From: nadeem@p.igp.ethz.ch (Nadeem Malik)
Subject: The Seal of Prophets -- Response to Raheel Khan 2
Reply-To: nadeem@p.igp.ethz.ch
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:20:20 GMT




               In the name of Allah, The Gracious, the Merciful.

                 MUHAMMAD(SAAWS):  THE SEAL OF PROPHETS
                 -------------------------------------


Recently (10 Nov 1992), Mr Raheel Khan posted a scholarly looking article 
( a long one) onthe issue of the title above. It also included some related
topics.

This is a humble attempt to address some of the points raised therein. I hope
and pray that the points that I make below may be of use to some. Amen.

Since the original article was a long one, I intend to respond in a series of
shorter articles. This is Response 2 (R2).


                      Response 2 by Nadeem Ahmad Malik
                                ETH, Zurich
			   17th December 1992

                [Everything below is my own pesonal thoughts. 
                    I take responsiblity for any errors.]


rh = Raheel Khan

(1) rh writes > -------------------------------------------------------

  In addition to these basic assumptions I would like to also list some of the
basic principles of Islam as a background for this discussion:

     1)  Innovation into religion is tantamount to Apostacy.
         This principle is based on several reliable traditions which are
         accepted by all researchers of Hadith.  The companions of the 
         Prophet(SAW) realized the importance of this principle and the 
         Muslim Khilafat even fought wars against "innovators" (Apostates)

     2)  Muslims must follow that which has been clearly ruled upon by the 
         Prophet (SAW) without introducing innovations in it.

     3)  Issues which arise with the passage of time, or issues which have 
         not been clearly ruled upon by the Prophet (SAW) must be decieded 
         through Consensus (amongst knowlegeable believers), a practice 
         referred to as Ijtehad in Islam. Ijtehad, or Consensus, is also 
         based upon sound, unanimously upheld traditions of the 
         Prophet(SAAWS) and was practiced by the earliest companions of the 
         Prophet(SAAWS) as in the "Apostacy Wars" in the time of Abu Bark 
         (RAA).
 

     4)  Principles that have been established through Consensus 
         are binding upon the Community and may not be changed except in the
         light of irrefutable new evidence which proves that 
         these principle are contrary to Islam.  In other words, to use 
         Western terminology for the purposes of clarity, a strong sense of
         Stare Decisis must be maintained in Jurisprudence.  Once again this
         principle is based on a unanimously agreed upon Tradition of the
         prophet where he warns that the newly introduced in the religion 
         (Deen) is the most unreliable!

         Hadrat Ayesha (RAA) relates that the Holy Prophet(SAAWS) said:
         "If somebody tries to introduce into this faith of ours something
          which is not a part of it, is to be rejected (and that person is
          condemned)"   Transmitted by Muslim and Bukhari.
rh writes > -------------------------------------------------------

All this is fine. The only thing is that according to your definition of
Ijtehad, things are never actually deceisive, because some new evidence
may arise to refute the previous 'unanimously' help opinion. 

The major problem, off course is that, who the chosen scholars? Who puts them
in positions of authority? They can only be relied upon if they are truely
knowledgeable AND righteous.

A fifth point can be added, which is:

	5) Ijtehad is third is the hierarchy of Islamic knowledeg; first
	   comes Quran, second is authentic Sunna, and third is Ijtehad.

This means that even if all the ulema said that Jesus is not a prophet, 
they would be wrong because Quran and Sunna contradict this opinion. This
is a rather obvious example, but the point is that simply because majority
of ulema at the moment think that Muhammad (saw) is the last prophet, it means
nothing because it contracdicts the Quran and Sunna and also many grear
ulema of the past. (See Rashid Khalkid's series on 'MUHAMMAD NOT LAST' 
which have been posted on many newsgroups.

The holy prophet has warned us of this situation clearly in sunna. He has 
spoken of the latter day ulema as the worst under the sky, even referring
to them as dogs and swine in some traditions. He said that the 72 out
of 73 sects would go to hell and only one true jamat. Thus, the majority of
Muslims would be in error by at least 72:1. So you cannot apply the current
day Ijtehad because the Holy Prophet (saw) has defined them to be hellish.
So much for 'majority rule'!



(2) rh writes > -------------------------------------------------------


With this background in mind let us examine the issue of declaring Ahmadis
as unbeleivers (Kafirun).  The principle of the finality of the prophethood
of Muhammad (SAAWS) is as old as Islam itself.  

	       ------------------------------------------------------- <

Actually, the continuity of prophethood is as old as mankind itself. Prophets
are the means by which Allah communicates with man. This is the second
biggest theme in the Quran, after the theme of Allah Himself. It is only
natural to expect prophethood to continue.



(3) rh writes > -------------------------------------------------------


						Immediately following the 
death of the beloved Prophet (SAAWS), the fledgling Muslim Community faced 
as new threat:  Musaylama, a powerful tribal leader who had declared that he
was a prophet, was dreaming of becoming a successor to Muhammad (SAAWS).  
The Muslim community acted instananeously, preparing for war against the 
imposter.  The Muslims agreed that whosoever denied the finality of 
prophethood of Muhammad (SAAWS), as was declared in the Qur'an was not a Muslim:

           "Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is
            the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets (Khatamun-
            Nabiyyeen); and Allah is Aware of all things."
                                                  Al-Ahzab, Qur'an(33:40)

There was no disagreement about the interpretation of the verses, nor was 
there any dissent about declaring all those non-Muslims who denied the
finality of his(SAAWS) prophethood!


		 ----------------------------------------------------- <


This is a very sweeping statement. The verse of Khataman-nabeen was never
used by anyone at the time, not even the Holy Prophet himself while he
was alive, to show the untruthfulness of Musaylma. These two facts are in
themselves interesting.

What rh has stated is the standard superficial knowledege that present day
Muslims churn out routinely. They rely on the fact that most people do 
not know the detailed history of this period, and therefore they can
sweep important details under the carpet. It is only when we look analytically
at the sequence of events here that the truth emerges which if anything
supports the Ahmadiyya point of view:

In the final days of the Holy Prophet (saw), a certain Musalma who was a
tribal leader in the South, in the direction of The Yemen. He fancied his
chances and seeing the rise of Islam he decided to 'strike a deal' with the
Holy Prophet. In a letter he wrote 'From Muslama the prophet of the south,
to Muhammad of the North ..' and offered to divide Arabia between the two.
The Holy Prophet replied beginning with the words 'Fom Muhammad the Messenger
of Allah, to Muslama the liar ..'. 

The really crucial point is that, contrary to the superficial knowledge
of modern day Muslims, the Holy Prophet (saw) DIDN'T send an army to 
kill Musalma. In this letter he only said that Muslama wa a liar and Muslims
would have nothing to do with him. No mention was made of Last of the 
Prophets, as rh has incorerectly suggested.

The Holy Prophet (saw) died shrotly after, and within days news came to the
first Khalifa, Abu Bakr, that Muslama had raised an army and was killing 
Muslims after he had received the Holy Prophet's letter. I was only then that
Hazrat Abu Bakr immediately despatched an army to suppress the rebelion. 
Musalama was killed in the clashes. 

Thus it is clear that Musalama was killed because of rebellion and treason
against the state, not because of his claim to prophethood. Throughout this
whole episode, I do not know of any reference to the so-called Last-of-the-
prophets concept in order to oppose Muslama. This hints, indirectly, to the
fact that the Last-Prophet concept was not current at all among the immediate
sahaba.



(4) rh writes > -------------------------------------------------------


        This was not the only time war was raged for Apostacy in the early
history of the Khilafa(t).  A tribe of Muslims refused to pay Zakat, declaring
that they would do everything that Islam required except pay Zakat!  Abu 
Bakr, who was the Khalifa, wanted to settle matters peacefully but all of 
the Companions (RAA) adviced him to wage war against these people, since Zakat
is as obligitory on Muslims as is Salat!  Abu Bakr (RAA) took the advice 
of the Companions and waged war against that tribe.

		 ----------------------------------------------------- <

Actually, it was the other way round; the sahaba, including Hazrat Ummar,
advised the first Khalifa to reniege on taking Zakat for the moment. Abu
Bakr was the one who insisted upon taking a waring party to extract zakat.

But what has this got to do with prophethood? This is an ordinary example of
punishment for tax ovation, which is punishable in any system, Islamic
or non-Islamic. You do not declare some as non-Muslim for not paying zakat --
this would clear a latge majority of present day Muslims! I am not aware 
that this particular tribe was declared murtad. In fact, they couldn.t be,
because zakat is only taken from Muslims, aand the act of forcibly taking
zakat is by definition keeping them as Muslims.




	------------------------------------------------------------
	------------------------------------------------------------



End of Part two.

Nadeem Ahmad Malik.
ETH Zurich.
SWitzerland.