Category Archives: History

The Four False Prophets, Part I: Al-Aswad al-’Ansi

Posted on by

بسم الله الحد لله و صلاة و سلام على رسول الله و على آله و سلم

The Four False Prophets
Al-Aswad Al-’Ansi Tulayhah al-Azdi Sajjah bint al-Harith Musaylimah al-Kaddhab

This is the first installment in a series of articles on four of the early false prophets from the time of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم and Abu Bakr رضى الله عنه. In it, we will discuss their rise, opposition by the Muslims, and eventual defeat.

During the 12th year after the Hijrah, Al-Aswad al-’Ansi (الاسود العنسي) from ‘Ans, Yemen claimed to be a prophet. He started his movement slow and secretly, but later grew to engulf all of ‘Ans. At the time, Yemen was ruled by Persian Muslims, notably Shahr bin Badhaan, whose father Badhaan had accepted Islam after receiving a letter from the Prophet Ahmad صلى الله عليه و سلم. But Al-Aswad’s forces attacked the Muslims, killed Shahr, and his forcefully married his Shahr’s wife Azaad.
Continue reading →

Mahdi-Based Off-shoots Movements and Religions

Posted on by

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

In Islam’s 1400 year history, its gone through wax and wane. At some points in time, the Muslims divided into hundreds of micro-states only to be united a generation later. During the periods of down-turn, an interesting phenomena would occur. In the pain and hardship, some Muslims would be led to believe that they were the blessed generation that would see Imam Mahdi. They would become absolutely convinced of it, after all, were not the signs everywhere?

The belief in Imam Mahdi is often invoked by oppressed, down-trodden Muslims or during times of immense social change. Ahmadiyya is not the first to claim to have the Mahdi, nor will they be the last. In this short presentation, we will explore some of the groups, provide a short background, and list their modern manifestations.

In no specific order:

Movement of Juhayman - Perhaps the most dramatic of these movements was led by Juhayman ibn Muhammad ibn Sayf al-’Utaybi. Born in 1936 in Saudi Arabia, Juhayman witnessed the transformation of his country from traditional bedoin society to a 1st world modern country. Many of the social ills that crept into the birthplace of Islam deeply disturbed Juhayman. He convinced his brother-in-law, Muhammad ibn Abdullah, who bears the very name of the Mahdi mentioned in the Hadith, that he was the Mahdi. His movement started as a social reformation movement, but later developed a secret radical element. On November 20th, 1979, Juhayman ordered weapons to be brought into the Ka’bah, quickly overthrew the guards, and declared that his brother-in-law was the Mahdi. He took bay’ah (pledge) from his followers between the Rukun and Maqam of Ibrahim, the very spot foretold in the hadith. He setup sniper positions on the mimbars, killing the Saudi guards who came to stop the comotion.

Sadly, it took tanks, soldiers, and innocent bloodshed to put down the revolt. Ustadh Yasir Qadhi has an excellent talk on it available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLAm8wSPVAo. (The talk itself is about religious extremism, but he talks about this movement.)

Mahdiyya - A Sudani-based order, the Mahdiyya was started by Muhammad Ahmad, a leader in the Samaniyya Sufi order. Born in 1884, he claimed to be the Mahdi, and led a successful military campaign against the Turkish, Egyptian, Italian, Belgium, and Ethiopian forces that were occupying Sudan. Following his victory, he established a short-lived Mahdist state. The overthrow of the oppressive foreign forces led many to believe that he truly was Imam Mahdi. The movement was subsequently led by his “Khalifah”. Because Mahdiyya was never antagonistic towards mainstream Islam, it was reabsorbed back into the Jama’ah. But to this day, many Muslims in Sudan consider themselves adherents of Mahdiyya and still consider Muhammad Ahmad to be the Mahdi.

Mahdaviyya - An Indian Mahdi-based faith which believes the Messiah is Muhamamd Jaunpuri. Born in 1443, from a young age, Jaunpuri was regarded for his knowledge and wisdom. He made a series of self-aggrandizing claims, including being the Lion of the Scholars and Master of the Saints. He claimed to be the Messiah during a trip to Hajj, where he was subsequently ignored, but managed to spread his teachings in India, mostly in Ahmedabad. Mahdavis still exist in India, with small communities in the US, specifically in Chicago.

Ahmadiyya - An Indian Mahdi-based faith which believes the Messiah is Mirza Ghulam. Born in 1883, Mirza was respected by a sizeable contention of Muslims of India. He made a series of self-aggrandizing claims, such as being Krishna, the Messiah, a Prophet and others. One claim of his many claims was that he was the Mahdi. He managed to spread his teachings in parts of India and Pakistan. Ahmadis still exist in India, Pakistan, and parts of the UK, Canada and West Africa.

Babism and the Baha’i Faith - Perhaps the most successful Mahdi-based off-shoot, Baha’ism was started by Ali Muhammad Shirazi from Persia. At the age of 25 he claimed to be the Bab (Gateway) to the Mahdi, the Mahdi himself, and eventually a prophet of Allah. The spread of his new religion would not have been possible had it not been for the Shaykhi branch of Twelver Shi’ism, which holds the belief in the coming of Imam Mahdi to be imminent. Many of the Shaykhis accepted Shirazi as the Mahdi and this led to the rise of the movement.

Ali Muhammad Shirazi was executed by firing squad in 1850 by the ruling authorities in Persia. Afterwards, Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri, a disciple of Shirazi, became his most influential believer. He declared himself as Baha’u'llah, a prophet foretold by Shirazi, and gained considerable prominence amongst early Baha’is. Threatened with imprisonment and immense persecution, he traveled around the Persian and Ottoman Empire to spread his new faith.

To this day, the Baha’i Faith has spread all around the world. Ahmadiyya and the Baha’i faith are twin religions, with many common characteristics and remarkably similar arguments. The Babi Faith, as distinct from the Baha’i faith, still exists, but in extremely small numbers. Adherents refer to themselves as “Orthodox Baha’i“.

Al-Harith ibn Surayj - From Khurasan, Al-Harith was an insurgent against the ruling Umayyad Dynasty. He accused the dynasty of of committing many public evils, much of which was true. But Al-Harith went to the extreme of claiming to be the Mahdi, who would fill the world with justice. He allied with the enemies of the Muslims and took refuge with the neighboring pagans of modern-day Turkmenistan to help them in their fight against Banu Umayyad.

Interestingly, he enlisted Jahm ibn Safwan, one of the first ones to mix Greek Philosophic elements with Islam, which led to many of the early heretical groups. The Muslims en masse rejected Al-Harith for many reasons, amongst which was that it is well-established that the name of Imam Mahdi will be Muhammad ibn Abdullah. He was killed in 128 AH in a battle with rival rebellion groups.

(There are dozens of other groups, but I hope this short list should suffice. For more Mahdi-claimants, read this or listen to Ustadh Yasir Qadhi’s excellent series of talks)

Muslims - But what about the Muslims? What do we believe? Reflect on the fact that Allah never disclosed to us an exact date of the coming of Imam Mahdi, nor is it a major point of ‘aqidah in most classical books, nor is it explicitly mentioned by name in the Qur’an, and only a handful of hadith on him exist. This was no accident. We certainly believe in him, but Muslims should not sit back and rely on Imam Mahdi to come and fix everything. Instead, we should be active in reforming the wrongs of our time. He will certainly come, but Allah is our focus, not a knight in shining armor.

These groups started because of legitimate anger and frustration, wide-spread social change and political chaos. It creates a feeling of immediacy, of “lets me do something!” Complainency leads to a sense that the Muslims are not good enough, that we need to join a new movement of change! But we Muslims must not allow ourselves to be led astray by joining fringe cults or political movements. We already have a Jama’ah! It it does not date back to a new leader or founder, it dates back to the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم! All of these groups began on legitimate concerns, but later went astray. Ahmadiyya is yet another one of them.

A man once came to the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم and asked “When is the hour?” (ie, Day of Judgement). The Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم responded by asking him “What have you prepared for the day?” Our goal is not to bring about the end of times and search for the Mahdi, but to purify our hearts and connection to God through his noble prophet.

If you want to find signs for something, you will see them everywhere. On a person note, I personally believe his signs are everywhere that he will come soon. But I am not actively waiting for him, counting down days on a calendar or announcing it on the street. Instead, we should focus on increasing our tawakkul, yaqeen, sabr and love of the prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم. Rectify the problems in your community, help the poor, feed the hungry, the meat of Islam! This is what matters, not running away to join some false claimant to Imam Mahdi.

May Allah guide us all to what is true and keep us away from going astray.
Ameen.

Is the Ahmadi leadership system a Khilafah?

Posted on by

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

Throughout my dialog with current Ahmadis, I have explained why Mirza Masroor and his ilk are not Khulafa’. This criticism has been met with push-back, insistence that he is a khalifah. In this article, I hope to explain why Muslims do not consider the “Khulafa-e-Ahmadiyya” system to be a Khilafah.

In a nutshell: The key historic definition of a Khalifah is the supreme political leader of the ummah (Muslim Nation), with autonomous power over an independent state, whose job is to govern based on the Shari’ah. None of the supreme Ahmadi leaders have ever met this definition and are therefore not Khulafa’.

When most think of the Khilafa, they exclusively think of Saydina Abu Bakr, Saydina ‘Umar, Saydina ‘Uthman and Saydina ‘Ali رضى الله عنهم. This time was one of the few eras in Islamic history when the political and spiritual authorities were vested in the same person, the ideal that the Muslims have always nostalgically looked upon.

Most Ahmadis (and even most Muslims) are only aware of their anecdotes, usually during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم. But after his departure, they do not know the policies and styles of governance any of them implemented. The Ahmadiyya view of Islamic history essentially ends after Imam ‘Ali عليه السلام and does not pick up until British-run India. This creates a skewed view of what the Khilafah is: a purely spiritual figurehead. Unfortunately, this notion is not in line with historical reality.

Continue reading →

Jamaat Thoughts

Posted on by

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

I’d like to share something private with you, one of my diary entries from many years ago, shortly before I reverted to Islam from a life in the Ahmadiyya.

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

If we’re agreed that there is no new Shariah – no addition or subtraction to or from it – then why is it obligatory to pay Chanda? If I don’t, I’m not allowed to vote, or bear office. 

Why is it that everyone bar the first Khalifa was in the Promised Messiah’s family? Is no one else good enough? I don’t believe in democracy. It’s a bullshit notion. Democracy throws up leaders like George Bush. A type of Democracy allowed Adolf Hitler to emerge. So I’m not saying the Huzoor should be voted. But if it is Divine Intervention that elects a Khalifa, why is Allah favouring only the one family? 

Why is there huge emphasis on Chanda, and none on Zakat, which is a pillar of Islam. And why do we talk about Jalsa Salaana more than Hajj? 

Why has the present Huzoor forbidden us from engaging in online discussion with non-Ahmadis? I won’t conjecture on this point – after all – I don’t engage with those morons who have cast judgement on me. Better just to leave them alone, there is after all, a seal over their hearts. But I wonder if there isn’t truth out there that has been hidden from us? 

We are mostly a very nice jamaat – but are we really just a family-run-tax-paying-messiah-cult masquerading as Muslims? I’m not judging, but I’m asking some hard questions and I am studying hour after hour after hour after hour. 

May Allah guide me.

 

And alhamdulillah, He did guide me. Most of my diary entries from this period end with “May Allah guide me”. Remember, back then I was a very ordinary Ahmadi, with very little religious knowledge, but I was a cultee, even if I was wondering if I was in a cult! You can see how at this stage, I was still referring to Muslims as “morons” with a “seal over their hearts”. And yet, my belief was being fractured. Despite criticising Muslims, I was wondering if truth had indeed been hidden from us. And how can we have been mostly a nice jamaat if we were so judgmental about other Muslims? Back then I didn’t even know what a jamaat was. As I look back at this, I realise that although I was hugely ignorant (and am still a long way from where I want to be), I was at least being guided.

If you’re reading this and at a similar stage. Make the leap. Come to Islam. It’s worth it. You’ll never look back.

 

 

The Shirk of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

Posted on by

Shirk is regarded as a major sin in Islam and the chief major sin among the group. Shirk is the concept of the sin of polytheism specifically, and refers to worshipping other than Allah (SWT), associating partners with Him, giving His characteristics to other than Him, or not believing in His characteristics and Allah (SWT) knows best.

“Surely Allah does not forgive that anything should be associated with Him, and forgives what is besides that to whomsoever He pleases; and whoever associates anything with Allah, he devises indeed a great sin.”(The Holy Qur’an, Surah An-Nisa (4) Ayah 48)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself acknowledges this as he says,

“…God will forgive every sin for whomsoever He wills, but He will not forgive Shirk – associating anything with Him.” (The Essence Of Islam, Volume 1, Page 89)

In 1907, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad gave a ruling on a belief that he considered was shirk.

“…It is rude to say that Jesus didn’t die, and it is indeed major shirk”. (Roohani Khazain, Volume 22, Haqiqat-Ul-Wahi, Page 660)

This is his opinion, his fatwa if you will that if an individual is holding such a belief then s/he is committing a grave sin in the form of shirk. However, earlier in his life in the year 1880, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad says,

“….But as a body of Muslims was firmly of the faith – and I too believed – that Jesus (AS) would descend from heaven… my earlier belief… which I had set down in Brahin-e-Ahmadiyyah… I was (then) convinced by several conclusive verses that Jesus Son of Mary (AS) had indeed died” (The Essence Of Islam, Volume 4, Page 46)

This is reiterated by A.R. Dard in his biography of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

“Ahmad (as) reiterated in the Brahin-e-Ahmadiyya, published in 1884, the popular belief that Jesus (as) was alive in the heavens and that he would come again to this world… It was in 1891, when God informed Ahmad (as) that Jesus (as) had died, that he changed his belief in this respect.” (Life Of Ahmad, Page 50 by A.R. Dard)

These standards of shirk were set by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself, not me, not you, not his opponents or anyone else for that matter. He believed it was shirk that Hazrat Isa (AS) was alive up until 1891. Therefore at least during the first fifty-six years of his life and the first fifteen years after supposedly being assigned as a “prophet”, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad believed Hazrat Isa (AS) was alive and was, in his own words, committing an unforgivable sin in the form of shirk.

If any Ahmadi can prove otherwise, I will remove this blog entry. This does not mean resorting to an ad-hominem argument by insulting me, attempting to belittle me or attacking what I believe and above all trying to find fault with the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) which many Ahmadi do when confronted by such a predicament.

It is as simple as this, did Mirza Ghulam Ahmad commit shirk? Do you believe it is possible for a Prophet of Allah (SWT) to commit shirk, the most heinous of sins, not only for a matter of seconds but a matter of years? If you believe he didn’t, please provide an explanation in light of the information above and I must reiterate, address the argument and the facts not the man.

Above all please do not insult the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) by suggesting guidance on this matter was not available or that he (SAW) erred in his life. In addition to this whether Jesus (AS) is alive or dead is secondary so please do not divert the topic. The matter we are discussing is shirk and the admission of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad that he was indulging in what he considered beliefs comprising shirk.

May Allah (SWT) guide us to the truth. Ameen.

Qadianiat at the Crossroads of War and Peace

Posted on by

Founder of Ahmadiyya Times calls for increased drone attacks on Pakistan

In recent years, the Ahmadiyya Community and its Qadiani followers have increasingly sought to portray themselves as the world’s only peaceful Muslims. This is an awkward proposition for most Muslims, for many reasons. Most gallingly, it disguises the underlying deceit that according to Qadianis, they are the world’s only Muslims. The 1.6 billion Muslims who maintain that prophethood ended with Muhammad of Arabia, in the Qadiani worldview, are disbelievers or kuffaar.

This is readily apparent from the writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani and his successors. (As a corollary, due to the Qadiani introduction of a new prophet in the form of Ghulam Ahmad, all Muslim schools of thought are unanimous in holding that Qadianis are outside the fold of Islam.)

Of course, the notion that Qadianis are the only peaceful Muslims, apart from its logical fallacy, suggests that all other Muslims are murderous fanatics. To be clear, Qadianis have certainly faced persecution, often at the hands of misguided Muslims, and there is no justification for such behavior. But to use this as an excuse to paint all Muslims as violent savages is wrong and illogical – in the West, at least, this is something we have tried to learn after 9/11.

Many Qadianis, unfortunately, seem oblivious to the dangers of painting with such broad strokes. In an insightful essay published last July, Professor Hussein Rashid calls out the Ahmadiyya for using fears of terrorism to promote opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque. “Their approach,” he argues, “appears to be based on a Good Muslim/Bad Muslim dichotomy that ends up hurting the Muslim-American community.”

Indeed, Qadianis have become darlings of the right-wing media, with their leaders regularly appearing on Fox News to decry the radicalization of Muslim-American youth and promote the bizarre idea, as Prof. Rashid writes, that “a good Muslim should surrender the rights guaranteed by the state” – including the right to express criticism and disagree with one’s government.

Many Qadianis, it seems, are wedded to an old-world authoritarian model of leadership in which one simply does not criticize those in power. It has been suggested that the same mindset that encourages Qadianis to pledge unfailing allegiance to the hereditary and arguably corrupt system of khilafat also promotes the bizarre idea that in a modern constitutional democracy, free citizens should not openly practice their religion or criticize their government’s foreign policy.

Whether you call this approach quietism or blind loyalty, it certainly has ample precedent in Qadiani history. In a pamphlet written in honor of the 50th anniversary of Queen Victoria’s rule in 1887, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad writes:

RK tuhfa

This notice of congratulations is from the person known as Yasuu’ the Messiah who has come to the world to rid it of all sorts of deviations; he whose purpose is to establish truth in the world with peace and kindness; so that he may teach people the way towards true love and servanthood to their Creator; and to explain to them the path towards true obedience to their ruler, the Glorious Queen, whose subjects they are.

 

[Roohani Khazain, Vol. 12, Tuhfa-e-Qaisiriyya, p. 253]

It can thus be argued that the Qadiani worldview is motivated by two fundamental values: obedience to the state, and “love for all and hatred for none.” Interestingly, it is certainly plausible, and perhaps even likely, that these two values might come into conflict with each other. Here we can offer two opposing hypotheses. Either the Qadiani administration would choose peace and oppose violent and martial government policies; or it would unfailingly insist on unquestioned loyalty in all cases.

 

This is obviously not a novel predicament – it has been considered countless times throughout history by all types of communities, and with the exception of cults or autocratic neo-fascist societies, most people of conscience have come down on the side of an individual’s freedom -and perhaps even responsibility – to speak out against immoral and unethical actions of one’s government.

How have Qadianis attempted to reconcile this conflict? It certainly seems that, insofar as they acknowledge that such a conflict exists, that they come down on the side of unquestioned loyalty. Indeed, many critics have charged that the purported Qadiani belief in “love for all, hatred for none” is merely a public relations slogan and categorically does not apply to Muslims. (Interestingly, in many cases, it also seems that “unquestioned loyalty” also does not apply to Qadianis residing in Muslim-majority nations.)

All of this brings us to the founder and managing editor of Ahmadiyya Times. Imran Jattala, based in Los Angeles, is a high-ranking official in the Qadiani hierarchy and has unsurprisingly paid lip-service to the peaceful nature of the Qadiani faith on many occasions. Among his interests, he cites “the promotion of dialogue for peace and tolerance through interfaith outreach.”

On January 8th, however, Mr. Jattala posted a comment on a PBS article about the murder of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer. He attacks the author for raising the possibility that the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan and Pakistan, with increasing death tolls among civilians, might be linked to rising extremism in the region. And then, in one sentence, he provides a robust data point for how one Qadiani leader reconciles his commitment to peace and his commitment to U.S. foreign policy. “The tasteless scenes of jubilation in the killer’s hometown,” he writes, “in my view make a case for more drone attacks, not less.”

PBScommentIJ

While the London-based Ahmadiyya Community has often been criticized for fomenting anti-Muslim sentiment and its generally pro-war disposition, rarely have we seen such unambiguous evidence of how fragile the “world’s only peaceful Muslims” are in their actual commitment to peace.

I do not profess to know how many Ahmadis, whether in the U.S. or Pakistan, support Mr. Jattala’s contention that more drone attacks on Pakistani civilians are needed. In any case, I hope the Ahmadi community engages in a critical discussion among themselves regarding their commitment to peace and how it should best be operationalized in a world torn apart by war.

Calling for more drone attacks on Pakistani civilians is probably not the best place to start.

The Islamic Approach to the Christian Bible

Posted on by

بسم الله الحمد لله و صلاة و سلام على رسول الله و على أله و سلم

As Muslims, we occasionally read Jewish and Christian scriptures with awe and amazement. We see uncanny similarities between the Shari’ah and Levitical law, similar beliefs, stories that are even mentioned in the Qur’an and more. Sometimes, the Jewish and Christian narratives convey details and information of stories or laws that the Qur’an is silent on. That begs the question: Considering that we believe in the revelations to the previous prophets, can we take the Bible as a source to, in essence, “fill in the blanks” for what is not mentioned in the Qur’an?

The answer is simple:

The Qur’an is called al-Furqan (الفرقان), the criteria that we use to judge other things. As such, we use the Qur’an itself as a criteria to judge the Christian Bible. Judgment comes in three ways:

A) If the Bible says something which confirms what is in the Qur’an, then we accept that verse of the Bible as valid and true.
B) If the Bible says something which goes against what is in the Qur’an, then we reject that verse of the Bible as invalid and false.

These two are self-evident. But what if the Bible says something which the Qur’an remains silent on? For example: laws in the Bible that the Qur’an and prophetic traditions are silent on? What about the names of people and locations? In short:

C) If the Bible says something which the Qur’an neither confirms nor denies, then we remain silent on this verse and neither confirm it as absolute truth, nor do we reject it as falsehood.

This means we do not say such-and-such story from the Bible is correct, nor do we say it is false. If we say it is true, then we are at risk of believing in a falsehood. Likewise, if we deny it, we are at risk of denying a truth. We take the safe position and leave it.

How did the Muslims historically deal with the Jewish and Christian Bibles?

Ultimately, Islam is based upon the Qur’an and the way of our prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم. When explaining a certain point of belief, law or spirituality, in order of importance they would cite all of the verses of the Qur’an on the subject, followed by the prophetic traditions on the subject. Others would mention stories of the Sahaba or other righteous individuals. And finally, some found it beneficial to mention that the point also exists amongst the Jewish and Christian Bible. It was the last thing cited, just as an additional reference. Referencing the Bible was considered controversial and was never considered a primary source.

Why is this relevant? Why am I even bringing this up? Because large parts of Ahmadiyya are based exclusively on the Christian Bible. For example, Mirza Ghulam based his theory that ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام was crucified but survived on the Christian gospels. See Chapter One of his book Jesus in India and scroll down to see that every single one of his references were Biblical – Christian specifically.

Likewise, many Ahmadiyya arguments use the argument that the Biblical narrative of the prophet Elias (Elijah) عليه السلام demonstrates that just as the Jews of the past essentially misinterpreted key beliefs about Elias عليه السلام, so have the Muslims merely misinterpreted verses about ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام. This argument rests on Jewish and Christian scriptures.

No one can deny that there are traces of Truth remaining in the Jewish and Christian scriptures. But ultimately per the hadith of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم Islam is based on Qur’an and prophetic traditions. Just as Muslims do not follow the Bagavat Gita or the Guru Granth Sahib, we Muslims do not use the Jewish and Christian Bibles as sources of our religion. But this is exactly what Mirza Ghulam did to justify his new religious teachings.

We call our Ahmadi readers to leave the false teachings of Mirza Ghulam, reject the Bible as a source of Islam, and to return to the correct message of the prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم. May you be blessed in this life and the next.

Poetry in the revelation of Allah?

Posted on by

What does the Qur’an say about revelation and poetry?

In Surah 36, verse 69 Allah clearly states that the Prophet (pbuh) was not taught poetry:

“And We have not taught him poetry, nor does it behove him to be a poet. It is but a Reminder and a Qur’an that expounds and makes things plain.”

Surah 36:69

Below can be found the commentary on this verse taken from the alislam.org website:

“It is inconsistent with the dignity of a Divine prophet that he should be a poet, because poets are generally given to idle dreaming and making castles in the air. Prophets of God have before them very high and noble ideals and programmes. The verse, however, does not mean that all poetry is bad and that all poets are dreamers, but it does mean that a Divine Prophet is far too dignified and spiritually exalted to be a mere poet.”

The Qur’an also states the following:

“That it is, surely, the word brought by a noble messenger. And not the word of a poet; little is it that you believe!”

Surah 69:41

So it is clear that the word of God has nothing to do with poetry. Indeed, even the Ahmedi commentary seems to agree with this notion. The Qur’an is a miracle from Allah, in that no man-made poetry can compete with it.

What did Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claim Allah revealed to him about poetry?

Mirza’s claimed revelation also seems to confirm that prophets do not receive mere poetry:

Tadhkirah (4th Edition) p.729

Sample ‘revelations’ from Allah to Mirza:

Below I present two so-called ‘revelations’ that can be found in Tadhkirah. Apart from the fact that the underlined portions make no sense in the context of the surrounding ‘revelation’, there is an even bigger problem. As we shall soon see:

Tadhkirah (4th Edition) p.625-626

Tadhkirah (4th Edition) p.691

So, what’s the bigger problem? Well, Mirza stole this so-called revelation (the red-underlined portions) from pre-Islamic poetry. Namely, from a poet called Labid ibn Rabi’ah.

Who was Labid ibn Rabi’ah Al-Ameri?

He was a companion of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), when he heard the Qur’an recited he immediately embraced Islam and gave up poetry altogether. When he was once asked to recite some poetry the former master-poet replied: “What! After the Qur’an?”

His poetry was so renowned by the Arabs that one of his poems is contained in the Mu’allaqat. His finest poem, when recited at Ukaz (competitions in poetry were held there), caused all the people present to prostrate themselves before him in admiration.

The poetry of Labid:

The above Arabic poem is called the ‘Golden Ode’ and is Labid’s finest work. A translation of it can be found here. It was translated into English in the book Arabian Poetry by W. A. Clouston in 1881.

The verses underlined in red correspond exactly to the underlined revelation taken from Tadhkira. Almost letter for letter.

Strange?

Didn’t Allah tell Mirza that the poets have no access to what he says? Didn’t Allah tell us in the Holy Qur’an that the words of God are not poetry?

Why would Allah send The Messiah to spew pre-Islamic poetry at us? The author of that very same poetry stopped composing when he heard the Qur’an!

The answer is obvious. Allah didn’t reveal Labid’s poetry to Mirza. Mirza stole them from Labid’s poetry and passed them off as revelation. He was not a prophet of God. He was in fact a fraud.

Ahmedis! At the very least take stock of your situation and think! Would Allah really give us man-made poetry as revelation? Would Allah contradict His own words in the Qur’an when he says that revelation is NOT poetry?

I pray that Allah guides you to the right path and fills your hearts with the truth. Ameen.

(With thanks to br. Fuad who provided the source material for this article)

Was Mahdi to appear after the year 1200 A.H.?

Posted on by

Failing to come up with any positive argument in favor of countless claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, Ahmadis resort to raise issues that prove nothing. In fact a deep look invariably proves their being a cult.

They use a narration from Sunan Ibn Majah to contend that Mahdi was to appear after the year 1200 A.H. and the point they try to make is that MGAQ was Mahdi as he was born after the year 1200 A.H.

Let’s have a look at the narration and its merits.

The Narration:

عن أبي قتادة قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الآيات بعد المائتين

Abu Qatada narrates that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) said: “Signs will appear after two hundred years.” (Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 4057)

Authenticity of this narration:

Ahmadis will be in a haste to tell us that Hakim in his Mustadrak (H. 8437) quoted this narration and said, ‘This narration is Sahih on the standards of Bukhari and Muslim.’

But the fact is, to anyone who knows the science of classification of Ahadith and their narrators it is clear that Al-Hakim was too lax in his approach and many times authenticated weak narrations.

Al-Sakhawi, recognized as Mujaddid by Ahmadis, has said the same about Al-Hakim. See Al-‘ilan bi l-Taubih li man zamm al-Tarikh p. 168. Also see Abdul Hayy Lakhnawi’s Al-Rafa wal Takmil 1/291

Dr. G.F. Haddad has briefly given the opinions of scholars about his leniency HERE.

Al-Dhahbi:

The most prominent scholar to comment about the narrations of Hakim’s Mustadrak is Imam al-Dhahbi. He writes in his comment to this narration:

أحسبه موضوعا

“I deem it to be Mawdhu” i.e. fabricated. (See Mustadrak Al-Hakim ma’ Taliqat al-Dhahbi fil Takhlis, Hadith 8319)

Al-Bukhari:

Imam Bukhari also criticized this narration. He said;

هذا حديث منكر

“This is a rejected narration.” (Faidh Al-Qadir 3/206 Hadith 3029)

Ibn Jawzi:

Ibn Jawzi writes in his al-Mawdhu’at 3/198

هذا حديث موضوع على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

“This Hadith is fabricated [and ascribed] to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him.”

Ibn Jawzi has been recognized as Mujaddid by Ahmadis.

Ibn Kathir:

Hafiz Suyuti writes in his commentary to Sunan Ibn Majah;

قَالَ بن كثير هَذَا الحَدِيث لَا يَصح

“Ibn Kathir said this Hadith is not Sahih.” (Sharah Sunan Ibn Majah 1/294)

Al-‘Ajluni:

Al-‘Ajluni in his Kashaf al-Khafa writes:

باب ظهور الآيات بعد المائتين لم يثبت فيه شئ

“Chapter on the appearance of signs after two hundred years: There is nothing proved in it.” (Kashaf al-Khafa 2/423)

Others early scholars:

Al-Manawi in his Taysir bi-Sharah al-Jami’ al-Saghir writes;

صَححهُ الْحَاكِم فأنكروا عَلَيْهِ وَقَالُوا واه جدا بل قيل بِوَضْعِهِ

“Hakim authenticated it, while many have rejected it and called it extremely absurd. Nay! They spoke of its being fabricated.” (Taysir bi-Sharah al-Jami’ al-Saghir 1/420)

Albani:

Among recent scholars Shaykh Nasiruddin Albani has classified it as Mawdhu’ (fabricated) in his Sahih wa Da’if Sunan Ibn Majah (H. 4057) and Silsala Ahadith Da’ifa wa Mawdhu’a (H. 1966)

What does the Hadith mean?

Having clarified the actual value of this narration, let’s analyze its text;

1- Is Mahdi mentioned in this narration?

Can you, the reader, please find any reference to Mahdi in this narration? You can find it only if you are a die-hard, closed-eyed and brain-locked Ahmadi.

2- Mulla Ali Qari’s commentary:

Actually Ahmadis base their whole case on the commentary, rather a part of Mulla Ali Qari’s commentary to this, otherwise, false narration. He writes;

” بَعْدَ الْمِائَتَيْنِ ” أَيْ: مِنَ الْهِجْرَةِ، أَوْ مِنْ دَوْلَةِ الْإِسْلَامِ، أَوْ مِنْ وَفَاتِهِ – عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ – وَيُحْتَمَلُ أَنْ يَكُونَ اللَّامُ فِي الْمِائَتَيْنِ لِلْعَهْدِ، أَيْ: بَعْدَ الْمِائَتَيْنِ بَعْدَ الْأَلْفِ، وَهُوَ وَقْتُ ظُهُورِ الْمَهْدِيِّ، وَخُرُوجِ الدَّجَّالِ، وَنُزُولِ عِيسَى – عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ

‘After two hundred years’ i.e. :

1) From Hijrah.

2) Or from [establishment of] the Islamic state.

3) Or from the death of the Prophet –on whom be peace and blessings.

4) And it is possible that the article ‘al’ (equivalent to ‘the’) in ‘al-mi’atayn’ makes it a reference to a period of time. That is to say: [it means] two hundred years after the millennium and that is the time of appearance of Mahdi, and that of Dajjal and descent of ‘Eisa –on whom be the peace and blessings.’ (Mirqaat Al-Mafatih Sharah Mishkat Al-Masabih 8/3446 Hadith 5460 Broken down for understanding by the author of this post)

Firstly this commentary shows that Mulla Ali Qari believed Mahdi and Eisa (RA) to be two different fellows. This goes directly in contrast to Ahmadiyya religion’s dogma. If this has to be made the basis of a whole theory, why not accept it in full?

Concerning the issue at hand, he gives four possibilities in his opinion and one of them is picked up by Ahmadiyya and their faith hinges on it. Mulla Ali Qari, though a great scholar, is no evidence when it comes to his conjecture. Ahmadiyya are only aboard the ship of his conjecture sailing in the wild ocean. But this cannot lead them to any destination for the anchor to port this ship, i.e. the narration commented to, is a hoax. So Ahmadiyya please wake up and do not be eager to get drowned!

3- Imam Bukhari’s comments:

هذا حديث منكر. لقد مضى مائتان ولم يكن من الآيات شئ

“This is a rejected narration. Verily two hundred years have passed and nothing of the signs has appeared.” (Faidh Al-Qadir 3/206 Hadith 3029)

4- Hafiz Ibn Kathir’s saying:

Hafiz Suyuti writes:

وَقَالَ بن كثير هَذَا الحَدِيث لَا يَصح وَلَو صَحَّ فَمَحْمُول على مَا وَقع فِي الْفِتْنَة بِسَبَب القَوْل بِخلق الْقُرْآن للامام أَحْمد بن حَنْبَل وَأَصْحَابه من أَئِمَّة الحَدِيث

“Ibn Kathir said this Hadith is not Sahih and [even] if it Sahih it would be taken as a reference to the tribulation caused by the word about Qur’an being a creation at the time of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal and his companions from amongst the scholars of Hadith.” (Sharah Sunan Ibn Majah 1/294)

This seems quite reasonable if at all the narration is to be accepted.

Conclusion:

Ahmadiyya have absolutely no evidence for their claim. The Hadith does not even mention Mahdi, nor does it ask to count two hundred years after the millennium. To run to races with one of the four possibilities according to one single scholar suits only a cult. Ahmadiyya do it while their own ‘prophet’ had said that such statements are no evidence. Not to forget that the same statement of Mulla Ali Qari rejects Ahmadi belief of Mahdi and ‘Eisa (AS) being the same.

And before Ahmadis built their whole case on just a single possibility mentioned by a single scholar they ought to read the following statement of their ‘prophet’;

“Having been put to shame, our opponents resort to the excuse that their elders have said like that only. They do not realize that those elders were not innocent. Infact just as the Jewish elders fell into error concerning prophecies so did they.” (Zamimam Braheen Ahmadiyya part 5 p. 124 included in Rohani Khazain vol. 21 p. 290)

In wake of all of the above mentioned facts, I wonder if it suits Ahmadiyya to use the narration and statement of Mulla Ali Qari for any reason.

Is there not among you a single man of reason?

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

Hadith & Alleged Death of Jesus -11 (Statement of Jarud in Bahrain)

Posted on by

As promised in a comment to the eighth post of this series, today I respond to the Ahmadi attempt of seeking evidence with an alleged statement of Sayyidina Jarud b. Ma’la (RA) made in Bahrain.

Some Qadianis quote a statement of Jarud bin Ma’la (RA) from Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab’s book Mukhtasar Sirat Al-Rasul. According to the statement as put on a Qadiani website[1]:

“Some people of Bahrain turned apostate at the death of Holy Prophet (PBUH) on the premise that had he been a Prophet he would have not died. At this eve Jarud (RA) addressed them saying, Holy Prophet (PBUH) is the servant and Messenger of Allah. He lived as Moses and Jesus lived and died as Moses and Jesus died. On listening to this the people reverted to Islam.” (Mukhtasar Sirat Al-Rasul p.187 by Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab. Darul Arabiya Beirut Lebanon)

The Truth:

In the following lines I reproduce the Arabic statement from the book, its translation and details about its authenticity. The actual wording goes as:

أنه قال : ما شهادتكم على موسى ؟ قالوا : نشهد أنه رسول الله . قال : فما شهادتكم على عيسى ؟ قالوا : نشهد أنه رسول الله قال وأنا أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا عبده ورسوله . عاش كما عاشوا ، ومات كما ماتوا . وأتحمل شهادة من أبى أن يشهد على ذلك منكم . فلم يرتد من عبد القيس أحد .

“He [Jarud bin Ma’la] said [to his tribe]; ‘What is your testimony regarding Moses?’ They said: ‘We testify he was a Messenger of Allah.’ He said: ‘What is your testimony regarding Jesus?’ They said: ‘We testify he was a Messenger of Allah.’ He said: ‘And I testify that there is no other deity except Allah and Muhammad is his servant and Messenger. He lived as they lived and died as they died. And I imply the testimony on the one who among you refuses to testify. So no one remained apostate from Abd Al-Qais.” (Mukhtasar Sirat Al-rasul 1/431, Chapter on Apostasy of the people of bahrain)

Authenticity of the narration:

1) This narration has been given without any chain or a reference to any classical work that provides the chain for it. Infact with these words the narration is not found in any of the well known source books of Hadith, Sirah and History. So now it is for Qadianis to show us the complete chain of the narration with these words. Surely burden of proof lies upon the one who claims!

It speaks a lot  to rely on a narration without any isnaad (chain of narrators) in theological debates. Imam Sufyan Thawri (RA) is reported to have said:

الإسناد سلاح المؤمن فإذا لم يكن معه سلاح ، فبأي شيء يقاتل

“The Isnaad is the weapon of the believer, so if he does not have it with him, with what shall he fight?” (Khatib Baghdadi’s Sharaf Ashabi’l-Hadith 1/92)

But most certainly this is for believers and not the cultists!

2) A narration on these lines is found in Tarikh Al-Rusul wal Muluk (Tarikh Tabari) of Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari. Here I reproduce it:

حدثنا عبيد الله ، قال : أخبرنا عمي ، قال : أخبرنا سيف ، عن إسماعيل بن مسلم ، عن الحسن بن أبي الحسن ، قال… فقالت عبد القيس : لو كان محمد نبياً لما مات ؛ وارتدوا ، وبلغه ذلك فبعث فيهم فجمعهم ، ثم قام فخطبهم ، فقال : يا معشر عبد القيس ؛ إني سائلكم عن أمر فأخبروني به إن علمتموه ولا تجيبوني إن لم تعلموا . قالوا : سل عما بدا لك ، قال : تعلمون أنه كان لله أنبياء فيما مضى ؟ قالوا : نعم ، قال : تعلمونه أو ترونه ؟ قالوا : لا بل نعلمه ، قال : فما فعلوا ؟ قالوا : ماتوا ، قال : فإن محمداً صلى الله عليه وسلم مات كما ماتوا ، وأنا أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمداً عبده ورسوله ، قالوا : ونحن نشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمداً عبده ورسوله ؛ وأنك سيدنا وأفضلنا

Ubaidullah narrated to us, he said: My uncle said: Saif [bin Umar] narrated from Isma’il bin Muslim, [he] from Hasan bin Abi Hasan, he said: ‘…so the Abd Al-Qais said: ‘If Muhammad were a prophet why did he die?’ and they turned apostate and this news reached him [Jarud]. So, he reached them and gathered them and then addressed them: ‘O people of Abd Al-Qais, I ask you of a matter so answer me if you know it and do not respond if you do not know.’ They said: ‘Ask of the matter that concerns you!’ He said: ‘Do you know in the past there have been Prophets from Allah?’ They said: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘Do you know that or you just perceive it?’ They replied: ‘No, we but know of it.’ He said: ‘What happened to them?’ They said: ‘They died!’ he said: ‘So if Muhammad died as they died, I testify there is no deity but Allah and Muhammad is his Servant and Messenger.’ They said: ‘And we also testify that there is no deity but Allah and Muhammad is his Servant and Messenger. And you [O Jarud] are our leader and the best of us.’ (Tarikh Al-Rusul wal Muluk 2/164. Chapter on the Expedition of Khalid towards Bani Juzaima)

3) Other than the fact that this narration does not clearly speak of what Ahmadis contend, it has been classified as Da’if (weak) by scholars in the first place. See Tarikh Al-Tabari With research of Muhammad bin Tahir Barzinji & Subhi Hassan Hallaaq 3/66 pub. Dar Ibn Kathir, Beirut, 2007. Its chain has the same narrator Saif bin Umar whose status we discussed in the second post of this series.

4) In conclusion, we can say that there is no authentic narration with complete chain of narrators that mentions what Qadianis cite. The closest narration found is utterly weak and thus does not serve as evidence.

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

[1] The Site has the statement in Urdu. Here I have given the literal translation of what the site reads.