What's new

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan Pro Science VS Allama Iqbal Anti Science

Status
Not open for further replies.

HalfMoon

BANNED
Nov 21, 2018
2,989
0
3,886
Country
India
Location
India
Syed Ahmed Khan did the following great service to the Nation by establishing Aligarh Muslim University But he was also a traitor by helping the brits in 1857 war of independence. He made fun of the freedom fighters. Nevertheless, he is dead now. His decision is with Allah (SWT). In my view we should remember him for his service to the nation.
How is supporting British traitorous?

Even Quaid-e-Azam supported the British.

You should understand that the Muslims of the subcontinent were always fighting the Hindus not the British.

Sir Syed Ahmed Khan's support to the British helped in the creation of institution like AMU and the creation of a separate electorate for the Muslims of the subcontinent.

Quaid-e-Azam's support to the British helped in the creation of Pakistan.
 

Tair-Lahoti

FULL MEMBER
Dec 28, 2019
249
0
294
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Science is predominantly concerned with the how question whereas religion is concerned with answering the why question the real and ideal intersection between the two is a null set
It's actually the ideological atheist which uses science as a weapon against religion so
Nothing is posted to justify about what science is or what religion can answer and what not.
I posted views of Iqbal that clearly shows he was anything but anti-science. Thats all.
 

Myth_buster_1

BANNED
Mar 17, 2008
8,220
2
7,484
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Allama Iqbal opposed Mirza Ghulam. Even wrote a book against him. Where are you people living?
And Zia ul haq was the author and the publisher of the book? lol


1. When Allama Iqbal was ill in 1934, Maulana Muhammad Ali went to visit him. Dr. Iqbal related to him an incident showing the real beliefs of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Maulana Muhammad Ali refers to this in an English booklet entitled Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s Statement re. the Qadianis, as follows:

  • “But I would refer Sir Muhammad Iqbal to an incident which he himself so recently related to me when I paid him a visit during his sickness in October 1934. The Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, he told me, was then in Sialkot — he did not remember the year, but it was the year 1904 as the facts related by him show. Mian (now Sir) Fazl-i-Husain was then practising as a lawyer in Sialkot, and one day while he (the Mian Sahib) was going to see the Mirza Sahib, he (Sir Muhammad Iqbal) met him in the way, and after inquiring whither he was going he also accompanied him. During the conversation that ensued with the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, Mian Sir Fazl-i-Husain asked him if he looked upon those who did not believe in him as kafirs, and the Mirza sahib without a moment’s hesitation replied that he did not.
    “This fact which Sir Muhammad Iqbal himself related to me last year is a clear evidence that the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement is not responsible for the present Qadiani doctrine.”
2. Maulana Muhammad Ali also reported the following opinion expressed by Iqbal:

  • “Once a very eminent man, namely Dr. Sir Muhammad Iqbal, said that one finds [in Islamic history] many people who love the Holy Prophet Muhammad, but the only person who loves the Quran is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.”
    (Paigham Sulh, 10 May 1935.)
3. Maulana Yaqub Khan, editor of The Light, gave the following account of a meeting he had with a prominent admirer and friend of Iqbal:

  • “I spoke to Maulana Sayyid Nazir Niazi. During the conversation he said that he had mentioned my reference (i.e. the incident related by Maulana Muhammad Ali in Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s Statement re. the Qadianis, given above) to Allama Iqbal. The Allama said that he had undoubtedly heard Mirza sahib say that he did not consider those who do not believe in him as being kafir. He [Iqbal] was prepared to testify to this before a gathering of thousands of people. The Allama also said that his statement published in the press related to the present controversy going on between the Qadiani Jama'at and the general Muslims. It was not directed against the Lahore Jama'at, nor did it comment on the beliefs of Mirza sahib. “Before this, our honoured friend Raja Hasan Akhtar had also told me that he had spoken to Allama Iqbal, and the Allama had said to him that his statement was not related to the Lahore Jama'at nor to the person of Mirza sahib. He had before him the picture of Ahmadiyyat being presented to the world today in the form of Qadianism.”
    (Paigham Sulh, 19 November 1935)
Dr. Iqbal lived for more than two and a half years after the publication of these testimonies, and he read them. But he did not contradict them, nor did his followers ever do so, even though they lived on for a further thirty years or so.

Further views expressed by Iqbal in this period.
1. Iqbal was reported as having said:

  • “So far as I have understood the objective of this movement, the belief of the Ahmadis is that Jesus died like any other human mortal, and that the return of the Messiah refers to the coming of a man who bears a spiritual resemblance to him. This belief gives this movement a rationalist colouring.”
    (Newspaper Mujahid, 13 February 1935. Khutbat Madras)
2. When Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote his book The Religion of Islam, Dr. Iqbal expressed the following view on it in a letter dated 6th February 1936:

  • “Thank you so much for your kind present to me of your new book The Religion of Islam. I very much appreciate the gift. I have glanced through parts of it, and find it an extremely useful work, almost indispensable to the students of Islam. You have already written a number of books; one cannot but admire your energy and power of sustained work.”
3. Sayyid Nazir Niazi published a compilation of the daily conversations of Iqbal which took place in his presence. For the date 17 March 1938, shortly before the death of Iqbal, it is recorded:

  • “The Allama said: On the subject of prayer Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan and Mirza sahib went to opposite extremes. … Sir Sayyid held the view that one did not gain anything from prayer except inner consolation. On the opposite side was Mirza sahib who said that everything is possible by means of prayer: you keep on praying, and what you want to happen shall come about. … Mirza sahib went to an extreme. He prayed about every matter, and he received requests for prayer on every matter. So much so that, besides other things such as propagation of Islam, debates with other religions, insistence on the truth of Islam, this was another factor which attracted the hearts towards Mirza sahib. In any case, prayer is a part of faith.”
    (Iqbal kay huzur nashistain aur goftaguain, vol 1, p. 360.)
It is undoubtedly true that the Imam of the age, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, considered prayer to be the chief means of establishing a closer connection with God. His followers also believe that only through prayer can any end be achieved. Prayer is one of the questions on which Hazrat Mirza has revived the original teachings of Islam, as he did in case of numerous other questions. What Allama Iqbal has said is entirely true.

Iqbal’s opposition was against Qadiani doctrines.
Iqbal’s statements against the Ahmadiyya Movement near the end of his life were prompted by a conflict between the Qadiani Jama'at and the Ahrar movement, known as the Ahrari-Qadiani controversy, which raged during the 1930s. Sayyid Nazir Niazi, an admirer of Iqbal who has been quoted earlier, wrote in an article about the last illness of Iqbal:

  • “The views which the Allama expressed from time to time as a result of the Qadiani-Ahrari controversy now meant that he had to publish a detailed statement about the whole affair.”
    (Iqbal, new edition. Magazine Urdu, ‘Iqbal’ Number, October 1938. Anjuman Taraqqi Urdu, Hyderabad Deccan, p. 312.)
Despite such intense opposition, when Iqbal’s attention was drawn to his speech in 1910 (in which he had described the Ahmadiyya Jama'at as a “true model of Islamic life”), the answer he gave is worth pondering over. He replied:

  • “I regret that I do not have that speech, neither the original English version nor its Urdu translation which was done by Maulana Zafar Ali Khan. As far as I remember I made that speech in 1911 or earlier, and I have no hesitation in admitting that a quarter of a century ago I expected good results to flow from this movement.… However, the true spirit of a religious movement is not revealed in a day, but takes years to be manifested properly. The mutual controversies between the two parties within the movement show that even those people who had personal connections with the founder did not know the direction the movement would take in the future. Personally, I became disillusioned with this movement when a new prophethood was claimed, a prophethood superior even to the prophethood of the Founder of Islam, and all Muslims were declared as kafir. Later my disillusionment developed to the stage of open opposition.”
    (Harf-i Iqbal, pp. 122 – 123.)
This statement exonerates Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad because he died in 1908. In fact, it is directed against those who ascribe a prophethood to Hazrat Mirza superior to the prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Dr. Iqbal’s statement in his speech in 1910 at the Aligarh College, in favour of the Ahmadiyya Movement, was made two years after Hazrat Mirza’s death, and the split in the Movement on the issue of declaring Muslims as kafir took place in 1914, six years after his death. All these erroneous doctrines were coined by the khalifa of Qadian, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, after the death of Hazrat Mirza, and had not the least connection with his beliefs. On the contrary, Hazrat Mirza battled against such doctrines throughout his life.

It will have become clear to the readers from the various statements of Iqbal quoted above that, before Mirza Mahmud Ahmad declared other Muslims as kafir, the Allama held highly favourable views about the Ahmadiyya Movement and its Founder, and was deeply influenced by them. But cursed be political wrangles! A man even of Iqbal’s stature was so carried away by the Ahrari controversy as to be prepared to make statements denouncing the Ahmadiyya Movement and its Founder. On the other hand, it is not only proved from his extract quoted above, but all knowledgeable persons are also aware, that Dr. Iqbal began to be disillusioned with the Ahmadiyya Jama'at in 1914 when Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din died and Mirza Mahmud Ahmad ascribed a claim of prophethood to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, declaring that those who had not entered into his bai‘at were k r and outside the fold of Islam, thus dividing the Movement into two.

Previously, Allama Sir Muhammad Iqbal was not only an admirer of Hazrat Mirza and the Ahmadiyya Movement, but like his elder brother Shaikh Ata Muhammad he had formally taken the bai‘at. With all this evidence, every fair-minded, God-fearing person can see that, until the Ahmadiyya Jama'at split on the issue of calling Muslims as kafir, the Allama did not oppose the Movement. Moreover, no one can deny that despite his later intense opposition, he never severed his friendship and personal ties with the prominent members of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at Islam Lahore. Indeed, on the occasions he made statements against the Ahmadis he also made it clear that his criticism was not directed against Hazrat Mirza or the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama'at.

The views he expressed about the leaders of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama'at in the last years of his life are instructive for those who think. He wrote the following words:

  • “As to the Ahmadiyya Movement, there are many members of the Lahore Jama'at whom I consider to be Muslims who have a sense of honour, and I sympathise with their efforts to propa gate Islam. … But indeed, the passion for the propagation of Islam that is to be found in most members of this Jama'at is worthy of praise.”
All lovers of Iqbal, who celebrate ‘Iqbal Day’ every year, should ponder over these words. While he considered that most members of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama'at were “Muslims who have a sense of honour,” possessing a “passion for the propagation of Islam,” with whom he “sympathised,” his admirers condemn this Jama'at. Can this be called love for this great man?
 

Big Tank

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 30, 2013
2,707
2
4,820
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
And Zia ul haq was the author and the publisher of the book? lol


1. When Allama Iqbal was ill in 1934, Maulana Muhammad Ali went to visit him. Dr. Iqbal related to him an incident showing the real beliefs of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Maulana Muhammad Ali refers to this in an English booklet entitled Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s Statement re. the Qadianis, as follows:

  • “But I would refer Sir Muhammad Iqbal to an incident which he himself so recently related to me when I paid him a visit during his sickness in October 1934. The Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, he told me, was then in Sialkot — he did not remember the year, but it was the year 1904 as the facts related by him show. Mian (now Sir) Fazl-i-Husain was then practising as a lawyer in Sialkot, and one day while he (the Mian Sahib) was going to see the Mirza Sahib, he (Sir Muhammad Iqbal) met him in the way, and after inquiring whither he was going he also accompanied him. During the conversation that ensued with the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, Mian Sir Fazl-i-Husain asked him if he looked upon those who did not believe in him as kafirs, and the Mirza sahib without a moment’s hesitation replied that he did not.
    “This fact which Sir Muhammad Iqbal himself related to me last year is a clear evidence that the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement is not responsible for the present Qadiani doctrine.”
2. Maulana Muhammad Ali also reported the following opinion expressed by Iqbal:

  • “Once a very eminent man, namely Dr. Sir Muhammad Iqbal, said that one finds [in Islamic history] many people who love the Holy Prophet Muhammad, but the only person who loves the Quran is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.”
    (Paigham Sulh, 10 May 1935.)
3. Maulana Yaqub Khan, editor of The Light, gave the following account of a meeting he had with a prominent admirer and friend of Iqbal:

  • “I spoke to Maulana Sayyid Nazir Niazi. During the conversation he said that he had mentioned my reference (i.e. the incident related by Maulana Muhammad Ali in Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s Statement re. the Qadianis, given above) to Allama Iqbal. The Allama said that he had undoubtedly heard Mirza sahib say that he did not consider those who do not believe in him as being kafir. He [Iqbal] was prepared to testify to this before a gathering of thousands of people. The Allama also said that his statement published in the press related to the present controversy going on between the Qadiani Jama'at and the general Muslims. It was not directed against the Lahore Jama'at, nor did it comment on the beliefs of Mirza sahib. “Before this, our honoured friend Raja Hasan Akhtar had also told me that he had spoken to Allama Iqbal, and the Allama had said to him that his statement was not related to the Lahore Jama'at nor to the person of Mirza sahib. He had before him the picture of Ahmadiyyat being presented to the world today in the form of Qadianism.”
    (Paigham Sulh, 19 November 1935)
Dr. Iqbal lived for more than two and a half years after the publication of these testimonies, and he read them. But he did not contradict them, nor did his followers ever do so, even though they lived on for a further thirty years or so.

Further views expressed by Iqbal in this period.
1. Iqbal was reported as having said:

  • “So far as I have understood the objective of this movement, the belief of the Ahmadis is that Jesus died like any other human mortal, and that the return of the Messiah refers to the coming of a man who bears a spiritual resemblance to him. This belief gives this movement a rationalist colouring.”
    (Newspaper Mujahid, 13 February 1935. Khutbat Madras)
2. When Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote his book The Religion of Islam, Dr. Iqbal expressed the following view on it in a letter dated 6th February 1936:

  • “Thank you so much for your kind present to me of your new book The Religion of Islam. I very much appreciate the gift. I have glanced through parts of it, and find it an extremely useful work, almost indispensable to the students of Islam. You have already written a number of books; one cannot but admire your energy and power of sustained work.”
3. Sayyid Nazir Niazi published a compilation of the daily conversations of Iqbal which took place in his presence. For the date 17 March 1938, shortly before the death of Iqbal, it is recorded:

  • “The Allama said: On the subject of prayer Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan and Mirza sahib went to opposite extremes. … Sir Sayyid held the view that one did not gain anything from prayer except inner consolation. On the opposite side was Mirza sahib who said that everything is possible by means of prayer: you keep on praying, and what you want to happen shall come about. … Mirza sahib went to an extreme. He prayed about every matter, and he received requests for prayer on every matter. So much so that, besides other things such as propagation of Islam, debates with other religions, insistence on the truth of Islam, this was another factor which attracted the hearts towards Mirza sahib. In any case, prayer is a part of faith.”
    (Iqbal kay huzur nashistain aur goftaguain, vol 1, p. 360.)
It is undoubtedly true that the Imam of the age, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, considered prayer to be the chief means of establishing a closer connection with God. His followers also believe that only through prayer can any end be achieved. Prayer is one of the questions on which Hazrat Mirza has revived the original teachings of Islam, as he did in case of numerous other questions. What Allama Iqbal has said is entirely true.

Iqbal’s opposition was against Qadiani doctrines.
Iqbal’s statements against the Ahmadiyya Movement near the end of his life were prompted by a conflict between the Qadiani Jama'at and the Ahrar movement, known as the Ahrari-Qadiani controversy, which raged during the 1930s. Sayyid Nazir Niazi, an admirer of Iqbal who has been quoted earlier, wrote in an article about the last illness of Iqbal:

  • “The views which the Allama expressed from time to time as a result of the Qadiani-Ahrari controversy now meant that he had to publish a detailed statement about the whole affair.”
    (Iqbal, new edition. Magazine Urdu, ‘Iqbal’ Number, October 1938. Anjuman Taraqqi Urdu, Hyderabad Deccan, p. 312.)
Despite such intense opposition, when Iqbal’s attention was drawn to his speech in 1910 (in which he had described the Ahmadiyya Jama'at as a “true model of Islamic life”), the answer he gave is worth pondering over. He replied:

  • “I regret that I do not have that speech, neither the original English version nor its Urdu translation which was done by Maulana Zafar Ali Khan. As far as I remember I made that speech in 1911 or earlier, and I have no hesitation in admitting that a quarter of a century ago I expected good results to flow from this movement.… However, the true spirit of a religious movement is not revealed in a day, but takes years to be manifested properly. The mutual controversies between the two parties within the movement show that even those people who had personal connections with the founder did not know the direction the movement would take in the future. Personally, I became disillusioned with this movement when a new prophethood was claimed, a prophethood superior even to the prophethood of the Founder of Islam, and all Muslims were declared as kafir. Later my disillusionment developed to the stage of open opposition.”
    (Harf-i Iqbal, pp. 122 – 123.)
This statement exonerates Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad because he died in 1908. In fact, it is directed against those who ascribe a prophethood to Hazrat Mirza superior to the prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Dr. Iqbal’s statement in his speech in 1910 at the Aligarh College, in favour of the Ahmadiyya Movement, was made two years after Hazrat Mirza’s death, and the split in the Movement on the issue of declaring Muslims as kafir took place in 1914, six years after his death. All these erroneous doctrines were coined by the khalifa of Qadian, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, after the death of Hazrat Mirza, and had not the least connection with his beliefs. On the contrary, Hazrat Mirza battled against such doctrines throughout his life.

It will have become clear to the readers from the various statements of Iqbal quoted above that, before Mirza Mahmud Ahmad declared other Muslims as kafir, the Allama held highly favourable views about the Ahmadiyya Movement and its Founder, and was deeply influenced by them. But cursed be political wrangles! A man even of Iqbal’s stature was so carried away by the Ahrari controversy as to be prepared to make statements denouncing the Ahmadiyya Movement and its Founder. On the other hand, it is not only proved from his extract quoted above, but all knowledgeable persons are also aware, that Dr. Iqbal began to be disillusioned with the Ahmadiyya Jama'at in 1914 when Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din died and Mirza Mahmud Ahmad ascribed a claim of prophethood to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, declaring that those who had not entered into his bai‘at were k r and outside the fold of Islam, thus dividing the Movement into two.

Previously, Allama Sir Muhammad Iqbal was not only an admirer of Hazrat Mirza and the Ahmadiyya Movement, but like his elder brother Shaikh Ata Muhammad he had formally taken the bai‘at. With all this evidence, every fair-minded, God-fearing person can see that, until the Ahmadiyya Jama'at split on the issue of calling Muslims as kafir, the Allama did not oppose the Movement. Moreover, no one can deny that despite his later intense opposition, he never severed his friendship and personal ties with the prominent members of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at Islam Lahore. Indeed, on the occasions he made statements against the Ahmadis he also made it clear that his criticism was not directed against Hazrat Mirza or the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama'at.

The views he expressed about the leaders of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama'at in the last years of his life are instructive for those who think. He wrote the following words:

  • “As to the Ahmadiyya Movement, there are many members of the Lahore Jama'at whom I consider to be Muslims who have a sense of honour, and I sympathise with their efforts to propa gate Islam. … But indeed, the passion for the propagation of Islam that is to be found in most members of this Jama'at is worthy of praise.”
All lovers of Iqbal, who celebrate ‘Iqbal Day’ every year, should ponder over these words. While he considered that most members of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama'at were “Muslims who have a sense of honour,” possessing a “passion for the propagation of Islam,” with whom he “sympathised,” his admirers condemn this Jama'at. Can this be called love for this great man?

Nice try Hoodbhoyist Qadiani.

Maulana Muhammad Ali was one of the biggest liar.

I wonder if you've even read Iqbal's book challenging Mirza Ghulam instead of copy pasting the material.


By
: Allamah Sayyid Sa’eed Akhtar Rizvi
The universally accepted idealism believe last Prophet Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) was the last Prophet of God was unfortunately challenged some 70 years ago by one Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian (Punjab, India) who claim to be a prophet.
As this booklet is being written to throw light upon the Muslim belief of "Seal of the Prophethood", it is essential to give a historical background to the birth of Ahmadism.
The famous Muslim thinker, Dr. Iqbal, wrote a booklet "Islam and Ahmadism" and I propose to quote in this chapter some of the paragraphs from his learned discourse.
He writes: "The simple faith (of Islam) is based on two propositions that God is One and that Muhammad is the last in the line of those holy men who have appeared from time to time in all ages to guide mankind to the right way of living".
The question of heresy, which needs the verdict whether the author of it is within or without the fold, can arise, in the case of a religious society founded on such simple propositions, only when the heretic rejects both or either of these propositions. Such heresy must be and has been rare in the history of Islam which, while jealous of its frontiers, permits freedom of interpretation within these frontiers.
And since the phenomenon of the kind of heresy which affects the boundaries of Islam has been rare in the history of Islam, the feeling of the average Muslim is naturally intense when a revolt of this kind arises. That is why the feeling of Muslim Persia was so intense against the Bahais. That is why the feeling of Indian Muslims is so intense against the Qadianis.
"The question of what may be called major heresy arises only when the teaching of a thinker or a reformer affects the frontiers of the faith of Islam. Unfortunately this question does arise in connection with the teachings of Qadianism".
"Theologically the doctrine is that. The organization called "Islam" is perfect and eternal. No revelation the denial of which entails heresy is possible after Muhammad. He who claims such a revelation, is a traitor to Islam. Since the Qadianis believe the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement to be the bearer of such a revelation they declare that the entire world of Islam is infidel.
The founder's own argument 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 Holy Prophet of Islam. But if you further ask him 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".
This is, in fact, the accepted belief of the Qadianis. Really it is astounding that while the distinction of being the last of the Prophets is denied to the Prophet of Islam, it is claimed for the prophet of Qadian. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself says: "I am the last path of all the divine paths, and the last light of all the divine lights". Elaborating on this theme, the "Tash-hizul-azhan" writes: "In this 'Ummah' there can be only one prophet, that is, the promised Messiah; and certainly nobody else can come.
The same magazine says: "After the Holy Prophet of Islam only one prophet can come. It will disturb many policies and kingdom of God if many prophets came.
The same paper declared: 'Thus it is proved that there cannot be more than one prophet. (The Holy Prophet of Islam) has said "La Nabiyva Ba'adi". There is no prophet after me; and thus has clearly declared that in this Ummah no prophet or messenger of God can come after him, except the promised Messiah".
This distorted logic is beyond human comprehension. The Qadiani writer accepts the Holy Prophet's declaration that there would be no prophet after him: and then (instead of refuting the claim of any pretender of prophethood after Muhammad) adds a tail to the interpretation: "except M
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad."
"Tash-hizul Azhan" was a magazine for Ahmadi children and that is the belief which is taught to their children from childhood.
Thus, the Qadianis have transferred the finality of prophethood from the Prophet of Islam to Prophets: for the Qadianis, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the last of the prophets. But there is one "Khatam un-Nabiyyin" (the Last of the Prophets) in both religions, in the sense of the finality of the prophethood. I think this point of agreement should be enough to end the controversy about the meaning of the phrase "Khatam un-Nabiyyin".
Now, to revert to Dr. Iqbal's writing: "Far from understanding the cultural value of the Islamic idea of finality in the history of mankind generally and of Asia especially he (i.e., Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) thinks that the finality in the sense that no follower of Muhammad can ever reach the status of prophethood is a mark of imperfection in Muhammad's Prophethood. As I read the psychology of his mind he in the interest of his own claim to prophethood, avails himself of what he describes as the creative spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam and at the same time deprives the Holy Prophet of his "finality" by limiting the creating capacity of his spirituality to the rearing of only one prophet, i.e., the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement. In this way does the new prophet quietly steal away the "finality" of one who he claims to be his spiritual progenitor".

He claims to be 'buruz' of the Holy Prophet of Islam instituting 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 completed likeness, cannot help him at all, for the buruz must always remain the other 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 Magician in disguise."

Good luck next time with your propaganda.
 

truthfollower

BANNED
Mar 8, 2019
972
-4
860
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Please go and do your religious discussion somewhere else
thread is about science, not about who was right about imaginary friends :o:
 

Musalman

FULL MEMBER
Jan 23, 2007
1,883
0
1,467
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
How is supporting British traitorous?
He sided with the british during the war of independence, this act made him a traitor.

Even Quaid-e-Azam supported the British.
When M A Jinnah was born, British were in power in India

You should understand that the Muslims of the subcontinent were always fighting the Hindus not the British.
No sir , War of Independence of 1857 was fought together by the Hindu and Muslims. Bahadr Shah Zafar, General Bakht Khan, Nana Sahib, Rani Lakshmi Bai.

Sir Syed Ahmed Khan's support to the British helped in the creation of institution like AMU and the creation of a separate electorate for the Muslims of the subcontinent.
That is why I said we should remember him for his services but he did de-service to the nation too.

Quaid-e-Azam's support to the British helped in the creation of Pakistan.
:-)
 

Myth_buster_1

BANNED
Mar 17, 2008
8,220
2
7,484
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Nice try Hoodbhoyist Qadiani.

Maulana Muhammad Ali was one of the biggest liar.

I wonder if you've even read Iqbal's book challenging Mirza Ghulam instead of copy pasting the material.


By
: Allamah Sayyid Sa’eed Akhtar Rizvi
The universally accepted idealism believe last Prophet Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) was the last Prophet of God was unfortunately challenged some 70 years ago by one Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian (Punjab, India) who claim to be a prophet.
As this booklet is being written to throw light upon the Muslim belief of "Seal of the Prophethood", it is essential to give a historical background to the birth of Ahmadism.
The famous Muslim thinker, Dr. Iqbal, wrote a booklet "Islam and Ahmadism" and I propose to quote in this chapter some of the paragraphs from his learned discourse.
He writes: "The simple faith (of Islam) is based on two propositions that God is One and that Muhammad is the last in the line of those holy men who have appeared from time to time in all ages to guide mankind to the right way of living".
The question of heresy, which needs the verdict whether the author of it is within or without the fold, can arise, in the case of a religious society founded on such simple propositions, only when the heretic rejects both or either of these propositions. Such heresy must be and has been rare in the history of Islam which, while jealous of its frontiers, permits freedom of interpretation within these frontiers.
And since the phenomenon of the kind of heresy which affects the boundaries of Islam has been rare in the history of Islam, the feeling of the average Muslim is naturally intense when a revolt of this kind arises. That is why the feeling of Muslim Persia was so intense against the Bahais. That is why the feeling of Indian Muslims is so intense against the Qadianis.
"The question of what may be called major heresy arises only when the teaching of a thinker or a reformer affects the frontiers of the faith of Islam. Unfortunately this question does arise in connection with the teachings of Qadianism".
"Theologically the doctrine is that. The organization called "Islam" is perfect and eternal. No revelation the denial of which entails heresy is possible after Muhammad. He who claims such a revelation, is a traitor to Islam. Since the Qadianis believe the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement to be the bearer of such a revelation they declare that the entire world of Islam is infidel.
The founder's own argument 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 Holy Prophet of Islam. But if you further ask him 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".
This is, in fact, the accepted belief of the Qadianis. Really it is astounding that while the distinction of being the last of the Prophets is denied to the Prophet of Islam, it is claimed for the prophet of Qadian. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself says: "I am the last path of all the divine paths, and the last light of all the divine lights". Elaborating on this theme, the "Tash-hizul-azhan" writes: "In this 'Ummah' there can be only one prophet, that is, the promised Messiah; and certainly nobody else can come.
The same magazine says: "After the Holy Prophet of Islam only one prophet can come. It will disturb many policies and kingdom of God if many prophets came.
The same paper declared: 'Thus it is proved that there cannot be more than one prophet. (The Holy Prophet of Islam) has said "La Nabiyva Ba'adi". There is no prophet after me; and thus has clearly declared that in this Ummah no prophet or messenger of God can come after him, except the promised Messiah".
This distorted logic is beyond human comprehension. The Qadiani writer accepts the Holy Prophet's declaration that there would be no prophet after him: and then (instead of refuting the claim of any pretender of prophethood after Muhammad) adds a tail to the interpretation: "except M
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad."
"Tash-hizul Azhan" was a magazine for Ahmadi children and that is the belief which is taught to their children from childhood.
Thus, the Qadianis have transferred the finality of prophethood from the Prophet of Islam to Prophets: for the Qadianis, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the last of the prophets. But there is one "Khatam un-Nabiyyin" (the Last of the Prophets) in both religions, in the sense of the finality of the prophethood. I think this point of agreement should be enough to end the controversy about the meaning of the phrase "Khatam un-Nabiyyin".
Now, to revert to Dr. Iqbal's writing: "Far from understanding the cultural value of the Islamic idea of finality in the history of mankind generally and of Asia especially he (i.e., Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) thinks that the finality in the sense that no follower of Muhammad can ever reach the status of prophethood is a mark of imperfection in Muhammad's Prophethood. As I read the psychology of his mind he in the interest of his own claim to prophethood, avails himself of what he describes as the creative spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam and at the same time deprives the Holy Prophet of his "finality" by limiting the creating capacity of his spirituality to the rearing of only one prophet, i.e., the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement. In this way does the new prophet quietly steal away the "finality" of one who he claims to be his spiritual progenitor".

He claims to be 'buruz' of the Holy Prophet of Islam instituting 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 completed likeness, cannot help him at all, for the buruz must always remain the other 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 Magician in disguise."

Good luck next time with your propaganda.

Another he said this he meant that writing.
If Iqbal is considered as some sort of religious figure or what ever then show me where he said Mirza is a British empire stooge or him disowning Freemason muslims who were in large number during his time.
 

tkmd

FULL MEMBER
Aug 24, 2013
322
0
339
Ibaal envisioned the state of Pakistan. The end. This physicist who hasn’t dont any physics and rather seeks to convince everyone that we should all be atheist stooges of western europe should shut up.
 

LeGenD

MODERATOR
Aug 28, 2006
11,371
49
12,817
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Thread is LOCKED due to following reasons:

1. Inappropriate/loose language noticed throughout.
2. Complaints received.

It is obvious that some members are unable to discuss this theme with maturity.

If any member object to my decision then consider approaching GHQ for second judgement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom