Search results

"law bearing"

Noorudin didn’t care if Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed even law-bearing prophethood

We all know that Noorudin was the main ghost-writer for MGA.  We also know that Noorudin was friends with Sir Syed and learned his islamic theories directly from Sir Syed.  Noorudin was out of a job in the early 1890’s and seems to have pressured MGA to make many claims.  This narration by Mirza Bashir Ahmad isn’t dated.  We needed to know when this happened?  Was it before Nov-1901??  Or after?  Obviously, Noorudin didn’t care what MGA claimed, in-fact, Noorudin had stable employment with MGA and lived in the same house as him.  In this quote, Noorudin admits that even if MGA claimed to be a law-bearing prophet and cancelled the Quran, he would still believe in MGA.  This is the height of arrogance in Ahmadis.  IMHO, MGA would have claimed prophethood has he lived til 1911, MGA and his team would have giving the same alibi as before, that MGA misunderstood what his God was telling him.

In 1911, there was an Ahmadi who opened declared that MGA was a law-bearing prophet.  His name was Zaheer-uddin, he is mentioned heavily by Muhammad Ali and Mahmud Ahmad in their discussions on the prophethood of MGA.  Nonetheless, Nooruddin didn’t expel Zaheeruuddin til a few years later when he began claiming to be the rightly Khalifa.

The quote
“….This is just a matter of nabuwwat. My imaan/belief is that if hazrat maseeh mowwod claimed to be a law-bearing- prophet, and abrogated qur’aani-law, even then i will not object, because i have found him to be truthful and munjabullah. So whatever he states, that will be the truth, and i/we will believe that ‘khatamalnabiyeen’ has different meaning….”

Narration# 109…
Seerat ul Mahdi Vol.1 Page 88 (New Edition)

“””””ye to sirf nabuwat ki baath hai, mera toh emaan hai key agar hazrat maseeh mowood sahib shar’eeat nabi honay ka dawah karein aur quraany shareeat ko mansooh karaadein to phir be mujay inkhaar na hogah, kyunkay jab ham nay aap ko wakiya saadik aur munjab-nabullah paya hai, toh jo bee aap farma’in ke wohee hak hoga, aur ham samajlein kay ayat katamalnabiyeen ke aur ma’nay hon gay’””””””

The scan




Mir Nasir Nawab, the father-in-law of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad


Mir Nasir Nawab (born 1846, died September 1924) (see Dard page 132), was the father-in-law of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad circa 1884 and he was 6-7 years younger then MGA.  He worked for the British government in an official capacity.  He worked in the “irrigation department” and even worked in and around Qadian from 1866 -onward (see Dard, page 70)(also see Dr. Basharat Ahmad, Mujadid e azam, page 180, vol-1).  This is the famous father-in-law who told the world that MGA thought he had contracted Cholera as he gasped for air and eventually breathed his last.  It is also important to note that he didn’t accept MGA’s claims in 1891, however, after a few years, he eventually accepted them.  Its unclear whether his daughter (MGA’s 2nd wife) ever signed MGA’s bait form.

Mir Nasir Nawab met Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s father and worked with MGA’s brother
Sometime before 1883, Mirza Nasir Nawab worked on the canals in and around Qadian and eventually visited the house where MGA lived. He was a guest of Mirza Ghulam Qadir, MGA’s eldest brother.  He seems to have met the entire family at Qadian, even MGA’s father, as well as MGA’s sons, Mirza Sultan Ahmad and Mirza Fazl Ahmad.

Manshure-Muhammadi Newspaper of 10-25-1874 mentions Mirza Sultan Ahmad and Mir Nasir Nawab
Dard tells us:

“””The Manshur-e-Muhammadi Vol. 3, No. 24, dated 13 Ramadan, 1291, (25. 10. 1874) contains a note from Mirza Sultan Ahmad to the effect that through the efforts of Mir Nasir Nawab a Hindu of Sathyali, Bansi Dhar by name, who was secretary to the then canal contractor, had been converted to Islam and given the Muslim name of Abdul Haq.””””

Mir Nasir Nawab become a really close family friend, roughly 1877
Through the pages of Dard, (70-75) it is explained how Mir Nasir Nawab first met MGA and his wife and their entire family.  Mirza Nasir Nawab knew that MGA wasn’t taking care of his children and lived a life of comfort instead.  He seems to have seen giving his daughter away as a positive economic idea.  He gave his daughter in marriage and gained lots of land through his grandchildren and etc.

Mir Nasir Nawab asks MGA to marry his daughter
Dard tells us that Mir Nasir Nawab asked MGA to marry his daughter and MGA showed up to Delhi within a week (see Dard page 133).  Without any delay.  MGA was older then Mir Nasir Nawab, this was a very odd match, the underlying reason was most likely that MGA’s brother had died and lots of the family land had been given to MGA and his eldest son Mirza Sultan Ahmad, who was the family representative to the British Govt and he worked for the Govt.

MGA gets married in Nov-1884
The month wherein BA-vol-4 was published is unknown, Ahmadis will never tell, however, in November of 1884, MGA was married to Nusrat Jehan Begum (see Dard, page 133).   Mir Nasir Nawab seems to have disappeared from the scene for the next 6-7 years,  He shows up again in late-1891, MGA had already claimed to be Esa (as), and he visited Mir Nasir Nawab, who was working in Patiala at the time (see dard, page 299).

The account of Mir Nasir Nawab and the Mirza family from Seeratul-Mahdi by Mirza Bashir Ahmad

Feel free to read the entire story from Seeratul Mahdi here:

Mir Nasir Nawab opposed MGA in 1891, as MGA claimed to be the Messiah

In 1891-1891 Mir Nasir Nawab wrote poetry vs. MGA

At the Jalsa of 1892, Mir Nasir Nawab accepts MGA as the Promised Messiah
Dard tells us that Mir Nasir Nawab didn’t accept MGA or take his bait in 1889, nor did he accept his claims in 1891.  As he attended the Jalsa of 1892, in Qadian, he seems to have converted to Ahmadiyya and left Islam.  He had also been working with the famous Muhammad Hussain Batalvi in opposition to MGA for almost 2 years and seems to have abruptly changed his mind.  However, Mir Nasir Nawab worked with Batalvi for about 1-year in opposition to MGA and even wrote satirical poetry vs. MGA (see Dr. Basharat Ahmad, page 437,

September 1895, Mir Nasir Nawab accompanies MGA to see the Chola of Baba Nanak
By 1895, Mirza Nasir Nawab appears to be securely in the inner-circle of Ahmadiyya, Dard tells us that MGA and many others including Mir Nasir Nawab, travelled to see the clothing of Baba Nanak and etc.

1900-1901 and the case of the Wall
Dard tells us that Mir Nasir Nawab helped MGA in his case against his cousins.  He had helped in creating a site-plan for the property (see Dard, page 716).  He also seems to be a worker around Qadian in that era, Dard doesn’t tell us as to when he retired from Government service.

Other Ahmadi sources tell us that Mir Nasir Nawab retired from Govt. service and moved permanently to Qadian in roughly 1900-1901 (see video on  

MGA has a dream about Mir Nasir Nawab

1906—“”I saw in my dream that Mir Nasir Navvab had come carrying a fruit-bearing tree upon the palm of his hand and when he gave it to me, it became a large tree resembling a mulberry tree. It was very green and heavily laden with fruit and flowers. Its fruit was very sweet and, strangely enough, even its flowers were sweet. It was not an ordinary tree; it was a tree the like of which has never been seen in this world. I was eating its fruit and flowers when I woke up.  I consider that Mir Nasir Navvab means God the Helper, and the meaning of the dream is that God will help in a manner that will be extraordinary.”””

[Badr, vol. 2, no. 11, March 16, 1906, p. 2 and al-Hakam, vol. 10, no. 9, March 17, 1906, p. 1]

1907–Mir Nasir Nawab clashes with the Sadr Anjuman

1908—When MGA died…Noorudin reccomended Mir Nasir Nawab as Khalifa

1912—Mir Nasir Nawab accompanied Mirza Mahmud Ahmad for Hajj in 1912
Mahmud Ahmad tells us that in 1912, Mir Nasir Nawab met Mahmud Ahmad in Mecca as they both performed Hajj(See Truth about the Split, page 157).  Mahmud Ahmad claims that Mir Nasir Nawab was told by the Khalifa (noorudin) that it was OK to read prayers behind non-Ahmadi Imams whilst in Mecca, and all the Ahmadis did so.  However, Mahmud Ahmad only did it since it was ordered…he wasn’t sincere…hence, he re-did all of those fake prayers(See Mahmud Ahmad, truth about the split, page 157-160)

He died in Sept 1924
Per 12-7-16, Dard is the only source that gives us this data.  3 years later, his autobiography is published from Qadian, with the famous Ahmadi Scholar, Sheikh Yaqub Ali Irfani as the writer.  This is where the famous quote comes in wherein MGA seems to scream to his father-in-law that he has contracted Cholera…MGA died just a few hours later.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad quotes Ibn Arabi in the 1900-1903 era and some weird comments on prophethood..

It is alleged that MGA said: 

”Ibn e Arabi has written that Law Bearing Prophethood has ended but Non Law bearing is still open, but I believe that all kinds of Prophet hoods have come to an end, except the one which is attained by being the resemblance of Prophet Muhammad (saw)”
(Malfuzat Vol.2 Pg.254)

However, Malufzaat was published almost 50 years MGA died
MGA never taught his followers anything, in a public setting or behind closed doors.  All MGA ever did was give instructions to his closest ghost writers, and behind closed doors.

Data on Malfuzat
Malfuzaat vol. 2 was Published in Rabwah, 1960, in Urdu, covering the period from 1900 to 1901. See “Hidden Treasures of Islam“.  This book gives summaries of all of MGA and his teams writings and etc.

They correspond this Malfuzat entry with the Al-Badr magazine (1st April 1903)
”Once a woman claimed Prophethood. When she was shown the hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (saw), where he said ”There is no Prophet after me”, she replied ”Only Prophethood for men has come to an end, women can still become Prophets”

Scan work

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed that his coming to Earth was revealed in Surah Fatiha!!! Review of Religions, Feb 1924


My team and I have written about the wild claims of MGA many times.  We have written how MGA was most likely planning on claiming to be a law-bearing prophet if he had lived to 1911.  Further, in the era of 1900 to possibly 1935, Ahmadi’s considered MGA to be equal to Muhammad (saw) (nauzobillah) and vice versa.  This article is a translation of some arabic writings of MGA, that seem to have been recovered in this era, and then translated by M. Rahim Baksh.  The Review of Religions, was edited by the Khalifa’s younger brother, Mirza Bashir Ahmad, who was the only college educated child of the mirza family by 1924.

Highlights of this article
1—MGA claims that his coming was actually revealed to Muhammad (saw) in Surah Fatiha.
2—MGA claims to be the final brick, in the house of prophets, not Muhammad (saw).
3—MGA claims that the Jews are an accursed people and that Muslims have become just like the Jews.

The article
Prophecy Contained in The Opening Chapter of The Quran

Eye-witnesses state that Ahmadis had revolvers during the Rabwah incident, Pakistan Times, June 19th, 1974


We have written about the Rabwah incident at length, see here:

and here

Read this to get caught up on info:



Our notes from the testimony of eye-witnesses
1—Ahmadis planned this attack.
2—Ahmadis boarded the train and attacked defense-less teenagers with weapons.
3—A few Ahmadis were carrying revolvers.
4—This was a  terrorist attack ordered by the Khalifa

The story from the Pakistan Times   

“””””””Mr. Arbab Alam, Final year student of the Nishter Medical College, Multan and President of the Students Union of his college, who was injured during the disturbances at Rabwah Railway Station on May 29, stated on Thursday that two of the assailants had revolvers with them.

He was recording his evidence before the Tribunal comprising Mr. Justice K.M.A Samdani, inquiring into the Rabwah incident.

The witness stated that in order to force open a door of a smaller compartment where the students of NMC (Nishter Medical College) had taken refuge, one of the men armed had threatened to fire.  At this stage another man entered the compartment and tapped the shoulder of the man holding the revolver and told him that the time to use weapon had not yet come.

He stated some of the people who had launched the attack on NMC students were armed with hockey sticks, chains, small hammers and whips.  One of them was carrying a sword, he added.

Narrating the incident, Mr. Arbab Alam stated that as soon as the trained stopped, they started hitting the students who were sitting on seats on the platform side of windows with their respective weapons.  They hit the windows of the compartment with small hammers, the witness added.  

“I told the students not to get perturbed and directed them to draw the shutters and close the doors of the compartment.  But they could not go close to the windows because of the attack.  However, they managed to draw the shutters with much difficulty.  But one of the windows got stuck and could not be closed.  Meanwhile the crowd started pelting stones through the half-closed window, the Mob also tried to use lathis (a large bamboo stick) and small hammers through the window.  The students however managed to check the attack by obstructing the half-closed window with holdalls”

In the meantime, Mr. Arbab Alam stated the mob broke open one of the doors and entered the bogie upon which the witness directed other students to move to the rear towards the small compartment of the bogie and close it from the inside.  Hardly the students had moved to the rear, a group of 15 to 20 persons entered the compartment and two of them began throwing out students’ luggage on the platform and yard side as well.  

The witness who was in the middle of the compartment enquired of the intruders if someone among the students had misbehaved with them and “I assured them that if anyone had, I would call for his explanation” he stated.  

“”Meanwhile, two or three of them began pulling a sick student who was lying on an upper berth.  As the sick student resisted they could not pull him down from the berth.  Having failed to do so, they attacked him with small hammers.  He, however, fell off and later managed to run away to the rear compartment.  Later when they addressed me, enquiring as to who was the group in-charge of the students, I told them that it was I.  Meanwhile one of them hit me with a tea-mug, which they had picked up from our compartment.  As my head reeled with the blow, obliging me to seek support against a side-window, someone hit me from behind with something I became semi-unconscious and fell down.  However, shortly afterwards, I regained my senses.  But I continued to lie on the aisle and I could hear the noise.”””

As Mr. Arbab lay there, he noticed that intruders were trying to push the smaller compartment of the bogie.

In the meantime, he stated, Mr. Amin, another student of his college and who happened to be Nazim of Islami Jamiat-i-Tulaba, entered his compartment.  “I saw him bleeding from his head, and his clothes were stained with blood” he stated.  The witness told Mr. Amin that as he was unable top move he should lie on a lower berth.  Some time later some railway men visited them in the compartment and assured them that the assailants had gone, he deposed.

The witness stated that he had heard slogans of “Mirzaiiat-zindabad”, Mohammadiyat murdabad”. “Mirza Ghulam Ahmad ki jai” and “Nishtat ke Musle hai hai”.  In addition to hearing the slogans, while lying on the aisle of the compartment, he overheard people talking that the bogie should be disconnected from the train.  Some said that it should be set on fire, while some others suggested that they should take us  (NMC students) away and wait for some one to come and take them.

Earlier, the witness stated six men boarded the students’ bogie at Sarghoda.  When the NMC students objected to their presence in their bogie, they got off the train at the next station –Shaheenabad.  It were these 6 men, he said, whom he saw calling the crowd at the Rabwah railway station with the help of their hands while standing in the doorway of the last bogies of the train.

Following the attack, Mr. Arbab stated, 13 NMC students including himself were admitted to Nishtar Hospital, Multan.  “I was discharged from the hospital on June 11th, he stated.  

Earlier, he added, the injured students had objected to the rendering of first aid to them at Lyallpur railway station by Mr. Abdul Wali, stated to be a Mirzai.  

Mr. Ejaz Hussain Batalvi, counsel for the Ahmadiyya community, asked Mr. Arbab Alam a number of questions pertaining to internal politics of Nishtar Medical College to contend that students of the institution were divided into 2 hostile groups and this hostility had some bearing on the Rabwah incident.  

Cross-examined, the witness stated that he had not stepped out of his compartment at Rabwah on May 29, in reply to another question, he stated: “I do not know whether or not the luggage of students was thrown out of the train and was later collected, nor did I enquire about it from students.”  

Narrating the incident that occurred on May 22 while the NMC students were travelling in the Peshawar-bound Chenab Express, indicated that the incident was a sequel to the exception taken by students to the distribution of the daily Al-Fazl among them and preaching by an Ahmadi at the Rabwah railway station.

The incident had resulted in the raising of slogans by the students which were “Narraa-i-Takbir” “allah-o-akbar” “Islam-zindabad” “Khatme Nabuwwat zindabad” “Mirzaiyat murdabad”and “Mirzai thah”, he stated.  

Earlier, Mr. Bashir Ahmad of Sarghoda who was travelling on the Chenab Express on May 29 from Sarghoda on his way to Quetta, stated that a boy in his compartment had pulled the chain when the train steamed into the Rabwah station.  As soon as the train stopped, he said, a group of 15-16 young men entered his compartment.  They caught hold of one of the students there and began belaboring him.  After beating one, they pounced upon another but did not beat him severely.  The student who the intruders had earlier beaten up later took refuge under one of the seats of the compartment to save his life from the subsequent assaults, he said.  The attacked student has also sought his protection, he added.  

Later, he said a group of 10 persons entered the compartment, looking for students, but when we told them the men there was none, they left, he said.  The intruders, he said were armed with sticks, one of them was carrying a whip and the rest of them were empty handed, the witness stated that he had seen various groups of persons entering different compartments.  However, I cannot say what they did in the compartments, he added.  

Cross-examined by Mr. Ejaz Hussain Batalvi, the witness stated “we had not intervened to rescue the students because we were afraid that we might be beaten up.”  In reply to a question, he said while beating up those boys, the assailants were saying, “Come along we will give you the hooris”

Ch. Rafique Ahmad Bajwa, one of the counsel appearing in the inquiry, prayed the tribunal to summon confidential reports submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Jhang, to the Home secretary from December 1873 to May 1974.

As the inquiry was in progress, a man from Jhang, stated to be a lawyer, appeared before the tribunal and sought permission to file documents pertaining to land bought by the Ahmadia community in Rabwah.  He submitted the Ahmadis had bought the land for Rs. 250 per square.  He indicated that Ahmadis had been violating the agreement under which the land was transferred to them.



Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be the FINAL BRICK of prophets!!!!

As we all know, by 1900, MGA was claiming to be equal to Muhammad (saw) (nauzobillah). In fact, in MGA’s fake Eid-lecture, “Khutbah Ilhamia”, he tells us that he is the Final Brick of the prophets.  However, it was Muhammad (saw) who is the FINAL brick, and it was Muhammad (Saw) who was explaining how he was the FINAL prophet, and thus used this argument.  The truth is, MGA was going to claim to be a law-bearing prophet eventually, hence, his team was laying the ground work, the same way they did in 1880, as MGA casually claimed to get divine revelation.

The scan

From 1901 to roughly 1924 Ahmadis believed MGA=Muhammad


Ahmadiyya beliefs are always changing.  In the earlier years, they changed a lot.  After MGA died, they continued to change.  In 1914, they kept changing.  MGA’s sons did Takfir on the entire Muslim world. However, by 1924, they stopped.  Maybe it was their private meeting by the Queen of England in 1924?  Nonetheless, in the below, I have found yet another quotation from the infamous book, “Kalimat ul Fasl” (1916) wherein MGA is described as on equal footing with Muhammad (Saw) (naozobillah).  However, this is what the Qadiani-Ahmadis believed.  There are many other instances from this era which prove my assertion.  

1.  Zaheeruddin Akmal was claiming that MGA was a law-bearing prophet in 1911.
2.  MGA abrogated jihad in 1900 and was thus a law-bearing prophet.
3.  MGA=Muhammad and vice versa
4.  MGA was the person allah spoke about in the famous “Ismuhu-Ahmad” verse of the Quran.

The Quote
“Every messenger was granted accomplishments and perfections according to his capacity and performance in varying degrees, but the Promised Messiah (Mirza Ghulam) was granted prophethood when he had attained all the accomplishments of the Prophethood of Muhammad(SAW) and was qualified to be called a shadow prophet. Thus, this shadow prophethood did not make the steps of the Promised Messiah lag behind, but it pushed them forward to such an extent that it brought him on equal footing with the holy Prophet(SAW). “
( Kalimat-ul-Fasl , P. 113, by Mirza Basheer Ahmad Qadiani)(1916).

Some additional quotes from this era, and from Ahmadis

1.  “His messengers (rusuluhu) is encountered in the Quran or in a declaration of faith, Ghulam Ahmad must be considered one of them.  Belief in him is a part of Islamic faith and is, as such, necessary for the attainment of salvation (madar-i najat)” (“Nabi-ullah Ka Zahoor” aka “Appearance of the Prophet of Allah” (1911) by Muhammad Zahir al-Din, see pages 8, 71 and 99)(From Friedman, page 152, 2003 edition).  

2.  “If the Promised Messiah is rejected or considered in his claim (heaven forbid!) a liar and a cheat—the inevitable result will be the loss of prophethood of Muhammad….as well”  (“Nabi-ullah Ka Zahoor”: aka “Appearance of the Prophet of Allah” (1911) by Muhammad Zahir al-Din, see page 80)(From Friedman, page 152, 2003 edition).

1901, from Khutbah Ilhamia
“One who denies that the mission of the Prophet(SAW) is related to the 6th thousand (13th century) as it was related to 5th thousand (6th century), denies the truth and the text of the Quran and is among the zalemeen (gone astray). The truth is that the spiritual power of the holy Prophet(SAW) at the end of the 6th thousand (13th century in Mirza Ghulam), i.e. these days, is MUCH STRONGER, MORE COMPLETE and STRONGER than in THOSE EARLY YEARS . Nay, it is like the fourteenth (moonlit) night (full moon).”
(Khutbah-e-Ilhamiah, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 16, P. 271-272; Khutbah-e-Ilhamiah, P. 181)


Hadith In The Ahmadiyya Theology By Munir D. Ahmed–Ex-Ahmadi imam


Munir D. Ahmed was an Ahmadi imam in europe, he quit Ahmadiyya and went Atheist about 20 years ago, most of his work on Ahmadiyya in in german.  He was a regular contributor to Ak Shaikh’s discussion Forum on Ahmadiyya.

Summary of his contribution
I found this summary on a blog and a Discussion forum, enjoy.

Hadith in the Ahmadiyya Theology

By Munir D. Ahmed
The Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam was born in British India during the last quarter of the 19th century; a period in which great changes in thinking of the Indian Muslims were taking place under the impact of the British rule and the confrontation of Islam with Christianity and a revivalist Hinduism. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908), the founder of the Ahmadiyya, was one of the champions of Islam in this age, whose defense of Islam, as he himself used to characterize his work, culminated in the establishment of a movement which was to be called from 1901 onward by the name of Ahmadiyyat. He never admitted that a good part of his ideas were taken directly from his contemporary but considerably older Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, whom he nevertheless revered very much for his “identical thinking in certain cases”. One of these cases happened to be their common belief that 1) the Qur’an occupies the central position in Islam and that 2) this book interprets itself; 3) is a complete code of life and 4) nothing which stands in conflict with its injunctions should be accepted.

The school of thought of Ahl-i Hadith, which was flourishing in those days in India accepted virtually the entire corpus of hadith as genuine and regarded it to be the principal source of Islamic law (shari’a). In their opinion only hadith, which they called “concealed revelation” (wahy-i khafi), can interpret the “open revelation” (wahy-i jalli), the Qur’an. This position was untenable in the opinion of both Khan and Ahmad, as it presupposed in somewhat uncritical manner the authenticity of the entire corpus of hadith irrespective of the faulty methodology of the ‘ilm al-hadith (The Science of Hadith), which was mainly based on the formal criticism of the reliability of the individuals in the chain of reporters (isnad), rather than a criticism of the text of the hadith. How, they asked, such an uncertain thing should be given the position of being the sole interpreter of the Qur’an, rather having precedence over the Qur’an itself?

The diametrically opposit position was taken by the fundamentalist splinter-group of Ahl al-Qur’an by rejecting hadith altogether and declaring the Qur’an to be the only revelation (wahy) the Prophet Muhammad had received and which covers all fundamental spheres of life for the Muslims. There is absolutely no need for hadith and no place is left for it as a source of law.

It is no surprise that both Khan and Ahmad were again unisons in rejecting the view-point of Ahl al-Qur’an regarding hadith . But before we shall examine closely the ideas of Ahmad about hadith, let us recall that Khan regarded three kinds of hadith to be authentic: 1) Those which are in consonance with the Qur’an and repeat its injunctions; 2) those which explain or elucidate these injunctions; and 3) those which deal with basic legal formulations not touched upon in the Qur’an. Any hadith which contradicts an injunction of the Qur’an is necessarily a fabrication.

Ahmad regarded hadith to be a collection of by and large transmissions by a single chain of reporters (ahad), whereby only a negligible small number can be taken as inter-connected without a gap among its transmitters (mutawatir). Therefore hadith can at the best be taken as presumptive (zanni) having no comparison with the Qur’an, which in contrast to hadith constitutes “replete revelation” (wahy-i matlu). Also the safe and complete transmission of the Qur’an to this day is undisputed, whereas the transmission of hadith is liable to dire doubts. Even a very scrupulous checking of its chains of transmitters (isnad) is not suitable to bring hadith at a par with the Qur’an.

Ahmad, whose affiliation with Ahl-i Hadith had been very close in the early days of his public life was basically no adversary to the hadith, which constituted in his opinion the third course of the the Islamic law (shari’a). The first and the paramount source was the Qur’an, followed by the sunna (practices of the Prophet Muhammad) as the second source, both of which ranged as certain (yaqini). Accordingly hadith occupied the third place as a source of law. Ahmad strictly differentiates between sunna and hadith.

Historically the collection of hadith got started as late as the middle of the second century after the Muslim calendar. For over a hundred years the Muslim society practiced all the rituals of prayers, pilgrimage, fasting etc. without having any textual evidence, solely through the transmission of the example of the Prophet Muhammad by those, who had seen him performing those rituals. This transmission by example is called sunna, for which textual evidence was collected at a much later stage by the scholars of hadith. In spite of the fact that everything which sunna constitutes today has become part and parcel of hadith at least since the second half of the second century according to the Muslim calendar, it cannot be denied that sunna has never required the authenticity of hadith for its spread among the Muslims throughout the world. That is why sunna was regarded also by the classical jurisconsults to be the second source of the Islamic law.

The question is why should a distinction be made today between sunna and hadith, as all that was known during the first century solely through the examples of others going back to the Prophet is incorporated in the collections of hadith? In fact Ahmad used the term sunna in this connection at a relatively later stage. In his earlier writings he employed the term silsila-i ta’amul (perpetual usage), whereby his intention was to distinguish between two categories of hadith; one which is related to legal formulations ( ahkam, hudud, fara’id) and the second related to historiography ( akhbar, qisas, waqi’at ). The first category of hadith is acceptable to him without reservations. He would, of course, in this case accede to the formal criterions for the verification of the hadith. Otherwise he even drops the basic principle to ascertain the authenticity of a hadith proposed by Khan and also withheld by him, that an authentic hadith must be in consonance with the Qur’an. In the case of a hadith belonging to this group, he would accept its contents even if they supplement the injunctions of the Qur’an for matters otherwise not dealt with in the Qur’an.

He further suggests that in case an apparent contradiction between the injunctions of the Qur’an and ahadith is found, every effort must be exerted to solve the contradiction, failing which that hadith must be rejected and regarded as spurious. Interestingly enough, he regards Bukhari’s sahih as the most authentic collection of hadith, which is practically void of spurious hadith. Even so also a hadith from this collection can be regarded authentic only if it is in consonance with the injunctions of the Qur’an. Muslim’s sahih ranges as the next most authentic collection of hadith and consequently its hadith is only authentic, if it is in consonance with the injunctions of the Qur’an and the contents of Bukhari’s sahih. He even rejected in a certain case a hadith solely because Bukhari had not included that particular hadith in his collection. Ahadith, he said, which was not chosen by Bukhari for inclusion in his collection must be rejected.

Ahmad bases his claim mainly on the Qur’an, but he would also make use of hadith whenever it suites his purpose, sometimes even indiscriminately. It is very seldom that he pays attention to critical remarks of the scholars of the Science of hadith (muhaddithun ) regarding the authenticity of a particular hadith quoted by him in favour of his argumentation. He claims to have come as an arbitrator ( hakam ) with the authorization “to take this heap of hadith and to discard the other one”. As an arbitrator he was not bound to the opinion of the muhaddithun. He quoted Sayyid Ahmad Sirhindy, who had foretold that when the promised Messiah (masih-i mau’ud) shall come, the scholars would accuse him of being self-opinionated (ahl ar-ra’y), whose subjective opinion is based on his individual judgment. He would reject hadith and follow only the Qur’an. Ahmad sees this prophecy fulfilled in his person as he had claimed to be the promised Messiah and also rejected hadith although only partially.

He asserts that not a single verse in the Qur’an is against his claim to be the promised Messiah and mahdi, as well as against his belief that Jesus had died a natural death and that the person who was to come in the name of Ibn Maryam (Jesus Christ), as was foretold by the prophet Muhmmad, was nobody else but him. He claims that in this regard “almost all Traditions are in harmony with the Qur’an and support our claims. But if as an exception there is a hadith which is against the Qur’an, we shall either discard it or we shall find some harmonizing interpretation for it”.

Maulawi Muhammad Husain Batalwi, the known ahl-i hadith scholar, had mentioned in his review of “barahin-i ahmadiyya” by Ahmad that certain past scholars including Sayuti and Ibn ‘Arabi had claimed of having verified the authenticity of some hadith from the Prophet Muhmmad directly in the state of a vision. Ahmad mentions this many a time in his writings, but never claims to have had such an experience himself. He, however, said that God had revealed to him that the whole lot of Traditions which were being presented by his opponents against his claims contained either verbal or semantic distortions, or they were out rightly spurious. He claims to have been given extraordinary knowledge of the Qur’an as well as a sound understanding of the hadith, which enabled him to solve contradictions between the injunctions of the Qur’an and hadith. He at least once tried to prove that the Prophet Muhammad was mistaken in understanding a certain unclear revelation (wahy-i mujmil). In the same way also Abu Huraira was mistaken in his belief that Jesus would come again in person.

Now we turn to the Traditions which Ahmad has quoted in his writings. They fall into two categories: The first, and by far the most important category, comprises hadith which are quoted by him in support of his claims. Those of the second category have no direct bearing on his claims. Therefore, we shell discuss in the following only Traditions of the first category, as these are the only one which matter.

Traditions about the coming of the mahdi are most frequently quoted in Ahmad’s writings. In fact his views in this regard are somewhat contradictory. On one hand he summarily rejects all Traditions about mahdi as spurious, a view which is also shared by the majority of the scholars of hadith (muhaddithun). But on the other hand he regards the hadith in Ibn Maja: “la mahdi illa ‘isa” ( Mahdi is nobody else but ’Isa) as “extraordinarily sahih (correct and trustworthy). This being his own claim to combine Mahdi and ‘Isa in his person.

The second most quoted hadith by Ahmed is the one about the eclipse of the moon and the sun in the month of ramadhan as a sign for the advent of the mahdi, which like all the other Traditions about the coming of the mahdi, have been critizied by the scholars of hadith as a sheer concoction. Ahmad regards this hadith to be sahih, “as the fulfillment of the prophecy has proved beyond doubt that this hadith is genuine”.

He also quotes the following hadith in this regard: hatta yab’atha fihi rajulan minni (Till a man is raised in this umma in my spirit). The interpretation of this hadith in the words of Ahmad reads as follows: “He would inherit my attributes, character, perfection, wonders and my wondrous speech, and shall be a zilli nabi (Shadow Prophet)”. He was obviously pointing to himself as the fulfillment of this hadith. The application of the next hadith to his person was also claimed by him: yuwati ismuhu ismi wa ismu abihi ismu abi (His name would tally with my name and the name of his father with the name of my father). Ahmad thinks that in both cases the Prophet only intended to emphasize the close relationship between himself and the mahdi . He does not touch the question regarding the difference between his name and the name of the Prophet as well as the obvious difference between the name of his father and the name of the father of the Prophet Muhammad.
The Tradition: yadha al-harb (He would put the war off) denotes in his opinion that the mahdi shall be born in a time of peace under the reign of a just ruler. He thinks that this hadith also applies to him for his being born under the British rule, which had pacified India. He claims further that the Tradition: wa yutrak al-qilas fala yus’a alaiha (The Camels would be discarded and riding on them would come to a halt) was a prophecy about his time, for camel riding has been stoped in his age for the purpose of human transportation.

Also the following hadith, he claims, has come true in his person: lau kana al-iman mu’allaqan bil-thurayya lanalahu rajulan min faris (Even if the faith shall be clinging to the Pleiades, a man from among the Persians shall fetch it to the earth). He even pushes aside the consideration that the application of this Tradition on him would necessitate his Persian descent, whereas he had repeatedly claimed his Mughal lineage. It was revealed to him, he claimed, that his real lineage was Persian and not Mughal. Apart from two rather unconvincing attempts by Ahmadi writers to prove this claim, no historical study has been made in this regard. In an article by Bashir Ahmad Rafiq, former Imam of the Ahmadiyya Mosque in London, it was argued that if a person can acquire the citizenship of a country after a stay of four to five years, why the same should not apply in the case of this family, which had lived in Persia for decades, if not centuries.

The second important subject-matter which involves a number of Traditions is about the advent of ‘Isa or Ibn Maryam (Son of Mary). Ahmad partly rejected the Tradition: yanzilu ‘inda al-manara sharqi dimashq (He will descend on or toward the east of the minaret of Damacus). He rejected the notion of a physical descent of ‘Isa from heaven, but had no hesitation of applying it to his own birth place which happened to be situated eastward of Damascus. He further suggested that the word yanzil suggests that either he himself or some of his disciples will travel to Damascus.

A Tradition in Muslim’s sahih foretells that at the time of his advent the Promised Messiah shall be wearing a yellow garment. Ahmad thinks that this could be an indication of some kind of a sickness, which the Promised Messiah could be inflicted with. He cites the age old Science of the Dream Interpretation (’ilm ta’bir al-ru’ya’), which regards seeing yellow garment in a dream as an indication of an approaching sickness. This could mean that ‘Isa shall be suffering from some kind of a sickness at the time of his advent. Another version of this hadith speaks of two yellow garments, in which the Promised Massiah shall be wrapped. Ahmad thinks that this also applies to him, as he was suffering from diabetes and migraine which caused him sleeplessness.

It has been mentioned earlier that Ahmad did not believe in physical ascension of Jesus to heavens. He argued that the Qur’an speaks only of his spiritual ascension (rafa’) and explicitly mentions his death on earth. To prove that this was also the opinion of the Prophet Muhammad, he quotes a hadith from Bukhari, in which the Prophet is reported to have said that on the day of Judgment a group of his followers will pass near him on their way to Hell. He would try to intervene but will be told that he did not know what his followers had been doing after his death. On this, he said, “I will exclaim in the words of my brother ‘Isa: “I was a witness over them so long as I remained among them. But since You caused me to die, you have been the watcher over them”. In this hadith the word tuwuffiya has been used for both the Prophet Muhammad and Jesus and aught to convey the same meaning in both cases. This would mean that the Prophet Muhammad was of the opinion that Jesus had died.

In the same way in another hadith the Prophet Muhammad is quoted that nobody living on that particular day shall be alive after a century. Ahmad employed this hadith to prove that the Prophet did not believe in a living Jesus who would return to earth after so many centuries. It did not disturb him that such a hadith is a total improbability and against all human experience. There are people in every age, who live beyond the limits of a century.

Then the Tradition: lau kana musa wa ‘isa hayyain lakana min ittiba’i (Were Moses and Jesus alive today, they would be among my followers) also indicates that the Prophet regarded both of them as dead. Yet another hadith records the statement of the Prophet that Jesus lived up to the ripe age of 120 years and every succeeding Prophet had lived upto half of the age of his predecessor. Therefore, the Prophet was to live to about 60 years. This again is a doubtful statement and as such hardly a genuine hadith. This would mean that the predecessor of Jesus should have died at the age of 240 years, and his predecessor must have lived up to the age of 480 years.

So far as the time of the second advent of Jesus is concerned, the Tradition: al-ayat ba’d al-mi’atain (a sign after the second century) is said to indicate that it was to be after the 12th century according to the Muslim calendar. Then the Tradition: wa yaksir al-salib (he would break the cross) showes that at the time of his second advent the Christian faith shall be at its height. The Tradition: yakhruj fi akhir al-zaman dajjal (he would appear in the time of the dajjal of the later days) hints at the time of the advent of ‘Isa, whereby this hadith indicates that there would be more than one dajjal.

The Tradition: fa yanzil ‘isa fa-yatazawwaj wa yulad lahu (’Isa would come, marry and beget children) has special meaning in Ahmad’s opinion. The very fact that the marriage of the promised Messiah was deemed fit to be mentioned, denotes that this was going to be a special marriage in an exalted family of sadat (the descendants of the Prophet) and the prophecy required the birth of well-disposed ( tayyib) children out of this wedlock. Ahmad married for the second time in a sayyid family of Delhi and his marriage was graced with the birth of children, one of whom was destined to become his successor and about whom Ahmad had published a prophecy, calling him to be the muslih mau’ud (The foretold Reformer). Incidentally his sons are proud of their mogul lineage, but his daughters are regarded to be sayyid.

Ahmad argued in the context of the Tradition: la nabiyya ba’di (There will be no prophet after me) that if no prophet should come after the Prophet Muhammad, how is it possible that ‘Isa, who was a prophet after all should return? He claimed prophet hood for himself, thereby minimizing its scope to a subservient prophet hood giving it the name of “shadow prophet hood” (zilli nabi). He argues that this Tradition should be seen in the light of another Tradition: lau kana ba’di nabiyun la kana ‘umar (If there were a prophet to come after me, then Umar would have been a prophet). This only negates the coming of a law-giving prophet and at the same time it indicates that nobody outside of his umma will be given this honor. He then argues that according to the Tradition: ‘ulama ummati ka anbiya bani isra’il (The savants of my ummaare equal in status to the prophets of the Israelits). Moreover the Tradition: inallaha yab’athu li-hazihi ‘l-umma ‘ala ra’s kullu mi’yat sanatin man yujaddidu laha dinaha (Allah will raise for this umma at the beginning of every century someone, who will renovate its creed) is a promise of God, which in this century has been fulfilled in his person. The prophecy contained in the Tradition: tulu’ al-shams min maghribiha (Rising of the sun from the West) has also come true through him, as he has made the sun of Islam, which was about to set in the West, to shine there brightly again.

On the whole, the Ahmadiyya holds hadith in great respect. Maulavi Muhammad Ali, the later Amir of the Lahori-Group, published already during the life-time of Ahmad two lengthy articles about the authenticity of hadith, in which he praised in his familiar apologeticall manner the unprecedented efforts of the Muslim scholars to collect hadith. His defense of the authenticity of hadith , which in fact comes close to the views of Ahl-i Hadith, is anything but a copy of the views of Ahmad, who on one side had rejected a good part of hadith on historical and methodological grounds, but on the other hand had made rather indiscriminate use of certein Traditions. Ali is convinced that also textual criticism was carried out by the scholars of hadith . He rejects the views of the Orientalists in this regard, although critical remarks of Ahmad about hadith are almost identical with the views of Goldzieher and others. The only plausible explanation could be that the writings of Ahmad were meant for the Muslim readers, who were too much under the influence of the Ahl-i Hadith, whereas Ali’s duty it was to defend Islam and its institutions against Christian attacks.

Notwithstanding the great reverence in which the Ahmadiyya holds hadith very little work has been carried out by the members of this community in the sector of ‘ilm al-hadith. Ali wrote “A manual of Hadith”, which is in line with his above mentioned articles. Mirza Bashir Ahmad and Mir Muhammad Is-haq selected, translated and commented forty Traditions each of general nature. Abu ‘l-’ata Jalandhary prepared a small collection of hadith dealing with the women. Bisharat Ahmad Bashir selected and translated a limited number of Traditions into English for missionary purposes. Sayyid Zain al-’Abidin Wali Allah Shah translated Bukhari’s sahih into Urdu and wrote explanatory notes. Maulavi Nur al-Din, the first successor to Ahmad, is said to have expressed the wish that the Musnad by Ahmad b. Hanbal should be edited and rearranged into chapters (tabwib) on the lines of Bukhari’s sahih. This work was undertaken by his son ‘Abd al-Mannan ‘Umar and has since been published. He in fact fell out with the Ahmadiyya Community in 1956 and had to leave Rabwah, the head-quarter of the Qadiyani Group. In order to minimize the value of his work of years, it was decided by the high command of the Ahmadiyya that a team of scholars should edit the said Musnad in a very short period of time. The work was carried out in a rather hasty manner by a team of scholars, very few of whom were competent for such a work. The result of this prestige-project was presented in 1959 in the form of a single volume. Since then further volumes have not appeared.

On the whole the scholars of the Ahmadiyya Community make free and rather indiscriminate use of hadith in their works and lectures. They reject Traditions which stand against the Ahmadiyya dogma, irrespective of the grade of authenticity recognized by the scholars of hadith . On the other hand, Traditions which can be interpreted favorably to the Ahmadiyya dogma, are accepted even if they are universally regarded to be spurious.

This is the transcript of a paper which was presented at the 29th International Congress of Orientalists in July 1973 in Paris. An abridged version of the paper was published in the Actes du XXIXe Congres international des Orientalistes. Section organisee par Claude Cahen: Etudes arabes et Islamiques. 1. histoire et civilisation. Vol. 1. 1975. pp. 14-19.

Rape of Female Prisoners of War and Ahmadiyya Islam

This entire entry is taken from a a fellow Ex-Ahmadi.  From here:

The essay

Rape of Female Prisoners of War and Ahmadiyya Islam

On December 18, 2016, I had some Twitter exchanges with Ahmadi Muslims regarding the whole “what your right hands possess” topic, and the permissibility of rape. The issue of wartime came up and instead of assuaging a reasonable person’s concerns, the Ahmadi Muslim book cited was even more cause for alarm.

While this topic requires a much more detailed post—one I look forward to writing in the future—I am going to leave some past Twitter conversations and textual analysis here for you the reader to evaluate. I’m also going to use this post as a bookmark, since Twitter search is horrendously painful.

Here’s one such conversation.

Twitter exhange re Qur an 4 24 Part 1


Twitter exhange re Qur an 4 24 Part 2

To recap, these are taken from the book, Seal of the Prophets Volume 2, available at: (well, at least until the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at decides to pull it down to “fix” the translation).

The book was written by Mirza Bashir Ahmad, M.A.—the son of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and the younger brother of the 2nd Khalifa of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.

In case those images from Twitter are too small, I’ve embedded full size versions below.

passage p. 233 passage p. 231 

I encourage readers of this post to read the full chapter on female prisoners of war in the book Seal of the Prophets Volume 2. You should be able to get the full context starting with the section Specific Issue Relating to Bond-Women on page 227 and continue until page 233, the end of the section entitled, A Question of Female Prisoners.

Female Captive a Consenting Party to Islam and Sex?

Now let’s consider some objections. You’ll notice that in the original dialog I had with an Ahmadi Muslim on December 18th, 2016, he was nuanced, calm and polite.

We worked together as we read each other’s points, clarifications and objections. When I posted my objections with screenshots of marked up pages, he didn’t object. Perhaps he was too busy and it would understandably, have taken an essay to respond.

The point that I had made in those specific tweets is that the wartime passage on page 231 (“bring them to their senses”) makes no sense as a reluctant, last resort form of retaliation against the enemy.

If the enemy doesn’t stop raping Muslim women, the Muslims are going to marry their female captives of war—women who are ready to embrace Islam and have consensual sex with their Muslim captors. Just think about how ludicrous this scenario is.

  1. You’ve just gone to war with Muslims.
  2. You’re a non-Muslim woman who’s apparently fair game for being captured as a slave because you actively participated in a war against Muslims.
  3. Your brothers, fathers, uncles etc. have likely been hurt or killed by the Muslim army.
  4. Along with you, your mother, aunts, sisters, daughters, etc. may also be female captives of the Muslims.
  5. You are now seeking to have regulated sexual relations with your Muslim captor (say what!?). Perhaps he initiated interest, but you have no real objection to getting it on. You know, Islamic calligraphy is so beautiful. Qur’anic recitation is so mesmerizing.
  6. You’ve been overcome with a spiritual urgency to accept Islam and marry your captor. Disrobing just goes with the territory.

I know. It’s quite simply ridiculous. Let’s see if we can find any Yazidi girls who wanted to stay and marry their ISIS captors.

The psychology of warfare and the personal reflection that goes into a sincere religious conversion exposes Islamic apologetics for the straight up absurdity that they are.

But let us set aside these objections for the moment. If such non-Muslim women voluntarily embrace Islam and consensually marry their captors to sanctify having sexual relations with them, how does this “bring them [the enemy] to their senses”, as the book Seal of the Prophets Volume 2 relays?

Recall, the passage is referring to non-Muslim armies raping Muslim female captives of war—and what Muslims are permitted to do in retaliation.

To any grade-school equipped reader of the English language, the Ahmadi Muslim publication is suggesting that while not encouraged, the practice of retaliating in kind is sometimes necessary to “bring the enemy to their senses”. Here’s that passage from page 231 (emphasis added is mine):

If a woman may be imprisoned in criminal cases and this practically occurs in every country and nation, why then should a combatant woman not be taken captive in the  eld of battle? In addition to this, during that era, the disbelieving people would take Muslim women as captives; as a matter of fact, they would even keep them as bond-woman. Moreover, in these early wars, a general ultimatum given by these wicked souls was that they would take the Muslim women as captives, make them bond-women, and would have intimate relations with them as if they were slaves. For this reason, the God of Islām, Who is forbearing on the one hand, but possesses great indignation on the other, permitted the Muslims that if needed, they may treat the disbelievers in a similar manner, if not exactly the same, in order to bring them to their senses and so that they do not grow bolder and more daring in their persecution. Those who are aware of the requirements of war can understand that every so often it becomes necessary to employ a retributive strategy in wars, and this is why the law of warfare is always different from civil law. Hence, this was a necessity of unavoidable circumstances, without which there was no other option.

Twitter Criticism

I’m going to include some tweets from an Ahmadi Muslim student with a self-professed temporary account that he plans to delete (not sure who or why he’s hiding his identity—my reasons should be a little more obvious and even then, I plan to go public in the future, contingent on some key writing for background).

What this Ahmadi Muslim on Twitter fails to realize is that:

  1. My analysis does not suggest that Ahmadiyya Islam promotes the rape of non-Muslim female captives of war, merely that it allows for it, if it deems the enemy needs some persuasion to de-escalate its evil war-time tactics vis-a-vis female captives.
  2. If every female captive could earn her freedom through ransom or a contractual arrangement of mukatabah, then there is no leverage for the Muslim army to bring the enemy to their senses. Remember, this is an enemy who is raping Muslim female captives in their custody as the passage in Seal of the Prophets Volume 2 is explaining.
  3. I believe that almost all Ahmadi Muslims would find any excuse for a female captive of war to be raped by a Muslim solider, to be something that is reprehensible.
  4. I believe that with most religions, the vast majority of adherents to Ahmadiyya Islam have not studied the contentious topics in their religion to any real depth and internal reflection.

Interestingly, with “what your right hands possess”, silence is deemed consent. The Ahmadiyya Muslim English commentary of Qur’an 4:4 touches on this point. Most of that exegesis can be traced back to the book under discussion—Seal of the Prophets Volume 2.

The Retaliation Explanation

I suspect this agitated Ahmadi Muslim hasn’t carefully read the passage from page 231. While the earlier parts of the book Seal of the Prophets Volume 2 do indeed talk about slaves earning their freedom in a contract or being ransomed, that is not the subject of this post.

So let me paraphrase what is so delicately conveyed by the excerpt on page 231:

  1. The wicked enemy of non-Muslims, having captured female prisoners (i.e. Muslim women) had resorted to raping them.
  2. The only way for Muslims to get the non-Muslims to stop this practice, was to treat the female captives of war in their own possession, in a similar manner—if not exactly the same.
  3. The Muslim men would thus be justified in raping the non-Muslim female captives of war, so long as the enemy had not ceased this behavior themselves.

Can any Ahmadi Muslim honestly extract this contrived set of conditions from the Qur’anic text itself?

Remember that if you have to go to the ~200 year old compilation of ahadith, then you cannot toss out other more inconvenient sahih hadith because they are “too long after the fact”. Even if we grant ahadith to explain this context, then ahadith of an equivalent grading and isnad which purport to explain the Qur’an, would have to also be accepted on other topics. That’s a can of worms Ahmadi Muslims have so far, been unwilling to open up. They barely cite hadith specifics as it is.

Why would Ahmadi Muslim apologists even bother constructing an elaborate scenario for why a female slave (prisoner of war) could be used for sex?

If as suggested earlier in the cited book, all slave women had to be properly married first and full consent given, how could such an arrangement ever fit into the meaning of this passage cited earlier from page 231:

For this reason, the God of Islām, Who is forbearing on the one hand, but possesses great indignation on the other, permitted the Muslims that if needed, they may treat the disbelievers in a similar manner, if not exactly the same, in order to bring them to their senses and so that they do not grow bolder and more daring in their persecution.

Mainstream Islam has been mostly unapologetic about the meaning and scope of the Qur’anic phrase “what your right hands possess”. Mainstream Islam generally owns the fact that there is a complete lack of directive in the Qur’an about obtaining consent. Conversely, Ahmadiyya Islam desperately tries to distance itself from these allowances in the theology. The best that they can attempt is to narrowly box-in the permitted scenario to one of temporal and practical insignificance. Such a defense goes like this:

  1. The scenario where this was allowed was so rare, and so unlikely.
  2. In modern times, this kind of distribution of female captives isn’t handled by distributing them to the soldiers, so it’s no longer relevant.
  3. Consequently, there’s nothing to see here, people. Move along.

My advice to you the reader, is to encourage you to reflect. Where is there justification for this narrow contextualization, from the earliest and most authentic Islamic sources?

Further, does raping your female captives really seem like a demonstration of the moral high ground or even an effective deterrent to your enemy? Consider modern debates about the efficacy of torture. There are some parallels.

Is it really an effective tactic to stop the enemy from raping your captured women? Can a religion still claim the moral high ground today if it allowed something morally objectionable in the past? How can such a religion still claim to be the “one true religion of God”?

Final Thoughts

This entire post gives the Ahmadi Muslim author of Seal of the Prophets Volume 2, the benefit of the doubt. That is to say, for the sake of argument, I have taken the author’s explanations at face value.

In this post, I haven’t even begun to challenge where the author is getting such detailed rules of engagement (e.g. Qur’an verses, specific hadith) to paint this fantastically precise set of circumstantial apologetics. It seems more like post-hoc rationalization and story telling than anything derived from the Qur’an itself or from uncontested early Islamic history.


Up ↑