May 2014

Editors:

Shahid Aziz

Mustaq Ali

Contents: Page

The Call of the Messiah 1

Question and Answer by Dr Zahid Aziz 3

Oral Traditions in Islam and Judaism by JustStoppingBy 5

م می

حالر

ن

م

ح اہلل الر

م س

ب

The Call of the Messiah

by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Promised Messiah and Mahdi

Denial of Hadith We are, however, inclined to acknowledge and

admit that some Muslim scholars in the inter-

vening time have imposed wrong interpreta-

tions upon these Traditions and thereby had a

very bad effect on

people, so that

those persons who

were rational and

reflective such as

the Mu‘tazilah

(those who believe

that all good is from

God and all bad is

from man), shook

their heads in dis-

gust when they

heard these irra-

tional interpreta-

tions and denied

the validity of the

Traditions altogether. But since this denial was

not based on any historical investigation and

research, but merely on the assumption that the

subject matter was irrational and unacceptable,

the validity of the Traditions could not be im-

pugned or even diminished in any way; on the

contrary, despite their rejection and denial,

Traditions of this kind had such a highly ranked

chain of transmission that even these people

could not discount and discredit this continu-

ous repetition and remained hopelessly bewil-

dered and stupefied. If those interpretations

that are put forward and applied today had

been propounded at that time, there would not

have been a single school of Islamic thought to

say no and disagree. But it is regrettable indeed

that the imposition of a literal significance on

every metaphorical statement or figure of

speech made these Traditions such a perilous

path to tread that no rational seeker after truth

could keep his footing on it. There is, therefore,

no blame or censure upon the Traditions.

Rather, it is clearly the indiscretion of those

who misinterpreted them and threw people

into a sorry state of error. Even in the hands of

the sceptics of the modern age who refuse to

accept the validity of Traditions there is no

other argument besides finding the meanings

propounded by

c o n t e m p o r a r y

Muslim scholars

unacceptable to

reason and logic

and repugnant

alike to Divine

practice and to the

Law of Nature. But

they could be ex-

empted and ex-

cused only as long

as the true and

correct meanings

that are in com-

plete consonance

and consistency with the Law of God had not

been disclosed to them. It would, therefore, be

May

2014

Webcasting on the world’s first real-time Islamic service at

www.virtualmosque.co.uk

2

May 2014

the Holy Quran has, as it were, gone up to the

highest heaven, while externally, the opponents,

due to misunderstanding and misconceptions,

have raised thousands of objections against

Is lam, casting a dark shadow over millions of

minds. How can it, therefore, be denied that a

great Reformer is badly needed in order to re-

vive and restore the pristine spirituality of Islam

and beat back the invaders from outside? It may,

however, be remarked that these days for the

defence of the faith are not the days for wielding

the sword, for our opponents, too, have not

launched any attack with sword or shell in order

to propagate their faith, but it has been carried

out with pen, paper and platform. It is, there-

fore, necessary that our attacks should also be

limited and confined to pen and platform, just as

Islam in its early days made no attack with the

sword against any nation until that nation first

wielded the sword against Islam. So it is not

only unfair and unjust to take up the sword at

this time in defence of religion but it is tanta-

mount to admitting that we are incapable of de-

feating the enemy with pen, platform and irrefu-

a sheer injustice and a shame if now, in the face

of rational interpretations, a chain of transmis-

sion of the first rank and the consensus and con-

cord of Islam and Christianity on this point,

these Traditions were summarily dismissed and

rejected. It is a necessary requirement that

those who refuse to accept those Traditions that

foretell the advent of the Promised Messiah

should first acquaint themselves with the fact of

their continuous repetition, as well as every sort

of proof attached to these Traditions, and that

they should next ponder over the solid truth

that the announcement is found not only in the

books of Hadith but also in the sacred scriptures

of the Jews, the Gospel of the Christians and the

Holy Quran, then last of all in the Traditions of

the Holy Prophet where it has been dealt with in

full detail. It is, therefore, plainly evident that all

these three communities have been putting

their faith in this news with complete trust and

conviction. The Divine Law of Nature, too, which

has the aim in view that at every time of crisis

and corruption an inspired reformer qualified

and fit to deal with the situation should appear

on the scene, vouches for and verifies this an-

nouncement. The calamities and afflictions

which plunder and pillage faith and face us at

every turn, and before which all the innovations

and evils of the last 1,300 years put together

pale into insignificance, also require and de-

mand that God Most High should set His heav-

enly forces in motion in order to bring aid and

succour to the true faith. What obstacles could

there be then, other than prejudice and unjust

self-interest, that stand in the way of this proph-

ecy’s acceptance?

A Reformer urgently needed Is it difficult to believe that if God truly is, and if

religion, too, amounts to anything, then the

Di vine sense of honour invested in both would

see to it that an attack is mounted from the side

of the Living God equal to or even more forceful

than the one launched from the other side for

the propagation of unbelief and falsehood, so

that people may be induced to believe that God

is and that His religion is indeed true? Has there

been no opportunity up to this time to notice

that Islam is, in fact, in an utterly helpless condi-

tion? Internally, practical experience shows that

May 2014

3

heretic and a dajjal (Antichrist), in the same way

the scholars of the Muslim community should con-

demn the Messiah of the Islamic dispensation as

an unbeliever, a heretic and a dajjal. Moreover, it is

also necessary for the complete resemblance be-

tween the two systems that, just as the Messiah of

the Mosaic khilafat came at a time when the Jews

had fallen into moral decline, when great confu-

sion and chaos had overtaken their honesty and

fair dealing, fear of God and piety, mutual good-

will and tolerance, and when their rule over the

very country in which the Messiah had appeared

for their good and guidance had passed out of their

hands, in the same way, the Promised Messiah of

Islam should make his appearance at a similar

time of trouble and adversity for the community.

منوا منکم * الذین اہ ت وعدللاہ لحہ استخلف فی الرض کما لیستخلفنھم وعملوا الصہ

Allah has promised to those of you who قبلھم الذین من

believe and do good that He will surely make them

Khalifaha in the earth as He made those before

them Khalifahs.

Question and Answer

by Dr Zahid Aziz

Question (sent by e-mail): I wish to say from the outset that I am not a mem-

ber of either the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community or

the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement for the Propaga-

tion of Islam. I am simply someone with an interest

in theology and religious philosophy who wishes

to gather the proper information to better my un-

derstanding. This is simply for personal research.

And please know that if anything I write or ask is

construed as offensive, inconsiderate or disre-

spectful, that is not my intention at all. I just wish

to acquire the correct information.

In researching the Ahmadiyya movement, I

have gotten numerous books written by both

groups within the movement and am currently

reading The Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement

by Muhammad Ali. The book is well-written and

very precisely quotes the passages which clarify

any misconceptions those outside the movement

may have. But I have a question regards the differ-

ence in interpretation over Mizra Ghulam Ahmad’s

position as a subordinate prophet, mujaddid and

Mahdi (as the AMC believes) versus his being

solely the mujaddid and Mahdi (as the Lahore

Ahmadiyya does).

table arguments, for it is the habit of liars and

weak persons that when they fail in debate then

they become hostile and quarrelsome. To have re-

course to such violent conflict at the present time

would be giving a bad name to the true and glori-

ous religion of God Most High. Just bring to mind

and recall how the Holy Prophet (pbuh) suffered

all kinds of persecution for thirteen long years at

the hands of the unbelievers in Mecca, and ren-

dered them speechless only by means of decisive

arguments, and did not take up the sword until

after the enemy, unsheathing their swords, had put

many a noble soul to death. It is, therefore, un-

Islamic to meet verbal opposition with the sword

of violence. It may be the work of the mean-

spirited and weak, but not that of Islam.

Parallels between the Mosaic and Islamic Dispensations The prophecy of the Promised Messiah, as I have

stated above, is found not only in Hadith, but the

news has been transmitted in a very elegant way

by the Holy Quran also. It holds out a promise that

in Islam, too, a system of khilafat will be estab-

lished on the lines of the system that had obtained

in the prophethood of the Israelites*. This promise

obviously contains within itself the glad tidings of

the coming of a Messiah, for, on careful considera-

tion of the system of khilafat of the prophets of

Israel, we find that it started with Moses and came

to a close after 1,400 years with the advent of Jesus

the Christ, and that the Promised Messiah of the

Jews, the happy news of whose advent had been

communicated to them beforehand, appeared

1,400 years after those in the garb of the humble

and poor; and it is necessary for the completion of

this resemblance which the Holy Quran has estab-

lished between the two systems that every just and

fair-minded person should accept and admit that

just as there was a promise of the coming of a Mes-

siah at the end of the Mosaic dispensation, in the

same way, there is a promise of the coming of a

Messiah at the end of the Islamic khilafat. It is also

necessary for the complete similarity of the two

systems that, just as a Messiah appeared among

the Children of Israel after the 1,400 years of the

Mosaic dispensation had passed, in the same way

and after the same period a Messiah should make

his appearance in the khilafat of Islam; and just as

the Jewish divines condemned the Messiah of the

Mosaic system as (God forbid) an unbeliever, a

4

May 2014

In the book mentioned above, Mr. Ali quotes

Mr. Ahmad as saying, “My claim is to be a mu-

haddath, and this I have made by Divine Com-

mand. There is no doubt that muhaddathiyya

contains a strong part of prophethood” (p. 67).

And he also quotes Mr. Ahmad as having said,

“Be it known to all the Muslims that all such

words as occur in my writings … to the effect

that the muhaddath is in one sense a prophet, or

that muhaddathiyya is partial prophethood or

imperfect prophethood, are not to be taken in

the real sense” (p. 43).

So, it seems clear that Mr. Ahmad denied

being a prophet who could add more or new

ideas to what the Prophet Muhammad had re-

vealed, keeping his role as Seal of the Prophets

intact. But at the same time he writes that, at

least in a sense, his role as a muhaddath had

partial elements of the traditional role of proph-

ets in Islam. One the one hand, the Qadian

branch takes this to mean that Mr. Ahmad was a

subordinate prophet who, while not capable of

revealing new information and commandments

from Allah, was charged with continuing the

efforts of the Prophet Muhammad and enlight-

ening the ummah about misconceptions and

misinterpretations of the Quranic text. But on

the other hand, the Lahore branch interprets

this to mean that prophet can only be in the

sense of what Isa, Musa and Muhammad were as

Prophets: those who reveal new command-

ments.

My question is whether or not these two

interpretations are truly irreconcilable? From

my reading and understanding it seems that

both interpretations are close in how they view

Mr. Ahmad, as they deny he was a prophet who

could come after Muhammad, and had elements

of prophethood in a sense. So, is it wrong to sug-

gest that the idea of subordinate prophethood

and metaphorical prophethood are different

ways to express the same concept? Similar to

how one can say that they are feeling

‘irritated’and another person can say that they

are feeling ‘annoyed’? These two words essen-

tially relay the same concept but with different

terms.

I eagerly await your clarification on this

matter! And once again, if my question offends

you, that was absolutely not my intention.

Answer by Zahid Aziz: Thank you for your enquiry. Please don’t think

for a moment that your question is offensive to

us. In fact, we would welcome more such ques-

tions from people.

Firstly, please note that the concept of a mu-

haddas (if I may spell it as pronounced by us

rather than its strict transliteration) as being “in

one sense a prophet” is based on the Quran and

Hadith, and was mentioned by Muslim scholars

long before the time of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam

Ahmad. So he said nothing new about this con-

cept.

Secondly, the AMC [i.e., Qadiani Jamaat] hold

that Hazrat Mirza only claimed to be a muhaddas

till the year 1901, and that in that year he

changed his claim from muhaddas to prophet.

Therefore AMC are recognizing him as holding a

higher position than muhaddas.

You ask:

“So, is it wrong to suggest that the idea of

subordinate prophethood and metaphorical

prophethood are different ways to express the

same concept?”

That depends on what status one assigns to

‘subordinate prophethood’. You write that what

AMC means by this term is:

“On the one hand, the Qadian branch takes

this to mean that Mr. Ahmad was a subordinate

prophet who, while not capable of revealing new

information and commandments from Allah,

was charged with continuing the efforts of the

May 2014

5

Prophet Muhammad and enlightening the um-

mah about misconceptions and misinterpreta-

tions of the Quranic text.”

But this is an incomplete description of what

they mean. It is clearly stated in the writings of

their first head, Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud

Ahmad, that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad being

a prophet means that:

“all those so-called Muslims who have not

entered into his Bai‘at formally, wherever they

may be, are Kafirs and outside the pale of Islam,

even though they may not have heard the name

of the Promised Messiah” (English book: The

Truth about the Split).

In the same book, explaining why this is so,

he wrote:

“The man who rejects a Prophet thus neces-

sarily becomes a kafir…. Now, as Islam bases its

judgments upon what is patent and not upon

what is possible, it cannot but class as kafir such

as fail to accept any of the Prophets, even though

such failure may be due to their want of infor-

mation concerning him.”

It was such views that brought about the

split in the Ahmadiyya Movement because the

Lahore Ahmadiyya pioneers held that according

to the teachings of Islam a Muslim cannot be

called a kafir and outside the fold of Islam and

they held that this was confirmed by Hazrat

Mirza, who also declared that no Muslim be-

comes a kafir by not accepting his claims.

The AMC doctrine that all other Muslims are

non-believers in Islam is not only a theoretical

belief but is manifested in their practical rela-

tions with other Muslims. For example, they re-

fuse to pray behind any other Muslim, even

though that Muslim may regard Ahmadis as

Muslims and be friendly towards them. They

refuse to hold the Islamic funeral prayer for any

other Muslim, even behind their own AMC

imam. For example, if an AMC member’s father

or mother is a Muslim but is not an AMC mem-

ber, and dies, and the AMC member wishes the

AMC to hold Islamic funeral prayers for the de-

ceased, the AMC refuses to do this on the basis

that the Islamic funeral prayers are only held for

Muslims who die and the deceased was a non-

Muslim.

I suggest that you read another book by

Maulana Muhammad Ali, entitled The Split, writ-

ten in 1918, which is at this link:

http://www.ahmadiyya.org/bookspdf/split/

conts.htm

You may also be interested in reading my

recent book (The True Succession) which I am

attaching here. You are welcome to discuss this

or any other issue with us.

Oral Traditions in Islam and

Judaism

(Editor’s Note: The following is an article taken

from the website Loonwatch.com under the de-

scription “Original Guest Post” and credited to

JustStoppingBy.)

Both Judaism and Islam rely on oral

tradi tions that explain and put texts into

con text and can help counter misperceptions

of the religions.

One of the sources of Islamophobia and Judeo-

phobia is the selective quoting of religious pas-

sages that, either taken out of their literal con-

text or without the context of how they have

been interpreted, suggest that the adherents of

Islam and Judaism repeat and harbor seemingly

harsh views. When the literal context is missing,

sometimes just referring to the preceding or

following verses is sufficient to counter any mis-

conceptions and let a stereotype go. In other

instances, the religions’ oral traditions may help

elucidate how adherents read those verses.

As Passover approaches, I want to highlight

two well-known (at least among Jews) portions

of the Jewish oral tradition that appear at the

Passover seder and how, in broad terms, they

relate to some well-known portions of the

Is lamic oral tradition because they are used by

adherents to help put other texts into context.

The Passover seder relates the story of the Jews’

exodus from Egypt. Within the story, there is a

listing of the ten plagues with which the Egyp-

tians were smitten. As each plague is recited,

Jews either spill a drop of wine or use a finger

(more traditionally) or utensil to take a drop of

6

May 2014

wine from their cup and discard it on a plate or

napkin. It is not clear how far back the common

explanation for this ritual goes, though it is at

least as far as Rabbi Yitzhak Ben Yehuda Abar-

banel, or Don Isaac Abarbanel. (1437–1508)

who wrote,

“The custom is

to drip drops

of wine out of

the cup when

counting the

plagues to in-

dicate that our

joy is not

whole because

on our account

an entire peo-

ple was pun-

ished. Even

though the en-

emy deserved

that defeat, it does not cause us real joy.”

My guess is that the explanation, if not the

tradition itself, developed over time. A likely

reason is that Jews saw a “difficult text,” or one

that can have multiple interpretations, and

wished to emphasize the interpretations that

resonated with their view of their religion’s mo-

rality. A similar portion of oral history that

works its way into many seders is a midrash, or

interpretation of the Torah, found in the Talmud

that describes what was happening in Heaven as

the Red Sea closed over the Egyptian army that

was pursuing the Children of Israel: “The minis-

tering angels wanted to chant their hymns, but

the Holy One, blessed be He, said, The work of

my hands is being drowned in the sea, and shall

you chant hymns?” As is the case with many

midrashim, some Jews take this as a literal reve-

lation and others as a story made up later to

provide a moral lesson. For my purposes here, it

does not matter which it is. Rather, what mat-

ters is that hundreds of years after this midrash

was first recorded, Jews find it worthwhile to

retell every year because it provides context for

our understanding of an important Jewish text.

Turning to Islam, I would like to highlight a

few portions of its oral history. One I take from

an essay by Imam Shamsi Ali, who writes, “Our

oral history records Muhammad’s last sermon as

containing the following guidance: ‘Even as the fin-

gers of the two hands are equal, so are human be-

ings equal to one another. No one has any right, nor

any preference to claim over another. You are

brothers.’” I chose

this quote not be-

cause of its mean-

ing, but because of

how Imam Shamsi

Ali explicitly ties it

to the oral history.

Still, an Internet

search shows that

this is indeed a

popular quote, ap-

pearing in numer-

ous locations. That

should not be sur-

prising given that

it is the type of

quote that should

resonate with Muslims when thinking about the

moral messages provided by Islam, with the equal-

ity of human beings being one of those messages.

A second piece of the Muslim oral tradition was

cited by Arsalan Iftikhar in his interview with Loon-

watch: “…we should be reminded of a well-known

Islamic parable that tells the story of the Prophet

Mohammed and his interactions with an unruly

female neighbor, who would curse him violently

and then dump garbage on him from her top win-

dow each time he walked by her house. One day,

the prophet noticed that the woman was not there.

In the spirit of true kindness, he went out of his

way to inquire about her well-being. He then went

on to visit his unfriendly neighbor at her bedside

when he found that she had fallen seriously ill.”

This is indeed a well-known parable, found fre-

quently on the web, including in comments at

Loonwatch.

But, here is one potentially surprising thing

about this particular story: it is not clear that it is

authentic. While there are similar stories, some

investigations of this particular one have yielded

results such as “I have not found a basis for this

specific incident in the books of hadeeth or reliable

works of prophetic biography, and it seems as

May 2014

7

though this story has become popular on the

tongues of people without any source to support

it, and Allah knows best” as well as “although

the record of this particular incident is found in

almost all the books of ‘Seerah’ or biography of

the Prophet (saws) and is oft-repeated by the

Muslims, to the best of our knowledge there is

no record of this specific incident in any of the

authentic and established Books of Sunnah. And

Allah Alone Knows Best.” As with the midrash

on the angels preparing to rejoice, for my pur-

poses it does not matter if this story is authen-

tic. The fact that this story is so popular even

without it being found in what may be called the

reliable or authentic hadith or Books of Sunnah

only strengthens the point that Muslims repeat

this story not because they are “forced” to be-

cause it is part of canonical literature that must

be repeated, but, rather, they repeat it because

its message resonates with their view of the mo-

rality of Islam.

Another reason that I chose the quotation

provided from Imam Shamsi Ali is the further

observation provided by his co-author, Rabbi

Marc Schneier, in one of his essays in the same-

book. Rabbi Schneier writes, “Most Jews and

most Muslims, however, are simply unaware of

the good news that the other side has an oral

tradition that moderates the sometimes harsh

language of the written law. The ignorance

among the majority in both faiths allows the

demagogic purveyors of hate to peddle their

poison virtually unchallenged.”

Compare this with a statement by one such

demagogic purveyor of hate, Deacon Robert

Spencer, who has written, “Rabbinic Judaism

ever since the destruction of the Temple had

evolved non-literal ways to understand such

commands, while in Islam such literal interpre-

tation is still very much alive.” In fact, Spencer is

misleadingly inaccurate on both counts: Judaism

had evolved non-literal ways of interpreting

“problem texts” before the destruction of the

Temple, and there are both literal and non-

literal interpretations of “problem texts” very

much alive in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It

is the latter point, however, that is the more im-

portant. By suggesting solely that there are lit-

eral interpretations of “problem texts” in Islam,

Spencer hides the existence of similar interpre-

tations in Judaism and Christianity as well as the

many Muslims who highlight stories such as

Muhammad’s concern for a woman who would

throw trash on him (whether the story is liter-

ally true or not) as a lens through which they

interpret any texts that could be read to call for

retaliation for aggressive acts. As Imam Shamsi

Ali writes in one essay, “The guidance found in

scripture is not meant to be taken only literally.

… Our stance is that though the Qur’an is some-

times exact, to extrapolate the wisdom in its

passages, we need not see the texts as simply

static, literal words.”

Strikingly, the Qur’an has no problem citing

Jewish Oral Law. “Because of that, We decreed

upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a

soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in

the land – it is as if he had slain mankind en-

tirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had

saved mankind entirely. And our messengers

had certainly come to them with clear proofs.

Then indeed many of them, [even] after that,

throughout the land, were transgres-

sors.” Qur’an 5:32. The reference may be

to Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 (“Therefore was the

first man, Adam, created alone, to teach us that

whoever destroys a single life, the Bible consid-

ers it as if he destroyed an entire world. And

whoever saves a single life, the Bible considers it

as if he saved an entire world. Furthermore, only

one man, Adam, was created for the sake of

peace among men, so that no one should say to

his fellow, ‘My father was greater than yours…’”)

or potentially other similar references such

as Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 4:1 (22a).

Whether one believes an Islamic interpretation

that Qur’an 5:32 was revealed to Muhammad, or

a secular one that the ayah repeats something

that Muhammad heard, this ayah shows a conti-

nuity of belief and a tie between the oral Jewish

tradition (which by that point had been written

down) and written Muslim tradition.

Yet for some “demagogic purveyors of hate,”

as Rabbi Schneier calls them, this is not a sign

that Muslims view the Qur’an as part of a con-

tinuous revelation sometimes referencing Jew-

8

May 2014

Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha‘at Islam Lahore (UK)

The first Islamic Mission in the UK, established 1913 as the Woking Muslim Mission

Dar-us-Salaam, 15 Stanley Avenue, Wembley, UK, HA0 4JQ

Centre: 020 8903 2689 President: 020 8529 0898 Secretary: 01753 575313 E-mail: aaiiLahore@gmail.com

Websites: www.aaiil.org/uk | www.ahmadiyya.org | www.virtualmosque.co.uk

Donations: www.virtualmosque.co.uk/donations

ish and Christian scrip-

tures. Instead, these

Islamophobes claim to

“find further proof of

plagiarism of apocry-

phal Jewish literature;

this time in the Jewish

Mishnah Sanhedrin” or

title a section of an anti-

Islam screed “Plagiarism

in Quran,” citing the

same passages. If only

the Qur’an had managed

to avoid the charge of

plagiarism by introduc-

ing the text by saying

something like “We de-

creed upon the Children

of Israel.” Oh wait, it did!

Presumably, the dema-

gogic purveyors of hate

would not be satisfied

with anything short of a

footnote and embedded

hyperlink in the text

when it was compiled over 1,300 years ago.

Certain Islamophobes who accuse the

Qur’an of plagiarism in this verse, despite the

explicit reference to a decree to the Children of

Israel, seem less concerned with how Jesus’

statement in Matthew 7:12 (“So in everything,

do to others what you would have them do to

you, for this sums up the Law and the Proph-

ets.”) does not reference Tobit 7:15 (“And what

you hate, do not do to anyone”) or a well-known

(among Jews) saying of Hillel the

Elder (traditionally c. 110 BCE, died 7 CE): “That

which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.

That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explana-

tion; go and learn.” One notable demagogic pur-

veyor of hate, Ali Sina, has written, “There is

nothing in the Quran and Hadith that would

make us believe that Islam is compatible with

the Golden Rule.” Actu-

ally, Wikipedia provides

a dozen quotes from the

Qur’an and Hadith that

are variants of the

Golden Rule. The one

that struck me the most

was one that echoed Hil-

lel: “A Bedouin came to

the prophet, grabbed the

stirrup of his camel and

said: O the messenger of

God! Teach me some-

thing to go to heaven

with it. Prophet said: ‘As

you would have people

do to you, do to them;

and what you dislike to

be done to you, don’t do

to them. Now let the

stir rup go! [This maxim

is enough for you; go and

act in accordance with

it!]’ —Kitab al-Kafi, vol.

2, p. 146.”

All three of the Abrahamic faiths thus not only cite the Golden Rule in some form, but have traditions citing it as a maxim that sums up the morality of their religious texts or beliefs. It is only by being selective in what they cite from the written and oral traditions that the dema-gogic purveyors of hate could hope to obscure this commonality. Instead, it is worth taking the time to review the full range of the traditions of each religion, notably those cited repeatedly by their adherents because they resonate with their view of their religion’s morality. And then, it is time to let the stereotype, and the stirrup, go.

(Reproduced from:

http:www.loonwatch.com/2014/04/

oral-traditions-in-islam-and-judaism/)