Allegation of adultery against mirza and bashir-Proof
Parvez
This is second attempt! What is going on with my articles when Ahmad
Hashem is not present!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ahmaed has been fooling around for too long. Here is the proof of
allegation of adulterous nature of mirza and bashir.
Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood in his friday sermon read the following letter
and commented as follows.
The letter he read says:
"Hazrat Promised Messiah was a saint and saints do commit adultery often.
Therefore, if he had committed adultery now and then, what is the harm with
that. We have no objection against Hazrat promsied messiah because he
committed adultery only at times. We have objection against the present
Khalifa because he indulge in adulterous intercourse all the times."
(Al Fadal Quadian, 31st August, 1938)
Upon reading this letter Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood said, "From this allegation,
it turns out that this man is a Paighami because our belief of regarding
the promised messiah is that he was Allah's prophet but the Paighamis do not
believe that. They consider him to be only a saint"
(The same source)
Now see the fact! Bashir counts the allegation as not beleiving in prophethood
of mirza and that he doesn't deny the charge of adultery against his father
mirza and himself. Then the Paighamis (Lahories) accused mirza and bashir
of adultery. It is a proven case. Bashir silently approves it. I have copy
of this Al-Fazal. Do not hesitate to ask me for it. The bottom line is
that mirza was accussed of adultery by his own people and so is bashir.
Parvez
Dept. of Mech. Eng.
Queen's University at Kingston
Kingston K7L 3N6
Ontario, Canada
E-mail: 7k...@qlink.queensu.ca
im...@me.queensu.ca
ct...@freenet.toronto.on.ca
Tel: +1-613-549-9979 (Home)
+1-613-545-6000 Ext 4628 (School)
Fax: +1-613-545-6489 (School)
Parvez
Ahmaed
<< This is second attempt! What is going on with my articles when Ahmad
Hashem is not present!! >>
Catherine Hampton did you a favour by not posting your post the first time
round. That's how bogus it is, as any reasonable person will already have
realised.
>ahmaed has been fooling around for too long. Here is the proof of
>allegation of adulterous nature of mirza and bashir.
Just because someone made an allegation, this does not amount to *proof of
adultery*. Who am I dealing with here? Non-Muslims make allegations of adultery
against the Holy Prophet s.a.w. as well, but the proof is lacking, as in this
case.
Hence, I don't even have to bother to verify whether the reference to Al Fadl
is correct or not.
<< Now see the fact! Bashir counts the allegation as not beleiving in
prophethood of mirza and that he doesn't deny the charge of adultery against
his father mirza and himself. Then the Paighamis (Lahories) accused mirza and
bashir of adultery. ... >>
The charge doesn't even have to be denied. It's so bogus. Hadrat Bashiruddin
Mahmud r.a. probably read out the letter just as a lighthearted aside. For a
Paighami/Lahori to state that saints often committ adultery, whilst the fact is
that adultery is forbidden by Allah, just shows how hilarously silly the
allegation is. Even an ordinary Muslim would not commit adultery! Hence, the
letter does not reflect well on the character of Lahori/Paighami *saints* and
leaders!
Parvez, the mullahs and the Lahories should thank Catherine Hampton for trying
to do you lot a favour!
Peace be unto those who follow the guidance of truth.
"Love for All, Hatred for None" [Nasir Ahmad r.a.]
"There is to be no compulsion in religion [Qur'an]
"Peace is the best... When they incline towards peace, do you incline towards
it also"[Qur'an].
shaf...@selica.globalnet.co.uk
Salaam Parvez,
A few questions:
1. Do you believe that saints do commit adultery often?
2. Can you call an allegation from an opponent to be a 'proof' of adultery?
3. Do you agree that similar claims of adultery have been laid at the feet of
past prophets - notably the Holy Prophet, pbuh. The Quran absolves all
previous prophets of this sin - eg the Prophet Lot, as, is categorically
described as righteous in the Quran whilst is branded a drunk and one guilty
of incest in other previous books.
Finally... do you really think anyone takes this allegation as a *proof*?
I don't.
Wasalaam,
Shafique
In article <6d1p8u$lrf$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
Parvez <im...@me.queensu.ca> wrote:
> The letter he read says:
> "Hazrat Promised Messiah was a saint and saints do commit adultery often.
> Therefore, if he had committed adultery now and then, what is the harm with
> that. We have no objection against Hazrat promsied messiah because he
> committed adultery only at times. We have objection against the present
> Khalifa because he indulge in adulterous intercourse all the times."
> (Al Fadal Quadian, 31st August, 1938)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Kavosh Soltani
Parvez wrote:
>
> "Hazrat Promised Messiah was a saint and saints do commit adultery
> Upon reading this letter Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood said, "From this
>
Assalamu Aleikum.
This is a very good and valid observation. If this were a clear
lie, we would expect the "Khalifa" of Qadianism, the son of
Mirza, to reject it or at least openly laugh at it. He did
not do either and that does not look good for him...
Can you imagine if some non-Muslim has made such an accusation
about Muhammad(SAAW) to a Muslim? Any Muslim? That Muslim
would definetely feel outraged and reject the obvious lie.
If that accusation were made in front of a scholar or an
authority, you could expect a lot more serious reaction...
However, we already know that Qadianism is not Islam.
Wassalam.
Parvez
On 25 Feb 1998, Ahmaed wrote:
> In article <6d1p8u$lrf$1...@waltz.rahul.net>, Parvez <im...@me.queensu.ca> writes:
>
> Catherine Hampton did you a favour by not posting your post the first time
> round. That's how bogus it is, as any reasonable person will already have
> realised.
So do you agree that she deliberately threw my article in blackhole?
How nonsensical nonsense!
Ask Catherine Hampton to admit the same thing.
>
> >ahmaed has been fooling around for too long. Here is the proof of
> >allegation of adulterous nature of mirza and bashir.
>
> Just because someone made an allegation, this does not amount to *proof of
> adultery*. Who am I dealing with here? Non-Muslims make allegations of adultery
> against the Holy Prophet s.a.w. as well, but the proof is lacking, as in this
> case.
See mirziite dribling.
This fellow denied just a few days ago that mirza and bashir was never
alleged for adultery and was bombasting things like , "bring your proof if
you are truthful".
Now I brought proof that both mirza and bashir was alleged and mirza
mahmood admitted it.
Then again the quadianie gang is switching position to say that it is not
a proof.
Just look at my article title and you will find yoruself a grave fool for
bombasting. The key issue here is allegation and not anything else.
>
> Hence, I don't even have to bother to verify whether the reference to Al Fadl
> is correct or not.
Who cares if you verify or not?
Mirza and bashir was alleged of adultery and that is fine. Just let it be
in record.
> his father mirza and himself. Then the Paighamis (Lahories) accused mirza and
> bashir of adultery. ... >>
>
> The charge doesn't even have to be denied. It's so bogus. Hadrat Bashiruddin
> Mahmud r.a. probably read out the letter just as a lighthearted aside. For a
> Paighami/Lahori to state that saints often committ adultery, whilst the
> fact is that adultery is forbidden by Allah, just shows how hilarously
That is none of my business. You are resorting to a 'Probably' now.
That is how your mirza ran allover his life.
Allah(swt) forbade it for the Muslims but we never know how mirza saw it
and how people of quadinaie religion practiced it. Apparently mirziites
are calling adultery permitted for saints and another mirzzite is not
denying it. That is enough for us to think of.
> silly the allegation is. Even an ordinary Muslim would not commit
> adultery! Hence, the letter does not reflect well on the character of
> Lahori/Paighami *saints* and leaders!
Do not forget that they are your brthre in faith and got teaching from
your same prophet. Hence their teaching is not much different from yours.
The bottom line is: My point is perfectly valid. MIRZA AND BASHIR WAS
ALLEGED FOR ADULTERY BY THEIR OWN PEOPLE
> Parvez, the mullahs and the Lahories should thank Catherine Hampton for trying
> to do you lot a favour!
If you are to be correct, Catherine Hampton becomes a demoralized lady who
should quit SRI right away for blacklisting me. As long as Ahmad Hashem is
not there, my articles go in a blackhole. I reserve my judgement if it
could be a technical problem but you seem to over stepping to bash
Catherine Hampton as a demoralized lady. Ask her to see what she says. You
sure are going to be a heavy handed treatment for this aparently false
allegation.
> Peace be unto those who follow the guidance of truth.
Then leave quadianism and come back to Islam.
As for the rest of your proof, I am coming up. No worry. I am a bit busy
at the moment.
dervish
Asalaamo Alaykum!
Bismillah:
Dear Parvez,
May Allah(swt) bless and guide you, ya akhee, and may He lead us
all to the wisdom and perfection that is Himself.
As you may know aziz, proof of adultery in Islam is a very
strict procedure. Allegations of any kind are considered worthless in
Islam. The requirement for proof of adultery in Islam is four
eyewitnesses to the actual act, anything short of that is unacceptable.
The only other possibilities for proving it are either the perpetrator
themselves confessing four times to the act, or sworn testimony by a
spouse four times (which is also considered worthless, if the accused
denies it).
These guidelines are quite important, because the penalty for
even *accusing* someone of adultery is 80% as severe as the actual
punishment itself. What this means of course, is that if three people
actually witness someone in the act of fornication, not only will there
be no conviction, but the judge will be forced to give each one of the
accusers 80 lashes for false accusations. This may seem strict, but
there is good reason, because spiritually speaking, suspicion kills..it
hardens the heart, and takes us away from deen. Unless soemone is
prepared to meet the requirements for bearing witness against adultery,
they are supposed to look the other way, and give the person the benefit
of the doubt.
Hehehe, don't worry though, Parvez, we aren't going to lash you
80 times inshAllah, but please note that your line of thinking is
worthless Islamically. Allah(swt) in His wisdom made these things hard
to prove, because we almost always do harm to ourselves when we think
bad thoughts about others, either accusing them, or suspecting them of
sin. Accusing others takes our thoughts off of our own sins,
hypocrisies, and transgressions, and makes us judgmental and
hard-hearted. In fact, there are hadiths that suggest that if we suspect
others, or accuse them falsely, we take on some of their sins, and they
get credit for *our* good deeds! As you can see, this is a dangerous
endeavor indeed.
Looking the other way, and trying to give others the benefit of
the doubt are core Islamic principles. let's strive to practice them,
inshAllah. May Allah(swt) bring us all to the wisdom and light that is
al-Haqq, and may He ever guide us along the straight path of renouncing
sin, that is His deen. May peace and blessings be upon you and yours,
and upon our Holy Prophet(saw), Seyyedina Mohammed, and his family, his
companions, and all of the ummah.
your brother in Islam, and a beggar of grace,
Abd al-Qadir Abdullah
Asalaamo Alaykum!
Kavosh Soltani
Parvez
dervish
Kavosh Soltani
Assalamu Aleikum.
Of course the brother is correct about what Islam requires in way
of proof. However, I believe Br. Parvez was providing proof that
there had been "allegations". The title of the posting says it
all. There were allegations made (right or wrong) and the
reaction of the Qadiani leadership was very disappointing...
Wassalam.
Fazsk
Assalamu Aleikum to all.
This thread is getting way out of hand here. Both Parvez as well as Ahmaed are
arguing points based on a flawed, unreliable, and immaterial foundation.
Who was the supposed Lahore Ahmadi who wrote this mysterious letter? Why is
there not a name signed at the end of it?
No Lahore Ahmadi, or any other Muslim could possibly hold such a dispicable
view. It is obvious that this is only another one of M. Bashir Mahmud's
fanciful tales. When in the late 1930's there was a spate of accusations about
him by his own followers (ie. Qadianis), he *invented* the allegation that such
accusations
used to be made about Hazrat Mirza by his followers as well. This so-called
letter is just an attempt to justify his poor status in the eyes of many of his
followers.
Parvez's *proof*, if anything, merely reveals that M. Bashir Mahmud did not
deny that such allegations of indecency were made about himself. There is
absolutely nothing reliable or valid here to suggest that anything of the sort
was also done to Hazrat Mirza in his time. Anybody can *claim* that such and
such was said about someone, but it doesn't necessarily make it true now does
it?
Furthermore, in this ficticious letter, the person refers to M. Bashir Mahmud
as "present Khalifa". Thus, the claim that the author of this letter is a
Lahore Ahmadi is illogical for the reason that Lahore Ahmadis never accepted M.
Bashir Mahmud as a Khalifa because of his unIslamic views, and apparently his
unIslamic acts as well.
Can anyone provide any evidence of such discussions and discourses taking place
at the time of Hazrat Mirza? If one can, it may be evidence to the fact that
such allegations were made about Hazrat Mirza. If not, it would be dreadfully
wrong to accuse an innocent man of such great sins. Let your conscience and
your fear of the Almighty be your guide!
May Almighty Allah Guide us all to the Truth
Yours in Islam
Fazeel
Ahmaed
<< So do you agree that she deliberately threw my article in blackhole? How
nonsensical nonsense! Ask Catherine Hampton to admit the same thing. >>
Now you ask, I personally think your article was itself a *black-hole*. In any
case, it was actually posted both by Hampton as well as Hashem, probably
reluctantly by both.
<< See mirziite dribling. This fellow denied just a few days ago that mirza and
bashir was never alleged for adultery and was bombasting things like , "bring
your proof if you are truthful". >>
I myself saw Svend charge *bashir* (i.e. Hadrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud r.a.)
of adultery, so how could I ask proof for *allegations* of adultery? I asked
for proof of adultery per se, not wild allegations thereof. By the way, how old
are you? Are you using your daddy's account or something?
<< Now I brought proof that both mirza and bashir was alleged >>
I knew that anyway.
<< and mirza mahmood admitted it. >>
This is false. He never admitted to anything of the sort.
<< If you are to be correct, Catherine Hampton becomes a demoralized lady who
should quit SRI right away for blacklisting me. >>
In that case, Ahmed Hashem would also have *blacklisted* your articles as
*black-holes*. Any moderator would. Anyway, I based my statements on the
assumtion that you were right in moaning about your article not being accepted
by Catherine Hampton. But you were wrong. She does appear to have posted it.
<< I reserve my judgement if it could be a technical problem>>
How kind and understanding of you.
<< but you seem to over stepping to bash Catherine Hampton as a demoralized
lady. Ask her to see what she says.>>
If Catherine Hampton can keep a straight face whilst stating on SRI that she
thinks I tried to *bash* her on SRI as a *demoralized lady*, then I will have
to begin to think about starting to get worried; but until that happens, I
think I will risk it continuing to live in peace.
<< You sure are going to be a heavy handed treatment for this aparently false
allegation. >>
LOL.
<< As for the rest of your proof, I am coming up. No worry. >>
Do I sound worried?
<< I am a bit busy at the moment. >>
Yeah, yeah, yeah. By the way, when you get round to it, try responding to the
post by Shafique.
Peace.
Parvez
On 26 Feb 1998 shaf...@selica.globalnet.co.uk wrote:
> 1. Do you believe that saints do commit adultery often?
I don't but the Mirzzite do as is evident.
>
> 2. Can you call an allegation from an opponent to be a 'proof' of adultery?
Read my title. That is allegation.
>
> 3. Do you agree that similar claims of adultery have been laid at the feet of
> past prophets - notably the Holy Prophet, pbuh. The Quran absolves all
> previous prophets of this sin - eg the Prophet Lot, as, is categorically
> described as righteous in the Quran whilst is branded a drunk and one guilty
> of incest in other previous books.
That is totally different matter. If there is something to that effect
about Prophet(pbuh), that is by his opponents and not by his own people as
was the case with mirza. Clear?
>
> Finally... do you really think anyone takes this allegation as a *proof*?
I am afraid you have reading and understadning difficulty. ahmaed
quadianie was bombasting that mirza and bashir was never alleged and I
showed that they was and by their own people.
Parvez
On 28 Feb 1998, Ahmaed wrote:
> In article <6d70mm$o5n$1...@waltz.rahul.net>, Parvez <im...@me.queensu.ca> writes:
>
> Now you ask, I personally think your article was itself a *black-hole*. In any
That is how people think when thinking capability decreases and goes
astray.
> case, it was actually posted both by Hampton as well as Hashem, probably
> reluctantly by both.
Since when have you started this psychic business of long distance
reluctance measurement?
> << See mirziite dribling. This fellow denied just a few days ago that mirza and
> bashir was never alleged for adultery and was bombasting things like , "bring
> your proof if you are truthful". >>
>
> I myself saw Svend charge *bashir* (i.e. Hadrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud r.a.)
> of adultery, so how could I ask proof for *allegations* of adultery?
This is the dilemma of the quadines!
Direct the question to yourself and see what you are.
Svend was correct in his asserton.
> I asked for proof of adultery per se, not wild allegations thereof.
Are you now ashemd to admit your double standard that you have to resort
to dribling now?
> By the way, how old are you? Are you using your daddy's account or
> something?
No worry!
I am pretty older than your grand father.
> << Now I brought proof that both mirza and bashir was alleged >>
>
> I knew that anyway.
Also know that the allegation was made by their own people that gives a
substantial boost to the chance that they both were hard core adulterer.
>
> << and mirza mahmood admitted it. >>
>
> This is false. He never admitted to anything of the sort.
He never denied it either.
Once you can't publically deny it, you end up admitting.
(Bubling over moderation etc. trashed)
> << As for the rest of your proof, I am coming up. No worry. >>
>
> Do I sound worried?
That is what you are always.
Things that happens with preacher of falsehood.
> << I am a bit busy at the moment. >>
>
> Yeah, yeah, yeah.
G....r....eeeeeeeee.....aaaaaaaaaaaaaa......tttttttttttttttt
> By the way, when you get round to it, try responding to the
> post by Shafique.
Alredy done. So, what else Mr. ahmaed quadinie?
> "There is to be no compulsion in religion [Qur'an]
Fine. You can remain Quadianie.
Ahmaed
Assalamu 'alaikum waRahmatullah.
In article <6d70p9$o9t$1...@waltz.rahul.net>, dervish <jes...@gte.net> writes:
>Hehehe, don't worry though, Parvez, we aren't going to lash you
>80 times inshAllah, but please note that your line of thinking is
>worthless Islamically.
May I commend "Dervish" (Abd al-Qadir Abdullah), for speaking out the truth and
condemning what was wrong. May Allah enable all of us to learn from your noble
deed.
May Allah reward you endlessly for this noble act, and may He always guide you
to greater truth. Truth is the essence of Islam. Truth guides to virtue and
virtue guides to paradise.
<< May Allah(swt) bring us all to the wisdom and light that is al-Haqq, and may
He ever guide us along the straight path of renouncing sin, that is His deen.
May peace and blessings be upon you and yours, and upon our Holy Prophet(saw),
Seyyedina Mohammed, and his family, his companions, and all of the ummah.>>
Ameen, Thumma Ameen.
May Allah bless you with His Grace, peace, happiness, health and prosperity,
both in this life and the next.
Wasalaam waRahmatullah.
"Love for All, Hatred for None" [Nasir Ahmad r.a.]
"There is to be no compulsion in religion [Qur'an]
Ahmaed
<< It is obvious that this is only another one of M. Bashir Mahmud's fanciful
tales. >>
And how is that so *obvious*? Have you tried to check whether the reference was
true or not? In my case, I didn't have to bother, because Parvez was only
shooting himself (and Lahories) in the foot. But if you are to come out with
your usual anti-Khilaafat banter, you need to verify the reference in the first
place. Yet you enthusiastically join the anti-Ahmadiyya Propagandist Bandwagon
and try the sniper method of attack. Only to find that you ain't got no
gunpowder. <Oh no, not again!>
*Bring your proof, if you are truthful*.
Repeat: *Bring your proof, if you are truthful*.
Yet again: *Bring your proof, if you are truthful*.
Read the thread: *Allegations of adultery*, and check out the post from
*dervish <jes...@gte.net>*, dated: 27 Feb 1998 10:31:05 -0800, who writes:
<< Dear Parvez, As you may know aziz, proof of adultery in Islam is a very
strict procedure. Allegations of any kind are considered worthless in Islam.
The requirement for proof of adultery in Islam is four eyewitnesses to the
actual act, anything short of that is unacceptable. ... the penalty for even
*accusing* someone of adultery is 80% as severe as the actual punishment
itself. What this means of course, is that if three people actually witness
someone in the act of fornication, not only will there be no conviction, but
the judge will be forced to give each one of the accusers 80 lashes for false
accusations. This may seem strict, but there is good reason, because
spiritually speaking, suspicion kills..it hardens the heart, and takes us away
from deen.>>
Note the last words: << suspicion kills..it hardens the heart, and takes us
away from deen. >> Repeat: << takes us away from deen >>
Now you know what befell the Lahories. Lahories may not have taken his baiyat,
but Hadrat Mirza Mahmud r.a. was the Ahmadi Khalifa at that time, whether you
like it or not.
Dervish goes on: << Hehehe, don't worry though, Parvez, we aren't going to lash
you 80 times inshAllah, but please note that your line of thinking is worthless
Islamically. >>
Note: *worthless*. Also note: *Hehehe*.
<< May Almighty Allah Guide us all to the Truth Yours in Islam Fazeel >>
Islam is based on *Truth*, not *False allegations* as you have again made
against Hadrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud r.a.
Peace be unto those who follow the truth and discard falsehood.
shaf...@selica.globalnet.co.uk
Salaam,
I'm glad you agree that Saints do not commit adultery often, but I have to
question your comprehension of what you wrote (you have questioned my
understanding of what you wrote, so I hope you will allow me the same
courtesy).
You say:
In article <6ddfnc$odm$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
Parvez <im...@me.queensu.ca> wrote:
>
>
> > 1. Do you believe that saints do commit adultery often?
>
> I don't but the Mirzzite do as is evident.
>
The letter made the accusation - and thus not Bashirudin or any other Ahmadi
Muslim.
> Read my title. That is allegation.
Ahh - so you are presenting allegations without proof. tsk, tsk - I take it
you are now aware what the Quran has to say about allegations without proof.
As I am relatively new here, I shall take it that you do not believe unproved
allegations.. or do you? Can you settle this issue for me? Do you believe in
allegations without proof or not?
> > 3. Do you agree that similar claims of adultery have been laid at the feet of
> > past prophets - notably the Holy Prophet, pbuh. The Quran absolves all
> > previous prophets of this sin - eg the Prophet Lot, as, is categorically
> > described as righteous in the Quran whilst is branded a drunk and one guilty
> > of incest in other previous books.
>
> That is totally different matter. If there is something to that effect
> about Prophet(pbuh), that is by his opponents and not by his own people as
> was the case with mirza. Clear?
>
A "Yes" would have sufficed.
By the way, some allegations against the prophet, pbuh, were made by people
calling themselves Muslim. Abdullah bin Ubay called the Prophet, pbuh, the
meanest from among them - and he is acknowledged to be the Chief of the
Hypocrites, but always was allowed to be called a Muslim.
> > Finally... do you really think anyone takes this allegation as a *proof*?
>
> I am afraid you have reading and understadning difficulty. ahmaed
> quadianie was bombasting that mirza and bashir was never alleged and I
> showed that they was and by their own people.
+IF+ Ahmaed ever said that they were never accused of these acts, then he IS
in error. For he should have known what the Quran says on the matter - i.e.
that ALL messengers of Allah are opposed and accused of sinning.
He also would have been stupid to ask you to bring proofs of ALLEGATIONS (ie.
that allegations were made) , when he should have asked for proofs that the
allegations were true.
Or could it be that I am not the only with a << reading and understadning
difficulty.>>???
My parents taught me that it is not nice, polite or according to Islamic
values to gossip - and gossip means recounting baseless allegations.
I have never denied that that earth is flat- does that mean I believe it to
be flat?
Wasalaam,
Shafique
Ahmaed
In article <6desss$s4v$1...@waltz.rahul.net>, shaf...@selica.globalnet.co.uk
writes:
<< I have never denied that that earth is flat- does that mean I believe it to
be flat?>>
You'd better start to deny it vehemently ;-)
Wasalaam waRahmatullah.
Parvez
On 1 Mar 1998, Ahmaed wrote:
> In article <6danul$p42$1...@waltz.rahul.net>, fa...@aol.com (Fazsk) writes:
> << It is obvious that this is only another one of M. Bashir Mahmud's fanciful
> tales. >>
>
> And how is that so *obvious*? Have you tried to check whether the reference was
> true or not? In my case, I didn't have to bother, because Parvez was only
> shooting himself (and Lahories) in the foot.
Come on ahmaed!
I am not a quadinaie that I have to preach falsehood.
I have the copy of Al-fazal in my drawer. No worry.
You don't have to bother because you know you this is true and you can't
escape by your usual fallacious dribling of words.
Fair enough!
Ahmaed
Assalamu 'alaikum.
In article <6desss$s4v$1...@waltz.rahul.net>, shaf...@selica.globalnet.co.uk
writes:
>
>In article <6ddfnc$odm$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
> Parvez <im...@me.queensu.ca> wrote:
>> ........
>> I am afraid you have reading and understadning difficulty. ahmaed
>> quadianie was bombasting that mirza and bashir was never alleged and I
>> showed that they was and by their own people.
>
>+IF+ Ahmaed ever said that they were never accused of these acts, then he IS
>in error. For he should have known what the Quran says on the matter - i.e.
>that ALL messengers of Allah are opposed and accused of sinning.
>
>He also would have been stupid to ask you to bring proofs of ALLEGATIONS (ie.
>that allegations were made) , when he should have asked for proofs that the
>allegations were true.
I agree that it would be stupid to ask what Parvez falsely attributed to me. At
first I didn't think it worth my while to deny the assertion of Parvez against
me. As far as I was concerned, there was no proof for the allegation that Ahmad
a.s. and/or Hadrat Mirza Mahmud r.a. did indeed commit adultery. Whoever made
the initial allegation would require 4 witnesses to confirm the allegation in
any case. But clearly, this was not the case.
Parvez went on to insist that because the allegation against Hadrat Ahmad a.s.
and Mirza Bashir a.s. were made by their own people, this gave it some
credibility. Yet we find that he can only show that some *supposed*
Paighami/Lahori individual *may* have written a letter to this effect. Even if
for arguments sake, the renegade Paighamies/Lahories are said to be of *their
own people*, though they are out of the Ahmadiyya Jama'at by their own choice,
this does not amount to anything according to logic, which can also be
demonstrated from the Qur'an in connection with the false allegation of
adultery against Hadrat Aisha r.a.
The Qur'an states:
"Verily, those who invented THE GREAT LIE are a party FROM AMONG YOU. ... Why
did not those (who gave currecny to this charge), bring FOUR WITNESSES to prove
it? Since they have not brought the (required) witnesses, they are indeed LIARS
IN THE SIGHT OF ALLAH." [24:11,13].
So we now know the exact status of Parvez and his anti-Ahmadiyya propagandists
in the sight of Allah.
Now, for Parvez's (whose status in the sight of Allah we already know) latest
allegation, that:
>>ahmaed quadianie was bombasting that mirza and bashir was never alleged
First of all, I don't remember ever stating this, and hence I feel confident to
deny this stupid charge against me. To Parvez I say: *Bring your proof if you
are truthful*.
Let's read the posts that led Parvez into starting this thread:
======================================================
Subject: Re: Mahmud Ahmad vs. Hazrat Umar (fwd)
From: Parvez <im...@me.queensu.ca>
Date: 19 Feb 1998 22:47:54 GMT
... [snip] .......
On 12 Feb 1998, Ahmaed wrote:
> In article <6bkten$h...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, Parvez <im...@me.queensu.ca>
> writes:
> Parvez continues his baseless slander and even justifies making such
unfounded
> and false allegations. As such, I find no need to spend much time refuting
his
> pathetic falsehood.
... [snip] ...
> The Qur'an states for such people: "Bring your proof, IF you are truthful".
... [snip] ...
I accused Mirza of occasional adultery. Al-Fazal Quadian (31st August, 1938)
clearly confirms it. A Lahorie wrote that mirza used to commit adultery often
but he is not to be blamed becasue he is a friend of Allah. That fellow however
added that bashir is busy in adultery day and night. Bashir, your khalifa,
however didn't deny teh charge but expressed his anger that this fellow is a
lahorie and doesn't accept the prophethood of hazrat ghulam. Be proud! Be
proud!! Should you be interested to obtain a copy, please do not hesitate to
contact me. I will Inshallah send you the documentation about the great
allegation of adulterous nature of your prophet from his pwn follwers and
silent approval of his son and your khalifa.
> Parvez will not be able to provide proof of his untruthful and slanderous
> remarks, for obvious reasons.
Why not?
I am not a quadianie to preach falsehood.
Things are already overproven. No worry. Tell me what you want.
Parvez
.....
==============================================================
Subject: Re: Mahmud Ahmad vs. Hazrat Umar (fwd)
From: ahm...@aol.com (Ahmaed)
Date: 22 Feb 1998 16:51:48 GMT
In article <6cicqq$o...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, Parvez <im...@me.queensu.ca>
writes:
[first he quoted me:]
>> Parvez will not be able to provide proof of his untruthful and slanderous
>> remarks, for obvious reasons.
[then wrote: ]
>Why not?
Because you have no proof that the charges are correct, and hence could not
give any in your post. I was right. There is NO evidence for the charges.
Peace be unto those who follow truthful guidance.
"Love for All, Hatred for None" [Nasir Ahmad r.a.]
"There is to be no compulsion in religion [Qur'an 2:256]
"Peace is the best... When they incline towards peace, do you incline towards
it also"[Qur'an.
===============================
Where did I ask for proof that allegations were made against pious people? I
stated that *you have NO PROOF THAT THE CHARGES ARE CORRECT*
The truth is clear.
Peace
Fazsk
Assalamu Aleikum to all.
Ahmaed in article <6ddfpe$ogo$1...@waltz.rahul.net> writes:
><< It is obvious that this is only another one of M. Bashir Mahmud's fanciful
>tales. >>
>
>And how is that so *obvious*?
Because for one to believe that Hazrat Mirza was the Promised Messiah and Mahdi
and a reformer sent by Almighty Allah, it would be ridiculous to believe that
his influence was so meagre and negative that his own followers could accuse
him of such indecencies. Those who are sent by the Almighty, are to be role
models and examplars to human-kind - they are not those who are suspected of
moral indecencies by those who had the fortune to meet them. Their spotless
character is in itself a proof of being divinely appointed. Is not this one of
the proofs which Muslims can claim for our beloved Holy Prophet Muhammad?
>But if you are to come out with
>your usual anti-Khilaafat banter, you need to verify the reference in the
>first
>place. Yet you enthusiastically join the anti-Ahmadiyya Propagandist
>Bandwagon
>and try the sniper method of attack. Only to find that you ain't got no
>gunpowder. <Oh no, not again!>
I did nothing of the sort. Who are you trying to persuade anyway? You are
trying to preach about the serious consequences of making false "allegations"
and "accusations", and yet your whole response is based on such conduct! You
know that I am a Lahore Ahmadi, yet you claim that I join the Anti-Ahmadiyya
Propagandists - shame on you!
I had only responded, for one, to clear the position of the Lahore Ahmadies
(that in now way possible could any of them hold the view that saints
occasionally commit adultery) astaghfirullah, and secondly, to clear Hazrat
Mirza of the false charge that he was a recipient of allegations of adultery by
his own followers (as M.Mahmud claims) astaghfirullah.
>Islam is based on *Truth*, not *False allegations* as you have again made
>against Hadrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud r.a.
I never made any *allegations* against him that he actually commited such
indecencies. Only Almighty Allah knows the truth behind such allegations.
Please re-read my post and try to be truthful. I did, however, claim that
unlike Hazrat Mirza Sahib, M.Mahmud definately was *accused* of such acts by
his own followers. This is what I alleged and there is sufficient proof for it
( as you have already witnessed from the Al - Fazl article).
Thus, the topic I was concerned with was wether *allegations* were made of such
acts against M. Mahmud and Hazrat Mirza. There is more than enough proof of
such allegations against M.Mahmud, but not one shred of evidence of such
allegations against Hazrat Mirza (as M.Mahmud claims). Hence, it seems that
M.Mahmud made such a theory up to justify his own pitiful status in the eyes of
his own followers.
>*Bring your proof, if you are truthful*.
>Repeat: *Bring your proof, if you are truthful*.
>Yet again: *Bring your proof, if you are truthful*.
This question has to be directed to you, not me! I never accused anyone of
commiting such acts (only that such allegations were made about the person and
the proof of which has already been prensented on this thread). You, as well as
M.Mahmud for that matter, would have to bring your proof if you are to stoop so
low as to claim that the saintly person of Hazrat Mirza was accused of such
indecent acts! Where is your proof Ahmaed? Bring your proof if you are
truthful!!!
Furthermore, I find it fascinating to see you harp on about making false
allegations when you yourself have clearly admitted your view on SRI that you
believe all non-Qadianis to be Kafirs and outside the pale of Islam. You have
openly alleged that all Muslims in the world who do not consider Hazrat Mirza
to be a prophet are non-Muslim. Talk about making false allegations!?!
It would be a good idea to look in the mirror next time before preaching to
others about the severity of making false allegations, my brother.
May Almighty Allah Guide us all to the Truth
Yours in Islam
Fazeel
P.S. Ahmaed, you still have not answered the question I posed to you in
response to your supposed *proof* from a couple months back. Was the passage
from Kitab al-Bariyya which I quoted (where Hazrat Mirza clearly claims
superiority over Hazrat Isa a.s.) before or after Hazrat Mirza *supposedly*
claimed prophethood? Would you like me to quote the passage again?
Unfortunately, from experience, I know you will once again evade critical
issues and only participate in useless quarells which does nothing for
assisting in getting to the truth.
For all those interested in the true teachings of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad,
please visit: *www.muslim.org*
Parvez
> I have never denied that that earth is flat- does that mean I believe it
> to be flat?
See Quadinie logic!
The matter of earth is an established fact with no second choice. It
doesn't need a denial or acceptance.
What about mirza's adultery case?
Both choices are open and failure to deny in public in face of allegation
amounts to acceptance.
Could I help you?
Then ahmaed quadinie wrote
> You'd better start to deny it vehemently ;-)
Just you deny the truth vehemently and keep yourself busy preaching
quadianie faslehood day and night!
MuhdAhmadi
I would really like to say here:
Lanat ullahe Allal Kazabeen!
"May the curse of Allah be on Liars"
*After God I am inebriated with the love of Muhammad s.a.w.
If this is infidelity, then by God I am the greatest Infedel*
Ahmaed
Peace/Salaam.
In article <6djqth$a...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, fa...@aol.com (Fazsk) writes:
>Those who are sent by the Almighty, are to be role
>models and examplars to human-kind - they are not those who are suspected of
>moral indecencies by those who had the fortune to meet them. Their spotless
>character is in itself a proof of being divinely appointed. Is not this one
>of the proofs which Muslims can claim for our beloved Holy Prophet Muhammad?
Have you not heard of *hypocrites*? Was the Holy Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. not
accused of miasppropriating booty by the hypocrites? Was Hadrat Musa a.s. not
slandered by the hypocrites? Were Hadrat's AbuBakr r.a., Umar r.a., Uthman r.a.
etc not accused by the *anti-Khilaafat* hypocrites? Ofcourse they were. Does
this suggest that they were UNinfluential or immoral, or indecent, and that the
accusations were valid? Ofcourse not. Allegations need to be backed by
*evidence*. For the allegation of adultery, 4 witnesses are required; without
it the accuser is deemed as a liar, as per the false charge against Hadrat
Aisha r.a. Refer to my previous post in this thread.
I stated:
>Islam is based on *Truth*, not *False allegations* as you have again made
>against Hadrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud r.a.
Fazsk replies:
>I never made any *allegations* against him that he actually commited such
>indecencies. ... Please re-read my post and try to be truthful.
And where did I state that you had made any allegations of *such indecencies*
against him? Why don't you *re-read my post* before you suggest that to me. "It
is most hateful in the sight of Allah that you say what you do not". *Practice
what you preach*. Fazsk, this is the *false allegation* that you do need to
justify:
>I did, however, claim that
>unlike Hazrat Mirza Sahib, M.Mahmud definately was *accused* of such acts by
>his own followers. This is what I alleged and there is sufficient proof for
>it ( as you have already witnessed from the Al - Fazl article). ...
>When in the late 1930's there was a spate of accusations about
>him by his own followers (ie. Qadianis), he *invented* the allegation that
such
>accusations used to be made about Hazrat Mirza by his followers as well. This
>so-called letter is just an attempt to justify his poor status in the eyes of
many of >his followers.
The *alleged* Al-Fazl article does not proove that at all. In any case, even if
such proof does exist in reality, it doesn't amount to anything, because not
all of the hypocrites left the Ahmadiyya Jama'at at the time of the split
created by Maulvi Muhammad Ali & Khawaja Kamaluddin. And if such false
allegations are not backed by the testimony of 4 witnesses, those who make the
allegation, as well as those who are involved in spreading it, are considered
as *Liars in the Sight of Allah*, and if you support such a lie, that is the
category you and your Paighami/Lahori (or whatever you call yourselves)
anti-Khilafaat mongerers would fall into.
Fazsk had also written:
>Anybody can *claim* that such and such was said about someone,
>but it doesn't necessarily make it true now does it?
No, unless the evidence of 4 witnesses is presented, whoever supports the
allegation of moral indecency, i.e. adultery, becomes a liar in the sight of
Allah.
>Furthermore, I find it fascinating to see you harp on about making false
>allegations when you yourself have clearly admitted your view on SRI that you
>believe all non-Qadianis to be Kafirs and outside the pale of Islam. You have
>openly alleged that all Muslims in the world who do not consider Hazrat Mirza
>to be a prophet are non-Muslim. Talk about making false allegations!?!
Forst of all, this is not a *false allegation*, so stop this *theatrical
dramatics*. We have already have this discussion, and I have already shown that
the views of Hadrat Mirza Mahmud r.a. were in accordance with those of Hadrat
Ahmad a.s., who stated that a kafir is of two types: [1] those who denied the
prophethood of Muhammad s.a.w. [2] those who deny the Promised Messiah. He also
stated that he who states a Muslim to be a Kafir, becomes a Kafir himself
(according to the fatwa of the Holy Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. Hence one has to
decide who to consider to be a Muslim.
If one considers Hadrat Ahmad a.s. to be truthful, the mullahs etc, who have
called him kafir since the beginning and prepared fatwas against him, and their
followers, automatically become kafirs. If you consider them to still be
Muslims despite the clear statements of Hadrat Ahmad a.s., then you become a
kafir according to Ahmad a.s. So you have to decide; infact the last time we
had this discussion, you and Svend and Tariq disappeared for many weeks (about
6 weeks or so) from SRI. Dejanews should confirm this.
>P.S. Ahmaed, you still have not answered the question I posed to you in
>response to your supposed *proof* from a couple months back. Was the passage
>from Kitab al-Bariyya which I quoted (where Hazrat Mirza clearly claims
>superiority over Hazrat Isa a.s.) before or after Hazrat Mirza *supposedly*
>claimed prophethood? Would you like me to quote the passage again?
We have already had this discussion, as dejanews will confirm. I asked a few
deathblow questions after many weeks of your villification of Hadrat Mirza
Mahmud r.a., upon which you all made yourself scarce. Or do you wish to suggest
that you vanished from SRI *before* I asked those questions? If you wish you
may quote the passage again. I will have to refer to my responses from what I
may have on my hard drive, as well as dejanews if need be, and bring up my
previous posts, with references, for you to respond to at last.
Wasalaam 'alaa man ittebaa alhuda.
Wedner11
salaamu 'alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu
In Islam, to accuse someone of adultury you have to have 4 witnesses. It is
possible for this person that your talking about to have comited adultury even
if he was muslim because Shaytaan can make this happen. Just becasue he is
muslim does not mea \n anything!!! If witness are brought against this person
then he must be stoned to death, (according to teh Qur'an). Allah knows best.
wasalaamu 'alaikum wa rahmatullah
Fatimah
Ahmaed
<< you yourself have clearly admitted your view on SRI that you believe all
non-Qadianis to be Kafirs and outside the pale of Islam. >>
I didn't answer this question in full in my previous reply. The comprehensive
and beautiful answer to this is:
===================================
*I think of them the same as they think of me*.
===================================
I believe all Ahmadi Muslims have the same dignified, stance on it. We are not
cowards like the anti-Khilaafat, Grovelling *Lahories*, who shamelessly
consider as Muslims even those who address them as kafirs.
Yet Muhammad s.a.w. said that he who calls a Muslim a kafir, becomes one
himself. So, Fazsk has to decide whether he is a Muslim, or those people who
refer to Hadrat Ahmad a.s. as a kafir [na'ouzubillah]. Since I consider Hadrat
Ahmad a.s. as a Muslim, I automatically consider everyone else who considers
him a kafir, as a kafir himself.
Peace.
Fazsk
Assalamu Aleikum to all.
As I have just completed mid-terms and am working on 5 term-papers,
unfortunately, my time is very limited to reply to posts. Certain posts
especially (yes, you Ahmaed :), are of no use to respond to as they are topics
which have already been covered exhaustively.
For those who may remember this topic being discussed before, will recall that
it was proven that the Qadiani Jamaat's leadership (M.Mahmud) openly declared
all those who did not take pledge into the Qadiani group, as veritable kafirs.
No, this statement did not refer to those *only* who declared Hazrat Mirza as
Kafir, but even those who believed him to be true but merely did not join the
Qadiani Jamaat. Thus, according to the Qadiani doctrine, the Kalima is no more
sufficient for one to embrace the religion of Islam, but rather now one *must*
also believe in Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet to become and even
remain a Muslim. Therefore, according to the Qadiani principles, the only true
Muslims on earth are the Qadianis - all others are non-Muslims just like
Christians and Jews.
The above beliefs are in complete contrast to the views held by Hazrat Mirza.
Again, this has all been proven before, and there is no need to waste time on
ground that has already been covered.
If anyone would like to review these points (or if Ahmaed would like to
re-fresh his memory) they may visit the following web-page which deals
specifically with the contrasting views of the Qadiani Jamaat and those held by
Hazrat Mirza:
http://www.muslim.org/qadis/takfir1.htm
I invite all, especially members of the Qadian Jamaat, to read this web-page
and then decide for themselves what the true beliefs and teachings of Hazrat
Mirza were.
May Almighty Allah Guide us all to the Truth
Yours in Islam
Fazeel
P.S. I would encourage any questions, comments, or refutations related to the
information on the web-page. Please feel free to e-mail the address provided at
the web-site, or bring up the matter on this newsgroup. Insha Allah, we will
then be able to focus and limit debates to specific issues rather than indulge
in merry-go-round discussions which seem to never end (as Ahmaed seems to have
a keen interest in doing).
Parvez
On 9 Mar 1998, Ahmaed wrote:
> << you yourself have clearly admitted your view on SRI that you believe all
> non-Qadianis to be Kafirs and outside the pale of Islam. >>
>
> I didn't answer this question in full in my previous reply. The comprehensive
> and beautiful answer to this is:
The answer was not waiting for you for so long.
Your grand khalifa mirza mahmood quadianie considered all people kafir who
even haven't heard of imposter mirza.
Fazsk told it elsewhere.
Huh!
> I believe all Ahmadi Muslims have the same dignified, stance on it. We are not
> cowards like the anti-Khilaafat, Grovelling *Lahories*, who shamelessly
> consider as Muslims even those who address them as kafirs.
No Muslim consider the lahories as kafir.
At best they are considered are misguided.
But you people, the al-quadianie gang, are undoubtedly KAFIR.
> Yet Muhammad s.a.w. said that he who calls a Muslim a kafir, becomes one
> himself.
He also told there is no harm to call a fask a fask.
Hence you Quadinie gang are Kafir as you are really so.
Khalas!
> refer to Hadrat Ahmad a.s. as a kafir [na'ouzubillah]. Since I consider Hadrat
He definitely was a Kafir and so are you.
The Lahories indeed do not necessary believe in what Mirza did but
understand it in a way consistent with Islamic teachings. Because we
believe Mirza infact had different intention of writing those garbage, he
definitely was a Kafir.
> Ahmad a.s. as a Muslim, I automatically consider everyone else who considers
> him a kafir, as a kafir himself.
What if you consider this or that?
You are officially declared non-Muslims in a lot of countries and
Inshallah many other countries are coming forward. Very soon Inshallah you
people will stand alongside the Hindus.
dervish
Asalaamo Alaykum!
Bismillah:
Dear sisters and brothers,
This is a common misconception about al-Quran. In fact nowhere
in the Quran is stoning sanctioned as a punishment for anything. The
Quran explicitly states two punishments for adultery....isolation (for
women), or lashes, also the Quran makes no distinction between married
and single transgressors.
The source for the hadd punishment for stoning comes from
ahadith, but Islamically we know that no hadith can contradict the
Quran...the Quran is Allah's word, ahadith are the words of men. We also
know that the Prophet(saw) could never have violated the Quran,
especially not an explicit punishment such as this:
Quran: 024.002
YUSUFALI: The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog
each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in
their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and
the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.
The word used in Arabic is quite clear..its "zena" (adultery).
The Quran offers no authority at all for stoning, and only if we love
hadith (tradition) more than we do the Quran, would we sanction such a
punishment. Preferring ahadith to the Taurat is what destroyed the faith
of the Jews (the Pharisees), let's not follow their example, inshAllah.
Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188:
Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun:
During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded
by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had
committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.
We all know that Islamically, real monkeys can't commit illegal
sexual intercourse..no animal can. In order for the hadith to make
sense..it must mean this type of monkey:
Quran 005.060
YUSUFALI: Say: "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this,
(as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred
the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into
apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse
in rank, and far more astray from the even path!"
Quran 007.166
YUSUFALI: When in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions,
We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."
When ahadith contradict the Quran, we must have the courage to
ignore them, inshAllah. By going against the Quran, we go against
Allah's word, and against Islam.
This is the du'a of the prophet on the Last Day, inshAllah:
Quran 025.030
YUSUFALI: Then the Messenger will say: "O my Lord! Truly my people took
this Qur'an for just foolish nonsense."
May we all be led to Allah's Truth and His Deen, and may we
seek refuge with Him alone, and forsake the shaytan, and his
innovations, temptations, and confusions.
Ahmaed
Peace/Salaam.
In article <6e476k$rsu$1...@waltz.rahul.net>, fa...@AOL.COM (Fazsk) writes:
>No, this statement did not refer to those *only* who declared Hazrat Mirza as
>Kafir, but even those who believed him to be true but merely did not join the
>Qadiani Jamaat. .....[snip .......
[1] Whether anyone has heard of the Holy Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. or not, if
he/she has not accepted him as one sent by God, and accepted Islam, that person
is a non-Muslim/Kafir for the purposes of Shariah.
[2] If one truly believes in God, one must accept all those who are sent by
God. To reject even one would be to reject all, in effect.
[3] The Promised Messiah a.s. was sent by God.
>The above beliefs are in complete contrast to the views held by Hazrat Mirza.
I have previously provided evidence on SRI to the contrary, after which Fazsk
et al disappeared from SRI for a period. One may refer to dejanews for the
previous discussions on this. I have no desire to repeat this discussion, or to
respond to Fazsk's rhetoric.
Peace/Wasalaam.
Ahmaed
Peace/Salaam.
Parverz again brings up a topic already dealt with numerous times on SRI.
However, I will respond once more, hoping that perhaps Parvez may understand it
better this time, and at least understand the answer even if he does not wish
to agree with it.
It is clear that the mullahs were the first to declare Hadrat Ahmad a.s. and
ALL those who accepted him as Imam Mahdi and joined his Jama'at, as kafirs. A
wahhabi organised conference of mullahs in the 1970's re-iterated the same
fatwa, as did the ammended constitution of Pakistan thereafter. Given that the
mullahs and their followers have made these declarations, and were the first in
doing so, it is rather unwarranted to then hold it against the Ahmadi Muslims
for returning the fatwa back onto them. This is what Muhammad s.a.w. himself
stated in a fatwa of his, i.e. that whoever declares a Muslim a kafir, becomes
one himself. Hence, what Ahmadi Muslims have done is in perfect accord with the
Qur'an, the Shariah, and the Sunnah.
Besides, those people who have never heard of the Holy Prophet s.a.w. even once
in their life-time, are still considered non-Muslims/Kafirs according to the
Shariah. What Hadrat Mirza Mahmud r.a. stated was again in perfect accord with
the Islamic Shariah. Parvez may not agree with the ultimate analysis, but he
can't dispute that the reasoning is sound and justifiable to rational minds.
>No Muslim consider the lahories as kafir.
>At best they are considered are misguided.
The anti-Khilaafat Lahoris were also decalred kafirs by the mullahs along with
the Ahmadiyya Jama'at, both in the wahhabi sponsored conference, as well as
according to Pakistani constitution. This has *always* been the *gripe* of the
Lahoris. On the other hand, Ahmadi Muslims don't care about what the mullahs or
govt. of Pakistan think about them.
Peace.
Shahid Aziz
Do you then consider Mirza Bashir-ud-Din to be wrong when he declared all
those outside his jamaat to be kafirs?
>
>
Parvez
On 14 Mar 1998, Ahmaed wrote:
> Peace/Salaam.
>
> It is clear that the mullahs were the first to declare Hadrat Ahmad a.s. and
> ALL those who accepted him as Imam Mahdi and joined his Jama'at, as kafirs.
I think you missed the key point here.
> wahhabi organised conference of mullahs in the 1970's re-iterated the same
> fatwa, as did the ammended constitution of Pakistan thereafter. Given that the
They have their own ground and I agree with them.
Prophethood is finished and now new prophet and his followers are Muslim.
> Besides, those people who have never heard of the Holy Prophet s.a.w.
> even once in their life-time, are still considered non-Muslims/Kafirs
> according to the Shariah. What Hadrat Mirza Mahmud r.a. stated was
> again in perfect accord with the Islamic Shariah. Parvez may not agree
> with
Now you are switching the position in a double standarded manner.
First you admitted that We were called kafir in retaliation.
Then, those Muslims had never heard of Mirza has nothing to do with this
retaliation and are not suppossed to be Kafir.
Mirza Mahmood called them Kafir too and very specifically.
This is not a retaliatory statement but an arrogant action.
If those Muslims are not Kafir, as you implied, then Mirza Mahmood was
definitely Kafir. Atleast that is what you had been trying to prove from a
hadith.
> The anti-Khilaafat Lahoris were also decalred kafirs by the mullahs along with
No. I think they used the word 'Quadianie' very clearly. Check it out.
Though there is tough grudge against the Lahories, they were not called
Non-Muslim.
> Lahoris. On the other hand, Ahmadi Muslims don't care about what the
> mullahs or govt. of Pakistan think about them.
As long as you keep using this insulting word 'Mulla', no discussion will
go in a easy way. Now Hindus doesn't care what we call them but that
doesn't make them Muslim anyway.