Adnan Rashid – What is Qadiani Religion- Declan Henry Interview
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
The Ahmadiyya movement is not Islam, although the
movement claims to be the true Muslims, right?
The slogan is that we are the true
Muslims, and the rest of the Muslim community
around the world, two billion odd Muslims, are
not upon true Islam.
The first thing is that he is a
prophet of God.
This is outrightly untrue.
He didn't have the character of a prophet.
Why do you say that?
He was narcissistic, he was abusive, he was
foul-mouthed.
Outrightly, he called people bastard children for disbelieving
in him.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani claimed that Prophet Muhammad
stated that there was a prophet in India
who was black-skinned and his name was
Qahim.
In other words, Krishna or Krishan, right?
We are asking them to produce this statement.
There is not a collection of Hadith on
the planet.
In fact, he claimed to be him, the
very essence of Prophet Muhammad himself.
He claimed to be the Prophet Muhammad, the
second advent of Muhammad.
He claimed to be the second advent of
Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
He said things like, for example, Jesus was
born just as insects are born during monsoon,
right?
Yeah, yeah, he did say this.
Okay, and he made...
And he wrote this.
He wrote this categorically.
So in case those who don't know Declan,
Declan is an author, a researcher.
He has researched the Ahmadiyya movement.
He wrote a book on the Lahori movement
of the Ahmadiyya sect and Voices of Modern
Islam is also one of his books.
He is very interested in Islam and modern
Islam.
So do look into these works and do
listen to the interviews Declan has conducted recently
with other thinkers and intellectuals.
Thank you so much, Declan.
Thank you very much.
Okay, in this interview today, we will be
discussing some beliefs of the Ahmadiyya community and
how they propagate those beliefs and when they
are challenged on these beliefs, some of them
outrightly erroneous, how they respond to those beliefs.
So it's like an objective attempt to understand
the Ahmadiyya community, their beliefs and challenges to
those beliefs and how they respond to those
beliefs.
Hello, everyone.
You're very welcome to this podcast with me,
Declan Henry and Adnan Rashid, who's a London
based historian.
Today, we're going to discuss Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
and the Ahmadiyya community.
Hello, Adnan.
Thank you for having me.
Thank you very much.
Thank you so much for taking the time
out of your busy schedule.
So I know I've seen all your YouTube
clips.
You've been very busy the last year doing
lots of debates with the Ahmadiyya community.
How did you get involved in these debates?
First of all, thank you for having me
for this interview, Declan, and this is a
very important interview.
We want to put out our views on
the Ahmadiyya community and the movement.
How we started these discussions and dialogues was
a coincidence.
I was at the Speaker's Corner, Hyde Park
Speaker's Corner, one Sunday, almost a year ago.
And I saw this Irish gentleman who happened
to be from the Ahmadiyya movement.
And I was told that he's preaching the
Ahmadiyya religion.
So I was asked to have a discussion
with him, which I did.
And this discussion turned into a debate.
This is Ibrahim Noonan.
He's the Imam of the mosque in Galway.
Correct.
So he's a very important figure within the
Jamaat.
I know him.
Very nice man.
I had a conversation with him.
It started as a friendly conversation.
Then it turned into a debate for two
hours.
So we had a two-hour debate, which
went viral on social media.
You know, this is the age of social
media.
It went on Twitter, TikTok, on Facebook, on
YouTube.
People started posting it.
And before we know, it was a global
phenomenon.
For some reason, people were hungry for this
content, in the English language in particular.
And then we had a follow-up conversation
for almost an hour.
And that was also recorded, and it went
out.
So that started the process of this dialogue,
debates, and exchanges, which continues to this day.
After a year, nearly a year now.
But as a historian, did you know much
about the Ahmadiyya community before you started these
debates?
I had basic knowledge that Mirza Ghulam al
-Qadiani was a claimant to prophethood.
And I knew basic failed prophecies he had
made.
I had knowledge of that.
I had knowledge of his abuse that he
had used against people.
So I raised these questions with Ibrahim Noonan,
and we had very interesting conversations.
So from that first debate in Speaker's Corner,
that stimulated your appetite to delve more into
this?
Absolutely.
And I had to, because for the next
year, we would debate Ahmadis almost on a
weekly basis, right?
So we had to read up on Mirza
Ghulam al-Qadiani more extensively.
Then another individual came along, Muhammad Imtiaz.
Yes, I am.
He got in touch with me.
He had already completed his master's degree on
the Ahmadiyya movement.
He had read extensively.
He had pretty much read most of Mirza
Ghulam al-Qadiani's books.
So I realized that he has very good
knowledge of the movement.
So we got him involved in our dialogues
as well.
And since then, he's been very busy as
well.
So from the debates that I have seen,
Adnan, you seem to have put across many
interesting scholarly arguments.
So what sort of a response have you
actually got from the Ahmadiyya community themselves?
We never get a straight answer.
The murabbis or the missionaries of the movement
have devised strategies and tactics to avoid direct,
difficult questions.
We pose direct questions, but we never get
a direct answer.
Anyone who watches our streams with them in
the English language, I'm talking about the missionaries.
I'm not talking about the common Ahmadis.
Common Ahmadis are normal working class people.
They are going about their business.
They are educated people, many of them doctors,
engineers, highly qualified.
I know many of them.
And they are decent people.
They are very nice people.
But the trained missionaries, they are absolutely a
different breed altogether.
And they are very manipulative.
We have found them to be very manipulative.
They don't give direct answers.
And when they get cornered, they avoid debate
altogether.
They completely disappear.
I'm surprised.
Well, on one level, I'm surprised.
Because one of the criticisms that they have
always put across the Ahmadis that I've spoken
to is the lack of dialogue.
This is before you started and before the
debates online have started.
The lack of dialogue.
They always say, oh, Sunnis don't want to
debate us.
Sunnis don't want to talk to us.
Well, this is the ideal opportunity now that
there are so many debates.
And they are lively debates.
They are incredibly interesting.
And you are touching upon those questions that
really need to be asked.
But also need to be answered.
Absolutely.
You see, Jacqueline, social media phenomenon has changed
the dynamics for the Ahmadiyya movement.
Now they cannot simply ignore and get away
with it.
30 years ago, yes, before the internet.
Absolutely.
For the last 100 years, they have been
making these claims that the Sunnis cannot debate
us.
They don't want to debate us.
They run away from debates, which is a
lie, by the way.
Our scholars, for the last 100 years, from
all denominations of Sunni Islam, have been actively
debating and having dialogues with the Ahmadiyya community.
They have written books upon books.
Encyclopedias have been produced by Sunni scholars in
the Urdu language, mainly, because the cult came
from, I call it a cult, because it
operates like a cult.
That's my personal opinion.
It was born in India, then flourished in
Pakistan later on.
And this is why the Indian subcontinent scholars
feel more responsibility towards producing works on this
particular movement.
And they have done so.
But the claim that Sunnis are avoiding the
discussion and the dialogue has been now binned
since the last one year activism on our
part.
Because we have now opened the gates of
dialogue for the Ahmadiyya community.
We have streams every single Saturday.
Since the last year, we have had live
streams where the floor is open to the
Ahmadiyya scholars, if they have any.
I'm glad that you have said that, because
I was going to ask you, who exactly
are the top scholars within the Ahmadiyya community?
They have some Arabic-speaking gentlemen who appear
to be scholars, who have the attire, who
wear the clothing of scholars.
But when we dialogue with them, we realize
they lack basic knowledge of Islamic principles.
So, if they are scholars...
Are they based here in the UK or
in Pakistan?
They are based in the UK.
Some of them are based in the Arab
world.
For example, they have one person in Jordan.
There is a Palestinian person who speaks Arabic.
So, they parade them around the world as
trophies.
Oh, we have Arabs with us.
If we have Arabs with us, we have
some credibility because the Arabs know the Arabic
language.
Therefore, they must know more Islam than normal
Sunni Muslims, which is, again, a deceptive tactic
on their part.
If you ask these Arab scholars if they
know the Urdu language, they don't.
They haven't read Mirza Ghulam al-Qadiani in
the Urdu language.
And the majority of his works are in
the Urdu language.
So, how can you claim to be a
scholar on your own movement when you don't
know the basic language?
It's like me claiming to be a scholar
of Islam and I don't know the Arabic
language.
Would you take me seriously?
No, that would be difficult.
Yes.
It's like someone who claims to be a
scholar of Christianity and doesn't know Koine Greek
and doesn't know Latin.
Or a Jewish rabbi claims to be a
rabbi and doesn't know the Hebrew language.
So, this is why we are yet to
find a scholarly person among the Ahmadiyya movement.
And this is not an exaggeration.
This is not a biased statement.
I'm being very fair and objective here.
I'm yet to find a scholar of Islam
among the Ahmadiyya movement.
No, no, that was the reason that I
asked you because I just didn't know the
answer to that question.
Obviously, Ibrahim Noonan, I don't know whether he
speaks Urdu or not.
No, he doesn't.
I didn't think he would.
In my dialogue, I challenged him on this
question and he didn't know Urdu.
And he's a convert to Islam himself.
Yes.
And Raziullah Norman.
Obviously, you did quite a lot of debates
with Razi.
He's a missionary.
He's a missionary.
Okay.
So, he wouldn't come into what you'd call
the top scholar category.
No, no.
He's a young man.
He's very passionate.
He is.
He's a missionary.
He is, yeah.
So, they have missionaries.
Yeah.
They have seminaries where they train missionaries to
respond to the Sunni attacks.
Intellectual attacks or theological attacks.
Somebody like Razi, would he not have read
all of the works of Mirza Ghani?
He claims to have read all of them.
He claims to have read all of them.
Really?
I believe him.
I don't have any reasons to not believe
his claim.
Now, you've read some of them yourself because
obviously, you're fluent in Urdu and you're a
highly illiterate man.
From the debates, we can see that you're
ferociously intelligent.
If you think so, I don't necessarily agree
with that.
Well, you have great panache.
You're very articulous.
Your knowledge flows.
But one of the things that I see
that you're continuously accused of is not being
able to differentiate between what's metaphorical and literal
in the writings of Mirza Ghani.
Is that not a little bit insulting to
you?
It is.
It is.
It's insulting my intelligence.
It's insulting my credentials, which is not a
problem.
I don't mind.
You could be forgiven one mistake, but it
can't be continuous.
I have made mistakes.
I have made mistakes and I have admitted
those mistakes publicly.
For example, very often, I mix two of
the sons of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani because
they have the same name.
Bashiruddin Mahmood and Bashir Ahmad.
You can see they have the same name,
right?
So I very often mix them.
But that's my bad, right?
I've always admitted to that problem.
That's only a small mistake.
Exactly.
But when I make a claim, I ensure
that I'm making a claim which is evidenced.
There is evidence for it.
And I'm not just making up.
Because at the end of the day, why
am I doing this work?
I'm doing this work to reach out to
the Ahmadi community, the common Ahmadis, for them
to realize that this was a mistake.
This was a digression.
This was a diversion from mainstream Islam.
This is not Islam.
The Ahmadiyya movement is not Islam.
Although the movement claims to be the true
Muslims, right?
The slogan is that we are the true
Muslims and the rest of the Muslim community
around the world, 2 billion odd Muslims are
not upon true Islam.
Okay.
In fact, we can prove, we can show
from the books of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani
and his son, Bashiruddin Mahmood, where they made
blanket excommunication of the entire Muslim community.
When I say the entire Muslim community, I
mean from Morocco to Indonesia.
All Muslims are effectively disbelievers because they have
rejected a true prophet of God, which makes
perfect sense.
If there is a true prophet of God
and if you reject him, you are disbelieving
in that prophet, and therefore you are a
disbeliever to the followers of that prophet.
So, effectively, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani and his
son made Takfir, we use the word Takfir
for excommunication, they made Takfir of the entire
Muslim Ummah, the entire Muslim community.
Yes, I read that.
I was researching the Lahori book.
They deny it today.
They say, no, we don't actually believe you
are disbelievers in the true sense of the
word, but you are disbelievers in a lesser
sense.
Basically, you are not true Muslims.
You reject the Messiah, the promised Messiah, you
reject a true prophet of God, Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad Qadiani, to them, therefore you are not
true believers.
But we know this is dissimilation.
We know this is dissimilation.
This is hiding their true beliefs.
Because recently I had a dialogue online, it's
on my channel, where I posed this question
directly to the murabbis, including Raziullah Nauman, and
they made it clear that we consider you
to be disbelievers.
You are disbelievers.
So that was a contradiction.
Yes.
I mean, the official Jama'at position is
that, no, you are not true Muslims.
We don't call you disbelievers in the true
sense of the word.
But the murabbis, the missionaries, when they were
cornered, they actually came out with it, and
they said, yes, we do consider you to
be disbelievers, just like the Lahori movement.
It's a bit confusing, isn't it?
It is, it is.
I mean, not only us, even the Lahori
movement.
Am I a believer or am I not
a believer?
Yeah, yeah.
But they declare the Lahori movement, the mainstream
Qadiani caliphate, based in London, this particular movement
declares the Lahori movement to be a disbelieving
movement.
There is another group called Sajpras group.
They are also disbelievers.
There is a Jamba group, which is also
basically a bunch of disbelievers.
So they make blanket excommunication of all people
who do not agree with them.
So really, if you were to believe all
of that, there are very few Muslims in
the world, by their reckoning?
Correct.
Yes.
By their reckoning, by their standards, there are
very few Muslims in the world.
Majority of the Muslims are not true Muslims
or disbelievers.
Yeah.
Which is very radical.
It's a very radical view.
Yeah.
So you intend to do more debates?
Oh, yes, absolutely.
I don't think these debates will stop, in
the English language in particular, because I believe
the cream of the crop of the Qadiani
movement is in the West.
There's still a mountain of questions to ask,
isn't there?
Yes.
I feel it's like peeling an onion.
Once you peel one layer, another layer is
there waiting to be peeled.
100%.
And the more we discover, the more shocked
we are that these are the kind of
things that can be found in the books
of Mirza Ghulam al-Qadiani, and how can
a common Ahmadi, having read these things, believe
in this man as a prophet, but they
don't.
And I'm going to come on to that
in just a moment.
But first of all, Adnan, can we just
look a little closer at the life of
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad?
I want to take advantage of you as
a historian.
What things do you think that the Ahmadiyya
community state about him that are inaccurate or
outright untrue?
Can you think of anything at the top
of your mind?
The first thing is that he's a prophet
of God.
Right.
This is outrightly untrue.
He didn't have the character of a prophet.
Why do you say that?
He was narcissistic.
He was abusive.
He was foul-mouthed, outrightly.
He called people bastard children for disbelieving in
him.
And you have evidence of all of this?
100%.
Everything will be evidenced on the screen.
We will put the quotes up, and the
Qadiani movement is aware of these quotes.
We have debated them for the last year,
and they come back and say that the
word bastard here doesn't actually mean what you
think it means.
It means mischievous.
But my point is the word itself is
highly offensive.
In the Urdu language, the word is harami.
I don't know if you know the Urdu
language.
Unfortunately, I have to use this word for
the sake of clarity.
The word harami is a very derogatory term.
It's basically an insulting word.
If you say this word to anyone in
Pakistan, India, or Bangladesh, you're looking for a
fight because it's a very offensive term.
But they claim that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani
used this word in a different sense.
But then again, the problem is he didn't
use just one word.
He used similar words in different languages.
Harami in Urdu, haramzada in Persian, which means
the same thing, a bastard child.
Durriyatul baghaya in the Arabic language, which means
a bastard child.
Why did he resort to using this type
of language?
He was an abusive man.
He used this language to basically express his
anger and frustration at people who were simply
not believing in him or rejected him.
For example, he had a debate with a
Christian missionary called Abdullah Atam.
And he lost this debate.
He lost this debate and due to this
loss...
Do you know why did he lose it?
How did he lose it?
Well, first of all, he wouldn't debate in
person.
He wouldn't debate talking to the opponent, to
the interlocutor.
I did read that and when I wrote
my book, that was my mistake because I
thought that he was actually a very good
public speaker and that these were actually face
-to-face debates.
Not at all.
It was later that I learned that these
were written debates.
Exactly, and he insisted on having written debates
because he lacked confidence in his own ability
to have face-to-face debates.
Like for example, if you look at our
speaker's corner debates, right?
We have on-the-spot debates, very difficult
debates at times.
We debate with atheists.
We debate with Christian missionaries.
We debate with Jewish rabbis at times.
We debate with Ahmadiyya missionaries.
So you have to debate on the spot
and you don't know what's coming.
It's live, it's spontaneous.
Anything can happen.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani lacked that acumen and
he himself actually wrote that it is not
for a transvestite to have manly debates like
men in public.
He wrote it himself and for some reason
he indicts himself by making this statement.
He used the word muhannas.
Muhannas means a transvestite.
Someone who lacks male characteristics.
So he is saying that only a man
can have public debates but he never had
one.
He never had one.
He insisted on having written debates and even
with this Christian missionary, he lost the debate.
Am I correct to say that he only
ever had one debate?
Yes, correct, correct, correct.
And he lost the debate.
How we know that is because he lost
his own followers.
People who were with him when the debate
started left him and became Christians.
Okay, and when he was questioned by his
own followers about this loss, he came up
with something very strange, very strange and an
outright lie for that matter.
He claimed that this is not something new.
Prophets always lose followers due to such events.
For example, he gives an example and which
is a lie and he attributes this example
to a very famous Muslim author called Ibn
Kathir who lived in the 14th century C
.E. who wrote one of the greatest commentaries
on the Quran.
He attributes this lie to him stating that
Ibn Kathir wrote that when the Treaty of
Hudaibiya took place between the Prophet and his
tribe Quraysh because they didn't allow him to
enter Mecca that year.
He said when the Prophet was not allowed
to enter Mecca in that year, many of
his truthful followers, I'm using the exact words,
many of his truthful followers left him.
They left Islam which is an outright lie.
What sort of numbers are we talking about
here?
He said many and we cannot find trace
of one.
We cannot find any trace of any follower
leaving Islam at that point.
No, we cannot find one.
Okay, but he said many, the point is
he said many, more than one.
Okay, right, but that statement is not to
be found in Ibn Kathir.
He mentioned Ibn Kathir by name and this
he said to his son-in-law who
was a Nawab, who was a prince, his
daughter Mirza Ghulam al-Qadhi and he was
married to one of the rulers of the
princely state and he wrote this letter to
his son-in-law trying to convince him
that this is not a new thing.
This is not a big deal if I
lost followers because of this debate and he
lied, he lied and we asked the Jamaat,
the missionaries.
Can you produce that reference?
Can you show us where Ibn Kathir actually
wrote that?
Because Ibn Kathir is well-known, is published
throughout the Muslim world.
We have manuscripts upon manuscripts.
We have printed copies in millions.
They handed it over.
Yes.
Okay.
Who handed it over?
The Ahmadiyyas, when you asked them for that.
No, no, no, they did not.
This is the point.
They cannot produce it.
It doesn't exist.
Okay.
That reference does not exist.
Ibn Kathir never said any such thing.
It doesn't exist.
So therefore...
How many times did you ask them for
that evidence?
Almost every time we asked them and they
don't have an answer.
They simply don't have an answer.
They play games.
They try to explain it away.
Oh no, this might have happened, that might
have happened.
He didn't actually mean his...
But who does he mean?
Many truthful ones among his followers.
If he wrote it, let you decide what
he said.
They need to show it to you, don't
they?
No, and we have given them one year,
more than one year, to produce all these
references.
There are many other examples, for example.
For example, he claimed that Prophet Muhammad had
talked about Krishna, the Hindu deity in India,
that he was a prophet of God.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani claimed that Prophet Muhammad
stated that there was a prophet in India
who was black-skinned and his name was
Kahin.
In other words, Krishna or Christian, right?
We are asking them to produce the statement.
There is not a collection of Hadith on
the planet where we have documented or recorded
prophet's tradition and his sayings.
We cannot find any report that shows us
that.
Another claim Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani made about
the prophet of Islam was that when there
is a plague, you leave the town.
Mirza, in his review of religion, there is
a source called Review of Religion.
It's an Ahmadi source and they quote Mirza
Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani saying that when there is
a plague, Prophet Muhammad said, when there is
a plague, leave the town.
But we find the reality is completely opposite.
We find the Prophet Muhammad saying in an
authentic report that is reported from him that
when there is a plague, do not leave
your towns.
And if you are outside of the town,
do not come into the town.
That makes perfect sense.
Absolutely.
You don't want to spread the plague.
Exactly, exactly.
So the Prophet Muhammad categorically stated that when
there is a plague, do not leave the
town.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani attributed the exact opposite
of that.
What was his rationale for giving that advice?
To appease the British government at the time
because there was a plague in India and
the government wanted people to leave the towns
to go to certain settlements to stay.
And he made up this report to appease
the government to basically convince his followers that
you can leave the town and go to
another place to settle there.
And he did that for the British government.
Wow.
To support the government policy at the time
in the Punjab region, right?
So this is why Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani
came up with this hadith.
We have been asking them for the last
year, where is this report?
Where did the Prophet actually say when there
is a plague, leave the town just like
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani attributed this report to
the Prophet of Islam.
What we find is to the contrary, the
Prophet said do not leave the town or
if you are outside, do not go into
the town.
That makes such common sense, isn't it?
And there are tons of other examples that
we can give, but we do not have
time for every single example.
I appreciate that, you have given me a
few today and I expected a few.
But there would be literally hundreds.
I haven't counted, but there are tons upon
tons of examples where he attributed information to
the Prophet of Islam and we cannot find
that information in our books or in the
books of hadith.
Another report he attributed to the Prophet is
that the worst scholars will be from the
14th century or the 14th century scholars will
basically disown the Messiah, they will disbelieve in
the Messiah.
We are asking them to produce a report.
Using a claim against the Muslims, the larger
body of the Muslim community, you have to
substantiate your claims.
Where did the Prophet say that the 14th
century scholars will disown the Messiah when he
comes?
It's not to be found.
I'm surprised at that because one of the
things that I find with the Ahmadiyya community
and particularly even looking with some of these
debates, they're very hot on evidence and they
like people to give them evidence, but you're
saying today, you're turning the tables, you're saying
that you're asking them for various pieces of
evidence and they're not producing them.
You see what they do is one of
the tactics they have mastered is the fallacy
of whataboutism, okay?
When you ask them about Mirza Ghulam al
-Qadiani and his shenanigans or his controversial statements
in his books, they present 10 different books
to you from the wide-ranging literature of
Islam or those Sunni Muslims, for example, and
we have colorful literature.
Our scholars in the last 1,400 years
have produced hundreds of thousands of volumes on
philosophy, poetry, mysticism, Sufism and commentaries on the
Quran, commentaries on the Hadith of the Prophet
and books on history.
What they do is they will pick up
statements that are outrightly erroneous from the literature
of Sunni Muslims or maybe some Sufi mystics,
for example, who are describing their mystical experiences
and the spiritual, you know, experiments who are
describing and these things are personal.
They're not binding upon the Muslim community.
They will present those things to defend Mirza
Ghulam al-Qadiani that look at these shenanigans.
Oh, you think there are shenanigans in Mirza's
books, there are mistakes, there are errors, there
are outright absurdities in his books.
So you think that's used as deflection?
100% this is a tactic they have
used for far too long and now we
are telling them, look, if you are Muslims,
you claim to be Muslims, then the Quran
must be your place to go.
To substantiate any belief you hold, you must
go to the Quran.
If Mirza Ghulam al-Qadiani makes a statement,
you must be able to substantiate that statement
from the Quran or from the teachings of
the Prophet Muhammad because he claimed to be
one of his followers, right?
In fact, he claimed to be him, the
very essence of Prophet Muhammad himself.
He claimed to be the Prophet Muhammad, the
second advent of Muhammad.
He claimed to be the second advent of
Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
So he claimed many things, by the way.
This is another topic we can discuss later
on.
What was he?
What was he?
What was Mirza Ghulam al-Qadiani?
It seems to me he was a lot
of things.
He was a lot of things.
He claimed to be Prophet Muhammad, the second
advent.
Yeah.
Basically, he came up with a belief.
Hold on for that just a moment, because
I'm going to come on to the Prophet
Muhammad in just a moment.
But as a Christian, one of the things
that I did want to ask you and
obviously I think it's mentioned in one of
your debates, you know, he's alleged to have
said really some highly insulting and derogatory things
about Jesus and Mother Mary.
Can you give me some examples of these?
And I know in one of your debates
you were limited because you said he used
very vile and very foul language, and I'm
not asking you to use any of that
here today.
But can you roughly, as a Christian, and
obviously, you know, I think there's 2.4
billion Christians in the world.
Most, any Christian I ask about Mirza Ghulam
al-Qadiani, they will have never heard of
him.
I don't think he's made any impact on
the Christian world, even though he claims to
be the promised Messiah for all humanity.
You know, very few have heard about him.
Well, he came to defeat the cross.
Yes, that's the claim he made and that's
the claim he used from the tradition of
the Prophet, because he claimed to be the
second coming of Jesus too.
Did he think that that was licensed to
actually say, you know, really derogatory things about
Jesus?
He actually did say a lot of derogatory
and insulting things about Jesus Christ.
He actually insulted Jesus Christ throughout his literature,
which is blasphemy to Muslims, by the way.
Why?
Yeah, no, I noticed.
For Muslims.
Of all the Muslims I've met in my
life, I've never ever, ever, you know, encountered
a Muslim that has said a bad word
about Jesus.
And even when we debate Christians and use
accusative answers, for example, we use passages from
the Bible to show them how erroneous their
beliefs are, for example, the divinity of Jesus
Christ.
When we use examples, we are very respectable,
respectful about Jesus Christ.
We don't insult him.
We don't degrade his character.
We don't say things that can be insulting,
but he, if we talk about Jesus, first
starting with Jesus Christ himself, before we get
to Mary.
Yes, please do, please tell me.
He said things like, for example, Jesus was
born just as insects are born during monsoon,
right?
Yeah, yeah, he did say this.
Okay, and he made...
And he wrote this.
He wrote this categorically, you might be seeing
it on the screen right now.
Okay, he said Jesus was born just as
insects are born during the monsoon season.
Okay, so his birth was nothing incredible.
He also said that his birth was nothing
incredible.
Okay, because he denied the virgin birth of
Jesus Christ.
He denied it.
Okay, this is a belief the Christians and
the Muslims both share.
This is a common belief of the Christians
and the Muslims.
Okay, this is stated clearly in the New
Testament and it is stated in the Quran
also that Jesus was born of virgin Mary.
Mary was virgin when she conceived Jesus Christ
by a miracle.
This was a miracle of God.
And this is how God wanted to establish
the importance of Jesus Christ as an incredible
personality because his birth started with a miracle.
Okay, then he spoke from the cradle.
The Quran has verses in chapter 5, okay,
of the Quran where Jesus spoke from the
cradle.
Okay, and also sorry chapter 19 where the
story of Mary is told in the Quran
that he spoke from the cradle.
Okay, so Quran and the prophetic tradition of
Islam, it honors Jesus and his mother beyond
any Arab personalities.
Okay, Prophet Muhammad was an Arab.
Okay, and he came from a very staunch
Arab background.
Okay for him to be praising an Israelite
and his mother.
This doesn't make sense.
Yeah, because when I was doing research for
my first book, I did read somewhere that
the Prophet Muhammad of all the prophets he
felt closest to Jesus.
Correct, correct.
And he even stated that we the prophets
of God are all brothers.
Okay, and do not do not raise the
rank of one at the expense of the
other, right?
So we do not make any difference.
This is a verse in the Quran.
And we do not make, we do not
differentiate between prophets of God.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani on the other hand,
he stated like I mentioned earlier that Jesus
was born just as insects are born during
the monsoon.
Okay, without any biological wonders happening necessarily.
That's what he stated.
Number two, why would he have said something
like that?
He wanted to deny the virgin birth of
Jesus Christ.
He was a naturalist.
Okay, he was a naturalist and he didn't
believe in the supernatural.
Okay, and why he was a naturalist is
also a very interesting topic.
In the 19th century in India, there was
a naturalist movement going on which was initiated
by a man called Sayyid Ahmad Khan and
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani was influenced by that
movement.
And that's why he expressed some of these
views.
But why he insulted Jesus in this way
was because he claimed to be the second
coming of Jesus Christ.
Prophet Muhammad had foretold in authentic reports that
I take an oath in the name of
Allah, in the name of God who has
my life in his possession that Jesus Christ
will return before the end times.
So this is eschatology.
This is Islamic eschatology, just like the Christians
believe that Jesus Christ will return, Muslims also
believe that Jesus Christ will return in person.
Okay, physically will come back.
We believe he wasn't crucified.
He wasn't put on the cross and he
wasn't killed.
Okay, he was saved against his enemies.
God saved him.
He prayed to God.
He was saved and he was raised alive
to the heavens as a miracle.
Age 33.
I mean, we don't have the age.
We don't have the number.
Okay, around that age, in his 30s.
He was a young man.
I'm not sure if the Hadith literature actually
documents his age.
I may be wrong.
But his life on earth ended then.
Yes, his life on his ministry to the
Israelites and because he was sent to the
Israelites, the Quran makes a categorical statement that
Jesus Christ was sent to the Israelites and
that was his prophetic ministry.
He did his job and he was raised
alive to be kept alive until he returns
and he wasn't killed.
He didn't die.
So we believe right now Jesus Christ is
a God alive.
Okay, how?
Where?
In what conditions?
We don't know.
God is perfectly capable of keeping him in
a comfortable position wherever he wants to keep
him, right?
And he will be sent back to do
a specific job, which is to basically break
the cross, literally break the cross means he
will challenge Christians and show them the true
belief which he preached himself when he was
on earth and he will tell them that
they have been wrong all the way, believing
that he died on the cross, believing that
he was God Almighty.
Okay, he was one of the persons from
the Trinity.
He will come back to do that.
Okay, and then he will kill swine.
Okay, and he will basically lift Jizya.
Basically, this will be the final showdown.
This is Armageddon, basically, right?
And he will kill Antichrist, Bajjal.
We know him as Bajjal, the Antichrist, who
will come near the end of times and
he will be a great trial for humanity
and Jesus Christ will specifically come back to
kill him.
Okay, this is why he is coming back,
not as a prophet to the Israelites again,
because he had already done his prophetic capacity.
Mirza Ghulam al-Qadiani claimed to be that
second coming and in order to do that,
he had to kill Jesus Christ.
First, Mirza Ghulam al-Qadiani claimed that Jesus
was crucified.
He was actually put on the cross, nailed
to the cross and survived.
That's one thing.
Second thing, he mentioned that after he survived,
he travelled towards India and he died in
Kashmir and got buried in Kashmir in Srinagar.
Ages 100 or 20.
Yeah, exactly, exactly.
This is very, very, very, very hard.
Good luck to the person that wants to
debate them on this.
This is very hard to prove the Kashmir
part to this because he states it as
a divine revelation from God.
How do you prove that?
Exactly.
And he's the only person in humanity who
leads a movement like this, who came up
with this idea.
Okay, and on top of that...
I'm glad that you mentioned that point because
I was going to ask you that.
Anybody else has tried to rearrange?
So there was a Jewish journalist who had
written this theory before Mirza claimed this incredible
thing about Jesus Christ and his life.
And for some reason, he also claimed that
Jesus had come to India and died in
India.
And Mirza Ghulam al-Qadiani took that idea
possibly from him.
But there is this precedent, the only precedent
we can find of this theory in human
history.
Okay, so it seems that Mirza Ghulam al
-Qadiani was borrowing ideas from a number of
different sources.
He took stuff from the Sufis, he took
stuff from the Christians, he took stuff from
some Islamic thinkers in the 19th century and
adopted those ideas and made up his own
religion in his Ruhani Khazain or in his
books for that matter.
Go back to Jesus, do you think that
he saw some weakness in Jesus?
Yes, he did.
He had to find a weakness in Jesus.
Why?
Because, look, it is but natural for people
to demand miracles because the first coming of
Jesus Christ was packed with miracles, incredible events.
Jesus, you know, did amazing, wonderful miracles in
the New Testament according to the New Testament
and the Quran.
The Quran attributes some very powerful miracles to
Jesus Christ.
For example, he made birds of clay and
blew life into them with the permission of
God.
Right?
He basically healed blind lepers, okay, by the
permission of God.
He did all these miracles according to the
New Testament and the Quran.
So people naturally demanded miracles from Mirza Ghulam
al-Qadiani.
Okay, you are the second coming of Jesus
Christ, you are the promised Messiah as foretold
by Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.
Now that Jesus Christ has died and buried
in Kashmir, you are that second coming, can
you show us miracles?
And how did he respond?
Well, those miracles that you attribute to Jesus
Christ were not actually miracles, that was mesmerism,
that was mesmerism.
And again, I'm not making these claims, just
because I like to make these claims, the
evidence is on the screen.
You can see where he categorically stated that
these miracles of Jesus Christ were aml-tirb,
he called it aml-tirb, basically in the
English language, mesmerism.
This was not basically miracles, these were tricks
that Jesus performed and people thought these were
miracles.
So Jesus was a trickster.
Wow, okay.
And this is what Mirza Ghulam al-Qadiani,
to get away from performing miracles, or to
actually substantiate the spiritual power of his ministry.
Relentlessness undermined Jesus in every way possible.
Exactly, 100%, that was the idea.
The idea was to undermine Jesus Christ, to
inflate his own character, so that people actually
believe his claim to be the second coming
of Jesus Christ.
This is why he is called the promised
Messiah.
Which promised Messiah is the question?
Jesus Christ.
By the way, the term promised Messiah is
not an Islamic term.
It's actually a Jewish term that he used
to claim for himself.
Okay, in Islam, we simply have this concept,
the second coming of Jesus, we have this
concept, the second coming of Jesus, we don't
call him the promised Messiah.
Okay, Masih Mawud, the term they use for
Mirza Ghulam al-Qadiani is not even an
Islamic term.
It's not used in the literature of Islam
anyway, right?
Masih Mawud or the promised Messiah is a
Jewish term that Mirza Ghulam al-Qadiani decided
to use for himself and he meant Jesus
Christ, the second coming of Jesus Christ.
So that's why he had to belittle Jesus
Christ, deny his miracles.
Okay, kill him on the cross, sorry, not
kill him on the cross, put him on
the cross and kill him in Kashmir.
And amazingly, this is something you have to
know.
His Magnus Opus, the
work he produced and he was proud of
called Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya, it's five volume, it's
supposed to be 50 volumes.
He had promised to produce 50 volumes of
this book or 50 parts of this book
and he took money from the Muslims to
publish that book.
The book was never completed.
It was never produced and the money was
never returned.
Although the Jamaat claims that the money was
returned and amazingly Declan, he wrote categorically, the
book is complete.
I have written the entire book.
It has powerful 50 arguments, sorry, 300 arguments
in favor of Islam.
It has powerful 300 arguments in favor of
Islam.
The book is complete.
I have already finished the book.
In 1879, this claim was made.
Okay, now I need money to publish the
book.
Can you, the Muslims, give me money so
that I can publish the book?
We did an entire stream on this, by
the way, it's on our channel.
And then the book was never produced.
He was given money, tens of thousands of
rupees.
Muslims from all over India sent him money
to produce the book because by this time,
he hasn't claimed to be anything like a
prophet of God or the promised Messiah.
He is still in the early stages of
his claims in ministry.
So his reality is not actually known to
people.
People think he is a prolific author who
is going to produce this great work to
defend the beliefs of Islam and the arguments
of Islam.
So he has promised to produce this book,
which is already written.
And then the money received in tens of
thousands of rupees, which is a lot of
money in the Indian subcontinent.
Did he expect it to be in 50
parts?
Yes, exactly.
Why were the people sending money?
Because they want to see these 300 arguments
in favor of Islam.
But he says he got the 300 arguments
into five volumes.
No, he didn't say that.
He claimed the only difference between 50 and
5 is a zero.
That's what he said.
And again, I'm not making this up.
This is all there.
It's all recorded.
It was a clever answer.
It was a very clever answer to get
away with the money.
So his ministry started with a fraud, with
deception, with daylight robbery.
What he did produce.
He produced only five parts.
This was one of the questions I was
going to ask you.
Was it really highly intellectual?
No, it wasn't.
Unfortunately, it was borrowed information.
And all the good stuff he had written
in this book was borrowed from other sources,
Islamic sources.
It was all borrowed and plagiarized.
So the credit doesn't actually go to Mirza
Ghulam al-Qadiani himself, but to those authors
who had written this information before him.
So whatever good stuff he has written in
this book, and there is good stuff in
the book, he has written it having borrowed
from other sources before him.
But whatever stuff that came from his own
mind is basically below a decent level of
substandard.
It's substandard stuff.
And the Jamaat claims for him to be
the king of the pimp.
Sultan al-Karim or Sultan al-Qalam, I
don't know.
The king of the works.
I want to ask you a little bit
about his works in just a moment.
But I want to come back to Jesus.
I was going to ask you about Jesus.
Why did he attack Mother Mary?
Okay, we're going to come back to Mary.
Let me give you some other examples of
what he actually said about Jesus Christ.
He called him a drunkard.
He did, yes, I saw that on one
of your...
He called him a drunkard and this was
his personal belief.
The Jamaat comes back and claims, no, this
was an accusative answer.
He was using biblical text to get back
at the Christians.
And we claim...
Well, where does it say in the New
Testament that Jesus was a drunkard?
Exactly, exactly.
I found that extraordinary that they think that
the New Testament is anti-Jesus.
So that it would contain these references that
would be highly derogatory.
Absolutely, absolutely.
The New Testament is pro-Jesus.
Exactly.
It wants to present Jesus as some divine
being.
Well, you're not going to find it in
the New Testament.
You're not going to find derogatory things in
the New Testament.
Exactly.
And this was his personal belief, his personal
conviction that Jesus was a drunkard.
And he had relationships with prostitutes.
And the Jamaat gets very disturbed by these...
Is that twisting something about Mary Magdalene?
Yes, it is, it is, it is.
And he also wrote that what was wrong
with him that he was getting his head
massaged by a prostitute who had bought that
oil from her earnings, her illegitimate earnings.
So he said these things in very, very
strong words.
And he claimed to have written this stuff
as an accusative answer.
But then he broke his own principles.
He put down a principle in his writings
that you cannot use such vulgar and evil
language for a beloved of God or a
prophet of God even in accusative answer.
You cannot use such language, but he did
himself.
He broke his own principle that he put
down in his works that you cannot use
such language even when you feel like throwing
back at your opponents and throw something like,
you know, something disturbing as this back at
them.
You cannot do it because we love Jesus
Christ.
That's what he claimed.
But then he contradicts himself directly using terms
like this.
He also claimed that Jesus Christ because of
his birth, abnormal birth, whatever it was.
Okay, he lacked male organs.
He lacked male organs.
Yes, this is what he wrote.
These are the details that are not known
to the common Ahmadi.
They don't know these things that he actually
wrote about this Jesus Christ.
And this is not to be found in
the New Testament.
Let's say, let's for the sake of the
argument...
I've never heard that before in my life.
Well, he wrote this, he wrote this and
he claimed that he lacked because of the
defect in his birth.
Where did he get this information from?
It was coming from his own mind.
Okay, it was his perverted mind and he
was completely making this up in his own
mind.
And if the Jama'at claims this was
accusative answer, show us where the New Testament
or any of the apocryphal Christian literature states
that Jesus lacked male abilities or male hormones
or male organs.
They won't find that.
It is not there.
Jesus was a man.
He was a man.
We know him as a man.
Right?
So, these are the kind of insulting things
he wrote about Jesus Christ.
That he was a drunkard, he was a
man of loose character.
The reason why God did not call him
Fasur in the Quran, like he did with
John the Baptist, he did not call him
Fasur in the Quran because Jesus had these
accusations against him.
So, he is not trying to use the
Quran to justify these accusations.
If this is accusative answer against the Christians,
why is he referencing the Quran using the
example of John the Baptist as someone who
is mentioned as a pure person, someone who
is faultless, for example, and not Jesus Christ.
So, he is actually using the Quran to
justify his beliefs.
So, these are very disturbing things he wrote
about Jesus Christ.
To give you some examples, there is a
lot more, Declan.
Our scholars, Sunni scholars, have written books on
this topic alone.
His insults on Jesus Christ in the old
language.
I am glad that you said that the
ordinary Ahmadiyya does not know this because, you
know, I know one particular Ahmadiyya said to
me, Declan, do you really believe that we
would follow somebody, do you believe that we
would believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was the
promised Messiah and follow him if he said
these horrible things?
There are two options.
They don't know.
There are two options.
Either they do know like the missionaries do
and they basically hide it and don't want
to face it.
The missionaries do seven years training or something
like that.
So, they would have to read in full
every word that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad...
They are taught about these problems.
They have to be because they can't complete
a sentence without mentioning his name.
Exactly, exactly, exactly.
And they are taught about these problems and
how to respond to them.
So, their training is not about making them
scholars of Islam.
Their training is about how to defend the
cult against attacks.
That's very deceitful.
Yes, 100%.
And this is why you don't see scholars
among them.
They don't produce scholars.
And the reason is, Declan, if they produce
scholars...
Well, you have to be constantly on your
guard, don't you?
Exactly.
But look, why do they discourage scholarship?
Why do they discourage scholarship?
Because they know once their own murabbis start
to learn the Arabic language and they indulge
deep into the literature of Islam, they will
realize how substandard the writings of Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad Qadiani were.
If they started to look into Al-Ghazali,
let's say, or Ibn Taymiyyah, or works of
Ibn Hajar, and big names like Fakhruddin al
-Razi, for example, right?
These great scholars of Islam, intellectuals and philosophers
and thinkers, if these Ahmadi murabbis or Qadiani
murabbis, if they were to read this literature,
they would immediately realize that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
Qadiani was a charlatan, he was just an
imposter, and he was a very substandard writer.
A very substandard writer.
So, coming back to Jesus Christ, again, so
that we don't go off the track, this
is a very interesting topic.
So, these are some of the things he
said about Jesus Christ that are outrightly insulting
and denying his miracles, and insulting him in
this language, and he even claimed that Jesus,
to defend himself, when he abused people in
harsh language, using the term bastard child against
his opponents, for example, those people who said
that he lost the debate against Abdullah Atam,
he said, if you think that, then you're
a bastard child.
You are a bastard child.
He wasn't a good loser.
Yeah, exactly, he wasn't a good loser.
But then when people said, how can you
use this language, man?
What is wrong with you?
How can you use this language and claim
to be a prophet?
He said, well, Jesus used this language.
Jesus used this language against the Pharisees and
the Sadducees, so he called them bastard children.
But Jesus didn't.
He called them the adulterous generation, as if
we take the New Testament narrative to be
accurate, he called them, according to the New
Testament, adulterous generation.
That's not quite calling them bastard children, right?
He would be calling his own people bastard
children if this is what he believed.
But Jesus never used this language, okay?
His language was so harsh and so abusive
that today, when we start to talk about
it in front of the Qadiani's, they simply
don't have the patience to listen to it.
And by the sounds of things, it just
wasn't one or two words, it was several
passages.
Declan, people have made alphabetical dictionaries of his
abusive language.
This is what I need to read.
Okay, I will show you an alphabetical dictionary
of his abuse, that runs in two pages.
When you're doing research like this, Edmund, you
get a little piece here, a little piece
there, all the evidence should really be mapped
out.
Absolutely.
And you see the evidence is so much
that his 80-odd volumes, or 80-odd
books in 22 volumes published as Ruhani Khazain,
it is filled with all these things I
have mentioned.
So you can do a PhD on Mirza
Ghulam Qadiani on one aspect alone, his abuse,
you can do a PhD on that.
And I'm not making this up.
I will show you the alphabetical dictionary that
some of our activists have created of his
abuse, starting from Alif, Ba, Tha, Urdu alphabets,
and the abuse that he has used.
I would really like to see that.
Just to finish off this point, tell me
about Mary.
Why did he attack Mary?
It's one thing to attack Jesus.
In order to cast light on the miraculous
birth of Jesus Christ, he had to attack
Mary.
He had to cast doubt on her character.
So he stated many things that are extra
-biblical.
So again, this claim that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
Qadiani was using these ideas or claims to
get back at the Christians, or this was
an accusative answer, doesn't make sense.
You know why?
Because a lot of the stuff he used
against Mary is not biblical, and it's not
even extra-biblical because we cannot find it
anywhere else.
For example, he claimed that, I read in
the books of a Fazil Yahudi, to use
the exact term, right?
I read in the books or in the
works of a Fazil, a learned Jew, who
wrote the story about Mary marrying Joseph against
the law of Moses.
So he accused Mary of living in an
illegitimate relationship with Joseph the Carpenter.
So basically the story goes, which he tells
in his works, borrowing from an unknown Jewish
source that we cannot find.
We have failed to find it.
The Qadiani Jamaat cannot produce it.
It's been a hundred years.
They haven't produced that source.
They don't know where Mirza got this information
from.
He claimed that a Fazil Jew, a learned
Jew, wrote this.
And no one knows who this learned Jew
was and where that book is or where
that source is.
And the story he tells is, and I'm
going to summarize it, that Mary, when she
got pregnant, when she was pregnant, obviously questions
were raised about her character.
To avoid embarrassment, her elders took her to
an old man called Joseph the Carpenter.
So they got her married to Joseph the
Carpenter against the law of Moses.
So Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani uses three terms
here to describe this phenomenon.
Against the Torah, against the law of Moses,
and against the Sharia of Allah.
Three terms, interchangeably.
So this was against the Torah, this was
against the Mosaic law, and this was against
the law of Allah, the law of God.
So in other words, Mary was forced by
her elders into an illegitimate, a prohibited relationship,
which amounts to adultery.
Right?
Which amounts to adultery.
Clearly, if you are not married and your
marriage is not valid, legally speaking, you are
living with a man you are not married
to.
The marriage is not valid.
So Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani wrote this, borrowing
from an unknown Jewish source that we cannot
locate.
And then he endorses it.
He endorses the story.
He states that this story is valid.
And it explains away many difficult things about
the life of Mary and her experience with
this difficult hour in her life, when she
was impregnated by a miracle.
We believe by a miracle.
So he had to start with Mary, cast
doubts on her life and on her character
in order to transfer that guilt or that
character defect into the life of Jesus Christ.
And then do all those things we mentioned
already.
Okay, so Mary basically was attacked for this
reason.
And this is not biblical literature.
We do not find this in the New
Testament.
It is not in the apocryphal literature.
And you need to see this alleged source
to see how valid...
It is non-existent.
It does not exist.
It does not exist.
Unless Mirza can claim to have had a
revelation, the book came from the heavens.
And the Jewish rabbi who wrote this book
basically never published it or it never became
public.
But somehow he found it in India.
And I wonder what language he was writing
this book in.
Because it could only be in Persian, Arabic
or Urdu, the languages Mirza knew.
He did not know the English language.
Amazingly, he had some English revelations that do
not make sense as well.
I do not know if you have seen
those.
So he said a lot more about Mary.
For example, he said Mary was a hermaphrodite.
He also insinuated that she had male hormones
within her body that produced Jesus Christ.
Because he projected the miracle of virgin birth.
So he had to come up with some
mad, some crazy explanation for this.
And he claimed that Mary had male characteristics
or male hormones and her own sperm impregnated
her.
This is what Mirza Ghulam Qadiani wrote.
So Mary was attacked by Mirza Ghulam Qadiani
on so many different accounts.
For example, he claimed that Mary was a
hermaphrodite.
Really?
Right.
He did.
He did.
He was some kind of transvestite slash hermaphrodite
person and she had her own sperm.
She had male characteristics.
So transgender?
Yes, along those lines.
He wrote that and the references on the
screen, right?
He wrote that she had male characteristics, her
own sperm that was within herself impregnated her.
And this is how she became pregnant with
Jesus Christ.
So this goes against the Quran.
This goes against the New Testament.
This is utterly obscene, isn't it?
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
And these are the things the Qadiani Jamaat
does not tell the common Ahmadis.
They know these things.
They know these problems exist and they are
hiding from these problems.
They don't respond.
They don't give a clear straightforward response.
And they try to play games like again,
what about Islam?
What about this person?
What about that person?
Instead of defending Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, who
was supposed to be a prophet of God,
who claimed that Mary was such a person
and categorically states that there was sperm inside
her that impregnated her and this is how
she was impregnated.
Then we asked them on a stream.
We asked them, can you produce an example
from the entire history of humanity or a
scientific journal where you can show us someone
who is transgender or hermaphrodite or someone who
is like a transvestite, someone like that, got
pregnant by themselves and gave birth to a
child.
And they were playing, they were like, they
started to, you know, I mean, again, there
is no such example.
They couldn't produce it.
Again, they will do this.
They will divert your attention.
They will digress from the topic.
They will go into another question altogether.
But when we ask them specifically to produce
an evidence for anyone in human history or
a scientific journal that this is even possible,
they cannot.
So Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani stated something so
absurd that it's just not insulting, but outrightly
absurd, scientifically speaking.
On top of that...
I'm just shocked.
I'm actually quite shocked by that last bit.
Yes.
I never ever heard it.
Well, this is there.
It is there.
We have discussed it extensively on our streams.
I mean, again, if Christians, if you handed
them a book with all of this...
Yeah.
We have to.
I think we have to so that...
And say, well, you've got to accept this
man as your promised Messiah.
Yeah.
Who came for humanity.
Yes.
Who came for humanity.
It doesn't even stop there.
I mean, he insulted all of the religions.
I mean, even Hindus.
He called, there was a group of Hindus
called the Arya Samaj.
He insulted their women because of a tradition
they had called Niyog.
Niyog, basically in this tradition, when Hindu women
could not be impregnated by their husbands, they
could choose to have relations with other men
by choice so that they can get pregnant,
right?
Which is, of course, not acceptable to most
people in the world, right?
But this is a tradition they had.
But he, using this tradition, he accused the
entire community, in particular women, to be prostitutes.
He said the women of Arya Samaj are
prostitutes.
He used this blanket term to describe the
women of the entire group called Arya Samaj
in his poetry.
He wrote some vulgar poetry on this as
well.
And again, Declan, the list of absurdities and
abuse is so long, that we simply do
not have the time to address all those
things in a short interview like this.
Coming back to Mary, again, very quickly, I
want to say a few last...
Do please, because there's two questions that I
really do want to ask you before we
end this interview.
Okay, so Mary, basically, apart from this, he
also claimed that she was partly to blame
for the accusation against her.
An accusation God defends her against in the
Quran, okay?
She was accused of unchastity, right?
This is very clear in the Jewish literature,
in the Talmud.
We have references, very unpleasant references to Mary
for being possibly an unchaste woman.
And God, according to the Quran, God defends
her against such accusations categorically.
And Allah tells us in the Quran that
she was a pure woman.
She never committed a sin.
She was chosen by God to be a
pure woman.
And anyone accusing her is clearly going against
the Quran.
But Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani wrote she was
partly to blame for this accusation.
Yes, her people accused her.
They were to blame for this wrong accusation.
But she was also partly to blame for
her negligence because she hid this information for
far too long.
His own story is contradictory.
His own narrative on Mary alone, put aside
Jesus Christ, put aside other people.
On Mary alone, his own narrative is highly
contradictory and problematic.
And the list goes on and on and
on.
His insults are outright blasphemous, outright insulting and
disgusting.
How do you think that people like me,
how would you help people like me get
to the truth?
Because, you know, he wrote all these books.
He wrote these 84 books.
I've been led to believe that less than
50% of his writings have actually been
translated into English.
Now, I find it quite extraordinary because the
Ahmadiyya community, they have their own publishing house,
Islam International Publications.
It's a well-established company.
They've published the Quran, let's say, for example,
in 75 languages.
So, you know, they do disseminate, you know,
large volumes of work in different languages.
But why in English, the universal language, why
not publish all his works in English?
And they have the means to translate.
100%.
They had the means almost 100 years ago.
In the 1920s, they had the means to
do it.
But why don't ordinary Ahmadiyyas, and especially the
younger generation, why don't they ask these questions?
Because they are specifically and deliberately shielded away
from this covet.
I mean, Mirza's writings, some of those writings
are highly problematic.
If they were to translate them into the
English language, people who were to read them
as the writings of the so-called prophet,
they would be highly disturbed.
They would be very shocked and disturbed, right?
So that's why.
Look at Muslims.
We have to see this.
We have to really press for those to
be published.
But they're not going to do that because
they've had 100 years.
They have the money.
They're very glad to be done for them.
Possibly, yes, yes.
So if someone wants to do that, it
would be a great service to the whole
world for that matter, so that people know
what the teachings of this person are, so
that the Ahmadis themselves can realize that they
have made a mistake.
Not they, the ancestors who didn't know better,
who were illiterate peasants.
I was going to ask you that, you
know, that in years ago, you know, in
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's lifetime, what was the literacy
rate of Urdu?
Very low.
Was it very low?
Very low.
So who was he writing for?
He was writing for the literati mainly, and
initially people didn't realize what he was, and
as soon as he started to come out
with these claims that he is the Mahdi,
he is the reviver of the faith, the
Mujaddid, then he claimed to be like the
Messiah, first he claimed to be like the
Messiah, Masih-e-Masih, then he claimed to
be Masih-e-Maud, the promised Messiah, and
then finally he ended up claiming to be
a prophet in 1902, right?
Just six years before he died.
So there was a trajectory he was on,
and some scholars of Islam had already realized
the trajectories on, and they had warned the
Muslims about his character and how dubious he
was, but his immediate followers in his region,
in his area, were a bunch of peasants.
Majority of the Qadiani followers, common Ahmadis, are
descendants of those peasants who were from the
Qadian region or neighboring towns and cities.
What would you say the literacy rate is
currently amongst the Urdu population?
Not very high in Pakistan, in India, not
very high, but they are highly educated in
the West, naturally, because in the Western world,
education is very important, they know, they want
their children to be educated, but not necessarily
educated on the Jamaat and the literature of
the Jamaat, educated in medicine, in engineering and
other things, they are highly intellectual people.
No, no, I don't dispute that for a
second.
But when it comes to the knowledge of
their own books, which is in the Urdu
language, most of the Western audience is not
even able to read Urdu.
They are not going to be knowledgeable if
it's concealed from them.
Exactly.
Because, you know, as non-Urdu speakers, you
know, Western converts, and the Africans, we haven't
mentioned the African community, well, they are going
to be completely in the dark, aren't they,
about their writings?
Yes, absolutely, and for the Africans, they have,
you see, what they do is Mirza Ghulam
al-Qadiani wrote some very simple texts and
pamphlets and booklets as well, and they present
those to the Africans, and they are filled
with spiritual guidance and spiritual instructions.
Why wouldn't people find them fascinating and interesting?
Of course, yes.
Because someone talking sensibly about spiritual matters, you
won't reject it, but his shenanigans, what I
call shenanigans, and the controversial stuff, and the
absurdities and the lies, That was what I
was going to ask you, there is a
cover-up.
Do you think that there is a cover
-up in having less than 50% of
his writings translated into English?
I believe so.
I believe some of his writings...
What do you think the community, what do
you think the Ahmadiyya community, what do you
think the response would be to that?
Their response would be no, there is no
cover-up, but clearly there is, because you've
had a hundred years, you have the money,
you have the publishing houses, you're printing Qur
'an, you have translated his books.
You're claiming he is the promised messiah for
all humanity, English is the universal language, I
want to read all his works.
Yes, yes.
I want to devour them, every single word.
Why wouldn't you do it?
Why wouldn't you do it?
This is why the majority...
It's not available to me.
And this is why the majority of their
Jamaat is ignorant of Mirza's own writings.
And look at the Muslims, we have produced
the literature of Islam, all the major works
in the English language.
We have Sahih Al-Bukhari, the prophetic tradition,
entirely translated into the English language, multiple times.
We have Sahih Muslim, entirely in English.
We have other six books of Hadith also
in English and Urdu and other languages, right?
Why wouldn't you do that with Mirza's books?
If he's a prophet of God and you
want his works to be out in public
and you want people to find that guidance
and benefit from it and believe in him,
I find it extraordinary.
then translate all his works.
Why wouldn't they do it?
I know that we're going to run out
of time and I'll have to come back
a second day because there's just so many
more questions that I'm not going to get
through.
One last point I would like to address.
Please do.
About his prophecies, so-called prophecies.
Oh yes, yes, yes.
If you feel you have time for that,
I was going to ask you.
Very quickly we can mention.
I was going to ask you because this
really only came to my attention after I
had completed the book on the Lahori Ahmadiyya
movement because, you know, I went through his
revelations and I tried my best to put
it into an interesting narrative.
I did struggle, and the Lahoris struggled as
well, to get me sources in English about
his revelations.
That was a bit of a struggle, that
part of the research.
But one of the stories that wasn't given
to me, and I have since learned that
it's very controversial, and that's the story of
Miss Begum.
Yeah, Muhammad Begum.
Yeah.
A very famous case.
Could you, if you've got time.
To summarize.
There might be many, many people that have
never heard this.
We have done extensive streams.
We have done extensive streams on this topic
alone.
Anyone who wants to see the details, go
to my YouTube channel, Adnan Rashid, and check
out our streams.
Why is this particular?
Yeah, this particular prophecy was very interesting for
many reasons.
First of all, Mirza wanted to marry this
young man when he was already quite old,
well into his 50s, right?
And he wanted to get married to this
young woman.
How old was she?
She was 11 or 12.
From my research, she was a distant relative.
That's right.
Her father was a distant relative.
Yes, and she was more closely related to
his son's wife, Mirza Ghulam al-Qadiani's son's
wife.
And her father came to Mirza for some
help and support in some land dispute.
And Mirza, in return, asked for him to
give his daughter in marriage to him.
And then he made up a prophecy that
God has already prophesied that this marriage will
take place.
And how old was Mirza Ghulam al-Qadiani?
In his 50s.
He was already in his 50s.
So, from my research, I believe he got
married for a second time.
I think he was 49.
Okay.
He was 49.
Because he got married...
First marriage was...
With Sultan Jahan Begum, right?
This is his second wife, who gave him
most of his children.
Yes.
They had ten children.
Yeah, she was from Delhi.
When I say they had ten children, I
do believe that five died at birth.
Collectively, yes.
This is a separate issue.
With Mohammadi Begum, he wanted to marry her
by hook or by crook.
First of all, he expressed this desire, which
was refused outrightly, flatly.
But he was already married at this time.
He was already married.
He was already married.
He was in his 50s already.
And having children with his wife.
And he was extremely ill.
He had many illnesses, including diabetes and melancholy
and other conditions.
He himself describes he would go to toilet
a hundred times a day, according to his
own confession.
Yes, a hundred times a day.
And he wrote about this.
He wrote about this.
And he even claimed this to be a
miracle.
He said the prophecy about Jesus coming back
with two pieces of cloth from the heavens,
like Prophet Muhammad prophesied that Jesus will come
back in Damascus with two angels.
He will descend physically himself and he will
be dressed in two pieces of cloth.
Okay.
He said those two pieces of cloth actually
represent two defects I have.
One is the headaches, which is the top
cloth that covers the top.
And the bottom cloth that covers the lower
part of the body is basically my excessive
urination and defecation and spending time in the
toilet.
You seem to be shocked.
You are shocked, you are surprised.
But he actually had the audacity to claim
this.
And it is surprising that decent people, working
-class people, doctors and engineers, they believe this
man to be a prophet of God.
He claimed that prophecy for himself and his
defects, medical defects, he used them to be
a miracle of God, a sign from God
for that matter.
So during his 50s, he had remarried for
a second time, having all these children, obviously
not very well, and he was still obsessed
with this woman.
Until the day he died.
Why did he think that God wanted him
to marry Miss Begum?
He wanted to marry this woman.
If God wanted him to marry this woman
or this girl, it would have transpired.
It never transpired.
Why was he obsessed with this woman?
He felt that he wants to marry a
young woman.
Clearly, because this happened when her father...
An old man's love.
Possibly.
That's what Anthony Chalaputh calls it.
It's anyone's guess.
So the way he went about it was
very indecent.
For example, he published pamphlets and advertisements on
her, mentioning her name publicly, dragging her name
publicly that this woman will be married to
me.
This is an unchanging destiny from God.
This destiny cannot change.
It cannot be averted.
It can be delayed, but it will never
be averted.
She will marry me before I die.
And he kept saying this until the day
he died.
Days before he died, he had mentioned this,
that it will be fulfilled.
And he died in Lahore, didn't he?
He died in Lahore, and it never happened.
It never happened.
And the worst part, Declan, is that he
said, it is unchanging destiny.
Taqbeer-e-mubram.
This is the word he used.
This is the term he used.
That it cannot be averted.
It will happen.
And you know how he went about trying
to do it?
He blackmailed people.
He blackmailed his own son.
He told his son that if your wife
does not talk to her family to convince
them to give this girl to me in
marriage, she will be divorced.
And he forced his son to divorce her.
He forced his son and his son was
refusing to divorce her.
This actually occurred.
So he was trying to make this marriage
happen by hook or by crook.
Not that God had anything to do with
it.
He wanted to do it, but he put
it all on God.
And it doesn't stop there, Declan.
This is one example.
And many people, by the way, left him.
So as they say, apostatized from his cult
and religion, came back to mainstream Islam after
they saw what happened, right?
Because of his behavior towards this girl, this
innocent young girl, and how it wasn't fulfilled,
his so-called prophecy.
Also, there are other things he mentioned.
For example, he said that God has extended
his life to a certain period and God
has told me specifically that he will live
longer than 14 months from July 1907.
This was against one of his opponents who
had prophesied similarly to him that he will
die within the next 14 months.
Mirza responded in July 1907 saying God has
told me directly that I will outlive 14
months from July 1907.
He dies in May 1908, 26th of May
1908.
He dies within nine months.
So clearly God didn't know what he was
talking about.
God, I mean, they come back and say
no, this happened because the man who challenged
him changed his mind, Abdullah Kim Patialvi.
He changed his mind.
But my question is, did God know that
Abdullah Kim Patialvi will change his mind?
And if he knew, why did God tell
Mirza that he will outlive 14 months from
July 1907?
This is God playing games, God not knowing
what he's doing.
God is not organized.
But Miss Begum's husband lived, didn't he?
He didn't die.
He was also prophesied to die.
Basically Mirza Ghulam al-Qadiani said if she
is married to someone else, Mohammadi Begum, then
her father will die and her husband will
die.
So for argument's sake, if this young woman,
if her husband did die.
He didn't die.
He didn't die.
But if he did die, he was going
to marry her.
So what was he going to do with
his wife and children?
He was still waiting for her to be
married to him.
He was waiting for him to die.
But what would he have done with his
wife?
His own wife, because at that stage he
had been married, having all these children, 10
children, one a year.
To his own children, Mirza's own children.
He was a prophet of God.
He could have had many wives.
You know, so the issue was how he
went about it.
So first the prophecy, half the prophecy was
fulfilled because her father died within that time.
But her husband Sultan Beg lived for another
40 years and Mirza prophesied that he will
also die within three years.
He didn't die.
And when people went back to him asking
him, okay, the father died within the time
because he was an old man.
He was already dying.
Okay, it's only common sense that he will
die soon because he was already elderly and
he was quite ill.
But this guy who was a young man,
why didn't he die?
Mirza said, well, he changed his mind.
He repented.
Repented for what?
Exactly.
Repented for what?
If he repented, in that case, he should
have divorced Mohammadi Begum so that Mirza's prophecy
can be fulfilled.
He never divorced her.
He had children with her and they both
died disbelieving in Mirza.
Mohammadi Begum and Sultan Beg died Muslims.
They didn't believe in Mirza Ghulam Kaliani.
Okay, so to summarize, these are only two
examples I gave you, his failed prophecies.
There's a long list, long list of these
failed prophecies that we have discussed.
For example, Abdullah Atam, the man he debated,
the Christian missionary, he stated that he will
die on a certain date.
He didn't die.
He outlived that date for by many months,
actually two years, if I'm not mistaken.
And on that day when he was supposed
to die in Qadian, people were basically doing
religious, you know, spiritual gatherings and praying for
his death and Mirza actually did some ritual.
He took some chickpeas and blew on them
something and he threw them in a well
and he said don't look back and this
was to kill him.
This was to kill Abdullah Atam.
Maybe it was a magical ritual or maybe
some kind of spiritual shenanigans he tried to
do to Abdullah Atam.
Abdullah Atam outlived and many people actually his
opponents celebrated and again many people apostatized.
So if Mirza was a true prophet of
God, a lot of these prophecies would have
been fulfilled and he would have had a
lot more followers today.
Just to finish off on the story of
Miss Begum, What is the response of the
Ahmadiyya community for this?
There's no, I mean when we asked them
if this was unchanging destiny and it never
happened, why did Mirza not get married to
her?
They say all the marriage took place spiritually
in the heavens.
So this was again metaphorical spin.
This was a metaphorical marriage that happened with
God, inside of God they were both married
spiritually.
Okay, that's one response.
The other response is that oh, you know,
it didn't happen because God changed his mind,
simply God changed his mind.
Okay, so there are many responses they give
to this.
Okay, and they come back with many complicated
arguments, try to deliberately try to complicate things
or look at this aspect, look at that
aspect, look at this angle, look at that
angle to basically build a narrative to convince
people that it wasn't that bad.
But actually Mirza, when he said it's unchanging
destiny, the essence of the prophecy is unchanging
destiny and what was the essence of the
prophecy?
I will marry Mohammadi Begum, full stop, and
it never happened.
And he didn't marry her.
It didn't happen.
And then we've got to leave it at
that for today.
There's still lots of questions.
I've been unable to ask you, time has
run out.
We can do it again.
We'll have to come back a second time.
But for today, thank you very much indeed.
Thank you so much.
My pleasure.