New area: Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and Matters — See Title Page and List of Contents
— latest, 25 August 2014: Chasm of the Isms
Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam
Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.
Can Muslims copyright word ‘Allah’?
Malaysia has banned non-Muslims from using the word ‘Allah’ in their texts, saying the word is Islamic and may upset Muslims.
The Roman Catholic Church is challenging the ‘Allah’ ban in court, saying it is unconstitutional and discriminates against those worshipping in Malay language.
Church officials say Allah is not exclusive to Islam but is an Arabic word that predates Islam.
Bibles in Arabic language use word ‘Allah’ for God.
Does anyone on this forum hope Muslims will develop tolerance?
Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.
Reading a write up ‘The Bible of Militant Atheism’ by Aasem Bakhshi, on Richard Dawkins book ‘The God Delusion’. Aasem Bakhshi writes in last paragraph:
“Regarding the kind of evidence that would convince him regarding the existence of God, Bertrand Russell once replied that if a voice from the sky would reveal to him each and every thing that is going to happen in next few hours and that would eventually happen also, he may consider the possibility of existence of God.”
HMGA also gave the argument to prove the existence of ‘Living God’ that Allah communicates with him and informs him about the future events. Based on divine communications he predicted future events both good and bad, of all kinds.
Complete article available on Pak Tea House blog:
Submitted by Ikram.
Quran identifies its Source:
10:37. This Qur’ân is not such as could have been devised (by anyone), besides Allâh. On the contrary (Allâh has revealed it as) a confirmation of all the previous Scriptures and is a clear and detailed explanation of the divine Law. It is wanting in nought, containing nothing doubtful, disturbing, harmful or destructive and there is no false charge in it. (It proceeds) from the Lord of the worlds.
Quran assures its Divine arrangement:
25:3. … We have arranged it in an excellent (form and order of) arrangement (and free of all contradictions) so that We may thereby lend strength to your heart.
39:1. The orderly arrangement and authentic compilation of this wonderfully perfect Book is from Allâh, the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.
41:2. The compilation and orderly arrangement (of this Qur’ân) proceeds from the Most Gracious, the Ever Merciful (God).
75:17. The responsibility of its collection and its arrangement lies on Us.
Quran guarantees its Divine authenticity by challenging its readers as follows:
2:23. And if you have any doubt as to (the truthfulness of the Qur’ân) which We have revealed to Our servant from time to time, produce a single Sûrah (- Qur’ânic chapter) like any of (the chapters of) this, summoning (to your assistance) all your helpers (that you have) beside Allâh, if you are truthful (in your doubts),
4:82. Why do they not ponder over the Qur’ân? Had it been from anyone other than Allâh, they would surely have found a good deal of inconsistency therein.
11:13. Do they say, `He has forged this (Qur’ân)?’ Say (to them in reply), `If you are truthful (in your objection then) bring ten forged chapters like it, calling upon whom you can (for your help) apart from Allâh.’
11:14. But if they do not respond to you, then know that this (Qur’ân) which has been revealed is (replete) with (that which is only within) Allâh’s knowledge and that there is no other, cannot be and will never be One worthy of worship save Him. Will you then be the submitting ones (after knowing all this)?
28:49. Say, `If (Moses and Muhammad are both fraudulent and) you speak the truth, then bring a Book from Allâh which is a better guide than these two (- the Torah and the Qur’ân), that I may follow it.’
29:48. (Prophet!) you read no book, nor did you write one with your own hand before this (Qur’ân was revealed). (Had it been so,) those who declare (it) as false could then (have the cause to) entertain some doubts. [Note: Attention is drawn to the fact that Muhammad was illiterate]
Quran also gurantees its Divine everlasting protection from adulteration:
15:9. Verily, it was We, We Ourself Who have revealed this Reminder (- the Qur’ân); and it is We Who are, most certainly, its Guardian.
The Messenger had no interference in the Message:
10:15. When Our clear verses are recited to them, those who fear not the meeting with Us, nor do they cherish any hope (for the same,) say, `Bring a Qur’ân other than this one or (at least) make some changes in it.’ Say (to them), `It is not for me to introduce changes in it of my own accord. I follow nothing but what is revealed to me. Truly if I disobey my Lord I fear the punishment of a great (dreadful) Day.’
42:52. (Prophet!) just so (as We sent revelations to other Prophets), We revealed to you the Word by Our command. (Before this revelation) you did not know what the Divine Book was nor (which of) the faith (it teaches), but We made it (- Our revelation to you) a light, whereby We guide such of our servants as We will. And truly you are guiding (mankind) on to the straight and right path,
The Messenger is admonished against altering the Message no matter what:
17:73. And they had spared nothing in causing you (the severest) affliction with the purpose to turn you away from the revelations given to you, that you might forge in Our name something different from that which We have revealed to you. In that case they would surely have taken you for a special friend.
17:74. And if We had not made you firm and steadfast, you might have inclined towards them a little.
17:75. In that case (if you had been one to forge a lie against Us) We would have made you taste multiple sufferings in this life and multiple sufferings in death, (and) then you would have found for yourself no helper against Us. (But you remained steadfast).
69:44. Had he (- Muhammad) forged and attributed some saying to Us (and said, `This is what Allâh has revealed to me’).
69:45. We would have certainly seized him strongly by the right hand (and so deprived him of all his power),
69:46. And then surely We would have cut off his jugular vein;
69:47. Then none of you could have stopped (Us) from (punishing) him (and thus stood in Our way of dealing justly).
The Messenger is absolved of allegations of “forgery” of the Message:
46:7. When Our clear Messages are recited to them, these disbelievers say with regard to the Truth when it comes to them, `This is an obvious sorcery.’
46:8. Do they say, `He himself has forged this (Qur’ân)?’ Say, `If I have forged it, you have no power to help me in anyway against Allâh, He knows what nonsensical talk you are indulging in. Sufficient is He for a witness between me and you. And He is the Great Protector, the Ever Merciful.’
[The Holy Quran – translated by Allamah Nooruddin]
Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.
How the clergy wanted Sir Syed beheaded
A must read for young members of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement and our opponents.
This article will help readers get a glimpse of decaying condition of Muslims, in every sphere of life, in Indian subcontinent preceding and during times of PM-HMGA.
Copied from ‘Pak Tea House’ blog.
How the clergy wanted Sir Syed beheaded
Published in The Times of India
Arif Mohammed Khan is a former Union minister
Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was the first Muslim voice of reform in India. He emerged on the scene at a time when Indian Muslim society was sunk in obscurantism and inertia and showed no desire to struggle out of its medieval grooves. The unwholesome influence of clergy had made them view modern education as incompatible with and hostile to religion.
The abortive uprising of 1857 and the cleric call to jihad made Muslims target of British wrath and reprisals. Sir Syed as a judicial officer served the government during the crisis but the aftermath of disturbances deeply impacted him.
He wrote: “I reflected about the decadence of the Muslim community, and came to the conclusion that modern education alone is the remedy of the ills they are suffering from. I decided on a strategy to disabuse their minds of strong communal belief that the study of European literature and science is anti-religion and promotes disbelief”.
The objectives of Sir Syed, born in early 19th century (October 17, 1817), were educational and social reforms; he had no desire to dabble in religion. But all his initiatives were opposed in the name of religion.
Describing his dilemma, Sir Syed said: “We were keen to avoid any discussion of religion, but the problem is that our behaviours, social practices and religious beliefs are so mixed up that no discussion of social reform is possible without provoking a religious controversy”. Frustrated with the clergy, he added, “When urged to give up something harmful, they say it has religious merit and when asked to do something positive they assert it is prohibited by religion. So we have no options but discuss the religious context to push our agenda forward”
With this objective, he launched the Mohammedan Social Reformer journal in July 1884. To use his own words, the journal “played crucial role in fighting the fanaticism that has pushed the community into abyss of ignorance”. The journal focused on modern education and social and religious reforms.
The school at Aligarh was launched in 1875. For its success, this project depended wholly on public donations. Sir Syed made notable personal contributions and went overboard in his fund collection drive. He organized lotteries, staged drama and felt no hesitation to visit any place, including red light areas, to collect money. He gratefully acknowledged the help he received and made special mention of Hindus who gave money and material support and did a great favour to the whole (Muslim) community.
The college finally emerged as a University in 1920, 22 years after Sir Syed had breathed his last in 1898. It was a living testimony of the success of Aligarh movement. However, the story shall remain incomplete if no mention is made of the hostility and opposition of the Muslim clergy that Sir Syed faced till he died and still persists in certain quarters.
The intensity of opposition can be understood from the comments of Maulana Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi in his book “Islamiat aur Maghribiat ki Kashmakash”written more than 60 years after Sir Syed’s death. Maulana says: “The education mission of Sir Syed and his advocacy of Western civilization became correlatives and caused apprehensions and doubts in the minds of people. A wave of opposition took hold of the religious circles and his movement met with a simultaneous call for its boycott”
First Sir Syed was targeted when he shared food with the British and defended his action in a signed article. The opposition became fierce during his stay in London. Sir Syed responded through a memorandum saying: “The terrifying call of Kanpur, the lyrical satire of Lucknow, the idle tattle of Agra and Allahabad, the fatwas of Rampur and Bareilly and the snide remarks of holy men of Delhi grieve me not. My heart is overflowing with the idea of welfare of my people and there is no room in it for any anger or rancor”
Conscious of cleric hostility Sir Syed offered not to have any role in matters of religious instruction in the college and invited leading clerics to prepare the syllabus. Maulana Qasim Nanotvi and Maulana Yaqoob of Deoband shot down the proposal saying they cannot associate with an institution which will have Shia students on the campus.
Maulana Hali in his biography of Sir Syed says that 60 maulvis and alims had signed fatwas accusing Sir Syed of disbelief and apostasy. There was total consensus among the Indian clerics, only divine approval was missing. Maulvi Ali Bakhsh did the needful and travelled to Mecca and Medina on the pretext of pilgrimage and secured a fatwa calling for beheading of Sir Syed if he repented not and persisted with his plan to establish the college.
Sir Syed was a visionary who pursued his dream ignoring all opposition and aptly remarked, “I know what they know not and I understand what they understand not”. History has proved that he was right and the clergy, as always, utterly wrong.
Submitted by Bashir.
Chapter 4 Does the sunna abrogate the Koran?
1. Imam Shafi vehemently denied that the Koran had ever abrogated the sunna, or that the sunna had ever abrogated the Koran (see Burton).
2. Imam Shafi argued that the Koran only abrogated the Koran and the sunna only abrogated the sunna (see Burton).
Burton writes: We have heard that the death penalty for adultery allegedly introduced by Muhammad still formed part of the Islamic Law. Shafi’s contemporaries continued to argue, as their teachers had argued, that that is but one instance of the of the abrogation of the Koran by the sunna…..But the stubborn fact remained obvious to everyone with eyes to see : that earlier punishment had been established by the Koran:24:2—
“The adulteress and the adulterer, flog each of them (with) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you from obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement.”
Burton writes: Imam shafi was driven to accept the there were some koranic verses that were no longer in the Koran.
Note: In early Islam all the judges(qazis) that were present in Islamic nations, they ruled based on the Koran. Their day to day modus operandi was based on the Koran and the sunna (this is pre-Bukhari).
The earlier post by Rashid Jahangiri of August 2009 in this blog is repeated below, followed by the reply he has received.
In April 2009 I talked on telephone with Dr. Shabbir Ahmad sahib. We talked about 20 minutes. I thanked him for publishing a rational and modern translation and interpretation of Holy Quran. I specifically informed him that when I present his translation of Holy Quran to fellow Muslims, I don’t get accused of presenting Lahori-Ahmadiyya translation. And how this has made my life easy.
Dr. Shabbir sahib informed me, he has mashAllah converted over 16000 (sixteen thousand) non-Muslims, including couple of members of JihadWatch. I purchased his translation of Holy Quran and couple of other books.
Dr. Shabbir sahib was highly respectful of late Abdul Mannan Omar sahib, Khawaja Kamal Ud Din sahib, and Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib. He was highly appreciative of their works on Holy Quran and Islam. Dr. Shabbir also informed me that he talked to Mannan sahib few years ago.
I asked Dr. Shabbir sahib, in life we see a healthy tree of sweet mangos, which is capable of producing sweet mangos, but its fruit can get infected by insects and is totally wasted. As we see in case of prophet Noah’s son. But it is not possible for a sweet mango to grow on a tree, which produces some other kind of bitter fruit. So, keeping this reasoning, how is it possible that people like Mannan sahib, Kamal ud Din sahib, and Muhammad Ali sahib, towards whom you showed so much respect because of their works on Islam and knew religion so well, they not only get attracted to, rather become staunch followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib of Qadian? Dr. Shabir sahib was quiet and did not answer.
We talked about 1974, 2nd constitutional amendment that declared Ahmadis (both Lahori and Qadiani) a non-Muslim. Dr. shabbir sahib was of opinion that there was no need of this amendment, because it was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib who “first” declared Muslims as kafir so per hadith ‘fatwah takfir’ fell back on him. I informed him that in reality it was about 200 Muslim Ulama in India who issued a joint fatwah declaring Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib a kafir. And Mirza sahib only applied hadith to point out to these opponent ulama that per hadith ‘fatwah takfir’ falls back on them and they subsequently become kafir. Dr. Shabbir sahib was quiet, and did not comment.
Dr. Shabbir sahib brought Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib writings into question.
I replied Mirza sahib had five kinds of audiences, i.e. Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Sufia, and Atheists. So if we keep in our minds to what kind of audiences Mirza sahib is addressing, we are better able to understand him. Unfortunately, Muslim readers do not pay attention, while reading his books i.e. to which he is addressing and that’s were confusion originates. I gave him few examples.
I brought to Dr. Shabbir sahib attention that we see good percentage of Muslims, especially those living in Europe and Americas, are practically following Mirza sahib even if verbally they use abusive words for him. I told him, in my opinion, following 6 were Mirza sahib’s mission:
1- All reciters of Kalama-Shahada are Muslims.
2- No part of Holy Quran, not even a dot, is abrogated.
3- Allah SWT is living God. He has communicated with his chosen ones even after Rasul Allah SAWS. And this will continue.
4- Islam does not allow jihad with sword for its propagation.
5- Isa A.S. is physically dead. And will not return to earth.
6- Yajooj-Majooj and Dajjal is not supernatural animal.
Dr. Shabbir sahib did not object to any of above 6 points.
Dr. Shabir Ahmad wrote ‘Hashish From Qadian’. Dr Zahid Aziz sahib has written an article referring to this book, in ‘The Light—UK edition, May 2009’. See link here.
Based on my conversation with Dr. Shabbir sahib, I very much doubt if he has read Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib’s books. And even if he did, he did not read them carefully. And it is very likely his opinion of Hazrat Mirza sahib is based on his teacher’s opinion. I don’t know, as Shabbir sahib never mentioned to me, but this is what I have heard that he is student of Ghulam Ahmad Pervaiz sahib. And it is known fact that Pervaiz sahib was opponent of Mirza sahib and he has used strong language for him.
I will email this blog post to Dr. Shabbir Ahmad sahib. I would like to read his comments.
On October 11, 2009 Dr. Shabbir Ahmed called to inform publication of his Holy Quran Translation with Tafseer. I requested one copy. In conversation he acknowledged his appreciation of Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi sahib, and Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib. He also informed me he has English Translation of Holy Quran and Bayan Ul Quran by Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib. He expressed his believe that Isa (AS) is buried in Kashmir.
During conversation I explained to Dr. Shabbir sahib reason for HMGA to have believe that Isa (AS) was not fathered by a human, and why Maulana Noor Ud Din sahib and LAM members (unlike Qadiani Jamaat) believe that Isa (AS) was fathered by a human.
Dr. Shabbir sahib also liked my idea to start a project on his website to collect funds to send copies of his Holy Quran Translation with Tafseer to members of US Senate and House of representatives and other politicians in the country. He agreed we need to get at least two “Lord Headley” in US Senate to help US foreign policy to become fair.
I sent him copy of my earlier email with link to my post on LAM blog and Dr. Zahid Aziz sahib’s article in The Light-UK issue of May 2009. He replied to my email:
Dear Dr. Saheb, AA
I read the letter and attachment. Thanks for sending it to me! It is very interesting indeed. Also, that we humans are probably given to divergent views by the Almighty.
5:48 (O Messenger) We have sent to you this Divine Writ, setting forth the truth. It confirms the remaining truth in the earlier scriptures since it is a Watcher over them. So, judge between them by what God has revealed, and do not follow their desires diverging from the truth that has come to you. For each community among you We have appointed certain rites and a traced-out way. If God had willed, He could have made you all one single community. But He decided to let you test yourselves by what (potentials) He has granted you. So, outdo one another in doing good to the society. To God you will all return, and He will then make you understand wherein you differed. [2:101, 2:148, 3:78, 21:92-93, 23:52. Muhaimin = Watcher. Shari’ah = Rites = Usual, diverse trends of a community. Minhaaj = A traced-out way = A set of laws]
I respect Maulvi Muhammad Ali, but never kept any translations before me while I was doing QXP.
Submitted by Rashid.
Fatawa Ka Bazar
(Compilation of Fatawa of Takfir)
Note by Zahid Aziz: This really is a very unpleasant spectacle, of so-called ulama vehemently spouting hatred against fellow-Muslims at the tops of their voices in a most undignified way. They obviously have no realisation that their role should be that of moral leaders in society.