Posted tagged ‘Islam’

Veil Does Not Oppress Women

September 28, 2010

BY AYESHA RASHID It’s about time to unveil the veil controversy. Recently the French senate passed the full-face ban, citing the veil’s alleged offensive nature to French cultural identity and tradition and its alleged oppression of women. In reality, this ban only infringes upon the basic human rights of women. Moreover, the veil itself is not a foreign concept for non-Muslims or for French culture and tradition. Assyrian women voluntarily practiced the veil as early as 1300 B.C. For the Assyrians, the veil was exclusive to highly dignified women. Likewise, ancient Greek women of higher status covered their heads and faces. Even among Persian elites, Anglo-Saxons, and Anglo-Normans, women gladly wore the veil. From its very inception, the veil promoted an aura of honor and prestige, not oppression.

Abrahamic religions prior to Islam also required women to wear the veil. Early Judaic references laud the veil as a symbol of esteem for Jewish women, its very purpose to prevent recognition of her features. During the Tannaitic period, a Jewish woman’s failure to cover her head was considered an offense to her modesty. The most prominent incident is that of Rebekkah who covered herself when she caught sight of Isaac before their marriage (Genesis: 24:64-65). The Virgin Mary, the most revered woman in Christianity, is customarily depicted wearing a headscarf and, incidentally, loose flowing clothing similar to a burqa. Mary’s dress was not without reason. The New Testament commands women to cover their heads out of modesty, while those who refuse face the consequence of a shaven head (1 Corinthians: 11: 5-6). With this understanding, the Vatican implemented the Code of Canon Law of 1917, mandating universal veil observance during church service, only to repeal it in 1983. Yet, to this day, even French nuns observe this clear biblical injunction. Likewise, Saint Thérèse of Lisieux, a French female icon of modern era, earnestly adopted the veil after she was highly impressed with the veil of Veronica — the biblical woman who wiped Jesus’ forehead with her veil. Ironically, while other societies and religions are guilty of repudiating this noble practice, Islam is being stigmatized for maintaining tradition. As the youngest of the Abrahamic religions, Islam makes the head covering a self-imposed mandate for Muslim women as a means of protection and dignity. Like the Torah, the Quran advises Muslim women to cover themselves so they are not recognized and are not molested (33:60). However, Islam does not prescribe any punishment (e.g., shaving of head) for women who choose otherwise. Contrary to the assertion that the veil is oppressive, Muslim women from Islam’s inception proudly wore the veil and maintained a high level of authority in their respective societies. For example, Prophet Muhammad’s first wife, Khadija, was the CEO of a large and thriving trade business. Unhindered, Muhammad’s wife Ayesha taught Muhammad’s male companions after his demise, while exerting immense political influence throughout her life. According to The Worldwide Guide of Women in Leadership, most of the 250 Muslim women leaders proudly ruled from behind the veil and did so with great success. Women like the Regent Dowager Princess Syun Beka (1549-51) of Russia, De-facto Ruler Empress Nur Jahan of India (1611-28), and the Grand Khanum Regnant Toragana of the Qagans of China (1241-48) are but a few examples. The diversity these women portray additionally demonstrates that the veil is not exclusive to “Arab” culture. If the veil was truly oppressive, it is impossible that these women would have been the honored leaders of their respective societies. Indeed, Muslim women are not the only world leaders who ruled while wearing a veil. A closer look at European women rulers illustrates that up until the 16th century, many preferred lose clothing with a modest head cover, with French women as no exception. French women rulers such as Regent Dowager Queen Nanthildis (639-642), Regent Queen Dowager Clothilde, Joint Ruler Queen Alais d’Aquitaine (987-996), and Regent Queen Isabeau Baverie (1392-1419) are depicted with the allegedly oppressive Islamic style head covering. Other European empresses such as “Holder of the Royal Authority” Dowager Queen Dorothea zu Brandenburg of Denmark are proudly depicted with their face covered in the Islamic style veil. Contrary to what President Nicolas Sarkozy and the French parliament assert, the veil and burqa are not exclusively Islamic, nor oppressive, but are deeply entrenched in Christan and French tradition as symbols of pride and dignity. With their irrational veil ban, Sarkozy and French leadership, not Muslim women, are the true offenders to French cultural identity, tradition, and a woman’s dignity. Ayesha N. Rashid is a staff writer for The Muslim Sunrise, the oldest and longest-running Muslim-American periodical. Contact her at ayesha.noor@gmail.com. First appeared at: http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/oped/2010/sep/28/ed-rashid28-ar-528169/

Ahmadi Muslims on the Forefront of Safeguarding the Honor of the Holy Prophet

June 14, 2010

Namoos-e-Risalat_by_Faheem_Qureshi (PDF)

We apologize for the poor image quality. Please download and magnify to read it.

May 28 Attacks on Ahmadiyya Mosque – Courtesy BBC Urdu

June 1, 2010

میں کس کے ہاتھ پہ اپنا لہو تلاش کروں۔

Ahmadiiya Masjid Attacked: May 28

 جمعہ کی دوپہر کو بیک وقت لاہور کے علاقوں ماڈل ٹاون اور گڑھی شاہو کے حملوں میں سو کے قریب احمدی ہلاک اور ڈیڑھ سو سے زاید زخمی ہوۓ. خبر تمام اخبارات کی شہ سرخی بنی تو حکمرانوں نے بھی مذمتی بیانات داغ کر اپنا فرض نبھایا. ایک قیامت خیز نظارہ تھا جب قانونی طور پر ثابت شدہ کافر احمدی نماز جمعہ ادا کر رہے تھے اور ثابت شدہ قانونی مسلمان ہینڈ گرنیڈ بموں اور ہتھیاروں سے مسلح دھماکوں کے ساتھ ” قادیانیت مردہ باد” کے نعرے لگاتے ہوۓ ان پرگولیاں برسا رہے تھے ، میں حیران تھی کہ . …..”دل کو روؤں کہ پیٹوں جگر کو میں ” نہتے احمدی خود کو بچانے کے لئے مسلح حملہ اوروں سے مسلسل دست و پا تھے . میڈیا کے لئے یہ سنسنی خیز خبرموضوع سخن بنی جس پر سیاسی و سماجی مباحثے بھی کئے گئے .اور بلا آخر اس سر عام قتل غارت گری کو دہشت گردی کی ایک واردات جس کا ذمہ دار طالبان کی کالعدم تنظیم کو قرار دے دیا گیا .

مگر میں یہ کیسے مان لوں کہ یہ فقط ایک دہشت گردی کی واردات تھی کہ جب میری آنکھوں نے چک سکندر اور ننکانہ صاحب میں سینکڑوں احمدی خاندانوں کو زندہ جلتے دیکھا ہو . میں یہ کیسے مان جاؤں کہ اس کی ذمدار فقط کالعدم تنظیم ہے کہ جب مرے کانوں نے سات اکتوبر دوہزار پانچ کو ماہ صیام کی ایک شام مندی بہاؤ الدین میں احمدی نمازیوں کی چیخ و پکار اوران پر ہوتی گولیوں کی بوچھاڑ سنی ہو . میں یہ کیسے قبول کر لوں کہ اس کا مقصد فقط خوف ہراس پھیلانا تھا جب میں نے مظفر آباد اور ایبٹ آباد میں جانوں سے گئے ااحمدی خاندانوں کے عزیز اقارب کے آنسو پونچھے ہوں ، اور جب میں نے قوم کے مسیحاؤں کے روپ میں احمدی ڈاکٹرز کی بیہیمانہ قتل و غارت گری پراپنی قوم کی بد بختی پر خوں کے آنسو بہائے ہوں .اگر آج احمدیوں پر یہ حملہ دہشت گردی ہے تو پھر ١٩٨٩ میں چک سکندر اور ننکانہ صاحب میں سینکڑوں احمدی خاندانوں کی جائے املاک لوٹ کر ان کو زندہ جلا دینا کیا تھا ؟ اگر آج اس حملے کی ذمدار کالعدم تنظیم ہی ہے تو پھر مندی بہاؤ الدین میں برپا قیامت کا ذمہ دار کون تھا ؟ اگر آج ان حملہ اوروں کا مقصد فقط دہشت پھیلانا ہے تو پھر ١٩٧٤ سے اب تک احمدیوں پر کئے جانے والے مظالم اور بد سلوکیوں کے مقاصد کیا تھے ؟
پاکستان میں جماعت احمدیہ ١٩٧٤ میں پارلیمان کے غیر مسلم قرار دینے کے بعد سے جس وحشیانہ سلوک سے دو چار ہے ہاں وہ دہشت گردی ضرور ہے مگر طالبانی دہشت گردی ہرگز نہیں بلکہ حکمرانی اور قانونی دہشتگردی ہے . ہاں یہ دھہشتگردانہ واردات ضرورہے مگر اس کی ذمہ دار کالعدم تنظیم نہیں بلکہ اس کی ذمہ دار بھٹو اور اس کے بعد آنے والی ہر حکومت ہے . ہاں یہ سر ا سر ظلم ضرور ہے مگر یہاں پر ظالم طالبان نہیں ہمارا معاشرہ اور ہمارا قانون ہے ، ہاں یہ انسانی حقوق کی خلاف ورزی ضرور ہے مگر اس کی ذمہ دار عوام کی محافظ پولیس ہے ، ہاں یہ فقط تعصب ہی تو ہے مگر اس کی قصور وار ہماری زرد صحافت بھی ہے .اور سب سے بڑھ کر ہماری قوم جو اس قوت سماعت سے محروم ہے جو مظلوم کی داستان سن سکے ، جو اس قوت بصارت سے محروم ہے جو مجبور ہم وطنوں کی بے بسی دیکھ سکے ، اس دل سے محروم ہے جو کسی کا درد محسوس کر سکے.

ایک ریاست کی یہ ذمہ داری نہیں کہ وہ کسی شہری کے ایمان کا فیصلہ آج میں حکمران وقت ، اور قانون نافذ کرنے والے اداروں سے یہ سوال پوچھنا چاہتی ہوں کہ آخر اس بے حسی، اور غیر ذمہ داری کی کوئی انتہا بھی ہے ؟ میں کس کے ہاتھ پہ اپنا لہو تلاش کروں۔ جمعہ کی دوپہر کو بیک وقت لاہور کے علاقوں ماڈل ٹاون اور گڑھی شاہو کے حملوں میں سو کے قریب احمدی ہلاک اور ڈیڑھ سو سے زاید زخمی ہوۓ. خبر تمام اخبارات کی شہ سرخی بنی تو حکمرانوں نے بھی مذمتی بیانات داغ کر اپنا فرض نبھایا. ایک قیامت خیز نظارہ تھا جب قانونی طور پر ثابت شدہ کافر احمدی نماز جمعہ ادا کر رہے تھے اور ثابت شدہ قانونی مسلمان ہینڈ گرنیڈ بموں اور ہتھیاروں سے مسلح دھماکوں کے ساتھ ” قادیانیت مردہ باد” کے نعرے لگاتے ہوۓ ان پرگولیاں برسا رہے تھے ، میں حیران تھی کہ . …..”دل کو روؤں کہ پیٹوں جگر کو میں ” نہتے احمدی خود کو بچانے کے لئے مسلح حملہ اوروں سے مسلسل دست و پا تھے . میڈیا کے لئے یہ سنسنی خیز خبرموضوع سخن بنی جس پر سیاسی و سماجی مباحثے بھی کئے گئے .اور بلا آخر اس سر عام قتل غارت گری کو دہشت گردی کی ایک واردات جس کا ذمہ دار طالبان کی کالعدم تنظیم کو قرار دے دیا گیا .

مگر میں یہ کیسے مان لوں کہ یہ فقط ایک دہشت گردی کی واردات تھی کہ جب میری آنکھوں نے چک سکندر اور ننکانہ صاحب میں سینکڑوں احمدی خاندانوں کو زندہ جلتے دیکھا ہو . میں یہ کیسے مان جاؤں کہ اس کی ذمدار فقط کالعدم تنظیم ہے کہ جب مرے کانوں نے سات اکتوبر دوہزار پانچ کو ماہ صیام کی ایک شام مندی بہاؤ الدین میں احمدی نمازیوں کی چیخ و پکار اوران پر ہوتی گولیوں کی بوچھاڑ سنی ہو . میں یہ کیسے قبول کر لوں کہ اس کا مقصد فقط خوف ہراس پھیلانا تھا جب میں نے مظفر آباد اور ایبٹ آباد میں جانوں سے گئے ااحمدی خاندانوں کے عزیز اقارب کے آنسو پونچھے ہوں ، اور جب میں نے قوم کے مسیحاؤں کے روپ میں احمدی ڈاکٹرز کی بیہیمانہ قتل و غارت گری پراپنی قوم کی بد بختی پر خوں کے آنسو بہائے ہوں .اگر آج احمدیوں پر یہ حملہ دہشت گردی ہے تو پھر ١٩٨٩ میں چک سکندر اور ننکانہ صاحب میں سینکڑوں احمدی خاندانوں کی جائے املاک لوٹ کر ان کو زندہ جلا دینا کیا تھا ؟ اگر آج اس حملے کی ذمدار کالعدم تنظیم ہی ہے تو پھر مندی بہاؤ الدین میں برپا قیامت کا ذمہ دار کون تھا ؟ اگر آج ان حملہ اوروں کا مقصد فقط دہشت پھیلانا ہے تو پھر ١٩٧٤ سے اب تک احمدیوں پر کئے جانے والے مظالم اور بد سلوکیوں کے مقاصد کیا تھے ؟

 
پاکستان میں جماعت احمدیہ ١٩٧٤ میں پارلیمان کے غیر مسلم قرار دینے کے بعد سے جس وحشیانہ سلوک سے دو چار ہے ہاں وہ دہشت گردی ضرور ہے مگر طالبانی دہشت گردی ہرگز نہیں بلکہ حکمرانی اور قانونی دہشتگردی ہے . ہاں یہ دھہشتگردانہ واردات ضرورہے مگر اس کی ذمہ دار کالعدم تنظیم نہیں بلکہ اس کی ذمہ دار بھٹو اور اس کے بعد آنے والی ہر حکومت ہے . ہاں یہ سر ا سر ظلم ضرور ہے مگر یہاں پر ظالم طالبان نہیں ہمارا معاشرہ اور ہمارا قانون ہے ، ہاں یہ انسانی حقوق کی خلاف ورزی ضرور ہے مگر اس کی ذمہ دار عوام کی محافظ پولیس ہے ، ہاں یہ فقط تعصب ہی تو ہے مگر اس کی قصور وار ہماری زرد صحافت بھی ہے .اور سب سے بڑھ کر ہماری قوم جو اس قوت سماعت سے محروم ہے جو مظلوم کی داستان سن سکے ، جو اس قوت بصارت سے محروم ہے جو مجبور ہم وطنوں کی بے بسی دیکھ سکے ، اس دل سے محروم ہے جو کسی کا درد محسوس کر سکے.
ایک ریاست کی یہ ذمہ داری نہیں کہ وہ کسی شہری کے ایمان کا فیصلہ آج میں حکمران وقت ، اور قانون نافذ کرنے والے اداروں سے یہ سوال پوچھنا چاہتی ہوں کہ آخر اس بے حسی، اور غیر ذمہ داری کی کوئی انتہا بھی ہے ؟

 پتھر پہ لکیر ہے یہ تقدیر مٹا دیکھو گر ہمت ہے — یا ظلم مٹے گا دھرتی سے یا دھرتی خود مٹ جائے گی

عفاف اظہر

Ayesha’s response on French legislation on Burqa (published in NY Times)

January 31, 2010

To the Editor:

France does not cease to amaze. A French parliamentary committee has recommended a partial ban on full-body veils, citing them as a threat to the “values of the republic.” Is it possible that the 1,900 French Muslim women who choose the veil are a threat?

This intrusive ban takes away their right of using public transportation, hospitals, schools and government offices while wearing the veil, or niqab.

In other words, it infringes on the basic human rights of those 1,900 women whose personal choice is to cover their faces.

Ayesha N. Rashid
Richmond, Va., Jan. 27, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/opinion/l30burqa.html?ref=opinion

Pakistan celebrates ‘Minorities’ Day’

August 12, 2009

Prime minister of Pakistan announced 11 August as a day for minorities. Read below to find out how Pakistan marked the celebrations.

Faisalabad, Pakistan; Augu 10, 2009: Around 300 strong contingent of Police stormed a Mosque and 28 houses belonging to Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in village Lathianwala and removed Holy inscriptions, comprising Names of Allah and Kalima etc., for allegedly hurting feelings of Muslims.

faisalabad police removing kalima from home in lathianwala 10 august 2009

faisalabad police removing kalima from home in lathianwala 10 august 2009

Read full news from http://www.thepersecution.org

Police sacrilege Ahmadiyya Mosque and houses in Lathianwala Faisalabad, Pakistan; Aug 10, 2009: Couple of days ago a case under anti-Ahmadiyya clauses (PPC 298) was registered by some activists of Sunni Tehreek against 32 Ahmadis accusing them of inscribing Holy scriptures at their houses and place of worship which allegedly hurt the feelings of complainants in village Lathianwala located some 25KM away from Faisalabad at Sheikhupura Road. Police at the behest of some bigots also added Blasphemy clause PPC 295-C (Use of derogatory remarks, etc; in respect of the Holy Prophet) to the FIR (First Information Report) which carries death penalty. At this outrageous act of Police a three member delegation of Ahmadis approached high ranking police officials to get the Blasphemy charges dropped and settle the matter peacefully without unjustifiably hurting innocent Ahmadis implicated in the case. In the morning of August 10, 2009 around 300 strong contingent of Police, gathered from whole district, stormed the Mosque and 28 houses belonging to Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and removed Holy inscriptions, comprising Names of Allah and Kalima (Muslim creed) etc. According to reliable sources the terror and frightful operation continued for 8 hours. Police sacrilege was led by Deputy Superintendent of Police Rai Muhammad Hussain and Station House Officer Mian Muuneer Ahmed of Police Station Khururianwala while the matter was still pending decision with high ranking police official Senior Superintendent of Police Kamran Yousuf. At the time of operation Ahmadiyya delegation was waiting for a meeting with Deputy Inspector General of Police. Police used chisels, cement, paint etc to do this dreadful act of shameful sacrilege and removed every Arabic word they could find on Ahmadiyya Mosque and houses. It is worth noting that media was kept at distance thereby not allowing to cover this act. After what happened at Gojra and Mureedke last week; Police is still busy to appease the religious extremists and bigots. Religious minorities feel insecure and helpless in this hostile environment. 32 innocent Ahmadis still face the charges of anti-Ahmadiyya laws and Blasphemy, arrests and prosecution which may lead to from three years imprisonment to death.

Finality of Prophet Muhammad (SAW)

May 8, 2008

A Misunderstanding Removed – Ahmadis Do Believe in the Holy Prophet (saw) As Khataman Nabiyeen

It is alleged that Ahmadies do not believe in the Holy Prophet Muhammadsaw to be Khataman Nabiyyeen. This is based on a gross misrepresentation of the Ahmadiyya views and I would like to present the following to remove this misunderstanding.

At the very outset I would like to state categorically that Ahmadies believe the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be upon him) to be Khataman Nabiyyeen – Seal of the Prophets, as has been stated in the Holy Quran and it is an awful fabrication against the Ahmadies that they do not believe in the doctrine of Khatm-i-Nabuwwat. The difference is only in interpretation of the title and not in the title itself.

The Promised Messiah and Mahdi, the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam (peace be upon him) says:

“I swear by the glory of God and His Majesty that I am of the faithful, a Muslim and I believe in Allah, the High, in His Books, and in His Messengers and in His Angels and in Life after death. And I believe that our Prophet Muhammad the Elect of God (peace of Allah be on him and His blessings) is the most eminent of the prophets and the Seal of Apostles.” (Hamamatul Bushra, page 6)

He again says:

“The charge made against me and my Community that we do not believe the Messenger of Allah (peace be on him and His blessings) to be the Seal of Prophets is a big falsehood. The faith, the conviction, certitude and the utterness that characterize our belief in the Holy Prophet as the Seal of Prophets, are markedly absent in the belief of these people (those who level this charge at us).” (Al-Hakam, March 19, 1905)

Many Muslims believe that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be on him) is the last prophet and that no prophet can come after him. I shall first state and examine the arguments that are given in support of this belief, then show that this is true only in a certain sense.

The Holy Quran says: “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Apostle of Allah and Khataman Nabiyyeen–The Seal of the Prophets.” (33:41)

The real meaning of Khatam is a seal (see Tajul Aroos, Lisanul Arab, and Qamoos), and the phrase should be interpreted in the light of this meaning. Ibn Khaldun says it is wrong to interpret the word Khatam in this verse to mean the last or the end (see Muqaddama Vol. II, p. 54, Paris). He holds that the word Khatam denotes the consummation and completion of a thing, which he further explains by the words, authenticity, perfection and validity. When a seal is put to a letter it becomes authentic and complete. The seal may be put in the end or in the beginning. According to him, therefore, Khataman Nabiyyeen would mean the truest and the most perfect of prophets and not the last in point of time. It refers to his status and place among the prophets and not to the time of his advent.

USE OF THE WORD KHATAM:

In one of his sayings the Holy ProphetSAW calls his uncle, Hadhrat Abbasra, Khatamul Muhajireen (see Kanzul Ommal, Vol. VI, p. 178). But it does not mean that Abbas was the last Muhajir (refugee) of the whole Muslim world.

Similarly, Hadhrat Alira is called Khatamul Auliya (see Tafsir Safi under the Quranic verse 33:41). Ibn Khaldun says this phrase is understood to mean that Ali was a perfect saint and not the last (see Muqaddama, Vol. II pp. 165-167).

An Arab poet, Hasan bin Wahab, called Abu Tamam (the compiler of Himasa) Khatamush-Shu’ara (see Wafiyatul A’ayan Li Ibn Khallikan, Vol. I, p. 123, Cairo). Obviously Abu Tamam was not the last poet. The word Khatam, therefore, used in such phrases means the best and not the last.

The context of a verse is a most important factor in determining its true meaning. If we look into the context of the words we are further assured of the same meaning.

The verse runs as follows: “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of God and Khataman Nabiyyeen.” God is obviously refuting an objection, viz., Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be on him) has no male issue. Elsewhere we read in the Quran: “Surely it is thy enemy and not thou who shall be childless and without posterity.” (108:4)

These words are said to have been revealed when Al-Aas Ibn Wayel called the Holy ProphetSAW Abtar (having no children or posterity) on the death of his son Al-Qasim (see Jalaluddin’s Commentary under verse 108:4). As an answer to this taunt of the enemies, God declared in the verse under discussion that the line of his physical male descendants is no doubt cut off by the death of his sons but as Hadhrat Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be on him) is a Messenger of God, he possesses devoted followers who shall form a continuous and long line of spiritual descendants to keep his memory and name and teachings alive for ever and ever.

The followers of a prophet are often described as his spiritual children. The meaning of the word Khataman Nabiyyeen must fit with this context. To say that Hadhrat Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be on him) is the last of the prophets and there shall be no prophet after him does no credit to him. His enemies could at once add an insult by saying that Hadhrat Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be on be him) failed to produce a progeny in the spiritual sense of the word also and thus proved himself (God forbid) barren and abtar in every respect. According to the context, therefore, the Seal of the Prophets must mean that the spiritual descendants of Hadhrat Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be on be him) would be of no mean order. They would, God says, attain to great spiritual distinctions so must so that by following in his footsteps some of them would even become prophets.

The Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be on be him) is called here the Lord Privy Seal or the Lord Keeper of the great Divine Seal of Prophethood, which not only ratifies and authenticates the office of the previous prophets but also awards the distinctive mark of prophethood to those who make themselves worthy of it. (Haqeeqatul Wahy by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, p. 56) We read in the Bible: “The Lord will make thee the head and not the tail; thou shalt be above only and thou not be beneath.” (Deuteronomy 28:13)

To be the tail of a line, therefore, is no credit or distinction. Even if we take the phrase Khataman Nabiyyeen to mean the last of the prophets; we must interpret it as meaning that he is the last in the sense that he has attained a degree of perfection beyond which it is impossible for anyone to go. He has exhausted all the degrees of perfection and none can ever excel or supersede him. He is the Head of the prophets and not the tail.

NO NEW CODE:

He is the greatest not because he appeared last of all but because he has brought a law which is absolutely final and can never be replaced or excelled. Ibn Khaldun also mentions this meaning in his Muqaddama (Vol. II, p. 165, Paris). Ali Bin Muhammad Sultan Al-Qari (Mulla Ali Qari) interprets this phrase in the same sense. He says that it means that there will not come a prophet after Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be on be him) who could cancel his law and who is not a follower of his (Mauzooat Kabeer, p.69).

Sheikh Mohyud Din Ibn Arabi says that the prophethood which brings law is finished with the advent of Muhammad, peace and blessings of God be on be him. (Fosoosul Hikam, p. 140)

Shah Waliullah Muhaddas of Delhi writes that Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be on be him) was the last of the prophets in the sense that there will appear no one after him to promulgate a new law for the people. (Tafheemate Ilahiya, 53)

Syed Abdul Kadir Jeelani says: “The prophetic law is finished and completed with the Holy Prophet and he was called Khataman Nabiyyeen. (Al-Insanul Kamil, Ch. 36)

Maulana Abdul Haye of Lukhnow says: “It is not impossible that a new prophet may appear during or after the age of Muhammad but bringing of a new code of religion is an absolute impossibility.” (Dafi-ul-Wasawis fee asr ibn Abbas, p. 12)

THE TRADITIONS:

I shall now deal with Hadith (Traditions of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be on him) on this subject. The Holy ProphetSAW said to Ali Ibn Abi Talibra:

“You are to me as Aaron was to Moses, except that *Laa Nabiyya Ba’adi”.
(Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi, Mishkat)

The last words are translated as: there is no prophet after me. On the basis of these words it is contended that if it were really possible for anyone to become a prophet, no one could have been more deserving than Hadhrat Alira, who was not only a near relation of but succeeded the Holy ProphetSAW as the 4th Khalifa. The words were uttered when the Holy ProphetSAW was going to Tabook and appointed Hadhrat Alira as the Ameer at Medina after him. Hadhrat Alira was desirous of participating in the battle and did not wish to stay behind. The Holy ProphetSAW, therefore, reminded Hadhrat Alira of the importance of his work by referring to Hadhrat Aaronas who was appointed Ameer of the Israelites when Mosesas went to Mount Sinai. Hadhrat Aaronas was the brother of Hadhrat Mosesas and a prophet of God. Hadhrat Alira was a cousin but not a prophet. The Holy ProphetSAW could not be blunt but he must not be misunderstood in such matters. Therefore, he added that he was not leaving a prophet behind him. The word Ba’ad means behind. (see Lane’s Lexicon Book I, p. 225)

The context shows that the idea was to tell Alira that he was being left behind like Hadhrat Aaronas but he was not a prophet. The words cannot refer to any remote future. They were used and meant for that particular occasion. The word Ba’ad is often used in this sense. In verse 7:149 of the Quran this word is translated by Pickhall as `after I had left you’. The word Ba’ad is also used in the sense of Ma’a, i.e., with. (Lane’s Lexicon Book I, p. 225) In this sense the sentence La Nabiyya Ba’adee would mean that there was no prophet with him.

It is curious to note that in the Shia traditions the words used are Laisa Ma’ee Nabiyyun, i.e., there is no prophet with me (Amalee). In other traditions the words reported are quite clear. The Holy ProphetSAW added “except that thou art not a prophet”. (Tabaqati Kabeer, Vol. V., p. 15) There is another tradition which is very clear: “Dost thou not desire to be what Aaron was to Moses except that thou art not a prophet”. (Biharul Anwar, Kitabul Manaqib, Vol. 9, Iran) Taking the word Ba’ad to mean after, we can interpret the sentence in another way. If we go into the idiom of language we find that the words are not to be taken in their literal sense. There is another tradition where the Holy ProphetSAW says: “When Chosroe dies there will be no Chosroe after him, and when Kaiser dies there will be no Kaiser after him.” (Bukhari, Vol. IV, p. 91, Egypt) This is explained in Faithful Bari, Vol. VI as follows: “No Chosroe will administer the affairs of State as well as this Chosroe has done.” Obviously it cannot mean that there will be no king after the Chosroe or Kaiser.

Muhyuddin Ibn Arabi interprets La Nabiyya Ba’adi by saying that there shall be no prophet who will cancel or go against the Islamic law of Hadhrat Muhammad SAW. (Fotoohati Makkiya Vol. I, p. 569; Vol. II, pp. 3, 64, 417)

Imam Muhammad Tahir Gujrati also says the same thing. (Takmala Majmaul Bihar, p. 85) Imam Sha’arani also interprets these words in the same way. (Al-Yawaqeet Wal Jawahir, Vol. II, p. 22)

Nawab Siddique Hasan Khan states the same. (Iqtarabus Sa’a, p. 162)

Hazrat Ayeshara, whose position is well known, says: “Say he is the Seal of the Prophets but do not say that there is no prophet after him”. (Takmala Majmaul Bihar, p. 88) Imam Soyooti writes that Mogheera also expressed the same opinion. (Durri Mansoor) The other Hadith brought forward is:

Lau Kaana Ba’adi Nabiyyeen Lakaana Umaro.

“If there were a prophet after me, it would have been Umar.”

The word Ba’ad as stated earlier also means `with’, and there is nothing here which should confine its meaning to `after’. Therefore, the tradition should be translated as: “If there were a prophet with me it would have been Umar.” In another tradition, the Holy ProphetSAW says: “If I were not raised it would have been you, O Umar.” (Mirqat, Vol. V, p. 539) Another saying is: “If I was not raised, Umar would have been raised among you.” (, p. 103) These traditions would only show that Umarra had an aptitude for a prophet, like Hadhrat Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be on him) who brought the Islamic law. Therefore, the Hadith in question would mean that if a prophet were to bring a new law, it could have been Umarra. It cannot mean that there can be no prophet after Hadhrat Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be on him). In another tradition, the Holy ProphetSAW clearly implies the opposite. He says: “If Ibrahim (his son) had lived, he would have been a Prophet.” (Ibn Maja, Vol. I, p. 237)He could not say this if it were absolutely impossible for anyone to become a prophet. This shows clearly that the Holy Prophet was clear in mind as to the continuity of prophethood after him. Another tradition points to the same effect when he says: “Abu Bakr is best of men after me except a prophet should appear.” (Kanzul Ummal)

The next Hadith that is brought forward is: “I am Aqib and he is one after whom there is no prophet.” (Tirmidhi) The authenticity of this Hadith is very much questioned. Mulla Ali Qari, who is a recognized critic of Hadith, definitely declares that the last portion of this Hadith is spurious. He says it appears to be the interpretation put upon the word Aqib by some reporter. (Mirqat, Vol. V, p. 367)

The next Hadith in support of this belief is: “I am the last of the Prophets and you are the last of peoples.” (Muslim) The meaning of this is explained by another Hadith which runs as follows: “and my mosque is the last mosque.” (Muslim, Kitabul Haj Fazlis Salat, p. 531) It is clear that the Holy Prophet did not mean that there was to be no prophet after him, otherwise we shall have to conclude that he did not want the Muslims to build any other mosques. Obviously, what he means is that the religion brought by him is perfect and no one can cancel or modify it after him.

The use of the word Akhir (last) in this sense is quite common in the Arabic language. Imam Soyooti calls Ibn Taimiyya as the last of Mujtahideen (original thinkers and Jurists). (Al-Intibah Wan Nazir, Vol. III, p. 310, Hyderbad) An Arab poet uses the word Akhir (last) in the sense of perfect and unique, in Himasa, Babul Adab.

It is clear from the foregoing that it is not Ahmadies alone who are interpreting the expression Khataman Nabiyyeen (Seal of Prophets) in a manner allowing the appearance of a prophet after the Holy ProphetSAW, who does not bring any new Shariah (Law) and does not attain prophethood independently but through complete obedience to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be on him). Even recognized Muslim saints of different countries, ages, and clines, and even the Holy Prophet himself, have understood the expression in the like manner.

The Ahmadiyya belief, beyond any shadow of doubt, is par excellence that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be on him) is Khataman Nabiyyeen, i.e., the Seal of the Prophets. In him the excellences of prophethood have reached their perfection and therefore, the door to receiving prophethood independently is closed since his appointment to this office. Henceforth, every kind of Grace is attainable only through serving him.

His advent, thus has not closed the stream of Divine Grace but its course has been channelized through his person which is now, so to say, the new Headwork. A prophet, henceforth, shall appear only through allegiance to him, by receiving light from his light and as his shadow and reflection, and not otherwise. Hence, “all prophethood except Muhammadan prophethood has ended. No law-giving prophet shall ever come, and a prophet without law may, but only such as is primarily a follower of the Holy Prophet (Allah bless him). I am both a follower and a Prophet.” (Tajalliyate Ilahiyya by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, pp. 24-25)