When Ahmadiyya takes you for a ride

Bismillah arRahman arRahim Anti Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam

March 2001

**When Ahmadiyya takes you for a ride

Reply to an Ahmadiyya rebuttal of the Rs. 10,000,000 article of Illias Sattar**

- by Farooq -

In “Own Goals” I tried to capture some of the Ahmadiyya logic. I will take the opportunity of their alleged reply to the reward article on our website of Illias Sattar, to explore the mystery of Ahmadiyya logic a little further.

The gist of the article of Illias Sattar on our website, is that Mirza contradicts himself: Mirza Ghulam claims Jesus (AS) was not made God during his life. He however also claims it was Paul who made him God. But Paul died before Jesus (AS) did. So Paul must have declared him God before Jesus (AS) died.

Now, let us have a look at the Ahmadiyya Rebuttal. Fasten your seatbelts, please, for this will be quite a ride: an introduction in Ahmadiyya loop-thinking, promising you a dizzying exit.

We’re in a biplane, preparing for our first loop, when in their article the Ahmadis quote Illias Sattar:

“It is a well known fact that st. Paul died in 64 or 67 AD”.

source: Illias Sattar quoted in A Qadiani reply to Mr. Ilyas Sattar’s US$ 250,000 challenge

Gaining altitude rapidly now, Ahmadiyya replies with a reference from encyclopedia. They write (their bolds):

“The Columbia Encyclopedia gives quite a detail of St. Paul’s life and activities. But in the beginning it clearly cautions the readers regarding chronology of St. Paul’s life by saying that ” The chronology of St. Paul’s life is difficult, but there is general agreement (within a few years) on almost all details. The hypothetical dates given here are according to one chronological system. (The columbia Encyclopedia sixth edition). ”

source: A Qadiani reply to Mr. Ilyas Sattar’s US$ 250,000 challenge

Obviously the higher this loop goes, the thinner the air becomes (their bolds):

“What a wonderful “Well known Fact” is this which is based on “Hypothetical dates and merely general agreement on the same”.

source: A Qadiani reply to Mr. Ilyas Sattar’s US$ 250,000 challenge

All excited and thrilled now, the Ahmadis boast (their bolds again)

“The purpose of the above discussion was :

To highlight the dishonesty of Mr. Ilyas Sattar by exposing his double standards. ”

And to demonstrate that Paul’s year of demise described in Encyclopedia are just approximations (or rather merely an agreement ) and therefore can not be challenged as well established fact as claimed by Mr. Ilyas Sattar.

source: A Qadiani reply to Mr. Ilyas Sattar’s US$ 250,000 challenge

We just got passed the peak of the loop; from here, it is one steep dive. Because the good old Ahmadiyya strategy of accusing us of deliberately misquoting and ommitting sentences of a quote (a wrongful accusation for that matter), is proven to be nothing other than their typical projection mechanism (i.e. accusing somebody else of one’s own behaviour), for I looked up the exact text in the Columbia Encyclopedia. This is what the Ahmadis wrote (their bolds)

“The Columbia Encyclopedia gives quite a detail of St. Paul’s life and activities. But in the beginning it clearly cautions the readers regarding chronology of St. Paul’s life by saying that ” The chronology of St. Paul’s life is difficult, but there is general agreement (within a few years) on almost all details. The hypothetical dates given here are according to one chronological system. (The columbia Encyclopedia sixth edition). ”

source: A Qadiani reply to Mr. Ilyas Sattar’s US$ 250,000 challenge

Let me now add in black italics, the part the Ahmadis left out when they quoted the Columbia Encyclopaedia:

d. A.D. 64? or 67? , the apostle to the Gentiles, b. Tarsus, Asia Minor. He was a Jew. His father was a Roman citizen, probably of some means, and Paul was a tentmaker by trade. His Jewish name was Saul. He was educated in Jerusalem, where he studied under Gamaliel and became a zealous nationalist; he was probably a Pharisee.

The chronology of St. Paul’s life is difficult, but there is general agreement (within a few years) on almost all details. The hypothetical dates given here are according to one chronological system.

Interesting isn’t it, to read what the Ahmadis ommitted. The uncertainty or “approximation” the encyclopaedia refers to, applies to whether he died in 64 or 67 - not whether he died 20 years later or earlier. Thank you, Ahmadis, for this nice illustration of how you try decieve people by leaving out the most relevant information and then projecting your own undesirable behaviour of misquoting onto others and accusing them of it while they are not guilty of it at all ! The Ahmadis surpassed themselves again with their deceptions, because as the complete quote from the encyclopaedia just illustrated, contrary to the deceptive statements of the Ahmadis, the encyclopaedia clearly says that there is general agreement within a few years (refering to the earlier sentence of 64? or 67?) on almost all details. Within a few years, clearly applies to their earlier sentence of 64? or 67? And that is exactly what Illias Sattar said where in his article he writes: “It is a well known fact that St. Paul died in 64 AD or 67 AD”. Clearly the Ahmadis so just projected their own dishonesty onto somebody else again and accused him of something he has got nothing to do with.

Very tiring it is, reading Ahmadiyya literature. They constantly create expectations of “now we’re going to take you somewhere” - but when you look around you, it turns out you are exactly where you started before: an article of Mr. Sattar, that is proven to be entirely correct. They pretend to refute an article, but actually prove it correct. As a result, after a biplane-loop in the roller coaster of their emotional excitement, all they did, was take you for a ride through thin air and arrive back at square one of their thinking. In the process they make some irrational claim that the mere fact that they made this loop refutes the article of Illias Sattar, while the sources they quote actually confirm Illias Sattar’s statement to be correct.

Let us reiterate here that the gist of the article of Illias Sattar, is that there is a flagrant contradiction in the work of Mirza. And I just showed how the references they use in their article actually proved the premisse to be 100% correct, hence the conclusion of Illias Sattar also is correct.

At some unconscious level the Ahmadiyya author of this alleged rebuttal must know it too, for he makes a few more minor loops of which I will spare you the details, before he finally prepares to take you into a dizzying experience. With bravado, he announces his next loop with his biplane. This time, he takes you on their mission straight into a big cloud. He writes:

“The main debate among Ahmadi and non Ahmadi Muslims is regarding what Holy Quran say about Demise of Jesus. ”

source: A Qadiani reply to Mr. Ilyas Sattar’s US$ 250,000 challenge

To advance such image-building, one of their own brothers, the Ahmadiyya Tombmaster, developed this “tombofjesus” website, which according to him has the personal support of the kaliph himself. The Ahmadis are very proud of it - they mention it everywhere and use it as a propaganda tool.

I have been told that some aircrafts have ejector seats, for such occasions where an emergency requires immediate exit.

Well, this sure is the right time for them to activate it, because dear Readers, what does this Ahmadiyya tombofjesus website prove beyond any doubt whatsoever? That what supposedly distinguished them from everybody else - this belief that Jesus (as) died - is not at all typical for Ahmadiyya. Actually, in our article about the Ahmadiyya theory of the alleged death of Jesus (as), we showed how on his website, this Tombmaster goes out of his way to prove that this theory has been around for centuries before Mirza was even born… and how in fact this the particular theory of the Ahmadis is rooted in occult principles and beliefs. The Tombmaster says himself that his site builds on “a huge element of New Age”, which as we illustrated in Ahmadiyya, Occultism and the New World Order is rooted in occultism.

In the more general picture, pretending that their belief that Jesus (as) died is the “main difference” with Muslims, is one big cloud to conceal the real nature of their teachings, and to conceal what makes them an anti-islamic and subversive movement, like the World Muslim League unanimously declared in 1974.

In the particular context of their “rebuttal”, this cloud is used to divert attention away from the issue: the unrefuted and by their own reference material even confirmed article of Illias Sattar, who pointed out one of the many contradictions in the writings of Mirza. If they really believe they have proven his article wrong, what is stopping them from going to court, like Illias Sattar suggest they should do, and claim the reward? Or do they know that flying a few loops in court will only serve to expose how they create a deceptive trail of smoke?

---

email Farooq

Back to Homepage