Ahmadi Eclipses: A Problem
John Bromberek
Aside from the present discussion, this controversy has been going
for a long time, and I am having difficulty keeping track of the
current players. I am also having trouble discerning what a literal
translation of the hadith around which the discussion is centered
would look like. Usually what is purported to be translation looks a
lot more like interpretation--the substitution of wording in accord
with the translator's preconceived notions, rather than a simple
rendering into English of the Arabic(?) original.
I will first quote from three of the previous posters, and will
then attempt to explain what appears to me to be a very serious flaw
in the Ahmadi presentation; and which, if it is correct, would seem to
indicate that the hadith is either not genuine, or is being seriously
misinterpreted. Those familiar with the details of the controversy
may wish to zoom past the quotations.
In soc.religion.islam, ra...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Anwar Rafiq) wrote:
> Hazrat Ali bin Umar Albaghdadi AdDarqutani, an eminent authority on
> Hadith, who lived from 918 to 995 of Christian Era (306 to 385 Hijri), had
> recorded the following Hadees narrated by Hazrat Imam Baqar Muhammad bin Ali,
> son of Hazrat Imam Zainul Abedeen (may Allah have mercy on them):
> "For our Mahdi there are two Signs which have never appeared before
> since the creation of the heavens and the earth, namely, the moon will be
> eclipsed on the first night in Ramadhan (i.e., on the first of the nights on
> which a lunar eclipse can occur) and the sun will be eclipsed on the middle
> day of Ramadhan (i.e., on the middle one of the days on which a solar eclipse
> can occur) and these Signs have not appeared since God created the heavens and
> the earth"
Farhan Siddiqui wrote:
> It happened during Ramadhan-ul-Mubarak in the year 1311 Hijri that lunar
> eclipse occurred on the 13th and solar eclipse on the 28th. Both eclipses
> chanced to fall during the same month. Mirza announced this phenomena as a
> proof of his 'Mahdviat'. He declared that this supernatural abnormality
> was a special sign for his sake only and which had never occurred before
> during lifetime of any other claimant to Mahdviat, Masihiat or
> Prophethood.
> In Magazine, 'Anwar-ul-Islam' (p. 47) Mirza wrote:
> "Since the times that this world was created never did lunar and solar
> eclipses get together during the times of any claimant of Prophethood/
> Messengership/ Muhaddathiat. If somebody says they have conjoined then
> burden of proof lies on him".
> "It never happened and certainly never happened from the start of the
> world till today that lunar and solar eclipses conjoined in this manner in
> Ramadhan and that some claimant to Prophethood, Therefore Allah, the
> Exalted, made him write out this challenge:
In soc.religion.islam, abdul...@worldnet.att.net (AbdulraHman
Lomax) wrote
> I have noticed that translations of this hadith by Ahmadis typically
> (but not always) subtly shift the wording in a way which makes their
> gloss (which turns the meaning upside down) seem more reasonable. The
> point that stands out most clearly is that the first eclipse is on the
> first night of Ramadan, and the second is in the middle "of it"...
.....snip snip
> ...the simplest reading is that the reference to a lunar eclipse
> at the beginning of the month and a solar eclipse in the middle is a
> metaphor for everything being out-of-whack.
My impression is that, if there is anything to the hadith, Mr.
Lomax's approach to it is likely to be the more fruitful of the two
presented here.
Those who have attempted to refute the claims made by Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad have tried to show that others have claimed to be a prophet or
the Mahdi during other periods when similar eclipses have occurred.
However, they have not gone to the pains of showing that these
previous (and subsequent) eclipses have happened on the precise days
that the Ahmadi's say they needed to occur. Such a proof is very
nearly impossible anyway, since, as in the case of the claim of Ahmad,
the occurrence may only be the result of the first day of the month of
Ramadan having been delayed due to cloud cover (or some other optical
obstruction) at the observer's location on what would otherwise have
been the first day of the month; and there may be no records of anyone
having observed the crescent Moon during the month or at the location
for which one is attempting to make a case.
My knowledge of this is not especially extensive, but every case
which I have seen of a purported claimant-eclipse-pairing has looked
only at cases after 622 AD. But, the Ahmadi translations and
commentaries all seem to say that this sign has not occurred for
anyone "since the creation of the heavens and the earth".
Well, I was playing with the computer a couple nights ago, and,
prompted by this most recent outbreak of eclipse discussions, decided
to look at the eclipse pairs during the lifetime of Muhammad--using
several astronomy programs. What I found was quite interesting.
It appears that precisely the timing of eclipses required by the
Ahmadi interpretation did happen in Mecca during the month of Ramadan
in 613 AD.
Now, there is some controversy, it seems, over whether the hadith
quoted above was from Muhammad, or from one of the Imam's. In any
case, if what I have found (detailed below) is correct, then the
Ahamdi interpretation requires us to believe that Muhammad (or the
Imam) knew what was going to happen at the appearance of the Mahdi,
but that they were unaware of what had happened during Muhammad's own
lifetime. And, therein lies a bit of a problem.
So, for the details:
It is believed that Muhammad received His first revelation during
the month of Ramadan in the year 610 AD. For about three years He
told only His closest family and friends of the revelations He was
receiving. After about three years He began His public proclamation
of Islam to the Meccans. When, precisely, this new phase began does
not seem to be recorded. Anyway, it was at Ramadan in 613 AD that the
abovementioned eclipses took place.
Ramadan, 613, according to conventional calendrical calculations,
should have commenced on June 25th, however, these conventional dates
are often wrong. The new Moon was on June 23rd, at 20:31 Universal
Time (UT). In Mecca, on June 24th, the Sun set at 16:04 UT, and the
Moon, which was only 1% illuminated and 8 degrees above the horizon at
sunset, set at 16:46 UT.
By coincidence (only one of several), the aspects of the Sun and
Moon in the sky over Mecca
at the beginning of Ramadan, 613 AD, were almost identical to those
there this very month at the beginning of Muharram. On May 7th, 1997,
at sunset in Mecca (15:48 UT), the Moon was 8 degrees above the
horizon and 1% illuminated, and the Moon set at 16:29 UT. Unless I am
mistaken, no one was able to see the Moon in Mecca that night--It was
spotted at some places in Africa, but not in the Middle East. So, in
Mecca, this year, May 9th was the first day of Muharram.
Therefore, given the same condition in June, 613, it seems highly
probable that Ramadan would have had to begin on June 26th, instead of
June 25th.
A penumbral lunar eclipse, visible in Mecca, commenced on July 7th,
613 AD, at 17:14 UT, one hour and ten minutes after sunset in
Mecca--which, by the above reasoning, and being after sunset, would
have coincided with the 13th day of Ramadan. Maximum eclipse was at
18:54 UT.
A total solar eclipse, also visible in Mecca, occurred on July
23rd, 613 AD. Maximum eclipse
was at 5:21 UT--at Mecca, the maximum eclipse was only about 93%.
July 23rd would have been the 28th day of Ramadan.
Another cute coincidence that sprang up when observing this
occurrence was that the time halfway between the maxima of these two
eclipses falls on July 15th, 613 AD at about 12:08 UT. Just two hours
and 44 minutes earlier than this midpoint, the Sun was precisely over
the center of Mecca. This is something which happens twice a year at
solar noon when the Sun's declination is equal to the latitude of
Mecca.
To add further to this coincidence, many years later, when the
Islamic calendar was codified, the beginning point was taken as 1
Muharram in 622 AD, which commenced at sunset on July 15th, 622
(exactly nine solar years after the 613 AD midpoint) and the Sun had
stood directly over Mecca at solar noon on that day, too.
Bye for now,
John Bromberek Jo...@intellinet.com
Mechanical Engineer
Fayetteville, Arkansas
AbdulraHman Lomax
as-salamu 'alaykum.
jo...@intellinet.com (John Bromberek) wrote:
> My knowledge of this is not especially extensive, but every case
>which I have seen of a purported claimant-eclipse-pairing has looked
>only at cases after 622 AD. But, the Ahmadi translations and
>commentaries all seem to say that this sign has not occurred for
>anyone "since the creation of the heavens and the earth".
However, some of the Ahmadis, include Ahmad himself, seem to be aware
of the problem, since Ahmad was careful to gloss that the
non-occurrence of the sign really means non-occurrence in the presence
of a claimant. But this only adds to the ways in which the meaning of
the hadith has been stretched so that words come to mean the opposite
of their primary meaning.
> Well, I was playing with the computer a couple nights ago, and,
>prompted by this most recent outbreak of eclipse discussions, decided
>to look at the eclipse pairs during the lifetime of Muhammad--using
>several astronomy programs. What I found was quite interesting.
> It appears that precisely the timing of eclipses required by the
>Ahmadi interpretation did happen in Mecca during the month of Ramadan
>in 613 AD.
Yes, this is very interesting. I thought of doing this myself, but
never got around to it.
> Now, there is some controversy, it seems, over whether the hadith
>quoted above was from Muhammad, or from one of the Imam's. In any
>case, if what I have found (detailed below) is correct, then the
>Ahamdi interpretation requires us to believe that Muhammad (or the
>Imam) knew what was going to happen at the appearance of the Mahdi,
>but that they were unaware of what had happened during Muhammad's own
>lifetime. And, therein lies a bit of a problem.
Just a teeny-weeny one....
Mr Bromberek does establish, if his reports are correct, a very good
position that the eclipses as described did, in fact, occur in the
time of our Prophet, SAS. And while it is possible to argue that the
meaning was that they would occur "in connection with a claimant," it
nevertheless raises a strong implication that either (1) the source of
the hadith did not know about those eclipses, or (2) the references in
the hadith are not to the events described in the Ahmadi way; i.e.,
the first of the month means the first of the month, and the middle of
it means the middle of the month.
Suppose I was going to send a messenger to you, and I told you, "the
man will be wearing red shoes." No problem. Most people, at least not
around here, do not wear read shoes, but I just saw such a man the
other day, the host of West Coast Live. Now, the simple fact that a
person was wearing red shoes would not prove that he was the
messenger, but if a man knocked on my door, said he was my messenger,
and he was wearing red shoes, you might well presume, in the absence
of other evidence, that he was, in fact, my messenger, and the red
shoes would be a sign.
But if I added to my instructions, "and no one has worn red shoes
since the beginning of creation," you would think I was crazy if, at
that moment, there was a man visible to both of us wearing red shoes.
On the other hand, if what I had said was truly something which has
never occurred at all, especially if it were something ordinarily
considered impossible, then there would not be such a man, and when
the event happened as described, you would know to expect the
messenger.
This is why Mr. Bromberek's objection is very powerful indeed.
And an eclipse of the moon on the first of Ramadan and an eclipse of
the sun in the middle of it certainly appears, at first sight,
impossible, and this would be plain to the source of the hadith and to
anyone with a modicum of knowledge about eclipses and the setting of
Islamic months, at least as long as the time of one lunation is 29.5
days and the month is no longer than 30 days and is set by sighting of
the moon or is otherwise similarly tied to lunar position.
But it is not intrinsically impossible that one of these conditions
would change. There might be some substantial body orbiting somewhere
in the Oort cloud which might, even in the relatively near future,
pass near enough to the earth-moon system to alter the orbit of the
moon sufficiently to nudge the period to, say, 31 days. If we kept the
month at 30 days (which would be an arguable position), then sighting
the moon would be no longer relevant to the timing of Ramadan, and
within about 15 months, one could have eclipses like those described.
And I have elsewhere described how the known lengthening of the lunar
orbital period would eventually lead to a similar result.
I do not believe in absolute proofs, especially in matters like this.
But I have no doubt where the preponderance of the evidence lies.
AbdulraHman Lomax
abdul...@worldnet.att.net
P.O. Box 10316
San Rafael, CA 94912
Virk Shakeel
John Bromberek (jo...@intellinet.com) wrote:
: Those who have attempted to refute the claims made by Mirza Ghulam
: Ahmad have tried to show that others have claimed to be a prophet or
: the Mahdi during other periods when similar eclipses have occurred.
: However, they have not gone to the pains of showing that these
: previous (and subsequent) eclipses have happened on the precise days
: that the Ahmadi's say they needed to occur. Such a proof is very
: nearly impossible anyway, since, as in the case of the claim of Ahmad,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Assalam,
The case of Hazrat Ahmad is very very unique. The events which occured
in his favour have never occured since the creation of the heavens and the
earth.
The sighting of the eclipses where reported in the contemporary Indian
press, eg., Azad the Civil and Military Gazette of Lahore, the Pioneer of
Allahabad etc. The details of these eclipses can readily be confirmed
from Oppolzer's Cannon of Eclipses (New York, 1962) and Nautical Almanac,
(London, 1984).
Note that these are not Ahmadi Muslim sources that you can verify the
occurance of the eclipses from.
I will repeat some features about the eclipses:
1) The two eclipses occured as described in the prophecy, when a person
wh had already claimed to be Mahdi existed, and when these signs
appeared, he invoked these heavenly sings in his support.
2) Both the eclipses were specific to the same month of Ramadhan of the
same year.
3) Both eclipses occured on the precise dates of the said month, as
specified in the prophecy.
4) The entire prophecy was fulfilled twice ie. once for the eastern
hemisphere, in 1894 A.D., and the next year for the western hemisphere.
5) It is fascinating to note that when these eclipses were repeated for
the western hemisphere the next year, that although they were not visible
from Qadian, the dates in Qadian were still the same, ie. the 13th and
28th of Ramadhan!
6) The months of the Islamic Calendar begin with the actual sighting of
the new moon, which may vary from place to place. A standard location is
therefore necessary for ascertainig the dates involved in the prophecy.
It is most remarkable that Qadian proved to be the unique standard, for
both hemispheres of the earth. This was so because Hazrat Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad, who claimed to be the Mahdi, and for whose benefit the prophecy
was intended, lived in Qadian.
7) This prophecy was fulfilled not only with respect to the dates but
also the time on which these eclipses occured. Because the lunar eclipse
occured not just on the first of the possible nights but also quite early
in the first part of that night (between 7:00 pm and 9:30 pm, Calcutta
Standard Time) and the solar eclipse occured not only on the middle day
of the three possible days but also near the mid part of the day (between
9:00 am and 11:00 am, Calcutta Standard time)
8) To add to the already noted unusual features of these eclipses, a
further element of rarity was provided, in the context of the solar
eclipse, by the fact that it belonged to the most uncommonly observed
type of solar eclipses the Annular Total type.
Thank you.
Shakeel Virk
Audil Virk
AbdulraHman Lomax wrote:
As-Salamo Alaikum,
> However, some of the Ahmadis, include Ahmad himself, seem to be aware
> of the problem, since Ahmad was careful to gloss that the
> non-occurrence of the sign really means non-occurrence in the presence
> of a claimant. But this only adds to the ways in which the meaning of
> the hadith has been stretched so that words come to mean the opposite
> of their primary meaning.
Mr.Lomax seems to completley fail in understanding the Ahmadi Muslim
view point.
The hadith states that there will be an eclipse on the first of the
month of Ramadhan and a lunar eclipse in the middle of it.
Now Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claims to be the Mahdi and Promised
Messiah and states that the meaning of the hadith is that on the first
and middle of the possible days that a lunar and solar eclipse can
ocurr, respectivley.
By "possible days that the eclipses can ocurr", it is meant the
established astronomical laws of the movement of celestial bodies.
This is also supported by the hadith which uses the wording "Qamar" and
not "Hilal".
Qamar is the moon after the first 3 days, and Hilal is the moon before.
If this is the correct understanding of the hadith then we can say that
this sign found fulfillment for Hazrat Ahmad.
Mr.Lomax states that there are other possibilites where the moon could
eclipse on the first day of Ramadan.
Fine, I can accept that, but we must look for the most acceptable
understanding of the hadith.
I would like for Mr.Lomax to fully elaborate and explain his other
understandings of the hadith, so that all can see how realistic they
are.
Also, when there is a Mahdi claimant who gives an explanation of the
hadith and such an explanation finds fulfillment in his life time, and
the timing of eclipses is certainly beyond his control, this coupled
with the fact that this Mahdi claimant has shook the foundations of
Islam, whose death was marked by many newspapers, whose community
progresses at an alarming rate against huge persecution and lies and
distortions about their beliefs, who have set up a world wide Muslim
television system via satellite, schools, mosques etc... This Hazrat
Ahmad whose books are renowned for their intellectual excellence,
especially when confronting Christians, who has shown that Jesus did not
die on the cross, thus breaking the cross, who has also shown that Guru
Baba Nanak of the Sikh religion was a Muslim saint, all with highly
reasoned and logical arguments, then when we couple these two facts
together we are in no doubt as to the correct understanding of the
hadith.
Also, the view of Hazrat Ahmad concerning the hadith is certainly not
far-fetched and is incredibly reasonable and makes complete sense.
It is quite reasonable for the hadith to mean the first and middle of
the days in which the eclipses ocurr, infact I believe most wise people
would read the hadith this way, and not demand that an eclipse should
ocurr through some huge catastrophe or the like there of, thereby
altering the normal system of eclipses, especially when a man of Hazrat
Ahmad's position states that he is the Mahdi and the proper
understanding of the hadith is as such.
> But if I added to my instructions, "and no one has worn red shoes
> since the beginning of creation," you would think I was crazy if, at
> that moment, there was a man visible to both of us wearing red shoes.
Let us also add that the claimant says that by this is meant that no
claimant has ever worn red shoes, not that no person has ever worn red
shoes and that the likelihood of anyone wearing red shoes is beyond
their control, like that of eclipses ocurring in a certain month during
ones life time.
What are the chances that a man would claim to be the Madhi in whose
life time during the month of Ramadhan both a lunar and solar eclipse
would ocurr on the first and middle of the possible days ?
Can we say that Hazrat Ahmad, who lived in Qadian, India in the late
1800's had the power to control eclipses ?
Has there been any Madhi claimant who has show such a sign ?
> On the other hand, if what I had said was truly something which has
> never occurred at all, especially if it were something ordinarily
> considered impossible, then there would not be such a man, and when
> the event happened as described, you would know to expect the
> messenger.
This is not acceptable for if something like that ocurred then there
would be no reason to deny the Messenger.
Do not some Christians think Jesus (pbuh) is going to descend from the
clouds, and even many Muslims claim the Mahdi is also to descend in such
a manner.
This is a complete lack of understanding of the way of Allah.
Allah's Messengers present powerful signs, but there is always a back
door for the disbelievers to exit, allowing them to cling to foolishness
and Allah does not enforce his will, but there is room for choice,
clouded in doubt and ignorance, as knowledge is gained, the issue of
choice is lost.
Would a man knowingly put his hand in the mouth of a wild tiger ?
Those who think ill in the beginning do not remove their doubt and
ignorance and some even try to find faults with Allah's Signs, these do
not find the way, but those who think well push forward and it is these
who prosper.
The inner problems of these people who think ill so overwhelm their
intellect that they cling to falsehood, because over their eyes, by
their own actions they have caused by the Laws of Allah coverings to
descend over their eyes and hearts.
This can be clearly seen by all because our intellects are overwhelmed
by emotions and we react sometimes not with reason and sense, but out of
emotion sometimes in a fit of anger, love, passion etc....
The abillity to see clearly depends upon proper lighting and a proper
eye.
The abillity to see spiritual matters clearly, depends upon proper
guidance and a pure heart, not defiled with arrogance and egotism or
selfishness etc...
The greater the purity of the heart, the greater the effect of the
guidance.
Those who reject the signs of Allah have these problems which are clear
to those who do not have these problems.
That is why it is said Allah is covered by thousands of veils, these are
the veils of ones ego, the more that are removed the better ones sight
or understanding.
The purpose I write this is to invite people to the Ahmadiyya Movement
in Islam, who knows how much longer we all have to live, so make proper
decisions and think hard and long before rejecting claimants of Mahdi.
Study their books and community.
Was-Salam
Audil Virk (my opinion)
Virk Shakeel
AbdulraHman Lomax (abdul...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: as-salamu 'alaykum.
: jo...@intellinet.com (John Bromberek) wrote:
:
: However, some of the Ahmadis, include Ahmad himself, seem to be aware
: of the problem, since Ahmad was careful to gloss that the
: non-occurrence of the sign really means non-occurrence in the presence
: of a claimant. But this only adds to the ways in which the meaning of
: the hadith has been stretched so that words come to mean the opposite
: of their primary meaning.
Assalam,
Let me see if I understand Br. Lomax correctly. He's saying that it is
not part of the prophecy that someone must claim to be the Mahdi
*before* the eclipses occur in favour of the Mahdi.
He's accusing Ahmadi Muslims of adding this into the prophecy to stretch
the meaning, to give a meaning opposite of the original.
In all honesty I feel this accusation stands on no ground.
First of all if the eclipses occurs as Br. Lomax finds suitable and their
is no claimant to Mahdi, then any Tom, Dick or Harry could stand up and
say "I am the Mahdi" the sign came in my support.
Therefore someone needs to claim to be the Mahdi *before* the events
occur. Otherwise the sign, is no sign at all and can be applied to any
false claimant.
The second point which also addresses Br. Lomax's accusation is the
wording of the Hadiths itself:
"For our Mahdi there are two signs which have never appeared
before since the creation of the heavens and the earth, namely,
the moon will be eclipsed on the first in Ramadhan and the sun will
be eclipsed on the middle in Ramadhan and these signs have not
appeared since the creation of the heavens and the earth."
"For our Mahdi" implies that their will already be claimant and these
signs will occur for him, ie. "For our Mahdi".
Now even if Br. Lomax does not find these to points convincing, it still
does not follow that the "opposite" meaning is being given by Ahmadi
Muslims.
Is it really such a shock that someone must claim to be the Mahdi *before*
the eclipses occur ? And if this is understood as the meaning, is it
really stretching the words "to mean the opposite of the primary
meaning" ?
I understand that accepting the sign did in fact fulfill in favour of
Hazrat Ahmad is a difficult thing to do. It would mean that the
individual would be forced to accept Hazrat Ahmad as the Mahdi.
So I can understanding people trying to find reasons for denying that the
prophecy did not occur in favour of Hazrat Ahmad. But look carefully at
reasons for denial, in my honest opinion they appear to be petty for the
most part.
Shakeel Virk
Rashid
Virk Shakeel wrote:
> "For our Mahdi there are two signs which have never appeared
> before since the creation of the heavens and the earth, namely,
> be eclipsed on the middle in Ramadhan and these signs have not
Dear Mr Shakeel Virk and Audil Virk
WOuld you kindly enlighten me and others, how did this Lunar Eclipse
took
place in the first of Ramadhan and the Solar eclipse in the middle of
Ramadhan as the above Hadith clearly points out?
And please avoid any interpolations in the wordings of original Hadiths
:)
> Shakeel Virk
Rashid
--
[Verily in the Remembrance of Allah do hearts find Peace.(alQuran)]
AbdulraHman Lomax
as-salamu 'alaykum.
Audil Virk <au...@widow.aracnet.net> wrote:
>Mr.Lomax seems to completley fail in understanding the Ahmadi Muslim
>view point.
"And they will not be happy with you until you follow their way."
Allah knows best who has failed and who has understood.
>The hadith states that there will be an eclipse on the first of the
>month of Ramadhan and a lunar eclipse in the middle of it.
Got it. By the way, this hadith is not considered strong. But we are
setting that aside.
>Now Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claims to be the Mahdi and Promised
>Messiah and states that the meaning of the hadith is that on the first
>and middle of the possible days that a lunar and solar eclipse can
>ocurr, respectivley.
Yes, that is what I understand he said.
>By "possible days that the eclipses can ocurr", it is meant the
>established astronomical laws of the movement of celestial bodies.
And now we can disagree. There is no "astronomical" law which
establishes that a lunar eclipse cannot occur at the beginning of
Ramadan. I have explained this patiently, over and over, but Audil
does not acknowledge the argument. Perhaps he does not understand it.
Eclipses occur in two situations: when a object passes between us and
another object, or when an object passes between us and the
illumination of the object. Normally, a lunar eclipse occurs when the
moon passes through the shadow of the earth, and a solar eclipse when
the moon passes between us and the sun. The month, on the other hand,
is determined by the sighting of the new crescent moon, after
conjunction, or, if the moon is not sighted, by the passage of thirty
days of the previous month.
Now, an eclipse might occur because of the interposition of a body
other than the earth or the moon. There is no law which says that this
is impossible; rather it is quite possible. But such bodies are very
unusual, so such events would be *very* rare. But *very rare* is not
the same as "impossible," and we are warned in the hadith that the
sign, whatever it means, is certainly very rare, so rare that it never
before happened since the creation of the heavens and the earth.
>This is also supported by the hadith which uses the wording "Qamar" and
>not "Hilal".
>Qamar is the moon after the first 3 days, and Hilal is the moon before.
This is pure misdirection. Hilal refers to the crescent moon. If the
moon is eclipsed in the normal fashion, it is inherently Qamar. Audil
is assuming that a moon at the beginning of Ramadan would necessarily
be Hilal. But if the event described is not normal, no such assumption
can be made. I have described how any of several different scenarios
would result in a lengthening of the month beyond thirty days, and, by
the rules of the determining of months, this would eventually result
in the sign described. And the eclipse of the moon would be an
eclipse, as usual, of the full moon.
>If this is the correct understanding of the hadith then we can say that
>this sign found fulfillment for Hazrat Ahmad.
That is, of course, circular, since Ahmad designed the interpretation
to refer to himself. Now, if that interpretation had been known prior
to him, or if it were not such an inversion of the plain meaning of
the hadith, then we could be more confident that he was correct.
>Mr.Lomax states that there are other possibilites where the moon could
>eclipse on the first day of Ramadan.
>Fine, I can accept that, but we must look for the most acceptable
>understanding of the hadith.
Not in this case. The argument was made that the direct meaning of the
words in the hadith was *impossible*. But that direct meaning is not
impossible, it is merely unlikely, rare if you will. And the hadith
warns that the true understanding will be something that has never
before occurred.
Audil *must* argue against what I have written because he is a devoted
follower of Ahmed, and he knows that Ahmed himself argued for his
interpretation of the hadith, so that interpretation *must* be right.
So I am well enough convinced that nothing I say will suffice for him.
So I am not writing for him.
>I would like for Mr.Lomax to fully elaborate and explain his other
>understandings of the hadith, so that all can see how realistic they
>are.
I've done it several times.
Some event, which may merely be the passage of time, causes the month
to lengthen beyond thirty days. The result of that would be, in fairly
short order, the kind of eclipses described in the hadith. The month
is lengthening now, but very slowly, I am given to understand. It
would take a long time to exceed thirty days. But we do not know when
the Mahdi will come; it is not impossible that it will be a long time.
But if we think that it must happen sooner, then the orbital period
could lengthen because of some other perturbation. It might be a
celestial body with an eccentric orbit; I mentioned that possibility
in another post. All that it would need to do is nudge the orbit by
less than two percent; it is quite possible, I would expect, that such
an event could take place without more than your usual apocalyptic
events; in fact it *might* be possible without more than a little
tidal fluctuation.
And the moon could be eclipsed by some other body than the Earth, and
likewise the sun. And it could be the same body. In this case the
argument about Qamar would have some weight.
My comments establishing that there were more than three possible days
for the lunar eclipse were ignored, and this matter is crucial in
establishing what is the "middle" of the three possible days.
What happened with this set of eclipses is that Ahmad found a way to
fit the circumstances of his life with the hadith. In order to do that
he had to make certain assumptions. Those assumptions were false. It
is not impossible for the hadith to find direct and literal
fulfilment, even though it has never happened. And it is not
impossible for the moon to be eclipsed on, say, the 12th of the month,
as long as the month is determined by sighting and not by calculation.
And if it is determined by calculation, I think there are only two
possible days, not three, which also undercuts Ahmad's argument.
No, the plain meaning of the hadith is that a sign of the Mahdi will
be that the eclipse of the moon will occur at the first of the month
of fasting, and that the sun will be eclipsed in the middle of it, and
that this has never before happened. Normally, we would think that a
lunar eclipse at the beginning was impossible, so we might be forced
to think of some other interpretation -- such as that proposed by
Ahmad -- but the "never before happened" phrase mollifies that
concern.
If this hadith was intended to refer to Ahmad, it was *highly*
misleading, designed to mislead. I think that even the most hardened
Ahmadi would acknowledge that if the hadith were read in the absence
of Ahmad's claim regarding it, the gloss "of the possible days" would
not spring to mind....
Fortunately, identification of the Mahdi is not a critical task for a
believer. Error in that identification is not a sin. I have elsewhere
argued that Christians are not necessarily doomed to hell merely
because they follow Jesus, AS. We may continue to follow our Prophet,
Muhammad, SAS, even when the Mahdi comes.
The Mahdi will not bring a new book, nor will he bring a new law. He
comes to fulfill certain tasks.
As with *any righteous person*, if he warns us or reminds us of the
truth, and we turn from it, we are responsible, so we need to be
careful about the truth. And that is all.
John Bromberek
John Bromberek (jo...@intellinet.com) wrote:
: Such a proof is very
: nearly impossible anyway, since, as in the case of the claim of Ahmad,
: the occurrence may only be the result of the first day of the month of
: Ramadan having been delayed due to cloud cover (or some other optical
: obstruction) at the observer's location on what would otherwise have
: been the first day of the month; and there may be no records of anyone
: having observed the crescent Moon during the month or at the location
: for which one is attempting to make a case.
3s...@qlink.queensu.ca (Virk Shakeel) wrote:
> The case of Hazrat Ahmad is very very unique. The events which occured
> in his favour have never occured since the creation of the heavens and the
> earth.
>
> The sighting of the eclipses where reported in the contemporary Indian
> press, eg., Azad the Civil and Military Gazette of Lahore, the Pioneer of
> Allahabad etc. The details of these eclipses can readily be confirmed
> from Oppolzer's Cannon of Eclipses (New York, 1962) and Nautical Almanac,
> (London, 1984).
Greetings Mr. Virk,
My apologies for having included the case of the Ahmadi eclipses
as possibly falling into the category of those instances in which
the happening was dependent upon the Moon being obscured by clouds
on what would otherwise have been the first day of the month. That
was an old determination of mine which I made about three years ago
before I knew more about the difficulty of spotting the crescent
Moon. I should have gone back and checked this specific case
before including that phrase in my posting.
Having now checked the circumstances of the beginning of Ramadan
in Qadian in March, 1894, I am now fairly convinced that no unusual
cloud cover would have been needed to make the sighting impossible
after sunset on March 8th. The Moon was only a bit more than 9
degrees above the horizon at sunset that night, it's disc a little
more than 1% illuminated, and it set about 49 minutes after the
Sun.
This indicates that it would only have been slightly easier to
spot the crescent on that night than it would have been in Mecca on
June 24th, 613 AD preceding the eclipse pair which I spoke of as
providing exactly the same situation as those in 1894. This would,
indeed, have shifted the beginning date of the month to March 10th,
1894, which would make March 22nd equal to 13 Ramadan, and April
6th equal to 28 Ramadan.
However, I can't help but remark that both you and Audil Virk,
in your further comments to me and Mr. Lomax, have both ignored the
question of these eclipses visible in Mecca during Ramadan 613 AD.
While I realize that not everyone has ready access to reliable
astronomy programs on their own computer the responses appear to me
to be evasive and an attempt to divert the discussion to more
traditional objections to the Ahmadi eclipses.
Perhaps you will be able to find someone who can check the
information which I provided and confirm or disprove that these
613 AD eclipses happened. If they did so happen, then we are being
presented with a dilemma: in order to accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, it
would be necessary to deny Muhammad. I'm pretty sure that this is
not what Mirza Ahmad had in mind.
John B.
Rashid
Audil Virk wrote:
>
> AbdulraHman Lomax wrote:
Dear Mr Virk
Sorry to barge into your arguments, but i thought I must put the facts
straight.
> This is also supported by the hadith which uses the wording "Qamar" and
> not "Hilal".
> Qamar is the moon after the first 3 days, and Hilal is the moon before.
This is a wrong understanding. See Quran 36:39 where it is describing
the
stages of moon and says: 'And the moon (Qamar). We have measured for it
mansions,
till it returns like the old dried curved date stalk.'
The old dried date stalk is of course the hilal which Audil has
mentioned above,
but we see here that Holy Quran has used the word Qamar for all its
stages.
> If this is the correct understanding of the hadith then we can say that
> this sign found fulfillment for Hazrat Ahmad.
> What are the chances that a man would claim to be the Madhi in whose
> life time during the month of Ramadhan both a lunar and solar eclipse
> would ocurr on the first and middle of the possible days ?
> Can we say that Hazrat Ahmad, who lived in Qadian, India in the late
> 1800's had the power to control eclipses ?
> Has there been any Madhi claimant who has show such a sign ?
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad said in his book:
"Thus the meaning of prophecy is that THIS SIGN HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO
ANY
OTHER CLAIMANT WHETHER TRUE OR FALSE. It has only been given to the
Promised
Mahdi. If these cruel Molvis can prove such lunar and solar eclipse in
the
period of any claimant then I WILL NO DOUBT BECOME A LIAR."
(Roohani Khazain vol 11 p.332)
Just these examples would be sufficient:
Mirza Ali Baab was a claimant of Mahdihood and in his time there was a
same
type of combined eclipse in the Ramadhan of 1851. While Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad
had claimed Mahdihood/Messiahhood/prophethood in India, two successors
of
Baab, Subhe Azal and Bahaullah, had claimed Mahdihood in Iran one after
the
other.
Another claimant was Dr Alexander Dowie in USA during the time of Mirza
Ghulam Ahmad.
Even if they were false claimants, would Virk like to tell us what is
the position of
mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani in the light of his own saying which I have
quoted above.
For your kind information, until 1891 Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had denied the
coming of Mahdi until the twin eclipses in Ramadhan. He said:
"All such Hadith concerning the coming of Mahdi are not at all reliable
and authentic." (Haqeeqatul Mahdi, Roohani Khazain vol.14 p.429)
"Researchers do not consider that the coming of Mahdi is definite."
(Izala Auham, Roohani Khazain vol 3 p.344)
There reason for such a stand was that the Benevolent British Government
who
was behind the prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had suffered at the
hands
of a Mahdi in Sudan. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad being a stooge of Britishers
wanted
Indian Muslims to give up their waiting for the Mahdi who would
ultimately
fill the world with Justice and correct all the wrongs done to the
Muslims.
However as soon as double eclipse took place, Mirza Ghulam took an about
turn
without giving a thought about what he had been writing all along.
However he had tough time pacifying His Masters about his intentions:
"And Now I inform MY BENEVOLENT GOVERNMENT that Promised Messiah who is
guided
by God and who is following the manners of Jesus is ME....and I
absolutely deny
that Messiah will descend from Heavens for Islamic wars and someone by
the name
of Mahdi who will be from Bani Fathima and will be a ruler and both will
start war,
God has revealed to me that this is not true......Mohammed Hussein
Batalvi's
attempt to make me resemble MAHDI SUDANI is an obvious deception, since
I AM NEITHER BELIEVER IN JEHAD, NOR A BELIEVER OF SUCH MAHDI OR AWAITING
THE COMING OF SUCH A MESSIAH WHO WILL DO JEHAD......Her Majesty's
Government
is itself very clever and will not be decieved by such frauds....Thank
God
that he protected me from such activities."
(Roohani Khazain vol.14 p.436 dated 21st Feb 1899)
> This is not acceptable for if something like that ocurred then there
> would be no reason to deny the Messenger.
> Do not some Christians think Jesus (pbuh) is going to descend from the
> clouds, and even many Muslims claim the Mahdi is also to descend in such
> a manner.
Please Mr Virk! Stop decieving people in the name of Islam.
ALL MUSLIMS BELIEVE THAT HAZRAT EISA IBNE MARYAM (JESUS CHRIST) WILL
DESCEND FROM HEAVENS AND NOT IMAM MAHDI as you are saying.
> The purpose I write this is to invite people to the Ahmadiyya Movement
> in Islam, who knows how much longer we all have to live, so make proper
> decisions and think hard and long before rejecting claimants of Mahdi.
> Study their books and community.
Which Mahdi do you want us to believe in Mr Virk? Mirza Ghulam Ahmad?
I am sorry to say that he himself was not convinced that he was THE TRUE
MAHDI.
Shall I prove it to you?
>
> Was-Salam
> Audil Virk (my opinion)
Thankyou and Peace be to those who follow the right path,
mohammed
Peace be on you!
Mr John Bromberek makes a important observation that the Lunar/Solar
Eclipses
of 1894 (popularly known as the 'Ahmadi Eclipses')is really repeatable.
True!
They are being repeated almost exactly over a period of time. In
astronomy,
it is well known that every 19 years the eclipses are repeated in exact
order
and this cycle is known as 'saros'. So, in 1894, the lunar/solar
eclipses
which were visible over *Qadian* in a particular order and in the
following
year (in 1895), as the sun, the moon and the earth were still in
somewhat
straight line and the elipses were repeated over 'the western
hemisphere'
nearly "ten and a half hours" ahead of the meridian of Qadian. Thus, the
occurance of the eclipses of 1895 is the proof that the 'phenomenon' is
repaatable!
Some fifty over 'saroses' later, this time difference (i.e., the 2 1/2
hours)
for repeating the exact order of eclipses over Qadian will narrow down
to
few minutes! That means, the 9th century Qadian must have witnessed the
same
order of elipses! (It is difficult for me now to give the exact figures
as
I have lost my calculations a couple of years ago.) It was also noticed
that
at the time of Darqutni, there could be such a set of eclipses. Darqutni
was
said to be a well known mathematician and astronomer of his time in
addition
to being a 'hadith vendor'.
So, there is no meaning in checking the hadith for this matter, because
the acceptability of hadith by Quran must be established first. In verse
45:6
Quran defines the 'believable hadith': "These are the aayaat (Signs) of
Allah
recited to you WITH TRUTH; then IN WHICH HADITH AFTER ALLAH AND HIS
AAYAAT
do they believe?" Thus, the BELIEVABLE HADITH should be:
(1) The Hadith which are THE TRUTH (al-Haq);
(2) The Hadith given by those who are BETTER THAN ALLAH; and
(3) The Hadith that are BETTER THAN THE AAYAAT OF ALLAH.
There are NO SUCH HADITH. The best known hadith falls into the category
of
"Sahih" only and NOT AL=HAQ. NEITHER Prophet Muhammad NOR the reporters
or
narrators of hadith NOR the collectors of hadith are BETTER THAN ALLAH.
So, we have to check Quran in order to find out WHAT THE CREATOR SAYS
ABOUT THE
SUBJECT IN QUESTION! Only what God says matters! His creatures have no
say over
His pronouncements!!
Quran says:
(1) Allah created the heavens and the earth and brought into being
darkness
and light (6:1), He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth and
Creator
of everything (6:101-102);
(2) Allah created the heavens and the earth in six periods, then He
settled
Himself firmly on the Throne; He makes the night cover the day, which it
pursues
swifly, and (He created) the sun and the moon and the stars and made
subservient
by His command and His is the creation and the command (7:54), Allah
created the
heavens and the earth with truth; He makes the night cover the day, and
He makes
the day cover the night, and He has pressed the sun and the moon into
service;
each pursues (its) course until an appointed time (39:5); Allah created
the
heavens and the earth in accordance with truth and for a fixed term
(30:8 & 46:3);
(3) Verily, in the alternation of night and day, and in all that Allah
has
created in the heavens and the earth there are Signs for a God fearing
people
(10:6); And He created the heavens and the earth in six periods - and
His throne
on water - the He might try you which of you is best in conduct (11:7);
Allah
created the heavens and the earth with truth so that every soul may be
requited
for that which it earns and they shall not be wronged (45:22);
(4) God created the heavens and the earth and all tbat between the two
not
in sport (21:16; & 44:38), God created the heavens and the earth and all
tbat
between them in vain (38:27);
(5) To Him belongs the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth (25:2),
Allah
is the creator of all things and He is the Guardian over all thins; to
Him
belong the keys of the heavens and the earth (39:62-63);
(6) Allah created the heavens and the earth in accordance with truth,
in that surely, is a Sign for the believers (29:44), His Signs are the
night
and the day and the sun and the moon (41:37).
Thus, God informs us that He created all the universe including the sun,
the
moon, the earth and all in between them for a specific reason: to serve
as
signs for the god fearing believer; to test us and determine who are the
best among us, etc. AND HE ALSO INFORMS US THAT THE NIGHT AND THE DAY
AND
THE SUN AND THE MOON ARE HIS SIGNS!
Now, we know that the solar/lunar eclipses happen when the sun, the moon
and the earth are in a straight line and when the moor or earth blocks
the
sunlight and causes its shadow to follow on the other body. In other
words,
the eclipses are the result of the relative positions of these three
heavenly
bodies when they happen to be in a straight line during the course of
their
rotations and revolutions!
WHO ELSE OTHER THAN THE BLASPHEMOUS OF THE SUPREME ORDER WILL CLAIM AS
HIS OWN
SIGN WHAT ALLAH THE ALMIGHTY CREATOR HAD CREATED AND WILLED TO BE HIS
SIGNS
brad
Salaam
To all those (especially Ahmadis), I advise you to consider the theory
of Ahmadi beleif concerning Messiahinism since it seems to contradict
many Islamic items.
The concept of Messiahism in Islam has been misunderstood, not just by
Ahmadis but by many Muslims:
> >Now Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claims to be the Mahdi **and** Promised
> >Messiah and states that the meaning of the hadith is that on the first
> >and middle of the possible days that a lunar and solar eclipse can
> >ocurr, respectivley.
Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be:
1) the Messiah (Masih)
2) the Mahdi
These two people are completely different and are in no way related to
each other in the sense of being one and the same.
Facts:
The Masih is Jesus ibn Mariam (peace be upon them)
The Mahdi is an Imam from the Progeny of the Last Prophet(peace be upon
him and his family)
Proofs:
Masih Jesus (p) is mentioned in Quran that he was 'taken up....until he
returns before the Day"
Imam Mahdi is a completely * different person *. There a many reliable
hadiths concerning him:
The Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: The Mahdi will be of my family, of the
descendants of Fatimah (the Prophet's daughter). [1]
The Prophet (PBUH&HF) also said: "al-Mahdi is one of us, the members of
the household (Ahlul-Bayt)." [2]
Sahih Muslim says:
Abu Nadra reported: We were with the company of Jabir Ibn Abdillah...
Jabir Ibn Abdillah kept quite for a while and then reported Allah's
Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said: "There would be a Caliph
in the last (period) of my Ummah who would freely give handfuls of
wealth to the people without counting it." I said to Abu Nadra and Abu
al-Ala: Do you mean Umar Ibn Abd al-Aziz? They said: NO, (he would be
Imam Mahdi). [3]
How can Ghulam Ahmad be the Mahdi, if Imam Mahdi is from the descendants
of Fatima, and be in the Caliph in the last period??
Also, Imam Mahdi(as) will arrive just before the Day near Jesus (as) and
the Imam will offer the (Fajr) prayers infront of Jesus(as):
"The Mahdi is of this Ummah, and that Jesus (PBUH&HF) will come
down and pray behind him." [4]
It is narrated in Sahih Muslim that:
Jabir Ibn Abdillah al-Ansari (RA) said: I heard the Messenger of Allah
saying: "A group of my Ummah will fight for the truth until near the day
of judgment when Jesus, the son of Marry, will descend, and the leader
of them will ask him to lead the prayer, but Jesus declines, saying:
"No, Verily, among you Allah has made leaders for others and He has
bestowed his bounty upon them." [5]
------------------------------------
References:
[1](Sunan Abu Dawud, English version, Ch. 36, Tradition #4271 (narrated
by Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet), Sunan Ibn Majah, v2, Tradition
#4086 )
[2] Sunan Ibn Majah, v2, Tradition #4085
[3] Sahih Muslim, English version, v4, chapter MCCV, p1508, Tradition
#6961
[4] Fat'h al-Bari, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v5, p362
[5] Sahih Muslim, Arabic, part 2, p193, Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3,
p45,384
--------------------------------------
>From the above prophecies it illustrates that:
1) Masih and Mahdi are different people;
2) Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi is from the descendants of Fatima al-Zahra
(as) and a from AHlul-Bayt;
3) Both Jesus and Imam Mahdi will arrive near the Day;
4) Imam Mahdi is the last of the Caliphs/Amirs;
5) Jesus(as) will pray behind Imam Mahdi(as).
I really think that those whose idealogies differ greatly should ponder
and investigate the beleif with facts and evidence, and ensure the path
is that of Allah's(swt) path.
Take Care, Peace.
brad
Salaam
To all those (especially Ahmadis), I advise you to consider the theory
of Ahmadi beleif concerning Messiahinism since it seems to contradict
many Islamic items.
The concept of Messiahism in Islam has been misunderstood, not just by
Ahmadis but by many Muslims:
> >Now Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claims to be the Mahdi **and** Promised
> >Messiah
Facts:
Proofs:
Sahih Muslim says:
------------------------------------
References:
(as) and a from AHlul-Bayt (as);
3) Both Jesus(as) and Imam Mahdi(as) will arrive near the Day;
4) Imam Mahdi(as) is the last of the Caliphs/Imams;
5) Jesus(as) will pray behind Imam Mahdi(as).
I really think that those whose idealogies differ greatly should ponder
and investigate the beleif with facts and evidence, and ensure the path
is that of Allah's(swt) path.
Take Care, Peace.
P.S. For those who are willing to reply, please reply directly or to
BOTH 'news' and 'mail' since i donot often check the newsgroup.
Audil Virk
brad wrote:
As-Salamo Alaikum,
> The concept of Messiahism in Islam has been misunderstood, not just by
> Ahmadis but by many Muslims:
I do not believe it has been misunderstood by Ahmadi Muslims and
hopefully I can
give satisfactory answers to your misunderstandings.
> Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be:
>
> 1) the Messiah (Masih)
> 2) the Mahdi
I agree, these are his claims.
> These two people are completely different and are in no way related to
> each other in the sense of being one and the same.
I have read the rest of the article and would like to add that there are
more hadith
concerning the issue, for example:
"There is no Mahdi except Isa" (Ibn Maja, Bab Shiddatuz Zaman)
"Whoever lives from among you shall meet Isa, Son of Mary, Who is Imam
Madhi, Arbitrator, and Judge." (Musnad Ahmad Bin Hanbal, Vol.2, p.411)
Now we have these hadith which state that the Mahdi is Isa, and we have
the hadith presented earlier which seem to imply that the Mahdi and Isa
are two different individuals.
The Ahmadi Muslim understanding is that the Promised One will start his
career as as a Muslim reformer who will become invested with the office
of Messiah.
Thus the Promised One will be both the Mahdi and Messiah.
This fully resolves the seemingly contradicting hadith and Hazrat Mirza
Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be both Mahdi and Messiah in such manner.
If one claims that the Mahdi and Isa are two different people, the it is
up to such a one to explain the above hadith.
How can we, without good reason, treat as spurious hadith which are well
authenticated, true according to all sound criteria ?
Was-Salam
Audil Virk (my opinions)
Fouad Haddad
>"There is no Mahdi except Isa" (Ibn Maja, Bab Shiddatuz Zaman)
The chain of this hadith is contains an unknown -- Muh. b. Khalid al-Jandi --
and its text is contradicted by many other sound hadiths which, according
to some scholars, reach the rank of mutawatir.
I will quote from :
http://www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic/hadith/science/aape.htm#G18
"Although the Mahdi is not mentioned explicitly in the collections of
al-Bukhari and Muslim, numerous sahih ahadith, which are mutawatir in
meaning, speak of the coming of the Mahdi, a man named Muhammad b. 'Abdullah
and a descendant of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace)
through Fatimah, who will be the Leader (Imam, Khalifah) of the Muslims,
rule for seven years and fill the world with justice and equity after it had
been filled with tyranny and oppression. He will also fight the Dajjal
along with Jesus son of Mary. The author [Suhaib Hasan], in his The Concept of
the Mahdi among the Ahl al-Sunnah, has named 37 scholars who collected
ahadith about the Mahdi with their own isnads and 69 later scholars who
wrote in support of the concept, compared to 8 scholars who rejected the idea.
The ahadith prophesying the Dajjal (False Christ), a one-eyed man who will
have miraculous powers and will be followed by the Jews, and the return of
Jesus Christ son of Mary (peace be upon them), who will descend in Damascus
and pray behind the Mahdi, kill the Dajjal at the gate of Lod in
Palestine, break the Cross, kill the Pig, marry and have children and live
for forty years before dying a natural death, are mutawatir in meaning. They
have been collected by al-Bukhari and Muslim, as well as other
traditionists. "
>"Whoever lives from among you shall meet Isa, Son of Mary, Who is Imam
>Madhi, Arbitrator, and Judge." (Musnad Ahmad Bin Hanbal, Vol.2, p.411)
This is a false translation. What the hadith says is:
Yushiku man `asha minkum an yalqa `Isa ibna Maryam,
imaman mahdiyyan wa hakaman `adlan, fa yaksiru al-saliba
wa yaqtulu al-khinzir wa yada`u al-jiziyata
wa tada`u al-harbu awzaraha."
"Whoever lives among you might meet `Isa ibn Maryam,
a well-guided leader and a just ruler who will shatter the
cross, kill the swine, terminate the Jizya-tax, and then war
shall put down its burden." Narrated by Ahmad with a good chain.
This hadith -- for anyone who understands Arabic -- clearly uses
"mahdi" as an adjective meaning well-guided, not as a name as in
al-Mahdi. If it were otherwise, then we should say that Jarir ibn
`Abd Allah is the Mahdi, because the Prophet said of him in Bukhari
and Muslim:
Allahumma thabbithu wa ij`lahu hadiyan mahdiyyan.
O Allah! Make him firm, a guidance for others, and well-guided.
>Now we have these hadith which state that the Mahdi is Isa, and we have
>the hadith presented earlier which seem to imply that the Mahdi and Isa
>are two different individuals.
There is no comparison between what is almost mutawatir and what
is weak and not retained. This is a non-issue, except to those that
argue out of confusion or deliberate ignorance, in total disregard of
the knowledgeable scholars of the Community.
>The Ahmadi Muslim understanding is that the Promised One will start his
>career as as a Muslim reformer who will become invested with the office
>of Messiah.
This shows that the Ahmadi understanding clearly separates from the Muslim
understanding. I do agree to the following:
"The Ahmadi understanding is that the Promised One will start his
career as as a Muslim reformer who will become invested with the office
of Messiah."
>If one claims that the Mahdi and Isa are two different people, the[n] it is
>up to such a one to explain the above hadith.
>How can we, without good reason, treat as spurious hadith which are well
>authenticated, true according to all sound criteria ?
It is the sign on the forehead of the Ahmadi movement that they treat as
authentic what is spurious and vice-versa, because they have no
knowledge of the hadith, no knowledge of Arabic, and no knowledge of
the sciences of tafsir.
Of the Major Signs before the Day of Judgment (in rough chronological order)
are:
1."Al-Dajjal will come, claiming to be God holding Heaven and Hell. His
purpose is to deceive, and unbelievers will follow him. He is short,
red-faced, blind in the right eye, and has hair which sticks up. He will go
around the world, but will be unable to enter Madinah or Makkah." [There
are numerous detailed ahadith on this man.]
2."Al-Mahdi will come at the time of Al-Dajjal. He will call to the true
Islam, and will be a military leader. His name will be exactly like that
of the Prophet: Muhammad ibn Abd-Allah, and his father's name will match the
Prophet's father's name also. He will be descended from Fatima, the
daughter of the Prophet."
3."Isa (Jesus) will come at the time of Al-Dajjal and al-Mahdi as well. He
will descend at the time of Fajr prayer on a masjid in Damascus, the
capital of Syria. He is of medium height, red-faced, and his hair is as if he
just took a shower. He will call people back to Islam, but he will also be
a military leader. The People of the Book will revert to Islam, and wealth
will be super-abundant. Isa will break the cross, kill the swine, and
personally slay Al-Dajjal. He will stay on Earth for a long time [and marry]
thereafter, and then die."
And Allah knows best.
Fouad Haddad
fha...@sunnah.org
Rashid
Audil Virk wrote:
> Brad wrote:
> I do not believe it has been misunderstood by Ahmadi Muslims and
> hopefully I can
> give satisfactory answers to your misunderstandings.
>
> > Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be:
> >
> > 1) the Messiah (Masih)
> > 2) the Mahdi
>
> I agree, these are his claims.
> career as as a Muslim reformer who will become invested with the office
> of Messiah.
> This fully resolves the seemingly contradicting hadith and Hazrat Mirza
> Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be both Mahdi and Messiah in such manner.
>
Dear Audil
Kindly comment on the following quotations from the books of Mirza
Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani:
"I do not claim that I am that Mahdi who is according to (words of
Hadith) 'from the son of Fatima and from my progeny' etc."
(Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya V, Roohani Khazain vol.21 p.356)
"We admit this that several Mahdis may have come before and possibly
will come in future as well and probably someone by the name of Imam
Muhammad may also appear." (Roohani Khazain vol.3 p.379)
"It is possible and quite possible that at some time in future such
Messiah may appear upon whom the literal words of Hadith(of Holy
Prophet) fit, because this humble self has not come with the Reign and
Command of this world, but with poverty and humility." (Izala-e-Auham,
Roohani Khazain vol 3 p.197)
"It is possible that in future no Messiah may come. It is possible
10,000 more Messiah may come and one of them may descend in Damascus."
(Izala-e-Auham, Roohani Khazain vol 3 p.251)
Which Messiah and which Mahdi is to be believed?
The one foretold by Holy Prophet Muhammad SAAW and to which, by his own
admission, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani has no resemblance?
OR
The messiah and mahdi in which qadianis/ahmadis believe?
> Was-Salam
> Audil Virk (my opinions)
Wassalam ala man taba'a alhuda
Kavosh Soltani
On 18 Jun 1997, Rashid wrote:
> Dear Audil
> Kindly comment on the following quotations from the books of Mirza
> Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani:
>
> "I do not claim that I am that Mahdi who is according to (words of
> Hadith) 'from the son of Fatima and from my progeny' etc."
> (Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya V, Roohani Khazain vol.21 p.356)....
Now, you know - better than anyone else - that Mirza Ghulam was in the habit
of making outlandish claims and retracting them when he would see any
negative reaction among his followers or Muslims as large!!!
If you examined his writings, you would come to the conclusion that he
-even- did not know what he was talking about. I guess, this is why,
Qadiani leadership is ashamed of much of Mirza's writings and has tried
to hide them...
There is only one true Islam - Ahmadiyya/Qadianism is not Islam.
Peace.
brad
Rashid wrote:
> > > Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be:
> > >
> > > 1) the Messiah (Masih)
> > > 2) the Mahdi
> >
> > I agree, these are his claims.
> > [deleted]
> > The Ahmadi Muslim understanding is that the Promised One will start his
> > career as as a Muslim reformer who will become invested with the office
> > of Messiah.
> > Thus the Promised One will be both the Mahdi and Messiah.
Look dear friend, this is against the concesus(ijma') of ALL muslims
scholars, who beleive about Jesus Messiah and Imam Mahdi are two
individuals.
*al-Mahdi (AS) will come in the last days to make a universal
Government,
*al-Mahdi (AS) is from the Ahlul-Bayt of the Prophet (PBUH&HF),
*al-Mahdi (AS) is from the progeny of Fatimah (AS), the daughter of the
Prophet (PBUH&HF),
*al-Mahdi (AS) is different than Prophet Jesus (the Messiah),
*Prophet Jesus (AS) will come as one of the followers of Imam al-Mahdi
and will pray behind him in congressional prayer.
These basics are accepted by all.
> Kindly comment on the following quotations from the books of Mirza
> Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani:
These are HIS books and contradict Quran and Sunnah, but i will
endeavour to have a look at them.
> "I do not claim that I am that Mahdi who is according to (words of
> Hadith) 'from the son of Fatima and from my progeny' etc."
> (Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya V, Roohani Khazain vol.21 p.356)
Well, then he isnt the Mahdi that the Muslims are waiting for.
> "We admit this that several Mahdis may have come before and possibly
> will come in future as well and probably someone by the name of Imam
> Muhammad may also appear." (Roohani Khazain vol.3 p.379)
We dont say any Mahdi except Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi(as) son of Imam
Hassan al-Askari(as) (who are from AHlul-bayt(as)) is not a probable,
but a DEFINITE.
Also, the Mahdi is not a Prophet, but a spiritual and revolutional
leader(Imam).
> "It is possible that in future no Messiah may come. It is possible
> 10,000 more Messiah may come and one of them may descend in Damascus."
> (Izala-e-Auham, Roohani Khazain vol 3 p.251)
> Which Messiah and which Mahdi is to be believed?
You will know when he arrives, the whole world will know!!
The Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: "Even if the entire duration of the
world's existence has already been exhausted and
only one day is left (before the day of judgment), Allah will
expand that day to such a length of time, as to
accommodate the kingdom of a person from my Ahlul-Bayt who will be
called by my name[i.e.Muhammad]. He will fill out the earth
with peace and justice as it will have been full of injustice and
tyranny (by then)."
- Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v2, p86, v9, pp 74-75
- Sunan Abu Dawud, v2, p7
- Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, pp 84,376; V3, p63
The awaited saviour will come when everyone is begging for tyranny and
injustice to be removed, near the exhautian (End) of time, and THIS Imam
Mahdi(as) will fill out the ENTIRE earth with peace and justice
according to Islam and the Sunnah of the Prophet(p). The dajjal will be
killed by Jesus with the help of Imam Mahdi.
The awaited Imam of the time (IMam al-Zamaan), will be known by EVERYONE
when he appears.
The Prophet(p) said" He who doesnt know the Imam of hte time has died
the death of igonorance" (i.e. death similar to the days of Pre-Islam)
i hope this gives some insight, please feel free to give your ideas.
"Never abandon the truth even if it is against you"
_Imam Ali(as)
Peace to you all.