May 2014
May
2014 Webcasting on the world’s first real-time Islamic service at www.virtualmosque.co.uk Editors: Shahid Aziz Mustaq Ali
Contents:
Page
The Call of the Messiah Question and Answer by Dr Zahid Aziz Oral Traditions in Islam and Judaism by JustStoppingBy
1 3 5
ْ س مِباہللْالرَّ م ٰ ن ْحالرَّ ْ ی م حم ْ ْ The Call of the Messiah by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Promised Messiah and Mahdi Denial of Hadith We are, however, inclined to acknowledge and admit that some Muslim scholars in the intervening time have imposed wrong interpretations upon these Traditions and thereby had a very bad effect on people, so that those persons who were rational and reflective such as the Mu‘tazilah (those who believe that all good is from God and all bad is from man), shook their heads in disgust when they heard these irrational interpretations and denied the validity of the Traditions altogether. But since this denial was not based on any historical investigation and research, but merely on the assumption that the
subject matter was irrational and unacceptable, the validity of the Traditions could not be impugned or even diminished in any way; on the contrary, despite their rejection and denial, Traditions of this kind had such a highly ranked chain of transmission that even these people could not discount and discredit this continuous repetition and remained hopelessly bewildered and stupefied. If those interpretations that are put forward and applied today had been propounded at that time, there would not have been a single school of Islamic thought to say no and disagree. But it is regrettable indeed that the imposition of a literal significance on every metaphorical statement or figure of speech made these Traditions such a perilous path to tread that no rational seeker after truth could keep his footing on it. There is, therefore, no blame or censure upon the Traditions. Rather, it is clearly the indiscretion of those who misinterpreted them and threw people into a sorry state of error. Even in the hands of the sceptics of the modern age who refuse to accept the validity of Traditions there is no other argument besides finding the meanings propounded by contemporary Muslim scholars unacceptable to reason and logic and repugnant alike to Divine practice and to the Law of Nature. But they could be exempted and excused only as long as the true and correct meanings that are in complete consonance and consistency with the Law of God had not been disclosed to them. It would, therefore, be
May 2014
2 a sheer injustice and a shame if now, in the face of rational interpretations, a chain of transmission of the first rank and the consensus and concord of Islam and Christianity on this point, these Traditions were summarily dismissed and rejected. It is a necessary requirement that those who refuse to accept those Traditions that foretell the advent of the Promised Messiah should first acquaint themselves with the fact of their continuous repetition, as well as every sort of proof attached to these Traditions, and that they should next ponder over the solid truth that the announcement is found not only in the books of Hadith but also in the sacred scriptures of the Jews, the Gospel of the Christians and the Holy Quran, then last of all in the Traditions of the Holy Prophet where it has been dealt with in full detail. It is, therefore, plainly evident that all these three communities have been putting their faith in this news with complete trust and conviction. The Divine Law of Nature, too, which has the aim in view that at every time of crisis and corruption an inspired reformer qualified and fit to deal with the situation should appear on the scene, vouches for and verifies this announcement. The calamities and afflictions which plunder and pillage faith and face us at every turn, and before which all the innovations and evils of the last 1,300 years put together pale into insignificance, also require and demand that God Most High should set His heavenly forces in motion in order to bring aid and succour to the true faith. What obstacles could there be then, other than prejudice and unjust self-interest, that stand in the way of this prophecy’s acceptance?
A Reformer urgently needed Is it difficult to believe that if God truly is, and if religion, too, amounts to anything, then the Divine sense of honour invested in both would see to it that an attack is mounted from the side of the Living God equal to or even more forceful than the one launched from the other side for the propagation of unbelief and falsehood, so that people may be induced to believe that God is and that His religion is indeed true? Has there been no opportunity up to this time to notice that Islam is, in fact, in an utterly helpless condition? Internally, practical experience shows that
the Holy Quran has, as it were, gone up to the highest heaven, while externally, the opponents, due to misunderstanding and misconceptions, have raised thousands of objections against Islam, casting a dark shadow over millions of minds. How can it, therefore, be denied that a great Reformer is badly needed in order to revive and restore the pristine spirituality of Islam and beat back the invaders from outside? It may, however, be remarked that these days for the defence of the faith are not the days for wielding the sword, for our opponents, too, have not launched any attack with sword or shell in order to propagate their faith, but it has been carried out with pen, paper and platform. It is, therefore, necessary that our attacks should also be limited and confined to pen and platform, just as Islam in its early days made no attack with the sword against any nation until that nation first wielded the sword against Islam. So it is not only unfair and unjust to take up the sword at this time in defence of religion but it is tantamount to admitting that we are incapable of defeating the enemy with pen, platform and irrefu-
May 2014
3 table arguments, for it is the habit of liars and weak persons that when they fail in debate then they become hostile and quarrelsome. To have recourse to such violent conflict at the present time would be giving a bad name to the true and glorious religion of God Most High. Just bring to mind and recall how the Holy Prophet (pbuh) suffered all kinds of persecution for thirteen long years at the hands of the unbelievers in Mecca, and rendered them speechless only by means of decisive arguments, and did not take up the sword until after the enemy, unsheathing their swords, had put many a noble soul to death. It is, therefore, unIslamic to meet verbal opposition with the sword of violence. It may be the work of the meanspirited and weak, but not that of Islam.
Parallels between the Mosaic and Islamic Dispensations The prophecy of the Promised Messiah, as I have stated above, is found not only in Hadith, but the news has been transmitted in a very elegant way by the Holy Quran also. It holds out a promise that in Islam, too, a system of khilafat will be established on the lines of the system that had obtained in the prophethood of the Israelites*. This promise obviously contains within itself the glad tidings of the coming of a Messiah, for, on careful consideration of the system of khilafat of the prophets of Israel, we find that it started with Moses and came to a close after 1,400 years with the advent of Jesus the Christ, and that the Promised Messiah of the Jews, the happy news of whose advent had been communicated to them beforehand, appeared 1,400 years after those in the garb of the humble and poor; and it is necessary for the completion of this resemblance which the Holy Quran has established between the two systems that every just and fair-minded person should accept and admit that just as there was a promise of the coming of a Messiah at the end of the Mosaic dispensation, in the same way, there is a promise of the coming of a Messiah at the end of the Islamic khilafat. It is also necessary for the complete similarity of the two systems that, just as a Messiah appeared among the Children of Israel after the 1,400 years of the Mosaic dispensation had passed, in the same way and after the same period a Messiah should make his appearance in the khilafat of Islam; and just as the Jewish divines condemned the Messiah of the Mosaic system as (God forbid) an unbeliever, a
heretic and a dajjal (Antichrist), in the same way the scholars of the Muslim community should condemn the Messiah of the Islamic dispensation as an unbeliever, a heretic and a dajjal. Moreover, it is also necessary for the complete resemblance between the two systems that, just as the Messiah of the Mosaic khilafat came at a time when the Jews had fallen into moral decline, when great confusion and chaos had overtaken their honesty and fair dealing, fear of God and piety, mutual goodwill and tolerance, and when their rule over the very country in which the Messiah had appeared for their good and guidance had passed out of their hands, in the same way, the Promised Messiah of Islam should make his appearance at a similar time of trouble and adversity for the community. ٰ وا ِم ْن ُک ْم َو َع ِملُوا ہ ْ َُّللاُ الَّ ِذیْنَ ہا َمن ٰ َو ْعد ہ * َض َک َما ا ْست َْخلَف ِ ْالصلِ ہحتِ لِیَ ْست َْخلِفَنَّھُ ْم فِ ْی ْاْلَر ال َّ ِذیْنَ ِم ْن قَبْلِھِمAllah has promised to those of you who believe and do good that He will surely make them Khalifaha in the earth as He made those before them Khalifahs.
Question and Answer by Dr Zahid Aziz Question (sent by e-mail): I wish to say from the outset that I am not a member of either the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community or the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement for the Propagation of Islam. I am simply someone with an interest in theology and religious philosophy who wishes to gather the proper information to better my understanding. This is simply for personal research. And please know that if anything I write or ask is construed as offensive, inconsiderate or disrespectful, that is not my intention at all. I just wish to acquire the correct information. In researching the Ahmadiyya movement, I have gotten numerous books written by both groups within the movement and am currently reading The Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement by Muhammad Ali. The book is well-written and very precisely quotes the passages which clarify any misconceptions those outside the movement may have. But I have a question regards the difference in interpretation over Mizra Ghulam Ahmad’s position as a subordinate prophet, mujaddid and Mahdi (as the AMC believes) versus his being solely the mujaddid and Mahdi (as the Lahore Ahmadiyya does).
May 2014
4 In the book mentioned above, Mr. Ali quotes Mr. Ahmad as saying, “My claim is to be a muhaddath, and this I have made by Divine Command. There is no doubt that muhaddathiyya contains a strong part of prophethood” (p. 67). And he also quotes Mr. Ahmad as having said, “Be it known to all the Muslims that all such words as occur in my writings … to the effect that the muhaddath is in one sense a prophet, or
both interpretations are close in how they view Mr. Ahmad, as they deny he was a prophet who could come after Muhammad, and had elements of prophethood in a sense. So, is it wrong to suggest that the idea of subordinate prophethood and metaphorical prophethood are different ways to express the same concept? Similar to how one can say that they are feeling ‘irritated’and another person can say that they are feeling ‘annoyed’? These two words essentially relay the same concept but with different terms. I eagerly await your clarification on this matter! And once again, if my question offends you, that was absolutely not my intention.
Answer by Zahid Aziz: Thank you for your enquiry. Please don’t think for a moment that your question is offensive to us. In fact, we would welcome more such questions from people.
that muhaddathiyya is partial prophethood or imperfect prophethood, are not to be taken in the real sense” (p. 43). So, it seems clear that Mr. Ahmad denied being a prophet who could add more or new ideas to what the Prophet Muhammad had revealed, keeping his role as Seal of the Prophets intact. But at the same time he writes that, at least in a sense, his role as a muhaddath had partial elements of the traditional role of prophets in Islam. One the one hand, the Qadian branch takes this to mean that Mr. Ahmad was a subordinate prophet who, while not capable of revealing new information and commandments from Allah, was charged with continuing the efforts of the Prophet Muhammad and enlightening the ummah about misconceptions and misinterpretations of the Quranic text. But on the other hand, the Lahore branch interprets this to mean that prophet can only be in the sense of what Isa, Musa and Muhammad were as Prophets: those who reveal new commandments. My question is whether or not these two interpretations are truly irreconcilable? From my reading and understanding it seems that
Firstly, please note that the concept of a muhaddas (if I may spell it as pronounced by us rather than its strict transliteration) as being “in one sense a prophet” is based on the Quran and Hadith, and was mentioned by Muslim scholars long before the time of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. So he said nothing new about this concept. Secondly, the AMC [i.e., Qadiani Jamaat] hold that Hazrat Mirza only claimed to be a muhaddas till the year 1901, and that in that year he changed his claim from muhaddas to prophet. Therefore AMC are recognizing him as holding a higher position than muhaddas. You ask: “So, is it wrong to suggest that the idea of subordinate prophethood and metaphorical prophethood are different ways to express the same concept?” That depends on what status one assigns to ‘subordinate prophethood’. You write that what AMC means by this term is: “On the one hand, the Qadian branch takes this to mean that Mr. Ahmad was a subordinate prophet who, while not capable of revealing new information and commandments from Allah, was charged with continuing the efforts of the
May 2014
5 Prophet Muhammad and enlightening the ummah about misconceptions and misinterpretations of the Quranic text.”
I suggest that you read another book by Maulana Muhammad Ali, entitled The Split, written in 1918, which is at this link:
But this is an incomplete description of what they mean. It is clearly stated in the writings of their first head, Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad being a prophet means that:
http://www.ahmadiyya.org/bookspdf/split/ conts.htm
“all those so-called Muslims who have not entered into his Bai‘at formally, wherever they may be, are Kafirs and outside the pale of Islam, even though they may not have heard the name of the Promised Messiah” (English book: The Truth about the Split). In the same book, explaining why this is so, he wrote: “The man who rejects a Prophet thus necessarily becomes a kafir…. Now, as Islam bases its judgments upon what is patent and not upon what is possible, it cannot but class as kafir such as fail to accept any of the Prophets, even though such failure may be due to their want of information concerning him.” It was such views that brought about the split in the Ahmadiyya Movement because the Lahore Ahmadiyya pioneers held that according to the teachings of Islam a Muslim cannot be called a kafir and outside the fold of Islam and they held that this was confirmed by Hazrat Mirza, who also declared that no Muslim becomes a kafir by not accepting his claims. The AMC doctrine that all other Muslims are non-believers in Islam is not only a theoretical belief but is manifested in their practical relations with other Muslims. For example, they refuse to pray behind any other Muslim, even though that Muslim may regard Ahmadis as Muslims and be friendly towards them. They refuse to hold the Islamic funeral prayer for any other Muslim, even behind their own AMC imam. For example, if an AMC member’s father or mother is a Muslim but is not an AMC member, and dies, and the AMC member wishes the AMC to hold Islamic funeral prayers for the deceased, the AMC refuses to do this on the basis that the Islamic funeral prayers are only held for Muslims who die and the deceased was a nonMuslim.
You may also be interested in reading my recent book (The True Succession) which I am attaching here. You are welcome to discuss this or any other issue with us.
Oral Traditions in Islam and Judaism (Editor’s Note: The following is an article taken from the website Loonwatch.com under the description “Original Guest Post” and credited to JustStoppingBy.) Both Judaism and Islam rely on oral traditions that explain and put texts into context and can help counter misperceptions of the religions. One of the sources of Islamophobia and Judeophobia is the selective quoting of religious passages that, either taken out of their literal context or without the context of how they have been interpreted, suggest that the adherents of Islam and Judaism repeat and harbor seemingly harsh views. When the literal context is missing, sometimes just referring to the preceding or following verses is sufficient to counter any misconceptions and let a stereotype go. In other instances, the religions’ oral traditions may help elucidate how adherents read those verses. As Passover approaches, I want to highlight two well-known (at least among Jews) portions of the Jewish oral tradition that appear at the Passover seder and how, in broad terms, they relate to some well-known portions of the Islamic oral tradition because they are used by adherents to help put other texts into context. The Passover seder relates the story of the Jews’ exodus from Egypt. Within the story, there is a listing of the ten plagues with which the Egyptians were smitten. As each plague is recited, Jews either spill a drop of wine or use a finger (more traditionally) or utensil to take a drop of
May 2014
6 wine from their cup and discard it on a plate or napkin. It is not clear how far back the common explanation for this ritual goes, though it is at least as far as Rabbi Yitzhak Ben Yehuda Abarbanel, or Don Isaac Abarbanel. (1437–1508) who wrote, “The custom is to drip drops of wine out of the cup when counting the plagues to indicate that our joy is not whole because on our account an entire people was punished. Even though the enemy deserved that defeat, it does not cause us real joy.” My guess is that the explanation, if not the tradition itself, developed over time. A likely reason is that Jews saw a “difficult text,” or one that can have multiple interpretations, and wished to emphasize the interpretations that resonated with their view of their religion’s morality. A similar portion of oral history that works its way into many seders is a midrash, or interpretation of the Torah, found in the Talmud that describes what was happening in Heaven as the Red Sea closed over the Egyptian army that was pursuing the Children of Israel: “The ministering angels wanted to chant their hymns, but the Holy One, blessed be He, said, The work of my hands is being drowned in the sea, and shall you chant hymns?” As is the case with many midrashim, some Jews take this as a literal revelation and others as a story made up later to provide a moral lesson. For my purposes here, it does not matter which it is. Rather, what matters is that hundreds of years after this midrash was first recorded, Jews find it worthwhile to retell every year because it provides context for our understanding of an important Jewish text. Turning to Islam, I would like to highlight a few portions of its oral history. One I take from an essay by Imam Shamsi Ali, who writes, “Our
oral history records Muhammad’s last sermon as containing the following guidance: ‘Even as the fingers of the two hands are equal, so are human beings equal to one another. No one has any right, nor any preference to claim over another. You are brothers.’” I chose this quote not because of its meaning, but because of how Imam Shamsi Ali explicitly ties it to the oral history. Still, an Internet search shows that this is indeed a popular quote, appearing in numerous locations. That should not be surprising given that it is the type of quote that should resonate with Muslims when thinking about the moral messages provided by Islam, with the equality of human beings being one of those messages. A second piece of the Muslim oral tradition was cited by Arsalan Iftikhar in his interview with Loonwatch: “…we should be reminded of a well-known Islamic parable that tells the story of the Prophet Mohammed and his interactions with an unruly female neighbor, who would curse him violently and then dump garbage on him from her top window each time he walked by her house. One day, the prophet noticed that the woman was not there. In the spirit of true kindness, he went out of his way to inquire about her well-being. He then went on to visit his unfriendly neighbor at her bedside when he found that she had fallen seriously ill.” This is indeed a well-known parable, found frequently on the web, including in comments at Loonwatch. But, here is one potentially surprising thing about this particular story: it is not clear that it is authentic. While there are similar stories, some investigations of this particular one have yielded results such as “I have not found a basis for this specific incident in the books of hadeeth or reliable works of prophetic biography, and it seems as
May 2014
7 though this story has become popular on the tongues of people without any source to support it, and Allah knows best” as well as “although the record of this particular incident is found in almost all the books of ‘Seerah’ or biography of the Prophet (saws) and is oft-repeated by the Muslims, to the best of our knowledge there is no record of this specific incident in any of the authentic and established Books of Sunnah. And Allah Alone Knows Best.” As with the midrash on the angels preparing to rejoice, for my purposes it does not matter if this story is authentic. The fact that this story is so popular even without it being found in what may be called the reliable or authentic hadith or Books of Sunnah only strengthens the point that Muslims repeat this story not because they are “forced” to because it is part of canonical literature that must be repeated, but, rather, they repeat it because its message resonates with their view of the morality of Islam. Another reason that I chose the quotation provided from Imam Shamsi Ali is the further observation provided by his co-author, Rabbi Marc Schneier, in one of his essays in the samebook. Rabbi Schneier writes, “Most Jews and most Muslims, however, are simply unaware of the good news that the other side has an oral tradition that moderates the sometimes harsh language of the written law. The ignorance among the majority in both faiths allows the demagogic purveyors of hate to peddle their poison virtually unchallenged.” Compare this with a statement by one such demagogic purveyor of hate, Deacon Robert Spencer, who has written, “Rabbinic Judaism ever since the destruction of the Temple had evolved non-literal ways to understand such commands, while in Islam such literal interpretation is still very much alive.” In fact, Spencer is misleadingly inaccurate on both counts: Judaism had evolved non-literal ways of interpreting “problem texts” before the destruction of the Temple, and there are both literal and nonliteral interpretations of “problem texts” very much alive in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It is the latter point, however, that is the more im-
portant. By suggesting solely that there are literal interpretations of “problem texts” in Islam, Spencer hides the existence of similar interpretations in Judaism and Christianity as well as the many Muslims who highlight stories such as Muhammad’s concern for a woman who would throw trash on him (whether the story is literally true or not) as a lens through which they interpret any texts that could be read to call for retaliation for aggressive acts. As Imam Shamsi Ali writes in one essay, “The guidance found in scripture is not meant to be taken only literally. … Our stance is that though the Qur’an is sometimes exact, to extrapolate the wisdom in its passages, we need not see the texts as simply static, literal words.” Strikingly, the Qur’an has no problem citing Jewish Oral Law. “Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.” Qur’an 5:32. The reference may be to Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 (“Therefore was the first man, Adam, created alone, to teach us that whoever destroys a single life, the Bible considers it as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a single life, the Bible considers it as if he saved an entire world. Furthermore, only one man, Adam, was created for the sake of peace among men, so that no one should say to his fellow, ‘My father was greater than yours…’”) or potentially other similar references such as Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 4:1 (22a). Whether one believes an Islamic interpretation that Qur’an 5:32 was revealed to Muhammad, or a secular one that the ayah repeats something that Muhammad heard, this ayah shows a continuity of belief and a tie between the oral Jewish tradition (which by that point had been written down) and written Muslim tradition. Yet for some “demagogic purveyors of hate,” as Rabbi Schneier calls them, this is not a sign that Muslims view the Qur’an as part of a continuous revelation sometimes referencing Jew-
May 2014
8 ish and Christian scriptures. Instead, these Islamophobes claim to “find further proof of plagiarism of apocryphal Jewish literature; this time in the Jewish Mishnah Sanhedrin” or title a section of an antiIslam screed “Plagiarism in Quran,” citing the same passages. If only the Qur’an had managed to avoid the charge of plagiarism by introducing the text by saying something like “We decreed upon the Children of Israel.” Oh wait, it did! Presumably, the demagogic purveyors of hate would not be satisfied with anything short of a footnote and embedded hyperlink in the text when it was compiled over 1,300 years ago. Certain Islamophobes who accuse the Qur’an of plagiarism in this verse, despite the explicit reference to a decree to the Children of Israel, seem less concerned with how Jesus’ statement in Matthew 7:12 (“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”) does not reference Tobit 7:15 (“And what you hate, do not do to anyone”) or a well-known (among Jews) saying of Hillel the Elder (traditionally c. 110 BCE, died 7 CE): “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.” One notable demagogic purveyor of hate, Ali Sina, has written, “There is nothing in the Quran and Hadith that would make us believe that Islam is compatible with
the Golden Rule.” Actually, Wikipedia provides a dozen quotes from the Qur’an and Hadith that are variants of the Golden Rule. The one that struck me the most was one that echoed Hillel: “A Bedouin came to the prophet, grabbed the stirrup of his camel and said: O the messenger of God! Teach me something to go to heaven with it. Prophet said: ‘As you would have people do to you, do to them; and what you dislike to be done to you, don’t do to them. Now let the stirrup go! [This maxim is enough for you; go and act in accordance with it!]’ —Kitab al-Kafi, vol. 2, p. 146.” All three of the Abrahamic faiths thus not only cite the Golden Rule in some form, but have traditions citing it as a maxim that sums up the morality of their religious texts or beliefs. It is only by being selective in what they cite from the written and oral traditions that the demagogic purveyors of hate could hope to obscure this commonality. Instead, it is worth taking the time to review the full range of the traditions of each religion, notably those cited repeatedly by their adherents because they resonate with their view of their religion’s morality. And then, it is time to let the stereotype, and the stirrup, go. (Reproduced from: http:www.loonwatch.com/2014/04/ oral-traditions-in-islam-and-judaism/)
Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha‘at Islam Lahore (UK) The first Islamic Mission in the UK, established 1913 as the Woking Muslim Mission Dar-us-Salaam, 15 Stanley Avenue, Wembley, UK, HA0 4JQ Centre: 020 8903 2689 President: 020 8529 0898 Secretary: 01753 575313 E-mail: aaiiLahore@gmail.com Websites: www.aaiil.org/uk | www.ahmadiyya.org | www.virtualmosque.co.uk Donations: www.virtualmosque.co.uk/donations