The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Archive for May, 2016

Submitted by Omar Raja.

Regarding the hadith: "Prophethood will remain among you as long as Allah wills. Then Caliphate (Khilafah) on the lines of Prophethood shall commence, and remain as long as Allah wills. Then corrupt/erosive monarchy would take place, and it will remain as long as Allah wills. After that, despotic kingship would emerge, and it will remain as long as Allah wills. Then, the Caliphate (Khilafah) shall come once again based on the precept of Prophethood (Masnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Mishkat, Chapter Al-Anzar Wal Tahzir)

This hadith cannot be interpreted to mean a new khilafat will be established after the Promised Messiah because the Promised Messiah himself did not even interpret it as such! Furthermore, a divinely-ordained institution of everlasting khilafat after the Holy Prophet already existed and continues to exist with the coming of mujaddids whom are in fact the spiritual khalifas of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, to include the Promised Messiah as he himself explained and claimed to be, stating mujaddids are in fact "deputies and spiritual successors (khalifas) of the Messenger of Allah" and come "by way of zill." (Fath Islam, 22 January 1891, p. 6 footnote).

The hadith in question can only mean the early days of Islam and the last days are similar in terms of an abundance of blessings for the progress of Islam. The Promised Messiah explained, "it is proven from the Hadith that there are three ages: first, the period of the righteous khilafat, then the "age of corruption" in which there were to be tyrannical kings, and after that the last days which would be on the pattern of the times of prophethood. The Holy Prophet has gone so far as to say that the early days of his followers and the last days would be very similar, and that these two ages are like the rain: it is full of such good and blessings that one knows not whether the blessings lie more in the beginning or in the end. (Shahadatul-Quran pp. 45-46).

Submitted by Ikram.

When Europe Loved Islam

“Before the continent started banning hijab, European aristocrats used to change their names to Abdullah and Muhammad, and going to the local mosque was the latest trend.”

Please read-on the contribution of Lahore Ahmadiyya for European love of Islam.

Link: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/05/when-europe-loved-islam-interwar-weimar-republic-wilmersdorf-mosque/?utm_content=bufferc8e77&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Visit this link to read further about The Wilmersdorf mosque, located on Brienner Street in southwest Berlin and this link for Shah Jahan Mosque in Woking, England.

The Quran instructs Muslims:

"There is no blame on the blind man, nor any blame on the lame, nor blame on the sick, nor on yourselves that you eat in your own houses, or your fathers’ houses, or your mothers’ houses, or your brothers’ houses, or your sisters’ houses, or your paternal uncles’ houses, or your paternal aunts’ houses, or your maternal uncles’ houses, or your maternal aunts’ houses…" (24:61)

Firstly, houses of males and females are mentioned equally here. Secondly, it shows home ownership by women. Now someone may say that houses of "your sisters" and "your aunts" might be owned by their husbands. But even if that were so, still your sister or aunt has the right to entertain you in that house.

But what about "your fathers' houses and your mothers' houses"? Each of the other pairs mentioned here (your brothers and sisters, your father's brothers and sisters, and your mother's brothers and sisters) would normally have a separate house. Thus the wording about the pair fathers and mothers indicates that someone's father and mother may own houses each in his/her own right. When you have the right to own property, it means you have all the rights of a human being to conduct your affairs.

In the UK, before the Married Women's Property Act of 1870: "any money made by a woman either through a wage, from investment, by gift, or through inheritance automatically became the property of her husband once she was married. Thus, the identity of the wife became legally absorbed into her husband, effectively making them one person under the law. Once a woman became married she had no claim to her property as her husband had full control and could do whatever suited him regarding the property" (see link).

Zahid Aziz