You need to know why MGA had to write statements stating his allegiance to the British rulers.
    All trouble started for him when he made claim of Muslims Imam Mahdi.
    1) MGA was witness to Sikh rule in Punjab when Muslims were prohibited from calling Azan (call for prayer) in loud voice (now in Pakistan Ahmadis are NOT at all allowed to give Azan); In mosques in Qadian that were occupied by Sikh rulers, donkeys were housed. Probably, you know fact of history that Shahi-Mosque in front of Lahore fort was biggest stable of Sikh Maharaja Ranjit Singh. So when British took over lands occupied by Sikhs they returned mosques and allowed calling Azan in loud voice. MGA was thankful for that.
    2) British got their first military defeat at hands of Muslims, that was in Sudan before MGA claim of Imam Mahdi. In Sudan militants under command of Muhammad Ahmed Al Mahdi (a Sudani who claimed to be the promised Imam Mahdi) revolted and killed British general Charles George Gordon. So British were very sensitive to MGA claim of Mahdi.
    3) Muslim religious leaders (many of them who benefited with rewards from British rulers) held belief that Imam Mahdi will one day come for their deliverance and will free them from Christians and non muslims rule and will kill all such infidels.
    4) MGA mission was to stab into the heart of Christians belief i.e. by proving through logic, reason and Christian scripture that Jesus is dead.
    5) Muslim religious opponents of MGA use to feed false reports, regarding MGA, to British authorities, so that some how MGA gets punished i.e. put in jail or preferably put to death, thus stopping him from proving from Holy Quran to Muslims that Isaa AS (Jesus) is dead.
    6) MGA NEVER received any money, lands, and titles from British Raj, rather he always kept stabbing dagger in their beliefs and made it impossible for Christian missionaries to convert militant Muslims to Christianity. Thus he did NOT let British rulers to rule India perpetually. Moreover, his lieutenants took those daggers to stab in the heart of Christian world i.e. Europe.

    So in order not to have hindrance in his prime mission i.e. convince the world that Jesus is dead, he had to repeatedly convince British authorities that he is their law-abiding subject. As he was HONEST and BOLD person, so he said what he believed. This does NOT mean MGA went OUT OF THE WAY to act as a peaceful, law abiding subject.

    Your: “and when they alienated themselves from the muslims by the orders of mehmood khalifa socially when he banned nikkah of Ahmedis with others and insisted on the prophethood….Ahrars have been provided grounds to propagate against them in their ateas of influence mostly the common and ordinary muslims…..”

    It will be nice if you could CLARIFY that here you mean by Ahamdis those who belong to QADIAN/ RABWAH section, currently headed by Mirza Masroor Ahmad their Khalifa 5, residing in UK. Interestingly, Kashmir Committee, whose member was Sir Dr Muhammad Iqbal, its chairman Mirza Mahmud Ahmad (Qadiani jamaat khalifa 2) was nominated by Dr. Iqbal and supported by all its members. I have been told in detail, by some one who knew all details, when and why Dr. Iqbal turned against Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and demanded his resignation from committee. It was Dr. Iqbal, who out of his respect for Mirza Mahmud Ahmad father i.e. MGA nominated him to Chair the Kashmir Committee. Dr. Iqbal attitude turned against Qadiani Jamaat from the moment he had to demand resignation from Mirza Mahmud Ahmad.

    Your: “@Rashid
    Ur emotional copy paste stuff revolving around word agent has no relevance to the article and what I said in comments….”

    I posted article ‘Agents of the British?’ because some one in comment mentioned about feudal lords and Jagheerdars (big land owners) in Punjab were rewarded by British rulers for their allegiance to British Raj. In this article there are details of such beneficiaries.

    Your: “As for as Co Operation and co ordination with british is concerned Rashid Ahmed Gangoohi gave fatwa in favor of joining Congress in the very begining of congress formations….”

    Rashid Ahmad Gangoohi was not alone. I can provide many references where Muslim Religious leaders gave many such Fatwa, but unfortunately, for some reason only MGA is accused….. I wonder if accusers are saying whole of Indian Muslim population were staunch followers of MGA, and had he not shown his allegiance to British Raj…they would have done a militant jihad and revolt that could have freed Muslims of whole of India at least 50 years before? And they would have also freed themselves from Hindu rule in India?

    Your: “I myself think our overreactive anti british sentiments have harmed a lot…”

    It is interesting that 100 years later situation is exactly same i.e. Muslims are subject of British rulers (and Christian/ non-muslim rulers in Europe and North America) and they are doing exactly what MGA himself did i.e. a peaceful, law abiding citizens/ residents of such countries. Don’t you think they all in REALITY and PRACTICALLY following MGA?

    Moreover, as pointed out by someone, now so many of Muslims in Pakistan and outside hold belief that according to Holy Quran Jesus is dead. I think I won’t be wrong if I say they all are INADVERTENTLY FOLLOWING MGA!

  168. Majumdar

    Rashid mian,

    I also believe that Jesus (pbuh) is dead. Does that make me a follower of MGAQ sb as well?


  169. Hayyer

    Hades and Majumdar Babu:
    It is incorrect that WBs look down upon. The WBs of Kolkata, specifically have a ghoti mentality, but the resident of Kolkata looks down upon all non-Kolkata’r lok. Anyone from Midnapur or Burdwan is a ‘chasa’ (peasant). The Kolkata ghoti is actually somewhat frightened of the Bangal’s intellectual calibre and speaks in hushed tones about his own in comparison.
    The Kolkata native is in general contemptuous of everybody else. Marwaris are Mero, Oriyas are Oode, Punjabis are Piyan, Sikhs are Banda Kopi.
    There isn’t a similar East West divide in the Punjab. It has regions instead. The so called West Punjab lies beyond the Chenab. Large parts of East Punjab are still within Pakistan. Punjab is divided up into five distinct areas, Potohar, Majha, Malwa, Doaba and the Seraiki tract. I dont know if there are further sub-divisions in parts that are Pakistan. There used to be an area called Riyasti for the Patiala tract. Majha is divided between India and Punjab and the word comes from Manjhla meaning middle. These regions have different accents and one makes out the nativity from the way language is spoken. Sialkot from where Iqbal hailed is really on the fringes of Dugar, or the Dogra tract of Jammu.

  170. Majumdar

    Hayyer mian,

    You are right. Burdwan, Purulia etc are supposed to be jungle.

    I believe Punjoos too associate some characteristics with particular regions. For instance, Jhangis are believed to be very quarrelsome (which may explain why the Jhangvis are HQed in Jhang)


  171. Milind Kher


    Read the Nahjul Balagha and read the letters of Imam Ali (a.s.) to Amir Muawiya. They will reveal the feelings that Amir Ul Momineen (Imam Ali (a.s.)) had towards him.

    After all, who could be more truthful than the one about whom the Holy Prophet (SAWA) said, “The truth is with Ali, and Ali is with the truth?”

    Anyway, Amir Muawiya is a personality that could be debated based on sources and point of view. However, the view on Yazid is absolutely clear.

    Dr Zakir Naik is the only one I know who holds him dear.

  172. tahir

    yasser hamdani

    on second read of m. Muhammad ali article (posted by me earlier today) Iqbal doesn’t look a stable person in his last years. I wonder if alcohol had damaged his brain. I don’t understand why people call him “allama”? he was probably the greatest poet, but definitely not “allama”!

  173. Rashid

    November 19, 2009 at 1:47 pm Rashid mian,

    I also believe that Jesus (pbuh) is dead. Does that make me a follower of MGAQ sb as well?


  174. Rashid

    November 19, 2009 at 1:47 pm Rashid mian,

    I also believe that Jesus (pbuh) is dead. Does that make me a follower of MGAQ sb as well?


    If people follow someone even if they verablly abuse him, i consider it testimony of his TRUTHFULNESS!

  175. Ammar

    Oct. 2008


    Tahira Parwez

    Allama Muhammad Iqbal is the leading Muslim intellectual, poet/writer, and philosopher of all times. He was also the first Muslim pubic figure to highlight Ahmadiyya’s divisive potential and proposed a separate religious status for them. Ahmadiyya, as you may know, is a breakaway cult from the Sunni (predominantly Punjabi) Islam and was conceived by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, based in Qadian (India), in the late 19th and early 20th century. It fractured into two factions, Qadiani & Lahori, following Mirza’s death: Qadianis believe that Mirza was a prophet and consider Muslims who do not accept his mission to be Kafirs; Lahoris believe that Mirza was a Mujjadid and do not push Muslims outside the pale of Islam. Ahmadiyya have been declared non-Muslims by a general consensus of the Muslims and in most Islamic countries.

    Nehru (1935) advocated, inadvertently, for Ahmadiyya while criticising some Muslim groups for lack of tolerance in inter-communal and religious matters. Iqbal responded by highlighting the importance of Muslim belief in the Finality of Prophethood of Muhammad (SAW), conceptual poverty of the Ahmadiyya mission and its potential for dividing the Muslims in their religio-socio-political outlook. Since then, Ahmadiyya have left no stone unturned to malign Iqbal’s personal, political and academic life. Rebuttal of Ahmadiyya propaganda regarding Iqbal’s religious identity is the scope of this article.

    During Munir Enquiry (1953) into Punjab riots, an Ahmadi witness alleged that Iqbal was a closet Ahmadi and only renounced his Bayyat following political grievances in 1935. This witness was discredited when several discrepancies (Nawa-e-Waqt, 1954) emerged in his statement including a denial that he ever claimed Iqbal to be an Ahmadi. Since casting this first stone, several years after Iqbal’s death, Ahmadiyya propaganda machinery has kept churning out articles and books claiming that Iqbal & his family were Ahmadi and his late renunciation was politically motivated. Some writers, including Javed Iqbal (Iqbal’s son), have tried to clear the air but nothing has appeared in English to analyse the issue and set the record straight.
    Iqbal was born and brought up in Sialkot, a small town in West Punjab (now in Pakistan). Mirza served there as a junior cleric in the Deputy Commissioner’s office before Iqbal was born. Mirza formed friendships and acquired some following in the town due to his early reputation as an Islamic missionary. When Mirza returned to Sialkot after launching his ‘prophetic mission’ from Qadian, Iqbal was busy at college. Either during or before this visit, Iqbal’s elder brother, Atta Muhammad, and his son, Shaikh Ijaz Ahmad accepted Ahmadiyya. Atta Muhammad renounced Ahmadiyya some years before his death and none of his other children accepted it. Ijaz died an Ahmadi but none of his children accepted Ahmadiyya. Ijaz is also the author of a fine book, Muzloom Iqbal – it confirms that Iqbal never accepted Ahmadiyya.

    Iqbal’s relationship with his first wife was strained before and after they separated due to her temperament, and morbid pride in her higher socioeconomic background. Their first born, Aftab Ahmed, stayed with his mother and remained a source of anguish for Iqbal throughout his life. Aftab was sent to a boarding school for four years because of his difficult temperament; Taleem-ul-Islam at Qadian was chosen due to its academic reputation, discipline, and least expenses. Atta Muhammad took this decision, as Iqbal was abroad/away from his parental home in Sialkot. Aftab never accepted Ahmadiyya and even changed his surname from Ahmed to Iqbal early in his career as a successful barrister.

    Iqbal established anti-Ahmadiyya credentials early in his youth. He published a poem in Persian highlighting his belief in the Finality of Prophethood of Muhammad (SAW) in 1902. Then, following harassment from an acquaintance turned Ahmadi preacher, he published an Urdu poem in Mukhzan (7/1902), which glorified Islam’s unifying nature and criticized schismic potential of Ahmadiyya. When someone misquoted Iqbal about the superiority of one Ahmadi faction over the other, he wrote (Paigam-e-Sulah, 1915) to certify his belief in Khatam-e-Nabuwat and having no expertise in Ahmadiyya beliefs or history. These examples show Iqbal’s discomfort towards Ahmadiyya despite his kind nature, which restrained him from getting into controversial issues.

    Iqbal, like Sir Syed, believed in religious reform, modern education and political unity for Muslims. His views regarding Ahmadiyya were also in line with those of Syed, who opined that Mirza’s claims were useless and Muslims should ignore him to avoid washing dirty linen in public. That was the position until Iqbal experienced the shenanigans of Ahmadiyya while working with Mirza Bashir (2nd Khalifa of Qadiani faction) and his followers in the All India Kashmir Committee (1931-1933). Bashir and another Ahmadi were the head and secretary of the Committee. Iqbal received complaints that Ahmadiyya were using the Committee as a platform to carry out missionary activities in Kashmir. The best way forward, Iqbal proposed, was to formulate rules of business for the Committee. But Ahmadi members vehemently opposed Iqbal and others, making it clear in the process that their primary loyalty lay with their Khalifa (Bashir) for now and in the future. Bashir resigned eventually and Iqbal took over the chair temporarily before the Committee was dissolved, mainly, due to the Ahmadis leaving to follow Bashir. Ahmadiyya went on to form their own Tehrek-e-Kashmir and offered Iqbal the chair but he refused to be bitten twice.

    Around the same time, Ahmadiyya of Qadian were raising their political game. They were staunch supporters of the Punjab Unionist Party, which was secular and very close to the British, under the leadership of Sir Fazal Hussain. In return, they sought patronage for Sir Zafar Ullah Khan, an Ahmadi stalwart & later 1st Foreign Minister of Pakistan. As a result, Zafar Ullah rose through the political ranks quickly and was made the president of Muslim League at its Annual Meeting in Delhi (1931) despite protests from local Muslims. Iqbal must have appreciated how Muslim League nearly disappeared from the political scene, under the leadership of Zafar Ullah and patronage of Sir Fazal, after proposed amalgamation with Muslim Conference. Zafar Ullah was also a surprise choice to represent Muslims & Punjab in the Viceroy’s Council (1935) instead of any other prominent Muslim leader. Contrary to Ahmadiyya propaganda, Iqbal was in failing health at that time and was never a candidate for the post.

    Herbert Emerson (1935), the Punjab Governor, spoke about the need for tolerance towards Ahmadiyya (from Ahrar) and questioned the quality of Muslim leadership at a meeting of Ajuman Hemayat-e-Islam. Iqbal issued a statement clarifying the importance of Muslim belief in the Finality of Prophethood of Muhammad (SAW) and also asked the British to take some responsibility for the policies that hindered the emergence of quality leadership from Muslims.

    Pandit Nehru (1935) also wrote three articles in The Modern Review of Calcutta teasing out similar issues, apparently, without realizing their sensitivity to Muslims. Ahmadiyya gloated at large before Iqbal published (1935) his legendary response: it tore into Nehru’s understanding of Ahmadiyya while educating the public, especially modern Muslims, about Ahmadiyya’s hidden agenda. He explained that Ahmadiyya’s real nature lay behind medieval mysticism and Qadianis felt nervous about the political awakening among Indian Muslims, which could defeat their designs to carve out a new Umma for their Indian prophet. Iqbal proclaimed that ‘…the socio-political Organization called “Islam” is perfect and eternal. No revelation, the denial of which entails heresy, is possible after Muhammad. He who claims such a revelation is a traitor to Islam’.

    It is evident from the above that Iqbal, despite initial optimism, always felt uncomfortable about Ahmadiyya beliefs and designs. In prevailing circumstances, he had political and social interaction with them. He also took a long time before criticizing them publicly due to his mild nature and to avoid creating new fissures in the Muslim community. However, what he wrote clearly established that Ahmadiyya were traitors to both, Islam and Indian struggle for independence. To claim that he believed in Ahmadiyya cannot be further from the truth; and to create such evidence from propaganda literature is intellectually dishonest. Allama Iqbal and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad remain poles apart, and taking their names in the same breath is an insult to Iqbal and his followers.

    Further reading:

    • Kashmiri, Shurash (1974) Tehrek-e-Khatam-e-Nabuwat, Chatan Publications, Lahore.
    • Aasi, Naeem (1984) Iqbal and Qadiani, Muslim Academy, Sialkot.
    • Dar, Bashir. A. (1984) Iqbal & Ahmadiat. Salam Aina Adab, Anarkali, Lahore.
    • Abdul-Majid, Shaikh. Fikre-e-Iqbal and Tehrek-e-Ahmadiyya.
    • Salik, Abdul Majeed (1955) Zikr-e-Iqbal, Lahore.
    • Sabar, Ayub (1993) Iqbal Dushmani – Aik Mutalia, Jang Publications, Lahore.
    • Iqbal, Javed (2004) Zinda Rood, Sang-e-Meel Publications, Lahore.

  176. Milind Kher

    IMO, following the teachings of Jesus and emulating his kind and simple ways are more important than believing whether he is alive or dead.

    This is especially so because in his occultation, there is no guidance that is coming from him.

  177. Hayyer Sahab,

    The Kolkata ghoti is actually somewhat frightened of the Bangal’s intellectual calibre and speaks in hushed tones about his own in comparison.

    Ha ha. That is the other side of the coin. 😛 Of course, a ghoti today would say, “look where that ‘intellectual calibre’ has bought us”.

    The Kolkata native is in general contemptuous of everybody else.

    For good reason too.



    Keno aangool korchhen? Aapni tho jaanen, O jhot kore Ogni roop dharon kore nebe.

    Anyways, from my limited knowledge of SAA, there would in all probability be nothing “very nasty” about him in the first place.

  178. Milind Kher


    Thanks for the quoted article as well as the extensive bibliography.

    No person who claims prophethood after the Holy Prophet (SAWA) can call themselves MUSLIMS.

    Yes people are free to regard Guru Nanak as a prophet and call themselves Sikhs. They can also follow Bahaullah and call themselves Bahais.

    Had Qadianis only called themselves Qadianis and not Muslims, it would have been OK.

  179. Rashid

    November 19, 2009 at 2:26 pm


    Sir Muhammad Iqbal turned against Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, not because they were doing some tabligh in Kashmir, but because two Muslim employees in viceroy’s office, New Delhi, showed CONFIDENTIAL reports of Kashmir Committee meetings. Sir Iqbal who was the one who proposed QK2 name for Chair was first one to turn against him. From there Iqbal parted his ways from Ahmadiyya Movement. Your Ms. Tahire Parwez article was written in oct 2008. Maulana Muhammad Ali and many others wrote on Iqbal during his life time. And Sir Iqbal did NOT contradict them. Here is list of few books/ articles available on Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Headquarters official website. Actually, my father who passed away at age 98 over 3 years ago was present in annual gatherings (salana jalsa) of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement were Sir Iqbal presided the sessions.
    Pay attention to # 3,4, 5,6, and it is summed up in #1:

    1) Dr. Sir Muhammad Iqbal and the Ahmadiyya Movement
    by Maulana Hafiz Sher Mohammad
    2) Sir Muhammad Iqbal and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement:
    by Shahid Aziz Sahib
    3) Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s Statement re The Qadianis:
    by Maulana Muhammad Ali
    4) Khatam-e-Nabuwwat aur Allama Iqbal:
    by Dr. Khurshid Ahmad Tareen
    5) Tahreek-e Ahmadiyyat aur Allama Iqbal:
    by Syed Akhtar Hussain Gillani
    6) Dr. Muhammad Iqbal and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad on the Ahmadiyyah Movement: by Maulana Muhammad Ali
    7) Tributes Paid to the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam and Maulana Muhammad Ali
    8 ) How I Became an Ahmadi,
    by Dr. Basharat Ahmad Sahib
    9) Miscellaneous:
    Different articles in different organs and newspapers affiliated with AAIIL and Woking mission.


  180. Majumdar

    Rashid mian,

    I found out about Jesus (pbuh) death when I was a kid in school- from my text books and my convent school teachers long before I had heard of either MGAQ sb or of Mirzaees in general. It is of course possible that the authors of my school book and my school teachers may have been inadvertently inspired by MGAQ sb.


  181. Rashid

    I am glad you found the truth. No matter from where.
    Do you agree with Hazrat MGA when he was first to say:
    1) Every reciter of Kalma Shahada is Muslim
    2) There is NO abrogation in Holy Quran.
    3) Allah SWT is LIVING GOD. Allah communcates with his chosen ones. This is proof of Him.
    4) Jihad does NOT mean to spread Islam with sword.
    5) Dajjal is NOT a supernatural animal. He was FIRST to identify Dijjal i.e. European-Christian civilization.
    Of course you agree with his life mission to tell the world that Jesus is D-E-A-D.

  182. Majumdar

    Recently, I read a piece where Allama Iqbal had flayed the Mirzaees. This was on in the i-logs section where Tahir mian had put up this piece.

    I found a few observations very interesting:

    This liberal and indispensable policy in a country like India has led to most unfortunate results. Insofar as Islam is concerned, it is no exaggeration to say that the solidarity of the Muslim community in India under the British is far less safe than the solidarity of the Jewish community was in the days of Jesus under the Romans. Any religious adventurer in India can set up any claim and carve out a new community for his own exploration. This liberal State of ours does not care a fig for the integrity of a parent community, provided the adventurer assures it of his loyalty and his followers are regular in the payment of taxes due to the State.

    I very much appreciate the orthodox Hindus’ demand for protection against religious reformers in the new constitution.

    Allama sb was a very secular and fairminded person. He was as concerned about the Hindoo’s right to his own faith as about the Mussalmans.


  183. Milind Kher

    Whoever said the Dajjal is a supernatural animal?

    Dajjal may not even be a single human being but rather the embodiment of evil. The hint is actually towards the modern days descendants of the Knight Templars for whom Osiris, a one eyed deity is very important. And these are indeed found in the west.

    The teachings of Jesus (pbuh) and the wonderful life he lead live on in so many hearts forever, irrespective of whether you believe him to be alive or dead.

  184. Ammar

    Ok- let us have all Allama’s own views in details about MGAQ and Qadianism. His own words carry more weight than those of Muhammad Ali or Tahir Parwez and all those you have quoted… after this article, which also talks about separation of church and state, pokes fun at mullahs, defends Ataturk and discusses in details his views about Ahamdism. The pamphlet he wrote was in response to articles written by Pandit Nehru on this topic in 1935.

    Islam and Ahmadism

    Dr. Sir Muhammad Iqbal


    On the appearance of Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru’s three articles in the Modern Review of Calcutta, I received a number of letters from Muslims of different shades of religious and political opinion. Some writers of these letters want me to further elucidate and justify the attitude of the Indian Muslims towards the Ahmadis. Others ask me what exactly I regard as the issue involved in Ahmadism. In this statement I propose first to meet these demands which I regard as perfectly legitimate, and then to answer the questions raised by Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru. I fear, however, that parts of this statement may not interest the Pandit, and to save his time I suggest that he may skip over such parts.

    It is hardly necessary for me to say that I welcome the Pandit’s interest in what I regard as one of the greatest problems of the East and perhaps of the whole world. He is, I believe, the first nationalist Indian leader who has expressed a desire to understand the present spiritual unrest in the world of Islam. In view of the many aspects and possible reactions of this unrest, it is highly desirable that thoughtful Indian political leaders should open their mind to the real meaning of what is, at the present moment, agitating the heart of Islam.

    I do not wish, however, to conceal the fact, either from the Pandit or from any other reader of this statement, that the Pandit’s articles have for the moment given my mind rather a painful conflict of feelings. Knowing him to be a man of wide cultural sympathies, my mind cannot but incline to the view that his desire to understand the questions he has raised, is perfectly genuine; yet the way in which he has expressed himself betrays a psychology which I find difficult to attribute to him. I am inclined to think that my statement on Qadianism — no more than a mere exposition of a religious doctrine on modern lines — has embarrassed both the Pandit and the Qadianis, perhaps because both inwardly resent, for different reasons, the prospects of Muslim political and religious solidarity particularly in India. It is obvious that the Indian nationalist whose political idealism has practically killed his sense for fact, is intolerant of the birth of a desire for self-determination in the heart of North-West Indian Islam.

    He thinks, wrongly in my opinion, that the only way to Indian nationalism lies in a total suppression of the cultural entities of the country through the interaction of which alone India can evolve a rich and enduring culture. A nationalism achieved by such methods can mean nothing but mutual bitterness and even oppression. It is equally obvious that the Qadianis, too, feel nervous by the political awakening of the Indian Muslims, because they feel that the rise in political prestige of the Indian Muslims is sure to defeat their designs to carve out from the Ummat of the Arabian Prophet a new Ummat for the Indian prophet. It is no small surprise to me that my effort to impress on the Indian Muslims the extreme necessity of internal cohesion in the present critical moment of their history in India, and my warning them against the forces of disintegration, masquerading as reformist movements, should have given the Pandit an occasion to sympathize with such forces.

    However, I do not wish to pursue the unpleasant task of analyzing the Pandit’s motives. For the benefit of those who want further elucidation of the general Muslim attitude towards the Qadianis, I would quote a passage from Durant’s Story of Philosophy which, I hope, will give the reader a clearer idea of the issue involved in Qadianism. Durant has in a few sentences summed up the Jewish point of view in the excommunication of the great philosopher Spinoza. The reader must not think that in quoting this passage I mean to insinuate some sort of comparison between Spinoza and the founder of Ahmadism. The distance between them, both in point of intellect and character, is simply tremendous. The “God-intoxicated” Spinoza never claimed that he was the centre of a new organization and that all the Jews who did not believe in him were outside the pale of Judaism. Durant’s passage, therefore, applies with much greater force to the attitude of Muslims towards Qadianism than to the attitude of the Jews towards the excommunication of Spinoza. The passage is as follows:

    “Furthermore, religious unanimity seemed to the elders their sole means of preserving the little Jewish group in Amsterdam from disintegration, and almost the last means of preserving the unity, and so ensuring the survival, of the scattered Jews of the world. If they had had their own state, their own civil law, their own establishments of secular force and power, to compel internal cohesion and external respect, they might have been more tolerant; but their religion was to them their patriotism as well as their faith; the synagogue was their centre of social and political life as well as of ritual and worship; and the Bible whose veracity Spinoza had impugned was the ‘portable fatherland’ of their people; under the circumstances they thought heresy was treason, and toleration suicide.”

    Situated as the Jews were — a minority community in Amsterdam — they were perfectly justified in regarding Spinoza as a disintegrating factor threatening the dissolution of their community. Similarly, the Indian Muslims are right in regarding the Qadiani movement, which declares the entire world of Islam as Kafir and socially boycotts them, to be far more dangerous to the collective life of Islam in India than the metaphysics of Spinoza to the collective life of the Jews.

    The Indian Muslim, I believe, instinctively realizes the peculiar nature of the circumstances in which he is placed in India and is naturally much more sensitive to the forces of disintegration than the Muslims of any other country. This instinctive perception of the average Muslim is in my opinion absolutely correct and has, I have no doubt, a much deeper foundation in the conscience of Indian Islam. Those who talk of toleration in a matter like this are extremely careless in using the word “toleration” which, I fear, they do not understand at all. The spirit of toleration may arise from very different attitudes of the mind of man. As Gibbon would say: There is the toleration of the philosopher to whom all religions are equally true; of the historian to whom all are equally false; and of the politician to whom all are equally useful. There is the toleration of the man who tolerates other modes of thought and behavior because he has himself grown absolutely indifferent to all modes of thought and behavior. There is the toleration of the weak man who, on account of sheer weakness, must pocket all kinds of insults heaped on things or persons that he holds dear.

    It is obvious that these types of tolerance have no ethical value. On the other hand they unmistakably reveal the spiritual impoverishment of the man who practices them. True toleration is begotten of intellectual breadth and spiritual expansion. It is the toleration of the spiritually powerful man who, while jealous of the frontiers of his own faith, can tolerate and even appreciate all forms of faith other than his own. Of this type of toleration the true Muslim alone is capable. His own faith is synthetic and for this reason he can easily find grounds of sympathy and appreciation in other faiths. Our great Indian poet, Amir Khusro, beautifully brings out the essence of this type of toleration in the story of an idol-worshipper. After giving an account of his intense attachment to his idols, the poet addresses his Muslim readers as follows:

    O you, who is accusing a Hindu of idolatry,
    also learn the method of worship from him!

    Only a true lover of God can appreciate the value of devotion, even though it is directed to gods in which he himself does not believe. The folly of our preachers of toleration consists in describing the attitude of the man who is jealous of the boundaries of his own faith as one of intolerance. They wrongly consider this attitude as a sign of moral inferiority. They do not understand that the value of his attitude is essentially biological. Where the members of a group feel, either instinctively or on the basis of rational argument, that the corporate life of the social organism to which they belong is in danger, their defensive attitude must be appraised in reference mainly to a biological criterion. Every thought or deed in this connection must be judged by the life-value that it may possess. The question in this case is not whether the attitude of an individual or community towards the man who is declared to be a heretic is morally good or bad. The question is whether it is life-giving or life-destroying.

    Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru seems to think that a society founded on religious principles necessitates the institution of Inquisition. This is indeed true of the history of Christianity; but the history of Islam, contrary to the Pandit’s logic, shows that during the last thirteen hundred years of the life of Islam, the institution of Inquisition has been absolutely unknown in Muslim countries. The Qur’an expressly prohibits such an institution: “Do not seek out the shortcomings of others, and carry not tales against your brethren.” (49:12) Indeed the Pandit will find from the history of Islam that the Jews and Christians, fleeing from religious persecution in their own lands, always found shelter in the lands of Islam. The two propositions on which the conceptual structure of Islam is based are so simple that it makes heresy in the sense of turning the heretic outside the fold of Islam almost impossible. It is true that when a person declared to be holding heretical doctrines threatens the existing social order, an independent Muslim State will certainly take action; but in such a case the action of the State will be determined more by political considerations than by purely religious ones. I can very well realize that a man like the Pandit, who is born and brought up in a society which has no well-defined boundaries and consequently no internal cohesion, finds it difficult to conceive that a religious society can live and prosper without State-appointed commissions of inquiry into the beliefs of the people. This is quite clear from the passage which he quotes from Cardinal Newman and wonders how far I would accept the application of the Cardinal’s dictum to Islam. Let me tell him that there is a tremendous difference between the inner structure of Islam and Catholicism wherein the complexity, the ultra-rational character and the number of dogmas has, as the history of Christianity shows, always fostered possibilities of fresh heretical interpretations.

    Allama Iqbal
    London, 1932

    The simple faith of Muhammad is based on two propositions — that God is One, and that Muhammad is the last of the line of those holy men who have appeared from time to time in all countries and in all ages to guide mankind to the right way of living. If, as some Christian writers think, a dogma must be defined as an ultra-rational proposition which, for the purpose of securing religious solidarity, must be assented to without any understanding of its metaphysical import, then these two simple propositions of Islam cannot be described even as dogmas; for both of them are supported by the experience of mankind and are fairly amenable to rational argument. The question of a heresy, which needs the verdict whether the author of it is within or without the fold, can arise, in the case of a religious society founded on such simple propositions, only when the heretic rejects both or either of these propositions. Such heresy must be and has been rare in the history of Islam which, while jealous of its frontiers, permits freedom of interpretation within these frontiers. And since the phenomenon of the kind of heresy which affects the boundaries of Islam has been rare in the history of Islam, the feeling of the average Muslim is naturally intense when a revolt of this kind arises. This is why the feeling of Muslim Persia was so intense against the Bahais. That is why the feeling of the Indian Muslims is so intense against the Qadianis.

    It is true that mutual accusations of heresy for differences in minor points of law and theology among Muslim religious sects have been rather common. In this indiscriminate use of the word Kufr, both for minor theological points of difference as well as for the extreme cases of heresy, which involve the excommunication of the heretic, some present-day educated Muslims, who possess practically no knowledge of the history of Muslim theological disputes, see a sign of social and political disintegration of the Muslim community. This, however, is an entirely wrong notion. The history of Muslim theology shows that mutual accusation of heresy on minor points of difference has, far from working as a disruptive force, actually given an impetus to synthetic theological thought. “When we read the history of development of Muhammadan Law,” says Professor Hurgronje, “we find that, on the one hand, the doctors of every age, on the slightest stimulus, condemn one another to the point of mutual accusations of heresy; and, on the other hand, the very same people with greater and greater unity of purpose try to reconcile the similar quarrels of their predecessors.” The student of Muslim theology knows that among Muslim legists this kind of heresy is technically known as “heresy below heresy,” i.e. the kind of heresy which does not involve the excommunication of the culprit. It may be admitted, however, that in the hands of mullahs whose intellectual laziness takes all oppositions of theological thought as absolute and is consequently blind to the unity in difference, this minor heresy may become a source of great mischief. This mischief can be remedied only by giving to the students of our theological schools a clearer vision of the synthetic spirit of Islam, and by reinitiating them into the function of logical contradiction as a principle of movement in theological dialectic. The question of what may be called “major heresy” arises only when the teaching of a thinker or a reformer affects the frontiers of the faith of Islam. Unfortunately, this question does arise in connection with the teachings of Qadianism. It must be pointed out here that the Ahmadi movement is divided into two camps, known as the Qadianis and the Lahoris. The former openly declare the founder to be a full prophet; the latter, either by conviction or policy, have found it advisable to preach an apparently toned down Qadianism. However, the question whether the founder of Ahmadism was a prophet, the denial of whose mission entails what I call the “major heresy”, is a matter of dispute between the two sections. It is unnecessary for my purposes to judge the merits of this domestic controversy of the Ahmadis. I believe, for reasons to be explained presently, that the idea of a full prophet whose denial entails the denier’s excommunication from Islam is essential to Ahmadism; and that the present head of the Qadianis is far more consistent with the spirit of the movement than the Imam of the Lahoris.

    The cultural value of the idea of Finality in Islam, I have fully explained elsewhere. Its meaning is simple: No spiritual surrender to any human being after Muhammad, who emancipated his followers by giving them a law which is realizable as arising from the very core of human conscience. Theologically, the doctrine is that the socio-political organization called “Islam” is perfect and eternal. No revelation, the denial of which entails heresy, is possible after Muhammad. He who claims such a revelation is a traitor to Islam. Since the Qadianis believe the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement to be the bearer of such a revelation, they declare that the entire world of Islam is infidel. The founder’s own argument, quite worthy of a medieval theologian, is that the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam must be regarded as imperfect if it is not creative of another prophet. He claims his own prophethood to be an evidence of the prophet-rearing power of the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam. But if you further ask him whether the spirituality of Muhammad is capable of rearing more prophets than one, his answer is “No”. This virtually amounts to saying: “Muhammad is not the last Prophet: I am the last.” Far from understanding the cultural value of the Islamic idea of Finality in the history of mankind generally and of Asia especially, he thinks that finality in the sense that no follower of Muhammad can ever reach the status of prophethood, is a mark of imperfection in Muhammad’s prophethood. As I read the psychology of his mind he, in the interest of his own claim to prophethood, avails himself of what he describes as the creative spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam, and at the same time deprives the Holy Prophet of his Finality by limiting the creative capacity of his spirituality to the rearing of only one prophet, i.e, the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement. In this way does the new prophet quietly steal away the Finality of one whom he claims to be his spiritual progenitor.

    He claims to be a buruz of the Holy Prophet of Islam, insinuating thereby that being a buruz of him, his finality is virtually the Finality of Muhammad; and that this view of the matter, therefore, does not violate, the Finality of the Holy Prophet. In identifying the two finalities, his own and that of the Holy Prophet, he conveniently loses sight of the temporal meaning of the idea of Finality. It is, however, obvious that the word buruz, in the sense even of “complete likeness”, cannot help him at all; for the buruz must always remain the other side of its original. Only in the sense of reincarnation, a buruz becomes identical with the original. Thus if we take the word buruz to mean “like in spiritual qualities” the argument remains ineffective; if, on the other hand, we take it to mean “reincarnation of the original” in the Aryan sense of the word, the argument becomes plausible; but its author turns out to be only a Magian in disguise.

    It is further claimed on the authority of the great Muslim mystic, Muhyuddin Ibn al-‘Arabi of Spain, that it is possible for a Muslim saint to attain, in his spiritual evolution, to the kind of experience characteristic of the prophetic consciousness. I personally believe this view of Sheikh Muhyuddin Ibn al-‘Arabi to be psychologically unsound; but assuming it to be correct, the Qadiani argument is based on a complete misunderstanding of his exact position. The Sheikh regards it as a purely private achievement which does not, and in the nature of things cannot, entitle such a saint to declare that all those who do not believe in him are outside the pale of Islam. Indeed, from the Sheikh’s point of view, there may be more than one saint, living in the same age or country, who may attain to prophetic consciousness. The point to be seized is that, while it is psychologically possible for a saint to attain to prophetic experience, his experience will have no socio-political significance, making him the center of a new organization and entitling him to declare his organization to be the criterion of the faith or disbelief of the followers of Muhammad.

    Leaving his mystical psychology aside, I am convinced from a careful study of the relevant passages of the “Futuhat” that the great Spanish mystic is as firm a believer in the Finality of Muhammad as any orthodox Muslim. And if he had seen in his mystical vision that one day in the East some Indian amateur in Sufism would seek to destroy the Holy Prophet’s Finality, under the cover of his mystical psychology, he would have certainly anticipated the Indian Ulama in warning the Muslims of the world against such traitors to Islam.


    Coming now to the essence of Ahmadism. A discussion of its sources and of the way in which pre-Islamic Magian ideas have, through the channels of Islamic mysticism, worked on the mind of its author would be extremely interesting from the standpoint of comparative religion. It is, however, impossible for me to undertake this discussion here. Suffice it to say that the real nature of Ahmadism is hidden behind the mist of medieval mysticism and theology. The Indian Ulama, therefore, took it to be a purely theological movement and came out with theological weapons to deal with it. I believe, however, that this was not the proper method of dealing with the movement; and that the success of the Ulama was, therefore, only partial. A careful psychological analysis of the revelations of the founder would perhaps be an effective method of dissecting the inner life of his personality. In this connection, I may mention Maulvi Manzur Elahi’s collection of the founder’s revelations which offers rich and varied material for psychological research. In my opinion the book provides a key to the character and personality of the founder; and I do hope that one day some young student of modern psychology will take it up for serious study. If he takes the Qur’an for his criterion, as he must for reasons which cannot be explained here, and extends his study to a comparative examination of the experiences of the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement and contemporary non-Muslim mystics, such as Ram[a] Krishna of Bengal, he is sure to meet more than one surprise as to the essential character of the experience on the basis of which prophethood is claimed for the originator of Ahmadism.

    Another equally effective and more fruitful method, from the standpoint of the plain man, is to understand the real content of Ahmadism in the light of the history of Muslim theological thought in India, at least from the year 1799. The year 1799 is extremely important in the history of the world of Islam. In this year fell Tippu, and his fall meant the extinguishment of Muslim hopes for political prestige in India. In the same year was fought the battle of Navarino which saw the destruction of the Turkish fleet. Prophetic were the words of the author of the chronogram of Tippu’s fall which visitors of Serangapatam find engraved on the wall of Tippu’s mausoleum:

    “Gone is the glory of Ind as well of Roum.”

    Thus, in the year 1799, the political decay of Islam in Asia reached its climax. But just as out of the humiliation of Germany on the day of Jena arose the modern German nation, it may be said with equal truth that out of the political humiliation of Islam in the year 1799 arose modern Islam and its problems. This point I shall explain in the sequel. For the present I want to draw the reader’s attention to some of the questions which have arisen in Muslim India since the fall of Tippu and the development of European imperialism in Asia.

    Does the idea of Caliphate in Islam embody a religious institution? How are the Indian Muslims, and for the matter of that all Muslims outside the Turkish Empire, related to the Turkish Caliphate? Is India Dar-ul-Harb or Dar-ul-Islam? What is the real meaning of the doctrine of Jihad in Islam? What is the meaning of the expression “from amongst you” in the Qur’anic verse: “Obey God, obey the Prophet and the masters of the affair, i.e. rulers, from amongst you”? (4:59) What is the character of the traditions of the Prophet foretelling the advent of Imam Mahdi? These questions and some others which arose subsequently were, for obvious reasons, questions for Indian Muslims only. European imperialism, however, which was then rapidly penetrating the world of Islam, was also intimately interested in them. The controversies which these questions created form a most interesting chapter in the history of Islam in India. The story is a long one and is still waiting for a powerful pen.

    Muslim politicians whose eyes were mainly fixed on the realities of the situation succeeded in winning over a section of the Ulama to adopt a line of theological arguments which, as they thought, suited the situation; but it was not easy to conquer by mere logic the beliefs which had ruled for centuries the conscience of the masses of Islam in India. In such a situation logic can either proceed on the ground of political expediency or on the lines of a fresh orientation of texts and traditions. In either case the argument will fail to appeal to the masses. To the intensely religious masses of Islam only one thing can make a conclusive appeal, and that is Divine Authority. For an effective eradication of orthodox beliefs, it was found necessary to find a revelational basis for a politically suitable orientation of theological doctrines involved in the questions mentioned above. This revelational basis is provided by Ahmadism. And the Ahmadis themselves claim this to be the greatest service rendered by them to British imperialism. The prophetic claim to a revelational basis for theological views of a political significance amounts to declaring that those who do not accept the claimant’s views are infidels of the first water and destined for the flames of Hell. As I understand the significance of the movement, the Ahmadi belief that Christ died the death of an ordinary mortal, and that his second advent means only the advent of a person who is spiritually “like unto him,” gives the movement some sort of a rational appearance; but they are not really essential to the spirit of the movement. In my opinion they are only preliminary steps towards the idea of full prophethood which alone can serve the purposes of the movement, eventually brought into being by new political forces. In primitive countries it is not logic but authority that appeals. Given a sufficient amount of ignorance, credulity which strangely enough sometimes coexists with good intelligence, and a person sufficiently audacious to declare himself a recipient of divine revelation, whose denial would entail eternal damnation, it is easy, in a subject Muslim country, to invent a political theology and to build a community whose creed is political servility. And in the Punjab, even an ill-woven net of vague theological expressions can easily capture the innocent peasant who has been for centuries exposed to all kinds of exploitation.

    Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru advises the orthodox of all religions to unite and thus not to delay the coming of what he conceives to be Indian Nationalism. This ironical advice assumes that Ahmadism is a reform movement; he does not know that as far as Islam in India is concerned, Ahmadism involves both religious and political issues of the highest importance. As I have explained above, the function of Ahmadism in the history of Muslim religious thought is to furnish a revelational basis for India’s present political subjugation. Leaving aside the purely religious issues, on the ground of political issues alone, I think it does not lie in the mouth of a man like Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru to accuse Indian Muslims of reactionary conservatism. I have no doubt that if he had grasped the real nature of Ahmadism, he would have very much appreciated the attitude of Indian Muslims towards a religious movement which claims divine authority for the woes of India.

    Thus the reader will see that the pallor of Ahmadism which we find on the cheeks of Indian Islam today is not an abrupt phenomenon in the history of Muslim religious thought in India. The ideas which eventually shaped themselves in the form of this movement became prominent in theological discussions long before the founder of Ahmadism was born. Nor do I mean to insinuate that the founder of Ahmadism and his companions deliberately planned their programme. I dare say the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement did hear a voice; but whether this voice came from the God of Life and Power, or arose out of the spiritual impoverishment of the people, must depend upon the nature of the movement which it has created and the kind of thought and emotion which it has given to those who have listened to it. The reader must not think that I am using metaphorical language. The life-history of nations shows that when the tide of life in a people begins to ebb, decadence itself becomes a source of inspiration, inspiring their poets, philosophers, saints, statesmen, and turning them into a class of apostles whose sole ministry is to glorify, by the force of a seductive art or logic, all that is ignoble and ugly in the life of their people. These apostles unconsciously clothe despair in the glittering garment of hope, undermine the traditional values of conduct and thus destroy the spiritual virility of those who happen to be their victims. One can only imagine the rotten state of a people’s will who are, on the basis of divine authority, made to accept their political environment as final. Thus, all the actors who participated in the drama of Ahmadism were, I think, only innocent instruments in the hands of decadence. A similar drama had already been acted in Persia; but it did not lead, and could not have led, to the religious and political issues which Ahmadism has created for Islam in India. Russia offered tolerance to Babism and allowed the Babis to open their first missionary center in Ishqabad. England showed Ahmadis the same tolerance in allowing them to open their first missionary center in Woking. Whether Russia and England showed this tolerance on the ground of imperial expediency or pure broadmindedness is difficult for us to decide. This much is absolutely clear, that this tolerance has created difficult problems for Islam in Asia. In view of the structure of Islam, as I understand it, I have not the least doubt in my mind that Islam will emerge purer out of the difficulties thus created for it. Times are changing. Things in India have already taken a new turn. The new spirit of democracy which is coming to India is sure to disillusion the Ahmadis and to convince them of the absolute futility of their theological invention.

    Nor will Islam tolerate any revival of medieval mysticism which has already robbed its followers of their healthy instincts and given them only obscure thinking in return. It has, during the course of the past centuries, absorbed the best minds of Islam, leaving the affairs of the state to mere mediocrities. Modern Islam cannot afford to repeat the experiment. Nor can it tolerate a repetition of the Punjab experiment of keeping Muslims occupied for half a century in theological problems which had absolutely no bearing on life. Islam has already passed into the broad daylight of fresh thought and experience, and no saint or prophet can bring it back to the fogs of medieval mysticism.


    Let me now turn to Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru’s questions. I fear the Pandit’s articles reveal practically no acquaintance with Islam and its religious history during the 19th century. Nor does he seem to have read what I have already written on the subject of his questions. It is not possible for me to reproduce here all that I have written before. Nor is it possible to write here a religious history of Islam in the 19th century without which a thorough understanding of the present situation in the world of Islam is impossible. Hundreds of books and articles have been written on Turkey and modern Islam. I have read most of this literature and probably the Pandit has also read it. I assure him, however, that not one of these writers understands the nature of the effect or of the cause that has brought about that effect. It is, therefore, necessary to indicate briefly the main currents of Muslim thought in Asia during the 19th century.

    I have said above that in the year 1799 the political decay of Islam reached its climax. There can, however, be no greater testimony to the inner vitality of Islam than the fact that it practically took no time to realize its position in the world. During the 19th century were born Sir Syed Ahmad Khan in India, Syed Jamal-ud-Din Afghani in Afghanistan and Mufti Alam Jan in Russia. These men were probably inspired by Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab who was born in Najd in 1700, the founder of the so-called Wahabi movement which may fitly be described as the first throb of life in modern Islam. The influence of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan remained on the whole confined to India. It is probable, however, that he was the first modern Muslim to catch a glimpse of the positive character of the age which was coming. The remedy for the ills of Islam proposed by him, as by Mufti Alam Jan in Russia, was modern education. But the real greatness of the man consists in the fact that he was the first Indian Muslim who felt the need of a fresh orientation of Islam and worked for it. We may differ from his religious views, but there can be no denying the fact that his sensitive soul was the first to react to the modern age.

    The extreme conservatism of Indian Muslims which had lost its hold on the realities of life, failed to see the real meaning of the religious attitude of Syed Ahmad Khan. In the North-West of India, a country more primitive and more saint-ridden than the rest of India, the Syed’s movement was soon followed by the reaction of Ahmadism — a strange mixture of Semitic and Aryan mysticism, with whom spiritual revival consists not in the purification of the individual’s inner life according to the principles of the old Islamic Sufism, but in satisfying the expectant attitude of the masses by providing a ‘Promised’ Messiah’. The function of this ‘Promised Messiah’ is not to extricate the individual from an enervating present but to make him slavishly surrender his ego to its dictates. This reaction carries within itself a very subtle contradiction. It retains the discipline of Islam, but destroys the will which that discipline was intended to fortify.

    Maulana Syed Jamal-ud-Din Afghani was a man of a different stamp. Strange are the ways of Providence. One of the most advanced Muslims of our time, both in religious thought and action, was born in Afghanistan! A perfect master of nearly all the Muslim languages of the world and endowed with the most winning eloquence, his restless soul migrated from one Muslim country to another, influencing some of the most prominent men in Persia, Egypt and Turkey. Some of the greatest theologians of our time, such as Mufti Muhammad Abduhu, and some of the men of the younger generation who later became political leaders, such as Zaghlul Pasha of Egypt, were his disciples, He wrote little, spoke much and thereby transformed into miniature Jamal-ud-Dins all those who came into contact with him. He never claimed to be a prophet or a renewer; yet no other man in our time has stirred the soul of Islam more deeply than he. His spirit is still working in the world of Islam and nobody knows where it will end.

    It may, however, be asked what exactly was the objective of these great Muslims? The answer is that they found the world of Islam ruled by three main forces and they concentrated their whole energy on creating a revolt against these forces:

    Mullahism. The Ulama have always been a source of great strength to Islam. But during the course of centuries, especially since the destruction of Baghdad, they became extremely conservative and would not allow any freedom of Ijtihad, i.e., the forming of independent judgment in matters of law. The Wahabi movement, which was a source of inspiration to the 19th century Muslim reformers, was really a revolt against this rigidity of the Ulama. Thus the first objective of the 19th century Muslim reformers was a fresh orientation of the faith and a freedom to reinterpret the law in the light of advancing experience.

    Mysticism. The masses of Islam were swayed by the kind of mysticism which blinked actualities, enervated the people and kept them steeped in all kinds of superstition. From its high state as a force of spiritual education, mysticism had fallen down to a mere means of exploiting the ignorance and the credulity of the people. It gradually and invisibly unnerved the will of Islam and softened it to the extent of seeking relief from rigorous discipline of the law of Islam. The 19th century reformers rose in revolt against this mysticism and called Muslims to the broad daylight of the modern world. Not that they were materialists. Their mission was to open the eyes of the Muslims to the spirit to Islam which aimed at the conquest of matter and not flight from it.

    Muslim Kings. The gaze of Muslim kings gaze was solely fixed on their own dynastic interests, and so long as these were protected, they did not hesitate to sell their countries to the highest bidder. To prepare the masses of Muslims for a revolt against such a state of things in the world of Islam, was the special mission of Syed Jamal-ud-Din Afghani.
    It is not possible here to give a detailed account of the transformation which these reformers brought about in the world of Muslim thought and feeling. One thing, however, is clear. They prepared to a great extent the ground for another set of men, i.e., Zaghlul Pasha, Mustafa Kamal and Raza Shah. The reformers interpreted, argued and explained; but the set of men who came after them, although inferior in academic learning, were men who, relying on their healthy instincts, had the courage to rush into sun-lit space and do, even by force, what the new the conditions of life demanded. Such men are liable to make mistakes; but the history of nations shows that even their mistakes have sometimes borne good fruit. In them it is not logic but life that struggles restless to solve its own problems. It may be pointed out here that Syed Ahmad Khan, Syed Jamal-ud-Din Afghani and hundreds of the latter’s disciples in Muslim countries were not Westernized Muslims. They were men who had sat on their knees before the mullahs of the old school and had breathed the very intellectual and spiritual atmosphere which they later sought to reconstruct. Pressure of modern ideas may be admitted; but the history thus briefly indicated above, clearly shows that the upheaval which has come to Turkey and which is likely, sooner or later, to come to other Muslim countries, is almost wholly determined by the forces within. It is only the superficial observer of the modern world of Islam who thinks that the present crisis in the world of Islam is wholly due to the working of alien forces.

    Has then the world of Islam outside India, especially Turkey abandoned Islam? Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru thinks that Turkey has ceased to be a Muslim country. He does not seem to realise that the question whether a person or a community has ceased to be a member of Islam is, from the Muslim point of view, a purely legal question and must be decided in view of the structural principles of Islam. As long as a person is loyal to the two basic principles of Islam, i.e., the Unity of God and Finality of the Holy Prophet, not even the strictest mullah can turn him outside the pale of Islam even though his interpretations of the law or of the text of the Quran are believed to be erroneous. But perhaps Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru has in his mind the supposed or real innovations which the Ataturk has introduced. Let us for a moment examine these. Is it the development of a general materialist outlook in Turkey which seems inimical to Islam? Islam has had too much of renunciation; it is time for the Muslims to look to realities. Materialism is a bad weapon against religion; but it is quite an effective one against mullah-craft and sufi-craft, which deliberately mystify the people with a view to exploit their ignorance and credulity. The spirit of Islam is not afraid of its contact with matter. Indeed the Quran says:

    Forget not thy share in the world. (28:77)

    It is difficult for a non-Muslim to understand that, considering the history of the Muslim world during the last few centuries, the progress of a materialist outlook is only a form of self-realization. Is it then the abolition of the old dress or the introduction of the Latin script? Islam as a religion has no country; as a society it has no specific language, no specific dress. Even the recitation of the Quran in Turkish is not without some precedent in Muslim history. Personally I regard it as a serious error of judgment; for the modern student of the Arabic language and literature knows full well that the only non-European language which has a future is Arabic. But the reports are that the Turks have already abandoned the vernacular recitation of the Quran. Is it then the abolition of polygamy or the licentiate Ulama? According to the law of Islam the Amir of a Muslim State has the power to revoke the “permissions” of the law if he is convinced that they tend to cause social corruption. As to the licentiate Ulama, I would certainly introduce it in Muslim India if I had the power to do so. To the inventions of the myth-making mullah is largely due the stupidity of the average Muslim. In excluding him from the religious life of the people the Ataturk has done what would have delighted the heart of an Ibn Taimiyya or a Shah Wali Ullah. There is a tradition of the Holy Prophet reported in the Mishkat to the effect that only the Amir of the Muslim State and the person or persons appointed by him, are entitled to preach to the people. I do not know whether the Ataturk ever knew of this tradition; yet it is striking how the light of his Islamic conscience has illumined the zone of his action in this important matter. The adoption of the Swiss code with its rule of inheritance is certainly a serious error which has arisen out of the youthful zeal for reform excusable in a people furiously desiring to go ahead. The joy of emancipation from the fetters of a long-standing priestcraft sometimes drives a people to untried courses of action. But Turkey as well as the rest of the world of Islam has yet to realise the hitherto unrevealed economic aspects of the Islamic law of inheritance which Von Kremer describes as the “supremely original branch of Muslim law.” Is it the abolition of the Caliphate or the separation of Church and State? In its essence Islam is not Imperialism. In the abolition of the Caliphate which since the days of Omayyads had practically become a kind of Empire, it is only the spirit of Islam that has worked out through the Ataturk. In order to understand the Turkish Ijtihad in the matter of the Caliphate, we cannot but seek the guidance of Ibn Khaldun — the great philosophical historian of Islam, and the father of modern history. I can do no better than to quote here a passage from my Reconstruction:

    “Ibn Khaldun in his famous “Prolegomena” mentions three distinct views of the idea of Universal Caliphate in Islam:

    That Universal Imamate is a Divine institution, and is
    consequently indispensable.

    That it is merely a matter of expediency.

    That there is no need of such an institution.

    The last view was taken by the Khawarij, the early Republicans of Islam. It seems that modern Turkey has shifted from the first to the second view, i.e., to the view of the Mu’tazila who regarded Universal Imamate as a matter of expediency only. The Turks argue that in our political thinking we must be guided by our past political experience which points unmistakably to the fact that the idea of Universal Imamate has failed in practice. It was a workable idea when the Empire of Islam was intact. Since the breakup of this Empire independent political units have arisen. The idea has ceased to be operative and cannot work as a living factor in the organization of modern Islam.”

    Nor is the idea of separation of Church and State alien to Islam. The doctrine of the major occultation of the Imam in a sense effected this separation long ago in Shia Persia. The Islamic idea of the division of the religious and political functions of the State must not be confounded with the European idea of the separation of Church and State. The former is only a division of functions as is clear from the gradual creation in the Muslim State of the offices of Sheikh-ul-Islam and Ministers; the latter is based on the metaphysical dualism of spirit and matter. Christianity began as an order of monks having nothing to do with the affairs of the world; Islam was, from the very beginning, a civil society with laws civil in their nature, though believed to be revelational in origin. The metaphysical dualism on which the European idea is based has borne bitter fruit among Western nations. Many years ago a book was written in America called If Christ Came to Chicago. In reviewing this book an American author says:

    “The lesson to be learned from Mr. Stead’s book is that the great evils from which humanity is suffering today, are evils that can be handled only by religious sentiments; that the handling of those evils has been in the great part surrendered to the State; that the State has itself been delivered over to corrupt political machines; that such machines are not only unwilling, but unable, to deal with those evils; and that nothing but a religious awakening of the citizens to their public duties can save countless millions from misery and the State itself from degradation.”

    In the history of Muslim political experience, this separation has meant only a separation of functions, not of ideas. It cannot be maintained that in Muslim countries the separation of Church and State means the freedom of Muslim legislative activity from the conscience of the people which has for centuries been trained and developed by the spirituality of Islam. Experience alone will show how the idea will work in modern Turkey. We can only hope that it will not be productive of the evils which it has produced in Europe and America.

    I have briefly discussed the above innovations more for the sake of the Muslim reader than for Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru. The innovation specifically mentioned by the Pandit is the adoption by the Turks and Persians of racial and nationalist ideals. He seems to think that the adoption of such ideals means the abandonment of Islam by Turkey and Persia. The student of history knows very well that Islam was born at a time when the old principles of human unification, such as blood relationship and throne-culture, were failing. It, therefore, finds the principle of human unification not in the blood and bones but in the mind of man. Indeed its social message to mankind is: “Deracialise yourself or perish by internecine war.” It is no exaggeration to say that Islam looks askance at nature’s race-building plans and creates, by means of its peculiar institutions, an outlook which would counteract the race-building forces of nature. In the direction of human domestication it has done in one thousand years far more important work than Christianity and Buddhism ever did in two thousand years or more. It is no less than a miracle that an Indian Muslim finds himself at home in Morocco in spite of the disparity of race and language. Yet it cannot be said that Islam is totally opposed to race. Its history shows that in social reform it relies mainly on its scheme for gradual deracialisation and proceeds on the lines of least resistance. “Verily”, says the Quran, “We have made you into tribes and sub-tribes so that you may be identified; but the best among you in the eye of God is he who is the purest in life.” (49:13) Considering the mightiness of the problem of race and the amount of time which the deracialisation of mankind must necessarily take, the attitude of Islam towards the problem of race, i.e., stooping to conquer without itself becoming a race-making factor, is the only rational and workable attitude. There is a remarkable passage in Sir Arthur Keith’s little book, The Problem of Race, which is worth quoting here:

    “And now man is awakening to the fact that nature’s primary end — race-building —is incompatible with the necessities of the modern economic world and is asking himself: What must I do? Bring race-building as practised hitherto by nature to an end and have eternal peace? Or permit nature to pursue her old course and have, as a necessary consequence — War? Man has to choose the one course or the other. There is no intermediate course possible.”

    It is, therefore, clear that if the Ataturk is inspired by Pan-Turanianism, he is going not so much against the spirit of Islam as against the spirit of the times. And if he is a believer in the absoluteness of races, he is sure to be defeated by the spirit of modern times which is wholly in keeping with the spirit of Islam. Personally, however, I do not think that the Ataturk is inspired by Pan-Turanianism, as I believe his Pan-Turanianism is only a political retort to Pan-Slavonism, Pan-Germanism, or Pan-Anglo Saxonism.

    If the meaning of the above paragraph is well understood, it is not difficult to see the attitude of Islam towards nationalist ideals. Nationalism in the sense of love of one’s country and even readiness to die for its honour, is a part of the Muslim’s faith; it comes into conflict with Islam only when it begins to play the role of a political concept and claims to be a principle of human solidarity demanding that Islam should recede to the background of a mere private opinion and cease to be a living factor in the national life. In Turkey, Persia, Egypt and other Muslim countries it will never become a problem. In these countries Muslims constitute an overwhelming majority and their minorities, i.e., Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians, according to the law of Islam, are either “People of the Book” or “like the People of the Book” with whom the law of Islam allows free social relations, including matrimonial alliances. It becomes a problem for Muslims only in countries where they happen to be in a minority, and nationalism demands their complete self-effacement. In majority countries Islam accommodates nationalism; for there Islam and nationalism are practically identical; in minority countries it is justified in seeking self-determination as a cultural unit. In either case, it is thoroughly consistent with itself.

    The above paragraphs briefly sum up the exact situation in the world of Islam today. If this is properly understood it will become clear that the fundamentals of Islamic solidarity are not in any way shaken by any external or internal forces. The solidarity of Islam, as I have explained before, consists in a uniform belief in the two structural principles of Islam, supplemented by the five well-known “practices of the faith.” These are the first essentials of Islamic solidarity which has, in this sense, existed ever since the days of the Holy Prophet until it was recently disturbed by the Bahais in Persia and the Qadianis in India. It is a guarantee for a practically uniform spiritual atmosphere in the world of Islam. It facilitates the political combination of Muslim States, which combination may either assume the form of a World State (ideal) or of a League of Muslim States, or of a number of independent States whose pacts and alliances are determined by purely economic and political considerations. That is how the conceptual structure of this simple faith is related to the process of time. The profundity of this relation can be understood only in the light of certain verses of the Qu’ran which it is not possible to explain here without drifting away from the point immediately before us. Politically, then, the solidarity of Islam is shaken only when Muslim States war on one another; religiously, it is shaken only when Muslims rebel against any of the basic beliefs and practices of the faith. It is in the interest of this eternal solidarity that Islam cannot tolerate any rebellious group within its fold. Outside the fold, such a group is entitled to as much toleration as the followers of any other faith. It appears to me that at the present moment Islam is passing through a period of transition. It is shifting from one form of political solidarity to some other form which the forces of history have yet to determine. Events are so rapidly moving in the modern world that it is almost impossible to make a prediction. As to what will be the attitude towards non-Muslims of a politically united Islam, if such a thing ever comes, is a question which history alone can answer. All that I can say is that, lying midway between Asia and Europe and being a synthesis of Eastern and Western outlooks on life, Islam ought to act as a kind of intermediary between the East and the West. But what if the follies of Europe create an irreconcilable Islam? As things are developing in Europe from day to day they demand a radical transformation of Europe’s attitude towards Islam. We can only hope that political vision will not allow itself to be obscured by the dictates of imperial ambition or economic exploitation. In so far as India is concerned, I can say with perfect confidence that the Muslims of India will not submit to any kind of political idealism which would seek to annihilate their cultural entity. Sure of this they may be trusted to know how to reconcile the claims of religion and patriotism.

    One word about His Highness the Agha Khan. What has led Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru to attack the Agha Khan, it is difficult for me to discover. Perhaps he thinks that the Qadianis and the Ismailis fall under the same category. He is obviously not aware that however the theological interpretation of the Ismailis may err, they beleive in the basic principles of Islam. It is true that they believe in a perpetual Imamate; but the Imam according to them is not a recipient of divine revelation. He is only an expounder of the law: It is only the other day (vide the Star of Allahabad, March 12, 1934 ) that His Highness the Agha Khan addressed his followers as follows:

    “Bear witness that Allah is One. Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah. Qu’ran is the Book of Allah. Ka’ba is the Qibla of all. You are Muslims and should live with Muslims. Greet Muslims with Assalam-o-Alaikum. Give your children Islamic names. Pray with Muslim congregations in mosques. Keep fast regularly. Solemnize your marriages according to Islamic rules of Nikah. Treat all Muslims as your brothers.”

    It is for the Pandit now to decide whether the Agha Khan represents the solidarity of Islam or not.

  185. mazbut

    I am an admirer of Syed Amir Ali and I think a personality like him above the sectarian division.

    As regards Karbala, there is hardly any treatise on the topic than Abul Kalam Azaad’s book…Lahu Pukaray ga Aasteen Ka!! There is much to gain for the students of history ( except YLH whose name someone has posted on Wiki as a ‘historian’!) from it.

    Followers of Ghulam Muhammed (if calling them Mirzaes makes them feel inferior) are definitely a separate community ( basically due to their denunciation of the status of Holy Prophet)…just like the Zikris and even some say Agha Khanis, regardless of other Islamic rituals they seem to observe, have distorted the fundamental meaning and essence of namaz ( they don’t offer Namaz as other Muslims do and interpret the meaning of namaz as ‘DUA’!) are Muslims of different sort.

  186. Milind Kher

    I would rate “Hussain, the Savior of Islam” by SV Mir Ahmed Ali and “Nafas ul Mahmoom” as extraordinary books on Karbala.

    Whereas much has been said about Ahmediyas, very little has been said about the Shias who are condemned as Rafizis inspite of their faithful adherence to the Sunnah.

    This needs to stop. Unity is the need of the hour.

  187. Ammar


    Allama Ali Naqi’s “Shaheed -e-Insaniyat” on Imam Hussain (AS) is also a good book- it has been translated into English by IKA Howard as “Martyr for Mankind”.


    I agree with your suggestions about the two books mentioned by you.

  188. Milind Kher

    If we can imbibe “Kulle yaumin ashura, kulle arzin karbala” (every day is Ashura, every land is Karbala) into our lives, we will truly appreciate what a struggle the world is and how much we need to sacrifice.

    Also, we will realize how insignificant are our troubles and our sacrifice compared to that of Zabihe Azam, Imam Hussain (a.s.) to whom the Holy Quran has also referred, albeit not by name when it says, “We redeemed him(Ismail) with a GREAT SACRIFICE”

  189. Hayyer

    The discussion is now far moved from the original subject. As AZW suggested a long while ago it is time to open a new thread on Iqbal; if, that is, the discussion is not exhausted.

  190. yasserlatifhamdani

    Well all I can say is that once again it is proved … through this discussion… Mr. Jinnah was the only one who had it right in entirety and proved his point amply…

    Both Nehru and Iqbal were party right and partly wrong on different counts… Nehru was right in his advocacy of toleration, his appeal to the orthodox to allow room for dissent and his appeal to Indian Muslims to tolerate Ahmadis … he was wrong in assuming that nationalism must wholly be built on a borg like principle of “we shall assimilate you”.

    Iqbal was right in his criticism of a vengeful god, his understanding of Turkish revolution, his criticism of Nehru on account of his all subsuming nationalism…. but Iqbal was absolutely wrong in his estimate that finality of prophethood was central to Islamic unity….

    Jinnah – perhaps unconsciously – embodied what was right about both of them and eschewed what was wrong. Jinnah agreed with Nehru on the issue of toleration and Jinnah’s refusal to exclude Ahmadis despite Mullahs’ abuse against Jinnah ( Fakir of Ipi – Bacha Khan’s and Congress’ ally denounced the Muslim League as the bastion of Qadiyanism and British Imperialism) from the League shows what Jinnah was all about. Jinnah believed in tolerance, freedom of conscience, equality, and the right to profess one’s faith as one pleases. He differed with Nehru on the issue of the subsuming borg like nature of Indian Nationalism.

    In the final assessment, while Jinnah did hold Nehru in great esteem despite his caustic relationship with him, I find it hard for man like Jinnah to have held a high opinion in private for Allama Iqbal.

  191. Ammar

    Both Nehru and Jinnah did not understand the importance of “finality of prophethood” for Muslims as it was a purely religious issue and not a secular issue. If one feels that they have invented another religion, they should delare themselves a separate Prophet and founder of a new religion just as Guru Nanak did. If Khulfa-e-Rashideen are not given the status of a prophet or other extremely important figures in Islam such as Imam Hussain are not considered Prophet- is it possible for any Muslim to acceept any body else (Mr. ABC or XYZ) as a Prophet. Any one who fancies the idea of becoming prophet should look at these figures, compare his contribution to Islam with these earlier historical figures and then think if he has any chance of acceptance from Muslims. It is very simple- what would be status of that person ( mr ABC or XYZ) compared to these figures before him. If a person declares himself to be prophet or even something close to it- he not only equates himself to Holy Prophet but also demands elevation above Khulfa-e-Rashidin, Imam Hussain in status etc. Moreover, from jurisprudence point of view if a person continues to follow the fiqah of Imams Abu Hanifa, Shafai, Hanbal, Malik, or Imam Jafar-e-Sadeq and yet claims that he is a a prophet or something close to it- then he has also elevated himself above those Imams of jurisprudence whose fiqah he continues to follow. It would be appropriate for a new prophet to come up with a new jurisprudence or else how can he follow some one who is merely an Imam.

  192. Milind Kher


    While I agree with what you say, I would regard the status of the sinless Imams higher than all the Prophets barring the Holy Prophet (SAWA) who is above them.

    The logic is that all other Prophets came with a Shariah that was not complete. Only when Ayat ul Ikmal (Holy Qur’an 5:3) was revealed was the Shariah complete and perfect. Therefore an exponent and practitioner par excellence like Imam Ali (a.s.) would have a stature even superior to that of say, Moses (a.s.)

    This is my thinking.

  193. yasserlatifhamdani

    The reason why Jinnah and Nehru did not buy Allama Iqbal’s ridiculous arguments on this issue was because unlike Iqbal, Jinnah and Nehru were reasonable and rational men imbued with the spirit of modern times…. unconcerned with petty disputes about whose belief is better… and whose view of afterlife is right. Both of them probably knew better …

    Also you have no clue about Ahmadi beliefs clearly … but let me just say this: if using your logic, Ahmadis are Kafir or Non-Muslim, Shia Muslims are doubly so. Now let me say this… I think culturally and politically Sunni Islam does not hold a candle to Shia Islam… far from it… but since we are using the ridiculous logic that you are using – and that Allama of yours used- to make Ahmadis Kafirs… let us play the devil’s advocate and indulge in some sectarianism of our own.

    After all… Ahmadi beliefs do not deviate far from Sunni mainstream. The two sub-sects are in dispute on the issue of prophethood… and even the sect that believes that MGA was a prophet does not believe he was a lawbearing prophet and in any event interpret the Quranic verse differently…

    Now let us put Shia Islam to the test that you’ve prescribed above shall we?

    1. Unlike the Ahmadis… Shias have amended the Kalima and brought Hazrat Ali AS’s status as Wali into it.

    2. Known Shia belief states that when Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) went to 7th heaven during Mairaj, he shook hands with God … and God’s hand was that of Hazrat Ali AS. In other words… Shias worship Hazrat Ali AS.

    3. Another Shia belief – though not universally Shia- is that the original revelation was intended for Hazrat Ali AS and Gabriel simply missed his mark and went to the Prophet instead.

    4. Shias abuse the first three caliphs. The first three caliphs are abused by Shia scholars and the kind of abuses showered on them are the kind that would even shame the most foul mouthed of Punjabis.

    5. Shias worship the Zuljinnah. Don’t give me nonsense about this -since one side of my family is Shia … I know exactly what goes down in Shia faith. Besides… Shias worship Zuljinnah only as much as Hindus worship the cow.

    6. Shias wash the Zuljinnah’s feet and then make Sharbat of that water and drink it. They also use – in some extreme cases- horse shit and mix it with Halwa.

    7. Shias worship Hazrat Hussain AS in the same manner that Christians worship Jesus Christ. Refer to point 2 … and see that according to Shia theological belief: Hazrat Hussain (AS) is the son of God.

    Given these 7 points…. it is clear that Hazrat Ali AS and Hazrat Imam Hussain AS are raised above the stature of the Holy Prophet by the Shias… and Shias worship a horse….

    And this is the mainstream Ithna Ashari Shia sect we are talking about. Let us not even go into what Ismailis, Aga Khanis and Bohris believe.

    Once again… let me tell you that I for one will always stand for Shia community’s right to be called Muslim but given that Ammar mian is making the comments above, is it not fair that we then show him that this kind of sectarianism can cut both ways.

  194. yasserlatifhamdani


    Ameer Muawiyah was a visionary and one of the greatest Arabs to ever live. His reign was marked by great peace and prosperity and a remarkable policy of religious toleration which offended the more religiously inclined.

    Ameer Muawiyah followed a strictly secular policy and was really and truly the Augustus of the Islamic Empire.

    Yazid unfortunately has been subject of much demonization by both Shias and Sunnis… while his role in Karbala is obviously deplorable… no one can deny that in his youth he defeated the Byzantines and then led that famous assault on Constantinople (inconveniently for Sunnis and Shias alike, there is a Sahih Hadith of the Holy Prophet PBUH which says that any one who attacks constantinople is automatically promised paradise)….

    Under Yazid’s reign arts and culture flourished like never before. Poets, writers and intellectuals flocked to his court. He was known for his liberal policy of religious toleration and was well loved by his subjects for his relaxation in Islamic code…. Also… he laid the foundations of Damascus’ water systems and irrigation, turning it into a remarkable place where agriculture, commerce and trade flourished. It was the equivalent of what Dubai is today.

  195. Milind Kher


    I will take each of your points

    1. The Kalima is still essentially the same. Aliyun Waliullah wa wasiyo Rasulallah is optional.

    2. The VOICE in which Allah (swt) spoke to the Holy Prophet (SAWA) was the voice of Imam Ali (a.s.). Shias do not believe in an anthropomorphic concept of God.

    3. This is only the belief of the ghulat (extremists who Imam ali condemned.

    4. The tabarra that you are referring to does not happen in India. Normally, reference to them is avoided or they are referred to as 123.

    5. So what if half your family is Shia, – what they observe may not be observed by all Shias! Come on, you are the last person i would expect to take a doctrinaire or opinionated stance.

    6. I have not observed the 6th point happening.

    7. Mainstream Ithna Asheri Shias do not do this.

    I would surely like the Shias on this forum to offer feedback on this

  196. Ammar

    Shias do not believe that any of their Imam either Ali or Hussain or any one else is equivalent to the Holy Prophet let alone higher. They are Imams not prophets- I think that explanation should be enough. No Shia believes that any Imam is son of god or any thing like that or eats halwa made of dung- I do not know any such people among Shias. Ali (AS) has made his status very clear in many sermons of Nahjul Balagha that he is just a man of Allah. Any one who believes in Nahjul Balagha does not believe in any of the things you have mentioned about Ali (A.S)

  197. Ammar

    Mauwiya and Yazid are those who started persecution in Islam- a practice which continues to this day. If organizations such as Sipah-e-Sahaba and Lashker-e-Jhangvi exist today it is becuase their ideological founding fathers are Mauwiya and Yazid and no one else.

  198. Milind Kher


    I agree. No Shia has ever accorded a higher status to any Imam over the HolyProphet (SAWA) (though this does not prevent them from being superior to other prophets – remember that Jesus (a.s.) will pray behind Imam Mahdi (a.t.f.s) )

    I agree with your refutations too.

  199. yasserlatifhamdani

    I am not in sitting in judgement on the Shia Islam. I consider anyone and everyone who calls himself a Muslim a Muslim.

    Let me tell you though if I was to act that Allama of yours, I would right now be speaking of pre-Islamic post zoarastrian Hindu assyrian blah blah and trying to prove you fellas Kafir. I don’t because I because I don’t give a damn about anyone’s beliefs anymore than I believe Tilsim-e-Hoshruba….

    And btw 1 and 2 alone are much worse from a Sunni angle than anything any Ahmadi might believe. I believe your Sunni brethren call it “Biddah” and no one is going buy your explanation for God’s voice being that of Ali… polytheistic as it is…. anymore than Ahmadis’ explanation of their understanding of ummi prophethood…

    And Tabarra my friends was invented by the good people of Lucknow.

    The point – friends- is that this is a foolish attitude to take. Condemn Iqbal. Follow Jinnah. That is the only way you’ll safeguard yourselves from the tyranny of the majority.

  200. Ammar

    As for Tabarra- had there been no Mauwiya or Yazid- there would have been no tabarra… it was Mauwiya and Yazid and other Ummayads who started this practice against Ali A.S and then Shia picked on this habit in return.

  201. yasserlatifhamdani

    History cannot be whitewashed by religious propaganda.

    I recommend everyone reads P K Hitti’s masterpiece and authority “History of the Arabs” and decide for themselves whether what I say about Muawiyah and Yazid is true or whether what Ammar says is true.

  202. Ammar

    I would recommend every one to read ” Ali- The Voice of Human Justice”- a masterpiece by George Jordac- another Lebanese Christian scholar like Hitti and then decide for themselves how great Ali was compared to Mauwiya and Yazid.

    I do not believe in religious propoganda. Shias have faced persecution for the last 1400 years ( Battle of Karbala is the most blatant example in history of persecution) and will continue to do so. It is a legacy of Mauwiya and Yazid.

    Let me quote Iqbal when he says:

    Musa o Firaun-o-Shabbir o Yazid

    In do quwwāt az Hayāt āmad padid.

    ” Moses and Pharaoh, Hussain and Yazid- eversince the creation of life these two forces have been at war with each other”

  203. Milind Kher


    Philip Hitti may be a brilliant scholar. However, William Muir, Margoliouth and George Sale were brilliant too – but what a way they distorted Islam.

    Read Islamic History written by Muslims. Ask yourself why no Muslim praises Yazid (barring Dr Zakir Naik). If Philip.K.Hitti was a Muslim (like Abu Amina Bilal Philips) he is an exception

  204. yasserlatifhamdani

    Ah Pharoah… firaun… they were epitome of Human civilization and achievement for their times. I reject the duality of good and evil… people are not good or evil… their deeds are. Whatever Pharoah or Yazid did evil cannot white wash the good they did any more than the good they did can white wash the evil that they did.

    Phillip K Hitti is a renowned scholar and as for “Muslim” historians, barring Ibn Khuldun, Tabari, Ayesha Jalal and KK Aziz most Muslim historians have a jaundiced world view and I’d rather take their word with a pinch of salt.

  205. Milind Kher


    The book you are talking about is an outstanding one.

    And it is true that Shias have been oppressed. The lines you quoted from Iqbal hold true.

  206. Ammar


    I would like to make one thing clear- I did not specify Ahmedis in the note that you took exception to. I spoke in general terms ( thus using the terms ABC or XYZ) as I had all Muslim world in mind and not Pakistan or India only.

    I would also like to share that my father was SSP Sargodha in 1974. He was selected to escort Mirza Nasir from Jhang to to the National Assembly on all those days when he appeared there. My father personally ensured his safety on all days by sitting next to him in his car and with the use of decoys so that no one attacks him. On the last day, when there was a rumpus in the National Assembly, members of the assembly started moving towards him, my father and his policemen defended Mirza from being lynched in the Assembly. On the way back to Jhang/Rabwah, they took a different from usual route due to reports that there are too many people waiting to lynch him on the way back. During anti- Ahmedi agitation, my father quelled many demonstrations in Sargodha by use of force and bullets resulting in casaulties- there was one which was so bloody that this led to an enquiry against him on the grounds that he is an Ahmadi! The enquiry was dismissed in one hearing when the establishment secretary who knew my family very well- told other participants that my father belongs to a Shia family and not Ahmadi family as our family was known to him for hundreds of years.

    I feel proud of being son of such a father and do not have anything personal against Ahmedis or their faith.

  207. Hayyer

    Milind Kher:
    On re-reading your post at 2:32 today I have to point out, merely to keep the argument accurate, that the concept of prophet-hood is alien to Sikhism. The Sikh Gurus, starting with Nanak never claimed to be speaking on behalf of an entity called God. The closest to that is the apocryphal Dasam Granth of the last Guru, Gobind, which among other polytheist sentiment states that in a previous life he spent time meditating in what is now called the Meadow of Flowers in Garhwal. The Dasam Granth is generally attributed to later Brahminical sources.
    The word prophet has a specific meaning in Abrahamic faiths. It is meaningless in the Sikh canon. I am not aware of any analogy in Hinduism either, if we take the word prophet to mean a human chosen to reveal God’s message to other humans.
    There have been sympatico interpretations linking Ram, Krishan, Nanak etc to prophet-hood. These re-conciliatory maneouvres deserve the regard of those of us who belief in the essential unity of man, but there are other simpler and more accurate pointers in that direction, easier to grasp and impossible to refute compared to the madly mixed up theologies of the ecumenical crowd.

  208. tahir

    Reading m.muhammad ali article on iqbal, I very much doubt if Iqbal was honest person. I would say he was more like a jew in time of jesus. Just few quotes from m.m.ali makes my point clear.

    Sir Muhammad Iqbal is aware that we, the members of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-i-Islam, Lahore, have kept on fighting with the Qadianis for over twenty years about this very doctrine of the continuance of prophethood and its unavoidable result that all those Muslims who do not believe in the new revelation are kafirs.

    Sir Muhammad Iqbal at any rate is not unaware that the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement is not responsible for the Qadiani doctrine that those who do not believe in his Mission are kafirs.

    I would refer Sir Muhammad Iqbal to an incident which he himself so recently related to me when I paid him a visit during his sickness in October 1934. The Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, he told me, was then in Sialkot — he did not remember the year, but it was the year 1904 as the facts related by him show. Sir Fazl-i-Hussain was then practising as a lawyer in Sialkot, and one day while he (Mian Fazl-i-Hussain Sahib) was going to see the Mirza Sahib, he (Sir Muhammad Iqbal) met him in the way, and after inquiring where he was going he also accompanied him. During the conversation that ensued with the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, Sir Fazl-i-Hussain asked him if he looked upon those who did not believe in him as kafirs and the Mirza Sahib without a moment’s hesitation replied that he did not.

    Qadianis do indeed deny the finality of prophethood but even the average Muslim has no real grasp of the idea of finality, as Sir Muhammad Iqbal rightly remarks. And how could he have it when he believes that a prophet, Jesus Christ, must come after the Holy Prophet? It is to be regretted that Sir Muhammad Iqbal has not cleared this point. Perhaps there was the fear of a hue and cry being raised against him by the mullahs and the mullah-ridden masses.

    If Sir Muhammad Iqbal does not accept the authority of the hadith, he should plainly say so; if he does, he should clear his position.

    The most humiliating part—for the whole—however, is that in which he implores the Government to interfere in the controversy between the orthodox and the Qadianis, and denounces it for not having interfered earlier and handled the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement in a manner similar to that in which Jesus Christ was handled by the Roman Government.
    He denounces the British Government because it did not hang the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement and thus rendered unsafe the solidarity of the Muslims under it, while the Roman Government of Jesus’ days is praised because it crucified Jesus for differing with the orthodox Jews and thus helped the Jews in maintaining their solidarity. Sir Muhammad Iqbal is a great student of history as well, and he must be sure of the fact stated here that Jewish solidarity was made safe under the Roman Empire by the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. How good the Romans were in Jesus’ days, argues Sir Muhammad Iqbal, as they crucified Jesus Christ on the orthodox lodging a complaint that his claim to Godhead endangered their solidarity. That was the proper way of dealing with a “religious adventurer” in his opinion. But religious adventurers are safe under the British rule which did not care a fig for the solidarity of the Muslims and send Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to the gallows!

    The main theme of Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s statement is, one is surprised to learn, condemnation of religious tolerance, one of the brightest gems in the crown of Islam.

  209. Rashid

    @Milind Kher
    November 19, 2009 at 3:15 pm
    Whoever said the Dajjal is a supernatural animal?

    I would recommend you to read book available on line on:
    www dot aaiil dot org:
    The Anti-Christ and Gog and Magog:
    by Maulana Muhammad Ali

  210. mazbut

    I feel disgusted to note that we, the Muslims, are still fighting over ‘personalities’ of individual choices and spreading poison of hatred amongst each other.

    Nobody can deny that this thread has gone off topic and all seem to indulge in retreading the beaten path!
    It provides me the reason as to the backwardness of Muslims as compared to the West or other religions.
    I am afraid a time will come when the Muslims will make idols of their favorite personalities and worship them in their whims!

  211. Bloody Civilian

    I am afraid a time will come when the Muslims will make idols of their favorite personalities and worship them in their whims!

    if that’s the worst that can happen, then perhaps the discussion above has not been as great a waste of bandwidth as it had seemed to me at times.

  212. Bloody Civilian


    btw, thanks for pushing me into the centre of vajra’s crosshairs, and…


    thanks for taking pity and letting compassion take precedence over all else 😉 ….and apologies for the late response.

  213. Milind Kher


    Even if you say that Guru Nanak did not call himself a prophet in the classic Abrahamic mold, yet his followers did certainly believe him to be a seer and inspired by God.

    My thought process is very simple. We are human beings and need to treat all good humans on par irrespective of whether they are theists, deists, polytheists or atheists. Who is right and who is wrong is a call that God will take on Judgment Day.

    That being said, if I were to say, for example, that Islam is the best religion, I am allowed to. That is MY reality. I will not thrust it on others. Maybe, if people still object, I will say I like Islam the best.

  214. Majumdar


    Thanks for the summary on Muwaiya and Yazid. Looks like my chowkie friend (and Dr. Zakir Naik) was right all along.


  215. aliarqam

    Thanks for the alternative view on Umayyads….
    I really appreciate U for a referenc to Hitti’s book

  216. mazbut


    The Martyrdom
    Imam Husain bin Ali
    (radiyallahu Ta’ala ‘anhu)

    Allah, Subhanahu wa Ta’ala, says in the Holy Qur’an:

    “And call not those who are slain in the way of Allah as dead. Nay, they are living, only you perceive not.” (Holy Qur’an, Surah al-Baqarah ayat 154)

    “Think not of those who are slain in the way of Allah as dead. Nay, they are living! With their Rabb they have Rizq.” (Holy Qur’an, Surah Aal-e-Imran ayat 169)


    The Real Spirit of Imam Husain’s Martyrdom
    Taklen from Shahadat-e-Husain, by Maulana Abul-Kalam Azad

    1. Nature of Umayyad Rule.
    2. The Character of Imam Husain as a Mu’min.
    3. Imam Husain’s Role.
    4. Imam Husain’s Martyrdom and Humanity.
    5. Real Object of the Sacrifice of Imam Husain.
    6. Fight Against Falsehood.
    7. Morals of Imam Husain’s Performance.

    Special Photo Gallery
    In honor of those who gave their lives along with Imam Husain for the sake of al-Islam (Radiy Allahu ta’ala ‘anhum).

    1. Imam Husain bin Ali—Radiy Allahu ta’ala ‘anh.
    2. Hazrat Sayyidah Zainab bint Ali—Radiy Allahu ta’ala ‘anha.
    3. Hazrat Abbas bin Ali bin Abu Talib—Radiy Allahu ta’ala ‘anh.
    4. Hazrat Muslim bin Aqil—Radiy Allahu ta’ala ‘anh.
    5. The Rest of the Shuhadaa-i-Karbala—Radiy Allahu ta’ala ‘anhum.

  217. Rashid

    History of enactment of Blasphemy Act in British Raj in India.

    “When Christian priests and Arya pundits
    crossed all limits of decency and their abuses and
    baseless accusations became unbearable and as a
    result violent reaction became imminent, Hazrat
    Mirza Sahib wrote a detailed petition entitled:
    “Notice addressed to Arya pundits, Christian
    Priests and leading religious Opponents”. In this
    Notice he put down suggestions and rules of
    conduct to be observed in debates and suggested
    that only those books and writings should be
    referred to which are considered as authentic in
    each religion. So that speakers and writers should
    not resort to sources which are either unauthentic
    or are authors’ own views and interpretation. For
    instance for the Muslims, the Holy Quran, for
    Christians the Bible, for Hindus the Vedas, for
    Jews the Torah and for Sikhs the Granth Sahib are
    considered as revealed books. He took great pains
    to get signatures of thousands of people belonging
    to all these religions on this Petition and sent it to
    the Government on 22nd September 1895. Though
    no notice was taken at that time but many years
    later the Blasphemy Act was passed in India.”

    The Role of the Ahmadiyya
    Movement in the Promotion
    of Interfaith Dialogue
    Talk at Darus Salaam, London,
    Sunday 2nd March 2008
    by Dr Jawad Ahmad

    Published in:
    The Light — U.K. edition
    June 2008
    The Lahore Ahmadiyya monthly magazine from U.K.

  218. mazbut

    @ Rashid


    In that case Modoudi is the right person to refer to as his books are widely read and accepted as ‘authentic’ by many Muslims here as well as in the Middle East.

    It’s surprising and least solacing for Muslims that MirzaGM should advocate on behalf of Sikhs etc knowing well that Guru Garanth is a compilation of the works of many people including Kabir, Baba Fareed and perhaps Mian Meer and Bulleh shah.
    Not to speak of other authors of Garanth ,how can one expect the ‘words’ of those Muslim seers to equate with the word of God as revealed to Revealed prophets and religions??

    Unfortunately this forum is being used for Mirzai propaganda and proslytization…and ought to be curbed.

  219. Rashid


    For Muslims it is IMPORTANT that no one use abusive language for Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was VERY UPSET and HURT when Christians, Muslims who converted to Christianity and Hindus were using abusive language for HP Muhammad SAWS. So to stop this nonsense MGA sahib was FIRST person to ask British Government to enact laws against blasphemy. Of course he asked this should be for every releigion. In fact he was FIRST ONE to start INTER-FAITH dialogue, in British Raj. And MashAllah so many Muslims around the world, especially in Europe and North America are continuing this tradition. Even those Muslims who abuse MGA sahib have embarked on this i.e. Interfaith dialogue. MGA held many interfaith dialogue meetings and famous one was in 1896 at Lahore.

  220. Rashid


    “Unfortunately this forum is being used for Mirzai propaganda and proslytization…and ought to be curbed.”

    My friend, i made a mistake. I should have written:
    “A Punjabi Muslim” (instead of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib) before Ghazi Ilam Ud Din started compaign for enactment of laws against Blaphemy of Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS…..
    Then you would have really appreciated that “Punjabi Muslim”.
    I think, we Pakistanis have to create moral courage and honesty to appreciate, even the person who did a good thing is our enemy, if we want pakistan to develop and come out of current crisis. The leading crisis in Pakistan is LACK OF MORAL COURAGE.

  221. Rashid


    You quoted Maulana Abul-Kalam Azad

    Do you know he did ba’it (pledge) of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib?

    Now are you going to delete his poem?

  222. mazbut

    @ Rashid

    There is much more to do rather than expressly talk about MGM and his achievements when much has already been debated about him and his followers in the past and a verdict unanimously passed against them by the majority of Muslims.

    As regards your spin in calling him a ‘Punjabi Muslim’, I have to say MGM is what he is as decided by the majority of Muslims and he and his followers are definitely non-Muslims as such. ( these are not my words but Muslims have to go by the findings of the majority. Well, this is what you observe in democracy, don’t you??

    It is hard to believe that the Punjab could be maligned by declaring it as a ‘fertile land’ for ”duplicate prophets”. I have no objection if you took him as your prophet or messiah but this isn’t the right forum for you to drum him or his actions which are cipher in the eyes of the majority Muslims.

    Re: Azad -am concerned only about what he explained about Karbala as a great researcher/writer. I have nothing to comment on his religion or faith for that’s not my business.

    As regards moral courage- obviously it is lacking in the followers of MGM as they don’t have the guts to call themselves as non-Muslims eventhough they have been decided by the majority of Muslims (all other sects) ..and blatantly want to ‘run with the deer and hunt with the hound!’

    I rest my argument here and have no mind to further indulge in talk about MGM or his apologetic cult and kin….let other Muslims take care of that.

  223. Rashid

    Your: As regards your spin in calling him a ‘Punjabi Muslim’, I have to say MGM is what he is as decided by the majority of Muslims and he and his followers are definitely non-Muslims as such. ( these are not my words but Muslims have to go by the findings of the majority. Well, this is what you observe in democracy, don’t you??

    I guess you are absolutely unaware of Islamic History when it comes to their treatment of Saints and Mujjaddids (revilalists, reformers). They were treated much worse by then “muslim majority” and their “muslim rulers” i.e. their nails were pulled out; their arms were broken; put in jails etc so that they cannot write what they wrote…and guess what…today they are REVERED by Muslims across the board. I am sure same will be the case with MGA sahib.

    Let’s see what some one who is appreciated by prominent Muslim scholar Muhammad Marmaduke Picthal, wrote:

    If a person says he is a Muslim, the government has no business to issue a communiqué declaring him a non-Muslim even if the ulama declare him to be a kafir with all the force at their command. The Quran and the Hadith, as already quoted, are against Sir Muhammad Iqbal. The Prophet’s practice is also against him. Even the hypocrites in the Prophet’s time who were the sworn enemies of Islam and who openly disbelieved in the Prophet were never declared to be non-Muslims by the Muslim State under the Prophet himself, simply because ostensibly they subscribed to the Kalimah. Even the evidence of history is against Sir Muhammad Iqbal, for the heretics of to-day have very often been the saints of tomorrow. Syed Ahmad of Sirhind was thrown into prison by a Muslim ruler on the complaint of the ulama as a rebel of Islam, and yet the whole of India, and Afghanistan as well, accept him as the Mujaddid of the 11th century of Hijrah today. There are numerous such examples which I need not recount here. It is therefore not too much to “hope that even Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who set on foot a worldwide movement for the propagation of Islam will be accepted as a saint tomorrow.

  224. mazbut

    @ Rashid

    Apparently you seem to be a follower of MGM… I wouldn’t like to waste my (and your time) arguing over the beaten track. Wait for good times until MGM gets recognized as other than what he was. However, at present, as a simple Muslim I have good reasons for not agreeing with his ‘theory!’

    Ah, History! Yes, it is full of vengeance and blood shed and you need not tell me that! If you go by your ‘hypothesis ‘ you would even be justifying the acts of the Talibans as they are !! Maybe a day will come when, according to your ‘hypothesis’ they too will be regarded as the best of Momineens!! What a logic you come up with! Subhanallah!!

  225. Rashid

    My friend i talked about Individuals i.e. Revered Muslims of today, who were branded as Kafirs by their contemporary “ulemas” and Muslim rulers.
    I NEVER talked about terrorist groups i.e. Talibans. Please do do NOT mix apples with oranges. Thanks.

    Check what Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad said in his interview (posted as new topic on this host blog):

    “The Ulema have used the instrument of takfeer [fatwas declaring someone as infidel] liberally. Earlier, they used to take Islam to the disbelievers; now they take away Islam from the believers. Islamic history is full of instances of how good and pious Muslims were branded kafirs. Prophets alone had the capability to cope with these mindboggling situations. Even they had to pass through times of afflictions and trials. The fact is that when reason and intelligence are abandoned and attitudes become fossilised then the job of the reformer becomes very difficult.”

  226. mazbut

    I am not mixing up. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander. Whatever be the philosophy of the Talibans they still call them Muslims, the same is with Mirzaees whose reasoning falls behind the scope of fundamental tenets of Islam. How ridiculously the fanatics of this cult have remarked about non-Mirzaees being Kafirs! It reminds me of George Bush who in his mighty whims had said: either you are with us or with the terrorists!! If this be so all Muslims who are not Mirzaees should be Kafirs!

    There’s is a Himalaya of discussions on Mirazism as well as Mutazilla and Al-Ashriya, on rationalism and faith, on wahdat-al-wajood and wahdat-al-shahood, etc…

    You have to go through all this stuff until the time you grow up and like an Australian who said he was God,declare yourself to some higher status on the basis of your ”reason”.
    Whatever Azad had stated is not quoted in its proper context. He did not allude to MGM at all!

  227. Milind Kher

    The best principle to adopt is the Quranic principle put very simply in 109:6

    “Unto you your religion, and unto me mine”

    This, of course, is the last stage. The better way out is the “Same God, Same Prophet, Same book” approach in which all Muslims are treated as brothers and sisters in faith, sectarian differences notwithstanding. The way Shias, for instance, refer to themselves as “We Shias” and to Sunnis as “Our Sunni brethren”.

    Polemics and acrimony only vitiate the atmosphere and erode unity.

  228. mazbut


    True…..but this verse does not refer to sects among Muslims but Kafirs and Munafiq. Punishment for those who turn away from Islam or try to induct novations or alter the fundamental tenets of Quran is openly prescribed…..and there are no two opinions about it

  229. YLH

    Was Allama Iqbal an Ahmadi/Qadiyani till the early 1930s as I claimed

    Well here is an interesting discussion for all of you…

  230. mazbut

    Hitler and Mussolini were initially also regarded as ‘Heroes’ by their countrymen but later as the ‘veil’ lifted the same countrymen regarded them as rogues.
    Villains are no less than Heroes in their minds or genius but only differ in their covert motives and moves as time progresses.

  231. Rashid

    November 27, 2009 at 1:05 pm
    “the same is with Mirzaees whose reasoning falls behind the scope of fundamental tenets of Islam. How ridiculously the fanatics of this cult have remarked about non-Mirzaees being Kafirs!”

    Mazbut sahib, I challenge you to provide any such quote of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (MGA) sahib were branded Muslims as Kafirs.
    What you are accusing of saying was ACTUALLY said by his son Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, the Qadiani Khalifa 2. Unfortunately, opponents of MGA, because of their DISHONESTY and some cases IGNORANCE accuse MGA of making this kind of STUPID statement, and the reference they provide of is NOT of MGA. I will give you benefit of doubt and say you probably are not aware of MGA, and you are influenced by opponents of MGA.

    Case of MGA is SIMILAR to case of Jesus (AS). Paul CHANGED Jesus status, claims and belief. Similarly, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad CHANGED MGA status, claims and belief.
    I take it another similarity between Jesus and MGA. MGA claimed to be in likeliness of Jesus.

    To prove to you MGA did NOT make any STUPID statement that you accuse him of, I would refer you to following link on Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement—UK website:
    www dot ahmadiyya dot org
    Look at ‘Ahmadiyya Movement’ section in middle, of bottom row.
    Click on:
    ‘See full contents’
    Click on:
    ‘Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad: His beliefs, claims and life’

  232. mazbut

    @ Rashid

    I may take your point in that Muslims other than Mirzees were declared Kafirs by his son. But what I am trying to say is that this entire lot is ONE and DISTINCT and has to be viewed as a WHOLE.
    I have no interest in going to Mirzaee sites or burdening my mind by reading any of their literature as have already done so ( and now want to forget it for not being worthwhile) decades ago . If you are interested you can ponder into the arguments raised by Muslims and Mirzaee parties during the debate which led to their being declared as Non-Muslims.

    BTW is this forum meant for religious debates?? If not the mods here should close this thread as it is exhausted of relevant comments and start a new Mirzaee thread to attract more authorities on that subject.

  233. AZW

    @ Mazbut, and everyone else:

    This forum is not for religious debates, or sectarian propeganda, or my holy man is holier than thou, or Ahmediyya text based arguments, or any other sect based arguments for that matter.

    Rashid has been warned at least three times by myself, and I have put his comments on spam previously. Somehow the WordPress moderator actions do not completely work out, and Rashid is able to keep posting. It is clear that Rashid has not listened to any of the previous warnings and has shown no inclination to change his ways. He is no longer welcome at PTH and we are working to ban him completely from the website. Hopefully, the next action will be further effective and longer lasting.

    Adnann (Moderator)

  234. vajra


    I wish you would also ban the ‘relishers’ and the ‘fascists’ [ http: slash slash fiverupees dot blogspot dot com slash search?q=Indians+on+YouTube]. I know YLH and others look at these with a smirk of satisfaction, as proving how utterly brain-dead some people can be, but it is discriminatory in the extreme, and I have registered my protests in vain in the past. You have as great a set of idiots as these; it’s just that with a population six times greater, we get an occurrence six times greater.

  235. Rashid

    @AZW and Mazbut:

    Fortunately, or unfortunately In a Muslim life religion i.e. Islam is too much involved. As a result in any talk of Muslim politics, religion has a major share. Everyone on this forum is complaining about problems in Pakistan. And at the same time silent code of conduct wants not to talk about the elephant in the room. Instead of taking control of elephant by understanding it, is discouraged. It is very unfortunate that people are allowed to use derogatory words, speak lies, and make false accusations on the most rational person and movement, which scarified and sacrifices all they have to help Muslims better under stand the elephant i.e. Islam, so that opposition, and problems of Muslims, and Pakistan could resolve. And world can be peaceful place where all human beings, regardless of their religions and faiths can become one Ummah. Holy Quran has addressed whole man kind as one Ummah, not only Muslims.

  236. mazbut

    @ Rashid

    Let’s meet and sort out YOUR problem.

    I have begun to feel pity for you.
    If every one took pride in his dung hill and continued to blow his own horn we cannot imagine to get anywhere or in the least become Ummah as you put it!

  237. Rashid


    What Dung Hill???
    In words of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad:
    “To them [PEOPLE LIKE MAZBUT] Islam means undiluted loyalty to their own sect. ……The Ulema have used the instrument of takfeer [fatwas declaring someone as infidel] liberally. Earlier, they used to take Islam to the disbelievers; now they take away Islam from the believers. Islamic history is full of instances of how good and pious Muslims were branded kafirs. Prophets alone had the capability to cope with these mindboggling situations. Even they had to pass through times of afflictions and trials. The fact is that when reason and intelligence are abandoned and attitudes become fossilised then the job of the reformer becomes very difficult.”

    Mazbut, earlier you wrote:
    November 25, 2009 at 5:42 pm
    I have to say MGM is what he is as decided by the majority of Muslims and he and his followers are definitely non-Muslims as such. ( these are not my words but Muslims have to go by the findings of the majority. Well, this is what you observe in democracy, don’t you??

    When I pointed out your mistake you wrote:
    November 26, 2009 at 12:03 pm @ Rashid
    However, at present, as a simple Muslim [PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO YOUR WORDS: “as a simple Muslim”] I have good reasons for not agreeing with his ‘theory!’

    Mazbut: Did you notice, the “authority”, “conviction”, “scholarship”, “braveness” you showed in your Nov 25th post was NOT there in your Nov 26th post???
    Where is your honesty, courage and braveness to say, “as a simple Muslim I follow commands of Allah SWT who ordered Muslims in Holy Quran to NOT even brand those Kafirs (non-Muslims) who even say Salam”???
    Where is your honesty, and moral courage to say, “I consider all reciters of Kalama Shahada are Muslims, regardless how good or bad they may be. It is up to Allah SWT to judge their Iman”???
    FYI: Members of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (LAM) are ONLY group of Muslims who COLLECTIVELY hold firm belief that EACH AND EVERY RECITER OF KALAMA-SHAHADA IS MUSLIM. Period. LAM considers even those Shia Mulsims who according to YLH drink Zul-Jinah horse urine and eats its DUNG. LAM considers each and every Sunni, Shia, and all their sub-sects and even Qadianis as Muslims. Unless all Muslims take approach of LAM, they will as in YOUR WORDS, “will keep taking pride in their DUNG HILL”. And Muslim –Ummah and mankind –Ummah will keep fighting and killing each other.

    Mazbut you wrote:
    November 30, 2009 at 2:03 am @ Rashid
    “But what I am trying to say is that this entire lot [referring to Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement and Qadiani Jamaat] is ONE and DISTINCT and has to be viewed as a WHOLE.”

    Mazbut, your reasoning is tantamount to that ATHEIST reasoning who does NOT believe in existence of God, religion, messengers of Allah SWT, and is bundling together Christians and Muslims and NOT caring for what are their points of difference. Fact is that both Christians and Muslims believe in Allah (Arabic language bibles uses word Allah for God), have their religions etc. How you can differentiate yourself from that atheist perspective???

  238. mazbut

    Why wouldn’t you want to meet me to ‘resolve’ your problem?? Let’s fix a venue and discuss things over?
    Continual indulgence in rhetoric won’t get you anywhere!!

  239. yasserlatifhamdani

    I hate you both.

  240. mazbut

    ‘Stupidity crisis’ allows you to have the right to do so….keep going!!

  241. Rashid


    I say every reciter of Kalama-Shahada including Sunni, Shia, Ismaili, Brohi, Qadiani…ARE MUSLIM. Do you have any problem with that???
    Muslims, like you, like it or not will ultimately come to agreement that every reciter of Kalma-Shahada is Muslim. Whether a person is a good or bad Muslim, it is up to Allah SWT to decide. Just the way it is up to Allah SWT to decide about a Muslim who has left Islam and converted to Christianity, Bahai faith etc.

    Sorry, my friend.
    Whether mods on this forum like it or not, Islam will always come in discussion when it is about Muslims.
    I think this forum should encourage its posters, readers (especially those from Pakistan) to accept EVERY RECITER of Kalma-Shahada as Muslim. Only this will bring peace and prosperity in Pakistan. otherwise there won’t be Pakistan in its current geographical boundaries. When (Godforbid)Pakistan breaks into different pieces with it 1973 constitution will break and along with it 2nd ammendment. It will be real sad situation that country breaks into pieces because of people like Mazbut who are NOT willing to accept every reciter of Kalma-Shahada as Muslim.

  242. Great info on link building.. It will guide many in building good links on the Web

  243. mazbut

    <<<<<<<<to accept EVERY RECITER of Kalma-Shahada as Muslim<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    What about hypocrites (munafiqeens)???

  244. sohail

    i am no fan of majlis e ahrar but those people ( qadianis and ahrar alike ) who hurl abuses at iqbal do so for the follwing reasons.

    ahrar hate iqbal because he was against mullas. and qadianis also dislike him because he exposed them in his writings .
    iqbal writes in his essay islam and ahmadism as follows:

    ”As I read the psychology of his mind he, in the interest of his own claim to Prophethood, avails himself of what he describes as the creative spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam and at the same time DEPRIVES the Holy Prophet of his ‘finality’ by limiting the creative capacity of his spirituality to the rearing of only one prophet, i.e., the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement. In this way does the new prophet quietly STEAL AWAY the ’finality’ of one whom he claims to be his spiritual progenitor.

    He claims to be a ‘buruz’ of the Holy Prophet of Islam insinuating thereby that, being a ‘buruz’ of him his ‘finality’ is virtually the ‘finality’ of Muhammad; and that this view of the matter, therefore, does not violate the ‘finality’ of the Holy Prophet. in identifying the two finalities, his own and that of the Holy Prophet, he conveniently losses sight of the temporal meaning of the idea of Finality. It is, however, obvious that they word ‘buruz’ in the sense even of complete likeness, cannot help him at all; for the ‘buruz’ must always remain the other of its original. Only in the sense of reincarnation a ‘buruz’ becomes identical with the original. Thus if we take the word ‘buruz’ to mean “like in spiritual qualities” the ARGUMENT REMAINS INEFFECTIVE ; if, on the other hand, we take it to mean reincarnation of the original in the Aryan sense of the word, the argument becomes plausible; but its author turns out to be only a MAGIAN IN DISGUISE .”

  245. yasserlatifhamdani

    Majlis-e-Ahrar loves Iqbal. Always have.

    Majlis-e-Ahrar threw abuses at Jinnah not Iqbal.

    And btw … we have proven above that Iqbal was an Ahmadi till about 1931 or 32 (long after he came up with the “Khayal”).

  246. Majlis-e-Ahrar wo jamat he jis ne Khatm-e-Nubuwwat KE plate farm se sub se ziada qurbaniaya diin Ahrar members ne maray kha kar tareerkh rakam kar di.Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam ka jub tak aik member bhi zinda he ye nai Nubuwwat chalney nahi dain ge insha Allah.
    Khatm-e-Nubuwwat Zindabad
    Qadianiat Murdabad
    Mujahid-e-Khatm-e-Nubuwwat Abdul Latif Khalid Cheema Zindabad
    Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam zindabad

  247. Majlis-e-Ahrar wo jamat he jis ne Khatm-e-Nubuwwat KE plate farm se sub se ziada qurbaniaya diin Ahrar members ne maray kha kar tareerkh rakam kar di.Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam ka jub tak aik member bhi zinda he ye nai Nubuwwat chalney nahi dain ge insha Allah.
    Khatm-e-Nubuwwat Zindabad
    Qadianiat Murdabad
    Mujahid-e-Khatm-e-Nubuwwat Abdul Latif Khalid Cheema Zindabad
    Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam zindabad

  248. Jahan walo ko batla do abhi Ahrar zinda he
    Abhi Khatm-e-Nubuwwat ke alambardar zinda he

  249. Maqsood ki manzil na mili he namilay gee
    seeno me agar jazba-e-Ahrar Nahi he
    (Ameer-e-Shariat Syed Ata Ullah Shah bukhari)

  250. yasserlatifhamdani

    Chasim Qeemay… teray jaiso ko kacha chabanay ka waqt agiya hai.

  251. Pingback: Terrorists attacks Jinnah Hospital - Page 15 - Pakistan Defence Forum

  252. Pingback: From BBC Urdu: The Idiots In Our Religious Parties « Pak Tea House

  253. Pingback: Ahmadis in Pakistan - Page 58 - Pakistan Defence Forum