All praise due to Allah who gave us this logical deen, and made us seek the truth, and united us in love and understanding; and we invoke blessings on his Prophet, the most truthful human who ever lived.
Let us recap the debate so far:
- Waqar said the following statements in his first post (direct quotations from link):
- ‘And Muhammad is but a messenger, there have been messengers before him. So, if he dies or is killed, would you turn back on your heels?’ (Qur’an 3:144)
- . . . in the above verse the word (khalat) means death and he (Mirza) maintained that taking to mean otherwise was simply absurd. The fact of the matter, however, remains that his argument itself is totally absurd as it defies both the dictionary meaning and other usage of the word in the Holy Qur’an.
- It’s also wrong to say that when used for persons the word khala means death.
- The word ‘khalat’ in Qur’an 3:144 does not mean death and merely refers to something having been in the past.
- . . . evidence for the Islamic belief and not that of the Ahmadiyya
- After discussing in private and requesting the brother that Muslims have also held the view that this verse means death of past prophets, and he could make exception for Eesa (as) but not change the meaning of the verse, I wrote a rebuttal:
- ignores the built-in context of 3: 144, ignores usage of the phrase ‘qad khalat’
- this specific issue at this time, not question the authenticity of the Ahadith, and ignore the host of other issues around Masih Dajjal (Antichrist), Mahdi and Masih ibn Maryam (Jesus).
- the brother does not quote the vast majority of English translations that use the phrase ‘passed away’ for ‘qad khalat’
- Unless the brother convinces me otherwise, this is intellectual dishonesty, as not only is it the practice of Quranic scholars to cite all instances of a phrase when discussing Quranic usage of a phrase.
- Mirza Ghulam Ahmad plagiarised most of his ideas from other scholars before him. By equating all Muslims who adhere to a straightforward and valid reading of the Quran to the Ahmadiyya religion, the learned brother is drawing boundaries similar to those that the Mirza Sahib drew.
- Brother Waqar said that he did not want English translations, and wanted to know if any Arabic source considered ‘qad khalat’ in 3:144 to mean death of past prophets.
- I replied with this post in which I gave references
- From five (out of about 20) Arabic tafseers that clearly spell out that the phrase containing ‘qad khalat’ for past prophets as being for ‘passed away’ or ‘death’ and compared it with the next phrase about the death of Muhammad(saw): Fathel Qadeer, Minar, Bahrul Muheet, Tabari and Qurtubi.
- And we will go to the dictionary only if he does not agree with these, and it appears below that he does not.
- Brother Waqar wrote this post in which he:
- Summarises my position as: Mr. Chaudhary’s contention is that the words “qad khalat” in Qur’an 3:144 essentially mean death. This is almost correct, but not quite. I am not a scholar and I cannot tell what the meaning is nor do I want to convince anyone. All I wanted to prove is that in this verse, ‘earlier prophets have died’ is an accepted view of past Muslim scholars, and that the Ahmadiyya dishonestly plagiarised it and it is not correct to associate this only with the Ahmadiyya.
- Summarises his position as: My argument is simply that there is nothing in the actual letter of the verse to mean death. It simply refers to prophets having been in the past. The case of ‘Eisa (AS) in the established and the sole true tradition is recognized as an exception. All the prophets before the Final Messenger (may Allah bless him) except him at the end of their terms on this Earth faced death. So if any commentator says that earlier prophets have died it does not imply the same for ‘Eisa (AS).
- Discusses dictionary meaning of ‘khalat’ (???) and ‘madat’ (???). Cites 14 instances of ‘qad khalat’ from Tafsir ibn Kathir and Tafsir Jalalayn, and holds that khalat = madat, and that there is no difference in meaning when invoked for people or for other things.
- Says that Part 1 is to answer ROUND 1 (charges of intellectual dishonesty) and he will write a Part 2 to answer ROUND 2 (references from Arabic tafaseers).
- My response to this Part 1 of Brother Waqar will be as follows:
- Based on his statement in 3(a)(ii) above, So if any commentator says that earlier prophets have died it does not imply the same for ‘Eisa (AS); I offered him a compromise and said I can agree on this because he admits that Muslims have held this view, and I am happy with that as we are not discussing Eesa (as) in this debate about the meaning of ‘qad khalat’ in verse 3:144. He refused and said that he will prove that this phrase can never imply that past prophets died. Since the learned brother did not accept my compromise, I will prove below that:
- I don’t like to go to dictionaries when such great scholars have clearly said the obvious, but since the brother forces me, I will insha Allah. Most trusted Arabic dictionaries define both ‘khalat’ and ‘madat’ to mean death when applied to people or groups of people. When Brother Waqar shows that ‘died’ does not apply to non-human objects, he is being verbose, as this was never under discussion.
- The learned brother is again being scholarly dishonest by translating tafaseer by himself, and not using accepted translations, and not showing the complete Arabic.
- After this round, my offer of compromise remains open as he has accepted the point that some Quranic commentators have equated this verse with ‘past prophets dying’ and that it is not a purely Ahmadiyya viewpoint.