Ahmedi’s and Qadiyani’s are some of the most religious people that I have come across and I have to admit my ignorance with respect to their beliefs. I guess what I’ve come across so far is just rumours from people who consider them non-muslims. So a few questions to Ahmedis:
1 - Are Ahmedi’s and Qaidiyani’s one and the same? If not, how do they differ?
2 - Did Ghulam Ahmed Mirza claim to be The Last Prophet, Mahdi and/or Essa? Or was he just a new interpreter of ahadith and sunna (mujaddid) like many before him?
One's energy is sapped up to even bother thinking about going through the mire of accusations and counter accusations. I'd rather wait for someone like Ahmadjee to give me straight forward answers to my questions. I just wanna know the ideaology than nit-pick on rituals and rites.
No! But It depends on who you ask or which book/pamphlet/article you are reading. There are two groups of Ahmadis “Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam” (Jama’at-e-Ahmadiyya) and the other “Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement for the Propagation of Islam” (Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at-e-Islam Lahore). Both call themselves “Ahmadi Muslims” and in their literature, you will find this term quiet often. If you read any of the Anti-Ahmadiyya literature, they usually refer to the Lahore group as “Lahoris or Ahmadis” and the other group as “Qadiyanis or Ahmadis”
He claimed to be a prophet with no book but subordinate to the last & final book, Quran & khatam-un-nabiyeen Hazrat Muhammad (saw). He never claimed to be the last one.
He did claim to be the Promised Messiah, promised to the Muslim Ummah by the Holy Prophet (saw). And also claimed that Hazrat Isa (as) died a natural death, which was not on the cross. So, the promised one to come was to be in Jesus’s spirit, not he himself physically. He also claimed to be the Mahdi.
The Lahori jama’at however considers him only as a Mujadid-e-Azam.
There is no relation to Bahai or Bhoras. Nor Baha’ullah has any significance. Though Baba guru Nanak sb. is considered a great Muslim saint.
KN Usually in the past such discussions (and others like it) have gone down the drain pretty fast & so we had admin’s warning! You can always search the web, as you can find enourmous amount of information on all aspects of Ahmadis. If you have any more specific questions, please feel free to email/PM me. :)
It has been often said that Mirza was a reviver or Islam, i.e. in the late 19th centuary towards the last part of the British raj, the muslims of then india had become somewhat lacking in thier deen. If you like, he was a Taliban of Qadiyan.
But what confuses me in a great way is that if he did indeed call the people to Islam, why the need to create a totally new religion and code of religious teachings?
Were the revivers before his time also prohets without a kalam? Take Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab, was he a nabi? Was Abu Haneefah Numan ibn thabit also a nabi? Was Ahmad bin Hanbal also a nabi? Was Muhammad Nasir-ud--deen alAlbani also a nabi?
The list is endless, there are many scholars and imams who came and went who all fought to teach us Islam and to make sure we stay on its clear path - and may Allah reward them and bless then Jannah for their efforts, so what marks Mirza as anything different?
What then is the difference in staus of iman of those muslims before Mirza, and those since?
Im sorry if I have offended anyone, but I write what I think on this, lest it be considered as ahmadi-bashing.
why is my post edited ahmadhi not considerd muslim in pakistan and also according to law of land so my advice for them was take shahada to become muslims if that what they want.
*Constitution of Pakistan was moved and passed on September 7, 1974, with the following text: *
*"A person who does not believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of the prophethood of Muhammad(SAW) the last of the prophets or claims to be a prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever after Muhammad(SAW) or recognizes such a claimant as a prophet, is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or law". *
see this linkhttp://www.irshad.org/idara/home.htm ***
Qaadiyaanism is Nothing but,
Conspiracy against Islaam,
Kufr in the guise of Religion, and
Hypocrisy in the Name of Islaam.
Why do deviants like advertising their false beliefs, if we had the khalif today he would put a sword through mirza, him and his deviants are nothing to do with Islam, all the muslims know this so why do they still put their false beliefs to us !!!!
Personally I think having "no last prophet" is a great idea. We gotta keep 'em coming. That's one cool thing about Qadiyanee belief. They don't care if someone declare himself a prophet after Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
Thankyou ROman. I feel the same way. It's not like the humans are going to get smarter anytime soon. WHo knows, may be the next prophet will come to the Jains, they really haven't had one in a while.
Actually, I think mod of the forum should rather be happy that instead of usual 100 some fiery posts on the topic, we're done with it in 5. Ain't that great way to discuss something?
This is a message from Adnan Ahmed at GUPSHUP ( http://www.gupistan.com/forums/index.php ). The GUPSHUP owners cannot accept any
responsibility for the contents of the email.
Hi.. I didnt like what you said about Ahmedis..
Rest assured, we are the only true Muslims left, and one day it will be you and
your Sunni kufar pig brothers that will feel the sword… Scratch that, a bullet
to your head.. May you and all yur kufar brother burn in hell you Bhan Chod
sunni mother ****er.
I see harmony and fruitful discussions aren’t part of the deviant ahmedi belief, abuse and more abuse well keep it up and expose ureselves for the devianst you are !