The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Archive for the ‘general’ Category

I have received the following message, which I am please to promote.

There is a widely accepted piece of conventional wisdom that Muslims and Jews are enemies and will always remain so. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The perception that Muslims and Jews are inherently hostile to each other is actually of fairly recent vintage; an outgrowth of differences over the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

We just created a short video message that challenges this narrative, and I think your readers atThe Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog would appreciate this important story. It documents a miraculous grassroots movement of Muslims and Jews here in America and abroad that are vowing to stand up for one another by combatting Islamophobia and Antisemitism.

Next month, in cities around the world, these pacemakers will come together and break bread and discuss ways of improving the world as part of the Weekend of Twinning.

Here is a link to the video youtu.be/vEHVannOkj8 and here is a message you can share with your networks:

I pledge to combat Islamophobia, anti-Semitism + all forms of hate during the #WeekendofTwinning youtu.be/vEHVannOkj8

Thank you for your interest, and let me know if you end up sharing or blogging about this project.

Best,

Daniel

Daniel Tutt

Unity Productions Foundation

http://www.upf.tv/

Previously we have had a discussion on "Can Muslims copyright the word Allah" in conenction with a court ruling from Malaysia in 2009. This subject is back in the news today:

"A Malaysian court has ruled that non-Muslims cannot use the word Allah to refer to God, even in their own faiths, overturning a 2009 lower court ruling…". See this link.

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.

An article is published under above title in Dawn.com Oct. 11, 2013 by Mushtaq Soofi.

I sent him an email. Relevant portion of email:

I would like to take it a step futher, and provide you reference to a book that proves that how Hazrat Baba Guru Nanak sahib was a Muslim and his teachings are derived from Holy Quran.

Please go the following link to find this interesting find. This find should bring Muslims and Sikhs more close. Had the facts been accepted by Muslims and Sikhs before partion in 1947, people of this region could be saved from the bloodshed at the time, and most probably brought East Punjab inside the Pakistan, with Kashmir also coming in Pakistan. This could have saved Pakistan and India from going into four wars, and billions of dollars of military expenditure on both sides of border. Most of all it would have prevented rise of extremeism, espcially on Pakistani side for three reasons, i- sizeable amount of Sikh Minority would have been a great check; ii- people would have been more tolerant to minorities; iii- Pakistan would have not needed Jihadis for its proxy wars with India.

I hope Soofi sahib finds time to answer me. I will post his reply.

Link to article:

http://dawn.com/news/1048872/guru-granth-sahib-and-the-muslims

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.

HIGHLIGHTS OF MAUDUDI COMMENTARY OF HOLY QURAN

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.

THE MULLAH-IN-CHIEF OF THE 20TH CENTURY: MAUDUDI (1903-1979)

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.

drshabbir@bellsouth.net

http://www.Ourbeacon.com (Be sure to check out the new and old Forums!)
http://www.galaxydastak.com/cgi-bin/bbs60x/webbbs_config.pl
http://www.youtube.com/drshabbir2
6440 NW 53 ST
Lauderhill, FL 33319
954-746-2115

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.

Recently I heard a hadith about fasting being quoted on a Muslim television channel, which I then traced to several Muslim websites and forums. It runs as follows:

Once Musa asked Allah: “O Allah! You have granted me the honour and privilege of talking to you directly, have you given this privilege to any other person?" Allah ta’ala replied

"O Musa, during the last period I am going to send an ummat who will be the ummat of Mohammad (SAW) with dry lips, patched tongues, emaciated body with their eyes sunken deep into their sockets, with livers dry and stomachs suffering the pangs of hunger [during fasting] will call out to me (in dua) they will be much much closer to me than you. O Musa! While you speak to me there are 70000 veils between you and me but at the time of iftaar there will not be a single veil between me and the fasting ummati of Mohammad (SAW). O Musa I have taken upon myself the responsibility that at the time of iftaar I will never refuse the dua of a fasting person!”

Various contributors on the above forums have discussed whether this hadith is authentic and what is its original source. There are some authentic hadith mentioning the excellence of certain members of the Muslim ummah over prophets. The following is reported from Umar:

“Among the servants of God there are persons who, although they are not prophets or martyrs, yet the prophets and the martyrs will envy their ranks from God, on the Day of Judgment.” (Mishkat-ul-Masabih, Book of Manners (Adab), Section 2.)

This is related to the concept known as juz’i fazilat, or superiority in part or in certain respects of a Muslim over prophets before the Holy Prophet Muhammad.

I once read in a newspaper in Pakistan (I have kept the cutting somewhere) that more people were brought to Islam by Hazrat Muin-ud-Din Chishti, saint of Ajmer, than by any prophet.

One example, often cited in classical Islamic works, of a non-prophet excelling a prophet is from the Quran, 18:60–82, of the man to whom Moses went to gain knowledge. This man, known as Khadir or Khidr, was superior to Moses in knowledge. In his book Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, when Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad writes that his superiority over Jesus is due to the fact that he is follower of a Prophet sent for the reform of all mankind and thus he possesses the message required for the reform of all mankind, while Jesus came only for a particular people and therefore would not be able to address the whole world, he adds at this point a footnote:

"No one can encompass the works of God. Among the Israelites, Moses was a very great prophet who was given the Torah by God … yet it was the same Moses who had to face embarrassment before the spiritual knowledge of a recluse [i.e. Khidr] and he could not fathom those secrets of the unseen…" (Ruhani Khaza'in, v. 22, p. 157)

It is clear that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has added this example to show that his having a superiority over Jesus does not mean that he is a prophet.

Please read message at this link.

The home page of the Central London Mosque is still displaying the message, as at 14.30 UK time, 8th July, that the 1st of Ramadan will be on either 9th or 10th July. "We will make the announcement the exact moment the new moon has been sighted", it says. The page informs us that we can join them on Facebook and be kept informed of all announcements from them.

It strikes one as strange, or incongruous, that it is not considered objectionable, in fact it is considered quite normal, to use the latest technology, such as the Internet, mobile devices etc., to try to find out news about the appearance of the new moon (if indeed their announcement is based on appearance and not on political partisanship), yet it is considered un-Islamic to use science and technology to calculate the same appearance well in advance.

Submitted by Ikram.

Yesterday, Geo TV in Pakistan interviewed Imran Khan, the apparent choice of a newer generation. His comments were reported by ‘The News’ daily – Imran Khan said that he supports Altaf Hussain’s statement in which he said ‘the Titanic of Muslim Ummah was sinking’. “Altaf is correct in saying that if we do not fix ourselves, we are heading towards destruction” (link).

For starters, at least there is a long awaited admission by a few who matter that ‘the Titanic of Muslim Ummah was sinking’. Even a blind can see that all this is happening despite Ummah having –  the Quran and it’s ever increasing publication, reciters and memorizers; life and example of the Prophet and ever increasing beards on the faces, which are only getting longer; bonanza of fee for service artists that thrive on eulogizing Quran, the Prophet and God (qirat, naat, hamd, qawallis); Islamiat as a mandatory subject from elementary school through professional colleges; mushrooming of Islamic TV programs and their experts; ever increasing number of mosques per square mile and their corresponding swelling ranks of  attenders and donors; ever stricter blasephamey laws and routine lynching by mobs;  constitutional definitions of non-Muslims (read Ahmadis) and their social and economic boycotts;  cursing of Mujaddid in signed passport applications; elaborate celebrations for any religious excuse, be it the birth of the Prophet or during Nights of Meraj, Lailatul Qadar and Ramadhan, which are no less in fervor than the carnivals in Latin America.

Obviously, by any secular standards, Ummah at least is not being helped by the above rituals, no matter how diverse and intense they maybe. Rather, all these activities are more like weights around the ankles which are speeding up the sinking itself. When a novice diver loses the sight of the light on the surface of the ocean, paradoxically to save himself, he only dives deeper, hoping life but achieves death. Across the globe, Ummah is in the grips of economic abyss, moral depravity, corruption, cronyism, social upheavals, a laughing stock of friends and foe alike, admittedly though with a few exceptions, the exceptions, which cannot be the rule in this case.

Why the Ummah is ever diving even deeper? What light has it lost sight of? Now, that is the million dollar question as to – Will the Ummah continue to sink till the time that its last vestiges disappear along with Quran and the memories of the Last Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)? While at the same time, the Quran rejecters, Prophet haters and God deniers will continue to thrive? Who will have the last laugh, the Muslims or the non-Muslims?

In a different thread (link), it was mentioned: …exhausting turmoil that the Umma is in grips of for the past century and has no solution in sight. Every next doctrine that emerges in it is even more destructive than the previous one, be it a religious, secular, democratic or dictatorial effort or any combination thereof.

Both, Imran Khan and Altaf Hussain mutually agree on a much needed way out as attributed to them in the newspaper – “if we do not fix ourselves, we are heading towards destruction.” Their hearts are in the right place, but do they have a solution?

The next million dollar question is – what is the fix?

The fix sought by Imran Khan will never be achieved unless the nonsense in the name of a religion is rejected first – “Religion without solution is a myth and fable, and of no consequence to mankind.” (quote: Pillars of Faith in Islam by Khwaja Kamaluddin, p. 16, The Woking Muslim Mission and Literary Trust, The Shah Jehan Mosque, Woking, England)

Secondly, the pragmatic expectations of a religion have to be affirmed upfront  – “Religion, if from God, must come to us for the sole purpose of putting us on the path of progress”, which ironically in case of Ummah in general is not so. (quote: A Letter from Khwaja Kamaluddin, Islamic Review, Vol. XIX, Nos. 3&4, March-April 1931).

Essentially, what Kamaluddin alluded to above was the job description of the Prophet, which is primarily to unburden mankind of every kind of nonsense so that it can at least swim towards safety by its God given natural instincts. Secondly, the Prophet also puts man on the path of progress, to which history bears witness in the success of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) himself, as well of his successors:

7:157. `Those who follow this perfect Messenger, the Arab Prophet whom they find described in the Torah and the Evangel which are with them, who enjoins upon them that which is right and forbids them that which is wrong, and who makes lawful for them all the pure and good things, and makes unlawful all the impure and bad things, and who relieves them of their heavy burden and shackles that weigh them down. Indeed those who believe in him and honour him and serve him and follow the light that has been sent down with him, it is these who will attain their goal.' [translation: Nooruddin]

With the above admission by Imran Khan, an apparent Divine satire comes to mind. To keep the spirit of the message of Torah alive, which was none but a limited book with a limited scope for a limited number of ethnic people, speaking only a limited language, God ordained a chain of prophets from Moses to Jesus (peace be upon them). For example, in the case of Mary, her uncle (Zacharias), cousin (John) and son (Jesus) were all prophets within the same household.

Whereas, with Quran, since the message was complete (v. 5:5), and its preservation is a Divine undertaking (v. 15:9), logically then there was no need for any more prophet after Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) (v. 33:40). Essentially, ever since Quran and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), the angel Gabriel has been permanently retired with no chance for a recall to active duty under any circumstances. Still the same Almighty God in case of Muslims seems to have disappeared, He neither speaks nor sends revivers of the Book? One finds no better word than ‘Irony’ when the duo of Quran and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) are compared against Torah and Moses. Islam clearly seems to be at a disadvantage.

Unbeknownst to general Muslims, there is no such ‘Irony’. God still speaks and appoints. To prevent the natural decay that any message faces overtime, history bears witness that Divinely ordained Mujaddids, the revivers, appeared and made such a claim and worked only to unburden the Muslims (similar to v. 7:157 above), revive the Message of Quran to contemporary needs and remove any dross that might have accumulated around the Last Prophet over the period of time, and thus reset the course of Muslims to success. Every Hijrah century has seen such revivers starting with Umar bin Abdul Aziz. The last of this chain of Divine revivers who made such a claim of Mujaddid and wrote extensively was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. If not nothing else, under his direct influence numerous translations of Quran occurred on a mass scale (Nooruddin, Muhammad Ali, Sadruddin), and others were indirectly influenced (Pickthall, Muhammad Asad, Yusuf Ali).

Now, the burden is on Imran Khan and Altaf Hussain to pick any writing of the Mujaddid of the last century and ask for themselves the fundamental question that whatever Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote with his pen and whatever he spoke with his mouth, is he not who enjoins upon them that which is right and forbids them that which is wrong, and who makes lawful for them all the pure and good things, and makes unlawful all the impure and bad things, and who relieves them of their heavy burden and shackles that weigh them down?

As a final caveat, unlike the Jewish people, we Muslims do not have the luxury of any prophet after Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). We only have the alternate form of Mujaddids. As to the accepters of a Mujaddid – Indeed those who believe in him and honour him and serve him and follow the light that has been sent down with him, it is these who will attain their goal.'

Imran Khan and Altaf Hussain, both of you have been informed. Now, you know what phone number to call and which door to knock. Good luck.

P.S. To have a feel of how a Mujaddid revives minds can be seen in the writing of one of his students, who was the first Muslim missionary in the West, the same Kamaluddin who was quoted before:

“If the Religion taught in the book is a husk and a garb, if it is dogma and formulae, if it is sacrament and priest craft, a symbolism and rituals, and if it hinges upon the personality of its teacher and revolves on certain supposed events in his lifetime, it is not religion but superstition and myth. It is transitory, a fog which cannot stand in the strong rays of the sun of rationality. But if a religion gives you certain broad principles of life to meet your physical, moral, and, spiritual needs, and makes utility to mankind the criteria of ethical virtues and leaves the rest to your judicial discretion and good common sense, while appealing always to your reason for the acceptance of its tenets, it hardly hampers your progress. It, on the other hand, helps your uplift. That such principles have been revealed to man from God, and have been codified, cannot impede our advancement. If axioms and postulates revealed to Euclid have only helped our activities in our mathematical researches, why a broad-basic principle-laying religion can[not] create a moral and ethical inertia. Has not science made progress with bounds and strides, and did it not take place only after we based our researches on certain basic principles? If so we find in every avenue of human activities, why not in the realm of religion?” (quote: Free Religious Movement, Islamic Review and Muslim India , Vol. IV, No. 12, December 1916, p. 561, The Woking Muslim Mission and Literary Trust, The Shah Jehan Mosque, Woking, England)