Roman Bhaijaan, aren't you going the opposite, on one side you says unlimited adjacent prophets, while on the other hand you say the more they come the more we are divided?
Not to mention your argument seems to suggest that God shouldn't have given humans the right to choose. One chance on one prophet & that's it. How cruel of you.
No, Ahmadiji bhai jaan, I'm talking about your logic. According to your logic, prophet should come to show people the right path which means that we'd have more unity amongst ummah. But we see opposite to that, naturally.
Now, when I see a good non-ahmadi-muslim and a good ahmadi-muslim, I see the only difference between them is that one accepts Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as prophet and other one doesn't. If that's the only difference, and one can be as pious, and on the rightous path even just following Mohammad then why follow Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? Unless, of course, he brings something on the table that was missing before. And you say that that something that he brought on the table was his recalling everyone to the path they supposedly have forgotten (after Mohammad) but I don't see that it's something that requires prophethood or following of it, even.
Bhaijaan, the premises of your argument is wrong. Who said prophets come to unite? It is said those who believe in the prophet unite against those do not believe, and vice versa. And so both groups are trying to gain over followers.
Your second question in essence is the same as asking what did Jesus brought to the table other than Moses's 10 commandments? If there is no difference between a good Christian and a good Jew (or Hindu, Buddhist or a Muslim for that matter) than why believe in one or the other or believe at all?! One answer is because righteousness is defined in believing in what & whoever comes from God, it's in submission not in disbelief! The second answer is what about those not so good Muslims, who is suppose to warn them & guide them to the right path?! If not a prophet then who?
Ahmadji Bhaijan,
The question of prophethood again. You see, if you tell me that you follow Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 'cause you think he's a prophet of god then I got no beef with that. Happy you, happy Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. What I don't get is when people say that "hey, look we got another prophet amongst us, let's follow him 'cause we need to be shown rightous path and only a prophet can do that". 'Cause you know what, I don't see no effectiveness in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's teachings in terms of the leadership to bring people to the righteous path as you mentioned. You don't really need a prophet to do what he did.
Heck, there even so many other personalities that didn't claim prophethood but still were able to influence people to come under the umberella of idealogy they were marketing (eg Hitler). I don't really see anything different among Ahmadis and Non-Ahmadis besides that one groups says Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet and other one say he was not. So if there is not any difference among the two then why do you think people need to follow Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? If they can get as much as out of following just Mohammad then what it is that's so drastically different in the case of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad that they need to change that route and start following him as well?
So bhaijaan what do you propose? Get it out!
Bhai jaan, what I propose to you is exactly what I propose to followers of Mohammad. Don't seek validity of your beliefs from others 'cause once you start doing that, you ain't no more following any faith. But the minute you start giving logical explanations as to why follow Mohammad or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, you'd find dozens of hole in the whole theory of it.
You see, you follow Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 'cause following him fulfills certain spiritual need in you, much the same as following Jesus to a Christian. Leave that be, don't explain or validate your spirituality.
Bhaijaan, didn't you just tried to validate your own mantra infront of me? How does it makes you any different? :-)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Roman: *
Ahmadji Bhaijan,
The question of prophethood again. You see, if you tell me that you follow Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 'cause you think he's a prophet of god then I got no beef with that. Happy you, happy Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. What I don't get is when people say that "hey, look we got another prophet amongst us, let's follow him 'cause we need to be shown rightous path and only a prophet can do that". 'Cause you know what, I don't see no effectiveness in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's teachings in terms of the leadership to bring people to the righteous path as you mentioned. You don't really need a prophet to do what he did.
Heck, there even so many other personalities that didn't claim prophethood but still were able to influence people to come under the umberella of idealogy they were marketing (eg Hitler). I don't really see anything different among Ahmadis and Non-Ahmadis besides that one groups says Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet and other one say he was not. So if there is not any difference among the two then why do you think people need to follow Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? If they can get as much as out of following just Mohammad then what it is that's so drastically different in the case of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad that they need to change that route and start following him as well?
[/QUOTE]
So, what you are saying, when Isa Ibn-e-Maryam will descend from Heavens (as most of muslims believe) he will not be a prophet? as it doesn't matter to you. As his mission could be accomplished without him being a prophet.
Same can go for all the prophets of God. Why would you need anyone of them.
See, the difference lies when GOD RAISES A PERSON AND GIVES HIM GUIDANCE FROM HIMSELF. HE HIMSELF COMMUNES WITH HIM. AND THIS STATUS GIVEN TO THAT MAN IS CALLED "PROPHETHOOD".
Now if this status is given to Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad by God, than who are we to not call him prophet. Even Hadhrat Muhammd (PBUH) has called him (Massih/Mahdi/Reformer of the age) a "Prophet of God" 3 times that he'll be Nabiullah, Nabiullah, Nabiullah. (For Reference, would any ahmadi please find that hadith and paste it in this forum as I don't have that Hadith with me right now. I think it's from Ibn-e-Maja).
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ahmadjee: *
Bhaijaan, didn't you just tried to validate your own mantra infront of me? How does it makes you any different? :-)
[/QUOTE]
Bhai jaan, no, I'm not validating any mantra. I'd validating it if I'd take any sides, Mohammad or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. I'm taking none.
Actually you did propose a mantra.
You explained yourself that if your religion gives you satisfaction then well and good. Don't try to explain to me or others that it's 'valid'! I should be happy with mine, you should be with yours and everyone else should be with theirs.
This above paragraph in which I paraphrased your argument is in itself a mantra where you are trying to propose that everyone should mind their own business. And so I ask you, why should we follow what you just proposed?
If you think that it's good enough for you to not validate your belief in front of others why are making others think the same way? Isn't making others believe the same way you do, the same as validating your own mantra?
Ahmadji bhaijaan, it's not a mantra, it's in response to what Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis claims to be the perfect logic and validation of their faith. And as long as they keep doing that, it'd just be that, a response.