Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam
Rashid Jahangiri has submitted the following post.
In 1974 Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto used religion to rule Pakistan and declared innocent Kalima Tayyaba reciters as kafir. Today Taliban are using religion (Shariat-e-Muhammadi) to rule Pakistan.
On April 22, 2009 the Dawn editorial says:
The position held by people who kill those who don’t subscribe to their point of view is diametrically opposed to that of all right-thinking persons. From day one, the stance of these militants who murder in the name of religion has been all too clear. These people are savages, yet we don’t put them behind bars. Why?
I wonder where were people like author of this editorial in 1974 when INNOCENT reciters of Kalima Tayyaba were declared Kafir.
Omar Raja has submitted the following extracts from The Early Caliphate by Maulana Muhammad Ali
The apostasy movement
Here arises a question of great importance. How was it that as soon as the Prophet closed his eyes tribe after tribe renounced the faith and rose in revolt? Was it because their conversion was the result of pressure and, when the Prophet’s demise afforded an opportunity to throw· off the yoke, they eagerly seized it? How to account for this wild conflagration that spread over the entire length and breadth of the country and threatened to consume all? That some of the tribes did apostatize is no doubt true, but that apostasy affected the whole of Arabia is not borne out historically. The fact is that such Muslims as had embraced Islam some good time before the Prophet’s death, and were thus well-grounded in the teachings and spirit of the faith, never wavered in their allegiance. Their devotion was put to the most crucial tests but was never found wanting. Through thick and thin they stood by Islam, staunch and steadfast, and knew not a moment’s hesitation to bear the brunt of any hardship in vindication of the faith. Even those who were of no more than a couple of years’ standing were devoted, heart and soul. Hence it was that, whereas the countryside all around was in flames, Makkah was perfectly calm and quiet. There was not a single case of apostasy and not a little finger was raised against the authority of Islam.
But the vast bulk of the people had only just joined the fold when the Prophet passed away. That they had done so of their own free choice is a clear historical fact. But it is one thing to profess a faith and quite another to become imbued with its inner spirit. This latter they had had neither time nor opportunity to do. They were like children just put to school when the Master passed away, and without his teaching and control they drifted rudderless. Unlettered and of uncouth manners as these Beduins were, it was no easy task to work any appreciable transformation in them in the course of the few months that they had been in the new faith. That the whole of the peninsula, barring a sprinkling of Jews and Christians here and there, abandoned their idolatrous and polytheistic creeds and voluntarily embraced Islam is undoubtedly a most mighty revolution – a revolution without parallel in the pages of history, both sacred and secular – and redounds to the unrivalled glory of the great man who wrought it. Nevertheless, it was a physical impossibility to arrange in the few months that the Prophet lived thereafter, for the proper education or training of the masses scattered over a vast territory with very scanty means of intercourse and communication. Those who came in deputation to the Prophet from distant desert tribes took back with them a deep impress of Islam, but they were only a drop in the ocean. The Prophet did all that could possibly be done to see that the vast masses might receive education in the teachings of Islam. From amongst those who had imbibed the spirit of the faith by sojourn in the Prophet’s company, he sent out missionaries to distant parts. But the supply of such qualified men was by no means adequate to meet the demand. Towards the close of the Prophet’s life, tribe after tribe sent deputations to declare their allegiance and Madinah had not enough men to meet the demand. Nor was it desirable to deplete the seat and centre of the movement of all eminent men. The Qur’an too had forbidden such a course and advised that, rather than disintegrate the force, it must be concentrated, that Madinah must serve as the centre of learning to which selected men from different tribes should come and receive their education and imbibe the spirit of the faith and thus, duly qualified, go back to their own respective tribes and there kindle the light of Islam. (1) But obviously a scheme on these lines could not but take some time to mature, and the Prophet had hardly had any time to do it. The result was that large numbers of these children of the desert, who had only latterly joined the ranks of Islam and were ignorant of its true worth and spirit, lapsed again into their tribal creeds and once more challenged the authority of Islam.
1. “And it does not beseem the believers that they should go forth all together ; why should not a company from every party from among them come forth that they may apply themselves to obtain understanding in religion, and that they may warn their people when they go back to them so that they may be cautious” (9:122).
Refusal to pay Zakat
It is not historically true, however, that the whole of Arabia renounced Islam. There were still many people who were true to the faith but whose connection with Madinah through the temporary ascendancy of the pretenders, was cut off. They were neither apostates nor the confederates of the rebels though, owing to the pressure of the latter,’ they could not openly side with the central government. There were many others whose only contention was that no zakat (2) should be levied on them.
2. Zakat is a tax levied on the rich from among the Muslims for the help of the poor. It is generally one-fortieth of the annual savings when they are above R s. 52.50
Born in freedom and bred to freedom, these dwellers of the desert were utter strangers to notions of a state on a national scale with power and authority centralized in one place, to which all must owe allegiance. Their own individual tribal independence they prized above all else. Long centuries of unfettered freedom had rendered them intolerant by temperament of any authority other than their own. Islam, however, stood for the welding of these numerous disjointed and discordant fragments into one harmonious whole. Out of the scattered sands of the desert, so to speak, Islam wanted to build the edifice of a nation, strong and solid. This the tribes could not understand. They could not appreciate the value of a central public treasury for purposes of nation-building: hence their objection to the payment of zakat. Taking advantage of the general confusion, they refused to pay this tax. But Abu Bakr was particularly strict on this point. National unity, national solidarity, was his foremost concern, and refusal to pay taxes, if unchecked, was bound to dismantle the whole of the fabric. The safety of Islam as a faith was bound up with that of the Muslims as a nation. Hence the Caliph’s resolve “at all costs to suppress this no – tax movement. He issued an ultimatum to all such tribes as had with-held zakat that war would be declared against them unless they duly paid. Refusal was tantamount to revolt. There were thus three different causes that contributed to the general confusion at the Prophet’s death. Firstly, there were those who were the dupes of false prophets. Secondly, those’ who objected only to payment of taxes into the central treasury, and as such were confused with the rebels. Thirdly, there were those who were true to Islam but cut off from Muslims : not possessing the strength to fight the insurgents, they remained practically neutral.
The defence of Madinah
Such was the state of Arabia when Abu Bakr took the reins of government in his hand. Hemmed in by difficulties and dangers, he yet stood undaunted and sent out the best of his men on the Syrian expedition in obedience to the orders of the Prophet. To deplete Madinah of all troops and thus leave it defenceless at such a critical time may look unstatesmanlike. Nevertheless, the bold action brought the Caliph’s extraordinary force of conviction into the most prominent relief. Their leader’s example could not but inspire Muslims with daring, and the handful left behind undertook the defence of the capital. All man-power available in Madinah and its suburbs was mobilized, and all the approaches to the capital were carefully guarded day and night. Tulaihah, one of the false prophets, sent his brother to rouse the Beduin tribes to the north of Madinah. A large army was raised, but these people were neither hostile to Islam nor did they mean to fight for Tulaihah. They had their own axe to grind. Sending a deputation to the Caliph, they requested that they might be exempted from payment of zakat. The Madinites considered this as a godsend, and many were of opinion that under the circumstances it would be wise to grant their demand.. Abu Bakr was, however, more far-sighted. He could see the far-reaching and disastrous effect of yielding on this point. Exception in one case would open the door for similar demands from other quarters, and Islam would ultimately lose its hold on the whole of the peninsula. Moreover, payment of zakat was a most imperative injunction of the Qur’an, and it was not for a Caliph to waive an obligation imposed by God. Hence, unmoved by all considerations of policy, Abu Bakr stuck to his resolution in the face of war clouds on all sides. “If even so much as a string to tie a camel is withheld from zakat,” he replied, “they shall have war.” This resolute refusal rendered the plight of Madinah all the more critical. The Caliph had all Muslims summoned and told them to be on their guard every minute. At any moment the town might be stormed. ‘Ali, Zubair and Talhah were put in command of the garrison.
Rebel attack on Madinah repulsed
The insurgents gathered and encamped at a place called Dhu-l-Qassah. After three days, they advanced on Madinah. The Madinah advance guards at once sent word to the town, and immediately the Muslims were on the march to meet the invaders. The Beduins were hardly prepared for such a reception. They were under the impression that Madinah was absolutely defenceless, the troops having been despatched to Syria. Thus confronted with a bold front, they turned their backs. The Muslims kept up the pursuit some distance and then returned. During the night, however, Abu Bakr got his men together, and early in the morning, while it was yet dark, fell upon the Beduins again. Not able to resist the onslaught, they took to flight. The Caliph, after stationing a detachment at Dhu-l-Qassah, returned to the capital. This encounter had a great moral effect. The Muslims took heart and the Beduins had a most salutary lesson. The central government at Madinah, they now perceived, was strong enough to curb any insurrection, notwithstanding the absence of regular troops on the Syrian expedition. This went a long way to restore the prestige of Madinah, with the result that zakat money came pouring in from several quarters. Rebels and the pretenders lost their spirit. This was all due to the unshakable rock of faith on which Abu Bakr took his stand. To him is due the credit of piloting the bark of Islam to a haven of safety in such foul and stormy weather. In the meanwhile, Usamah returned from his Syrian expedition. The Caliph put him in charge of the defence of Madinah and himself marched at the head of a small army to Rabdhah (1) which was now the rendezvous of the rebels. Being defeated, the latter fled and joined the forces of Tulaihah.
1. A place about three days’ journey from Madinah.
Despatch of expeditions to different quarters
Abu Bakr now embarked on the extermination of the insurrection, root and branch. Dividing the army into eleven battalions and putting each under the command of a tried veteran he directed the campaign simultaneously on various fronts. Khalid ibn Walid was deputed to march first against Tulaihah and then against Malik ibn Nuwairah: ‘Ikrimah, son of Abu Jahl, was sent against Musailimah; Shurahbil was to reinforce ‘Ikrimah; and Mahajir ibn Abi Umayyah was to invade Yaman and Hadramaut. One battalion was despatched to keep guard on the Syrian frontier; two were sent out to suppress the rising in ‘Uman and Mahrah: one was required to curb the tribe of Quza’ah, and yet another to fight the Bani Salim and Hawazin. Upon himself Abu Bakr undertook the duties of generalissimo with Madinah for his base, from where he watched and directed the campaigns. He also sent a proclamation to his officers as well as to the tribes, directing the former that they must be moderate and kindly in their dealings with the latter, that before engaging in action they must first invite the belligerent tribe to Islam, that they must desist from fighting should the tribe concerned accept their invitation, and that in case of refusal alone they were to resort to fighting. The usual call to prayer, the instructions continued, was to be considered sufficient evidence that a particular tribe was Muslim.
Object of expeditions
It must be clearly understood that the object of these campaigns was no more than the suppression of rebellion. It is legitimately open to every government to punish rebels, to execute their ring-leaders and, if necessary, to declare war on them. But over and above this, there were several other reasons that called for action. In the first place, these rebels had wantonly shed the blood of peaceful Muslim citizens here and there, causing disorder and disturbance. Again, they were out to extirpate the rule of Islam. The slightest leniency would have added enormously to the fury of the conflagration. And yet again, in the midst of these rebel tribes there were clans that were loyal to the Government but were cut off from intercourse with Madinah. Even in such far-off parts as Hadramaut and Bahrain, the loyalists were there side by side with the rebels. In several places, if one clan of a tribe had risen in revolt, there was another that refused to join hands with the rebels. Under the circumstances the Caliph’s proclamation that before starting the operation, it must be ascertained whether or not the particular tribe was Muslim was perfectly justified, and must on no account be considered as anything in the form of conversion by force. As a matter of fact, it was indispensable that such a notice should have been broadcast among both the officers and the tribes in order to discriminate between rebels and loyalists. It was just a precaution lest seeing a tribe in revolt, all its component clans should be mistaken as rebels and dealt with as such. And to extinguish the fire of revolt was the paramount call of the moment. Had the task not been undertaken, it would have been a matter of days for the rebels to reduce the power of Islam in Arabia to ashes.
From pp. 67-72:
Islam, Jizyah or the sword
In this connection we must remove another most gross mis-understanding. The envoys, it is alleged, that were sent during these wars to negotiate with the enemy, were sent with no better terms than the offer of three courses: “Islam, jizyah or the sword. This message is apparently worded so as to imply that the Muslims offered their religion at the point of the sword. Now this was never the idea during these Persian and Syrian wars, when this message is said to have been first delivered. One thing that is certain beyond the faintest shadow of doubt is that never was Islam presented in accompaniment to the sword nor thrust upon anyone at the point of the sword. Sir William Muir, as already quoted, admits that at least till the year 16 A.H., when Syria and ‘Iraq had already been conquered, no such idea of forcing religion on others had taken birth in the hearts of Muslims. How could they then have given a message the very idea of which had not yet entered their minds? And then, there is another equally well-established fact that shoulder to shoulder with the Muslims and under the standard of Islam there were also Christian soldiers fighting against their common foe and in defence of their common motherland, Arabia. If conversion by force formed any part of the purpose of these wars, it is inconceivable either that Muslims would have invited their Christian fellow-countrymen to make common cause with them or that the latter would have come forward to do so. What is more significant still, there were non-Muslim tribes with whom Muslims concluded peace without either converting them or demanding jizyah. The only condition of peace was that they would fight side by side with Muslims in case of a war. The people of Jarjoma, for instance, during the Syrian conquests, when Antioch was captured and payment of jizyah was commonly accepted by the populace, refused to pay on the plea that they were prepared to fight the Muslims’ battles against their enemy. The condition was accepted and peace concluded accordingly. They did not embrace Islam, nor did they pay jizyah. During the Persian conquests as well, twice was peace made on this very condition, once with the Chief of Jurjan and again with that of Bab. At these two places also military service was accepted in lieu of jizyah. These are all clear facts recorded by every historian. Possibly there were others of the kind that were never recorded. Now, on the one hand, the presence of Christian soldiers side by side with Muslims shows beyond all doubt that the wars could not have been religious but were merely in defence of the country ; and, on the other hand, the same conclusion is borne out by the fact that peace was concluded with several of the Christian and Magian tribes without either their accepting Islam or paying jizyah. These are all events of authentic history, admitted on all hands, and give the lie direct to the so-called story of “Islam, jizyah or the sword.”
Significance of the alleged message
Two things are now’ clear. In the first place, war with Persia and the Roman Empire was forced upon Muslims, and the two great powers sought to crush the rising power of Islam. And secondly, that the alleged message “Islam, jizyah or the sword” could never have been conveyed in the form which later writers have given to it because Muslims throughout these wars accepted the alliance of Christian and other non-Muslim tribes, and these tribes fought side by side with them against a non-Muslim foe. What actually happened was, clearly, that the Muslims, finding the Roman Empire and Persia bent upon the subjugation of Arabia and the extirpation of Islam, refused to accept terms of peace which contained no safeguards against a repetition of the aggression. This safeguard was demanded in the form of jizyah or a tribute which would be an admission of defeat on their part. How could a war be terminated without bringing it to a successful issue? If the enemy had been victorious, it would have overrun the peninsula of Arabia. The Muslims were willing to avoid further bloodshed after inflicting defeat on the enemy only if the enemy admitted defeat and agreed to pay a tribute which was at any rate not as excessive as the crushing war indemnities of modern days. The offer of terminating hostilities simply on payment of jizyah was thus an act of merciful dealing with a vanquished foe, and for this it would be senseless to blame the Muslims. If the payment of tribute was unacceptable to the vanquished power, the Muslims could do nothing but push the victory further until the enemy was completely vanquished. This very natural situation that the Caliph ‘Umar had to face is generally described as the offering of two alternatives by the Muslim forces, jizyah or the sword.
The third alternative, i.e., the offering of Islam, was not really connected with war. Islam was a missionary religion from its very inception, and it had a world-wide message. ‘The Holy Prophet himself invited, besides the idolaters of Arabia, Jews, Christians, Magians and the followers of other religions to accept the religion of Islam, and many of these people who lived in the peninsula and whom the message had reached had become Muslims. He had even written letters to all the great potentates living on the borders of Arabia, including Heraclius and the Ruler of Persia, urging acceptance of Islam. This was long before the actual commencement of hostilities with these two powers. And the envoys of Islam, wherever they went, looked upon it as their first duty to offer the message of Islam to every people because they felt that Islam imparted new life and vigour to mankind and lifted humanity from the depths of degradation to the height of civilization. The Arabs themselves experienced the great transformation and, out of sympathy for others, invited them to avail themselves of the wonderful change which Islam worked in man. In writing down the history of the Muslim wars, Muslim chroniclers did not care much for the missionary activities of Muslims and hence it is generally without giving any details that they simply refer to the fact that Islam was offered by such and such an envoy. Occasionally, however, when details are referred to, they show that the Arab envoys always related their own experience, stating how Islam had brought about a wonderful transformation in the Arab nation and that it would work the same transformation in any other nation that accepted it. It is a gross distortion of facts to say that Islam was offered at the point of the sword when there is not a single instance in which Islam was forced upon even one prisoner of war, whether he came from Persia or Syria. Islam was offered no doubt, but never at the point of the sword either to an individual or to a nation. Just as there is not a single instance on record in which an individual was told that he should accept Islam or be killed, there is no instance on record in which a tribe or a nation was told that the Muslims would carry sword and fire into its territory if it did not accept Islam. Muslims had to fight their wars as the most civilized nations of today have to fight theirs, but these wars arose out of other causes, and the one thing beyond the faintest shadow of doubt is that Muslims in their struggle with Persia and the Roman Empire ‘were not the aggressors.
There is one more consideration. Never was Islam offered at the commencement of hostilities, so not even a doubt should arise that it was offered as an alternative to the opening of hostilities. It was in the later stages of a war which had been carried on for a sufficiently long time that we find that the envoys of peace offered Islam. The war was already there, and every war has to be carried on to the bitter end until one party is completely crushed. Muslims had to carryon their war until either the enemy admitted defeat and agreed to pay tribute or his power was finally crushed. In the middle of the war, Islam was offered only as a message of mercy, for the one peculiarity of Islam was its unrivalled brotherhood. The different tribes of Arabia which had for centuries been the implacable foes of, and carried on war with, each other, had been converted into one solid nation by their acceptance of Islam. The new religion had therefore the miraculous effect of turning inveterate foes into loving brethren who forgot all their rancours. If, therefore, the enemy nation that had sought to crush Islam came to the conclusion that as a religion Islam was acceptable, Persian and Arab would become brethren and fighting would ipso facto cease. No other nation would show such magnanimity to a deadly foe in a deadly fight. As a rule, if one nation makes a wanton attack on another with a view to crushing it, the latter will not rest content until it has inflicted a crushing defeat upon the aggressor. But Islam came as a message of mercy, and that mercy was imported even into the bitter sphere of warfare. As human beings Arabs might be burning with a spirit of vengeance for the wrong done to them by Persians, but the brotherhood of Islam insisted that all ideas of revenge must be given up. Nay, more, erstwhile enemies become as the Qur’an puts it, brethren in faith. It was in this sense, in this spirit, as a message of goodwill and mercy, that Islam was offered to the enemy as one and the best safeguard against the recrudescence of national rancour and bitterness.
Our friend Bashir has submitted the following post.
I have found the hadith’s in Sahih Bukhari, none of them use this alternate qiraat. What was HMGA talking about?? This is a mystery. The references are provided below. I challenge all ahmadis to prove that there is an alternate reading of the arabic.
How is it possible that an alternate reading could change the meanings of something?? FYI: M. ali did not discuss this hadith in his book “The religion of Islam”. M. ali has a huge section on Jihad, but he never mentioned this hadith, very strange.
COURTESY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Volume 3, Book 34, Number 425:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims, who are in the protection, of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and no-body will accept charitable gifts.
Volume 3, Book 43, Number 656:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts).
Volume 4, Book 55, Number 658:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said “How will you be when the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you and he will judge people by the Law of the Quran and not by the law of Gospel (Fateh-ul Bari page 304 and 305 Vol 7)
Volume 4, Book 55, Number 657:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (Jesus,) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non Muslims). Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it, and a single prostration to Allah (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it.” Abu Huraira added “If you wish, you can recite (this verse of the Holy Book): — ‘And there is none Of the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (i.e Jesus as an Apostle of Allah and a human being) Before his death. And on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness Against them.” (4.159) (See Fateh Al Bari, Page 302 Vol 7)
Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.
This post is by someone who had chance to read Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (LAM) literature fairly in detail and knows about it fairly well.
I think there is nothing wrong with holding Khatam-e-Nabuwat (finality of prophethood) Conference, per se. But
1) Problem is those who hold and those who attend believe what ever 2nd amendment to 1973 constitution says is correct, and is based on fair, impartial PPP’s government decision in 1974. So belief of participants to such conference is not based on their own study, rather it is on what is fed to them by Pakistani politico-religious Ulama, or on hearsay.
2) Participants in their love for Rasul Allah SAWS, do not realize that Allah SWT, in Holy Quran, prohibits Muslims from calling other Muslim Kafir (infidel) who recites Kalima-Tayyab regardless of the fact that how bad that person may be. It is up to Allah SWT to deal with such bad Muslim. He can deal with him in this world or hereafter. Especially in matter of belief Allah SWT deals in hereafter.
3) Participants bundle Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (LAM) members with Qadianis, whose Khalifa 5 Mirza Masroor Ahmad lives in London, UK. Unfortunately, these participants don’t realize LAM members believe in every sense of the word ‘Khatam-e-Nabuwat’ and believe that Rasul Allah SAWS is the LAST and GREATEST messenger of Allah SWT, and that NO new or old messenger can come after Rasul Allah SWT. They hold belief that Eisa A.S. will not come either, as this will violate the Khatam-e-Nabuwat (finality of prophet-hood) of Rasul Allah SAWS. They believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who founded the Ahmadiyya Movement was NOT a prophet, but rather was Mujaddid (revivalist/ reformist) like many who came before him and will come in future.
4) Participants of this conference do not realize that Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (LAM) members had nothing to do with the Rabwah railway station incident in summer of 1974, that prompted riots. This was done by Qadianis after receiving green light from then Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.
Rashid Jahangiri has submitted the post below.
1) Hazrat Maulana Noor ud Din says, “when Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib set the condition that all proofs to support a point must come from holy scriptures of religions presented in conference, I knew Islam will be victorious and all other religions will lose”.
2) All expenses of holding conference of religions were borne by Hazrat Maulana Noor Ud Din.
Recently on Pakistan TV channels there have been broadcasts of various functions at which the 30th anniversary of the death of Mr Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was commemorated. One speaker, addressing a gathering at his shrine (as it seems to have become), likened ZAB and his family to Hazrat Imam Husain and his family in sacrificing their lives, in this case for the sake of democracy.
No one seemed to mention the crime for which ZAB was convicted and hanged (ordering the murder of a political opponent when he was Prime Minister).
ZAB was the first leader of Pakistan who started making concessions to the fundmentalist Ulama. And seeing that the Ulama’s demands had the support of the masses, ZAB presented these concessions as an achievement on his own part. It began, of course, with the surrender of his government to these Ulama in 1974 in declaring Ahmadis as non-Muslims. Then he was forced to yield to other demands such as making Friday the holiday.
All this was done quite cynically because ZAB had no belief that Islam had any role to play in governance of the country (at least general Zia-ul-Haq actually believed that what he was doing was right). The whole of Pakistan watched this farce and acquiesced in it: a socialist and follower of Chairman Mao claiming to be introducing Islamic measures.
Since then the country had gone on increasingly to reap the rewards of surrendering to the fundamentlist distortion of Islam and to intolerance.
In December 1975 and January 1976 I happened to be visiting Pakistan. ZAB’s power was at its height. In fact, this is what it must have been like in Pharaoh’s Egypt. People told me that “walls have ears” and therefore we must not, even in privacy, utter anything critical of ZAB. People behaved as if ZAB was the “knower of the unseen and the seen”. I was told that ZAB’s government has determined who is Muslim and who isn’t, and therefore what Allah says in the Quran, what the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said and did in this respect, matters not one iota.
ZAB himself claimed that by declaring Ahmadis as non-Muslim he had resolved an issue which had been outstanding for 90 years. That is too small a claim. He should have claimed that the issue of “who is a Muslim” had been outstanding for 1400 years, and not even Allah and the Holy Prophet Muhammad had correctly resolved it, but ZAB has resolved it for ever, and now it is not Islamic Shariah but ZAB’s law which will remain till the Day of Judgment!
Just 18 months after people told me that “walls have ears” and are listening out for anyone criticising ZAB, this Pharaoh was brought down in July 1977 by the very elements that he had been trying hard to appease, and in less than another two years he had gone to met the Real and True God.
Incidentally, some people in Pakistan told me during my 1975/76 visit that you shouldn’t call yourself Ahmadi because it means you are part of a minority (aqliyyat). Those persons had all been born before 1947 and could remember pre-partition times. In those days they themselves were an aqliyyat in their country because Muslims were a minority. I wonder if at that time they considered becoming Hindus in order to join the majority!
I apologise to anyone who may be offended by my views expressed above.
Our friend Bashir has submitted the following. It is possible that some small points of details in it may be a litte inaccurate.
At this link I have given the relevant pages from Mujaddid-i Azam by Dr Basharat Ahmad (v. 2, pages 975-980)
In 1904, HMGA was stuck in a court case which involved Maulvi Karam Din. The story of the court case is quite famous. From my knowledge HMGA only had two lawyers that served as his counsel, they were Muhammad Ali and Khwaja Kamaluddin.
The judge was an Arya Hindu, he wanted HMGA to suffer one way or the other. This case dragged on with adjournment after adjournment, then, the case was transferred to another Arya Hindu judge who really disliked HMGA. This judge would not allow HMGA the use of a chair or even a drink of water, HMGA was almost 70 years old, it was very hard for him to stand, let alone not have a drink of water. This Hindu judge had it out for HMGA, he was bent on giving HMGA some type of jail-time. These were the conditions that KK sahib and M. ali were given. It was very important for them to be steadfast and cognizant of the environment.
This Hindu judge had finally announced that he would give his judgement on a certain day, then he strategically changed it to a Saturday. He planned to give HMGA a hefty fine which HMGA would not be able to pay, HMGA would be forced to spend the weekend in jail. Somehow, KK and M. ali discovered the plan of the hindu judge, I am not sure how they figured this out, maybe good lawyers are able to anticipate things of this nature.
[Note inserted by Zahid Aziz: They did not know the magistrate's plan in advance.]
On Saturday afternoon just before the court was to close the judge called HMGA forward and gave the police orders not to allow anyone in the court room. But HMGA’s lawyer (I’m not sure whether this was M. ali or KK) brushed past the police officer claiming that it was illegal for HMGA to stand in front of the judge without counsel.
[Note inserted by Zahid Aziz: It was KK.]
The lawyer (KK or m. ali) appeared just in the nick of time, the judge had ordered HMGA to pay a fine of 500 rupees, immediately the lawyer presented the money, thus saving HMGA from spending the weekend in jail.
[Note inserted by Zahid Aziz: The fine was 500 rupees for Hazrat Mirza sahib and 200 rupees for his co-defendant Hakim Fazl Din. By coincidence, before Khwaja Kamaluddin entered the court room, a former client who owed him 700 rupees handed him this money, which Khwaja sahib stuffed into his pocket in a hurry without thinking.]
I read this story in Ian Adamson’s book, “Ahmad the Guided One”. Ian Adamson did not mention the name of the lawyer who saved HMGA. There is not any other book that gives this story. I am not even sure where Ian got his data from, Ian doesn’t give any references whatsoever.
[Note inserted by Zahid Aziz: It is highly likely to be in some Urdu book of the Qadiani Jamaat. Please see my link above which shows the relevant pages about this event from Mujaddid-i Azam by Dr Basharat Ahmad.]
All praise belongs to Allah, I understand that, I surely do. Allah allowed KK to serve in this capacity. It was Allah’s will! I hope the reader doesnt get the impression that I am boasting about the accomplishments of a simple man.
The link is provided below: see pg. 306
Submitted by our friend Dr Rashid Jahangiri, USA.
In the April 2009 issue of ‘The Light, UK edition’, Dr. Zahid Aziz wrote an article entitled: Dr. Zakir Naik and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Book Muhammad in World Scriptures. His article is a summary of our book.
The article is available at this link.
In his article Dr. Zahid Aziz critiqued Dr. Zakir Naik’s article.
The link to Dr. Zakir Naik’s article on his website is here:
For the purposes of record and easy reference, we also provide the article at this link on this blog.