The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

@Bashir:
 
You need to know why Mujjaddids come. Mujjaddid do not come to overhaul all teachings of Rasul Allah SAWS. They have specific purpose and mission. There scope of their mission is rather limited. Usually they come to tackle issues that are contrary to Islamic teachings prevailing in a Muslim society or to help that society to better understand Holy Quran. This is the reason that more than one Mujjaddids can come in same era but in different geographical locations. Moreover, Mujjaddids do NOT voice their opinion or correct any prevailing opinion among Muslims of his era, until and unless they are directed by Allah SWT, directly.
 
In time of Suyuti, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Kathir, ibn abbas and many other mujadids, Christianity was neither a dominant religion in world nor Christians were preaching their religion to Muslims. No Christian country was colonizing Muslim lands and supporting Christian missionary activities. The issue of ‘death of Jesus’ became an important issue only in time of HMGA.
 
Allah SWT directly informed HMGA that Eisa A.S. is physically dead. So he preached it. Allah SWT did NOT inform him that a human fathered Eisa A.S., so he held belief prevailing among Muslims that Jesus birth was immaculate. Similarly he held belief, prevailing among Muslims, that Rasul Allah SWAS performed miracle of ‘moon splitting’.

Here is another way of looking at Bashir’s question. It is widely believed by Muslims today that the Holy Quran has mentioned certain facts unknown to any human beings till they were discovered by modern science.  For example, it is said that the Quran describes the earth as being in the shape of an egg, as the word occurring in 79:30 can be translated in this way. Yet neither the Holy Prophet, nor any mujaddid, nor any classical commentator, stated that this verse means this. Indeed one Muslim writer raises and deals with the following questions:

“If the Noble Quran says the earth is “egg-shaped” … then why couldn’t Prophet Muhammad just say it clear in plain Arabic?”

“So why didn’t the Arabs and the Prophet understand dahaha as “egg-shaped” 1,500 years ago?”

The answer given is that the Holy Prophet did not know everything and that he himself said that “he was sent to reveal pithy words that encompass many meanings and topics, which are short in quantity and rich in meanings and interpretations.”

Anyhow, you can read his explanation at this link.

The writer also says: “Since the Prophet of Islam only knew little, especially from the unseen, and since he never said that the earth is egg-shaped or spherical, then it is quite clear that he did not know that the earth was indeed egg-shaped.”

(By the way, if an Ahmadi were to say “the Prophet of Islam only knew little” he would be charged with insulting the Holy Prophet!)

So all those Muslims, like admirers of Zakir Naik, who are ecstatic that the Quran contains this or that discovery of modern science, are also saying that the earlier Muslims including the Holy Prophet did not know that these verses carried these interpretations.

Please note, however, that in case of the issue of the death of Jesus, the Holy Prophet and his immediate followers did believe and did state that he died, although they had no need to go into any further details in their times.

The works of M. Ali and others do help in understanding Quran. If there arises a genuine confusion or doubt in the reader’s mind the Quran provides a remedy:

10:94. And if you (O reader!) are in doubt regarding that which We have revealed to you, ask those who have read this Book (- the Qur’ân) before you. (They will tell you that) there has, infact, come to you the perfect truth from your Lord, so be not of the contenders at all.

But Quran itself does not need any consensus of opinion of classical scholars to expound its meanings else it would be a Book of/for/by the traditionalists, locked away in past and in a culture far removed from rest of the world. It would be closed to newer and contemporary interpretations. Quranic message is not a novelty and it is already latent in human mind:

29:49. Nay, (far from being an invention) this (Qur’ân) is full of clear signs in the minds of those who have been given true knowledge. It is only the unjust indeed who deny Our signs deliberately.

And there are no “secretive transmissions” in the book that needs a code to unlock them:

39:23. Allâh has revealed the best Message (the fairest discourse), this wonderfully coherent Book (the verses of which are mutually supplementing and) repeated, (narrating both sides of the case in various ways to drive home the divine injunctions to human minds). It makes the (very) skins of those who stand in awe of their Lord creep and their hearts tremble (at its recital). Yet their hearts and skins soften towards the remembrance of Allâh. This is Allâh’s guidance, He guides him thereby who wishes (to be guided). Yet none can guide him whom Allâh forsakes and adjudges to be astray.

41:3. (It is) a Book, the verses of which are detailed and clear in exposition. It is beautifully inter linked, (and it is in a language that) makes the meanings eloquently clear. It is very useful for a people who have knowledge.

What the Quran is not:

69:41. It is not at all the word of a poet. Little is the faith you have!
69:42. Neither it is the word of a soothsayer. Little is the heed you give!
[translations above: Allamah Nooruddin]
And as to who are those who have been given knowledge? It is us all who are open logic:

13:03. Verily, in all this there are messages indeed for people who think [Muhammad Asad]
 

In my opinion, Islam is hard to decode totally. Traditions dont explain all the koranic verses. But when a tradition does explain a koranic verse like 4:69, that definition must be considered as paramount.

4:69 was connected to a hadith from sahih bukhari. Thats the end of the story. This verse must be explained using this authentic tradition. It is not right to add new definitions to koranic verses.

I am afraid that next year muslims will find an obscure Koranic passage and link it to quantum-mechanics, and then say, “look allah told us all along”.

Obscure Koranic passages should be defined as just what they are, “obscure”.

I have gone through the comments. The issue of death of Prophet Essa was not the basis on which Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was charged. He declared himself to be a prophet and thus attained the wrath of the muslims. The issue of Hazrat Essa is a debateable issue and one can form his own opinion according to his understanding of Quran and Islam.

ZA is totally correct in what he wrote. Amjad Shah almost gives the impression that HMGA was declared a Kafir in 1901, which is incorrect as stated above.

My contention is that it doesnt matter if Jesus died or not. All the mujadids and scholars agreed that Jesus would physically return (nuzul).

It doesnt matter if Jesus died or physically ascended. It doesnt matter. He was to return physically. Obviosuly the Koran is confusing on this point. The Koran does not tell us clearly enough in terms of how Jesus left this planet.

Ironically, there isnt one single verse of the Koran that directly speaks of Jesus’ return or any Mahdi figure or any mujaddid for that fact.

And I thought ahmadis(q&L) believed against any hadith that wasnt supported by the Koran. Isnt the return of jesus unsupported by the Koran.

If Jesus’ return (and the mahdi, and the mujadid) isnt directly mentioned in the Koran, why do we believe the hadith on the matter?

All of the examples as stated above show that the Koran does not directly sanction the return of jesus, whether spiritually or physically.

Nor does it mention anything about a mahdi.

Nor does it mention anything about any mujadids.

FYI: Only 1 tradition in the history of Islam supports the idea of mujadids, that is abu daud.

Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim did not add that tradition into their book.

I wonder why?

Furthermore

Abu Daud died in 888

Imam Bukhari died in 870

Imam Muslim died in 878

Imam Muslim and Bukhari either didnt find this tradition among any of the people or they rejected it, thus disallowing it to enter into their respective books.

77:11. And when the Messengers shall be made to appear (in the guise of one person) at the appointed time. (It is after that the Resurrection shall take place).[Nooruddin]

http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2009/05/08/sura-al-mursalat/#comment-2604

What is this  “muslim thought process” that you keep referring to? Since everything going against it is wrong, you must have a bullet-proof definition.

It is absolutely incorrect that “Muslims have always considered Sahih Bukhari as 100% authentic”. It is a human compilation of reports passed from one person to another along a line of narrators. They passed Bukhari’s stringent tests as to the narrators’ truthfulness and reliability, but a narrator could have misheard some words in a report, heard it only partially (thus out of context), not remembered some words etc.

Also it is agreed that his collection cannot possibly be complete, i.e. there are authentic reports which did not reach Bukhari, or a report may fail Bukhari’s tests technically yet still be true.

People known as muqallid, who follow schools of Fiqh, such as Hanafis all over the Indian subcontinent, have always followed the imams’ rulings even if they contradict hadith reports. It was as a reaction to this that the Wahhabi/Ahl-i hadith type movements (ghair muqallid) started a couple of centuries ago, laying more stress on hadith than fiqh.

Here is a view of those who hold fiqh above hadith. According to them, a person can’t draw valid conclusions merely by reading reports in hadith books, let alone reports only in Bukhari.

In answer to the question, “Did HMGA ever say that any report in Bukhari or Muslim was questionable?”, yes he did, sometimes quite plainly.

Here is a point about Bukhari. The schools of Fiqh which most Muslims follow (Hanafi, Shafi`i, Maliki, Hanbali) all originated before Bukhari. Abu Hanifa produced his Fiqh a hundred years before Bukhari, and therefore he did not rely on Bukhari’s collection. So the huge numbers of Muslims who follow the Hanafi Fiqh can’t be said to followers of Sahih Bukhari, even though they may accept his collection.

Clarification needed from Dr. ZA:

Bashir said: “Ahmadiyya thought process is that they don’t accept a hadith if that report isn’t supported in the Koran.”

Is this a correct statement? Or is it that any Hadith that contradicts the Quran is unacceptable. For exaample a Hadith that is not explicitly supported by the Quran but is not in contradiction with it either would be acceptable (all other things being equal).

Tariq you are correct.  THIS IS EXACTLY MY POINT.  THIS IS EXACTLY WHY I AM FRUSTRATED WITH THE AHMADIS.

Imam Bukhari went to great lengths to figure out the authentic traditions. He worked his whole life to do this.  And now, some muslims have found errors in his work, thus critisizing it to fit their needs.  Al-Bukhari traveled widely throughout the Abbasid empire for sixteen years, collecting those traditions he thought trustworthy. It is said that al-Bukhari collected over 300,000 hadith and included only 2,602 traditions in his Sahih however, this number contradicts the number given by Ibn al-Salah, 7275 hadith, as mentioned above.

Here are some references:

Abridged from Hady al-Sari,the introduction to Fath al-Bari, by Ibn Hajr, pg. 8-9 Dar al-Salaam edition.

“At the time when Bukhari saw [the earlier] works and conveyed them, he found them, in their presentation, combining between what would be considered sahih and hasan and that many of them included da’if hadith. This aroused his interest in compiling hadith whose authenticity was beyond doubt. What further strengthened his resolve was something his teacher, Ishaq ibn Ibrahim al-Hanthalee – better known as Ibn Rahoyah – had said. Muhammad ibn Ismaa’eel al-Bukhari said, “We were with Ishaq ibn Rahoyah who said, ‘If only you would compile a book of only authentic narrations of the Prophet.’ This suggestion remained in my heart so I began compiling the Sahih.” Bukhari also said, “I saw the Prophet in a dream and it was as if I was standing in front of him. In my hand was a fan with which I was protecting him. I asked some dream interpreters, who said to me, ‘You will protect him from lies.’ This is what compelled me to produce the Sahih.”

AND ANOTHER:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahih_Bukhari#cite_note-11

One million or more hadiths were in circulation by the end of the second century A.H. The task of collecting, classifying, and appraising them were formidable. However, Muslim scholars worked on them with diligence. Often they had to travel thousands of miles in order to ascertain the probability of one link in the chain of reporters, or the veracity of one word or expression in the text of a hadith. But they were more than willing to pay the price, for the matter concerned their religion and their Prophet. The study took several generations to complete, and resulted in universal acceptance of six collections as authoritative. These are the works of al Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, al Nasa’i, al Tirmidhi, and Ibn Majah. Two other collections were regarded by some Muslims as equally authoritative: those of Malik ibn Anas and Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Beyond these, there were many other collections which scholars classified as untrustworthy because their authors were lax in applying the criteria of the disciplines. These untrustworthy collections included some true hadiths as well as those that were weak, problematic, or doubtful. Other collections were notorious for their sectarianism and prejudice.

In answer to Usman’s question, the Ahmadiyya view is to try as far as possible to interpret even those hadith which appear contrary to the Quran in a way that they can be accepted. So if a hadith doesn’t conflict with the Quran, obviously there is no difficulty in accepting it. Please remember also that such a hadith must still fall under the broad scope of some principle taught in the Quran.

In 1902, Hazrat Mirza sahib commented on a debate between a leader of the Ahl-i hadith grouping (Maulvi Muhammad Husain Batalvi) and a leader of the then-new ahl-i Quran movement (Maulvi Abdullah Chakralvi, who rejected all hadith). In this ‘review’ of the debate he wrote:

“It should be the duty of our Jamaat to act upon any hadith which does not contradict the Quran and Sunna, no matter how low its standard of authenticity, and to give it preference over any man-made ruling of Fiqh. If they do not find an answer in Hadith, and they have not found an answer in the Quran nor in the Sunna, in that case they should act on the Hanafi fiqh because the prevalence of its following is an argument as to the intention of God. If, due to the changed circumstances of the present times, the Hanafi Fiqh does not provide a satisfactory ruling, then the scholars of this Movement should employ their own, God-given judgment. But they must be careful not to reject Hadith reports without reason, as Maulvi Abdullah Chakralvi does. However, if they find a hadith which contradicts the Quran and Sunna, they must reject it.

They must remember that our Jamaat is closer in belief to the Ahl-i Hadith than to Abdullah, and we have no connection at all with his absurd ideas. Everyone in our Jamaat must turn away from and reject Abdullah Chakralvi’s views about Hadith reports … They should neither exaggerate the status of hadith, like the grouping of Maulvi Muhammad Husain does, nor degrade its status like Abdullah does, but be of moderate belief in this matter. That is, they must neither treat hadith as if it were their only qibla and ka’ba, thereby departing from and forsking the Quran, nor should they consider hadith reports to be useless so that these reports from the Holy Prophet go entirely to waste.”

(Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 19, p. 212-213)

In your original question you had asked “Bukhari or Muslim”, and the reference that came to my mind was where he has mentioned that a hadith about the coming of Jesus in Sahih Muslim “has doubts sticking to it like ants”, and that the same hadith was rejected by Bukhari as not meeting his standard.

“This is the hadith which Imam Muslim has recorded in Sahih Muslim, which has been omitted by Bukhari, the chief of the collectors of hadith, because he considered it to be weak.” (Izala Auham, p. 220)

“As against this [i.e. the Quranic statement], that same doubtful hadith of Sahih Muslim is presented which has hundreds of objections sticking to it like ants, and which in its apparent words is utterly opposed to the Holy Quran and contradictory to it. … It is a favour we have done to the author of Sahih Muslim that we accepted this hadith by giving it a different interpretation; otherwise it was our right to declare this hadith as fabricated in order to remove the contradiction. But, after thinking carefully, it is found that in fact this hadith is not fabricated but is full of metaphors.” (Tuhfa Golarwiya, pages 46-47).

Another point which I had forgotten is that the “return” of Jesus is not mentioned in any hadith whatsoever. Nor is descent “from heaven” mentioned anywhere. The word used is “nuzul” or descent, which is a word also commonly applied to someone merely arriving, such as a visitor.

I understand the ahmadi(q&L) thought process.  Frankly speaking I dont agree with it.  You guys find faults with Bukhari but then authenticate a riduculous hadith from Kanzull-ummul, in terms of the age of Jesus—this logic is not fair.

Lets review some things here:

1.  The Koran is out of order, it is very hard to find the context of lots of verses.  All the mufassirs who ever existed claimed that the Koran had many contradictions in it, i.e. MANSUKH.

1.a.  Subsequently the ahmadis(q) have changed the context of numerous verses like 4:69, 33:40, 2:5, etc etc etc.  And the AAIIL totally agree with me on this. 

2.  Bukhari could have errors, Muslim could have errors in it, all hadith books are open to errors.  

2.a. The 4 schools of thought also have many errors in them.  Oddly enough they all believed in the theory of MANUSKH–but the ahmadis dont agree with them in this respect.

3.  The history writers of Islam were all liars, they claimed the prophet lusted after women, they are the reference point for the satanic verses.  etc etc etc

4.  All the mujadids that allah inspired/sent never even understood the Koran at all.  They were all incorrect about Jihad as well.  They all viewed the Koran as a contradicting book.  And they were all wrong to believe that Jesus would physically descend from the heavens. 

So this is the state of affairs for the muslims.  The ahmadis(q&L) use a policy of picking and choosing.   I am totally against picking and choosing.  I want to view Kanzul-ummul in its entirety so that I can see what other ridiculous things exist therin. 

My problem is this:  How do I know what is accurate and what isnt?  There appears to be so much confusion inside Islam, how does a person properly understand it?

FYI:  I was looking for an instance where HMGA dis-credited a report from Bukhari, especially in terms of apostacy, or MANSUKH.  I dont think that he ever wrote such a thing.  

Thank you ZA for finding that report by HMGA where he found fault with a report from Muslim.  Again, HMGA did not discredit Muslim in terms of apostacy or MANSUKH.   

These are my thoughts….
 

Bashir, please be clear about you believe. I have been utterly confused about your thought process.

Do you believe the Qur’an has no arrangement to it, and contradicts itself?

Do you believe that blasphmers should be put to death?

Do you believe Islam teaches apostates should be put to death?

Do you believe that Islam teaches Muslims to impose Islam on non-Muslim nations by force.

Do you believe the Holy Prophet Muhamamd was a sinner?

If so, with such beliefs, what makes you convinced then that Islam is a religion from God?

And also, what makes you different the Taliban mentality and view of Islam? Which Muslim country today do you view as practicing the ideals of Islam? 

Which party of Islam or school of thought do you suggest we follow. Which school of thought do you follow?

First let me write that I am very appreciative that the aaiil has afforded me the opportunity to write freely on their blog. You people have been very kind to me over the past couple of years.

For Omar:

I believe Islam was a violent religion as was Judaism and Christianity. The prophet Joshua did some horrendous things on his journey into the promised land.

Now when I say violent I mean like the USA, like the UK. Both of these countries killed millions of innocent people en-route to global domination. This was standard operating procedure for any kingdom that was trying to expand. I believe that these things were needed for evolution of the human.

So, when I call the muslims violent I am not comdeming them. I am only stating the obvious. When Islam was not a nation they were very peaceful, as Islam emerged into a national power they became aggressive, see Chapter 9. A strong defense is a good offense.

2. Yes, I believe that the Koran is poorly arranged and the context can be easily changed as needed, see the qadianis and 33:40 & 4:69 & 2:5 just for some basic examples.

3. I believe in freedom of speech, barbaric societies like the ones that sprang up in the middle east and everywhere on this planet did not believe in freedom of speech. This is a basic concept of anthropology.

3.a. You tell me, before the european renaissance what country or nation allowed there leaders to be ridiculed on a national scale. Who defamed the HP and lived to tell about it without repenting?

4. As far as the punishment for apostacy goes. In a military society if a member of the military quits that particular organization and gives up secrets to its rival, the punishment is death. Leaving Islam is somewhat the same situation. In a barbaric society quitting a religion was punishable by death, although there were exceptions to the rule.

4.a. I was in the US military and the punishment for treason was death. Even if we were POW’s and we gave up crucial info to the enemy the punishment was death. If we quit and joined the communist or a rival of the USA, the punishment was death. Check the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, UCMJ.

5. I believe that Islam allows other nations to pay Jizyah–this was an arab custom. Islam conquered Tabuk, they charged the people of Tabuk 1 dinar per person(MUIR). Why did the HP even ask for jizyah?
Why didnt he deliver the message and go home?
The people of Tabuk didnt need the protection of the HP, nor did they ask for it. If someone shows up to you doorstep with 1000 warriors, what would you do? Also, The HP accepted jizyah before allah even authorized its acceptance. Jizyah was authorized after the return from Tabuk, I THINK..

6. I dont think that the HP was a sinner, I think he was human. I think he advised as he saw fit. He was able to have as many women as he so desired. He did whatever he thought that he needed to do spread the message of Islam. I respect him greatly.

7. I will answer the rest later….

@Bashir:
“So, when I call the muslims violent I am not comdeming them. I am only stating the obvious. When Islam was not a nation they were very peaceful, as Islam emerged into a national power they became aggressive, see Chapter 9. A strong defense is a good offense.”
 
Had you read following book, you would not have written above quote:
The Early Caliphate:
by Maulana Muhammad Ali
Biographies of: Hazrat Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman and Ali (rta)
 

A comprehensive book everyone should read is: The Preaching of Islam, A History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith, by Sir T.W. Arnold, 2nd edition, 1913.

There are several reprints of it published in India and Pakistan.

Sir T.W. Arnold was teacher of Allama Iqbal in Lahore, and returned to England to write the above book, proving conclusively that Islam spread by preaching not force.

The copyright must have expired long ago, so someone should scan it and place it online. When you read it you wonder why no Muslim ever did research of this kind! Muslims did however translate it into various languages of Muslim countries.

Contents: Chapter 1: Introduction; Chapter II. Study of the Life of Muhammad Considered as a Preacher of Islam; Chapter III. The Spread of Islam Among the Christian Nations of Western Asia; Chapter IV. The Spread of Islam Among the Christian nations of Africa; Chapter V. The spread of Islam Among the Christian of Spain; Chapter VI. The Spread of Islam Among the Christian Nations in Europe under the Turks; Chapter VII. The Spread of Islam in Persia and Central Asia; Chapter VIII. The Spread of Islam among the Mongols and Tatars; Chapter IX. The Spread of Islam in India; Chapter X. The Spread of Islam in China; Chapter XI. The Spread of Islam in Africa; Chapter XII. The Spread of Islam in the Malay ARchipelago; Chapter XIII. Conclusion;

Wow, I have alot of writing to do….
Thank you guys again for allowing me this oppurtunity to discuss Islam. I think some of the anti-ahmadiyya people like crank have complained that ZA does not allow people to voice their opinions, boy was he wrong.

1. I was wrong about jizyah, I looked it up last night, and the verse on jizyah was revealed before the expedition of Tabuk, not after.

1.a. Jizyah was compensation for not accepting islam and giving up young men to join the war/struggle(jihad). If the people of Tabuk would have joined Islam they would have been forced to give up there young men to the military. I didnt find any data that showed that even one person accepted Islam from Tabuk, during this expedition.

1.b. Anyhow, the people of Tabuk did not ask for the protection of the muslims. The muslims imposed this protection upon them. I am not done researching this event, there was also another battle, which was before the conquest of mecca called the battle of muta. I was reading that last night and trying to piece together the islamic battles and chapter 9 and jihad.

2. My overall point is this: when the system of bartering was in currency, anything could be pardoned. But, GENERALLY SPEAKING, people werent coming out into the open and cursing the prophet and defaming him. In “olden” times most kings didnt accept this type of behavior. If someone conspired against a king his punishment was death.

I also found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Conquest_of_Mecca
In 630, Muhammad marched on Mecca with an enormous force, said to number more than ten thousand men. With minimal casualties, Muhammad took control of Mecca (watt). He declared an amnesty for past offences, except for ten men and women who had mocked and ridiculed him in songs and verses. Some of these were later pardoned.
Rodinson (2002), p. 261.

and

From the general amnesty extended to the citizens of Mecca, Mahomet excluded ten or twelve persons. Of these, however, only four were actually put to death(muir).

Obviously Muhammad was forgiving, I personally feel that other arabs werent as forgiving.

3. Hazrat Ali asked the HP to get rid of Ayesha, not is so many words though. He wasnt too happy about that whole situation. This testimony alone gives me doubts as well:

MUIR WRITES:

There, having called to him Osama and Ali, he asked counsel of them. Osama declared his utter disbelief of the slanderous reports. Ali with greater caution, recommended the examination of Ayesha’s maid; and the maid when called could bear testimony to nothing but the general innocence of her mistress. 48

48 We must remember that all this is Ayesha’s own account of the matter, and that there was a strong antipathy between her and Ali. Her statement must therefore be received with caution. It is as follows – Ali replied to Mahomet: “O Prophet! there is no lack of women, and thou canst without difficulty supply her place. Ask this servant girl about her, perchance she may tell the truth.” So Mahomet called Bureira; Ali arose and struck her severely, saying, – “Tell the truth unto the Prophet.” “I know nothing,” said she, “of Ayesha but what is good – excepting this, indeed, that one day I was kneading corn, and I asked her to watch it, and she went asleep, and the goats came and ate thereof.” Hishami, p.316.

4. Maybe i was wrong to use such general statements. From what you have presented it is quite clear that Muhammad did allow some freedom of speech. I was comparing the freedom of speech in the USA where the president of our country is critisized day in and day out. The hypocrites that you mentioned were slient after being admonished. They were under strict supervision and they were watched from a military standpoint.

4.a. Even Ayesha was allowed to live after her Jihad against Hazrat Ali. But she was quiet for the rest of her life, in other words she didnt engage in politics.

4.b. In a bartering society anything is negotiable, there are strict rules but there are always exceptions to those rules. In the Koran the most oft repeated exception is “except what your right hands posses. It has been accused by western writers that Muslims were to 4 wives maximum, with a major exception which allowed muslims to have relations with the woem that were captured as a result of war.

For ZA: I know that you are busy:

Did HMGA ever discredit Bukhari in any shape or form, what about Noorudin?

HMGA wrote that there were some people who were forced to accept Islam.

He writes:
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/BritishGovt-and-Jihad.pdf

55/60

“…….Only for such enemies was it ordered that they could be killed unless they accept Islam”. 17

17–this reference is to the convicted criminals who had committed serious atrocitie, see also pages 5-7(translator)

@Bashir….ok I am reflecting and waiting for your answer….but feel free to ignore my last comment as it is trivial in the context of the total discussion you are engaged in.

Umar: my brother, i understand the ahmadiyya position. I am asking a question in addition to the facts that have been stated.

I was curious to know if HMGA had ever directly dis-credited bukhari. I was happy to read the reference by HMGA in terms of Sahih muslim. I think that was the only instance that HMGA directly questioned a report in Muslim.

It is very strange that HMGA did not ever comment on bukhari and muslim in terms of abrogation and apostacy.

The same question exists in terms of the writings of Noorudin. I remeember when Noorudin was on his death bed he commented to hazrat m. ali, “…bukhari remains”.

You Busterds. You are not a muslim you are liar and misguided people and your Mirza who dead in washroom of a train. listen carefully how can I say you are liar. Listen if you are right so why your present Leader who live in germany accept Islam and left you and Mirza. Why
Think about it and accept the Islam
Allah Bless You

Use the Quran to attain purity and be a model human being for others. Fulfil your obligations and Bow only to the Ultimate Source of all things existant. Which is the true meaning of living the Kalima.

LA ILAAHA ILLALLAH.

Any other purpose for which the Quran is used will only give you rope to stray farther.
May you be guided.