marmuzah | مرموزة

The abysmal “revelations” of Mirza Qadiani: 40 years

Mirza was known for being exposed by his own prophecies.

Below is a succinct example of this.

On another page of the same book:

Both screenshots were taken from here: https://www.alislam.org/library/books/TheHeavenlySign.pdf

Mirza wrote the above book in 1892 (the foreword of the book itself says this). His mission was supposed to last forty years according to this prophecy, and at the time of writing he said that “ten full years have already passed” out of these forty. So his mission should last until 1922.

He died in 1908.

The abysmal “revelations” of Mirza Qadiani: Broken English

The “revelations” of Mirza Ghulam Qadiani, the false prophet, are some of the most laughable failures that expose his condition. His english revelations are one example in a long list.

Mirza claimed to receive revelation from God in the english language. This was supposedly a miracle, as he did not know any english himself.

Below is an index from the book “Tadhkirah”. It contains each english revelation he received, and the page number.

A PDF of the book: https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Tadhkirah.pdf

Contents

Note how they are all very simple, some are one word, most are not complete sentences, and there are tons of grammar errors. It's a list of broken english. Some examples: “We can what we will do”, “You have to go Amritsar”, “You must do what I told you”

You're telling me God makes grammar mistakes? That he reveals broken english? English that sounds like it came from some indian who learned it as a second language?

Broken english is supposedly a miraculous revelation. It's even more miraculous that Mirza didn't know any english, while biographies of him by his own followers record him attending english classes!

The source for the above screenshot from “Life of Ahmad”: https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Life-of-Ahmad-20080411MN.pdf

Ahmadiyya and The Case of John Hugh Smyth-Pigott

The case of John Hugh Smyth-Pigott is the most irrefutable, clear, and undeniable case demonstrating the falseness of Ahmadiyya.

The founder of the ahmadiyya, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, made numerous claims, such as claiming to be a prophet. His followers often cite his prophecies as proofs of these claims.

Mirza himself has told us there's no better way to judge his truthfulness then his prophecies. “To Judge my truthfulness or lies, there is no better test than my prophecies.” (Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 19, P. 288)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed in 1902 that John Hugh Smyth-Pigott would die during his lifetime due to Pigott's claim to be Jesus/God. This did not occur. Pigott died in 1927, while Mirza died in 1908. Ahmadis say this was because Pigott repented of his claim and stopped. This argument can easily be tested.

I have proof that Pigott was claiming to be God in 1904, 1905, 1906, 1908 (3 months before Mirza died), and in 1909, after Mirza died.

Pigott, as we mentioned earlier, claimed that he was Christ, and in a christian background (he was a priest in England), he was also claiming divinity. When Mirza learned of this claim, which is effectively a rival claim to his (as Mirza claimed to be the Messiah) he sent a letter to Pigott. He dictated the letter to Muhammad Sadiq, a companion of Mirza that knew English.

Here are some excerpts from the letter:

“J.H. Smyth Pigott, Pastor of… London, has recently announced himself as God… on the 7th and 14th of September 1902… God has, therefore, commanded me to warn him… He does not only utter the blasphemy of calling himself the very “Lord Jesus”...I, therefore, warn him through this notice that if he does not repent of this irreverent claim, he shall be soon annihilated, even in my life-time… God has borne witness to my truth with heavenly signs shown in thousands… The death of Mr. Pigott within my life-time shall be another sign of my truth. If I die before Mr. Pigott, I am not the true Messiah nor am I from GodGod shall bring the false Messiah to destruction within the life-time of the true one

The letter is dated 24th November 1902. It is signed “Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, The Prophet”.

The full letter can be seen in these two images, for anyone that wants the context: http://imgur.com/a/zARIp

The letter is quite explicit. Mirza says “If I die before Mr. Pigott, I am not the true Messiah nor am I from God”.

Here is an Ahmadi source (Ahmadiyya Gazette Canada, March-April 2010, English) authenticating the Pigott quote by publishing the above letter: http://ahmadiyyagazette.ca/magazine/39/03-04/AGC_Eng_Mar_Apr_2010.pdf

Go to page 29 if going by written numbers on the pages, page 31 if going by the PDF reader's numbering.

This proves the letter is authentic, as even the ahmadiyya have published it.

On the same page of the Gazette article, it says:

Unlike the case of Dowie, where he continued making false claims and angrily responded back to the Promised Messiah as through the media, Reverend Smyth-Pigott totally retracted public claims and retreated. It is perhaps for this reason he did not die in the lifetime of the Promised Messiah (as). Indeed he lived on and died in 1927.

You can decide if this claim holds water when you finish this piece.

Additionally we can see on their website they reference a newspaper clipping relating to Dowie:

site

Here is a link to the page the above screenshot is from: http://www.alislam.org/egazette/egazette/april-2009-egazette/

If we lookup the newspaper clipping from the above screenshot, we notice it also has the Pigott prophecy:

Imgur

The boxed text in the image says

“A sign of the evidence of God in my favor will appear on the death of Mr. Pigott, the arrogant pretender to divinity, who shall be brought to destruction within my lifetime…” (The Sunday Herald, Boston, June 23 1907)

The same quote is found on the official website of the ahmadiyya:

A sign of evidence of God in my favor will appear in the death of Mr. Piggot — the arrogant pretender to divinity, who shall be brought to destruction within my life time.

Source: https://www.alislam.org/library/links/00000213.html

We also have a “revelation” about Pigott:

The source of this page is this pdf (see page number at the bottom of screenshot to find it): https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Tadhkirah.pdf

The above screenshot also confirms a letter in English was sent, and had been dictated to Muhammad Sadiq by Mirza.

So when did Pigott die? 1927.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad died in 1908.

Now to get around this and maintain belief in Ahmadiyya they claimed he did repent, as is done in the Gazette article and Tadhkirah footnote from above.

This is easy to test.

Let's take a look at the timeline of events.

Mirza warns Pigott in 1902.

1904

In a 1904 newspaper article it says:

The Rev. Smyth-Pigott, the self-styled “Messiah” of Clapton; and the leader of a sect called the Agapemonites is again receiving the attention of the London Press. It seems that the that the reverend gentleman whose claims to divinity caused a considerable stir some time ago, has left Clapton and is residing with his followers at the “Abode of Love” in Spaxton, Somersetshire, where he and about a hundred followers daily perform their mystic rites. He still claims divinity in blasphemous language. At a special gathering of his disciples on June 26 he again asserted his divine origin and dispensed blessings.

The same article says:

Many of the Agapemonites openly worship him.

This was in 1904, far after Mirza Ghulam's 1902 letter.

The source for the above quotes can be found in this newspaper clipping from 1904: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WH19040816.2.13

In another newspaper from 1904 we have another report of him claiming to be God.

On Monday the 4th of July 1904, we have the following event:

On Monday the Agapemonites held a service at which Pigott again declared, “I am the Lamb of God,” at which the congregation fell on their knees and worshipped him.

The source for this can be seen in this newspaper clipping dated to July 8th 1904: http://newspapers.library.wales/view/3347303/3347306/45/Messiah

Important Note: “Lamb of God” is a Christian term used to refer to Jesus Christ, who Christians believe is God. For a Christian to claim he is “Lamb of God”, this is to claim he is Jesus Christ, that he is the Messiah, and (because they claim Jesus is divine), it is also a claim to divinity. That is why they were worshipping him in the above quote.

Here is yet another 1904 newspaper confirming he is still making his claims. He is directly quoted in the below screenshot as saying:

I am the Lord Jesus who has come again

Imgur

Source: https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/BL/0000527/19040629/053/0007

An account is required for the above newspaper archive, but the free trial should give you three free uses. After going through the signup try the link above again while logged in to get to the page. This archive is linked elsewhere in this page for other papers.

So we've seen multiple different contemporary newspapers in 1904 that were asserting Pigott was still openly claiming divinity at multiple events.

1905

Imgur

This service where Pigott again claims to be God, and blesses his followers is from 1905. It is the account of a reporter who was present. Thus it is eyewitness testimony.

The same newspaper has an altercation with Pigott followers sent out to convert others:

“They told me that Mr. Pigott was the Messiah and that he was the Lord come a second time on earth... I spoke my mind to them... I said, 'just you get out of my house...' and they soon went when they saw I was getting my temper up.”

The source for this quote, and the above image is this newspaper clip from 1905: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS19050826.2.88

In a different newspaper in 1905 Pigott's close followers said “you are about to be admitted into the presence of the Almighty!”, to a registrar coming to visit Pigott. The same newspaper article had a discussion with the personal secretary of Mr.Pigott; Mr.Reed.

Mr.Reed says:

“The papers have said all sorts of things about us, and we are despised just as Jesus was when He came on earth. We have Jesus with us. Brother Prince said Jesus would come amongst us again, and He came and was revealed unto us at Clapton two years ago.”

After he says this the reporter asks:

“Do you mean Mr. Pigott?” —

He replies with yes.

The source for the above can be seen in this newspaper clipping from 1905: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19050923.2.82.9

Here is another 1905 newspaper:

Imgur

Source: http://newspapers.library.wales/view/3347828/3347836

Now we've seen three different contemporary newspapers in 1905 that were asserting Pigott was still openly claiming divinity.

1906

A newspaper again publishes him claiming to be Jesus:

Imgur

Source: https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002063/19060915/084/0006

An account is required as mentioned earlier.

1908

Just months before Mirza died he was claiming to be God:

“Mr Frank Edward Farncombe stated that in February 1908, he obtained admission to the Agapemone and had some conversations with Smyth-Pigott. “A SACRED LIGHT” Did you ask him how he established his claim to the godhead? – Yes: he replied something about a sacred light. I said it seems incomprehensible, and he replied: “The things which we deal with are a mystery unless the the initiated.” – HAWERA & NORMANBY STAR, VOLUME LVI, 8 MARCH 1909.

Source: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WAG19090309.2.17.28

So someone in February 1908 personally asks Pigott about “how he established his claim to the godhead”. This means people still understood Pigott to be claiming to be God. Pigott's reply is not denying that he is God, he just tries to answer the question as to how his claim is established. But he then says it's a mystery unless you are properly initiated. This, coupled with all the other newspaper clippings, show that he did not retract his claim to being God/Messiah/Jesus.

Mirza then dies on May 26, 1908, a few months after this February 1908 event.

After this, in 1909, Pigott again claimed to be God:

Imgur

If one wants the source, see newspaper clipping here: http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/BL/0000321/19270321/027/0007?_=1497108726400

An account is required as mentioned earlier.

His sect/cult continued after his death and his followers did not stop worshipping him during his lifetime, and some continued to worship him after his death.

One of its cottages, North Gate, a four-bedroom gabled house built for followers in 1916, is for sale for £295,000.

After Smyth-Pigott died in 1927, the community went into gradual decline, ending with the death of the last surviving member, Sister Ruther, at the age of 90 in 1956. The following year, the Agapemone and its contents were auctioned.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/advice/propertymarket/3325822/The-chapel-of-unrest.html

It's clear Pigott did not repent. Pigott claimed to be God after Mirza's 1902 letter. In 1904, 1905, 1908 (3 months before Mirza's death), and after's Mirza's death. His followers said he was Jesus Christ who come again to this world and they openly worshipped Pigott in front of him throughout this period.

A reminder that at the beginning of this article, Mirza's 1902 letter said:

If I die before Mr. Pigott, I am not the true Messiah nor am I from God

This is pretty clear cut.

Mirza gave us a clear objective test and has told us if he fails this, he is not the true Messaih nor is he from God.

He failed.

In colonial India a fatwa was issued on the subject of riba (usury). The fatwa reasoned that India should be considered a “dar al-harb” (house of war/enemy land), and on this basis cited certain positions allowing otherwise prohibited commercial transactions. In the numerous refutations that followed one of the points refuted was the incorrect understanding of the term “dar al-harb”. A sample is given below.


WHAT IS MEANT BY “ENEMY LANDS” (DAR AL-HARB)

As for the fatwa's claim that India is an enemy land (dar al-harb), it is not in its generality true. Because areas where Muslims reside and there is a remnant of Islam's rules—even if this is limited to marriages and what pertains to them, for example—are considered Muslim lands. A Muslim land does not become an enemy land except under three conditions:

  • that the security of Muslims through their leader no longer exists and the security of non-Muslims has taken its place;
  • that they have been surrounded on all sides such that it is impossible for the aid of Muslims to reach them;
  • and that not a single one of Islam's rules remains therein (n: which effectively means that none of the lands that Islam has spread to and in which something of it remains can be considered an enemy land. As for other countries, enemy lands (dar al-harb, lit, “abode of war”) consist of those with whom the Muslim countries (dar al-Islam) are at a state of war) (n: in the light of which, it is clear that there is virtually no country on the face of the earth where a Muslim has an excuse to behave differently than he would in an Islamic country, whether in his commercial or other dealings).

(Rudud 'ala abatil wa rasa'il al-Shaykh Muhammad al-Hamid (y44), 2.267-79)


Additionally, a question was posed to Imam Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti from a Muslim living in Europe and whether it was considered dar al-harb or not. The question and the reply from the Imam is below.


Question:

I’ve been here in Germany for some time in order to study computer sciences. In reality, life here is not that easy because it’s a different and society and culture, and a lot of Muslims here believe that what they’re doing is correct – such as stealing from the native people of this country because they’re not Muslims, and other similar things – and I believe this is a big mistake and I need your opinion. Another thing, for which I need your advice, is regarding food, for I always try to look at the ingredients of food to make sure they don’t contain anything unlawful (ḥarām) but I can’t always be certain. Sometimes, I discover later on that there was some unlawful ingredient and I don’t know what to do.

Answer:

First of all, the texts that show that it is unlawful to transgress against the property of others are general (ʿāmmah) and include both Muslims and others, the exception being when there is a war (ḥarb) between Muslims and disbelievers, and that’s because war has exceptional rulings that are exclusive to it. Therefore, whoever says that it’s permissible, for himself or others, to steal the property of Europeans in the current circumstances of peace is a dajjāl [1] and liar against the religion of Allah, Mighty and Majestic. Through his lying and falsehood he seeks to soil the reputation of Islam with that which it is innocent of and which will make outsiders hate it.

As for meat in Germany, you should be able to get some from Turkish Muslims, as there are many of them there and they have their own slaughterhouses, shops and restaurants.

[Translated from the Imam’s book Mashūrāt Ijtimāʿiyyah (Damascus: Dār al-Fikr, 1424/2003), p.194-195]

[1] (tn): this (dajjāl) is the same word used to describe the False Messiah (or Antichrist) but linguistically means swindler, cheat, imposter, quack or charlatan. The point here is that those who lie about religious matters are similar to the False Messiah. [Source of this fatwa] [Alternate link]


Some additional reading on this topic has been given below.

The Abodes of the Earth

Below are some interesting texts I came across on reddit. A link to the original post is at the bottom of this page.

These quotes are sourced from A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, edited by David Bercot, published by Hendrickson Publishers, unless stated otherwise.

“It has been commanded that the head should be veiled and the face covered. For it is a wicked thing for beauty to be a snare to men. Nor is it appropriate for a woman to desire to make herself conspicuous by using a purple veil.”

— Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215)

On searching up this quote I found another source:

“But I do not wish chaste women to afford cause for such praises to those who, by praises, hunt after grounds of censure; and not only because it is prohibited to expose the ankle, but because it has also been enjoined that the head should be veiled and the face covered; for it is a wicked thing for beauty to be a snare to men. Nor is it seemly for a woman to wish to make herself conspicuous, by using a purple veil. Would it were possible to abolish purple in dress, so as not to turn the eyes of spectators on the face of those that wear it! But the women, in the manufacture of all the rest of their dress, have made everything of purple, thus inflaming the lusts.”

— Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215), [Paedagogus (The Instructor), Book II]

In fact, if you read the entire document linked above, most of the quotes from Clement listed here below are found in it (with slightly different wording, probably due to different translations).

It is worth noting Clement of Alexandria is a Church Father and considered a Saint.

“Such a covering should be worn as is necessary for covering the eyes of women”

— Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215)

“Luxurious clothing that cannot conceal the shape of the body is no more a covering. For such clothing, falling close to the body, take its form more easily. Clinging to the body as though it were the flesh, it receives its shape and outlines the woman's figure. As a result, the whole make of the body is visible to spectators, although they cannot see the body itself”

— Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215)

“Women for the most part wear shoes. For it is not suitable for the foot to be shown naked. Besides, woman is a tender thing, easily hurt.”

— Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215)

“Woman and man are to go to church decently attired, with natural step, embracing silence... Let the woman observe this, further: Let her be entirely covered, unless she happens to be at home. For that style of dress is serious and protects from being gazed at. And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modest and her veil. Nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled.”

— Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215)

“By no means are women to be allowed to uncover and exhibit any part of their bodies, lest both fall – the men by being incited to look, and the women by attracting themselves to the eyes of the men”

— Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215)

“Be veiled, virgin, if you really are a virgin. For you should blush. If you are a virgin, shrink from the gaze of many eyes. let no one admire your face. Let no one perceive your falsehood”

— Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240)

In the above quote he's arguing the veiling is not only for married women but virgins as well

“It behooves our virgins to be veiled from the time that they have passed the turning point of their age. This observance is required by truth”

— Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240)

“For some, with their turbans and woolen bands, do not veil their heads, but bind them up. They are protected, indeed, in front. However, they are bare where the head properly lies. Others are to a certain extent covered over the region of the brain with linen doilies of small dimensions ... which do not quite reach the ears ... Let them know that the whole head constitutes the woman. Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound ... Arabia's pagan females will be your judges. For they cover not only the head, but the face also.”

— Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240)

“First, then, blessed sisters, take heed that you do not admit to your use of flashy and sluttish garbs and clothing.”

— Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240)

“When you are in the streets, cover your head. For by such a covering, you will avoid being viewed by idle persons... Look downward when you walk in public, veiling yourself, as becomes a woman.”

— Apostolic Constitutions (compiled around c. 375 to 380) [Source]

Credit to this reddit post for the quotes.

Anyways, the above quotes should not come as any real shock as there is a precedent for this in the New Testament itself.

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone is disposed to be contentious—we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. [1 Corinthians 11:2-16 NRSV translation]

================================================================== https://keybase.io/marmuzah


I hereby claim:

To do so, I am signing this object:

{ “body”: { “key”: { “eldestkid”: “0101aa24450f1a2aea71cdbfb5db1746604e4926623aa9f048976838df822f6e25520a”, “host”: “keybase.io”, “kid”: “01207b0ecdc3ed3beb561271247d09720d6f8629a6df861f55049f62f1567026dc430a”, “uid”: “f941b08e05848e56f9b7c1b824649919”, “username”: “marmuzah” }, “merkleroot”: { “ctime”: 1564371555, “hash”: “b1aab3cdbdd9651468e2453e0fde9cab209a8a5c9c9646190fb5aa4a3618cd96d0b0a9345430c615fd3b27a81c0fac1ddd3b6b1c4995b7a9c99f3802e1347df9”, “hashmeta”: “e17bda3513cc3d4de8fedf6dd90afa1cd2e1c7fa1b36eef6b32166440cc84662”, “seqno”: 5873422 }, “service”: { “entropy”: “f87PZfQOOWxufxa/SyuDHBE/”, “hostname”: “marmuzah.com”, “protocol”: “https:” }, “type”: “webservicebinding”, “version”: 2 }, “client”: { “name”: “keybase.io go client”, “version”: “4.2.1” }, “ctime”: 1564371591, “expirein”: 504576000, “prev”: “af5310be4062edc4e530468f99e77f7ed3946970b6eb0c1c32683cfc9456220f”, “seqno”: 24, “tag”: “signature” }

which yields the signature:

hKRib2R5hqhkZXRhY2hlZMOpaGFzaF90eXBlCqNrZXnEIwEgew7Nw+0761YScSR9CXINb4Yppt+GH1UEn2LxVnAm3EMKp3BheWxvYWTESpcCGMQgr1MQvkBi7cTlMEaPmed/ftOUaXC26wwcMmg8/JRWIg/EIHDc5KFx6njTUdtauldx/p4F7s2RUlN65QpuRKWVOlK3AgHCo3NpZ8RAOI+xZ4XCRrVSFpxKcOKzHNsw4GM+Ve6WjMggLT8uMAqWj1fcIVp/xKIUK3/uzYDFXeb+uqsKWLEuLdyOI/fjCKhzaWdfdHlwZSCkaGFzaIKkdHlwZQildmFsdWXEIAV3d7q2A1hP4wmruMg0foZDrRp6w/bSbwmZ3LuIuwYYo3RhZ80CAqd2ZXJzaW9uAQ==

And finally, I am proving ownership of this host by posting or appending to this document.

View my publicly-auditable identity here: https://keybase.io/marmuzah

==================================================================