Originally posted by Ahmad G:
*Where do you see me use such language as so-called watcher does? *
Ahmad G, what 'language' are u referring to exactly?
Your post was edited, because the material was not relevant to the discussion. If you take the time to read the post and the ensuing replies, i'm sure you will realize this thread has nothing to do with its title.
. We hope that our wise government will keep these lists as state secrets in safe custody in one of its officers. The following are the names and addresses of such persons'--Tablegh-i-Risalat vol.3, page 11, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani. <<<<
GFQ. Thanks for your research and response, but tell me something. Do you really believe that someone can advocate keeping the lists “secrets” and then give a Khutba on such? Isn’t there a contradiction in source? What, by the way is “Tablegh-I-Risalat?
With all due respect, the reference you have given is no different than if I quoted Mohammad from “Satanic Verses”. Just think about it.
GQ,
Are we doing this to prove Mirza Sahib wrong or trying to prove that Loyality with British Empire was un Islamic. If it was un Islamic than we need to blame Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Mualan Hasuret Muhani and Sir Ullama Iqbal Equally. I think you did'nt read the Nazam Ullam Iqbal wrote for Queen. Now, the question is what British empire did to provoke Jehad, did they stop muslims from practicing Islam any where, did they destroy any mosque with purpose to destroy Islamic Idealogy. If muslims were free to practice their belief than why we need to start a Jehad of Sword against British Empire. Now, as long as Political Jehad concern for getting freedom from British Raj, I don't think anybody can deny the services of Ahmadiya community. I know you are a sensible person and I respect you a lot. I can start another thread to explain my stands on British Empire.
Scholar’s response from http://www.understanding-islam.com
*In my opinion, the most important thing that must always be kept in mind regarding deciding about sombody’s being a Muslim or otherwise is that it is not a matter to be decided by any one or more individuals. In other words, it is not my or any other individual’s jurisdiction to decide whether a person or a group in question is or is not a Muslim.
Calling an individual or a group “Muslim” actually means to make that individual or that group a part of the Muslim ummah, while calling someone or some group “non-Muslim” means that we are separating it from the body of the Muslim ummah. Keeping this in mind, in my opinion, it is only the jurisdiction of the Muslim ummah, in its collective capacity, to call some individual or a group “non-Muslim”.
As far as the Qadianis and the Ahmadis are concerned, they have been termed as non-Muslims, not only by the state of Pakistan but also by the Muslim ummah, as a whole. Due to this reason, I believe that it would not be correct for us to call them “Muslims”. But on the other hand, it would not even be correct to call them “kafirs” or “infidels”. In my opinion, therefore, Qadianis and Ahmadis should only be called “non-Muslims”, because the Muslim ummah does not hold their belief regarding the prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani to be representative of Islam.
I would like clarify at the outset that declaring someone a “non-Muslim” is not synonymous with declaring someone a “Kafir” (infidel). A “non-Muslim”, obviously, is a person who is not included in the group that we label as “Muslims”. While a “Kafir” is a “rejecter of the truth”. Thus, “Kafir” actually is one who, knowingly, rejects the truth. Rejecting the truth due to lack of knowledge, correct understanding or because of a mistake, does not make a person a “Kafir”. On the contrary, “Kafir” is a person who knowingly turns his back on the truth.
Thus, declaring someone a “non-Muslim”, is quite different from declaring someone a “Kafir”. Moreover, declaring someone a “non-Muslim” does not, in anyway. decide the position of that individual or that group in the hereafter. The All-knowing and the Almighty Himself would decide that position. Declaring someone a non-Muslim is actually a legal matter, which sometimes has to be undertaken for the benefit of the Muslims. Although there can be a difference of opinion as to whether any real benefit would result by such an action or not, yet the thing that needs to be understood is that this action can be taken only by the collectivity of the Muslims.
As far as the criteria of taking this action is concerned, in one of my previous responses to a similar question, I had mentioned that at a particular point when the Qur’an directed the Muslims to take action against the rejecters of faith (opening passage of Surah Al-Taubah), it actually defined that from the perspective of an Islamic state, who should be considered a Muslim. According to that definition, a person who forsakes and repents for his previously held non-Islamic beliefs, who joins the Muslims in regular prayers and who pays Zaka’t to the treasury of the Islamic state, in which he resides shall be considered a Muslim. Now, because the Qur’an has given this explanation regarding who a Muslim is, no further qualification can be imposed on this definition and no qualification mentioned by the Qur’an can be ignored.
The issue of the Ahmadis relates primarily to the first qualification. The Muslims believe that one of the basic beliefs that a Muslim must hold is that Mohammed (pbuh) was the last prophet and messenger of Allah. If any individual or a group does not ascribe to this belief, then according to the collectivity of the Muslims, he does not qualify to be called a “Muslim”. Thus, the Ahmadis were declared “non-Muslims”. Although there can be a difference of opinion regarding whether holding Mohammed (pbuh) to be the last prophet of God is a basic element of Islamic faith or not. Yet, the fact is that the collectivity of the Muslims decided that it was one of the basic beliefs, without which a person cannot qualify to be called a Muslim.
I would like to stress once again that such decisions of the Muslim collectivity are not decisions for the hereafter but for the purpose of the life of this world only. In this world, matters are to be decided on the basis solely of their appearance. Thus, we may, on the basis of the apparent factors decide that a person is not a “Muslim”, yet that person due to a number of factors that remained hidden from us may be among the successful ones in the hereafter. On the other hand, we may hold a person to be a pious Muslim, yet that person due to a number of factors that remained hidden from us may be condemned to hellfire in the hereafter.
What I completely fail to understand is the reason why a scholar or a student of Islam, like myself, should declare an individual or a group non-Muslim. I really see no benefits accruing from such an act. I am sure you would agree with me that the position of an individual in the hereafter is not affected by my opinion about his being a Muslim or a non-Muslim. God shall decide about that position on the basis of His own absolute knowledge, obviously, not on the basis of my or any one else’s opinion about that individual. As far as the worldly benefits of my declaring someone a non-Muslim are concerned, I am completely unaware of any that are likely to follow such a declaration, except for creating an obvious aversion in the hearts of such individual(s) against my call to the path of God. Some people point out that if such a declaration is made, it would result in spreading the knowledge that the beliefs of such and such group are not a part of Islam. I do not agree with this opinion. In my opinion, this advantage can more effectively be enjoyed by merely presenting the true beliefs of Islam in an effective and consistent manner.*
They shoot partypoopers, don’t they?
Ahmad G, just to clear something out with you:
I never post a “religious” material without any references. Even if I know that some verse is in quran and I don’t know exactly where it is, I never mention it. I always have references from the QURAN and Sunnah.
About discussing other groups: If you look at all of the discussions we had, you will see references about that group from their own books, yet they disagree.
As for as you and your fabricated posts are concern: You never provide any SOLID references, but you utter hate and self-created lies from your Alims and from your own head. [In “allah exist in all places…” thread - I gave you a quranic verse and authentice hadith, but you inturn presented me with a fatwaa from your brailvi Alim!!! - Fatwa of your ALim has no value whatsoever when Allah has made the matter clear in the Quran and his messenger has made it clear as well]
NYA, you need to study your religion and its aspects and its BOOKS! Coming here defending it, without any knowledge of it is silly and not what a “knowledgable” person like you would do.
Shah Jahan, Ahmadies are NOT muslims, deal with it. Who ever thinks they are Muslims, he himself is one of them.
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif
GFQ, thanks…
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif
Take it easy.
V~V~VHe came, He saw, He conqueredV~V~V**
----*High Priest-OF-Painful Truth*----
[quote]
Originally posted by Alpha1:
**OK so lets see how far we can get this time. This post is about Ahmedis. I disagree with their assertion that they are an opressed muslim group - they are not muslims.
Furthermore, the fallacy of their religion (no punn intended) is further made clear by the fact that it is spread using money.
What do others think??**
[/quote]
How do you know whether Ahmedis are muslims or not? That is between them and God.
Look, Muslims, Ahmedis, Jews and Christians all have beliefs that came down from Adam all the way through to Abraham and beyond.
The Christians were simply Jews who felt that Christ was a messenger from God. Muslims are simply thoose who choose to believe that the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) was a messeneger from God.
How do you know that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed was not a messenger from God? Were you there?
It it really nessecary for every religion and sect to have a pissing contest about who is right and who is wrong? It is this kind of "I am right, you are wrong" talk which breeds division and hatred in soceity.
Look, the Ahemdis could well be wrong. Mirza Ghulam Ahmed may well have been a fraudulent fake. However, if you beleive that there is an all knowing, all powerful god, let him take care of it. Let him judge them...
It is not our place to pass judgment on other human beings simply becuase we disagree with their beliefs.
As-Salamun-alaikum
From my knowledge being regarded as a muslim You have to belive in:
1)Tawhid (Oneness of Allah)
2)His book (all 4 of them with the authentic one being the Quran of course
3)Angles
4)Not associating anyone with Allah (lam ya lid wa lam yulad)
5)Believe in the messengers (all 124,000 of them) and Muhammad(SAWS) being in the last one.
6)Belief in the fact the Prophet Muhammad(SAWS) is the final Prophet of Allah the seal of the Prophets(AS))
7)Belief in the Day of Judgement
8)Belief in after life (Heaven and Hell)
There is no God but Allah and Muhammad(SAWS) is his messenger
To my knowledge the above mentioned points are fundamentals that define a muslim. If you disobey anyone of them your not a muslim.
Then there are:
5 daily prayers
Zakah, Khums
Hajj
fasting
Imamat/Khilafat (depending on which you think is the right one).
I am sure there a lot of people who dont pray nor do they fast but are regarded as muslims as they still belive in the above 8 fundamentals.
From What I know is that Ahmedi's don't believe in the finality of the Prophet(SAWS) or do they?
Allah knows better
Wa-Salamun-Alaikum-Wa-Rahmatullahi-Wa-Barakatu
NY, point taken. But likening the words of Mirza sahib from his own writings, to the satanic verses, can be taken two ways wry smile. Seriously though I highly doubt that. Who knows if that was from a ‘khutba’ ny, perhaps some sort of personal accounts or copies that were published later, I don’t know the date so how sure can we be. And the names weren’t listed, where I quoted from. Alright enough nitpicking rueful smile. Johnd, I don’t know why we are doing this to tell the truth, but tell me, have people under colonial rule ever been really ‘free’, perhaps on the surface it may seem so but not in my eyes. Colonialization whether under the british, the french, the portuguese, the spaniards, etc,etc, was meant to exploit not to provide liberty and benefits for those colonized. * ‘We must find new lands from which we can easily obtain raw materials and at the same time exploit cheap labour that is available from the natives of the colonies. The colonies woiuld also provide a dumping ground for the surplus goods produced in our factories.’*-Cecil Rhodes(one of britain’s most prominent colonialists(1890’s)) Okay now that’s getting off topic for sure so I’ll stop.
From what I know, Ahmadis believe in the finality of the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad sallallaho alaihe wa sallam, but they differ widely in their interpretations of this concept. The strength of their religion does not lie in the word of Allah swt, the Qu’ran, or in the hadith, the sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad saw, it lies in the writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani.
You guys, to tell the truth I don’t see why all of you are arguing and debating about the validity of the Ahmadi/Qadiani religion. Whether it is valid or not isn’t for us to judge. And also the distinction between the religion of Islam and the Ahmadi/Qadiani religion is made pretty clear by the Qu’ran and by Mirza sahib in his writings.
This day I have perfected your religion for you completed my favour upon you and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. Surah al-maida, (sorry can’t remember which verse)
Qadianis, refer to themselves as muslims in their writings and their speech, yet their concept of the name ‘muslim’ is different. I’m quoting Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani’s discussion in regards to a couplet revealed to him, through which one can ascertain their understanding of the word muslim. ‘The non-Ahmadis have been termed by God as Muslims in this couplet and then Islam is denied. They have been named as Muslims because they are know as such, and without using the term ‘Muslim’ it cannot be know who are meant. Their Islam has been denied because God does not recognize them as Muslims. Hence the necessity of making them muslims anew.’ Also within Mirza sahib’s writings you can find that many times when he wrote muslims and meant non-Ahmadis, he would make it clear what he meant by adding the words ‘those who claim to be muslim’, because afterall under the divine revelations he supposedly received he couldn’t have recognized those who denied him as muslims.
Muslims as the word is generally interpreted are the the followers of Islam, and Ahmadi/Qadiani ‘muslims’ as someone said previously, ‘are followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani.’ There IS a difference.
As-Salamun Alaikum everyone
I came across this website about Ahmedies operated by Ahmedies
www.alislam.org
They try to give you an impression that they are muslims
but again Allah knows better
Wa-Salamun-Alaikum-Wa-Rahmatullahi-Wa-Barakatu