Ahmadis in Pakistan

system · August 22, 2006, 3:52pm

Re: Ahmadis in Pakistan

Again you missed the point, I have highlighted the part that I wanted you to focus on and here is another similar Ayah.
**[48:29] **Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.

Well I am pretty sure that I can come up with a few things that mirza ghulam made changes to in Islam to prove that you do worship mirza ghulam. Do you think that the People of the Book willingly took their rabbis and monks to be gods besides Allah as it says in Surah Taubah? They followed their rabbis and monks instead of the commands of God so they committed shirk.

So are you calling me a kafir or a munafiq?

NuzululMasih:

Sherafghan you also said: “Why is it that these people make Islam so complicated? Islam is supposed to be easy to understand, not something mystical that only a few can comprehend. Islam is not some type of an exclusive club.”

The minds of Islamic intellectuals transcend far beyond the normal thought capacity of average men. The Holy Prophet (saw) himself used words of deep meanings, and his comprehensive wisdom was summed up in a matter of words, while volumes after volumes have been written solely upon a few words spoken by the Holy Prophet (saw), whose Arabic is the most eloquent, meaningful and comprehensive, after only the Holy Quran’s itself. The truth is that the Ulema and the Maulvi’s are ever ready to find any degree of fault with any Islamic scholar who claimed to be Divinely commissioned by Almighty Allah Himself. Just as the Jews split apart from Hadhrat Musa (as) and his original teachings by following the various Rabbi’s, so have so many Muslims become ignorant of the true teachings of RasoolUllah (saw) by blindly following the Ulema and the Maulvi’s. I do not say that they are entirely wrong but they seek to deviate you manifestly from the truth. While you follow the Ulema’s mentorship, I follow the mentorship of the Holy Prophet (saw) and Hadhrat Masih-e-Maoud (as) and his present day Khalifah, Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih V (aba).

I agree with you on the above. But I disagree with your statement that you follow the way of the Prophet.

NuzululMasih:

Again you have claimed: “What I have seen is that you just misinterpret the quotes to suit your own needs.”

Your denial of how we interpret our sources is a blind denial, because we obviously submit to the interpretations of Hadhrat RasoolUllah (saw) and his Sahaba (rah) but we believe that the Quran is everlasting and its benefits are eternal, and that Allah is still Living today as he was living at the time of the Holy Prophet (saw), thus with the passage of time the Quran still exuberates with miracles and signs and guidance, the Holy Quran and its miracles did not cease at the time of the Holy Prophet (saw)’s physical demise, but it continues to rejuvenate the hearts of men by suiting its contents to the contemporary times as well, of course Surah Al-Nasr clearly foreshadowed the demise of the Holy Prophet (saw), but the context of the Surah and its miracles can also be found in today’s world, the Holy Quran is not a dead Book, whose interpretations were fulfilled only in the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (saw) and his blessed Sahaba, but they continue to exist even today, and that is why I mentioned Surah Al-Nasr as support of our increasing number. And do not forget that a mere 200,000,000 is a large number relative to the entire Muslim Ummah, let alone the population of the world at large, but I only cite its amazing growth as proof that this is one of the signs of Allah in support of the Promised Messiah (as), Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as). The Holy Quran many times refers to the destruction and failure of liars in this life as well as the hereafter, but my point in quoting the large and increasing number of Ahmadi’s is to show that if Ghulam Ahmad was a liar, then why did he not meet with frustration, why does not Allah retard and restrict his followers, instead of blessing them with His grace to be the fastest increasing jammaat in the world. But it’s not only our increase in number which makes us true, I only cite that as one significant sign, there are many other signs which show manifestly the truth of Ahmadiyyat.

So, first you agree that you misquoted Surah Nasr. Secondly I can use the same arguments for other religions and cults, look at Christianity and how many people are following that religion. Numbers don’t mean anything. Why does Allah not reduce the numbers of christians? Numbers are irrelevant, the fact is that the true muslims have always been small in number and like I said earlier this fact is supported by the Quran and Ahadith. So you can continue to quote numbers if you want but it won’t have any effect on me.

NuzululMasih:

You also said:

“You still haven’t answered the question that I asked, ie. why did Abu Bakr sent armies to all of arabia and why didn’t he just accept the proposition from the delegation if he wanted a truce?”

Those apostates had repudiated their allegiance to the Islamic state and had taken up arms against it. Those of them who continued to adhere to Islam were killed, and forces were got ready to wage war with the Islamic state. In fact, they advanced upon Medina and laid siege to it in their effort to destroy the Muslims altogether. Therefore, Abu Bakr took up the sword against them and defeated and subdued them. This lends no support to the thesis that the punishment of simple apostacy is death. If the apostates had no rebellious designs, then why is it that leading Refugees and Helpers urged Hazrat Abu Bakr that he should detain the force which was ready to march north under the command of Usamah bin Zaid, as the security of Medina was threatened by the apostates? Also, why had Usamah begged Hazrat Umar , may Allah be pleased with him, to go to Hazrat Abu Bakr and to persuade him to permit Usamah to return to Medina? The -reason given by Usamah for his request was that the force under his command contained all the leading Muslims and he had serious apprehensions that the Khalifa and the wives of the Holy Prophet and the Muslims in Medina might find their security in danger from the apostates.

Tabari has recorded: Abs and Zeeban were the tribes Who were the first to attack Medina and Hazrat Abu Bakr fought them before the return of Usamah (Tabari, V 01. IV, p.1873).

Ibn Khalladun has recorded: Abs and Zeeban were the first to attack Hazrat Abu Bakr and the others collected together at Zil Qassah (Ibn Khalladun, Vol. II, p.65).
Khamees has recorded: Kharajah bin Hasan, who was one of the apostates, advanced upon Medina with some mounted men of his tribe so as to deliver his attack unexpectedly before the Muslims emerged from Medina to oppose him. Thus he attacked Abu Bakr and those Muslims who had been left in Medina and took them unawares (Khamees, Vol.lI, p.237).

Some of the apostates sent delegations to Medina begging the Khalifa to release them from the obligation to pay the zakat and to observe salat. When Hazrat Abu Bakr rejected their request categorically , they went back to prepare their people for an attack on Medina. After they left, Hazrat Abu Bakr called the Muslims of Medina together and addressed them as follows: The whole country has reverted to disbelief. Their delegation has observed the smallness of your numbers in Medina. You do -not know whether they might attack you by night or by day. Their vanguard is only at the distance of one stage from Medina. They had desired that we should accept their proposals and make an agreement with them, but we have rejected their request. So, make ready to defend yourselves against their attack. Within three days they attacked Medina at night, having left some forces at Zil Hussay as their support (Tabari, Vol. IV, p.1875).

Thus it is clear that the apostates were the first to advance against the Muslims of Medina and they conceived that they would occupy Medina as the number of Muslims in it was small and they were weak. But God Almighty, according to His promise, supported the Khalifa and frustrated the designs of his enemies.
The apostates had not only made preparations to advance upon Medina, they had, immediately after the death of the Holy Prophet, slaughtered the sincere Muslims among them who persisted in their adherence to Islam. Ibn Khalladun has said that on receiving the intimation of the death of the Holy Prophet, peace be on him, Banu Zeeban and Abs attacked those among themselves who were Muslims and the same was done by the other tribes who had become apostates (Ibn Khalladun, Vol. II, p.66).

Why should Abu Bakr (ra) accept the apostates delegation while they rebelled against the Islamic State and killed the believers simply because they adhered to Islam. Abu Bakr sent armies against them because they had rebelled against the Islamic state and did not send armies to punish simply because of doctrinal differences, there is no Islamic authority for that, Abu Bakr did not issue a secular punishment for their disbelief, but did raise the sword against them as they had rebelled violently against a state.

Assuming that those who repudiated Islam after having expressed their belief in it, reverted to hostilities, they would, of course, be fought against, not because of their apostacy but because of their reversion to enemy status. The issue that this divine has to face is that Islam prescribes no penalty for a simple change of faith, which involves no treason or rebellion or hostility against the Islamic State. The verse under consideration relates to the breaking of a pledge to live at peace with the Islamic State. Those who are guilty of such breach are to be fought against, as rebels or enemy aliens, and not to be caught and executed for apostasy.

This is made abundantly clear by the immediately following verses which say:
Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths, who plotted to turn out the Messenger from his home and who were the first to start hostilities against you? Do you fear them? It is Allah Who is Most Worthy that you should fear Him, if you are believers. Fight them; Allah will punish them at your hands and will humiliate them, and will help you to overcome them, and will relieve the minds of the believers of fear and distress and will remove their feeling of resentment (9.13-14 ).

It is thus clear that these verses have reference to the disbelievers who have no regard for their pledged word, and who should be guilty of breach of treaties and should be bent upon armed hostilities.

I shall present Ahadeeth on this aspect of death for apostacy:

Bokhari relates, on the authority of Jabir bin Abdullah, that a desert Arab took the pledge of Islam at the hand of the Holy Prophet, peace be on him, and a little later he suffered from fever while he was still in Medina. He came to the Holy Prophet, peace be on him, and said: Messenger of Allah, do release me from my pledge. But the Holy Prophet paid no attention to him. He came a second time and made the same request, and the Holy Prophet refused to comply with his request. He then departed from Mediga., whereupon the Holy Prophet observed: Medina is like a furnace which destroys the dross and purifies the rest (Fathul Bari, Vol. XXIII, p.173).

This incident is most instructive. The man’s repeated request to the Holy Prophet that he might be released from his pledge is conclusive proof that apostacy was not a punishable offence. Had it been punishable, as is affirmed by some of the misguided divines, with death, this man would never have approached the
Holy Prophet with the request that he might be released from his pledge. He would have slipped away from Medina secretly, lest he should be apprehended and put to death.

That Ayah you quoted has been used to justify the punishment for apostacy.
Anyways, if you can tell which one of the early Ulama of Islam said that apostacy is not punishable then I will consider what you are saying. Because Huroob ar Ridda are not necessarily the best evidence. From what I have read is that the early scholars of Islam unanimously agreed that apostasy is punishable by death, if you can show me something from the early scholars of Islam then please do. Those scholars knew Islam better than today’s scholars, and today’s scholars tend to make changes to Islam to please the kuffar.

NuzululMasih:

TREATY OF HADAIBIYYAH

Bokhari has related, on the authority of Braa bin Aazib, that in the treaty of Hudaibiyyah, the Holy Prophet, peace be on him, agreed with the pagans of Mecca that if anyone of them became a Muslim and came to Medina, he would be returned to the Meccans, but that if a Muslim departed from Medina and joined the Meccans, they would not be under obligation to return him to the Holy Prophet (Bokhari, Egyptians edition, Vol. II, p. 76).

The obligation undertaken by the Holy Prophet in the treaty that a Muslim who departed from Medina and joined the Meccans, which means that if he repudiated Islam and went and identified himself with the Meccans, he would not be restored to the Holy Prophet, also establishes that apostacy was not punishable as an offence. Had it been punishable as an offence, the Holy Prophet would not have accepted this term of the treaty. He would have told the Meccan envoy, who represented the Meccans at Hudaibiyyah, that he could not agree to a term which was contrary to the divine command that an apostate was punishable with death. Nor did any of the Companions of the Holy Prophet protest against this term of the treaty that it was inconsistent with a Divine commandment.

This is not a good example. Did you know that changes were made to the treaty later on? Like the part where Muslims coming from Makkah to Medina are to be returned was actually removed by the Quraish, and the treaty did not specifically say anything about women so the Prophet refused to return women back to Makkah. I don’t know of anyone who apostated and went to Makkah, but if you know of a name then please show quote someone’s name.
There have been incidents in the Seerah when Umar radiAllahanhu says something like “let be kill this munafiq” and the Prophet gives a reason and says no. The Prophet never said that you cannot kill the munafiq but he had a reason for not issuing the command, like in the case of Abdullah bin Ubay and Hatib bin Abi Balta. The scholars interpreted this to mean that if there is some reason to not punish then one does not carry out the punishment.

NuzululMasih:

APOSTATE PARDONED BY HOLY PROPHET

Abdullah bin Abi Sarah was one of the scribes of the Holy Prophet, peace be on him, in Medina. He became an apostate and went and joined the Meccans and identified himself with them. On the fall of Mecca, he was among those few persons who were condemned to death by the Holy Prophet, peace be on him, on account of their misdeeds. He was a foster brother of Hazrat Usman bin Affan, who gave him shelter in his house where he remained hidden for some days. When order was restored in Mecca, Hazrat Usman interceded with the Holy Prophet on his behalf, who remained silent for a while and then signified his forgiveness of Abdullah. This incident is mentioned both in the Tafseer Kabeer of Imam Razi (Vol. V, p.527), and in the commentary Ruhul Maani (Vol. IV, p.484).
This incident also furnishes clear proof that there was no penalty for apostacy in Islam. Abdullah bin Abi Sarah had been condemned on account of his political offences and not on account of his apostacy. Had the punishment for apostacy been death, Hazrat Usman would never have given him shelter, and the Holy Prophet would never have accepted Hazrat Usman’s intercession on his behalf.
It is well known that the Holy Prophet never accepted any intercession in respect of the prescribed punishment for an offence. If anyone attempted intercession in such a case, the Holy Prophet rejected it and was gravely displeased with the intercessor . This is well illustrated by the case of a woman of the Makhzoom who had been found guilty of theft. Bokhari has related on the authority of Aisha: The Quraish were much disturbed on account of a Makhzoomi woman who had committed theft. They consulted together and wondered who could approach the Holy Prophet, peace be on him, on her behalf, except Usamah bin Zaid, whom the Holy Prophet held dear. They persuaded Usamah to approach the Holy Prophet, and intercede on behalf of the woman. When he did so, the Holy Prophet rebuked him: Do you intercede in respect of a penalty prescribed by Allah? Then he stood up and, addressing his companions, said: Many people before you went astray because they overlooked the offence of a person belonging to a good family and imposed the prescribed penalty upon a common thief. I call God to witness that if Fatimah, daughter of Muhammad, were to be guilty of theft, I would certainly cut off her hand (Bokhari, Indian edition, p.lOO3).

Thus it can be seen what was the attitude of the Holy Prophet in respect of prescribed penalties. Had Abdullah bin Abi Sarah been liable to the penalty of death on account of his apostacy, the Holy Prophet would never have accepted Hazrat Usman’s intercession on his behalf and would have responded to Hazrat Usman in the same way as he had responded to Usamah.

Wow, you have again quoted the story to prove your point of view. There’s more that happened afterwards. The story of Abdullah bin Abi Sarah as I read in the Seerah of ibn Kathir says that after Uthman and Abdullah left the Prophet turned to those who were present and asked them why didn’t you kill him while I was silent. Then they said you should have given us a sign and the Prophet said that I am a Prophet and it does not appropriate for me to give you signs like this. Those who were to be executed at the conquest of Makkah fell into two categories, either they were apostates or they disrespected the Prophet in some way. Some were given amnesty and some were executed. Again this proves my point of view and not yours.

NuzululMasih:

Moving on you said: “You keep saying that qadiyanis are growing in numbers all the time. How can a community with large numbers be persecuted? It doesn’t make sense because throughout history it’s the minority that get persecuted.”
In reply I will say please visit www.ThePersecution.org, here you will see in how many ways we have been subjected to persecution by our Muslim brothers themselves, yet the Holy Prophet (saw) never allowed such behavior, nor did he command the Muslims to mistreat and harass anybody who claimed by name to be a Muslim.

And indeed we are a minority, we are spread out on over 184 countries of the world, and in all of those countries we are minority, its not like all 200,000,000 of us are concentrated in one area. 200 million is nothing in comparison to 1.4 Billiom Muslims and is nothing in comparison to 1.6 Billion Christians and indeed is nothing compared to 6.4 Billion worldwide, so just as you said it is the minority who get persecuted, thank you for admitting to this fact. Although, the other thing is that we do not fight back, but we bear with patience and prayer, the Promised Messiah (as) forbade us to take up arms in religious matters, because with the coming of the Imam Mahdi and Messiah there was to be no more war, and he was to abolish it. This is another reason why people persecute us, they take advantage and know that we will not physically fight back, but will report them to the proper authorities.

This is not from the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad salAllahualaihiwasallam. We know for a fact that fighting for the sake of Allah will continue till the Day of Judgement (this is evident from ahadith), so how can mirza ghulam come along and abolish fighting? Read the Ahadith in Sahih Muslim under the chapter of Government.

NuzululMasih:

You also asked: “Two: elijah muhammad is a recent false prophet, so he couldn’t have been of 30 dajjal that the ahadith talk about, so what is he then? Is he a false prophet or is he a real prophet? If he is a false prophet then mirza ghulam is also included in the 30 because he came before elijah mohammed. Three: did mirza ghulam support the british government?”

You are twisting the meaning of the Ahadith yourself, I gave a sufficient reply in the long post before this, but I will again refute you according to the correct time of events that the Holy Prophet (saw) prophecied. First of all I cited the words of eminent Islamic scholars who said that the prophecy of the 30 dajjaals and liars has been fulfilled, and that it was the time of the Messiah and Mahdi to come. The very next claimant was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) who was not a Prophet of himself, but was a subordinate Prophet to the Holy Prophet (saw). Since Elijah Muhammad came after the Messiah, Ghulam Ahmad (as), he is not true, because the Holy Prophet did not prophecy that another Prophet would appear after the Promised Messiah, which makes Elijah Muhammad false, by the coming of the Promised Messiah and Mahdi (as). Is this not clear enough. The Holy Prophet (saw) only Prophecied 30 liars and 30 liars alone no more no less and after them was the time of the true Messiah, who came in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as), The Holy Prophet did not say anything about people after the Promised Messiah, because he, The Messiah (as), would have already come. When the Promised Messiah (as) came the prophecy of the 30 liars was already literally fulfilled as I had quoted by the words of scholars, some of whom did not even accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as). But again the Holy Prophet (saw) did not say that another Prophet would come after the Promised Messiah:

“This Ummah can never die which has me at the beginning and the Messiah, son of Mary, at the end.” (Ibn Maja, Bab Al-I’atisam Bis-Sunnah)

There’s another similar narration which says that the Mahdi will be in the middle, which again shows that the Mahdi and the Messiah are two different people.

NuzululMasih:

It is clear that no prophet would appear after the Promised Messiah outside of his Community, so Elijah Muhammad is false, false and false as claiming to be a prophet of Allah. As well as the fact that Elijah Muhammad simply does not fit the attributes and appearance of the Promised Messiah (as) who would be a prophet of Allah, according to the Holy Prophet (saw).

So please stop with Elijah Muhammad.

Also where did you get that Elijah Muhammad claimed himself to be a Prophet while I have the truth about what he said:

“Upon the Master’s (Master Wallace Fard Muhammad) departure (death) in 1934, the Honorable Elijah Muhammad labored tirelessly to bring life to his mentally and spiritually dead people until his return to the Master in 1975. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad identified the Master as being the answer to the one that the world had been expecting for the past 2,000 years under the names Messiah, the second coming of Jesus, the Christ, Jehovah, God, and the Son of Man. When the Honorable Elijah Muhammad asked Him to identify Himself He replied that He was the Mahdi. He signed His name in 1933 as Master Wallace Fard Muhammad to express the meaning of One Who had come in the Early Morning Dawn of the New Millennium to lay the base for a New World Order of Peace and Righteousness on the foundation of Truth and Justice; to put down tyrants and to change the world into a Heaven on Earth” From www.noi.org

It is clear that it was Fard Muhammad who claimed to be the Mahdi in 1933 yet less than one year later he died. Elijah Muhammad identified his master as a prophet and not himself.

First of all the ahadith stated that there will be 30 false prophets before the Day of Judgement. So you tell me what this means if the false prophets continue to come and there is no Qiyamah?
Cause those Ahadith do not refer to the Mahdi or Isa alaihisalaam, but it is a sign of the Day of Judgement. Could it be possible that the 30 false prophets that you counted were not the actual 30 referred to in the Ahadith?

NuzululMasih:

You also said:

“Like I said, I will take everything literally and I will follow the early scholars of Islam. You already misinterpreted so many Ayaat of the Quraan. You mistranslated Fitnah, and the prophecy that you took from Surah Nasr was also flawed, and the prophecy Surah Haqqah was also misinterpreted by you, etc.”
If you take everything literally then you must believe, according to Ahadith, that Jesus (as) will not literally descend from the heavens until a Giant one eyed monster under the name of Masih-Ad-Dajjaal will come, because he is to come before the coming of Jesus (as).

He will be as tall as the clouds and will move as fast as the clouds, one of his feet will be in the east and the other in the west, he will ride a huge donkey who runs on fire and whose jump will take you from country to country. The Messiah (as) will slaughter him.

If you take Ahadeeth literally then you must be waiting for this gigantic one eyed monster to descend with is great fire eating donkey, right?

The fact is that these are metaphorical and have already been fulfilled.
It is accepted by many scholars that a false prophet will never equal the time period of the ministry of the Holy prophet (saw) ie 23 years, referring to the Quranic verses in Al Haqqaah, it is referring to the Holy Prophet (saw) yes, but also refers to the Truth of the Messiah who would come after him, who would speak the revelations that Allah would send him, it is your lack of knowledge that you do not understand that these verses are a test from Allah to reveal those who are false and liars, yet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad assumed his prophethood for 26 years and received revelation for a total of 43 years, which proves in light of Al Haqqah’s verses as well as the verses of the Bible which are in complete harmony with these verses that he must be judged as true, not only by Muslims but by those who follow the Bible as well, which is why I quoted it in the first place. Now apply these verses to Fard Muhammad and his deceit and lie will be revealed.

Again I agree with some of what you have said. Muhammad salAllahualaihiwasallam did speak metaphorically and that was understood by the Sahaba and the early scholars of Islam. Again you agree that you misinterpreted Surah Haqqah. Like I said earlier stick to the Quran, Ahadith and the statements of the early scholars of Islam.
Reading your post made me think of another question that if mirza ghulam is the mahdi then who is Ad Dajjal?

it was simple yes or no question, that is the answer i wanted from you
so please answer yes or no

Again, Khatimun Nabiyyeen was unaninomously agreed upon that it means last of the Prophets. It is the qadiyanis who recently brought this forward to make it mean something different. Please show me which of the early three generations of Islam, understood Khatimun Nabiyyeen in the way that qadiyanis interpret it.

Here’s what Tafsir of ibn Kathir says about that Ayaah 4:70. It refers to someone getting the same status as the Prophets, the Siddiqun, etc.

Ibn Jarir recorded that Said bin Jubayr said, "An Ansari man came to the Messenger of Allah while feeling sad. The Prophet said to him, Why do I see you sad’ He said, O Allah's Prophet! I was contemplating about something.' The Prophet said, What is it’ The Ansari said, `We come to you day and night, looking at your face and sitting by you. Tomorrow, you will be raised with the Prophets, and we will not be able to see you.’ The Prophet did not say anything, but later Jibril came down to him with this Ayah,

(And whoever obeys Allah and the Messenger then they will be in the company of those on whom Allah has bestowed His grace, of the Prophets), and the Prophet sent the good news to the Ansari man.‘’ This Hadith was narrated in Mursal form from Masruq, Ikrimah, Amir Ash-Shabi, Qatadah and Ar-Rabi bin Anas. This is the version with the best chain of narrators. Abu Bakr bin Marduwyah recorded it with a different chain from A'ishah, who said; "A man came to the Prophet and said to him, O Messenger of Allah! You are more beloved to me than myself, my family and children. Sometimes, when I am at home, I remember you, and I cannot wait until I come and look at you. When I contemplate about my death and your death, I know that you will be with the Prophets when you enter Paradise. I fear that I might not see you when I enter Paradise.’ The Prophet did not answer him until the Ayah,

(And whoever obeys Allah and the Messenger, then they will be in the company of those on whom Allah has bestowed His grace, of the Prophets, the true believers, the martyrs, and the righteous. And how excellent these companions are!) was revealed to him.‘’ This was collected by Al-Hafiz Abu Abdullah Al-Maqdisi in his book, Sifat Al-Jannah, he then commented, "I do not see problems with this chain.'' And Allah knows best. Muslim recorded that Rabiah bin Kab Al-Aslami said, "I used to sleep at the Prophet's house and bring him his water for ablution and his needs. He once said to me, Ask me.’ I said, O Messenger of Allah! I ask that I be your companion in Paradise.' He said, Anything except that’ I said, `Only that.’ He said,

(Then help me (fulfill this wish) for you by performing many prostrations.)‘’ Imam Ahmad recorded that Amr bin Murrah Al-Juhani said, "A man came to the Prophet and said, O Allah’s Messenger! I bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that you are the Messenger of Allah, pray the five (daily prayers), give the Zakah due on my wealth and fast the month of Ramadan.’ The Messenger of Allah said,
(Whoever dies in this state will be with the Prophets, the truthful and martyrs on the Day of Resurrection, as long as - and he raised his finger - he is not disobedient to his parents.)‘’ Only Ahmad recorded this Hadith. Greater news than this is in the authentic Hadith collected in the Sahih and Musnad compilations, in Mutawatir form, narrated by several Companions that the Messenger of Allah was asked about the person who loves a people, but his status is not close to theirs. The Messenger said,
(One is with those whom he loves.) Anas commented, "Muslims were never happier than with this Hadith.‘’ In another narration, Anas said, "I love the Messenger of Allah, Abu Bakr and `Umar, and I hope that Allah will resurrect me with them, even though I did not perform actions similar to theirs.‘’

NuzululMasih:

“Because it says so in the Ahadith. If those ahadith were not supposed to be taken literally, then please tell me which Sahabi interpreted those Ahadith in the same manner that you have interpreted.”

I already did but will do again:

“It is related by Hazrat Abu Hurairah (peace be on him) that we were sitting with the Holy Prophet (peace be on him) when Surah Jumuah was revealed to him. When he recited the verse And among others from among them who have not yet joined them, a man asked, O Messenger of Allah, who are these people (who will hold the rank of the companions of the Prophet and have not yet joined them). But Huzur did not answer him. The man repeated his question three times. The narrator says that Hazrat Salman Farsi was sitting amongst us. The Holy Prophet put his hand on his shoulder and said, "Even if the Eeman will ascend to the Pleiades, men from among his people will bring it back to earth. (This means that Aakhireen means sons of Faris among whom the Promised Messiah will appear and those who will believe in him will get the rank of Sahaba.)” (Bukhari)
It is also clear that the Holy Prophet and the Sahaba were agrred on the fact that Jesus (as) the Nazarene Messiah had passed away.

“If Moses and Jesus had been alive, they would have had to believe in me and follow me.” (Zurqani, Vol. VI, p. 54, Tibrani Kabeer, Alyawaqeet Wal Jawahir, Vol. II, p. 23)

This can obviously be interpreted in different ways. One interpretation can be alive as in living on the Earth which he isn’t because he ascended to the Heavens.

I am not going to simply read from your sites and links. Quote from neutral sources.

NuzululMasih:

“Originally Posted by NuzululMasih
Elijah did indeed come, but came in the person of Yahya but the Jews blindly rejected this fact, just as you blindly reject the fact that Jesus(as) has come in the person of Ghulam Ahmad (as), which is why I reffered to the SunnatUllah and to the Quranic verse which says that you should look at the earlier examples of the Jews and Christians if you want to see the way Allah deals with things. But even that you reject.

If Allah did not make Elijah (as) descend in the flaming chariot in the literal and physical sense, why then do you believe that the case of Hadhrat Isa (as)'s return will be dealt differently by Allah, while Allah’s Sunnat does not change and never will change as is recorded in the Holy Quran in (35:44), (17:78), (33:63), (48:24):

“Do they then look for anything other than Allah’s way of dealing with the people of the old? But thou wilt never find any change in the way of Allah (SunnatUllah); nor wilt thou ever find any alteration in the way of Allah.” (33:44)

“This has been Our way with Our Messengers whom we sent before thee; and thou wilt not find any change in our way.” (17:78)

These few verses contradict the popular belief that Jesus (as) himself will re-appear literally on the White Minaret in the east of Damascus.”

This speaks for itself.

The curse of Allah be upon the liars indeed.

I will read “Why did I renounce Ahmadiyyah” and see why this man renounced the truth.

peace be upon those who follow the guidance

Like I said when I have time, I will look up that story as well.