New area: Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and Matters — See Title Page and List of Contents
— latest, 23rd January 2017: Solomon speaking to Ants? – Not too Antsy though!
Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam
This post has been submitted by our learned friend Ikram.
Due to the formatting that this post requires, it is being presented as a pdf file at this link.
Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.
There is too much opposition to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in Pakistan, and because of Pakistanis in other Muslim countries to some extent. This opposition is basically due to political reasons. Starting from Ahraris of Anjuman-e-Ahrar, to Maududis of Jamat-I-Islami, 2nd constitutional amendment to 1973 Pakistani constitution, General Zia’s order XX…
This opposition is so much that even if Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement and Qadiani Jamaat join hands to reverse it, it is impossible. Only Allah can end opposition of HMGA in hearts and minds of Pakistanis and ill-informed Muslims. Allah informed HMGA in revelation:
‘Dunya mein aik nazier aaya, per dunya nay oos ko kabool na kia. Laikan Khuda issay kabool karay gha, aur baray zoorawar humloon say oos ki sachai zahir karay gha’
(A Warner came to the world, but world did not accept him. But Allah will accept him, and with very powerful attacks will manifest his truthfulness).
We witness this everyday in West European and North American countries, where Muslims are forced to adopt ways of HMGA if they want to propagate message of Islam.
In Pakistan occasionally we come across, in electronic and print media, statements where people question 2nd constitutional amendment. This change in attitude is because of global political situation that has forced Muslims to change their attitudes and search for peaceful solutions to religious issues. I’m sure these occasional pleasant draughts in Pakistan are harbingers of winds of change.
Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.
Recently, US educated Pakistani Neuroscientist Dr. Aafia Siddiqi was convicted by a US court in New York City. There were protests all over Pakistan. Pakistani electronic and print media gave it a huge coverage. Many legal, political and religious commentators voiced their opinions. On the Internet many Pakistanis and other Muslims wrote articles against her conviction.
Without going into the merits and demerits of Dr. Aafia Siddiqi’s conviction, I would like the Muslim Ummah particularly of Pakistan, to reflect on their last 125 years behavior. When Pakistanis disagree with some individual or group of people’s OPINION they go to every extent to get that individual and group punished. Pakistani Ummah and their predecessors Indian Muslim Ummah have been doing this by forging frivolous and false cases. After creation of Pakistan this Muslim Ummah of Pakistan considers it justified enacting laws “in service of Islam” to punish those with whom they do not agree; without any regard to justice and fairness. It is unbelievable to see how Pakistani Ummah is at pains when one of their Ummah member is convicted by a non-Muslim Judge. Between 102 and 125 years ago ancestors of today’s Pakistani Ummah tried many times to get one of their Ummah member convicted by a non-Muslim Judge. Just, because they couldn’t defeat him in arguments.
With my little education/training in Forensic Psychiatry, I’m NOT sure if Dr. Aafia Siddiqi is innocent.
Dr. Aafia Siddiqi is lucky she is convicted in a country where, unlike Pakistani Muslim Ummah country i.e. Pakistan, there is a right to appeal and judges do give decisions irrespective of their Ummah political and street pressure.
Let’s hope justice prevails.
P.S. In case some one is wondering whom I’m talking about in the era between 102 and 125 years ago: The person is Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, the Mujaddid of 14th Islamic century.
Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.
February 13, 2010 New York Times article:
Wahabbi Fanatics Reported on the Afghan Frontier Today, February 13, …1872
An image is published: A sequel to the “Note of Warning”
At the end, image says: Insisting with dogged pertinacity upon the dogma of the Prophet, that it is sinful to vield obedience to infidels, the Wahabee fanatics made considerable impression even on the most docile of Indian Mohammedans.
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib’s belief was in contrast to Wahabbi ideology. He was criticized for his allegiance to British rulers, both in his life and after him, even to this day. History is witness there was no militant revolt after 1857 mutiny/ war of independence, until Pakistan and India got freedom in 1947.
This leaves me with two conclusions.
1- Muslims of British India without acknowledging became followers of appointee of Allah, i.e. Mujaddid of 14th Islamic Century.
2- Unseen Divine forces that accompany the appointees of Allah did not let Muslims take militant approach.
It is reported from Lahore that Akhtar-un-Nisa Begum, the last of the sons and daughters of Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Ali, passed away today, 6th February, at Darus Salaam, the Lahore Ahmadiyya centre in Garden Town, Lahore. Inna li-llahi wa inna ilai-hi raajioon. She was 93 years of age.
She was still regularly participating in the activities of the Jama`at. She was a member of the executive committee of the Ahmadiyya Women’s Association and attended their monthly meeting just three days ago. She also attended the Jumua prayers yesterday.
Glancing through pages of Paigham-i-Sulh of the 1930s, one comes across reports of activities of the Young Ahmadi Girls Association. Miss Akhtar-un-Nisa was the moving force behind this organization.
May Allah grant her a high place in Paradise, along with her earlier departed elders, and may He also grant patience and fortitude to the bereaved family to bear this irreparable loss. Ameen.
Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib, Mujaddid of 14th Islamic Century said, (in my words) a time will come when Muslims will be tired of looking at the sky in hope of descent of Isa AS (Jesus).
Dr. Khalid Zaheer, a modern Islamic scholar in Pakistan, is friend of Javed Ahmad Ghamdi sahib. Dr Khalid Zaheer in reply to questions about ‘The Return of Jesus’ has given the same kind of answers that HMGA gave. On his website he answers questions:
In reply to questions based on Ahadith on return of Jesus he writes:
i) All those ahadith were created under the influence of information about Jesus’s return that Christian traditions were mentioning
If a strong Sanad of a Hadis is traced back to the Prophet SAW, it means that the Prophet SAW had indeed uttered those words. The Ahadis I mentioned are classified Sahih, which means that it is a high probablity that the Prophet SAW had said those words and they were not CREATED UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INFORMATION ABOUT JESUS’S RETURN THAT CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS WERE MENTIONING.
ii) They were referring to the metaphorical return of Jesus: the spirit of Islam would be revived close to the judgment day like Jesus revived the spirit of Torah.
If it was metaphorical, then please explain how metaphorical the following Hadis can get:
Isa ibn Maryam will descend in the east of Damascus at the white minaret, donned in two Saffron coloured garments, his hands on the wings of two angels. If he lowers his head, it will drip and when he raises it, those drops will fall down like shining pearls.
[Jami Tirmidhi Hadith 2247, Classifed as Sahih by Allama Albani]
iii) The mention of the arrival of al-Masihuddajjal by the prophet, alaihissalaam, was mistaken by some narrators to be suggesting the arrival of Jesus himself.
Highly un-probable after the above two replies.
If a Hadis or a Subject is not mentioned in Muwatta of Imam Malik, it does not mean that that Subject does not exist at all, because a lot of jurisprudence is derived from other books. And if Imam Malik did not mention Ahadis related to Jesus’s second-coming in his book, there could have been several other reasons. Probably, the Muslims were so aware of those teachings that he did not consider them necessary. Probably he FORGOT to mention them. Probably, he did not obtain an authentic Sanad of those Ahadis yet.
It is an established truth that Ahadis do claim the second-coming of Jesus. Only the Munkireen-e-Hadis can reject this truth.
If one reads several ahadith in Bukhari, all supported by strong asnad, that those who lower their garments beneath ankles are going to enter the hell shouldn’t one believe it? Why should one then accept the condition that it is going to be a case only if such an act is done out of arrogance? Clearly there were other ahadith explaining the true picture but there were many complete ahadith that made those uncompromising statements without any conditions mentioned. Why should one explain a complete hadith whose message is unequivocal.
If one reads several ahadith with reliable asnad that everyone who recites the kalima shall enter the paradise, why should one not believe in it literally and forget about the fact if it applied to hypocrites or not?
What should one do of a hadith like this one that comes from a reliable source: Ibn Umar, a companion, claimed that the prophet, alaihissalaam, mentioned that if ladies cry over a dead body, the deceased gets punished for it. When Aisha, radhiallahu anha, learnt about it, she responded by saying that he misunderstood it; his statement couldn’t be correct because it went against the Qur’an which tells us that none shall share the burden of the other. And she went on to say that the reality of the incident was that a Jew got killed and his relative ladies were crying; the prophet said that while he was getting punished, these ladies were crying over his death. Ibn Umer, may Allah be pleased with him, got the two statements confused. Do we not learn from this incident that we must always see ahadith in the light of the Qur’an?
And what should one do of the two ahadith mentioning the same incident of the arrival of Jibrail, alaihissalaam, in human form when one of them mentioned that the prophet stated that the fact that nobody knew what was in the wombs of mothers except Allah and the other didn’t? Both ahadith appear in Sahih Muslim. The one by Abu Hurairah states that the prophet, alaihissalaam, made the above claim. The other, by Umer, didn’t mention that claim. Should we accept the unscientific statement in one of them which ran contrary to the Qur’an as well or should we accept the more reasonable one that was reported by Umer, may Allah be pleased with him?
And I can go on and on. The point is that it is a mistake to equate hadith with the prophet’s statement. A hadith is a claim and not a certainty. Certainly, there is no reason to reject hadith with sound asnad unless there are evidences against it that are strong enough to justify it. Ofcourse, one can disagree on whether a reason is good enough to reject a hadith or not.
If we can call the person who rejects a hadith or a group of them because to him those ahadith are against the understanding of the Qur’an a Munkire Hadith, what would we call the person who rejects a clear meaning of the Qur’an because he believes that there are ahadith that were suggesting a meaning different from the Qur’an?
I have not even clearly rejected the ahadith on the return of Jesus. All I am suggesting is that the idea is contrary to the Qur’anic message. I still want to accept the ahadith, that’s why I offered a suggestion that was meant to explain the ahadith without compromising the meanings of the Qur’an. I am sure your criticism against my explanation carries weight. But what else can I do? Should I compromise the message of the Qur’an?
Let us also not be under any mistake about the fact that all ahadith were not known to all Muslims in the first two centuries of the Muslim calendar while Qur’an and sunnah (like Salat, Zakat etc) were; not even to the scholars. That’s why Imam Abu Hanifa (80-150 H) was accused of not knowing many ahadith. Even companions of the prophet didn’t know all of them. In fact one can say with complete authority that there wasn’t a single companion who knew all ahadith. Then there is confusion and about the meanings of some ahadith some of which I have referred to above. How can such a source of knowledge be a part of the original message of Islam which not all Muslims fully knew? Hadith is an explanation of the original message of Islam that we find in the Qur’an and sunnah and as such it cannot go against the clear verdicts of the two sources. There can be no new belief nor an injunction derived from ahadith. However ahadith provide details and explanations of what has already been mentioned in the Qur’an and sunnah or in the human nature.
Let me also clarify that our dispute is not regarding the question as to who loves the prophet, alaihissalaam, more. In fact, a person who loves the prophet can adopt a stance that we should be extra careful in accepting information about the him. The dispute in reality is about the issue as to what measures were adopted by the Almighty to deliver the message of Islam to the mankind. We insirt that God adopted foolproof measures to communicate His message to the mankind in thwe form of Qur’an ands sunnah. Others are insisting that the work done by humans like Bukhari, Muslim was also so significant that it must be accepted by Muslims as a part of the original Islam. We believe that the scholars who compiled ahadith were great; we salute them. But they were humans. What they have gathered is not an undiluted message of Islam. They have attempted to collect information aboiut the explanation fo the original Islam. They have done a great job. However, they were humans and therefore the end result of their efforts were not fault free.
The ahadith on beard you have mentioned are incomplete. There are more facts about the issue than you have mentioned. We need to be first clear about the status of ahadith.
Submitted by Bashir.
An excerpt from Todd Lawson’s book, “The Crucifiction and the Koran” (pg. 44&45)
Thousands of exegetical traditions are ascribed to him by both Sunni and Shi”i authors. The Tanwir al-miqbas is a short tafsir ascribed to Ibn Abbas, and like works attributed to other early figures in Islamic history, carries many questions of authenticity. Indeed, the current debate on whether or not it is accurate to speak of tafsir as an early activity casts a certain amount of perplexity over any discussion of the subject. For several reasons, the traditions associated with Ibn Abbas are generally thought to be untrustworthy, at least as far as the ascription is concerned. As observed by Smith:
One issue that must be dealt with by anyone undertaking a specific study of this question is why so little of the material concerning specific passages of the Qur’an attributed to this man by later writers of tafsir is not to be found, or is found in different form, in his own (i.e. the work at hand) tafisr…one hopes that in the near future we may be able to discuss these questions armed with fewer opinions and more facts. (Smith, pg. 42)
Fortunately, one fact that has recently come to light: The Tanwir al miqbas is an abridgment by Al-Dinawari (d. 308/920) of perhaps a Muhammad al Kalbi (d. 146/763) tafsir. (See Andrew Rippin, “The Exegetical works ascribed to Ibn Abbas…………”)
Hence it is with a certain amount of abdication that the following discussion is related to Ibn Abbas: rather we should associate it with al-Kalbi, who, nevertheless cited much on the authority of Ibn Abbas. (As is evidenced in the work at hand, Abu Tahir Muhammad ibn Yacub al Firuzabadi, tanwir al miqbas min tafsir ibn abbas, 2nd edition)
About five years ago when I was collecting material about the Hajj of Lord Headley in 1923, in the company of Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, I obtained some British government documents from the National Archives of the UK. Visit this link at the Woking Muslim Mission website to read them.
On the way to the Hajj they passed through Egypt. One document, marked “Secret”, is the political intelligence assessment of their visit. See under heading “6. Secret note from High Commission in Egypt”. And what was the intelligence assessment? It was that Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din:
“is a particularly active Islamic propagandist”.
Then, under “7. Report from Lord Allenby to Lord Curzon”, there is the report sent by the British ambassador in Egypt, the famous general Lord Allenby, to the British Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon (earlier viceroy of India). In it, Allenby writes:
“Lord Headley showed himself as an ardent Moslem and the speeches which he made revealed great devotion to the Mohammedan faith and attracted considerable attention.”
So that’s what British intelligence concluded about them!