The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and MattersSee Title Page and List of Contents

See: Project Rebuttal: What the West needs to know about Islam

Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam

Read: Background to the Project

List of all Issues | Summary 1 | Summary 2 | Summary 3

July 28th, 2009

Tarif Khalidi’s Translation of Holy Quran and Jesus’ Death

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.

Recently I purchased Holy Quran Translation by Tarif Khalidi. This translator has previously taught at the Oxford University and the University of Chicago, and currently he is professor at the American University of Beirut. He has published number of books on Islam and Arab history. His translation of Holy Quran was published in 2008.

In his translation of Chapter 5 Verses 115 to 117, he translates:

“I was a witness to them while I lived among them,
But when You caused me to die, it was You Who kept watch over them.”

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib’s mission included the subject of Death of Jesus. For his stand on this subject abuses were hurled at him in his lifetime and even to this day. But the good news is that Muslim Translators of Holy Quran living in Muslim majority countries feel courageous enough to translate these verses truthfully.

Review of his translation by Ziauddin Sardar in the Guardian

54 Responses to “Tarif Khalidi’s Translation of Holy Quran and Jesus’ Death”

  1. I find it very odd that Allah did not give mujadids like Suyuti, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Kathir, ibn abbas and many other mujadids the insight to properly define these verses.

    But, Allah decided to reveal to Sir Syed, Tarif Khalidi and other non-mujadids the truth of Koranic tafsir. If the mujadids didnt understand the Koran, then what was their purpose?

    A muslim’s purpose in life is to understand the Koran and implement its teachings. But here, our highest ranking mujadids didnt understand. Thats very odd to say the least.

  2. August 12th, 2009 at 6:42 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    You need to know why Mujjaddids come. Mujjaddid do not come to overhaul all teachings of Rasul Allah SAWS. They have specific purpose and mission. There scope of their mission is rather limited. Usually they come to tackle issues that are contrary to Islamic teachings prevailing in a Muslim society or to help that society to better understand Holy Quran. This is the reason that more than one Mujjaddids can come in same era but in different geographical locations. Moreover, Mujjaddids do NOT voice their opinion or correct any prevailing opinion among Muslims of his era, until and unless they are directed by Allah SWT, directly.
    In time of Suyuti, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Kathir, ibn abbas and many other mujadids, Christianity was neither a dominant religion in world nor Christians were preaching their religion to Muslims. No Christian country was colonizing Muslim lands and supporting Christian missionary activities. The issue of ‘death of Jesus’ became an important issue only in time of HMGA.
    Allah SWT directly informed HMGA that Eisa A.S. is physically dead. So he preached it. Allah SWT did NOT inform him that a human fathered Eisa A.S., so he held belief prevailing among Muslims that Jesus birth was immaculate. Similarly he held belief, prevailing among Muslims, that Rasul Allah SWAS performed miracle of ‘moon splitting’.

  3. As to what “mujadids like Suyuti, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Kathir, ibn abbas” think about death of Jesus, one has to ask them, otherwise it would be just a conjecture to answer for them. Maybe it was not important topic in their times as Christianity was a failed religion then and not worth wasting one’s time on its mythical discourse.
    But the good thing is that Mujaddid – Mirza Ghulam Ahmed hit the ground running and broke this myth once for all by clarifying the meaning of Quran on this topic and then even tried to objectify it by identifying Jesus’s grave – the second grave of a prophet in the history of Islam. Thus he separated Islam from Christian mythology.

  4. Here is another way of looking at Bashir’s question. It is widely believed by Muslims today that the Holy Quran has mentioned certain facts unknown to any human beings till they were discovered by modern science.  For example, it is said that the Quran describes the earth as being in the shape of an egg, as the word occurring in 79:30 can be translated in this way. Yet neither the Holy Prophet, nor any mujaddid, nor any classical commentator, stated that this verse means this. Indeed one Muslim writer raises and deals with the following questions:

    “If the Noble Quran says the earth is “egg-shaped” … then why couldn’t Prophet Muhammad just say it clear in plain Arabic?”

    “So why didn’t the Arabs and the Prophet understand dahaha as “egg-shaped” 1,500 years ago?”

    The answer given is that the Holy Prophet did not know everything and that he himself said that “he was sent to reveal pithy words that encompass many meanings and topics, which are short in quantity and rich in meanings and interpretations.”

    Anyhow, you can read his explanation at this link.

    The writer also says: “Since the Prophet of Islam only knew little, especially from the unseen, and since he never said that the earth is egg-shaped or spherical, then it is quite clear that he did not know that the earth was indeed egg-shaped.”

    (By the way, if an Ahmadi were to say “the Prophet of Islam only knew little” he would be charged with insulting the Holy Prophet!)

    So all those Muslims, like admirers of Zakir Naik, who are ecstatic that the Quran contains this or that discovery of modern science, are also saying that the earlier Muslims including the Holy Prophet did not know that these verses carried these interpretations.

    Please note, however, that in case of the issue of the death of Jesus, the Holy Prophet and his immediate followers did believe and did state that he died, although they had no need to go into any further details in their times.

  5. I appreciate the comments of all the bloggers who contributed.

    I have a hard time understanding why the Koran is laced with secretive transmissions. I dont agree with this concept. I have to agree with the interpretations of the classical scholars.

    When M. ali explained the finality of prophethood, he stressed that all the classical scholars had a consensus of opinion regarding the matter of prophethood. He urged that muslims could not argue against any consensus of opinion. If this is a standard law(which at the time I thought it to be) then we must follow all of the consensus’ of opinion!

    That is my overall point.

  6. The works of M. Ali and others do help in understanding Quran. If there arises a genuine confusion or doubt in the reader’s mind the Quran provides a remedy:

    10:94. And if you (O reader!) are in doubt regarding that which We have revealed to you, ask those who have read this Book (- the Qur’ân) before you. (They will tell you that) there has, infact, come to you the perfect truth from your Lord, so be not of the contenders at all.

    But Quran itself does not need any consensus of opinion of classical scholars to expound its meanings else it would be a Book of/for/by the traditionalists, locked away in past and in a culture far removed from rest of the world. It would be closed to newer and contemporary interpretations. Quranic message is not a novelty and it is already latent in human mind:

    29:49. Nay, (far from being an invention) this (Qur’ân) is full of clear signs in the minds of those who have been given true knowledge. It is only the unjust indeed who deny Our signs deliberately.

    And there are no “secretive transmissions” in the book that needs a code to unlock them:

    39:23. Allâh has revealed the best Message (the fairest discourse), this wonderfully coherent Book (the verses of which are mutually supplementing and) repeated, (narrating both sides of the case in various ways to drive home the divine injunctions to human minds). It makes the (very) skins of those who stand in awe of their Lord creep and their hearts tremble (at its recital). Yet their hearts and skins soften towards the remembrance of Allâh. This is Allâh’s guidance, He guides him thereby who wishes (to be guided). Yet none can guide him whom Allâh forsakes and adjudges to be astray.

    41:3. (It is) a Book, the verses of which are detailed and clear in exposition. It is beautifully inter linked, (and it is in a language that) makes the meanings eloquently clear. It is very useful for a people who have knowledge.

    What the Quran is not:

    69:41. It is not at all the word of a poet. Little is the faith you have!
    69:42. Neither it is the word of a soothsayer. Little is the heed you give!

    [translations above: Allamah Nooruddin]
    And as to who are those who have been given knowledge? It is us all who are open logic:

    13:03. Verily, in all this there are messages indeed for people who think [Muhammad Asad]

  7. Bashir, if the classical scholars, who came centuries after the Holy Prophet, had taken the same view as you hold, then they too would have simply followed what scholars before them wrote. Carrying this to its conclusion, no one would have done anything to further understand the Quran after the Holy Prophet.

    You seem to be wishing that the Quran was so constructed that the reader need not apply any thinking, nor develop his faith, but just accept and blindly follow a set of precise statements (a computer program in fact). It is like the demand by the followers of Moses to see Allah “manifestly” (2:55, 4:153).

    But intelligence and true faith cannot be developed in a human being in that way.

  8. In my opinion, Islam is hard to decode totally. Traditions dont explain all the koranic verses. But when a tradition does explain a koranic verse like 4:69, that definition must be considered as paramount.

    4:69 was connected to a hadith from sahih bukhari. Thats the end of the story. This verse must be explained using this authentic tradition. It is not right to add new definitions to koranic verses.

    I am afraid that next year muslims will find an obscure Koranic passage and link it to quantum-mechanics, and then say, “look allah told us all along”.

    Obscure Koranic passages should be defined as just what they are, “obscure”.

  9. 4:69. And those who obey Allâh and this perfect Messenger, it is these who are with those upon whom Allâh has bestowed His blessings (in this life and the Hereafter) – the Prophets, the Truthful (in their belief, words and deeds), and the Bearers of Testimony (to the truth of the religion of Allâh by their words and deeds), as well as the Martyrs, and the Righteous (who stick to the right course under all circumstances), and how excellent companions they are! [Nooruddin]

    4:69. And whoever obeys Allah and the Messenger, they are with those upon whom Allah has bestowed favours from among the prophets and the truthful and the faithful and the righteous, and a goodly company are they!
    [Muhammad Ali]

    4:69. Whoever obeys Allah and the Messenger, belongs with those blessed by Allah: the Prophets, the first supporters of the Truth, the martyrs, and those who helped humanity. Ah! How beautiful is their company! [Shabbir Ahmed]

    4:69. For, all who pay heed unto God and the Apostle shall be among those upon whom God has bestowed His blessings: the prophets, and those who never deviated from the truth, and those who [with their lives] bore witness to the truth, and the righteous ones: and how goodly a company are these! [Muhammad Asad]

    The moral principles in above verse are quite clear. What’s the need to create any polemic from it or to seek any tradition about it?  Quranic message is till eternity.  Maybe the verse had a pertinent application at the time of Muhammad PBUH, but is no way stuck in relevance to some incidence in the past only. It has its application in our own lives as well.

    If I deduced correctly from the above post, then I am afraid that Quran forewarns about such disbelief in the clarity of subject matter, language and expression of the Quran. Such disbelief consequentially creates obscurity in the minds:

    41:44. Had We made it a Qur’ân in indistinct and inexpressive language, these (faultfinders) would have surely said, `Why has not (the subject matter of) its verses been made clear in exposition?’ What! can indistinct and inexpressive language and an eloquently clear language (be one and the same thing). Say, `It is a wonderful guidance and healing to those who believe.’ But (as to those) who do not believe there is deafness in their ears and this (Qur’ân) is obscure to them (with regard to its factual truth). And they are (as if to say) being called to from a place afar. [Nooruddin]

    Understanding Quantum Mechanics is no different than understanding Quran. Both need logic, reason and simplicity of approach to their inherent designs:

    12:108. Say, `This is my path. I call to Allâh. I am on sure knowledge verifiable by reason and (so are) those who follow me. (I believe that) Holy is Allâh. I am not of the polytheists.’ [Nooruddin]

    Quran, thus, sets the standards for knowledge verifiable by reason, which is commonly referred to as “science,” a.k.a. Quantum Mechanics.

  10. I have gone through the comments. The issue of death of Prophet Essa was not the basis on which Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was charged. He declared himself to be a prophet and thus attained the wrath of the muslims. The issue of Hazrat Essa is a debateable issue and one can form his own opinion according to his understanding of Quran and Islam.

  11. Amjad Shah is wrong. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was declared kafir in late 1891, when he claimed that Jesus was dead and he himself was the coming Messiah, and that the Messiah to come was to have been a muhaddas and not prophet. He vociferously denied claiming to be a prophet, so much so that the Qadiani Jamaat also holds that he denied claiming to be a prophet at that time.

    In Delhi in late 1891, after being declared kafir, Hazrat Mirza sahib’s challenge to the Ulama was to debate the death of Jesus, and not any claim about his own status. The Ulama alleged that he had deviated form the Quran because of not believing that Jesus was still alive. Read his announcement at this link.

    Till the end of his life, he mentioned the issue of the death of Jesus as his major disagreement with the Ulama.

  12. ZA is totally correct in what he wrote. Amjad Shah almost gives the impression that HMGA was declared a Kafir in 1901, which is incorrect as stated above.

    My contention is that it doesnt matter if Jesus died or not. All the mujadids and scholars agreed that Jesus would physically return (nuzul).

    It doesnt matter if Jesus died or physically ascended. It doesnt matter. He was to return physically. Obviosuly the Koran is confusing on this point. The Koran does not tell us clearly enough in terms of how Jesus left this planet.

    Ironically, there isnt one single verse of the Koran that directly speaks of Jesus’ return or any Mahdi figure or any mujaddid for that fact.

    And I thought ahmadis(q&L) believed against any hadith that wasnt supported by the Koran. Isnt the return of jesus unsupported by the Koran.

    If Jesus’ return (and the mahdi, and the mujadid) isnt directly mentioned in the Koran, why do we believe the hadith on the matter?

  13. The return of the Israelite Jesus in person is not supported by the Quran but the appearance among Muslims of persons who are like the Israelite prophets is supported by the Quran in the well known khilafat verse (24:55). Hazrat Mirza sahib’s book Shahadat-ul-Quran (translated by me as Testimony of the Holy Quran, see this link) is devoted to this topic of which verses support the coming of mujaddids, muhaddases and the like of the Messiah.

    Earlier writers such as Shah Waliullah had written that the coming of mujaddids is supported by the verse “Surely We have revealed the Reminder, and surely We are its Guardian” (15:9).

  14. All of the examples as stated above show that the Koran does not directly sanction the return of jesus, whether spiritually or physically.

    Nor does it mention anything about a mahdi.

    Nor does it mention anything about any mujadids.

    FYI: Only 1 tradition in the history of Islam supports the idea of mujadids, that is abu daud.

    Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim did not add that tradition into their book.

    I wonder why?


    Abu Daud died in 888

    Imam Bukhari died in 870

    Imam Muslim died in 878

    Imam Muslim and Bukhari either didnt find this tradition among any of the people or they rejected it, thus disallowing it to enter into their respective books.

  15. How about 61:14: “O you who believe, be helpers of Allah, as Jesus, son of Mary, said to the disciples: Who are my helpers in the cause of Allah?…” For believers to follow the example of Jesus’ disciples, a like of Jesus has to be calling them to do it, in a situation like the one Jesus faced.

    The hadith in Bukhari about “khalifas coming after me, of whom there will be many”, was regarded before Hazrat Mirza sahib as well as by him as referring to mujaddids also.

    On many issues Bashir has previously argued that Hazrat Mirza sahib is wrong because he disagrees with something which Muslims have always held by consensus. Now the concept of “Mujaddid” is an example where Hazrat Mirza sahib agrees with a widespread belief among Muslims held from ancient times. But now he is wrong to agree with them!

    Great figures in Islamic history have not only accepted the hadith about mujaddids, but some have claimed that God made them mujaddid of the time. Imam Ghazali and Shah Waliullah are two examples.

    Shaikh Ahmad of Sirhind is even known commonly as Mujaddid Alif Sani throughout the Indian subcontinent. The caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz is widely regarded as the first mujaddid. Muslims scholars have produced lists of mujaddids. Maulana Maudoodi wrote a book (available in Urdu and English) about the history of mujaddids, although he argues that every Mujaddid so far was imperfect and made mistakes.

  16. 77:11. And when the Messengers shall be made to appear (in the guise of one person) at the appointed time. (It is after that the Resurrection shall take place).[Nooruddin]

  17. ZA: I looked up the commentary on the verse you presented and I didnt find any ideas from hazrat m. ali, HMBMA, ibn abbas or Suyuti thqat matched what you have suggested.

    What is your reference point?

    1. On a personal note, I agree with the islamic opinion in terms of mujadids. This is an islamic principle. I agree.

    1.a. I argue that this is not a solid argument, there are holes that exist. I mentioned as to what exactly those holes are.

    1.b. As far as jesus being alive goes, I agree, the muslim argument that Jesus is alive has many holes in it. I agree that this is the muslims vantage point.

    1.c. I think that HMGA saw these holes in islamic thought process and presented an alternate idea. And I emphatically disagree, not because of my own opinion but because it contradicts muslim thought process.

    2. I say again the idea of the mujadid/mahdi/messiah is not a strong one. It is un-clear in general terms. It is open to critisism. Nonetheless, this is muslim thought process.

    3. I have written again and again that if you believe that allah appoints mujadids then why did allah allow them to fail in comprehending the Koran.

    3.a. All of these mujadids believed in the mechanics of abrogation. They differed on the amount of usage, but they agreed on this in principle.

    3.b. The irony is that YOUR MUJADIDS (that allah apointed) believed the Koran to be a contradictting book of sorts.

    4. All the mujadids believed that chapter 9 verse 5 abrogated LA IKRA FI DEEN.

    If point 4 is wrong please show me. I think that even when shah wali ullah claimed that only 5 verses were abrogated, I THINK, he wrote LA IKRA FI DEEN.

    I hope I answered all the questions, if not remind me.

  18. What is this  “muslim thought process” that you keep referring to? Since everything going against it is wrong, you must have a bullet-proof definition.

  19. Muslim thought process is defined as the way that muslims have defined their religion for the last 1400 years.  

    For example:  Muslims have always considered Sahih Bukhari has 100% authentic.  No mujadid or scholar which came after the era of this book has ever questioned its authenticity.

    Ahmadis(q&L) have claimed that this book has incorrect hadith in it, in terms of apostacy and insinuations of abrogation as well as the night journey of Muhammad.  Hazrat M. ali wrote that it is written in BUkhari that Abraham lied on some occassions, whereas the Koran told us that he was a truthful man.  Thus proving the way that ahmadis view hadith in terms of the Koran. 

    Ahmadiyya thought process is that they dont accept a hadith if that report isnt supported in the Koran.  That is why I objected to ahmadis supporting all the hadith that report  Jesus’ return.  My observation is that this “idea” is very odd since it is at a variance with the way that ahmadis have been taught to think.  

    Muslims believe in the traditions in terms of Jesus’ return, because they totally authenticate sahih bukhari.  As well as sahih muslim, whether a report came from prophet or not. 

    But, ahmadis have different rules of thinking.  This is what I am showing.     

  20. It is absolutely incorrect that “Muslims have always considered Sahih Bukhari as 100% authentic”. It is a human compilation of reports passed from one person to another along a line of narrators. They passed Bukhari’s stringent tests as to the narrators’ truthfulness and reliability, but a narrator could have misheard some words in a report, heard it only partially (thus out of context), not remembered some words etc.

    Also it is agreed that his collection cannot possibly be complete, i.e. there are authentic reports which did not reach Bukhari, or a report may fail Bukhari’s tests technically yet still be true.

    People known as muqallid, who follow schools of Fiqh, such as Hanafis all over the Indian subcontinent, have always followed the imams’ rulings even if they contradict hadith reports. It was as a reaction to this that the Wahhabi/Ahl-i hadith type movements (ghair muqallid) started a couple of centuries ago, laying more stress on hadith than fiqh.

    Here is a view of those who hold fiqh above hadith. According to them, a person can’t draw valid conclusions merely by reading reports in hadith books, let alone reports only in Bukhari.

  21. I was speaking in terms of the mujadids like ibn kathir, suyuti, ibn taymiyyah, etc etc etc.

    Imam Bukhari was the last chance that Islam had to sift thru all the hadith that were in existence and try to figure what was good and what wasnt. Bukhari went to great lengths in his attempt to clarify what was good and what wasnt.

    Without there work Islam is a situation where everything is lost and severely confusing.

    Shiites have there own hadith, this group and that group authenticate other hadith. The ahmadis authenticate Kanzul-ummul. Some other group may find some other hadith that they NEED.

    We need a science, we need structure. Muslims have already branded Tabari and Ibn Hisham as great liars because what these guys wrote is contrary to what muslims NEED islam to be in the 20 th century and beyond.

    The Koran, Bukhari and Muslim is our super-structure. I am extremely frustrated with any muslim who says that these have errors.

    QUESTION—Did HMGA ever say that any report in Bukhari or Muslim was questionable?

    Please advise.

  22. In answer to the question, “Did HMGA ever say that any report in Bukhari or Muslim was questionable?”, yes he did, sometimes quite plainly.

    Here is a point about Bukhari. The schools of Fiqh which most Muslims follow (Hanafi, Shafi`i, Maliki, Hanbali) all originated before Bukhari. Abu Hanifa produced his Fiqh a hundred years before Bukhari, and therefore he did not rely on Bukhari’s collection. So the huge numbers of Muslims who follow the Hanafi Fiqh can’t be said to followers of Sahih Bukhari, even though they may accept his collection.

  23. I have heard (I cannot recall the exact source, it may have been the text of a debate between MGA and someone else ) Imaam Bukhari (ra) had written than he had found 100,000 sahih hadith, however he chose to only put 4000 into his collection. If true, would someone be kind enough to provide the source.

  24. Clarification needed from Dr. ZA:

    Bashir said: “Ahmadiyya thought process is that they don’t accept a hadith if that report isn’t supported in the Koran.”

    Is this a correct statement? Or is it that any Hadith that contradicts the Quran is unacceptable. For exaample a Hadith that is not explicitly supported by the Quran but is not in contradiction with it either would be acceptable (all other things being equal).

  25. Thank you ZA for giving me this info. Once again you are a great source of info.

    Do you have that reference from the writings of HMGA where he critisized Bukhari?


    Imam Bukhari went to great lengths to figure out the authentic traditions. He worked his whole life to do this.  And now, some muslims have found errors in his work, thus critisizing it to fit their needs.  Al-Bukhari traveled widely throughout the Abbasid empire for sixteen years, collecting those traditions he thought trustworthy. It is said that al-Bukhari collected over 300,000 hadith and included only 2,602 traditions in his Sahih however, this number contradicts the number given by Ibn al-Salah, 7275 hadith, as mentioned above.

    Here are some references:

    Abridged from Hady al-Sari,the introduction to Fath al-Bari, by Ibn Hajr, pg. 8-9 Dar al-Salaam edition.

    “At the time when Bukhari saw [the earlier] works and conveyed them, he found them, in their presentation, combining between what would be considered sahih and hasan and that many of them included da’if hadith. This aroused his interest in compiling hadith whose authenticity was beyond doubt. What further strengthened his resolve was something his teacher, Ishaq ibn Ibrahim al-Hanthalee – better known as Ibn Rahoyah – had said. Muhammad ibn Ismaa’eel al-Bukhari said, “We were with Ishaq ibn Rahoyah who said, ‘If only you would compile a book of only authentic narrations of the Prophet.’ This suggestion remained in my heart so I began compiling the Sahih.” Bukhari also said, “I saw the Prophet in a dream and it was as if I was standing in front of him. In my hand was a fan with which I was protecting him. I asked some dream interpreters, who said to me, ‘You will protect him from lies.’ This is what compelled me to produce the Sahih.”


    One million or more hadiths were in circulation by the end of the second century A.H. The task of collecting, classifying, and appraising them were formidable. However, Muslim scholars worked on them with diligence. Often they had to travel thousands of miles in order to ascertain the probability of one link in the chain of reporters, or the veracity of one word or expression in the text of a hadith. But they were more than willing to pay the price, for the matter concerned their religion and their Prophet. The study took several generations to complete, and resulted in universal acceptance of six collections as authoritative. These are the works of al Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, al Nasa’i, al Tirmidhi, and Ibn Majah. Two other collections were regarded by some Muslims as equally authoritative: those of Malik ibn Anas and Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Beyond these, there were many other collections which scholars classified as untrustworthy because their authors were lax in applying the criteria of the disciplines. These untrustworthy collections included some true hadiths as well as those that were weak, problematic, or doubtful. Other collections were notorious for their sectarianism and prejudice.

  27. Imam Abu Hanifa, one hundred years before Bukhari, was able to formulate his comprehensive Fiqh for Muslims to apply in their practical lives. The three other systems of Fiqh came shortly after, but still before Bukhari. They didn’t need Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim to construct a body of Islamic law. That is one point.

    A different point is that even after hadith collections became available, when Fiqh-following Muslims want guidance on matters such as prayer, wudu, fasting, charity, hajj, marriage, divorce, business and dozens of other practical issues, they look at what their Fiqh says, and if there is any hadith in a hadith collection, including Bukhari, conflicting with their Fiqh ruling, they follow the Fiqh.

    In spiritual matters, huge numbers of Muslims follow the practices of sufi systems, and if they encounter a hadith even in Bukhari which goes against their practice, they don’t follow the hadith.

    These are the Muslims whom Bashir regards as believing in Bukhari. The Ahmadis, with whom he is frustrated, are the ones who have tried to construct a new Fiqh based on the Quran and Hadith collections, as in The Religion of Islam by Maulana Muhammad Ali. Thus Ahmadis have shown more respect for hadith collections than the majority of other Muslims.

  28. In answer to Usman’s question, the Ahmadiyya view is to try as far as possible to interpret even those hadith which appear contrary to the Quran in a way that they can be accepted. So if a hadith doesn’t conflict with the Quran, obviously there is no difficulty in accepting it. Please remember also that such a hadith must still fall under the broad scope of some principle taught in the Quran.

  29. So, Bashir, given some of ZA’s responses what is your bullet proof definition of  muslim thought process? Has it changed? If not, then please re-read his posts and let me know who else would you exclude from those who use the “muslim thought process”?

  30. In 1902, Hazrat Mirza sahib commented on a debate between a leader of the Ahl-i hadith grouping (Maulvi Muhammad Husain Batalvi) and a leader of the then-new ahl-i Quran movement (Maulvi Abdullah Chakralvi, who rejected all hadith). In this ‘review’ of the debate he wrote:

    “It should be the duty of our Jamaat to act upon any hadith which does not contradict the Quran and Sunna, no matter how low its standard of authenticity, and to give it preference over any man-made ruling of Fiqh. If they do not find an answer in Hadith, and they have not found an answer in the Quran nor in the Sunna, in that case they should act on the Hanafi fiqh because the prevalence of its following is an argument as to the intention of God. If, due to the changed circumstances of the present times, the Hanafi Fiqh does not provide a satisfactory ruling, then the scholars of this Movement should employ their own, God-given judgment. But they must be careful not to reject Hadith reports without reason, as Maulvi Abdullah Chakralvi does. However, if they find a hadith which contradicts the Quran and Sunna, they must reject it.

    They must remember that our Jamaat is closer in belief to the Ahl-i Hadith than to Abdullah, and we have no connection at all with his absurd ideas. Everyone in our Jamaat must turn away from and reject Abdullah Chakralvi’s views about Hadith reports … They should neither exaggerate the status of hadith, like the grouping of Maulvi Muhammad Husain does, nor degrade its status like Abdullah does, but be of moderate belief in this matter. That is, they must neither treat hadith as if it were their only qibla and ka’ba, thereby departing from and forsking the Quran, nor should they consider hadith reports to be useless so that these reports from the Holy Prophet go entirely to waste.”

    (Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 19, p. 212-213)

  31. For ZA: I was looking for a direct statement by HMGA where he directly wrote that Bukhari had errors in it. I believe M. ali was direct when he mentioned the tradition about Abraham. Thanks for the find tho.

    For Tariq: I am comtemplating my reponse as we speak. I was aware that before Bukhari there existed the 4 schools of thought. I was well aware of that.

    What is troubling is that Islam was defined by the prophet in superclear terms. The fact that there were so many arguments is troubling as well.

    Imam Bukhari tried his best to give us the best possible reports. He rejected the report of the Mahdi and the Mujadid. This should be considered.
    He did add the report about the Messiah. I think its safe to assume that Bukhari thought that the messiah would return physically. He also thought that prophethood had ended, I THINK…even thought im sure the qadiani in scholar will find a way to get around that…

  32. In your original question you had asked “Bukhari or Muslim”, and the reference that came to my mind was where he has mentioned that a hadith about the coming of Jesus in Sahih Muslim “has doubts sticking to it like ants”, and that the same hadith was rejected by Bukhari as not meeting his standard.

    “This is the hadith which Imam Muslim has recorded in Sahih Muslim, which has been omitted by Bukhari, the chief of the collectors of hadith, because he considered it to be weak.” (Izala Auham, p. 220)

    “As against this [i.e. the Quranic statement], that same doubtful hadith of Sahih Muslim is presented which has hundreds of objections sticking to it like ants, and which in its apparent words is utterly opposed to the Holy Quran and contradictory to it. … It is a favour we have done to the author of Sahih Muslim that we accepted this hadith by giving it a different interpretation; otherwise it was our right to declare this hadith as fabricated in order to remove the contradiction. But, after thinking carefully, it is found that in fact this hadith is not fabricated but is full of metaphors.” (Tuhfa Golarwiya, pages 46-47).

    Another point which I had forgotten is that the “return” of Jesus is not mentioned in any hadith whatsoever. Nor is descent “from heaven” mentioned anywhere. The word used is “nuzul” or descent, which is a word also commonly applied to someone merely arriving, such as a visitor.

  33. Bashir,
    What exactly will this accomplish? We are crystal clear on his stance regarding Quran vs. Hadith. There is no exception at all regarding which collection a hadith comes from.

  34. I understand the ahmadi(q&L) thought process.  Frankly speaking I dont agree with it.  You guys find faults with Bukhari but then authenticate a riduculous hadith from Kanzull-ummul, in terms of the age of Jesus—this logic is not fair.

    Lets review some things here:

    1.  The Koran is out of order, it is very hard to find the context of lots of verses.  All the mufassirs who ever existed claimed that the Koran had many contradictions in it, i.e. MANSUKH.

    1.a.  Subsequently the ahmadis(q) have changed the context of numerous verses like 4:69, 33:40, 2:5, etc etc etc.  And the AAIIL totally agree with me on this. 

    2.  Bukhari could have errors, Muslim could have errors in it, all hadith books are open to errors.  

    2.a. The 4 schools of thought also have many errors in them.  Oddly enough they all believed in the theory of MANUSKH–but the ahmadis dont agree with them in this respect.

    3.  The history writers of Islam were all liars, they claimed the prophet lusted after women, they are the reference point for the satanic verses.  etc etc etc

    4.  All the mujadids that allah inspired/sent never even understood the Koran at all.  They were all incorrect about Jihad as well.  They all viewed the Koran as a contradicting book.  And they were all wrong to believe that Jesus would physically descend from the heavens. 

    So this is the state of affairs for the muslims.  The ahmadis(q&L) use a policy of picking and choosing.   I am totally against picking and choosing.  I want to view Kanzul-ummul in its entirety so that I can see what other ridiculous things exist therin. 

    My problem is this:  How do I know what is accurate and what isnt?  There appears to be so much confusion inside Islam, how does a person properly understand it?

    FYI:  I was looking for an instance where HMGA dis-credited a report from Bukhari, especially in terms of apostacy, or MANSUKH.  I dont think that he ever wrote such a thing.  

    Thank you ZA for finding that report by HMGA where he found fault with a report from Muslim.  Again, HMGA did not discredit Muslim in terms of apostacy or MANSUKH.   

    These are my thoughts….

  35. As far as the word Nuzul goes.  I know that all words have multiple meanings.  The ahmadis(q) have translated khatam as meaning CHIEF.  I was reading MUIRS book on the life of Muhammad earlier today and Muhammad commonly referred to his people as messengers, when they were delivering messages for him. 

    When it came to Jesus, this word was always defined as a physical descent from a heaven.  So muslims used this as the foundation of the belief that Jesus must have ascended there in the first place.  Im not saying that I agree, but with limited resources, this is a theory that most muslims came to agree on. 

    For Tariq:

    HMGA once challenged the ulama to a debate about the death of Jesus, he asked them to use the Koran, Bukhari and Muslim as reference material.  Thus, showing that these 2 books were the most authentic of any of the hadith books.

    Furtermore, I strongly believe that Bukhari and Muslim’s books were the last chance that muslims has to get their religion figured out.  There was a major religious awakening that happened in their era.  And now we are discrediting these books…

    I accept all of these books, they are all artifacts.  They all have a certain value.  I love ibn hisham, tabari and wakidi, I think these books have shown the true position of Islam.  Remember, history is always told by the victor. 

  36. Bashir, please be clear about you believe. I have been utterly confused about your thought process.

    Do you believe the Qur’an has no arrangement to it, and contradicts itself?

    Do you believe that blasphmers should be put to death?

    Do you believe Islam teaches apostates should be put to death?

    Do you believe that Islam teaches Muslims to impose Islam on non-Muslim nations by force.

    Do you believe the Holy Prophet Muhamamd was a sinner?

    If so, with such beliefs, what makes you convinced then that Islam is a religion from God?

    And also, what makes you different the Taliban mentality and view of Islam? Which Muslim country today do you view as practicing the ideals of Islam? 

    Which party of Islam or school of thought do you suggest we follow. Which school of thought do you follow?

  37. For Bashir:

    “I understand the ahmadi(q&L) thought process. Frankly speaking I dont agree with it. You guys find faults with Bukhari but then authenticate a riduculous hadith from Kanzull-ummul, in terms of the age of Jesus—this logic is not fair.”

    Frankly speaking I don’t think you have understood the Ahmadi thought process on Hadith AT ALL; which is very surprising as it was explained quite clearly by Dr. ZA. We do not find faults with Bukhari on a general level, but on specific Hadith that we feel are in contradiction with the Quran; which is the logic consistently applied to all collections. It is not the collection per se but the conformity of any specific Hadith to Quranic teaching that is the logical basis for rejecting any Hadith (regardless of which collection it may belong to).

  38. First let me write that I am very appreciative that the aaiil has afforded me the opportunity to write freely on their blog. You people have been very kind to me over the past couple of years.

    For Omar:

    I believe Islam was a violent religion as was Judaism and Christianity. The prophet Joshua did some horrendous things on his journey into the promised land.

    Now when I say violent I mean like the USA, like the UK. Both of these countries killed millions of innocent people en-route to global domination. This was standard operating procedure for any kingdom that was trying to expand. I believe that these things were needed for evolution of the human.

    So, when I call the muslims violent I am not comdeming them. I am only stating the obvious. When Islam was not a nation they were very peaceful, as Islam emerged into a national power they became aggressive, see Chapter 9. A strong defense is a good offense.

    2. Yes, I believe that the Koran is poorly arranged and the context can be easily changed as needed, see the qadianis and 33:40 & 4:69 & 2:5 just for some basic examples.

    3. I believe in freedom of speech, barbaric societies like the ones that sprang up in the middle east and everywhere on this planet did not believe in freedom of speech. This is a basic concept of anthropology.

    3.a. You tell me, before the european renaissance what country or nation allowed there leaders to be ridiculed on a national scale. Who defamed the HP and lived to tell about it without repenting?

    4. As far as the punishment for apostacy goes. In a military society if a member of the military quits that particular organization and gives up secrets to its rival, the punishment is death. Leaving Islam is somewhat the same situation. In a barbaric society quitting a religion was punishable by death, although there were exceptions to the rule.

    4.a. I was in the US military and the punishment for treason was death. Even if we were POW’s and we gave up crucial info to the enemy the punishment was death. If we quit and joined the communist or a rival of the USA, the punishment was death. Check the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, UCMJ.

    5. I believe that Islam allows other nations to pay Jizyah–this was an arab custom. Islam conquered Tabuk, they charged the people of Tabuk 1 dinar per person(MUIR). Why did the HP even ask for jizyah?
    Why didnt he deliver the message and go home?
    The people of Tabuk didnt need the protection of the HP, nor did they ask for it. If someone shows up to you doorstep with 1000 warriors, what would you do? Also, The HP accepted jizyah before allah even authorized its acceptance. Jizyah was authorized after the return from Tabuk, I THINK..

    6. I dont think that the HP was a sinner, I think he was human. I think he advised as he saw fit. He was able to have as many women as he so desired. He did whatever he thought that he needed to do spread the message of Islam. I respect him greatly.

    7. I will answer the rest later….

  39. “Who defamed the HP and lived to tell about it without repenting?”

    The following:

    1. All the enemies who persecuted him and who were forgiven by him at the conquest of Makkah, without accepting Islam. Sir William Muir writes about this:

    “Although the city had cheerfully accepted his authority, all its inhabitants had not yet embraced the new religion, nor formally acknowledged his prophetical claim. Perhaps he intended to follow the course he had pursued at Madinah and leave the conversion of the people to be gradually accomplished without compulsion.”

    2. Those who defamed Aishah with the charge of adultery lived to tell the tale. The man who had to repent was Hazrat Abu Bakr for stopping financial assistance to one of the accusers:

    “And let not possessors of grace and abundance among you [i.e. Hazrat Abu Bakr] swear against giving to the near of kin and the poor and those who have fled in Allah’s way; and pardon and overlook. Do you not love that Allah should forgive you? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” (24:22)

    Hazrat Abu Bakr was ordered to keep on giving money to the accuser of his daughter!

    3. The hypocrites, mentioned in chapter 9, “And of them are those who molest the Prophet” (9:61). They survived. One lived till the time of Uthman, as a hypocrite.

    Regarding jizya from Tabuk, read also in ch. 9 about the hypcrites:

    “Say: Spend willingly or unwillingly, it will not be accepted from you. Surely you are a transgressing people. And nothing hinders their contributions being accepted from them, except that they disbelieve in Allah and in His Messenger” (9:53-54)

    If the Holy Prophet wanted to raise money from people, why did he refuse to accept the contributions of the hypocrites in Madina and undertake a hard journey to Tabuk to collect jizya!

  40. @Bashir:
    “So, when I call the muslims violent I am not comdeming them. I am only stating the obvious. When Islam was not a nation they were very peaceful, as Islam emerged into a national power they became aggressive, see Chapter 9. A strong defense is a good offense.”
    Had you read following book, you would not have written above quote:
    The Early Caliphate:
    by Maulana Muhammad Ali
    Biographies of: Hazrat Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman and Ali (rta)


  41. To Bashir,

    1.  Unless I’m mistaken, I believe you are implying Islam as per directive of the Qur’an and example of the Holy Prophet allows for the killing of innocent people, since the means justifies the end (to spread Islam)!

    The Qur’an does not at all sanction aggressive warfare (to include the 9th chapter). The life of the Prophet Muhammad bears testimony to this truth. Mind you, it was in his 54th year that he first took up arms in self defense against a people that were bent upon annihilating him and his followers. Islam spread, but it spread in spite of war, not because of it, including up to the time of the early caliphate.

    I do not know what you have referred to the Prophet Joshua, as I was under the impression you didn’t accept anything as trustworthy from the Bible.

    2.  And since you regard the Qur’an as being poorly arranged (by subject-matter), then I have not understood your position on the Qur’an. Do you accept the Qur’an as the word of God in entirety, or with human interpolation?

    What do you make of the following verses?

    “And those who disbelieve say. Why has not the Qur’an been revealed to him all at once? Thus, that We may establish thy heart by it (in memory) — and We have arranged it well in arranging” (25:32). 

    “Surely on Us rests the collecting of it and the reciting of it” (75:17).

  42. A comprehensive book everyone should read is: The Preaching of Islam, A History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith, by Sir T.W. Arnold, 2nd edition, 1913.

    There are several reprints of it published in India and Pakistan.

    Sir T.W. Arnold was teacher of Allama Iqbal in Lahore, and returned to England to write the above book, proving conclusively that Islam spread by preaching not force.

    The copyright must have expired long ago, so someone should scan it and place it online. When you read it you wonder why no Muslim ever did research of this kind! Muslims did however translate it into various languages of Muslim countries.

    Contents: Chapter 1: Introduction; Chapter II. Study of the Life of Muhammad Considered as a Preacher of Islam; Chapter III. The Spread of Islam Among the Christian Nations of Western Asia; Chapter IV. The Spread of Islam Among the Christian nations of Africa; Chapter V. The spread of Islam Among the Christian of Spain; Chapter VI. The Spread of Islam Among the Christian Nations in Europe under the Turks; Chapter VII. The Spread of Islam in Persia and Central Asia; Chapter VIII. The Spread of Islam among the Mongols and Tatars; Chapter IX. The Spread of Islam in India; Chapter X. The Spread of Islam in China; Chapter XI. The Spread of Islam in Africa; Chapter XII. The Spread of Islam in the Malay ARchipelago; Chapter XIII. Conclusion;

  43. @Bashir: “A strong defense is a good offense.” Now I am totally confused as to what you are tyring to say. Did you mean it the other way round????

  44. Wow, I have alot of writing to do….
    Thank you guys again for allowing me this oppurtunity to discuss Islam. I think some of the anti-ahmadiyya people like crank have complained that ZA does not allow people to voice their opinions, boy was he wrong.

    1. I was wrong about jizyah, I looked it up last night, and the verse on jizyah was revealed before the expedition of Tabuk, not after.

    1.a. Jizyah was compensation for not accepting islam and giving up young men to join the war/struggle(jihad). If the people of Tabuk would have joined Islam they would have been forced to give up there young men to the military. I didnt find any data that showed that even one person accepted Islam from Tabuk, during this expedition.

    1.b. Anyhow, the people of Tabuk did not ask for the protection of the muslims. The muslims imposed this protection upon them. I am not done researching this event, there was also another battle, which was before the conquest of mecca called the battle of muta. I was reading that last night and trying to piece together the islamic battles and chapter 9 and jihad.

    2. My overall point is this: when the system of bartering was in currency, anything could be pardoned. But, GENERALLY SPEAKING, people werent coming out into the open and cursing the prophet and defaming him. In “olden” times most kings didnt accept this type of behavior. If someone conspired against a king his punishment was death.

    I also found this:
    In 630, Muhammad marched on Mecca with an enormous force, said to number more than ten thousand men. With minimal casualties, Muhammad took control of Mecca (watt). He declared an amnesty for past offences, except for ten men and women who had mocked and ridiculed him in songs and verses. Some of these were later pardoned.
    Rodinson (2002), p. 261.


    From the general amnesty extended to the citizens of Mecca, Mahomet excluded ten or twelve persons. Of these, however, only four were actually put to death(muir).

    Obviously Muhammad was forgiving, I personally feel that other arabs werent as forgiving.

    3. Hazrat Ali asked the HP to get rid of Ayesha, not is so many words though. He wasnt too happy about that whole situation. This testimony alone gives me doubts as well:


    There, having called to him Osama and Ali, he asked counsel of them. Osama declared his utter disbelief of the slanderous reports. Ali with greater caution, recommended the examination of Ayesha’s maid; and the maid when called could bear testimony to nothing but the general innocence of her mistress. 48

    48 We must remember that all this is Ayesha’s own account of the matter, and that there was a strong antipathy between her and Ali. Her statement must therefore be received with caution. It is as follows – Ali replied to Mahomet: “O Prophet! there is no lack of women, and thou canst without difficulty supply her place. Ask this servant girl about her, perchance she may tell the truth.” So Mahomet called Bureira; Ali arose and struck her severely, saying, – “Tell the truth unto the Prophet.” “I know nothing,” said she, “of Ayesha but what is good – excepting this, indeed, that one day I was kneading corn, and I asked her to watch it, and she went asleep, and the goats came and ate thereof.” Hishami, p.316.

    4. Maybe i was wrong to use such general statements. From what you have presented it is quite clear that Muhammad did allow some freedom of speech. I was comparing the freedom of speech in the USA where the president of our country is critisized day in and day out. The hypocrites that you mentioned were slient after being admonished. They were under strict supervision and they were watched from a military standpoint.

    4.a. Even Ayesha was allowed to live after her Jihad against Hazrat Ali. But she was quiet for the rest of her life, in other words she didnt engage in politics.

    4.b. In a bartering society anything is negotiable, there are strict rules but there are always exceptions to those rules. In the Koran the most oft repeated exception is “except what your right hands posses. It has been accused by western writers that Muslims were to 4 wives maximum, with a major exception which allowed muslims to have relations with the woem that were captured as a result of war.


    5. I dont know why the HP accepted jizyah from kafirs and didnt accept zaakat from muslims. I have no idea. I know that these are facts. I know that the people of Tabuk didnt ask for protection. The people of Tabuk were conquered without a single soul accepting Islam. Tabuk was udner the control of the muslims until further notice.

    6. For Rashid, I have read that book by M. ali as of yet, I think I skimmed it a few years back, I cant remember off the top of my head in terms of what is written therin.

    6.a. I rely on the history writers of Islam for direct references to what happened in Islam. As well the Koran and the relevant hadith.

    6.b. Currently, I am intrigued to learn about the battle of muta and the circumstances theirin.

    7. For Umar, innocent people die in wars. This is a historical fact. The USA has killed thousands of innocent people. The europeans murdered millions of native americans. The prophet Joshua killed men, women and children. I believe that HMGA even agreed that this event did happen. It is a well known historical fact as to what Joshua did at jericho.

    7.a. Christians and Jews have never tried to alter the explanation as given in the old testament. Every scholar that I have ever encountered has agreed to this event.

    7.b. I will have to find the reference, but, HMGA argued that Allah was slowly doing away with jihad for the spread of religion.

    8. I accept events and facts. For example Jesus was on the cross, Joshua destroyed jericho for no reason, but to enter Canaan because his god had apparently told him do so. Can u imagine the amount of innocent people that perished in Jericho?

    9. I accept the Koran as the word of Allah. I am not yet sure if some portions were forgotten or not. I am still researching that.

    9.a. The verse about stoning is missing, I read a tradition in the malik muwatta, here it is:

    Book 41, Number 41.1.10:
    Malik related to me that Yahya ibn Said heard Said ibn al-Musayyab say, “When Umar ibn al-Khattab came from Mina, he made his camel kneel at al-Abtah, and then he gathered a pile of small stones and cast his cloak over them and dropped to the ground. Then he raised his hands to the sky and said, ‘O Allah! I have become old and my strength has weakened. My flock is scattered. Take me to You with nothing missed out and without having neglected anything.’ Then he went to Madina and addressed the people. He said, ‘People! Sunan have been laid down for you. Obligations have been placed upon you. You have been left with a clear way unless you lead people astray right and left.’ He struck one of his hands on the other and then said, ‘Take care lest you destroy the ayat of stoning so that one will say, “We do not find two hadds in the Book of Allah.” The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, stoned, so we have stoned. By He in Whose Hand my self is, had it not been that people would say that Umar ibn al-Khattab has added to the Book of Allah ta-ala, we would have written it, “The full-grown man and the full-grown woman, stone them absolutely.” We have certainly recited that.'”

    Malik said, “Yahya ibn Said said Said ibn al-Musayyab said, ‘Dhu’l-Hijja had not passed before Umar was murdered, may Allah have mercy on him.’ ”

    Yahya said that he had heard Malik say, “As for his words ‘The full-grown man and the full-grown woman’ he meant, ‘The man and the woman who have been married, stone them absolutely.’ ”

    10. Finally for Usman. You should reflect as to why the USA has occupied Iraq and Afghnistan. Why is that Japan and Germany are not allowed to have a military. My answer will show up as you reflect on these issues.


  46. For ZA: I know that you are busy:

    Did HMGA ever discredit Bukhari in any shape or form, what about Noorudin?

    HMGA wrote that there were some people who were forced to accept Islam.

    He writes:


    “…….Only for such enemies was it ordered that they could be killed unless they accept Islam”. 17

    17–this reference is to the convicted criminals who had committed serious atrocitie, see also pages 5-7(translator)

  47. in regards to point 7b , the reference is from Arbaeen RK Volume 17, p443 (at margin).  Promised Messiah  writes in time of Hazrat Musa killing of children was part of jihad, but in time of Holy Prophet killing children was forbidden, then in early days of Islam people could be saved from punishment if they gave jizyah. Finally in time of Promised Messiah jihad is forbidden completely.

  48. @Bashir….ok I am reflecting and waiting for your answer….but feel free to ignore my last comment as it is trivial in the context of the total discussion you are engaged in.

  49. Did HMGA ever discredit Bukhari in any shape or form, what about Noorudin?

    To Bashir,

    It’s one thing to reject the Ahmadiyya position on the Qur’an and hadith, but another to continually fail to understand what it even is.  This underlying principle of upholding the Qur’an first and foremost, and giving it precedence over everything is a hallmark of the Ahmadiyya teaching. I believe this has already been explained a number of times by Dr. Zahid Aziz and other members of this forum. (Usman, Tariq, Ikram)

    I put before you what the Promised Messiah has stated in Kishti-i Nuh: 

    “Those who honour the Quran shall receive honour in heaven. Those who give precedence to the Quran over every hadith report and every other saying, they shall be given precedence in heaven. There is now no book for the guidance of mankind on earth except the Quran.”

    Please see: Status and glory of the Holy Quran in the view of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad compiled by Dr. Zahid Aziz

    What do you think Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad meant by giving precedence to the Qur’an over every hadith report? If you understand what his position is, then I think the question of discrediting Bukhari or Muslim need not arise.

    You are so keen on wanting to knowing exactly which reports are not accepted, but yet it’s as if you do not even acknowledge what the Ahmadiyya position is on this matter in the first place. How is this helping you? 

    And Bashir, why will the Holy Prophet Muhammad say his people have abandoned the Qur’an (See ch. 25. v. 30)?

  50. Umar: my brother, i understand the ahmadiyya position. I am asking a question in addition to the facts that have been stated.

    I was curious to know if HMGA had ever directly dis-credited bukhari. I was happy to read the reference by HMGA in terms of Sahih muslim. I think that was the only instance that HMGA directly questioned a report in Muslim.

    It is very strange that HMGA did not ever comment on bukhari and muslim in terms of abrogation and apostacy.

    The same question exists in terms of the writings of Noorudin. I remeember when Noorudin was on his death bed he commented to hazrat m. ali, “…bukhari remains”.

  51. Bashir,

    I don’t know whether or not HMGA directly commented on certain reports in Bukhari in terms of abrogation and apostasy. Even if he didn’t, then for the sake of argument, what difference does it make?

    Why are you not satisfied that Maulana Muhammad Ali has in his book The Religion of Islam?

    The following is from: Maulana Muhammad Ali in the eyes of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad compiled by Zahid Aziz

    9. Directs the Maulana to write a book about Islam

    It was reported in the Ahmadiyya newspaper Badr during the life of Hazrat Mirza that on 13 February 1907 Hazrat Mirza called in Maulvi Muhammad Ali and said to him:

    “I want to fulfil the duty of the propagation of Islam to the Western people by having an English book written, and this is your work. The reason why Islam today is not spreading in those countries, and if someone does become a Muslim he is very weak, is that those people do not know the truth about Islam, nor has it been presented to them. It is their right that they should be shown the true Islam which God has made manifest to me. …All those arguments that God has taught me to prove Islam to be true should be collected together in one place. If a comprehensive book along these lines is compiled it is hoped that people would benefit from it greatly.”

    (Ruhani Khaza’in No. 2, vol. 9, pages 191–192)

    The Maulana eventually performed the great service of writing such a book in the form of The Religion of Islam, first published in 1936. In the preface of this book he mentions that Hazrat Mirza had asked him to write such a book:

    “…the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, had charged me with the writing of an English book which should contain all that was necessary for a Muslim, or a non-Muslim, to know about the religion of Islam, and to give a true picture of the religion which was largely misrepresented.”

  52. February 3rd, 2011 at 7:44 pm
    From Syed Hasnain Raza:

    You Busterds. You are not a muslim you are liar and misguided people and your Mirza who dead in washroom of a train. listen carefully how can I say you are liar. Listen if you are right so why your present Leader who live in germany accept Islam and left you and Mirza. Why
    Think about it and accept the Islam
    Allah Bless You

  53. Non followers of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad are accepting and preaching death of Hazrat Eisa (AS) death. Following video is an example:

  54. July 2nd, 2012 at 7:06 pm
    From The Interpreter:

    Use the Quran to attain purity and be a model human being for others. Fulfil your obligations and Bow only to the Ultimate Source of all things existant. Which is the true meaning of living the Kalima.


    Any other purpose for which the Quran is used will only give you rope to stray farther.
    May you be guided.