To convert or not to convert??? How do you know?

oceanclub

af_thefragile wrote: »

So although it sounds brutal, it was all still much much humane than compared to what was going on in the christian community and can still be considered pretty humane in today's new "tolerant" world!

In today's tolerant world, most countries think that the death penalty is barbaric. No country in the continent that you live (I presune you live in Ireland) has the death penalty any more.

Please explain how stoning can be considered humane in a European context.

P.

af_thefragile

oceanclub wrote: »

In today's tolerant world, most countries think that the death penalty is barbaric. No country in the continent that you live (I presune you live in Ireland) has the death penalty any more.

Please explain how stoning can be considered humane in a European context.

P.

I don't wanna go into this debate with you now. Maybe europe considers the death penalty to be barbaric but there are many more countries that believe true evil people must be eradicated from the society. Also having prisons like Guantanamo Bay is not that much more humane than the death penalty.

What do you mean by a european context. Something is either humane or inhumae. Period. Stop trying to make yourself sound much elitist.

And no. Stoning is not humane. But its probably more humane than being tortured everyday in a prison cell. In that way, it could be humane. On a relative level.

oceanclub

af_thefragile wrote: »

Stoning is not humane.

You just said it "can still be considered pretty humane". Now you're saying it's not humane.

It's hard to take someone seriously who doesn't even have a definitive moral position on the issue of burying woman up their waist in the ground and dropping rocks (not too big, I'm led to understand; you don't want them to die too quickly) on their head until they are dead.

P.

af_thefragile

oceanclub wrote: »

You just said it "can still be considered pretty humane". Now you're saying it's not humane.

It's hard to take someone seriously who doesn't even have a definitive moral position on the issue of burying woman up their waist in the ground and dropping rocks (not too big, I'm led to understand; you don't want them to die too quickly) on their head until they are dead.

P.

I used the word relative.
I wonder why you people are always nitpicking on all the things that are relatively minor parts and don't happen anymore.
Always read the whole damn verse and the context. It was a form of medieval punishment which was far more humane than what was happening in the beloved europe.

And you don't want to take me seriously, be my guest!
Internet arguments, why do i even bother?!

DinoBot

af_thefragile wrote: »

Yeah, i think thats more what its supposed to mean.
People just like to generalise or cause the misunderstanding that the hadis translates to anyone who leaves Islam and not just the ones who leave islam only to insult it and wage war upon it.

I DID use the word in the correct context, I fully understand what is ment by apostasy ! If you read back my post I said someone who leaves Islam and encourages others to do the same. This would be seen as an attack and insult on Islam.

Why are you so quick to assume people are not educated on Islam ?? I think its just a cop-out so you can dismiss any real opition that opposes your view.

af_thefragile wrote: »

And i do fully agree with your last statement. You do need to accept all aspects of the faith which you've decided to embrace. Whether you like them or not. But then again, its mentioned in many places in the Quran there is no compulsion in religion. If you don't like an aspect, you don't need to follow it. God is all merciful and also all mighty!
If you don't like the stoning and lashing of people, you don't need to follow it.
!

I dont think thats true, I know people who dont like Fajr, are you saying they dont need to do it ?

Also, with stoning and lashing, it is not up to the individual to decide what is right and wrong, surly only Allah decides that ?

I might not like the fact that non-believers are going to hell, my wife and children are going to hell to be tourtured with fire for ethernity, will my dislike of it change it ? Can I choose not to follow that part and save my kids ?

af_thefragile wrote: »

Oh and just a point to note. The Quran came down during the time where there weren't many humane forms of punishments and capital punishments. There was no electric chair nor the gas chamber. Beheading was the most efficient and quick way of capital punishment. Also stoning and lashing were far more humane types of punishments than the ones the Romans had.

Oh, has Islam adopted these more modern types of capital punishments then ? (Are the electric chair and the gas chamber halal ?)

getz

af_thefragile wrote: »

DinoBot, i don't know much about the Hadiths but there's no where mentioned in the Quran that someone who leaves Islam should be killed.
Also many people have converted from Islam and no one cares about them.
It is your personal decision to leave and no one can kill you for doing that.
I don't know much about the whole killing issue but really the OP (Jannah) doesn't need to worry about that. No one is gonna chase him/her down to kill her if she converts to Islam and then decides to leave.




Getz, If you compare Islam to many other religions you'll notice Islam is a lot less "sexist" than most of the other major religions out there.

i islam less sexist ? i dont think so---abu dawud number 0704-narrated abdullah ibn abbas---ikrimah reported on the authority of ibn abbas saying; i think the apostle of allah said; when one of you prays without a sutrah . a dog.an ass. a pig .a jew.a magian.and a woman cut off his prayer.but it will suffice if they pass in front of him at a distance of over a stones throw www.answering-islam.org

Schuhart

DinoBot wrote: »

If you read back my post I said someone who leaves Islam and encourages others to do the same. This would be seen as an attack and insult on Islam.

Is it fair to say that public practice of a new faith could also be deemed to be encouraging others to do the same. And, generally, isn't the rules on apostasy basically why the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam qualifies the free choice of religion to make it compliant with the Sharia.

But, at the same time, isn't af_thefragile's point (if we can cut to the chase) that this should only apply to people actually living in countries subject to Sharia law. Properly, the penalty would have to be applied by a Sharia court. But Muslims are obliged to follow the law of the country they live in, hence a convert to Islam who subsequently recants has the same right to change religion as anyone else in Ireland.

You could raise a theoretical point of 'what if that person then visited Afghanistan'. I don't know, but I doubt that there's a global database of apostates.

And if you wandered about Saudi Arabia in search of members of the Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice to confess that you were briefly a Muslim, I'd suggest it might be a bit like wandering down the Shankill Road looking for directions to Clonard Monastery.

DinoBot

Schuhart wrote: »

Is it fair to say that public practice of a new faith could also be deemed to be encouraging others to do the same. And, generally, isn't the rules on apostasy basically why the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam qualifies the free choice of religion to make it compliant with the Sharia.

Free choice of religion but not same freedoms given to people of different faiths I think.

Schuhart wrote: »

But, at the same time, isn't af_thefragile's point (if we can cut to the chase) that this should only apply to people actually living in countries subject to Sharia law. Properly, the penalty would have to be applied by a Sharia court. But Muslims are obliged to follow the law of the country they live in, hence a convert to Islam who subsequently recants has the same right to change religion as anyone else in Ireland.

Why only apply to muslims in muslim countries ? Islam is universal is it not, there is no seperation between State & Faith in Islam.

Is it fair that a muslim should encourage another to ignore an Islamic rule purly because it cant be enforced due to the fact the person is living under the rules of non-believers ?

Thats like having a law allowing child labour in your religion but ignoring it (and telling people not to bother about it) because their kids live in Ireland and will not be subjected to that law.

If you see it as wrong for YOU, then you should not expect others to abide by it !

Not on my doorstep attitude . I suppose when I see people advicing people like that I see it as lying to them. Pretending Islam is something its not. Giving them a watered down version of whats fully excepted as truth. But af_thefragile's attitude is "ah dont worry about it". Very much like a lasped catholic tbh.

Schuhart

DinoBot wrote: »

Free choice of religion but not same freedoms given to people of different faiths I think.

I haven't read anything about the declaration for a long time, but my memory was that it simply made things subject to the Sharia rather than saying anything explicit. There was also a little fudged wording, IIRC, like 'parity of esteem' rather than just 'parity'. So by making it subject to the Sharia, I'd take it that (as you say) different faiths can be treated differently - and that people born into Islam can be prohibited from converting.

DinoBot wrote: »

Why only apply to muslims in muslim countries ? Islam is universal is it not, there is no seperation between State & Faith in Islam.

Indeed, but wasn't there always provision for Muslims living in foreign lands? IIRC, there was acceptance that Muslims living in countries that did not give legal effect to the Sharia might have to do things differently. For example, if you found yourself in a country where there was simply no access to Islamic home finance products, you would be allowed to take out a standard interest-bearing mortgage if that was the only way you could get a house.

DinoBot

Schuhart wrote: »

I haven't read anything about the declaration for a long time, but my memory was that it simply made things subject to the Sharia rather than saying anything explicit. There was also a little fudged wording, IIRC, like 'parity of esteem' rather than just 'parity'. So by making it subject to the Sharia, I'd take it that (as you say) different faiths can be treated differently - and that people born into Islam can be prohibited from converting.Indeed, but wasn't there always provision for Muslims living in foreign lands? IIRC,

Well it was always lacking in comparison to human rights tbh, I will quote a line from your link if I may,

The CDHRI has been criticized for falling short of international human rights standards by not upholding the fundamentality of equality of rights for all.

Whereas the Universal declaration states

'Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.'

CDHRI does not guarantee equal rights, but merely equal dignity:

'All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the basis of race, colour, language, belief, sex, religion, political affiliation, social status or other considerations.'

In particular, CDHRI has been criticised for failing to guarantee freedom of religion.[5]

"In a joint written statement submitted by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), a non-governmental organization in special consultative status, the Association for World Education (AWE) and the Association of World Citizens (AWC): a number of concerns were raised, that the CDHRI limits Human Rights, Religious Freedom and Freedom of Expression. It concludes: "The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is clearly an attempt to limit the rights enshrined in the UDHR and the International Covenants. It can in no sense be seen as complementary to the Universal Declaration."

Schuhart wrote: »

there was acceptance that Muslims living in countries that did not give legal effect to the Sharia might have to do things differently. For example, if you found yourself in a country where there was simply no access to Islamic home finance products, you would be allowed to take out a standard interest-bearing mortgage if that was the only way you could get a house.

No, I have heard moderate muslims say this but I am yet to see any scholar allow Riba (interest). That is purely an urban myth.

But if there is anyone out there who can show me that the haram practice of Riba is actually halal, as long as you dwell with non-believers, Id love to see it !

hivizman

DinoBot wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schuhart
there was acceptance that Muslims living in countries that did not give legal effect to the Sharia might have to do things differently. For example, if you found yourself in a country where there was simply no access to Islamic home finance products, you would be allowed to take out a standard interest-bearing mortgage if that was the only way you could get a house.


No, I have heard moderate muslims say this but I am yet to see any scholar allow Riba (interest). That is purely an urban myth.

But if there is anyone out there who can show me that the haram practice of Riba is actually halal, as long as you dwell with non-believers, Id love to see it !

One scholar who apparently has permitted Muslims living in countries with no access to Islamic home finance products to take out a standard interest-bearing mortgage is Shaykh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the President of the European Council of Fatwa and Research (ECFR). The ECFR issued a fatwa in 1999 (the text of the fatwa is here), that set out the conditions under which Muslims could take out conventional interest-bearing mortgages. The scholars rely on the Sharia doctrine of darurah or extreme necessity, noting that there is Qur'anic authority for the desirability of having a permanent home (Sura An-nahl 16:80 "It is Allah Who made your habitations homes of rest and quiet for you"). The scholars involved do not deny that taking riba is haram, but they conclude:

While taking usurious loan is categorically forbidden, paying interest towards a loan is permitted if there is Hajah i.e., an urgent need as maintained by a number of jurists. It has also been maintained that taking a usurious loan is permitted if there is no other way available. A famous rule that we could put forward in this regard is what has been made forbidden for an essential reason within the transaction can only be made permissible for cases where Darurah i.e. extreme necessity is involved, and what has been made forbidden to obstruct further ways that lead to usury can be made permissible for Hajah, i.e. need.

If Sharia-compliant home finance is available at a reasonable cost in a non-Muslim country, then buying a home through an interest-bearing loan would not be acceptable, and similarly if a Muslim is able to provide a reasonable home through renting.

DinoBot

hivizman wrote: »

If Sharia-compliant home finance is available at a reasonable cost in a non-Muslim country, then buying a home through an interest-bearing loan would not be acceptable, and similarly if a Muslim is able to provide a reasonable home through renting.

Thanks. However, I think my statement still holds true that its not as simple as saying that Islam allows Riba if your living in a non-Islamic country.

I think you would be hard pressed to justify it in Europe or America due to the amount of rented accommodation available.

Schuhart

DinoBot wrote: »

Thanks. However, I think my statement still holds true that its not as simple as saying that Islam allows Riba if your living in a non-Islamic country.

I think you would be hard pressed to justify it in Europe or America due to the amount of rented accommodation available.

You are right its not a simple matter. Clearly, if the contention is the divine will is that interest is not permitted, then a believer would need sound reasons to say that this could be set aside.

But I certainly have read scholarly financial material (I've no links to hand) where advice is give to people who, say, want to buy a share in a company that makes some of its income from interest. The general advice (IIRC) was that it was acceptable up to a threshold, but that a proportion of the dividend equivalent to the interest should be donated for charitable purposes. Within that, there were exceptions - if memory serves, money used to build a Mosque should not be 'tainted' in any way. I've also read accounts where scholars have been anxious that the 'enemies of Islam' could not profit because a Muslim would leave interest unclaimed - but subject to that understanding that a Muslim should donate the interest to some charitable purpose within the religion.

I've also seen advice that, for the sake of argument, a Muslim could work for a bank in a capacity that does not directly relate to interest. So a Muslim could work in IT in a bank, or personnel, but not (say) as a mortgage advisor.

What it all boils down to is, presumably because Islam is conceived as the State law, that it is recognised Muslims in secular countries need to make practical decisions as they face situations that would not occur in a country that applied the Sharia. For example, even if a believer rents a property as you suggest, its likely that apartment was built by a developer who got an interest-bearing load from a bank. Hence, that rent is repaying the developer's/landlord's borrowings. If people were totally pigheaded about it, presumably that could be deemed to be out too.

But, yes, on our main point, clearly compromises like this require complex arguments and judgements about what is the core doctrine and what can be set aside.

hivizman

Yes, this is pretty much the case. For example, Muhammad Ayub, in his book Understanding Islamic Finance (John Wiley & Sons, 2007), sets out common criteria for deciding whether an equity investment in a company is acceptable or not:

1. The investee company's capital structure is predominantly equity-based (debt less than 33%).
2. Prohibited activities such as gambling, interest-based financial institutions, alcohol production, etc., are excluded.
3. Only a negligible portion of the income of an investee company is derived from interest on securities.
4. The value of the share should not be less than the value of the net liquid assets of the company.

Ayub also gives an example of an investment fund in Pakistan that calculates the percentage of haram income to total gross revenue of each company, and then applies this percentage to any dividends received from that company, paying the percentage of dividends represented by haram income to charity.

DinoBot

hivizman wrote: »

Yes, this is pretty much the case. For example, Muhammad Ayub, in his book Understanding Islamic Finance (John Wiley & Sons, 2007), sets out common criteria for deciding whether an equity investment in a company is acceptable or not:

1. The investee company's capital structure is predominantly equity-based (debt less than 33%).
2. Prohibited activities such as gambling, interest-based financial institutions, alcohol production, etc., are excluded.
3. Only a negligible portion of the income of an investee company is derived from interest on securities.
4. The value of the share should not be less than the value of the net liquid assets of the company.

Ayub also gives an example of an investment fund in Pakistan that calculates the percentage of haram income to total gross revenue of each company, and then applies this percentage to any dividends received from that company, paying the percentage of dividends represented by haram income to charity.

How do you always have such well informed posts :)

So, to bring it back to the original question, are there such allowances for apostasy, and in particular those who turn away from Islam and "attack" it from a non Islamic country ?

hivizman

DinoBot wrote: »

How do you always have such well informed posts :)

Evidence of my sad life, I read a lot. Actually, although not a Muslim, I'm very interested in Islamic banking and finance, and this has tended to spread out into a general interest in Islam, particularly how it can work (or indeed if it can work) in western societies.

DinoBot wrote: »

So, to bring it back to the original question, are there such allowances for apostasy, and in particular those who turn away from Islam and "attack" it from a non Islamic country ?

Among the books and on-line resources that I've just looked at, there are definitely two views among Islamic scholars and non-Muslim scholars of Islam. The first is basically the view expressed by Yusuf Al-Qaradawi that has already been quoted in this thread, which, it is claimed, finds support in hadith and in the practice of the companions of the Prophet (for example, the first Caliph Abu Bakr). This is that anyone who leaves Islam is in effect committing treason against the Umma and thus deserves the death penalty.

The other view is that, if Sharia law imposes the death penalty for leaving Islam, then (in a fairly centrist view) this is an inappropriate generalisation from the hadith. These deal with situations where, in the early years of Islam, various people converted to Islam in a hypocritical manner and later not only returned to polytheism but also actually waged war against the emerging Islamic community. In this case, where apostasy is linked with treason and violence, the death penalty is actually penalising those features, not simply leaving Islam. This then raises the question of what sort of conduct would amount to "waging war on Islam", and there are a few online sources that seem to imply that anyone who leaves Islam is by implication a living reproof to Islam that cannot be tolerated. However, those advancing the centrist view would suggest that so long as someone who leaves Islam keeps quiet about it (for example, doesn't go around proselytising for their new religion, or for atheism), then the death penalty would not be appropriate.

A more radical view is that Islam mandates freedom of religion, and this is incompatible with penalties for leaving Islam. The hadith evidence is criticised on both contents and technical grounds (it is claimed that the key hadith does not have multiple chains of transmission and thus lacks authority as the basis of penal provisions in Sharia law). One discussion on these lines is provided by Professor Mohammad Hashim Kamali, a leading scholar of Islamic jurisprudence, in his book Shari'ah Law: An Introduction (Oneworld, 2008, pp. 220-221):

To say that Islam recognises freedom of religion but also validates the death penalty for even non-hostile renunciation of faith amounts to contradiction in terms. . . . The Qur'an assigns no punishment for apostasy even though it refers to the subject on over twenty occasions. The death penalty for apostasy occurs only in a solitary (ahad) hadith, which I believe consists of temporary legislation that has somehow remained with us to this day, and in the course of time it was presented as a permanent law. . . . Apostasy which is not espoused with hostility and treason, and one that emanates in conviction, will always be seen as patently misguided and blameworthy, but it is, nevertheless, not a criminal offence.

This is all well and good, but there have been cases in recent years where practising and sincere Muslims have been labelled as apostates because of saying or writing something that has offended influential scholars. I am thinking in particular of the case of Nasr Abu Zayd, an Egyptian scholar whose approach to Qur'anic interpretation did not gain approval. He was declared an apostate by an Egyptian Sharia court, and his marriage was declared null and void. The court didn't sentence him to death, but the verdict was used as a pretext by an extremist Muslim to call for his death.

DinoBot

hivizman wrote: »

Evidence of my sad life, I read a lot.

:D

Once again, a well researched post.

Yusuf Mirza

Assalamo alaikum Brothers.

The Messiah of the latter days has come. The very person whom Prophet Muhammad (saw) said would come for the rejuvenation of Islam has arrived. The world is clothed in such darkness and Fitna that only a divinely appointed servant of Almighty Allah can bring Islam back to its original form and lead humanity back to God. Muslims themselves as an Ummah have become so lost that they themselves need guidance.

In the Quran we are thought that the people of Lot, Hud, Noah etc were destroyed because they had exceeded all bounds. Allah says "traverse the earth and see what was the end of those who denied our signs". So Allah has told us that he will in the latter days punish mankind for their evil doings and denying his signs. But Allah says in the Holy Qur'an "Verily I never send a punishment without first sending a warner" That warner has already come in accordance with Quran and Hadit.

His name is Hazret Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Time is short in that if you look around and see the state of the world you will see that Humanity as a whole have exceeded all limits of decency and morality.

http://www.alislam.org/

You can go to this site to find out more brothers.

zulfikarMD

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

Assalamo alaikum Brothers.

The Messiah of the latter days has come. The very person whom Prophet Muhammad (saw) said would come for the rejuvenation of Islam has arrived. The world is clothed in such darkness and Fitna that only a divinely appointed servant of Almighty Allah can bring Islam back to its original form and lead humanity back to God. Muslims themselves as an Ummah have become so lost that they themselves need guidance.

In the Quran we are thought that the people of Lot, Hud, Noah etc were destroyed because they had exceeded all bounds. Allah says "traverse the earth and see what was the end of those who denied our signs". So Allah has told us that he will in the latter days punish mankind for their evil doings and denying his signs. But Allah says in the Holy Qur'an "Verily I never send a punishment without first sending a warner" That warner has already come in accordance with Quran and Hadit.

His name is Hazret Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Time is short in that if you look around and see the state of the world you will see that Humanity as a whole have exceeded all limits of decency and morality.

http://www.alislam.org/

You can go to this site to find out more brothers.

who is Hazret Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? You are following a similar sect or the same Ahmedia sect which is orginated in pakistan whose followers claim that their leader is a prophet...if so islam is going nowhere and neither you are! Do you know what category you are according to pakistani govt.? please follow the current affairs..

Yusuf Mirza

Is the Pakistani government God? Is their word Sharia? Allways when a Prophet comes there is opposition. That is the Sunnah. I dont think the Pakistani Government are in much of a possition to declair anything right now. They can't even controll their own Mullas who made this law. The Mulla says that Ahmadiyya is a threat to Pakistan, yet they are tearing Pakistan appart with rebellion, insurgency and violence.

zulfikarMD

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

Is the Pakistani government God? Is their word Sharia? Allways when a Prophet comes there is opposition. That is the Sunnah. I dont think the Pakistani Government are in much of a possition to declair anything right now. They can't even controll their own Mullas who made this law. The Mulla says that Ahmadiyya is a threat to Pakistan, yet they are tearing Pakistan appart with rebellion, insurgency and violence.

Yes. Thats why you are out of pakistan and preaching your thoughts here in ireland. Do you have guts to go back to pakistan and explain this to mullahs that so called "prophet" is born? I am not a pakistani but I have serious doubt on pakistani considered as a muslim country :-)

Yusuf Mirza

Go back to Pakistan? I'm Irish
I've never been to Pakistan. I'm from Clare :rolleyes:

In Pakistan if an Ahmadiyya Muslim says "Assalamo Alaikum" then they are arested. Its also illegal for Ahmadis to have beards, say Kalima Shahada or be seen in any way to be a Muslim. I dont care if you think we are non Muslim. But I ask you is it Islamic to kill someone for saying Kalima? In the time of Razool Allah (saw) he even let Christians pray in the Mosqe. This is not Islam what ever way you look at it. Tell you what..go on a trip to Pakistan and tell them all you are Muslim. they will kill you becouse you are white. They say you cant be Muslim becouseyou are white. These people outside the city's are largle un educated and tribal. they will call you "Gorah" (white man).

By all means go to your perfect Islamic Republic and we will see how long you can stick it there :rolleyes:

http://www.thepersecution.org/

Have a look :P

AbuBakr

When I embraced Islam and submitted myself to the Will of Almighty Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala), I did so because I realised that the Creator had created humanity to worship Him not just through prayer but through living our lives in accordance with the guidance that He had given us, through the Noble Qur'an and the example of our beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). I also realised that even a lifetime would not be enough to learn completely what obedience to Allah's Will requires. But of one thing I am sure, that Muhammad (saw) is the last and final Prophet. So although I oppose the violence shown to members of the Ahmadiyya sect in Pakistan, I can understand how their claims are seen as blasphemies.

Yusuf Mirza

Brother sounds like you have been speaking to some Pakistani Imam. You sound angry. Last time you said you were open to hearing other points of view. We blaspheme? Show me how we blaspheme. Now you have made a statement! Can you now back up that statement?

We believe as the earlier Muslims believed. We have not deviated. We believe that Razool Allah (saw) is the last Prophet. He has brought the final Law (sharia) and now there can be no more Shariah Prophets. His is the last dispensation. He is Khatam and in him all perfect qualities are manifest. He is in his being more perfect then all previous Prophets together and so is the perfect man and perfect model for mankind.


It’s a pity brother that you dont fully understand the very concept that you yourself hold. Isa (as) was Bani Isreali in the Quran. Therefore he is a Prophet. No one has the authority to take away his Prophethood except Allah and he has kept in quite intact. Isa was a Jewish Prophet only for the Jews and brought the Engile. Now he will come back as a universal Prophet and preach the Quran. There for, it is the same person but he is a new Prophet because his charge and mission are new., for him. Yet you don’t raise an eyebrow to this breaking the Katham!.


Just like the Jews waiting for Elijah to come but instead Yahyah (as) came in his spirit, you will not believe. And just as they 2,000 years later smack their heads against the whaling wall for a Prophet that has long since come you are also facing a wall of ignorance.


Here you can clearly see that our understanding is not new but infact one shared by the earlier scholars of Islam:

Mawlana Rumi in his famous Mathnawi writes
He has been raised to the station of Khatam by the grace of God. There can never be his like before him or after. When a master excels all others in his art, don’t you use the word ‘khatam’ to convey the idea that he has excelled all others in his domain?
and
"Make such plans to perform righteousness in the way of God that you attain prophethood within the Ummat (religious community)" (Mathnavi Maulana Room, Daftar I, pg. 53)

Ibn Arabi also followed the same line of reasoning in his futoohat. He has even argued that possibility of a subordinate prophet is open according to the verse 33:40. He has stated:
"That prophethood which ended with the advent of the Prophet (peace be upon him), is only law-bearing prophethood and not the status of prophethood. Thus now there will be no law that cancels the law of the Prophet (peace be upon him) or that adds to its commandments" (Fatoohaat al-Makkiyyah, vol. 2, p. 3)
and
"From the study and contemplation of the Darud we have arrived at the definite conclusion that there shall, from among the Muslims, certainly be persons whose status, in the matter of prophethood, shall advance to the level of prophets, if Allah pleases. But they shall not be given any book of law." Fatuhati Makiyyah: Vol 1. pg 545

Hazrat Maulana Faranghi Mahal, an eminent scholar of the Ahle Sunnat also discussed the significance of the expression Khatamae Nubuwwat and on behalf of the Sunni Scholars, he declared:
"The divines of the Sunni sects believe in and expound the fact that in the course of the Ministry of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, there cannot appear a law bearing prophet and his prophethood extends to the end of days. A prophet who appears during his ministry shall necessarily be the follower of the Law of Muhammad.' (Majmu'ah Fatawa: Vol. 1, pg 144)


So these people must also be blaspheming Islam, right?

Yusuf Mirza

Mahmud Shaltut, former Mufti of Egypt and ex-Rector of al-Azhar University, Cairo, writes:

i. "There is no authority in the Quran or the Sunna which can satisfy the heart upon the belief that Jesus was taken up to heaven with his body and that he is still alive there and that he shall descend therefrom to earth in the last days."
(Al-Fatawa, published by Al-Idara al-‘Ama lil-Saqafat al-Islamiyya bil-Azhar, pp. 52-58)
ii. "The Quranic verses in this connection indicate that God had promised Jesus that He would cause him to die at the appointed time, and elevate him to Himself, and protect him from the disbelievers. This promise has been fulfilled. His enemies could not kill him or crucify him; instead, God caused him to die at the end of his appointed term and elevated him to Himself."
(Ibid.)

ChocolateSauce

AbuBakr wrote: »

the Creator created humanity to worship Him

Talk about an ego trip. All that power and what does he do with it? He makes humans to worship him. Is he so insecure in his godliness that he has to make infinitely inferior minions? And so incompetent that he can't even convince them all to do what he created them to do?