Ahmediya

[xtwo]

Originally Posted by Wazeeri You just said that's not true, please elaborate, how is that not true?

I meant that waliyat is not finished on Hazrat Ali ra because there have been many walis after him. Now if even after calling Hazrat Ali khatam-ul-auliya there have been many walis, then why is it that there can't be any other nabi after Hazrat Muhammad PBUH. The only sensible answer to this question is that Khatam doesn't mean Last on this occasion, it means The best in this particular example.

[xtwo]

Originally Posted by Wazeeri One word is used by Allah(swt) and the other is used as an exaggerated praise by humans.

So what, it's still the language Arabic, isn't it? Look the debate is what exactly does the word khatam means in Arabic? Obviously Quran was revealed in Arabic, the same Arabic that Hazrat Mohammad PBUH, his companions, and the whole Arab spoke. I'm just clarifying you the meaning of Khatam is not last in that famous Qurani verse.

Originally Posted by Wazeeri How many different arguments have you guys been through before you arrived at this one? I thought your interpretation of the quranic verse that no law giving prophet would come after Muhammad (pbuh).

Look there are words in every language and specially in Arabic that have multiple meanings. In English we've for example, Angle, Bank, fast and many others which have multiple meanings. Arabic language is so rich and complex that one word could mean multiple things at the same time. Same thing here, word khatam has many meanings and i'll go through them briefly after I come back from dinner

Btw, we do believe that no law giving prophet would come after Muhammad PBUH.

[Wazeeri]

Xtwo

thanks for joining,

The hadith is that He said that I was khatam-ul-anbiya even when the creation of Adam was in its initial stages. Now the question is that if word khatam means akhriyaat (in terms of period), meaning there CAN'T be any nabi whatsoever after him than Hazrat Muhammad PBUH was Khatam-ul-anbiya even before the creation of human race therefore there shouldn't have been any other nabi in this world except for Him

You have just repeated what you said instead of arguing it convincingly.

The prophet(pbuh) is the last of the nabis as he was the last nabi to come to earth. That is as simple as that.

Hazrat Ali khatam-ul-auliya there have been many walis,

Please name a few along with your description of a wali using islamic sources (ahadith + quran).

So what, it's still the language Arabic, isn't it?

Xtwo my point was very simple. Humans do not have authority to declare anyone the last of anything. We are just humans.

The examples you have presented are just exagerrated praise. That is what humans indulge in but not Allah(swt).

Humans exagerrate Allah's words are accurate and final.

Btw, we do believe that no law giving prophet would come after Muhammad PBUH.

That is where the problem lies and lets discuss this point going forward. The rest can be ignored.

If you don't believe that any new law giving prophet will come after Muhammad (pbuh) then why did Mirza of Qadian declare that he received wahis from Allah(swt)??

Why did he declare Jihad-Qitalat against islam?

let's concentrate on this last point.

[Wazeeri]

4th question, The promissed messiah has indeed said that those who do not read his books atleast 3 times in their liftime are arrogant, he did say this. But i swear to you, if you do read all books 3 times, you will still read them again, they are marvelous and i dont say this, his opponents admit this.

I doubt any muslims admit that his books are marvellous.

I have read two of his books which were provided by Lahori in another debate and I found exactly what I was told I would find.

He was inconsistent, He was very rude, used words for people that you would never use in front of your parents or anyone you had any respect for. He made claims which were contrary to the Quran.

[Wazeeri]

Guys the comment about Mirza's death has been made and we don't need it in this thread.

Please don't take cheap shots.

If all you know about Ahmedism is that Mirza died of cholera then please just read rather then writing.

Thanks

[xtwo]

Originally Posted by Wazeeri Make your mind up, which is it?

All right, here are the four possible meaning that we take for the word khatam. It's only four paragraphs, so don't worry, you won't have to read a lot from it start from the 2nd paragraph.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer...2126&region=E1



That is where the problem lies because if indeed the Prophet(pbuh)'s law was the final law then why did Mirza of Qadian claim that he was sent wahis from Allah(swt)??[/QUOTE]

Wahis don't necessarily mean new shariyaat. Let me quote one Quranic verse I quoted in the other thread.

"And whose obeys Allah and this Messenger of His shall be among those on whom Allah has bestowed His blessings, namely, the Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs and the Righteous. And excellent companions are these (4 : 69)

and

"O children of Adam! if Messengers come to you from among yourselves, rehearsing My signs come unto you, then whose shall fear God and do good deeds, on them shall come no fear nor shall they grieve (7:35)

So if the way of Prophet hood has not been blocked by Allah then obviously how can wahi be blocked. Allah talks to his servants and there are different ways. It could be a nice dream, a wahi, or an ilham. Wahis don't necessarily mean new shariyyat neither has Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyyani, The Promised Messiah, calimed to bring one. He was The Promised Messiah, and God spoke to him. How else would He know that He's the Promised Messiah?

Here are some more ahadith in support of my argument that Prophet hood has not been blocked.

For instance Holy Prophet is reported to have said: "If Abraham (his son, after he passed away) had lived long, he would have been a Prophet" (Maja, Kitab al-janai'z), and "Abu Bakr is best of men after me, except that a Prophet should appear" (Kanz al-Ummal)

[aashiqmizaaj]

Originally Posted by xtwo The point I was trying to make was that Holy Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad PBUH and nobody knows it better than Him, and nobody understands it better than him. The hadith is that He said that I was khatam-ul-anbiya even when the creation of Adam was in its initial stages. Now the question is that if word khatam means akhriyaat (in terms of period), meaning there CAN'T be any nabi whatsoever after him than Hazrat Muhammad PBUH was Khatam-ul-anbiya even before the creation of human race therefore there shouldn't have been any other nabi in this world except for Him. He should have been the one and only nabi sent to this human kind because he was khatam-ul-anbiya from the start. No Moses, Jesus or any other nabi. He But there have been many, so obviously the intended meaning of Khatam-ul-anbiyya can't possibly be "last prophet in terms of period". But it does make sense if we say that Khatam-ul-anbiyya means "the best of the prophets" or "seal of the prophets". Being best of the prophets or seal of the Prophets doesn't negate the arrival of other Prophets.

Sorry to intrude in on this but you are interpreting this completely wrong. The Prophet was the last prophet even before Adam doesn't mean that all other prophets in between are null and void. He's merely telling you that God's plan was to make him the last and final prophet well before even Adam was created. This is like me saying I will write 7 books as part of a series and before I even write the first book, I know that the 7th will be the last. God's plan for humankind included sending a series of Prophet's with Prophet Muhammed being the best and final of them all.

Since the religion was completed on Prophet Muhammed (as per the Quran) and the purpose of a Prophet is to bring the message of God to the people, I cannot understand how anyone can infer anything but that Prophet Muhammed is the last Prophet since there is no further message to be sent. Mirza can claim himself to be anything he wants, just not a Prophet.

[Adeel786]

Originally Posted by xtwo I meant that waliyat is not finished on Hazrat Ali ra because there have been many walis after him. Now if even after calling Hazrat Ali khatam-ul-auliya there have been many walis, then why is it that there can't be any other nabi after Hazrat Muhammad PBUH. The only sensible answer to this question is that Khatam doesn't mean Last on this occasion, it means The best in this particular example.

What an explanation. So basically you create the meaning according to your liking.

Last = Best?

[Wazeeri]

So if the way of Prophet hood has not been blocked by Allah then obviously how can wahi be blocked.

Where did you get the part in bold from?

That is massive leap in logic to reach that conclusion isn't it?

For instance Holy Prophet is reported to have said: "If Abraham (his son, after he passed away) had lived long, he would have been a Prophet" (Maja, Kitab al-janai'z), and "Abu Bakr is best of men after me, except that a Prophet should appear" (Kanz al-Ummal)

You are providing half a hadith, half a daeef hadith that is to support your point.
Please provide the exact reference and the full hadith to see how far off you are.

Please also explain why you cannot find support in any of the sahih ahadith.
The sahid ahadith have hadiths like the following

MuslimBook 004, Number 1062:

Abu Huraira reported that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon hlmg) said: I have been given superiority over the other prophets in six respects: I have been given words which are concise but comprehensive in meaning; I have been helped by terror (in the hearts of enemies): spoils have been made lawful to me: the earth has been made for me clean and a place of worship; I have been sent to all mankind and the line of prophets is closed with me.

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 735:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "My similitude in comparison with the other prophets before me, is that of a man who has built a house nicely and beautifully, except for a place of one brick in a corner. The people go about it and wonder at its beauty, but say: 'Would that this brick be put in its place!' So I am that brick, and I am the last of the Prophets."

Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 700:

Narrated Sad:

Allah's Apostle set out for Tabuk. appointing 'Ali as his deputy (in Medina). 'Ali said, "Do you want to leave me with the children and women?" The Prophet said, "Will you not be pleased that you will be to me like Aaron to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me."

The above verses have been reported by many different chains, they are very hard to refute. However the Ibn majah ahadith you refer to are daeef yet you have to seek support from them.

Wahis don't necessarily mean new shariyyat neither has Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyyani, The Promised Messiah, calimed to bring one.

Well he has changed the rulings of the Quran no less when he orders the jihad against the british as haram.

[tahaqureshi]

Originally Posted by xtwo The point I was trying to make was that Holy Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad PBUH and nobody knows it better than Him, and nobody understands it better than him. The hadith is that He said that I was khatam-ul-anbiya even when the creation of Adam was in its initial stages. Now the question is that if word khatam means akhriyaat (in terms of period), meaning there CAN'T be any nabi whatsoever after him than Hazrat Muhammad PBUH was Khatam-ul-anbiya even before the creation of human race therefore there shouldn't have been any other nabi in this world except for Him. He should have been the one and only nabi sent to this human kind because he was khatam-ul-anbiya from the start. No Moses, Jesus or any other nabi. He But there have been many, so obviously the intended meaning of Khatam-ul-anbiyya can't possibly be "last prophet in terms of period". But it does make sense if we say that Khatam-ul-anbiyya means "the best of the prophets" or "seal of the prophets". Being best of the prophets or seal of the Prophets doesn't negate the arrival of other Prophets.

I believe you're mistaken. The holy prophet (PBUH) was only DESIGNATED to be the seal of the prophets before Adam even came into existence. I think all the other prophets were meant to come anyways according to Allah's will/plan, and Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) was meant to be the last born prophet. This is not an arguing point.

[xtwo]

Originally Posted by Wazeeri Xtwo thanks for joining, You have just repeated what you said instead of arguing it convincingly. The prophet(pbuh) is the last of the nabis as he was the last nabi to come to earth. That is as simple as that.

I don't think I can explain that any better than I already have. It probably comes down to one's own point of view when they read something. All we can do is pray to God to give us more understanding and show us the right path as taught in surah Fatiha (Ihdina sirat-al-mustaqeem). What I said was if He was the final prophet of God even before the creation of Human kind than he should have been the first and last basically the only nabi to come, but that's not the case is it?

Originally Posted by Wazeeri Please name a few along with your description of a wali using islamic sources (ahadith + quran).

To describe a wali I will have to do some more readings which will take a lot more time but my understanding is that wali is a servant of God who actually spends his life according to Quranic beliefs and God rewarded him by showing him the signs of his existance i.e. by perhaps talking to him. Now I know you probably don't believe that God has ever talked to anybody after Hazrat Mohammad PBUH, but we don't believe that. God's "naik bande" have received ilhams from Allah and will continue to do so as long as they walk on the path specified by Allah and Allah considers them worthy of it.

Here are a few of them that I found. I obviously found them from an Ahmadi site, but you can go and try to search them up in historical books. Also all of them might not be walis, since I haven't read much history or done any research on them myself.
1) The saint among the saints, teh Imam and the Reformer of the second millenium, Hazrat Sheikh Ahmad Farooqi of Sarhind (d.1034 AH/1624 AD)
2) The sixth Imam of the Shia sect who lived in the first century of Islam (d.148 AH/765 AD) Hazrat Ja'far Sadiq PBUH.
3) Hazrat Shah Waliullah of Delhi (d.1171 AH/1702 AD), the most renowned Muhaddith (writer of Traditions), reformer of the twelth century of Islam.
4) The most distinguished scholar of Sunni sect, Hazrat Maulana Abdul Hasanat Abdul Hayee (d. 1304 AH/1886 AD) of Farangi Mahal, Lucknow.

Btw, I also have their and many other scholar's quotes about Khatim-ul-anbiyya and how they interpreted it. And obviously these scholars came before Promissed Messiah and one thing you would agree is that scholars of specially the first three centuries of Islam and the ones after that to some extent had a lot more knowledge about Quran than the so called maulvis of today, so their understandings would hold more ground.

Originally Posted by Wazeeri Xtwo my point was very simple. Humans do not have authority to declare anyone the last of anything. We are just humans. The examples you have presented are just exagerrated praise. That is what humans indulge in but not Allah(swt). Humans exagerrate Allah's words are accurate and final.

Exactly my point. God said in Quran Khatam-ul-anbiyya, now different people translate it differently depending on their knowledge of Arabic language. My point by giving those examples was that how did Arabs of that time used that word. Obviously they knew what it meant. if one of the best hakeems was called Khatam-ul-hukama by Arabs in Arabic language than does it mean that there will never be a hakeem after that. But we know there have been many, (now don't ask me for a list now) so either they were lying or they meant that he was the best hakeem so far and there won't be anyone else who can reach that status.

Originally Posted by Wazeeri That is where the problem lies and lets discuss this point going forward. The rest can be ignored. If you don't believe that any new law giving prophet will come after Muhammad (pbuh) then why did Mirza of Qadian declare that he received wahis from Allah(swt)??

Read my last post

Originally Posted by Wazeeri Why did he declare Jihad-Qitalat against islam? let's concentrate on this last point.

New topic, give me some time to get some research done, will reply soon InshaAllah.

[xtwo]

Originally Posted by Wazeeri I doubt any muslims admit that his books are marvellous. I have read two of his books which were provided by Lahori in another debate and I found exactly what I was told I would find. He was inconsistent, He was very rude, used words for people that you would never use in front of your parents or anyone you had any respect for. He made claims which were contrary to the Quran.

You mind giving me ONE example??

[tahaqureshi]

Originally Posted by Rana I do Believe That Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmed is a Prophet, i Also believe that Hadhrat Muhhamad Mustafa (s.a.w) is the greatest of all prophets and Hadhrat mirza ghulam Ahmed is not even 5% of the class of the Holy Prophet and i have been taught this view by The promissed messiah himself.

And then....

Originally Posted by Rana No, we share the same kalima as all muslims, we believe in the quran approved by hadhrat Abu bakr (may allah be pleased with him).

Those two are the BIGGEST contradictions by the same poster. I'd scratch my head but the hair loss genes are kicking in.

May I remind you of a section of the Holy Prophet (PBUH)'s final sermon:
"O People, NO PROPHET OR APOSTLE WILL COME AFTER ME AND NO NEW FAITH WILL BE BORN. Reason well, therefore, O People, and understand my words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the QUR'AN and my example, the SUNNAH and if you follow these you will never go astray."


Done?

[xtwo]

Originally Posted by Wazeeri Where did you get the part in bold from? That is massive leap in logic to reach that conclusion isn't it?

My mistake, that was supposed to be Ilham not Wahi.

[Wazeeri]

Originally Posted by xtwo It probably comes down to one's own point of view when they read something.

No sorry I would have accepted an "agree to disagree" proposal if you had made a decent argument.
The message is simple, The prophet(pbuh) was declared the final prophet(pbuh) even before the first arrived,
Like the final sprinter is decided in the relay race before the first one even starts running.

Your argument is akin to arguing that as the final sprinter has been declared the first one never runs??
That is illogical.

To describe a wali I will have to do some more readings which will take a lot more time

I can wait, however until then your arguments remain unsupported.

My point by giving those examples was that how did Arabs of that time used that word.

You have disregarded my reply to your point completely.

The arabs you speak off are exagerrating their praise, they are not changing the meaning of the word, they are just using it to exagerate.

Allah does not exagerrate.

You mind giving me ONE example??

Not at all, in fact I will give you an example from the very site you quoted from earlier.

Roohany Khazaeen Volume 14 Page 53
http://www.alislam.org/urdu/rk/rk-14-43.pdf


Dushman humarai Khanzeer ho gayai
Aur unki auratain kutiyon se barh gayee hain

Our enemies are like pigs
and their women are worst then b1tches

Now ask yourself is this how a messenger of allah behaves?

My mistake, that was supposed to be Ilham not Wahi.

Are you saying that Mirza received ilhams but not wahis?

[Wazeeri]

PS: you are not answering all my questions.

You have completely ignored my question regarding the sahih ahadith I provided to you.

[zimran72]

Originally Posted by Rana Maybe, maybe not. As far as im concernd, we certainly do not consider lahoris as non muslim, we respect them because they are from the companions of the prommised messiah. We do believe that they are slightly misguided due to the fact that they wanted no khilafat after Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmed. Our difference with them began in 1914 when they objected to the election of the 2nd khalifa.

hey rana I would like to ask... if khilafat is send by the one and only merciful Allah... then how can people vote on it?

[Rana]

Originally Posted by tahaqureshi And then.... Those two are the BIGGEST contradictions by the same poster. I'd scratch my head but the hair loss genes are kicking in. May I remind you of a section of the Holy Prophet (PBUH)'s final sermon: "O People, NO PROPHET OR APOSTLE WILL COME AFTER ME AND NO NEW FAITH WILL BE BORN. Reason well, therefore, O People, and understand my words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the QUR'AN and my example, the SUNNAH and if you follow these you will never go astray." Done?

Whats contradictory? I just said that i believe in the same Quran as you and Respect the Holy Prophet more then Hadhrat Mirza ghulam Ahmed, see this is the reason why there are no bridges being built between us because clearly people are making huge fusses over pathetic things.

[Rana]

Originally Posted by zimran72 hey rana I would like to ask... if khilafat is send by the one and only merciful Allah... then how can people vote on it?

This is a question that i cannot answer, you have to look at the examples of the khulafa-e-rashida (the holy prophet's khilafat), they were all elected by the companions of the Holy Prophet. Just because they have gone through an election process does not mean that God has not appointed them, eventually the final decision is with God Almighty himself and the right person will prevail as khalifa.

[Zinnia]

Originally Posted by xtwo The point I was trying to make was that Holy Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad PBUH and nobody knows it better than Him, and nobody understands it better than him. The hadith is that He said that I was khatam-ul-anbiya even when the creation of Adam was in its initial stages. Now the question is that if word khatam means akhriyaat (in terms of period), meaning there CAN'T be any nabi whatsoever after him than Hazrat Muhammad PBUH was Khatam-ul-anbiya even before the creation of human race therefore there shouldn't have been any other nabi in this world except for Him. He should have been the one and only nabi sent to this human kind because he was khatam-ul-anbiya from the start. No Moses, Jesus or any other nabi. He But there have been many, so obviously the intended meaning of Khatam-ul-anbiyya can't possibly be "last prophet in terms of period". But it does make sense if we say that Khatam-ul-anbiyya means "the best of the prophets" or "seal of the prophets". Being best of the prophets or seal of the Prophets doesn't negate the arrival of other Prophets.

I haven't got the source for this right now...ill post it later.
But The prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was the first creation Allah made before any other prophet or being....but he was made first with the intention of him being the last Prophet i.e Khatam-ul-Anbiya. So basically he was created first but came to this earth as last of the prophets.

[Golden arm]

Originally Posted by Prince of Pakistan Well masterplan you could say , but Mirza was exposed quickly and so the plan failed.

master plan didnt fail. British wanted to divide muslims and they succeeded.
Now almost more then 10 million poor people in africa have been converted to ahmadis because of their propegenda and financial lure for the poor.

so we need to understand and teach our kids about these guys. its very important.

[Wazeeri]

Originally Posted by Zinnia I haven't got the source for this right now...ill post it later. But The prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was the first creation Allah made before any other prophet or being....but he was made first with the intention of him being the last Prophet i.e Khatam-ul-Anbiya. So basically he was created first but came to this earth as last of the prophets.

You may struggle to find this hadith.

[deathstreak]

Interesting thread,
This thread is more knowledgeable than some of my Muslim friends

[Stewie]

Ok so this discussion did take a turn I did not want.

Look without getting into the nitty gritty of words and arguing what khatim-ul-nabiyyeen means, I just wanted for once to get Ahmedis to describe their religion in detail and how they believe it really differs from mainstream Islam.

I want to know what makes them think they are different and/or better than mainstream Muslims? From what I have seen so far they keep arguing that it is not any different than what us Muslims believe in, well if that is the case, why such a big broohaha about Ahmediyyat and a separate prophet and his work of books, etc?

Clearly, there is something thats different with them and in those books from what mainstream Muslims believe in and that is setting them apart..

WELL I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT IS.

Can some of the Ahmedi posters on the forum please shed detailed light on this subject rather than defending their belief? Just tell me even your personel opinion on how this is all different from what I, a garden variety Sunni Muslim, believe in..

Thank you

[Momo]

Originally Posted by Stewie Ok so this discussion did take a turn I did not want. Look without getting into the nitty gritty of words and arguing what khatim-ul-nabiyyeen means, I just wanted for once to get Ahmedis to describe their religion in detail and how they believe it really differs from mainstream Islam. I want to know what makes them think they are different and/or better than mainstream Muslims? From what I have seen so far they keep arguing that it is not any different than what us Muslims believe in, well if that is the case, why such a big broohaha about Ahmediyyat and a separate prophet and his work of books, etc? Clearly, there is something thats different with them and in those books from what mainstream Muslims believe in and that is setting them apart.. WELL I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT IS. Can some of the Ahmedi posters on the forum please shed detailed light on this subject rather than defending their belief? Just tell me even your personel opinion on how this is all different from what I, a garden variety Sunni Muslim, believe in.. Thank you

This is my first post on this thread and I strongly second this. Somebody please address the quoted post by brother Stewie without mincing words. Koi hai?

[Wazeeri]

For the umpteenth times guys.

This thread is just about discussing facts and learning something.

If you need to rant or throw punches do that elsewhere.

[Wazeeri]

Wazeeri, my Urdu is a little rusty. Can you please summarize the text of the book you posted?

They don't normally have one subject, the Urdu is very tough to read and the prose doesn't have any structure.

I can't summarise because there is too much to summarise.

Normally his books tend to explain his deeds and actions, He talks about his meetings with Allahs and what Allah said to him (nauzubillah).

He attacks people who he has had debate with by using vile language like the above.

The verse I posted has an english translation below it.
I got the book from the actual Ahmedi website.

He says:
Our enemies/opponents are like Pigs
And their women are worst then bitches.

[Rana]

Originally Posted by Stewie Ok so this discussion did take a turn I did not want. Look without getting into the nitty gritty of words and arguing what khatim-ul-nabiyyeen means, I just wanted for once to get Ahmedis to describe their religion in detail and how they believe it really differs from mainstream Islam. I want to know what makes them think they are different and/or better than mainstream Muslims? From what I have seen so far they keep arguing that it is not any different than what us Muslims believe in, well if that is the case, why such a big broohaha about Ahmediyyat and a separate prophet and his work of books, etc? Clearly, there is something thats different with them and in those books from what mainstream Muslims believe in and that is setting them apart.. WELL I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT IS. Can some of the Ahmedi posters on the forum please shed detailed light on this subject rather than defending their belief? Just tell me even your personel opinion on how this is all different from what I, a garden variety Sunni Muslim, believe in.. Thank you

The difference between Ahmadis and sunnis is,

1, The view of Khatam-e-nabuwat

2, The death of Jesus

3, The interpretation of Jihad

4, The system of Wahi (that it still happens)

[Stewie]

Still waiting on Ahmedis to post their response to my post above. I would also like to hear their comments on Wazeeri's post above. Is it true?

[Stewie]

Originally Posted by Rana The difference between Ahmadis and sunnis is, 1, The view of Khatam-e-nabuwat 2, The death of Jesus 3, The interpretation of Jihad 4, The system of Wahi (that it still happens)

Rana..
As I said earlier I am not interested in the oft mentioned and known topics of controversy. The first two you mentioned are obviously well known and if we start looking at those we will be here for year.

3 and 4.. please shed light on those. Now looking at 4, do you mean to say that Ahmedis believe God still talks to the Ahmedi Khalifas to this present day and He talks to the Khalifa who lives in the UK?

Also any other major differences apart from the 4 you pointed out? What is your personal opinion (being an Ahmedi) how us Mainstream Muslims should be living our lives and how what we believe to be Islamic teachings are different from Ahmedi teachings in our day to day lives, concepts, etc (other than Khatma Nabuwwat and the Issue with Jesus)
Thanks.

[Rana]

Originally Posted by Wazeeri They don't normally have one subject, the Urdu is very tough to read and the prose doesn't have any structure. I can't summarise because there is too much to summarise. Normally his books tend to explain his deeds and actions, He talks about his meetings with Allahs and what Allah said to him (nauzubillah). He attacks people who he has had debate with by using vile language like the above. The verse I posted has an english translation below it. I got the book from the actual Ahmedi website. He says: Our enemies/opponents are like Pigs And their women are worst then bitches.

You have read 1 sentence and making a judgement over the whole of his books, what about the 99.9% of his material that has managed to change the hearts of millions of people.

How about this, ill give you another statement that Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmed has made and why dont you judge according to that,

"Bhej darood us Mohsin par tu din main sau sau baar!
paak Muhammad mustafa Nabiyoun ka sardar!"

i van keep going on and on for as long as i like, but i guess you just want to hear the harsh stuff, thats what the world really needs doesnt it?

[Stewie]

Originally Posted by Rana You have read 1 sentence and making a judgement over the whole of his books, what about the 99.9% of his material that has managed to change the hearts of millions of people. How about this, ill give you another statement that Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmed has made and why dont you judge according to that, "Bhej darood us Mohsin par tu din main sau sau baar! paak Muhammad mustafa Nabiyoun ka sardar!" i van keep going on and on for as long as i like, but i guess you just want to hear the harsh stuff, thats what the world really needs doesnt it?

Rana. Sorry to say but if you are confirming what Wazeeri has said to be true than it does not really draw a pretty picture of your Prophet in my eyes.
Men of God, His Messengers dating back to Hazrat Ibrahim have been known to be people of tremendous control and tolerance and are known not to use trash language like this for their own Ummat. They are an ebodiment of control and patience and not as egotistic.

[Wazeeri]

Rana

Is that the conduct of a messenger?

I will give you an analogy of a criminal (excuse the harsh analogy), The criminal most of his time is good to his wife and kids, he says hello to walkers by, He helps his neighbours...etc so 99.99% of the time he is a good man but the other 0.01% of the time he spends robbing and killing people.

Shall I concentrate on the 99.99% of his life and declare him a good man?

If Mirza Ahmeds books have touched so many people then why have they been ammended? Why do we only find books which have bits and pieces of his writing?

And it isn't just that one sentence, He has called people "sons of whores" because he lost debates to them. He has called people "b@stards".

I am just trying to establish that Mirza Ahmed did not conduct himself respectfully as is expected from a messenger of Allah. Do you agree?

If not then what are your comments on the sentence I posted above from his book?

Once we have agreed on the above point we can move on to other arguments against his message.

[Wazeeri]

Originally Posted by Stewie Sorry to say but if you are confirming what Wazeeri has said to be true than it does not really draw a pretty picture of your Prophet in my eyes.

Stewie

You don't need comfirmation from anyone, look at the source I have provided.
It is from the actual Ahmedi official site.

I haven't got a book scanned it and then pasted it on here, I went on the ahmedi site, found the quote and reproduced it up here.

[Stewie]

I agree with Wazeeri.. Any Scholar of Islam (and there are tons in history) have and will say the same good things Mirza Ghulam has probably said with little or no difference and sometimes more emphasis on certain aspects. Now how many of them claim to be Prophets by virtue of their knowledge and piety?

Going back to my original question, what else has Mirza Sahib said and taught that you believe is unique and different from other scholars and Holy Men that you can tell me and convince me of his ProphetHood?

[Stewie]

Originally Posted by Wazeeri Stewie You don't need comfirmation from anyone, look at the source I have provided. It is from the actual Ahmedi official site. I haven't got a book scanned it and then pasted it on here, I went on the ahmedi site, found the quote and reproduced it up here.

Very well. I will look at it. Thank you.

I just wanted to give Ahmedi posters a fair and just opportunity to defend themselves and their Prophet, that is all. But it seems to that Rana has just admitted to Mirza's quotes about those who dont believe in him to be true and accurate.

[Rana]

Originally Posted by Stewie Rana.. As I said earlier I am not interested in the oft mentioned and known topics of controversy. The first two you mentioned are obviously well known and if we start looking at those we will be here for year. 3 and 4.. please shed light on those. Now looking at 4, do you mean to say that Ahmedis believe God still talks to the Ahmedi Khalifas to this present day and He talks to the Khalifa who lives in the UK? Also any other major differences apart from the 4 you pointed out? What is your personal opinion (being an Ahmedi) how us Mainstream Muslims should be living our lives and how what we believe to be Islamic teachings are different from Ahmedi teachings in our day to day lives, concepts, etc (other than Khatma Nabuwwat and the Issue with Jesus) Thanks.

Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmed has made it clear that the jihad with the sword in this day and age is not the answer to solving problems, now is the time for jihad with the pen! Right now, Islams biggest enemy is not America or the western world, it is the media. The media is portraying a very sick and negetive image of islam, therefore the guidlines of the prommised mesiah are very important because we cannot win by physically fighting now, we need to get our heads together and explain all the the differences that the media is trying to imply on us. It is about time that we intellectually and with logic prove to the world what Islam actually means. If we can do this then there will be no more thinking that Islam Was spread by the sword, it can be won by the pen.

We believe that God does still talk to every human bieng. not just the khalifa, this is a very very tough topic to discuss on as my knowledge on this is very limited, however i know this for a fact that i have spoken to people, very pious people and they can swear that they have had experiences. The khalifa who lives in london is a very great man but also very humble, if he does have any experiances, he is certainly not just going to tell the whole world or he hasnt untill yet.

[Rana]

Originally Posted by Wazeeri Rana Is that the conduct of a messenger? I will give you an analogy of a criminal (excuse the harsh analogy), The criminal most of his time is good to his wife and kids, he says hello to walkers by, He helps his neighbours...etc so 99.99% of the time he is a good man but the other 0.01% of the time he spends robbing and killing people. Shall I concentrate on the 99.99% of his life and declare him a good man? If Mirza Ahmeds books have touched so many people then why have they been ammended? Why do we only find books which have bits and pieces of his writing? And it isn't just that one sentence, He has called people "sons of whores" because he lost debates to them. He has called people "b@stards". I am just trying to establish that Mirza Ahmed did not conduct himself respectfully as is expected from a messenger of Allah. Do you agree? If not then what are your comments on the sentence I posted above from his book? Once we have agreed on the above point we can move on to other arguments against his message.

Wazeeri, if you can give me all of these quotes from his books, i mean the swearing, then i will certainly get them checked up by people who will have good knowledge of them.

This is a valid point from you, anything that is wrong must be corrected wether it is in my mind or yours.

[Stewie]

Very interesting. So you are saying according to Ahemdiyyat Wahi falls on every human being in the world and not just the Prophets? Can you expland on the significance of this in your faith (and how it is different from mainstream Islam?)

And no offense but your interpretation of Jihad can easily be contested as the same as the one that Mainstream Muslims believe in. I, for one, have always believed that in these times, pen is mightier than the Sword .. (heck I bet this quote belongs to someone who was not even Muslim) .. so how does having that opinion put Mirza at a higher plane of existance, that of a Prophet compared to other men?


Do you have any other concepts and beliefs introduced by Mirza Sahib you would like to share with us here? Stuff diffrent from mainstream Islam and something that I would have not heard of before.

[aashiqmizaaj]

Originally Posted by Stewie Very interesting. So you are saying according to Ahemdiyyat Wahi falls on every human being in the world and not just the Prophets? Can you expland on the significance of this in your faith (and how it is different from mainstream Islam?) And no offense but your interpretation of Jihad can easily be contested as the same as the one that Mainstream Muslims believe in. I, for one, have always believed that in these times, pen is mightier than the Sword .. (heck I bet this quote belongs to someone who was not even Muslim) .. so how does having that opinion put Mirza at a higher plane of existance, that of a Prophet compared to other men? Do you have any other concepts and beliefs introduced by Mirza Sahib you would like to share with us here? Stuff diffrent from mainstream Islam and something that I would have not heard of before.

Actually the concept of Jihad is no different than what already was available. The greater Jihad is the internal struggle and always has been. Priority has always been to correct yourself.

[Wazeeri]

Rana

See post no.95

I can provide other references as well but I have not had the time to read through the books on the al-islam website to confirm if the new versions of the books contain them or not.

[Stewie]

Originally Posted by aashiqmizaaj Actually the concept of Jihad is no different than what already was available. The greater Jihad is the internal struggle and always has been. Priority has always been to correct yourself.

Agreed. I dont see much difference here in the two schools of thought.

So far we have established that Mirza Ghulam really did not introduce any drastic changes to Islam other than the fact he claimed he is a prophet and Jesus died in Kashmir (correct me if I am wrong on that account) and he was openly critical of those who opposed him sometimes with filthy language, and he taught his followers that God talks to us all and Wahi can be on any person not just Prophets (please correct me on this one as well if I am not understanding this right)

This is my short summary so far. Ahmedi posters feel free to add to it and share with us what other teachings are drastically different from what we (Mainstream Muslims) are already supposed to be doing and practising.

Thanks.

[Rana]

Originally Posted by Stewie Very interesting. So you are saying according to Ahemdiyyat Wahi falls on every human being in the world and not just the Prophets? Can you expland on the significance of this in your faith (and how it is different from mainstream Islam?) And no offense but your interpretation of Jihad can easily be contested as the same as the one that Mainstream Muslims believe in. I, for one, have always believed that in these times, pen is mightier than the Sword .. (heck I bet this quote belongs to someone who was not even Muslim) .. so how does having that opinion put Mirza at a higher plane of existance, that of a Prophet compared to other men? Do you have any other concepts and beliefs introduced by Mirza Sahib you would like to share with us here? Stuff diffrent from mainstream Islam and something that I would have not heard of before.

The significance is related to a human biengs relationship with god almighty, or shall we say 'the meaning of life'.

Other differences between us and other muslims is pretty minor, mostly to do with traditions that are celebrated by some muslims.

[Wazeeri]

So far we have established that Mirza Ghulam really did not introduce any drastic changes to Islam

The concept of Jihad was changed.

The mainstream muslims claim that Mirza was a British pawn. He specifically said that Jihad against the British is Haram.

He introduced the clause of any non-muslim occupation which doesn't interfere in religion, into the concept of Jihad.

[Stewie]

Man's relataionship with God and the "Meaning of Life"

What does this mean? You are being vague. Can you please give us details.

How does Ahemdiyyat's ideas of Man's Relantionship with God any diffrent from what Mainstream Islam teaches? What is the "Meaning of Life" in Ahmediyyat?

[Rana]

Originally Posted by Wazeeri Rana See post no.95 I can provide other references as well but I have not had the time to read through the books on the al-islam website to confirm if the new versions of the books contain them or not.

i have read that post and im on the case, i just need all the other refrences. I have heard one myself before while a dars was going on, we call it dars-e-malfoozaat (the words of the Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmed), in which he clearly said that "yahudi is dunya ke kute hain" (jews are the worlds dogs). so i am not dis-agreeing with you because i have seen it myslef, but i need it all.

[Stewie]

Originally Posted by Wazeeri The concept of Jihad was changed. The mainstream muslims claim that Mirza was a British pawn. He specifically said that Jihad against the British is Haram. He introduced the clause of any non-muslim occupation which doesn't interfere in religion, into the concept of Jihad.

This is a major Breakthrough (If Wazeeri is correct)

So he claimed that occupation of a Non Muslim force in a Muslim state or society is legal as long as the Occupier does not interfere with the Religion?


If I am reading this right, can US invade Pakistan and take over? According to the US Constitution, all citizens are entitled to the right of practising their own religion. So are we not to oppose and fight if it were to happen?

[Rana]

Originally Posted by Stewie Man's relataionship with God and the "Meaning of Life" What does this mean? You are being vague. Can you please give us details. How does Ahemdiyyat's ideas of Man's Relantionship with God any diffrent from what Mainstream Islam teaches? What is the "Meaning of Life" in Ahmediyyat?

By the meaning of life, i mean that the reason we were all created was that we can attain god in our lifetime. Therefore wahi is a way of Gods acknowledgement that you are near him. There is nothing wrong with that, we all need a sign, we all want one dont we? What makes you think that God will only speak to his prophets? Tell me what mainstream views are on this?

[Rana]

Originally Posted by Stewie This is a major Breakthrough (If Wazeeri is correct) So he claimed that occupation of a Non Muslim force in a Muslim state or society is legal as long as the Occupier does not interfere with the Religion? If I am reading this right, can US invade Pakistan and take over? According to the US Constitution, all citizens are entitled to the right of practising their own religion. So are we not to oppose and fight if it were to happen?

you are pretty much on the right track, however you must also have to know that we have a headquarters in England and we are free to practice our worship the way we want, for God's sake in pakistan we cannot call Azaan, or say salam, we can go to jail if we do so. But in England, we also prepare to anhilate christainity with off-course jihad with the pen. Now if Mirza was appointed by the christians or the british, then wouldnt the finish us of even though they know we are a threat?

[Stewie]

I am not getting convinced. This is entirely opposed to theteachings of hazrat Muhammad pbuh.
Anyhow, carry on what else can you tell me.
The wabi part I don't agree with. It opens the door for anyone to stand up commit a crime and claim GOd told him to do so.
There is a reason GOd chose certain fewfeom amongst us tobe HIs prophets.

Anything u have to add to this please feel free.

[tahaqureshi]

Originally Posted by Rana Whats contradictory? I just said that i believe in the same Quran as you and Respect the Holy Prophet more then Hadhrat Mirza ghulam Ahmed, see this is the reason why there are no bridges being built between us because clearly people are making huge fusses over pathetic things.

They are not pathetic things. Did you even understand what I pointed out to?

On the one hand you claim to believe in the same Kalima that we believe in, and then you also say that you believe that Mirza was a prophet.

Thats contradictory because belief in the shahadah entails belief that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) is the final messenger of God.

And you claim to believe in the 'same' Quran, which mentions:

"O people! Muhammad has no sons among ye men, but verily, he is the Apostle of God and the last in the line of Prophets. And God is Aware of everything."

(The Holy Quran, Al-Ahzab 33:40)

Yet you say that you believe Mirza to be a prophet. No matter how much less of a prophet you think Mirza is, just attributing even the smallest value of prophethood is against what the Quran says above.

[Wazeeri]

i have read that post and im on the case, i just need all the other refrences. I have heard one myself before while a dars was going on, we call it dars-e-malfoozaat (the words of the Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmed), in which he clearly said that "yahudi is dunya ke kute hain" (jews are the worlds dogs). so i am not dis-agreeing with you because i have seen it myslef, but i need it all.

Whoever doesn't believe in our victory wants to become a b@stard and surely he is a b@stard / has come from fornication (Anwaar ul islam page 30)

talking about Saad-ul-lah Ludhiaani
You hurt me b@stard, I will be a liar if you don't have a shameful death.
Haqeeqat-ul-Wahi Page 14

Abdul Haq wants to become a *******
Anwaar-ul-islam page 30

Ulema who refute me are worst then pigs
Anjum-e-atham Page 21

[Wazeeri]

So he claimed that occupation of a Non Muslim force in a Muslim state or society is legal as long as the Occupier does not interfere with the Religion?

Stewie

I don't know how good your Urdu is but I can again post the whole chapter up here where Mirza speaks about how he made the jihad illegal for the British.

He actually says that he made it illegal for the british and then he goes on to say that he should be rewarded.

[Stewie]

Originally Posted by Wazeeri Stewie I don't know how good your Urdu is but I can again post the whole chapter up here where Mirza speaks about how he made the jihad illegal for the British. He actually says that he made it illegal for the british and then he goes on to say that he should be rewarded.

It is good enough Wazeeri. Please post that information for me.

[Stewie]

Originally Posted by Wazeeri Whoever doesn't believe in our victory wants to become a b@stard and surely he is a b@stard / has come from fornication (Anwaar ul islam page 30) talking about Saad-ul-lah Ludhiaani You hurt me b@stard, I will be a liar if you don't have a shameful death. Haqeeqat-ul-Wahi Page 14 Abdul Haq wants to become a ******* Anwaar-ul-islam page 30 Ulema who refute me are worst then pigs Anjum-e-atham Page 21

I woud like to see Ahmedi's rebuttal of these statements.

Wazeeri.. can you prove these to be true? This book Anwaar UL Islam. is this an authentic book written by Mirza Ghulam?

[waqar_ahmad]

Originally Posted by Wazeeri Whoever doesn't believe in our victory wants to become a b@stard and surely he is a b@stard / has come from fornication (Anwaar ul islam page 30) talking about Saad-ul-lah Ludhiaani You hurt me b@stard, I will be a liar if you don't have a shameful death. Haqeeqat-ul-Wahi Page 14 Abdul Haq wants to become a ******* Anwaar-ul-islam page 30 Ulema who refute me are worst then pigs Anjum-e-atham Page 21

Are these from the books of ahmedis?

[Wazeeri]

The following is very good evidence to support the argument that he was a British agent

[Wazeeri]

Originally Posted by Rana But in England, we also prepare to anhilate christainity with off-course jihad with the pen.

If Mirza was so defiant of the Christians and the British as you say then why did he feel the need to apologise for his attacks on Christianity?


In the following he is apologising for attacking Christianity. He says that he only did so because some Christians attacked islam and muslims are very sentimental hence if he didn't quench their anger by attacking the Xtians he implies that the muslims would have physically attacked the Xtians.

[Wazeeri]

Originally Posted by Stewie Wazeeri.. can you prove these to be true? This book Anwaar UL Islam. is this an authentic book written by Mirza Ghulam?

When I have time, I will read through these books from the ahmedi websites and post the page up here for each.

That is what I did with the quote I provided earlier.

[Wazeeri]

Originally Posted by Waqar Are these from the books of ahmedis?

These are from the writings of Mirza Ahmed himself.

See post 95

[Wazeeri]

Waqar

The quote I provided earlier was from an edited version of Mirza's book.

This bit survived the combing exercise the ahmedi ulema did after Mirza's death.

[Wazeeri]

Stewie

I don't want to bombard everyone with information.

My first point of debate is on Mirza's conduct and him being a British agent.

Once that is done we will speak about his attacks on Hadhrat Isa(RA), claim to be Lord Krisna of hinduism, his wahi's (in one he says that Allah(swt) nauzubillah had intercourse with him and many other things.

[Rana]

Originally Posted by Stewie I am not getting convinced. This is entirely opposed to theteachings of hazrat Muhammad pbuh. Anyhow, carry on what else can you tell me. The wabi part I don't agree with. It opens the door for anyone to stand up commit a crime and claim GOd told him to do so. There is a reason GOd chose certain fewfeom amongst us tobe HIs prophets. Anything u have to add to this please feel free.

Anyone who commits a clear crime will never say that God told him to do so, he is mad whoever does. Hadhrat Mirza did not commit any crime.

[zimmz]

Rana since you said every ahmadi must read the books from your khalifa three times. If you had read it yourself you would find many other example similar to one Wazeeri posted.

Here is another example of how your khalifa bashed Prophet Isa (as). Look at the choice of words...



This image is taken from your khalifa's book for which i posted a link and page number some old thread linked below.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...&postcount=120

Moreover I notice you khalifa was fond of bets on discussions and debates offering money when challenging others. One example is in the page I posted above.

Also no prophet in the history of Islam has done poetry as for I know. In fact in Quran some where it is mentioned that doing poetry do not suits prophets. I'll have to look for the reference until then you people can ignore this point. But if I am correct then what do you people say about Mirza's poetry especially on the subject of romance written for his wife?

[Rana]

Originally Posted by Wazeeri Stewie I don't want to bombard everyone with information. My first point of debate is on Mirza's conduct and him being a British agent. Once that is done we will speak about his attacks on Hadhrat Isa(RA), claim to be Lord Krisna of hinduism, his wahi's (in one he says that Allah(swt) nauzubillah had intercourse with him and many other things.

i dont know where this is heading!

How comes only you know about things like this and many people are still converting to ahmadiyyat?

[qaisar]

Bravo! Bravo! The marday momins and marde haqs , the pious and great soldiers of islam are at it once again. Ridiculing a prophet of God as usual..like that's anything new. Let's see what we have got here.

[qaisar]

Originally Posted by Wazeeri Stewie I don't want to bombard everyone with information. My first point of debate is on Mirza's conduct and him being a British agent. Once that is done we will speak about his attacks on Hadhrat Isa(RA), claim to be Lord Krisna of hinduism, his wahi's (in one he says that Allah(swt) nauzubillah had intercourse with him and many other things.

So Mr Marde momin and Marde haq. Did you yourself did this great research of yours? oh wait no you didn't. Your legend the real marde momin and the marde haq, the great zia-ulhaq and his dogs did and released it under " Ahmadiyyat, The grave threat to Islam".

[Wazeeri]

How comes only you know about things like this and many people are still converting to ahmadiyyat?

Because no one reads all the books of Mirza Ahmed before converting and Mirza Ahmeds books are not available in easy circulation.

Have you read all of his books?

If not then that should suffice to prove my point.

[Koenigsegg]

Originally Posted by Rana Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmed has made it clear that the jihad with the sword in this day and age is not the answer to solving problems, now is the time for jihad with the pen! Right now, Islams biggest enemy is not America or the western world, it is the media. The media is portraying a very sick and negetive image of islam, therefore the guidlines of the prommised mesiah are very important because we cannot win by physically fighting now, we need to get our heads together and explain all the the differences that the media is trying to imply on us.

But then this theory is also getting old. Many many newspapers here in the United States are on the verge of getting bankrupt due to over whelming influence of internet. Do you expect the current leader of Qadiyani movement to issue a verdict that the new jihad is not with pen anymore but with a keyboard and a mouse?

[zimmz]

Just for reference another old thread with same debate:

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...ad.php?t=31238

[Wazeeri]

So Mr Marde momin and Marde haq. Did you yourself did this great research of yours? oh wait no you didn't. Your legend the real marde momin and the marde haq, the great zia-ulhaq and his dogs did and released it under " Ahmadiyyat, The grave threat to Islam".

Ofcourse I didn't research all of this myself, I read this on anti-ahmedi books and websites.
What's your point?

Why don't you answer the questions sensibly instead of crying about who did the research?

PS: YOU ARE WARNED FOR USING THE LANGUAGE YOU HAVE USED IN THIS POST.
KEEP IT CIVIL

[qaisar]

Originally Posted by Wazeeri Ofcourse I didn't research all of this myself, I read this on anti-ahmedi books and websites. What's your point? PS: YOU ARE WARNED FOR USING THE LANGUAGE YOU HAVE USED IN THIS POST. KEEP IT CIVIL

Thank you for teaching me morals. I'm truly grateful to you for that. You might wanna give some warning points to Prophet Muhammad though.(Naazobillah of course).

"There will come a time upon the people when nothing will remain of Islam except its name and nothing will remain of the Quran except its inscription. Their mosques will be splendidly furnished but destitute of guidance. Their divines will be the worst people under the sky; strife will issue from them and avert to them."

You want me to disobey Prophet Muhammad now? He said it and I believe in it.

[Ace Base]

Originally Posted by Wazeeri Ofcourse I didn't research all of this myself, I read this on anti-ahmedi books and websites. What's your point? Why don't you answer the questions sensibly instead of crying about who did the research? PS: YOU ARE WARNED FOR USING THE LANGUAGE YOU HAVE USED IN THIS POST. KEEP IT CIVIL

Another link for all its worth:

http://www.ahmedi.org/eart/ThoseWhoQuit?page=6

The funny thing is us Arabs have never heard about this guy and he is supposed to be a prophet?

Allah says in the Quran, ''fa rafa'na lakum dhikrak''

''And We have raised for you your stature...''

He says this for Prophet Muhammed sallahu alaihi wassallam

But Ghulam Mirza is an unknown?

[Koenigsegg]

Originally Posted by Rana The difference between Ahmadis and sunnis is, 1, The view of Khatam-e-nabuwat 2, The death of Jesus 3, The interpretation of Jihad 4, The system of Wahi (that it still happens)

There is one more as I was told by a qadiyani. Maybe Rana can verify for us.

According to hadeeth, and the close meaning is "There will be 73 sects in the ummah, 72 will be wrong and only one will be on the right path".

This qadiyani told me that we "qadiyanis" are that 1 sect that's mentioned in the above stated hadeeth - (conveniently ignoring the second part of the same hadeeth which carries on, "the companions asked, which will be that 1 sect?": the prophet(saw) replied, "the one who will follow my AND my companions' way" (meray aur meray sahaaba kay raastey pe chalnay walay).

[zimmz]

Originally Posted by qaisar Thank you for teaching me morals. I'm truly grateful to you for that. You might wanna give some warning points to Prophet Muhammad though.(Naazobillah of course). "There will come a time upon the people when nothing will remain of Islam except its name and nothing will remain of the Quran except its inscription. Their mosques will be splendidly furnished but destitute of guidance. Their divines will be the worst people under the sky; strife will issue from them and avert to them." You want me to disobey Prophet Muhammad now? He said it and I believe in it.

You are an excellent example of Mirza's blind followers. I see you use same style as your Mirza did in his books.

Moreover you stupidly compared the word 'worst' from (unverified) hadeeth to third class language Mirza used in books. Very convincing!

[Ace Base]

Emotional issue, not helped by the ignorant responses of some of the apparently Sunni posters on here.

Knowledge-based discussion is needed otherwise this will debase into an us vs them slatefest.

Personally, I only came to know of the Qadianis and Ahmedis during my time in London. One of my colleagues in Uni was a Ahmedi.

[qaisar]

Originally Posted by Ace Base Another link for all its worth: http://www.ahmedi.org/eart/ThoseWhoQuit?page=6 The funny thing is us Arabs have never heard about this guy and he is supposed to be a prophet? Allah says in the Quran, ''fa rafa'na lakum dhikrak'' ''And We have raised for you your stature...'' He says this for Prophet Muhammed sallahu alaihi wassallam But Ghulam Mirza is an unknown?

So, now all prophets were arabs and Imam mehdi must also be an arab? What did you arabs do to Prophet Muhammad when he claimed to be the messenger of God? or any prophet in the past for that matter? Did people accept him right away? Jesus barley had 10 apostles when he was being crucified. Doesn't that make him an unknown for the people of the time? Just because you are too busy with your mundane stuff while your religion is being ridiculed all over the world doesn't mean that someone is unknown.


BTW there are plenty of arab ahmedis and there is a 24x7 ahmediya channel in arabic beamed to every corner of the earth.

[Stewie]

Originally Posted by zimmz Rana since you said every ahmadi must read the books from your khalifa three times. If you had read it yourself you would find many other example similar to one Wazeeri posted. Here is another example of how your khalifa bashed Prophet Isa (as). Look at the choice of words... This image is taken from your khalifa's book for which i posted a link and page number some old thread linked below. http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...&postcount=120 Moreover I notice you khalifa was fond of bets on discussions and debates offering money when challenging others. One example is in the page I posted above. Also no prophet in the history of Islam has done poetry as for I know. In fact in Quran some where it is mentioned that doing poetry do not suits prophets. I'll have to look for the reference until then you people can ignore this point. But if I am correct then what do you people say about Mirza's poetry especially on the subject of romance written for his wife?

Sorry I am at work and I could not keep up. I just read the posts from Wazeeri and Qaiser

Now some of the excerpts that are posted here... do Ahmedis agree are genuine and written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmed, the proposed Messiah himself???
Also in the above quoted excerpt, who is the person writing and who is he talking about when referring to "Aap"?

[Stewie]

So far I see "Sunni Muslims" post some incriminating evidence against Ahmedis and I have not seen much bad language. I think by far this is a civilised conversation. I have yet to see Ahmedis defend these excerpts and question their validity.

I take it these are truly written by Mirza the supposed Messiah?

[zimmz]

Stewie the writer is Mirza G.A. and the person he is referring to is Prophet Isa (as).
You can read the previous page of the book to get complete picture.

Linked directly from official ahmadi website: http://www.alislam.org/urdu/rk/rk-11-33.pdf