The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

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

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

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

Read: Background to the Project

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

Archive for September, 2013

Mr Jinnah meets Maulana Muhammad Ali, by Mumtaz Ahmad Faruqui

Wednesday, September 25th, 2013

Mr Mumtaz Ahmad Faruqui (older brother of Mr N.A. Faruqui) recounted the following incidents in Paigham Sulh, 18 October 1978, which I translate below.

Some time before the founding of Pakistan, probably in 1946, Quaid-i Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah visited Lahore on one of his tours. I was in Lahore in those days. Two memorable events took place at that time, which have remained in my mind till today.

1. A meeting of the Muslim League was held in Lahore. A resolution was presented, probably by Maulvi Zafar Ali Khan, to the effect that "Qadianis", i.e. the Ahmadiyya community, should be declared as non-Muslim on account of some of its beliefs and expelled from membership of the Muslim League. Quaid-i Azam, who was presiding over the meeting, firmly rejected this resolution. He gave as the main reason that a person who recites the Kalima and calls himself a Muslim, and supports our aims, cannot be expelled by us.

2. Taking advantage of this visit, Maulana Muhammad Ali, who was Head of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at Islam Lahore, and lived in Muslim Town Lahore, expressed the wish to meet the Quaid-i Azam. The Quaid-i Azam gladly agreed to this, and it was arranged that he would call at Maulana Muhammad Ali's residence in Muslim Town and partake of afternoon tea. The Maulana arranged for tea for about a dozen persons who were members of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama'at, and somehow I joined this group. Maulvi Yaqub Khan, former editor of 'The Light', was also there. The Quaid-i Azam arrived promptly on time and we all welcomed him and took him to the meeting room.

The Maulana, greeting Quaid-i Azam, lauded his services to the nation and briefly shed light on the propagation work of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama'at. He then presented Quaid-i Azam with a gift of his writings and other publications of the Movement. Quaid-i Azam smiled and thanked him. He picked up the English translation of the Quran which was on top and said:

"There is a copy of this in my library, and I study it regularly."

Then he stood up and said that he was familiar with the work of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama'at, and he regularly receives 'The Light', the English weekly, which he reads with special attention. Then he said:

"When I put forward my view for the first time that 'Western style democracy is not suitable for India', it caused an outcry all over the country and there was a storm of criticism. It went to the extent that Lord Wavell, Viceroy of India, sent me a message in Simla saying that he too was puzzled by my view, and asking me to clarify. In those days, I received 'The Light' paper from Lahore which contained an editorial with a cogent and clear discussion on this topic, supporting the validity of this view. I liked it very much and I merely sent Lord Wavell that paper to read. A few days later Lord Wavell returned that paper to me with a note saying that he now understood my point."

This praise by the Quaid-i Azam was a monumental tribute he paid to the work of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama'at. The late Maulvi Yaqub Khan, editor of 'The Light', was enormously proud of this. The Quaid-i Azam held this favourable opinion about the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama'at till his dying day.

Mr N.A. Faruqui’s letter to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan during Bhutto case appeal

Saturday, September 14th, 2013

I translate below an article by Mr N.A. Faruqui published in Paigham Sulh, dated 9 August 1978, at the time when the Supreme Court of Pakistan was hearing the appeal of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto against his death sentence which had been awarded to him in the Lahore High Court. (In this Urdu article Mr Faruqui noted that he wrote his letter to the Chief Justice in English, which was translated into Urdu in the article. As I do not have access to the original English letter, I have translated the Urdu translation of the letter back into English.)

Zahid Aziz.

Correction of a Misunderstanding

In one of the proceedings during the hearing of the appeal in the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of the murder of Nawab Muhammad Ahmad Khan, published in the daily Nawa-i Waqt of Lahore, the impression has been given that I am a Qadiani. Consequently I considered it appropriate to have this misunderstanding cleared by writing a letter to the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The Chief Justice has given me satisfaction by reading out my letter in open court, for which I am grateful to him. However, the manner of its reporting in Nawa-i Waqt of 30th July created again the possibility of a misunderstanding. Therefore I believe it essential to publish, in the newspaper of our Jama'at, the correspondence which I carried out in this connection, so that no misimpression may remain in the minds of our members. Some have also asked me what I have done about this.

My letter to the Chief Justice of Pakistan

Lahore, 20th July 1978.

My dear Chief Justice,

I am daring to address you directly because I do not wish this matter to become public before you have considered my application. After that, I leave it up to you to take whatever action you may consider fit.

In the daily Nawa-i Waqt of Lahore, dated 19th July 1978, there is a column headed 'In the Supreme Court'. This is a column which carries news of interest to the public arising in court during the hearings of the appeal in the case of the murder of Nawab Muhammad Ahmad Khan. I am enclosing a cutting.

The news which was printed stated that the senior counsel for the appellant, Mr Yahya Bakhtiar, had said about me, in passing, that I am a Qadiani. Upon this, the senior counsel for the Government of Pakistan, Mr Ijaz Batalvi, corrected this by saying that (during the hearings in the High Court) Mr Masud Ahmad was asked if he, I, and Chaudhry Abdullah are members of the Jama'at Ahmadiyya Lahore, upon which Mr Masud Ahmad denied it about himself but said regarding the others that he did not know. Upon this, an honourable judge of the Supreme Court said: "But everyone knows that N.A. Faruqui is a Qadiani."

With due respect I state that I am not a Qadiani, but I am certainly a member of the Jama'at Ahmadiyya Lahore.

Our Jama'at had long ago, that is, in 1914, under the leadership of Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Ali, whose English translation and commentary of the Holy Quran and book 'The Religion of Islam' are of world-wide fame, and Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, who is well known in the world because of the Woking Muslim Mission, separated from the Qadiani Jama'at on those two very points due to which there was agitation in the minds of Muslims in 1974, namely:

1. The Qadiani members attribute a claim of prophethood to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib.

2. The Qadiani members regard those who do not believe in Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib to be kafirs.

We have spent the past sixty years debating with and countering Qadiani members, and have proved that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib did not make a claim to prophethood, and that he himself stated more than once that no Muslim becomes a kafir by denying him. By our separation and our combating them, we have brought upon ourselves the disapproval of the Qadiani members.

Due to the above facts, for me to be called a Qadiani in the highest court of Pakistan, and for this to be confirmed by the words that "everyone knows this", is an injustice against me which has caused me great pain and has created a misimpression about me among my friends and the general public.

I know that ordinary people by mistake consider both the Qadiani Jama'at and the Lahore Jama'at to be the same. But most of the educated and well-informed people are aware of the difference between these two Jama'ats which is fundamental and of principle. Considering in particular that Mr Ijaz Husain Batalvi had corrected the misunderstanding about me, for an honourable judge to say that "everyone knows that N.A. Faruqui is a Qadiani" is a serious misrepresentation of my position. I am aware that the honourable judge did not know the real position. Nonetheless, the fact remains that a wrong impression about me has not only entered the Supreme Court record but has also been published in the press.

I therefore respectfully submit that you take the action which you consider appropriate so that the stain upon my name of being a Qadiani in the Supreme Court record and the press is removed. I would be grateful.

Yours sincerely, N.A. Faruqui


It was very kind of the Chief Justice of Pakistan that he read out my letter in open court, which clears me. May Allah reward him. However, the report of this event as printed in Nawa-i Waqt of 30th July contained some words which could again give rise to a misunderstanding. Accordingly, I wrote a letter to the Editor of Nawa-i Waqt on the same day, which is given below:

Lahore, 30 July 1978.

Respected Editor of Nawa-i Waqt,

Assalamu alaikum. In your paper of today, 30th July, under the heading 'In the Supreme Court', you have again published a news about me which can create a misunderstanding. Your correspondent writes that in my letter to the Chief Justice of Pakistan, clarifying my position, I have written that I "do not believe Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be the last prophet". This could be taken to mean that I believe him to be a prophet, but not the last prophet. I did not write any such words in my letter to the Chief Justice.

I belong to the Jama'at Ahmadiyya Lahore, whose members believe Muhammad mustafa, Ahmad mujtaba, may peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him, to be the last prophet from the bottom of their hearts, and do not accept that a prophet can at all come after him. And we consider everyone who recites the Kalima to be a Muslim.

Please publish this letter of mine in a prominent place to remove the misimpression that has been created about me. I would be grateful.

Your servant, N.A. Faruqui


This letter was published in Nawa-i Waqt but not in a prominent place.

Highlights of Maududi’s commentary of the Quran

Friday, September 13th, 2013

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.


I received an email from Shabbir Ahmed, MD. He has quoted highlights from Maududi commentary of Holy Quran 'Tafhimul Quran'. Please read and see why even educated Muslims hold non-sense beliefs.


We will have to be brief about Maududi since he has written volumes upon volumes of nonsense. But a few glimpses should sufficiently demonstrate how the Mullah is playing god to his fans even after his death.

His Name: Before presenting some glimpses of the famous Mullah Maududi’s wisdom and knowledge, let us reflect on his full name and title, Maulana Syed Abul A’la Maududi. The name translates as: “Our Master, Owner, the Father of the Most Glorious, Maududi”. It is strange that the man claiming to be a great Islamic scholar lived 76 odd years with this name. Does it need much insight to see that the very name is shrieking outright divinity and Shirk? According to the Quran, Maulana (our Master) is none but Allah (9:51).  And, obviously, Al-A’la (the Most Glorious) can be none but God. Note: In this chapter, as an example, 1:31 will mean Vol 1 page 31.

 His Impact: The treacherous, imbecile Maududi, through his long, confused, confusing and inconclusive writings, has frozen the minds of millions of simple Muslims for the last half century making sure that the Ummah remains stuck in the spider-web of the manmade, counterfeit, Hadithi, Number Two Islam (N2I). The forsakers of the Quran got exactly what they deserved. A significant factor behind his popularity has been the generous royal Saudi support as in the case of the Egyptian Mullah-in-Chief, Syed Qutb in the 1950s.

 Maududi’s ‘Brilliance’: Let us examine some brilliance of Maududi through his famous Six Volume Tafseer, Tafhimul Quran (Urdu), by Idara Tarjumanul Quran, Lahore, November, 1982. We will turn to his other writings from time to time, with due reference given.

 The Captive Women: 1:340 means Vol 1 Pg 340. The summary and conclusion of his discussion on war captives, Vol 1 Pg 340: Even today, the government must distribute the women war captives among Muslim soldiers and the soldiers should “use” them. This rule will apply to women regardless of whether they belong to the People of the Book, or any other religion. How would the Mullahs feel if Muslims, getting thrashed all around the world today, had their women treated by the ‘infidels’ in this abominable fashion?

The Quran, verse 47:4 states that the captives of war must be freed either for ransom (e.g. exchange of POWs) or as an act of kindness as soon as the battle ends. There is no third option. When an eminent scholar differed with him and showed how the Quran has closed the door of slavery forever, Maududi responded, “The error of this man lies in that he relies on the Quran to form his opinion.” (Tafhimat 2:292)

 Slavery: Maududi further alleges that:

 v     A slave owner can sell his slave whenever and to whomever he pleases.

v     The act of kindness means that the captives be made slaves and given into the ownership of (Muslim) individuals.

v     A bondwoman given to any man by the rulers is as legal and binding a process as Nikah (marriage). 

v     A captive of war will remain a slave even if he or she embraces Islam.

v     If a slave tries to escape or create mischief, the master has the right to kill him/her.

v     While the Shari’ah (religious law made up by Mullahs) has limited the number of wives to four, it places NO LIMIT to the number of concubines a man can possess. He can have sexual relations with them freely. There is no reason for any man to feel bad about having sex with these (captured) concubines. (Tafhimul Quran 1:340 onwards, and 5:14 onwards)

 Beware! Dear reader, whenever you encounter statements like “Islam says this,” or “Shari’ah states that,” know that it is almost invariably the Mullah’s own wishful thinking rather than the Word of God.

 The Prophet’s Broken Teeth: In Tafhimul Quran 5:14 and Tarjaman-ul-Quran 1975 Pg 93, Maududi, on the spurious authority of Ibn Hisham, happily relates that the idolater Sohail bin ‘Umro was captured at the Battle of Badr. Some companions wanted to break his teeth, for he was a fiery orator against Islam. The Prophet admonished, “No! If I break his teeth, Allah will break my teeth even though I am a Prophet.” Sohail was left alone, but even then, after one year, at the Battle of Uhud, the exalted Prophet’s teeth were broken. In the Quran, Allah promises to protect the Prophet (S) from people (5:67). What sinister point is Maududi trying to make? Did the Prophet (S) really lose his teeth in the Battle of Uhud? He lived nine more years after that battle. I have not come across a single narrative suggesting any missing teeth on the person of the exalted Prophet.

 Child Molestation: It is not only permissible to give in marriage the girls who have not had their menstrual periods yet. Rather, it is also permissible for the husbands to have sexual intercourse with them. Now it is obvious that something that has been allowed by the Quran, no Muslim has the right to declare it forbidden. (Mullah Maududi, Tafhimul Quran 5:571). Did he marry ‘off’ his daughters or nieces at age 6 or 9?

 The Mullahs are in the habit of opposing the Quran since the Glorious Book hurts their evil desires. The big question arises here, “Does the Quran permit this nonsense?” Here is the answer:

 The Marriageable Age: According to the Mullahs, the beginning of the menstrual cycles in a girl and nocturnal emissions in a boy are firm indicators of their age of marriage. To the unfortunate Mullah, everything revolves around sex. A Hadith from Bukhari atrociously tells us that a girl can have Nikah (the marital contract) at 6 and the marriage can be consummated at age 9 since the exalted Prophet did that with Hazrat Ayesha! Is there any wonder that the West call him a child-molester? Why don't then the Sunnah-peddlers "marry off" their daughters at 6 and 9? Many countries set an arbitrary 16 years for the girl and 18 years for the boy. The Divine Wisdom enshrined in the Quran makes things so sensible. It sets up three rational criteria:

1 – Sufficient maturity to grant consent. (4:21)

2 – Ability to sign a legal contract. (4:19)

3 – Competence to take care of one's own finances. (4:21)

If Someone Dies of Hunger: If someone dies of hunger, he dies because Allah had written for him to die of hunger. (Tarjumanul Quran, Jan. 1966). Should the government and the community be so easily absolved of their fundamental duty? The Prophet (S) is reported to have said in a well-known Hadith, “If a single person sleeps hungry in a community, Allah removes His protection from that people.” Also, Hazrat Umar is reported to have said, “If a dog were to die of hunger by the Euphrates, I am afraid Umar will be held responsible.”

How to Establish a Solid Islamic State: Maududi shows a brilliant way to establish a solid Islamic state: Send notice to the population that they must announce within one year whether they should be considered Muslims or non-Muslims. After that one year, all children born to Muslims will be considered Muslims. All those who register as Muslims will be forced to observe the worships and rituals of Islam, five prayers a day, Friday prayers, 2.5 percent charity well-documented, fasting in the month of Ramadhan, Pilgrimage to Makkah for the affluent, sacrificing a sheep or goat at least once a year etc. Then whoever falls short of these obligations of Islam, will be beheaded. (Murtad Ki Saza, Punishment of the Apostate, August 1953, Pg 76). Please note that many Mullahs considered Maududi a heretic apostate. He might have been the first to be put to sword. If this brilliant concept of Maududi is implemented, all the Muslim population of that ‘solid’ Islamic state will walk around without heads on their shoulders.

 The Prophet Was Forgetful: The Prophet came to lead prayers. People lined up. He then started to leave, realizing that he was “junbb” (he had not done the post-coital wash). He left the standing lines and went to take a bath. Then he came back with water trickling. (Tarjumanul Quran, Oct 1956). Maududi presents this insult on the authority of Bukhari reminding the reader that Bukhari also states that it is Satan who causes men to forget during Salaat.

 The Noble Ones Lived In Glass Houses: Maududi and other “experts” seem anxious to prove that the Prophet (S) was a forgetful person and that he and his companions walked around junbb. Did the exalted Prophet and his companions live in glass houses and had no sense of privacy? Were they so obsessed with sex?  Or is it our Mullahs who are so obsessed? There are ample traditions filled with references to sex, ways of making love, lust, post-coital bath, menstruation, divorce, suckling, slaves, concubines, houris, etc with shameless detail. The grand Vision and the Supreme Ideology of Islam remain elusive to these small minds. The Prophet (S) and his companions were busy creating the noblest revolution in human history and they had no time for this kind of nonsense.

 Copies of the Quran Were Burned: Hazrat Uthman burned six copies of the Quran which were all in different tongues. Allah and Rasul had not ordered him to do this. (Syed Maududi, Tarjumanul Quran 1975 Pg 39). Did Maududi witness this? Does the Quran state that it has been revealed in different ways, tongues or dialects?

 Is There Life In The Grave? The belief of life in the grave is dangerous and that of no life is also dangerous. (Maududi, Tarjumanul Quran, Dec. 1959). The all knowing Mullah should have checked with the Quran to find the answer. Dead means dead. It is the human nafs, or self that lives on, not the material body. And according to the Quran, the dead do not return to this world. (23:100, 32:12). Death is a prolonged state of sleep until the Day of Resurrection, according to the Quran as shown below.

 36:51 And when the Trumpet is blown, out of their disintegrated states to their Lord they will run.

36:52 They will say, “Oh, woe to us! Who has awakened us from our beds of sleep? —.”

Doom of the Grave – Without Judgment: These two verses strongly dismiss the clergy-peddled false concept of punishment in the grave. Will God punish the dead before the Day of Resurrection and before Judgment? Many kinds of suffering (‘Azaab) are named in the Quran but ‘Azaabil Qabr (Doom of the Grave) is not mentioned even once. But Mullah Maududi writes in his Tarjaman-ul-Quran Dec. 1959: Most people will suffer the doom of the grave until the Day of Resurrection, some of them because they used to eat in bed.

Maududi’s Religious Freedom: In an Islamic country, non-Muslims will have full rights to spread their belief, but we will not allow any Muslim to change his or her religion. (Tarjumanul Quran, Dec.1959 Pg 269). The Mullah would behead the ‘apostate’. Can you see the blatant and silly contradiction here? According to the Quran, there is no compulsion in religion. (2:256)

Ah! The ‘Infidel’ Kids: Children of non-Muslims will go to Paradise and will be made slaves of the owners of Paradise. (Ref same, Pg 134). The Mullah probably lived under the wishful thinking that he would be the owner of Paradise! How about slavery, even in Paradise? Maududi never thought that his own children could be eternal slaves.

The daughters of non-Muslims who died young will be made hoors of Paradise. (Asia, Lahore, June 14, 1969).  And how will they be treated? According to Maududi, the men of Paradise will have their young, full-breasted houris indoors in their palaces. And the little infidel 'houri girls', eternally staying little, will live in beautiful outdoor tents. Men of Paradise will have sex with them whenever they go about strolling in the evenings. Ah, the poor ‘infidel’ kids!

 Telling Lies May Be Mandatory: Truth is one of the most important principles of Islam and lying is one of the greatest sins. But in real life, needs arise when telling lies is not only allowed, rather it becomes mandatory. (Tarjumanul Quran, May 1958 Pg 54)

 Temporary Marriage (Mut’ah) is permissible under certain circumstances. (Tarjumanul Quran, August 1955). Maududi puts forward an example: If a man and woman get stranded on an island, as soon as they procure food, they should go ahead and indulge in sex regardless of their marital status.

Calling Upon The Dead Saints: In response to a question concerning praying at gravesites to the dead saints, Maududi maintains, “It is possible that you may be calling, but they may not be listening. It is also possible that they may be able to listen, but their soul might not be there and you may be calling nobody. Also, it may be that they might be having sex or praying to their Lord and you may tease them in your selfishness.” (Ref same, Pg 261). It is possible that Maududi had lost his mind. It is also possible that he has no idea of what he is talking about. See Quran 36:51-52 above.

 Imam Abu Hanifa’s Fiqh has converted Islam into a frozen Hindu Shastra. (Tarjumanul Quran 1:136). [This one makes sense. SA]

 About Allama Sir Muhammad Iqbal: In reply to a question regarding Sir Allama Iqbal’s critical view of questionable traditions, Maududi sarcastically states, “In the presence of other scholars, there is no need to know his views.” (Reference same, Pg 170). Allama Iqbal was a scholar par excellence and one of the greatest exponents of the Quran through his world-renowned poetry. Any scholarly work in Urdu ignoring the great Allama speaks of the mental destitution of the writer. Also, he was a benefactor of Maududi, providing the jobless Mullah with an opportunity to work at Pathankot. Yet, we do not find a single reference to his sublime thoughts or top class poetry in Maududi’s voluminous writings.

v     The more ancient the Mullah, the more authoritative he becomes.  A dead Mullah also becomes more revered and authoritative. The Quran warns against blind following of ancestors and equates it with disbelief. (5:104 and many other verses).

Pre-emptive Divorce: The Mullah-in-Chief of the 20th century blindly follows the ancient ‘authorities’, e.g.  Hanafi jurists: If a man utters “divorce” three times even before marriage, the woman he weds will be instantly divorced. (Reference same, Pg 188). How’s that?

 Dear reader, these were just a few glimpses of the brilliance of Maududi.  Only space limits us from presenting quite a few more gems. Let us finish with one more:

ADULT MALE SUCKLING ON FEMALE BREASTS: This is a horrible Hadithi joke. Bukhari writes that Hazrat Ayesha’s goat had eaten up the date-leaf upon which were written two Quranic verses. This is supposed to have happened when there was chaos at home because of the demise of the Prophet (S). One of those verses was about stoning the ‘Sheikh and Sheikhah’, a mature or married man and woman, committing adultery. The other verse was about the grown-up men suckling on a young woman.

The goat-eaten, non-existent, “Ten Sucklings Verse” (the so-called Ayah Ridha'at) is a horrible joke. The 'Imams' of Hadith report that Hazrat Ayesha and Hazrat Maimoona used to advise women of an 'easy' way to admit unrelated men into their privacy. Let any grown up unrelated man suckle on the woman's breasts on ten different occasions and lo and behold! He becomes a Mahram (one who is a family member and can intrude into their privacy from then on). (Hadith 1934 Ibn Majah, 30:12 Malik’s Muwatta about the ‘criminal’ goat). About foster mothers, the Quran clearly states:

4:23 The following women are prohibited for you in marriage: …… your foster-mothers who have ever nursed you, foster-sisters ……

The verse is obviously talking of babies and their foster mothers. Children become related to one another in a solemn bond of brotherhood or sisterhood by nursing from a common woman. The woman attains the honor of becoming their mother. According to Maududi, Imam Hanbal says that suckling on a woman on three occasions will confer the bond of suckling relationship on a child. But Imam Shafi’i differs saying that it has to be five times. However, to an aesthetically sound mind the principle is quite clear. But our jurists and Mullahs get entangled in silly disputes.

 On Pg 338 Vol 1 of his Tafhim, Mullah Maududi writes that although the jurists differ on the age of suckling, even if a grown up man suckles on a woman, he will enter into the bond of suckling! But the foolishness does not end here. Maududi asserts in Tarjumanul Quran that the amount of milk actually swallowed is of terrible importance. How much milk? Maududi frantically seeks help from Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik and comes up with a solution. Well, the amount is that which will be enough to break the fast of a fasting person. However, the three Mullahs fail to elaborate how much milk will be sufficient to break a fast. The Mullahs have neither the sense, nor the courage to reject Ahadith that insult human intelligence, such as this one of a grown up man suckling on a strange woman! Would the Mullahs advise this nonsense to their wives, sisters and daughters? Who knows if Maududi did that?

 Ayatullah As-Syed Murtaza Hussain Nasir Ferozabadi, the compiler of “Life Events of Seven Sahaba” happily accepts the great insult but shows his ‘sensitivity’ by expressing his dismay on the reported judgment of Hazrat Ayesha and Hanbal for neglecting an important issue: “The man would have to handle the female breasts.” Maududi is least concerned about it.

Oh, another question. What if a woman has no milk? "Imam" Abu Yousuf said: Sucking at BOTH the dry breasts of a woman will fulfill the Shari'ah law, provided it is done on ten different occasions. (Gharaib fil Tahqiq-il-Mazahib Wa Tafhimul Masaail, Vol 2 Pg 137).

v     Dear reader, our Imams and Mullahs are in the habit of answering questions that were never asked!  In fact, they invent hypothetical situations.

 Shabbir Ahmed, M.D. (Be sure to check out the new and old Forums!)
6440 NW 53 ST
Lauderhill, FL 33319

“In Pakistan, most say Ahmadis are not Muslim”

Wednesday, September 11th, 2013

Please see this link to the Pew Research Center, which has a report of the above title.

The report states: "Two-in-three Pakistani Muslims say Ahmadis are not Muslims, according to a Pew Research poll conducted in November 2011. Just 7% accept Ahmadis as fellow Muslims, while 26% do not offer a response or say they don’t know."

The 7% and 26% of Muslims (=33%) mentioned here gave this response to this poll. But this same 33% must have declared Ahmadis as non-Muslim when they filled in their ID card forms or passport application forms, because for any person to be recognised as a Muslim in Pakistani law he or she has necessarily to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslim. So in fact, by the very definition of a Muslim in Pakistani law, 100% of Muslims there regard Ahmadis as non-Muslim.

Considering the massive scale of the anti-Ahmadiyya propaganda in Pakistan, which is officially backed, and the ban on Ahmadis to counter it, it is actually quite heartening to know that no more than 66% of Muslims there consider Ahmadis as non-Muslim. One would expect this figure to be more than 90%.

Following the link from that page to the full poll, we find that with regard to the statement "there is only one interpretation of Islam", the majority of Muslims in many countries agree with it, and in Pakistan 72% of Muslims agree with it. This is deplorable ignorance. Even the companions of the Holy Prophet differed on various points of interpretation. The four Sunni schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki and Hanbali) give different rulings on, for example, punishments for various offences.

Anonymous comments

Sunday, September 8th, 2013

There can be genuine and understandable reasons why someone may send comments anonymously. This blog is willing to accept them and respond. However, when the purpose is deceit and trickery, this is unacceptable behaviour. Deceit is to pretend to be a different category of person from what you actually are. This "Muslim from Pakistan" has previously sent comments as "An Ahmadi", pretending to be a member of the Qadiani Jamaat, and falsely writing "(as)" after the name of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. To write "(as)" like this is to pretend before people that you are praying to Allah for him ("peace be upon him") while actually you are cursing him. This is hypocrisy of the worst kind. Then there is the deceit is supplying someone else's e-mail address as your own.

Trickery is that by posting anonymously, you can say things, in order to get out of a difficulty, which you would not be able to say if you were identifiable. A known person has known views, which can be attributed to him, and he is forced to work within a framework.

Anonymous posters can also make ridiculously inflated claims about themselves, such as these people claiming that they have vastly superior knowledge and arguments to defeat Ahmadis than did the opponents of previous times. Then why remain anonymous? Why not come in front of the Muslim world and receive acclaim? (If these people were scientists, and made unprecendented contributions to scientific knowledge, presumably they would post these anonymously and shy away from appearing in person to receive the nobel prize!)

Blog readers should know that these people claim that they tricked me, about 4 or 5 years ago, into translating into English Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din's book about Causes of the Split in the Ahmadiyya Movement, by representing themselves as disenchanted Qadianis who wanted to read, and perhaps accept, the Lahori point of view. This shows how grossly stupid they are! They tricked me into doing something extremely useful for the LAM cause, which, without being tricked, I might not have done!

"Muslim from Pakistan" has been sending comments from time to time under different names, a few of which I included and others I did not. The more comments he sent, the more it revealed about him, his thinking and his mode of operating. So now, through use of a fake identity, he has let slip his location and an educational institution he is connected with. These people want to remain floating in cyberspace only, and don't want to be linked with anything in the physical world lest their real existence becomes known.