- Religion and Philosophy»
- Islam, the Quran & Muhammed
Ahmadiyya and 24:55 of the Quran
Ahmadiyya and 24;55
I am writing this blog entry as a response to a recent essay by an Ahmadi wherein he explains the Ahmadi position on 24:55. The writer totally avoided the political implications of 24:55 (See ) and is hell-bent on explaining the Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World (2004), vol. 1, p. 116-123. Khilafat of Mirza family in terms of the Quran.
His first mistake is that he separates Political Islam from Spiritual Islam. He doesn't know that in Islam, Political life and Spiritual life are essentially the same. He doesn't know this because he is an Ahmadi and he has been brainwashed to believe that there is a separation between the two. In fact, the only reason that Islam became the foremost religous/political movement in the world was because Muhammad (saw) was offered by the people of Medina to be their ruler, which he accepted, he then moved to Medina and began his career as leader, ruler, chief, prophet or Khalifa, all of these titles don't do justice to his position as ruler of Medina, nonetheless, politics and religion were always married in this method and Muhammad (saw) ruled over Jews, Pagans, Muslims and Christians. The famous "Constitution of Medina" was drafted and Islam had arrived as a political/religious movement.
His second mistake is that he quotes a hadith from Imam Hanbali, however, he doesn't quote MGA in terms of this verse. MGA never argued that this hadith supported any chain of successors after him, in fact, he only quoted it once in his entire writings. I can show him if he acknowledges that he was specifically in the dark about this hadith and what MGA wrote about it. I can write a separate blog entry and explain this.
Nonetheless, I feel obligated to explain this hadith, firstly, it is quoted with different translations, however, here is what this Ahmadi posted:
“Prophethood will remain among you for as long as Allah wills it to be. Then Allah will raise it when He wills. Then there will be the Khilafah upon the Prophetic methodology. And it will last for as long as Allah wills. Then there will be biting kingship, and it will remain for as long as Allah wills. Then there will be tyrannical kingship and it will remain for as long as Allah wills. Then there will be a khilafah upon the Prophetic methodology. Then he (the Prophet) was silent." (ref: Musnad ahmad ibn hanbal)
1. Obviously, there is no mention of the Mahdi and Messiah's arrival, this is a major point of contention vs. Ahmadiyya dogma. This totally removes all Ahmadi explanations and proves that their position on this hadith is an attempt to substantiate the business of the Mirza family, which is exploitation of the masses, child labor and an environment wherein people are ready to sacrifice their life for a non-profit corporation, which apparently, stored lots of money in Panama for a long time.
2. Ahmadis believe that their Khilafat fulfills this hadith, however, that is incorrect, this hadith doesnt mention that the Messiah and Mahdi will come, they will die, and then a Khilafat will emerge. The Prophetic pattern simply means that they will be honest and moral people, just like the Prophets, and they will end division and will create a single religious system.
3. One further point, this hadith doesnt mention anything about the end times, or the "Day of Judgement". However, this Ahmadi continues to write that it does, whats funny is that there are many hadith that tell us that Esa (as) will only live for 40 years upon his return, he will slay the Dajjal, bring about an end to Christianity, and make Islam the most popular political/spiritual ideology and then pass away in the Arabian Sub-continent and then the Day of Judgement will approach. Once we connect these hadith with the Quranic ideal that Esa (As) is a sign of the Final hour then it becomes clear that the Ahmadis are really stretching here. What is even more intriguing, 99% of Ahmadis have no idea in terms of who created this particular argument and what was their motive? The truth is, Mahmud Ahmad found this hadith after his Khilafat had started and began toting it to substantiate his lavish lifestyle.
4. He then quotes Wikipedia as he tries to reference the "Khilafat movement", that is strange and it makes me question his scholarship. He then does Takfeer and contradicts everything the Mirza family said about the definition of a Muslim. Per Ahmadiyya doctrine, any person who claims to be a Muslim, should be considered a Muslim, however, when it comes to ISIS...they seem to have changed the rules. Why the hypocrisy? He then continues to make the argument that the Khilafat doesnt have to be political at all and wont be. However, that is contradiction with the Khilafat of Abu Bakr and etc.
5. He finally addresses the contradiction in the writings of MGA that I pointed out, which he previously never knew about. He claims that:
""""In reality, there is no contradiction and both references, one in a general sense of appearance of saints and the other speaking of a certain Order of The Caliphate that follows prophets are acceptable meanings of verse 24:56.""""
5.a. However, these are his own words, this is not the official answer by any employee of the AMJ. His opinion is most likely wrong, and in the future, an Ahmadi could dismiss it as opinion and not fact. Further, MGA never wrote that this verse had multiple meanings. In fact, in 1902, in an Urdu book called "The Ark of Noah" in an english translation, on page 8, MGA writes,
"Be perfectly sure that Jesus, son of Mary, is dead and his grave is in Srinagar, Kashmir, in the Khanyar district. Allah has spoken of Jesus' death in the Holy quran.......I hold the Messiah, son of Mary, in great respect, since from the spiritual point of view I am the Khatamal Khulafa in Islam as the Messiah, son of Mary, was the Khatamal Khulafa in the Israelite chain..."
5.b. Obviously, MGA believed himself to be the best, greatest, last and most elevated Khalifa that had ever come after Muhammad (saw). It seems that my Ahmadi friend has given 2-3 meanings of a clear verse of the Quran. However, the problem is, the verse only has 1 meaning and not multiple meaning as the Ahmadis contend, similarly, on 4:69, Ahmadis claim that this verse tells Muslims that more prophets can come at any time, however, after MGA and to the day of judgement, no additional prophets will come, and their Khilafat is eternal.
Most Ahmadis havent researched Islam properly, nor are they allowed to, they are told to simply relay whatever the Ahmadi-Mullah brigade has told them. This series of essays and back-and-forth are simply another example of shoddy research skills and non-existent critical thinking from the rank and file Ahmadi as well as cognitive dissonance by the fanatical Ahmadi.
Ahmadis have taken 24:55 totally out of context as they support the off-spring of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. They will present Hadith reports from sources that are dubious, or they will present hadith and twist them to fit their economic needs. In fact, during the times of MGA, there was Ahmadis who would twist the revelations of MGA in an attempt to substantiate their existence.
24:55 only means that Muslims will be gifted with government and will be successful in that pursuit. Moreover, my Ahmadi friend totally ignored my references to the writings of Mirza Bashir Ahmad on this topic. Why? There are many other questions that remain unanswered...lets see if my friend is willing to continue this discussion.