The Islamic Rapture

Submitted by admin on

by Ahmed Qerni

 

Millions of people in the world were waiting for the Rapture on May 21st, 2011.  This meant the return of Jesus Christ and the end of the world in five more months.  I write this as the 21st is ending in most of the world. The way history is unfolding, it appears that the human race is most likely to end in a miserable state on a denuded planet rather than in some state of final rapture. Let us take a brief look at a common Islamic narrative of the Rapture.

Ten years ago, when I made up my mind to leave the Qadiani Ahmadiyya (a cult to my reckoning), I was told that I would never be accepted as a Muslim by most Muslim scholars as I do not believe that Jesus is alive on the sky (or somewhere else). I really did not want to leave the shaky ground of the cult for what I considered other shaky ground, so I decided to look deeper into the issue, and found out that al-Tabari, ibn-e-Khaldun, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Allama Muhammad Iqbal, Abul Ala Maududi, Javed Ghamidi and others have always looked at the Messiah-Antichrist-Mahdi scenario skeptically, and though not traditional scholars, all are highly respected for their scholarship. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad copied these thoughts and showed them off as his revelation from God. Enough about him.

 

Let us explore this further.

Topic: 

Comments

Good job on standing firm on

Good job on standing firm on convictions.

Do you also disagree with the common notion that stoning is prescribed as a punishment for adultery in Islam? (which is completely contrary to what most mainstream scholars will tell you)

There are opinions, and none

There are opinions, and none can claim to be 'mainstream'.  The 'mainstream' is a fallacy.
There are certain issues that rise up at different times in history, and this is one of them.  The other contentious issues are non-Quranic minor beliefs that have taken on a large profile in this age, on which another person will be writing soon.

1) Please be honest now. How

1) Please be honest now. How many Khatm-e-Nabuwwat organization activists would be tolerant of belief in the natural death of Jesus, and consider someone who holds such a belief as still within the folds of Islam.

2) KN associates aside, how many other clerics and muftis . . . edited . . . would be accepting of such views on Jesus?

3) Uncontroversially, the death of Jesus Christ is the second major doctrinal issue after the finality of prophethood between Ahmadiyyat and mainstream Islam. . . . edited . . .

4) Would not a better stance be to:
a) Give credit where credit is due and admit that Ahmadis have the right viewpoint.
b) Next, politely and in a friendly manner point out that Ahmadis do not have a copyright on this issue and that many scholars before and after MGA have believed in Jesus's death as well. . . . edited . . .
c) . . . . edited . . .

d) Admit that the attitude and rigid stance of traditional "scholars" and clerics leaves a lot to be desired in this matter. And do not try to qualify or avoid saying this.

5) Would it not be so much easier to philosopically and theologically argue "finality of prophethood" if the Messiah/Divine reformer concept was not so jealously upheld? Isn't "but Jesus is an old prophet so thats ok" always the weak link the chain?

. . . edited . . .
regards,

Waqar "Vicky" Shahid

KN is a concept

KN is an idea and not an organisation

. . . your comment was edited for clarity and focus . . . 
 
1. KN is an idea and no organisation holds a monopoly on it.  Discussing issues should always be encouraged.
 
2. The whole point of this exercise is that there is an alternate view and it should be tolerated, not necessarily accepted.
 
3. No, the death of Jesus is a distraction.  The real questions are: 1) whether another parallel binding prophet creates a new religion and dilutes the *identity* of the other? (exactly like Bahaism, Sikhism and Mormonnism) and 2) whether that new prophet did or projected something useful.
 
4. Ahmadiyya will get credit from me when they are intellectually honest.  Intellectual dishonesty (references, arguments) cannot be accommodated in any discussion of consequence.  In addition to this, there are a few other issues where open debate should be encouraged.  But again . . . this need is based on the need to revitalise honest debate . . . and nothing to do with the 'A'.
 
5. The finality does not need support:  is a logical given.  Never has a religion survived a new prophet -- any time a new prophet (binding teacher with Diving claims who must be obeyed) shows up, it ends up being a new religion: Christianity, Mormonism, Sikhism, Bahaism etc.  The 'A' should wake up and smell the coffee, and I think they are going down that route.  After this choice is made, you will see the noise level ratchet down on both sides.