Kim Jong-Il the long ruling dictator of North Korea has died. Over the years he was given a divine like status by the state propaganda machine. According to state propaganda his birth was prophesized by a swallow and heralded by a double rainbow and his life was, apparently, not any less eventful with many miraculous events being attributed to him, such as having the ability to even control the weather. In describing his death, the state media declared it caused the heavens and earth to shake and magical writing appeared on the side of a mountain. All this religious fervour, bizarrely, comes from an atheistic communist party.

News channels around the world have been showing some remarkable images of North Koreans mourning the death.  Many people found the whole spectacle somewhat baffling, given what this man has done to his people over the years. Kim Jong-Il and his party have made North Korea into one of the most closed and isolated countries in the world. The citizens are denied freedom, access to the most basic of amenities is forbidden such as imported food, mobile phones, movies, internet, and the state apparatus monitors the words and movement of everyone. Yet these draconian rules don’t apply to everyone, all that is forbidden to North Koreans lay people is readily enjoyed by the ruling elite and in particular the dictator or ‘dear leader’ as everyone is taught to call him. In the 1990’s as many as 3.5 million North Koreans died of starvation, while the dictator and his cronies wallowed in luxuries. While children died of lack of food, the ‘dear leader’ was eating imported lobster and drinking champagne, whilst watching his collection of 20,000 Hollywood movies.

Yet Kim Jong-Il’s behaviour and hypocrisy is not unique to him, everywhere across the world where ever we find dictators, we find this pattern of behaviour. Dictatorship can be defined as totalitarian rule by one or a few group of people. The power of rule is often obtained through force or inheritance and is maintained through a propaganda instilling a combination of fear and idolization of the dictator. Most dictatorships transform into hereditary dictatorships, where power is held and transferred through a single family.

The Muslim world has more than its fair share of hereditary dictators, what then does Islam have to say on the matter? Well a very interesting hadith tackles the subject very nicely, in which the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) prophesizes the political leadership of the Muslim Ummah as follows:

From Hudhayfah that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) said:

“The Prophethood will remain amongst you for as long as Allah wills it to be. Then Allah will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be the khilafah upon the Prophetic methodology. And it will last for as long as Allah wills it to last. Then Allah will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be biting kingship, and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then Allah will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be tyrannical (forceful) kingship and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then He will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be a khilafah upon the Prophetic methodology. Then he (the Prophet) صلى الله عليه و سلم was silent.”
[Reported by Ahmad and Abu Dawud.]

Let us list the stages outlined the hadith

1. Prophethood of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم)
2. Rightly guided Caliphate (Just and righteous rule)
3. Hereditary rule (Kingship)
4. Oppressive hereditary rule (Dictatorship)
5. Rightly guided Caliphate (Just and righteous rule restored)

Looking at the history of the Muslim Ummah, we can see this prophecy has unfolded step by step. The rightly guided period of the Khulafa Rashidun upon the Prophet’s (صلى الله عليه و سلم) Sunnah, is characterised by the following:

1. The rule was not hereditary, i.e. it was not held and transferred by a single family.
2. There was ‘rule of law’ where the Khalifa could be held to account by a judge or even a layperson.
3. The Khalifa’s role was one of serving the people and not for personal benefit.
4. The Khulafa shunned an opulent and luxurious life, despite the huge wealth coming into the possession of the state. For example after Muslims liberated Jerusalem, Sayidina Umar entered the city on foot (while his servant was riding a on a camel) wearing clothes with patches on them and refused to wear luxurious clothing.

The following article was submitted by Br. Muhammed Khan

http://www.suhaibwebb.com/

Check it out and let us know what you think!

This is the last 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.

I hope this one will be the most interesting and intense…

Of the four false prophets during the time of Abu Bakr, the most dangerous of them all was Musaylimah bin Habib, aka Musaylimah “The Liar” from the tribe of Banu Hanifah. Musaylimah was described as low in stature, fair skinned and with a flat nose. He started off early in his life learning tricks of deception, illusions and even getting actual assistance of the Shayateen (not just silly stories you hear at social gatherings).

When the Prophet Ahmad صلى الله عليه و سلم sent a letter to his tribe, Musaylimah was one of the delegates to responded to his call and at least outwardly accepted Islam. But, when he returned to his people, he went back to his old ways and eventually claimed prophethood for himself. His claim obviously put him at odds with the Prophet Ahmad صلى الله عليه و سلم, so he sent decided to bargain to gain more power and influence.

He sent a letter to the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم saying:

The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم responded with the following letter:

Obviously Musaylimah did not like that response, and Islam’s rising power left Musaylimah jealous. When he would hear the Qur’an, he would try to produce his own competing “revelations”. Sometimes, he would literally copy the Qur’an and just change a few words. For example, Surah al-Kawthar says,

Indeed, We have given you Al-Kawthar [A river in Jannah]
So Pray and Sacrifice.

He would say:

Indeed, We have Given you the Keys [of Jannah]
So Pray and Rest

Other times, he had his own unique “revelations”, such as:

O Frog,
Croak as you Croak;
The Bottom of you is in Dirt;
And the top of you is in Water;

Years later, Abu Bakr called former followers of Musaylimah and asked them to recite some of the “revelation” Musaylimah would utter. After hearing it, Abu Bakr said “How can a mind ever believe such a thing?” This reminds us of Mirza Ghulam’s ungrammatical revelation such as “God is coming by his army, he is with you to kill enemy”, and “I can what I will do”. Mirza Ghulam also would take parts of the Qur’an, and alter a word or two such as when he claimed to be pregnant with ‘Esa عليه السلام and modified verses about Maryam عليها السلام to apply to himself.

Amongst Musaylimah’s lieutenants was Al-Rajjal ibn ‘Unfwa. Having spent a lot of time with the Prophet Ahmad صلى الله عليه و سلم and having memorized a lot of the Qur’an, the Prophet sent him to Musaylimah’s followers to convince them to come back to Islam. But when Al-Rajjal went to them, he defected and joined the army of Musaylimah. This was a great fitnah, because he had a lot of knowledge of Islam and was able to trick some Muslims.

Abu Bakr took the Caliphate when the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم died and sent ‘Ikrimah ibn Abu Jahl with a small army to contain, but not attack, Musaylimah’s amassing forces. Instead, ‘Ikrimah attacked and was soundly defeated. Again, Abu Bakr sent Shahrabil bin Hasana for the same purpose, but Shahrabil’s army also engaged and was also defeated. This gave Musaylimah’s forces the reputation of being invincible – after all, they just defeated two Muslim armies!

So the third time Abu Bakr sent the Sword of Allah, Khalid bin Waleed. Khalid’s forces met Musaylimah’s in a battleground called al-Yamamah. The two generals of Musaylimah were Al-Rajjal and Al-Muhakkam.

When the battle began, Musaylimah’s forces attacked with a wave so fierce it broke the Muslims lines and sent them into full retreat, so much so that Khalid’s personal camp was overrun. In the chaos, the tribes were blaming each other for having broken the lines, so someone suggested to separate them by tribe and by Mujahir and al-Ansar. This created a type of shame upon the tribe or unit which broke formation.

Afterwards the Muslim lines held, but so did Musaylimah’s army. The attacks came in powerful waves and pushes, with heavy causalities on both sides.

During moments of calm, speakers would deliver emotional speeches to raise their morale. Others would recite Surah al-Anfal. ‘Abbad bin Bishr stood in front of everyone and broke the sheath of his sword, committing himself to the battle. Zayd bin Al-Khattab, Brother of ‘Umar, told his troops, “Just grit your teeth and attack!” They did so and succeeded in killing Al-Rajjal.

At one point a battalion formed consisting exclusively of the Hufaz of the Qur’an – no one else. They said the Qur’an was in their hearts, so the responsibility upon them was greater. Imagine, an elite battalion of only the Hufaz! They delivered a fierce assault against Musaylimah’s forces, but many of them were killed (which later led to Abu Bakr compiling the Qur’an for the first time).

‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr was an excellent archer. While Al-Muhakkam was giving a speech to his army, ‘Abd al-Rahman caught him in his sights. He shot an arrow that hit Al-Muhakkam in his throat during his speech.

Musaylimah’s forces rallied around Musaylimah, protecting him from all sides. Historians describe this formation as a storm with Musaylimah as the eye. With so many dying on both sides, Khalid realized that the only way to end the battle would be to go after Musaylimah himself. So he, along with his Fursaan (Knights), made a direct charge, breaking the enemy lines and went straight after the eye of the storm!

Musaylimah saw the advancing knights and ordered a tactical retreat. The 10,000 remaining soldiers (1/4th of the original army) retreated into a nearby garden and locked the gates.

The Muslims circled the Garden, but could not get in. Then came Al-Bara’a ibn Malik…who is Al-Bara’a ibn Malik?

Before the battle, Abu Bakr sent a letter saying, “In your army is Al-Bara’a ibn Malik. Do not appoint him to any position of leadership, because he will perish anyone around him.” Too much bravado!

Al-Bara’a went to the walls and said “Throw me in the garden!” He was hoisted atop a shield and thrown. In the first throw, he saw Musaylimah’s army and hesitated. In the second throw, he went over the wall and fell in like a bird from the sky directly into the enemy. Fighting back the people around him, he was able to open the gates and let his fellow soldiers in, but not before receiving 80 injuries all over his body (not every cut or slash was fatal).

The Muslims spilled into this enclosed garden and with Musaylimah’s army unable to retreat, they fought to the end. The garden became known as Hadiqat al-Mawt (The garden of death).

Wahshi, the man who killed Hamza in the battle of Uhud, wanted to make up for that by killing Musaylimah. He said, “Just as I have killed the most beloved servant of Allah [Hamza], I am going to compensate for that by killing the enemy of Allah [Musaylimah].” With Musaylimah in his sights, he honed onto his target and launched his missle. At the same moment the spear hit him, Abu Dujanah (who, btw, is awesome. Can I say that?) struck Musaylimah. Whether Wahshi’s or Abu Dujanah’s, no one knows whose blow was the fatal one.

The death of Musaylimah meant the end of the battle. The Muslims were victorious at Al-Yamama, but not without heavy losses. 300 Sahaba were martyred. Ibn Katheer estimated 450 of the Hufaz were killed. Hundreds more were killed, and perhaps thousands injured.

After the battle, Khalid took a prisoner to find Musaylimah amongst the dead. He saw him and said, “This is the one who did to you what he did?” (ie, took you away from Islam through his false prophethood). The prisoner affirmed. Khalid said, “The way he looks does not reflect his evil.”

And with that, the last of the false prophets of Arabia was exterminated. Arabia became a launchpad for the rapid expansion of Islam over Persia, Rome and the rest is history…

May Allah save us from the corruption of following a false prophet, and keep us upon the Islam of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم, the Sahaba, and those who followed them, and save us from joining fringe movements and false prophets. Ameen.

Imagine that you are a foot-soldier on a battlefield. Behind you is a mounted horseman, in pursuit trying to kill you. Battered and beaten, you flee from the enemy. As you run, he strikes you left and right, blow after blow.. Injured and dazed, you look into the near distance and see a friendly castle. With the enemy right behind you, you run towards the castle. Dropping your sword and shield, you make haste across the bridge, and with your last ounce of strength, you pull up the draw-bridge. You collapse, exhausted and disheveled, thanking God for safety and your respite…

The battlefield is your life. The enemy attacking you is Shaytaan, whispering into your hearts. And the castle is Ramadan.

When we think of Ramadan, we often think of not eating or drinking during daylight hours. This is literally how we explain it to others. Some of the more adventurous amongst us mention abstinence. We make frequent mention of the health benefits, or that fasting reminds us of how the poor feel.

This is certainly part of Ramadan, no doubt. But these tangible benefits can be achieved through other means. Like any act of worship, fasting is simply a vehicle. Allah does not need you to abstain from food, drink or sex during the day, he is the Self-Sufficient, without need. So why fast?

Allah says in the Qur’an:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الصِّيَامُ كَمَا كُتِبَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَّقُونَ

O you who believe, fasting is decreed upon you, as it was decreed upon those before you so that you may become God-Concious – Surah Baqarah

While these other benefits are beneficial, the purpose of fasting ultimately is so that we may attain a sense of awareness of God in our daily lives, as a means to purify us, and to remember God. Humans need food and drink to survive, but when a person consciously denies himself sustenance, that feeling of hunger is a reminder that he is only doing this for the sake of God.

One of the definitions of spirituality in Islam is the abasement of the lower-self (nafs) and the elevation of the will of God. Obeying God’s decree and denying your nafs it’s want will increase your spiritual connection to Allah; an experiential connection beyond parroting a dhikr without any understanding.

You might be wondering, what makes fasting unique? When you think of any other act of worship, you are actively doing something, be it verbalizing your faith, or praying, or giving charity. But fasting is the only act of worship where you do not do something. The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم said:

“Allah said, ‘All the deeds of Adam’s sons (people) are for them, except fasting which is for Me, and I will give the reward for it.’ Fasting is a shield or protection from the fire and from committing sins. If one of you is fasting, he should avoid sexual relation with his wife and quarreling, and if somebody should fight or quarrel with him, he should say, ‘I am fasting.’ By Him in Whose Hands my soul is’ The unpleasant smell coming out from the mouth of a fasting person is better in the sight of Allah than the smell of musk. There are two pleasures for the fasting person, one at the time of breaking his fast, and the other at the time when he will meet his Lord; then he will be pleased because of his fasting.”

When a soldier takes time off, does he simply rest and relax? No, he trains and re-energizes for the battle ahead. May this Ramadan allow us to spiritually recharge and be ready for the tests and trials of life ahead of us. Ameen.

Here are some practical steps and tips to take advantage of this Ramadan:

1. Consign yourself to a regiment of the Qur’an every day, even if it is just one page, even if in English;
2. Do not use Ramadan as an excuse to become lazy at work, such that people see Ramadan as the time when the Muslims’ productiveness reduces.
3. Spend time in the masjid, and not just during Taraweh. The masjids should feel like our second home;
4. Do not overeat, overeating will make you lazy, lethargic, and skip out on extra acts of worship;
5. Cut out the Beyonce and  and replace it with dhikr of Allah. On your commutes to school and work, repeat Allahumma salli ‘ala saydinaa Muhammad wa ‘ala Aali Muhammad (O God, send your blessings upon Muhammad, and upon the family of Muhammad);
6. If you are an Ahmadi, visit a mainstream Muslim masjid a few times this month for Taraweh and regular prayers;
7. Calm down…Do not get upset, and let things slide…

May Allah make this a month of reflection for us, a month of dhikr, a month of recitation of the Qur’an; May Allah purify our sins, and reconnect our hearts with Allah; May Allah help the Muslims all around the world, especially in Somalia where they have been affected by the droughts; Oh Allah, do not allow our hearts to go astray after they have been guided, O Allah, keep us firm upon your religion, O Allah, aid Islam and the Muslims; O Allah, allow us to witness the Night of Decree, O Allah, revive our hearts like you revive the deserts; O Allah, guide the Ahmadis to Islam; O Allah, fill our hearts with the love of you and of your Prophet Muhammad.

و صلى الله على سيدنا و مولانا محمد و على آله و صحبه و سلم

After a recent approach by Al-Jazeera to the team at Thecult.info, today there was an excellent discussion between Akber Choudhry, the representative from the Ahmadiyya Awareness team, and Amjad Khan, a member of the Ahmadiyya religion on Al-Jazeera’s Stream programme. As the discussion progressed, it became clear that the points raised by Mr. Choudhry were causing Mr. Khan to become visibly uncomfortable. Most notably, Mr. Khan repeatedly lied on international TV concerning the following points:

1. Mirza Masroor’s banning of individual Ahmadis’ Facebook pages;
2. The Ahmadiyya doctrine that Muslims are not Muslims;
3. Denying that they routinely associate average Muslims with the worst Islamophobic stereotypes (ie, ‘mullahs’ or ‘terrorists’);

This is the first time in a century that some of the Ahmadiyya beliefs and cult-like practices have been exposed to the full glare of the international media spotlight and faced with the bald facts, Mr. Khan and the Ahmadiyya were caught woefully short. We’re not surprised.

و صلى الله على سيدنا محمد و على آله و صحبه و سلم

The following is an announcement from Brother Shahid, the creator of TheCult team.

The Ahmadiyya Community has applied for an extensive redevelopment of their site at Gressenhall Road, London, SW18 5QL. The site contains the oldest Ahmadi prayer house in the UK and the residence of the Ahmadiyya leader Mirza Masroor Ahmad.

The development description reads:

“Demolition of the west wing of the administration block and hall next to the London Mosque and office buildings, plant room, wash rooms, bin store and garage along western boundary. Erection of replacement hall with single-storey element containing kitchen, bookshop, bin store and garage; alterations to administration/residential building, including the addition of a fourth floor and new facade in connection with use as offices. Erection of three-storey building to provide three dwellings ancillary to the Mosque, fronting Melrose Road. Use of No.65 Melrose Road as ancillary residential accommodation. Landscaping works including the felling of 13 trees.”

(Source:  Wandsworth Council planning application database, application number 2010/0486, Full Case File)

A replacement hall with a kitchen, a bookshop and a garage. One might rightly ask, what is wrong with the current hall. By reading on, one can see the true reason for this redevelopment: a three story building containing three flats for Mirza Masroor and his family.

Blind Ahmadis will probably make all sorts of excuses to justify this redevelopment: “The hall will be bigger and provide more space for prayers and functions, so it’s good”, “Huzoors flat is needed to build more offices and we need more offices. Building a new house for Huzoor is therefore ok.”

But the following drawings and tables will show that the new hall provides very little additional space. And more offices? Is the £5.5 million centre in Morden not enough? And the new dwelling is not simply a house; it is a luxurious residence spread over almost 900 square meters (9,690 square foot) and includes a private gardens, a roof garden and a large water feature.

In Ahmadiyya-typical fashion, a concerted effort was made to drum up support for this redevelopment.  All comments are available in the case file. As you can see most Ahmadis either do not know what they are in favour of or only mention the new hall. They were most probably instructed by their local presidents to write these letters, without really understanding what they are in support of. However, the well-informed neighbours seem to be unimpressed and comments against the redevelopment keep pouring in every day.

Let’s have a look at the pictures and drawings that were all taken from the case file:

Here is the current view of the site.

View from Melrose Road.

And here is how the site will look if the plans go ahead.

The large building on the right is the new residence.

The view from Melrose Road.

Here is the current floor plan.

And this is the proposed floor plan:

As you can see, there is a massive increase of accommodation and private offices at the cost of the dedicated prayer area. The large building on the right is Mirza Masroor’s new residence. As mentioned, it will contain three flats, one for himself, and the other two for his son and perhaps son-in-law.

The round building in the middle is the new multi-functional hall with a fancy glazed roof. Between the residence and the hall you can see the outline of the rather large water feature (ie, fountains).

Here’s a drawing of the hall.

The following is a side view of the residential complex, including a view of the garden roof-top.

Here is a 3D rendition of the proposed structure, showing the relative size of the new residential complex.

If you question the adjustments in floor plans, consider the following tables detailing the changes in area:

Now the question is: what is the point of this redevelopment? Why waste the common Ahmadi’s money on this? Why not just renovate the existing hall? They have Baitul Futuh for offices and the new hall hardly provides any additional space.

One document actually states that the dedicated prayer area will decrease by 132 square meters and the multi-function space will increase by 189 square meters. This amounts to a net increase of a mere 57 square meters. Compare that to the additional accommodation (housing) area: a whopping increase of 335 square meters, 60% of additional living space! This increase is almost six times larger than the increase of prayer area (assuming that the multi-function hall will be used for prayers). Six times!

Since no changes are going to be made to 65 Melrose Road, this increase can only be attributed to Mirza Masroor’s new residence. The total accommodation area of 892 square meters will then be larger than the 717 square meters of dedicated prayer area and multi-functional area combined!

(The table above is an older table. Changes to the prayer area and multi-functional area were made, which resulted in a further decrease of the total area. No changes to the accommodation area are known.)

To reiterate: Both, accommodation area and prayer/multi-function area are increasing. The increase of accommodation area however is six times larger than the increase of prayer/multi-function area. This results in the accommodation area being larger than the prayer/multi-function area.

The proposal itself states that the number of people coming to the mosque will not change dramatically. It tries to reassure the Wandsworth Council by implying that the main purpose of this redevelopment is only the accommodation of Mirza Masroor and that traffic will therefore not be an issue.

Ahmadis should ask themselves if this new residence, which screams of extravagance, is really in the spirit of humbleness and simplicity that Mirza Masroor constantly preaches. He asks his followers to make sacrifices but at the same time plans to build himself a Palace. Did Rasulullah صلى الله عليه و سلم and the Sahaba رضى الله عنهم ever waste the Ummah’s funds on building luxurious dwellings for themselves? No, the house of the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم was very simple:

“His house was but a hut with walls of unbaked clay and a thatched roof of palm leaves covered by camel skin. He had separate apartments for his wives, a small room for each made of similar materials. His own apartment contained a rope cot, a pillow stuffed with palm leaves, the skin of some animal spread on the floor and a water-bag of leather and some weapons. These were all his earthly belongings, besides a camel, a horse, and some land which he had acquired in the later part of his life. (Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud).”

-From Description of Prophet Muhammad

So please, dear Ahmadis, do not let Mirza Masroor and the Nizaam fool you into thinking that this redevelopment is needed. This redevelopment is simply for Mirza Masroor and his family so that they can live a life in luxury, financed by you. It is you who will have to pay chanda to fund Mirza Masroor’s lavish lifestyle.

To us on the outside, it is just another cult leader building himself a palace by further ripping off his followers.

The guest author is a former Ahmadi who converted to Islam in 2010. He has chosen to keep his identity a secret to prevent creating stories that he was “kicked out” or threats against his person.

I am cognizant of the fact that it may well be too deep and not of too common interest but I feel there is need to document the things for general use if and when required.

The Hadith:

The Hadith in full along with the comments by Imam Baihaqi goes as under:

أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْحَافِظُ، أنا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ، أنا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، ثنا ابْنُ بُكَيْرٍ، حَدَّثَنِي اللَّيْثُ، عَنْ يُونُسَ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، مَوْلَى أَبِي قَتَادَةَ الْأَنْصَارِيِّ قَالَ: إِنَّ أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «كَيْفَ أَنْتُمْ إِذَا نَزَلَ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ فِيكُمْ وَإِمَامُكُمْ مِنْكُمْ» . رَوَاهُ الْبُخَارِيُّ فِي الصَّحِيحِ عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ بُكَيْرٍ، وَأَخْرَجَهُ مُسْلِمٌ مِنْ وَجْهٍ آخَرَ عَنْ يُونُسَ. وَإِنَّمَا أَرَادَ نُزُولَهُ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ بَعْدَ الرَّفْعِ إِلَيْهِ

Abu Abdullah al-Hafiz (i.e. Imam Hakim) – Abu Bakr bin Ishaq – Ahmad bin Ibrahim – Ibn Bukayr – Laith – Yunus – Ibn Shihab – Nafi’ the freed-slave of Abu Qadadah al-Ansari — Abu Huraira, may Allah be pleased with him – Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: “What will be your condition when the son of Maryam (i.e. ‘Eisa) will descend amongst you from the heavens and your Imam will be from amongst you?” Bukhari narrated it in al-Sahih from Yahya bin Bukayr. And Muslim also narrated it through another chain from Yunus (bin Yazid). And they (also) meant his descent from the Heavens after his ascension towards it.

(Asma’ wa Sifaat 2/331 Hadith 895. Shaykh Abdullah bin Muhammad al-Hashidi has classified the narration as Sahih)

Note: The difference in the reference to Hadith in the current and the previous post is because I am using a different edition now. This one is with research of the scholar mentioned above.

Answers to Objections

Ahmadis contend that the words مِنَ السَّمَاءِ “… from the Heavens” in this narration are not genuine but a later interpolation.

The author of Ahmadiyya Pocket Book has raised certain objections on this narration See Ahmadiyya Pocket Book pp.227-228. In the following lines I respond to each of them.

Comparison with Bukhari’s narration:

He says that Imam Baihaqi has written after the narration, “Bukhari narrated it,” and in Bukhari’s Sahih we do not find the words مِنَ السَّمَاءِ “… from the Heavens” so it means these words are not part of the narration.

This is a rather naïve argument for it shows absolute ignorance of the author.

1. Firstly Baihaqi’s book is not like Kanzul Ummal that he is quoting things on someone’s authority without giving a chain down to himself. Infact as one can see Imam Baihaqi has given the chain down to him and that is why he has clarified that Bukhari has narrated it from Yahya bin Bukayr. Even though the same fellow falls in the chain of Imam Baihaqi but between him and Ibn Bukayr there are two other fellows. This proves Baihaqi has not narrated it on the authority of Bukhari but has given a complete chain for himself.

2. Now as to the question that why it happens. I reproduce the words of Shaykh Shafi Usmani in response to this;

فإن من له أدنى معرفة بالحديث وكتبه يعلم أن المحدثين قاطبة – ولا سيما البيهقي – ربما يعزو رواية لبعض المحدثين إذا أخرجها بأكثر ألفاظها ، ولا يشترط استيعاب ألفاظ الرواية ، فإذا قال المحدث : رواه البخاري كان مراده أن أصل الحديث أخرجه البخاري

‘Whoever has even a slight knowledge of Ahadith and its compilations knows the all the Muhaddithin- especially Al-Baihaqi- whenever they ascribe a narration to some other Muhaddithin and they narrate it with more words, they do not mean to relate exactly the same words of the narration [as narrated by the Muhaddith to whom they ascribe it to]. So when the Muhaddith says ‘Bukhari narrated it’ his point is that the essence of the Hadith has been narrated by him.’

3. And the above statement can be substantiated by multiple examples. Following should suffice for now.

Baihaqi says:

أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْحَافِظُ , وَأَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ يُوسُفَ بْنِ يَعْقُوبَ السُّوسِيُّ وَأَبُو بَكْرٍ أَحْمَدُ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ الْقَاضِي , قَالُوا: ثنا أَبُو الْعَبَّاسِ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ نا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ خَالِدِ بْنِ خَلِيٍّ , نا بِشْرُ بْنُ شُعَيْبِ بْنِ أَبِي حَمْزَةَ , عَنْ أَبِيهِ , عَنْ أَبِي الزِّنَادِ , عَنِ الْأَعْرَجِ , عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ , قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «إِنَّ لِلَّهِ تِسْعًا وَتِسْعِينَ اسْمًا مِائَةً إِلَّا وَاحِدًا مَنْ أَحْصَاهَا دَخَلَ الْجَنَّةَ , إِنَّهُ وِتْرٌ يُحِبُّ الْوِتْرَ» رَوَاهُ الْبُخَارِيُّ فِي الصَّحِيحِ عَنْ أَبِي الْيَمَانِ عَنْ شُعَيْبِ بْنِ أَبِي حَمْزَ

Abu Abdullah al-Hafiz – Abu Abdullah Ishaq bin Muhammad bin Yusuf bin Ya’qub al-Susi and Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Hasan al-Qadhi – Abu al-Abbas Muhammad bin Ya’qub – Muhammad bin Khalid bin Khaliyy – Bishr bin Shu’aib bin Abi Hamza – his father (i.e. Shu’aib bin Abi Hamza) – Abi Zannad – A’raj – Abu Huraira – Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him said: “Verily for Allah there are ninety nine names, one less than hundred – whoever remembers them will enter Jannah. And indeed Allah is Witr (One) and loves Witr.” Bukhari narrated it in al-Sahih from Abi Yaman from Shu’aib bin Abi Hamza.

(Asma’ wal Sifaat 1/21 Hadith 5)

But if you search in Bukhari you find this narration as;

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو اليَمَانِ، أَخْبَرَنَا شُعَيْبٌ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الزِّنَادِ، عَنِ الأَعْرَجِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ: أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ: «إِنَّ لِلَّهِ تِسْعَةً وَتِسْعِينَ اسْمًا مِائَةً إِلَّا وَاحِدًا، مَنْ أَحْصَاهَا دَخَلَ الجَنَّةَ»

Abu Yaman – Shu’aib (bin Abi Hamza) – Abu Zannad – A’raj – Abu Huraira — Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him said: “Verily for Allah there are ninety nine names, one less than hundred – whoever remembers them will enter Jannah.” (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 2736)

Clearly it does not have the words, “And indeed Allah is Witr and loves Witr,” and no one can find these words in Bukhari with the chain a through Abi Yaman from Shau’aib bin Abi Hamza as Baihaqi said.

This supports the point 2 above that when Muhaddithin especially Baihaqi says “Bukhari narrated it” all they means is about the essence of the narration and not a verbatim parallel.

And it is never a problem for Baihaqi has not quoted from Sahih Bukhari but given a complete chain down to him as stated in point 1 above.

Weakness of the narrator Abu Bakr bin Ishaq:

Second objection that Malik Abdul Rahman, the compiler of Ahmadiyya Pocket Book has raised is a glaring example of Ahmadiyya scholars’ intellectual “honesty.”

He argues that Abu Bakr bin Ishaq is actually Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Muhammad al-Naqid and then he quotes scholarly views about his being negligent in Hadith narration.

Whatever the author has quoted from Lisan al-Mizan is true but the fact is he is not the narrator here. Narrator infact is Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Ishaq al- Nishapuri.

How do we know this? In Lisan al-Mizan (5/69) Hafiz Ibn Hajr has given the names of the common narrators from Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Muhammad al-Naqid and Abu Abdullah al-Hafiz (i.e. Imam Hakim) i.e. the person narrating from him in the hadith under consideration, is not among them.

However, Imam Dhahbi gives the profile of Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Ishaq al-Nishapuri and counts Abu Abdullah al-Hakim among the people who narrate from him (see Sayr A’lam al-Nubala 15/483-484). This proves Ahmad bin Ishaq and not Muhammad bin Ishaq is the narrator in the chain.

And that is how Shaykh Abdullah bin Muhammad al-Hashidi has said in his research on the book Asma’ wal Sifaat. See his footnotes to Hadith 895 and Hadith 4. Kitabul Asma’ wal Sifaat pub. Makteba al-Sawadi, Jeddah 1993

Weakness of the narrator Ahmad bin Ibrahim:

Next Malik Abdul Rahman, the Ahmadi author, says that Ahmad bin Ibrahim is also Da’if and he says, “See Lisan al-Mizan.” Now in Lisan al-Mizan 18 narrators by the name of Ahmad bin Ibrahim are given. Neither has he clarified as to which one he thinks falls in the chain in question nor has he given any comment that can help us sort the fellow out.

However our contention is that it makes no difference for the actual narrator intended here is not mentioned in Lisan al-Mizan. The actual narrator here is Ahmad bin Ibrahim bin Milhan. And we know it because under his profile Hafiz al-Dhahbi writes “Companion of Yahya bin Bukayr” (see Sayr A’lam al-Nubala 13/533-534) and in the Hadith in question he is narrating from Yahya bin Bukayr only.

And this fellow is indeed trustworthy. Imam Dhahbi writes that Imam Darqutni has graded him as “reliable.” Same is quoted by Khateeb al-Baghdadi, See Tarikh al-Baghdad 5/18 No. 1862. And they have not mentioned any criticism on him.

Shaykh Abdullah bin Muhammad al-Hashidi in his research on Kitabul Asma’ wal Sifaat also says that the narrator is Ahmad bin Ibrahim bin Milhan. See his footnotes to Hadith 895 and Hadith 95.

Weakness of other narrators:

The author then goes further to criticize the narrators, Yahya bin Abdullah (Ibn Bukayr) and Yunus bin Yazid. He is simply trying to be smart by quoting some critical views about them but for general readers it is enough that they are the narrators of Bukhari and Muslim which is good enough of evidence for their reliability. We can insha’Allah answer all the lies but for the fear of making the discourse too lengthy I simply allude to their being the narrators of the Sahihayn (Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim).

The two narrators I discussed above are not the narrators of Bukhari and Muslim and further the Ahmadi author was simply lying so the two-fold reason became a drive to discuss their cases in detail.

Are the words “from the Heavens” a later interpolation?

Next the Ahmadi “scholar” comes with an allegation that the hand-written edition of Baihaqi’s Asma’ wal Sifaat was first published in 1328 A.H.[sic] and that Muslim scholars added it as an adulteration and interpolation.

There are two problems with the claim.`

1. It is false to say that first edition was published in 1328 A.H. Infact we have extant to this day the hand-written edition published in 1313 A.H.

See the front page

1313 A.H. is certainly not 1328 A.H. And on its page 301 one can find that the words are there.

Download the complete edition HERE

Moreover, this is not a proof that first edition was published in so and so year and the words were there. To prove the idea of interpolation one has to be show some manuscript or earlier edition in which words are not there. Burden of proof is on the one who claims!

The case of Durr Manthur:

Next he argues that Imam Suyuti has quoted the narration and has not given the words in question, proving that they were interpolated.

Imam Suyuti writes in Durr Manthur:

أخرج أحمد والبخاري ومسلم والبيهقي في الأسماء والصفات قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : كيف أنتم إذا نزل فيكم ابن مريم ، وإمامكم منكم؟

Ahmad, Bukhari, Muslim and Baihaqi in Asma wal Sifaat says: “What will be your condition when the son of Maryam (i.e. ‘Eisa) will descend amongst you and your Imam will be from amongst you?”

One can see that Imam suyuti has given the names of 4 books in which the narration is found and in case when one odd book gives slightly different wording he cannot account for that. This is easily understandable if we consider the fact that in Durr Manthur Imam Suyuti has given loads of narrations and often he quotes them on the authority of multiple compilations. This is the reason he could not take into account slight variation of wording but only considered the essence of the narration.

This is further clear from the following example.

Imam Suyuti in his same book, Durr Manthur writes;

وَأخرج أَحْمد وَالْبُخَارِيّ وَسلم وَالنَّسَائِيّ وَابْن مرْدَوَيْه وَالْبَيْهَقِيّ فِي الْأَسْمَاء وَالصِّفَات عَن ابْن عَبَّاس عَن النَّبِي صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم فِيمَا يروي عَن ربه من هم بحسنة فَلم يعملها كتبت لَهُ حَسَنَة فَإِن عَملهَا كتبت لَهُ عشرا إِلَى سَبْعمِائة إِلَى أَضْعَاف كَثِيرَة وَمن همّ بسيئة فَلم يعملها كتبت لَهُ حَسَنَة فَإِن عَملهَا كتبت لَهُ وَاحِدَة أَو يمحوها الله وَلَا يهْلك على الله إِلَّا هَالك

Clearly He attributed the narration to Bukhari along with Ahmad, Muslim, Nasai, Ibn Mardwiya and Baihaqi’s Asma’ wal Sifaat but the words in red towards the end are not to be found in Bukhari. Infact even for the rest of the narration wording in Sahih Bukhari is different.

Now the question is why this “anomaly”?

Did someone remove the last words from Bukhari after Suyuti and changes the rest of wording too?

Or it is simply that Muhaddithin did not rather could not consider all the variation in the wording from one Hadith collection to another when they referred to multiple works at a time?

For any reasonable person the issue is quite clear. They did so considering the essence of the narration only which remains the same.

So we find all the Ahmadiyya lies refuted Alhamdulillah!

Points to note:

With so much discussion on this narration, let’s not forget this is not the only narration with these words. We earlier saw more of them.

After giving the narration and saying that Bukhari and Muslim have also narrated it, Baihaqi said that they also meant his descent from the Heavens after his ascension. This shows the belief of Imam Baihaqi who has been recognized as Mujaddid by Ahmadis. Moreover even without the narration in question this “mujaddid” of Ahmadis has established the meaning of Hadith from Sahih Bukhari.

Let’s turn the tables now!

Murabbis tell common Ahmadis to take exception to the fact that Imam Suyuti did not put the words مِنَ السَّمَاءِ “… from the Heavens” even though it was infact not possible to take account of all the variation in wording a explained above. But how many times are they allowed to question as to why Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani ate away these words from a narration of Kanzul Ummal when he quoted it.

In my last post I quoted a narration (# 5) from Kanzul Ummal which goes as;

قال ابن عباس: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: “فعند ذلك ينزل أخي عيسى ابن مريم من السماء على جبل أفيق إماما هاديا وحكما عدلا

Ibn Abbas narrated: the Messenger of Allah, on whom be the blessings of Allah, said: ‘And near it (Bait al-Maqdis) will descend from the Heavens my brother ‘Eisa ibn Maryam on Mt. Afiq as a guided leader and a just ruler.’ (Kanzul Ummal 14/619 Hadith 39726)

But when Mirza Ghulam Ahmad quoted it in Himamatul Bushra (p. 148 included in Rohani Khazain vol. 7 p.314) he ate away the words مِنَ السَّمَاءِ “… from the Heavens.”

Now mark the difference, Imam Suyuti quotes a narration from 4 different books with slight variation of wording and Ahmadiyya make an issue of it while their “prophet” quotes from a certain book and eats away the words. Does that not prove “something”?

I will request Ahmadi readers to take these points to Murabbis and Jamaat leaders and question them;

1. Why did Mirza Ghulam Ahmad not quote the Hadith honestly? Or is there any justification for this?

2. How to “explain” the gimmicks of the author of Ahmadiyya Pocket Book who plays with the common people using the proximity of names of different authors?

3. With all the Ahmadiyya arguments refuted what is now the significance of the narration?

And one question that our Ahmadi fellows need to ask themselves;

How it feels to be a part of the group whose leader and “scholars” display such intellectual dishonesty?

Indeed Allah knows the best!

I just left a wonderful Qiyam al-Layl with our beloved and local Imam Mohamed Magid حفظه الله (who is also the president of Islamic Society of North America, ISNA). In his Khatirah he reminded us of the power of Du’a, and that while we must use our energy and effort for his sake, ultimately change is in the power of Allah. There is no change and there is no power except with Allah.

Many times in our da’wah efforts to Ahmadis, we approach them using reason, logic and facts. While this has proven to be effective, sometimes we forget that this alone has no power. As al-Ghazali opined in his Faysal Tafriq bayna al-Islam wa Zandaqa, reason is not the cause of belief, reason serves only to support a position that is already held by the adherent. (This is why we see some Ahmadi arguments as logical gymnastics). As Al-Ghazali also wrote in his Deliverance from Error, “Anyone who believes that the unveiling of truth is the fruit of well-ordered arguments belittles the immensity of divine mercy.”

In short: Reason alone does not change the hearts.

In addition to our efforts, we must make sincere and constant Du’a to Allah that he guides Ahmadis away from the misguidance of the false prophet to the correct beliefs of the true Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم. Really, seriously, ask God from the bottom of your heart. Beg him. Humiliate yourself before your Lord. How many times have we shed tears of pain at the absolute misguidance they are in, yet believing themselves to be guided? How many times have we spent the night crying to Allah, mentioning Ahmadis by name, and asking Allah to guide them?

…so let us ask Allah right now, as you read this post…

Oh Allah, we ask you to send your peace, blessings and salutations upon your noble Prophet Muhammad ibn Abdullah, and upon his family and those who follow him.

We ask Allah to guide the Ahmadis back to Islam. O Allah, the one who Guides, you alone are the turner of hearts, so guide us on your Deen and guide them to your Deen. O You who guides, most of them are but a generation or two away from Islam, so guide them back into the fold so that we may reunite with our sisters and brothers. O Allah, they were taken away from us by a false prophet, so bring them back to us. O Allah, many are sincere in their misguidance so make them sincere in guidance. We ask you Allah and you alone, associating no partners with you, to turn the hearts of the Ahmadis to leave the false teachings of the false prophet and to come back to the Truth.

We ask You to shower his peace, blessings and security upon our noble master Muhammad ibn Abdullah and upon his family and those who follow him until the day of judgment.

Ameen!

I highly recommend current-Ahmadis read two books by Imam Al-Ghazali.
A) The Decisive Criteria Between Islam and Heresy: This text explains the criteria between who is considered a Muslim and who is not. The English translation was done by Dr. Abdul Hakim “Sherman” Jackson under the title On the Boundaries of Theological Tolerance.
B) Deliverance From Error: This light read chronicles Al-Ghazali’s journey through the different spiritual and sectarian movements that existed in his lifetime and explains his conclusions. The English translation is available here.

There is a lively debate happening on the internet, between Muslims and Ahmadis, on the important topic of the finality of prophethood. The Muslim position is that there is no nabi (prophet) or rasul (messenger) after the Prophet Muhammed صلى الله عليه و سلم. This belief is held by Muslims throughout the world, from Morocco to Indonesia, from Bosnia to South Africa. The Ahmadis on the other hand tell us that we have got it wrong- that we are misguided. Ahmadis tell us that the Prophet Muhammed (saw) is not the last prophet. Muslim ‘mullahs,’ say the Ahmadis, are ignorant, insincere, misguided, backward and corrupt. Therefore they cannot or will not arrive at the right conclusion, but the evidence is there for all to see.

So who is right? The entire Muslim world or the murabbis? There is one way we can decide. Let us take someone who Ahmadis believe to be sincere, righteous, upright and the most learned man of his time, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. That’s right, let us use the research and conclusion of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani to arbitrate between Muslims and Ahmadis.

Ahmadis believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the most learned man of the 14^th century, they believe that he was so righteous and so learned that he achieved what no other human being in history achieved: He became a prophet through his personal rigorous effort.

So what did Mirza Ghulam Ahmad have to say after he examined the evidences stated in the Qur’an, hadith and Ijma‘ (scholarly consensus) about the subject of finality of prophethood?

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani made the following two statements which summarise his conclusions:

• “I believe in all the items of faith as prescribed by the Sunni School of Islam and I accept everything that is according to the Quran and Hadith.  I fully subscribe to the doctrine that Muhammad is the last of all Prophets, and that any claimant to Prophethood after him is an impostor and a Kafir. It is my belief that the revelations of Prophethood started with Adam and closed with the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)”.
  (Majmuha-Estaharet, P. 230-231; Tableegh-i-Risalat, Vol 2, Page 20 -
• Also appeared in a Qadiani poster dated Oct 2, 1891; 20 Shaaban, 1313 A.H.)
  “I consider that man who rejects the doctrine of Last Prophethood is a disbeliever and outside the pale of Islam.”
  (Tableegh-i-Risalat, Vol 2, Page 44 - Also read out in Congregation of Jama Masjid, Dehli, Oct. 23, 1891)

As you can quite clearly see that after years of learning and study, the most sincere, pious and learned man, according to Ahmadiyya, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani studied the Qur’an and hadith and came to the exact same conclusion as the rest of the Muslim world, that anyone who claims prophethood after the Prophet Muhammed صلى الله عليه و سلم is a liar and apostate.

It is worth pointing out that both Lahori and Qadiani Ahmadis do not dispute these statements but the two groups present us with two interpretations. The Lahori Ahmadis claim that these statements prove that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani did not claim to be a prophet and therefore these statements support their position very clearly. Unfortunately the Lahori Ahmadi position is not very credible in light of all Mirza’s other statements, where he describes himself as being a prophet. Even if this was merely a metaphor, as the Lahoris claim, this was an extremely irresponsible thing to do.

Are Lahori Ahmadis happy to accept that Mirza’s statements are directly responsible for the misguidance of thousands of Qadiani Ahmadis who believe he was a prophet and therefore removing themselves from the fold of Iman? That would be quite an achievement, given that Lahori Ahmadis are tiny in number compared to Qadiani Ahmadis. It means that Mirza sahib has misguided a larger number of his own followers away from Islam than towards a correct understanding of Islam, which is nothing short of a spectacular failure.

Now we turn our attention to the second party, the Qadiani Ahmadis who believe that when Mirza sahib made the above statements, (that he adhered to the Sunni beliefs, that there was no prophet after Prophet Muhammed صلى الله عليه و سلم and whoever held such beliefs was an apostate) he was unaware that he was going to be appointed a prophet in the future. The Qadiani Ahmadis tell us that since he was not aware that he was going to be appointed a prophet by God in the future his statements are not unreasonable.

At this point we ask Qadiani Ahmadis some questions;

• Do you believe that Mirza sahib was a sane and intelligent man when he made those statements?
• Do you believe that he was the most learned scholar on the earth not just in his life time but in the fourteenth century?
• Do you believe that he had a firm grasp of the sciences, beliefs and principles of the Islamic faith?

The response from Ahmadi lay people, Jamia students, Murabbis and Khalifas to these questions is a resounding, “YES!” Ahmadis tell us “Mirza sahib was and is the most learned man in the fourteenth century, and the Muslim scholars (mullahs) who were his contemporaries and those after, are ignorant and insignificant in learning compared to the ‘Promised Messiah’ Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani.”

So we ask Ahmadis, how is it possible that a man with such immense learning, religious worship and devotion to God could arrive at the exact same (‘deviated and erroneous’) belief as the entire orthodox muslim world held?

How can a man, whose learning is so great that he is endowed with prophethood, not reach the ‘correct’ conclusion that there are going to be prophets after Prophet Muhammed صلى الله عليه و سلم? He had the intelligence, the devotion, insight and access to all the primary sources of Islam law yet arrived at a position of complete ‘error and misguidance’.

You see it is immaterial to the argument that Mirza sahib at that point was unaware that he was going to be a prophet, the point is that given his deep learning, insight, sincerity and the ‘overwhelming proofs’ from the Quran and hadith that Ahmadis tell us exist, he should have still arrived at the conclusion that THERE WILL BE prophets after the Prophet Muhammed صلى الله عليه و سلم and the fact of the matter is that he did not arrive at this conclusion.

We can understand that he would have been unaware that he himself was going to be appointed a prophet in the future, BUT, that does not prevent him arriving at the conclusion from his research that prophets WILL come after the Prophet Muhammed صلى الله عليه و سلم.

If he could not reach that conclusion, that there will be prophets after Prophet Muhammed صلى الله عليه و سلم what was the reason? Did he have a lack of intelligence? Or was he Ignorant? Or was he insincere?

In fact Mirza sahib’s fatwa demonstrates that the entire Muslim world (including Mirza sahib) held the belief that there is no prophet or messenger after Muhammed صلى الله عليه و سلم because that is exactly what the evidences, the primary sources of Islam (Quran, hadith and Ijma) demonstrate.

Ahmadis keep telling us that Sunni Islamic scholars are misguided from the true understanding of Islam, they dismiss them as ignorant and backward and they believe that it is because of these reasons that they have arrived at the wrong conclusions and fatwas. Yet if we take Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani as a litmus test, then we find that his conclusion was exactly the same as Orthodox Muslim scholars,  that there is no Prophet after Sayiddina Muhammed صلى الله عليه و سلم and whoever rejects this, has left the fold of Islam.

Ahmadis, how is that possible?

The truth is that the primary sources of Islam are unambiguous there are no Prophets or Messengers after Sayyidina Muhammed صلى الله عليه و سلم and you don’t need ‘mullahs’ to tell you that!