Refutation: Corruption has appeared in land and sea… Ahmadiyya Cult ?

Below is a post kindly sent to me by brother Abdullah.

To: Talib al-‘Ilm From: Abdullah

Re: Cousin Mumtaz

بسم الله الرحمان الرحيم

Dearest brother Talib

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

Now, now brother there is no need to be upset. I know that the shenanigans of our cousin, the erstwhile Mullah of Streatham, Shaykh Mumtaz-ul-Haq have hurt. Rest assured I am sure that he will not have impressed anyone remotely concerned with the family name. True it was an incendiary and vitriolic speech merely aimed at stirring hatred, reinforcing misconceptions and had a negligible relationship with all that is good and decent, but it was comic as well. Comic? O Yes. For a scholar of Islam the shaykh’s ignorance about his own scripture is worthy of our contempt.

Now Talib I don’t think there is need to cover old ground. Naeem Osman Memon’s books (Three in One and Ahmadiyyat or Qadianism) covers a great deal of the allegations made: the idea that, God forbid, the Promised Messiah sought to degrade Jesus (see p85 here); that he, God forbid, claimed to be God (see here) and the allegation that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s use of the phrase dhuriyat-ul-baghaya translates as sons of prostitutes (see p336 here). Why reinvent the wheel when these maulvius are too lazy to make even a half-hearted attempt to avoid misquotations which already have been thoroughly answered. But deal I will with the thrust of our sniggering Shaykh’s speech – the weird and wacky idea that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian was simply too well educated to be a prophet.

So there are three allegations: (1) Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote and [note this] “No Prophet ever wrote, ever wrote a single volume or even a single word” (see 5:52 of Sheikh Mumtaz’s speech here); (2) Mirza Ghulam Ahmad composed poetry and prophets cannot compose poetry and (3) Mirza Ghulam Ahmad spoke several languages and every prophet can only speak one language. Now I could disprove this quite simply from the Bible. Ezra was “a ready scribe in the law of Moses,” (Ezra 7:6) David composed the Psalms and quite obviously Moses spoke the Hebrew of his people and the language of the Pharaoh. All too obvious really. I am grateful for the Shaykh’s own admission on Youtube that he follows the “ولا حرج” [“There is no objection”] hadith-text in Bukhari which sanctions the Islamic scholars to use past scripture if not in contradiction with the Quran. Yet I do fear, brother Talib, that cousin Mumtaz is coloured by that chameleon complexion of expediency that so tinges the clerics of the subcontinent. So let us examine the Shaykh’s arguments from Islamic sources alone.

(Answer 1) So to the first issue. As is well known and Quranically attested the Prophet (sas) was indeed unlettered. Yet Allah Almighty is not, God forbid, a deity who randomly deprives His most beloved creation for sheer joy, there was a reason for why that was so. The reason, dear Talib, (though I should really CC the Shaykh into this as he is the one who needs to know) is so that none could raise the objection that the Prophet had read previous scripture and was a mere plagiarizer of the past tradition. This specific limitation on this specific prophet served a specific purpose. I thought this was obvious and known to all but perhaps only an Ahmadi Muslim can understand this. Now Prophets have certainly written in the past. Read Sura al-Naml , the Prophet Sulayman wrote a letter to the Queen of Sheba prefaced with بسم الله الرحمان الرحيم. Prophets have also read in the past. Read Sura al-Araf and see Allah Azz wa Jall declaring وكتبنا له (“We wrote for him [Moses]” the tablets) i.e. Moses could read. Yet there is a more patent example than either of these two just given. Did the Shaykh really say “No Prophet ever wrote, ever wrote a single volume or even a single word?” Well how does he explain that the greatest scholars of the Muslims celebrate the fact that the Holy Prophet (sas) did write. On the day of Hudaybiya when the Prophet (sas) was concluding a pact with Suhayl b. ‘Amr, the representative of the Quraysh, Suhayl demanded that the pact must contain no mention of the Prophet’s divine title and the Prophet was only to be identified by his family name. Ali (ra), the scribe, who had already penned in the words Rasul Allah, upon being told by his master to efface them from the parchment felt such humiliation that he swore by God that he would not to so. Yet the Prophet was to insist. As the account of Muslim relates:

فأراه مكانها فمحاها وكتب ابن عبد الله

“So Ali showed him where the writing was and the Prophet effaced it and wrote [in the words] ‘the son of Abdullah.’ ”

(Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Jihad wa al-Siyar, Bab Sulh al-Hudaybiya fi al-Hudaybiya)

What was this but a miracle. As Bukhari commented ولا يحسن أن يكتب فكتب “It was not possible for him to write and yet he still wrote.” While Shibli Numani argued that the Prophet (sas) may have at least acquired by that time enough knowledge to write his name (this not diminishing from the fact that he was unlettered), a hadith in Bukhari goes so far as to state the Prophet (sas) wrote the whole pact!

So what now of our Shaykh’s objection. With the Hudaybiya miracle is he denying Imam Bukhari? Is he denying Imam Muslim? Is he even denying the Prophet (since his statement quite clearly is ‘no prophet ever wrote,’ i.e. if Muhummad (sas) wrote is he now, God forbid, not a Prophet?) And in the incident of Sulayman (as) is he denying the author of the Quran? And none can be under any illusions that I have misrepresented the Shaykh, I have at least had the courtesy of providing some context compared to his mis-quotations and mis-contextualisations of the Promised Messiah!

(Answer 2) Shall we touch upon the second now? Talib, did the Shaykh really claim that a prophet cannot compose poetry? True, the Quran declares that the Prophet (sas) was not a poet – but again context is everything. Yet again this is not some random limitation on prophethood; there is a reason for it. The Prophet (sas) lived amongst the Quraysh who were most proud of their literary tradition. The annual poetry fair at Ukaz boasted the greatest of Jahiliyya poets; the best 7 poems hung in the Kaba. The myth was that each of the great Arab poets had a demonic companion – a Qarin, who inspired them with verse. So accordingly the point was made that this Quran was not the like of the genre, it was divine revelation gifted to a man who did not indulge in the vocation of poetry. There was no human or jinn based inspirational element within it. So again a specific limitation for a specific period to a specific prophet. Yet that does not mean that no prophet could ever compose poetry. Indeed the Noble Prophet (sas) did on one occasion issue perhaps the most famed and almost certainly the most beautiful battle couplet ever composed. On the day of Hunayn, a day, when because of the greatness of number he could have sent his forces to fight and stayed behind like a king, he chose instead to be in the heat of the battle. When his own forces, made slack from their pride in number, took to flight, he advanced and uttered:

I am the Prophet!

No lie is this;

Abd al-Muttalib’s child,

here in the midst!

What a declaration! It was an assertion that that same God who had protected him during the blockade at Mecca, during the departing of his own house at the time of the Hijra, in the cave with Abu Bakr, at Badr when he was outnumbered, at Uhud when he was wounded, at Khandaq when he was besieged was true and His divine protection held! Temptation of wealth had not in the slightest diverted him, his belief remained absolute. Indeed the fourth Caliph of the Ahmadi Muslim community, that is the Khalifatul Masih IV, declared that if one would wish to know whether the Noble Prophet (sas) was true he need ponder on this event alone.

So then if the Noble Prophet (sas) could compose a couplet I see little objection in the Promised Messiah doing so. (Again cc this to the “shaykh”, he may learn a thing or two from this very average Ahmadi).

(Answer 3) Finally, I remain perplexed by the Shaykh’s insistence that a prophet can only speak one language. Really? True that the Quran affirms that every prophet certainly speaks the language of his people but did the Hebrews really speak nothing but cuckoo given that God has declared in al-Naml that Dawood (as) spoke mantiq al-tayr (the language of the birds). We remember of-course that the shaykh could never interpret this metaphorically given his compatriot shaykh-of-the-night Gani’s mocking the Ahmadis for not interpreting literally in all instances. Presumably Isa when he returns from Heaven will still be speaking Aramaic and instructing the Umma in a language that only a handful of Muslims can actually understand! And again for our literalists in al-Naml perhaps they wish to explain how Sulayman (as) understood the language of the ants!

A word by way of conclusion.

I conclude with a message addressed in all seriousness to all Talibs and Talibahs – and all those who seek the truth in earnest: Do not mock Ahmadi Muslims with figments of the imagination of what a prophet is – else you will only end up falling on your own sword. A Nabi, according to us, is the highest rank a man can be gifted in reward for his righteousness. It has nothing remotely to do with literary merit (or even merit based on knowledge). A Nabi is the greatest of reformers – he pulls his community out to higher and greater moral truths. Whenever the verse ظهر الفسد في البر والبحر (‘Corruption has appeared in land and sea’) applies, God is not so unkind to leave his people lingering in darkness without bestowing an individual an abundance of revelation to counter all that is satanic. In this hour of darkness where we have been subjugated, where our moral standard has fallen and where we hark back to the nostalgia of yore, Allah the Almighty has not left the Muslims. A divine reformer has come. Think, consider and read.

والسلام على من اتبع الهدى

(Peace be upon all those who in whatsoever situation they when divine guidance comes are prepared to study it without prejudice and follow it if true).

Your loving brother in Islam Abdullah

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Refutation: Corruption has appeared in land and sea… Ahmadiyya Cult ?

  1. Salam, Muslims.

    It may be difficult to go to the texts of the classical scholars, but I think it’s important to do as much research as possible on this important matter. In any case, if you can’t read the classical texts, then I’d like to draw your attention to the fact that the Holy Qur’an says that the people elected by God were often rejected as “underqualified”, for instance Qur’an Surah 11 Verse 28 reads,

    “The chiefs of his people, who disbelieved, replied, ‘We see in thee nothing but a man like ourselves, and we see that none have followed thee but those who, to all outward appearance, are the meanest of us. And we do not see in you any superiority over us; nay, we believe you to be liars.’”

    One of the joys of ahmadiyyat, for me, is being “underqualified”. I love it, honestly. I love the fact that an Arab said to me, “Your prophet was from India so he can’t possess the knowledge of the Qur’an” and that a Persian said to me, “If God was going to raise a prophet after Muhammad (saw), then why didn’t He raise a Persian?”. I love the fact that God raised His Imam from a tiny village which didn’t even have a rail station and even now isn’t shown on the Times World Atlas. I love the fact that our khulafaa worked as schoolteachers and farmers.

    You may ask, why do I love this so much? I love it because: (a) In history, most of the prophets and khulafa led very humble lives and were not considered “qualified scholars”, (b) It means only humble hearts and souls are drawn towards our jamaat, and arrogant hearts are kept away, which can only be a good thing.

    To be honest, I don’t think we appreciate enough this special period we’re living in, when we are still at our humble beginnings. One day, jamaat ahmadiyya will spread and encompass the world, and at that time unfortunately perhaps even arrogant hearts will enter our fold. But for now we’re still living in that age of beautiful humility, and I love this.

    Moosa

  2. Jazakallah, for your illuminating & educated reply.

    May Allah bless you and shower you with his blessings (Aameen)

  3. @ Freedy: I have two points to make. Firstly, I did not ignore any such request, but answered your question. Almighty Allah has clearly blessed you with the ability to read – so please go to the books I have referred you to and the answers are clearly there (they are the standard manuals of Islamic governance used by everyone from your liberal Sufi to your extreme Wahhabi). They are even translated into English. Unfortunately, as I have observed is so often the case with you and your cohorts, you believe that Islam should follow a set of rules which seem logical in your mind. I urge you to set aside your own opinions and refer to those who were scholars of Islamic Governance such as al-Mawardi, Ibn Taymiyah and Imam al-Haramayn. The fact that you have chosen to reply ”thats hilarious” under your snigger, rather than actually engaging with the texts, is quite telling – wouldn’t you say. In short, if you want to discuss such matters then bring your evidence and knowledge – otherwise please do not comment.

    Secondly, I cannot post your demonic second comment for it does not behove the pure eyes of a Muslim that I allow it to be presented here. I will say this much; in Islam we have some examples of Companions of the Prophet (sall Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) who carried out certain actions which were un-Islamic and they later regretted. The reaction of the Prophet (sall Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) to them was not the same as you have suggested should be done here. If you had engaged with the early Islamic sources and increased your knowledge then this simple truth would be clear to you. And the fact also remains that we are not even worthy of being the dust beneath the feet of those few Companions who did err from time to time. Fear Almighty Allah and stop assuming that you know anything about another person’s circumstances, lest you bring it upon yourself that Almighty Allah removes His blessed Sattariyah from you! In classical Islam we were blessed with Moral Agents (muhtasibs) who would seek out, admonish and even reprimand gossiping fitnah stirrers such as yourself!

    Happy to talk about real issues and not the actions of others, who I do not even know, that were carried out under circumstances I do not know and at a point in time I do not know. And so let this be a clear message to anyone wishing to comment here – do not even bother if you want to post shallow cheap shots of no substance. I do not subscribe to gossip, prejudice and opportunism. It is your right to criticise and attack the Jama’at which I love so much – indeed, discussion and differences of opinion are a kind of mercy in Islam, but do so on the basis of reasoned argument.

  4. well said jazakallah may Allah increase you in knowledge and bless you and enable you to continue with the good work inshallah and make the rest of us alo be able to do the same. Ameen

  5. Dear ”Muslims”, Assalamu ‘Alaikum. Thank you for your request, which I would be happy to respond to at some point in the future. I will offer a few comments on the subject here. Firstly, I am just an ordinary individual Ahmadi Muslim and do not propose that I have been granted the knowledge, nor position, by Almighty Allah to clarify what should be classified as the minimum qualifications of a Khalifah. Alhamdulillah, having said that, I do not have to rely upon my own meager and simple knowledge when our spiritual and juristic forefathers have already written much about this. I have studied the classical writings on this matter and have not found that any of them support your contention that my beloved Khalifah (ayyadahu Allahu t’ala bi-nasrihi al-‘aziz), and my other beloved Khulafah (radi Allahu ‘anhum), are under-qualified. I would like to direct you towards the writings of Imam al-Haramayn, al-Juwayni, Sahib al-Ahkam al-Mawardi and Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (rahmat Allah ‘alayhim) on the subject. After reading their sections on the qualification of al-Khalifah al-‘Aamma (special khilafah, i.e., Rightly Guided), please study the hadith literature regarding the the impetus Islam places on obedience to one’s leader.

    Alhamdulillah, as an Ahmadi I am blessed that under the institution of Khilafah I, and my fellow Ahmadi Muslim brothers and sisters, enjoy unity. Please let me know what you discover if / when you read the above writings. They should clear it all up for you. Do feel free to post here as much as you like – more than welcome

  6. Assalamo Alaikum,
    Even Anti Ahmadi mocked at this “Sheikh” on their Cult Info website, as to how he acted at a recent event involving MP’s , where he turned up along with his uneducated friends and stopped a Tory MP from entering the Tooting Islamic Centre just because he thought he was Ahmadi. LOL It’s a shame he got the wrong person. Cult info later edited the post and removed the Sheikh’s name as to not cause embarrassment to their anti-Ahmadi buddies.
    May Allah truly guide the uneducated Mullahs of today.
    Wasalams
    kashmoniez

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