Shaykh Hamza Yusuf & the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at

And the heaven He has raised high and set up the measure, that you may not exceed the measure. So weigh all things with justice and fall not short of the measure. (Qur’an, 55:8-10)

__________

We are Musalmans. We believe in the One God without a partner and in the Kalima, La Illah Ill-Allah. We believe in the Book of God, the Quran, in His Messenger Muhammad (peace on him and God’s blessings) the Khatam Al-Anbiya. We believe in angels, the resurrection, hell and paradise. We observe the prescribed prayers and the fast. We turn to the Qibla for prayers and forbid ourselves what is forbidden by God and His Prophet and permit ourselves what is permitted. We add not a thing to the Sharia, nor subtract any thing from it. The Sharia is above change. Whatever has come down to us from the Holy Prophet (on whom peace and God’s blessings), all that we accept, whether we understand or not and whether we can unravel its secrets and real meaning or not. We are believers with the Grace of God, and strict monotheist Muslims. (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Nur al-Haq I, pp.5)

Addendum in Advance

Despite feeling a strong personal need to do so, it is with great regret that I pen this post. It concerns the widely loved and respected non-Ahmadi scholar Shaykh Hamza Yusuf. For those not familiar with Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, he is a Western Muslim scholar known for his passionate and scholarly discourses on a whole range of subjects. In 1996 he founded the now well established US Zaytuna Institute which is, as stated on its website: ‘…a non-profit Institute committed to restoring broad based and pluralistic scholarship to its proper place as a central priority of Musilms.’ He has always appeared to demonstrate great care in distancing himself from sectarianism; placing a recently released lecture, which mentions Ahmadiyya, at odds with his general pattern of scholarship. In the said lecture, delivered on the subject of ‘aqida (creed), and posted on youtube, Shaykh Hamza discussed the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at, a claim of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (‘alayhi al-salam) and the role of Hadrat Maulana Muhammad ‘Ali (radi Allahu ‘anhu) in positively influencing Western scholarly discourse on Islam.

Before entering into the body of this response, I feel it necessary to make a simple and sincere point. Islam enjoins upon its adherents that they seek a good opinion of others, particularly regarding one’s Muslim brothers or sisters. This duty is commonly referred to as Husn al-Zann, among other titles.I should begin this response, therefore, by stating that I have no knowledge as to whether the said youtube video was part of a greater context which was edited out, based on bad information / guidance which the respected Shaykh had honestly relied upon or simply down to ordinary human error that all the children of Adam are prone to make from time to time. For example, another scholar at the Zaytuna Institute documented a negative and factually inaccurate opinion about a historic Ahmadi Muslim scholar some time ago, due to information he believed to be honest and accurate, and then very humbly rectified the error once it was brought to his attention. His initial intentions, therefore, were quite obviously sincere.

The below response is, therefore, not a rebuttal or attack on Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, but simply a response to the various inaccuracies he stated regarding the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at; inaccuracies which have since been placed into the public domain and so carry with them, given the public position of Shaykh Hamza, the potential to mislead ordinary Muslims on some important issues. It is certainly the author’s wish that the released soundbite is not at all representative and that Shaykh Hamza would rightly rectify the misunderstandings and misinformation raised in the video. Furthermore, that in realising his misjudgment, he will carry out a more thorough primary source study of the works of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (‘alayhi al-salam), refer the matter to Almighty Allah through sincere prayer and only then draw his conclusions – whatever they may be. Simple reliance on the writings of the opponents of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at, as appears to be the case, would in no way provide Shaykh Hamza with sufficient knowledge of the claims of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (‘alayhi al-salam); particularly writings which are South Asian in origin. Just as was the case with Hadrat Ibn ‘Arabi and Imam ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Sha’rani (rahmat Allahi ‘alayhima), the opponents of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (‘alayhi al-salam) have extensively attributed both spurious and ”acontextual” statements to him.

Prophethood

In the beginning of the recording, Shaykh Hamza refers to Ahmadiyya as a heresy and makes two important and rather clumsy statements. Firstly, and by far the most uncharacteristic, that: There’s two types of Ahmadiyya. There’s Qadiani and Lahori.Lahore Ahmadis are not outside of Islam” The inference here is clear: members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at (referred to by the Shaykh as Qadiani Ahmadis – a derogatory term and indication, perhaps, of the historically biased South Asian secondary sources on Ahmadiyya he might have relied upon) are outside the fold of Islam and thus non-Muslims. This is, no doubt, due to his strong disagreement with a belief he simplistically attributes to Ahmadi Muslims, namely: ”The Qadiani Ahmadis believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a Prophet”

I chose the word clumsy as it best describes, to my mind at least, Shaykh Hamza’s non-technical and non-specialist usage of language; something far removed from the Shaykh’s trademark attention to detail. This is particularly disappointing given that the statement was made during a lecture and so in an environment of learning. It would have been much fairer and consistent had the Shaykh adopted the same modus operandi he applies when looking at other historical figures; the same scholarly standard, for example, that he might well apply in his assessment of the controversial theological statements of Abu’l Husayn al-Nuri, Mansur al-Hallaj, Ibn ‘Arabi, Ibn Taymiyya (rahmat Allah ‘alayhim) in light of his fatwa of kufr, or even in the case of the late Perennialist Martin Lings. His use of language here is a clear simplification, and thus gross misrepresentation, of the claim of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (‘alayhi al-salam) in which the members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at believe.

A reading of the actual writings of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (‘alayhi al-salam), many of which Shaykh Hamza is able to engage with in their original Arabic, would have clearly revealed the highly nuance, esoteric and technical claim of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (‘alayhi al-salam) in reference to Zilli / buruzi Nabuwwat; a subject so insightful and fine in its comprehension that Al-Hakim al-Tirmidhy (rahmat Allahi ‘alayhi), the great friend of Almighty Allah, issued a number of questions about it in his book Khatam al-awliya which were later answered by another great friend of Almighty Allah, Hadrat Ibn ‘Arabi (rahmat Allahi ‘alayhi), in the book ‘Anqa maghrib fi khatam al-awliya’ wa shams al-maghrib. The below extract, taken from the writings of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (‘alayhi al-salam) is a hint towards what Shaykh Hamza failed to grasp, or perhaps even investigate (Note: The extract is simply one extract; a Shaykh, given his position of trust and scholarly training, should carry out a holistic reading):

”Some members of my Jama‘at, who are less familiar with my claim and its supporting arguments, and who have neither had the chance to study my books in depth, nor have they spent enough time in my company to be fully informed, sometimes counter an objection raised by an opponent with an answer which is entirely contrary to the facts. Thus, notwithstanding their adherence to the truth, they have to suffer embarrassment.

[…]

…God Almighty says that, after the Holy Prophet (sa), the door of prophecies has been closed till the Day of Judgement, and that it is no longer possible for a Hindu, a Jew, a Christian or a nominal Muslim to assume the title of ‘Prophet’; and that all the doors leading to Prophethood have been closed except the door of Sirat-e-Siddiqi (Complete devotion to the Holy Prophet sa , such as was shown by Hadrat Abu Bakr al-Siddiq ra. [Publishers]), i.e., losing oneself in the Holy Prophet sa.

Thus he who comes to God through this door is clad, by way of Zill (Zill or Zilliyyat signifies such complete devotion to the Holy Prophet sa, and such self-effacement that a person begins to reflect the image of his Master sa. [Publishers]), in the same mantle of Prophethood which is the mantle of the Prophethood of Muhammad sa. As such, his being a Prophet is not a matter for jealously, for he does not derive this status from himself but from the fountain of the Holy Prophet sa; and, that too, not for his own glory but for the glory and majesty of the Holy Prophet sa. For this reason, in heaven he is named Muhammad sa and Ahmad sa. Thus the Prophethood of Muhammad sa, in the final analysis, returns to Muhammad sa, albeit by way of Buruz (Buruz: Spiritual manifestation; or the person who is the spiritual manifestation of a Prophet as or Saint. [Publishers]),11 and to no one else.” (Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, A Misconception Removed)

Takfir

Quite ironic was the fact that following on from Shaykh Hamza’s inference that Ahmadi Muslims are not Muslims, surely an oxymoron in and of itself, he should then quoted the statement of Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal (rahmat Allah ‘alayhi):La ukaffiru illa man kaffarani (I do not pronounce disbelief upon one who has not held me to be a disbeliever).” Given that no Ahmadi, to my knowledge, has stated that Shaykh Hamza Yusuf is a disbeliever, God forbid, then he should perhaps adhere to the noble example of Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal (rahmat Allah ‘alayhi) that he teaches to his students and not pronounce Ahmadi Muslims as being outside the fold of Islam. This would be in keeping with another statement made in the same lecture: ”…it just bothers me that Muslims don’t make those subtle distinctions because they are important distinctions in dealing with people and in being fair with people too; the Qur’an says be fair with people.

Imam al-Nawawi (Rahmat Allahu ‘alayhi), charged with the fear and love of Almighty Allah, very cautiously wrote: ‘It is obligatory for a student to give a positive interpretation to every utterance of his brothers that seems to be wrong until he has exhausted seventy excuses. No one is incapable of this except a failure’ (Majmu’, 1.24). This is arguably a much better teaching for Shaykh Hamza to extend to his students rather than to hold a group of people to be outside the pale of Islam; despite the fact that he quite obviously had neither studied the original works of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (‘alayhi al-salam), nor the writings of his Companions and Successors (Khulafa’). For a person blessed with the responsibility of teaching God’s religion, who is intimately aware of the Holy Prophet’s (sall Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) example (sunna), it is beyond comprehension how he could deem tens of millions of people, who each proclaim the same Shahada that he does, to be outside the fold of Islam. Surely he must know the anger exhibited by the Holy Prophet (sall Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) when Hadrat ‘Usama b. Zayd (radi Allahu ‘anhu) issued a judgement of takfir over just a single man reciting the Shahada. One shudders with fear when recalling the narration of this event which ends with the Holy Prophet (sall Alahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) stating: “Did you split his heart open [to see]?” and he did not cease to reprove him until Usama wished that he had not entered Islam until after he had killed that man so that he might have been forgiven all his past sins through belief.” Another hadith is of particular interest here in which Al-Miqdad stated: ”O Messenger of Allah, suppose I and one of the idolaters battled and he cut off my hand, then I was positioned to strike him and he said: La ilaha illallah! Do I kill him or spare him?” He said: “Spare him.” I said: “Even if he cut off my hand?” He said: “Even so.” I asked him again two or three times whereupon he said: “If you kill him after he says La ilaha illallah then you are like him before he said it, and he is like you before you killed him.”

Khat-I-m

Shaykh Hamza goes on to state:

”Unfortunately, Ghulam Ahmad only studied hafs, cus had he studied naf’i he would have never come up with that ridiculous theory that Khatam here did not mean the final Prophet, but it meant the Seal, or the Prophet that gives certification to other Prophets, because the Qira’at of Naf’i is… KhatIm al-nabiyyina, he is the final messenger.

So he couldn’t fall into the Ahmadiyya heresy because he would know how ridiculous it was. And that is a problem of limited knowledge and why you should never follow individuals after the Prophet (sall Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam)”

The initial statement seems hardly worth a response and, to be honest, it was the most disappointing part of the six minute video for me. Rejection or acceptance of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (‘alayhi al-salam) is a personal matter between the Shaykh and his creator; that much is not my concern. The obvious lack of research and depth of intellect displayed here, however, was quite hurtful and is of clear concern to us all. Shaykh Hamza, a Muslim known for his insight and depth of research, has here mockingly brushed aside a fellow Muslim with complete disregard for his usual meritorious attention to detail. It is beneath a scholar of Islam, regardless of his affiliations, that his judgements and opinions should be based on anything except for sound research, prayer and wisdom.

Returning to Shaykh Hamza’s issue with what he terms a ”problem of limited knowledge” on the part of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (‘alayhi al-salam), there are various examples, above and beyond what has already been written, which indicate that limitations of knowledge on this point rest firmly with Shaykh Hamza. For example,  Hadrat ‘Ali (radi Allahu ‘anhu) is reported to have stated to the teacher of Hadrat Hasan and Hadrat Husayn (radi Allahu ‘anhuma): ‘’Teach them Khātam al-Nabīyyīn with the vowel a (fatḥa) on ta (khātam al-nabīyyīn bi-fatḥ al-tā‘)’’ (Durr al-manthur, 5:386). Would Shaykh Hamza deem it appropriate to here also state: ”Unfortunately, [Imam] ‘Ali only studied hafs, cus had he studied naf’i he would have never come up with that ridiculous [statement]” – of course not; would Shaykh Hamza also level claims of heresy and lack of knowledge upon the great friend of Almighty Allah Al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi (rahmat Allah ‘alayhi), who stated:

”Indeed the one who is blind to this information, he thinks that the interpretation of “the seal of prophets” is that he is the last of them in being sent. But what virtue is there in this? And what [perfection in] knowledge is there in this? This is the interpretation of ignorant people.

Most recite khatam with a fath on the ta’; as for those from the Salaf who recited with a kasr on the ta’, its interpretation is that he a khatim (sealer) in the meaning of a doer; i.e. that he sealed prophethood by that seal which he was given.

From that which affirms this is what was narrated in the hadith of the Ascension (mi‘raj) from the hadith of Abu Ja‘far al-Razi from al-Rabi‘ ibn Abi al-‘Aliyah from what he mentioned regarding the meeting of the prophets in the Aqsa mosque: “So every prophet mentioned the favour of Allah upon him, and it was from the speech of Allah’s Messenger (sall Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) that he said: ‘He made me the sealer and the opener.’ So Ibrahim (‘alayhi al-salam) said: ‘By this, Muhammad is superior to [all of] you.’” (Kitab khatam al-awliya, pp.341-2)

I did not include the above two extracts as some sort of self-righteous, vitriolic attempt to defeat the argument of Shaykh Hamza. As already stated, Shaykh Hamza is intelligent enough to study the works of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (‘alayhi al-salam) himself and draw his own conclusions. I include them only to make the point that Shaykh Hamza exercised poor judgement when he so hastily inferred that Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (‘alayhi al-salam) was somehow a man of poor knowledge who made ”ridiculous” conclusions as a result of that knowledge. If that be the case, then what of Imam ‘Ali (radi Allahu ‘anhu) and Al-Hakim al-tirmidhi (rahmat Allah ‘alayhi), to name but a few? Shaykh Hamza’s responsibility to Almighty Allah is such that he owes each Muslim, be he Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (‘alayhi al-salam), who Ahmadis believe to have been the Imam Mahdi, Messiah and to have reached the status of Zilli Nabuwwat, or anybody else; for once that standard of scrutiny and intellectual objectivity is lost, then so are our scholars. 

Maulana Muhammad ‘Ali (radi Allahu ‘anhu)

Shaykh Hamza goes on to state:

”…and what I have noticed is that allot of them (i.e., modern translators of the Qur’an) borrowed heavily from his (i.e., Hadrat Muhammad ‘Ali’) original work, which is interesting, never attributing it to him either – even though it is very clear where they took it from. Marmaduke Pickthall’s translation was highly influenced by Maulana Muhammad ‘Ali, and Muhammad Pickthall influences all the translations after that. So, Maulana Muhammad Ali has definitely made his impact on the English speaking Muslim community, whether they realise it or not… I wish the best for him, he seemed like a devout Muslim and it just bothers me that Muslims don’t make those subtle distinctions in dealing with people, and in being fair with people too. The Qur’an says be fair with people.”

The argument posited here is all too uncertain and in desperate need of expansion. It seems unfair, and against Shaykh Hamza’s concluding statement, ”The Qur’an says be fair with people,” for the Shaykh to infer that Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall and a body of unnamed translators would have plagiarised the work of Maulana Muhammad ‘Ali (radi Allahu ‘anhu).

Furthermore, an important point seems to have gone amiss here; the elephant in the room, as it were. Shaykh Hamza appears to have taken the work of Maulana Muhammad ‘Ali (radi Allahu ‘anhu) as a starting point. Putting aside the theological differences between the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at (referred to by the Shaykh as Qadianis) and the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’at-e-Islam Lahore (referred to by the Shaykh as Lahoris), the Shaykh has failed to acknowledge that Hadrat Maulana Muhammad ‘Ali (radi Allahu ‘anhu) offered his bay’ah to Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (‘alayhi al-salam) and accepted him as the Imam Mahdi, Messiah and Mujaddid of his age. Much of the knowledge demonstrated in his translation of the Holy Qur’an, as well as his other works, owes much to the knowledge and training he gained from Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (‘alayhi al-salam) during the years he spent as one of his Companions. Therefore, one can quite easily and justifiably expand Shaykh Hamza’s contention to argue that the body of twentieth century translators of the Holy Qur’an, from whom the Shaykh has no doubt taken personal benefit from, have been heavily influenced by the thought of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (‘alayhi al-salam). To attribute a good opinion to Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (‘alayhi al-salam), however, might be a step too far.

Furthermore, and in the spirit of justice, it is well worth acknowledging that Pickthall did in fact recognise Hadrat Maulana Muhammad ‘Ali (radi Allahu ‘anhu) in the following review of his book ”Religion of Islam” (Also see note the by Professor Samuel Zwemer on this published in the Muslim World):

Probably no man living has done longer or more valuable service for the cause of Islamic revival than Maulana Muhammad Ali of Lahore. His literary works, with those of the late Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, have given fame and distinction to the Ahmadiyya Movement. In our opinion the present volume is his finest work…

It is a description of Al-Islam by one well-versed in the Quran and the Sunnah who has on his mind the shame of the Muslim decadence of the past five centuries and in his heart the hope of the revival of which signs can now be seen on every side. Without moving a hair’s breadth from the traditional position with regard to worship and religious duties, the author shows a wide field in which changes are lawful and may be desirable because here the rules and practices are not based on an ordinance of the Quran or on an edict of the Prophet, and should be altered when they cease to meet the needs of the community. Such a book is greatly needed at the present day when in many Muslim countries we see persons eager for the reformation and revival of Islam making mistakes through lack of just this knowledge…

We do not always agree with Maulana Muhammad Ali’s conclusions upon minor points — sometimes they appear to us eccentric — but his premises are always sound, we are always conscious of his deep sincerity; and his reverence for the holy Quran is sufficient in itself to guarantee his work in all essentials. There are some, no doubt, who will disagree with his general findings, but they will not be those from whom Al-Islam has anything to hope in the future.” (Pickthall, M. Islamic Culture. India, October 1936, pp. 659 – 660)

It seems obvious that Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall was very appreciative of the work of Hadrat Maulana Muhammad ‘Ali (radi Allahu ‘anhu).

Advertisements

57 thoughts on “Shaykh Hamza Yusuf & the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at

  1. Pingback: ”Sticks and Stones…” by Shaykh Hamza Yusuf: A Rebuttal | Jihad of the Pen

  2. Pingback: Sticks and Stones… by Shaykh Hamza Yusuf: A Rebuttal | Jihad of the Pen

  3. Also you have a startling obsession with what the ‘Ulama’ state. Did the Prophet (sa) say to allow others to think for you, rather than using your own mind? The ‘Ulama’ are Mujtahidun (researchers) and prone to human error too. Only those saints that specifically received ilham by Allah, can be 100% sure of whatever knowledge was granted to them by Allah. This is why I follow Hadrat Ghulam Ahmad (as) because he claimed exactly that.

    Imam Ghazali in his book Kitab Sharh-e-‘Aja’ib al-Qalb places the Mujtahid scholars on a lower tier, and the Muhadith scholars (those to whom Allah speaks directly) on a higher tier.

    ‘And if thou obey the majority of those on Earth, they will lead thee astray from Allah’s way.’ (Holy Qur’an, Chapter 6 Verse 117-118)

  4. Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad al-Qadiani (as) claimed Nabuwwat through Zill (Reflection), Buruz (Shadow), and Fana’ fir-Rasul (Complete Annihilation and Love for the Prophet Muhammad [sa]).

    This is not a heretical claim, as it was understood by Ibn ‘Arabi, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani in his book Sirr al-Asrar, Shah WaliAllah Dhelvi, and many other Sufi saints of the Ummah.

    He claimed a Shadow Prophethood which was bestowed to him by Allah due to his love for the Prophet Muhammad (salAllahu ‘alayhi wa sallam). The AwliyaAllah (saints) of the Ummah before him were also reflections of the Prophet Muhammad (sa), although the Ghulam of Ahmad (as) was the greatest reflection of the Prophet Muhammad (sa). For instance, Shaykh al-Akbar Ibn ‘Arabi (rh) said that he was the “Khatam al-Awliya’ al-Muhammadiyyah” (Seal of Muhammaden Saints).

    This is not something heretical that Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) claimed. Those who fail to understand, also fail to understand the deep love for the Prophet (sa) that one can attain through Tasawwuf (Islamic mysticism) and following the Sunnah of the Beloved Master-Prophet (sa).

    He (sa) himself said not to call Muslims kuffar, and the Qur’an also states this.

  5. Enough kufr! The council of Muslim ulama and the Azhar decided long ago that Ahmadeyahs are kuffar. Anyone who claims prophethood after mohamadصلى الله عليه وسلم is plain [deleted]! Anyone who cancels the pillar of jihad is NOT a Muslim .ahmadeyah is just another Fitnah of our times! May Allah guide us all to His right path ameen.

  6. Being “wrongly guided” is a subjective opinion. I consider the path I follow to be the Islam of Seyyidina Muhammad, al-Khatam an-Nabiyyin (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wa sallam).

    I do not consider following a bunch of “scholars” as clergy to be the Islam of the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wa sallam).

    I consider the Prophet (sa) to have foretold the appearance of the Imam al-Mahdi and to have instructed the Muslims to accept him, even if you must crawl upon glaciers to take his bay’ah.

    I have thus acted upon the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wa sallam)’s injunction, and accepted the Imam al-Mahdi.

    The day you learn to think for yourself, as the Qur’an itself instructs, rather than be a muqallid under the sway of some men who self-appoint themselves as the only authorities on Islam, that’s when you will realize on your own what the right path is in your estimation. It’s a process called introspection.

  7. It always astounds me when people turn to the ulema of the day to decide whether or not a claimant to the station of Imam Mahdi is true or not. When the Imam Mahdi comes, you cannot turn to the ulema to tell you whether or not he is true- because if the ulema of the day were truly honest and spiritually insightful people… there would be no need for the Imam Mahdi to come!

    Khlalifa Rabe (rh) explains this point so beautifully here:

    http://www.alislam.org/library/links/00000204.html

  8. The Qur’an is a test. Prophethood is an even bigger test, because it is more difficult to bend a living person than to bend a book. Other than these two tests, there is no other test. My personal opinion is that all of a scholar’s erudition and reputation fall as irrelevant before these tests. The only relevant question is what happens when a person’s ego meets with the will of God. Does the ego prevail or does the will of God prevail? Perhaps in such moments, a simple uneducated street cleaner fares better than the famed scholar.

  9. Alhamdulillah, Tayyab is a Muslim and follower of Islam already – as are all who have offered their bay’ah to Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (‘alayhi al-salam). The point here is quite a simple one and applies both to yourself and the subject of this post. That is, concentrate on your own spiritual development and dedicate no time to stating that others have no faith. You become a type of transgressor when you begin to explain what is / is not in the hearts of others. That insight is reserved for Almighty Allah, al-Sattar.

  10. Tayyab Pirzada you are definetly wrongly guided. May Allah guide you back to Islam. Please dont disrespect one of the greatest shaykh of our times, Shaykh Humza Yusuf. All Ahmadis are Kafirs and out of the fold of Islam.

  11. I agree. Such a noble man that Sir Zafrullah Khan was, and above all he accepted and met the Imam al-Mahdi (as) in his youth, granting him the lofty status of Sahabi.

    I am thoroughly perturbed by Shaykh Hamza Yusuf’s distortion of the truth based on hearsay, and complete lack of fear of God when it comes to takfir.

    I used to like the Shaykh’s lectures, but now I feel it wrong to even give him the honour of calling him a Shaykh al-Islam.

  12. I think you hit the nail on the head when you wrote: ”…I have not come across anyone trying to explain the differences fairly and fully.” There is a real reluctance on the part of modern day scholars to enter into meaningful discussions with the leader of our Community. Many seem to rely upon historical polemics and not study what Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) wrote himself – i.e., look at the original source material. This is compounded by the fact that many of that which is written about Ahmadis is fabricated. It is common to hear or read a scholar stating that Ahmadis perform Hajj to Qadian, are spies of the British or that we have abolished the concept of jihad, etc. Even to the most skeptical of minds these erroneous accusations must seem to be fictional.

    Sadly, even Shaykh Hamza Yusuf has fallen into this trap with regards to his statement about 10,000 people loosing their lives as a result of Muhammad Zafrullah Khan (ra). This is a shocking abuse of the truth. And, may I add, this is the same Muhammad Zafrullah Khan (ra) who was instrumental in securing the independence of Libya, Morocco and Tunisia from their Western rulers. The same man who was asked by the Arab nations to represent them in front of the UN on the matter of Palestinian independence when this issue very first emerged. The same man who translated the Qur’an into English and Imam al-Nawawi’s Riyadh al-Salihin as well as writing numerous books. The same man who stopped a UN Session when a Russian Minister insulted the Prophet (saw) so that he could deliver a speech to the Assembly on the noble character of the Holy Prophet (saw). The same man who spent his money on building Mosques and helping the needy rather than on himself. The same man who would get off a bus a stop early and walk an extra mile or more so that he could save a morsel of money to help those in need. The same man who was invited to pray inside the Ka’ba on account of all that he had done for the Muslim world. The same man that the Mufti of Alexandria said of after he had been called a kafir that if Muhammad Zafrullah Khan is a Kafir then I too am a Kafir.

    I am sorry to go on and one, but this man was a true Friend of Almighty Allah and no one, be they a beggar or great Shaykh, should attempt to cast doubt over his good name without knowing the reality of the matter.

  13. Asalaamu Wa Alikum ‘handoftalha’

    I have found this wordpress blog of your’s very informative. I find it such a shame, that we don’t have civil discourses and discussion any more amoongst our Ulema to clear out and clarify their differences and disagreements. For instance, I have not come across anyone trying to explain the differences fairly and fully between Ahmadi and Sunni. The arguments given with regards to the Prophecies of Dajjal, Mahdi and Jesus(as) are quite compelling. Have none of you heard any half-decent responses to the arguments and claims that Ahmadi make?

  14. Our first Khalifa is in a sanad himself. He is a direct filial descendent of Seyyidina ‘Umar (radiAllahu ‘anhu), the second Caliph of the Ummah. He was a Hafiz of the Qur’an, and a near-Hafiz of the Sahihayn (Bukhari and Muslim). He had committed the Hajj pilgrimage. He learnt from shuyukh directly in Makkah and Madinah, including Shaykh Shah ‘Abd al-Ghani Mujaddidi, who was in a sanad (chain) of shuyukh going back all the way to the Prophet Muhammad (salAllahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and including people like Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani (rh).

    This is not my claim, but what the ‘Ulama’ of Dar al-‘Uloom Deoband themselves admit as can be seen here:
    http://www.darululoom-deoband.com/english/aboutdarululoom/school_of_thought.htm

    He was also a trained Mufti and trained in both Hanafi and Hanbali fiqh (although he was the latter). Allama Iqbal of Pakistan often asked him questions of fiqh.

    He also adhered to all the physical zhahiri sunnahs as well (turban, fist-length beard, cloak, etc.)

    Why would such a man be the first ever mureed of the Imam al-Mahdi, Seyyidina Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as)? Someone asked him that exact question and his reply was that: “Before I could see the Prophet Muhammad (sa) in my dreams. Now I see him while I am alive” (referring to the blessed example of the Ghulam of Ahmad, who was a complete reflection of his master, Seyyidina Muhammad (sa)).

  15. I myself am a direct blood descendent of the Prophet (sallAllayhi ‘alayhi wa sallam), and also al-Hujwiri, the great waliAllah (rh). However, I take no pride in this. Being amongst the Ahl al-Bayt is a great thing, but it is not indicative of your own spiritual status. I have reason to believe there are many Ahmadi Muslims who are descendents of the Prophet (salAllahu ‘alayhi wa sallam); above all, our Khulafa’ are.

  16. Inasmuch as the coming of ‘Isa (‘alayhi al-salam) is concerned, we hold the firm conviction that Seyyidina ‘Isa (‘alayhi al-salam) is dead. There are over 30 verses in the Qur’an al-Karim proving this, as well as many Ahadith holding testament to this fact. Many great awliya’ and ‘ulama’ of the past also held this view (such as Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn ‘Arabi, Imam Malik, and others).

    I will give examples of 2 Qur’anic verses, a Hadith, and a Wali from the past holding testament to this fact out of brevity, however you can insha’Allah research this matter deeper:

    وَمَا مُحَمَّدٌ إِلَّا رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ

    “And Muhammad is nothing except a Messenger; Surely, the Messengers before him all died.” (Surah Al-e-‘Imran, 3:144)

    مَّا الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ إِلَّا رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ

    “And the Messiah, son of Mary, is nothing except a Messenger; Surely, the Messengers before him all died.” (Surah al-Ma’idah, 5:75)

    When the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) held a munazirah (debate) with the Christians from Najran, just before inviting them to pray in his masjid – at the end of the debate – he said the following to them:

    ألستم تعلمون أن ربنا لا يموت و أن عيسى أتى عليه الفناء

    “Do you not know that our Lord does not die, while surely Jesus died?” – Asbab al-Nuzul of Imam al-Wahidi

    Imam Ibn al-Qayyim, the great follower of Ibn Taymiyyah and the madhab of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahmatAllahu ‘alayhum), wrote the following:

    “As for what is related about the Messiah that he was raised up to heaven at the age of 33 years, there is no sound authority for this which one could turn to.” (Zād al-Ma‘ād, vol. i, p. 20)

  17. as-Salamu ‘Alaykum wa RahmatAllahi wa Barakatuhu brother Zubair,

    I have written an extensive article about the Masih ad-Dajjal (la’natAllahu ‘alayh) inasmuch as the Qur’an and Hadith literature discusses it:
    https://theartofmisinformation.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/the-dajjal-2/

    I hope you read it and get back to me. We do not believe in the Ghulam of Ahmad (‘alayhi al-salatu wa’l-salam) without proper evidence. We have ‘ayn al-yaqeen that he is in fact the Imam al-Mahdi and Masih al-Maw’ud that the Ummah has been awaiting.

  18. Thank you handoftalha
    I have found no hostility here.
    Nice blog and nice participants.

    In my opinion, if Ahmadi’s claim that Ahmad Gulam is the Mahdi and Ahmad Gulam made no claim to being a Prophet or Messenger, then I can see no reason to call Ahmadi’s outside of Islam.

    Can anyone tell me,… if Ahmad Gulam was the Mehdi, then what happened to the coming of Jesus(as) and the coming of the Dajjal(as)?

  19. My motive was. I did not know if any descendents of the Prophet(pbuh) were amongst the Ahmadi. If none were, then I couldn’t see how all the descendents could go astray and the Ahmadi be on truth. Though if it is claimed that the Ahmadi started with the blood line, and not only have them amongst their followers, that is very interesting.

    Also, it is something that I did not know. Now, if other Muslims call Ahmad Gulam and his descendents Kafir and it turns out true that they are descendents of the Prophet(pbuh), can it be possible that a descendent of the Prophet(pbuh) could ever leave Islam?

  20. Pingback: Sticks and Drones May Break Our Bones, but Fitna Really Hurts Us « Islam is Peace

  21. Assalamu Alaikkum Brother, I don’t quite understand the motivation behind the question on the lineage. So I would post a direct response to a direct question. Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS)’s lineage can be traced back to the Holy Prophet (SA) through his female ancestors (there are more than one as far as I am aware). His wife is a direct descendent of the Holy Prophet(SA) as her lineage can be traced straight back to the Holy Prophet(SA) through paternal side.

    In any case, bear in mind that despite being a non-Arab and no apparent blood relationship with the Holy Prophet(SA), Hadhrat Salman Al Farsi was given the honour of being one amongst the Ahlul Bait by the Messenger of Allah(SA) himself. So in my humble opinion what matters most is, spiritually who belong to the lineage of the Holy Prophet(SA). We should also bear in the stories of Noah (AS)’s son and Ibrahim (AS)’s father and more importantly the response to his prayers by Allah about his progeny. So direct blood relationship means nothing, if you don’t follow the path of Taqwa and end up being misguided. But if both physical and spiritual heritage come together that is a great blessing, which is the case for Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad(AS) and his blessed family.

  22. Brother, more than happy to. Truth is our goal and we have no reason or need to not make everything transparent. Feel free to contribute as you feel appropriate. You will not find hostility here.

  23. Dear brother, Assalamu ‘alaikum warahmat Allahi ta’ala wabarakatuh. Jazak Allah ahsan al-jazaa’ for your message.

    In answer to your question, the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at and each of his five successors are direct descendants of our blessed Prophet (sall Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam). Many of the learned elders of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at, who offered their bay’ah at the hand of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (‘alayhi al-salam), were themselves previously the leaders of Sufi turuq and other groups within Islam.

    For example, one of the Companions of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (‘alayhi al-salam) was Hadrat Hafiz Maulana Raushan ‘Ali (radi Allahu ‘anhu). He was the spiritual leader (passed on the khirqa) of the Qadiri Naushahi Sufi Order which traces its origin back to Hadrat Haji Muhammad Nausha Gunj Bukhsh (rahmat Allahi ‘alayhi) in the sub-continent and back to the blessed Holy Prophet (sall Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) in totality (this particular spiritual chain includes Sufi masters such as Imam Ali (radi Allahu ‘anhu), as well as great Sufis such as Hadrat Hasan al-Basri, Hadrat Junayd al-Baghdadi and Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani (rahmat Allah ‘alayhim).

    Commenting on his acceptance of who he identified as the Imam Mahdi and Messiah, Hadrat Hafiz Maulana Raushan ‘Ali (radi Allahu ‘anhu) once wrote: ”I turned to God for guidance, and He in His mercy and goodness has revealed to me that through heavenly visions and Divine manifestations the real Sufi is Ahmad of Qadian, India. As my studies also led me in the same direction, I did not hesitate to sacrifice my all to drink at the fountainhead of the true Sufism that has sprung up afresh in the holy person of Ahmad. I have tasted this nectar and the water of life, and in all humility and sincerity I invite all to this truth that Divine love has revealed to me. The peace and blessings of Allah be upon those who follow the truth.”

    He is one of many examples.

    Put simply, the blessed family of the Prophet (sall Alahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), some of whom were and are the great spiritual teachers of their age, have each offered their bay’ah to Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (‘alayhi al-salam). Furthermore, and although they would not like to be identified due to their humility and desire not to appear boastful, there are even direct descendants of the blessed Holy Prophet (sall Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) who post on this blog, let alone from amongst this Community’s elders.

    The reality is that Almighty Allah determines which of his servants is truthful and chosen to carry out specific tasks. I only find it sad that Shaykh Hamza Yusuf has now chosen to say that he issues a pronouncement of takfir by default, on the basis of others, and did not once say that ”I read this book of the founder of the Ahmadiyya Community and…” Is this what the leaders of the Ummah have become? Is it no longer incumbent upon a mujtahid to ascertain facts himself – particularly on matters of takfir? If this is what leaders do, then see how the ‘awwam will and do follow.

  24. “….Al-Azhar has ruled that both sects are outside of Islam, and I accept the ruling of the former rector and mufti, Shaykh Al-Azhar, Gad al-Haqq, may God have mercy on him. I am very cautious of takfir, but if a body as meticulous as Al-Azhar issues an official position about a group, we are obliged to concede to them. I have great respect for the balance and moderate tradition that Al-Azhar represents and know that they do not take takfir lightly. Hence, I defer such judgment to them, and retract my previous statement. As the saying goes, “The people of Mecca are more familiar with their mountain trails.”…

    this directly quoted from http://sandala.org/blog/2012/10/06/sticks-and-stones-may-break-our-bones-but-fitna-really-hurts-us/

    Now… Sheikh Hamza Yusuf actually does not say he himself is calling those that follow the Ahmadiyya movement in its beliefs and practices are all outside fold of Islam. He says that Al-Azhar is saying this and their scholars are in consensus on this, so he follows that consensus.

    I would ask…. are there any direct blood descendents of the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) who are amongst the Ahmadiyya movement?

    I know none. I know that the closest blood relations to the Prophet(pbuh) are amongst Sheikh Hamza Yusuf’s teachers and companions, such as Habib Ali Jifri, Habib Umar, Habib Kazim and Sheikh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi.

    The majority of the family of the Prophet(pbuh) are with the Sunni Sufi tradition that Sheikh Hamza Yusuf is one reflection of.

  25. The reference to Muawiyah being called bagha (transgressor) is on page 352 of Ruhani Khazain, volume 8. It is in the arabic portion of Sirrul Khilafa, which is probably why that passage is not easily accessible.

    Finally, please note that sometimes companions of Prophets have turned renegade and therefore do not deserve that distinction. Samiri in the case of Hadhrat Musa (as), Judas Iscariot in the case of Hadhrat Isa (as), and Dr. Abdul Hakeem in the case of Hadhrat Masih-e-Maud (as) are some examples. So just being a companion at one time is not sufficient.

    The Shaykh has no argument at all. To say good things about Maulawi Muhammad Ali and say “After all, the Quran says to be fair to all” but then look what he says about Hadhrat Masih-e-Maud (as) that he God Forbid has but little knowledge. Is he being fair to him in the least? Can he produce a better commentary of even one verse of Quran compared to Hadhrat Masih-e-Maud (as)’s commentary ? Can he reproduce the greatness of just one third of one Qaseeda Hadhrat Masih-e-Maud (as) wrote? He challenged everybody in his age and nobody dared to contest him unless he ended up in defeat and disgrace. This is proof enough of the extent to the divine knowledge possessed by Hadhrat Masih-e-Maud (as).

    How can we gain any benefit from such a hypocritical person ? May Allah save him from such arrogance.

  26. Please do not indulge in polemics. Did the Promised Messiah (as) implicitly instruct that (ra) should not be used? If so, then that is our position. If not, then we are not charged with the responsibility of deducing anything from the statements of the Promised Messiah (as) other than what is clear and manifest. To do so is to overstep our mark. For example, If our beloved Hudur (abta) applies a specific term to an individual, then I am very particular about using the exact same term and not add a similar term because it seems to fit or feels right.

    No one has indulged complimented Hadrat Maulana Muhammad ‘Ali (ra) at all. The article directs readers towards the writings of Hadrat Khalifatul Masih II (ra) about the Lahori group and Hadrat Maulana Muhammad ‘Ali (ra) and states that much of what Shaykh Hamza has interpreted as the original knowledge of Hadrat Maulana Muhammad ‘Ali (ra) is in fact mostly been taken from the knowledge of the Promised Messiah (as).

    Rather than enter into emotional polemics about Hadrat Maulana Muhammad ‘Ali (ra), you are perhaps better placed forwarding arguments in support of the Promised Messiah (as) and against the false contentions of Shaykh Hamza Yusuf. That is the point, is it not?

    This subject matter is now closed except for direct, referenced quotations of the Promised Messiah (as).

  27. @Tayyab

    Hadhrat Masih-e-Maud (as) referred to Muawiyah as “Son of Abu Sufyan” and did not mention his name. He called him “bagha” meaning transgressor. Without this judgment of his, people may have used “ra” after Muawiyah’s name in the past, which is okay and understandable. But now with the judgment of the Hakam Adl, we should absolutely not use it.

    I don’t think he mentions this about Muawiyah in Sirrul Khilafa, and actually I don’t recall where he mentioned it, but it is well known as one of his Judgments. It would be good to find out where he did. Let me know what you find, I would be interested in the reference.

    @ all

    The reason why this is relevant to the article is because our opponent Shaykh has given praise to Maulawi Muhammad Ali and considered Hadhrat Masih-e-Maud (as) to God Forbid not have much knowledge. So please don’t indulge our enemies by also complimenting MMA by writing (ra) by his name when God is not pleased with him.

    Jazakallah.

  28. Pingback: Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat – Shaykh Hamza Yusuf | The Muslim Times

  29. My dear brother,

    Khalifa-tul-Masih Awwal (ra) although asking Mawlana Muhammad Ali (ra) to do baiat twice due to his divergent views, before being elected Khalifa said that I have not seen anyone do more work for the Jamaat than Mawlana Muhammad Ali (ra).

    The dead are indeed dead, we should not judge them. And where did you get the reference that Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) said Muawiya wasnt pious? I have read Sirr-ul-Khilafah by him and I havent seen him mention that anywhere. Just a point of clarification I seek.

  30. A Companion is someone who met the Holy Prophet (saw), or someone who met the Promised Messiah (as). There is nothing more to this subject. This is not an emotional, spiritual based subject, just a simple classification.

    The Rashidun was prophesised to last only 30 years. Companions lived long after the demise of Hadrat ‘Ali (ra). For example, Hadrat ‘Abd Allah b. Zubayr (ra) was a Companion and became a Khalifa – yet his Khilafa was not of the Rashidun. This was not because he was not pious, but because the pens had already been lifted on how long the Rashidun period would last. Even individuals who were not Companions, such as Hadrat ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-Aziz (ra), the grandson of Hadrat ‘Umar (ra), was accepted as a very righteous and pious Khalifa.

    As mentioned before, with these subjects it is best to avoid polemics. The dead are dead and they will face their Lord – good or bad.

  31. Hadhrat Masih-e-Maud (as) who is the Hakam and Adl has made the judgment in the case of Hadhrat Ali (as) and Muawiyah that the latter was a rebel. So that is why Hadhrat Aisha (ra) is innocent but not Muawiyah.

  32. In my view it is a matter of principle and a matter of faith. You are asking Got to be pleased with a man who split the Jama’at of Masih-e-Maud into two and opposed a Siddique.

    To compare Hadhrat Aisha (r.a.) and Muawiyah in their opposition to Hadhrat Ali (as) is unfair. Why is Muawiyah’s Khailafat not included among the Rashid Khilafat? Was he not a companion? It is because he became insincere and a rebel like Maulawi Muhamad Ali. He maliciously fought against Hadhrat Ali (as) and then took the administrative Khilafat away from Hadhrat Imam Hassan (as). Hadhrat Aisha (r.a.) did not have such intentions.

    I hope you can understand my viewpoint.

  33. I disagree with your interpretation of the dream and revelation regarding Maulawi Muhammad Ali. In the dream, the past tense was used (“were”), to indicate that while he at one time was righteous and a good minded person, he changed after the first Khilafat and opposed a Siddique Hadhrat Khalifa II (r.a.). Opposition of Siddiqueen is a serious matter.

    It is also a prophecy that inshallah Lahoris who are good natured will rejoin the Jama’at upon reconciliation between the two groups. May Allah make that happen soon.

    The second revelation is an indication that he committed a grevious sin, which I explained earlier, and that he would have to be forgiven for that. There is no indication that the sin would be forgiven. Actually it is not a good sign for him. I cannot believe how in the world Khalifa IV could say that about an enemy of his own father.

    May Allah keep us attached to Quran, Sunnah and Hadhrat Masih Maud (a.s.) forever.

  34. A very thoughtful much needed response. I am so grateful and pray Allah SWT rewards this effort , through the means of bringing more to investigate the truth Inshallah Amen.

    Any way of sending the article to his institute to generate a response . It would be a shame if he did not read it. Also we need a viral response .

    Jazakallah
    Ik

  35. The title Radi Allahu ‘Anhu is a title which is given based on a very particular classification. Applying this title is in no way an indication of one’s agreement with, or acceptance of, everything that particular person said or did. I feel it best to not enter into these types of polemics as they often lead towards something far more damaging. If there is some clear indication or instruction on this matter, contrary to the approach adopted here, please do let me know. We are always keen to expand out understanding and amend our errors. Jazak Allah brother and please do keep sharing your thoughts here.

  36. Brother, but if you speak to great scholars of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at [sorry] they will also tell you that it is only appropriate to say RadhiAllahu Anh after the name of Ameer Mu’awiyyah (ra), firstly because the Qu’ran says to do so after the name of a companion and secondly because misunderstandings were created at that time which we are not fully able to comprehend on this day (just as an Example Hadhrat Seiyyeda ‘Aisha (ra) faught Against Imam ‘Ali (ra) during the battle of Jamal … but we still say RadhiAllahu ‘Anha after her name as there were misunderstandings)…due to our lack of pure empirical evidence regarding these issues we rest the matter with Allah almighty.

    Now regarding Maulana Muhammad ‘Ali (ra) it is a similar issue [with the exception that we know pretty precisely what happened], but non the less…He was a companion, and actually if I’m not mistaken the Promised Messiah (as) saw in a dream that he was sitting in Jannah with some companions and Maulana Sahib (ra) came to them and Imam Mahdi (as) said “Come join us” … It is my opinion (please correct me I’m wrong and have misunderstood this dream) that the Promised Messiah (as) saw Maulana Sahib (ra) with himself in heaven after the passing of both.

    Allah knows best

  37. @Nasir Sahib

    I think the author has stated that he is only following the example of Khalifatul Masih Rabay, who also referred to him with r.a.

    Also, I am hopeful that the meanings of those above stated revelations are quite positive for M. Muhammad Ali Sahib. The second one is a revelation which most notably indicates that it is perfectly possible that God will forgive Maulvi Sahib’s sins.

    By the grace of Allah, I have not personally split from Khilafat and may Allah always protect me from such a sin. All the same, I would be over the moon if a man of God, let alone a prophet of God, were to receive a revelation indicating that my sins may well be forgiven!

  38. God forbid should we say radiallahu anhu after Muawiyah’s name?

    It is insulting as an Ahmadi to say that phrase after Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s name. Hadhrat Khalifa II (r.a.) is a Siddique according to a particular dream of Hadhrat Masih-e-Maud (as). Additionally, there is a revelation and a dream about Maulawi Muhammad Ali which Hadhrat Masih-e-Maud (as) saw which are not good for Muhammad Ali:

    1. In a dream, Hadhrat Masih-e-Maud (as) says to him “You were also righteous and meant well, come sit with us”

    2. Revelation about him: “May God forgive my sin also”

    Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s sin was that he opposed a Siddique and split away from the Jama’at without permission from God. I don’t know why you say radiallahu anhu after his name. In my opinion it is a shame.

  39. Salaam all,

    Jzk for the response. I would like to know more about the issue (or non-issue, rather) of qira’at- could someone please explain it briefly or direct me to (preferably Jama’at) material where I can learn more about it. I only have quite a basic understanding of the allegation/issue and its response.

    Beige Dove.

  40. Jazak Allah. Your final point is an important one. The literature and mutawatir ahadith which discuss the coming of the Imam Mahdi and Messiah quite distinctly point towards a Muslim Ummah whose scholars would be far departed from the pure and perfect message delivered by the Holy Prophet (sall Alahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) – in both Sunni and Shi’i sources. In fact, they would resemble the Jewish scholars at the time of Hadrat ‘Isa (‘alayhi al-salam); and is it not historically accepted that their consensus (ijma’) was that Jesus should be crucified, an accursed death according to their traditions?

    Shaykh Hamza Yusuf should, therefore, undertake a study of what the consensus of the traditional scholars was regarding the state of the Ummah and its scholars upon the coming of the Mahdi and Messiah.

    The author’s initial reverence was for the objectivity of the Shaykh in the past; something sorely missing in the world. It was thus shocking that he would willfully reject tens of millions of Kalima reciting people on the basis of what appears to be no research at all. I tend to agree with your statement: ‘It appears that to him the beliefs of the ‘Qadiyani Ahmadis’ are so far removed from his concept of Islam that they did not deserve a deeper look.’ This begs the question, however: why not simply remain silent on a subject one has no knowledge of? Surely, to remain silent is to err on the side of caution, whereas the possible repercussions of deeming millions of people to be outside the fold of Islam are too fearful to even contemplate.

  41. Jazak Allah. I agree with you completely. Qadian, being the home of the beloved Imam Mahdi (‘alayhi al-salam), is indeed a place of great honour and reverence for all those who offered their bay’ah to the Imam Mahdi (‘alayhi al-salam). Given that Shaykh Hamza Yusuf has here quite obviously relied upon, either directly or indirectly, the scholars of South East Asia, the author of the post chose to explain the stigma that the same scholars attach to the word (i.e., ”Qadiani”). In reality, the whole earth has been made a masjid upon which we can pray and so is deserving of our respect in its totally; our greatest reverence is directed towards the two blessed and Holy cities of Mecca and Medina and al-Quds.

    Regarding Hadrat Maulana Muhammad ‘Ali (radi Allahu ‘anhu), the author chose to adopt what he had personally witnessed Hadrat Khalifatul Masih 4th (rahmat Allahi ‘alayhi) say. In traditional Islam, a Companion is anyone who saw or met the Holy Prophet (sall Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), if even for a brief period of time. The same is the case with Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (‘alayhi al-salam). Hadrat Maulana Muhammad ‘Ali (radi Allahu ‘anhu), as is widely known, spent considerable time with Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (‘alayhi al-salam) and served him in various capacities. His later disagreement with Hadrat Khalifatul Masih 2nd (radi Allahu ‘anhu), which led to the split, has been aptly outlined by Hadrat Khalifatul Masih 2nd (radi Allahu ‘anhu) and so is clear for all to read about (click here). For those not familiar with the subject, the members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at did not agree with some doctrinal views held by Hadrat Maulana Muhammad ‘Ali (radi Allahu ‘anhu) and so he formed a break-away sect.

  42. The author’s genuine reverence for the Shaykh is apparent and justified. I too am surprised that the refreshing approach the Shaykh usually takes seems to have been skimmed over in this instance. It appears that to him the beliefs of the ‘Qadiyani Ahmadis’ are so far removed from his concept of Islam that they did not deserve a deeper look.

    The Shaykh says, and repeats “… never follow individuals after the Holy Prophet (sall Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam)… don’t ever follow an individual… trust me… don’t EVER follow an individual after the Messenger of Allah”.
    Shaykh, not even if that individual is your Mahdi? Not even if that individual is your Messiah?

  43. There are a few questions I have for the author or anyone else who can elaborate:

    The first thing is I’m not convinced that ‘Qadiani’ is always a derogatory term and perhaps a distinction needs to be made? I seem to recall Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad stating that we should take a degree of pride in it, as Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was ‘Qadiani’ as in from Qadian and this is an association we have with him. Of course, like all Ahmadis I condemn the usage of the term by anti-Ahmadis in a derogatory fashion when they use it to hurl abuse at us, but I don’t think this was Mr. Yusuf’s objective- he seems to have simply used the term to make a distinction between the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and the AAIIL. Of course, we would prefer for the proper terms to be used, but I don’t think he at all meant it in a derogatory manner…perhaps I am just learning from this article’s advice and making 70 excuses for Mr. Yusuf!

    The second thing I wanted to bring up was regarding Maulana Muhammad Ali. Throughout the article the eloquent author has consistently referred to him in the most respectful manner. I have heard that even the Ahmadi Khulafa would refer to him as ‘Hadhrat’ or ‘r.a’ from time to time, although I have no direct evidence of this. It’s just interesting, because if you read some of his works, many of them are really hurtful and outright vitriolic towards the second Khalifa. So I was wondering if the author knows directly how, say, Khalifatul Masih Rabay or his predecessors referred to Maulana Muhammad Ali?

    It’s just an interesting issue, because technically he accepted The Promised Messiah as a Mujaddid till the end of his life, but he rejected his claims to prophethood. Is that enough to count as a ‘Sahabi’ or companion?

  44. have always loved theartofmisinformation and some time ago it inspired myself and a few others to make our own \’amateur\’ refutation site. Often to refute an allegation all we do is link to your site!

    During Ramadan we ran a series of articles dealing with this video of Mr. Yusuf\’s.

    Firstly, we highlighted the video and made the general comment that the true progress of the Ummah was not through the work of Maulvi Muhammad Ali Sahib, but through the work of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and this is something Lahoris themselves must openly accept:
    http://cultgirlahmadiyya.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/books-of-hadhrat-mirza-ghulam-ahmad.html

    Secondly, we highlighted the book by Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad titled \’Eik Esai Kay Teen Sawal\’ in which he refutes all the Christian dogma as the basis for modern Islamic scholarship in defending Islam against Christianity:
    http://cultgirlahmadiyya.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/books-eik-esai-kay-teen-sawal-aur-un.html

    Thirdly, we refuted the Qirat issue of KhatIm and KhatAm by quoting from Mr. Adam Walker Sahib\’s book:
    http://cultgirlahmadiyya.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/refutation-allegation-made-by-sheikh.html

    Finally, we pointed out how the anti-Ahmadiyya sites often present Sheikh Hamza Yusuf as, God forbid, an alternative to Ahmadiyya etc. However, we pointed out that- although I also personally have a great deal of respect for his scholarship and he seems a good man- the Sunnis even are not united behind him. There are entire sites dedicated by them to \’exposing\’ his \’Kufr\’, which is a real shame:
    http://cultgirlahmadiyya.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/finding-findings-fridays-file-xii-cult.html

    Thanks for all the great work on this site, do keep it up.

    Salam.

  45. I wonder if the audience listeing to Shaykh Hamza is made up of quite few afro-americans or even Nation of islam (NoI). I say this becuse the NoI did have connection with Jamaat Ahmadiyya initially and even now apart from Philosophy of Teachings of Islam, they sell variois books written by Muhmaed Ali sahib and some other ‘Lahori Jamaats’ literature inc the Holy Quran translated by Muhjamed Ali.sahib.

    The NoI have no affliation with either groups of Ahmadiyyat now but are certainly influnced by Muhamed Ali sahib to justify the claims of Elijah Muhamed. By accepting the Promised Messiah (as), the claims of Elijah Muhamed become redundant, but his claim remain intact by keeping closer ties to Muhamad Ali sahib.
    Elijah Muhamed was certainly influenced by teachings of Hazrat Masih-e-Maud as khalifa Rebeh (ra) had outlined. in his early years the spread of Islam in the US was initially due to works of the Jamaatt.
    So this may have been an attempt by shaykh Hamza to apease the NoI.
    Anyhow the Shaykh should be informed that the translation of Muhamed Ali’s quran was due to the teaching of the Promised Messiah and not the other way as he seems to be suggesting.

  46. I look forward to the respected Sheikh’s response. I know for a fact several Ahmadi Muslims have approached him directly about concepts of Wafaat e Masih (for example) and while he promised to follow up, has not as of yet. Perhaps this might motivate a reply or at least a more thought out discussion instead of fatwa’s of takfir, insha’allah.

Join the Discussion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s