No Firm Basis for the Law-Bearing vs. non-Law-Bearing Prophet Distinction

السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته

Ahmadis believe that Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم is the Last Law-Bearing Prophet…  Wait, what?  Law-Bearing Prophets?  What’s that?  Non-Law-Bearing Prophets?  Huh?  Where is that distinction mentioned in the Qur’an?  Well, it isn’t.  Its a theory by some of the ‘Ulema of the subcontinent, employed by the Ahmadiyya.  Based on this they believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a “Non-Law-Bearing Prophet”.  This concept of law-bearing and non-law-bearing prophets is far too seldom critiqued.  Below is a discussion on the topic of law-bearing vs non-law-bearing prophets, and its (lack of) evidence in the Qur’an.

The following argument was taken from The Qur’anic Evidence: Truthfulness of The Promised Messiah, by Ansar Raza, Chapter 3, “The Possibility of Prophethood”, under Question 1.

Ahmadi Argument:

تِلْكَ الرُّسُلُ فَضَّلْنَا بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ مِّنْهُم مَّن كَلَّمَ اللّهُ وَرَفَعَ بَعْضَهُمْ دَرَجَاتٍ وَآتَيْنَا عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ الْبَيِّنَاتِ وَأَيَّدْنَاهُ بِرُوحِ الْقُدُسِ وَلَوْ شَاء اللّهُ مَا اقْتَتَلَ الَّذِينَ مِن بَعْدِهِم مِّن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءتْهُمُ الْبَيِّنَاتُ وَلَكِنِ اخْتَلَفُواْ فَمِنْهُم مَّنْ آمَنَ وَمِنْهُم مَّن كَفَرَ وَلَوْ شَاء اللّهُ مَا اقْتَتَلُواْ وَلَكِنَّ اللّهَ يَفْعَلُ مَا يُرِيدُ

These messengers have We exalted some of them above others; among them there are those to whom Allah spoke; and some of them He exalted in degrees of rank. And We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs and strengthened him with the spirit of holiness. And if Allah had so willed, those that came after them would not have fought with one another after clear Signs had come to them; but they did disagree. Of them were some who believed, and of them were some who disbelieved. And if Allah had so willed, they would not have fought with one another; but Allah does what He desires.
– Muhammad ‘Ali translation, Surah Baqarah, Chapter 255

This verse hints at the two different kinds of prophets: law-bearing and non-law-bearing. Notice where the verse says, “among them there are those to whom Allah spoke”. There is no such thing as a prophet to whom Allah did not speak. So, this part of the verse refers to the laws which certain prophets received. These are the law-bearing prophets. The verse continues by saying “and some of them He exalted in degrees of rank.” This part of the verse refers to non-law-bearing Prophets, who were honored by Allah, but did not bring forth any laws for their nation to follow. This verse is evidence that the Qur’an speaks of law-bearing and non-law-bearing prophets.

Muslim Response:

This is an attempt by the Ahmadis to interpret the Qur’an according to their pre-conceived notions of what they want it to mean, rather than reading the text as-is.

The crux of the refutation of this argument lays in an important distinction between the methods Allah employs to communicate to his prophets. What is known from the Qur’an is that Allah sent inspiration to all of the Prophets, but did not necessarily speak to them all.

For example, in Surah Baqarah verses 164 and 165, Allah says:

إِنَّا أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ كَمَا أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَى نُوحٍ وَالنَّبِيِّينَ مِن بَعْدِهِ وَأَوْحَيْنَا إِلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإْسْحَقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَالأَسْبَاطِ وَعِيسَى وَأَيُّوبَ وَيُونُسَ وَهَارُونَ وَسُلَيْمَانَ وَآتَيْنَا دَاوُودَ زَبُورًا

وَرُسُلاً قَدْ قَصَصْنَاهُمْ عَلَيْكَ مِن قَبْلُ وَرُسُلاً لَّمْ نَقْصُصْهُمْ عَلَيْكَ وَكَلَّمَ اللّهُ مُوسَى تَكْلِيمًا

164. Surely, We have sent revelation to thee, as We sent revelation to Noah and the Prophets after him; and We sent revelation to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and his children and to Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and We gave David a Book.

165. And We sent some Messengers whom We have already mentioned to thee and some Messengers whom We have not mentioned to thee – and to Moses Allah spoke at great length

In verse 164, the Qur’an says Allah sent revelation (أَوْحَيْنَا) to the prophets. Then, in verse 165, the Qur’an specifies that Allah spoke to Musa (كَلَّمَ اللّهُ مُوسَى). Notice the distinction between revelation and speech. This is because Musa was one of the few prophets who spoke to Allah directly, without the intermediary of an angel. For example, Surah Ta-Ha starting from verse 12, describes the entire conversation between Allah and Musa. Again in Surah Nisa verse 165 Allah speaks to Musa. Likewise, Allah spoke directly to the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم during the journey of al-Mi’raaj and even negotiated the daily prayers down to five.[1] [2] This is what is meant when Allah says he spoke directly to some of the prophets.

The verse continues by saying “and some of them He exalted in degrees of rank.” All prophets are honored, but some are honored above others. For example, al-Azam min ar-Rusul, the greatest from amongst the Prophets, are Muhammad, Ibrahim, Musa, ‘Esa and Nooh عليهم السلام.

The Ahmadis have attempted to interpret speech as laws, and honored as non-law-bearing. This outrageous extrapolation is simply not the meaning of the verse, cannot be implied from the text of verse, nor was the agreed upon by any of the traditional scholars of Islam.

Ahmadi Response:

وَمَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ أَن يُكَلِّمَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَّا وَحْيًا أَوْ مِن وَرَاء حِجَابٍ أَوْ يُرْسِلَ رَسُولًا فَيُوحِيَ بِإِذْنِهِ مَا يَشَاء إِنَّهُ عَلِيٌّ حَكِيمٌ

And it is not for a man that Allah should speak to him except by direct revelation, or from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger to reveal by His command what He pleases. Surely, He is High, Wise.

The Qur’an says that there are only three mediums Allah uses to communicate to humanity: through direct revelation, from behind a veil and through a messenger (ie, angel). There is no fourth medium. So, direct speech is not a valid medium of communication between Allah and his prophets. This implies that there was an intermediary between Muhammad and Musa عليها السلام in both examples, such as an angel.

Muslim Rebuttal:

When the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم spoke to Allah, he did not see him. He could only see the veil of light. [3] This is confirmed because Abu Musa al-Ash’ari رضي الله عليه said that the veil, separating Allah and the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم is light. [4]

Similarly, Surah Al-A’raaf verse 144 proves that Musa عليه السلام did not see Allah. And, Surah Ta-Ha does not suggest that there was any sort of angelic intermediary, whatsoever.

For those who place a sense of trust in classical Islamic scholarship, this interpretation is agreed upon by all of the books of Qur’an exegesis that I researched, such as Tafseer Jalalayn (written by someone whom the Ahmadis believe was a Mujaddid), Tafseer ar-Raazi, Tafseer Ibn Katheer (written by the student of someone whom the Ahmadis believe was a Mujaddid), Tafseer at-Tabari (one of the earliest books of Tafseer ever), and many others.

Next Ahmadi Argument:

إِنَّا أَنزَلْنَا التَّوْرَاةَ فِيهَا هُدًى وَنُورٌ يَحْكُمُ بِهَا النَّبِيُّونَ الَّذِينَ أَسْلَمُواْ لِلَّذِينَ هَادُواْ وَالرَّبَّانِيُّونَ وَالأَحْبَارُ بِمَا اسْتُحْفِظُواْ مِن كِتَابِ اللّهِ وَكَانُواْ عَلَيْهِ شُهَدَاء فَلاَ تَخْشَوُاْ النَّاسَ وَاخْشَوْنِ وَلاَ تَشْتَرُواْ بِآيَاتِي ثَمَنًا قَلِيلاً وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ

Surely, We sent down the Torah wherein was guidance and light. By it did the Prophets, who were obedient to Us, judge for the Jews, as did the godly people and those learned in the Law, because they were required to preserve the Book of Allah, and because they were guardians over it. Therefore fear not men but fear Me; and barter not My signs for a paltry price. And whoso judges not by that which Allah has sent down, these it is who are the disbelievers.

– Surah Ma’idah, Verse 45

As the verse explains, first Allah sent the Torah, through a law-bearing prophet, that contained the laws for the Jews to follow. Then, he sent a succession of non-law-bearing prophets who judged according to the Torah. This verse implicitly explains the distinction between law-bearing and non-law-bearing prophets.

Muslim Response:

If this verse was taken in isolation, the Ahmadis would have a tenable position, but further analysis weakens their belief.

According to the Ahmadis, ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام is a “non-law-bearing prophet.”[5] It is true that he came to confirm the Torah. But, consider Surah Ale ‘Imraan verse 51, where ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام says:

وَمُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيَّ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَلِأُحِلَّ لَكُم بَعْضَ الَّذِي حُرِّمَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَجِئْتُكُم بِآيَةٍ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ فَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ وَأَطِيعُونِ

‘And I come fulfilling that which is before me, namely, the Torah; and to allow you some of that which was forbidden unto you, and I come to you with a Sign from your Lord; so fear Allah and obey me;’

This verse brings forth three objections to the Ahmadi position. First, while ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام fulfills the Torah, but per the mandate of Allah, he also modified and altered the existing laws. Some of the scholars of Islam comment that this means he allowed certain foods that were previously impermissible and made work permissible on their Sabbath. Either way, he was authorized to modify law. This would effectively make him a “law-bearing” prophet.

Second, consider that in the Islamic legal system there are two sources of law: the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم, preserved through the books of hadith. The obligation to obey the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم is outlined in dozens of verse, such as Surah Alee ‘Imraan verse 133 where Allah says:

وَأَطِيعُواْ اللّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ

And obey Allah and the Messenger that you may be shown mercy.

Allah used the word أَطِيعُواْ, the command form of the word obey, and from this one can gather that it is legally incumbent upon all Muslims to obey his commandments. Next, consider that this same root-word is used with regards to ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام. He tells the Bani Isra’eel to fear Allah and َأَطِيعُونِ (obey me). The obligation upon Bani Isra’eel to obey ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام makes him a “law-bearing” prophet just as the obligation upon the Muslims to obey the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم, in addition to the Qur’an, makes him a “law-bearing” prophet.

This analysis is not specific to ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام. Even if not all prophets were given revelatory scriptures, all prophets gave orders, and their commandments were incumbent upon their communities, thus making them all “law-bearing” prophets.[6]

And We have sent no Messenger but that he should be obeyed by the command of Allah. And if they had come to thee, when they had wronged their souls, and asked forgiveness of Allah, and the Messenger also had asked forgiveness for them, they would have surely found Allah Oft-Returning with compassion, and Merciful.
– Surah Nisa’ Verse 65

Conclusion:

It is entirely possible that there is a distinction between law-bearing and non-law-bearing prophets, and even some modern Muslim scholars have commented on this idea. But, any conclusion thereof stems from deduction, not manifest evidence.

Even if there truly is a distinction between law-bearing and non-law-bearings prophets, there is no concise explanation anywhere in the Qur’an. But, such a distinction is foundational to Ahmadiyya, as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be a “non-law-bearing” prophet. If Ahmadiyya is the True Islam, as they claim, that would mean Allah mistakenly left out a fundamental pillar required to accept one of his later prophets, or ciphered this belief in what seems to be otherwise unrelated verses, effectively dumbfounding the masses of those who believe in the Qur’an sending them to hellfire.

No, the guidance from Allah is clear. The concept of “law-bearing” and “non-law-bearing” prophets does not exist anywhere in the Qur’an. Any argument which uses this as a pillar rests on weak grounds and is subject to dismissal, including the entire Ahmadiyya religion.

May Allah guide our Ahmadi friends to Islam.


Sources Cited:
[1] Saheeh Muslim, Book 1, Hadith 309

[2] The Prophet’s صلى الله عليه و سلم advisor was Musa عليه السلام. Some comment that this is because Musa عليه السلام had previous experience in speaking directly to Allah.

[3] Saheeh Muslim, Book 1, Hadith 341

[4] Saheeh Muslim, Book 1, Hadith 343

[5] Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth by Mirza Tahir Ahmad, Part VII, “Attempts to Philosophically Justify the Finality of Non-law-bearing Prophethood”

Be Sociable, Share!

49 thoughts on “No Firm Basis for the Law-Bearing vs. non-Law-Bearing Prophet Distinction

  1. Akh Islam976, what does ‘Esa bin Maryam (AS) that have to do with this article? That is *completely* unrelated to my article.

    I’ve noticed this about Ahmadis. You can be like “So, what’s up with your religion and Chanda?” And they’ll be like “The answer to that question about Chanda is that Jesus died in India at the age of 120 unlike you Muslims who believe he was flying around in space”.

    “What exactly is a Zilli Prophet?”
    “A Zilli prophet means that Jesus died in India and his tomb is in Kashmir”

    “What time is it? It’s getting late”
    “It is time for you to accept that Jesus traveled did not die on the cross, as the gospels say, and traveled the world and was eventually called Yuz Asaf.”

    Akhi, this article was about Law-Bearing and non-Law-bearing Prophets, not about ‘Esa bin Maryam (AS).

  2. I do find it disappointing that a reasonable and well-written piece should be rubbished with a one-line comeback.

  3. Brother, the return of Jesus has a lot to do with the question of law bearing and non law bearing prophets. First of all, the conclusion of the above article is that there is no clear-cut definition of the kinds of prophet-hood in the Quran. I disagree, as Quran specifically describes the Prophets with Suhuf and Books and the prophets without them. There are only two books mentioned in Quran. Torah and Quran. Injeel and Zuboor are not defined as Kitaab. And Ibrahim (as) was also described as having a sahifa. What about Hood, Lot, Shoaib, Yusuf, Yonus , Jacob, Isaac, Ismael, Zul Kifl, Zul Qarnain, Noah, David, Solomon (May peace be upon them all)?

    Also, when asked, the common orthodox mullah will say that Jesus (as) will descend and follow Quran. As he was already a Prophet, he will be an Ummati Prophet of RusoolAllah (saw). This means that Jesus (as) will be a non-law bearing prophet.

  4. “First of all, the conclusion of the above article is that there is no clear-cut definition of the kinds of prophet-hood in the Quran. I disagree, as Quran specifically describes the Prophets with Suhuf and Books and the prophets without them.”

    Show me where it says “Musa was a law-bearing Prophet, Esa was a non-law-bearing prophet”. THAT is conclusive proof.

    Few points:

    A) Many of the scholars believe that all prophets received verses of revelation, but not all of them wrote it down. If you are saying the revelation of books means laws, then one could still argue that all of them were law-bearing prophets.
    B) Even then, all this proves is that some Prophets received *books*. Since when are written books the only form of Islamic law? Remember the above argument about following the Sunnah of he messengers?

    We need to believe in certain things and the Qur’an is not ambiguous about it, nor does it wait for “someone of intellect” to discover them 1300~ years after the Prophet died SAAWS. What we need to believe is clear-cut. Even if I agreed with your arguments (which were already addressed above), you still did not respond to the conclusion. The Qur’an should have said law-bearing or non-law-bearing. But it doesn’t, Ahmadiyya uses a speculative conclusion as a pillar of faith.

    The common Ahmadi mullah is unable to respond to such questions and will resort to saying Islam is for the intellectual. To me, this is an admission of defeat. What about the simpleton? What about the person who never had the opportunity to develop his mind? Was the Qur’an not sent as a mercy for them too?

  5. You do not need the exact phrases in the Quran to understand a concept. Where are “five pillars” mentioned as “five pillars”. But we understand them from Quranic verses as the fundametal Islamic beliefs. Similarly, you don’t need the exact phrase tashri’ee or ghair-tashri’ee in the Quran to understand the concept. It is a common mulla tactic. And this attitude is described in the Quran as typical of the rejectors of Prophets.

  6. The five pillars is mentioned in the Hadith of the Prophet SAAWS as the five pillars upon which Islam is built. (I believe in both the Qur’an AND the Hadith)

    Volume 1, Book 2, Number 7:
    Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:
    Allah’s Apostle said: Islam is based on (the following) five (principles):
    1. To testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle.
    2. To offer the (compulsory congregational) prayers dutifully and perfectly.
    3. To pay Zakat (i.e. obligatory charity) .
    4. To perform Hajj. (i.e. Pilgrimage to Mecca)
    5. To observe fast during the month of Ramadan.

    Your analogy fails.

    “Similarly, you don’t need the exact phrase tashri’ee or ghair-tashri’ee in the Quran to understand the concept. It is a common mulla tactic.”

    Something that is not in the Qur’an/Sunnah that you still believe in is called Bid’ah (innovation). As the Prophet SAAWS said, every innovation is a misguidance and every misguidance leads to the hellfire. I don’t care how long Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s beard was or how holy people said he was. If what he said was not concretely found in the Qur’an and Sunnah, its rejected.

    FYI, Your own scholars disagree with what you just said. The Ahmadis believe that Ahmad ibn Hanbal was the Mujaddid (religious reviver) of the 2nd century. Look up his position on speculative theology, such as this law-bearing vs non-law-bearing belief. Or was he just a “mullah” too?

  7. By quoting the Hadith to explain the five pillars, you have accepted that religious terms can be derived from other sources. But their basis must be in Quran. Hadith is the word of RusoolAllah (saw) and this is enough proof that the conclusion “there is no concise explanation anywhere in the Qur’an” is erroneous and misleading.

    We have the concept of Tashri’ee and ghair Tahshri’ee nabuwwah in the Quarn. This was the view of many scholars and Divines of previous centuries. Shah Waliullah and Ibne Arabi are two examples who supported the continuation of ghair’tashri’ee nubuwwat in Islam.

    But the strongest evidence of ghair’tashri’ee prophethood is in the fact that RusoolAllah (saw) prophecised the advent of a prophet in his ummah. There is no denying this fact that Messiah will be a prophet. And in the presence of “al yawma akmaltu lakum”, his status will be that of a non-law bearing prophethood. In order to refute this concept, you will have to deny the advent of Messiah. You will be denying dozens of Sahih, mutawatir ahadith to do that. You don’t have a leg to stand on.

  8. Once again you misrepresent the scholars. No decent Muslim scholar believed in the continuation of prophethood. I know ibn `Arabi said some way out things, but I don’t think even he supported this idea. For you to claim Shah Waliullah in support of your outlandish theory is just plain intellectual dishonesty. You are misrepresenting his position and that is not the mark of somebody who cares about the truth.

    What you fail to grasp about Isa (as) is that he was a Muslim. He has already been appointed. Mainstream belief is that he is still alive. How then would his descent break the seal? It is only Qadianis who believe that “a” messiah would have been born, which is contrary to the very ahaadeeth you cite! These ahaadeeth very clearly state that the messiah, Isa (as) ibn Maryam will descend amongst us. Not Mirza ibn Chiragh Bibi!

    The Qur’an supports prophethood and messengership. The former is a subset of the latter. Both kinds of prophethood ended with the advent of the khaataman nabiyyeen

  9. You see, you have now come back to the real issue. The issue is not of terminology of different kinds of prophets, but that of Khatamun Nabiyyeen.

    I have read a lot of literature.. many books, many journals and pamphlets. I have listened to the sermons, lectures delivered by clerics belonging to many major and minor muslim sects. I have spent many hours searching for one, coherent, logical argument against the Ahmadiyya beliefs. To date, I have found none. You see, anyone who is anyone in mullah circles can recite the allegations against the Promised Messiah (as). Starting from the allegation of blasphemy to the claims to be a hindu god and re-incarnation of Buddha and everyting in between. But I have not found any “scholar” who has addressed the ahmadiyya literature head on. You have just said that ahmadis have attributed wrong beliefs to Ibne Arabi and Shah Waliullah. But I will need a thorough review of their works on this topic from an orthodox cleric, with references to take this statement seriously. I remember once on ahmedi org forum, Akbar Chaudhary tried to pull the same trick. But one of the ex-ahmadis Mobi came forward and refuted his research.

    Unless, there is a scholarly debate on these matters, you can never prove anything.

  10. islam976, this is going in circles because you are repeating your arguments, not looking at my counter-arguments, and not addressing all of the points i brought up in the article

    We’re called Ahl as-Sunnah for a reason. I never deny rejecting the Sunnah.

    You said Tashre’e and Ghair Tashree’ee exists in the Qur’an. I’ve asked you multiple times to show me even that word Tashre’e in the Qur’an and you have not. If you reply by saying some prophets had books, I already addressed that response.

    You quoted Shah Wali Allah and Ibn ‘Arabi. You seem to accept these two as an authoritative source. If I am able to show you where they said “No more prophets” will you accept the finality or will you suddenly reject them too? (I am familiar with both of the quotes the Ahmadis present and have read their contexts)

    Akhi, you still have not addressed two points I brought up:

    A) Each nation was obligated to follow his respective prophet
    B) Even if you are able to find some proof somewhere, it is not a *clear* concept, its something you had to workup. But, your religion makes it ESSENTIAL to believe in this concept, even though its proof isn’t clear. Don’t you see that as a problem?

    The Ayah from Surah Ma’idah denies the continuation of laws, I agree. But, how does that support your claim in any way? Does it say “And all new prophets will follow this law”. No. So, where does your concept of non-law-bearing prophets come from?

    Interestingly, MGA himself added obligatory commandments, ie Chanda, paying 6% of your income a year (plus all the various other forms of Chanda). This is not in the Qur’an or Sunnah anywhere. So much for non-law-bearing prophet 🙂

    The Qur’an talks about Prophets and Messengers. That’s it. It makes no clear distinction between law-bearing or non-law-bearing. Does the word Tashre’e even exist in the Qur’an anywhere?

    May Allah guide the Ahmadis to Islam

  11. Farhan,

    Your view that Chanda, or Jalsa for that matter become new laws is incorrect. Both of these are important for ahmadis but those who do not pay chanda do not violate any conditions of basic faith. But if anyone rejects the awamir and nawahi of Quran rejects the Word of God and is in deep trouble.

    Your view of religious history is very strange. You say that each prophet had a nation. Would that mean that all the Israelite prophets had a nation from among the Israelites? As I understand, all the prophets except Jesus (as) were accepted by the jews. What was the purpose of the Prophets who came between Moses (as) and Jesus (as)?

    Also, I never said that the word Tashri’ee and ghair Tashri’ee exist in Quran. The concept is present in Quran and Hadith, but not the exact words.

    The Ahmadiyya muslim belief regarding the concept of prophets is that God sent guidance to Israelites and reinforced it through a continuous series of Prophets (who did not add to the laws as Jesus confirmed). Then after Israelites, God sent the guidance to the rest of the world including Jews in the form of Quran. The Quranic teachings were revived by mujaddideen, the spiritual caliphs of the Holy Prophet (saw). These saints were equal to the status of Israeli prophets according to Hadith. But in the time of greatest turmoil (What will your state be when Jesus son of Mary appears….) God will raise a prophet among the muslims to revive the faith and make Islam victorious over all the other faiths. This prophet has been prophecised by Quran and RusoolAllah (saw) (Nabiullah and his Sahaba according to Sahih Muslim).

    That is why my very first question to you was.. What will be function of this Nabiullah when he descends? If you answer this in clear and concise words, it may help me understand the purpose of your article.

  12. islam976,

    You are not answering my questions, have completely ignored my closing point, and are now asking new questions to me.

    To your issue: You asked what the status of ‘Esa bin Maryam will be when he descends. He will be (and is) a Prophet of Allah. That is all we know clearly from the Qur’an/Hadith.

    You said: “Also, I never said that the word Tashri’ee and ghair Tashri’ee exist in Quran. The concept is present in Quran and Hadith, but not the exact words.”

    This is the crux of the problem. I doubt (but do not deny) that *even the concept exists*. The fact that it is not mentioned anywhere means it is not an *essential* part of our guidance. But, according to your religion, you believe this distinction of Law-Bearing and Non-Law-Bearing prophets is absolutely important. If someone does not believe this, then by default he rejects Mirza and thus what you believe is true guidance from Allah.

    Don’t you see this as a problem? That it is not clear? I am not interested in your ability to prove or disprove it. That a major part of your religion isn’t even clearly in the Qur’an anywhere.

    Answer these two question clearly and concisely:

    If this distinction is so important, why didn’t Allah just mention it CLEARLY (ie, actually used the words Law-Bearing vs Non-Law-Bearing). Why did he create this Qur’anic puzzle to either solve or go to hellfire?

    Second, you cited Shah Wali Allah and Ibn ‘Arabi. If I can show you where they said “No more prophets”, will you reject the continuation of prophets?

    Answer these questions or the dialogue will discontinue.

  13. “But in the time of greatest turmoil (What will your state be when Jesus son of Mary appears….) God will raise a prophet among the muslims to revive the faith and make Islam victorious over all the other faiths.”

    FYI, the Muslims went through far far worse turmoils than the late 1800s to early 1900s. Actually, that era would be considered bad, but mild.

  14. Farhan, you can show no prophet wordings from Hadith as well. No doubt a majority of reknowned muslim scholars have stated that no prophet will come after the Holy Prophet (saw), including Ibne Arabi and Shah Waliullah. But starting from Hadith, ALL major scholars have accepted the fact that ONE prophet will come in the latter days in the ummah. This one prophet will not bring any new laws, commandments as the last law-bearing book is Quran.

    Major part of my Ahmadiyya Muslim faith is the Quran. I do not need to bring the name of Promised Messiah (as) or Qadian from the Quran to prove his truth. You expect Quran to clearly say that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the Promised Messiah, a non-law bearing prophet. He is truthful. Accept him. If it was that easy, then your understanding of the history of religion is very naive. God tests mankind with such matters and only the sincere of heart can join His jama’at.

    I have previously said that Quran does make the distinction between the types of Prophets and at some level you know that such classification does exist in the verses quoted in your article. For you, the answer lies in the status of Jesus (as) when he returns. Remember, I asked you the quesion first. It is you who owes me an answer and not me.

  15. Farhan, our estemmed friend islam976 is the world record holder in diversion. Discussing anything with him is like nailing jelly to a wall. I once patiently spent over 20 pages in the ahmedi.org forum debating on the meaning of “dhurriyat-ul-baghaaya” with him. 🙂

  16. Akh islam976,

    So, you cite Shah Wali Allah and Ibn ‘Arabi, but disassociate yourself from them the moment they say something that disagrees with you… Do you see why I believe this is a a double-standard?

    You said:
    “I do not need to bring the name of Promised Messiah (as) or Qadian from the Quran to prove his truth. You expect Quran to clearly say that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the Promised Messiah, a non-law bearing prophet. He is truthful. Accept him. If it was that easy, then your understanding of the history of religion is very naive. God tests mankind with such matters and only the sincere of heart can join His jama’at.”

    So, according to you, the Qur’an is not clear, does not tell us what to do, and we sorta have to “figure it out”? Hm…I thought the Qur’an was supposed to be a *CLEAR* book of guidance, not misguidance.

    The Ahmadis are coming from the perspective that Ahmadiyya is true. Then, they are looking how you can interpret the Qur’an to agree with their theology.

    I can what I will do,
    You can what you will do,
    We can what we will do.

  17. Farhan, why should I dissociate myself from the saints and sages of the ummah who informed us of the advent of Promised Messiah (as). It is the rejectors of truth who shy away from these scholars. Ahmadiyya muslim literature is the only place where their views and opinions are given importance these days. All the rest prefer to quote maudoodi, qardavi and iqbal these days.

  18. They did no such thing. There is no concept of “Promised Messiah” in Islam. Isa ibn Maryam, yes. “Maseeh Ma`oud”. No. The whole “promised messiah” thing is a Jewish concept, not a Muslim one.

    Saint is a Christian word by the way. We don’t call them saints. We call them mujaddids.

    It’s Qaradawi btw, and people like him and Ramadan are much more lucid, interesting, informative, inspiring and knowledgeable than Mirza Masroor, Mirza Ghulam, or just about any other Qadiani figure.

  19. Both of these quotes I have personally verified. I bought a partial translation of Futuhaat al-Makiyyah, I got a copy at Georgetown University’s AMAZING library and in PDF format on http://www.al-mostafa.com/

    Ibn Arabi writes in Volume I, Section 21, Chapter 38:

    ثبت أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال “إن الرسالة والنبوة قد انقطعت فلا رسول بعدي ولا نبي” الحديث بكماله فهذا الحديث من أشد ما جرعت الأولياء مرارته فإنه قاطع للوصلة بين الإنسان وبين عبوديته وإذا انقطعت الوصلة بين الإنسان وبين عبوديته من أكمل الوجوه انقطعت الوصلة بين الإنسان وبين الله فإن العبد على قدر ما يخرج به عن عبوديته ينقصه من تقريبه من سيده لأنه يزاحمه في أسمائه وأقل المزاحمة الأسمية فأبقى علينا اسم الولي…

    It was proven that the messenger of Allāh may Allāh bless him and give him peace said, “Messengerhood and prophethood have ended, for there is no messenger after me, and no prophet” the Hadith to its end. For this Hadith is among the most difficult of what saints were forced to drink its bitterness for it is an interrupter of the connection between the human-being and between his servitude [to Allāh]. And if the connection between the human-being and his servitude is interrupted in the fullest manner, the connection between the human-being and between Allāh is interrupted. For as much as the servant moves away from his servitude [to Allāh], it diminishes his seeking of closeness to his Lord because he rivals Him in His names, and the least of rivalry is nominal, so he kept for us the title of al-Walï.

    In his book al-Musawwa Sharh al-Muwatta’, Shah Wali Allah writes:

    وكذلك من قال في الشيخين أبي بكر وعمر مثلاً ليسا من أهل الجنة مع تواتر الحديث في بشارتهما أو قال: ان النبي -صلى الله عليه وسلم- خاتم النبوة ولكن معنى هذا الكلام أنه لا يجوز أن يسمو بعده أحد بالنبي، وأما معنى النبوة وهو كون الإنسان مبعوثاً من الله تعالى إلى الخلق مفترض الطاعة معصوماً من الذنوب ومن البقاء، على الخطأ فيما يرى فهو موجود في الأئمة بعده ، فذلك هو الزنديق . وقد اتفق جماهير المتأخرين من الحنفية والشافعية على قتل من يجري هذا المجرى والله أعلم

    however the meaning of this saying is that it is unacceptable for one to be named a prophet after him, as for the meaning of prophethood which is for the human being to be sent by Allāh Most High to the creation obligatory to be obeyed protected from sinning and immortality, with the error in what he sees “for he exists in the scholars after him”, for that is an apostate. And the majority of the late [scholars] of the Hanafï and Shäfi`ï [schools] agreed upon the execution of who goes in this direction and Allāh knows best

    I scanned copies of the pages incase everyone ever asks me where I got them from
    http://profile.imageshack.us/user/farhan00/

    http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=Musawwa&Search_Code=GKEY^*&PID=lO70BPt8S5YnAQYFw_7wor1Obr&SEQ=20081021183609&CNT=100&HIST=1

    http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=Musavva&Search_Code=GKEY^*&PID=7yeSxaBGO3IXMGER6YKl6I5Z&SEQ=20081021183730&CNT=100&HIST=1

  20. islam976, no the Ahmadis take out of context quotations of these people and do not quote that which disagrees with them. I’ve seen it with my own eyes.

    I have personally verified the following two quotes. For Futuhaat al-Makiyyah, I purchased two partial English translations, got a copy of the book from the GeorgeTown University Library and found the entire book in PDF format on http://www.al-mostafa.com

    I got a copy of al-Musawwa Sharh al-Muwatta from the Library of Congress. I also scanned the pages here:
    http://profile.imageshack.us/user/farhan00/

  21. Ibn ‘Arabi writes in Futuhaat al-Makiyya, Volume I, Section 21, Chapter 38:

    ثبت أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال “إن الرسالة والنبوة قد انقطعت فلا رسول بعدي ولا نبي” الحديث بكماله فهذا الحديث من أشد ما جرعت الأولياء مرارته فإنه قاطع للوصلة بين الإنسان وبين عبوديته وإذا انقطعت الوصلة بين الإنسان وبين عبوديته من أكمل الوجوه انقطعت الوصلة بين الإنسان وبين الله فإن العبد على قدر ما يخرج به عن عبوديته ينقصه من تقريبه من سيده لأنه يزاحمه في أسمائه وأقل المزاحمة الأسمية فأبقى علينا اسم الولي…

    It was proven that the messenger of Allāh may Allāh bless him and give him peace said, “Messengerhood and prophethood have ended, for there is no messenger after me, and no prophet” the Hadith to its end. For this Hadith is among the most difficult of what saints were forced to drink its bitterness for it is an interrupter of the connection between the human-being and between his servitude [to Allāh]. And if the connection between the human-being and his servitude is interrupted in the fullest manner, the connection between the human-being and between Allāh is interrupted. For as much as the servant moves away from his servitude [to Allāh], it diminishes his seeking of closeness to his Lord because he rivals Him in His names, and the least of rivalry is nominal, so he kept for us the title of al-Walï.

    This shows that even Ibn ‘Arabi believed that there are no prophets after Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم. However, the Ahmadis do not quote this statement, because it disagrees with their beliefs. They only quote those interpretive statements that seem to agree with them, thus giving the impression that Ibn ‘Arabi agreed with their theology.

  22. In al-Musawwa Sharh al-Muwatta’ by Shah Wali Allah Muhaddith Dehlawi, he writes under “The Ruling of the Khawaarij, the Jahmiyya and their likes”:

    وكذلك من قال في الشيخين أبي بكر وعمر مثلاً ليسا من أهل الجنة مع تواتر الحديث في بشارتهما أو قال: ان النبي -صلى الله عليه وسلم- خاتم النبوة ولكن معنى هذا الكلام أنه لا يجوز أن يسمو بعده أحد بالنبي، وأما معنى النبوة وهو كون الإنسان مبعوثاً من الله تعالى إلى الخلق مفترض الطاعة معصوماً من الذنوب ومن البقاء، على الخطأ فيما يرى فهو موجود في الأئمة بعده ، فذلك هو الزنديق . وقد اتفق جماهير المتأخرين من الحنفية والشافعية على قتل من يجري هذا المجرى والله أعلم

    However the meaning of this saying is that it is unacceptable for one to be named a prophet after him, as for the meaning of prophethood which is for th human being to be sent by Allāh Most High to the creation obligatory to be obeyed protected from sinning and immortality, with the error in what he sees “for he exists in the scholars after him”, for that is an apostate. And the majority of the late [scholars] of the Hanafï and Shäfi`ï [schools] agreed upon the execution of who goes in this direction and Allāh knows best

    The word Wali Allah uses is “Zandeeq”, which is like deviant, apostate, person gone astray, etc. I put both the original Farsi and Arabic translation online.

  23. As I said, all major scholars in Islam, including the ahmadiyya scholars maintain that NO new prophet or messenger can come, but the Messiah and Mahdi. And Messiah and Mahdi is not an idenependent prophet with new commandment. He is a prophet because he is a true reflection of the Holy Prophet (saw). Please note how Ibne Arabi describes the spriritual status of the Mahdi. This is the English transcript from Futuhat e Makkiyah, found at http://www.ibnarabisociety.org/articlespdf/sp_mahdi.pdf.

    “But as for those who judge in accordance with the divine inspiration (wahy) that (God) has sent down, those to whom (that inspiration) has been delivered (ahl al-ilqa’) among the (prophetic) Messengers and those like them (i.e., the saints), they did not depart from (their inner awareness of) this interpenetration (of spiritual and material being). Thus God made them the receptacle (of revelation) for that part of His judgment concerning His servants which he delivered to them, (as) He said: “The Faithful Spirit brought down (the revelation) upon your heart” (Kor. 26:193-194), and “He sends down the
    angels with the Spirit from His Command upon whomever He wishes among His servants” (Kor. 16:2).
    Therefore every judgment (or command: hukm) concerning the world that is made manifest through a (divine) Messenger is the outcome of a “spiritual marriage”; this (essential spiritual inspiration underlying the judgment) is not in the textual indications and not in those who judge on the basis of analogy (qiyas). Hence it is incumbent on the Imam that he know what is (learned) through being sent down by God (through divine inspiration) and what is (ordinarily supposed) through analogy. However the Mahdi does not know this–I mean the knowledge acquired by analogy–in order to pass judgment according to it, but only so that he can avoid it! For the Mahdi only judges according to what the angel delivers to him from what is with God (Kor. 2:89; etc.), (the inspiration) God has sent him in order to guide him rightly. So that is the true Muhammadan Shar’ (Law)–the one such that Muhammad, if he were alive (on earth) and that particular case were presented to him, would pass judgment on it in exactly the same way as this Imam. For God will teach him (by inspiration) that this is the Muhammadan Shar’ (law) and will therefore forbid him (to follow judgments arrived at by) analogical reasoning, despite the existence of the textual indications God has bestowed on him. And this is why God’s Messenger said, in describing the Mahdi, that “He follows in the trace of my footsteps, and he makes no mistake.” Through this he informed us that (the Mahdi) is a follower (of the Prophet), not one who is followed (i.e., not a Messenger with a new revealed Law), and that he is (divinely) protected from error (ma’sum)– since the only (possible) meaning of someone’s being protected from error is that they do not make mistakes. Thus if the Messenger (i.e., Muhammad) pronounced a judgment (insome matter), no mistake is ascribed to him, since “he does not speak from passion, but it is only an inspiration (wahy) inspired in him” (Kor. 53:3-4); and likewise analogical reasoning is not permissible in a place where the Messenger is to be found.
    Now the Prophet does exist and is to be found (here and now) with the People of Unveiling, and therefore they only take their (inspired understanding of the appropriate divine) judgment from him. This is the reason why the truthful and sincere faqir doesn’t depend on any (legal) school: he is with the Messenger (i.e., Muhammad) alone, whom he directly witnesses, just as the Messenger is with the divine inspiration (wahy) that is sent down to him.”

    This is only an example of the views of Ibne Arabi on the future of revelation within the Ummah and the status of Imam Mahdi in his eyes. He categorically states that ” (the Mahdi) is a follower (of the Prophet), not one who is followed “. But he receives revelations and does not mix his own qiyas while making judgments. This is the description of a non-law bearing prophet Nabi.

  24. A) I do not believe that they are the same person. The al-Mahdi and al-Maseeh are not the same person. The Ahmadis quote the Hadith “No Mahdi except ‘Esa”. What they don’t realize is that this is a *fabricated* hadith, and there are dozens of proofs of this.
    B) You did not respond to what I said, neither about Ibn ‘Arabi nor about Shah Wali Allah. You simply ignored them.
    C) No Muslim scholar believes that a new prophet will come. We believe that ‘Esa bin Maryam (AS) will return, but he is not a new prophet, he was given prophethood before Muhammad SAAWS.
    D) The quote you pasted just says that al-Mahdi will follow the law of Muhammad SAAWS. I do not dispute that fact. What’s your point?

    It is as if Ahmadis believe that there is no way to even express the thought in the finality of prophethood. If you say “No more prophets, whatsoever, of any kind”, they will find some way to say “Well, it really means [fill in the blank here]”

    You have two statements from people you yourself accept, and you either ignored them, or rejected them.

  25. By the way, I recommend you read Ibn ‘Arabi’s 83rd question and see how he defines prophethood.

    (I have a theory about Ibn ‘Arabi: The reason he was so widely condemned as a heretic is because of the way he phrased himself and defined terms.)

  26. So you agree that Ibne Arabi was open to the idea of prophetic revelations. If you read in further detail, you will find that he described Mahdi (as) to be the extreme resemblence of the Holy Prophet (saw). The question of Mahdi and Messiah being two different persons is a valid one. Most scholars have considered them to be two different persons. But Ibne Arabi on atleast one occasion has presented a different view.

    “His descent in later ages will be with a different body.”
    (Tafsir Araisul Bayan, Vol. 1, p. 262) . Maybe you can comment on this as well.

    But Hadith of RusoolAllah (saw) is enough to remove that doubt. When you reject a Hadith as weak or fabricated, it has to be supported by some argument. The narrators who invented such a hadith should have a motive. For example a Shia narrator will invent a hadith to make Banu Abbas the more worthy clan to have the Mahdi. What was the motive behind inventing such a hadith? And besides, dead people do not come back!

    I did not address Shah Waliullah’s views in the regard because I do not have access to his writings. But, I have access to historic facts. Firstly, he completely agrees with Ibne Arabi when it comes to the status of Mahdi.

    “The reality [is that] the Promised Messiah is to have the light and image of the Holy Prophetsa in him. Many people think that the Promised Messiah will be an ordinary person from the ummah. This is not true. He will be the true embodiment of the name of Holy Prophet sa and his true copy. How can he be compared with an ordinary Muslim. (al-Khair ul Kathir, p. 236–237)”

    and

    One form of the real spiritual re-advent is that sometimes
    the progeny or the followers are included within the same status of a principal person in the same way as the image of the Holy Prophet sa will appear in the advent of the Mahdi. (Tafhimat-e-Ilahiyya, vol. 2, p. 198)

    The anticipation of the imminent arrival of Imam Mahdi was the strongest in the days of shah Waliullah. Infact it was Syed Ahmad Shaheed of Bareli, a follower of shah Waliullah who was rumoured to be the Imam Mahdi. But Syed Ahmad denied this, claiming only to be the Ameerul Momineen.

  27. I read what you wrote, but there was no specific argument. I am missing something?

    But, you still did not reply to the quote by Ibn ‘Arabi, when he that the bitterest cup the saints had to drink was that there are no more prophets. But, Allah left the door to *Wilayyah* open.

    I earlier asked you to read the 83rd question, where he defines prophethood. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on his definition and how it changes any arguments the Ahmadis bring forward. If you need, I will give you a link to his books.

    Regarding “No Mahdi except ‘Esa”, this hadith is reported in Ibn Majah, Hakim and several other sources. But, numerous Islamic scholars criticize the authenticity of this statement. For example, Dhahabi says in his book al-Mizan that this is a munkar (problematic) report. Saghani says it is mawdoo’ (fabricated). Shawkaani, in his book al-Ahadeeth al-Mawdoo’ that the hadith is fabricated.

    However, the dozens of other narrations about Imam Mahdi indicate that he is separate from ‘Esa bin Maryam (AS). But, I am sure the Ahmadis found some innovative way to interpret the narrations to combine them into one person.

    You said you do not have access to Shah Wali Allah’s books. I have scanned them for you in both Farsi and Arabic. You can check out the context.
    http://profile.imageshack.us/user/farhan00

    May Allah guide the Ahmadis to Islam

  28. You referenced this article:

    http://www.alislam.org/library/links/00000087.html

    I have read many of these books and articles and am familiar with them. They frequently quote weak and fabricated ahadith. Its funny, because Farhan (Orthodox786, an ex-Ahmadi) went to an Islamic library and found a copy of Ibn Majah, and looked up the Hadith “No Mahdi except ‘Esa”. He took a blurred picture with his cell phone camera that said “Dha’eef (weak)” next to the Hadith.

    But they still use it 🙂
    It just shows who is upon the Truth.

  29. Farhan / Islam976

    I am not following your debate except a few lines on Mahdi and Masiah as the same person. Its a weak hadith as Farhan quoted above. But for our Qadiani friend, it may come as a surprise that Mirza Ghulam himself said:

    Ref: RK7, Hamamat-ul-Bushra, pages 314/315 ( its in Arabic and very clear)

    Quote:

    “With regard to Hadiths about the coming of al-Mahdi, you must know that ALL of them are unreliable, weak and they contradict each other. There is even a Hadith by ibn Majah and others says ‘there is no Mahdi except Isa ibn Maryam’! How can you rely on such Hadiths!? …The conclusion is that ALL those Hadiths are full of contradiction and inconsistency; therefore you must leave all those Hadiths..”

    When Masih and Mahdi are two different personlities, this proves that Mirza Ghulam’s claim of Mahdi and Masiah is false….case closed.

  30. The quote provided by pleezing one answers the questions raised in the posts before it. Ibne Khuldoon in his Muqaddimah has rejected almost all the ahadith regarding Mahdi as fabrications. And rightly so. Does this mean that the concept of Mahdi was not present at the time of Holy Prophet (saw)? Let me give you an example. Shia and Sunni rift is a purely political issue, but this political disagreement was exploited by the khawarij, many of whom invented ahadith to support the Shia views. This practice also involved the concept of Imam Mahdi. As early as 30 years after the death of Holy Prophet (saw), we see that there was one claimant of Mahdi. One of sons of Ali (ra). Most of the Ahadith on Mahdi have been exploited by the dynasties of Umayyads and Abbasids and Fatimids to prove that they were the rightful rulers of the muslim world. But still, the fact that Holy Prophet (saw) did prophecise a Mahdi is in the claim of Ibn-Al Hanifiya’s claim to be the Mahdi. At that time many companions were still alive and there would have been a strong movement to reject the Mahdi legend there and then. We know this is a fact that the companions of RusoolAllah (saw) defended the true Islamic beliefs very vocally.

    Saying this, I conclude that the ahadith regarding the Mahdi are indeed unreliable and damaged, but the concept of Mahdi is a valid one. All the major scholars have agreed on this. Ibne Arabi, for example wrote in length about it. Although he did mention in his writings that there are many questions in his mind, but he refrained from asking them to God. This is a mystic approach towards gaining knowledge. For example, Ibne Arabi believed that Mahdi will come with the sword. Something that I disagree with. He also states that Mahdis enemies will the the Ulema of his time. Something that I agree with.

    But it is the prophetic status of Mahdi which should be kept in mind. Ibne Arabi is dismayed with the fact that saints can not be prophets, but when he mentions Mahdi, he has very clearly indicated that Mahdi will receive prophetic revelations and none of his judgements will come from his ownself. Something which differentiates a Saint from a Prophet. He also explains that the phenomenon of prophethood is continuous in the Ummah, but without a new law (Shar’).

    I had asked another question regarding the hadith of Ibne Majah. Most fabricated hadith about Mahdi have a political motive. What was the motive behind this particular hadith?

  31. Mr. islam976

    Mirza clearly told you that Ibn Majah Hadith regarding Mahdi and Essa are same…is a fabrication and unreliable.

    Mahdi is spoken of in Ahadith is clearly described and there are signs too, so no one can deny coming of MAHDI, and only thos ewho follow the falsehood will ignore all signs.

    The point to ponder is that when MAHDI is a separate personality than Masih Moud, how can Mirza claimed as Mahdi and Masiah – two in one? Mirza’s claim is proven false.

    Let me give you one more proof if you want to see, Mirza says in RK Vol.4, Nishan e Asmani page 10, pdf 16-57

    ” Muhammed pbuh informs us about many MAHDIS including the MAHDI who, IN HADITH, named as SULTAN MASHRIQ.”

    The foundation of belief that Mirza is Mahdi is founded on falsehood. This is for those who like to find the truth with open mind and without blind following.

  32. islam976, everything you said we Muslims agree with

    That the Mahdi will at one point be enemies with some of the Muslims (not all but many. He is supposed to seek refuge from a Muslim government in Makkah. But MGA never even went to Hajj) that many of the Hadith about him were fabricated by the Umayyads/Abbassids/Shi’a etc. There is an EXCELLENT lecture series by Yasir Qadhi titled “The Mahdi”. If you have MSN, send me a message at farhank84@hotmail.com and I’ll send it to you. Even if you don’t agree, you will find it very interesting.

    Their political motivations are irrelevant. Its classification is based on the Science of Hadith authentication. Either way, the Hadith “La Mahdi illa ‘Esa” is at best a very weak narration and at worst fabricated. But, this is one of the main narrations the modern Ahmadis use to suggest that they’re the same person. Do you understand why this is problematic?

  33. PleezingOne, that seems to suggest that Mirza himself did not believe in the Mahdi at first, but later changed his theology when convenient.

    This is why they do not translate his books 🙂

    May Allah guide the Ahmadis to Islam

  34. Farhan,

    that seems to suggest that Mirza himself did not believe in the Mahdi at first, but later changed his theology when convenient.”

    Absolutely,

    He said said that ALL ahadith regarding MAHDI are fabricated and we must reject them. Click this link http://alislam.org/urdu/rk/rk-7-21.pdf and then write 150 in pdf slot that will take you to book page 314. Please read last few lines and first few lines on next page, in no uncertain terms, Mirza was agaisnt ALL ahadith about Mahdi. Interstingly, the title page of the book says ” by Ahmed Masih Moud and Mahdi Mahood”. Another fraud, he did not use his full name and omitted ” ghulam” from it,…omg….unbelieveable. He addressed Arabs in this book, so he covenienly omitted part of his first name. This book was written in 1311 AH.

    But before that book, he wrote another book called ” Nishan-e-Asmani” or HEAVENLY SIGN. In this book, Mirza tries to justify his claim of MAHDI and actually use above HADITH ( Ibn-e-Majah -no Mahdi except Essa )in support of his claim……

    Mr. Islam976, pl lOOk at page no. 8 of the book Nishan-e-Asman (pdf14)and please tell us how Mirza using this hadith in his support when he clearly said that it was not reliable and reject it????

    I invite islam976 to read book page 10 and 14 of this book and see LIES from Mirza. ( sorry, don’t have a softer word for Mirza, he actally and knowingly lied)
    On pgae 14, Mirza was proven a LIAR on two counts. On his age and on his period of Dawaaaa. Islam976, you can read URDU, how can you ignore such GRAND LIES? And why accept someone whose claim is basewd on LIES?

  35. Br. Pleezing One:

    There are two alternatives for our friend Islam976:

    1) He believes in Ahmadiyyat. He is absolutely trapped by the cult mind and will use his undoubted intelligence to support his case. He is prepared to use the most convoluted and distorted reasoning to support his case. When all seems lost and the truth is staring him in the face, he will use his mind to concoct a get-out clause, no matter how flimsy. Or of course, he will switch topic or completely ignore you. Fear leads him to do this. You will note he steers clear of those threads in which he wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.

    2) The same as 1), except that he doesn’t buy it, but the jama’at has bought him (spiritually speaking, maybe materially) and he has too much invested in it to get out now.

    I have always suspected number 1. Qadiani Murabbis are never as smart as Islam976. I suspect Islam976 is a True Believer. In fact, I think he should be their “khalifa”. I’m serious. He’s way more qualified than Mirza Masroor!

  36. Bro Shahid,

    If he s inteligent an as knowledgable as you say, He will InshaAllah see he truth one day…. as an intllignt and sincere man cannot stay away from truth, especially when he can see it VERY CLEARLY.

    InshaAllah, he will be one day another Akbar Choudhary, Farhan and Shaid Kamal….

  37. Shahid et al., Maybe you think that you have all the arguments in the world to defeat the Ahmadi proofs, but infact there is a lot of arrogance and hatred which is driving most of your writings. I can assure you that a regular ahmadi will be aversed to reading any material which is so blatantly disrespectful of the revered personalities of the Jamaat.

    Also there is always someone who likes to jump in a discussion to repeat an argument which has already been dealt with. For example, in my last post, I discussed my views at length on the Mahdi ahadith, but someone thought it was appropriate to repeat the whole saga again.

    Only if you can stick to the point, these discussions may help you understand the ahmadiyya muslim view point.

  38. @Islam976: Pot? Kettle?

    If you want to see arrogance and hatred my friend, you have only to read the numerous “Love for All, Hatred for None” posts in the forum, or the newest blog entry here.

    I do hate evil my friend, I do hate lies, I do hate tyranny. I admit that, but what drives me is that I don’t want decent people going to hell just because they believed in something without thinking about it or knowing the full facts.

    @Br. Pleezing One:
    I hope he will join our ranks insha’Allah, there are plenty more. His brilliant mind is completely wasted defending deception that cannot be explained to the ordinary person.

  39. Islam976

    You might have dealt with MAHDI saga at length and given your views on MAHDI, but HAVE YOU EVER dealt with clear contradictions in Mirza’s writings? I repeat my point and will keep doing so until a follower of Mirza bravely comes forward and says..yes there are contradictions and I still follow them…..or SHOW ME THAT THESE ARE NOT CONTRADICTIONS…..

    HOW CAN YOU RECONCILE MIRZA’S QUOTES IN ABOVE posts? Now don’t come back and say that you have dealt with them….caz you have not. You have only AVOIDED them….

  40. I actually have answered the question already. The hadith La Mahid illa Eesa is not a fabricated hadith. Frist of all, it does not serve any political purpose for the reasons I mentioned before and secondly, the concept of Messiah and Mahdi is exactly the same. Messiah (The annointed one) and Mahdi (the guided one).

    It is very valid inference from many Ahadith and their Quranic origins, that Mahdi is a status held by all the prophets. Through this connection, all saints and sages who receive revelations have this status. All the mujaddideen were Mahdis no doubt. Umar b Abdul Aziz (ar) was the Mahdi of his time. Under this definition Noorud Deen Zangi and Salahud Deen Ayyabi were Mahdis of their time. But there are certain ahadith and a definite Quranic theme about the coming of The Mahdi. This Mahdi is associated with the time of great tribulations of Dajjal and Yajuj Majuj. And this Mahdi is also the Messiah. i.e., he is a prophet. Please refer to my discussion on Ibne Arabi’s views on the nature of revelation to the Imam Mahdi.

    Now, if you want to prove that there is any contradiction, you have to quote the passages and outline those “contradictions”. I have addressed the copy-paste allegation in good detail. It is upto you to read it and refute it.

  41. Akhi, no one is denying that many of the hadith about the Mahdi were fabricated, but political motivation is not a valid criteria for Hadith authentication, nor was it the only motivation.

    The objection to this Hadith is based on the chain of transmission and that other versions of this Hadith exist which are not truncated. Your own Mujaddid Jalal ad-Deen as-Suyooti said “Its ***chain of transmission*** has weakness”, nothing to do with the Abbassid of Umayyad Khulafaa’

    Mirza made that mistake, but you, my brother, are not bound by his errors.

    Lets talk via msn at farhank84@hotmail.com

  42. But, you did not respond to the clear dichotomy between your beliefs and Mirza’s writings. That is to say, you are contradicting your own “Promised Messiah” when he himself implies this specific Hadith is unreliable.

    “With regard to Hadiths about the coming of al-Mahdi, you must know that ALL of them are unreliable, weak and they contradict each other. There is even a Hadith by ibn Majah and others says ‘there is no Mahdi except Isa ibn Maryam’! How can you rely on such Hadiths? …The conclusion is that ALL those Hadiths are full of contradiction and inconsistency; therefore you must leave all those Hadiths.”
    -RK7, Hamamat-ul-Bushra, pages 314/315

    If you use AIM, my AIM name is “rootx11”
    I’ll even give you my cell phone if you wanna talk to me 🙂

  43. Islam976
    I am surprised to see you saying ” The hadith La Mahid illa Eesa is not a fabricated hadith.” directly against what Mirza said. Please look up Farhans quote. But your misrey increases when Mirza uses the same hadith to support his claim too….

    Please don’t take me wrong or insulting if sound too blunt..Your inability and hesitance to face the Mahdi / Madih contradiction proves that deep down in your heart, you acknowledge the contradiction but your blind belief and life time of revernce for Mirza is holding you back.

    Let me try once more, We are not talking of attributres of MAHDI or A Mahdi. We are talking about “The Mahdi” an individual who is foretold in Ahadith with certain attributes. Mirza denied all those Hadith and one very specific one which is always used by Qadianis – no mahdi except essa- .

    Mirza also wrote that book NISHAN-E-ASMANI where he writes in details and vainly tries to prove that the person THE MAHDI prophcised is none other than Mirza himslef. For your ease quick access, I am giving you the link here, http://alislam.org/urdu/rk/rk-4-12.pdf This will take you to title page of the book. Please read page 8,9, 10 and then a persian poem with URDU translation, please read this poem specially page 14….

    Now tell me is he talking about A Mahdi or THE MAHDI and spending his maximum energies to prove that he is THE MAHDI prophecised so much so that he lied about ahadith…and I quote here:

    – Rk VOL 4, Nishan e Asmani page 10, pdf 16-57

    ” Muhammed pbuh informs us about many MAHDIS including the mahdi who, IN HADITH, named as SULTAN MASHRIQ”

    On the same page, Mirza writes ” Muhammaed pbuh himself declared the same era for the coiming of MAHDI which we are in and called him Mujaddad of 14 centyry”

    YOU SEE THAT ABOVE STATEMENTS ARE COMPLETE LIES BY MIRZA…
    HOW CAN YOU LIVE WITH SUCH CONTRADICTIONS? HOW CAN YOU TRUST A MAN WHO LIES TO MAKE HIS CLAIM?

  44. Farhan, I don’t do MSN or AIMS, but I will email you from my gmail address. What you claim to be contradictions in the writings of Promised Messiah (as) are no contradictions. A person claiming to be the Mahdi can not claim that the concept of Mahdi is false. Promised Messiah (as) only claims that there are so many contracitions in ahadith that it is not wise to consider them the criteria for truthfulness of his claims. Instead he draws the attention of the readers to the prophecies of coming of the Messiah, and his spiritual battles with Dajjal. You say that Promised Messiah (as) included the hadith “la Mahdi illa Eesa” in the fabircated ahadith, but you are mistaken. The statement says that Mahdi ahadith are damaged (Majrooh) and some contradict the others. And the example of “La Mahdi illa Eesa” is given as the contradition to the other ahadith which show Mahdi and Jesus to be two different persons. If you read from the top of the same page 314, the position becomes more clear. Promised Messiah (as) quotes a Hadith “narrated by Ibn Abbas the RasoolAllah (saw) said, my brother Jesus son of Mary will descend on Jabl Afeeq, he will be IMAAMAN HAADIYAN, Hakaman Aadilan and at his hand Dajjal will be slain…….” This Hadith shows that it is Messiah who will also be Imam Mahdi.

  45. THE NUMBER OF AHMADIS IN THE WORLD HAVE GROWN AND ARE STILL GROWING!! CANT U SEE FROM THAT ATLEAST THAT WE ARE THE TRUE MUSLIMS??

Comments are closed.