Reality of the Second Advent of Jesus son of Mary (Peace be upon him)

In the Name of Allah; the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful

Invocations of peace and blessings upon our beloved Prophet Muhammad and upon his family, companions and pure progeny.

The grand prophecy of the second coming of the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, is established not only from numerous and authentic Ahadith from the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam), reaching the level of Tawaatur (mass-transmission at every level), but even has strong indication from the Qur’an al-Karim itself:

And indeed, he [Jesus] will be [a sign for] knowledge of the Hour, so be not in doubt of it, and follow Me. This is a straight path. (Sura 43: 61)

According to an authentic Hadith reported in the Sahih of Ibn Hibban, Ibn ‘Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) reports that the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) said concerning this Ayah:

نُزُولُ عِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ مِنْ قَبْلِ يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ

“Jesus son of Mary will descend before the Day of Resurrection.”

According to the version reported in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, the wording is:

خُرُوجُ عِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَام قَبْلَ يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ

“Jesus son of Mary, peace be upon him, will come out before the Day of Resurrection.”

However, we have already proven repeatedly on this blog that Prophet Jesus of Nazareth (peace be upon him), who was born some two thousand years ago, and preceded our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) by some six centuries, died in his own time. Likewise, we have proven from the Holy Qur’an that the souls of the deceased are forbidden from returning to this world. The Religion of Islam rejects both concepts of Tanaasukh (re-incarnation), and Raj’ah (return of the dead to this world before Judgment Day).

How then are we to understand the numerous reports from the Sunnah which are the basis for the grand prophecy of the second coming of the Messiah before Judgment Day?

One possibility which must be considered is that the prophecy of the coming of Jesus son of Mary signifies the birth of a saintly figure from within the Ummah who will bear the characteristics of Jesus, and shall act as an Imam for the entire Ummah. In order for the respected reader to understand this idea, we must examine two important issues.

1. Is there any precedent in the history of Religion which lends credence to this view?

2. What is the significance of Nuzool (descent)? Must it mean a literal descent to Earth from Heaven?

To answer the first question, I refer the reader to the Biblical prophecy of the second coming of Prophet Elias (peace be upon him), also known as Elijah:

הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי שֹׁלֵחַ לָכֶם, אֵת אֵלִיָּה הַנָּבִיא--לִפְנֵי, בּוֹא יוֹם יְהוָה, הַגָּדוֹל, וְהַנּוֹרָא.

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD.

(Malachi; Ch. 3 V. 23 or Ch. 4 V. 5)

Orthodox Jews are expecting the literal return of the Prophet Elijah, but according to the Gospel narrative Jesus of Nazareth explained that the prophecy of the coming of Elijah was fulfilled in the person of Prophet John the Baptist (Matthew 11: 14, 17: 12; Mark 9: 13; Luke 1: 17).

Consider also the figure of Prophet Zul-Qarnain (peace be upon him) whose affair is mentioned in Sura 18 of the Holy Qur’an. The title Zul-Qarnain can mean either “the one of two horns” or “the one of two generations”. The latter meaning is surely more profound than the first and ought to be preferred for understanding the reality of this mysterious figure who is mentioned in the Holy Qur’an.

A strong possibility about the reality of the name Zul-Qarnain is that it indicates to us that this figure will have two appearances in two different generations. He may have been a historical person but at the same time a person predicted to appear sometime in the future.

In the year 235 of the Islamic calendar, a false prophet named Mahmud b. al-Faraj al-Naysaburi appeared in Samarra and claimed to be Zul-Qarnain. He was executed by severe flogging during the reign of the Abbasid ruler al-Mutawakkil.

Reference: Tarikh al-Tabari; v. 12, p. 457

What the claim of Mahmud b. al-Faraj indicates to us is that there may have been some sort of expectation among the Muslims of that time for the advent of the Prophet Zul-Qarnain (peace be upon him). Incidentally, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, founder of the Ahmadiyyah movement, also claimed that he was Zul-Qarnain (Malfuzat; v. 5 p. 406). And there are many other such examples from the history of Religion about the “re-appearance” of an ancient Prophet, but not literally, rather the “re-appearance” of the prophet is fulfilled in the appearance of a different man who bears some spiritual resemblance to him.

The second issue is regarding the reality of Nuzool (descent). Many Muslims believe that the Hadith-based prophecies indicate that the coming Messiah will literally descend from heaven, carried on the wings of two Angels.

However, words derived from the root ن-ز-ل (N-Z-L) can also mean: “to facilitate, to grant, to provide” (Arabic-English Dictionary of Qur’anic Usage, p. 930)

For example, Allah Most High says:

Say, “Have you seen what Allah has sent down [ANZALA] to you of provision of which you have made [some] lawful and [some] unlawful?” Say, “Has Allah permitted you [to do so], or do you invent [something] about Allah?” (Sura 10: 59)

خَلَقَكُم مِّن نَّفْسٍ وَاحِدَةٍ ثُمَّ جَعَلَ مِنْهَا زَوْجَهَا وَأَنزَلَ لَكُم مِّنَ الْأَنْعَامِ ثَمَانِيَةَ أَزْوَاجٍ

He created you from one soul. Then He made from it its mate, and He produced [ANZALA] for you from the grazing livestock eight mates. (Sura 39: 6)

Concerning the coming Messiah, Nuzul (descent) does not necessarily mean “descending from Heaven” but, as reported in the version of Musnad Ahmad, it means Khuruj (coming out).

Now let us examine authentic Ahadith from the collections of Bukhari and Muslim which strongly indicate that the prophecy of the descent of the Messiah means the emergence from within the Muslim Ummah of a noble and great Imam:

أَنَّ أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ ، قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : " كَيْفَ أَنْتُمْ إِذَا نَزَلَ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ فِيكُمْ وَإِمَامُكُمْ مِنْكُمْ

Aba Hurairah (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that Allah’s Messenger (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) said: “How will you be when the Son of Mary descends among you and your Imam is from among you.”

(Sahih al-Bukhari)

According to some scholars, this Hadith predicts the appearance of two different individuals, the Son of Mary and an Imam from among the Muslims. According to them, that Imam is none other than the promised Mahdi. However, other versions of this Hadith make it clear that the Imam spoken of in this Hadith who shall lead the Muslims is in fact Jesus Son of Mary:

كَيْفَ أَنْتُمْ إِذَا نَزَلَ فِيكُمْ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ ، فَأَمَّكُمْ مِنْكُمْ

“How will you be when the Son of Mary descends among you and leads you from among you?”

(Sahih Muslim)

كَيْفَ أَنْتُمْ إِذَا نَزَلَ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ ، فِيكُمْ ، وَأَمَّكُمْ

“How will you be when the Son of Mary descends among you and leads you?”

(Sahih Muslim)

Furthermore, the reader should consider the fact that Jesus son of Mary has been given two physical descriptions by the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) which are at variance with each other. This is another strong indication that the historical Jesus of Nazareth is not necessarily the same Jesus Son of Mary who is prophecised to appear before Judgment Day. During the night of Mi’raj, the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) beheld Jesus son of Mary in Heaven and described him as a man of reddish (Ahmar) complexion, having curly hair, and a broad chest. This is the physical description of the historical Jesus of Nazareth whom the Prophet (peace be upon him) saw on the night of Mi’raj.

However, in another vision, the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) saw himself performing Tawaaf of the sacred Ka’bah and saw the coming Messiah, whom he described as having a wheatish (Adam) complexion, and having straight or lank hair.

In summary, these evidences point to the fact that the coming Messiah, who has been named as Jesus son of Mary, is not necessarily the historical Israelite prophet Jesus of Nazareth, who is deceased. According to the divine law, the souls of the deceased cannot return to this world. The coming Messiah whose advent is predicted in numerous Ahadith is in fact a noble and just Imam who shall arise from within the Ummah to lead and guide it, and he has been named as Jesus son of Mary due to spiritual resemblance and fulfilling the Messianic role. And Allah knows best.

Iqbal's Book Islam and Ahmadism Refuted...Part 4

In the Name of Allah; the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful

Continuing from my last entry, let us now examine what Iqbal states regarding the concept of Buruz :

“He [Mirza Ghulam Ahmad] claims to be a buruz (بروز) of the Holy Prophet of Islam insinuating thereby that, being a buruz of him, his “finality” is virtually the “finality” of Muhammad; and that this view of the matter, therefore, does not violate the “finality” of the Holy Prophet. In identifying the two finalities, his own and that of the Holy Prophet, he conveniently loses sight of the temporal meaning of the idea of Finality. It is, however, obvious that the word buruz , in the sense even of complete likeness, cannot help him at all; for the buruz must always remain the other side of its original. Only in the sense of reincarnation a buruz becomes identical with the original. Thus if we take the word buruz to mean “like in spiritual qualities” the argument remains ineffective; if, on the other hand, we take it to mean reincarnation of the original in the Aryan sense of the word, the argument becomes plausible; but its author turns out to be only a Magian in disguise.” (Islam and Ahmadism ; pp. 22-23)

One is simply astonished as to how Iqbal sneaks in a sentence that so obviously misrepresents the position of Ghulam Ahmad and then proceeds to refute that strawman argument. Iqbal wrote: “In identifying the two finalities, his own and that of the Holy Prophet…” but failed to reference when or where Ghulam Ahmad identified “two finalities”. The whole point is that Ghulam Ahmad, in the capacity of being a Buruz (projection) of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) does not possess a “finality” in his own self or essence. His “finality” is identical and synonymous with the finality of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). There is only one finality as there is only one final Prophet, and that is Muhammad not Ghulam Ahmad. The latter is simply acting as a projection of the image of the former.

Iqbal postulates that since a buruz necessitates oneness of identity it is only possible to understand it as reincarnation! Again, we are simply unaware of the basis upon which Iqbal has made such an obviously false presumption. The concept of Buruz is a Sufi concept, formulated and elucidated upon by the eminent Sufis of the Ummah. They have never understood it as reincarnation. For example, the great Mujaddid Alf Thani Ahmad Sirhindi (Rahimahullah) (1564-1624) writes:

بروز (پوشیدہ ہونا اور ظاہر ہو جانا) جو بعض مشائخ نے بیان کیا ہے اس کا تناسخ سے بالکل کوئی تعلق نہیں ہے کیوںکہ تناسخ میں نفس کا تعلق دوسرے بدن کے ساتھ اس لئے ہوتا ہےکہ اس کے لئے حیات و زندگی ثابت ہو اور اس کو حس و حرکت حاصل ہو۔ اور بروز میں نفس کا تعلق دوسرے بدن سے اس غرض کے حصول کے لئےنہیں ہوتا بلکہ اس کا مقصود یہ ہوتا ہےکہ اس بدن کو کمالات حاصل ہوں اور درجات وصول ہو جائیں۔

Translation: “The burooz spoken of by some spiritual Shaikhs has nothing to do with re-incarnation. In re-incarnation, a soul forms a connection with another body as the means of its life, and to give it sensation and movement. In burooz a soul forms a connection with another body, not for this purpose, but to make that body acquire attainments and reach high grades.”

Reference: Maktubat Imam Rabbani; Daftar II, Letter no. 58

A good analogy to understand the concept of burooz is seeing the image of one’s face reflected in a mirror. The original face has an independent existence, but the reflection of the face in the mirror does not have an independent existence, it is only a projection or reflection. In this way one realizes that there is only one face, but that face can be projected from another direction with the use of a mirror. In the same way, there is only one Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), he is the last and final Prophet of God. The projection of his image through Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who is the mirror or repository of that image, is what is an example of Burooz.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself clarifies this point quite explicitly:

جاہل مخالف میری نسبت الزام لگاتے ہیں کہ یہ شخص نبی یا رسول ہونے کا دعوی کرتا ہے مجھے ایسا کوئی دعوی نہیں۔ میں اس طور سے جو وہ خیال کرتے ہیں نہ نبی ہوں نہ رسول ہوں۔ ہاں میں اس طور سے نبی اور رسول ہوں جس طور سے ابھی میں نے بیان کیا ہے۔ پس جو شخص میرے پر شرارت سے یہ الزام لگاتا ہے جو دعوی نبوّت اور رسالت کا کرتے ہیں وہ جھوٹا اور ناپاک خیال ہے۔ مجھے بروزی صورت نے نبی اور رسول بنایا ہے اور اسی بنا پر خدا نے بار بار میرا نام نبی اللہ اور رسول اللہ رکھا مگر بروزی صورت میں۔ میرا نفس درمیان نہیں ہے۔ بلکہ محمد مصطفے صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم ہے۔ اس لحاظ سے میرا نام محمد ص اور احمد ص ہوا۔ پس نبوّت اور رسالت کسی دوسرے کےپاس نہیں گئی۔ محمد ص کی چیز محمد ص کے پاس ہی رہی۔

Translation: My ignorant opponents accuse me of claiming to be a Prophet or Messenger, I myself make no such claim. I am neither a Prophet nor a Messenger as they think. But I am a Prophet and a Messenger in the way that I have just explained. Therefore, false and evil is the thinking of the one who mischievously accuses me of claiming to be a Prophet and Messenger. It is only by way of Buruz that I have been made a Prophet and a Messenger, and it is on this very basis that Allah has repeatedly named me His Prophet and His Messenger, but only by way of Buruz. My own self comes nowhere in between, rather it all belongs to Muhammad Mustafa (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam ). Thus it is that I have been called Muhammad (S) and Ahmad (S). Hence, Prophethood and Messengership have not been transferred to anyone else. What belonged to Muhammad (S) remains with Muhammad (S).

Reference: Eik Ghalati Ka Izala; p. 12

To be continued…

Iqbal's Book Islam and Ahmadism Refuted...Part 3

In the Name of Allah; the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful

Continuing from my last entry regarding Iqbal’s book Islam and Ahmadism, we will now move on to Iqbal’s arguments regarding the issue of the Finality of Prophethood.

Iqbal correctly states: “The cultural value of the idea of Finality in Islam I have fully explained elsewhere. Its meaning is simple: No spiritual surrender to any human being after Muhammad who emancipated his followers by giving them a law which is realisable as arising from the very core of human conscience. Theologically, the doctrine is that: the socio-political organisation called “Islam” is perfect and eternal. No revelation the denial of which entails heresy is possible after Muhammad.” (p. 21)

We are in agreement that the significance of Khatam-un-Nubuwwah (Finality of Prophethood) is that the law of Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is final and universal, and there cannot come after him another law-bearing prophet, another Shari’ah (divine law), or another Revelation from God the denial of which entains Kufr (infidelity or disbelief).

However, Iqbal goes on to state that “Since the Qadianis believe the founder of the Ahmadiyyah movement to be the bearer of such a revelation, they declare that the entire world of Islam is infidel.” (ibid)

We have already refuted Iqbal’s false allegation that either the Ahmadiyyah movement or its revered founder declared “the entire world of Islam is infidel” in our previous entry in this series here. Specifically, the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement penned his own statement that “I do not declare anyone who rejects my claim to be either a disbeliever or dajjal. ” (Ruhani Khaza’in; v. 15, p. 432)

Iqbal goes on to admit the brilliance of the Ahmadiyyah understanding of the Finality of Prophethood: “The founder’s [Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s] own argument, quite worthy of a mediaeval theologian, is that the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam must be regarded as imperfect if it is not creative of another prophet. He claims his own prophethood to be an evidence of the prophet-rearing power of the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam.” (Islam and Ahmadism ; p. 21)

Thus far Iqbal has indeed correctly understood the founder of the Ahmadiyyah movement concerning the advent of a Prophet from within the Ummah of Muhammad (peace be upon him). Rather than detracting from the high status of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), the advent of a “prophet-like” figure from among his own followers is actually a testament to his excellence and the “power of his spirituality”. This is especially true if one considers the fact that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not at all claim to be a prophet in his own right or independently of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Rather, Ghulam Ahmad asserted that the type of Prophethood he had attained was through strict adherence to the laws and teachings of Prophet Muhammad, and through utmost devotion and love of him. Ghulam Ahmad based his claim on the Sufi concept of Fana fil-Rasul which means a follower of the Prophet Muhammad annihilates his own self or ego and through strict emulation infuses himself with the persona of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). This is illustrated through one of Ghulam Ahmad’s divine inspirations:

جَرِيُّ اللّهِ فِىْ حُلَلِ الْاَنْبِيَآءِ

Allah’s Messenger in the garb of Prophets

Although it is evident that Iqbal understands this concept, he is unable to refute it on principle. Instead, Iqbal resorts to turning the tables by stating: “But if you further ask him [Mirza Ghulam Ahmad] whether the spirituality of Muhammad is capable of rearing more prophets than one, his answer is “No”. This virtually amounts to saying: “Muhammad is not the last Prophet; I am the last.” (pp. 21-22)

The answer to this allegation of Iqbal requires a more detailed clarification. Firstly, the spirituality of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) has reared thousands and thousands of eminent pious and saintly individuals within the Ummah. Beginning with many of the Prophet’s senior companions, such as Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, his wife A’ishah, his daughter Fatimah, his two grandsons Hasan and Hussayn, the sword of God Khalid b. Walid, Salman the Persian, Bilal b. Rabah, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, and literally thousands of others (may Allah be pleased with them all). Then there are those who are generally referred to as the Awliya, the very pious saintly figures that arose from within the Ummah, the likes of Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani (Rahimullah), and thousands upon thousands of others. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not see himself in an altogether separate category from these thousands of other saintly figures who all obtained their greatness and high status through emulation of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Rather, Ghulam Ahmad simply regarded himself as the climatic figure in whom the greatest example of such a saintly figure following in the footsteps of the Prophet is personified. Until Judgment Day such saintly and eminent figures will continue to arise from within the Ummah, but according to Ghulam Ahmad, they will not reach higher than the status he attained. And Ghulam Ahmad has described the status he attained as the highest and most eminent position that is possible to attain in following the footsteps of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). That status, if not Nubuwwah in the real or technical sense, must at least be considered as Nubuwwah in a figurative sense.

It is also noteworthy that Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be the promised Mahdi and Messiah. The coming of such a figure is accepted by the Muslim mainstream. The personality of the promised Messiah in particular is described as being endowed with Nubuwwah and, due to spiritual resemblance, given the name of Jesus son of Mary. Keep in mind that no other figure from within the Ummah has a Nass (textual proof) to be called as a Prophet or Messenger of God apart from the coming Messiah. This is the significance of the Hadith reported from the Prophet (peace be upon him):

كَيْفَ تُهْلِكُ أُمَّةً أَنَا أَوَّلُهَا وَالْمَسِيحُ آخِرُهَا

How can the Ummah be destroyed when I [Muhammad] am at its beginning and the Messiah is at its end?

This Hadith indicates that the Messiah is, chronologically, at the end of the Ummah, but this chronological “end” does not entail in it of itself any kind of virtue or excellence. In fact, there is no virtue or excellence in being the first, second, third, last, etc., in terms of birth or appearance for a Prophet, at least in a chronological sense.

Therefore, Iqbal’s objection is void and based on a failure to understand the true significance of the Prophet Muhammad’s Finality.

To be continued…

Ashari Theologian Bayjuri: The Qur'an is Created معاذ الله

In the Name of Allah; the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful

The Asha’irah (Asharis) are a theological sect which claims to follow Imam Abul Hasan al-Ashari (Rahimahullah) (d. 324 H)

Modern-day Asharis claim that they are the “orthodoxy” and that the majority of Muslims, or at least Muslim scholars, are adherents of the Ashari creed.

However, we will see how in fact the Asharis are a misguided group which, like the deviant Mu’tazilah before them, believe that the Holy Qur’an is created.

As the reader should be aware, the belief of the original Ahlus Sunnati wal-Jama’ah (the saved sect and orthodox group of Muslims) is that the Holy Qur’an is the Word of Allah, that it is uncreated and that Allah Most High literally spoke it with an audible Voice and consisting of letters and words in the Arabic language. Because the Voice and Speech of Allah are His Attributes emanating from Him, we believe that the Voice and Speech of Allah is uncreated, and therefore the Holy Qur’an is uncreated.

The modern-day Asharis pretend that they hold to this doctrine as well, i.e., that the Holy Qur’an is uncreated. But they only say so to pull the wool over the Muslim masses. The reality is that the Asharis believe that the Holy Qur’an is actually two distinct things. One is the Kalaam Nafsi (internal speech) which is only with Allah. It is eternal without beginning or end and does not consist of any words or sounds. Such a doctrine is of course completely false, because we know that the Holy Qur’an is revealed in the Arabic language (Sura 12: 2, 20: 113, 39: 28, 41: 3, 42: 7, 43: 3, 46: 12) and that it consists of words and letters, and that when it is articulated orally it is sound or audible.

Regarding this Qur’an which is in the Arabic language, consisting of words, letters, sounds and audible, the Asharis say it is created. Hence, the Ashari scholar and theologian, Ibrahim al-Bayjuri (d. 1276 H), writes:

ومذهب أهل السنة أن القرآن بمعنى الكلام النفسي ليس مخلوق, وأما القرآن بمعنى اللفظ الذي نقرؤه فهو مخلوق

“And the madhhab of Ahl-us-Sunnah is that the Qur’an, with the meaning of al-Kalaam an-Nafsi [the meaning that resides eternally with the Self of Allah] is not created. And as for the Qur’an with the meaning of the lafdh (the wording) that we recite, then it is created.”

Reference: Haashiyat al-Bayjuri ala Jawahirut Tawhid; p. 160

Hadith-Rejecter G. A. Parwez's Bizarre Concept of Du'a

In the Name of Allah; the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful.

May salutations of peace and blessings be showered upon our beloved Prophet Muhammad and upon his family and progeny.

One of the most dangerous political ideologies that masquerades as a “Qur’anic movement” is the Bazm Tolu-e-Islam founded by and based on the heterodox ideas of Mr. Ghulam Ahmad Parwez (1903-1985). The latter, herein referred to as G. A. Parwez, was not only a Hadith-rejecter, but undermined even the basic principles and philosophy of Islam. He rejected some of the most fundamental precepts of our Religion and substituted them for entirely alien and irreligious concepts that are derived from modern and Western political ideologies.

Take for example Mr. Parwez’s concept of Du’a (prayer) and ‘Ibadah (worship). He writes:

یا جب وہ عبادت کا لفظ استعمال کرتا ہے، تو مذہب پرستوں کے ہاں اس سے مفہوم پرستش، پوجا پاٹ، (WORSHIP) ہوتا ہے، لیکن دین کی رو سے اس کے معنی احکام و قوانین خداوندی کی اطاعت ہوتا ہے۔ دین میں پرستش کا تصوّر نہیں بلکہ اطاعت اور محکومیّت کا تصوّر ہوتا ہے

Translation: Those who adhere to Madhhab consider the meaning of the word ‘Ibaadah to be worship. But from the perspective of Deen it means obedience to the Divine commandments and laws. In Deen there is no such concept as “worship”, but instead there is the concept of obedience and being subject to commands.

Reference: Kitab ut Taqdir; p. 361

See here how the totally misguided G. A. Parwez has altered the very essence of Islam which is Du’a – to call upon and supplicate to Allah – an act of personal worship between the human being and his Lord. Instead, Mr. Parwez’s poisonous materialistic and pseudo-atheistic ideology forced him to reject the concept of personal worship. He therefore redefined Du’a to simply mean obedience to the Divine laws, which is absurd even from a purely linguistic angle.

But even more absurd than this is Mr. Parwez’s absolutely ridiculous idea that the one who fulfills or answers Du’a is not Allah (God) Himself, but rather the Islamic government!

In his book Kitab ut Taqdir, Mr. Parwez gives one of its chapters the following heading:

مظلوموں کی دعا‍‎ئین اسلامی مملکت سنتی ہے

“The Islamic Kingdom [Government] Listens to the Du’a of the Oppressed”

One Khalid M. Sayyed’s translation of Parwez’s book is available on the official website of the Bazm Tolu-e-Islam. Here is how he translates what G. A. Parwez wrote under this chapter:

“The Qur’anic State Answers!

Clearly, Allah does not help the oppressed directly. He does it indirectly through other men…In such a society, no one needs to pray to the Almighty because His representatives on Earth are taking care of them. In such a society there are no individual prayers.”

Any true Believer who reads the above cited excerpt should be shaken to the core and deeply disturbed by such a Satanic idea!

G. A. Parwez goes on to declare that Du’a is a collective act and there is no room for individual or personal supplications or prayers to Allah in Islam. He falsely claims that every Du’a mentioned in the Holy Qur’an is collective and that there are no individual or personal prayers mentioned in the Holy Qur’an:

اس میں کسی کو اپنی انفرادی ضروریات کے لئے خدا سے کچھ مانگنا ہی نہیں پڑتا۔ جسے سب کچھ از خود مل رہا ہو، اسے مانگنے کی کیا ضرورت ہوگی! یہی وجہ ہے کہ قرآن کریم میں مومنین کی جس قدر دعائیں مذکور ہیں سب اجتماعی ہیں، انفرادی نہیں۔

Translation: In it there is no need for anyone to ask God to fulfill their individual needs. What is the need for one who is automatically getting everything to ask for anything? This is the reason why in the Qur’an al-Karim all of the Du’as of the Believers that have been mentioned are collective and not individual.

Reference: Kitab ut Taqdir; p. 377

But the reality is that G. A. Parwez was either woefully ignorant of the Book he claimed to champion and have studied intensely, or, more likely, that he engaged in pure deception to pull the wool over the eyes of the people.

The fact of the matter is that the Holy Qur’an mentions numerous prayers of Prophets and other Believers which are personal or individual prayers. Take for example the personal prayer of the priest and prophet Zechariah (peace be upon him) mentioned in the Holy Qur’an:

هُنَالِكَ دَعَا زَكَرِيَّا رَبَّهُ ۖ قَالَ رَبِّ هَبْ لِي مِن لَّدُنكَ ذُرِّيَّةً طَيِّبَةً ۖ إِنَّكَ سَمِيعُ الدُّعَاءِ۝

At that, Zechariah called upon his Lord, saying, “My Lord, grant me from Yourself a good offspring. Indeed, You are the Hearer of supplication.” (3: 38)

One is amazed at how the totally misguided Parwez simply glossed over this and many other similar Du’as mentioned in the Holy Qur’an which are individual prayers that are personal and not collective. We have already seen how Parwez rejects the concept of personal worship and prayer to Allah, and holds to the idea that it is the Islamic state which fulfils all the needs of the people. How then could he have explained the personal prayer of prophet Zechariah (peace be upon him) who supplicated to Allah that He should grant him a pure and righteous son? People pray to God for children, and that is an intimately personal kind of prayer that does not concern any government or state whatsoever. In fact, Allah in the Holy Qur’an encourages Believers to pray to Him to grant them wives and children (Sura 25: 74). This obviously does not jive with Parwez’s absurd notion that it is the Islamic state which, by fulfilling the rights and needs of its citizens, is the agency through which people’s prayers are answered, and that there is no concept of personal prayer or supplication to Allah.

Concerning the habit of Muslims to pray for one another, this has presented a dilemma for G. A. Parwez in light of his radically different concept of prayer and worship which is simply alien to mainstream Islam. We have already seen how G. A. Parwez simply does not accept that Allah listens to people’s prayers on a personal level. Instead, he claims that the purpose of Du’a is to verbalize our desires which has a purely psychological effect. According to him, Allah Most High does not directly answer anyone’s prayers or grant anything to anyone out of His pure grace. According to Parwez, people are required to make effort and struggle for an Islamic government through which all of their collective needs are fulfilled. This is the reason why Parwez states that the habit of Muslims in making personal supplications on behalf of each other is merely a manifestation of politeness and “moral support”:

باقی رہا ہمارا ایک دوسرے کے لئے دعا کرنا، تو یہ در حقیقت ان کے حق میں ہماری نیک آرزؤوں کا اظہار ہوتا ہے جس سے انہیں سکون حاصل ہوتا ہے۔ معاملات کی دنیا میں اسے اخلاقی نائید (MORAL SUPPORT) کہا جاتا ہے۔

Khalid M. Sayyed has translated this passage as follows: “As far as praying for someone else is concerned, it is nothing but the expression of one’s good wishes. It acts as moral support for others. One such case in point is the practice of praying for the dead (who of course remain unaffected) which is a solace to the bereaved. Such acts are socially desirable to promote gregariousness.”

Refernece: Kitab ut Taqdir; p. 384

We see here just how far G. A. Parwez and his blind-followers have deviated from the beauty and light of true Islam. Not only do they consider personal prayers which the Believers make for each other as merely an example of moral support and a purely social act to “promote gregariousness”, they also flat out reject that any kind of personal supplication to Allah, including on behalf of the deceased, can have any real affect or benefit.

Prophet Abraham (A.S) and the Four Birds

My series on the topic of whether the dead can return to this Dunya has already addressed the the verse (2:259) cited by the opposing side concerning the man whom Allah caused to die for a hundred years then was raised back to life. I explained that the man spoken of in that Ayah is the prophet Hizqiyal (Ezekiel), and that he experienced a vision. The reader can refer back here for that entry.

As I mentioned, that verse (2:259) was cited by Mawdudi himself as the strongest proof for the opposing side’s belief that the dead can return to this Dunya.

However, the very next verse (2:260) is also considered by many Muslims to be yet another strong evidence that the dead can return to this world:

وَإِذْ قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ رَبِّ أَرِنِي كَيْفَ تُحْيِي الْمَوْتَىٰ ۖ قَالَ أَوَلَمْ تُؤْمِن ۖ قَالَ بَلَىٰ وَلَـٰكِن لِّيَطْمَئِنَّ قَلْبِي ۖ قَالَ فَخُذْ أَرْبَعَةً مِّنَ الطَّيْرِ فَصُرْهُنَّ إِلَيْكَ ثُمَّ اجْعَلْ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ جَبَلٍ مِّنْهُنَّ جُزْءًا ثُمَّ ادْعُهُنَّ يَأْتِينَكَ سَعْيًا ۚ وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ اللَّـهَ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ۝

And [mention] when Abraham said, “My Lord, show me how You give life to the dead.” [Allah] said, “Have you not believed?” He said, “Yes, but [I ask] only that my heart may be satisfied.” [Allah] said, “Take four birds and commit them to yourself. Then put on each hill a portion of them; then call them - they will come [flying] to you in haste. And know that Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” (2:260)

Before we consider the argument presented concerning this verse, keep in mind that it is dealing with birds and not human beings. Even if, for the sake of argument, we grant that this verse proves that Abraham killed four birds and then they were miraculously resurrected, it does not necessarily break the divine law that the souls of deceased human beings are forbidden from returning to this world.

The opposing side’s argument and understanding of this Ayah is that Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) was instructed by Allah Most High to slaughter four birds by cutting them into pieces, then mixing those cut up pieces together and dividing them into four portions. Then Prophet Abraham placed each portion on a different hill, and when he called upon them the four birds were suddenly resurrected and came flying in his direction.

However, when one examines the English translations of the Holy Qur’an that are sponsored by the Saudi government, such as Saheeh International or Hilali & Khan, and others, one notices it being said that Abraham slaughtered or cut to pieces the birds placed in brackets. The fact that it has been placed in brackets demonstrates that the plain text of the Holy Qur’an does not explicitly state it. The text of this Verse merely informs us that Prophet Abraham was commanded to take four birds and incline or attach them towards him. Some classical exegetes interpret فَصُرْهُنَّ إليك to mean قَطِّعْهُنَّ (“cut them”). However, the preposition الى (“to”) determines the significance of the word in the sense of inclining or attaching and not “cutting”.

Another argument of the opposing side that the birds were literally slaughtered or cut up into pieces is the phrase اجْعَلْ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ جَبَلٍ مِّنْهُنَّ جُزْءًا interpreted to mean “place upon each hill from them (the birds) a piece”. Here the noun جزء signifies, according to the opposing side’s argument, a cut piece, implying that the birds were indeed cut up. But the reality is that the word جزء simply means “part”. Since the Verse is mentioning a group of four birds, a Juz’ or part of that whole group would mean each individual member (single bird) of the group of four birds. In other words, Allah is saying to gather four birds and place one bird from the group of four on each of the four hills.

We find an example of this in the following Ayah:

لَهَا سَبْعَةُ أَبْوَابٍ لِّكُلِّ بَابٍ مِّنْهُمْ جُزْءٌ مَّقْسُومٌ۝

It (Hell) has seven gates; for every gate is of them a portion (of people) designated. (15:44)

In summary, our position is that Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) was not instructed by Allah Most High to slaughter or cut up the birds with a knife. Rather, he was simply instructed to train the birds so that they would be “inclined” or “attached” toward him. Then he placed each bird on four different hills, called upon them, and they came flying towards him.

The major objection the opposing side poses toward our rational and harmonized understanding of this Verse is that the context is raising the dead back to life. Prophet Abraham asks Allah to literally show him how the dead are raised back to life. How does one reconcile this fact if it is to be believed that Prophet Abraham did not kill the birds?

The simple answer to this objection is that Prophet Abraham is being taught, through a practical demonstration, that the One who nurtures and sustains humanity in the first place rationally and logically has the ability to revive them after death. An example of this is how human beings, after training and nurturing birds, are able to command them to move in a certain direction simply by calling them with a voice. That is because the birds have been trained and nurtured to be inclined, attached and dependent upon their human owner. Likewise, mankind is inclined or dependent upon God, Who with a single call or command will raise them back to life. Through this practical demonstration, Prophet Abraham’s heart was satisfied that Allah Most High does indeed have the ability to raise the dead back to life, something which will occur on Yawm al-Qiyamah (Judgment Day) and not a moment before.

The Deviant Ibadis are Khawarij Lite

The Ibadis (الاباضية) are an ancient but deviant sect that are prevalent in the Sultanate of Oman. There are also significant pockets of Ibadis in Zanzibar, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya. The Ibadis call themselves Ahl al-Istiqamah meaning the “people of straightness”.

Claiming to be a peaceful and moderate sect, many unsuspecting Muslims fall prey to the deceitful propaganda of the Ibadis. For example, ordinary Muslims from South Asia and other Muslim countries who go to Oman as guest workers unsuspectingly pray alongside Ibadi congregations behind an Ibadi imam. They notice a sharp difference in the method of offering the Salat. For example, Ibadis do not raise their hands at all, even when commencing the prayer. All other Muslims raise their hands when commencing the Salat, either up to the chest or to the ear lobes. Furthermore, the Ibadis do not clasp their hands in the Qiyam (standing position). But likewise neither do the Shi’ah and some Sunni Muslims who follow the Maliki school of thought.

However, the real danger of the Ibadis is not these variations in worship or jurisprudence, but the fact that the Ibadis promote Kharijism. The Khawarij were the first organized sect to break away from the Jama’ah of the Muslims. They rebelled against the fourth caliph Amir ul-Mu’minin Ali b. Abi Talib (Allah be pleased with him) and faught him in the well known Battle of Nahrawan in 659 C.E.

These days, some Ibadi apologists and others dispel false propaganda that the Ibadi sect are not Khawarij and that they respect the Prophet’s companions and family members, including Amir-ul-Mu’minin Ali b. Abi Talib (Allah be pleased with him).

However, this is simply untrue. The Ibadis cling to their Kharijite foundations and consider, according to their principles, the doers of major sins to be Kuffar (unbelievers) although they intend by this disbelievers in the Favor of Allah and not disbelievers in the sense of being expelled from the Millah. While it is true that the Ibadis are moderate in comparison to other Kharijite sects like the Azariqah, the Sufriyah and the Najadat, they nevertheless share the same basic ideology as the original Khawarij, known as the Muhakimah and Haruriyah.

In fact, Ibadi apologists have themselves spilt the beans on this. For example, Soud H. Ma’awaly wrote the book Ibadhism: The Cinderella of Islam. Here are a few excerpts from that book:

“the Khawarij were right when they refused to go to Syria and fight because they said the war was for materialistic interests. It was not a war of ‘Jihad’ any more. They were right, as they were right before when they repudiated arbitration because it turned out to be a deceit.” (p. 24)

“When the so-called Khawarij defected from Seyyidna Ali and his army, they did not fight him. It was his army which went to fight them in the battle of Nahrawan. So the innocent Khawarij were neither the first nor the second nor the third to shed the blood of Muslims.” (p.30)

“They pledged allegiance to Seyyidna Ali and fought with him against the Uthmaniyyun in the battle of the Camel and at Siffin but abandoned him when he accepted arbitration. The results of the arbitration proved the correct stand of the Khawarij No. 2. He [Ali] also made a wrong decision when he accepted the advice of his army generals to fight the Khawarij No. 2 at Nahrawan.” (p. 32)

Look how this Kharijite Ibadi is justifying the Kharijite rebellion against Amir-ul-Mu’minin Ali b. Abi Talib (Radiyallahu anhu) and claiming that the latter made a “wrong decision” to fight against the rebellious and renegade Khawarij!