The proof of being pious and simple muslims is this letter to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad:
4th May 1891 Reply of Sher Ali Baig to Mirza Ghulam:
“My brother Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Assalamo alaikum. I recieved your letter. It is your kindness that you consider me nice-natured and pious. But I do not accept your concocted prophethood and pray to Allah that may He keeps me on the way of pious ancestors and give death on it… What can I do about Ahmad Baig. He is a simple muslim. Whatever has happened, is because of you. Had you not spoiled your faith and started claiming to recieve inspirations, had you not threatened with death, nor would he have refrained from you. This is true that you proposed as a relative, but think yourself that if in your place is Ahmad Baig and you are in his place, then say by God, what things would you consider before accepting the proposal? If Ahmad Baig had asked for this marriage and he had been a collection of sickness, over 50 years of age and on top of that he had surpassed even Musailma Kazzab (Musailma Kazzab was a false claimant of prophethood) in his claims, then would you have given the hand of your daughter? You should not have gone out of control while writing the letter. There are girls in every house and the system of the world progresses in such manner. There is no harm if you get her (my daughter) a divorce, this will be a new tradition of prophethood and you will have to accept the blackness of ignomony on your face. As far as the bread is concerned, God will provide it from somewhere, if not fresh, dried will do, but that dried is better which is earned by ones efforts.
I am writing to Brother Ahmad Baig (mohammdi’s father), and I am also sending your letter alongwith. But I cannot do anything in his presence and what right does my wife has to ask for her brother’s daughter the proposal of an eternally sick man whose mental illness has progressed to divinity … yes if he accepts himself, then me and my wife will not object. You write to him personally, but your pen has become used to writing harsh and strong words. As much as it is possible, refrain from such writings and try to beg and request.
Khaksaar, Ali Sher Baig, Qadian dated 4th May 1891”(Nawishta-e-Ghaib by Khalid Wazirabadi pp.126-128, cited in Qadiani Mazhab by Prof Burni p.463)
On this website below you can also follow the chain of events. I know that you will say it is Anti-Ahmadi website but please can we stick with the proof and evidence.
Can you post details of what they wrote in the newspaper that was insulting to Islam. Given that they did not accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet, but that does not become anti islam unless you are a Qadiani. Also can you mention the date that it was published in the newspaper?
Whether some of them became Ahmadi later is neither here or there and is irrelevant to the current discussion.
How can you agree with me that "no new wahi" will come when you already believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed received wahi ...?
You yourself believe that Isa (as) will receive some form of wahi. sometimes you call it inspiration. Pls re-read my post. Wahi of any new shariah, change in previous one will not happen. No new divine book can come.
Also, how can you believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed is the best follower and has the best understanding of Qur'an and Sunnah when on the flip side - he is being given concessions such as in the case of marriage by breaking another marriage? This pattern is not consistent with a follower of the Deen, but it could be of a law changer ... a person who sits above the law or in a law of his own.
You clearly believe he was a prophet with jurisdiction that supersedes the law brought by Sayyiduna Muhammad (SAW) and if not then you must concede that his marriage was wrong. Since you assert that his marriage was by favour of Allah (SWT) then you cannot at the same time assert he was a follower ...
[/QUOTE]
I don't understand what are you talking about. The proposal of marriage was made before that girl got married to Mirza sultan. which broken law are you referring to? If you think that such an issue doesn't suit the stature of Masih and Mahdi then let me point to the fact that even the holy of the holiest and the Khataman Nabyieen (pbuh) was not spared such lecherous criticism. How for centuries the lewd Freudians of the western world have mocked and jeered our Holy Prophet, the Khataml Anbiyya for marrying Hazrat Zainab, of blessed memory, the divorced wife of his erstwhile 'adopted' son, Hazrat Zaid.
I don't believe that he was a law changer neither do I believe that he was a prophet with jurisdiction that supersedes the law brought by Sayyiduna Muhammad (pbuh). but yes I do believe that he had the jurisdiction above the Pharohs of the time, the so-called ullema who think unless they put their seal of affirmation on Mahdi, he can't be the true one.
I don't understand what are you talking about. The proposal of marriage was made before that girl got married to Mirza sultan. which broken law are you referring to?** If you think that such an issue doesn't suit the stature of Masih and Mahdi then let me point to the fact that even the holy of the holiest and the Khataman Nabyieen (pbuh)** was not spared such lecherous criticism. How for centuries the lewd Freudians of the western world have mocked and jeered our Holy Prophet, the Khataml Anbiyya for marrying Hazrat Zainab, of blessed memory, the divorced wife of his erstwhile 'adopted' son, Hazrat Zaid.
I don't believe that he was a law changer neither do I believe that he was a prophet with jurisdiction that supersedes the law brought by Sayyiduna Muhammad (pbuh). but yes I do believe that he had the jurisdiction above the Pharohs of the time, the so-called ullema who think unless they put their seal of affirmation on Mahdi, he can't be the true one.
Well that is what I am saying ... It only suits the stature of a law giving prophet "to change the law" the law is that divorce is most disliked of the permissible things and the law since the time of Moses is "Thou shalt not covet your neighbours wife"... Sayyiduna Muhammad (SAW) did not bring invite to marry Sayyidah Zainab (RA) until after she was already divorced - the main criticism from the Orientalists is that he (SAW) married his adopted son's divorcee, which is also an exaggeration since Zaid (RA) was not a blood son of RasoolAllah (SAW). Also, the life of Muhammad (SAW) was such that he was demonstrating the setting of the limits of the Law given to HIM (AS).
but it does not suit the stature of a good FOLLOWER to either encroach near the limits nor to change the law entirely ... In the case of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad ... he was coveting the wife of another at worst ... which makes him a bad follower not a good one ... and at best it makes him a law giver ... which also means he is not a follower - but a law giving prophet - who comes to alter the law of the previous era ...
I recommend you to read the page 334 to 338 and you would know what are two parts of the prophecies. Muhammadi Begum did not become widow in MGA’s life and he never got to marry her. This is a simple fact that don’t know why is being twisted in every way possible.
JazzakAllah for the link. All the references are from MGA’s own books and magazines. He persisted with the marriage prophecies for 19 years and just before his death said it was conditional. It is an eye opener for the followers. May Allah guide us all. Ameen.
The family themselves were highly critical of the marriage between the Holy Prophet (saw) and Hadrat Zainab (ra).
The son from the marriage attested to the fact that he believed the prophecy was true, and that as a result of the death of his grandfather, the family repented. Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi attested to the fact that the prophecy had been fulfilled. He himself was an enemy/critic of Ahmadiyyat, and still stated it had been fulfilled (although he felt it was more likely a series of coincidences than the work of God). Kchughtai has previously already posted the position of Maulvi Sanaullah Amritsari, another staunch opponent.
Hmm, let me see. A self-described not very religious lay person with limited knowledge seems way too obsessed with Ahmadis. But don't worry, he is promoting their persecution not because of malicious intent but because he loves them and would hug one if he came across one. (this is from the other thread)
I read your ridiculous statements in the other thread Arshad but chose not to respond because I know there is no reasoning with a bigot. Any person who spends an inordinate amount of time obsessing about other people's beliefs is not normal and 9 times out of 10 is a bigot. It's curious that a guy who isn't very knowledgeable about his own religion seems so sure about mine.
And look here, the usual suspects (bar a couple of people) crawl out of the woodworks as soon the word Ahmadi is mentioned. And as usual, the takfeer will not be limited to any one issue. Let's be honest that that's what it is. It's all about point scoring and showing us how wrong we are. There is no intent to ask what our position is nor is there even a pretence to have a discussion. So why not post a link to one of the thousands of "hate ahmadis" websites and be done with it?
Why are you defending him? I can get references to you for the exact dates of publications in which Mirza used to claim this. Along with tonnes of prophecies that were all false.
Not defending him. I just feel that the OP was making a claim that was very strong without presenting it with credible references. Simply claiming that they have done 'research' is not enough. One must prove that the research conducted was in fact from sources that can be trusted and are not part of some anti-ahmadi propaganda.
Having said that If you do have that information go ahead and PM it to me.
Ghalib, don’t need to get angry. We also have right to find what is truth. We are presenting what information is available to us. Books and Websites. If anything is out of context, delibritely altered by writers, you have right to come up with explaination (or don’t bother coming to this thread and let others do it if they like to), no compulsion.
Having said that, I have faith on the finalty of Prophet Muhammed’s prophethood and I don’t find a single sign of Mehdi or Maseeh in MGA. I would still like to know IF any Muslim writers have quoted or twisted words of MGA to prove their point. How and why? What did they get ? Did MGA challenge their authority like Jesus did in the courtyard of the Temple in Jerusalem? Jewish clergy was threatened, since they were running an corrupt enterprise under the hood of Temple and high priest. What were ulema of Hind were doing that MGA directly challenged? Halva?
There are people who believing in saving every soul possible from the hellfire (according to their belief) and putting some discrepancy in MGA’s writings in front of his followers is the decent way of dawaah. May be what you think provocative is not as bad intentionally as it may seem.
I am looking for motive here, why Muslim clergy/writers have been hellbent on MGA, Rashad Khalifa and others. Why?
Rari…check out the Roohani Khazaain references in the link below. I have checked the most and they are accurate. If you don’t get it on the very page, you need to read from few para before or beginning of the chapter to figure out the real context.
Well that is what I am saying ... It only suits the stature of a law giving prophet "to change the law" the law is that divorce is most disliked of the permissible things and the law since the time of Moses is "Thou shalt not covet your neighbours wife"... Sayyiduna Muhammad (SAW) did not bring invite to marry Sayyidah Zainab (RA) until after she was already divorced - the main criticism from the Orientalists is that he (SAW) married his adopted son's divorcee, which is also an exaggeration since Zaid (RA) was not a blood son of RasoolAllah (SAW). Also, the life of Muhammad (SAW) was such that he was demonstrating the setting of the limits of the Law given to HIM (AS).
but it does not suit the stature of a good FOLLOWER to either encroach near the limits nor to change the law entirely ... In the case of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad ... he was coveting the wife of another at worst ... which makes him a bad follower not a good one ... and at best it makes him a law giver ... which also means he is not a follower - but a law giving prophet - who comes to alter the law of the previous era ...
Now you decide which ...
You are talking sheer non-sense. Here the issue under discussion was of prophecies regarding Muhammadi Begum and I still don't understand what are you saying. There is no issue of divorce neither was "coveting the wife of another". First of all, try to read what I have posted in three to four threads so that you know what is the issue. I repeat. The marriage proposal was made when that girl was still unmarried. Also I did post a reference where Hazrat Masih-e-Mauood (as) said that it is not based on his desire. Also there is absolutely no point of changing any law.
We know our beliefs very well. Our Kalima is "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad(pbuh) is His messenger". Mirza sahib himself and every follower of him consider him a deputy of the holy prophet (pbuh) and not a law giver. enough said. Don't want to hear your gibberish any more.
Hmm, let me see. A self-described not very religious lay person with limited knowledge seems way too obsessed with Ahmadis. But don't worry, he is promoting their persecution not because of malicious intent but because he loves them and would hug one if he came across one. (this is from the other thread)
I read your ridiculous statements in the other thread Arshad but chose not to respond because I know there is no reasoning with a bigot. Any person who spends an inordinate amount of time obsessing about other people's beliefs is not normal and 9 times out of 10 is a bigot. It's curious that a guy who isn't very knowledgeable about his own religion seems so sure about mine.
And look here, the usual suspects (bar a couple of people) crawl out of the woodworks as soon the word Ahmadi is mentioned. And as usual, the takfeer will not be limited to any one issue. Let's be honest that that's what it is. It's all about point scoring and showing us how wrong we are. There is no intent to ask what our position is nor is there even a pretence to have a discussion. So why not post a link to one of the thousands of "hate ahmadis" websites and be done with it?
If you are a keen observer of my posts then you will know that I am not interested in being popular but follow my convictions. I had no interest in Mirza Ghulam Ahmed until I came across the other thread and started to look into his life in some detail. I was shocked from a religious point but moreso from a human point, as to how a man who claimed to be a prophet could get his daughter-in-law divorced for no fault of her own, but just used her as a tool to further his own personal agenda. Her father writes to Mirza in response to Mirza's threats "*this will be a new tradition of prophethood and you will have to accept the blackness of ignomony on your face. * These prophetic words will become true even if they did not do so already.
All you have done is to indulge in emotional rhetoric, and play the victim card. You have not provided any evidence or facts or added anything further to the discussion. Nobody is denying you the right to present your facts and evidence, in fact I want to hear your argument but instead you are just trying to confuse the issue like you always do, without giving us a counter-argument.
2) Did Muhammadi Begum and her husband convert to Ahmediyyat?
I am not sure when her husband died but he took part in the first world war and was alive at that time so he lived at least to 1918.
Mohammedi Begum died in 1966 but did not convert, I am not sure about her husband. Some comments have been attributed to him after the death of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed, however it is not known of these comments are genuine and under what basis these comments were made.
Is there a precedence for this? A prophet insisting on marrying someone? And bringing the threat of the wrath of the Almighty into the equation?
No offence is intended to any one here. My knowledge is limited.
The prophecies did not end with the Begum's marriage. After her marriage, Mirza Ghulam Ahmed maintained his stance.
It is true that that woman has not been married to me. But she will certainly be married to me as has been stated in the prophecy. She has been married to Sultan Muhammad, I, say truly that in this court (i. e. the world) where people have laughed at things which were not from me, but from God, a time will come when the events will take a strange turn and the heads of all will be downcast with remorse.
The woman is still alive. She will inevitably come to my wedlock. I expect this to happen, rather, I have full faith in this. These are divinely-ordained matters and are bound to-occur. (Al-Hukm, 10 August 1901, also cited in Qadiani Mazhab and Tahqiq-i-Lathani)
The lady and her husband never converted, though there was a letter published in Al-Fazl magazine which was Qadiyani publication. Muhammadi Begum died as Muslim as she and her father firmly believed in the finalty of Prophet Muhammed SAW.
You are talking sheer non-sense. Here the issue under discussion was of prophecies regarding Muhammadi Begum and I still don't understand what are you saying. There is no issue of divorce neither was "coveting the wife of another". First of all, try to read what I have posted in three to four threads so that you know what is the issue. I repeat. The marriage proposal was made when that girl was still unmarried. Also I did post a reference where Hazrat Masih-e-Mauood (as) said that it is not based on his desire. Also there is absolutely no point of changing any law.
We know our beliefs very well. Our Kalima is "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad(pbuh) is His messenger". Mirza sahib himself and every follower of him consider him a deputy of the holy prophet (pbuh) and not a law giver. enough said. Don't want to hear your gibberish any more.
Well ... you said to me earlier that there is no revelation but there are so many accounts written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to have received revelation - such as in that post ...
On their demanding a sign, the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, turned to prayer and supplicated earnestly for a Divine sign to be exhibited in respect of them. God Almighty responded to him and he received the revelation:
**I have observed their misconduct and wickedness and I shall soon destroy them under heaven through different types of calamities and you will soon see how I shall deal with them. I have power to do all that I will, I shall make their women widows and their children orphans and shall ruin their homes so that they might be punished for their misdeeds. I shall not destroy them at one stroke but gradually so that they might *turn*back and repent. My curse will descend upon the walls of their homes, on their elders and their young ones, on their women and on their men and on their guests. All of them will be accursed except those who believe and cut asunder from them and keep away from their company. They will be under divine mercy. (*Ayenah Kamalat Islam, *p. 569)
**This is is proof that you do believe he received revelation similar to the Qur'an ... you are saying the above is the Kalam of Allah (SWT) ... This "I have observed" is being suggested Allah (SWT) is Conversing ... This is all new and it is being represented as scripture ... This will not be the case of either Mahdi or of Isa (AS) ... they will not bring new material like this ...
Just a question ... if Muhammadi Begum was not from a pious family - then why did Mirza Ghulam Ahmad want to marry into impiety? This is setting a bad precedent for the rest of the Ahmadis ... Or is it a done thing that you desire to marry non-Ahmadis over your own Ahmadi women? But if she was pious then it needs to be made clear where her family put their trust.
(talking about Ayenah Kamalat Islam)