Who Could Be More Wicked?

2:140

Who could be more wicked than those who hide a testimony from Allah?

Whenever I read the translation of the Qur’an to English during Ramadan, I am blessed with more insight into the noble message. Here Allah tells us that those who hide the message are amongst the most wicked.

Let us consider the example of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the man that the Qadianis claim was a prophet after Rasulullah (saw). Mirza made many prophecies. Prophecies come through revelation of the unseen, from Allah, but sometimes, the unseen, al-Ghaib, is conveyed by Shaytaan (via the jinn) who misguides those who are not steadfast. (Teechee Teechee, the cheeky make-believe “angel” of Mirza, might well have been a jinn.)

Amongst Mirza’s prophecies were 121 death threats. Despite the best efforts of Ahmadiyya apologists and their contorted attempts at qualification and equivocation, these have for the most part been debunked as the failed rants of a charlatan; history is littered with such examples.

On February 24th, 1899, in the court of the Deputy Commissioner in Gurdaspur, once friends and now enemies Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Maulvi Batalvi were ordered not to use foul or abusive language, or to make takfeer, or make death threats against one other, nor write each other’s names in a derogatory way. This judgment alone should cast doubt into the minds of any sincere believer in the Ahmadi religion. 

Mirza for the most part reduced his trash talk after this judgment, which begs a serious question in light of the cited Qur’anic judgment at the opening: If Mirza was making death prophecies before, which he claimed were from God, and Mirza was now not making these prophecies, then either his god was delivering revelations in line with the judgment of the British Raj, or Mirza was hiding his god’s revelations.

Which was it?

Myth of Ijma’ on the alleged death of ‘Eisa (AS)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani claimed that the first ever Ijma’ of the Ummah was on the death of ‘Eisa –may Allah bless him. (See Tuhfa Ghaznawiya page 55-61 included in Rohani Khazain volume 15)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s contention:

His contention remains that as Abu Bakr –may Allah be pleased with him- recited the verse 3:144 to make the companions believe that Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- had died, it is an evidence for the death of all the earlier Prophets.

He then quoted (Tuhfa Ghaznawiya p.48, Rohani Khazain vol.15 p.581) a passage from al-Shahristani’s work al-Milal wa al-Nahl to convey that ‘Eisa ibn Maryam –may Allah bless him- has also died.

Continue reading

An Ahmadi Elder’s Cry of Anguish

as-salaamu `alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakaatuh

The brothers and sisters who run this site regularly receive emails from Qadiani Ahmadis, not so many from Lahori Ahmadis. Some of these are private, and some are public. Many are from younger people, but this is from a slightly older person and it makes for devastating reading. It is a response to the MTA3 leaks published by Fuad al-Attar a few days ago, which brought shock waves to the Ahmadiyya.

I had tears in my eyes and the hairs on the back of my neck were raised at the pain this poor man is feeling. Brother “Asad”, I say to you, the Muslim community will welcome you with open arms into Islam. Remember, once you take shahada and renounce Ahmadiyya, your whole life’s slate will be wiped clean! SubhanAllah!

Continue reading

Iqbal on the Idea of Finality of Prophethood

One of greatest Muslim philosophers and ideologues of all times, Dr. Allama Muhammad Iqbal, gave special attention to the idea Finality of Prophethood (Khatam Al-Nubuwwah) and at length wrote about its significance in the House of Islam.

Here are some quotes from him;

“I want rather to fix your gaze on some of the ruling concepts of the culture of Islam in order to gain an insight into the process of ideation that underlies them, and thus to catch a glimpse of the soul that found expression through them. Before, however, I proceed to do so it is necessary to understand the cultural value of a great idea in Islam – I mean the finality of the institution of prophethood…

The birth of Islam, as I hope to be able presently to prove to your satisfaction, is the birth of inductive intellect. In Islam prophecy reaches its perfection in discovering the need of its own abolition. This involves the keen perception that life cannot for ever be kept in leading strings; that, in order to achieve full self-consciousness, man must finally be thrown back on his own resources. The abolition of priesthood and hereditary kingship in Islam, the constant appeal to reason and experience in the Qur’an, and the emphasis that it lays on Nature and History as sources of human knowledge, are all different aspects of the same idea of finality…

The intellectual value of the idea is that it tends to create an independent critical attitude towards mystic experience by generating the belief that all personal authority, claiming a supernatural origin, has come to an end in the history of man. This kind of belief is a psychological force which inhibits the growth of such authority. The function of the idea is to open up fresh vistas of knowledge in the domain of man’s inner experience. Just as the first half of the formula of Islam has created and fostered the spirit of a critical observation of man’s outer experience by divesting the forces of nature of that Divine character with which earlier cultures had clothed them. Mystic experience, then, however unusual and abnormal, must now be regarded by a Muslim as a perfectly natural experience, open to critical scrutiny like other aspects of human experience.”

(The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Lecture V: The Spirit of Muslim Culture)

At another place he further says;

“The cultural value of the idea of Finality in Islam I have fully explained elsewhere. Its meaning is simple: No spiritual surrender to any human being after Muhammad who emancipated his followers by giving them a law which is realizable as arising from the very core of human conscience. Theologically the doctrine is that: The Socio-political organization called “Islam” is perfect and eternal. No revelation the denial of which entails heresy is possible after Muhammad. He who claims such a revelation is a traitor to Islam.

And he does not stop here rather he goes on to answer some of the fundamental arguments of the Ahmadiyya. He says;

“Since the Qadianis believe the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement to be the bearer of such a revelation, they declare that the entire world of Islam is infidel. The founder‘s own argument, quite worthy of a mediaeval theologian, is that the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam must be regarded as imperfect if it is not creative of another Prophet. He claims his own Prophethood to be an evidence of the Prophet-rearing power of the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam. But if you further ask him whether the spirituality of Muhammad is capable of rearing more prophets than one, his answer is “No”. This virtually, amounts to saying: “Muhammad is not the last Prophet; I am the last.” Far from understanding the cultural value of the Islamic idea of finality in the history of mankind generally and of Asia especially, he thinks that finality in the sense that no follower of Muhammad can ever reach the status of Prophethood is a mark of imperfection in Muhammad‘s Prophethood. As I read the psychology of his mind he, in the interest of his own claim to Prophethood, avails himself of what he describes as the creative spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam and at the same time deprives the Holy Prophet of his ‘finality’ by limiting the creative capacity of his spirituality to the rearing of only one prophet, i.e., the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement. In this way does the new prophet quietly steal away the ‘finality’ of one whom he claims to be his spiritual progenitor.

He claims to be a ‘buruz’ of the Holy Prophet of Islam insinuating thereby that, being a ‘buruz‘ of him his ‘finality‘ is virtually the ‘finality‘ of Muhammad; and that this view of the matter, therefore, does not violate the ‘finality‘ of the Holy Prophet. In identifying the two finalities, his own and that of the Holy Prophet, he conveniently loses sight of the temporal meaning of the idea of Finality. It is, however, obvious that the word ‘buruz‘ in the sense even of complete likeness, cannot help him at all; for the ‘buruz‘ must always remain the other of its original. Only in the sense of reincarnation a ‘buruz‘ becomes identical with the original. Thus if we take the word ‘buruz‘ to mean ‘like in spiritual qualities’ the argument remains ineffective; if, on the other hand, we take it to mean reincarnation of the original in the Aryan sense of the word, the argument becomes plausible; but its author turns out to be only a Magian in disguise.”

(Islam and Ahmadism, p.8 pub. Da’wah Academy IIUI, Islamabad)

And it is precisely the same Magian spirit which Iqbal like his great predecessor, Ibn Khaldun, considered to be against the spirit of the Muslim culture. In his lectures he says;

“I have already indicated the direction in which the student of Islam should seek the cultural meaning of the doctrine of finality in Islam. It may further be regarded as a psychological cure for the Magian attitude of constant expectation which tends to give a false view of history. Ibn Khaldun, seeing the spirit of his own view of history, has fully criticized and, I believe, finally demolished the alleged revelational basis in Islam of an idea similar, at least in its psychological effects, to the original Magian idea which had reappeared in Islam under the pressure of Magian thought.”

(The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Lecture V: The Spirit of Muslim Culture)

And the importance and vitality of the same idea of ‘finality’ he beautifully sums up in a single poetic verse;

لا نبی بعدی احسان خداست      پردہ ناموس دین مصطفیٰ است

‘No Prophet after me’ is of God’s grace,

And veil the modest beauty of the Faith!

Yalesh: The god of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

While I was engaged upon the compilation of this book, I received the revelation (Urdu): Yalesh – is the name of God Himself. This is a new word which is not found in this form in the Quran or hadith or in any dictionary. It has been disclosed to me that it connotes ya la shareek (O Thou without an associate).

Tohfa Golarviyya, p.69, footnote

Let’s humour the Qadianis for a while, shall we? Let’s imagine for a moment that this was a real revelation to a real prophet.

  1. Why was this name not revealed to the Last Prophet, Muhammad (saw)?
  2. Since when can an Arabic name be constructed in this way? Especially with the calling tool “ya” being incorporated into the amalgamated resultant mess? The calling tool “ya” simply cannot be used in this way as part of a proper name in Arabic.
  3. Why is the translation so deceptive? After all, “ya la shareek” means quite simply “Oh no associate”. If you wanted to say “Oh Thou without an associate” you would say ““ya man la shareek lahu” in Arabic.
  4. Never mind the nonsense “yalesh” or “yalash” or “yalaash”, why does the expression “ya la shareek” never appear in any Arabic text in history? Could it be because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever?
  5. The names of Allah are part of the Islamic lexicon. No new names would have been revealed after the demise of the Last Prophet Muhammad (saw). This new name is proof that Qadianism is a new religion.

For more, please read brother Fuad’s excellent article.

Peace unto those who follow the guidance.