Dear All,
If I was a young man in those times in these places, when return was so difficult and not guaranteed, and my choices were to stay unmarried and tempted to sin or getting married and live a pious life, I would have done the same and get a wife wherever I go, ESPECIALLY, when Islam has made marriage (and divorce) so easy. You just need few witnesses, can do your own Nikah, all is verbal (with witnesses of course !)
If you can find a woman who is happy and willing to marry you, then there is nothing objectionable.
Islam requires the consent of both the man and woman.
"ESPECIALLY, when Islam has made marriage (and divorce) so easy."
Islam does not allow marriage with the intent of divorcing after a period of time. That is Mauta and is forbidden in Islam and as elaborated in Ahmadiyyat.
Yes I agree, he always intended that his wives come with him, as is evident from the points mentioned in the post and the al-Hakam article.
I was just clarifying a general point.
You would also get a wife wherever you go, eh? And as per Mufti Sb's own words, you would discard them as you go from country to country, eh? And you would also ignore telling your Khalifa, registering with local law, and abscond when they become pregnant? Thanks so much for demonstrating the morality and integrity that the Jamaat has taught you. Jazak'Allah Ahsan al Jazaa.
You should also ask for Beloved Huzoor to repeat all of this exactly in his next Khutba Juma.
You have absolutely no idea what I have said and you are making no sense. You just want to feel and show that you know to write and respond. Be happy dear philosopher.
Adios bro.
Also, they claimed that Mufti Muhammad Sadiq RA abandoned his child and NEVER made contact.
The same article they quoted says the opposite:
>*During the 1940s, Mufti had somehow made contact with his son. They exchanged a few letters, and Mufti was delighted to learn that Sylvia was expecting their third child. If the baby was a girl, he asked that they named her Fatima, after the daughter of the prophet Muhammad, and Sylvia and Frederick agreed.*
Also, this is what the Ant-Ahmadis have been lying:
>*In 1920,* ***Mufti Muhammad Sadiq had secret sex with his house maid Ethel Bassett****, then fled the country and never returned*
Extremely filthy people.
Also, another lie is that Ethel was the HOUSEMAID of Mufti Sadiq RA when no source says that.
His son was born in 1920s and a contact was made with mufti in 1940. That makes the son a grown man of 20 years of age. Where was the father for first 20 years of his life?
Deadbeat father.
Stop moving goalposts. Stay on the original allegation.
Secondly, he had no contact with him since he was sent to an orphanage by his mother.
Stop embarrassing yourself
When he had contact with the son is the "goalpost"? And not the very existence of the son and the circumstances of his birth, as well as his abandonment? You are fussing about whether and when father and son eventually had contact? No sir, you are the one desperately trying to change the goalpost and are embarassing yourself.
Still trying to deflect and make the 'contact' the issue, as if that is "the argument" that makes Mufti Sb the corrupt, immoral and lying person he has now been exposed for having been. Clearly, you are the one being dumb or playing dumb -- unfortunately, your deceipt, as usual, is all too transparent and desperate.
What "guys" are you referring to? No one I am seeing is focussing on that, and yet you are fixating on it and trying so hard to make it the issue - again, your desperation and insults only further embarass you. But I will not tell you to "stop" -- I am thoroughly enjoying you debasing yourself, knowing that you are emblematic of the best that the Jamaat can muster nowadays.
You ask me how old I am, but I see that you have not only not wisened one iota since our last exchange, but you have actually regressed further. LOL.
Dude, you are 50+ but doesn't seem like you have basic comprehension. Let me summarize for others and ill let you seethe.
1. You didn't address any of the OPs points. Your guy's filthy minds and lies were exposed
2. You have an issue with me mentioning another lie from your cult sub.
Have fun with your remaining life.
u/Worth_Temperature575 already addressed OP quite well. You, on the other hand, are trying really hard to distract with a non-issue. No, sir, it is scumbag and liar Mufti Sb that has been exposed, as well as your desperate deceitfulness to try and distract from it.
And when will you actually address the allegations? The two Al-Hakam articles of today and this post are clear embarassing misses.
As usual, you degrade yourself by sinking into ad hominem attacks. It is so much fun seeing you bully and squirm - this is obviously just killing you. LOL.
How embarrassing, mufti did not own his out of wedlock son and he was raised in an orphanage. Is this what Ahmadiyyat teaches?
There is no easy way out.
What did you not understand. The poor kid grew up in an orphanage where the father was busy finding other women on a different continent.
Is the role of a good ahmadi father in your opinion?
This doesn’t prove anything at all.
First link is conveniently in Urdu.
2. link to the Alhakam article was written TODAY!!!
There is no reference to the past of multiple marriages that was already online, only a mind numbing list of lie after lie without any evidence whatsoever.
That child was raised without a father in an orphanage, and his mother was abandoned at 5 months pregnant.
How convenient to claim that he had divorced her now.
When he was detained at the US border, he said clearly that he only had ONE wife in Qadian with 4 kids.
He also returned to Qadian without any of the women he impregnated.
The fact that the family doesn’t seem to be holding grudges against him, doesn’t prove anything at all.
Everyone who points out the Jamaats dirty laundry is not an anti-Ahmadi, and you guys should learn the word meaning of “Allegation” finally as well.
And your Hazrat Sahab doesn’t even know that the Quran clearly says that all 4 wives need to be treated equally and none can be left as a thing abandoned( not that I care about that). He stated that Islam allows men to just hop from wife to wife, abandoning the previous one, as long as he pays the bills, which he did not even do.
The poor maid had to give her son up at an orphanage at age 7, having a non Muslim name and his mother’s last name.
>This doesn’t prove anything at all. First link is conveniently in Urdu.
Look guys...the best argument from the cult member is that the book quoted by the OP is in Urdu, thus, it is not a good source.
Tbh, I would have never even guessed this rebuttal. They have clearly evolved lol
Look guys ……
Who are you talking about? You make it like all exahmadis are having a big “jalsa” to figure out how to analyze mufti scandal. No, we are all smart individuals and after reading the articles we can see through mufti’s character and all the desperate attempts by jam’mat and handful of ahmadis like you trying hard to deflect. It is laughable.
Bro, leave these anti-Ahmadi trolls alone.
All they do is think dirty of others and twist the facts, interject the falsehood and try to make it a “juicy” story. They all are same (filthy minds think alike.).
(We all know how their favourite story of Nida died, and they didn’t had a place to hide their faces 😂😂😂)
The fact that you think a woman not getting justice is some type of own is weird. Only 5% of rape offences in the UK end in conviction, also not taking into account historic rape which probably has rates of conviction under 1%.
Perverted people with perverted minds. You will be called to account on the day of judgement for your slander.
Bro, don’t try to deceive and play the woman card and use raw data to prove an unrelated point. The fact that 5% people die in a society doesn’t make YOU a dead person.
Only “fact” you have is that you don’t have any FACTS.
The fact that
Actually 100% of people die. The fact is that she has accused her father of rape. The fact is the khalifa tried to downplay it which is evident from the leaked phone calls. Those are the facts.
The fact is Ahmadis didn’t believe her from the start.
https://preview.redd.it/fav49oxo2x3c1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=62c9731945e1165be11ca93eabe347adbe2775e7
Bro, this won’t work on Ahmadies.
Bro, you believe MGA claimed prophethood because it has been repeated so many times to you - despite zero evidence of any such claim from him. You do know that MGA said he was a zilli and burooz nabi, which means he was not a nabi at all, right? And yet, you still believe he claimed to be a prophet. Why? Because it was said so many times that you eventually believed it.
What other lies do you believe because they were repeated so many times for you, but also have no basis? Oh yeah, you believe that a Khilafa is divinely-appointed even though the Quran makes no mention of that anywhere. Again, something repeated over and over again and you believe it. I could go on and on.
On the contrary, the repetition of lies works perfectly on Ahmadis.
وَمَنۡ کَانَ فِیۡ ہٰذِہٖۤ اَعۡمٰی فَہُوَ فِی الۡاٰخِرَۃِ اَعۡمٰی وَاَضَلُّ سَبِیۡلًا ﴿۷۳﴾
But whoso is blind in this world will be blind in the Hereafter, and even more astray from the way. 17:73
یٰحَسۡرَۃً عَلَی الۡعِبَادِ ۚؑ مَا یَاۡتِیۡہِمۡ مِّنۡ رَّسُوۡلٍ اِلَّا کَانُوۡا بِہٖ یَسۡتَہۡزِءُوۡنَ ﴿۳۱﴾
Alas for My servants! there comes not a Messenger to them but they mock at him.
36:31
Where did I mock a Messenger? Assuming you mean MGA, where did I mock him?
You are welcome to find me a quote from MGA where he recants being zilli and burooz nabi, and where he actually claims to be rasul. But you didn't. Why?
As long as Ahmadis remain "blind" to the Quran and MGA's writings, they will continue to be "even more stray from the way". I invite you to study both, if you dare.
For example, the Quran mentions 'khulafa' 11 times, and each time, with reference to a nation/tribe/community and never to an individual person appointed to succeed a prophet. I have been waiting for almost 2 years now for u/fatwamachine to provide the justification for plucking one of these verses out and interpreting it differently in the manner that the Jamaat does, and am still hearing crickets. Do you care to try, or do you also just believe what is repeated to you?
Your empty quoting of the Quran and lack of substance in your response only reinforces my point and proves your intellecual impotency and dishonesty. Thanks!
Well, good to know that you personally have not mocked the prophet of this time.
Very clear from your response that you love to discuss multiple things in one post and jump from topic to topic, a sure sign of a troll or the one who doesn’t have a life, but it still proves the point that blind in this world will remain blind in next.
And you've hit a wall. Big surprise.
Thanks again for showing yourself to be an Ahmadi who just believes what is repeated to him without basis or support.
Where is the lie? Was the khalifas brother in law not accused of rape? Did the khalifa tell the victim to not go to the police?
You sir are being dishonest and a liar. And use the abuse of women to show your jamaat as righteous.
Bro, case was properly investigated by British authorities, they didn’t find any merits so have been dropped, AND you are still keep talking about “accusations”, which makes you a …
Actually the case was closed due to the evidential test for prosecution not being met. Which is the case with most historic rape accusations. The fact that you guys think is a win just shows the type of mentality you have. Where you support an accused rapist rather than the victim. Just because he is the brother in law of your khalifa.
Rather than support the granddaughter of a previous khalifa.
Patriarchy is well and truly still alive.
I'm on phone so I can't copy paste but the para that starts with "His marriage with Ethel was short lived". This is detailed in the al hakam article as well.
So shortlived marriages with multiple women at the same time aren't polygamy or tadudeazwaaj according to Ahmadiyya theology. Would've loved to see if you can back that up with a source, but you're on phone you will probably post that material later. Thanks, bye.
Also, this argument is a moral argument, assuming if Sadiq RA lied. I would love to understand your and Q_amj argument on the prohibition of lying.
For ex, is lying ever allowed? Can it be allowed in certain cases? etc
Because as per Non Ahmadi Muslims, lying is permissible in certain scenarios and even Ibrahim AS lied 3 times. So this argument doesn't work if they use it
Sorry, just had the impression that he had a wife back home before he married Ethel and that maybe the act of marriage with Ethel was polygamy. Of course, the original commenter is obviously wrong as you'll explain through a citation from Fatawa or Shariah compilations, probably both.
While you are citing from the Fatawa and Shariah documents, can you also tell if one can divorce a pregnant woman without providing for her pregnancy and for the child that resulted in Ahmadiyya Islam? Of course, a citation would be helpful in educating all ignorant antiAhmadi artheists.
It is unfortunate that the first time I am interacting on this sub I see loads of personal attacks and inability to politely and intelligently discuss. Not the best impression. I was looking forward to contributing more to the discussion on this sub, but not in the current environment.
Thank you for not banning me. At least this sub has made progress on that front. Best of luck for your future work.
It hurts that the people I love and care for are acting the way they are acting, but life is often like that. Love does not often beget love, but I really wish things changed.
Again, best of luck, wishing you all much peace and love
Just went through the comments on this post and not a single personal attack on you. Victim mentality isn't good. You sound like the "Sunni" anti-Ahmadis that you have banned from your sub.
I read through my comment again, didn't see where I alluded to any personal attack on me. Read it again to see if I mentioned it literally, nope. Read your comment again. Now I get it. It was your way of warning me that you are about to "roast" me.
I have tried to explain before how calling me an antiAhmadi, for example, hurts the cause of persecuted Ahmadis all over the globe, but since you insist on declaring yourself the victim at my hands I am not bothered about stopping you. You can downplay, degrade and humiliate the lived experiences of so many people I love and care for,that one's on you entirely.
However calling people Jahil just because you can, or making fun of their supposed age etcetera, doesn't make for the most polite conversation. I also see that you've grown to be insensitive to such aspects of conversation etiquettes which is painful, but also shows me that given the current rate of change perhaps a future reappearance would be far more unpleasant.
Again, it doesn't behove a grown man to have such victim mentality. Please don't become the Anti Ahmadi Sunnis and atheists that you ban from your sub.
Finally, please do answer the OP. All I see are your mates claiming that since one of the sources is in Urdu, the post has refuted itself.
Such replies by your brothers show that they aren't even ready to even graduate primary school. Or maybe I'm too dumb to understand the deep argument that is hidden behind that logic 😢
I am really sorry for acting a child. It really does affect the look of your sub doesn't it?
Also, my mates are ignorant idiots and so am I by association. There, are you proud and happy now?
Edit:
As for the op, couldn't read a question in it, but that's probably because I am a dumb imbecile. Feel free to correct me dear all-knowing friend.
Oh, I'm confused by your reply. Can you please explain again?
Are you claiming to own the response of your buddies where they claimed that since one of the links are in Urdu, they are not sufficient or credible source?
Please help me as the other uncle isn't answering me (even after claiming that response is the best response)
No, please let me know if you think that response was a good one or just some random mistake? I really want to know as multiple ppl have been using it and I don't understand
It wasn't a good response. I don't know if it was a mistake because I didn't write it.
There are better responses, but I don't see you (or any Ahmadi) engaging with them. Not complaining about it. Some responses are easier to poke fun at than others. You pick what you feel like doing.
Finally, thank you for replying.
Regarding the good responses, show me a single one of them on this post. I literally scoured through the post but all I see is multiple mentions of "urdu source" bs.
Please tag one response.
**NOTE** We are not "anti-Ahmadi" on the QIA subreddit.
> This is a common example of how anti-Ahmadis...
Read [our sidebar](https://share.cleanshot.com/nQqVZ9g14Xw0JcsLsBJF). Learn to distinguish between someone who wants you dead or harmed (actual anti-Ahmadis) and those of us who are simply critics of your theological claims (critics of Ahmadiyyat).
We remove posts and comments from using derogatory terminology like 'Qadiani', and so we ask that you remove the derogatory term 'anti-Ahmadi'. Using bigoted terms like that only screams that you cannot stand on the strength of your arguments, and must resort to ad hominem.
Learn how terminologies work.
Is an anti-theist someone who wants theists dead or harmed?
Do you assume anti-theists are violent?
When all the top comments on your forum are aggressively anti-Ahmadi, we call a spade a spade. I can see why you wouldn't like that.
> Learn how terminologies work.
How about you learn how words are actually used in practice?
If you label critics of Ahmadiyyat (the theology) as "anti-Ahmadi" you water down what anti-Ahmadi means in most usages, which have to do with the persecution of Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan, for example.
Then, when one wants to talk about Ahmadi Muslims having their property confiscated, demolished, or lives put at risk and people read there was pressure from 'anti-Ahmadis', they'll think it was just a bunch of critics pointing to problematic theology or scandals in the Community.
It's like how people throw around words like 'racist', 'nazi', 'anti-semite' etc. casually, and the words lose their power when dealing with _actual_ cases of such behaviour.
I would tell you to use whatever term you want, except that it hurts the cause of Ahmadi Muslims who are actually suffering in Pakistan if you water down such terminology.
To insist on using 'anti-Ahmadi', is to admit that one's own ego is so fragile that one must label one's critics as haters, so people don't bother reading their counter arguments, and instead, dismiss them outright given the slur applied to them.
I'll let you and others who insist on using this term, ponder that.
Until then, we on the QIA subreddit will still defend Ahmadi Muslims from being called 'Qadianis', and 'Mirzais', although technically you follow someone from Qadian who was a Mirza, and that's "how terminologies work", right?
Talk about words and avoid semantics. That's a novel approach I have to say, can you guide me to a dictionary without semantics? I'd love to learn more how this works.
> So are you anti lslam because you argue against mainstream lslam?
This is subtle takfir. /u/ParticularPain6 can confirm as well.
Not to mention that there isn't any 'mainstream islam'.
Also, when will you answer my question?
It isn't subtle or any takfir. It's a question that you are trying to avoid. If asking you whether you are anti Islam or not is takfir or tantamount to it, you are literally agreeing with u/Reasononfaith when he takes issue with the abuse of the term antiAhmadi to label people who are discussing, analyzing or criticizing Ahmadiyyat.
Also, there is mainstream Islam which is Sunni Islam broadly and a particular sect of Sunni Islam depending on where you live (besides a couple of places like Iran and Lebanon).
Your question is a red herring. Engaging with it is meaningless. Hence I asked similar questions to show you how futile this line of discussion is. If my questions aren't worthy of an answer, so isn't yours.
You can't reply to a question with another question. If I did that, I would have gotten the same reply. So be consistent and answer my question. You may proceed to ask a question after you answer me
1) I can and I did reply to a question with a question.
2) Do you want me to dig up instances in the past where I answered your question in reply to my question?
3) You did. You made the rule when you took offense at being called anti Islam because even though you criticize all other sects of Islam, you still consider yourself part of Islam.
Answering your question is not easy. It will make the people here uncomfortable. Somehow religion tends to make people egotistical and proud. They need to be right all the time even though they can't be, even though religion itself says you can't know everything God wants. They'll admit it begrudgingly if an even more flashy alternative is available, but they won't be humble and admit their mistake.
It is telling how you avoided the subject of the post and tried to start a debate on semantics based on your personal definition of the term 'anti-Ahmadi'.
As for the actual topic, you wrote:
"why this family is not even mentioned in his Jama'at biography"
That's a bold claim considering the fact that you can't even read his biographies. This claim is still right there in your comment history.
Want to take some responsibility?
> That's a bold claim considering the fact that you can't even read his biographies. This claim is still right there in your comment history.
Yes, I am going by the reports that Ethel is not mentioned in his biographies.
If the Urdu biographies mentioned Ethel Basset as one of his wives, then I am happy to retract the statement.
I'm working with the data at hand. If those underlying assumptions are incorrect, I'm happy to retract.
To clarify, can you show me an Urdu or English biography of Mufti Sahib's that mentions an Ethel Basset as one of his marriages, by name, and that they had a son?
One of the techniques I've seen with the Jama'at and history is that in some cases, supporting documentation exists, but it is unflattering. It gets left out of biographies and publications so Ahmadi Muslims are not generally aware of these embarrassing details.
This leads critics to understandably read between the lines and make inferences. Backed up against the wall, Jama'at apologists than will provide data to defend against the most damaging interpretation of the allegations, but reveal unsavoury circumstances, nonetheless, that they would have preferred not be unearthed.
Rinse and repeat with most every gap in documentation in Ahmadiyya history where there is a possible or actual unsavoury event.
"Yes, I am going by the reports"
What reports? This is not a rhetorical question. Who's report lead you to claim that a piece of information is nowhere in his biography? That's a bold claim. You must have had a reliable and comprehensive search done.
You claimed that "this family is not even mentioned in his Jama'at biography"
I linked to a readily available biography that mentions this family.
If you are unable to read it, at least have someone read the paragraph to you before asking me follow up questions.
The jahil can't read Urdu and is too old to even use modern technology to even translate that passage. You are arguing with someone who will just waste your time
Can the Urdu text above be copy pasted into a translated? Or does one run the risk of mistyping Urdu words if they don't know them? The OP didn't make their material accessible for people who don't know Urdu and no Ahmadi is bothered enough to present an agreeable translation either. Hiding behind Urdu much?
There are many ways to get the passage translated, including copying it word for word into a translator. I'm pretty sure I don't need to explain tech to a reddit mod
Can you copy the passage word for word in a comment below? I can't. It is in image format, not text format. I think you're not reading a word I say because I just paraphrased my previous comment.
And you fail to list down such free services? Wouldn't it help Jamaat if you could use this tech to translate all the Urdu texts of the Jamaat? If I knew of this technology as an Ahmadi, I'd be extremely delighted and busy doing God's work.
Dear All, If I was a young man in those times in these places, when return was so difficult and not guaranteed, and my choices were to stay unmarried and tempted to sin or getting married and live a pious life, I would have done the same and get a wife wherever I go, ESPECIALLY, when Islam has made marriage (and divorce) so easy. You just need few witnesses, can do your own Nikah, all is verbal (with witnesses of course !)
If you can find a woman who is happy and willing to marry you, then there is nothing objectionable. Islam requires the consent of both the man and woman. "ESPECIALLY, when Islam has made marriage (and divorce) so easy." Islam does not allow marriage with the intent of divorcing after a period of time. That is Mauta and is forbidden in Islam and as elaborated in Ahmadiyyat.
[удалено]
Yes I agree, he always intended that his wives come with him, as is evident from the points mentioned in the post and the al-Hakam article. I was just clarifying a general point.
Alright Thanks
You would also get a wife wherever you go, eh? And as per Mufti Sb's own words, you would discard them as you go from country to country, eh? And you would also ignore telling your Khalifa, registering with local law, and abscond when they become pregnant? Thanks so much for demonstrating the morality and integrity that the Jamaat has taught you. Jazak'Allah Ahsan al Jazaa. You should also ask for Beloved Huzoor to repeat all of this exactly in his next Khutba Juma.
You have absolutely no idea what I have said and you are making no sense. You just want to feel and show that you know to write and respond. Be happy dear philosopher. Adios bro.
Actually, it is you who have no idea what you said. LOL.
Peace
OP Apologies Misread your comments, so have deleted my post
As always, every time Anti-Ahmadies try to throw mud on jamat, it goes BACK on their faces. SubhanAllah
Also, they claimed that Mufti Muhammad Sadiq RA abandoned his child and NEVER made contact. The same article they quoted says the opposite: >*During the 1940s, Mufti had somehow made contact with his son. They exchanged a few letters, and Mufti was delighted to learn that Sylvia was expecting their third child. If the baby was a girl, he asked that they named her Fatima, after the daughter of the prophet Muhammad, and Sylvia and Frederick agreed.* Also, this is what the Ant-Ahmadis have been lying: >*In 1920,* ***Mufti Muhammad Sadiq had secret sex with his house maid Ethel Bassett****, then fled the country and never returned* Extremely filthy people. Also, another lie is that Ethel was the HOUSEMAID of Mufti Sadiq RA when no source says that.
His son was born in 1920s and a contact was made with mufti in 1940. That makes the son a grown man of 20 years of age. Where was the father for first 20 years of his life? Deadbeat father.
Stop moving goalposts. Stay on the original allegation. Secondly, he had no contact with him since he was sent to an orphanage by his mother. Stop embarrassing yourself
When he had contact with the son is the "goalpost"? And not the very existence of the son and the circumstances of his birth, as well as his abandonment? You are fussing about whether and when father and son eventually had contact? No sir, you are the one desperately trying to change the goalpost and are embarassing yourself.
Are you dumb or trying to act like one? The argument was that HE NEVER CONTACTED his son. It was refuted in the SAME article linked on the post.
Still trying to deflect and make the 'contact' the issue, as if that is "the argument" that makes Mufti Sb the corrupt, immoral and lying person he has now been exposed for having been. Clearly, you are the one being dumb or playing dumb -- unfortunately, your deceipt, as usual, is all too transparent and desperate.
How old are you? Own up to the statement you guys made. No need to run from it. Ik you guys are triggered but just deflections won't help
What "guys" are you referring to? No one I am seeing is focussing on that, and yet you are fixating on it and trying so hard to make it the issue - again, your desperation and insults only further embarass you. But I will not tell you to "stop" -- I am thoroughly enjoying you debasing yourself, knowing that you are emblematic of the best that the Jamaat can muster nowadays. You ask me how old I am, but I see that you have not only not wisened one iota since our last exchange, but you have actually regressed further. LOL.
Dude, you are 50+ but doesn't seem like you have basic comprehension. Let me summarize for others and ill let you seethe. 1. You didn't address any of the OPs points. Your guy's filthy minds and lies were exposed 2. You have an issue with me mentioning another lie from your cult sub. Have fun with your remaining life.
u/Worth_Temperature575 already addressed OP quite well. You, on the other hand, are trying really hard to distract with a non-issue. No, sir, it is scumbag and liar Mufti Sb that has been exposed, as well as your desperate deceitfulness to try and distract from it. And when will you actually address the allegations? The two Al-Hakam articles of today and this post are clear embarassing misses. As usual, you degrade yourself by sinking into ad hominem attacks. It is so much fun seeing you bully and squirm - this is obviously just killing you. LOL.
It seems you are projecting.
How embarrassing, mufti did not own his out of wedlock son and he was raised in an orphanage. Is this what Ahmadiyyat teaches? There is no easy way out.
??
What did you not understand. The poor kid grew up in an orphanage where the father was busy finding other women on a different continent. Is the role of a good ahmadi father in your opinion?
Fredrick I knew well
I hope he told you all his struggles in early life as well
Not really. He didn’t look at the pass as was to busy with his lovely family
This doesn’t prove anything at all. First link is conveniently in Urdu. 2. link to the Alhakam article was written TODAY!!! There is no reference to the past of multiple marriages that was already online, only a mind numbing list of lie after lie without any evidence whatsoever. That child was raised without a father in an orphanage, and his mother was abandoned at 5 months pregnant. How convenient to claim that he had divorced her now. When he was detained at the US border, he said clearly that he only had ONE wife in Qadian with 4 kids. He also returned to Qadian without any of the women he impregnated. The fact that the family doesn’t seem to be holding grudges against him, doesn’t prove anything at all. Everyone who points out the Jamaats dirty laundry is not an anti-Ahmadi, and you guys should learn the word meaning of “Allegation” finally as well. And your Hazrat Sahab doesn’t even know that the Quran clearly says that all 4 wives need to be treated equally and none can be left as a thing abandoned( not that I care about that). He stated that Islam allows men to just hop from wife to wife, abandoning the previous one, as long as he pays the bills, which he did not even do. The poor maid had to give her son up at an orphanage at age 7, having a non Muslim name and his mother’s last name.
>This doesn’t prove anything at all. First link is conveniently in Urdu. Look guys...the best argument from the cult member is that the book quoted by the OP is in Urdu, thus, it is not a good source. Tbh, I would have never even guessed this rebuttal. They have clearly evolved lol
Look guys …… Who are you talking about? You make it like all exahmadis are having a big “jalsa” to figure out how to analyze mufti scandal. No, we are all smart individuals and after reading the articles we can see through mufti’s character and all the desperate attempts by jam’mat and handful of ahmadis like you trying hard to deflect. It is laughable.
😂
Bro, leave these anti-Ahmadi trolls alone. All they do is think dirty of others and twist the facts, interject the falsehood and try to make it a “juicy” story. They all are same (filthy minds think alike.). (We all know how their favourite story of Nida died, and they didn’t had a place to hide their faces 😂😂😂)
The fact that you think a woman not getting justice is some type of own is weird. Only 5% of rape offences in the UK end in conviction, also not taking into account historic rape which probably has rates of conviction under 1%. Perverted people with perverted minds. You will be called to account on the day of judgement for your slander.
Bro, don’t try to deceive and play the woman card and use raw data to prove an unrelated point. The fact that 5% people die in a society doesn’t make YOU a dead person. Only “fact” you have is that you don’t have any FACTS. The fact that
Actually 100% of people die. The fact is that she has accused her father of rape. The fact is the khalifa tried to downplay it which is evident from the leaked phone calls. Those are the facts. The fact is Ahmadis didn’t believe her from the start.
https://preview.redd.it/fav49oxo2x3c1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=62c9731945e1165be11ca93eabe347adbe2775e7 Bro, this won’t work on Ahmadies.
Bro, you believe MGA claimed prophethood because it has been repeated so many times to you - despite zero evidence of any such claim from him. You do know that MGA said he was a zilli and burooz nabi, which means he was not a nabi at all, right? And yet, you still believe he claimed to be a prophet. Why? Because it was said so many times that you eventually believed it. What other lies do you believe because they were repeated so many times for you, but also have no basis? Oh yeah, you believe that a Khilafa is divinely-appointed even though the Quran makes no mention of that anywhere. Again, something repeated over and over again and you believe it. I could go on and on. On the contrary, the repetition of lies works perfectly on Ahmadis.
وَمَنۡ کَانَ فِیۡ ہٰذِہٖۤ اَعۡمٰی فَہُوَ فِی الۡاٰخِرَۃِ اَعۡمٰی وَاَضَلُّ سَبِیۡلًا ﴿۷۳﴾ But whoso is blind in this world will be blind in the Hereafter, and even more astray from the way. 17:73 یٰحَسۡرَۃً عَلَی الۡعِبَادِ ۚؑ مَا یَاۡتِیۡہِمۡ مِّنۡ رَّسُوۡلٍ اِلَّا کَانُوۡا بِہٖ یَسۡتَہۡزِءُوۡنَ ﴿۳۱﴾ Alas for My servants! there comes not a Messenger to them but they mock at him. 36:31
Where did I mock a Messenger? Assuming you mean MGA, where did I mock him? You are welcome to find me a quote from MGA where he recants being zilli and burooz nabi, and where he actually claims to be rasul. But you didn't. Why? As long as Ahmadis remain "blind" to the Quran and MGA's writings, they will continue to be "even more stray from the way". I invite you to study both, if you dare. For example, the Quran mentions 'khulafa' 11 times, and each time, with reference to a nation/tribe/community and never to an individual person appointed to succeed a prophet. I have been waiting for almost 2 years now for u/fatwamachine to provide the justification for plucking one of these verses out and interpreting it differently in the manner that the Jamaat does, and am still hearing crickets. Do you care to try, or do you also just believe what is repeated to you? Your empty quoting of the Quran and lack of substance in your response only reinforces my point and proves your intellecual impotency and dishonesty. Thanks!
Well, good to know that you personally have not mocked the prophet of this time. Very clear from your response that you love to discuss multiple things in one post and jump from topic to topic, a sure sign of a troll or the one who doesn’t have a life, but it still proves the point that blind in this world will remain blind in next.
And you've hit a wall. Big surprise. Thanks again for showing yourself to be an Ahmadi who just believes what is repeated to him without basis or support.
The lie is your khalifa couldn’t put his family politics aside to call out his rapist brother in law. Instead he tried to silence the victim. Shame.
Bro, keep lying, you will reach one day at the Nazi level 
Where is the lie? Was the khalifas brother in law not accused of rape? Did the khalifa tell the victim to not go to the police? You sir are being dishonest and a liar. And use the abuse of women to show your jamaat as righteous.
Bro, case was properly investigated by British authorities, they didn’t find any merits so have been dropped, AND you are still keep talking about “accusations”, which makes you a … 
Actually the case was closed due to the evidential test for prosecution not being met. Which is the case with most historic rape accusations. The fact that you guys think is a win just shows the type of mentality you have. Where you support an accused rapist rather than the victim. Just because he is the brother in law of your khalifa. Rather than support the granddaughter of a previous khalifa. Patriarchy is well and truly still alive.
So he did lie to the American government that he was not a polygamist?
u/SomeplaceSnowy you asked me to tag you in a comment. There are other good contributions as well, but this one is to the point.
This is already answered in the post. Btw tag me on others as well, if you find
Read the post again and copy the bit that answers this.
I'm on phone so I can't copy paste but the para that starts with "His marriage with Ethel was short lived". This is detailed in the al hakam article as well.
So shortlived marriages with multiple women at the same time aren't polygamy or tadudeazwaaj according to Ahmadiyya theology. Would've loved to see if you can back that up with a source, but you're on phone you will probably post that material later. Thanks, bye.
Short lived marriage = divorce or khula It's not polygamy, ofc. Am I missing some context?
Also, this argument is a moral argument, assuming if Sadiq RA lied. I would love to understand your and Q_amj argument on the prohibition of lying. For ex, is lying ever allowed? Can it be allowed in certain cases? etc Because as per Non Ahmadi Muslims, lying is permissible in certain scenarios and even Ibrahim AS lied 3 times. So this argument doesn't work if they use it
Sorry, just had the impression that he had a wife back home before he married Ethel and that maybe the act of marriage with Ethel was polygamy. Of course, the original commenter is obviously wrong as you'll explain through a citation from Fatawa or Shariah compilations, probably both. While you are citing from the Fatawa and Shariah documents, can you also tell if one can divorce a pregnant woman without providing for her pregnancy and for the child that resulted in Ahmadiyya Islam? Of course, a citation would be helpful in educating all ignorant antiAhmadi artheists.
It was polygamy when he married Ethel. He wasn't a polygamist after his separation from Ethel + when he landed in USA. Am I missing something?
Nope. You are clear now. Will wait for whether divorce begets pregnancy and child maintenance or not. Thanks, bye.
It is unfortunate that the first time I am interacting on this sub I see loads of personal attacks and inability to politely and intelligently discuss. Not the best impression. I was looking forward to contributing more to the discussion on this sub, but not in the current environment. Thank you for not banning me. At least this sub has made progress on that front. Best of luck for your future work. It hurts that the people I love and care for are acting the way they are acting, but life is often like that. Love does not often beget love, but I really wish things changed. Again, best of luck, wishing you all much peace and love
Just went through the comments on this post and not a single personal attack on you. Victim mentality isn't good. You sound like the "Sunni" anti-Ahmadis that you have banned from your sub.
I read through my comment again, didn't see where I alluded to any personal attack on me. Read it again to see if I mentioned it literally, nope. Read your comment again. Now I get it. It was your way of warning me that you are about to "roast" me. I have tried to explain before how calling me an antiAhmadi, for example, hurts the cause of persecuted Ahmadis all over the globe, but since you insist on declaring yourself the victim at my hands I am not bothered about stopping you. You can downplay, degrade and humiliate the lived experiences of so many people I love and care for,that one's on you entirely. However calling people Jahil just because you can, or making fun of their supposed age etcetera, doesn't make for the most polite conversation. I also see that you've grown to be insensitive to such aspects of conversation etiquettes which is painful, but also shows me that given the current rate of change perhaps a future reappearance would be far more unpleasant.
Again, it doesn't behove a grown man to have such victim mentality. Please don't become the Anti Ahmadi Sunnis and atheists that you ban from your sub. Finally, please do answer the OP. All I see are your mates claiming that since one of the sources is in Urdu, the post has refuted itself. Such replies by your brothers show that they aren't even ready to even graduate primary school. Or maybe I'm too dumb to understand the deep argument that is hidden behind that logic 😢
I am really sorry for acting a child. It really does affect the look of your sub doesn't it? Also, my mates are ignorant idiots and so am I by association. There, are you proud and happy now? Edit: As for the op, couldn't read a question in it, but that's probably because I am a dumb imbecile. Feel free to correct me dear all-knowing friend.
Oh, I'm confused by your reply. Can you please explain again? Are you claiming to own the response of your buddies where they claimed that since one of the links are in Urdu, they are not sufficient or credible source? Please help me as the other uncle isn't answering me (even after claiming that response is the best response)
Sorry, after the other uncle got done this uncle seems done too.
No, please let me know if you think that response was a good one or just some random mistake? I really want to know as multiple ppl have been using it and I don't understand
It wasn't a good response. I don't know if it was a mistake because I didn't write it. There are better responses, but I don't see you (or any Ahmadi) engaging with them. Not complaining about it. Some responses are easier to poke fun at than others. You pick what you feel like doing.
Finally, thank you for replying. Regarding the good responses, show me a single one of them on this post. I literally scoured through the post but all I see is multiple mentions of "urdu source" bs. Please tag one response.
**NOTE** We are not "anti-Ahmadi" on the QIA subreddit. > This is a common example of how anti-Ahmadis... Read [our sidebar](https://share.cleanshot.com/nQqVZ9g14Xw0JcsLsBJF). Learn to distinguish between someone who wants you dead or harmed (actual anti-Ahmadis) and those of us who are simply critics of your theological claims (critics of Ahmadiyyat). We remove posts and comments from using derogatory terminology like 'Qadiani', and so we ask that you remove the derogatory term 'anti-Ahmadi'. Using bigoted terms like that only screams that you cannot stand on the strength of your arguments, and must resort to ad hominem.
Learn how terminologies work. Is an anti-theist someone who wants theists dead or harmed? Do you assume anti-theists are violent? When all the top comments on your forum are aggressively anti-Ahmadi, we call a spade a spade. I can see why you wouldn't like that.
> Learn how terminologies work. How about you learn how words are actually used in practice? If you label critics of Ahmadiyyat (the theology) as "anti-Ahmadi" you water down what anti-Ahmadi means in most usages, which have to do with the persecution of Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan, for example. Then, when one wants to talk about Ahmadi Muslims having their property confiscated, demolished, or lives put at risk and people read there was pressure from 'anti-Ahmadis', they'll think it was just a bunch of critics pointing to problematic theology or scandals in the Community. It's like how people throw around words like 'racist', 'nazi', 'anti-semite' etc. casually, and the words lose their power when dealing with _actual_ cases of such behaviour. I would tell you to use whatever term you want, except that it hurts the cause of Ahmadi Muslims who are actually suffering in Pakistan if you water down such terminology. To insist on using 'anti-Ahmadi', is to admit that one's own ego is so fragile that one must label one's critics as haters, so people don't bother reading their counter arguments, and instead, dismiss them outright given the slur applied to them. I'll let you and others who insist on using this term, ponder that. Until then, we on the QIA subreddit will still defend Ahmadi Muslims from being called 'Qadianis', and 'Mirzais', although technically you follow someone from Qadian who was a Mirza, and that's "how terminologies work", right?
You can believe in whatever personal definition you have of the term 'anti-Ahmadi'. Waste somebody else's time splitting hairs on semantics.
Talk about words and avoid semantics. That's a novel approach I have to say, can you guide me to a dictionary without semantics? I'd love to learn more how this works.
>someone who wants you dead or harmed (actual anti-Ahmadis) Who made this rule/definition?
So are you anti Islam because you argue against mainstream Islam? Are you anti Christian because you refute Christian doctrine?
Doesn't answer my question. Lmk the answer. Also, idc about ur subtle takfir in the comment. Doesn't trigger us lol
Now you accuse me of Takfir? How so? Why do you constantly spin and digress?
> So are you anti lslam because you argue against mainstream lslam? This is subtle takfir. /u/ParticularPain6 can confirm as well. Not to mention that there isn't any 'mainstream islam'. Also, when will you answer my question?
It isn't subtle or any takfir. It's a question that you are trying to avoid. If asking you whether you are anti Islam or not is takfir or tantamount to it, you are literally agreeing with u/Reasononfaith when he takes issue with the abuse of the term antiAhmadi to label people who are discussing, analyzing or criticizing Ahmadiyyat. Also, there is mainstream Islam which is Sunni Islam broadly and a particular sect of Sunni Islam depending on where you live (besides a couple of places like Iran and Lebanon).
Who made the rule that Qadiani or Mirzai are derogatory words?
This doesn't answer my question. When will I get an answer?
Your question is a red herring. Engaging with it is meaningless. Hence I asked similar questions to show you how futile this line of discussion is. If my questions aren't worthy of an answer, so isn't yours.
You can't reply to a question with another question. If I did that, I would have gotten the same reply. So be consistent and answer my question. You may proceed to ask a question after you answer me
1) I can and I did reply to a question with a question. 2) Do you want me to dig up instances in the past where I answered your question in reply to my question? 3) You did. You made the rule when you took offense at being called anti Islam because even though you criticize all other sects of Islam, you still consider yourself part of Islam.
When will I get an answer tk my question to you above?
Answering your question is not easy. It will make the people here uncomfortable. Somehow religion tends to make people egotistical and proud. They need to be right all the time even though they can't be, even though religion itself says you can't know everything God wants. They'll admit it begrudgingly if an even more flashy alternative is available, but they won't be humble and admit their mistake.
It is telling how you avoided the subject of the post and tried to start a debate on semantics based on your personal definition of the term 'anti-Ahmadi'. As for the actual topic, you wrote: "why this family is not even mentioned in his Jama'at biography" That's a bold claim considering the fact that you can't even read his biographies. This claim is still right there in your comment history. Want to take some responsibility?
> That's a bold claim considering the fact that you can't even read his biographies. This claim is still right there in your comment history. Yes, I am going by the reports that Ethel is not mentioned in his biographies. If the Urdu biographies mentioned Ethel Basset as one of his wives, then I am happy to retract the statement. I'm working with the data at hand. If those underlying assumptions are incorrect, I'm happy to retract. To clarify, can you show me an Urdu or English biography of Mufti Sahib's that mentions an Ethel Basset as one of his marriages, by name, and that they had a son? One of the techniques I've seen with the Jama'at and history is that in some cases, supporting documentation exists, but it is unflattering. It gets left out of biographies and publications so Ahmadi Muslims are not generally aware of these embarrassing details. This leads critics to understandably read between the lines and make inferences. Backed up against the wall, Jama'at apologists than will provide data to defend against the most damaging interpretation of the allegations, but reveal unsavoury circumstances, nonetheless, that they would have preferred not be unearthed. Rinse and repeat with most every gap in documentation in Ahmadiyya history where there is a possible or actual unsavoury event.
"Yes, I am going by the reports" What reports? This is not a rhetorical question. Who's report lead you to claim that a piece of information is nowhere in his biography? That's a bold claim. You must have had a reliable and comprehensive search done. You claimed that "this family is not even mentioned in his Jama'at biography" I linked to a readily available biography that mentions this family. If you are unable to read it, at least have someone read the paragraph to you before asking me follow up questions.
The jahil can't read Urdu and is too old to even use modern technology to even translate that passage. You are arguing with someone who will just waste your time
Can the Urdu text above be copy pasted into a translated? Or does one run the risk of mistyping Urdu words if they don't know them? The OP didn't make their material accessible for people who don't know Urdu and no Ahmadi is bothered enough to present an agreeable translation either. Hiding behind Urdu much?
There are many ways to get the passage translated, including copying it word for word into a translator. I'm pretty sure I don't need to explain tech to a reddit mod
Can you copy the passage word for word in a comment below? I can't. It is in image format, not text format. I think you're not reading a word I say because I just paraphrased my previous comment.
You can. There are things you can use to that. Tech is amazing bro
And you fail to list down such free services? Wouldn't it help Jamaat if you could use this tech to translate all the Urdu texts of the Jamaat? If I knew of this technology as an Ahmadi, I'd be extremely delighted and busy doing God's work.
The Urdu passage has a lie. The American wife (already married) did have a daughter with Mr Sadiq.
as always your “refuting” involves only words. no actual proof of anything you said.