A 1953 report by Time Magazine on Extremism

We are grateful to T Fazlani for sending us this interesting link. Amazing how things have not changed much. PTH

PAKISTAN: The Mad Mullahs – Time (March 30,1953)

For two days last week, a wild mob ruled the Pakistan city of Lahore (pop. 849,000). Surging through the streets, hungry Moslems stoned and stabbed police, burned buses and automobiles, ripped up railroad tracks, cut telegraph wires, smashed traffic lights and forcibly blackened the faces of anyone caught riding a bicycle or automobile. All shops closed and public officials fled. The city’s 300 police, disarmed by the mob, were withdrawn from the streets. All communication with the outside world was cut off.

It was a minor revolution which swept this capital of the fertile Punjab province—a revolution engineered by fanatical mullahs against the Pakistan government. Five and a half years ago, when millions of frightened refugees were pouring into newly created Pakistan, the mullahs were the people’s leaders. They had a strong voice in the government. But when the country began establishing industries, hospitals, schools and banks, the mullahs protested that these innovations clashed with Islamic law. When Pakistani women shed their veils and emerged from purdah (complete seclusion in the home), the more fanatic mullahs were outraged. When the time came for Pakistan to draw up a constitution, the mullahs demanded that it be based on the Koran. (Result: Pakistan, a nation of 76 million, is still without a constitution.) The government of Prime Minister Kwaja Nazimuddin avoided an open clash with religious leaders, but paid less attention to their counsel.

The Hungry Mobs. Last month a religious group known as the Ahraris, influenced by fanatic mullahs, demanded that the government declare half a million members of the Ahmadiya sect to be non-Moslems. The Ahmadiyas are a close-knit and unpopular group, followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who at the turn of the century declared himself a Nabi, or prophet of Allah. There was politics in the mullahs’ demands, because Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, able, bearded Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan, is an Ahmadiya.* The Ahraris’ mullahs demanded his removal. When the government refused, the mullahs began stirring up trouble, particularly in Lahore, where there are many Ahmadiyas. Craftily they timed their protest to occur before the new season’s crops were harvested, when people were hungry.

Spellbinding mullahs whipped up crowds in Lahore’s many mosques, and in a few days wild processions were shouting anti-Ahmadiya slogans. When police clubbed and shot demonstrators, the bodies of the dead and wounded were dragged to the mosques, where the mullahs exhibited them. Within a week the Ahmadiyas had been forgotten: thousands of hungry Pakistanis had turned their wrath on the government. In the streets they cried “Hai Nazimuddin” (Woe on Nazimuddin).

The Counter Blow. When news of the Lahore uprising reached Prime Minister Nazimuddin in Karachi, he ordered 44-year-old Major General Mohammed Azam Khan, commander of the military cantonment outside Lahore, to move into the city and regain control. Ten thousand Pakistani troops put the city under martial law. Within six hours the revolution was over. The Red Cross counted 330 dead at first aid stations. Other dead, picked up and buried by relatives, probably raised the death toll to 1,000 or more.

At week’s end, Moslem Prime Minister Nazimuddin cautiously blamed the Ahraris for the rioting. This was strong stuff in a nation founded on religion. When the Ahraris failed to protest. Nazimuddin boldly lashed out, accused them of having opposed the formation of Pakistan. The Ahraris stayed silent.

The only sound in Lahore was the banshee wail of the curfew siren and the tramp of hobnailed military boots on the darkened, empty streets.

* Another of his distinctions: to have made the longest-winded speech in U.N. history, which took up two consecutive Security Council meetings. Subject: India’s misdeeds.

51 Comments

Filed under Pakistan

51 responses to “A 1953 report by Time Magazine on Extremism

  1. Talha

    Thanks for posting this.

    I found it odd that these groups (Ahraris & others) who vehemently opposed to the idea of Pakistan decided to migrate to Pakistan after its creation. I believe they should not have been allowed to enter Pakistan in the first place.

    One thing that has to be noted is that back then the government stood firmly against these elements and they were crushed by our Army. Today this is not possible, the politicians and to a lesser extent the army too are very cautious of offending the Mullahs.

    At that time, Ayub Khan rightfully banned the religious parties; Maududi was given a death sentence which unfortunately was not carried out.
    Incidentally, the country fell into the hands of these anti Pakistani elements and we suffer today because of it.

    It is the fault of Bhutto who gave into the demands of religious parties, then came the bigger fanatic who hailed from an Ahrari family. Zia whose uncle was Maulana Tufail undid all the progress of our nation during his tenure.

    Now we need someone to undo all this and return us back to the country that Jinnah created.

  2. YLH

    Of course Time Magazine did n0t point out that Ahraris were against the creation of the new state and were proud allies of Gandhi and the Congress Party.

  3. YLH

    “amazing how things have not changed much”

    No much has changed. The government now does not stand up for hapless communities and minorities…. it does not send in the military to regain control and put Mullahs in their place…

    Thanks to that a-hole Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and his son General Zia… were are now completely changed.

  4. Talha

    This whole episode by these elements was quashed within 6 hours by the Army, Maj Gen Azam Khan was very effective and the Ahraris went quite after the operation.

    The culprits were Maududi and the likes who have caused nothing but harm for Pakistan.

    I hope that one day we take the same path as Turkey to emerge as a secular progressive nation.

  5. karun1

    I never knew gandhi advocated violence…its like saying ahraris were good muslims and proud followers of Prophet Muhammad…..again baseless

  6. Talha

    @ Karun,

    It is a known fact that the Ahraris were allied with the Congress and Gandhi.

    They were staunchly against Pakistan, perhaps you should take your allies back. They are now found under many odd names.

  7. Junaid

    @Talha

    This whole episode by these elements was quashed within 6 hours by the Army, Maj Gen Azam Khan was very effective and the Ahraris went quite after the operation.

    It seems starving the police of vitally required funds to operate efficiently was some thing which was prevalent from day one.

    This episode must have instilled a fear of Pak army in the citizens of Pakistan and demonstrated the superiority of army over inefficient civilian institutions.

    The ground work for military take over must have been laid through these riots.

    The genesis of the mullah military alliance can be traced back to 1953.

  8. Tilsim

    Pakistan then did not tolerate violent insurrection against itself.

    Below is what Karl Popper, Scientist and Nobel Laureate and one of the great 20th century philosophers said about the paradox of tolerance:

    In The Open Society and Its Enemies: The Spell of Plato, he argued that:

    Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

    The utterence of intolerant philosophies should not always be suppressed, “as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion.” However,

    we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive , and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

    Furthermore, in support of human rights legislation in the second half of the 20th century, he stated:

    We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

    Sounds like a good philosophy for the problems in Pakistan to me.

    From Islam’s own history we have the example of Imam Ali and his war against the violently intolerant Kharijites.

  9. Talha

    @ Junaid,

    Pakistan at that time was in very bad state, a country with no established industry and the region Pakistan was situated in was not as developed as the rest of India.

    The Police and other such instituitions were weak and incapable of achieving much. Thus the intervention of the Army, Time Magazine also wrote that ‘Pakistan got the military while India got the civil servants’ in one of its articles.

    After this operation, the army cleaned up Lahore and left it looking better than ever. This made people realise that the military was better option for running the country. Army too realised this and got to like the taste of control which it still has not shunnded to this day.

    So you are correct, this incident initiated the armies interest and subsequent role in governing the country. After his 1958 coup, Ayub Khan turned Pakistan into a highly progressive and least corrupt nation in Asia. Much praise was given to Pakistan in those days.

    The Mullah Military alliance started when Zia Ul Haq got promoted to COAS, he was a fundamentalist. His Uncle was JI leader Mian Tufail and they initiated this whole blunder. All the good men in the army were chased out while religious personnel were promoted.

    The Army started undoing all this sometime ago but many of Zia’s children still lurk in the army, hence the support for militant groups.

  10. Tilsim

    Turkey does an annual purge of army officers considered to have an excessive interest in politics, in particular religious politics (formally approved by the President). Shame Pakistan did n’t see the danger in the 1950s and start the same thing.

  11. Voldemort

    YLH

    “Of course Time Magazine did n0t point out that Ahraris were against the creation of the new state and were proud allies of Gandhi and the Congress Party.”

    Jinnah too had many shady accomplices in his own party, the Muslim League, who were openly baying for Hindu blood – but he gets a free pass, because after all, Jinnah can’t be held responsible for anything he or his sidekicks said or did. But Gandhi must be held accountable for what even his “allies” did.

  12. NAS

    But the real issue that this article raises is whether the Pakistan government can crack down now in a similar way, and whether such a crack down would work.

  13. Tilsim

    @ YLH
    July 22, 2010 at 3:50 pm
    “Of course Time Magazine did n0t point out that Ahraris were against the creation of the new state and were proud allies of Gandhi and the Congress Party.”

    It’s going to sidetrack the discussion.

  14. Talha

    Who is blaming Gandhi for these riots, we just stated that the Gandhi was an ally of these groups. That is the matter of fact.

    Ahrar ended after this episode, the army and government finished them once and for all. The Hekmatyar, Taliban and toiba types are the product of Zia’s doctrine.

    When he purged out all the good soldiers, he with the help of his Saudi and American friends created all these militants.

    Now the purge is of the opposite kind, also why are you linking these militant groups to this case. These groups are basically those which fought with support against the soviets and then turned their guns on others.

    These extremist see Pakistan as an obstacle in the grand dreams of an Ummah. Some say that Pak ended the goals of Muslimmah-e-Hind.

    All these groups have to be dealt with.

  15. Ahmadi (Lahori)

    Ahmadiyya roots of General Zia Ul Haq and his sympathies.

    General Zia ul Haq was son of Imam-Masjid in Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Mosque in Jalandhur, India. His father later joined British Army as Imam.

    When General Zia ul Haq imposed martial law, on July 5 1977, he appointed senior most army officer Major General Abdullah Saeed in Baluchistan, as Chief Marshal Law administrator in Baluchistan. Major General Abdullah Saeed was son of Khanbahadur Dr. Saeed Ahmad Khan, MBBS, founder of health care system in Hazara Division and of Tuberculosis Hospital in Daddar, near Mansehra. Dr. Saeed Ahmad sahib later became head of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement in 1980 until his death in 1996.

    Major General Abdullah Saeed, after retirement was appointed as Pakistan’s ambassador to Mexico. He passed away in mid 1980s in USA, and got buried near Houston, Texas. General Zia visited Major General Abdullah Saeed’s father in Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement headquarters and offered Fatiah.

    General Zia had good personal relations with even Qadianis. He promoted Pakistan Army Surgeon General Mahmud ul Hassan to rank of Lieutenant General. And trusted him for operation of his gallbladder. It was through Lt. Gen Mahmud ul Hassan, he helped Mirza Tahir Ahmad the Qadiani Khalifa 4 to escape from Pakistan to London in mid 1980s. On Gen Zia instructions ISI helped Mirza Tahir Ahmad to escape to UK.

    It is true that under pressure of Mullah-Mafia and in order to establish his constituency among Mulla-and-Pir he danced on their music. I believe he got the worst punishment among all those in authority who persecuted reciters of Kalima-Shahada, because he enacted laws despite being fully aware of beliefs of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib, the Mujjaddid of 14th Islamic century.

    P.S. This post was to help Talha understand some background of Gen. Zia.

  16. Talha

    It has been speculated that Zia listed himself as an Ahmadi when he signed up to the British Indian Army. To distance himself from Ahmadiyyat, he enacted Ordinance XX.

    I also knew that his personal surgeon was an Ahmadi and he promoted him but it has to be noted that many minority serving members of the armed forces were kicked out. Only to return later on in prominent roles.

    I am not so sure about all this but it sure is intriguing. Bhutto too won the election because Ahmadis worked for him and he later excommunicated them because he thought if they can get me elected, they can get me out too.

  17. Ahmadi (Lahori)

    For Talha
    “I am not so sure about all this but it sure is intriguing. Bhutto too won the election because Ahmadis worked for him and he later excommunicated them because he thought if they can get me elected, they can get me out too.”

    Yes, you’re correct. A former Ahmadi (Qadiani) has written book on ZAB and he has mentioned in it.
    Actually, Shezan Juices owner, a Qadiani-Ahmadi, wrote 10 lakhs rupees check to ZAB. ZAB replied, “i drink alcohol for this much amount every night”. Then Shezan owner gave him a blank check. And of course Qadiani Khalifa 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad after the election boasted, “Constitution will be what we would like”. Yes, Qadiani Khalifa 3 and his younger brother who became Qadiani Khalifa 4 started contacts with Asghar Khan, of Tahrik-i-Istaqlal to black mail ZAB. ZAB out smarted them by getting them declared Kaffir (and along with them even Lahori-Ahmadis for NO fault of theirs). In Col Rafi book ‘Last 323 days of Bhutto’ ZAB stated, “Qadianis were becoming King Makers like Jews in USA. ”
    It was the greatest blunder of Qadiani-Ahmadiyya leadership to get involved in politics on their organizational level, by providing finances, manpower and votes in 1970 elections. They should have kept their organization out of politics.
    Unfortunately, it was NOT the first time Qadiani leadership got involved into politics. First they presented their case for ‘Independent State comprising of 60 villages with Qadian as their capital’ in Boundary Commission. 4 parties presented themselves in Boundary commission–Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Qadiani-Ahmadiyya (NOT the Lahore-Ahmadiyya, as they were with Muslim League).

  18. Bin Ismail

    @Ahmadi (Lahori)

    Thank you for sharing with us all these classified and till yet unknown details. How generous of you.

    If Gen. Zia was an Ahmadi and the greatest sympathiser of Ahmadis, then Lenin was indeed the founder of U.S.A. and Thimpu is surely the capital of Germany and Botswana is verily the only super-power of the world and China unquestionably has the smallest population on the planet.

    We are all keenly looking forward to more similarly intriguing revelations from you. Do keep us informed.

  19. skarlok

    @ Bin Ismail

    you forgot that Barak Obama is a JI conspiracy to bring down the US.

  20. NSA

    The Munir Report has a history of the Ahrars.

    “The Ahrar were a party of nationalist, Muslims who seceded from the Congress and in a meeting held in Lahore on 4th May 1931 founded the Majlis-i-Ahrar-i-Islam. ”

    “Though they had cut themselves off from the Congress, the Ahrar continued to flirt with that body right up to the Partition.”

    “A full account of the genesis and the activities of the Ahrar has been given in an earlier part of this report. The dominating principle by which the Ahrar policy is governed is not to play the second fiddle. It was on this principle that they separated from the Congress, though even after this, they continued flirting with and kotowing before the Congress.”

    “In their dealings with the Congress, religion was a private affair to them and nationalism their ideology. When they were pitted against the League, their sole consideration was Islam of which they held a monopoly from God, and the League was not only indifferent to but an enemy of Islam. ”

    “So far as the Ahrar are concerned, they consistently exploited religion for their political ends. They left the Congress on grounds of religion, and they opposed the Muslim League and Pakistan on that ground.”

    and

    “This conduct of the Maulana shows quite clearly how the Ahrar and other parties can conveniently exploit religion for their political ends. In this connection we may also mention a similar effort made by the Muslim League itself in 1946 to have pirs and masha’ikh, who command considerable followings, on its side in the struggle for the establishment of Pakistan. The Muslim League with a view to enlisting the support of the masses appointed a Masha’ikh Committee, consisting of twelve members, some of whom were religious leaders of unquestionable positions, e. g. the Pir Sahib of Macki Sharif, Pir Jama’at Ali Shah, Khwaja Nizam-ud-Din of Taunsa Sharif; Makhdum Raza Shah of Multan, etc. But the amusing part of it is that even men like Khan Iftikhar Husain Khan of Mamdot, Sirdar Shaukat Hayat Khan, Malik Feroz Khan Noon and Nawab Muhammad Hayat Qureshi, who were not much known for their religiosity, were also included in this Committee and religious designations assigned to them. Khan Iftikhar Husain Khan of Mamdot was described as Pir Mamdot Sharif, Sirdar Shaukat Hayat Khan as Sajjada Nashin of Wah Sharif, Malik Feroz Khan Noon of Darbar Sargodha Sharif and Nawab Muhammad Hayat Qureshi as Sajjada Nashin of Sargodha Sharif and to top all, the Secretary of this Committee, Mr. Ibrahim Ali Chishti, was designated Fazil-i-Hind Sajjada Nashin of Paisa Akhbar Sharif. The only object of the appointment of this Masha’ikh Committee could be to mix up important political leaders of the Province with religious leaders of recognised status and to hold them out as spokesmen of religion so that if occasion arose they could sway the masses more easily. And in the course of this very agitation the issues of the ‘Azad’, an Ahrar paper, for 7th December and 16th November 1952, reported two speeches, one by Hafiz Qamrud Din, Sajjada Nashin, Sial Sharif, and the other by Qazi Ehsan Ahmad Shujabadi, in which in the cause of religion rebellion was stated not only to be justifiable but an act of piety.”

  21. Ahmadi (Lahori)

    I think it is high time for Qadiani-Ahmadi friends to “stop shooting the messenger”.
    It is so unfortunate that they hold belief that thousands of messengers will come before the world ends, but they also keep on shooting messengers. I guess they want to only hear messengers from their own organization. How unfair of Qadianis!

  22. NSA

    Strangely, the Ahrar shut up in India, and did not in Pakistan. Munir Report, continued,

    “On Partition the Ahrar came to Pakistan as a defeated and frustrated party. Some of the Ahrar leaders stayed behind and according to a report published in the ‘Zamindar’ of 16th January 1948, the All India Majlis-i-Ahrar passed a resolution dissolving their organisation and accepting that in India no political organisation other than the Congress was called for. The resolution advised the Musalmans to join the Congress and to acknowledge the leadership of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. They decided to confine their future activities to khidmat-i-khalq (service of humanity) and for the protection of their religious rights the Musalmans were advised to join the Jami’at-ul-Ulama organisation.

    In Pakistan they kept quiet for some time, trying to discover some new ideology for themselves. They repeatedly said that they had not given up politics and that they intended to assume the role of opposition in Pakistan (vide the ‘Azad’ for 26th December 1950, and 27th May 1952, and the ‘Ta’meer-i-Nau’ of 5th December 1949), We have already pointed out how after a period of inactivity they began to awake as a political party but finding that there was no scope for their old ideology in Pakistan and that the Muslim League would not permit them to come into prominence, they surrendered their politics in favour of the Muslim League and declared that in future they would devote themselves to tabligh (religious propaganda).

    What the precise scope of their activities in the field of tabligh was going to be was not announced by them, but it has been admitted before us that the conversion of non-Muslims other than Ahmadis was not included in their campaign which was to be exclusively directed against the Ahmadis. Their enmity of the Ahmadis extended over almost a quarter of a century, and though it will be incorrect to say that before the Partition they were not very much concerned, about the Ahmadis, their beliefs and their activities, it can be said with absolute certainty that now the Ahrar brought the anti-Ahmadiya controversy out of their old armoury purely as a political weapon and what subsequently happened is an eloquent testimony to their shrewdness and judgment as a political party. They thought that if they could arouse public feeling and the masses against the Ahmadis, nobody would dare oppose them and that the more the opposition to this activity of theirs, the more popular they would become. Subsequent events showed that they were right in this assumption.”

  23. skarlok

    @Ahmadi (Lahori)
    July 23, 2010 at 4:06 am

    “I think it is high time for Qadiani-Ahmadi friends to “stop shooting the messenger”.
    It is so unfortunate that they hold belief that thousands of messengers will come before the world ends, but they also keep on shooting messengers. I guess they want to only hear messengers from their own organization. How unfair of Qadianis!”

    First of all, saying qadiani-ahmadi’s believe thousands of messengers will come before the world ends already shows how you may confuse actual facts with your own imagination. Perhaps the insinuation that zia was an ahmadi sympathizer is just another one of your imagination playing tricks on you. I have heard hallucinatory drugs sometimes have that effect.

  24. mubarak

    @ skarlok
    July 23, 2010 at 4:38 am

    skarlok, its is possible that Ahmadi (Lahori) may actually be one of these messengers from God. It sure seems so because it looks like God revealed to him that Zia was an ahmadi supporter or secret ahmadi.

  25. NSA

    Generosity should be remembered, even from 64 years ago.

    Volume 93 of Gandhi’s collected works:

    133. LETTER TO NAZIR

    CAMP: SRIRAMPUR,
    EAST BENGAL,
    December 4, 1946

    DEAR FRIEND,

    I thank you for your draft for 5,000 rupees on behalf of the Ahmadiya Community for relief to sufferers in the recent Noakhali disturbances. The amount will be used as earmarked by you.

    Yours sincerely,
    M.K. GANDHI

    THE NAZIR
    UMOOR KHARIJAH
    QADIAN

    From a copy: Pyarelal Papers. Nehru Memorial Museum and Library. Courtesy: Beladevi Nayyar and Dr. Sushila Nayyar

  26. Ahmadi (Lahori)

    For Sharlok:
    “First of all, saying qadiani-ahmadi’s believe thousands of messengers will come before the world ends already shows how you may confuse actual facts with your own imagination.”

    Are you denying it as your belief, while considering yourself an Ahmadi (belonging to Qadiani group)?
    Please clarify your position. Thanks.

  27. Ahmadi (Lahori)

    For Mubarak:
    “It sure seems so because it looks like God revealed to him [Ahmadi (Lahori)] that Zia was an ahmadi supporter or secret ahmadi.”

    Mubarak, i gave reasons in my post to support my point. You can say you may not agree with the evidence i provided. But what is the point in ‘Shooting the Messenger’. Think!

  28. libertarian

    Ahmadi (Lahori), skarlok, mubarak: get a life. With friends like you who needs enemies?

  29. Talha

    Ahmadi (Lahori) is writing his groups side of the stroy, in reality, Maududi’s son went to Rabwah and told Ahmadi Leader to vote for them for a safe passage out as they (JI) will win in the election.

    They had to work against the JI thugs and Bhutto was the only option. Bhutto to keep himself in power by hook or crook gave into the mullahs demands.

    Zia was from an Ahrari family, he did however knew Ahmadi’s with whom he had good relation.

    This whole Qadianis are like Jews in USA is pre hogwash, even then people become strong on their own merit rather than a penchant for conspiracy and BS.

    Also I wanted to know about the population of Lahoris, seems like they are a limited bunch and declining.

  30. D Asghar

    I think we are digging history to the point of futility. The issue we are facing is quite blatantly obvious.

    What would take us back to the Pakistan that Jinnah Sahib had envisioned. Or at least he had eluded to in his speech on 08/11/1947. That should be the question.

    Military and Clergy alliance is fairly strong. The alliance has its vested interests. In between you have the clueless politicians who have to dance to the tune of clergy to whip up support from the masses. It seems like a big old gambit. How to unravel all this and put the country back on track, is a mighty guess.

  31. skarlok

    @ Ahmadi (Lahori)

    With regards to the possibility of prophets coming after Muhammad (saw) the Ahmadiyya interpretation is as follows:

    1. Muhammad (saw) is Khatam un Nabiyyeen as stated by the Quran.

    2. The expression “khatam” can only be interpreted in light of how the Prophet himself used this expression. The Prophet is the standard, not the maulvis. The Prophet (saw) termed Hazrat Ali (ra) “Khatam ul auliya” meaning the khatam of all saints, and Hazrat Abbas (ra) “Khatam ul muhajireen” meaning the khatam of all emigrants. Now evidently, Hazrat Ali (ra) was not the last of all saints. If anything he was perhaps among the first of Muslim saints. Hundreds of auliya/saints followed him – but he could be declared as the greatest of all saints. Similarly, Hazrat Abbas (ra) was not the last of all emigrants. I myself have emigrated from Pakistan, my country of origin to the U.S. – but he could be declared as the greatest of all emigrants. So, as I said earlier, the standard would have to be set by Muhammad (saw). In light of his own usage of the word “khatam”, we would have to believe that “Khatam un Nabiyyeen” would imply the greatest of all prophets. Anyway, the last does not necessarily have to be the best of a certain class.

    3. The Holy Prophet (saw) was the last Law-bringing Prophet. Hence the Quran is the last Book of Allah.

    4. The status of the Promised Messiah as a “Follower-Prophet” has been determined not by Ahmadis, but by Hazrat Muhammad (saw).

    Regards

    Mubarak

  32. mubarak

    @talha and ahmadi(lahori)
    I’m sorry if I lost my cool but considering zia as
    an helping Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmed escape to England is so blantantly false that I could not help myself. Zia made it impossible for HMTA to function in his role of head as the jammat ahmadiyya in Pakistan and wanted to arrest him. The fact that he escaped Zia’s attempt to arrest him, well Allah shows his assistance when need be.

  33. Dear All
    We try very hard to stay away from sectarian/theological debates here. Such discourse is divisive and the last thing we want is to create more fissures.
    PTH firmly believes that state should be neutral and should not have a sect or a religion. Beyond that, religion and faith is a personal matter and we would like people to email each other if they have to learn about each other’s belief system
    Not here, please.

  34. tilsim1

    @ D Asghar

    What you say is true. Good news is that there are many more of us who think this way than may be apparent.

    The least we can do is to make our voices heard (as you are doing) and not leave Islam to the radicals who are cruel people, intimidating everyone and as far away as from the example of the Prophet (pbuh) as possible in their speech. deeds and manners. For Pakistanis, faith has such a huge role to play in our identity – we cannot leave it to unethical people.

    I don’t want anybody accusing me how good a muslim I am or whether I will be in hell or heaven one day – this is not the way. God also does not give me the right to coerce others or spread falsehoods about others – such is the way of extremists and the Taliban. We have our conduct and our efforts towards improving the lives of our fellow man as well as our prayer that we will take from this world. All the Prophets have shown tolerance and forebearance and yet it seems to me that the more religious that Pakistan has become, the more intolerant it has become.

    Alongside prayer, there is tremendous satisfaction in kindness, charity and hard work that brings achievement. That is the way to serve humanity and our faith. That is not what we are seeing in Pakistan. What good are those prayers, when there is so much anger, hatred and intimidation and power is being worshipped by those with religious zeal.

    We have had more and more religiousity in Pakistan but there is more and more corruption. In my humble opinion, we are clearly going badly wrong in the way we think. This strange Islam, devoid of humanity and ethics, focussed on taqlid, that has become the fashion needs to be seriously questioned. We are being brainwashed into becoming haters by the Mullahs and their supporters. In the name of shariah, the State now has laws that are used against women and minorities in the name of Islam. It feels to me sometimes that everything has become corrupted in Pakistan, including Islam by the Wahabi ideology imported from Arabia, the extreme Deobandi groups and the misguided people like the Hizb-e Tahrir and the Taliban terrorists. Of course, in a way all of the groups share some blame but these are the ones that have the most aggression. We have to name them because otherwise we cannot deal with the problem.

    Today, I met a Kuwaiti lady. She told me that she funded the building of a mosque in Lahore 30 years ago. That’s very praiseworthy but she had no idea who she had given the money to, she had never visited and did not know what they were preaching. There are many more people who are doing this, thinking they are serving Islam but infact they are being irresponsible if they don’t monitor the situation or take an interest. We should raise awareness of this issue.

    So here are a couple of pointers to think over and make a contribution as you see possible.

  35. Bin Ismail

    The Munir-Kiyani Report of 1953 concluded that the following four political forces were responsible for the 1953 riots:

    1. Majlis-e Ahrar
    2. Jamaat-e Islami
    3. Jamiat Ulama-e Islam
    4. Daultana-led Muslim League government of Punjab

    The first three of these has overtly, even vulgarly, opposed the creation of Pakistan and had openly shown venom towards Quaid-e Azam. One wonders what led the leadership and top-brass of the clergy of these three parties to opt to move into Pakistan, after its creation. The only thing that comes to my mind is that there could have been two motivations, then, before these Maulanas:

    1. They were no more of any use to the Congress, in India. They had failed to woo the Muslim masses towards the Congress. They had lost and Jinnah had won. They had to revive their usefulness to their masters. So they moved into Pakistan to pursue another task – the task of undoing Pakistan.

    2. Staying in India, they obviously could not turn India into a shariah state, in the absence of which they themselves would not be the rulers. So grabbing the opportunity of entering Pakistani politics, they moved to Pakistan to pursue their aspirations here.

  36. Bin Ismail

    Erratum: “The first three of these [had] overtly…”

  37. YLH

    NAS mian… Ahrar was Congress ally… not merely staunchly against Pakistan.

    Please accept the facts.

  38. Bin Ismail

    @YLH (July 24, 2010 at 11:23 am)

    “…..Ahrar was Congress ally…..”

    Was or is ?

  39. Ahmadi (Lahori)

    For information of Non-Qadiani readers.

    Qadiani-Ahmadi poster ‘Sharlok’ has tried to explain to readers that ‘Khatam un Nabiyyeen’ does NOT mean Holy Prophet Muhammad pbuh was the last prophet and new prophets will keep coming, as long as they are Qadianis. This is clearly AGAINST the beliefs of non-Qadiani Muslims, including Lahori-Ahmadiyya.
    Maulana Muhammad Ali in his book ‘Aakhree Nabi’ (The Last Prophet) has proved from Arabic lexicon, dictionaries, literature, Holy Quran and Hadith that Qadiani meaning of word ‘Khatam un Nabiyyeen’ are baseless and absolutely concocted. Unfortunately, Qadianis deceive Muslims, as especially Pakistani Muslims are not well aware of Arabic dictionaries and lexicon, by creating absolutely false meanings of word ‘Khatam un Nabiyyeen’. In his book Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib has proved to Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmmud Ahmad that Holy Prophet Muhammad pbuh was THE LAST AND GREATEST PROPHET. His book was very much appreciated by Muslims who were not even Lahori-Ahmadiyya. Period.
    FYI: Maulana Muhammad Ali was head of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement. And his book ‘Aakhree Nabi’ in Urdu language is available on Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement headquarters website.

  40. Ahmadi (Lahori)

    For Raza Rumi.
    In one of your earlier blog article on this site, you suggested that, in Pakistan Qadianis should be given the same rights that Bahais receive in Iran. I must say I was some what saddened by your suggestion, as even a Sufi and tolerant person like yourself, is equating Qadianis with Bahais. I guess it was inevitable given Qadianis belief that there could a new prophet after Muslims greatest and THE LAST prophet i.e. Holy Prophet Muhammad pbuh.

  41. Bin Ismail

    Pointing towards his mosque in Madina, known as Masjid-un Nabi, and in our part of the world, known as Masjid-e Nabawi, the Holy Prophet said:

    “Ana aakhirul anbiyaa wa masjidi haaza aakhirul masaajid”

    meaning, “I am the last prophet and this mosque of mine is the last mosque”. Now examining things on the chronological lines, we would have to appreciate that Masjid-un Nabi was certainly not the last mosque to be built. If anything, it was among the earliest ones. So, in what sense could the Masjid-un Nabi be understood as “Aakhir-ul Masaajid” or the last mosque? Obviously, in the sense of being “the ultimate”, “the pinnacle”, “the last in height of glory”, but “chronologically last” would obviously not be factual. Moreover, if the Masjid-un Nabi had even been intended to be the chronologically last-built mosque, the Prophet would never have exhorted Muslims to build mosques subsequent to it.

    It is precisely in the same sense of the word, that the Holy Prophet is the “Last Prophet”. He stands on the last height of glory and excellence. There is no station beyond his – other than God’s. Thus he is unquestionably the “Last Prophet”.

  42. Ahmadi (Lahori)

    For Bin Ismail
    Qadianis CREATED “justifications” for continuance of prophethood beyond Holy Prophet Muhammad pbuh (Nauzubilah-Godforbid) are well answered by Maulana Muhammad Ali in his book ‘Aakhree Nabi’. Available on Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement website www dot aaiil dot org. You have made your case, and I have given reference to a book that negates Qadiani belief, references and “justification”. So, I would say, please let the Muslims decide for themselves between Qadiani Belief that prophet (nabi) came after Holy Prophet Muhammad pbuh and “many thousands will come in future”; and Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement belief that Holy Prophet Muhammad pbuh was THE LAST PROPHET AND NO NEW OR OLD PROPHET CAN COME AFTER HIM. INSTITUTION OF PROPHETHOOD IS CLOSED FOR EVER.

  43. Bin Ismail

    @ Ahmadi (Lahori) (July 27, 2010 at 10:11 am)

    1. The hadees I’ve quoted above is not a justification created by ‘anybody’. It is a hadees from Sahih Muslim. These are the words of the Holy Prophet, that seem to have left you perturbed.
    According to the Ahmadiyya interpretation Muhammad the Holy Prophet is “Khatam un Nabiyyeen”, precisely as stated by the Quran.

    2. The expression “khatam” (pronounced khaa-tam) needs to be interpreted in light of how the Holy Prophet himself used this expression. The Holy Prophet is the ultimate authority and standard, not the scholars. The Holy Prophet termed Hazrat Ali “khatam ul auliya” meaning the khatam of all saints, and Hazrat Abbas “khatam ul muhajireen” meaning the khatam of all emigrants. Now evidently, Hazrat Ali was not chronologically the last of all saints. If anything, he was perhaps among the first of Muslim saints. Hundreds of auliya/saints followed him. Similarly, Hazrat Abbas was not the last of all emigrants. Millions of emigrants followed him. Now, as I said earlier, the verdict of Muhammad the Messenger of God will be final. In light of his own usage of the word “khatam”, we would have to believe that just as “khatam-ul auliya” would imply the greatest of all saints and “khatam-ul muhajireen” would imply the greatest of all emigrants, similarly “Khatam un Nabiyyeen” would imply the greatest of all prophets.

    3. With reference to chronology, however, the Holy Prophet was, most certainly, the last Law-bringing Prophet. Hence the Quran is the last Book of Allah. He was also the last independent prophet.

    4. The status of the Promised Messiah/the Esa-to-come, whose advent was foretold by the Holy Prophet, as a “follower-prophet” or “subordinate prophet”, has been determined not by the Ahmadiyya Jamaat, but by Hazrat Khatam-ul Anbiya Muhammad Mustafa sallallahu alaihi wasallam himself.

    5. The Ahmadis do not contend that thousands of prophets will come after the Holy Prophet. We only contend that the Holy Prophet’s prophecies are destined to come true. If the Holy Prophet has decreed that the Promised Messiah would be a follower-prophet, that is his decree. If someone chooses not to accept it, this would have no bearing on the decree itself.

  44. Ahmadi (Lahori)

    For Bin Ismail
    Your points 1 to 4 are VERY WELL ANSWERED by Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib in his book Aakhree Nabi (available on www dot aaiil dot org). Please read his reply there, yourself.

    In your point 5, you wrote:
    “5. The Ahmadis do not contend that thousands of prophets will come after the Holy Prophet.”

    This is in CLEAR VIOLATIONS AND REJECTIONS OF TEACHINGS of Qadianis so called “Musleh-Mahud” the Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad. Read his book “Anwar-e-Khilafat” Pages 124 to 127 (available on Qadianis website www dot alislam dot org). Here are few of his quotes:
    “I say there shall be thousands of prophets”
    “I say even now there can be a prophet”
    “Even if someone placed a sword on my neck and ask me to say there can not be any nabi after Rasul Allah, I i will say you’re a liar and nabi can come after and they will come.”

    It is interesting to see how Qadianis are changing their beliefs after massacre of Qadianis in Lahore on May 28, 2010.

  45. Bin Ismail

    @Ahmadi (Lahori) (July 28, 2010 at 2:22 am)

    May I draw your attention to the following:

    1. Accepting a hypothetical possibility is one thing and making a specific forecast quite another. The Ahmadiyya Jamaat considers the appointment of a prophet solely the prerogative of God – nobody else’s. Therefore, hypothetically speaking, yes, the possibility of prophets coming, will always be there, because this prerogative will always rest with God.

    2. The prophecy regarding the advent of a latter Esa/Promised Messiah was made not by Ahmadis, but by the founder of Islam himself. Therefore, when we discuss the prophecy regarding the Promised Messiah, we are not discussing a hypothetical possibility, but a specific prophecy.

    3. The Ahmadiyya point of view on this issue is a principled one, based on the Quran and Hadees, and has remained unaltered since 1889.

    4. You have said, “It is interesting to see how Qadianis are changing their beliefs after massacre of Qadianis in Lahore on May 28, 2010.”

    All I can say is that it is even more interesting to note how old-harboured prejudice has deprived you of simple assessment. I assure you, Sir, that the May 28, 2010 events, if anything, have only fortified the convictions and certitude of the Ahmadis.

  46. Ahmadi (Lahori)

    For Bin Ismail:
    “Therefore, hypothetically speaking, yes, the possibility of prophets coming, will always be there, because this prerogative will always rest with God.”

    But your “Musleh-Mahud” was so much convinced and considered advent of prophets after Rasul Allah pbuh as such reality that he had conviction, and was willing to be “BEHEADED” and you’re calling it a “hypothetic pssibility”!!!!
    So, no more conviction for you, i suppose. So, gradually you’re moving away from from conviction of your “Musleh-Mahud”. With this pace it is only matter of couple of more massacres in your mosques (unfortunately) and matter of few years when Qadianis will openly REJECT teachings of their “musleh-mahud”. Dair-ayed Drust-ayed.

  47. Bin Ismail

    Earlier, there was an excellent article by Raza Habib Raja, titled “How reluctance to debate religion has resulted in a total quagmire”. I’m sorry to say this, my friend, but with your spiral logic, your eagerness to debate, too, will land you in a quagmire.

    With the intention of helping you out of your intellectual whirlpool, may I, for the last time, further elucidate the three current issues, from the Ahmadiyya viewpoint:

    1. Ahmadis believe that the appointment of Divine Appointees, for man’s reformation, be they prophets or otherwise, is exclusively God’s prerogative, and quite immune to human suggestions. This is exclusively His domain where He exercises His own choice. Now, since God happens to be eternal, whether to your convenience or not, this choice rests with Him eternally.

    2. Ahmadis believe that since the Holy Prophet had clearly prophesied that the Promised Messiah would be a subservient prophet serving under the Holy Prophet, it was therefore destined that the Holy Prophet’s prophecy come true, regardless of whether its fulfillment emerges to be in accord or conflict with the prevalent majority opinion.

    3. Ahmadis have held this view, since the inception of the Ahmadiyya Jamaat. Persecution or no persecution, massacres or no massacres, have had nor will have any negative bearing on the convictions of Ahmadis. Trust me.

  48. Sultan Ahmad

    This was an interesting link.Clergy started it .But why Government failed to control it? And ultimately 1953 riots got so serious that first provincial Government departed the scene and ultimately Governor General dismissed Nazimuddin Government.What is the lesson.I quote the last paragraph of the report of the Court of Inquiry.
    ‘And it is our deep conviction that if the Ahrar had been treated as a pure question of law and order,without any political consideration one District Magistrate and one Superintendent of Police could have dealt with them . Consequently ,we are prompted by something that they call a human conscience to enquire whether ,in our present state of political development , the administrative problem of law and order cannot be divorced from a democratic bed fellow called a Ministerial Government , which is so remorsely haunted by political nightmares.BUT IF DEMOCRACY MEANS THE SUBORDINATION OF LAW AND ORDER TO POLITICAL ENDS-THAN ALLAH KNOWETH BEST AND WE END THE REPORT’
    What was true in 1953 is still true.Clergy grabs the government land ,erect madrassahs,breaks law daily ,instignate murder but what is reaction of our Government .It is same as it was in 1953. Those who running Madrassahs are above law.Forget Lal Masjid ,we have got thousands of Madrassahs in the country. Are they producing useful citizens of Pakistan ? No need to answer this question ,everybody knows the answer.But remember we are creating Frankenstin.And you know one of the first thing this Frankenstin did was that he attacked his own creator.

  49. Ahmadi (Lahori)

    For Bin Ismail:
    This is not a religious website that is the reason I am avoiding to get into
    religious debate.

    “I’m sorry to say this, my friend, but with your spiral logic, your eagerness to
    debate, too, will land you in a quagmire.
    With the intention of helping you out of your intellectual whirlpool”
    Your comments reminds me of a Mullah who used the same kind of words in reply to
    a Qadiani’s arguments on ‘wafat-e-Maseeh’ (Death of Jesus). So, looks like you
    have picked up the dogmatic habits of Mullas. It is matter of time when like
    Mullah you will start cursing Hazrat Mirza Ghualm Ahmad, the MUJJADDID OF 14TH
    Islamic century.
    “1. Ahmadis believe that the appointment of Divine Appointees, for man’s
    reformation, be they prophets or otherwise, is exclusively God’s prerogative,
    and quite immune to human suggestions.”
    This means when a person and preferably from among the Qadianis claim that he is
    appointed as “nabi” (prophet) of Allah, then it will be incumbent on Qadianis to
    accept him as the new prophet. But the problem is when ever any Qadiani makes
    such claim of “nabuwat” (prophethood) your Qadiani Khalifas kick them out of
    Qadiani Jamaat. I wish you Qadianis can put money where your mouths are and
    accept over 50 NEW NABI (prophets) AMONG QADIANIS in last about 100 years.

    Here is the list of current claimants of “Divine Appointees”. They are shouting
    at top of their voices, but Qadiani Khalifas especially 4 and 5 have NOT been
    listening. These new “divine appointees” have been writing letters to Qadiani
    Khalifas, but instead of accepting their claim, Qadianis Khalifas have been
    KICKING THEM OUT OF QADIANI ORGANIZATION. Because they know, if this happens
    BUSINESS WILL BE ROLLED UP AND Qadiani Khalifas WILL HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR SHOP.
    Please be honest and accept claims of following Qadianis:
    1- Abdul Ghaffar Janba. In Germany. Website: www dot alghulam dot com
    2- Zafrullah Domun. In Mauritius. Website: www dot jaam-international dot org
    3- Munir Ahmad Azim. In Mauritus. Website: www dot jamaat-ul-sahih-al-islam dot
    com
    4- Anwar-Ul Islam Movement of Nigeria. Website: www dot anwarulislam dot com
    5- Mirza Rafi Ahmad of Green Ahmadiyyat. In Pakistan. Website: www dot
    greenahmadiyyat dot org
    6- AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN QADIANI IN MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin HAS MADE CLAIM OF NABI.
    HE CLAIMS TO BE QADIANI, AND QADIANI ORGANIZATION IS SCARED TO KICK HIM OUT
    OFFICIALLY. More news are awaited.

    QUESTION FOR BIN ISMAIL:
    When Qadianis are going accept the current half dozen claimants of “divine
    appointments”?????

  50. Talha

    @Ahmadi Lahori

    Do you write for the Lahore Ahmadiyya Blog or do you get your info from there.

    Gotta say that you and the Lahoris seem very hate filled and un-respectable lot.

    How many Lahoris are there anyway.