The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

A challenge to the Western critics of Islam

A tool which the Western critics of Islam have recently been employing is to accuse Islam and its followers of anti-semitism. (They are, of course, helped in their argument by the foolish pronouncements of certain Muslim political and religious leaders.)

Yet when Hitler was conducting the oppression of the Jews in Germany, before the Second World War began, very few people in the U.K., U.S.A., France, and like countries, condemned his actions. In fact, a large number of people in these countries supported various policies of Hitler until they were compelled to fight Germany’s aggression towards its neighbours.

But who condemned Hitler’s anti-Jewish measures at an early stage?

It was Muslims.

Please see at this link a page from The Light of Lahore, an English language Muslim journal, dated 8 April 1933, just two months after Hitler came to power. On this page there is a comment in the right-hand column near the foot of the page, which is headed Hitlerism.

“The West may rightly be described as a continent of “isms”. Capitalism, Socialism, Bolshevism, Facism, Communism — these are the so many manifestations of a restless soul seeking after some true solution of a social system. On top of them all now comes in Germany what may be called Hitlerism. Whether this new tide will take the German people back to the promised land flowing with milk and honey is yet to be seen. In the meantime it has launched a bitter campaign of hatred against the Jews who, as reports show, are subjected to severe persecutions all over Germany. This is deplorable, to say the least and no movement based on hatred can be expected to blow any good to humanity. Europe in quest of a social order has tried so many isms, each having landed it in deeper social bogs. Will it not give a trial to the one “ism” that sprang from the soil of Arabia and which combines all that is best and is free from all that is evil in all the “isms” it has so far tried, viz., Islamism?”
(The bolding is mine.)

It is nothing short of astonishing, if not a Divine miracle, that a Muslim organ based so far from Europe, writes that Hitler’s policies will lead to no good because they are based on hatred and on persecuting the Jews. Please remember that during the 1930s eminent persons in the West outside Nazi Germany (particularly the U.K.) believed that many of Hitler’s policies were admirable.

Challenge number 1 to critics of Islam: How many persons can you point out in the civilised West who, at the very time Hitler came to power, condemned Hitler’s persecution of Jews and predicted that it would lead to no good for humanity?

If this was not enough, I refer you to statements of the Imam of the Woking Mosque in 1939. The Woking Mosque was, at that time, the main Muslim centre in the U.K., frequented by leaders of various nations when visiting Britain, and its Imam was the spokesman of the Muslim community.

1. In 1939 he was asked if Nazism was compatible with Islamic teachings. He replied that:

“The present-day legislation in Germany is inspired by racial discrimination and religious distinctions. It, to begin with, believes in racial superiority, it believes in exiling people for their religious opinions. It has actually pulled down synagogues.
… there can be no two opinions on the matter. Islam has come to establish in reality the Brotherhood of Man which is the imperative need of the present-day world. Enough of dissensions. Let us talk of ways enabling us to treat each other as brothers and members of one family.”

He went on to denounce the persecution of Jews in Germany. See: www.wokingmuslim.org/work/imams-reply-mar40.htm

2. In the Eid-ul-Fitr khutba, 13 November 1939, he declared:

“A Muslim is bound to wage war against any person, whether of his own kith and kin and religion or not, who interferes with the beliefs of a non-Muslim. … Muslims are ordered to sacrifice their lives not only to save their own mosques but the religious houses of other peoples as well. …

The Zionist policy in Palestine has done us great harm. Untold miseries has it brought upon our brethren in the faith in that country. But the very fact that synagogues have been pulled down in Germany upon the slightest pretext makes it obligatory upon us Muslims to throw our weight into the cause of the Allies. ”

See: www.wokingmuslim.org/work/id-ul-fitr-1939.htm

Challenge number 2 to critics of Islam: How many Christian religious leaders at the time preached from the pulpit that it was the religious duty of Christians to take up arms against those who destroy synagogues?

---

I will be sending out my challenge by post to certain newspapers columnists in Britain. (Zahid Aziz)

“Ahmadiyya fatwa muzzles wedding bells”

Someone called Adam has sent the following comment:

Ahmadiyya fatwa muzzles wedding bells
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-04-12/kozhikode/31330842_1_wedding-reception-family-members-marriage

What are your thoughts on this?

New website created

I have created a new website dedicated to the life and work of Maulana
Abdul Haq Vidyarthi. It is as yet at an early stage of development.
Please see:

www.abdulhaq.info

If you read the reports of his missionary activities from 1923 that I have uploaded, you will see how much work he and other Lahore Ahmadi missionaries (such as one Maulana Ismatullah) did in rural areas (for example, around Agra) to prevent Muslims falling into the clutches of the Arya Samaj. Large numbers of Muslims had in fact deserted Islam and become Aryas, who accepted Islam again through the work of the Maulana.

He mentions in these reports that one factor which helped the Arya Samaj was the disrepute of the Maulvis themselves. The Maulana even says that some wicked Maulvis took money from the Aryas to confirm the allegations against Islam which the Aryas were exploiting (meaning that if, for example, the Aryas said that Islam was a religion of violence, the Maulvis would confirm the same).

Zahid Aziz.

Bible translation to be reviewed

A valued contributor has sent us the following news:

US Bible translator agrees to review after criticism over substitutions for ‘Son’ and ‘Father’

The link is here.

The head of the translation publication company says:

“in some cases, what are known to scholars as the “divine familial terms” — God the Father and the Son of God — don’t make sense in translation in some cultures. Islamic teaching, for example, rejects the notion that God could be involved in a relationship similar to a human family, and … people in such cultures might be immediately put off by those terms.”

A critic of the translation says:

“using words like “Messiah” instead of “Son” and “Lord” instead of “Father” badly distorts the essential Christian doctrine of the Trinity, in which God is said to be one being in three persons…

If you remove ‘son,’ you have to remove ‘father,’ and if you remove those, the whole thread of the scriptures from Genesis to Revelation is unraveled”.

“Dead wife” law

When I first read the news item referred to below in a British newspaper, I thought the newspaper must have made a mistake or misunderstood something (i.e. the “dead wife” part). But the same news appears in a newspaper of the Arab world. Please see:

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/04/25/210198.html

To quote the opening lines:

“Egypt’s National Council for Women (NCW) has appealed to the Islamist-dominated parliament not to approve two controversial laws on the minimum age of marriage and allowing a husband to have sex with his dead wife within six hours of her death according to a report in an Egyptian newspaper.” (bolding is mine)

Qadiani basis of Prophethood after Muhammad PBUH, a Refutation.

Submitted by Ikram.

---

Qadianis base their claim of Prophethood for Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian on two verses of Holy Quran that they enumerate as 4:70 and 7:36. Both of these verses are included in their arguments on a web page titled “Khatamun Nabiyyeen – Does the Holy Quran allow Prophets to come?” on their site WhyAhmadi.org.

Following is the analysis of these verses in light of Qadiani claims, that are refuted. For comparison, verses from translation of Quran by Muhammad Ali are also given below:
 

---

 

4:70. And Whoso obeys Allah and this Messenger of His shall be among those on whom Allah has bestowed His blessings, namely the Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs, and the Righteous. And an excellent companions are these. [WhyAhmadi.org]

4:69. And whoever obeys Allah and the Messenger, they are with those upon whom Allah has bestowed favours from among the [nabis] prophets and the [siddiqs] truthful and the [shahids] faithful and the [salihs] righteous, and a goodly company are they! [Muhammad Ali, as quoted in Islamic Review, p. 5]

Qadiani Misconception:

“We are told by Allah that the blessings that He bestows are the Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs and the Righteous. So Allah is clearly informing us that the blessings of Prophethood are still open for us, why are we trying to close it. Do we not want this great blessing?” [WhyAhmadi.org, emphasis added]

Assumptions – of “cause and effect” in the above verse in light of Qadiani view:

Given – Whoso i.e. both men and women.

Premise – If the status of the Truthful, the Martyrs, and the Righteous can be attained by one’s actions then why it should not be supposed that likewise the status of prophethood can be also be attained?

Cause – Whoso obeys Allah and this Messenger of His

Effect – status of even prophethood can be achieved.

Fallacy – that the office of prophethood can be realized, whereas it is an office that is conferred:

3:179. …Allah chooses of His messengers whom He pleases… [Muhammad Ali]

72:27. except a messenger whom He chooses… [Muhammad Ali]

Analysis – of absurdities:

If the cause (obedience to Allah and Messenger – Muhammad) as a law produces the effect (prophethood), then where ever the cause is found its effect must also be found.

But, if cause is found without its effect or effect is found without its cause, then this relationship is not a law.

Since eternity till Muhammad, and almost fourteen centuries since, not a single woman has been conferred the office of prophethood, despite women being given revelations (e.g. mothers of Moses and Jesus). Why? Did not Quran self-contradict by mentioning Whoso. Is no woman is capable to obey Allah and this Messenger like men, even thought we have Mary on record to have devoted her chaste life in prayer. Despite the cause, the desired effect never happened for our mothers. Why the discrimination, even thought Quran is on record that Allah does not impose on any soul a duty beyond its ability (2:286), be it a man or a woman? Either, we must state equivocally that the above verse is not for half the humanity, i.e. for women the cause does not produce the desired effect or fundamentally there is no relationship between the cause and the effect.

If the Misconception outlined above is taken on its face value as the law, then by obedience to Allah and Muhammad there is nothing to prevent one from becoming a prophet – the promulgator of the law and the “teacher of the book and authority.”
Nowhere in the above verse it is stated that such a prophet will not be maker of the law. The promulgator of the law not only enjoins other to follow the law but himself follows his own law, for no one can conceive of a law, and no one is likely to follow a law unless the promulgator himself follows the law. This new prophet not only disassociates himself from the original set of laws to which he was obedient to begin with, but he enjoins others as well to cut themselves away from the law, essentially the prophet and the followers make a “revolt” to previously ordained prophet. Now what about the new prophet who himself is the violator of the verse obeys Allah and this Messenger, as the previous Messenger does not hold sway for him.

Factuality

The verse clearly states among (‘ma‘ i.e. with) excellent companions without conferring the ‘identify’. Thus by obedience to Allah and Messenger one attains the ‘companionship’ of theProphets, the Truthful, the Martyrs, and the Righteous and not the ‘identity’ of theProphets, the Truthful, the Martyrs, and the Righteous. Simply put, by being in company of lawyers and judges, one does not become one himself, but such ‘companions’ do share common values but not ‘identify.’

What is here spoken of is a general and a very broad enjoyment which even ordinary conformity to God and the Apostle will confer upon all mankind. That benefit which is conferred is “companionship”, which is enjoyable by not merely those of the same “identity” but even by others who are not of the same identity but merely conforming to God and the Messenger.

It is not the purpose of this verse to show what men actually become by obedience to God and the Messenger. This verse merely indicates what humanity enjoys in common on account of “obedience to God and the Messenger” irrespective of their being of the one class or another, But the verses indicating as to what they actually become are different, regarding which it can be said with certainty that there is not even a single verse indicating that by “obedience” one can become a prophet or nabis. On the contrary, however, we have other verses mentioning that by “obedience to God and the Messenger” people do become siddiq, or shahid, or salih.

57:19. And those who believe in Allah and His messengers, they are the truthful and the faithful ones with their Lord. They have their reward and their light…

29:9. And those who believe and do good, We shall surely make them enter among the righteous. [Muhammad Ali]

While the word of God should have so profusely reiterated the attainment of all the minor grades of spirituality by those who are obedient, it is inconceivable how the convertibility of one into the greatest of all spirituality, i.e., prophethood, should have been mentioned, if at all, only once, and that not regarding identity but about “companionship “. The fact is that while by “obedience to God and the Messenger” attainment of all the three grades – truthfulness, faithfulness and righteousness is contemplated, the attainment or convertibility of one by effort into a nabi or prophet is not even dramatic according to the Qur’án.
 

---

 

7:36. O children of Adam, if Messengers come to you from among yourselves, rehearsing My Signs unto you, then whoso shall fear God and do good deeds, on them shall come no fear nor shall they grieve [WhyAhmadi.org]

7:35. O children of Adam, if messengers come to you from among you relating to you My messages, then whoever guards against evil and acts aright — they shall have no fear, nor shall they grieve. [Muhammad Ali, as quoted in Islamic Review, p. 7]

Qadiani Misconception

Although Allah has addressed us by saying “O children of Adam”, it is obvious if you read the verse before and after it, that Allah is addressing the Muslims. Therefore, Allah is informing us that we should accept any Prophet when he comes to us! Some Muslims object that in this verse it says Messengers – rasool will come and that there is a difference between a Prophet Nabi and Messenger rasool. This is nonsense and is totally unsupported by the Holy Quran.

If we again refer to the first verse we quoted Chapter 33 verse 41, it says that ‘Muhammad is a Messenger (rasool) of Allah and Khataman Nabiyyeen (Prophet)’. These spiritual titles have been given to many prophets there is no difference between them, a Prophet is also a messenger and a messenger is also a prophet. [WhyAhmadi.org]

It is not necessary to dilate upon this verse as the mere indication that rasool, or messengers, will come in the future does. not alter the position we have taken above. It will be enough to point out that the use of the term rasool in the Qur’an is more general and much wider than the word nabi. The word rasool etymologically means “the sent one” and in that sense the word rasool is used in the Qur’an in various circumstances for prophets or nabis, for even the companions of the prophet, the apostles of Jesus, and for angels. The use of this term, therefore, is very wide, and is based merely on its significance of the “sent ones”. As all sent ones cannot be the same, all messengers cannot become prophets or nabis. It will be quite true to say that all nabis are messengers, but it can never be said that all messengers are nabis, in the same manner as it can be said that all kings are men, but it cannot be said that all men are kings. Those who might be indicated, therefore, as capable of coming must be, if at all they do, of a non-nabi or of a non-prophet type.

While thinking outside the box I, Ikram, will further add:

72:26 He [alone] knows that which is beyond the reach of a created being’s perception and to none does He disclose aught of the mysteries of His Own unfathomable knowledge,

72:27 unless it be to an apostle whom He has been pleased to elect [there for]: and then He sends forth [the forces of heaven] to watch over him in whatever lies open before him and in what is beyond his ken. [Muhammad Asad]

If the above verses are re-read in contemporary sense, at least in the realm of Science they are fitting the Einsteins, Hawkings and Abdus Salams of today. It is these people who are given the unfathomable knowledge (of the theoretical physics), which is yet beyond the reach of a created being’s perception? Isn’t scientific knowledge sub-set of His unfathomable knowledge? Then, do we have to have Messengers only in shape of classical “Rasools?” Isn’t it a job description of a apostle to bring knowledge of God, including science to Man?
 

---

 
References – The above article is a rephrase and adaptation of “FINALITY OF PROPHETHOOD IN ISLAM” by M. Ahmad Bacha, B.A., published in The Islamic Review, January 1959.

Khilafat versus coming prophets: Questions by Mohammed Iqbal

Admin’s Note:I am starting here a separate post about the points raised by Mr Mohammed Iqbal in another thread which he addressed to Shabeeb Haneef. That discussion can be conducted here separately, without interferring with the one there.

Below are the points which Mohammed Iqbal sahib made in his comments, in order. (Zahid Aziz.)
 

---

 
Ahmadiyya Jamat Qadiani has taken two different positions re new Prophets. They are:

1) Position 1 (P1):

Prophets will come. In fact even thousands of them can. This is the position famously taken by Khalifa 2 and highlighted by this blog time and time again. What is more a prophet could come “even today”(which means Khalifa2 will relinquish his Khilafat and follow him unless the new incumbent happens to be himself.).

2) Position 2 (P2):

Yes, Prophets can come, but only in theory. But in practice, no prophet or even mujaddids will come, since the divinely ordained Khilafat has been firmly placed in the saddle. It will last for a 1000 years. This millenium long chain of Caliphs negates the need for a new prophet or reformer. So any new claimants to any divine office is ipso facto an impostor.

P2 is nowadays proclaimed from every pulpit and in private conversations very shrilly as well as in print. The reasons for my questions was to find out which of these two positions you have taken. If you hold P1, you should investigate the claims of the new claimants and certainly you are well within your right to have made e-mail exchanges with MAA (and spoken on the phone with another). And if it was as a result of your interaction with MAA, that led to the conclusion that he was he was bogus, you should tell the world about it. Dont you have a duty to inform his followers in your place about it? On the other hand if you hold P2, your interactions with them was just a waste. The purpose would only be to mock and ridicule. This was the point I was trying to make. My reasons were not to secretly scrutinize your actions as you put it. Nor do I think I need to know you personally to reply to your blog. As for running to MAA sahib and accepting him, make no mistake about it, Shabeeb. I will do exactly that, if my investigations into his claims lead me to it. But right now I am in a dilemma. Should I hold P1 and start investigating or as per P2 reject him forthwith? Kindly advise.
 

---

 
I was highlighting the two contradictory positions taken by Q jamaat regarding the coming of new prophets. According to P1, prophethood is wide open even today. As per P2, it is bye,bye..”Wahy-al-Nubuwwah” for now, see you after 12000 new moons! I wanted Shabeeb to tell me which of these two positions Shabeeb holds. I only wanted to answer this question in the light of his interactions with the new claimants. For obvious reasons they have shelved P1 and proclaiming only P2, from all conceivable platforms. I wanted Shabeeb to see the contradictions in these two stands. It was very much the subject matter of our discussion. Shabeeb,FYI, I am not a follower of MAA or any new claimants. I am not follower of QJ or LAM for that matter. Yes, I have a great deal of respect for HMGA, but unlike his followers I dont hold him to be infallible. Anyway I thank the moderators of this blog for not accusing me of straying off the subject. My next questions to you is if this Khilafat is so powerful as to exclude the coming of a new prophet or even Mujaddids, why give it only a lifespan of 1000 years. Who fixed this period? Why will it not “abide with you forever”, unlike the ‘comforter’ of Jesus or the ‘Qudrath-al Thaniyya’ of HMGA?What will happen after this period? Will there be a barrage of Prophets?
 

---

 
Dear Shabib,

You haven’t answered my question. Can prophets come today or is their coming held in abeyance for a 1000 years, the predicted lifespan for the present Caliphate?

Qadianis change meaning of “akhirat” in Ch. 2, v. 4 to prove prophets can come

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.

---

Qadianis have changed meaning of Holy Quran verse.

To prove my point that Holy Quran translations published by Qadiani Jamaat in order to establish “prophet-hood” of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad after Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS have not hesitated in concocting absolutely NEW meanings of Holy Quran verse. Below are few prominent translations of Holy Quran. At the end I have quoted Qadiani Jamaat published translations.
Holy Quran Chapter 2 Verse 4:

Allama Noor ud Din:
4. And who (also) believe in that (Message) which has been revealed to you and in that which had been revealed before you, and who have firm faith in the Hereafter.

Maulana Muhammad ali:
2:4 And who believe in that which has been revealed to thee and that which was revealed before thee, and of the Hereafter they are sure.

Abdullah Yousaf Ali:
4. And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter.

Muhammad Asad:
And who believe in that which has been bestowed from on high upon thee, [O Prophet,] as well as in that which was bestowed before thy time: for it is they who in their innermost are certain of the life to come!

M.M. Pickthal:
And who believe in that which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) and that which was revealed before thee, and are certain of the Hereafter.

Shakir:
And who believe in that which has been revealed to you and that which was revealed before you and they are sure of the hereafter.

T.B.Irving:
Who believe in what has been sent down to you as well as what was sent down before you, While they are convinced about the Hereafter;

Abdul Majid Daryabadi:
And who believe in that which hath been sent down unto thee and that which hath been sent down before thee and of the Hereafter they are convinced.

Ahmed Ali:
And those who believe with what was descended to you, and what was descended from before you, and with the end (other life) they are sure/certain .

Muhammad Sarwar:
Who have faith in what has been revealed to you and others before you and have strong faith in the life hereafter.

HOLY QURAN TRANSLATIONS PUBLISHED BY QADIANI JAMAAT
Verse 4 = Verse 5 of Qadiani Jamaat publication.
Maulawi Sher Ali:
5. And who believe in that which has been revealed to thee, and that which was revealed before thee, and they have firm faith in what is yet to come.
[Please note I am confident this was NOT the original translation by Maulawi Sher Ali sahib. If some Qadiani challenges me, then I will give my reason].
Maulawi Sher Ali’s 5 VOLUME COMMENTARY FALSELY credited to Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad:

5. And who believe in that which has been revealed to thee, and that which was revealed before thee, and they have firm faith in what is yet to come.
Sir Chaudhry Zafarullah Khan:
And who believe in that which has been revealed to thee, and in that which was revealed before thee, and have firm faith in that which has been foretold and is yet to come.

[Qadianis are so proud of Sir Chaudhry Zafarullah Khan, but their Khilafas have NOT permitted Zafarullah Khan’s translation to be officially recognized at organization level. This is the why it is NOT available on www.alislam.org and I found it on www.islamforwest.org If Qadianis wonder why? Here is the answer: Zafarullah Khan knew Qadiani Khalifas very well. He knew they will take credit of his work. So he instead of handing over his work to Qadiani Jamaat made his own trust to publish his work. Zafarullah Khan knew how Qadiani Khalifas published 5 Volume English COMMENTARY of Sher Ali sahib as QK2 work. It was result of efforts of Sher Ali sahib’s son in-law Abdul Manan Omar sahib(son of Allam Noor ud Din) who got at least the translation part published before he was forced out of Rabwah. Thus at least QK2 had to accept it. ( I doubt if qadianis on this forum know that English translation is same in Sher Ali and QK2). Same thing happened with Malik Ghulam Fareed’s short commentary. Same was the case of Urdu ‘Tafseer-e-Saghir’ which was work of Maulvi Ismail Halalpuri. Similarly, Urdu ‘Tafseer-e-Kabir’ was also work of SEVEN member committee in Rabwah. One of whose member was my father’s friend Syed Ali Muhammad Ijmari sahib]

Can prophets come after Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw)?

This topic has been started at the request of Mr Shabeeb Haneef. See this comment for his request.

I hope that contributors will make clear their views on what is a prophet in this context, what authority does he posseess, and what does the appearance of a prophet require us to do?

Our standpoint can be read at this link.

Are Qadiani Jamaat Friends in violation of teachings of their “Musleh-Mauood”?

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.

---

Qadiani Jamaat people believe their Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad was the “Musleh-Mauood”.

For Qadianis practice in teachings of their QK 2 is matter of their belief. This is the reason they cite when they decide not to offer Namaz-e-Janazah (funeral prayer) of Lahore Ahmadiyya Jamaat members. Please remember LAM members do not consider any reciter of Kalima-Shahada as Kafir (non-Muslim) regardless of how aberrant their beliefs and practices of Islam are. This is the reason LAM members do not consider Qadianis as Kafir. My point is that in practice of their beliefs Qadianis don’t give a hoot to blood relations, close family ties and the hurt that they cause by showing disrespect to the deceased and his survivors.

QK 2 in his famous book ‘Anwar-e-Khilafat’ from page 124 to 127 has written following statements:

“I say there shall be thousands of prophets”

“I say even now there can be a prophet”

“Even if someone placed a sword on my neck and ask me to say there cannot be any nabi after Rasul Allah, I will say you’re a liar, and nabi can come after and they will come.”

Now given the teachings of QK 2 that “thousands of prophets” can come after Holy Prophet Muhammad Rasool Allah (SAWS), it is incumbent upon Qadianis that should accept at least the following new prophet in Germany, especially when he endorses Qadianis belief that HMGA was “prophet” and invites Qadiani-Ahmadis to pledge to him:

The New Claimant of Prophethood Zahid Ali Khan:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp9xl5_a-new-claimant-of-prophethood-zahid-khan-denouncing-ahmadiyya-cult_lifestyle

Kanal von khanverlag

http://www.youtube.com/user/khanverlag

Khan’s Rede und die Gegenveranstaltung der Muslime

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPufZz1nHzA&feature=related

Here I ask question to Qadiani Jamaat friends:

Don’t you think you people are in violation of QK 2 teachings by delaying in accepting Zahid Ali Khan as NEW prophet??

Thanks in advance for answering.