New area: Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and Matters — See Title Page and List of Contents
— latest, 2nd March 2015: Basis of alleged abrogation in Quran, Anything but
See: Project Rebuttal: What the West needs to know about Islam
Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam
Read: Background to the Project
List of all Issues | Summary 1 | Summary 2 | Summary 3 — completed, 28th June 2013
Submitted by Abid Aziz.
The Islamic council of Gambia declares Ahmadies as Non-Muslim. The beliefs which they mention as Ahmadiyya beliefs are not our beliefs. Some of those beliefs are of qadiani jammat and the rest of them are baseless. You can read the news at this link.
By Zahid Aziz
A friend has drawn my attention to the following article on an anti-Ahmadiyya blog, which addresses some challenges to followers of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad regarding some references he has given in his writings: http://ahmadiyyacult.blogspot.ca/p/videos.html
The article concludes: "Muslims believe that Mirza has written many record-breaking lies, whilst Mirza’s followers are brainwashed to believe that his writings are completely true."
This suggests that all Muslims, just as they believe in Allah, His angels, messengers, books, and Day of Judgment, they are also required to believe that "Mirza has written many record-breaking lies". A person not believing that "Mirza has written many record-breaking lies" is not a Muslim!
The first allegation is that "Mirza Ghulam Qadiani has written a so called 'ayah' of the Quran in his book. We guarantee you that this ayah as written in the video, does not exist!"
The reference given is to Barahin-i Ahmadiyya in Ruhani Khaza'in, v. 1, p. 601, and the following image of the page is provided by our opponents with highlighting by them:
Before dealing with this allegation, here is a quick counter-challenge: We challenge you to declare that there is no verse in the Quran which can be translated by the lines of text which occur between the two blocks that you have highlighted.
What the objectors are concealing, deliberately and purposely, is that in that entire, long section, Hazrat Mirza sahib is quoting his own revelations (ilham), many of which are in Arabic. Many of these use and contain words and verses that occur in the Holy Quran. He writes this on p. 577: "I receive most revelations (ilham) in Arabic, particularly verses of the Quran … these are given below with translation." This continues much beyond p. 601.
The quotation from Barahin-i Ahmadiyya, which we are challenged to show from the Quran, is as follows:
‘asā rabbu-kum an yarḥama ‘alai-kum wa in ‘ud-tum ‘ud-nā wa ja‘al-nā jahannama lil-kāfirīna ḥaṣīra.
Obviously Hazrat Mirza sahib quotes this as his ilham, not word-for-word a verse of the Quran. Our opponents' objection is that Hazrat Mirza sahib later calls it: "This ayat…", while it is not a verse of the Quran.
What we find in the Quran is the following:
‘asā rabbu-kum an yarḥama-kum wa in ‘ud-tum ‘ud-nā wa ja‘al-nā jahannama lil-kāfirīna ḥaṣīra (17:8)
What is the difference between the two? Just that the quotation in Barahin-i Ahmadiyya reads yarḥama ‘alai-kum while the verse in the Quran reads yarḥama-kum. The extra ‘alai in Barahin-i Ahmadiyya means 'on', while in the verse of the Quran the same 'on' is understood. Every English translation of the Quran renders the first part of this verse using "on", as in : "It may be that your Lord will have mercy on you" (Pickthall).
Our opponents, on the page displayed by them, have highlighted the Arabic quotation, and then highlighted his Urdu words "This Ayat". Between these two highlighted texts is Hazrat Mirza sahib's Urdu translation of the Arabic quotation. Anyone reading that will see that it is nothing more than the meaning of the verse. Note that after the words "It may be that your Lord will have mercy on you", the next sentence of the verse is:
"And if you return, We will return."
Now every translator of the Quran has added words after "return" (or "revert"):
Pickthall: "but if ye repeat (the crime) we shall repeat (the punishment)"
Yusuf Ali: "but if ye revert (to your sins), We shall revert (to Our punishments)"
Asad: "but if you revert [to sinning], We shall revert [to chastising you]"
Maudoodi (English version): "but if you again repeat your former behaviour We will again visit you with Our punishment". Maudoodi hasn't even placed the extra words in parentheses.
Hazrat Mirza sahib's Urdu rendering of this verse (which occurs in between the two texts highlighted by our opponents) is no more than being like one of the translations given above. Can our opponents claim and challenge that there is no verse in the Quran which can be translated according to the translation given by Hazrat Mirza sahib?
It is quite obvious to any person possessing the least sense of fairness that when, after giving his Urdu translation, Hazrat Mirza sahib says "this ayat" he means the verse of the Quran whose translation he has just given and which is almost the same in text, and identical in meaning, with his ilham.
The objectors are seeking to create the impression, falsely and deliberately, that he has claimed to quote a verse which doesn't at all exist in the Quran.
It may be added that the same ilham has been written by Hazrat Mirza sahib in two later books. In both of these its wording is exactly that of the verse of the Quran (‘asā rabbu-kum an yarḥama-kum …). See the book Arba‘in number 2, published 1900 (Ruhani Khaza'in, v. 17, p. 352, lines 7-8) and the book Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, published 1907 (Ruhani Khaza'in, v. 22, p. 85, lines 11-16).
Another challenge against us relates to the following statement by Hazrat Mirza sahib: "It is included in the Muslim belief that in the last era (aakhri zamana), thousands of Muslims will become of Jewish-like character, and this prophecy exists in many places in the Holy Qur'an."
We are challenged to provide a verse of the Quran saying that Muslims in the last days will become like Biblical Israelites.
In response, we quote the following from an article by Dr Israr Ahmad, the famous Pakistani religious scholar.
"The Holy Prophet Muhammad foretold that the same evils would arise among his followers as had arisen among the Israelites. He said: ‘If they, the Israelites, had crawled into the hole of a lizard, you will crawl into it too'. His words go so far that although one is hesitant to quote them, but they are the words of the Holy Prophet which I put before you. He said: ‘If there was a wretched man among the Israelites who committed incest with his own mother, then among you also shall arise such a wretched man'. The meaning is that all the evils, in terms of religion, doctrine, thought, knowledge and deeds, which came to prevail among the Israelites, shall also come to prevail among the Muslims. The text of the hadith is as follows: ‘All the things which happened to the Israelites shall also happen to my followers, just as one shoe matches the other shoe'. This is a most eloquent comparison. Look at a pair of shoes, and because the front parts of the two point in opposite directions, you see one shoe being apparently different from the other. But put the souls of the two shoes together, and they are identical. Similarly, the circumstances of the Israelites and the Muslims appear to be different, because after all, there is the distance of fourteen hundred years, and so there is some difference on the face of it. But if you look between the lines, you find that there is not a hair's breadth of difference. And as to the condition of the Jews described in the Holy Quran, each one of us must look at himself to see whether he is not a victim of that condition."
(London edition of Urdu daily newspaper Jang for 19 October 1987, page 3; bolding is mine. Note that this was now a news item but an article in a series penned by Dr Israr Ahmad)
At least Mirza Qadiani mentioned only "thousands of Muslims" acquiring bad attributes of the Biblical Israelites. According to Dr Israr Ahmad it is quite possible that each and every Muslim has become so, without a hair's breadth of difference!
In this challenge the objectors have demanded that we provide a verse of the Quran. The above quotation provides some hadith reports (which are from the soundest sources like Bukhari, Muslim and Tirmidhi). So the question is: From where did the Holy Prophet get this knowledge of the future that Muslims would become like Jews? Obviously this knowledge was from Allah and it is the Holy Prophet's interpretation of some verses of the Quran!
So I suggest that these anti-Ahmadiyya critics challenge the Holy Prophet Muhammad, asking him (through his followers) to provide a verse of the Quran from which he concluded that Muslims of the last days would become like Jews!
The most laughable, and equally sad, aspect of the matter is that these objectors are proving the fulfilment of this prophecy themselves! They are demanding to see verses of the Quran which announce this prophecy literally and word-for-word. They are not prepared to accept verses from which it can be concluded, no matter how clearly, that Muslims would acquire the bad traits of Biblical Israelites. In this attitude and these demands they are actually following in the footsteps of the followers of Moses who demanded:
"Moses, we will not believe in you till we see Allah manifestly" (2:55).
Then there were those who claimed that they couldn't understand the order "Allah commands you to sacrifice a cow" (2:67), without being told specifically which cow it was referring to. Even as it was made more specific, they kept on demanding more clarity.
The striking resemblance in religious outlook between Muslims and their religious leaders of modern times, on the one hand, and the Jewish religious leaders and followers of the time of Jesus, on the other hand, is an actual, observable fact. As Hazrat Mirza sahib wrote in his book Shahadat-ul-Quran: "Leaving aside the prophecies for a moment, look at the situation rationally as a truth seeker, as to whether the case of the Muslims of this age and the Jews of the time of Jesus fulfils the words 'one shoe matching the other shoe'." When something is an established fact, then it adds to the glory of the Quran if it can be found prophesied in it.
Another challenge against us relates to a statement by Hazrat Mirza sahib that the Quran and Hadith contain prophecies that when the Promised Messiah appears he will be bitterly opposed by the Muslim Ulama. Our objectors have listed several points of this opposition as mentioned by Hazrat Mirza sahib: that he will be persecuted by the Muslim Ulama, they will declare him a kafir, issue fatwas to kill him, he will be abused, declared out of the fold of Islam, and considered a destroyer of the religion of Islam.
They want us to show where this is prophesied. Again, they themselves have fulfilled these prophecies by persecuting him, calling him kafir, abusing him etc. Their own article is proof of it! After all, they could have declared him as stupid, not worthy of any attention because his teachings are so obviously nonsense. They could have said that there is not even any need to declare him kafir or waste time on him, so obvious a fraud he is. But no, his opponents, including authors of this article, proved the truth of the prophecy that they would treat him in this way.
This is prophesied in the Quran as follows:
"And We indeed gave Moses the Book and We sent messengers after him one after another; and We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear arguments and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit. Is it then that whenever a messenger came to you with what your souls did not desire, you were arrogant? And some you rejected and others you would kill." (2:87)
In the likeness of Moses was the Holy Prophet Muhammad, according to the Quran. In the likeness of "messengers like him" were the men of God and mujaddids who arose after the Holy Prophet. In the likeness of Jesus was the Promised Messiah. Islamic history shows that the mujaddids and other great spiritual leaders were bitterly persecuted and declared kafir by the Ulama of the time. This opposition is indicated and summed up in the verse above in the words we have placed in bold.
On the topic of Muslims, in particular their religious leaders, following in the footsteps of the Israelites, the book Tazkira by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, published in 1919, contains several references to it.
1. "Today the determination of Islam and faith [i.e., whether a certain Muslim is good or bad] depends entirely on certain issues of minor doctrinal difference. … All efforts are directed only towards finding out what a certain person believes as to certain irrelevant secondary matters. No one looks to what are the deeds of that person. … [As regards good behaviour] no matter what someone is like in discarding everything from Islam, if he agrees with us in certain secondary issues of difference we consider him to be the best person on earth! This was exactly how the Jews went astray, that they were intoxicated with the pride of being Israelites. "And they say: Fire will not touch us except for a few days" [the Quran, 3:24]. This arrogance in [believing yourself to be right in] doctrinal matters is a very great evil and today it is corroding the backbone of the Muslims." (p. 72)
2. "It was this hiding of truth which was the curse that afflicted the Ulama of the Jews: "There are many of them who hide the truth while they know" [the Quran, 2:146]. Regrettably, the same fate, 'inch by inch, step by step', befell the evil Ulama of this Ummah. They are the Jews of this Ummah." (p. 77)
The words 'inch by inch, step by step' here have been taken by Maulana Azad from the hadith in Sahih Muslim.
3. "The Holy Prophet had repeatedly and clearly prohibited this Ummah from committing the wrong-doing of the Jews. … He said clearly: "Do not do what the Jews did, that by using pretexts and excuses they declared as lawful what God had forbidden". But sadly, exactly that happened which this truthful one was anxious about, and in this Ummah too Sadducees and Pharisees came into existence who, under the description 'one shoe matching the other shoe', created exactly the same pretexts and ways of deviousness in Islam." (p. 88)
4. On page 270 of this book the hadith is quoted which in the Muhsin Khan translation of Bukhari occurs as follows:
The Prophet said, "You will follow the wrong ways of your predecessors so completely and literally that if they should go into the hole of a mastigure [i.e. lizard], you too will go there." We said, "O Allah's Apostle! Do you mean the Jews and the Christians?" He replied, "Whom else?" (Meaning, of course, the Jews and the Christians.)
Abul Kalam Azad then goes on to mention versions of the same hadith reported by Abu Hurairah, Ibn Abbas and Ibn Masud.
5. On pages 278-283, Abul Kalam Azad discusses how all the Hadith prophecies about the decline of Muslims and their becoming like mushrikeen have been fulfilled, and "we are seeing it with our own eyes", but he adds:
"How lacking in the faculty of reason and how deprived of insight are those neglectful people who, reading these reports, think that all this will happen only a few years before the Day of Judgment, and we must wait centuries to see it happen."
Commenting on this attitude he writes:
"The Holy Prophet said: 'My Ummah will do everything which the Jews did.' This is exactly the Jewishness, that prophecy after prophecy was being fulfilled but the Jews still kept on waiting, saying, the time has not yet come" (p. 282)
In the above quotations Maulana Abul Kalam Azad has clearly and repeatedly expressed the view that the Quran and Hadith contain prophecies that Muslim Ulama would copy the evil attributes shown before them by the Jewish Ulama, and that those prophecies have been fulfilled.
More on hadith report in Sahih Muslim. The hadith in Sahih Muslim is as follows (translation taken from well-known online translation of Sahih Muslim):
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: You would tread the same path as was trodden by those before you inch by inch and step by step so much so that if they had entered into the hole of the lizard, you would follow them in this also. We said: Allah's Messenger, do you mean Jews and Christians (by your words) "those before you"? He said: Who else (than those two religious groups)? (Book: 'Knowledge', ch. 3, hadith no. 6448)
There is a famous commentary of Sahih Muslim by An-Nawawi (d. 1277 C.E.). Under this hadith, he writes:
"What is meant is resemblance in terms of disobedience and opposition, not in terms of kufr."
He means that the resemblance will not be that Muslims will become non-Muslims like Jews and Christians, but that they will resemble them in disobedience of God and the Prophet and opposition to the truth. Then he adds this:
"And in this there is a miracle (mu`jiza) of the Messenger of Allah because what he foretold has happened."
Our opponents have challenged us to show this prophecy from a verse of the Quran. They allege that Hazrat Mirza sahib has falsely attributed it to the Quran. But here a great Imam and Hadith scholar of the Muslims declares this prophecy to be a miracle of the Holy Prophet because even by his time it was being fulfilled.
Frequently we receive an e-mail forwarded by some friend, who was forwarded it by some friend, who in turn was forwarded it by someone else, and so on and on, warning about some latest danger or plan against Islam and Muslims, and we are asked to forward it further to all our contacts and take this or that action. But the Quran says:
"But if any news of security or fear comes to them, they spread it about. And if they had referred it to the Messenger and to those in authority among them, those of them who can search out knowledge of it would have known it. And if it were not for the grace of Allah upon you and His mercy, you would certainly have followed the devil except a few." (4:83)
So the Quran gave us teachings about such situations 1400 years ago: Don't forward it because your friend or the e-mail says so. If you want to do anything, investigate its authenticity.
The Quran says Muslims should "believe and do good". One may say, as a joke, that "belief" to today's Muslims means believing in any e-mail forwarded by a friend. And what is a good deed (amal salih)? It is of course to forward the e-mail to all your contacts!
Submitted by Ikram.
Should I (–Muslim) Apologize?
The recent massacre in Paris has brought to front dichotomy of faith and democracy. It raises more question than it answers. If faith is served by killing others in the name of faith, then it is not faith but barbarism. If democracy is to protect freedom of speech then let every expression be allowed in the market place of ideas no matter how painful it maybe to some. Let N-word, K-word and H-Denial and the Hate-Speech be brought out of their protection in the open and be at par with caricature fad that hurts a billion, and there be no suppression of any hate or angry speech. Let anti-Semitism laws be equally applied to protect Muhammad (PBUH) who was a Semite. Let the ideas fight it out. Let freedom of speech define itself and standup to its very definition rather than its selective usage. Will democracies allow it so? Will the political expediency permit it? Haven’t we lost freedom in the name of freedom?
Should a Muslim apologize for lunatic act of another Muslim? Answer is plain no. Let the lunatic suffer the consequence of his or her depravity, the ignominy, both here and in the hereafter. Yes, such an act does create a sense of shame because those of us who have read Muhammad (PBUH) can rightfully believe that neither he, nor Quran permits it. To the victims we offer condolences and heartfelt prayers.
Should I grieve as a human? Yes, because every life is irreplaceable. Victim or a Villain of one side might be hero of another, but it is more of history that judges right from the wrong, than the moment when it occurred. Colonization and Colonial wars, Slavery wars, World Wars, Korean war, Vietnam war, Iraq wars, Afghan wars etc. all started by claiming self-righteousness but history tells us otherwise only after millions perished. Have we learnt our lesson? Irrespective of winner or loser, has any side apologized to the other? Has Catholic Church, Church of England or Dutch Reformed Church apologized to those whom they colonized?
Do the believers of freedoms endorse the fundamental human rights, both in their domestic and foreign policies, starting with: And (all) people are but a single nation (10:19); whoever kills a person, unless it is for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he had killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved the lives of all mankind (5:32); O you who believe, do not let a people laugh at (another) people, perhaps they may be better than they; nor let women (laugh) at women, perhaps they may be better than they. Neither find fault with one another, nor call one another by (offensive) nick-names. Evil is a bad name after faith; and whoever does not repent, these it is that are the wrongdoers (49:11)?
Muslims who feel hurt by disrespectful speech in the name of freedom of press, or otherwise, for them Quran gives guidance:
4:148. Allah does not love the public utterance of hurtful speech, except by one who has been wronged.* And Allah is ever Hearing, Knowing.
* The use of defamatory speech of every kind regarding others is strictly forbidden, but justification for it may exist in case a person has in some way been wronged.
4:149. If you do good openly or keep it secret or pardon an evil, Allah surely is ever Pardoning, Powerful.*
*If you pardon the evil which anyone has done to you, Allah will pardon your evils, and grant you even good reward; He is not only Pardoning, but also Powerful to grant good reward.
The Muslim experience in days of the Prophet may not be different than the modern world, though the modalities have changed. Quran tells us how to endure it:
3:186. You will certainly be tried in your property and your persons. And you will certainly hear from those who have been given the Book before you and from the idolaters much abuse. And if you are patient and keep your duty, surely this is an affair of great resolution.*
*This verse speaks of the future, in fact the distant future. The abuses which have been heaped on Islam in the past two centuries are without a parallel in the whole history of religion. The scurrilous language of Western publications, political as well as Christian, and the vituperations of their imitators elsewhere have exceeded all moral bounds. But Muslims are taught in this verse to bear all such abuse only with patience. (Editor’s Note: Hence it is not at allrequired or even allowed in Islam that Muslims should respond by killing or physically attacking those who vilify Islam and its Holy Prophet. See also 20:130, 33:48, 73:10, 4:140 and 6:68 which lead to the same conclusion.)
20:130. So bear patiently what they say, and celebrate the praise of your Lord before the rising of the sun and before its setting, and glorify (Him) during the hours of the night and parts of the day, that you may be well pleased.*
*The Holy Prophet, while told to bear persecutions patiently for a time, is also told to seek comfort in prayer. And he did find comfort in prayer under the severest persecutions. “The coolness of my eyes is in prayer,” he is reported to have said (Mishkat, 25)…
33:48. And do not obey the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and disregard their annoying talk,* and rely on Allah. And Allah is sufficient as having charge of affairs.
* In the mention of annoying talk there is a clear reference to the carpings of his petty-minded critics, who try to misrepresent the greatest source of righteousness which the world has ever witnessed, as an evil. The Prophet is told to disregard this annoying talk, as the time would come when the question would be asked: how is it that the Prophet illumined the world and opened the floodgates of light to a benighted world, if it was darkness that reigned supreme in his own mind? (Editor’s Note: “Disregard their annoying talk” also shows that a Muslim must not become inflamed by verbal abuse of his religion, and if his reply has no effect on the abuser then he should simply ignore the hurtful comments.)
73:10. And bear patiently what they say and turn away from them with a dignified withdrawal.
4:140. And indeed He has revealed to you in the Book that when you hear Allah’s messages disbelieved in and mocked at, do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse, for then indeed you would be like them.*
*See 6:68 which was revealed at Makkah. Muslims are told to leave the assembly where truth is derided. Criticism is quite a different thing and a Muslim should always be ready to meet any criticism of his religion. (Editor’s Note: Thus the response when faced with mere ridicule of Islam is to withdraw, temporarily, from that company of people and rejoin them later when they stop their mocking. It is therefore entirely wrong to believe that Muslims are required to attack physically, still less kill, those who deride their religion.)
6:68. And when you see those who talk nonsense about Our messages, withdraw from them until they enter into some other discourse. And if the devil cause you to forget, then do not sit after recollection with the unjust people.
I must also admit that I am writing this all because of democracy, but democracy has still a long way to go.
Reference: The Holy Quran, Translation and Commentary by Maulana Muhammad Ali, Edited by Dr. Zahid Aziz.
Submitted by Yahya.
The economist has an interesting article on reform in Islam:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2015/01/reforming-islam
I commented as below (buried in 4 pages of comments to this economist article):
"Look, for example, at the personally courageous stance of Hamza Yusuf, an American-born scholar with a wide following in the Islamic heart-land"
Ah where was the courage of Hamza Yusuf when he backtracked and apostasized the Lahori Ahmadis and removed his youtube of half hearted praise.
Courage is exhibited when a scholar upholds principles that can be deeply unpopular at the time. Hamza Yusuf did not pass this test.
https://www.sandala.org/blog/sticks-and-drones
http://www.ahmadiyya.org/movement/hamza_yusuf_reply.pdf
Could I ask Zahid Aziz and other readers to maybe comment as to what is courage in the Islamic context and how muslims today can exhibit courage in the face of terrorism and extremism we are now being confronted with.
I am repeating, with some revisions, an item I posted here in April 2008, on the centenary of the function that it refers to.
It is reported in Badr, 30th April 1908 (p. 6), that an Eid Milad-un-Nabi function was held at Ahmadiyya Buildings, Lahore, on 14th April. (This was close to the end of the life of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and a few days before he arrived in Lahore from Qadian.)
The function is not called Eid Milad-un-Nabi in this report but Bara Wafat. This was the term used by Muslims in India in those days, meaning "death on the 12th", referring to the death of the Holy Prophet Muhammad on this day, 12th Rabi-ul-awwal.
Below I translate the report, which is entitled Life of the Holy Prophet:
"A respected friend reports from Lahore that, on the previous day, a Tuesday, on the occasion of Bara Wafat, and for the benefit of the residents of Lahore, a grandly organised lecture was held at Ahmadiyya Buildings, where houses of our Khwaja [Kamal-ud-Din] sahib are located. The ground was very large and was decked with a marque and other necessities. It had been widely advertised in the city.
The poem in praise of the Holy Prophet written by Huzoor [presumably meaning the Promised Messiah] was read out by brothers Abdul Aziz, son of Mian Chiragh Din, and Ghulam Muhammad. Maulvi Sadr-ud-Din gave an explanation of the Surah Fatiha with great zeal and pure sincerity, and went over the events of the life of the Messenger of God, may peace and the blessing of Allah be upon him. Then brother Dr. Mirza Yaqub Baig spoke on the life of the Holy Prophet in a fine speech. The audience included Hindus, Muslims and members of the Brahmo Samaj. All the leading men of Lahore who could come were in attendance. The whole gathering listened patiently and attentively to the highly effective speeches of these young men, who were preaching using this new technique and method, and they went away expressing much praise.
This meeting was also reported in other newspapers and was generally much liked. Hence the newspaper Watan wrote:
"Just as there was great regret that there were no arrangements in Lahore for holding this great occasion of remembrance, there was equal pleasure that on 14th April, corresponding to 12th Rabi-ul-awwal 1326 A.H., on behalf of the Anjuman-i Ahmadiyya Lahore a magnificent meeting was organised by Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, lawyer, High Court. Capable speakers delighted the audience by telling them about the life of the Holy Prophet and his excellent and praise-worthy qualities. It is hoped that in future many people in Lahore will organise events for such a sacred remembrance."
The newspaper Sada-i-Hind expressed a similar opinion.
Comment by Editor Badr: It is indeed essential that the general public should be fully informed about the life of the Holy Prophet. We cannot complain about non-Muslims when most Muslims themselves are utterly unaware of the life of their beloved master. When such ignorant people realise how much we owe to the Holy Prophet, they will themselves want to recite the Darood spontaneously. This is in fact the philosophy of Darood. But I do not consider it right to fix one particular day forever, like Bara Wafat, for this purpose."
This idea was then taken up by other Muslims and led to the development of the Eid Milad-un-Nabi function. Note the report in the Muslim newspaper Watan quoted above which says:
"Just as there was great regret that there were no arrangements in Lahore for holding this great occasion of remembrance, there was equal pleasure that on 14th April, corresponding to 12th Rabi-ul-awwal 1326 A.H., on behalf of the Anjuman-i Ahmadiyya Lahore a magnificent meeting was organised by Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, lawyer, High Court."
Please consider the following consecutive verses of the Holy Quran (obviously the bolding is mine):
4:4 And give women their dowries as a free gift. But if they of themselves are pleased to give you a portion from it, consume it with enjoyment and pleasure.
4:5 And do not make over your property, which Allah has made a (means of) support for you, to the weak of understanding, and maintain them out of it, and clothe them and give them a good education.
4:6 And test the orphans until they reach the age of marriage. Then if you find in them maturity of intellect, make over to them their property…
4:7 For men is a share of what the parents and the near relatives leave, and for women a share of what the parents and the near relatives leave, whether it is little or much — an appointed share.
According to 4:4, a woman has the discretion to give a part of the mahr back to the husband at her pleasure. (In the Arabic original, "of themselves" is nafs-an, and "are pleased" is tibna.)
According to 4:5, the "weak of understanding" must not be given control of their property. It is in fact "your property" in the sense that you, the guardians, have control of it, for their benefit.
According to 4:7, when "maturity of intellect" (rushd) is found in someone then they must be given control of their property.
It follows, therefore, that women are not "weak of understanding", and have "maturity of intellect", otherwise they would not have been allowed to spend, out of their own pleasure and decision, the property possessed by them.
In 4:7 it is ruled that men and women shall both get a share from inheritance. Therefore a woman has the same ownership over it, as a man does over his share.
If it is true, as we understand, that in the law of Saudi Arabia a woman must always have a male as a guardian, in the same way that a child always requires a guardian, then that is against what is staed in the verse above.
Zahid Aziz
In the wake of the Peshawar mass massacre, the last thing, the very last thing, I wish to do is to use it as an opportunity to score debating points over those who have quite rightly condemned this outrage and to bring up their past behaviour.
So I ask blog readers' advice. I read the news "Head of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community [i.e. Mirza Masroor Ahmad] condemns Peshawar School Attack and Prays for Victims". See this link.
I am sure he and his followers prayed for them with sincerity.
But should it not be pointed out that his community holds the belief, and practises it, that the janaza prayers of Islam should not be said by them (behind their own imam) for any non-Ahmadi Muslim? Is it not true that their Khalifa number 2 wrote the following directions for his followers:
“Now another question remains, that is, as non-Ahmadis are deniers of the Promised Messiah, this is why funeral prayers for them must not be offered, but if a young child of a non-Ahmadi dies, why should not his funeral prayers be offered? He did not call the Promised Messiah as kafir. I ask those who raise this question, that if this argument is correct, then why are not funeral prayers offered for the children of Hindus and Christians, and how many people say their funeral prayers? The fact is that, according to the Shariah, the religion of the child is the same as the religion of the parents. So a non-Ahmadi’s child is also a non-Ahmadi, and his funeral prayers must not be said. Then I say that as the child cannot be a sinner he does not need the funeral prayers; the child’s funeral is a prayer for his relatives, and they do not belong to us but are non-Ahmadis. This is why even the child’s funeral prayers must not be said.”
(Anwar-i Khilafat, p. 93 of the original edition; underlining is mine. This book is available on the Qadiani Jamaat website as number 5 from the link www.alislam.org/urdu/au/?j=3, see pages 150-151)
If this post is regarded as in bad taste at this delicate time, or if anyone is offended, I apologise.
Sincerely,
Zahid Aziz
The Qadiani Jama'at and also the anti-Ahmadiyya campaigners have been circulating one or two statements from early issues of the Lahore Ahmadiyya newspaper Paigham Sulh to allege that the founders of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Anjuman used to believe Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a prophet before they formed their own separate organization in Lahore after the split of March 1914. They have been circulating these statements for more than 80 years, generation after generation, and these allegations have been answered again and again.
After the late Professor Mahmood Ahmad Ghazi of the International Islamic University of Islamabad failed against the Lahore Ahmadiyya presentation in the 2nd Cape Town case in 1987, he published a book in 1991 entitled 'Qadiani Problem and Position of Lahori Group', in which (without mentioning the case at all) he too trotted out the same statement from Paigham Sulh, October 1913.
I have compiled a more detailed reply to this allegation than we have done in the past, and it can be read at this link.
I thank Zahid Aziz for reminding us of the Quranic verses which are critical of people requiring explicit and unconditional proofs or verses. I am reminded of an alim arguing that if Christ had died the Quran should have mentioned it explicitly and provided details of his grave.
The heart of the question is what is a reasonable basis of interpreting the Quran? I do hope and trust that Zahid Aziz will expand on this topic for the benefit of all of us.