Section 4

Part 1

Q. 19:31

And hath made me blessed wheresoever I maybe, and hath enjoined upon me prayer and almsgiving so long as I remain alive.

Q. 19 32

And (hath made me) dutiful toward her who bore me, and hath not made me arrogant, unblest.

Q. 19:33

Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!

Q. 19:34

Such was Jesus, son of Mary: (this is) a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt.

Q. 3:45

(And remember) When the angels said: 0 Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).

Q. 3:46

He will speak unto mankind in his cradle and in his manhood, and he is of the righteous.

Q. 3:47

She said: My Lord How can I have a child when no mortal hath touched me? He said: so (it will be). Allah createth what He will. If He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only Be! And it is.

Q. 3:48

And He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel.

Q. 3:49

And will make him a messenger unto the children to Israel, (saying): Lo! I come unto you with a sign from your Lord. Lo! I fashion for you out of clay the likeness of a bird, and I breathe into it and it is a bird, by Allah's leave. I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I raise the dead, by Allah's leave. And I announce up to you what ye cat and what ye store up in your houses, Lo! herein verily is a portent for you, ye are to be believers.

Verse Q. 3:49 deals with some miracles of Jesus which were given to him as a sign. However several verses refute the concept of divinity of Jesus e.g. Q. 3:59; Q. 4:171, 172.

Mirza Sahib on the one hand claimed superiority over all the Prophets and messengers of God and on the other hand used derogatory language against Prophets particularly Jesus. He claimed superiority over Jesus and said:

In Q. 3:49 are described the miracles of Jesus. He fashioned out of clay the likeness of a bird and breathed into it and it became a bird. He could heal the born blind, and the leper and raise the dead. These were signs for him. Mirza Sahib who claimed to be the Promised Messiah, the likeness (maseel ) of Jesus was asked to show any such miracle. He denied the miracles of Jesus and said that description in the Holy Quran about the miracles was only allegorical.

The belief in such miracles of Jesus was condemned by him as Polytheistic and worse than heresy (Izala-i-Auham page 296). He denied that Jesus could perform miracles and wrote that he filthily abused those who demanded miracles from him called them bastards. From that day onwards the gentlemen avoided him. (Zamima Anjam-i-Atham page 6, margin). He then took a different stand and wrote it was possible that God might have imparted knowledge to Jesus of the mechanism for making the lifeless and the toy birds to fly. (Izala-i-Auham page 302) or may be he indulged in mesmerism which he improved by his spirituality (ibid), page 322). There was a pond in those days from which many sings were manifested. It is possible that Jesus used the clay of that pond............. He had nothing in him but deceit and deception (Zameema Anjam-i-Atham page 6 margin; lzala-i-Auham page 322).

Mirza Sahib wrote that this was now established with certitude that Jesus was an expert in Mesmerism. He had acquired his perfection by the permission and the order of God (Izala-iAuham, page-309). If Mirza Sahib did not have low opinion about or hatred for mesmerism he would have equalled Jesus in the performance of that art (ibid).

Regarding the birth of Jesus Mirza Sahib said that it did not prove his greatness. Adam was born without any father or mother. Thousands of insects are born by themselves during rainy season. In fact the birth without father proves that he was devoid of some muscles (Chashma-i-Maseehi page 18). The reference clearly appears to what Mirza Sahib remarked about the disqualifications of eunuch in connection with Jesus who did not marry (see Maktubat-i-Ahmadiyya, Vol. III, page 28).

Mirza Sahib said that his (Jesus) pedigree was extremely poor, Three of his paternal and maternal grand-mothers were adulteresses.......... (Zameema Anjam-i-Atham, page 7, margin).

He accused him of having a talent for using abusive language, of losing temper and even of telling lies. (ibid page 5 margin).

Once Mirza Sahib was advised to use opium. He immediately observed that people will then say that the first Messiah was a drunkard and the second an opium eater.

I have given only a few quotations consisting of vilifying disdainful and contemptuous remarks of Mirza Sahib about a great Prophet of God. I have generally avoided to cite those remarks about which his excuse is that they were in the nature of response in disputations with Christian missionaries who used much more abusive language for the Holy Prophet. This may be considered lawful by a disputationist but Islam does not allow the use of language which is not respectful for any Prophet or messenger since to believe in their prophetic mission is an article of faith with a Muslim. There may be many disparaging things about Prophets like Noah and Lot in the Old Testament but according to the Islamic concept a Prophet is incapable of sinfulness. A leader of his people whose mission is to inculcate virtue in his community cannot be but virtuous himself.

The description of pregnancy of Mary and the birth of Jesus in the Quran is simply ennobling but Mirza Sahib compared it with the birth of countless insects in the rainy season. Mirza Sahib is prepared to concede miraculous properties to the clay in a pond but not miracles to a Prophet of God.

It may be recalled that the mosque adjacent to the room of Mirza Sahib was named by him as bait ul Zikr.

In Baraheen-i-Ahmadiyya Mirza Sahib had appropriated for it the qualification of Kaaba or Bait ul Haram Mecca by saying that any one who enters it is in safety or peace. He thus implied that it was like bait ul Haram.

I he next step was to alleviate the status of Qadian and make it equal to Mecca. He wrote in Durre Sameen page 52

(The land of Quadian is now sacred. It is the land of Haram-e-Kabba on account of its drawing huge crowds).

By itself this couplet might not have meant much but it is extremely relevant on account of other circumstances.

In Aina-i-Kamalat-i-islam (Page 352) Mirza Sahib ruled that the heavenly reward () of attending the annual meeting held in Quadian exceeded the reward of supererogatory Haj.

Mirza Sahib prevented Sahibzada Abdul Latif from going to perform Haj. He stayed in Quadian to learn Ahmadiyyat (Quadiani Mazhab page 363).

Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad made the visit to Qaudian as equivalent to Haj (ibid page 362).

Mirza Sahib named his mosque as Masjid-ul-Aqsa (see Q. 17.1) Tableegh-i-Risalat vol. 9, page 37. Its eastern minaret was being constructed because there is a tradition of the Holy Prophet that the Messiah will descend at the eastern minaret of Damascus. There is another tradition that the descent will be from Masjid-ul-Aqsa (in Bait-ul-Maqdas). By what can be called only a travesty -of reasoning, Mirza Sahib tried to prove that the minaret referred to above was of Masjid-e-Aqsa and should therefore be constructed in his mosque at Qaudian for the fulfillment of the prophecy of the Holy Prophet (ibid, page 38).

Mirza Sahib referred to verse Q 17 1.

Q. 17:1

Glorified be He who carried His servant by night from the inviolable place of Worship to the Far Distant Place of Worship the neighbourhood whereof We have blessed, that we might show him of Our tokens! Lo ! He, only He, is the Hearer, the Seer.

Which is about ascension (Meraj) of the Holy Prophet. He held by the same method of reasoning that during the night of Meraj the Holy Prophet had made a journey from Kaaba in Mecca to Masjide-Aqsa in Qaudian (ibid pages 40-41).

The arguments of Capt. Abdul-Wajid, petitioner in Shariat Petition No. 2/L of 1984, who is a member of the Lahori Group of the Ahmadis were generally a repetition of the arguments of Mr. Mujibur Rehman, petitioner in the other Shariat Petition. However, he raised a point about the difference between the beliefs of the members of the Lahori Group of the Ahmadis' and that of Quadiani Group. He said that the Lahori Group does not believe in the prophethood of Mirza Sahib, nor did Mirza Sahib ever claim that he was a Prophet. The members of the Lahori Group believe in the unconditional and absolute finality of the prophethood of Muhammad (P.B.H.) and treat Mirza Sahib as the Promised Mehdi, the Promised Messiah a Mujaddid, a Muhaddas anything short of being a Prophet. In this connection he placed reliance upon several books including Izala-e-Auham, Nishan-e-Asmani, Aina-e-Kamalat-e-Islam, Hamamat-ul-Bushra, Ayyam-ul-Sulh, etc. to establish that even Mirza Sahib did not lay a claim to prophethood. It was pointed out to him that the relevant writings of Mirza Sahib in this connection would be the writings from 1901 to 1908, and Aik Ghalati Ka Izala is the basic writing. He read some portions of this pamphlet but not those which were relevant to the issue.

Captain Abdul Wajid denied that Mirza Sahib or the Lahori Group of the Quadianis ever pronounced the Muslim Ummah or those who recite 'Kalima' () (there is no God except Allah and Muhammad (P.B.H.) is his Prophet) as heretics or Kafirs because of their unbelief in Mirza Sahib. Although he admitted that those Muslims who call Mirza Sahib Kafir become after this allegation Kafirs.

Both these asserting are without substance. It will be found in the writings of Mirza Sahib that he not only claimed prophethood but the founder of the Lahori Group (M. Muhammad Ali) also believed him to be a Prophet till 1914, when he seceded from the main body of Ahmadis and formed his own Group. Reference may be made in support of this proposition to Hayat-e-Tayyiba, a biography of Mirza Sahib by Abdul Qadir. Only two citations will suffice.

It is stated at page 299 that in 1904 Muhammad Ari appeared on behalf of the complainant in the case of Molvi Karmuddin and deposed that:

At page 300 is reproduced the following extract of M. Muhammad Ali's writing published in his newspaper Paigham-e-Sulh, dated 16th October, 1913:

It is clear from these extracts that M. Muhammad Ali as well as his companions considered Mirza Sahib as a Prophet during the lifetime of Mirza Sahib and his successor, M. Nuruddin. It was only later after his secession from the general body of the Ahmadis that M. Muhammad Ali took a different stand that to claim to be a Prophet, while he is a member of the Ummah is the act of a liar. (Al-Nabuwwa-fil-Islam, page 115) and 'I consider it as an act of uprooting Islam to treat Mirza Sahib as a Prophet'. (Paigham-i-Sulh, Vol. 2, page 1 19, dated 16th April, 1915).

Mirza Sahib had to face the verdict of heresy when his claim was limited to, his being a Promised Mehdi and Messiah. The same verdict was applicable to his followers. Maulana Muhammad Hussain Bataivi who had once extolled Mirza Sahib for writing some portions of Baraheen-i-Ahmadiyya soon became disenchanted on account of these claims and became his deadly opponent. He not only himself gave a verdict of his being a Kafir (non-Muslim) but secured the signatures of a large number of the learned (Ulema) on it from all parts of India. (Hayat-e-Tayyiba by Abdul Qadir, page 132).

The point may, however, be considered objectively without being- influenced by these verdicts. It is established from the citations from the writing of Mirza Sahib and his successors that Mirza Sahib had made an unequivocal claim of being a Prophet and had condemned all those who did not accept his claim, as Kafirs (heretics).

Now what is the view in Islam regarding those people who ignore or close their eyes to patent heresies of a heretic and believe in him as Mamoorun Minallah (appointed by Allah), Mujaddid (revivalist of the true Islam), the Promised Messiah or Mehdi which he cannot be on account of his being beyond the pale of Islam?

Is not the support of heresy an act of heresy?

The established principle in Islam is that one who considers heresy as something good or acquiesces in or is pleased with it is not a Muslim. (Ikfar-ul-Mulhedeen by Maulana Anwar Shah Kashmiri, page 59). It is said in Bahrur Raiq, Vol. 5, page 24, that he who holds a good opinion for the discourse of Jewish priests or is pleased with (their) Taaweel (to give a different interpretation to an obvious meaning of a word) is an unbeliever. Mirza Sahib put this principle rather bluntly when he said "that a person calling an unbeliever to be a believer, himself becomes an unbeliever". (Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, page 164).

Q. 2:256 is apt on this point. It is as follows

"There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm hand hold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower".

The word Taghut () is used at several places in the Quran as an antonym of Allah. See the above verse and Q. 16:36 worship God and shun Taghut () Q. 4.: 76 (Those who believe fight in the way of God and those who disbelieve fight in the way of Taghut).

It is used to connote the devil, a wizard or soothsayer (Kahin ) and one who leads astray, Jauhari said:

Taghut is a soothsayer, the devil and anybody who leads astray (Qurtabi). The words '' (anybody who leads astray) include the founder of a religion to lead people astray, or of an ideology which is a deviation from the right course (See Ziaul Quran by Pir Muhammad Karam Shah (now judge of the Supreme Court Shariat Bench, Vol. 1, pages 179, 180).

The word Taghut as used in verse 2:256 has therefore, been differently interpreted by different translators. Pickthall interprets it as false deity. Arbury translates it as idol. The translation of the word by Maulana Mahmood-ul-Hassan is 'One who leads astray (). This is much more appropriate and all embracing. It would include a person who founds a religion of unbelief.

The quality of a Momin or Muslim is that he should believe in Allah and disbelieve in or deny Taghut which would include a false Prophet. It would follow that a person who does not deny a false Prophet, a person who leads astray, a person who founds a religion which is a deviation from Islam, cannot be a Muslim despite his belief in Allah. The case of a person who believes intaghut as well as in Allah iis much worse. By no stretch of imagination he can be placed on the same level as Muslims. To save the Ummah from disintegration, on the principle of 'Sadde Dharia' () also such misguided person should be held to be beyond the pale of Islam, since it is to keep the mischief of belief in Taghut away from the Muslim Ummah (community).

In his pamphlet 'Aik Ghalati Ka lzala' (meaning removal or correction of mistake) Mirza Sahib for the first time laid claim to prophethood. The reason for writing it was that a few days before its writing some 'opponents' raised an objection before a follower of Mirza Sahib that he at whose hands he had taken the oath of fealty (bait) claims to be a Prophet, but the follower denied the charge. Mirza Sahib wrote that this denial was not correct because the holy revelations which he received from Allah included such words as Rasool, Mursal and Nabi not once but hundreds of times and consequently this denial cannot be correct. He had already published these words in Baraheen-i-Ahmadiyya () about 22 years ago. It was said there that:

(He it is who hath sent His Messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religions) (Baraheen-i-Ahmadiyya, page 498).

In it 'it was clearly stated that he (Mirza Sahib) is a Prophet. It was further revealed in that book about him (the apostle of God in the vestment of Prophets) (page 504). In the same book there is another revelation from Allah (see Q. 48:29)

(Muhammad (P.B.H.) is the Messenger of Allah and those which are with Him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves).

In this revelation according to Mirza Sahib he was named as Muhammad and also Prophet. Similarly in many other Places in Baraheen-i-Ahmadiyya he was mentioned as a Messenger.

Mirza Sahib then dealt with the objection that since Prophet Muhammad (P.B.H.) was the last of the Prophets, no Prophet could come after him. He refuted the belief of the Muslims about the second advent of Jesus in this world as a Prophet. He stated that the meaning of the verse about Muhammad (P.B.H.) being the last of the Prophets was that the doors of Prophethood had been closed after the Holy Prophet (P.B.H.) till the day of judgment and it was not possible for any Hindu, Jew, Christian or any person formerly known as Mussalmaan to prove the application of the appellation Nabi (Prophet) to himself. All windows of Prophethood were closed except one which was of Seerat-e-Siddiqi and which could be claimed by one who was fana-fil-Rasul () (merged himself in the Prophet).

Mirza Sahib continued that whoever goes to God through this window is honoured with the mantle of Prophethood in a Zilli () manner (like a shadow). This is the mantle of Prophethood of Muhammad. It is not a matter of shame for him to be a Prophet because he acquires the qualifications not from himself but from the spring (source) () of his Prophet (P.B.H.). Similarly he does not acquire it for himself but acquires it for his great glory and majesty. For this reason his names in the Heavens () are Muhammad and Ahmad which means that the Prophethood of Muhammad (P.B.H.) was ultimately received by Muhammad though in a buruzy manner (by incarnation).

At page 7, he wrote that despite this Muhammad (P.B.H.) remained the Khatam-un-Nabiyin (last of the Prophets) because the second Muhammad was the picture of that Muhammad (P.B.H.) and bore his name. He also wrote that having been named as Muhammad and Ahmad, he was a Rasool (Messenger) and Nabi (Prophet) (page 9). The verse 62:3

(Along with others of them as have not joined them) was similarly twisted and misinterpreted by Mirza Sahib to suit his theory and was held to be applicable to the future Prophets including himself. He said that he was the same Prophet . . . . . . . . . .in a buruzy manner and 20 years earlier was named in the Baraheen-i-Ahmadiyya as Muhammad and Ahmad and was declared as Zil () (shadow) of the Holy Prophet (P.B.H.). This according to him did not adversely affect the finality of the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet (P.B.H.) because shadow is not separated from the original self (page 10).

The verse Q. 62:3 is to be read in continuation of the earlier verse (Q. 62:2) which refers to the function of the Holy Prophet (P.B.H.) to recite unto the unlettered ones, his revelations and to make them grow, and to teach them the scriptures and wisdom, though herebefore they were indeed in error manifest alongwith others of those who have not yet joined them (The underlined is the translation of the words which were misinterpreted by Mirza Sahib).

The two verses (Q. 62:2,3) make a mention of one Prophet only i.e. Muhammad (P.B.H.). Its obvious meaning is that his message which was based upon Divine Revelations, i.e. the scriptures and wisdom shall continue after his death to teach the future generations. The verses do not refer to future Prophets since the Prophethood was sealed.

Again after repeating his Prophethood in a buruzy manner he wrote that for this reason his name was Muhammad and Ahmad and the Prophethood did not go to anyone else; it belonged to Muhammad and remained with Muhammad (P.B.H.) (page 16).

It would be seen that the consequences of the dictum that Mirza Sahib himself was Muhammad and Ahmad (they were the names of the Holy Prophet (P.B.H.) were anomalous enough. The companions of Mirza Sahib became the companions of the Holy Prophet. In the formula recited by Muslims there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad (P.B.H.) is his Prophet, Muhammad is Mirza Sahib. Wherever the word, Muhammad is recited or read, it means Mirza Sahib.

Now the concept itself may be analysed. - It has been explained in Al-Falsafatul-Sufiatu fil-islam by Dr. Abdul-Qadir Mahmood, pages 5-11 that the meaning of expressions zilli () and Buruzy () resemble very much the concept of incarnation () or transmigration among the Hindus.

Mirza Sahib himself admitted that buruz means avatars. In his lecture Sialkot dated 2nd November, 1904 (page 23) he said :

"This may be made clear that my advent on behalf of God is not only for the reform of the Muslims. The reform of all the three communities Muslims, Hindus and Christians is required".

As God sent me as promised Messiah for the Muslims and the Christians, so I am as an avatara for the Hindus. . . . Raja Krishna as has been made evident to me was in fact a perfect man . . . . He was the avatara of his time or prophet.... It was the promise of God that during the final age, he would create his buruz meaning avatars."

In Zamima Risala-i-jihad (printed 1900) he wrote:

"God . . . . sent me as an avatara of Jesus. Similarly He .... named me as Ahmad and Mohammad and made me an avatara of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.H.) after making my habits, manners, style (as of the Holy Prophet) and after clothing me in the mantle of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.H.) so that I may (propagate and) spread unity (concept of oneness of God)..... so that I am a Jesus as well as Mohammad Mehdi in this sense and it is that manner of manifestation which technically is called buruz in Islam" (page 6 and 7).

It is clear that Mirza Sahib treated avatara and buruz as equivalents of one another.

In strict Shariah of Islam there is no concept of incarnation or transmigration. These are terms emanating from those who believed in transmigration like Mazdak and Laman. Similarly there is no such notion as shadowism () in Islam (Khatimun Nabiyyin by Anwar Shah Kashmiri page 210).

In Mauqiful Ummatil Islamiyya Maulana Muhammad Yousaf Bannori wrote that from the comparative study of religions it appears that the entire concept of shadowism ()and incarnation () is a Hindu concept and no such concept is there in Islam. Abdul Qadir Baghdadi (d. 429 A.H.) also said that the view in favour of Hulul is false and absurd (Usul Lil Din page 72).

Mujaddid Alf Sani, whose writings were relied upon by Mirza Sahib refutes the concept of zil (shadow) in prophethood. He said in his letter No. 301 that prophethood connotes nearness to Allah which it has not even the hint or doubt of Zilliat (shadowyness).

Another argument of the petitioners is that Quadianis are a part of the Muslim Ummah and a member of the Ummah cannot be excluded from it on account of differences in matters of belief. According to them the definition of Ummah is that any person who believes in the unity of Allah and in the prophethood of Muhammad (P.B.H.) is a Muslim and a member of the Muslim Ummah, He referred to Q. 4:49 that "one who salutes like a

Muslim (assalam-o-alaikum i.e. peace be upon you) should not be called non-Muslim", to the opinions of jurists that one who recites that there is no god but God, cannot be killed (in jihad) and to certain traditions on which these opinions were based. The question then is what is Ummah or Muslim Ummah.

The word Ummah (plural Umam ) is used in different meanings e.g. people or individuals (Q-43:211) course or principle (Q. 43:23), period (Q, 11:7), guide or leader (Q. 16:12), nation (Q. 16:36 ; 35:24) and followers of the same Prophet or of the same religion (Q. 2:213 ; Q. 21:92) (See Gharib-ul-Quran-fiLughat-il-Quran by Allama Shirazi, pages 18, 19; See Umdat-ulQari, vol. 5, page 1 98 for the different meanings).

Imam Raghib said that the general meaning of Ummah is 'nation' or 'community' particularly that community which is identified by commonness of affairs (which must include commonness of ideology, out look and aspirations, social, cultural, economic, political and religious) (Al-Mufradat-fi-Gharib-ii-Quran, page 23).

Its illustration is Quranic Verse Q. 6:38

"There is not an animal in the earth, nor a flying creature flying on two wings, but have communities like you".

In this Verse are included each specie of animals which leads life in a similar way for example spider which weaves its web or the white peacock which builds the house of straw.

According to the Quran all mankind was a single Ummah (Q. 2:213) but then they split up in groups. Then the community bond or group bond or bond of faith became the determining factor for Ummah.

In Verse 5:48 it is said

'Had Allah willed He could have made you one community'.

By the oneness of the community is meant unity in faith. (ibid, page 23).

Sometimes the word Ummah is used for those people to whom a Prophet was sent (Q. l0:47, Q. 23:44, Q. 35:24 , Q. 40:5) and sometimes it applies to those persons who believe in any one Prophet (Q. 5:48, Q. 16:93, Q.22:67, Q.42:2). The former is known as Ummatul Daawa () while the latter is called Ummatul Ijaba () (see Kashshaf-e-Istalahaatil Funoon Thanvi Vol. 1, page 91).

In the Holy Quran the Ummah of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.H.) is called the best Ummah vide Q. 3:110:

Q.3:110

'Your are the best community that has been raised for mankind'.

And then the qualities of that Ummah are described:

'Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency, And you believe in Allah'

The same Verse then distinguishes between the best Ummah and the people of the Scriptures:

'And if the people of the Scripture had believed it had been better for them. Some of them are believers ; but most of them are evillivers'. (Q. 3: 110).

The word Ummah was scientifically used by the Holy Prophet (P.B.H.) both for a community consisting of his followers as well as followers of other religions, as well as for a community exclusively of his followers. The word Ummah was used in both these senses in the Covenant of Madina ()by the Holy Prophet (P.B.H.). The preamble of the Covenant is:

'This is the writing of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.H.) between Muslims and Momins of Quresh of Yathrab and those who join them and participate in jihad with them. They are an Ummah as against all others'.

In Article 26 of the same Covenant are the words:

'The Jews of Bani Auf form an Ummah with the Muslims. (Seerat Ibn-e-Hisham, Vol. 1, page 554 onwards Urdu translation).

Those who are parties to the agreement are groups which means each of them forms Ummah.

Those Jews who were or later became parties to this Covenant were held to be an Ummah with the Muslims on account of the common functions and aspiration of the covenantors described in the Covenants. The Muslims were a single Ummah because of their adherence to the same religion. The Covenant thus lays the foundation in the political sense for a nation consisting of a Muslim majority and non-Muslim minorities. But all the same it also insists upon the exclusive character of the Muslims as a separate Ummah.

While raising the foundations of Ka'aba in Makka Abraham and Ismail prayed.

Q.2: 128

'Our Lord ! And make us submissive unto Thee' and of our progeny a community submissive unto Thee '

One of the meanings of Islam is submission and obedience; Muslim means one who is submissive. The verse points out that those who submit would form one Ummah or that the Muslims by virtue of their Islam (submission) shall integrate into one nation. Thus the common bond of Islam will constitute them an Ummah because the principle is that persons with common aspirations and ideologies form the nation. This is clear from Q. 3:104, Q.7:181

Q.3 : 104

'Let there arise out of you a band of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right, and forbidding what is wrong-, They are the ones to attain felicity'.

Q-7 : 181

'Of those We have created are people who direct (others) with truth, and dispense justice therewith'.

Islam (submission) is not the religion or way of life of the Ummah of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.H.) only. All the Prophets preached Islam because all of them received same revelations and were similarly inspired (Q. 4:163). Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian. He was a Muslim. (Q. 3:66) Islam to which the Holy Prophet (P.B.H.) was guided is a right religion which was followed by Abraham (Q. 6:162). All the Prophets preached the people to serve Allah and to obey the law of God Q.7:590 Q. 7:65, Q. 7:73, Q. 7:85). In Verses 21:42 and 23:52 after referring to the earlier Prophets it was specifically stated that:

'Lo this religion of all of you is one religion'.

It may be clarified that Qurtabi said that 'the word () Ummah here means religion. But it is also taken in the meaning of community or body.

One of the primary conditions for faith in Islam is that the faithful must believe in God and in all the Prophets up to Muhammad (P.B.H.) who should be believed as the last Prophet and Messenger and no Prophet or Messenger can follow him in any age till the day of judgment. They must believe in all Books revealed or sent by God, the Angles and the Hereafter.

The next condition is the establishment of prayers, and fasting, the performance of Haj and payment of Zakat. The Articles of faith must have been common in each religion but the manner of prayers and fasting, the particulars of Zakat and the Haj are features which are distinctive of the Muslims. Similarly the places of worship (Mosque: ) or the manner of calling the faithful to prayers is not compatible with the rituals of other religions. The Muslims have been declared the best community that hath been raised up for mankind (Q. 3:110). They enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency (Q. 3:110, Q. 3:104).

After the Holy Prophet (P.B.H.) passed away it became the duty of the entire Ummah to advance the objects of the religion (Q.3:144). They are enjoined to be steadfast and remain united because they have to endure and outdo all others in endurance (Q. 3 : 200). It is not the custom and manner of Muslims to oppose the Holy Prophet (P.B.H.) after the guidance of God hath been manifested to a person (Q.4:115). This means that he must obey the Holy Prophet (P.B.H.). Verse 4:59 orders the Muslim Ummah to obey the persons in authority (which means a Central authority and officers subordinate to it). It is not difficult to conclude from these injunctions that it is the duty of the Muslim Ummah to keep the banner of Islam flying and for this purpose it must be well knit.

The Muslims are brothers among themselves without distinction of race, colour or country. (Q. 49:10). The murder of one is the murder of all and saving one from death is the saving of all. The Muslim Ummah is enjoined to establish and to be staunch in the maintenance of justice and fairplay amongst mankind. (Q. 4:135). For the benefit of mankind they are a moderate or middle nation (Q. 3:143).

Reproduce Freely