The Ahmadiyyah Movement: Not so moderate

This is a guest post by Raziq

Followers of the Ahmadiyya movement (known as Ahmadis) are often victims of religious bigotry. They have long been popular targets of religious extremists and have suffered a great deal, especially in Pakistan where they have been continuously persecuted.  Like most commentators on this site I utterly deplore such actions and I defend the right of Ahmadis to freedom of religion.

I personally spent a number of years studying Ahmadi literature, meeting their leaders and discussing their beliefs.  In this article I intend to explain their beliefs, their attitudes towards other faiths and their political views.

The Founder

Ahmaddiya is a religious movement established in 1889 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.  Ghulam Ahmad was born on 1839, in Qadian, Punjab, India.  In the early part of his life, whilst working as a clerk in Sialkot (present day Pakistan), he came into contact with Christian missionaries.  As time passed, he began to engage with the missionaries and started challenging them in public debates. This gained Ghulam Ahmad praise from India’s Muslim Scholars and some hailed him as a protector of the Islamic faith against the onslaught of Christian missionaries.  However, all this started to change when he began claiming that he was a recipient of divine revelation.

His Claims

In 1889 Ghulam Ahmad claimed to have received a message from God asking him to create a new movement.  After receiving pledges of initiation from forty of his followers, he founded the Ahmadiyya movement.

Shortly after this, he claimed that he was the Muslim reformer (Mujadid) of the 20th century.  His next claim was that he was the Mahdi and also the second coming of Jesus Christ.  As time went by he made various other claims.  These included: the discovery of the tomb of Jesus in Kashmir, claiming that the founder of the Sikh faith Guru Nanak was a Muslim and also that he was the likeness of the Hindu Lord Krishna. All these claims led to a barrage of criticism from Muslim, Christian and Hindu scholars, with many declaring him to be a deceiver, apostate and government agent.  The main point of contention between Ahmadis and orthodox Muslims was Ghulam Ahmad’s claim to prophethood.  The vast majority of Muslims believe the prophet Mohammed to be the last prophet of God, whereas Ghulam Ahmad claimed he was also a prophet of God.  Due to this issue some hard-line scholars started calling for the death of Ghulam Ahmad and his followers.

The Split

Ghulam Ahmad died in 1908 but his movement continued under its first successor (Caliph) Hakim Noorideen.  After Noorideen’s death in 1914 problems arose concerning the selection of the next leader. This led to the movement splitting into two groups. The splinter group was led by Maulana Muhammad Ali, a long-time companion of Ghulam Ahmad. He believed the election process was unfair and that Mirza Bashirudeen Ahmad (Ghulam Ahmad’s son) had already been secretly chosen as the next leader.   Maulana Muhammad Ali broke away from the main party and moved to Lahore to set up his own Ahmadi movement.  This movement is today known as the Lahore Ahmadiyyah movement with the main party becoming known as the Qadian Ahmadiyyah movement.

The Lahore Ahmadiyyah movement has very similar beliefs to the Qadian Ahmadiyyah movement.  The main difference being that the Lahore movement does not believe Ghulam Ahmad actually claimed to be a prophet of God.  They claim that Ghulam Ahmad only used the word ‘prophet’ in a metaphorical sense.  They therefore claim to be orthodox Muslims and only believe Ghulam Ahmad to be a Muslim reformer.

Persecution

After the partition of India in 1947, many Ahmadis moved to Pakistan and settled in the city of Rabwah.  This also became their new headquarters after the original headquarters of Qadian went to India. The first foreign minister of Pakistan Sir Chaudhry Muhammad Zafrullah Khan was an Ahmadi.  Riots, usually led by extremist fanatics intermittingly broke out against Ahmadis.  One famous instigator of such riots was the Islamist leader Maulana Mawdudi.  From 1973-1974 Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, under pressure from religious figures, had the Pakistani constitution amended, declaring Ahmadis as non-Muslims.  In 1984 the Head of the Ahmaddiyya movement ‘Mirza Tahir Ahmad’ (Ghulam Ahmad’s grandson) fled from Pakistan and settled in the UK.  This was because of the increasing persecution his movement was facing under the military dictatorship of Zia ul Haq.

Propagation

In London the Ahmadiyya movement has been very active in propagating its faith.  It works as a missionary movement and has its own satellite TV channel MTA.  However, many people have criticised the way it operates and have accused it of using underhand tactics to gain recruits.  For example, many ex-members have claimed they were duped into thinking they were converting to Islam and not told anything about Ahmaddiya beliefs or its founder; see the article Escape from Rabwah: http://www.alhafeez.org/rashid/escape.htm. Other prominent  ex-members who have come out to criticise the movement and its recruitment techniques, include Sheikh Raheel Ahmad and Shahid Kamal.

Views on Israel

Despite claiming to be moderate Ahmadis have been criticised for holding extremist views, especially against the state of Israel.  For example, during the Gulf War the Head of the Ahmadiyya Movement, Mirza Tahir Ahmad, issued a book titled ‘The Gulf Crisis & The New World Order’.  In this book he blamed Israel for the Gulf War and just about every problem in the Middle-East.  He even questioned the validity of Israel’s existence as a country:

“Take for example, the establishment of Israel in the Muslim region.  Although America was also involved in a major way, yet this mischief was initiated by British. It is the product of British minds” (The Gulf Crisis & The New World Order, Islam international Publications, UK 1993, Pg 178)

“Israel was created in the name of the United Nations and the greatest role played in its establishment was by the US. One matter that amazes me is why was no question raised as to whether the U.N. has a right to create a new country in the world? (Pg 178)

“There is no basis for the creation of that country… In fact the creation of Israel is not an act of enmity against the Arabs but against Islam” (Pg 179)

“Do you think the sounds emanating from the minarets of Mecca and Medina are those of Allah and His Prophet? The truth is that these minarets simply project the loudspeakers which are connected to the microphones located in Washington where Israel is the speaker using these microphones” (Pg 192)

Amazingly, Tahir Ahmad also believed that the document ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ (a well known forgery) was a Jewish scheme to control the world:

“This was a scheme of the top leaders of Israel, who believe in Zionism, as to how they shall dominate the world, what mode of action shall be adopted for this purpose, what will be the work principles and objectives, what means will be adopted etc” (The Gulf Crisis & The New World Order, Islam International Publications, UK 1993, Pg 199)

The book is full of the same anti-Israel conspiracy theories peddled by Islamist groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir.  In the same book Mirza Tahir Ahmad also praises Iran:

“I have openly admitted a number of times that their religious differences notwithstanding, the Iranian nation does not behave hypocritically when it comes to Islam: they are the true lovers of Islam…Iran’s services to Islam are second to none” (The Gulf Crisis & The New World Order, Islam international Publications, UK 1993, Pg 194-195)

At times it was hard to believe that this book had not been written by Islamists.

On Jihad

The second leader of the Ahmaddiyah Movement, Mirza Bashirudeen Ahmad, explained the Ahmadiyyah view on Jihad as follows:

“The fifth big objection raised against us is that we deny the institution of Jihad. I have always wondered how such a false charge could have been made against us, for to say that we deny Jihad is a lie.  Without Jihad, according to us, belief cannot be made perfect….We are not against Jihad. We are only against the tendency to label any kind of aggrandizement as Jihad”. (Invitation to Ahmaddiyat, by Mirza Bashirudeen Ahmad, Islam International publications, 1997, pg 52)

“In short, the Jihad sanctioned by Islam is to make war against a people who prevent others from accepting Islam, or who wish to force people to deny Islam.  It can be made against a people who kill others because of Islam”. (Invitation to Ahmadiyyat, by Mirza Bashirudeen Ahmad, Islam International Publications, 1997, pg 56)

It is also worth noting that some Hindu groups blame Ahmadis for the murder of Pandit Lekh Ram, an opponent of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

Conversions

During my time studying with the movement I got to see a very problematic side to it.  In the beginning the Ahmadis I met were very welcoming and very courteous. I was treated very respectfully and regularly invited to their houses, Mosques and gatherings.  I was also told that after I finished studying Ahmadi literature I would definitely convert to Ahmadism and this seemed to be their main goal.  However, when this didn’t happen, the members and leaders I was in touch with suddenly turned very cold.   They even started getting aggressive and began telling me that I was destined to go to hell for rejecting the Ahmadi truths.  This was coming not just from regular members but also from their leaders and Imams. I was also regularly told that only their version of Islam was acceptable to Western countries and they were working very hard to keep it that way.

It seemed that their sole objective was to convert me and when this failed they didn’t want to talk to me again.  They behaved in a very cult like fashion and I was later to discover that I wasn’t the only one to receive this treatment from them.

Conclusion

The Ahmaddiyya movement continues to suffer from persecution and discrimination.  This is clearly wrong and we must all speak out against this injustice.  However, the Ahmadi movement itself is not as moderate as it claims to be.  Despite its PR image, it also holds extremist and bigoted views.  As well as supporting the Ahmadis right to freedom of religion their problematic views also need to be exposed and challenged.

This entry was posted in Antisemitism, Freedom of Religion, Human Rights, Israel/Palestine, Sectarianism. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

164 Comments

  1. Posted September 3, 2010 at 1:22 PM | Permalink

    Dear sir,

    I would like to know who told you that not accepting the Ahmadiyya beliefs will cause you to go to hell. Please give me a few names and I will go and ask them myself. I am surprised at this because I was taught in no uncertain terms that all those who believe in God and Day of Judgement (regardess of their label) and those who perform good deeds will be rewarded in the hereafter.

    Also, the exceprts you have used to allege that somehow Ahmadis are in the same league as hard-line islamists are from a series of lectures which not only analyze the situation during the first gulf war but also predict the events which have come to pass recently.

    I , like most other muslism believe that there is an organized effort by the Western leaders (think tanks and lobby groups) to keep middle east in a turmoil until all oil wealth has been utilized by their economies. I also believe that the state of Israel had no right to be created in the first place, but I also accept that once a people have established themselves in a land, we must let them live peacefully and compromise based on the ground truths. Please read up on Sir Zafrulla Khan’s arguments against the creation of Israel in UN.

    And I am surprised if it came as a news to you that Ahamdis don’t believe in Jihad. We do.. We don’t believe in aggression and violence. Only today, (03Sep2010) our mosque was attacked by a suicide bomber in Pakistan and an Ahmadi defended the mosque by shooting dead the terrorist.

    p.s. Pandith Lekhram was murdered by an unknown assassin in his home in Lahore. Because his death was fortold by the founder of the Movement, he was suspected of his murder. British Police found no link or evidence to support Arya Samaj’s claims.

  2. old Labour
    Posted September 3, 2010 at 2:26 PM | Permalink

    I have had many dealings with Ahmadis and found them to be among the most anti-Western and fanatical proselytisers of all Muslim sects (which is saying something).
    The hostility of Ghulam Ahmed to Britain and Christianity partly explains this, but they have also adopted many of the tactics and new media skills of fundamentalist evangelicals, with whom they share many characteristics

  3. devorgilla
    Posted September 3, 2010 at 2:28 PM | Permalink

    I had a female student once who tried to teach English to ladies (immigrants) at an Ahmadi mosque in Glasgow. Initially she was welcomed by the ladies concerned, who were willing and enthusiastic about learning English.

    Then the Ahmadi woman who was responsible for the female section of the mosque returned from Pakistan, and became very suspicious and hostile.

    ‘Who sent you? Why do you want to do this?’

    She couldn’t believe my student (who had TEFL qualifications) might simply be acting out of goodwill as a volunteer.

    My student’s day job was as a classroom assistent in a school in Glasgow which had a large number of Muslim pupils. She had become alarmed at some of the things she heard thirteen and fourteen year olds saying, and was convinced these were too adult opinions for the children to hold by themselves.

    Therefore she concluded that radicalisation was going on somewhere, and, in order to bridge some kind of cultural gap, she thought she might do her bit for inter-faith relations by assisting these ladies learn to speak English, and to integrate.

    The irony being, that the immigrant ladies fresh from Pakistan were open and up for learning English; it was the Ahmadi woman who was raised in the UK who was hostile, and who prevented her from continuing.

  4. Ziryab
    Posted September 3, 2010 at 2:30 PM | Permalink

    Lutf – Why do you and your group believe that the State of Israel never had a right to be created in the first place?

  5. Mark
    Posted September 3, 2010 at 2:41 PM | Permalink

    So the Ahmadi motto ‘love for all and hatred for none’ is basically a shambles!

  6. Posted September 3, 2010 at 4:04 PM | Permalink

    Ziryab,

    Please enlighten me on your opinions on the circumstances where one can allow a new independent state to be carved out from an existing political entity?

    Should Britain allow Mirpuris to declare an independent state in Yorkshire?

  7. Ziryab
    Posted September 3, 2010 at 4:53 PM | Permalink

    Lutf,

    In November 1947, the United Nations voted in favor of the partition of Palestine, proposing the creation of a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a UN-administered Jerusalem. The rest is history. Mirza Tahir Ahmad’s claims that the creation of Israel is an attack on Islam are absurd to say the least.

    As far as I’m aware, Mirpuris are not calling an independent state in Yorkshire. So posing hypothetical questions like that are pointless. But then again your groups whole philosophy is based on hypothetical reasoning isn’t it : )

  8. zaf
    Posted September 3, 2010 at 5:47 PM | Permalink

    Sunni, Shi’a, Ahmadi, orthordox, heterodox, whatever – have all managed to make Israel/Palestine the cause célèbre. what a surprise. all that anti-semitism directed at the Jews, when Arabs hate South Asians Muslims as the lowest of the low. there are even laws in Kuwait and Saudi which discriminate against South Asians.

  9. Posted September 3, 2010 at 5:53 PM | Permalink

    Page 178 of the book “Gulf Crisis” asks the very same question;

    Has UN the right to create new countries?

    http://www.alislam.org/library/books/newworldorder/?page=178#top

    No ethnic or religious group in any country can claim independence within a few decades of their settlement in that country. You are correct, Mirpuris will never ask for independence.. It doesn’t make sense. But when it comes to Israel, what you consider hypothetical for Mirpuris, becomes a reality for the Zionists.

  10. Posted September 3, 2010 at 6:15 PM | Permalink

    I think the blog also ignores a very important fact. Another key word which raises alarms in islamophobic mind. The word is “Caliphate”. Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam follows the spiritual leader called Khalifatul Masih. The Caliph of the Messiah. We consider this office to be the continuation of the Islamic caliphate as a spritual institution.

    Although the blog stops short of calling Ahmadis antisemitic, but the intent is very clear. I would like to ask the author to be honest enough and state clearly whether anti-Israel views are the same as anti-semticism?

    As an Ahmadi it take pride in the fact that I bear no ill will to any group of people based on their beliefs or ethnicity or lifestyle. This blog seems to be an attempt to malign a peaceful, loving community and I find it most absurd.

  11. Raziq
    Posted September 3, 2010 at 6:46 PM | Permalink

    Lutf,

    I’m well aware of what Ahmadiyyah stands for. I met your Khalifatul Masih Mirza Tahir Ahmad on a number of occasions in the 1990′s. His views on Israel are exactly as quoted in the article and taken from his own book.

    I never said Ahmadis are anti-Semetic but anti-Israel. They don’t believe the Jewish state should exist and you know that.

    Please don’t get all reactionary, acknowledge your flaws and try to fix them.

    Like I said in the article, I am against the persecution of Ahmadis in any form and will always defend their right to freedom of religion. However, this does not mean that I can’t be critical their views and opinions.

  12. Raziq
    Posted September 4, 2010 at 8:50 PM | Permalink

    I think the Ahmadi stance on Israel is very problematic. Let’s start with this point first and then we can move on to the other issues in the article. That way we can have a better discussion.

    So Ahmadis can you start with explaining why they believe Israel shouldn’t exist? Mirza Tahir Ahmad’s views on the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ and his belief in wacky anti-Israeli conspiracy theories?

  13. Ronald
    Posted September 4, 2010 at 8:58 PM | Permalink

    The problem with this author’s summary is that he cherry-picks a few quotes out of very complex, nuanced sermons by the 4th Khalifa on Israel and the first Gulf War. His attempt, of course, is to paint Ahmadi Muslims as “not as moderate as they claim”.

    Another problem with the whole premise of his article is that he has failed to define ‘moderate’. What is moderate? Mainstream CNN or FOX news moderate? American moderate? French moderate? Pakistani moderate? (God Forbid)

    The fact is that most of the world believes that Israel is an illegally established state. (Including many Jews that I have met – does that make them less than moderate, also?). So using this as a proof that Ahmadi Muslims are less than moderate is silly.

    Regarding the quote from ‘Gulf War & the New World Order’, the author quotes the following as ‘proof’ that Ahmadi Muslims are not ‘moderate’:

    “There is no basis for the creation of that country… In fact the creation of Israel is not an act of enmity against the Arabs but against Islam” (Pg 179)

    I fail to see what is not moderate about this statement – especially when taken in the larger context of what 4th Khalifa was addressing in those particular sermons. He was talking about the long-lived hatred of Western countries towards Islam that dates back to the Crusades. It was a big thorn in the side of Western Christian powers to know that they had been sent home from the Crusades and that the Holy Land was in the power of the Muslims for several centuries – especially when one reads in the Bible what that means. (It is a sign of truthfulness and favor from God). So Israel was the Western Powers’ big payback for all of those centuries of humiliation. Israel was created from the West, propped up from the West and is now fully supported and maintained by the West. This is a fact. So, in that way, the establishment of Israel was and is a great conspiracy against Islam.

    I mean, do you really think the Western Powers love the Jews so much as to go illegally set them up in a country in the Middle East? (Have you ever reviewed the history of the Jews in Europe? They weren’t exactly treated like the ‘chosen people’) This is global engineering 101. NWO. Of course, the West wants to break the power of Islam and Israel is their castle in the Middle East to do so. If you can’t see this, I’m afraid you are quite dull or naive – or both.

    And in regards to “going to hell if you don’t accept Ahmadiyya beliefs”…

    The Prophet Muhammad SA himself said that one who does not accept the mujadid (reformer) of the age dies the death of ‘jahiliya’ (ignorance). So, is the Prophet Muhammad SA less than moderate as well? What do you think will happen if one does not accept the Imam Mahdi and Promised Messiah? Just food for thought.

    Ahmadi Muslims in their balanced thought on religion and science, faith and reason, their staying out of political movements, their abhorrence of persecution or coercion of any kind as well as of fanaticism + their organization of community service, etc. INDEED makes them moderate.

    If the author still thinks they are not, then maybe he would like to define ‘moderate’ for all of us.

  14. Raziq
    Posted September 4, 2010 at 9:13 PM | Permalink

    Ronald – Sorry but I don’t buy into all the anti-Israeli conspiracy theories. Now regarding rejecting the Imam issue – I am not convinced that MGA was the Imam Mahdi, Jesus Christ or a Mujadid. That’s my conclusion after studying his books.

  15. Ronald
    Posted September 4, 2010 at 10:25 PM | Permalink

    Regarding the ‘Protocols’ – these are not some kind of primer literature for Ahmadi Muslims. It is true that the 4th Khalifa mentioned them in one of the sermons. What he essentially remarks about them is that they have come true. Whether you believe they were originally fraudulent from the beginning, the fact is that they were written in 1903. The 4th Khalifa quotes an American politician who basically remarked, ‘They are either real or they were revealed by a prophet.’

    The reason they are still of interest is because they have come true, step by step and down to details over the last century. They include a plan for the establishment of a corrupted league of nations, establishment of the Jews back into the Holy Land, orchestrated world wars, infiltration of usury and banking in all nations and business, the dumbing down of ‘goyim’ / gentile nations, promotion of base and immoral entertainment and thought in the name of ‘free speech’, etc. etc.

    So I repeat the sentiment of the 4th Khalifa and the American legislator (I forget his name at the moment): If these weren’t the leaked plans of Zionists then did the Zionists like them and use them? Even the Holy Quran establishes the fact that the Jews are notorious for secret societies – it goes back to their days in slavery in Babylon and the angels “Harut and Marut’. They also did it under Solomon – a fact established also in the Bible – thus, eroding his Kingdom and the golden age of the Jews. Then, the Holy Quran goes on to clearly say that the Jews will do great mischief in the world at least twice more.

    So, Raziq, is the Holy Quran full of “wacky conspiracy theories”, too?

    What exactly is your religious stance? Please don’t just sit in the dark and take pot shots at Ahmadis. You are right in condemning all terrorism, coercion, and persecution – that I will give you. This is a pleasant step in the right direction. But your analysis of Ahmadiyyat is cheap and shallow. It seems you “studied” it only looking for problems.

  16. Ronald
    Posted September 4, 2010 at 10:42 PM | Permalink

    If you haven’t accepted Mirza Ghulam Ahmad AS as the Masih and Mahdi, then that is between you and Allah, of course. As far as your asking whether we consider you Muslim or not – its not up to me to say. I will say, though, that the consequences are dire – according to all prophets of Allah and the Quran.

    Jesus said that those who did not accept him would not get to the ‘Father’ and would not enter Paradise. Essentially, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad AS said the same. This seems common sense, no? I mean, does Allah send prophets for grins and giggles? No, of course not, there is always a profound reason for His doing so and He, therefore, demands their acceptance. So, if I were you, I would be far more concerned with what Allah thinks of you and not us Ahmadi Muslims. We are instructed by the Holy Prophet SA and the Promised Messiah AS not to go around calling people Kafir. We will leave that to our enemies. Allah knows best who the Kafirs are.

  17. Ronald
    Posted September 4, 2010 at 10:47 PM | Permalink

    Raziq:

    “Ronald – Sorry but I don’t buy into all the anti-Israeli conspiracy theories.”

    That’s it? That’s really the depth of your thinking and argument on this one?

    Its really not conspiracy when it is done in plain sight is it?

    Maybe this superficial thought and investigation of yours is what lead you to the wrong conclusion on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad AS as well.

  18. Ronald
    Posted September 4, 2010 at 10:50 PM | Permalink

    O, and you still haven’t defined ‘moderate’. Are you ‘moderate’?

    Maybe you can write an article on how to be moderate to help us “radical” Ahmadi Muslims out.

  19. Abid ul-Abid ul-Nabi
    Posted September 5, 2010 at 12:08 AM | Permalink

    Hmmm… you guys aren’t doing a good job of showing yourselves to be reasonable people – just chill out!

    An article raising criticism in the free world and debate is quite normal, just respond back some of you have!

    But poor show of condemning others to hellfire!

  20. Salih
    Posted September 5, 2010 at 1:36 AM | Permalink

    It looks like what the author said about Ahmadis was correct, you guys have proved it! And you guys are not being intellectually honest. Come on, it’s not easy to believe in all Mirza’s claims e.g. Mujadid, Mahdi, Jesus, Krishna etc.

    To me he comes across as a raving lunatic rather than a prophet, but that’s just my view, please don’t start accusing me off now wanting to kill all Ahmadis. You lot need to calm down.

  21. Ronald
    Posted September 5, 2010 at 2:13 AM | Permalink

    No – what it looks like to me is that Ahmadi Muslims are on here posting actual arguments and no one else is answering them.

    It’s not easy believing “all Mirza’s claims”? What’s not easy to believe is the Sunni interpretation of the coming of the Mahdi and Messiah. When exactly is Isa supposed to come out of the sky and do battle with the one-eyed giant? What a joke. Are you guys ready to join him in going around and slaughtering all of the pigs and the kafirs? Your religious beliefs resemble a comic book more than a religion.

    It’s 2010, where are the mujadid for the past two centuries? You guys are getting rather behind, no?

    Just like the Jews.

  22. Albert
    Posted September 5, 2010 at 2:39 AM | Permalink

    Mr Ronald

    Jew hatred seems to be a common theme running through your comments.
    I am a Jew and I used to think favourably of your group. But your comments here have put me right off.

    You are nothing but narrow minded raving nutters.

  23. Robin
    Posted September 5, 2010 at 3:03 AM | Permalink

    I am very surprised to hear the about the Ahmadi anti-Israel stance, as I have visited the Ahmadiyah mosque in Haifa (northen Israel) and heard quite the opposite. It seems this movement is very deceitful and disingenuous, the Ahmadi commentators on here have proved it.

  24. Robin
    Posted September 5, 2010 at 4:08 AM | Permalink

    This article is not in anyway or form calling for the killing of Ahmadis. The author states quite clearly (at the beginning and end) that he is against the persecution of Ahmadis and he supports their right to freedom of religion. The anti-Israel points he raises seem to have been confirmed by Ahmadis such as ‘Ronald’? It is a well known fact that the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ is a forgery and anti-Jewish propaganda. So the author raises a valid point by questioning why your leader quoted from that book.

    The horrific killing and persecution of Ahmadis is not an excuse to start writing irrational comments about other faiths.

  25. qidniz
    Posted September 5, 2010 at 4:40 AM | Permalink

    Sympathy – if not outrage also – is called for because the Ahmadiyya are being persecuted by their fellow Muslims. But that takes nothing away from the abiding irony that the Ahmadiyya are not any less Islamist than their persecutors. (Historical side-note: the Ahmadiyya were gung-ho for partition and Pakistan. The Hindus have a word for the outcome of their enthusiasm: karmaphala.)

  26. Bill Prince
    Posted September 5, 2010 at 8:45 AM | Permalink

    Mr qidniz,

    You claim: “Ahmadiyya are no less Islamist than their persecutors”

    Please briefly explain. What do you mean by “Islamist”?

    If you just mean that Ahmadi Muslims are passionate, spirited, iron-willed, self-convinced Muslims who happen to be mistaken in doctrine, I’m okay with your judgement and end of discussion.

    But if by “Islamist” you mean violent, politically motivated Muslims — which is the widely accepted meaning of the term — then please provide evidence that Ahmadi Muslims are, as you have clearly implied, equal to or greater than non-Ahmadi Muslims in that regard.

    Thank you.

  27. Bill Prince
    Posted September 5, 2010 at 8:59 AM | Permalink

    Also, I’m puzzled. You say you are outraged that Ahmadis are murdered. Yet, you follow that up with: There’s a saying – what goes around comes around (karmaphala).

    So which is it. Outrage? Or callous indifference?

    Is the murder innocent 9/11 victims an outrage, or a karmaphala?

    I would hope you’d say the former.

  28. Posted September 5, 2010 at 10:23 AM | Permalink

    Also, being critical of creation of the Zionist state does not make one anti-jew. There are many orthodox, practicing jews who do not agree with the state of Israel.

    Ahmadis live within Israel in peace because the state allows them to practice their faith and they are native to that place. Politically speaking, the state of Israel is a fact, and it has to be accepted regardless of what happened in the past.

    In terms of faith, Ahmadis believe that Jews are rejectors of the first Messiah and also rejectors of the Holy Prophet (saw). This puts them at a signifcant disadvantage of not having any Divine guidance for many centuries.

    But, Ahmadis also believe that all pious jews who believe in God and the day of judgement will be rewarded in the hereafter for their good deeds and belief in God. Something that many Jews, Christians and mainstream Muslims will never consider for other faiths.

  29. Ronald
    Posted September 5, 2010 at 10:40 AM | Permalink

    Let me clarify a couple of things on Israel & the ‘Protocols’- especially to Robin and Albert:

    Raziq attacked the mention of this document in one of the sermons of the 4th Khalifa of our community in the early 90′s during the 1st Gulf War – a war, by the way, which has been proven to be based upon deception and wound up becoming a genocide. Over a million and a half women and children died due to sanctions alone from this darkness. The infrastructure of Iraq was obliterated (and still hasn’t been rebuilt even with all of the hundreds of billions supposedly earmarked for rebuilding). The Khalifa, at that time, Mirza Tahir Ahmad, was railing against the fact that the entire world was blindly ganging up and bombing Iraq into the stone age on false pretenses.

    In his sermons, he addressed many layers of the crisis – including history and the interests of the Western countries and, yes, of Israel. I implore you to read those sermons for yourself. They are incredibly insightful far beyond the time at which they were given. You can read the free download of the book at http://www.alislam.org (“The Gulf Crisis and the New World Order” – p 211 onward addresses the state of Israel)

    One of his main points regarding the establishment of Israel was that it was unjust by any measure to punish Palestinians for what Germany did to Jews in WW2. Establishing a state upon an existing nation is no different than the atrocities done to Native Americans. The British, masters of empire building and manipulation, supported a systematic immigration plan (under Lord Balfour) for decades, concluded it in 1947 and abandoned the backward Palestinians in a time of helplessness.

    By the end of WW2 and just after, the number of Jews had swelled from tens of thousands to over 700,000. Many atrocities were committed against the indigenous Palestinians and they wound up being displaced within their own homeland. Since then, many illegal settlements and other tactics have been used to further fragment the Palestinians to the point where they live like animals in their own land, unable to even move about or function as human beings. This, of course, breeds desperation, fanaticism and insanity. So the establishment of Israel was not Kosher. Its continued tactics under the guise of ‘self defense’ are not Kosher. It seems that because of the initial crimes, further crimes must be exacted to continue on. Even one of the head Rabbis in Palestine at the time of Israel’s inception condemned the way the state was being established. He essentially said, ‘Not this way’.

    Because Israel was established in this way and has used a heavy hand (weighted and supported by Western powers) it has become an emblem of injustice to much of the world. I am sorry if this hurts your feelings, but this is true. It doesn’t mean that I hate Jews or that I want to “wipe Israel off the face of the map” or any other such nonsense or hate, it just means that I consider the establishment of Israel illegal and unjust. Period. I understand that the vast majority of the current citizens of Israel had nothing to do with the politics and the atrocities of ‘nation building’ that was done and that they deserve their own rights to exist as human beings, but I also believe that something has to be done to right the wrongs that have been done and are being done to the original inhabitants of that land. That’s all. I criticize Israel just like I criticize my own country when it does something wrong. (I hope you are not of the mindset that Israel is above reproach).

    So the reference to the ‘Protocols’ was used in a speech to illustrate that the birth of Zionist thought was very old and that plans had been made long before 1947 to take that land as their own. This is an historical fact. Whether or not the ‘Protocols’ is a fraud is now rather a moot point. Interestingly, many key features of the document and Zionist vision have come true over the past 100 years. For one, interest banking (forbidden in the Torah and Quran) have corrupted the entire world’s markets and economic systems. Recently, we have seen how things are coming apart due to this. It is also a fact that in the 1890′s Theodore Herzl – the father of political Zionism wrote extensively and promoted the idea of establishing the state of Israel (mainly because of the anti-Semitism he experienced in Europe). I could go on but I won’t. The point is that there are many historical facts that Zionism is a very old movement and that it has, as a centerpiece of its agenda, the establishment of Israel and control of the Holy Land.

    Is it really so hard to believe that relatively small societies of men designed plans and carried them out over the past century? How do we really think that the current world order happened? By accident? Such planning happens in board rooms all across the world everyday. Why would not the very rich and powerful of that day do the same to engineer the world to function the way they wanted it to? We know that American ‘robber barons’ did. We know that Monsanto is doing it now. Being that Jews were very prevalent in banking and business then, are we to believe that they just sat on their hands and did not plan any kind of long term strategies and domination of the markets that they knew better than anyone else? This has nothing to do with the average Jew anymore than something that Osama bin Laden orchestrate has anything to do with the average Muslim. As matter of fact, I would not truly call these men Jews, just as I would not refer to fanatic terrorists as true Muslims. Yes, they may be Jews by descent, but not by faith, otherwise they would not be involved in preying upon the less fortunate with interest and nefarious designs.

    The Quran also refers to some Jews under the reign of Solomon, who hatched secret plots which undermined and helped bring down the Kingdom. (This is corroborated by the Bible). The Quran also references the history of secret societies of the Jews, which go back to their enslavement in Babylon. Here Allah says in the Quran, that the Jews actually initially used them for good. (To survive and keep their faith and traditions alive and eventually to help King Cyrus overthrow Nebudchanezzar). And, yes, Jews are predicted to cause mischief in the land twice in the Quran. All Jews? Of course not. The Quran never makes sweeping statements of anyone. It distinguishes clearly that among the ‘People of the Book’ are those that are righteous and faithful to their word and trustworthy. But just like there were mischievous Jews under Moses who caused all sort of grief to their people, there still remain some trouble-makers.

    It should also be noted that there is also a prophecy from the Prophet Muhammad SA, that the ulema (or religious scholars) of Islam in these latter days “would be the worst creatures under the canopy of heaven” and that they would create big problems that would come back to afflict the entire Muslim world. So prophecies about some of the Jews are not meant to be construed as anti-Semitic, just as prophecies about the condition of many of the Muslim scholars should not be taken as anti-Islamic or anti-scholar. They apply to who they apply to.

    So, Albert and Robin, my sincere apologies. In the heat of argument, I did not think of the fact that these posts were being read by eyes outside the Muslims debating them. I can see how they could be misunderstood as I was not giving background and detail.

    I hope that I have answered some of the concerns or misgivings that you had. If not, please post any of your remaining concerns and I will do my best to explain them.

    Shalom

  30. Robin
    Posted September 5, 2010 at 12:12 PM | Permalink

    Ronald,

    Thank you very much for your post. I’m glad you explained your position. Despite it being a little contrary to what you said earlier it was helpful to read.

    I read the link you posted to ‘The Gulf Crisis & the New World Order’ book. I have to say that I was very alarmed with the following passage;

    “With regards to “racial superiority” the whole world faces the same danger from the Jews today, as it has faced for thousands of years. The Jews are doing a lot of propaganda in the world that we should erase the racial divisions and racial prejudices. This is being done merely because the Jews are afraid that some nation may make the Jewish nation the target of their wrath in the name of racism. But as far as the concept of superiority of Jews over other races is concerned, this concept is in no way less than the Nazi concept of Hitler”. (Sixth Friday Sermon Nov 16, 1990 – page 112)

    When I read the above passage I was very hurt. This is exactly the type of propaganda anti-Jewish groups have been using against us for decades. Your leader is basically comparing us to Nazi’s. This is far more damning than anything ‘Raziq’ wrote in his article. If you were so upset about his article how do you think I felt after reading this? I had to stop from reading any further. Before I discuss this with my family and friends, I would like you to explain the reason behind this unfair attack on the Jewish people and why your group says such things? Without any satisfactory explanation this would make your group the same as other fanatical groups causing havoc in the world. I hope you understand my concerns. Thank you.

  31. Xiaahmad
    Posted September 5, 2010 at 4:20 PM | Permalink

    Ahmadies change stance according to need.

    at one side they say that they dont declare non ahmadies to be kafir and non muslim
    but on other hand their earlier books declare non ahmadies to be kafir and not muslim and out of pale of Islam.

    they got double standards

  32. Xiaahmad
    Posted September 5, 2010 at 4:31 PM | Permalink

    Robin
    They always shows double standards:

    if they are in Israel they will spoek against Hamas and other
    if they are in other areas they will talk again Israel

    If they are in Pakistan they will be like we love pakistan
    when they are outside pakistan they will say pakistan is bad.

    when they are infront of west they talks about how they are being declared non muslim
    but when they are in their own circle they declare non ahmadies to be non muslim

    why such double standards

    also please visit:
    http://www.thecult.info/blog

  33. Robin
    Posted September 5, 2010 at 4:55 PM | Permalink

    Thank you Xiaahmed – this is very interesting. They haven’t got back to me after my last comment. I will visit your site.

  34. SparrowSanders
    Posted September 5, 2010 at 6:57 PM | Permalink

    Dear Robin, may the Peace of God descend upon your heart,

    In response to your last post I would just like to offer my own comments:
    Concerning this statement of the author:

    “The Jews are doing a lot of propaganda in the world that we should erase the racial divisions and racial prejudices. This is being done merely because the Jews are afraid that some nation may make the Jewish nation the target of their wrath in the name of racism.”

    And rightfully so, they were persecuted to the point of genocide based on their “race.” But there is an irony (or contradiction) that the author was addressing along with that and that is that among them, since the ancient times, there is a belief among many of them that they are the “Chosen People of God.” With regard to this particular belief and certain attitudes that can go along with it, the author wrote at the beginning of that paragraph:

    “With regards to “racial superiority” the whole world faces the same danger from the Jews today, as it has faced for thousands of years.”

    And ended by stating:
    “But as far as the concept of superiority of Jews over other races is concerned, this concept is in no way less than the Nazi concept of Hitler”. (Sixth Friday Sermon Nov 16, 1990 – page 112)

    Among the people of the Jewish nation there are some who have been and are, believing themselves to be the “Chosen People of God” – exclusively. Having taking this to heart, they have developed a bit of superiority complex in relation to others which, like all superiority complexes, can manifest in very negative ways.

    The author was not comparing ALL Jews to Nazis, but stating that some among them who have strayed away from the pious ways of their Prophets (becoming strictly political and nationalistic) have become “Nazis-like” in their attitudes and dealings with others – looking down upon other nations – just as the Aryan superiority complex caused Germans to look down upon other nations.

    The mistake is to think that condemning the actions somehow automatically implies the condemnation of all among them or suggests that all engage in or support those actions. They do not. But there is a bit of propaganda from among certain factions of them to label it as such. So whenever a clear wrong from this is pointed out, or a spade is called a spade, it immediately becomes “Anti-Semitic” and there’s also an unspoken belief that such a recognition will only lead to mass murder and genocide ultimately – so therefore, it’s better not to even hint that some shady business is going on from among those who have been persecuted.

    Ahmadis acknowledge that there are some (“Zionists” types if you wanna give it a name) who are not peace-loving and whose hearts are spiritually corrupted, just as any misguided Nazi was, and would be willing to go so far as to commit similar atrocities. (And in Israel today some of this has happened.) But this is not exclusive to them. “Evil” in the heart is something all humans are susceptible too – including those among the Muslims. Ahmadis also acknowledge that these people work in groups and makes moves on national levels and in the realms of economics and politics. Do we wish them hell-fire? No, we wish they avoid God’s wrath by sincerely promoting peace instead engaging in manipulation and exploitation. Their actions, however, do not reflect upon the entire tribe.

    As far as all those Jews who do not fall within the specific scope of the author’s treatise, the Holy Quran has stated

    “Surely, the Believers, and the Jews, and the Christians and the Sabians — whichever party from among these truly believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good deeds — shall have their reward with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve.” (2:63)

    The Quran has versus that condemn “Jews” and also versus that praise them. There is no contradiction because these verses never addressed ALL the Jews for ALL times. When read in context they reveal that they address groups from among them, some righteous and some not, from various eras of past history as well as present and future.

    So Robin please don’t feel hurt. There are may Jews who possess the wisdom and resolve to recognize “wrong” from among their own kind, but don’t condemn the entirety and don’t resort to violent persecution. Muslims also can have the same wisdom, resolve and maturity to do the same concerning themselves and other groups including “The Jews.”

    God Bless

  35. Albert
    Posted September 5, 2010 at 8:04 PM | Permalink

    SparrowSanders – I hope you are well and your month of fasting is going well.

    I’ve read the passage too and it can be very easily be interpreted as being offensive to Jews. I think either the book should be withdrawn or updated. Maybe you can add a few pages in the beginning of the book to explain the context.

    The ‘Protocols’ is another issue which needs to be looked at. I trust you will do something about our concerns.

    Shalom

  36. Posted September 5, 2010 at 8:30 PM | Permalink

    Robin:

    Thanks for being forthright and stating your concerns openly.

    2). My question to you is: Do you believe in racial superiority of any race over the others? How do you feel about someone who justifies unjust behavior by racial superiority. In principle, anyone who rationalizes atrocities based on superiority as a birthright is wrong. This is not an indictment of all Jewish people but those who suffer from this complex and then justify bad behavior.

    It is quite logical to compare two people who suffer from the same ailment.

    It was only last year that Israeli defense spokesperson said that they will unleash ‘Holocaust’ on Gaza. I am sure he was only referring to the enemies of Israel but it is ironic, nevertheless. I would hope that having gone through something that horrific you wouldn’t wish it on your enemies.

    Couple of my Christian friends when confronted with how come Jews get a pass in not accepting (and persecuting) the Messiah but Muslims are seen as villains for not accepting Jesus as God respond by saying that Jews are God’s chosen people. A century ago Jewish people were not being shown this reverence…How do you think this paradigm shift came about? Australian aborigines, American Indians also suffered but neither one commands this elite status.

    I have an Arab and a Jewish colleague at work. When they first spoke about the middle east, it was interesting to see that Jewish colleague thought Israel was the problem and the Arab person didn’t appreciate how the Arabs were handling it.

    In summary, anyone who believes that God created all men equal should not be offended or threatened by the quoted paragraph.

  37. Ronald
    Posted September 5, 2010 at 10:02 PM | Permalink

    Great post by ‘Sanity Check’ – This has also been my experience, that most Jews that I have spoken with do not blindly support Israel. As a matter of fact, many are highly critical of it.

    Here are a couple of examples,

    http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/israel-s-greatest-loss-its-moral-imagination-1.295600

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/un-human-rights-official-gaza-evokes-memories-of-warsaw-ghetto-1.268743 (Falk is Jewish himself)

    There is also a very wonderful documentary that answers this entire discussion: “Peace, Propaganda and the Holy Land”. (You should be able to find it on GoogleVideo or in pieces on Youtube). The vast majority of the personalities and experts interviewed in the piece are Jewish themselves. The documentary breaks down the reality of Israel. VERY insightful – especially on the media side of the whole thing.

    To “Xiaahmad”: You like to whisper, don’t you? You think Ahmadi Muslims put on different faces for different people?

    There is no double standard or duality at all.

    Because I went out of my way to explain myself and not unnecessarily hurt the feelings of Jews does not mean that we don’t stand by our beliefs and teachings. Yes, the sermons of the 4th Khalifa during the ramp up of the Gulf War are very powerful and to the point. They may make some people uncomfortable, but when pondered upon and put into the context in which he is saying them (which I think ‘SparrowSanders’ did a great job commenting upon), anyone can gain wisdom and understanding from them – including Jews. So no one is backing away from anything. We are explaining it.

    So you can sit there and try to pile on and reignite misunderstandings, but you are quite transparent. As is usual with you and your ilk is that your understanding and argumentation is very superficial and overly simplistic. You don’t seem to understand nuance. You – and vast majority of ‘anti-Ahmadis’ that I have run across – are over-literalists and simpletons. Like others trying to pick at Islam, you see what you want to see and try to spin things in a negative way. Ahmadi Muslims do more in one day than you and all of your small-minded cohorts do in a lifetime for the progress of Islam and Peace. You don’t stand for or do anything really, instead you just try to tear down what we are doing. Why don’t you take the advice of the Quran and ‘just work and let Allah decide between us’?

    One last thing to Xiaahmad: Ahmadi Muslims are commanded by both Prophet Muhammad SA and the Promised Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad AS, to not call people kafir, disbeliever or non-Muslim. And we don’t. However, it is VERY TRUE that the Promised Messiah AS did communicate the consequences of not accepting his claim and his teaching. And this is EXACTLY what the PROPHET MUHAMMAD SA said: He clearly stated that mujadid / reformers will come to you every century. Those who do not accept the mujadid of their age dies the death of ‘jahiliyya’ (ignorance). There are consequences for Muslims in not accepting the reformers and especially the Masih that Allah has sent. Is this also too nuanced for you? You really need to give up this ‘Fox News’ version of Islam that you guys have. Everything has to be an overly simplistic black or white with you guys. Remember, it is the habit of non-Ahmadi Muslims to call Ahmadi Muslims ‘non-Muslim’, not the other way around. Talk about duality.

    To Albert: I am not sure what you mean by ‘updating’ the book. Are you suggesting we edit the recorded the sermons? I believe SparrowSanders adequately answers the idea that they are somehow anti-Semitic, so there is nothing to hide. I’ve heard and read (see links above) where Jews themselves identify what is happening to Palestinians as similar or even identical to what happened in Nazi Germany concentration camps. The 4th Khalifa was pointing out a double-standard and a racial superiority complex that is present within the Zionist movement (not all of the Jewish people) – it has a double standard in that it doesn’t want persecution or tyranny against Jews but it has no problem with exacting this upon others to achieve its goals.

    I don’t see the fault in this statement. I am caucasion and I am well aware that many ‘whites’ (especially those in powerful places) have a white supremacy mindset. I will also freely admit that the some of the same “Chosen People” superiority complexes are present in many of the Arabs and Muslims of today. (The Saudi ‘Royal’ Family comes to mind and they are the perfect parallel as they too came to power in a very unjust way. In my pointing this out, does this make me anti-Arab? or anti-Muslim? I’m sure someone from the ‘Royal’ family could paint it that way, but truth is truth.) This is what I meant by my “Just like the Jews” remark in my earlier post. Looking back over it, I can see how it could be taken wrong by an outside observer. Once again, my apologies. Poor placement of words on my part. I should have been more clear.

    The bottom line is that the 4th Khalifa told it how it was. He didn’t pull punches. Especially at that time because he knew that millions of people’s lives hung in the balance and that an entire nation of Muslims (most innocent of any of Saddam’s crimes) were about to be annihilated. And he was right. Like I said in an earlier post, a million and a half women and children killed. Their nation was utterly destroyed. Sounds a lot to me like a holocaust.

    And last, to Robin:

    1) As to whether or not Ahmadi Muslims are Sunni Muslims. Yes, we are Sunni Muslims in that we follow the Sunnah (ways and practices) of the Prophet Muhammad SA. And though Sunni Muslims would balk and protest at that statement, any who have spent time around us would admit it. When I said that it was an argument between Ahmadi Muslims and Sunni Muslims it was just to identify that the debate is between us and other anti-Ahmadis from amongst the Sunnis.

    2) I believe the rest of the posts should have answered your concerns. You said something a little concerning yourself that I wanted to address. You said that once you read that quote you got so upset that you stopped reading. But if you read the passages before and after that single passage it is very clear that the 4th Khalifa was talking about geo-politics, not the Jewish people as a whole.

    So, I have a few questions myself: Do you identify yourself with those Jewish Zionist leaders who believe themselves to be superior in race to all other people and, therefore, believe that they have a right to do injustice and not be questioned about it? (I’m hoping not). Do you not believe that such people exist? It seems apparent that they do, but maybe you have not considered it.

    The problem seems to be that through the media, it has become taboo to talk about anything critical of Israel or Zionist without being labelled anti-Semitic. Jews in general are handled with kid gloves by the media and when anyone criticizes the actions or policies of Zionists or Israeli leaders, they are immediately labelled as an anti-Semites. (This is like people who criticized Saddam Hussein being called ‘Islamophobes’. Its silly.) This doesn’t allow any intelligent discourse and, therefore, a guarantee of misunderstandings and continued problems.

    So, earlier, we Ahmadi Muslims were accused of being a bit over-senstive and I admitted that we are right now and explained why. (Something that I think Jews would understand). I think maybe you, too, could benefit from some time at the reflecting glass regarding this issue. In your reaction to the 4th Khalifa’s words about geo-politics and history, you took it personally as an indictment against all Jews, when this was not the context of his reference.

    The bottom line is that Ahmadi Muslims have PROVEN by their actions over 120+ years that we are peaceful human beings and practice a ‘moderate’ form of Islam. We do not persecute. We do not attack people (even retaliation to the many attacks against us). We are loyal to the countries that we live in (including Israel). We serve humanity. We do not hate Jews or any one else. This is not duality as some lame posters have insinuated – it is the teaching of true Islam.

    And, last, if you have not watched the video “My Summer Vacation” that I mentioned before, I urge you to watch it. The proof and power of Ahmadiyyat Islam is verified in a occurrence that one of our Imams (an Irish born convert) witnessed in Haifa. Former radicals are turning towards Ahmadiyya Islam and relinquishing their hatred and violence for all things Israel and Jewish are openly professing that what is being done to the Arab Palestinians is wrong.

    What better testimony could there be for the spirit and mission of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community?

    Love for All. Hatred for None.

  38. Ronald
    Posted September 5, 2010 at 10:57 PM | Permalink

    Actually, Albert: I just realized that you also commented, “Maybe you can add a few pages in the beginning of the book to explain the context.”

    Yes, this may very well be a good idea. I think that if the book is read from beginning to end it stands on its own, but some people who may not know our community and its history and stance may take certain passages out of context and, therefore, as offensive.

    I hope that it is obvious now that this is not our intention or message.

    (And I am sorry if I came off as a “nutter” earlier (as you put it) – Seeing these constant posts against us sometimes makes me nuts.)

    Shalom

  39. Ronald
    Posted September 5, 2010 at 11:15 PM | Permalink

    EDIT:

    In my second to last post the end reads:

    “Former radicals are turning towards Ahmadiyya Islam and relinquishing their hatred and violence for all things Israel and Jewish are openly professing that what is being done to the Arab Palestinians is wrong.”

    I must have inadvertently hit the delete over a section of the complete sentence – It should read:

    Former radicals are turning towards Ahmadiyya Islam and relinquishing their hatred and violence for all things Israel and Jewish Israeli citizens are openly professing that what is being done to the Arab Palestinians is wrong.

  40. Rationalist
    Posted September 6, 2010 at 12:49 AM | Permalink

    WOW!!! Lots of interest in Ahmadiyyat.

    Lutf is here tooo????

    Ahmadiyyat is nothing more than a business.

  41. qidniz
    Posted September 6, 2010 at 4:23 AM | Permalink

    Mr Prince,

    I have explained my preferred use of “Islamist” and related terms here. (The whole thread may be worth reading.)

    As for “karmaphala”, the point was basically “be careful what you ask/wish for.” I have sympathy for Ahmadiyyas as victims of Islamic persecution. I have no sympathy at all for them as Ahmadiyyas, i.e. I find no “saving grace” in Ahmadi doctrines over more traditional or orthodox strains of Islam.

  42. Moeen
    Posted September 6, 2010 at 3:09 PM | Permalink

    The web site that the author Raziq has provided in support of his claims spreads blatant anti-Semitism. So much for author’s credibility with regards to objectivity.

    Here are some of the excerpts from the site from an article discussing Dr Abdus Salam’s Nobel prize and written by a prominent Sunni Mullah Maulana Yusuf Ludhianvi who is revered by many among Sunnis.

    Dr. Abdus Salam And The Nobel Prize

    Motives, Possibilities, Designs by Maulana Yusuf Ludhianvi

    Qadiani-Jewish Lobby

    What is this Nobel Prize? What Qadiani motives are behind this award? This analysis should have been carried out earlier; however, the Qadiani-Jewish lobby unleashed an immediate and enormous propaganda campaign to forestall a forthright consideration of the issue and cover up their motives. Thus few people could get an opportunity to examine the ramifications of this award to Dr. Abdus Salam.

    Let us also examine the motives which Abdus Salam Qadiani and the Qadiani-Jewish lobby wish to achieve through this award and their nefarious hidden designs against Islamic nations of the world.


    Actually, his [Abdus Salam's] only virtue is his enmity towards Islam and friendship with Jews. The Swedish ‘Daniels’ coming to judgment cherished this trait of Dr. Abdus Salam as par excellence and worthy of the Nobel Prize.

    Story Behind The Award
    Why was Dr. Abdus Salam Qadiani awarded? The answer is provided in an interview with Dr. Abdul Qadeer, our renowned nuclear scientist.
    Q: “What do you have to say for the Nobel Award which Dr. Abdus Salam Qadiani has received”?
    A: “That too has been awarded on the basis of motives. Dr. Abdus Salam had been trying to get a Nobel Prize since 1957. At last, on the hundredth birth anniversary of Einstein, the desired Prize was given to him. The fact is that Qadianis have a proper mission operating in Israel since long. Jews wanted to please some like-minded person on the occasion of Einstein’s anniversary and so Dr. Abdus Salam was favored“. (Weekly Chattan, Lahore, February 6,1986)
    Dr. Abdul Qadeer’s above-quoted interview is a wise discernment. It is a sagacious hint in hushed tones that the Nobel Award is hinged with Qadiani-Jewish motives, secretly piled one over Another.

    A Glimpse into Qadiani-Jewish Objectives
    In Dr. Abdul Qadeer’s interview, there is one meaningful epithet. The epithet is “Like-minded”. Most appropriate, because the Qadianis are great allies of the Jewish/Zionist movement. They cooperate with each other in spitting out venomous propaganda against Muslims on an international base. Zionism is a sworn enemy of Islam since its inception. History testifies that they damaged the Islamic polity by motivating separatist movements. This time they have a protagonist in Qadianism and a ready mule to ride on. The award to Dr. Abdus Salam Qadiani is in pursuance of a common cause of the antagonists of Islam.

    Taken from: http://www.alhafeez.org/rashid/ludhianvi/abdussalam.html

    The author of the article has no shame. This sort of material is hardly worthy of spittoon’s liberal and fair values.

  43. Salem
    Posted September 6, 2010 at 4:32 PM | Permalink

    It would be helpful to provide the definition of Islamism that is being used here.

  44. fandango
    Posted September 6, 2010 at 9:01 PM | Permalink

    oh look! religious lunatics shouting at each other.

    Fuck off, the lot of you.

  45. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 6, 2010 at 10:15 PM | Permalink

    With due respects to the views expressed by the worthy author, let’s examine the more relevant issues of this article – issues that matter:

    #1: The Founder: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian was born in 1835. He was a profoundly truthful and deeply spiritual person from his early years of life, inclined towards long hours of worship in seclusion. From his early years, he led a saintly life – his prayers were answered and he had been blessed with spiritual experiences. His youth was devoted to a deeper study of all revealed scriptures. He rose to defend Islam against the objections that were being widely published in those days by Christian as well as Hindu authors. He contended that since the attack on Islam had been made by the pen, its defense too, had to be done by the pen. This he called the “Jihad bil Qalam” or Jihad by means of the pen.

    #2: His Claims : Muhammad the Messenger of God had foretold that God would keep reviving Islam by appointing a “Mujaddid” [Reformer] every century. He also foretold that the Mujaddid of the fourteenth century of Islam would be unique in that he would be the “Mahdi” [someone specially guided by God]. He also prophesied that this Mahdi would exceedingly resemble Jesus of Nazareth, hence naming him Masih / Esa / Ibn Maryam. He also prophesied that this Promised Messiah would be Subservient Prophet which means that he would be commissioned only to revive the religion sent through Muhammad – Islam. Hence, these four prophecies actually converge into one. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian was told by God that that this grand prophecy made by the Holy Prophet Muhammad had been fulfilled in his person, a claim he made public on God’s command. Ahmad of Qadian peached that Muhammad was the greatest of all prophets, the last law-bearing and last independent prophet of God. His own prophethood, he pronounced was not independent, but rather a reflection of the prophethood of Muhammad.

    It may be worthy mentioning that Muhammad had foretold that the Mahdi would be identified through two magnificent signs – a lunar eclipse on the thirteenth of Ramadan and a soar eclipse on the twenty eighth of the same month. Ahmad of Qadian established his movement on the 23rd of March 1889. In April 1994, precisely in accordance with the prophecy, a lunar eclipse occurred on the 13th and a solar eclipse occurred on the 28th of Ramadan. These signs were visible in the Eastern Hemisphere. Astonishingly, the next year i.e. 1895, the same signs repeated themselves, on precisely the same dates, and were visible in the Western Hemisphere.

    #3: His successorship: Muhammad the Holy Prophet had foretold that in the latter days, God would once again establish the institution of Khilafat for the continued revival of faith. Ahmad of Qadian died in 1908. Nuruddin, his first disciple became his first successor. Today, the Ahmadiyya Movement is led by the fifth successor or Khalifa of Ahmad the Messiah. The Khalifa is a spiritual figure who guides the members of this community.

    #4: Opposition: From the very day of its inception, the Ahmadiyya Movement has faced opposition and persecution, both open and tacit. False accusations and slander are met by the Movement on a daily basis. Members of the movement strictly adhere to a policy of patience and prayer.

    #5: Justice: One of the titles bestowed upon the Promised Messiah, by Muhammad is “Adl” meaning Justice, implying that the Messiah would always stand for justice. With reference to the creation of the State of Israel, the stance of the Ahmadiyya Movement is based entirely on the principle of justice and in no way contravenes the principle of moderation. There is no doubt that the Jews had been fiercely persecuted during the years of the Second World. But compensation to an oppressed community should not have been provided at the cost of justice and by oppressing another community. However, once the State of Israel came into being, its Ahmadi citizens became loyal and law-abiding citizens of the state. Contrary to what the author of the article wishes to imply, the Ahmadiyya Community is both just and moderate. Of course, the author’s bias would understandably not allow him to view things more objectively.

    #6: Jihad: The Ahmadiyya Community believes in conducting all the unconditional forms of Jihad, which according to the Quran, are worshiping God, self-purification, preaching and charity. The conditional form of Jihad, which is defensive combat is clearly not applicable these days.

    #7: Redemption: It would be calumny of the highest order to claim that Ahmadis believe that non-Ahmadis will go to hell. The Quran clearly states that God alone is the Lord of Judgement [Quran 1:4]. God alone can say who will be redeemed and who will not. The worthy author seems to have been driven by some long-harboured grudge to making this accusation against Ahmadis. May God guide him and have mercy on him.

  46. Ziryab
    Posted September 7, 2010 at 12:51 AM | Permalink

    Bin Ismail,

    I enjoyed reading your comments and I would be grateful if you could answer some questions for me regarding your movement.

    1) Do you agree that before Mirza Ghulam Ahmad started receiving revelation around the age of 50, he also used to believe in the Jesus descending from heaven idea?

    2) Christian Era (AD) begins with the birth of Jesus in 1 AD. In his book ‘Jesus in India’ Mirza Ghulam Ahmad says that Jesus died in Kashmir at the age of 120 years, meaning 120 AD. In another book “Anjam-e-Atham” he says St. Paul was responsible for the doctrine of Holy Trinity and thus turning Jesus into God. Now it is a well known fact that St. Paul died in 64 AD or 67 AD (55 years before Jesus according to MGA).

    In the same book “Anjam-e-Atham”, he states that the seeds of Trinity were not sown until 120 A.D. In his commentary on the Holy Quran’s verse 5:117 (Falamma Tawaffetenni) from the same book, he says that Christians made Hazrat Isa God after the death of Hazrat Isa in 120 A.D.

    Now, the question which I want to ask you is that if Paul died 55years before Jesus then the seeds of trinity must have been sown in Paul’s lifetime and not after the death Jesus in 120AD? How do you explain this contradiction by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad?

    2) The Double Eclipse in Ramadan statement quoted from Dar Qutni is not verified and it is not considered as an authentic hadith. Apart from that, astronomers have been able to predict these events for centuries. Ancient Egyptian & Chinese astronomers used to accurately predict solar and lunar eclipses by carefully studying planetary cycles. Double eclipses in Ramadan have also happened many times. Why does your movement make such a big deal out of them?

    3) Is it an article of faith in Islam to believe in the second coming of Jesus? In your eyes what is the status of someone who doesn’t believe in these traditions?

    4) I’ve been told by Ahmadis in the past that they do believe in physical jihad. Didn’t your group have a military unit (made up of volunteers) called the Furqan Force which fought alongside the Pakistani army in Kashmir?

    One more thing – A lot of different people from your side are commenting here and it all gets a bit confusing. I would like you to personally answer these questions please.

    Thank you.

  47. bananabrain
    Posted September 7, 2010 at 10:55 AM | Permalink

    what it looks like to me is that Ahmadi Muslims are on here posting actual arguments and no one else is answering them.

    what i’m seeing here is not so much actual arguments as some pretty unpleasant accusations and assertions that i’ve never really heard from ahmadis before, but i don’t like what i’m hearing. not one little bit.

    i should say straight away also don’t want ahmadis persecuted, discriminated against or attacked by anyone. even before i read this comment stream, however, i thought their belief system to be odd at best and disingenuous at worst. in my own experience of ahmadis, they tend to come across all “peace and love”, but it’s only when you analyse some of the doublespeak that you realise just how culty it is and how much it has in common with other evangelist sillinesses.

    Should Britain allow Mirpuris to declare an independent state in Yorkshire?

    oh deary me. i don’t believe there is evidence that the mirpuris’ culture came from yorkshire in the first place, nor that they have prayed and sought to return to yorkshire, from which they were expelled two thousand years ago, ever since, nor that their holy books of the mirpuris make constant reference to their link to yorkshire and their wish to live there. so for “hypothetical”, read “utter rubbish”. have some intellectual honesty and do your comparisons at least vaguely correctly: does the UN have the right (if china breaks up) to assist the tibetans to found a new tibetan state in their historic homeland?

    The fact is that most of the world believes that Israel is an illegally established state.

    do we establish what is true or false on “what most of the world believes”? israel was established by its founders in acceptance of the 1947 partition plan voted on by the UN general assembly. and anything you can say about israel in terms of international legitimacy goes double for pakistan.

    Israel was created from the West, propped up from the West and is now fully supported and maintained by the West. This is a fact.

    you are deluded. half of israel’s population are from the arab world. this is the lie that is peddled by the president of iran – from where 200,000 jews came to the state of israel.

    Of course, the West wants to break the power of Islam and Israel is their castle in the Middle East to do so.

    what utter bilge. the “west” couldn’t have been less interested in islam until the advent of religious terrorism – funded and financed by the iranians, but not to forget the “allies” of the west, the saudis. prior to the mid-70s, anti-israel terrorism was solely financed by the soviets and was secularist in nature.

    It is true that the 4th Khalifa mentioned them in one of the sermons. What he essentially remarks about them is that they have come true. Whether you believe they were originally fraudulent from the beginning, the fact is that they were written in 1903. The 4th Khalifa quotes an American politician who basically remarked, ‘They are either real or they were revealed by a prophet.

    then he is a bigot and so are you for believing this. the protocols are a forgery with a well-documented literary history, but the principal authors were the tsarist secret police from russia. as for them “having come true”, perhaps you’d like to name just ONE of the secret lemonade drinkers that rule the world from a vault underneath chateau rothschild, you ignoramus.

    They include a plan for the establishment of a corrupted league of nations

    please show where this was the plan of the jews.

    establishment of the Jews back into the Holy Land

    this is in the Torah, you don’t need the protocols for that!

    orchestrated world wars

    you have no evidence, because this is a lie.

    infiltration of usury and banking in all nations and business

    gosh, you’re a nasty piece of work. are jews then prohibited from working in financial services? this, too, is an evidence-free, bigoted slander.

    the dumbing down of ‘goyim’ / gentile nations

    show me ONE example of where this has happened because of jews.

    promotion of base and immoral entertainment and thought in the name of ‘free speech’

    what, you’re saying the protocols predicted hollywood, are you? how disgusting.

    If these weren’t the leaked plans of Zionists then did the Zionists like them and use them?

    they didn’t. you are begging the question.

    Even the Holy Quran establishes the fact that the Jews are notorious for secret societies – it goes back to their days in slavery in Babylon and the angels “Harut and Marut’. They also did it under Solomon – a fact established also in the Bible

    so you’re saying that the Qur’an provides evidence that the protocols are true? this is even more worrying than i thought. as for “a fact established also in the bible”, where is that, exactly? sources, please?

    So, Raziq, is the Holy Quran full of “wacky conspiracy theories”, too?

    well, according to you…. yes, apparently!

    “As an Ahmadi it take pride in the fact that I bear no ill will to any group of people based on their beliefs or ethnicity or lifestyle.”

    well, let me tell you, chummy, this is exactly what has just been laid out line by line – a ghastly a set of prejudices as i’ve seen outside stormfront.

    O, and you still haven’t defined ‘moderate’. Are you ‘moderate’?

    well, if you are, your definition or “moderate” is clearly “would be right at home at a neo-nazi hate fest”.

    Even Shimon Peres graciously accepted the invitation to our Mosque in Kababir and had dinner with our National President.

    it’s my guess that views like those outlined above were not expressed to him on that particular occasion, i suspect.

    The point being made here is that Ahmadi Muslims aren’t anti-Jew

    not terribly well, however, in fact, rather the opposite.

    There are many orthodox, practicing jews who do not agree with the state of Israel.

    what, like neturei karta?

    In terms of faith, Ahmadis believe that Jews are rejectors of the first Messiah and also rejectors of the Holy Prophet (saw). This puts them at a signifcant disadvantage of not having any Divine guidance for many centuries.

    nobody who holds this point of view can possibly claim to be tolerant, nor is it at all compatible with the maxim of “love for all and hatred for none”. i won’t be defined by your ignorance of both history, sacred texts and what i actually believe.

    In no way, shape or form is Ahmadiyya Islam anti-semitic or anti-Jewish and neither am I.

    i’m afraid that you can’t say that and at the same time argue that the protocols are real or that they are prophetic or that they are in some way being actioned by some group of powerful jews. sorry, but it doesn’t work like that. the statements you have made are practically the DEFINITION of jew-hatred.

    Today, at our mosque here in Southern California we held an interfaith meeting where we invited a Jewish Rabbi to address us. We often do such events.A very dear friend of mine here, who is now part of our community, is Jewish.

    why don’t you try telling them what you just said here and tell us whether you get punched in the face? “some of my best friends are jewish”, forsooth. what a hypocrite.

    The point of my comments was and is NOT to attack “the Jews”. I am very sorry if it came across like that.

    I’m sorry if anything said offended you, I really am, as that is never the intention.

    but presumably not sorry enough to change your views now they have been revealed as nasty, vicious and bigoted. i find it amazing how people find it easier to apologise for giving offence than by realising that it would be caused in the first place.

    people like this poster propagate false information about the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, and then sit back and act puzzled saying, what did we do wrong?

    well, i’m far more disturbed by what i’ve heard here from ahmadis than by any of the rubbish that is talked about them by sunnis – but i still don’t think it justifies the sort of persecution they are subject to in all these different countries (apart from evil, satanic old israel, that is).

    But if by “Islamist” you mean violent, politically motivated Muslims — which is the widely accepted meaning of the term — then please provide evidence that Ahmadi Muslims are, as you have clearly implied, equal to or greater than non-Ahmadi Muslims in that regard.

    all the regular spittoon contributors and authors are aware of what we mean, which is triumphalist, prejudiced, imperialist muslims of any stripe who think that they deserve to take over politically, impose a theocratic state and convert everyone to their form of islam and will do so by fair means or foul and, in some cases, resort to violence for this purpose. not all islamists are violent, but all are intolerant, bigoted and lack knowledge or sympathy for the historic richness and variety of the various tariqat within islam – you ahmadis ought to know better, because your heterodoxy is precisely the case in point here; when you show your own intolerance, bigotry and ignorance, you are no better than the local salafi groups who make a lot of noise about how they’re better than anyone else. i wouldn’t have had a great deal of confidence in an ahmadi-run state even before i heard this crap about the protocols, which crosses the line from deluded lunacy (which i’m prepared to tolerate under the rubric of free speech) into outright prejudice (which i’m not).

    as for the views expressed here on israel:

    Because Israel was established in this way and has used a heavy hand (weighted and supported by Western powers) it has become an emblem of injustice to much of the world.

    you’d think that the four offensive wars launched against israel by the surrounding arab states and the decades of terrorism hadn’t happened, wouldn’t you?

    Whether or not the ‘Protocols’ is a fraud is now rather a moot point. Interestingly, many key features of the document and Zionist vision have come true over the past 100 years.

    here you contradict yourself – it’s a fraud, but it’s coming true, you also conflate the protocols with “the zionist vision” – as if there is any such coherent thing. you asked for a definition of “islamist” – what’s your definition of “zionist”? because it sounds to me like you are using it instead of saying “evil jews”.

    Being that Jews were very prevalent in banking and business then, are we to believe that they just sat on their hands and did not plan any kind of long term strategies and domination of the markets that they knew better than anyone else?

    ok, well in that case, i accuse the ahmadis of telling the jews what to do in secret, so the secret zionist plot was in fact inspired by and directed by the ahmadis in order to create a safe haven for ahmadis in israel. now, that’s come true, hasn’t it? prove it hasn’t! you can’t, can you? aha!!!!!

    there is an irony (or contradiction) that the author was addressing along with that and that is that among them, since the ancient times, there is a belief among many of them that they are the “Chosen People of God.”

    you don’t understand this concept at all. it has nothing to do with race. race is a C19th concept. we were Chosen by G!D to accept the Torah, nothing more, nothing less. believe me, that’s plenty. a jew is not better than a non-jew, which is why “the righteous of all nations receive a portion in the world to come”. we have our own chauvinists just like every other community, but there is no foundation for it in the Torah. this “chosen people” slur comes from mediaeval christian thought and says far more about you than it does about us.

    as the concept of superiority of Jews over other races is concerned, this concept is in no way less than the Nazi concept of Hitler

    except that it doesn’t refer to race, doesn’t actually imply superiority and certainly doesn’t imply a programme of genocide, so any attempt to link it to hitler is nonsense on stilts – and vicious with it.

    Couple of my Christian friends when confronted with how come Jews get a pass in not accepting (and persecuting) the Messiah but Muslims are seen as villains for not accepting Jesus as God respond by saying that Jews are God’s chosen people.

    then they, too, have been taught incorrectly and almost certainly not by jews.

    So whenever a clear wrong from this is pointed out, or a spade is called a spade, it immediately becomes “Anti-Semitic”

    what, as opposed to saying “jews control banking and the media”, or “jews start wars”, or “jews are undermining society’s values and behaviours”? nothing anti-semitic about that, is there?

    would be willing to go so far as to commit similar atrocities. (And in Israel today some of this has happened.)

    if you think that anything that has happened in israel is comparable to what the nazis did, then you are quite simply ignorant of the facts. there are no israeli death camps, no ovens, no mass graves, no medical experiments. the only “atrocity” here is the extent to which you have been poisoned by islamist conspiracy theories which, it has been clearly shown, derive from racist and nazi infiltration of the middle-east.

    It was only last year that Israeli defense spokesperson said that they will unleash ‘Holocaust’ on Gaza.

    yes – and he was an idiot spouting rhetoric, like virtually all israeli politicians, he was not indicating policy. if israel *had* done such a thing, there would have been a death toll numbering in the hundreds of thousands. instead, they went in on foot and engaged in house-to-house combat at considerable risk to their own troops.

    This has also been my experience, that most Jews that I have spoken with do not blindly support Israel.

    of course this depends on what you mean by “blindly support israel”. if you mean do i think it should exist and provide a safe haven for the jewish people, that jews should be able to live there come what may, yes, i do. if you think that translates as unwinking, unquestioning support for every stupid social feature, piece of ridiculous legislation or alarmingly bigoted statement by a rabbi on the state payroll, or support for violent settlers who don’t obey the civil power, or counterproductively brutal military action, then no, i don’t.

    There is no double standard or duality at all.

    yes, there is – you are claiming you don’t hate jews, but you condemn us in the most vile and bigoted terms drawn from our worst enemies – in the same post! i don’t think i’ve ever seen bigger hypocrisy or double-standards in my life. you are most *definitely* an ABSOLUTE FECKING NUTTER.

    “shalom”? hah. well done, mate, i didn’t much care for ahmadiyya before, but you’ve actually opened my eyes to bigotry i didn’t even realise existed. i repeat, nonetheless, that you should not be subject to prejudicial laws and repression becuase of your unpleasant views either here or elsewhere.

    bananabrain

  48. Sarah
    Posted September 7, 2010 at 11:44 AM | Permalink

    Thank you Bannanabrain, you nailed it!

    These guys claim they are not anti-Semetic yet spout the worst anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, quote forged documents and question the very existence of Israel. When you point it out to them they start accusing you wanting to kill Ahmadis! There’s no winning with these guys.

    Anyway, at least their motto sounds nice “love for all (except Jews & Israel) and hatred for none (accept those who reject Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the messiah) ; )

  49. Kamal
    Posted September 7, 2010 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

    Robin, Ziryab, Bananabrain,

    As has been demonstrated in their posts, Ahmadis are anti-Israel, liars, devious and bigots. I’m glad Raziq wrote this article because at least their true face has been exposed!

    It’s pointless debating with these silly people and their internet trolls any further. Just ignore from now I say.

  50. Robin
    Posted September 7, 2010 at 11:51 AM | Permalink

    Noted.

  51. bananabrain
    Posted September 7, 2010 at 12:08 PM | Permalink

    however, none of this should be taken as confirmation that the accusations made by sunnis are reasonable criticism, or that i think that they way they treat ahmadis is anything but vile and unjust.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  52. Salem
    Posted September 7, 2010 at 12:26 PM | Permalink

    I agree. And any form of persecution against any minority group is totally unacceptable.

  53. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 7, 2010 at 1:32 PM | Permalink

    Ziryab:

    Thank you. You’ve raised five questions. Allow me to reply in the same order:

    1: The essence of the prophecy made by Muhammad the Messenger of God was that a Reformer of Islam would come. Muhammad named this Promised Reformer the Masih, Esa, Ibn Maryam and Mahdi. An interpretation of this prophecy came to exist, which acquired the status of the traditional interpretation, that the fulfillment of this prophecy would take place by the physical descent from the heavens, of the same Jesus who lived six centuries prior to Muhammad. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian believed in the truth of the prophecy and that is what was imperative. Regarding the mode of its fulfillment, Ahmad of Qadian continued to innocently follow the traditional interpretation, until it was revealed to him by God that Jesus had actually died a natural death, was never raised bodily into the heavens, and would thus not return form the heavens, and that his foretold second advent was a metaphorical return that had been fulfilled in the person of Ahmad of Qadian. Once the truth was revealed to Ahmad, he abandoned the traditional interpretation.

    2: According to the Ahmadiyya perspective, Jesus had survived the crucifixion and subsequently migrated towards the East to fulfill his Divinely assigned task of conveying the message to the entire House of Israel. Only two out of the twelve tribes of Israel lived in Palestine. The remaining ten had earlier moved Eastwards and had scattered themselves right upto Kashmir. After travelling through Syria, Iran and Afghanistan, Jesus finally arrived in Kashmir, where he lived and preached till his death at the age of 120 years. It was during Jesus’ stay in Kashmir, that Paul invented the idea of trinity and contrary to Jesus’ directives started preaching among the Gentiles. The novel idea of trinity, needed time to gain foothold. Jesus died around 120 AD, by which time, Paul’s invented doctrine of trinity had become a viable entity. So, there is absolutely no contradiction in the words of Ahmad the Messiah.

    3: The hadith regarding the lunar and solar eclipses, does indeed appear in Sunnan Dar Qutni. It happens to be one of those few signs of the Promised Mahdi, that are accepted as authentic and unforgeable by both Sunni and Shia authorities. The reason is that to show a lunar and solar eclipse on specified dates of a certain lunar month, in this case Ramadan, amounts to arranging the Sun, Earth and Moon in a single line, twice in a given month, a feat not exactly doable for a human. As far as authenticity goes, this hadith enjoys the ultimate authentication by the Quran. We read: “When the eye is dazzled. And the moon is eclipsed. And the sun and the moon are brought together (in the state of eclipse).” [Quran 75:7-9]. Another aspect of the authenticity of this hadith is that this account is narrated by Imam Baqar, a 4th generation direct descendent of the Prophet. Let us also not forget that Ahmad of Qadian lived in Qadian, a small village of Punjab. There were obviously no observatories in the neighbourhood. Also, Ahmad’s claim was proclaimed openly in 1889 and the signs appeared in 1894. Assuming even if there was an observatory in Qadian and assuming that Ahmad was an astronomer, which he was not, how could he have possibly predicted that the signs would appear in his lifetime and that he would not die before their appearance? The ordained signs appeared twice, once in the East and the following year in the West, both times on precisely the same dates. Isn’t that too much of a coincidence?

    4: Obedience of the Holy Prophet is most certainly obligatory. It was the Holy Prophet’s will that the Mahdi be obeyed and followed. As far as judging someone goes, neither can Ahmadis pass a judgement about non-Ahmadis nor does a judgement passed by no-Ahmadis regarding Ahmadis mean anything. Allah is “Maalik-e yaum-id deen” or the Master of the day of Judgement. It is for Him to judge – and Him alone.

    5: The 1948 war of Kashmir was not a religious war, and in that sense not “Jihad”, in the “religious” sense of the word. Defense of one’s homeland is indeed a worthy act and this is what the Furqan Force was all about.

    Regards.

  54. Ziryab
    Posted September 7, 2010 at 2:28 PM | Permalink

    Thank you.

    1) Ok. So, like other Muslims, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was following the traditional interpretation of the ‘Jesus descending from heaven prophecy’ until around the age of 50 when he recievd a revelation that Jesus had died a natural death in Kashmir, India. Is that right?

    2) Your saying St Paul was preaching that Jesus was God in Palestine whilst Jesus was still alive in India hundreds of miles away? Ghulam Ahmad himself states in his books that this only started happening after Jesus died in 120 A.D. Isn’t that a contradiction?

    3) Sorry but the hadith in Dar Qutni is not verified as being authentic (regardless of who has quoted it in the past). And the verse of the Quran you mentioned has got nothing to do with signs of the Mahdi either. That verse is speaking about the day of resurection. Unless your group interprets that verse differently? Also, Ghulam Ahmad never spent all his life in Qadian did he? and it’s not too much of a conicidence considering ancient chinese could accurately predict eclipses centuries earlier.

    4) Obedience to the holy prophet and believing in traditions, especially ones that are not authentic, are two different things.

    5) So what exactly is the position of the Furqan Force today? Does it still exist? What other ‘national’ wars did it take part in? Who heads it the force?

    I also look forward to your response to Bananabrain’s earlier post.

  55. bananabrain
    Posted September 7, 2010 at 3:21 PM | Permalink

    well, ibn ismail, as opposed to, say, “ronald” and lutf, hasn’t said anything that i object to – he is perfectly entitled to the opinion that:

    There is no doubt that the Jews had been fiercely persecuted during the years of the Second World. But compensation to an oppressed community should not have been provided at the cost of justice and by oppressing another community.

    and, indeed this position is substantially similar to my own as a religious jew and, indeed, as a zionist, with the difference that i note that this idea that the jews received israel as compensation for the holocaust flies in the face of:

    a) continuous jewish presence in the land since the destruction of the second jewish commonwealth by the romans and aspirations to return to set up the third
    b) numerous settlements since the C16th at very least
    c) the systematic purchase and colonisation of land in the mandate since the mid C19th
    d) the clearly stated intention to establish a jewish state in the land of israel even before the establishment of the league of nations, let alone the u.n.
    e) a large jewish community existing in the mandate even before the nazis came to power.
    f) substantial jewish communities coming to israel from many countries that were not under nazi control

    in other words, even if the holocaust hadn’t happened, israel would certainly still have been established, probably in precisely the same way india and pakistan and other colonies of the british empire became independent after the war. all the holocaust did was create a rush of traumatised jews from europe who were in no mood to see anyone else’s point of view, be patient, or be pacifists. but it would be absolutely incorrect to conclude that israel would not have come into existence. it might, rather, have come into existence in a less controversial way.

    on one hand, the ratification of the 1947 partition plan by the jewish side provided a reliable basis in international law for israeli legitimacy, but if it had not done so, there are plenty of other models for statehood that might have been used. the guilt argument only holds up for the 1947 vote – and, i note, the UK abstained. it does not account for the historical imperative for the creation of the state.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  56. Posted September 7, 2010 at 5:52 PM | Permalink

    bananab,

    I have no qualms about stating the religious backwardness of both Jews and Christians. I believe Islam to be the summitt of religious evolution and Judaism and Christianity have definitely lost their way. Torah is a book now left only with contradictions and harsh teachings no longer applicable to human race. (Yeah.. and this is not anti-semitic, just a statement of facts as I see them).

    Regardless of what Europe and Christians did to Jews, the state of Israel had no right to be created.. (that does not mean that the state of Israel has no right to exist now that it has been established). Jews have been supported, protected and treated justly by muslims in the past. And their exodus to Palestine and subsequent violence against their cousins was nothing short than treachery. I can’t understand why they did not show any vengeance towards those Europeans who are still openly anti-semitic.
    If archeology is the argument for a person’s right to certain property, I better start looking for the houses and lands my ancestors occupied thousands of years ago. I should have the right to claim them back.. There must be a piece of Africa with my name on it.

  57. bananabrain
    Posted September 7, 2010 at 6:46 PM | Permalink

    I have no qualms about stating the religious backwardness of both Jews and Christians.

    in which case, you are no “moderate”. you are just as much of an islamist as your average saudi.

    I believe Islam to be the summit of religious evolution and Judaism and Christianity have definitely lost their way.

    that must be why you guys spend so much time congratulating yourselves and why you have such respect from the rest of us who don’t think much of that particular claim. well done, we’re really impressed. or at least, we might be if this were based on anything else than self-delusion and overweening, unwarranted arrogance. obviously that’s why we jews have to resort to underhand conspiracies to keep you down from your rightful place at the pinnacle of human societies. i have my yellow badge all ready for when the pact of umar is reinstated.

    Torah is a book now left only with contradictions and harsh teachings no longer applicable to human race. (Yeah.. and this is not anti-semitic, just a statement of facts as I see them).

    the Torah was never applicable to “the human race”, only to jews. your ignorance is showing. as for the apparent contradictions, the way we resolve them is EXACTLY the same way you guys say you do it. EXACTLY. except, of course that our “harsh teachings” don’t ever result in anyone getting stoned or having their hands cut off by a beth din – unlike the “summit of religious evolution”, that is.

    Jews have been supported, protected and treated justly by muslims in the past.

    what tendentious, self-serving nonsense. we were accepted and tolerated as DHIMMI provided we kept to our place as second-class citizens and accepted the contempt in which we were held, but we were still subject to prejudice and upon occasion violence, often pogroms. ever heard of the farhud?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhud
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_affair
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism#Antisemitism_in_the_Islamic_Middle_East

    islam treated jews neither as badly and neither as well as christianity did through the years. rather than buying into the rose-tinted fairy story, why don’t you read some history?

    If archeology is the argument for a person’s right to certain property, I better start looking for the houses and lands my ancestors occupied thousands of years ago. I should have the right to claim them back.. There must be a piece of Africa with my name on it.

    so, presumably you don’t consider spain to be “waqf”, then? how about india? the fact is that our link to that land is based upon far more than archaeology, which simply provides evidence that we were there that long ago; if china collapsed, would the tibetans have a right to return and set up an independent tibet in their homeland? what arguments do they need to prepare?

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  58. Posted September 7, 2010 at 8:55 PM | Permalink

    bananab,

    Indeed Torah is meant for the jews.. but it is human race which suffers because many Zionists consider its teachings on War and treatment of non-Jews to be still valid.

    And as you mentioned stoning punishment. I think it’s source is the old testament, not Quran. Iran Shia regime and Saudi Wahabi clergy are more impressed by Torah than the Quran.

    Dhimmi is another misunderstood concept. It is equivalent to today’s “minority” or “colonies” of a couple of centuries ago. Dhimmis of Ottomans or Fatimids were far better than the ghettos of Europe. Yes, there have been isolated incidents of violence, but Jews have always found sanctuary in Muslim lands.

  59. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 7, 2010 at 9:02 PM | Permalink

    On a general note, may I very humbly propose to all participants that let us discuss, not despise. If there is a difference of opinion, let us recognize the difference as a useful and important feature of intellectual discourse.

    @Ziryab ( September 7, 2010 at 2:28 PM)

    In response to your new questions:

    1: Yes. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was indeed following the traditional interpretation till it was revealed to him that Jesus of Nazareth had actually died a natural death and that the prophecy of the advent of a Promised Messiah had been fulfilled in his own person.

    2: Paul was preaching his own doctrine, not just in Palestine, but had also taken the message to the Romans, where it was gradually finding acceptance. As I said earlier, and may I repeat, that around the time Jesus passed away, Paul’s doctrine had gained the foothold it needed to survive. What is relevant is the fact that Jesus was unaware of these developments that were unfolding in his absence.

    3: There is no unanimity on the criteria for authenticity of a hadith. Ahmadis hold the view that unless a certain quote attributed to the Holy Prophet is in direct conflict with the Quran, it should be accepted as an authentic hadith. Therefore, with due respects to your worthy opinion, Ahmadis consider this hadith of Dar Qutni perfectly authentic and reliable.

    4: Again, this would be a matter of opinion.

    5: Obviously the Furqan Force ceased to exist, after the ’48 war. It was a contingent of volunteers under the command of the Pakistan Army.

    @bananabrain

    The crux of my point was that the rights of one community should not be cherished at the expense of another’s. That would certainly not be just. However, regardless of the circumstances surrounding its inception, once a state has come into being and started functioning as a sovereign state, its existence deserves recognition. Whether another country establishes diplomatic relations with that state or not, is one thing and not recognizing an existing state’s right to exist, is quite another.

    The future of the world lies ahead of us, not behind us. We have to learn to not only tolerate each other but to accommodate each other.

  60. Salem
    Posted September 7, 2010 at 10:52 PM | Permalink

    Lutf & Bin Ismail – are you guys playing good cop bad cop with us : )

  61. Ziryab
    Posted September 8, 2010 at 8:13 AM | Permalink

    Thank you Bin Ismail.

    To me thats a clear contradiction in Mirza Ghulam Ahmads writings, maybe we are looking at it from two different perspectives. Also, I don’t agree with the way you are classifing hadith either. Other points I guess would be a matter of opinion. As much as I respect your beliefs they’re not for me. But I appreciate you coming on here to explain your views.

    Take care.

  62. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 8, 2010 at 9:53 AM | Permalink

    Salem:

    Exchanging views with civility is always a gratifying experience. I believe that an honest difference of opinion is better than an artificial unanimity.

    Regards.

    Ziryab:

    I would agree with you on that note – we are indeed viewing things from different perspectives. I assure you of my respect for both your point of view and your straightforwardness. It was a pleasure exchanging views with you.

    Regards.

  63. bananabrain
    Posted September 8, 2010 at 3:38 PM | Permalink

    lutf:

    Indeed Torah is meant for the jews.. but it is human race which suffers because many Zionists consider its teachings on War and treatment of non-Jews to be still valid.

    firstly, i don’t know what you mean by “zionists”, because you haven’t adequately defined what you mean. secondly, you beg the question that the teachings of the Torah on war and the treatment of non-jews is a big problem and i submit that you have no idea what they actually are. perhaps if you referenced a specific Torah teaching on either, i could explain to you how it actually works, because i see no evidence that you understand them. as it stands, this is simply a generalised accusation of guilt based on nothing more than your say-so. thirdly, what evidence do you have that these non-defined “zionists” are following the Torah in their alleged quest to make the human race suffer? the protocols, perhaps?

    And as you mentioned stoning punishment. I think it’s source is the old testament, not Quran.

    you “think”? why don’t you check, because i would have more respect for your point of view if you actually showed some evidence that you understand your own sacred texts, let alone mine, which you clearly don’t.

    Iran Shia regime and Saudi Wahabi clergy are more impressed by Torah than the Quran.

    yes, that must be why you are forbidden to bring a copy of the Torah into either country. quite apart from this, nobody has been stoned under Torah law in documented history, let alone living memory, whereas stonings are routine at this very moment in both the supposedly islamic regimes you mention.

    Dhimmi is another misunderstood concept. It is equivalent to today’s “minority” or “colonies” of a couple of centuries ago.

    so you’re saying i should be happy to have my status reduced to that of, say, a “coloured” under the british raj? or perhaps you think the behaviour of the belgians in the congo, or the treatment of the native americans is something that we might aspire to repeating? clearly, i understand “dhimmi” extremely well indeed and i reiterate that this is something that no non-muslim will accept now or in the foreseeable future.

    Dhimmis of Ottomans or Fatimids were far better than the ghettos of Europe.

    that is not my point. practically anyone was treated better than the jews in europe. why on earth should anyone accept this as a baseline? are you suggesting i should be prohibited from dressing as well as a muslim, or riding a horse, or rebuilding a synagogue – let alone pay higher taxes because i belonged to a second-class religion?

    Yes, there have been isolated incidents of violence, but Jews have always found sanctuary in Muslim lands.

    there were over thirty pogroms in response to the damascus blood libel of 1840 alone. i don’t believe jews “always found sanctuary” in muslim lands in the 1930s. i also note that after the overthrow of saddam hussein and the establishment of a new, non-baathist government, the invitation to reapply for iraqi citizenship was thrown open to all its exiles – except, of course, the large, talented and formerly wealthy jewish community, which was robbed and expelled in the 1940s and 50s, before saddam came to power. forgive me if i don’t find your reassurance that convincing.

    @bin ismail:

    there is nothing you say that i would disagree with.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  64. Salem
    Posted September 8, 2010 at 4:36 PM | Permalink

    Lutf – I think you should apologise for your discriminatory comments about the Jewish faith.

  65. Posted September 8, 2010 at 8:25 PM | Permalink

    Salem, bananab,

    My opinions expressed above about Jewish faith are purely academic, and I am entitled to my opinios..

    I can start quoting from the old testament to keep the argument going, but the whole discussion started from the question of creation of the state of Israel. And we should not mix politics and religion.

  66. Salem
    Posted September 8, 2010 at 11:08 PM | Permalink

    Lutf,

    You haven’t provided any quotes from the old testament. Instead you’ve been saying absurd things such as: “Should Britain allow Mirpuris to declare an independent state in Yorkshire?”

    Your opinions on the creation of Israel are not academic. They are more like laughable paranoid conspiracy theories. Other things, such as your quote below, only further expose your ignorance:

    “I have no qualms about stating the religious backwardness of both Jews and Christians. I believe Islam to be the summitt of religious evolution and Judaism and Christianity have definitely lost their way. Torah is a book now left only with contradictions and harsh teachings no longer applicable to human race. (Yeah.. and this is not anti-semitic, just a statement of facts as I see them).”

    You say religion and politics don’t mix right? then why does your group question the creation of Israel? Why do they quote forgeries such ‘Protocols” as evidence for their wacky conspiracy theories?

    You can be a bigot if you like but don’t pretend your views are academic because they’re not. They’re the kind of views that Hamas teaches to it’s youth wing!

  67. Posted September 8, 2010 at 11:11 PM | Permalink

    Creation of Israel is an example of why religion and politics should never mix. That is why I have strong opinions about it.

  68. Salem
    Posted September 8, 2010 at 11:16 PM | Permalink

    You should tell that to your movement and your leaders who question such things.

  69. Ronald
    Posted September 9, 2010 at 5:57 AM | Permalink

    ‘bananabrain’ has given quite a long post of which ‘Sarah’ seems to approve of (“You nailed it!”).
    And course, ‘Kamal’ and the other instigators continue doing their best to further fuel the fire. (You guys should really be ashamed of yourselves.)

    I do not have the time to address each of his arguments, but there are a few general points that I feel compelled to comment upon. This will be my last post.

    But, first, I would like to point out that ‘bananabrain’ the self-proclaimed Zionist, religious Jew has, throughout his arguments, used the same disappointing tactic that we have been discussing on this post – that is, the “You’re an anti-Semitic nutter!” trump card. While I will give him credit for at least attempting to back up his arguments with some points (regardless of their relevance / legitimacy), I must remind him that not all of us are of the Fox News mentality here and consequently the tactic of shouting “anti-Semite” in a crowded theatre does not put the kibosh on the discussion.

    I think before moving on to the points to be addressed, and since I am being accused of being bigoted, “neo-nazi”, racist luny, we should take a look at the word “anti-Semitic”.

    Anti = Against
    Semitic = related to people who speak Hebrew (we’ll just say Jews here) & Arabic

    So, essentially, because I have issues with the way Israel was established and operates (as do many intelligent, well-intentioned people – including Jews), I am against Jews? Or, because I have observed and noted some concerning occurrences and trends that were seemingly spelled out in detail in a hundred and ten year old document – whether it be wrongly attributed to Zionists or not – This makes me racist and insane and hateful? These types of knee-jerk charges and conditioned reactions just plain muddy the water and are aimed at shutting down the conversation and discussion.

    No one is on here railing against the Jews or saying that they have no right to exist or that Israel should be attacked or destroyed – and, more importantly, neither was the 4th Khalifa when he gave those sermons. To the contrary, I and others on this post have gone out of our way to establish the fact that we harbor no ill will towards Jews. I have even said that I respect and admire many Jewish people of faith, intellectuals and scholars and find them lovely human beings. (Of course, you made fun of this and accused me being disingenuous. Allah certainly knows best who is disingenuous here).

    In addition, you have given a very vanilla ice cream portrayal of the supposed ‘legal’ establishment of Israel. Maybe this helps you sleep better at night. The fact of the matter is that the main thrust and the capstone of establishing Israel happened AFTER WW2 and was primarily allowed to happen due to WASP guilt. Yes, you are right, there were Jews immigrating for decades beforehand (with British help) and, yes, many Jews had migrated there on their own. There’s nothing wrong with that. They numbered in the tens of thousands. They lived there in peace with their Palestinian neighbors for decades. Then the state of Israel came crashing down on everyone’s head in 1947 and everything changed.

    You have stated that in no way does Israel’s treatment of Palestine resemble the Nazi abuses of Jews because “there are no ovens”. Yeah, that’s real cute. This is your stance, even though hordes of Israeli citizens and good-conscienced Jews across the world have openly and vehemently protested Israel’s policies and behaviour. This, even though Palestinians have been herded into ‘occupied territories’, ‘settlement camps’, and tiny tracts of land – essentially concentration camps – where they cannot function or self-subsist. They do not have proper utilities. Due to this, they suffer near TOTAL unemployment rates. We complain in the US of 10-15% unemployment rates – they hope and pray for 15% unemployment rates. Their paperwork is checked just to travel a mile or two from their homes – to just go to the doctor or to go to work. They are humiliated daily at checkpoints. They are surrounded by barbed wire and concrete walls with soldiers with machine guns. They have been divided and conquered in the most disgusting ways imaginable.

    I have watched video of dogs being sicked on women. Homes being bulldozed. White phosphorus chemical attacks from jets burning peoples flesh and skin. I have seen old men being smacked and kicked by what look like teenage soldiers. I could go on and on and on – there is far worse than I have cited.

    If this does not resemble the Nazi treatment of Jews in concentration camps and the Warsaw ghettos I do not know what does.

    It is well known and often the case that children who have been abused grow up to be abusers. Their damaged psyche carries deep psychological pain and if not dealt with through spirituality and therapy, they many times express it and transfer it by passing it on to someone else. This phenomenon is too well known to even require quotation or further explanation. And this generally explains the modern Israeli Zionist mindset. With such a history of humiliation and pain and torment, many (though not all) have developed a hyper-vigilance and / or sadistic personality that is being expressed on their present captives. The oppressed have been instantly turned into oppressors, victims into victimizers. It’s sad really.

    There are enough videos and documentaries all over the net documenting these ongoing atrocities FIRST HAND. I will name just one that I believe is pretty comprehensive – “Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land” (if anyone truly wants to research both “SIDES” of this debate please watch it on Google Videos). I will also give only one webpage (there are hundreds of other sites) of Links that more than prove the points I am making (One link includes an 8 part BBC analysis):

    http://www.everythingimportant.org/Zionism/

    You can ignore this reality if you like because you live in your cushy, fantasy existence, but it is very real and right under your nose to see if you ever grow a conscience to see it.

    And then, there’s the ongoing saga of the ‘Protocols’ – which has been blown out of proportion on this thread and caused such knee-jerk reactions as to send many into full-blown panic mode.

    A few of the Jewish posters on this thread and Raziq, the author of this article, have dismissed the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ as a “proven” fabrication and fraud. I have questioned that characterization.

    Question: Have you ever read them? Not read about them or mere cherry-pickings from them, but have you actually sat down and read them for yourself? Most people, I can only guess, have not.

    I have. I wanted to know what all the hoopla was about. And when this debate got ramped up, I went back and read ‘the Protocols’ again. This is not an ordinary document or just some lame hoax. As wicked and repulsive as the premise of ‘the Protocols’ is to a person of conscience, it is also a brilliant treatise on the worst of human social nature and psyche. It is a study in the highest expression of the sociopathic mindset. God knows best who wrote it – but the bottom line is that it is a remarkable piece of history, in that, it details a plan of national and eventual global domination that has, by and large, come to complete fruition in the past century – down to the details.

    I will not say for a certainty that Zionist Jews wrote it and neither can you say for certain that they didn’t write it.

    You hope that they didn’t. – Your high ideals of what you want Israel to be can’t let you even consider that they wrote it. – But just as I don’t really know due to lack of conclusive evidence, neither do you.

    People keep saying that it is a ‘proven forgery’ but I have read some of the so-called ‘proofs’ of that position and they are not as conclusive as you would like everyone to believe. And BY THE WAY (AGAIN): No one is saying that this is what Judaism and the Torah teaches – we people of good conscience and integrity know that they do not. We have stated repeatedly that the true and sincere Jews of good faith would not and could not ever stand for such a document and plan. But that does not mean that some immoral and unethical from amongst the ranks of intellectual Jews did not get fed up with their 2000 year old ordeal of persecution and humiliation in the West and decide to change and influence the system from the inside out.

    If you are a religious Jew, as you have stated, then you know the history of your people. Have they all been perfect throughout the ages? No, of course not. As a matter of fact, some of them caused big mischief repeatedly and their actions created big repercussions for the Jewish people. Even in the time of Moses (Peace be on him), he hadn’t left for 5 minutes and a prominent one among them created a new religion and had the people worshipping a golden idol. This, during the time of the great law-bearer and founder of the faith! He noted in the Torah, before he died, that there would be more mischief from them. So when the Quran states the same, don’t you dare for one minute try to accuse it of anti-Semitism. It supports YOUR book. Is the Bible not a historical account of the Jews’ constant trials due to falling into idol worship and away from the righteous paths that they had been taught by their prophets? Throughout the painful decline of the Jews after their kingdom era, the Jews got caught in one mischief after another and were punished with slavery, an occupation of their own and repeated holocaust.

    Did you ever stop to think why that is? Doesn’t the Bible clearly state that if you were flying Kosher you would have peace and plenty, and that if you weren’t, outside pagan nations would come in and ravish you and carry you off in chains? So for the past 3000 years, the latter has been the reality of Jews for the most part (except ironically for their existence under most Muslim rule – where they were free to practice their faith), yet it is now somehow completely outside the realm of possibility for you that this is happening once again – that a handful of mischievous, non-religious ‘Jews-in-name-only’ are misleading the Jewish people (who so badly just want a home and a safe-haven) and trying to establish Israel in their way instead of in God’s Way. This is why many orthodox Jews protest the state of Israel. You are blind to the reality of this fake ‘Israel’ because you so badly want it to be your dream come true. Well its not. Wake up.

    Can you really just ignore the continued injustice and brutality of Palestinians because you are so desperate for YOUR Holy Land? How holy do really think that land will be for you if it is established and maintained on such brutality and injustice?

    Whether you like it or not and whether Zionists wrote it or not, Israeli Zionists are now de facto fulfilling the exact wicked tactics and lack of conscience that is described in the ‘Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion’. So you can rant all day long about how fraudulent they have been proven, but Israel and your blind support of it, emulate their very tenets every day.

    THAT is why the document is still relevant.

    Would the Jews have started migrating to the Holy Land without the establishment of Israel? Yes, definitely. I know the prophesy and I believe they would have. But, there is a right way to do things and a wrong way. If done in the right way, there would have been no problem or minimal problems. When things are initiated by wrong and unjust actions and less than pure motives, they are doomed to be cursed – unless and until justice is done. Both of our religions teach this. No one is saying here that Jews should be run into the ocean or killed or any other kind of lunacy or injustice. We are just saying that they should make things right.

    The bottom line is that someone did write the Protocols. And it is clearly a philosophy manual for manipulation of the masses and a blueprint of social, political and economic control. It does in fact talk about keeping people mindlessly and immorally entertained in the name of free speech. The use of interest and inflation to undermine and enslave nations. Funding through loans both sides of every war. Perpetual debt and war and profitable turmoil. Manipulation of working classes. Collapses of artificial economies. Control and domination of media. Establishment of hidden private banks in control of the treasuries of nations (i.e. the US Federal Reserve) and the world.

    All of this has come true, no? So somebody is using these same exact Machiavellian principles. (Of course they are not all Jews, but a large percentage of these so-called ‘Jews’ are most definitely heavily representative throughout the seats of power in this system – far more than their tiny world population seem to justify).

    And Zionism and a Zionist secret society is a also a centerpiece of the manifesto. It is a fact that Freemasons and ‘goy’ secret society networks are well established – have been for more than a couple of centuries. We’ve even got a Freemasonic lodge down the street from our mosque here. They infiltrate the highest levels of government and business. Virtually all US presidents have been Freemasons. Over half the signers of the declaration of independence were Freemasons. Dozens of other not so secret societies operate in plain view – Knights Templar, DeMolay Society, Skull and Bones at Yale, etc. You can look them up in the phone book for God’s sake. These openly operate on all of the Ivy League Campuses and are affiliated with numerous men in operation of national and world administration and policy making. But somehow, Jews don’t seem to have any masonic lodges of their own or any known secret societies. Hmmm. Curious. Even though Jews are heavily represented in the highest echelons of business, government, media, finance and banking (in percentages much larger than the 1% of the western population that they make up) – working side by side with those heavily involved in secret societies. I must be a raving lunatic neo-Nazi to think that Jews, too, could possibly be involved in secret societies. What a ‘nutter’ I am.

    Let’s not be asinine, secret societies and organized crime syndicates operate more business and politics in the world than most of the legitimate (well, semi-legitimate) governments of nations do. If you think for one minute that Israelis are somehow pure and innocent of all of this, then YOU are the one who is delusional.

    And as far as your ridicule of the idea that secret societies and intrigues were hatched in the time of Solomon and are recorded in the Bible, the following link provides ample evidence. The commentary of the Holy Quran on the linked verse continues from page 156 to 160. The Bible references you asked for are listed here (they are from I Kings and Chronicles):

    http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=156&region=E1&CR=EN,E2&CR=EN,E2

    In the Islamic teaching, if someone calls another by a disgraceful name, the words are said to ascend to heaven, where they reach but are locked out. The words then descend from heaven and attach themselves to the person most befitting the title. ‘bananabrain’ has called me a racist and a neo-Nazi. Pretty heavy words.

    I have gone out of my way to distinguish average, religious well-intentioned Jews and the general population of Jews from those ‘Jews-in-name only’ who employ unjust and tyrannical actions against others. I have also pointed out injustice and similar terrible behaviors amongst those of my own ‘categories’ (American, caucasions, Muslims) – I hold no supremacist ideologies and try to see and seek justice for ALL people. If someone unjustly attacked my Jewish neighbor – Allah as my witness – I would do my best to stand up for him. On the other hand, ‘bananabrain’ has white-washed the establishment of Israel and ignores and sneers at the current atrocities being done to Palestinians – so I have to wonder, who will these labels of ‘racist’ and ‘neo-Nazi’ attach themselves to?

    So to ‘bananabrain’ and the rest of his Zionist cohorts and supporters: Until you stand up and fight for justice for ALL people and not just your personal, idealized fantasies of Israel, you are in violation of your own book and the basic principles of spirituality and humanity. One can only imagine that God will once again afflict your people – sadly – with more trial and tribulation if they keep this unjust position up. Quit playing the victim and being so hyper-reactive as to call everyone an anti-Semite and kook because they don’t buy into the injustice and tyranny of the modern Israel parading as the prophesied city of God foretold in the scriptures.

    You and Sarah and whoever can make your rash and unjustified rushes to judgment on Ahmadi Muslims as “anti-Semites” if you like, but you will truly find no better ally and friend in the Muslim world and the world at large. By our founding principles and by our documented actions and behavior over the past 120+ years of our existence, we have been friends to all people of faith. The Promised Messiah AS stated that he was to mankind as a mother is to her children. He stated on oath that he held no ill will towards any one, but only hated false ideologies and injustice. He stated that one who sees his Hindu neighbor’s house on fire and does nothing to help will receive the hell fire himself. He was known to be kind and hospitable to Hindus. He also strongly spoke against the idolatrous beliefs of Hindus and denounced some of their tactics of wrongly abusing the Holy Prophet Muhammad SA.

    Does this make him and Ahmadi Muslims hypocrites and two-faced as people are insinuating here? This accusation is patently ridiculous. Instead, such an example shows the highest level of integrity. Even though someone is abusing your spiritual guide and master and attacking your faith and religion, we teach to still show general human kindness, respect and care for their well being. This is the spirit and demeanor of Ahmadi Muslims – We stand up and speak the truth in matters of justice, theology and religious belief, AND we still have ‘Love for All, Hatred for None’ in our hearts – even to our enemies. We are currently raising money for flood victims – the same ones who support killing us, attacking our mosques and calling us heretics.

    Is this not the way of the prophets?

    There is one thing we should all be able to agree on – that is, all people deserve their dignity and human rights. We can argue all day long about theology, academics, and whatnot, but please, I beg you, for the state of your own soul, recognize injustice and do something – or at least say something – about it.

    Shalom (whether you like it or not – I mean it : )

  70. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 9, 2010 at 12:16 PM | Permalink

    While Ahmadis may be understandably conscious of the persecution and oppression they themselves confront, yet they find it equally impossible to be oblivious of the agony faced by other communities. The six decades old fire that continues to consume the peace of Palestinian Muslims and Jews alike, is not something that can escape the attention of any sensitive and compassionate human being. This is a fire that deserves only to be extinguished. Too many hearts and souls have burned for too long. Let us all desist, at least, from adding fuel to this fire, even as much as a drop.

  71. Amaar
    Posted September 9, 2010 at 6:29 PM | Permalink

    As an Ahmadi Muslim, this is what I can say:

    1. That Ahmadi would be out of his mind if he tells you that you are going to hell. I do not think that this is what they said. In any case, we Ahmadis believe it is God’s perogative on this issue. The author can rest easy.

    2. The opposition to the creation of Israel by Ahmadi Caliphs were based on moral and ethical reasons. You do not create a religious/ethnic state for Jews in Middle East because oppression of Jews happened in Europe. Instead the USA or UK could have donated real estate in their own dominions for this purpose rather than sacrifice the Arab world for this purpose.

    3. How can the Palestinians be made to pay for the crimes of Holocaust? The atrocities against Palestinians by Israel have been many and which pro-Israelis rarely acknowledge. Condemning the bad behaviour of Israel as a state does not make you an extremist.

    4. If the author cites certain passages then he should also cite other passages where the same Caliphs have praised people of other faiths for their good work. In the same book the author cites, Hazrat Tahir Ahmad praised and called on decent Jews and Christians to remain steadfast in fairness and justice. He also stated that he hoped that the Jewish leadership be held by those who believed in honesty and fairplay rather than being taken over by the radical and extreme Zionist groups.

    5. Furthermore, the Caliphs have not had any shy from condemning Muslim states (e.g. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) for using coercion in matters of faith . All in all their opinion has been just and fair when it comes to both Muslims and Non-Muslims.

  72. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 9, 2010 at 7:57 PM | Permalink

    The author of the article has come up with a novel definition of the word “moderate”. One day he may like to reconsider his criterion for judging someone “not so moderate”. Speaking out against injustice, does not exactly entitle one to the title of “not so moderate”. Similarly, those who hold back from condemning injustice are not called “moderate”. “Insensitive” would be a better word. Injustice, done by anybody, Muslim, Jew, Christian or Hindu, is injustice. The contribution made by the Imams of the Ahmadiyya Movement to world peace, is by virtue of the fact that they condemned injustice. This is not “not so moderate”. This is perhaps the finest form of moderation. The world will simply have to learn not to support injustice. Casting away injustices will perhaps be the most preliminary step, in the direction of achieving world peace.

  73. Sultan Ahmad
    Posted September 12, 2010 at 4:44 PM | Permalink

    The problem we commonly face is that such discussions usually become emotionally charged .First we should know the proper facts and should be clear about historic background and then everybody can draw ones own inferences.
    Now I come to another point i.e about participation of Mr. Maudodi in riots after creation of Pakistan in 1947. I was referring to an interesting sequence of events which are well documented in 1953 judicial report written by Justice Kiyani and justice Munir. Actually these intermittent riots against Ahmadis started in August 1948 with the murder of Maj. Mahmud in Quetta and series of these riots went on during 1949,1950,1951 and 1952.During these riots which the author of the article has mentioned as the riots that occurred after the creation of Pakistan ,Mr. Maudodi personally did not take any part.As I mentioned before, in 1953 Mr. Maudodi and his party declared to join the agitation. A grand plan was laid out to put the pressure on Government and if the Government does not succumb to start the agitation .Though Mr. Maudodi was not present in the meetings ,two of his party members were present and soon some differences appeared beween Mr. Maudodi’s party and others.The riots started and gained momentum in the first week of March 1953.And a rebellion like situation was created in Lahore ,the situation worsened and the riots reached climax on 6th March 1953 when Martial Law was imposed in Lahore by the central Government.During these days Masjid Wazir Khan was the headquarter of the group instigating agitation at that time.During all these days Mr. Maudodi never once went to Masjid Wazir Khan and neither any of his deputies went there to join their ex comrades.During those days Mr. Maudodi preferred to remain in his house.And later on he and his party claimed that they had no role in those riots during the first week of March.Though the judges were of the opinion that this claim alone does not clear their name and when they were participants in making of initial plan ,it was their moral duty to stop the worsening of the situation and they practically did nothing to calm down the agitators,rather Mr. Muddodi issued a statement against central Government and printed a book Qadiani Masla. And some of the members of Jammate Islami were participating in the processions.These are the historic facts that I was pointing to.Otherwise in 1974 Mr Maudodi’ Part was very active in promoting agitation against Ahmadi Muslims.As I have mentioned earlier the concept about historic background should be very clear before drawing any conclusion.
    I do not know why such a panic is being created about the protocols of the elders of Zion. It is a matter of opinion .One may consider it a complete forgery ,another one may consider it partly true ,and still somebone else may consider it a real document.I know many Ahmadis who believe it to be a fabrication. It does not form basis of anything.Such interesting debates always go on about such publications. No big deal.We should rationally judge the authenticity of the document which was originally published in the Newspaper Znamya in 1903 ,and after some years as a pamphlet edited by certain Butmi. Obviously everything that appears in print form is not authentic or true.But ,in the light of same logic, every thing that is printed with the claim that it was written by an ex Ahmadi ,or every word that has been written by an ex Ahmadi ,should not been accepted as authentic or true. We should rationally judge the allegations made in the publication.Once we switched on our TV to find out that on a famous channel one person was claiming to be my close relative . He was claiming to belong to a family whom I personally know quite well and actually they resided in a house that was just five minutes walk from my house. Rather I am closely related to the couple whose newly found so called son I was seeing on TV. I had never seen that fellow who was claiming to have lived for decades in my neighborhood . Few days later his real mother came on TV to expose the reality. In such way we got rid of this so called newly discovered cousin. I had proposed a very simple way to judge the allegation that Ahmadis hide their beliefs from new converts . There are 3 channels of MTA in different languages of the world .Switch them on.24 hours a day they are transmitting the beliefs of Ahmadi Muslims.Ahmadiyya site on internet contains scores of books and many newspapers declaring beliefs of Ahmadi Muslims. Then ask yourself .Is it possible for Ahmadis to hide their beliefs from a new convert ?Your conscious will reply .NO.
    Mr. Albert has written
    “Nowhere does the article say Ahmadis are fanatics or tries to give that impression, so please stop exaggerating. It says some of their views (i.e. on Israel) are bigoted/extreme and should be challenged.”
    If it is being alleged that a group has got views that are bigoted and extreme, of course that group will give some reply.He has kindly mentioned views about Israel in specific. Well ! the article ,under discussion gave a passage from writing of Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad that the question should have been raised that whether UN or its General Assembly is authorized to create a new state in this fashion. Most respectfully, I want to say that this is an opinion about a legal question and it is not a proof of bigotry or extremism. As I have pointed out earlier that countries like France, Greece , India , Brazil , Columbia were of the view that to solve this problem first reference should be sent to International Court of Justice. Were they bigots or extremist ? Of course not.These states were having an opinion about a legal matter which was somewhat different from the views of USA and Soviet Union,as both were sponsors of resolution to divide Palestine without first knowing the will of its people by democratic means ,so that a Jewish state can be created.And Mr. Johnson who was representing USA in UNO at that time took the plea that “Palestine as a territory under mandate is not a state.It is not an international person,but in a sense a ward of international community.”
    Let us do a rational analysis of this logic.First we refused a nation its independence ,We declared it under the mandate of a colonial power i.e.UK.And during this period millions of foreign nationals were allowed to come and settle in Palestine without the consent of the citizens of palestine.Now because that colonial power is leaving Palestine .General assembly is the guardian of that nation and will take the orphan under its kind custody and will take decisions about its future without knowing the will of the people of Palestine. General Assembly is even authorized to divide Palestine if that is the wish of General Assembly. And the justification is that Palestine is not a state . Please think! It was not a state because it was not allowed to be state .A colonial power denied it the right of its independence.If a person is a resident of an area that is not an independent state than this does not mean that its residents do not have the right of self determination.Such was the ambiguity of this logic that even representative of USA had to admit in UNO that there is no direct precedent in international law for this problem.
    Now in this perspective if someone gives opinion that this legal question should have been referred to the International Court of Justice, to judge whether UNO General Assembly, according to UN Charter ,has got the right to take this decision or not then this is a reason enough to declare that this is bigotry and extremism. And as word of consolation it was added in the end that we did not call you a fanatic . I humbly request let us judge everything in a rational and logical way.
    God Bless You

  74. Mubarak
    Posted September 12, 2010 at 6:23 PM | Permalink

    In the section titled “Propogation”, the author has keenly included examples of ex-members citing they were duped, I assume, with the intention of highlighting the community as somewhat deceptive. He completely failed to mention the great number of converts that converted knowing full well the religious views of the Ahmadi Muslim Community and what it stands for. Incorporating this information would have made the article seem less biased.

  75. bananabrain
    Posted September 13, 2010 at 2:37 PM | Permalink

    @lutf:

    My opinions expressed above about Jewish faith are purely academic

    no they’re not. if they were academic, they’d be properly researched, properly argued and had a proper respect for the utterly overwhelming academic consensus that the protocols are a forgery by the tsarist secret police.

    I am entitled to my opinios..

    just as i am entitled to mine.

    I can start quoting from the old testament to keep the argument going

    you’re going to need to if you think you can argue that something is a religious position.

    but the whole discussion started from the question of creation of the state of Israel. And we should not mix politics and religion.

    so… you link criticism of israel to the Torah, but you then refuse to discuss whether the Torah actually says what you think it says?

    @ronald:

    I do not have the time to address each of his arguments

    how convenient for someone who can’t back up his own arguments.

    This will be my last post.

    it won’t be mine. congratulations – from now on, when i run into an ahmadi, i will ask him about his opinion on the “4th khalifa’s” support for the protocols.

    the “You’re an anti-Semitic nutter!” trump card

    it’s not a “trump card”. it is an observation based on the conclusions i have drawn from reviewing your arguments.

    the tactic of shouting “anti-Semite” in a crowded theatre does not put the kibosh on the discussion.

    nor is it intended to – you’re the one who’s claiming he doesn’t have the time to continue. as for the implication of this comment, what do you suggest i do when i *do* come across a really anti-semitic point of view, like the ones you and your friends are putting forward? say nothing, perhaps, for fear of being accused of “trying to put the kibosh on the discussion”? could this not, perhaps, be a pre-emptive rhetorical defence on your part? face it – these opinions walk like ducks, look like ducks and quack like ducks. am i supposed to avoid reaching for the orange sauce?

    Anti = Against
    Semitic = related to people who speak Hebrew (we’ll just say Jews here) & Arabic

    oh, what a surprise, the “anti-semitism old chestnut #2398487″ argument. as you obviously aren’t up to date with the etymology, “semitic” is a technical term from sociolinguistics, which doesn’t translate into ethnic terms – there are “semitic languages”, but no “semitic peoples”. anti-semitism, used correctly, means “jew-hatred”, not “hatred for anyone who speaks a semitic language”, which would be nonsensical. if it makes it easier for you, i’ll just use “jew-hatred” from now on in relation to the views you have expressed.

    So, essentially, because I have issues with the way Israel was established and operates (as do many intelligent, well-intentioned people – including Jews), I am against Jews?

    you really want me to quote you the words you used again? *i* have issues with many of the things that happened during the establishment of israel and its current operations (as anyone who has read my writing for any length of time will realise) but i am not the one claiming that the disgusting contents of the protocols actually apply in reality – that is what makes your views repellent and judeophobic. what you don’t seem to like is when this is spelt out clearly in english. the cap fits – so wear it. if you don’t like the cap, perhaps you ought to consider why it is you don’t want to wear it and consider what views you hold which make you eligible.

    I have observed and noted some concerning occurrences and trends that were seemingly spelled out in detail in a hundred and ten year old document

    the only people who take this document seriously – in other words, not as a lie made up and circulated by the tsarist secret police and, subsequently, the nazis, arab nationalists and islamists to provide specious justification for their anti-jewish activities, are those who wish to provide just such justification. why should you wish to attempt to establish the credibility of this document, if not as a basis for anti-jewish activities? nobody else is at all interested in it as a serious work. your unwillingness to concede this basic issue is what gives cause for such revulsion.

    No one is on here railing against the Jews

    that is precisely what you are doing by saying that we are carrying out the programme of the protocols. are you really unable to understand this basic point?

    or saying that they have no right to exist or that Israel should be attacked or destroyed

    the only people continuing to publish and circulate this document are internet conspiracy loons, islamists, neo-nazis and agencies and proxies of the syrian, iranian and various other middle-eastern governments, such as hizbollah’s al-manar tv station. there is no respectable, credible group (other than academics who study the history of jew-hatred) that is interested in the protocols, much less believes it. why are you so keen to establish its validity, if you do not share their views?

    To the contrary, I and others on this post have gone out of our way to establish the fact that we harbor no ill will towards Jews. I have even said that I respect and admire many Jewish people of faith, intellectuals and scholars and find them lovely human beings. (Of course, you made fun of this and accused me being disingenuous. Allah certainly knows best who is disingenuous here).

    indeed Allah does, but not you, apparently. i expect Allah also has strong views on hypocrisy. you may maintain that you don’t “harbour ill will” towards jews, but you are being disingenuous if you are unaware of the use to which the protocols are customarily put by those customarily associated with propagating its message. you don’t seem to be that stupid, so i must therefore conclude that you are simply a practitioner of malignant double-speak.

    In addition, you have given a very vanilla ice cream portrayal of the supposed ‘legal’ establishment of Israel.

    that is a reaction to your “poisoned excrement” portrayal, not a nuanced, systematic and detailed presentation of my own opinions, which are in many ways quite mixed. nonetheless, my points a) to f) stand as factual, the legal part is as reasonable a reading as any other position in international law that i am aware of and the rest is fair comment speculation on the historical imperative that might have played out had the legal bit not played out as it did.

    The fact of the matter is that the main thrust and the capstone of establishing Israel happened AFTER WW2 and was primarily allowed to happen due to WASP guilt.

    not at all. jewish migration to israel from europe swelled enormously in the 30s for obvious reasons and despite the attempts of the british to quell the flow, but i believe it would have happened anyway. the vote, on the other hand, might well have been because of “WASP guilt” as you put it, but the *real* fact is that many other countries voted for the partition plan than just the “WASP” ones – the russians, for example – and nobody knows exactly why they did, although the “WASP” british abstained. so this assessment is far from being “the fact of the matter”.

    Yes, you are right, there were Jews immigrating for decades beforehand (with British help)

    by interning them on cyprus, i suppose? have you ever heard of “bevingrad”, the internment camp named after the british minister responsible?

    Then the state of Israel came crashing down on everyone’s head in 1947 and everything changed.

    i suppose the invasion by five neighbouring arab states had nothing to do with that?

    You have stated that in no way does Israel’s treatment of Palestine resemble the Nazi abuses of Jews because “there are no ovens”. Yeah, that’s real cute.

    it’s as “cute” as your allegation that it is somehow equivalent to the worst atrocity in human history, despite the patent lack of pseudo-scientific race theory, a wannsee conference to construct an explicit state policy of genocide, the construction of a machinery of genocide and the operation of this machinery in line with the policy. what’s your position on, say, the egyptian treatment of the copts, or saddam’s treatment of the shi’a, or iran’s treatment of the zoroastrians? i am not saying that israeli governments have not treated palestinians badly, not for a minute.

    If this does not resemble the Nazi treatment of Jews in concentration camps and the Warsaw ghettos I do not know what does.

    if you think it’s even on the same page of history as the nazi extermination of european jewry, you are simply ignorant of the facts. at no point did jewish terrorists attack german civilian targets. at no point did jewish organisations preach the extermination of germany. at no point were there jewish suicide bombers, or jewish rockets falling on german cities. did the nazis evacuate even as small an area as gaza in order to secure peace? i think not. i am not saying that gaza is a pleasant place to live, far from it, but the gazans have had their election – they chose hamas. israel has withdrawn to the border but it is not obliged to open it, nor can it be obliged to allow the free access of goods and people from an entity which has sworn to destroy it and refused any kind of compromise. i think israeli policy is deeply flawed and based on some pretty fundamental misconceptions, but you cannot accuse them of misunderstanding the depth of hatred that hamas holds towards them. incidentally, what of the egyptian border? are you asking these questions of the egyptians?

    Question: Have you ever read them? Not read about them or mere cherry-pickings from them, but have you actually sat down and read them for yourself? Most people, I can only guess, have not.

    yes, i have. what am i supposed to conclude? that they’re somehow real? that they’re not what generations of historians and researchers have concluded that they are? no, but you know better!

    As wicked and repulsive as the premise of ‘the Protocols’ is to a person of conscience, it is also a brilliant treatise on the worst of human social nature and psyche. It is a study in the highest expression of the sociopathic mindset.

    to which category you, like those who have championed the protocols over the last century, promptly consign the jewish people – but no, that’s not jew-hatred, is it? you just *looooove* jews, they’re some of your *best friends*.

    I will not say for a certainty that Zionist Jews wrote it and neither can you say for certain that they didn’t write it.

    yes i can say that for certain. i’d take a *polygraph test* with truth drugs on it. i know far more about jews and zionism than you – or the “4th khalifa” and you are utterly, utterly wrong. your insistence that there is somehow a case to answer when no reputable authorities exist to bolster your claim reveals your agenda far more than you seem to realise.

    I don’t really know due to lack of conclusive evidence, neither do you.

    lack of conclusive evidence? you mean, like every single academic study that has ever been done on the subject? there’s an extensive wikipedia page with links to numerous sources:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion

    It is also one of the best-known and most-discussed examples of literary forgery, with analysis and proof of its fraudulent origin going as far back as 1921.

    come on, ronald, can’t you even be arsed to read one page of wiki?

    Even in the time of Moses (Peace be on him), he hadn’t left for 5 minutes and a prominent one among them created a new religion and had the people worshipping a golden idol. This, during the time of the great law-bearer and founder of the faith!

    and from the episode of the golden calf, you think you can generalise jewish behaviour throughout history? perhaps you think we also customarily stop the sun during battles, or employ musical instruments as artillery?

    He noted in the Torah, before he died, that there would be more mischief from them.

    this refers to the idolatry and corruption of the jewish kingdoms, for which we were abundantly punished with the destruction of both first and second Temples and expulsion from the land we have sought to return to since. it does not refer to a plot to take over the world. i note you are keen to use the Torah as evidence of our perfidy, but not as evidence of our claim to israel, incidentally.

    Did you ever stop to think why that is? Doesn’t the Bible clearly state that if you were flying Kosher you would have peace and plenty, and that if you weren’t, outside pagan nations would come in and ravish you and carry you off in chains?

    as a matter of fact we have spent substantial volumes of commentary on precisely this issue, yet somehow we seem to have avoided going down what you might call the “dr evil” route as a result. funny, that.

    So for the past 3000 years, the latter has been the reality of Jews for the most part (except ironically for their existence under most Muslim rule – where they were free to practice their faith)

    hah – as long as we kept to our place and didn’t get too uppity or ask for anything like, y’know, equality or something.

    it is now somehow completely outside the realm of possibility for you that this is happening once again – that a handful of mischievous, non-religious ‘Jews-in-name-only’ are misleading the Jewish people (who so badly just want a home and a safe-haven) and trying to establish Israel in their way instead of in God’s Way.

    you clearly haven’t read much of my writing, in that case. so what do you think *is* “G!D’s Way” for israel, then?

    Can you really just ignore the continued injustice and brutality of Palestinians because you are so desperate for YOUR Holy Land? How holy do really think that land will be for you if it is established and maintained on such brutality and injustice?

    this is precisely what i have argued consistently over quite some time.

    Whether you like it or not and whether Zionists wrote it or not, Israeli Zionists are now de facto fulfilling the exact wicked tactics and lack of conscience that is described in the ‘Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion’.

    no, they are absolutely not. you are repeating this accusation as if by so doing you are somehow substantiating it. you have not done so.

    But somehow, Jews don’t seem to have any masonic lodges of their own or any known secret societies. Hmmm. Curious.

    er… there are loads of jewish lodges in the regular masonic societies. however, there is no evidence (despite a booming conspiracy industry) that masonic societies exist to take over the world.

    Jews are heavily represented in the highest echelons of business, government, media, finance and banking (in percentages much larger than the 1% of the western population that they make up)

    and who exactly measures these percentages, pray? and why are they so interested? are you suggesting that we should have a quota? what would be “fair”? i notice you don’t exactly provide your sources. go on, tell me how many jews there are in the “highest echelons” of the UK government? here’s the current cabinet:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_cabinet#Current_Cabinet

    two jews that i can see. are you suggesting that that’s too many?

    here’s a list of the 43 most senior UK civil servants, the most powerful people in the country – how many of them are jewish?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_secretary#Current_UK_permanent_secretaries

    working side by side with those heavily involved in secret societies.

    oh, really? and who provides the statistics and research into who is “heavily involved”? and who are these “secret societies”? and what evidence is there that they are carrying out the programme of the protocols? i think we should be told. you clearly know all about it – where’s your information from?

    I must be a raving lunatic neo-Nazi to think that Jews, too, could possibly be involved in secret societies. What a ‘nutter’ I am.

    let’s first start with why you think everything comes down to secret societies, shall we? nothing nutty about that, is there?

    Let’s not be asinine, secret societies and organized crime syndicates operate more business and politics in the world than most of the legitimate (well, semi-legitimate) governments of nations do.

    well, you may very well think so, but unless you provide some sort of reason to believe this assertion, the evidence is pretty thin – and that’s being polite.

    The Bible references you asked for are listed here (they are from I Kings and Chronicles):

    they’re not anywhere in evidence in the link. please provide them separately, i’m not plodding through this entire site looking.

    On the other hand, ‘bananabrain’ has white-washed the establishment of Israel and ignores and sneers at the current atrocities being done to Palestinians

    i’ve done nothing of the sort.

    You and Sarah and whoever can make your rash and unjustified rushes to judgment on Ahmadi Muslims as “anti-Semites” if you like, but you will truly find no better ally and friend in the Muslim world and the world at large.

    that’s very sad. what i have found in your positions is on a par with the worst excesses of jihadi nutjobs from saudi and iran. from what i can see there’s nothing to choose between you except that you say you won’t go as far as to actually use physical violence. well, yippedy-dee.

    We stand up and speak the truth in matters of justice, theology and religious belief

    no, you stand up and state your opinions. that doesn’t make it “the truth”.

    we still have ‘Love for All, Hatred for None’ in our hearts – even to our enemies.

    you’ll forgive me if i don’t think “love” that is based on lies is a much-debased currency, or that “hatred for none” is compatible with the use of the protocols.

    There is one thing we should all be able to agree on – that is, all people deserve their dignity and human rights.

    we do agree on that. but you cannot tell me that you “love” me and hold up one of the most hate-filled lies in history at the same time. that is hypocrisy of the deepest and most unpleasant kind.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  76. Sultan Ahmad
    Posted September 13, 2010 at 6:51 PM | Permalink

    Please!Please!Please!I sincerely appeal to everybody to calm down a bit.This is a very good academic discussion but getting too hot.Let us confine ourslef to historic facts and analysis. I am sure nobody participating in this discussion is hypocrite or fanatic. we are just normal people having different views.And this is the beauty of intellectual arena. I also had some lenghty discussions with Mr. Raziq and Mr. Albert. My love to both of them and to Bannabrain( I wish i knew his real name) and to Mr. Lutf too. Good Luck.I am enjoying my lemon drink right now. Love for All .Hatred For None

  77. Albert
    Posted September 13, 2010 at 8:26 PM | Permalink

    I think Bannabrain has once again nailed it!

    Quoting ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ is way out of order.

  78. qidniz
    Posted September 14, 2010 at 12:34 AM | Permalink

    Quoting ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ is way out of order.

    Not at all. How would you criticize it, for example?

    Believing any of it is the sign of a cretin.

  79. Sultan Ahmad
    Posted September 14, 2010 at 10:57 AM | Permalink

    @Albert/Bannabrain
    As I have written before that ‘The protcol…’ is not of much importance for any of the topics under dicussion.But still as Mr. Albert and Bannanabrain have very passionately stressed that it is a forgery ,I’ll try to understand their point of view.I request them to guide me to a site ( an authentic one) which contains strong and reliable arguements proving that it is a forgery.I’ll go through the arguements. I tried to read it 4 or 5 years ago but did not find it interesting so could not complete it.I’ll try to read it now.
    Best Regards

  80. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 14, 2010 at 12:57 PM | Permalink

    There are two facets of this entire ongoing debate:

    1. The actual article titled “The Ahmadiyya Movement – not so moderate”

    2. The subsequent comments

    As far as the article authored by Raziq is concerned, I have to admit that the write-up was lamentably founded on erroneous information and the inferences drawn were drawn rather hastily – a symptom of bias. Among the comments too, one can not help but notice the role of preconceived notions – another symptom of bias. An objective debate, in contrast, is expected to deal with issues more rationally and less egoistically.

    I would like to very respectfully draw the attention of all worthy participants to the following:

    1. In order to be able to judge someone moderate, “not so moderate” or extreme, we must first learn to employ the right indices.

    2. Whether it’s the creation of the state of Israel or preventing the birth of other potential states, we must appreciate in a matter-of -factly way that the U.N. is not exactly as infallible as some of us would like to believe. The U.N. is very much susceptible to making mistakes, a trait that continues to manifest itself now and then.

    3. Criticism of a political entity or a political decision does not necessarily suggest religious immoderation. To advocate so would not be logical. Hence, it would be quite juvenile to categorize someone who criticizes the State of Israel, on the political plane, as one who is predisposed unfavourably towards the entire Worldwide Jewish Community. To deduce so would be ridiculous.

    4. While Mirza Tahir Ahmad may indeed have given reference to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, he does not base his entire argument on this document. The document is not even pivotal to his deductions. At best, it could be termed as a supportive reference.

    May I request all once again: let us discuss – not despise.

  81. Albert
    Posted September 14, 2010 at 1:23 PM | Permalink

    Bin Ismail – No need to get all defensive pal. It has nothing to do with bias either, I would readily admit where I am wrong. Other points have been discussed in previous comments.

    We are now discussing the ‘supportive reference’ Mirza Tahir Ahmad provided i.e ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’. It seems you guys are trying to defend the indefensible by even suggesting the ‘Protocols’ may not have been forged.

    Just google it and you will find plenty of evidence that proves its a forgery. Then admit your 4th Khalifa was wrong in quoting it.

    Shalom

  82. bananabrain
    Posted September 14, 2010 at 2:49 PM | Permalink

    I’ll try to understand their point of view.I request them to guide me to a site ( an authentic one) which contains strong and reliable arguements proving that it is a forgery.

    i’m not sure what you mean by “an authentic” site. the wikipedia page i already linked to:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion

    contains about sixty footnotes and links to about twenty books discussing the text and its various fraudulences. i would say, however, that the content of the wiki page itself appears a comprehensive and academic enough account of the space for you to require much in the way of further investigation.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  83. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 14, 2010 at 3:51 PM | Permalink

    Albert:

    My points have less to do with being defensive and more to do with seeking a more objective and meaningful discussion. Regarding the authenticity of the Protocols or otherwise, I would suggest that we go beyond a wiki-based and google-oriented research. You’ve asked me to “admit your 4th Khalifa was wrong in quoting it”. Would I be asking too of you much if I asked you to dispassionately examine the possibility of the Protocols actually being genuine.

    Regards.

  84. bananabrain
    Posted September 14, 2010 at 4:25 PM | Permalink

    well, if you want to go beyond a wiki and google-based search, then i refer you to the sixty footnotes and twenty books, which are *not* internet sources, but properly researched, verifiable books and articles by reputable journalists, historians and literary critics (even if you discount daniel pipes, hah). i have “dispassionately” examined these sources and there is nothing whatsoever that any reasonable person could conclude of the protocols other than that they are a forgery, a hoax, a literary fraud and a racist libel. i respectfully submit further that the “possibility of the protocols actually being genuine” is on a par with the possibility of bertrand russell’s famous orbiting teapot existing.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  85. Sultan Ahmad
    Posted September 14, 2010 at 6:35 PM | Permalink

    @bannanabrain/Albert
    Dear Sirs
    Of Course ultimately I’ll try to get the books not on internet.Please quote the names of two three books on this topic which are available and I can get them.I had read the wikipedia stuff.But as you know Wikipedia is very useful but usually it does not present authentic and coincise research. I did not find it very useful. If you mean that its footnotes contain a realiable research.Then I ‘ll try if I can find any useful reference in the footnotes which I can get on internet .Meanwhile if you think of any better site on this topic ,kindly let me know.
    Best Regards

  86. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 14, 2010 at 9:36 PM | Permalink

    @ bananabrain

    Thank you. I enjoyed the comparison of the Protocols with Russell’s teapot. However, we need to appreciate the fact that while nobody would claim having seen tea poured from the orbiting teapot, there are many who feel that Israel’s policies do vindicate the general mood of the Protocols.

    Allow me to repeat that in relation to the series of sermons delivered by Mirza Tahir Ahmad, one must appreciate the fact that the Protocols are nowhere close to being the mainstay of his ideas. Even if it could be somehow conclusively established that the Protocols were a forgery, the actual theme presented by Mirza Tahir Ahmad would still remain unaffected.

    The book titled ‘The Gulf Crisis & The New World Order’ is actually a printed compilation of a series of Friday Sermons. These sermons constitute an analysis of various dimensions of International Relations, Superpower politics, trends of expansionism and the policies being pursued by the governments of Muslim countries in relation to Israel. In these sermons, the words of advice and counsel for Muslim countries, are not due to any anti-semitism, but on account of a desire to guide Muslim countries towards not falling headlong into the various traps that await them. These sermons are a word of advice issued by a deeply spiritual person to a world rapidly moving in the direction of a profane world war.

    Regards.

  87. qidniz
    Posted September 14, 2010 at 11:32 PM | Permalink

    Even if it could be somehow conclusively established that the Protocols were a forgery

    *plonk*

  88. Ibn-e-Maryam
    Posted September 15, 2010 at 4:39 AM | Permalink

    6. I am sure, the author has spent time reading the Jamaat’s literature, but I am also sure that he has not fully understood it. The views of the Ahmadiyya Movement on Jihad are very clear. ‘Jihad’ is Arabic word. The root of this word is ‘Juhad’, which means ‘to strive or to struggle’, and it was also used a term for ‘religious wars’. The founder of the Movement has stated that Jihad to purify the hearts and souls of the Muslims will continue. He also informed us that religious wars are prohibited in this time, because enemies of Islam do not use force to stop the message of Islam. So, Muslims should not use war against them.

    7. Now, the question arises, as to what forms of Jihad are allowed, which involve armed struggle. This subject has been described in detail by the Caliphs of the Ahmadiyya Movement. Defense of one’s homeland is one form of Jihad, where armed struggle is allowed. Ahmadis all over the world, participate in this form of Jihad for their respective countries. Pakistani Ahmadis participated in the 1948 Kashmir War. It was a Jihad to defend their country under the command of Pakistan Army. The Head of Pakistan’s Armed Forces, issued Certificate of Acknowledgement to ‘Furqan Force’. Gen. Gracie, a former British Military Officer was Head of Pakistan’s Armed Forces at that time. Pakistani Ahmadis participated in Indo-Pak wars of 1965 and 1971, and that too with distinction. An Ahmadi, Maj. Afzaal, embraced martyrdom last year in Wazirstan during the on-going War on Terror. Similarly, Ahmdis serving in military forces of their respective countries. These Ahmadis will honor the call of duty in future by participating in military operations on behalf of their country, just like they had done so in the past.

    (continued)

  89. Ibn-e-Maryam
    Posted September 15, 2010 at 4:51 AM | Permalink

    8. Let’s now discuss the main issue raised by the author: our views on Isreal and the West. The author accuses the Ahmadiyya Movement of being anti-Israel and anti-West and has quoted from the book ‘The Gulf Crisis & the New World Order’. This book is a collection of Friday sermons delivered by Mirza Tahir Ahmad from August 03, 1990 to March 15, 1991. This book is 350+ pages long.

    Mirza Tahir Ahmad explained global political implications of the Gulf War in these sermons. He also described in detail the relations among Jews, Christians, and Muslims from an historical perspective. In these sermons he also addressed the root causes of conflicts within Muslims and Indo-Pakistan relations. He called a spade a spade, and today after almost two decades, many of his insightful conclusions have been proven right.

    Let’s now turn to page 177 of this book, and we read:

    “The manner in which the West has treated Muslims for centuries has convinced Muslims that its hatred for Muslims is based on religious differences. Whether the name of Islam is used or not, the West cannot tolerate the progress of Muslim Nations. Due to the fear of the Muslim advancement, Western nations always adopt measures which aim to destroy Muslim power. This Western antagonism has impressed on the minds of ordinary Muslims, whether or not they have studied any history. …The Muslims in view of their long experience in history of Western antagonism and enmity are convinced that, in any crisis, the West is out to destroy them and do harm to Islam” [The Gulf War & the New World Order pp. 177-178]

    (continued)

  90. Ibn-e-Maryam
    Posted September 15, 2010 at 4:54 AM | Permalink

    Mirza Tahir Ahmad states:

    “Israel was created in the name of the United Nations and the greatest role played in its establishment was led by the U.S. One matter that still amazes me is why was no question raised as to whether the U.N. has the right to create a new country in the world? The establishment of countries is a historical heritage which continued on its own. [The Gulf War & the New World Order pp. 178]

    “The authority of the U.N. only applied to those countries which then existed and had voluntarily joined it. There was no world mandate which stipulated that everyone whether it had joined the U.N. or not, would submit itself to United Nation’s authority. Nor was the U.N. granted authority in the exercise of its jurisdiction to create new nation state, or destroy a nation state, at its own discretion.” [The Gulf War & the New World Order pp. 178-179]

    (continued)

  91. Ibn-e-Maryam
    Posted September 15, 2010 at 4:56 AM | Permalink

    Mirza Tahir Ahmad states:

    “The impression of the world of Islam that the present stance by the West is anti-Muslim is founded on fact. The world at large has seen the injustices and inequities perpetrated on the Muslims, and even if the world remains silent, it cannot erase such memories from its collective consciousness…These are facts which continually bruise and exacerbate the feelings of Muslims. When they express their frustrations and injured feelings, the nations in which they live ask them if they owe allegiance to Islam or to the nation or states where they reside. What sort of justice is this? It is gross injustice to raise the spectre of nationalism or national loyalty when citizens are expressing their opinions on factual issues and world events. Is the issue of nationalism raised to suppress true expression? This analysis is based on facts and truth and Muslims have every right to discuss and propagate it.” [The Gulf War & the New World Order pp. 180]

    “In fact, the animosity against Islam that I have described is becoming more evident and manifest day by day, and it is a continuing hatred. Vague utterances for peace may be made in public, but an underlying current of hate is detected when the utterances are closely analyzed. U.S. and the West continue to depict Muslims as evil, painting them in dark colors. These wicked images of Muslims are published by the media to the world to subvert Islam. In such an atmosphere, one thing is certain; there can be no peace. The atmosphere is too poisonous for launching of any peace process, as hate can only beget hate, not peace.” [The Gulf War & the New World Order pp. 184]

    (continued)

  92. Ibn-e-Maryam
    Posted September 15, 2010 at 4:56 AM | Permalink

    Mirza Tahir Ahmad states:

    “The Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat expresses its views frankly, openly, honestly and impartially, not out of spite, prejudice, bigotry or with ulterior motives. The Jamaat believes in the Oneness and Unity of God, and acts and speaks in that belief. In the circumstances, the Jamaat cannot harbor prejudices, bigotry or ill-feelings, because such feelings cannot co-exist in the minds of those who believe in the Oneness and Unity of God. Once a person believes implicitly in the Oneness and Unity of God, that person cannot possibly entertain feelings of prejudice or bigotry in expressing his views. This is a fundamental and unchangeable law.” [The Gulf War & the New World Order pp. 185]

    “I declare on behalf of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat that the comments I make are based on truth and I do so honestly and impartially. They may appear bitter to some. But no matter how bitter they may appear to be, the world, if not today then in the near future, will accept the truth of what I say and will agree to this truth that I made these comments without any trace of prejudice, bigotry or ulterior motives.” [The Gulf War & the New World Order pp. 185]

    (continued)

  93. Ibn-e-Maryam
    Posted September 15, 2010 at 4:57 AM | Permalink

    Mirza Tahir Ahmad states:

    “Do you think that sounds emanating from the minarates of Mecca and Madina are those of Allah and His Prophet? The truth is that these minarets simply project the loudspeakers which are connected to the microphones located in Washington where Israel is the speaker using these microphones. This is such an obvious fact that no intricate debate is needed for it. Anyone who is even mildly aware of the contemporary situation knows this fact very well that Saudi Arabia is completely in the clutches of the U.S. and that the U.S. has completely capitulated to Israeli ascendancy and has practically incorporated Israeli primacy as part of its policy” [The Gulf War & the New World Order pp. 192]

    Obviously, Mirza Tahir Ahmad is referring to the political affiliations between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. If one carefully, analyzes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one notices that Saudi Arabia has done the most damage to the rights and interests of Palestinians. There has always been a ‘dislike-dislike’ relationship between Saudi Arabian rulers and Palestinians.

  94. Ibn-e-Maryam
    Posted September 15, 2010 at 4:58 AM | Permalink

    Mirza Tahir Ahmad states:

    Mirza Tahir Ahmad commented on the behavior of different Muslim countries, like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, and Iran, during the Gulf War. Mirza Tahir Ahmad criticized the behavior of all these states, except Iran. The author of this blog should have had the honesty to select excerpts about all these nations and then the view point of Mirza Tahir Ahmad would have become very clear. The readers are requested to read pages 191-197 of the book under review. With regards to Iran, Mirza Tahir Ahmad states:

    “I did not expect any treacherous behavior from Iran, nor do I at the moment. That is because, as I have openly admitted a number of times that their religious differences notwithstanding, the Iranian nation does not behave hypocritically when it comes to Islam; they are the true lovers of Islam. It may be that their perception of Islam is distorted; it may be that we differ from some tenets of the Shiite dogma. It may be that their temporal perspective on Islam or their political conceptualization of Islam may be erroneous, and I think that it is, but it is inconceivable for the Iranian nation to deliberately betray Islam. Their history is illuminated with great deeds in the service of Islam. In fact, the academic and scholarly service of Islam conducted by the Greater Iran, some of which is now under Russian occupation, if that service is juxtaposed with the services performed by the rest of the rest of the Islamic world, there would hardly be any comparison. Iran’s services to Islam are second to none.” [The Gulf War & the New World Order pp. 194-195]

    “Thank God, that Iran has fulfilled what was expected of it. Iran has had a deep resentment and dispute with the government of President Saddam with which they have fought an eight-year bloody war. If Iran had stood up now against Iraq, the world would have found it understandable; the historian too would have forgiven Iran for taking advantage of this situation after such a horrible war. At such times one cannot be given to profound analysis of the interests of Islam and the Islamic nation; one is given to sentimentalism. So to that extent the historian would have forgiven Iran.” [The Gulf War & the New World Order pp. 195]

    “Iran, though it has not thrown its weight behind Iraq, has struck a completely neutral stance, and reminded Iraq of Iraqi inequities and pointed out to the Western powers their injustice. In other words, Iran stood firm on the principle of justice. From this viewpoint, Iran would always be remembered most honorably in the annals of Islam. Insha Allah.” [The Gulf War & the New World Order pp. 195]

    (continued)

  95. Ibn-e-Maryam
    Posted September 15, 2010 at 4:59 AM | Permalink

    Let me remind the readers that after these sermons were delivered, innocent Bosnian Muslims were butchered at the hands of Serbs in the heart of Europe, and most European countries looked the other way. Then, the Muslims living in Kosovo suffered torture and ethnic cleansing and very little was done for them. Many leaders of the European Union have publically declared that, Turkey being a Muslim country, should not be allowed to join the EU. The views expressed by the Head of the Ahmadiyya Community at that time, have been proven correct. The recent ban on building minarets with Mosques in Switzerland is a glaring example of Islamophobia that has engulfed the West.

    (continued)

  96. Ibn-e-Maryam
    Posted September 15, 2010 at 5:01 AM | Permalink

    9. The author has likened the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam to Hijub-Tahrir (HT). It is important to note that HT is a political force of Muslims. The author of this blog was a former member of the HT. On the other hand, Ahmadiyya Mulism Jamaat is a religious organization. Whenever, we participate in the affairs of politics, it is for the betterment of the society at-large, and not for self-interest. We do not have any political agenda, so, there is no comparison.

  97. Ibn-e-Maryam
    Posted September 15, 2010 at 5:03 AM | Permalink

    10. The author of the blog has mentioned that some Hindu groups blame the Ahmadis for the murder of Pandat Lekhram, a prominent Hindu leader. This is factually wrong. Some Hindus or Hindu groups accused the founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement to have arranged for the killing of Pandat Lekhram. Actually, Pandat Lekhram and the founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement had a prayer duel, and Pandat Lekhram died as a result of this. His murderer was never found, and he died as prophesied by the founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, in 1896, on the day next to Eid. On request of some Hindu organizations, the homes of the founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement were thoroughly searched and Government cleared the community and the founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement of all charges.

    (continued)

  98. Albert
    Posted September 15, 2010 at 8:18 AM | Permalink

    Ibn-e-Maryam – Thank you for all that. We have already discussed most of your points in previous comments, I don’t know why you and your fellow Ahmadis keep repeating yourselves.

    Right now we are discussing whether ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ is a forgery or not. After all, your 4th Khalifa quotes it as a ‘supportive reference’. We believe Mirza Tahir Ahmad was wrong in quoting this. So if you don’t mind, let’s now clarify this point instead of talking about the things we have already discussed.

    What are your views on the ‘Protocols’? Do you believe your 4th Khalifa made a mistake by quoting this forgery?

    Shalom

    PS: The links provided in the article are not all from anti-Ahmadiyyah sites, only a few are. The majority are from pro-Ahmadi or neutral sites. And to be fair he only once mentions your group as the ‘Qadian Ahmadiyya Movement’ when he’s differentiating it from the ‘Lahore Ahmadiyyah Movement’. The rest of the time he says calls your group the ‘Ahmadiyyah Movement’. Be honest guys – and stick to the point at hand.

  99. Mubarak
    Posted September 15, 2010 at 3:50 PM | Permalink

    Thank you Ibn-e-Maryam for your quotations from the compilations of sermons called “Gulf War and the New World Order”. I think reading these quotes give a more complete and accurate picture of MTA’s views and a proper context regarding the quotes the author chose to incorportate in his article in the section titled “Views on Israel”.

  100. bananabrain
    Posted September 15, 2010 at 3:52 PM | Permalink

    Please quote the names of two three books on this topic which are available and I can get them.

    i advise you to select appropriately from the bibliography on the wiki page, i can’t say which is best.

    But as you know Wikipedia is very useful but usually it does not present authentic and coincise research.

    i agree that in many cases it fails to meet quality standards but in this particular instance that does not appear to me to be a problem.

    @bin ismail:

    while nobody would claim having seen tea poured from the orbiting teapot, there are many who feel that Israel’s policies do vindicate the general mood of the Protocols.

    that is a pretty insubstantial argument, if i may say so. “many who feel”? who are these “many”? have they read the protocols? are they knowledgeable of its provenance? how can they assess its “general mood”? can they draw a causal link between even one statement and its alleged follow-through into israeli government policy? look, i am not averse to agreeing that a number of these policies are misguided and counterproductive at best and brutal and hamfisted at worst, but the protocols presents a picture of a demonic, ruthless, fanatical thirst for world domination and there is quite simply no evidence whatsoever that the israelis wish to take over the world! apart from this, the protocols suggest that there is some sort of vast conspiracy between jews everywhere to subvert and corrupt the human race itself and there is quite simply no evidence for this either, let alone that we all somehow report to a single agency which co-ordinates all this activity. it is nonsense on stilts and dangerous nonsense to boot. of course there are going to be israeli attitudes and actions that you and probably i are both going to disapprove of, just as there are for virtually every regime on the planet, but to single out the israelis as worse than, for example, the iranian, burmese, sudanese, north korean, chinese or cuban governments in terms of malevolent malignancy is so self-evidently absurd that it doesn’t warrant a scintilla of extra investigation.

    In these sermons, the words of advice and counsel for Muslim countries, are not due to any anti-semitism, but on account of a desire to guide Muslim countries towards not falling headlong into the various traps that await them.

    you people keep repeating this as if the mere repetition of it somehow vindicates it as not anti-semitic – the role assigned to the jew in this scenario is presented using the stereotypes of modern anti-semitism. the actions and characteristics of the jew here are those attributed to us by anti-semites. you cannot say, as it were, “look, here is an animal with a trunk, tusks and big ears! i’m not saying he’s an elephant, though, i’m just telling it how i see it!” it is absurd to deny the logical consequence of the statements. you just know that to be “anti-semitic” is a bad thing. you want to avoid the label, but you want to keep saying the things that get the label attached to you: “i’m not racist, but white/black/brown people are a bunch of stupid, lazy criminals, that’s just what i see every day, how can that be racist to point that out?” you can maintain you’re not being X, but if you exhibit the attributes and characteristics that everyone in the known universe associates with X, then it is pointless and disingenuous to maintain otherwise.

    I declare on behalf of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat that the comments I make are based on truth and I do so honestly and impartially

    well, i declare on behalf of teapots that i am a teapot and that i’m telling the truth and i do so honestly and impartially.

    The truth is that these minarets simply project the loudspeakers which are connected to the microphones located in Washington where Israel is the speaker using these microphones. This is such an obvious fact that no intricate debate is needed for it.

    this is only an “obvious fact” to people who are bigoted and therefore don’t need it justified by evidence.

    Anyone who is even mildly aware of the contemporary situation knows this fact very well that Saudi Arabia is completely in the clutches of the U.S. and that the U.S. has completely capitulated to Israeli ascendancy and has practically incorporated Israeli primacy as part of its policy”

    that must be why the saudis don’t allow jews into their country, i suppose. what a load of utter crap. i suppose the jews control the iranians and syrians as well? (NB: “jews secretly control the world” – from anti-semitism 101)

    If one carefully, analyzes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one notices that Saudi Arabia has done the most damage to the rights and interests of Palestinians. There has always been a ‘dislike-dislike’ relationship between Saudi Arabian rulers and Palestinians.

    so because the saudis constantly screw the palestinians over, they must therefore be working for the israelis? there couldn’t possibly be any other explanation for this, like, say, the saudis (and every other ruler in the muslim world) channel popular anger towards the situation of the palestinians to divert it from the crappy lives they are living and the luxury in which the ruling class themselves live it up on their oil money, whilst failing to reform, build infrastructure, grow the economy or address social problems? whilst the ruling class gamble, whore, shop and drink their way around western capitals in their bright blue italian supercars and designer clothes and the MUSLIM guest workers in their MUSLIM countries live in squalid poverty? everyone else in the fecking WORLD can see through this. but nooooooo, it’s all the fault of the wicked jews. you’re such a bunch of suckers, the lot of you.

    Let me remind the readers that after these sermons were delivered, innocent Bosnian Muslims were butchered at the hands of Serbs in the heart of Europe, and most European countries looked the other way.

    well, the WARMONGER tony blair and the evil old us went to war on the serbs, but everyone conveniently forgets that – way before 9/11, incidentally.

    As recently as 2009, the President of Israel visited the Ahmadiyya Muslim Mosque in Haifa, and attended an Iftar (breaking of Fast) dinner, and spoke to the audience.

    as i asked earlier, did anyone show him this speech, or the “4th khalifa’s” views on the protocols? i bet they bloody didn’t.

    the more i read of this two-faced, hypocritical bile, the sicker i feel.

    bananabrain

  101. Albert
    Posted September 15, 2010 at 5:30 PM | Permalink

    Blimey, the full quotes of Mirza Tahir Ahmad are worse than the selected quotes in the article!

  102. Albert
    Posted September 15, 2010 at 8:45 PM | Permalink

    Sultan Ahmad,

    I take it you are trying to change the topic because you can’t answer the questions put to you. We are not asking about accusations made against your group in the past, so please stop your diversionary tactics and answer the questions.

    To repeat what I said earlier: Right now we are discussing whether ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ is a forgery or not. After all, your 4th Khalifa quotes it as a ‘supportive reference’. We believe Mirza Tahir Ahmad was wrong in quoting this. So if you don’t mind, let’s now clarify this point instead of talking about the things we have already discussed.

    What are your views on the ‘Protocols’? Do you believe your 4th Khalifa made a mistake by quoting this forgery?

    Shalom

  103. Sarah
    Posted September 15, 2010 at 11:19 PM | Permalink

    So this is what Ahmadis do when they get cornered ; )

  104. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 15, 2010 at 11:59 PM | Permalink

    @ qidniz :
    “…..*plonk*…..”

    My submission was: “..Even if it could be somehow conclusively established that the Protocols were a forgery, the actual theme presented by Mirza Tahir Ahmad would still remain unaffected..”. Your response was: “..*plonk*..”. Notwithstanding the fact that the brevity and eloquence of your response was astounding, yet my submission still remains uncontested.

    @ Albert :
    “…..I don’t know why you and your fellow Ahmadis keep repeating yourselves…..”

    I think the Ahmadi participants of this discussion apparently seem to be repeating their rebuttals because the accusations against them too, somehow seem to be perpetually repetitive.

    @ bananabrain :
    “…..you’re such a bunch of suckers, the lot of you…..”

    Now who said bananabrain was judgemental? Interesting logic, by the way. Since Ahmadis are a bunch of suckers, it therefore follows logically that the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is a fake document. Logical indeed.

    Fully cognizant of the fact that my following points will not likely change the preconceived opinions of some of our friends here, I would like to respectfully emphasize the following points:

    1. The Ahmadiyya Community believes that Islam is inherently moderate, tolerant and accommodative. The attribute of “moderation”, however, should not be taken as synonymous with “hypocrisy”. Being “moderate” would signify being balanced and just. And being just would signify commending virtues and condemning atrocity. Hence, if someone praises a commendable aspect of the Jewish Community or the State of Israel and denounces an act of inequity performed by the same, both in the same breath, that someone is being perfectly moderate. The Ahmadiyya Movement is on one hand highly appreciative of the fact that the Ahmadi citizens of Israel enjoy full civil rights and complete religious freedom in Israel, but on the other, highly critical of the repressive measures adopted by the Israeli government towards the Palestinians of that region. If Raziq, the worthy author of the above article finds justice “not so moderate”, then we may have to leave him to his unique wisdom.

    2. Mirza Tahir Ahmad was a man of God, a deeply spiritual person, gifted with profound insight and a keen sense of justice. If someone reads these much-debated sermons of his, rather than isolated excerpts, one is bound to appreciate the fact that these sermons, if paid heed to, can contribute greatly to world peace.

    3. While many people consider the “Protocols” to be a forgery, others are of the opinion that this document is genuine. The subject of Mirza Tahir Ahmad’s sermons was not the “Protocols” – it was the Middle East Crisis. The significance of the “Protocols” in his historical and insightful sermons was little beyond being an additional supportive argument. Obviously, he considered the document as genuine. That is why he quoted from it. But even if the “Protocols” had never existed, the conclusions drawn by him, would still have remained the same. He would still have spoken out boldly against the injustices being done against the Palestinian people. Injustice is injustice – whether committed by a Muslim or a Jew.

    4. Regardless of whether anyone considers our claim or not – and frankly that hardly counts, Ahmadis are not “anti-anybody”. Ahmadis are neither anti-Semitic nor anti-Hindu nor anti-Christian. “Love for all – hatred for none” is not a mere slogan for Ahmadis. These words very much describe the Ahmadiyya attitude.

    5. The Ahmadiyya Community shuns all form of extremism, injustice, repression, coercion and violence and has always stood for moderation, justice, humbleness, forbearance and non-retaliation.

    @ Sultan Ahmad
    “…..I am being accused of being being both pro Zionist and anti Semitic.This is really a clever policy…..”

    True. Very clever indeed. In Pakistan, Ahmadis are accused of the unforgivable crime of being pro-Zionist. Our friends on this blog, presumably Jewish, contend that Ahmadis are actually anti-Semitic. Instead of Ahmadis debating on both fronts, a debate should be arranged between these two camps. If both sides debate with in usual unrelenting style, I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that at the end of the debate Pakistani non-Ahmadis would have been convinced about Ahmadis not being pro-Zionist and Jews would have been convinced that Ahmadis are not anti-Semitic.

    Regards
    Bin Ismail

  105. AhmadiForever
    Posted September 16, 2010 at 1:29 AM | Permalink

    Bannanbrain,

    Hadrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad was our leader, we have to obey his instructions. Do you think I will ever take your word over his? NO WAY! The Protocols maybe doubted but if what they contain came true then we have to accept it. Also, the Protocols are correct on some issues. There is no doubt that Jews control the media all over the world and they are creating wars in the Middle-East. They are a cursed people.

    We accept Israel now that it has been created but it didn’t have a right to be created in the first place. Why weren’t Jews given a part of German land? Why were Arabs punished for a European crime? These are the injustices that our 4th khalifa was talking about in his sermons.

    For your information Ahmadiyyah was in Palestine before Israel was even created and like it or not our movement will one day convert the majority of Israeli’s into Ahmadis. ‘Love for all and hatred for none’.

  106. Ibn-e-Maryam
    Posted September 16, 2010 at 5:26 AM | Permalink

    A lot is being discussed on the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’. Let us be very objective on this. There is no doubt that these protocols are controversial. In order for us to understand why Mirza Tahir Ahmad mentioned them, we have to return to the book, from which they have been quoted. Mirza Tahir Ahmad had mentioned them as a passing reference (not even as supporting material), and this strengthens my view that the author of the blog is not objective in discussing the Ahmadiyya Movement. The book, as I have said earlier is more than 350 pages, and these protocols are discussed only on less than a page and a half. He even recognizes that many people, Jews in particular, do no own this document. Mirza Tahir Ahmad states:

    “When the Jews absolved themselves of this plan and maintained that it was just attributed to them, the learned observers, politicians, and intelligentsia, debated that claim all over the world. It let to litigation in several courts.” [The Gulf War & the New World Order pp. 199-200]

    Mirza Tahir Ahmad has based all his claims on sound historical data, like the Balfour Declaration and Mandate System of the League of Nations, which changed the demographics of Palestine between 1917 and 1948. But, that is not the issue here. The issue here is the “moderate-ness” (if that is a word) of the Ahmadiyya Movement. and on this, there no two opinions.

    Once again, Mirza Tahir Ahmad mentions these protocols as a passing reference, and it is up individuals to make up their minds on the authenticity, and nowhere in this book, he has based his arguments on these protocols, and also he had the moral courage to mention that many people including most Jews do not own this document. That was the Man of God he was: honest, truthful, and loving. His memories will always be with us.

  107. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 16, 2010 at 11:48 AM | Permalink

    The Ahmadiyya Movement has been accused of being “not so moderate”. The fundamental question here would be: What is “moderate”? In my opinion, the term “moderate” is understood and used in a sense opposite to that of “extreme”. If the guiding principles of the Ahmadiyya Movement had been to fight fire with fire, then this movement could very rightfully have been classified as “not so moderate”. But to fight fire with fire is not the guiding principle of the Movement. The Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian (1835-1908) admonishes his followers in the following words:

    ” As you receive insults
    Pray for those who insult you
    In the face of arrogance
    You must exhibit humility ”

    By no means, do these beautiful words embody extremism. If anything, the finest form of moderation is enshrined in these words. These words are truly the guiding principles of the Ahmadiyya Movement.

  108. Sarah
    Posted September 16, 2010 at 3:06 PM | Permalink

    Bin Ismail & Co – All you guys do is avoid questions and keep repeating yourselves until people can’t be bothered to argue anymore. Then you probably claim you won the argument or explained your point, when in reality you’ve done niether.

    Jokers.

  109. bananabrain
    Posted September 16, 2010 at 3:54 PM | Permalink

    you must know better than anybody else that for decades not only in Pakistan ,but also in most of the Muslim countries it has been alleged that Ahmadis are pro-Zionist ,they are being actively supported by Jews and Israel,and they are doing every thing that jews tell them to do.

    of course! this is because the easiest way to manipulate the credulous masses of the muslim countries (the “suckers”, in other words) to turn against a group or an idea or a policy is to say that it is somehow “pro-zionist”, or that “the jews” are somehow behind it! you must be able to see from this very example what is going on here – you know, presumably, from your own knowledge and experience, that ahmadis are NOT controlled by zionists / jews, so you can therefore safely conclude that THIS IS A LIE. it is a technique for discrediting things you do not like, the same way that right-wingers during the cold war used to discredit things by saying they were “soft on communism”. it is known as the “big lie technique”.

    Of course Ahmadis have always denied these flimsy allegations that they are being supported by Jews or Israel.

    my question then is, now you know it’s a lie and a technique, why can you not spot it when it is being used on you? you have bought into this “big lie” as propagated by the rulers of the muslim world as well as the fundamentalists who oppose them, that everything is manipulated by the jews behind the scenes, but if you can see from your own knowledge that it’s not true in the case of us controlling you, then why can’t you see that there’s no reason to believe otherwise in any other case?

    And now you are writting that actually Ahmadis have got extremist views against Jews and Israel.And Mr Bananabrain and my dear Albert are passionately supporting your allegation

    because it appears to be true. you don’t seem to be able to grasp that someone who is anti-israel may also be accused of being secretly funded / supported / directed by jews or zionists (not that they ever define “zionists”, of course). this sort of thing is routinely done in the case of, for example, the extreme anti-muslim organisation the “english defence league”, who share much of their membership with the virulently anti-semitic neo-nazis of the british national party, or even, according to some, al-qaeda! by the same token, jews were routinely accused during the 1930s of being both communist supporters and robber baron capitalists, when these would be each other’s natural enemies; the accusation of “playing both ends against the middle” is a regular feature of anti-semitic discourse. in other words, just because idiotic muslims think you are directed by the jews, it doesn’t therefore follow that your views on jews and israel are therefore reasonable, moderate and unprejudiced.

    I am being accused of being being both pro Zionist and anti Semitic.This is really a clever policy so that everybody can get his POUND OF FLESH.

    i am not accusing you of being pro-zionist. idiotic people in the muslim world are accusing you of this in order to discredit you. they are mistaken. your position is in no sense pro-zionist, it is in fact anti-semitic. this, in fact, has been news to me, revealed during this very discussion. it is your own words that have convinced me of it. as for you mentioning the “pound of flesh”, i’m sure it’s complete coincidence that you use the phrase associated with shakespeare’s vengeful jewish character shylock, long a favourite with anti-semites, though they are in complete misunderstanding of shakespeare’s own views, which were far from unsympathetic.

    I think the Ahmadi participants of this discussion apparently seem to be repeating their rebuttals because the accusations against them too, somehow seem to be perpetually repetitive.

    you seem to be under the impression that you’re actually doing some rebutting, whereas you are in fact you are failing to address the arguments and simply digging yourselves deeper into the hole without being prepared to actually admit what everyone else can plainly see.

    Interesting logic, by the way. Since Ahmadis are a bunch of suckers, it therefore follows logically that the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is a fake document. Logical indeed.

    no, the logic is that since the protocols are a fake document, anyone who believes them to be anything else is either a knave or a fool. anyone who consequently picks up the blame-the-jews misdirection propaganda of the rulers of the islamic world and uses them to justify the protocols, rather than questioning the purpose of the misdirection propaganda, is a sucker – especially considering that the rulers of the islamic world are quite happy to use ahmadis as whipping boys when there aren’t jews available. only a sucker would actually buy into the propaganda and blame the jews rather than the people behind the propaganda!

    The Ahmadiyya Community believes that Islam is inherently moderate, tolerant and accommodative.

    this belief is not compatible with an insistence that the protocols are true.

    Being “moderate” would signify being balanced and just.

    which would also involve being able to see through an obvious hoax like the protocols.

    While many people consider the “Protocols” to be a forgery, others are of the opinion that this document is genuine.

    and these others are called “anti-semites”. name me ONE, just one person who believes the protocols are true who is a dispassionate academic with no ideological axe to grind – i.e. no muslims, no jews, no extreme left or right-wingers, just to be fair.

    The significance of the “Protocols” in his historical and insightful sermons was little beyond being an additional supportive argument.

    which thereby call into question his judgement, his insight, his historical analysis and his credibility as a “moderate”.

    Obviously, he considered the document as genuine.

    and anyone who held this view in 1990 (which is when i think you said the quotes are from) is either ignorant the reams of incontestable academic evidence that it is not, or has an ideological objection to jews. you can twist and turn and quote all you like, but you cannot get away from this basic issue.

    But even if the “Protocols” had never existed, the conclusions drawn by him, would still have remained the same.

    well, that’s pretty easy to say, given that it can hardly be proven!

    He would still have spoken out boldly against the injustices being done against the Palestinian people.

    and, you know, if he hadn’t brought up the protocols, i might even have listened. but anyone who brings up the protocols in this context is by definition either shockingly ignorant or unpleasantly bigoted.

    Ahmadis are not “anti-anybody”. Ahmadis are neither anti-Semitic nor anti-Hindu nor anti-Christian. “Love for all – hatred for none” is not a mere slogan for Ahmadis. These words very much describe the Ahmadiyya attitude.

    but, unfortunately, not your actual views. saying black is white don’t make it so.

    Very clever indeed. In Pakistan, Ahmadis are accused of the unforgivable crime of being pro-Zionist. Our friends on this blog, presumably Jewish, contend that Ahmadis are actually anti-Semitic.

    yes. we are right and they are deluded. the only thing they could possibly accuse you of is not disapproving us for the same reasons that they do.

    Instead of Ahmadis debating on both fronts, a debate should be arranged between these two camps.

    you know what, i think that’s the first sensible suggestion that’s been made here. next time an islamist nincompoop accuses me of controlling the world, i will ask him if he thinks i control the ahmadis as well.

    I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that at the end of the debate Pakistani non-Ahmadis would have been convinced about Ahmadis not being pro-Zionist and Jews would have been convinced that Ahmadis are not anti-Semitic.

    the only thing that could convince me of ahmadis not holding anti-semitic views after this would be you condemning the protocols as the hoax they are and disowning that speech by the 4th khalifa, it is that simple.

    Hadrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad was our leader, we have to obey his instructions. Do you think I will ever take your word over his? NO WAY! The Protocols maybe doubted but if what they contain came true then we have to accept it.

    this is the very DEFINITION of cultishness. if he said that sheep were green and could fly, would you take his word for that too? face facts, dude – your leader is an anti-semitic conspiracy loon and if you can’t challenge that, then it makes you one as well.

    There is no doubt that Jews control the media all over the world and they are creating wars in the Middle-East. They are a cursed people.

    i suppose now you’re going to tell me that that wasn’t an anti-semitic remark, but was actually an expression of love for all and hatred for none!

    Why weren’t Jews given a part of German land?

    how about the jews of greece, turkey, north africa, egypt, lebanon, syria, iraq, iran, yemen, afghanistan and central asia? *my* grandfather was born in karachi, in fact. can i have some land in pakistan, then?

    like it or not our movement will one day convert the majority of Israeli’s into Ahmadis.

    you’ll have to get in the queue behind the sunni and shi’a dawahniks and the christian evangelists. i tell you what, why don’t you sort it out between yourselves and then come back to us when you’re done?

    As you receive insults
    Pray for those who insult you
    In the face of arrogance
    You must exhibit humility

    what like calling us “cursed” and telling us that we’ll one day be converted?

    i always thought you guys were somewhat cultish and two-faced, but i never till this discussion i realised just how bad it got – in fact, i’ll tell you who you guys remind me of, it’s the j-witnesses. you know, all the other christians find them irritating and embarrassing, they have very odd views, love to gang up and violently agree with each other, quote huge chunks of blurb at people, cannot be prevented from evangelising even in the face of total boredom and indifference and think that they’re going to be the sole occupants of heaven. congratulations on being the first islamic group to make people hide behind their sofas when you come round knocking on the door.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  110. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 16, 2010 at 4:27 PM | Permalink

    Sarah:

    Sorry for pointing out the inconvenient fact that the Ahmadis participating in this discussion have not avoided any relevant questions. The most repeated question was in relation to the “Protocols of the elders of Zion”. In response to this question, most Ahmadi participants have tried to explain that with reference to what Mirza Tahir Ahmad has said, it is quite irrelevent whether the “Protocols” is actually a genuine document or a forgery. Apparently, you’ve not been reading the replies furnished by Ahmadis for reasons known best to you. Then you complain that Ahmadis keep repeating themselves. If the same questions keep repeating themselves, the answers too, obviously, will have to be repeated for the benefit of the repetitive questioner.

    With the hope, that you would be gracious enough to take the trouble to read this reply, I would like to point out that Mirza Tahir Ahmad’s analysis is NOT based on the “Protocols”.

    May I humbly quote myself: “…While Mirza Tahir Ahmad may indeed have given reference to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, he does not base his entire argument on this document. The document is not even pivotal to his deductions. At best, it could be termed as a supportive reference…” [Bin Ismail, September 14, 2010 at 12:57 PM]

    Another Ahmadi participant put it this way: “…There is no doubt that these protocols are controversial. In order for us to understand why Mirza Tahir Ahmad mentioned them, we have to return to the book, from which they have been quoted. Mirza Tahir Ahmad had mentioned them as a passing reference (not even as supporting material)…” [Ibn-e-Maryam, September 16, 2010 at 5:26 AM]

    Whatever the status of this document, the analysis presented by Mirza Tahir Ahmad remains objective and convincing on its own merit.

    No Ahmadi is claiming to have won the argument. Our intention was only to explain.

    Regards.

  111. bananabrain
    Posted September 16, 2010 at 4:57 PM | Permalink

    Sorry for pointing out the inconvenient fact that the Ahmadis participating in this discussion have not avoided any relevant questions.

    perhaps not, but they certainly haven’t answered them – i think that might be the “inconvenient fact” you mean.

    most Ahmadi participants have tried to explain that with reference to what Mirza Tahir Ahmad has said, it is quite irrelevent whether the “Protocols” is actually a genuine document or a forgery.

    it’s irrelevant if your khalifa thinks that the protocols are genuine or not? not if he is claiming to be speaking the truth and giving an informed insight into the state of world affairs, it’s not. if it’s irrelevant, then why are you so keen to insist that it *might* be genuine, when no person in their right mind maintains this position? if it is so irrelevant, it would be in the best interests of your argument to drop all references to it entirely, but unfortunately, you feel you have to defend mirza tahir ahmad at all costs, even when he is demonstrably talking nonsense on stilts.

    Apparently, you’ve not been reading the replies furnished by Ahmadis for reasons known best to you. Then you complain that Ahmadis keep repeating themselves. If the same questions keep repeating themselves, the answers too, obviously, will have to be repeated for the benefit of the repetitive questioner.

    i have been reading these replies – you might be able to tell from the fact that i quote them back and discuss them. they don’t make sense, as i have shown point by point. repeating them will not make them suddenly make sense. you are attempting to evade the questions by claiming you’ve answered them, when, in fact, you’ve done nothing of the sort. i hereby call shenanigans on this line of argument.

    The document is not even pivotal to his deductions. At best, it could be termed as a supportive reference

    more repetition: already dealt with in my post of today at 3:54pm.

    Whatever the status of this document, the analysis presented by Mirza Tahir Ahmad remains objective and convincing on its own merit.

    nobody here other than you ahmadis has been convinced by this analysis – in fact the more you try to make it stand up, the worse it looks. you’ve not addressed any of my objections to the analysis, stated in my 2-3 previous posts.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  112. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 16, 2010 at 7:55 PM | Permalink

    @ bananabrain (September 16, 2010 at 4:57 PM) :

    1. “…..but they certainly haven’t answered them…..”

    Well I would put it this way – they (Ahmadis) did answer your questions, but the answers were not in agreement with your viewpoints. Please do not feel offended but what you’re looking for are answers that conform to your ideas. Difference of opinion is evidently something you cannot entertain.

    2. “…..it’s irrelevant if your khalifa thinks that the protocols are genuine or not? not if he is claiming to be speaking the truth and giving an informed insight into the state of world affairs, it’s not…..”

    If you ask me, our Imam has indeed spoken the truth. He has offered an analysis of things, which like any other analysis, has aroused agreement and disagreement both. Take it or leave it – it’s your choice.

    3. “…..you feel you have to defend mirza tahir ahmad at all costs…..”

    With no desire to reciprocate your discourtesy, I feel that if there’s anybody defending a certain position at all costs, it is your worthy self.

    4. “…..you are attempting to evade the questions by claiming you’ve answered them, when, in fact, you’ve done nothing of the sort…..”

    Ahmadis have told you what they believe. If you disagree, that’s fine. After all the disagreement is indeed mutual.

    5. “…..nobody here other than you ahmadis has been convinced by this analysis…..”

    You have you own opinions and notions. You’ve expressed them. We have our opinions and we too have expressed ours. Yes, we are convinced of the analysis presented by our Imam and also have no problems if someone chooses to differ.

    Regards.

  113. dbrand
    Posted September 17, 2010 at 10:09 AM | Permalink

    The rather obvious point that can be taken from this discussion, as far as I can see, is that there are elements in the Ahmadiyya who hold identical notions of religious supremacism and anti-semitism that are just as easily found in other parts of Sunni and Shi’a discourse.

    The Ahmadi faith is a proselytising one. The the idea that the Admadiyyah are innately more “moderate” (and I use that term in the widest possible sense) and distinct from Sunni and Shia orthodox beliefs is a complete misnomer.

  114. bananabrain
    Posted September 17, 2010 at 11:04 AM | Permalink

    they (Ahmadis) did answer your questions, but the answers were not in agreement with your viewpoints.

    what nonsense. here are the questions that have been asked and haven’t been answered:

    1. why are you all ignoring the overwhelming evidence that the protocols is a forgery?
    2. why was your imam not aware of this overwhelming evidence in 1990, when it had been a matter of public record for over 60 years – and, if he was aware of it, what reason did he have for ignoring or dismissing it?
    3. why do you insist that it is irrelevant whether the protocols are the foundation of the sermon, when citing them, let alone with the approval that has been given, calls into question the claims of ahmadiyya to moderation and “love”, given that the only people who use the protocols are anti-semites of various stripes: racists, neo-nazis and bigoted islamists?
    4. was the president of israel made aware of the ahmadiyya’s stance on the protocols before his visit?
    5. what is your evidence that israeli government policies are drawn from the protocols, that “Israeli Zionists are now de facto fulfilling the exact wicked tactics and lack of conscience that is described in the ‘Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion’”? all you have said is what “many people feel” – which is hardly evidence.
    6. what is your evidence that “Jews are heavily represented in the highest echelons of business, government, media, finance and banking (in percentages much larger than the 1% of the western population that they make up)”?
    7. what is your evidence that jews are “working side by side with those heavily involved in secret societies” to further the policies expressed in the protocols?
    8. why do you adopt the widespread propaganda in the islamic world that zionists/jews control the world, when you correctly reject the accusation made by the same people that zionists/jews control ahmadiyya as politically motivated?
    9. how can you claim to “love all and hate no-one” when your adherents can refer to us as “a cursed people” and aspire to our elimination through conversion?

    you say that “you have told us what you believe. if you disagree, that’s fine.” that is not the same as answering a question. if i say that the sun is pink, that may be my belief, but i have not provided any evidence to back it up. simply saying “well we think differently”, without saying WHY, without justifying your position, is not an answer. until then, i have identified the nine questions that i can identify as unanswered, despite numerous obfuscations, contra-assertions and claims to have already provided an answer.

    you are truly the j-witnesses of islam – although that is no excuse for the way you guys are treated in pakistan and other muslim countries, although i note not in the evil old west and israel.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  115. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 17, 2010 at 2:43 PM | Permalink

    @dbrand (September 17, 2010 at 10:09 AM)

    “…The rather obvious point that can be taken from this discussion, as far as I can see, is that there are elements in the Ahmadiyya who hold identical notions of religious supremacism and anti-semitism that are just as easily found in other parts of Sunni and Shi’a discourse…”

    Let me briefly explain how Ahmadis view this:

    1. Ahmadis differentiate clearly between the Jewish Community and the State of Israel. While the Community is a religious entity, the State is a political one.
    2. Ahmadis are of the opinion that the manner in which the State of Israel was carved out in the region of Palestine by the UN was not in line with justice.
    3. Ahmadis are of the view that once a state comes to exist as a sovereign state, its sovereignty must be recognized and respected.
    4. Ahmadis recognize the fact that Ahmadi citizens of Israel enjoy all the civil rights and religious freedoms due to any law-abiding citizen.
    5. Ahmadis condemn the persecution of any community by any state, whether the persecution of Palestinians by Israel or the persecution of any non-Muslim community at the hands of a Muslim state.

    “…The Ahmadi faith is a proselytising one. The the idea that the Admadiyyah are innately more “moderate” (and I use that term in the widest possible sense) and distinct from Sunni and Shia orthodox beliefs is a complete misnomer…”

    The Ahmadiyya Community invites the world to what it considers to be the truth and the light of guidance, and we beleive in preaching with love and strictly without any coercion. If I may humbly quote myself, “…Speaking out against injustice, does not exactly entitle one to the title of “not so moderate”. Similarly, those who hold back from condemning injustice are not called “moderate”. “Insensitive” would be a better word. Injustice, done by anybody, Muslim, Jew, Christian or Hindu, is injustice. The contribution made by the Imams of the Ahmadiyya Movement to world peace, is by virtue of the fact that they condemned injustice. This is not “not so moderate”. This is perhaps the finest form of moderation…” [Ref: September 9, 2010 at 7:57 PM]

    @bananabrain (September 17, 2010 at 11:04 AM)

    Allow me for one last time, to answer your questions:

    Q1. why are you all ignoring the overwhelming evidence that the protocols is a forgery?
    Answer: We would like to ignore neither the evidence that you wish to highlight nor the evidence that emerges in the form of the practical conduct of the State of Israel.

    Q2. why was your imam not aware of this overwhelming evidence in 1990, when it had been a matter of public record for over 60 years – and, if he was aware of it, what reason did he have for ignoring or dismissing it?
    Answer: He was not. You’ve evidently not taken the trouble to read the comments. Mirza Tahir Ahmad said: “When the Jews absolved themselves of this plan and maintained that it was just attributed to them, the learned observers, politicians, and intelligentsia, debated that claim all over the world. It let to litigation in several courts.” [Mirza Tahir Ahmad, The Gulf War & the New World Order pp. 199-200]. As Ibn-e-Maryam pointed out in his comment of September 16, 2010 at 5:26 AM, “The book, as I have said earlier is more than 350 pages, and these protocols are discussed only on less than a page and a half. He even recognizes that many people, Jews in particular, do no own this document.”

    Q3. why do you insist that it is irrelevant whether the protocols are the foundation of the sermon, when citing them, let alone with the approval that has been given, calls into question the claims of ahmadiyya to moderation and “love”, given that the only people who use the protocols are anti-semites of various stripes: racists, neo-nazis and bigoted islamists?
    Answer: Not only anti-Semitics, Students of history too, may like to benifit from a certain document, even if it has evolved into a controversial one. If you insist on disowning it, Ahmadis will not attribute it to you, but if the political policies of Israel keep reminding people of the Protocols, they may actually one day begin to doubt the “forgery theory” and treat the document as a genuine one, albeit a disowned one.

    Q4. was the president of israel made aware of the ahmadiyya’s stance on the protocols before his visit?
    Answer: I am sure the President is not an ignorant person. I am also sure that he is accomodative towards all law-abiding citizens of his country.

    Q5. what is your evidence that israeli government policies are drawn from the protocols, that “Israeli Zionists are now de facto fulfilling the exact wicked tactics and lack of conscience that is described in the ‘Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion’”? all you have said is what “many people feel” – which is hardly evidence.
    Answer: You may like to toss this question before your own good conscience.

    Q6. what is your evidence that “Jews are heavily represented in the highest echelons of business, government, media, finance and banking (in percentages much larger than the 1% of the western population that they make up)”?
    Answer: As long as this over-representation is based on the principle of merit, it does not matter. You’re free to deny this if you like.

    Q7. what is your evidence that jews are “working side by side with those heavily involved in secret societies” to further the policies expressed in the protocols?
    Answer: You’re free to deny this as well.

    Q8. why do you adopt the widespread propaganda in the islamic world that zionists/jews control the world, when you correctly reject the accusation made by the same people that zionists/jews control ahmadiyya as politically motivated?
    Answer: The Zionists certainly do not control the Ahmadiyya Community. Other sects can speak for themselves. Again, you’re free to beleive whatever suits you.

    Q9. how can you claim to “love all and hate no-one” when your adherents can refer to us as “a cursed people” and aspire to our elimination through conversion?
    Answer: The Ahmadiyya Community stands uneqivocally and firmly by its principle of “Love for all, hatred for none”. We do not aspire to eliminate anybody. We hold the Human Race in the highest esteem and celebrate its diversity. We seek to serve Humanity in all ways possible. We sincerely wish everyone well.

    Regards
    Bin Ismail

  116. bananabrain
    Posted September 17, 2010 at 4:39 PM | Permalink

    Q1. why are you all ignoring the overwhelming evidence that the protocols is a forgery?
    Answer: We would like to ignore neither the evidence that you wish to highlight nor the evidence that emerges in the form of the practical conduct of the State of Israel.

    you have not even presented one piece of evidence that any israeli government policy has any connection with the document, so no link has been established, because the link does not exist, which is presumably why you have not been able to present any evidence other than “many people feel”.

    secondly, saying you “would not like to ignore the evidence” for the protocols being a forgery is not saying whether you are actually considering it. it implies you are taking it into consideration without actually saying that you’ve examined it. why can’t you say clearly and simply that you’ve looked at it? why can’t you say clearly and simply what reasons you have for ignoring the overwhelming consensus of academic scholarship here?

    so, neither of these responses is actually an answer.

    Q2. why was your imam not aware of this overwhelming evidence in 1990, when it had been a matter of public record for over 60 years – and, if he was aware of it, what reason did he have for ignoring or dismissing it?
    Answer: He was not. You’ve evidently not taken the trouble to read the comments. Mirza Tahir Ahmad said: “When the Jews absolved themselves of this plan and maintained that it was just attributed to them, the learned observers, politicians, and intelligentsia, debated that claim all over the world. It let to litigation in several courts.”

    perhaps you would like to point us to JUST ONE verdict handed down in a court of law that held that the protocols SHOULD be attributed to the jewish people. perhaps you’d also like to name one or two of these “learned observers, politicians and intelligentsia”. if you cannot, i suggest it is because the evidence does not in fact exist. you made the claim, you back it up.

    at least this is an answer, if not remotely convincing. i challenge you to produce the evidence – and if you do, i will retract my position, which is that you appear to be flat-out lying here.

    Q3. why do you insist that it is irrelevant whether the protocols are the foundation of the sermon, when citing them, let alone with the approval that has been given, calls into question the claims of ahmadiyya to moderation and “love”, given that the only people who use the protocols are anti-semites of various stripes: racists, neo-nazis and bigoted islamists?
    Answer: Not only anti-Semitics, Students of history too, may like to benefit from a certain document, even if it has evolved into a controversial one.

    oh dear, more obfuscation. i am not aware of ANY reputable academic historian that would base an argument on the authenticity of the protocols. you have taken a sub-clause in my question and treated it as if it were the question itself. allow me to restate it without the ambiguity that you are attempting to exploit:

    3. why do you insist that it is irrelevant whether the protocols are the foundation of the sermon, when citing them, let alone with the approval that has been given, calls into question the claims of ahmadiyya to moderation and “love”, given that the only people who cite the protocols as supporting documentation for their views are anti-semites of various stripes: racists, neo-nazis and bigoted islamists?
    this is the question i was asking, but it is not the question you have chosen to answer.

    if the political policies of Israel keep reminding people of the Protocols, they may actually one day begin to doubt the “forgery theory” and treat the document as a genuine one, albeit a disowned one.

    in which case i refer them to my response to your “answer” to question 1, where you failed to produce any evidence of even one israeli government policy (and, let me remind you, there are a sizeable number of which i disapprove) that shows evidence of the protocols as a source in the way that, say, the protocols are clearly based on maurice joly’s “dialogue in hell between machiavelli and montesquieu” and hence, of course, a forgery:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion#Comparison_between_The_Protocols_and_Maurice_Joly.27s_Dialogue_in_Hell

    i think that’s a pretty fair test, that the link to israeli government policy should be at least as strong as the evidence that it’s a forgery, don’t you?

    Q4. was the president of israel made aware of the ahmadiyya’s stance on the protocols before his visit?
    Answer: I am sure the President is not an ignorant person. I am also sure that he is accomodative towards all law-abiding citizens of his country.

    indeed this is true, but it does not in fact state whether he was told or not. it implies he was, whilst at the same time failing to explicitly make this clear, the same technique that you used in Q1, i note. would you like me to write to the president’s press secretary and ask? or you can do so, here’s the link:

    http://www.president.gov.il/Pages/ContactUS.aspx

    Q5. what is your evidence that israeli government policies are drawn from the protocols, that “Israeli Zionists are now de facto fulfilling the exact wicked tactics and lack of conscience that is described in the ‘Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion’”? all you have said is what “many people feel” – which is hardly evidence.
    Answer: You may like to toss this question before your own good conscience.

    in other words, you haven’t got any evidence, but you think i should just admit it anyway, even though you haven’t presented any evidence.

    Q6. what is your evidence that “Jews are heavily represented in the highest echelons of business, government, media, finance and banking (in percentages much larger than the 1% of the western population that they make up)”? Answer: As long as this over-representation is based on the principle of merit, it does not matter. You’re free to deny this if you like.

    the original question implied that it *did* matter, because it was in order to carry out the programme of the protocols via the machinations of secret societies. whether i deny it or not is not the question (of course i do) but rather your lack of presentation of any evidence, which you have once again continued to display.

    Q7. what is your evidence that jews are “working side by side with those heavily involved in secret societies” to further the policies expressed in the protocols? Answer: You’re free to deny this as well.

    ok, so your answer to yet another stupid, malicious, evidence-free assertion when challenged to provide the evidence continues to be that “i’m free to deny it”? well, in that case, i hereby accuse you of wearing ladies’ underwear and having a teapot for a head. you are of course “free to deny it” – the question is what evidence is there for such an accusation in the first place.

    Q8. why do you adopt the widespread propaganda in the islamic world that zionists/jews control the world, when you correctly reject the accusation made by the same people that zionists/jews control ahmadiyya as politically motivated? Answer: The Zionists certainly do not control the Ahmadiyya Community. Other sects can speak for themselves. Again, you’re free to beleive whatever suits you.

    as we have already established, this is not about whether i deny it or not, but why you believe it in the first place, mr girly-pants teapot-head. my question was why you reject the accusation when it’s aimed at yourselves by bigots, but you choose to believe those same bigots when they are talking about other people, when there is no evidence in either case. this you have not answered, using the same technique of turning the question to you round into a question for me instead of answering it for the third time in a row.

    Q9. how can you claim to “love all and hate no-one” when your adherents can refer to us as “a cursed people” and aspire to our elimination through conversion? Answer: The Ahmadiyya Community stands uneqivocally and firmly by its principle of “Love for all, hatred for none”. We do not aspire to eliminate anybody. We hold the Human Race in the highest esteem and celebrate its diversity. We seek to serve Humanity in all ways possible. We sincerely wish everyone well.

    my question was how these lofty principles that you repeatedly state are compatible with the clearly expressed hate-speech shown by a self-described ahmadi earlier in the thread? you didn’t even tell him off. and, naturally, you have not described how these lofty principles are compatible with the statements i quoted, you have just repeated them without any analysis. this is not an answer, it is the equivalent of the chief exec of bp standing in front of a bunch of angry, oil-covered louisiana shrimpers who are asking him why he failed to protect their environment and telling them to go and read the company mission statement.

    let’s sum up. nine questions:

    – one attempt to distort a subclause in an attempt to answer a question that wasn’t asked.
    - two delicate implications of action that, on closer examination, has not actually taken place despite the implication thereof.
    - three or four instances of refusal to provide evidence of extraordinary claims which would require extraordinary substantiation.
    - three instances of offering me the freedom to have my own opinion without actually backing up your own with evidence.
    - one instance of “i refer you to our mission statement”.
    - only one answer which nevertheless appears to be an outright lie, however, i will, as i say, retract, if you produce the information i request.

    all in all, not very impressive. i think we can see here ample evidence of ingeniously drafted disingenuousness and a whole battery of rhetorical tricks.

    in the words of gorgeous george galloway, sir, i salute your courage, your indefatigability.

    i think i have learned all about the ahmadis i never wanted to know.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  117. Farhana Pasha
    Posted September 17, 2010 at 4:49 PM | Permalink

    Dear Jewish brothers and sisters:

    Peace be unto you. May I invite you all to the message of love, patience, rationality and moderation, that was extended to the world by Moses, Aaron, David and Solomon.

    God, known to you as Yahweh, is known to us as Allah and God’s message has always been of love.

    Love for all, hatred for none.

  118. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 17, 2010 at 7:44 PM | Permalink

    bananabrain:

    The attribute of “unfatigability” that you so graciously ascribe to me, is something you yourself have been rather amply blessed with.

    Now, we are truly moving in circles. My feeling is that had you been a lawyer, you would most successfully have contributed to the headaches of your interlocutors. Forgive me for my candour but this is how your logic works: you throw a question, looking forward to a certain answer, which if you don’t get, upsets you to the point of exposing your latent juvenile predilections. Then you throw another question, anxiously anticipating another specific reply, which if again you do not get, upsets you even more. Then you do not throw a question – you throw a fit.

    An intellectual discourse, my friend, is not like a prosecutor-witness dialogue, as you apparently would like it to be. In an intellectual discourse, you are expected to present your point of view and the other person his – and that’s it. Your closing sentence says it all. You’ve said, ” i think i have learned all about the ahmadis i ‘never’ wanted to know.” You are learning what you did not want to know because you are not getting to hear what you wanted to hear.

    If you have an obsession for listening to only words of your choice, you may try sitting before a mirror and perform a soliloquy. Ask yourself a question and respond to yourself with the words your ears long to hear, and then rise to give yourself a standing ovation.

    Regards.

  119. Mubarak
    Posted September 17, 2010 at 11:14 PM | Permalink

    I think bananabrain is unfortunately incapable of decoupling 2 distinct things, hating jews versus critisizing the Jewish and Zionist leadership. As Ahmadi’s yes we are very critical of Israel and the zionist movement, but like Farhana Pasha succintly stated, we offer the message of love to everyone. It may require a degree of personal growth to realize that one can do both. To get one’s head stuck on just the protocols and belabor the point is actually diverting attention from the real issues, which is Israel’s injustice and Mirza Tahir Ahmad speaking out against it.

    To claim that because some Ahmadi’s believe the protocols may be real means they are jew-hating and at the same level of islamic militant organizations and neo-nazis is unfortunate. It’s a tactic to silence criticism for fears of being labeled anti-semite. Our track record for the past 120 years will prove otherwise that we are law-abiding citizens in every country and our leaders have never told us to take to despise anybody. Our leaders will continue to speak out against injustice, be it injustice from the zionists, or the islamic organizations. Ahmadi’s have never supported tactics used by Hamas or any islamic militant organization or any neo-nazi organization. On the other hands, dozens of books have been written and sermons given critisizing these very organizations. That is why it is unfair to group us in the same category as them.

    If we were truly anti-semites then our leaders would constantly be reminding us of these “protocols” and using them to support their thesis that all jews are evil, which I assume anti-semitic organizations do. But to be honest with you, this is the first time i’ve actually come across this book being discussed. This at least should convince some that it is not raised as a serious issue or even a major supporting evidence for us to be critical of the zionist movement. If Mirza Tahir Ahmad was a real anti-semite he would probably have devoted a whole chapter to the protocols and used it to justify anti-semitic thesis of “all jews are evil”. Nothing of the sort is done at all. The fact that 00.428% of the book talked about the protocols should be enough for a reasonable person to realize its lack of importance in the greater theme of Mirza Tahir Ahmad’s sermons.

    sincerely,

  120. Sultan Ahmad
    Posted September 18, 2010 at 6:20 PM | Permalink

    @Albert
    I was travelling, so could not participate in this discussion for two days.But let me record my dissapointment at the comments of Mr. Albert.He has alleged that I am changing topic which he thinks is confined to the protocols.I should humbly remind him that whole of the article written by Mr. Raziq is under discussion.And any pariticipant can discuss any part of the article .My dear Mr. Albert please explain how did you presume that parameters of this discussion are confined to the protocols.Discussion on the Protocols is going ahead , but I am free to express my views on other aspects of the article under discussion. And in my view this is an interesting point that Ahmadis are being accused of being both pro Zionist and Anti.Semitic .By the way meanwhile I have gone through the protocols and the Wikpedia stuff also that you pointed out.And I’ll ask some humble questions regarding them but I think first my respected Mr. Albert should kindly explain himself that how did he presume that now this discussion is confined to the Protocols only.And basing on this presumption he quickly hurled an allegation on me .
    God Bless You

  121. Sultan Ahmad
    Posted September 19, 2010 at 7:55 PM | Permalink

    @Bannabrain/Albert/Sarah
    So far Mr Albert has not replied my yesterday’s question/comments regarding his rather harsh allegation that I was changing topic , even Sarah who quickly seconded his allegation did not comment ,as Mr. Raziq for obvious reasons did not reple my question posted on 15th Sept and preffered to remain quite as before.
    Anyhow it seems that my dear friends Albert/Sarah/ Bannabrain are eager for some discussion on the Protocols.So if it is their wish, we can proceed with it in a systemic and rational way.Regarding the question about protocols there are two claims from the other group.
    1)These protocols are completely a forgery.
    2) As it is a forgery , why Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad quoted it ?
    Obviously to discuss the second point , first we’ll have to discuss the first point.On my request my friends Albert & Bannabrain referred to the Wikipedia article, and said it contains the gist of 60 sources.I read it once again. I was rather disappointed that this article does not discuss the contents of the Protocols, which was important .It keeps repeating that it is a forgery and plagiarism and gives long list of persons who have so far declared it a forgery.On the other hand I got a book from a local library with the name’ Jewish Protocols’ which has given a long list of authors and court dicision who declared that these Protocols are not forgery .This includes a decision of a Swiss Court etc. But I’ll confine my comments to the actuals proofs listed in Wikipedia article.As a proof of their assertion that it is a forgery they have given 3 examples.Two are about reference to Vishnu God and one is about state under the burden of debts.My comments as a student of facts are as follows
    1) If the author, whether it is a forgery or the document was actually written by a consipirator, uses some phrases or examples which are adapted from the literature written before ,than this does not proves that it is a forgery ,at the most it shows that whosoever wrote the document had read the books that are being mentioned and is using the phrases and examples he had read.Just to give my own example , in one of my comments in this discussion I used the phrase ‘ Pound of flesh’ .This does not show that these comments were forgery, I simply used a well known phrase from Shakespeare. I wrote a volume that was published few years back , while describing Mr Maudodis ideas I repeatedly used phrases from George Orwell’s novel 1984 e.g. Big brother and Big brother is watching you etc.This does not mean that this book is a forgery ,neither I think Mr Maudodi ever read Orwell. I was simply using well known phrases from a Novel which describes thinking of an oligarchy which somewhat resembles the ideas of Mr. Maudodi.(in my opinion)
    2) Regarding reference to Hindu God Vishnu , in Wikipedia the objection has been raised that mentioning Hindu God’s name is not probable in Jewish literature. Come on Mr Albert/Bannabrain! you can do better than this.You know that such symbolic language is always used.Read the revelant part in the protocols and you’ll see my point.The names Ravan, Lakshmi, Ram etc. belong to Hindu Scriptures ,but these names are constantly used in writtings of Muslim writers .This does not mean that these writtings are forgery. And the example has been given that the Vishnu name was used with the similar example in ‘Dialogue’ as it was used in the Protocols.Well in my opinion this does not prove that this is forgery. This at the most shows that whosoever wrote the document had raed the” Dialogue” and is using the phrases and examples he had read while describing the same intention.And such thing is so common.
    3) Another proof of forgery mentioned in the Wikpedia is that while describing state under debt the same example has been used as was used in the book ‘ Dialogue’.i.e. that if the state takes loan on the interest of 5% than after 20 years it would have paid the amount same as initial loan as interest in 20 years and in 60 years it would have paid triple the initial amount as interest. Well! such examples are always given and example of either 5% ro 10% etc are used to describe the plight of a state under debt.In Pakistan we have got a country under heavy debt every other article describing the situation gives similar examples.And a writer of a document always unconsciously writes the examples he had read anywhere in a slightly different way.It is very common and it is not a proof of forgery.
    Well the points mentioned in The wikipedia article may be labelled as interesting but they are not proofs of forgery.I must make it clear that right now I am not saying that Protocols are forgery or genuine. Right now I am trying to understand your point of view in a systematic way . I am taking points one by one.I’ll humbly request you to mention some other research (one research ) that is available on internet and you consider it as authentic ,about this topic .
    Best Regards
    By the way Mr. Albert/ Bannabrain/ Sarah! Have you read these Protocols.

  122. dbrand
    Posted September 20, 2010 at 8:37 AM | Permalink

    These defences of Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad’s anti-semitism are pitiful.

  123. Reasonable Woman
    Posted September 20, 2010 at 1:47 PM | Permalink

    Sarah wrote, “Bin Ismail & Co – All you guys do is avoid questions and keep repeating yourselves until people can’t be bothered to argue anymore. Then you probably claim you won the argument or explained your point, when in reality you’ve done niether. Jokers.”

    Sarah is correct until the last word. No branch of Islam is joking; it is, unfortunately, deadly serious as a triumphalist ideology incapable of self-criticism, as the Ahmadis here have shown. Just like any other dogmatic, authoritarian ideology – communism, fascism, …

  124. dbrand
    Posted September 20, 2010 at 3:12 PM | Permalink

    Which bit of my comment was “name calling”? If you want to see genuine instances of “name calling”, refer to this comment made by Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad:

    “With regards to “racial superiority” the whole world faces the same danger from the Jews today, as it has faced for thousands of years. The Jews are doing a lot of propaganda in the world that we should erase the racial divisions and racial prejudices. This is being done merely because the Jews are afraid that some nation may make the Jewish nation the target of their wrath in the name of racism. But as far as the concept of superiority of Jews over other races is concerned, this concept is in no way less than the Nazi concept of Hitler”. (The Gulf War & The New World Order, Islam International Publications, Friday Sermon Nov 16, 1990 – page 112)

    The defence of which on this thread has, thus far, been pitiful but very revealing.

  125. Sultan Ahmad
    Posted September 20, 2010 at 7:04 PM | Permalink

    Dear Friends
    I have not recieved any comments or reply on my note about Wikipedia article.My friends Mr.Albert/Bannanbrain themself asked me to see the wikipedia article .Neither my request to guide me to any other site containing research about the authenticity of the protocols has been answered.Previously many pariticipants were quite eager for the discussion about the protocols only but now serious discussion is being avoided.Some comments after my comments have just said that the defence of Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad is pitiful, or the claim that Ahmadis are not jokers ,rather they are dogmatic .This is not discussion .No proof.No reasoning.In my last note I was not defending anybody I was just trying to start a serious exchange of ideas ,as every participants should do.BUT IT SEEMS THAT SERIOUS DISCUSSION IS BEING AVOIDED.
    Anyhow I still convey message of love to you all.God Bless You All.

  126. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 20, 2010 at 11:18 PM | Permalink

    @Reasonable Woman (September 20, 2010 at 1:47 PM)

    “….. incapable of self-criticism, as the Ahmadis here have shown…..”

    While the path of self-glorification may indeed not be a righteous one, the course of self-criticism too, should not be adopted artificially . For example, if one does not take alcohol, then untruthfully admitting that one is an alcoholic, would be artificial self-criticism. Nevertheless, since you, Madame, in manifest contrast to Ahmadis, seem to be capable of self-criticism, a demonstration of these rare skills would be highly appreciated by the incapable ones.

    Regards.

  127. bananabrain
    Posted September 21, 2010 at 11:49 AM | Permalink

    Forgive me for my candour but this is how your logic works: you throw a question, looking forward to a certain answer, which if you don’t get, upsets you to the point of exposing your latent juvenile predilections.

    i think not. i have asked certain questions, the precise formulation of which i’ve been quite clear about, even redrafting for clarity, then restating the questions. you, on the other hand, have gone through every possible twist, turn and manoeuvre in order to avoid giving a clear, unequivocal and direct answer and, as above, trying to “play the man rather than the ball”. i am forced to conclude that this is because you know perfectly well that honest, clear answers would reveal you as disingenuous at best and a liar at worst. moreover, you are obviously perfectly aware that your actual views as revealed by our discussion of the protocols and mirza tahir ahmad’s endorsement of their validity are somewhat illiberal, immoderate and anti-semitic – and that such views generally lead to condemnation and should be concealed in modern society if you are not to squander the support that you are picking up on the basis of the “love-for-all-hatred-for-none” branding. therefore, you are doing everything you possibly can to avoid clarity on the subject. Such squirminess does not inspire confidence.

    An intellectual discourse, my friend, is not like a prosecutor-witness dialogue, as you apparently would like it to be.

    i’ve asked honest, direct, clear questions and i’ve received unclear, indirect and dishonest answers.

    In an intellectual discourse, you are expected to present your point of view and the other person his – and that’s it.

    no. a discourse involves exploring and analysing the other person’s point of view, saying “it sounds like you mean X, is that right?” and then going backwards and forwards until we reach some sort of shared understanding about what is meant, so we both understand the other’s perspective and positions. after that, we can be free to disagree, of course, but on the basis of actually understanding each what the other means. this you have signally failed to do, as you have, apparently purposefully, resisted clarity in an overt and sophisticated manner. and i am clearly not the only person on this thread that has reached this conclusion.

    Your closing sentence says it all. You’ve said, ” i think i have learned all about the ahmadis i ‘never’ wanted to know.” You are learning what you did not want to know because you are not getting to hear what you wanted to hear.

    not at all. i never wanted to learn that ahmadis are anti-semitic, but i have in fact been forced to confront it by your refusal to distance yourself from such positions as expressed in the 1990 sermons and the very clear and obvious implications of your support for mirza tahir ahmad.

    Ask yourself a question and respond to yourself with the words your ears long to hear, and then rise to give yourself a standing ovation.

    you lot belong at speaker’s corner yelling at passers-by: “Love for all, hatred for none”. what a crock.

    I think bananabrain is unfortunately incapable of decoupling 2 distinct things, hating jews versus critisizing the Jewish and Zionist leadership.

    supporting the protocols is not decouplable from hating jews, as we can plainly see from a number of unguarded comments here. at no point have i said that israel or zionism should be free from criticism, all i have said is that accusations should be based on evidence; “everybody knows that” or “some people feel that” is the standard of Some Bloke Down The Pub/taxi-driver criticism. i have asked you to clarify precisely what it is you are basing your support for protocols-lite arguments on, but you have refused to do so.

    To get one’s head stuck on just the protocols and belabor the point is actually diverting attention from the real issues, which is Israel’s injustice and Mirza Tahir Ahmad speaking out against it.

    in other words, ignore the fact that your accusations don’t make much sense and are based on anti-semitic stereotypes and get annoyed when someone points this out.

    To claim that because some Ahmadi’s believe the protocols may be real means they are jew-hating and at the same level of islamic militant organizations and neo-nazis is unfortunate.

    that is not precisely what i have said. certainly anyone who believes the protocols are real is a jew-hater, that much is clear. however, i have *never* accused you guys of being violent, militant or non-law-abiding, unlike jihadis and neo-nazis. however, that is the ideological company you’re keeping and if you don’t like people pointing this out, then you may like to take the logical step to change your views, which merely requires you to familiarise yourself with some basic academic positions.

    The fact that 00.428% of the book talked about the protocols should be enough for a reasonable person to realize its lack of importance in the greater theme of Mirza Tahir Ahmad’s sermons.

    if someone writes a 2,000 page book on, say, railway signalling and then says on page 1999 that “oh, by the way, the jews are evil and want to take over the world it may not be especially important, but considering that in this case it clearly informs his worldview – and yours – i don’t think this claim that it lacks importance stacks up. here we have reached a point where the interested observer is free to make up his mind.

    Regarding the question about protocols there are two claims from the other group. 1)These protocols are completely a forgery.
    2) As it is a forgery , why Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad quoted it?

    actually, i have nine questions, as stated above.

    On my request my friends Albert & Bananabrain referred to the Wikipedia article, and said it contains the gist of 60 sources.I read it once again. I was rather disappointed that this article does not discuss the contents of the Protocols, which was important.

    what do you need to know? it says that we want to take over the world, that we are corrupting society, that we control governments in secret, that we poison wells and use the blood of christian babies in our religious ceremonies and so on. if you want to read the document itself, the iranian government and a number of others publish editions, plus naturally it is available on neo-nazi websites like stormfront which i’m not going to link to.

    On the other hand I got a book from a local library with the name’ Jewish Protocols’ which has given a long list of authors and court dicision who declared that these Protocols are not forgery .This includes a decision of a Swiss Court etc.

    excellent, as you have this book, perhaps you could tell us its title and its author, as well as where i can find a record of this court decision?

    As a proof of their assertion that it is a forgery they have given 3 examples.Two are about reference to Vishnu God and one is about state under the burden of debts.My comments as a student of facts are as follows
    1) If the author, whether it is a forgery or the document was actually written by a consipirator, uses some phrases or examples which are adapted from the literature written before ,than this does not proves that it is a forgery ,at the most it shows that whosoever wrote the document had read the books that are being mentioned and is using the phrases and examples he had read.

    er.. what? that is called “plagiarism”, or “copying”. if you take the same thing and merely change the names around, then it is false attribution of acts or opinions. to give you an example, if i took a speech by ahmedinejad and said that george bush had made it, changing the names around so that people are falsely attributed views and activities, that is a falsehood and a forgery. this argument is laughable.

    Just to give my own example , in one of my comments in this discussion I used the phrase ‘ Pound of flesh’ .This does not show that these comments were forgery, I simply used a well known phrase from Shakespeare.

    the comparison is invalid, as you were stating your own opinion, not attributing it to someone else. honestly, this is janet-and-john stuff.

    2) Regarding reference to Hindu God Vishnu, in Wikipedia the objection has been raised that mentioning Hindu God’s name is not probable in Jewish literature. Come on Mr Albert/Bananabrain! you can do better than this.You know that such symbolic language is always used.

    i know jewish literature rather better than you do. if you can quote me one instance from a jewish religious text where anyone uses the name of a hindu god to make a political point, i will be extremely surprised. i challenge you to do so.

    The names Ravan, Lakshmi, Ram etc. belong to Hindu Scriptures ,but these names are constantly used in writtings of Muslim writers.

    they are not used ever in the writings of jewish writers – quote me an example and i’ll retract.

    And the example has been given that the Vishnu name was used with the similar example in ‘Dialogue’ as it was used in the Protocols.Well in my opinion this does not prove that this is forgery. This at the most shows that whosoever wrote the document had raed the” Dialogue” and is using the phrases and examples he had read while describing the same intention.And such thing is so common.

    well, in this case, you are trying to maintain a position that contravenes the overwhelming academic consensus.

    3) Another proof of forgery mentioned in the Wikpedia is that while describing state under debt the same example has been used as was used in the book ‘ Dialogue’.i.e. that if the state takes loan on the interest of 5% than after 20 years it would have paid the amount same as initial loan as interest in 20 years and in 60 years it would have paid triple the initial amount as interest. Well! such examples are always given and example of either 5% ro 10% etc are used to describe the plight of a state under debt. In Pakistan we have got a country under heavy debt every other article describing the situation gives similar examples.And a writer of a document always unconsciously writes the examples he had read anywhere in a slightly different way.It is very common and it is not a proof of forgery.

    ok, but the fact that the two paragraphs quoted contain precisely the same slightly re-worded sentences and subclauses, in precisely the same order, *is*. as anyone with a basic knowledge of literary analysis could tell you.

    I’ll humbly request you to mention some other research (one research ) that is available on internet and you consider it as authentic ,about this topic.

    why are you refusing to look at the references from the wiki article? what’s wrong with them? look at the umberto eco piece – is there some problem with him? what is the reason that you ask for a “request to guide me to any other site containing research about the authenticity of the protocols”? why is that necessary? you have 80 sources of reference, go ahead and use them.

    IT SEEMS THAT SERIOUS DISCUSSION IS BEING AVOIDED.

    no, it is not. i have written several thousand words now on this thread, subjecting your claims to close analysis, which clearly you either haven’t read or are for your own specious reasons choosing to treat as invisible. if this isn’t a serious discussion, it is because dialogue has to be conducted in good faith and i have by now lost any conviction i might previously had that you are doing so. all you are doing is conducting an exercise in propaganda and spin control. you may be able to fool yourselves but this is not fooling anyone else.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  128. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 21, 2010 at 12:51 PM | Permalink

    @ bananabrain (September 21, 2010 at 11:49 AM)

    “…..mirza tahir ahmad’s endorsement of their validity are somewhat illiberal, immoderate and anti-semitic…..”

    Now let me help you out with your rather presumptuous and hurriedly judgemental statement, by the following rewording:

    “…Mirza Tahir Ahmad’s passing reference to the Protocols is indeed liberal, perfectly moderate and by no means anti-Semetic…”

    Regards.

  129. bananabrain
    Posted September 21, 2010 at 1:01 PM | Permalink

    you, sir, are either deluded or a liar.

    bananabrain

  130. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 21, 2010 at 1:52 PM | Permalink

    @bananabrain

    …and you, my dear friend, are only proving yourself to be “presumptuous and hurriedly judgemental”.

  131. bananabrain
    Posted September 21, 2010 at 3:25 PM | Permalink

    actually, including quotes, i’ve written upwards of 14,000 words of comment and analysis on this thread alone. now that’s what you call “hurriedly judgemental”, all right.

    sheesh.

    bananabrain

  132. Sultan Ahmad
    Posted September 21, 2010 at 6:18 PM | Permalink

    My Dear Banannabrain
    Thanks God you are back, so that we can continue this interesting discussion.Thank you for your kind comments, I am much obliged the trouble you have taken.
    Now I understand what is going wrong with this discussion.Probably we are talking about two different documents ,which have been published with the name of Protocols.My dear! you have mentioned these protocols it is written that Jews use blood of christians in their cremonies and jews are poisoning wells.Well the protocols I have read do not mention any such thing.Had it been so I would have commented on it.I read these protocols second time very quickly.Kindly let me know the protocol no. ,so that I can recheck the relevant part.I’ll also check on an internet site.Please let me know the protocol no.
    As you have asked about the book I was mentioning.This is English translation of of Russian book of Nelus by Victor E. Marsden.And in the same volume urdu translation has also been given by Yahya Khan.On its page 12 it is that in 1935 a swiss court declared these protocols a forgery but in 1937 Swiss court of appeal quashed the verdict in its entirety .
    I get the impression from your comments that you are saying that these protocols have been copied entirely or at least most of its material has been copied from the diaologue.But actually the site mentions only 3 examples and I have mentioned those examples in my note .I’ll be grateful if you can guide me to a site which gives detailed examples that the protocols were copied entirely from Dialogue.If I find full text of Dialogue on internet ,I’ll read it also.
    Well I know that Wikipedia gives references of 60 articles, but of course we ‘ll have to start from somewhere.If you are kind enough to guide me to one or two articles that are more useful than Wikipedia stuff.I’ll be much obliged.
    Well in your comment you have not done justice to the writtings of the Jewish people.authors always use symbolic language adapted from the religious literature of other religions. I do not think that all jewish authors were of such mindset that they could not use themJewish people have left written such wonderful books.Moreover I quote from the relevant part from the Protocols.It says’ The newspapers like the Indian god Vishnu will be possesed of hundreds of hands …..’.Well this shows that author is not a believer in Vishnu,he is just giving example.God Bless You

  133. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 21, 2010 at 7:04 PM | Permalink

    @bananabrain (September 21, 2010 at 3:25 PM)

    14,000 words is not bad at all. In terms of the volume that you have contributed, most certainly you have been impressively prolific. But I maintain that with reference to drawing conclusions, you do seem to have been “presumptuous and hurriedly judgemental”.

    No hard feelings.

  134. dbrand
    Posted September 21, 2010 at 11:37 PM | Permalink

    “Love for all, hatred for none”.

    What a crock.

  135. Mubarak
    Posted September 22, 2010 at 1:27 AM | Permalink

    “supporting the protocols is not decouplable from hating jews”
    “certainly anyone who believes the protocols are real is a jew-hater, that much is clear”

    This is the fundamental premise on which we differ. If there was a group of jews that wrote the protocols that not mean all or even most jew are associated with it or have anything to do with it.

    ” i don’t think this claim that it lacks importance stacks up”

    You may think it doesn’t stack up, but I think otherwise of the exact reasons mentioned in my last paragraph on September 17, 2010 which you chose to ignore.

    “…that is the ideological company you’re keeping and if you don’t like people pointing this out, then you may like to take the logical step to change your views, which merely requires you to familiarise yourself with some basic academic positions.”

    I would like to point out to anyone reading this that may get the idea that we fund any of these jihadist group because we share the same “ideological company” I would dissapoint you that we do not. Neither are our ideologies the same.

    “… forced to confront it by your refusal to distance yourself from such positions as expressed in the 1990 sermons and the very clear and obvious implications of your support for mirza tahir ahmad.”

    If you desire to create division among us by wanting us to distance ourselves from Mirza Tahir Ahmad I would let you know that we are more impressed by him than you, if you desire “modern society” to follow your dictates and not approve of us that too is unfortunate.

    It seems to be that the main point of some authors here is that entertaining the idea the protocols may be genuine means you are a jew-hater. This is a point we would disagree with however. No real discussion can exist until the premises are clear.

  136. bananabrain
    Posted September 22, 2010 at 9:34 AM | Permalink

    @bin ismail:

    I maintain that with reference to drawing conclusions, you do seem to have been “presumptuous and hurriedly judgemental”.

    well, i maintain that you are either deluded or a liar. i think that’s the end of the conversation.

    @sultan ahmad:

    My dear! you have mentioned these protocols it is written that Jews use blood of christians in their cremonies and jews are poisoning wells.Well the protocols I have read do not mention any such thing.Had it been so I would have commented on it.I read these protocols second time very quickly.Kindly let me know the protocol no. ,so that I can recheck the relevant part.I’ll also check on an internet site.Please let me know the protocol no.

    you seem to be under the impression i keep a copy of this fraudulent garbage lying around and am intimately familiar with its content. i do not and i am not, nor am i familiar with the contents of “mein kampf”. however, from what i have seen on merely a cursory inspection it seems that the language of the mediaeval christian blood libels is used, rather than the specific accusation, ie the actions used is that of “blood-letting” and “sucking dry”, in fact the usage of the word “blood” is significant in its prominence. you clearly don’t know very much about anti-semitism if you aren’t aware of the implications of this. nonetheless, it seems i owe the tsarist secret police an apology.

    this appears to be a genuine copy of the text:

    http://ddickerson.igc.org/The_Protocols_of_the_Learned_Elders_of_Zion.pdf

    you will note it includes the frontispiece of the victor marsden edition and the picture on it with the jew-headed snake coiling round the world would give any reasonable person cause to wonder if they were looking at somethign reputable.

    As you have asked about the book I was mentioning.This is English translation of of Russian book of Nelus by Victor E. Marsden.And in the same volume urdu translation has also been given by Yahya Khan.

    so, a book clearly produced for the pakistani market, i wonder why that could be – not. and, of course, there’s no possible way translation could alter meaning, is there?

    On its page 12 it is that in 1935 a swiss court declared these protocols a forgery but in 1937 Swiss court of appeal quashed the verdict in its entirety.

    ah, this would be the famous berne trial:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Trial

    where the defendants were financed in their defence by the nazi government.

    and the judge said he was:

    convinced by his evaluation of the testimonies of the witnesses and the statements of the experts that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a forgery and “Schundliteratur” that might instigate crimes by agitation against a minority.

    as for the fine-sounding sentence “quashed the verdict in its entirety”:

    the Berner Obergericht which acquitted both defendants in 1937 on purely formal legal grounds, arguing that the term “Schundliteratur” of the Bernese Law is not applicable to “political publications” but only to “immoral (obscene) publications”. The Berner Obergericht refused the obligation of the private plaintiffs to pay the costs of defence of the acquitted defendants explaining that “the one who circulates such sort of most vulgar instigating articles has to pay himself the costs resulting from them.”

    so, in other words, it was still a forgery, but had been prosecuted under the wrong legal term – that’s about as technical as you get. the sentence “quashed the verdict in its entirety”, however, suggests that there was no merit in the case, which considering that it was still held to be a “vulgar” libel, requiring the defendants to pay their own costs, is, as per usual for this sort of discussion, highly tendentious. in other words, this is using ambiguity to suggest something that is not in fact the case – a hallmark of this very comment thread.

    I get the impression from your comments that you are saying that these protocols have been copied entirely or at least most of its material has been copied from the diaologue.

    this is an attempt to create a straw man. no, i am simply highlighting the basic techniques by which plagiarism was identified in the examples given. you seem most reluctant to draw the obvious conclusions that everyone else who is a a serious student of this controversy (i do not include myself) does.

    I’ll be grateful if you can guide me to a site which gives detailed examples that the protocols were copied entirely from Dialogue.

    and i’m sure you’ll find reasons that those examples aren’t any good and that you want some more, et cetera ad nauseam. i have pointed you to 80 different references, which you can check for yourself, you have no good reason not to check those references, so i am not going to be suckered into dignifying your denial any further.

    Well in your comment you have not done justice to the writtings of the Jewish people.authors always use symbolic language adapted from the religious literature of other religions.

    we do not. until you provide an example from a jewish religious text where we do this, this is an assertion based on no evidence whatsoever.

    Moreover I quote from the relevant part from the Protocols.It says’ The newspapers like the Indian god Vishnu will be possesed of hundreds of hands …..’.Well this shows that author is not a believer in Vishnu,he is just giving example.

    it shows nothing of the sort. however, if you think that vishnu or any other hindu god is likely to be the sort of example that a jewish author looks to to make this sort of point, you are utterly, utterly mistaken and know even less about jews than you think.

    @mubarak:

    This is the fundamental premise on which we differ. If there was a group of jews that wrote the protocols that does not mean all or even most jew are associated with it or have anything to do with it.

    there wasn’t, so no jews are associated with it. moreover, the outrageous accusation that the progamme of the protocols is being implemented in israeli policy has no substance and no evidence has been presented other than assertion, hearsay and innuendo, despite my requesting it on several occasions.

    You may think it doesn’t stack up, but I think otherwise of the exact reasons mentioned in my last paragraph on September 17, 2010 which you chose to ignore.

    considering that i addressed precisely that point, the claim that i “chose to ignore” it is laughable. what, you think that all anti-semites choose to set out precisely the terms of their anti-semitism in books? you lot aren’t even prepared to come clean (!) about it here.

    I would like to point out to anyone reading this that may get the idea that we fund any of these jihadist group because we share the same “ideological company” I would dissapoint you that we do not. Neither are our ideologies the same.

    which is precisely why i said this further up the thread: “however, i have *never* accused you guys of being violent, militant or non-law-abiding, unlike jihadis and neo-nazis.“. nonetheless, your views of judaism, jews and israel appear to be shared. if you don’t like that, change your views.

    If you desire to create division among us by wanting us to distance ourselves from Mirza Tahir Ahmad I would let you know that we are more impressed by him than you

    i’m not asking you to be impressed by me, i’m asking you to understand that you’re being conned by the “big lie” technique, just as mirza tahir ahmad evidently was.

    if you desire “modern society” to follow your dictates and not approve of us that too is unfortunate.

    not at all, you are free to believe what you like, just don’t expect any respect if you choose to hold on to lies and libels in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    It seems to be that the main point of some authors here is that entertaining the idea the protocols may be genuine means you are a jew-hater. This is a point we would disagree with however.

    well, seeing as everyone else in the world can see that it means precisely that, then you can disagree all you want, i’m sure the moon is made of green cheese as well.

    this discussion is now seriously wasting my time.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  137. dbrand
    Posted September 22, 2010 at 10:06 AM | Permalink

    Love for a selected few, hatred for some!

  138. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 22, 2010 at 12:38 PM | Permalink

    bananabrain (September 22, 2010 at 9:34 AM)

    “…..well, i maintain that you are either deluded or a liar. i think that’s the end of the conversation…..”

    My regrets, if I’ve been “not so moderate” and many thanks for your “moderate” mannerism.

    Regards.

  139. bananabrain
    Posted September 22, 2010 at 3:23 PM | Permalink

    clearly not much regret, if you’re not prepared to face the logical consequences of your stated beliefs.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  140. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 22, 2010 at 8:40 PM | Permalink

    Dear bananabrain,

    It’s comforting to note that you were able to reconsidered your own “hurriedly” uttered words, “…i think that’s the end of the conversation…” (September 22, 2010 at 9:34 AM) and return to the conversation. Welcome back.

    In your latter comment (September 22, 2010 at 3:23 PM), you’ve said, “…clearly not much regret, if you’re not prepared to face the logical consequences of your ‘stated beliefs’…”. I suspect, in the heat of the debate, you may have lost sight of my “stated beliefs” in relation to the current discussion. To refresh your memory, may I remind you that:

    1. Ahmadis differentiate clearly between the Worldwide Jewish Community and the State of Israel. While the Community is a religious entity, the State is a political one.

    2. Ahmadis are of the opinion that the manner in which the State of Israel was carved out in Palestine by the UN, was not exactly in line with the principles of justice.

    3. Yet, Ahmadis are of the view that once a certain state – whether Israel or any other – comes to exist as a sovereign state, its sovereignty must then be duly recognized and respected, and its citizens must live as law-abiding and loyal citizens of the state.

    4. Ahmadis gratefully recognize the fact that the Ahmadi citizens of Israel enjoy all the civil rights and religious freedoms that are considered rightfully due, to any law-abiding citizen.

    5. Ahmadis have always condemned the persecution of any community of humans at the hands of any state, whether it was the persecution of Jews by the Nazis, the persecution of black South Africans by white South Africans during the days of Apartheid, the persecution of Palestinians by Israel or the persecution of any non-Muslim community at the hands of a Muslim state.

    In relation to the current discussion, these five points summarize the Ahmadiyya viewpoint.

    Regards
    Bin Ismail

  141. Sarah
    Posted September 22, 2010 at 9:34 PM | Permalink

    And you are of the viewpoint that the Protocols maybe true, the Jews are a cursed race and you will defend your leaders at all costs!

  142. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 23, 2010 at 12:02 AM | Permalink

    @ Sarah

    “…..And you are of the viewpoint that the Protocols maybe true, the Jews are a cursed race and you will defend your leaders at all costs!…..”

    In reply to the three issues you’ve raised:

    1. The authenticity or otherwise, of the Protocols, has no relevance to the five relevant points I’ve stated above, in my previous post (September 22, 2010 at 8:40 PM). The issue of their authenticity is not an article of faith for Ahmadis, or even anything close to that.

    2. According to the Quran, there are certain actions that bring man under the curse of God, regardless of whether he is Muslim on non-Muslim, for example lying. No community, as a whole, is cursed. Individuals, however, regardless of their religious inclination, by pursuing certain forbidden courses of action, may earn the curse of God.

    3. Wouldn’t you like to defend righteousness and justice at all costs? Righteousness and Justice is what the Ahmadiyya leadership stands for.

    Regards.

  143. sarah
    Posted September 23, 2010 at 1:29 AM | Permalink

    Well it does seem to be an article of faith because your all trying to defend Mirza Tahir Ahmad’s remarks at all costs.

    Regarding the curse of god issue – maybe you should tell that to your fellow Ahmadi commentators as well.

  144. Mubarak
    Posted September 23, 2010 at 6:28 AM | Permalink

    “you seem to be under the impression i keep a copy of this fraudulent garbage lying around and am intimately familiar with its content. i do not and i am not”

    It’s unfortunate that you are arguing over a book you have not even read.

    “you clearly don’t know very much about anti-semitism…”
    part of the reason may be because we are not anti-semites.

    “…nonetheless, your views of judaism, jews and israel appear to be shared.”

    We are believers of Moses (peace be on him) and the prophets of the old-testament and hold them in the highest honor and respect. We also love and respect any jew, christian, muslim, and others who the path of righteousness and justice as we are seeking ourselves.

    “i’m asking you to understand that you’re being conned by the “big lie” technique, just as mirza tahir ahmad evidently was.”

    Lets allow the passage of time to tell us who was conned.

    “Well it does seem to be an article of faith because your all trying to defend Mirza Tahir Ahmad’s remarks at all costs.”

    we are defending Mirza Tahir Ahmad’s right to consider them genuine and not have him labeled all the harsh terms used in this thread. This is particularly painful for those who knew him at a personal level and had a chance to work with him.

  145. Sarah
    Posted September 23, 2010 at 10:46 AM | Permalink

    Knowing him on a personal level should not make him infallable. But I know this is the case for you guys, hence why your movement resembles a cult.

  146. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 23, 2010 at 3:52 PM | Permalink

    @ Sarah (September 23, 2010 at 10:46 AM)

    “…..But I know this is the case for you guys…..”

    In that case, I’m sorry to say, you do not know the case. May I draw your attention to the fact that, it is a fundamental principle of Islam, that God alone is “Infallible” in the absolute sense of the word. There is an attributive name of God that signifies this truth – “Subhan” (pronounced Soob-haan) – meaning The Infallible/The Holy/The Impeccable. All these meanings, when in use, with reference to God, have an absolute sense. The concept of infallibility, when in relation to a prophet or man of God, carries the sense of “innocence”, but in relation to man the infallibility is obviously in a relative sense, relative to ordinary people. In the absolute sense, however, as I said, “Infallibility” is an attribute exclusive to God.

    Now, coming to the issue of Mirza Tahir Ahmad making a passing reference to a document that has been disowned by a considerable number of Jews, I would like to remind you of the fact that in any independent academic pursuit, a researcher does not require a certificate of approval from anybody, for quoting from a specific document. Anyone in disagreement with the validity of the document, is free to not accept the inferences drawn by the researcher. This issue has less to do with the infallibility of the researcher, and more to do with, as Mubarak said, “..defending Mirza Tahir Ahmad’s right to consider them [Protocols] genuine and not have him labeled all the harsh terms used in this thread..”.

  147. Sarah
    Posted September 23, 2010 at 5:21 PM | Permalink

    I didn’t ask you about the concept of infallibility in Islam, so need to waffle on about that. Stick to the topic at hand.

  148. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 24, 2010 at 5:55 AM | Permalink

    Sarah:

    You certainly did not ask me about the concept of “infallibility” in Islam. Now, why on earth, would “exceedingly moderate” people like your worthy self take the trouble to ask about something. Such acts are exhibited only by the “not so moderate” ones. Anyway, since you built your argument around this phrase: “…should not make him infallable…”, I felt I was obliged to offer an elaboration, despite your not asking for it. May I, however, ask you to take the trouble to go through my previous [not so moderate] comment, once again. Thank you indeed.

  149. Sarah
    Posted September 24, 2010 at 8:23 AM | Permalink

    Another idiotic response.

  150. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 24, 2010 at 12:38 PM | Permalink

    Sarah:

    I realize that my comment may have been a source of inconvenience for you, but to term every such statement that does not correspond to your opinion as “idiotic”, does not reflect very positively on your “moderate” ways, does it.

  151. Sarah
    Posted September 24, 2010 at 1:51 PM | Permalink

    I haven’t termed ‘every’ statement you’ve made as idiotic, so stop exaggerating.

  152. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM | Permalink

    How gracious of you.

  153. Sarah
    Posted September 24, 2010 at 5:48 PM | Permalink

    Grow up!

  154. Sultan Ahmad
    Posted September 24, 2010 at 7:36 PM | Permalink

    @Bannanabrain
    Well!Well! My Dear .Sorry.My internet connection was out of order so I could not respond to your kind comments .I am sure you were missing me as I was missing you.
    Now everybody can read the record that Mr. Bannabrain/Albert/Sarah were eager to start discussion on the Protocols .And when I pointed out some other aspects of the article ,a lot of hue and cry was raised that topic is being changed. Now when discussion on the protocols started we got following admission from Mr. Bannabrain
    ‘you seem to be under the impression i keep a copy of this fraudulent garbage lying around and am intimately familiar with its content. i do not and i am not, nor am i familiar with the contents of “mein kampf”.’
    Whether it is Mein Kempf or the Protocols ,we have got a right to disagree with it or condemn it in strongest terms.But before doing it we should be familiar with it,if want to do a serious and fair discussion.Otherwise we cannot do a serious discussion, on the lines I was trying to do.That was the reason that I read it second time during this discussion.
    You have referred to the title page ,as a proof that it was a forgery.But you very well know that this title page was not the part of original document. Such symbolic title pages are always added by many publishers later on ,even many times contents are changed by many publishers who are keen to make a thrill.This does not prove that original document was a forgery.And just imagine you wrote in your comments that this is a genuine copy of the protocols.And on the front page of the document on the site you referred me to it is written that this is a forgery and hoax.And this starts with the words that the protocols are the modern most successful work of anti-Semitism.My Dear! Of course this is not a genuine and impartial way to do research.Simply to say that some one has said that trial was funded by a Nazi agent is not enough in a serious discussion.And remember court of appeal was supposed to give its verdict on the sentence that was passed previously.
    You have repeatedly claimed that no Jew can even mention name of Gods of other religions in his writings , even in a symbolic sense as is commonly done by the writers all around the world.The obvious reason for this assertion is that as Jews are monotheistic they cannot do any such thing .But I am surprised at your claim because your claim is rejected by even by your own History .It has happened many times that Jews , started worshipping other Gods , leave alone writing their name.Take the example of Solomon whom God gave a wise and understanding heart and God told him that there has been none like before him or after him.(1 Kings Chapter 3.12). But all the same even Solomon fell into trap his heart turned away from God and he started worshipping other Gods like Ashtoreth.(1 king chapter 11.4).So a great jew king who had the honour to converse with God started worshipping other Gods , why can’t a Jew writer mention the name of a Hindu God. Your overconfidence is quite misplaced.
    By the way Islamic belief about Solomon is quite different from the one described in Old Testament.Quran declare him to be a prophet of God and rejects the allegations made in Bible

  155. Hania Aimen
    Posted September 24, 2010 at 7:59 PM | Permalink

    @Bannabrain/Sarah
    Please let me know that your opinion Israel was craeted because
    1) God gave this land to Jews
    2)UN General assembly allowed Jews to declare state of Israel in Palestine.
    If you can pinpoint the justification in your opinion than we’ll be discuss any comments about Israel , that are being discussed so passionately.

  156. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 25, 2010 at 12:49 AM | Permalink

    @ Sarah (September 24, 2010 at 5:48 PM)

    “…..Grow up!…..”

    Thank you for that elderly advice, and I hope the word “elderly” does not remind you of the Protocols of the “elders” of Zion.

    Now me leave you to respond to Sultan Ahmad and Hania Aimen.

  157. Sarah
    Posted September 25, 2010 at 11:22 AM | Permalink

    You call that discussing? petty little tit for tat squabbles, you lot are pathetic. Ahmadis are the worst Muslims I’ve ever discussed with. No wonder your co-religionists want nothing to do with you.

    Like others I’m not going to waste anymore of my time with you lot.

    Shalom.

  158. Abu Faris
    Posted September 25, 2010 at 1:20 PM | Permalink

    ‘Ello, ‘ello, ‘ello

    Wots-goin’-on-’ere-then?

    Evenin’ all

  159. Rachel
    Posted September 25, 2010 at 6:03 PM | Permalink

    Hi Abu Faris, Where you been? And where’s Faisal?

  160. Bin Ismail
    Posted September 25, 2010 at 9:35 PM | Permalink

    @ Sarah (September 25, 2010 at 11:22 AM)

    In that case, farewell. But, before you leave, I admit that your “moderate” mannerism will be missed by us, the “not so moderates”. Cheers.

    Kind Regards
    Bin Ismail

  161. Sarah
    Posted September 25, 2010 at 11:20 PM | Permalink

    Bin Ismail – What a prat you are, I never claimed to be ‘a moderate’ as you kindly put it. However, you have put me off Ahmadiyyah for good. Well done.

    Shalom.

  162. John
    Posted September 25, 2010 at 11:20 PM | Permalink

    Ahmadis are the worst Muslims I’ve ever discussed with. No wonder your co-religionists want nothing to do with you.

    @Sarah: No actually their co-religionists kill them and the Jews. Funny did not notice. Still glad you like murdering Muslims over peaceful Ahmadiyya. That settles it. Not very rational, but if it works for you.

  163. Sarah
    Posted September 25, 2010 at 11:37 PM | Permalink

    John: So your saying ‘all’ Muslims kill Jews apart from Ahmadis? what a load of rubbish. You Ahmadis are such big liars and hypocrites. No wonder they all hate your group.

    Peaceful Ahmadiyyah? more like nasty anti-Semitic hate mongers who, like extremists, promote Jew hatred!

  164. Mark
    Posted September 25, 2010 at 11:50 PM | Permalink

    I used to think Ahmadiyyah was a good organisation, but the comments posted by Ahmadis here have made me change my mind. They are nothing but dishonest jerks who lie & twist facts just to suit their arguments.

  • Categories

  • Archives