If Jesus Christ does return to the world, he must return as a Prophet of God

*Note: this is my third article in a series of write-ups relating to the return of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) and the issue of the finality of Prophethood in Islam. My previous two relevant articles can be found on the links below.......

https://servantofahmadiyya.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-utter-folly-of-constitution-of.html

https://servantofahmadiyya.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-return-of-jesus-christ-and-finality.html *

Before I begin, I must mention here that I originally had no plans on writing such an article, for it has been a unanimously held belief by a vast majority of scholars that Prophet Jesus will return to this world in the capacity of a Prophet. However, recently in debates I´ve come across a pattern amongst our non-Ahmadi brothers, which is that they deny the Second Coming of the Christ as a Prophet. They believe that he´ll return as a non-Prophet Reformer, as a result of which the finality of the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) will not be compromised. My research on this has pointed towards scholars such as Dr. Zakir Naik sahib and Abdur Raheem Green sahib as being of those scholars who are in agreement with this view.

The most striking thing here is that holding such a view is in utter contradiction with Ahadith from Sahih Muslim and from Sunan Abu Dawood in which it has been declared in clear terms that the coming Christ will be a Prophet - he has been called "Prophet" four times - and that he´ll even receive Wahi (Revelation) from Allah (those Ahadith have been included in my second article, the link to which I´ve given above). So I´ve no idea how such a belief can be promoted at all given the presence of such Ahadith. However, for the sake of it, I´m compelled to adopt the alternative approach of putting aside Hadith because it seems that some of our non-Ahmadi brothers and their scholars are not ready to accept the ruling of our holy Master, Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) - as unfortunate as it is.

1. Prophet Jesus can only return as a Prophet

"And will make him a Messenger to the children of Israel..... " - Qur´an 3:49.

"And remember when Jesus, son of Mary, said, 'O´ children of Israel, surely I am Allah’s Messenger unto you..... " - Qur´an 61:6.

"He said, 'I am a servant of Allah. He has given me the Book, and made me a Prophet' " - Qur´an 19:31.

The obvious fact to consider here is that the status of Prophethood has been bestowed upon him by the Almighty Allah. It wasn´t a rank or a job given to Prophet Jesus´ employer or a king so that he can be demoted from it or that he can resign from it. Once Allah bestows upon someone the status of Prophethood or even Sainthood, it is impossible and unprecedented that such a person foregoes his status regardless of where he goes and lives, or in which era he lives. In the Holy Qur´an, Prophet Jesus´ Prophethood has once been announced by the Angels and twice by the Christ himself. There´s no way that such an uncompromising announcement can be reversed, regardless of the wishes of some of our non-Ahmadi brothers. It also begs for another question: if Prophet Jesus returns as a non-Prophet Reformer, then what will be his status in the Hereafter? Will he be counted amongst Prophets or will he be counted amongst mere Reformers? Common sense drives the fact that a person´s condition in the Hereafter will be same as in which he died. A person who dies as a believer will be counted amongst believers in the Hereafter, and he who dies as a disbeliever will be counted amongst disbelievers in the Hereafter. So another very strange thing will happen: Prophet Jesus will not be amongst Prophets in the Hereafter and he´ll thus not enjoy the blessed status which he was actually born with, and this only because he died as a non-Prophet Reformer. So at most he´ll be amongst Saints and Reformers.

And there´s another complicating angle to this: Prophet Jesus was only taught the Torah and Gospel since he obviously was a Jewish Prophet. In his Second Coming though, he would have to possess the knowledge of the Qur´an since this time around he´ll descend as a leader of Muslims. Now, who will teach him the Holy Qur´an? The ulema of today? If so, then there exists a difference of opinion amongst ulema on many issues, so who´ll tell Prophet Jesus as to which of the various opinions is right? If Allah guides him even to the least extent on this, or teaches him the whole Qur´an altogether, that itself would constitute as heavenly Revelation and that will right away designate him as a Prophet! 

2. The issue of Prophet Jesus not receiving Revelations in his Second Coming

However, this whole theory is based on the assumption that Prophet Jesus will not receive any Revelations from Allah. Apart from the belief of the non-Ahmadi brothers that the Holy Prophet is the last Prophet in every sense of the word, there´s no proof to support this view (of returning as a mere Reformer) from the Qur´an or Hadith. However, again, for the sake of it, let´s just accept that Prophet Jesus indeed will not receive any Revelation from Allah in his Second Coming, but what does that prove? Nothing really, because he was, is and will always remain a Prophet.

"Whatever of mercy Allah grants to men - there is none to withhold it; and whatever He withholds, there is none who can release it after that; and He is the Mighty, the Wise" - Qur´an 35:2.

He was granted Prophethood as a special mercy from Allah and there´s therefore no one who can take away his Prophethood from him, regardless of whether he receives further Revelations or not.

3. Such a belief gives birth to some awkward questions!

Even from this angle, this beliefs gives birth to a lot of questions which will have to be answered: for example, if a Prophet does not receive any Revelations for the last two days before his death, does he cease being a Prophet before he dies? Also, if a Prophet receives Revelations from Monday to Wednesday, and then there occurs a break in the Revelations for two days, and then it continues again from Saturday to Sunday, does it mean that the said person ceased being a Prophet on Thursday and Friday, and that he lived through those two days in the capacity of only a Reformer? And here comes an even bigger question: from the moment the Holy Prophet Muhammad received his last revelation, to the moment he passed away, did he cease to remain a Prophet of Allah during this span of his life? Also, Muslims are agreed upon the fact that there exist two kinds of Prophethoods: one is the law-bearing Prophethood and the other is the one without a law. So during the last days of his, if a law-bearing Prophet is revealed no further law and is revealed no further guidelines on what is allowed and what is forbidden, does such a Prophet cease being a law-bearing Prophet and does he die then as one who wasn´t a law-bearing Prophet? Take the example of Prophet Moses (peace be upon him). From the time he received his last guideline in a Revelation as to what is allowed and what is forbidden etc., or was revealed the last law for the Jews, did Prophet Moses spend the rest of his days as a non law-bearing Prophet?

So it´s clear that this third door, this third way out to the whole debate about the return of Jesus Christ and the finality of Prophethood in Islam, is exactly as prone to criticism as the other belief - which is that he´ll indeed return as a Prophet. A lot of questions will have to be answered before this theory can be passed as legit. As it is anyway, this is not the belief held by a vast majority of Muslim scholars.

4. The prevailing belief: he´ll return as a Prophet - even the Constitution of Pakistan proves it!

There´s a hint of it in the Constitution of Pakistan itself. Let´s turn to the relevant article.....

" 'Muslim' means a person who believes in the unity and oneness of Almighty Allah, in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him), the
last of the Prophets and does not believe in, or recognize as a prophet or religious reformer, any person who claimed or claims to be a prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after Muhammad (peace be upon him)" - Article 90 of the Constitution of Pakistan.

Whilst coming up with a clause to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslims, the difficulty presented for the scholars was the fact that they themselves believed in the return of Prophet Jesus as a Prophet. So the wording of the clause couldn´t simply be "A Muslim is someone who.... does not believe in any kind of a Prophet to come/appear after the Holy Prophet Muhammad", because such wordings would´ve declared themselves too as non-Muslims! So words such as "Claimed or claims to be a Prophet..... after Muhammad (peace be upon him)" were instead taken refuge in. They believed that their belief was exempted from this article given that Prophet Jesus´ claim to be a Prophet was made before the Holy Prophet, and not after him, so his return won´t violate the finality of Prophethood (*note: whether his return does violate it or not has been dealt with in my first article from the ones mentioned at the very beginning of this one*). So this proves that the prevailing belief back then, and even now, is that Prophet Jesus will return as a Prophet. Besides that, a non-Ahmadi scholar openly declared this belief in a programme on Pakistan´s channel Geo News, the video clip of which is found on the link below......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=AJ4TEUNmuZg

The said scholar wasn´t interrupted or corrected by any of the rest scholars present on the scene, if indeed he was uttering such a heresy.

5. An appeal, based on principles, to those who hold this belief

Since scholars like Dr. Zakir Naik sahib, who are of this view, believe Ahmadis to be non-Muslims based on our belief in the continuation of Prophethood, then based on principles they should declare all those to be non-Muslims who believe in the return of the Christ in the capacity of a Prophet. If they don´t, and they probably won´t, it´ll be a case of clear hypocrisy and double standards, and also a clear example of the fact how these scholars bend rules and compromise on principles if they´re up against a strong party. However, on the other hand, if they do happen to declare the same for other Muslims as they do in the case of Ahmadi Muslims, then we´ll hardly have a Muslim left on the planet! Also, great Saints and scholars from the past such as Hadhrat ibn Arabi and Hadhrat Mullah Ali al-Qari also will have to be termed as non-Muslims for they too believed in the cessation of only law-bearing Prophethood.

*Note: a tremendous amount of credit must go to Twitter user @sam3398 for his inputs and general help in the writing of this article. May Allah reward the brother for all his help and efforts; Aameen.*

Warm regards,

Rawal Afzal (Twitter: @R_A_Azaad / @The_Traveller27).

My review of Prime Minister Imran Khan´s speech at the United Nations General Assembly

I don´t remember in my lifetime, before this, myself ever feeling confident in saying to non-Pakistanis that "Look, this is the Prime Minister of my home country talking." You feel a sense of pride at the way Imran Khan expresses and articulates himself, the way he makes his point and the way he touches hearts with his words. I´ve always said that no political leader in the world right now can match Mr. Khan on two aspect: one is the good intentions to do good for the country and also a bit of world in general, and two is the talks. Yes, no political leader can match the excellent use of words that he employs. He makes the crowd whistle, clap, get emotional and dream of big things within a space of 10 minutes. I would´ve clapped for him after his speech if I was present there on Friday. Whether he´s capable of converting words into deeds and action will always be a matter of debate, however the speech had the ability to move mountains. It was an excellent, excellent speech.

On the speech itself, there was hardly a point which he failed to raise. The climate change of course had to be addressed foremost - I´m not the most knowledgeable person on this topic, so I´d skip commenting on that too much. Moving on, he addressed the point of Islamophobia in the west, the blasphemous content published in the west against the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), the impact it has on the sentiment of the common Muslim, the restrictions and also the negative perception of hijab in these countries, and also the perception about the association of terrorism with Islam as a religion. It takes an immensely brave man to point out all the controversial topics, such as there having been suicide bombers in the past amongst the people of religions other than Islam. What I must mention in particular is how again and again he faced up to the USA in their country and reminded them again and again that these militants perceived as terrorists now by the USA were backed, trained and supported by the USA itself during the Afghan-Soviet Union war and were held as mujahideen back then, and as terrorists by the Soviet Union back then. He made sure that he made this point again and again, and it´s a good effort in making these facts reach the common citizen of America. He also admitted the role Pakistan´s own establishment and the ISI played in preparing these terrorists. Very brave of him. He absolutely minced no words, did he?

I´ve only heard about the UN assembly speeches delivered by Sir Zafarullah Khan and Mr. Bhutto and how great they were, it was an absolute honour to witness something similar in my own times as well. It´s a shame really that not only from Pakistan, but also no one from the Muslim world in general over the past decades raised points which Mr. Khan did, points which every Muslim was crying for to be made on a stage and a platform like this. I remember Nawaz Sharif´s speech from 2016 or ´17 I think. Although I don´t hold him as the villain of the century, as many PTI supporters do, but he looked like beggar or something - no offence intended, although it is offensive, I know. Nawaz even failed to mention in his speech the capture of the Indian spy Kalbushan Yadav when it was a most hot topic in the country. Mr. Khan did. Also, very thoughtful of him to have raised the issue of "Money parking" in the countries abroad by the rich people of the poor countries. It´s speculated that that point was a last minute addition to his speech, but kudos to him for mentioning this. However, what doesn´t help is the fact that the people now standing on his right and left have had or still have hands in the same gloves.

He made a very strong case for the people of Kashmir. The mention of locked down Jews etc. or even animals, was right on point. I smiled at the mention of film 'Death Wish' 1974 (which I hadn´t known about before this) and the comparison he drew between the protagonist of the film and the Muslim youth etc. from war-torn and bombarded areas and countries. He literally said everything what every Pakistan is wishing since ages that it is said on a stage like this. Kudos to him! Although it must mentioned though that Mr. Khan´s compassion for minorities is very selective, and you expect a good leader to raise himself above the level of bias and selectivity.  As the head of the state, he must answer for the treatment of minorities in our country itself, the treatment of Hindus, Christians and also of us Ahmadis. Every other guy walking on the street picks up a fight with one of these and takes refuge in turning this into a religious matter by gathering the blasphemy crowd - and the innocent person belonging to whatever minority is jailed for ages without there being any truth to the allegation. Mr. Khan will have to be held accountable for the way he and his party used the Khatm-e-Nabboowat card in the election campaign, which resulted in one of the very tough phases for Ahmadis in Pakistan - a few were even martyred (one of was Qazi Shaban Ahmad sahib, who´s now survived by his wife, and three daughters suffering from polio!) as a result of the hatred spewed by his party members. The blasphemy crowd is very vigilant you know! With such state of affairs in the country itself, no one is going to take Mr. Khan seriously as far as the rights of minorities are concerned, for as long Pakistan continues to run like this.

The people of Pakistan, myself included, are bitterly disappointed with the role that Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries have played in the whole Kashmir issue. The UAE even handed over an award to Narendra Modi for something hardly days into the usurping of the rights of Kashmiris. The international community has so far, for the most part of it at least, has given this issue a very cold response. However, when you dig deeper into the cause of this, you realise the financial and economical interest that for example the Arab countries have in India. As frustrating as it is, you look at Mr. Khan and his utter silence, his complete lack of interest in the treatment of Muslims in China. When you dig deeper here too, the reason that emerges is the same: Pakistan has financial and economical interest in China and that country is one of the very few cash kine that Pakistan has. So if Pakistan is compelled to stay silent on the treatment of Muslims in China due to these reasons, then where does that leave Pakistan with regards to criticising other Muslim countries? As they say in Urdu, "Iss hamaam mey´n sabhi nanngey hai´n!"

Also, all the talk of the concept of Pakistan being kind of a leader of the Muslim Ummah suffers bit of a blow if you look at the way the country treated Bangladeshi Muslims, who were till then a part of Pakistan mind you. However, no one from amongst our current political was involved in it back then and neither can Mr. Khan be blamed for that. One must look forward, and the state of current affairs stands so that all the talk by India of Kashmir being a part of their country or that Kashmiris are a part of their country is all rendered useless given the way their armed forces are treating the people of Kashmir. If what they´re saying is true, then India has strange standards for treating their own countrymen, or let´s say, Muslim countrymen.

I must clarify though that almost all of my criticism above isn´t solely directed at Mr. Khan, but instead even the leaders from the past - Pakistan in general you could say. However, the praise that I´ve lavished is only and only meant for one man, for he has done what no leader from my memory has done. So it´s like taking the good with the bad in Mr. Khan´s case, whereas in the case of Nawaz Sharif, Zardari etc., it was about, well, taking bad with the bad! The case of them and that of Imran Khan is similar to a man who´s presented two plates on his table: in one is honey and in the other is dirt. Mr. Khan eats both, whereas the leaders mentioned above solely chose, or would choose, the plate with dirt. Here, I must again come back to the point of there being no political leader in the world who can beat Mr. Khan in talks, words, class and the ability to express. However, once the dust settles from all this, we´ll slowly come to remember that all this doesn´t give the poor man his bread, and I suppose something along these lines should be the utmost priority. Lastly, it´ll be very unfair of me if I were to say that Mr. Khan is being lucky here. If I were in his place, I would´ve had many sleepless nights due to the Kashmir issue and also the possibility of an Indo-Pak war breaking out, or at least due the ongoing tension between these countries, as being the Prime Minister of a country like Pakistan you already have enough headache and things to address. Still though, if I may still say this, he´s being somewhat lucky in the sense that all the attention has been diverted from some of the very serious issues that the country is facing even under his government: poverty, sinking economy, the rape and killing cases of minors, the hooliganism of police, or the way Punjab is being run under Chief Minister Usman Buzdar. A lot of the media attention and coverage is given to the Kashmir issue right now, and it is one issue where the whole country´s media stands behind him uncompromisingly. It is a competition running anyway right now between the media of Pakistan and India, as to which of the two licks the feet of its country´s Prime Minister more than the other. The Indian media is clearly winning this though as they´re even licking the boots!

Warm regards,
Rawal Afzal (Twitter: @R_A_Azaad / @The_Traveller27).

The insult of Jesus Christ by the Promised Messiah - allegation answered in the light of the Holy Qur´an and Hadith

*Note: I shall divide the article into four parts, in one of which a general explanation will be provided, in one a couple of references will be explained, and in the third and the fourth part the allegation will be answered through arguments from the Holy Qur´an and Hadith.*

General explanation and answer to the allegation

Amongst the most popular allegations raised against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib (peace be upon him) is that he abused Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) in his writings and did a heavy character assassination of one of the most beloved Prophets of Allah. The reality however is that during the times of the Promised Messiah, anti-Islam and pro-Christianity literature was on the rise in the Indian subcontinent. Christian priests and other writers launched a heavy assault on the character of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), calling him a "bandit", "rapist", "Child-molester", "mad" and what not! - Allah forbid! In answer to this, the Promised Messiah, attacked the character of Jesus Christ as presented in the Christian faith (as someone who claimed divinity for himself, was disrespectful towards his mother, died an accursed death on the cross etc. - Allah forbid!). However, he made it clear multiple times that his intentions never are to attack Prophet Jesus as believed in Islam. He took them as two different persons to answer the Christian critics of the Holy Prophet (before another misunderstanding rises, it doesn´t mean that there existed two Christs!).

"I state on oath that I bear that true love towards the Messiah which you do not possess and that you have not available to you the light with which I recognize him. There is no doubt that he was a dear and chosen Prophet of God" - Daawat-e-Haq, attached to Haqeeqat-ul-Wahi.

"Claiming as I do, that I am the Promised Messiah and that I bear a resemblance to Hadhrat Eesa, peace be on him, every one would understand that were I to revile him, I would not claim any resemblance to him, for by reviling him, I would confess that I myself was vicious" - Announcement from 27th December 1898.

"It should be remembered that I hold this view concerning the Jesus who claimed to be God and held previous prophets to be thieves and robbers and has said nothing about the Khatam-ul-Anbiya, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, except that he, Jesus, would be followed by false prophets. Such a Jesus is nowhere mentioned in the Holy Qur´an" - Anjaam-e-Aatham, page 13.

"So many books full of vile abuse and defamation of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, have been printed and published the perusal of which makes one’s body tremble. Our heart is so much in tribulation that if these people were to slaughter our children before our eyes and were to cut to pieces our sincere and beloved friends and were to kill us with great humiliation and were to take possession of our belongings, we call God to witness that even in such case we would not suffer so much grief and our heart would not be so severely wounded as we have suffered and endured under this abuse and defamation which has been directed against the Holy Prophet, peace and blessing of Allah be upon him" - Aaina-e-Kamalaat-e-Islam, page 51.

The point to ponder anyway is, that if indeed the Promised Messiah was bent on abusing Prophets (Allah forbid), then what prevented him from abusing the Holy Prophet (Allah forbid)? And yet, there´s not even a hint of anything such in his writings. We must also bear in mind here that a lot of other Muslim Ulema too employed this method to counter the anti-Islam literature published by Christian writers those days. The first link below contains a few of those examples in writing, and the YouTube link below that too contains examples from the writing of Muslim Ulema of those days......

https://ahmadianswers.com/ahmad/allegations/writings/disrespect/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQQd0JQ7xE4

Even today there´s an ever-present example of this method in the online world. Osama Abdallah, a very famous man of knowledge, originally from Lebanon I think (I used to know him personally a bit some years ago), runs one of the most, or perhaps the most, famous website which answers allegations of Christians and also Jews made against Islam. I quote a few examples from his website....

"Not that his physique in itself is the problem, but it certainly brings into question his harsh standards about giving up everything you have (Matthew 19:21), while he lives off of everything you have, and gets fat and also gets drunk???  It also supports that he really was between Satan and GOD during the his 40 days and nights of temptation.  He suffered, and he got very weak that Angels had to come down to help him.  And he also had "EVIL DESIRES" and he COVETED during this temptation."

"See how Jesus obeyed Satan and climbed the top of the temple (as tall as a castle) to jump and commit suicide.  See also how Jesus coveted the sins of the world for 40 days and 40 nights during his temptation by Satan.  Jesus also.... lusted after the sinful kingdoms of the world, and their harlots.  He coveted all of them."

Link:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/trinity_crucified.htm#king_kong

I´ve censored the above passage slightly and left out a word or two, as otherwise it might´ve been a little too unsuitable for our readers. So you can imagine the stuff that the website contains about Judeo-Christian Prophets. Have some more below.

"..... three-year old slave girls were also ordered to be raped by Moses."

Link:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/age3.htm

Clarifying a couple of particular passages from the Promised Messiah´s writings

Those of our opponents who at least to some extent understand our explanation on this, raise the objection that in a couple of particular passages of his writings, the Promised Messiah indeed has attacked the Christ as believed in Islam. Let´s turn to the passages......

"Jesus was not any more righteous than other righteous ones of his time. Indeed, Prophet John (the Baptist) was superior to him, because he did not consume alcohol, nor allowed any prostitute to massage his head with perfume purchased from her earnings or touch his body with her hands and hair, or that any unchaste woman should serve him.  This is the very reason that God named John the Baptist as "Hasoor",  but He did not give the Messiah such a title due to these kind of episodes. Hadhrat Eesa, peace be upon him, repented for his sins at the hands of John the Baptist and became one of his select disciples.  This decides the superiority of John the Baptist over Jesus, since it is not proven that John the Baptist ever repented at the hands of anyone" - Dafi-ul-Balaa, Ruhaani Khazaain, volume 20, page 220.

"But, strangely enough, Hadhrat Eesa, peace be upon him, did not act upon his own moral teachings" - Chashma-e-Maseehi (Fountain of Christanity), page 16 of the English translation of the book.

The objection of the opponents is that since the Promised Messiah has used the Islamic word of respect "Hadhrat" here, also used his Islamic name Eesa (instead of Maseeh (Messiah) or Yassu - as the Arabic, Persian, Urdu etc. speaking Christians do) and put the prayer "Alaihi´Salaam (on whom be peace)", he is here referring to the Christ as believed in Islam as he has in these passages failed to draw a distinction between the two characters. However, regardless of what words have been used or what name has been chosen to refer to the Christ, it takes no rocket science to conclude that the person referred to is still the Christ as believed in Christianity - any sane person can conclude that through a brief look at the passages, unless one´s thinking process is agenda-driven.

Reference one: the facts that the Promised Messiah refers to - about the Christ consuming alcohol, allowing prostitutes to massage his head, allowing them to touch him, or being served by unchaste women - are these mentioned in the Qur´an or in any Hadith? Obviously not! The source of all these references itself is the Gospel, how then could his intentions be to insult the noble character of the Christ as presented in Islam? The intentions are as clear as daylight here too!

"..... This is the very reason that God named John the Baptist as "Hasoor" (in the Qur´an),  but He did not give the Messiah such a title due to these kind of episodes..... "

Much has been made of this particular phrase, and here too our opponents argue that the person attacked is the Christ as believed in Islam, given the reference to the Qur´an. However, the meaning of this phrase as well is simply this: that if the Christ is as is depicted in the Gospel and as believed in Christianity, then God did not bestow upon him a certain title of respect, which he did in the case of Prophet John (peace be upon him). The argument presented here too is based upon the stories from the Gospel, as from what I understand, "hasoor" is a title reserved for a man who totally stays secluded from ghair-mahram women. The Qur´an or Ahadith obviously do not contain stories of the Christ mixing freely with ghair-mahram women, or does it? So it´s a matter of common sense and of putting your understanding to good use.

I may clarify though, through this, that neither does the passage imply that Prophet John holds a more exalted status than the Christ in (Islam and) our view. On the contrary, the Promised Messiah has termed the Christ as being the Khatam-al-Khulafa (The Seal of the Successors) of Prophet Moses (peace be upon him), meaning that he was the greatest successor to appear amongst the followers of Prophet Moses (reference: English translation of book Haqeeqat-al-Wahi, page 600).

Reference two: again, regardless of what words have been used or what name has been chosen to refer to the Christ, the person meant is clearly the Christ as depicted in the Gospel. Reading the book on either sides of that passage establishes this beyond doubts.

"..... The Gospel, on the other hand, teaches unconditional forgiveness at all times, and thus tramples upon all sense of expediency on which the social structure is based. It only emphasizes the growth of one branch of the 'tree' of human ethics, and completely disregards all the others...... The only pure and perfect teaching is that of the Holy Qur´an, which nourishes all human faculties. It does not emphasize any one aspect, rather it teaches a judicious exercise of both forgiveness and chastisement..... " - Fountain of Christianity, page 16 to 17.

The above passages, separated by myself with full stops in the middle, occur on either sides of the references/phrase that we´re discussing. How on earth could he´ve been referring to the Christ as believed in Islam and then go on to assert the superiority/greatness of the Qur´an - a book which contains countless number of verses full of praise of Jesus Christ? Also, what makes it clear beyond doubts is the mention of the Gospel at the very beginning of the above passages.

*Note: I must give credit to Imam Rabbani sahib (Twitter: @Faran_Rabbani) for recommending me the book 'Refutation of the Allegation of Insult to Jesus Christ' the moment he got to know that I´m preparing to write an article about this issue, and also to Twitter user brother @Khalid_Nawaz1 for finding me the second reference of the two references in the original Urdu book of the Promised Messiah.*

An argument from Hadith

Following all these explanations, many of which are from the writings of the Promised Messiah himself, our non-Ahmadi Muslim opponents refuse to accept this and are still bent on proving that he abused a Prophet of God (Allah forbid!), which is obviously not the case. What their denial tells us, despite such convincing explanations, is that ultimately it comes down to in whom and in what people believe and in whose intentions they trust, or what is intended by someone to be precise. To prove exactly this point, I shall proceed with arguments from the sources in which our opponents too believe.......

"A caller will call from the heavens that the truth is with the Muhammad and a caller from the earth will say that the truth is with Eesa (Jesus)" - Prophet Muhammad, as quoted in Fatawa-i-Hadithiya, Signs of the Coming of the Mahdi.

*Note: I found this Hadith in book 'Unequivocal Clarification Exposing Anti-Ahmadiyya' by brother Raziullah Noman (Twitter: @StudentOfAhmad), where it is available with its original Arabic on page 216 to 217 - quoted there for a different purpose of course. The "Caller from earth" refers to the satan, given his lowly nature.*

It is obvious here that the words/names "Muhammad" and "Eesa/Jesus" stand here as two symbols of two religions, Islam and Christianity, and the meaning of this Hadith is that a caller will argue in the favour of Islam, whereas his opponent, standing on falsehood, will argue that Christianity, the divinity of the Christ and the concept of Trinity is the true creed - the point here being that the Hadith has a meaning, an interpretation attached to it - whichever one of them you come up with. Another possible interpretation here is that Eesa could here also stand for the Christ as believed in Christianity, as opposed to in Islam.

However, if I were to put on the thinking cap of the ignorant opponents of the Promised Messiah, the question here is, does falsehood stand with the Christ? Was he not a Prophet of God who preached the same message as the Holy Prophet? Why then has a distinction been drawn? Did the Christ preach false beliefs, given the implication that truth lies not with him? If we put all the interpretations aside, and also blindly overlook the honour and respect bestowed upon the Christ in other references from Islamic sources, then obviously the conclusion drawn will be exactly the same as is drawn by our opponents in the case of the Promised Messiah´s writings, because in his case too the opponents very cunningly overlook all the stuff written by him in praise and admiration of Jesus Christ. If the same standards to judge are used, then I´m afraid the conclusion drawn will be that in this Hadith, the Holy Prophet has insulted Prophet Jesus and said that falsehood, as opposed to the truth lies with him - Allah forbid!

Arguments from the Holy Qur´an

"They are surely disbelievers who say, 'Allah is the third of three;' ...... " - Qur´an 5:31.

"They have taken their learned men and their monks for lords beside Allah. And so have they taken the Messiah, son of Mary...... " - Qur´an 9:31.

Having highlighted these verses, I shall turn to another set of very strong two verses.

" 'Surely, you and that which you worship beside Allah are the fuel of hell. To it shall you all come.' If these had been gods, they would not have come to it; and all will abide therein" - Qur´an 21:98-99.

*Note: credit must go to Imam Rizwan Khan sahib (Twitter: @Rizwan1770) for helping me understand the interpretation of the above two verses.*

The non-Ahmadi opponents of the Promised Messiah who allege that he insulted Jesus Christ (as believed in Islam), the only logical conclusion for such people would be that, according to the Qur´an too, the Christ will burn in hell - Allah forbid! Now, obviously, this will be a grossly unfair, unjust and biased interpretation, but our opponents have no choice except for accepting an interpretation which will shake the very foundations of Islam, because if in the case of the Promised Messiah his other writings on this subject are not to be taken into consideration, then to turn to other verses of the Holy Qur´an will be a case of massive hypocrisy. For the simple-minded people out there, let me break it into steps.

1. The Holy Qur´an firstly confirms that Christians worship the Christ as a god, and then it also declares that the deities worshipped besides Allah and their worshippers are the "Fuel of hell" and that they shall both burn in hell.
2. The Promised Messiah answers Christian critics of the Holy Prophet by attacking the Christ as depicted in the Gospel.

1A. The Qur´an though clarifies this by declaring the Christ innocent of having any role to play in him being worshipped by his followers. He´s in fact upheld as a Prophet of Allah, a noble man and as one of the very beloved people of the Almighty. The Qur´an even clears him of the false charges of Jews (see verses 4:158-159).
2A. The Promised Messiah though clarifies this by declaring that he never intends to insult the Christ as presented in Islam (as the Christ as believed in Christianity is someone who never even existed to begin with). He´s in fact upheld as a Prophet of Allah, a noble man and as one of the very beloved people of the Almighty. The Promised Messiah even clears him of the false charges of Jews and, in his honour, he states......

So, O´ Moulvis! If you possess the strength to battle with God, then carry on. Was the humble Son of Mary, before me, spared any torment at the hands of the Jews? They even thought that they had crucified him, but God saved him from death upon the cross. So, while there was a time when he was considered no more than a fraud and a liar, another era dawned when his greatness was accepted in the hearts of people...... " - Tajjaliyaat-e-Ilaahiyya, Ruhaani Khazaain, volume 20, page 21-23.

Next up, to establish my point, I shall turn to another very strong set of arguments based on the Qur´an.

"And when the night darkened upon him, he (Prophet Abraham) saw a star. He said, 'This is my Lord!' But when it set, he said, 'I like not those that set.' And when he saw the moon rise with spreading light, he said, 'This is my Lord.' But when it set, he said, 'If my Lord guide me not, I shall surely be of the people who go astray.' And when he saw the sun rise with spreading light, he said, 'This is my Lord, this is the greatest.' But when it set, he said, 'O´ my people, surely I am clear of that which you associate with God. I have turned my face toward Him Who created the heavens and the earth, being ever inclined to God, and I am not of those who associate gods with God' " - Qur´an 6:76-79.

*Note: it should be an utter insult to the intelligence of Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him), or any Prophet of Allah, to conclude from these verses that he indeed took a star, the moon or the sun as his gods. A mere thoughtful look on these verses helps us understand this. Even my nieces and nephews know that the stars, the moon and the sun are bound to set at some point of the night or the day. It can never dawn upon someone so suddenly, and certainly not a capable mind like that of Prophet Abraham. The sole purpose of him having done so was to drive home to his idolatrous people the folly of their beliefs, of worshipping created, physical objects that set or disappear etc. This is quite clear from verse 6:78 to 79.*

To make my point, here again I shall draw the parallels by breaking it into parts.

1. The people of Prophet Abraham assert the divinity of idols and objects, and dismiss the idea of the Unity and Oneness of Allah.
1A. The Christian critics of Islam assert the superiority of Jesus Christ, their Son of God, over the Holy Prophet and even publish highly blasphemous stuff against the Holy Prophet.

2. To make his point, Prophet Abraham takes his idolatrous people´s beliefs as they´re and kind of adopts them (outwardly).
2A. To make his point, the Promised Messiah takes the Christian beliefs on the Christ as they´re.

3. Then comes the moment to strike: Prophet Abraham tells his people that if these heavenly bodies indeed are true deities, then they´ve deficiencies such the fact that they set.
3A. Then comes the moment to strike: the Promised Messiah tells Christians that if indeed the Christ is the person as Christians believe him to be, then such-and-such are the deficiencies in the Christ´s character as depicted in the Gospel.

4. Prophet Abraham, having made his point, is quick to disassociate himself from such beliefs and makes clear that he on the contrary believes in the One True God.
4A. The Promised Messiah, having made his point, is quick to point out that not only is the Holy Prophet Muhammad a far superior man than the Christ, but also that Prophet Jesus as presented in Islam is a much greater holy person than as believed in Christianity.

so all this proves that what the Promised Messiah did, the strategy that he employed to counter the attacks of Christian critics of the Holy Prophet, wasn´t any alien to a practice of a great Prophet from the past, and therefore he should never be singled out for having done something of this nature. If anything, the Promised Messiah never (even outwardly) adopted the Christian beliefs, whereas Prophet Abraham did (outwardly) adopt the beliefs of his idolatrous people in order to drive home his point. The former clarified in almost every writing that these are not his own (and neither Islamic) beliefs on Jesus Christ.

One question which I´ve often seen our opponents bring up is that "What was the need for Mirza sahib to resort to such tactics given that Jesus Christ was a Prophet of Allah after all?" Well, I ask, what was the need for the Qur´an to declare that deities worshipped besides Allah will burn in hell, given that the Christ is one of them? Or, what was the need for Prophet Abraham to resort to the tactics of embracing idolatry to convince his opponents, given that idolatry is the greatest sin that a human-being can commit (see Qur´an 4:48 and 4:116)? Whatever justifications and answers you come up with for my questions, just apply the same answer in the case of the Promised Messiah, and we´re done and clear all the way.

Either way, I´ve presented enough evidences and arguments for those who possess knowledge, understanding and a heart that fears Allah, to prove that if an objection can be raised against the Promised Messiah, then, using exactly the same set of arguments and logics, objection can also be raised against the Holy Prophet Muhammad, Prophet Abraham and the Holy Qur´an - and only an ignorant should do that in the case of all.

"Say, 'What think you? If Allah should take away your hearing and your sight, and seal up your hearts, who is the god other than Allah who could bring it back to you?' See how We vary the Signs, yet they turn away" - Qur´an 6:46.

Warm regards,

Rawal Afzal (Twitter: @R_A_Azaad and @The_Traveller27).

The Return of Jesus Christ and the finality of Prophethood - in the light of the Holy Qur´an

*Note: this article is a sequel to the article below which I posted recently......

https://servantofahmadiyya.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-utter-folly-of-constitution-of.html *

The Return of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) is most relevant to the issue of the finality of Prophethood (Khatm-e-Nabboowat). Whenever a discussion takes place on this issue between Ahmadi Muslims and other Muslims, Ahmadis often bring up the question, "Won´t the Return of Jesus Christ also violate the finality of Prophethood?" The usual answer given to this question is that it won´t impact Khatm-e-Nabboowat because the Christ is an old Prophet. Through this article of mine I´ll aim to settle this issue through the verses of the Holy Qur´an.

Firstly, one thing that we must get out of our way is that it is unanimously agreed upon that Jesus Christ will return as a Prophet, as opposed to a non-Prophet Reformer. The Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) himself has declared Jesus a Prophet during his Second Coming......

"..... Allah's Apostle, Jesus, and his Companions would supplicate Allah.... Allah's Apostle, Jesus, and his Companions would then come down to the earth..... Allah's Apostle, Jesus, and his Companions would then again beseech Allah..... " - Sahih Muslim, The Book of Tribulations and Portents of the Last Hour, Chapter Al-Dajjal.

"Narrated Abu Huraira: the Prophet said, 'There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus. He will descend.... ' " - Sunan Abu Dawood, Kitaab al-Malahim, Chapter The appearance of the Dajjal.

Both these Ahadith make it clear that the Christ will have to be a Prophet according to the ruling given by the Holy Prophet. Again, it is an agreed upon belief anyway. I just added this point for the sake of clarity. Let´s now turn to the Book of Allah.......

"And will make him a Messenger to the children of Israel..... " - Qur´an 3:49.

"And remember when Jesus, son of Mary, said, 'O´ children of Israel, surely I am Allah’s Messenger unto you, fulfilling that which is before me of the Torah, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger who will come after me. His name will be Ahmad.' And when he came to them with clear proofs, they said, 'This is clear enchantment' " - Qur´an 61:6.

These verses restrict Jesus Christ´s Prophethood to the Israelites. The Holy Prophet was the first Prophet who was sent to the whole mankind, whereas others were meant only for particular places, communities, nations etc. However, against this, it is believed that the Christ will be a Prophet to whole mankind in his Second Coming, whereas you can clearly read in both the verses, and in particular verse 61:6 is of interest here, in which the Christ himself restricts his mission to the Isrealites only with the words "Surely I am Allah´s Messenger UNTO YOU." In contrast to this, you can find clear evidence of the Holy Prophet´s Call being for all mankind......

"Say, 'O´ mankind, I am but a plain Warner to you' " - Qur´an 22:49.

"And We have not sent you but as a bearer of glad tidings and a Warner, for all mankind, but most men know not" - Qur´an 34:28.

Therefore, being from a Messenger meant only for a particular nation, the Christ will be bestowed upon a Prophethood which will now be for the whole of mankind - and that is mandatory for him to be a follower of a Prophet who too was meant for all mankind, otherwise he can´t be his follower Prophet. He´ll be given a new kind of Prophethood. For example, a person who is a member of the Provincial Assembly cannot just walk into the National Assembly to earn its membership. He´ll have to to be elected for that. So he will be given a new kind of Prophethood, and the finality of Prophethood will be effected right away with such a step.

So, in a nutshell, the Christ will be the last Prophet to preach and practise Prophethood on earth, also the last to be given Prophethood and also the last Prophet to die. Against this, the Holy Prophet will only remain a person who was born before the Christ. The question is, is Prophethood needed after the Advent of the Holy Prophet? Also, is another Prophet needed after his appearance? Is some work still left to be done which a Prophet of God shall do? Are some issues left which shall by settled by a Prophet? The answer to all these questions, according to the beliefs held by non-Ahmadi Muslims, is a "yes". So what all this tells is that the issue between the two parties is not necessarily about the continuation of Prophethood but of the identity of the Prophet who shall come. I wonder wherein the blasphemy lies in the Ahmadiyya belief on this, given that other Muslims´ belief on this differs only to the extent that the Holy Prophet was born as a Prophet before Jesus Christ was born, as otherwise the view is identical with regards to the continuation of Prophethood? Let´s turn to another verse......

"It is these to whom We gave the Book and dominion and Prophethood. But if these people are ungrateful for them, it matters not, for We have now entrusted them to a people who are not ungrateful for them" - Qur´an 6:89.

*Note: the word translated as "dominion" above is "hikmah", which can be translated as "Faculty of judgement", or most commonly, as "wisdom".

The verse refers to the Children of Israel, the Jews. Verses before this exclusively mention the Prophets (including Prophet Jesus - see verse 6:85) that appeared amongst the Children of Israel, or those whose teachings are included as a part of their faith. The meaning of the verse obviously is, "These are the Prophets whom we gave Prophethood and other blessings, but since the Jews haven´t stayed grateful to God for these blessings, they´ve now been entrusted to another people, that is, the Muslims."

The meaning of the verse is clear that Prophethood has now been entrusted to Muslims, and clearly been taken away from Jews. The Christ was a Jewish Prophet, if he returns then Prophethood will go back to a Jew, and hence will clearly violate the above verse. Another thing which deserves our attention is that if indeed the Christ returns as a Prophet, Prophethood will be bestowed upon him anew because Prophethood has been taken away from Jews, or any other people, and has now been given to Muslims, and this too will clearly violate Khatm-e-Nabboowat.

It is believed that in his Second Coming, the Christ will be an Islamic Prophet, as opposed to a Jewish Prophet. Now, doesn´t it sound odd that he´ll firstly convert to the new faith, will learn the new teachings and will begin to preach the new teachings by abandoning his earlier faith and teachings, and yet amidst all this, going through all the exhausting work, his Prophethood will remain the same as it was in his first coming? Obviously not! It is an erroneous belief all the way, even from the mere sound of it. Imagine Prophet Solomon (peace be upon him) first being a Prophet for Jews, in that that he judges by the Torah, abides to the law and the teachings of it. One day his mission switches and changes as he´s now a Prophet for Hindus, preaches the teachings of Bhagavad Gita and Vedas, as a result of which he´ll have to abandon his earlier faith and teachings. Now, after the switch from one faith to a new one, from one book to a new one, from one teachings to another, can anyone in his right mind believe that his Prophethood hasn´t changed? Can anyone believe that he hasn´t been granted a new kind of Prophethood, which is now for another community, another nation? Bear in mind also the point made based on verse 3:49 and 61:6 of the Holy Qur´an, which being that the status of the Christ´s Prophethood will from being for one community to now being for the whole of mankind. Therefore, the return of Jesus Christ is in every way bound to violate the concept of the finality of Prophethood - certainly according to the Qur´an anyway - irrespective of whether our opponents accept this fact or not.

As an example, I´d like to point out for our opponents the case of two kinds of Prophethoods which they too accept: law-bearing and non-law-bearing (that is, one with a Shariah and one without it). These are, as a fact, not the same kinds of Prophethoods. So if a Prophet is a non-law-bearing Prophet in one advent, and in his second advent (after centuries) he´s a law-bearing one, can anyone in his right mind deny that he has now been bestowed upon a different and a new kind of Prophethood? Obviously not, as there has quite clearly occurred a change in his Prophethood. Therefore, how can our opponents still hold on to the belief that the return of Jesus Christ as a Prophet won´t violate Khatm-e-Nabboowat?

Another strange argument that I once saw a non-Ahmadi scholar make was that, although the Christ will return as a Prophet because he was a Prophet in his first advent, he´ll not receive Wahi al-Nabboowah (revelation revealed to a Prophet) because that has been terminated after the Holy Prophet Muhammad. This too contradicts a Hadith from Sahih Muslim, which I´ve also included above in the very beginning of my article. However, before I turn to the relevant Hadith, the question anyway is that who´ll guide the Christ during his Second Coming? Some incredibly hard and testing tasks have been assigned to him, but how much sense does it make anyway that God will not reveal anything to him? Who´ll tell the Christ what to do and what not to do? Well, the Hadith below answer these questions.....

".... Allah would reveal to Jesus these words..... "  - Sahih Muslim, The Book of Tribulations and Portents of the Last Hour, Chapter Al-Dajjal.

The word translated as "reveal" in English above is from the Arabic root word "wahi (وحي)" in the Hadith. So what we can clearly infer from this is that Prophetic revelation will be granted to the Christ. Therefore, he´ll be the last Prophet on earth upon whom Wahi al-Nabboowah will be revealed. Considering this, and many other factors pointed out in the 14th paragraph of my write-up, the Holy Prophet Muhammad will only remain the last Prophet to have been born, as all other such "honours" will go to Jesus Christ if he indeed happens to return. In the face of such beliefs, it is highly hypocritical to point out Ahmadis as a heretic group for believing in the continuation of Prophethood, when all those Muslims who await the Return of the Christ believe exactly and exactly the same.

Warm regards,

Rawal Afzal (Twitter: @R_A_Azaad / @The_Traveller27).

The utter folly of the Constitution of Pakistan (the clause which declares Ahmadis as non-Muslims)

Defining a Muslim, Article 290 of the Constitution of Pakistan says, " 'Muslim' means a person who believes in the unity and oneness of Almighty Allah, in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him), the last of the Prophets and does not believe in, or recognize as a prophet or religious reformer, any person who claimed or claims to be a prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after Muhammad (peace be upon him)."

The bit which deserves our attention from this article is that it has declared all, all Muslims as non-Muslims with the exception of Ahl-ul-Qur´an I think, or whichever sects believe not in the coming of any Prophet. Now, all the mainstream Muslims believe in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) as a Prophet. Now, you would be very keen to argue to that it´s the return of an old Prophet as opposed to the appearance of a new one, but the article emphatically declares ".... any person who claimed or claims to be a prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever.... " It leaves no room for any kind of Prophethood, whether it be old or new: "In any sense of the word", it says.

Another problem with the wording of this article is this, "Any person who claimed or claims to be a prophet, after Muhammad (peace be upon him)." The problem here is that for the Christ to begin his mission, he´ll have to claim, he´ll have to speak up and tell masses that he´s the same Messiah, the same Prophet whom they´re waiting for, and that constitutes making a claim. The "Old Prophet" excuse doesn´t serve us much here either, because, due to the interval in the Christ´s life, he´ll have to make a claim once again so that people realise that he´s the right one. Now, will this second claim be made before the Holy Prophet Muhammad or after him? Obviously, after him in terms of time!

The third problem is that the article says, "..... in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him)..... " The re-appearance of an old Prophet does in every way violate the concept of absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet, because we would then obviously be re-opening the door, albeit for an old Prophet. The moment we pose this question to our non-Ahmadi friends, the answer always follows with a "but" or a "because" - that is to say, "but" or "Because the Christ is an old Prophet." The problem here is that words such as "absolute" and "unqualified" do not leave any room for any exception to be made. If I say that I shall render an absolute and unqualified obedience to my mother, then there cannot be made any exception to this, that in such or such case I will disobey her.

So the minute you believe in the concept of the Second Coming of the Christ, you become a non-Muslim according to the constitution of the country. You´d obviously deny being a non-Muslim, and the minute you do that, you too aren´t accepting the Constitution of Pakistan - something which people accuse Ahmadis of! So welcome to the club, brothers and sisters, in particular those mainstream Muslims out there from Pakistan who take great pride in this particular clause of the constitution and think themselves to be Muslims according to it. To be honest, this particular clause is one of the most hilarious examples of what kind of things are wrought under the supervision of Mullahs! The so-called learned men and those possessing knowledge on religion have readily declared over 95% Pakistani Muslims as non-Muslims! The making of such a law which only ends up pointing back at you reminds me of a wonderful verse......

"And when their Messengers came to them with manifest Signs, they exulted in the knowledge which they possessed. And that at which they mocked encompassed them" - Qur´an 40:83.

So much for the knowledge of the Ulema who ended up declaring a vast majority of the Ummah as non-Muslims!

*Note: in this article, I´ve dealt with this issue in the light of logics and examples only as the aim was to offer an analysis on an article from the Constitution of Pakistan. The return of Jesus Christ in light of the Holy Qur´an will be addressed in another write-up of mine (Insha´Allah), which in a sense will be a sequel to this article.*

Warm regards,
Rawal Afzal (Twitter: @R_A_Azaad / @The_Traveller27).

My review of book 'Peer-e-Kamil' by Umera Ahmad

Reading this book was such a ride that I´ve no idea from where to begin whilst writing my review. The first thing that I must get out of my way is that this novel has come as somewhat a blow to me, for the reason that I´ve been planning to write a couple of stories myself since a year now, which, as I´ve sketched in my mind, will end up holding similarities, a few at least, with this one. It´s just that my other activities haven´t quite allowed me the time to even begin writing them. However, I may still go on with them regardless of the issue with similarities, whenever time allows of course.

Disclaimer: my review contains spoilers!!!

*Note: those of you interested in only knowing the stuff that this book contains about the Ahmadiyya faith, and also to read my answers to it, please scroll down to start from chapter two and chapter three. The third chapter in particular deals with the allegations that it contains.*

Chapter one: general review of the book

The author of the book, Umera Ahmad, seems to be quite a famous writer. In fact, I´d no idea that she has even authored the screenplay of one of my top five favourite dramas of all time: 'Man-o-Salwa'. We men hardly tend to follow drama serials, but when it was repeated each morning on weekdays back in 2016, I couldn´t resist watching it. It was a story which deserves every accolade and all the praise. From what I know, it got so famous back in 2007 when it was first aired that it was also shown in India with a different name I think. I often mention that drama amongst my family and friends. She seems to have won a few awards too for some of her other dramas. This book too is so well written that you end up getting the feeling as if you´re watching a film or a drama. Umera sahiba is indeed a seriously capable and talented writer. I was recommended this book by a beloved friend of mine, and I´m hugely indebted to her for having introduced to me this work.

The beauty of the book perhaps lies in the way the "disappearance" of Imama is handled. It created a lot of mystery, excitement, left room for a lot of speculations and the suspense hence was killing. The suspense obviously reaches its tipping point when Salar´s friend Akif tells him about a prostitute named Imama. Nail-biting suspense follows from thereon, and just as you´re about to feel heartbroken at the fate that meets Imama, immense relief follows as you discover that this girl is someone else. You almost breathe a sigh of relief at that moment! I in particular loved the growth of Salar´s character, the way he learns the "nothingness" of his own being, the way he learns, on the other hand, the value of life and gets to know the torture of death in a most hard way. I liked how he gradually became spiritual, found happiness and inner peace in helping the poor and the underprivileged people, first of other countries and then ultimately of Pakistan. His commitment to his job for the UNICEF and then the school project which he takes up at Furqan´s insistence were also very good additions. The first meeting between Salar and Jalal Ansar in the USA was very interesting, too. The way he tries to convince the latter to marry Imama, only to find lack of compassion in his heart for a girl to whom he´d made all the promises - I quite liked the pictures the writer creates in this meeting, or "scene" if I may say.

Showing Imama as Salar´s lawfully-wedded wife, and also the guilt on his part for having played a hand in herself being wherever she is, also of having lied to her and having not divorced her despite the prior word given, was quite good. So he was bound by his responsibilities in every way. I add this point because, having not shown her as his wife, would´ve made look very odd all the intense feelings he´d developed for her and also herself literally governing Salar´s senses - not suitable for a person who has found spirituality. Still though, it´s purely my opinion that letting someone dominate your thoughts so much and developing such an intense kind of deep affection and love for a person, or even a thing, is a kind of shirk - purely my personal opinion.

"Have you seen him who takes his own evil desire for his god? Could you then be a guardian over him?" - Qur´an 25:43.

The verse obviously doesn´t fully fit into the context of Salar´s case, but the point which I aim to make herewith is that having too deep and intense desires to have someone or something in life can take a form of shirk (idolatry). This doesn´t limit itself to only non-Muslims, rather instead also to Muslims, irrespective of how pious they otherwise might be. I´m hereby particularly referring to the conversation about Imama which takes place between Furqan and Salar on page 273 to 274, where, when Furqan asks him to forget her, he answers by saying, "Can anyone forget to breathe?" It´s entirely possible though that I´m being too harsh here in my assessment. From personal experience though, and as someone who has seen the world and all its colours, I can almost guarantee you that the more you long and yearn for someone or something, the farther away from you it gets. God works in mysterious ways! Still though, what I enjoyed a lot and also paid a lot of attention to were the conversations between Salar and Furqan. Very interesting and often quite deep as well. So I loved them!

Another thing which looked a bit out of place was firstly Imama proposing to Jalal, and then Ramsha proposes Salar. In our culture at least, girls very rarely tend to make the first move - during those times anyway when this book was released. If that´s alright though, what looked most odd was Imama proposing Jalal for the second time. Where? At the hospital (where she visited him as a friend) and saw him for the first time after eight years. She asked him right there and then! A little more build up, a few more meetings between the two should´ve been shown I think.

Moving on from that, I really liked the first lecture that Salar attends of Dr. Sibt-e-Ali. The last sentence of his lecture actually reminded me of this beautiful Hadith......

"Abu Sa'eed narrated that the Messenger of Allah said, 'Whoever is not grateful to the people, he is not grateful to Allah' " - Al-Tirmidhi, chapters on Righteousness And Maintaining Good Relations With Relatives.

The ending was awesome I felt. Very brilliant and out of this world, especially the conversation between the two after meeting after so many years. The moments of comfort between the two were very well added to leave the reader with a 'feel-good' factor. I liked it. Although the ending was throughout kept as a mystery, but given how deeply I engage myself into books, films etc., I was able to guess as to where Imama could after all be. Saeeda Amma comes to Salar to invite him for her daughter´s wedding, and the following occurs to Salar on page 319.....

".... Salar realized that for her every boy was her son, every girl her daughter - she built up relations with great facility.... "

This bit right away gave me the hint that Imama might just be one of Saeeda Amma´s "daughters", and also that Amina might just be Imama with a change of name. I was dead right on both counts! Another point where I got a bit suspicious was where Salar meets the elderly woman for the first time out of nowhere, and is stuck in finding her residence. When he finally brings her home and a her "daughter" opens the door, whom Salar isn´t able to see or meet, I thought that she must be Imama. However, the story then takes other turns, calming my suspicions. Turns out in the end that I was right on this one too!

So all in all, the controversial stuff aside which it contains, which I´ll touch upon in the following chapters of my review, the book was pretty good and enjoyable to read. I´m hugely thankful to my friend who recommended me this book.
———————————————————————————

Chapter two: the controversial stuff in the book

If anyone out there wants to know what the Ahmadiyya faith is, just read this book. Yes, I´m right, read this book, complete it, lift your head, see left, right, everywhere: did any protests take place? Did bombs go off? Were people killed? Did sit-ins on the streets takes place? Were properties and belongings of people damaged or vandalised? Were any demands made that the book should be banned? No, they weren´t! This book only goes to highlight the tolerance of our community. I ask Umera sahiba, could a Sunni have written such a book about Shias and got away with it in Pakistan? Could she´ve shown Imama as a Shia girl who discovers through her friends that Shias believe that the first three of the four Righteous Caliphs, Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Hadhrat Umar and Hadhrat Uthman, weren´t deserving candidates of Caliphate, and that they were usurpers who deprieved Hadhrat Ali of his right to be the Imam of Muslims after the death of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)? Or, about the intense negative portrayal of one of the Mothers of Believers, Hadhrat Aisha, in Shia Islam? Could Imama have been the girl to have left Shia Islam after discovering about these beliefs of her family and other Shias? Obviously not. And you know why? Because, as I often say in Urdu, "Bandook ki zubaan har koi samajhta hai (everyone understands the language spoken by the gun)."

Or, could a Shia have written a book to show that Imama is a Sunni girl who discovers through her Shia friends that the first three of the four Righteous Caliphs, Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Hadhrat Umar and Hadhrat Uthman, weren´t deserving candidates of Caliphate, and that they were usurpers who deprieved Hadhrat Ali of his right to be the Imam of Muslims after the death of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and that she then changes her faith to Shiaism and comes to believe in the concept of the Imamat from amongst the Ahl-ul-Baiyt? Obviously not. And you know why? Because, if I may repeat myself, "Bandook ki zubaan har koi samajhta hai (everyone understands the language spoken by the gun)."

I find out very encouraging that of late our young generation has shunned the concept of sectarianism and that Sunnis and Shias have embraced each other as brothers in Islam. It is one of the victories of the modern era, but I wonder how aware they´re of the history of the conflicts between the two sects, and of the fatwas of kufr issued against each other. As a trailer, I may turn to the most famous website of Islamic rulings which is run by scholars in Saudi Arabia......

".... The Shi‘ah have a number of beliefs and actions that put them beyond the pale of Islam, such as their belief that the Holy Qur´an has been distorted, and that their Imams have knowledge of the unseen, and are infallible and cannot be heedless or forget. They seek the help of the dead and call upon them instead of Allah; they prostrate towards their graves; and they revile the best of mankind after the Prophets and Messengers, namely the Companions of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and regard them as disbelievers....... Whoever believes in any of these things, or does any of these acts that constitute kufr (disbelief) has gone beyond the pale of Islam, and meat slaughtered by him is not halaal.... "

Link to the article:
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/60046/ruling-on-meat-slaughtered-by-the-shiah-raafidis

*No offence is intended herewith towards my Shia, or even Sunni, brothers. I hope that they understand the point that I´m trying to make.*

However, I must state from my personal point of view that I would´ve even then been very critical of the book if it had targeted any other sect of Islam, or even any other religion. The purest form of art and entertainment is only that which is for the people of every background and every folk, and this book obviously is not for Ahmadis. Better than this are books which are written in our criticism and include references to criticise our faith, because you then at least know what you´re dealing with. A book like this is sadly nothing short of being a dagger in the back, an attack from behind. This book launches an unannounced propaganda against a set of beliefs, brainwashing individuals that the portrayal of the beliefs of a certain community has been displayed justly. Again, returning to the point about the purest form of art and entertainment only being that which is meant for the people of all backgrounds, Umera Ahmad could easily have shown Imama belonging to a rich family which doesn´t value religion at all and is lost in the pursuit of wealth and materialism, and on the other hand Imama could´ve been shown as a girl who finds guidance in Islam through her friends, and now begins to see life differently, and now refuses to marry into another family with a wealthy background. Something along the lines could surely have been shown, if the author had had the will not to engage in any religion related propaganda. A pity, really!

Seeing the popularity of the book, I discovered that this book has worked as a useful brainwashing tool for those of our young generation who haven´t attended anti-Ahmadiyya speeches of the Ulema hazraat of Pakistan. Umera sahiba will be held accountable in front of God, not because I´m an Ahmadi, neither because I believe that Ahmadiyya is true faith, but because of the lies spread through the means of this piece of writing. If I today write a book for entertainment purpose, and use art and my writing skills to target Christianity and spread lies such as that they believe that Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) is in fact the Father of God, and that Saint Paul is the Son of God, I´ll be asked about it by God. Religion is a sensitive issue, to spread false information and lies about any religion is a sin, regardless of which faith is true or which one is false. At least give it an attempt to paint the true picture of a faith. However, all that the author does is to rely on rumours and hearsay.

Before I address a few of the allegations that this book makes against the Ahmadiyya faith, I must firstly address a few other issues which reveal how unrealistic portrayal of circumstances the book contains. Hashim Mubeen, Imama´s father, is shown to have been a very wealthy, influential and wealthy Ahmadi businessman that nobody dares to lock horns with him as he has connections all the way to the government level, to the extent that Salar´s father finds government level interference in his business (page 353). On page 112, we even see Hashim sahib threatening to take legal action against Imama should she abandon her faith. All this in a country where, according to the law itself, Ahmadis cannot recite the Adhaan loudly, nor recite the Kalima, nor call themselves Muslims. Forget that, we cannot even call our worship place a "Masjid." So the country is fully copyrighted in terms of religion.

The reality is that from amongst the Ahmadis in Punjab, or at least from amongst those whom I know, possibly the most wealthy Ahmadi was Muhammad Iss´Haaq sahib, a common uncle of both my parents, and even he was jailed for a controversy relating to an Ahmadiyya mosque in Sahiwal. Then, uncle Ijaz, my paternal aunt´s husband, who is also quite a wealthy Ahmadi from Faisalabad, his father was shot dead. Nothing to this day has happened in that case, despite it being clear as to who shot at him. On the contrary though, the police found it much easier to put my wealthy uncle behind bars. However, I can cite the case of another relative of mine who´s quite influential, but in order to keep his status amongst the people of Pakistan, he has almost given up on his faith, hides his background from others and is not a practising Ahmadi. The good news for him though is that he needs to contact Umera Ahmad and she´ll tell him how to stay an Ahmadi and be influential on the other hand at the same time. Umera sahiba has written this story about a country where land disputes and other such issues are settled by looking at as to which of the parties belongs to the Ahmadiyya Community. She has written it about a country where a richly capable economist like Atif Mian was removed from the Economy Advisory Committee set up by Imran Khan´s Government, due to him being an Ahmadi. I wish that Mr. Hashim Mubeen could help him out with the influence that he carried in Pakistan! Oh´ well, wake up I suppose?

There´s also a slight hint at the "fact" that Ahmadis refrain from discussing their religion at schools, colleges, workplaces etc., with a hint at the fact that we do so because of weak arguments that we stand on. The real reason however as to why we´re very careful of it has everything to do with firstly the sentiment of hatred against us in the general public, the intolerant behaviour of others, and also the laws in place against us, where a mere mention of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) or the Holy Qur´an results in us being framed for having committed a blasphemy. That´s a recipe for mob justice right there and then. Take the example of Mashal Khan. It has never quite been made public as to what he exactly he posted on Facebook which resulted in him being brutally lynched by the blasphemy crowd, but I´ve heard from people that his post contained a condemnation of the persecution of Ahmadis, and he wasn´t even an Ahmadi! However, even if this was not the content of his post, the point stays that a person who was an accepted Muslim by the definition of the the state of Pakistan, was lynched in daylight! Can you imagine, in such a country and society, an Ahmadi getting away by discussing religion in his school, college or workplace?

"We are a minority now, but when we become the majority then such people will not dare to speak up like this - they will be afraid to insult us to our face..... When our numbers increase, we too will bring in laws that favor us, and all such amendments to the constitution will be abrogated" - Hashim Mubeen on page 51.

I´ve no idea what to say here, to be honest. However, I must report here that a few months ago our current Head of the Community was asked by a British journalist (I think), whether he desires sanctions and boycotts on Pakistan from western countries till they amend the discriminatory laws against Ahmadis. His answer was.....

"I don´t believe that they should be forced, boycotted or even be waged war against, or that financial aid is stopped..... If that happens, the poor people of such countries will suffer, and we don´t want to take revenge in this way.... that humanity suffers in any way" - fifth Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Community.

*Note: right now, I still have the video of his above statement on WhatsApp. Should anyone feel any doubts, he/she can contact me to see the video for himself/herself.*

Another misconception that runs deep in the masses is that we Ahmadis, in the copies that we´ve of the Qur´an in our houses, we put a sticker on the "Khatam´un´Nabiyyeen" verse, or that the verse is removed from the copies that we read, or that the common Ahmadi is kept in the dark about that verse. The reality however is that this particular, beautiful and full of meaning verse of the Holy Qur´an is recited at the beginning of every hour, or every new programme, on our TV channel MTA. It´s just that we interpret it differently, just like how our Shia brothers interpret verse 4:24 to take it to mean that it approves Nikkah-al-Muta (temporary marriage), and they´ve continued with this practice since centuries based on this verse (coupled with other references from sources outside the Qur´an). Sunnis on the other hand call this blatant distortion of a verse of the Creator´s Book, hence many even accuse them of legalising prostitution through this lie of theirs uttered against Allah´s Book. Ahmadis too reject the Shia interpretation of it.

*Note to Shia brothers: I´m not insulting you or even criticising the Shia beliefs. I´m merely pointing out a difference in the interpretation of a verse. Still, I apologise in case it caused any offence.*

Another rather foolish misconception is that Ahmadis have translated the whole Qur´an differently (a somewhat hint of which is found on page 53 of this book), in order to fit the verses into their own agenda. Yes, we´ve translated differently for example the verses which relate to the death of Jesus Christ, but we´ve produced arguments from the original Arabic present in the Holy Book, as opposed to have mindlessly gone about changing the meaning of words. That aside, a great majority of the verses of the Qur´an glorify Allah, contain mentions to death, life, resurrection, or of how the human soul is to return to Him one day. For what reasons and purpose, and also what will we achieve by differently or incorrectly translating such verses, too? So how can anyone then say that we´ve translated the whole Qur´an incorrectly?

Page 54 contains a subtle hint at the claim that Ahmadis prefer blind faith over reason and completely overlook the literature of other Muslims. The question to ponder here, again, is that it´s the Ahmadiyya literature which is banned in Pakistan and not of others. Even our official website is banned in Pakistan. Ahmadis living over there, if they wish to access our website they´ve to resort to accessing it through illegal means, sadly. As for others, the usual literature aside, there´s no prohibition even against the literature published to target our faith. So many of the assumptions that the author of the book makes about us, they´re in fact primarily applicable to other Muslims and also the society of the country.

Leaving one´s faith to choose another is another aspect which needs to be explored more here. One of the differences in opinion between Ahmadis and other Muslims is that we believe that Allah Himself has given human-being the freedom and also the free will to choose between right and wrong, and hence also which religion to follow, accept or to leave. We oppose the opinion of the Muslim scholars, a majority of them at least, who´re of the stance that an apostate from Islam is to be put to death (yes, you read it right! After the Ahmadiyya community, only a handful of modern era scholars such as Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, Dr. Khalid Zaheer, Nouman sahib etc., and also those who call themselves the "Qur´an-only" sect, agree with our point of view on this).

"There should be no compulsion in religion. Surely, right has become distinct from wrong; so whosoever refuses to be led by those who transgress, and believes in Allah, has surely grasped a strong handle which knows no breaking. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing" - Qur´an 2:256.

Therefore, whereas others hold the view that this verse only means that we can´t forcefully convert others to Islam, we´re of the stance that this mighty verse not only refers to such a case, but also to those people who leave Islam. Hence, any Ahmadi who forces anyone to stay as an Ahmadi, is clearly violating the principles of our faith and stands in clear violation of the guidance of our Caliph. However, this fantastic story aside, we´re talking about Pakistan after all, where people who apostatise from Ahmadiyyat end up becoming the favourites of the common folk and end up getting a lot of support from the Khatm-e-Nabboowat organisations.

However, Imama being locked up in her room by her family was heartbreaking to read. I was reminded of an elderly woman who converted to Ahmadiyyat in India, a few years either sides of the partition of India. Her family imprisoned the elderly woman in a room and demanded her to renounce her newly-accepted faith, or she´ll not be given anything to eat. Well, she didn´t yield to the pressure as she indeed ended up dying of weakness caused by hunger for quite a number of days. *Our Caliph narrated this in a speech some time ago which was about the sacrifices laid by women for Islam during the times of the Holy Prophet, and then for Islam Ahmadiyyat centuries later.*

Page 47 gives the impression as if Imama is completely unaware of the bitter opposition of our opponents towards Ahmadis. This is rather strange because every Ahmadi child is born into this discrimination, every Ahmadi is born into being seen as some kind of an alien by others. Some people, students of schools etc., even refuse to eat with us. We´re born into this, knowing that our friends or even colleagues at workplaces will not treat us like he treats other Muslims. I was only 11 when we moved out of Pakistan, and by that age I was pretty clear on all these things given how I personally, even as a child, was treated with somewhat discrimination by others. I was in fact told constantly by others, at that age, that I should leave Ahmadiyyat and make intentions to do Jihad (Holy War) in Kashmir against the Indian armed forces, and in return Allah will solve all my health issues.

Lastly, on page 53 we see Imama asking herself the following questions: "Does my closest friend too not accept me as a Muslim? Is all this simply the result of the propaganda about our faith? Why is it that only we are being targeted this way - are we really on the wrong track? Have we adopted the wrong creed?" Now that Imama has embraced true Islam, I wonder whether using the same logic, she asks herself why of all the religions of the entire world, only Islam is targeted by others, and why only Muslims are labeled as extremists and terrorists (which they aren´t, of course!)? Simple analogy I suppose? Or I suppose, the question is more for Umera sahiba than Imama.

———————————————————————————

Chapter three: allegations against Ahmadiyyat in the book, and other such stuff

Next up, I´d like to move on to the most important chapter of my review, the purpose of is to highlight how unfair Umera Ahmad has been in her depiction of the Ahmadiyya faith, or is just perhaps something which we can put down to her own lack of knowledge on Ahmadiyyat and herself too having been brainwashed by masses.

1. Imama is found saying the following to her friends on page 48: "It´s only that we say that after the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), we have another prophet of our community who is as revered as Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)."

*Note: the abbreviation "PBUH" stands for "Peace be upon him."*

To begin with, I cannot even explain how for a blatant lie it is! As an Ahmadi, I confirm that we believe that this earth has never been graced with a greater human-being than the Holy Prophet Muhammad, neither will be, and nor was and ever will be a human-being more loved by Allah than our Beloved Master. I quote Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (peace be upon him) on this......

"..... The sons of Adam have no Messenger and Intercessor but Muhammad, the Chosen One, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. Endeavour, therefore, to cultivate true love for this Prophet of glory and majesty, and do not give precedence to anyone over him, so that in heaven you may be counted as those who have attained salvation...... Remember, salvation is not something that will be manifested after death. On the contrary, true salvation exhibits its light in this very world. Who is the one who attains salvation? Such a person is he who believes that God is true and that Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is the Intercessor between God and all His creation, and that under the heaven there is no Messenger equal in rank to him, nor is there any book equal in status to the Qur´an. God did not desire that anyone should remain alive eternally, but this Chosen Prophet lives forever. To keep him alive forever, God has ordained that his spiritual and law-giving blessings would last until the day of resurrection.... " - Noah´s Ark (English translation of book 'Kishti-e-Nuh'), page 22 to 23.

I´ve no idea what else to add here, after the above passage from a book of the Founder of our Community.

2. On page 345, Imama is seen teaching the following to Saad, an orphan whom her parents adopted: ".... she began telling Saad stories about the Holy Prophet (PBUH) on her trips home for the weekend. Since Saad was too young to reason, she would simplify her rationalization by saying, 'As God is one, our Prophet (PBUH) too is unique. There is no one like him and there can be no one like him.' While talking to Saad she would always ask him to not repeat their conversations to the rest of the family...... "

Imama taught Saad absolutely the right thing, I attest to it, but she did the wrong thing by stopping him from repeating such beautiful words in front of her family. If indeed her father, Hashim Mubeen sahib, was an Ahmadi preacher, he must´ve read such words in abundance in the writings of Hadhrat Mirza sahib.

"Our Perfect Leader, That leader of ours,
From whom radiates all light,
His name is Muhammad.
He is the one,
Who has captivated my heart.

All Prophets are holy,
One better than the other.
From God on high he is,
The crown of all creatures.

Today he is the sovereign,
Of the world of religion,
The crown of all the Messengers.
The healthiest influence;
The purest, the most comely;
The most trustworthy,
The most dependable:
Allah this superlative praise,
Befits him alone" - Ruhaani Khazain, volume 20, page 456. Qadian ke Ariya aur Hum.

The above is an English rendering of either an Urdu or Persian poem of Hadhrat Mirza sahib. What more can I add? These two are just random examples that I selected to include here.

3. Page 344 to 355 also claim that Ahmadis have a wicked  practice of adopting homeless children in order to add to the number of members to the community. Honestly speaking, this is so dumb that I´ve no idea how to even refute it. This baseless allegation is in fact the height of bias that the book contains about Ahmadis. I better move on to points which actually, somewhat, deserve answers.

4. On page 49, Imama´s friend Tehreem gives a rather baffling analogy, which may appeal to those who´ve mind up their mind to believe everything written in the book, but a deeper dig reveals how illogical it is. Since I deal with such logics and analogies every day in my activities as an Ahmadi, it was an easy grab for me. In fact, I debated the same point with a respected lady back in August 2018.

"We also believe in the Prophethood of Jesus and that the Bible is a divine book, so does that make us Christians? And we believe in the prophets Moses and David too…are we Jews?" - Imama´s friend Tehreem.

The point made herewith is that since Ahmadis believe in another Prophet (a subordinate Prophet, I must add), their religion automatically changes from Islam to another, and since Tehreem has believed in the Holy Prophet after Prophets such as Jesus, Moses and David, her religion automatically changes to Islam, and she´s therefore not a Jewess. Sadly though, this point lacks substance for a deep thinker. The case of Prophets who come in an already established system doesn´t result in a change of religion - unless commanded otherwise by Allah. I ask, both Tehreem and Umera sahiba, did the religion of the followers of Prophet Moses change after coming to believe in Prophets such as David, Solomon, Isaiah? Did the religion of those Jews change? Breaking news, it did not!

"Surely, We sent down the Torah wherein was guidance and light. By it did the Prophets, who were obedient to Us, judge for the Jews, as did the godly people and those learned in the Law; for they were required to preserve the Book of Allah, and because they were guardians over it.... " - Qur´an 5:44.

There´s a clear hint in this wonderful verse, that the religion, and the Law Book, of the Jews did not change through the appearance of further Prophets in the Mosaic Dispensation. If only Tehreem had pondered over Allah´s Book a bit more before giving such a lecture!

5. "She (Imama) had been brought up to believe that her community was the only one on the true path of Islam and would be the only one to enter paradise..... " - page 52.

A) We indeed believe that in terms of belief, we stand on the right path. I wonder what´s there to feel offended by it, given that this is the belief held by a lot of scholars of other sects as well? Do not Sunnis believe that they alone stand on the right path? Do not Shias hold the same belief about themselves? However, let´s not get into it and let´s just make things easier for ourselves: what is the belief held by others, will such a person too be standing on the right path who´d for example deny Jesus Christ in his Second Coming, or he who´d deny the Imam Mahdi? Well, the belief traditionally held by the majority of scholars, and the majority of common Muslims, is that a person to deny either of them will be an apostate altogether from Islam. So there you´ve your answer.

B) The question regarding entering paradise, being an Ahmadi guarantees you no ticket to Paradise......

"I repeat that you should not be content with having made a superficial covenant of Baiyt, for this amounts to nothing. God looks at your hearts and will deal with you accordingly. Look here, I discharge the obligation of conveying my message by telling you that sin is a poison - do not consume it. Disobedience to God is a filthy death - safeguard yourselves against it..... " - Hadhrat Mirza sahib in his book Noah´s Ark (English translation of book 'Kishti-e-Nuh'), page 30.

The Holy Qur´an, which all Muslims believe in, offers a tremendous amount of guidance, the ultimate guidance, on this in one great verse......

"Nay, whoever submits himself completely to Allah, and is the doer of good, shall have his reward with his Lord. No fear shall come upon such, neither shall they grieve" - Qur´an 2:112.

Focus on the "Doer of good" part from this verse. This phrase has been repeated in a few other verses too. Besides this, "Those who believe and do good works" is an oft-repeated phrase throughout the Qur´an. The point to ponder is that beliefs alone won´t achieve you anything. You need to combine it with good deeds as well. Mere lip-profession of faith won´t do you any good at all.

C) Our belief regarding non-Muslims is that a person to whom the message of Islam has reached, he´ll be accountable before Allah. The same however cannot be said about him whom the message of Islam never reached. It´ll be entirely up to Allah to decide as to who had enough evidence of Islam in his lifetime and who not. What we cannot forget is that Allah is never unjust to his servants. He´ll take into account a person´s situation, his mental health, also how aware he was of Islam, and many other factors which we as human-being can´t even guess. So we´ve to leave it to Allah as to who´ll enter Paradise and who not.

"Allah burdens not any soul beyond its capacity.... " - Qur´an 2:286.

D) Within Islam, Allah again will take into account each non-Ahmadi Muslim´s case and his rejection of Hadhrat Mirza Sahib, and deal with justice and all fairness. Such a person will be accountable before the Almighty of course, and this because he´s carrying a flaw within Islam itself, just like a Muslim who professes faith in the Holy Prophet but for example doesn´t offer the daily prayer - and such a person we all agree will be accountable before Allah. A non-Ahmadi Muslim in this case will be carrying the flaw of rejecting an Ummati (Subordinate) Prophet to the Holy Prophet, and the rejection of a Prophet is no minor thing.

"..... Of course, we do not have the right to pronounce verdict regarding his salvation. His case rests with God; it is not for us to impose our judgement upon it. As I have just pointed out, only God Almighty knows that - despite the arguments based on rationality and Scriptures, excellence of teachings, and heavenly Signs - who it is to whom the arguments have not been incontrovertibly conveyed. We should not claim with conviction that sufficient evidence has not been furnished to a particular person. We have no knowledge of the inside of a person..... " - Hadhrat Mirza sahib in his book Haqeeqat-ul-Wahi (The Philosophy of Divine Revelation), page 224 of the English version.

E) About all non-Ahmadis going to hell without distinction, I quote Hadhrat Mirza sahib on this......

"..... that whosoever does not believe in me shall become a disbeliever and be cast into Hell even if he is unaware of my name and even if he is in a land where my message has not reached. This is a totally false imputation on the part of the said doctor. I have not written so in any book or announcement. It is incumbent upon him to produce any one of my books which contains this statement. It should be known that he has leveled this false allegation against me out of sheer cunning, as is his wont. It is something which certainly no reasonable person can ever accept. How can a person who is totally unaware of even my name be considered accountable? ..... " Haqeeqat-ul-Wahi (The Philosophy of Divine Revelation), page 222 of the English version.

In contrast to this, the belief held by the majority of other Muslim scholars (traditionally at least) is that a person who rejects Jesus Christ in his Second Coming, or even the Imam Mahdi, will be an apostate altogether from Islam and will be condemned to hell.

F) It may be relevant here to state though that we Ahmadi Muslims believe that the punishment of all the dwellers of hell will one day come to an end after having served the punishment for their sins.

G) Also that there´ll be varying degrees of punishment depending on the sins committed by people. For example, a common rejector of Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) cannot be said to be standing on the same place as Pharaoh. There´s a difference in the campaign of opposition led by both as a result of their rejection and disbelieve. Bitter opposition to the Prophets of Allah obviously is a grave sin and doesn´t go unattended of course.

H) The point stays though that it is entirely up to Allah to decide as to whom He´ll judge as deserving of hell-fire and who not. He can show Mercy to whom He pleases (and can punish whom He pleases).

".... 'I will inflict My punishment on whom I will; but My mercy encompasses all things..... ' " - Qur´an 7:156.

"..... He has taken upon Himself to show mercy. He will certainly continue to assemble you till the Day of Resurrection. There is no doubt in it..... " - Qur´an 6:12.

6. "..... she (Imama) read the translations of the Qur´an published by scholars of various other sects..... nowhere did they mention or even hint at another successor or prophet to follow him (the Holy Prophet Muhammad)...... " - page 53.

"..... The divine revelations came to a close with God‘s final message to the last prophet, Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH). After him, his followers needed no other guide or mentor..... Instead of treading the path shown by the perfect mentor, what are the other roads that attract us? Are one God, one Faith, one Qur´an, one Prophet and the example of his way of life not enough for the Muslims? .... " - Dr. Sibt-e-Ali´s speech on page 283 to 284.

I do not one bit disagree with Dr. Sibt-e-Ali on this, but if the intention of Umera Ahmad was to "Open the eyes of Ahmadis" through this lecture, then she has failed miserably I´m afraid. We leave aside the question of the return of Prophet Jesus as a Prophet, but I ask Umera sahiba as to why she doesn´t ask the same question to her fellows who believe in the appearance of the Imam Mahdi ("Guided Leader")? If indeed Muslims need no other guide or mentor after the Holy Prophet, and if indeed there´s no mention or even hint at another successor to follow him, then where does that leave the belief of other Muslims that Imam Mahdi will appear some day?

I come to remember a lecture from the late scholar Dr. Israr Ahmad. Although I don´t have any evidence of it as I´m purely relying on my memory, but I remember a video which I saw around 10 to 11 years ago, in which the deceased Moulana explained that, to combat the army of disbelievers, the Imam Mahdi will be born with a laser on his forehead, which he´ll use as a weapon in wars. My aim is of course just to highlight the importance of the Imam Mahdi according to the Muslim scholars. Even minus this reference from my memory, my general point stays and stands valid. In fact, I quote, again, a very famous Islamic website here.....

"..... Imam al-Mahdi will be a righteous man from among the descendants of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), who will appear at the end of time, through whom Allah will set mankind’s affairs straight, and will fill the earth with fairness and justice just as it was filled with wrongdoing and oppression..... "

Source:

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/43840/the-truth-about-the-mahdi-and-the-order-in-which-the-portents-of-the-hour-will-appear

It seems as if Dr. Sibt-e-Ali wasn´t quite well-versed with the concept of the Imam Mahdi in Islam, someone through whom Allah will set mankind´s affairs straight!

7. "..... in the Qur´an Allah declares that Prophethood came to an end with Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH). There is no margin here for any other Prophet to follow. If there is any mention of another Prophet, like Hazrat Isa (AS), returning to this life it is not as a new prophet; rather, it is by Allah‘s will that a Prophet appointed much before Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) returns not for his own people but for the followers of our Holy Prophet (PBUH), who will be Allah‘s last Prophet on earth..... " - Sabiha´s lecture on page 59.

*Note: "AS" is an an abbreviation of "Alaihi Salaam", which means "On whom be peace" in Arabic.*

In what is already a very extensive write-up, I cannot go into the details of the debate about the death of Jesus Christ and the continuation of Prophethood, but our community has published extensive literature on these particular issues. Anyone interested is most welcome to contact me so that I may share a book or two, or articles on this.

However, coming to Sabiha´s lecture, the thing is that this is a controversy or an issue for the sake of it, otherwise the difference is very little between the two groups. The question is, is Prophethood needed after the Advent of the Holy Prophet? Also, is another Prophet needed after his appearance? Is some work still left to be done which a Prophet of God shall do? Are some issues left which shall by settled by a Prophet? Would Wahi al-Nabboowah (revelations granted to a Prophet) be revealed upon another Prophet? The answer to all these questions, according to the beliefs held by non-Ahmadi Muslims, is a "yes".

So, in a nutshell, Jesus Christ will be the last Prophet to preach and practise Prophethood on earth, will also be the last Prophet to receive Wahi al-Nabboowah, and also the last Prophet to die. Against this, the Holy Prophet will only remain a Prophet who was born before the Christ. So what all this tells is that the issue between the two parties is not necessarily about the continuation of Prophethood but of the identity of the Prophet who shall come. Even if I were to view it neutrally, I wonder wherein the blasphemy lies in the Ahmadiyya belief on this, given that other Muslims´ belief on this differs only to the extent that the Holy Prophet was born as a Prophet before Jesus Christ was born, as otherwise the view is identical with regards to the continuation of Prophethood?

*Note: I shall soon write a separate article to prove through a couple of verses of the Holy Qur´an that Jesus Christ can´t return in the capacity of a Prophet after the Holy Prophet. Anyone interested can follow my blog or can request me to share the article with you personally, and I shall Insha´Allah do so.*

8. ".... Even if this claim were to be accepted, then according to tradition, Jesus would have lived for another forty years after his reappearance by which time Islam would have been ascendant in the world. However, when the Ahmadi prophet died, then far from Islam being spread across the world, even the Muslims of India did not have the freedom they yearned for.... " - page 53 of the book.

I´ve already composed a very long review, so I´ll have to skip going into the details of the prophecies about the return of Prophet Jesus. However, what I must add though is that such an understanding is a result of waiting for literal fulfillment of prophecies, and also the literal interpretation of them.

"The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the cobra’s den, and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest" - Isaiah 11:6-8.

These verses from the Old Testament of the Holy Bible contain prophecies to the advent of Jesus Christ. However, they probably took them so literally that they failed to accept the Christ as a true claimant of being their Messiah. Thinking from the point of view of Umera sahiba, Jews were indeed right in rejecting him because all these events have indeed not taken place, literally of course. The Jews were waiting for their Messiah to win them an earthly kingdom, to conquer the world for them and to rule the world as a king, and therefore weren´t ready to accept Jesus Christ´s claim that the Promised Kingdom lies in the heavens by following him.

"I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming..... " - John 14:30.

"He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you" - John 16:14.

These are, according to Muslims, prophecies of the Holy Prophet from the Gospel. I too, as an Ahmadi, must believe in this. In fact, Hadhrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad sahib, the second Caliph of our community, wrote an extensive piece on this to prove how the Holy Prophet Muhammad fulfills all the prophecies from both Testaments of the Bible. Many of our scholars have written on this mind you. However, if I were to abandon my mind and were to use the logic presented in this book, it may be a very valid question as to how the Holy Prophet became the prince of the world by merely ruling a part of Arabia? Also, more than 14 centuries have passed, Islam is still not the religion with the most number of followers in the world, and his followers´ suffering is increasing with each day passing (and we Ahmadis pray fervently that the condition of Muslims improves soon in the world; Aameen).

As for the second verse, John 16:14, it has in fact been asked by Christian critics as to how the Holy Prophet can fulfill this prophecy, when, instead of glorifying Jesus Christ, he "demoted" him, from the status of the Son of God, to a mere status of being a Prophet like many others. Obviously, these prophecies have interpretations and are not to be taken literally, but Umera sahiba´s logics are almost the same as the Jews who reject Jesus Christ, and the Christians who reject the our beloved master Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

*No offence intended towards any Jew or Christian out there, or their respective faiths.*

9. "I have gone through so many translations and interpretations of the Qur´an..... In every one of them 'Ahmed' is used in context of Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) and nowhere in terms of our prophet" - Imama Hashim , on page 54.

The reference here seems to be to verse 61:6 of the Holy Qur´an. We Ahmadis indeed believe that the prophecy is about Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib, but not even once it has been denied that the prophecy does not apply to the Holy Prophet, too. Amongst our leaders, some of them held the view that Ahmad was indeed a personal name of the Holy Prophet (but kind of a secondary identity as he was primarily known as Muhammad) and some have held the view that Ahmad was an attributive name of the Holy Prophet given to him by Allah, like Mustafa, al-Hashir, al-Mahi etc. were, and hence he fulfills this prophecy from the aspect of having Ahmad as his attribute. Neither of these views afford the denial that the prophecy in now way refers to the Holy Prophet. The Holy Prophet was indeed the most perfect manifestation of the word/name Ahmad, and he alone deserves this attribute/praise more than anyone. As for Hadhrat Mirza sahib, he does not fulfill the prophecy in an independent capacity, but through the medium of the Holy Prophet alone.

"..... If he were not the Ahmad spoken of here, how could the Promised Messiah become that particular Ahmad? ..... Therefore, the Holy Prophet is Ahmad, in whom the prophecy was fulfilled in the first instance.... " - Hadhrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad sahib in his book Al-Qaul-ul-Fasl, Anwaar-ul-Uloom, volume 2, page 289.

Our opponents point to references from the writings of Hadhrat Mahmud Ahmad sahib which state that the prophecy is about Hadhrat Mirza sahib alone, and not the Holy Prophet. But what they miss out on, perhaps deliberately, are the pages from the very same books which clearly state that the Holy Prophet is the object of the prophecy by having Ahmad as his attribute. So in those references he´s referring to the fulfillment of the prophecy by name, as opposed to by attribute.

As a side note, I´d like to use this opportunity to refer to a book ('Beacon of Truth'), in English, German and Urdu, which is a compilation of the writings of the early age scholars of Islam on issues such as the death of Jesus Christ, Khatm-e-Nabboowat (the Finality of Prophethood) and the truth of the Messiah to come.....

https://www.alislam.org/library/books/qandeel/Beacon-of-Truth.pdf

This is for the people who assume that the writings of the early age scholars stood in unison against the Ahmadiyya beliefs! Again, those of the readers who aren´t able to open the above link given the banning of our official website in Pakistan, I request them to contact me personally through my Twitter accounts (shared below at the bottom of my write-up).

10. "Imama was further surprised by the tone and language used by the Ahmadi leader against his opponents and other revered Prophets - could a true Prophet ever employ such vocabulary about anyone as this claimant to Prophethood had done?" - page 53.

" 'Why does our Prophet use wrong terms and poor language for the other Prophets?'
'He talks of them in his own context - they did not believe him to be a Prophet,' Waseem replied.....  'When people did not accept Jesus as a Prophet, he did not abuse them. When Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) was not believed in, he did not abuse the disbelievers - in fact, he prayed for those who stoned him. The Divine message revealed to Hazrat Muhammad does not contain abusive language, whereas that collection of verses which our Prophet claims was revealed to him by God is full of vituperation' " - a conversation on page 55.

The allegation doesn´t disturb me much as we Ahmadis deal with this every day of the week, but what does disturb me is the answer given by Waseem, who´s shown as the son of a preacher and as someone belonging to a very practising Ahmadi family. So, according to him, Hadhrat Mirza sahib "abused" Prophets of the past because they did not believe him to be a Prophet. How can can a Prophet be believed in by Prophets who´ve passed away before the former even makes any claim? I pity for every reader of the story who took Waseem´s answer to be the defence that Ahmadis offer on this. I reluctantly admit that it´s not people´s fault if they´ve misconceptions about Ahmadiyyat if they´ve read a book like this, but also must point out that it´s up to them to ask the people themselves belonging to a certain religion or sect about their faith, especially a person who possess knowledge. Would it be fair if you were to form your opinion on Sunnism (or even Shiasm) after reading a book which has in fact been written to target this very faith, without references? In fact, the truth is that this book wasn´t written in criticism of a faith, but instead to paint an utterly false picture of it.

I must divide my answer into two parts, given that the allegations made are two - similar but from different angles.

A) Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib was, for a number of years, the target of a lot of abuse, swearing and mocking. People let no opportunity go to waste to use foul language against him, his followers and even his family (from what I remember, even women belonging to his family weren´t spared), and also to make fun of him. Look around, see the posters hanging on walls in Pakistan, see the amount of abuse he gets on social media platforms; so what makes anyone think that this wasn´t the case in his lifetime, too? He only used strong language in answer to such of his critics, that too after having tolerated for a number of years.

"Allah likes not the uttering of unseemly speech in public, except on the part of one who is being wronged. Verily, Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing" - Qur´an 4:148.

This relevant verse from the Holy Qur´an gives a person the right to reply in strong language if he´s subjected to injustice and is wronged. So Hadhrat Mirza sahib did not do something which Islam doesn´t allow.

"In this book and in my other books there is no harsh word or indication against those respectable people who do not descend to abuse and meanness" - Hadhrat Mirza sahib, in his book Ayaam Sulha, title page.

"We seek refuge with God against defaming righteous divines and civilized respectable people, whether they are Muslims or Christians or Aryas. We consider all of them worthy of honor. We are not concerned even with foolish people. Our severe language is employed only against those who have become notorious on account of their vile language and foul-mouthed utterances. We always mention in good terms those who are good and are not given to abuse and we honor them and love them like brothers" - Hadhrat Mirza sahib, in his book Lujjat-ul-Noor, page 61.

B) Next up, we must turn to the Islamic literature on this particular issue, something which Umera sahiba seems completely unaware of.

"Aisha reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said, 'Satirise against the (non-believing amongst the) Quraish, for (the satire) is more grievous to them than the hurt of an arrow.' So he (the Holy Prophet) sent (someone) to Ibn Rawiha and asked him to satirise against them, and he composed a satire, but it did not appeal to him (to the Holy Prophet). He then sent (someone) to Ka'b bin Malik (to do the same, but what he composed did not appeal to the Holy Prophet). He then sent one to Hassan bin Thabit..... " - Sahih Muslim, Kitaab al-Fadhaail al-Sahaaba, Baab Fadhaail-i Hassan bin Thabit.

Commenting on this Hadith, Imam Nawavi wrote. "One should not be the first to embark upon severity or ridicule of the pagans, so that Muslims should safeguard their tongues against undesirable language. But when the other side embarks upon abuse and there should be need of defense against their mischief, it is permissible, as the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, directed."

"Narrated al-Bara: the Messenger of Allah said, 'Abuse them (with your poems), and Angel Gabriel is with you (i.e, supports you)' " - Sahih Bukhari, Kitaab al-Maghaazi, chapter the return of the Prophet from Ahzab and his going out to Bani Quraiza.

"Narrated Aisha, 'Once the Jews came to the Prophet and said, 'Assaamu Alaikum (death be upon you).' So I cursed them. The Prophet said, 'What is the matter?' I said, 'Have you not heard what they said?' The Prophet said, 'Have you not heard what I replied (to them)? I said), 'Wa Alaikum' (the same is upon you)' " - Sahih Bukhari, Kitaab al-Jihad wal´Siyar, chapter to invoke Allah to defeat and shake the idolaters.

"Narrated ibn Umar, 'Allah's Messenger said, 'When the Jews greet anyone of you they say, 'Sam´Alaika (death be upon you)'; so you should say; 'Wa Alaika (and upon you)' " - Sahih Bukhari, the Book of Apostates, chapter if somebody abuses the Prophet.

Now, we turn to the Holy Qur´an, a book which Umera sahiba might´ve heard of.

"Ill-mannered and, in addition to that, of doubtful birth" - Qur´an 68:13.

This verse is a part of a set of verses which were revealed about a very harsh and strong opponent of the Holy Prophet. The word translated here as "Of doubtful birth" is the Arabic word "zaneem". Various opinion exist about this particular word. People are free to study the matter for themselves.

"..... They are like cattle; nay, they are even more astray. They are indeed quite heedless" - Qur´an 7:179.

"Do you think that most of them hear or understand? They are only like cattle - nay, they are worst astray from the path" - Qur´an 25:44.

"And the case of those who disbelieve is like the case of one who shouts to that which hears nothing but a call and a cry. They are deaf, dumb, and blind - so they do not understand" - Qur´an 2:171.

"The likeness of those who were made to bear the law of Torah, but would not bear it, is as the likeness of an ass carrying a load of books. Evil is the likeness of the people who reject the Signs of Allah.... " - Qur´an 62:5.

"..... His case therefore is like the case of a thirsty dog; if thou drive him away, he hangs out his tongue; and if thou leave him, he hangs out his tongue. Such is the case of the people who disbelieve in Our Signs.... " - Qur´an 7:176.

"For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him. They will not believe" - Qur´an 5:55 (English translation by scholar Abdullah Yusuf Ali sahib).

Critics of Islam argue that the Qur´an uses abusive language against non-Muslims. However, these strong words did not come up out of the blue but as a result of the abuse and the bitter opposition that the Holy Prophet and his followers were subjected to. So these verses have a background, just like how the strong language found in Hadhrat Mirza Sahib´s writings too have a background. Obviously, these verses do not refer to all kind of non-Muslims, for example such as who´re peaceful rejectors, who neither resort to abuse or persecution of Muslims. Otherwise, how could Allah on one hand declare all non-Muslims to be "Worst of beasts" or liken them to a thirsty dog, and yet on the other hand allow Muslim men to marry women from a party of non-Muslims after all? Would Allah want a "Worst beast" to be the mother of the offspring of a Muslim man?

My advice to non-Ahmadi Muslims like Umera Ahmad is that they shouldn´t close their eyes and their ears, and sit in their room behind a shut door, to the criticism that our beautiful religion of Islam is a target of, nowadays especially. Open up, read such stuff, gain knowledge and answer these allegation - as opposed to writing such a misleading book - if you really desire to serve your religion. Getting angry, showing intolerance and demanding the beheading of the critics of Islam will get us nowhere. Such acts, on the contrary, do a great amount of dis-service to our beloved master, the Holy Prophet Muhammad.

"The weakest faith is of a person who has never heard or tolerated anything negative about his religion" - Rawal Afzal.

C) ".... 'When people did not accept Jesus as a Prophet, he did not abuse them.... ' " - Imama Hashim on page 55.

Okay, I know I´m being harsh here, because a woman, the author of the book, who hasn´t read the Qur´an with the deserved amount of attention, how can I or anyone expect her to be aware of the Gospel? However, I must still address this issue in case a Christian ends up reading my article.

"He answered, 'A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the Prophet Jonah' " - Matthew 12:39.

"Jesus said to them, 'Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you' " - Matthew 21:31.

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness" - Matthew 23:27-28.

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? ..... " - Matthew 23:33.

"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires..... " - John 8:44.

As you can read in the above verses, Jesus Christ has called Jews "Adulterous generation", "snakes", "vipers", even said to the Jewish clergy that even prostitutes are going to heaven ahead of them, and that his opponents were the children of the devil. Obviously, I don´t deny that these words uttered by the Christ have a context and a background. I just read a western Atheist term it as "Spiritual terrorism" on the Christ´s part!

D) The last allegation to be addressed in this sub-chapter is that the Founder of Ahmadiyyat abused Prophets - Allah forbid!

During the times of Hadhrat Mirza sahib, anti-Islam and pro-Christianity literature was on the rise in the Indian subcontinent. Christian priests and other writers launched a heavy assault on the character of the Holy Prophet, calling him a "bandit", "rapist", "Child-molester", "mad" and what not! - Allah forbid! In answer to this, Hadhrat Mirza sahib, attacked the character of Jesus Christ as presented in the Christian faith (as someone who claimed divinity for himself, was disrespectful towards his mother, died an accursed death on the cross etc. - Allah forbid!). However, he made it clear multiple times that his intentions never are to attack Prophet Jesus as believed in Islam. He took them as two different persons to answer the Christian critics of the Holy Prophet (before another misunderstanding rises, it doesn´t mean that there existed two Christs!).

"I state on oath that I bear that true love towards the Messiah which you do not possess and that you have not available to you the light with which I recognize him. There is no doubt that he was a dear and chosen Prophet of God" - Daawat-e-Haq, attached to Haqeeqat-ul-Wahi.

"Claiming as I do, that I am the Promised Messiah and that I bear a resemblance to Hadhrat Isa, peace be on him, every one would understand that were I to revile him, I would not claim any resemblance to him, for by reviling him, I would confess that I myself was vicious" - Announcement from 27th December 1898.

"It should be remembered that I hold this view concerning the Jesus who claimed to be God and held previous prophets to be thieves and robbers and has said nothing about the Khatam-ul-Anbiya, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, except that he, Jesus, would be followed by false prophets. Such a Jesus is nowhere mentioned in the Holy Qur´an" - Anjaam-e-Aatham, page 13.

"So many books full of vile abuse and defamation of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, have been printed and published the perusal of which makes one’s body tremble. Our heart is so much in tribulation that if these people were to slaughter our children before our eyes and were to cut to pieces our sincere and beloved friends and were to kill us with great humiliation and were to take possession of our belongings, we call God to witness that even in such case we would not suffer so much grief and our heart would not be so severely wounded as we have suffered and endured under this abuse and defamation which has been directed against the Holy Prophet, peace and blessing of Allah be upon him" - Aaina-e-Kamalaat-e-Islam, page 51.

The point to ponder anyway is, that if indeed Hadhrat Mirza sahib was bent on abusing Prophets (Allah forbid), then what prevented him from abusing the Holy Prophet (Allah forbid)? And yet, there´s not even a hint of anything such in his writings. We must also bear in mind here that a lot of other Muslim Ulema too employed this method to counter the anti-Islam literature published by Christian writers those days. The first link below contains a few of those examples in writing, and the YouTube link below that too contains examples from the writing of Muslim Ulema of those days......

https://ahmadianswers.com/ahmad/allegations/writings/disrespect/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQQd0JQ7xE4

Even today there´s an ever-present example of this method in the online world. Osama Abdallah, a very famous man of knowledge, originally from Lebanon I think (I used to know him personally a bit some years ago), runs one of the most, or perhaps the most, famous website which answers allegations of Christians and also Jews made against Islam. I quote a few examples from his website....

"Not that his physique in itself is the problem, but it certainly brings into question his harsh standards about giving up everything you have (Matthew 19:21), while he lives off of everything you have, and gets fat and also gets drunk???  It also supports that he really was between Satan and GOD during the his 40 days and nights of temptation.  He suffered, and he got very weak that Angels had to come down to help him.  And he also had "EVIL DESIRES" and he COVETED during this temptation."

"See how Jesus obeyed Satan and climbed the top of the temple (as tall as a castle) to jump and commit suicide.  See also how Jesus coveted the sins of the world for 40 days and 40 nights during his temptation by Satan.  Jesus also.... lusted after the sinful kingdoms of the world, and their harlots.  He coveted all of them."

Link:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/trinity_crucified.htm#king_kong

I´ve censored the above passage slightly and left out a word or two, as otherwise it might´ve been a little too unsuitable for our readers. So you can imagine the stuff that the website contains about Judeo-Christian Prophets. Have some more below.

"..... three-year old slave girls were also ordered to be raped by Moses."

Link:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/age3.htm

I suppose the next book of Umera sahiba will be about Osama Abdallah, an Internet hero of Muslims - especially the youth? All in all, the answer given by Waseem in the book is definitely not the answer that Ahmadis give to these allegations, allegations which we´ve been refuting since over hundred years.

11. " '.... If there‘s a Masjid-e-Aqsa in our city, then what about the other Masjid-e-Aqsa in Palestine? Would God want to confuse Muslims by having the same sacred mosque in two separate places? And never mind the Muslims, what about the Christians and the Jews - they too believe that this mosque was the very first Qibla. Isn‘t it odd that we should not believe this?' " - Imama Hashim, on page 55.

I´m fully with Imama on this! It is indeed very odd that we shouldn´t believe this, but the fact outside the anti-Ahmadiyya propaganda world of Umera Ahmad is that Ahmadis indeed believe so! Masjid al-Aqsa situated in Jerusalem is indeed Qibla-tul-Awwal (see Qur´an 2:144), and there´s no Ahmadi who´s denying this! Of all the allegations present in the book, this one takes the cake for the sheer nonsense nature of it. I can´t even get my head around this and have run out of words and ideas to answer this. No Ahmadi denies the highly exalted status of that mosque. Although the book in general contains no references, but a reference from our literature on this would´ve been nice so that I could make some sense of it.

As for questions such as "Would God want to confuse Muslims.... ?" It seems as if the author of the book had been spending time with Atheists, because questions of such a nature come in abundance from them; such as "If God really loves us, then why did he create different religions and then sects within them? Why did he not create just one religion to unite mankind? Why did he not reveal just one book so that all could read the same book to gain guidance from it? Why so many different Prophets?", and so on..... Umera sahiba clearly seems to have borrowed an argument from them!

"Say, 'What think you? If Allah should take away your hearing and your sight, and seal up your hearts, who is the god other than Allah who could bring it back to you?' See how We vary the Signs, yet they turn away" - Qur´an 6:46.

12. And as always, page 51 contains a hint towards the allegation that Ahmadiyyat is run on foreign funding and Ahmadis receive financial help from foreign to propagate their faith in countries such as Pakistan. To be exact, we´re all aware that the allegation is that we receive help from western Christian nations, and also that Ahmadiyyat was planted by them to misguide Muslims.

A) However, our opponents are so confused with regards to their allegations that they don´t even know which way to take, which track to adopt in terms of allegations. On one hand Hadhrat Mirza sahib was an agent of Christians, yet on the other hand they accuse that he wrote abusive stuff against Jesus Christ and did character assassination of him! So, let me get it straight: Christians asked their agent to abuse their Son of God? One thing which the war between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan must´ve taught Muslims (or Pakistan in this case) is that when western Christian powers make a plan of "using" someone or a nation, they make a far more solid plan than what our opponents accuse them and Ahmadis of. Also, how can an agent of Christians end up going into debates and duals with Christian priest themselves? This sounds like a plan gone horribly wrong!

B) Furthermore, here´s the most important point to consider: in the history and literature of Islam, or possibly in the history of religion itself, the most horrific figured ever painted is Dajjal. Some horrific stuff and seriously damaging abilities have been attributed to him in Ahadith of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Whereas the mainstream belief is that Dajjal will be a person, a human-being, the belief of the Ahmadiyya Community is that Dajjal wasn´t going to be some human-being with super powers, but the western Christians powers (who´re bombarding one Muslim country after another). How can we hold such a belief if indeed we were the agents of Christian powers?

C) One of the great arguments that Hadhrat Mirza sahib presented to combat Christianity, especially its belief in Trinity, was that Jesus Christ is dead. Hence, their Son of God died a natural death almost two thousand years ago, and therefore he cannot be god, for God doesn´t die and is neither buried in a grave. Therefore, as opposed to have raised from the dead and now sitting on the right Hand of Hand, the Christ died like all human-beings do. For Muslim Ulema opposing him, he quoted powerful verses such as the one below to present his case.....

"And those on whom they call beside Allah create not anything, but they are themselves created. They are dead, not living; and they know not when they will be raised" - Qur´an 16:20-21.

D) Recently, the Instagram account of our most active online preacher, Raziullah Nouman (Twitter: @StudentOfAhmad), was banned by them at the complaint of the Government of Pakistan. The account continues to face issues even today. Surely, it seems as if online social media platforms are working together with the Imran Khan Government, despite the fact that brother Razi is a Canadian citizen. I leave to you to decide who´s whose agent!

E) Our opponents obviously have enough time to write books to misportray our faith and to take our our literature out of context, but they don´t focus on the sermons and speeches of our current Caliph, Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad sahib. If they had, they would´ve heard him speak constantly against warfare against Muslims by the worldly powers, and also the atrocities that Muslims are subjected to in Kashmir, Palestine, Syria etc. He has also been very vocal on the conflict with Iran, and has also warned Muslims against falling into sectarianism to abandon Iran based on them belonging to the Shia sect (sounds familiar!). He has constantly been warning against a third World War breaking out - as foretold in chapter 'al-Kahf' of the Holy Qur´an according to Ahmadis. Recently, there has been running a campaign in Germany against the Syrian refugees, citing the increase in criminal activities in the country. Our Caliph has spoken against this too, saying that we shouldn´t generalise about all of them based on the acts of a few, as some very good and honest people from the war-torn Syria have come over here to find peace in life. The least we can do is to accept these helpless people in these countries. He was also greatly grieved by the Christchurch mosque attack, pointing out that terrorism after all has no religion.

F) When Muslims were mightily pleased with the "friendship" with America, when Pakistan was most happy with their American masters, here´s what a man of God, the fourth Caliph of our community had to say.......

"But Syria is in real danger and may likely be the next victim of their designs. This country has recently emerged as a military power. It would be a colossal misconception, indeed a folly, on the part of Syria if it thinks that it would be spared because of its alignment with the western powers in the current war against Iraq. As long as Israel stands as a power at its borders, Syria cannot be secure" - Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad sahib, in a Friday sermon delivered on 8th February 1991.

And see how these words got fulfilled in our age in the most literal sense!

G) Prophets of God being asked of having forces and powers behind them to shield them is nothing new. The Holy Qur´an itself contains a couple of mighty references to such allegations.

"They replied, 'O´ Shuaib, we do not understand much of that which you say, and surely, we see that you are weak among us. And were it not for your tribe, we would surely stone you. And you hold no strong position among us' " - Qur´an 11:91.

"And those who disbelieve say, 'It is naught but a lie which he has forged, and other people have helped him with it.' Indeed, they have brought forth an injustice and an untruth. And they say, 'These are fables of the ancients; and he has got them written down, and they are dictated to him morning and evening' " - Qur´an 25:4-5.

Whereas in the first verse we find that the people of Prophet Shuaib (peace be upon him) too thought that it´s his tribe which is shielding him, in the second set of verses you can see that the disbelievers accused Prophet Muhammad too of having been involved in a conspiracy in which he´s aided by other - Allah forbid! As the verse below highlights, the disbelievers even went to the extent of claiming that they´d caught the man who secretly helps the Holy Prophet with the Qur´an (Allah forbid).......

"And indeed We know that they say that it is only a man who teaches him. But the tongue of him to whom they unjustly incline in making this insinuation is foreign, while this is Arabic tongue, plain and clear" - Qur´an 16:103.

"...... They referred to a foreign (i.e., non-Arab) man who lived among them as the servant of some of the clans of Quraysh and who used to sell goods by As-Safa. Maybe the Messenger of Allah used to sit with him sometimes and talk to him a little, but he was a foreigner who did not know much Arabic, only enough simple phrases to answer questions when he had to.... " - Tafseer Ibn Katheer on Qur´an verse 16:103.

Different theories exist about who this foreign man was; some say that he was a Christian and some that he was a Jew. Either way, I think that it´s best if I conclude my answers to the allegations with a verse which immediately follows the above one.....

"As for those who do not believe in the Signs of Allah, surely, Allah will not guide them, and they shall have a grievous punishment" - Qur´an 16:104.

*Note: a tremendous amount of credit for this very long write-up of mine must go to our leaders and other scholars, reading whose writings over the years enabled me to acquire the little bit of knowledge that I´ve used herewith. May Allah reward them immensely, Aameen.*

All in all, one thing on which I fully agree with Umera sahiba is that the Holy Prophet is indeed "Peer-e-Kaamil" ("The perfect mentor"). Where would we be and where would this world be if not for his teachings and guidance, and the Qur´an which Allah revealed upon him? May Allah´s choicest blessings be upon him, his family and his Companions; Aameen.

Lastly, I must mention here the friend who recommended this book to me. Given the amount of propaganda this book contains against our faith, I would´ve probably given it a miss as soon as I ran into the relevant pages, but I read it and went through it patiently till the end for her sake, as otherwise if we really are looking to answer allegations we can easily log onto any anti-Ahmadiyya website. For her sake, I also composed a general review as well in the first chapter. Although my write-up has general application, for every Ahmadi Muslim who comes across this book and every non-Ahmadi Muslim who thinks that this book paints a correct picture of our beliefs, but it´ll be nice if that particular friend of mine reads it and is made aware through this that our beliefs are not as this book depicts - despite the difference in mine and her beliefs.

Warm regards,

Rawal Afzal (Twitter: @R_A_Azaad and @The_Traveller27).