Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and Matters — See Title Page and List of Contents
See: Project Rebuttal: What the West needs to know about Islam
Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam
Read: Background to the Project
List of all Issues | Summary 1 | Summary 2 | Summary 3
This topic has been started at the request of Mr Shabeeb Haneef. See this comment for his request.
I hope that contributors will make clear their views on what is a prophet in this context, what authority does he posseess, and what does the appearance of a prophet require us to do?
Our standpoint can be read at this link.
This entry was posted on Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 12:27 pm and is filed under Ahmadiyya issues. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
From Shabeeb Haneef:
Assalamualaikum wa Rahmathullahi Wa Barakathuhu.
1) Can prophets come after Khatamul Anbiya, Sayyidul Mursaleen , Ashraful Khalq , my Master, the best creation, the best prophet, the Holy Holy Holy Prophet Muhammad Mustafa (sa)?
2) If yes, what kind of prophets can come?
3) What should we do if a true prophet comes?
Three very relevant questions questions and these questions definitely requires lengthy elaborations.
____________________________________________________________________
To begin with, I would like to state one verse in front of you.
O Children of Adam, if Messengers come to you from among yourselves, rehearsing my signs unto you, then who so shall fear God,and do good deeds, on them shall come no fear nor shall the grieve (Hoy Quran 7:35)
What is this verse doing in Holy Quran, the book that was revealed to Holy Prophet (sa) if the door for all kinds of prophets have been shut down?
Note that this verse is not being stated from any previous scriptures, but from Holy Quran. Now you may come with the argument that, this aayah is not for Muslims. But when you search the entire Holy Quran , we will find that all verses beginning with “Ya Bani Adama” is certainly equally valid and directed to Muslims as well. (See 7:32 and 7 :28). Or else you will have to say that this verse in no longer valid or Mansukh. Will you say that?
Now some may say that, this verse puts a conditional statement. alone. The truth is that with regard to the arrival of future prophets, Allah did use only similar usage in Quran (will be explained shortly.
A remarkable aspect of this verse is the usage of ‘Noon e Saqeelah’
The word usage “imma YATTI ANNAKA’ in arabic is known as ‘Mulaari Mu’aqqad bihi Noone Saqeela’ (A present/future continuous tensed verb that is strengthened with Noon e Saqeela.
If the verse was only “imma ya tti aka” (without noone saqeela) even then the meaning translated will be the same. But Allah has said YATTIANNAKA.
In Quran, the verb that is used with a noon e saqeela can be seen to be a prophecy or an action that is definitely going to happen in future.
Particularly such a usage like that of 7:36 can be found in the verse 2:39.
It says,
We said, ‘Go forth all of you from here and if there comes to you guidance from Me then Whoso shall follow my guidance on them shall come no fear nor shall the grieve.
This was said to at the time of Adam (as) ‘s people. And prophets did come indeed after that.
*************** IMPORTANT SEE BELOW *******************
Both the above verse meanings are from Our Jamaat’s Quran translations. But the most interesting part and the point to ponder for my lahori brothers is the translation of this verse by Moulana Muhammad Ali Sb.
In his translation it is given as
We said: Go forth from this (state) all. Surely there will come to you a guidance from Me, then whoever follows My guidance, no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve.
Think my dear brothers. There is an element of surety and certainty in noon e saqeela. That is why he translated this verse so even if the usage was ‘imma yatti annaka’.(if comes unto you)
2:39 and 7:36 has the same usage Imma Yatti Annaka even though Moulana Muhammad Ali Sb did not translate both in the same way. He translated 2:39 as per the implications of the verse in accordance with the usage in arabic grammar may be for more clarity of the reader. It cannot be said as wrong because such usages are indeed meant for denoting something that will happen in future. But why not 7:36?
Does not 7:36 asks the Muslims to obey the prophet who comes in future just like in 2:39?
I am stopping here to keep it short. I would like to know whether my brothers agree to this or not.
Wassalam
With love
Shabeeb Haneef M
From ikram:
Fundamental rule about reading Quran is for the reader to read the Quran and not his/her own mind or the mind of the group that s/he belongs to. This kind of readership does not require too deep a scholarship of Arabic either, because the conjoint verses and cross-linked verses will give the reader the sense of the message, and any contradictions therein will precipitate in the reader’s mind. Now lets read the old “rabbit out of the hat” trick of Qadiani Jamaat when they cite verse 7:35 as the penultimate of prophets after Muhammad PBUH. For discussion we will use Quran translation of Nooruddin:
In the above verses a fundamental principle is being elucidated and that is nation specific nature of messengers that came before Muhammad, that belonged to their own tribe/race/region because those Messengers were from amongst yourselves. Since nation specific references are given above, then a question to Qadiani friends – Going forward, will you accept a prophet who makes a claim from within nation of Jews, Christians, Buddists or that such a prophet will only advent in Muslims? In a classical sense Muslims are not a nation but a faith, hence according to above verses, with a Qadiani tint, new prophets will never arise in Muslims but only in nations like Jews, Caucasians, Tibetans etc. I am sure there will be some ambiguous Qadiani answer to these questions, but it will soon become obvious that we will be discussing as to how many angels can dance on a pin head.
This nation specific prophet-chains in tribes/regions/races was soon to come to an end for which the announcement was made much ahead of time:
This nation specific principle changes for the first time into an international focus for entire mankind with Muhammad PBUH:
With Prophet Muhammad, the Message since Adam is now perfected into Islam:
Arrival of another Prophet after a perfected..faith and completed..blessings will only nullify the above verse, with an element of oops! Implying that faith was neither perfected nor completed with Muhammad and Quran, hence needed another prophet, and some more ( -thousands in view of QK-2)
As to nature of the Message, the Quran:
Every interpretation of the Quran that does not take into account that in Quran there is nothing doubtful, disturbing, harmful or destructive to human intelligence, either never understood it or benefited from it. Any effort that creates doubt, disturbing, harmful or destructive elements in Quran, be it the Mullah pulpit or Qadiani pulpit should take note.
As to nature of Muhammad PBUH:
In the above verse see the the natural design of the last prophethood that has broken the mold of nation specificity of verse 7:35. Firstly, the blood lineage (Abraham, Issac, Jacob…) which was the hall mark of nation specific prophets has ended because Muhammad is no father to any man among you. Secondly, Muhammad is of the category “rasool” – Messengers, who convey the message (including angels, letter carriers, ambassadors etc.) Thirdly, within this category of Messengers he is the Sealant of this flow of Divinely ordained prophethood chain of the likes of Abraham, Moses, Jesus etc. Qadianis, please take note, do not limit the Seal only to notary seal of validation of prophethood, it also means closure.
It is because of perfected..faith and completed..blessings, Islam is to prevail with a singular Messenger, because the message has been standardized for entire mankind. Additionally, it is the true and lasting faith needing no other Messenger after Muhammad PBUH:
Sooner or later, whether with end of one’s life or on the final day for human race, for the day of reckoning, another principle is elucidated in Quran as pointed to by the following verses:
With the above verse in mind, a fundamental question to Qadiani Jamaat – Which prophet will stand witness over these (followers of yours)? Will it be Prophet Muhammad or the other alleged prophets after him? If it is Prophet Muhammad, then your interpretation of verse 7:35 is blown out of water. If it is not Prophet Muhammad, then Qadianis abrogate the above verse prima facie. Another important point to note in 4:41-2 is that these verses refers to a moral and intellectual space occupied by a single Prophet, that can quite logically be none but Prophet Muhammad PBUH.
Qadiani interpretation of 7:35 naturally creates contradiction in Quran, whereas Quran is contradiction free and is the Perfect Book:
Those of us who have some idea about database design, will immediately see in the following verse the “one-to-many” relationship of Prophet Muhammad and Muslims and at the same time the reverse and exclusive “many-to-one” relationship of Muslims to their Prophet Muhammad. There are no other orphan/floating prophets in the design. The Messenger, Muhammad PBUH is addressed as singular, further implying that his prophethood will not be tempered by anyone after him:
Even Qadianis will agree to that there is one final point in time i.e. “Yaum-e-Qiyammah.” Even though the Qadiani reading of verse 7:35 tries to create ambiguity going forward, if we read the verses 4:41-2 and 22:78, these verses show the time backward from end point in future to the present. These verses show unequivocally that this whole time pipeline from present to Yaum-e-Qiyammah is empty of any other prophet, but Prophet Muhammad.
The above is a casual read of Quran without any claim of scholarship. This natural rebuttal arises from Quran itself as a response to the tunnel and self-serving view of Qadiani pulpit. Amazingly, Quran defends itself against any attack or alteration. No wonder it is the Perfect Book. If HMGA was a “prophet” and himself understood the verse 7:35 in the same manner that Qadianis did after him, then I am sure that he would had run waving it in hand in every street of India. But he did not. Why?
From Zahid Aziz:
You say that in translating 2:39 (what others number as 2:38) Maulana Muhammad Ali has correctly indicated the certainty (“Surely there will…”) but he has not done the same in 7:36 (what others call 7:35) and has used “if” in that verse. But your Jamaat’s translation of both these verses, as quoted by you yourself, does not indicate that certainty at all and uses “if” in both cases.
So according to you, Maulana Muhammad Ali translated one verse out of the two correctly (as regards the certainty expressed) but your Jamaat did not translate even one verse correctly! You are giving Maulana Muhammad Ali 50% marks, and your Jamaat 0% marks!
Here is the Qadiani logic. Their Jamaat’s translation:
“if Messengers come to you”
is correct but Maulana Muhammad Ali’s translation of the same words as
“if messengers come to you”
is wrong because the Maulana hasn’t expressed the certainty of the original.
Mr Shabeeb Haneef should realise that this is why he is appearing on this forum instead some well-known scholar of his Jamaat. They don’t want to risk losing their reputation by saying such ridiculous things, so people like Shabeeb Haneef act as their “cannon fodder”.
From Umar:
Below is an argument put forward by the Jamat in support of new prophets coming after the Holy prophet:
With regards to the coming of the Promised Messiah (peace be on him), I have already mentioned a clear reference as noted in Surah Al-Jumu’ah, chapter 62 of the Holy Quran. Another reference is made in the following verses of the Holy Quran Surah Al-Nisa, chapter 4, verses 70-71: “Wa Maeen Yoote Allaha… Wa Kafa Billahe Aleema – And whoso obeys Allah and this Messenger shall be among those on whom Allah has bestowed His blessings .the Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs and the Righteous, and excellent company are they. This grace is from Allah and Allah suffices as One Who is All-knowing.”
What a grand proclamation. It unfolds the unique and lofty station of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him). These verses say that from now on, only those who will ‘obey Allah and this Messenger’ shall be the recipients of the spiritual rewards of the highest order i.e. prophethood, truthfulness, martyrdom and righteousness. Here the word used in not just ‘Rasool’ (messenger) but ‘Al-Rasool’ (this messenger) pointedly referring to the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him)
Allah says: “Fa Olaaeka Ma’allazena Un Amallaho Alehim – it is they who shall be among those on whom Allah has bestowed His blessings.” Here, our opponents argue that the practice “Ma’s” means ‘with’ and not ‘among’ as we translate it. Meaning ‘it is they who shall be with those on whom Allah has bestowed His blessings.’ Anyone with common sense would know that their argument is absurd. An August Divine Decree has been announced conferring spiritual ranks of the highest degree on those obeying Allah and the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him). But our opponents would have you believe that your reward for obeying Allah and His prophet would be that you would only be placed amongst people who have achieved these lofty spiritual ranks.
From Deen Ahmad:
Mr. Zahid Aziz:
You can’t get away from the question by this type of LAM drama.
I quote below the issue proved by Shabeeb Sahib in light of the Holy Quran.
“if Messengers come to you” ( Immaa Ya’ti ANNAKA ) in 7:36 and 2:39
It clearly shows the possibility is valid. Whereas Maulana Muhammad Ali says it is for sure (2:39).
Now, you don’t twist the topic. Don’t divert the attention. You have the responsibility to explain about this.
In simple words, Maulana Muhammad Ali translated Surely there will come. That is what more important for you to think.
Please do not drag the topic with this kind of drama, as above. Make an attempt to answer to this verse and prove your part .
Shabeeb Sahib genuinely came with 2 verses of the Holy Qur’an proving messengers can come. You have to provide rebuttal/explanation to it. It should not be by doing your mathematical comparison and then diverting the attention from the meaning of the verses.
You don’t have to bother about his agreement or disagreement with your explanation. You have the ultimate responsibility to justify your acceptance or denial of the verse explained from the Holy Qur’an and by Maulana Muhammad Ali.
It seems that you haven’t had any kind of debate or discussion with Ahmadis who are not from Pakistan or Pakistani origin. There are many such dedicated Ahmadis especially like people in Kerala State, India, who are not qualified by any degree but capable of handling Qur’an and Arabic grammar extremely well. Be informed that mainly they are the people who propagate the message of Ahmadiyyah Islam among the public. I know of some of these young members who can even speak the message of Ahmadiyyah Islam in public stages, which is permitted in India. You can’t simply judge with your blurred assumption that there is some scholar behind him. Please don’t assume things like this.
From Zahid Aziz:
Regarding Mr Umar’s comment, the obvious question is: if people can become prophets by obeying Allah and the Holy Prophet Muhammad, then how is it that acording to you only one person managed to reach this position in the subsequent 1300 years? The great Companions of the Holy Prophet obeyed “Allah and the Messenger” and did not become prophets thereby.
Then if a person does become a prophet by obeying “Allah and the Messenger”, how do people become prophets after him? Do they need to obey Allah and the Holy Prophet Muhammad or do they need to obey Allah and that latest messenger? Does that latest messenger become the “messenger” referred to in this verse in the words “Allah and Messenger”?
From Zahid Aziz:
Regarding Mr Deen Ahmad’s comment, firstly he has made a foolish mistake by thinking that 2:39 mentions messengers coming. It mentions “guidance” coming. And it is a statement made at the time of Adam, after revelation began with Adam (mentioned in the verse before), that guidance will come in future. Even you believe that the guidance included “books” and books stopped coming after the Quran. As Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib writes in Al-Wasiyya about the Quran that “no new truth will come after it”.
The trick employed by Deen Ahmad and others is to discuss the idea of coming of prophets in a general way, divorcing it from any reference to their own beliefs about the prophet whom they consider as having come, and hiding the implications of regarding him as prophet.
So while they argue that “prophets” and “messengers” (plural) can come, they actually believe that only one prophet and messenger was to come after the Holy Prophet. They don’t mention that the implication of believing in such a prophet is that those who don’t accept him become non-Muslims just like those who don’t believe in Prophet Muhammad.
When they are asked, how do you express belief in such a prophet (e.g. do you declare: There is no god but Allah, and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the rasul of Allah”), they run a mile.
Now they are unable to explain how is it that Shabeeb Haneef has discovered that those two verses use “noon saqeela”, indicating certainty, but his Jamaat’s Quran translations by their highest leaders didn’t spot this point.
By the way, if these people know Arabic grammar so well, as Deen Ahmad says, why are Shabeeb Haneef and Deen Ahmad saying that these verses use the expression “Imma Yatti Annaka”? This is not a typo error because they have repeated it three or four times. Where do these verses say “ka”? You don’t know the difference between ka and kum!
Deen Ahmad writes: “It seems that you haven’t had any kind of debate or discussion with Ahmadis who are not from Pakistan or Pakistani origin.”
Well, your Jamaat’s international leaders, including Mirza Masroor Ahmad are from Pakistan. Please confirm your position: You believe that if we had held a debate with Mirza Tahir Ahmad, or hold one with Mirza Masroor Ahmad, or many other leading figures (Dost Muhammad Shahid, Shaikh Mubarak Ahmad, Ata-ul-Mujeeb Rashad, etc.) then these gentlemen will not have performed as well in the debate as “dedicated Ahmadis in Kerala”.
Please clarify that you believe this.
From Shabeeb Haneef:
To all my readers.
Respected Zahid Sb has pointed out a valid error that happened from my side. Both the verses says “KUM” and not “KA.” But that does not change anything from my statements or my stand . It was a typo error from my side and I admit it most humbly.
Please be informed that I dont have any claim regarding what I know and what I don’t. I am a human being with very limited knowledge in both worldy and spiritual domains, and I confess that I make errors and mistakes knowingly and unknowingly more than you all.
Hope this will not stop anyone from thinking rationally , instead may it help us to take the best out of this discussion.
I am glad that Zahid Sb has pointed out this error earlier itself. Thanks a lot. I hope the readers have understood that my stress was not on KUM or KA but noon e saqeela.
TO THE MODERATOR : Please retain the formatting same as in my posts and also do not change the order of the posts like you did today. This is not at all a democratic way of maintaining a public blog.
I will share my views to the above posts soon.
Wassalam
With Love
Shabeeb Haneef M
From Zahid Aziz:
I absolutely and categorically deny that I changed the order of the text within your posts. The only thing I did was to insert blank lines between your paragraphs to make your comment easier to read.
I hope you will also let us know whether a messenger who comes in accordance with these verses, as you believe, should himself be putting forward these verses to support his claim. If he doesn’t do so, can he be accepted as a messenger who came in accordance with these verses?
From Rashid:
@ Dr. Zahid Aziz,
I remember reading an article, perhaps authored by you, in which HMGA stated that Kalima-Shahada itself establishes that Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS was the last prophet and no new prophet can come after him. If its link is handy, please provide it. Thanks.
From ikram:
Mirza Bashir-ud-din Mahmud Ahmad’s original beliefs:
“In this verse God has said that the Holy Prophet is the Khatam an-nabiyyin, and none shall come after him who may be raised to the status of prophethood, and who may abrogate his teachings and establish a new law. Nay, however many saints (wali) there are, and righteous persons, they will get all that they get through service to him. Thus God has said that the Holy Prophet’s prophethood was meant not only for his times, but that in future too no prophet would come…His being the Khatam an-nabiyyin contains a prophecy. This is that before the Holy Prophet Muhammad there arose hundreds of prophets in the world who had great success…But thirteen hundred years have now passed since his claim, and no one has attained success by claiming prophethood. Why has this arrangement stopped? Obviously because of the prophecy that he is the Khatam an-nabiyyin. Now we ask the opponents of Islam, what greater sign can there be than the fact that, after the Holy Prophet, no person who claimed prophethood was successful. The words ‘God is ever Knower of all things’ mean to say: We have made him Khatam an-nabiyyin and We know that no prophet would come after him, and any liar making such a claim would be destroyed” (Tashhiz al-Ahzan, April 1910, by Mirza Bashir-ud-din Mahmud Ahmad).
[See this link ]
From Zahid Aziz:
In answer to Rashid above, I quote below what Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote:
Please note that the bolding above is not mine but is in the original Urdu book.
According to this statement, no prophet can come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad because any such prophet would have to teach people that “There is only one God, and I am His messenger”, but this he cannot do because the entire Muslim Umma, for all time to come, has already been taught “There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah” as the summary of Islam.
This is actually in the Holy Quran. We have been discussing 7:35 above (“O Children of Adam, if messengers come to you …”). The particular messenger referred to here, i.e. Holy Prophet Muhammad, is told in the same chapter to declare his messengership as follows:
“Say: O mankind, surely I am the Messenger of Allah to you all, of Him, Whose is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. There is no god but He; He gives life and causes death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Ummi Prophet who believes in Allah and His words, and follow him so that you may be guided aright.” (7:158)
The underlined words are what a messenger requires from his followers: Believe in Allah and in me as His messenger.
From Shabeeb Haneef:
Assalamualaikum Wa Rahmathullahi Wa Barakathuhu
TO ZAHID SB: – Yesterday, the first response to my post was by you. Later when I checked, I found that Ikram Sb’s essay was placed first and then yours. This is what I meant by “DO NOT CHANGE THE ORDER OF THE POSTS”.
Hope you will take care about this in future.
_______________________________________________________________________
Dear Readers,
I really don’t understand what is the motive behind Ikram Sb’s essay that was stuffed with topics that I did not even mention at all. I did not say that Deen is imperfect or the next prophet is an independent prophet bringing new additions or negations to Islam. I did not enter the topic of what kind of prophets can come in future. We will surely deal with all the topics in Ikram Sb’s essay gradually one by one as time comes and not in one go. I don’t intend to create any kind of confusion to the readers.
So lets first concentrate on 7:36 and the reply that Ikram Sb gave for this verse.
Ikram Sb has put forth a new theory from his imagination according to which this verse is only for people before Rasoolullah (sa). He also said that this verse is regarding ‘nations’ and according to his so called ‘classical’ theory Muslims does not come under this.
Now I invite my readers to come out of Ikram Sb’s essay and see the reality. The previous verse (7:35) says about every Ummat (Vali Kulli UMMATTIN). And according to Holy Quran 3:111, Muslims are the best UMMAT. (KUNTUM KHAIRA UMMATTIN….).
Indeed after the arrival of Holy Prophet (sa) there is one and only one UMMAT which is internationally a ‘nation’ and that is UMMAT E MUHAMMADIYYA – THE MUSLIMS.
Your so called classical theory is not supported by Holy Quran I am sorry.
So there is no way to remove muslims out of this verse. If this verse is not applicable to muslims or its no longer valid, then please prove it.
7:36 addresses ya bani aadam and muslims are certainly amongst ya bani aadam if we look into all other similar verses of Holy Quran. If not, please prove it. Will you say that verses like 7:28 and 7:32 are also not for muslims???. Please provide evidence.
I will not change the verses of discussion and mix it to confuse others. We will go one by one. Please answer specifically.
____________________________________________________________________
To Zahid Sb.
It seems that You have not understood what I said is the moment to ponder for Lahori brothers.
7:36 and 2:39 are translated 100% correctly as per Arabic grammar by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat. As per the text, our translation is correct.
Meanwhile Moulana Muhammad Ali Sb has translated 2:39 keeping in view its implication as per Arabic language. The usage of Noon e Saqeela denotes things that will happen in future. He has translated 2:39 keeping this in mind. This proves that Noon e Saqeela indeed denotes what I said.
So please be informed that I was not taking any dictation or tests between Moulana Muhammad Ali Sb and Moulana Sheri Ali Sb but only highlighting the truth and the prophecy in the verse 7:36.
You really need to ponder over the testimony that Muhammad Ali Sb gave to the reality of the usage noon e saqeela.
Wassalam
With Love
Shabeeb Haneef M
From Zahid Aziz:
Shabeeb Haneef writes to me: “Hope you will take care about this in future.” The possible explanations of how it happened are:
1. In your eyes I am a Lahori hypocrite, in fact a leading Lahori hypocrite. So I changed the order of posts and lied to you.
OR:
2. When I checked the comments awaiting moderation, there was yours and Ikram’s. I published yours and also replied to it. Then I got back to Ikram’s comment and posted it. Since his comment bore the original time of submission, the blog placed it before my reply to you.
It is up to you, and between you and Allah, which explanation you accept.
My question to you was, why didn’t your Jamaat translators including the khalifas appointed by Allah, and Musleh Mauood, translate these verses according to “noon saqila”? Neither in their English nor in their Urdu translations did they do this.
You say “I did not enter the topic of what kind of prophets can come in future” and you will do so later. So first you are citing verses to prove that all kinds of prophets and messengers can come (because this is the meaning you are giving to 7:36, or 35), and then you will prove that, no, not all kinds of prophets can come! Then you will keep on reducing the powers of that prophet as a prophet until his only purpose of coming becomes to establish a khilafat after him!
You yourself quoted 2:39 (or 38 in fact), where Maulana Muhammad Ali translates: “surely there will come…”. That verse says that “guidance” will come. “Guidance” came in books of Allah (Torah, see 5:44, Gospel see 5:46). So, according to you, books of Allah containing “huda” can come after the Quran.
First you want to show from this and other verses that the Quran teaches that prophets can still come, and then you will prove that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was such a prophet. But there is a conflict here straight away. If these verses do prove that prophets can come, then Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad cannot be a prophet because he never put forward these verses in his claim. So you will have proved that he was a false claimant to prophethood!
From ikram:
I believe the corresponding verse to HMGA’s quote above by Dr. Zahid Aziz is:
The above verse is essentially an equivalent of Kalima-Shahada for the then followers of Prophet Jesus. Thus implying, every prophet has similar divinely ordained oath for his ministry. For the followers of Prophet Muhammad such a verse is quoted by Dr. Aziz:
It is thus obvious that each prophet has to have similar declaration associated with him. Now the question to Qadiani friends – Is there such a declaration for HMGA, a divinely ordained wahy/ilham or otherwise? Even though Qadianis might still believe in prophets after Muhammad PBUH, but one thing is for sure that such a prophet has yet to arrive. It would be wise for them to at least not lean on HMGA. Find someone else. Ask your Khalifas, who have a knack of finding the potential candidates, willing or unwilling, and conferring prophethoods/knighthoods, but only posthumously.
While Qadiani friends are contemplating, rest of us mortals who are addressed as “O Children of Adam!” or “O mankind” believe in Muhammad as the last prophet, without any ifs ands or buts, because Quran, which is the last Book, ordains in the verse above – and follow him so that you may be guided aright.
From Shabeeb Haneef:
Assalamualaikum Wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu
Dear Zahid Sb,
I did not make any allegations that you deliberately did the order changing for some hidden motive. I could only see the front end and not what is happening at your side. I saw the orders changed and thus I informed it. I neither thought any thing about your origin or stand nor did I scream that you are playing mischief. I did not even ask for explanation either. I seek apology if it has hurt you.
Next time, please write your own comments only after all posts in the waiting queue are published so that this is not repeated.
____________________________________________________________________
Now , The answers to your questions
1) As I said earlier, Jamaat has translated it in accordance with the Arabic Text. As per the exact text to word translation of the verses, the Jamaat’s translation is 100% correct. I have repeated this time and again. If you did not like Jamaat doing exact translations, what should I do for that?
All I said was that , this usage can be seen in Quran, used to denote something that will happen for sure in future. Its a pure fact in Arabic grammar. Please refer to any arabic students or Moulavis regarding this.
___________________________________________________________________
2) The conduct of a Mumin cannot be derived from one single verse of the Quran. The entire Quran serves as his guideline and not a single verse/ We cannot do anything if Quran does not deal with all the aspects of a particular subject in a single verse.
For Eg: Quran says Kuloo Vashrabbu… (Eat and Drink,,,,) This does not mean we can eat and drink everything. What can be eaten or drunk is prescribed elsewhere in the Holy Quran. By accepting entire Quran as guideline and not only one single verse, as guidance, one is not in fact reducing or limiting the power of any verse of Holy Quran but accepting the complete guidance in its pure form which is to be followed.
Allah says “ZAALIK AL KITAABU LA RAIBA FEEHI HUDANLIL MUTTAQEEN”. The whole book is the guidance and not one or two verse alone. The important thing is that there will be no contradictions in Quran. If you take just one verse and not look at rest of the others on a particular subject, it is natural that you will be surrounded by contradictions.
In this verse Allah deals only about coming of prophets, who and what is not being said. But it is said elsewhere and will be explained at its anointed time. What can I do if Allah did not deal with all the aspects of this subject in this verse?
You are simply carving out illogical reasons to deny rather than answering to the point of discussion.
___________________________________________________________________
I had stated 7:36 as the evidence for future prophets. Please answer to it.
2:39 was put forward to show you all the usage of Noon – Saqeela.
I did not state that any new book will come in future.
I badly want to know who taught you that guidance means book alone.
Firstly, No where in the history of Mankind, can we see that ‘books’ were sent to mankind via mail/fax/post. It was bought by some prophets. Will you say that only those books needs to be followed and not the prophet who bought it.
Secondly, please note that, prophets who came without books are also guidance for mankind and needs to be followed.
The answer is there in these two verses itself. 2:39 asks us to accept ‘Hidaaya’ and 7:36 asks us to follow prophets. But the result of both is being stated as the same ” Fala Khoufun alaihim wala hum yahzanoon”.
Yes dear Rashid Sb, both the verses promises that those who follow guidance/follow the prophets will have nothing to fear nor will the have any to grieve. Which means that both are one and the same.
OR
Will you say that, as per 2:39 , The Son of Adam needs to follow only books and not prophets who came with or without books to them?
____________________________________________________________________
3)
We all know the research work of Respected Abdul Haq Vidyarthi Sb. He compiled the references regarding Holy Prophet (sa) form Vedas.
But sadly, Rasoolullah (sa) did not ever point to these reference and say that it is about him(sa).
We all know that Deuteronomy chapter 18 verse 18 is about holy Prophet (sa). But again sadly he(sa) did not claim so.
But his followers did prove his testimony later on.
Same will be the answer for your query as to why The promised messiah(as) did not use this verse to prove himself.
May Allah Guide Us All
Wassalam
With Love
Shabeeb Haneef M
From ikram:
One of the fallacy, in my opinion, when reading Quran is that it should not be read in hiccups of out of context references. Even though the Book is written linearly from front cover to the back, but factually its internal design is multidimensional, e.g. a geodesic dome. If an ant crawls on it, it will keep on crawling and never reach an end because there is no beginning or end. Thus Quran is a neural network with many pathway of interconnected verses, besides the obvious linear connection on a given page. The beauty of the design is such that there are no contradictions in such pathways. One of such pathways is as follows:
Quran is a message, not a punchline. How do we differentiate between a Message and a Punchline? Very simple – if a given idea starts from within Quran and then found to have implications in our lives, then its a message. If a given idea started in our personal issues first, then if Quran is sought to validate and whitewash that extra-Quranic thought then it is a punchline, especially if it relies on a verse alone, without any cross read e.g. the wife beaters, or the non-believers of finality of prophethood of Muhammad PBUH.
The difference of approach between myself and Shabeeb in above posts is that, I first try to see the composite message of Quran about finality of Prophet, for which my first post above alludes to. It includes reverse view of time from Final Day to present in verses 4:41-2 and 22:78. These verses are essentially a time pipeline from now till eternity and expressly show no other prophet, than prophet Muhammad. With this approach I am reading the message of Quran.
Our Qadiani friends first create an idea outside Quran of non-finality of Prophet Muhammad, then use verse 7:35 as a punchline by finding possibility of future tense, then state “I told you so”. They missed the forest for the trees.
From Shabeeb Haneef:
Assalamualaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakathuhu.
Dear Ikram Sb and Readers,
I leave it upon the readers to find out who is creating an idea outside Quran.
All I did was to state ONE SINGLE VERSE as my proof and another verse to support it. I did not make any idea and push it on to you. Whatever I have given was from Holy Quran.
Meanwhile, we find our lahori saying everything under the sky other than answering to what I have raised here.
I wonder, if one verse makes them like this, what will happen when more proofs that are in store comes by. Insha Allah.
Dear Readers please ponder upon this ,
I straightly gave two references from Holy Quran and no where else and left it upon the readers to think, reflect and respond. Meanwhile Ikram Sb says in his above post that
“I first try to see the composite message of Quran about finality of Prophet, for which my first post above alludes to.”
Please decide who is actually creating an idea outside Holy Quran and then reads its verses?
Hence I repeat to all those who are interested to please say “How to remove muslims from 7:35? If it is not possible, then does not this verse asks muslims to believe in the next prophet when Allah sends him?
We can move ahead to more interesting proofs once this is settled. If Allah asks us to believe so, then Allah himself has the responsibility to tell us further details about the next prophet. Is there any such details in Holy Quran?
May Allah Guide Us All.
Wassalam
With Love
Shabeeb Haneef M
From Zahid Aziz:
This is in response to Shabeeb Haneef’s comment directed at me above.
1. Maulana Muhammad Ali’s translation using the form “Surely there will come …” (2:38/39) appeared in 1917. Qadiani Jamaat scholars went through his translation with a fine tooth comb for criticism purposes. The question is, why didn’t they spot that he had so accurately represented “noon saqila” in this verse, and then use it (or use similar words of certainty) in their translations which appeared many years later?
2. Now Shabeeb H. complains that we must not take just one verse. But he himself has been restricting us to looking at one verse! He writes:
“In this verse Allah deals only about coming of prophets, who and what is not being said. But it is said elsewhere and will be explained at its appointed time.”
So, until that appointed time (when he shows us where the Quran says that only zilli, buroozi and ghair tashri`i prophets can come), we can only interpret in isolation what he has put forward. He writes:
“I had stated 7:36 as the evidence for future prophets. Please answer to it.”
Our answer is that, taking this verse as you present it, messengers can even come bearing books which supersede the Quran.
Similarly, taking 2:38/39 as you present it, all kinds of guidance including books of Allah can always come.
3. Shabeeb Haneef’s comment here is a perfect illustration of Qadiani individuals presenting highly dangerous views which are so much against Islam that their Jamaat would never present these officially.
He is saying that Hazrat Mirza sahib, when he came, stood in the same relation to the Quran as the Holy Prophet Muhammad stood in relation to the previous scriptures when he came. So, he says, that just as the Holy Prophet didn’t put forward any references about his coming from previous scriptures, likewise Hazrat Mirza sahib did not need to give references to the Quran about his coming.
For a start, the Holy Prophet did refer to prophecies in previous scriptures about him (e.g. “the Messenger-Prophet, the Ummi, whom they find mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel….”, 7:157). Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi’s book is entitled “Misaq-un-nabiyyin” in Urdu, from the words of the verse of the Quran, 3:81, which mentions that all prophets had prophesied the Holy Prophet’s coming (“…then a Messenger comes to you verifying that which is with you, …”)
The Qadiani Jamaat’s own shorter English commentary says under 73:16: “This verse refers to the Biblical prophecy … Deut. 18:18,19”.
But the most important point is this, Blog readers.
The Holy Prophet arose having authority over the previous scriptures as they then existed, because they were both altered in part and deficient in part. The Holy Prophet was not bound by what was in any existing scripture in order to prove his claim. In fact, his revelation informed him what was right and what was wrong in them. There were even certain teachings in the Bible (wrong, of course) which would prevent the Holy Prophet even claiming to be a prophet. He corrected those teachings.
As opposed to this, Hazrat Mirza sahib was entirely and utterly bound by the Holy Quran and completely under its authority. To make any claim he had to justify it from the text of the Quran. (E.g. when he learnt through revelation that Jesus had died, he had to establish it from the Quran.)
It is therefore utterly false, and highly heretical, to say that Hazrat Mirza sahib was in the same position about his proving claim from the Quran as the Holy Prophet Muhammad was about proving his claim from the previous scriptures.
From ikram:
Verse 7:35 starts as:
yābanī ——–ādama—–immā–yatiyannakum–
O Children—(of) Adam!—If——come to you—-
rusulun——-minkum—yaquṣṣūna–ʿalaykum–āyātī
Messengers–from you–relating——-to you—–My Verses,
This polemic of “Noon – Saqeela” is explained none better than QK-4 in context of 4:157 & 4:159 (or 4:158 & 4:160 Qadiani numbering). According to late Tahir Ahmad “Noon – Saqeela” deals with present or immediate near future (within the life span of Jesus), but not infinite future. See youtube video @ 1:22 [link].
Obviously the verse 7:35 gives a conditional “short time line” argument to the non-Muslims to pause and think, at the time Prophet Muhammad while he was still alive and was from you i.e. Muhammad was a native of the land where he preached.
If we read the same verse for our times, then Shabeeb missed the concept of sub-sets of O Children—(of) Adam! i.e. the non-Muslims of our times, for whom the reference to past and the last Messenger(s) is still valid that have repeatedly come to you till Muhammad, whose Message is still contemporary and current that they can use even now.
What does Shabeeb expect? Is this verse to convert Muslims to Islam or non-Muslims to Islam, both during Prophet Muhammad’s time and our times? It must be Qadiani doctrine for Prophets to come after Muhammad PBUH to convert Muslims to Islam. No wonder, every non-Qadiani was a kafir according to QK-2. Hence they all were to be converted to Islam under the “prophethood” of his father. What QK-2 declared, clearly implies that even Nooruddin was initially a non-Muslim as he to a certain point had not heard of HMGA’s alleged claim, before he met in Qadian for the first time and took the bait (oath). I wonder, what was the religion of HMGA himself before he was awarded the alleged prophethood?
But, according to muslims including LAM, mujaddids will continue to come to revive Islam, which can then be naturally propagated by thus enlightened Muslim to “the corners of the world (HMGA)”.
Mr Shabeeb, please settle this “Noon – Saqeela” thing with your Khalifa before you take on the non-Muslim world of Islam.
Readers, once you have watched the above video section for the ongoing argument, rewind it to the beginning and note the obeisance to the Khalifa by body language and hand kissing of the supplicants as well as “the right of the way – entitled” body language of the Khalifa. If this is the interaction of the Chief and the Indians then there is no point in winning over the Qadianis. They have already lost their dignity. They bow to humans. World is better off without their prostrating hoard. Let them dwell in their own fellowship. Their behavior is not humble, but humiliated.
From Shabeeb Haneef:
To Zahid Aziz Sb,
Okay, I acknowledge your agreement to 7:36 by which you say that in such a scenario we will be forced to believe that even new books can come that can supersede Quran.
I understand that you are saying this only for argument sake. The answer to whether new books can come or cannot come need not be explained to any lahori brother unless he is so much interested in wasting time. The same answer that you lahori brothers will give from Holy Quran to prove no new books will come in future will suffice the need here as well. I do not elaborate it only to save time of all. But if you are so adamant to waste time, then please let me know. Quran does evade the coming of another book and hence this verse (7:36) does not include any further books but prophets. And the feature of such a prophet is said as
(Holy Quran 7:36)
…..Yaqussoona alaikum Ayaati. – rehearsing My AYAAT(verses)/signs/messages etc.
So if Holy Quran proves itself to be the last book, then if we translate AYAAT as verses / messages (as translated by Moulana Muhammad Ali), then they are the verses of Holy Quran itself. Or generally it can be translated as ‘signs’ as well. If we take in this way, then we will have to see whether the next prophet is indeed elaborating Allah’s signs or not. If yes, then what signs?
Either way, this verse opens the door for future prophets but not future books
Regarding 2:39. I request all to read 2:39 and find if for yourself that, the verse is being addressed to the people who were in Jannat at that time. I don’t know how Zahid Sb extended this verse till today. Holy Quran speaks clearly about to whom this is being addressed. Allah asks them to go from here and believe in Hidaayath when it is being sent. I quoted that verse to show the usage of noon e saqeela and not to prove that Prophets will come in future. Please use some common sense while reading.
From Shabeeb Haneef:
To Ikram
I am extremely grateful to you for posting this video. It seems that you have not viewed the relevant part of the video. This video supports my view and not yours. 🙂
This is what happens when Man is predetermined to disagree. Everything then appears as blind as night to him.
In this video Khalifatul Maseeh IV is pointing to the flaws in the Mullah explanation of return in Jesus which they carve out from 4:160 . He clearly states that noon e saqeela indicates future itself.
The verse says 4:160
Va Immin Ahlal Kitaabi Illa li YUMINANNA bihi Qabla mowtihi…..In this, Khalifa IV explains the point that, the verse itself puts the upper time limit for the action Yuminanna (Surely they will believe) to happen which is up to the time before the death of Jesus (qabla mowtihi) and not infinitely. This should happen before the ‘Mowt’ of Jesus and not in infinite future as per QURAN’S VERSE ITSELF but it will happen for sure because of the presence of noon e saqeela.
If we apply this to 7:36, it proves that as long as Bani Adam is here on earth, this verse is valid. There is no time limit prescribed in this verse for people to believe in the next prophet. So, your video, in fact substantiates what I said.
I thank Ikram Sb for posting this video.
I request all viewers to view the video from 1:22 up to 7:50 at least and understand the usage noon e saqeela.
_____________________________________________________________________
So once again I draw the attention of all towards 7:36. Does not it ask muslims to believe the next prophet who will come from amongst you and rehearse Allah’s aayaat to you (please read word by word 7:36)??
If this verse has some other meaning, please elaborate it here. If not, please allow me to move further, there are much more interesting proofs awaiting all.
Wassalam
With Love
Shabeeb Haneef M
From ikram:
Very early on I had pointed out that one of the errors in reading Quran is when people read their own mind rather than what is in Quran. This is exactly what Shabeeb has done, even when watching his own Khalifa trying to explain the presumed intricacies of “Noon – Saqeela” on which the whole Qadiani empire dangles. QK-4 interprets “Noon – Saqeela” for the life time of the prophet Jesus. Now read 7:35. The pivot in this verse is the Messengers. Now pick any messenger (Muhammad or ones before him) and the “Noon – Saqeela” is relevant to that prophet. Who is the last prophet in the time line of Quran while it was being revealed and written in Makkah and Medina – it was none but Prophet Muhammad. “Noon – Saqeela” is all about the short future tense of Prophet Muhammad’s life. Got it! Children of Adam are only the consumers of this “Noon – Saqeela” of Prophet Muhammad, both during the prophet’s life time and after him.
There is obvious polemic trickery of Qadianis as pointed out earlier by Dr. Aziz in this thread, when he predicted that they will try to create shades of a prophethood to somehow fit in the “prophethood” of HMGA. That’s exactly what is happening. Now Shabeeb is sneaking in a book-less prophet. No wonder QK-4 reverted the meaning of “Akhira” in verse 2:5 to prevent any further claimant of prophethood who receives the revelation after their nominated “prophet” HMGA. Qadianis are a moving target in their doctrinal dogmas.
If one notices the time line of loop back from Shabeeb, it is obvious that there is at least 12 hour delay from India-UK-India for him to get his email answer from his headquarters.
Qadiani argument is no different than the anti-islamic out of context half statements i.e. Muslim do not believe in God, because they utter with their own mouth: There is no God [but Allah…]
Shabeeb wants to prove the “basis” of Qadianiat by relying on a grammatical construct. Muhammad was an illiterate who converted the illiterates of his time based upon fundamental truths of Islam and not on grammatical polemics. “Noon – Saqeela” was no where in his equation. It only exposes the fragility of Qadiani beliefs.
Shabeeb, wake up. “Noon – Saqeela” is not Quran. It is a grammatical construct, accuracy of which will vary between experts and sources. Thus, the Qadiani view depends on extra-Quranic expertise and not on Quran itself. You guys are missing the forest for the trees.
Grammar is all about the context of a sentence. For example:
“…stop must not let go….”
The above sentence does not tell the reader whether to stop or not to stop and to let go or not to let go. The reader will interpret it with his/her existing bias.
Similarly if 7:35 creates ambiguity in a certain reader’s mind, then one has to look for the context. The context of 7:35 can be summarily found in verses 7:34, 7:36, 34:28, 33:40, 61:9, 4:41-2 etc.
From ikram:
(Continued from above)…
Shabeeb pay attention to the following verses which are some of the required criteria of a Prophet, that 7:35 points to as well:
7:35 clearly tells us that the Prophet must be relating to you My Messages. What are those Messages of Allah via HMGA, that substitute for Quran? What ever I have read of HMGA, all I found was exposition and explanation of Quran, which is the job of a Mujaddid. Additionally, 3:164 and 7:68 give the job description of a Messenger who is supposed to deliver…the Messages and then recites to them His Messages, and …teaches them the Book that is revealed to that Messenger. Repetition and memorization is embedded in the word recitation, just as we recite Quran first by reading and then by memorizing, and then repeating it. What are those verses/chapters of a Book that are exclusively HMGA’s that we need to recite in our prayers and meditations? Please name half a verse. Even if that half verse is produced, then it better be in Arabic because:
If HMGA does not fit the criteria of a prophet, then the Qadiani “Noon – Saqeela” is just a storm in the teacup.
If HMGA does not have a substitute Message for Quran, then he is just one more person in the Ummah of Prophet Muhammad PBUH, though exalted at the level of Mujaddid.
Whether one belongs to LAM or Qadiani Jamaat, one should take heed from the following:
On a side note, Qadianis frequently taunt at LAM for their numbers and assets. The following law of Allah is just a reminder to Qadiani friends:
From Zahid Aziz:
In response to Shabeeb Haneef’s latest comment, if he wants to understand these verses he has put forward, rather than make points for the sake of argument, then our understanding is as follows.
Both 2:38 (or 39) and 7:35 (or 36) refer to the same law. At the beginning when man was established on earth, the law came into operation, as stated in 2:38, that messengers like Adam will be sent with revelation to guide people, and those who accept them attain salvation, while those who oppose them face damnation.
When the Holy Prophet Muhammad arose, God reminded the people of the world in 7:35 that he had come as the messenger, a mortal human like them, under that same law of old. The address to mankind in 7:35 regarding the Holy Prophet remains valid as long as people are being called to accept him. Non-Muslim nations are told that he has come just as messengers had earlier come among them. But the point stated here about “then whosoever guards against evil and acts aright” applies to Muslims also. They also need to guards against evil and act aright (and not just believe in him).
Remember, Hazrat Mirza sahib repeatedly described the Holy Prophet Muhammad as the Living Prophet. In Haqiqat-ul-Wahy he called the Holy Prophet as the Prophet of the time (i.e. of any time including the present). He wrote: “Tauheed … cannot be attained except through belief in the prophet of the time (waqt kay nabi), that is the Holy Prophet Muhammad, and obedience to him.” (RK, vol. 22, p. 127–128)
As long as the Holy Prophet Muhammad is the Prophet of the Time, the words “if a Messenger comes to you” will refer to him.
I stated earlier that never did Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad put forward such verses (not even once) as the basis of claiming prophethood. The man who did put forward this verse in support of his claim was Bahaullah. Try doing a Google search for a combination of the name Bahaullah and “verse 7:35 of the Quran”, and see the dozens of results you get , and then read some of them.
I stated in my last comment that Shabeeb Haneef’s response on this point (see number 3), when he said that the Holy Prophet Muhammad also didn’t put forward quotes from previous scriptures about his own coming (but only his followers did it later), was a false and heretical idea. As he hasn’t referred to it again, I hope he realises that my description was correct. I also said that his Jamaat would never (at least openly and officially) support that response. I ask him to contact his Jamaat and ask if they endorse his response.
From Umar:
With reference to 4:69. and the coming of new prophets, it appears that Muhammad Ali belived in this interpretation too, see below:
“We also have been asked to submit this wide prayer; and its acceptance is assured. Let the opponent take this verse to mean whatever he likes. We hold firmly to the view that Allah can raise Prophets; He can bestow the rank of Siddiq, Shahid and Saleh, as long as there is some one to solicit these eminences.” (Badar, 12 July, 1908)
Original source http://www.alislam.org/library/books/truth_prevails/chapter_2_section_3.html
Also there is a hadith that says that no new prophet arises between the Holy Prophet PBUH and the messiah.
From Zahid Aziz:
Dear Umar sahib, your Jamaat quotes this reference to show that Maulana Muhammad Ali’s earlier beliefs were the same as what you consider to be beliefs of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. It follows from this that one must look at what Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote on the same topic, because the Maulana could only be summarising or paraphrasing what the Promised Messiah had written.
The Promised Messiah wrote many times that the use of the word ‘prophet’ for a Muslim who rises to the stage of receiving revelation is metaphorical usage, meaning only literally that he receives revelation, not that he possesses the authority of a prophet or exercises his functions. What the Promised Messiah wrote is also the meaning of what Maulana Muhammad Ali said.
At this link you can read a lengthy and full explanation of this very verse by the Promised Messiah. He writes that the words nabi, siddiq, shaheed and salih in this verse refer to four qualities, each one of which Muslims must try to acquire. He concludes by saying:
“it is made clear that by those upon whom God has bestowed favours are meant the prophets, the siddiq, the shaheed, and the salih. The perfect man has all of these four qualities combined in him.”
These are the four, all of which a Muslim must try to be like.
You may also like to know that the extract from Maulana Muhammad Ali posted by you is not in an article written by him. It is contained in a report of a speech by him by someone else, on which it is stated that it is a summary by that reporter. Therefore these are not the exact nor the complete words of Maulana Muhammad Ali.
Your Jamaat may also like to know that, as far as I can see, there is no issue of Badr dated 12 July 1908. The reference is from Al-Hakam, 18th July 1908.
From ikram:
Thank you Dr. Aziz for drawing attention to the basis of Bhai faith, which is none other than the verses 7:34-35. On your advice, a plain google search shows the following Bahai page:
A Personal Interpretation of the Term – `Seal of the Prophets’
The content on the above page is eerily too familiar. It is a deja vu experience as having read it some where else also. It is as if one is reading a page out of Qadiani preaching and justification of their beliefs. When it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, must be a duck!
It begets Qadianis to differentiate themselves from Bahais. May be they should start their own ‘Project Rebuttal’ similar to the one at the top of this blog home page. It is difficult not to think in conspiracy theories, but after reading the above page a natural question does arise in one’s mind – Did QK-2 had Bahai model in mind when he promulgated the alleged “prophethood” of HMGA for the mere fact that such a model gave his office of Khalifa the exclusivity, notoriety, temporal and political power, wealth, fellowship, lineage commitment, etc. etc.
From Mohammed Iqbal:
The late Dr Rashaad Khalifa of Tuscon, Arizona who claimed to be a Messenger of God too based his claims on this verse(7:35). According to him, he was a Messenger, but not a Prophet, as prophethood ended with Mohammed (S.A.) according to 33:40. I don’t know if prophet and Messenger are distinct from one another.
From Zahid Aziz:
In the reference given above by Ikram, to a Bahai writing (see link), please scroll down about halfway down the document and read under the heading: “Islam is not the last religion according to Qur’an and Hadith”. Immediately under this heading, they give their interpretation of 7:35.
From Shabeeb Haneef:
Assalamualaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu.
I don’t know how and whom to reply first. A lot of things have piled up that needs to be addressed. I shall go one by one keeping it as short as possible.
___________________________________________________________________
1) Bahai and other nubuvvat on the basis of 7:36.
As long as Holy Quran keeps open the door for Allah’s Ilhaamaat and Nubuvvat, we will come across such claims. This has happened in the past and will happen in future as well. The Holy prophet (sa) has also prophesied the advent of false prophets in his Ummat. That is why our duty becomes to analyze the claims on the basis of Quran and Sunnah.
Keeping the doors open will always have the risk of thieves entering our homes. But the solution is not to cement the doors forever. 🙁
____________________________________________________________________
2) To Ikram Sb for the intellectual posts that you have given.
Kindly request you to read and find out the difference between 4:160 and 7:36.
4:60 – ALLAH (not Ahmadiyya Jamaat members) says that SURELY they will believe BEFORE THE DEATH of JESUS (and not a random prophet). The condition (given in bold) is prescribed by ALLAH Himself. That is their act of believing MUST happen before DEATH of JESUS
7:36- ALLAH says to believe in prophets WHEN THEY COME TO YOU. There is no condition or time limit given in this verse. There is no condition stated here as in the case of 4:160.
Both are different scenarios while Noon e saqeela in both denotes the future itself. Please let me know if you still can’t understand its difference.
********
You further said
“If one notices the time line of loop back from Shabeeb, it is obvious that there is at least 12 hour delay from India-UK-India for him to get his email answer from his headquarters.”
Allah stands witness for this. If there is a single person at UK , at Jamaat headquarters who at least knows me personally, knows about this discussion or is helping me from behind as you alleged/ sending replies that needs to be posted here or in contact with me in any relation to this discussion, let Allah’s curse fall upon me.
Now, can you say the same Janab Ikram Sb?? Can you declare that whatever you said above about the relation between me and UK headquarters (posted above) is 100 % true and if not, may Allah curse you? I challenge you.
Come forward if you are truthful.
The reply to respected Zahid Sb is being stated separately in the next post.
From Shabeeb Haneef:
Dear Zahid Sb and all readers.
The comment from Zahid Sb indeed deserves a huge applause. I welcome it with immense happiness and respect. For the first time in the entire 30 posts, we have come to know the stand of Lahori brothers (or his at least) about the verse under discussion.
Kindly request all to keep an unbiased mind while reading the posts here and make a judicious study on the basis of Holy Quran and Sunnah.
> There is no doubt that the Holy Prophet (sa) is the greatest of All prophets, Best of All Creations and an everlasting prophet. True , True , True. May thousands of Blessings of Allah be upon him and upon him be Peace. I agree to it most certainly.
But have you ever pondered over your explanation that this verse (7:36) is not applicable for muslims but only to non-muslims.?
Imagine Zahid Sb taking this verse to a Christain and asking him to believe in Holy Prophet (sa).
His reply would be ” Jesus is the greatest and last prophet for mankind. This is for all those who has not believed in Jesus and not for me. No one will ever follow him. His directions will remain forever”
This is exactly what followers of every religion will say. Each one has the liberty to say that this is not for them but for all those who has not accepted them. So I hope you have understood that your removal of muslims from 7:36 is baseless.
You are selling certainty for superstition. You don’t what anymore prophets so you made this applicable for all “Mankind minus Muslims” which will not make it Mankind or Bani Adam and thus destroys the meaning of the verse.
Now the question is, Does the greatness and glory of Holy Proohet(sa) calls for the end of prophets?
I will give you all a point to ponder from Holy Quran.
2:87 And We indeed gave Moses the Book and We sent messengers after him one after another; and We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear arguments and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit. Is it then that whenever there came to you a messenger with what your souls desired not, you were arrogant? And some you gave the lie to and others you would slay.
What does Allah state here?
HE gave Al-kitaab to Moosa (valaqad aataina Moosal Kitaaba ) and then prophets were sent one after the other.
Hazrat Moosa(as) was the prophet who bought ‘The book’ for them. And prophets followed him in the very same Ummat. And the job of these prophets were (as per Holy Quran)
5:44 Surely We revealed the Torah, having guidance and light. By it did the prophets who submitted themselves (to Allah) judge for the Jews, and the rabbis and the doctors of law, because they were required to guard the Book of Allah, ……
To sum up
* Even today Jews are known as the poeple or Ummat of Hazrath Moosa (as) and not of any other prophet who followed him.
* Hazrat Moosa (as) was the nabi who bought ‘The Book’ for them. He was the greatest prophet for that Ummah.
* But still he was followed by prophets who maintained law and order and judged Jews on the basis of Torah. (as per the Quranic verse I have stated).
Think on the fact my dear brothers keeping aside the enmity towards me or my Jamaat. The validity for Torah as well as Ummat of Moosa (as) is only up to the advent of Hazrat Rasoolullah (sa). Even then Allah protected it by sending prophets who will re establish and purify the people on the basis of that limited period book.
Here we have a book for entire Mankind as the Ummat, and a shariah that is valid for all times to come. But still you are adamant to think that no one should follow Holy Prophet (sa) to protect and rejuvenate this ever lasting guidance and that too without any proofs from Holy Quran. The saddest thing is that Holy Quran does say about a nabi who will come in his Ummah for the same duty (Proofs will be stated at its anointed time 🙂 even then my brothers does not bother to listen ).
So, I hope you have understood that 7:36 does say about prophets irrespective of time and the greatness and ever lasting prophethood of Holy Prophet (sa) does not evade the possibility of coming of his sub ordinate ones.
Wassalam
With Love
Shabeeb Haneef
From ikram:
I declare unequivocally that my statements are mine and mine only. It is all my personal understanding of Quran and my research is my own. I represent no one, including LAM. My posting on LAM site is in congruence with LAM believing in HMGA as Mujaddid, just as I do.
Shabeeb states:
7:36- ALLAH says to believe in prophets WHEN THEY COME TO YOU. There is no condition or time limit given in this verse. There is no condition stated here as in the case of 4:160.
Finally, we are talking grammar that every Joe Blog can understand. Ever heard a “born again Christian” state, “I found Jesus”? What that Joe is telling us is that he found the message of Jesus for which “no condition or time limit (as) given in this verse (7:36).” That is exactly the message in 7:35(aka 7:36) i.e. each of Children of Adam finding Muhammad in his/her life. If there is something missing in the message of Muhammad (Quran, Sunnat and to a certain extent Hadiths) then please tell us, so that we may all yearn for a new prophet. It is for this very reason LAM rejects prophethood of anyone after Muhammad PBUH.
Irrespective of whether Shabeeb officially represents Qadianiat, his read of 7:35 (7:36 Rabwah enumeration) tells us that we are in post-Muhammad era, exactly the same argument of Bahai’s, with the further claim that Bahai’s are ‘thieves’. His logic will make one think of a prophet for each vale, region, race and continent, irrespective of one’s religion by the following verses:
I wonder where is his interpretation of “Noon-Saqeela” in the above verses? Does not the above verse 10:47 stand forever after the death of Prophet Muhammad PBUH – similar to in light of Shabeeb’s explanation “no condition or time limit given in this verse”?
Quite logically by Qadiani and Bahai interpretation, there might be concurrent Prophets in our times and the concept of universal prophethood is eliminated for ever. That naturally includes overnight ‘Muslim’ prophets spread all over the globe in the midst of all religions and beliefs. By Qadiani read of Quran, each future prophet has to be a ‘Muslim’, yet, with the first and foremost exception i.e. non-belief in finality of Prophet Muhammad. Hence, the first job for such a prophet will be to abrogate previous ones, now including the alleged prophethood of HMGA. This line of thinking seems not only an insult of Quran and Muhammad, but also puts to question the Divine intelligence.
Shabeeb’s proclamation of ‘thiefhood’ for Bahais naturally kicks-in the following allegorical mockery that Quran makes of such arguments:
i.e. ‘ while they both (Qadianis and Bahais) read the same Scripture in general and specifically its verse 7:35 in the same light and implication. Qadianis may choose to squeeze 7:35 which ever way they must, they cannot get away from Bahaism themselves even while criticizing them. Because, irrespective of their calling Bahai’s thieves, Quran states – Exactly such (ill-founded) things say those who have no knowledge. But Allâh shall judge between them on the Day of Resurrection with regard to all that about which they had been disagreeing.
Obviously, Shabeeb and myself are talking past each other. His line of argument seems to be a natural outcome of playing the Qadianiat game of Jenga – a tower as strong as its weakest link, which does not stand the test of time, secular logic and neither of Quranic principles, before it unravels under its own weight.
The post served its purpose. Instead of Qadianiat remaining Qadianiat, it is now Qadianiat++ i.e. might one ask – Is Qadianiat, Bahaism in closet?
Was I prophetic in my very first post above when I stated – “I am sure there will be some ambiguous Qadiani answer to these questions, but it will soon become obvious that we will be discussing as to how many angels can dance on a pin head.”? Am I a prophet? Of course not. But one thing came out quite clearly:
From Zahid Aziz:
1. Shabeeb Haneef (see his comment) says that because the Quran keeps the door of prophethood open, this is why people can also make false claims. But it is strange that false claimants have been putting forward verses from the Quran, such as 7:35, but Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the true prophet according to Qadianis, did not ever mention, even once, any of these verses in support of his claim! Instead the “true prophet” told Muslims: “The Holy Quran does not permit the coming of any messenger (rasul) after the Khatam-un-nabiyyin, whether a new one or an old one.” (Izala Auham, p.761)
False prophets quoted correctly from the Quran to say that prophets could come, but the “true prophet” never knew that the Quran said this!
2. In his comment addressed to me, Shabeeb Haneef has obviously not read correctly what I wrote. He says : “But have you ever pondered over your explanation that this verse (7:36) is not applicable for muslims but only to non-muslims.? … So I hope you have understood that your removal of muslims from 7:36 is baseless.”
I actually wrote (see my comment): “Non-Muslim nations are told that he has come just as messengers had earlier come among them. But the point stated here about “then whosoever guards against evil and acts aright” applies to Muslims also.”
As to his point that “Imagine Zahid Sb taking this verse to a Christain and asking him to believe in Holy Prophet (sa)….”, the fact is that Christians, etc., could give the same rejection to any verse that we present to them to invite them to accept the Holy Prophet. So does that mean that no verse is meant to be presented to non-Muslims?
3. Then he quotes 5:44 and tells us that after Moses brought the Torah, prophets came who followed the Torah and judged on its basis, including up to prophet Jesus. He argues that such prophets can arise among Muslims as followers of the Holy Prophet. But he forgot that only two verses later the Quran says:
“And We sent after them in their footsteps Jesus, son of Mary, verifying that which was before him of the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel containing guidance and light, and verifying that which was before it of the Torah, and a guidance and an admonition for the dutiful.” (5:46)
and goes on: “And let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah has revealed in it” (5:47).
Elsewhere Jesus is represented as saying: “And (I am) a verifier of that which is before me of the Torah, and I allow you part of that which was forbidden to you” (3:50).
If a prophet like Jesus can come among Muslims then it means that the door to revelation of a new book with him is open, and that prophet’s followers should “judge by that which Allah has revealed in it”, and that he can declare as “halal” some of the things declared “haram” in the Quran. Is this the Qadiani Jamaat’s view of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad?
I recommend that Shabeeb Haneef does get in touch with his Jamaat’s responsible leaders and ask them these questions.
From Shabeeb Haneef:
Assalamualaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakathuhu.
Please answer to the point. You are taking things beyond what I said or meant and is answering to that,
1) I have stated time and again that now we are discussing the possibility of future prophets from Holy Quran and not about Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamat, the prophethood of Promised Messiah (as) of Khalifa Sani. If we look at the response of our lahori brothers so far. they always tend to jump straight to what we are not discussing currently.
The prophethood of Promised Messiah (as) needs to be discussed only if Quran opens such possibility. So please settle that first.
2) This is exactly what disbelievers do, Divide the word of Allah into segments and accept only those that one feels to accept and reject one that is difficult. Great brother. May I know on what basis did you declare that only second half of the verse goes for muslims, when the verse addresses all Mankind equally in both parts.
My stand is crystal clear. This verse is equally applicable for all human beings. This does not mean that the era of Holy Prophet has ended. The prophet that follow him will invite people to Allah and his Rasool (sa) only just as it happened in case of 5:44.
3) Another attempt to willfully take the discussion beyond context. I did not say at any point that whatever will come in future in this ummat will be identical to whatever happened in Ummat of Moses(as). Where did I say that a commandment like Injeel will come or the Messiah will be identical to Jesus on all respects. I did not say about Jesus at all. I was explicitly mentioning the prophets who came without books as mentioned in 5 :44.
All I said was that, coming of the greater prophet need not necessarily close the door for sub ordinate prophets. Such a notion has no Quranic support. These prophets re established and purified people on the basis of what the previous greater prophet brought.
Please come back and address the issues that has been raised.
Wassalam,
Shabeeb Haneef M
From Rashid:
@Shabeeb Haneef:
Bahai Faith people establish “prophethood” of Bahaullah based on Holy Quran 7:35 (7:36 Qadiani numbering).
Qadiani friends, including YOU, establish “prophethood” of HMGA based on Holy Quran 7:35 (7:36 Qadiani numbering).
Still you have audacity to call Bahaullah as one of the 30 false prophets, but feel offended by Muslims when they count QADIANIS (and YOUR) “prophet MGA” as one of those 30 false prophets. Don’t you see yourself applying double standards in the tradition of Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad?
(Admin note: This comment arrived in parallel with the above by Shabeeb Haneef, not as response.)
From Zahid Aziz:
Dear Shabeeb Haneef: let me clarify my position about your (1) as follows:
(a) The Quran is the supreme authority for us, which is why you are putting it forward. It was also the supreme authority for Hazrat Mirza sahib for establishing his claim. He never put forward these verses as proof that prophets can come.
(b) You are giving an interpretation of verses like 7:35. I am pointing to an actual fact, which is undeniable by anyone, that Hazrat Mirza sahib never mentioned such verses.
(c) You say: “Please settle that first“. Of course, settling this is not your final objective. Your final objective is to prove that he claimed prophethood because (yes, because) the Quran allows coming of prophets. But when he made his claims (whatever you or I consider them to be), he never mentioned this.
As to your point (2), where did I say that “only second half of the verse goes for muslims”?
Regarding your (3), you cannot be allowed to get away like this. You clearly included Jesus as among the prophets who were followers of Moses, and said that prophets like them were also required to arise among Muslims to protect the message of the Holy Prophet. You wrote:
“Even today Jews are known as the poeple or Ummat of Hazrath Moosa (as) and not of any other prophet who followed him.”
“The validity for Torah as well as Ummat of Moosa (as) is only up to the advent of Hazrat Rasoolullah (sa).”
That includes Jesus as those prophets who followed Moses.
In any case, it is a basic fact, not in dispute by anyone, that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to have come in the likeness of Jesus, having intense similarity with Jesus. So if Hazrat Mirza sahib was a prophet, then he came with the same authority over Muslims as Jesus had over Jews, and therefore you must admit that he could have received a book from God, which could amend the prohibitions of the Quran, and then his followers would be judging by that book. You may say of course that this never happened, but the door to it was open according to you.
You already believe that he had been a prophet for several years before he realised in 1901 that he was a prophet. So you might come to believe that he was a prophet with a book without realising it during all his life. After all, he never realised all his life that he was a prophet in fulfilment of verses like 7:35, but you have realised it!
From Shabeeb Haneef:
Assalamualaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakathuhu.
@ Rashd Sb,
I did not call any one as false prophets. Please read my comments. I urged everyone to analyze and do research on the basis of Holy Quran about all such claims as Holy Quran keeps that door open. We will surely get all kinds of claims as long as this door is open.
The Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) has more knowledge about Quran than we all. Can anyone show me a Hadees where he denied the claim of false claimant Musaylima as soon as he received the letter from him (he claimed prophethood at the time of Huzoor(sa)) saying that Quran says so ? He (sa) knew Quran more than you all. Why was his stand different to that of yours?
I request all lahori brothers to inquire what was the immediate response of Rasoolullah(sa) after reading the invitation letter from Musaylima?
That will definitely open your eyes.
There are instances in Islamic history where Abu Bakr Sideeq (ra) inquired the revelation that Musaylima is said to have received and compared it with the beautiful verses of Holy Quran.
May this serve as food for thought to all my lahori brothers.
You are forcefully closing that door which Allah has kept open.
Wassalam,
With Love,
Shabeeb
From Zahid Aziz:
Mr Shabeeb Haneef, your comment above, if I have understood it correctly, is so dangerous that I wish to clarify it. Until then I am holding your other comment which you sent in response to me.
Are you saying that when the Holy Prophet Muhammad first heard of the claim of Musailima to be a prophet, he allowed the possibility that his claim to prophethood might be true and needs to be examined? Are you saying that Hazrat Abu Bakr compared Musailima’s alleged revelation with the Quran to check in case it might be true revelation?
If this is what you are saying, then I must insist that the Ameer of your country’s Jamaat endorses these views. Otherwise, these views may even be a slur on the Qadiani Jamaat itself.
From Shabeeb Haneef:
Assalamualaikum wa Rahmathullahi wa Barakathuhu.
Dear Zahid Sb. You have not understood my words correctly. You have taken them in the wrong sense it seems.
The answers to both the above questions you raised is NO.
I was pointing to the difference of approach that they followed and what you Lahoris follow. This is the problem when you try to read beyond the lines keeping in mind your anti Qadiani emotions. Cool down and read them neutrally. Or else you will fall into conclusions that I have not said.
Neither in case of Holy Prophet (sa) nor in case of Abu Bakkar sideeq (ra) did they behave like you, by stating a plain denial and abusing at the first place.
For them (holy Prophet (sa) and sahaba), every thing that came across were either truth or something false that will strengthen their feet in the truth and Imaan in which they are in. This is the right way for a muslim. This is what I try to follow. They never build a negative opinion/judgment about an issue at the first place and then comment every single thing that comes across related to that, as per their own imagination without listening to what is being said, just like ordinary non-ahmadi mullahs do.
This is why I asked you to make an inquiry regarding this incident in Islamic History. You will find that both Holy Prophet (sa) and Abu Bakkar(ra), actions and words in regard to this was to glorify the truth in which they are in and NOT A MERE DENIAL AND RUN AWAY AS YOU ARE DOING SO FAR WITHOUT TALKING ON WHAT THIS THREAD IS RUNNING ABOUT.
They knew Quran than you do. They could have easily said the answer that you are giving which you allege is form Quran and keep abusing.
Instead Huzoor (sa) adequately replied to the letters that he recieved from Musaylima.
Yes he (sa) did call Musaylima a liar and did deny all his claims but the immediate response after receiving the message from Musaylima was —
“I believe in all prophets of Allah ….”
He did reject Musaylima’s claim but he did not deny the possibility of prophets from Allah. He was rejecting musaylima specifically (and he did not have any doubt regarding that, as you allege me to have said) . He (sa) had the easy way out of that of Lahoris by saying Muhammad (sa) is the last messenger but why didnt he do so?
What Abu Bakkar (ra) spoke after listening to those verses strengthened the Imaan of the listeners and readers in Islamic History. And it continues to do so. He did compare them and stated and praised the difference between Allah’s words and Musaylima s proposed revelations.
Had he went the Lahori way by scooting after plain denial without any proofs, his actions/ words would not have been revered as pearls of wisdom by the world.
One can see this sunnah in case of Promised Messiah as well.
I wanted to show the difference of approach between you and them. I am trying to follow them where as your method is to deny and run.
If any more clarifications are required in this matter, please start a new thread or lets have group discussions in mail but not here as this will again divert the discussion. I don’t want this to happen.
Dear Readers,
Each time I bring my lahori brothers to the point of discussion, they jump and somehow find or misinterpret my statements to divert the attention from what we are discussing. Or at the least, they will bring an essay abusing Khalifa Sani. I sincerely doubt that they have realized the fact that if the next couple of proofs from Holy Quran are presented, Lahorism will be burned alive.
A very important post of mine which has immense relation to the discussion is being kept in hold by the moderator. It only served to divert the attention of all. Please show some justice towards non-lahori contributors.
So far–
* I stated one single verse 7:36 that asks all humans to believe in prophets if they come.
* I also stated that the usage of noon – saqeela denotes something which can definitely happen in future.
* I also gave the testimony for this from the translation of Moulana Muhammad Ali Sb that he gave for 2:39. They never said anything about this 🙁 🙁
_____________________________________________________________
Till now, some futile unsuccessful attempts were made to disassociate muslims from 7:36 and nothing else. I feel that, they will not allow me ever to produce further proofs that are present in Holy Quran by diverting the topics continuously
.
So far they have been busy either in abusing the Jamaat/ or filling their posts with topics that are not being discussed or put forward by me.
Hoping for some fruitful contributions in future.
Wassalam,
With Love,
Shabeeb Haneef M
From Zahid Aziz:
Shabeeb Haneef writes: “Neither in case of Holy Prophet (sa) nor in case of Abu Bakkar sideeq (ra) did they behave like you, by stating a plain denial and abusing at the first place.”
But we are not faced with a claimant to prophethood to respond to! Tell us, which claimant have we rejected and abused? So why are you giving their example of how to deal with such a claimant?
The context in which you said this was that Rashid said: “Still you have audacity to call Bahaullah as one of the 30 false prophets, …” (see this comment)
and you replied:
“@ Rashd Sb,
I did not call any one as false prophets. Please read my comments. I urged everyone to analyze and do research on the basis of Holy Quran about all such claims as Holy Quran keeps that door open.” (See this comment).
You are saying that we cannot reject Bahaullah on the mere basis that prophets cannot come; in fact, because prophets can come therefore we must examine the actual claim on its own merit. Correct?
You are saying that the Holy Prophet Muhammad did not reject Musailima’s claim by just saying that “no prophet can come”; in fact the Holy Prophet knew that the Quran did allow coming of prophets, so he and Abu Bakr examined Musailima’s claim before rejecting him. Correct?
Here you have forgotten a little detail. Your own Jamaat’s belief is that the Holy Prophet Muhammad stated that no prophet shall come between him and the Promised Messiah. Correct?
According to this belief of yours, any claimant arising in Islam before Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was automatically false, whether Musailima or Bahaullah! The only purpose of examining his claim would be to find weaknesses in it to expose that claimant to those who might be misled by him, and not to see if the claim might be true.
This is why you are setting the condition that we can only discuss from sources that you select (like discussing only 7:35), because it means you can even employ arguments which contradict your other beliefs. To prevent you doing this, I have asked you to produce an endorsement from your Jamaat’s responsible officials that whatever you are writing in this discussion is accepted by your Jamaat as its beliefs. For example, your Jamaat could confirm your belief that:
“After the Holy Prophet Muhammad’s mission began, whenever any person would claim to be prophet (whether in the Holy Prophet’s time or any time afterwards), Muslims must examine his claim because there is possibility that his claim may be true.”
And your Jamaat could confirm that it accepts your position, stated above, that: “we cannot call Bahaullah false”.
Either you produce endorsement from your Jamaat, or you state that any belief you express is your own and may not necessarily be the belief of your Jamaat. After that we can proceed.
From Shabeeb Haneef:
YOU ARE AGAIN BRUTALLY MISINTERPRETING MY WORDS TO DIVERT THE ATTENTION OF THE PEOPLE FROM THE ACTUAL POST
YOU STILL DON”T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PROPHET AND A HUMAN.
I said that such claims must be analyzed on the basis of Holy Quran and sunnah because, I cannot deny anyone’s revelations as long as Allah says to me that, the person is a liar.
Meanwhile Holy Prophet and Sahaba should not be compared to me. They have direct communion with Allah. They are filled with truth, knowledge and wisdom. BUT I AM NOT.
I CANNOT ACT AS ALL-KNOWING LIKE YOU DO AND SIMPLY DENY EVERY ONE WITHOUT ANALYZING THEM.
Despite of their knowledge and communion with Allah they exhibited the esteemed model to this situation of false claimants by taking a rational approach. This is what I am asking you to do. Is this clear?
I don’t understand your motive. Did I begin this discussion saying that I am the official spokesperson for the Jamaat? Did I ever claim that?
ANSWER ME IF YOU ARE TRUTHFUL.
IT WAS ON MY REQUEST THAT THIS TOPIC WAS STARTED. AND THUS, THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES UPON ME. IF YOU ARE AGAINST WHAT I STATE,
THEN IT IS YOUR DUTY TO REFUTE IT WITH QURAN AND NOT DENY AND RUN LIKE WHAT YOU ARE DOING NOW.
Here it is what you want
I, Shabeeb Haneef M, state that any belief that I express is my own and may not necessarily be the belief of my Jamaat. Now can we proceed further?
Your cheap tactic to divert the attention from the current topic will not work Janab Zahid Aziz Sb. As I said in my previous post, lets take this topic of allegation against me into a new post and for time being continue with what we are discussing. Every single allegation will be answered.
This again proves that you don’t have the guts to take this discussion further.
CAN YOU PLEASE POST MY COMMENTS THAT YOU HAVE KEPT IN HOLD WITH YOU AND CONTINUE THE TOPIC? YOU ARE AGAIN PROVING THAT YOU ARE RUNNING A MONARCHIC BLOG BY NOT GIVING EQUAL RIGHTS TO ALL WRITERS.
O my dear readers… Is this fair? My post that is relevant to the discussion is being kept in hold and the moderator himself is diverting the attention of the readers by repeatedly misinterpreting my words.
Some Justice Please. I am promising that I will answer to whatever you want. But I am not ready to mix it up here. Please start a new thread answer to the current discussion here.
Wassalam,
Shabeeb
From Shabeeb Haneef:
Admin’s Note: Below is the e-mail from Shabeeb Haneef which I held back pending discussion of general principles of this discussion. As he is insisting that it be published, it is given below. It is in response to my comment as here.
To Zahid Aziz Sb
Assalamualaikum wa Rahmathullahi Wa Barakathuhu.
Jazakallah for your clarification post.
(1) (a) – – As I said, this will be discussed once the fundamental question is resolved. Does Quran open the door of any kind of prophethood or Can prophets come after Holy Prophet (sa)? Discussing it now will not yield any fruit to anyone but will only mix everything and confuse others.
(b) — Same as above. Needs to be discussed only if Holy Quran opens the door of any kind of prophethood. So lets finish that first.
(c)– You are right. This is not my final objective. But if you prove to me from Holy Quran that the verses I have quoted has a different meaning and not the meaning which I state, then things will become easier for both parties. We can conclude and I can rectify my beliefs if it is proven wrong.
If Quran says no more prophets of any kind, then we need not extend our discussion till Promised Messiah (as). This will be more productive to both sides. So I request you to prove my statements wrong.
(2) The following is from your previous post (pls keep it in italics itself)
“Non-Muslim nations are told that he has come just as messengers had earlier come among them. But the point stated here about “then whosoever guards against evil and acts aright” applies to Muslims also.”
What I understand from this is that according to you, the coming of prophets mentioned in 7:36 is only exclusively for ‘Non_Muslim nations, whereas the part you gave in quotes (“then whosoever guards against evil and acts aright” applies to Muslims also.”) applies to Muslims as well.
As per the verse, it says Bani Adam and like all other verses that addresses bani Adam, this verse also includes mulims as well.
Example
7:31 O children of Adam, attend to your adornment at every time of prayer, and eat and drink and be not prodigal; surely He loves not the prodigals.
Is there any scope for you to disassociate muslims from this verse? This also is directed to Bani Adam. Is this only for Non Muslim Nations or for both and primarily to Muslims??
This is what I said about your second half acceptance.
(3)
You are confused with my statements it seems. Or perhaps it was my mistake not to be able to convey my message properly to you. I will it another try.
The essence of my post was that
> Coming of a greater prophet need not necessarily close the door for sub ordinate prophets. Quran supports this view.
> Shariah of Moses was a limited time bound one. Still it was protected by sending prophets one after the other. (2:87, 5:44).
> Quran and Islamic Shariah will not ever be replaced by anything else. This is Quranic view and both of us believe in that unequivocally. So there is no point in debating on that unless we are determined to waste time.
> If your argument is that I included Jesus and Jesus bought another book so that means Shabeeb is saying that still prophets like him can come with books similar to injeel—-
I did not say that whatever that will happen here will be same in all respects to what happened previously. Both of us believe Promised Messiah (as) to be Maseeh Ibnu Mariyam and both of us believe that he did not bring any book and as I said earlier , we both believe that there will be no more books after Quran. So what is the point in simply stating something for argument sake when you know that that was not what I stated nor what I believe.
There is no one in entire Muslim Ummah who believes that Maseeh Ibnu Mariyam will teach Torah/Injeel in his second advent even if the person itself is the same.
Similarly I don’t believe Promised Messiah who came in the likeness of Jesus to do,say act exactly what Jesus did. This was not at all the spirit of my post. I am sorry if I conveyed the wrong message to you
What I wanted to prove is that as in 5:44 it is not necessary that the advent of a greater prophet with Al kitaab should close the door for future prophets.
Please revert in case you are still not clear with what I said.
Wassalam
With Love
Shabeeb
From Zahid Aziz:
As Shabeeb Haneef is presenting his own beliefs, which may not necessarily be the beliefs of his Jamaat, this means that if he proves his case then his beliefs will be proved to be correct, but not necessarily the beliefs of his Jamaat. So then he will have to show that his beliefs are the same as his Jamaat’s, and the way to show that would be for his Jamaat to endorse what he writes in the discussion! So his Jamaat might as well endorse that now!
It could be that his Jamaat doesn’t consider him to be the great and effective debator that he considers himself to be, and this is why they want to stay a long way away from him!
As to “the fundamental question” which he says he wants to be resolved (see his (1) (a)), I am sure he is aware of the method of reasoning whereby you assume that a proposition is true for the sake of argument, and then show that it leads to an absurdity. This is called “reductio ad absurdum”. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad uses this method when he writes, for example, that if we assume that Jesus will return then such and such problem or conflict or contradiction arises which is unacceptable to arise.
Let me assume, then, that according to verse 7:35 of the Quran, prophets can come after the Holy Prophet. We save much time and effort by not debating it. From this assumption, it follows that the very same man whose prophethood Shabeeb Haneef is trying to prove must also present 7:35 to say that his claim is based on it. How can that claimant fail to mention the chief verse on which his claim is based? But it is a fact (not opinion or interpretation or argument) that he never put forward this verse. Therefore we reach an absurd position, of a true claimant not mentioning the most crucial verse which supports his claim.
Hence the assumption must be false.
Now that is my argument, which I have set out before as well. Shabeeb Haneef does not agree that my argument is correct. How do we settle this? Either we leave the blog readers to judge for themselves, or I suggest that the Khalifa sahib Mirza Masroor Ahmad should appoint someone (it could be the Khalifa sahib himself) to express his opinion on my argument.
Just for the record I want to reply to Shabeeb Haneef’s assertion that I said that in 7:35 (or 36) only the words “then whosoever guards against evil and acts aright” apply to both Muslims and non-Muslims. What I have said is that the words “if messengers come to you from among yourselves” refer to the messenger Holy Prophet Muhammad. And since all humans are addressed here, both non-Muslims and Muslims, (yes, Muslims as well), this is why the words which follow mention something “which applies to Muslims also”, not just to non-Muslims. And that is to guard against evil and act aright.
As to Shabeeb Haneef’s point (3), the Qadiani Jamaat is always giving the example of prophets after Moses among Israelites as exactly the kind of prophets who can come among Muslims. According to the Quran Muslims must declare belief in those prophets and in their revelations. So the question is: Are Muslims also required to declare belief in every prophet after the Holy Prophet and in his revelation?
From Shabeeb Haneef:
Dear Zahid Sb
Assalamualaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wabarakatuhu.
Alhamdulilah. There we go ahead. I welcome your comments. Masha Allah. Finally we are on to the discussion.
(I am not interested to waste time in replying to those personal comments that you threw against me. I have no such claims as you allege. So I wish to remain silent on that).
Let’s have some fruitful discussion.
You said
“Let me assume, then, that according to verse 7:35 of the Quran, prophets can come after the Holy Prophet. We save much time and effort by not debating it. From this assumption, it follows that the very same man whose prophethood Shabeeb Haneef is trying to prove must also present 7:35 to say that his claim is based on it. How can that claimant fail to mention the chief verse on which his claim is based?”
* I did not say that 7:36 is the CHIEF verse on which the entire claim of Promised Messiah is based upon. It is again your anti qadiyani emotions that are working here as well.
I did not ever mention Promised Messiah’s claim so far. We had began with the question “can prophets come after Holy Prophet (sa).?” The fundamentals of the claim of Promised Messiah will come at its anointed time. And be assured that, that time is very near.
So your conclusion that says ” that assumption must be false” has no grounds.
Do you have any other argument to prove what I said from 7:36 to be false?
ANOTHER FACT
I do and did agree that 7:36 definitely applies to Holy Prophet (sa). There is no doubt in that. So , there is no big deal in saying that the verse applies to Holy Prophet (sa). Me and all other readers are very well aware of that.
The question was that, IS NOT that verse applicable to MUSLIMS just like all verses that starts with Ya Bani Adam are applicable. (eg 7:32).
MUSLIMS here means, those people who accepted Holy prophet (sa). So, if they come under Ya Bani Adam, then Allah asks muslims also to believe in prophet if they comes to you.
Agreed?
So the immediately what follows is that, if I , Shabeeb says that this verse indicates to the possibility or certainty of coming of future prophets, then the same Shabeeb should explain what kind of prophet will come, who came like that, his truthfulness and what should muslims do on the arrival of such a prophet as you rightly asked.
Agreed?
Shall I proceed for that?
If anything is unclear so far, please revert.
Wassalam,
With Luv,
Shabeeb (An ahmadi but not your enemy).
From Abid Aziz:
During my discussions with Qadiani people I asked them many times that why HMGA did not quote verse 7:35 and many other verses which Qadiani people use to argue that the door of prophethood is wide open. I have never received a reply. Let us see if Mr. Shabeeb Hanif can provide us with few quotes from the writings of HMGA Sahib which mention this verse as an argument of the continuity of prophethood!
From Zahid Aziz:
I called 7:35 (36) as “chief verse” because Shabeeb Haneef himself presented it as the very first one in this discussion. So I took it that he considers it the strongest one supporting his point.
The verse applies to Muslims of all times (as well as of course to non-Muslims), saying that as a messenger, the Holy Prophet Muhammad has come (for all time), they should follow his teaching to guard against evil and do good.
Before proceeding further, let us clear up the function of messengers mentioned in this verse “yaqusoona `alai-kum aayaati” translated variously as “rehearsing My signs to you” or “relating to you My messages”. The questions about this are:
1. Do these “aayaat” which they would narrate to people include this very verse itself (7:35)?
2. Do these “aayaat” which they would narrate to people include their own revelations, in addition to the revelations contained in the Quran?
3. After the coming of these messengers, when Muslims say to non-Muslims, as they are commanded in the Quran to do: “We believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to us…”, does “what has been revealed to us” now include the revelation of these messengers after the Holy Prophet?
Also, when you come to explaining “what kind of prophet will come” etc., will you also explain that although 7:35 says “messengers” in the plural, other verses limit this to just one messenger only to arise after the Holy Prophet Muhammad.
From Zahid Aziz:
Not on this subject at all, but I may mention that we have received in this thread a comment from a banned anti-Ahmadiyya poster who has appeared here repeatedly before, again displaying his principle of “if I don’t see it, it doesn’t exist”. According to him, Maulana Muhammad Ali has committed fraud by not dealing with the meaning of ‘tawaffa’ in verse 6:60.
My answer: He has.
Now go and find it, with assistance of your helpers.
From Shabeeb Haneef:
Assalamualaikum Wa Rahmathullahi Wa Barakathuhu.
Dear Zahid Sb,
Great post. At last doors and windows are opening.
All the above questions that you raised are specific topics of discussion awaiting next. Without discussing them, surely this wont have an end.
But before that, I would like to know what do you mean by the following that you posted recently,
“The verse applies to Muslims of all times (as well as of course to non-Muslims), saying that as a messenger, the Holy Prophet Muhammad has come (for all time), they should follow his teaching to guard against evil and do good.”
The verse asks to believe in prophet if they come to you. Muslims have already believed in that prophet who came to all mankind for all times. No doubt in that. This verse is asking about something future and not past.
The question was that, as Muslims are also Bani Adam, is not this verse asking muslims also (who are already believers of Muhammad (sa)) to believe in a prophet IF HE COMES ?
I have been asking your stand on this this and this only. All other explanations that you are giving are equally accepted by me as well as the readers.
Rasool (sa) is also one among the messengers that has been sent to Bani Adam. So there is no doubt that this verse is asking to Bani Adam to believe in him (sa) as well. You don’t have to say that repeatedly.
THE POINT YOU HAVE TO CLARIFY IS THAT WHETHER THIS VERSE APPEARS TO ASK MUSLIMS (PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALREADY BELIEVED IN MUHAMMAD (sa)) TO BELIEVE IN TRUE PROPHETS OF ALLAH WHO COMES AFTER ?
From Zahid Aziz:
Where does this verse ask Muslims to believe? You have not understood the point which I have made more than once. That is that the words which the verse uses, “then whosoever guards against evil and acts aright”, apply to Muslims also, who already believe in the Holy Prophet.
In fact, the Quran in one place even asks the believers to believe in Allah and His Messenger.
From Shabeeb Haneef:
Assalamualaikum wa Rahamatullahi wa Barakathuhu.
Dear Zahid Sb,
Please do not beat around the bush.
You yourself say that, this verse urges all people to follow Prophet Muhammad (sa). What does that mean then? It itself calls out to believe in that prophet. I agree to that fully.
If this verse not asking us to believe, then what else should Bani Adam do when a prophet comes? Say Hi Hello and send him after giving tea?
My point is that, as this verse encompasses entire Bani Adam, the direction in this verse is applicable to muslims as well. So is not following the true prophet of Allah, a duty for Muslims ( followers of prophet muhammad (sa) as well, if he comes ? ? ?
7:35 O children of Adam, if messengers come to you from among you relating to you My messages, then whosoever guards against evil and acts aright — they shall have no fear, nor shall they grieve.
Please answer to the point.
From Mohammed Iqbal:
@Shabeeb Haneef,
If prophets can come after Mohammed (S.A.), is it not your duty to examine the claims of the present day claimants to that office? As you are aware, there are quite a few of them nowadays, all of them former members of your Jama’at. I understand you have had a telephonic conversation with one of them- Jb. Muneer Ahmed Azeem of Mauritius who has a significant, if not sizable, following in your locality. Now was the purpose of your call to examine his claims with an open mind and to accept him if you found him genuine? If so, may I ask you what all things did he tell you which made you realize that he was an impostor? You certainly have a duty to inform his followers around you the reasons for your rejection of this man whom they revere as “Khaleefatullah”.
Come on Mr. Haneef, you could not have called him for the above reasons. You probably called him to pick holes in his claims and ridicule him.
From Zahid Aziz:
Mr Shabeeb Haneef, I have been very clear. The verse urges all mankind to follow the Holy Prophet Muhammad. In case of non-Muslims, they must first believe in him, but the real goal through that belief is to reach the stage of guarding against evil and acting aright. In case of Muslims, they must also try to achieve that real goal, which they might not be achieving even by believing.
As to Muslims having the duty of “following the true prophet of Allah” who comes after Holy Prophet Muhammad, you need to elaborate on how exactly they should express their belief him, i.e. by which word and which deed.
Everyone knows what a non-Muslim must say and do in order to express belief in the Holy Prophet Muhammad. So what do existing Muslims need to say or do to accept any of the later prophets?
From Shabeeb Haneef:
@ Muhammad Iqbal Sb,
Assalamualaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakathuhu,
I have not had any telephonic conversation with Jb Munir Ahmad Azim Sb ever in my life (till date). You have been given the wrong information by someone. The telephonic conversation I had, was with some other contemporary claimant.
My conversation with Respected Munir Ahmad Azim Sb has been only through e-mails so far. And I am not at all convinced in his arguments. In case you want to know the reasons why I do not follow him, lets have a personal discussion for that. I have very clear reasons. But this is not the right place to say it. Nor am I interested to share the reasons for my disbelief in him in public because this may make him feel insulted, even though he does the same to me in public.
Each person has the liberty to believe in whatever faith he considers true. If you consider Munir Ahmad Azim Sb as truthful, you should run and accept him. Why should you secretly scrutinize my actions and come to your own judgments as you did today when both of us don’t know each other personally ?
Wassalam,
Shabeeb
From Shabeeb Haneef:
@ Zahid Aziz Sb.
I also agreed to this a number of times that this verse urges people to accept Holy Prophet (sa). I don’t understand why you are keeping on repeating that. I am asking about a situation when a prophet comes after him. This verse remains such even today and that too not in any previous scriptures. It is present in that book that was revealed to Holy Prophet (sa).
I shall illustrate with an example.
Imagine a person A who lived few years before the claim of Jesus(as). To him, we will definitely say that he should believe Moses (as) to fall under the category – “ they shall have no fear, nor shall they grieve.” of 7:36
But once Jesus came and claimed, what will be the verdict of 7:36 on him?
CAN HE NOW SAY THAT HE SHOULD STILL BELIEVE MOSES (AS) ALONE AND TRY TO FOLLOW HIM PERFECTLY TO COME UNDER THAT CATEGORY OF 7:36 ???? CAN HE SAY THAT HE NEED NOT BELIEVE IN JESUS EVEN IF THE VERSE ADDRESSES YA BANI ADAM?
The only conclusion that one can draw from this verse is that, indeed 7:36 asks muslims to believe in prophet if such a true prophet comes. And if Quran says this, then Quran itself has the duty to further explain the details of future prophets as there is no more books to come.
Insha Allah that will be discussed next.
Wassalam,
Shabeeb
From ikram:
One of the hallmark of Bahaism is “taqqiya” i.e. deceit and Qadianis are witness to it when Bahaism was creeping among their midst that led to former’s expulsions for their Jamaat. Are Qadianis teetering on it as well? They should be forthright in their criteria of prophethood of HMGA as well as to why they reject other claimants besides him. What’s the personal in this matter? Is it not incumbent on a Muslim to seek truth in the matters of faith and then let everyone know about it?
From Zahid Aziz:
Dear Mr Shabeeb Haneef, I think you are asking the question that, assuming 7:35 (36) means that messengers will come after the Holy Prophet (which, I said, we could assume for the sake of argument), what must a Muslim do when a prophet comes?
Before a Muslim can consider accepting someone as prophet, that person must himself put forward the claim to be a prophet and support his claim by referring to 7:35. As you youself say in your example: “But once Jesus came and claimed…”
Or do you think it is the duty of Muslims to try guessing from someone’s statements that he must be claiming to be a prophet, even though he says he is not, and accept him as prophet while he says he isn’t claiming prophethood?
Then, in your statement “But once Jesus came and claimed …”, you yourself have recognised that there is a point in time when the claim is made. So the claimant must also announce the point in time (e.g. the year) from which onwards Muslims are obliged to accept him as prophet.
The duty of Muslims to accept would arise after the claim and its time of making are clear.
If “7:36 asks Muslims to believe in the prophet”, as you say, then the question arises: what must they do to express that belief? On the assumption that this verse means what you say, the obvious way Muslims would accept him is to declare:
“There is no God but Allah, and {name of person} is the messenger of Allah”.
This declaration of course implies acceptance of all previous messengers, including the Holy Prophet Muhammad, just as saying “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah” implies acceptance of all prophets before him.
Upon the coming of such a prophet, a distinction would need to be made between Muslims who don’t believe in him and those who do. And the way to make that distinction is to coin the above new shahadah for the believers in the new prophet.
But before we can proceed further, you need to answer the three questions I asked about 7:35 (36) itself, as to what is meant by “relating to you My messages”. Please see these question in this comment.
From Shabeeb Haneef:
Assalamualaikum Wa Rahmathullahi Wa Barakathuhu,
Zahid Aziz Sb wants me to answer the 3 questions that he has raised before moving ahead. The questions are
1. Do these “aayaat” which they would narrate to people include this very verse itself (7:35)?
2. Do these “aayaat” which they would narrate to people include their own revelations, in addition to the revelations contained in the Quran?
3. After the coming of these messengers, when Muslims say to non-Muslims, as they are commanded in the Quran to do: “We believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to us…”, does “what has been revealed to us” now include the revelation of these messengers after the Holy Prophet?
If my readers look at the above questions and the verse 7:36, we can see that it is that coming prophet who should answer these questions. It is said that the prophet will rehearse those “aayaat” and not common men. So we cannot say that before that prophet says it. Only Allah and that prophet knows what that would be. So we will discuss them, when the claim of any such prophets are discussed.
Now, the issue is , being said by Holy Quran to believe in prophets when they come, does Holy Quran really say about the coming of any prophet in particular or in general with some specific objective? There begins my next proof.
Shall I move ahead dear Zahid Sb?
Awaiting your reply,
Wassalam,
Shabeeb Haneef M
From Zahid Aziz:
Mr Shabeeb Haneef, in order to evade answering these questions, you have given extremely absurd replies.
Messengers came before to perform the same function, i.e. relating Allah’s messages to people, so it cannot now become a mystery which will only be unravelled when the messenger comes.
1. Since there is hardly any Muslim who knows that verse 7:35 requires him to await a messenger, it means that if a mesenger comes in accordance with that verse, he must announce this fact to Muslims. Otherwise, they will never know that he came according to this verse (nor that they must wait for another one after him as well).
2. A prophet must declare his own revelations, otherwise how do people know that he is a prophet? Yet you reply that we cannot know whether the coming messenger will narrate his revelations to people, until he comes and decides what to do!
3. Your reply is that we can’t know whether the coming messenger will require Muslims to declare belief in his revelation. But this is a matter of principle which should have been taught in the Quran, whether Muslims must believe in a messenger’s revelation.
For example, it is a matter of principle taught in the Quran that a messenger to people is a human being, who teaches that God is One. We can’t say that we don’t know, until he actually comes, whether the coming messenger will be a human being or whether he will teach that God is one.
We know that if messengers could come, they will not be like the “messengers” mentioned in 7:37 (or 7:38 by your numbering) where it says: “when our messengers cause them to die”.
Messengers were bound by principles and restrictions taught in the Quran, which any future ones would be as well (if any could come). You are considering a messenger to be like a khalifa of the Qadiani Jamaat who is not bound by any principle, and the followers have mindlessly to wait for him to pronounce on everything before they can know what it is.
No, Shabeeb Haneef, you will not move to a further point until you tell us what is meant in 7:35 (36) by the messengers relating Allah’s messages to people.
From Shabeeb Haneef:
Masha Allah. You are a fast learner. These are exactly the questions that will pop up in a truth seeker’s mind when he understands the verse 7:36.
And I prefer to show you the answer to these questions from Holy Quran itself. What is the point in a Shabeeb’s answer.? What matters more is he verdict of Holy Quran.
The answer to your questions is stated in Holy Quran itself. That is why I am asking permission to move ahead.
As I said the other day, the verse ” kuluu vashrabu ” certainly asks muslims to ” eat and drink”.
But there is no point in asking a muslim to prove that Pig is Haram only on the basis of this verse alone.
This verse deals with only the basics. What must be eaten and drunk is discussed else where in Quran. To know that, it is inevitable that we should go there and find.
Similarly there is no point in holding me only to this verse and not allowing to go further and asking me to prove something that is not explicitly given in this verse.
The fact his that the duty of the next prophet comes in my next proof. So please be assured that I am not evading your questions. Everything has an order in Islam. We will go step by step.
What I am saying is that it is Quran who must say what that prophet will do in case there is possibility for one in future and not Shabeeb. That is present in the next proof. Be assured that none of your questions will be evaded. In fact the answers to your questions are more clearly stated in the next proofs that I will Insha Allah give from Holy Quran.
May I proceed?
With Love,
Shabeeb
From Zahid Aziz:
From whichever verses of the Quran you wish to use, please answer the three questions specifically mentioned above. They are listed in your own comment at this link.
Please also reply to another question which I have raised previously but you have not commented on it, which is:
If “7:36 asks Muslims to believe in the prophet”, as you say, then in what manner must they express that belief by their word or deeds?
You will not introduce any other topic until answering the above specific questions.
I do notice the complete reversal in your position in this regard. First you said:
“If my readers look at the above questions and the verse 7:36, we can see that it is that coming prophet who should answer these questions. It is said that the prophet will rehearse those “aayaat” and not common men. So we cannot say that before that prophet says it.”
Now you say: “What I am saying is that it is Quran who must say what that prophet will do in case there is possibility for one in future and not Shabeeb. That is present in the next proof.”
From Abid Aziz:
@Shabeeb Hanif
In an earlier post I requested you to please provide few references from the writings of HMGA Sahib in which he presented verse 7:35 as proof of continuity of prophethood. If you have already provided those references then please refer me to the relevant post or please provide those references. It has come to my knowledge that your jammat has compiled and published the Tafsir of different verses of Holy Quran done by HMGA Sahib, so it is not hard for you to find such references.
From Shabeeb Haneef:
Assalamualaikum Dear Readers and Zahid Sb,
The basic idea of the future prophet will always be given by the previous scripture and previous prophet. The exact message will be revealed by that prophet itself. So both things that I have said above are two sides of the same coin.
For every prophet, it is a must that the scripture must prophecies something about him and then his message and works should have that ‘X’ factor that makes him distinct and proves his veracity.
So here we go…
Holy Quran 3 : 82 states
“And when Allah made a covenant through the prophets: Certainly what I have given you of Book and Wisdom — then a Messenger comes to you verifying that which is with you, you shall believe in him, and you shall aid him. He said: Do you affirm and accept My compact in this (matter)? They said: We do affirm. He said: Then bear witness, and I (too) am of the bearers of witness with you.”
Allahu Subhanahu wa Taala, is saying about “Misaq un Nabiyyeen” – covenant or contract that he has made through prophets.
What is that covenant?
> Allah firstly gives Book and wisdom to people (kitaabin va Hikma) through a prophet.
> Then if another Messenger comes, proving right the book and hikma that is already there with the people, then they need to believe in him and help him.
But this verse has not said about the prophets from whom this covenant was taken. It only says ‘Prophets’ and not any particular one. So we need to see whether Quran sheds some light on this.
Holy Quran 33 :8 states
And when We took a covenant from the prophets and from thee, and from Noah and Abraham and Moses and Jesus, son of Mary, and We took from them a solemn covenant.
The entire Muslim Ummah believes that Holy Prophet (sa) came as part of fulfilling this promise. His advent was stated in previous scriptures and by previous prophets, he came proving them to be right and hence people need to believe in him and help him. No issues. Both of us agree to that.
Now the question and the most interesting part is that the very same covenant stated in 3:82 has been taken through Rasoolullah (sa) as well (as shown above in 33:8 – And when We took a covenant from the prophets and from thee…). Rasool (sa) came to fulfill that covenant which was taken through previous prophets. But here, it also mentions that the very same covenant has been taken through him(sa) as well.
That means – as per 3 :82 — Rasoolullah (sa) bought book and wisdom to the people. Now a messenger would come verifying what Rasoolullah (sa) bought and when he comes, we need to believe in him and help him.
This invariably proves that, a prophet will come after Rasoolullah (sa). He would be verifying or proving right what Rasoolullah (sa) has bought from all dimensions. He will show the world the truth and greatness of what Rasoolullah (sa) bought to earth. And we need to believe in him and help him in his duty.
This once again strengthens the wisdom in the verse 7:36 as well. Both points towards the same fact that there will come a prophet and the current two verses makes it clear that what that prophet will do.
Looking forward to your comments.
Wassalam
With Love,
Shabeeb.
From Zahid Aziz:
Mr Shabeeb Haneef, you have again failed to answer the questions that I posed. To evade answering them, first you said that they could only be answered by the coming prophet and not by us. Then you changed to saying that you would be answering them from the Quran. I said to you in my last comment:
“You will not introduce any other topic until answering the above specific questions.”
But instead of answering those questions (from any verses you like), you have put forward another verse which further raises the same questions.
Just like my question 1 about 7:35 or 36 (whether the “aayaat” which the verse says the messenger will narrate to people, include that very verse itself), here the question is whether the verse of the covenant under which the new prophet will come will actually be ever mentioned by him when he comes.
Just like my final question about 7:35 (“in what manner must Muslims express their belief in that messenger by word or deeds?”), the same question arises here also since it is stated “you shall believe in him”.
Therefore, as I said in my previous comment, I am not going to entertain any other topic from you till you answer these questions. I have published your last comment in full, even though you didn’t touch my questions.
Now the only comment I will publish from you is one where you answer these questions.
Until then my conclusion is that you, the puppet, and your puppet masters pulling your strings are unable to answer these questions.
Now a word to your puppet masters in your Jamaat: You may think it is a clever tactic to get individuals to argue for you, who at the same time claim that they don’t represent you, but the repercussions will catch you just the same. People are still going to say: It was a Qadiani Jamaat member who expressed heretical ideas such as saying that the Promised Messiah verified the Quran’s correctness in the same way as the Holy Prophet Muhammad verified the correctness of the Torah and the Gospel that he found in front of him in his time.
From Mohammed Iqbal:
Dear Shabib Haneef,
Let me begin by offering my sincere apologies for stating something factually incorrect. Obviously I was misinformed about it. So we can stipulate that all you had with Jb Munir Ahmed Sahib was only e-mail exchanges. But that doesn’t change the point I was trying to make. Ahmadiyya Jamat Qadiani has taken two different positions re new Prophets. They are:
1) Position 1 (P1):
Prophets will come. In fact even thousands of them can. This is the position famously taken by Khalifa 2 and highlighted by this blog time and time again. What is more a prophet could come “even today”(which means Khalifa2 will relinquish his Khilafat and follow him unless the new incumbent happens to be himself.).
2) Position 2 (P2):
Yes, Prophets can come, but only in theory. But in practice, no prophet or even mujaddids will come, since the divinely ordained Khilafat has been firmly placed in the saddle. It will last for a 1000 years. This millenium long chain of Caliphs negates the need for a new prophet or reformer. So any new claimants to any divine office is ipso facto an impostor.
P2 is nowadays proclaimed from every pulpit and in private conversations very shrilly as well as in print. The reasons for my questions was to find out which of these two positions you have taken. If you hold P1, you should investigate the claims of the new claimants and certainly you are well within your right to have made e-mail exchanges with MAA (and spoken on the phone with another). And if it was as a result of your interaction with MAA, that led to the conclusion that he was he was bogus, you should tell the world about it. Dont you have a duty to inform his followers in your place about it? On the other hand if you hold P2, your interactions with them was just a waste. The purpose would only be to mock and ridicule. This was the point I was trying to make. My reasons were not to secretly scrutinize your actions as you put it. Nor do I think I need to know you personally to reply to your blog. As for running to MAA sahib and accepting him, make no mistake about it, Shabeeb. I will do exactly that, if my investigations into his claims lead me to it. But right now I am in a dilemma. Should I hold P1 and start investigating or as per P2 reject him forthwith? Kindly advise.
Salaams and best wishes
M IQBAL
P.S.: The lifespan of the Khilafat has been fixed at just 1000 years and no more. So the generations to appear after a millenium can take heart. But isn’t it belittling HMGA to say that his Caliphate will last only for a millenium when his predecessor’s papacy has already endured two and still going strong? So much for the new Messiah’s breaking of the cross!
From Zahid Aziz:
Shabeeb Haneef, if you wish to reply to Mr M. Iqbal’s comment, please confine yourself only to the points he has raised.
As to the discussion you started about messengers coming according to the Quran, I have already told you that I will only publish from you your reply to my specific questions and nothing more until those questions are dealt with.
From Mohammed Iqbal:
@Shabeeb,
A new opinion too is doing the rounds nowadays. Khilafat will be confined to the progeny of Salman al Farsi, obviously based on the Hadith that a person or persons from his progeny will bring back the faith even if it has ascended to the star Pleidas (Al Surayya). What have you got to say to that?
From Shabeeb Haneef:
This is not a personal mail but a public post. So please post it.
Assalamualaikum,
Dear Zahid Sb,
It is now quite plain to all that you have no intention to have a fruitful discussion here.
For the convenience of readers, I post the questions that Zahid Sb wants me to answer now itself.
1. Do these “aayaat” which they would narrate to people include this very verse itself (7:35)?
2. Do these “aayaat” which they would narrate to people include their own revelations, in addition to the revelations contained in the Quran?
3. After the coming of these messengers, when Muslims say to non-Muslims, as they are commanded in the Quran to do: “We believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to us…”, does “what has been revealed to us” now include the revelation of these messengers after the Holy Prophet?
All the above question are related to that specific prophet who would come.
I have repeatedly assured that all your questions will be answered in its exact way at its exact time. I had repeatedly stated that none of your questions will be evaded.
You still keep on saying that I am evading your questions only for the solace of yourself and your lahori brothers.
The first thing to be settled is that whether a prophet can come or not. Before completing that, why are you insisting to talk on the the details of the claims and works of the next prophet. It is only to prolong the destined defeat of lahorism.
The fundamental issue to be resolved is that Can a prophet come after Rasool (sa) and we are discussing that.
All readers here know that, I have stated it a lot of times that I will I will and I will Insha Allah give the answers of these raised questions when we discuss the claim of any such person.
Had you been a person who believes that prophet can or may come now, then we definitely need to discuss your questions now itself. But as long as the coming of a future prophet is closed by you, then what is the point in discussing the claims and works of a prophet who will never come according to you. You are asking this to simply waste my time and that as well as of the readers and to prolong the destined defeat of Lahorism.
So the first thing that you must understand is whether Quran opens the possibility of some prophet to follow holy prophet (sa) and if yes, who will be that? Only then comes the issue as to what will he rehearse to people.
And another personal advice that I would like to give to all Lahori brothers including you is that,
O you who believe, avoid most of suspicion, for surely suspicion in some cases is sin……. (Holy Quran 49 :13)
You all have been repeatedly alleging that I am a puppet who is being controlled by Jamaat officials in this discussion. I don’t even understand the reason or roots of that allegation. It is a pure lie that you all are forging.
Your repeated resorting to levy allegations on me only proves your lack of guts to have a discussion on the basis of Holy Quran and Sunnah.
Keep on uttering blunders like this. It may give some solace to your lahori readers here.
And regarding your reply that you gave for “Misaqunnabiyyen“.
I did not equate Promised Messiah (as) and Rasool (sa) anywhere. That is your own addition.
Quran itself says that a prophet will come to bear testimony to the truthfulness of Holy Prophet (sa) and Holy Quran. What can I do if verses of Quran appears heretical to you.? 🙁
Tell me frankly. This is to all readers including Zahid Sb
What should be settled first ?
Will a prophet come after Holy Prophet (sa)
OR
What will be the works/claims/messages of future prophets?
I have assured it time and again that I will definitely answer the second question in detail once the first question is settled. There is no point in directly jumping to the second without completing first.
Please be assured that not only the second question but all your questions will be answered Insha Allah. 🙂
Please Reply
Wassalam
Shabeeb
From Shabeeb Haneef:
@ Muhammad Iqbal
Can we have a one to one discussion on this topic as to why I am not convinced in Munir Ahmad Azim Sb’s claims? If you are from kerala, you may contact Fazil Jamal Sb to get my number.
I don’t want to discuss it here as we are on different topic now and I don’t want to mix it here.
Please be informed that i have no issues with him in person. You may ask this to any contemporary claimants. If at all I have entered with them into discussions, that is only upon their claims which I found to be unconvincing.
And the most important thing is that, whether I am convinced or not should not be a reason for any other person to come to his conclusion regarding Munir Ahmad Azim Sb or for any other contemporary claimant for that matter, Keep learning and praying, Allah will open doors of wisdom to you.
Its strange that Zahid sb is ready to post the comments if Iqbal Sb which are valid but not at all related to the discussion here but at the same time he imposes all types restrictions and time delays on my posts which are strictly related to the on going topic. 🙁 🙁
Some Justice please.
Wassalam
Shabeeb
From Rashid:
@Shabeeb Haneef:
I am starting a compaign to contact current Qadiani Khalifa 5 Mirza Masroor Ahmad, and in this regard will NOT hesitate to take help of any Muslim, Khatam-e-Nabuwat-UK-Academy, Ahmad Karim Shaikh, Akbar Chaudhry, Khatam-e-Nabuwat-India etc. THIS I WILL DO BECAUSE I BELIEVE HONOR OF HOLY PROPHET MUHAMMAD SAWS IS AT STAKE.
My Question to QK-5:
1-Does he (QK-5) believe like his follower Shabeeb Haneef, whose father name, city and current job info is posted, believes that when “prophethood” claim of Musalyima came to knowedge of Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS, he did NOT reject and thought for a momement that this could be true??
2-Does QK-5 also believes like Shabeeb Haneef, that Hazrat Abu Bakr did NOT reject at once, but took time to compare, Musalyima “revelations” with Holy Quran??
I want the OFFICIAL OPINION OF QK-5, which will be binding on his followers.
If QK-5 choose to stay quiet then Mullah-Mafia will keep up the pressure until QK-5 cannot afford to stay quiet.
If QK-5 choose to REJECT his follower belief, then it will be START OF CORRECTIONS IN QADIANI BELIEFS, just the way a chance was provided in Munir Inquiry commission when QK-2 CHANGED his beliefs. Unfortunately, then there was no internet to spread his change in beliefs statment to a common Qadianis.
From Deen Ahmad:
Mr. Mohammed Iqbal:
The only topic to be discussed here is Can prophets come after Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw)? (Not even the claims of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib). Don’t make the readers to miss the continuity of this topic.
Highlighted below is the addition of Rashid bhai (from the above comment) with his misterpretation skills to give a dangerous negative meaning.
“1-Does he (QK-5) believe like his follower Shabeeb Haneef, whose father name, city and current job info is posted, believes that when “prophethood” claim of Musalyima came to knowedge of Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS, he did NOT reject and thought for a momement that this could be true?? ”
Yaa Rabb !!! No…
It was very clear from Shabeeb Sahibs’ explanation that the point he raised there was that the Holy Prophet (SAW) and Abubakr As-Sideeque (R) did not reject Musaylima’s claim because of the reason that there is no prophet after him. They both did not held such a wrong belief. Obviously, they both rejected his claim without any doubt.
But, was it because of that reason?? That was the only point in it. Lahori brothers should think about this aspect.
It would have been very simple and convenient for the believers to follow if his (SAW) response to Musaylimah was “there can be no prophets after him (SAW)”. But he did not say that.
Abu Bakr As-Siddeeque’s (RA) stand was to prove Musaylimah’s claims are false. NOT TO STUDY, COMPARE AND ACCEPT IF FOUND TRUE. There is no such indication. All he did was the guidance to prove Musaylimah’s falsehood. This is history. Nothing has been added. What is the role for the word “insult” in this!!! Strange!!!
I am not here to comment every now and then. I am keeping track of the comments from both sides as an observer. But when things are completely out of the boundary, I feel I should express my views also.
This is the highest level of reading out of context and thereby promoting enmity between Muslim brothers.
From Zahid Aziz:
When this point about Musailima was first raised above by Shabeeb Haneef, I pointed out that his own Jamaat’s belief is that the Holy Prophet stated that there would be no prophet after him until Jesus (or Promised Messiah, as you interpret). So even according to the Qadianis’ own belief, the Holy Prophet and Hazrat Abu Bakr could have said that Musailima is false because no prophet can come at this time.
I also refer you to the book ‘Life of Muhammad’ by your Khalifa 2, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, on the alislam.org website. See pdf file at this link.
Read the hadith from Bukhari quoted on pages 319-320. It says the Holy Prophet had already foretold Musailima to his face in Madina, even before he claimed to be a prophet, and asked the Holy Prophet to make him his successor, that he would be destroyed by God. It says the Holy Prophet told his companions at that stage that God had revealed to him in a dream that two false claimants would appear before him and would be destroyed, and that this is why he was telling Musailima that he would be destroyed.
Musailima’s false ambitions were already exposed even before he claimed to be a prophet. So there was no reason for the Holy Prophet to give the reason, when Musailima did claim prophethood that, because there is no prophet after me, so Musailima cannot be true.
Let me add this. It is argued by Shabeeb Haneef that if the Holy Prophet held the belief that no prophet could come after him, he would have said this in refutation of Musailima’s claim. So, because the Holy Prophet didn’t say this, it means he didn’t hold this belief.
Musailima, of course, claimed to be a prophet independent of the Holy Prophet. He didn’t claim that he had become a prophet through following the Holy Prophet. But the Holy Prophet didn’t say to Musailima: You are false because no independent prophet can come after me. Does it mean that because the Holy Prophet didn’t refute Musailima’s claim of being an independent prophet by saying this, therefore the Holy Prophet didn’t hold this belief?
From Mohammed Iqbal:
Dear Shabeeb and Deen Ahmed,
So you think I was discussing the truthfulness or otherwise of MAA? No, sirs. I was highlighting the two contradictory positions taken by Q jamaat regarding the coming of new prophets. According to P1, prophethood is wide open even today. As per P2, it is bye,bye..”Wahy-al-Nubuwwah” for now, see you after 12000 new moons! I wanted Shabeeb to tell me which of these two positions Shabeeb holds. I only wanted to answer this question in the light of his interactions with the new claimants. For obvious reasons they have shelved P1 and proclaiming only P2, from all conceivable platforms. I wanted Shabeeb to see the contradictions in these two stands. It was very much the subject matter of our discussion. Shabeeb,FYI, I am not a follower of MAA or any new claimants. I am not follower of QJ or LAM for that matter. Yes, I have a great deal of respect for HMGA, but unlike his followers I dont hold him to be infallible. Anyway I thank the moderators of this blog for not accusing me of straying off the subject. My next questions to you is if this Khilafat is so powerful as to exclude the coming of a new prophet or even Mujaddids, why give it only a lifespan of 1000 years. Who fixed this period? Why will it not “abide with you forever”, unlike the ‘comforter’ of Jesus or the ‘Qudrath-al Thaniyya’ of HMGA?What will happen after this period? Will there be a barrage of Prophets?
@ Zahid Sahib,
Did I ever veer off the subject matter of this thread?
From Zahid Aziz:
Dear Iqbal sahib, you notice that Shabeeb wrote:
“Its strange that Zahid sb is ready to post the comments if Iqbal Sb which are valid but not at all related to the discussion here but at the same time he imposes all types restrictions and time delays on my posts which are strictly related to the on going topic.”
There isn’t only one discussion going on in this thread. Iqbal sahib is discussing a parallel issue on a valid topic. It just happens to be posted in this thread. It can easily be moved to another post if people wish.
I have never restricted Shabeeb on discussing anything. What I have said is that in the particular, rolling topic about the Quran allowing prophets to come after the Holy Prophet, started by him, he cannot proceed with more arguments until he answers my questions about his existing arguments.
Time delays apply to all comments because I only check the blog at certain times in the day, separated sometimes by many hours.
Perhaps Shabeeb is missing the freedom of speech he is used to in the Qadinai Jamaat!
From Zahid Aziz:
In reply to Shabeeb Haneef (see his comment):
It is absolutely incorrect that my questions are about any specific prophet to come. If I were to ask him: “Will a coming prophet teach that there is only One God?”, will Shabeeb say that this can’t be answered at this point in the discussion?
My questions relate to the general principles applying to the coming prophets. I am asking nothing about the “the details of the claims and works of the next prophet”, as he puts it.
He put forward 7:35 (about aayaat) and 3:81 (about covenant) to say prophets can come. My question: Will the prophets, when they come, also put forward these verses? If I have gone into the future here, then so did Shabeeb Haneef when he asked rheotorically:
“If this verse not asking us to believe, then what else should Bani Adam do when a prophet comes? Say Hi Hello and send him after giving tea?” (See this comment).
Shabeeb Haneef is telling us what Muslims would be required to do when prophets come. So I am asking: what would those prophets be saying to Muslims? Will they say: ‘We have come according to 7:35 and 3:81, these apply to us’?
If I were to ask him: “Will a coming prophet receive revelation from Allah?”, will he say he can’t answer this question just yet? If the answer is yes, then my question was: Are his revelations among the aayaat that he will be presenting as mentioned in 7:35?
Thirdly, I asked regarding the Muslims’ statement “We believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to us”, which they are commanded to declare in the Quran, what will be the meaning of “what has been revealed to us” after a prophet has come after the Holy Prophet? This is independent of any specific coming prophet.
Fourthly, as he keeps on stressing that Muslims will be required to believe in each coming prophet when that prophet declares his mission, I asked: How will they be required to express this belief?
He has already partly answered that it won’t be by just saying “Hello, how are you, fine, bye”. If I ask him: “Will it be sufficient for Muslims to believe in the prophet just in their hearts without telling anyone”, I am sure Shabeeb will say: No.
We already know how someone is required to express belief in the Holy Prophet Muhammad when accepting him. The obvious inference is that belief in any coming prophet will have to be expressed in the same way.
It is now established beyond all doubt that Shabeeb Haneef and his “minders” and “supervisors” are unwilling or unable to answer these simple questions. If they can answer them, only then will the discussion on this topic proceed.
From Shabeeb Haneef:
Tell me frankly. This is to all readers including Zahid Sb
What should be settled first ?
Will a prophet come after Holy Prophet (sa)
OR
What will be the works/claims/messages of future prophets?
I have assured it time and again that I will definitely answer the second question in detail once the first question is settled. There is no point in directly jumping to the second without completing first.
Please be assured that not only the second question but all your questions will be answered Insha Allah.
I would like to ask Janab Zahid Aziz Sb, Why are you so stubborn that you want me to address the second part above now itself before completing the first one.? Especially when I have repeatedly assured that I will answer all your questions? Is it not for blocking further progress of the discussion?
Please answer
From Zahid Aziz:
I stated earlier (see comment) that we can proceed on the assumption that according to the Quran:
“Prophets can still come after the Holy Prophet”.
So now you can answer my specific questions given above.
From ikram:
“Poker” is a family of card games involving betting and individualistic play whereby the winner is determined by the ranks and combinations of their cards, some of which remain hidden until the end of the game (see link: Poker).
Qadiani strategy, like Bahaism, seems to be based upon “Taqiyya – deceit” and Poker moves. Quran forbids games of chance in both letter and spirit for the inherent “sin”:
2:219. They ask you concerning intoxicants and games of chance. Say, `In both of them is a great sin and both are harmful too, and they have some uses for people [-in this case for Qadianis in their strategy for abrogation of finality of prophethood], but the sin inherent in them is even more serious than their usefulness.’…
5:90. O you who believe! intoxicants and games of chance, and alters set up for false deities [-the Qadiani Khalifas] and divining arrows are only abominations, some of satan’s handiworks, therefore shun each one (of these abominations) so that you may attain your goal.
5:91. Satan only intends to precipitate enmity and hatred between you by means of intoxicants and games of chance and to stop you from the remembrance of Allâh and from (observing your) Prayer. Will you not then be the abstainer (therefrom)?
What Qadiani friends forget is that in the matters of faith, Quran sets the following standards:
5:67. O Messenger! convey (to the people the entire message) well that has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, you have not (at all) conveyed His message as it ought to have been. And Allâh will protect you from all (the onslaughts of) people (on your life). Verily, Allâh will not let the disbelieving people have their way.
[The Holy Quran – Nooruddin]
From Zahid Aziz:
Truth cannot be established by clever debating strategies and trying to outmaneuver the other side with shrewdness.
“O you who believe, keep your duty to Allah and speak straight words: He will put your deeds into a right state for you, and forgive you your sins.” (33:70-71)
The Promised Messiah also warned against using worldly-wise cleverness and ploys. He said that the defeat you face by behaving in a way which pleases Allah is far better than the victory you achieve by displeasing Allah by your methods.
From Mohammed Iqbal:
Dear Shabib,
You haven’t answered my question. Can prophets come today or is their coming held in abeyance for a 1000 years, the predicted lifespan for the present Caliphate?
From Shabeeb Haneef:
@ Iqbal Sb,
Assalamualaikum,
This question has been answered once in detail in another thread that was raised recently in this same blog itself. Please read posts in them and don’t post any related queries here in this thread. That will simply mix the issue that we are discussing here and I don’t want that to happen.
Can we refrain from mixing it up here again, so that this important issue can be neatly discussed further without any diverging interventions?
From Shabeeb Haneef:
Dear Readers,
To all my lahori brothers.
I don’t understand what is the reason for this enmity of you all towards me. I am not here for a fight or a win – lose game. If at all I am into this discussion, that is only out of love for my innocent brothers. Let not the enmity towards me, prevent you from thinking in the right way.
You may ridicule me in whichever way you want. I do agree that I too may have caused mental agony to my brothers while writing under emotions. But Let not my deformities encourage you to think against verses of Holy Quran.
I am a human being as you all here. I am no one to guide anyone or teach anyone.
Lets have a fruitful discussion and sharing of thoughts with the sincere aim to find the truth.
Zahid sb says :-
I stated earlier (see comment) that we can proceed on the assumption that according to the Quran:
“Prophets can still come after the Holy Prophet”.(sa)
Later Zahid Sb says:-
Truth cannot be established by clever debating strategies and trying to outmaneuver the other side with shrewdness.
“O you who believe, keep your duty to Allah and speak straight words: He will put your deeds into a right state for you, and forgive you your sins.” (33:70-71)
It really pains me to see this kind of attitude towards this discussion from someone like Zahid sb.
I have always tried my best to say straight words. Right from the beginning I have tried to bring all readers straight to the Holy Quran alone.
I have always tried to speak and stand on the verse of Holy Quran alone. But still, it is being indicated that, I am the one who is using such tricks. I have always been insisting to go one by one so that things become straight and clear to all. I had repeatedly assured that, I will Insha Allah answer all the questions raised but not in jumbled fashion, but one by one to make it straight and clear to all.
But still I am the scapegoat.
And he also say that,
I stated earlier (see comment) that we can proceed on the assumption that according to the Quran:
“Prophets can still come after the Holy Prophet”. (sa)
What is the position for assumption in Deen, when you yourself say that we need to say straight words.
I have repeatedly put it straight. This assumption of yours is a confirmation of Holy Quran. It is clearly said in Misaqunnabiyeen (3:82 and 33: 8), I stated the other day and also in other verses of Holy Quran (coming soon : ) )
Assuming something is not a settlement. If we have began to settle the question, “Can A Prophet Come…”, then it needs to be settled and not assumed.!!!
Then comes the works/claims/deeds etc of that prophet.
So shall we move ahead to confirm this assumption of yours to be truth?. Then shall we discuss what will be the activities of that prophet.
In case this is proved wrong, then why should one waste time and energy to discuss about the activities of that prophet who will never come to earth?
Certainly truth is distinctively different from falsehood and they never go hand in hand.
May Allah Guide Us All.
Wassalam,
With Love
Shabeeb.
From Zahid Aziz:
I have created a new post in order for the discussion between Mohammed Iqbal and Shabeeb Haneef to continue. I hope both of them are agreeable to it. See this link.
From Zahid Aziz:
In all human argumentation, the “assumption” method is used to test an idea. It is used throughout the Quran as well, when it says that if such and such an idea is true (e.g. if there were two gods…) then such and such disastrous consequences will follow.
Regarding “settling” this issue, a belief can only be accepted if all its implications are taken into account to see that it is not self-contradictory. You are trying to keep the contradictions hidden.
But I have said that I am prepared to envisage that your claim is correct that according to the Quran prophets can come. We will proceed on that agreed basis. Then we will see what effect the coming of prophets will have on the structure of Islam.
While saying you only want to discuss if prophets can come, and nothing more, you have already been saying, in addition, that the coming of prophets means that Muslims must necessarily believe in them.
You have said, in addition to mere coming of prophets, that they will relate aayaat of Allah to people.
You have said, in addition to mere coming of prophets, that they will come under a covenant made with the Holy Prophet.
So my questions were about these additional points that you yourself introduced.
From Abid Aziz:
There is an intense similarity between the deniers of Finality of Prophethood. When we ask our main stream Muslim brothers (who believe Hazrat Isa (as) will come back as an Ummati) how will Hazrat Isa (as) read those verses of Quran which mention him as a prophet, they have no answer. The same is happening here. Zahid Aziz has been asking Shabeeb Haneef a similar question that whether the coming prophets (assuming they ever come) narrate those same verses of the Quran which mention their coming. The answer is that the coming prophet will answer those things and if Shabeeb answers those questions it will mix up things. Both excuses are lame excuses and neither are ready to accept the inherent contradictions that arise out of denying the finality of prophethood.
Earlier I asked Janab Shabeeb Haneef Sahib to please quote a few writings of HMGA Sahib in which he used the verse 7:35 as an argument for the coming of prophets. I realise that it may be hard for him to translate and then type all those writings, so I am reducing my request to a mere single reference from the writings of HMGA Sahib. Janab Shabeeb Haneef sahib please just write the name of the book and the relevant page number.
From Zahid Aziz:
It is now almost 97 years since the Qadiani Jamaat has been presenting these verses from the Quran to try to argue that prophets can come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad. So there is absolutely nothing new in what Shabeeb Haneef is presenting here. We can’t see how he has some unique talent for proving his point which his predecessors in his Jamaat did not possess.
I have said earlier that if these verses do prove that prophets can come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad, then this would also prove that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was (God forbid) a false prophet and ignorant person.
From Deen Ahmad:
Dear Zahid Aziz Sahib:
I completely agree with your point as stated below:
“The Promised Messiah also warned against using worldly-wise cleverness and ploys. He said that the defeat you face by behaving in a way which pleases Allah is far better than the victory you achieve by displeasing Allah by your methods.”
With complete understanding of this statement and with the true and right spirit, can you explain your position briefly on these verses of the Holy Qur’an?
These are extracted from http://www.ahmadiyya.org website:
Revised 2010 edition of the English Translation of the Holy Quran
Here is the link for others to refer:
http://www.ahmadiyya.org/english-quran-2010/trans-quran-web.pdf
Surah A’li Imran verse no. 81: (THE FAMILY OF AMRAN – Page no. 86)
“81 And when Allah made a covenant through the prophets: Certainly what I have given you of Book and Wisdom — then a Messenger comes to you verifying what is (already) with you, you shall believe in him, and you shall aid him. He said: Do you affirm and accept My compact in this (matter)? They said: We do affirm. He said: Then bear witness, and I (too) am a bearer of witness with you.”
Footnote:
b (81) The covenant was made through the prophets with their people. Both
Moses and Jesus specially laid an obligation on their people to accept the prophet
about whom they prophesied (see, for instance, Deuteronomy 18:18 and John
16:13). In fact, all the prophets of the world foretold the advent of the Prophet
Muhammad. The covenant was made through each prophet separately as he
appeared in the world. And just as all the prophets foretold the advent of the
Prophet Muhammad and laid an obligation upon their people to accept him, so the
Prophet Muhammad also taught his followers to believe in all the prophets that
had appeared among different people in different ages, and this is stated in v. 84.
Surah Al- Ahzab verse no. 7: (THE ALLIES– Page no. 521)
“7 And when We took a covenant from the prophets and from
you, and from Noah and Abraham and Moses and Jesus, son of
Mary, and We took from them a solemn covenant,a 8that He may
question the truthful of their truth, and He has prepared for the
disbelievers a painful punishment”
Footnote
a (7) The covenant referred to here may be in relation to the delivery of themessage with which the prophets are entrusted. But see 3:81, which speaks of a covenant with the prophets with regard to the advent of the Holy Prophet. The covenant spoken of as having been made with the Holy Prophet evidently refers to the Prophet’s verifying all previous revelation. Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus are specially mentioned by name on account of their importance.
Thesr is no “worldly-wise cleverness and ploys” in this post. This is purely from the Holy Qura’n, saying “Certainly what I have given you of Book and Wisdom — then a Messenger comes to you verifying what is (already) with you, you shall believe in him, and you shall aid him. “. Also, Allah SWT has taken this covenant from the Holy Prophet SAW as mentioned viz. “covenant from the prophets and from you.
Jazakumullah.
From Zahid Aziz:
Deen Ahmad sahib, I think our position on these verses is very clearly laid out in these footnotes. According to 3:81, prophets before the Holy Prophet Muhammad were informed by Allah that a great prophet would arise, and there was a covenant taken through those prophets with their followers that they would accept him when he arose.
Below is an extra point in connection with this subject, for interest:
That “compact” which was made is called “isr” here in the words “Do you affirm and accept My compact”. When the Holy Prophet arose, a part of his work was to remove and lift that “isr“. Thus it is declared in 7:157:
“Those who follow the messenger, prophet, the Ummi, whom they find mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel … he removes from them their isr …”. By accepting the Holy Prophet the isr or burden of the compact is removed.
Then in 2:286 Muslims are taught to pray: “Lay not upon us an isr as You laid on those before us…”. This indicates that for those who accept the Holy Prophet, there is no isr on them of the kind that there was on those before them to accept the coming prophet.
(I don’t think the word isr is used anywhere else in the Quran but in the above three verses.)
As to 33:7, as stated in the footnote, the covenant with the prophets mentioned there may be that they were under obligation to Allah to deliver their message. It may refer to the covenant of 3:81, in which case the covenant made with the Holy Prophet was that he would verify the previous prophets and require his followers to believe in them (just as the covenant with the previous prophets was that their followers should accept the Prophet Muhammad).
Now that you have put forward our translation and commentary, I refer you to your Jamaat’s both “Short Commentary” and “Five Volume Commentary” on these two verses. From the footnotes there the clear impression is that the prophet mentioned in “then a messenger comes to you” is the Holy Prophet Muhammad. One certainly doesn’t get the impression from there that a covenant was also taken through the Holy Prophet to accept a prophet after him.
You should also answer the question whether you believe that the verse 3:81 still applies today, and who is the prophet through whom there is a covenant now to accept the coming prophet?
From T. Ijaz:
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/truthfulness/question_1.html
This short chapter reviews 3:81, 33:7, and attempts at refutation with 7:157.
From Zahid Aziz:
Here is a further explanation of 3:81.
“And when Allah made a covenant through the prophets: Certainly what I have given you of Book (min kitab-in) and Wisdom…”
The earlier prophets had been told that they had been given only partial Divine knowledge (min kitab-in, or some of the Book) because that was all they requried for their people and their times.
“then a Messenger comes to you verifying what is (already) with you,…”
After a period of time, the revelations of earlier prophets would cease to be able to prove their own truth. So it was promised that a Messenger would be sent who would prove from his own revelation that the earlier revelations were from God.
The above two characteristics, i.e. being partial knowledge and losing ability to itself provide proof of own truth, cannot ever apply to the revelation brought by the Holy Prophet Muhammad.
Then in 3:81 comes the covenant that you shall believe in that prophet. How that is fulfilled is mentioned only three verses later:
“Say: We believe in Allah and (in) what has been revealed to us…” (3:84).
To fulfil the covenant made with and through earlier prophets, their followers have to declare the above. Then the above statement continues:
“and (we believe in) what was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and what was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord; we make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we submit.”
This part is the fulfilment of the covenant made with and through the Holy Prophet Muhammad mentioned in 33:7, namely, that his followers would declare belief in the revelations of the earlier prophets. The last word above is muslimoon, i.e. this is what Muslims are.
Immediately, the next verse says:
“And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.” (3:85)
In other words, this is what is Islam, namely, to declare belief in the Holy Prophet’s revelation in fulfilment of the covenant made with and through your prophets, and to say that all those who thereby become Muslims also declare faith in all earlier prophets in fulfilment of the covenant made with and through the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw).
From Zahid Aziz:
In the book referred to above by T. Ijaz, it is argued that Allah does not impose any burden on man which later needs to be removed because man is unable to bear it, and therefore the burden mentioned in 7:157, as being removed by the Holy Prophet (“…he removes from them their burden”), cannot be the burden or responsibility imposed by Allah in 3:81.
But removal of a burden doesn’t only mean relieving someone of a duty (or perceived duty) so that they need not carry it out. It can instead mean enabling them to carry out their duty. (Compare the following two: 1. cancelling a debt which someone owes, and 2. enabling the person to repay the debt. The burden is removed in both cases.)
Followers of earlier prophets were under obligation by their own prophets to accept the Holy Prophet. When he appeared, those who accepted him had the burden removed because they fulfilled their obligation.
However, the question for those who accept a prophet after the Holy Prophet Muhammad is: If a covenant was made by Allah with the Holy Prophet Muhammad that his followers should accept the next prophet, then was the same covenant repeated by Allah with that prophet, that his followers in turn should accept the next prophet?
I notice that just before dealing with 3:81 the booklet quotes two verses:
“O ye who believe! believe in Allah and His Messenger and in the Book, which He had revealed to His Messenger,….” (4:136)
“O ye who believe! Shall I point out to you a commerce, which will deliver you from a painful punishment? That you believe in Allah and His Messenger,…” (61:10, 11)
and says: “In the above verses, the “believers” are being called upon to believe and help any new prophet raised amongst them.”
According to the writer, wherever “believers” are asked to believe in Allah and His Messenger, by “Messenger” is meant the messenger who would come after the Holy Prophet.
This would mean that after such a messenger actually comes:
1. Wherever “the Messenger” is mentioned, as for example in “obey Allah and the Messenger”, by Messenger is meant that new messenger and not the Holy Prophet Muhammad. For example the following verse would refer to the new messenger after he has come:
“O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger…” (4:59)
2. When Muslims are told to say “we believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to us”, the revelation mentioned here comes to mean the revelation of the new messenger.
Perhaps members of the Qadiani Jamaat could confirm that they do hold these two beliefs.
From Rashid:
Predicament of naïve Qadiani Followers.
Qadiani Khalifas has one set of beliefs for their followers and another set of beliefs for Muslims.
Naïve Qadiani followers of Qadiani Khalifas accept and hold beliefs taught to them by Qadiani Khalifas and their lieutenants. Believing they are the only and true belief of Qadiani Khalifas, these Qadiani followers make mistake of getting into discussion with Muslims including Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement members, there they come to know that they (Qadiani Jamaat friends) have been duped and Qadiani Khalifas has been shifting their beliefs depending on the situation when facing Muslims including LAM members. With internet Qadiani friends are coming in contact with people other than from their Qadiani Jamaat. Slowly but surely Qadiani friends are getting rude awakening.
From mohamed lamin:
thank u for ur debate and other posts. i observed that LAM have some hatred for QA and don’t have respect for the khalifa of QA not only in this post but always. this is not good. Both of u are followers of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad you should brothers. thanks