Closing Comments

 

            The Ahmadis believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a prophet of God. There are categorical statements in the Qur’ān and prophetic tradition that state the fact that there will be no prophets after Muhammad عليه الصلاة والسلام, Muhammad عليه الصلاة والسلام is the last of the prophets, Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم is the last prophet, etc. These accounts do not mention the coming of a non-law-bearing, zillī, or burūzi prophet. These statements clearly conflict with Ahmadi beliefs, so to maintain their theology, they find innovative and creative ways to either reinterpret them or reject them.

            I have personally learned, studied, analyzed, and refuted each and every one of their common, oft-repeated arguments. The intention of this work was not mere intellectual exercise. It is to logically guide the Ahmadis to that the belief that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a prophet of God is complete falsehood.

            I call all Ahmadis to leave the religion of Ahmadiyya and to embrace the purity of Islam, an Islam not based on sectarian divide, groups, or labels, but an Islam based on following the Qur’ān, the prophetic traditions, and the classical understanding of the earliest Muslims. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a false prophet. Muhammad is the seal of the prophets, and there are no prophets after Muhammad.

 

But what about ‘Esā bin Marīam عليه السلام?

 

            For some sincere Ahmadis, the belief that ‘Esā bin Marīam عليه السلام died in India[1] at the age of 120 stands as a stumbling block from orthodox Islam. While this is a major issue in its own right, maintaining this belief does not logically conclude with Ahmadiyya, whereas believing in the finality of prophethood logically necessitates the rejection of any claimant to prophethood after Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم. I firmly adhere to the Islamic position that ‘Esā bin Marīam عليه السلام was bodily ascended and will bodily return. However, if someone is unable or unwilling to accept this belief in favorite of Ahmad’s theory, it is entirely possible to maintain this one specific Ahmadi belief while still remaining within the general fold of Islam. Potentially, that would cause a person to either reject the authentic prophetic traditions about ‘Esā bin Marīam’s عليه السلام return or reinterpret them in a new and innovative way, thus constituting a bid’ah (innovation) in Islamic creed. Neither of these two options is preferable, but if one desires to maintain parity with Ahmad’s theories, it is still possible to maintain them while remaining upon Islam.[2]

 

The Mullahs

 

One of the most effective tactics of the Ahmadi leadership is to dismiss Islamic scholars as violent-prone, negative towards women, irrational or extreme by collectively referring to them as “mullahs”. This is undeniably a reality in some parts of the Muslim world. However, the presentation of the Ahmadi religious establishment is undoubtedly a stereotype, an exaggeration, and a distortion of reality.

It is true that there are many “religious” leaders who cause more harm than good. It must be understood, though, that this is the loud minority. The vast majority of the scholars of Islam are sincere, honest, and understanding. They seek only to pass on the divine light of Islam and use it to worship Allah and serve humanity.

I recommend that Ahmadis perform a search on YouTube for speeches by Hamza Yusuf, Yasir Qadhi, Zaid Shakir, Muhammad al-Shareef, Yasir Birjas, etc. Listen to what they say, and ask yourself, “Are the murabbis portraying the Muslims in a true light or are their words simply propaganda?” These speeches are the fruit of Islamic scholarship available for us in English.

In addition, it is anticipated that parts of the Ahmadi leaders will simply dismiss this work by calling the author a “mullah”, and not directly respond to the arguments. This is only a sign of their intellectual impotence against the light of Islam.

 

Which Islam?

 

            Some are confused by the various sub-groups within Sunni Islam. It seems that Islam is so divided between the Hanafīs, Shāfi’īs, Mālikīs, Hanbalīs, Deobandis, Barelvis, Ahl al-Hadīth/Salafis, Sufis, Ash’aris, Maturidis, Wahabis, etc. If Islam is the truth and Ahmadiyya is falsehood, which of these groups is the true group within Islam?

            This is a mischaracterization of the differences within Islam. First, one must acknowledge that there are irreconcilable differences between Sunni Islam and Shī’a Islam, specifically around the Shī'a doctrine of Imāmah. It is an error to trivialize or ignore this major difference in belief. On the other hand, within Sunni Islam, the differences are generally not as the Ahmadis traditionally portray them. They are primarily variations in minor issues of practice and slight differences in theology.

Within traditional Sunni Islam, there are four major juridical schools, known as madhabs, specifically Hanafī, Mālikī, Shāfi’ī, and Hanbalī. These are not sectarian differences. They are differences in detailed issues of practice and law. To understand how they arose, one must understand the history of Islamic law. When Islam existed only in the deserts of Arabia, the Muslims could refer directly to the Qur’ān and the prophetic traditions for all issues of practice. However, when Islam spread to new lands and Muslims were forced to deal with new situations that did not exist in Arabia, the early juridical scholars created new legal rulings based on principles derived from the Qur’ān and Sunnah. In Iraq emerged the Hanafī school based on the principles derived from Imām Abū Hanīfah رحمه الله. In the Hijāz emerged the Mālikī, Shāfi’ī, and Hanbalī schools based on the principles of Imām Mālik ibn Anas, Imām Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfi'ī, and Imām Ahmad ibn Hanbal رحيمهم الله, respectively. These schools of legal thought are not different sects. They are different codifications of Islamic law based on slight differences in legal theory leading to slight differences in practices. The general concepts, however, remain the same and are often indistinguishable to the average observant.

            Undeniably, there are theological differences that exist within Sunni Islam. Muslims have slightly differing opinions on minor issues of faith. Yet, the theological differences are around esoteric issues that the average Muslim is not aware of or even contemplates. Such differences usually revolve around figurative or literal interpretations of the names and attributes of Allah. For example, when Allah describes himself as having risen above the throne, there are differences as to how this is understood. It is vital for this discussion that one understands the fact that these differences are debated between scholars and are ultimately inconsequential in the application of Islam in the daily life of an ordinary Muslim.

            Most Ahmadis stem from the Indian subcontinent, so they may be aware of the Deobandi and Barelvi movements. Deobandism and Barelvism are two Islamic revivalist movements that emerged between the late 18th and early 19th century. As Yusuf Ludhyanwi summarized, “According to my knowledge, there is no sound basis for any difference between the Deobandis and Barelvis.”[3] Both follow the same legal codification, Hanafī law, and have nearly identical theological positions. From an outsider’s perspective, there is virtually no difference between the two. Thus, neither of the two movements is a distinct sect of Islam. The differences primarily lay in their understanding of their relationship with the Prophet Muhammad عليه الصلاة والسلام, such as celebrating his birthday, whether he was created from light, whether it is permissible to invoke him, etc. But, in terms of core beliefs, practice, and daily life, the two are indistinguishable.

 

History of Islamic Sects

 

            To fully understand the sects of Islam, one must also look at the history of Islamic sectarianism. In the 1,400 years since the death of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه و سلم, dozens of small groups have formed, such as the Khawārij, the Shī’a, the Mu’tazalites, and more, and within each group are many splinters and subgroups. However, the only group of Muslims who have remained upon the exact same theology from the time of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم and his companions to the modern day is mainstream, orthodox, traditional Sunni Muslims. This can be independently verified by tracing the consistency present in the theological positions of Muslims from day one. Every other sect is a latter-day innovation, unknown to the previous generation. Exactly like the others, Ahmadiyya is yet another latter-day innovation whose theological positions were completely unknown to, or in some cases completely rejected by, the early generations of Muslims.

Appended to the end of this work is 'Aqīdah al-Tahawī, The Creed of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamā'ah (The People of the Sunnah and the Majority/Consensus). This treatise on Islamic theology, written within the first generations of Islam, outlines the beliefs of the earliest Muslims. It stands as an authoritative text to understand what the earliest Muslims believed in and stands as a guide for the sincere Ahmadi in his journey to Islam.

 

Conclusion

 

            There is a great amount of information that could be provided in refutation of the Ahmadi belief regarding the continuation of prophethood that was not included in this work, but I wanted to focus on the main and most oft-repeated arguments. I was worried

 that if I responded to every single individual argument and quotation that the Ahmadis use to support their claim, the sheer volume of this work would deter potential readers. For example, I focused on Ibn ‘Arabi’s quotes because Ibn ‘Arabi has gained a degree of acceptance among Muslims from the Indian subcontinent and the Ahmadis frequently cite him, but I did not respond to ‘Abdul Wahīd Sha’rani’s quotes, because he is rarely cited and did not gain as much acceptance as Ibn 'Arabi.

            One problem I anticipate facing is the intense defensiveness that Muslims have when their religion is criticized. Ahmadis must realize that I myself am a Muslim. I love Allah and the Prophet عليه الصلاة والسلام. I am not calling Ahmadis away from Islam. I am calling Ahmadis away from Ahmadiyya and to Islam. We do not reject the Qur’ān or the Sunnah. We reject the false beliefs of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Muhammad عليه الصلاة والسلام is the last prophet. There are no prophets after him of any kind. Therefore, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a false prophet and must be rejected.

            As of writing this, I have no immediate plans to write anything concerning the ascension of ‘Esā bin Marīam عليه السلام, but I may consider it in the future. I understand the Ahmadi reasoning for making this their forefront issue, but believing ‘Esā bin Marīam عليه السلام died does not logically conclude with Ahmadiyya, whereas believing in the finality of prophethood logically concludes with the rejection of Ahmadiyya..

This work started as a simple document and evolved over time. In many ways, I have greatly benefited in knowledge from this project. It is important that we are aware of evil and its deception so that we may avoid it. Going into this project, I did not anticipate the amount of research, translating, editing, cost, and time that it would take to produce. Rather than repeating the same endeavor with the status of ‘Esā bin Marīam, I would prefer to work on increasing my tawakkul and knowledge. Islam is not about polemics or sectarianism; Islam is about a connection with the divine through the prophetic guidance.

I pray that it will be a means of guidance for the Ahmadis and a means of defense for the Muslims. If any of the responses I provided in the above are confusing, require further explanation, or seem insufficient and causes the reader to wish to speak to me, he/she may contact me through the following internet mediums in order of preference:

AIM/AOL:                   rootx11

MSN:                           farhank84@hotmail.com

Email:                           WithLoveToAhmadis@gmail.com

Please note that I generally do not wish to engage in debates with anyone via text-chat because of the inherent loss of communication, difficulty in expressing points, and general logistical troubles. However, I would be more than willing to clarify any confusing issue or answer any questions regarding a specific issue I brought up in a non-combative, respectful manner.

 

The Invitation

 

This is an invitation to Ahmadis to leave the false beliefs of Ahmadiyya and embrace the purity of Islam. Reject Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a false prophet and accept that Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم, our light and guidance, is the last and final messenger of Allah.

 

 

و صلى على سيدنا محمد و على اله و صحبه و سلم

 

Closing Comments

 

            The Ahmadis believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a prophet of God. There are categorical statements in the Qur’ān and prophetic tradition that state the fact that there will be no prophets after Muhammad عليه الصلاة والسلام, Muhammad عليه الصلاة والسلام is the last of the prophets, Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم is the last prophet, etc. These accounts do not mention the coming of a non-law-bearing, zillī, or burūzi prophet. These statements clearly conflict with Ahmadi beliefs, so to maintain their theology, they find innovative and creative ways to either reinterpret them or reject them.

            I have personally learned, studied, analyzed, and refuted each and every one of their common, oft-repeated arguments. The intention of this work was not mere intellectual exercise. It is to logically guide the Ahmadis to that the belief that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a prophet of God is complete falsehood.

            I call all Ahmadis to leave the religion of Ahmadiyya and to embrace the purity of Islam, an Islam not based on sectarian divide, groups, or labels, but an Islam based on following the Qur’ān, the prophetic traditions, and the classical understanding of the earliest Muslims. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a false prophet. Muhammad is the seal of the prophets, and there are no prophets after Muhammad.

 

But what about ‘Esā bin Marīam عليه السلام?

 

            For some sincere Ahmadis, the belief that ‘Esā bin Marīam عليه السلام died in India[4] at the age of 120 stands as a stumbling block from orthodox Islam. While this is a major issue in its own right, maintaining this belief does not logically conclude with Ahmadiyya, whereas believing in the finality of prophethood logically necessitates the rejection of any claimant to prophethood after Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم. I firmly adhere to the Islamic position that ‘Esā bin Marīam عليه السلام was bodily ascended and will bodily return. However, if someone is unable or unwilling to accept this belief in favorite of Ahmad’s theory, it is entirely possible to maintain this one specific Ahmadi belief while still remaining within the general fold of Islam. Potentially, that would cause a person to either reject the authentic prophetic traditions about ‘Esā bin Marīam’s عليه السلام return or reinterpret them in a new and innovative way, thus constituting a bid’ah (innovation) in Islamic creed. Neither of these two options is preferable, but if one desires to maintain parity with Ahmad’s theories, it is still possible to maintain them while remaining upon Islam.[5]

 

The Mullahs

 

One of the most effective tactics of the Ahmadi leadership is to dismiss Islamic scholars as violent-prone, negative towards women, irrational or extreme by collectively referring to them as “mullahs”. This is undeniably a reality in some parts of the Muslim world. However, the presentation of the Ahmadi religious establishment is undoubtedly a stereotype, an exaggeration, and a distortion of reality.

It is true that there are many “religious” leaders who cause more harm than good. It must be understood, though, that this is the loud minority. The vast majority of the scholars of Islam are sincere, honest, and understanding. They seek only to pass on the divine light of Islam and use it to worship Allah and serve humanity.

I recommend that Ahmadis perform a search on YouTube for speeches by Hamza Yusuf, Yasir Qadhi, Zaid Shakir, Muhammad al-Shareef, Yasir Birjas, etc. Listen to what they say, and ask yourself, “Are the murabbis portraying the Muslims in a true light or are their words simply propaganda?” These speeches are the fruit of Islamic scholarship available for us in English.

In addition, it is anticipated that parts of the Ahmadi leaders will simply dismiss this work by calling the author a “mullah”, and not directly respond to the arguments. This is only a sign of their intellectual impotence against the light of Islam.

 

Which Islam?

 

            Some are confused by the various sub-groups within Sunni Islam. It seems that Islam is so divided between the Hanafīs, Shāfi’īs, Mālikīs, Hanbalīs, Deobandis, Barelvis, Ahl al-Hadīth/Salafis, Sufis, Ash’aris, Maturidis, Wahabis, etc. If Islam is the truth and Ahmadiyya is falsehood, which of these groups is the true group within Islam?

            This is a mischaracterization of the differences within Islam. First, one must acknowledge that there are irreconcilable differences between Sunni Islam and Shī’a Islam, specifically around the Shī'a doctrine of Imāmah. It is an error to trivialize or ignore this major difference in belief. On the other hand, within Sunni Islam, the differences are generally not as the Ahmadis traditionally portray them. They are primarily variations in minor issues of practice and slight differences in theology.

Within traditional Sunni Islam, there are four major juridical schools, known as madhabs, specifically Hanafī, Mālikī, Shāfi’ī, and Hanbalī. These are not sectarian differences. They are differences in detailed issues of practice and law. To understand how they arose, one must understand the history of Islamic law. When Islam existed only in the deserts of Arabia, the Muslims could refer directly to the Qur’ān and the prophetic traditions for all issues of practice. However, when Islam spread to new lands and Muslims were forced to deal with new situations that did not exist in Arabia, the early juridical scholars created new legal rulings based on principles derived from the Qur’ān and Sunnah. In Iraq emerged the Hanafī school based on the principles derived from Imām Abū Hanīfah رحمه الله. In the Hijāz emerged the Mālikī, Shāfi’ī, and Hanbalī schools based on the principles of Imām Mālik ibn Anas, Imām Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfi'ī, and Imām Ahmad ibn Hanbal رحيمهم الله, respectively. These schools of legal thought are not different sects. They are different codifications of Islamic law based on slight differences in legal theory leading to slight differences in practices. The general concepts, however, remain the same and are often indistinguishable to the average observant.

            Undeniably, there are theological differences that exist within Sunni Islam. Muslims have slightly differing opinions on minor issues of faith. Yet, the theological differences are around esoteric issues that the average Muslim is not aware of or even contemplates. Such differences usually revolve around figurative or literal interpretations of the names and attributes of Allah. For example, when Allah describes himself as having risen above the throne, there are differences as to how this is understood. It is vital for this discussion that one understands the fact that these differences are debated between scholars and are ultimately inconsequential in the application of Islam in the daily life of an ordinary Muslim.

            Most Ahmadis stem from the Indian subcontinent, so they may be aware of the Deobandi and Barelvi movements. Deobandism and Barelvism are two Islamic revivalist movements that emerged between the late 18th and early 19th century. As Yusuf Ludhyanwi summarized, “According to my knowledge, there is no sound basis for any difference between the Deobandis and Barelvis.”[6] Both follow the same legal codification, Hanafī law, and have nearly identical theological positions. From an outsider’s perspective, there is virtually no difference between the two. Thus, neither of the two movements is a distinct sect of Islam. The differences primarily lay in their understanding of their relationship with the Prophet Muhammad عليه الصلاة والسلام, such as celebrating his birthday, whether he was created from light, whether it is permissible to invoke him, etc. But, in terms of core beliefs, practice, and daily life, the two are indistinguishable.

 

History of Islamic Sects

 

            To fully understand the sects of Islam, one must also look at the history of Islamic sectarianism. In the 1,400 years since the death of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه و سلم, dozens of small groups have formed, such as the Khawārij, the Shī’a, the Mu’tazalites, and more, and within each group are many splinters and subgroups. However, the only group of Muslims who have remained upon the exact same theology from the time of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم and his companions to the modern day is mainstream, orthodox, traditional Sunni Muslims. This can be independently verified by tracing the consistency present in the theological positions of Muslims from day one. Every other sect is a latter-day innovation, unknown to the previous generation. Exactly like the others, Ahmadiyya is yet another latter-day innovation whose theological positions were completely unknown to, or in some cases completely rejected by, the early generations of Muslims.

Appended to the end of this work is 'Aqīdah al-Tahawī, The Creed of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamā'ah (The People of the Sunnah and the Majority/Consensus). This treatise on Islamic theology, written within the first generations of Islam, outlines the beliefs of the earliest Muslims. It stands as an authoritative text to understand what the earliest Muslims believed in and stands as a guide for the sincere Ahmadi in his journey to Islam.

 

Conclusion

 

            There is a great amount of information that could be provided in refutation of the Ahmadi belief regarding the continuation of prophethood that was not included in this work, but I wanted to focus on the main and most oft-repeated arguments. I was worried

 that if I responded to every single individual argument and quotation that the Ahmadis use to support their claim, the sheer volume of this work would deter potential readers. For example, I focused on Ibn ‘Arabi’s quotes because Ibn ‘Arabi has gained a degree of acceptance among Muslims from the Indian subcontinent and the Ahmadis frequently cite him, but I did not respond to ‘Abdul Wahīd Sha’rani’s quotes, because he is rarely cited and did not gain as much acceptance as Ibn 'Arabi.

            One problem I anticipate facing is the intense defensiveness that Muslims have when their religion is criticized. Ahmadis must realize that I myself am a Muslim. I love Allah and the Prophet عليه الصلاة والسلام. I am not calling Ahmadis away from Islam. I am calling Ahmadis away from Ahmadiyya and to Islam. We do not reject the Qur’ān or the Sunnah. We reject the false beliefs of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Muhammad عليه الصلاة والسلام is the last prophet. There are no prophets after him of any kind. Therefore, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a false prophet and must be rejected.

            As of writing this, I have no immediate plans to write anything concerning the ascension of ‘Esā bin Marīam عليه السلام, but I may consider it in the future. I understand the Ahmadi reasoning for making this their forefront issue, but believing ‘Esā bin Marīam عليه السلام died does not logically conclude with Ahmadiyya, whereas believing in the finality of prophethood logically concludes with the rejection of Ahmadiyya..

This work started as a simple document and evolved over time. In many ways, I have greatly benefited in knowledge from this project. It is important that we are aware of evil and its deception so that we may avoid it. Going into this project, I did not anticipate the amount of research, translating, editing, cost, and time that it would take to produce. Rather than repeating the same endeavor with the status of ‘Esā bin Marīam, I would prefer to work on increasing my tawakkul and knowledge. Islam is not about polemics or sectarianism; Islam is about a connection with the divine through the prophetic guidance.

I pray that it will be a means of guidance for the Ahmadis and a means of defense for the Muslims. If any of the responses I provided in the above are confusing, require further explanation, or seem insufficient and causes the reader to wish to speak to me, he/she may contact me through the following internet mediums in order of preference:

AIM/AOL:                   rootx11

MSN:                           farhank84@hotmail.com

Email:                           WithLoveToAhmadis@gmail.com

Please note that I generally do not wish to engage in debates with anyone via text-chat because of the inherent loss of communication, difficulty in expressing points, and general logistical troubles. However, I would be more than willing to clarify any confusing issue or answer any questions regarding a specific issue I brought up in a non-combative, respectful manner.

 

The Invitation

 

This is an invitation to Ahmadis to leave the false beliefs of Ahmadiyya and embrace the purity of Islam. Reject Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a false prophet and accept that Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم, our light and guidance, is the last and final messenger of Allah.

 

 

و صلى على سيدنا محمد و على اله و صحبه و سلم

 

 

 


[1]               Ahmad originally claimed that ‘Esā bin Marīam عليه السلام died in Galilee, revised his position to Syria, then to Jerusalem and finally settled on Kashmir.

[2]               The author wishes to express his abhorrence to this innovation, but pragmatically, an innovation is less evil than disbelief.

[3]               Differences In the Ummat and Siraat-e-Mustaqeem, by Yusuf Ludhyanwi, page 17

[4]               Ahmad originally claimed that ‘Esā bin Marīam عليه السلام died in Galilee, revised his position to Syria, then to Jerusalem and finally settled on Kashmir.

[5]               The author wishes to express his abhorrence to this innovation, but pragmatically, an innovation is less evil than disbelief.

[6]               Differences In the Ummat and Siraat-e-Mustaqeem, by Yusuf Ludhyanwi, page 17