Protest in New York!
Omar Mirza September 12, 2000
#187 Posted by mithuna on September 25, 2000 11:12:28 am
Re: Omar1974, ylh
I have already stated that I oppose state discrimination based on belief and that whether Ahmedis are Muslims or not should be irrelevant to their rights as citizens. I am only trying to understand the doctrinal differences between Ahmedis and Muslims. This may be slightly off-topic, but please humour me on this one.
Re: fairdinkum #186
You`re right, I`ve based by conclusion only on arguments I have heard. I agree that Quranic Arabic can be pretty figurative and don`t dispute that it lends itself to creative/non-standard interpretation. I have also already stated that I have no doubts that Ahmedis sincerely believe their interpretation.
You state that it is useless to see arguments and counter-arguments. Useless to convince the other party, perhaps. But it is useful for me since my only purpose is to understand the doctrinal differences.
I just meant that, after seeing the presented arguments, I personally find the argument that ``Quran states explicitly that Muhammad is the Last Prophet`` more compelling than the argument that ``The term seal-of-prophets does not mean Last Prophet``. It was a ``for-what-it-is-worth`` type of statement.
My statement ``The `real muslims` don`t think of Nation-of-Islamites as out-of-the-fold (and vice versa, I assume).`` was an unfortunate typo. The double negative did me in. :-( I meant they are thought of as out-of-the-fold but they are not hounded out for their beliefs. And that Ahmedis would, similarly, be happy to be left alone to their beliefs. Thanks for pointing it out.
I did read sattar2`s comments about the two groups. But I checked from the web site of the Lahori group. I found the details from the web-site of the Lahori group at
http://www.aaiil.org/text/qadi/intro/cmprsn.shtml
where they clearly state their doctrinal differences with the ``Qadiani`` group. They explicitly state that they only consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmed to be a reformer only. So I`ll throw this question right back at the forum. Why is the Lahori group considered non-muslim? Why is merely respecting Mirza Ghulam Ahmed as a reformer considered enough to throw them out of the fold?
Maybe one day, on another board, I`ll also understand the doctrinal differences between ``sipah-e-sahaba`` types and Shias.
-Mithuna
I have already stated that I oppose state discrimination based on belief and that whether Ahmedis are Muslims or not should be irrelevant to their rights as citizens. I am only trying to understand the doctrinal differences between Ahmedis and Muslims. This may be slightly off-topic, but please humour me on this one.
Re: fairdinkum #186
You`re right, I`ve based by conclusion only on arguments I have heard. I agree that Quranic Arabic can be pretty figurative and don`t dispute that it lends itself to creative/non-standard interpretation. I have also already stated that I have no doubts that Ahmedis sincerely believe their interpretation.
You state that it is useless to see arguments and counter-arguments. Useless to convince the other party, perhaps. But it is useful for me since my only purpose is to understand the doctrinal differences.
I just meant that, after seeing the presented arguments, I personally find the argument that ``Quran states explicitly that Muhammad is the Last Prophet`` more compelling than the argument that ``The term seal-of-prophets does not mean Last Prophet``. It was a ``for-what-it-is-worth`` type of statement.
My statement ``The `real muslims` don`t think of Nation-of-Islamites as out-of-the-fold (and vice versa, I assume).`` was an unfortunate typo. The double negative did me in. :-( I meant they are thought of as out-of-the-fold but they are not hounded out for their beliefs. And that Ahmedis would, similarly, be happy to be left alone to their beliefs. Thanks for pointing it out.
I did read sattar2`s comments about the two groups. But I checked from the web site of the Lahori group. I found the details from the web-site of the Lahori group at
http://www.aaiil.org/text/qadi/intro/cmprsn.shtml
where they clearly state their doctrinal differences with the ``Qadiani`` group. They explicitly state that they only consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmed to be a reformer only. So I`ll throw this question right back at the forum. Why is the Lahori group considered non-muslim? Why is merely respecting Mirza Ghulam Ahmed as a reformer considered enough to throw them out of the fold?
Maybe one day, on another board, I`ll also understand the doctrinal differences between ``sipah-e-sahaba`` types and Shias.
-Mithuna
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#186 Posted by fairdinkum on September 25, 2000 9:56:17 am
Mithuna #179
``To me as a third party, it does seem that Ahmedis are resorting to creative/non-standard interpretation of Quran to justify their stance.``
Don`t base you conclusion on the argument(s) or example(s) presented by Sattar alone. I don`t think he is qualified to represent his entire community. Nor is urstruly qualified to represent all Muslims.
The difficulty is this:
Quran, like most Semitic scriptures, is written in symbolic language. And I suppose that Bhagvad Gita is also written in symbolic language too?
According to Dr. Shariati:
``This is the finest language accessible to man and it is superior to expository
Language which is lucid and straightforward. An expository language may be more suited and simpler to utilize in instruction, but it is not lasting. Why? Abd-Alrahman Badawi, the contemporary Egyptian philosopher,
states that:
`A school or a religion which expresses all its facts and connotations in direct, clear-cut, and one-dimensional sentences will not last long, since it is addressing diverse individuals from all walks of life. Further, these
people include various strata and classes who vary in thinking, viewpoint, and outlook. And so, a language which is selected for a religion must be multi layered and multi-dimensional so that each generation can decipher one layer and each group can understand one dimension at a time.`
This is why all the literary symbolic works are immortal. Hafiz`s poems are everlasting due to the fact that the more we read them, depending upon our tastes, the more new areas we can infer and discover. But such is not true for the History of Bayhaghi or Golestan of Saadi, their meanings are relatively obvious. We enjoy their dialects, but from a spiritual point of view most of their contents are obsolete. But Hafiz`s words, being multi-dimensional and symbolic allow each one of us, depending on our tastes and mentality, to infer a new meaning and a new outlook from them. And since religions were brought for various types of peoples and generations, it was necessary that they contained symbolic languages. Most of the meanings existing in religions were not clear at the time they emerged. However, since such meanings had to be explained to people, they had to be in plain language so the masses could comprehend them. On the other hand, if the
concepts were plain enough; such religions would contain no new meanings. This is why languages were symbolic so that future generations, relative to their mental and scientific maturity, could discover new meanings and concepts. This is why in European literature symbolism is the finest style. Thus, the story of Adam`s creation was told in symbolic language so that now, after fourteen centuries in the midst of scientific
progress in all areas, it remains worthy of study.`` - Man and Islam by Ali Shariati.
Ok, it is somewhat clear to us why scriptures are written in symbolic languages.
The other side of the coin is that because scriptures are written in symbolic languages they lend themselves for creative/non-standard interpretations.It then becomes very difficult to draw black and white/conclusive results from scriptures to counter any argument based on creative interpretation. And this is why, in my view, such arguments as initiated by Sattar and countered by urstruly seem to go around in circles. You`ll see that satter will produce even more Hadiths, and Quaranic verses (than urstruly) with interpretations favorable to his beliefs.
If the language of Quran was that of science e.g. E=mc2 we wouldn`t have this problem of interpretation would we? But then, it wouldn`t last for centuries. You see the dilemma?
THOMAS A. IDINOPULOS, Professor of Religion at Miami University of Ohio writes:
``In religion, the angels and demons lie so close together that it becomes difficult to tell them apart. There is a fine line between complete madness, fanaticism and greater vision of the ideal for which people like Mohammed, Gautama, and Jesus strove. Indeed, we know of countless human beings who are well adjusted religiously and who are mentally healthy because of their religious convictions and associations. But we also know, as Allport certainly knows, of numerous individuals who suffer their ``dark nights of the soul,`` and never truly experience the dawn of psychic health.``
``The ``dark night of the soul`` is not always creative. It can also be an invitation to madness. Is not madness often intertwined with spirituality? Do not molesters, murderers, mass murderers, and terrorists often invoke some sacred being or meaning as cause of justification for their actions? Why should we doubt their sincerity? Is it not true that the religion which condemns murder also legitimizes it? `` (What is religion?)
mathuna, I wonder how much of this madness, and fanaticism is related to creative interpretations of the symbolic languages of scriptures? Human mind is vulnerable to religion to such an extent that it can justify barbaric laws such as blasphemy laws of Pakistan, because they are based on interpretation of Quran or sayings of Mohammed. It does not matter if they are totally against the spirit of the Islamic movement of Mohammed….
Is not madness to sacrifice the larger ideal, for some narrow-minded interpretation which justify such laws? Is not fanaticism?
The ``real muslims`` don`t think of Nation-of-Islamites as out-of-the-fold (and vice versa, I assume).
Wrong assumption mathuna :)
``I also do not buy the motivation you assign to their actions. You said ``in their endeavor to make a sneaky assault on the religion of God...``. Nobody undergoes that much discrimination (as reported widely) to undermine others. It is out of a sincere belief. You have every right to believe that they`re mislead, but I urge you not to
second-guess their stated sincerity just because you don`t agree with them.``
Well said!
``Why is there such opposition to
the ``Lahori`` group of Ahmedis? They accept that Muhammad was the Last Prophet and oncly claim the status of a ``Reformer`` (Mujaddid, if I remember correctly) for Mirza ghulam Ahmed.``
According to Satter2 that is not he case. Both these groups believe that Mirza sahib was prophet of God Here is his statement from reply #162
``After the death of the Promised Messiah, ``Khilafat`` was started, with the chosen Caliph as the supreme head of the Ahmadiyya community.
Some of the Ahmadis (mainly from the city of Lahore in Pakistan)were at odds with Khilafat and wanted the governing body of the Ahmadiyya community with its president to be the in charge of running the community. This group is referred to as the Lahori group.``
So, the difference, it seems, doesn`t lie in beliefs, but rather in disagreement on administrative structure of the community.
Janjua,
You are on the right track. For more info on Usman, read Khilafat-o-mulookiat, by Maulauna Maudoodi.
Krashid,
Thanks, but I don`t deserve it :)
``To me as a third party, it does seem that Ahmedis are resorting to creative/non-standard interpretation of Quran to justify their stance.``
Don`t base you conclusion on the argument(s) or example(s) presented by Sattar alone. I don`t think he is qualified to represent his entire community. Nor is urstruly qualified to represent all Muslims.
The difficulty is this:
Quran, like most Semitic scriptures, is written in symbolic language. And I suppose that Bhagvad Gita is also written in symbolic language too?
According to Dr. Shariati:
``This is the finest language accessible to man and it is superior to expository
Language which is lucid and straightforward. An expository language may be more suited and simpler to utilize in instruction, but it is not lasting. Why? Abd-Alrahman Badawi, the contemporary Egyptian philosopher,
states that:
`A school or a religion which expresses all its facts and connotations in direct, clear-cut, and one-dimensional sentences will not last long, since it is addressing diverse individuals from all walks of life. Further, these
people include various strata and classes who vary in thinking, viewpoint, and outlook. And so, a language which is selected for a religion must be multi layered and multi-dimensional so that each generation can decipher one layer and each group can understand one dimension at a time.`
This is why all the literary symbolic works are immortal. Hafiz`s poems are everlasting due to the fact that the more we read them, depending upon our tastes, the more new areas we can infer and discover. But such is not true for the History of Bayhaghi or Golestan of Saadi, their meanings are relatively obvious. We enjoy their dialects, but from a spiritual point of view most of their contents are obsolete. But Hafiz`s words, being multi-dimensional and symbolic allow each one of us, depending on our tastes and mentality, to infer a new meaning and a new outlook from them. And since religions were brought for various types of peoples and generations, it was necessary that they contained symbolic languages. Most of the meanings existing in religions were not clear at the time they emerged. However, since such meanings had to be explained to people, they had to be in plain language so the masses could comprehend them. On the other hand, if the
concepts were plain enough; such religions would contain no new meanings. This is why languages were symbolic so that future generations, relative to their mental and scientific maturity, could discover new meanings and concepts. This is why in European literature symbolism is the finest style. Thus, the story of Adam`s creation was told in symbolic language so that now, after fourteen centuries in the midst of scientific
progress in all areas, it remains worthy of study.`` - Man and Islam by Ali Shariati.
Ok, it is somewhat clear to us why scriptures are written in symbolic languages.
The other side of the coin is that because scriptures are written in symbolic languages they lend themselves for creative/non-standard interpretations.It then becomes very difficult to draw black and white/conclusive results from scriptures to counter any argument based on creative interpretation. And this is why, in my view, such arguments as initiated by Sattar and countered by urstruly seem to go around in circles. You`ll see that satter will produce even more Hadiths, and Quaranic verses (than urstruly) with interpretations favorable to his beliefs.
If the language of Quran was that of science e.g. E=mc2 we wouldn`t have this problem of interpretation would we? But then, it wouldn`t last for centuries. You see the dilemma?
THOMAS A. IDINOPULOS, Professor of Religion at Miami University of Ohio writes:
``In religion, the angels and demons lie so close together that it becomes difficult to tell them apart. There is a fine line between complete madness, fanaticism and greater vision of the ideal for which people like Mohammed, Gautama, and Jesus strove. Indeed, we know of countless human beings who are well adjusted religiously and who are mentally healthy because of their religious convictions and associations. But we also know, as Allport certainly knows, of numerous individuals who suffer their ``dark nights of the soul,`` and never truly experience the dawn of psychic health.``
``The ``dark night of the soul`` is not always creative. It can also be an invitation to madness. Is not madness often intertwined with spirituality? Do not molesters, murderers, mass murderers, and terrorists often invoke some sacred being or meaning as cause of justification for their actions? Why should we doubt their sincerity? Is it not true that the religion which condemns murder also legitimizes it? `` (What is religion?)
mathuna, I wonder how much of this madness, and fanaticism is related to creative interpretations of the symbolic languages of scriptures? Human mind is vulnerable to religion to such an extent that it can justify barbaric laws such as blasphemy laws of Pakistan, because they are based on interpretation of Quran or sayings of Mohammed. It does not matter if they are totally against the spirit of the Islamic movement of Mohammed….
Is not madness to sacrifice the larger ideal, for some narrow-minded interpretation which justify such laws? Is not fanaticism?
The ``real muslims`` don`t think of Nation-of-Islamites as out-of-the-fold (and vice versa, I assume).
Wrong assumption mathuna :)
``I also do not buy the motivation you assign to their actions. You said ``in their endeavor to make a sneaky assault on the religion of God...``. Nobody undergoes that much discrimination (as reported widely) to undermine others. It is out of a sincere belief. You have every right to believe that they`re mislead, but I urge you not to
second-guess their stated sincerity just because you don`t agree with them.``
Well said!
``Why is there such opposition to
the ``Lahori`` group of Ahmedis? They accept that Muhammad was the Last Prophet and oncly claim the status of a ``Reformer`` (Mujaddid, if I remember correctly) for Mirza ghulam Ahmed.``
According to Satter2 that is not he case. Both these groups believe that Mirza sahib was prophet of God Here is his statement from reply #162
``After the death of the Promised Messiah, ``Khilafat`` was started, with the chosen Caliph as the supreme head of the Ahmadiyya community.
Some of the Ahmadis (mainly from the city of Lahore in Pakistan)were at odds with Khilafat and wanted the governing body of the Ahmadiyya community with its president to be the in charge of running the community. This group is referred to as the Lahori group.``
So, the difference, it seems, doesn`t lie in beliefs, but rather in disagreement on administrative structure of the community.
Janjua,
You are on the right track. For more info on Usman, read Khilafat-o-mulookiat, by Maulauna Maudoodi.
Krashid,
Thanks, but I don`t deserve it :)
#185 Posted by Urstruly on September 24, 2000 11:22:37 pm
RE: YLH # 182
There is a reason for me writing the posts that you referred to. My reason was to establish the fact that we are discussing two completely different yet inter-related issues here:
1. Are Ahmadi and Muslims one and the same or are they completely different people. Understanding this fact will lead us to understand issue no.2.
2. States interference in religion.
The Blasphemy Law and Qadiani Law are there, and they are being enforced. Millions of people in Pakistan endorse those laws along with other who disagree. Is it possible that people who endorse those laws may have a point (beside being bigots)? Or are they just a bunch of illiterate brainwashed people as author of this article asserts (reverse-stereotype?).
Things would have been very simple if we were able to achieve something that we just wished. In order to fight the beast, in real life, we must understand the nature of the beast first.
There is a reason for me writing the posts that you referred to. My reason was to establish the fact that we are discussing two completely different yet inter-related issues here:
1. Are Ahmadi and Muslims one and the same or are they completely different people. Understanding this fact will lead us to understand issue no.2.
2. States interference in religion.
The Blasphemy Law and Qadiani Law are there, and they are being enforced. Millions of people in Pakistan endorse those laws along with other who disagree. Is it possible that people who endorse those laws may have a point (beside being bigots)? Or are they just a bunch of illiterate brainwashed people as author of this article asserts (reverse-stereotype?).
Things would have been very simple if we were able to achieve something that we just wished. In order to fight the beast, in real life, we must understand the nature of the beast first.
#183 Posted by Zahra on September 24, 2000 11:13:27 pm
Post 132 (I guess)
``.... as a resident Paki Hypocrite, I will gladly give up the vote, the right of equal representation and even the right to walk my dog down broadway if only, oh and if only, they would exempt me from Federal Tax, State Tax, FICA and Medicare Tax and School Tax and Sales Tax and.... and Estate Taxes when I finally leave this horrible world ......... I will pay a 18% Jiziya with a smile on my lips and a song in my heart ...... .............``
Please make sure the parting song does not confuse Gibraa`n(poet) with Gabriel(messenger)or Tina Turner(singer)!
``.... as a resident Paki Hypocrite, I will gladly give up the vote, the right of equal representation and even the right to walk my dog down broadway if only, oh and if only, they would exempt me from Federal Tax, State Tax, FICA and Medicare Tax and School Tax and Sales Tax and.... and Estate Taxes when I finally leave this horrible world ......... I will pay a 18% Jiziya with a smile on my lips and a song in my heart ...... .............``
Please make sure the parting song does not confuse Gibraa`n(poet) with Gabriel(messenger)or Tina Turner(singer)!
#182 Posted by ylh on September 24, 2000 9:39:17 pm
URstruly ..
why are we arguing over Qadianis are kafirs or not.
I personally dont care. I believe that it is upto ALlah to decide what they are and what they are not.
Right?
Yasser
Leave Allah`s business to himself... he is quite capable ....
why are we arguing over Qadianis are kafirs or not.
I personally dont care. I believe that it is upto ALlah to decide what they are and what they are not.
Right?
Yasser
Leave Allah`s business to himself... he is quite capable ....
#181 Posted by OMAR1974 on September 24, 2000 9:39:17 pm
The focus of the discussion seems to have shifted to a back & forth about whether Ahmadis are or are not, in fact `Muslims`.
It doesn`t matter. What matters is whether the state is dicriminating against various groups in Pakistan because of their religious beliefs.
As far as i am concerned Christians and Ahmadis, as well as Hindus are being discriminated against by the state.
Discrimination being defined as being singled out for their religious beliefs for `special` attention, and those religious beliefs being a factor in employment decisions, legal status vis-a-vis the state etc. Can anyone here deny that the Pakistan army for the past 2 decades has had a policy of discrimination in which non-muslims are not allowed career advancement beyond the rank of Brig.General? This is just 1 example.
My point is simple, as was Jinnah`s. It is not the business of the state to inquire into the private religious beliefs of its citizens.
Whatever people`s personal beliefs about Ahmadis being Mulsims, or The `Nation of Islam` people in N.America led by Minister Farakhan being Muslims or not, is not very relevent to this discussion.
The minorities in Pakistan are being denied equal protection of the laws. In fact, the laws unlawfully make them a target for discrimination at the hands of the largely uneducated and jahil religious majority (with few exceptions).
I read that Aug 11, 1947 Speech by Jinnah, again and again, and it makes me angry to think of what Pakistan could have been, and the progress it could have made if it had followed M.A Jinnah`s ideals, and where it is today because it did not. The path Pakistan has travelled in the past 52 years makes me sad. And that i should accept all this rubbish that has gone on, and moreover keep silent about it, is an even more ridiculous proposition.
OMAR MIRZA
It doesn`t matter. What matters is whether the state is dicriminating against various groups in Pakistan because of their religious beliefs.
As far as i am concerned Christians and Ahmadis, as well as Hindus are being discriminated against by the state.
Discrimination being defined as being singled out for their religious beliefs for `special` attention, and those religious beliefs being a factor in employment decisions, legal status vis-a-vis the state etc. Can anyone here deny that the Pakistan army for the past 2 decades has had a policy of discrimination in which non-muslims are not allowed career advancement beyond the rank of Brig.General? This is just 1 example.
My point is simple, as was Jinnah`s. It is not the business of the state to inquire into the private religious beliefs of its citizens.
Whatever people`s personal beliefs about Ahmadis being Mulsims, or The `Nation of Islam` people in N.America led by Minister Farakhan being Muslims or not, is not very relevent to this discussion.
The minorities in Pakistan are being denied equal protection of the laws. In fact, the laws unlawfully make them a target for discrimination at the hands of the largely uneducated and jahil religious majority (with few exceptions).
I read that Aug 11, 1947 Speech by Jinnah, again and again, and it makes me angry to think of what Pakistan could have been, and the progress it could have made if it had followed M.A Jinnah`s ideals, and where it is today because it did not. The path Pakistan has travelled in the past 52 years makes me sad. And that i should accept all this rubbish that has gone on, and moreover keep silent about it, is an even more ridiculous proposition.
OMAR MIRZA
#180 Posted by rajanjua on September 24, 2000 9:39:17 pm
Sorry for all the typos in the last post. The dates for al-Tabari should read (839-923) instead of (893-923).
#179 Posted by mithuna on September 24, 2000 9:39:17 pm
Re Urstruly
Thanks for the response. To me as a third party, it does seem that Ahmedis are resorting to creative/non-standard interpretation of Quran to justify their stance. This does not mean that I condone the discrimination against them at all. I believe they should be free to make such interpretations and the state has no business opposing it. I think Ahmedis would be happy to enjoy in Pakistan a status similar to ``Nation of Islam`` in America. The ``real muslims`` don`t think of Nation-of-Islamites as out-of-the-fold (and vice versa, I assume). But that doesn`t mean that they are treated differently by the state. (Muslims who believe their religion is being mis-represented have a right as private citizens to publicise their case.)
I also do not buy the motivation you assign to their actions. You said ``in their endeavor to make a sneaky assault on the religion of God...``. Nobody undergoes that much discrimination (as reported widely) to undermine others. It is out of a sincere belief. You have every right to believe that they`re mislead, but I urge you not to second-guess their stated sincerity just because you don`t agree with them.
Finally, I have another question. Why is there such opposition to the ``Lahori`` group of Ahmedis? They accept that Muhammad was the Last Prophet and oncly claim the status of a ``Reformer`` (Mujaddid, if I remember correctly) for Mirza ghulam Ahmed.
-Mithuna
Thanks for the response. To me as a third party, it does seem that Ahmedis are resorting to creative/non-standard interpretation of Quran to justify their stance. This does not mean that I condone the discrimination against them at all. I believe they should be free to make such interpretations and the state has no business opposing it. I think Ahmedis would be happy to enjoy in Pakistan a status similar to ``Nation of Islam`` in America. The ``real muslims`` don`t think of Nation-of-Islamites as out-of-the-fold (and vice versa, I assume). But that doesn`t mean that they are treated differently by the state. (Muslims who believe their religion is being mis-represented have a right as private citizens to publicise their case.)
I also do not buy the motivation you assign to their actions. You said ``in their endeavor to make a sneaky assault on the religion of God...``. Nobody undergoes that much discrimination (as reported widely) to undermine others. It is out of a sincere belief. You have every right to believe that they`re mislead, but I urge you not to second-guess their stated sincerity just because you don`t agree with them.
Finally, I have another question. Why is there such opposition to the ``Lahori`` group of Ahmedis? They accept that Muhammad was the Last Prophet and oncly claim the status of a ``Reformer`` (Mujaddid, if I remember correctly) for Mirza ghulam Ahmed.
-Mithuna
#178 Posted by rajanjua on September 24, 2000 9:39:17 pm
Re: krashid
P.S. You don`t have to defend Abu-Bakr & Umar for me. They don`t need your defense & I am a Sunni :-).
P.S. You don`t have to defend Abu-Bakr & Umar for me. They don`t need your defense & I am a Sunni :-).
#177 Posted by rajanjua on September 24, 2000 9:39:17 pm
Re: krashid
``When Hazrat Usman was martyred, Ali RZAH transferred his capital from Medina to Kufa for political reasons. And for the same political reasons Amir Muawiya captured Syria. It is a long list.
It was all political struggle and nothing more.
Why would Ayesha RZAH, with Az-Zubair fight Ali RZAH.``
Usman was brutally murdered by Egyptian & Iraqi rebels. They had accused him of nepotism & gross mismanagement. Muawiyah did`nt capture Syria he was the governor of Syria (appointed by Usman). When Usman was murdered there was a complete state of chaos in Medina. The rebels, ansar & muhajirun approached Ali to become caliph. He refused. They then approached Zubair al-Awam who also refused. Talhah another of the great sahaba was also approached but he also refused saying that the man most qualified was Ali. Ali finally accepted after a lot of persuation. Zubair al-Awam and Talhah did `bayt` but latter left for Mecca and when reaching Mecca said they had accepted Ali as caliph under the threat of sword. The battle-cry in Mecca became to avenge the blood of Usman ibn Affan. They marched to Basrah. As all of this was happening Ali was appointing/confirming appointment of his governors. Muawyiah was the only one who refused. Around this time Ali heard of Ayesha`s march to Basrah. At Basrah the Battle of Camel took place. A very tragic event indeed. Both Zubair al-Awam and Talhah were killed in this battle.
After the battle, according to al-Sari (in writing) Ali came to her (i.e., Ayesha) and exclaimed:`O Mother! May Allah forgive us and you!`` ``May He forgive us and you!`` she replied. Both sides felt the remorse at what had happened. This was the first `fitnah`-something the Prophet had warned them about. Ayesha then made peace with Ali and left for Mecca. The exact number of casualties at the Battle of Camel is ofcourse not known but very high (in thousands) according to al-Tabari. With Iraq now under his control, Ali again sent messages to Muawiyah for truce which were ignored. Muawiyah the conniving fella that he was, was busy trying to secure his flank in Egypt. The governor of Egypt refused and remained loyal to Ali. The only ally (amongst the notable sahaba) at this time Muawiyah had was Amr bin Al-As. The stage was now set for the Battle at Siffin. The only person who refused at this time the call of unity and peace by Ali was Muawyiah.
Source:
The History of al-Tabari (Ta`rikh al-rusul wa`l-muluk)-Volumes 16 & 17.
-----
You are right to say that it was a political struggle. Muawiyah`s family had been the leading family of Mecca and Arabia during the time of Jahilyah. Abu Safyan (Muawiyah`s father) was more interested in money and power than anything else-His biggest fear of Islam was not that it threatened his pagan faith-He was more concerned at what will happen if the rest of the Arabia chose some other city for pilgrimage-The Meccans then would lose their source of revenue. The fact that Rasool-Allah gave protection to people in Abu Safyan`s house at the conquest of Mecca speaks of the greatness of the Prophet and Prophet`s merciful and forgiving nature. Abu Safyan sure has hell had not done anything for him or Islam at that time. Abu Sufyan`s wife (Muawiyah`s mother) was Hinda who was a bitter enemy of Muhammad and Islam. She hired an assasin to kill Hamza at Uhad and mutilated his dead body. Hinda also never forgave Ali for killing her brother Walid at Badr. The family of Abu Safyan might have converted to Islam but they did`nt like the idea of all the power taken away from them. Muawiyah`s rebellion was an attempt to grab the power back in his hand and in the process he thought little of the damage he was doing/did to Islam. The decline of Islam starts here and not with Helagu Khan demolishing Baghdad.
------
Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari (893-923) is one of the earliest sources of Islamic History. By general consent he is considered as one of the most thorough and neutral source of Islamic history. He has left nothing out and does`nt give his opinion-just relates the events. The English translation his work has been published (in 39 volumes) by SUNY.
-------
I have narrated only a summary of events, according to al-Tabari. But as you read the text you feel that the people who took part in the Battle of Jamal fully realised the gravity of the situation. And things were not as black-and-white for them as they are for our Ulemas today.
``When Hazrat Usman was martyred, Ali RZAH transferred his capital from Medina to Kufa for political reasons. And for the same political reasons Amir Muawiya captured Syria. It is a long list.
It was all political struggle and nothing more.
Why would Ayesha RZAH, with Az-Zubair fight Ali RZAH.``
Usman was brutally murdered by Egyptian & Iraqi rebels. They had accused him of nepotism & gross mismanagement. Muawiyah did`nt capture Syria he was the governor of Syria (appointed by Usman). When Usman was murdered there was a complete state of chaos in Medina. The rebels, ansar & muhajirun approached Ali to become caliph. He refused. They then approached Zubair al-Awam who also refused. Talhah another of the great sahaba was also approached but he also refused saying that the man most qualified was Ali. Ali finally accepted after a lot of persuation. Zubair al-Awam and Talhah did `bayt` but latter left for Mecca and when reaching Mecca said they had accepted Ali as caliph under the threat of sword. The battle-cry in Mecca became to avenge the blood of Usman ibn Affan. They marched to Basrah. As all of this was happening Ali was appointing/confirming appointment of his governors. Muawyiah was the only one who refused. Around this time Ali heard of Ayesha`s march to Basrah. At Basrah the Battle of Camel took place. A very tragic event indeed. Both Zubair al-Awam and Talhah were killed in this battle.
After the battle, according to al-Sari (in writing) Ali came to her (i.e., Ayesha) and exclaimed:`O Mother! May Allah forgive us and you!`` ``May He forgive us and you!`` she replied. Both sides felt the remorse at what had happened. This was the first `fitnah`-something the Prophet had warned them about. Ayesha then made peace with Ali and left for Mecca. The exact number of casualties at the Battle of Camel is ofcourse not known but very high (in thousands) according to al-Tabari. With Iraq now under his control, Ali again sent messages to Muawiyah for truce which were ignored. Muawiyah the conniving fella that he was, was busy trying to secure his flank in Egypt. The governor of Egypt refused and remained loyal to Ali. The only ally (amongst the notable sahaba) at this time Muawiyah had was Amr bin Al-As. The stage was now set for the Battle at Siffin. The only person who refused at this time the call of unity and peace by Ali was Muawyiah.
Source:
The History of al-Tabari (Ta`rikh al-rusul wa`l-muluk)-Volumes 16 & 17.
-----
You are right to say that it was a political struggle. Muawiyah`s family had been the leading family of Mecca and Arabia during the time of Jahilyah. Abu Safyan (Muawiyah`s father) was more interested in money and power than anything else-His biggest fear of Islam was not that it threatened his pagan faith-He was more concerned at what will happen if the rest of the Arabia chose some other city for pilgrimage-The Meccans then would lose their source of revenue. The fact that Rasool-Allah gave protection to people in Abu Safyan`s house at the conquest of Mecca speaks of the greatness of the Prophet and Prophet`s merciful and forgiving nature. Abu Safyan sure has hell had not done anything for him or Islam at that time. Abu Sufyan`s wife (Muawiyah`s mother) was Hinda who was a bitter enemy of Muhammad and Islam. She hired an assasin to kill Hamza at Uhad and mutilated his dead body. Hinda also never forgave Ali for killing her brother Walid at Badr. The family of Abu Safyan might have converted to Islam but they did`nt like the idea of all the power taken away from them. Muawiyah`s rebellion was an attempt to grab the power back in his hand and in the process he thought little of the damage he was doing/did to Islam. The decline of Islam starts here and not with Helagu Khan demolishing Baghdad.
------
Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari (893-923) is one of the earliest sources of Islamic History. By general consent he is considered as one of the most thorough and neutral source of Islamic history. He has left nothing out and does`nt give his opinion-just relates the events. The English translation his work has been published (in 39 volumes) by SUNY.
-------
I have narrated only a summary of events, according to al-Tabari. But as you read the text you feel that the people who took part in the Battle of Jamal fully realised the gravity of the situation. And things were not as black-and-white for them as they are for our Ulemas today.
#176 Posted by Urstruly on September 24, 2000 1:22:38 pm
The Observations (Hadith) of the Holy Prophet(PBUH) About the Finality of Prophethood
Though Verse 40 of Surah Al-Ahzab (33) as quoted in the earlier post leaves no room for further discussion yet the question is who else besides the Holy Prophet (PBUH), to whom the Qur`an was revealed, is better qualified to comprehend its meaning and to explain its contents to us? And he who advances an alternative explanation, shall we regard his claims as worthy of our consideration let alone our acquiescence?
The meaning of the word Khatam that emerges out of the context of the Holy Qur`an and which is the same as given in all lexicons of the Arabic language is also affirmed by the observations (Hadith) of the Holy Prophet(peace and blessings be upon him).
The following quotes are taken from the Sehah–e-Sitta i.e. six most authentic books of Hadith:
· The Holy Prophet (PBUH) observed: ``The tribe of Israel was guided by prophets. When a prophet passed away, another prophet succeeded him. But no prophet will come after me; only caliphs will succeed me.`` (Bukhari, Kitab-ul-Manaqib).
· The Prophet of God (PBUH) affirmed: ``My position in relation to the prophets who came before me can be explained by the following example:
A man erected a building and adorned this edifice with great beauty, but he left an empty niche, in the corner where just one brick was missing. People looked around the building and marvelled at its beauty, but wondered why a brick was missing from that niche? I am like unto that one missing brick and I am the last in the line of the Prophets.`` (Bukhari, Kitab-ul-Manaqib).
(In other words, with the advent of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) the edifice of Prophethood has been completed and there is no empty niche in this edifice to provide room for another prophet.)
Four traditions relating to this subject are recorded, in Muslim, Kitab-ul-Fada`il, Babu Khatimin-Nabiyyin. The latter tradition contains the following additional sentence. ``So I came and in me the line of Prophets has ended.``
The very same tradition in similar words has been reported in Tirmidhi, Kitab-ul-Manaqib, Bab-Fadlin Nabi and Kitab-Adab, Bab-ul-Amthal. In Musnad Abu Dawud Tayalisi this tradition has been incorporated among other traditions reported by Jabir bin Abdullah; and its last sentence reads, ``It is in me that line of Prophets came to its final end.``
Musnad Ahmad contains traditions reported by Hadrat Ubayyi bin Ka`b, Hadrat Abu Sa`id Khudri and Hadrat Abu Huraira(may Allah be pleased with them) on the same subject with a slight variation of words here and there.
· The Holy Prophet (PBUH) observed: ``God has bestowed upon me six favors which the former Prophets did not enjoy:
- I have been endowed with the gift of pithy and perfect speech.
- I was granted victory owing to my awe.
- The spoils of war were made lawful unto me.
- The whole earth has been made the place of worship for me and it has become the means of purification for me also. In other words in my religion, offering of prayers is not confined to certain specified places of worship. Prayers can be offered at any place over the earth. And in case water is not available it is lawful for my people to perform ablutions with earth(Tayammum) and to cleanse themselves with the soil if water for bathing is scarce.
- I have been sent by Allah to carry His Divine message to the whole world.
- And the line of prophets has come to its final end in me.
(Muslim, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah)
. The Prophet of Allah (PBUH) affirmed: ``The chain of Messengers and Prophets has come to an end. There shall be no Messenger nor Prophet after me.`` (Tirmidhi, Kitab-ur-Rouya Babu Zahab-un- Nubuwwa, Musnad Ahmad, Marwiyat-Anas bin Malik)
· The Holy Prophet (PBUH) observed: ``I am Muhammad, I am Ahmad, I am the effacer and infidelity shall be erased through me; I am the assembler. People shall be assembled on Doomsday after my time. (In other words Doom is my only successor.) And I am the last in the sense that no prophet shall succeed me.`` (Bukhari and Muslim, Kitab-ul-Fada`il, Bab: Asmaun-Nabi; Tirmidhi, Kitab-ul- Adab, Bab: Asma-un-Nabi; Muatta`, Kitab-u-Asma in-Nabi, Al- Mustadrak Hakim, Kitab-ut-Tarikh, Bab: Asma-un-Nabi.)
· The Prophet of God (PBUH) observed: ``God Almighty hath sent unto the world no apostle who did not warn his people about the appearance of Dajjal( Anti-Christ, but Dajjal did not appear in their time). I am the last in the line of Prophets and ye are the last community of believers. Without doubt,then, Dajjal shall appear from amongst ye``. (Ibn Majah, Kitabul-fitan, bab:Dajjal).
· `Abdur Rahman bin Jubair reported: ``I heard Abdullah bin `Amr ibn-`As narrating that one day the Holy Prophet (PBUH) came out of his house and joined our company. His manner gave us the impression as if he were leaving us.` He said, `I am Muhammad, the unlettered prophet of Allah` and repeated this statement three times. Then he affirmed: ``There will be no prophet after me`.``(Musnad Ahmad, Marwiyat`Abdullah bin Amr ibn`-As.)
· The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: ``Allah will send no Apostle after me, but only Mubashshirat. It was said: what is meant by al-Mubashshirat. He said : Good vision or pious vision``. (Musnad Ahmad, Marwiyat Abu Tufail, Nasa`i, Abu Dawud) (In other words there is no possibility of Divine revelation in future. At the most if some one receives an inspiration from Allah he will receive it in the form of ``pious dream.``
· The Holy Prophet (PBUH) said: ``If an Apostle were to succeed me, it would have been `Umar bin Khattab.`` (Tirmidhi,Kitab-ul- Manaqib)
· The Holy Prophet (PBUH) told Hadrat `Ali, ``You are related to me as Aaron was related to Moses(peace be upon him). But no Apostle will come after me.`` (Bukhari and Muslim, Kitab Fada`il as-Sahaba)
This tradition is recorded in Bukhari and Muslim in the account of the Battle of Tabuk also. Musnad records two traditions narrated by Hadrat Sa`d bin Abi Waqqas ( may Allah be pleased with him) on this subject. The last sentence in one of these traditions runs as follows : ``Behold there is no prophethood after me.``
Detailed accounts of the traditions incorporated in Abu Dawud Tayalisi, Imam Ahmad and Muhammad bin Ishaque report that on the eve of his departure for the battle of Tabuk, the holy Prophet (PBUH) had resolved to leave Hadrat `Ali behind him in order to look after the defense and supervise the affairs of Medina. The hypocrites thereupon began to spread insinuations and rumours about Hadrat `Ali. Hadrat `Ali went to the Prophet and submitted : `O Prophet of Allah, are you leaving me behind among women and children?` On this occasion in order to set his mind at peace the Holy Prophet (PBUH) observed: ``You are related to me as was Aaron with Moses.`` In other words ``as Hadrat Moses on the Mount Tur had left Hadrat Aaron behind to look after the tribe of Israel, so I (Muhammad) leave you behind to look after the defense of Medina.`` At the same time apprehending that this comparative allusion to Hadrat Aaron might later on give rise to heresies, the holy Prophet (PBUH) immediately made it clear that ``There will be no Prophet after me.``
. Thauban reports: ``The Holy Prophet (PBUH) observed: And there will arise Thirty imposters in my Ummah and each one of them will pronounce to the world that he is a prophet, but I am the last in the line of the Prophets of God and no Apostle will come after me.`` (Abu Dawud, Kitab-ul-Fitan)
Abu Dawud in `Kitab-ul-Malahim` has recorded another tradition reported by Abu Huraira in the same subject. Tirmidhi has also recorded these two traditions as reported by Hadrat Thauban and Hadrat Abu Huraira. The text of the second tradition runs thus: ``It will come to this that thirty imposters will arise and each one of them will put forth his claim to be the Apostle of God.``
· The Holy Prophet (PBUH) observed: ``Among the tribe of Israel who went before you there indeed were such people who held communion with God, even though they were not his Prophets. If ever there arose a person from among my people who would hold communion with God, it would be none else but `Umar (May Allah be pleased with him).`` (Bukhari, Kitab-ul-Manaqib)
A version of this same tradition in `Muslim` contains Muhaddithuna instead of Yukallimuna. But then Mukalima and Muhaddith bear identical meaning i.e., a man enjoys the privilege of holding direct communion with God or a person who is addressed by the Almighty from the unseen. Thus we conclude that if there had been any person among the followers of Muhammad who could hold communion with God without being raised to the dignity of prophethood, it would have been `Umar.
· The Prophet of God (PBUH) said: ``No Prophet will come after me and there will, therefore, be no other community of followers of any new prophet.`` (Baihaqi,Kitab-ul Rouya; Tabarani)
· The Holy Prophet (PBUH) observed: ``I am the last in line of the prophets of God and my Masjid is the last Masjid (referring the holy Masjid of the Prophet).`` (see footnote 3) (Muslim, Kitab-ul-Hajj; Bab:Fadl-us-Salat bi Masjidi Mecca wal Medina)
A large number of such traditions of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) have been reported by the companions and a great many compilers have recorded them from authoritative sources. A study of these traditions shows that the Holy Prophet on several occasions, and in various ways and in different words made it explicitly clear that he was the last Prophet of God; That no prophet would follow him and that the line of prophets had ended in him. Furthermore, those would claim to be Prophets and Messengers of God after his time would be imposters and liars. (see footnote 4).
There can be no authentic, creditable and conclusive interpretation of the words of the Holy Qur`an, Khatam-un- Nabiyyin, than that given by the Holy Prophet (PBUH) for the credentials of the Holy prophet (PBUH) need no proof and the authority of his words is unassailable. His words are authentic and a proof in itself. When the Prophet is explaining a Nass of the Holy Quran, his explanation is the most authentic and a proof positive.
Though Verse 40 of Surah Al-Ahzab (33) as quoted in the earlier post leaves no room for further discussion yet the question is who else besides the Holy Prophet (PBUH), to whom the Qur`an was revealed, is better qualified to comprehend its meaning and to explain its contents to us? And he who advances an alternative explanation, shall we regard his claims as worthy of our consideration let alone our acquiescence?
The meaning of the word Khatam that emerges out of the context of the Holy Qur`an and which is the same as given in all lexicons of the Arabic language is also affirmed by the observations (Hadith) of the Holy Prophet(peace and blessings be upon him).
The following quotes are taken from the Sehah–e-Sitta i.e. six most authentic books of Hadith:
· The Holy Prophet (PBUH) observed: ``The tribe of Israel was guided by prophets. When a prophet passed away, another prophet succeeded him. But no prophet will come after me; only caliphs will succeed me.`` (Bukhari, Kitab-ul-Manaqib).
· The Prophet of God (PBUH) affirmed: ``My position in relation to the prophets who came before me can be explained by the following example:
A man erected a building and adorned this edifice with great beauty, but he left an empty niche, in the corner where just one brick was missing. People looked around the building and marvelled at its beauty, but wondered why a brick was missing from that niche? I am like unto that one missing brick and I am the last in the line of the Prophets.`` (Bukhari, Kitab-ul-Manaqib).
(In other words, with the advent of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) the edifice of Prophethood has been completed and there is no empty niche in this edifice to provide room for another prophet.)
Four traditions relating to this subject are recorded, in Muslim, Kitab-ul-Fada`il, Babu Khatimin-Nabiyyin. The latter tradition contains the following additional sentence. ``So I came and in me the line of Prophets has ended.``
The very same tradition in similar words has been reported in Tirmidhi, Kitab-ul-Manaqib, Bab-Fadlin Nabi and Kitab-Adab, Bab-ul-Amthal. In Musnad Abu Dawud Tayalisi this tradition has been incorporated among other traditions reported by Jabir bin Abdullah; and its last sentence reads, ``It is in me that line of Prophets came to its final end.``
Musnad Ahmad contains traditions reported by Hadrat Ubayyi bin Ka`b, Hadrat Abu Sa`id Khudri and Hadrat Abu Huraira(may Allah be pleased with them) on the same subject with a slight variation of words here and there.
· The Holy Prophet (PBUH) observed: ``God has bestowed upon me six favors which the former Prophets did not enjoy:
- I have been endowed with the gift of pithy and perfect speech.
- I was granted victory owing to my awe.
- The spoils of war were made lawful unto me.
- The whole earth has been made the place of worship for me and it has become the means of purification for me also. In other words in my religion, offering of prayers is not confined to certain specified places of worship. Prayers can be offered at any place over the earth. And in case water is not available it is lawful for my people to perform ablutions with earth(Tayammum) and to cleanse themselves with the soil if water for bathing is scarce.
- I have been sent by Allah to carry His Divine message to the whole world.
- And the line of prophets has come to its final end in me.
(Muslim, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah)
. The Prophet of Allah (PBUH) affirmed: ``The chain of Messengers and Prophets has come to an end. There shall be no Messenger nor Prophet after me.`` (Tirmidhi, Kitab-ur-Rouya Babu Zahab-un- Nubuwwa, Musnad Ahmad, Marwiyat-Anas bin Malik)
· The Holy Prophet (PBUH) observed: ``I am Muhammad, I am Ahmad, I am the effacer and infidelity shall be erased through me; I am the assembler. People shall be assembled on Doomsday after my time. (In other words Doom is my only successor.) And I am the last in the sense that no prophet shall succeed me.`` (Bukhari and Muslim, Kitab-ul-Fada`il, Bab: Asmaun-Nabi; Tirmidhi, Kitab-ul- Adab, Bab: Asma-un-Nabi; Muatta`, Kitab-u-Asma in-Nabi, Al- Mustadrak Hakim, Kitab-ut-Tarikh, Bab: Asma-un-Nabi.)
· The Prophet of God (PBUH) observed: ``God Almighty hath sent unto the world no apostle who did not warn his people about the appearance of Dajjal( Anti-Christ, but Dajjal did not appear in their time). I am the last in the line of Prophets and ye are the last community of believers. Without doubt,then, Dajjal shall appear from amongst ye``. (Ibn Majah, Kitabul-fitan, bab:Dajjal).
· `Abdur Rahman bin Jubair reported: ``I heard Abdullah bin `Amr ibn-`As narrating that one day the Holy Prophet (PBUH) came out of his house and joined our company. His manner gave us the impression as if he were leaving us.` He said, `I am Muhammad, the unlettered prophet of Allah` and repeated this statement three times. Then he affirmed: ``There will be no prophet after me`.``(Musnad Ahmad, Marwiyat`Abdullah bin Amr ibn`-As.)
· The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: ``Allah will send no Apostle after me, but only Mubashshirat. It was said: what is meant by al-Mubashshirat. He said : Good vision or pious vision``. (Musnad Ahmad, Marwiyat Abu Tufail, Nasa`i, Abu Dawud) (In other words there is no possibility of Divine revelation in future. At the most if some one receives an inspiration from Allah he will receive it in the form of ``pious dream.``
· The Holy Prophet (PBUH) said: ``If an Apostle were to succeed me, it would have been `Umar bin Khattab.`` (Tirmidhi,Kitab-ul- Manaqib)
· The Holy Prophet (PBUH) told Hadrat `Ali, ``You are related to me as Aaron was related to Moses(peace be upon him). But no Apostle will come after me.`` (Bukhari and Muslim, Kitab Fada`il as-Sahaba)
This tradition is recorded in Bukhari and Muslim in the account of the Battle of Tabuk also. Musnad records two traditions narrated by Hadrat Sa`d bin Abi Waqqas ( may Allah be pleased with him) on this subject. The last sentence in one of these traditions runs as follows : ``Behold there is no prophethood after me.``
Detailed accounts of the traditions incorporated in Abu Dawud Tayalisi, Imam Ahmad and Muhammad bin Ishaque report that on the eve of his departure for the battle of Tabuk, the holy Prophet (PBUH) had resolved to leave Hadrat `Ali behind him in order to look after the defense and supervise the affairs of Medina. The hypocrites thereupon began to spread insinuations and rumours about Hadrat `Ali. Hadrat `Ali went to the Prophet and submitted : `O Prophet of Allah, are you leaving me behind among women and children?` On this occasion in order to set his mind at peace the Holy Prophet (PBUH) observed: ``You are related to me as was Aaron with Moses.`` In other words ``as Hadrat Moses on the Mount Tur had left Hadrat Aaron behind to look after the tribe of Israel, so I (Muhammad) leave you behind to look after the defense of Medina.`` At the same time apprehending that this comparative allusion to Hadrat Aaron might later on give rise to heresies, the holy Prophet (PBUH) immediately made it clear that ``There will be no Prophet after me.``
. Thauban reports: ``The Holy Prophet (PBUH) observed: And there will arise Thirty imposters in my Ummah and each one of them will pronounce to the world that he is a prophet, but I am the last in the line of the Prophets of God and no Apostle will come after me.`` (Abu Dawud, Kitab-ul-Fitan)
Abu Dawud in `Kitab-ul-Malahim` has recorded another tradition reported by Abu Huraira in the same subject. Tirmidhi has also recorded these two traditions as reported by Hadrat Thauban and Hadrat Abu Huraira. The text of the second tradition runs thus: ``It will come to this that thirty imposters will arise and each one of them will put forth his claim to be the Apostle of God.``
· The Holy Prophet (PBUH) observed: ``Among the tribe of Israel who went before you there indeed were such people who held communion with God, even though they were not his Prophets. If ever there arose a person from among my people who would hold communion with God, it would be none else but `Umar (May Allah be pleased with him).`` (Bukhari, Kitab-ul-Manaqib)
A version of this same tradition in `Muslim` contains Muhaddithuna instead of Yukallimuna. But then Mukalima and Muhaddith bear identical meaning i.e., a man enjoys the privilege of holding direct communion with God or a person who is addressed by the Almighty from the unseen. Thus we conclude that if there had been any person among the followers of Muhammad who could hold communion with God without being raised to the dignity of prophethood, it would have been `Umar.
· The Prophet of God (PBUH) said: ``No Prophet will come after me and there will, therefore, be no other community of followers of any new prophet.`` (Baihaqi,Kitab-ul Rouya; Tabarani)
· The Holy Prophet (PBUH) observed: ``I am the last in line of the prophets of God and my Masjid is the last Masjid (referring the holy Masjid of the Prophet).`` (see footnote 3) (Muslim, Kitab-ul-Hajj; Bab:Fadl-us-Salat bi Masjidi Mecca wal Medina)
A large number of such traditions of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) have been reported by the companions and a great many compilers have recorded them from authoritative sources. A study of these traditions shows that the Holy Prophet on several occasions, and in various ways and in different words made it explicitly clear that he was the last Prophet of God; That no prophet would follow him and that the line of prophets had ended in him. Furthermore, those would claim to be Prophets and Messengers of God after his time would be imposters and liars. (see footnote 4).
There can be no authentic, creditable and conclusive interpretation of the words of the Holy Qur`an, Khatam-un- Nabiyyin, than that given by the Holy Prophet (PBUH) for the credentials of the Holy prophet (PBUH) need no proof and the authority of his words is unassailable. His words are authentic and a proof in itself. When the Prophet is explaining a Nass of the Holy Quran, his explanation is the most authentic and a proof positive.
#175 Posted by Urstruly on September 24, 2000 12:57:47 pm
RE: Mithuna # 163
A. Sattar
The Finality of Prophet i.e Khatmay-Nabuwat in Quran
Verse 40 of Surah Al-Ahzab (33) points out this concept in the Holy Quran.
Two translations of this Ayah follow:
O people! Muhammad has no sons among ye men, but verily, he is the Apostle of God and the last in the line of Prophets. And God is Aware of everything.
Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.
(The Holy Quran, Al-Ahzab 33:40)
{In an attempt to give their claim an appearance of validity, the Qadiani leadership has shamelessly tampered with the meaning of the Holy Quran and is advancing forged and questionable hadith attributed to the Prophet Muhammad(SAW). Although this hypocrisy may misguide a few uninformed individuals, every moderately knowledgeable Muslim can readily see the fallacies of Qadianis rejecting the Finality of Prophethood, belying the signs and Mission of the promised Mehdi and Messiah(pbut), opposing Jihad against oppressors, calling Muslims kafirs, and trying to set up a new holy land to divide and weaken the Muslims.
Indeed, anyone with a working knowledge of the Arabic language or the foresight of heeding the instructions of the Holy Quran can readily see that Qadiani leaders are merely playing with the translation of the holy text in an attempt to guide naive people astray.}
Qadianis dispute the meaning of the term Kahtam al Nabiyyin in the above quoted verse. Following is an excerpt from Syed Abou-al-aala Moudoudis attempt to explain the meaning of the term:
The Dictionary Meaning of the Word `Khatam-al-Nabiyyin`
It is evident that the text can bear one meaning and it is that Khatam-al-Nabiyyin stands for the Finality of Prophethood with a clear implication that the prophethood has been culminated and finalized in Muhammad (PBUH). It is not only the context that supports this interpretation but also the lexicography.
According to Arabic lexicon and the linguistic usage Khatam means to affix seal; to close, to come to an end; and to carry something to its ultimate end.
Khatama al-`Amala is equivalent to `Faragha min al-`Almali` which means `to get over with the task.` `Khatama al-Ina` bears the meaning `The vessel has been closed and sealed so that nothing can go into it, nor can its contents spill out.`
`Khatam-al-kitab` conveys the meaning `The letter has been enclosed and sealed so that it is finally secured.`
`Khatama-`Ala-al-Qalb` means `The heart has been sealed so that it cannot perceive anything new nor can it forswear what it has already imbibed.`
`Khitamu-Kulli-Mashrubin` implies `the final taste that is left in the mouth when the drink is over.`
Katimatu Kulli Shaiinn `Aqibatuhu wa Akhiratuhu means ``The end in the case of everything denotes its doom and ultimate finish.`` Khatm-ul-Shaii Balagha Akhirahu conveys the sense, ``To end a thing means to carry it to its ultimate limit.``
The term Khatam-i-Qur`an is used in the similar sense and the closing verses of Qur`anic Surahs are referred to as Khawatim. Khatim-ul-Qaum Akhirhuum means ``The last man in the tribe.`` (Refer to Lisan-ul-`Arab; Qamus and Aqrab-ul- Muwarid). (see footnote 2, below.)
For this reason all linguists and commentators agree that Khatam-ul-Nabiyyin means `The Last in the line of Prophets.` The word Khatam in its dictionary meaning and linguistic usage does not refer to the post office stamp which is affixed on the outgoing mail. Its literal meaning is the `seal` which is but on the envelope to secure its contents.
________________
footnote 2.
We have referred to three lexicons here, yet the elucidation of this point is not confined to these works alone. All authoritative dictionaries of the Arabic language interpret the word Khatam in the sense that we have given to it. But the deniers of the Finality of Prophethood in their endeavor to make a sneaky assault on the religion of God argue that if we refer to someone as `Last of the Poets` or `Last of the Legists` or `Last of the Commentators`, we do not necessarily mean that no poet, legist or commentator will come after them; rather we only mean to say that all excellence of their act has been concentrated in such men. The actual position, however, is that when we do use these exaggerated epithets for someone we do not thereby replace or remove the original meaning of the word `Last`. It is preposterous to assume that by its metaphorical use to refer to the excellence or perfection of a man, the word `Last` loses its original or real significance which is `Final`. Such an assumption can only be accepted by a person who lacks elementary knowledge of the rules of grammar. There is no grammatical principle in any language by which the metaphorical meaning of a word may be taken as its real or original meaning. Besides, the metaphorical meaning in no case replaces or obliterates the real and basic meaning of the word.
When you tell an Arab `Ja Khatam ul-Qaum`, he will certainly not take it to mean that `the perfect or the most excellent man of the tribe has come.` He will, on the other hand, take it to mean that `the whole tribe, even to the last man, has come.`
There is another point to be considered. Such terms as the `Last Poet`, the Last Legist` or the `Last Narrator of hadith` are eulogies used by men for other human beings whom they deem to be perfect and excellent. Those who use these hyperboles for other men certainly can not say, nor do they know, that people of such excellence will come in later times or not. So in human language these appellations are hyperboles, but when God uses for a person that such and such quality has been culminated in him, there is no reason to take it in the metaphorical sense in the strain of human expression. If Allah had pronounced someone as `Last Poet`, he would have been last poet in the literal sense of the word. If Allah appoints someone as His `Last Prophet`, there is absolutely no possibility of any other person attaining to that dignity after that.
God is Omniscient. Man has but limited knowledge. This being so, how can one construe the human praise of a person as `Last Poet` or the last of the jurists in the same sense as God`s pronouncement of a person as the `Last Prophet`?
A. Sattar
The Finality of Prophet i.e Khatmay-Nabuwat in Quran
Verse 40 of Surah Al-Ahzab (33) points out this concept in the Holy Quran.
Two translations of this Ayah follow:
O people! Muhammad has no sons among ye men, but verily, he is the Apostle of God and the last in the line of Prophets. And God is Aware of everything.
Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.
(The Holy Quran, Al-Ahzab 33:40)
{In an attempt to give their claim an appearance of validity, the Qadiani leadership has shamelessly tampered with the meaning of the Holy Quran and is advancing forged and questionable hadith attributed to the Prophet Muhammad(SAW). Although this hypocrisy may misguide a few uninformed individuals, every moderately knowledgeable Muslim can readily see the fallacies of Qadianis rejecting the Finality of Prophethood, belying the signs and Mission of the promised Mehdi and Messiah(pbut), opposing Jihad against oppressors, calling Muslims kafirs, and trying to set up a new holy land to divide and weaken the Muslims.
Indeed, anyone with a working knowledge of the Arabic language or the foresight of heeding the instructions of the Holy Quran can readily see that Qadiani leaders are merely playing with the translation of the holy text in an attempt to guide naive people astray.}
Qadianis dispute the meaning of the term Kahtam al Nabiyyin in the above quoted verse. Following is an excerpt from Syed Abou-al-aala Moudoudis attempt to explain the meaning of the term:
The Dictionary Meaning of the Word `Khatam-al-Nabiyyin`
It is evident that the text can bear one meaning and it is that Khatam-al-Nabiyyin stands for the Finality of Prophethood with a clear implication that the prophethood has been culminated and finalized in Muhammad (PBUH). It is not only the context that supports this interpretation but also the lexicography.
According to Arabic lexicon and the linguistic usage Khatam means to affix seal; to close, to come to an end; and to carry something to its ultimate end.
Khatama al-`Amala is equivalent to `Faragha min al-`Almali` which means `to get over with the task.` `Khatama al-Ina` bears the meaning `The vessel has been closed and sealed so that nothing can go into it, nor can its contents spill out.`
`Khatam-al-kitab` conveys the meaning `The letter has been enclosed and sealed so that it is finally secured.`
`Khatama-`Ala-al-Qalb` means `The heart has been sealed so that it cannot perceive anything new nor can it forswear what it has already imbibed.`
`Khitamu-Kulli-Mashrubin` implies `the final taste that is left in the mouth when the drink is over.`
Katimatu Kulli Shaiinn `Aqibatuhu wa Akhiratuhu means ``The end in the case of everything denotes its doom and ultimate finish.`` Khatm-ul-Shaii Balagha Akhirahu conveys the sense, ``To end a thing means to carry it to its ultimate limit.``
The term Khatam-i-Qur`an is used in the similar sense and the closing verses of Qur`anic Surahs are referred to as Khawatim. Khatim-ul-Qaum Akhirhuum means ``The last man in the tribe.`` (Refer to Lisan-ul-`Arab; Qamus and Aqrab-ul- Muwarid). (see footnote 2, below.)
For this reason all linguists and commentators agree that Khatam-ul-Nabiyyin means `The Last in the line of Prophets.` The word Khatam in its dictionary meaning and linguistic usage does not refer to the post office stamp which is affixed on the outgoing mail. Its literal meaning is the `seal` which is but on the envelope to secure its contents.
________________
footnote 2.
We have referred to three lexicons here, yet the elucidation of this point is not confined to these works alone. All authoritative dictionaries of the Arabic language interpret the word Khatam in the sense that we have given to it. But the deniers of the Finality of Prophethood in their endeavor to make a sneaky assault on the religion of God argue that if we refer to someone as `Last of the Poets` or `Last of the Legists` or `Last of the Commentators`, we do not necessarily mean that no poet, legist or commentator will come after them; rather we only mean to say that all excellence of their act has been concentrated in such men. The actual position, however, is that when we do use these exaggerated epithets for someone we do not thereby replace or remove the original meaning of the word `Last`. It is preposterous to assume that by its metaphorical use to refer to the excellence or perfection of a man, the word `Last` loses its original or real significance which is `Final`. Such an assumption can only be accepted by a person who lacks elementary knowledge of the rules of grammar. There is no grammatical principle in any language by which the metaphorical meaning of a word may be taken as its real or original meaning. Besides, the metaphorical meaning in no case replaces or obliterates the real and basic meaning of the word.
When you tell an Arab `Ja Khatam ul-Qaum`, he will certainly not take it to mean that `the perfect or the most excellent man of the tribe has come.` He will, on the other hand, take it to mean that `the whole tribe, even to the last man, has come.`
There is another point to be considered. Such terms as the `Last Poet`, the Last Legist` or the `Last Narrator of hadith` are eulogies used by men for other human beings whom they deem to be perfect and excellent. Those who use these hyperboles for other men certainly can not say, nor do they know, that people of such excellence will come in later times or not. So in human language these appellations are hyperboles, but when God uses for a person that such and such quality has been culminated in him, there is no reason to take it in the metaphorical sense in the strain of human expression. If Allah had pronounced someone as `Last Poet`, he would have been last poet in the literal sense of the word. If Allah appoints someone as His `Last Prophet`, there is absolutely no possibility of any other person attaining to that dignity after that.
God is Omniscient. Man has but limited knowledge. This being so, how can one construe the human praise of a person as `Last Poet` or the last of the jurists in the same sense as God`s pronouncement of a person as the `Last Prophet`?
#174 Posted by tahmed321 on September 24, 2000 11:55:05 am
sattar2 #162 You are entitled to your faith in the ``spotless lives``, in their ability to perform miracles (albeit, as you take care to note, without violating ``the laws of nature`` whatever those are) and so forth. I happen to believe that prophets are ordinary human beings (complete with less than perfect lives) who serve as messengers of God, nothing for nor less. I also happen to believe that the prophet Mohammed emphasized the same thing and for good reason: the important thing is the message, not the messenger.
#173 Posted by sattar2 on September 24, 2000 11:55:05 am
fairdinkum and Urstruly:
As I understand it, Muslim scholars had historically agreed upon the arrival of the Messiah and the Mahdi sometime in the 13-14th century (Islamic calendar; which translates into approx. 1800s-1900s AD). This is apparently based upon hadiths quoted of Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings be upon him). One such reference that I can dig up is a hadith quoted in An-Najmus Saqib, Vol. 2, page 209 where Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have stated that approx. 1300 years will pass when God will raise a Mahdi.
From what I recall, my discussions with non-Ahamdi friends and “e”-correspondence with a “web-site” cleric seemed to have confirmed this. Also, 1300-1400 year time interval between Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) and the Promised Messiah is consistent with the approx. 1300 years that elapsed between Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) and the First Messiah, Prophet Issa (peace be upon him). Prophet Issa (peace be upon him) was a non-Law bearing prophet whose mission was to bring people back to the previously revealed law (Law of Torah, revealed to Prophet Moses, pbuh). Similarly mission of the Promised Messiah was to bring people back to the previously revealed law (Law of Quran, revealed to Prophet Mohammed, pbuh).
I agree that only Allah has knowledge of the future, but He does reveal some of this knowledge to his chosen messengers. This principle is stated in Quran as “He is the Knower of the unseen; and he reveals not the hidden to anyone, except to him whom He chooses from among His Messengers”. There are other hadith in which Prophet Mohammd (peace be upon him) is reported have stated several other aspects of the arrival of the Messiah, and other events in the days to come. Deutronomy, the Fourth Book of the Torah contains a prophecy that fits the arrival of Prophets Issa (peace be upon him) and Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) in the later days. Also, now that I think about it, it seems that the downfall of the Pharaoh of Egypt at the hands of Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) was also prophesied. This prompted the Pharaoh to have all the newborn boys killed for a certain period of time. This also fits the model of future events revealed by earlier scriptures.
As far as “number of people in agreement as a test of truth” and “opposition of prophets by mullahs” is concerned, my posting was in response to an earlier comment which had stated that majority of Muslim scholars are in agreement about finality of Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings be upon him), and therefore Ahmadis are appropriately deemed as non-Muslims. Anyway, it seems that we are in agreement that the test of truth does not “necessarily” lie in numbers or in opposition by the clergy.
In one of your responses you discussed the democratic mechanism by which the Muslim clerics check the validity of a particular faith. It is again worth mentioning that the arrival of a prophet threatens the existing religious hierarchy. Ahmadis believe in the arrival of a Prophet and also have a Khalifa as a supreme leader of the community. Acceptance of Ahmadiyyat as a valid faith by the Muslim clerics would by default undermine their own (clerics’) validity as spiritual leaders. It is not surprising that they unanimously agreed to invalidate Ahmadiyyat! Also, as far as I know the government has not yet released to the public the transcripts of these hearings. Only the decision has been made public. I wonder why! In connection with these hearings, it is also worth noting that there is a hadith of Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings be upon him) stating that there will come a time when 72 of my sects will be against one of the sects, and that this one sect will be the one saved. In the light of the so-called “logical, democratic mechanism”, try guessing which one sect may be the one hinted at in this hadith. If you’d like, I can dig up the reference for this one. And to add to it, the proceedings that eventually resulted in crucifixion of Prophet Issa (peace be upon him) were also equally “logical and democratic”. Ask any Roman from that time period, especially the clergy (rhetoric). Strangely enough, Prophet Issa (peace be upon him) was crucified on the charges of blasphemy by the Romans! This is similar to the charge brought against the Ahmaddiya community. “Democracy behind closed doors by the enlightened mullahs” …. If you believe in it, I have some land in Nawabshah that I would like to sell to you.
I think we are discussing two issues in parallel: first issue is about discrimination against Ahmadis, esp. in Pakistan. We are in agreement that this discrimination is unfair, and should be discontinued, regardless of truthfulness of the Ahmadi set of beliefs. Approval of one’s beliefs by the govt. or the clergy should not be a pre-requisite to religious freedom.
The second issue is about truthfulness of claims of Ahmadiyyat. Yes, one (I, in this case) does not need to go around seeking approval from others regarding one’s religious beliefs. My intention is to view things from a non-Ahmadi point of view, so that I can test my own assumptions and see if my understanding is sound enough to withstand criticism. Settling matters by debating, references to Quran etc. are difficult when people perceive faith as a blind set of beliefs. For example it is futile to reason with someone if he rigidly believes that Issa-ibne-Marriam physically ascended to the skies where he still exists, even after two thousand years. Faith devoid of reasoning turns religion into a fairy-tale. Quran encourages readers to reflect and ponder, and challenges them to find any incongruity in the universe. Reasoning and reflection combined with prayer only serves to enhance one’s understanding of the world.
Moving on to other issues, here is one reference from Quran hinting at arrival of more prophets in the days to come. Muslims recite Surah-e-Fathia several times in daily prayers. A few of the verses from this surah state “… Guide us along the right path; the path of those on whom Thou has bestowed Thy favors …” Explaining these “favors”, Quran states in Surah-e-Nisa, “Who so obeys Allah and the Messenger, shall be among whom Allah has bestowed His favors – the Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs, and the Righteous; and excellent companions these are. This is Allah’s grace and Allah is all comprehending” (chapter 4, verses 70-71).
We Ahmadis believe that these verses give the glad tidings that Allah Almighty will continue to raise prophets among the followers of Allah and His Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings be upon him). Counter arguments to this will be much appreciated.
Kant Patel,
I think you are misunderstanding the point that I was making. I was stating my own beliefs without hinting disrespect to any other set of beliefs. I would like to be accepted as a practicing Muslim, although being a Muslim in the eyes of the God is more critical and provides much solace. But my intention is not to deny the same to anyone else who too desires it. This applies not only to Muslims, but also to people of other faiths, agnostics, or atheists. Islam teaches patience, forbearance, and perseverance. In its true sense, Islam accepts prophetehood of Prophets Ram, Krishna, Buddha, Confucius, Zaratushtra and more (peace be upon them), and gathers people of all religions under one banner. However if one chooses to stick with whatever belief system he has, that is his choice. Islam does not profess coercion is these matters. It encourages religious freedom for all.
Such are my thoughts. Comments from anyone will be much appreciated.
Best regards,
Asad Sattar
(San Jose, CA)
As I understand it, Muslim scholars had historically agreed upon the arrival of the Messiah and the Mahdi sometime in the 13-14th century (Islamic calendar; which translates into approx. 1800s-1900s AD). This is apparently based upon hadiths quoted of Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings be upon him). One such reference that I can dig up is a hadith quoted in An-Najmus Saqib, Vol. 2, page 209 where Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have stated that approx. 1300 years will pass when God will raise a Mahdi.
From what I recall, my discussions with non-Ahamdi friends and “e”-correspondence with a “web-site” cleric seemed to have confirmed this. Also, 1300-1400 year time interval between Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) and the Promised Messiah is consistent with the approx. 1300 years that elapsed between Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) and the First Messiah, Prophet Issa (peace be upon him). Prophet Issa (peace be upon him) was a non-Law bearing prophet whose mission was to bring people back to the previously revealed law (Law of Torah, revealed to Prophet Moses, pbuh). Similarly mission of the Promised Messiah was to bring people back to the previously revealed law (Law of Quran, revealed to Prophet Mohammed, pbuh).
I agree that only Allah has knowledge of the future, but He does reveal some of this knowledge to his chosen messengers. This principle is stated in Quran as “He is the Knower of the unseen; and he reveals not the hidden to anyone, except to him whom He chooses from among His Messengers”. There are other hadith in which Prophet Mohammd (peace be upon him) is reported have stated several other aspects of the arrival of the Messiah, and other events in the days to come. Deutronomy, the Fourth Book of the Torah contains a prophecy that fits the arrival of Prophets Issa (peace be upon him) and Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) in the later days. Also, now that I think about it, it seems that the downfall of the Pharaoh of Egypt at the hands of Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) was also prophesied. This prompted the Pharaoh to have all the newborn boys killed for a certain period of time. This also fits the model of future events revealed by earlier scriptures.
As far as “number of people in agreement as a test of truth” and “opposition of prophets by mullahs” is concerned, my posting was in response to an earlier comment which had stated that majority of Muslim scholars are in agreement about finality of Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings be upon him), and therefore Ahmadis are appropriately deemed as non-Muslims. Anyway, it seems that we are in agreement that the test of truth does not “necessarily” lie in numbers or in opposition by the clergy.
In one of your responses you discussed the democratic mechanism by which the Muslim clerics check the validity of a particular faith. It is again worth mentioning that the arrival of a prophet threatens the existing religious hierarchy. Ahmadis believe in the arrival of a Prophet and also have a Khalifa as a supreme leader of the community. Acceptance of Ahmadiyyat as a valid faith by the Muslim clerics would by default undermine their own (clerics’) validity as spiritual leaders. It is not surprising that they unanimously agreed to invalidate Ahmadiyyat! Also, as far as I know the government has not yet released to the public the transcripts of these hearings. Only the decision has been made public. I wonder why! In connection with these hearings, it is also worth noting that there is a hadith of Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings be upon him) stating that there will come a time when 72 of my sects will be against one of the sects, and that this one sect will be the one saved. In the light of the so-called “logical, democratic mechanism”, try guessing which one sect may be the one hinted at in this hadith. If you’d like, I can dig up the reference for this one. And to add to it, the proceedings that eventually resulted in crucifixion of Prophet Issa (peace be upon him) were also equally “logical and democratic”. Ask any Roman from that time period, especially the clergy (rhetoric). Strangely enough, Prophet Issa (peace be upon him) was crucified on the charges of blasphemy by the Romans! This is similar to the charge brought against the Ahmaddiya community. “Democracy behind closed doors by the enlightened mullahs” …. If you believe in it, I have some land in Nawabshah that I would like to sell to you.
I think we are discussing two issues in parallel: first issue is about discrimination against Ahmadis, esp. in Pakistan. We are in agreement that this discrimination is unfair, and should be discontinued, regardless of truthfulness of the Ahmadi set of beliefs. Approval of one’s beliefs by the govt. or the clergy should not be a pre-requisite to religious freedom.
The second issue is about truthfulness of claims of Ahmadiyyat. Yes, one (I, in this case) does not need to go around seeking approval from others regarding one’s religious beliefs. My intention is to view things from a non-Ahmadi point of view, so that I can test my own assumptions and see if my understanding is sound enough to withstand criticism. Settling matters by debating, references to Quran etc. are difficult when people perceive faith as a blind set of beliefs. For example it is futile to reason with someone if he rigidly believes that Issa-ibne-Marriam physically ascended to the skies where he still exists, even after two thousand years. Faith devoid of reasoning turns religion into a fairy-tale. Quran encourages readers to reflect and ponder, and challenges them to find any incongruity in the universe. Reasoning and reflection combined with prayer only serves to enhance one’s understanding of the world.
Moving on to other issues, here is one reference from Quran hinting at arrival of more prophets in the days to come. Muslims recite Surah-e-Fathia several times in daily prayers. A few of the verses from this surah state “… Guide us along the right path; the path of those on whom Thou has bestowed Thy favors …” Explaining these “favors”, Quran states in Surah-e-Nisa, “Who so obeys Allah and the Messenger, shall be among whom Allah has bestowed His favors – the Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs, and the Righteous; and excellent companions these are. This is Allah’s grace and Allah is all comprehending” (chapter 4, verses 70-71).
We Ahmadis believe that these verses give the glad tidings that Allah Almighty will continue to raise prophets among the followers of Allah and His Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings be upon him). Counter arguments to this will be much appreciated.
Kant Patel,
I think you are misunderstanding the point that I was making. I was stating my own beliefs without hinting disrespect to any other set of beliefs. I would like to be accepted as a practicing Muslim, although being a Muslim in the eyes of the God is more critical and provides much solace. But my intention is not to deny the same to anyone else who too desires it. This applies not only to Muslims, but also to people of other faiths, agnostics, or atheists. Islam teaches patience, forbearance, and perseverance. In its true sense, Islam accepts prophetehood of Prophets Ram, Krishna, Buddha, Confucius, Zaratushtra and more (peace be upon them), and gathers people of all religions under one banner. However if one chooses to stick with whatever belief system he has, that is his choice. Islam does not profess coercion is these matters. It encourages religious freedom for all.
Such are my thoughts. Comments from anyone will be much appreciated.
Best regards,
Asad Sattar
(San Jose, CA)
#172 Posted by krashid on September 24, 2000 11:55:05 am
Rajanjua!
Although I don`t want to open this discussion. But put in a proper perspective.
But first to Faridinkum, if you are a descendent of Prophet PBUH. I respect you just because of this whether this is Islamic or not.
All the Muslims were Kafir before Prophet PBUH announced prophethood. Hazrat Umar went to kill prophet PBUH and converted. The villian of Muslims from Kuffar side in Ghazwa Uhad was Khalid Bin Waleed later known as Saif-ullah.
Abu Sufyan although an enemy till conquest of Meccah converted into Islam. His family was very influential in Meccah. When prophet PBUH entered Meccah apart from announcing general clemency he said that whoever takes refuge at the house of AbuSufyan is safe. Later he send Abu-Sufyan to the court of Khusrau.
After the death of Prophet PBUH, the struggle between different people was the political struggle. But not by compromizing Islam. Hazrat Ali did not do ``Bayah`` to Abu-Bakr for six months. The same Abu-Bakr has great contribution for Islamic cause.
Hazrat Umar RZAH was husband of daughter of Ali RZAH. And Fadak matter for which the Bayah was not taken by Ali RZAH was returned to Banu-Hashim family. (This Fadak matter itself has background).
When Hazrat Usman was martyred, Ali RZAH transferred his capital from Medina to Kufa for political reasons. And for the same political reasons Amir Muawiya captured Syria. It is a long list.
It was all political struggle and nothing more.
Why would Ayesha RZAH, with Az-Zubair fight Ali RZAH.
Why would Marwan (or Hajjaj) put A`rab on Koran. Why would Hajjaj send expedition on Sind.
We try to create them in our own image. Hypocrite, money grabber and whatnot.
Although I don`t want to open this discussion. But put in a proper perspective.
But first to Faridinkum, if you are a descendent of Prophet PBUH. I respect you just because of this whether this is Islamic or not.
All the Muslims were Kafir before Prophet PBUH announced prophethood. Hazrat Umar went to kill prophet PBUH and converted. The villian of Muslims from Kuffar side in Ghazwa Uhad was Khalid Bin Waleed later known as Saif-ullah.
Abu Sufyan although an enemy till conquest of Meccah converted into Islam. His family was very influential in Meccah. When prophet PBUH entered Meccah apart from announcing general clemency he said that whoever takes refuge at the house of AbuSufyan is safe. Later he send Abu-Sufyan to the court of Khusrau.
After the death of Prophet PBUH, the struggle between different people was the political struggle. But not by compromizing Islam. Hazrat Ali did not do ``Bayah`` to Abu-Bakr for six months. The same Abu-Bakr has great contribution for Islamic cause.
Hazrat Umar RZAH was husband of daughter of Ali RZAH. And Fadak matter for which the Bayah was not taken by Ali RZAH was returned to Banu-Hashim family. (This Fadak matter itself has background).
When Hazrat Usman was martyred, Ali RZAH transferred his capital from Medina to Kufa for political reasons. And for the same political reasons Amir Muawiya captured Syria. It is a long list.
It was all political struggle and nothing more.
Why would Ayesha RZAH, with Az-Zubair fight Ali RZAH.
Why would Marwan (or Hajjaj) put A`rab on Koran. Why would Hajjaj send expedition on Sind.
We try to create them in our own image. Hypocrite, money grabber and whatnot.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- harish_hyd: #74 by tahmed32 first, it... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- BJ2: Beena, A cool-headed piece, like... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- om_prakash: In this entire episode,... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- tahmed32: #72 harish_hyd: first, it... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- nkg: Re: # 69 dm... yeh, you... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- harish_hyd: #71 by tahmed32 If a... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- nkg: Re: # 1 kcs... when you... Karachi Riots! Who is
- tahmed32: DM#69 "Before any meaningful... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
