BLATANT SUBREPTION OF
AHMADIYYA MUSLIM LITERATURE
Finally, the author of Two in One cites 24 quotations which he claims are from Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad'sas books and asks Ahmadi Muslims to prove to him that these are being misquoted by their opponents with the view to defame them.1 He also assures them that his entire purpose in being engaged in this query is for the sake of Allah only.2 Yet, while he gives Ahmadi Muslims such an assurance, even before he receives a reply, Abdul Hafeez exposes his true motivation and in the next line appends a statement that he considers Hadhrat Ahmadas and his followers to be liars and slanderers.3 This should be sufficient to indicate that all his pretensions of being a genuine student seeking true knowledge are no more than a fraudulent excuse by the pir of Gujjo and he is merely shielding his persecution of Ahmadi Muslims under the guise of zealous religious piety. Nonetheless, what he also does, is to append a prayer to this statement in which he states that if he is accusing Hadhrat Ahmadas and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community falsely, then:
`O Allah, trap every liar and accuser with Your Curse and reveal such a sign which will decide between true and false.' 4
The following pages should sufficiently illustrate the extent to which Abdul Hafeez has manipulated the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community literature and also demonstrate how his prayer of being exposed as a liar and a slanderer has been responded to.
1. The first of these alleged statements he accuses Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas of having made is that in Izalah Auham page 128 he stated that 'Prophet Muhammadsa understood the meaning of Surah Zilzal incorrectly.'5 However, when Hadhrat Ahmadas original work is checked, it establishes that he never made any such alleged statement, either on page 128 of Izalah Auham or its entire text or for that matter any of his writings. The passage of Izalah Auham which Abdul Hafeez cites to establish his false charge6 does not itself make any such statement. One cites here, Abdul Hafeez's own citation of the passage which he claims may be found on page 128 of Izalah Auham. He states that:
'Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani says: Our religious scholars have given a literal meaning of this Surah that earth will face severe earthquakes in the last days and it will be of such severity that the whole earth will become upside down and that what will be inside will come out. And human beings i.e.: - disbelievers [Kafira] will ask the earth what has happened to it. So that day earth will talk and tell its condition. These meanings and explanations are entirely wrong.'7
As evident from this citation of the passage, the people who are stated to have misunderstood the meaning of Surah Zilzal are the religious scholars who have given this Surah a literal meaning. Now, and unless Abdul Hafeez wishes to argue that these religious scholars were collectively, God forbid, Prophet Muhammadsa, his allegation against Hadhrat Ahmadas stands refuted.
It being established that Hadhrat Ahmadas never made any such statement in relation to Prophet Muhammadsa which Abdul Hafeez falsely alleges he did, one now turns to the validity of the grounds on which the author of Two in One makes such a false inference. He states that the meaning and explanation of Surah Zilzal which in Hadhrat Ahmad'sas opinion is incorrect:
'are the meanings quoted by Ibn Abbas from Prophet Muhammad [PBUH] and mentioned in Tafseer Ibne Kaseer, Dur e Mansoor etc. and books of Allama Sayooti.'8
In the first instance, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever in the source material of Islamic literature to suggest that the meaning and explanation of Surah Zilzal attributed to Hadhrat Muhammadsa by these later works were actually heard from him by Hadhrat Ibn Abbasra personally. It is an established fact of Islamic history that Hadhrat 'Abd Allah ibn Abbasra was born 3 years before Hijra9 which means that he was only 13 years of age at the time of Prophet Muhammad'ssa demise.10 It has also been reported on the authority of Hadhrat Yahya ibn Sa'id al Qattanrh, one of the greatest scholars of Hadeeth literature, that Hadhrat Ibn Abbasra related only between 4 to 10 Traditions from the Prophet of Islamsa himself.11
Although one does not necessarily accept this assertion by the ulama of non Ahmadiyya Muslim persuasion to be absolutely correct, yet one cannot deny the fact that in the opinion of Muslim scholars, Hadhrat Ibne Abbasra reported very few Hadeeth which he learnt directly from Hadhrat Muhammadsa. Therefore, there is absolutely no concrete evidence whatsoever that what is being attributed here to the Prophet of Islamsa on the authority of Hadhrat Ibne Abbasra by later scholars was positively heard by him from Hadhrat Muhammadsa directly.
One should also not ignore the fact that Muslims scholars of non Ahmadiyya Muslim persuasion have generally expressed an opinion that while the reliability of the Ahadeeth proved to have been narrated by Hadhrat Ibne Abbasra is unquestionable, much of what has been attributed to him has been forged by later narrators.12
Secondly, the absence of any mention of Hadhrat Ibne Abbasra attributing any such meaning and explanation of Surah Zilzal to Hadhrat Muhammadsa in the most authentic collections of Hadeeth, including those of Hadhrat Imam Bukharirh and Hadhrat Imam Muslimrh is in itself an indication of the fact that no such meaning and explanation of the Surah has been traced by Isnad to Hadhrat Ibn Abbasra and consequently to the Prophet of Islamsa. Its inclusion in later works could, therefore, be of suspect origin and hence does not conclusively establish that according to Hadhrat Ibne Abbasra, Hadhrat Muhammadsa ever explained the Surah in a manner in which the later scholars of Islam believed that he did.
While on the question of such a report being mentioned in later works, it is rather amazing that people like Abdul Hafeez should insist upon the authenticity of this report attributed to Hadhrat Muhammadsa on the grounds that it has been mentioned in Tafseer Ibne Kaseer and Dur e Mansoor etc. and books of Allama Sayooti.13 One states this in view of the fact that whenever expedient, these mullah criticize the reliability of the works of both these scholars. In fact, they even reject the authenticity of several Ahadeeth attributed to Hadhrat Muhammadsa considered genuine by Hadhrat Ibne Kathirrh and Hadhrat Hafiz al Suyutirh , who incidentally is the author of Dure Mansoor also. For instance, they censure Hadhrat Ibne Kathirh for expressing such opinions in relation to the authenticity of Ahadeeth as, to quote one opponent of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, 'does not hold water.'14 This particular graduate from Medina University also criticizes Hadhrat Imam Suyutirh for accepting Hadeeth with weak Isnad15 and from weak and unknown reporters16 as well as unreliable authorities.17 They also deny the validity of some Ahadeeth reported by Hadhrat Hafiz Jalal al Din 'Abd al Rahman in his work Dure Mansoor.18 The question which one need ask Abdul Hafeez is that if, in the opinion of his colleagues, there are to be found in the works of Hadhrat Ibne Kathirrh and Hadhrat al Suyutirh, such Ahadeeth which according to them, either do not hold water or else are not authentic on account of being weak in Isnad and reported on the authority of weak and unreliable authorities - then, why could this particular Hadeeth in relation to the meaning and explanation of Surah Zilzal attributed to Hadhrat Muhammadsa on the alleged report of Hadhrat Ibn Abbasra not also be of suspect nature?
While one admits that Hadhrat Ibne Kathirrh and Hadhrat Hafiz al Suyutirh were both men of great understanding and scholastic ability, the aforementioned discussion should establish that even Abdul Hafeez's own colleagues have acknowledged that not only has a colossal amount of fabricated Ahadeeth somehow managed to be included in their works but these great scholars have even endeavoured to prove the authenticity of such fabricated Ahadeeth. This admits the fact that a need to analyze the authenticity of Hadeeth attributed to Hadhrat Muhammadsa is paramount if the Islam which the Prophet of Islamsa taught has to be fully appreciated in its proper perspective. However, if Abdul Hafeez must insist that every Hadeeth reported in the works of these later scholars has to be accepted as authentic, then one would beg a question of him as to what opinion does he have in relation to the following Hadeeth reported in Hadhrat Hafiz al Suyutirh works:
'When God Almighty wanted to create Himself, He created the horse first and let it gallop till it sweated. Then He created Himself from its sweat.'19
One would also beg a question of the author of Two in One as to what opinion does he have in relation to the following Hadeeth reported in the works of Hadhrat Abu'l Fida Ismail Ibn Kathirrh:
'The Prophet took hold of Ali's hand in the presence of the Companions, on his way back from the farewell Hajj. He let him stand till all of them knew him. Then he said: This is my attorney and brother and the Caliph after me. So listen to him an obey him.'20
It is a fact of Hadeeth literature that many a fabrications have been concocted and falsely attributed to the blessed companions of Hadhrat Muhammadsa by the later generation Muslims and these have somehow found a way in the works of the best of Muslim scholars, including Hadhrat Ibne Kathirrh and Hadhrat Allama Suyutirh . For instance, the latter reports a Hadeeth by Muhammad bin Sa'id al Maslub who invented a Tradition, allegedly on the authority of Hadhrat 'Ans bin Malikrh, to state that Hadhrat Muhammadsa stated:
'I am the seal of Prophets except if Allah wishes.'21
Would Abdul Hafeez accept the authenticity of this Tradition reported in al Suyuti's works? If not, then why must he insist that the report in relation to the meaning and explanation of Surah Zilzal in al Suyuti's works must be accepted as genuine? In fact, such frivolous meaning and explanations of Quranic passages as given in relation to Surah Zilzal in the concocted Hadeeth attributed to Hadhrat Muhammadsa on the authority of Hadhrat Ibn Abbasra are neither few nor far in between. Nor are there fewer instances of educated and learned Muslims being persecuted by the likes of Abdul Hafeez for denying the authenticity of such fabricated Ahadeeth. For instance, when a Hadeeth was concocted in relation to the meaning of the verse: 'Soon will thy Lord raise thee to a station of praise and glory' to state that it means that God shall seat the Prophetsa next to Him on His throne, Hadhrat Muhammad ibn Jarir al Tabrirh inscribed the following on the doorway of his house:
'Glorified is He who has neither a companion nor anyone sitting beside Him on His throne.'
This created a fury amongst ignorant people and consequently Hadhrat al Tabri'srh house was pelted with stones.22 It appears that this pir of Gujjo is probably a descendent of one of these ignorant people who pelted the sage's house in Baghdad for refusing to accept the validity of a concocted Hadeeth which runs against the essence of Quranic teachings. Or else, he would have exercised better sense than to insist upon the validity of a Hadeeth which contradicts the teachings of the Quran. There is sufficient evidence in Islamic literature to establish that many a fabrications on the meanings of the Quranic Surahs have been concocted in the history of the ummah by people who later justified their actions on the grounds that they: 'found people deserting the Quran and occupying with the Fiqh of Abu Hanifa and Maghazi of Ibn Ishaq, so they invented Ahadeeth for the sake of reward from Allah.'23 Whatever be the merits of Abdul Hafeez's claim that Hadhrat Ibne Abbasra was the source of this report in relation to the meaning and explanation of Surah Zilzal, one cannot overlook the fact that the explanation contained in this narration is thoroughly opposed to the wisdom contained in the Quran. Therefore, the validity of the alleged claim that he heard such a meaning and explanation of the Surah from Hadhrat Muhammadsa cannot be accepted on two accounts. Firstly, Hadhrat Muhammadsa is on record for having admonished that after him, a lot of sayings would be attributed to him and the only sensible course to adopt would be to refer to the Quran, and if, whatever is being attributed to him conforms to the essence of the Quranic teachings, it ought to be accepted, but whatever contradicts the essence of Quranic teachings ought to be rejected. Since the above meaning and explanation of Surah Zilzal contradicts the essence of Quranic teachings, it cannot be accepted to have been given by Hadhrat Muhammadsa.
Furthermore, taking into consideration Hadhrat Ibne Abbas'ra age during the lifetime of Hadhrat Muhammadsa, it is extremely probable that he may have misunderstood the noble Prophet of Islamsa . While one is aware that people like Abdul Hafeez may make a capital issue of this opinion, this does not deny the fact that Hadhrat Ibne Abbasra himself owned up to sometimes misunderstanding certain things. For instance, Hadeeth literature reports that Hadhrat Ibne Abbasra admitted that he, along with Hadhrat Umar ibn al Khattabra, used to dissuade people from offering two rak'ahs after Asr prayers since they believed that the Messenger of Allahsa had prohibited these.
However, when the matter was referred to the blessed consorts of the
noble Prophetsa, it was found that any such opinion
formed by Hadhrat Ibne Abbasra and Hadhrat Umarra
was based upon misunderstanding.24
In fact, Abdul Hafeez's own colleagues in this anti Ahmadiyya fraternity
acknowledge that Hadhrat Ibn Abbasra was:
'quite shocked to know that the Prophet himself had prayed after
However, whatever be the merit of the report attributed to Hadhrat Ibn Abbasra, the fact remains that Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas did not, at any point in time, make any such statement that 'Prophet Muhammadsa did not understand the meaning of Surah Zilzal.' Hence, Abdul Hafeez has uttered a blatant lie against the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.
2. The second allegation which this pir from Gujjo makes against
Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas is that he declared that
the Quran is God's book and the words of my mouth26,
the inference here being that he claimed the Quran to be the words of his
own mouth. This allegation, once again, is a blatant lie by the author
of Two in One since Hadhrat Ahmadas never claimed
the Quran to be the words of his own mouth. Had Abdul Hafeez been honest
in his motivation, he would not have mistranslated this passage to suggest
any such thing since Hadhrat Ahmad'sas original statement
is a part of a revelation vouchsafed unto him which he recorded in Braheen
e Ahmadiyya to the effect:
'Go forth as thy time has arrived and the feet of Muslims will
be planted firmly on a strong tower, Muhammad the Chosen One,
Chief of Prophets. God will set all thy affairs right and will bestow
upon thee all thou desirest. The Lord of the hosts will turn His
attention towards this. The purpose of this sign is that the Holy
Quran is the Book of God and the word of My mouth. The gate of God's
bounties are open and His holy mercies are directed towards this.
The days shall come when God shall help you. Glory be to the Lord
God, Maker of the earth and the heaven.'27
What, if one may ask Abdul Hafeez is so objectionable about a human
being, being a recipient of a Divine revelation from God Almighty in which
Allah claims that the Quran is His Book and the word of His mouth? If the
author of Two in One must insist that the possessive pronoun in
this revelation refers to Hadhrat Ahmadas and not to
God Almighty, then one would advise him that when this revelation was published,
a question was raised as to what was meant by the possessive pronoun My,
i.e., whose mouth is the Quran a word of, to which Hadhrat Ahmadas
replied that it is the 'word of God's mouth and such phrases are also contained
in the Holy Quran.'28 In case Abdul
Hafeez is not aware of this, one suggests that he read the following passages
of the Holy Quran:
'He it is Who sendeth down water from the sky and We bring forth buds of every kind.'29
'And Allah it is who sendeth the winds and they raise a cloud; then We lead it unto a dead land and revive therewith the earth after its death. Such is Resurrection.'30
Let Abdul Hafeez ponder over these passages of the Glorious Quran and
consider his allegation against Hadhrat Ahmadas in
the light of these Quranic verses.
3. The third allegation which the author of Two in One makes is that Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas declared that the 'angels are the names of heavenly bodies and spirits of stars and whatever happens, occurs under the influence of the stars'31 whereas what he actually stated was:
'It appears clearly from certain indications in the Quran that some pure beings that are called angels have a distinct relationship with heavenly bodies. Some of them drive the wind and some cause rain to descend and some others cause other influences to descend upon the earth. There is no doubt that those creation would be related to the bright and illuminated stars that are in heaven, but this relationship that exists between them should not be deemed to be the relationship that exists between every animate and its soul.
Those pure spirits have, on account of the brightness and light
they possess, spiritually an indeterminate relationship with the
bright stars which is so strong that, if it were supposed that those
pure spirits had departed from those stars, the faculties of the
later would be upset. It is through the hidden power of those spirits
that the stars carry out their functions. It might be said that
as God Almighty is, as it were, the life of the universe, those illumined
spirits are, as it were, the life of the planets and the stars and by their
departure the condition of the planets and the stars is bound to
It should be clear from this passage of Tauzeeh Maram that according
to Hadhrat Ahmadas, the angels are the driving force
behind the heavenly bodies which includes the stars. It should also be
evident that he was of the opinion that if the angels were to withdraw
their support of the stars, the faculties of the later would
be upset and disrupted since they are the life of the planets and
it is through the hidden powers of the angels that the stars are able
carry out their functions. Do these statements of Hadhrat Ahmadas
suggest, even remotely, that the angels are the names of heavenly bodies
and that everything occurs under the influence of stars as alleged by the
author of Two in One? How did he then come to such a deduction?
Is it possible that the ignorant pir of Gujjo has not been able to distinguish
between the illumined spirits which are the angels and the illumined stars
alluded to in this passage of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas book
and hence in his confusion, he has alleged that Hadhrat Ahmadas
stated that whatever happens, happens under the influence of the stars?
4. Abdul Hafeez then alleges in his fourth allegation that Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas denied the descent of the angel, Hadhrat Gabriel on earth33 which is, once again, a sly misrepresentation of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas original statement because he stated quite clearly that 'Gabriel, who is a grand angel, descends upon God's elect who are honoured with Divine revelation.' He declared:
'Though he descends upon every person who is honoured with
Divine revelation, the circle of the effect of his descent assumes
small or great proportions according to different capacities.'34
One would suggest that rather than borrow allegations against the Ahmadiyya
Muslim Community from the hostile literature produced by Abdul Hafeez's
equally ignorant colleagues, who have in turn, borrowed these allegation
from other equally ignorant colleagues, the author of Two in One
should, if his intentions are as pious as he pretends them to be, read
the source material of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas exposition
in relation to his understanding of the angels. He is certain to find that
Hadhrat Ahmadas believed in the descent of angels but
possibly not in the mythical and legendary manner in which these ignorant
mullah assume the Messengers of God descend.
5. The fifth false allegation which Abdul Hafeez makes against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas is that he, God forbid, stated that 'Prophets are liars' and this statement is once again alleged to have been made in Izalah Auham, pages 688/8935 while Hadhrat Ahmadas did not, at any point in time, in either Izalah Auham or any other book written by him, ever make any such statement. The noble Quran declares prophets of God incapable of disobedience to Him36 and, therefore, incapable of committing a moral offense or sin. They have also been declared truthful by nature and incapable of falsehood.37 It is, therefore, inconceivable that Hadhrat Ahmadas would ever make any such statement which contradicts the testimony of the noble Quran.
The passage of Izalah Auham on the basis of which Abdul Hafeez falsely accuses Hadhrat Ahmadas of this thoroughly false charge discusses the prospects of the apostles of God misunderstanding the true purport of some of the Divine revelations vouchsafed unto them. All he stated in this passage of his book was that 'prophets and apostles of God are also likely to commit errors in the comprehension of the true purport of Divine will revealed unto them.'38 He did not, even remotely, suggest that they are liars or even capable of lying. One is certain that every sincere human being would acknowledge that it is one thing to state that a person is subject to a perfectly innocent and acceptable human error and another to state that one has committed a totally unacceptable sin of uttering a lie or falsehood. But such an acknowledgment can only be expected of sincere and honest people and not people who possess the nature of Abdul Hafeez and the likes of him.
The recorded history of religion indicates that prophets of God have,
on occasions, been subject to understanding differently, the true purport
of His divine will revealed unto them. The Quran indicates that Hadhrat
Noahas had misunderstood God Almighty's promise of
security in favour of his progeny39
and so had Hadhrat Jonahas made such an error in understanding
the true purport of God's divine Will vouchsafed unto him in relation to
the destruction of the people of Nineveh.40
Is Abdul Hafeez prepared to assert that these facts recorded by the noble
Quran in relation to Hadhrat Noah'sas and Hadhrat Jonah'sas
misunderstanding of the true purport of these revelations vouchsafed unto
them are, God forbid, not correct? If not, then what error has Hadhrat
Ahmadas committed in merely acknowledging the truth
that prophets of God are also subject to commit an error in the true comprehension
of the revelations vouchsafed unto them?
6. In his sixth allegation, the author of Two in One accuses Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas of stating that, God forbid, 'Hadhrat Muhammad'ssa revelations also proved to be incorrect'41 while Hadhrat Ahmadas did not, at any stage in his life, ever make any such statement which even remotely suspected the truth of the revelations vouchsafed unto his noble master, the Holy Prophet of Islamsa . This false charge by Abdul Hafeez is based upon the manipulation of a passage in Izalah Auham in which its author alluded to Hadhrat Muhammad'ssa vision in which he beheld that he had entered the holy precincts of the Ka'aba and his subsequent journey towards Mecca with his companions to perform the Umra in the 6th year of Hijra which ended in the Treaty of Hudaibiyya as well as the return of Muslims to Medina without being able to perform the sacred rites as indicated in the vision.42 Hadhrat Ahmadas added:
'it cannot be doubted that the Holy Prophetsa
had undertaken this journey hoping that he would be able to perform
the sacred rites at the Ka'aba and this is undoubtedly a part of
the Holy Prophet'ssa vision. But, since
he had not been made aware of the error which had been committed
in understanding the actual meaning of this vision, God knows
after how many days arduous journey he reached Mecca. Had the
Holy Prophetsa been made aware of this enroute
to Mecca, he would have definitely returned to Medina.'43
This statement is a clear admission of fact that while an error in understanding the meaning of the vision is being acknowledged, the truthfulness of the revelation vouchsafed unto Hadhrat Muhammadsa by God Almighty is not being denied. Now, does Abdul Hafeez deny the fact that Hadhrat Muhammadsa undertook such a journey to Mecca in the belief that he and his companions would perform the Umra that year on the basis of a dream he had seen? If not, then would he enlighten the masses as to whether the Muslims succeed in entering the sacred precincts of the Ka'aba that year to perform the sacred rites indicated in the vision? If they didn't, then does this incident in history not suggest that the true purport of the revelations was misunderstood as a result of which the journey to Mecca was undertaken that particular year? What harm is there in Hadhrat Ahmadas alluding to this incident recorded in Islamic history and stating that an error had been committed in understanding the actual meaning of the revelation and why should this admission be claimed to mean that Hadhrat Ahmadas stated that, God forbid, the revelations of Hadhrat Muhammadsa also became wrong as alleged by Abdul Hafeez.
The Quranic verse revealed unto Hadhrat Muhammadsa on his return journey to Medina after the Treaty of Hudaibiyya bears testimony that the actual vision of Hadhrat Muhammadsa was in fact true44 and that God Almighty had fulfilled this vision with the Treaty at Hudaibiyya which permitted Muslims free access to the precincts of the Ka'aba the following year.
Nonetheless, while it appears that the wisdom of God had determined to smooth the way for Muslims to perform these sacred rites in security the following year, they had, in the year of the Treaty of Hudaibiyya, undertaken this journey to Mecca with the mistaken belief that they would be performing their sacred rites that particular year. This is a clear indication of the fact that it was not the revelation of Hadhrat Muhanmmadsa which proved to be incorrect but the understanding of its true meaning.
The second example to which Hadhrat Ahmadas alluded
in this passage of Izalah Auham45
refers to Hadhrat Muhammad'ssa prophecy in relation
to 'his consort with the longest hands being the first to follow him in
death.'46 Does Abdul Hafeez deny
that any such prophecy was pronounced by the noble Prophetsa
of Islam? If not, then would he accept the evidence of Hadeeth that the
blessed consorts of Hadhrat Muhammadsa used to literally
measure the lengths of their hands in view of the generally understood
meaning of the prophecy that his wife with the longest hands would be the
first to die after him? Yet, while Hadhrat Sauda bint Zam'aara
was found to have the longest hands amongst all the noble consorts of the
Prophetsa of Islam, 47
it was Hadhrat Zainab bint Jahshra whose death proceeded
How does the author of Two in One reconcile the actual prophecy to the events that transpired, if it is not a clear case of misunderstanding the true meaning of the prophecy?
It is an acknowledged fact that while the noble consorts of Hadhrat
Muhammadsa measured the lengths of their hands to determine
which of them would be the first to join him after his death, the prophecy
indicated that the wife who was most forthcoming in charity would be the
first to die after him. The truth of the actual revelation vouchsafed unto
Hadhrat Muhammadsa was, therefore, proven when Hadhrat
Zainabra, who had been the most charitable of his wives
became the first of his consorts to die after him. This is a testimony
of the fact that it was not the revelation of Hadhrat Muhammadsa
which proved to be incorrect but the understanding of its true meaning.
And, this is exactly what Hadhrat Ahmadas stated in
the passage in Izalah Auham which Abdul Hafeez has so dishonestly
manipulated to establish his false charge that he, God forbid, stated that
the revelations of Hadhrat Muhammadsa turned out to
be incorrect. In fact, had this pir from Gujjo exercised honesty in his
study of Izalah Auham, he may have discovered that within the context
of this discussion Hadhrat Ahmadas declared:
'However, all these incidence indicate that the apostles of God
can also make errors in understanding the meaning or in the interpretation
of prophecies. As far as the words of the revelation are concerned,
these are without a doubt positively true. But, in matters concerning
religion and faith, there is absolutely no possibility of an error.'49
Is it not dishonest of Abdul Hafeez to even infer from this passage
of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas Izalah Auham that he ever
made any such statement to the effect that God forbid, the revelations
vouchsafed to Hadhrat Muhammadsa, became wrong.
7. In his seventh charge, the author of Two in One accuses Hadhrat Ahmadas, for having stated that 'revelation did not inform Prophet Muhammadsa about Ibne Mariam, Dajaal, Khar Dajaal, Yajooj Majooj and Dabbabtul Ard'50 whereas what Hadhrat Ahmadas stated in this passage of Izalah Auham is that 'if the actual identity of these was not fully disclosed to Hadhrat Muhammadsa in his revelations, but to whatever extent possible, the matter was explained to him with identical examples or descriptions, then it should not be a matter of surprise.'51 Hence, this statement by Hadhrat Ahmadas rather than deny that the Holy Prophetsa was not informed of these, acknowledges that he was informed of them by revelation.
Hadhrat Ahmadas did not, with the aforementioned statement state anything which had not already been established by the facts of history. It is, for instance, stated in Hadeeth that during the lifetime of Hadhrat Muhammadsa, there lived in Medina a person named Ibn Sayyad whom Muslims generally believed was the prophesied Dadjaal. Apparently, the Messenger of Allahsa interrogated Ibn Sayyad in the presence of some of his companions and during the course of this conversation, Hadhrat Umar ibn Khattabra became convinced that Ibn Sayyad was the Dadjaal. He, therefore, sought Hadhrat Muhammad'ssa permission to kill Ibne Sayyad but was restrained from doing so and advised:
'If he is the same [Dadjaal] who would appear near the Last Hour,
you would not be able to overpower him, and if he is not him, then
there is no good in us killing him.'52
In another such Hadeeth in relation to Ibn Sayyad, it has been stated
that when Hadhrat Umar ibn Khattabra sought Hadhrat
Muhammad'ssa permission to slay Ibn Sayyad, the Holy
Prophetsa denied this permission and stated:
'If indeed this man is he [Dadjaal] then he shall be slain by
Ibne Mariam. You should not slay him. But if this man is not he
[Dadjaal], then you have no right to kill the individual from amongst
those we have guaranteed protection [dhimmies].' 53
These reports are a clear indication that while Hadhrat Muhammadsa
was apprised of the Dadjaal in his revelations, its actual identity was
not disclosed to him if its actual identity had been disclosed to him,
then he would have either confirmed or else denied that Ibn Sayyad was
or was not the prophesied Dadjaal. The mere fact that he left the entire
question in abeyance is an indication that while Hadhrat Muhammadsa
was informed of the Dadjaal in his revelations, the actual identity of
it had not been disclosed in these revelations. On the contrary, Hadeeth
literature suggests that, as Hadhrat Ahmadas stated,
Hadhrat Muhammadsa was apprised of the Dadjaal's identity
with examples as of its physical peculiarities54
etc. The most authentic works of Hadeeth also indicate that these
revelations, while not disclosing the actual identity of the Dadjaal to
the Holy Prophetsa, informed him that he would look
like some persons known to him, as for instance, 'Abd ul Uzza ibn Qatan.55
8. It is rather sad that despite claiming to be the followers
of the Khatamal Anbiyyasa and of the ummah to
which God Almighty bestowed the most perfect and complete guidance, Abdul
Hafeez still gropes in darkness and ignorance. It is, therefore, not a
surprise that in his eighth charge, the author of Two in One argues
against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad'sas interpretation
of the vision beheld by Hadhrat Muhammadsa in relation
to the advent of the Dadjaal56 because
it does not conform to Abdul Hafeez's expectation of the literal fulfillment
of the vision. Alas! were he to know that this entire Hadeeth rests upon
a dream of Hadhrat Muhammadsa and dreams are subject
to interpretations. One would, therefore, not engage in a long and drawn
discussion in relation to this objection raised by Abdul Hafeez. But, to
illustrate that Hadhrat Ahmad'sas description of what
is meant by various signs in the vision of the Holy Prophetsa
is positively correct, one would merely beg a question of the author of
Two in One that if the Christian priests are not the Dadjaal spoken
of in this Hadeeth, then what was the purpose of Hadhrat Muhammadsa
'Who ever commits to memory the first ten verses of Surah al
Kahf will be immune from the Dadjaal.' 57
In yet another Hadeeth, Hadhrat Muhammadsa advised
Muslims that if ever confronted with the Dadjaal:
Whoever recites the last ten verses of Surah Al Kahf will be safe from the trials of the Dadjaal.' 58
If Abdul Hafeez has a grain of intelligence, which one doubts he possesses,
he would certainly be able to decipher the wisdom contained in this advice
of the Prophet of Islamsa. But since this pir of Gujjo
is a personified Dabbat al Ard himself, one should not expect him
to know any better.
9. In his next charge, the author of Two in One states that Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas stated that Hadhrat Jesusas 'used to practice mesmerism and was an expert in it' 59 - suggesting that he meant to belittle Hadhrat Jesusas. Yet, when one reads Hadhrat Ahmad'sas original statement in the context of the larger discussion, one does not find anything objectionable in it. He stated that:
'It must also be understood that healing ailments and transferring
the heat of one's body into another are all parts of the art of
mesmerism. Men of this type have always existed who could cure leprosy
and other such ailments. All those who are highly educated and are
well read will agree with me and support my statement that some
Naqshbandi and Suharwardi saints also practised and performed similar
services to mankind. Some of them were so well advanced in this
field that they would make a very large number of diseased persons
sit around them and cast them a glance which would heal them. The
well known saint Muhiyud Din ibne Arabi was much reputed in this
If, in the context of this discussion, Hadhrat Ahmadas
stated that Hadhrat Jesusas also, practised mesmerism
and was an expert in it, then what is the harm in it - particularly when
he also declared that he practised this appropriately as required by the
times in which he lived? 61
10. Abdul Hafeez then proceeds to state that on page 303 of his book Izalah Auham Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas stated that: 'Hazrat Masseh [PBUH] was the son of Yusuf Najjar [Joseph the Carpenter].'62 However, when one consults the stated page of Izalah Auham, one does not find any such sentence contained in it. Nonetheless, since Joseph was Hadhrat Jesusas step as well as foster father, Hadhrat Ahmadas referred to him as Hadhrat Jesus'as father63 which any normal person would do in the course of a civilized conversation, unless the question of one's actual parentage is being specifically discussed. Where is the harm in it? Is a person who selflessly undertakes the responsibility of his wife's issues, without any bond of blood relationship between them, not entitled to even that much respect?
Incidentally, while the author of Two in One takes exception to Joseph being referred to as Hadhrat Jesus'as father, his mother Hadhrat Maryas referred to her husband as Hadhrat Jesus'as father. On one occasion when the family were returning from Jerusalem after attending the Feast of the Passover and Hadhrat Jesusas, who was then an adolescent, went missing, his mother, on finding him in a temple:
'said to him, Son, why have you treated us this way? Behold, your father and I have been anxiously looking for you.' 64
If the intent of Abdul Hafeez is to prove that Hadhrat Ahmad'sas statement is an evidence that he did not believe in the virgin birth of Hadhrat Jesusas, an assertion which the author of Two in One has made elsewhere 65 - then one would advise him that Hadhrat Ahmadas has clearly stated in his books that 'God Almighty had informed the Jews through some of His prophets that a son from among them would be born without a human father'66 and that 'the first thing which He did to bring this about was the creation of Hadhrat Jesusas without the agency of a father through the manifestation of His Divine powers only.'67 Is Abdul Hafeez not being dishonest then? If not then why, rather than quote Hadhrat Ahmad'sas original statements, he concocts some in his own words to insinuate that Hadhrat Ahmadas believed Joseph to be a biological father of Hadhrat Jesusas.
Incidentally, while Hadhrat Ahmadas held absolute faith in the birth of Hadhrat Jesusas without the agency of a father, Muslim scholars of several schools of thought have expressed an opinion that he had a father. Allama Abdul Quyyum Qayumi, for instance, stated: 'it is a matter of great astonishment that despite the fact that Mary was married, yet the son to whom Mary gave birth is stated to have no father.'68 He then proceeded to extend his gratitude to God that in his current book, he was able to 'prove in a most detailed and factual manner, the marriage of Mary from evidences contained within the Holy Quran, the books of Hadeeth and the statements of Sunni Muslim scholars and that he was also able to 'refute the false belief that Jesus had no father.' 69
This opinion of the Ahle Sunnat scholars was shared by the scholars
of Ahle Hadeeth and the Ahle Quran tendencies. For instance, Maulvi Hafiz
Inayatullah Wazirabadi believed that Hadhrat Jesusas
had a father 70 and so does Ghulam
Ahmad Parvez. 71 Yet, Abdul Hafeez
has the audacity to censure Hadhrat Ahmadas for beliefs
which not he, but the scholars of his own non Ahmadiyya Muslim persuasion
11. The author of Two in One then proceeds to falsely allege that on page 533 of Izalah Auham, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas stated that the Braheen e Ahmadiyya is the book of God. 72 Since one cannot find any such statement therein, which even remotely suggests any such declaration by Hadhrat Ahmadas, one is not in a position to discuss this charge at length. One would, therefore, leave it to the masses to determine the validity of Abdul Hafeez's allegation.
12. In his twelfth charge, Abdul Hafeez states that between pages 488 and 753 of Izalah Auham, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas stated that miracles mentioned in the Holy Quran are mesmerisms [sic]'73 which is another blatant lie by this pir of Gujjo. It is a small wonder that the author of Two in One has to cite 265 pages as reference to such a small statement allegedly made in Izalah Auham. Yet, the author of Two in One claims that all his efforts are for the sake of Allah. 74 Is this the kind of service Allah expects of him?
13. The next allegation made against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas in this book, Two in One relates to the Holy Quran once again. The author of this hostile publication alleges that Hadhrat Ahmadas claimed that 'the Quran was revealed near Qadian and is mentioned in the Sacred Book. 75 This is yet another case of a sly misrepresentation of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas works since nowhere in either Izalah Auham or any of his other books did Hadhrat Ahmadas make such a claim. The passage of Izalah Auham which Abdul Hafeez has manipulated states:
'In a state of vision, I saw that my brother, the late Mirza Ghulam
Qadir is sitting close to me, reciting the Holy Quran aloud. In the
course of recitation, he recited: We have sent it down close to Qadian.
I expressed my surprise that the name of Qadian should be mentioned
in the Holy Quran, on which he said: Here it is, you can see. I looked
and saw that this revelation was set out about the middle of the right
page of the Holy Quran. Then I said to myself: It is true that the
name of Qadian is mentioned in the Holy Quran and I also said:
Three names are mentioned with honour in the Holy Quran: Mecca and
Medina and Qadian.' 76
As evident from the above passage, this entire episode is stated by
Hadhrat Ahmadas to have been observed in a state of
vision. Yet, Abdul Hafeez has the audacity to insinuate that he literally
claimed that the 'Quran has been revealed near Qadian and is mentioned
in it.' However, since this charge is similar to the one in relation to
the alleged claim of Divinity, discussed in the preceding pages of the
present publication, one would not dwell on it at length to show how ignorant
Abdul Hafeez is in such matter or else how clever he is in manipulating
the statements of Hadhrat Ahmadas.
14. Abdul Hafeez's next allegation in relation to the name of Qadian
being mentioned with respect in the Holy Quran along with Mecca and Medina 77
is a misrepresentation of a similar nature as above since this statement is
also an integral part of the vision recorded in the aforementioned passage of
Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad'sas book, Izalah Auham.
Need one state anything further in relation to this charge?
15. The author of Two in One also alleges that in his book Braheen e Ahmadiyya, page 558, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas stated that the 'Bait ul Fiqr at Qadian is like the Haram e Ka'aba.'78 This allegation is yet another blatant lie since no where therein is any such statement recorded by Hadhrat Ahmadas. Incidentally, it might interest Abdul Hafeez to know that while the Braheen e Ahmadiyya is of the 1880/1884 period, the Bait ul Fiqr at Qadian is of a much later date. How could Hadhrat Ahmadas have made such a statement in relation to it when it did not exist at the time of writing the book in which he is allegedly stated to have made such a statement?.
16. In his next charge, Abdul Hafeez alleges that according to a pamphlet Minaret al Maseeh, the Quranic verses Surah 17.1 in relation to Hadhrat Muhammad'ssa journey from Masjid al Haram to Masjid al Aqsa is stated to apply, in its literal and real sense, to the mosque built by Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad'sas father at Qadian. 79 However, when one refers to the opinions expressed by the leadership of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community itself, rather then claiming that the said Quranic verse is a literal and real application of the mosque in Qadian, they have opined that:
'The vision may also be taken as referring to a spiritual
journey of the Holy Prophetsa to a distant land in some future
How much of a difference is there between the opinion attributed to
the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community by Abdul Hafeez and the one held by its
leadership is clearly evident from the above statement.
17. The pir of Gujjo also alleges that on pages 421/22 of Izalah Auham Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas stated that 'Hadhrat Rasul e Karimsa is not the last and final prophet' 81 - suggesting that he denied Hadhrat Muhammadsa as the Khataman Nabiyeen. Yet, neither on the stated pages nor in any of his works did Hadhrat Ahmadas ever make any such statement which could even remotely be construed to suggest the denial of the Seal of Prophethood. On the contrary, his works are full of statements to the effect that he acknowledges the Prophet of Islamsa as Khataman Nabiyeen and Abdul Hafeez has himself cited Hadhrat Ahmadas as having stated that he believed Hadhrat Muhammadsa to be the Final Prophet. 82
Incidentally, while Hadhrat Ahmadas is accused of
this false charge, according to Abdul Hafeez's spiritual son and the driving
force behind this constant tirade against Ahmadi Muslim, Dr. Rashid Ali,
the pir of Gujjo has claimed to be Hadhrat Ilyasas.
But, on account of the requirements of the Constitutional Amendment 260,
he has not made a public announcement of it. Now, unless the author of
Two in One wishes to deny any such claim by him, and thereby prove
Dr. Rashid Ali to be a liar, what opinion would he express in relation
to himself, in terms of his understanding of the expression Khataman Nabiyeen?
18. [This section seems to have been misplaced. Sorry for the inconvenience]
19. The nineteenth allegation made against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam
Ahmadas refers to the question of the day of Resurrection.
In this instance, he is stated to have declared on page 2 of Izalah
Auham that 'Qiyamah or the Resurrection day is nothing and there is
no such thing as destiny.' 83 However,
when this page is consulted, one finds that he stated:
When translated in English, this passage in which Abdul Hafeez alleges Hadhrat Ahmadas denied the Day of Resurrection would read:
'Fear God Almighty! Desist your tongues from uttering disbelief! God Almighty is well aware that I am a Muslim. I bring faith in God; His angels; His Books; His Messengers and in the Day of Resurrection, and I bear witness that there is none with of worship but Allah; He is alone and He has no associate and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger. Fear God and do not say that you are not a Muslim and fear the Lord to Whom you will be brought back.'
Need one discuss this allegation any further? Incidentally, this statement of faith by Hadhrat Ahmadas is addressed to people like Abdul Hafeez since he states at the beginning of the page:
Oh! those who doubt!
However, it appear that Abdul Hafeez is not only spiritually but physically blind also or else he would not have missed these words printed in such bold letters. He also appears not to fear God or else he would eschew suspicion and desist from uttering such falsehood.
As regards the question of destiny, which the author of Two in One
alleges Hadhrat Ahmadas denied, not only does the
above statement not contain any such denial but Hadhrat Ahmadas
is on record for having stated that:
'Man is subject to Divine decree. If a human design should not
be in accord with the design of God, no amount of effort can succeed
in putting it into effect; but when the time of the design of God
arrives, that which had appeared most difficult becomes easily available.'
Hadhrat Ahmadas discussed the question of Divine decree and determination at great length in his books and stated quite clearly that:
'It is not within the power of man to emerge from the operation of the system of Divine decrees and determination.' 85
20. In his twentieth allegation against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam
Ahmadas, Abdul Hafeez alleges that in his book Izalah
Auham Hadhrat Ahmadas declared that 'Hazrat Mahdi
will not come' 86 whereas when one
refers to the original work, one finds that he did not deny the advent
of the Imam Mahdi but of one who would not also be the Messiah 87
prophesied in the traditions of Hadhrat Muhammadsa.
He argued this on the basis of the Hadeeth attributed to the Holy Prophet
of Islamsa in which he is reported to have declared:
'La Mahdi illa Isa,' 88 i.e., There
is no Mahdi except Isa and also: 'Whosoever lives from among you shall
meet Jesus, son of Mary, who is Imam Mahdi, arbiter and judge'89
and stated that there is no reason why the Messiah cannot be the Mahdi
90 - a statement which constitutes
an admission of the fact that the advent of the Imam Mahdi is a reality.
21. The next allegation against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas refers to the question of the signs which would become apparent in the latter age amongst which it is stated that the sun would rise from the west which ignorant scholars of Islam like the author of Two in One allege would be fulfilled literally.
Nonetheless, Abdul Hafeez states that Hadhrat Ahmadas declared that the sun will not rise from the west 91 - suggesting that Hadhrat Ahmadas denied the authenticity of the Hadeeth.
This, once again, is a blatant lie since Hadhrat Ahmadas stated quite clearly that 'he held faith on the authenticity of the Hadeeth in relation to the rising of the sun from the west.' 92
Although, on the basis of a vision, he interpreted this to mean that
the west would be enlightened to the truth of Islam, Hadhrat Ahmadas
also declared that 'he does not deny that it could also have some other
meaning' 93 - suggesting that if
God Almighty so decreed that the sun should physically rise of the west,
then it is in his power to do so.
22. Abdul Hafeez then accuses Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas for having stated that 'there is no punishment in the grave' 94 which is yet another blatant lie uttered by the author of Two in One. What he argued against was the literal torment of the dead in their graves by scorpions and snakes since what is stated on the basis of a vision or a dream is subject to interpretation. 95 As regards punishment in the grave, Hadhrat Ahmadas stated that 'for the dead body of a person, a window is opened in the grave towards hell through which a consuming vapour arrives in the grave from hell and that wicked soul burns all the time in its flames.' 96
23. It is then alleged that Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas claimed that 'tanasikh [transmigration of souls] is correct' 97 which is a sly misrepresentation of his discussion on this concept. If Abdul Hafeez must know, Hadhrat Ahmadas considered the entire doctrine to be so false that he believed that the sense of human purity condemns it. He stated:
'There is no other doctrine as false as the doctri