Fauzia Faizi confirms that the Mirza family is full of incest and rapists

The Mirza family are a group of sick people. MGA’s son, the famous Musleh Maud preyed on boys and girls. The British Government allowed him to do whatever he wanted.  A few years ago, Fauzia Faizi did an interview wherein she described the inner workings of the Mirza family, Samina Khan, a German politician also weighed in. Fauzia Faizi also discussed how Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad was raping his own daughter and etc. Fauzia Faizi is the great grand daughter of a companion of MGA, Dr. Syed Abdus Sattar Shah. She is also the niece of Abd u Rehman Khadim (Author of Ahmadiyya Pocket Book). 

The family of Fauzia Faizi
Her father was Professor Faizi (Faiz-ur-Rehman), he taught at T.I. College in Rabwah, Pakistan for many years. He seems to be related Maulvi Barkat Ali. Her father had 3 brothers and 3 sisters, 7 in total. On her mom’s side she is directly and closely related to Mirza Tahir Ahmad.  Her mom (Seema) was the eldest daughter of to Syed Wali Ullah, who was a son Dr. Syed Abdus Sattar Shah. Seema had 6 siblings, 5 sisters in total and 2 brothers. Fauzia Faizi’s uncle was Malik Aziz-ur-Rehman.

When Syeda Maryam died in 1944
Fauzia Faizi was told that her aunty, Syeda Maryam was physically and mentally tortured by the Khalifa. They said that she died of depression, however, there were other reasons. As soon as she died, the Khalifa, Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad, who was 55 years old at the time, began frequenting the house of Fauzia Faizi’s mother. Fauzia Faizi’s mother was barely 14 years old at the time. The Khalifa even proposed marriage with her. However, Fauzia Faizi’s grandmother said NO, and was very upset by this proposal.

The Khalifa forces Fauzia Faizi’s mother to marry Professor Faizi
Fauzia Faizi’s mother was forcibly married to Professor Faizi, per the order of the Khalifa.


Links and related Essays

My Maryam – Part I

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #ahmadiyyat #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #drsalam #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Sialkot #Mosqueattack

Featured post

Dr. Abdus Salam liked white women, alcohol and a busy British lifestyle


The life of Dr. Salam is not properly explained by Ahmadiyya sources. In this essay, we will present the proper data and leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions. However, you will notice that during the life of Dr. Salam, he never allowed anyone to mention his second wife (girlfriend) and those circumstances (see the Al-Nahl of 1997, which has 200+ pages of data on Dr. Salam, however, they barely mention his second wife and those 2 amazing kids, see page 200). We (the writers at this blog) don’t see his relationships as a meaning of shame or anything, we are just pointing out that Dr. Dame Louise Napier Johnson, who per British law, was never his wife, instead a life-long girlfriend, was never given any acknowledgement by the Ahmadiyya Movement. We all know that Dr. Salaam eloped with Dr. Johnson in 1968…they were not married in any ceremony. Dr. Salaam didn’t care about any islamic laws, he was above the laws in Ahmadiyya and was never even questioned. However, a few years later, he had an ahmadi-mullah read the Nikkah. His son was born in 1974 (Umar) and a daughter was born in 1982 (Saeeda). Both of these children are shunned by the Ahmadiyya Movement. Dr. Salaam had allegiance to his cult-like religion and he respected the religion of his father, he thus never challenged anything in Ahmadiyya, he also believed that his intelligence was based on a revelation of MGA, in fact, in 1979 at the Jalsa in Rabwah, Salam claimed that it was the prayers of MGA which helped him become a nobel winner. IMHO, he was an Atheist, however, out of respect for his family, he supported Ahmadiyya as much as he could. However, he never had the courage to attempt to solve the dogmatic irregularities of the Ahmadiyya religion, like Yus Asaf and the eclipses. Salam’s life lasted over these years, born-January 1926, died on 21 November 1996. He was born in British-India, he chose to become a Pakistani after 1947, however, he began to hate Pakistan in 1953, right after the 1953 anti-Ahmadiyya riots. He moved out of Pakistan in and began working at Cambridge and joined St John’s College, and took a position as a professor of mathematics, this was in the UK of course. By 1964, when Ahmadi’s were thriving in Pakistan, he decided to help the country of Italy, which is unethical, since Mussolini supported Hitler in WW-2. Nevertheless, per the order of his Khalifa, he worked for Pakistan and Italy simultaneously and as an esteemed College Professor at Cambridge. However, after Ahmadi’s were declared Non-Muslim in 1974, he left his job with the Pakistani government and began to focus on his school of Physics in Trieste, Italy. Oct 1974 to late 1978 seems to be a dead era in his career. In 1979, he won the Nobel Prize in Physics.  In 1979, the President of Pakistan and head military dictator, Zia ul Haq invited Dr. Salaam to Pakistan and gave him full presidential treatment, they asked him to build a center of Physics, he was wined and dined, nevertheless, he still left Pakistan in 1980 and continued to work for Italy. Eventually, he died in 1996 of a rare brain disease wherein he had become a mute and at the house of his 2nd wife. Polygamy in the UK was illegal, hence, his second wife, Dr. Johnson was more like a lifelong girlfriend in British law.

Singh, Jagjit.  Abdus Salam (1992).

Ghani, Abdul (1982). “Science Advisor to the President (1960–1974)”. Abdus Salam: a Nobel laureate from a Muslim country : a biographical sketch.

abdus-salam-bio–Cosmic Anger, Fraser, Gordon.  (2008).  Free download

Dombey, Norman.  “Abdus Salam: A Reappraisal” (2011)

Mujahid, Kamran.  “The inspiring life of Abdus Salam” (2013)

Al-nahl, an Ahmadiyya magazine, 1997 tribute to Dr. Salam:
Al-Nahl-1997-v008-No_04 – Prof Muhammad Abdus Salam Issue

There are a few bios on Abdus Salaam.  Pervez Hoodboy has also spoke on Dr. Salaam here.  

According to his colleague, Dr. Weinberger, Dr. Salam was fond of “Scotch” whiskey–“Abdus Salam” by Kibble (1998)

Abdus Salam

His father was an educational official employed with the British Government
Abdus Salam was born  as a citizen of British-India to Chaudhry Muhammad Hussain and Hajira Hussain, into a Punjabi family that was part of the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam. In terms of caste-affiliation, they were Jats of Rajput descent from Jhang on his father’s side while his mother was a Kakazai from Gurdaspur.[22][23][24] His grandfather, Gul Muhammad, was a religious scholar as well as a physician[7] while his father was an education officer in the Department of Education of Punjab State in a poor farming district.  It is unclear how any of these people became Ahmadi’s, they are not tied to any of the early converts to Ahmadiyya.

Abdus Salam was born in Santokdas in the District of Sahiwal, this is 100 kilometers from modern day Jhang, Pakistan. Abdus Salam’s mother and her family were from Santokdas, his maternal grandfather was working, he also seemed to be an employee of the British government, it in unclear whether he was an Ahmadi or not. The reason that Abdus Salam was born in Santokdas instead of Jhang was because it was some type of cultural custom for their family that when a child is born, he is born in the family home of the woman, instead of the man, most likely because child birth requires great care and etc.  Abdus Salam’s only sister Hamida was also born in Santokdas, however, his additional 6 siblings (boys) were all born in Jhang, British Indian (See Kibble).  Abdus Salam was thus the eldest in a family of 8 children, however, he did have a half sister from his fathers first marriage which makes a total of 9 siblings.

By age 5, it was obvious that Abdus Salam was special.

His parents forced his siblings to serve him food and to clean his clothes and etc. Abdus Salam never worked any manual labor, nor did he play any sports. By today’s standards, he was a privileged kid.

At age 14, Salam scored the highest marks ever recorded for the matriculation (entrance) examination at the Punjab University (See Fraser). There was a huge celebration in the city of Jhang as Salam’s scores were reported to the entire city.

Abdus Salam graduates with a B.A. in Mathematics from Government College University, Lahore. While in Lahore, Abdus Salam went on to attend the graduate school of Government College University.[29]


He received his MA in Mathematics from the Government College University in 1946.[21] That same year, he was awarded a scholarship to St John’s College, Cambridge, where he completed a BA degree with Double First-Class Honours in Mathematics and Physics in 1949. This was a special Punjab Government scholarship to Cambridge program. Salam was really lucky, the head of the Punjab government has been collecting money to help in Allied war effort. The War ended in roughly 1945, there was lots of money that was left over.  150,000 rupees were left over (see Kibble), the head of the Punjab government agreed to allocate this money to the sons of poor farmers to study abroad. However, Salam was not the son of a farmer. Somehow, by buying some land, Salam’s father had qualified to receive the scholarship. On top of that, some other student had unexpectedly dropped out of Cambridge, thus leaving a seat open. The scholarship was totally cancelled the next year, Salam seems to have been the only beneficiary.

Dr. Salam meets Zafrullah Khan in 1946 in Liverpool
Co-incidentally, they both met as Dr. Salaam had arrived in the UK for higher studies.  They both scammed and schemed on behalf of Ahmadiyya their entire life.  However, it is important to note that Dr. Salaam never volunteered for Ahmadiyya and never wrote any articles in support of any Ahmadiyya theory.  He was silent on Jesus in India, the eclipses and many other scientific phenomenon.

1949, August 19th, Salam marries his first cousin
This topic is barely covered by all sources. In this era, Dr. Salam left home for the first time ever, in other words, he left his country, which was British-India, but, by 1947 it was the newly formed country, Pakistan. Salam was back and forth from the UK and Pakistan quite a bit in this era. (see al-Nahl). Salam deeply respected his father and always obeyed him. When he graduated from GC in 1946, he had never gone to the cinema because his father had forbidden him to do so. He was also scolded by his father for playing chess after which he never played the game. He used to say that he owed his success to his father’s prayers.

Dr. Salam married his cousin, Amtul Hafeez (she died in 2007), she was the sister of Col. G.M. Iqbal, 
They had 4 children.  In order of their ages:
Daughter–Dr. Aziza Rahman (born in June of 1950, in Multan), she married Dr. Hameed ur Rehman in the L.A. area
Daughter—Asifa (Born November 1954 in London)
Daughter–Bushra Salam Bajwa (Born in November of 1956 in Pakistan)
Son—-Ahmad Salam (Born in 1960, in the UK)

Aziza has a PhD in biochemistry, while Ahmad has a degree in Finance and works for a Kuwaiti company from London as an investment banker. All three daughters are housewives.

1951 to 1953
Salam lived in isolation, his wife and daughter lived in Multan, Salam lived in Lahore.  In the future, he would continue to live like this.  He spent the summers of 1952 and 1953 in London.
Salam completed his PhD thesis in 1951: Developments in quantum theory of fields. This was a rather brilliant work: in addition to making his name as a physicist, it resulted in him winning a share of the highly prestigious Adams Prize for mathematical sciences in 1956

In 1953, Dr. Salam moved to Cambridge, with his wife and young daughter Aziza
See Al-Nahl of 1997.

Salam was in love with a girl named Urmilla at the Govt College Lahore
It seems that Dr. Salam was already cheating on his new wife.  See Cosmic Anger.

January of 1954
Abdus Salaam turned his back on Pakistan after the 1953 riots on Ahmadiyya

Is Abdus Salaam a traitor to Pakistan?  Well, in this book, on pages 26-31.  It is stated that Dr. Salaam purposely and willfully was upset with Pakistan and moved away.  He then helped the UK and other countries develop educational programs in terms of physics.

This was the first time that Dr. Salaam turned his back on his country, however, it wasn’t the last.  Singh tells us that Salaam was personally threatened, and the riots were about his close friend, Zafrullah Khan, so Salaam was now eager to leave his people in Pakistan, and he fled to the UK and began giving up all of his islamic ideals on life (see pages 28-29, Singh).

Dr. Salam neglected all 6 of his children
Dr. Salam was so busy being an ambassador for Ahmadiyya, that he never truly enjoyed his life.  He never took a real vacation, nor did he even spend substantial time with his children.  Ahmad Salam stated in an interview for a documentary being made on Salam that he saw so little of his father that when he was six or seven years old he would ask his mother if he could bring his bedding into Salam’s bedroom and put it on the floor just to be close to him. “I wanted to be with him as much as possible.”[27] Two of his daughters have given us valuable glimpses of his family life and his work habits. They write:[28]

“”””His travels took him all over the world Thus, his work left him little time for the family life. … He was quite strict at home, especially where our studies were concerned. He would bring us each workbooks and before going to his college he would set us certain pages that we had to do. Whenever he returned from an overseas trip, he would call us into his room and check on our grades and progress. He encouraged us and gave us confidence by constantly reminding us of one of his favorite sayings, “Do your best and leave the rest to Allah.”…
He himself never stopped working…. My father maintained his meticulous work habits in an unflagging routine punctuated by “catnaps” and endless supplies of sweets and hot tea…He would go to bed around eight or nine o’ clock in the evening, and arise a very few hours later to work in the silent hours before dawn when his level of concentration and creativity would perhaps reach its peak, sustained by a thermos of hot, sweet tea and some snacks that we would place by his bedside before sleeping.””””

Dr. Salam’s nephew, Nasir Iqbal, son of the late Col. G.M. Iqbal
He was with Dr. Salam in his final years in Italy and spent lots of time with Dr. Salam. He gave lots of details about Dr. Salam’s lonely life. His nephew Nasir Iqbal, was employed at ICTP for some time also, call it nepotism.

Salam adjusted to life in the UK with his family.

In 1957, he was invited to take a chair at Imperial College, London, and he and Paul Matthews went on to set up the Theoretical Physics Department at Imperial College.[42] As time passed, this department became one of the prestigious research departments that included well known physicists such as Steven WeinbergTom KibbleGerald GuralnikC. R. HagenRiazuddin, and John Ward. Punjab University conferred Salam with an Honorary doctorate for his contribution in Particle physics.[43] The same year with help from his mentor, Salam launched a scholarship programme for his students in Pakistan. Salam retained strong links with Pakistan, and visited his country from time to time.[44]

At Cambridge and Imperial College he formed a group of theoretical physicists, the majority of whom were his Pakistani students. At age 33, Salam became one of the youngest persons to be elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 1959.[7][7] Salam took a fellowship at the Princeton University in 1959, where he met with J. Robert Oppenheimer[45] and to whom he presented his research work on neutrinos.[46] Oppenheimer and Salam discussed the foundation of electrodynamics, problems and their solution.[47] His dedicated personal assistant was Jean Bouckley.

Abdus Salam returned to Pakistan in 1960 to take charge of a government post that was given to him by President Field Marshal Ayub Khan. From her independence, Pakistan has never had a coherent science policy, and the total expenditure on research and development represent ~1.0% of Pakistan’s GDP.[61] Even the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) headquarters was located in a small room, and less than 10 scientists were working on fundamental concepts of physics.[62] Abdus Salam replaced Salimuzzaman Siddiqui as Science Advisor, became first Member (technical) of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission. Abdus Salam expanded the web of physics research and development in Pakistan by sending more than 500 scientists abroad.[63]

In September 1961, Abdus Salam approached President Ayub Khan to set up the country’s first national space agency.[64] On 16 September 1961, through an executive order, Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission was established, in which Abdus Salam served as the first director.[64] Before 1960, very little work on scientific development was done, and scientific activities in Pakistan were almost diminished. Abdus Salam called Ishfaq Ahmad, a nuclear physicist, who had left the country for Switzerland where he joined CERN, to Pakistan. With the support of Abdus Salam, PAEC established PAEC Lahore Center-6, with Ishfaq Ahmad as its first director.[65]

In 1962, Salam took his wife and parents to Mecca to perform Umrah, the small pilgrimage. Involving a single lap of the Ka’aba, this can be done at any time of the year, and involves much less organization and effort than the elaborate full pilgrimage, the Hajj. The experience nevertheless impressed him deeply. Every Muslim is supposed to make the full Haj once: making Umrah does not absolve a believer from the responsibility of making the full pilgrimage. But it was to be Salam’s only trip to Saudi Arabia.

In the same year, he met a very young Physics student, Louise Dame NapierJohnson.  Attending an antinuclear proliferation meeting in London in 1962, Salam had met Louise Johnson, then a physics undergraduate at University College London (UCL), who was helping with the meeting’s
administration. It was what the French call un coup de foudre, an emotional lightning strike, such as Salam had not experienced since seeing the inaccessible Urmilla at Government College, Lahore, some twenty years before.  Louise was only 20 years old, and Salam was 36.

In 1964, Salam founded the International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP), Trieste, in the North-East of Italy and served as its director until 1993.[97]
Salam never intended to help Pakistan develop any international science center or nuclear weapons.  However, he played games and acted like he was interested.  His Khalifa most likely controlled Salam, and thus he never helped Pakistan do anything.

His father, Chaudhry Mohammad Hussain dies in Karachi and is buried in a special area of Bahishti Maqbara, in Rabwah, Pakistan.

Dr. Salaam had a change of heart, and this is the most peaceful era of Ahmadis in Pakistan.  In 1958, he was named as the Chief Scientific Advisor to the President, Ayub Khan (see Singh, pages 96-97).  Abdus Salaam was thus able to get lots of Ahmadis hired into the government and etc. This was the era when Ahmadis were Economic Advisors, military generals, and held disproportionate employment with the government. Dr. Salaam wanted to start an international physics center, however, there was a shortage of funds and no projects could ever be funded.  Dr. Salam was a workaholic, he seems to have been working 3 jobs simultaneously in this era.  From 1965 onwards, Dr. Salam was back and forth from Italy to the UK.

His marriage to Louise Johnson
Fraser, “Cosmic Anger”, page 230-231

“Salam and Louise Johnson were married in a Muslim wedding in London in 1968.  An unlikely witness was Paul Mathews, Salam’s long-time research partner  and professor at Imperial. 36.  In Islamic terms, his new relationship was a marriage, so Salam was following the edicts of a religion that expressly forbids fornication. 37.  but on the other hand it was sufficiently distant from a union that had taken place between cousins in Pakistan as not to cause alarm.  The freedom and support that Salam’s unorthodox lifestyle required was freely given on all sides, and the unconventional arrangement worked.  By deft planning and attention to detail, and by supreme forbearance by those involved, Salam was able to manage his unconventional matrimonial affairs, shuttling between Trieste, London and Oxford.  Salam was discreet about all of this, but on the other hand did not keep it secret.  His ‘second family’ became regular summer visitors at Trieste.”
36—Salam would have preferred 2 Muslim witnesses to his new marriage, and this was duly rectified in a second marriage ceremony in 1973.

Dr. Salam had both of his wives living less than a mile apart in 1990–1996 era.

Dr. Salam married Dr. Napier illegally
British law does not allow for polygamy. Hence, Dr. Salam was cheating on his wife of almost 15 + years and having an affair with Dr. Napier. Furthermore, in 1968, Dr. Salam’s eldest daughter was 18 years old, whereas Dr. Salam’s girlfriend was just 26. We are unsure if they ever met in life. Sources tell us that in 1973, a proper nikkah ceremony was held, however, the Ahmadiyya movement has never confirmed this. We know that Dr. Salam was best friends with Zafrullah Khan and a VIP at the London Mosque, hence, anything could be done for him.

Another biography: Dr. Abdus Salam, by Jagjit Singh. Says, he admired Muhammad Iqbal, the poet philosopher.

Singh was silent on Dr. Salaam’s wife, Professor Dame Louise Napier Johnson.

This is the proof that this book was purposely biased.  We all know that Dr. Salaam eloped with Dr. Johnson in 1968…they were not married in any ceremony.  Dr. Salaam didn’t care about any islamic laws, he was above the laws in Ahmadiyya and was never even questioned.  However, a few years later, he had an ahmadi-mullah read the Nikkah.  His son was born in 1974 (Umar) and a daughter was born in 1982 (Saeeda).  Both of these children are shunned by the Ahmadiyya Movement.

How did Dr. Salam meet Dr. Napier?
Singh tells us that in 1968 they seem to have eloped together. In 1968, Salam was living in the Uk and working at the Imperial College.  Salam was also back and forth to Pakistan in these days since he worked as Scientific advisor to Ayub Khan. Dr. Napier finished her studies in 1965, After her PhD, she moved to the laboratory of Frederic M. Richards at Yale University for postdoctoral research in 1966. At Yale she worked as part of a team with Frederic M. Richardsand Hal Wyckoff on the crystal structure of another enzyme, ribonuclease, which was solved shortly after she left: the fourth protein structure solved.[7]  Dr. Napier transferred to the Royal Institution for postgraduate research, she spent a year at Yale and was working as Departmental Demonstrator in the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford.  She became faculty in 1973.  Dr. Salam seems to have been very busy in these days, since his first family was also in the same geographic area, i.e. London.  When Dr. Salam went to pickup his Nobel prize, he had both of his wives with him and wearing a full burka.  Swedish officials seated them in different parts of the auditorium while the King decorated their husband.  Dr. Salam was 42 and Dr. Napier was 28 years old.

Dr. Salam and Dr. Napier had 2 children
They had two children: a son born in 1974(Umar Salam) and a daughter born in 1982 (Syeda Hajira). Johnson’s husband died in 1996. She died on 25 September 2012 in Cambridge, England.[17][5][18] Their whereabouts are unknown.  Their religion is unknown.  Iftikhar Ahmed, a physicist who worked very closely with Salam, recalled them as being “madly in love – it was always ‘my darling’ this, and ‘my darling’ that … I never saw him happier than when he was with Louise”.

Umar Salam
Umar has completed his Ph.D. in mathematics from Cambridge. I remember that it was during a summer of the mid 1980s, that Salam asked me to teach Urdu to Umar. I did so for a few days. When I asked Umar if he was really interested in learning Urdu, Umar said that he was doing it only because his father wanted him to learn Urdu. Interestingly, one day Salam checked the words I had taught him and their transliteration. (this was taken from here:, see footnote number 31).  (Not sure who this person was who was teaching Dr. Salam’s son Urdu).

Umar Salam and Stephen Hawkings
It seems that they both worked together at the University of Cambridge.  See here:

Singh is wrong on Ahmadiyya persecution and the 1974 NA
Singh writes that after legislation was passed, violence vs. Ahmadis broke out..that is an open lie.  He was most likely lied to by Ahmadi-mullahs or other Ahmadis who are fond of lying about their cult-like non-profit business.    In fact, after Oct-7th-1974, the data proves that violence vs. Ahmadis was dead for 4 years until late 1978, even then, these isolated cases are not honest, these people may have been killed in family disputes, not Ahmadiyya related issues. In fact, uptil Ord-XX and 1984 there was 10-years of relative peace for Ahmadi’s in Pakistan.

Salaam turns his back on Pakistan again in Sep-1974
Ahmadis were declared non-Muslim in Sep-1974, and Dr. Salaam resigned immediately. Salaam grew a beard and seems to have changed his lifestyle….or that was the outward behavior.

Oct–1974 to Oct 1979
This seems to be a dead era in the life of Dr. Salam.

When he won the Nobel Prize in roughly Oct 1979
Singh lies to us and claims that Abdus Salaam wasn’t fond of alcohol. He claims that he Salaam only drank grape juice while his colleagues drank wine. However, that is a lie…his colleagues tell us different.

The Ahmadi press mentions Salam
“I am filled with praise and glory to that holy Being Who accepted regular and continuous prayers of my present Imam, my parents and my friends of the Jamaat, thereby gladdening the hearts in the Islamic world and Pakistan”. (Qadiani newspaper Al-Fazl, Rabwah, Dated December 31, 1979).

Q: What do you have to say about the ‘Science Foundation’ established by Islamic Conference?

A: “A step in the right direction, I am indeed happy. But my original proposal was better than the present decision. I had prevailed upon Mr. Bhutto in 1974 to establish a Foundation with a capital of one billion dollars and the Summit Conference had agreed upon it, but nothing happened after that. Then in 1981, General Zia-ul-Haq agreed to raise this issue in the Summit at Taif. The ‘Foundation’ was established but the proposed capital was reduced to only 50 million dollars. I have now learnt that the actual amount received so far by the ‘Foundation’ is only 6 million dollars. You would agree with me that Muslim governments can give more than that”. (Daily ‘Al-Fazl’, Rabwah, Oct. 8,1984).

Zia invites Dr. Salaam to Pakistan From December 15th–23rd of 1979, after he wins the Nobel
After winning the nobel prize, with other scientists, Zia-ul-Haq wooed him to come back to Pakistan and possibly help Pakistan fight off the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and to . Dr. Salaam didn’t fly on commercial aircraft, instead, he flew on the Presidents aircraft (see pages 96-97, Singh). Salam arrived at the Karachi airport on 12-15-1979 (See Al-Nahl of 1997, page 112), only his Pakistani wife was with him, his British wife was not. On 12-16-79 he visited his sister in Multan. He then flew to Sargodha (in the afternoon)(which is barely 20 miles from Rabwah), he was received at the Pakistani Air Force base in Sarghoda, he was received by Mirza Tahir Ahmad and Mirza Khurshid Ahmad. They then drove to Rabwah under police escort. Dr. Salam attended the Ahmadiyya Jalsa in Rabwah in December of 1979 under govt. escort. On 12-18-1979, he flew from Rabwah to Islamabad via military helicopter. He was received by military and civilian government leaders and was allowed to spend the day and night at “Sindh house”. He met Zia ul Haq on that day also(See Al-Nahl of 1997, pages 112-113). Zia ul Haq then allowed Dr. Salam to read his prayers separately and called him a better Muslim than himself. On 12-19-1979, Sala visited PINSTECH, Major General Shafiq was also there.  On 12-20-1979, Zia gave Salam the country’s highest civilian honour, Nishan-e-Imtiaz, some Ahmadi’s were also there and vouched for all of this info in the Al-Nahl. On 12-21-1979, Salam flew to Peshawar and was again met by all the top military and civilian leaders of that area. Lt. general Fazal Haq was also there. Again they traveled via Military aircraft. In the afternoon, they flew to Lahore. Lt.General Sawar Khan hosted Salam and gave an amazing dinner at the Governor’s house, many Ahmadi’s were there also. On 12-23-1979, Salam gave a speech at the Punjab University of Lahore. A private dinner was arranged wherein mostly Ahmadi’s ate with Dr. Salam. On 12-24-1979, Dr. Salam left via military helicopter for Jhang, many Ahmadi’s were with him. He slept in a government rest house. On 12-25-1979, Salam left Jhang for Sargodha, via military helicopter, he then drove to Rabwah to attend the Jalsa, which lasted until 12-27-1979. On 12-28-1979, Salam was driven by Ahmadi youth to Lahore. On 12-29-1979, Salam headed out for Karachi. On 12-30-1979, he visited Sindh University. Lt. General Abassi hosted dinner of Salam that night, he was the governor of Sindh at that time. On 1-2-1980, Salam returned to England. After that, he got a visa for India (which is really hard) and visited his old teacher in India. Then again in 1987, Zia invited Dr. Salam as an official guest of the Government of Pakistan. When Zia died in 1988, Dr. Salam rejoiced.

He turned his back on Pakistan 3 times
It should be noted that Salaam had many beefs with his own people.  Shortly after visiting Pakistan, he also visited India, with full governmental permission.  In fact, 99% of Pakistani’s are never given access to India after 1947. But Ahmadi’s are given visit visa’s every single year for the Qadian Jalsa.

Norman Dombey on Dr. Salam’s Nobel
Normal Dombey recently posted on the arXiv Abdus Salam: A Reappraisal. PART I. How to Win the Nobel Prize which more or less seems to argue that Salam didn’t deserve his 1979 Nobel. He describes a lot of history I didn’t know, but I’m not completely convinced. Part of the argument seems to be that he stole the idea from Weinberg, and didn’t even know the importance of what he had stolen, but my impression was that no one, not even Weinberg, thought very much of the unified electroweak theory at the time. A quick look at the paper in his collected papers that I take to be the 1968 one that justified the Nobel to him appears to discuss the crucial points: a gauge theory with Higgs mechanism.

Unfortunately I don’t have more time now to look into this history carefully. If someone expert on this history has comments on the Dombey claims, that would be interesting.

April 1984-When Ord-XX passed in Pakistan
He seems to have been living in the UK in this era and never commented on this law.  The Khalifa had moved to London also.

Dr. Abdul Qadeer, our renowned nuclear scientist said about Salam

Q: “What do you have to say for the Nobel Award which Dr. Abdus Salam Qadiani has received”?

A: “That too has been awarded on the basis of motives. Dr. Abdus Salam had been trying to get a Nobel Prize since 1957. At last, on the hundredth birth anniversary of Einstein, the desired Prize was given to him. The fact is that Qadianis have a proper mission operating in Israel since long. Jews wanted to please some like-minded person on the occasion of Einstein�s anniversary and so Dr. Abdus Salam was favored”.  (Weekly Chattan, Lahore, February 6,1986)

By 1989, Dr. Salam was permanently in a wheel chair.  He had fell many times in Trieste, Italy, and now lived as a totally disabled human.  (see Cosmic Anger, page 260).  Salam carried on at Trieste, Italy, however, his speech became incomprehensible.

In the last 3 years of his life, he was mute, he was unable to speak, he was bed-ridden and unable to communicate with anyone.  He died of a rare brain disease.

Salam died in Oxford, Uk in 1996 and his body was transferred to Rabwah
Nasir Iqbal tells us:

“””Nasir told this author that one night Salam fell down in his Trieste residence where he resided all alone. He was hurt and bled and lay on the floor all night as he could not get up. He also was unable to call anyone or raise any kind of alarm. Pierre Agbedjro, who used to drive his official car, went inside his residence around 7.00 AM the next morning and saw him lying where he had fallen.”” (see

Apparently his Pakistani wife never wanted to live in Trieste as she felt lonely there.
Salam suffered from PSP – para supranuclear palsy.  Salam seems to have moved back to London while he was dying and eventually died in the house of Dr. Napier, and he lived his final days there.  After Salam died, his body was transported to Rabwah for burial.  Dr. Napier and her son were also in attendance.  Their son was 22 years old.  We are not sure where his daughter was.  Aziza, the eldest daughter of Abdus Salam and probably all of her sisters and brothers were there.

Umar Salam and his mother visited GCU on January 22, 2003 on an invitation from the university. He says a ceremony was held at the Salam Hall, also named after the Nobel Prize winner. He remembers different speakers appreciated the services of the scientist on the occasion.



Related essays

Abdus Salam – the human side


#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #ahmadiyyat #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #drabdussalam #abdussalam #salamonnetflix #drsalam

Featured post

#Ahmadis don’t believe that Adam (as) was the first man

The only reference that we have found thus far on MGA and the idea that Adam (as) wasn’t the first man on Earth is from just a week before MGA died. Furthermore, whether or not Adam (as) was the first man or not doesn’t appear in any of MGA’s books, this quote comes from Malfuzat-10, per Ahmadiyya sources, Malfuzat was published for the first time in the 1970’s and from Rabwah. Nevertheless, we have provided the quote in the below. In this quote MGA seems to have been interviewed by a Professor Wragge, portions of that interview were published later in 1938.

The quote
Malfooza’at Vol. 10, Page 426

“””An English scholar of Astronomy, Professor Wragge met the Promised Messiah on 12th May and 18th May 1908 in Lahore and asked him a few questions as reported in Malfooza’at Vol. 10, Pages 353 and 426. Among other questions he asked: “It is written in the Bible that Adam or say the first man was born in Jeehoon, Seehon and belonged to that country. Are, then, all the mankind, that is found in different parts of the world like America and Australia, the descendants of the same Adam?” To this question the Promised Messiah replied, “We do not follow the Bible in holding that the world began with the birth of Adam six or seven thousand years ago, and that before this there was nothing, and God was, as it were idle and without work. Neither do we claim that all mankind who are now found in different parts of the earth, are the progeny of the self-same Adam. On the Contrary we hold that this Adam was not the first man. Mankind existed even before him, as is hinted by the Quran itself, when it says to Adam, “I am about to place a Khalifa in the earth.” As Khalifa means successor, it is clear that man existed even before Adam. Hence we cannot say whether the original inhabitants of America, Australia etc. are the progeny of this last Adam or some other Adam gone before him.””””

Links and Related Essay’s

Quran, Adam and Original Sin

Who was Adam, a prophet or the first human being?

Professor Raig Meets The Promised Messiah

Account of Professor Clement Lindley Wragge

Related ROR archives

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #atifmian

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #trueislam

Jameel Matin has quit Ahmadiyya

Another ex-Ahmadi comes from California, his name is Jameel Matin. I have argued with him about Ahmadiyya in the past, its amazing to see him leave Ahmadiyya. In America, Ahmadiyya is dying, the youth are leaving Ahmadiyya at an alarming rate, furthermore, no one in America is converting to Ahmadiyya and asylum cases from Pakistan have gotten slow and will never peak again. Cheers to Jameel Matin for leaving Ahmadiyya. While he was an Ahmadi, he was allowed to perform Hajj by the Saudi government, since he was enlisted in the U.S.A. Marine corps, we are not sure if he is still a marine, nevertheless, he is still a veteran. He was also a mentee of Johnathan Ghaffar, a caucasion convert to Ahmadiyya in the 90’s. He is also from California like me and he attended the Chino mosque in Chino, Ca. He also served as Naib-Sadr of Majlis Khuddam ul Ahmadiyya for many years. Naib-Sadr is assistant president.

His story

TL;DR: Formerly Naib Sadr MKA USA here. Served in various senior-level nat’l offices ’09-’15 and hajji, basically been drinking out of the kool-aid of religion since I was a child. I started to notice holes in the logic after taking a philosophy class in college. Ultimately, after several years of hard service, I grew out of the jama’at and began gazing things through a more objective lens. Evidence-based mindset vs faith-based mindset. I raised abstract questions, “how can anyone be so sure of the unsure?” while accepting humans as astonishingly susceptible to delusion.

Excuse my brevity as I’ve been authoring this pretty much buzzed while partaking in some devils lettuce 🍁 (Don’t judge it’s quarantine season). Here’s a “nazm’s” playlist to follow along.

So growing up, I found absolute comfort in the Islamic faith system. The philosophy of the faith truly felt divine, and it eventually all cemented after 9/11 when I began producing validated dreams.I commenced in asking deep, sincere questions about life, death, and everything in between. Members of my Mosque were more than able to answer convincingly. Especially Jonathan Ghaffar who helped mold me.

As I was convinced of Islam’s divine message, I became super motivated to please Him and earn His blessings. I did my utmost best to be like the prophet Muhammad. I even ran from my home to the Mosque ~15 miles for Tahajjud – solely to please Him.

I think a big part of being a seeker is believing there is an underlying code written somewhere to be interlaced. So, I probed into learning Urdu as deep as I could, endeavoring to extrapolate precious treasures from the books of the promised messiah.

I eventually applied for Jamia but instead joined the Marines, subsequently witnessing a dream ( not a wet one, but dreamt I was at the Mosque wearing the dress blues) revealing where I should move fwd.

While in the Marines, I received a special invitation from the King of Saudi Arabia to perform Hajj, further propelling my belief in Islam.

During college, I attended a philosophy 101 class, which completely revolutionized my way of thinking about things.

My belief and value system was utterly attached to Islam. After consciously leaving Islam, I no longer had a support system and felt significant separation tension. Fell into a depression since everything I had lived up to was gutted inside out. So I had to re-scaffold my way of thinking and manicure my life based on the values I choose.

My family did not take it well. It took some time for me to tell my mom. I figured if I was going to warrant a relationship with her based on happiness, and if that happiness was not based on truth, then I don’t believe that’s true happiness. Luckily, she still loves me.

For spiritual knowledge stuff, I find these conversations reinforce my opinion.

For personal values stuff, I found Mark Manson’s school of thought works for me.

For dating stuff, I found Love life solved and The Angry Therapistto be super helpful.

Eventually, I applied for formal resignation from the office, and most of the Jama’at ceased contact. What’s been bankrupt is many members of the jama’at can’t be happy that I’m happy.

Here’s a throwback of me teaching khuddam at an umoomi camp

I welcome any feedback.

p.s Mexican pork tacos were def worth it.

For god and country

EDIT: wow, thank you, everyone, for the warm comments. I hadn’t expected the flairs and to have as many engagements as I did.
For any active Muslims, I would love to do a collab on MTA or something.
Feel free to connect on IG: cutiepatootiebear

90% of converts to Ahmadiyya have always been fabricated as from African nations

The mirza family has been lying about its growth in Africa since at least the 1930’s. This was nothing new for the Mirza family, since they were lying in 1902-1904 era and claimed to have swelled its ranks to over 100,000-400,000 total Ahmadi’s. After WW-1 and WW-2, the Ahmadiyya movement was given money by the British government to build schools and etc in british colonies of Africa, this is how the Mirza family was able to send missionaries and start schools and hospitals. Nevertheless, the Khalifa announced his annual convert figures during the #JalsaUK2020, and suprisingly, he gave a country by country breakdown for the first time ever. We were thus able to do the math and see where the bulk of converts have came from, and its the continent of Africa (90% of converts). However, this has been going on since the 1930’s, the Mirza family has been announcing ridiculously high numbers of converts to Ahmadiyya in African nations. This is a total lie!!!!!!!!!!!!  Why is the Mirza family lying about converts to Ahmadiyya in african nations? Easy…to keep #ahmadis pacified, in fact, I know many #ahmadis personally who still think that #ahmadiyya is growing, even though the facts show otherwise
Mirza Masroor Ahmad seems desperate, Ahmadiyya is dying, even the number of converts from America (101) is a lie, at best they have gotten 5-10 people to convert and from them, 6-7 will leave.

However, for the first time ever, the Khalifa, Mirza Masroor Ahmad announced the number of converts from America, Canada, Germany and the UK in any single year (starting at the 1:03:07 mark). Even though the Khalifa has finally announced bait figured per country and an overall number of 112,179, which is down almost 400% in contrast to 2018-2019, these are all still lies. Especially in Africa, people aren’t willfully converting to Ahmadiyya anywhere in Africa, they may only be converting for free school and medical attention. In fact, Fisher described Ahmadiyya in Africa as a British-Maritime-Implantation, in fact, wherever the British government went, Ahmadiyya mullahs tagged along and the Mirza family got paid. To read the history of how Ahmadiyya mullahs/Mirza family have lied about converts see here. What’s interesting here, most Ahmadi’s think that Ahmadiyya is growing….however, the numbers don’t lie. If you look at Africa, almost 100,000 converts to Ahmadiyya from Africa. In fact, that is roughly 90% of all converts to Ahmadiyya. We are left with 12,000 (10%). Of the remaining 10%, Asia comprises 3-4% (3000-4000k people). That leaves about 7-8% from Europe, Australia and the entire western hemisphere. Converts to Ahmadiyya in Pakistan weren’t even discussed. Finally, even these numbers are lies, that Africa number is a sham equal to that of Lance Armstrong. Furthermore, that leaves barely 12,000 converts to Ahmadiyya in one year, we suspect that the number is really 1000 in total, 1000 humans converted to Ahmadiyya in the 2019-2020 Ahmadiyya fiscal year.

Links and Related Essay’s


#ahmadiyyainindia #ahmadiyyainafrica #ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiyyaPersecution #trueislam #AhmadiyyatTheTrueIslam #khalifaofislam #JalsaUK #JalsaConnect #JalsaUK2020

Barely 100 American’s converted to Ahmadiyya from July 2019 to July 2020

The Mirza family and the Ahmadi mullahs have a long history of lying about their number of converts. However, for the first time ever, the Khalifa, Mirza Masroor Ahmad announced the number of converts from America, Canada, Germany and the UK in any single year (starting at the 1:03:07 mark). Even though the Khalifa has finally announced bait figured per country and an overall number of 112,179, which is down almost 400% in contrast to 2018-2019, these are all still lies. Especially in Africa, people aren’t willfully converting to Ahmadiyya anywhere in Africa, they may only be converting for free school and medical attention. In fact, Fisher described Ahmadiyya in Africa as a British-Maritime-Implantation, in fact, wherever the British government went, Ahmadiyya mullahs tagged along and the Mirza family got paid. To read the history of how Ahmadiyya mullahs/Mirza family have lied about converts see here. What’s interesting here, most Ahmadi’s think that Ahmadiyya is growing….however, the numbers don’t lie. If you look at Africa, almost 100,000 converts to Ahmadiyya from Africa. In fact, that is roughly 90% of all converts to Ahmadiyya. We are left with 12,000 (10%). Of the remaining 10%, Asia comprises 3-4% (3000-4000k people). That leaves about 7-8% from Europe, Australia and the entire western hemisphere. Converts to Ahmadiyya in Pakistan weren’t even discussed. Finally, even these numbers are lies, that Africa number is a sham equal to that of Lance Armstrong. Furthermore, that leaves barely 12,000 converts to Ahmadiyya in one year, we suspect that the number is really 1000 in total, 1000 humans converted to Ahmadiyya in the 2019-2020 Ahmadiyya fiscal year.


Nigeria—————————–25k converts
Cameroon————————13k converts
Sierra Leone———————13k converts
Ivory Coast———————–10k converts
Mali———————————-10k converts
Senegal——————————5k converts
Congo——————————–4k converts
Tanzania—————————-3k converts
Guinea-Bissau——————-3k converts
Congo-Brazzaville————-4k converts
Liberia——————————–2k converts
Inni Karakaree???————-1500 converts
Niger——————————–1500 converts
Benin——————————-1000 converts
Ghana——————————1000 converts
Malawi—————————–1000 converts
Chad———————————900 converts
Uganda—————————–800 converts
Sao Tome and Principe—-
=======================100,000 converts from Africa alone. 

Europe and the America’s
The UK——-100

India————1700 converts
the rest of asia–300

The video
Starting at the 1:01:58 mark

Links and Related Essay’s

Ahmadiyya #Ahmadiyyainafrica #ahmadiyyainthegambia #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #ahmadiyyat #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiyyaPersecution

Read this also

Pics of the Ahmadiyya school in Asnoor, Kashmir, India,74.8362996,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1sAF1QipPR9Uh8Qv9cbo5-9beWF_fnzpf_R9PwvfdXgMSN!2e10!3e12!!7i3264!8i2448!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x38e1fc60aff23d69:0x2a00b9c33da792e8!2sAsnoor!3b1!8m2!3d33.6335277!4d74.8346296!3m4!1s0x38e1fc5d7efb53ab:0xe822181443575734!8m2!3d33.6321576!4d74.8362996


#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #trueislam #ahmadiyyainindia


Esa (as) didn’t live til age 125 or 120, Ahmadiyya people are wrong!

The entire ulema, Shia and Sunni believe that Esa (as) left planet earth at roughly age 33 (see Tafsir Ibn Kathir). Even MGA and his team of writers wrote in Tuhfatun-Nadwah wrote that the crucifixtion happened when Esa (as) was aged 33. They also write that Esa (as) died 50 years after the event of crucifixtion, which would make him 88 years old. They then assert that he was 90, based on some strange document. However, after MGA died in 1908, Jesus in India was published and it seems that this was the first time the argument was presented that Esa (as) lived until age 120/125. We have not found any record of the Ahmadiyya jamaat ever using this argument before MGA died. One more thing, MGA wrote in Jesus in India that all sects of Muslims believe that Esa (as) lived til aged 125, however, this is a bold face lie.

Nevertheless, we looked up the hadith, since MGA and his team of writers never gave a specific reference. What’s interesting here is that in the introduction to Jesus in India, which was not part of the orginal urdu edition, Ahmadiyya editors wrote that Esa (as) lived til age 120, but in the book, it is written as 125. This is not even from an authentic book of hadith, in fact, the hadith is contradictory and asserts that all prophets have “half-the-length of their mission” of their predecessor prophet, which is how they did the math and since Muhammad (saw)’s mission was roughly 20 years, Esa (as) must have been 40, however, Yahya (as) was before jesus and his mission should have lasted 80 years, however, he died at a a young age (below 40). Similarly, MGA’s mission should have lasted only 10 years, which is wrong, MGA’s career spanned 28 years.

The quote from Tuhfatun-Nadwah
See online english edition, pages 30-31

“””I am alluding to the discovery in Jerusalem of an old Hebraic document which bears the signature of Jesus’ disciple Peter (the content of which I have already reproduced in my book Noah’s Ark). This document contains evidence that Jesus died on this very earth almost fifty years after he was put on the cross.

It has been purchased by a Christian company for 250,000 rupees and has been verified as having been written by Peter. It would be naïve to cling to the idea that Jesus is still alive in the face of such clear and overwhelming evidence.One cannot deny the facts. Muslims! I congratulate you, for this is a day of triumph. Abandon your false beliefs and fashion your faith in accordance with the Holy Quran.

Let me reiterate that this final testimony is that of Jesus’ closest disciple. In this document, he identifies himself as Peter; a servant of the son of Mary. He tells his age as 90 and is writing 3 years after the death of Jesus. Historically, both Jesus and Peter are understood to have been of similar ages and that at the time of the crucifixion Jesus was approximately 33 years old and Peter somewhere between 30 and 40.””””

The scan work

The hadith as quoted in Jesus in India

“””Reliable reports in the Hadith show that the Holy Prophet said that Jesus was 125 years of age. Besides, all the sects of Islam believe that Jesus had two unique things about him — things which are not to be found in any other prophet, namely: (1) he lived to a full old age, i.e., to 125 years; (2) he traveled in many parts of the world and was therefore called the ‘travelling prophet’. It is evident that if he had been raised to the skies when he was only 33 years old the report of ‘125 years’ could not have been true, nor could he have traveled so much while he was only thirty-three. Not only are these reports found in the reliable Books of Hadith. They have been so well-known among all the Muslim sects that it is difficult to think of anything which has been more widely known among them.”””(Jesus in India, online edition,, retrieved on 1-15-17, 4th paragraph from the bottom)

1. Kanzul Ummul is a re-collection of hadith reports.  It is not a primary source of information on Islamic tradition.

1.a. Moreover, this hadith is traced to Al-Tabari, i traced it many years ago…its a ridiculous hadith that seems to indicate that prophets live half the amount of years as the previous prophet that they come after..

1.b.  Tabari Vol.6, “Muhammad at Mecca”, pg. 61

“Ibn al-Muthanna—al-Hajjaj—Hammad—‘Amr—Yahya b. Ja’dah: The messenger of God said to Fatimah, “Gabriel has reviewed the Quran with me once a year, but this year he has reviewed it with me twice, and I fancy that my time has come. You are the nearest to me of my kin. Whenever a prophet has been sent, his mission has lasted for a period of half his predecessor’s lifetime. Jesus was sent for a period of forty years, and I was sent for 20.”

For example, Esa (as) must have lived to 120/125, since Muhammad (saw) died at 63-ish. However, this would mean that MGA or the messiah to come would live 30 years, i.e. half of the life of Muhammad (saw)…

Moreover, this hadith would insinuate that Yahya (as), must have lived to 250..since he was before Esa (as)..

Do you see how ridiculous this sounds?? Obviosuly, this hadith was invented in an attempt to explain how Nuh (as) lived to 950 and how other prophets did the same…however, as we all know, ahmadis dont believe in this idea…they believe that Nuh (as) didnt live to 950, or whatever, they say that this age was the the age of his prophethood…which is total rubbish.

2. MGA and his team lied and said that all sects of Islam believe that Esa (As) lived to 125…that is a bold face lie.

3. MGA and his team continue to lie in the next few sentences, he claims that all muslims believe that Esa (as) travelled extensviely….

4. Finally, this book was published posthumously, and although Ahmadi newspapers and MGA began writing that Esa (as)= Yuz Asaf from 1896 onwards and that he lived to 120/125, they didnt write this diatribe, i.e. that all islamic sects believed this. This seems to be a later addition by Noorudin, Muhammad Ali, or Mufti Sadiq.

5.  This hadith explains the remaining life of Esa (as):

Book 37, Number 4310:
Narrated AbuHurayrah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace_be_upon_him). He will descent (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.

MGA and his team of writers were trying to fool the illiterate masses of India with their fake-research. They seem to have succeeded just a little bit, in fact, to this day, most Ahmadis are stuck in Ahmadiyya and aren’t man enough to admit to their mistake.

Links and Related Essay’s

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #atifmian
#yuzasaf #rozabal #jesusinindia

Shiekh Ahmad Sirhindi did Takfir on Shia’s and said that all prophethood was law-bearing

Some silly #ahmadis think that Sirhindi supported the prophethood of MGA, that is a total fabrication, Sirhindi believed that 1/46th of prophethood remained and =muhadas, which was exactly what MGA claimed from 1880 to 1900. However, in 1901, MGA claimed to be an Ummati Nabi and back dated it to 1880. Nevertheless, we have an important study on Sirhindi Hwand have archived it in the below for future discovery. He wrote about Shia’s and how he thought they were Kafirs, he wrote about the 73-sect hadith. Sirhindi also holds that the
Q ur‘an, the Sunnah o f the Prophet, the Ijtihad and Ijm a‘ (concensus of opinion o f the jurists) are the only means to determine what things are halal (legal) or haram (illegal) and what acts are right or wrong.

The data
n the previous chapter, Theological Thought-I, Sheikh
Ahmad Sirhindi’s concept o f God, Universe and Man was
discussed. In the present chapter Sirhindi’s thought about the Shari‘ah, the
Prophethood and the Muslim Sects will be discussed.
Sirhindi’s thought,, which is basically revivalistic in
character, emanates from the Qur‘an and the Sunnah, and attempts at the
revival o f the doctrines o f Faith and social practices o f the community. It
aims at curbing the greatest menace o f the time by re-asserting the abiding
truth o f the shari‘ah and restoring conviction in the Prophethood of
Muhammad(s). As a serious scholar o f his time, he explains the truth o f
the Shari‘ah as he belonged to the age, where the trend was to overlook or
rather reject the shari’ah over tariqah. The former was supposed to
sub-serve the latter, as ‘India being the home o f yoga and asceticism there
was no dearth o f misguided mystics who had blended mystic practices
with philosophical meditation reposing trust in self-mortification, spiritual
ecstasy and direct intuition.’1
Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi being a qualified scholar (‘alim) o f
his time was expected to write on the Islamic subjects like the shari‘ah
etc., but there were other reasons behind the elucidation o f the concept o f
shari‘ah by him. At his time, there was a common misunderstanding o f the
concept (o f shari‘ah), either due to the ignorance o f the ‘Ulum al-Q ur‘art
or due to the wrong experiences or interpretations o f sufis. The common
views prevalent at that time can be encapsuled as follows:
1. That the shari‘ah is essentially a code o f law that seeks to regulate
external behaviour only. It is concerned with the outer structure o f
religious life but not with the inner reality;
2. That the shari‘ah is for common man only;
3. That captives o f reality (griftaran-i-haqiqat) attended to reality
(haqiqah) only, as they thought it out o f the purview of the
4. Others sought the synthesis o f the shari‘ah and tariqah.
We may say that some looked at it (shari‘ah) from a juristic
point o f view only and others from a sufi-outlook. Thus responding to the
‘ Nadwi, op. cit., p. 194.
situation and amidst such conflicting views about the shari‘ah, Sirhindi in
all seriousness elaborates the concept o f shari‘ah in Islam, which forms an
essential part o f his revivalist thought.
Sirhindi deals with the concept o f shari‘ah at two different
levels, micro and macro-level. At the micro level he defines the shari‘ah
in the usual sense of the rules and regulations o f the Qur‘an and the
Sunnah concerning worship and rites, morals and society, economy and
government, along with the elaborations and applications o f these rules by
scholars which agree with the Qur‘an and the Sunnah. Here he considers it
from the point o f view o f a traditional jurist and gives his opinion on
certain points o f law. For instance, in a letter to Abdul Rahim KaniKhanan, a high official o f the Mughal court, he tries to convince the
recipient that Islamic law is not difficult but easy to practice.1 Islam does
not impose difficult duties on the believers. For instance, only seventeen
daily rakahs were prescribed and these can be performed in less than an
hour. If a Muslim finds rukus and sajud to be difficult, he can comply
with the law by performing them symbolically.2 Only one-fortieth o f the
property was fixed as zakat and even then not all kinds o f property are
taxable.3 Pilgrimage has only to be performed once in lifetime4. God has
permitted every man to wed four wives and have an unlimited
concubines.5 Sirhindi continues in the same vein, while dealing with
1 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. I, Letter No. 191.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
matters such as clothing and food and concludes saying, that if anyone
finds the shari‘ah onerous, despite all this, he doubtlessly suffers from an
affliction o f the heart (maraz-i-qalbi).‘ Discussions o f such juridical
problems are rare in Maktubat.
At the macro level Sirhindi defines and uses the term in
wider sense. Along with the rules and laws, the shari‘ah also includes
faith and belief, values and ideals, as well as Prophet’s way to cultivate
piety and achieve God’s pleasure. Shari‘ah in this sense is a
comprehensive system o f faith and practice, including everything, which
God has prescribed (shara‘a) directly or through the Prophet(s).2 Thus to
Sirhindi shari‘ah is self-sufficient, when he writes, ‘it embraces all the
realities o f this world and the next, leaving nothing out for which one
should have to go beyond the shari‘ah.3 Let us elucidate this statement o f
Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi, which is pivotal aspect o f his thought.
As outlined, the faith (iman) is the first part o f the shari‘ah,
which means conviction in transcendental realities— God, Angles, the
H ereafter, revelation, prophecy^etc. According to Sirhindi, only way to
know these articles o f faith is the wahy (revelation) o f the Prophet.
1 Ibid
2 In the eighteenth verse of Surah al-Jathiya (45th) of the Qur‘an, the term shari‘ah is used
in its wider sense. Abdullah Yousuf ’Ali, commenting on the verse, writes that,
‘Shari‘ah is best translated the “right way of Religion”, which is wider than the mere
formal rites and legal provisions (p. 1536).
3 Sirhindi Maktubat, Vol. I, Letter No. 36.
Neither reason nor mystic k a sh f is capable o f revealing them. Reason on
its own cannot ascertain these realities. Sirhindi writes, ‘Everything that
we know through the prophets regarding God’s existence and attributes,
prophets and revelation, the impeccability o f angles, resurrection,
Paradise and Hell, Eternal happiness and damnation, and other similar
truths which the shari‘ah has revealed to us, are impossible to know
through reason. Before hearing from the prophets, reason is incapable o f
establishing them by itse lf.2 Here his views regarding the shortcomings
o f the reason are not different from some o f the important thinkers like
Ghazzali. However, on the position o f mystic kashf, Sirhindi has a
different view.
To Sirhindi, kasf is not an independent source o f knowledge
parallel to wahy. It can only act as an interpreter of the prophetic revelation
concerning matters o f faith. He says, ‘inspiration (ilham) only brings out the
non-apparent truths o f religion; it is not to add upon its truths. As ijtihad
reveals rules that are implied (in the shari‘ah), similarly, ilham, reveals the
hidden truths (of faith) which ordinary people are not able to see.’3 Sirhindi
then says, even in this capacity of interpreter, kashf is not infallible; like the
ijtihad o f a mujtahid the kashf o f a sufi may be right or wrong. Inspiration is
uncertain (Zanni) and the revelations o f kashf do not generate truth.4
1 Kashf literally means to reveal or uncover. It is the knowledge acquired through
mystical means, e.g., vision, audition, dream, inspiration, insight, etc.
2 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. Ill, Letter No. 23.
3 Ibid., Vol. II, Letter No. 55.
4 Ibid., Vol. I, Letter No. 209 and 266.
Explaining his ideas on kashf Sirhindi goes on to say that the
opinion o f the theologians o f Ahl al-Sunnah is the measuring rod o f
ascertaining the validity o f the ideas of a mystic in the light of his kashf
In case the mystical ideas are contradictory, they should be treated as the
product o f sukr (intoxication) o f the mystic and rejected as false. He
writes, ‘there are mystical ideas which conflict with the views o f the
Ahl-i-Haqq (i.e., theologians o f Ahl al-Sunnah), in such cases the truth is
with the ‘ulama’ of the A hl-i-H aqq’.1 At another place he writes, ‘the
criterion o f the validity o f mystical ideas ( ‘Ulum ladunniyah) is that they
should agree with the clear ideas o f the disciplines {‘’Ulum) o f the
shari‘ah; if there is a hair’s breadth o f divergence, it is due to sukr. The
truth is what the ‘ulama o f the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jam a’ah have
established. All else is zandaqah (blasphemy), ilhad (heresy) and the
result o f sukr (intoxication) and ghalbat al-hal (ecstasy).2 To sum up, we
can say that the kashf o f sufi should pass the test o f the Qur‘an and the
Sunnah and their interpretation by theological reason.3
1 Ibid., Vol. I, Letter No. 112,
2 Ibid., Vol. I, Letter No. 31.
3 When the views of Sirhindi on kashf are compared with those of Imam Ghazzali, they
are quite different. According to al-Ghazzali, wahy (Prophetic revelation) is ambiguous
about metaphysical realities of faith, and uses the language of symbols and metaphors.
To know its real meaning, one has to interpret this language, and to do that theological
reason is quite incapable. (Al-Ghazzali, Ihya’Ulum al-Din, Vol. I. Cario, 1939,
pp. 10-11). Hence for al-Ghazzali kashf is the most reliable instrument of interpretation.
It is not at all subject to theological reason. On the contrary theology has to submit to
mystical revelations. (Al-Ghazali, al-Munqidah min al-Dalal, ed., Dr. Ab. Hamid
Mahmud, Cario, 1964, p. 13). In his writings al-Ghazzali plays down the theological
reason and extols kashf. (Muhammad ‘Abdul Haq Ansari, ‘The Doctrine of Divine
Command: A Study in the Development of Ghazzali’s view of Reality’, Islamic
Studies, Vol. XXI, No. 3, 1982, pp. 22-24). Ibn al-‘Arabi in comparison to al-Ghazali
gives reason a greater role but puts kasf at a higher position. Contd. on p. 129…..
According to Sirhindi, shari‘ah not only means belief in
transcendental realities but also defines what religious life truly is
(haqiqah), what are its constituents and what they really mean. Shari‘ah is
not just a code o f rules and regulations that govern external action. It also
explains what faith, Tawhid, trust, gratitude, patience, worship, dhikr,
jihad, taqwa, and ihsan are, and shows how to realize these realities. It is
concerned with outer behaviour as well as with internal state o f mind and
will; with faith and virtue, motive and intention, feelings and emotions.
Thus shari‘ah is a complete unity o f surah (form) and haqiqah (essence or
reality).1 In other words it has an outward (zahir) and an inner aspect
(batin).2 The outward form o f the shari‘ah involves compliance with the
clear Qur‘anic commandments (Muhkamat) and the inward or essence of
the Shari‘ah (haqiqat-i-shari’ah) can be arrived at by properly
understanding the ambigious verses o f the Qur‘an (mutashabihat).3
The sufi tariqah, on the other hand, is only a means to
achieve the realities o f religious life and confirms without any addition, to
what the shari‘ah says.4 There are no realities outside the shari‘ah and the
…..Contd. from p; 128.
Baha’ al-Din Naqashbandi’s view is similar to that of Sirhindi. When the former
was asked, ‘what is the purpose of sulukfl He replied: ‘The purpose is to know in brief,
and to perceive in vision what you know through arguments.’ (Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol.
I, Letter No. 84). Commenting on these words, Sirhindi says, ‘The shaykh did not say
that the purpose is to acquire truths beyond the truths of the shar‘. Shihab alSuhrawardi (d. 1234) is of the same view (see his book ’’Awarif al-Ma ‘arif).
1 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol., I, Letter No. 276.
2 Ibid.
3 Al-Qur‘an, III/7.
4 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. I, Letter No. 36.
sufi tariqah is only a further help to attain those realities. And tariqah is
always subservient to the shari‘ah.’
In Sirhindi’s view it is ‘hersy and infidelity’2 to consider
that the shari‘ah is to be followed only till the m a’arifah3 is achieved.
There was a group o f sufis (though small) who believed that the shari4ah
is for common man who does not know or cannot know the truth
(m a’rifah); but those who have known the truth do not need it any longer.
But to Sirhindi, the truth is just opposite.4 Sirhindi also holds that the
Q ur‘an, the Sunnah o f the Prophet, the Ijtihad and Ijm a‘ (concensus of
opinion o f the jurists) are the only means to determine what things are
halal (legal) or haram (illegal) and what acts are right or wrong. They
also specify the degree o f obligation, i. e., whether a thing is wajib
(obligatory) or haram (forbidden), mandub (commendable), makruh
(undesirable), or mubah (permissible). He writes, ‘it is commonly agreed
that in determining the ahkam (rules) o f the shari‘ah, what counts is the
Q ur‘an, the Sunnah o f the Prophet, the qiyas o f the qualified jurist
(mujtahid) and the Consensus^ o f the Ummah. No other principle apart
from these four is to be taken into consideration to determine the legality
o f rules’.5 Sirhindi also believes that the ilham (inspiration) or the kashf
o f the sufi has no role in determining the legality o f things or fixing the
1 Ibid., Vol. I, Letter No. 261.
2 Ibid., Vol. I. Letter No. 276.
3 Mctrifah means knowledge. In tasawwuf it is particularly that knowledge which is
acquired through mystical means, gnosis.
4 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. I., Letter No. 276.
5 Ibid., Vol. II, Letter No. 55.
degree o f their obligation. He writes, “ilham (inspiration) does not
determine whether something is right or wrong, and the kashf o f a sufi
does not establish the degree o f a rule, whether it is obligatory or
desirable.” 1 He clearly gives superior position to the jurists against sufis
and treats the later at par with the common men. He again writes, “the
aw liya’ (saints) have to follow, like an ordinary Muslim, the opinion of
mujtahids. Their K ushuf (revelations) and ilhamat (inspirations) do not
elevate their status and relieve them from following the judgments o f the
fuqaha (jurists). Dhu al-Nun, al-Bistami, Junayd and al-Shibli are just like
ordinary men, Zayd, ‘Umar, Bakr and Khalid. They have to follow the
judgments o f the mujtahidin (jurists) in matters o f ijtihad’?
Besides, Sirhindi also believes that the shari‘ah deals with
the matters like what is the ideal life or ultimate goal o f man. He is o f the
view that the shari‘ah has its own system o f values and priorities, which
can only be revealed by contemplating over its structure, not by kashf or
philosophical speculation.
Three Components of Shari‘ah*
Shari‘ah, according to Sirhindi comprises o f three parts: ‘/7m
(Knowledge), ‘ami (action) and ikhlas (sincerity). For the complete
obedience o f shari‘ah, all the three parts have to be accomplished. He
writes, ‘The shari‘ah has three parts-knowledge, action and sincerity o f
1 Ibid. Ibn al-‘Arabi’s view on the shari‘ah is essentially same. He says, “ the shari‘ah has
been fixed and what is incumbent (fard) or obligatory (wajib), desirable (mandub),
permissible (mubah) or undesirable (makruh) has been defined.”
2 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. II, Letter No. 55.
motive; unless you fulfill the demands o f all these parts, you do not obey
the shari‘ah. The tariqah and haqiqah for which the sufis are known, are
subservient to the shari‘ah, as they help to realize its third part, namely
sincerity. Hence they are sought in order to fulfill the shari4ah, not to
achieve something beyond the shari‘ah. The purpose o f traversing the
stages o f tariqah and haqiqah is nothing other than the realization of
ikhlas, which involves the attainment o f rida (satisfaction). Only one out
o f thousand sufis is graced with the three illuminations (tajalliyat sih
ganah) and gnostic vision, given ikhlas and elevated to the stage o f rida
Shari‘ah Superior to Tariqah
In Sirhindi’s view Sunnah and shari‘ah are the most
important components o f Islamic culture.2 On the day o f Resurrection,
says Sirhindi, people will be questioned about their adherence to the
shari‘ah, not about tasawwuf.3 He urges his disciples to read books on fiqa
and affirms that sufi experience is inferior to the shari4ah and not viceversa, because shari‘ah is based on incontrovertible proof, while sufi
experience is result o f fallible speculation only.4 One o f his disciples
recalls that when he was overwhelmed by hal, Sirhindi used to tell him,
“Go study your lesson, because an ignorant sufi is fool o f satan”. Any sufi
experience that is rejected by shari‘ah is heresy5, says Sirhindi, and the
1 Ibid., Vol. I. Letter No. 36.
2 Friedmann, op. cit., p. 41.
3 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. I, Letter No. 48.
4 Badr al-Din Sirhindi, op. cit., p. 37
5 Ibid.
Maktubat contains countless exhortations to follow the Sunnah and
comply with the shari‘ah.
Shari‘ah, he regarded as all comprehensive, embracing all
the realities o f this world and the next, and the possibilities o f true
mystical experience. Shari‘ah has two appearances, an external and a real
one. The external appearance is based on whatever is unambigiously
enjoined in the Qur‘an and the Sunnah; it is the sphere o f knowledge o f
the formal ‘ulama ( ‘Ulama-i-Zawahir).’ Whatever has been left ambigious
and unexplained in the Qur‘an and in Sunnah is the sphere o f the
speculation o f the profound ( ‘Ulama-i-Rasikhin). These ‘ulama who
follow the lead o f the Prophet(s) are superior to the saints, as prophethood
is superior to sainthood.2 Thus to Sirhindi, the observance o f single
religious commandment is more profitable for emancipation from sensual
desires than ‘a thousand years’ o f self-imposed penance or spiritual
concentration and from this point o f view all the exercises o f a Hindu
yoge are an absolute waste.3
Sirhindi’s Approach Towards>2?i</‘aA (Innovation)
Sirhindi’s approach to the issue o f innovation is also
relevant to the description o f his views on the Islamic law. He generally
exhorts to follow Sunnah and avoid Bidah. He unlike a jurist, rearly
speaks o f innovations which are peculiar to Muslims o f India as a result of
1 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. I. Letter No. 276.
2 Ibid., Vol. Ill, Letter No. 55.
3 Ibid., Vol. I, Letter No. 52.
their life in the midst o f the Hindu people. He deals with the problem on
theoretical level.
In several places in the M aktubat he launches vigorous
attack against the distinction between b id ‘ah hasanah (good innovations)
and bid’ah sa yyi‘ah (bad innovations), asserting that either of them is
certain to do away with a Sunnah and should, therefore, be scrupulously
avoided.1 He cites examples. It has been said, for instance, that the use of
the turban as a part o f the shroud is a good innovation. It is clear,
however, that this contravenes the Sunnah by using an additional piece of
cloth beyond the three prescribed ones.2 To place the turban-sash on the
left side has also been considered good innovation, though it is evidently
inconsistent with the Sunnah, which demands that the sash be allowed to
hung between the shoulders.3 The opinion o f those ‘ulama who maintain
that it is laudable to express the prayer-initiation (niyat-i-nimaz) aloud,
though the Prophet and his Companions never did it in this manner, is also
unacceptable. In case this recommendation is followed, most people are
satisfied with the words and are not concerned with the intention o f the
heart (irada-yi-qalb); a Sunnah is thus abrogated.4 Therefore, all
innovations are bad and ought to be shunned. The Qur‘an says: ‘Today I
have perfected your religion for you and bestowed upon you all my
1 Ibid., Vol., I, Letter No. 186.
2 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
favour, and I have approved Islam as your religion”. Islam is thus perfect
and does not require any modification or addition.
To conclude we may say that for Sirhindi shari‘ah is all
comprehensive, encompassing minutest detail o f this world and the next.
Shari‘ah and tariqah are, on the one hand, two expressions o f the same
reality; 1 on the other hand, tariqah is the servant o f the shari‘ah whose
service is essential to making the shari‘ah complete. The relationship
between shari4ah and tariqah is parallel to that between prophecy and
sainthood: shari‘ah is superior to tariqah in the same way that prophecy is
superior to sainthood.3 Sirhindi thus speaks o f al-fana f i al-Shari‘ah.
There is no disagreement among the Muslim scholars about
Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi, being ‘the Renovator o f the Second Millennium’
(Mujaddid alf-Thani). But there is difference o f opinion as to what was
the single greatest achievement among a series o f his brilliant revivalistic
accomplishments. The differences fall into three categories, which can be
summarized as follows.
The first category o f scholars highlight that the emphasis o f
Sirhindi in advocating the superiority o f shari‘ah over tariqah, is the
central point o f his wide ranging revivalistic endeavour, and therefore, he
deserves to be called the M ujaddid Alf-i-Thani. No one before him had
1 Ibid., Vol. I. Letter No. 36.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid., Vol. I, Letter No. 95 and 108; Vol. II, Letter No. 46.
laid stress on the issue in such a forceful, confident and authoritative
manner as was done by Sirhindi. He outrightly made it clear that the
tariqah was meant sub-serve the shari‘ah and this checked the tendency to
overlook or reject the shari‘ah.’
To the second category of scholars, Sirhindi’s sturdy attack on
the popular mystic philosophy of wahdat al-wujud was his main revivalistic
effort.2 He unlike traditional ‘ulama‘ not only criticized the doctrine but also
gave an alternative philosophy of wahdat al-shuhud, which is thought to be
more close to the conception of Tawhid. In their view nobody had launched
out so forcefully against that misguided doctrine of sufism before him. He
succeeded in stemming it so effectively that nobody raised his voice in its
favour in the succeeding generations.
According to the third group of scholars, Sirhindi regained India
for Islam, which was about to slip into the hands of religious eclecticism,
which was flourishing under the patronage o f Akbar.3 They believe that
Sirhindi saved Indian Muslims from immediate danger o f comprehensive
religious, intellectual and cultural’apostasy, which had been made virtually
unavoidable by Akbar’s passionate drive and iron will and the intelligence of
his sharp-witted advisers like Mulla Mubarak, Faizi and Abul Fazl. Thus he
guarded the Millat in India from such unwarranted developments.4
1 Nadwi, op. cit., p. 194.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid., p. 193.
4 Ibid.
But, according to a modern and acclaimed scholar o f the
contemporary Muslim world, Syed Nadwi, Sirhindi’s main achievement as
the Mujaddid was his re-emphasising the need and importance o f the
Prophethood (Nabuwah). The essence o f his message was to ‘back away
from everyone and attend only to your master (Muhammad)’. After
examining the other achievements o f Sirhindi, he writes, “ but the fact that
the greatest achievement o f the Mujaddid which is the nucleus o f his
entire endeavour or the focal point o f his multi-dimensional reformatory
programme was his success in creating a trust in the need and abiding
nature o f Muhammad’s prophethood.”1 His was really the call, “Back to
Muhammad”,2 the focal point o f his reformative activities. It was this
principle o f reform and renovation, which struck at the root o f perversion
threatening to subvert the religious, spiritual and intellectual basis o f the
Muslim society.
Thus prompted by the need o f the hour, Sirhindi took up the
responsibility o f the re-assertion o f the principle o f Prophethood, and
elucidated its theoretical importance and practical relevance. It was the
task never taken before him by any one, perhaps, as the need was not felt
by the scholars and reformers o f the preceeding generations. But, Sirhindi
was compelled by the circumstances to respond to the distortions spread
consciously or unconsciously about the institution o f Prophethood.
1 Ibid., p. 195.
2 Burhan Faruqi, op. cit., p. 31.
The institution o f Prophethood was under scrutiny as a group
o f men propagated the philosophy that the religion o f Prophet(s) has
completed the term of one thousand years, and therefore needs to be
replaced. The followers o f these distorted ideas were known as
‘N aqtawis’1 and their idealogy as ‘ideology o f second millennium’
(Nazriya A lf Thani).2
The Naqtawis claimed that the new millennium needs a fresh
ideology, which was furnished by Mahmud Basikhawni, the founder o f the
Naqtawi movement. They contested the Prophethood o f Muhammad(s) by
claiming that the new age required a fresh principle o f human action based
on reason and philosophy. Din-i-Illahi o f Akbar can be treated as an
outcome o f such ideas. Under such influences Akbar introduced ‘Alfi
coins’ in his domain.3 Hijrah calendar was replaced by ‘Alfi Calendar’4.
The repurcussions o f Akbar’s ‘new order’ and his claims o f mujtahid did
not ceased here. Purely religious devotions and rituals like Salat, Saum,
Haj were influenced by the un-islamic practices. Usury, gambling and
drinking became lawful. The worship o f sun became prevalent.5 In short,
an inevitable outcome o f Akbar’s religious policy was that the
monotheistic way o f life and system o f belief which had taken four
hundred years’ labour of the most virtuous and spiritually illuminated
1 The Naqtawi movement has been discussed in detail in Chapter I, p.24-25.
2 Maulana Manzoor Nu’mani, Tazkirah Mujaddid Alf Thani, Lucknow, 1986, p.44.
3 Ibid, p.44.
4 Ibid., p. 45.
5 For detail see Chapter I, pp.39-40. For more details of impact of Akbar’s religious
policy, also see, Nu’mani, op. cit., pp. 63-102.
persons to take root in the country, were laid open to a comprehensive
danger o f religious, intellectual and cultural apostasy.
The institution o f Prophethood was also being challenged by
the followers o f Imamiyah sect. They believed in the divine and
indefeasible right o f the laima to lead the Muslims, and venerated them as
divinely appointed leaders in the same way as the prophet s o f God. The
author o f the Kita Tarikh al-Mazhib al-Islamiyah (Vol.I), Abu Zahra,1
writes that all the scholars o f Imamiyah sect are agreed on the equality of
an imam and a prophet. Under the extending influence o f the sect, the
Muslim society o f India was gradually accepting the thought and customs
o f the Imamiyah creed. Then, in the continuation o f these false
pretensions, the mystic theory of wahdat al-wujud, consciously or
unconsciously tried to assert itself as a doctrine antagonistic to the
concept o f Prophethood and revealed guidance. The more it took root in
the Muslim society, the more Muslim community lost its conviction in the
infallibility o f Islam as the only saving principle. All these developments
were posing a challenge to the Prophethood o f the Muhammad(s) and the
way o f life taught by him.
To counteract this trend, Sirhindi wrote his first book,2
Athbat-i-Nabuwah (Defence o f Prophecy), wherein he elucidated the
essence o f the Prophethood in Islam. In the introduction o f the book he
mentions the factors that prompted him to write the monumental work. He
1 Quoted by Nadwi, op. cit., p. 197.
2 Written in 1582-83.
writes, I found the people o f my age wanting in faith about the real
concept o f Prophethood, antipathy being shown towards the prophet’s
names, and the persons bearing the prophet’s name were even changed.1
He further writes, having interacted with scholars well-versed with Greek
philosophy and claiming scholarship having read the science o f infidels, I
found them misleading the people and having themselves gone astray
about the very concept o f Prophethood.2 They went to the extent o f saying
that the Prophethood is concerned with the external aspects o f man only,
and has nothing to do with the Salvation in the next world.3 Having
observed all this, I found myself obliged to write in ‘Defense of
The Institution of Prophethood
In order to explain out the importance and to re-assert the
trust in the Prophethood, Sirhindi starts on the note that the knowledge
gained through intellectual process as well as spiritual intuition is
imperfect. Their incompetence lies in the fact that they cannot penetrate
the metaphysical truths, such’as, the gnosis o f God, His attributes, the
ultimate truth and reality of existence, etc.4 He says that the knowledge
gained through either o f these sources was neither beyond doubt nor free
from mistake. In regard to intellect he writes that, it ought to be kept in
1 Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi, Athbat-i-Nabuwat, tr., Gh. Mustafa Khan, Karachi, 1963,
pp. 5 0 -5 1.
2 Ibid
3 Ibid.
4 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. Ill, Letter No. 23.
mind that it is not self-sufficient to perform its functions o f knowing,
analysing and reasoning, since it has to depend on other subordinate
faculties i.e., sensory organs, which by themselves are insufficient to
supply the information to the intellect, and operate within a limited
com pass.1 The true knowledge o f God could be had through relevation
vouchsafed to the prophets, for it occupies a higher place in comparison to
intellect in the same way as intellect was superior to sensory perceptions.2
Thus the knowledge o f God and the correct way o f divine worship could
be known from the prophets alone.
According to Sirhindi, the ancient Greek philosophers had
committed grevious mistake in understanding the true nature and attributes of
God. This was because there was nothing like pure or abstract intellect nor
there existed any pure and unmixed spiritual intuition or ecstatic inspiration,
free from all intrinsic and extrinsic influences.4 The mystics and theosophists
had also blundered, explains Sirhindi, like the philosophers, because they
failed to recognize that intellect and theosophy5 were both equally
incompetent to get at the knowledge pertaining to God.
1 Ibid.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Theosophy is a method of attaining the knowledge of God. Its guiding principle is that
intellect, learning and reasoning faculties block the way instead of opening the door to
the discovery of ultimate truth. It considers the vision of ultimate reality necessary for
attaining the knowledge, and this can be had through self-purification, illumination of
the spirit and developing an inner sense which can perceive the spiritual realities and
metaphysical truths in the same way as eyes can see material objects. This sense is
developed, according to them, when the earthy nature of man and his outer faculties or
sense are completely suppressed and subdued.
The metaphysical questions are outside the reach o f
mysticism just as philosophy cannot be expected to solve them .1
Theosophy or illuminism affords a glimpse o f the spiritual world but leave
many questions unanswered as/ what is the Will and Pleasure o f
God, the divine law etc. The fact o f the matter is that philosophy and
theosophy are cast in the same mould: the spirit underlying both o f them
is one and the same. Both want to attain the ultimate reality without the
agency o f Prophethood. The distinction o f both is same: one wants to
reach it with the wing o f its imagination while the other desires to get at it
through a spiritual tunnel o f inner faculties but both fail to reach the
Truth.2 This meant that the Prophethood remains as the only trust-worthy
medium o f obtaining knowledge about God and His attributes and
Prophethood Transcends Intellect
Prophethood transcends intellect and the methods o f
reasoning.3 Matters, which are beyond the ken o f intellect or human
perception, are proved by the’prophetic method. Had human intellect been
sufficient to show light o f guidance to man, there would have been no
need for God to send His apostles, nor the chastisement in the hereafter
would have been prescribed as punishment for rejecting them.4 Reason
furnishes a proof, no doubt, but its testimony is neither final nor perfect.
1 Sirhindi, Maktrubat, Vol. Ill, Letter No. 23.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid, Vol. Ill, Letter No. 36; Vol. I, Letter No. 266.
4 Ibid
Authenticated attestation is provided only by Prophethood after which
there remains nothing more to be searched for.1
Prophetic teachings are not verifiable by intellect. In fact the
prophetic procedure is beyond intellect and irrationality.2 The line o f
action adopted by intellect cannot approach the Divine Person without
following the lead o f the prophets. To be against the reason or intellect is
something quite different from that which cannot be comprised by the
intellect. Irrationality o f any thought can be judged only after the intellect
has comprehended its nature.3
Prophethood Indispensable
Prophets are indispensable for guidance o f humanity,
asserts Sirhindi. The Tasfiya (purification) and Tazkiya (embellishment)
o f soul which depend on the divinely approved virtuous deeds are
unattainable w ithout the help o f the prophets4. Human intellect is, in his
view, inadequate to lead man to the divine presence. He writes,
‘apostleship is a blessing for mankind; for, w ithout their assistance who
could have enlightened it about the nature and attributes o f God and
made it to see the difference between the evil and the virtue.’5 It is
Prophethood which drew a line o f dem arcation betw een the truth and
1 Ibid
2 Ibid., Vol. I., Letter No. 266.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
untruth and distinguished between what was fit to be paid divine
reverence and what was unfit for it.1
Gnosis o f God (Ma ‘rifat) is a gift o f Prophethood, according
to Sirhindi. As the call and message o f the prophets came to be known to
the world through their continued preaching, even the most ignoramus
doubting the existence o f the Creator realized their mistake and found
credence. Their acceptance o f God as the Creator o f all things and beings
was brought about by the light and knowledge spread by God’s
Prophets Teach Methods of Worship
The prophets also provide guidance in the matter o f thanksgiving to the Great Benefactor and teach man how to pay homage to Him
in the way He desires.3 Divine service not performed in accordance with
the direction given by Him is unbecoming o f His great Majesty and Power
but the faculties endowed to man are incapable o f finding out its correct
method. As man can even commit the mistake o f being disrespectful in
place o f returning Him thanks, it becomes the duty o f the prophets to let
man know how to lift up his heart in adoration o f God. The inspirations of
the saintly persons are also drawn from the prophets on whose imitation
depends all the blessings and divine grace dispensed to thanks.4
1 Ibid.
2 Ibid., Vol. Ill, Letter No. 23.
4 Ibid.
Prophethood Superior to Intellect
Prophethood is superior to intellect, concludes Sirhindi.
Intellect occupies a position higher to senses because it can comprehend
things not perceived by the senses. In a similar manner Prophethood is
superior in position and quality to the intellect since it can discern things
not apprehended by the latter.1
Prophethood and Sainthood
The prophet in his faith and knowledge, virtue and piety,
experience and attainment, marks the ultimate perfection o f man, and sets
the highest example to be followed. He is the criterion on which the wali
and walayat is to be judged. There are walis who are occupied exclusively
with God and are lost in Him, and care little for themselves or for others.
They are inferior to those who attend to the duties towards God as well as
the duties towards men.2 The distinction o f prophet’s ‘contact with G od’
and his ‘contact with people’ is that they are not two different phases of
his life, one coming after the other, as the sufi does. They are rather two
moments o f his life. For he does not undergo experience o f fa n a ‘3 and
baqa‘ 4 as the sufi does. He does not experience self-annihilation or selfdissolution union or merger into God. He never feels ecstasy and
2 Ibid., Vol. I, Letter No.22; Vol. II, Letter No. 93.
3 Fana means to die or disappear. It is the mystical experience of losing the self in God.
4 Baqa means to survive or abide. It is the mystical experience of subsistence or living by
and in God after dying (fana) to oneself.
intoxication, does not lose control over his reason, or indulge in shath.1
He has no unification or no separation, no ascent or no descent. He is
never so absorbed in God as to lose sight o f himself and the world, and
never so occupied with the world as to forget God. ‘In prophecy’, says
Sirhindi, ‘the prophet does not face the creation only, he faces God along
with facing the world’.2
The experience o f a prophet and the wali are, thus, different,
however, they share a lot o f experience with each other. The wali sees
dreams (r u ’ya ) and vision (waqi<at), receives ideas directly in the heart
(ilham), hears voices, and talks to appearances. These extraordinary forms
o f revelation, which together are called kashf, are common between the
wali and the prophet.
However, two things distinguish the revelation o f the
prophet from the revelation of wali. One, the prophet has a particular form
o f revelation, namely, revelation through an angel called wahy; the wali
does not have it. Wahy in this sense is specific to the prophet, and is the
real basis o f prophecy. Second, all the revelations o f the prophet, whether
wahy in the special sense, or in the form o f a dream, vision, audition and
inspiration are true and certain, but the revelations o f the wali are fallible
and uncertain.3 The third difference, which is actually a corollary o f the
second, is that, the revelation o f the prophet is binding on people, whereas
1 Ecstatic utterances of the sufis.
2 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. I. Letter No. 95.
3 Ibid., Vol. I, Letter No. 41 and 112.
the kashf o f a wali is not. K ashf is not an independent and sufficient
argument, it needs to be confirmed by the prophetic revelation. ’
The two moments o f prophet’s life viz., contact with God—
his reception o f wahy, his perception o f Divine rule, angels, his dhikr and
contemplation, his turning to God for mercy and assistance, his
thanksgiving and submission etc., and contact with people—his recitation
o f wahy, his preaching and mission, his instruction to his followers in
self-purification and piety, his struggle against his opponents, etc., form
one whole, intertwined with one another. The Companions and their
successors never made any distinction between them and never raised the
question, which aspect was higher and which was lower. But such
distinction was made only when sufism came into being and consequently
the life o f poverty and renunciation, dhikr and meditation, fa n a ‘ and
baqa ‘, ka sf and illumination came to be applauded as the highest and most
sublime life. The first aspect o f the Prophet’s life was called his walayat,
and was extolled over the second aspect which was called nubawat and
risalat, and therefore, some people held that the wali is superior to the
But Sirhindi contests the whole thought and asserts that the
nabi is superior to wali, and even his nubuwat is superior to his walayat}
He defends his argument by saying that, it is not true, first o f all, that in
1 Ibid., Vol. I., Letter No. 48; Vol. III. Letter No. 91.
2 Although the ummah and the sufis in general have always held that the prophet is
incoporably superior to the wali, but when comparing walayat of a nabi with his
nubawat, many a sufi have extolled the former over latter.
nubawat the prophet’s attention is turned away from God and centered on
people. The prophet does not experience an opposition between ‘attention
to God’ and ‘attention to people’. That opposition, rather conflict, is part
o f a w a li’s life; he experiences it particularly in the first stage o f his
suluk1. The prophet does not follow the sufi tariqah, consequently he does
not experience the conflict. His attention to the people, therefore, does not
imply distraction from God, nor does his occupation with God mean
disconcern with people.2 Secondly, in attending to the people, the prophet
in fact attends to God, because he does not attend to them o f his own will.
He attends because God commands him to attend. Therefore, when he
attends to them he attends to God.3 Finally, to attend to people on the
command o f God in order that they believe in Him, obey Him and come
close to Him, is a hundred times better than to occupy oneself with God
and concentrate on Him. This life should better be devoted to carrying out
His will and bring the people near to Him, argues Sirhindi.4
Sirhindi, thus, gives a wider view o f prophet’s mission. He
starts his mission with the preaching o f the shari‘ah, which includes both
his religion and laws. The believers, who accept his religion, are taught
how to act upon his teachings by the prophet. He shows them how to
worship God and remember Him, how to avoid sin and purify oneself,
how to cultivate virtues and piety, and how to feel for humanity and work
1 Traveling the sufi path.
2 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. I., Letter No. 108.
3 Ibid., Vol. II, Letter No. 46.
4 Ibid.
for their happiness. He tells them that the purpose o f man’s life is to serve
God, and show them how to attain God’s pleasure. He preaches religion as
well as demonstrates how to practise and live it.
The struggle to build a new society and create a new world
for his followers, is also a component o f prophetic mission, says Sirhindi.
He tries to demolish the old society and fights to establish the rule o f God
on earth. Sirhindi does not discuss this aspect at length, but he leaves
none in doubt that for him it is an integral part o f prophet’s mission. He
refers to it in letters which he wrote to men in pow er,1 where he
underscores the role o f the ruler in Islam, his responsibility to implement
the laws o f shari4ah, to establish its institutions and to defend them
against attacks from within and from without. Thus, Sirhindi gives the
broader view o f the institution o f Prophethood in Islam.
Maqam (Station) of Prophethood
To conclude, we can say that the view that Sirhindi tries to
demonstrate is that the Prophets were intellectually and spiritually the
acme o f perfection, among the entire creation o f the God.2 He explains
that their spiritual affinity with God was never severed by their diversion
o f attention to any matter whatsoever because their responsive hearts were
opened by God to the secrets o f truth and reality. This was a characteristic
singular to them since the great task with which they were charged
1 For instance, in a letter addressed to the governor of a province he writes: ‘4If along with
your administrative work, you could implement the shari4 ah, you would be doing the
work of prophets”. (Ibid, Vol. Ill, Letter No. 54.)
2 Ibid., Vol. I, Letter No. 95.
required brilliance and alertness o f mind along with large heartedness and
fortitude not possessed by the illuminists and ecstatics. The prophet o f
God made the start where mystics and saints ended their journey o f spirit.1
The former enjoyed nearness o f God by virtue o f the performance o f
duties allotted to them whereas the latter strived to approach it through
voluntary devotions and prayers but could never attain that stage.2 The
perfection o f sainthood as compared to the quintessence o f Prophethood
was like a drop beside the ocean.3 Sainthood is a fraction o f what
Prophethood represents as a whole. The Prophethood is thus superior to
In the letter 80 o f the first volume o f the Maktubat, Sirhindi
writes that among the seventy three groups4 o f Muslims, the righteous is
that o f ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jam a‘a 5 He defends himself by quoting a
hadith o f Prophet(s) that, ‘among the groups only that will achieve
Salvation (najat) who will obey me and my Companions (Ashab).6 As
obedience o f Prophet(s) is obligatory for obedience o f Allah,7 argues
Sirhindi, so is obedience of Companions o f prophet(s) compulsory, for the
1 Ibid. Vol. I, Letter No. 266.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 The reference here is to the well-known hadith wherein Prophet(s) has predicted of
division of Ummah in seventy-three groups, in the age of its downfall.
5 Also see Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. II, Letter No. 67
7 Al-Qur‘an, IV/80. Jji ^ ^ ^
obedience o f Prophet(s). Since, only ahl al-Sunnah xva al-Jam a‘a fulfill
this condition, therefore they are the righteous group. The other groups
like Khawarajites, accuse the Sahaba as slanderers, which tantamounts to
the accusing the Prophet(s) o f the same, therefore, they have gone astray.
There are isolated references to such groups in the writings o f Sirhindi.1
But, the only Muslim sect that Sirhindi discusses in detail is ahl alTashi’a (Rawafiz).
Sirhindi’s Account of Shi‘as
The Shi‘ah is the only Muslim sect to which Sirhindi pays
full attention in his works, because there were enough factors for him to
do that. A campaign o f vilification against the Companions o f Prophet(s)
had been launched by the Shi‘as throughout India with renewed vigour.2
The campaign was particularly against the K hulafa‘-i-Thalatha for
depriving Hadhrat ‘Ali, as they claimed, o f the right to succeed the
Prophet(s); and against ‘Aiysha, Talha, Zubayr and M u‘awiyah who
opposed and fought ‘Ali afterwards.3 Except ‘Ali’s family and his
supporters, the entire community o f Companions ultimately came under
their condemnation. The Shi‘a scholars at Agra court published a book,
refuting the criticism leveled against them by the sunni scholars o f Central
Asia (Mawara al-Nahr) and vindicating their position.4 In reply to the
1 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. I, Letter No. 80.
2 Ibid., Vol. II, Letter No. 36; Nu‘mani, op. cit., p. 180.
3 /A/J.(Numani), p. 181.
4 Ikram, Rud-i-Kauthar, p. 243.
issues raised by Shi‘a scholars in the book, Sirhindi wrote Radd-iRawafiz1 (Refutation o f the Shi‘as).2 The importance o f the book can be
gauged from the fact that the scholar o f the caliber o f Shah Wali-Ullah
Dahlawi later wrote a commentary on it.’
In the beginning o f Radd Sirhindi explains that his decision
to write the refutation o f the Shi‘a doctrines was prompted by the
Prophetic tradition demanding that ‘the learned refute heretical ideas
whenever they appear’.4 He decided to fulfill this duty when he observed
that ‘some o f the followers o f shi‘a, who frequented these regions, boasted
and were proud o f these fundamental principles (of the Shi‘a faith) and
spread these fallacies in the councils o f the princes and the kings’.5
In the Radd and Maktubat, Sirhindi maintains and
substantiates the stance o f ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama ‘a, about the Shi‘as.
After describing the Shi‘a takfir o f the Companions o f the Prophet(s),
Sirhindi then launches an attack upon the doctrines o f the shi‘a.6 He
argues that it is not true that the Prophet(s) nominated ‘Ali to succeed him
1 The epistle was written in 1592 A.D. Maulana Sher Muhammad Khan published it in
1871 from Delhi, with the title Radd-i-Rawafiz Raddiya. But in 1877 Nawal Kishore
deleted Raddiya from the title (Abul Fazl Faruqi, Al-Majmu’tu al-Saniyah, Delhi, 1983,
pp. 7-8)
2 Friedmann, op. cit., p. 51.
3 Nu‘mani, op. cit, p. 181
4 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. I, Letter No. 252.
5 Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi, Radd-i-Rawafiz, Delhi, 1983, p. 10; Ikram, Rud-i-Kauthar, p.
6 Ibid.,(Sirhindi), p. 11.
and the so-called ahadith telling o f his nomination are forged.1 Their
adoration o f ‘Ali is similar in its excesses to the Christian attitude towards
Jesus.2 It is against the known practice of the first three Caliphs to violate
the Prophet’s decree, as it is against the dignity o f ‘Ali to subject himself
to their authority and falsify thereby his claim, if the Prophet(s) had
nominated him.3 He maintains that there is consensus o f opinion among
the Sahaba and T ab‘ieen o f the superiority of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and
‘Uthman over Hadhrat ‘Ali.4 The Shi‘a books are unreliable and must be
considered to be as corrupted (muharrafah) as the Torah and the Injil.5
The Shi‘as do not refrain from adding spurious passages to the Q ur‘an
while accusing ‘Uthman o f concealing Qur‘anic verses, which had
allegedly been revealed in praise of the Prophet’s family.6 According to
Sirhindi, a serious affect o f accepting the Shi‘a position about the
Companions is that it puts in doubt the credibility o f the Q ur‘an, which
they (Companions) have collected.7 It also undermines the authenticity o f
the whole corpus o f Hadith, which they have transm itted.8 It will also
discredit the mission o f the Prophet(s) who spent his whole life educating
men, and on their turn after his demise, en masse violated his instructions.
1 Ibid., p. 12.
2 Ibid., p. 15.
3 Ibid., p. 18.
4 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. II, Letter No. 67, 15 and 36.
5 Sirhindi, Radd, p. 21.
6 Ibid.
7 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. I, Letter No. 251; Vol. II, Letter No. 96.
8 Sirhindi, Radd, p. 17.
In the disputes between ‘Ali and his opponents, Sirhindi clearly states that
the truth was with ‘Ali and his opponents were w rong.1 But the wrong
stand taken by ‘Ali’s opponents was a result o f an error in judgment made
in good faith and cannot, therefore, be reason for their exclusion from the
Muslim Community.2 Hence the opponents like ‘A‘ishah, Talha and
Zubair are not to be condemned but to be excused.3 About Amir
Mu‘awiyah who among the Companions is most vilified by the Shi‘as,
Sirhindi maintains that though being wrong, cannot be deemed as Kafir or
Fasiq (as Shi‘as believe)4. If it is accepted, then it is also to be shared by
about half o f the Companions who supported M u‘awwiyah and
consequently half o f the religious corpus transmitted through them will
become doubtful.5 Sirhindi also rejects the Shi‘a view that the
Companionship o f Prophet (Suhbat-i-Rasool) is not o f great importance.
He says that the Companionship o f Prophet(s) is superior than any other
virtue or merit.6 And for that reason likes o f Ovais Qarni and ‘Umr bin
‘Abdul ‘Aziz, who though match the Companions in their virtues, are
inferior to them on account o f latter’s association with the Prophet(s).7
And for the similar reason errors in*judgment (Khata-i-Ijtihadi) committed
1 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. II, Letter No. 251 and 36.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid., Vol. II, Letter No. 36.
4 Ibid., Vol. I., Letter No. 251.
5 Ibid., Vol. II, Letter No. 36.
6 Ibid., Vol. I. Letter No. 120.
1 Ibid.
by M u‘awiyyah and ‘Umr bin al-‘Aas are superior than the sane
judgments o f Ovais Qarni and ‘Umr bin ‘Abdul ‘A ziz.1
To Sirhindi, Taqiya (to conceal truth in a given situation) the
approved practice o f Shi‘as, is cowardice and timidity, and a state o f
hypocracy (nifaq).2 And to consider A sad-U llah ( ‘Ali) to have resorted to
such practice and to emphasize that he remained in the state o f nifaq, that
• • • 3
too for thirty long years, is ridiculous, absurd and irrational.
The opinion o f Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi about the Shi‘as
reaches its climax when he declares that they must be considered infidels
( kufar).4 He writes, “to say o f a believer that he is an infidel is a cause o f
infidelity. A sound tradition runs as follows: “whoever accuses a man o f
infidelity and says [to him]: ‘Enemy o f G od’, and if it is as he said [then
all is right]; if not, it [the curse] will come back upon him”.5 Sirhindi then
argues that ‘we know certainly that Abu Bakr and ‘Umr are faithful, are
not enemies o f God, and have been promised paradise. Their takfir, thus
comes back upon those who pronounced it. According to this tradition,
therefore, the Shi‘a must be pronounced infidels’.6 Sirhindi also quotes
with approval a legal opinion issued by group o f Transoxianian ‘ulama
1 Ibid
2 Ibid., Vol. II, Letter No. 36;
3 Ibid.; Sirhindi, Radd, p. 29.
4 Sirhindi does not agree to the views of Imam Ghazali and Abul Hasa al-Ash‘ari, who do
not consider Shi‘as as infidels, because before than the vilification of the Companions
does not tantamount to kufr. (Sirhindi, Radd, p. 30).
5 Ibid., p. 30.
6 Ibid., pp. 30-31.
who ruled: ‘Since the Shi‘a permit cursing Abu Bakr, ‘Umr and ‘Uthman
and one o f the chaste wives [of Prophet], which in itself constitutes
infidelity, it is incumbent upon the Muslim ruler, nay upon all people, in
compliance with the command of the Omniscient king, to kill them and to
oppress them in order to elevate the true religion. It is permissible to
destroy their buildings and to seize their property and belongings.1
Sirhindi’s vigorous denunciation and refutation o f the Shi‘a
doctrines and to decree them as infidels has to be seen in the historical
context, as the various fallacies disseminated by them both within and
without the court were damaging the cause o f Islam in India. It is,
however, important here to point out that somewhat hostile attitude of
Sirhindi towards the Shi‘a expressed in the Radd seems to have lessened
as depicted in the Maktubat written in the later part o f his life. Though
still maintaining that their (Shi‘a) view of early Islamic history and their
hatred for the first three khulafa are unacceptable, but in most cases he
refrains from declaring them infidels. In the Maktubat, however, he
condemns these acts as fisq apd b id ‘at.2 Thus, in comparison with the
attitude in the Radd, Sirhindi’s approach to the Shi‘a in the M aktubat is
mild.3 Friedmann attributes this change in the attitude o f Sirhindi, to his
joining the sufi suluk later.4
1 Ibid, pp. 29-30.
2 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. II, Letter No. 36.
3 Ansari, op. cit., p. 143.
4 Friedmann, op. cit., p. 53.
Sirhindi has also described the various Shi‘a sects and their
beliefs in his writings.1 Some o f these beliefs contradict the established
beliefs o f Islam, such as ‘Ali is a god; or that the revelation was in fact
sent to ‘Ali, but Gabriel made a mistake and gave it to Muhammad; or that
human souls are born again and again in different bodies. Major Shi‘a
sects do not hold these beliefs but some very insignificant extremist sects
do. They have been condemned as infidels by the Ummah.
To sum up, Sirhindi does not substantiate to the theology of
Shi‘a – the major Muslim sect, and upholds the view that the theology o f
ahl al-Sunnah-wa-al-Jam a‘a is sound and in accord with the injunctions
o f the Qur‘an and the Sunnah, and the consensus o f A sla f (previous
generation of Muslims).
1 Sirhindi, Radd, pp. 12-15. The Shi‘a sects mentioned in the Radd are Sabayiya,
Kamliyya, Bayaniya, Mughairya, Janahvya, Mansuriya, Khatabiya, Ghurabiya,
Imamiyya, Yunusiyya, Mufawwaza, Isma ‘iyiliyya, Zaidiyya and Imamiyya. Also see,
Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. II, Letter No. 36.

Links and Related Essay’s

Click to access eng%204%20Humayun%20Abbas%20Shams%20Newv10.pdf

Click to access 10_chapter%204.pdf

Finality of Prophethood

English author uses word “apostle” for Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi

Click to access A-Misconception-Removed.pdf

#ahmadiyya #ahmadi #sirhindi

Ahmadiyya, Ahmad Sirhindi (Mujadid of the 10th century) and the end of prophethood

Ahmadi’s are academically dishonest, its a cycle, their clerics are to blame. Nevertheless, after the split of 1914, the Qadiani’s began to reference Ahmad Sirhindi (mujadid of the 11th century and Mujaddid Alf-i-Thani)(A Naqhshabandi Sufi and Hanafi). Ahmad Sirhindi and other Sufi’s like Ibn Arabi only considered prophethood as law-bearing, like 99% of Muslims, however, they allowed for 1/46th of prophethood, and also called it a form of prophethood via dreams and etc (non-law-bearing prophethood). In contrast, MGA claimed to be an Ummati-Nabi, whereas Ibn Arabi and Sirhindi were equating prophethood=muhaddas.

The highly regarded Sheikh Ahmed Sirhindi had proclaimed himself to be the mujaddid/reformer for the next one thousand years (“mujaddid alif thani”) (Friedmann 2000). Per Muhammad Ali, MGA quoted Sirhindi in terms of the definition of a Muhadas in 1891, in MGA’s letters (Maktubat-1, letter-27 and Maktubat-2, page-99, Via Muhammad Ali, “The Last Prophet”, page 50-51) and in Izala Auham (see page 915, older edition). Muhammad Ali argued (1916) that MGA had quoted Sirhindi before MGA had claimed prophethood. Nevertheless, in the letters of Sirhindi, there is ample proof of the fact that he believed that prophethood had ended.

MGA on Sirhindi

Izalah Auham, p. 915, quoted from Maktubat Ahmadiyya, vol. ii, p. 99

“Let it be known to you, O friend, that God sometimes communicates with a person face to face and such persons are from among the prophets, and sometimes the communication takes place with some of these perfect ones who, although they are not prophets, are their followers. And when a person is honoured with this kind of communication (kalam) in abundance, he is called a muhaddath. And this (divine communication) is not of the kind of inspiration called ilham nor is it that which has been called ‘ilqa fil rau’, which is a sudden suggestion made directly to the heart of the inspired one, nor is it the kind of communication which takes place through the agency of the angel. Such communication is addressed to the perfect person (al-insan al-kamil). And God with his blessing distinguishes whomsoever he pleases.”
(Per Muhammad Ali, MGA quoted Sirhindi in terms of the definition of a Muhadas in 1891, in MGA’s letters (Maktubat-1, letter-27 and Maktubat-2, page-99, Via Muhammad Ali, “The Last Prophet”, page 50-51) and in Izala Auham (see page 915, older edition).

Haqiqatul Wahy

“””The truth is what the Revered reformer of Sirhind [Mujaddid Alfe-Thani] has recorded in his Maktubat:

Though some individuals from among this ummah [i.e. the Muslims] are honoured with converse and address with the Divine and will continue to be so honoured until the Day of
Judgment, yet the individual who is so honoured with this converse and address abundantly and to whom the unseen is disclosed abundantly, is called a Prophet.””” (see online english edition).

Malfuzat, v. 10. p. 155 
(as quoted and translated by Zahid Aziz in his debate with Tahir Ijaz)

MGA says there, referring to Hazrat Mujaddid Alif Sani, that whoever has dreams and revelations in abundance is called muhaddas.

Sirhindi on prophethood
(See Maktubat Imam Rabbani, Hakikat Ketabevi, Istanbul, 1977 Maktub # 301 pp. 636-639)

“Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim. After the praises (due to Allah) and the salutations (due to the Holy Prophet). My son, Amanullah ought to know, Prophethood (nubuwwah) is about closeness to Allah which does not have even a remote connection to the idea of “zill”. It ascends to Almighty Allah and descends towards the creation. This closeness in essence belongs to the Prophets –on them be the peace and blessings- and this rank (mansab) is exclusive to those godly men –may the peace and blessings be upon them. And the Leader of Mankind (i.e. the Holy Prophet) –on him be the peace and salutations- is the final seal of this rank. After his descent ‘Eisa will follow the shar’iah of Khatam al-Rusul –on them both be the peace and salutations. The point here is that followers also have their share. And by the way of inheritance the followers also find their share from the wisdom, gnosis and wonders of this station (‘uloom o ma’arif wa kamalaat aan maqam).

So for the followers to attain the wonders of prophethood (kamalat nubuwwat) by way of following and inheritance after the coming of the Last Prophet –on him and his followers and all the prophets be the peace and salutations- is not in contradiction to his finality. So be not of those who doubt.”

After this Imam Rabbani discusses how one may find his share from this blessed inheritance. And towards the end of the letter he writes;

“One must know that attaining to this blessing is direct for the prophets –on them be the peace and blessings. And for the companions (sahaba) of the prophets who attain this wealth though inheritance and following it is through the prophets –on them be the peace and blessings. Those who received this wealth after the prophets and their companions are rare although it is possible that someone else may also be blessed with this wealth through inheritance or by having followed.

I think this wealth was available to the earliest tabi’in, and was given to the senior taba’ tabi’in too. Thereafter this wealth became extinct till it came to the second millennium after the Holy Prophet –on him and his followers be the peace and blessings. Even now this wealth has become visible through following and succession. And the last of the times have been made akin to the earliest days.”

(See Maktubat Imam Rabbani, Hakikat Ketabevi, Istanbul, 1977 Maktub # 301 pp. 636-639)

In his book Al-Musawwa Sharh al-Muwatta‟, a commentary on the famous book of Islāmic law by Imām Mālik, under the section “The Ruling of the Khawārij, the Jahmiyya and their likes”57, Shah Wali Allah al-Dehlawi writes:

وكذلك من قال ف الش خٌ نٌ أب بكر وعمر مثلًَ ل سٌا من أهل الجنة مع تواتر الحد ثٌ ف بشارتهما أو قال: ان النب -صلى عل هٌ وسلم-
خاتم النبوة ولكن معنى هذا الكلَم أنه لَ جٌوز أن سٌمو بعده أحد بالنب ،ً وأما معنى النبوة وهو كون الإنسان مبعوثاً من تعالى إلى الخلق
مفترض ال اعة معصوماً من الذنوب ومن البقاء، على الخ أ ف مٌا رٌى فهو موجود ف الْئمة بعده ، فذلك هو الزند قٌ . وقد اتفق جماه رٌ
المتأخر نٌ من الحنف ةٌ والشافع ةٌ على قتل من جٌري هذا المجرى و أعلم

“””Similarly, whoever claims concerning the two shaykhs [Abu Bakr and Umar] for example that they are not [to be] the inhabitants of Paradise, even though it is mass narrated in the hadīth that they were given the good news [of entering Paradise]; or whoever states that the Prophet is the seal of Prophethood, but that this term means that no one after him can be named a “prophet”, and that as for that meaning of prophethood which is [a human sent by Allah to the people, obedience to whom is required, protected from sins and remaining in error] that, this (meaning of) prophethood can still be found in the leaders of the Community after him; then this person is a heretic (zindīq). Furthermore, the majority of the later Hanafī and Shāfi’ī scholars are unanimous in agreement that such a person deserves capital punishment, and Allah knows best.””” (Via Farhan Khan, “With love to Ahmadis”).

Adil Hussain on Sirhindi and MGA

“””Friedmann explained Ibn al-‘Arabi’s concept of legislative— 33 prophets (anbiya tashrV) and non-legislative prophets (anbiya la tashri’a lahum). Legislative prophets were those who brought some type of scripture or legal code to mankind, whereas non-legislative prophets simply reinforced the previous scriptures that had already been revealed. Although Ghulam Ahmad did claim to be a nonlegislative prophet, he acknowledged that no other legislative prophet could come after Muhammad and that the Qur’an was the last scripture. Friedmann showed how
Ghulam Ahmad believed that non-legislative prophets would continue to come in the Islamic tradition, albeit in a capacity that was subservient or spiritually inferior to Muhammad who was khatam al-nabiyyin (seal of the prophets)”””.(See Adil Hussain)

Ahmadi sources quote Sirhindi out of context

In this connection, I would place before you a passage from the writings of the well known Mujaddid Alf-e-Thani, Hazrat Sheikh Ahmad Faruqi Sirhindi (died 1034 AH), who is a recognized authority among the different sects of Ahle-Sunnat (Hanafi, Deobandi, Barelavi). In his Maktubat, he states:

“””Following the advent of Hazrat Muhammad, the Chosen One, the Seal of the Prophets(sa), the attainment of the attributes of prophethood by his followers as subordinate or by way of inheritance, will in no way conflict with his status as the Seal of the Prophets. So do not be amongst the doubters”””. (Maktubat Imam Rabbani, Book 1, Maktub no. 301, vol. 5, p. 141)

Links and Related Essay’s

Finality of Prophethood

English author uses word “apostle” for Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi

Click to access A-Misconception-Removed.pdf

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #trueislam

The Eschatological Descent of Jesus: Muslim Views by Dr. Zeki Saritoprak

Esa (as) is still alive, he will die when he returns (see 4:159). Dr. Zeki Saritoprak wrote an amazing essay on 4:159 and other issues with the life of Esa (As).

The essay

The Qur’an tells us that the universe will end. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam agree that there will be a Day of Reckoning. The Qur’an describes this day as Yawm al-Qiyamah (Doomsday), al-Sa’ah (The Hour), al-Naba’ al-‘Azim (The Great News), and Yawm al-Din (The Day of Judgment.(1) Some Qur’anic verses and hadith (traditions) give us an idea of when this event will occur. The hadith literature discusses this topic under the title of “Doomsday Manifestations.”

According to Islam, the eschatological descent of Jesus is one such manifestation. Jesus, along with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David, John, and Muhammad, is considered one of the elite Prophets. Muslims believe that Jesus received a Divinely revealed book (the Injil [Gospel]), was born of a virgin, had no human father, and was sinless. He is given titles of honor, and pictured as a wandering preacher who performed miracles and spoke beautiful words. Many Sufis use his words in their prayers. The Qur’an states that Jesus’ people did not crucify him, for someone took His place on the cross. He then ascended to the heavens, after promising to send a comforter (Muhammad).

Muslims have surrounded Jesus with many pious legends. Some believe he will return and marry in the distant future. A grave site has been reserved for him. Others say he will judge the world at the end of time, help Muhammad rule, be Muhammad’s last Companion, or that he will appear at the eastern white minaret of the Damascus mosque or in Jerusalem. He will pursue the Antichrist (Dajjal) and, overtaking him at the gate of Lydda (a town near Jerusalem), will slay him.

Islamic scholars interpret some Qur’anic verses and hadith pointing to the second coming as a significant pre-Day of Judgment event.(2) The earliest Muslim scholars believed this so strongly that they attached it to the eminence of the Day of Judgment. At times, .expectations ran so high that commoners prepared a white horse and brought it to the white minaret in Damascus where they believed Jesus would reappear. Reputable texts give no credence to such details, although they have been dramatized by interpreters of lesser reputation. Jesus appears in the horizon at dawn and leads the people against the Antichrist who, helpless before such power, dissolves into nothingness.

Will this eschatological event occur? Is there any truth to this belief? How has the subject been treated in kalam (Islamic theology) literature? The starting point in seeking answers is the Qur’an.

Much of what the Qur’an teaches about Jesus is acceptable to Christians: the virgin birth, his sinlessness and ascension, and his miracles. The Qur’anic evidence for Jesus’ descent is somewhat obscure and ambigious, but later Muslim traditions took up the idea eagerly. According to them, Jesus is still alive in the heavens and will return to signal the Last Days.(3) The Qur’an, which considers Jesus a great Prophet, mentions him as ‘Isa (25 places),(4) al-Masih (Annointed One, Messiah), al-Nabi (Prophet), al-Rasul (Messenger), Min al-Muqarrabin (of those close to God), Mubarak (Sacred One), Qawl al-Haq (True Word), ‘Abd Allah (Servant of God), and in 33 places as Ibn Maryam (Son of Mary).

Before delving into this subject further, we will examine the events leading up to it. For example, his second coming necessarily implies his ascension to the heavens alive. This begs the question: Did Jesus die on the cross?


This very contentious question has engendered several schools of thought. Some claim that Roman soldiers charged into a cottage where Jesus was believed to be with twelve of his disciples. During the attack, one person disappeared. Soldiers took one of the twelve remaining men and crucified him. Others believe that when the soldiers entered the cottage, they could not identify him, as everyone had taken on his physical attributes, and so picked and crucified someone at random.(5)

While the Qur’an offers no details on this point, it clearly states that Jesus was neither killed nor crucified. Moreover, his ‘killers’ were never sure if they had killed him or not (4:157-58). We know that someone-but not who-was crucified. Jewish and Christian sources say it was Jesus, an assertion rejected outright by the Qur’an.


And remember when Allah said: “0 Jesus. I will take you and raise you to Myself and clear you of those who disbelieve” (3:55). In other words, Jesus was not executed. A perusal of the classical and more modern literature on this verse will clarify matters.

According to Ragheb al-Isphahani (d. 1696), mutawaffika (I will take you) here does not mean death in the sense we understand it, even though he mentions that the noted Companion Ibn ‘Abbas understood this literal meaning.(6) Al-Tabari (d. 922), a well-known Qur’anic scholar, states that mutawaffika means “to take and raise him to the heavens.” After offering several interpretations, he expresses his own preference: “In my opinion, a healthier view on the meaning of mutawaffika is ‘to take from earth and raise to the heavens.'”(7) Moreover, the verse as a whole points to Jesus’ eschatological descent and a war against the nonbelievers that ends in a great victory for the believers.

The noted Islamic theologian al-Maturidi (d. 944) mentions several views, one of which is that even though the verse first mentions Jesus’ death and then his ascension, his death is postponed until after the second coming. God says: “I will take you and raise you to myself … to the day of resurrection: Then shall you all return unto me…” However, the probable meaning of literal death cannot be dismissed.(8) Al-Maturidi does not state his own view. If, however, mentioning one view before another amounts to a personal preference, one can argue that he believes Jesus was not killed before his ascension. This uncertainty, however, does not apply to his second coming, as al-Maturidi cites several relevant hadiths and the subsequent slaying of the Antichrist.(9)

Al-Zamakhshari (d. 1143), a Mu’tazilite scholar and Arabic linguist, argues that Jesus “will die a natural death after his victory over the Antichrist, not at the hands of the nonbelievers.”(10) The famous Qur’anic interpreter Ibn ‘Atiyya (d. 1152) writes that Jesus “will die a second time after descending to the Earth and slaying the Antichrist.”(11) Based on this, he seems to accept that Jesus ascended after his death, whereas he claims that Jesus is still alive.

Abu al-Faraj al-Jawzi (d. 1200), who defines mutawaffika as “to take something completely,” writes that Jesus was raised to the heavens by God. And he does not rule out a normal death: “Jesus’ real death shall occur after his second coming.”(12) The noted Muslim theologian al-Razi (d. 1209) gives what he calls a “sensible” interpretation: “I will complete your life and then take your soul. I shall not leave you in their hands to kill you. I will raise you to My heavens and place you next to my angels. They will not have the chance to kill you, for I will protect you.(13)

Ibn Kathir (d. 1372), a prominent Qur’anic interpreter offering the same explanation, interprets mutawaffika as “sleep” and provides several supporting verses.(14) A similar explanation, that Jesus ascended and will return before the Day of Judgment, is held by many people, among them Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, who uses the pertinent hadith literature to verify the meaning mutawaffa as “sleep.”(15)

Other respected Qur’anic scholars interpret tawaffa as “death as applied to Jesus.” However, as this death will occur after the second coming and the Antichrist’s subsequent defeat, Jesus is currently alive. Upon his second coming, Jesus will effect various social reforms and refute some established Christian beliefs.(16)

The Ottoman mystic scholar Bursevi accepts the traditional explanation and gives additional details: “When Jesus witnessed the virtuosity of the Prophet Muhammad’s community in the Preserved Tablet (al-Lawh al-Mahfuz), he asked God to count him as one of Ummah of Muhammad. God accepted this sincere supplication….”(17) The Qur’anic scholar al-Alusi (d. 1854) offers a different hypothesis: Jesus ascended alive and awake, stripped of all human needs and attributes.(18) In fact, he now lives in a world unknown to us.

Some contemporary Turkish and Egyptian scholars hold different views. Omer Riza Dogrul asserts that as Jesus could not have been killed, he must have died naturally.(19) According to the Egyptian Islamic scholar al-Qasimi, both literal and metaphorical interpretations are possible, although he appears to favor an idiomatic meaning for tawaffa.(20) The Pakistani scholar Abul Ala Maududi writes: “Mutawaffika in the Arabic text is from tawaffa, which literally means ‘to take and to receive,’ and ‘to seize the soul’ is not its lexical but rather its metaphorical meaning. Here it means ‘to recall from mission.'”(21) He castigates those who adopt the literal meaning (death) for tawaffa, accusing them of saying God cannot express Himself clearly.

Kawthari, who lived during the last phase of the Ottoman Empire, also emphasizes a metaphorical meaning based on historical analysis of the word’s meaning and more Qur’anic examples. During the Qur’an’s revelation, its audience would not necessarily have understood this word to mean “death,” for then the Qur’anic usage of mawt elsewhere would lose its significance as “death.” The Qur’an contains several words whose true meanings would be distorted if their contemporary meanings were ascribed to them. For example, today risalah means “letter,” while its original Qur’anic meaning is “Prophethood.”(22)

The Egyptian reformers Muhammad ‘Abduh and Rashid Rida accept the lexical meaning of “death.” Rida says Jesus literally died and his soul ascended. In conversation, it is not unusual to signify “soul” when a person’s name is mentioned, for the soul is the individual’s essence. Therefore when the Qur’an talks about Jesus in this verse, it means his soul.(23)

Mahmood Shaltut, a more contemporary Egyptian scholar, is certain of Jesus’ literal death. He cites two verses that mention Jesus’ forthcoming death and report his death (4:157 and 3:5, respectively). Several contemporary interpreters posit an energy-matter relationship, but provide no supporting evidence. According to them, Jesus had such a strong spiritual stature that his physical body became energy (spirit) and ascended to the heavens, similar to Muhammad’s Ascension. Mutawaffika naturally would refer to his death as tawaffa, “to call in a loan at the end of its term,” and is commonly used in that sense. But the verb also is used for nightly slumber. Therefore we cannot be certain that actual death is implied here.


And because of their saying: We killed the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah,’ but they hilled him not nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Jesus was put over another man, and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not. But Allah raised him up unto himself And Allah is ever AU-Powerful, All-Wise (4:157-58).

These verses have been interpreted in two ways: Jesus did not die but ascended, or he really died. Early Qur’anic scholars offered various interpretations. The scholar Mujahid ibn Jabr (d.0722) claimed “they crucified someone other than Jesus, whom they mistook for Jesus,” and “Jesus ascended to the heavens alive.”24 According to Ibn Hazm (d. 1064), a famous Muslim theologian, Jesus did not die and is alive in the heavens, as the above verses clearly indicate.25 Once again, these verses remind us that Jesus has not died, will return before the Day of Judgment, and eventually will die a natural death. In fact, Jesus is known to have said: So peace is upon me the day I was born, the day that I die… (19 which shows that he is still alive. It mus remembered, however, that since he said this while still in his cradle, this verse does not prove that he is still alive.

The Qur’an tells us that faith always triumphs over evil. If Jesus’ enemies crucified him, evil would be triumphant, It also states clearly that God defends the faithful (22:38). Therefore, Jesus could not have been crucified.26

Arguments against Jesus’ crucifixion are considerably more convincing than those favoring it. But both groups have asked: If he is not dead, why is his second coming delayed until soon before Day of Judgment? Those v ‘ say he has died already dt^-y the second coming.

Elmalili Hamdi Yazir, the best-known Turkish interpreter of the Qur’an, concurs with the majority view, basing himself on the hadith: “Jesus has not died and will reappear shortly before the Day of Judgment.”‘7 Most Muslims believe that as Jesus has not yet completed his appointed task, he this verse, it means his soul.23

Mahmood Shaltut, a more contemporary Egyptian scholar, is certain of Jesus’ literal death. He cites two verses that mention Jesus’ forthcoming death and report his death (4:157 and 3:5, respectively). Several contemporary interpreters posit an energy-matter relationship, but provide no supporting evidence. According to them, Jesus had such a strong spiritual stature that his physical body became energy [spirit) and ascended to the heavens, similar to Muhammad’s Ascension. Mutawaffika naturally would refer to his death as tawaffa, “to call in a loan at the end of its term,” and is commonly used in that sense. But the verb also is used for nightly slumber. Therefore we cannot be certain that actual death is implied here.


And because of their saying: ‘We killed the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah,’ but they killed him not nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Jesus was put over another man, and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not. But Allah raised him up unto himself. And Allah is ever All-Powerful, All-Wise (4:157-58).

These verses have been interpreted in two ways; Jesus did not die but ascended, or he really died. Early Qur’anic scholars offered various interpretations. The scholar Mujahid ibn Jabr (d.722) claimed “they crucified someone other than Jesus, whom they mistook for Jesus,” and “Jesus ascended to the heavens alive.”(24) According to Ibn Hazm (d. 1064), a famous Muslim theologian, Jesus did not die and is alive in the heavens, as the above verses clearly indicate.(25) Once again, these verses remind us that Jesus has not died, will return before the Day of Judgment, and eventually will die a natural death. In fact, Jesus is known to have said: So peace is upon me the day I was born, the day that I die… (19:33), which shows that he is still alive. It must be remembered, however, that since he said this while still in his cradle, this verse does not prove that he is still alive.

The Qur’an tells us that faith always triumphs over evil. If Jesus’ enemies crucified him, evil would be triumphant. It also states clearly that God defends the faithful (22:38). Therefore, Jesus could not have been crucified.(26)

Arguments against Jesus’ crucifixion are considerably more convincing than those favoring it. But both groups have asked: If he is not dead, why is his second coming delayed until soon before the Day of Judgment? Those who say he has died already deny the second coming.

Elmalili Hamdi Yazir, the best-known Turkish interpreter of the Qur’an, concurs with the majority view, basing himself on the hadith: “Jesus has not died and will reappear shortly before the Day of Judgment.”(27) Most Muslims believe that as Jesus has not yet completed his appointed task, he will return to complete it and then die.(28) Relying on: Every soul shall taste death (3:185) and We granted not to any man before the permanent life (21:34), Ismail Fenni Ertugrul, a contemporary Turkish scholar, accuses Elmalili of hiding his real opinion. According to him, the above verses clearly presuppose Jesus’ death.(29) But such criticism is groundless; Elmalili does not contradict these verses, as all Islamic scholars agree that Jesus eventually will die and be resurrected.

Bediuzzaman Said Nursi (d. 1960), the most influential twentieth-century Muslim scholar, has defined five distinct levels of life, and places Jesus in the third level (along with the angels). The first level, that of humanity, is very restricted. The second level, that of Khidi and Ilyas (Elias), is free to some extent and allows its inhabitants to be present in numerous places at once. The third level is that of Idris (Enoch) and Jesus who, removed from human requirements, enter an angelic life and acquire a luminous fineness. Quite simply, they are in the heavens with their earthly bodies. In this life, Jesus is more like an angel than a man. The fourth level is for martyrs, and the fifth level is for the spirits of the dead in their graves.(30)


Whether the Qur’an addresses Jesus’ second coming has been a matter of contention.

Three Qur’anic verses have been advanced as evidence. The first refers to what Jesus said. Some classical interpreters, with the exception of the Mu’tazilite al-Zamakhshari, based themselves on hadith literature and inferred the second coming from: He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity… (3:45). According to them, the verb’s future tense implies the unfinished nature of Jesus’ mission. So, he will have to speak to people after his second coming.(31) Some contemporary scholars agree, notably al-Ghumari, who says that this verse refers to an extraordinary event, as he spoke while still in his crib. Before his ascension, Jesus preached among his kinsmen. However, the verse contains the word al-nas, indicating that he will speak to humanity. This necessitates his second coming. (32)

What is actually emphasized here, and in 19:29-31, is the miracle of Jesus speaking when still an infant. The verse also suggests that Jesus will speak to people. Of course he spoke to people as an adult before his ascension. So we cannot infer from the verse’s context that such an event will occur after his second coming. Those who assert this offer no concrete supporting evidence. The verse’s implied meaning of the second coming, I believe, appears at best to be forced, probably to provide additional support for hadith dealing with the subject.

The second relevant verse is: And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in Him before his death (4:159). Again, their argument is weak. Al-Zamakhshari assigns the pronoun bihi (in him) to Jesus, and infers the second coming in the verse’s context. Al-Suyuti and al-Qari (d. 1605) infer a similar meaning.(33) According to al-Baydawi, if both bihi and mawtihi refer to Jesus, his death can be considered real only after his second coming.(34) ‘Abd al-Hamid, an al-Azhar scholar, puts forward this verse to those who claim that the Qur’an does not mention clearly or even hint about the second coming.(35) The best interpreters of the verse are the Prophet’s Companions. Al-Ghumari points out that Ibn ‘Abbas and Abu Hurayra, two Companions with an outstanding command of Arabic grammar and knowledge of the Qur’anic mission, interpreted it in a way that infers the descent of Jesus.(36) The Prophet’s grandson Hasan agrees with this interpretation.(37) Therefore the majority of Muslim scholars believe that Jesus will return.


The verse: And he (Jesus) shall be a sign of the Judgment Day… (43:61), according to various classical and contemporary Qur’anic scholars, refers to his eschatological descent.(38) In this verse, la ‘ilmun can be recited in three variations: la ‘ilmun, refers to knowledge of the Day of Judgment; la ‘alamun, points to a sign of the Day of Judgment; and la dhikr, as a warning of the Day of Judgment.(39) Al-Azhar’s official fatwa on the second coming offers this verse as evidence.(40) There will be a second coming, because it has been foretold to be a sign of the Hour of Resurrection. Moreover, such Western scholars as Parrinder, also point to this verse as evidence when speaking of the second coming.(41)

Shaltut does not accept the second and third verses as indisputable evidence, but rather prefers al-Tabari’s interpretation that Jesus’ virgin birth is itself a sign of the Hour of Judgment.(42) This verse addresses those who deny the Hereafter. This miraculous birth is offered to provide evidence of the Hereafter to unbelievers. According to al-Kawthari, who diametrically opposes Shaltut, pertinent Qur’anic verses and traditions necessitate a belief in the second coming. He does not respond directly to Shaltut’s views; rather, he accepts the majority view by faith without insisting on concrete evidence. The contemporary scholar Ibn ‘Ashur, who also opposes the majority view, fails to offer any convincing supporting evidence.(43)

In the context, the pronoun hu naturally refers to Jesus, meaning that Jesus is a sign of the coming of the Hour. Then the return of Jesus is, of course, one of the signs of the only Qur’anic passage supporting this view. But others say this pronoun refers to the Qur’an, or to Muhammad. In my opinion, these two latter interpretations are not credible, for these verses are generally about Jesus. Therefore the meaning would be “Jesus is the sign of the Day of Judgment.” As the exact aspect of Jesus that supposedly is a sign of the Day of Judgment is not mentioned, many interpretations are possible.

For example, some scholars imply that Jesus’ virgin birth is a sign: God is showing us His power. Therefore, the All-Powerful God Who created Jesus without a father can create the Hereafter and the Day of Judgment. The verse compares Jesus’ creation with, that of Adam, presenting both as evidence of God’s infinite power. When God mentions Jesus as a sign of the Hour, the first meaning that logically comes to mind is his miraculous birth. According to others, the verse indicates the second coming because there is a close relation between Jesus and the Hour. Therefore, as Jesus is mentioned as a sign of the Hour, his descent must be meant.

The fourth verse cited as evidence is: And ice be upon me the day I was born and the day 1die and the day I shall be raised alive (19:33). The resurrection mentioned here signifies his second coming, according to those who claim it proves this event. They base this on the fact that the same verse also mentions his future death. In other words, Jesus did not die on the cross.(44)

Another indirect proof is: He (Muhammad) does not speak of his own desire. It is only an inspiration that is inspired (53:3-4). This verse literally explains that whatever Prophet Muhammad says is an inspiration from God. It is narrated, with a strong chain of transmitters, that the Prophet was talking to his Companions about the second coming. Therefore this verse is a proof that Prophet Muhammad was inspired about the second coming.(45)

Unlike most interpreters, Shaltut opines that all such proofs violate the verses’ literal meaning, and that interpreters devised such meanings to avoid conflict with some second-coming traditions narrated by such famous Companions as Abu Hurayra. Therefore, he believes that the Qur’an and the Sunnah provide no trustworthy evidence for this event. The Syrian scholar al-Buty claims that Shaltut changed his view, adopted the majority view during his last illness, and then buried all documents connected with his old views.(46)

But why did Shaltut deny the second coming despite all the proofs mentioned above? It seems to me that he viewed the majority interpretation as unreasonable and against general Islamic principles. He thinks that a person cannot come from heaven, and therefore denies such statements. They based their evidence on God’s power, saying: He is able to do all things (67:1) and therefore He can bring Jesus. They think of bodily descent. Is the descent of Jesus from heaven to be considered materially?

In semantic terms, nuzul (descending) does not necessitate a material descent, for other verses treat this descent as a manifestation of God’s bounty. For example: He sent down for you eight pairs of cattle (39:6}.(47) We cannot say that the animals descended from the heavens, but we can say that they descended to us from God’s Mercy. Moreover, in some hadiths nuzul is used in relation to God: “God descends every night to the first heaven, the heaven of the world…”(48) Of course it is not a physical descend. Therefore, in this sense, the descend of Jesus in his second coming can be spiritual, meaning that God will send him from His Mercy to be a mercy to humanity.

There is another, more spiritual approach: His descent means that Christian spiritual leaders will purify Christianity and return it to the original religion of Jesus. Meanwhile, they do not deny the possibility of Jesus’ physical descent. Because of his strong spirituality, Jesus can come and go and appear in different human forms. But the focal point, according to this opinion, is his spiritual domination of the Earth in alliance with Islam. The true religion, seen in the togetherness of Islam and Christianity, will defeat materialism, communism, and atheism. This view is shared by the prominent Turkish scholar Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, the Indian scholar Siddik Hasan Khan, and partly by ‘Abduh. Therefore, the second coming can be a strong means for Muslim-Christians dialogue.

To clarify this matter, we cite Qur’an 30:1-5, which discusses the Muslims’ hope that the Roman Christians would defeat the pagan Persians. The Qur’an clearly mentions that Muslims shall rejoice over that victory. If we apply this historical event to today’s life, what can we say? In general, when one asks a Muslim about a possible war, for example, between the United States and China, Muslims must support the former, for it believes in God and religious values, and China does not. In fact, as far as I know, many Muslims are very upset over China’s persecution of its Muslims and Christians. Since Prophet Muhammad stated in many traditions that some Qur’anic verses hint of Jesus’ second coming, the concept of Muslim-Christian dialogue is readily understandable. To sum up, the huge restoration of the Last Days will witness true Christianity (the spirit of Jesus) working hand in hand with true Islam (the spirit of Muhammad) for the benefit of humanity.

* Zeki Saritoprak is an Associate Faculty Member of the Department of Semitics at The Catholic University of America, and a Research Associate at Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding of Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. The author wishes to thank Seyyid Hussein Nasr, Sidney Griffith, Theresa Ann-Druart, and Monica Blanchard.


  1. See ‘Abd al-Baqi, Muhammad Fuad, Al-Mu’jam al-Mufahras li Alfazi’l-Qur’an al-Karim, (Istanbul: 1982), 370-1, 581-2, 775-80.
  2. Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Husayn b. Hasan al-Halimi, Al-Minhaj fi Shu’ab al-Iman, (Cairo: 1979), 1:142; Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Abi Sahi al-Sarakhsi, Sifatu Ashrat al-Sa’ah (Paris: Bibliotheque Nationale, n.d.), nr. 1800; ed. by Zeki Saritoprak, (Cairo: 1993), 35; Abu al-‘Abbas Ahmad b. Hajar al-Haythami, Al-Qawl al-Mukhtasar fi al-Mahdi al-Muntazar, ed. by Muhammad Zaynuhum-Muhammad ‘Azab (Cairo: 1986), 84; Abu al-Tayyib Muhammad Ashraf b. Amir b. ‘Ali al-Azemabadi, ‘Anmu’l-Ma’bud Sharhu Sunani Abi Dawud (Madina: 1989), 11:424-5; ‘Ali al-Maliki al-Manshalili, Risale fi ‘Ashrati’s-Sa’ah wa Ahvali Yawmi’l-Qiyama, nis. (Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya, nr. B-19690) fol. la-3b; Ahmad ibn al-Faqih al-Shafi’i, ‘Ashratu’s-Sa’ah, ms. (Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya, Tasawwuf, nr. 2191), fol. 3a-6b; ‘Ali b. Sultan al-Harawi al-Qari, Sharh al-Fiqhi’l-Akbar (Cairo: 1323 CE), 112; Al-Mashrab al-Wardifi Haqiqati’l-Mahdi, ms. (Istanbul: Koprulu, nr. 1509), fol. 200a-200b; Kamal al-Din Ahmad al-Bayadi, Isharat al-Maram min ‘Ibarati al-Imam, ed. by. Yusuf Abd al-Razzak (Cairo: 1949), 67; Kamal al-Din al-Tai, Risale fi al-Tawhid wa al-Firaq al-Mu’asira (Beirut: n.d), 106; Muhammad Anwar Shah al-Hindi al-Kash-miri, Al-Tasrih bima Tawatara fi Nuzul al-Masih, ed. by Abd al-Fattah ‘Abu Ghudda (Aleppo: 1965), 9-11.
  3. See F. E. Peters, Allah’s Commomwealth: A Histoiy of Islam in the Near East (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1973), 51.
  4. ‘Abd al-Baqi, Al-Mu’jam, 494-5.
  5. See Muhammad b. Umar Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Mafatih al-Ghayb (Beirut: n.d), 11:100.
  6. Ragheb al-Isfahani, Al-Mufradat fi Alfaz al-Qur’an (Istanbul: 1986), 830.
  7. Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan an Ta’wili al-Qur’an (Beirut, 1984); ed. by Muhammad Mahmud Shakir (Cairo: n.d) 3:290-1.
  8. Abu Mansur Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Mahmud al-Maturidi, Ta’wilat al-Qur’an, ms. Haci Selim Aga (Istanbul: n.d.) nr. 40 fol. 80 a-80b.
  9. Ibid., fol. 239 a.
  10. Abu al-Qasim Jarullah Mahmud ibn ‘Umar al-Zamakhshari, Al-Kashshaf ‘an Haqaiqi al-Tanzil wa Uyuni’l-Aqawil fi Wujuh al-Ta’wil, (Beirut: n.d.), 1:432-3.
  11. Abu Muhammad ‘Abd al-Khaliq b. Ghalib b. ‘Atiyya al-Andalusi Ibn ‘Atiyya, Al-Muharrar al-Wajiz fi Tafsir al-Kitab al-‘Aziz, (Fez: 1977), 3:105,13:255.
  12. ‘Abd al-Rahman b ‘Ali ibn Muhammad Ibn al-Jawzi, Zad al-Mathir fi ‘Ilm al-Tafsir (Beirut: 1964), 1:396-7.
  13. Al-Razi, Mafatih al-Ghayb, 2:100, 8:67.
  14. ‘Imad al-Din Abu al-Fida ‘Ismail b. Umar Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Azim(Beirut: 1969),1:575.
  15. Jalal al-Din ‘Abdarrahman al-Suyuti, Al-Durr al-Manthur fi al-Tafsir bi al-Ma’thur (Beirut: n.d.), 2:225-7.
  16. Abu Hayyan Muhammad b.Yusuf al-Andalusi, Tafsir al-Bahr al-Muhit (Beirut: 1983), 2:473.
  17. ‘Isma’il Haqqi Bursawi, Ruh al-Bayan (Istanbul: 1389), 2:41.
  18. Abu al-Fadl Shihab al-Din Sayyid Mahmud al-Alusi, Ruh al-Ma’ani fi Tafsir al-Qur’an al- ‘Azim wa Sab’i al-Mathani, (Beirut: n.d.), 3:179.
  19. Omar Riza Dogrul, Tanri Buyrugu (Istanbul: 1980), 97.
  20. Muhammad Jalal al-Din al-Qasimi, Mahasin al-Ta’wil, ed. by M. Fuad ‘Abd al-Baqi (Beirut: 1978), 4:107.
  21. S. Abul A’la Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur’an (Lahore: Islamic Publications, 1985), 2:34.
  22. Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari, Nazra ‘Abire fi Maza’imi man Yunkir Nuzula ‘Isa qabla al-Akhira (Cairo: 1987), 99-100.
  23. Rashid Rida, Tafsir al-Manar (Cairo: 1954), 3:169.
  24. Ibn Jabr Abu al-Hajjaj Mujahid, Tafsiru Mujahid, ed. by ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Tahir (Qatar: 1976), 180-1.
  25. Abu Muhammad ‘Ali b. Ahmad al-Zahiri Ibn Hazm, ‘Ilm al-Kalam ‘ala Mazhabi Ahli al-Sunna wa al-Jama’ah, ed. by Ahmad Hijazi al-Saqa (Cairo: 1989), 56-7.
  26. See George Anawati, “Isa”, Encyclopedia of Islam, 2d ed. (Leiden: 1978), 4:84.
  27. See Al-Bukhari, “Mazalim,” 31; “Buyu’,” 102; Muslim, “Iman,” 242; Ibn Maja, “Fitan,” 33.
  28. Elmalili Hamdi Yazir, Hak Dini Kur’an Dili (Istanbul: 1992), 2:372-3.
  29. Ismail Fenni Ertugrul, Hakikat Nurlari (Istanbul: 1949), 221-4.
  30. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, The Letters, trans. by Þukran Vahide (Istanbul: Sozler, 1994), 22.
  31. Al-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan, 6:420; Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Qurtubi, Al-Jami’ li Ahkam al-Qur’an, (Beirut: 1967), 6:11; Abu Sa’id ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Umar al-Baydawi, Anwar al-Tanzil (Cairo: n.d.), 2:19; Al-Alusi, Ruh al-Ma’ani, 6:13.
  32. ‘Abd Allah b. Siddik al-Ghumari, Iqama al-Burhan ‘ala Nuzuli ‘Isa fi Akhir al-Zaman (Cairo:1974), 97.
  33. Al-Suyuti, Al-Durr al-Manthur, 2:241-2; ‘Ali b. Sultan al-Harawi al-Qari, Mirqat al-Mafatih (Cairo: 1309), 5:221.
  34. Al-Baydawi, Anwar al-Tanzil, 1:240.
  35. Muhyi al-Din ‘Abd al-Hamid, “Bab al-Fatwa,” Majalla al-Azhar, vol. 48 (1972), 4:552.
  36. Al-Ghumari, Iqama al-Burhan, 100-1.
  37. Ibn ‘Atiyya, al-Muharrar, 4:305-6.
  38. ‘Abd Allah Ibn Mas’ud, Tafsiru Ibn Mas’ud, ed. by Muhammad Ahmad Isawi (Riyadh: 1985), 560; Abu ‘Abd Allah Sufyan b. Masruq al-Thawri, Tafsir (Beirut: 1983), 273; Al-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan, 25:90-1; Al-Razi, Mafatih al-Ghayb, 27:222; Al-Sayyid Muhammad Siddiq al-Qanuji Khan, Fath al-Bayan fi Maqasid al-Qur’an (Cairo: 1965) 8:428.
  39. See Anawati, “Isa”, EI2, 4:84.
  40. Mustafa al-Tair, “Nuzul al-Masih min ‘Alamat al-Sa’ah, ” Majalla al-Azhar, vol. 47 (1971), 6:515.
  41. Geoffrey Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’an (London: 1967), 124.
  42. Shaltut, al-Fatawa, 74-5.
  43. Muhammad Tahir Ibn Ashur, Tafsir al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir (Tunisia: 1984), 25:243.
  44. See Parrender, 122; Anawati, “Isa” EI2, 4:84.
  45. Ibrahim al-Tuwijary, “Iqama al-Burhan,” Majalla al-Buhuth al-Islamiyya, vol. 13 (1985), 104-5.
  46. Sa’id Ramadan al-Buty, Kubra al-Yaqiniyyat, (Beirut: 1994), 352.
  47. Cf. sending down iron (57:25) and clothing ( 7:26).
  48. Al-Bukhari, “Da’awat,” 14; “Tawhid,” 35.

Links and Related Essay’s

Hanafi Fiqh on the physical return of Esa (as)

Before British-India, the vast majority of Desi Muslims lived their lives based on Hanafi Fiqh, since this was the legal position of the Mughal empire. The British empire came and made sects within Islam and thus divided those that they ruled. Shaykh Mohammad Yasir is semi-famous Hanafi scholar on Islam. He covers Waffa, Raffa, 5:117, 4:159 and 39:42 and many others. He mentions a book by a Kashmiri imam (Anwar Shah) which had 101 hadith which proved that Esa (as) would return. Shah Wali ullah held the same views, as did Sirhindi and all other Hanafi Muslims, even the Sufi’s.

Links and Related Essay’s

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #atifmian

Up ↑