Well, our class fellows were passing by a street where we came across a shop named “Ahmad Sweets”. One of our colleagues who is a follower of MGA said, " Nice name of the shop. I wonder if he is an Ahmadi"
I was seriously offended because Ahmad is also part of my name and I am not a follower of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. I agree that we shouldn’t call them Qadiyani or Mirzai if they feel offended by it, but they have no right to “own” this title AHMADI. Using a name of the Prophet (saw) as title is highly offensive because there always were people belonging to Shia, sunni, and other sects and school of thoughts who had “Ahmad” as name even hundreds of years before MGA was not even born. It is just like one group stands up and start calling themselves “Muhammadi” Does that mean from now onwards anyone having “Muhammad” in their name would actually be part of that group and naturally they take extra sympathy from us unintentionally even if we totally disagree to their views, BECAUSE they have attached to themselves a name which is DEAREST to us more than our lives. Whenever we hear, see or read the names “Muhammad” and “Ahmed” our heartbeat is filled with purity. Isn’t it misusing the name of our ideal. Names like hanafi, shia, sunni, deobandi, bharelwi…etc. are alright because they are not linked to the emotions of all the Muslims of the world no matter which school of thought they follow.
It would be really awkward, if a person asks me my name. When I reply, he would say " Ahem..Ahmed!!! do you, are you…you know what I mean…that group of people…have you heard of it…"
I have decided to call them **“Followers of MGA” **from now onwards. No, we shouldn’t call them Qadyani or Mirzai if they feel offended but WE also FEEL OFFENDED if the name of our beloved Prophet (Saw) is misused to play with our emotions.
There are rapists, murderers, pedophiles, straight up criminals, in other words human filth out there, who were given the name of our beloved Prophet (PBUH) by their parents. How come that doesn't bother you?
[SARCASM]Oh wait, it's because they belong to a sect which is accepted by the "Ummah". And are better Muslims (Nausbillah) than Ahmadis.[/SARCASM]
i just got an email from a hindu friend....she said..I think you might find this interesting because it is about your people..
It was an email about Human Rights watch and Ahmedis being abused.
Just because my last name is Ahmed, she must have assumed that Muslims do what the Sikhs do...call alll their men Singh. Not all Ahmeds are Ahmedis and while they have the right to their religion we dont use the names of the prophets for religion. Judaism is not Mosism..Christianity is not Jesusim and Islam is not Mohamadism. So perhaps they should also have a different title.
I would love to find out the views of the followers of MGA on this.
(And this is NOT an attack but a mere observation how the use of the name Ahmed or even Mirza is associated with their religion)
i just got an email from a hindu friend....she said..I think you might find this interesting because it is about your people..
It was an email about Human Rights watch and Ahmedis being abused.
Just because my last name is Ahmed, she must have assumed that Muslims do what the Sikhs do...call alll their men Singh. Not all Ahmeds are Ahmedis and while they have the right to their religion we dont use the names of the prophets for religion. Judaism is not Mosism..Christianity is not Jesusim and Islam is not Mohamadism. So perhaps they should also have a different title.
I would love to find out the views of the followers of MGA on this.
(And this is NOT an attack but a mere observation how the use of the name Ahmed or even Mirza is associated with their religion)
Singh isn't just a Sikh last name though, it's also a common last name among Hindu Rajputs. Your friend must be ignorant about that fact.
I'd like to know why Ahmadis chose this for them to be reffered to though.
There are rapists, murderers, pedophiles, straight up criminals, in other words human filth out there, who were given the name of our beloved Prophet (PBUH) by their parents. How come that doesn't bother you?
[SARCASM]Oh wait, it's because they belong to a sect which is accepted by the "Ummah". And are better Muslims (Nausbillah) than Ahmadis.[/SARCASM]
^ So are the followers of MGA. The difference is the criminals are not using Islam as the reason for their activities...the Ahmadiyya moment is. They claim that Islam recognizes Mirza as a prophet.
Please lets not make this into a Muslim vs Ahmadiyya battle yet again. My question and the question of the original poster is why use Mirza Ahmeds name to be recognized? Why not use another title that will correctly associate with them, instead of using a name that is used by Ahmadis and non Ahmadis alike?
^ So are the followers of MGA. The difference is the criminals are not using Islam as the reason for their activities...the Ahmadiyya moment is. They claim that Islam recognizes Mirza as a prophet.
Please lets not make this into a Muslim vs Ahmadiyya battle yet again. My question and the question of the original poster is why use Mirza Ahmeds name to be recognized? Why not use another title that will correctly associate with them, instead of using a name that is used by Ahmadis and non Ahmadis alike?
You don't even have to use Ahmadiya in this argument. Let's just generalize it.
Is someone who is ruining other people's lives by raping, murdering, torturing them or their love ones better than someone who has a different POV in regards of religion?
If a rapist, murderer has our beloved Prophet's name, it's OK, but when an Ahmadi calls himself that it's not?
Abdul wahab was a person who started Wahabism (Wahabis). Also Wahab is name of ALLAH. When we call em wahabi, we dont reffer to em as ALLAH walay but we r referring to Abdul Wahab instead.
Same goes to Ahmedi's We know and they know that when some one calls em Ahmedi thats becoz of MGA not Prophet s.a.w
I think its very stupid to think someone is ahmedi coz Ahmed is part of his name. We Shld Educate ppl abt this, NOT EVERY AHMED is ahmedi.
If a rapist, murderer has our beloved Prophet's name, it's OK, but when an Ahmadi calls himself that it's not?
You haven't got the point. The thread starter is not talking about individuals but about a group of people giving themselves a title. Please don't deviate the thread in the irrelevant direction.
@ Aqeel. If a person starts a group with a concept that Yazid was right and Imam hussain (r.a) was wrong (nauzubillah). This person's name is Hassan Ali, so he tells his followers to call themselves Alis or Hassans. Would it hurt you ? Every time you would call them wrong, you would have to use the pure name of "Hassan" and "Ali" in your criticicizm while having a bad taste in your mouth.
I am sure we all would like to use these names only with good feelings in our heart and good taste on our tongue.
its weird that your colleague would think the person is ahmadi just by the name ahmad, seeing as ahmad is the most common last name in pakistan, among ahmadis and non-ahmadis.
but regardless, its quite an achievement to get offended by such a remark. but then again if muslims didn't get offended so much, they wouldn't be in the state that they are in.
just chill and don't take everything so seriously. christians in the arab world have similar names to those of muslims. Now if i met someone who had a muslim name, i might even ask them if they are muslim. If they wern't, they'd just say so and i might explain why i thought they were muslim.
but to get offended that they have a muslim name is beyond crazy.
i, as an ahmadi, don't think everyone with ahmad in their name is an ahmadi and thats the case with most ahmadis, so just chill out.
i, as an ahmadi, don't think everyone with ahmad in their name is an ahmadi and thats the case with most ahmadis, so just chill out.
I as a non Ahmadi dont think that everyone with ahmad/ahmed is an Ahmadi but both our opinions are based on prior knowledge of the Ahmadi group. People like my friend who is a hindu are not aware of the facts and and thus cannot differentiate.
I think it is not creating a mountain out of a molehill as it is a valid hypothetic.
I am also curious (I hope I am not derailing this thread), What did MGA title himself and his followers as being? Did he create the title 'Ahmadi' to denote a follower of his beliefs? If not, what are the origins?
Ok, i hope you don't have a problem if I call followers of MGA as "Mirzai" or "Ghulamis" as they both were part of name of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed.
In fact Ahmed was his last name. Your first right is to be called Mirzai and Ghulamis.
Ok, People I think we have come up to a logical mutual understanding. Mohammad and Ahmed is for all the sects, but Mirzai and Ghulamis can be used. Chill out everyone! Mirzais, Ghulamis, sunnis, shia, and everyone.
