AHMADIYYA RELIGIOUS SECT IDEOLOGY AMBIGUITIES ANALYSED (10.01.09-17.01.09)
There arises many misunderstandings of and about this Ahmadi religious sect and I will attempt to compare some of these differences to clarify some of these misunderstandings. I am not debating the rights or wrongs of their ideology, but only comparing it with the ideology of orthodox Islam (or Christianity) to attempt to understand why there is so much controversy with their teachings.
Ahmadis are attempting to portray a milder form of Islam, and the west should welcome this movement. But the presentation of this ideology is in such a way that can be very misleading to the understanding of Islam. Because it portrays that Muslims are non-aggressive Peace loving persons who have renounced the “lesser (aggressive) Jihad and only observe defensive Jihad. This “disarms” the West against Islamic Jihadists believing that that is what the Koran teaches (deceiving the West and providing cover for the Jihadists) but that is not so as I shall show. Thus by propagating their milder concept of Islam they are propagandists for the real Islamic Jihadist. This is what I wish to discuss and to make clear that Ahmadis do not speak for orthodox Muslims. But Ahmadis claim that they preach Muslim views, they are not orthodox Muslim views, they are “only” Ahmadi views. These are difficult and complex issues and are not going to be easy to explain, but I will attempt to make it as plain and concise as possible. Why it is important is because the Ahmadi headquarters are located in Surrey, Kent, England and so emanate a great deal of influence in this Britain.
(1) Koran 2:256 “There is no compulsion in religion”
For some reason or other, Ahmadis love to quote this phrase. It seems to mean that Islam is a “liberal” religion and that no one has to conform to any religion, and that Muslims have the freedom of choice of religion. Perhaps Muslims actually believe this phrase and so preach it freely and openly to the world of non-Muslims. But the phrase is out of context and used by itself is deceiving because Koran 2:256 and 2:257 should always be read as in full and as “a couplet” and this is what the 2 verses state:
[2.256] There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan (sic)(Satan) and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.
[2.257] Allah is the guardian of those who believe (in Him). He(Allah) brings them out of the darkness into the light; and (as to) those who disbelieve, their guardians are Shaitans(sic) (Satan) who take(s) them out of the light into the darkness; they are the inmates of the fire (hell), in it they shall abide.
So “there is no compulsion in religion, but whoever believes in Allah has hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.” To me it says there is no compulsion in religion but if you do not choose Allah you will be inmates of Hell. As Allah knows who believes in Allah and who believes in Satan. The couplet now takes on a different hue altogether. So are Muslims deceitful or are the ignorant or both in this instance?
(2) Ahmadis use the slogan, “Love for All, Hatred for None.”
“Love for all and hatred for none” is a noble and worthy slogan. Certainly a slogan that should ring well in non-Muslim ears, but does it ring true? Let us look deeper in Ahmadi ideology. Let us examine the views of their founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and subsequent Ahmadi caliphs on what they have said.
1. “Except for the children of Prostitute, whose hearts have been sealed by Allah, everyone else believes in me and has accepted me. (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad)
(Aina-e-Kamaiat-e-islam, Roohani Khazain vol.5 p.547)
2. “Allah has revealed to me that anyone to whom my message has reached and he has not accepted me, he is not a Muslim.”
(Letter of Mirza Ghulam to Dr. Hakeem Khan Patiaivi)
3. “I have Allah’s inspiration that he who does not follow you and will not enter your Ba’ith and remain your opponent, he is disobedient of Allah and His Prophets, Hellish.” (Advertisement inM’ayaar-ul-Akhyar by Mirza Ghulam p.8)
4. “It is our obligation what we do not consider non-Ahmadis as Muslims and do not pray behind them, because for us they have rejected one prophet (Mirza Ghulam) of Allah. This is a religious matter and no one has any right to do anything in it.”
(Anwar-e-Khilafat by Mirza Mahmood, Khalifa2. p.90) 
How can Ahmadis use such a slogan when their founder has declared (1) that anyone who does not acknowledge Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the Ahmadiyya sect, is no better than the children of Prostitutes? (2) That all people, including orthodox Muslims who do not recognise Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as their prophet is ‘NOT A MUSLIM.” He has thus condemned and rejected all Muslims who do not accept him as a messenger(prophet) of Allah. In (3) that all who reject Ahmadiyya beliefs is an opponent or enemy. And in (4) he clearly states that orthodox Muslims (non_Ahmadis) are Muslims and that they will not pray with them. That this is a sacred religious matter hence there is no compromise.
I cannot see any LOVE but Hatred in the above analysis. And so the Slogan is deceitful and a blatant contradiction. So on this basis alone, how can the Ahmadis have any credibility?
(3) What do Ahmadiyyas(Qadianis) think of regular/orthodox Muslims?
1. All non-Ahmadis are declared as Kafir (non-Muslims)
2. Marriage with non-Qadiani declared Haram.
3. Praying behind non-Qadiani declared Haram
4. Funeral Prayer for non-Ahmadi declared Haram. 
The Ahmadis have made themselves exclusive and rejected orthodox Muslims as non-Muslims and so when they express their views they are expressing Ahmadi views and not orthodox Muslim views. Most Muslim nations with Sunni and Shia and other sect Muslims have also declared all Ahmadis as not of the fold of Islam, i.e. as non- Muslims by Islamic declaration and by their National laws. So it is impossible for me under these circumstances accept that Ahmadis can speak for Muslims. Ahmadis can only speak for their own sect, but they continue to speak as though they speak for all Islam. This is where the unread are misled and misinformed and this view has to be corrected universally.
(4) MUHAMMAD IS THE MESSENGER OF GOD AND THE SEAL OF THE PROPHETS (33:40)
“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of God and the Seal of the prophets. And God is ever Knower of all things.” – Qur’an: “The Allies” (The Clans), 33:40.
When a document is ‘sealed’, it means that it is ‘complete’ i.e. ‘perfect’ which cannot be further improved. So in that sense Prophet Muhammad was the ‘seal’ or ‘complete’ or ‘perfect’, but, for that matter, all the prophets are ‘perfect’ and ‘complete’ and that no other would follow.
All Muslims (1.2 billion) have accepted this concept of Muhammed as the “Seal of the Prophets.” That there will not be any other prophets after Muhammed until the appearance of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who in 1889 founded “The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community” and declared that he, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, was a prophet of Allah as well as the “promised 2nd coming of the Christian Messiah.”
So quite naturally, when orthodox Muslims who have accept this Koranic verse 33:40 for 12 centuries are suddenly confronted with some guru who claims to be the 19th Century prophet from Allah, was and is, unacceptable especially when Mirza Ghulam Ahmad appears to have abrogated some Koranic verses for his own glorification or advantage. This later led to a total rejection of this new cult discussed later.
Neither did any Christian entertain such a claim. But as this cult was encouraged by the British Raj to lessen the animosity of Islam against the Raj it received tacit support. This explains why, when the Ahmadis were persecuted violently in Pakistan, that the Foreign Office, allowed refuge/asylum in Britain.
One of the main causes for Islamic rejection of the Ahmadiyyas is because of the violation of Koran 33:40 and the Ahmadiyya abrogation of some other deeply sacred Islamic ideologies such as Jihad, Mohammad’s abrogations, and proselytising, that will be touched upon later.
(5) Rejection of the Ahmadiyya Religious Sect
Because of the stubborn Ahmadi attitudes and aggressive proselytising of their beliefs, it began to cause much aggravation among the orthodox Muslims in India. Finally the resentment broke out in violent riots and demonstrations resulting in many deaths. Ahmadis began to be officially rejected.
There are many Muslim countries that have rejected Ahmadis as Muslims and recognise them as non-Muslims. Here is a list:
“(1) Mauritius was the first country to declare Ahmadis non-Muslims in 1930’s
(2) followed by South Africa who declared Ahmadis as non-Muslims in 1974,
(3) Islamic Republic of Pakistan became the first Muslim country to pass a law and legally declared Qadianis/Ahmadis/Lahoris a non-Muslim minority, giving them all the rights of a minority that are guaranteed in its constitution.
“The Constitution of Pakistan on 
CONSTITUTION (SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 1974
An Act to amend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan [Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, Part I, 21st September, 1974]
3- Amendment of Article 260 of the Constitution.
In the Constitution, in Article 260, after clause (2) the following new clause shall be added, namely–
(3) A person who does not believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of The Prophet hood of MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him), the last of the Prophets or claims to be a Prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him), or recognises such a claimant as a Prophet or religious reformer, is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or law.”
(4) In the same year, An International Convention of Islamic Scholars was held in Makkah AlMukarramah under the auspices of Rabita AlAlam AlIslami. Scholars from 124 countries unanimously declared Qadianis/Ahmadis as non-Muslim, disbelievers and out of the fold of Islam. This sealed the fate of this creed for ever in the Arab World and other Muslim Nations. This is what ‘The World Muslim League-An International Convention of Islamic Scholars” had stated:
“1974 Declaration by World Muslim League 
(Rabita al-Alam al-Islami)
World Muslim League held its annual conference at Makkah Al-Mukaramma Saudi Arabia from 14th to 18th of Rabiul Awwal 1394 H (April 1974) in which 140 delegations of Muslim countries and organizations from all over the world participated. I (Mohammad Bashir) too was there in this Conference along with the other journalists from all over the world. The Conference unanimously adopted the following Resolution regarding Qadianism.
Qadianism or Ahmadiyyat: It is a subversive movement against Islam and the Muslim world, which falsely and deceitfully claims to be an Islamic sect; who under the guise of Islam and for the sake of mundane interests contrives and plans to damage the very foundations of Islam. Its eminent deviations from the basic Islamic principles are as follows:
Its founder claimed that he was a Prophet.
They deliberately distort the meanings of the verses of the Holy Qur’an.
They declared that Jihad has been abolished.
Qadianism was originally fostered by the British imperialism. Hence it has been flourishing under her flag. This movement has completely been disloyal to and dishonest in affairs of the Muslim Ummah. Rather, it has been loyal to Imperialism and Zionism. It has deep associations and cooperation with the anti Islamic forces and teachings especially through the following nefarious methods:
Construction of mosques with the assistance of the anti Islamic forces wherein the misleading Qadiani thoughts are imparted to the people.
Opening of schools institutions and orphanages wherein the people are taught and trained as to how they can be more anti Islamic in their activities. They also published the corrupted versions of the Holy Qur’an in different local and international languages.
In order to combat these dangers, the Conference recommends the following measures:
All the Muslim organisations in the world must keep a vigilant eye on all the activities of Qadianism their respective countries; to confine them all strictly to their schools, institutions and orphanages only. Moreover he Muslims of the world be shown the true picture of Qadianism and be briefed of their various tactics so that the Muslims of the world be saved from their designs.
They must be declared non Muslims and ousted form the fold of Islam. And be barred to enter the Holy lands.
There must be no dealings with the Qadianis. They must be boycotted socially , economically and culturally Nor they be married with or to Nor they be allowed to be buried in the Muslims graveyards. And they be treated like other non Muslims.
All the Muslim countries must impose restrictions on the activities of the claimant of Prophet hood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiani’s followers; must declare them a non Muslim minority must not trust them with any post of responsibility in any Muslim country.
The alterations effected by them in the Holy Qur’an must be made public and the people be briefed of them and all these be prohibited for further publication.
All such groups deviates from Islam must be treated at par with the Qadianis.”
Despite these religious edicts, Ahmadiyya Movement and its followers (Ahmadis) continue to pretend to be Muslim and the Champions of Islam, who are admired by the Westerners for their moderate views. The reason for their obstinacy is quite obvious. They are the fifth columnists amongst the Muslims and their so-called Islamic identity provide a cover for their clandestine activities while they continue to serve the interests of their masters.”
In Islamic Pakistan, the original home of the Ahmadis, the following law applies:
” Specific government policies that discriminate against religious minorities include the use of the “anti-Ahmadi laws”, the blasphemy laws, and the Hudood Ordinances. In 1984, the Government added Section 298(c), commonly referred to as the “anti-Ahmadi laws”, to the penal code.
(1) The section PROHIBITS AHMADIS FROM CALLING THEMSELVES MUSLIMS OR
(2) POSING AS MUSLIMS, OR
(3) FROM REFERRING TO THEIR FAITH AS ISLAM, OR
(4) FROM PREACHING OR PROPAGATING THEIR FAITH, or
(5) From inviting others to accept the Ahmadi faith, AND
(6) FROM INSULTING THE RELIGIOUS FEELINGS OF MUSLIMS.
(7) THE BLASPHEMY LAWS PROVIDE THE DEATH PENALTY FOR DEFILING ISLAM OR ITS PROPHETS; life imprisonment for defiling, damaging, or desecrating the Qur’an; and ten years’ imprisonment for insulting the religious feelings of any citizen. These laws are often used to intimidate reform-minded Muslims, sectarian opponents, and religious minorities, or to settle personal scores. The Hudood Ordinances impose elements of Qur’anic law on both Muslims and non-Muslims and different legal standards for men and women. “(Caps are my modifications to highlight the essentials.)
(8) FROM REFERRING TO THEIR PLACE OF WORSHIP AS A MOSQUE.
(9) AHMADIS CANNOT ISSUE THE CALL TO PRAYER AS OTHER ORTHODOX MUSLIMS DO.”
The above are the views of 1.2 Billion orthodox Muslims in the world. The Ahmadis account for approximately 1% to 1.5% (by Pakistani government estimates) of the world population of Islamic peoples, is somewhat less than 2 million despite inflated and unsubstantiated figures given by the Ahmadis themselves.
So to claim that Ahmadis speak for Muslims is misleading. They speak for only the Ahmadi religious sect. And from the above accounts they speak as non-Muslims. Because Ahmadi doctrines are blasphemous and unacceptable to orthodox Muslims. Ahmadis claim the right for “There is not compulsion of Religion” for this very reason, to claim that no one can stop them from claiming to be Muslims except Allah. Now you know why the keep on pushing that theme.
The World Muslim League, the learned international body of Islam, has made their declaration loud and clear. I place a lot of value in their Declaration. The Islamic Republic of Islam too has incorporated their views of the Ahmadi into their Constitution. How more serious can a nation get on their beliefs? For me to ignore these declarations would be for me to ignore serious Islamic opinion.
Views of Prominent British Muslims about the Ahmadi sect.
“Iqbal Sacranie, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, has a different take. “Whilst we fully accept the right of Ahmadiyyas to their own religion, it is clearly misleading to describe them as Muslims. They are outside the fold of Islam.”
His views are endorsed by Lord Nazir Ahmed of Rotherham, who said, “Ahmadiyyas are not Muslims. Therefore calling the religious complex (Baitul Futuh) in Morden a mosque hurts the sentiments of those who believe in Mohammed, the last prophet of Islam, peace be upon him.”
Born in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, Lord Ahmed is well known among Kashmiri immigrants and Pakistanis.”
(6) Distinct Ahmadi Ideologies 
1. That the prophecies concerning the second coming of Jesus were metaphorical in nature and not literal and that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad fulfilled in his person these prophecies and the second advent of Jesus, was the promised Mahdi and Messiah.
2. That the Qur’an has no contradictions (or abrogations), and has precedence over the Hadith or traditions; i.e., that one verse of the Qur’an does not cancel another and that no Hadith can contradict a verse of the Qur’an. Hadith that appear to contradict the Qur’an are not accepted by Ahmadi Muslims.
3. That Jesus, contrary to mainstream Islamic belief, was crucified and survived the four hours on the cross. He was later revived from a swoon in the tomb. Ahmadis believe that Jesus died in Kashmir of old age whilst seeking the Lost Tribes of Israel. Jesus’ remains are believed to be entombed in Kashmir under the name Yuz Asaf. Ahmadis believe that Jesus foretold the coming of Muhammad after him, which Christians have misinterpreted.
4. That Jesus Christ did not bring a new religion or law i.e. was not a law-bearing prophet but was last in the line of Hebrew/Israelite prophets who appeared within the dispensation of Moses akin to that of David, Solomon, Jeremiah, Isaiah etc.
5. That Jihad can only be used to protect against extreme religious persecution, and that Muslims have used Jihad as a tool for political opportunism.
6. That the “Messiah” and the “Imam Mahdi” are the same person, and that it is through his teachings, influence, his prayers and that of his followers that Islam will defeat the Anti-Christ or Dajjal in a period similar to the period of time it took for nascent Christianity to rise (300 years) and that the Dajjal’s power will slowly melt away like the melting of snow, heralding the final victory of Islam and age of peace.
7. That the history of mankind is split into seven epochs or ages, parallel to the seven days of the week, with periods for light and darkness and that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad appeared as the Promised Messiah at the sixth epoch heralding the seventh and final age of the world as a day in the estimation of God is like a thousand years of man’s reckoning (Quran:22:48). According to Ghulam Ahmad just as the sixth day of the week is reserved for Jumu’ah (congregational prayers) likewise his age is destined for a global gathering or assembly in which the world is to unite under one universal religion which according to him was Islam.http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Ahmadihttp://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Ahmadi
8. The two Ahmadiyya groups have varying beliefs regarding the finality of the Prophet hood of Muhammad. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community believes that Muhammad brought prophet hood to perfection and was the last law-bearing prophet and the apex of man’s spiritual evolution. New prophets can come but they must be subordinate to Muhammad and cannot exceed him in excellence nor alter his teaching or bring any new law or religion. The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement believes that Muhammad is the last of the prophets and no prophet, new or old, can come after him.
(7) The Ahmadi Sect and Muhammed’s Abrogations of Koranic verses.
Because the Koran has been so badly compiled with poor interpretations and script writers and so badly arranged that it does cause a lot of contradictions and misinterpretations. Much of this confusion has been the result of Muhammad’s abrogations. Ahmadis reject the concept of abrogations and that is why is is sometimes impossible to discuss Islamic text with Ahmadis intelligently because of this confusion. But Muhammed admits to abrogation in the Koran and I will attempt to show:
“Q:2.106 (YUSUFALI): “None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things.”
In this verse Allah is informing the prophet and his listeners that He can abrogate verses replacing with something better since He has the power to do so. This verse makes Allah sound pretty silly because it tells us that He did not know that the verse He revealed the first time would be cancelled by another because He thought of a better one later. Can you see how ridiculous this sounds against Allah’s claim of being all knowing?
Q:16.101 (YUSUFALI): “When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not.”
The words in brackets are put in there by the translator and are not part of the verse. Why does an all-knowing Allah have to substitute one revelation for another. If this is a reference to the Torah and Bible it goes to show that Allah took several hundred years to fine tune his revelation and come up with a final version, the Koran. Again His claim to be all-knowing god takes a beating.
Q:13.039 (YUSUFALI): “Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book”
Allah has the Mother of the Book but He says in this verse that He blots out some verses. This would mean that the Mother of the Book keeps changing to meet Allah’s whims. Is it not possible that it might please Allah to blot out the Koran He has revealed? This verse makes that possible. And He has the power to abrogate anything as He informs you in 2:106 quoted above.” 
It is clearly stated in the Koran that Muhammed does abrogate his verses as he sees fit. Because “Allah hath power over all things. 2:106 ”
(7a) The Transformation of Muhammed and the adoption of Jihad with the accompanying Abrogations
The following is a description of how Muhammed changed and adopted a militant attitude, thus forcing him to abrogate some of his earlier verses in the Koran.
Muhammed began his religious philosophy with peaceful and compassionate beginnings putting together ideologies that he gleaned from listening to fragmented tales from Judaism and Christianity. Muhammad’s doctrines were based on an amalgamation of Judea-Christian and pagan beliefs. On this basis, he visualised the concept of a prophet hood by incorporating the vision of The Angel Gabriel as mentioned in Jewish and Christian scriptures. Muhammed was illiterate and thus such information of Judaism and Christianity was obtained verbally from friendly Jews and Christians or others knowledgeable of such things during his travels and his enquiries. At the age of 40 years, Muhammed told his wife, Khadija, that the Angel Gabriel revealed to him the message from Allah and he has continued to receive such revelations for the next 23 years till his death. In the beginning, with the hope of winning more followers, Muhammed tried to compromise his teachings to accommodate the predominant beliefs of his pagan Quraish community to which his parents belonged, such as by combining all the 300 of their idols that stood on the Kaaba under the overall supremacy of Allah, the name given by the Quraish pagans to their Moon God.
Initially the Meccans tolerated Muhammed with his unsuccessful proselytising and ignored him. But in Muhammad’s frustrations, this self-proclaimed prophet began attacking the Meccan polytheism (pagan) including their idols and customs and their ancestors (ibn Ishaq 167) so much so that the elders of the Meccans began to reject Muhammed and mock his pretentious claims and his humble origins.
Muhammed was a poor proselytiser and his version of Islam was unpopular. After 13 years of street preaching, he managed to recruit about one hundred followers who called themselves Muslims. His wife, Khadija, was his first convert, and next was his young and impressionable cousin Ali, who also later became his son-in-law and the fourth caliph of Islam. Zaid, Muhammad’s personal slave was also an early convert. But a wealthy merchant, Abu Bakr, whose money and credulous acceptance of Muhammad’s doctrines must be credited for the survival of Muhammad’s Islamic cult. Without Abu Bakr’s support, Islam may never have been, and the Angel would have been an Arab myth. The calibre of Muhammad’s early converts speaks for itself. 
In Muhammad’s desperate attempt to win over the pagan polytheist Meccan Quraish tribes, Muhammed compromised and agreed to recognise and praised their local Quraish gods in addition to Allah. Although this submission was welcomed by the Quraish polytheists, his own followers questioned and criticised him and began to lose faith in Muhammed especially when he was advocating for monotheism in Islam. In order to extricate himself from the blunder and lack of perception and consistency, he claimed that it was Satan who was speaking through him and promptly rescinded his recognition of the Pagan Meccan gods (Tabari 1192, Qur’an 22:52& 53:19-26). This is what is commonly known as, “The Satanic Verses.”
In order to strengthen his position against the Meccans Muhammed made a “treaty of war” with the Arab people of Medina against the Meccans (ibn Ishaq 299-301). When the Meccans discovered this, they decided to capture Muhammed and put him to death. But by using his son-in-law, Ali, into deceiving his assassins to believe that Muhammed was trapped thus allowing Muhammed the opportunity to escape (Ibn Ishaq 326). Muhammed fled to Medina in 622, the beginning to the Muslim calender.
(7b) The Change of Mohammed’s Attitudes: The need for Abrogation and the use of Jihad
Furious with the rejection by his own Quraish tribe, having already been rejected by the Jews, Christians, and Bedouins, Muhammed felt betrayed (till today this rejection is interpreted as an act of war my Islamists), Muhammad’s messages began to become intolerant and ruthless. This became more and more evident as he became more successful especially when enriching himself and his followers with his raids on Meccan trading caravans, and raids on peaceful non-Muslim villages, pillaging and destroying his enemies. Muhammed in his desire for success and supremacy even directed his thugs to raid Meccan caravans and villages in the Holy Months when the victims were not expecting such violation of Meccan cultural sanctity. The booty for these activities was shared among his band of thugs and the captive women and children were distributed as slaves and sexual objects as the victor saw fit, while the men were slaughtered. The success of such caravan raids attracted the poor but hardy Bedouin nomads who began to flock to join this notorious growing band of caravan robbers, as this was the only way of enjoying the pleasures and riches beyond their reach. Under the umbrella of Islam they were praised for their Islamic zeal and loyalty. And for those who may have succumbed to death on the raid, they were promised everlasting life in Paradise with the reward of 72 virgins at their disposal. This was carried out under the name of Islam, and his followers increased rapidly. Certainly there was reward enough to be attractive to drop outs and it was under the umbrella of Islam.
New revelations from “Allah” (Abrogated Verses to displace older less violent verses) were then conveniently introduced by Muhammed to justify his newly developed attitudes of violence, which would justify his followers for murdering innocent caravans and villagers to pillage their goods and to take their women and children as captive slaves to be used as is convenient.
This is generally known as the post Medina era when abrogation was at its greatest. This was also the period when Taqiyya (untruths) were used to gain advantage against the adversary.
“Taqiyya and kitman or ‘holy hypocrisy’ has been diffused throughout Arabic culture for over fourteen hundred years since it was developed by Shiites as a means of defence and concealment of beliefs against Sunni unbelievers. As the Prophet said: ‘he who keeps secrets shall soon attain his objectives.’
The skillful use of taqiyya and kitman was often a matter of life and death against enemies; it is also a matter of life and death to many contemporary Islamic terrorists. As so often in the history of Islam, a theological doctrine became operational.
During the Spanish inquisition, Sunni Moriscos attended mass and returned home to wash their hands of the ‘holy water’. In operational terms, taqiyya and kitman allowed the ‘mujahadeen ‘ to assume whatever identity was necessary to fulfill their mission; they had doctrinal and theological and later jurisprudential sanction to pretend to be Jews or Christians to gain access to Christian and Jewish targets: ‘the mujahadeen can take the shape of the enemy’.
Taqiyya is common to both Shiite and Sunni Muslim discourse and has significant implications for understanding Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist operations.” 
Meccans finally decided to send their own army to Medina to protect their caravans from Muslim raiders and this eventuated in the battle of Badr (624AD). Muhammed defeated the Meccan army at Badr and this completely changed the balance of power in the region. With his new found power and influence built from his aggressive and military conquest of the Meccans and later the Jews in Medina, his total philosophy for his religion of Islam became aggressive and domineering and he abrogated many of his earlier verses into intolerance and the subjugation of all other peoples and beliefs. This is when his Jihadist philosophy was ingrained into Islam.
An example is: Muhammad replaced (abrogated) 124 verses with the verse 9:5, known as the Sword Verse.
Following his victory in the Battle of Badr, Mujammed began to divide and destroy the three dominant Jewish tribes in Medina, namely (1) the Banu Qaynuqa tribe, (2) the Banu Nadir tribe, and (3) the Banu Quyrayza tribe. Muhammed successfully destroy these tribes one at a time and was thus full control of Medina from whence he branched our to spread his Muslim faith adopting the same ruthless methods of deception, and spurring his men on with the Islamic Jihadist zeal always with the prize, captive women and children and loot to be shared among themselves. 
(8) The Three Stages of Early Islam: Leading to Abrogation and Jihad by the Prophet Muhammed
One of the greatest misunderstandings of Islam is that (1) Muslims like to portray their religion as one without compulsion, and (2) it is a religion of Peace and that (3) the Greater Jihad they practise is about the internal struggle of their personal spiritual attainment and not about a Holy War against all non-believers of Islam. And with that premise, that (4) militant or extremist Islamic Jihad is therefore an illegitimate and perverse aberration of Islam of a minute disillusioned minority. But what apologists for Islam may wish for us to believe, or the liberals and multi-culturals hoped is true, and what all orthodox Muslims. including the Islamic Jihadists believe are two different things. For all religious Muslims, that is, all orthodox Muslims, (not cultural or nominal Muslims), abrogation and militant Jihadism is a real and an inseparable part of Islam.
The ministry of the Prophet Muhammed and his followers went through several stages of maturity during his life-time.
(1) The first stage was from 610 until 622, when Allah through Muhammed practised restraint and compassion.
(2) The second stage was from 623 to 626 Allah (Muhammed) permitted Muslims to fight in defensive battles.
(3) The third stage was from 626 to 632 Allah permitted Muhammad (Muslims) to fight an aggressive war first against polytheists , and later against monotheists like the Jews of Khaybar . Once Muhammad was given this permission from Allah to kill in the name of Allah he, Muhammed (Muslims) could instigate war at any time. There were no longer any restrictions.
With the abrogate verse, entitled “The verse of the Sword: 9:5”:
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
With the stroke of the pen, Muhammad replaced (abrogated) 124 verses with the verse 9:5 and changed forever any verses for restraint, and commanded all Muslims to wage Jihad against all kafir/infidels.
With verse 9:29 called “The Fighting Verse, 9:29” Muhammad abrogated another 9 other verses to command Muslims to fight for the cause of Islam, i.e. the command for (militant) Jihad. 
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. 
“Chapter 9 of the Qur’an, in English called “Ultimatum,” is the most important concerning the issues of abrogation and jihad against unbelievers. It is the only chapter that does not begin “in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful.”Commentators agree that Muhammad received this revelation in 631, the year before his death, when he had returned to Mecca and was at his strongest. Muhammad bin Ismail al-Bukhari (810-70), compiler of one of the most authoritative collections of the hadith, said that “Ultimatum” was the last chapter revealed to Muhammad although others suggest it might have been penultimate. Regardless, coming at or near the very end of Muhammad’s life, “Ultimatum” trumps earlier revelations.
Because this chapter contains violent passages, it abrogates previous peaceful content. Muhsin Khan, the translator of Sahih al-Bukhari, says God revealed “Ultimatum” in order to discard restraint and to command Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam or until they pay religious taxes. So, at first aggressive fighting was forbidden; it later became permissible (2:190) and subsequently obligatory (9:5). This “verse of the sword” abrogated, cancelled, and replaced 124 verses that called for tolerance, compassion, and peace.
Suyuti said that everything in the Qur’an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish God’s kingdom on earth.
Prior to receiving “Ultimatum,” Muhammad had reached agreements with various Arab tribes. But when God gave Muhammad a revelation (2:190-2), Muhammad felt justified in breaking his cease-fire. For Isma’il bin Kathir (1301-73), a student of Ibn Taymiyya  and an influential Qur’an interpreter in his own right, it is clear: As jihad involves death and the killing of men, God draws attention to the fact that disbelief, polytheism, and avoidance of God’s path as shown by the Qur’an are worse than killing them. This creates license for future generations of Muslims to kill non-Muslims solely on the basis of their refusal to accept Islam.
According to Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Chapter 9:5, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first caliph, used this and other verses to validate fighting anyone who either did not pay religious taxes to the Muslims or convert to Islam. Ibn ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, one of the hadith transmitters, quoted Muhammad as saying, “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except God (ALLAH) and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God(ALLAH).” He testified that Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, an authentic transmitter of hadiths, said that the verse of the sword “abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term.” ‘Awfi cited Ibn ‘Abbas, who argued that “Ultimatum” obviated earlier peace treaties. The Shafi‘i school took this as a justification for killing anyone who abandoned prayer and for fighting anyone who refused to pay increased religious minority taxes.
Such interpretations resonate. Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti, a contemporary Al-Azhar University scholar, wrote that “the verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that holy war, which is demanded in Islamic law, is not a defensive war because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honourable of all holy wars. Its goal is the exaltation of the word of God, the construction of Islamic society, and the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth regardless of the means. It is legal to carry on an offensive holy war.”
Defensive warfare in Islam is nothing but a phase of the Islamic mission that the Prophet practised. After that, it was followed by another phase, that is, calling all people to embrace Islam. Even for People of the Book, there can be no role except conversion to Islam or subjugation to Muslim rule. Hence, Muhammad’s statement, “They would not invade you, but you invade them.” 
One cannot help but wonder; why was there a need for changes in the Quran, if it really contained God’s words? If Allah is indeed all-powerful and all-knowing, why would he need to revise and correct himself so often?
(9) Ahmadi Views on Abrogation and Jihad is Misleading and Deceptive to the Unwary
Our civilisation has progress a long way since the Abrahamic prophets or the Ahmadi prophet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Today we have the magic of the computer for access to instant knowledge to just about any subject on earth. We so have a tremendous advantage over those early philosophers. But on the other hand, those early Prophets had the assistance of angels and the messages from god. Would there have been different proclamations had the computer been available to those early prophets?
The founder of the Ahmadiyya Religious Sect proclaimed the following:
No 1. Ahmadis believe that Mirza Ghulam was a “prophet of Allah” and “the Christian Messiah,” i.e. the second coming of the saviour. (This is not acceptable to the orthodox Muslims nor to Christians.)
“The Qur’an says that Muhammad is the seal of the prophets”:
“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Apostle of God, and the Seal of the Prophets: and God has full knowledge of all things. [Q: 33:40]” Y. Ali
Now at first glance this text seems to imply nothing more than that Muhammad was the culmination of prophet hood, that he was the last in a series of spokespersons that Allah had sent. Reading the hadith literature, however, it is obvious that according to Muslim sources this seal was more than a statement regarding Muhammad’s status in relation to the previous prophets.
Let us quote one of the best tafsirs, tafsir Ibn Kathir comments on this verse:
He is the Last of the Prophets
[وَلَـكِن رَّسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَىْءٍ عَلِيماً]
(but he is the Messenger of Allah and the last of the Prophets. And Allah is Ever All-Aware of everything.) This is like the Ayah:
[اللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ حَيْثُ يَجْعَلُ رِسَالَتَهُ]
(Allah knows best with whom to place His Message) (6:124). This Ayah clearly states that there will be no Prophet after him. If there will be no Prophet after him then there will surely be no Messenger after him either, because the status of a Messenger is higher than that of a Prophet, for every Messenger is a Prophet but the reverse is not the case. This was reported in many Mutawatir Hadiths narrated from the Messenger of Allah via a group of his Companions, may Allah be pleased with them. Imam Ahmad recorded a narration from Ubayy bin Ka`b, from his father that the Prophet said:
«مَثَلِي فِي النَّبِيِّينَ كَمَثَلِ رَجُلٍ بَنَى دَارًا فَأَحْسَنَهَا وَأَكْمَلَهَا، وَتَرَكَ فِيهَا مَوْضِعَ لَبِنَةٍ لَمْ يَضَعْهَا، فَجَعَلَ النَّاسُ يَطُوفُونَ بِالْبُنْيَانِ وَيَعْجَبُونَ مِنْهُ وَيَقُولُونَ: لَوْ تَمَّ مَوْضِعُ هَذِهِ اللَّبِنَةِ، فَأَنَا فِي النَّبِيِّينَ مَوْضِعُ تِلْكَ اللَّبِنَة»
(My parable among the Prophets is that of a man who built a house and did a good and complete job, apart from the space of one brick which he did not put in its place. The people started to walk around the building, admiring it and saying, “If only that brick were put in its place. ” Among the Prophets, I am like that brick.) It was also recorded by At-Tirmidhi, who said “Hasan Sahih.”Another Hadith
Imam Ahmad recorded that Anas bin Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, said that the Messenger of Allah said:
«إِنَّ الرِّسَالَةَ وَالنُّبُوَّةَ قَدِ انْقَطَعَتْ فَلَا رَسُولَ بَعْدِي وَلَا نَبِي»
(Messengership(sic) and Prophethood (sic) have come to an end, and there will be no more Messengers or Prophets.) This worried the people, then he said:
(But there will be Al-Mubashshirat.) They said, `O Messenger of Allah, what are Al-Mubashshirat’ He said,
“«رُؤْيَا الرَّجُلِ الْمُسْلِمِ، وَهِيَ جُزْءٌ مِنْ أَجْزَاءِ النُّبُوَّة»
It is clear that orthodox Muslims have always regarded Muhammed, in accordance to Koranic verses 33:40, that he was the last of the prophets of Allah. Anyone claiming to be a prophet after him would be a false prophet. For Mirza Ghulam Ahmad not to appreciate this fact and nor to understand Muslim sentiments attached to this view would appear to have been insensitive or innocent or even open confrontation. A prophet of Allah, with Allah’s guidance, would never have been so insensitive? Surely Allah “sees all and knows all things?” This, and other statements alienated orthodox Muslims from the Ahmadiyya religious sect and accused the Ahmadis of heresy. It has also been entirely rejected as ludicrous by Christians to contemplate that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad represents the second coming of Jesus coming out of Pakistan.]
No 2. Ahmadis do not concede that there are abrogations in the Qur’an. (This leads to endless arguments on the meaning of the Qur’an and its interpretations. i.e. rejecting verses in the Qur’an)
The arguments above, particularly section (7) clearly illustrates that “abrogations” were indeed a part of Mohammed’s way of updating his perception and declarations to fit changing circumstances, and that it is part of the Koran. This causes much confusion because the Ahmadis continue to quote obsolete abrogated verses that no longer apply. See ]
No 3. Ahmadis believe that only Hadiths that are compatible with the Qur’an is acceptable. Others are rejected. (This causes much disagreement with orthodox Islam.)
The manipulations of acceptable and unacceptable Hadiths among the Ahmadis again creates confusion and is unacceptable to orthodox Muslims or Islamologists.]
No 4. Ahmadis believe that there is only personal Jihad and aggressive Jihad does not exist. Although Ahmadis believe that Muslims can practise “Jihad in the defence of Islam.”
[ANALYSING NO 4:
This is contrary to what is actually happening with Islamic Jihad Martyrdom (Islamic terrorism.)
Muhammed abrogated 113 peaceful or friendly verses with one stroke by revealing “The verse of the Sword: 9:5”:
Q: 9:5 So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
With verse 9:29 called “The Fighting Verse, 9:29” Muhammad abrogated another 9 other verses to command Muslims to fight for the cause of Islam, i.e. the command for (militant) Jihad. 
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. 
Furthermore, on accepting Muhammad’s abrogation there are no verses that show any compassion for Jews or Christians, or is there any way to accommodate the kafir in Islam except for them to either convert to Islam or to accept Dhimmitudism. There are no other options in the Koran.
When Ahmadis chose to ignore the principles of “abrogation” they have in fact ignored some of the most powerful commandments of Allah like 9:5 or 9:29 and when they have professed that there is only “Jihad used for defensive purposes the Ahmadis have in fact created the greatest dissimulation for the deceit of Islamic Jihadism.
The Ahmadis belong to the group that consists of those who (perhaps unknowingly) use dissimulation as a strategy in the greater effort to assist Islam Jihadists to win. And in the case of the Ahmadis, perhaps unknowingly provide Islamic Jihadist with the cover they need for their nefarious activities. This dissimulation deflects attention away from “jihad by force”–asking others, in effect, to accept that the elephant in the room does not exist so that the elephant can, in due time, trample everyone flat. This dissimulation also enhances Islam’s image and provide for good public relations (PR): more people become tolerant of Islam and Muslims, and so more people are receptive to Islam, more people are made to spread good things about Islam. Whether these explanations are true or false doesn’t matter. What matters is that this dissimulation is working in favour of Islamic Jihadists.
Of course, this strategic dissimulation plays another rôle. By convincing others that “jihad by force” is no longer an essential element of Islam, two things happen. One is that non-Muslims effectively ignore attempts to confront or make preparations against “jihad by force,” giving the Muslims a strategic advantage. The other thing is that non-Muslims stop pressuring Muslims to crack down on “jihad by force,” allowing Muslims to wage “jihad by force” (like in Palestine or Lebanon or Bombay) or prepare for it with impunity (like Iran and Syria and Pakistan.) 
“Dar al ‘Harb
The language of the Koran separates the world into Muslims and kufir (infidels, unbelievers). It is quite clear about the fate of infidels, they will burn for eternity in Hell.
…then guard yourself against the Fire whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the unbelievers. 2:23
This language clearly splits the world into two, the world of the righteous and the world of the infidel. The terms commonly used to describe this duality are dar al’Islam and dar al’harb. Dar al’Islam, following from above, means the ‘abode of safety, perfection, salvation, well being and peace’. It is often translated simply as the ‘abode of peace’. Dar al’harb is the opposite. It means ‘abode of war’. It is everything that Dar al’Islam is not. It is danger, chaos, punishment, disease and conflict.
This dichotomy clearly argues that Islam is superior and the unbelievers are therefore inferior. It allows Muslims to look down on non-Muslims with derision and contempt. This has found modern expression in many a Friday night sermon. Evidence of this line of reasoning can be found in the writings of the influential radical SAYYID QUTB who said:
“Humanity today is living in a large brothel! One only has to glance at its press, films, fashion shows, beauty contests, ballrooms, wine bars and broadcasting stations! Or observe its mad lust for naked flesh, provocative postures, and sick, suggestive statements in literature, the arts and mass media!”
To Qutb the world had fallen into a state of JAHILIYYA, or ignorance of the word of Allah. The main source of this ignorance is the West which is seen in wholly negative terms. He argued that if was the duty of Muslims to wage a Jihad to rid the world of jahiliyya.
There is an argument that jihad should only be declared in order to defend Muslims (Islam) from attack. However, much depends on the definition of attack and defence. Qutb argued that the notion of defence should be expanded.
If we insist in calling Islamic jihad a defensive movement, then we must change the meaning of the word ‘defence’ to mean the defence of man against all those forces that limit his freedom. These forces may take the form of beliefs and concepts, as well as political systems, based on economic, racial and class distinctions. (From Tomorrow’s Islam)
To Qutb the beliefs and practices of Dar al ‘Harb were a threat to Dar al ‘Islam, they were responsible for currupting Muslims. The freedom he speaks of is a specific freedom, it is the freedom to choose Islam. It is based on the idea that the freedom to choose is limited by the lies of the infidels, when the lies are exposed people will naturally convert to the one, true religion, Islam. Therefore Islam is fully justified in defending itself from aggression and corrosive ideas by waging Jihad.
Another influential thinker is Sayyid Mawdudi, a scholar of Deobandism and founder of the Pakistan party Jemaat e-Ismaiya (party of Islam). He puts it this way:
Islam wants the whole earth and does not content itself with only a part thereof. It wants and requires the entire inhabited world. It does not want this in order that one nation dominates the earth and monopolises its sources of wealth, after having taken them away from one or more other nations. No, Islam wants and requires the earth in order that the human race altogether can enjoy the concept and practical program of human happiness, by means of which God has honoured Islam and put it above the other religions and laws. In order to realise this lofty desire, Islam wants to employ all forces and means that can be employed for bringing about a universal all-embracing revolution. It will spare no efforts for the achievement of this supreme objective. This far-reaching struggle that continuously exhausts all forces and this employment of all possible means are called Jihad.  ]
No 5. The Ahmadi Caliphs also believe that those who reject Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as Allah’s prophet are Kafr (sic), i.e. non-Ahmadis are Kafr (sic).
[ANALYSING NO 5:
This statement is as exclusive as that in Islam and has created an insurmountable divide. That Ahmadis are totally exclusive and separate from orthodox Muslims.]
No 6. Note that ‘The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement has a different view of the “Muhammed as the Seal of the Prophet” from “The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.
[ANALYSING No 6:
The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement has this one difference with the main Ahmadiyya Religious Sect, but otherwise is very similar.]
No 7. Ahmadis portray themselves as a religion of Peace saying that Islam mean Peace. They have even created a slogan for Ahmadis, “Love for All, Hatred for None.”
[ANALYSING No 7:
This must be one of the most blatant dissimulation’s of the Ahmadi community. This has been clearly illustrated above in paragraph (2) Ahmadis use the slogan, “Love for All, Hatred for None.”
AHMADI ATTITUDES TOWARDS APOSTASY
Most Ahmadis will tell us that there is no command in the Koran regarding the punishment for apostasy in their earthly life. One verse that is applicable is:
[4.89] “They desire that you should disbelieve (in Islam, become apostates) as they have disbelieved (infidels), so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them (apostates) friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah’s way; but if they (apostates) turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.”
However, the Qur’an is supplemented by the Hadiths (Ahmadi select the Hadiths that they will adopt or reject) and therein lies many of Mohammed’s views and statements on apostasy.
(1) Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
Ali burnt some people alive (former Muslims), Prophet had said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ ”
Ishaq:550: The reason that Allah’s Messenger (Prophet Mohammed) ordered Abdullah Bin Sad slain was because he had become a Muslim and used to write down Qur’an Revelation. Then he apostatized (rejected Islam) after becoming suspicious of some verses which the prophet changed after his suggestions.
(2) Ishaq:551 The Messenger (Prophet Mohammed) ordered Miqyas’ assassination because he became a renegade by rejecting Islam.
(3) Bukhari, 5-59-632 Once Muadh ( one of the six trusted scholars by Mohammed called Kutab al-Wahi) paid a visit to Abu Musa and saw a chained man. Muadh asked, “What is this?” Abu Musa said, “[He was] a Jew who embraced Islam and has now turned apostate,” Muadh said, “I will surely chop off his neck!”
(4) Bukhari Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:
Allah’s Apostle (Prophet Mohammed) said, “The blood of a Muslim cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.” 
Despite deceitful Muslims who attempt to misinform kafirs that there is no penalty for leaving Islam, Qur’an 4:89 and the above Hadiths speak otherwise. As the Sharia Law is based on the Qur’an as well as the Hadiths, the death penalty for apostasy applies in several Islamic nations. For example:
“Mohammed: You are ignorant of the Qur’an, the Hadiths, and Sharia. I am a Muslim living in Pakistan. We have Sharia laws here in accordance with Qur’an and Sunna. In our country apostasy and blasphemy is punishable with death. 
These are further evidence from the history of Islam that apostasy has a more significant role in Islam than some Muslims would like us to believe. Many Muslims attempt to say that there is no Qur’an verse that mentions the penalty for apostasy, but Qur’an 4:89 and many Hadiths specify the death penalty as the following will show. The following is additional evidence of the penalty for apostasy in Islam.
“IDENTIFY AND KILL ALL THE APOSTATES
Allah has said “Kill the renegades” (4.89)
In another verse Allah said about apostates “ they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and feet be cut off from the opposite sides, or exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world; and a great torment is theirs in the hereafter.” (Surah al Maidah:Verse 33).
Apostle has said:
Bukhari:V4B52N260 “The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.’”
Ishaq:550 “. The reason that Allah’s Messenger ordered Andullash Bin Sad slain was because he had become a Muslim and used to write down Qur’an Revelation. Then he apostatized (rejected islam) after becoming suspicious of some verses which prophet changed after his suggestions.
Ishaq:551 The Messenger ordered Miqyas’ assassination because he became a renegade by rejecting Islam.”
Bukhari, 5-59-632 Once Muadh paid a visit to Abu Musa and saw a chained man. Muadh asked, “What is this?” Abu Musa said, “(He was) a Jew who embraced Islam and has now turned apostate.” Muadh said, “I will surely chop off his neck!”
Bukhari Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:
Allah’s Apostle said, “The blood of a Muslim cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and
leaves the Muslims.”
Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
Ali burnt some people alive (former muslims)., Prophet had said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ ”
B- AFTER APOSTATES ARE WIPED OUT,THEN GET RID OF ROTTEN APPLES ,THAT IS, NON TERRORIST TYPES (NON_PRACTISING SO CALLED MODERATE MUSLIMS)
Muslims have to realize that half a muslim is worse than a kafir. Only a true muslim can be a terrorist and can terrorize the world. The litmus test is the five times parayer in a mosque where they can be seen and counted. Our great apostle thought of an ingenious way to correct this situation. When he noticed some muslims missimg congregational prayers in mosque regularly, he wanted to set an example for others, he had the vermins burnt alive along with their houses and the families.
Bukhari:V1B11N626 “The Prophet said, “burn all those who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes.’”
Following this famous hadith and sunna , practising muslims and salafi followers of of Abdul Wahab killed or maimed 400,000 wishy washy muslims of Arabia in 19th century . This terrorized the muslims of the world and convinced them the power of islam and increased conversion to islam many folds.
C-EVEN OCCASIONAL MISSING OF PRAYERS MUST BE PUNISHED
Bukhari:V1B11N617 “I would order someone to collect firewood and another to lead prayer. Then I would burn the houses of men who did not present themselves at the compulsory prayer and prostration.” [8a]
Even if the original concept of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to create a less militant version of Islam was admirable and commendable, he and his advisers lacked the intimate knowledge of Islam and the Muslim psyche or had the intellectual acumen to have made Ahmadiyya sect a viable alternative. The doctrines were poorly thought through or rationalised and had many serious flaws of logic and lacked cognisance of religious beliefs in Islam and Christianity. Ahmadism created more doubts and animosity than converts.
But the most disturbing element of the Ahmadiyya sect doctrines is that it creates dissimulation’s about orthodox Islam and thus creates deceit and misinformation about orthodox Islam since Ahmadis pose as Muslims even when they have been officially declared as non-Muslims by orthodox Muslims. It leads to dissimulation’s that are difficult for non-Muslims to fully comprehend and threatens the security of the West against extremist militant Jihadism.
REFERENCES: [Rated one* to 4*s]
 James Robson, trans., Mishkat al-Masabih, vol. 2 (Lahore: M. Ashraf, 1963-5), book XV, chap. 5, pp. 752-5, book XVIII, chap. 1, pp. 806-16; idem, Mishkat al-Masabih, vol. 3, book XVIII, chap. 5, pp. 836-9.
 L. Veccia Vaglieri, The Encyclopedia of Islam, vol. 4, s.v. “Khaybar,” pp. 1137-43.
(This is an scholarly detailed tabulation of abrogated verses for study.)