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
Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.
Rind Malik, a Canada based Qadiani has sent me a link to youtube video in which two Qadianis make effort to control damage caused by Qadiani Khalifa 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad replies in 1974 Pakistan National Assembly Special Committee.
Both participants in the program very easily forgot to answer questions raised by myself in the following link. These Qadianis feel no shame in beating around the bush and not commenting on their QK3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad replies.
In the beginning minutes of youtube video participants made an effort to paint the picture of Qadianis as a peaceful citizens of Pakistan. This is exactly opposite to what Qadianis were in the days leading to Rabwah Railway Station incident in which Qadianis as preplanned operation assaulted the Nishtar Medical College students on their return from excursion tour of Northern Pakistan.
Professor Hibbatul-Manan-Omar (alias Khalid Omar), Ph.D son of Abdul Manan Omar sahib and grandson of Khalifa-tul-Massih Hazart Maulana Noor-ud-Din RA, is currently professor of Business at Goldey-Beacom College, Wilmington, DE. http://www.gbc.edu Professor Hibbi Omar profile on college website:http://www.gbc.edu/faculty/omar/index.html
Professor Hibbi Omar was engineering student in UET (University of Engineering and Technology), Lahore in 1974. He personally narrated to me in detail, in the days before Rabwah Railway Station incident, Mirza Tahir Ahmad, who later became Qadiani Khalifa 4, visited UET and addressed Qadiani students in the university. Mirza Tahir Ahmad did not know about him and he was also in that gathering. In fact it was Professor Hibbi Omar who recited Holy Quran in the start of meeting. Anyways, in meeting Mirza Tahir Ahmad went over the plan in which operation was to be conducted by Qadiani students, in which they were to wear turbans (like worn by Qadiani Khalifa 3,4, 5) carry 303 rifles, and containers of gasoline (patrol), run on two sides of street in famous market Anarkali Bazaar, Lahore and torch the bazaar. For whatever reasons operation was not put into action, but the fact remains that Qadianis were NOT peaceful citizens of Pakistan as the following youtube video by two Qadianis try to convey.
Submitted by Ikram.
Our message to the World Economic Forum at Davos and our answer to Oxfam
Just before the Davos World Economic Forum (link) annual summit meeting on January 22-24, 2014, Oxfam has come out with a report (see link) which concludes that “The 85 richest people own the same wealth as the 3.5 billion poorest people.” The report in its summary states:
In November 2013, the World Economic Forum released its ‘Outlook on the Global Agenda 2014’, in which it ranked widening income disparities as the second greatest worldwide risk in the coming 12 to 18 months. Based on those surveyed, inequality is ‘impacting social stability within countries and threatening security on a global scale.’ Oxfam shares its analysis, and wants to see the 2014 World Economic Forum make the commitments needed to counter the growing tide of inequality. Some economic inequality is essential to drive growth and progress, rewarding those with talent, hard earned skills, and the ambition to innovate and take entrepreneurial risks. However, the extreme levels of wealth concentration occurring today threaten to exclude hundreds of millions of people from realizing the benefits of their talents and hard work.
Extreme economic inequality is damaging and worrying for many reasons: it is morally questionable; it can have negative impacts on economic growth and poverty reduction; and it can multiply social problems. It compounds other inequalities, such as those between women and men. In many countries, extreme economic inequality is worrying because of the pernicious impact that wealth concentrations can have on equal political representation. When wealth captures government policymaking, the rules bend to favor the rich, often to the detriment of everyone else. The consequences include the erosion of democratic governance, the pulling apart of social cohesion, and the vanishing of equal opportunities for all. Unless bold political solutions are instituted to curb the influence of wealth on politics, governments will work for the interests of the rich, while economic and political inequalities continue to rise. As US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, ‘We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we cannot have both.’
Oxfam is concerned that, left unchecked, the effects are potentially immutable, and will lead to ‘opportunity capture’ – in which the lowest tax rates, the best education, and the best healthcare are claimed by the children of the rich. This creates dynamic and mutually reinforcing cycles of advantage that are transmitted across generations.
Given the scale of rising wealth concentrations, opportunity capture and unequal political representation are a serious and worrying trend. For instance:
* Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population.
* The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.
* The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world.
* Seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the last 30 years.
* The richest one percent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for which we have data between 1980 and 2012.
* In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer.
This massive concentration of economic resources in the hands of fewer people presents a significant threat to inclusive political and economic systems. Instead of moving forward together, people are increasingly separated by economic and political power, inevitably heightening social tensions and increasing the risk of societal breakdown.
Oxfam’s polling from across the world captures the belief of many that laws and regulations are now designed to benefit the rich. A survey in six countries (Spain, Brazil, India, South Africa, the UK and the US) showed that a majority of people believe that laws are skewed in favor of the rich – in Spain eight out of 10 people agreed with this statement. Another recent Oxfam poll of low-wage earners in the US reveals that 65 percent believe that Congress passes laws that predominantly benefit the wealthy.
The impact of political capture is striking. Rich and poor countries alike are affected. Financial deregulation, skewed tax systems and rules facilitating evasion, austerity economics, policies that disproportionately harm women, and captured oil and mineral revenues are all examples given in this paper. The short cases included are each intended to offer a sense of how political capture produces ill-gotten wealth, which perpetuates economic inequality.
This dangerous trend can be reversed. The good news is that there are clear examples of success, both historical and current. The US and Europe in the three decades after World War II reduced inequality while growing prosperous. Latin America has significantly reduced inequality in the last decade – through more progressive taxation, public services, social protection and decent work. Central to this progress has been popular politics that represent the majority, instead of being captured by a tiny minority. This has benefited all, both rich and poor.
The report then makes the following recommendations which essentially are a pipedream in current economic mind set, i.e. Capitalism. The recommendations are no more than a wish list and without any ideological basis:
Those gathered at Davos for the World Economic Forum have the power to turn around the rapid increase in inequality. Oxfam is calling on them to pledge that they will:
* Not dodge taxes in their own countries or in countries where they invest and operate, by using tax havens;
* Not use their economic wealth to seek political favors that undermine the democratic will of their fellow citizens;
* Make public all the investments in companies and trusts for which they are the ultimate beneficial owners;
* Support progressive taxation on wealth and income;
* Challenge governments to use their tax revenue to provide universal healthcare, education and social protection for citizens;
* Demand a living wage in all the companies they own or control;
* Challenge other economic elites to join them in these pledges.
Oxfam has recommended policies in multiple contexts to strengthen the political representation of the poor and middle classes to achieve greater equity. These policies include:
* A global goal to end extreme economic inequality in every country. This should be a major element of the post-2015 framework, including consistent monitoring in every country of the share of wealth going to the richest one percent.
* Stronger regulation of markets to promote sustainable and equitable growth; and
* Curbing the power of the rich to influence political processes and policies that best suit their interests.
The particular combination of policies required to reverse rising economic inequalities should be tailored to each national context. But developing and developed countries that have successfully reduced economic inequality provide some suggested starting points, notably:
* Cracking down on financial secrecy and tax dodging;
* Redistributive transfers; and strengthening of social protection schemes;
* Investment in universal access to healthcare and education;
* Progressive taxation;
* Strengthening wage floors and worker rights;
* Removing the barriers to equal rights and opportunities for women.
If we do the math, on the average each of the richest has more in his pocket than almost 42 million poor combined (to be exact 41,176,470.59). Further, on its page 9, the report states:
According to Credit Suisse, 10 percent of the global population holds 86 percent of all the assets in the world, while the poorest 70 percent (more than 3 billion adults) hold just 3 percent. By some measure, the riches of billionaires are now unparalleled in history. The Mexican Carlos Slim, owner of large monopolies in Mexico and elsewhere, could pay the yearly wages of 440,000 Mexicans with income derived from his wealth.
The report brings to light the failure of Capitalism for humanity. Capitalism was sold in the name of a common man but was aimed for exploitation by a few because fundamentally moral compunctions are anti-Capitalistic. The recommendations of the report are for sure to fall on deaf ears for rich to voluntarily give up their possessions, or pay their fair share of taxes, as there is no incentive for them to do so. The system of government in Capitalism is fundamentally a rigged system. These riches are built upon the back bone of compound interest in banking systems and the speculations on the Wall Street, which the rich thrive on and ironically the poor are made to believe and depend upon. Obamas, Camerons and Merkels are in place only because of the same very 'special interests' to begin with that the said report is trying to mollify. On the other hand, Vatican by its core divine mandate has no economic policy to offer; rather it is too busy building its own coffers by selling God. Communism has already proved itself to be a failed experiment. China turned out to be more capitalistic than what Capitalism envisioned for itself. Gandhis and Martin Luther Kings may now try to circle the globe as many times they may want with their peaceful marches, but that will not make the 85 to give up that they believe to have acquired legally, and why should they? Even If these 85 are removed, there are many more waiting in the wings to replace them as the speculative engines of the world economic system are deeply rigged to keep the greed flowing.
What options does the world population have, including the richest 85, to get away from this moral precipice that societies are already falling over? How can the world stop digging the hole, which is only getting deeper with each passing second? Europe has been the breeding ground of isms, Catholicism, Colonialism, Fascism, Nazism, Racism, Communism to count a few. Each of them literally left millions dead in its wake. The latest and greatest surviving ism, the Capitalism in only surviving a little longer and this report is one of its early obituaries. In the words of Gordon Gecko (the character in the movie, Wall Street, link) – Greed is Good. To put it differently, Greed is the God of Capitalism. All this was highlighted in a weekly newspaper in earlier part of last century:
“The West may rightly be described as a continent of “isms”. Capitalism, Socialism, Bolshevism, Facism, Communism — these are the so many manifestations of a restless soul seeking after some true solution of a social system…Europe in quest of a social order has tried so many isms, each having landed it in deeper social bogs. Will it not give a trial to the one “ism” that sprang from the soil of Arabia and which combines all that is best and is free from all that is evil in all the “isms” it has so far tried, viz., Islamism?” [The Light, Lahore India, 8 April 1933 – link]
The above report was preemptively discussed and solutions provided for by Maulana Muhammad Ali in his book – “The New World Order” (Urdu: 1942, English: 1944 – link) that gives a fundamental correction to economic system that the world is only un-proud of now. This book is our message to the World Economic Forum and our answer to Oxfam.
P.S. The said report specifically mentions rigged economic systems of India (page 13) and Pakistan (page 14).
I refer Blog readers to this latest interesting addition on ahmadiyya.org, of the above title, which is highly relevant today. See link.
It is reported in the Express Tribune (see link) that ex-President Pervez Musharraf's legal team "has actually challenged the authenticity of the 1973 Constitution that the former army chief is facing trial for abrogating, subverting and suspending." Their argument is given as follows:
"The argument here is that the promulgation of the document that we know and treat as the Constitution is a mere act of parliament and nothing more. Ostensibly, the reason being given is that the 1973 Constitution was passed only by the West Pakistan Assembly – ie, what was left of the combined Constituent Assembly of East and West Pakistan elected originally in 1970. If one follows this argument, after these elections, the Eastern Wing, along with half the assembly, seceded to become Bangladesh in 1971, but the West Pakistan parliamentarians remained in place. And though they remained in place, the basis of their election was the 1970 polls – and based on that, they numbered only half of the assembly.
Moreover, Musharraf contends that a majority of the members of the constituent assembly did not participate in the framing of the interim constitution of 1972 and the present “1973 Constitution”.
Hence, it is argued, the document (what we regard as the constitution) is an act of parliament and its violation technically does not amount to high treason."
Blog readers, I have for long raised this point in connection with the 1974 anti-Ahmadiyya amendment by the National Assembly, namely, that it was in fact elected in 1970 as a part of the whole National Assembly of Pakistan.
Note however that the post-1971 "Pakistan National Assembly" was not a half of the whole NA as elected in 1970 (as assumed in the argument quoted above) but it was less than a half. Seats given to each province were in proportion to its population. It appears that out of the total of 300 seats, 162 were for East Pakistan and 138 were for West Pakistan. So the post-1971 "Pakistan National Assembly" was a clear minority of the real national Assembly elected in 1970.
Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri
Today i received an email on topic of age of Hazrat Ayesha RA at time of her marriage.I am happy to see Kalima-Shahada reciters, who are not members of LAM, have started started to think and do research like LAM.
Link to Muslims website from Canada:
Link to article:
What Was The Age of Ummul Mo'mineen Ayesha (May Allah be pleased with her) When She Married To Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)?
Some people believe that Ayesha (May Allah be pleased with her) was nine years old at the time of her marriage with Mohammad (peace be upon him) was consummated.
The age of Ayesha (ra) has been grossly mis-reported in the ahadith. Not only that, I think that the narratives reporting this event are not only highly unreliable but also that on the basis of other historical data, the event reported, is quite an unlikely happening. Let us look at the issue from an objective standpoint. My reservations in accepting the narratives, on the basis of which, Ayeshas (ra) age at the time of her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh) is held to be nine years are:
•Most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on the authority of his father. An event as well known as the one being reported, should logically have been reported by more people than just one, two or three.
•It is quite strange that no one from Medinah, where Hisham ibn `urwah lived the first seventy one years of his life has narrated the event, even though in Medinah his pupils included people as well known as Malik ibn Anas. All the narratives of this event have been reported by narrators from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have had shifted after living in Medinah for seventy one years.
•Tehzibu'l-tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: "narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq". It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq. (vol 11, pg 48 – 51)
•Mizanu'l-ai`tidal, another book on the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that when he was old, Hisham's memory suffered quite badly. (vol 4, pg 301 – 302)
•According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an, was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Ayesha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why we should not accept this narrative to be more accurate.
•According to a number of narratives, Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicate that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on them.
•According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Ayesha (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha (ra). It is reported in Taqri'bu'l-tehzi'b as well as Al-bidayah wa'l-nihayah that Asma (ra) died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha (ra) should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha (ra), if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH, was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.
•Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr (ra) reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah — the pre Islamic period. Obviously, if Ayesha (ra) was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH — the time she most likely got married.
•According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam quite some time before Umar ibn Khattab (ra). This shows that Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Ayesha's (ra) marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Ayesha (ra) should not have been born during the first year of Islam.
•Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr planned on migrating to Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am — with whose son Ayesha (ra) was engaged — and asked him to take Ayesha (ra) in his house as his son's wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam, and subsequently his son divorced Ayesha (ra). Now, if Ayesha (ra) was only seven years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Habshah. On the basis of this report it seems only reasonable to assume that Ayesha (ra) had not only been born 8 years before hijrah, but was also a young lady, quite prepared for marriage.
•According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah (ra), when Khaulah (ra) came to the Prophet (pbuh) advising him to marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: "You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)". When the Prophet (pbuh) asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Ayesha's (ra) name. All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word "bikr" in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is "Jariyah". "Bikr" on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a "lady".
•According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Ayesha (ra). Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.
These are some of the major points that go against accepting the commonly known narrative regarding Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage.
Neither was it an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage at an age as young as nine or ten years, nor did the Prophet (pbuh) marry Ayesha (ra) at such a young age. The people of Arabia did not object to this marriage, because it never happened in the manner it has been narrated.
At this link I am providing the initial part of an article by Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din addressed to the Ahmadiyya community in January 1909 (Badr, 14 January 1909). It begins:
"As far as I have read the Holy Quran and pondered on it, Allah in the Quran grants freedom and liberty to people. [Then he quotes some verses.] There are many verses of this kind, which show that the existence of difference of opinion is extremely important in the world. Since God Himself does not intend there to be unanimity, how can reformers in this world remove differences?"
At the bottom of the first column he says:
"The summary is that every person is free as regards his beliefs, words and deeds, on condition that this does not harm anyone else or even his own self. Otherwise he is not free."
This is a preamble to his main subject relating to donations to the Jamaat.
Can anyone imagine a later khalifa of the Qadiani Jamaat presenting this concept of freedom of the individual to his Jamaat and mentioning the importance of difference of opinion?
Under our Blog header at the top of every page, you will notice a new tab "Google Search of Blog" located after the previous tabs "Blog Home" and "About this blog". This new tab opens a page with a "Google Custom Search" box, into which you can type your search word or string to find in the blog using Google Search. I hope you find this feature useful and convenient.