Yet another blasphemy case
Submitted by Usman.
A few days a lower court in Pakistan convicted a poor Christian woman to death for blasphemy. The woman has 5 children, one of whom is a disabled 12 year old girl. One just hopes that the High Court over turns this verdict and that she is not murdered by the Mullahs. Already the local Mullah has declared that she should be killed. May Allah have mercy on the people who think nothing of taking the life of a poor woman with 5 children.
http://beta.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=15628&Cat=2&dt=11/14/2010
More details on the case are here:
http://www.dawn.com/2010/11/24/a-sip-of-water-by-rafia-zakaria.html
Reaction from the civil society, minorities etc:
http://www.dawn.com/2010/11/22/pressure-grows-for-pardon-of-aasia-bibi.html
http://blog.dawn.com/2010/11/22/intolerance-of-the-other/
Reaction from the Mullahs:
http://www.dawn.com/2010/11/24/religious-parties-threaten-protest-in-blasphemy-case.html
Reaction from Govt:
http://www.dawn.com/2010/11/23/pakistan-will-not-repeal-blasphemy-law-minister.html
Reaction from Governor of Punjab:
http://www.dawn.com/2010/11/21/blasphemy-convict-gives-mercy-plea-to-taseer-2.html
From Zahid Aziz:
The news reports say:
“Aasia Bibi, a 45-year-old woman in the village of Nankana Sahib, was sent to fetch water.
When she brought it, some of the Muslim women labourers working in the fields said they would not drink water collected by a Christian. The ensuing events are a matter of contention.”
The attitude of the Muslim women is contrary to, and opposed to, the plain teaching of the Holy Quran:
“And the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them.” (5:5)
It is a miracle of the Quran that in every respect it has convicted the intolerant Muslims of the present times as being wrong and guilty of violating its teachings.
From Tariq:
Here is the link to an interesting talk show on this subject which covers the wide spectrum of views on this subject that prevail in Pakistan.
From Rizwan Jamil:
I am a Sunni Muslim. I have read Maulana Muhammad Ali’s “The Religion of Islam”, “Muhammad The Prophet”, “The Early Caliphate”, “Alleged Atrocities of the Prophet” and many other books listed in aaiil.org Books section.
I have also read Dr. Zahid Aziz’s “Islam, Peace and Tolerance” which proves that there is no worldly punishment for blasphemy in Islam.
But my question is that:
Why is not such a blasphemy considered as “waging war against Allah and His Rasul s.a.w and striving to make mischief in the land”, as mentioned in Quran 5:33?
I feel no reason to restrict this verse to only dacoity or highway robbery. It seems to have a much wider application which includes dacoity as well as other instances of waging war and striving to make mischief in the land, which is certainly the consequent of blasphemy atleast in our times where media and communication is very fast and every Muslim everywhere is get disturbed and agitated and thus the mischief is made at a big level.
So, can not the person guilty of such kind of blasphemy in our times be sentenced the punishment of imprisonment as per verse 5:33 of the Quran?
Waiting for a scholarly response…..
From Zahid Aziz:
I am pleased to deal with your question and happy to note that you read the books of Maulana Muhammad Ali. I hope my book was also of some use to you. I am sorry if my reply below has become rather lengthy.
I think you need to be clear first about which type of accused person you are talking about: (1) someone in a Western country, e.g. those drawing cartoons of the Holy Prophet, etc., or (2) a case such as the one being discussed above of someone in a Muslim country.
Your words “every Muslim everywhere gets disturbed” indicate the first type. As such persons are living in non-Muslim countries, how would the penalties mentioned in 5:33 be applied to them?
Please recall what happened in the Salman Rushdie case. The Iranian government issued the death penalty sentence against him, but a few years later they retracted it for political benefit. In fact, they issued it originally merely in order to appear as greater defenders of Islam than the Sunnis! They dragged Islam through the mud by claiming that Islam imposed this penalty for blasphemy. What is Rushdie’s position now, 22 years later? Wealthier than ever, more famous than ever, his book translated into several languages. All as a result of Muslims trying to apply the death penalty to him.
As to type (2), it is well known that such cases in Pakistan are created falsely because the accusers have some other personal score to settle with the accused (e.g. property dispute). False accusation is a crime in Islam, so why haven’t any false accusers ever been punished in Pakistan? Did you know that in Pakistan a person can accuse another of blasphemy and need not provide any evidence, or even quote the words of blasphemy? Merely his word is accepted.
Then there is the question of what exactly is blasphemy. We know exactly what constitutes a murder by someone, or what constitutes robbery or theft. These are definable, demonstrable acts. But blasphemy is a matter of opinion. In Pakistan, various Muslim sects accuse each other of insulting the Holy Prophet. Maulana Maudoodi is accused by his opponents of having insulted several prophets of Allah and the wives of the Holy Prophet.
If an atheist preaches that God does not exist, that could be called waging a war against Allah and His Messenger. It clearly disturbs most Muslims, who get upset. So it creates mischief in the land. Is he to be punished under 5:33? What about someone who preaches the theory of Evolution? (Even Christians in a country like the USA considered it a war against God, and it created plenty of “mischief”.) Should Muslims sentence such a person under 5:33?
The fact is that in Islam so-called blasphemy (meaning accusations against, or ridicule of, Islam and its Holy Prophet) is not a crime punishable by human beings in this world. Such blasphemy occurred during the life of the Holy Prophet and he never punished anyone for it, even when his followers wanted him to. As it is not a crime punishable in the law of the land according to Islam, we cannot make it such an offence under some other heading.
As to Muslims becoming disturbed and agitated, that happens on all sorts of issues. You have read books by Maulana Muhammad Ali, which is very heartening for us. But Ulama in Pakistan get agitated if they see his books openly available, and they would stir up a mob to start a riot against such bookshops. Usually, Muslim masses are getting agitated through deliberate, cynical incitement and manipulation by their religious clerics.
Ulama in Pakistan say repeatedly that the religious sentiments of Muslims are hurt if Ahmadis claim to be Muslims. Those sentiments are hurt because the same Ulama are instructing their audience that their feelings ought to be hurt! Trying to devise laws on this sort of a basis has led to mob rule and blackmail of Muslim governments by the Ulama.
I needed to cover many aspects of the matter, and hope my reply is clear and helpful to you.
From Rizwan Jamil:
Dear Dr. Zahid!
I am honoured by your elaborated response. And i must also apologize to know that my question was not very clear and you had to cover many aspects. And i would also take this opportunity to apologize for a much longer reply then had anticipated.
Coming to the topic; those living outside the Islamic State, like Rushdie, cannot be punished ofcourse. So i was talking about those non-Muslims living under the rule/law of Islam i.e. in an Islamic State. And by Islamic State I do not mean Pakistan, but a State where Islamic Shariah is implemented in its best form.
Islam respects the rights of non-Muslim minorities living under its rule and “protects” them (in exchange of Jizyah). This “protection” ensures them their religious freedom, construction of their places of worship etc etc. In return they are also expected to respect the religion of their rulers or of the State they are living in, thus contributing to the overall peace of the society.
The act of blasphemy or disrespectful speech against the character of Allah or His Rasul s.a.w, or in other words, against the religion of your ruler/protector, is by itself a crime. Its like breaking away of your treaty, of being a “dhimmi”, with the Islamic State; the treaty which had granted you “protection” provided that you fulfilled the duties/responsibilities of a “dhimmi”. But once you have broken that treaty, you are not treated as a “dhimmi” anymore and the State is no more responsible for your “protection”.
This act of blasphemy has also disturbed the overall peace of the society, mentioned earlier, by creating such kind of “mischief” in the land. Thus due to the reasons of breaking your own treaty as well as creating mischief in the land, your have rendered yourself in a state of war with your ruler i.e. the Islamic State in our context. The Islamic State accepts your being in a state of war against it, and thus treats you as an aggressor/criminal. Thus the act of blasphemy along with its consequences becomes the “waging of war against Allah and His Rasul s.a.w and creating mischief in the land”.
Is such a disrespectful speech against Allah and His Rasul s.a.w not a crime? Not even when you are living under an Islamic Rule with an agreement and you are bound by it? Not even when you have effected the peace of the land by creating mischief in it? For me, you have “waged a war against Allah and His Rasul s.a.w and created mischief in the land”.
If it is a crime, is it, then, injustice on the part of the State to inflict a punishment on that criminal? Is it not, infact, the right of the State to inflict a punishment? Will not the punishment be friutful? Would it not prove as an effective check to such acts in the future? If such acts, even under an Islamic State, are left unchecked, would anyone have the religious authority to stop them if they start to gain number and frequency? Does not the admission that there is no punishment of such an act in Islam makes Islam incomplete as well as vulnerable to such attacks? Presenting the actual good picture of Allah and His Rasul s.a.w in literature is something that must be done but would it stop such people from doing such acts, if no check is laid on them? Have all the books in the world against rape, theft, robbery etc been able to really stop such acts? Do we not need punishment as well, besides good literature, to check such crimes? if yes then why not in the case for blasphemy?
It may also be noted that “waging war against Allah and His Rasul s.a.w” should be interpreted as maligning the character of Allah and His Rasul s.a.w. Otherwise, as you also mentioned, the saying of atheist that there is no God and all such other instances would also be included in that waging war, which makes the practical application of the verse absurd.
I also know that Asia Bibi is not “dhimmi” in Pakistan as its not an Islamic State. So i have moved the discussion towards the general punishment of blasphemy in Islam, from the one which focused on the punishment of Asia Bibi announced by Pakistan.
Lastly, we know that there are three kinds of punishments in Islam: Hudud, Qisas and Tazir. The latter is left by Islam on the discresion of Qazi. My next question is that even if it is said that 5:33 can not include the punishment of blasphemy, then why can not a Tazir be inflicted on the person guilty of blasphemy, in view of the kind of crime it is along with all its consequences as mentioned above? If it is said that speech is abstract and immeasureable and it can not be determined that how much disrespectful speech should entitle one to a punishment, then does not Tazir suit such cases? The Qazi will determine how much punishment should be inflicted on the person based upon the magnitude of his blasphemy. And ofcourse the punishment will be inflicted only when the person is found guilty. If he is not guilty and there are also no witnesses available then accusation should not be accepted to be correct and the person should be released.
I really appreciate your patience.
From Zahid Aziz:
If acts of so-called blasphemy had not been mentioned in Quran, and the Quran had not instructed us on how to respond, and if such acts had not happened in the life of the Holy Prophet Muhammad and we did not know how he would have responded, then your line of thought would have been worth pursuing. But as the Holy Quran and the Holy Prophet have dealt with this issue, and guided us clearly on what to do, we cannot devise laws contrary to that guidance, even if we think we are defending Islam by such laws.
The situation you have portrayed in your paragraphs (3) to (5) cannot, in fact, even arise in, say, Pakistan or other large majority Muslim country. With a 97% Muslim population, which non-Muslim in Pakistan can even attempt to insult Islam? Who is going to publish or broadcast their insult in the country, as everything is controlled by Muslims? Certainly, it happened in pre-partition India, but then that was a non-Muslim country where Islamic law can’t be applied anyway.
In a case of rape, robbery or murder, that you mention, we are fighting a person who commits these acts. In a case of blasphemy, we are fighting an idea which will continue to exist and propagate further, even if the perpetrator is executed.
Of course there can be laws banning material which spreads hate against anyone and is written in inflammatory language. But the problem with the blasphemy laws, like those in Pakistan, is that they are based on the belief that Islam requires anyone who insults it or the Holy Prophet to be executed. It is this belief which is not only gravely wrong but portrays Islam as totally intolerant.
You write: “The Qazi will determine how much punishment should be inflicted on the person based upon the magnitude of his blasphemy. And ofcourse the punishment will be inflicted only when the person is found guilty. If he is not guilty and there are also no witnesses available then accusation should not be accepted to be correct and the person should be released.”
But what has actually been happening in Pakistan is the opposite of this. The death penalty is automatic. The accuser’s accusation is considered enough for conviction. Islamic leaders mobilise their supporters and threaten to riot unless the accused is convicted.
If what you have written were to be the actual practice, and the prosecution proved the definite harm caused by the remarks of the blasphemer, and the punishment were to be proportionate, then the situation would be more acceptable.
Please remember, though, that much worse than the blasphemy which you are fearing hypothetically in some Muslim country has been happening from the hands of anti-Islamic writers for the past two centuries all over the world. That can only be countered by word and speech.
From Zahid Aziz:
I must also add that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad proposed very strongly to the British government of India that defamatory language against the Holy Prophet Muhammad by his critics had sunk to such an unpalatable, sickening level, that some law must be enacted to restrain the type of language used in any form of religious disputation.
Here are two of his writings from his book Kitab-ul-Bariyya. In the first, I have red-lined certain relevant passages:
Writing 1
Writing 2
As he explains, even in the absence of any law, he has tried to mitigate the effects of scurillous writings against the Holy Prophet by his own replies.
He has gone to the extent of collecting examples of abusive language to show the world the level of vile vituperation that the critics of the Holy Prophet have descended to (see pages 124 to 130 of Writing 2). Who else would collect such evidence so meticulously except a passionate devotee of the Holy Prophet?
From Rashid:
Double Standards of Our Kharjites
By Yaseer Latif Hamdani
Pak Tea House
ThankGod. Finally someone is talking, what we have talked on our LAM EZ-discussion/ message board and Blog. Please read the blog on PTH:
http://pakteahouse.net/?p=11311&cpage=1#comment-43798
From Rizwan Jamil:
Dear Dr. Zahid!
Thank you for your response.
I was talking about an Islamic State, like the one was in the early caliphate. In such a state you have the laws of Islam implemented even in a place where majority of people are Non-Muslims. So expecting blasphemy from them is only natural.
Holding an idea to do robbery is like holding an idea to do blasphemy. And doing robbery (making mischief) is like doing blasphemy (making mischief). Ofcourse we should criticise both robbery and blasphemy in literature but there is some physical action as well, that needs to be taken to punish both criminals. Criticism of the idea in literature is definitely a requirement, but doing only that is not sufficient.
Ofcourse, there are many wrong things happening in Pakistan. One can not even count. But i wanted to discuss about the punishment of blasphemy in Islam, irrespective of what Pakistan is currently doing, although i mistakenly started the talk with refernce to Asia Bibi case. I am glad that you also agree that such laws can be made to ensure the overall peace in an Islamic State, and in which the magnitude of punishment will be set as per the magnitude/consequent or the overall effect of the crime i.e. blasphemy.
Finally i totaly agree with you that the loads of criticism written by the western orientalists should be studied, researched and rebutted by Muslim scholars. Like Sir Syed Ahmad Khan did in 1870 CE when he rebutted Sprenger’s and Muir’s works of 1851 and 1862 CE respectively. Then the young Syed Ameer Ali came who in 1873 CE refuted both the above mentioned critics. Then Maulavi Cheragh Ali, whom i think not many people even know, in 1885 CE wrote his criticism of the works of Sprenger, Muir as well as Osborn (1876 CE). In the 20th century, in 1916 CE to be more precise, Maulana Shibli Nomani and Syed Suleman Nadvi completed the most voluminous (6 vol.) work on the Prophet’s Seerah in Urdu (also available in English now) encompassing an extensive criticism of the mentioned orientalists as well as of the most of the events that have been recorded to have happened in Prophet’s life, by the earliest authorities like Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, Waqidi, Ibn Saad, Tabri, Abul Fida and others. But its a disappointing reality that such works containing a careful and a painstaking critique of the Seerah of Prophet s.a.w by our Muslim scholars are overall very few, compared to what has been or is being written from the other side.
Infact a few orientalists have even taken the side of Prophet s.a.w and have criticized the biased works of their contemporary or past orientalists. Joseph White’s work in 1784 CE, Gibbon’s work in the same era, Higgins’s in 1829 CE, Carlyle’s in 1841 CE, Davenport’s in 1869 CE and Sir T W Arnold’s in 1896 CE are enough for Muslims to feel shame what “we” are doing for the defense of our beloved Prophet s.a.w.
Regards.
From Zahid Aziz:
I omitted to point out that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad made a number of proposals on how a law could be made to prevent religious offence being caused. One of his suggestions was that the proponents of every religion should only speak about the truth of their own religion, and not attack other religions or even refer to them. People could then make up their minds about the relative merits of various religions. If this was impossible to implement, then he suggested that in criticising another religion “no accusation should be levelled against a religion unless it is based on actual facts contained in the authentic and accepted books of that community… Nor should it bring forth an accusation which can also be levelled against its own established books and prophets”.
Now in Pakistan, and many other Muslim majority countries, these two suggestions would be unacceptable because number (1) allows non-Islamic religions to present their teachings to Muslims, and number (2) allows them to criticise Islam, even though it would be on the basis of authentic islamic sources and not unreliable stories.
Ulama have generally ruled that other religions cannot be presented to Muslims in an Islamic state. Indeed Dr Zakir Naik affirmed in a TV interview in Pakistan that he also holds this position that in a Muslim country non-Muslims cannot preach their religions to Muslims.
So the question arises whether any blasphemy law, of the kind proposed, would be used in practice to stop preaching of non-Muslim religions.
From Zahid Aziz:
“LAHORE: Thousands of people rallied in major Pakistani cities on Friday [24 Dec 2010] threatening further protests and anarchy if the government moves to amend a controversial blasphemy law.”
Read this latest news from Pakistan on this topic.
From Rashid:
Does blasphemy law in Pakistan only protect Muslims revered personalities?
According to Hindus, it is blasphemy of Hindu deity i.e. Cow, to slaughter and eat its meat. Still every day thousands of Pakistani butchers and many times more on Eid, Pakistanis slaughter cows.
Why blasphemy laws don’t protect Hindu deity and punish Pakistani Muslims?
It is sad to see plight of Christians when out of fear of committing blasphemy; their leaders in TV programs when taking name of Holy Prophet Muhammad end it with ‘SalAllaho Alahi WaAlehi Wasalam’. Sad part is they use these salutations out of fear and NOT with love.
From Rizwan Jamil:
Dear Dr. Zahid!
Non Muslims will not be allowed to preach their religion to Muslims under an Islamic Rule but they will definitely be allowed to practice their own religion and Muslims are prohibited to molest them or their places of worship e.g. churches, synagogues, temples etc.
In an Islamic State, or caliphate, the crime rate will be very low, as was the case in Abbasid Caliphate. This is due to the Law of Islam that has been revealed for the benefit of mankind and which has the solution to its problems. But a rare occurrence of crime does not make the absence of law indispensable. The law should exist for a crime that may occur, even if it will occur rarely. So the cases of blasphemy will be very few in a progressive Islamic State but if it occurs, i think it should be punished with Tazeer, if not with Hadd (as per 5:33), if the crime of the criminal is proven/authenticated, ofcourse.
From Rizwan Jamil:
Dear Rashid!
I think it should be noted that blasphemy includes the reviling of the reverend authorities only, and not of a concept. Quran itself criticizes so many wrong concepts and notions, the most prominent of which is shirk/polytheism. And when it comes to trinity, it even becomes very specific, clear and straight forward. But while doing that Quran also warns us not to revile others gods as in return they may revile Allah. So Muslims should also not revile Krishna or Buddha or any other gods of the polytheists. What we can do is to revile the concept of polytheism/shirk and point out the wrongs in their concepts or practices. The Prophet’s act of breaking the idols of Kaaba, thus, should also be viewed in the context of condemning the concept of shirk and not in the context of reviling the gods of the pagans. Vide Quran 6:108.
From Rizwan Jamil:
Dear All !
I am new here. Can i tell me how can i create i new post here? Right now i can only comment on the existing posts.
From Zahid Aziz:
This is a blog, as distinct from a discussion forum. New posts can only be created by the blog owner, which is myself. You can send a comment under any existing post and request that it be published as a new post.
From Zahid Aziz:
This is in response to your comment that: “Non Muslims will not be allowed to preach their religion to Muslims under an Islamic Rule but they will definitely be allowed to practice their own religion…”
Our Holy Prophet Muhammad succeeded by proving the beliefs of others (idolaters, Christians, etc) to be in error. Just as he was preaching Islam to them, they were preaching their beliefs to the Muslims. Then after the Holy Prophet’s time, as shown by Sir T W Arnold in his book (which you have mentioned in a post above), Islam spread in the world by preaching. This involved Muslims preaching the truth of Islam to others, while the others told Muslims that their own religion was true.
Since Islam became established and dominant in many countries in this way, it cannot be that after establishing its rule it would prohibit others from propagating their religions within its borders. Islam would continue to preach its truth to its non-Muslim minorities, and they would have the right to defend their beliefs and to challenge by argument the beliefs which Muslims want them to accept.
To prohibit non-Muslims from propagating their religions, if they do so in a peaceful, decent way without causing offence to others, is just a creeping extension of the blasphemy laws.
From Rashid:
1. On TV program in Pakistan about blasphemy, a christian among the audience made comment: “Every day i get at least 10 invitations to accept Islam. And Muslims ask me to read Holy Quran to appreciate beauties of Islam. But i’m sacred, if i touch Holy Quran, i will be accused of blasphemy and get into trouble. What we Christians should do?”
To say that non-Muslims should not be allowed to preach their religion in a Muslim country is tantamount to accepting that Islam is a very weak religion and Muslims faith in Islam, Allah and RasulAllah is very weak. Islam can not stand up against “logical” arguments of other religions.
May be some Muslims’ faith in Islam is that weak, that they are scared of other religions propagation. But it is definitely NOT the Islam that i understood the way it is presented in LAM literature/ HQ translations etc. This is the reason, i’m not scared of Christians or other religions preaching in Muslim majority countries. Rather, it will give chance to people like me to explain Islam to non-Muslims who visit our cities and homes. I look forward to any such chance when Christian missionaries knock on my door in USA.
2. @Brother Rizwan:
“So Muslims should also not revile Krishna or Buddha or any other gods of the polytheists.”
Muslims should not revile Krishna or Buddha as they were TRUE MESSENGERS of Allah, just like Rasool Allah SAWS.
From Rizwan Jamil:
Dear Rashid!
I totally agree with you that being a true religion, Islam should not be afraid of the preaching of other religions in its territory as truth stands clear from falsehood (2: 256). Actually the fact is that I do not have enough knowledge in this regard i.e. about the preaching of other religions in an Islamic State. I do not know what evidences the orthodox Muslims bring in favor of banning it. I think you will also agree with me that one can only reach a correct conclusion by a comparative study of both sides of evidences. So I have planned to read, as Dr. Zahid has suggested, T W Arnold’s “The Preaching of Islam” completely. I have read its 1st chapter only which pertains to the Seerah of the Prophet s.a.w. I couldn’t manage time to read through the whole of the book. If it is established that Muslims/Islam allowed/allows it, I would be the first of accept it. So I am looking forward to it.
Regarding Krishna and Buddha; I also think that they may very well be the Prophet’s of Islam, now being distorted to be gods. But my point was that, Muslims ought not to revile other’s gods. So if its is argued, which one can not do, that Krishna and Buddha were not prophets but the supposed gods of polytheists, even then Quran prohibits Muslims from reviling them.
From Amna:
“waging war against Allah and His Rasul s.a.w and striving to make mischief in the land”, as mentioned in Quran 5:33?
I remember reading the meanings of terms iblis and shaitan – one stands for when one’s evil is affecting his self only – the other term stands for when it is not affecting theirselves but people around them.
one is only restricted by law when its rebellion starts to affect people around him.
i do not know the arabic term for ‘waging war against Allah’ – if we understand the grand reality for which the word Allah stands for then we can understand that this means to defy or suppress the basic goodness of human soul.
whatever the outcome of that defiance or suppression should be dealt according to Islamic law. What we generally ignore is the role of islamic state to provide ‘remedial’ measures against it. there is so much stress on ‘punishment’ – a type of punishment which is not of ‘remedial’ nature. is it not going against the sunnah of Allah too? state should be able to assess the intention behind such an act which defies Allah – guilty should be given a warning or sufficient time to amend – if one id not giving up such acts and a constant threat to others’ welfare then state can decide what should be done according to Islamic laws.
we also ignore the nature of rebellion and reasons behind it.
Verbal abuse (intentional or unintentional) does not qualify for extreme measures like death penalty.
we have clear guidance for it – that bear it patiently – it makes sense cos if you want others’ good and moved to make them realise whats real and unreal – then it can be ignored easily.
It is said for prophet – you may kill your self with grief that they believe not – the deriving force to lead others to a higher level of character and understanding requires great deal of patience.
What i am trying to emphasize that when anyone is abusing Allah and His prophet then its quite obvious it is done because of ignorance. How can one who understands that Who is Allah and Who He will choose as His representative – fail to explain the personality of Allah to the abuser ?
if you want someone to learn the importance of morning of walk and you face nothing but blind opposition to it then would u sentence that person to death?
Allah is also the source of soul’s health. if you have such health then you should also strive hard to speak of its importance to others. if you value it the most. thats the reason the prophet was told – u may kill ur self with grief that they believe not.
One should take mature approach to such matters. if someone insults Allah then i can feel in heart how unlucky that person is and ill feel sorry for. Why should it anger me so much that i should prescribe death penalty for him?
From Rizwan Jamil:
Dear Dr. Zahid!
I happened to read somewhere about the following hadith quoted in favor of the death penalty for blasphemy. This hadith is present in Abu Dawud as well as in An-Nisai. I want your scholarly opinion on this one please.
Abu Dawud, Book 33, Prescribed Punishments, Hadith 4348
Narrated By Abdullah Ibn Abbas:
A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (pbuh) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (pbuh) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (pbuh) was informed about it.
He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.
He sat before the Prophet (pbuh) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.
Thereupon the Prophet (pbuh) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.
From Zahid Aziz:
Please note that if this hadith is accepted, it goes much further than the law of blasphemy enforced by the state, where the punishment would be applied judically. This hadith implies that a Muslim could kill anyone and then claim that he had done it because that person had abused the Holy Prophet in front of him in private. The murderer is declared innocent by the authorities without him having to present any evidence!
For example, a Muslim could murder his wife, and then confess and claim that when they were alone together she abused the Holy Prophet so he had to kill her. According to the above hadith, his mere claim is sufficient to have him declared not guilty of any crime.
The murderer of governor Salman Taseer could also claim that he, being his body guard, heard the governor abuse the Holy Prophet, and had to kill him!
Please let us know if you believe in the above way of implementing the law of blasphemy.
From Rizwan Jamil:
Hmmm… Yes you are right. Any murderer can claim this for the murdered and the murdered can not say anything in defense. Moreover Islam does not allow anyone to take the law in his/her own hands. Every matter must be put in front of the judge. So the Prophet pbuh could not have said such a thing. This hadith becomes dubious this way. And even if it is authentic, this practice of the Prophet pbuh can not be generalized as a law in Islam, as he pbuh was a prophet and who knows that he might have got a wahi for that particular case from Allah, which the report failed to mention.
Thank You!
From Zahid Aziz:
The basic points are: (1) there is no mention of any punishment for blasphemy in the Quran, (2) on the contrary, the Quran guides us on how to deal with those who abuse the Holy Prophet, not involving punishing them, and (3) there are very authentic reports saying that when the Holy Prophet was himself faced with verbal abuse and his followers asked permission to kill the abuser, the Holy Prophet did not allow any harm to be done to the culprit.
As to the hadith report you have quoted, kindly post the report which occurs after the one after this, reported by Abi Barza beginning “I was sitting with Abu Bakr…” I don’t have Abu Dawud in electronic form but only in book form, otherwise I would post it myself.
From Rizwan Jamil:
Wow! Thats a great hadith;
Abu Dawud, Book 33, Prescribed Punishments, Hadith 4350
Narrated By AbuBakr:
AbuBarzah said: I was with AbuBakr. He became angry at a man and uttered hot words. I said: Do you permit me, Caliph of the Apostle of Allah (pbuh), that I cut off his neck? These words of mine removed his anger; he stood and went in. He then sent for me and said: What did you say just now? I said: (I had said:) Permit me that I cut off his neck. He said: Would you do it if I ordered you? I said: Yes. He said: No, I swear by Allah, this is not allowed for any man after Muhammad (pbuh).
Thank You!
You can download the hadith software from any of the following sites:
http://www.islamtomorrow.com/downloads/UPLOADS/Islamasoft_Solutions_page.htm
http://www.islamasoft.co.uk/downloads.html
From Zahid Aziz:
Looking further at that first hadith (“A blind man had a slave-mother …”), there are some important differences between this story and the blasphemy killings of the present day.
1. The man is blind, which may count in his favour in any verdict against him.
2. He repeatedly tried to stop her from abusing the Holy Prophet, but she persisted.
3. He was apparently provoked beyond self-control by repeated abuse.
4. He was trembling when confessing what he had done.
Perhaps the Holy Prophet took all these things into account, just as a court today would.
From Bilal Roberts:
Why cant Ahmadis get over the fact that Muslims reject their affiliation with Islam??
Your Mirza wrote some weird things. He claimed propehthood. He called Muslims Kafirs.
“O Prophet, feed the hungry and the distressed.”
[Badr, vol. 7, no. 1, January 9, 1908, p. 1, 3
Hakam, vol. 12, no. 1, January 2, 1908, p. 3]
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Tadhkirah.pdf
Page 988
and
al-
From Zahid Aziz:
Mr Roberts, your statement “Muslims reject their affiliation with Islam?” is of course correct in the sense that any Muslim who regards us as Muslim is declared by you as kafir. First you declare that any Muslim who regards Ahmadis as Muslim is himself a kafir just like Ahmadis are kafir (for example, the constitution of Pakistan says this). Then, with beautiful logic, you put forward the argument that Ahmadis are kafir because all Muslims call them kafir!
Why do all Muslims declare Ahmadis as kafir? Because you have expelled from Islam any Muslim who doesn’t consider Ahmadis as kafir!
From Bilal Roberts:
@ zahid
You are a confusing person that appears to be more interested in catching up with technicalities more than anything else. Just like your founder MGA I suppose.
Generally, almost every Islamic country has revoked Ahmadiyyat the priviledge of being called Muslims. Islam is an elite category, Muslims dont like to be imitated by those who are only interested in a business venture, as MGA was.
The Islamic world is telling Ahmadis that their founder, whether he was a prophet or not, held heretical claims that damage the purity of Islam. Ahmadiyyat has proven to be disrespectful inasmuch as it rips at the fabric of Islam and has added a family business to the appelation of what a Muslim is.
You, yourself, at this blog have admitted that the sons of your founder have led the majority of Ahmadis into hell. Mahmuds version of Ahmadiyyat is the biggest lie ever concocted, in LAM theory at least.
Thank You
From Zahid Aziz:
Where is the complicated “technicality” in my simple point that: First you declare that any Muslim who regards Ahmadis as Muslim is himself a kafir and non-Muslim, and then you say “all Muslims” call Ahmadis as kafir?
“Generally, almost every Islamic country has revoked Ahmadiyyat the priviledge of being called Muslims.”
Can you provide any evidence of this claim of yours?
There is a census taking place in UK this month. In Question 20 (“What is your religion”?) I will be ticking the box for “Muslim”. The form says that it is an offence to supply false information. Are you going to take me to court for providing false information?
You talk about turning Islam into a “business venture” and “family business”. Your own Muslim leaders have turned Islam into a political and family venture. Look at the rulers of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, using Islam to further their worldly ambitions.
Z.A. Bhutto, who declared Ahmadis as non-Muslim in Pakistan, turned Islam into a political venture by using the name of Islam to stay in power.
One of the biggest Islamic business ventures is by the anti-Ahmadiyya organisations trying to get popularity and collecting money from Muslims under the guise of fighting Ahmadiyyat. Everyone in Pakistan, and in Pakistani communities abroad, knows that the easiest way to get popularity is to start opposing Ahmadiyyat.
Maulana Sanaullah of Amristar, a leading opponent of Ahmadiyyat, said in a gathering in my grandfather’s presence: “I have made a lot of money by opposing Mirza”. This was published in a newspaper.
You write: “You, yourself, at this blog have admitted that the sons of your founder have led the majority of Ahmadis into hell.”
Who am I to say who will go to hell? It could be the Muslim extremists who have badly damaged the name of Islam in the world by their violence in the name of Islam, and you regard them as Muslims!
The greatest sin for a Muslim is to kill another Muslim. Muslims are doing so everyday in Pakistan and in the Middle East. The Quran tells us which Muslim will go to hell:
“And a believer would not kill a believer except by mistake. … … And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell, abiding therein; and Allah is wroth with him and He has cursed him and prepared for him a grievous chastisement.” (4:92-93)
From Bilal Roberts:
Where and when did I say that ANY MUSLIM who declares Ahmadis as Muslim is a Kafir? I never wrote that.
Secondly, you are an argumentative person. You look for technicalities in someones writings and then try to expose them. Why dont you argue like a Muslim? Why dont you behave like an adult.
Thirdly, Islamic govts. have the responsibility to protect its minorities and majorities. This is why they are forced to define as to what groups are or arent Muslim.
1. Did you ask for evidence? Another technicality that you are searching for??? And I wrote, ‘generally’. The Hindus of India declare you people as Muslims. They dont feel disrespected in terms of the way your founder wrote about Baba nanak and claimed to be Krishna.
2. Faruqi wrote a book about Qadianism. Its called Truth Triumphs. My observations come from there.
3. In LAM theology…if a Muslim claims prophethood after Muhammad (Saw) is he a Kafir or not???
4. ““God has conveyed it to me that every person to whom my call is conveyed and who does not accept me is NOT a Muslim and is accountable to God for his default”. (Letter addressed to Dr. Abdul Hakeem). [TADHKIRAH, PDF 519; recorded in March 1906]
From Zahid Aziz:
Your anti-Ahmadiyya fellows say that any Muslim who considers Ahmadis as Muslims is a kafir. This is why in Pakistan they got it added to the declaration which every person calling himself a Muslim has to make on his passport application form. They all have to declare that they regard all Ahmadis as non-Muslim and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as an imposter prophet. You say you fully support the anti-Ahmadiyya laws enacted in Pakistan.
“Secondly, you are an argumentative person.” — If we were living in one of those Muslim countries whose anti-Ahmadiyya laws you approve of, I wouldn’t be allowed to reply to you. So perhaps it irritates you that I can respond to you here!
“You look for technicalities in someones writings and then try to expose them.” — I am exposing the falsehood in your comments. It is either direct falsehood from you or you are merely parroting falsehood taught to you.
You say Islamic governments “are forced to define as to what groups are or arent Muslim”. — That should then be done according to the definition of a Muslim in the Quran and Hadith. But you and your fellows run away from that true Islamic definition!
1. You say you wrote “generally”. You also wrote: “almost every Islamic country”. This is an often-repeated falsehood told by the anti-Ahmadiyya. There are probably two or three such countries, which you call “almost every”.
“The Hindus of India” don’t only declare us as Muslims, they also declare you and the anti-Ahmadiyya as Muslims as well!
2. M.A. Faruqui never wrote that Qadianis will go to hell, which is what you attributed to us.
3. It is Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who declared in public: “After the Holy Prophet Muhammad, I consider anyone who claims prophethood and messengership to be a liar and unbeliever.”
4. In his book Haqiqat-ul-Wahy he has answered a question about exactly the above quotation. His reply shows that he was writing after years of bearing patiently being called kafir by the Muslim religious leaders. He states categorically that he never initiated calling any Muslim who did not accept him as kafir. After 12 or more years of being declared kafir, he said that according to hadith those Ulama who called him kafir had made themselves kafir, and likewise those followers of theirs who failed to apply the verdict of this hadith to these religious leaders also made themselves kafirs. He clearly wrote, while answering a question about this quotation, that if any Muslims denounce these religious leaders for calling him kafir, he would unhesitatingly consider them as Muslims.
Lastly, you may like to take a look at our latest publication at this link. Are those people non-Muslim who produce such books to convey the message of the Holy Quran to non-Muslims?
From Bilal Roberts:
Zahid, your sentiments reek of Islamaphobia. You really hate Muslims and it resonates through your posts.
1. You prophet said that if any Muslim calls him a Kafir, they automatically become Kafirs.
1.a. Do you understand this? Do you understand the ramifications of this assertion? Do you understand that your prophet was basically telling EVERY MUSLIM that will ever call him a Kafir that they themselves are the real Kafirs, and outside Islam.
1.b. Secondly, your prophet goes on further to say in 1906, that people who havent even heard his claim are Kafirs. His sons said a few years later, that because Mirza was a prophet, in the entire Muslim ummah automatically became Kafirs upon Mirzas appearance, they said that this is similiar to when Muhammad (saw) appeared and the world became Kafir.
2. You didnt answer my question. What does the LAM have to say about those who deny the finality of prophethood, then create prophets as they wish, as is the case with the Mirza bros.?
3. Ahmadiyyat is such a nuisance in Pakistan, the govt had to step in and make sweeping declarations in an attempt to protect the majority. Muhammad (saw) burned a mosque on his way back from Tabuk. These people claimed to be Muslims, they werent!!! Muhammad (saw) had to respond to the pretenders.
3.a. Muslims dont want to declare this group or that group as Kafirs. But, what can an Islamic govt do??? People cant make cartoons about Muhammad (saw) either. The civilians of any Islamic govt. must respect Islam.
3.b. All versions of Ahmadiyyat disrespect Islam.
4. Give me a list of Islamic govts that have declared Ahmadis (of any version) as Muslims. Im waiting……..
5. You quoted your founder….
“After the Holy Prophet Muhammad, I consider anyone who claims prophethood and messengership to be a liar and unbeliever.”
5.a. This is from before 1901, after 1901 his attitude changed. In 1904, he claimed to be krishna. He would have lived until 80 (like he prophecied) I hypothesize that he would have claimed to be a LAW-BEARING prophet. There are some quotes from after 1901 that could be defined as similiar. But…MGAQ is only decieving the masses, as is was his usual demeanor.
6. In the enjd, your founder was an imposter. His sons were worse and Muhammad Ali and company denied the miraculous birth of Esa (as).
From Zahid Aziz:
From the link I gave to our latest publication in which I played a major role, people can determine for themselves whether I suffer from Islamaphobia.
But it is clear that you have the same approach and mentality as the Islamaphobes, which is to tell falsehoods and make distortions such as quoting “kill unbelievers wherever you find them”. When Muslims reply: “We don’t believe this, we don’t do this”, the Islamaphobes say: But your Prophet did. That’s Bilal Roberts’ approach to Ahmadiyyat.
I also suggest that you read the views of a sane Muslim as posted on this blog here.
1. It is hadith which says any Muslim who calls another Muslim a kafir gets the epithet reflected back upon him. Muslim theologians have always believed this. You are denying plain ahadith of the Holy Prophet Muhammad.
You claim that he said in 1906 that “people who havent even heard his claim are Kafirs”. — A typical lie by you. He wrote the opposite in 1906:
“In his booklet, Al-Masih al-Dajjal, Dr. Abdul Hakim Khan levels the allegation against me of having written in a book that a man who does not believe in me, even though he may not have heard of my name, and even though he may live in a country to which my call has not reached, he shall nonetheless be a kafir and enter hell. This is a complete fabrication of the aforementioned doctor. I have not written this in any book or announcement. He ought to produce any book of mine in which this is written.”
2. The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement says that Qadianis as well as most other non-Ahmadi Muslims (like you) deny the finality of prophethood because both believe in the coming of a prophet after the Holy Prophet. But as long as they are kalima-reciters and ahl-i Qibla, they are Muslims in any Islamic law to be applied in this world. How Allah will deal with their faith, and will regard them as kafir or Muslim, is not a matter for us to determine.
Both Qadianis and you say in words that you accept the finality of prophethood. So, for applying Islamic regulations in this world, this statement of yours about your belief has to be accepted. If the Qadianis and you are giving the finality opf prophethood the wrong interpretation, it is Allah Who will decide what to do with you.
3. In 1953 also the govt of Pakistan stepped in, arrested the anti-Ahmadiyya agitators, sent the army into their mosques to catch them, and they were court martialled. But the anti-Ahmadiyya don’t consider that the govt of Pakistan was justified that time! Do you accept the analysis of the Munir report of the same govt?
Now that the govt of Pakistan has been raiding the mosques of Islamic militants, why do you people object? Why doesn’t the argument “Muhammad (saw) burned a mosque” justify the Pakistan govt acting against militants’ mosques? The govt claims that the militants are “pretenders” to being Muslim.
“… But, what can an Islamic govt do?” — The ruling party (PPP) at that time in Pakistan when Ahmadis were declared non-Muslim, had itself been earlier declared kafir by the anti-Ahmadiyya Islamic parties. The govt was regarded as a socialist, not Islamic govt. If it was “Islamic” why did the Islamic parties bring it down three years after it declared Ahmadis as non-Muslim, and then hang that prime minister?
4. I have already answered that question. Apart from two or three countries, Ahmadis are free to call themselves Muslims in (to use your words) “almost every Islamic country” (e.g. Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Morocco, Bangladesh, Malaysia, all central Asian republics, etc.) This is just as in Pakistan before 1974.
Al-Azhar in Egypt has officially approved Lahore Ahmadiyya literature as genuine Islamic books, and our books are published there. No book on Islam can be published in Egypt without the approval of Al-Azhar.
You claimed that Ahmadis were declared non-Muslim in almost every Islamic country. But instead of providing even a shred of evidence for your claim, you ask me to disprove it. Strange, that you don’t need to provide proof but I do!
5. “This is from before 1901, after 1901 his attitude changed.” Where has he stated that he changed after 1901? If you tell critics of Islam that the Quran teaches tolerance of other religions and peaceful living with them, and quote a few verses, they immediately retort: These verses are from before hijra, before Muslims started fighting battles, this teaching was later changed, and the final teaching of Islam was “kill unbelievers wherever you find them”. But of course you may actually believe that!
6. The Quran, after mentioning several prophets, says that after them came their descendants who wasted prayers and followed lusts. Does that mean those prophets were false because their descendants went on the wrong path? A Muslim commentator of the Quran says about this verse: “This selfish godless posterity gains the upper hand at certain times but, even then there is always a minority who see the error of their ways, repent and believe, and live righteous lives.”
Compare the man who is called Israel in the Quran with the people who are called bani Israel (children of Israel) in the Quran.
From Bilal Roberts:
1. My approach to Ahmadiyyat is much different than you, that’s for sure. I read exactly what it says, you hide in the meanings. Even though your founder declared all Muslims who called him Kafirs as non-Muslims, you try to hide in this definition.
It is true that Muhammad (saw) said this. But Muhammad (saw) never envisioned that an Indian man would claim to be Esa (as). And if he did he warned us against the 30 liars of the ummah, of which your prophet is one.
2. This hadith doesn’t refer to special circumstances like when an insane punjabee claiming to be Esa (as).
3. Muhammad Ali didn’t explain why the letter was written. Muhammad Ali didn’t even acknowledge that the letter was written. It was the qadiani group that published the contents of the letter. And didn’t Mirza Bashirruddin Mahmud Ahmad refer to the letter in his article of 1911. Check his article….
4. The only reason that you are trying to prove that even a claimant to prophethood is still a Muslim is because you want your Ahmadiyyat to prevail. Arent you denying the hadith of the Muhammad (saw) wherein he said that 30 claimants to prophethood will appear?
5. Allah will decide. But what Islamic govts? They must protect the population. What should they do?
6. You continue to ramble about Islamic countries. Other than Pakistan and Indonesia what other Islamic govts have a substantial Ahmadi population? I rest my case! Then you continue to ask me about politics. You are a technical person that is waiting for me to make a mistake. You should learn to be honest and open minded.
7. Where did he say that his attitude changed? Luckily, I am well versed in the split.
“O Prophet, feed the hungry and the distressed.”
[Badr, vol. 7, no. 1, January 9, 1908, p. 1, 3
and al-Hakam, vol. 12, no. 1, January 2, 1908, p. 3]
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Tadhkirah.pdf
Page 988
He also said that his attitude towards his mistakes in his mission were the same in terms of his claim to be Esa (as) and prophethood. (see haqeeqatul wahy)
In conclusion: Your prophet clearly called his sons many great things. He even called Mirza Bashir Ahmad as the ‘Moon of the Prophets’
I rest my case! The problem with the Ulema is that they dont have qualified people to advise them on Ahmadiyyat.
From Zahid Aziz:
Last year you, Bilal Roberts, publicly admitted that you use falsehood in dealing with Ahmadis. You admitted that you lied to me in an e-mail question, saying that you are a Qadiani. Critics of Islam are saying these days that Muslims are allowed to tell lies by Islam. Bilal has strengthened the allegation of the enemies of Islam!
1. You say: “It is true that Muhammad (saw) said this. But Muhammad (saw) never envisioned that an Indian man would claim to be Esa (as).”
This means you consider the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) to have given incomplete, wrong teachings because he could not foresee certain situations. According to you, when the Holy Prophet gave the definition of a Muslim and prohibited calling them kafir, he failed to foresee that in some cases this teaching would become totally wrong!
2. So you determine the “special circumstances” when the hadith doesn’t apply! You are making up your own Islam as you go along. If he was “insane”, then people would realise it anyway, so why are you bothering trying to prove it? Bilal is following the principle that if you tell a lie often enough, then people will start believing it. This is why he keeps on repeating the falsehood that “he claimed to be Esa”.
3. You have told this lie before. Maulana Muhammad Ali dealt with this letter in Radd Takfir Ahl-i Qibla, available in English as the booklet “Heresy in Islam”. Before that Hazrat Mirza sahib had responded to it in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy.
Checking M. Mahmud Ahmad’s article of 1911 that you mention, leads to the following March 1911 article by him. See original page here:
http://www.ahmadiyya.org/qadis/mm/al-hakam_1911-mar-14.pdf
and read translation at: http://www.ahmadiyya.org/qadis/mm/khatam-1911.htm
As you said to me, check this article …
4. This is another lie by you. I never even mentioned “a claimant to prophethood”. You asked me about Qadianis.
5. “But what Islamic govts? They must protect the population.”
You have avoided answering my point that what about the government of Pakistan acting against the anti-Ahmadiyya agitators in 1953 to “protect the population”. Do you accept what the Munir report said about the anti-Ahmadiyya?
6. “You continue to ramble about Islamic countries.”
Another lie by you. You raised the point about “Islamic countries”. (Of course, this is assuming that it is one and the same person who is posting as Bilal Roberts.)
” I rest my case!”
But your case was this: “Generally, almost every Islamic country has revoked Ahmadiyyat the priviledge of being called Muslims.” This has been proved to be yet another lie.
7. This argument is the height of ignorance. Similar revelations using the word “prophet” were published by him all the time, going back to the 1880s. In the same issue of Badr mentioned by you, he is reported as saying:
“I have seen their declarations of kufr, in which they say that my kufr is worse than the kufr of Jews and Christians. It is surprising that those people who recite the Kalima, face the Qibla in prayer, take the name of the Holy Prophet (saw) with respect and are prepared to sacrifice themselves for him, should be considered worse than those who abuse the Holy Prophet. Only those can make such accusations who have lost faith.” (p. 7, col. 3)
So this is his definition of ‘Muslim’ even in 1908! Thank you for leading me to it!
“He also said that his attitude towards his mistakes in his mission were the same in terms of his claim to be Esa (as) and prophethood. (see haqeeqatul wahy)”
Just check the article by M. Mahmud Ahmad from March 1911 cited above. The editor of Al-Hakam has appended a quote to his article under the heading: “Belief of the Mahdi about the finality of prophethood”, and gives a quote from a book published in January 1897 which reads: “The actual fact, to which I testify with the highest testimony, is that our Holy Prophet, may peace and the blessings of God be upon him, is the Khatam-ul-anbiya and after him no prophet is to come, neither an old one nor a new one.”
In March 1911, a quote of his from January 1897 is confirmed, that prophethood ended with the Holy Prophet!
“In conclusion: Your prophet clearly called his sons many great things.”
The Quran called Muslims many great things such as “the best nation raised up for mankind”. For centuries they have been very far from the best nation of mankind.
“I rest my case! The problem with the Ulema is that they dont have qualified people to advise them on Ahmadiyyat.”
This is a bizarre statement even by your standards. The Ulama are supposed to be the qualified people themselves! In the Cape Town court case of 1983-85, our Muslim opponents presented to the court “expert witnesses” on Ahmadiyyat from Pakistan. And they were fully specialised in declaring Ahmadis as non-Muslims. But they failed in that case.
If you are a “qualified person” on Ahmadiyyat, why don’t you offer your services as adviser to some leading Ulama?
You have told so many lies, as I proved above, that the following hadith comes to mind: “…a man continues to tell lies until he is written down a great liar with Allah”.
From Bilal Roberts:
The LAM are the biggest liars in the history of Ahmadiyyat. You people claim that MGAQ was not a prophet. That is just unbelievable. I have seen just about all the data, I have read just about all the arguments. I think that your founder would have claimed to be a law-bearing prophet if he would have lived past 1910. There was even an Ahmadi who claimed the same in 1911. You know his name, you probably even have his book.
And you call me a liar? That’s the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me. I am working for the Muslims at large. Even Ibrahim (as) lied 3 times in an attempt to save people. But you people deny that as well.
Muhammad (saw) does not give incomplete teachings. Sometimes he gave injunctions that had a broader scope, he left it to the jurists to rule over gray areas. Ahmadiyyat is a gray area. Your founder wrote a private letter to Dr. Hakim wherein he wrote that all people who hadn’t accepted him were Kafirs. Muhammad Ali didn’t even properly quantify this letter, he only referred to the LIE of your founder, wherein he stated that he never wrote anywhere like that in his books.
MGAQ was a very slick guy. He always made double statements. He called Muslims Kafirs..then he backpeddled, he claimed prophethood…then he backpeddled at times.
I refer to the Islam of the ‘golden era’, that is the first 300 years and much more after that. I believe that Indians were duped, by the financial needs of MGAQ. Ahmadiyyat was nothing more than a family business.
Then you continue to ramble. MGAQ lied when he told Dr. Hakim to produce the booklet wherein he wrote that all Muslims were Kafirs. MGAQ knew that he wrote to him as such in a private letter. The Qadianis produced this private letter.
I am referring to the article entitled, “AMuslim is only he who accepts all the Messengers of Allah”. And before you respond that Kamaluddin responded by downgrading it, my response is that Noorudin was vacillating in those days. The guy was totally out of his wits.
You want me to answer a question….
I haven’t read the Munir report. I know that Ahmadis were on trial, and the son of your illustrious founder lied thru his teeth. The govt of Pak is in a very tight spot. Any decision that they make will be a difficult one. I have sympathy for them.
You know what I meant when I wrote that almost every Islamic country has labeled you as kafir. It seems that I need to give you a handbook of what I mean before writing. For example, the country of Morocco doesn’t even know what Ahmadiyyat is…they haven’t had the need to define them as a minority. You are at it again. Instead of debating… you r trying to find loopholes in another persons writings and counter.
MGAQ was planning all of his claims since 1880. This is why he hid things in his writings. In 1891, he claimed to be Esa (as) (nauzobillah), and he claimed that he Esa (as) circa 1880, he spewed the same thing when it came to his prophethood.
Ahmadis are kings of deception. They say whatever is feasible to the situation. One minute MGAQ is a prophet…the next he is just a mujadid. Then MGAQ says that even 1000’s mahdi’s can come.
You won a case in a white mans country. Wooopee. This same white man was oppressing the blacks of South Africa circa 1750 or so. You never raised a hue or a cry about that. All you wanted was to defame Islam. That’s what u won! If u consider that a victory you deserve to remain as an Ahmadi.
We have refuted your religion many times over…
Visit our blog: http://letmeturnthetables.blogspot.com/2010/02/jesus-did-not-die-according-to-quran.html
Almost every single Ahmadi argument has been ripped apart. Ahmadis are only good for leading Muslims astray. This is why exist, to help the Muslims understand Ahmadyyat.
From ikram:
Bilal Robers: Simple question to you. Do you believe in absolute finality of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)? Yes or No? Emphasis is on “absolute”? Please answer…
From Bilal:
@ ikram
You know very well that we believe that Esa (as) will return. He is being recalled to finish his mission. You should consult the archeological aspect of Islam. We dont believe that there is the possibility of more prophets, like your Qadiani cousins. We only believe that Esa (as) will return miraculously. And Allah has knowledge over all things. Indeed, Allah knows best.
You are exposing a technicality within Islamic thought. That is that if Muhammad (saw) was the final prophet, then Esa’s (as) return contradicts that.
Zamakhshari, who was a great mufassir of his time, explained it as such:
“If you ask how Muhammad can be the last of the prophets when Jesus will appear towards the end of the world, I shall reply that the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad means that no one will be endowed with prophethood after him. Jesus is among those upon whom prophethood was endowed before Muhammad. Moreover, Jesus will appear as a follower of Muhammad and he will offer prayers with his face towards the Qiblah of Islam, as a member of the community of the Muslims.” (Tafsir by Zamakhshari)
Also…we believe that Esa’s (as) birth, life and all circumstances of his existence had exceptional circumstances, here is what Bukhari tells us:
Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 506:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “When any human being is born. Satan touches him at both sides of the body with his two fingers, except Jesus, the son of Mary, whom Satan tried to touch but failed, for he touched the placenta-cover instead.”
From Zahid Aziz:
Bilal Roberts wrote: “I am working for the Muslims at large. Even Ibrahim (as) lied 3 times in an attempt to save people. But you people deny that as well.”
Most Muslims will be shocked to learn not only that you believe that Abraham “lied 3 times” but more so that you use it to justify your lies. Maulana Maudoodi, an anti-Ahmadiyya scholar, rejected this story. (See http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/21/index.html#sdfootnote60sym where he writes: “The tradition under discussion, which accuses Prophet Abraham to be guilty of telling a lie, has accordingly no basis at all and cannot be taken as reliable in spite of its authentic reporters.”)
Even an Imam who believes that hadith says:
“It is wrong to say: Ibrahim lied. … We should know that to demean a Prophet, call him a liar, curse him or attack his rank, even unwittingly, constitutes a grave offense.” (http://eshaykh.com/hadith/hadith-prophet-ibrahim-lied/)
But most interestingly what you have described as your blog (Turn the Tables) has an article about “Judeo-Christian legends in the early Islamic literature”, which says about such kind of hadith reports:
“Many of them constitute blasphemy against the great Prophets, at least by Islamic standards.”
“There may be some narrations authentically traceable back to some companion like Ibn Abbas … etc but this does not, in the least, mean that they are valid reports.” (See http://letmeturnthetables.blogspot.com/2011/03/israiliyat-in-islamic-sources.html )
You could be considered guilty of blasphemy, and worse is the fact that you tried to use the blasphemy as a cover for your own lying. Even those who believe the hadith that Abraham “did not lie except three times” do not consider it as a justification for Muslims to tell lies.
As to your claim “I am working for the Muslims at large”, does any well-known Muslim organisations verify your claim? Who are “Muslims at large”? Remember you used the words “almost every Islamic country”, and then said you meant only two Islamic countries. So what do you mean by “Muslims at large”? Is it a few friends of yours?
You write: “I think that your founder would have claimed to be a law-bearing prophet if he would have lived past 1910.”
— He published his Will in 1905. A Will is what a person leaves behind him. His Will says about the Holy Prophet Muhammad’s prophethood: “Neither shall any new truth come after it, nor was there any previous truth which is not to be found in it. Therefore, with this prophethood have all prophethoods ended.”
You write: “my response is that Noorudin was vacillating in those days.”
— In 1913 in answer to a letter from a Maulvi, Maulana Nur-ud-Din published the reply that: “If a man considers himself to be a Muslim, then please tell me what right I have to say to him: You are not a Muslim?” See: http://www.ahmadiyya.org/qadis/hmnd/nurdin.htm#5
“MGAQ was planning all of his claims since 1880.”
— Why did he then write during 1880-84 that Jesus will come back again, if he was planning his later claims?
“You won a case in a white mans country.”
—
This is a clever deviation from the point. You made the stupid statement that: “The problem with the Ulema is that they dont have qualified people to advise them on Ahmadiyyat.”
So Ulama need advisers on religious issues!
My reply was: In the Cape Town court case of 1983-85, our Muslim opponents presented to the court “expert witnesses” on Ahmadiyyat from Pakistan. You claim that such persons are not qualified on Ahmadiyyat, but apparently you are the qualified one.
Read the qualifications they submitted to the court: http://www.ahmadiyya.org/sa-case/hist.htm#prep
“…Founder member of the Constitutional Council of the Muslim World League. … Member of the Council of Islamic Ideology … Elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, October 1974 … Presently Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan (Shariat Bench). … Standing Counsel of the Government of Pakistan in the Federal Shariat Court and in the Shariat Appeal Bench of the Supreme Court … Juris consultant of the Federal Shariat Court.”
One of them later became Judge federal Shariah Court and President International Islamic University Islamabad.
Do your own anti-Ahmadiyya research qualifications compare with theirs? At least they could claim to be working for some Islamic institutions, unlike your false, delusional boast “”I am working for the Muslims at large”.
From ikram:
@Bilal Robert: Thanks for your answer. You only proved that in your opinion Muhammad (PBUH) is NOT the last of the prophets. End of story. Obviously in your Islam every thing counts but Quran.
Your stories are no different than Greek mythologies, but much less interesting. Go ahead convert the world to your Islam. Call us when you score the first convertee. We will test his intelligence!
In the meanwhile I will stick to the old adage — It is unwise to teach an arrogant wisdom. Peace be upon all.
———————————————
Editor’s Note:
“O Prophet, adopt the way of leniency and forbearance; enjoin what is good and avoid useless discussions with the ignorant people.” (The Holy Quran, 7:199, Maudoodi’s translation).
Now read his note under this verse: http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/7/index.html#sdfootnote151sym
“(3) The other important instruction that has been given for the promulgation of Islam is to avoid useless discussions with the ignorant people. The inviter to the Truth should always be strictly on the guard against involvement in useless talk and discussion with mischievous and quarrelsome people. He should take the utmost care to approach and converse with those people only who adopt a reasonable and rational attitude towards his Message. As soon as he feels that his addressees are adopting the attitude of ignorance and are resorting to argumentations, wranglings and taunts, he should make an honorable retreat from them. This is because it is not only useless to be involved in such things but it is harmful to the mission, as valuable time and energy, that could have been usefully employed for the promulgation of the Message, go to waste.”
From Bilal:
@ Ikram
Your response it typical Ahmadi stuff.
Again, per the Islamic perspective, per the archeological perspective of Islam, circa the recorded history of Islam, Muhammad (saw) is the final prophet, but, there is an exception, that is the return of Esa (as).
If u think that this is stupid….then u think that Imam Bukhari was stupid.
If u think that this is stupid….then u think that Imam Muslim was stupid.
And go ahead and add all other Imam’s like Maliki, Hanafi, Shaffi, etc etc etc.
You are welcomed to hold your odd beliefs. I dont care. You can even call yourself Muslim, I dont care. But, there are Muslims in the world who arent as nice as me. You should be careful in Muslim countries.
From ikram:
Our critics fundamentally miss the forest for the trees in that Hadith collectors e.g. Imam Bukhari (ra), Imam Muslim (ra) etc. were mere collectors and not the judges of the content. Admittedly each of them had their QA for their collection process, but they left it to the Muslims to judge and accept/reject for themselves the moral and intellectual implications of their Hadith collections in the light of Quran.
Such dogmatic cohorts also fundamentally suffer from a poor self-esteem that the present day Muslims cannot rise to high moral, spiritual and intellectual grounds at par with previous sages of Islamic history. This kind of suffrage and low thinking is like that of a bouncing ball, i.e. every coming generation has to have a lower bounce than the previous one, and every next generation has to settle at lower level of intellect and spirituality. If we look closely, spirituality of such old school Islam has ebbed so low that anyone of higher spiritual status in history is being elevated to the level of a god just like the followers of other religions who have given godly status to their holy founders. Whereas Islam came to unshackle each one of us and to lift one to the status, if not greater, then at least equal to the big hitting scholars of Islamic history that such pre-schoolers reference in the posts above and elsewhere. Quran testifies to it:
7:157. `Those who follow this perfect Messenger, the Arab Prophet whom they find described in the Torah and the Evangel which are with them, who enjoins upon them that which is right and forbids them that which is wrong, and who makes lawful for them all the pure and good things, and makes unlawful all the impure and bad things, and who relieves them of their heavy burden and shackles that weigh them down. Indeed those who believe in him and honour him and serve him and follow the light that has been sent down with him, it is these who will attain their goal.’
Bilal’s Islam needs a life time study alone to understand Islam as all heavy weights that he mentions are to be studied first and piecemeal, whereas he forgets that Islam of Muhammad (PBUH) is merely 114 chapters long i.e. The Holy Quran.
This kind of top heavy Islam reminds me of a real joke. In early 1970s, Afghanistan, Northern Pakistan, Northern India and Nepal were part of a hippie trail where the “Pilgrims” from Europe would travel to Nepal in search for spirituality, pot and what not. It so happened that such a penniless pilgrim detoured to a town in Northern Pakistan, and given his pathetic condition, the locals gave him lodging in a local mosque with free food, clothing and shelter. He apparently was overcome by the hospitality and converted to Islam. Now a Muslim and that too living in a Mosque, he had no choice but to undergo full ablution with cold water before each of the full set of prayers he had to offer five times a day. He endured it for a few weeks, but no more. Thereafter he reverted back to who he originally was and left town. Someone inquired of him as to what happened? His reply was “Man! Islam is a full time job” and it was too much in a days work.
The moral of the story is that every effort should be made to keep Islam fat free, make it functional and to use it in one’s pursuit of happiness while one is still young and kicking. Else one’s whole life might be consumed to sift through the polemic of Bilal’s Islam and by the time one rejects his dogmas and naturally realizes that one was better off going to Quran in the first place. But, by such detour to discover Islam one might be too old then to make use of it. What a wasted time and effort, where on the way one inevitably gets consumed by calling everyone else an infidel, non-believer, kafir…..
May Allah have mercy on us all.
Footnote: In our modern times, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib singularly deserves credit for refocusing the central thought of Islam to its center of gravity i.e. Allah, His message i.e. Quran and His last messenger Muhammad (PBUH). Thank you Mirza Sahib and may Allah have His blessings on you and your efforts in this regard. Now Islam can be intelligently and unapologetically presented from the podium of Oxfords and United Nations, rather than the pulpit of a self-conceited Mullah.
From Bilal:
@ Ikram
You can continue to ridicule Islam as much as you want, after all its your blog.
Islamic beliefs have archeological evidence that backs them. The work that Bukhari and Muslim did is unrivalled in the history of the Earth. It was during the golden era of Islam. These same Muslims had archived and secured the Quran for roughly 300 years. These great Muslims went a step further and archived the sayings and doings of Muhammad (saw).
What other religious system archived their respective beliefs systems the way that Imam Bukhari did? And what do you think his beliefs were in terms of the physical return of Esa (as)? You do know that he was a sunni right? What about Tabari? Have u read his Tafsir?
Ahmadiyya thought basically tells the world that the Muslims hld improper beliefs in terms of the return of Esa (as). But they dont give a date wherein Muslims went astray, nor do they give any evidence.
From Bilal Roberts:
@ Mr. Aziz
1. You appear to be hung up again on technicalities and diversion. I reported to your person, that Muhammad Ali didn’t even attempt to authenticate the private letter of MGAQ. He totally overlooked it and referred to the alibi of his founder, the fake prophet. And yes, I have the book of Muhammad Ali in terms of Kufr. It is total rubbish.
2. Ibrahim (as) was a prophet of Allah. Whether he bent the truth or not is not a major detriment to the Islamic experience. Believe it or not, as Muslims we are allowed to hold different opinions of small matters. It’s funny that you quote Maudoodi whenever he says something that supports your queer definition of Islam.
2.a. For your information, Ibrahim (as) did not lie. He bent the truth to save the life of his beloved wife. Any person would have done that in the particular circumstances. Ibrahim (as) was not a liar. Surely, Allah knows best. Once again there are some parts of Islam that are open to interpretation. The return of Esa (as) was so much cemented into the structure of Islam that to deny it is just very odd and shows that some people lack scholarship and the basic understanding of archeology.
2.b. In fact, if you check the bible the same story is listed. Ibrahim (as) did not lie. He merely said that his wife was his sister. He meant ‘sister in religion’, but didnt elaborate. He also made an excuse when his father asked him to pray to an idol. He also told his father that he didnt break the idols, when in fact he did. He diverted the topic and gave a confusing response. For the sake of Allah, just like Imam Bukhari reported.
3. At this blog we have not tackled this topic as of yet. It would be an interesting study. I would be able to disagree with the scholars there as well if I feel the need to. Its not like I believe in some ‘insane-punjabee’ as the bearer of the light.
4. For your information, every Muslim is working for Islam, whether he calls it that or not is a different story. Islam was spread based on trade. Muslims did tabligh based on their business practices. Islam spread beautifully. See Indonesia and Timbuktu.
4.a. I feel that I have a responsibility to the Muslims at large to present the true claims of MGAQ. MGAQ’s claims are very hard to differentiate. Most Muslims only have an elementary understanding of the claims of MGAQ. Circumlocutions is what I call the life of MGAQ.
5. MGAQ was a very cunning business man. In my honest opinion, he only wrote Wasiyyat to generate more income from his new “money for heaven” program. And what type of person exempts his children from financial donations?
6. Once again, your religion has produced many people, including yourself who are experts in double-statements. It’s almost as if you guys are trained to make a positive and negative statement at the same time.
7. Yes. It was all a plan. MGAQ only wrote once in 11 years that he was expecting the return of Esa (as). He never elaborated ‘at length’ about this. If you read the ilhams in the braheen from 1880 to 1884, you will see that everything was there, his claim to prophethood and his claim to being Esa (as). MGAQ was broke! He needed money, hence he created the business called Ahmadiyyat.
8. The Ulema were well qualified in general terms. Ahmadiyyat requires a researcher with an inclination into niche studies. There are many many particulars about Ahmadiyyat that take years of dedicated research work. This is the point!
Stop trying to ramble things up. I advise you to use honor in your debates. We have refuted every aspect of Ahmadiyyat. Only Allah gives guidance.
From Zahid Aziz:
I am sure readers can now see through your repeated contradictions and distortions, and attempts to create diversions when you are caught. The question is not what Abraham did and why he did it. The point is that you admitted telling a deliberate lie to mislead us, and then tried to justify it by claiming that as Abraham lied three times you could do the same as well.
You have been unable to prove your claims that you are “working for the Muslims at large”. You have been unable to prove that you have any unique qualification or knowledge over and above what the opponent Ulama have been telling Muslims about Ahmadiyyat for over a hundred years.
You sank down to the level of uttering an implicit threat: “But, there are Muslims in the world who arent as nice as me.” I think people are intelligent enough to understand the veiled meaning of this kind of a comment.
I have published both your latest comments, so you can’t claim I have suppressed your arguments. However, I believe that our readers can now compare your posts to our responses and draw their own conclusions.
From ikram:
Once again, the opponents of Lahore Jamaat miss the fundamental difference between articles of faith and garnishes of faith. Just like when you buy a Mercedes Benz, the factory stamps it with a signed window sticker, but then it is up to the consumers to put on what ever accessory suits their needs. In case of Islam it is Islam of Muhammad (PBUH) and Quran, and then there are garnishes of different Imams and their explanations. No matter what the after market additions, the car remains Mercedes and the religion remains Islam.
One of the fundamental article of faith of Islam is Kalima Shahada i.e. “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger”
A corollary to above oath is that Muhammad (PBUH) is the absolute last of the prophets that this world will follow. Quran testifies to it:
33:40. Muhammad is no father to any man among you but (he is rather) the Messenger of Allâh and the Seal of the Prophets. Indeed Allâh has full knowledge of all things.
34:28. (Prophet!) We have sent you not but towards entire mankind (till the end of time) as a Bearer of glad-tidings and as a Warner but most people do not know (that the Message of Islam is universal and the Qur’ân the last revealed Book).
Now, anyone to dilute the above article based upon any arguments no matter what the source maybe, has to question him/herself of their denial of the Allah’s declaration.
The dogma of “my way or the highway” carries no water in light of Quran. A religion has to appeal to human reason. Quran emphasizes it:
13:03. Verily, in all this there are messages indeed for people who think.
With the above Quranic injunction, think for a moment that if the real deal Essa (PBUH) in person knocked on someone’s door and introduces himself, what would be one’s reaction?
Should one reject him because he walked to the front door instead of flying on the wings of angels (And by the way has anyone seen angels before to recognize them? Do not rely on the paintings of Leonardo Di Vince in Vatican, they are pagan images). This is easiest of all choices as we have historical record of people rejecting claimants to be Jesus before, because they looked just like ordinary people. So did they reject Muhammad (PBUH) because was just another person from amongst them.
Will you call police for an intruder?
Will you post “no solicitation” sign on the door for future visits as some people post it for Jehovah’s Witnesses.
I, for sure will try to authenticate his claim and then shoot the question that I have been dying to ask i.e. “if you are a human, how and where did you survive all these two thousand years without food and water, was it lonely, who else was there….?” Once I am convinced that the person is Essa (PBUH) then next question will be how can I serve you Sir? If he tells me to pick up the sword (no metaphors here, because the prophecies mention this word only) then I will be really disappointed because he will ask me to kill the infidels (contrary to Quranic injunction that “2:256, There is no compulsion of any sort in religion (as) the right way does stand obviously distinguished from the way of error…”) and secondly the infidels have satellite guided weaponry and my sword will be useless and ineffective. I lost the battle before I left home (ask Saddam Hussein, he will tell you). Bad planning! I was better off with Muhammad (PBUH) alone, who at least conformed to the human intelligence and morality.
I feel sorry for the zealots who have disgraced a very prominent prophet Essa (PBUH) by their mythological discourses. May Allah forgive them for their ignorant rants, because a lie begets a lie. So does mythology. In order to make some literal sense of a prophecy, mythologies upon mythologies are invented in order to make it fit human reason. In the end the whole facade falls like a house of cards. All they needed to begin with was intelligent understanding of the metaphor embedded in the prophecy. But to transition from concrete thinking to abstract thinking, it needs maturity of mind, which these zealots are deficient of and unwilling to improve. Naturally the religion becomes a burden and they fight to protect their toys like a child, no matter what the cost to themselves and the mission of Prophet Muhammad (PUBH). What a disgrace:
7:179: Our Law has committed to Hell numerous people, rural and urban; they are living the life of hell. They have hearts that they use not to understand. They have eyes with which they see not, and ears with which they hear not. They are like cattle. Nay, they are even worse. Such are the people who have chosen to live through life in total darkness of ignorance.
Islam does very well without cock and bull stories. If someone believes that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (ra) claimed prophethood then they are mistaken and tiring their lungs by barking up the wrong tree. This site extols and defends by arguments the absolute finality of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). By the way, it was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who ingrained this finality of prophethood about Muhammad (PBUH). It is this finality that is the star on hood of this Mercedes.
Footnote: Personally, I have no problems with any person possessing attributes of Essa (PBUH). I wish there were Essa like people in every school, neighborhood, government, essentially everywhere.
From ikram:
Lets invent Mythology
Bilal has repeatedly mentioned physical return of (an adult) Jesus that stands against all the Laws of Allah, which includes physics, chemistry, biology and all the sciences (Please do not tell us that gravity is a pagan law). My understanding was that all Muslims by definition are “submitters to the laws of Allah” and anyone who breaks these laws faces natural wrath embedded in these laws be they physical or moral laws. For example, take law of gravity. If you sit on a chair with a broken leg, chances are that you will loose balance. Since you broke the Allah’s law of gravity you will pay a price by injuring yourself. But if you submit to, understand and master the law of gravity i.e. be a true Muslim in spirit, then you can liftoff as an astronaut to the outer space, hence benefit by obeying the Allah’s law which in this case is embedded in physics of his creation.
With this background logic and sensibility of Allah’s Laws that all humanity can equally experience and benefit from, I would like Bilal to explain his own quotation below in concrete terms the way he believes in physical return of Jesus.
Bukhari – Volume 4, Book 54, Number 506: Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “When any human being is born. Satan touches him at both sides of the body with his two fingers, except Jesus, the son of Mary, whom Satan tried to touch but failed, for he touched the placenta-cover instead.”
Unless someone can explain the esoteric metaphor of the above quote, the literal believer has to explain the following sampler of curiosities that naturally emanate from it:
How many sides does a body have? Probably more than both i.e. two. By simple anatomy we know there is anterior/posterior, superior/inferior, medial/lateral, superficial/deep, interior/exterior.
How many fingers does Satan have only two or five, how many hands does he have, how many limbs, torso, horns, tails, eyes, teeth. Does he have a human body or we need to dig through pagan images of Satan in red with a arrow head tail, trident in hand, wide eyes and two horns?
Is Satan male or a female? Does he have a mate. How many Satans are out there? One or many? Does he behave like Santa Claus who can visit every child all over the world? Does he fly or has a buggy? Who pulls the buggy?
What prevented Satan from touching Jesus. Was it the sci-fi electrical discharges we see in kids movies when the good and evil fight by pointing palms and fingers towards each other? I thought placenta-cover is singularly most important part as its the lifeline from which chord emanates. It works as nutritional source, excretory and breathing organ for the baby. Spiritually it should had been the last part to be touched.
When human is born, who gets to it first, the midwife or the Satan. Does one block the view of the other. I thought every child is born sinless. Then what is the role of Satan in the spiritual make up of human soul? Is this Christianity or Islam?
And so on…
Moral of the story is that mythology begets mythology. Intelligent thing is to make some real money from such a mythology like Hollywood rather than be a victim of senseless diatribe.
Oh! Lord, have mercy on us.
From Bilal Roberts:
Mr. Aziz
You have cleverly changed the topic of the discussion about a week ago. Stop diverting! How dare you question my honesty!
In 1911, Mahmud Ahmad wrote, “A Muslim is only he, who accepts all the sent ones”. Noorudin read and signed off on this article. In this article, Mahmud Ahmad quotes the letter to Dr. Abdul Hakeem Khan. Mahmud Ahmad and Noorudin confirmed the existence of the letter and the statements therin.
You can find it here:
http://www.alislam.org/urdu/au/AU1-9.pdf
See page 316. Mahmud Ahmad proved that his father was liar when he (MGAQ) claimed that he had never written so. Muhammad Ali in his book, “Radd e Takfir….”–he cleverly left out the fact that Mahmud Ahmad and Noorudin had authenticated the letter in question.
Stop diverting…..this is called game, set and match.
From Bilal Roberts:
@ ikram
You continue to ridicule the belief system of Islam. You continue to call Bukhari and Muslim as idiots. You continue to call the golden era of Islam as a sham.
Ahmadiyyat is basically an atttempt to take out the supernatural aspect of Islam. The problem is that Ahmadiyyat is based on 20th century science. That type of science is old. Einstein’s theories hadnt happened yet. The Wright Bros hadnt perfected their flying experiments.
We have travelled to the moon, sent satellites to Mars and Venus. When we use our cell phones the signal ascends and descends.
Wake up and smell the chai!
The Quran also talks about Jinn. Jinn is a creature that is neither human or angel.
Dont the LAM believe in angels? How do you suppose angels travelled from Allah to earth? Is there a portal that they were entering from? Were they bending space/time? Is there a worm hole that we should know about?
From Zahid Aziz:
Mr. Bilal Roberts, or whoever is writing this, I have answered your allegation about the letter four times above. Below are links to above responses by me:
1. http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2010/11/24/yet-another-blasphemy-case/#comment-5217
see no. 4
2. http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2010/11/24/yet-another-blasphemy-case/#comment-5227
see no. 1
3. http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2010/11/24/yet-another-blasphemy-case/#comment-5238
see no. 3
4. http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2010/11/24/yet-another-blasphemy-case/#comment-5244
see response to your allegation: “Noorudin was vacillating in those days.”
Moreover, read the 1916 booklet by Maulana Muhammad Ali at:
http://www.aaiil.org/urdu/books/muhammadali/takfeerahlqibla/takfeerahlqibla.pdf
and see pages 10 to 15.
But what you will never refer to is why Hazrat Mirza sahib expelled Dr Abdul Hakim from the Jamaat, which he explained in forty pages of Haqiqat-ul-Wahy. See Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 22, from page 112 to the end of page 151. These are forty pages where the beliefs of Dr Abdul Hakim along with his name are repeatedly mentioned. Why don’t you translate these!
I did not “question” your honesty. There is no question concerning it. It is a fact that you admitted to telling lies, and then you claimed that you are entitled to lie because Abraham lies three times. Do you want to add this to the law of any Muslim country, that a Muslim is allowed to tell lies because Abraham lies three times?
Letter to Abdul Hakim was one of several issues you raised, and you have run away on each and every one.
From Bilal Roberts:
If you call me a liar you might as well put Ibn Kathir in the same boat. Look at what he wrote:
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=21&tid=33168
And he authenticated the same traditions from Bukhari.
From Zahid Aziz:
It was you who said you lied! Ibn Kathir did not write: “I tell lies and this is justified because Abraham lied”. Nor did Bukhari conclude from the report that anyone is allowed to lie on this basis.
You quoted a hadith in a comment above: The Prophet said, “When any human being is born. Satan touches him at both sides of the body with his two fingers, except Jesus, the son of Mary, whom Satan tried to touch but failed, for he touched the placenta-cover instead.”
Do you mean that every human being except Jesus, even including the Holy Prophet Muhammad, (saw) was touched by the satan at birth?
From Bilal:
I read all the links posted by you. Show a thread of honesty Mr. Aziz and tell me why did MGAQ say that he never wrote that private letter to Dr. Khan?
Then, why did Mahmud Ahmad reproduce it in 1911. He wrote his article that I provided the link to. “Musalman wohee hai, jo sahb mamuro ko manta”
Why wont you respond to this? By writing the article, he and Noorudin authenticated the private letter. Mahmud used this private letter as his steam in his attempt to call Muslims as Kafirs. Then Muhammad Ali totally ignored the private letter. His alibi was the alibi of MGAQ in Haqeeqatul Wahy. Which was a lie. Maybe MGAQ was vacillating in those days? Circumlocutions I tell you, circumlocutions.
From Bilal:
Mr Aziz
Now..you are commenting on the exceptional circumstances in terms of the birth of Esa (as). Only Allah knows exactly what this hadith means. I would need to find scholarly opinion on it.
On the surface, this tradition proves that Esa (as) miraculously. While Muhammad (saw) was explaining it this is what he gave us. Maybe science will prove this tradition to be true in next 200 years.
In terms of bending the truth. If a Muslim encounters an evil organization, in my opinion, they can behave per the situation. A little bit of misdirection wont hurt.
Capiche?
From Zahid Aziz:
“why did MGAQ say that he never wrote that private letter to Dr. Khan? ” He never said that! He clearly deals with that very extract from the letter in answering a question in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy.
Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din corrected him by his own poster, and that was approved by Maulana Nur-ud-Din. Later Mirza Mahmud Ahmad had to accept the explanation given by Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din. See the booklet at this link.
From ikram:
Lies, lies and damn lies, when Bilal states:
You continue to ridicule the belief system of Islam.
No one ever ridiculed Islam. Its your dogmas that are being ridiculed and you are giving every opportunity for it. Last time I checked, you are no more guardian of Islam than anyone else. Snap out of this self-conceited righteousness.
You continue to call Bukhari and Muslim as idiots.
Bilal, it seems that while on this blog you are reading your own mind and not the text on this website. You are on record now for using such profanities towards Bukhari(ra) and Muslim(ra). Both of these are giants of Islamic history and Islam owes them a lot in form of critical reading not your blind senseless interpretations.
You continue to call the golden era of Islam as a sham.
Wow! Once again you are on record for using such expletive statements from the dark niches of your own mind. Re-read the above posts. Read the bouncing ball analogy. These scholars belonged to the earlier bounce when the amplitude was high and Muslim mind was analytical. But you forgot your own stage which is the last dribble of that ball which has no chance to leave the ground and consequently at this stage of your blind fellowship is the assured path to abyss. Do you relate to this verse? 25:30. Then the Messenger will say: “O my Lord! Truly my people took this Qur’an for just foolish nonsense.”
Ahmadiyyat is basically an atttempt to take out the supernatural aspect of Islam.
In Islam nothing is supernatural because everything is creation of Allah and conforms to His laws, whether physical or moral. It is only the mental retardation of some ignorant which can not perceive His master plan and make no effort to discover the intricacies of His design. Even Quran ridicules your belief in supernatural and encourages man to see His signs in the world that he lives in:
26:3. Perhaps you will consume yourself away (with anxiety) because they do not become believers.
26:4. If We so please We can send down upon them such a sign from above that their necks would bend (and heads bow down) in submission to it.
26:7. Do they not see the earth, how many excellent and useful things of all species We have caused to grow on it?
26:8. Indeed, there is a sign in this, yet most of them would not believe.
The problem is that Ahmadiyyat is based on 20th century science.
Should Ahmadiyyat apologize for it? Actually it is not a problem but the solution. FYI: Ahmadiyyat is based on Allah as God, Muhammad (PBUH) as the absolute last prophet and Quran his final message and all His laws whether physical or moral.
That type of science is old. Einstein’s theories hadnt happened yet. The Wright Bros hadnt perfected their flying experiments. We have travelled to the moon, sent satellites to Mars and Venus. When we use our cell phones the signal ascends and descends.
Sorry, I apologize I could not contextualize this rant.
Wake up and smell the chai!
Good advice. Chai (tea) has antioxidants which are good for health. Once fully refreshed, then one should read more science and further increase one’s awe of Allah. Because Allah assures the returns on such effort: 58:11. …God will raise those among you who believe, and those who acquire knowledge to higher ranks. God is fully aware of everything you do.
The Quran also talks about Jinn. Jinn is a creature that is neither human or angel.
When was the last time you saw one? Please describe. I am dying to hear. The whole web is hanging by its nails while you give first hand account.
Dont the LAM believe in angels? How do you suppose angels travelled from Allah to earth? Is there a portal that they were entering from? Were they bending space/time? Is there a worm hole that we should know about?
This is where you gave yourself away. Your thought process clearly reflects that your God is not Omnipresent and physically locked away from earth. Now you call yourself a Muslim? Just for the sake of argument, can you tell us that how may angels can dance on a pin head? Get it?
From Mohammed Iqbal:
Bilal,
You sport an Anglo Saxon surname, but your English makes me doubt if you are a native English speaker. Just who are you?
From Bilal:
at Mr. Ikram
I am trying to convey to you that by saying that Esa (as) will not physically descend in the latter days, Ahmadiyyat is essentially slapping the face of ALL muslim scholars over the past 1400 years. The Ummah all agreed on this!! There is no doubt about it.
Secondarily, by taking out the supernatural aspect of Islam, as MGAQ did, and as Muhammad Ali later did, Ahmadiyyat is indirectly calling the islamic perspective from the ‘golden-era’ as an idiocracy of sorts.
From Bilal:
at mr. Aziz
I was waiting for you to answer. MGAQ only denied writing like that in his books or posters, he didnt say anything about ‘private-letters’. A researcher must understand that MGAQ was very cunning and understanding his speech pattern is very difficult unless the researcher dives head-on in to the work. I must say you have proved to be a smart person. Instead of honestly laying out the story for me, you have tactically answered. Good job!
Questions
1. Is the letter written to Dr. Abdul Hakim Khan authentic or is it a Qadiani fabrication?
2. If it is a fabrication, why did Mahmud Ahmad authenticate it in 1911?
3. If it is a fabrication, why did Noorudin authenticate it in 1911?
4. If it is a fabrication why is it that Kamalludin didnt refute it in 1911?
5. Where was this refutation of Kamaluddin published? What newspaper? The book that you asked me to read didnt give a reference. How long was this article of Kamalludin? Do you have the entire article?
From Bilal:
@ the Ahmadi blog
Why dont you people rely on classical Islam to give you the proper interpretations of Islam? Why dont you rely on the ‘golden-era’ of Islam to explain Islam to you?
Do you know the affect of industrialized paper on the world? Muslims learned how to make paper from the Chinese, this was about 200 years after Muhammad (saw). Muslims began to write everything down. They gave us the biggest gift ever…that was preservation of data. The arabs were kings in preservation of data. The preservation of the Quran is a testament to that.
Muslims translated many of the white mans works into arabic. Muslims connected information to all parts of the world. And your telling me that they were wrong in adding a ‘super-natural’ aspect to Islam?
Thats like an archeologist going into one of the pyramids in egypt and claiming that thieves edited the writings on the walls. Thats like them saying that the egyptians told lies when they told their story of their origin.
From ikram:
Bilal: Please define the “supernatural” and that too in context of historical Islam and then derive its implications into spiritual and physical life of present day Muslims. Be specific with at least one full spectrum example. Else, using your word of “archeological Islam,” the concept of Angels, Jinns, Hell, Heaven have no bearing on a contemporary mind unless the above spectrum is covered. Otherwise an angel is no more than ones depicted on Vatican ceilings and Jinn is just a fairy tale.
While doing so please draw distinction between a wish of an intelligent mind e.g. “flying carpet” of then is an airplane of today and vision of spiritual mind e.g. Dajjal of then is Christianity of today.
From Bilal:
@ admin
Why is Muhammad Iqbal questioning my personal characteristics? Does your blog allow for such awkward behavior? FYI: I am half-black and half-punjabee.
@ ikram
Simply put, Muslims believed for 1400 years (uptil now) that Ibrahim (as) was thrown into a ‘real’ fire. And this fire was not able to burn Ibrahim (as) because of the intervention of Allah. There was no rain or any other natural phenomenon that kept Ibrahim (as) alive.
Muhammad Ali wrote differently in his Tafsir. He wrote that Ibrahim was never even thrown into a fire. See —http://www.aaiil.org/text/hq/comm/muhammadalienglishholyquran1917/muhammadalienglishholyquran1917.pdf
Page 652
And Mr. Aziz
Did you read my response and questions that I posted?
From Zahid Aziz:
Bilal Roberts, you write: “Instead of honestly laying out the story for me, you have tactically answered. Good job!”
But you have stated your own approach as follows: “In terms of bending the truth. If a Muslim encounters an evil organization, in my opinion, they can behave per the situation. A little bit of misdirection wont hurt.”
Your comment is absurd and senseless that, while Hazrat Mirza sahib did not write in his publications that all other Muslims are kafir even if they haven’t heard his name, yet he wrote this in one private letter to an opponent. Which is the belief that he thought his followers would act upon: the one he repeatedly published in his writings and speeches or the one single line he wrote to an opponent which, as far as he knew, might never reach his followers?
I have stated earlier in this discussion that his statement in that letter (“However, you have now written to Abdul Hakeem Khan that anyone who has received my message and has not accepted me is no longer a Muslim”) was put to him and he fully answered it in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy. See this link and read the answer to the first quotation.
I also gave you above the link to the book where Maulana Muhammad Ali has quoted from and dealt with the letter, from page 10 onwards. The letter is quoted on page 11. Yet you keep on repeating that the Maulana ignored it!
As to Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din’s published announcement about Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s 1911 article, I have copied the English translation from an old issue of The Light and placed it at this link. It was published and distributed as a poster, and is dated August 1911.
And I repeat my challenge given above: What you will never refer to is why Hazrat Mirza sahib expelled Dr Abdul Hakim from the Jamaat, which he explained in forty pages of Haqiqat-ul-Wahy. See Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 22, from page 112 to the end of page 151. These are forty pages where the beliefs of Dr Abdul Hakim along with his name are repeatedly mentioned. Why don’t you translate these! Here they are.
You will also be always running away from Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din’s even earlier speech in January 1911 which we republished on its exact 100th anniversary. See this link. When you get to the speech, try reading from bottom of page 8 (from “In short, we believe Muhammad to be the last of the prophets”) to the end on page 9. It is all Khwaja sahib’s own English.
From Bilal:
Mr. Aziz
I contend that your founder was an expert at misdirection. He was a student of mixed signals and mixed emotions. In one vein, while he was upset and raging he wrote to an ex-member that everyone was Kafir, even if they hadnt heard his name. Then, when oppurtunity struck, he relaxed and gave a general answer. His sons werent as relaxed. In my opinion both views correctly express the Ahamdi point of view.
It appears that MGAQ was of the opinion that he didnt NEED to outwardly call Muslims as Kafirs. His line of argumentation was that if anyone called him (MGAQ) a kafir then they automatically were thrown out of the fold of Islam. MGAQ felt that his overall opinion was as such. However, when he flew into emotion and passion he spewed his internal belief, which was the policy that Mahmud Ahmad publicized circa 1911 to 1935. The Ahrar being the reason for the further digression.
With this method in place, MGAQ was able to escape the pitfalls of calling Muslims as Kafirs. Noorudin approved both views. He approved the view that we can call them Kafirs, or we (ahmadis) can be passive at times in terms of expediency and JUST reference a sahih hadith that automatically made the Ulema of India as Kafirs, per the opinion of your founder.
As far as the links that you posted. I hope you know that I cant read urdu. My father wasnt an Indian man and my mother taught me arabic not Urdu.
I dont contend that Muhammad Ali ignored it. I specifically contend that Muhamad Ali referred to the answer of MGAQ. He didnt deal with the authenticity of the letter. He didnt deal with the content of the letter. He didnt deal with the fact that Mahmud Ahmad authenticated the letter in 1911 and later the Qadiani jamaat used this and added it into Tadhkirah, possibly with the approval of Mirza Bashir Ahmad, your moon of the prophets.
You didnt mention where Kamaluddins letter was published in 1911? Noorudin approved it, but where was it published?
As far as your challenge goes, I have only read snippets of Hageegatul Wahy. When an english version is available i will joyfully read it. if this is such a momentous book of your founder, why has it remained as un-translated for over 100 years?
And finally, I mentioned the circumlocutions of your founder. Whether it was prophethood, his policy on Kufr, Ismuhu Ahmad, etc etc etc. I personally feel that MGAQ said whatever he felt was expedient at the time. Even the publication of ‘Aik Ghalti Ka Isala’ was an attempt at expediency.
Thank you for answering my questions and assertions. I am fully satisfied. I hope you will continue to address me honorably.
From Zahid Aziz:
Regarding your gems of wisdom: “He didnt deal with the authenticity of the letter. He didnt deal with the content of the letter. He didnt deal with the fact that Mahmud Ahmad authenticated the letter in 1911”
Anyone who reads the link I gave will find Maulana Muhammad Ali writing: “First we consider the sentence which the Promised Messiah wrote in a letter to Abdul Hakim Khan” (p. 10). “The full text is as follows.” (p. 11)
On page 4 he wrote: “First of all there is the article of Mian sahib published in Tashhiz-ul-Azhan, April 1911…”
Maulana Muhammad Ali writes: Hazrat Mirza sahib wrote this letter, and here is the text of the letter.
According to Bilal, when the Maulana wrote that Hazrat Mirza sahib wrote that letter, he wasn’t dealing with the authenticity of the letter!
Bilal writes: “You didnt mention where Kamaluddins letter was published in 1911? Noorudin approved it, but where was it published?”
Well, when a leaflet is published, it comes out into the air from the printing machine and it is distributed among the people! Some copies of it are kept for the record.
Bilal says: “As far as the links that you posted. I hope you know that I cant read urdu.”
But in a comment above, you yourself gave a link to the Urdu article of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, from which it could be assumed that you know Urdu.
Bilal says: “if this is such a momentous book of your founder, why has it remained as un-translated for over 100 years?”
There are hundreds of millions of people who read Urdu, including all the opponents of Hazrat Mirza sahib who ever lived, until your generation. They all can and could read it.
Some of your group have undertaken to translate extracts from his books, and I present to them these forty pages to translate!
You might like to consider: Why wasn’t the truly momentous Islamic literature translated into any other language from Arabic for a thousand years! Does it mean it wasn’t momentous and that Muslims were hiding the Quran, hadith etc. from others? After all, it was the opponents of Islam who first produced several English translations of Quran and Hadith before Muslims, for the set purpose of discrediting and exposing this literature! (Note: Muslim Ulama had given fatwas till only 80 to 90 years ago that it is haram to translate the Quran, and Pickthall had to overcome these fatwas in Egypt when he was publishing his translation just 80 years ago.)
Frankly, Bilal, you ought to consider whether you are being used as a “fall guy” by others who are getting you to test their arguments without any risk to themselves of losing their reputation. This is what happened in the number 2 South Africa case, when all the Ulama including Senator Khurshid Ahmad melted away from appearing in the witness box, leaving poor Professor Mehmood Ahmad Ghazi as “fall guy” to face cross-examination in the witness box.
From Bilal:
In terms of the letter, in the English version of the book you posted, Muhammad Ali simply referred to the alibi of MGAQ. Here is the link to the book that I read: http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/mali/heresyislam/heresyislam.shtml
See page 38
With a name like Bilal Roberts, I cant understand how an intelligent gentleman like yourself would think that I am proficient in urdu. What percentage of young LAM in England can read urdu fluently anyways? For the benefit of your younger generation, you should be actively translating the works of your founder.
It is hilarious that the LAM even present this leaflet by Kwaja as an argument. It wasn’t even published in an official organ of the movement! What proof do we even have of its publication? It was published in a leaflet from Lahore?? Is it safe to say that this leaflet didn’t make it to Qadian? Did Kamaluddin get it signed by Noorudin and then hand-carry it to Lahore for publishing? How many leaflets were distributed? This leaflet is major piece of evidence as presented by the LAM, and your telling me that there isn’t even proof of publication??
I found the said article on the web and knew of the contents. Only if you were sooo honest. I had also read Mahmud Ahmad’s alibi.
The age of the internet has allowed researchers like myself the ability to research deeper into the aspects of Ahmadiyyat. We have been able to connect all of our work and learn more about the life of your founder. This appears to discomfort you.
A 1000 years ago Arabic was the most spoken language in the world. Arabic was the standard of intelligence. The arabs were translating latin and greek works into Arabic in an attempt to preserve them.
The Muslims were correct in protecting the Quran the way that they did. In fact, George Sale was a spy, as was Edward Lane. They only translated Islamic works to gain the understanding of them in an attempt to use them against Muslims, which was exactly what they did. I had even read a hadith somewhere wherein it was written that the Quran shouldn’t be taken on trips because it might be stolen. And yes….I am trying to use your founders work against him. If only I had more to read…..
Nowadays, the LAM and Qadianis are churning out different translations of the Quran as they mock and ridicule the classic interpretations of the Quran. You people are translating many of the verses in terms of Esa (as) differently. And now, the fatwa of Muslim clerics is realized. They wanted the Quran read as it was in Arabic, the same way that it was revealed to Muhammad (saw).
Is there more than 5 different personalities that blog here? Once again, I feel that I am up for the challenge, I feel that I have read enough about the Qadianis, the LAM and all other sub-groups that you people have morphed into.
Regards
From Zahid Aziz:
Bilal Roberts, you have told us previously that you work in collaboration with an anti-Ahmadiyya awareness group. Don’t some of its members read Urdu quite well? In this discussion you gave us a link to the 1911 Urdu article by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad!
Regarding Khwaja sahib’s article, if it wasn’t published, how was it that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad referred to it in words such as: “It happened that when the announcement by Khwaja Kamaluddin was published…” and “He had no business to try and interpret my article while I was alive and was well able to interpret it myself”.
He even claims that “I was at the time sitting nearby” when people questioned Maulana Nur-ud-Din about signing Khwaja sahib’s article.
You say about Muslims not translating the Quran: “The Muslims were correct in protecting the Quran the way that they did.” So Muslims were protecting the Quran in the time of the great Moghul emperors of India when they refused to allow it to be translated into Persian for the benefit of Muslims!
They were protecting the Quran when they opposed Shah Waliullah tooth and nail when he translated the Quran into Persian for the benefit of Muslims of India whose literary and court language was Persian!
Read the episode of early Christian missionaries in India in the court of Akbar debating with Indian Ulama. The Christians had a Latin translation of the Quran, and however inaccurate it was, it gave them some knowledge with which to debate from the Quran. The Indian Ulama were Persian knowing, and had no translation of the Quran, and could not refute what the Christians attributed to it.