Dr. Aamir Liaquat Hussain a famous religious host of a show called Aalim Online which airs frequently on Geo TV has entered some hot waters in the past few days. It is believed that his comments on the show may have incited Muslims to target and kill followers of the Ahmedi sect. Dr. Aamir has been running this show for the past many years and has developed a strong following catapulting him to fame to the extent that many Pakistanis swear by his religious commentary on TV, and remains a highly sought after show specially during the month of Ramadan.
Historically Dr. Aamir Liaquat Hussain has had his taste of controversy which started of from his fake degrees where this blogger had labeled him as Jahil Online back in 2005, he was then associated with MQM for a few years and ultimately had a falling out with the party over a controversial comment he made on TV condemning the British author Salman Rushdie, saying that Salman Rushdie should be killed for blaspheming the Holy Prophet (PBUH) in his book, Satanic Verses, after making this comment Mr. Online refused to retract his statement despite immense pressure from the top London based MQM leadership which ultimately lead to his dismissal and soon he also resigned from his Ministry
Asian Human Rights Watch reports that on 7th September in his program ‘Aalim Online’ the anchor declared the murder of Ahmadi sect members to be necessary (Wajib ul Qatal) according to Islamic teachings, because its followers don’t believe in the last prophet, Mohammad, peace be upon him.
Dr. Amir repeated his instruction several times, urging fundamentalists Muslims to kill without fear. While on air the anchor person also pressured the other two Islamic scholars (from two different sects) on the program to support the statement. This resulted in a unanimous decision among the scholars, on air during a popular television show, to urge lynching with the intent to kill.
This was not a one-off. On September 9, Mr. Hussain answered a query with the comment that blasphemers are liable to be put to death.
According to the information received, at 1:15pm on September 8, 18 hours after the broadcast, six persons entered the Fazle Umer Clinic, a two-story hospital at Mirpurkhas city and two of them went to the second floor and started pressuring 45 year-old Dr. Abdul Manan Siddiqui to come downstairs to attend to a patient in crisis. Dr. Manan left his office and descended into an ambush. He was shot 11 times and died on the spot. His private guard was also shot and is in a serious condition. A woman was also injured by firing. The killers remained at the hospital until the doctor was declared dead, then they walked out of the building’s front entrance. Police registered the killers as unknown.
On September 9, 48 hours after the broadcast, Mr. Yousaf, a 75 year-old rice trader and district chief of the Ahmadi sect was killed on his way to prayer in Nawab Shah, Sindh province. Yousaf was fired on from people on motor bikes, and sustained three bullet wounds. He died on the way to the hospital. The assailants had taken a route past a police station. No one was arrested.
ACTION ALERT
Join the Asian Human Rights Commission in sending a Letter of Appeal to a number of top leaders in Pakistan
Comments
664 responses to “Aalim Online – Inciting murder against Ahmedi’s”
@Real Observer,
Your facts are incorrect, Mirza started using filthy language when he did start claiming inspirations and if you read the history of all ulema, you will find out they always condemned him for using such language. Let us assume you are correct and ulema did not object on filthy language of Mirza Sb. Is all your belief based on ulema? Don’t you use your common sense.
If a friend of you comes to you and says that you are born through a filthy passage of urine – how would you feel about him? Would you think he is a great scholar and a very polite and adorable person? Or would you consider him an indecent person? If someone says any similar thing about your Khalif Khamis that he was born through a filthy passage of urine and if he has to claim being chosen by God he should have been delivered through the mouth of his mother – how would you feel? Would you love him?
Leave the Muslims for the moment, how do you think Christians would consider Mirza when they find out what he says about Jesus? Have you ever heard a descent percent using such language? If a normal descent human cannot use such a language how can a prophet do so?
If you are actually a convert and you were given such allegations then how did you clear your mind? Did you change your standards of decency? Do you now discuss at your homes about birth of human from a filthy passage – shouldn’t you because it is the sunnat of Mr Mirza?
@Bilal Shah: By your logic, there should be no problem with what one believes and there should be no use of religion at all. If one is not to be judged by God in the afterlife on what one’s beliefs and practices were in this world, then what’s the issue to begin with…… Eat, Drink and be Merry……
Real Observer
You forget one thing, Pre 1901/1902, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed that no new Prophet after the Prophet Muhammad could come to earth. He held the exact same view as main stream muslims that Muhammad pbuh was the last and final prophet.
However according to the current Qadiani Khalifas he changed that opinion in 1901/1902 when he published the booklet aik ghalti ka azala.
In this booklet he apparently stated that:
He was infact a Prophet.
For the vast majority of his life he was confused about his own prophethood and held the same views as main stream muslims, (the holding of which Bilal claims means you are outside the pale of Islam) but was now sure he was a prophet. (Readers take note that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad actually only confessed his Prophethood in the last six years of his life, for the rest of it he was in a state of utter confusion on this oh so minor issue)
That all references to prophetdhood, according to the Qadiani Khalifa published pre 1902 have been ABROGATED!.
This is not to say that there was not opposition to him before 1902 of course.
this guy sucks, i don’t know if this link has been posted here, but here it is: http://www.pkcolumns.com/
see what this cxnt said about Prophet’s PBUH companions.
@Haris Zuberi,
1. First of all, how do you (or your fellow mainstream Muslims) justify from the Holy Quran that Jesus (AS) is taken up bodily to heaven? Where is the proof from the Holy Quran to justify such irrational and absurd notion that is associated to Allah Almighty? Where is the proof of this from the Holy Quran?
Allah says in the Holy Quran that you look around and do it again and again, your eyes will get tired but you will not find any irrationality or contradiction in His creation. This very belief that Jesus (AS) was taken up bodily to some heaven where he is living for the last couple of thousand years still waiting for his return makes one question the ‘rationality’ in the creation of God. How on earth did he fly against the gravity, how on earth is he is alive for so many years without getting aging(as it is common held view that when Jesus returns he will be a young person and not someone who is already more than 2000 yrs ago), where is he getting his food from as no human can survive for this long without any food, if any.
According to the verse below he was only a prophet and prophet like unto him have passed away (so what is the point of this verse if prophets like Jesus have passed away but he hasn’t?). In addition to that the verse makes it clear that he and Hadhrat Mariam (Mary) USED TO EAT and not any more making it clear that Jesus (AS) is no more alive like his mother Mary.
The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a Messenger; surely Messengers like unto him had PASSED AWAY before him. And his mother was a truthful woman. They BOTH USED TO eat food. See how We explain the Signs for their good, and see how they are turned away. (Chapter 5 : Verse 76)
Another verse of the Holy Quran even confirms it further that Jesus (AS) is dead like all other prophets when it addresses the Muslims in relation to the Holy Prophet’s (PBUH) status in the following words:
And Muhammad is but a messenger. Verily all Messengers have passed away before him. If then he dies or is slain, will you turn back on your heels? And he who turns back on his heels shall not harm Allah at all. And Allah will certainly reward the grateful. (Chapter 3 : Verse 145)
So Messengers before Holy Prophet (PBUH) have passed away. What will be the point of this verse, if Jesus is an exception? In addition to that if Jesus (AS) was an exception then that should have been made clear in this verse by Allah like “Messengers have passed away before him except Jesus, who will come again”. Nothing like that is mentioned in the verse making it sure again that Jesus has passed away like all other prophets of God as prophets are no more than humans.
As I had mentioned earlier, the more you try to justify the belief held by you and your mainsteam Muslim friends that Jesus is alive, the more irrational and complex it gets. You are only trying to justify an irrational theory that you yourself feel doesn’t have any grounding. You have tried to justify the verse where Jesus says that he is obliged to say prayers and pay zakat WHERESOEVER he may be and for as long as he lives. He was certainly not to say prayers when he was young, but from the moment it was made compulsory on him, according to the verse he must continue to fulfill these religious duties whereever he may be and for as long as lives. If he had to be really taken up bodily, then the verse should have made it clear, that Jesus should be excused of these duties when he is up there in the skies!!! Please don’t try to justify this, you can’t do it. What is irrational is irrational, no matter how hard you try, it will remain irrational. I am not prepared to accept this irrationality associated with the Book of Allah that repeatedly instructs the people to use their “AQAL” (Wisdom) to understand the guidence it holds. Such absurdities will encourage you to avoid your AQAL, which I as an Ahmadi Muslim refuse to accept.
Later you tried to justify your notion that Jesus (AS) when returns will have his scope of prophethood changed. My friend Jesus’ shariah was DIFFERENT from the shariah of Holy Prophet. His teachings were relevant for the period and people he came for, whereas the teachings of Holy Prophet are relevant for the whole mankind and forever. eg. Jesus taught “if someone slaps you on one cheek, then you present the other one”. This was the teaching which was relevant for that period and those Jewish people whose hearts had become as hard as stones. The teachings of Jesus didn’t have the teaching of retaliation. When we read the teachings of Holy Prophet, it is clear that revenge is allowed but to the extent that it doesn’t exceed the pain you endured from the opponent, but forgiveness has been given priority as long as it brings reformation in the criminal and the society at large. Shariah doesn’t mean if Jesus believed in truth of the prophet to come ie. Holy Prophet. It means the teachings he brought with his arrival. What you and your fellow mainsteam Muslims are saying is that even though Quran declares Jesus (AS) to be a prophet for the Israelites alone, on his second coming his scope (ie. Shariah too) of prophethood will be changed from Israelites to the whole world. This very act of Jesus will contradict the word of Quran. If Jesus had to return physically himself, then Quran should have made it clear that he is prophet for Israelites only in his first coming, in his second coming he will no more be a limited to Israelites.
Just think about it. When you and the Mullahs agree that there will be a need for a prophet, then what is the need of putting everyone in such a great hassle including Jesus himself to fulfill this purpose. Why can’t Allah just send another prophet from the ummah of Holy Prophet, who is a born Muslim, who doesn’t need to change his scope of prophethood. Be rational and honest and tell me, what makes more sense? Jesus coming back (with all the irrationalities and contradictions I have mentioned earlier) or a prophet from the ummah of the Holy Prophet with the character of Jesus (ie. like Jesus came to revive the true spirit of Judaism, Promised Messiah comes to revive the true spirit of Islam)? I hope you will answer rationally and honestly.
I am going somewhere, but when I am available I will contine with the rest of the points as well in our discussion, including the topic of Finality of prophethood.
Bilal
bilal:
you are trying to confuse me but i will stay focussed; the question is: can a muslim marry an already married non-believer (say an athiest or a buddhist) woman who has become a prisoner of war?
can you answer me in straight terms, yes or no? forget hte should and the should not debate
newobserver:
come out of the womb now and grow up; dont use this tone to hide the shallowness of your knowledge; for your kind information, i am a practicing catholic and to me all claims of prophethood are false; ie, that by muhammad and that by mirza
Hi Christopher
Do you believe Marry was virgin when she gave birth to Jesus? Your bible says that however I came across many “practicing” Christians who doesn’t believe this.
Why is that?
Being Muslim, I strongly believe that, though I am not “practicing” Muslim
proudpaki:
She was obviously a virgin and i am not aware of any catholic taking a different view on this; you must have met some jew posing himself as a catholic; i will always look at the belief rather than what is practiced by the individuals; unfortunately, there are many christians in today’s world who are not good persons (let alone be good catholics) but that, I guess, goes with all the religions…
@Real Observer,
“Your facts are incorrect, Mirza started using filthy language when he did start claiming inspirations and if you read the history of all ulema, you will find out they always condemned him for using such language”
Any Reference of such statements of Ulemma after the publication of Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya or Aina Kamalate Islam. I need a proper refernece and if possible the guide to buy the original version of that book in which these people condemned these writings.
Furthermore, you have not replied if you read page 103 to 106 in details?
@Haris Zuberi,
I had just written a long post, which unfortunately got deleted.
So lets take the verse of Quran again:
AND WHOSO OBEYS ALLAH AND THIS MESSENGER SHALL BE AMONG THOSE ON WHOM ALLAH HAS BESTOWED HIS BLESSINGS, NAMELY: THE PROPHETS, THE TRUTHFUL, THE MARTYRS AND THE RIGHTEOUS, AND EXCELLENT COMPANIONS ARE THESE. (Al Quran 4:69/70)
This is how you have tried to make me believe what the verse is talking about:
QUOTE Ok, we have to put this verse into context. This verse is addressing companions of the Holy Prophet who fled from their homes, and those who were persecuted, and those who fought in his company. Pledging that if they die, it will be with the “MARTYRS AND THE RIGHTEOUS, AND EXCELLENT COMPANIONS” is perfectly valid. The alternative would of course be to die at the hands of the enemy or at least far away from other Muslims which would of course be an unpleasant fate. UNQUOTE
First of all no where in the verse there is a mention of those who DIE in the war. The verse is talking about the rewards to ANYONE who obeys Allah and His messenger completely. So don’t try to talk about the things which are no where to be seen in the verse. Secondly, the verse doesn’t just talk about “truthful, martyrs, and righteous” but it talks about “PROPHETS” and not just “PROPHET” too. How many prophets were there at the time of Holy Prophet? It was only Holy Prophet and no one else. So if your rambling explanation is taken it would mean that Muslims will die in the company of prophets, truthful, martyrs and righteous. Do you know what I mean? How many prophets they had to die with?
Then later on you tried to explain how according to English language it doens’t make any difference. My friend, we are talking about Arabic language here and not English. Among is the closest word that could be used to translate that word. The purpose is to make you understand that it means you will be ONE OF THEM and not just in their company.
So when we pray to Allah that O’Allah make us die among the righteous, that is to mean that O’Allah make us die in the state of righteousness and not that when someone else dies cause us to die WITH them.
Then you gave an example by saying that if someone says “you are in the company of rich”, then it doens’t imply that you are rich, and also it is not necessary that you are poor. I agree with you, but when you explain the verse under discussion, you say that they CAN NOT be one of the aforementioned rewards. They will only be in a company and would not be able to attain those rewards. My point is that certainly, the verse informs us of the rewards which a Muslim can attain if he completely submits himself to the will of Allah and Holy Prophet. According to your interpretation, they can only be in the company without attaining those rewards. If one can become righteous, then according to the same verse one can become a prophet as well.
3. Now I am happy that you have acknowledged that if Ahmadis consider a rejecter of a true prophet as kafir then it is because it is the teaching of Quran and we don’t have any other option. This is the verdict of Quran. On the other hand when non-Ahmadis call us non-Muslims then where is their justification from the Holy Quran? This is my point which I need an answer for. My point is that Quran doesn’t allow them to call us non-Muslims as there is no justification for their verdict. We believe in all the articles of faith. You can’t just call us non-Muslim or kafir only for accepting someone we consider to be a true subordinate prophet of Holy Prophet. We believe him to be the person Holy Prophet prophecised about and instructed us to pay his (Holy Prophet’s) salam to him and to do bait on his hands even if one had to cross the glaciers on one’s knees. Your Mullahs don’t have any justification to issue any fatwah calling us non-Muslim. If there is, then please let me know, otherwise I would advise you to stop calling us with such names.
@Christopher,
Quran doesn’t allow the Muslims to marry a lady outside the “people of the Book (those who are not idolators)”. So anyone who comes outside this category is not to be married. The only way one can marry such a woman is if she becomes a Muslim herself.
Bilal
I copy paste the two verses you are referring to:
004.024 Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath God ordained (prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property…..
004.025 If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess…
your contention is based on the second verse and i am referring to the first one; you are missing the point that the first one permits you to establish a relationship with a MARRIED woman; let me clarify further:
as in your religion a muslim can only marry a believing girl, the specific permission is given in the second verse and a clear reference is made to THOSE who cannot afford to marry a free woman;
the above in itself clarifies that the first verse is NOT talking about marriage and also there is NO reference to affordability; the first verse permits everyone to have sex with (even a married) prisoner of war woman, and does not require a marital relationship as it does not say so; the reference to marriage is not in the original text and is placed in brackets by the translator;
do you deny that this practice of having sex with women prisoners of wars was there in the early days of islam? if you wish, i can produce some hadith references to you!
@Christopher,
You seem to have totally ignored my earlier post where I explained in detail how the word “marriage” is there in the original text of the first verse and it doesn’t need to be in brackets.
[4:24/25] And (forbidden) to you are married women (MOHSINAAT, from the root “Husn”), except such as your right hands possess. This has Allah enjoined on you. And allowed to you are those beyond that, that you seek (them) by means of your property, MARRYING THEM PROPERLY (MOHSINEEN, again from the root “Husn”) and NOT committing FORNICATION. And for the benefit you receive from them, give them their dowries, as fixed, and there is no blame on you what you do by mutual agreement after the fixing (of the dowry). Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, Wise.
The verse is only saying that you can take women (who are mentioned one verse prior to this verse) into marriage if you are fulfilling the conditions of marriage and not to commit fornication. You can’t however marry an already married woman, exception to this is if you choose to marry a female prisoner of war (who has herself fought the war against Muslims). I have explained earlier in one of my posts why this is allowed (even though it is not encouraged).
I will now paste for your convenience what I posted earlier in refutation to your allegation that Islam allows Muta or sex outside marriage. This misunderstanding has arisen because of total lack of understanding of Arabic language and its usage.
The Quran and Arabic language both contradict this menifestly unfounded inference that this verse justifies Muta. The misunderstanding has arisen from the failure to understand the difference between the Arabic words “Tamta’a” and “Isstamta’a” and the way they are used in Arabic language. The word “Tamta’a” means temporary benefit. For example if someone wants to say “he benefitted from the woman temporarily”, he would say “Tamta’a Bil Mar’a”. Notice this word “Bil” which is used before the word “Mar’a” to signify temperory benefit FROM the woman.
The word however used in the verse is “Istamta’a” and never in Arabic idiom this word signifies the meaning of temporary benefit in regards to a woman. Whenever the word “Tamta’a” is used in regards to temporary benefit from a woman, it is followed by the term “bil (ba)” put before the word standing for woman as I have mentioned earlier. But in the verse under discussion the expression “Istamta’tum Behi MIN hun” is used where “hun” refers to woman preceded by the preposition “MIN” and not “Bil (ba)”. So this makes it clear that the justification of Muta doesn’t have any grounding at all. If some so called “scholars” have justified it, they have done it because of their failure to understand the usage of the word in Arabic language.
Secondly you said that the term “marriage” is only in brackets and is not present in actual wordings of the verse. That too is a misunderstanding. The verse does contain the word marriage and it doesn’t have to be in brackets. I will tell you why.
The term “Al-Muhsinaat” means women who have protected themselves by entering the fortress of marriage. This word has come from the root “Husn” and the words from the same root has been used twice in the word. Once in the beginning of the verse and secondly in between the verse where word “Muhsineen” (meaning “by marrying them properly”) has been used.
So verse makes it clear that you are allowed to MARRY THEM PROPERLY but NOT AS A MEANS TO COMMIT FORNICATION.
Lastly dowries have been made compulsory in the verse to the one who take such women into marriage. On principle, the dowry must be paid immediately at marriage; but with the wife’s consent the payment can be suitably deferred. The husband can increase the amount of the dowry later, if he so desires; but he can’t decrease it except with the permission of the wife or the Judge (Qadi).
So the verse in no way allows any sex outside marriage in this verse at all. On the contrary it makes it very clearly that any such action will result in fornication.
Quran does allow a Muslim to marry a woman outside her faith as long as she is not an idolator (even though it is highly encouraged that one should avoid marrying a non-Muslim as far as possible). The emphasis on marrying a believing bondwoman if one doesn’t afford marrying a free woman in the next verse is there to show that it is highly pleasing in the eyes of Allah if one marries within his own faith. It doesn’t however forbid one to marry outside the faith as Quran does allow Muslims to marry outside the faith (if there is no other option) ie. to the People of the Book (who are not idolators).
Bilal
@Christopher,
Just the claims are false? A person is calling your God bastard but you don’t have any problem with him? Why don’t you use the same language against him – we have seen gems of your language already against Muslims who love and respect Jesus. But Mirza calls his grand mothers are fornicators but you are not willing to use your gems against Mirza – why because you are mirzai and are here just to deviate the discussion.
@Real Observer,
I have never quoted from Kitab-ul-Barriya. I have quoted from other books like Braheen-e-Ahmadia where Mirza says that tears jump out of eyes just like sperms jump out during ejaculation and when Ahmadis get pious they cannot differentiate if they loved Allah or had sex with their wives. Please check the links again and give me an explanation.
Similarly, I have asked about the filthy language that has been used by Mirza about Jesus and other places. If you look carefully, I am saying even if what you are saying is correct that those ulema were corrupt and only started blaming Mr Mirza after he became a claimant how do you respond to the fact that Mirza says that Jesus could not be God because he was born through a filthy passage which is the passage of urine. Is this the wording of a descent person let alone a prophet.
newobserver:
can you keep your @$$h0l€ (mouth in other’s case) shut; you will not be able to draw me into a hate-debate while i remain determined to win a few die-hard catholics here; you are a pile of shit that just stinks, stay away from me pls; i respect bilal for he is quoting me something from the koran which shows that he knows what he is talking about and i will try not to shy him away until he turns out to be an absolute jerk like you; i dont want to argue with an @$$h0l€ like you who doesnt even know about his own religion and whose focus is finding fault with personalities rather than beliefs; where i discuss muhammad, the objective is not to malign him but to attack the belief (as you guys consider his doings and actions as one of the three sources of islamic law); if you have anything from the koran, then talk to me; otherwise, go away or i will be constrained to use the language about you that will certainly create a bad taste for everyone! i will resist that until am pushed to the wall; and please do not go to that extent
bilal:
i had read your postings; you are not discussing the point that the first verse allows a muslim to establish relationship with a woman prisoner of war who is ALREADY MARRIED!!! you are misinterpreting the language; how can you marry a woman who is already married; unless you tell me that your religion also allows a marriage upon an existing marriage! i have checked and muhsina has a variety of meanings and is not restricted to women entering into wed-locks; tell me if this is wrong;
more importantly, tell me how can you marry a woman who is already married!
@Christopher,
[4:24/25] And (forbidden) to you are married (MOHSINAAT, from the root “Husn”) women , except such as your right hands possess. This has Allah enjoined on you. And allowed to you are those beyond that, that you seek (them) by means of your property, MARRYING THEM PROPERLY (MOHSINEEN, again from the root “Husn”) and NOT committing FORNICATION. And for the benefit you receive from them, give them their dowries, as fixed, and there is no blame on you what you do by mutual agreement after the fixing (of the dowry). Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, Wise.
As I have explained earlier that Islam doens’t allow marrying an already married woman. The only exception is the married female prisoner of war which one can marry. I have explained the reasons more than once in the thread already why it is allowed (although not encouraged). You can go back to see why if you are really interested. The posts were in response to you allegation that Islam allows sex with female prisoners of war outside marriage. I have explained in detail why this allegation of yours is unfounded and wrong.
In the matter of the term “Mohsina” and its different meanings, yes like all other languages one word can have different meanings but in this verse it only means Married. The verse starts with the term Al-Mohsinaat meaning “married” and then later on again uses the word with the same root “mohsineen” meaning “marry them properly”. You had said in your earlier posts that the word marriage is not be found in the original text but is just in brackets which has been put by the translator. I had responded to you by giving the details that your notion is totally wrong as the original text of the verse mentions the word “marriage” not once but twice. For further details you can refer to my earlier posts addressed to you.
Bilal
bilal:
even if i take what you are saying, it means that muslims can marry a a prisoner of war woman even if she is already married! personally, i am sorry to hear how muslims intend to treat others’ women when they lose the war to muslims! muslims have no right to protest when others have sex with muslim pows as that is something which they feel is not objectionable, just as you guys!
now regarding marriage, the stress in the verse is on a woman who is already married, right! thee is no mention in this very verse that the married pow woman should be a believer; i have read a hadith according to which muhammad permitted the followers to have anal-sex with their slave women as this will reduce the risk of pregnancy and the market value of woman pow (at which she can be traded) will not be reduced; i am sure you have read this or if you want, i can find the reference for you!
now i take this to a step further; if your religion is so beautiful, why does it not follow the basic human rights (that are also enshrined in the un charter and agreed by all the nations in the world) which require all pows to be well-treated and returned immediately at the end of the war!!! you guys believe in having slaves! is that not inhumane?
You claim that
“Another verse of the Holy Quran even confirms it further that Jesus (AS) is dead like all other prophets when it addresses the Muslims in relation to the Holy Prophet’s (PBUH) status …..”
My ANSWER : NO IT DOES NOT!!!
According the Ahmadis the correct translation is:
And Muhammad is but a messenger. Verily all Messengers have passed away before him. If then he dies or is slain, will you turn back on your heels? And he who turns back on his heels shall not harm Allah at all. And Allah will certainly reward the grateful. (Chapter 3 : Verse 145)
HOWEVER the likes of YUSUFALI or PICKTHAL translate this verse SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY:
YUSUFALI: Muhammad is no more than a messenger: many Were the messenger that passed away before him. If he died or were slain, will ye then Turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah; but Allah (on the other hand) will swiftly reward those who (serve Him) with gratitude.
PICKTHAL: Muhammad is but a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) have passed away before him. Will it be that, when he dieth or is slain, ye will turn back on your heels? He who turneth back on his heels doth no hurt to Allah, and Allah will reward the thankful.
SHAKIR: And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; the messengers have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels!s, he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least and Allah will reward the grateful. (003.144)
Maulana Muhammad Ali And Muhammad is but a messenger— messengers have already passed away before him.a If then he dies or is killed, will you turn back upon your heels? And he whoturns back upon his heels will do no harm at all to Allah. And Allah will reward the grateful.
Your translation says “ALL messengers have passed away before”, every other translation I have managed to find says “many Were the messenger that passed away before him” (which completely blows your argument out of the water as it implies that some have not) or “messengers (the like of whom) have passed away before him”
NONE OF THEM SAYS ALL AS YOU CLAIM.
AGAIN this verse neither includes or excludes the death of Jesus as you claim! There would be a need to say “except Jesus” if the implication was that all prophets had died, but that is not what the verse says.
If however your command of Arabic is better than the aforementioned authors, that we would be interested to hear you very own translation!
Maududi’s explanation is as follows:
“When the rumour of the Prophet’s martyrdom spread during the battle, it disheartened most of the Companions. The hypocrites who were in the Muslim camp began to advise the believers to approach ‘Abd Allah b. Ubayy so that he might secure protection for them from Abu Sufyan. Some went so far as to say that had Muhammad really been the Messenger of God he would not have been put to death, and for that reason they counselled people to revert to their ancestral faith…”
Interestingly if you take into account Maududi’s explanation, he points out that some went so far as to say “Muhammad really been the Messenger of God he would not have been put to death”. It could be argued that this verse is rebutting these accusations by pointing out that Muhammad is a messenger, all messenger are mortal and therefore he will die one day.
OK this verse does in no way prove that Jesus is dead.
005.075
YUSUFALI: Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!
PICKTHAL: The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!
SHAKIR: The Messiah, son of Marium is but a messenger; messengers before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away.
This, to me says that he is a mortal man.
Exactly the same Arabic is used in verse Chapter 3 : Verse 145 to say that in short that Muahmmad pbuh is mortal just as in the above verse to say that Jesus was mortal.
That is why if you take any of the above authors for example Picthall and contrast their 2 translations as follows:
PICKTHAL: Muhammad is but a messenger MESSENGERS (THE LIKE OF WHOM) HAVE PASSED AWAY BEFORE HIM. Will it be that, when he dieth or is slain, ye will turn back on your heels? He who turneth back on his heels doth no hurt to Allah, and Allah will reward the thankful. Chapter 3 : Verse 145
PICKTHAL: The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, MESSENGERS (THE LIKE OF WHOM) HAD PASSED AWAY BEFORE HIM. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away! 5.075
So in the first translation Chapter 3 : Verse 145, the phrase “MESSENGERS (THE LIKE OF WHOM) HAVE PASSED AWAY BEFORE HIM” I think you would agree that it is referring to the fact that Muhammad is mortal. It cannot be saying that he is dead.
Now suddenly you claim that what I assume is the same Arabic scrip (or at least virtually identical), which Picthall has translated to the same phrase “MESSENGERS (THE LIKE OF WHOM) HAVE PASSED AWAY BEFORE HIM” is saying in 5.075 that Jesus is dead.
The same rule applies to all three authors that I have quoted above.
It refutes that idea that he was God as many in the era believed as God is not mortal according to any religion that I know off, HOWEVER it does NOT show that he is dead.
If you read the verse in full it says, according to my interpretation at least , that Jesus and indeed Mary done everything that mortal people do, i.e. they eat and they can die.
This is an explanation of the verse that I have just found:
“2. In verse 75, (There have been messengers
before him), the assigning of godhood to Sayyidna Masih r~~ ‘-j,
has been refuted. Prophets came to this world. They completed their
mission. Then, they were gone. They were not eternal which is the
mark of godhood. Similarly, Sayyidna Masih, may peace be upon him
(being human like them) was not eternal. So, he cannot be what God
is.
A little reflection will show that everyone who needs to eat and
drink almost depends on everything in the world. We cannot say that
the earth, the air, the water, the sun and the animals are what we do
not need. Look into your own self. There is that grain of food outside
you, then begins its journey from the entry into the stomach to the
next destination of its digestion. Think of all those factors involved
and things required directly and indirectly in this complex procedure.
Then, there will be a chain of effects generated through eating and no
one can tell precisely how far will they go. So, by pointing out that
Sayyidna Masih and his pious mother used to eat, the Holy Qur’an has
referred to the endless chain of needs it entails. The argument, thus
runs that Masih and Maryam, may peace be upnrl them both, were not
free of the need for eating and drinking which is proved by observation
and authentic narrations (not denied by even Christians). And anyone
who is not free from the need of eating and drinking cannot be free
from anything in this world. How then, a human person, who like all
human beings is not free of the need to depend on the chain of causation
for survival, could become God? This is a strong and clear proof
which can be understood by the educated and the uneducated alike –
that is, eating and drinking is contrary to godhood. Though, not eating
too is not a proof in favour of godhood, otherwise all angels would
become gods! (Refuge with Allah) (Tafsir Usmhni)…”
Lastly on the issue of the verse:
“And He hath made me (Jesus) blessed WHERESOEVER I be and hath enjoined on me Prayer (Salat) and Charity (Zakat)AS LONG AS I LIVE.” (19:31/32)
I found a commentary on this which I reproduce below:
“It means that the injunction of prayers and Zakah is for ever i.e. as
long as I live. It is obvious that the reference here is to the life in this
world, because these duties can be performed only here in this world.”
This is what I suspected when I read the verse, also another point made by the author is as follows:
“And has enjoined Salah and Zakah upon me.” – 19:31.
The word is derived from the word Wasiyyah) which
normally means ‘to bequeath’, but when used in the context of issuing an
order, it implies an emphatic command, and here it is used to put
emphasis on a command of Allah. For this reason it is translated in the
text as ‘enjoined’. Here Isa has said that Allah had
commanded him to offer Prayers and give the obligatory charity (Zakah),
the intention being that he was commanded to observe both these duties
with great diligence. Prayers and Zakat are two forms of worship which
have been enjoined as obligatory in the Shar’iah (Laws) of all the
prophets from Adam to the last of the Prophets, Muhammad.
However, their details vary in different codes. In the Shar’iah of
Isa prayers and Zakah were also made compulsory. … this injunction is of general application in that whosoever possesses a certain level of wealth is liable to pay Zakah. This injunction applied to Isa as well i.e. whenever he acquired wealth upto the level of Nisab he was required to pay Zakah, but if his wealth remains below Nisiab throughout his life, he would never be liable to pay Zakah. This situation, therefore, is not in conflict with the general rules governing Zakah.”
Secondly on the question of AQAL of ascension of Jesus and issues such as the defying of gravity, aging need for food. All of these issues can be summed up in a single term, MIRACLE. AQAL should also force any rational thinking person to deduce that the virgin birth is not possible. (When was the last time you heard of one? Much has been written about this in certain scientific papers in the recent era but at the time of Muhammad pbuh are you trying to tell me that they could justify the virgin birth rationally? The answer is NO! The same can be said about the miracles of Moses to name but a few.)
@Christopher
QUOTE – can you keep your @$$h0l€ (mouth in other’s case) shut – UNQUOTE
What is your comment about mouth of Mirza who said that Jesus was born through a filthy passage which is path of urine?
And what is your view about followers of Mirza. You like them because they are quoting from Koran. Do you think Mirza also quoted from Koran when discussing about Jesus? Yes he did. He says that Quran is an evidence that Jesus had illicit relations with prostitutes.
So how do you feel about Mirza. I think you like Mirza just as you like Bilal. haan.
@Christopher: You moron, you can take your Catholic/Ahmedi faith and shove. Now we know that you illogical pottymouthed dumbass Westerners only understand the language of bombs, so be it…….
@Haris Zuberi,
I am still waiting for your response in regards to my two other points.
Secondly, you have ignored my question totally where I demanded the proof from Holy Quran to justify your belief that Jesus is still alive and was taken up bodily. You have been trying to justify your irrational notion that Jesus was taken up bodily to heaven with all your irrational explanations. Where is the proof for all this? You can’t provide the proof from Quran because Quran only stands against this irrational belief. So provide the proof of that first.
Thirdly, the reason why the translations of Yusifali and Pickthal differ SLIGHTLY from us is because they believed in the physical ascension of Jesus like you do today. If they had translated these verses like us, it would have only gone against them.
The point is that the verse uses the term “Rusul” meaning “Messengers” which you have tried to translate as “many messengers”. There is not a single word in the verses that can be translated as “many”. When the verses say “Rusul” it is understood to be “all messengers”. I will give you another example from Holy Quran.
O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and in the Book which He has revealed to His Messenger, and the Book which He revealed before it. And whoso disbelieves in Allah and His angels, and His Books and HIS MESSENGERS and the Last Day, has surely strayed far away.
(Al-Nisa’ Chapter 4 : Verse 136/137)
In the above verse Allah Almighty makes it compulsory for the believers to believe in ALL of his Books, All of his angels, All of His MESSENGERS…etc. The verse uses exactly the same word for messengers here ie. “rusul” and it is understood by all Muslims alike that this means all messengers and not many or some. Would you translate the above verse as “many Muslims” or “all Muslims”. So this is understood to include all the messengers of God and not just many or few. If the verses I gave the example earlier in my post addressed to you, then Allah should have made it clear that all messengers except Jesus have passed away.
Fourthly, the verse says “they both (Jesus and Mary) USED TO EAT” and not that they still eat. The verse uses the past tense there and it can’t ever be converted into present tense. So this verse is again doesn’t allow you or any of your mainstream Muslims to hide anywhere. You might come up with all those rambling explanations that you have been giving earlier, it would only go against you and it will only make things more complex for you. It is better to accept the truth then to try to justify falsehood.
Then you summed up all this irrationality as MIRACLE. What a convenient way for you to sum up things. You give the example of Jesus’ birth to prove that your irrationality can be bracketted into the same category. My friend the birth of Jesus (AS) wasn’t unnatural and today’s scientific study proves this. Miracles are not unnatural events but natural and rare things. So don’t try to justify your irrationality with more irrationality please.
I am waiting for your response to my two other questions too that were posed in my previous post to you.
Bilal
“My friend the birth of Jesus (AS) wasn’t unnatural and today’s scientific study proves this.”
A quick question, do you think the muslims who were alive in the era of the Prophet Muhammad realise this?
Perhaps they had a few backdated copies of Nature or Scientific American handy to understand the nature of Virgin births etc.
If not, they can’t have had much AQAL, as without modern day biological knowledge they wouldn’t have had a hope in hell of rationally explaining it.
Unless of course they had come across a virgin birth or two before!!!
@Haris Zuberi,
Quran wasn’t meant for the people of the time of Holy Prophet (PBUH) alone. It is a guidence for the whole mankind and for all the generations to come. So what they thought of Jesus’ (AS) birth is irrelevant as it wouldn’t change the teachings of Quran. Anyway they had atleast one more such example of fatherless birth if not more. Even the first person on earth was born without a father, but Allah didn’t have to break His natural laws to fulfill the purpose. Allah’s own made laws are perfect enough to bring about miracles. Allah makes it clear in the Holy Quran that our gaze will return to us tired and fatigued but we won’t find any contradiction in God’s creation. To consider Miracles to be events that contradict God’s created nature contradicts the verdict of Allah Almighty regarding His creation. So again, please don’t try to justify your irrational beliefs with more irrationality and then don’t associate all this non-sense to God Almighty.
I am waiting for your detailed answers to all the three points (Jesus’ apparent physical ascension and its proof from Quran, Finality of Prophethood, and the last point concerning the verdict of the Mullahs to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslims and its justification from Quran.
Bilal
@Christopher,
First of all any hadith that contradicts Quran is either a misunderstood, mistranslated, read out of context, or a complete fabrication. So if you have any hadith that seems to contradict the teachings of Quran is to be analysed on an individual basis, and even if a proper read it still contradicts the Quran then it has to be discarded as a fabrication that can’t be associated with the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as the actions of Holy Prophet (PBUH) were in total accordance with the Holy Quran and nothing he did in hsi life could ever contradict the teachings of Quran.
Secondly you said, and I QUOTE “you guys believe in having slaves! is that not inhumane?” UNQUOTE
Now you are trying to compare the religion of Islam with the so called “worldy human rights” of today. Why don’t you compare a religion with a religion. The fair comparison is like with like, and religion has to be compared with religion. Lets take your religion on board here.
Where does your Bible ban slavery altogether?
The topic of slavery is a big one and it needs to be discussed in detail in its proper context to be able to understand why it wasn’t altogether banned in Islam. To me this topic of slavery is way out of the thread under discussion. To make it short, the financial system at the time of Holy Prophet (PBUH) depended upon the institution of slavery and if Quran had abolished it completely then it would have only been detrimental to the slaves themselves and to the whole system. Secondly, Islam didn’t abolish slavery altogether but it did put great emphasis on treating them kindly and to free them wherever possible. Muslims treated their slaves with respect and kindness, and it were the slaves themselves who didn’t normally want to be freed. There is an example of Hadhrat Zaid (RA) who turned down to go with his own parents to be with Holy Prophet and to remain as his “slave” for the rest of life. Thirdly, there was a great danger that if a Muslim freed a slave, he would be captured by a non-Muslim and would be treated in the most beastly way. So it was better to keep them as slaves than to free them.
So the system of slavery is not as simple as some enemies of Islam want to make it as.
Bilal
for all of you who want to see the real face of Amir Liaqat, just visit this:
http://www.pkcolumns.com/
And see for yourself how this man has insulted the Sahabaa and tried to hurt the feelings of Sunni Muslims.
Hi Christopher
I mentioned earlier I am no good Muslim, but commenting on 2 of your issues, marrying a prisoner of war women who’s already married, I clearly see why is much better than any other religion and armed forces even now, why? tell me what today’s armies do when they win a wars or invade countries? RAPE and kill, don’t know how much you know about Bosnian war, Kashmiris war, or recently if you read new the family US soldiers raped in Baghdad an year ago.
Because they are married already, so let’s rape them, that’s what you want? and that’s what happen as a rule of thumb by most armies and religions.
Compare with what Islam says, “marry them” now I will not going to explain the rights of “wife” in Islam. Don’t start comparing with today’s Muslim treatment of wife, but go read what Quaran and Hadith says, we don’t bother, thats another problem.
Secondly about slaves, mind you that Islam is the only religion talks about slaves, give them rights and tells us how to treat them, if what Islam says about slaves is fully implemented believe you me I am better off by someone’s salve rather living in this so called democratic world.
I suggest you study little bit more Islam, especially on above topics, and I suggest watch Peace TV, its Islamic information channel.
and Please ignore “Christian Killer” this chap seems to be the one who are fighting Holy war against polio vaccination and blowing girls schools in Pakistan
at the end, back to topic, this guy “Amir Liaqat” suks!!!
hello!
1. the fatwa is about someone who claims to be a prophet. No ahmadi i think claims to be a prophet himself/herself. The show is not guilty of spreading a false message in the name of Islam in my opinion.
2. Do not take sides by referring to Ahmadis as Ahmadi sect. We muslims believe the ahmadi theology to be outside the folds of Islam, including any of its sects. You can use ‘Ahmadi sect/religion’, that would be more appropriate
Regards
Hasan
bilal:
I had initiated this question to bring to surface the the islamic prescribed treatment for slaves; bible is totally silent on slavery and one should not assume that it encourages slavery by not banning it; slavery is not permitted in christian religion as a matter of belief; however, in your case, islam specifically allows you to have slaves.
broadly speaking, you will find that the basic teachings of all the religions are founded on the fundamentals of a decent civilised society; for any religion, i think the yardstick is the basic principles of life; for example, if a religion specifically allows to have sex with their parents or to cheat the others, that religion will not appeal to the most of us; not to me, at least
unless you find something wrong in the prohibition of human slavery in the human rights charter, i do not think you should not compare your belief to the commonly agreed human rights charter!
your logic is that islam permitted slavery for the benefit of slaves; ie, to save them from being treated badly by the non-believers on becoming free persons; this does not appeal me and i don’t think will appeal most people; two wrongs will not make one right and i dont think this was the reason; otherwise your religion had not stopped alive-burial of infant girls; those who were burying their daughters alive were doing this to save their honour, as most girls were lifted by the mighty to satisfy their lust
I would have bought your argument if islam had phased out slavery over a period of time, but it did not….. rather, this is the only religion that legitimises slavery and allows you to establish sexual relationship, even with a slave who is already married!
proudpaki:
i fully agree with you and as i said above, two wrongs will not make one right;
i said in one of my earlier postings that i will judge a religion on the basis of its belief and not on the basis of what is practiced; the fact that a religion is not practiced truly by its followers should not be reflecting bad on the religion itself, it should reflect bad only on those followers; the US soldiers rape women in raq not because it is permitted in their religion; it is rather because they are deviated from their religion; agreed?
islam appears to be the only religion that permits slavery and allows to have sexual relationship, even with a slave who is married;
now tell me what would a muslim army do when they conquer a territoty of the “non-believers” – given what is permitted in the religion, what should the others expect from the muslim soldiers – do you have an answer!
it is so easy to discuss personalities; so difficult to discuss issues! isn’t it!
Firstly,Hasan Abbas, you use Pakistani law to justify your notion that Ahmedis should not call themselves Muslims and then reject the constitution in your very next point.
Secondly, if killing Ahmedis and blasphemors is such a noble deed why dont Amir Liaqat, those Mullahs, and other on this forum who agree with them go ahead and do it? In fact you guys only expect the poor and illiterate to carry out your beliefs while you applaud from your desks.
Why are we forgetting that Islam means submission and peace. Killing is not a part of it. Has anyone come across a hadith where Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) has ever even raised his hand against anyone – let alone kill someone? Why dont we follow his example.
Lastly, whether the Ahemdis call themselves Muslims or non-Muslims, how does that make a difference to anyone? Your “purest” blue-eyed born Muslim is committing all sorts of sins like drinking, fornication, cheating etc openly in your so-called Islamic Republic. Isnt he violating Allah and Rasool’s instructions? Have you been appointed as the religious police by anyone do decide whether they should be allowed to call themselves Muslim or whether they have the right to live. Do you guys realize what you are talking about? Anyone can kill whoever he feels is not acting like a Muslim?
Read the Quran for God’s sake. Learn tolerance and forgiveness and curbing your hatred and anger. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) also lived alongside non-Muslims and never forced anyone to accept Islam. Please follow his example.
Thanks
Allah should be the judge not the people.
i do agree with the post by “SILENCE”
every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate his religion.
Christopher:
I appreciate your views to view religion not by the followers but by its teaching.
Here we are forgetting one thing that Islam dosn’t not allow sexual relationship, I would say “after marriage” sexual relationship. You want sexual relationship? OK marry a women and go for it! Thats what Islam teaches. And that is the case that you will find majority of Muslims men and women virgin before their marriages, unlike western societies, for example I am from UK and survey says here that 80% girls are not virgin before they reach their 18, and it says “18” not “married”.
Anyways, so Islam allows marrying a prisoner of war women, and as I said before if we follow exact path what Islam says about marriage and treatment of the wife, than trust me, that would be perhaps greatest treatment of prisoner women.
And finally from other side, Islam do allow this but it doesn’t force or don’t push that you definitely do that. Many animal are prohibited in Islam, you can’t eat them, but you can when its matter of life and death. Islam also allows women to marry again your wife after divorce, but it also says that its the worst thing you can do. So allowing something dosn’t really mean that you have to do it. I have gone through with few history books on wars, and never came across that Muslim forces have married captured women.
You ask what Muslim army will do when they conquer non believers, it happened many times before, will happen in future, but from past I don’t see valid examples that they gone crazy marrying women, rape is unimaginable! Yet if you read history, you will see that where ever Muslim conquerors went, people became Muslim because of their treatment. Latest i would say is 712 AD when Muhammad Bin Qasim came to sub continent, there are many books available out there if you fancy.
Talking from my personal point of view, if I am member of Muslim army and conquer non-believers territory, marrying a captured women will be not in my list if I am living happy life with my own family, or for sake of argument if I am single and there is very beautiful women in prisoners, I will find out whether she is married or not, if married her husband has died in war or still alive, if alive i will simply let her go, and if single I would propose her, if agreed than marry otherwise simply NO. But will definitely not rape her, because when my religion is allowing me most Nobel way to deal with situation, why should I rape her? Yes i would rape her if my religion don’t tell me what to do with her!!
proudpaki:
your last paragraph is based on moral principles and this is what i would expect a religion would be teaching to its followers; however, it contradicts the religious belief in islam; also, i need to correct you on historic facts
your holy book allows you to keep a prisoner of war woman even if she is already married and her husband is not dead; where you will not marry such a woman and will let her go, the religious permission may be too tempting for some other muslims to resist! this is where i feel that the religious permission in such cases is very dangerous – agreed?
you are referring to ‘marriage’ and saying that the permission in the case of a prisoner of war woman is for marriage only and not for sex outside of wedlock; you need to revisit your holy book (Koran) where specific reference has been made to women prisoners of war who are ALREADY MARRIED; unless your religion is referring to marrying an already married woman (which is pointless), i do not see any substance in the argument of marriage!
on the history side, i can quote you certain hadith where some people sought permission to discharge outside while having sex with a woman slave (as otherwise she would get pregnant and lose her market value as a slave), the permission was granted; certain other people made an argument that sometimes it is difficult to withdraw and secrete outside (due to extreme passion involved in sex) and sought permission to have anal sex – this permission was also granted; this may be revealing to you but this is what is in your own books!!! i have met quite a few muslims who were shocked to know that this was part of their religion; this is something that is not taught these days to maintain the image! trust me, i laughed reading some debates above when some guys were making references to things said by this mirza in his books; i am sure they do not know what is in their books… the problem is that you guys do not read you own books
our friend bilal says that he would not count such hadith as valid references; however, i know this is his personal belief or may be a belief followed in his particular sect; most muslims follow all hadith and assume this as part of their religious belief; i am not sure what school of thought you follow; nevertheless, can you deny that slaves were being traded in those days – what was the use of women slaves!!! what do you think!!!
you have very politely hit at my religion, making a reference to raping a women in the absence of a specific guidance in Christianity on the matter; impliedly you are suggesting that Chritianity is allowing the rape of women prisoner of wars; firstly, you need to check if your religion is allowing you to marry OR to establish a sexual relationship; i suggest speak to your muslim scholars and take their view, especially in light of what is given in the hadith; secondly, Christianity is such a soft religion which asks you to put forth your left cheek if someone slaps on your right cheek; do you think the religion would be teaching rape! there may be a hundred issues not dealt with in Koran and you should not assume that in all those cases, the Koranic permission would be against the social norms of a decent society
Christopher:
I have not tried by any means to offend anyone’s religion, and if you felt like that, my sincere apology.
You have said quite a few things but failed to produce any references? I have mentioned earlier that I have almost no or very little knowledge of Islam, but try to answer everything which I know. If you please produce some authentic references, I would definitely do research on their validity by consulting some scholars.
As you know there are some things only based on beliefs, ie, Allah, heaven, hell, life after death. So these things I will believe by heart no matter whatever proofs people have against it, I’ll will not bother. Yes things like you have mentioned ie. sex without marriage, or not letting slaves pregnant to keep their market value etc can be verified, but only if you produce some valid reference from Quaran and Hadith, not someone like the man people are talking above.
Rest assure, I will not deny any reference as Bilal you produce, without finding out its authenticity from some scholars I know. There are many cases in which people have blown some Hadiths and Verses out of context for example killing non-believers, which most of Muslims and other think that wherever you see them kill them, which is totally wrong, same with some people say that Quarant says don’t go near to Salla’h (prayer) but they don’t go further in same Verse that when you are intoxicated.
I just ask you one simple question, why on earth Islam is growing if it has so immoral basis, 1.5 billion Muslim cannot be fool (today I think majority is though) while keeping in mind that its just 1500 years since it came in to existence. On other hand data shows that Christianity growth have not even stopped but dropping. I know many people who became Muslim from Christianity and other religions, but only came across 1 person who became Christian from Muslim (for UK residency that’s another story!)
Lets sum up your questions and objections briefly and post here, I will get back to you with answers!!
@Christopher
It is very interesting to find out that a blog is created about killing of Ahmedis and people are discussing about the ahmediyya religion and you enter out of nowhere and start asking irrelevant questions. Then you notice that reason people hate Ahmedis is the blasphemy of Mirza against Jesus and you just let it go unnoticed.
I hope you will agree at the minimum that Mirza will be burn in hell fire for the sake of insulting Jesus. Please confirm your belief so that people get clear if you are a mirzai or not.
newobserver:
unfortunately i do not carry the entry permit for heaven or hell so am unable to oblige you on that; i will leave this job to you which you seem to be quite good at; also am not sure if i myself will be able to enter into heaven so will leave it to the ALMIGHTY; i am doing this for myself and to please the Lord; and am not here to help you achieve your objective
my objective is to jolt you all rather than taking any sides and i will stay focussed on my goal; keep dreaming;
by the way, do you have answer to any of the questions that i have raised!!!
I will get back to you with the references re the specific hadith; i will need to go to the library to dig those out but am happy to do that; however and very quickly, while I have access to internet, i would refer you to pages like:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544596
and also
http://www.zackvision.com/weblog/2003/11/slavery-women-islam.html
Also I found one reference to a hadith from Malik’s Muwatta ref: 2.23.90; it says: “You can have sexual intercourse with two slave girls at a time without ghusl (bath) but can’t do like this with free women”
Another Malik’s Muwatta 29.17.51 says: “A master can have sex with the slave-girl of his male or female slave..”
Malik’s Muwatta 29.32.99 says: “Slave-girls are like fields if you wish then water it by ejaculating inside them or leave it thirsty i.e. coitus interruption with slave-girls is optional…”
i hope the above is enough to digest for a starter!
regarding conversion, most Christian people unfortunately at present time are engaged in this material world; this so-called war on terror is drawing Muslims closer to religion and others (Christians, etc.) away from their religions as they think that religion is a source of terror, unfortunately; this has enabled Muslims to conquer over Christians;
if you go back in time a little and read the history of your own geographical area (then India); many Muslim stalwarts had converted to Christianity including Mulla Imadud Din who later became a Bishop and Mulla Sirajud Din who also became a Bishop; maybe you dont know, one of our leading Bishops in the UK (Michael Nazir Ali) is from India and son of a famous Muslim cleric who converted to Christianity in those days; read about him at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Nazir-Ali
for some reason, Muslims are not cross questioned on their beliefs and this is what is most needed…. i laugh at Muslim factions as they are always fighting with each other and calling each other infidel (as in this thread as well);
i always think…. these guys that are yelling at each other and calling each other as infidel, they dont even know the basics of their own beliefs; most of you guys are Muslims because you are born of Muslim parents; you know about Islam to the extent you are told; you know about the other factions of Islam and as to why you should consider them non-Muslims, only to the extent you are told; none of you has actually read anything about your own religion; i am sorry to say but you guys are a society that is full of beliefs but empty of religion!!!
my posting is not being uploaded!!! jewish conspiracy…. lol
really, i am trying to post some references and those are not being uploaded!!!
OK…. i try say it in bits n pieces….
I will get back to you with the references re the specific hadith; i will need to go to the library to dig those out but am happy to do that; however and very quickly, while I have access to internet, i would refer you to pages like:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544596
and also
http://www.zackvision.com/weblog/2003/11/slavery-women-islam.html
Also I found one reference to a hadith from Malik’s Muwatta ref: 2.23.90; it says: “You can have sexual intercourse with two slave girls at a time without ghusl (bath) but can’t do like this with free women”
Another Malik’s Muwatta 29.17.51 says: “A master can have sex with the slave-girl of his male or female slave..”
Malik’s Muwatta 29.32.99 says: “Slave-girls are like fields if you wish then water it by ejaculating inside them or leave it thirsty i.e. coitus interruption with slave-girls is optional…”
i hope the above is enough to digest for a starter!
regarding conversion, most Christian people unfortunately at present time are engaged in this material world; this so-called war on terror is drawing Muslims closer to religion and others (Christians, etc.) away from their religions as they think that religion is a source of terror, unfortunately; this has enabled Muslims to conquer over Christians….
@Chrsitopher
It is so strange that Mirza blasphemes your Lord Jesus and you think you cannot make a comment if he will go to hell or heaven.
OK, let us put it is this way, since Mirza has blatantly and shamelessly blasphemed Jesus do you wish that he should burn in the hell fire forever?
I know you will again reply like I don’t want to think bad about anyone (which is also apparent from your previous posts where you considered Muslims who love and respect Jesus as assholes) however you don’t consider Mirzais as assholes who blaspheme Jesus and feel proud of it.
WHY – because you are a Mirzai in the disguise of Christain.
Christopher,
newobserver is right, why don’t you answer him about Mirza, instead of dodging the question.
Dear Muslim brothers
Asalam o alaikum
praise be to Allah and durood on Prophet Mumammad (PBUH)
i accidently came accross this web site and read this blog
i was not knowing about this incident whatever was said on AOL
ahmadis want to hide inside a muslim skin
its very much clear form the quran and hadith that u must believe
in prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as the last messenger of God if u dont u cant
be called as muslim.
ahmadis claim that they believe in our quran if they really do then the kind
of belief they are following automatically kick them out of islam
Mirza who they follow was appointed by the then britishers to divide muslims
thats how he converted the innocent simple and relatively poor of Qadian into ahmadis.
ahmadis mus have this much courage to survive with their own identity as ahmadis
a new religon. they are non muslims by any definition.
Allah who founded islam who is the true manufacturer / designer of its belief system is kicking them out
of islam and they want to stay in with some pathatic and baseless arguments its jus like
that we go inside the office of our boss and tell him that office timings start at 0800 hrs but i ll
come at 0900 hrs u have to convert to my timings because these suites me the boss even if ur a super hero wont
change timings to disturb the entire company will simply ask u to join that company whoes timings
are 0900 hrs. its not our wish and will to be muslims as per our own terms and conditions its
very simple u dont like the laws of islam better leave it and choose that religon which suites u
and is nearly closer to ur set of beliefs.
ahmadis should understand that why west is converting to islam at such a rapid pace whts the
message of Allah and hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) what is forcing non muslims to leave their belief
system despite pressure of their family society and near dears ….plz u ppl should not follow
ur family heads so blindly that at the end u find urself losers. u ll find it difficult beacuse
by doing that ur career ur living standard pressure from ur family society relations with near and dears
might b at stake even then u must search for the truth this blind faith which is because u r
born in an ahmadi family will lead u no where. i m ur well wisher jus think on these lines
jus try to unveil the truth and u ll find so many differences.
today u see every scientist is stunn whatever is there in quran is being authenticated now by them
its such a scientific miracle because its the world of Allah who is the real designer
He is telling u what to do and what not to do His words should be considered final
He has declared Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) his last messenger this should also be taken as final
because we have to believe in the entire quran not some parts of our interest only
secondly what ever Sunnah Prophet Muhammd (PBUH) has given to us its also being proved scientifically
that whatever is done or said by him is very much true
when every thing is pointing towards a right direction why to follow wrong path
its just to strengthen ourselves that truth must b known at any cost whatever happens with me
is in the way of Allah and surely He will reward me
i m sure most of ahmadis havnt read the books of mirza ahmad ………..
plz just read these carefully and feel whether these make sense
do nauzbillah prophet behave in such a manner surely he is wrong and ur the sufferer and he alongwith
himself will take u to noway because ur disobeying Allah
u believe that Hazrat Essa is buried in somewhere kashmir as per statement of ur mirza
REF ur ahmadi website http://www.real-islam.org/urdu/sadaqat2.html…
another violation of what is said in quran that he has been taken away from the killers still alive
Allah always send WAHI to his prophets at places u say mirza was not a prophet jus nauzbillah halifa
or the continuer then how he managed to get nauzbillah WAHI and ilham form Allah …..if he got WAHI
then according to ur believes he is nauzbillah prophet if hes prophet now u second that nauzbillah there is another prophet after
hazrat Muhammd (PBUH)
may Allah show all of us right path
give us strength to follow whatever is demanded by Allah
Allah hafiz
newobserver:
NOFalseProphets:
a few things you always fail to consider, in the order of importance…….
firstly, i have not read anything by mirza; i will therefore hesitate to say anything about him until i have read him by myself; i do not go on the basis of hearsay
secondly, i have no interest in reading about mirza or proving him wrong as he is not and has never been my focus; i consider him a false prophet just as i consider muhammad a false prophet; to me, both are imposters; however, the difference is (and what i get from the discussion above), that mirza’s followers also believe in muhammad; therefore it is of no importance to me (as a Christian) to get into a side debate; i do not achieve my objective by proving mirza as an imposter, i will rather focus on the root; i know that if i can prove muhammad as an imposter by proving to you all that his teachings are worthless, i can achieve my objective; therefore, despite what you would like me to say, i will continue to ignore your requests
lastly, i did not say at all that i consider Muslims as assholes; i only said that for you and i stand by my words about you; this is only because of your attitude which is indeed shameless; you want me to change my focus only to satisfy your goals; you are a filthy mind and i would not even like to pass by you; to be honest (and i swear upon GOD), a couple of your postings did provoke me to the extent that and i wrote something abusive for mirza and for muhammad to tell you that i staple them both together (as imposters); however, better sense prevailed and i dropped that, as i do not want to say something in the heat of the moment; in my postings, you will note that i have hit the very basis of your religion and have not gotten into any side issues; i discuss muhammad’s personality only because i know that his actions are considered as one of the sources of islamic law; despite this, i have not used any abusive language for him; this is out of my respect for you all…. not for him!
@Christopher,
This is a blog where Mirzais are being discussed, why did you jump in to discuss Christianity. Obviously to divert attention from Mirza. It is proved beyond doubt that Mirza hated Jesus and blasphemed him. If you want to enter into a blog which is discussing Mirzaism you must know about Mirzaism. You are so shameless that you want to disrepect Holy Prophet in order to keep your disguise.