Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

[EagleEyes]

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting read. What are your opinions on this guy?

 

[Awesome]

Simple question... The second coming of Jesus was supposed to bring world peace, Islamic dominance. And was supposed to be precluded with the Yajuj Majuj being released and a whole lot of things.

This dude's long dead and nothing happened. When Jesus and the Mahdi come they are supposed to be able to convince the Muslims of who they are... Hardly any of the Muslims believe Mirza sahab.

 

[salahuldin786]

his a kafir and his follwer's are too becase the prophet muhhammed has said after me no new nabi or prophet will come and this guy claim's to be a prophet and when he died he died on a toilet, a message from allah. no doubt him and his follwer's are kafir.

 

[saracen]

his a kafir and his follwer's are too becase the prophet muhhammed has said after me no new nabi or prophet will come and this guy claim's to be a prophet and when he died he died on a toilet, a message from allah. no doubt him and his follwer's are kafir.

A little googling revealed this interesting comment from a little known South African newsletter called Al-Balagh!!

www.tolueislam.com/Parwez/articles/one_who_is_coming.htm]The One Who is Coming


“THE ONE WHO IS COMING”

by G.A. Parwez
Al-Balaagh, Volume 23 Number 1, FEB-MAR 1998
What will Imam Mahid’s Mazhab be?

A concerned seeker of truth asks: “the Shias are expecting Imam Mahdi to come, and so do the Sunnis. My question is: Will Imam Mahdi be a Sunni or a Shia?’

Actually, this story beings from a considerable period of time BEFORE the Sunnis/Shias also voted themselves to waiting in the queue comprising followers of the different faiths-keenly excepting someone who is “coming”.

Adherents of the various religions of the world are all awaiting the arrival of “The One Who is Coming”. It is their unshakable belief that the Expected One will come during the last days of the world just before Qiyaamat, and he will overcome (destroy) all the other faiths, and make his own religion the hold sway over all the others.

Thus:

The Hindus are excepting a Kalanki Autaar who is coming to secure ascendancy of the Vedic Dharam over all other faiths.
The Buddhists are waiting for Mahatma Buddha’s Matiyaa Autaar who is coming to institute Buddhism as the preponderant faith over all the other persuasions.
The Jainis are expecting the last Mahaweer to come through whom Jainish will rule the world as the ONLY creed.
The Majoos (fire-worshippers) are awaiting a Mateera to come who will destroy ALL other traianism as the ONLY predominant religion.
The Jews are waiting for the advent of a final Isreali prophet who will see to it that Judaism is, and the Children of Israel are, SUPREME over all the other nations and religions of the world.
The Chrstians are keenly expecting the coming of Jesus Christ who will proclaim Christianity as the SOLE religion all over the world.
“HONOUR”
Since EVERY religion teaches that it awaits the coming of one who is going to promulgate its own particular faith as the supreme and ONLY faith in the whole world, Muslims wondered that why should they be deprived of this “honour” and be left out in the cold!

To this end they too claim that they are expecting “Imam Mahdi” to come who will establish Islam as the ONLY world religion, superseding all other faiths.

Ponder a little on the situation:

Each of these gentlemen who are supposed to be coming, will come near Qiyaamat.
Each of them will arrive during the SAME period.
Each of them will be invested with the responsibility of eliminating ALL other religions, and making his own faith predominant and supreme.
Visualise now the scenario mankind is going to witness at the same time! Will there not be a colossal pandemonium. a gigantic cataclysm, a veritable “Qiyaamat” of gargantuan proportions BEFORE the actual Qiyaamat?!

IMAAM-E-AAKHIRUZ ZAMAAN

Let us revert to the Muslims: The Shias are waiting for the Imaam-e-Aakhiruz Zamaan (imam of the latter era, near Qiyaamat) to come and establish Shi’ism and Shia rule over ALL other Muslims. Not only this, it is also the FIRM Shia belief (Aqeedah) that the Imaam will resurrect the three Khulafa of the Sunnis (Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Umar and Hazrat Usman (R)) and will KILL them! (This belief is called the Creed of “RAJ’AT”)

On the other hand, the Sunnis, too, are expecting the Imaam-e-assuredly, undoubtedly, and most positively come to proclaim Sunni Islam as the ONLY faith in the whole world.

The question that arises here is: which paricular sect of Sunni Islam is he going to choose-the AHLE-FIQH or AHLE-HADITH? If he chooses te AHLE-FIQh, then which particular Mazhab from the Ahle-Fiqh – Hanafi, Shaafi’ee, Maaliki or Hanbali?

As far as Hazrar Eesa (A) is concerned: Hazrat Mujaddid Alf Thaani had already learnt that (in a state of “Kashf”, i.e. inspiration) from Hazrat Eesa) will be of the Hanafi Mazhab.

Thus he writes in the 3rd volume of his “Maktoobaat” that Hazrat Khwaja Khizr had disclosed to him as follows:-

(“if it is presumed that a prophet will be born in this Ummah, he will act according to the Hanafi Mazhab. It has become known that Hazrat Eesa, after his descent, will follow the Mazhab of Imam Abu Haneefah.”)

IMAM MAHDI’S MAZHAB

Since it is the belief of Muslims that Hazrat Eesa (A) will be a follower of Imam Mahdi, it is obvious then, that the Mazhad of Imam Mahdi will be the Hanafi Mazhab.

Cntrary to all the above, Shaikh Akbar Muhiuddenen Ibn Arabi writes in the “Futoohaat-e-Makkiyyah” that when Imam Mahdi appears, the jurists (Fuqaha) will oppose him vehemently. It becomes evident from this that according to Ibn Arabi, Imam Mahdi will be from the “Ahle-Tareeqat” (Sufis/ Mystics).

The followers of other faiths may believe whatever their heart desires about “The One Who is Coming”. But as far as the QURAN is concerned, it contains NO evidence and NO indicatin whatsoever of someone who is still going to come AFTER Rasuluallah (S)… neither Imam Mahdi, nor Hazrat Eesa (A)!!

AL-BALAAGH COMMENT:

Muslims, through their UN-QURANIC belif in someone who is coming, have kept a chair vacant for this “Comer”. And gues what? Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani came and sat in the chair!

And now the entire Ummah is shedding much intellectual blook and iits engaged in a ferovious tug-of-war- trying to pull the Mirza OUT of that chair!

Muslims, really, are some Ummah!

 

[abdulrafi]

dear salahuddin
why you have added word " new " do you want to say that all 124000-1 can come again, and it will not create any problem with the position of the HOLY PROPHET PBUH as last prophet

or you want to say that the HOLY PROPHET is last prophet in its designation and not by time, as the people believe that jesus will return at later days and will convert all beings into islam so he ( jesus ) should be last to go back




his a kafir and his follwer's are too becase the prophet muhhammed has said after me no new nabi or prophet will come and this guy claim's to be a prophet and when he died he died on a toilet, a message from allah. no doubt him and his follwer's are kafir.

 

[Awesome]

his a kafir and his follwer's are too becase the prophet muhhammed has said after me no new nabi or prophet will come and this guy claim's to be a prophet and when he died he died on a toilet, a message from allah. no doubt him and his follwer's are kafir.

He doesn't call himself a new Prophet he calls himself the second coming of Jesus. Which is not convincing and if he was the Mahdi, which Dajjal did he defeat?

Saracen, I too have always believed that perhaps all of this is just made up since there is no mention of it in the Quran. However, let's just keep an open mind.

 

[abdulrafi]

if you read surah al-jumah, read/check the follwings, and what prophet muhammad pbuh, the sohabas' while touching the shoulders of sulman farsi

62:3] He it is Who has raised among the unlettered people a Messenger from among themselves who recites unto them His Signs, and purifies them, and teaches them the Book and Wisdom though before that they were in manifest error;
[62:4] And He will raise him among others of them who have not yet joined them. He is the Mighty, the Wise.

 

[Awesome]

You are saying the second line points to the second coming of Christ?

I think in both of them the lines are mentioning Prophet Mohammad.

 

[salahuldin786]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 425:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims, who are in the protection, of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and no-body will accept charitable gifts.


Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 656:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 651:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "I am the nearest of all the people to the son of Mary, and all the prophets are paternal brothers, and there has been no prophet between me and him (i.e. Jesus)."

Volume 4, Book 55, Number 657:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (Jesus,) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non Muslims). Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it, and a single prostration to Allah (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it." Abu Huraira added "If you wish, you can recite (this verse of the Holy Book): -- 'And there is none Of the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (i.e. Jesus as an Apostle of Allah and a human being) Before his death. And on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness Against them." (4.159) (See Fateh Al Bari, Page 302 Vol. 7)


jesus is mentioned in the hadith of prophet muhhammed p.b.u.h.

 

[salahuldin786]

Volume 4, Book 55, Number 658:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said "How will you be when the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you and he will judge people by the Law of the Quran and not by the law of Gospel (Fateh-ul Bari page 304 and 305 Vol 7)

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4310:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet (pbuh) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (pbuh). He will descend (to the earth). When you see him, recognize him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizya. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.

 

[Awesome]

jesus is mentioned in the hadith of prophet muhhammed p.b.u.h.

But not in the Quran of Allah? Why? I'm talking about Jesus/Isa's second coming, not just the mention of Jesus.

And incidentally all the pagan religions have this tradition too.

We do know that the Quran 100% God-made, but the Hadiths are all man-made.

 

[saracen]

A little googling revealed this interesting comment from a little known South African newsletter called Al-Balagh!!

www.tolueislam.com/Parwez/articles/one_who_is_coming.htm]The One Who is Coming

And here is what Allama Iqbal said -from the same website.


Allama Iqbal on Ahmadism

On the appearance of Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru's three articles in The Modern Review of Calcutta, I received a number of letters from Muslims of different shades of religious and political opinion. Some writers of these letters want me to further elucidate and justify the attitude of the Indian Muslims towards the Ahmadis. Others ask me what exactly I regard as the issue involved in Ahmadism. In this statement I propose first to meet these demands which I regard as perfectly legitimate, and then to answer the questions raised by Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru. I fear, however, that parts of this statement may not interest the Pandit, and to save his time I suggest that he may skip over such parts.



It is hardly necessary for me to say that I welcome the Pandit's interest in what I regard as one of the greatest problems of the East and perhaps of the whole world. He is, I believe, the first Nationalist Indian leader who has expressed a desire to understand the present spiritual unrest in the world of Islam. In view of the many aspects and possible reactions of this unrest, it is highly desirable that thoughtful Indian political leaders should open their mind to the real meaning of what is at the present moment agitating the heart of Islam.



I do not wish, however, to conceal the fact, either from the Pandit or from any other reader of this statement, that the Pandit's articles have for the moment given my mind rather a painful conflict of feelings. Knowing him to be a man of wide cultural sympathies, my mind cannot but incline to the view that his desire to understand the questions he has raised is perfectly genuine; yet the way which he has expressed himself betrays a psychology which I find difficult to attribute to him. I am inclined to think that my statement on Qadianism - no more than a mere exposition of a religious doctrine on modern lines - has embarrassed both the Pandit and the Qadianis, perhaps because both inwardly resent, for different reasons, the prospects of Muslim political and religious solidarity particularly in India. It is obvious that the Indian Nationalist whose political idealism has practically killed his sense for fact is intolerant of the birth of a desire for self-determination in the heart of North-West Indian Islam. He thinks, wrongly in my opinion, that the only way to Indian Nationalism lies in a total suppression of the cultural entities of the country through the interaction of which alone India can evolve a rich and enduring culture. A nationalism achieved by such methods can mean nothing but mutual bitterness and even oppression. It is equally obvious that the Qadianis, too, feel nervous by the political awakening of the Indian Muslims, because they feel that the rise in political prestige of the Indian Muslims is sure to defeat their designs to carve out from the Ummat of the Arabian Prophet a new Ummat for the Indian prophet. It is no small surprise to me that my effort to impress on the Indian Muslims the extreme necessity of internal cohesion in the present critical moment of their history in India, and my warning them against the forces of disintegration, masquerading as Reformist movements, should have given the Pandit an occasion to sympathize with such forces....



Only a true lover of God can appreciate the value of devotion even though it is directed to gods in which he himself does not believe. The folly of our preachers of toleration consists in describing the attitude of the man who is jealous of the boundaries of his own faith as one of intolerance. They wrongly consider this attitude as a sign of moral inferiority. They do not understand that the value of his attitude, is essentially biological. Where the members of a group feel, either instinctively or on the basis of rational argument, that the corporate life of the social organism to which they belong is in danger, their defensive attitude must be appraised in reference mainly to a biological criterion. Every thought or deed in this connection must be judged by the life-value that it may possess. The question in this case is not whether the attitude of an individual or community towards the man who is declared to be a heretic is morally good or bad. The question is whether it is life-giving or life-destroying. Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru seems to think that a society founded on religious principles necessitates the institution of Inquisition. This is indeed true of the history of Christianity; but the history of Islam, contrary to the Pandit's logic, shows that during the last thirteen hundred years of the life of Islam, the institution of Inquisition has been absolutely unknown in Muslim countries. The Qur'an expressly prohibits such an institution: "Do not seek out the shortcomings of others and carry not tales against your brethren." Indeed the Pandit will find from the history of Islam that the Jews and Christians, fleeing from religious persecution in their own lands, always found shelter in the lands of Islam. The two propositions on which the conceptual structure of Islam is based are so simple that it makes heresy in the sense of turning the heretic outside the fold of Islam almost impossible. It is true that when a person declared to be holding heretical doctrines threatens the existing social order an independent Muslim State will certainly take action; but in such a case the action of the State will be determined more by political considerations than by purely religious ones. I can very well realize that a man like the Pandit, who is born and brought up in a society which has no well-defined boundaries and consequently no internal cohesion, finds it difficult to conceive that a religious society can live and prosper without State-appointed commissions of inquiry in so the beliefs of the people. This is quite clear from the passage which he quotes from Cardinal Newman and wonders how far I would accept the application of the Cardinal's dictum to Islam. Let me tell him that there is a tremendous difference between the inner structure of Islam and Catholicism wherein the complexity, the ultra-rational character and the number of dogmas has, as the history of Christianity shows, always fostered possibilities of fresh heretical interpretations. The simple faith of Muhammad is based on two propositions-that God is One, and that Muhammad is the last of the line of those holy men who have appeared from time to time in all countries and in all ages to guide mankind to the right ways of living. If, as some Christian writers think, a dogma must be defined as an ultra-rational proposition which, for the purpose of securing religious solidarity, must be assented to without any understanding of its metaphysical import, then these two simple propositions of Islam cannot be described even as dogmas; for both of them are supported by the experience of mankind, and are fairly amenable to rational argument. The question of a heresy, which needs the verdict whether the author of it is within or without the fold, can arise, in the case of a religious society founded on such simple propositions, only when the heretic rejects both or either of these propositions. Such heresy must be and has been rare in the history of Islam which, while jealous of its frontiers, permits freedom of interpretation within these frontiers. And since the phenomenon of the kind of heresy which affects the boundaries of Islam has been rare in the history of Islam, the feeling of the average Muslim is naturally intense when a revolt of this kind arises. That is why the feeling of Muslim Persia was so intense against the Bahais. That is why the feeling of the Indian Muslims is so intense against the Qadianis.



It is true that mutual accusations of heresy for differences in minor points of law and theology among Muslim religious sects have been rather common. In this indiscriminate use of the word Kufr, both for minor theological points of difference as well as for the extreme cases of heresy which involve the excommunication of the heretic, some present-day educated Muslims, who possess practically no knowledge of the history of Muslim theological disputes, see a sign of social and political disintegration of the Muslim community. This, however, is an entirely wrong notion. The history of Muslim Theology shows that mutual accusation of heresy on minor points of difference has, far from working as a disruptive force, actually given an impetus to synthetic theological thought. "When we read the history of development of Muhammadan Law," says Professor Hurgronje, "we find that, on the one hand, the doctors of every age, on the slightest stimulus, condemn one another to the point of mutual accusations of heresy; and, on the other hand, the very same people with greater and greater unity of purpose try to reconcile the similar quarrels of their predecessors." The student of Muslim Theology knows that among Muslim legists this kind of heresy is technically known as "heresy below heresy," i.e. the kind of heresy which does not involve the excommunication of the culprit. It may be admitted, however, that in the hands of mullas whose intellectual laziness takes all oppositions of theological thought as absolute and is consequently blind to the unity in difference, this minor heresy may become a source of great mischief. This mischief can be remedied only by giving to the students of our theological schools a clearer vision of the synthetic spirit of Islam, and by reinitiating them into the function of logical contradiction as a principle of movement. in theological dialectic. The question of what may be called major heresy arises only when the teaching of a thinker or a reformer affects the frontiers of the faith of Islam. Unfortunately, this question does arise in connection with the teachings of Qadianism. It must be pointed out here that the Ahmadi movement is divided into two camps known as the Qadianis and the Lahoris. The former openly declare the founder to be a full prophet; the latter, either by conviction or policy, have found it advisable to preach an apparently toned down Qadianism. However, the question whether the founder of Ahmadism was a prophet the denial of whose mission entails what I call the "major heresy" is a matter of dispute between the two sections. It is unnecessary for my purposes to judge the merits of this domestic controversy of the Ahmadis. I believe, for reasons to be explained presently, that the idea of a full-prophet whose denial entails the denier's excommunication from Islam is essential to Ahmadism; and that the present head of the Qadianis is far more consistent with the spirit of the movement than the Imam of the Lahoris.



The cultural value of the idea of Finality in Islam I have fully explained elsewhere, Its meaning is simple: No spiritual surrender to any human being after Muhammad who emancipated his followers by giving them a law which is realizable as arising from the very core of human conscience. Theologically, the doctrine is that: the socio-political Organization called "Islam" is perfect and eternal. No revelation the denial of which entails heresy is possible after Muhammad. He who claims such a revelation is a traitor to Islam. Since the Qadianis believe the founder of the Ahmadiyyah movement to be the bearer of such a revelation, they declare that the entire world of Islam is infidel. The founder's own argument, quite worthy of a medieval theologian, is that the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam must be regarded as imperfect if it is not creative of another prophet. He claims his own prophethood to be an evidence of the prophet-rearing power of the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam. But if you further ask him whether the spirituality of Muhammad is capable of rearing more prophets than one, his answer is "No". This virtually amounts to saying: "Muhammad is not the last Prophet: I am the last." Far from understanding the cultural value of the Islamic idea of finality in the history of mankind generally and of Asia especially, he thinks that finality in the sense that no follower of Muhammad can ever reach the status of prophethood is a mark of imperfection in Muhammad's prophethood. As I read the psychology of his mind he, in the interest of his own claim to prophethood, avails himself of what he describes as the creative spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam and, at the same time, deprives the Holy Prophet of his "finality" by limiting the creative capacity of his spirituality to the rearing of only one prophet, i.e, the founder of the Ahmadiyyah movement. In this way does the new prophet quietly steal away the "finality" of one whom he claims to be his spiritual progenitor.



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

It is further claimed on the authority of the great Muslim mystic, Muhyuddin ibn Arabi of Spain, that it is possible for a Muslim saint to attain, in his spiritual evolution, to the kind of experience characteristic of the prophetic consciousness. I personally believe this view of Shaikh Muhyuddin ibn Arabi to be psychologically unsound; but assuming it to be correct the Qadiani argument is based on a complete misunderstanding of his exact position. The Shaikh regards it as a purely private achievement which does not, and in the nature of things cannot, entitle such a saint to declare that all those who do not believe in him are outside the pale of Islam. Indeed, from the Shaikh's point of view, there may be more than one-saint, living in the same age or country, who may attain to prophetic consciousness. The point to be seized is that, while it is psychologically possible for a saint to attain to prophetic experience, his experience will have no socio-political significance making him the center of a new Organization and entitling him to declare this Organization to be the criterion of the faith or disbelief of the followers of Muhammad.



Leaving his mystical psychology aside I am convinced from a careful study of the relevant passages of the Futuhat that the great Spanish mystic is as firm a believer in the Finality of Muhammad as any orthodox Muslim. And if he had seen in his mystical vision that one day in the East some Indian amateurs in Sufism would seek to destroy the Holy Prophet's finality under cover of his mystical psychology, he would have certainly anticipated the Indian Ulama in warning the Muslims of the world against such traitors to Islam.



II



Coming now to the essence of Ahmadism. A discussion of its sources and of the way in which pre-Islamic Magian ideas have, through the channels of Islamic mysticism, worked on the mind of its author would be extremely interesting from the standpoint of comparative religion. It is, however, impossible for me to undertake this discussion here. Suffice it to say that the real nature of Ahmadism is hidden behind the mist of medieval mysticism and theology. The Indian Ulama, therefore, took it to be a purely theological movement and came out with theological weapons to deal with it. I believe, however, that this was not the proper method of dealing with the movement; and that the success of the Ulama was, therefore, only partial. A careful psychological analysis of the revelations of the founder would perhaps be an effective method of dissecting the inner life of his personality. In this connection, I may mention Maulvi Manzur Elahi's collection of the founder's revelations which offers rich and varied material for psychological research. In my opinion the book provides a key to the character and personality of the founder and I do hope that one day some young student of modern psychology will take it up for serious study. If he takes the Qur'an for his criterion, as he must for reasons which cannot be explained here, and extends his study to a comparative examination of the experiences of the founder of the Ahmadiyyah movement and contemporary non-Muslim mystics, such as Rama Krishna of Bengal, he is sure to meet more than one surprise as to the essential character of the experience on the basis of which prophethood is claimed for the originator of Ahmadism.



Another equally effective and more fruitful method, from the standpoint of the plain man, is to understand the real content of Ahmadism in the light of the history of Muslim theological thought in India at least from the year 1799. The year 1799 is extremely important in the history of the world of Islam. In this year fell Tippu, and his fall meant the extinguishing of the Muslim hopes for political prestige in India. In the same year was fought the battle of Navarneo which saw the destruction of the Turkish fleet. Prophetic were the words of the author of the chronogram of Tippu's fall which visitors of Serangapatam find engraved on the wall of Tippu's mausoleum: "Gone is the glory of India as well of Roum." Thus, in the year 1799, the political decay of Islam in Asia reached its climax. But just as out of the humiliation of Germany on the day of Jena arose the modern German nation, it may be said with equal truth that out of the political humiliation of Islam in the year 1799 arose modern Islam and her problems. This point I shall explain in the sequel. For the present I want to draw the reader's attention to some of the questions which have arisen in Muslim India since the fall of Tippu and the development of European imperialism in Asia.



Does the idea of Caliphate in Islam embody a religious institution? How are the Indian Muslims, and for the matter of that all Muslims outside the Turkish Empire, related to the Turkish Caliphate? Is India Dar-ul-Harb or Dar-ul-Islam? What is the real meaning of the doctrine of Jihad in Islam? What is the meaning of the expression "From amongst you" in the Qur'anic verse: "Obey God, obey the Prophet and the masters of the affair, i.e. rulers, from amongst you"? What is the character of the Traditions of the Prophet foretelling the advent of Imam Mahdi? These questions and some others which arose subsequently were, for obvious reasons, questions for Indian Muslims only. European imperialism, however, which was then rapidly penetrating the world of Islam, was also intimately interested in them. The controversies which these questions created form a most interesting chapter in the history of Islam in India. The story is a long one and is still waiting for a powerful pen. Muslim politicians whose eyes were mainly fixed on the realities of the situation succeeded in winning over a section of the Ulama to adopt a line of theological argument which as they thought suited the situation; but it was not easy to conquer by mere logic the beliefs which had ruled for centuries the conscience of the masses of Islam in India . In such a situation, logic can either proceed on the ground of political expediency or on the lines of a fresh orientation of texts and traditions. In either case, the argument will fail to appeal to the masses. To the intensely religious masses of Islam only one thing can make a conclusive appeal, and that is Divine Authority. For an effective eradication of orthodox beliefs it was found necessary to find a revelational basis for a politically suitable orientation of theological doctrines involved in the questions mentioned above. This revelational basis is provided by Ahmadism. And the Ahmadis themselves claim this to be the greatest service rendered by them to British imperialism. The prophetic claim to a revelational basis for theological views of a political significance amounts to declaring that those who do not accept the claimant's views are infidels of the first water and destined for the flames of Hell. As I understand the significance of the movement, the Ahmadi belief that Christ died the death of an ordinary mortal, and that his second advent means only the advent of a person who is spiritually "like unto him," give the movement some sort of a rational appearance; but they are not really essential to the spirit of the movement. In my opinion, they are only preliminary steps towards the idea of full prophethood which alone can serve the purposes of the movement eventually brought into being by new political forces. In primitive countries it is not logic but authority that appeals. Given a sufficient amount of ignorance, credulity which strangely enough sometimes coexists with good intelligence, and a person sufficiently audacious to declare himself a recipient of Divine revelation whose denial would entail eternal damnation, it is easy, in a subject Muslim country to invent a political theology and to build a community whose creed is political servility. And in the Punjab, even an ill-woven net of vague theological expressions can easily capture the innocent peasant who has been for centuries exposed to all kinds of exploitation. Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru advises the orthodox of all religions to unite and thus to delay the coming of what he conceives to be Indian Nationalism. This ironical advice assumes that Ahmadism is a reform movement: he does not know that as far as Islam in India is concerned, Ahmadism involves both religious and political issues of the highest importance. As I have explained above, the function of Ahmadism in the history of Muslim religious thought is to furnish a revelational basis for India's present political subjugation. Leaving aside the purely religious issues, on the ground of political issues alone it does not lie in the mouth of a man like Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru to accuse Indian Muslims of reactionary conservatism. I have no doubt that if he had grasped the real nature of Ahmadism he would have very much appreciated the attitude of Indian Muslims towards a religious movement which claims Divine authority for the woes of India.



Thus the reader will see that the pallor of Ahmadism which we find on the cheeks of Indian Islam today is not an abrupt phenomenon in the history of Muslim religious thought in India. The ideas which eventually shaped themselves in the form of this movement became prominent in theological discussions long before the founder of Ahmadism was born. Nor do I mean to insinuate that the founder of Ahmadism and his companions deliberately planned their programme. I dare say the founder of the Ahmadiyyah movement did hear a voice; but whether this voice came from the God of Life and Power or arose out of the spiritual impoverishment of the people must depend upon the nature of the movement which it has created and the kind of thought and emotion which it has given to those who have listened to it. The reader must not think that I am using metaphorical language. The life-history of nations shows that when the tide of life in a people begins to ebb, decadence itself becomes a source of inspiration, inspiring their poets, philosophers, saints, statesmen, and turning them into a class of apostles whose sole ministry is to glorify, by the force of a seductive art or logic, all that is ignoble and ugly in the life of their people. These apostles unconsciously clothe despair in the glittering garment of hope, undermine the traditional values of conduct and thus destroy the spiritual virility of those who happen to be their victims. One can only imagine the rotten state of a people's will who are, on the basis of Divine authority, made to accept their political environment as final. Thus, all the actors who participated in the drama of Ahmadism were, I think, only innocent instruments in the hands of decadence. A similar drama had already been acted in Persia; but it did not lead, and could not have led, to the religious and political issues which Ahmadism has created for Islam in India. Russia offered tolerance to Babism and allowed the Babis to open their first missionary center in Ishqabad. England showed Ahmadism the same tolerance in allowing them to open their first missionary center in Woking. Whether Russia and England showed this tolerance on the ground of imperial expediency or pure broadmindedness is difficult for us to decide. This much is absolutely clear that this tolerance has created difficult problems for Islam in Asia. In view of the structure of Islam, as I understand it, I have not the least doubt in my mind that Islam will emerge purer out of the difficulties thus created for her. Times are changing. Things in India have already taken a new turn. The new spirit of democracy which is coming to India is sure to disillusion the Ahmadis and to convince them of the absolute futility of their theological inventions.



Nor will Islam tolerate any revival of medieval mysticism which has already robbed its followers of their healthy instincts and given them only obscure thinking in return. It has, during the course of the past centuries, absorbed the best minds of Islam leaving the affairs of the State to mere mediocrity. Modern Islam cannot afford to repeat the experiment. Nor can it tolerate a repetition of the Punjab experiment of keeping Muslims occupied for half a century in theological problems which had absolutely no bearing on life. Islam has already passed into the broad day light of fresh thought and experience, and no saint or prophet can bring it back to the fogs of medieval mysticism...

 

[salahuldin786]

But not in the Quran of Allah? Why? I'm talking about Jesus/Isa's second coming, not just the mention of Jesus.

And incidentally all the pagan religions have this tradition too.

We do know that the Quran 100% God-made, but the Hadiths are all man-made.

the prophet was a walking quran he knew all its meaning's inside out allah swt send his message through the angel gabril to the prophet muhammed direct so what ever the prophet said (hadith) goes with the quran. the prohet of allah said follow my sunna and the quran and you will not be lead astray.

jesus is mentioned in the quran how he was born and everything else, the hadith talk about what is going to happen when isa will come.hadith are saying's of the prophet.

 

[Awesome]

the prophet was a walking quran he knew all its meaning's inside out allah swt send his message through the angel gabril to the prophet muhammed direct so what ever the prophet said (hadith) goes with the quran. the prohet of allah said follow my sunna and the quran and you will not be lead astray.

jesus is mentioned in the quran how he was born and everything else, the hadith talk about what is going to happen when isa will come.hadith are saying's of the prophet.

The people who recorded the Hadiths of the Prophet could've selectively manipulated its text to suit their political agendas of the time.

It happened to Christianity, what makes you think its impossible for it to happen to Muslims?

I do agree that there is a lot of validity in the Hadith and can be used as a historical text, but like all historical text it should be open to scrutiny. It is not the word of God, it's the word of man.

 

[abdulrafi]

i tried to post this on 2nd oct but was not able
further to surah al-jum-ah

Qur'an says:

"And among others from among them who have not yet joined them. He is the Mighty, the Wise." (Surah Al-Jum`ah, Verse 04)

Commentary (explanation):

This verse signifies that the Message of the Holy Prophet was meant not only for the Arabs among whom he was raised but for all non-Arabs as well, and not only for his contemporaries but also for the coming generations till the end of time. Or the meaning may be that the Holy Prophet will be raised among another people who have not yet joined his immediate followers. The reference in the verse and in a well-known saying of the Holy Prophet is to the Second Advent of the Holy Prophet in the person of the Promised Messiah in the Latter Days. Says Abu Hurairah:

"One day we were sitting with the Holy Prophet when Surah Jum`ah was revealed. I asked the Holy Prophet,"Who are the people to whom the words And among others from among them who have not yet joined them, refer. Salman the Persian was sitting among us. Upon my repeatedly asking him the same question, the Prophet put his hand on Salman and said, If faith were to go up up to the Pleiades (Surraya), a man from these would surely find it" (Bukhari).

This hadith shows that the verse applies to a man of Persian descent. Now, the Promised Messiah, the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, was of Persian descent. Other sayings of the Holy Prophet speak of the appearance of the Messiah at a time when there would remain nothing of the Qur'an but its words and of Islam but its name i.e. the true spirit of Islamic teachings will be lost. (Baihaqui). Thus the Qur'an and the Hadith both seem to agree that the present verse refers to the Second Advent of the Holy Prophet in the person of one of his followers - the Promised Messiah. (The Holy Qur'an with English translation and commentary, Hadhrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad, Khalifatul Masih)

There are more verses in Qur'an and many more Hadiths that tells us about the advent of the Promised Messiah and it is an undeniable fact. Islam will gain its supremacy over other religions and will encompass the world as it is the true and final religion of God - but only through His Messiah as he is God's Messenger and embodies the true Islam. May God show you the right path.

If you want to find out more about Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, I would recommend

But not in the Quran of Allah? Why? I'm talking about Jesus/Isa's second coming, not just the mention of Jesus.

And incidentally all the pagan religions have this tradition too.

We do know that the Quran 100% God-made, but the Hadiths are all man-made.