Watch my video explanation here. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his team of writers denied the physicality of the Miraaj in Izala Auham (1891), as soon as MGA had publicaly denied the physical return of Esa (as). In that same year, a few months earlier in “Elucidation of Objectives”, MGA and his team of writers presented 17:93 (17:94 in the Qadiani-Ahmadi quran) as an argument against physical ascension/descent (see page 8)(this argument was made in other books also, like Lecture Ludhiana). However, the reality is that Chapter 17 was revealed very early on in the ministry of Muhammad (saw), within the first 4 years, although many commentators have differed on this. Nevertheless, these specific verses 85-93 seem to be from an era wherein the Meccan idolators were still mocking Muhammad (Saw). Thus, in these verses, they are sarcastically demanding that Muhammad show them (the meccans) many signs without the help of Allah, this is key. Allah tells us, the Meccans said sarcastically that they wouldn’t believe in Muhammad (saw) even if he was able to make a spring of water gush forth from the Earth (like the zam zam well)(17:90). Allah tells us, the Meccans said sarcastically that they wouldn’t believe in Muhammad (saw) if he had gardens of fruits coming out of him and etc (17:91). Allah tells us, the Meccans said sarcastically that they wouldn’t believe in Muhammad (saw) if he was able to get the heavens to come to Earth and if Allah and the Angels came to Earth and the Meccans could face them (17:92). Finally, in 17:93, Allah tells us, that the Meccan’s said that even if Muhammad (saw) had a house of gold (worth a billion in today’s money) and if Muhammad (saw) ascended, they still wouldn’t believe that Muhammad (saw) ascended, unless he brought them a book and they were able to read it, the Meccan’s still wouldn’t believe it. Muhammad (Saw) responded by saying “Qul Subhana Rubee”, (Holy is my lord) I am only but a Messenger. Thus, Muhammad (Saw) was saying that he was only a messenger, and the things that the meccans were asking for could only be done with the help of Allah, if Allah chooses to do so, nothing less and nothing more (see Suyuti and Ibn Kathir). One more thing, even the Angels are not allowed to descend from heaven to Earth without the command of Allah (see 19:64)(See Tafsir Ibn Kathir). One more thing, in Izala Auham, when MGA denied the physicality of the Miraaj, he quoted Ibn Hisham and Ibn Ishaq’s story from their unauthentic books on Islam, this is the only time that MGA and his team cherry picked from Ibn Hisham/Ibn Ishaq. We have posted that quote in the very bottom.
Continue reading “Why do #Ahmadis use 17:93 of the Quran to disprove the physicality of the #Isra and #Miraaj?”
In 1887-1888, Maulvi Noorudin wrote a few book per MGA’s order, he would eventually become MGA’s top ghost writer. Thus, “Faslul Khitab” (4 volumes) was published by Noorudin in 1888 (press data is unknown)(Noorudin seems to have written this book while in Poonch, which is on the Azad Kashmir and Kashmir border these days)(See Hazrat Maulvi Noorudin). In this book, Noorudin translated 4:157-159, and agreed with the classic translations of these verses, which insinuate that Esa (as) was raised towards Allah(4:158) and hasn’t died yet (4:159), MGA wrote the same in 1884, in BA-4. Lekh Ram wrote a book vs. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in 1887 entitled, “Takzib Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya”, in english it would be “Accusing as False the Proofs of Ahmadiya”. Noorudin responded with his 1890 publication, “Tasdiq-i-Barahin i Ahmadiyya” (Verifying the Proofs of Ahmadiyya) (see Kenneth Jones). After MGA made his wild claims in late 1890 and early 1891, Noorudin’s career as a writer came to an end. He seems to have switched to ghost writer only. In March of 1904, Maulvi Noorudin wrote a book entitled Nur-ud-Din. It is currently online as Nur ul Din on the Qadiani-Ahmadi website. The Al-Badr announced its publishing. It was written in response to a book Tark-i Islam by a former Muslim who joined the Hindu Arya Samaj and had explained the reasons why he had left the religion of Islam. Interestingly enough, even Noorudin wrote that MGA was born in 1839. We came across this data via twitter handle, @zafarim786.
Noorudin on 3:144 in 1888, via Faslul Khitab, page 28
See a good video on this here at 2:02:15 minute mark
Noorudin wrote that “Ar-Rusulu” meant many messengers, not ALL.
“”Muhammad (saw) was just one Messenger, before him, many Messengers have passed”
“”Muhammad salaal salam to aik rasul hai, pallay isse bhot rasul ja chuke hain”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________Mujadid e Azim (online english abridged version) tells us:
“””It contained rebuttals of one hundred and fifty objections raised by the Christian clergy against Islam, and a powerful refutation of Christianity. When the book was finished and published, Maulana Nur-ud-Din once again came to Hazrat Mirza and asked him: “What should I do now?” Hazrat Mirza replied: “Jihad.” Maulana Nurud-Din enquired: “With whom?” Hazrat Mirza replied: “With the Arya Hindus; write a book refuting their religion.” Accordingly, Maulana Nur-ud-Din wrote and published the book Tasdeeq Barahin Ahmadiyya (Verification of the Arguments Supporting Islam), which was a rebuttal of Lekhram’s book, Takzeeb Barahin Ahmadiyya (Falsification of the Arguments Supporting Islam). In this book, too, Maulana Nur-ud-Din effectively answered about a hundred and fifty further criticisms of Islam.”””
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Dard on Faslul Khitab
See Life of Ahmad by Dard, online english edition
“”He called himself Bashir. On April 7th, 1885, he sent eight questions to Maulawi Nur-ud-Dinra, in answer to which he produced Faslul Khitab in 1888. Rev. Thomas Howell made an abortive effort in 1889 to make a reply which was entitled Jawab Ahlil Kitab (Akhtar Hind Press, Amritsar). In those days he was posted at Pind Dadan Khan.””
Faslul Khitab Vol 2. P 308
Noorudin writes about 61:6, and how its about Muhammad (saw).
Links and Related Essay’s
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #atifmian
Senegal was a French colony, thus, #ahmadis didn’t get special access to this country WW-2. #Ahmadis only got access to British colonies in Africa (see Fisher). There are barely 100 Ahmadi’s in Senegal, and even those are poor people who have been bought out. As of 2020, there seems to be only one Ahmadiyya masjid in the entire country. There is one other Ahmadiyya masjid and can be found here, on their facebook page, it is also very small and indicative of a very small community. From July 2019 to July 2020, the Ahmadiyya Caliph reported 5000 converts to Ahmadiyya from Senegal, which seems to be an exaggeration. Also, read about Senegal’s neighboring country, the Gambia, and read how this was a British colony and how an Ahmadi was made governor general.
Continue reading “Ahmadiyya in Senegal”
The best approach to apostacy in Islam is via the Hanafi Fiqh in the Mughal Empire (the Ottomans seem to have a much more aggressive interpretation). MGA and his team of writers never commented clearly on apostacy in Islam and purposely. Apostacy in Islam is decided by islamic governments, not by people. In fact, the Mughal Empire and Ottoman Empire had their own unique interpretation of apostacy. In the Mughal Empire, penalty for Apostasy limited for those who cause Hirabah after leaving Islam, not for personal religion change.
Apostacy via the Hanafi Fiqh
Hanafi – recommends three days of imprisonment before execution, although the delay before killing the Muslim apostate is not mandatory. Apostates who are men must be killed, states the Hanafi Sunni fiqh, while women must be held in solitary confinement and beaten every three days till they recant and return to Islam. Penalty for Apostasy limited for those who cause Hirabah after leaving Islam, not for personal religion change.
Other schools of thought
Maliki – allows up to ten days for recantation, after which the apostate must be killed. Both men and women apostates deserve death penalty according to the traditional view of Sunni Maliki fiqh.Shafi’i – waiting period of three days is required to allow the Muslim apostate to repent and return to Islam. After the wait, execution is the traditional recommended punishment for both men and women apostates.Hanbali – waiting period not necessary, but may be granted. Execution is traditional recommended punishment for both genders of Muslim apostates.Ja’fari – waiting period not necessary, but may be granted according to this Shia fiqh. Male apostates must be executed, states the Jafari fiqh, while a female apostate must be held in solitary confinement till she repents and returns to Islam.
Inheritance and property rights for apostates were prohibited by Pakistan in 1963. In 1991, Tahir Iqbal, who had converted to Christianity from Islam, was arrested on charges of desecrating a copy of the Qur’an and making statements against Muhammad. While awaiting trial, he was denied bail on the presumption by a Sessions Court and the appeals Division of the Lahore High Court that conversion from Islam was a “cognizable offense”. This decision was upheld by the High Court. The judge hearing the case, Saban Mohyuddin, rejected the idea that Iqbal should be sentenced to death for conversion, saying that Iqbal could only be sentenced if it could be proven he had committed blasphemy. The case was then transferred away from Mohyuddin.
While there was no specific formal law prohibiting apostasy, the laws against apostasy have been effectuated through Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. Under Article 295 of its penal code, any Pakistani Muslim who feels his or her religious feelings have been hurt, directly or indirectly, for any reason or any action of another Pakistani citizen can accuse blasphemy and open a criminal case against anyone. According to the Federal Shariat Court, the punishment for any type of blasphemy is death. AbdelFatteh Amor has observed that the Pakistani judiciary has tended to hold apostasy to be an offence, although Pakistanis have claimed otherwise. The UN expressed concern in 2002 that Pakistan was still issuing death sentences for apostasy.
The Apostasy Act 2006 was drafted and tabled before the National Assembly on 9 May 2007. The Bill provided an apostate with three days to repent or face execution. Although this Bill has not officially become law yet, it was not opposed by the government which sent it to the parliamentary committee for consideration. The principle in Pakistani criminal law is that a lacuna in the statute law is to be filled with Islamic law. In 2006 this had led Martin Lau to speculate that apostasy had already become a criminal offence in Pakistan.
In 2010 the Federal Shariat Court declared that apostasy is an offence covered by Hudood under the terms of Article 203DD of the Constitution. The Federal Shariat Court has exclusive jurisdiction over Hudood matters and no court or legislation can interfere in its jurisdiction or overturn its decisions. Even though apostasy is not covered in statutory law, the Court ruled that it had jurisdiction over all Hudood matters regardless of whether there is an enacted law on them or not.
Other views on punishment
Various early Muslim scholars did not agree with the death penalty, among them Ibrahim al-Nakha’i (d. 715) and Sufyan al-Thawri and their followers, who rejected the death penalty for woman only and instead prescribed indefinite imprisonment until repentance. The Hanafi jurist Sarakhsi also called for different punishments between the non-seditious religious apostasy and that of seditious and political nature, or high treason.
Medieval Islamic scholars differed on the punishment of a female apostate: death, enslavement, or imprisonment until repentance. Abu Hanifa and his followers refused the death penalty for female apostates, supporting imprisonment until they re-embrace Islam. Hanafi scholars maintain that a female apostate should not be killed because it was forbidden to kill women under Sharia. In contrast, Maliki, Shafii, Hanbali and Ja’fari scholars interpreted other parts of Sharia to permit death as possible punishment for Muslim apostate women, in addition to confinement.
Contemporary reform Muslims such as Quranist Ahmed Subhy Mansour, Edip Yuksel, and Mohammed Shahrour have suffered from accusations of apostasy and demands to execute them, issued by Islamic clerics such as Mahmoud Ashur, Mustafa Al-Shak’a, Mohammed Ra’fat Othman and Yusif Al-Badri. Despite claiming to have received death threats, Edip Yuksel also believes that high-profile apostates who are controversial should be killed. He wrote, “Apostasy is not what gets one killed. It’s a combination of being controversial and having a high profile.”
Prominent recent examples of writers and activists killed because of apostasy claims include Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, executed by the Sudanese government, as thousands of demonstrators protested against his execution, and Faraj Foda, victim of Islamic extremists who were later arrested and imprisoned for 20 years. The Egyptian Nobel prize winner Najib Mahfouz was injured in an attempted assassination, paralyzing his right arm. The case of Abdul Rahman, an Afghan who converted from Islam to Christianity, sparked debate on the issue. While he initially faced the death penalty, he was eventually released as he was deemed mentally unfit to stand trial. Additionally, some, although not all Islamic states that do not directly execute converts from Islam sometimes instead indirectly facilitate extrajudicial killings performed by the apostate’s family, particularly if the apostate is vocal.
Opposition to execution
Over the centuries a number of prominent ulema, including the Maliki jurist Abu al-Walid al-Baji (d. 474 AH) held that apostasy is not a hadd crime and thus is liable only to a discretionary punishment (ta’zir). Some early authorities, such as Ibrahim al-Nakhai and Sufyan al-Thawri, as well as the Hanafi jurist Sarakhsi (d. 1090), believed that an apostate should be asked to repent indefinitely and never condemned to death. According to Sarakhsi, apostasy from Islam is a great offense, but its punishment is postponed until the Day of Judgement. The view that the Quran speaks only of otherworldly punishment for apostasy was also held by the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar (1958–1963) Mahmud Shaltut, who held that the prescription of death penalty for apostasy found in hadith was aimed at prevention of aggression against Muslims and sedition against the state. Contemporary scholar Mirza Tahir Ahmad quotes a number of companions of Muhammad or early Islamic scholars (Ibn al-Humam, al-Marghinani, Ibn Abbas, Sarakhsi, Ibrahim al-Nakh’i) to argue that there was not an ijma (consensus among scholars or community) in favor of execution of murtadd in early Islam.
Contemporary Islamic Shafi`i jurists such as the Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa and fiqh scholar Taha Jabir Alalwani along with Shi’a jurists such as Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri and Grand Ayatollah Hussein Esmaeel al-Sadr and some jurists, scholars and writers of other Islamic sects,[who?] have argued or issued fatwas that the changing of religion is not punishable, but these minority opinions have not found broad acceptance among the majority of Islamic scholars. However others have successfully argued that the majority view, in both the past and the present, wasn’t a severe punishment for mere apostasy.
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi writes that punishment for apostasy was part of divine punishment for only those who denied the truth even after clarification in its ultimate form by Muhammad (Itmaam-i-hujjat), hence, he considers it a time-bound command and no longer punishable.
Tariq Ramadan states that given “the way the Prophet behaved with the people who left Islam (like Hishâm and ‘Ayyash) or who converted to Christianity (such as Ubaydallah ibn Jahsh), it should be stated that one who changes her/his religion should not be killed”. He further states that “there can be no compulsion or coercion in matters of faith not only because it is explicitly forbidden in the Qur’an but also because free conscious and choice and willing submission are foundational to the first pillar (declaration of faith) and essential to the very definition of Islam. Therefore, someone leaving Islam or converting to another religion must be free to do so and her/his choice must be respected.”
Reza Aslan argues that the idea that apostasy is treason rather than exercise of freedom of religion is not so much part of Islam, as part of the pre-modern era when classical Islamic fiqh was developed, and when “every religion was a ‘religion of the sword'”.
This was also an era in which religion and the state were one unified entity. … no Jew, Christian, Zoroastrian, or Muslim of this time would have considered his or her religion to be rooted in the personal confessional experiences of individuals. … Your religion was your ethnicity, your culture, and your social identity… your religion was your citizenship.
- The Holy Roman Empire had its officially sanctioned and legally enforced version of Christianity
- The Sasanian Empire had its officially sanctioned and legally enforced version of Zoroastrianism.
- while in China, Buddhist rulers fought Taoist rulers for political ascendancy.
The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, a minority sect found in South and Southeast Asia, rejects any form of punishment for apostasy whatsoever in this world, citing hadith, Quran, and the opinions of classical Islamic jurists to justify its views. However, Ahmadiyya Muslims are widely considered as non-Muslim apostates and persecuted by mainstream Islam, because of their beliefs.
There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.
Say, “The truth is from your Lord”: Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it): for the wrong-doers We have prepared a Fire whose (smoke and flames), like the walls and roof of a tent, will hem them in: if they implore relief they will be granted water like melted brass, that will scald their faces, how dreadful the drink! How uncomfortable a couch to recline on!
And if your Lord had pleased, surely all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them; will you then force men till they become believers?
Therefore do remind, for you are only a reminder. You are not a watcher over them;
He said: “O my people! See ye if (it be that) I have a Clear Sign from my Lord, and that He hath sent Mercy unto me from His own presence, but that the Mercy hath been obscured from your sight? shall we compel you to accept it when ye are averse to it?
Jonathan A.C. Brown explains that “According to all the theories of language elaborated by Muslim legal scholars, the Qur’anic proclamation that ‘There is no compulsion in religion. The right path has been distinguished from error’ is as absolute and universal a statement as one finds. The truth had been made clear, and now, ‘Whoever wants, let him believe, and whoever wants, let him disbelieve,’ the holy book continues (2:256, 18:29). “, and hence the Qur’an granted religious freedom. Peters and Vries, in contrast, write that the Quranic verse 2:256 was traditionally interpreted in a different way, considered abrogated (suspended and overruled) by later verses of Quran by some classical scholars. Peters and Vries note that some interpreted this verse has been that it “forbids compulsion to things that are wrong but not compulsion to accept the truth”. However, that isn’t true since Muslim scholars have established the abrogated verses and (2:256) isn’t among them, moreover, many Qur’anic commentators and Muslim scholars interpret (2:256) by reasoning that the truth of Islam is so self-evident that no one is in need of being coerced into it; and embracing Islam because of coercion would not benefit the convert in any case.
Khaled Abou El Fadl claims that the verses (88:21–22) emphasizes that even Muhammad does not have the right to think of himself as a warden who has the power to coerce people. This is reaffirmed by many of the historical reports regarding the Qur’anic revelation that emphasize that belief and conviction cannot be coerced. He further states that moderates consider the verse (2:256) to be enunciating a general, overriding principle that cannot be contradicted by isolated traditions attributed to the Prophet. He concludes that moderates do not believe that there is any punishment that attaches to apostasy.
S. A. Rahman, a former Chief Justice of Pakistan, argues that there is no indication of the death penalty for apostasy in the Qur’an. W. Heffening states that “in the Qur’an the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only.” Wael Hallaq holds that nothing in the law governing apostate and apostasy derives from the letter of Quran. The late dissenting Shia jurist Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri stated that the Quranic verses do not prescribe an earthly penalty for apostasy.
Islamist author Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi argued that verses [Quran 9:11] of the Qur’an sanction death for apostasy. In contrast, Pakistan’s jurist S. A. Rahman states “that not only is there no punishment for apostasy provided in the Book but that the Word of God clearly envisages the natural death of the apostate. He will be punished only in the Hereafter…” Rahman also highlights that there is no reference to the death penalty in any of the 20 instances of apostasy mentioned in the Qur’an. Ahmet Albayrak explains in The Qur’an: An Encyclopedia that regarding apostasy as a wrongdoing is not a sign of intolerance of other religions, and is not aimed at one’s freedom to choose a religion or to leave Islam and embrace another faith, but that on the contrary, it is more correct to say that the punishment is enforced as a safety precaution when warranted if apostasy becomes a mechanism of public disobedience and disorder (fitna). At this point, what is punished is the action of ridiculing the high moral flavour of Islam and posing a threat to public order. Otherwise, Islam prohibits spying on people and investigating their private lives, beliefs and personal opinions.
Writing in the Encyclopedia of Islam, Heffening holds that contrary to the Qur’an, “in traditions [i.e. hadith], there is little echo of these punishments in the next world… and instead, we have in many traditions a new element, the death penalty.”[page needed] Wael Hallaq states the death penalty reflects a later reality and does not stand in accord with the deeds of Muhammad.
Ayatollah Montazeri holds that it is probable that the punishment was prescribed by Muhammad during early Islam to combat political conspiracies against Islam and Muslims, and is not intended for those who simply change their belief or express a change in belief. Montazeri defines different types of apostasy; he argues that capital punishment should be reserved for those who desert Islam out of malice and enmity towards the Muslim community, and not those who convert to another religion after investigation and research.
The charge of apostasy is often used by religious authorities to condemn and punish skeptics, dissidents, and minorities in their communities. From the earliest history of Islam, the crime of apostasy and execution for apostasy has driven major events in Islam. For example, the Ridda wars (civil wars of apostasy) shook the Muslim community in 632–633 AD, immediately after the death of Muhammad. These apostasy wars split the two major sects of Islam – Sunni and Shia, and caused numerous deaths. Sunni and Shia sects of Islam have long called each other as apostates of Islam.
The term Zindīq refers to a freethinker, atheist or a heretic. Originally it referred to a dualist and also the Manichaeans, whose religion for a time threatened to become the dominant religion of the educated class and who experienced a wave of persecutions from 779 to 786. A history of those times states:
“Tolerance is laudable”, the Spiller (the Caliph Abu al-Abbās) had once said, “except in matters dangerous to religious beliefs, or to the Sovereign’s dignity.” Mahdi (d. 169/785) persecuted Freethinkers, and executed them in large numbers. He was the first Caliph to order composition of polemical works to in refutation of Freethinkers and other heretics; and for years he tried to exterminate them absolutely, hunting them down throughout all provinces and putting accused persons to death on mere suspicion.
The New Encyclopedia of Islam states that after the early period, with some notable exceptions, the practice in Islam regarding atheism or various forms of heresy, grew more tolerant as long as it was a private matter. However heresy and atheism expressed in public may well be considered a scandal and a menace to a society; in some societies they are punishable, at least to the extent the perpetrator is silenced. In particular, blasphemy against God and insulting Muhammad are major crimes.
From the 7th century through the 18th century, atheists, materialists, Sufi, and Shii sects were accused and executed for apostasy in Islam. In the 8th century, apostates of Islam were killed in West Asia and Sind. 10th-century Iraq, Sufi mystic Al-Hallaj was executed for apostasy; in 12th-century Iran, al-Suhrawardi along with followers of Ismaili sect of Islam were killed on charges of being apostates; in 14th-century Syria, Ibn Taymiyyah declared Central Asian Turko-Mongol Muslims as apostates due to the invasion of Ghazan Khan; in 17th-century India, Dara Shikoh and other sons of Shah Jahan were captured and executed on charges of apostasy from Islam by his brother Aurangzeb.
Other sources say that executions of apostates have been “rare in Islamic history”. While Al-Hallaj was officially executed for possessing a heretical document suggesting hajj pilgrimage was not required of a pure Muslim, it is thought he would have been spared execution except that the Caliph at the time Al-Muqtadir wished to discredit “certain figures who had associated themselves” with al-Hallaj. (Previously al-Hallaj had been punished for talking about being at one with God by being shaved, pilloried and beaten with the flat of a sword. He was not executed because the Shafi’ite judge had ruled that his words were not “proof of disbelief.”) According to historian Bernard Lewis, in the “early times” of Islam, “charges of apostasy were not unusual, and … the terms ‘unbeliever’ and ‘apostate’ were commonly used in religious polemic … in fact such accusations had little practical effect. The accused were for the most part unmolested, and some even held high offices in the Muslim state. As the rules and penalties of the Muslim law were systematized and more regularly enforced, charges of apostasy became rarer.” When action was taken against an alleged apostate, it was much more likely to be “quarantine” than execution, unless the innovation was “extreme, persistent and aggressive”.
During the colonial era, death for apostasy was abolished in many Muslim-majority colonies. Similarly, under intense European pressure, death sentence for apostasy from Islam was abolished by the Edict of Toleration, and substituted with other forms of punishment by the Ottoman government in 1844; the implementation of this ban was resisted by religious officials and proved difficult. A series of edicts followed during Ottoman’s Tanzimat period, such as the 1856 Reform Edict. Despite these edicts, there was constant pressure on non-Muslims to convert to Islam, and apostates from Islam continued to be persecuted, punished and threatened with execution, particularly in eastern and Levant parts of the then Ottoman Empire. The Edict of Toleration ultimately failed when Sultan Abdul Hamid II assumed power, re-asserted pan-Islamism with sharia as Ottoman state philosophy, and initiated Hamidian massacres in 1894 against Christians, particularly of Armenians, Assyrians and crypto-Christian apostates from Islam in Turkey (Stavriotes, Kromlides).[not specific enough to verify]
In “recent decades” before 2006, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom listed four cases of execution for apostasy in the Muslim world: one in Sudan in 1985; two in Iran, in 1989 and 1998; and one in Saudi Arabia in 1992.
Apostasy in the recent past
More than 20 Muslim-majority states have laws that declare apostasy by Muslims to be a crime. As of 2014, apostasy was a capital offense in Afghanistan, Brunei, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Executions for religious conversion have been infrequent in recent times, with four cases reported since 1985: one in Sudan in 1985; two in Iran, in 1989 and 1998; and one in Saudi Arabia in 1992. In Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Yemen apostasy laws have been used to charge persons for acts other than conversion. In addition, some predominantly Islamic countries without laws specifically addressing apostasy have prosecuted individuals or minorities for apostasy using broadly-defined blasphemy laws. In many nations, the Hisbah doctrine of Islam has traditionally allowed any Muslim to accuse another Muslim or ex-Muslim for beliefs that may harm Islamic society. This principle has been used in countries such as Egypt, Pakistan and others to bring blasphemy charges against apostates.
The violence or threats of violence against apostates in the Muslim world in recent years has derived primarily not from government authorities but from other individuals or groups operating unrestricted by the government.[page needed] There has also been social persecution for Muslims converting to Christianity. For example, the Christian organisation Barnabas Fund reports:
The field of apostasy and blasphemy and related “crimes” is thus obviously a complex syndrome within all Muslim societies which touches a raw nerve and always arouses great emotional outbursts against the perceived acts of treason, betrayal and attacks on Islam and its honour. While there are a few brave dissenting voices within Muslim societies, the threat of the application of the apostasy and blasphemy laws against any who criticize its application is an efficient weapon used to intimidate opponents, silence criticism, punish rivals, reject innovations and reform, and keep non-Muslim communities in their place.
A survey based on face-to-face interviews conducted in 80 languages by the Pew Research Center between 2008 and 2012 among thousands of Muslims in many countries, found varied views on the death penalty for those who leave Islam to become an atheist or to convert to another religion. In some countries (especially in Central Asia, Southeast Europe, and Turkey), support for the death penalty for apostasy was confined to a tiny fringe; in other countries (especially in the Arab world and South Asia) majorities and large minorities support the death penalty.
In the survey, Muslims who favored making Sharia the law of the land were asked for their views on the death penalty for apostasy from Islam. The results are summarized in the table below. Note that values for Group C have been derived from the values for the other two groups and are not part of the Pew report.
Links and Related Essay’s
#apostacyinislam #ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
The creed of Imam Tahawi is proof that Sunni-Muslims always believed that Esa (as) was alive in heaven and set to physically return. Many other things also, more to come on this soon.
Continue reading “The creed of Imam Tahawi is proof that Sunni-Muslims always believed in the physical return of Esa (as)”
Aenas Sadaqat (Mirror of Truth) was written in the 1919-1921 era by the Khalifa, Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad and his team of writers at Qadian, it was published in December of 1921(see the forward of “Haqiqat-i-Ikhtalaf”(1922)(Date of publication is 26th December 1921, it says it on the cover of the original urdu book, which seems to have been published and sold at the 1921 Qadiani-Jalsa at Qadian). This book was in direct response to Muhammad Ali’s “The Split in the Ahmadiyya Movement” (1918) and a few other essays of Muhammad Ali. The english version of Aenas Sadaqat was published in 1924 as “Truth About the Split”, presently, the 4th english edition (2007) is used on alislam.org. The Khalifa uses the word “Ghair-Ahmadi” for Muslims 100 times in this book, as opposed to barely 9 times wherein he calls Muslims as “Ghair-Ahmadi-Muslims”. The Khalifa also totally flips his opinion on the verse of Ismuhu Ahmad, which he and his brother (Mirza Bashir Ahmad) had been arguing was about MGA, rather than Muhammad (saw)(nauzobillah). By 1923, the Khalifa ordered #ahmadis to stop doing open Takfir, and thus, #ahmadis switched to silent Takfir. The second english edition of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s book The Truth about the Split was published in 1938. the third english edition was published in 1965 (month is unknown, the Khalifa died in this year also) and the 4th english edition was published in 2007.
This topic would flare up again in 1953, during the Munir inquiry. In 1965, the Lahori-Ahmadi’s published “Truth Triumphs”, in this book, they accused the Khalifa of changing his position on Takfir in 1953 and adopting the Lahori position, however, the Lahori-Ahmadi’s missed the main point here, i.e., the qadiani-Ahmadi’s had been practicing silent Takfir since 1923, and the statements of the Khalifa in 1953 were simply an extension of that. The Qadiani-Ahmadi’s responded with “Truth Prevails”, which was ordered by Mirza Nasir Ahmad via Qazi Muhammad Nazeer, (the Principal of the Jamia-Ahmadiyya at Rabwah) it was published on 10-4-1966 (See page xiv). They argued that the Khalifa, and MGA, only meant Kafir in terms of “small kufr” or kufr wherein someone remains a Muslim.
In 1974, at the National Assembly, Mirza Nasir Ahmad confirmed that Ahmadi’s consider Muslims as Kafir’s. In 2006, Ahmadi editors on alislam.org edited the PDF version of the 2004 english edition of Tadhkirah and removed the famous quotation from 1906 wherein MGA tells the famous Ahmadi apostate, Dr. Khan that his deniers are non-Muslim. By the 2010’s, Qasim Rashid and other famous Ahmadi spokesmen totally deny Takfir against Muslims and call the quotation of 1906 as a clerical error of sorts.
Links and Related Essay’s
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #Ahmadiyyatakfir #takfir
Ahmadi’s are confused as to why the word RAFFA is used during daily prayers while in Sajdah. Ahmadis forget, based on context, most words in any language change meanings. In Sajdah, it means specifically raising of ranks with Allah. However, in the quran, the word RAFFA is used to explain how Allah physically lifted Esa (as) (see 4:158 and 3:55) up to heaven (towards himself). RAFFA in 4:158 and 3:55 means the same as RAFFA in 19:57 in terms of the Prophet Idris (as) aka Enoch (as). In 19:57, Allah told Muslims that the story of Enoch (as) ascending to heaven is in-fact a true story, and thus, allah validated that story from the bible. #ahmadis are told by their mullahs that RAFFA in 4:158 means the same as RAFFA in 43:32, which means the raising in ranks, not a literal raising. In the below, we have found 27 verses of the Quran which have the letters RF, they are explained in the below. 10 times, RAFFA is used to explain a physical lifting and 16 times it used to explain a figurative raising (in ranks or status). I have also written a detailed study on KTM (khatam) in the quran. Interestingly, in 1884, in the BA-4, MGA translated RAFFA as physical lifting towards Allah.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________The specific quote from the Sajdah prayer
allähummaghfirlï warhamnï wahdinï wa ‘äfinï warfa‘nï wajburnï warzuqnï
“””O Allah, forgive me, and have mercy on me, and guide me, and grant me security, and raise me up, and make good for me my shortcoming, and provide for me.”””
_____________________________________________________________________________________________RAFFA in the quran as a physical lifting or something raised above the earth
There are about 10 verses of the quran which speak of a physical lifting or heaven being raised above the earth or raising the walls of a building, or high up on a mountain (where Musa went), they are 2:127, 3:55, 4:154, 4:158, 13:2, 17:49, 19:57, 55:7, 79:28 and 88:18.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________RAFFA in the Quran as a figurative raising of ranks
There are 16 verses in the quran wherein RAFFA is used to explain a raising in ranks or some other figurative raising in status, they are: 2:253, 6:165, 6:83, 7:176, 12:76, 12:100, 24:36, 34:34, 35:10, 40:15, 43:23, 43:32, 58:11, 80:14, 88:13 and 94:4.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________RAFFA in the Quran in terms of angels raising us after we die
_____________________________________________________________________________________________Links and Related Essay’s
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #atifmian #raffa
Watch my video explanation here. Another favorite argument of the Ahmadi’s is in terms of the prophet Elijah (as), in the Quran he is referred to Elias (as). #Ahmadis argue that the Jews were expecting Elijah (as) to physically return to earth, since he had physically been lifted to heaven from Earth and was prophecied to return before the appearance of the Messiah (which is a direct reference to the prophecy of Malachi 4:5–6). However, #ahmadis casually forget that Yahya (as) aka John the Baptist rejected the idea that he was the second coming of Elijah (as). In fact, Jesus Christ of the Bible denied the idea that John the Baptist was the second coming as referred to in Malachi. Nevertheless, #ahmadis use a biblical issue (the second coming of Elijah) and argue that since Elijah didn’t physically return, similarly the Messiah, son of Mary would also spiritually return and not physically. To date, we haven’t found any hard evidence from Jewish sources wherein it is confirmed that Jewish people are still waiting for the return of Elijah, since they rejected John the Baptist (aka Yahya (as)) and even had him killed. We haven’t found where and when MGA first used this argument or not, that much is unknown. It seems that he Ahmadi editors developed this argument after MGA died and thus it is faulty. Furthermore, #ahmadis would deny that Elijah (As) physically descended to heaven in the first place, thus, their entire line of argumentation is dishonest.
The second coming of Elijah (as)?
First, Elijah the prophet is foretold by Malachi to return to the earth prior to the “great and terrible day of the Lord:”
Mal. 4:5 “Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD.
Mal. 4:6 “He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse.”
The “great and terrible day of the Lord” is a reference to the seven years of Tribulation. So, prior to the start of Tribulation, Elijah will return to the earth. The Lord’s purpose in bringing Elijah back will be to restore the hearts of Israel, which means to bring Israel back to a true obedience to the word of God, specifically their Law.
Elijah’s return is important because during Tribulation Israel will be given an opportunity for a time to worship at a new temple (according to Daniel 9 and Revelation 11). Nevertheless, most of Israel today has little interest in returning to observing a sacrificial system even if a temple were available, so God uses Elijah to prompt Israel’s return to orthodoxy immediate prior to the rise of a third temple.
John the Baptist’s denial of being the second coming of Elijah (as)
On the other hand, Jesus is not saying that John the Baptist WAS the fulfillment of Malachi 4 since even John himself denied this conclusion:
John 1:19 This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?”
John 1:20 And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.”
John 1:21 They asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” And he said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.”
John 1:22 Then they said to him, “Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?”
John 1:23 He said, “I am A VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, ‘MAKE STRAIGHT THE WAY OF THE LORD,’ as Isaiah the prophet said.”
John the Baptist confessed that he was NOT the fulfillment of Malachi 4. Rather, he was the fulfillment of a different prophecy found in Isaiah 40. Elijah the prophet is still yet to return as promised. In that way, we can see that John the Baptist was the forerunner to the first coming of Christ while Elijah is the forerunner to the Second Coming of Christ. Only in that sense can we say that John the Baptist is connected to Elijah.
Jesus Christ of the bible asserting that John the Baptist is the second coming of Elijah (as)
In Matthew 11 we read:
Matt. 11:13 “For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John.
Matt. 11:14 “And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come.
Notice Jesus describes “the prophets and the Law” in v.13. That phrase is Jesus’ way of referencing the Old Testament scriptures. So, we could rephrase Jesus’ words in v.13 to say, “The word of God foretold the arrival of the Christ until John…”
Then in v.14, Jesus refers to accepting “it.” What is it? By the rules of grammar, the pronoun “it” must refer to the testimony of “the prophets and the Law.” In other words, Jesus is again referring to the word of God. So, we can rephrase v.14 to say, “if you are willing to accept the testimony of the word of God concerning the Christ, then John is an Elijah for you.”
Jesus is saying that If a person accepts the testimony of the word of God and the testimony of John the Baptist concerning Jesus as the Christ, then that person has found through John’s ministry the very same thing Elijah comes to give in Israel. Such a person has returned “to the fathers,” in the sense of believing in the word of God concerning the ministry of the Messiah. Elijah comes to trigger Israel to return to God’s word and to an expectation of a coming Messiah in preparation for the difficult days that lie ahead in the Tribulation. If someone came to this same perspective through John the Baptist’s ministry, then for that person, John the Baptist has served as an equivalent to Elijah.
On the other hand, Jesus is not saying that John the Baptist WAS the fulfillment of Malachi 4 since even John himself denied this conclusion:
Elijah in the Quran
Elijah is mentioned in the Quran, where his preaching is recounted in a concise manner. The Quran narrates that Elijah told his people to come to the worship of God and to leave the worship of Baal, the primary idol of the area. The Quran states, “Verily Elijah was one of the apostles. When he said to his people: “Will you not fear God? “Will ye call upon Ba’al and leave the Best of Creators, God, your LORD and Cherisher and the LORD and Cherisher of your fathers of old?” As-Saaffat 123–126
The Quran makes it clear that the majority of Elijah’s people denied the prophet and continued to follow idolatry. However, it mentions that a small number of devoted servants of God among them followed Elijah and believed in and worshiped God. The Quran states, “They denied him (Elijah), and will surely be brought to punishment, Except the sincere and devoted Servants of God (among them). And We left his (memory) for posterity.” As-Saaffat 127–128
In the Quran, God praises Elijah in two places:
–Peace be upon Elijah! This is how We reward those who do good. He is truly among our believing servants. (Quran, 37:129-132)
–And Zachariah and John and Jesus and Elijah, they were all from among the righteous. (Quran, 6:85)
Links and Related Essays
This is another common argument by Ahmadi’s, it seems to come from Jesus in India (published in 1908, after MGA died). Watch my video explanation here. They assert that since Jesus was sent only to the 12 tribes of Israel, thus, he was ordered to go and look for the other 10, since he had only contacted 2 in the holy land. However, this is a biblical idea, not an islamic belief (see Matthew). In Islam, we only accept the Bible and Torah if the Quran has supported any view. For example, the Quran tells us that Idris (as) was Raffa, this is connected to the Torah, which tells us that Enoch (as) was physically lifted into the sky and eventually into heaven. The Bible also tells us that Esa (as) was born miraculously, without a father, the Quran supports this view. The Bible also tells us how Esa (As) raised the dead and was able to blow into a bird and give life (per the will of God). MGA denied all of these miracles in 1884 (see 3:49 of the Quran).
Thus, we reject the idea that Esa (as) was only sent to the 12 tribes of Israel. Instead, we follow the Quran, which tells us that Esa (as) will speak in middle age (upon his second return) and will be taught the Book and the Wisdom (the Quran) by Allah himself (see 3:48). We also follow hadith which tell us that Esa (as) hasn’t died yet and will return and convert all Christians and Jews to Islam.
Matthew in the Bible
Mat 15:21 Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. Mat 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. Mat 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
B.A. Rafiq, “Truth About Ahmadiyya, online version, https://www.alislam.org/library/book/truth-about-ahmadiyyat/suspension-of-jihad/, Retrieved on 6-7-19).
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #ahmadiyyat #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiyyaPersecution #izalaauham #1891
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #atifmian