Warning: array_map() [function.array-map]: Argument #2 should be an array in /home1/lifeaft4/public_html/thecult/blog/wp-content/plugins/yet-another-related-posts-plugin/magic.php on line 287
Warning: join() [function.join]: Invalid arguments passed in /home1/lifeaft4/public_html/thecult/blog/wp-content/plugins/yet-another-related-posts-plugin/magic.php on line 27
Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home1/lifeaft4/public_html/thecult/blog/wp-content/plugins/yet-another-related-posts-plugin/magic.php on line 54
The Ahmadis have made it a general practice to re-interpret koranic verses to fit there own needs. Neccesity in the mother of invention. The ahmadis have invented a new koran. I will post a series of mini-articles which will show exactly what verses these people are taking out of context.
The first verse is 3:144, or 145 in the ahmadi koran.
{ وَمَا مُحَمَّدٌ إِلاَّ رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلِهِ ٱلرُّسُلُ أَفإِنْ مَّاتَ أَوْ قُتِلَ ٱنْقَلَبْتُمْ عَلَىٰ أَعْقَابِكُمْ وَمَن يَنقَلِبْ عَلَىٰ عَقِبَيْهِ فَلَن يَضُرَّ ٱللَّهَ شَيْئاً وَسَيَجْزِي ٱللَّهُ ٱلشَّاكِرِينَ }
With regard to their being routed, when it was rumoured that the Prophet had been killed and the hypocrites had said to the believers, ‘If he has been killed, go back to your [previous] religion’, the following was revealed: Muhammad is only a messenger; messengers have passed away before him. Why, if he should die or is slain, like others, will you turn back on your heels, will you return to unbelief (the last statement is the locus of the interrogative of denial, in other words, ‘he was not a worshipped being, so that [if he were to die] you should turn back [to your previous religion]’). If any man should turn back on his heels, he will not harm God in any way, but will be harming himself, and God will requite those that are thankful, for His graces by staying firm. (tafsir al jalayn)
The ahmadis have changed everything about this verse, they claim that this is a major argument in terms of the death of Jesus. MGAQ must have been sitting around trying to think up arguments in support of himself being Jesus and came up with 30 verses that supposedly support the idea that Jesus was dead.
Towards the end of 1890, he claimed to be the second coming of Jesus. In 1891, he published 3 books that explained his stolen ideas (see sir syed’s tafsir). One of the books is called Izaala Auham or in english “Clarification of allegations”.
His 7th argument is the verse 3:145. He explains how this verse proves that Jesus is dead, he also shows a hadith report as another proof. I was not able to locate this hadith report.
THEIR IDEAS
The ahmadis are claiming that in this verse Allah meant all the messengers before Muhammad had died one way or the other. They interpret this in such a manner that they create a connection with the return/death of Jesus. When quoting the hadith they argue that when Hazrat Abu bakr made his argument some of the muslims should have argued that Jesus was still alive. They claim that silence of the muslims proves that they believed that jesus was dead. They inject an assertion that ALLAH meant ALL the prophets here.
THE TRUTH
This verse was revealed just after the battle of Uhud, or towards the end of that battle. This verse was meant to show to the muslims that Muhammad could die in battle. This verse was meant to strengthen the resolve of the muslims. There was no connection with Jesus whatsoever. This verse was revealed to dispel concerns that Islam would ever fail, even if Muhammad were murdered or died naturally.
When the HP(saw) died, Hazrat Abu Bakr repeated this verse in an attempt to cause comfort to the muslims(I have not found this report as of yet). The muslims were shaken up and needed some inspiration to remain muslims among other things. Historical facts prove that many muslims left Islam shortly after the death of the HP(saw).
The ahmadis have added the word “ALL” in italics into this verse, they need for the readers to assume that Allah meant all the messengers have died before Muhammad. And they are translating Korans into over 1000 languages with the word ALL as italicized.
Conclusion
The ahmadis have put a twist on this verse. They have added an assertion that Allah meant ALL the messengers had passed away before Muhammad. This verse was not revealed to prove the death of Jesus, this verse was only revealed to dispel concerns with the muslims who were not strong in their faith.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Dear Brother,
Its great work on your part. We must expose Ahmadiyya as it is.
Here is the translation my Muhammad Asad ( former Leopold Weiss, and a Qadiani in closet)
“AND MUHAMMAD is only an apostle; all the [other] apostles have passed away before him: if, then, he dies or is slain, will you turn about on your heels?104 But he that turns about on his heels can in no wise harm God – whereas God will requite all who are grateful [to Him]. “
I’m fairly certain Muhammad Asad was not an Ahmadi, but he was influenced by a very similar kind of thought that Ahmadism was influenced by. Shaykh Yasir Qadhi’s book on the Sciences of the Qur’an has a short discussion on him and his presentation. When in doubt, we hope for the best and should make Du’a for our deceased brother.
It is important to note that ahmadis are always trying to redefine the Koran to fit their needs. Necessity is the mother on invention.
1. Was muhammad asad gifted with a special understanding of the Koran that mujadids were given? I think not.
This verse could be understood to mean all, that is a possibility, but that is not the main purpose of this verse, this verse was revealed to remind muslims that prophets can abruptly die.
Brother Rationalist,
If “This verse could be understood to mean ALL, that is a possibility, ….”, then you should not have wasted your precious time in writing this article.
There are many strong arguments that one can employ while arguing against Ahmadiyya. It is always good to use Muhkamat in our arguments instead of Mutashabihat. It does not help that first you write two pages for supporting an argument and then you inform your readers: ” well …. there is a possibility …….”.
So your traslation goes “AND MUHAMMAD IS ONLY A PROPHET; PROPHETS HAVE PASSED AWAY BEFORE HIM (except one or more who have not): IF THEN HE DIES OR IS SLAIN (But not kept alive like one or more prophets who are still around), WILL YOU TURN ABOUT ON YOUR HEELS? (Although Jesus is alive, but his followers have distorted his message).
So according to you, Quran omits important historical facts to make a flawed point… Please stop distorting the Word of God.
@ lutf
my brother, some prophets were also killed unjustly, prophets do die, prophets are martyred. Just before this verse was revealed the Muslims thought that Muhammad had been martyred.
The prophet John the baptist was killed unjustly. John the Baptists’ ministry did not last 23 years, is he then a true prophet of allah? MGAQ stated that a prophet must live 23 years–obviously that is incorrect. John the baptist was beheaded.
The koran is not an in-depth undertaking which explains everything to the minutest detail. What is your opinion of Ibn Abbas? Ibn Abbas is the father of tafsir, he was a bigger scholar than Muhammad Asad. Do you know what he wrote in terms of this verse?
Aal-e-`Imran Chapter 3 : Verse 22
“Surely, those who deny the Signs of Allah and seek to kill the Prophets unjustly, and seek to kill such men as enjoin equity — announce to them a painful punishment.”
this is what your mujadid Suyuti had to say on the matter:
Those who disbelieve in the signs of God and slay (yaqtulūna, is also read as yuqātilūna, ‘they fight against’) the prophets without right, and slay those who enjoin to equity, to justice, and these are the Jews, who are reported to have killed forty–three prophets and to have been forbidden this by a hundred and seventy devout worshippers among them, each of whom was killed immediately. So give them good tidings, let them know, of a painful chastisement. The use of ‘good tidings’ here is meant as a sarcastic ridicule of them (the fā’ [of fa-bashshirhum, so give them good tidings] is considered part of the predicate of inna because its noun, that is, its relative clause, resembles a conditional [sc. in yakfurūna, ‘if they disbelieve…’, fa-bashshirhum, ‘then, give them good tidings…’]).
Rationalist,
Do you think that this verse has an extra phrase in it which should not have been there? i.e, Afa’imaata… (if he dies). Muslims thought that Holy Prophet (saw) was killed (qutila), why then, Quran uses the scenario of natural death as well?
I think that the arabic wasnt perfect and it has multiple gray areas that can be exploited if someone has the desire to do so. Necessity is the mother of invention. Mirza Mahmud invented a new meaning of 4:69 that did not previously exist.
ANOTHER POINT
3:144 was revealed before the status of jesus was revealed to Muhammad. The status of jesus was revealed categorically in 4:157. During the battle of Uhud, Allah had not yet revealed as to Muhammad as to what happened to jesus during the crucifiction. When allah revealed 3:144 muslims had no idea as to what happened with Jesus on the cross. Muslims only knew what the jews and christians believed.
3:55 only gives a conclusion of what happened, but it is not as categorical as 4:157. And it can argued that 3:55 may have been revealed after 3:144.
gotcha
WE CAN WHAT WE WILL DOOOOO
I have to ask you for clarification here..
“Arabic was not perfect”.. Do you mean to say that Quran has flaws?
@lutf, why are you not addressing any of the real concerns here?
In my personal opinion arabic was not a perfect language at the time when the Quran was revealed. This is a personal opinion of mine.
1. Why was john the baptist killed unjustly? He didnt last 23 years. His head was cut off.
WE CAN WHAT WE WILL DO–CIRCA 1885
I think you have made it abundantly clear that you do not see Quran as a flawless book.. We will need to discuss that first..
@ lutf, you are a typical qadiani with no backbone. Instead of answering my questions you are countering with your OWN line of questioning. Did mirza tahir ahmad teach you that?
I remember that mirza tahir ahmad asked a person if they beat their wife–or he gave an example of this type of questioning. He said that a yes or no answer wasn’t correct at all in this scenario. He was developing a strategy for argumentation.
Lutf, I am smarter than you are, your little tricks aren’t going to work. Go play on the freeway my friend, I don’t have time for your stupidity. Go post on your own forum–oh I forgot–Masroor shut that down when he heard it was a free thing and he wasn’t getting any money for that. Someone told him that it wasn’t like selling books.
MKA should open a college fund and use the money to get masroor some speech classes, a 10 year old could give a better speech than that guy.
WE CAN WHAT WE WILL DO—CIRCA 1885
Lutf you are an idiot.
Every mujadid that ever existed in the history of Islam endorsed the theory that the Quran contradicted itself, they endorsed the theory of Mansukh, even shah wali ullah endorsed this idea.
So its not just me but every mujadid.
WE CAN WHAT WE WILL DO–CIRCA 1885
rationalist, you’re talking about abrogation, not contradiction I take it?
Brother Rationalist,
When you make the claim, ” In my personal opinion arabic was not a perfect language at the time when the Quran was revealed. “, it creates many serious problems. My feeling is that you are not realizing the severity of it. Once you make this claim, it does not leave you with any moral authority to ask other people for a debate on the translation or meaning of a Quranic verse.
contradicted is a bad word, I couldnt think of a better word at the time.
Here is an example:
1. Allah told us that alcohol was bad–he did not issue a standing order
2. Later, allah ordered muslims to not to come to prayer intoxicated.
3. Later, allah gave a decisive decision on the matter, he said that muslims could not drink alcohol at all.
We follow the later revelations, we dont take these revelations as situational. I think Imam Maliki in his book of tradition writes about the alcohol story.