Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam
Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.
Yasser Latif Hamdani wrote a blog on Ahrar-e-Hind on 'Pak Tea House' blog. He writes:
"It [Majlis-e-Ahrar] started its anti-Ahmaddiya movement in 1933 … when it clashed with All India Kashmir Committee – a rival organization fighting against Dogra Rule in Kashmir. Besides Dr. Muhammad “Allama” Iqbal (who was till 1933 or so probably an Ahmadi and whose father and elder brother were staunch Ahmadis), the AIKC consisted of Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud – the second caliph of Jamaat Ahmaddiya [Qadiani Jamaat]… the rivalry of these two organizations turned Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam against the Ahmadis altogether. (Ironically Bashiruddin Mahmud’s presidency of the said organization turned Dr. Iqbal against Ahmadis as well but that is another story. Majlis-e-Ahrar is clearly the oddest Islamic movement in the subcontinent."
Bolding is mine.
YLH did not elaboratewhat turned Sir Dr. Mohammad Iqbal against Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad. Here is some information:
Out of respect for father of QK2 i.e. HMGA, Sir Dr. Mohammad Iqbal nominated and voted for QK2 to become president of AIKC. As president QK2 asked all members of AIKC to take oath of confidentiality, i.e. what ever is spoken in meeting it will remain scret. This was done to give confidence to speakers to speak freely. But instead of keeping minutes of meeting secret, QK2 himself was providing information to Viceroy. Dr. Iqbal came to know about this when two Muslim office clerks in Viceroy office showed the original file to Dr. Iqbal. That was the origin of Dr. Iqbal turning away and against HMGA.
Link to YLH article:
The month of March 2014 marks the centenary of the beginning of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat Islam Lahore, which came about in March 1914 although this Anjuman formally came into existence at the beginning of May 1914.
Consisting to a large extent of new research, which has unearthed material that was forgotten or lying buried in archives, I have completed a book of almost 150 pages bearing the title The True Succession. The title indicates the theme and thesis of the book, namely, that the AAIIL represents the true succession to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din and the continuation of their real mission.
I thank Allah the Most High for enabling me to complete this book on time and provide a definitive and substantiated record of how and why the AAIIL came into being. The burden of debt we owe to the Lahore Ahmadiyya pioneers cannot be repaid, but I hope this book counts as a minisicule recognition of it.
Submitted by Ikram.
If one casts a glance on the recently transpired Valentine’s Day, a few things come to light. It is a day usually associated with love that is primarily focused, besides others, on the bonds between couples, married or otherwise. Based upon this ‘love’ the ever present commercialism comes into full gear with its special candy, flowers, attire, jewelry, gift wraps, songs, movies and numerous other trappings. The undertones of sin, sensuality and sexuality on that day are almost synonymous with the very term Valentine, the name and title of various early Christian Martyrs and Saints. The love on a Valentine Day somewhat reflects the God of Christianity which is summed up by Khwaja Kamaluddin:
“we read of God as the Possessor of love. But love has got its wicked side too, if we yield to the dictates of lust.”
(GOD AND HIS ATTRIBUTES by Khawaja Kamal-ud-din, The Woking Muslim Mission and Literary Trust, The Shah Jehan Mosque, Woking, England, 1936.)
If Christmas is a Christened Pagan festival of birth of a Sun God at winter solstice, so is the Valentine Day, a reliving of Hellenistic festival of Lupercalia, a drunken revel of fertility and love, though with a religious twist after the slaying of two separate men with similar name, three years apart by the same emperor, at least one of whom was later made into a Saint (see link).
While keeping the dynamics of Valentine Day in mind it becomes difficult to understand Christianity as to where does it’s doctored love in the name of the Son ends and when does its unbridled lust takes off and is there even a separation between the two? It thus behooves to read Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s (HMGA) reply to a Padre who raised objections against Islam. In his discourse HMGA shines with his mastery of the Scriptures – Quran and Bible, the life and works of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and the Christian myths ascribed to Jesus of Bible, Islam as a religion and Christianity as a formulated doctrine. He compares and contrasts these from angles that, unbeknownst to him, intersect with the above enumerated themes of a Valentine Day for their inherent insinuations that seem naturally embedded in the general Christian doctrine. In HMGA’s analysis, Christianity, which if from God, instead of acting as a bulwark against paganism, itself becomes the root cause of a dogma that is not too holy.
Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri
On January 2, 2006 i along with marhoom Abdul Manan Omar sahib and his children visited final resting place of Muhammad Alexander Russell Webb, in Rutherford, New Jersy, USA. We offered Fatiah.
Today i came across a website that has written about him. Post about him says: "Although he was originally introduced to Islam through members of the unorthodox (and frankly, un-Islamic) Ahmadiyya Movement, he eventually found a path to mainstream Islam.". Of course author did not mention that he proofread/ edited Lahore Ahmadiyya Movment's publication 'Teachings of Islam'. This post is another example of damage caused by Qadianis Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad. Where author does want to give credit to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam sahib, but then ends up calling his movement "Un-Islamic". Anyways following is complete post and link:
Alexander Russel Webb (1846-1916)
In late 19th century America, journalism was beginning to take off as an effective and influential medium for influencing the public. One of the men who helped spur this journalistic wave was Alexander Russell Webb. Unconvinced about his Christian religion, and being a well-read journalist, he began to read extensively about other religions, and was particularly interested in Islam. When he was appointed by the U.S. State Department to work in the American embassy in the Philippines in 1887, he took the opportunity to begin a correspondence with Muslims in India about Islam.
Although he was originally introduced to Islam through members of the unorthodox (and frankly, un-Islamic) Ahmadiyya Movement, he eventually found a path to mainstream Islam. He proceeded to travel throughout the Muslim world, studying Islam and meeting with scholars. In 1893, he resigned his post at the State Department and returned to America. Back in the United States, he published numerous books on Islam and started an Islamic newspaper explaining the religion to the American public. In the early decades of the 20th century, he continued to be a prominent voice for Islam in the United States, even being appointed an honorary Ottoman consul by Sultan Abdulhamid II. He died in 1916 and was buried outside Rutherford, New Jersey.
Lost Islamic History
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.
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.
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.
I am thankful to Mohammad Iqbal sahib for pointing out this news:
An article under the above title appeared in the Daily Times of Pakistan on 22 December 2013 (click link to read).
"Bhutto’s 1973 constitution made Pakistan an oxymoronic Islamic republic where sovereignty belonged to Allah and, in turn, to Allah’s laws. He also declared the Ahmedis as non-Muslims, proudly calling it the “solution to a 90-year-old problem”, and adopted a pan-Islamic vision in which he viewed himself as the leader of the Islamic world. By the end of the 1970s, Pakistan was two for two, in terms of ‘secular’ leaders who defined Muslims as one nation, and also two for two, in terms of ‘secular’ leaders who manifested archetypal religious intolerance."
"The demand to excommunicate the Shia community is the natural corollary of the verdict against the Ahmedis, … since Bhutto politicised the process of takfir (apostasy), religious sects are now well and truly under the takfiri guillotine."
The article draws a parallel between Mr Jinnah's creation of a separate state for Muslims in the name of religion and Z.A. Bhutto declaring Ahmadis as non-Muslims, since he considers both acts as going against religious co-existence. But Mr Jinnah was defending the interests of a minority, i.e. Muslims of India, which was fearing oppression by the majority in a united India, while Z.A. Bhutto sided with an overwhelming majority to oppress a minority. Whether Mr Jinnah was right or wrong, for him to argue for Muslim rights in the face of the Hindu majority, was at least an act of great courage. Bhutto's action required no courage as he had a great majority behind him.
Also, Mr Jinnah actually believed in the cause he was promoting, i.e., the partition of India. Z.A. Bhutto did not believe in the cause of the Ulama and the Islamic parties, and supported their demands cynically to win popularity for himself.
Also, I may add the obvious fact that Bhutto was under massive pressure to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslim and faced almost no opposition in doing this. Mr Jinnah was not under any pressure from other quarters to demand Muslim rights; he made the demands because he himself wanted to have them fulfilled, and unlike Bhutto he faced intense opposition from the Congress and the British government. Mr Jinnah led the demands he was making, whereas Bhutto followed the demands that others made.
Mr Jinnah fought his opponents and won a substantial victory over them. Bhutto thought it best to surrender to his opponents and adopt their demands.