Izzy Mo had an entry about Muhummad Ali and one of his works on hadith.

I just want to share these thoughts of mine on the subject.

Muhummad Ali completed what is known as one of the best translations of the Quran (recognized and praised by both Yusuf Ali, and Marmaduke Pickthall).

Yusuf Ali said:
“It’s a scholarly work, and is equipped with adequate explanatory
matter in the notes and the Preface, and a fairly full index. But the
English of the Text is decidedly weak, and is not likely to appeal to
those who know no Arabic.” (ref: http://members.tripod.com/iaislam/Quran/translations.htm)

Obviously, Yusuf Ali also had to build a case for his own translation which was completed a decade or more after Muhummad Ali’s. Others have held that it is not the English that is weak, but the fact that the English is accurate to the Arabic.

Muhummad Ali’s work is quite accurate to the Arabic, in fact people have been able to learn Quranic Arabic simply by reading his translation along with the Arabic itself.:

In a good translation, one would have a good shot at retranslating it back into Arabic and getting it right. That is more likely with the Muhummad Ali version than any other, due to the additions of comments and interpretations (or accounting for readability) in other versions.

The organization that Muhummad Ali was part of affirms only that Ahmed was a reformer and denies any claim of prophecy. All one has to do to verify this is to read Muhammad Ali’s translation and notes on the verse containing the mention of the Seal of Prophethood. Muhammad Ali wrote extensively, and in a scholarly manner with citations, defending Ahmed of the charge that he claimed to be a prophet, whereas the Qadian section affirmed the claim. Many Ahmadi’s do not count Muhummad Ali among them.

Furthermore the Lahori group, to which Ali belonged, still does not make Mirza Ghulam a central figure to their writings, and believe in relatively standard Islam.

So we have two large, distinct groups believing different things about the same person. The least this should cause us to understand is that there is real doubt as to whether Mirza Ghulam Ahmed actually claimed prophecy. I believe such a belief is what is contingent to remove someone out of the fold of Islam, and it is this belief which is cited in all the evidence to remove Qadiani’s from Islam. I do not believe the one gathering that we consider enough to call a ‘consensus’ of the ulema, mentioned Muhummad Ali and his Lahori group in its condemnation.

This split has happened with other religious leaders in the past as well. For example, believing two very different things about the same person quite accurately describes Muslims and Christians in regards to Isa (AS). Yet, logically, we do not condemn Muslims for what Christians incorrectly believe due to poor source texts. Similarly, Muslim’s and Shia’s believe greatly different things about Ali(R), the Companions and the family of the Prophet (Peace and Blessings be upon them all). So this is not a new phenomenon nor necessarily an intentional deception on the part of the Lahori’s.

The most critical aspect to consider is that Muhummad Ali died long before any council came to a conclusion and condemned Mirza Ghulam Ahmed. To condemn a man for admiring another man, before all of the faults of the admired are known, and before the community had decided against him is a bit hasty. Especially when they have done good work for the Ummah, and did not hold any of the alleged errant beliefs of the admired.

I’ve only read -about- his hadith work, and though I would spend my time on reading something better, I cannot find reason to condemn the man or call him a kaafir over anything that is in his works (and that is all we can judge him by). In fact, I recently read that Al-Azhar has reviewed and recommended two of his works. We should be extremely careful with whom we call kaafir.

It is better to read with understanding and context than to not read at all out of fear and prejudice.