Cluedo for the lamenters of Asma Bint Marwan

 

It appears that a few historians and critics of Islam have yet to understand the value of the Islamic scholarship on history and its transmission through the ages. Islamic historical sources can be divided into three categories.

 

Seerah (Sira) or the biographies of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). These contain orally transmitted history of the life and times of the Prophet. Ibn Ishaq's Sira is the earliest known record of Holy Prophet's life, but no known transcripts survived. We rely on Ibn Hisham's rendering of Ibn Ishaq's manuscripts for reference.

 

 

Hadith and their commentaries. All narrators of these prophetic sayings and incidents from his and his companions' lives are recorded in chronological order before narrating the story or quotation.

 

 

Tafseer and other early scholarly works: Early books on Quranic exegesis also contain some historic materials not found on other books.  

It has been well established principle of Islamic scholarship that in the matter of Shariah (laws, do's and dont's) Sira books cannot be relied upon due to the poor transmission of the events from the time of the Prophet. That is why Imam Hanbal, one of the first jurist Imams specifically indicated his mistrust of Ibn Ishaq Sira for deciding on the matters of jurisprudence.

 

Quran remains the unaltered and unadulterated Word of God in a Muslim's eyes; the source of dispute within Islam is not the words of Quran, but what they mean? And to the more literalistic, Orthodox Sects, these words cannot mean anything more than what the Prophet or his companions or some esteemed Imams have already said.

 

This not only provides ammunition to the endless ongoing schisms within Islam, but also helps fuel the Islamophobic propaganda by the bigots.

 

From the most violent Shia-Sunni war to the ridiculous debates on whether God has hands and feet, all disputes are deeply rooted in a bunch of texts which require constant scrutiny and criticism.

 

I keep hearing and reading about the vengeful killings of some 'esteemed' satirist poets in Medina and Makkah ordered by the Prophet Muhammad.

 

Tom Holland and Douglas Murray have both mentioned Asma bint Marwan, a Jewish poetess of Medina who lampooned the Prophet and was executed by one of his companions.

 

The argument goes that Charlie Hebdo attack was not so out of character, considering the founder of Islam himself did not tolerate any satire aimed at him.

 

But the fact is that what these commentators and scholars consider to be a fact, isn't actually true.

 

When you read the story of Asma's alleged killing, it becomes clear that this was a poorly fabricated tale. Firstly, this incidence was only reported by Ibn Ishaq and Waqidi in their Sira and not in the more authentic books of Hadith.

 

One may say that this was a deliberate omission by the Hadith collectors, but then you will find many other Ahadith in their collections which could have been discarded for the same purposes. This is simply not the scholarly tradition of the collectors of Hadith. They tested all narrations based on two criteria.

 

a. Chain of narrators, which must be continuous and sound.

 

b. The content of the story. Which must match between different chains of narrators.

 

Even then, the Hadith scholars would class the narrations as weak, doubtful, reliable, authentic etc., based on their own opinions. Debates on individual hadith reports have raged on ever since; usually it is one of the links in the 'chain' which is found unsound, unreliable, old, suffering from amnesia or just a habitual fabricator. Very few Ahadith have been spared this criticism.

 

In the presence of such an unforgiving evaluation, most of these sensational stories about magic, jinns, blasphemous poets and poetesses and imagined satanic verses can be proved as fabrications or misheard, misremembered or confused accounts.

 

Take the tale of Asma bint Marwan. According to the Sira literature she is said to have been killed barely a year and half into Hijrah, by a blind man, in the middle of the night, in her own home.

 

The blind man was Umair ibn Adiyy according to Ibn Ishaq.

But Al-Qastalani states that according to Ibn Duraid the assassin was called Ghashmir.

Another source Suhaili reveals that she was murdered by her own husband.

Yet Al-Qastalani also opined that she may have been killed by her own people.

 

But lets for once imagine that it was the blind Umair who killed Asma the poetess with the sword, in her house.

 

But another historian states that Umair did not kill Asma, but his own sister, Binte Adiyy.

 

The murdered was blind. The most popular version of the story says that he felt his way into Asma's house, found her, identified her and then plunged a blade into her chest. Or was it his sister? Indeed he was blind.

 

But so are those who actually believe that this event took place.

 

OK, say that in the presence of such contradictory stories, one or two mavericks still wish to rely on this story as fact.

 

Consider this..

 

It is year 2 After Hijra. Muslims are in a bitter conflict with the Meccans. The battle of Badr has already taken place.  Banu Qanuqa, one of the Jewish tribes of Medina have denounced the treaty with the Muslims and have been expelled.

 

But why would Muslims start a conflict with their fellow Jewish citizens who remain their allies barely a year into their treaty of Medina. Such murders would certainly have antagonised the proud Jewish tribes and given them a reason to rebel.

 

We know for a fact that Kaa'b bin Ashraf was executed for treason around the same time. He was a leader Banu Nadir Jews in Medina, but his guilt was so obvious that no one dared to defend him or dispute the decision.

 

In short, Hadith books do not mention the assassination of Asma or Abu ifak (another alleged satirist), there is no concrete evidence of the event every taking place. All the circumstantial evidence is against it.

 

And above all, the Prophet of Islam, May peace be upon him, would never have punished those who attacked his character. If you know the man, you will also come to respect and love his nobility, forgiveness and sense of justice.

 

Charlie Hebdo Terror Attack: Nothing to do with Islam, but something to do with the Imams.

You can read and hear a range of reactions from the public on the Charlie Hebdo terror attack. All sane voices, Muslims and others have condemned it.

 

Muslims will say that this is a terrible atrocity. Some will use it as yet another proof that ISIS and Al-Qaeda have nothing to do with Islam.

 

 

Our moderate leaders and organizations will condemn it as an attack on free speech. Most of them will also say that this has nothing to do with Islam. Far-right groups, religious bigots and populist columnists will blame Islam, Muslims and Immigration policies for the attack.

 

 

And then there are two groups which will use this as another ‘told you so’ moment to further their agenda of hatred and intolerance.

 

 

On one hand, we have the perpetrators of the attack and their supporters, who believe that their religion justifies such violence. They would say that Charlie Hebdo’s cartoonists had crossed all bounds when they mocked the Prophet of Islam and their religion in such derogatory cartoons over the years. They had it coming.

 

 

The other group, the militant atheists will say that all religion including Islam are backward and superstitious. Their pontiff-in-chief Richard Dawkins says that not all religions are violent, only Islam is. And yes, Charlie Hebdo and their likes had it coming because our society is too scared to insult or ban Islam.

 

 

Blame the religion of course. How logical! 

 

 

I am going through the back catalogue Charlie Hebdo’s cartoon covers. I never saw one of them before, and do not wish to be subjected to such vulgarity again. It is a veritable collection of cheap humour masquerading as journalism. Graffiti has a place in human history, but it belongs to the doors and walls of public toilets, not on your local news stand.

 

 

Why would anyone need to insult a religion is beyond me. But if they want to do so, I would rather be reading, viewing or listening to something less offensive.

 

 

But there are those who are compelled to mock and ridicule the ideas they don’t like. 

 

You can mock politicians for their behavior or policies. You can ridicule a celebrity for the latest fad they are into. Or you can make poignant observations through the medium of cartoons to draw your viewer’s attention to a controversial subject. And there are no limits to what you want to express. From the sublime to the blasphemous, you can do what you like. As a viewer or a reader, I can choose not to read or view such works. As a Muslim, this is what Quran tells me to do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I will be very curious to learn the views of certain Imams of mosques of various denominations in the UK on this subject. I suspect that a majority of them would rather not express themselves honestly in the media. The truth is very uncomfortable to both these Imams and those politicians who go to them begging for votes every election season.

 

Most orthodox Muslim scholars do support very draconian punishments for the act of blasphemy. 

 

This has to change. Quran does not consider blasphemy as a crime. It is a sin of course, the punishment of which if not repented, will be in the afterlife.

 

 

 

But if you look at certain interpretations of some well-known scholars, and you will be surprised that their opinions contradict the Quran.

 

Mufti Obaidullah Qasmi of Darul Uloom Deoband  writes

 

‘The death punishment assigned for blasphemy is agreed by all Islamic scholars of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah and, is normally covered in Kitabul Hudud in Islamic juridical texts’.

 

 

Deoband school of though is followed by a large number of Muslims from the Indian sub-continent.

 

The more ‘moderate’ Barelvi sect which makes up a large proportion of the Immigrant Pakistani Diaspora in Britain is no different.

 

Sadanand Dhume of the Wallstreet Journal observes in a recent news report

 

‘ Clerics from Pakistan’s majority Barelvi stream of Islam—widely regarded as more tolerant than the rival Deobandi school associated with the Taliban—are among the loudest defenders of the country’s blasphemy laws.’

 

 

Pakistan’s blasphemy laws condemn the accused to death by hanging.

 

 

Same is true for the wide range of Sunni and Shia sects which have sway over the Muslim world.

 

 

Such interpretations of Quran which ignore its actual content but rely on the various medieval interpretations imposed upon it through the centuries have to be rejected. Ahmadiyya Muslim movement has denounced such notions of violence in the name of religion for many decades now. And it is heartening to see more and more Muslims coming closer to our way of understanding the Quran.

 

 

I am happy that our Muslim friends will stand up and condemn this horrendous and murderous attack, but please also ask the Imams and clerics in your mosques to denounce the ideas of punishments for blasphemy and apostasy in their Friday sermons.

 

 

For Muslims, this is another opportunity to think and question their faith leaders. This menace and hatred ISIS and Al-Qaeda have manifested in their extreme acts may need to be rooted out form their own mosques and homes first.

Majid Nawaz's Misjudgment

Why should we not take offence of someone mocking the person you hold most dear to your heart? I have discussed the matter of cartoons in a previous post here.

 Majid Nawaz, the founding member of Quilliam, a think-tank of sorts, found himself is a muddle after posting a cartoon from an atheist website depicting Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). His intentions were innocent enough, but sadly, Mr. Nawaz has learnt that the reform he has been striving for did not bear fruit.

Making friends with Tony Robinson and then hoping to enter Parliament would have been a great success for Quilliam, but they forgot to notice the general cynicism about Robinson's damascene conversion to tolerance and reason. Also, they are seen as a tool for the establishment to 'reform' and educate the Muslim population of Great Britain.

While I support anyone who speaks against violence and intolerance, Quilliam foundation have been very unclear on their religious ideology. As an organization which claims to have the ultimate answer to religious extremism among Muslims, they have little to show about it in their publications. There are booklets available challenging the notions of violent Jihad and issues of blasphemy and apostasy, but there has to be a deeper, much needed debate to be had about the role of the clergy in the modern Islamic world. Quilliam has to challenge the Mullah, the source of all that is wrong with the 'Ummah'. 

But before they can do that, they have to come clean themselves. Do they feel that Quran has to be revised because just like Bible it has commandments no longer applicable? Also, they seem to be very dubious about Hadith literature and want to interpret Islamic values and practices based on how the western minds would want them. Yes, they will cite 'scholars' from Islamic history to support one idea or another, but when it comes to defending the validity of early Islamic history, they beat a hasty retreat.

Why would any Muslim want them on their side?

I know Majid did not mean to offend his fellow Muslims by sharing the cartoon. He wanted to make a point that these cartoons do not threaten his faith.

He wanted everyone to know that he is not offended by a cartoon which was created solely to offend. At one level, I do understand Mr. Nawaz's predicament. Why should we Muslims waste our time getting offended by a bunch of small-minded atheist bigots who have nothing better to do?

Indifference is the best response. Just as the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) advised his companions to leave such gatherings where his opponents abused or ridiculed him. But at the same time, he also advised his companions to deliver the message of Islam by taking every opportunity to engage with such people.

But by sharing the cartoon, Mr. Nawaz not only engaged with the offenders on their own terms, he also alienated many Muslims who for the right or wrong reasons took offence yet again.

If Quilliam foundation had any sense of duty towards Islam, they will correct their error and avoid taking part in the atheist mockery of all faiths.

We should only engage with them when they are serious about talking, not playing street jesters to please themselves.

And also, Quilliam foundation is not a grass-roots movement. It is a working party to find a solution for the government.

Sadly, it is destined to fail because it is trying to find political solutions to a spiritual problem.

In the Shadow of the Sword IV- Crone, Holland and the despots:The C4 Documentary.



Abd al-Malik constructedthe Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem Courtesy: Wikipedia



Having watched the C4 documentary based on Tom Holland’s book I am none the wiser and I find myself asking the same question as many of my Muslim friends. What was it all about?

Patricia Crone’s annoying smugness made it a difficult viewing. It was hard to sympathize with Mr. Holland’s earnest efforts to be original as Crone and her ilk have chosen the age-old orientalism of ignoring the obvious.

According to Holland and Crone, Islam went through a sustained period of evolution after the demise of its founder. The Arabs conquered the fertile lands and sought to convert the locals through amalgamating their new faith with that of the Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians. Their focus is squarely on the machinations of Islamic conquests during the Umayyad times. A time of ascention for Arabs politically, but of theological confusion for the Muslim masses.

Crone’s book ‘Hagerism: The Making of the Islamic World’ cites the first non-Islamic reference to the existence of the Prophet of Islam (pbuh) from Doctrina Jacobi written a couple of years after his death. The reference is indirect, and the narrators unsound based on the quality of the text. But it refers to the Prophet (pbuh) as a warrior and his message was the news of a Messiah to come. The narrator, a Jew by the name of Abraham makes enquiries about the ‘Saracen Prophet’ and concludes from the information that this prophet prefers wars and bloodshed, so he could not be a prophet. Also, being a Jew he treats the coming of the “anointed one” as a significant finding.

Crone, an ‘unbiased’ academic should have done better than poor Abraham. But she calls the Muslim conquest of Palestine under Caliph Umar (ra) a Messianic campaign. The fact is, Muslim tradition also foretells of a Muslim Messiah to appear in the latter days. Quran tells Muslims to expect their Messiah to appear at the time of their spiritual and moral decline (11:18, 61:7, and 62:4). The same Quran also repeats time and again that it is the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who is the best example, the Seal of Prophets, the bringer of the final revelation, the Mercy on all mankind; his people are called the best of peoples and his religion (deen) the complete way of life. So coming of a Messiah could wait for Muslims until the moral and spiritual decline. Surely a man of Umar’s stature, one of the scribes of Quran and the most highly regarded Sahabi (companion of the Prophet) could not claim to be that Messiah. That would be tantamount to admitting failure, merely two years after the message was completed.

But in early Islamic history, there were internal conflicts where rumors second coming of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) were spread and also the return of the assassinated fourth Caliph, Ali (ra). The existence of such stories in early Islamic history does prove a significant Judeo-Christian influence on early Islamic thought. But Quran, the core of all Islamic beliefs and the perfectly preserved scripture not only debunked such rumors during the early days, but also refutes the orientalists of our times. Umayyads, with all their wealth and influence could not produce a reliable claimant for the Mahdi, the Muslim Messiah. If Islamic faith was so pliable in those early days, surely the Umayyads would have greatly benefited from having Divine Sanction. In fact, we do find evidence of fabricated Ahadith to support one dynasty or the other, but Quran is free from such interpolations. If we could draw a parallel with Christianity, dynastic Muslim rulers failed to match St. Paul's success in re-interpreting and even adding to the original scriptures.

Arabs were poor recorders of history. Their history was an oral tradition of poetry. Some of which was written down. We are talking about Arabs of the late antiquity here. A people who did not read or write, did not mint coins and did not indulge in drawing frescoes and writing letters to each other. So we can rely on the earliest written evidence on the origins of Islam, which was spoken by Muhammad (pbuh) and written by his scribes; The Quran.

As far as I know both Crone and Holland accept that Quran was ‘uttered’ by a person called Muhammad (pbuh). They may dispute his location (Mecca or somewhere else), but they cannot dispute its authenticity as the scripture handed over to early Muslims from their prophet. I have discussed this in more details here.

Both Crone and Holland quickly jump to the nearest despots history could offer i.e., the Umayyads. Fortunately, not many Muslims get their religious inspirations from them. Early Islamic scholarship has always been at odds with the ruling classes. Both Umayydis and later Abbasids had suppressed the direct descendants of the Prophet (pbuh) and independent scholars like Abu Hanifa and Ahmad ibn Hanbal as well. Whatever Marwan did in Jerusalem, was done by an Arab-Umayyad who happened to be Muslims.

The best source of Islamic beliefs is the Quran; the historical artifact, the best evidence of the existence of the Prophet (pbuh) and the best method to verify the Hadith accounts. So it is no surprise that Tom Holland did not discuss the Quran in his documentary. He cited it a couple of times in passing, but there is much more in it then the mention of olives and grapes and the town of Bakkah. Surely, Quran has far more to offer than only geographical maps Arabia.

In the Shadow of the Sword II; Quran and Sana'a manuscripts



A segment of the "Sana'a Papyrus"



Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem: In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful; This verse appears in Quran 114 times, at the beginning of each Surah or chapter apart from one exception. Surah Tauba (Chapter 9) starts without this verse. But Bismillah, as this verse is commonly referred to, also appears in the middle of another Surah. Completing 114 appearances in Quran, equaling the total number of Chapters in it. An interesting trivia which I learnt as a child growing in a Muslim household.

While reading Tom Holland’s “In the shadow of the sword” it never occurred to me that the total number of “Bismillah’s” in Quran will have any relevance to his critique of the origins of Islam. The book itself is a very interesting read. The author has complete mastery over the era which saw the end of the glory days of both Roman and Persian empires. Be it Peroz’s last ditch attempt to regain lost prestige of the house of Sassan, or Justinian’s endeavors to bring Rome back into the Roman Empire, the book paints a picture so well defined and detailed as far as Romans and Persians are concerned. But when it comes to Mecca, Mr. Holland resorts to broad brush strokes. He laments the lack of historic evidence, ruins, engravings, coinage etc. but still assumes so much based on what little “secular” evidence exists.

So, what of the authenticity of Quran? Tom Holland observes that the paradise of Quran sounds very similar to the Greek myths. Why are there so many frequent references to agriculture, olives etc? Could it be that the author(s) of Quran had an eye on the Fertile Crescent, or even better, was it written in Mesopotamia? To a Muslim, such questions are obviously bordering the ridiculous, but a secular reader should also be taken aback by the naivety of such fantastic assumptions.

Mr. Holland’s assertion that Quran is not as infallible and unchanged as Muslims would like to believe because

a. There is no evidence that Quran ever existed as a single text during the life of the Prophet of Islam (pbuh) and

b. The Sana’a manuscripts, discovered in 1970s have evidence that Quran was revised and amended.

As for the first argument, it can be said that the author has willingly ignored the distinctly oral tradition of the Arabs. The fact that thousands of verses of classic Arab poets were preserved without much adulteration in pre-Islamic Arabia: The fact that even in this day and age, millions of Muslims have memorized the full text of the Quran, and can recite it whole without consulting a paper copy.

And when it comes to Sana’a manuscripts, Mr. Holland gets a bit overexcited due to the knee jerk Muslim reaction to the German scholar in charge of the restoration of the Sana’a scrolls. Gerd Puin stated that the scrolls were re-written where various alterations were made to the spellings and order of the verses. Also, in his opinion Quran is not a clear book, its vague and may contain texts from before the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Tom Holland has taken a similar stance in his book. But Sadeghi-Gourdarzi critique of Puins’ work (Gerd’s wife published more material recently) debunks the theory that Quranic text has been inconsistent and also confirms the mainstream Muslim understanding of how Quran was compiled and its recitation standardized. If anything at all, Sana’a scrolls are a testament to the early Islamic efforts to ensure Quran was preserved on paper (Papyrus) and disseminated far and wide for the new converts. Sana’a scrolls were washed and re-written with the Mushaf-e-Uthman. And residual traces of old ink show the older version of Quran where many words were spelled differently and some verses/surahs were in different order.

One thing struck me while reading the research on the manuscripts. Scholars working on a particular section of the manuscripts found that they were looking the earliest written version of the end of the 8th and beginning of the 9th Surah. There was no Bismillah written at the beginning of the 9th Surah. So in addition to finding no textual contradictions (additions or deletions) between the Sana’a scrolls and the modern day Quran, there is consistency in minutest details which takes us back to the time of the Prophet of Islam (pbuh). For those insterested I would recommend looking into the "absent" Bismillah before Surah Tauba, which links the revelation of the Surah with cetain events int he life of the Prophet (pbuh). Regardless of what Tom Holland thinks of the authenticity Hadith and Seerah literature, this evidence alone can refute the myth of the "authored Quran".

In his book, Tom Holland also poses a number of other questions which I will address in near future. InshaAllah

In the shadow of the sword

I recently heard a radio interview of Tom Holland speaking about his new book, In the shadow of the sword, which presents his own interpretation of the origins of Islam. From what Mr. Holland said, it appears that he was very excited to present to the world this new idea that Islam borrowed heavily from older religions. The assertion is that Makkah, a town in the middle of the desert could not produce a man who could write such elegant prose.  

For a secular/atheist writer and researcher, arriving at such a conclusion does not require in-depth research. This is how the world works. Empires rise and fall, major centres of learning produce big poets and philosophers. Major civilizations attract the scholars and scientists to their cities. Anyone unconvinced by the Divine origins of any world religion should have doubts on the authenticity of any Holy Book.

But for me, Quran is the word of God, and it proves itself to be so. It does not need interpretation of historical events and what was happening around the world to prove its authenticity. Any book claiming to be the Word of God should have the evidence of its authencity within it.

So, in an unknown town in the middle of the desert, a man proclaims to be God’s prophet, just as Moses was a prophet to Israelites. Quran not only acknowledges this link, but also tells the Muslims that they must learn from the mistakes of the Jews and Christians. Quran also claims to be the continuity and culmination of the same message which was sent from the One God to all the nations and tribes before. So any similarity and resemblance between Islam and other world faith is not coincidental at all, but very deliberate. Islam is to the world faiths what human beings are to the rest of life on this planet. We share the same roots, but we evolved into better forms over the years.

Take the Islamic ritual of daily prayers. Muslims stand still, bow down, kneel, prostate, sit in submission with heads bowed, hands folded etc. etc. All done during the same prayer. You can find a hint of all faiths in this ritual.

Just like Hindus, Muslims believe in many attributes of God. Just like Buddhism, Islamic philosophy teaches to suppress the ego to find One True God. Just like the Zoroastrianism, Islam focuses on the fight between the good self and the evil self within us. Just like Judaism, Islam teaches to fast and pray on regular times during the day. Just like Christianity, Islam tells us to forgive and be meek and humble.

My point is, Muslims already know that Islam shares many values, rituals and ideas with the older religions. It is because all faiths came from the same God, who over many millennia sent His Guidance to mankind still getting to grips with its new found evolutionary superiority.

Anything to do with documented history will not resolve this question. Let us examine the content of Quran. If it stands the test, it is real, authentic Word of God. If it doesn’t, it is a fabrication, a work of elegant prose if you like.

There are many verses which I can quote. But I will only mention a few. I will not even attempt to interpret them. But please feel free to tell me which city in the world 1500 years ago had the knowledge such as I quote below?

 

We created them and strengthened their make; and when We will so decide, We will change their form to something completely different. (76:29)

 

Woe to every backbiter, slanderer,

Who amasses wealth and counts it over and over.

He imagines that his wealth will make him immortal.

Nay! he shall surely be cast into the "hotamah". (tiniest of the particles)

And what should make thee know what the "hotamah" is?

Allah's fire as preserved fuel,

Which will leap suddenly on to the hearts.

It is locked up in outstretched pillars to be used against them.(104:2-10)

 

Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together,

then We clove them asunder and We created every living thing out of the water.

Will they not then believe? (21:30)

 

And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with Might,

and it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an 51:47)

 And after him We said to the Children of Israel, 'Dwell Ye in the promised land; and when the time of the promise of the Latter Days come, We shall bring you together out of various people. (17:105)

Drawing Pictures: Since when has it become offensive?

Over the last many decades, a large majority of the western Christian world has in practice stopped being Christian, thus reactions to insults and blasphemies have dimmed down to solitary voices here and there. Atheism is the fashion. No one wants to declare openly that they revere a person or deity because of their religious faith.


But this is not a question of existence of God. The question here is.. Can you force a group of people to change their values that you do not agree with? Aggressive atheists these days are happy to shout at every forum how religion has caused intolerance and bigotry in the society. But here is a test case.. UCL's atheist society publishing cartoons of Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) and expecting this to go unnoticed!

Muslims do not draw human form; they do not build statues for religious purposes. Yes, there are Muslim artists who paint and draw human form, and there is nothing wrong with it. But this has to be kept strictly outside of religious sphere because of the express command of the founder of Islam (peace be upon him). This is a strong value that all practicing Muslims adhere to. No pictures are to be found in any Mosque around the world. A Billion Muslims hold this belief which safeguards the monotheistic basis of Islam. Yet a handful of atheists think that drawing a picture of Muhammad (peace be upon him) for whatever reason should be acceptable?

Atheists, born and brought up in the West (or influenced by European values) may think that drawing pictures is what humans have always done. What is wrong with that? European art galleries are full of depictions of religious figures on canvas and in stone and in metal. But Islam is not a European faith. Neither was Christianity. Regardless of what Greek and Roman art did to Christianity, Islam has not “traded in” its values for the sake of gaining adherents.

This is despite the fact that Islamic scholars re-discovered Greek philosophy and had decades of conflict with the Romans. Usually such interactions results in softening of certain closely held values, and they did. Early rationalist movement in Islam (Mu’tazillites) had deep roots in Greek logic. Yet, no Muslim ever thought of painting or sculpting a Holy figure or a saint. Enough proof that depiction of religious figures was an absolute taboo for Muslims.There are some very rare depictions of Holy personalities in Iranian Shia culture, but it has never been accepted by the wider Muslim world. Those paintings in which the prophet has been depicted can only be described as only limited to a particular era and was largely unknown by the Muslim majority. Most other depictions in Islamic minature arts show the prophet as a halo or a veiled figure.

All reasonable Humanists and Atheists will understand why Muslims take offense when someone tries to depict the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him). It is because drawing of a picture has never been an Islamic tradition. Yes, it has been a tradition in the conquered lands and Islam has not forbidden artistic representations of human form, but only as a secular art. It has become a Christian tradition, which is why even many Christians do not take offense when Jesus has been mocked at by cartoonists and comedians. People at this atheist society at UCL want practicing Muslims to “tolerate” their attempts at mocking Muslim values? Where is the sense in that?

Why should we not allow BNP and EDL to mock and vilify Islam and Muslims too? What is the difference? And what is wrong with a bit of holocaust denial and some “good-natured” anti-Semitism? Some "fact based" scientific racism.. anyone? Let us accept all this in the name of tolerance!! Updated: 28Jan2014

In response to "Some Terminology Changes" by Farhan

بسم اللہ الرحمٰن ارحیم

Farhan, from the cultist group has posted an interesting entry. Half –baked as usual, this article on the use of terminology in Jamaa’t Ahmadiyya is a good specimen of anti-ahmadiyya bigotry. Some of his points are utter fallacies, and some are the “mullah twist” well known to all Ahmadis.

Term 1: Ahmad- According to Farhan, the name Ahmad refers to the Holy Prophet (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم), yet Ahmadis use this name only to identify, Hazrat Promised Messiah (علیہ السلام.)…

According to Quran, Ahmad is the “Jamali” name of Holy Prophet (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم). Promised Messiah (علیہ السلام), in his commentary of verse 7 of Surah al-Saff writes;

“Holy Prophet (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) is also given the name “Ahmad”, so Jesus (علیہ السلام) prophecised about him with this name. (He said) That after me another Prophet will come whose advent I prophecise, and his name will be Ahmad. This was a hint that he will Praise Allah very intensly”. (Al-Hakam, vol 5, No. 2, 17 Jan 1901, Page 4)

Because Promised Messiah علیہ السلام is also referred to as Hadhrat Ahmad, Sayyidna Ahmad علیہ السلام, does not mean that the name Ahmad is now not valid for all previous people known as Ahmad. We know that Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi, Syed Ahmad of Bareli, All the Ahmads of Usmani (Ottomon) empire and many million others are still known by their given name, i.e., Ahmad.

It was God’s Will to name his Messiah and Mahdi with the same name as the Holy Prophet (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم). So, he caused the name of Promised Messiah علیہ السلام to be Ghulam Ahmad, a humble servant of the greatest Prophet of God. Promised Messiah علیہ السلام named his community as Jamaa’t Ahmadiyya, because in his person, Allah manifested the qualities of the name Ahmad to the world again. But to all Ahmadis, the name Ahmad is the name of Holy Prophet (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم). Our Imam Mahdi علیہ السلام was only a servant of Ahmad (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم.).

According to an oft-repeated hadith by mullahs, Mahdi will be called Muhammad ibn Abdullah. So when this fabled Mahdi appears, will our cultist friends stop referring to the Holy Prophet (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) as Muhammad?

Term 2: Sahaba- According to Farhan, Sahaba are “Those followers of Muhammad (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) who met him while they were Muslims and died upon that state”
So the assumption is that the term “Sahaba” can only be used for the companions of Holy Prophet (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم).

The word “Sahabi” means companion and friend. Shah Waliullah of Delhi, a person respected by both Deoband and Barelvi sects used the words “Ashaabuna” for his own companions.

Similarly, the Sahaba of Promised Messiah (علیہ السلام) are his companions.
Yes, we use the same prayer of reverence for them as we do for the Sahaba of Holy Prophet (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم), i.e., Radhi Allahu Anhu”. This is because it is the Sunnah of Holy Prophet (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) that he prayed for the companions of his Messiah and Mahdi in the same words. It’s the same Hadith where he called Promised Messiah علیہ السلام as Nabiullah. (Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 7015)

Who can take back the honour bestowed upon the companions of Promised Messiah (علیہ السلام) by his Master, Holy Prophet (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم)?

Term 3: First Five Khalifahs: Here he is assuming that Ahmadis have substituted the first four caliphs of Islam (r.a.) with their own caliphs.
It’s a manufactured term. If he meant rightly guided Caliphs then its only the first four we count as the Khulafa-e-Rashideen.Why count first 5? Why not all of them until 1919? There were umayyid and Fatimid and Ottoman Caliphs. Did these subsequent worldly caliphs erase the memory of the first four caliphs?

The khulafa of Promised Messiah (علیہ السلام) are called Khalifatul Masih. We believe this to be the continuation of same khilafat which ceased among the Muslim ummah after Hadhrat Ali (r.a). According to Allah’s Promise in Surah Al-Nur, the same khilafat was re-established among Muslims after the advent of Promised Messiah (علیہ السلام.


Term 4: The two Holy Cities: Another manufactured allegation. He is clutching at straws here.

Many Ahmadis perform Hajj and Umrah every year and they go and visit the two Holy cities considered Holy by all Muslims. Qadian and Rabwah also hold a special place in our hearts because Allah chose these towns to send His Messiah and establish His khilafat here. I also honor a small English village called Islamabad, where one of our beloved khulafa is buried. These towns are signs of God, and forever witness to the truth of Promised Messiah علیہ السلام, but we follow Promised Messiah (a.s) and he wrote;

“And Doctor sahib knows that Harmain sharifain (May Allah increase their honour, blessings and status) are the seat of authority for many learned scholars of this age. And in Islam these very Arab cities, especially Makkah and Madinah are considered the home of faith. And learned sons and esteemed scholars of these cities have also started to join this humble one”. (Volume: 6, Page: 75, Book: Suchhai-ka-Izhar)

He also referred to the Sulaha-e-Arab and Divines of Makkah to be better equipped to accept his claims, because unlike the India maulvis, these people were born and raised in the land of knowledge and freedom. (Nur-ul-Haq page 19). He also prophecised that people of Makkah will join Ahmadiyyat in their droves (Nur-ul-Haq page 197). In Minnanur Rahman, Promised Messiah (as) goes to great lengths to prove that Arabic is the mother of all tongues and he also mentions Makkah as the first built town/city of the world.

So, in Ahmadiyyat, the true Islam, Makkah and Madinah are our Holy Cities. Promised Messiah (علیہ السلام) gave great value to these cities when it came to acceptance of his claims. We turn to Makkah to pray and we bury our deceased facing it. We love Madinah Munawwara because it is where our Master, our beloved Holy Prophet (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) is buried.

Term 5: Messiah- That Messiah is a term only reserved for Jesus son of Mary علیہ السلام, and Ahmadis have “hijacked” it.

Messiah is a title, which means “the anointed one”. So, all prophets were Messiahs. Jesus (علیہ السلام) is called the “Messiah” because Jews were specifically waiting for a Messiah. It has been mentioned in old testament more than 30 times.
And besides all famous physicians were entitled Messiahs by their admirers. What about them?

Term 6: Holy Graveyard- Ahmadis believe that Bahishti Maqbara in Qadian is Holy (or Holier) than Jannatul Baqi.

Jannatul Baqi is a special place where many companions of Holy Prophet (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) are buried. These lucky souls were given the good news of Jannah during their life-times. To be in the company of Khaataman Nabiyyeen (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم), to have heard and seen him and to have experienced God’s Mercy in those blessed day is paradise in this life.

Bahishti Maqbarah requires the person to strive to follow the footsteps of Sahaba. There is no comparison.


I think this blog post was just meant to keep the website active. I thank Farhan and other culties for giving me the opportunity to read some more portions of Quran, Hadith and writings of Promised Messiah (a.s.). Please carry on..