Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam
I am not here expressing any view on the validity or otherwise of man-made climate change theories, but I found the following lines interesting at the start of an article by Ian Plimer, Professor of Geology at the University of Adelaide:
“Perhaps it is comforting to believe that science is an absolute discipline: immune from fads, fanatics and frauds, untroubled by extremists, evangelists, glory-seekers and bigots. But it is not. It is as vulnerable to the vested interests and biases of its practitioners as any corporate entity or political party.
Uncomfortable truths are suppressed and dubious evidence given undue prominence.
Nowhere is this more worryingly obvious than in the science of climate change. As a field of research it has become so heavily politicised that opposing views are spoken of in terms of religion: believers and non-believers, with the accent being on the righteousness of the former and the benighted state of the latter.”
Human beings are as fallible and as influenced by their preconceptions, upbringing, egos and desires, in the field of rational science as in any other field such as religion.
Submitted by Usman.
It is a well known phenomenon that in Pakistan whenever any person or party desires to discredit a public figure (usually for political motives) one of the ways of doing so is to declare him/her a “Qadiani” or at least show his/her connections to the “Qadianis”. I think even General Zia was once accused of this (perhaps explaining his zeal to enact anti-Ahmadi legislations). Now a new trend has emerged, whereby allegedly corrupt politicians are now playing the “Qadiani” card to save themselves.
A senior PPP leader and a sitting minister was recently accused of taking Rs. 35 million in bribes (www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=25765).
Note that the accusation was made under oath in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Now in any civilized country a minister, if faced with such a shameful scenario, would immediately resign and officially clear his name before even daring to run for public office again. But in Pakistan the said minister has promptly declared that this is all a “Qadiani” conspiracy (www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=25800), because he is apparently a major “hurdle” in the “nefarious designs” of the Qadianis. He then elaborates that this has something to do with his pro-blasphemy law stance (notorious for resulting in persecution of minorities including murder) and him being “Wakeel-e-Khatm-e-Nabuwat and Aseer-e-Namus-e-Khatm-e-Rusul”.
In the end he says that he is ready to “offer any sacrifice for the defence of Islamic status of the constitution and honour of the holy Prophet (PBUH) and such tactics could not deprive him of this honour.” It is actually quite sad that a Govt. Minister accused of financial corruption (in a poor country which has one of the highest rates of child mortality this is a horrendous and inhuman crime) is linking the accusation to an attack on the honour of The Holy Prophet (pbuh). May Allah have mercy. Some one famous said (I can’t remember who): “Religion is the last refuge of the scoundrel”!
I also look at this as another “Zour avar humla”; that a person who is “Wakeel-e-Khatm-e-Nabuwat” is being publicly exposed as corrupt and dishonest.
Submitted by Usman.
I would like to refer to the following news story appearing in The Daily Times News Paper (25 Nov 2009) in Pakistan titled “Roundtable conference on extremism in Pakistan: Extremism in S Asia rooted in British imperialism”
Attention is drawn to the title and the following excerpt (my emphasis):
“Noted historian Prof Dr Naeem Qureshi chaired the roundtable, which was attended by Dr Tahir Amin, Dr Tariq Rahman, Dr Ayesha Siddiqa, Dr Nazir Hussain, Simbal Khan and Shabana Fayyaz, Dr Razia Sultana of the QAU’s History Department and Zafarullah Khan of the CCE as panelists …
… Dr Qureshi traced the roots of extremism in South Asia to the advent of British imperial rule and the Muslims’ reaction to foreign rule; some sought to accommodate modernity, while others repudiated it…”
It appears that some experts are now admitting that the Muslim reaction of the time in India to British Rule is the root cause of the current extremism causing havoc in the region. We also know that at that time the two most prominent critics of the Muslim reaction were Sir Syed (embracing modernity) and HMGA (invalidating an armed Jihad against the British). Of these gentlemen I believe HMGA was the one who based his arguments on the Quran itself.
In any case both of them were branded heretics for saying what they said. HMGA is still accused of being a “British” agent for speaking contrary to the Muslim reaction to British rule. Although the quoted article mentions “embracing modernity”; in the context of religious extremism, it is not difficult to see that it is the Jihad factor which has played a key role as far as being the root cause of extremism is concerned. Readers are referred to “English Govt. and Jihad” by HMGA for an eye opening and prophetical (disclaimer: prophetical in the linguistic sense of foretelling a future event) expose of the subject. Unfortunately the Muslims of subcontinent rejected his words then, and are now being forced to admit the veracity of those very words by current events.
I think HMGA said (perhaps Dr. ZA can give a reference) where Allah revealed that he will show HMGA’a truthfulness with “forceful aggression” (“zour avar humlon saiy”).
Note by Zahid Aziz:
Usman is referring to a revelation of the Promised Messiah: “A warner came into the world, but the world did not accept him. But Allah will accept him and will show his truth zor avar humlon say (lit. very strong attacks)”. The “attacks” could be of any kind. They may even be not in support of him as such, but general violence in the world. For example, the jihadist attacks of today have shown his truth by making even his opponent Muslim Ulama declare the same concept of jihad as he presented. After attacks in U.K., the anti-Ahmadiyya Ulama in U.K. declared the loyalty of British Muslims to the British government (something they condemned HMGA for).
Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.
HMGA was perhaps the first Muslim to initiate Interfaith dialogue in modern times. Especially when Christian West and Muslim East started to interact in last couple of hundred years. He started Interfaith Dialogue in Qadian and then the famous occasion in Lahore in 1896 when he wrote ‘The teachings of Islam’.
In post 9/11/ era his tradition has gained some momentum. Muslims in general have started following HMGA’s one more tradition. Check this New York Times article:
3 Clergymen Tell How Differences of Faith Led to Friendship
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: November 23, 2009
Note: Please read also this lengthy article in The Light, U.K., about Interfaith dialogue and the Ahmadiyya Movement’s role in it, from page 1 to 7.
Submitted by Ikram.
Excerpt: “..reformists who reinterpret traditional Islamic texts have also become the target of blasphemy accusations.” … “Religions as such do not have rights _ it’s people who have rights,”
Personally, I believe Muhammad PBUH as a figure in history does not need any such laws. He did not need them during his lifetime or even now. Muhammad is not Islam, but he is a Muslim, though a very important one. For secularists and opponents of Islam, it is difficult to criticize a non-tangible Allah, but Muhammad as a human is an easy target whom they choose to vent upon. But such a criticism is a blessing for Islam as it opens up discussions about Muhammad, about Islam then and now, sets up Jesus of Bible for equal analyses and mythology of Christianity for review – all possible only under free speech.
In the end who benefits from such discussion under free speech? Only and only Islam and Muhammad. It is only Mullah mentality that is scared of blasphemy as they practice a life of polytheism where they worship their religion and religious relics whether human or non-human. Ideas and revival mean nothing to them.
Wikipedia: “The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History” – 1. Muhammad – The central human figure of Islam, regarded by Muslims as the messenger and last prophet of God. Active as a social reformer, diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, and military leader.
Of course Muhammad was just not a “Holy man” but also as a social reformer, diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, and military leader. Such an active role and his performance will generate criticism. Muslims should welcome any such criticism. Any discussion about him only strengthens Muhammad and Islam.
Submitted by Ikram.
“MQM backs ANP proposal to change Pakistan name” from Islamic Republic
to People’s Republic.
I am for the change for the mere fact that for over sixty years, the
literal implementation of “Islamic Republic …” has been anything but
“LA” has asked:
“I would like to know your movement’s view on Evolution.”
We believe that each person should be free to reach his own conclusion. How life originated and how human beings came into their present form does not affect the conduct of our lives in any way. There have been Muslim scholars from centuries ago who held that Adam was not the first man. The view that a human being in the present form was suddenly created cannot be conclusively established from the Quran. There are passages in the Quran on the basis of which you can argue that life evolved.
The Quran says (29:20): “Say: Travel in the earth then see how He makes the first creation, then Allah creates the latter creation.”
It would seem that Charles Darwin did just this. He travelled in the earth, trying to learn how the “first creation” and the “latter creation” were created.
- Zahid Aziz
Submitted by Omar.
Excerpts taken from Maulana Muhammad Ali’s book The Promised Messiah (English Rendering by Sheikh Muhammad Tufail Sahib)
[All bold emphasis mine]
1. Assessing the truth of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s mission:
There are many people who are bent on opposing Mirza Ghulam Ahmad without thinking of, or understanding the true nature of his mission. They never take the time to ponder whether he was beneficial or not to the cause of Islam and Muslims in general. Remember well, that the question of good and bad is a question of actual facts and not one of religious beliefs and opinions. At the moment, I do not want to discuss what the claims of Hazrat Mirza are and whether they are in any way opposed to the beliefs of the Ahl-i Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah. This question can only be raised when there exists a doubt about it. When he has declared not only once, but scores of times that his beliefs are the same as the beliefs of the Ahl-i Sunnah, the question of discussing these beliefs does not arise. Thus the point at issue is only whether Hazrat Mirza has been harmful or beneficial to the cause of Islam and the Muslim world.
2. He did not create dissension among Muslims:
In what ways has he been harmful? The greatest charge attributed to him is that he has damaged the solidarity of Islam by creating a new sect. This is even asserted by intelligent Muslims, but they never take the trouble to look into the facts. Did unity among Muslims exist before him? The fact is that Muslims were fighting against one another over things of minor importance, thus sundering and disrupting the unity of Islam. The condition in India was such that cases of quarrels over the saying of Amin in a loud or low voice were brought before the High Court. Pronouncing one another as unbelievers (kafir) was the main occupation of the Muslim `ulama. Where was the unity of Islam which was damaged by Hazrat Mirza? Perhaps somebody can lay the charge that with the appearance of Hazrat Mirza on the scene, the differences among Muslims were further augmented. If he had, in fact, drawn the attention of his followers to the trivial matters over which Muslims were already fighting, then, this new sect or new Movement should undoubtedly be blamed for expanding the dissension among Muslims. But in spite of this, a storm of opposition was raised against the claims of Hazrat Mirza and pronouncements of heresy were issued against him and a lot of his time was wasted in clarifying his position. Still, he turned the greater part of the activities of his followers towards defending and propagating the message of Islam in India and abroad. He wished the ulama were patient with him for some time and see whether his mission was for the good of Islam or not, and if it damaged the interest of Islam, they would have been justified in their campaign against him, but no one really listened to him. In spite of all that, he produced valuable literature about Christianity and the Arya Samaj – and this was extensively used even by his opponents for the defence of Islam against the powerful onslaughts of the Christians and the Arya Samajists.
Another contemporary movement among the Muslims which came into existence at the same time was that of the Ahl-i Quran (People of the Quran). As this movement was not based on the Quranic verse, He sends down angels with revelation by His command on whom He pleases of His servants (16:2), therefore all its energy was spent on the minor internal problems in which Muslims were already deeply engrossed. If it is said that this movement of the Ahl-i Quran, in fact, increased the existing dissension among Muslims, it would be nearer to the truth. But a movement which was particularly made the target of attacks by the ulama of Islam and did their best to destroy it completely, was a movement which, in fact, became the source of strengthening the cause of Islam. Instead of entangling itself in internal skirmishes, it stood in defence of Islam against its external foes. To say that this Movement has enlarged the gulf of dissension among Muslims is to close one’s eyes to relevant facts. The day all Muslim sects unite against the foes of Islam and spend their time and energy in the defence and propagation of Islam, as Ahmadis have done, dissension in Islam will disappear. Hazrat Mirza revived the principle that if there are ninety-nine signs of disbelief (kufr) in a person and only one indication of Islam, that person should still be considered a Muslim. This has laid down a solid foundation for the unity of Islam. If this principle is accepted by Muslims, it will have far-reaching effects on them and will give back to them their lost power and glory.
Some people, by neglecting the distinction between sectarianism and difference of opinion, regard all differences of opinion as an attempt at creating disharmony and discord in Islam. The Quran says:
As for those who split up their religion and became sects, thou hast no concern with them (6:160).
The meaning of splitting up the unity of religion and becoming divided into sects is obvious, but some people have a wrong understanding of this verse. It does not and could not mean that Muslims should not differ with one another in any respect. It was, however, not surprising to find differences of opinion in a nation that was spread all over the world. The Holy Prophet had declared difference of opinion to be a mercy for his ummah, which shows that in difference is also hidden the secret of the progress of the ummah. Difference only comes into existence by the expression of an opinion which in turn helps to clarify and improve the intellectual and mental faculties of a person. Islam advocates unity, but unity in the principles of religion. In other matters in Islam, there is wide scope for differences. Becoming divided into sects and having differences of opinion are not one and the same thing. Sectarianism is a curse but difference of opinion is a blessing. The companions of the Holy Prophet themselves differed on certain questions although the Quran was revealed in their presence, and the words of the Holy Prophet reached their ears and they were direct recipients of spiritual blessings from him.
3. What is Sectarianism?:
The Kharijites  were the first who were responsible for the creation of sects in Islam. There have been reports in which it has clearly been mentioned about them that they shattered the solidarity of Muslims, not because they differed with the companions of the Holy Prophet on some matters, for difference existed among the companions also, but because it was they who started takfir (pronouncement of unbelief) among Muslims. At that time, Hazrat `Ali and Hazrat Mu’awiyah were engaged in a battle. The Kharijites sided with `Ali but they demanded that `Ali should declare Mu’awiyah and his collaborators kafirs (unbelievers) and outside the pale of Islam. Hazrat `Ali refused to do so and clearly said:
“They are also our brothers who have revolted against us; we do not declare them unbelievers or transgressors (fasiqs).
If some thought is given to the verses of the Quran on this point, it would be clear that Muslims have been forbidden from two things; these are, from becoming divided into sects and from splitting up the religion. Both of these are the result of takfir. Any group that declares the other to be kafir (perhaps that group is greater in number and calls itself the greatest group among Muslims), when it indulges in the takfir of the professors in the Kalimah (there is but One God and Muhammad is His Messenger), has indeed created divisions in the ranks of Islam and has destroyed the basis on which Muslims could unite. When the essence of religion is confined to a few problems in which one group differs with the other, and the principles of faith are completely neglected, this is how the religion is split. The result is that all one’s energy is wasted on matters of peripheral importance. The parties are so engaged in such trivial differences that nobody cares whether the foundation of faith itself is being destroyed. The basis of sectarianism is, therefore, the pronouncement of unbelief (takfir) against Muslims. The sad aspect of the story is that when people start condemning one another over minor differences, the strength of the nation becomes weak. Power which ought to have been used for the progress of Islam is frittered away in trying to decry one another.
When the Quran laid the great foundation of Islamic brotherhood and stated: Innamal mu’minuna ikhwatun (Verily the believers are brethren – 49:10), it did not overlook the possibility of the rise of honest differences among Muslims. At the same place it was pointed out that if two parties of the believers quarrel, make peace between them (49:9). Now, both the contending parties have been considered believers here. This is the lesson which Muslims have forgotten today. The tolerance which Muslims were expected to show towards the followers of other religions should have been observed to a greater extent among themselves. They ought to have learnt to respect the ideas of others and to tolerate differences of opinion among themselves. But their present condition is such that the moment a person differs from them on any point he is immediately declared to be an unbeliever and a heretic. To torture and molest him in all possible ways is regarded as a deed of great virtue. The main problem is not that among Muslims there are people who differ in their opinions, which is, however, one of the essential requisites for the progress of Islam, but that Muslims cannot tolerate honest difference of opinion. On the other hand, the companions of the Holy Prophet showed great broadmindedness regarding the diversity of views among themselves.
If, however, a people differ with other people on some matters and they prefer a different opinion, this cannot be called sectarianism. When on account of this difference, one brother Muslim is declared an unbeliever and is subjected to persecution, which is mistakenly thought to be a meritorious deed and a source of great reward (thawab), it is then that the evils of sectarianism take root in a society. A person is not guilty of sectarianism when, having complete faith in the Kalimah and the Quran as the Word of God, he considers some of the ideas or customs and habits of Muslims as being against the Quran and Hadith. If this is sectarianism, then the scope for the reformation of Muslims will be closed. The day when Muslims are delivered from the curse of takfir, the day when they cease making plans for destroying one another, their differences will indeed be a blessing in disguise.
 Literally means “those who went out.” Kharijites were members of the earliest of the religious sects of Islam which rose during the time of Hazrat `Ali, the fourth Khalifah. They were known for their fanaticism, extremist proclamations and terrorist actions. They branded everyone who disagreed with their point of view an infidel and outside the pale of Islam. (SMT)
Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.
Akbar raises a few objections:
1- Claimant of Mujaddidiyat should NOT claim, rather people should call him. I guess his understanding is that if Governor of a province or state when gets appointed by King or president, he should NOT acknowledge it rather wait for people to send him mercy petitions and other documents for his signatures. What if a false person claims to be a Governor or his few friends start calling him governor… shouldn’t king or president take action against such con artist, and punish him? Is Akbar going to accept any such con artist as his governor?
2- He objects why HMGA was NOT informed Isaa AS has died when he was appointed Mujaddid. I wonder if he knows there are many other Mujjaddids before him who were not informed all their lives that Isaa AS has died.
3- He seems to have objection why HMGA made different claims and at different times. He does not realize that HMGA made only one claim of appointment i.e. Mujaddid of 14th Islamic century. Claim of messenger, just like Rasul Allah SAWS is a lie fabricated against him. Claim of Mahdi is not an appointment claim.
4- He objects why HMGA did not publish 50 volumes of Barahin-Ahmadiyya and only published 5 volumes. Akbar very conveniently forgets to mention HMGA published so much other material and books, he was involved in discussions etc and NEVER rested or wasted his time. He forgets to mention that how much of his time was wasted by his detractors and opponent Mullahs in India. Regarding money that was donated to him for Barahein-Ahmadiyya publication. All that money was used in publication of this book. And much more was used in preaching of Islam. Akbar hid the fact that when HMGA passed away his children and wife depended on Ahmadiyya Movement for their survival.
HMGA did NOT keep any money for himself or his family.
5- He hid the fact that HMGA books, many of them translated are available online on Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement websites. But he uses Qadianis website as punching bag.
6- He talks about his problems with Qadiani jamaat, but attacks HMGA. Just the way atheists who have left Christianity had problems with Christian church and doctrines and instead attack Jesus. He is happy leaving Qadiani jamaat, but is hiding the fact that he is NOT leaving qadiani belief of Isaa AS death. He knows if he makes mistake of telling his belief, he will kicked back by his “new” religion followers.
7- Just like any opponent of Rasul Allah SAWS who are unable to appreciate his mission, start making false allegations on his character, Akbar did the same with HMGA.
8- He stated the doctrines of Qadiani jamaat khalifa 2 and his brother and accused HMGA of making them. He accuses HMGA for prohibiting his movement people from praying behind other Muslims, whereas fact is that HMGA himself prayed behind other Muslims e.g. Jamia Mosque, Delhi. He accuses HMGA for prohibiting his movement people from marrying other Muslims, where as fact is that he attended marriage ceremonies and Nikah (marriage sermon) was conducted by Maulana Noor Ud Din when Ahmadi girl was married to non-Ahmadi Muslims, e.g. two sisters one got married to HMGA’s son Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and other to a non-Ahmadi.
I wish this Iqra TV program invites Dr. Zahid Aziz to get Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement point of view.
Here are links to 8 part videos of this program on you tube:
Rashid Jahangiri has informed us in a comment elsewhere on this blog that Shahid Kamal Ahmad in his appearance on Iqra TV accused Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib of “cursing” 1000 times in a book in Arabic, and Rashid asked: I will be thankful if Dr. Zahid Aziz or someone else can tell us context of these “1000 curses”.
It is the accuser who should provide details of his accusation. For example, the prosecution in a murder case cannot present the case by saying: “The accused has committed murder, but we don’t know who he murdered, when he committed the murder, where he did it and why he did it”!
Shahid Kamal Ahmad should show us the place where Hazrat Mirza sahib wrote “curse” a thousand times. We will then demand that he present just twenty lines of the preceding Urdu text and twelve lines of following Urdu text, and declare that according to his present beliefs as a Muslim the persons mentioned in that text are innocent and do not deserve curse.