How prophet “without shariah” became prophet “with shariah”!
Members of the Qadiani Jamaat say that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet “without a shariah”. (Note: It is a separate subject as to what he himself meant by this term. Briefly, he meant one spoken to by Allah through wahy-i wilayat, whose revelation has no authority over the principles by which Islamic shariah is derived.)
The question arises, What powers and authority does a prophet without a shariah have, according to the Qadiani Jamaat conception? This question was answered by no less a personage than Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, Khalifa 2, in a khutba delivered on 4th July 1924. It can be read on their website www.alislam.org in the collection of his khutbas, Khutbat Mahmud, vol. 8, pages 448 to 460. I have extracted pages 454 to 457 from this which can be read at this link.
In the document at the above link, I have marked the relevant Urdu passages by a red line in the margin, which I translate below. The bolding is mine.
Page 454:
“Thus, those who receive the word of God are not ordinary human beings. … Such persons, whether with a shariah or without, hold the same status. If someone is called “without shariah” it only means that he brought no new command. Otherwise, no one can be a prophet who does not bring shariah. Of course, some bring a new shariah and some bring again the earlier shariah.
Therefore, ‘prophet with a shariah’ means that he is the first to bring the revelation. The Holy Prophet Muhammad is a prophet with a shariah, which means he brought the Quran first, and the Promised Messiah is a prophet without a shariah, which means he was not the first one to bring the Quran. Otherwise, he also brought the Quran.”
Regarding hadith and its transmission by reporters, he writes from the last line of page 454 over to page 455:
“You tell us, if one man hears something from a person’s own mouth, and another man hears it through other people, whose report will be trustworthy? It will be that man’s report who heard it himself. We do not say that the Promised Messiah could abrogate something said by the Holy Prophet Muhammad. But what others say [as to what the Holy Prophet said], is something they heard which was passed from one person to the next. So the question is not whether the Promised Messiah was a prophet with a shariah or without a shariah, but it is a question of the narrators, as to which narrator is more reliable. Is it those ten or twenty narrators who relate a hadith by passing on what they hear from one person to the next, or is it he who is the Messiah of God, who hears from God and tells it?”
Pages 456-457:
“It should also be remembered that when one prophet comes, the knowledge about the previous prophet comes only through him. It cannot be obtained directly. Every prophet is like a hole for viewing the previous prophet. A wall is placed in front of the earlier prophet and nothing of him can be seen except by looking through the prophet who has now come. This is why there is now no Quran except the Quran presented by the Promised Messiah, and no hadith except the hadith seen by the light of the Promised Messiah. And there is no prophet except him who is seen by means of the light cast by the Promised Messiah. In this way, the Holy Prophet Muhammad can only be seen if we look by means of the light of the Promised Messiah. If someone wants to see anything of the Holy Prophet through any means other than the Promised Messiah, he will see nothing. Similarly, if someone tries to see the Quran through other means, the Quran he will see will not be the Quran with which Allah ‘guides whom He pleases’ but it will be the Quran with which Allah ‘leaves in error whom He pleases’.”
Page 457:
“The state of the books of Hadith is that you can draw any conclusion from them. It is the work of a prophet to tell us which hadith is the result of human interference and which is the real word of the Holy Prophet.”
From the entire khutba it is clear that he is addressing his own Jamaat members here, and refuting the belief held by some of them that as the Promised Messiah was a prophet without a shariah therefore his rulings are not conclusive and binding.
We see here that when the reality of the powerlessness of a prophet without a shariah dawned on some members of the Qadiani Jamaat (that such a prophet is akin to the last powerless Mughal emperor of India, who could only do the bidding of the British East India Company!), Mirza Mahmud Ahmad then shifted the status of the Promised Messiah towards that of a prophet with a shariah. Since much of the shariah is based on Hadith, and reports in Hadith have been transmitted and compiled by human beings who were not appointed by Allah, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad exploited this as a loophole to place the revelation of the Promised Messiah over all Hadith. By this trick, he remains in name ‘prophet without a shariah’ but becomes in fact ‘prophet with a shariah’ because he can define and set Islamic shariah through his own revelation!
Let us now see what Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself said about the authority of Hadith.
He writes in three different books as follows. In the first two extracts, he is directly addressing his followers.
“You must value hadith because they are attributed to the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Unless they are belied by the Quran and Sunna, you also must not belie them. You ought to adhere to the hadith of the Holy Prophet so much so that for everything which you do, and everything which you refrain from doing, you find some support in a hadith. However, if there is a hadith which is in clear conflict with what is explained in the Quran, you must think about making it reconcile with the Quran. Perhaps the conflict is due to your own misunderstanding. If the conflict cannot be resolved by any means, then discard that hadith as not being from the Holy Prophet.” (Kishti-i Nuh, Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 19, p. 63).
“It should be the duty of our Jamaat to act on any hadith which is not in conflict with the Quran and Sunna, no matter how low the standard [of authenticity] of that hadith may be, and to prefer it over man-made Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh). And if no solution is found in hadith, not having been found in the Sunna or in the Quran, then they should act on the Hanafi Fiqh.” (Review on debate between Muhammad Husain Batalvi and Abdullah Chakralvi, Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 19, p. 212).
“He who denies those hadith of our Prophet which are free of criticism and not in conflict with the Quran, he is brother of the devil and has surely bought curse for his soul and wasted his faith. The Quran has precedence over everything, and the revelation of the hakam [i.e. the Promised Messiah] has precedence over those hadith which are doubtful, but on condition that his revelation is completely in accord with the Quran, and on condition that those hadith do not accord with the Quran and it is found that their statements are opposed to the statements of the pure scripture [i.e. the Quran].” (Mawahib-ur-Rahman, Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 19, p. 288).
What a world of difference between the great respect shown by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad towards Hadith, and the casual dismissal of Hadith by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad as “something they [the narrators] heard which was passed from one person to the next”!
As Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has so carefully elaborated, all hadith are to be accepted and acted upon, except those which are in conflict with the Quran and the Sunna of the Holy Prophet. Even for such hadith, we must do our best to reconcile them with the Quran. It is only if that proves impossible that his revelation has precedence over such hadith (i.e. the hadith which would be rejected anyway), but on condition that his revelation is in accord with the Quran, meaning that his revelation in such cases should be interpreted in such a way that it accords with the Quran.
Anyhow, now Qadiani Jamaat members have to explain how Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a prophet “without a shariah” when their second khalifa says that his revelation occupies a higher position than any hadith whatsoever, because he hears his revelation directly from God while every hadith was heard from a human narrator by a narrator who passed it further down. Therefore, according to this, Islamic shariah is now to be determined by the Quran first, the revelation of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad second, and the hadith third.
From ikram:
I want to thank Dr. Zahid Aziz for a thorough analysis and refutation of one of the many self-serving Qadiani polemics that get complicated with every next Khutba (-sermon) by the Qadiani Khalifas 2-5. Their statements are not only self-contradicting, but also conflict with Quran, Hadith and HMGA as well.
Dr. Aziz sums up – Anyhow, now Qadiani Jamaat members have to explain how Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a prophet "without a shariah"…
I would go even further – Anyhow, now Qadiani Jamaat members have to explain how Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a prophet "without Gabriel" (bringing the wahy of nubuwwat):
26:192. And verily this (Qur'ân) is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds.
26:193. The Spirit, Faithful to the Trust (– Gabriel) has descended with it.
26:194. (Revealing it) to your heart with the result that you became of the Warners (– a Prophet of God); [Nooruddin]
The above verses clearly elucidate the pre-requisites for a Prophet, firstly the Revelation itself and secondly, Gabriel bearing that Revelation as wahy-i nubuwwat. It is only after these requirements are met when the recipient becomes a Prophet i.e. with the result that you became of the Warners. History bears witness that no revelation from the High came via Gabriel after it terminated with Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). HMGA made no claims about Gabriel for himself bringing him wahy-i nubuwwat, which absolves him from any prophethood attributed to him by the Qadianis.
Thanks to Mirza Mahmud Ahmad that Qadianis believe in prophets after Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), but assuredly Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is not one of those prophets.
In summary through Qadiani lens, HMGA does not have a shariah. Even worse, Qadianis do not even have a prophet, no matter how much they want to believe in one.
From Mohammed Iqbal:
But they say (sometimes) that HMGA was a prophet Harun, who didn't have any Shariah of his own, as he was a part and parcel of the Prophethood of Moses. And also there is no book in the Bible called "Book of Aron".
From Zahid Aziz:
The following points need to be considered about prophet Aaron (Harun).
From ikram:
While on the subject of revelations and prophethood, I came across a rebuttal to Mirza Mahmud Ahmad by Maulana Muhammad Ali in one of his khutbas (sermons, see link), which is excerpted below. The sorry state of the childish logic of source spring of Qadiani dogmas, QK2, is so pathetic that it is not even laughable, only deplorable. Maulana Muhammad Ali states in his khutba – “This declaration of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib to be a prophet, is not only against the fundamentals of Islam, but to my mind also represents a serious attack on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib himself. The Qadianis by not closing the door of Prophethood after the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) have embarked on a very dangerous course and are in serious error. The most dangerous position is of those who hold this doctrine only because Mian Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud is their leader – as their own understanding is not clarified.”
I hope that Qadianis could objectively read the following and ask themselves as to what kind of an unintelligent person they are following? If QK2 is the pinnacle of Qadiani Jamaat, then what about each one of his followers, are they any better or worse than their Musleh Maud?
Prophethood and Abundance of Communication with God:
In his book Haqiqat-un-Nabuwwat (Reality of Prophethood), Mian Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Sahib has put forward a strange proposition that abundant revelation of the unseen constitutes prophethood. We can therefore infer from this, that those who receive a little bit of revelation are saints and those who receive abundantly become prophets. Very well – but the question now arises as to what quantum of revelation received is considered abundant? Surely God must have defined a threshold. Let us assume that God has set an amount of a hundred (100) revelations at which Prophethood is attained and if a person has less then hundred revelations he is a saint.
Two results follow necessarily:
Firstly, that nobody on receiving revelation becomes a prophet but only when the number of revelations reach the threshold (of say, 100) does he become a prophet. This is however inconsistent with the fact that a prophet at the time of his appointment becomes immediately a prophet.
The second result is that nobody can remain a saint – for he is a saint because he receives revelation from God. Now everyday with new revelation the amount of revelations is going to increase. So what would happen when he approaches the threshold of revelations needed for prophethood (say 99 revelations)? Either in future no more revelations would be received or God would cause him to die so that he does not progress to be a prophet and remains a saint.
When prophethood has been declared to be an abundance of prophethood [sic: revelation], then a limit has to be placed on the revelation that the saint can receive – after which they can receive no more revelations from God. Otherwise, if they continue to receive revelations, then the Qadianis are in a dilemma whether to declare these saints also as prophets or to concede that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was not a prophet.
Mian Bashiruddin Ahmad and Abundance of Divine Communication:
Let us leave aside the number of revelations required – and just focus on the words "Abundance of divine communications of the unseen" (Kusrut Amoor-e-Ghaibiyya). Now if the emphasis is only on these words – then at one time Mian Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud also became a prophet as in the 11th June 1914 edition of the newspaper Al-Fazal, a letter from Mian Bashir-ud-Din Ahmad has been published, wherein it is stated that "Abundant matters of the unseen are communicated to me." Yet, later on 5th March 1915, Mian Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud no longer remained a prophet for on this date in his Friday sermon he stated “I have also received some revelations and visions." Now contrast the words "abundance" with "some". Do they denote the same thing? Or if they differ then to what extent and which of these two opposing statements are correct? Finally, why was Mian Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad not a prophet on 11th June 1914?
Messengers are Required to Communicate their Revelations:
The more you examine a doctrine that is based on falsehood, the more the flaws will become apparent in it. There is a principle that can decide this matter. In this dispute one side’s arguments day by day are becoming flimsier while on the other side is characterised by strong arguments. So follow the side whose arguments are more sound. I am your leader (amir) and our opponents say that we have made an amir equivalent to their khalifa (spiritual master/leader). Yet, I say to you do not accept anything just because I say so (Maulana Muhammad Ali appears to be comparing his leadership to the approach of the Khalifa of Qadian whose doctrine was that disobeying a Khalifa is tantamount to entering the gates of hell). Definitely read the books written by Mian Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud. If you discern that they contain the truth then accept them.
The work of the prophet is to "deliver that which has been revealed to thee" (Holy Quran, Chapter 5, Verse 67). No prophet has ever hidden any revelation to him. Mian Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Sahib, however, states that thousands of revelations by God to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad remain unpublished (The Reality of Prophethood, page 694). In this case Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib cannot be considered a prophet, for if he were a prophet he should not have kept hidden these revelations, but, instead published them for public consumption and presented them as his message. Strange, the published revelations number around two to three hundred, and thousands are kept secret. All this clearly shows that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib was not a prophet.
I do not say to you that you should not read any particular book or publication (of the Qadianis). Rather my advice is that you examine everything, with an open mind and heart and then accept what you feel is true without any hesitation or half-heartedness.
From Umar:
I took the extract below from the sermon of Mirza Masroor Ahmad, the current head of the Quadiani branch of Ahmadiyyat.
The section reproduced below are from the writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad:
“Look, Allah, the Exalted, has likened the Holy Prophet (sa) to Moses (as) as is clear from the use of the word ‘kama.’ Hazrat Isa (as) – Jesus, was the last khalifa of the Mosaic dispensation as he has himself said, “I am the last brick.”
Similarly for the sake of protecting and maintaining the Muhammadi dispensation khulafa came and shall keep on coming till the Day of Judgement and in similar manner the last such Khalifa in the Muhammadi dispensation was named the Promised Messiah.
And not just this, that this was mentioned in an ordinary way, but rather the signs of his coming were made mention of in great detail in all the heavenly books. In the Bible and the Gospels and the ahadees and in the Holy Quran itself the signs of his coming have been laid out. And all the peoples, Christians, Jews and Muslims are awaiting his coming and believe in this.
Rejecting him can in no way be considered as being a part of Islam. And then when we consider that he is such a person in support of whom Allah has manifested signs in the heavens and in the earth – in support of his claim the plague was sent, and in his support the sign of the eclipses of the moon and the sun were shown at their appointed time. So can such a person in whose support the heavens and the earth have bore witness be considered an ordinary person accepting or rejecting whom may be considered equal or without consequence? And can people who reject him continue to be considered Muslims and the beloved of God? Certainly not!
What is the status of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad if his deniers are not considered Muslims?
From Zahid Aziz:
What is the reference to this extract from the writings Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad?
There may be a clue in: "And can people who reject him continue to be considered Muslims and the beloved of God?" while the questioner has reduced this to "if his deniers are not considered Muslims?"
Often when some act of terror is committed by a Muslim, one often hears other Muslims say: No Muslim could commit this act. They do not mean that the perpetrator was not a Muslim. They mean that to commit such an act is not consistent with being a Muslim.
From Zahid Aziz:
Dear Mr Umar: I have taken a look at that khutba by Mirza Masroor Ahmad sahib. He doesn't give the reference to where Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad made these statements but he does say the following, just before the extract that you quoted:
[Quote]
The Promised Messiah (as) answered:
“Look, just as a man who claims to have believed in Allah and His Messenger and His Book, but then fails to fulfill the requirements of the faith – salat, fasts, Hajj, Zakat, adopting righteousness and purity – and embrace those ordinances of the faith that relate to the attaining of purity of one’s self and abandoning and shunning of all evil and any tendency to commit sin and adopting all those ways that take one towards the doing of good – if such a one abandons all these directives and does not heed them such a one has no right to claim to be a Muslim…”
The Promised Messiah (as) says that a person who claims to have adopted Islam but does not follow its teachings and shun evil and adopt righteousness and do good, such a one does not have the right to call himself a Muslim.
[Unquote]
Here both the Promised Messiah in his quotation, and also Mirza Masroor Ahmad in his explanation after the quotation, say that someone calling himself a Muslim but not following and paying any attention to the teachings that a Muslim is required to follow — prayer, fasting, etc. and also shunning evil and doing good — does not have the right to call himself a Muslim.
It is quite obvious that this applies also to any Ahmadis (whether Qadiani or Lahori, of course) who fail to follow the teachings mentioned above. It is an observed and undeniable fact that there are many such Ahmadis who fall in this category (and I don't exclude even myself from it).
From Muslim from Pakistan:
Dr. Aziz,
What you people are overlooking is that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed authenticated the hadith of the eclipses in 1894. He authenticated the hadith about the age of Esa (as). What his son was saying in the above is that his father had the authority to tell Ahmadis what hadith were good and which ones were bad. And that was exactly what he did.
The hadith of eclipse was not a trust worthy one. However, Allah told Mirza Ghulam Ahmed that it was. This is the phenomena that is quoted in the above.
In conclusion, Mirza Ghulam Ahmed had the ability to pick and choose whatever hadith that he liked as he created his new religion.
From Zahid Aziz:
It is rather revealing how it is the anti-Ahmadiyya who jump to defend the Qadiani Jamaat. No Qadiani Jamaat member has commented, out of their "tens of millions" or "hundreds of millions".
The two hadith whose example is given by "Muslim from Pakistan" (who is one of 180 million Pakistanis) would not be declared untrue in any case under the principle laid down by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, as quoted by me above, that a hadith has to be in conflict with the Quran, and also we cannot find any way to resolve that conflict by placing the Quran uppermost, before we can proceed to reject it.
Regarding the hadith about eclipses, Hazrat Mirza sahib writes that if a prophecy stated in a hadith is fulfilled by actual events then it must be true. And there are many other hadith with prophecies about which many Muslims (i.e. not Ahmadi kafirs like us but Pakistan constitutionally certified Muslims) believe and proclaim with enthusiasm that they have been fulfilled.
Also, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has written that such prophecies might, it is possible, be fulfilled again literally. He writes about the "rising of the sun from the west" prophecy that what Allah has shown him about it (i.e. spread of Islam in Western countries) is one interpretation, and that it might be fulfilled literally at the real ending of the world. Today many Muslims proclaim happily that this is the prophecy of the spread of Islam in the West, not knowing who gave this hadith this interpretation.
As to the hadith about the age of Jesus, it would be in conflict with the Quran if according to the Quran Jesus were still alive. If Hazrat Mirza sahib had said "Allah has told me that this hadith is true, therefore I now interpret the Quran under the authority of this hadith", then our critic would be correct in objecting. But Hazrat Mirza sahib first established from the Quran, independently, that Jesus has died. Therefore, this hadith accorded with the Quran.
As readers will see, just like Qadianis, our Muslim critic has jumped to establish a general rule that "Mirza Ghulam Ahmed had the ability to pick and choose whatever hadith that he liked", whereas Hazrat Mirza sahib followed clearly-explained principles which I quoted above, making it absolutely impossible for him to pick and choose any hadith and declare it true or false.
This "generalisation" is exactly what the opponents of Islam do in case of the Quran's teaching about war. The Quran first specifies unmistakably whom the Muslims can fight (i.e. those who attack them first). Then it says: "kill them wherever you find them". Critics of Islam say: The Quran allows Muslims to pick and choose whoever they want to, to wage war against.
Of course, Qadianis and their fellow-traveller anti-Ahmadiyya "Muslims from Pakistan" have a concept of religious leadership where the leaders can do anything arbitrarily (Khalifas for Qadianis, and Maulvis and Pakistan government for Pakistani Muslims). Hence they cannot understand how principles can be above persons.
From Zahid Aziz:
I would like to add that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had a great love for the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) and his words. This is the difference between him on the one hand, and the Qadiani Jamaat and the anti-Ahmadiyya groups together on the other hand.
This is why he always wanted the Holy Prophet's reported words to be proved true, and for a hadith to be considered true rather than false, if at all possible. This is why he was devoted to glorifying the Holy Prophet Muhammad and the Islam as taught by the Holy Prophet.
Belief in him as Mahdi (for which one evidence is the hadith about eclipses) equated, as he himself wrote, to rejecting the concept of a Mahdi who would spread Islam by the sword, and therefore refuting a great allegation against Islam that it spreads by force.
Belief in death of Jesus (aided by the hadith about his age), again as Hazrat Mirza sahib himself wrote several times, leads to death of the idea of his being Divine and as being the final saviour of all mankind including Muslims, and as superior to the Holy Prophet Muhammad. So he fought to establish the superiority of the Holy Prophet.
From Muslim from Pakistan:
Dr. Aziz,
I am not defending anyone. I am simply explaining to you what you had most-properly left out of your article. You should commend me for pointing out some HOLES in your explanation.
The principles that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib laid down are opportunistic and show what his real motive was.
You wrote: "Hazrat Mirza sahib writes that if a prophecy stated in a hadith is fulfilled by actual events then it must be true."
This is not true. And even if it was, the hadith about the eclipses didn't even happen the way that they should have happened, this was when your mujadid got creative. He did the same thing with the Esa (as) lived til age 120 theory. That hadith from Kanzul-ummul doesnt even mean what Mirza was trying to make it mean.
About the hadith about the sin rising from the West, Muslims have commented on it in the past and they continue to comment, that is OUR perogative. Just because your Mujadid had a budget to write books and send them out he deserves NO copyright on any arguments. Even Sir Syed said that Esa (as) had died, however, he was not the first Muslim to hold such a view, however, Ahmadis don't give him any credit and call it their own idea.
You people made Jesus die, you needed him to be dead so that your Mujadid could claim himself as the return. Which is really sad. Mutawafeeka is a singular-occurring expression in Arabic. It occurs in the Quran only once. What do you think the reason is? Obviously, it was describing a unique event. English translators also made the error of writing that this expression meant death (see George Sale). What your Mujadid did was exploit a grammar issue from the Quran as he claimed to be the Messiah Maud.
Your Mujadid didn't authenticate the hadith of the eclipses before he read about them in newspapers or he got word from govt. officials. If he would have predicted these eclipses 5 years before they happened …that could be impressive. Instead, he first denied the concept of the Mahdi (1891), however, 3 years later he recanted.
From Muslim from Pakistan:
Dr. Aziz,
Your Mujadid may have loved the HP. It was that religion which was bringing in monies for him. I could see that. However, we have strong evidence which proves that he was only in it for the money and since he was highly-educated in 19th century standards, he was able to trick Indians into believing that some Arabic words had been mis-translated by Arabs.
We believe that your Mujadid was decieving. First he claimed to just be a Mujadid with the likeness of Esa and other characteristics. However, 7 years later he changed his mind and claimed to be Esa. In 1891, he denied the entire concept of the Mahdi, however, in 1894, he changed his mind and claimed it for himself, however, denying the violent aspect of the Mahdi. The same was done with prophethood.
This was the beggining of your religion….
From Zahid Aziz:
I have published the two comments above only to show what level of falsehood these people stoop to, and their purpose is simply to use any topic as an excuse to start making other allegations. Because they lose if we remain on any one topic, this is why they start throwing wider accusations around to conceal their loss.
They also believe, like the Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Geobbels, that if you repeat a lie often enough, then people will believe it to be true. Hence he repeats that Hazrat Mirza sahib created "a new religion".
He wrote in his first comment: "In conclusion, Mirza Ghulam Ahmed had the ability to pick and choose whatever hadith that he liked as he created his new religion."
But he admits that he and his fellows "pick and choose" hadith when he says: "About the hadith about the sun rising from the West, Muslims have commented on it in the past and they continue to comment, that is OUR perogative."
Who is "our" here? Just define whom you include in "our". Does it include the other Ghulam Ahmad (Pervez, from Lahore in Pakistan) who denied all hadith and used to publish hadith having such content which he could ridicule and make his readers laugh at.
"Muslim from Pakisan", can never, and will never, define who is this "our", who possess this "perogative" to interpret hadith.
If Hazrat Mirza sahib were creating a new religion, he would be "picking and choosing" those hadith which deal with the fundamentals of Islam, not the ones whose examples "Muslim from Pakistan" is giving. He would, for eaxmple, be rejecting those hadith which say that "there is no prophet after me". But what does he write about those hadith? He wrote:
" the hadith ‘There is no prophet after me’ … doubt about its authenticity … possible that any prophet should come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad"
Our opponent should fill in the blanks above as indicated by …, and also let us know the year when he wrote this!
He repeats in both his comments above that Hazrat Mirza sahib denied the entire concept of Mahdi in 1891. Can he provide any proof of this?
You see, respected blog readers, if instead of asking him to prove it, we disprove his accusation, he will claim he never said it. But if we let him repeat it again and again, he will have difficulty in denying that he said it! So let him provide the evidence of his charge.
Of course he can reply that it is "OUR perogative" to make any accusation without evidence!
From ikram:
The post by “Muslim from Pakistan” made me re-check the beliefs of “your religion” i.e. of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement. I found those beliefs as reflected in the following sample verses:
47:19. So know that there is no god but Allah…
48:29. Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah…
La ilaha ill-Allah, Muhammad-ur rasul-ullah – "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah"
2:163. And your God is One God, there is no other, cannot be and will never be One worthy of worship but He, the Most Gracious, the Ever Merciful.
5:3. …This day have I perfected for you your faith and completed My blessings upon you and have chosen Islam for your religion…
33:40. Muhammad is no father to any man among you but (he is rather) the Messenger of Allâh and the Seal of the Prophets. Indeed Allâh has full knowledge of all things.
34:28. (Prophet!) We have sent you not but towards entire mankind (till the end of time) as a Bearer of glad-tidings and as a Warner but most people do not know (that the Message of Islam is universal and the Qur'ân the last revealed Book).
4:136. O you who believe! maintain faith in Allâh and in His Messenger and in this perfect Book which He has revealed to His perfect Messenger and in the Scripture He revealed before. And whoso denies Allâh and His angels and His Books and His Messengers and the Last Day, he has indeed strayed far away (from the truth).
3:4. … And He has revealed (the Qur'ân as) the Criterion of judgement (between truth and falsehood)…
But, if we reverse check the faith of “Muslim from Pakistan”, can he make the following statement for himself:
33:40. Muhammad is no father to any man among you but (he is rather) the Messenger of Allâh and the Seal of the Prophets. Indeed Allâh has full knowledge of all things.
Besides, if Jesus disappeared at age 33 from Palestine into thin air and did not die at age 120, then how can the same "Muslim from Pakistan" justify the old age of Jesus in Quran:
3:46. `And he will speak to the people when in the cradle (- as a child) and when of old age, and shall be of the righteous.'
If Jesus along with his mother did not emigrate out of Palestine to Kashmir, then how with "Muslim from Pakistan" reconcile the following verse:
23:50. And We made the son of Mary [– Jesus] and his mother a sign, (and a model of virtue), and We gave them both refuge upon a worth-living lofty plateau abounding in (green and fruitful) valleys and springs of running water. [Note the key word “refuge” i.e. the final destination of an escape]
Before we even discuss return of actual Jesus son of Mary, it is advised that he read the following link in light of Quran because Quran is the ultimate Criterion of judgement:
http://www.ahmadiyya.org/islam/deathofj.htm
Since the “Muslim from Pakistan” is talking about hadith, then he can read the same subject from hadith:
http://www.ahmadiyya.org/islam/deathj-h.htm
From Zahid Aziz:
Here is an important question for "Muslim from Pakistan", and I apologise to blog readers as they will not be able to fully comprehend it, but I am sure he will:
Do you think that Margaret should call the California police and report that you have stolen her identity and are using it to post religious views which are not hers, and moreover that these are hate messages against a community? I am sure the secretary to a Dean of Faculty at a college would wish action to be taken against this theft of her identity by "Muslim from Pakistan". Now it is "OUR prerogative" to report you.
From ikram:
One of the ridiculous arguments of the “Muslim from Pakistan” is:
“Your Mujadid didn't authenticate the hadith of the eclipses before he read about them in newspapers or he got word from govt. officials. If he would have predicted these eclipses 5 years before they happened …that could be impressive.”
What the "Muslim from Pakistan" is challenging us is that since HMGA did not foretell the above event hence the truthfulness of his claim could not be accepted. Essentially, he is making the same argument that any hater of Islam and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) will make as to why did the Prophet not prophesize about his conquest of Makkah with 10,000 followers – “5 years before they happened …that could be impressive” i.e. the prophecy in Bible, which every Muslim is quick to claim as evidence of truthfulness of Islam:
He said, “The Lord came from Sinai and dawned from Seir upon us; he shone forth from Mount Paran; he came from the ten thousands of holy ones, with flaming fire at his right hand. — Deuteronomy 33:2 (English Standard Version Anglicised)
If foretelling the eclipse is a sign of truthfulness for the “Muslim from Pakistan” then one has to look no farther than the biggest exploitation in history, the rape of three continents and its people, plunder of its resources, enslavement of Africans and shipment to Americas, all of which only followed after Columbus predicted lunar eclipse in March 1504 (see link).
Historically, the prophecy of Lunar and Solar eclipses (see link) was about a yet to be experienced event which was objective enough in nature that any Muslim or non-Muslim of the time could had witnessed. When the Muslims all over the world witnessed the two eclipses in the same month, and since they knew the said prophecy beforehand, then it was incumbent on them at that time, and even now, to ask the basic question as to had anyone claimed a divine office before (not after) the event? Yes, HMGA had claimed that office before, during and after the event; else any Tom, Dick and Harry can make that claim after the fact in the manner the “Muslim from Pakistan” stated above and repeated below:
“…he read about them in newspapers or he got word from govt. officials. If he would have predicted these eclipses 5 years before they happened …that could be impressive.”
HMGA by quoting the said event is only drawing attention to his beforehand claim, the event itself and how the hadith ties these two together.
For the readers’ interest, in 1882 HMGA based on a revelation claimed the office of a Mujaddid , formed the Ahmadiyya community and started to take the pledge in 1889, and in 1891 declared himself further based upon revelation that he is the Mehdi and the Promised Messiah. The said eclipses occurred during Ramadan which was in the month of April 1894.
The “Muslim from Pakistan” is disgusted with HMGA because he was not a violent Mehdi despite his claim. Little does he know that the myth of a bloody Mehdi converting non-believers to Islam under the threat of sword would foremost abrogate and trample Quran, because the Books states otherwise:
2:256. There is no compulsion of any sort in religion (as) the right way does stand obviously distinguished from the way of error…
If by some mythological accident there is physical return of Jesus son of Mary, then such a Messiah instead of killing the swine and breaking the cross would instead be breaker of the seal of the finality of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH):
33:40. Muhammad is no father to any man among you but (he is rather) the Messenger of Allâh and the Seal of the Prophets…