UsIslam

button

The Problem Of Qadiyanism



by Sayid Abu'l Ala Mawdudi



Source: http://alhafeez.org/rashid/maududi2.html





Ex-Qadiani Ahmadiyya Member Exposes The Cult



Muslims scholars representing various Muslim organizations and parties from all parts of East and West Pakistan held a conference in Karachi to discuss government suggestions and recommendations for the new constitution presented to parliament. The meeting ended with many suggestions and reforms one of which was "... we demand that the government should consider all those who believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a religious leader a minority equal to many non-Muslim minorities in the country and give them one seat in Punjab's parliament".

Other suggestions were so reasonable and clear that enemies were unable to attack them, and when some invective writers did, their influence was null among the educated.

A great number of educated Pakistanis were not convinced that the suggestion which demanded the separation of Qadiyanis was reasonable and necessary. But here I am going to explain quite clearly why all Muslim scholars agreed to stand by this suggestion.

Being an independent non-Muslim minority is a natural and reasonable result of all that Qadiyanis chose for themselves. They caused and urged everything that result in making them a non-Muslim community. The first of which is their fabrication of the meaning of "the Last of Allah's apostles" by which they differed from all Muslims who believe in Mohammad (peace be upon him) as the Last Apostle and that there will be no apostles after him until the day of judgment takes place. This is the meaning which the Apostle's companions understood and derived from the following verse "Mohammad in not the father of any of your men, but the Apostle of Allah and the Last Apostle" (Sura Al-Ahzab verse 40). The Apostle's companions fought all those who pretended being apostles after the death of Mohammad (peace be upon him). And this was the meaning which Muslims understood from all the sources, and thus they did not and do not accept any one who pretends to be an apostle.

Qadiyanis only, and for the first time in the history of Muslims, interpreted the Quranic phrase "The Last of the Apostles" (*Malfuzal Ahmadiya by M.Manzur Ilahi pp.290*) to mean that Mohammad is the Apostle's stamp which certifies and signs other Apostle's Messages. What we have said can be proved by the texts quoted here from Qadiyanis books and essays. Here are three quotations.

"The promised Christ (peace be upon him) said in his interpretation of `Khatamu Nabiyeen': what is meant is that no Prophet's message can be authorized and certified except by Mohammad's stamp. As every document is not accepted unless affirmed or confirmed by stamp and signature, so every message that is not confirmed by Mohammad's stamp is not true. (Malfuzal Ahmadiya edited by M.Manzur Ilahi pp.290)

"We do not deny that Mohammad (peace be upon him) was the seal of prophets, but what the majority of people understand contradicts the greatness of the prophet (peace be upon him) since it leads to the conviction that the prophet had bereft his nation from Allah's greatest favour - prophets. What is meant by this phrase is that the prophet is the seal which confirms messages after his, so there will be no prophet if not affirmed by the holy prophet Mohammad. In this meaning only we do believe". (Al-Fadl, 22 Sept 1939)

"The seal is the stamp, and if the holy prophet is the stamp, how can he be a stamp and no prophets to be confirmed". (Al-Fadl, 22 Sept 1923)


The differences between all Muslim and Qadiyanis are not limited to the explanation or the fabrication of one word "Khatem", but differences went to extremes since Qadiyanism claimed openly and frankly that not only one prophet is likely to appear after Mohammad (peace be upon him) but thousands of prophets. This is to be found in Qadiyani texts, some of which are the following "The rise of many new prophets is as clear a fact as the sun in midday". (The Reality Of Qadiyanism by Mirza Bashir Mahmud pp.228)

"Muslims falsely claim that the sources of Allah ran out and no more prophets will appear. They do not justly estimate God. As for me, I say that not only one prophet may appear but thousands". (Anwar Khilafat by Mirza Bashir Mahmud pp. 62) "If a man sharpened swords close by my neck threateningly asking me to say that no prophet will appear after Mohammad(peace be upon him) I would say to him, you are a liar, it is right, there must be prophets after him". (Ibid. pp.65)

After Ghulam Ahmad had opened the way of messages and prophets, he pretended he was a prophet. Qadiyanis believed his pretense and accepted it completely. We quote here some of their declarations and sayings to witness to their deviations and fabrications as well as can be.

"The promised Christ declared his claim to a Message and to be a prophet, as he wrote `I am a prophet and an apostle' (Al-Badr 5 Mar 1908), or as he also wrote `I am a prophet according to Allah's orders. If I deny this I am sinful. And If Allah calls me thus how can I deny it. I will stand by this claim until my death' (Letter to Akhbar Am by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad written three days before his death and published on his date of death i.e., 26 May 1908).

"The characteristics Islam gives of the promised Christ means that is truly a prophet". (The Reality Of The Message by Mirza Bashir pp.174)


An essential element in all the persons who pretend to be prophets, is to charge those who do not believe in him with disbelief and refection of faith. This is exactly what Qadiyanis do in their congregational speeches and publications against Muslims who deny their pretense. I quote the following from their speeches:

"All Muslims who do not swear fealty to Ghulam Ahmad are disbelievers, even if they have not heard his name". (Ayina Sadakat by Mirza Bashir Eddin pp. 35)

"Every man who believes in Moses but not in Jesus Christ, in Mohammad but not in Ghulam Ahmad is not only a disbeliever, but in the deepest levels of rejection of faith". (Word Of Demarcation by Bashir Ahmad pp 110).

"Since we believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet, and all non-Ahmadis diebelieve in him, we consider non-Ahmadis disbelievers according to the Quranic verse which says that in one prophet is a rejection of the whole prophets".(Mirza Bashir Ahmad's article in Al-Fadl, 26 May 1922).


Qadiyanis not only say they are anti_muslim in Ghulam Ahmad's message but say that there are nothing to connect them with Muslims since their God, Islam, Quran prayer and fasting are unlike the Muslims.

Qadiyani caliph's speech published in Al-Fadl on 21 Aug 1927, under the title of `Advice for Students' explains to his followers the differences between Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis. He says "... Since the promised Christ said that their Islam, their God, and their pilgrimage are unlike ours, we always differ from them in every thing".

In July 30, 1931 Al-Fadl published another speech by the Qadiyani caliph in which he mentioned a dispute that ensued between two groups of Qadiyanis. One reasoned that since differences between Qadiyanis and Muslims are known, and the promised Christ has clarified them there is no need to establish independent Qadiyani schools: we can learn all undisputed matters in Muslim schools. The other group disagreed. While they were still arguing, the promised Christ himself entered and listened to their dispute. Then he gave his judgment saying: "It is wrong to say that we differ from Muslims only in the matter of Christ's death. We disagree with them in the wholeness of God, in the prophet, (peace be upon him), in the Quran, in prayer, in pilgrimage and in Al-Zakat. In short, he explained to them that we disagree quite completely with Muslims concerning all religious matters".

Qadiyanis themselves broke relations with Muslims in accordance with the great gap they had dug between them and Muslims. They organized themselves independently as if they were a non-Muslim minority as affirmed by their own writings.

"The promised Christ made it clear that Ahmadis should not be led in prayer by a Muslim. Many letters come questioning this matter. My answer to them all is that no matter how many times you repeat the question I will answer that it is not right, not right, not right to be led in prayer by a non-Ahmadiyan". (Anwar Khilafat by Mirza Bashir Mahmud pp. 89)

"We must neither believe in non-Ahmadiyan Islam, nor be led by them in prayer because in our opinion they are disbelievers in one of Allah's prophets". (Ibid. pp. 90)

"If a non-Ahmadi's son died why we do not pray for him though he does not disbelieve in Ghulam Ahmad as the promised Christ! I myself ask those who have questioned me why we do not pray for the son of a Hindu or a Christian when they die....The non-Ahmadi's son is one of the non-Ahmadis and for this reason prayer for them is not right". (Ibid. pp.93)

"The promised Christ was loathsome of an Ahmadiyan who wanted to let his daughter a non-Ahmadiyan. The man asked him many times but the promised Christ ordered him not to do so. Then the man allowed his daughter marriage after the death of the promised Christ so the caliph drove him away from his religious position and did not accept his penitence though the man repeated it many times until six years elapsed". (Ibid. pp. 93-94)

"The promised Christ did not allow any transaction with Muslims except those permitted to be so with Christians and Jews. He distinguished us from Muslims in prayer, prohibited intermarriage with them, and prayer for their dead, so what is left to connect us with them? Interactions between people depend on two things and have two forms; a religious and a worldly transactions. The greatest means of religious transactions is to pray together and to intermarry. These two kinds are prohibited in our religion, and if you say that we are allowed to marry Muslim girls, I say that this applies to Christians, too. And if you question me why it is right to greet non-Ahmadis, my answer will be that according to a true prophet's Hadith he returned the greetings of Jews". (Word Of Demarcation published in Rioy av Religinter, pp. 69)


Not only did Qadiyanis broke relations and transactions with Muslims in their speeches and writings, but they did so in practice as hundreds of thousands of Muslims had reported. They made an independent nation of themselves refusing to pray or intermarry with Muslims.

The problem being so, it is unreasonable that Qadiyanis remain a part of the Muslim community. It is not necessary that their independence should be legally enacted since this had been a fact during the last fifty years.

By their attitude, Qadiyanis have proved what was difficult to prove before this time concerning the wisdom and practical benefits of the cessation of Allah's messages. In the past one used to wonder why Allah's revelation and inspiration and Apostles cease to come.

Nowadays, experience has proved the great wisdom and beautiful benefits of this good favor from Allah. The belief that Mohammad was the last prophet united all monotheists in following only one prophet, and thus endowed them with what strengthened and ensured their unity and interactions. The renewal of a doctrine by many prophets separate the nation into many communities. If we expel Qadiyanis none will dare to rise among us and pretend a new message to destroy our unity and solidarity. But if we overlook Qadiyanism we will help and encourage many pretenders to rise and feign, and thus we participate in harming Muslim solidarity. And if we neglect this danger, our example will be followed by our sons, and thus the destruction will not stop and our society will face a new kind of danger everyday; dangers which split the Muslim nation.

This is our true argument on which we base our demands of making Qadiyanis a minority which has the rights of any non-Muslims minority. In fact, the argument that reaches home is with us and no other reasonable argument can be brought against our demand. Those who oppose our demand want to divert people from it with pretexts and objections that have nothing g to do with the matter under question. They say, for instance, that various Muslim groups are still charging each other with disbelief. And if we go on separating group after another the nation will vanish. Moreover, they say there are independent Muslim sects, as Qadiyanism, though they do not differ with Muslims in doctrines. Thus they ask us whether we still intend to break relations with them or whether we chose to treat Qadiyanis a such out of hatred and wrath.

Many others were deceived by Qadiyanis' call to Islam. "Qadiyanis are defending Islam against Christian and Aryan attacks, and spreading it all over the world so, it is right to treat them as you do" they used to say. But we are going to discuss each of these points to answer any possible question.

1. It is lamentable true that Muslims' various groups are still charging each other with disbelief but it is wrong to make this a pretext for Qadiyanism as a true Muslim sect; that is because:

        a) It is unreasonable to give examples of bad charges and judge that any charge is unacceptable, and that charging anyone with disbelief is not right. In fact, it is as wrong to charge people with disbelief for trivial differences as to accept clear and certified deviations from the fundamental principles of Islam. Those who conclude from false charges against some scholars that all kinds of charges are not right are requested to answer whether a Muslim remains a believer if he pretends to be God or a prophet, or if he deviates from Islam's fundamental doctrines.

        b) Muslim groups and sects whose charges against each other are being utilized held a conference in Karachi and agreed on the fundamental principles of the Muslim state. They agreed on the same principles because each considers the other a Muslim group or sect. None of them charged the other of being out of pale though there were minor differences among them. Thus to think that separating Qadiyanism from the Muslim nation will be a cause for separating many others is an illusion.

        c) The Muslim nation's charge of Qadiyanis with disbelief is unlike any charge against others. Qadiyanis falsely pretended the existence of a new prophet who considers those who believe in him a separate nation and those who do not as disbelievers. Thus all Qadiyanis agree on charging Muslims with rejection of faith, and Muslims have judged Qadiyanis as disbelievers, too.

Thus it becomes quite clear that this is a fundamental difference that cannot be considered as trivial as minor differences - among various Muslim sects.

2. No doubt there are some sects other than Qadiyani who have withstood Muslims and broken their relationship with them, and organized their sects independently, but the wrong these have done is quite different from that done by Qadiyanis in many respects.

        a) These sects have completely separated themselves from the Muslim nation to the extent that they have become like slag lying by the road which is neither harmful nor harmed. Their existence is bearable. Qadiyanis mix with Muslims, pretending to believe in their doctrines, discuss them with others, and to argue in the name of Islam seeding, in fact, to split members off the Muslim community and win them to their side. A great tumult, disgraceful disunity, and oppressive occupations befell Muslims from Qadiyanis agency to foreign countries. For this and many other reasons we cannot abide with them.

        b) The sects that have differences with the Muslim community are judged by Islamic jurisprudence. It decides whether their private beliefs drive them out of pale. And even if we suppose that they are not followers of Islam, their beliefs will not endanger Muslims and will not cause any social, economic, and political problems. But Qadiyanis' fabrication do endanger the faith of hundreds of thousands of Muslims and cause a social problem in every Muslim family that is influenced by them to the extent that husband forsakes his wife, and father abandons his son, and an enmity rises between two brothers. Moreover, other non-Qadiyani sects do not have any political trends that can be considered a danger to our national life. Qadiyanis do have some dangerous political tendencies that cannot be overlooked.

Qadiyanis were quite certain that in an independent free Muslim society, a pretended message could not grow up or achieve its aims. They know that the Muslim nation abhors such pretenses as these which disperse Muslims, destroy Islamic laws, and split Muslim society.

Being aware of the attitude of the prophet's companions towards pretenders of holy messages, and of the fact that whenever Muslims take power in any country they will never admit new and false pretenses, Qadiyanis chose to connect themselves with disbeliever government because under no other shelter they can destroy Islam by feigning it.

They have made the Muslim nation their prey since they call to their doctrines in the name of Islam. They know so well that it is in their interest to support foreign occupation because it suffocates Muslims and helps them to achieve gains an to destroy Islam. An independent and free Muslim nation is a hateful unfruitful land which they abhor greatly.

We can quote many texts taken from Mirza Ghulam {Ahmad's assertions and from his followers' declarations, but it suffices us to quote some and without commentary.

"The English Government has bountifully rewarded, helped, and favored us to the extent that if we leave this country neither Mecca, nor Istanbul would shelter us. So how came you to doubt its goodness". (Ahmadiyan Talks, vol 1 pp.146)

"I am unable to perform what I wish in Mecca, Medina, Domascus, Persia, Kabul or Rome except under this government's protection for whose glory and victory I do pray God". (Conveying the Message by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, vol VI pp. 69)

"Oh, just think a little which land all over the world will shelter you if you leave this country. Mention one government that will welcome and shelter you. All Muslim countries detest you and wish to kill you because, in their opinion, you are disbelievers. So estimate well the heavenly favor (the favor of British occupation) and be aware that Allah had not brought the British into this country except for your welfare and interests. If catastrophes befall the British you will not escape their dire effect. And if you demand a proof of what I say, go and find shelter under any other regime and when you do this you will see what happens to you. The British are Allah's mercy and blessing, and a citadel for your protection. Estimate the British well and love them dearly because they are a thousand times better than Muslims who oppose you. It is sufficient to convince you with only one thing: the British do not wish to humiliate or slaughter you". (Ghulam Ahmad's valuable advice in conveying the message vol 1, pp. 123)

"It is well known to all those who study the history of nations how the persian government maltreated Merza Ali Mohammad Bab, the founder of Babism and his followers. It destroyed Babism for nothing else than religious disputes. It is as well known how the Turkish government ill-treated Bhah'Allah, the founder of Baha'ism and his followers between 1863-1893. It imprisoned them in Istanbul first then in Edranovel and Acca. We also not know any other three countries which demonstrated religious fanaticism and narrowness and which do not cope with the age of civilization and culture. Our knowledge of these three countries leads us to the conviction that the freedom of Ahmadis is closely related to the British throne.

All true Ahmadis who believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a holy prophet sent by Allah to people do believe, without any little bit of flattery, that the British Government is Allah's favor and the shade of His mercy. They also believe that the life of the British Government is theirs". (Al Fadl 13 Sept 1914)

These above mentioned assertions quite clearly certify to the fact that this gang of pretenders are aware of the benefits of disbelievers' occupation of Muslim counties because under the protection of occupation they can achieve their aims. If Muslim got power into their hands, these pretenders will be crashed because free Muslims will not abide with those who destroy their religion and split their society.

More dangerous still is Qadiyanis tendencies to establish an independent state in Pakistan. One year after the rise of Pakistan the Qadiyani caliph made a speech in Ku'ta in Jul 23, 1948, published in Al Fadl in Aug 13, 1948. He said "British Plukhistan is allotted to you. (Now part of Pakistani Plukhistan). Its population is five or six hundred thousand inhabitants. Though less populated than other districts, it has a great importance. As individuals are valuable in our world, this district is as valuable as any part of Pakistan. An example from the American constitution will clarify its importance. Each state has an equal number of representatives no matter how big or populated it is. Now if we add British Plukhistan to Blukhistan district, the inhabitants will number a million. I think you realize the difficulty of converting the people of a big district. But don't you see that we can convert the people of a small district? If we take care we will spread Ahmadiyan banners over it all. Our doctrine will not succeed unless its roots are deep in the ground. Thus work and spread your doctrines and make them solidly rooted. Establish it in a place first and then if we succeed in converting people we will be proud of our district. As for converting people it is not an easy matter".

After all this talk I wish to ask those who want us to abide with Qadiyanis and their deeds and who cling to the pretext that there are many sects in Islam whether there are such dangerous tendencies and policies as those of Qadiyanis. Does any sect find Islam harmful, and anti Islamic system beneficial? Is any sect going to abhor Muslims and prepare to establish an independent state in the heart of an Islamic regime? It appears that there is no sect that behaves as Qadiyanism and thus we ask why they want us to treat Qadiyanism as other sects?

This minor sect faces with another problem; it demands independence from us. Is it not right that we should expel it out of pale?

It has been said that necessity drives man to demand anything. The truthfulness of his demand depends on the acuteness of his necessity. Qadiyanis' existence among the Muslim majority harms Muslims greatly, for this the majority demands the legal separation of this harmful minority from its community. Qadiyanis are, in practice, independent from the Muslim majority and utilize their independence to organize their sect and destroy Islam's principles according to a pre-plotted methods. They also hide behind Islam and throw the seeds of split and differences among Muslims. By their cunning method of pretending Islam they gain more administrative positions and employments. This harms the community and thus what pretext remains for any to let the minority persecute the majority or to refuse our demand of legal separation of Qadiyanis from the Muslim nation.

The majority did not create cause for separation but the minority did when they established independent societies and broke social and religious relations with Muslims. This refusal to be legally separated from Muslims makes Qadiyanis utterly responsible for their refusal.

Allah had endowed you, readers, with mind and insight so look how they refuse to accept the results of their deeds. If they want to deceive, harm, and mar the unity of Muslims how do you let the majority, while you are its representatives, fall a prey to the cunning of this deceitful minority.

Let us deal with the last problem which claims that since Qadiyanis defend Islam and spread it, it is not right to treat them as we do.

In fact, this is a groundless argument which tempted some newly educated people. We ask them to study and contemplate what we are going to quote from the writings from Ghulam Ahmad himself which will strip the aims of this pretender's defense of Islam.

He says "I have been publishing books in English, Arabic, Persian and Urdu, out of my own enthusiasm to convince Muslims that their duty is to be faithful to the British Government that they should leave the notion of the holy strive and shun waiting for the Mehdi who sheds blood and all other trivial illusions which cannot be verified by the Quran. If they still adhere to these mistakes they must not, at least, deny the favors of this generous government or they will be sinners of disloyalty by Allah's laws". (Tiryaq Al Quloub 28 Oct 1902 pp.307)

In this same petition to the British Government he writes "It is time I proudly say to my charitable government that this is my twenty year service to you. No Muslim family in British India can do as mine did. It is quite clear that twenty-year-long continuos effort to convince people with the above mentioned teachings cannot possible be the work of a hypocrite. It is the work of a man who feels faithfulness and sincerity towards this government. I confess that I discuss religious matters with other priests but with honest intentions. I have published many arguments about Christianity, but I also confess that when some missionaries wrote invective against Islam like the impolite wording of the mischievous argument in Nur Afshan in which the missionary charged our prophet with robbery, lust, adultry with his daughter, lies, and bloodshed, I feared lest these writings irritate Muslims who are quickly angered so I found it a good policy to write against these books in order to extinguish the fire of Muslims' wrath and lessen the consequent general abhorrence and to deaden the anger of people who may react and cause disturbances that threaten the national security. It is clear that I only wrote against these invective books because I found that writing was the only way to extinguish the flame of wrath among Muslim enthusiasts". (pp. 308-309) Then he goes on to say "All I wrote against missionaries was motivated by a wish to control Muslims with wisdom and entertain them and deaden their monstrous rebellious minds. I declare I am the most faithful and the most helpful Muslim to the British Government. There are three causes which brought me up to this first rate loyalty to the British; the first is my father's influence, the second is the great favors of this government, Allah's revelation". (pp. 309-310)

Mirza also wrote the same in the annex of his book Shahadatu'l Quran entitled a request worthy of the government's favor "My religion which I declare once and again is that Islam is divided into two parts. The first is to obey God, the second is to obey the government which ensures the nation's security, shelters us, and protects us from oppressors. This government that we should all obey is the British government".

We also find in his Conveying The Message vol. VII; a petition to his majesty the district ruler in which he assured the ruler of his family's sincerity to the British Government. He reported the letters Mirza Ghulam Murat Khan had received from Lahore's ruler and Punjabi financial advisor as well as other British rulers who witnessed to his great services which denote his sincerity, faithfulness, loyalty, and love to the British, and enumerated the most important members of his family who served the British. Then he said "The most important work to which I was and still devoted to is to divert the hearts of Muslims from Islam towards sincerity, love, loyalty and truthful gratitude to the British government, and to get rid of wrong illusions such as the holy war and other silly beliefs which impair sincere relations with the British (pp. 10).

I did not only concentrate on filling the hearts of Indian Muslims with sincere obedience to the British, but also wrote many books in Arabic, Persian and Urdu in which I clarified to the inhabitants of Muslim countries how we spend the days of our life in security, happiness, prosperity, and freedom under the British Government's sheltering care". (pp. 10) Then he gave a long list of his books which certify to his sincere love and great loyalty to the British.

Then he wrote "The government should verify whether those thousands of Muslims who call me a disbeliever, swear at me and at my followers, and harm us because I wrote thousands of declarations which were full of my grateful thanks to the government dictated by myself and out of my conscience, heart, and utter conviction and published them in all the Arab countries. Are not these matters clear? I assert that my sect has a first-rate loyalty to the British government and that it is the most sincere, faithful and loyal Muslim sect because it declares its readiness to sacrifice everything for the British. The principles of the British do not, in any sense, endanger ours". Then he wrote "I am certain that so long as my followers increase, those who believe in the holy war against occupation decrease. Belief in me is a denial of the existence of a holy war". (pp. 17)

Disregarding whether this language and these expressions are worthy of a prophet, we wish to attract the reader's attention to the fact that these are the aims of the founder of this religion and these are the purposes for which he exerted himself, defended Islam, and spread its teachings. Is this service to 'Islam' still worthy of thanks and respect after all that we have seen of its stimuli and aims? And if it is still difficult for some people to know the reality of this service to Islam, we ask them to contemplate what we are going to quote from Qadiyanis' confessions.

"We came across a book by an Italian engineer who held an important position in Afghanistan. The book was once published and by mere chance only that we got this rare copy. In it the author says that Sahib Zadeh Abdullatif, a Qadiyani, was killed in Afghanistan because he was urging people to shun 'the holy war'. The government feared lest his call weakens the passion for freedom in the hearts of Afghanis and thus enslave them to the British. We deduce from this fact that Afghanistani regime did not kill that Qadiyani except because he called people to shun 'the holy war'. (Mirza Bashir's speech on a Friday Al-Fadl 6 Aug 1935).

Afghanistan's Minister of Foreign Affairs issued the following declaration. "After Mulla Abdulhalim Jihar Asiyanis and Mulla Nur Ali Hanuti had become Qadiyanis, they began to teach their fabricated doctrines in the name of reform.....After some time they were arrested for another matter and tried. Letters from some foreigners were confiscated which prove their agency and conspiracy against the interests of Afghanistan. The letters reveal quite clearly how far they went in selling themselves up to the enemies of Afghanistan". (Al-Fadl, 3 Mar 1925)

"Though I went to Russia to call people to Qadiyanism, I always did and served the British Government at the same time because our interests and British Government's are in complete harmony with each other". (Mohammad Amin, a Qadiyani preacher in his essay published in Al-Fadl 28 Sep 1922)

"The world considers us British agents. When a German minister participated in the opening of Ahmadiyan center in Germany, his government blamed him and asked him 'why did you participate in a special occasion related to people who are British agents'". (A speech by Qadiyani's caliph Nov 1934)

"We hope that with the increase of British empire, the chances for more converts from Muslims and non-Muslims will increase". (Opinions concerning Lord Harding's tour in Iraq published in Al-Fadl, 11 Feb 1910)

"The British Government is like paradise to us. Ahmadis are going on well under the shelter of this paradise. If you leave it you will see what frightening shower of poisonous arrows will come down upon you heads. So why don't you thank this government's favors when you all know what its interests are united with ours, its desolation means ours, and its prosperity affects ours. Wherever this government wins a new country to its domain we win a new field for our doctrines". (Al-Fadl 19 Oct 1915)

"The relations between Qadiyanis and the British Government are unlike any other; that is because our interested demand this. What benefits the British Government enriches us, and as the British empire increases our chances for progress increase, if it is harmed - God forbid - we will not be able to live safely. (Qadiyanis caliph's declaration Al-Fadl 27 Jul 1918)

Thus we have clarified the reality of Qadiyanism, uncovering its doctrines, trends, and deeds. And now we are going to explain the rise of this sect.

1. Half a century elapsed and Muslims were still living the worst kind of life under British occupation. Then suddenly a man pretended he was a prophet. He claimed that it was insufficient for Muslims to believe in Muhammad (PBUH), but they should, if they wanted true faith and the right Islam, believe in him, too. Disbelievers in him are out of the Islamic pale. Thus, a pretender rises among the unified Muslim nation to say he is a prophet.

2. According to his false pretense, this man established a new community and an independent society which opposed Muslims as Hindus and Christians do, and disagreed with Muslim beliefs, habits, hopes, and sufferings.

3. The founder of this new community felt, since the beginning of his pretense, that Muslims society cannot bear to be destroyed, so he and his gang chose to be loyal, sincere, and loving servants of the British occupation. This was not only a practical policy, but also in awareness of the fact that his interest are consistent with the victory of the British not only in India but also in the other Muslim countries in order to spread his poison and fabrications.

4. This sect, according to a conspiracy with the British disappointed all Muslims' efforts during the past fifty years to separate it from the Muslim community. The government continued to insist on the sect being considered part and parcel of Muslims despite all differences. Muslims were harmed greatly by these measures while Qadiyanism won great benefits.

The government, despite all scholars' efforts, continued to convince Muslims that Qadiyanis are one of the sects of Islam to enable Qadiyanis to spread their doctrines among Muslims. A Muslim will not abstain from following Qadiyanism if it is legally considered a Muslim sect, and this benefits Qadiyanis greatly because they are increasing their numbers and power. Muslims are harmed because a new community which opposed them was growing up like cancer in their body.

The plight of Qadiyanism appeared in Punjab; harmed and destroyed it so it was natural that the most wrathful Muslims against Qadiyanis are the Punjabis.

This sect won all the favors of the British Government and the most army, police, justice, and administrative posts in the country. It is strange that this sect won all these posts from those assigned to Muslims because the government considers it one of the Muslim sects and continues to convince Muslims that these posts are assigned to them only. Muslims are treated as such in economy, trade, industry, and agriculture.