By Dr Shahid Qureshi
Why Qadianis declared traitors to Islam and Indian Sub-continent by Allama Muhammad Iqbal apart from all his liberal views? Muslim empires flourished due to their non-discriminatory and non-religious policies based on talent and merit that is why Christians, Jews, Muslims and rest reached at the highest levels in Baghdad, Spain and Delhi. In India after the arrival of East India Company which was dealing in drugs and exporting to China, first sectarian riot happened. Statement of Lord Macaulay in the British parliament on 2nd February 1835 explains all.
Lord Macaulay said: “I traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is beggar , who is a thief, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I don’t think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage and therefore I purpose we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture for if Indians think that all the foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation”. Lord Macaulay address to British Parliament 2nd February 1835.
Allama Iqbal’s letter to Nehru
Sir Muhammad Iqbal, also known as Allama Iqbal in Pakistan, understood the Qadianis and their game plans. He wrote various letters to Congress leader Jawahar Lal Nehru stating that: “Qadianis Are Traitors Both to Islam and to India”.
(A Bunch of Old Letters -Written mostly to Jawaharlal Nehru and some written by him. First British Edition, 1960, Asia Publishing House, pp. 187-188)
Lahore, June 21, 1936
My dear Pandit Jawaharlal,
Thank you so much for your letter which I received yesterday. At the time I wrote in reply to your articles I believed that you had no idea of the political attitude of the Ahmadis.1 Indeed the main reason why I wrote a reply was to show, especially to you, how Muslim loyalty had originated and how eventually it had found a revelational basis in Ahmadism.
After the publication of my paper I discovered, to my great surprise, that even the educated Muslims had no idea of the historical causes which had shaped the teachings of Ahmadism.
Moreover your Muslim admirers in the Punjab and elsewhere felt perturbed over your articles as they thought you were in sympathy with Ahmadiyya movement. This was mainly due to the fact that the Ahmadis were jubilant over your articles. The Ahmadis Press was mainly responsible for this misunderstanding about you. However I am glad to know that my impression was erroneous.
I myself have little interest in theology, but had to dabble in it a bit in order to meet the Ahmadis on their own ground. I assure you that my Paper was written with the best of intentions for Islam and India. I have no doubt in my mind that the Ahmadis are traitors both to Islam and to India.
I was extremely sorry to miss the opportunity of meeting you in Lahore. I was very ill in those days and could not leave my rooms. For the last two years I have been living a life of practically of retirement on account of continued illness. Do let me know when you come to the Punjab next.
Did you receive my letter regarding your proposed Union for Civil Liberties? As you do not acknowledge it in your letter I fear it never reached you.
Qadianis: a strategic weapon for the British Rule
“Qadianis were created as a strategic weapon during the British Rule in India as part of the ‘Psychological Warfare’. It happened when invading or occupying powers need local collaborators to do their dirty jobs for example similar kind of group was created in Vietnam by the US but not on religious lines, a minority group was also patronized by the Israelis in South Lebanon, which was later abandoned. US also patronized a group in Iraqi Kurdistan. Now Qadianis are like ‘decommissioned ship’ permanently harboured in London waiting desperately to be re-used”, said a senior analyst.
Here is what British Intelligence (Punjab Office Version) reported in 1919: “The Growth and Development of The Ahmadya Movement (1919)”:
“They (Qadianis) took NO part in the Muhammadan agitation over the Turkish question beyond expressing the opinion that consideration should be paid to the feelings of the Muhammadan world, and admitted frankly that they owned no spiritual allegiance to the Sultan (of Turkey), but recognized as their temporal sovereign the Power (British) under whose rule they lived. They were opposed to the ‘hijrat’ movement, maintaining that Islamic conditions governing the necessity for ‘hijrat’ had not been fulfilled.
The Khilfat and non-cooperation movements found them to be firmly on the side of (British) Government (in India). The Qadiani section published pamphlets on the “Turkish Peace and “Non-cooperation and Islam”, in which non-cooperation, ‘hijrat (migration)’ and ‘Jihad’ were un-qualifyingly condemned. Throughout the Punjab disturbances of 1919, they (Qadianis) remained loyal to the (British Government).”
No one can deny the special links of the community with the British Government as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani (1838-1908), the shadowy prophet declared himself that Islam consisted of two parts: one, obedience to God and two, obedience to the British government. He admitted he could ‘pursue his mission neither in Makkah, nor Madinah; neither in Syria, nor Iran or Kabul save under this Government for whose good fortune we pray’. On 24th February 1898, Mirza sent a fawning petition to the British Lt-Governor of the province, he referred to his loyal services to the government of Britain and reminded him that he was their ‘their own plant’ (khud sakhtah pauda) and, then went on to request that his followers be given special consideration by officials.
Mirza’s ‘khalifah’ and son, Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, wrote proudly in the cult’s paper Al-Fazal dated 1st November 1934, that: ‘The whole world considers us to be the agents of the British. That is why a German minister who attended the opening of an Ahmadiya building in Germany was asked to explain as to why he went to the function of a community, which was the agent of the British’.
All the minorities of Pakistan including Qadianis should be protected under the constitution of Pakistan and UN Declaration of Human rights. No one has ever said that Qadianis living in Pakistan are not Pakistanis. There should be no problem if Indian Qadianis collect donations for Indian Army after Kargil in occupied Kashmir. The question is how loyal Pakistanis they are? It is not a loyalty test in anyway but the actions of this minority over the years were/are undermining the state of Pakistan. They started undermining even before the creation of Pakistan.
According to a “Qadiani Prophecy”, revealed few months before the independence of Pakistan in 1947: ‘if at all India and Pakistan did separate, it would be ‘transient’ and Qadianis were asked to try to bring an end to this phase soon”. (Published in Qadiani Magazine: Al-Fzal, 4th April 1947 – 17th May 1947)
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and the Qadiani problem
The Qadiani undermining of Pakistan’s Nuclear Program reached to the extent that a liberal Statesman and leader like Zulifqar Ali Bhutto realized that they were up to something and banned Dr Abus Salam from visiting Pakistan’s nuclear sites.
He (ZA Bhutto) told his security chief in Jail (Col Rafi), ‘Ahmadis want same position as Jews in the USA i.e. they want every policy to go through with their approval… (‘Last 323 days of Z A Bhutto’ by Col Rafiuddin, pp 67).
Surely the assessment of the visionary Statesman of Pakistan Zulifqar Ali Bhutto was on the spot as the following Israeli study proved it to be true in terms of mind set and following of tricks and treachery.
An Israeli study (P R Kumaraswamy: Beyond the Veil: Israel ¬Pakistan relation, Jaffe Centre for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, March 2000) brings to light, that Pakistan has its own `pro-Israeli’ lobby’, the Qadianis.
As far as changes in the blasphemy laws are concerned government should be cautious and careful as what is the agenda to change now and why was it changed in the first place? What is it to hide and what is to achieve? If one does not have any ‘intention’ to be blasphemous in a 95% Muslim country then there should be no problem, unless one has an intention to be blasphemous. Is it stopping people to practice their religious beliefs or some people want to be in two boats as Sir Allama Iqbal mentioned.
In 1935 Sir Muhammad Iqbal, a lawyer, poet and philosopher asked the British Government to declare the Qadianis as separate community just as they done with the Sikhs. Sir Iqbal said, ‘the Qadianis while pursuing a policy of separation in religion and social matters ‘, however, anxious to remain politically with the fold. The Qadianis will never take initiative for separation’, argued Sir Iqbal because their small number (56,000) according to 1931 census would not entitle them ‘even to a single seat in any legislature. The Qadianis asked the British Government that, ‘our rights too should be recognized like those of Parsees and Christians reported (Al Fzal, 13th November 1946).
The Onus is on Qadianis
It was/is not the State of Pakistan that declared them non-Muslims but just confirmed the division, i.e. it is Qadianis who declared rest of the Muslims non-Muslims long time before the state declaration. The onus lies on them (Qadianis) to integrate and renounce their views on the finality of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and not the other way around.
As an open-minded Muslim leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah, father of the nation appointed Sir Zafarullah Khan, a Qadiani, his first foreign minister of Pakistan, who did not attend his funeral conducted by a Sunni scholar Shabeer Ahmed Usmani, considering Mr Jinnah as non-Muslim (non Ahmadi). In a hypothetical scenario as far as the integration of the Qadianis with the rest of the Muslim community is concerned, doors for the non-Ahmadis are shut.
The Qadiani view of their relationship with rest of the Muslims was well summarized by their second caliph, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad:
“Our worship has been separated from the non–Ahmadis, we are prohibited from giving our daughters (in marriage) to them and we have been stopped from offering prayers for their dead. What then left that we can do together? There are two kinds of ties: one religious the other mundane. The greatest expression of the religious bond is in common worship and in matters mundane, these are the ties of family and marriage. But then both are forbidden (haram) to us. If you say that we are permitted to take their daughter (in marriage), then I would reply that we are allowed to marry the daughters of Christians as well. If you say why do we Salam (salute) to non- Ahmadis, then the reply to this is that … the Prophet (Muhammad) has said Salam to the Jews… Thus the Promised Messiah (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) has separated us, in all possible ways, from the others; and there is no kind of relationship which is particular to Muslims and we are not forbidden from (entering into) that”, (Kalimatul Fazsl’, by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in Review of Religions).
A London based magazine wrote: ‘The National Assembly (in 1974) would go to remove a long standing but an unnecessary anomaly. The decision would serve only to formalize the defacto even de jure position. The problem had arisen not because the Muslims in some fit of orthodoxy or fanaticism wanted to ‘excommunicate’ any group of people. Its origin, on the other hand, lay in the assumption by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadiyan of Messiahship, and prophethood and as a consequence, branding those who did not believe in him to be outside the pale of his Islam.
Qadiani links with Israel
“It was common knowledge that Jalaluddin Qamar, the Ahmadiyyah Missionary of Rabwah had been serving in Israel since 1956 when Ch. Muhammad Sharif was called back to Pakistan from Israel. All Qadiani missionaries who had been formerly posted in Israel since 1928 namely J.D Shams, Allah Dita Jalundhari, Rashid Ahmed Chaughtai, Noor Ahmad and Ch. Sharif lived in Rabwah after serving in Israel. Their families had mysterious contact channels when they were in Israel”, wrote Bashir Ahmad in ‘Ahmadiyah Movement: British Jewish Connection.
As far as Jewish help and support is concerned, Mirza Mubarak Ahmad, grandson of the Qadiani prophet has himself acknowledged in his book ‘OUR FOREIGN MISSIONS’, PP. 79-80 in the following words: “The Ahmadiyya mission in Israel is situated in Haifa at Mount Karmal. We have a mosque there, a mission house, a library, a book depot and a school”.
More Qadianis serve in the Israeli Armed Forces than they serve in Pakistan according to a book, ‘Israel: A Profile’, by a respected Jewish Professor I.T Naomi. He stated: ‘… and the Ahmadi sect of some 600 people from Pakistan can also serve in the (Israeli) army…’ To many analysts Qadiaynis are a political issue and have always been a security problem. In India Qadianis have collected and donated thousands to the Indian Army fund after Kargil.
Pakistani society is very open in terms of equal opportunities. Some minorities are over represented in politics, security, military, media and finance compare to their percentage in the population. On 15th February 1987, Pakistani Foreign Minister, Sahibzada Yakub Khan declared in the National Assembly that there were 328 Qadiani officers of different ranks in the Pakistan Armed Forces. According to his report 1 – Lt. General, 5 Brigadiers in the army and 1 similar rank in the Air Force = 6, 10 Colonial or equivalent in the Army, 2 Navy, 3 Air Force= 15, Lt. Colonials 15 Army, 6 Navy, 11 Air Force = 73, Major 135 Army, 5, Navy16, Air Force = 156, Captain 58 Army, 5 Navy, 14 Air Force = 77 which comes to the grand total of 328. Now the question is after 20 years where are these officers? How far up have they gone? What is their current status in the armed forces and intelligence agencies?
Qadianis are against the Islamic Nuclear Bomb
“Qadianis were created for political reasons and also to confuse the Muslims especially on the matter of ‘Jihad”, said a senior analyst. Qadianis Asks for Pakistan’s Nukes under UN Control in July 2009:
“Pakistan should give its nuclear assets (program) under the United Nations control”, reportedly said Ahmed Abdul Rafique a lawyer and Secretary Foreign Affairs of Qadiani minority in Frankfurt Germany chapter at a Swat charity dinner few weeks ago in the presence of an active member of Social Democratic Party and German Member of Parliament Otay Zaph who earlier also mentioned the weakness of Pakistani government and security of Pakistan’s nuclear program. Dr Jasper Abrahmoski a high-level government official from the Department of Development and Cooperation also attended the event.
Senior Pakistani diplomats Mr Zahid Ahmed and Dr. Feroze Alam Junejo walked out of the program in protest. They recorded their protest with reportedly former Major Zubair Khalil an organizer for the alleged remarks. Any sane person would consider these remarks by a leading media spokesman and member of Qadiani minority as an attack on the sovereignty of Pakistan.
There is no doubt that Zulifqar Ali Bhutto was the visionary statesman of Pakistan. He recognized Qadiaynis as political and security problem than religious. He banned Qadiani Dr Abdul Salam from visiting Pakistan’s nuclear sites. Dr Salam was reportedly spying for some foreign agency or agencies. He was opposed to the idea of Pakistan becoming a nuclear power.
Anthony Tucker’s obituary about Professor Abdus Salam in The Guardian (22 November 1996) noted that `in spite of his powerful influence in world physics, his eminence in the West and lifelong commitment to science in developing countries, in his own country Abdus Salam is blamed for the starvation of important areas of science through encouraging theoretical and nuclear physics and by inference, weapons research’.
Anthony Tucker also said that Abdus Salam ‘was a vigorous supporter of Pugwash’ and he ‘sought nuclear disarmament’. His unwillingness to contribute to the development science in Pakistan can also be attributed to his being a committed and proselytizing member of the heretic Qadiani community (founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani who claimed to be a prophet). At Trieste Dr Salam would lead, as imam, unknowing Muslim students from across the world in Friday prayers, and distributed Qadiani tracts about the `persecution of Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan’.
Abdus Salams’s position as scientific adviser, however, came to an abrupt end in 1974 when the ministry of interior told the PAEC not to allow him anymore into its laboratories. Later Dr Salam visited China where he was received as an eminent Pakistani scientist’ and, it is probable, the Chinese, spoke to him freely about their cooperation with Pakistan’s nuclear program. It may have been a mere coincidence but the Pakistan `Islamic bomb’ became news soon after. The BBC1 TV current affairs program, Panorama, aired in June 1980, mentioned Abdus Salam as one of those who were present at a 1972 ‘ meeting where Zulfikar AIi Bhutto had ‘ allegedly taken a decision to make a nuclear bomb.
According to Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, French President de Gaulle had personally told Ayub Khan in 1967 that France was ready to provide `full’ nuclear assistance to Pakistan. In return he simply asked that France be allowed to mine for uranium in the northwest and share it equally with Pakistan. ‘Our “friends” may not like it,’ Qadiani M. M. Ahmad told Ayub Khan, and in any case, what do we need this expensive technology for.’ That is how Pakistan missed the opportunity of becoming a nuclear power at least two decades earlier than it did – and minus all the blackmail and intimidation that knows no ending even now. Sharifuddin Pirzada also, told a journalist in London that as far back as October 1967, French President Charles de Gaulle (d.1970) had offered Pakistan ‘full’ nuclear assistance and know-how; the only thing he wanted in turn was to be allowed to mine for uranium in Northwest Pakistan for a 50% share.
M. Ahmad was a grandson of the Qadiani ‘prophet’, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, (d.1908) and son-in-law of the second Qadiani ‘khalifa’, Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad (d. 1965). M. M. Ahmad’s imprint on Pakistan’s fiscal and development policies was to last forever. As Yahya Khan’s ‘finance minister’, he devalued the rupee by 131% per cent. As one economist pointed out (Dawn, Karachi, 1st February 2002), ‘that was the start of the deficit finance, inflation and trade imbalance’ from which the country has not been able to free itself.
In a 1995 article, ‘Pearls of Memory’ (Al-Nahal„ Spring 1995), M M Ahmad wrote that close to independence, he was ‘designated by Pakistan’ as additional deputy commissioner of Amritsar to take over the charge of the district if it was awarded to Pakistan. One day the British deputy commissioner of Amritsar told him ‘casually that Gurdaspur district is likely to go to India’. The award of Gurdaspur gave India a land corridor to Jammu and Kashmir and so enabled it to occupy the territory after three months.
A preliminary version of the award was ready on 8th August 1947. The definitive version was with the Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten on 12th August. However, Mountbatten informed India and Pakistan on 16 August after the ‘process of the Transfer of Power had been completed’. M. M. Ahmad gives no date when this ‘top secret’ information was given to him. However, instead of rushing to report the matter to Quaid-e-Azam and the Government of Pakistan, he travelled to Qadiyan to inform his ‘khalifa’. This contrasted with the conduct of Indian officers who immediately reported any sensitive leak or information to Nehru (d.1964) and Nehru took it up with Mountbatten. Qadianis have their own particular agenda on Jammu and Kashmir and this is an open secret. Like the Qadiani Nobel Laureate, Dr Abdus Salam, M. M. Ahmad too was opposed to Pakistan becoming a nuclear power.
Late Zulifqar Ali Bhutto’s approach to the Qadiani problem had probably little to do with theology. He had come to see the Qadianis purely as a political problem, which explains the sequence of policy decisions alongside the strategic decision about acquiring nuclear deterrence.
All minority rights should be protected according to the constitution and the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Qadianis should re-join the larger Muslim fold by renouncing their beliefs concerning the finality of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). No one has shut the doors for them. They are an expired by date weapon used against Muslims but Qadiani minority is not ready to let go.