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).
Monday, 30 September 2019
Wednesday, 11 September 2019
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.
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:
"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
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).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,
Sunday, 1 September 2019
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......
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,
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)