Case Against Ahmedi Muslims Is Weak And Hypocritical

Society Religion & Philosophy
21

Though it does disturb me that a Man would claim divine guidance after the Death of the Prophet, I still see no reason to ostrasize his followers from the Fold of Islam.
Even If I saw reason, it would strictly be confined to opinion.
I opened this thread as a protest to the Law passed against Ahmedi muslims. The case was vague hypocritical and unjustified.
It seems to me that the objective of The Pakistan Goverment in this case was to legislate our Sunni majority prejudice.

Bhutto always loved cheap popularity. He acheived with the blood of the Ahmedis. His evil lives in our inability to fight the law that still calls our brothers Kafir.

Stud

22

MirzaYasir wrote: "Its a fact that sunni ulema canceled some ayaat of Quran or I should say some aehkamat of Quran. I can provide you the exact references."

I'd be interested in this. Could you post a separate thread explaining the "canceled ayaat". In particular I have the following questions:

1)Do the Ahmadi believe that the Sunni Quran is incomplete (missing some Ayat)?
2) Do the Ahmadi believe that they have a completed version of the Quran?
3) What verses complete the Quran, could you display them?
4) When were the verses revealed and how did the Ahmadi come upon them (discover them)?
5) What does this say about the Ahmadi belief in other versions of Islam - do they believe others (sunni, shia, etc) are unbelievers (since they do not have a completed version of the revelation)?

Achtung ;)

23

Jewel
I will not try to justify the discrepencies found in the opinions of these Ulema regarding the defination of a muslim no matter how contradictory they seem for the simple reason that in essence they all agree upon the finality of prophethood. This is the basis of sunni madhab. I am sure if they were all specifically asked about it, there would have been no confusion as to prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) is the seal of all the prophets. Rather than try to read something between the lines which is not there it is important that we must first establish the basis of sunni creed. I would definately like to see some statement from any of the above scholars denying the fact that Mohammad is the last prophet. Apart from that, if any one ever lays the claim to prophethood, the burden of proof rests with the individual to prove without the shadow of a doubt that he is true in his claim. Prophet Mohammad's veracity was upheld by the Almighty Allah on several occassions in the Quran which in itself is the biggest and most incontrovertible evidence of his prophethood.

24

Yasir,
I see from what you wrote that you have very little idea (if any, that is) what naskh-o-mansookh is about.

By the way what's your take on drinking alcoholic beverages?

Regards.

[This message has been edited by deepblue (edited April 12, 1999).]

25

dear i qadeer,

the definitions i posted were taken directly from the case against the ahmedis, and well yes, the ulema WERE asked the question exlclusively in relation to whether the ahmedis are muslims. only 2 out of seven ulema believed that finality of prophethood to be a fundamental part of islam. i repeat, only 2 out of 7!

please look at the matter from a neutral point of view. i am not arguing about the truth of finality of prophethood, i am just talking about is relation to being a muslim! so please be neutral and see that there is no hadith or koranic revelation which supports the current definition.

what made the definition of a muslim change in 21 years from 1953 to 1974?
the koran is the same,
the hadith is the same,
the molvis are the same,
however, the political situation is different!

is this not a clear proof of the relation of definition of a muslim to the political situation?

And yes, there have been clear signs, for those who realize them!
yu can see how exactly the cinstitution of pakistan is being treated. the political situation in pakistan since 1974 is clearly evident! does this not itself speak of the wrath of allah?

when people do things to please allah, allah guides them to the right path. he makes them civilized, and live in peace! is pakistan an example of such a nation????

pakistan, which is all full of cheating, bribery, unrest, killings, thefts, what do you see in pakistan, which does not speak of the curse of allah?

is this the condition of those who please allah? or of those who invite his wrath?
be neutral when answering this!

if you think there is any sign of allah's gifts on pakistan, then i wuld believe in your point that you served allah by making your decision.

i hope that these molvis seek guidance and stop all this, and i pray that more signs of gifts and bounty are visible, and less of wrath and curse. but i am afraid, days of great horror are coming ahead! may god forbid us.

26

Jewels
Before I can really answer any of your questions, we must try to clear some of the confusion sorrounding the entire Ahmadi vs Muslim debate. Being born and raised in a sunni home, I confess ignorance to basic Ahmadi doctrines. What I have known until now is entirely based on hearsay and second hand information. In my knowledge Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed that he was the expected Mehdi (peace be upon him). Then obviously he must have been ordained by Allah to accomplish the mission Mehdi(peace be upon him) is supposed to accomplish. What was Mirza's mission and how far was he successful in it? Reading Mr Zalim's post from another thread I came across the fact that Ahmadis practice the same sharia and worships as the sunnis do. So what is there in Ahmadis' beliefs or practices that is inherently different from sunnis barring Mirza's prophethood. Last but not least what were the circumstances that necessitated Mirza's arrival as Mahdi (peace be upon him)more than a hundred years ago. I mean Mahdi is supposed to arrive in a time of great tumult among the muslims to give victory to the muslims against the enemies of Islam. Who did Mirza waged his battle against and how far was he successful in it? These are some of the questions that have been bothering me since I have been exposed to this entire episode. I consider you as the main proponent of Ahmadi doctrine at this forum. Please answer as clearly as you can.

[This message has been edited by iqadeer (edited April 15, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by iqadeer (edited April 15, 1999).]

27

What happened to the Ahmedias also happened to the Bahais in Iran, who had also proclaimed a prophet called Bahuallah - The Bab, during the last century; the Ahmedias and Bahais were both ruthlessly persecuted and declared non-muslims. An interesting point to note: the Bahais & Ahmedias are today the fastest growing religions.
Similar purges/pogroms are being committed TODAY, even as we speak, against Hindus, Christians and Shia muslims in Pakistan; against Shias by Taleban in Afghanistan; oppression against minority Christians in Sudan, Nigeria, Indonesia by the majority muslims. The tragedy is: Even TODAY we continue to turn a blind eye to these attrocities against our neighbours and minorities. May Allah Talla forgive us, because we have certainly gone astray!!

[This message has been edited by Adbulmalick (edited May 06, 1999).]

28

salam.
finality of prophethood has been part of the fundamental beliefs of islam since day one.
it was clearly stated by Muhammad(saw) that he was the last prophet and that no new prohpet would come after him......
in the first islamic century after the prophet it was reitterated that he was the final prophet in the second islamic century ..in the 3rd islamic century and so on...why???
because it is a fundamental part of the belief of a muslim.
anyone who says that he or she is a prophet or a nabi or a rasool or an incarnation of jesus(peace be upon him)is a liar and if he or she believes this on his or her death bed will die a kafir..a non muuslim...THIS IS CLEAR CUT FROM THE QURAN AND THE HADITHS OF THE PROHET MUHAMMAD...and has been clarified in every century since the death of Muhammad(saw)
.people who believe that there has been a prophet or nabi or rasool since Muhammad(saw)and have belived it when they have died have died as kafirs...people who still believe it are NOT MUSLIMS......BECAUSE PART OF BEING A MUSLIM IS BELIEF THAT MUHAMMAD(SAW) IS THE FINAL PROPHET OF ALLAH.
(ghulam ahmed mirza of qadian said he was an incarnation of jesus and buddha..and others)
NOW AS FAR AS PESCUTION OF QADIANIS IS CONCERNED....islam does not order their persecution ..the quran nor the haidths order their persecution..anti qadiani laws in pakistan have no basis in islam
..THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF THE ISLAMIC SHARIA IS THE PROTECTION OF RELIGION..ALL RELIGIONS...NOT JUST THE ISLAMIC DEEN...ANYONE IS FREE TO PRACTICE ANY RELIGIION THEY LIKE.... DURING THE TIMES WHEN SHARIA WAS IMPLEMENTED CORRECTLY, JEWS AND CHRISTIANS LIVING UNDER THE RULE OF SHARIA WERE FREE TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGIONS..THEY RECEIVED MONEY FROM ISLAMIC GOVERNMENTS TO LOOK AFTER THEIR PLACES OF WORSHIP..ETC ETC..THE SECOND PURPOSE OF THE SHARIA IS THE PROTECTION OF LIFE ITSELF..THE SHARIA OF ISLAM IS NOT IMPLEMENTED ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD...PEOPLE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE SHARIA...KING FAHD IS NOT INTERESTED IN APPLYING THE FULL SHARIA..BECAUSE HE WOULD BE THE FIRST ONE CONVICTED OF CRIMES AGAINST INNOCENT PEOPLE...HIS PLAYBOY LIFE STYLE WOULD END....BENAZIR BHUTTO NEVER CARED ABOUT THE TRUE SHARIA ,..SHE JUST WANTED TO STAY IN POWER...THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN DO NOT WANT TO IMPLEMENT THE SHARIA..THEY JUST TA;LK ABOUT A FEW SO CALLED ISLAMIC LAWS WHICH THEY WISH TO IMPLEMENT IN ORDER TO PLEASE THE SO CALLED RELIGIOUS PARTIES.
THE MAJOR PRINCIPLES OF ISLAM AS STATED IN THE QURAN AND HADITHS AND AS CORRECTLY UNDERSTOOD BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE MUSLIMS SINCE DAY ONE INCLUDE JUSTICE...EQUALITY ..RIGHTEOUSNESS...
KILLING QADIANIS IS DONE BY IGNORANT PEOPLE WHO NO NOTHING ABOUT ISLAM...
ISLAM IS A COMPLETE CODE OF LIFE WITH A BASIC SET OF BELIEFS ..DENYING ANY BASIC BELIEF MAKES A PERSON A NONMUSLI..IF I SAY THAT I DONT BELIEVE THAT AS AN EXAMPLE ABRAHAM(PEACE BE UPON HIM )WAS NOT A PROPHET OF ALLAH ..THEN I CANNOT BE A MUSLIM..BECAUSE PART OF MUSLIMS BELIEF IS THAT HE IS A PROPHET...THE
FINALITY OF PROPHET (OF MUHAMMMAD (SAW))IS CLEARLY A BASIC BELIEF OF MUSLIMS AND HAS ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE.... IN MY NEXT REPLY I WILL CITE YOU THE EVIDENCE..REMEMBER ONE THING WHO READS THIS..DO NOT MISQUOTE ME..READ WHAT I HAVE SAID FULLY AND DO NOT TAKE OUT LITTLE BITS HERE AND THERE IN ORDER TO TRY TO REFUTE ME....READ MY ARTICLE A NUMBER OF TIMES IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND IT..
I SHALL CONCLUDE BY RESTATING WAT I HAVE SAID
1.MUHAMMAD(SAW) IS THE FINAL PROHET OF ALLAH...ANYONE WHO DENIES THIS IS NOT MUSLIM..AND THERE WILL BE NO PROPHETS AFTER HIM...IF ANYONE SAYS SO THEN THEY ARE NON MUSLIM
2.THE SHARIA OF ISLAM IS NOT IMPLEMENTED ANYWHERE AND NO GOVERNMENT APPLIES IT OR WANTS TO...LAWS MADE IN THE NAME OF ISLAM..ARE ON THE WHOLE NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM...THEY ARE A MIX OF EXPEDIENCY AND A DESIRE TO STAY IN POLITICAL POWER ..NOT A DESIRE TO IMPLEMENT THE JUSTICE OF THE SHARIA.
SALAM.

29

Dear Learner,

First of all, this whole thing about being 'last prophet' is a load of nonsense. Think of it as a record. Records are always broken. If one is the fastest runner today, tomorrow someone else may become the fastest runner. So Muhammad was the Last when he was alive. After his death, someone else became last. There will always be prophets for as long as there is a world. And secondly, should this make such a huge differnece as to who is last or not? Please tell us what things about Ahmadiyat are in not in accordance with what Mohammad preached or believed in. List a few for us, please. Please tell us significant differences, not petty things like who is last.

30

All isues regarding nasikh mansookh are answered in the new thread by deepblue and I don't feel necessary to answer them here.

31

dear i qadeer,

i will inshallah start a new thread where i would answer your questions, to your hearts satisfaction.

32

Hi everybody,

This is my first message on this forum and I have an interest in this subject. The Ahmadi position can be addressed very easily by looking at their beliefs and quoting directly from their books. Unfortunately the last time I did that, I was banned from the Forum despite no bad language and providing references for my quotes. What is the situation on this Forum? Can we speak freely or is there likely to be censorship? If there is then I won't waste my time or yours and let's leave the topic.

33

Mr Xtreme,
If you are writing facts (references) you can write anything. Even though I hate selective quoting and/or quoting without describing the proper context, you won't see me taking those references out.

On the other hand, in writing your opinions which you deduce from those facts, please be a little careful. That doesn't mean I'll take out any "I am Muslim, you are not" comment. Just be a little tactful and level-headed. That's all I ask.

So, write away.

Thanks.

34

Mr stud should rename his post to "case of violence against the Ahmadi Muslims is weak and hypocritical". There is always a chance to argue whether Ahmadis are muslims or not. But violence perpetrated against any group based upon their beliefs cannot be defended. Also, Mr stud's logic that since Ahmadis do not oppose prophet Mohammed therefore they must not be declared as non muslims is flawed. Taking his words any one can propound a doctrine no matter how twisted and as long as it does not directly renounce the prophethood of Mohammad, will gain acceptance as mainstream Islam. Any one can declare himself as Mahdi as long as he beleives in Mohammed. There has to be a criteria for judging any one's claims and we have it in the form of Quran and sunnat.