Whose Iqbal — Ours or Theirs?

Saudi Taliban

from BBC

Saudi police `stopped` fire rescue



The Mecca city governor visited the fire-damaged school

Saudi Arabia`s religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress, according to Saudi newspapers.

In a rare criticism of the kingdom`s powerful ``mutaween`` police, the Saudi media has accused them of hindering attempts to save 15 girls who died in the fire on Monday.

About 800 pupils were inside the school in the holy city of Mecca when the tragedy occurred.



15 girls died in the blaze and more than 50 others were injured



According to the al-Eqtisadiah daily, firemen confronted police after they tried to keep the girls inside because they were not wearing the headscarves and abayas (black robes) required by the kingdom`s strict interpretation of Islam.

One witness said he saw three policemen ``beating young girls to prevent them from leaving the school because they were not wearing the abaya``.

The Saudi Gazette quoted witnesses as saying that the police - known as the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice - had stopped men who tried to help the girls and warned ``it is a sinful to approach them``.

The father of one of the dead girls said that the school watchman even refused to open the gates to let the girls out.

``Lives could have been saved had they not been stopped by members of the Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice,`` the newspaper concluded.

Relatives` anger

Families of the victims have been incensed over the deaths.

Most of the victims were crushed in a stampede as they tried to flee the blaze.

The school was locked at the time of the fire - a usual practice to ensure full segregation of the sexes.

The religious police are widely feared in Saudi Arabia. They roam the streets enforcing dress codes and sex segregation, and ensuring prayers are performed on time.

Those who refuse to obey their orders are often beaten and sometimes put in jail.

Anjum Sahib,

Wonderful piece!

urstruly, sattar2, and others,

there is no point in trying to prove religious beliefs, no one can prove anything...if you seriously think about it, the only thing that can be proven more than your religious ideas is Darwin`s theory of evolution...and that wouldn`t sit right now would it?

so why not just believe in whatever you want to believe in, and forget about it?

Re #44:

Anti-Ahmadiyya laws in Pakistan have made it unlawful for Ahmadis to call themselves Muslims, to give “aazan”, or even call their mosque a “mosque”. Hundreds have been sent to prisons for reciting “kalima” or for saying “bismillah” for posing as a Muslim.

Such laws are not protecting any ideals … they are thinly veiled attempts to persecute a weak and innocent minority for their beliefs. Imagine … in a country where there is rampant corruption, child smuggling and pornography, prostitution, drug smuggling, murders, political upheavals, robberies and more … Ahmadis are sent to prisons for reciting kalima. Is this how Allah commands us to treat others? … to send them to prison for declaring “There is none worthy of worship but Allah …”?

But the mullahs are still not satisfied. They have continued their campaign of hatred and violence against Ahmadis. There were 1953 riots against Ahmadis … followed by another wave of riots in 1973. Violence against Ahmadis continues to this day. Hundreds have been murdered; several of their mosques have been destroyed; their life and property are periodically attacked by mobs incited by the mullahs. Due to this violence, children have lost their fathers … old and feeble women have lost their grown up sons … their businesses, houses, and properties have been lost to mob attacks.

Urstruly Sahib can spread hatred and violence against Ahmadis today … and play with words to come clean. No jury will ever convict him of spreading hatred and perpetuating ignorance and violence … there is a good chance he`ll live a normal, healthy life … but one must be mindful … Allah is watching … one day He will question all of us. No one can get away from His Justice.

Regarding Blasphemy Laws ...

Blasphemy Laws of Pakistan are not only unfair, but also un-Islamic. Quran commands believers to merely stop mingling with those who blaspheme. This is stated clearly in Quran 4:140 and 6:68, and again stressed in the last verse of Chapter 13. Our dear Prophet (pbuh) put up with a lifetime of abuse, but only offered words of “dua” and forgiveness for the enemy. I repeatedly pointed this out to Urstruly Sahib, but he paid no heed. He was too occupied with his hatred to think with his heart or with his head.

Mullahism in Pakistan is a disgrace to Islam, to Muslims, and to humanity. Blasphemy Laws and Anti-Ahmadiyya laws are but one display of the sad saga of corrupt mullahism.

Asad

All Muslims are equal? My a$$ they are. One need only read that Muslim Urstooly`s posts to sattar to realize that.

Re Tahmed Sahib (#50),

You state that since the seal is placed, door to prophethood is closed. Please note that in addition to your interpretation of seal, a seal is also a sign of authority and is used for authentication. Why do you choose to interpret “seal” one way versus the other?

I provided some Quranic arguments to support my interpretation of “seal” as the Prophet (pbuh) having the highest status, as the one whose message and prophethood will validate and authenticate the message of the following prophets. You should also provide arguments to explain your position. After all, you are choosing to interpret “seal” in one particular way, and not the other way.

Moving on …

You have repeatedly and incorrectly implied that Ahmadis give Mirza Sahib a god-like status. Your statement is incorrect, and I have stated this several times in the past. You are so convinced of the correctness of your position that you are no longer letting me explain my views regarding Mirza Sahib. I should be the one to state what I believe. Don’t you agree?



Prophets have been raised in the past as stated by Quran; Jesus Christ being an example. Muslims believe in Jesus as a prophet, and I am sure you do too. Does this mean you, and other Muslims, give a god-like status to Jesus Christ? If not, then what makes you think I give a god-like status to Mirza Sahib? You seem to be reading too much in Ahmadi belief regarding Mirza Sahib.

Asad

sattar2 #47 sattar sahib, still struggling after all these months to loosen the ``seal`` a bit to let some ``chotae motae`` paighambar hazraat through? Must be a very tough seal indeed. Here is a special version of old story that you must have heard which I have prepared for your consideration: the Chowkidar is guarding the entrance to a building. The entrance says ``House Full. No more Applicants for Prophethood can now be considered`` The man sees a number of other men pass by. Decides to try as well. Asks the Chowkidar: ``May I please enter the House of Prophets.`` Chowkidar gives him a nasty look and says: ``AnnkhaaiN haiN kay button? Parh nahi sakta khocha (it is a Pathan Chowkidar) kay House Full hai?`` Man says: ``Laikin app naiN baaqui aadmioN ko kyooN janay dya??`` Chowkidar: ``Oye kee oonhaN nay mayray koloN puchhya??`` (rough tr. man asks to be let in, chowkidar says no, man asks why he let the others in, chowkidar says ``because they did not ask:).

Moral: there are numerous ``de facto`` post-Muhammed prophets that are not just treated as prophets but worshipped as near gods by people in Pakistan. Visit any pir`s grave, or read how the various ``hazrat``s are treated as if they had some special relation to God when the Quran says the Seal was placed. So: instead of trying to convince everyone that the ``seal`` has room for Mirza Ahmed Sahib to slip in, just do it. You will then be no different than 90% other Pakistanis. A few of us will moan and groan at the manner in which muslims cannot rise above worshipping ordinary men rather than focussing on the one true God, but dont worry about us.

Re Urstruly (#48):

You state that our religions are different, and it is one religion vs. the other religion. In this case, please feel free to choose a name of your religion, if you so desire.

I follow Quran where Allah has chosen the name “Islam” for my religion (Surah-e-Maidah). Therefore I call myself a Muslim.

However, if you also want to call yourself a Muslim, that would be fine by me. I see no need to throw you in a prison for calling yourself a Muslim. We both can peacefully share this religion. After all, Islam means “peace”.

Asad

Let`s talk about Iqbal. His best couplet must be: HaiN log wohi jahaN maiN acche -- Aatey haiN jo kaam dosroN key. Lately I have been fascinated by his verses mentioning Mahmood Ghaznavi and Ayaz. Few days ago, I used this analogy describing Basant:

Zinda Dilan-e-Lahore

Shehr jagmaga utha, har su ujaala phail gaya surmai sham maiN

Mah rukhoN kay pairahan naiN, mehka dee sarsoN fazaoN maiN

PatangoN ney rang b`kher diye, ufq per aur aasman maiN

Aaj na woh Ghaznavi maiN tarap rahi, na who kham hey zulf-e-Ayaz maiN

Here is another one about sectarian violence in Karachi.

Jihad and Doctors

aik hee motorcycle per sawar ho gaye Mahmood-o-Ayaz

Mahmood tha peechey betha chupaye Kalashnikov

Pohnchey qareeb jab doctor saheb kee kar key

Mahmood chillaya Allah-o-akbar bulund Awaz

Aur khool diya fire doctor saheb per duz-a-duz

ba`ad qatl-e-doctor saheb, farar ho gaye Mahmood -o-Ayaz

Sattar #47

I never ever argue that a certain religion is right or wrong; in this case it is your religion vs. my religion. My point always is, that since your set of belives are different than ours, therefore we beleive in two different religions. And your #47 affirms that.

I wont be available to further take part in this discussion, because I am terribly busy. so next time. (This time I am really running away; my tail is also between my legs; and not because of you but because of my boss).

Urstruly Sahib (#43):

Khattam implying “seal”, as in “ultimate, one with highest status and authority, bearer of the official, final, complete document” is clear from Quran itself. I provided supporting arguments from the context of the verse in question and one more verse of Quran.

You are now ignoring Quran, and resorting to selective quotation and twisted interpretation of ahadith. This becomes clear from your interpretation of the following ahadith …

“I am the last in line of the prophets of God and my Masjid is the last Masjid (referring to the holy Masjid of the Prophet).``

According to you the prophet being the “last” prophet means end of prophethood. But his mosque being the “last” mosque means the mosque of unparalleled sanctity! You are interpreting “last” in two different ways here … merely to suit your own beliefs.

Moving on ….

The “scholars” you refer to in support of your arguments … have made a mockery of Islam. They have spread hateful lies against Ahmadi-Muslims and have periodically incited violence against them. Their ineptness is clear from their misinterpretation of the issue of Issa-ibne-Marriam and the dajjal and more. You could not even support your claims of Islam being “Deen-e-Fitrat” (i.e. a religion consistent with human psyche) and became silent when I challenged your assertions. You really are clueless … but filled with hatred nevertheless.

You once hinted that Ahmadis are a sect planted by the British. When I asked you to substantiate your claim, you did not respond. Is this what your mullahs are teaching you? … to tell hateful lies and spread abusive propaganda about others?

Whatever a person believes is a matter between him and Allah only. I have brought up the issue of Issa-ibne-Marriam as an example to show that you jahil mullahs are no longer able to make sense of Quran and hadith, while you continue to spread hate and violence against Ahmadis. ``Jihad`` is another such topic where the mullahs have heavily misled others ... with thousands dying at the WTC and in Afghanistan ... on the lame excuse of ``holy war``. You guys are only good at inciting a mob to violence and spreading hateful propaganda... while not being able to argue to support your position.

Asad

Can some Chowkie review `The Twentieth Wife` By Indu Sundaresan

`Twentieth Wife` opens the door on palace life

Thu Mar 14, 6:11 AM ET

Carmela Ciuraru USA TODAY

Like Anchee Min`s splendid historical novel Becoming Madame Mao, Indu Sundaresan`s fictional debut focuses on a strong woman who challenged the rigid conventions of her time, someone whose rise to power was fraught with drama and controversy.

In the early 17th century, a young Persian woman named Mehrunnisa (meaning ``Sun of Women``) became the 20th wife of the Emperor Jahangir, and together they ruled the Mughal Empire before its eventual decline.

Although historians have chronicled the lives of the Mughal emperors, Sundaresan mentions in her afterword that historical texts have largely ignored the wives of those men -- a gap her novel seeks to correct.

In Mehrunnisa, Sundaresan has found a fascinating subject. During a time when women did not speak unless spoken to and were expected to be wholly submissive to their husbands, Mehrunnisa reveled in her power as empress of Mughal India. She minted coins in her own name, served as an arts patron and commissioned imperial gardens and tombs that still exist 300 years later. Although the author states that historical accounts of Mehrunnisa are conflicting, she portrays her as an ambitious but sympathetic figure.

Mehrunnisa is calculating even as a child; by the age of 8, she tells everyone around her that she intends to marry Prince Salim (who is called Jahangir upon his assent to the throne). The fact that she lacks royal lineage doesn`t seem to discourage Mehrunnisa; her father is a courtier of the Emperor Akbar, which gives her access to the palace. The precocious girl finds a tough but loving mentor in the emperor`s domineering wife, Ruqayya, who teaches her how to live on her own terms.

It isn`t until she`s 34 that Mehrunnisa`s dream of marrying Salim is realized. Before that, she must suffer through an unhappy marriage, repeated miscarriages and, as a result of her willful nature, damage to her reputation.

Although The Twentieth Wife offers a rich and intimate view into palace life during the late 16th and early 17th centuries -- and an incisive look at gender roles of that period -- the novel falters in developing its characters.

Sundaresan packs her story with episodes of political strife, Mehrunnisa`s own family crises and dramas within the royal family.

Yet the characters are often stuck in soap-opera-like scenes, such as when Mehrunnisa finally receives a marriage proposal from her beloved: ``In Jahangir`s eyes there was nothing but a deep, abiding love. He was not merely asking her to be his wife. He was giving her his life. . . . A raging consuming fire flowed through them, scorching out every other thought.``

There`s no question that Sundaresan is a gifted storyteller with an obvious passion for history. However, The Twentieth Wife might have been more impressive if the author had chosen not to craft a commercial novel and had instead written a riskier, more surprising one.

The Twentieth Wife

By Indu Sundaresan

Pocket Books, 320 pp., $24

All of you are wrong.... Allah told me so.

He said most of you will have to be spanked for being bad. And I get to be spanked twice for being good.

So there.

Ras Siddique

You have raised some very important questions. I have tried to answer similar questions at this board once. I am quoting the whole post at the bottom.

http://www.chowk.com/bin/showa.cgi?omirza_sep1200

My post:

THE SUMMATION

It is my understanding that throughout the course of our discussion we argued on two points:


1. Separate Electorate
2. State’s discrimination against minorities using Blasphemy Laws (and Ahmadi laws).


As far as point # 1 is concerned, I opined in an earlier post that it is a constitutional problem and not a religious problem. Painting this problem as a religious one is futile for minorities. It will only make things worse for them and give something to the extremist elements to oppose minorities. It is not an Islamic issue so minorities should not make it as one and don’t let extremist make it as one either.


Before we go further we should also examine the following questions one by one:


1. Do minorities have a right to vote?


2. Do they have a right to own property?


3. Are they prevented from carrying firearms to protect their property and life?


4. Do they have right to education- as per Affirmative Action and open merit?


5. Do they have right to employment – as per Affirmative Action and open merit?


6. Are there any specific restrictions to own and run a business?


7. Are they discriminated on taxes?


8. Are they given equal right to access state provided utilities-water, power, gas, phone etc?


9. Do they have equal right to a fair trial (according to the book)?


10. Do they have equal right to access to all levels of judiciary?


11. Are they innocent until proven guilty?


And then finally:

12. Are they subject to a special set of laws that are specifically directed against them?


For the sake of objectivity please try to answer question number 1 through 11as fairly as possible.
You may easily realize that whatever minorities get from 1 through 11 is coming at the cost of number 12.


Is it fair to say that we have narrowed down our list of discriminations to one aspect, and that is, the religion specific laws?


Before we start discussing these laws lets divide these laws into two groups. The first group consists of those laws that are Qadiani-specific (section 298 etc.) and the other group that (I call) are “non-specific” (section 295 etc). It is my understanding that the “non-specific” laws were enacted after the Suleman Rushdi fiasco. The language of those laws suggests that they were not directed at a particular community. Then why so many Christians are being “persecuted” under those “non-specific” laws? Doesn’t that call for a case by case examination of the law? An examination of judicial proceedings, number of convictions, and a ratio of conviction vs. acquittals will enable us to pass an objective judgement.


Again before we go on discussing Qadiani specific laws lets examine the question why societies legislate themselves? Without going into textbook definitions, I think it would be fair to say that ‘societies legislate themselves to define and clarify an ambiguous situation’. The traffic laws are made so that there is no ambiguity in the minds of the drivers and pedestrians. The banking laws are made to carry on financial transactions without any ambiguity. The property laws are made to remove any shred of doubt as to the extent of a person’s property and his possessions. The criminal codes are set up to protect society from anti-social elements; and laws of tort are made to settle personal disputes. The bottom line is that, societies legislate themselves to clarify any ambiguity in the transactions between their different elements (i.e people).


Then comes the question of discriminatory laws. Is a law really discriminatory? Is the law of ‘statutory rape’ (even if the sex was consensual) discriminatory towards the people who want to have sex with a person of less than 18 years of age? Are the tax laws discriminatory towards those people who don’t want to pay taxes? Is the United States’ Pro-Choice, pro-abortion law discriminatory towards pro-life people? By endorsing and enacting this law, is United States government sanctioning state sponsored murder of un-born life? The bottom line here is that, the state sets limits somewhere, as per direction of the values of the mainstream of the society. The state has to mark demarcation lines somewhere. It is one of the toughest tests that a government goes through.


Then comes the question of universality of laws. Are laws society-specific or are they universal? The answer to the question is that each and every society develops its own set of laws based on its culture, heritage, moral values, history and several other inherent traits. If that is the case then can we judge the values (or laws) of one society with the standards of other society. Consider for example, the laws in India and United States. Both countries are democratic and secular. Try applying section 144 of Indian Penal Code (which is equivalent to the infamous PPC 144 of Pakistan) on a crowd gathered at Times Square of NY. Can you? Or try applying the Law of Miranda Rights in India, which will be the joke of the century. But these laws in their own countries are as serious as anything. The bottom line here is that the laws are society specific.


Then comes the question of defining different segments of the society. Is defining different segments of society a discriminatory practice? For example, in order to benefit from Affirmative Action (AA) program in United States you have to disclose your race. Unless you are black (or colored) you can not get the benefits of Affirmative Action. Does it mean that the law is discriminatory towards whites? Was there any other form of this program possible where you didn’t have to disclose your race? The answer is, yes. Why didn’t they make a law where a family’s level of income was the criteria to qualify for AA? There were and there are poor white folks who belong to the lowest echelon of the American society, which so fondly calls them, ‘Euro-trash’, they could have benefited from AA. But no, then Commies would have won the war (at least at ideological level), wouldn’t they? Now a black whether he lives in Beverly Hills or he lives in a Public Housing in downtown Chicago, each has an equal access to AA. Is it fair? So the bottom line here is that the state has no other option but to define different segments of the society to extend different benefits that it offers or laws that it imposes.


Then comes the big Q. What is so different with the (Qadiani) Laws in Pakistan. Is it safe to say that the society and the state of Pakistan were in a state of ambiguity on the relationship of two of its segments, the Muslims and the Ahmadis? The minority segment of the society was under siege and the majority segment was feeling threatened that their ideals were being attacked by the minority. So the state defined these two segments of the society and imposed restrictions so that the life and property of one segment and the ideals of the other were safe from each other. As discussed earlier such a law was quite possible through a secular government if the criteria were the rule of majority.


End of discussion? No.


The constitution of Pakistan suggests that it is an Islamic State, which means that no law will be passed which contradicts Islamic ideology and injunctions. It means that we should examine the Blasphemy Laws minutely and in detail and try to find their origin in the Islamic injunctions. Since, this is the law of the land and just because 1.5% or 5% of its population doesn’t agree with the constitution the state or majority segment of the society can not and will not change its constitution. That leaves us with only one option i.e. to fight the system from with in the system. What Ahmadia community has to give to attain a status that is self respecting to them? In any social contract each party gives something and takes something.


The question also is that whether there is a specific injunction in Qur’an that commands Muslims to enact such laws and such punishments? Is there any case in recorded history where Holy Prophet has imposed such restrictions on non-Muslim communities? We know that Medina was a multi-religious and multi-racial state. We know that our Prophet delivered justice to non-Muslims according to their laws. We do not know any case where our Prophet has prevented any religious group to perform their religious acts. We also know that Abu Bakr (RZAH) declared Jihad against Musselma Kuzzab-but are we sure that our condition with Qadianis is same as that. We know that the rules of engagement against Musselma Kazzab were those, according to the Islamic Law of War, as if Islamic army was fighting against another sovereign nation. But in case of Ahmadis we see that they are neither claiming sovereignty nor they are a hindrance in the way of revenue collection. Are they against our constitution? It seems like it.

SATTAR

I am pressed for time because of work and do not want to get involved in this discussion, but then you mentioned that last time we had a discussion and I ran away from it-therefore I had to respond. I think you are referring to our discussion at this board:

http://www.chowk.com/bin/showa.cgi?omirza_sep1200

You say:

Finality of Prophethood has no basis in Quran. Quran calls the Prophet (pbuh) “khattam-un-Nabiyeen” (Seal of Prophethood). I explained the meaning and interpretation of this on another board … with references from Quran itself. Here’s the link …http://www.chowk.com/bin/showr.cgi?f=djphukan_mar0502&n=40#reply150
The meaning and interpretation of “khattam” as I posted are consistent with Arabic grammar and is agreed to by other scholars as well. Now, there are scholars who disagree … but consider this … this really takes the cake ….``

My reply:

The word ``Khatam``-un-Nabayeen was discussed in detail at the following post. Please note that the excerpt that I had included in that post that explains the grammar, lexicon, and usage of word ``Khatam`` was from Maulana Maudoodi`s (may his soul rest in peace) thesis on Ahmadiayat.:

http://www.chowk.com/bin/showr.cgi?f=omirza_sep1200&n=100#reply175

And again, as I wrote to Sarwari, that whenever in doubt on a subject in Quran, we must look into the Hadis (tradition) of our Holy Prophet for the explanation. Following is a list of Ahadis (traditions) that were discussed in that debate. Please note that all Ahadis are from Sihah Sitta i.e. the six most authentic books on Ahadis. Please also note that some of the ahadis may have different interpretation by different schools of thought like Malki, Hanbali, Shia, and Hanfi schools of thought – but the following ahadis are un-contested by any school of thought.

http://www.chowk.com/bin/showr.cgi?f=omirza_sep1200&n=100#reply176

You say:

It is worth noting that these scholars … with decades of study and research of Arabic language, grammar, hadith, works of other scholars, and more … claim that Quran states that Issa-ibne-Marriam was physically taken up to the sky two thousand years ago, where he still resides in flesh and blood. Go figure! But the insanity does not end here …These “scholars” go on to use “authentic” ahadith to claim that Issa-ibne-Marriam will descend one day from the sky. He, and the Mahdi, will fight the one-eyed monster (dajjal) who will be riding a giant, fire-breathing donkey. Issa and the Mahdi will then break all the crosses, kill the pigs, shed the blood of the non-believers, and convert the world to Islam. Issa will then accept Islam, get married, have a family, and settle down. There is much more … but I’ll pause here for now.

My reply:

See that is the point I was trying to make to Sarwari. You not only dismiss our believes but you rather mock them. Whether these believes are credible or not is a different question. The point is that you DON`T believe in them, therefore you are a non-beleiver and hence you belong to a different religion and hence Islam and Ahmadiat are two different religions.

You say:

I once engaged in a debate with Urstruly Sahib on meaning of “khattam-e-Nabuwat”. To validate this position that Prophethood has ended, he quoted a hadith where the Propeht (pbuh) reportedly stated that “I am the last in line of the prophets of God and my Masjid is the last Masjid (referring to the holy Masjid of the Prophet).``
I asked Urstruly Sahib that if the prophet (pbuh) is the “last” prophet and no more prophets can be raised, does this also mean that no more mosques were to be built after the mosque of the Prophet? Surely other mosques have been built … so what does the “last” mosque mean? At that point, Urstruly Sahib referred me to various web-sites for the answers. Obviously he did not have a clue …

My reply:

The Hadis that you have metioned was quoted by me at this post:

http://www.chowk.com/bin/showr.cgi?f=omirza_sep1200&n=100#reply176

And I quoted it as follows:

``· 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)``

I wasn`t clueless to answer your question. I was just frustrated, so instead of cutting and pasting the following note that explains this Hadis I referred you to the website where it was written. To save you the trouble this time I am pasting the whole footnote # 3 here. Please bear in mind that we have to take in account the whole string of Ahadis also to make the following case palatable.

Quote

footnote 3:
Referring to this tradition disbelievers in the Finality of Prophethood argue that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) called his mosque (Masjid) `the last mosque` despite the fact that it is not the last mosque, as countless other mosques have been built after it all over the world. Similarly when the Holy Prophet (PBUH) observed: `I am the last Prophet,` it did not mean that the line of prophets had ended, but that Muhammad (PBUH) was the last as regards his excellence amongst the Prophets of God and Mosque was the last one in the same sense. Such foolish reasoning is an irrefutable proof of the fact that these people have lost the faculty of perceiving the true meaning of the words of God and those of His Prophet(PBUH). Even a cursory glance through the whole chain of traditions in the context of which this particular tradition has been recorded makes true import of the words of the Holy prophet clear to any man. In this context the various traditions which Imam Muslim has recorded on the authority of Hadrat Abu Huraira, Hadrat `Abdullah bin `Umar and the mother of the Faithful Hadrat Maimuna narrate that there are only three mosques in the world to which the greatest sanctity is attached, and these are sacred above all other mosques. Worship in these mosques is rewarded with thousandfold blessings in comparisons to offering prayers in other mosques. It is because of this reason that it has been declared lawful to undertake a journey to these mosques to offer prayers therein. No other mosque, save these three, can claim such sanctity that a person should make a journey to offer worship there leaving all other mosques. Among the three mosques which bear the greatest sanctity in Islam, the first one is `Masjid Al-Haram` which was built by Hadrat Abraham(peace be upon him); the second one is the`Masjid al-Aqsa` which was erected by Hadrat Sulaiman (peace be upon him); and the third mosque is `Masjid-i-Nabawi` in the Holy city of Medina which was founded by the Holy Prophet(PBUH). The observation of the Holy Prophet in regard to `the last mosque` should be viewed in this context. The words of the Prophet(PBUH) meant that no Prophet would come after him, hence there would be no fourth mosque after the last Masjid-i-Nabawi(a mosque of the last Prophet). It follows, therefore, that no other mosque should bear such sanctity, that worship in it should be rewarded with more blessings in comparison with worship in other mosques and further there shall be no fourth mosque towards which it is lawful or even desirable for people to make a journey in order to offer prayers``.

End Quote.

Sarwari, Zeemax, and those interested …

Finality of Prophethood has no basis in Quran. Quran calls the Prophet (pbuh) “khattam-un-Nabiyeen” (Seal of Prophethood). I explained the meaning and interpretation of this on another board … with references from Quran itself. Here’s the link …

http://www.chowk.com/bin/showr.cgi?f=djphukan_mar0502&n=40#reply150

The meaning and interpretation of “khattam” as I posted are consistent with Arabic grammar and is agreed to by other scholars as well. Now, there are scholars who disagree … but consider this … this really takes the cake ….

It is worth noting that these scholars … with decades of study and research of Arabic language, grammar, hadith, works of other scholars, and more … claim that Quran states that Issa-ibne-Marriam was physically taken up to the sky two thousand years ago, where he still resides in flesh and blood. Go figure! But the insanity does not end here …

These “scholars” go on to use “authentic” ahadith to claim that Issa-ibne-Marriam will descend one day from the sky. He, and the Mahdi, will fight the one-eyed monster (dajjal) who will be riding a giant, fire-breathing donkey. Issa and the Mahdi will then break all the crosses, kill the pigs, shed the blood of the non-believers, and convert the world to Islam. Issa will then accept Islam, get married, have a family, and settle down. There is much more … but I’ll pause here for now.

These “scholars” have twisted hadith and Quranic verse to support their beliefs … no matter how ridiculous and absurd they sound. This clearly shows how inept they are at understanding the Quran. They have made a mockery of Islam and turned it into a fairy tale of flying prophets and bloodthirsty men of God. Then they shamelessly go on to spread hatred, ignorance, and violence among the people … all in order to maintain their grip on power. Shia-Sunni riots, persecution of minorities, present day riots in India and more are evidence that mullahs are no longer serving the cause of Islam and humanity.

I once engaged in a debate with Urstruly Sahib on meaning of “khattam-e-Nabuwat”. To validate this position that Prophethood has ended, he quoted a hadith where the Propeht (pbuh) reportedly stated that “I am the last in line of the prophets of God and my Masjid is the last Masjid (referring to the holy Masjid of the Prophet).``

I asked Urstruly Sahib that if the prophet (pbuh) is the “last” prophet and no more prophets can be raised, does this also mean that no more mosques were to be built after the mosque of the Prophet? Surely other mosques have been built … so what does the “last” mosque mean?

At that point, Urstruly Sahib referred me to various web-sites for the answers. Obviously he did not have a clue … and did not bother to think about what he copied-and-pasted. This shows how creative these jahil ullema are at selectively quoting and explaining ahadith. They ignore all the ahadith that support Ahmadi point of view and clearly negate the mullahs on various issues ... including finality of prophethood. Besides all his contentions, our jamaati mullah has not been able to counter the explanations I provided for the meaning of Khattam … or the fact that Issa-ibne-Marriam is no linger alive and died just like all human beings.

Asad