Jihad — Wordings of Divine Revelation?
Note by Rashid Jahangiri:
Opponent of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib, and of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement and hero, sweetheart of Khatam-e-Nabuwat-Academy-UK, creator, owner of www.ahmedi.org Ahmad Karim Shaikh of Mississauga, Canada has written an article under the the above title on his website. Article is translated into English, and has even mentioned ‘Lahori-Group’ name in it. I am copy pasting his article here. Let’s have some discussion on his article. This will provide opportunity to him and everyone to learn some thing.
Link to article:
http://ahmedi.org/general/jihad-wordings-of-divine-revelation#more-782
(Note: Per my information A.S. Khan is the same person A. K. Shaikh i.e. Ahmad Karim Shaikh — Rashid Jahangiri)
Wording of The Divine Revelation?
By A.K. Shaikh
The commandment of Allah is: “Jihad (fighting in the cause of Allah) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing, which is actually good for you and that you like a thing, which is actually bad for you. Only Allah has the absolute knowledge but you do not know.” [2:216]
This commandment of Allah is obligatory on every Muslim and is valid for all times – just like none of the commandments of Prayer, Fasting, Hajj and Zakat (obligatory alms) are temporary. There are certain conditions, however, like Hajj will only be performed during the days of Hajj; fasting will be in Ramadan; prayers during prescribed timings and Jihad (Qitaal) [fighting by sword] when it becomes obligatory etc.
Now, Mirza Sahib’s declaration is:
“But this commandment (i.e. Jihad) was temporary and time-specific – it (Jihad) wasn’t meant for all times.” [Collection of Advertisements, vol. 3, page 223]
“We have written time and again that the Noble Qur’an absolutely does not teach Jihad.”
[Collection of Advertisements, vol. 3, page 250]
The following words of Mirza Mahmood Sahib, the 2nd Gaddi Nasheen [hereditary successor] of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib, would not be without much interest:
“I am not denying that some of the directives were changed during the time of the Prophethood (of Muhammad s.a.w.), but I do not find any proof with regard to any of the Qur’anic commandments that originally it was something else but it was changed later on. In my opinion, all those commandments that were temporary in nature were sent through non-Qur’anic revelations and did not get inscribed in the Noble Qur’an. That is why it was not required to alter the Qur’an.” [by Mirza Mahmood – reference preserved (available upon request)]
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib has repeatedly written in his books that he used to receive Wahi [Divine Revelation]. And he has also written samples of his Ilhamat [inspirations] and Wahi in his books with which his mental and intellectual level can be ascertained. But some of his claims in his books are such that they clearly repeal the basic tenets of the Qur’an. And Mirza Sahib presents these claims as the Divine Commandments of God.
Whereas, the Divine Decree is: “This day, I have perfected your religion for you” [5:3]
Mirza Sahib explains it in his own words as follows:
“And it is not worthy for Allah to send a Prophet after the Khatam-un-Nabiyyeen [The Seal of the Prophets], and it is not worthy for Him to revive the lineage of Prophethood in spite of having terminated it, and to abrogate some of the Qur’anic commandments or add to them.” [Roohani Khazain, vol. 5, page 377]
Dear Readers! We all know that Allah revealed the Qur’an to His Prophet, Muhammad (pbuh), and the Prophet also attests and vouches that he himself does not have any authority to amend, alter or transpose the Qur’an.
Now, Mirza Sahib says, “It was written in the Ahadith earlier that fighting in the name of religion would be made Haraam [unlawful] when Masih would come.” [Collection of Advertisements, vol. 3, page 284]. Here, Mirza Sahib has cited a very feeble thing to abrogate a tenet of Deen.
Now, the Divine Revelation is sent down to Mirza Sahib with which he declares the fighting for the religious cause as Haraam [unlawful].
“From today, the human “Jihad” that used to be performed with sword has been abolished by Allah’s orders”. (Majmooa Ishteharat, vol. 3, p. 295).
A Question to Ahmadiyya Movement!
The abovementioned Divine Injunction, which according to the advertisement of 28th May 1900, was sent down to Mirza Sahib. Then, what were the original words of that Divine Revelation or Injunction?
Does this (alleged) revelation of Mirza Sahib not repeal this Qur’anic commandment? “Jihad (fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it.” [2:216]
Does any human, even though he might be a Prophet, possess the authority to abolish the Words of Allah (Divine Commandments)?
The question to Ahmadiyya Movement is: what are the original words of the Wahi or Divine Injunction by which the Jihad with sword was abrogated (by Mirza Sahib)?
A. K.Shaikh
Note:
Ahmedi.org website’s challenge to Ahmadiyya Movement is: if the Movement provides the original wording of the Divine Revelation (about abolishment of Jihad) sent down to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib, then this website will give a reward of USD 50,000 (fifty thousand US Dollars) to the Gaddi Nasheen [hereditary successor] of the Movement. In this regard, the Movement may also seek assistance from its Non-Pledging Group, viz. Lahori Group.
Ahmedi.org announces unequivocally to both groups of Ahmadiyya Movement that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad never received any such Divine Injunction. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad stated lies and wrote lies – and he was also false in this claim (about the abrogation of Jihad).
A.S. Khan
Translated by: Bashir Ahmed
From Zahid Aziz:
This quotation of 2:216, as presented, clearly creates the impression that the word Jihad occurs in this verse, since the word jihad does of course occur in the Holy Quran. Then the words in parentheses after “Jihad” further reinforce the impression that the preceding word “Jihad” is present in the Arabic text of this verse. This impression is entirely false. The word “jihad” does not occur anywhere in this verse in any shape or form or derivation.
While the writer accuses Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of abrogating “a tenet of Deen”, and says that no one can “amend, alter or transpose” the Quran, yet the writer himself has altered this verse by trying to create the impression that it contains the Arabic word “jihad” in its original text.
After the quotation, the writer tells us that this commandment of Islam like other basic commandments is not temporary, but like them it is conditional. But while he mentions the conditions governing the other commands (e.g. fasting in Ramadan), regarding Jihad he writes:
“and Jihad (Qitaal) [fighting by sword] when it becomes obligatory”.
But he does not say when it becomes obligatory. In fact, he dare not say when it becomes obligatory. This is because if he did mention the conditions for a jihad of fighting, he would be mentioning more or less the same things as Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. For example, he would say that the conditions of the jihad of fighting don’t apply to Muslims living under Western countries such as Canada, USA, and UK.
How cunning and devious! The writer himself only believes in jihad “when it becomes obligatory”. But it is (presumably) regarded by him as not being obligatory in the time and country where he lives.
The writer should have clarified what he means by “Jihad (Qitaal)”. It shows he himself is afraid of translating mere “jihad” as “fighting”, while on the other hand he is trying to create this very impression in the reader’s mind that jihad means fighting.
As to the Jihad mentioned by Hazrat Mirza sahib in the quotations given in this article, again the writer is either ignorant or deceitful. If the context is read, it shows Hazrat Mirza sahib is referring to the concept of jihad as coined by the common Muslim Ulama and also as alleged against Islam by Christian missionaries. This concept was that Muslims are required to kill non-Muslims unconditionally, on the basis that the Holy Prophet fought against non-Muslims, even though that was conditional due to circumstances of the time and place.
The writer again shows his ignorance when he asks for the original revelation that came to Hazrat Mirza sahib about jihad. As Hazrat Mirza sahib has himself written, his revelation is not an authority for establishing any doctrine of Islam, but that whatever guidance he receives about any belief, he must prove that interpretation from the Quran and the Holy Prophet Muhammad. In the case of the death of Jesus, while having had revelation about it, he always proved it from the Quran and the Holy Prophet. Would you ask for the words of the revelation Hazrat Mirza sahib had about the death of Jesus, and then argue it doesn’t prove the death of Jesus, when this has now been proved from the Quran and Hadith?
The same applies to his interpretation of jihad. Muslim leaders in Western countries are going before the governments, appearing on the media, etc. to say that jihad in Islam does not mean war, Muslims are not required by Islam to fight the governments they are living under in the West, etc. So Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s interpretation of jihad has been widely accepted by Muslims as being the correct Islamic teaching. How can anyone hope to prove that his revelation which led him to this correct interpretation was wrong!
Incidentally, the writer has not thought through the full implications of the verse 2:216 as quoted by him, namely: Jihad is ordained for you, O Muslims, though you dislike it. Does it mean that the Sahaba disliked jihad and undertook it unwillingly! Is that the writer’s belief?
Perhaps the writer should look up the report in Bukhari, relating that a man asked Ibn Umar: “What made you perform Hajj in one year and Umra in another year and leave the Jihad for Allah’s Cause though you know how much Allah recommends it?” Please comment on the answer given by Ibn Umar. Did he also repeal jihad? (See Muhsin Khan’s translation, vol. 6, Book 60, Number 40, second para.)
From Malick:
Also to be noted that after writing a long article, the author poses a non-consequential question (as already alluded to by Dr. ZA) and offers a financial reward. This is typical of the anti-Ahmadi camp, pickup on a self-perceived weak link, and hinge everything on it, without actually taking on the real issue. Rest assured if someone tries to give an answer on the “weak link,” they will jump to another “weak link”, but never talk about the real issue.
Now the real issue in this case is very simple. HMGA presented a certain concept of Jihad, which has now been mostly accepted by the global Muslim community. We will never actually hear an argument against this concept, apart from the literature produced by Al-Qaeda and the like, but will hear lots of criticism on HMGA for giving this very concept.
From Tahir:
It is very alarming that you people dont understand what Shaikh sahib is talking about.
In contrast, when it comes to the birth of Jesus, the Lahoris claim that MGA was mistaken or was incorrect and based his writings on the prevailing view, and thus they psychologically accept this as a minor error on the part of their mujaddid.
However, when it comes to the writings on Jihad they put a certain twist on it and trick the reader or researcher. The truth of the matter is that Jihad or fighting in the name of Allah is incumbent on all Muslims. However, certain conditions must be met. MGA’s motivation was to please the oppressor (the british). The British were always looking for those who were willing to put their arms down and help the Queen make trillions. MGA kept putting in applications. The British knew who he was and appreciated the fact that MGA was trying to make Muslims lay down and appreciate British rule.
MGA only approached the concept on Jihad in British India in his way because Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains were in a compromising position. The British were taxing everything and anything. Ever since the War of Independence (not mutiny) of 1857, the Brits were on the offensive and were willing to kill any and all who acted seditiously. This attitude is now represented by the USA on global level. The British just left South Africa 20 years ago…
Furthermore, the Brits were concerned that Muslims who lived on the Afghan border were very vicious and unrelenting when it came to the invader, i.e. the British. They needed to calm these people down. The Russians were already in Central Asia…the Brits and the Russians would eventually clash in the WW-2.
From Zahid Aziz:
I have published the above comment because it is full of falsehood and shows the utter ignorance or alternatively the deception of our opponents.
Here are just two general points of ignorance:
“The British just left South Africa 20 years ago… ”
So, F.W. De Klerk, P.W. Botha etc. were British!
“the Brits and the Russians would eventually clash in the WW-2. ”
That was a strange clash, both fighting on the same side, in both WW-1 and WW-2!
From Zahid Aziz:
The translation of 2:216 given at the beginning of the article by A.K. Shaikh appears to be taken from the English translation of the Quran by Al-Hilali and Muhsin Khan, published and approved by the government of Saudi Arabia.
In the same translation, in the footnote under 3:55, the translators quote the hadith about the descent of Jesus, and referring to the words in the hadith “and there will be no jizyah” they comment:
“The Jizyah: a tax imposed on non-Muslims who would keep their own religion, rather than embrace Islam, will not be accepted by Isa (Jesus), but all people will be required to embrace Islam and there will be no other alternative.”
A.K. Shaikh and his supporters should explain whether they agree with this view and clarify what is meant by “there will be no other alternative” for non-Muslims but to embrace Islam. What will happen to any who refuse to embrace Islam?
You accuse Hazrat Mirza sahib of repealing the teaching of Islam to conduct jihad, but yourself believe that Jesus will descend and his mission will be to repeal the teachings of Islam relating to freedom of religion — the teachings given in the Quran and practised by the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw)!
From Zahid Aziz:
Not content with saying this once, the translators say it again twice more in the footnotes under 8:39:
“… when Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), will descend on the earth, and he will not accept any other religion except Islam”.
“This Jizyah tax will not be accepted by Isa (Jesus) and all mankind will be required to embrace Islam with no other alternative.”
As to the verse 8:39 itself, all other translators translate it in the same sort of way, as for example Pickthall does:
“And fight them until persecution (fitnah) is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.”
(Some translate fitnah as “oppression”.)
But the Saudi sponsored and published translation of Al-Hilali and Muhsin Khan gives the following:
“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah alone [in the whole world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly Allah is All-Seer of what they do.”
So, fitnah is taken in this translation to mean the worship of anyone besides Allah, and only if the unbelievers cease from “worshipping others besides Allah” can the Muslims stop fighting with them.
Likewise in translating 2:193, they write:
“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone).”
So, according to A.S. Shaikh’s preferred English translation of the Quran, Muslims are required to fight non-Muslims until they give up worshipping others besides Allah, and Jesus will show the final manifestation of this when he returns and gives all non-Muslims of the world the ultimatum to embrace Islam with no alternative allowed to them!
From Zahid Aziz:
Mr Tahir (Hussain): Your comment will only be published if it replies to our answer to the challenge by A.S. Shaikh. I have already exposed your lamentable and shocking ignorance on points of history but you avoid making any comment about it.
From Zahid Aziz:
I have come across a review of the translation of the Quran by Al-Hilali and Muhsin Khan at ‘the American Muslim’ website. See this link.
It says:
It makes the same criticism as we have done above. In fact, the translation of verse 2:216 is the second example of mistranslation criticised by this review.
It concludes: