The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Validity of Pakistan’s 1973 Constitution

It is reported in the Express Tribune (see link) that ex-President Pervez Musharraf's legal team "has actually challenged the authenticity of the 1973 Constitution that the former army chief is facing trial for abrogating, subverting and suspending." Their argument is given as follows:

"The argument here is that the promulgation of the document that we know and treat as the Constitution is a mere act of parliament and nothing more. Ostensibly, the reason being given is that the 1973 Constitution was passed only by the West Pakistan Assembly – ie, what was left of the combined Constituent Assembly of East and West Pakistan elected originally in 1970. If one follows this argument, after these elections, the Eastern Wing, along with half the assembly, seceded to become Bangladesh in 1971, but the West Pakistan parliamentarians remained in place. And though they remained in place, the basis of their election was the 1970 polls – and based on that, they numbered only half of the assembly.

Moreover, Musharraf contends that a majority of the members of the constituent assembly did not participate in the framing of the interim constitution of 1972 and the present “1973 Constitution”.

Hence, it is argued, the document (what we regard as the constitution) is an act of parliament and its violation technically does not amount to high treason."

Blog readers, I have for long raised this point in connection with the 1974 anti-Ahmadiyya amendment by the National Assembly, namely, that it was in fact elected in 1970 as a part of the whole National Assembly of Pakistan.

Note however that the post-1971 "Pakistan National Assembly"  was not a half of the whole NA as elected in 1970 (as assumed in the argument quoted above) but it was less than a half. Seats given to each province were in proportion to its population. It appears that out of the total of 300 seats, 162 were for East Pakistan and 138 were for West Pakistan. So the post-1971 "Pakistan National Assembly"  was a clear minority of the real national Assembly elected in 1970.

Muslims are following LAM on age of Hazrat Ayesha RA at time of marriage

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri

Today i received an email on topic of age of Hazrat Ayesha RA at time of her marriage.I am happy to see Kalima-Shahada reciters, who are not members of LAM, have started started to think and do research like LAM.

Link to Muslims website from Canada:

http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.com/

Link to article:

http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.com/ayesha.htm

What Was The Age of Ummul Mo'mineen Ayesha (May Allah be pleased with her) When She Married To Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)?

By

Imam Chaudhry

Some people believe that Ayesha (May Allah be pleased with her) was nine years old at the time of her marriage with Mohammad (peace be upon him) was consummated.

The age of Ayesha (ra) has been grossly mis-reported in the ahadith. Not only that, I think that the narratives reporting this event are not only highly unreliable but also that on the basis of other historical data, the event reported, is quite an unlikely happening. Let us look at the issue from an objective standpoint. My reservations in accepting the narratives, on the basis of which, Ayeshas (ra) age at the time of her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh) is held to be nine years are:
•Most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on the authority of his father. An event as well known as the one being reported, should logically have been reported by more people than just one, two or three.
•It is quite strange that no one from Medinah, where Hisham ibn `urwah lived the first seventy one years of his life has narrated the event, even though in Medinah his pupils included people as well known as Malik ibn Anas. All the narratives of this event have been reported by narrators from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have had shifted after living in Medinah for seventy one years.
•Tehzibu'l-tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: "narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq". It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq. (vol 11, pg 48 – 51)
•Mizanu'l-ai`tidal, another book on the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that when he was old, Hisham's memory suffered quite badly. (vol 4, pg 301 – 302)
•According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an, was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Ayesha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why we should not accept this narrative to be more accurate.
•According to a number of narratives, Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicate that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on them.
•According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Ayesha (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha (ra). It is reported in Taqri'bu'l-tehzi'b as well as Al-bidayah wa'l-nihayah that Asma (ra) died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha (ra) should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha (ra), if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH, was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.
•Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr (ra) reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah — the pre Islamic period. Obviously, if Ayesha (ra) was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH — the time she most likely got married.
•According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam quite some time before Umar ibn Khattab (ra). This shows that Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Ayesha's (ra) marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Ayesha (ra) should not have been born during the first year of Islam.
•Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr planned on migrating to Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am — with whose son Ayesha (ra) was engaged — and asked him to take Ayesha (ra) in his house as his son's wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam, and subsequently his son divorced Ayesha (ra). Now, if Ayesha (ra) was only seven years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Habshah. On the basis of this report it seems only reasonable to assume that Ayesha (ra) had not only been born 8 years before hijrah, but was also a young lady, quite prepared for marriage.
•According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah (ra), when Khaulah (ra) came to the Prophet (pbuh) advising him to marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: "You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)". When the Prophet (pbuh) asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Ayesha's (ra) name. All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word "bikr" in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is "Jariyah". "Bikr" on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a "lady".
•According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Ayesha (ra). Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.

These are some of the major points that go against accepting the commonly known narrative regarding Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage.

Neither was it an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage at an age as young as nine or ten years, nor did the Prophet (pbuh) marry Ayesha (ra) at such a young age. The people of Arabia did not object to this marriage, because it never happened in the manner it has been narrated.

Maulana Nur-ud-Din’s concept of freedom and holding of differences

At this link I am providing the initial part of an article by Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din addressed to the Ahmadiyya community in January 1909 (Badr, 14 January 1909). It begins:

"As far as I have read the Holy Quran and pondered on it, Allah in the Quran grants freedom and liberty to people.  [Then he quotes some verses.] There are many verses of this kind, which show that the existence of difference of opinion is extremely important in the world. Since God Himself does not intend there to be unanimity, how can reformers in this world remove differences?"

At the bottom of the first column he says:

"The summary is that every person is free as regards his beliefs, words and deeds, on condition that this does not harm anyone else or even his own self. Otherwise he is not free."

This is a preamble to his main subject relating to donations to the Jamaat.

Can anyone imagine a later khalifa of the Qadiani Jamaat presenting this concept of freedom of the individual to his Jamaat and mentioning the importance of difference of opinion?

Google Search Added to Blog

New feature:

Under our Blog header at the top of every page, you will notice a new tab "Google Search of Blog" located after the previous tabs "Blog Home" and "About this blog". This new tab opens a page with a "Google Custom Search" box, into which you can type your search word or string to find in the blog using Google Search. I hope you find this feature useful and convenient.

Saudi blogger recommended for apostasy trial

I am thankful to Mohammad Iqbal sahib for pointing out this news:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/25/world/meast/saudi-blogger-death-sentence/

Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi Plagiarized HMGA books

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri

Munir-ud-Din, Ph.D, a former Qadiani now opponent of HMGA writes following posts on ahmedi.org forum:

I had known for quite some time that Maulavi Ashraf Ali Thanvi had copied from the book "Asrar-e Shari'at" by my grand father Maulavi Muhammad Fazal Khan. But I was not aware of the extant of this coping as Thanvi Sahib's book "Ahkam Islam eql ki nazar main" was not available to me. Now through some good chance I could lay my hands on this celebrated book. I thought he might have copied some paragraphs or pages. But now I know that 95 per cent of his book is word by word true copy of "Asrar-e Shari'at", all three volumes. 

I had known that he had also copied from the writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and sold that material as his own.

What a daring thief he was that copied 95 per cent of a book which was available in the market. But as we know things move very slowly in our part of the world. It took me almost 60 or more years to look into his robbery. I intend to write about this literary theft in the literary quarterly "Savera", Lahore.

~~Dear @4pac – Asrar-e Shari'at means Secrets or Philosophy of the (Islamic) Shari'a. It is a celebrated book with three volumes which runs into 1100 pages. 

Now a word about Maulavi Ashraf Ali Thanvi, whom many on the Indian Sub-continent regard as the Mujaddid of the 20th century and whose book "Bihishti Zewar" (Ornament of Paradise) was customarily given to the brides as a marriage gift and which now is also available in English translation.

This man was a notorious literary thief, who even stole texts from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and from many other authors. And although this thing is quite obvious and known to many, he is called "Hakim-i Ummat".

~~Dear @4pac – You have many times asked, if you can read the books of my Grand Father in English. Now my answer is: yes you can. A certain Rafiq Abdur Rahman translated the above book, still thinking it to have been authored by Maulavi Ashraf Ali Thanvi into English. It is also available from sellers in the West. It is called: 

              "The wisdom behind the commands of  Islam"

               By Muhammad Ashraf Ali Thanvi

               Translated by Rafiq Abdur Rahman

               Published by: Darul Ishaat. Karachi.

               Year of the first publication: 2004 – 424 Pages.

Now that we know that 95 percent of the text was taken from "Asrar-i Shari'at" without any change or diversion, we can assume that the said book is in fact property of my Grand Father Maulavi Muhammad Fazal Khan. You may look for it in the Internet, where it is being sold for US $ 8.25.

I don't know if I can do much in this matter. Maulavi Ashraf Ali is dead and his followers will not be ready to take responsibility for this theft. All I can do is to make some noise in the media. Perhaps the translator could be persuaded to withdraw the book or at least acknowledge that it was not authored by Maulavi Ashraf Ali Sahib.

~~Well I don't know, if I will be able to take legal action in this case, as I am living too far away in a foreign country. But I will handover this matter to the younger generation of my family. Some of them are practicing lawyers and are also living in Pakistan. I have my reservations regarding the Justice system of Pakistan. Many years ago Maulavi Allah Yar Chinyoti (I hope this is the right name) visited our village Changa Bangial and made a statement regarding passages from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani in some books of Maulavi Ashraf Al Thanvi. He said it all happend due to some mistake. In fact the original quotes were from the books of Maulavi Muhammad Fazal Khan, which were copied by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani as well as Maulavi Ashraf Ali Thanvi. So it was not that serious crime. Both Mirza Ghlam Ahmad and Maulavi Ashraf Ali Thanvi had committed the same crime.

But the fact of the matter is that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was already dead when my grand father started writing his book. In certain matters he quoted from the books of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad with full reference or at least with the name of "Ahmad" in brackets or in the case of Maulavi Nurruddin, the first Caliph of Mirza Sahib, whose initials were "Nur".  This was done because already in 1909 it was deadly to name Mirza Sahib or other Ahmadies in your book as reference. Maulavi Ashraf Ali Thanvi did not know this or he did not care about such niceties. He left all references out and presented the text as his own. In this way he came to be blamed for steeling also from the writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

~~At long last I have written an article with full evidance that Maulavi Ashraf Ali Thanavi stole the book "Asrar-e Shari'at" of my grand father Maulavi Muhammad Fazal Khan.It is in Urdu and can be opened by clicking on the following link. 

http://munir.my-place.us/Thanavi.pdf

~~Dear @4pac – If  you would have started learning Urdu by the time you began wailing for me or some one else to translate Urdu books for you, you could have mastered the language by now. I understand that you already know the spoken language. It is only the written script which anybody can learn within weeks.

And now let us talk about Maulavi Ashraf Ali Thanavi and his theft of the book of my grand father Maulavi Muhammad Fazal Khan.

‘Jinnah, Bhutto and the legacy of intolerance’

An article under the above title appeared in the Daily Times of Pakistan on 22 December 2013 (click link to read).

It says:

"Bhutto’s 1973 constitution made Pakistan an oxymoronic Islamic republic where sovereignty belonged to Allah and, in turn, to Allah’s laws. He also declared the Ahmedis as non-Muslims, proudly calling it the “solution to a 90-year-old problem”, and adopted a pan-Islamic vision in which he viewed himself as the leader of the Islamic world. By the end of the 1970s, Pakistan was two for two, in terms of ‘secular’ leaders who defined Muslims as one nation, and also two for two, in terms of ‘secular’ leaders who manifested archetypal religious intolerance."

"The demand to excommunicate the Shia community is the natural corollary of the verdict against the Ahmedis, … since Bhutto politicised the process of takfir (apostasy), religious sects are now well and truly under the takfiri guillotine."

The article draws a parallel between Mr Jinnah's creation of a separate state for Muslims in the name of religion and Z.A. Bhutto declaring Ahmadis as non-Muslims, since he considers both acts as going against religious co-existence. But Mr Jinnah was defending the interests of a minority, i.e. Muslims of India, which was fearing oppression by the majority in a united India, while Z.A. Bhutto sided with an overwhelming majority to oppress a minority. Whether Mr Jinnah was right or wrong, for him to argue for Muslim rights in the face of the Hindu majority, was at least an act of great courage. Bhutto's action required no courage as he had a great majority behind him.

Also, Mr Jinnah actually believed in the cause he was promoting, i.e., the partition of India. Z.A. Bhutto did not believe in the cause of the Ulama and the Islamic parties, and supported their demands cynically to win popularity for himself.

Also, I may add the obvious fact that Bhutto was under massive pressure to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslim and faced almost no opposition in doing this. Mr Jinnah was not under any pressure from other quarters to demand Muslim rights; he made the demands because he himself wanted to have them fulfilled, and unlike Bhutto he faced intense opposition from the Congress and the British government. Mr Jinnah led the demands he was making, whereas Bhutto followed the demands that others made.

Mr Jinnah fought his opponents and won a substantial victory over them. Bhutto thought it best to surrender to his opponents and adopt their demands.

This blog till end of December

For the rest of December there may be a delay before I can publish your submitted comments, as my Internet access might not be regular, and my own comments may also be more brief than usual. However, I will try to keep the blog up to date as frequently as I can.

Zahid Aziz

Zafrullah Khan’s book “Ahmadiyyat, The Renaissance of Islam”

Submitted by Omar Raja.

I came across a remarkable statement of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad as cited in the book, Ahmadiyyat the Renaissance of Islam by Muhammad Zafrulla Khan. The book can be found here: http://www.alislam.org/books/

Mirza Mahmud declared in 1944 regarding the prophecy of the Promised Son, “I therefore announce, under divine command, on oath, that God has appointed me the Promised Son of the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, according to his prophecy, who has to convey the name of the Promised Messiah to the ends of the earth. I do not say that I am the only Promised One and that no other promised one will be appear till the Day of Judgment. It appears from the prophecies of the Promised Messiah that some other promised ones will also come and some of them will appear after centuries. Indeed, God has told me that at one time He will send me a second time to the world and I will come for the reform of the world at a time when associate with God will have become widespread. This means that my soul will, at some time, descend upon someone who will possess faculties and capacities like mine and he will, following my footsteps, bring about a reform of the world. Thus, promised one will appear in their due times according to the promises of God Almighty.” (Ahmadiyyat the Renaissance of Islam by Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, pp. 293-294). Note: Page 303 by PDF search.

So in effect he declares that he himself will have his own ‘second coming,’ so much so that his very soul will be implanted into another human being! Thus Qadianis await the second coming of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad?

I may mention, it was curious to read as well the details given regarding the assassination attempt on his very life.

Muhammad Zafrulla Khan writes:  “Yet, there were those who, through error, bigotry, misunderstanding or sheer perversity entertained bitter hostility towards him and were capable of subjecting him to the most heinous outrages.  One day in March 1954 a young man belonging to this last category managed to take his stand in the first line of worshippers immediately behind him, while he was leading the afternoon service in the principal  mosque of Rabwah. In the middle of the service he suddenly advanced upon him from his rear and drove the blade of long sharp knife into his neck with murderous force….the injury inflicted… was deep and grievous and had a serious effect on his nervous system… The blade of the knife had penetrated into his neck a distance of four inches and its point had stopped right at the jugular vein… the unanimous conclusion was that the point of the knife had broken at the jugular vein and was embedded in it. The expert advice was that no attempt should be made to extricate it as the risk to his life involved in any such operation was too serious to be worth taking. He was advised to adopt a restful pattern of life and to avoid hard work and long periods of sustained labour. For a person of his temperament and high capacities this was a disappointing prospect. But there was no help for it. He was still able to carry on a comparatively active life, but the pressure on his nervous system, instead of being eased with the passage of time, tended to be intensified progressively.” (Ahmadiyyat the Renaissance of Islam by Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, pp. 331-333). Note: Page 341 by PDF search.

After this type of injury, I wonder how was he able to function as Khalifa for the remainder of his life, since as I understand it, one of the controls of the nervous system is to facilitate the ability to think and reason.  http://www.webmd.com/brain

Nadeem F Paracha on Ahmadiyya Issue

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.

Nadeem F Paracha is a famous columnist in Pakistani English language daily Dawn. He is left leaning writer. In his articles he does recap of history on any particular subject. His writes ups are based on a reasonable research. In his articles he has been sympathetic to state of ahmadis (basically Qadianis in Pakistan) in general. His recent article published in Dawn online on November 21, 2013: The 1974 ouster of ‘heretics’: What really happened?

Some quotes from article:

“To do so I did go through some literature produced by orthodox Sunni and Shia ulema and those associated with the Ahmadiyya community during the commotion, but that literature is largely theological.”

“Instead, my findings in this respect are squarely based on, and culled from the writings of historians and authors who, I believe, have transcribed the history of the event in the most objective and informed manner.”

“A series of modern, as well as puritanical reformist Muslim movements emerged after the complete fall of the Muslim Empire in India in the mid-1800s.

The Ahmadiyya movement was one of them. The Ahmadiyya community was founded in 1889 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who claimed he was under divine instruction to fulfil the major prophecies contained in Islamic and other sacred texts regarding a world reformer who would unite humanity.

He announced to Christians awaiting the second coming of Jesus, Muslims anticipating the Mahdi, Hindus expecting Krishna, and Buddhists searching for Buddha, that he was the promised messiah for them all, commissioned by God to rejuvenate true faith.

When Mirza died the Ahmadiyya split into two sects: the ‘Qadianis’ and the ‘Lahoris’. The Qadianis claimed that Mirza was a prophet, and accused all Muslims who did not accept him as being non-Muslims. Claiming prophethood is regarded to be a major and unpardonable sin by a majority of Muslims, even though the Lahori faction believes that Mirza never claimed prophethood. Orthodox Muslim sects in South Asia believe that he did.

—————

Till about 1913, the Ahmadiyya movement was seen as a spiritual and evangelical branch of the modernist reformist Muslim initiatives triggered by the likes of Sir Syed and Syed Ameer Ali.

In fact, for a while, a number of Indian Muslim intellectuals were closely associated with the Ahmadiyya movement and considered Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a modern redeemer of faith in India.

Brilliant poet and philosopher, Muhammad Iqbal, too was once a great admirer of the movement.

Contrary to popular belief, agitation against the Ahmadiyya movement (by the orthodox Muslim sects and sub-sects in India) was not an immediate happening that emerged right after the formation of the community in 1889.

The more vocal accusations against the community first arose 24 years later in 1914 when an influential Ahmadiyya leader, Mirza Muhammad Ahmad, began to publicly declare that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a messiah and those Muslims who disagreed with this were infidels.

This further split the movement, with the so-called ‘Qadianis’ sticking to Mirza Muhammad Ahmad’s assertions and the ‘Lahori’ faction denouncing him and accusing him of inferring something that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had not claimed.

Nevertheless, the schism within the Ahmadiyya community and Mirza Muhammad Ahmad’s unabashed claims left the movement vulnerable against accusations of being heretical.”

“Along with the working classes and the petty-bourgeoisie of the Punjab, the Ahmadiyya had overwhelmingly voted for the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) in the province during the 1970 election.

——-

On May 22, 1974, some 160 members of the Islami Jamiat-i-Talaba (IJT — the student of the Jamaat-i-Islami), boarded a train headed for Peshawar in the former NWFP. On its way to Peshawar, the train stopped for a while at the Rabwa railway station. The city of Rabwa was predominantly an Ahmadiyya town and also housed the community’s spiritual headquarters. As the train stopped at Rabwa, IJT students got out and began to raise slogans against the Ahmadiyya and cursed the community’s spiritual figurehead, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. The train then left the station taking the charged students to Peshawar. No untoward incident was reported apart from the slogan-chanting and cursing.

However, when the incident was related to some Ahmadiyya leaders in Rabwa, they ordered Ahmadiyya youth to reach the station with hockey sticks and chains when the train stops again at Rabwa on its way back from Peshawar.

After finding out that the students would be returning to Multan from Peshawar on the 29th of May, dozens of young Ahmadiyya men gathered at the Rabwa station. As the train came to a halt, the men fell upon the bogeys carrying the IJT members. A fight ensued and 30 IJT men were severely beaten for insulting the religious sentiments of the Ahmadiyya.

A non-Ahmadiyya man who witnessed the commotion at the station told reporters that both the incidents (the slogans and retaliation) were unprecedented.”

Link to NFP article: http://dawn.com/news/1057427/the-1974-ouster-of-the-heretics-what-really-happened/1