How Not to Reform Universities

Apropos #37 by arjun_m

It`s patent from what you wrote that you throughly enjoyed the cold war with the US pumping in technology and research into india and the so-called IITs, which as you put it ``Pakiland was being used as a condom.`` The duplicity of US and UK is an indubitable fact. Unfortunately, the afore-mentioned have an enigmatic inclination towards you catholic herbivores. On what ground are you bragging your bloody head off? Huh? IITs? C`mon gimme a break. You make it look like as if for the past ten years the Nobel Foundation has been nominating IIT graduates for Nobels. Anyways, be on the look out for us. We`ll catch you in your sludge-slobbering slumber.

An issue that is not mentioned here is the question of tuition fees. Most of our public universities charge next to nothing in terms of fees. When students dont have to spend a lot to obtain an education, it loses its value for some. Most students do not care if exams are postponed, while another group wants to prolong its stay, as they are also gaining financially during their stint as students.

Fees should be increased and deserving students should be given scholarships to make sure that young people coming from economically challanged backgrounds get a chance to further their education.

Primary education is a right, but higher education a priveledge.

I wonder what are the views of our good Prof. Pervez Hoodbhoy on the literally hundreds of `Universities` mushrooming all over Karachi and other cities of Pakistan which claim to be affiliated or connected with foreign educational institutions and are functioning as `Campus` in rent apartments and buildings and bungalows... These `universities` and `campus` of universities with beautiful and attractive names are found all over the place and even in very remote areas. Some of these universities and Campus do not even have more than a few rooms. Needless to say, most of them are approved by this or that body and `serving` a large number of education hungry students of Pakistan.

Mr. Hoodbhoy,

I agree with your observations that the resources that is being given out by the government to the Universities should be concentrated to give result. However, I might not agree with you to reduce the number of programs that would be available to the students.

If students cannot academically be in the top .0001% (which is what competition would make it to be) then his other choice in Pakistan would be to go for vocation or stop studies. What sort of a choice would that be. A person who can afford would then look for other universities outside Pakistan to pursue their education. And we can look at what has taken place in the Middle East. In the last 30 years Middle East can hardly speak of a university of some standing.

Yes if the government cannot afford to make available operational and development funds for universities, it should then enable the universities themselves to put together self financed programs. This choice would be better than no choice.

How can you say that the trend in the increase in universities should be reversed. Ontario`s advertisement in Business magazines boast that 60% of their population has a college degree. We are not talking over here of being educated only we are saying that they have had 4 years of education beyond high school. And mind you not all are from Ivy league schools.

Ontario has gone a long way from having only government funded education to self finance programs also.

Lakha has gone the time tested strategy of creating an enabling environment to let the people in the universities themselves come up with the changes to improve the quality of education. Evolutionary process.

What you are suggesting is Revolutionary. Kick out people, close programs, create more uncertainty among the people left so either you bring in the whole team or let the ones remaining demotivated and scared of not knowing who will be next in the line.

We in Pakistan seem to want something Revolutionary. Lets make the world a better place - overnight. Why go through the process of growing lets go from childhood to adulthood overnight.

Lakha professes delphi process of development. I think we should let the man do what he does best. That is not to say that you should not let him know how to take the improvement process forward in a way that is not Revolutionary.

sattar2

Dear Sattar

You did not counter a single argument I put forward, what you did was to repeat ad b`nauseum the ahmadiyyah point of view with which I disagree. Then you take the line that this proves your point!!!! Your argument is of the form

PREMISE 1: This is my argument

PREMISE 2: I am right

CONCLUSION: Hence proved that I am right

Come now, even you should have more intelligence than that.

Can the ahmadiyyah not defend their religion?

If not I implore you to see the light and come back into the fold of Islam.

The weakness in your argument is

1. You did not `prove` that my argument is faulty (repeating this line ad nauseum doesnt PROVE it ok.

2. You could not counter the historical evidence againt ANY new calimant to Prophethood

3. The Link you gave have 2 muslim scholars of worth saying something which could be interpreted as supporting either point of view. I gave you a list of Ulema extending back to the Prophet SAW, unfortunately you have no answer to that

Finally in any argument never lose sight of rationality

I hope Allah opens your eyes to the truth.

Adnan

Adnan Sahib … some final comments from me … as I see no reason to continue this discourse with you.

On khattam …

I understood your argument in context of Prophet’s marriage … and pointed out its weakness. The Prophet (pbuh) abolished a host of other customs in the Arabs … and introduced unparalleled standards of justice and mercy. These achievements of the Prophet (pbuh) are mentioned in Quran in several places … but nowhere is mentioned that the Prophet is the “last” prophet … except in the case of this marriage!

This is an inherent flaw in your argument … which you based on the context of the verse.

In response … you have once again repeated the same argument … i.e. Prophet’s marriage. Repeating a weak argument … does not make it strong. Your argument was incorrect to begin with … but you have simply failed to accept this.

On the position of other ullema …

In the link I provided … I have proven that several ullema throughout the history of Islam have supported the idea of continuation of prophethood. Therefore your contention … that ullema have rejected continuation of prophethood … is flat wrong.

You have lost the argument … but have failed to accept it with civility. Unless you accept weakness of your position … there is no point in debating this issue with you any more. It would be a waste of my time. Good luck.

How Not to Reform Universities

by Pervez Hoodbhoy

sattar

`` I can explain why ¡§khatam¡¨ means ¡§ultimate¡¨ ¡K but as I have repeatedly stated ¡K you must first admit that your argument ¡K based on the context of the verse ¡K was flawed. If you cannot admit to this simple fact ¡K there¡¦s no point discussing the issue with you any more.``

I have explained my point of view in detail, in the previous post, can you not see now that your arguments make no sense?

``..2. Allah promised Quran will be protected ¡K and it is. Allah did not promise ullema will not go astray ¡K and it is plain to see that ullema have gone astray. This is further supported by hadith ¡K which you now conveniently ignore.``

Mr Sattar show some intelligence please, you are ignoring my argument and repeating something that is circular,

Time and again you quote that it is written in the Quran, to prove the authenticity of Quran, see?

``..3. Companions of the dear Prophet waged war against claimants of prophets ¡K and killed them (from what I know) ¡K since they were fake prophets...``

Mr Sattar again I marvel at your argument, you write

``..since they were fake..``

how was this discovered, their being fake? was there a long debate? No sir as soon as anyone claimed to being a Prophet the Sahaba RA waged war against him as NO Prophet can appear after Prophet Mohammad SAW

``..4. Ahmadi-Muslims consider Mirza Sahib a prophet ¡K and the Promised Messiah foretold by the Dear Prophet (pbuh). Quran asks us to believe in Allah¡¦s prophets. Rejecting Mirza Sahib ¡K is therefore an error on the part of a person ¡K from an Ahmadi point of view. However ¡K such people still may be granted a place in heaven ¡K depending up their actions and duty towards Allah and His creations. Allah is the Master of the Day of Judgment ¡K not Mirza Sahib ¡K not Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) ¡K not Maudoodi.``

A blatant lie, some quoted from Ahmadiyyah literature:

``Allah has revealed to me that he who does not follow me and does not give me his oath of allegiance and remains in opposition is disobeying the will of Allah and His Rasul and is Jahannami

Collection of PostersMirza Ghulam Qadiani``

AND

``This is strange that you consider the person who rejects me and the person who calls me Kafir as two different persons, whereas in the eyes of God he is the same type; because he who does not accept me is because he considers me a fabricator...``

Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, Mirza Ghulam Qadiani

AND

``All those Muslims who do not enter the fold of the Promised Messiah, whether or not they have heard of Messiah (Mirza Ghulam Qadiani) are considered Kafirs and are beyond the pale of Islam.``

Aeena-e-Sadaqat, By Bashir-uddin Mahmud

AND

``God has revealed it to me that the person who did not believe in me after having heard about me is not a Muslim.``

Al-Fazl, Qadian, Mirza Ghulam Qadiani

AND

``It has been revealed to me that the person who did not follow me and did not enter into my fold, is disobedient and as such, should be thrown into Hell.``

Miyar-ul-Akhyar, Mirza Ghulam Qadiani

``He (Mirza Ghulam Qadiani) has regarded him as an infidel who knows him to be truthful and does not belie him in speech but has not yet entered the fold.``

Tashi-ul-Azhan, Miyan Mahmood

``A man once asked the first caliph of the Messiah (Hakim Nuruddin Sahib) whether it was possible to attain salvation without having faith in mirza Sahib? He replied: `If the Word of God is based on truth, it is not possible to attain salvation without having faith in Mirza Sahib.``

Aa`ina-e-Sadaqat, Miyan Mahmood Ahmad

May I add that there is a very interesting interview of Hakim Nooruddin`s son of the Lahori jamaat which you might want to see.

AND

``It seems that the Promised Messiah had also suspected that the word `Muslim` which he used also for non-Ahmadis might be wrongly understood. So, he has made it clear in his writings occasionally that the work `Muslim` which he used for also non-Ahmadis meant `those who claimed to be Muslims.` hence, wherever he has used that term for non-Ahmadis, he means by it those who claim to be Muslims, for he could not have recognized those who denied him as Muslims under divine instructions.``

Kalimatul Fasl, Mirza Bashir Ahmad

AND

``To declare those who denied the Holy Prophet(SAW) in his first advent as Kafirs and outside the fold of Islam but to regard the deniers of his second advent (Mirza Ghulam) as Muslim is an insult to the Prophet and a joke against the signs of Allah, since the Promised Messiah has, in the Khutba-e-Ilhamia, compared the mutual relation between the first and the second advents of the Holy Prophet to the relations between the crescent and the full moon.``

Al-Fadl, Qadiani Mazhab

AND

``The point is now quite clear. If it is Kofr to deny the Merciful Prophet, it must also be Kofr to deny the Promised Messiah, because the Promised Messiah is in no way a separate being from the Merciful Prophet; rather he is the same (Muhammad). If anyone is not considered a Kafir for denying the promised Messiah, then anyone else who denies the Merciful Prophet should not also be considered a Kafir. How is it possible that denying him in his first advent should be considered Kofr, but denying him in his second advent should not be regarded as Kofr, even thought, as claimed by the Promised Messiah, his spiritual attainment is stronger, more complete, and more severe.``

Kalimatul Fasl, Review of Religions

AND

``Thus, according to this verse, every such person who believes in Moses but does not believe in Jesus, or who believes in Jesus but does not believe in Muhammad (peace be upon him), or believes in Muhammad (peace be upon him) but does not believe in the Promised Messiah, is not only a kafir but pukka kafir and excluded from the fold of Islam from Kalimat-ul-Fasal, by Mirza Bashir Ahmad``

AND ON AND ON AND ON

So at least be honest in your claims!!

``...Chance and design-by-accident ¡K are arguments put forward by atheists ¡K and are negated by Quran. I am satisfied with my understanding on this issue ¡K but would certainly continue to read and learn more. It would help you if you stop arguing like an atheist ¡K while claiming to be following Quran. Make up your mind ¡K you cannot have both!``

Mr Satter I expected better, at LEAST BE HONEST, I never said I believed in these arguments, but the point is can you refute them on basis of logic and science, I claim NO, as I mentioned ad nauseum BELIEF AND FAITH are just BELIEF AND FAITH

after we believe the rest of the religion follows logically.

Finally you said corruption in Ulema is recent, I gave you a list of Ulema who declared for 1400 years that there will be no Prophet after Prophet Mohammad SAW, you say that this supports your point that there was debate about a Prophet????

PLEASE AT LEAST TRY TO SOUND LOGICAL

sincerely

Adnan

sattar2

Dear Mr Sattar

As you dont seem to appreciate my point of view let me explain things more clearly

The issue here was whether ``KHATIM UN NABIYYIN`` means LAST or GREATEST rt?

Heres your point of view:

``Yes, I certainly pointed out contradiction in your explanation of “khattam”. You claimed that since the prophet was the “last” prophet, it was important that he struck down the pagan Arab custom by marrying his adopted slave-son’s divorced wife … and therefore “khattam” implies “last”.

I objected that … the prophet accomplished other greater goals … (conveyed the Quran; abolished riba, gambling, drinking; taught salaat; struck alliances with enemies; established remarkable standards of justice and treatment of slaves and POWS; established rights of women … etc. etc.). While a lot of these accomplishments are mentioned in Quran … nowhere is the prophet being the “last” prophet mentioned … except in the case of this marriage!

Why so much emphasis is placed on this marriage … in context of the prophet being the “last” prophet … while other bigger accomplishments are mentioned without reference to the “last” prophet? ``

The point you put forward is:

Why did Allah not mention the finality of Prophethood elsewhere?

Well there was an ingrained custom in the pagan society of arab that an adopted son was like the real son and as such one could NEVER marry his wife, be she divorced or widowed. Allah wanted to put an end to this custom and so he commanded his Prophet SAW to do so, this gave the mushrikeen and munafiqeen lethal ammo to hurl on the Prphet SAW.

It was argued that even if the status of the adopted sons wife is not the same as that of a daughter in law, there was NO compulsion for the Prophet to marry Hazrat Zainab RA.

And indeed this is a point to ponder, what was the need? Couldnt the Prophet SAW just explain this law?

But the fact was that he SAW was the last Prophet of Allah and as such it was his duty to prove by example this law of Allah.

In the words of Maulana Maudoodi:

These hypocrites argued that Zainab was the wife of an adopted son of the Holy Prophet and by this connection she stood in the position of theProphet`s daughter in-law. Hence, after her divorce from Zaid, the Prophet had taken his own daughter-in-law as wife.

In order to refute this allegation Allah told clearly in verse 37 that this marriage had Divine sanction behind it and was made to serve as a lawful precedent for Muslim men to marry the wives of their adopted sons after they had been divorced by their husbands. Later in verses 38 and 39, Allah affirmed that no power could hinder the Prophet from discharging a Divine obligation. The Prophets are ordained to fear God, not the people. It has been an invariable practice of the Apostles to transmit the Divine message without any extraneous care and to perform the duties enjoined upon them by Allah without fear or hesitation. Afterwards a verse was revealed which extinguished the basis of all objections. In the first place, they had charged ``You have taken your daughter-in-law as wife, in contravention of your own law that the wife of a son is forbidden to his father.``

In refutation of this charge it was affirmed by the Almighty:

``Muhammad had no sons among ye men...``

thereby making absolutely clear that the man whose divorced wife was taken into wedlock by the Prophet being not his real son; the act, therefore did not imply violation of it.

The argument of their second charge ran thus: ``Admitted that the adopted son is not the real one, and on that basis a father might lawfully marry the divorced spouse of his adopted son, but where was the compulsion for the Prophet to do so?``

Allah affirmed in answer to this charge:

``But, verily, he is the Apostle of Allah``.

The implication is that it was Allah`s mandate to the Holy Prophet to wipe out all prejudices and declare all taboos that pagan custom had unnecessarily imposed upon the people, as lawful. In this respect the Prophet`s action was unequivocal and left no room for doubt.

In order to lay particular emphasis upon this point Allah observes: (Khatim Al-Nabbiyeen)

``And he is the last in the line of Prophets,``

which means that no messenger nor even a Prophet charged with the mission of carrying out reforms in the sphere of Law or society which might have been omitted (God forbid) during the lifetime of Muhammad (PBUH) will ever succeed him. Since Allah ordained the ministry of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to be final, it was, therefore, imperative that he should accomplish the task of uprooting this pagan custom. ``

I hope this make it clear WHY is only ``LAST`` a suitable meaning of KHATAM here.

I went to the link you asked me to, nowhere has the khatam verse been translated in the way you want it to be.

sincerely

Adnan

Sattar 2#

I am yet unaware of any possibility like this.

To give you an example, even a little piece of extra chrosome adding or missing or a whole single chromosome adding or missing result in marked genetic abnormality.

There are 22 pairs of chromosomes and an X and a Y chromosome in male and XX chromosome in female.

The first division of meiosis is already dome before any sex. Meaning Each ovum and sperm has 22 single chromosomes and female has single X- chromosome in ovum. And male has one X or one Y chromosome in sperm.

If fertilizayion happens for example between two ovum, to result in what is called diploid cell. The cell will have normal number of chromosomes i.e. 44 XX in this case. (That is why although, it does not happen, but for our purpose we can assume that). Fertilization of diploid cell with another sperm, will result in Triploid number of chromosomes. I am not aware of any such situation as a possibility.

I would be very careful in accepting the result of such research.

Also the problem will still remain. Where did the Y-chromosome come from.

(Although you may be right in assuming that some physical principle might be found some day. But I will still believe that at that particular moment of time, God`s will was there.

Re krashid (#190):

On parthenogenesis …

In attempts to highlight a minute natural possibility of virgin-birth … I am posting an excerpt from “Christianity – A Journey from Facts to Fiction” - by Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad. You seem to have a background in medicine … and may better appreciate some of this more than I can …

Parthenogenesis is the asexual development of a female ovum into an individual, without the aid of a male agent. It is observed among many lower forms of life such as aphids and also fish. There is also evidence that parthenogenesis can be a successful strategy among lizards under low and unpredictable rainfall conditions [Genetics, 1991 September: 129(1) : 211-9]. In laboratory conditions, mice and rabbit embryos have been developed parthenogenetically to a stage equivalent to halfway through pregnancy, but have then been aborted. In a recent study, scientists found that human embryos could be occasionally activated by parthenogenesis using calcium ionophore as a catalyst [Fertility – Sterility – 1991 November; 56(5):904-12]. Such research raises the prospect that some early pregnancy losses may have involved parthenogenetic activation of the embryo.

According to the latest experimental research, however, the possibility of virgin birth has been shown to be scientifically feasible. A report in the “Nature Genetics” (October 1995, research of David Bonthron et al.) discusses the remarkable case of a three-year-old boy whose body is derived in part from an unfertilized egg. The researchers examined DNA sequences all along the X chromosomes in the boy’s skin and blood and discovered that the X chromosomes in all his cells were identical to each other and derived entirely from his mother. Similarly, both members of each of the 22 other chromosome pairs in his body were identical and derived entirely form his mother.

The explanation given by the researchers for this phenomenon is that the unfertilized oven self-activated and began dividing itself into identical cells; one of these cells was then fertilized by a spermatozoon from the father and the resultant mixture of cells began to develop as a normal embryo.

This illustrates that cells created parthenogenetically in mammals are not always disabled. In the case of this boy, they were able to create a normal blood system.

Now ...

Do keep in mind … that we are looking for a minute possibility … while we are discovering more about nature with time. My emphasis is that … there very well may be a plausible explanation of Issa’s birth … that is explainable without the need to any “miracles”.

I’ll review some literature on Adam … and will try to post something … although it may take a few days …

Sattar2 #188

Asexual reproduction is a known fact for a long time. And there is nothing new about it.

What you are calling parthenogenesis is actually division by Mitosis.

Asexual reproduction does not happen in humans.

Until we have some evidence, I will believe it as miracle or ``Kun Fayakon``

Also in Koran, Mary said how can I have a baby when no man has touched me, just describes this fact accurately. And God`s response (I think through angels) is WE can do whatever WE like or something like that, just points to HIS power.

Also story of Adam is given in many places in Koran. For example God said to HIS angels that I am going to make Adam.

Later HE taught some names to Adam (for me learning capacity) and asked angels to tell those names. Angels replied we know only what YOU taught us (again signifying the point of learning capacity).

The fruit of tree Adam and Eve ate, is probably related to their maturation after eating the fruit. (Wallah Aalam).

The point I am making is that Adam means Homo Sapiens. And not that God was creating a prophet to be sent to similar people who were already there on Earth.

Koranic words suggest that, it was something new. For example Angels asked God, if you will create something, which will produce evil on this earth. And GOD said, Iknow what you don`t know.

Also, it cannot be that if there were people before Adam and Adam was sent as a prophet to those people, angels would have said, you are creating a prophet, who will produce evil on this earth

If my hypothesis is correct, there is no way Adam can be only 6000 years old.

Also there is nothing in Koran, for this date of 6000 years.

So my contention is that Adam was the first homo sapeiens. As far as Adam being prophet, can you tell me from Koran, where it is mentioned.

Adnan (#186):

I do not think you are paying attention to my posts ¡K

1. I can explain why ¡§khatam¡¨ means ¡§ultimate¡¨ ¡K but as I have repeatedly stated ¡K you must first admit that your argument ¡K based on the context of the verse ¡K was flawed. If you cannot admit to this simple fact ¡K there¡¦s no point discussing the issue with you any more.

2. Allah promised Quran will be protected ¡K and it is. Allah did not promise ullema will not go astray ¡K and it is plain to see that ullema have gone astray. This is further supported by hadith ¡K which you now conveniently ignore.

3. Companions of the dear Prophet waged war against claimants of prophets ¡K and killed them (from what I know) ¡K since they were fake prophets. This does not prove that there will never be a prophet. You are drawing illogical conclusions ¡K once again.

4. Ahmadi-Muslims consider Mirza Sahib a prophet ¡K and the Promised Messiah foretold by the Dear Prophet (pbuh). Quran asks us to believe in Allah¡¦s prophets. Rejecting Mirza Sahib ¡K is therefore an error on the part of a person ¡K from an Ahmadi point of view. However ¡K such people still may be granted a place in heaven ¡K depending up their actions and duty towards Allah and His creations. Allah is the Master of the Day of Judgment ¡K not Mirza Sahib ¡K not Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) ¡K not Maudoodi.

We can discuss Ahmadiyyat more ¡K once you admit the flaws on your other arguments.

5. You are now trying to downplay the division within the ummah. Due to differences in various sects ¡K they refuse to pray behind each other ¡K declare others as kaffirs ¡K and resort to inter-sectarian fatwas of kuffr and violence. This proves my point in (2).

Chance and design-by-accident ¡K are arguments put forward by atheists ¡K and are negated by Quran. I am satisfied with my understanding on this issue ¡K but would certainly continue to read and learn more. It would help you if you stop arguing like an atheist ¡K while claiming to be following Quran. Make up your mind ¡K you cannot have both!

#187:

You are confusing ¡§corruption¡¨ of ullema ¡K by innocent misunderstandings on part of the ullema. I directed you to a link with quotes from earlier ullema ¡K to indicate that ¡§continuation of prophethood¡¨ has long been debated ¡K with no agreement within the body of scholars.

The ¡§laundry list¡¨ of quotes you provided ¡K when read with the link I provided ¡K only proves my point.

Krashid (#185):

My emphasis on parthenogenesis is that ¡K it is principle that was once outside the domain of human knowledge ¡K and is now known to occur in less complex species. It we extrapolate on this principle ¡K it is not unexpected that someday we¡¦ll discover a principle ¡K or a special case of parthenogenesis ¡K that may explain virgin birth ¡K in more complex beings ¡K with extremely low probability. That in turn, will provide a plausible explanation of birth of Issa.

I mentioned the creation of Adam ¡K to show that kun fayakun ¡K if/when used for creation of Adam ¡K does not imply a miraculous birth. Kun fayakun in case of Adam is consistent with gradual evolution of mankind ¡K according to designs put into place by the Almighty. Adam was born according to natural laws ¡K and so was Issa.

On dating Adam to 6000 year-ago time frame ¡K I am not sure what historical data was used ¡K but I remember reading it somewhere in commentary of Quran by an Ahmadi scholar. It may have been based upon the dating of other prophets who followed Adam ¡K and/or incidents mentioned in the Quran ¡K some of which are supported by historical findings.

Humans have slowly evolved from pre-biotic organisms ¡K to their existing form ¡K over billions of years. Quran beautifully hints at and explains the formation of life ¡K development of early stages of initial organisms ¡K how they derived energy ¡K and so on. Human intellect has also developed gradually with time. Adam being the first prophet only means that he belonged to an era when humans had developed ¡K intellectually and otherwise ¡K to a point where they could appreciate and carry out some of the basic commandments of the Almighty Allah. The commandments given to Adam mainly consisted of basic civic principles ¡K to ensure that people¡¦s basic needs are met ¡K which included food, water, shelter, and clothing.

As humans evolved ¡K intellectually and otherwise ¡K the commandments sent through prophets became better defined ¡K to address the needs to growing, dynamic, complex societies. Eventually ¡K we were given divine Law on who we can marry ¡K minimum charity requirements ¡K how often to pray ¡K to shun gambling, alcohol, interest ¡K and so on.

sattar2

Got this from the net, same can be fpund in Qadiyani Masala by Maudoodi.

You said ``only recently has the chain of Ulema become corrupt``, heres a selection from 1400 years of Islamic thought

The Interpretation of well-known Muslim Scholars on

The Finality of Prophethood (Khatmay-Nabuwat)

(In Chronological Order)

Allama Ibn-e- Jarir Tabri (224-310 A.H.) interprets Khatam-an-Nabiyeen to mean that Muhammad(SAW) is the last prophet, the one who has closed up Prophethood or sealed it. This seal will not be opened for anyone till the Day of Judgment.

(Tafsir Ibn-e-Jarir, P. 12, Vol. 22, Egypt)

Mohiyyus Sunnah Baghawi (D. 510 A.H.) has written that the words Khatam-an-Nabiyeen indicte that Allah(SWT) has closed the line of Prophethood after Prophet Muhammad(SAW).... Ibn-e-Abbas says that Allah(SWT) has declared that there is no Prophet after him(SAW).

(Tafsir Malimut-tanzil, P. 158, Vol. 3, Egypt)

Allama Zamakhshari (467-538 A.H.) has written: ``If you say how can he(SAW) be the Last Prophet when Jesus(pbuh) will come in the future ages, I will reply that he(SAW) is the Last Prophet in the sense that after him no New Prophet will come; Jesus(pbuh) is one of those Prophets who have already come before him. When Jesus(pbuh) will come again, he will follow the Sharia of Prophet Muhammad(SAW) and will face Qibla in his salat; this means that he will come as an individual of this Ummah.

Imam Razi (543-606 A.H.) is of the opinion that the words Khatam-an-Nabiyeen are used to show that the Sharia of Islam is complete. The view that no prophet will come after Muahmmad(SAW) is also more affectionate to and particular about his(SAW) Ummah and gives the significance of the words in more details. This is like the example of a son who has no guardian after his father.

(Tafsir-e-Kabir, P. 581, Vol. 6, Egypt)

Allama Baizavi (D. 685 A.H.) says that Prophet Muhammad(SAW) is the last of all Prophets. He has sealed the Prophethood of all Prophets, or their Prophethood has been sealed by him. It makes no difference that Jesus(pbuh) will come again after him, because he will come as a follower of his(SAW) Sharia.

(Tafsir-e-Bizavi, P. 196, Vol. 2, Egypt)

Allama Nasafi (D. 710 A.H.) recorded that Prophet Muhammad(SAW) is at the end of all Prophets(pbut); and after him there will be no New Prophet; and Jesus(pbuh) was made a Prophet before him(SAW); and when he comes again, he will come as a follower of the Sharia of Prophet Muhammad(SAW) as if he (Jesus) were an individual of this Ummah.

(Tafsir-e-Madarik-ut-Tanzil, P. 234, Vol. 3, Egypt)

Allama Allauddin Khazin (D. 725 A.H.) has expressed the view that Allah(SWT) has ended the line of Prophethood through him(SAW). Therefore, neither there is Prophethood after him, nor any other Prophet during his own time. Indeed, Ibn-e-Abbas has said that God has declared there will be no Prophet after him(SAW).

(Tafsir-e-Khazin, P. 218, Vol. 5, Egypt)

Allama Ibn-e-Kaseer (D. 774 A.H.) has written that Khatam-an-Nabiyeen contains the final proof of the fact that there will be no Prophet after him(SAW); neither will there be a Prophet with Sharia, since the office of prophethood with Sharia is higher than that of mere Prophethood.

(Tafsir-Ibn-e-Kaseer, P. 493, Vol. 3, Egypt)

Allama Mohammad Bin Yakoob Ferozabadi has interpreted these words to mean that Allah(SWT) has ended the line of Prophethood through him(SAW). Therefore, after him, there will be no New Prophet.

(Tafsir Ibn-e-Abbas, P. 262, Egypt)

Allama Moinuddin Bin Safiuddin (D. 889 A.H.) has written that the Prophet Muhammad(SAW) is the last of all Prophets and Jesus(pbuh) will come again as a follower of his Sharia.

(Jaame-ul-Bayan, P. 359, Dehli)

Allama Suyuti (D. 911 A.H.) says that the words Khatam-an-Nabiyeen mean there will be no New Prophet after him(SAW) and when Jesus(pbuh) will come again, he will act according to the Sharia of Prophet Muhammad(SAW).

(Jalalaim Ala Hamish Jamal, P. 442, Vol. 3)

Shah Mohammad Anwer Kashmiri has seen the meaning of Khatam-an-Nabiyeen to be that there will be no Prophet after him(SAW) and Jesus(pbuh) has already been made a Prophet before him(SAW).

(Mushkilatul Quran, P. 227, Dehli)

Sheikh Ismail Haqqi (D. 1137 A.H.) has read the phrase Khatam-an-Nabiyeen with the upsound of ``T`` which means the instrument by which something is closed (sealed). The meaning is that he(SAW) was the last of all Prophets by whom the office of all Prophets has been sealed. In Persian, ``Seal of Prophets`` means that by him the doors of Prophethood have been sealed, and the line of Prophethood terminated once and for all. Some other scholars have read this with a down sound of ``T`` which indicates he was ``Khatim`` in the sense of ``Fa`ail``. In Persian, it will mean the one who seals (ends) the prophets, in which case, the meaning is the same.

(Tafsir Ruhul Bayan, P. 188, Vol. 22, Egypt)

Allama Suleman Bin Umar Bin Jama (D. 1204 A.H.) has stated that ``It is in the knowledge of Allah, who has complete knowledge of all things, that there will be no Prophet after Prophet Muhammad(SAW).``

(Al-Futuhaatul Ilahiya, P. 442, Vol. 3, Egypt)

Allama Muhammad Sharbeeni Khatib says that Prophet Muhammad(SAW) is the end of all Prophets. He(SAW) has ended the line of Prophethood, because his message is for the entire world and the Holy Quran is his miracle. After him, then, there is no need for a new prophet.... The meaning of Khatam-an-Nabiyeen is that after Hazrat Muhammad(SAW), there will be no Prophet with New Sharia, and there will be no Prophethood after him. The declaration that he is not the father of any man also proves that there will be no Prophets after him.

(Tafsir Sirajul Munir, P. 252, Vol. 3, Lucknow)

Allama Shaukani (D. 1255 A.H.) has written that the majority of scholars have read the word Khatam-an-Nabiyeen with the down sound of ``T`` and Asaim has read it with the up sound. The first means that he(SAW) has sealed the Prophets meaning that he has come at the very end of them. The other means that he is the seal of Prophets by which they have been completed and by the joining of him the group of Prophets has been decorated.

(Tafsir-e-Fathul Qadeer, P. 275, Vol. 4, Egypt)

Allama Aaloosi (D. 1270 A.H.) writes that Hazrat Muhammad(SAW) is also Khatimul Mursaleen meaning that after his Prophethood there will be no Prophethood at all.

(Tafsir Roohul Ma`ani, P. 23, Vol. 22)

Adnan

#: 183

sattar2

Unfortunately Mr Sattar now that you seem to run out of arguments (in the last two posts you have not counterd a single argument that I put forward) all you can do is be rude, fine, it tells a lot about your intellect.

My questions in the two posts were:

1. How does ``GREATEST`` fit in place of LAST.

You did not reply

2. Allah indeed tells us that the Quran is protected, but this verse is itself in the Quran ok. So how can we believe any of this?

You did not reply

3. Why did the Prophets SAW companions RA wage war against anyone claiming Prphethood?? And this continues to our day. Not once did they even consider the possibility of a Prophet after Prophet Mohammad SAW ok.

Do you have a counter example?

4. Do the Ahmadiyyah consider the muslims who do not believe in the Prophethood of Mirza Sahib believers? Would such people in your (Ahmadiyyah) view be granted a place in Heaven?

5. As far as divisions are concerned they simply arise bcos of different emphasis placed on rituals (alll based on the life of the Prophet) by different sect. There is nothing wrong in this. All sects stood united against the Ahmadiyyah threat to Islam.

And btw what of the Lahori and Qadiyani groups in your own jamaat?



The only quotation of yours I will comment is this one as it is an absurdity and mockery of science. I requested you to look up two references on science, you cannot be bothered to do so.

``Amino acids have been artificially created … yes … but the probability of such occurrences … followed by formation of complex proteins … and life as we know it … in a few billion years … cannot be explained on chance.``

IT CAN AND IT HAS BEEN ok

tch tch.. No arguments left, only a little speech?? I hope your Jamaat has better people to put across their point of view and in a more mature manner

Adnan

And to anyone interested who has been following these posts two good references on Ahmadiyyah are

1. Dr Mohammad Iqbal`s ``Islam Aur Ahmadiyyat``

2. Maulana Maudoodi`s ``Qadiyani Masala`` (A military court sentenced Maluna to death for writing this)

Sattar 2.

We will continue to go around in circles.

Parthenogenesis is the only guess, (probably brought by some christian fundamentalist with a little knowhow of genetics).

Y chromosome is necessary for males. So parthenogenesis does not apply. Which means female gamete even if somehow divide into womb will produce an XX or female.

On the matter of evolution and creation of Adam 6000 years back. I don`t understand your point.

This theory was proposed by christian scholars centuries ago, and one of them came up with this date of 6000 years back, to sound more accurate.

Human evolution is a continuous process. Even for thinking individual.

For example the culture of thousand year old does not mean that the man was not thinking individual at that time. That was the stage of progress of society. Similarly if we are talking about homo sapiens, it does not go back to 6000 years ago. But much much further back. Starting from early stone age to neolithic to copper to iron to agriculture to industrial to atomic. It is a continuous process.

Although I have the thought that Adam (homo sapiens) was evolved through evolution in a natural way (and it does not contradict Quranic teachings). But I find no inclination to put a 6000 years date to date (nor is it given in Koran).

Since you look an intelligent guy. Tell me why a fixed date is not given in Surah Rome, but it is mentioned that in 3-7 tears Christians will overcome Kafirs.