Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam
In his book Tiryaq-ul-Qulub, in a lengthy footnote, discussing the significance of the ‘Aal’ of a prophet, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has contrasted the value and worth of being merely descended in the physical and family sense from a prophet with spiritual descent. Obviously, this applies to the family and followers of any spiritual leader.
Please read at this link. (Pdf file of 600k, opens in new window. For clarity, read at magnification less than 150% in Acrobat Reader.)
This is from Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 15, pages 363-366, footnote.
I am a space exploration enthusiast since following the space race of the 1960s. Some of the science comes in my educational studies.
India has launched an (obviously) unmanned space mission which will place a space craft in orbit around the moon. You may like to visit this link. What is striking is the enormous contrast of this with the perennial, unending ruyat-i hilal controversies in Pakistan, and elsewhere in the Muslim world.
Non-Muslim countries of the world, even including poor countries, are reaching the moon while Muslims are discussing the issue of when the moon is new. Yet the same Muslims publish books not only on the marvellous scientific achievements of the Islamic world over 500 years ago, but also to tell the world that such and such modern scientific discovery is already confirmed by the Holy Quran. Why do they then object to the use of science for a practical purpose like determining the new moon?
As regards claiming that such and such modern scientific discovery is already mentioned in the Quran, it seems that others do the hard work, spend the money etc., to do the research, while Muslims simply sit and claim that this was already known to the Quran. The question to be asked is: Why don’t Muslims make the effort to discover those things themselves first and then tell the world that they were already in the Quran? There seems no shortage of funds since they are constructing buildings and hotels of record-breaking heights in Dubai.
Rashid Jahangiri has submitted the following post.
Muhammad Asad (1900-1992): The Pakistani Connection.
On the Pakistani blog, All Things Pakistan, an article on Maulana Muhammad Asad is posted.
Now a documentary is made on his book, A Road To Mecca.
In October 2007, I wrote my comments. I am copying it here:
My two cents on Muhammad Asad.
1) Muhammad Asad, accepted Islam on the hands of Maulana Sadar Ud Din, Imam of Berlin Mosque, Germany, run by Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement. His name is still written in the registers of converts to Islam.
2) Muhammad Asad’s first translation of Holy Quran, was financed and published by Saudi king Ibn Saud. In more than one places in his translation/tafseer (commentary), and in particular Sura Al-Maaidah (Ch 5) verse 117, and Sura An-nisaa (Ch 4) verse 157 (foot note 172) [references are from the latest edition; its photo is in your article] Eisa AS (Jesus Christ) is DEAD. He will NO longer return in flash. Well, Saudi king did not like it and asked Asad to change it. Asad refused and said to the king: You are an Arab, your language is Arabic you translate it. King replied: I agree with what you say, but what should I do about Mullas? As Asad refused to change translation, the king said: I have no choice but to burn all copies of it. So, his first translation/tafseer of Holy Quran was burnt. Then Asad with his own finances published it, again. He published it (I think) only once. And it is with out index. The latest edition, the one you have posted, is with index. Interesting point is that when Maulana Muhammad Ali, an elder of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement in his English translation/tafseer of Holy Quran (first edition published in 1917), and in Urdu translation/tafseer ‘Biyan-ul-Quran’ said the same thing he was rejected by Muslims and his translation/tafseer was burnt by Al-Azhar university, Cario (it is another fact that the same university now translates his English and Urdu books into Arabic language for Arab readers). I guess Muslim thought is finally catching up as no one has objection to Asad translation/tafseer of Holy Quran.
3) Muhammad Asad in his book ‘A oad to Mecca’ has written chapter on Dajjal, which basically points to Caucasian Christian Nation of Europe and North America. Interestingly, the same point was raised LONG BEFORE, by elders of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement including Maulana Muhammad Ali, Muslims find difficult to accept it. Just like other points such as Jihad and Jinns. Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote a book: ‘Al-Maseeh-ud-Dajjal-o-Yaajooj-o-Maajooj’ (translation: The Anti-Christ and Gog and Magog). Here is the link:
Link to article:
Link to documentary:
Our active friend Rashid Jahangiri has posted a comment to us regarding the appearance of the above video on Youtube which shows a quote attributed to Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din, in which opponents of the khilafat are warned and condemned. A Qadiani Jamaat official, Dr. Nasim Rehmatullah, Chairman Ahmadiyya Internet Committee, has sent an e-mail in his official capacity asking people to take heed from this.
I have uploaded pages 4 and 5 of Badr, 11th July 1912, showing a part of Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din’s speech containing that quote (which begins: Khilafat kaisari ki dokan ka soda water nahin, ending with the mention of murtadds and Khalid bin Walid):
Here is the link. (Opens a 3 MB pdf file in a new window)
The extract quoted by them is on page 4, column 3, starting from the top. Now on the same page, read column 1 starting with the sub-heading Kiya koee khilafat kay kaam main rok hai?, and continue to end of column 2. The Hazrat Maulana declares:
“Even now I have in my hand a note in which someone has written that the Jamaat of Lahore is a hindrance in the khilafat. I say to the objectors: This is evil thinking. Leave it. First make yourselves sincere like them. The Lahore people are sincere. They love Hazrat Mirza sahib.”
In the next para, he loudly and forcefully warns those critics who objected that the Lahore Jamaat are a hindrance in the Maulana’s khilafat. He says at the end of this para:
“You are thinking ill of sincere people. You are hurting me. Fear God. I am praying for you. Don’t deprive yourself of those prayers”.
Regarding this “evil thinking” (bad zanni), he says in the same place on page 4 in column 2:
“The Holy Prophet has called one who indulges in bad zanni as a great liar. … Allah has called it a sin.”
On page 5, column 1, from line 5, he says:
“If you say that the people of Lahore are a hindrance to the khilafat, this is evil thinking (bad zanni) against my sincere friends. Give it up.”
Then read page 5, column 2, middle of the column:
“Give up the belief that Lahoris are a hindrance to the khilafat. If you do not, God will treat you like Musailama”.
As you can see, all through he has defended Lahoris. The Qadianis should be challenged to publish the part of the speech before and after the section they have quoted.
The persons who are condemned by Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din are those who were spreading false insinuations against the Lahore members (who later founded the AAIIL). These people were the supporters of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and canvassing for the khilafat to remain in his family. They have been indulging in this bad zanni, condemned and denounced by Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din, ever since that time till today.
Our esteemed friend Rashid Jahangiri has submitted the following.
Closed door session of Pakistan National Assembly.
Many new generation of Mullah opponents of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib, Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (LAM), and Qadianis, refuse to accept that 1974 National Assembly trial of LAM, that resulted in declaring LAM members as non-muslim and enacted 2nd constitutional amendment to 1973 Pakistan’s Constitution, was held in close doors and press/media were not allowed to report the proceedings.
Here is quote from Dawn newspaper:
“The first such secret joint sitting was convened in 1974 by then-prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to discuss the situation after anti-Qadiani riots, which led to a constitutional amendment that declared the Qadianis, or Ahmedis, outside the pale of Islam.”
Ref: ‘Military to share secrets with MPs’ The Dawn Internet edition, October 08, 2008.
What was national security issue that warranted ‘Secret joint setting’?
Our friend Bashir has submitted the following for a new thread.
When the tomb of Jesus was discovered in Srinagar(1895 or 1896), it was argued by Maulvi Abdullah who was an inhabitant of Kashmir, that since this tomb was that of a prophet, that eliminated all muslims from the equation. The person buried in this tomb could not be a muslim. Muslims strictly believe that the HP was the final prophet, there were no more prophets to come. Muslims only had one prophet, on the other hand the jewish people had many prophets, in other words because of the concept of khatme-nubuwwat, this had to be a jewish prophet. When HMGA recieved this data he also used the ending of prophethood as his main argument in terms of proving that Yus Asaf was not a muslim.
In a letter written to HMGA(1895 or 1896), maulvi Abdullah writes:
“The word nabi is common between the followers of Islam and the Israelites, and as in Islam no prophet came after our Holy Prophet Muhammad, nor could one come, therefore the general Muslims of Kashmir are agreed that this prophet is from before Islam.”
“But because of the ending of prophethood, this excludes the Muslim people.
Therefore it is clearly proved that this prophet is an Israelite prophet.”
Then HMGA wrote a footnote to this published letter, in it he comments:
“But after the ending of prophethood, no further prophet can come in Islam. Therefore it is settled that he was an Israelite prophet.”
It must remembered very carefully that at this time(Q & L) HMGA did not consider himself as a full-prophet, instead, HMGA considered himself as a partial nabi only. One would think that after 1901 the ahmadis(q) would have been forced to move away from this particular line of reason. Maulvi Sher Ali(1903) & Maulvi M. ali (1909) continued to argue along these lines.
After 1901 this line of debate should have been corrected. This strategy of argument was no longer valid. The ahmadis(q) now considered HMGA as a full-prophet. Obviously the ahmadis(L) did not. Let’s take a look at the writings on this topic after 1901, did the followers of HMGA realize this change?
The first instance that I found is from ROR May 1903, Maulvi Sher Ali writes:
“The fact that he is known as a Prophet or Nabi refutes the idea that he was a Muhamadan Saint. No intelligent man would think that a person who was reputed as a prophet among the Muhammadans was a Muhammadan saint. Even if a Muhammadan saint worked miracles, they would take him as a Wali at best, and never a prophet. They believe that their HP is the seal of the prophets and that he is not to be followed by any other prophet…….and one who takes him as a muhammadan saint only, betrays his complete ignorance of the beliefs prevailing among the muhammadans”
“…..we do not know of any prophet who appeared in Kashmir in the last 200 years”
It’s obvious that Maulvi Sher Ali had not yet realized that HMGA was a full-fledged prophet. This is a 1 ½ year after EGKI was published. Maybe MSA didn’t realize what happened in EGKI. It is important to note that HMBMA wrote that all ahmadis knew of the “tabdili aqidah” theory in 1901.
Next, M. ali writes in ROR April 1909, the title of this article is “Islam as interpreted by the Ahmadiyya Movement”:
“He is universally known as a Nabi or a prophet among the muslims, and therefore he cannot be a muslim saint for no muslim saint has been called nabi after the Holy Prophet”
The owners of the “tomb of Jesus” website also felt the same contradiction, they felt the need to add this important note:
Tomb of Jesus Website Comments:
“The reader will note that in footnote 2 above, Ghulam Ahmad states that no prophet can come after Muhammad. Therefore, the inhabitant of the Roza Bal must have been a Jewish prophet. Later, though, as his followers believe, and as Ghulam Ahmad explained, God had repeatedly told Ghulam Ahmad that He (God) had appointed Ghulam Ahmad as a follower-prophet of Muhammad.
Ahmadiyya literature reflects that Ghulam Ahmad himself seemed quite stunned by these revelations from God, because, just as other Muslims, he had understood Islam to teach that there could be no prophet of any type coming after Muhammad].”
In conclusion, I feel that it is very strange that 2 top followers of HMGA did not realize a change from non-prophet to prophet in 1901. If MSA and M. ali would have realized this change(EGKI), they would not have written that Yus Asaf could not be a muslim prophet, because no prophets were to appear. They should have abandoned this line of reason. Is it fair to say that without this argument it is hard to prove that Yus Asaf wasn’t a muslim prophet? What if Yus Asaf was in fact an ummaati nabi? I hope the readers of this article ponder on these facts that I have presented above.