Word ‘jizyah’ or ‘harb’ (war) in hadith in Bukhari?
Our friend Bashir has submitted the following post.
HMGA in his book “Jihad and the british government” argued that there was a hadith in Sahih Bukhari which narrated the HP as saying that when Jesus returned he would put an end to war (harb). HMGA argues that in another qiraat (arabic pronunciation style) this reading was permissable. But, HMGA didn’t provide any details past that.
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
SAHIH BUKHARI
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)
From Zahid Aziz:
The question asked here is that the hadith in Bukhari says that when the Messiah comes he will abolish jizya but Hazrat Mirza sahib has written that this hadith says that he will abolish war (yazi`-ul-harb). Where is this reading using ‘war’ to be found?
I wish our friend had posed this as a question and not as a “challenge to all Ahmadis”. Very often when people read something surprising in a writing by Hzarat Mirza sahib, for which they can find no evidence, they jump to the conclusion that Hazrat Mirza sahib was either ignorant or trying to deceive people.
I refer our friend firstly to a book he has himself quoted before, Prophecy Continuous by Freidmann. See page 167, footnote 11. I quote:
Secondly, we have the book Finality of Prophethood by no less a person than Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi. See the link:
http://www.ymsite.com/books/fop/fop11.htm
This hadith from Bukhari is the very first hadith quoted by Maudoodi on this page and its ending reads: “and he will put an end to war”.
Maudoodi then goes on to say:
So Maudoodi gives ‘war’ as the main version and ‘jizya’ as the alternative one!
As a third example, see the following chapter from the book March towards the Doomsday by Dr Muhammad Sharif Chaudhry (who is obviously giving the non-Ahmadi interpretation of the return of Jesus):
http://www.geocities.com/deenibooks/b24/b24_08.htm
He quotes the very same hadith from Bukhari near the bottom of the above webpage:
Again ‘war’ is given as the main version and ‘jizya’ as the alternative.
I think I have provided enough evidence. I am not claiming to have won any challenge, but to have answered the question.
From Zahid Aziz:
Additionally, I refer to the following translated hadith quoted in Bashir’s post from Muhsin Khan’s translation of Bukhari:
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)
The words “he will judge people by the Law of the Quran and not by the law of Gospel” are not in Bukhari, or even in any hadith anywhere. In this translation, the translator has substituted a comment from Fath-ul-Bari (a commentary of Bukhari) in place of the words in the hadith itself that he will come as a hakm and `adl.
From Bashir:
I have mounds of data….I will start slowly.
Maybe I should have posed this as a question instead of as a challenge. This was a a friendly challenge at the most…..
When studying any topic it is important to figure out what the facts are, once the facts are understood then conclusions become superflous.
THE FACT SHEET
1. HMGA never fully explained how jizyah=harb. Maudoodi and Friedman came after HMGA.
2. M. ali totally avoided even mentioning this hadith in his entire life. I have not found one instance where M. ali ever took a crack at explaining this hadith.
2.a. I dont think that the entire body of the aaiil has ever explained how harb=jizyah
3. The AMI has never explained this either.
4. The jizya was eliminated in Algeria and Tunisia in the 19th century, but continued to be collected in Morocco until the first decade of the 20th century (these three dates coincide with the French colonization of these countries).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya
^ “Though in Tunisia and Algeria the jizya/kharaj practice was eliminated during the 19th century, Moroccan Jewry still paid these taxes as late as the first decade of the twentieth century.” Michael M. Laskier, North African Jewry in the Twentieth Century: Jews of Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria, NYU Press, 1994, p. 12
5. Friedman also wrote: “islamic law retained the notion of JIhad even after Islam had become an empire and was in no danger whatsoever.” ………………….It is therefore mpt possible to accept GA’s analysis as of the idea of Jihad as historically valid……..
TO BE CONTINUED…..
From Bashir:
SOME QUESTIONS
1. Where is Krehl’s edition of Sahih Bukhari?
2. When did Krehl write this? Was it before or after HMGA’s time?
3. What qiraat does HMGA quote from?
4. If not a qiraat, then where was HMGA quoting from?
SOME EXPLANATIONS
Friedman (the same page that ZA quoted)
“The abolition of jizyah is explained in two ways: either it will lapse because all non-muslims will have to embrace Islam, or it will be made superflous by an unprecedented abundance of money in those days”
1. Even if the hadith read as harb instead of jizyah(which it does not), that would mean “WAR” in general, not military Jihad as HMGA explained. HMGA should have presented a reading that read as Jihad, not HARB.
2. WW1 and WW2 happened after HMGA passed away. These were the two biggest HARB’S in the history of the planet. HMGA did not stop HARB. In fact the atom bomb was dropped after the time of HMGA, the atom bomb was and is the biggest HARB instrument ever created by man. HARB’S have increased since of the arrival of the Mahdi/Messiah.
3. What arabic qiraat uses harb instead of Jizyah?
My friendly challenge is still unanswered!!
From Zahid Aziz:
How is your challenge unanswered? I have shown that other people, even opponents of Hazrat Mirza sahib, have used the ‘harb’ version. So it exists and was not fabricated by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad! How is it relevant that Maudoodi and Friedmann came after him? Did they learn Bukhari from Mirza sahib’s books and had no other source?
“M Ali totally avoided mentioning it.” So because you haven’t read where he has mentioned it, it means he didn’t mention it. He has mentioned it in his Urdu translation and commentary of Bukhari, saying that only one version of the report has ‘jizya’ while the others have ‘harb’.
The Messiah abolishing ‘harb’ means that for Muslims it is not necessary or required by Islam to fight wars anymore for their religion. It does not mean that they won’t be fighting, or that others in the world won’t be fighting. He says in his famous poem about ‘jihad’, where he mentions the ‘harb’ hadith, that whoever now fights a jihad of war against this instruction will meet humiliation, not that Muslims won’t be fighting a jihad again. As to wars in general, the famous Russo-Japanese war (a crucial event in world history) took place around 1904 or so. No one objected against him that you haven’t abolished war.
From Omar Raja:
After reading and following up on this thread, I can’t help but want to mention the following statements of the Promised Messiah:
“As a last resort, our brethren may point to signs mentioned in true traditions, as signs of the Messiah. How will these signs be explained? It is written that the Messiah will break the Cross, stop the Jizya and kill the swine. Also, that the time will be such that Muslims will have acquired the evil ways of Jews and Christians. But the meaning of these signs is clear. Breaking the cross is – not by war but by spiritual means – to disprove the Creed of the Cross. Suspending the Jizya points to the fact that the levy will no longer be required. Human hearts will be swayed not so much by war or violence as by argument and persuasion. Accessions to Islam – and in large number – will come through the intrinsic beauty and attraction of Islam. With free accessions the Jizya will become obsolete. But, remember all this will not (or was not to) happen at once. The foundation will be laid and the ball set rolling. And the swine? They are but the people with a swinish character. All such people will become subjugated one day. And by argument alone. The sword of argument will kill… My dear people, these are metaphors. With God-given understanding you can understand and even enjoy getting the true meaning of these signs. The metaphors are beautiful, full of meaning. To take them literally is to destroy, to turn a beauty into a monster.
Good communication depends entirely on beautiful metaphors. No wonder, in divine speech–the most powerful of all speeches–metaphors abound much more than in any other speech. Will you take in their crude literality these holy metaphors wherever they occur? Will you ruin the beauty of the Holy Text thus? If you do this, you will not miss the true meaning only. You will also destroy the peculiar power of the Holy Text, the power to speak and communicate. If you must interpret and explain the Holy Text to others, you must also see what you say is commensurate with the power and Purpose of the Divine Source whence it comes. Only thus will you have interpreted the Holy Text well and in a beautiful manner. To interpret a Holy Text literally, to employ low and coarse language for this purpose, is to bring the Holy Text into disrepute. Remember, the Holy Text is replete with holy meaning, expressed in the most beautiful and elegant words and images. Why must we choose the coarser, the less refined meaning. Why not the more refined, the more sophisticated, the more worthy?
And what has happened to our Ulema? They draw so unreasonably from the philosophical refinements of divine speech? Those who devote their time and energy to a study of these things, will agree with us and appreciate this point of ours. They will find in it a new truth which they will explain joyfully to others. They will be contributing to the spiritual education of the people. But those who look at these things on the surface, will only raise difficulties and raise hue and cry. Little will they accomplish in service to the cause of Islam.” [Taudh-i-Maram, Explanation of Objectives, 1891, p. 8-10]
As for Maulana Muhammad Ali he has written in his book, The Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement (section Jihad), in reference to the hadith in question about putting an end to religious wars that “What is aimed at is really this, that a jihad contrary to the teachings of the Holy Qur’an and to the practice of the Holy Prophet, if ever there was one, was undoubtedly the result of some misconception, and, according to the hadith quoted above, the Promised Messiah will remove that misconception and thus put an end to such wars.”
I think one ought to reflect upon the reason Hazrat Mirza Sahib named this party the Ahmadiyya Movement, partly, “so that everyone hearing this name should realize that this party has come into being for the spread of peace and security and that it would have nothing to do with war and fighting.”
From Bashir:
I appreciate the responses by ZA and Omar Raja.
Let me re-phrase the question. There are 10 arabic pronunciation styles(qiraat). How many of these styles use HARB as opposed to jizyah? Where is the proof?
Jizyah only occurs once in the Koran, can I use Harb instead?
[9:29] Fight those from among the People of the Book who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor hold as unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have declared to be unlawful, nor follow the true religion, until they pay the tax(JIZYAH OR HARB) with their own hand and acknowledge their subjection.
Can I use HARB for jizyah in any situation? Or are there rules for this substitution?
What about all the other hadith that contain the word jizyah, can I use HARB interchangeably?
I will quote below what jizyah is:
Sahih Bukhari
Volume 8, Book 76, Number 433:
From Zahid Aziz:
You have misunderstood a simple point. A hadith can be reported in different versions with a variation of wording being reported by the narrators in each case. This is very common. In this hadith, some reported the word as ‘jizya’ and others reported it as ‘harb’. In all such cases, there may be several explanations. For example, the Holy Prophet may have said it in both ways at different times. Or the narrators of one version remembered it with a different word than the original word that was used.
This has nothing to do with any pronunciation style.
Hundreds of examples can given. Here is one from Sahih Muslim (online).
Book 001, Number 0070:
It is reported on the authority of Anas that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: No bondsman believes, and, in the hadith narrated by Abdul Warith, no person believes, till I am dearer to him than the members of his household, his wealth and the whole of mankind.
———-
It is stated above that one version says “bondsman” (`abd) the other says “person”. The next hadith is as follows:
Book 001, Number 0071:
It is reported on the authority of Anas b. Malik that the Messenger of Allah said: None of you is a believer till I am dearer to him than his child, his father and the whole of mankind.
———-
0070 says “his household, his wealth” while 0071 says instead “his child, his father”.
But your original point was that this hadith is not found anywhere with the word ‘harb’. I showed that it is, and that even some non-Ahmadis, writing about the literal return of Jesus, have considered the ‘harb’ version as the main one and the ‘jizyah’ one as the alternative one.
From Zahid Aziz:
Another example of difference in wording of versions of the same hadith is this from Sahih Muslim:
Book 001, Number 0019:
Book 001, Number 0020:
See this link.
In the first version, the first pillar is: Allah (alone) should be worshipped, and (all other gods) beside Him should be (categorically) denied.
It doesn’t mention belief in the Prophet Muhammad.
In the second version, the first pillar is: testifying (the fact) that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is His bondsman and messenger.
I have confirmed with the original Arabic that this translation is correct.
From Omar Raja:
If I may add one more example to the list from Sahih Muslim
Book 001, Number 0290:
Book 001, Number 0291:
From Bashir:
ZA, I understand your point, I thought that HMGA meant that there was another pronunciation style which was used. Obviously it’s not a pronunciation style that is in question. We must find all the reports and follow the majority of opinion. Thats the first rule of hadith.
For example if 3 out of 5 of the reports used the word jizyah, then that is the majority, then HARB must be a secondary report, and vice versa. Thats my point! Now, I dont know which of the two are majority. Friedman found one person who used HARB instead of jizyah, well, how many other reports presented the word HARB.
Which version of Sahih Bukhari did HMGA quote from? I think he should have given the reference.
My point is this: Whether it was harb or jizyah, the meanings are of cause and effect. The ending of Jizyah means the ending of HARB and vice versa. But nothing means the ending of military Jihad.
From what I can gather, muslims were fighting HARB against nations that werent paying their jizyah. If everybody was to become muslim then wars would end, likewise if everyone becomes muslim then the HARB would seemingly come to an end. I can not agree that this means the ending of military jihad. That doesnt co-exist with this authentic hadith.
The messiah/Mahdi was to provide peace and tranquilty, and he was expected to convert the planet into muslims. This is how jizyah or HARB were to end. I dont think that HMGA did that.
From Zahid Aziz:
According to Maulana Muhammad Ali, only one version of the report says ‘jizya’. According to Friedmann, several commentaries of Bukhari (e.g. Fath-ul-Bari) mention the ‘harb’ version. As I showed, Maudoodi, while writing a book against Ahmadiyyat, quotes the ‘harb’ one as the main report.
Regarding the belief that the Messiah/Mahdi was to convert the entire world to Islam, firstly the Quran tells us that all religions will always continue to exist. Secondly that conversion of the world to Islam was thought by Muslims to be brought about by force of arms over the whole world. Such a concept is against Islam, as pointed by Hazrat Mirza sahib.
As to how war was abolished from the time of the Promised Messiah onwards, the following points are relevant:
1. Superpowers developed such destructive weapons of war that they dared not fight one another. So there was a 45-year cold war, and not a fighting war between USA and USSR. One can say that weapons of war themselves abolished war!
2. The general public in advanced countries began to oppose their own countries’ participation in wars, whereas a hundred years ago, the public of the same countries used to cheer their soldiers to any war their country took part in. One reason why the USA lost the Vietnam war was the public opposition at home.
3. The conduct of wars has come under international law. Theoretically, in law, no country is allowed to invade another aggressively. Many types of weapons are banned. Many types of killing and other acts in war are now unlawful. War crimes trials are held. Prisoners of war have rights. None of this existed in the time of the Promised Messiah.
4. People and governments are realising that military victories don’t achieve very much, and that conquering hearts and minds is the key thing.
From Omar Raja:
There has to be real reform and a change in mentality for wars to come to an end, so everyone becoming ‘Muslim’ doesn’t necessarily bring it to an end. “Allah changes not the condition of a people, until they first change their own condition” (13:11), the condition of their hearts!
I may note what came to pass, or to be fulfilled with the first Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, ran counter to the popular expectations of his people, a people expecting a kingly Messiah, one to rail against the Roman government and establish a literal kingdom on earth.
Lastly, it doesn’t help when Muslims buy into the misconceived notion of “Islam, Jizya, or the sword!” as it seems you have, and are thus using this as the basis of your argument!
From Bashir:
IS THE ABU DAUD VERSION INCORRECT??????
THIS WAS ALSO NARRATED BY ABU HURAYRAH!!!
Book 37, Number 4310:
Narrated Abu Hurayrah:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace_be_upon_him). He will descent (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.
From Zahid Aziz:
No one denies, in fact all Ahmadiyya literature accepts, that the words about jizya also occur in the hadith about the coming of Jesus.
Some of this particular hadith in Abu Daud is plainly opposed to the Quran. Fighting people for the cause of Islam as such is not allowed, and all religions perishing except Islam is contrary to the Quran’s statement that Jews and Christians will always continue to exist.
As to the use of harb in a hadith about the coming of Jesus, some ancient commentators of the Quran (for example, Ibn Kathir) link it with the verse of the Quran: “until the war lays down its burdens” (47:4). Although that verse has no connection with the coming of the Messiah, these commentators say that this will happen when Jesus comes again. The words “until the war lays down its burdens” (taza`-ul-harb = war lays down) are similar to the words in hadith “he will abolish war” (yaza`-ul-harb).
The Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal contains a hadith by Abu Huraira which has the words: “… he will abolish jizya (yaza`-ul-jizya) and war will lay down (taza`-ul-harb) its burdens”.
Thus early commentators regarded harb as occurring in this hadith and they found a Quranic basis for its occurrence.
From Bashir:
For ZA: This hadith is easy to understand. It means that one way or the other, all the people of the planet would convert to Islam. If everybody is muslim then of course the wars end, then of course jihad ends.
It is very strange to assume that these hadith mean that the Messiah will issue an order which would stop the military jihad.
I just cant understand why HMGA would use data that is not clear and concise(the jizya/harb thing) to formulate an idea that the messiah was to stop the military jihads. I just dont get it……
Instead of all the people converting to Islam, the aaiil believe that even the family of HMGA has misconstrued his mission. The aaiil believe that the only 1% of ahmadis are on the straight path. It seems that messiah failed to even produce fresh fruit. Kk saahib refers to this in his book that you are currently translating.
From Bashir:
For Omar Raja:
1. Have you read Tabari, Wackidi, Ibn Hisham????
The truth is that Islam was a political movement more than a spritual movement. Most arabs joined this movement on the hopes that they could get rich by killing people and taking their riches. Have you heard of the Apostates that Abu Bakr had to deal with?? I assure you, I am an unbiased researcher, I dont personally care about what Islam is or isnt. I just state facts, as best as I can, and if I am wrong, I will accept that. Anyhow, these barbaric nomads moved into Arabia because this was on the Southern trade-route, Israel and Iraq being middle-earth, where all the commerce was. Trade that was moving south towards africa went through medina then mecca.
Anyhow, imagine an army camping in front of your house asking you to accept Islam and give them your young men. FYI: military service was mandatory for all muslim men. So what would you do??? If you say NO, then you have to pay jizyah, the muslims would offer you adequate security. But if you missed a payment, that was an act of war. The muslims were to occupy your lands until you missed a payment….
If you accepted Islam, then everything was OK, but they would still occupy your land. Occupation was an irrelevant state of affairs. Your sons were gone, the muslims owned them. They were to fight on the battlefield until death. Then you had to pay the zakat, which if you missed a payment, then somebody would be sent to talk to you….I think….
The other option was DEATH. If you told the muslims to get off your lawn, GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.
The most ironic thing is this. Muslims never denied being savage beasts until HMGA tried to water down this impression. Before HMGA muslims were proud of there strength and barbaric attitudes. HMGA was forced to re-interpret Islam in the face of the Christians who were threatening to wipe out Islam by showing that it was a violent religion, instead, christianity was peaceful(which is also wrong).
Lastly, I am forced to think that all these peaceful renditions of Islam were grown out of British India. At a time when Islam was under attack for it’s barbaric mental state.
All the mujadids from the 1st to the last believed that the military jihad was to last until the messiah came and killed all the non-believers, then converted the remaining inhabitants of the EARTH, then, and only then, jizyah/harb/jihad would end.
I compare the muslims of arabia to the modern day Afghans. In terms of their mental state and religous ideas. I dont think that they are fundamental….NO, they are humans who believed in Islam.
From Bashir:
As far as the hadith goes. I will try to contact USC and ask them for the original arabic text. I will ask them many questions.
I think we as ahmadis should look up the chain of transmitters. We should find out as to what people thought they heard HARB as opposed to jizyah, and vice versa. If 10 people thought they heard jizyah, and 5 thought they heard HARB, then jizya is the correct version, harb would have to be a secondary version.
Again, why would HMGA use an un-clear statement as his basis for stopping the miltary jihad. Hadith that oppose the Koran need to be discarded.
From Zahid Aziz:
The problem with the “easy to understand” interpretation of Bashir is that if that approach is applied to the entire hadith one would conclude that Jesus himself, who lived 2000 years ago, would descend in person. This gives rise to some serious conflicts with the fundamental teachings of Islam.
Using the same approach with those hadith that mention Jesus fighting Dajjal, one would conclude that Dajjal would be one individual with monstrous powers. Just turn to the following hadith:
Book 041, Number 7015
in this link of the online Sahih Muslim:
All these wonders are performed by Dajjal before the return of Jesus according to this lengthy hadith:
And how will Jesus defeat Dajjal and the unbelievers:
So the “easy to understand” approach would tell us that Jesus (the real one who lived 2000 years ago) will kill non-Muslims by his breath. Is this what will lead to jizyah being abolished?
The other curious thing is that in this hadith it is stated near the beginning by the Holy Prophet Muhammad:
“Contend” here means “arguing”. If there is to be a war to kill this Dajjal, why would the Holy Prophet argue with him, and why does he tell Muslims to do the same?
It took the Divinely-inspired genius of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to interpret all this in a believable, faith-inspiring way, consistent with the teahcings of Islam.
From Bashir:
OK, ZA, lets get a conclusion.
You are saying that some of the people in the chain of transmitters thought that they heard HARB instead of jizyah.
1. How many people in the chain differed?
1.a. Does this difference exist in the Abu Daud version?
2. Does this substantiate the abrogation of jihad? In other words hadith cannot be held above the Koran. Why is this hadith being held above the Koran?
From Omar Raja:
The reason for the ‘prohibition of jihad’ is because Muslims that were and would go to war in the name of Islam, would do so with the wrong concept of jihad! What is being prohibited is the misconceived notion of jihad by certain Muslims which is inconsistent with the clear and plain principles laid down in the Holy Qur’an. So the idea that the Promised Messiah was abrogating jihad is due to a gross misunderstanding. There is no question of abrogating the injunctions to be met with in the Holy Qur’an.
The Promised Messiah stated: “There is not the least doubt that the conditions laid down for jihad are not to be met with at the present time and in this country; so it is illegal for the Muslims to fight for religion and to kill anyone who rejects the Sacred Law, for God has made clear the illegality of jihad when there is peace and security.” (Tohfa-i-Golarwiya, Supplement, p.30)
And this hadith in question, as already shown, is to be interpreted in light of the Qur’an, and not vice versa! The first part of the hadith speaks of “breaking the cross” – that is not interpreted literally! The second part of the hadith speaks of “killing the swine” – and none takes that literally! The latter portion of hadith speaks of the suspension of jizyah/war – and again, not to be taken in the absolute literal sense, but as said, to be explained in a manner consistent with the teachings of Islam, and that is exactly what the Promised Messiah did, whether it be referring to harb or jizyah! It may very well be that the Holy Prophet referred to both terms at different times in relation to the signs of the Messiah.
I earlier quoted an extract of the Promised Messiah where he interpreted the suspension of jizyah figuratively, stating:
“Suspending the Jizya points to the fact that the levy will no longer be required. Human hearts will be swayed not so much by war or violence as by argument and persuasion.”
And true, he also explained it as the end of harb, or an end to misconceived notion of religious wars, which was why I mentioned Maulana Muhammad Ali’s statement: “What is aimed at is really this, that a jihad contrary to the teachings of the Holy Qur’an and to the practice of the Holy Prophet, if ever there was one, was undoubtedly the result of some misconception, and, according to the hadith quoted above, the Promised Messiah will remove that misconception and thus put an end to such wars.”
The Promised Messiah laid emphasis on the primary, the great jihad as mentioned in the Qur’an, of propogating the truth of Islam by beautiful deed and action to show man the true intrinsic beauty of faith, that would truly reform man. Thus, his focus was on the beauty aspect of moral teachings as was true with the first Messiah, that would conquer hearts and minds!
From Bashir:
Mr. Omar, where I should I start???????
HMGA was the first muslim ever in the history of Islam to say that the military jihad has ended. All the mujadids were in consensus on this matter. Batalvi and many other indian muslims said that the conditions didnt exist in british india for the military jihad. HMGA said the same thing but he took it a step further and totally stopped the military jihad. HMGA is always clever enough to make 4 or 5 statements that confuse his readers.
1. Jihad is not a Koranic commandment.
2. The messiah was supposed to stop jihad anyways.
3. The military jihad was only fought when muslims were innocently being murdered.
4. The conditions of the military jihad are not current in british india.
5. Islam is not a violent religion.
It is worthy of mentioning that Zaheerudin claimed that HMGA was a law-bearing prophet based on the fact that he ordered that an injunction of the Koran had ended. Zaheerudin argued that HMGA’s prophethood was not simply metaphoric.
To say that HMGA was just clearing the prevalent misconception about Jihad is a gross understatement. The aaiil believe that Jesus (and all other prophets) was a ‘law-bearing” based on the fact that Jesus changed some portion of the Jewish law. Even HMGA called Jesus a Haqiqi Nabi. I dont have the reference available.
The proof is Chapter 3:50:
‘And I come fulfilling that which is before me, namely, the Torah; and to allow you some of that which was forbidden you; and I come to you with a Sign from your Lord; so fear Allah and obey me.
The AMI claim that Jesus was just clearing mis-conceptions. This appears to be an argument technique. It’s obvious that Jesus asked the jews to be peaceful instead of what Joshua and others taught them.
From Bashir:
It appears that we will never know as to who the people were in the chain of transmitters who thought that they heard HARB instead of jizyah. And we will never know if in Abu Daud the transmitters differed or not.
With all of this uncertainty, HMGA decided that HARB superseded JIZYAH, in turn this meant that the Messiah was to stop Jihad with the sword? I think that’s a bit of a stretch! The evidence just does not substantiate HMGA’s conclusion.