Author Archive for Farhan

Rejecting the Prophets: Lessons from the Past

Published
by
Farhan
on November 9, 2008
in Theology
. 0 Comments

One of the common arguments by the Ahmadi religious establishment and echoed by Syed Sulaiman Adnan in his blog replies is that the previous nations rejected their Prophets.  He calls us to learn from their mistakes and accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.  To me, this is very unsophisticated argument, but deserves a sophisticated response.

The previous peoples rejected their prophets.  That’s true and testified to in the Qur’an.  Lets analyze by juxtaposing the rejection of ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه صلاة و سلام, the rejection of the Prophet Muhammad عليه صلاة و سلام by the Quraysh and the rejection of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad by the Muslims.

In Surah Nisaa, verse 158 Allah says:

And for their saying, ‘We did slay the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah;’ whereas they slew him not, nor did they bring about his death upon the cross, but he was made to appear to them like one crucified; and those who differ therein are certainly in a state of doubt about it; they have no certain knowledge thereof, but only pursue a conjecture; and they did not arrive at a certainty concerning it.
- The official Ahmadi translation of the Qur’an by Muhammad ‘Ali

They openly admitted that ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه صلاة و سلام was al-Maseeh, the Messenger of Allah.  But, their kufr (in this case, rejection) stemmed out of their desire to maintain political and social control over the masses of Bani Isra’eel.  So, they rejected ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه صلاة و سلام even though they knew he was truly from Allah.

Now lets move to the Quraysh.  On the day of the Battle of Badr, Abu Jahl was asked if Muhammad عليه صلاة و سلام was known to be truthful or was a liar.  He said, “Woe to you! By Allah, he is truthful. He never told a lie in his life. But if the Family of Qusay enjoyed the privileges of leadership, guardianship of the Sacred House, the honor of providing pilgrims with water and the honor of Prophethood, what would be left for the rest of Quraysh to be proud of?” He knew the Prophet Muhammad عليه صلاة و سلام was truthful, but he rejected him out of tribalism and arrogance.

Now lets compare the Muslims and the rejection of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.  I can talk about myself personally.  I have nothing to gain or lose from rejecting MGA.  I live in America; no one cares what I believe in or don’t believe in.  I do not reject him out of arrogance, I do so out of conviction.  We believe in our hearts that he was a false prophet, an open enemy of Allah.  Debate with us as they may, we have evidence to support us.  Having said that, the argument of “you reject him just as the previous nations do” fails, because the motivations for rejecting him are completely different than the past nations.  One is out of arrogance, the other is out of conviction.  In fact, we reply by calling the Ahmadis to embrace Islam!

This is also a weak argument because it is reactionary and lacks insight.  Just because previous nations rejected their prophets, should we blindly accept all claimants to prophethood?  Or al-Maseeh?  Or al-Mahdi?  That’s irresponsible.  The soul is not a game to play like that.  Use the ‘aql (intellect) Allah has given us.

Ahmadis will argue that he fulfilled the signs of al-Mahdi, so we should use our intellect to objectively analyze his claims and realize his truthfulness.  I don’t want to get into a tangent on why Ahmadis cannot conveniently make everything that disagrees with them into a metaphor, so lets analyze the signs of al-Mahdi that cannot be interpreted as metaphors.  Just to name a few:

  • Al-Mahdi will be named Muhammad ibn Abdullah
  • Will come from the Tribe of Qahtaan (which still exists to this day)
  • Will flee Madinah to Makkah and will seek refuge in the Ka’aba
  • Will take the Bay’ah (pledge) between the Rukun and the Maqam of Ibrahim at the Ka’aba
  • Will never claim to be al-Mahdi, but will be recognized by others as such.  Traditionally, the scholars understood that if someone openly claimed to be al-Mahdi, he was not al-Mahdi.

For more signs, perhaps Ahmadis would be interested in the perspective of al-Mahdi by the Muslims in this scholarly and gripping lecture series by Shaykh Yasir Qadhi, The Mahdi: Between Fact and Fiction.

http://www.islamicgoodsdirect.co.uk/the-mahdi-between-fact-and-fiction-yasir-qadhi-cd.html
[I support copyright laws, but under the fair-use policy, but I am willing to provide Ahmadis with excerpts of this lecture series, specifically about the signs of al-Mahdi, upon request.  Leave your e-mail address below and I will reply to you, in sha Allah]

May Allah guide our Ahmadi friends to Islam
All Muslims, say Ameen!

The Persecution of the Ahmadis

Published
by
Farhan
on October 22, 2008
in persecution
. 7 Comments

as-salaam ‘alaykum wa rahmat Allahi wa baraktahu,

Let me say from the start, I am against the persecution of Ahmadis.  Not only is it morally wrong, evil and unjust, it undermines the da’wah efforts of the Muslim to the Ahmadis.  No Ahmadi centers should be destroyed, no Ahmadi should be insulted, and no Ahmadi should be prevented from declaring the Shahada (Kalima).  I would personally defend any Ahmadi who was being attacked by a Muslim simply because he was an Ahmadi.

Having said that, is their persecution really as bad as they portray it? Lets objectively analyze.

Facts According to ThePersecution.org

Are they really persecuted? In 2001, the Ahmadis declared that their population was 200 million worldwide. That is roughly ~20% of all Muslims.  Considering their alleged massive population, and outcry of terrible persecution, one would expect the number of murders of the Ahmadis to be in the range of 100,000 - 150,000 innocent people.  But, according to their own statistics from the year 2000, the number of Ahmadis murdered was 12.  Yes, 12.  Don’t get me wrong, each soul is precious.  But, given their international outcry of horific persecution, I honestly expected a little more than 12.  In 2001, the figure dropped to 9.  In 2002 it dropped to only 4.  Again in 2003, the figure decreased again to 2.  [They did not report any figures by year after 2003]

If we go by the figures they provide, from 2000 to 2003, the number of innocent Ahmadis murdered only for their faith was 0.0000135% of their total population.

In 2003, they reported that the number of charges brought against Ahmadis exclusively based on their religion increased 376% from the previous year. 376%, huge increase right?  Not necessarily.  If you have 2 reports in year one, and you increase that to 4 reports in year two, it is a 100% increase.  I’m sure you can see where I am going with this.  A 376% increase does not mean anything when your figures are low to begin with.

Recently, Dr. Abdul Mannan Siddiqui, a medical doctor from the US was murdered.  I stand with the Ahmadis in condemning his murder.  But, notice how widespread this story has become.  Any Ahmadi who even marginally attends their services has heard about it.  Why?  Because it is such a rare occurrence that when it happens, it is big news.  Everyone knows about it.

Compared to Muslims

I remember as a child in Ramadhan, during the Witr of Taraweeh, the Imam would recite “Allahuma ‘Aizz al-Islaama wa al-Muslimeen fi Soomal, wa Kashmir, wa Falasteen wa Sheshaan” meaning “O Allah, [give] honor to Islam and the Muslims in Somalia, and Kashmir and Palestine and Chechnya.” Every year the number of countries on that list grew and grew until he just says “fi kulli makaan” meaning “in every locality”.

Look at Palestine.  The number of Palestinians who die from Israeli state terrorism in one month alone exceeds the entire number of Ahmadis killed from 2000 to 2003.  After the two Chechen Wars, 12% of the entire Chechen ethnic group was dead.  In the mid 90s during the Bosnian wars, roughly 38,000 Bosnians died.  Don’t even get me started on the mass rapes.  Ya Allah, in Iraq, roughly 96,000 of our brothers and sisters died as a direct result of my country’s military (I am an American) since the war started (and that figure is considered very low, only what can be confirmed).  If I keep looking up statistics, I will start weeping.

Its not just about Deaths

The Ahmadis could argue that actual loss of life is not the only metric to measure persecution.  It manifests itself in many forms, social and legal, sometimes in very subtle ways, etc.  That’s absolutely true.  But, even then, can the Ahmadis claim to have been more persecuted than the Muslims?  In 2003, they claim 23 Ahmadis were subjected to miscellaneous laws against their faith and 17 Ahmadis were in prison by the end of the year.  Now consider just one city in Palestine, where the residents undergo daily abuse by the Israeli terrorists; preventing them water, sexually abusing young women, beating the young men, making them wait long hours in endless lines to travel short distances, random searches, destruction of infrastructure, etc, etc.  The suffering from one small village alone in Palestine is worse than the entire Ahmadi population combined.

Motivation

I believe there are two reasons why the Ahmadis dramatize their persecution.

First, it acts as a tool to keep members in their religion.  Communities under considerable, but not extreme pressure tend to unify and grow stronger.  By extreme pressure, I mean like European Jewry in the 1930s and 40s.  By considerable pressure, I mean African-Americans from the 20s to 60s, when the Black Nationalist movements begun.  The Ahmadis have exploited their sense of persecution to build and strengthen their communal bonds.

Second, there is a hadith that says those upon the truth will follow the way of the Prophet and his companions. The Ahmadis interpret this to mean those who are persecuted as the earliest Muslims were persecuted. So, if they can show that they are persecuted, they argue, it is proof that they are upon the Truth. There are obvious problems with this.  First, “following the way of the prophet” refers to his Sunnah, not being subject to abuses by others.  Second, the earliest Muslims did not sit back and vercify their suffering.  Sabr (patience) was only the first stage.  They migrated to Madinah, took up arms and fought back against the Quraysh (and not all battles were defensive).  With that aside, even if we use their interpretations, the Muslims are far far more persecuted, even per capita, than the Ahmadis worldwide.  If that is their interpretation of the Hadith, then it is clear that Islam is the Truth and Ahmadiyya is falsehood.

May Allah stop and punish those who bring even the slightest bit of harm against the Ahmadis and may He guide the Ahmadis to Islam.

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

Published
by
Farhan
on October 17, 2008
in Theology
. 48 Comments

السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته

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

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

Ahmadi Argument:

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

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

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

Muslim Response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ahmadi Response:

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

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

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

Muslim Rebuttal:

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

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

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

Next Ahmadi Argument:

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

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

- Surah Ma’idah, Verse 45

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

Muslim Response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

وَأَطِيعُواْ اللّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

May Allah guide our Ahmadi friends to Islam.

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

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

[3] Saheeh Muslim, Book 1, Hadith 341

[4] Saheeh Muslim, Book 1, Hadith 343

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

Ahmadis using the Bible?

Published
by
Farhan
on September 8, 2008
in Uncategorized
. 0 Comments

بسم الله و الحمد لله و صلاة و سلام على النبي

I have the great blessing of attending a masjid that is large, diverse, famous and most importantly, has a great staff of highly knowledgeable teachers.  This also makes us the target of Christian evangelism.

This past Jumu’a, several Christians were passing out literature right outside of our masjid.  I received one of the packets containing The Book of Romans, The Book of John, and a CD on the life of “Jesus”, (all in Arabic).  I noticed that one of the booklets said we could send away for a free copy of the “Holy Injeel”.  I lightly chuckled to myself upon reading that.  Since when is the New Testament the same as Injeel?

One can make a reasonable argument that the Torah, particularly the first five books (Tanakh) were once True Books of Allah, revealed to Musa عليه السلام for the guidance of Bani Isra’eel.  That’s why you’ll see verses of the Torah which resemble fundamental Islamic beliefs. (ie, Deuteronomy 6:4 the Sheema resembling Surah Ikhlaas)  But, over time, these books were altered, corrupted and changed to their present form.
How about the Injeel?  What happened to it?  Is the New Testament the corrupted version of the Injeel? This is a misconception a lot of South Asian Muslims have about the New Testament, of which Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was no exception.  They assume it is the same book revealed to ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام.  The reality is, the latter books of the Bible, from the Gospel of Matthew to Revelations were never books revealed by Allah.  They are not even a corrupted version of it.  Rather, they are the confused, ambiguous, sometimes cryptic writings of…actually there’s disagreement who even wrote them.  But, one thing is certain, they were not revealed to ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام, nor even written during his lifetime.
There’s nothing wrong with not knowing this fact.  There’s tons of things about the Bible, and even the Qur’an, that I don’t know.  But, the problem comes in when Mirza Ghulam Ahmad started to use the Bible to prove the validity of Ahmadiyya.
For example, look at Chapter 1 of Jesus in India.  Mirza “proved” that ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام did not die on the cross.  What are his sources?  Most are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. (Look towards the bottom of the page.)
Other times, I’ve heard Ahmadis defend the absurd belief that Mirza was the second coming of ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام just as ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام was the second coming of Elijah عليه السلام.  I ask where they get this concept of his second coming and they quote me Bible verses.  For example, scroll down to “Fortunate Is He Who Takes Lessons From The Plight Of Others (Hadithun Nabi)” in The Advent of the Messiah and Mahdi and look for “Malachi 4:5”.
How about the numerous Bible references about the alleged Tomb of Jesus that was “recently discovered” in Kashmir?  Are you being serious?  I’m supposed to believe in Ahmadiyya because of Bible verses?  I mean…The Bible?  Since when has the Bible been a source of guidance for the Muslims?
The Prophet صلي الله عليه و سلم said, “As long as you hold fast to two things which I have left among you, you will never go astray: Allah’s Book [the Qur'an] and my Sunnah.”  Did he tell us to refer to any third source.  No!  (that includes the writings of Mirza)  So, then why do Ahmadis insist on citing the Bible as an evidence for their religion?
Now, one could make the argument “Yes, but there is some Truth still in the Bible.”  Point taken.  But, which parts?  How do you know what is true and what is false?  What is the criteria?  Is it based on what agrees with Ahmadiyya?  That’s a bit biased, no?  The reality is, we do not have any objective criteria to determine what is true and what is false in the Bible, other than that which agrees with the Qur’an.  But, even if some parts are true, and they were essential for our guidance, Allah would have revealed it in the Qur’an.  In other words, they are not even essential for our guidance and could possibly be false. The safest bet is to disregard it completely and refer only to the Qur’an and authentic Prophetic traditions. Nevertheless, the Ahmadis still insist on using the Bible.  Well, lets read what the Bible say of the Prophets عليهم السلام:
  • Genesis 9:20 – Noah عليه السلام drank alcohol, then laid in his house naked.  His youngest son accidentally saw him in that state and was cursed for having done so.
  • Genesis 12:14 – Ibrahim عليه السلام traded his wife Sarah as a slave to Pharaoh to acquire livestock and slaves.
  • Genesis 19:30 - While Lut عليه السلام was drunk, his two daughters had sex with him and became pregnant to preserve their family line.
  • 2 Samuel 11 – Dawood عليه السلام saw a beautiful woman bathing on a roof top, had sex with her and then had her husband killed in battle so he could marry her.
  • 1 Kings 11:1 - The wives of Sulayman عليه السلام convinced him to commit shirk by worshiping other gods.
  • John 2:3 – ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام spoke disrespectfully to his own mother.
The very book they are quoting from and using as a source of “historical information” about the Prophets عليهم السلام says such terrible things about them.  Why then do Mirza and the Ahmadis use the Bible to prove their religion?   My theory is, in the absence of any evidence from the Qur’an and Prophetic traditions, they need some kind of text that adds credibility to their claims.  That’s where the Bible comes in.
Rather, we Muslims should reject such sources and refer back to the Qur’an and Prophetic traditions.  Any argument stemming exclusively from the Bible (or the Bhagavad Gita, Guru Granth Sahib or whatever) is subject to rejection.
We ask Allah, in this blessed month of Ramadhan, to save us from such clear misguidance and to guide the Ahmadis away from the false teachings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to the True teachings of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم.  To the Muslims, make Du’a for the guidance of our Ahmadi friends to Islam this Ramadhan.
و صلي الله على سيدنا محمد و على الى و سلم

Amongst the Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs and the Righteous

Published
by
Farhan
on July 31, 2008
in Uncategorized
. 0 Comments

This is Farhan, the Gangsta Mullah, here to refute a common Ahmadi argument. In fact, I am so bold as to say the single most common Ahmadi argument, stemming from dozens of Ahmadi sources. It even almost convinced me!

Here is the gist of the argument. In the Qur’an, in Surah Nisaa verse 69 (70) Allah says:

وَمَن يُطِعِ اللّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ فَأُوْلَئِكَ مَعَ الَّذِينَ أَنْعَمَ اللّهُ عَلَيْهِم مِّنَ النَّبِيِّينَ وَالصِّدِّيقِينَ وَالشُّهَدَاء وَالصَّالِحِينَ وَحَسُنَ أُولَئِكَ رَفِيقً

And whoso obeys Allah and this Messenger shall be among those on whom Allah has bestowed His blessings - the Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs, and the Righteous. And an excellent company are they.
- Muhammad ‘Ali translation, the official Ahmadi translation

The gist of their argument is: Whoever obeys Allah and the Messenger will be one of the Truthful, Martyrs, and Righteous. These three categories will continue to come in this Ummah. If these can continue to come, then so can the Prophets! Therefore, there can be other Prophets and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is one of them.

Pretty air tight, right? WRONG! This verse was not revealed in a vacuum left for the Ahmadis to interpret as they wish. This verse was revealed when a companion by the name of Thawbaan رضي الله عنه came to the Prophet صلي الله عليه و سلم with signs of grief on his face. The Prophet صلي الله عليه و سلم asked why he was sad, and he replied saying he is saddened that the Prophet will be in a higher level of Jannah than him, and he will be aware from the Prophet صلي الله عليه و سلم. In response to his concern stemming from his deep love of the Messenger of Allah صلي الله عليه و سلم, Allah revealed this verse.

Said al-Kalbi: “This verse was revealed about Thawban, the client of Allah’s Messenger, Allah bless him and give him peace. Thawban loved the Prophet dearly such that he could not bear not seeing him for long periods. One day Thawban showed up with his complexion changed, he had lost weight and the signs of sadness were evident on his face. The Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, said to him: ‘O Thawban, what has made your complexion change?’ He said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, I am not suffering from any harm or pain, except that when I do not see you, I miss you and feel intense longing for you which does not cease until I meet you. Then I remember the Afterlife and I fear that I will not see you there. I know that you will be raised high up with the Prophets whereas if I enter the Garden, I will be in a rank much lower than yours, and if I do not enter the Garden, it will be certain that I will never see you’. And so Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse”.

This verse is not talking about the Dunya, it is talking about the Akhirah! Therefore, it has nothing to do with these four categories of people coming in this life. Yes, the Truthful, Martyrs and Righteous will come in this Ummah, but this particular verse is not talking about it.

Still don’t think it refers to the next life? Then ask yourself how you be “with the martyrs”? To be a martyr, you have to have died and to be with the dead you have to be dead yourself! So, it clearly refers to the next life

Still still don’t think so? The Ahmadis canonized (scroll down to THE INSTITUTION OF MUJADADIYYAT) who they believe the Mujaddideen (religious revivers). Two of them are Abdul Qadir al-Gilaani and Jalal ad-Deen as-Suyootee, from the 6th and 9th century, respectfully. Lets see what they say about this verse:

Abdul Qadir al-Gilaani, in his book Futuh al-Ghayb (The Unveiling of the Unseen), in the “Fourty-Fifth” discourse writes:

This is how to protect blessings from passed away and irrigate its plant and to accelerate the growth of its branches and leaves; and to help the beautification of its fruit and to sweeten its taste and to assure the safety of its end and to make its eating tasteful and to make its swallowing easy and to make it yield comfort and to enable it to maintain its growth in the body and to make its blessings manifest on the organs of the body through various kinds of acts of obedience to God such as will render one nearer to God and to keep him in His remembrance, and will further make the servant enter in the life hereafter and the mercy of God, and Mighty, the Glorious, and will earn for him an abiding life in the gardens of paradise in the holy companionship of prophets, siddiqs (the truthful ones), the Shahids (witnesses) and the Salihs (the righteous) - a beautiful company are those.

Jalal ad-Deen as-Suyootee, in his Tafseer book Tafseer Jalalayn writes:

Whoever obeys God and the Messenger, in what he commands, they are with those whom God has blessed of the prophets and the truthful, that is, the most excellent of the Prophet’s Companions, because of the fullness of their truthfulness and their affirmation of the truth; and the martyrs, those slain in the path of God; and the righteous, [all those] other than the ones mentioned. What fine companions they are!, in Paradise, since in it one will enjoy seeing them, visiting them and being in their presence, even though they will be in the highest stations in relation to others.

To sum it up, this verse is talking about the reunion of the righteous Muslims in the next life with all of the other Muslims, including the Prophet صلي الله عليه و سلم! To maintain their intentional misinterpretation, the Ahmadis would have to do the following:

  1. Reject the Hadith of the Prophet صلي الله عليه و سلم
  2. Reject the logic of being “with the dead”
  3. Reject the Scholars of Islam they themselves consider Mujaddideen رحيمهم الله
  4. Find some other implausible explanation. But, I trust the average Ahmadi will see through nonsense of the Murabbis and their tactics.

May Allah guide our friends away from Ahmadiyya and to Islam!