To Jamia Ahmadiyya Students: Independent Authority

بسم الله الحمد لله و صلاة و سلام على رسول الله و على آله و سلم تسليما

The following is written specifically to the students of Jamia Ahmadiyya. Pass this to any students you know amongst them.

During the life of Imam Abu Hanifah رحمه الله, he was recognized as the eminent authority of Islamic law in ‘Iraq and throughout much of the Muslim lands. Given his sea of knowledge and profound wisdom, the Muslims of his contemporary accepted his legal opinions and considered them valid law. Sometimes the legal opinions of the Imam went against the wishes of the Ummayyad khulafa. Realizing the authority this personage held, the Khalifah of the time, ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, wanted to control the Imam. He attempted to do so by sending him “gifts”, offering him positions as a judge and to pay him a salary, all courtesy of the Khalifah.

But, the wise Imam rejected the “gifts”, positions and salary- all of it. When asked why he did so, Abu Hanifah responded that if he was given a salary by ‘Abd al-Malik he would have a vested interest in maintaining good relations with the Khalifah. This would create a conflict of interest, where Abu Hanifah’s motivations would be tainted and he might intentionally take an incorrect position just to appease the Khalifah and maintain his salary. The Imam chose instead to finance his scholarship through his own personal business endeavorers.
If you have trouble understanding the conflict of interest that Abu Hanifah avoided, consider this corollary: In western democracies, there is an established separation between the executive and judicial branches of government. The de-centralization of power is what Imam Abu Hanifah sought to preserve.

If you are a student of Jamia Ahmadiyya, when you graduate you can expect to be a missionary, qadhi or murabbi. You will likely hold a position of religious authority within your respective community. Great. But, what happens if the leadership makes a statement or decision of consequence that you find yourself at odds with? What if you genuinely believe that an order he holds is not only incorrect, that it would be sinful to obey?

Assuming the option to talk out the dispute has been exhausted with no avail, in this situation do you think you would be able to do the right thing? Would you be able to oppose the official position of the religious authorities? Most importantly, would you be free to exercise your own independent judgement for the sake of Allah and tell others that the leadership has made a mistake? If you were to do so, you face ex-communication, your seven years of Ahmadiyya education would be rendered useless, your stipend would be cut, and your family would be publicly humiliated.

I am in light communication with three former Jamia Ahmadiyya students who faced a similar dilemma and came to different conclusions. One was demoted to a cursory role within the organization with no hope of growth, another shed his Ahmadi-specific beliefs and converted to traditional Islam, and the third became an atheist. (The last one saddened me.)

What is the point of this? Why is this being discussed? Because you are the future leadership of the Ahmadiyya religion. I do not doubt your sincerity or your passion. But channel that fervor in the way of our spiritual forefather Imam Abu Hanifah. In practice, this means:

  • Intellectually: to recognize that having a position of authority does not mean one is infallible.
  • Strategically: Position yourself in such a way that you are free to make your own decisions.
  • Action: Critically analyze injunctions passed upon you and be willing to say “I do not agree”. But be ready to support your conclusions with reasons and evidence.

Its worth mentioning that Imam Abu Hanifah suffered greatly for the positions he took. He was accused of being a Mu’tazili heretic. There were numerous assassination attempts against him, and the Khalifah imprisoned, tortured and starved him. He eventually died in prison. But, his sacrifice did not go unnoticed. His legal positions are followed by ~70% of the Muslims to this day, his theological interpretations are considered authoritative, and hardly can his name be mentioned without the honorific title Imam al-‘Adham (the great Imam) or an invocation of Allah’s mercy upon him.

Look, I am not asking you to leave Jamia Ahmadiyya and rebel against the murabbis tomorrow, I’m asking you to just think about it….

May Allah honor you the way He honored Imam Abu Hanifah رحمه الله.

For anyone a bit more scholastic, here is Fiqh al-Akbar, the simple ‘aqidah of Imam Abu Hanifah. (translation and commentary by Imam Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Ninowy)

Be Sociable, Share!

112 thoughts on “To Jamia Ahmadiyya Students: Independent Authority

  1. This was also the way of the other great Imams of Islam, such as Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, who was beaten nearly to death by the Khalifah Mu’tasim. (I believe it was Khalifah Mutawakkil who finally started treating him with respect)

    Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani accepted a position in the government, but only major concessions were made by the khalifah.

    Imam ‘Izz al-Din ibn Abd al-Salam took positions against the Mumluk rule, which nearly resulted in his execution.

    Traditionally, a lot of the great Imams went against their contemporary khalifahs…

    • Thank you for this breath of fresh air Farhan. This proves that Islam teached Muslims to stand up against tyranny. This proves that Islam is the religion that allows men and women to question the behavior of their respective government.

      I remember speaking with an Ahamdi a few years ago and he frankly confessed that he believed Imam Abu Haneefah to be a common mullah. My heart was so saddened by this display of disrespect.

      Just recently, Ansar Raza told me that he follows the Quran and hadith. They dont care what any mujaddid or Imam had to say in their evaluations of Islamic doctrine over the past 1400 years.

      I responded by saying that Arabic was the most commonly spoken language in the entire world about 1000 years ago. Those arabs and non-arabs knew what the classical arabic of the Quran meant. There is no way that they could have fumbled in their understanding of Mutawafeeka or Raffa or Khatamumnabiyeen. If the Muslims of the golden era didnt understand Arabic we had a bigger problem than Ahmadiyya could imagine.

      • Yes, Ansar Raza told me the same thing.

        Every deviant sect has defended its deviance through the Book and the Sunnah. How then do we know that our interpretations are not incorrect?

        This, because they want to do away what the earliest Muslims believed and replace it with their own ideologies. Ahmadiyya isn’t the only religion that does this.

  2. Farhan,

    Assalaamu ‘alaikum wa rahmatAllahe ta’ala wa barakaatuhu

    What saddens me is that whenever you get a ‘scholastic’ or even a half-measured intellectual reposte to your slander and sinister plots against ahmadi muslims (e.g., when I had responded to your friend on Youtube regarding why ahmadi muslims do not go to other muslims’ masajid) you fail to respond. I hope you will do me the courtesy of at least responding.

    On the point you have mentioned, Hadrat Imam abu Hanifah (ra) specifically took no post offered by the khalifah not only because of the doctrine of the separation of powers but also because there were problems with the spirituality of the khulafa’ in his time. And it was most-likely this which dictated his non-accession to the offers of the khalifah during his time – similar examples are cited in the time of IMam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (ra), and others.

    The point is that during the khilafah of Hadrat sayyidna ‘Umar (ra), many of the sahabah were given the post of Qadi and Amir, and very few (if any) actually refused such a post – becase they were not in any doubt of the spiritual and moral upright-ness of the character of Hadrat Sayyidna ‘Umar (ra).

    The students of Jami’ah that I have met – some are really good boys, others need more encouragement – the fact of the matter is that at a certain age they all get a choice as to whether they wish to continue their waqf or rescind it. So, if this is the case, your post and communique seems to be merely a masked attempt at sowing the seeds of doubt and confusion into the minds of impressionable jami’ah students.

    If you would like to discuss these things with me I wouldn’t min – but you really should stop preying on such impressionable-aged youths. This practice does not behoove a muslim.

    These youths – many of whom have a-levels and GCSEs can get decent-waged jobs even at this stage – never mind if they were to go to university and graduate, but they have rather given their lives for a nobler cause – to subject themselves and their loved ones to poverty for the love of Allah and his Messenger (saw).

    If you dig deeper and further back into history – even your teachers of ‘traditional islam’ will narrate such stories of exemplary characters to you.

    wa bi-Allahi tawfiq, wa bihi nasta’in.

    Wassalaamu ‘alaikum wa rahmatAllahe ta’ala wa barakaatuhu

    Ibn al-Ghulam

    • wa ‘alaykum as-salaam wa rahmat Allahi wa barakatahu,
      Allahumma salli ‘ala saydinaa Muhammad wa ‘ala aali Muhammad

      Thanks for your comments. Lets address these points. I’ll save the personal attacks til the end.

      You said:
      “On the point you have mentioned, Hadrat Imam abu Hanifah (ra) specifically took no post offered by the khalifah not only because of the doctrine of the separation of powers but also because there were problems with the spirituality of the khulafa’ in his time. And it was most-likely this which dictated his non-accession to the offers of the khalifah during his time – similar examples are cited in the time of IMam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (ra), and others.”

      It appears that you recognize the separation of powers. Would you not consider the separation of paramount importance today or has that time passed? Can a Qadi go against Mirza Masroor? No, they would be ex-communicated. That is a rejection of the separation.

      Or perhaps you consider Mirza Masroor to be saintly and worthy to be blindly obeyed? Even more than ‘Umar bin Khattab(RA)?

      * Khalifah ‘Umar (RA) was challenged by the likes of ‘Abdullah ibn Abbas (RA). This, when ‘Umar asked the Muslims in al-Shaam to divorce their Christian wives. Ibn ‘Abbas initially refused, citing the Qur’an. (You will say he eventually divorced his Christian wives. Know that when he did so, he said I only initially refused to to show that ‘Umar does not have authority over the Qur’an)
      * ‘Umar once asked a group of Sahaba what they would do if they saw him going astray. A Sahabi he would correct him with his sword. ‘Umar (RA) was happy that people existed. In the current organization, no such barrier exists.
      * ‘Umar (RA) once attempted to put a limit on the mahr (dowry) and a Muslim woman refused, saying it was their right and citing the Qur’an.

      Ahmadiyya denies this freedom. Even just culturally, you cannot disagree with Mirza Masroor because he is seen as a “holy man” and disagreeing is an affront to his holiness.

      I wrote:
      “The students of Jami’ah that I have met – some are really good boys, others need more encouragement – the fact of the matter is that at a certain age they all get a choice as to whether they wish to continue their waqf or rescind it. So, if this is the case, your post and communique seems to be merely a masked attempt at sowing the seeds of doubt and confusion into the minds of impressionable jami’ah students.”

      Its always ironic to me how people can be against something, yet do it themselves. You purport to defend the impressionable minds of Jamia students. Why not defend them by arguing against a religion that essentially declares their ijtihad [in context: independent thoughts] haraam? Or are they obligated to tote the party line?
      Perhaps they should have the freedom to say “Murabbi sahib, you are wrong” and those who deny this freedom are trying to inculcate blind obedience? Your ilk deny them that right. Most Jamia students won’t recognize this, will see themselves as “free thinkers”. But a few will look around and see that everyone is tacitly obligated to say the same thing.

      “If you dig deeper and further back into history – even your teachers of ‘traditional islam’ will narrate such stories of exemplary characters to you.”
      You speak of Islamic history, yet never addressed what I wrote about ‘Izz al-Din ibn ‘Abd al-Salaam aka Sultan al-‘Ulema. And you won’t. To repeat, some of his major legal rulings were against the Mumluk Sultanate. That’s traditional Islam. He was free. But this is a right you deny to Jamia Ahmadiyya students.

      Despite the fact that I receive literally thousands of comments and ignore the vast majority, I addressed yours on my “Advice Needed” video. (You are “ImamulZaman”, right?) Feel free to check yourself. I do not issue “slander” against Ahmadis as much as you issue slander against Islam. Rather, I criticize Ahmadiyya, just as the murabbis criticize Islam. I will ignore your future personal attacks. They just muddy the waters.

      May Allah continue to guide Ahmadis to Islam and continue to bless the Ummah of Muhammad salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

  3. Also,

    Those Jami’ah students with whom you claim you are in light conversation would do well to take their concerns to Allah.
    I know students who have rescinded their waqf and they and their families have not been humiliated publicly or otherwise, as you have claimed.

    If anyone wishes to air their concerns at Jami’ah anonymously, I would be more than happy to assist them.

    As someone who has studied the classical texts and teachers of Islam to some degree I regret to say that Farhan and his friends subscribe to a certain ideology within Islam which has little bearing on ‘classical islam’ and the ‘pick and choose’ approach to islamic scholarship is just another modern trend leading to the loss of pietistic classical learning in Islam. Therefore they will be least likely to assist such Jami’ah students in any case.


    Ibn al-Ghulam

    • I find this comment astonishing on many levels.

      Most honest Ahmadis will acknowledge that their religion is not based on any interpretation of Islam for 1400~ years, and that essentially everyone was in error until the time of Mirza Ghulam. Ansar Raza cited mistakes by Sahaba as a justification that the Sahaba were all wrong and only Mirza was right.

      Notice that Ahmadiyya does not actively promote the study of any classical book of Islam. Why? Because nearly every book before them goes against their ideology. At most, they will select isolated quotes, but when I showed them full passages specifically against their beliefs, they ultimate reject the book. Its a pick-and-choose religion.

      In any case, the open-minded and free-thinking Jamia students are slowly shedding their Ahmadi-specific beliefs. May Allah honor them and make them the vanguards of the movement. barak Allah feehum

      • The era of Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim was the golden era in Islam. These Muslims advanced in many areas.

        Here are some examples:

        Muslim alchemists (early forerunners of modern chemists) in the 10th to 14th centuries, inspired by ancient chemical formulas from China and India, are famous for the endless experiments they performed in their laboratories. Their goals ranged from pursuit of a chemical elixir bestowing enhanced life, to the transformation of base metals to gold. Although they never succeeded in their ultimate goals, they did make numerous valuable discoveries — among them the distillation of petroleum and the forging of steel.

        Roman techniques of manufacturing glass lenses stimulated Al-Hasan’s breakthrough in the field of optics (the science of light and vision), which demolished Aristotle’s theory that vision was the result of a ray emanating from the eye, encompassing an object, and bringing it back to the soul. Al-Hasan’s Book of Optics, published in 965, was first to document sight as visual images entering the eye, made perceptible by adequate light. This book remained the pre-eminent text in its field until 1610, when the work of European Johannes Kepler surpassed it.

        Islamic mathematicians refined algebra from its beginnings in Greece and Egypt, and developed trigonometry in pursuit of accurate ways to measure objects at a distance. Muslim scholars also made important and original contributions to astronomy. They collected and corrected previous astronomical data, built the world’s first observatory, and developed the astrolabe, an instrument that was once called “a mathematical jewel.”

      • ASA!

        Farhan, I always wondered how it is that Ahmadis would reject the teachering of the early Sahaba. I still do not see [from Ahmadis] solid dileel (proof) of how Ahmadis justify their own understanding of Islam that differs from the way of the early Salaf. I do not see Ahmadis basing their proofs of their new view point of Islam on knowledge that was passed on from the Sahaba.

        What is striking to me is that it is plain ol’ common knowledge within orthodox Islam that the Quran CLEARLY states that the Sahaba were the BEST of mankind and they will be the forerunners in jannah. Hadith also CLEARLY points out that Muhammad (pbuh) stated that the first 3 generations of Muslims would be the BEST ever! If Muhammad states they were the BEST Muslims ever to be, then logic and rational thinking must lead one to conclude that this means they were the best because they: submitted to Allah the BEST, understood Islam the BEST, practiced Islam the BEST, taught Islam to others the BEST. When Muhammad said they would be the BEST generations of Muslims ever then this is clearly what is underst00d. If they were terrible or even so-so at understanding, practicing or teaching then he would not have said they would be the BEST Muslim generations ever. Muhammad (pbuh) would not have lied.

        So if they were the best, then logic would also dictate that we take our knowledge from them since they are, THE BEST. I am truly baffled at how incredibly difficult it is for Ahmadis to understand and accept this.

        Good work.

        • What rubbish is this? infact the Ahmadis muslim are the one accept the teaching of the early Sahaba by adopting and reestablished the institution of khilafat, unlike those non Ahmadi muslim who hava forsake the system that was once adopted and practised by The Holy Prophet(SAW) His sahaba ONE LEADERSHIP IN ISLAM.

          • Ray of Light’s comment was in reference to Beliefs…

            But do you think the word “Khalifah” just means “highest leader”? I recall all of the Khulafa’ being political leaders of a state. Call them what you want, none of the so-called “Ahmadi Khalifahs” fit the definition of an actual Khalifah. They’re just paki uncles who wear punjabi-style turbans.


          • Bro. Farhan, among many others, have rebutted your “kalifah” rhetoric many, many times and you still continue to bring this rubbish up.
            When the Ottoman Empire fell (yes, i’m talking about outside your Paki/Indo world, Muslims do exist outside the subcontinent), Mustafa Kemal Ataturk attempted to destabilize the crumbling Ottoman Empire so it’ll be reborn into Turkey, a pro western, anti Islamic secularized nation. He did this by reducing the Kalifah’s position to that of just a religious figure head, with absolutely zero political power, basically, a puppet to appeal to the religious masses. This was done until Ataturk finally obliterated the Kalifah. Now Turkey is one of the least religious Muslim countries. Do you see the parallel? A Kalifah is not just a Punjabi Uncle Tom pope figure who flashes smiles and poses for Ahmadiyya Television cameras and suck up Chanda money.

          • Alec, you just proved my point.

            The Khalifah controlled the government. They eliminated the Khalifah and replaced it with a secular government. By ridding him of power, he was reduced to any other religious figure – and thus was not a Khalifah anymore.

            So yes, the Ahmadi concept of Khilafah is, as you put it, a Punjabi Pope – purely religious, not political reality whatsoever.

            btw, the Khilafah lost its reality WELL before Abdul Mecid رحمه الله.

          • Alec, and if you still do not agree, riddle me this:

            If you say the Khalifah is merely a central religious figure, who was the Khalifah after Mu’awiyah (RA)? Was it Yazid, or was it al-Husayn عليه السلام?

            If you say al-Husayn, then you’re denying history and reality. If you say Yazid, then you recognize that his state-authority was what made him the Khalifah.
            اللهم صلى على الحسين

          • Syed Sulaiman bin Adnan

            Sahabs had Ijmah on:

            Finality of Prophethood
            and Miraj being Physical

            do Ahmadies believe that? NO

  4. Farhan, KHULAFA ALA MINHAJ NUBUWAT not the monarchy style of khulafa with just political interest. The institution of khilafat is the landmark of the true Islam.

    • What then do you believe khilafa ‘ala minhaj al-Nubuwwa means?

      * Was the Prophet Muhammad SAAWS not a head of state?
      * Was Abu Bakr not a head of state?
      * Was ‘Umar not a head of state?
      * Was ‘Uthman not a head of state?
      * Was ‘Ali not a head of state?

      A Khilafa upon the prophetic minhaj (way) must be a political leader.

      Mirza Masroor is just a guy living in the UK. By the very words “Khilafa ‘ala minhaj al-Nubuwwa” he is not a khalifah.

      • Farhan, are you implying that all the current muslim state political leaders as khalifa? what kind of joke is this? you are out of the spirituality realm the essence of Islam, you belong to those whom Allah asked in the Quraan “PA BI AIYI ALA E RABBIKUMA TUKAZZIBAN”(Which, then, of the favours of your Lord will you twain deny?) the answer is obiviously the favours of spiritual blessing that you and the others have rejected, that’s the reason why you continuely believe the mission of The Holy Prophet is to close/shut spiritual blessing avenue(may Allah forbids) therefore, you get so intoxcicated
        with your so called intellectuality instead of spirituality.
        The Khalifah of Allah on this earth does not necessarily need to be a head of state because being the representative of God this is what his Lord told him in the Quraan ” RABBUL MASHRIQIN WA RABBUL MAGHRIBBIN”(The Lord of the two Easts and the Lord of the two Wests) Chpt 55/vers 17.

        • When did I say the various state political leaders are khulafa? I did not. Again, Khilafah is not merely a religious figure, I said state authority is a major component of a khalifah. If one is not the leader of the Muslim state, one is not a Khalifah. Simple.

          Want more evidence?

          Recall the hadith about the stages the Ummah will go through:
          A) Prophethood
          B) Rightly guided Khalifahs
          C) Kingdom
          D) Dictators
          E) Khilafa ‘ala minhaj al-Nubuwwa

          Now lets analyze that hadith:

          * The Prophet SAAWS ruled over the Muslims
          * Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and ‘Ali ruled over the Muslims
          * Banu Umayyad, Banu ‘Abbas and the Ottomans ruled over the Muslims
          * We are approaching the end of the dictators ruling over the Muslims
          * THEN will come a Khalifah upon the prophet way. He will also rule over the people.

          So, political leadership the central component this narration was speaking of, and a central component of a Khalifah.

          Mirza Masroor and his ilk rule over no one, they themselves are UK citizens. Unless you have changed the definition of Khilafah, Mirza Masroor uncle is not a Khalifah.

    • Saying you have a Khilafat is a joke without establishing the sharia. Islam is a deen which is a complete way of life including the law, sharia is the law which is just and gives justice to people. Quran calls those who dont judge by the revelation of Allah to be kafirs, zalims and fasiqs. All the khalifas of the prophet established the sharia. If some Ahamdi commits adultery, the Ahamdi Khalifa cannot even give him the sharia punishment. Same for drinking alcohol or stealing. Its true muslims have not implemented the khalifat or the sharia. To forsake and not want the sharia is open Kufr according to all major islamic schools of thought. The credit of abolishment of the sharia and the khalifat goes to the brits, who were so highly regarded by the ahamadiyya founder and even now. The ahamadiyya founder called the brits and the queen to be just, where as the Quran calls those who do not judge by the revelations of Allah to be zalim, fasiqs and kafirs. Who do you think is right, MGAQ or Allah?

      Secondly, I hope the Ahmadiyya Khalifa is not making halal haram and vice versa. If he does and is not challenged, that will likely happen. Accepting that would make his follower mushriks as per the hadith of Adi bin hatim.

      They have taken their rabbis and priests as lords besides Allah, and the Messiah, son of Mary, although they were commanded to worship no one except the One Allah. There is no Deity but He, glory be to Him above what they associate with Him! (9:31)

      ‘Adi bin Hatim, who had been a Christian before accepting Islam, once came to the Prophet (peace be on him). When he heard him reciting the above ayah he said, “O Messenger of Allah, but they do not worship them.” The Prophet (peace be on him) replied, Yes, but they prohibit to the people what is halal and permit them what is haram, and the people obey them. This is indeed their worship of them. (Reported and classified as hasan by al-Tirmidhi and others.)

      • Precisely.

        Islam is not just some spiritual thing you do on Fridays, Allah has given us guidance on all aspects of your life, even things we ordinarily do not associate with a religion, ie going to the bathroom, marital relations, telling jokes, war, etc

        As such, there is also guidance on how the affairs of a state are to be run. At the head of state is the Khalifah. A Khalifah is not merely a “Pope” who has no authority. There are some laws of Islam which *cannot* be implemented unless the Muslims have some kind of state authority.

        Call it whatever you want, Mirza Masroor its not a Khalifah.

        btw, in my personal opinion, the charge of “working for the British” falls to deaf ears and might even push away readers. Just a thought.

        • Farhan, I did not mean they work for the brits nor did I say they worked for the brits. Whats is evident from MGAQ writings is that he considered rebelling against the brits not be allowed as the brits system was not of oppression but of justice. The writing do show that ahmadiyya wanted to be in the good books of the brits and he lavished great praises for the brits.

          I have as yet not seen any evidence that the brits actually created them or the jamat was actually working for them by mutual agreement. However, much like a lot of muslim leaders nowadays are trying to get into the good books of the west, whether they are paid agents or not, it appears there are always chartay suraj kai pujaris.

          Quran to the contrary defines the criteria for justice. Its the Furqan. If you get divorced, how much does your wife get? The Sharia says one thing, western Anglo Saxon laws say another thing. By definition, the purpose of the sharia law is to dispense justice based on the criteria of God. Any system not meeting this criteria will be unjust (zalim) to at least one of the parties in a dispute. Any community which does not do so is based on zulm. If a person gets murdered, its his heirs right of Qisas, where as according to western law the state prosecutes, the president can pardon, and a sentence of jail could be given. This all is against the law of God. The Ahamdi Khalifa cannot do anything about it. He is a Khalifa in whos community zulm is continously taking place according to the Quran. So the same may be true for the rest of the muslims in the world and so it would be silly for muslims to claim to have a khalifat.

    • Khalifah is not suppose to be just a Imam or Qazi
      so Mirza Masroor and the ones before him were like just a leader or group like we have many that does not make him KHALIFAH.

      If it was just a religious position like some Mufti then why Hazrat Hussain(RA) didnt just declare him self Khalifah and live under the rulers?


  5. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian declared that:

    1. “Except for the Children of Prostitutes, whose hearts have been sealed by God, everyone else has accepted me and believes in my Prophethood.” (Aina-e-Kamalate Islam, Roohani Khazain vol 5 p.547). . . . .

    2. He, who does not believe on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, is Disobedient to God and Prophet and will go to Hell.” (Advertisement by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad dated 25th May 1900)

    3. I am the “Self-implanted/Self-cultivated Seedling ” of the British Government. “Government should take great care regarding this SELF-IMPLANTED SEEDLING . . . . .should instruct its officers to treat ME and MY JAMA’AT with special kindness and favours. Our family has never hesitated in shedding their blood in the way of British Rulers and did not stop from laying down their lives neither do they hesitate now.” (Roohani Khazain vol.13 p.350)

    4. “From my early age till now when I am 65 years of age, I have been engaged , with my pen and tongue, in an important task to turn the hearts of Muslims towards the true love & Goodwill & sympathy for the British Government and to obliterate the idea of Jehad from the hearts of stupid (Muslims). ” (Kitab-ul-Bariyah, Roohani Khazain vol 13 p.350)

    5. ” . . . . for the sake of British Government, I have published & distributed 50,000 leaflets in this country (India) other Islamic countries(against jehad). . . . the result is that hundreds of thousands of people have given up their filthy ideas about Jihad.” (Roohani Khazain vol 15 p.114)

    As far as the so called Khalifas of Ahmadiyyat are concerned, if they are following these teachings then I will ask a simple question, were these the teachings of RasulAllah s.a.w.s ????????

    The correct answer obviously is NO………..!!!

    So why are you following this …… and how can you call yourself Khalifa???????????

    • 99.9% of Ahmadis have no idea what their founder wrote. I was one of them. Before I began to research Ahmadiyyat I only knew about the “Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam”, “Jesus in India” and “Wasiyyat”.

      ^And that is about all the rank and file members know about. Then they follow thier khalifa. I remember that murabbis would campaign on certain principles of faith, and obediance to khilafat was the most important concept.

      Whats hurts me is the fact that I know sooo many Ahmadis personally. And I cant figure out how to explain to them that their religion is a cult.

      • Respected Brother,

        As you know, guidance comes from Allah s.w.t. and our duty is to just convey the message.

        You are absolutely right, the murabbis are driving force behind this misguided cult, and the masses are blindly following like a herd of sheep.

        As far as the murabbis are concerned they are very hardcore group of people with limited knowledge but lots of arrogance and they have basically sold their Deen for sake of this life. I do not expect them to leave their positions so easily because they are too much set in their old misguided ways.

        The common Ahmadis on the other hand are brainwashed elements of their society and they do not see or learn Islam from authentic sources. In fact they are not allowed to do that. That is why they remain misguided too.

        Education is the key here. Ahmadis will have to open their eyes and learn more about Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahibs claims, his teachings and prophecies, if they are to know whether they are right in their faith or not.

        Islam has not changed. The holy Quran is the only book from Allah s.w.t. that has been preserved in its original form. So what has changed for us nothing. There are over a billion Muslims World wide who do not believe that there will be another Prophet after Muhammad [pbuh]. They have all kinds of evidence to support their claims.

        The murabbis reject all evidence and try to twist the meanings of the holy Quran and Hadith to suit the claims of Mirza Sahib and agenda of their cult . That is why the common Ahmadis have a lot to think and ponder over what they are being told by their murabbis. They need to do an introspection of their beliefs and practices to learn and see for themselves where they stand.

        It amazes me how can they follow a person like Mirza Masroor Sahib as their KHALIFA who cannot even think and speak properly, except trying to read statements written by some ignorant murabbis or missionaries of the cult.

      • Rationalist, Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam, was the first book I read by MGA. Did it not bother you about MGA beliefs about abiogenesis? He wrote that worms generate spontaneously inside the body. Also I could not understand how he could state that laughter even if artificially induced caused happiness, where as being tickled can be anything but pleasurable and cause happiness.

        I think the best advice to Ahamdis is to read MGA books carefully, asking Allah for guidance. I have a number of Ahmadiyya family members, none who have read anything substantial by him. When I later read up MGA and I asked them for any evidence of MGA truth, their answer simply was we believe and we know we are right. No evidence what so ever. But I guess that the same problem with “Mulsims” too. We have abandoned the Quran and the Sunnah and dont even know whats in there.

        • you said that Lot of ahmadies have not read the book of the promised Messiah (as) ,
          but can you tell me how many muslims have read a single hadith book fully

          a) 1 %
          b) 0.5 %
          c) 0.25 %

          • This is a big problem amongst all sides (Muslims, Ahmadis, orientalist critics, Christians, etc)

            Books of Hadith were not meant to be read by the average person like a newspaper. They were written by scholars for scholars. There are subtleties that our 21st century academic minds are not attuned to. For example, the difference between hadathinaa vs sami’naa, related narrations, the authenticity, etc.

            The proper method of studying a hadith is to sit with a Shaykh who is well-versed in the narration and understand its context, its rulings, who is was said to, its circumstances, etc. You can also read books that explain a topic with hadith and commentary.

            This approach is a safeguard from from us misinterpreting hadith.

            Now the question is, were Mirza’s books meant for the masses to pick up and read? Or my favorite question, “Why do the murrabis refuse to translate them into English?”

          • All Muslims, Ahmadis should be reading Hadith of Prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h.

            I know far more Muslims have learned Hadith than Ahmadis. That is why they rightly believe that Muhammad p.b.u.h is the last and final Prophet from Allah s.w.t.

            The concern here is that not enough Ahmadis have read books of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib, to form an educated opinion on whether his claim is true or not. Neither they have studied the Hadith to see if there room for such claims to be valid in the first place. This is important for them because they believe in Mirza Ghulam Sahib as a Prophet, Messiah, Mahdi ………..or some mujaddid etc!

            Whereas, for Muslims its clear we do not need to read books of Mirza Sahib or anyone who claims to be a Prophet, because the Deen of Islam in its completed form has been delivered to us by Allah s.w.t. through his last Prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h and we do not need anyone else. For us anyone who claims Prophethood after Muhammad s.a.w.s is a liar.

            May Allah s.w.t. guide and bring people to the right path of Islam and shun their deviant and misguided path (Ameen).

        • @ seeker

          I read that book when I was just 12 or 13. I will read it again. I havent read it sooo long. However, I have evolved intellectually since my first read. I am sure to find new things in there that I never saw before.

          I think we need to continue to research into the charcter of MGAQ. If we can somehow bring this aspect of MGAQ to the forefront it should cause most Ahmadis to doubt their religion.

  6. Rest assured that I can argue till I drop dead, at the end of the day, if poeple at large decide you are right, you are right!! need not to worry there some who might be influence by me, in the mean time, let’s use this blog as a LEVEL PLATFORM for everybody to participate, let’s put that as a challenge to those who managed this blog, nontheless,I do not dispute it is within their jurisdiction to decide.

    • Why dont u join the forum ??? as there are so many pending questions on ahmadiyyat there

    • @ adnan

      I just ask Ahmadis to be consistent in their dialogue. They should answer questions and not avoid anything. Its not a matter of ‘we are here to prove you wrong’. At the end of the day we are trying to help you and save you a bunch of money. Most religious organizations allow thier donations to directly fund their local operations. However, Ahmadiyyat is the total opposite. Ahmadiyyat takes money from the USA and Europe and funds their investments worldwide. The Ahmadis in the USA/Europe always have a tough time building mosques. And the poorer members in the USA get no financial support at all, minus a few exceptions. This is why I have always said that 1974, and the Ahmadis being declared Kafir was the best thing that ever happened to Ahmadiyyat.

  7. M.K. there is no point to insist on something that is baseless, you keep on insisting that Ahmadis believe in the NEW prophet, while I keep on argued that though one may be
    blessed with spiritual blessing of prophethood that does not turn him to be NEW prophet.
    My point is his prophet is SUBJECTED to The Holy Prophet(SAW) and spirititual blessing must continue with the advent of The Holy Prophet(SAW) as this is being guaranteed in the Holy Qura’an, this is what you and the others have failed to deny so far, prove to me that according to the Holy Qura’an prophethood is not a spiritual blessing and every spiritual blessing has ceased with the advent of The Holy Prophet(SAW). If only you are able to do so.

    • Being “subjected to” does not detract from being a new prophet. If you do not believe that Mirza is the same exact person as ‘Esa bin Maryam (AS), then by any logically definition, according to the Ahmadi belief, Mirza is a new prophet.

      FYI, a large section of Ahmadi argumentative literature is based on proving “no prophet after me” really means “there will be new prophets”. What you’re saying is against Ahmadiyya – Or do you belong a subsect of Ahmadiyya?

      • Farhan, what has got Esa(AS) to do with the followers of The Holy Prophet(SAW)? after having proclaimed his mission was only unto the lost tribes of Israelite? just prove to me where does it stated in the Qura’an that the mission of The Holy Prophet(SAW) was to shut/close spiritual blessing avenue, being subjected is to indicate that whoever is blessed by Allah with the blessing of prophethood DOES NOT SUPERSEDE the status of The Holy Prophet(SAW) as the Khattamul Anbiyya, because he is required to obey The Holy Prophet(SAW) by observing His(SAW) Shariaat, his prophethood is being SEALED
        with The Holy Prophet(SAW) prophethood, in other words, such prophethood need to be attested by The Holy Prophethood, how does such prophethood is said to be NEW prophet? therefore, Ahmadi do believe in the finality of The Holy Prophet(SAW).

        • Syed, can you prove that this concept of zilli and burooz Prophets even exists in Islam?

          You are the one making the claim, the burden or proof lies with you.

          • Shahzad 10, The prophethood of RasoolKarim Muhammad(SAW) supersede all those prior to Him(SAW) and also after Him(SAW) thus, Noor Muhammad(SAW) existed even before the creation of Adam(AS) therefore, those who witnessed the prohethood before the advent of The Holy Prophethood(SAW) were actually seeing the noor(lights) of Muhammad(SAW) likewise, those who will be witnessing the prophethood after Him(SAW) will actually be witnessing the noor (lights) of Muhammad(SAW) this is what to indicate His(SAW) prominent status Khattamul Anbiyya.
            (noor upon noor/lights upon lights) so, what we will be seeing after Him(SAW) is not the so called the lights of NEW prophets but the continuety of the greatest lights(guidance) on earth and heaven. As such, there is no question
            of NEW prophet after The Holy Prophet (SAW).

          • Syed,
            That statement sounds like when Christians insist that the Trinity is strictly monotheistic. They will say “One God!” and then cite three persons.

            You are saying “No new prophets!” and then cite a new prophet. Islam has no concept of Zilli or Buroozi or such nonsense. These are made-up concepts to justify an erroneous belief.

    • “so far, prove to me that according to the Holy Qura’an prophethood is not a spiritual blessing and every spiritual blessing has ceased with the advent of The Holy Prophet(SAW). If only you are able to do so.”

      We strongly believe prophethood is a blessing and will continue till the end of times. But it you Syed Sulaiman who have been denying this openly.

      Still don’t believe me?

      I guess i refuted your so called “irrefutable argument”.

      • I agree with your perspective, but not some of the language you used (respectfully). Allah does spoon-feed us guidance. Actually, he puts the food in our mouth, has us chew and just asks us to swallow the food…

        A lot of Muslim theologians of the past spoke of continued revelation to humanity. Ahmadi apologists capitalize on these quotes. But, that’s not the full story.

        As Muslims, we do believe that Allah continues to send inspiration to people in many forms – true dreams, a strong feeling towards something, etc. However, this does not make the person become a prophet just as, for example, the mother of Musa (AS) did not become a prophet despite receiving Wahi [Beginning of Surah al-Qasas]

        There is a narration where the Prophet SAAWS said nothing is left of prophethood except just 1 component – people who receive true dreams receive inspiration, but are not prophets.

  8. Farhan, yes am simply saying No NEW prophets, as the prophethood is being sealed with
    The Rasool Karim(SAW) prophethood and attested by His(SAW) prophethood, what ever concept it is, as long as it does not contradict the hard core principle (to supersede)
    The Holy Prophet(SAW) prophethood, I don’t see there’s problem here.

      • Yes, I do not believe in Hazrat Ahmad as the so called NEW prophet, he was the promised Imam Mahdi/Imam of The Age/The Messiah whom was blessed with the spiritual blessing of prophethood but he can never supersede The Holy Prophet(SAW) prominent status of Khattamul Anbiyya.
        I would not be so naive to accept and believe in him had he told the world that his mission was to declare The Holy Prophet(SAW)
        Shariaat null and void.

        • If you believe Mirza was a prophet, you deny the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم when he said “I am the last of the prophets, there is no prophet after me.”

          • When I said I do not believe in Hazrat Ahmad to be New prophet, it is clearly to affirm my believe in The Holy Prophet(SAW) as the last prophets.
            Seems to me you have purposely avoid to answer my point of argument subjected prophethood, as I
            said I would not be so naive to accept and believe in Him had he told the world that His mission was to declare The Holy Prophet(SAW) Shariaat null and void( thus would render Him to be NEW prophet).

          • So you believe Mirza is a prophet, but you don’t believe he is a prophet. However you do believe he is a prophet but not a prophet….

        • SSBA

          How can he be not a New Prophet?

          Was there a Prophet named Mirza Ghulam during Prophet Muhammad (PUBH) time? NO

          Was he Prophet before Prophet Muhammad (PUBH)? NO

          So how can u say he was not new prophet

          • xiaahamad, sorry, I don’t catch your point, are you implying that there ought to be another prophet during the time of The Holy Prophet(SAW) beside The Holy Prophet(SAW) Himself?
            Are you saying that The Imam Mahdi/Imam Of The Age should contradict what was fortold by The Holy Prophet(SAW) about His advent? that He would be coming in the latter days not before The Holy Prophet(SAW)?

          • No I was talking about your point where you are saying that Mirza Ghulam is not NEW PROPHET.

            Even if for sake argument we say he was prophesied but still HE WILL BE NEW PROPHET

            Which didnt existed before.

            and that is the FACT

  9. Farhan,

    Assalaamu ‘alaikum wa rahmatAllahe ta’ala wa barakaatuhu

    I will reply to your comments to my first and second posts later as I have deadlines – but I did not intend any personal attacks – I may have got carried away with language or emption but did not intend to attack your person, and so apologies if it came across from what I wrote.

    Regarding your last point, from what I understand you and your friends at the and other bloggers believe in a form of salafi-inspired islam (again – open to correction on this) – but this is what I assume from some of the remarks you have made, e.g., there not being any concepts or spiritual statuses in Islam of ranks such as ‘Zilli’ or ‘buruzi’.

    Havng read some of your posts I know that you and some of your friends have knowledge of arabic – if you were to read the original works of stalwarts of tasawwuf such as Hadrat Shaykh Ghawth al-A’zam Abdul Qadir al-Jilani (rh) you would see that in his Futuh al-Ghayb he makes the claim of being ‘brought up in the zill al-nubuwwah’ (the mantle/shade/shadow of prophethood) – I have spoken to eminent masters of the Qadiri tariqah and they (not the average murid) accept this as a claim to a high spiritual station above the rank of the ‘average’ wali (not to denigrate the maqam of a wali – but to elevate the rank of the ‘zill’ of nubuwwah).

    Similarly, Hadrat Shaykh al-Akbar Mohyiuddin Ibn ‘Arabi (rh)’s voluminous Futuhat al-Makiyyah should require no introduction to people such as yourselves who may have even read such texts, but for those who don’t know, Shaykh al-Akbar lays claim to futuhat (divine openings/unveilings) in the form of both visions, dreams and verbal sentences being revealed and inspired to them. Yet the concept of ‘futuhat’ is also nto well known amongst the masses – just like zill and buruz [Our salafi-minded brethren would consider such personalities as highly dubious and untrustworthy (at best) and practice takfir upon them (at worst). But generally, learned muslim scholars have considered them to be great awliya and akabir from the ‘ulama (I know the nuances of the comments of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rh) on Ibn ‘Arabi (rh) – but in ahl al-sunnah we overlook, and do not critique, or scholarly forefathers – especially those who are deceased)]

    However, if you look into the works of the scholars, sufi masters and awliya of persia and india, you will find that many have spoken about the concept of zill and buruz, most notably, Mujaddid Alf-Thani Shaykh Ahmad al-Sirhindi and Shah WaliAllah al-Dehlawi, in the maktubat an (I cannot remember right now which book of Shah WaliAllah’s he mentions the concept of Zill – but rest assured I will try to provide it if needed).

    So although Zill and Buruz may not be popular amongst the masses (indeed I would argue that they are reserved for the discourses of the elites amongst the awliya), it is highly inaccurate, or just second-nature to salafi-minded brethren, to claim that these concepts do not exist – because either they do not consider the writings of the awliya to be worth more than the paper on which they are transcribed, or because they WISH these concepts would have not existed historically.

    Either way, Zill and Buruz are well-known concepts by anyone who knows the reality of tasawwuf and the history of the great sufi masters who spoke of such stations.

    Wassalaamu ‘alaikum wa rahmatAllahe ta’ala wa barakaatuhu

    Ibn al-Ghulam

    • Ibn Ghulam,

      Thanks for your comments. I honestly wish more Ahmadis were like you. Its easier to discuss with you, because we accept common principles. However, do recognize that what we have learned about the Deen is not why we are Muslims or Ahmadis. Ultimately, it is a hidayah from Allah. I would say that 99.99% of what I learned about the “hard sciences” of Islam were useless, it was the connection to Allah that is the real “meat”.

      Ahmadiyya literature is in habit of citing Muslim personalities of the past. About 2-3 years ago now, I double-checked the quotations they cite. Here are some excerpts from that research:

      You cited Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani in Futuh al-Ghayb. Please provide me with a section reference, as I have access to that book.

      However, in his book titled Sirr al-Asrar (The Secret of Secrets). The book opens as follows:

      All Praise is due to Allah; He is a munificent, gracious, and compassionate Lord, Who has gathered all knowledge in His Essence and Who is the creator of all knowledge for eternity. The cause, the reason of all existence, is from His existence. All praise is due to Allah, and He has sent the Glorious Qur’ān that bears in its essence the reason for its revelation, which is to remind men of Allah; He sent it to the guide who leads men on the path of truth with the mightiest of all religions. All peace and blessings be upon His beloved prophet Muhammad, who was not taught by man, but by Him. He is His last prophet, the last link in the chain of prophethood who was brought to a world gone astray, the most honoured among His prophets, honoured by the most honoured of divine books. His progeny are guides for seekers; his companions were chosen among the good and benevolent. May abundant peace and blessings be upon their souls.

      In his section on the beginning of creation, the Shaykh also wrote:

      The Prophets kept coming, and the divine message continued until there appeared the great spirit of Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم, the last of the messengers who saved people from distraction. Allah Most High sent him to open the eyes of the hearts of the heedless. His purpose was to awaken them from the sleep of unconsciousness and to unite them with the Eternal beauty, with the Cause, with the Essence of Allah. Allah says in His Holy Qur’ān:
      Say: This is my way. I call to Allah with the certainty of insight – I and those who follow me… (Sura Yusuf, 108) to indicate the path of our Master, the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم.

      You wrote:

      “Our salafi-minded brethren would consider such personalities as highly dubious and untrustworthy (at best) and practice takfir upon them (at worst). But generally, learned muslim scholars have considered them to be great awliya and akabir from the ‘ulama”

      If you watch my earlier videos, this was the approach I took. That was 2 years ago, I’ve since changed. Instead, I double-checked the writings of Mirza Tahir, and found that he was misrepresenting Ibn ‘Arabi. Those who read the writings of Ibn ‘Arabi generally agree that they are not read at face-value, and especially not with little study of Islam, as generally most westernized Muslims have – This was the advice I got from a high-level mureed in the Shadhili order (a branch of the Qadiris) and a wakeel in the Naqshbandi order.

      However, I still wanted to bring this to your attention. In one section, Ibn ‘Arabi writes that prophethood has ended and states this unconditionally. He calls this “crushing the backs of the awliya'” However, he writes, since the Awliya’ desire to be nearer to Allah and have more veils between them and Allah removed. For this, Allah has opened up two avenues to them:
      A) Prophethood consisted of many components. One of those components was true dreams (ruya’ Salihah). So when a wali has a True Dream, he receives a Juz of prophethood. And since the linguistic meaning of Nabi is “News”, this Wali is bringing News from the unseen world and can therefore be termed a Nabi. Since his “Nubuwwah” is not bringing forth any chances to Islam, but only news of the unseen world, Ibn ‘Arabi terms this “Non-Law-bearing Nubuwwah”. The only difference between this explanation and what most Muslims would say is terminology. Otherwise, Ibn ‘Arabi’s approach here is the same as Muslims for centuries- just different terms. But most Ahmadis reads “Ghayr tashri’i nubuwwah” and ignore the full context.

      B) The second method Ibn ‘Arabi writes people can be prophets is purely semantic. He writes that we call Muhammad صلى الليه عليه و سلم “The Messenger of God”, even though between them was the intermediary of Jibreel عليه السلام. But, we remove Jibreel from the chain and make the connection immediately from Allah to the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلام. Likewise, if we recite the Qur’an or Hadith exactly as the Prophet conveyed it to us, Ibn ‘Arabi said it was permissible to call the Muhadithoon “The messengers of God”. In other words, between us conveying the message is Jibreel, the prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم, perhaps dozens of teachers, and then us. But we can “remove” those, just as we “remove” Jibreel from the Sanad. But in reality, this is not the same kind of prophet as the Ambiya’ in general. Again, purely semantic, but its difficult to get Ahmadis to accept this.

      Regarding Zilli and Buroozi, if you argue that these concepts are as Ibn ‘Arabi stated, then I have no problems because you do not actually consider Mirza to be a prophet. It was only a semantic difference and we’re on the same faith. truthfully, I do not care if you venerate Mirza or even say that ‘Esa عليه السلام died in India at 120. Its the claim of Prophethood that is problematic. But, if you mean this literally, then Ahmadiyya is maintaining the terminology while I changing the concept.
      I wrote about this in 2008:

      You cited Ahmad Sirhindi:

      Throughout his works, Sirhindi frequently refers to Prophet Muhammad عليه الصلاة والسلام as the last prophet. In the preface of The Proof of Prophethood, Sirhindi wrote:

      Infinite thanks be to Allahu ta’ala, who has sent Prophets to guide people to the way of salvation and who has revealed four of His major Books to them; these Books contain no aberration or abnormality. The Book He has revealed to His Last Prophet, Muhammad (‘alaihi ‘s- salam), is Qur’ān al-karim, in which everything necessary for His human servants has been revealed, unbelievers have been warned of Hell’s torment, while believers who carry out the requirements of Islām have been given the good news of Paradise… He has sent him as the last prophet to communicate the fact that Allahu ta’ala is One to His servants, and to treat their sick hearts.

      Let it be known that this servant, that is, [al-Imām ar-Rabbani Mujaddid al-Alf ath-Thani] Ahmad ibn ‘Abd al-Ahad, who is greatly in need of Allahu ta’ala’s compassion and the first of them to invoke Him to protect him, his ancestry, masters, and disciples against the troubles of the Rising Day, has seen with regret that the people of our time have become increasingly slack in believing in the necessity of prophets’ coming, in the twenty-five prophets whose names are given in the Qur’ān al-karim, and in obeying the religion brought by the last prophet. Moreover, some powerful people with authoritative positions in India have been torturing pious Muslims who diligently follow Islām. There have appeared people who mock the blessed name of the last prophet and substitute the blessed names given to them by their parents with absurd names.

      In his letter to Mullah Arif Hutani Badahshi collected in the book Makatubāt, Sirhindi wrote:

      It should be understood well that Khalilullah Ibrahīm ‘alaihissalam’ explained very well the fact that it is wrong to worship things other than Allahu ta’ala. He thoroughly closed all the gates that would lead to disbelief. For this reason, he became the Imām of prophets. He surpassed them all ‘alaihi wa alaihimus-salawatu wattahiyyat’. For, the highest point of progress in worldly life is to realize well the fact that there is nothing to be worshipped other than Allahu ta’ala. For, the exact meaning of the saying, “Allahu ta’ala alone is worthy of being worshipped,” which is communicated by the second part of the beautiful word “lā ilaha illAllah,” will be understood only in the Hereafter. Nevertheless, because the last prophet ‘alaihi wa alaihimussalawatu wattaslimat’ was honored with seeing Allahu ta’ala in this world, he attained many things of the exact meaning of that word in this world, too.

      You cited Shah wali Allah Muhadith al-Dehlawi:

      In his book Al-Musawwa Sharh al-Muwatta’, a commentary on the famous book of Islāmic law by Imām Mālik, under the section “The Ruling of the Khawārij, the Jahmiyya and their likes” , Shah Wali Allah al-Dehlawi 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

      Similarly, whoever claims concerning the two shaykhs [Abu Bakr and ‘Umar] for example that they are not [to be] the inhabitants of Paradise, even though it is mass narrated in the hadīth that they were given the good news [of entering Paradise]; or whoever states that the Prophet is the seal of Prophethood, but that this term means that no one after him can be named a “prophet”, and that as for that meaning of prophethood which is [a human sent by Allah to the people, obedience to whom is required, protected from sins and remaining in error] that, this (meaning of) prophethood can still be found in the leaders of the Community after him; then this person is a heretic (zindīq). Furthermore, the majority of the later Hanafī and Shāfi’ī scholars are unanimous in agreement that such a person deserves capital punishment, and Allah knows best.

      You cited Ibn Taymiyyah:

      In his Book of Emaan: According to the Classical Works of Shaikhul-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah, translated by Dr. Muhammad Naim Yasin, Ibn Taymiyyah wrote:

      Faith in the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم

      We must also believe that Muhammad ibnu Abdullah عليه الصلاة والسلام is the Prophet and Messenger of Allah, His servant and chosen one, that he صلى الله عليه و سلم never worshipped idols, nor associated anything with Allah for one single moment, nor committed a single sin or vice of any kind.
      We must also believe that he صلى الله عليه و سلم is the seal of the prophets. This is explicitly mentioned in the Qur’ān in the verse:
      Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the seal of the prophets.
      It is also attested by the ahaadeeth of the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم who said, “My similitude in comparison with the other prophets before me is that of a man who has built a house excellently and beautifully, except for a place of one brick in a corner. The people went around about it and wondered at its beauty and said, ‘Would that this brick would be put in its place!’ So I am that brick, and I am the last of the Prophets’.” The Prophet also said, “I am Muhammad and Ahmad; I am al-Maahee through whom Allah will eliminate kufr (disbelief); I am al-Haashir who will be the first to be resurrected, the people being resurrected thereafter, and I am also al-Aaqib (that is, there will be no prophet after me)”.
      We firmly believe that there is no prophethood following that of the Messenger of Allah عليه الصلاة والسلام, that any person claiming to be a prophet is a perverted liar. The Prophet عليه الصلاة والسلام said, “The hour will not be established till about thirty dajjaals (liars) appear, each claiming to be a prophet. I am the seal of the prophets; there is no prophet after me.”

      May Allah guide us to what is right.

  10. Sulaiman,
    “there is no point to insist on something that is baseless,……..”

    I agree …..and this is what we are trying to convey to you that there is no room for a person to be “blessed with spiritual blessing of prophethood……” after Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)….!!!

    Basis in the holy Qur’an, Surat al-Ahzab:

    Muhammad is not the father of any male among you, but he is the messenger of God and the seal of the prophets; and God is aware of all things (33:40).

    The Arabic word for seal is khatam which by a change of vowel can also be read as khatim, meaning “that which puts the seal”. Both words are derivatives of khatama, which means both to end or conclude something or to put a seal in order to indicate such an end or conclusion.

    No matter how the word is supplied with vowels, which were omitted in the original Arabic script, the most reasonable way, if not the only way, to understand the verse is that Muhammad (p.b.u.h) completed and closed the prophethood as a seal marks the completion and closure of a document, that is, he was the last prophet.

    Basis from Hadith. He Prophet (p.b.u.h) said:

    The children of Israel used to be guided by prophets. When a prophet passed away, another prophet succeeded him. But no prophet will come after me; there will only be khulafa’ (caliphs) who will increase in number (that is, more and more will claim to be khulafa’).” The people asked, “O Apostle of God, What do you order us (in view of such multiplicity of claims)? ” He said, “Obey the one who is given the pledge of allegiance first. Fulfil their rights, for God will ask them about (any shortcomings) in ruling those God has put under their guardianship (Bukhari, kitab hadith al-‘anbi’a, bab ma dhukira ‘an bani israel).

    The Prophet also said:

    My position in relation to the other prophets is like this: A man built a house, completing it and adorning it well except for a place of one brick. When the people entered the house, they marvelled at its beauty and said, But for the place of this one brick (how much more splendid the house will be) (Bukhari, kitab al-manaqib, bab khatim an-nabiyyin; Muslim, kitab al-fada’il, bab khatam an-nabiyyin; see also Tirmidhi, kitab al-manaqib, bab fadl an-nabi and kitab al-adab, bab al-amthal; Musnad Abu Dawud Tayalisi, marwiat Jabir bin Abdullah; and Musnad Ahmad, marwiat Ubayyi bin Ka’b, Abu Sa’id Khudri and Abu Huraira).

    •  Farhan,

      JazakAllahu khayran for all those – I was aware of most if not all of those quotes – but I did not require them. The quotes you have provided – all of which I accept and pretty much accord to in my own belief – follow a pattern.
      They are all translations of quotes from our past scholars establishing the finality of the Prophethood of the Prophet (sallaAllahu ‘alayhi wa sallam). This has never been in question as the points I referred to understand the Prophet’s finality to be untouched by the existence of Zill and Buruz – otherwise the people I have quoted would never have claimed such ranks.

      What you have quoted does not render the mention of Zill and Buruz by such awliya as negated – rather, what I think you have missed is that they have understood both to have existed together.

      I did not imply that any of them did not believe in the Prophet (saw) as being the last. The only reason I mentioned those names was in response to your statement to the effect that:

      It was in response to this statement of yours (that “islam has no concept of Zilli or Buroozi or such nonsense”) that I was referring to and to which I replied saying that Islam and muslims of the past have (and still do) recognise these concepts, and that you are wrong to impute that they do not.

      In this sense I quoted from those who have stated and qualified these concepts in their writings. HOWEVER, this is not to the detriment of the Prophet’s (saw) maqam or rank or prophethood. The concept of zill and Buruz as these eminent persons have written is subservient and subordinate and wholly dependant on the rank and maqam and prophethood of the Holy Prophet (saw).

      Of course they all have said that the Prophet (saw) is the Khatam al-Nabiyyin – but you cannot ignore (or would be opportunistic and selective) in so ignoring those quotes form these same persons who state that the concepts of Zill and Buruz are also validly claimed by awliya and such claims are proofs of the greatness of the teachings and the spiritual legacy of the Prophet (saw) and are not in any way an affront to His (saw) prophethood.

      In the same way, Hadrat Masih-e-Ma’ud’s (as) tracts and treatises are replete with mention of the Prophet (saw) as the Khatam al-Nabiyyin, and also has (like the awliya of the past) called upon the concepts of Zill and Buruz. The two are not mutually exclusive and neither can it be said that it is one or the other. rather the awliya of the past have understood both to have existed and the concepts of zill and buruz are (as you have touched upon) parts of prophethood and are to be understood, again as you rightly state, semantically.

      In fact Hadrat Masih-e-Ma’ud (as) states this very fact: he says that the difference between a wali and a nabi is that a wali is blessed and graced and ennobled with divine converse (mukaalama/mukhaataba) and the difference between a wali and a nabi is that when this converse becomes so numerous and constant, it is an abundance of such converse that makes a person a nabi. (or words to this effect)

      And it is not that such a person who reaches the rank of nabi (as mentioned above) is in ANY WAY comparable to the Nabuwwat of the Prophet (saw) – there is no comparison whatsoever with the nabuwwat of such a wali – in fact his maqam and rank is itself denigrated in comparison with that of the Prophet (saw) so much so that one has to refer to him as a Zill, Buruz or ghayr Haqiqi – to mark the immense difference between their respective ‘nabuwwats’.

      Your comments specifically:

      Thanks for your comments. I honestly wish more Ahmadis were like you. Its easier to discuss with you, because we accept common principles. However, do recognize that what we have learned about the Deen is not why we are Muslims or Ahmadis. Ultimately, it is a hidayah from Allah. I would say that 99.99% of what I learned about the “hard sciences” of Islam were useless, it was the connection to Allah that is the real “meat”.

      Agreed – man yahdihiAllahu fa laa mudilla-lahu…

      In that ‘connection to Allah’, one should try to effect this in all aspects of faith – although I am aware that many scholars state that we do not take our deen from dreams and visions, it is clear that this was a prophetic way, but there seems to be a non-reliance on salat-al-Istikhara and Hadrat Masih-e-Ma’ud (as) has advised this for those who seek certainty with regards to his claim. I hope that you and all those who are doubtful of his claim will take recourse to such measures.

      You wrote:

      If you watch my earlier videos, this was the approach I took. That was 2 years ago, I’ve since changed. Instead, I double-checked the writings of Mirza Tahir, and found that he was misrepresenting Ibn ‘Arabi. Those who read the writings of Ibn ‘Arabi generally agree that they are not read at face-value, and especially not with little study of Islam, as generally most westernized Muslims have – This was the advice I got from a high-level mureed in the Shadhili order (a branch of the Qadiris) and a wakeel in the Naqshbandi order.

      The teachers I have studied with (Ahmadi muslim and non-Ahmadi-muslim) have told me that his writings are not for the general masses – whilst this may be true, it is not the same as ‘not reading his books at face value’. I do not agree with this and many scholars would not hold this – or where they do it is most likely in advising general muslims. However, scholars (in my view) such as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad al-Qadiani, Khalifa Nuruddin, Pir Sirajul Haq Nu’mani, Shah WaliAllah Zainul ‘Abidin were known scholars and the last 4 were sufi scholars of their respective turuq in their own right. They had studied and read numerous commentaries of the original texts of Ibn ‘Arabi (rh), maintained a good opinion of him, and understood his writings as those of a sufi. Reading a sufi text as a student of knowledge, or as a salafi (I refer to others who may be on this thread and are dubious of such writings) is like reading a practitioner’s manual whilst studying for your undergrad. In the case of our salafi-minded brethren, suffice to say that one cannot literally understand the mustalahaat of the inner sciences when all they have been exposed to (or accept) is the outward science.

      You wrote:

      However, I still wanted to bring this to your attention. In one section, Ibn ‘Arabi writes that prophethood has ended and states this unconditionally. He calls this “crushing the backs of the awliya’” However, he writes, since the Awliya’ desire to be nearer to Allah and have more veils between them and Allah removed. For this, Allah has opened up two avenues to them:
      A) Prophethood consisted of many components. One of those components was true dreams (ruya’ Salihah). So when a wali has a True Dream, he receives a Juz of prophethood. And since the linguistic meaning of Nabi is “News”, this Wali is bringing News from the unseen world and can therefore be termed a Nabi. Since his “Nubuwwah” is not bringing forth any chances to Islam, but only news of the unseen world, Ibn ‘Arabi terms this “Non-Law-bearing Nubuwwah”. The only difference between this explanation and what most Muslims would say is terminology. Otherwise, Ibn ‘Arabi’s approach here is the same as Muslims for centuries- just different terms. But most Ahmadis reads “Ghayr tashri’i nubuwwah” and ignore the full context.

      I really don’t see the difference in what Shaykh al-Akbar says and what Ahmadi Muslims interpret? Hadrat Masih-e-Ma’ud (as) claimed (in my vew) a juz’i, ghayr haqiqi, ghayr tashri’i nabuwwah. What its true understanding or meaning is Allah knows best – but it seems clearly valid in the eyes of Ibn ‘Arabi (rh) and others. This non-law-bearing nabuwwah is exactly how many ahmadi muslims see the prophethood of Hadrat Masih-e-Ma’ud (as). Interestingly, this is why when I asked a scholar in Egypt about his view of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as), he replied: ‘jaa’iz ra’iyuhu wa da’watuhu, wa laakin laa naqbaluhu’ (or words to this effect): ‘what he says or has claimed is permissible, but I/we don’t accept it – we differ over his interpretations’. Importantly, he did not practice takfir of Hadrat Masih-e-Ma’ud (as) – rather, he merely said we do not accept it, but was honest enough to state that what he had claimed was validly held by some previously and was thus valid in Islam. The scholar was a Shafi’i sufi and serving at one of the Duwar al-Ifta in Cairo.

      You wrote:

      B) The second method Ibn ‘Arabi writes people can be prophets is purely semantic. He writes that we call Muhammad صلى الليه عليه و سلم “The Messenger of God”, even though between them was the intermediary of Jibreel عليه السلام. But, we remove Jibreel from the chain and make the connection immediately from Allah to the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلام. Likewise, if we recite the Qur’an or Hadith exactly as the Prophet conveyed it to us, Ibn ‘Arabi said it was permissible to call the Muhadithoon “The messengers of God”. In other words, between us conveying the message is Jibreel, the prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم, perhaps dozens of teachers, and then us. But we can “remove” those, just as we “remove” Jibreel from the Sanad. But in reality, this is not the same kind of prophet as the Ambiya’ in general. Again, purely semantic, but its difficult to get Ahmadis to accept this.

      This is one view – and I think this is probably the view that many Lahori-Ahmadis take on the issue – that his claim to nubuwwah was semantic-only. Allahu a’lam. I am not qualified, nor mukallif to answer this – however, I do know that in sufi mustalahaat, ghayr haqiqi, and other such terms only serve to qualify or humble one’s self to one’s spiritual master or teacher – thus I see nothing wrong with this. The only question would be the recurrence of such terms in the writings of Hadrat Masih-e-Ma’ud (as) and also I know that, in any case, he has used the terminology of the sufis in general wherever he has referred to his nubuwwah – except, perhaps in his treatise to the scholars of Nadwah, in which he makes no such qualification if I remember correctly.

      You wrote:

      Regarding Zilli and Buroozi, if you argue that these concepts are as Ibn ‘Arabi stated, then I have no problems because you do not actually consider Mirza to be a prophet. It was only a semantic difference and we’re on the same faith. truthfully, I do not care if you venerate Mirza or even say that ‘Esa عليه السلام died in India at 120. Its the claim of Prophethood that is problematic. But, if you mean this literally, then Ahmadiyya is maintaining the terminology while I changing the concept.
      I wrote about this in 2008:

      I merely state that these concepts have an existence and mention in Islam and amongst muslims contrary to your claim that they have no islamic basis. Whether Ibn ‘Arabi is credited to it, I don’t know. Although even that is an inaccurate statement – Ibn ‘Arabi (rh) can be credited with having expounded it but not giving birth to it – it is a divine reality and property that I believe Allah has blessed the spiritual legacy of the Prophet (saw) with and thus Allah is to be credited and thanked for it. to say it was semantic and thus offers nothing is other than to say it is a semantic DIFFERENCE. I hold the prophethood of Hadrat Masih-e-Ma’ud to be in the terms he has described them. Do I believe this contravenes the Prophet’s (Saw) status as the Khatam al-Nabiyyin? No. Do I think that Hadrat Masih-e-Ma’ud (as)’s prophethood is anywhere comparable to that of the Holy Prophet (saw)? No. Do I think that as an Ummati, Zilli, Buruzi Nabi in the lexical sense there is a benefit that the Ummah gets and that this gives him a rank above other awliya-Allah? Yes.

      Also, I do care whether I venerate him – and I care that you should too – so should all. The reason being that I believe in the truth of his claim and in his mandate from Allah and the Prophet (saw), and so would obviously want others to share in this.

      This has become long. Apologies, Wassalaamu ‘alaikum wa rahmatAllahe ta’ala wa barakaatuhu

      Ibn al-Ghulam

      • This thread is a laugher…I have now officially heard it all.

        @ Ibn al-Ghulam

        Even a laymen can see that these great Muslims considered prophethood to have ended on Muhammad (saw). They also believed in the physical return of Esa (as). With these two facts established, then you can build a picture of what their opinions were of Barooz and Zill.

        This concept of Barooz and Zill appears to have no connection with the return of Esa (as) at all. Thats a fact JACK.

        Go back to the drawing board, this is the big leagues.

        • You regard, and perceive, Sayyidna ‘Isa (as), Mahdi, Masih, zill and buruz to be mutually exclusive. I see them as inter-related and complimentary.

          Thats the reality – we have different perceptions – you to yours, and me to mine.

          I consider that a person can be mahdi and masih – you do not.

          Similarly, I consider Sayyidna ‘Isa (as) to be mahdi, and masih, and an ummati, buruzi, and zilli nabi – you do not. In your opinion, its one or the other (or none).

          I consider that one man can have many different characteristics and attributes and yet still be one person. The Prophet (saw) was the Mahdi, and the Hadi, and the Muzzammil, and the Muddaththir, etc, and was al-Qasim, and was al-Noor, and was al-Bashar. Its thoughts like yours that give root to debates such as the ‘was he light or human – choose one or the other – he cannot be both’ that we have seen the ills of in the indo-pak sub-continent.

          My posts are not intended for laymen. Similarly, I do not perceive that concepts such as buruz and zill and the intricacies of nubuwwah and other detailed maqaamaat are for the laymen – they are detailed concepts that should not be discussed by laymen. Although I consider myself as a student of knowledge, I would like to think that Allah has bestowed me with the capacity to try to understand intricate topics.

          Ibn al-Ghulam

          • @ Ibn i Ghulam

            I give up…what connection does Zill and Barooz have with the physical return of Esa (as)? And….didnt Ibn Arabi and the other Muslims you quoted believe in the physical return of Esa (as)??

            ^ That is the major clue in this entire puzzle. You cant take obscure passages written by these Muslims to mean that when Esa (as) spiritually returned he would be a Zill or Barooz.

            And finally…Mirza Sahib never quoted Ibn Arabi as a reference when he argued Pro-Prophethood from 1901 onwards. Show me a quote after 1901 wherein he referenced Ibn Arabi.

          • As explained none of these stuff are consider to be PROPHET in general understanding.

            and Quran does not differentiate or give these categories of Prophets

          • Again, there is no such thing as a zilli or buroozi Prophet in Islam. All you have shown us is a philosophical discussion by Ibn Arabi. MGA however based his whole claim on this vague concept which is nowhere to be found in the Quran or Ahadith.

            Stop patronizing us. These kind of philosophical discussions have their have their own place, sure. But Islam is simple. There are no such confusing and deep concepts in Islam.

            Conclusion: MGA is not a prophet. He is nothing.

      • Long message. But I understand your point.

        This could become a semantic issue very quickly. You are using the same terms to express a subtle yet profoundly different concept.

        According to that definition of “messenger of God” and “ghayr tashri’i nabi”, even I am a messenger of Allah and I am a ghayr tashri’i nabi. Per Ibn ‘Arabi’s definition, my own personal true dreams make me a Nabi and my recitation of the Qur’an and ahadith makes me a Messenger of God.

        If you mean Nabi and Rasool in this way, then this is nothing special or nothing to marvel about. Being a Nubuwwah and Risalah can be accomplished overnight.

        When a Muslim says “no more prophets”, he is not referring to Ibn ‘Arabis unique and custom definition, he is referring to the understanding the Muslims common use.

        Do note that otherwise, he denied the existence of future Nabis and Rasools when using the definition of your average Muslim.

  11. Assalaamu ‘alaikum wa rahmatAllahe ta’ala wa barakaatuhu

    On a point of purification of our souls, is it really befitting to slander or curse at the Khalifa or any person for that matter who we are pretty sure would not read such blogs? For example some of the slander and abuse hurled at Hadrat Khalifatul Masih al-Khamis (ayyadahu-Allah) is unacceptable and would most likely fall under the category of Ghibah, no?

    Talk about concepts and beliefs by all means, but lets leave personalities out of it – or where they are mentioned, lets maintain some decorum. We are all (presumably) gentlemen here?

    Wassalaamu ‘alaiku wa rahmatAllahe ta’ala wa barakaatuhu

    Ibn al-Ghulam

    • wa salaamz,

      See, this is why I like your comments. Because you have a strong element of manners and that’s good, ma sha Allah. This is a very positive characteristic. My teachers taught me to make my knowledge like salt and my manners like the doe. May Allah bless and honor you. (no sarcasm, serious)

      I’m a Shafi’i in maddhab. According to the Shafi’i maddhab, you are permitted to speak negatively about someone without their knowledge in 6 circumstances. Relevant for us, here is where I take justification:

      A) Eliminating wrong – “The second is seeking aid in righting a wrong or correcting a wrongdoer, such as by saying to someone expected to be able to set things right, “So-and-so is doing such and such, so warn him not to continue,” and the like. The intention in such a case must be to take the measures necessary to eliminate the wrong, for if that is not one’s purpose, it is unlawful.
      B) Warning Muslims of Evil – “The Fourth reason is to warn Muslims of evil and advice them, which may take several forms, including;….”
      C) Someone unconcerned with concealing their disobedience.

      wa ‘alaykum as-salaam wa rahmat Allahi wa barakatahu

      • Farhan,

        Fine – speak negatively, but surely in the benefit of maintaining good adab and, especially where the alternative can convey the intended meaning, slanderous and inflammatory remarks about a person’s character is not within our remit. Either way, it is up to you, but it sets bad precedent and as has been seen only leads to more strife than it purports to solve.

        And yes – I did/do have a blog called MuslimSunrise – but I don’t get time nowadays to do much work on it.

  12. Ibn al-Ghulam,

    “On a point of purification of our souls, is it really befitting to slander or curse at……………..”

    Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian declared that:

    “Except for the Children of Prostitutes, whose hearts have been sealed by God, everyone else has accepted me and believes in my Prophethood.” (Aina-e-Kamalate Islam, Roohani Khazain vol 5 p.547). . . . .

    What do you say about this……..?

    • What totally confounds me is that if MGAQ was a prophet, then he was the first prophet charging money for books of revelation.

      I know dedicated Ahmadi women who kids did not accept the prophethood of MGAQ, so are they zarautual bagayas?

      Secondly, Fundamentally the purpose of prophets is to teach us pure Tauheed. Beliefs in the prophet is essential so that we learn Tauheed from them.

      Why is accepting MGA prophets essential from the point of view of Tauheed. What did he teach about Tauheed which was forgotten or lost?

      My own criteria is that belief in him is dangerous due to corruption of Tauheed that he did. (which a lot of other reformers too have done without claiming prophethood).

      As an example, he negates the Hakimyat of Allah, that Allah alone is sovereign and Hakim, when he accepts British Law in India to be valid in place of Sharia and does not regard a non sharia law to be zulm. This is a fundamental corruption of Tauheed. Ironically, its common now for muslims of all sects to negate this aspect of Tauheed.

      Ironically, when the Ahmadi say that he did not come with a new sharia and was within the sharia of Hazrat Muhammad peace be upon him, they miss the fact that MGAQ did not live for one day under the rule of sharia instead lived under shria of the british empire his entire life. And to call him a prophet within the sharia of Hazrat Muhammad peace be upon him is utterly ridiculous and meaning less. You can call him a prophet under the sharia of the British Empire as you can call Mirza Masrur a Khalifa under the sharia of the United Kingdom.

      • Why is accepting MGA prophets essential from the point of view of Tauheed. What did he teach about Tauheed which was forgotten or lost?

        This is a key statement.

        It could be argued that there is widespread shirk in the Indian subcontinent. This is sadly a true statement, but there organizations and movements at work to eradicate this evil practice who are Muslims, not Ahmadis. In other words, a new religion was not needed.

        Ahmadiyya’s main message is that “Jesus” died- not Tawhid. I know Ahmadis who say their religion can be summed up with the belief that “Jesus” died. It seems rather odd that a prophet would be sent just to tell everyone that a previous prophet died, of which he is conveniently the second coming.

        The Shari’ah aspect is pretty major, but very difficult to get others to even understand the enormity of it, much less accept…

    • MK –

      Please quote the original urdu or arabic – translations are essentially extensions of interpretations (or necessitate an element of interpretation).

      If the term expressed above is ‘dhurriyyatu’l-baghaya’ then this term has been used ample times in classical arabic works to be a term which refers to those who are rebellious by reason of arrogance – as opposed to any sincere reason.
      Incidentally, the term ‘baghaya’ is more often used for rebellion against the state or government/polity – and thus refers to rebellion in general also. dhurriyya is a term in general usage which refers to ‘offspring’ or ‘children’ – and in the Qur’an al-Karim it is used most often to refer to ‘children’.

      So ‘Sons/children of prostitutes’ is just bad translation – so read the quote with this translation and there is no problem from where I am standing.

      Wa bi-Allahi tawfiq.

      Ibn al-Ghulam

      In any case, hadrat Masih-e-Ma’ud (as) refers here to those

      • Mirza himself used “wald ul haram” and defined bagahaaya as street women. He also called his opponents “haramzada”. Trying to spin that to rebellion is the oldest Mirzai defence in the book and is tired and insulting.

        So please, stop deceiving yourself and inadvertently (hopefully not deliberately) deceiving others.

        • Shahid,

          I try not to enter into debates with people who I have seen lying – I refuted one of your articles in which you and your cohorts tried to accuse Hadrat Masih-e-Ma’ud (as) of plagiarising in his arabic works – when I refuted it you, or someone else, deleted my post (if I rememebr correctly).

          You have low adab (I have seen how you mock and scorn at the lectures at tooting mosque) and regularly entertain and practice slander, thus I have little interest in entering dialogue with you.

          Farhan, I would be glad to take this offline.

          Wa bi-Allahi tawfiq

          • A lot of accusations from someone caught deceiving and spying and yet having the temerity to speak of adab. Obviously there is no defence for Mirza having called his opponents “progeny of prostitutes” and you have to resort to low tactics. Carry on. While Qadianis like you slander me, plenty of others are coming back to Islam, alhamdulillah.

            You should bear something in mind. Ahmadiyya is a cult, not a religion. You can talk about religion, but your cult and its founders and leaders use it only to trick people out of cash. It’s just a cult with no theological basis whatsoever. If it makes you happy to be so arrogant, then to your religion and unto me, mine.

        • For those who know, walad al-haram and walad al-zina are two categories often cited in fiqh-works referring to children born out of wedlock. In Aqidah polemics it often refers to someone who has deviated in their beliefs regarding a certain attribute of Allah or the Messenger (saw), or a noble companion or Khalifa.

          In this context, when Christian and Hindu opponents of Islam (and some muslims) allow such teachings from their books (i.e., that one can marry and beget children out of wedlock adn attribute this to holy persons), and at the same time they dare to accuse the Prophet (saw) of adultery and rape (na’udhubillah), I see no problem in using such terms which are legally accurate in mustalahaat al-fiqh and in polemical discourse. You may, and are entitled to, differ. But don’t try to put some universal truth-value on your slanderous accusations which (as anyone who has read any polemical religious literature will tell you) is totally ignorant of the subtleties of language, context and literary devices.

          The Qur’an is replete with examples of the situations when it is permissible, or even obligatory to curse (not that this is the issue in case, but just for your reference):

          2:159 – Indeed, those who conceal what We sent down of clear proofs and guidance after We made it clear for the people in the Scripture – those are cursed by Allah and cursed by those who curse,

          3:87 – Those – their recompense will be that upon them is the curse of Allah and the angels and the people, all together,

          38:78 – And indeed, upon you is My curse until the Day of Recompense.”

          Do you not think the prophets and all saintly people will be amongst the aforementioned ‘people’ in the above verses?

          In any case, the servants of Allah do as they are commanded. If they are told to draw down curses, so be it. That, too, is a rahmah for the believers and for others.

          On a different but related point, many of the scholars of the Ummah have used such terms which in their legal context have one meaning but in a polemical, literary discourse, they mean something closely related to that context. Early muslim legal and polemical discourse on Aqidah (as well as more modern christian polemical discourses) by our Imams will enlighten you greatly on this issue. In sum, you should read up on some literature.

          In any case, your comments like these have been successfully retorted by many Ahmadis so I won’t go into it. For those who are interested, they can see them here:

          • @ ibn i Ghulam

            Stop defending him for cursing at people uncontrollably. We have the text, we can see what he was thinking, we know he was frustrated.

            Why doesnt Masroor continue with this beautiful standard of the Mirza sahib? I mean, Masroor can follow in his example and write out Lanaat 1000 times every friday to show his piousness. I would love to see it.

            Look BRO, Mirza sahib was such a nuisance and miscreant in the society of the Punjab, India, that the ‘white-mans’ govt. issued a order for him to stop with the death-threats, they were the cause of communal strife in the country, they were just weird.

            Mirza sahib accepted to listen to the Brits. But, it didnt last long….just 3 years later he went after Piggot and Dowie. And then Dr. Khan and Sanullah….the Brits must have let him get away with it because he came from a family of snitches.

          • You’re mixing up two concepts.

            Walad al-Zinnah is definitely used in fiqh, because there are certain legal rulings that have to do with them.

            While it might be legitimate to use certain terms in an academic discussion, depending on the audience, it can be extremely inappropriate or potentially even sinful. This is manners.

            To understand this, consider an example: it is entirely appropriate to talk about the details of sexual reproduction in a Biology classroom, but that is not something you would talk about at a dinner party to the opposite gender. The latter could be offensive and highly disrespectful.

            The discernment between the two situations is at the heart of prophetic manners. This is something the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم possessed. When the Ansari women would ask him detailed questions about menstration, he was in full right to respond and no one would have objected. But instead, his manners caused him to have Aisha رضى الله عنها respond on his behalf. Again, his manners compelled him to use his wife as an intermediary.

            Mirza was using these terms in an offensive, disrespectful way, perhaps to stir a reaction. This demonstrates a lack of prophetic manners or human decency.

            Its better to ignore his misguidance and to focus on the love of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه سلم.

      • Ibn-al Ghulam,

        The favorite obscene word used by Mirza Ghulam Sahib of Qadian, the so-called Promised Messiah and Prophet of Ahmadiyya was………… BAGHAYA.

        What does it mean?

        In arabic lexicons, ‘baghaya’ means, prostitute; adultress, strumpet.
        (Qamoos Ilyas al-‘Asree, Modern by Elias Anton Ellias)

        You have given your explanation of the word baghaya, but it is strongly believed that this still means prostitutes according to all Arabic dictionaries. This is what Mirza Sahib intended as well, and never forget that this is not the first time he used disgusting language, do you want me to give his other quotes as well……..?

        This is a very indecent way of addressing others who did not believe on his claim.

        Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) never used indecent language. He was a last and true Messenger of Allah.

      • Next your gonna re-define all the cuss words in the english language. Give it a rest! We have all delved in the psychological aspect of the mind of Mirza…as strange as that sounds.

        Nevertheless, this guy was a wreck of emotions. Lekh Ram drove him crazy with his appearance in Qadian, Mirza sahib began dropping prophecies as if his brain was hemmorrhaging. He dropped three prophecies in one on Feb 20, 1886. Lekh Ram had only left Qadian a few more earlier…

        Then he started cursing the world…tirade upon tirade…And now Ahmadis are trying to defend him? Put down the Jim Jones poison-juice BRO BRO. And Guyana wont be Rabwah.
        I;m trying to help you, the ‘A’ is nothing but a trap, they want your money, children and time.

        • Your comments are so replete with fiction that I cannot even begin to address them. And maybe you are from the US or something (no offence to my american brothers), but I don’t understand your comparisons about Guyana, poison-juice, etc.

          Although modern arabic dictionaries, as well as classical ones, may include prostitution within the term baghaya, it is just plain amateur to use that translation in a sentence where no such inference was intended.

          It is like when explaining to someone that a girl has a fever, her mother might say that ‘my daughter is very hot’, but you guys would pick up a modern dictionary and the animosity stemming from the nafs al-‘ammarah dictates that you would infer that the mother was inferring that her daughter was sexually attractive in a lustful way.

          Seriously, you need to mature in your debate.

          • Its interesting you reference classical dictionaries.

            A) Baghiyya, in context, means unchaste woman. It *can* refer to a prostitute, depending on how its used.

            B) All classical dictionaries explicitly say that ‘khaatam’ means ‘Last’, without exception. I checked this myself. Reference is here:

            C) Please apply this ‘in context’ approach of “hot” meaning warm vs attractive when analyzing the meaning of rafa’a.

          • @ ibn i Ghulam

            I try to be as civil as humanely possible when interacting with Ahmadis. The problem is that of consistency. Ahmadis are not consistent in their approach to doctrine. I somtimes get frustrated with this aspect of Ahmadiyyat. Sometimes you people say, ‘we dont follow the mullahs’, then you people quote them….and I left speechless.

            I am young and I am from the USA. I am possibly the most active ex-Ahmadi from the USa that is on the internet. My reputation is easily understood from my writings.

            Anyhow, there was a cult leader named Jim Jones who took a bunch of lost people (christians) to Guyana in the early 80’s and subsequently convinced them to drink a poisonous liquid which caused death to everyone. I was comparing the brainwashing in Ahmadiyyat to that of Jim Jones. I was an Ahmadi for the better portion of my life, I was atfal and khuddam. I have lots of experience into the psychology of what drives a laymen-Ahmadi to think the way that they do.

            Any other questions?

          • How far will you go in trying to defend Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahibs indecent ways of addressing others.

            He did not even spare Jesus (Isa a.s) and his Mother Mariam (p.b.u.h)

            Mirza claimed that his God (probably it was satan) performs intercourse with him. Since the advent of mankind, no one, I repeat no one, has ever expressed such a rotten accusation against God not even false claimants.

            There is no way that a person like Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib can be a Prophet of Allah s.w.t. It’s as clear as seeing the Sun in broad day light when there are no clouds.

          • And you need to explain Mirza’s use of “haramzada” and tell us how that’s ok.

            Presumably you’d have no problem with people calling Mirza “Dhurriyatul Baghaaya”?

  13. “KHAATAM” means “LAST” yes, but not last of spiritual blessing, otherwise, verse in surah Al Ahzab verse 40 would contradict the verse in surah Al Nisa verse 69. and God’s words can never contradict each others.

  14. Shazada10, conclusion ‘MGA is not a prophet. He is nothing’ that’s what you said, certainly not according to what is said in the Quraan, my challenge is still valid, prove to me that prophethood is not spiritual blessing and all the spiritual blessings ceased with the advent of The Holy Prophet(SAW). prove to me that how does one whom is blessed by Allah with spiritual prophethood blessing after The Holy Prophet(SAW) is said to be NEW prophet.

    • going by your argument, for 1400 years there was no blessing right? so whats the issue if there was none for more time? 🙂

      As we believe Prophet Muhammad (PUBH) for all man kind and till qayyamah so that blessing is there always.

      and even if we go by ur understand at some point in time there were be some last prophet right? so does that mean then blessing will end? NO

      • Xiaa, not going by my argument, instead going by ur understanding that’s apparently a misconception.

    • Syed Sulaiman,

      Please try to understand. These are all your theories (based on what you hear from Ahmadiyya jamaat) and have nothing to do with authentic teachings of Islam. So you should be really giving others the proof to back your opinions.

      As far as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib is concerned, there is no way, I repeat there is no way, that he can be a Prophet of Allah s.w.t. There is overwhelming proof given to you, based on his own statements, prophecies and teachings. When you compare Mirza Sahib to the true Prophets of Allah s.w.t. (just for the sake of argument) you will see that there was no person who claimed to be a Prophet since the time of Adam with such disgusting language and lies. Not even the false ones.

      If you are still adamant and not convinced I will still not disrespect you and all I will say is some people take more time than others to get convinced. So may Allah s.w.t. give you the wisdom to come to real Islam.

    • “prove to me that how does one whom is blessed by Allah with spiritual prophethood blessing after The Holy Prophet(SAW) is said to be NEW prophet.”

      Well any prophet after Nuh AS, for example, like Ibrahim AS was blessed by Allah with prophethood blessing. So by your logic Ibrahmin was not a NEW prophet either. Since he was after Noah AS? So the only NEW prophet was Adam AS? since everyone else was blessed with spiritual prophet after him.

      So when the ahmadis say how can blessing of prophethood be stopped for this ummat, then we are to say that we are a less blessed ummat than bani israil since we have only had one prophet in the last 1400 years after hazrat Muhammad peace be upon him? the Jew used to have at times hundreds of prophets at a time. So Allah bless the other ummahs with over a hundred thousand prophet and only two for this ummat? And the Jew used to have a continuity of Prophets, how come no one after MGA. So this ummah is blessed for only 70 odd years in 1400 years and now darkness again? And if Ahmadis are the true sect, then how come Allah has shut them out of the blessing of a prophet for the last 100 years?

      • In a nutshell, if the number of prophets or the continuity of prophets is a blessing compared to a Last prophet and and final book, then we can never be as blessed as the Bani Israel, since even if MGA was a prophet, we have had neither the numbers nor the continuity of prophets in bani israel, having faced 1400 years of drought excluding the MGA years and yet again a drought since him of over a hundred years now.

        Remarkable, MGA is hardly know outside the indo pak communities and some muslim communities. Hazrat Muhammad peace be upon him is know by follower and enemies alike. MGA has essentially been ignored by history, a man who was supposed to break the cross and kill the swine.

        The crosses are still there and what is ironic, those who hold the crosses dont even know that this guy came and broke them.

  15. Brother Seeker, do not drifts away from the point of argument, the problem we are all here need to address is whether the prophethood after The Holy Prophet(SAW) can be classified or catagorised as the NEW prophet, my point of argument is NO! as long as one is binds by the Shariaat of Rasool Karim Muhammad(SAW) and is required to obey Him(SAW) in every details that doesn’t turned one to be NEW prophet, no doubt one is able to reach the pinnacle of spirituality blessing(prophethood) but this I believe is in conformity with the verse 69/70 surah Nisa and does not cotradict the verse 40 surah Al Ahzab, my understanding is the word KHAATAM meaning LAST does not carried the meaning LAST OF SPIRITUALITY BLESSING, in other words, spirituality blessing avenue are not closed/shut with the advent of The Holy Prophet(SAW). That’s why am strongly against the idea that one is said to have nullify the status of The Holy Prophet(SAW) KHAATAMUL ANBIYYA if one reachs the pinnacle of spirituality(prophethood). As far as for the question the need of prophet to be sent that’s within the jurisdiction of Allah s.a.t. to decide.

    • I’m glad you acknowledge that Khaatam means last. Other Ahmadi writings do so too…

      As in any language, words do not become “spiritual” or “metaphorical” on their own, they are understood to be so by context. For example, ‘ala itself just means “above”, it doesn’t mean spiritually above. In a certain context it could mean spiritual, but not just on its own.

      So, you can’t say khaatam means ‘spiritually last’.
      Muhammad SAAWS was the final prophet. Its very simple…

    • Syed Sulaiman,

      I am quite surprised as to why you see a contradiction between verses 69/70 and the verse 40 of Surah Al Ahzab.

      There is none Bro. so please go back and read it again they talk about two different things.

      One is talking about being in the companionship of Prophets like Muhammad (pbuh) and the other speaks about the finality of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Clearly these are two different things.

      Also, what you are talking about “spiritual blessing (prophethood)” being given to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib is another trick used by the Ahmadiyya jamaat to defend Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib.

      Whereas the truth of the matter is that the teachings of Ahmadiyya jamaat are clearly fabricated and have nothing to do with Islam. Islam is clear and there is no contradiction. Holy Quran and Hadith clearly state that there is the last in line of Prophets and there is no room for even the so called spiritual blessing leading to Prophethood.

      By the way do not forget that Mirza Sahib is no Prophet, Messiah, Mahdi and he has in his own teachings been proven to be a liar and a fraud. Thus those who follow his teachings are either unaware or are deliberately trying to hide the truth.

    • @sulaiman,

      What basis do you have for your distinction that a prophet who follows the sharia of a previous prophet is not a new prophet? By your definition, since the bani israel followed the sharia revealed to Moses, so no prophet after him was a new prophet? even eisa AS was to adhere to the 10 commandments.

      In any ways, to say that a prophet is a new prophet only if he bring a new sharia is completely speculative and based on no evidence that I know of and seems to be a distinction made only to fit your prophet. I have just as much evidence to say that a prophet is a new prophet only if his height exceeds the height of the previous prophet by 10 inches otherwise he is too similar to the older prophet, or that a prophet is a new prophet only if he is heavier than the old prophet. I can extrapolate and come up with an infinte number of alternative for any argument, thats why you have find evidence to back your saying. It is quite a stretch to claim that someone born over a thousand years after a prophet is not a new prophet.

      Any ways, no argument of one person can ever convince another person. The most important argument one has is the one with himself. Do you want to believe the truth whether you like it or not? Do you turn to Allah with humility to ask for the truth even if its not what you fancy. Question is do you want Allahs deen or your own deen? In all probability since no one follower of a sect or religion are in majority in the world, the probability of you being born in the right religious is less than a half. The strongest bais that you have will be for the religion that you are born in. It is imperative that you are more skeptical about your birth religion than other religions since you are most likely to have a bias for it.

      Question is for all of us, do we want the truth or do we want to fool ourselves? Its always easy to fool yourself and believe what you like filling in interpretations that you like stretching them wherever you want to take them, rather than try to objectively follow evidence.

      If Jesus was the son of Allah or Allah himself, May I have been the first of those who worshiped him. However the clear evidence is that he was not. I dont want to believe in islam because my parents were muslims. I want the truth. And in my search from Atheism, Allah knows, the religion I looked at most skeptically and critically was Islam, because I did not want my biases to get in the way.

      Christians extrapolate exactly the same way as you extrapolate to justify your beliefs ignoring the clear evidence.

        • Jazak Allah MK. May Allah bless you and your family and all the momineen and all the mominaat and all the muslimeen and all the muslimaat and forgive them and guide them and give them rizk

          • Mr Seeker, such a lenghty writing unfortunately it so hollow! Eisa(AS) was not a new prophet, you cannot contradict what He(AS) himself proclaimed to be ” Think not that I come to destroy the law, or prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfill”(Matthew 5: 17-18) so, His(AS) prophethood was subjected to Moses(AS) law, thus he was not a new prophet.

            You said “Question is do you want Allah deen or you own deen? ” you should be asking this question to yourself whether you really followed
            Allah deen, if so, why do you refuse to accept that Allah s.w.t. is still in the authority to appoint someone from among His chosen servants to be the leader for His deen? why do you contradict the SUNNAHTULLAH? having done so, how can you claimed that you followed Allah deen?

          • @ sulaiman

            Your are conjoining theories and concepts that dont really mix well. I have studied the majority of the Ahmadi arguments and they are all toxicated with the same venom.

            In Islam, we have the Quran! We also have each other, one day a great Muslim will rise to lead Islam, that day hasnt happened yet. It surely wasnt MGAQ, or any of his sons.

            Seeker OWNED you! Enough said!

          • @suliman

            I seek the deen of Allah many many times every day. I am trying to figure of what tauheed means. I am trying to figure out what shirk and kufar and nifaq are. Since to be a muslim I must avoid them. I dont really know what shirk is or what kufr are, so I am very unsure if I can or am avoiding them.

            Life is a journey of seeking the Love of Allah. The way is though the deen of Tauheed.

            The reason why I became an aitheist was exactly because I wanted whatever was the truth from scratch.

            If Allah wants to send a thousand prophet, My I be the first to accept them. If Allah wants to have a son, My I be the first to accept that. But the evidence is to the contrary. I would hope I would have no problem accepting MGA as prophet. However he was not one. That is clear to the evidence i see.

            When I was seeking the truth and I got some belief in Islam, I thought man, I may be copping out. So I decided to find the most vicious attacks on Islam i could find and see if there are any reasonable attacks or explanations. Since if anyone is going to uncover the false hood of the religion it would be the opponents. Well, Islam did stand up to the test. Problem with Ahmadiyya is that the don’t even really attempt to refute the allegations in an reasonable logical manner. You have to present a case rather than trying to hide.

            Now to your argument. How you can extrapolate

            Think not that I come to destroy the law, or prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfill”(Matthew 5: 17-18)

            to mean he was not a new prophet. That defies any reasonable logic. He says he has come to fulfill, where does he say he is not a new prophet? Sure he says the uphold the law. But how can you relate same law to mean no new prophet. you have presented no evidence to show that a prophet is not a new prophet if he is within the sharia of a previous prophet. Where is it? Thats a real leap of logic. How can you possibly infer that. Present your evidence. Provide a statement of the Quran, or hadith or even a standard dictionary which proves what you say.

            I promise. inshallah, I will continue to Ask Allah to guide me an show me his true deen which I still need to find and I will continue seeking his forgiveness and refuge from All Shirk, Kufr, Nifaq, Bidats and Fisk, the ones I know of and the ones I dont know of. You promise me too that you will also continue to ask Allah to guide you and show your his true deen. (This I ask of All reader of this forum Ahmadis and non Ahmadi. We all need to seek till then end of our days, thats why Fatiha is part of our regular prayers. that why we need to read it with humility and dependence on Allah, realizing that we need his guidance to his deen. I fear once we think we are on his deen is when we lose everything)

            One request, can you give me a collection of MGA saying relating to Tauheed and Taughut?

            best regards

          • @ seeker

            It was Nov. 1901, with the publishing of a small pamphlet entitled “Eik Ghalti Ka Izala”, this was where Mirza sahib began saying that his prophethood was in-fact JUST an extension of the prophethood of Muhamad (saw), it wasnt anything new…

            This was the new argument that Mirza sahib had cooked up. If you study the writings of this guy you will notice that every 4 or 5 years he would develop new arguments…

            Remember…in 1904, he said that out of the entire Ummah he was the only one who had been given the name of prophet.

            To properly understand the “a”, we must come to the realization that MGAQ came up with new arguments every so often in an attempt to establish his family business. This is the psychological aspect of Ahmadiyyat.

  16. Dear seeker, pls be concise and precise in your writing, explain to me how is it according to your understanding prophethood that is subjected to The Holy Prophet(SAW) is said to be or classified to be NEW prophet, explain to me how is it for someone to reach the pinnacle of spirituality blessing(prophethood) he has first need to obey the Holy Prophet(SAW) and after having reached the pinnacle he need to continously obey Him(SAW) is said or classified as the NEW prophet? this is my point of argument based on the verse 69/70 surah Nisa, your mumble/jumble writing style is so confusing it does not help me to understand anything at all.

    • @sulaiman

      I would have appreciated a reply to my questions.

      Anyways, regarding Surah nisa 69-70.

      Point 1: lease do not interpret it based on an opinion.

      It is prohibited to indulge in Tafsir by mere opinion. Muhammad bin Jarir reported that Ibn ‘Abbas said that the Prophet Peace be upon him said,

      (For this, and the previous quotes, see At-Tabari 1:90-91)

      [Whoever explains the Qur’an with his opinion or with what he has no knowledge of, then let him assume his seat in the Fire.]

      At-Tirmidhi, An-Nasa’i and Abu Dawud also recorded this Hadith. At-Tirmidhi said, “Hasan”.

      Point 2: The background of the ayat makes it clear that the ayat is about companionship in the aikharat, when the sahabi was concerned of not being in the company of Hazrat Muhammad peace be upon him….

      From Tafsir Ibn Kathir…

      The Reason Behind Revealing this Honorable Ayah

      Ibn Jarir recorded that Sa`id bin Jubayr said, “An Ansari man came to the Messenger of Allah while feeling sad. The Prophet said to him, `Why do I see you sad’ He said, `O Allah’s Prophet! I was contemplating about something.’ The Prophet said, `What is it’ The Ansari said, `We come to you day and night, looking at your face and sitting by you. Tomorrow, you will be raised with the Prophets, and we will not be able to see you.’ The Prophet did not say anything, but later Jibril came down to him with this Ayah,

      ﴿وَمَن يُطِعِ اللَّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ مَعَ الَّذِينَ أَنْعَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِم مِّنَ النَّبِيِّينَ﴾

      (And whoever obeys Allah and the Messenger then they will be in the company of those on whom Allah has bestowed His grace, of the Prophets), and the Prophet sent the good news to the Ansari man.” This Hadith was narrated in Mursal form from Masruq, `Ikrimah, `Amir Ash-Sha`bi, Qatadah and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas. This is the version with the best chain of narrators. Abu Bakr bin Marduwyah recorded it with a different chain from `A’ishah, who said; “A man came to the Prophet and said to him, `O Messenger of Allah! You are more beloved to me than myself, my family and children. Sometimes, when I am at home, I remember you, and I cannot wait until I come and look at you. When I contemplate about my death and your death, I know that you will be with the Prophets when you enter Paradise. I fear that I might not see you when I enter Paradise.’ The Prophet did not answer him until the Ayah,

      ﴿وَمَن يُطِعِ اللَّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ مَعَ الَّذِينَ أَنْعَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِم مِّنَ النَّبِيِّينَ وَالصِّدِّيقِينَ وَالشُّهَدَآءِ وَالصَّـلِحِينَ وَحَسُنَ أُولَـئِكَ رَفِيقاً ﴾

      (And whoever obeys Allah and the Messenger, then they will be in the company of those on whom Allah has bestowed His grace, of the Prophets, the true believers, the martyrs, and the righteous. And how excellent these companions are!) was revealed to him.” This was collected by Al-Hafiz Abu `Abdullah Al-Maqdisi in his book, Sifat Al-Jannah, he then commented, “I do not see problems with this chain.” And Allah knows best. Muslim recorded that Rabi`ah bin Ka`b Al-Aslami said, “I used to sleep at the Prophet’s house and bring him his water for ablution and his needs. He once said to me, `Ask me.’ I said, `O Messenger of Allah! I ask that I be your companion in Paradise.’ He said, `Anything except that’ I said, `Only that.’ He said,

      «فَأَعِنِّي عَلى نَفْسِكَ بِكَثْرَةِ السُّجُود»

      (Then help me (fulfill this wish) for you by performing many prostrations.)” Imam Ahmad recorded that `Amr bin Murrah Al-Juhani said, “A man came to the Prophet and said, `O Allah’s Messenger! I bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that you are the Messenger of Allah, pray the five (daily prayers), give the Zakah due on my wealth and fast the month of Ramadan.’ The Messenger of Allah said,

      «مَـــنْ مَـــاتَ عَلى هَـــذَا كَانَ مَـــعَ النَّبِيِّيــنَ وَالصِّــدِّيقِينَ وَالشُّــهَدَاءِ يَـــــــــوْمَ الْقِيَـــــامَةِ،هَكَذا وَنَصَبَ أُصْبُعَيْهِ مَا لَمْ يَعُقَّ وَالِدَيْه»

      (Whoever dies in this state will be with the Prophets, the truthful and martyrs on the Day of Resurrection, as long as – and he raised his finger – he is not disobedient to his parents.)” Only Ahmad recorded this Hadith. Greater news than this is in the authentic Hadith collected in the Sahih and Musnad compilations, in Mutawatir form, narrated by several Companions that the Messenger of Allah was asked about the person who loves a people, but his status is not close to theirs. The Messenger said,

      «الْمَرْءُ مَعَ مَنْ أَحَب»

      (One is with those whom he loves.) Anas commented, “Muslims were never happier than with this Hadith.” In another narration, Anas said, “I love the Messenger of Allah, Abu Bakr and `Umar, and I hope that Allah will resurrect me with them, even though I did not perform actions similar to theirs.” Allah said,

      ﴿ذلِكَ الْفَضْلُ مِنَ اللَّهِ﴾

      (Such is the bounty from Allah) meaning, from Allah by His mercy, for it is He who made them suitable for this, not their good deeds.

      ﴿وَكَفَى بِاللَّهِ عَلِيماً﴾

      (and Allah is sufficient as All-Knower), He knows those who deserve guidance and success.

      Point 3: Reinterpretation of any ayat with new meaning means the reinterpreter has a deseased heart as per surah Ale Imran, You are taking a mukhamat and converting it into a mutashabihat. Whenever you see a group coming up with new meaning of an ayat and creating dicord know it they are deviants. Again from Tafsir ibn Kathir

      The Mutashabihat and Muhkamat Ayat

      Allah states that in the Qur’an, there are Ayat that are Muhkamat, entirely clear and plain, and these are the foundations of the Book which are plain for everyone. And there are Ayat in the Qur’an that are Mutashabihat not entirely clear for many, or some people. So those who refer to the Muhkam Ayat to understand the Mutashabih Ayat, will have acquired the correct guidance, and vice versa. This is why Allah said,

      ﴿هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَـبِ﴾

      (They are the foundations of the Book), meaning, they are the basis of the Qur’an, and should be referred to for clarification, when warranted,

      ﴿وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَـبِهَـتٌ﴾

      (And others not entirely clear) as they have several meanings, some that agree with the Muhkam and some that carry other literal indications, although these meaning might not be desired.

      The Muhkamat are the Ayat that explain the abrogating rulings, the allowed, prohibited, laws, limits, obligations and rulings that should be believed in and implemented. As for the Mutashabihat Ayat, they include the abrogated Ayat, parables, oaths, and what should be believed in, but not implemented.

      Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Yasar commented on,

      ﴿مِنْهُ آيَـتٌ مُّحْكَمَـتٌ﴾

      (In it are verses that are entirely clear) as “Containing proof of the Lord, immunity for the servants and a refutation of opponents and of falsehood. They cannot be changed or altered from what they were meant for.” He also said, “As for the unclear Ayat, they can (but must not) be altered and changed, and this is a test from Allah to the servants, just as He tested them with the allowed and prohibited things. So these Ayat must not be altered to imply a false meaning or be distorted from the truth.”

      Therefore, Allah said,

      ﴿فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ فى قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ﴾

      (So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation) meaning, those who are misguided and deviate from truth to falsehood,

      ﴿فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَـبَهَ مِنْهُ﴾

      (they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof) meaning, they refer to the Mutashabih, because they are able to alter its meanings to conform with their false interpretation since the wordings of the Mutashabihat encompass such a wide area of meanings. As for the Muhkam Ayat, they cannot be altered because they are clear and, thus, constitute unequivocal proof against the misguided people. This is why Allah said,

      ﴿ابْتِغَآءَ الْفِتْنَةِ﴾

      (seeking Al-Fitnah) meaning, they seek to misguide their following by pretending to prove their innovation by relying on the Qur’an — the Mutashabih of it — but, this is proof against and not for them. For instance, Christians might claim that ﴿`Isa is divine because﴾ the Qur’an states that he is Ruhullah and His Word, which He gave to Mary, all the while ignoring Allah’s statements,

      ﴿إِنْ هُوَ إِلاَّ عَبْدٌ أَنْعَمْنَا عَلَيْهِ﴾

      (He ﴿`Isa﴾ was not more than a servant. We granted Our favor to him.) ﴿43:59﴾, and,

      ﴿إِنَّ مَثَلَ عِيسَى عِندَ اللَّهِ كَمَثَلِ ءَادَمَ خَلَقَهُ مِن تُرَابٍ ثُمَّ قَالَ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ ﴾

      (Verily, the likeness of `Isa before Allah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: “Be!” and he was.) ﴿3:59﴾.

      There are other Ayat that clearly assert that `Isa is but one of Allah’s creatures and that he is the servant and Messenger of Allah, among other Messengers.

      Allah’s statement,

      ﴿وَابْتِغَآءَ تَأْوِيلِهِ﴾

      (And seeking for its Ta’wil,) to alter them as they desire. Imam Ahmad recorded that `A’ishah said, “The Messenger of Allah recited,

      ﴿هُوَ الَّذِى أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَـبَ مِنْهُ آيَـتٌ مُّحْكَمَـتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَـبِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَـبِهَـتٌ﴾

      (It is He Who has sent down to you the Book. In it are verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book; and others not entirely clear,), until,

      ﴿أُوْلُواْ الأَلْبَـبِ﴾

      (Men of understanding) and he said,

      «فَإِذَا رَأَيْتُمُ الَّذِين يُجَادِلُونَ فِيهِ، فَهُمُ الَّذِينَ عَنَى اللهُ، فَاحْذَرُوهُم»

      (When you see those who argue in it (using the Mutashabihat), then they are those whom Allah meant. Therefore, beware of them.)”

      Al-Bukhari recorded a similar Hadith in the Tafsir of this Ayah ﴿3:7﴾, as did Muslim in the book of Qadar (the Divine Will) in his Sahih, and Abu Dawud in the Sunnah section of his Sunan, from `A’ishah; “The Messenger of Allah recited this Ayah,

      ﴿هُوَ الَّذِى أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَـبَ مِنْهُ آيَـتٌ مُّحْكَمَـتٌ﴾

      (It is He Who has sent down to you the Book. In it are verses that are entirely clear,) until,

      ﴿وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلاَّ أُوْلُواْ الأَلْبَـبِ﴾

      (And none receive admonition except men of understanding.)

      He then said,

      «فَإِذَا رَأَيْتِ الَّذِينَ يَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ؛ فَأُولئِكَ الَّذِينَ سَمَّى اللهُ، فَاحْذَرُوهُم»

      (When you see those who follow what is not so clear of the Qur’an, then they are those whom Allah described, so beware of them.)”

      This is the wording recorded by Al-Bukhari.

  17. This is how it works with the Ahmadis:

    A wrong that is proven wrong is never accepted as wrong. New claims are announced and a new theology is born. Their confusion creates more confusion causing endless arguments and frustrations. They are highly brainwashed and mislead individuals.

    When both holy Quran and Hadith clearly state that Muhammad p.b.u.h is the last in line of Prophets, they keep bringing in Mirza Ghulam Sahib as a Prophet (nauzobillah) through the back door, by saying that his spiritual blessing has reached such a pinnacle that he was blessed with Prophethood. To justify this false claim, verses 69/70 of Surah Nisa are being unjustly referenced, which have nothing to do with the Mirza situation of being blessed with Prophethood. Now how are you going to argue with this kind of logic (or no logic). After having said and done everything to convey the truth, all one can do is pray to Allah s.w.t. to give them guidance.

    • @ M.K.

      The funniest thing about 4:69/70 is that Mirza sahib never used as an argument pro-prophethood. Nevertheless, Ahmadis try to use it. I think it was Mahmud Ahmad who began to use this verse in 1915 in his book entitled Qaul Al Fasl.

      Mahmud Ahmad was the one who twisted 2:4, 4:69 and many other verses to promote the prophethood of his father and secure his financial future.

      • The Baha’i faith advances the same argument. Before the Baha’i, no one ever believed this ayah meant “more prophets”.

        Its possible that the Ahmadis got the argument from the Baha’i…

Comments are closed.