Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam
Submitted by Omar Raja.
I came across a remarkable statement of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad as cited in the book, Ahmadiyyat the Renaissance of Islam by Muhammad Zafrulla Khan. The book can be found here: http://www.alislam.org/books/
Mirza Mahmud declared in 1944 regarding the prophecy of the Promised Son, “I therefore announce, under divine command, on oath, that God has appointed me the Promised Son of the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, according to his prophecy, who has to convey the name of the Promised Messiah to the ends of the earth. I do not say that I am the only Promised One and that no other promised one will be appear till the Day of Judgment. It appears from the prophecies of the Promised Messiah that some other promised ones will also come and some of them will appear after centuries. Indeed, God has told me that at one time He will send me a second time to the world and I will come for the reform of the world at a time when associate with God will have become widespread. This means that my soul will, at some time, descend upon someone who will possess faculties and capacities like mine and he will, following my footsteps, bring about a reform of the world. Thus, promised one will appear in their due times according to the promises of God Almighty.” (Ahmadiyyat the Renaissance of Islam by Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, pp. 293-294). Note: Page 303 by PDF search.
So in effect he declares that he himself will have his own ‘second coming,’ so much so that his very soul will be implanted into another human being! Thus Qadianis await the second coming of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad?
I may mention, it was curious to read as well the details given regarding the assassination attempt on his very life.
Muhammad Zafrulla Khan writes: “Yet, there were those who, through error, bigotry, misunderstanding or sheer perversity entertained bitter hostility towards him and were capable of subjecting him to the most heinous outrages. One day in March 1954 a young man belonging to this last category managed to take his stand in the first line of worshippers immediately behind him, while he was leading the afternoon service in the principal mosque of Rabwah. In the middle of the service he suddenly advanced upon him from his rear and drove the blade of long sharp knife into his neck with murderous force….the injury inflicted… was deep and grievous and had a serious effect on his nervous system… The blade of the knife had penetrated into his neck a distance of four inches and its point had stopped right at the jugular vein… the unanimous conclusion was that the point of the knife had broken at the jugular vein and was embedded in it. The expert advice was that no attempt should be made to extricate it as the risk to his life involved in any such operation was too serious to be worth taking. He was advised to adopt a restful pattern of life and to avoid hard work and long periods of sustained labour. For a person of his temperament and high capacities this was a disappointing prospect. But there was no help for it. He was still able to carry on a comparatively active life, but the pressure on his nervous system, instead of being eased with the passage of time, tended to be intensified progressively.” (Ahmadiyyat the Renaissance of Islam by Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, pp. 331-333). Note: Page 341 by PDF search.
After this type of injury, I wonder how was he able to function as Khalifa for the remainder of his life, since as I understand it, one of the controls of the nervous system is to facilitate the ability to think and reason. http://www.webmd.com/brain
Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.
Nadeem F Paracha is a famous columnist in Pakistani English language daily Dawn. He is left leaning writer. In his articles he does recap of history on any particular subject. His writes ups are based on a reasonable research. In his articles he has been sympathetic to state of ahmadis (basically Qadianis in Pakistan) in general. His recent article published in Dawn online on November 21, 2013: The 1974 ouster of ‘heretics’: What really happened?
Some quotes from article:
“To do so I did go through some literature produced by orthodox Sunni and Shia ulema and those associated with the Ahmadiyya community during the commotion, but that literature is largely theological.”
“Instead, my findings in this respect are squarely based on, and culled from the writings of historians and authors who, I believe, have transcribed the history of the event in the most objective and informed manner.”
“A series of modern, as well as puritanical reformist Muslim movements emerged after the complete fall of the Muslim Empire in India in the mid-1800s.
The Ahmadiyya movement was one of them. The Ahmadiyya community was founded in 1889 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who claimed he was under divine instruction to fulfil the major prophecies contained in Islamic and other sacred texts regarding a world reformer who would unite humanity.
He announced to Christians awaiting the second coming of Jesus, Muslims anticipating the Mahdi, Hindus expecting Krishna, and Buddhists searching for Buddha, that he was the promised messiah for them all, commissioned by God to rejuvenate true faith.
When Mirza died the Ahmadiyya split into two sects: the ‘Qadianis’ and the ‘Lahoris’. The Qadianis claimed that Mirza was a prophet, and accused all Muslims who did not accept him as being non-Muslims. Claiming prophethood is regarded to be a major and unpardonable sin by a majority of Muslims, even though the Lahori faction believes that Mirza never claimed prophethood. Orthodox Muslim sects in South Asia believe that he did.
Till about 1913, the Ahmadiyya movement was seen as a spiritual and evangelical branch of the modernist reformist Muslim initiatives triggered by the likes of Sir Syed and Syed Ameer Ali.
In fact, for a while, a number of Indian Muslim intellectuals were closely associated with the Ahmadiyya movement and considered Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a modern redeemer of faith in India.
Brilliant poet and philosopher, Muhammad Iqbal, too was once a great admirer of the movement.
Contrary to popular belief, agitation against the Ahmadiyya movement (by the orthodox Muslim sects and sub-sects in India) was not an immediate happening that emerged right after the formation of the community in 1889.
The more vocal accusations against the community first arose 24 years later in 1914 when an influential Ahmadiyya leader, Mirza Muhammad Ahmad, began to publicly declare that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a messiah and those Muslims who disagreed with this were infidels.
This further split the movement, with the so-called ‘Qadianis’ sticking to Mirza Muhammad Ahmad’s assertions and the ‘Lahori’ faction denouncing him and accusing him of inferring something that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had not claimed.
Nevertheless, the schism within the Ahmadiyya community and Mirza Muhammad Ahmad’s unabashed claims left the movement vulnerable against accusations of being heretical.”
“Along with the working classes and the petty-bourgeoisie of the Punjab, the Ahmadiyya had overwhelmingly voted for the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) in the province during the 1970 election.
On May 22, 1974, some 160 members of the Islami Jamiat-i-Talaba (IJT — the student of the Jamaat-i-Islami), boarded a train headed for Peshawar in the former NWFP. On its way to Peshawar, the train stopped for a while at the Rabwa railway station. The city of Rabwa was predominantly an Ahmadiyya town and also housed the community’s spiritual headquarters. As the train stopped at Rabwa, IJT students got out and began to raise slogans against the Ahmadiyya and cursed the community’s spiritual figurehead, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. The train then left the station taking the charged students to Peshawar. No untoward incident was reported apart from the slogan-chanting and cursing.
However, when the incident was related to some Ahmadiyya leaders in Rabwa, they ordered Ahmadiyya youth to reach the station with hockey sticks and chains when the train stops again at Rabwa on its way back from Peshawar.
After finding out that the students would be returning to Multan from Peshawar on the 29th of May, dozens of young Ahmadiyya men gathered at the Rabwa station. As the train came to a halt, the men fell upon the bogeys carrying the IJT members. A fight ensued and 30 IJT men were severely beaten for insulting the religious sentiments of the Ahmadiyya.
A non-Ahmadiyya man who witnessed the commotion at the station told reporters that both the incidents (the slogans and retaliation) were unprecedented.”
Link to NFP article: http://dawn.com/news/1057427/the-1974-ouster-of-the-heretics-what-really-happened/1
Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.
Orya Maqbool Jan on Anti-Christ, Gog and Magog
OMJ is retired bureaucrat, columnist and analyst. Frequently he comes on political talk shows on Pakistani TV channels. He is popular in conservative audience of Pakistan. Few days ago he wrote a column in Pakistani daily newspaper, and mentioned Dajjal, Yaajooj-aur-Maajooj (Anti-Christ, Gog and Magog). He presented concept similar to Lahore Ahmadiyya Movment understanding. I sent him following email. I was hoping to receive reply, as I did in reply to my email in 2010. This time I am still waiting. Link to my last email correspondence with him is at the bottom of this post.
Dear Orya Maqbool Jan sahib, Aslam Alikum,
Last we exchanged emails over three years ago. I sent you links, in reply to your question, to beliefs and articles on Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (Lahori-Ahmadi) official website that considers EVERY RECITER OF KALIMA-SHAHADA AS MUSLIM. I was hoping to hear back from you. I take it you must be very busy.
Today, I want to congratulate you on raising a GREAT POINT in your recent column ‘Andalib Bagh-e-Hajaz’ published in published in newspaper ‘Roznama Dunya’ on November 9, 2013.
In this column you identified Dajjal, Yaajooj and Maajooj (Anti-Christ, Gog and Magog). You identified how interest based modern banking system is NOT letting Muslims live their lives as guided by Holy Quran. It was this fear that Sahaba-Akram were scared, when Rasool Allah Muhammad SAWS mentioned attributes of Dajjal. This Dajjali system has influenced lives of people in Pakistan who are considered Scholars of Islam, and extremely pious people such as Chairman of Ruet-e-Hilal Committee, whose salary comes from account on which government of Pakistan pays interest (Riba). No wonder our Master Holy Prophet Muhammad PBUH warned us that even Momin will not be spared from the dust of Dajjal. I am glad in your column you have dared to educate Pakistani readers that Dajjal mentioned in Ahadith and Yaajooj-Maajooj mentioned in Holy Quran is not some super natural animal but Caucasian Christian nations of Europe. Interestingly in 2004, in one of the TV program ‘Alif’ Mufti Muneebur Rehman sahib could not identify Dajjal.
My question to you: Do you think time will ever come in Pakistan when you could write in your column that per Hadith of Rasool Allah SAWS, the person who will identify Dajjal first will be Imam Mahdi. And Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib of Qadian, who was only a Mujjaddid (reformer) of 14th Islamic Hijra century, was the first person to identify Dajjal about whom you have written more than 100 years later? Do you also think you will be able to mention book, in your column, by Lahori-Ahmadi elder Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib:Al-Maseeh-ud-Dajjal-o-Yaajooj Maajooj: by Maulana Muhammad Ali.Urdu Translation of 'The Anti-Christ and Gog and Magog'
The Anti-Christ and Gog and Magog: by Maulana Muhammad Ali
Orya sahib, I look forward to your reply. Please do acknowledge when you receive my email.
Thanks, and Allah Hafiz.
Link to OMJ column:
See following link for my previous email exchange with OMJ:
The Constitution of Pakistan makes reference to how to categorise someone as a Muslim or as a non-Muslim. The Holy Quran, however, contains mention not only of believers and non-believers but also of munafiqeen (i.e. hypocrites), as can be seen from even the beginning of Surah Al-Baqarah (believers in 2:3, non-believers in 2:6, hypocrites in 2:8). The first statement in the Quran about hypocrites is the following:
"And there are some people who say: We believe in Allah and the Last Day; and they are not believers." (2:8)
This makes clear that a munafiq can only be from among those who claim to be Muslims. Now we notice that on the Government of Pakistan's official forms where a person is required to state his religion, anyone who declares that he is a Muslim is also required to make certain other declarations. I suggest that a further declaration be added as a requirement for anyone who states that he/she is a Muslim, and it should be as follows:
"In stating that I am a Muslim, I am aware that a person who states that he or she is a Muslim may, in the terminology of the Holy Quran, be a munafiq or hypocrite."
The verse quoted above (2:8) could also be added at this point.
This is what Maulana Muhammad Ali asked Muslims to do in his Friday khutba on the 30th anniversary of the death of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in 1938. Quoting the verse of the Quran, "I exhort you only to one thing, that you rise up for Allah’s sake by twos and singly; then ponder!" (34:46), he said:
"…when there is an adverse wind blowing against something, people cannot ponder on it rationally by gathering together. The hostile atmosphere does not allow thought and deliberation to be applied in the midst of a gathering. … people are advised to ponder in twos and individually, and ask: what is this man saying,…
Today the same kind of wind of hostility is blowing against the Mujaddid of the age, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. In this atmosphere it has become impossible for anyone to say something good about him, or speak of him approvingly, in a gathering.
In these circumstances the Quran teaches the method of judging by weighing both sides.
If you read books on Islam written by Christians it appears from them as if Islam, the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad possessed no good quality whatsoever, but are full of shortcomings and flaws.
Just as the Christians and the Arya Samaj collect in their books everything they consider to be wrong and objectionable about Islam, the Quran and the Holy Prophet Muhammad, the same is done by anti-Ahmadiyya writers in case of Hazrat Mirza sahib and the Ahmadiyya Movement. They consider it a service to Islam to collect anything which they regard as a defect or weakness, or as an objectionable statement."
It is as relevant and fresh today as when it was first delivered.
In Paigham Sulh, 23 January 1916, there is a lengthy, 3-page article entitled Milad Muhammad (saw) by Khan Bahadar Mirza Sultan Ahmad, who was the eldest son of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. On the first page, last column, I have marked more than a half of the column by a red line in the margin where he deals with the finality of prophethood. To quote from it:
"The second task of the Holy Prophet was Khatm-i nubuwwat. Before the Arabian Prophet, not even one prophet who came claimed khatm-i nubuwwat with the emphasis that our Hazrat (saw) did. The effect of that is that till this day no one in the entire world dared to be a claimant to prophethood after that Khatm-i nubuwwat. … Other religions did not enter into this at all, while within the Islamic world, in fulfilment of [the hadith] 'The Ulama of my Umma are like the prophets of the Israelites', such persons kept on arising who in their own sense possessed the glory of Israelite prophets. No less were the Islamic mujaddids in their blessings. Thousands of such venerable ones have there been in the Umma…
All the prophets gave good news of the coming of our Prophet, and our Prophet gave the good news of hundreds among his own followers who arose in Islam as abdal, aqtab, auliya [saints] and mujaddids. … Prophethood was ended and spiritual benefits were made general in another form."
In an earlier comment, I had quoted the following verses of the Quran about Aaron and noted what they tell us about his position and mission:
Mr Mumtaz Ahmad Faruqui (older brother of Mr N.A. Faruqui) recounted the following incidents in Paigham Sulh, 18 October 1978, which I translate below.
Some time before the founding of Pakistan, probably in 1946, Quaid-i Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah visited Lahore on one of his tours. I was in Lahore in those days. Two memorable events took place at that time, which have remained in my mind till today.
1. A meeting of the Muslim League was held in Lahore. A resolution was presented, probably by Maulvi Zafar Ali Khan, to the effect that "Qadianis", i.e. the Ahmadiyya community, should be declared as non-Muslim on account of some of its beliefs and expelled from membership of the Muslim League. Quaid-i Azam, who was presiding over the meeting, firmly rejected this resolution. He gave as the main reason that a person who recites the Kalima and calls himself a Muslim, and supports our aims, cannot be expelled by us.
2. Taking advantage of this visit, Maulana Muhammad Ali, who was Head of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at Islam Lahore, and lived in Muslim Town Lahore, expressed the wish to meet the Quaid-i Azam. The Quaid-i Azam gladly agreed to this, and it was arranged that he would call at Maulana Muhammad Ali's residence in Muslim Town and partake of afternoon tea. The Maulana arranged for tea for about a dozen persons who were members of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama'at, and somehow I joined this group. Maulvi Yaqub Khan, former editor of 'The Light', was also there. The Quaid-i Azam arrived promptly on time and we all welcomed him and took him to the meeting room.
The Maulana, greeting Quaid-i Azam, lauded his services to the nation and briefly shed light on the propagation work of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama'at. He then presented Quaid-i Azam with a gift of his writings and other publications of the Movement. Quaid-i Azam smiled and thanked him. He picked up the English translation of the Quran which was on top and said:
"There is a copy of this in my library, and I study it regularly."
Then he stood up and said that he was familiar with the work of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama'at, and he regularly receives 'The Light', the English weekly, which he reads with special attention. Then he said:
"When I put forward my view for the first time that 'Western style democracy is not suitable for India', it caused an outcry all over the country and there was a storm of criticism. It went to the extent that Lord Wavell, Viceroy of India, sent me a message in Simla saying that he too was puzzled by my view, and asking me to clarify. In those days, I received 'The Light' paper from Lahore which contained an editorial with a cogent and clear discussion on this topic, supporting the validity of this view. I liked it very much and I merely sent Lord Wavell that paper to read. A few days later Lord Wavell returned that paper to me with a note saying that he now understood my point."
This praise by the Quaid-i Azam was a monumental tribute he paid to the work of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama'at. The late Maulvi Yaqub Khan, editor of 'The Light', was enormously proud of this. The Quaid-i Azam held this favourable opinion about the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama'at till his dying day.
I translate below an article by Mr N.A. Faruqui published in Paigham Sulh, dated 9 August 1978, at the time when the Supreme Court of Pakistan was hearing the appeal of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto against his death sentence which had been awarded to him in the Lahore High Court. (In this Urdu article Mr Faruqui noted that he wrote his letter to the Chief Justice in English, which was translated into Urdu in the article. As I do not have access to the original English letter, I have translated the Urdu translation of the letter back into English.)
Correction of a Misunderstanding
In one of the proceedings during the hearing of the appeal in the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of the murder of Nawab Muhammad Ahmad Khan, published in the daily Nawa-i Waqt of Lahore, the impression has been given that I am a Qadiani. Consequently I considered it appropriate to have this misunderstanding cleared by writing a letter to the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The Chief Justice has given me satisfaction by reading out my letter in open court, for which I am grateful to him. However, the manner of its reporting in Nawa-i Waqt of 30th July created again the possibility of a misunderstanding. Therefore I believe it essential to publish, in the newspaper of our Jama'at, the correspondence which I carried out in this connection, so that no misimpression may remain in the minds of our members. Some have also asked me what I have done about this.
My letter to the Chief Justice of Pakistan
Lahore, 20th July 1978.
My dear Chief Justice,
I am daring to address you directly because I do not wish this matter to become public before you have considered my application. After that, I leave it up to you to take whatever action you may consider fit.
In the daily Nawa-i Waqt of Lahore, dated 19th July 1978, there is a column headed 'In the Supreme Court'. This is a column which carries news of interest to the public arising in court during the hearings of the appeal in the case of the murder of Nawab Muhammad Ahmad Khan. I am enclosing a cutting.
The news which was printed stated that the senior counsel for the appellant, Mr Yahya Bakhtiar, had said about me, in passing, that I am a Qadiani. Upon this, the senior counsel for the Government of Pakistan, Mr Ijaz Batalvi, corrected this by saying that (during the hearings in the High Court) Mr Masud Ahmad was asked if he, I, and Chaudhry Abdullah are members of the Jama'at Ahmadiyya Lahore, upon which Mr Masud Ahmad denied it about himself but said regarding the others that he did not know. Upon this, an honourable judge of the Supreme Court said: "But everyone knows that N.A. Faruqui is a Qadiani."
With due respect I state that I am not a Qadiani, but I am certainly a member of the Jama'at Ahmadiyya Lahore.
Our Jama'at had long ago, that is, in 1914, under the leadership of Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Ali, whose English translation and commentary of the Holy Quran and book 'The Religion of Islam' are of world-wide fame, and Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, who is well known in the world because of the Woking Muslim Mission, separated from the Qadiani Jama'at on those two very points due to which there was agitation in the minds of Muslims in 1974, namely:
1. The Qadiani members attribute a claim of prophethood to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib.
2. The Qadiani members regard those who do not believe in Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib to be kafirs.
We have spent the past sixty years debating with and countering Qadiani members, and have proved that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib did not make a claim to prophethood, and that he himself stated more than once that no Muslim becomes a kafir by denying him. By our separation and our combating them, we have brought upon ourselves the disapproval of the Qadiani members.
Due to the above facts, for me to be called a Qadiani in the highest court of Pakistan, and for this to be confirmed by the words that "everyone knows this", is an injustice against me which has caused me great pain and has created a misimpression about me among my friends and the general public.
I know that ordinary people by mistake consider both the Qadiani Jama'at and the Lahore Jama'at to be the same. But most of the educated and well-informed people are aware of the difference between these two Jama'ats which is fundamental and of principle. Considering in particular that Mr Ijaz Husain Batalvi had corrected the misunderstanding about me, for an honourable judge to say that "everyone knows that N.A. Faruqui is a Qadiani" is a serious misrepresentation of my position. I am aware that the honourable judge did not know the real position. Nonetheless, the fact remains that a wrong impression about me has not only entered the Supreme Court record but has also been published in the press.
I therefore respectfully submit that you take the action which you consider appropriate so that the stain upon my name of being a Qadiani in the Supreme Court record and the press is removed. I would be grateful.
Yours sincerely, N.A. Faruqui
It was very kind of the Chief Justice of Pakistan that he read out my letter in open court, which clears me. May Allah reward him. However, the report of this event as printed in Nawa-i Waqt of 30th July contained some words which could again give rise to a misunderstanding. Accordingly, I wrote a letter to the Editor of Nawa-i Waqt on the same day, which is given below:
Lahore, 30 July 1978.
Respected Editor of Nawa-i Waqt,
Assalamu alaikum. In your paper of today, 30th July, under the heading 'In the Supreme Court', you have again published a news about me which can create a misunderstanding. Your correspondent writes that in my letter to the Chief Justice of Pakistan, clarifying my position, I have written that I "do not believe Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be the last prophet". This could be taken to mean that I believe him to be a prophet, but not the last prophet. I did not write any such words in my letter to the Chief Justice.
I belong to the Jama'at Ahmadiyya Lahore, whose members believe Muhammad mustafa, Ahmad mujtaba, may peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him, to be the last prophet from the bottom of their hearts, and do not accept that a prophet can at all come after him. And we consider everyone who recites the Kalima to be a Muslim.
Please publish this letter of mine in a prominent place to remove the misimpression that has been created about me. I would be grateful.
Your servant, N.A. Faruqui
This letter was published in Nawa-i Waqt but not in a prominent place.
Please see this link to the Pew Research Center, which has a report of the above title.
The report states: "Two-in-three Pakistani Muslims say Ahmadis are not Muslims, according to a Pew Research poll conducted in November 2011. Just 7% accept Ahmadis as fellow Muslims, while 26% do not offer a response or say they don’t know."
The 7% and 26% of Muslims (=33%) mentioned here gave this response to this poll. But this same 33% must have declared Ahmadis as non-Muslim when they filled in their ID card forms or passport application forms, because for any person to be recognised as a Muslim in Pakistani law he or she has necessarily to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslim. So in fact, by the very definition of a Muslim in Pakistani law, 100% of Muslims there regard Ahmadis as non-Muslim.
Considering the massive scale of the anti-Ahmadiyya propaganda in Pakistan, which is officially backed, and the ban on Ahmadis to counter it, it is actually quite heartening to know that no more than 66% of Muslims there consider Ahmadis as non-Muslim. One would expect this figure to be more than 90%.
Following the link from that page to the full poll, we find that with regard to the statement "there is only one interpretation of Islam", the majority of Muslims in many countries agree with it, and in Pakistan 72% of Muslims agree with it. This is deplorable ignorance. Even the companions of the Holy Prophet differed on various points of interpretation. The four Sunni schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki and Hanbali) give different rulings on, for example, punishments for various offences.