Splits in the Ahmadiyyah (Qadiani) Movement

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الحمد لله رب العلمين

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدى يا رسول الله

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

A common tactic of the so-called Ahmadiyyah or Qadianis—followers of the false prophet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian—is to draw attention to the numerous divisions within the Muslim Ummah, particularly the Hadith which speaks of the Ummah splitting into seventy-three sects. Whenever the Qadianis are confronted by a Muslim about their heresy, they quickly deflect to the topic of divisions within the Muslims and ask the Muslim which of the seventy-three sects he belongs to. This cunning method allows them to dodge any objection to their own beliefs and the character of their false prophet Mirza of Qadian, while putting the Muslim on the defence. If the Muslim is a Sunni, the Qadiani will ask him about the other sects (Shi’ites, Wahhabis, etc.) and the differences Sunnis have with them, or even about intra-Sunni disagreements of a subsidiary nature, diverting him from the topic of the Qadiani heresy. The argument of the Qadianis is that they alone are the saved sect of Islam, while the Muslims who reject them are highly fragmented, divided into seventy odd sects, and therefore should first set their own house in order before attempting to repudiate Ahmadiyyah the “true Islam”. Now many Muslims, including those who pride themselves on being experts in refuting the Qadiani religion, get stumped when the Qadianis employ this method of argumentation against them in debates and discussions. These days we frequently hear such Muslims give embarrassing answers like “I don’t belong to any sect”, “I am just a Muslim” or even “I don’t know which is the right sect”. The Qadiani will immediately pounce upon such confusion and ambiguity from his Muslim opponent, the sad result being that despite being upon the right side in the debate the Muslim ends up embarrassing himself. The truth is that the Saved Sect of the Muslims is mainstream Sunni Islam—Ahl-us-Sunnah—which has continuously been present since the inception of this Ummah and comprises the vast majority of Muslims in all eras till the present day. As for the misguided seventy-two schismatic groups which the Hadith warns against, they are the multiple sects that have broken away from the mainstream Jama’ah of the Muslims. The Qadianis are in fact included among those breakaway seventy-two sects that are threatened with Hellfire, because they originated in this Ummah despite having left it thereafter. So not all of the seventy-two schismatic groups are expelled from the circle of Islam, but certainly some of them, like the Qadianis, are. The fact that the so-called Ahmadiyyah sect was officially founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in 1889 is a proof that it is not the Saved Sect, for the Saved Sect has been continuously present since the founding moment of this Religion. It is illogical that for thirteen centuries all of the Muslims were misguided and had no understanding of the true Islam until Mirza Ghulam Ahmad appeared in the fourteenth century after Hijrah. If one were to ask a Qadiani which sect the founder of his cult belonged to before he made the Ahmadiyyah sect he will be forced to answer that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a Sunni Muslim, born into a Sunni Muslim house. His father, Mirza Ghulam Murtaza, his grandfather, Mirza Ata Muhammad, his great-grandfather, Mirza Gul Muhammad, and all his Mughal ancestors going all the way back to Mirza Hadi Baig from Samarqand were mainstream Sunni Muslims. And before announcing his false claim to being the Mahdi and Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad held the same beliefs as ordinary Sunni Muslims. He believed that the Messiah Jesus عليه السلام physically ascended to Heaven, is alive and shall descend from Heaven in the End Times, and that the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is literally the last of the Prophets, every claimant of prophesy after him being a liar.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (c.1840-1908)

False Prophet and Founder of the Ahmadiyyah Sect

Yet even the Qadiani pretense of being a single group united against the seventy-two sects of Muslims that oppose them is a facade. The truth is that since the very beginning of Qadiani history this satanic movement has experienced schism itself. In 1914, when Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s first successor and right-hand man, Nuruddin, died, there was a succession dispute, with doctrinal undertones. While most Ahmadis recognized Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s son Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad as their next “caliph”

Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad (1889-1965)

s/o Mirza Ghulam Ahmad & Second Caliph of the Ahmadiyyah Movement

Mirza Masrur Ahmad (b.1950)

Fifth Caliph & Present Leader of the Ahmadiyyah Movement

a dissenting party rallied around Maulana Muhammad Ali, one of the educated and senior companions of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. They shifted their headquarters to Lahore, and are therefore commonly referred to as the Lahori party. This Ahmadi splinter group teaches that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was not actually a prophet but merely a Mujaddid (reformer). They also teach the heresy that the Messiah Jesus عليه السلام did not have a miraculous virgin birth but that Joseph the carpenter is his biological father!

Muhammad Ali (1874-1951)

Companion of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad & First Emir of the Lahore Ahmadiyyah Movement

Dr. Abdul Karim Sa’id (b.1945)

Present Emir of the Lahore Ahmadiyyah Movement

Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s son, Mirza Rafi Ahmad, founded the Green Ahmadiyyah movement, based on his person and teachings, that is distinct from the main Ahmadi/Qadiani organization. Though Green Ahmadiyyah is not a hard schism, it is not recognized by the mainline denomination of Ahmadiyyah.

Mirza Rafi Ahmad (1927-2004)

s/o Mirza Mahmud Ahmad & Founder of Green Ahmadiyyah

Recently, an Ahmadi/Qadiani based in Germany, Abdul Ghaffar Janbah, separated from the main Qadiani group and formed his own sect called Jama’at Ahmadiyyah Islah Pasand or the Ahmadiyyah Reform Movement. Abdul Ghaffar Janbah and his followers believe he is the Mujaddid of the fifteenth century and the fulfillment of the promised son or promised reformer prophecy of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (whereas the main Ahmadiyyah organization believe that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad is the promised reformer). The Ahmadiyyah Reform Movement of Abdul Ghaffar Janbah bitterly attacks the main Ahmadiyyah organization, led by Mirza Masrur Ahmad, and presently their feud seems to be escalating as more and more Qadianis are leaving the main organization and joining Abdul Ghaffar Janbah’s group.

Abdul Ghaffar Janbah

Founder of the Ahmadiyyah Reform Movement (Germany)

Munir Ahmad Azim, a Qadiani based in Mauritius, founded his own sect in 2007, called the Jama’at ul Sahih al Islam. He claims to be the “Reviver of all Faith, Messiah and Islamic Prophet-Reformer”.

Munir Ahmad Azim

Founder of Sahih-ul-Islam Movement (Mauritius)

In 2011, another Qadiani, Nasir Sultani, claimed to be the Mujaddid of the fifteenth century and founded an offshoot called the Jama’at Ahmadiyyah Haqiqi (Real Ahmadiyyah). Presently, he is imprisoned in Pakistan, awaiting the death penalty, having been convicted of blasphemy.

Nasir Sultani

Founder of Jama’at Ahmadiyyah-Haqiqi

There was also much schism among the Ahmadiyyah in Nigeria. The most prominent of those who split off from the main Ahmadiyyah organization, rejecting its system and caliphate, was one Jibril Martin who established the Anwar-ul-Islam Movement of Nigeria.

In summary, when Qadianis claim that Muslims are divided and ask about the differences within the Muslim Ummah, a Muslim should respond by pointing to these splits within the Ahmadiyyah Movement and ask which one truly represents the Qadiani religion.

Sin of the Publican

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الحمد لله رب العلمين

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدى يا رسول الله

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

A curiosity in the New Testament is that the publican or tax-collector was considered sinful: “And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?” (Matthew 9:11; Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30), “The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children” (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34), “Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner” (Luke 18:10-13)

Muslims can understand this point because the Islamic Shari’ah has forbidden oppressive taxation. The Holy Prophet Muhammad صلوات الله والسلام عليه said concerning the adulteress who became pregnant but confessed her adultery to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم because she wanted to sincerely repent, thereby accepting the death penalty by stoning for her sin after delivering her illegitimate child:

فَوَالَّذِي نَفْسِي بِيَدِهِ لَقَدْ تَابَتْ تَوْبَةً لَوْ تَابَهَا صَاحِبُ مَكْسٍ لَغُفِرَ لَهُ

By the One in Whose Hand my soul is, she has repented with (such) a repentance that if the tax-collector repented with it he would be forgiven (Sahih Muslim)

The Hadith actually illustrates just how grave the sin of the sahib maks (publican or tax-collector) is, and is a proof that levying mukus or taxes oppressively upon the people is extremely evil and forbidden. The time we are living in now is that of the modern nation state. The modern state is an almost omnipresent institution that leaves little liberty and privacy for the citizenry. It had levied all sorts of oppressive taxes upon the common man, such as income tax, property tax, sales tax and customs duties. If such taxation is burdensome upon the Muslim, he is surely justified, in the sight of God, in committing tax evasion. But before doing so one must consult with a qualified and God-fearing Islamic scholar or mufti, for Islamic Fiqh may allow taxation in certain circumstances in which it is a necessity to run the essential functions of the government, especially defense while not being burdensome upon the Muslims. So it is mentioned that when some publicans approached the Prophet Yahya—John the Baptist—he instructed them: “Exact no more than that which is appointed you” (Luke 3:13)

Ibn Taymiyyah أسأل الله أن يغفر له was asked:

عن رجل متول ولايات ومقطع إقطاعات وعليها من الكلف السلطانية ما جرت به العادة وهو يختار أن يسقط الظلم كله ويجتهد في ذلك بحسب ما قدر عليه وهو يعلم أنه إن ترك ذلك وأقطعها غيره وولى غيره فإن الظلم لا يترك منه شيء بل ربما يزداد وهو يمكنه أن يخفف تلك المكوس التي في إقطاعه فيسقط النصف والنصف الآخر جهة مصارف لا يمكنه إسقاطه فإنه يطلب منه لتلك المصارف عوضها وهو عاجز عن ذلك لا يمكنه ردها فهل يجوز لمثل هذا بقاؤه على ولايته وإقطاعه وقد عرفت نيته واجتهاده وما رفعه من الظلم بحسب إمكانه أم عليه أن يرفع يده عن هذه الولاية والإقطاع وهو إذا رفع يده لا يزول الظلم بل يبقى ويزداد فهل يجوز له البقاء على الولاية والإقطاع كما ذكر وهل عليه إثم في هذا الفعل أم لا وإذا لم يكن عليه إثم فهل يطالب على ذلك أم لا وأي الأمرين خير له أن يستمر مع اجتهاده في رفع الظلم وتقليله أم رفع يده مع بقاء الظلم وزيادة وإذا كانت الرعية تختار بقاء يده لما لها في ذلك من المنفعة به ورفع ما رفعه من الظلم فهل الأولى له أن يوافق الرعية أم يرفع يده والرعية تكره ذلك لعلمها أن الظلم يبقى ويزداد برفع يده

A man who is in charge of provinces and fiefs and has the usual amount of royal duties imposed on him, and he chooses to eliminate all injustice and strives to do so to the best of his ability, knowing that if he abandons that and assigns them to someone else and appoints someone else, the injustice will not be left behind; rather, it may increase. He can reduce the taxes in his fief, eliminating half of them, and the other half will be for expenses that he cannot eliminate. He will be asked to compensate for those expenses, and he is unable to do so and cannot return them. Is it permissible for such a person to remain in his governorship and fief? You have known his intention and his efforts, and what injustice he eliminated to the best of his ability. Or must he withdraw his hand from this governorship and fief, since if he withdraws his hand, the injustice will not go away, but will remain and increase. Is it permissible for him to remain in the governorship and fief, as mentioned? Is there a sin on him for this action? Or not? If there is no sin on him, is he required to do so? Or not? Which of the two is better for him: to continue with his efforts to eliminate and reduce the injustice, or to withdraw his hand while the injustice remains and increases. If the subjects choose to keep him in power because of the benefit he brings to them and the removal of the injustice he has removed, is it better for him to agree with the subjects or to withdraw his hand? The subjects would hate that because they know that injustice will remain and increase if he withdraws his hand.

Ibn Taymiyyah answered:

الحمد لله نعم إذا كان مجتهدا في العدل ورفع الظلم بحسب إمكانه وولايته خير وأصلح للمسلمين من ولاية غيره واستيلاؤه على الإقطاع خير من استيلاء غيره كما قد ذكر فإنه يجوز له البقاء على الولاية والإقطاع ولا إثم عليه في ذلك

Praise be to Allah. Yes, if he strives for justice and removing injustice according to his ability, and his authority is better and more beneficial for the Muslims than the authority of someone else, and his taking over the fief is better than someone else taking over, as has been mentioned, then it is permissible for him to remain in the authority and fief, and there is no sin on him for that (Majmu al-Fatawa, v.30, p.357)

Jadid Movement and its collaboration with Soviets against Muslims

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الحمد لله رب العلمين

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدى يا رسول الله

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

Communists claim they seek to liberate society from the exploitative capitalists—the bourgeoisie. However, it has been witnessed in history that whenever and wherever there is a Communist revolution the first victims of their insatiable bloodlust are the clergy—the men of religion. Between 1928-1941, right up until Nazi Germany double crossed the Soviets with Operation Barbarossa, the Soviet Union had been waging its “anti-religious campaign” headed by Stalin. The latter was a fanatical atheist who sought to stamp out religion altogether from the Soviet Union and transform it into a totally godless nation. Hundreds of thousands of priests of the Russian Orthodox Church were brutally executed. In 1929, the Soviets dissolved all Islamic Shari’ah courts. In 1917, there were over twenty five thousand Mosques in all of Central Asia, but by the 1970s the number was drastically reduced to only a few hundred. During the “anti-religious campaign” throughout the 1930s, the Islamic clergy (ulama and imams) and the Sufis were ferociously persecuted. The aftershock of Stalin’s anti-religious campaign can still be felt today in the former Soviet Republics of Central Asia, despite them having now been independent for three and a half decades. It is perhaps the most culturally and politically secular part of the Muslim world today. Yet the Turkic Muslims who were subject to the Russians and Soviets are not free from blame for having unwittingly facilitated such a state of affairs through their support of the Jadid movement. This movement was particularly colored by anti-clericalism, viewing the traditional Islamic clergy and the Sufis as the greatest obstacle to their vision of a modernized and culturally Europeanized society. Like any other modernist and reformist Muslim movement that may be traced back to the nineteenth century, the Jadid movement emphasized a radical reform of gender roles, calling for women’s liberation and equal participation in the public sphere. They were thus averse to Islamic practices like polygamy, veiling and seclusion of women. The Jadid movement sought to distance Muslims from the Arabic language, traditionally taught and learned in the Madrassah or Maktab, instead replacing it with the vernacular Turkic languages. So with the success of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, the Jadidists allied with them and began filling the ranks of Communist Party chapters in Central Asia. A faction of Jadidists known as the Young Bukharans actively collaborated with the Soviet Red Army to capture Bukhara and put an end to the Emirate of Bukhara, replacing it with the Bukharan People’s Soviet Republic. In subsequent years, the central Soviet government under Stalin became increasingly tyrannical, with countless purges in which many of these Jadidists were ironically liquidated. On International Women’s Day, 8 March 1927, Stalin launched a campaign called the Hujum, in which Muslim ladies burnt their veils. Though employing the slogan of women’s liberation, it was nothing more than blatant European and Slavic cultural imperialism. Today, Muslims must understand that the feminist movement, led by White women, is a tool of Western imperialists to target Islam and Muslims. Events like International Women’s Day (8 March) must be understood in this light. It is not a coincidence that Stalin used that day to begin his anti-Islam Hujum campaign. The supposedly Muslim feminists who are increasingly having their voices amplified in the Muslim community are merely instruments of Western cultural imperialism and even White supremacism. Only the naive and ignorant from our ranks will fall for their deception. These so-called Muslim feminists are no different than the Jadidists of Central Asia, who facilitated the brutal Soviet takeover which devastated the culture and identity of that region, subjecting it to thinly-veiled Russian imperialism. The naked aggression of the Soviets against Islam and Muslims sparked the noble Basmachi revolt. Habibullah Kalakani, an Islamic leader who briefly ruled Afghanistan in 1929, allowed the Basmachi forces to operate in northern Afghanistan during their insurgency and cross border raids against the evil Soviets. It is noteworthy that the Soviets sought to defeat the Basmachi by supporting the modernist King Amanullah Khan, who ended up fleeing Kalakani in 1929. This unholy alliance between the Communists and the Muslim modernists has been exposed as being completely antagonistic to the interests and faith of the Muslim Ummah.

Azhari Reformist Mahmud Shaltut

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الحمد لله رب العلمين

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدى يا رسول الله

In the Name of Allāh, the Rahmān, the Merciful

Al-Azhar University in Egypt is often but falsely dubbed the most prestigious institution of Sunni Islamic learning. However, al-Azhar is hardly an independent seminary but rather a plaything in the hands of the Egyptian government since the time of the Khedive Muhammad Alī (1769-1849). In 1961, during the rule of Gamal Abdel Nasser (1918-1970), al-Azhar University was placed under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Awqāf. Its “Grand Shaikh” would now be appointed by the President. One of the worst rectors of al-Azhar University around this time was Mahmūd Shaltūt (1893-1963).

He issued a fatwā in 1958 validating the so-called Ja’farī madhhab, which led to the introduction of Ja’farī fiqh into the curriculum of al-Azhar. This Shaltūt was highly influenced by the modernist and reformist Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905). He was also an influence upon the Shaikh of the Ikhwān-al-Muslimīn (Muslim Brotherhood), Yūsuf al-Qaradāwī (1926-2022). Now the chain of the modernist, reformist trend in Egypt and the broader Arab world has been laid bare. This is hardly an orthodox Sunnī institution. It continues to produce “scholars” and “imāms” who are dedicated to the modernist and reformist project. Returning to Shaltūt: “Occasionally Shaltūt’s desire to minimize the harām by implementing the principle of yusr (ease, or lack of hardship) leads him to issue an opinion which seems to contradict a recognized hadīth. This is the case when he argues that men whose work entails loading and unloading wine do not come under the prophetic curse which embraces all who deal with wine, including the one who carries it. These men, argues Shaltūt, do not intend to abet anyone in sin, but are simply doing it to earn their living. This is a rather surprising inversion of the well-known Islamic precept that one should earn one’s living by legitimate means.” (Zebiri, Kate. Shaykh Mahmūd Shaltūt: Between Tradition and Modernity. Journal of Islamic Studies, 1991, vol.2, no.2, p.215)

Another of Shaltūt’s problematic views is concerning the definition of a kāfir: “Shaltūt further maintains that even those who have no religion cannot be labelled ‘kāfir’ unless they have had the message of Islām presented to them in a sympathetic and clearly understandable manner, i.e. unless they have actively turned away from guidance. As long as they refrain from harming Islām or the Muslims, non-Muslims can be considered ‘brothers in humanity’, all working together for the general good and each propagating his own religion non-aggressively.” (ibid, p.216)

Ribā or usury, euphemistically named “interest”, is strictly forbidden in the Sharī’ah, for Allāh سبحانه وتعالى says:

یٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللّٰہَ وَذَرُوۡا مَا بَقِیَ مِنَ الرِّبٰۤوا اِنۡ کُنۡتُمۡ مُّؤۡمِنِیۡنَ

فَاِنۡ لَّمۡ تَفۡعَلُوۡا فَاۡذَنُوۡا بِحَرۡبٍ مِّنَ اللّٰہِ وَرَسُوۡلِہٖ

O you who believe! Fear Allāh and relinquish what remains of interest, if you are believers.

But if you do not, then beware of war from Allāh and His Apostle!

(Sūrah 2, Āyah 278 & 279)

A sincere Islamic scholar and muftī is therefore characterized by zeal for the divine prohibition on usury, whereas the liberal reformists like Mahmūd Shaltūt can be easily identified by their laxity in this regard. The liberal reformists like Shaltūt seek to please the governments and the bankers by validating ribā: “in one of his fatāwā he states that the one who borrows on interest out of necessity does not share in the guilt of the usurious transaction, since he is in effect constrained to do so, and is thus covered by the Qur’ānic pronouncement: ‘God has made plain to you what is forbidden, except when you are constrained’ (6: 119). The way in which he goes on to reason that this can apply to nations as well as individuals, enumerating the various essential heads of expenditure such as agriculture, defence, trade, and industry, indicates that it is principally the interests of the national economy that he has in mind. This represents a departure from his former objection to the use of the principle ‘necessity makes forbidden things permissible’ to justify usurious transactions.” (Zebiri, Kate. Shaykh Mahmūd Shaltūt: Between Tradition and Modernity. Journal of Islamic Studies, 1991, vol.2, no.2, p.222)

In order to satisfy the Qādiyānī or so-called “Ahmadiyyah” heresy, Shaltūt wrote an article suggesting that the Messiah Jesus عليه السلام has died and that it is not essential for a Muslim to believe that Jesus عليه السلام was bodily raised alive to Heaven, and neither shall Jesus عليه السلام return to this world in the End Times:

لما كان هناك مبرر للقول بأن عيسى حي لم يمت

There is no justification for saying that Jesus is alive and did not die

انه ليس في القرآن الكريم ولا فى السنة المطهرة مستند يصلح لتكوين عقيدة يطمئن إليها القلب بان عيسى رفع بجسمه إلى السماء وانه حى الى الآن فيها وانه سينزل منها آخر الزمان إلى الأرض

ان من انكر ان عيسى قد رفع بجسمه إلى السماء وانه فيها حى إلى الآن وانه سينزل منها آخر الزمان فانه لا يكون بذلك منكرا لما ثبت بدليل قطعى فلا يخرج عن اسلامه وايمانه ولا ينبغى ان يحكم عليه بالردة

There is no evidence in the Qurān al-Karīm or the pure Sunnah that can be used to form a belief that reassures the heart, that Jesus was raised bodily to heaven, that he is still alive there, and that he will descend from it to earth at the end of time. Whoever denies that Jesus was raised bodily to heaven, that he is still alive there, and that he will descend from it at the end of time, is not thereby denying what has been proven by definitive evidence. He does not depart from his Islām and faith, and he should not be judged an apostate (Majallat al-Risālah, Cairo, 11 May 1942, v.10, no.452, pp.515, 517)

Commentary on Select Verses of Surah 42

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الحمد لله رب العلمين

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدى يا رسول الله

In the Name of Allâh, the Rahmân, the Merciful

This is the third Sûrah of the Hawâmîm, Sûrat al-Shûrâ and it includes additional disjoined letters after Hâ Mîm, namely:

عٓسٓقٓ

Ayn Sîn Qâf

(42:2)

The Disjointed Letters are from the Mutashâbihât, whose true meaning only Allâh knows. Those who interpret them in a manner that disregards the decisive and unambiguous Âyât of the Qurân, the Muhkamât, which are the Mother of the Scripture, have a deviation in their hearts and seek to make discord. Based on certain traditions, it appears that the Disjointed Letters have some relation to Abjad, Gematria or Arabic numerology. The Antichrist Dr. Rashad Khalifa was the first to discover some connection to the number nineteen, claiming that it is the basis for an in built mathematical code in the Qurân. Apparently, the Disjointed Letters that are at the beginning of certain chapters, when added to the same letters repeated throughout the chapter, produce a sum that is a multiple of nineteen. Allâh and His Apostle صلوات الله والسلام عليه know best.

کَذٰلِکَ یُوۡحِیۡۤ اِلَیۡکَ وَاِلَی الَّذِیۡنَ مِنۡ قَبۡلِکَ

Thus does He reveal to you (O Prophet Muhammad) and to those before you

(42:3)

The omission of any mention of Allâh inspiring revelation, Wahî, to anyone after the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, is a strong indication that there is to be no prophet after him. If Mirzâ Ghulâm Ahmad, or any of the other Antichrists that appeared in this Ummah, were truly recipients of Wahî from Allâh then He would have surely stated that here, saying, “Thus does He reveal to you and to those before you and to those after you.”

وَکَذٰلِکَ اَوۡحَیۡنَاۤ اِلَیۡکَ قُرۡاٰنًا عَرَبِیًّا لِّتُنۡذِرَ اُمَّ الۡقُرٰی وَمَنۡ حَوۡلَہَا

Thus have We inspired to you (O My beloved Prophet) an Arabic Qurân that you may warn the Mother of Towns (Mecca) and all around it

(42:7)

A Prophet is inspired with revelation in a language he comprehends, or is at least made to comprehend, whereas the false prophet Mirzâ Ghulâm Ahmad claimed to receive revelations that amounted to gibberish. Likewise, the Pentecostals claim to speak in “tongues” through the Holy Spirit, but in actuality they speak gibberish and not any foreign language. Some have foolishly argued that according to the Âyah the Holy Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم was only sent to warn the Meccans and the Arabs. Yet logically the mention of being sent to warn a particular place does not necessitate exclusion of others. Other verses in the Holy Qurân state plainly that the Holy Prophet Muhammad صلوات الله والسلام عليه has been sent as an Apostle to all humanity:

قُلۡ یٰۤاَیُّہَا النَّاسُ اِنِّیۡ رَسُوۡلُ اللّٰہِ اِلَیۡکُمۡ جَمِیۡعَا

Say (O My beloved Prophet), O mankind! Verily, I am the Apostle of Allah to you all

(7:158)

Next, Allâh عز وجل says:

وَلَوْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ لَجَعَلَهُمْ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً وَلَـٰكِن يُدْخِلُ مَن يَشَاءُ فِي رَحْمَتِهِ ۚ وَالظَّالِمُونَ مَا لَهُم مِّن وَلِيٍّ وَلَا نَصِيرٍ

And if Allâh had wished, He could have made them a single community. But He admits into His mercy whomsoever He wishes. And the wrongdoers have for them neither a protector nor a helper

(42:8)

While Allâh جلّ شأنه is omnipotent, having control over every particle of the cosmos, He has authorized man to have a certain degree of freedom so as to test him. Thus, the childish objections of those who ask that if God is all powerful why does He not prevent such and such evil and harm from happening are easily answered. If He wished He could have made everyone a Believer, into a single community with no conflicts whatsoever. But from His wisdom He has not decreed eternity and all goodness for this world. As for those who have the happiness of being admitted into Allâh’s mercy, they have not merited it by their faith or deeds. It is purely from the will of Allâh to save whom He wishes. Otherwise, everyone is worthy of condemnation. The wrongdoers, who are the unbelievers in reality, are condemned to Hell without any injustice since no one has done anything to merit salvation. For Allâh to admit a soul into His mercy means that soul shall find it easy in this world to believe in Him and His Apostle عليه السلام and to perform good deeds that are pleasing to Allâh. But the selection of the souls, before their birth in this world, for His mercy has been determined in advance. Hence, the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said:

اعْمَلُوا فَكُلٌّ مُيَسَّرٌ لِمَا خُلِقَ لَهُ أَمَّا مَنْ كَانَ مِنْ أَهْلِ السَّعَادَةِ فَيُيَسَّرُ لِعَمَلِ أَهْلِ السَّعَادَةِ وَأَمَّا مَنْ كَانَ مِنْ أَهْلِ الشَّقَاءِ فَيُيَسَّرُ لِعَمَلِ أَهْلِ الشَّقَاوَةِ

Perform deeds, for everyone is facilitated for what he was created for. As for he who is among the people of happiness, he is facilitated to do the deeds of the people of happiness, and as for he who is among the people of misery, he is facilitated to do the deeds of the people of misery (Sahih al-Bukhari)

Next Allâh سبحانه وتعالى says:

لَیۡسَ کَمِثۡلِہٖ شَیۡءٌ ۚ وَہُوَ السَّمِیۡعُ الۡبَصِیۡرُ

There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the hearing, the seeing

(42:11)

The theology of the Qurân, summarized beautifully in this Âyah, is that Allâh, holy and exalted is He, is simultaneously transcendent and immanent. To believe in His transcendence while denying His immanence, or vice versa, is manifest deviation from the truth. The Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilah are guilty of the former while the Mushabbihah and Mujassimah are guilty of the latter. While there is nothing like Him in reality, that doesn’t mean He isn’t a real person who is attributed with sight, hearing, power, knowledge and will. In order to make this matter clear to those with understanding, after mentioning that there is none like unto Him, Allâh affirms for Himself that He is one who hears and sees. Those who have gone overboard in the matter of Tanzîh, by negating for Allâh any description whatsoever, including those which occur in the Scripture itself, have taken this Âyah with an interpretation that is not consistent with the rest of the Scripture. For this reason, Imâm Ahmad bin Hanbal رحمة الله عليه explained that this Âyah is from the Mutashâbihât (Ar-Radd alal-Jahmiyyah waz-Zanâdiqah, p.95):

Next, Allâh عز وجل says:

شَرَعَ لَکُمۡ مِّنَ الدِّیۡنِ مَا وَصّٰی بِہٖ نُوۡحًا وَّالَّذِیۡۤ اَوۡحَیۡنَاۤ اِلَیۡکَ وَمَا وَصَّیۡنَا بِہٖۤ اِبۡرٰہِیۡمَ وَمُوۡسٰی وَعِیۡسٰۤی اَنۡ اَقِیۡمُوا الدِّیۡنَ وَلَا تَتَفَرَّقُوۡا فِیۡہِ

He has legislated for you the Religion with which He bequeathed to Noah, and which We have inspired to you (O My beloved Prophet Muhammad), and with which We bequeathed to Abraham and Moses and Jesus, that you establish the Religion and not become divided therein

(42:13)

The Religion of Islâm is the same Religion that Allâh bequeathed to the major Apostles prior to the Holy Prophet Muhammad, namely, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus عليهم السلام

Its basic creed, principles, values and teachings have remained the same. And a common ordinance to all who were given this Religion was that they ought to establish it. Some of the so-called “Islamists” claim this means it is a divine commandment to set up a state, a polity, so that the implementation of all the divine laws be made possible. However, the meaning of establishment of the Dîn is to establish as much of its commandments and teachings upon oneself as are possible and applicable. Otherwise, we do not see that the Prophets and Apostles of God that have come at various times in history worked directly for the establishment of a state or polity. Prophets and Apostles of God do not come into this world to radically challenge systems, including systems of governance. None of them are by any means radical in the political sense. Whatever system men have established that is sound and functional is fine. The nature of the system does not fall under the purview of Religion, or the activity of the Prophets and Apostles.

In this Âyah, Allâh has forbidden schism and division within the Religion. Schism means splitting off from the collective or main body, the Jamâ’ah, of the Believers, forming a new sect with innovated principles, beliefs or method of worship. Hence, every misguided sect guilty of schism can have its existence traced back to a person and time subsequent to the Holy Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم

As for the main body of the Muslims, which is called Ahl-us-Sunnati wal-Jamâ’ah or the Sunnis, which till today comprises the overwhelming majority of the Ummah, though it may be considered a “sect” in the linguistic sense, it is not a schismatic faction and is not included in the divine condemnation of sectarianism and schism. Rather, the Prophet’s own Companions رضى الله عنهم comprise the first Jamâ’ah, and the Sunnis have inherited all of their beliefs, principles, understanding and method of worship.

Allâh says:

وَمَا يُدْرِيكَ لَعَلَّ السَّاعَةَ قَرِيبٌ

And what will make you comprehend? Perhaps the Hour is near

(42:17)

The impendence of the Apocalypse is a major theme of the Holy Qurân and the prophetic ministry of the Apostle Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم

The word لعل meaning “perhaps” occurs here to express that while the Hour is near, its nearness is relative. Otherwise, the opponents and the ignorant commonly object that it has been nearly fifteen centuries since the advent of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم yet the Apocalypse hasn’t occurred. Hence, Allâh says in the next Âyah:

يَسْتَعْجِلُ بِهَا الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِهَا ۖ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مُشْفِقُونَ مِنْهَا وَيَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّهَا الْحَقُّ ۗ أَلَا إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُمَارُونَ فِي السَّاعَةِ لَفِي ضَلَالٍ بَعِيدٍ

Those who believe not therein seek to hasten it; but those who believe are fearful of it, and know that it is the truth. Beware! those who dispute concerning the Hour are in error, far gone

(42:18)

Attempting to hasten the Hour is the way of the foolish, misguided and ultimately of the unbelievers. Certain doomsday cults may be intended here, especially from the Christian tradition. If they truly believed in the reality of the Hour they would not attempt to bring it about through their dramatic actions, but would be content with the promise of God. But the attitude of the sincere Believer, who knows that the Hour is a coming reality, is that he fears it. The sense of panic and alarm that a Believer may have concerning the Apocalypse or an apocalyptic event, driving him into a certain hâl or spiritual state, is in fact a sign of his Îmân. And whoever disputes the reality and imminence of the Hour, the Apocalypse, is extremely astray. For they live in the world as though it will not one day end, and neglecting their own inevitable deaths.

Allâh says:

مَن كَانَ يُرِيدُ حَرْثَ الْآخِرَةِ نَزِدْ لَهُ فِي حَرْثِهِ ۖ وَمَن كَانَ يُرِيدُ حَرْثَ الدُّنْيَا نُؤْتِهِ مِنْهَا وَمَا لَهُ فِي الْآخِرَةِ مِن نَّصِيبٍ

Whoso desires the harvest of the Hereafter, We give him increase in his harvest; and whoso desires the harvest of this world, We give him thereof, but in the Hereafter he will have no share

(42:20)

The effort an individual expends for something are as seeds that sprout into crops which are later harvested. If a person desires this world, and sows seeds for that purpose, God will let him reap the harvest of his desire and effort. But in the end he will be of the losers and deprived of a share in the Hereafter. The Message of Islâm is to focus on the harvest of the Hereafter and not of this temporary, unstable world. How can those individuals be considered intelligent who do everything in their power to reap the temporary delights of this world while failing to prepare anything for the Afterlife?

Allâh عزّ وجلّ says:

لَہُمۡ مَّا یَشَآءُوۡنَ عِنۡدَ رَبِّہِمۡ ؕ ذٰلِکَ ہُوَ الۡفَضۡلُ الۡکَبِیۡرُ

They shall have with their Lord whatever they will desire. That it is, the great grace

(42:22)

While Allâh has mentioned desirous things of Paradise to motivate the Believers, such as rivers of honey, milk and wine, and beautiful celestial maidens to whom they will be married to, ultimately the greatest of these heavenly rewards is that they shall receive whatever they desire, for each individual varies and naturally desires different things.

Allâh says:

قُل لَّا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إِلَّا الْمَوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَىٰ

Say (O My beloved Prophet), I ask of you no reward for it except love of kinship

(42:23)

The sign of a true Apostle of God is that he does not seek any material reward from the people for delivering God’s message and oracles to them. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is told to only ask for their love due to kinship with them, meaning the Quraysh. It may also mean that in exchange for the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم doing good to the people by delivering the message of Islâm to them and guiding them to the truth the only thing he personally should expect in return from them is that they have love and compassion for his sacred household and progeny, the Ahl-al-Bayt عليهم السلام

Tragically, the family and progeny of the Holy Prophet عليه السلام had to suffer much evil and oppression at the hands of various Muslim rulers and their armies. Hence, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم emphasized repeatedly in his final will to the Believers:

وَأَهْلُ بَيْتِي أُذَكِّرُكُمُ اللَّهَ فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِي أُذَكِّرُكُمُ اللَّهَ فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِي أُذَكِّرُكُمُ اللَّهَ فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِي

And the people of my household! I remind you in Allâh of my household, I remind you in Allâh of my household, I remind you in Allâh of my household! (Sahih Muslim)

The emphasis with which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم willed for his community to be mindful of his household and fear Allâh concerning them indicates he was intimated through inspiration that his household would suffer at the hands of his own community sometime in the near future. The tragic event of Karbalâ, in which the Prophet’s grandson Husayn رضى الله عنه and dozens of other members of his household were cruelly massacred is perhaps the worst instance of such cruelty that members of his own Ummah perpetrated against his Ahl-al-Bayt.

Next, Allâh reveals another profound truth when He says:

وَلَوۡ بَسَطَ اللّٰہُ الرِّزۡقَ لِعِبَادِہٖ لَبَغَوۡا فِی الۡاَرۡضِ وَلٰکِنۡ یُّنَزِّلُ بِقَدَرٍ مَّا یَشَآءُ

And if Allâh should broaden the provision for His slaves, they would rebel in the Earth; but He sends down according to a measure as He wishes

(42:27)

It is often said that the scarcity of resources on this planet, particularly the limited sources of energy required for all manner of industry, is the main cause of poverty and conflict in this world. But Allâh in His wisdom has decreed this limitation on resources and energy for the planet. If mankind were to have access to exponentially greater resources and sources of energy to become a Type II civilization per the Kardashev scale, they would rise to insanely new heights of arrogance and rebellion against Heaven. They would even consider themselves shielded from any natural calamity that could destroy the Earth itself. Whatever technology mankind has been able to invent till now is already a reason for them arrogating themselves a godlike position. Hence, Allâh has maintained the system of checks and balances through a limitation of resources and energy so that if one nation rises greatly in power there is always potentially another to eventually bring it down:

وَلَوۡلَا دَفۡعُ اللّٰہِ النَّاسَ بَعۡضَہُمۡ بِبَعۡضٍ ۙ لَّفَسَدَتِ الۡاَرۡضُ

And had it not been for Allâh repelling men, some of them by others, the Earth would have become filled with disorder

(2:251)

Allâh says:

وَمِنۡ اٰیٰتِہٖ خَلۡقُ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَالۡاَرۡضِ وَمَا بَثَّ فِیۡہِمَا مِنۡ دَآبَّۃٍ

And among His signs is the creation of the Heavens and the Earth and the creatures he has spread in both of them

(42:29)

The Âyah is perhaps the most explicit mention of extraterrestrial life—alien life on other planets and in outer space.

Allâh سبحانه وتعالى says:

وَاَمۡرُہُمۡ شُوۡرٰی بَیۡنَہُمۡ

And their affair is consultation among themselves

(42:38)

This chapter of the Qurân derives its name from shûrâ or consultation as it occurs in this Âyah. In all matters that have not been divinely legislated the Believers are enjoined to consult among themselves for a decision. The heretical Imâmiyyah Shî’ah, who believe that Allâh divinely appointed a succession of Imâms to lead the Ummah subsequent to the passing away of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم argue that it is unreasonable for Allâh to have left the question of succession and leadership to the consultation among the Ummah. But the lack of any compelling evidence that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم designated anyone to succeed him to the office of leadership of the Ummah, and likewise the omission of any name in the Qurân of any individual who would serve as Imâm of the community after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم means that obviously it was a matter to be determined through mutual consultation by the Believers. And whatever decision the Believers arrive at through mutual consultation is surely blessed by Allâh. Today, some ignorant Muslims imagine that the system of democracy best fulfills the institution of mutual consultation enjoined by Allâh. They fail to understand that consultation is not the same as mandating the popular will as reflected in an election with universal franchise. The institution of Shûrâ ought to be understood in light of how it was practised by the Sahâbah رضى الله عنهم

Furthermore, the qualification of بينهم meaning “among themselves” indicates that only Believers are consulted, and not all and sundry as per the Western form of democracy.

Concerning the modes of divine communication to man, Allâh says:

وَمَا کَانَ لِبَشَرٍ اَنۡ یُّکَلِّمَہُ اللّٰہُ اِلَّا وَحۡیًا اَوۡ مِنۡ وَّرَآیِٔ حِجَابٍ اَوۡ یُرۡسِلَ رَسُوۡلًا فَیُوۡحِیَ بِاِذۡنِہٖ مَا یَشَآءُ

And it is not for a mortal man that Allâh should speak to him except through inspiration, or from behind a veil or by sending a messenger to inspire by His permission what He wills

(42:51)

The Âyah is general in referring to how Allâh speaks to man, and is not restricted to Prophets and Apostles. The three forms of divine communication are direct inspiration to the heart, hearing the speech of Allâh emanating from behind a veil, and the sending of an Angel to inspire the Word of God to the recipient’s heart and mind. Concerning the second mode, speaking from behind a veil, Allâh spoke to Moses, and Moses heard His voice, with the burning bush serving as the veil. Likewise, Allâh spoke to the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم in visions, through the form of a handsome boy who was the veil. The veil is not Allâh Himself.