Are Ahmadies Muslim ?
Tufail
> Asalamalaikum Dear brothers in Islam,
>
> The only problem I have with Ahmadiyats is that they call
> themseleves Muslims.
>
> --
> Yursil Ahmad Kidwai
>
>>>> Assalamu alaikum
1. The Qur'an states:
"There is no compulsion in religion...." [2:256]
The rulers in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, Morocco etc are the most
oppressive rulers and compel the people to practice their form of religion.
The Ullamah support these ruthless kings. These people violate the above
dictum of the Qur'an. Does it bother you when these people violently
says that they are Muslim? On the other hand, Ahamadis says that they are
Muslims. Why does it bother you more with Ahamadis peacefully declaring being
Muslim than the ruthless dictors violently declaring themselves as true
Muslims. No Ahamadi, as far I Know, spread any bad image of Islam to others
I have to admit that Ahmadis spread wrong doctine of Messayahship to Mirzaf
Sahib. It is wrong doctrine based on my understanding of Islam. However,
many self-righteous Muslims, Muslim dictators and Ulamah project Islam as
violent, intolerant, oppressive. I have no hesitation to say that these
people do more harm to Islam than Ahmadis do.
>>>>>So let us not upset with the doctrine of Messayaship of Mirza Sahib.
Let those who are bothered with that doctrine point out the mistake. Let
Allah decide whether they are Muslim or not. That is what the Day of
Judgement for.
Peace
Tufail
--
Faizi Shanavas, user of the C4 Yourself BBS @ c4systm.com
E-Mail: Faizi.S...@bbs.c4systm.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
C4 Yourself BBS Voice: (517) 423-3454 Fax/BBS: (517) 423-3667
C4 Systems, Inc. 6585 Hack Road, RR#1, Clinton, Michigan, USA 49236-9530
Parvez
Tufail (Tuf...@bbs.c4systm.com) wrote:
: RA...@QUCDN.QUEENSU.CA writes:
:
: >
: >>>>> I read in this group:
:
: Ahamadis are not Muslims
They are definitely not Muslims no matter whatever effort you put to
have them in Islamic fold. Scholars are unanimous about it. Scholars
from 124 countries (virtually the whole of the Muslim world) convened
over this issue in 1974 and **UNANIMOUSLY AND UNAMBIGOUSLY** declared
them out of the fold of Islam and **KAFIR**. This declaration was
promptly followed by the decision of Pakistan parliament to declare them
non-Muslim.
So do you knwo if Kadinies think you a Muslim? Kadianies are so **JALEM
KUFAR** that they call themsleves Muslim and we people who denounce the
false prophet Mirza Kadianie are Kufar in their eyes. Don't you see the
challenge given by the arc Satan in London who called the whole Muslim
ummah **LIAR AND KAFIR** ? Do you know that Mirza Kadianie declared his
own son Fazal Ahmed a Kafir and did not say his Janaza after he died in
the life time of Mirza just because he denounced the false prophecy of
Mirza though he was obedient to Mirza in his day to day life ? Do you
know that Bashir Uddin Kadinai declared that everyone who even have not
heard the name of Mirza are kufar and their Janaza is not allowed ?
Do you know more than Imam-E-Kabaa ? He, in a speech on last Sunday in
Kowloon mosque and Islamic centre(HK), declared that Kadianies are **KUFAR
AND OPEN ENEMY OF ISLAM**.
This is quite worriesome to see that some Muslims in their apparent bid
to show liberalism and generosity are indulging and nursing **SHEER
KUFAR**.
: Many American Mosques are not really mosques
Yes. Kadianie mosques are not mosque. They call it **JAMAT KHANA**.
: >>>> If we already decided who is a Muslim and who is not, Is there place
: for Allah? Is there any reason for Day of Judgement?
You can. You have been given book and guidance. If some one is out of
the book and true path, he is definitely a non-Muslim. To whom does
your comment apply ? Your comment applies to only Muslim Ummah. People
who follow Koran and the path of Muhammad (pbuh). It doesn't apply to
another Ummah. Kadianies follow Mirza Kadinaie, a false prophet. They
have their own Ummah. If Mirza was a follower of Muhammad (pbuh), why
did he form his own Ummah ? Why are they Ahmady ? Why not Muhammady
Ummah ? Mirza himself introduced the term "Ahmady". Is there really any
chance to consider them Muslim ? People like you will probably not
consider all these and keep on blowing your own trumpet to indulge
**KUFAR and BIDAH**. 1200 Sahabah died for Khatam-un-Nabeiin and now
you people are treading on their soul by indulging this pseudo-prophet.
: I know two Ahameds.
: I have to admit that they are more righteous than me. It amuses me when I
: see non-Ahamadi Muslims accept me as Muslim because I reject Mirza as
: a Massayah even though my Ahamadi friends are, in my opinion, do more
: righteous deeds than me.
Their righteous deed will be of no avail like other non-Muslims as long
as they are going behind a false prophet. Why do you accuse other
religion if righteous deeds are the sole concern ? They not only
consider Mirza as Mahdy but Prophet aswell. Mirza himself claimed
prophecy. He started from Mujaddidyat and ran upto Nabuwat. Even if he
is Mahdy, who could ever consider a **JAHANNAM BOUND MAHDY** ? Mirza
passed of false Hadith and false quotation from Koran which doesn't
exist in Koran atall. If this man is not hell bound, who will be hell
bound ? The big-wigs of Rabwa and the arc-Satan of London know all these
but they deliberate and maliciously keeps their followers blind, deaf
and dumb. You have nothing to be amused of. The only reason that could
amuse you is that you are not aware of the importance of
Khatam-Un-Nabeiin in your Aqidah.
Allah (SWT) clearly told in sura Bakara that those who believe in the
present revealation and the old revealations will get guidance and
success. It, by no means, refer to any future revealation. How can
Ahmadies who believe in further revealation can be among the guideds
and righteous ? On one hand they say they believe in Koran and on the
other hand they clearly disobey it. Are not they Munafiq and Kufar ?
What do you say ?
:
: However, Allah knows best.
Alhamdulillah. Indeed he knows best.
\ \ /
\\ \ `///
\\ \_ \\///
>\\ \ `\\-_/
'\\> \\\ /
_\__'///< < < \
/// '/_ <<^-(.\
//\\ // \)
////\\_ \\
--------------------))-'))--------------
| PARVEZ |
|Mech. Eng./The University of Hong Kong|
| E-mail: kh...@hkursc.hku.hk |
| kh...@hkusua.hku.hk |
| par...@hkumea.hku.hk |
| h929...@hkuxa.hku.hk |
----------------------------------------
Daniel Lomax
Parvez reports a certain congress of 'ulema which declared "Ahmadis"
kuffar. I would be very interested in a sober report of that congress.
Who was invited and who came? What, exactly, did they decide? How did
they define "Ahmadi?" Were the Ahmadis given an opportunity to present a
defense?
--
Abd ulRaHman
mar...@vnet.net
P.O. Box 25133
Asheville, NC 28813
Virk Shakeel
: They are definitely not Muslims no matter whatever effort you put to
: have them in Islamic fold. Scholars are unanimous about it. Scholars
: from 124 countries (virtually the whole of the Muslim world) convened
: over this issue in 1974 and **UNANIMOUSLY AND UNAMBIGOUSLY** declared
: them out of the fold of Islam and **KAFIR**. This declaration was
: promptly followed by the decision of Pakistan parliament to declare them
: non-Muslim.
The main (if not the only) reason people claim Ahmadis are not Muslims is
because they claim Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahamd was the Promised Messiah and
Mahdi. That is, Hazrat Ahmad's coming fufilled the prophecies of the
second coming of Jesus.
Ahamdis claim Jesus Second coming has already occured. Non-Ahmadis or
other Muslims claim Jesus has yet to come.
For this reason Ahamdis are considered non-Muslims. Every other reason
is secondary. The main point, and the main reason Ahmadis are considered
Non-Muslims is the acceptance of Hazrat Ahmad as the Promised Messiah.
It is up to every Muslim to decide for themselves whether to accept the
beleif that some day Jesus will come floating down from the sky at the
age of 2000 or as Hazrat Ahmad claimed the Hadiths are not to be taken
literally but someone in his spirit will come. This will require
research and an open mind.
I personally do not understand how intelligent Muslims can believe Jesus
is still alive living in some isolated area for the past 2000 years
waiting for his return. Not only is this agaisnt common sense it is not
supported by any Quranic verse. In fact this beleif is very similar to
the Christian belief that someday Jesus will come down and save them.
Open minded Muslims will read what Hazrat Ahmad has written and will
judge for themselves whether he was true or false. At a time when Hazrat
Ahamd lived in Qadian a small isolated village in India, he claimed to
have received the following revelation from God Alimighty:
"I shall cause thy message to reach the corners of the earth"
This has been fufilled and the spread of his message should be enough for
any open minded person to at least read what he has written.
Ask yourself why would anybody become an Ahmadi ? What advantage is
there ? People are persecuted for becoming Ahmadi's, your family may
reject you, your friends may leave you, you will not be able to perform
Hajj because of laws made against you etc..etc..
Yet people keep on accepting Hazrat Ahamd as the Promised Messiah. The
question is why ?
Thank you.
Shakeel Virk
Yursil Kidwai
> Yursil you consider what Ahmadis believe to be non Islamic. That is your
> opinion. An opinion for which you given no reason for others to accept.
> You must first show why Ahmadi beliefs are not Islamic. We believe the
> entire Holy Quran and believe it to be a perfect book. We believe in the
> Oneness of God, and Hadiths, Sunnah, etc...
There was a conference on this and we have already been over that.. Having a
Entirely NEW prophet is a major "breakthrough". Whenever a new prophet came
the people split away from their "parent" religion to give them a Identity.
Jews-Christianity, Christianity-Islam, Nation of Islam and Islam, many of the
Buddhist religions and others.
> Again the major difference is the beleif that Hazrat Ahmad was the
> Promised Messiah, aside from this there is little difference between
> Ahamdi Muslims and other Muslims. You desperately attempt to create
> major differences but do not give a single example.
You want a example... ok
"Like a waste paper, I discard all those Hadiths (of Holy Prophet PBUH)
which are contradictory to my Revelations and Claims."
(Zamima Nuzool-e-Maseeh, Roohani Khazain Vol 19 p.140)
That right there negates everything you have said. This man has complete
authority and now whatever he says that is against the Hadith or Sunnah are
now "like a waste paper".
Another?
"Prophets are liars."
(Izala-e-Auham, Roohani Khazain vol 3 p.472)
Woo.. prophets are liars? I dont think so.. unless Mirza was a liar too.
Another?
"Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya is the Book of God."
(Izala-e-Auham, Roohani Khazain vol 3 p.386)
Woo.. Another book of God? That usually sperates ANY religion.
> No this is what you tell Ahmadis they believe. These are not Ahmadi
> beleifs, they are intentional misrepresentation of Ahamdi beleifs. These
> misrepresentations are made to make people think ill of Ahmadis.
They are?
Whats this?
"I am Adam, I am Noah, I am Abraham, I am Isaac, I am Jacob, I am Ishmael, I
am
Moses, I am Jesus son of Mary, I am Mohammed SAAW ..."
(Roohani Khazain vol 22 p.521)
> I agree with this point, certain people do not know or care what Ahmadis
> really believe, they are happy making up stories, conspiracy theories,
> and lies against Ahmadis. They do not care what Ahmadis really believe
> they want spread falsehood.
hmm.. Spread up lies.. Should You be especially faithful to the British
empire now, even if it has lost all it's power?
...and I know these literatures have affected people in this country as well
and those who have taken oath with me they have formed a Jama'at (Ahmadiyya)
whose hearts are filled with true benevolence of this (British)
Government...and they are heartily willing to lay down their lives for
Government."
(Letter to the British Government by Mirza Ghulam,
Tabligh-e-Risalat vol 6 p.65)
> By your own defination Ahmadis are Muslims because Ahamdis follow the
> Quran, Sunnah, and Hadiths.
You follow the Quran?
"Holy Quran is full of filthy words."
(Izala-e-Auham, Roohani Khazain vol 3 p.115-117)
Hmm...
> You take advantage of Confused or Uneducated Muslims.
>
> Your good at making claims, but not very good at providing support for
> your claims.
Prove it? Ok.
In 1989 Christian Missionaries working in Ethiopia spent $35 million to
publish distribute free Qadiani Literature in West African countries
> Well Adam (pbuh) and Muhummad (pbuh) were born like other prophets. So if
> Jesus is to return like Muhummad (pbuh) and Adam (pbuh) he too will be
born.
> If this is what you believe then you agree with Ahamdis, that Jesus
> second coming will be like all other prophets, he will be born.
You ignorance is overwhelming. Adam was created from Allah. He was not born.
He had no "belly button".
> If Jesus is in this other 'state of EXISTANCE' how will he return ?
Like I said, the same way Adam was sent. God can do anything, What do you
mean HOW will he return? God merely says BE and it is.
> Where did you obtain this information from ?
Where? Hmm ... Maybe the QURAN.. 2:38
"Get down all of you from this place (Paradise), then whenever there comes
Guidance from Me, and whoever follows my Guidance, there shall be no fear on
them, not shall they grieve."
and 7:24... read those and be enlightened.
> From what chapter and verse of
> the Holy Quran ?
Just told you. Maybe you should read the Quran
> From which Hadiths ?
Dont' need Hadith when it comes from the source.
> Thank you.
nononono.. thank YOU.
--
Yursil Ahmad Kidwai
opt...@bc.cybernex.net
http://www2.cybernex.net/~optics
MiRAGE iMAGES
Muslim Youth Foundation
http://www2.cybernex.net/~optics/myf.htm
Yursil Kidwai
>
> The main (if not the only) reason people claim Ahmadis are not Muslims is
> because they claim Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahamd was the Promised Messiah and
> Mahdi. That is, Hazrat Ahmad's coming fufilled the prophecies of the
> second coming of Jesus.
No it is not.
The main reason is that you preach your teachings as Islam when we do
not believe it is Islam. We want you to change the name of your
belief. It confuses Muslims and Christians. I already posted ALOT
about this topic, and NO Ahmadi could reply. I will try again maybe if
you ask now that you are awake.
> Ahamdis claim Jesus Second coming has already occured. Non-Ahmadis or
> other Muslims claim Jesus has yet to come.
Whow.. Jesus second coming has already occured? Thats not all you
believe. You believe Mirza was Jesus, Muhummad and other prophets all
into one.
> For this reason Ahamdis are considered non-Muslims. Every other reason
> is secondary. The main point, and the main reason Ahmadis are considered
> Non-Muslims is the acceptance of Hazrat Ahmad as the Promised Messiah.
We dont care WHAT you believe.
As long you do not call ISLAM what is DIFFERENT from Islam.. ISLAM IS
and HAS BEEN for MANY CENTURIES the religion one follows from QURAN,
SUNNAH, and HADITH of the Prophet (S). You take advantage of Confused
or Uneducated Muslims.
Your pathetic reason is the Secondary one.
> It is up to every Muslim to decide for themselves whether to accept the
> beleif that some day Jesus will come floating down from the sky at the
> age of 2000 or as Hazrat Ahmad claimed the Hadiths are not to be taken
> literally but someone in his spirit will come. This will require
> research and an open mind.
We do not believe he will "come floating down from the sky" and do not
INSULT us this way. I'm tired of this Pathetic Ahmadi saying. WE
believe he will come. He will be "SENT". Sent as Muhummad was
SENT. Sent as Adam was SENT to earth. Not dropped. We believe in
ANOTHER State of existance called Heaven. Jannah is a better word
because YOU Ahamdi's seem to get confused with the English
Language. It is not the HEAVEN you can see in the SKY it is ANOTHER
state of EXISTANCE.
> I personally do not understand how intelligent Muslims can believe Jesus
> is still alive living in some isolated area for the past 2000 years
> waiting for his return. Not only is this agaisnt common sense it is not
> supported by any Quranic verse. In fact this beleif is very similar to
> the Christian belief that someday Jesus will come down and save them.
We believe he is in ANOTHER STATE OF EXISTANCE. Not "alive in some
isolated area". In Islam Time has been studied in context with God.
What God considers a minute is a Year to us. And If Jesus is with God,
he is in Heaven, and time is nothing to him. Why is is supported by
the Christian belief? Because there is truth to things the christians
say. Things such as
ten commandments and other parts of the bible new and old testaments are
proven to be parallelled in Islam. Why? Because it was the Same religion of
Abraham.
> Open minded Muslims will read what Hazrat Ahmad has written and will
> judge for themselves whether he was true or false. At a time when Hazrat
> Ahamd lived in Qadian a small isolated village in India, he claimed to
> have received the following revelation from God Alimighty:
>
> "I shall cause thy message to reach the corners of the earth"
>
> This has been fufilled and the spread of his message should be enough for
> any open minded person to at least read what he has written.
Pretty hard in a era of Telephones and Radio isnt it? Pretty damn
difficult if you ask me to phone Austrailia from the United
States.. It's just the Mere PAIN of the buttons or the dialer. And
with all of you moving into these places to spread your lies, its not
that hard either.
> Ask yourself why would anybody become an Ahmadi ? What advantage is
> there ? People are persecuted for becoming Ahmadi's, your family may
> reject you, your friends may leave you, you will not be able to perform
> Hajj because of laws made against you etc..etc..
Why? To corrupt Islam or Because they have not Read ALL that he has
written. The advantage is that you feel special, you feel above all
instead of a religion where most people follow.. Yes. It's similar to
Teenagers who go out and do weird things to their hair.
> Yet people keep on accepting Hazrat Ahamd as the Promised Messiah. The
> question is why ?
Thats another topic.
> Thank you.
> Shakeel Virk
Virk Shakeel
: Virk Shakeel wrote:
: The main reason is that you preach your teachings as Islam when we do
: not believe it is Islam. We want you to change the name of your
: belief. It confuses Muslims and Christians.
Yursil you consider what Ahmadis believe to be non Islamic. That is your
opinion. An opinion for which you given no reason for others to accept.
You must first show why Ahmadi beliefs are not Islamic. We believe the
entire Holy Quran and believe it to be a perfect book. We believe in the
Oneness of God, and Hadiths, Sunnah, etc...
Again the major difference is the beleif that Hazrat Ahmad was the
Promised Messiah, aside from this there is little difference between
Ahamdi Muslims and other Muslims. You desperately attempt to create
major differences but do not give a single example.
: Whow.. Jesus second coming has already occured? Thats not all you
: believe. You believe Mirza was Jesus, Muhummad and other prophets all
: into one.
No this is what you tell Ahmadis they believe. These are not Ahmadi
beleifs, they are intentional misrepresentation of Ahamdi beleifs. These
misrepresentations are made to make people think ill of Ahmadis.
: > For this reason Ahamdis are considered non-Muslims. Every other reason
: > is secondary. The main point, and the main reason Ahmadis are considered
: > Non-Muslims is the acceptance of Hazrat Ahmad as the Promised Messiah.
: We dont care WHAT you believe.
I agree with this point, certain people do not know or care what Ahmadis
really believe, they are happy making up stories, conspiracy theories,
and lies against Ahmadis. They do not care what Ahmadis really believe
they want spread falsehood.
: As long you do not call ISLAM what is DIFFERENT from Islam.. ISLAM IS
: and HAS BEEN for MANY CENTURIES the religion one follows from QURAN,
: SUNNAH, and HADITH of the Prophet (S).
By your own defination Ahmadis are Muslims because Ahamdis follow the
Quran, Sunnah, and Hadiths.
:You take advantage of Confused or Uneducated Muslims.
Your good at making claims, but not very good at providing support for
your claims.
: We do not believe he will "come floating down from the sky" and do not
: INSULT us this way. I'm tired of this Pathetic Ahmadi saying. WE
: believe he will come. He will be "SENT". Sent as Muhummad was
: SENT. Sent as Adam was SENT to earth.
Well Adam (pbuh) and Muhummad (pbuh) were born like other prophets. So if
Jesus is to return like Muhummad (pbuh) and Adam (pbuh) he too will be born.
If this is what you believe then you agree with Ahamdis, that Jesus
second coming will be like all other prophets, he will be born.
: Not dropped. We believe in
: ANOTHER State of existance called Heaven. Jannah is a better word
: because YOU Ahamdi's seem to get confused with the English
: Language. It is not the HEAVEN you can see in the SKY it is ANOTHER
: state of EXISTANCE.
If Jesus is in this other 'state of EXISTANCE' how will he return ?
Where did you obtain this information from ? From what chapter and verse of
the Holy Quran ? From which Hadiths ?
Thank you.
Shakeel Virk
bhi...@fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: If Jesus is in this other 'state of EXISTANCE' how will he return ?
: Where did you obtain this information from ? From what chapter and verse
: of the Holy Quran ? From which Hadiths ?
Sallam Alaikum,
This message is not intended to flame or offend anyone however, I would
like to ask a question.
If we, as muslims, agree that Allah did reveal the Quran to Mohammed
(SAW), and that Mohammed (SAW) is indeed the Prophet of Islam, and that
Allah created the heavens and the earth, the sky and stars - then why is
it so difficult to beleive that Jesus (AS) is still alive?
Even if he was not alive, it says in the Quran that Allah will bring the
dead back to life (can't quote, as I don't have a Quran here...).
To me, it seems that you want tangible proof of something while at the
same time you want to beleive in relegion. It is very difficult for
relegion and science (some types) to co-exist. For example, do you
beleive that Allah created man or do you beleive in the theory of
evolution? You can't have both, you must beleive in one or the other.
Sallam Alaikum,
Mohamed
Jochen Katz
<opt...@buttercup.cybernex.net> writes:
Virk Shakeel wrote:
> Yursil you consider what Ahmadis believe to be non Islamic. That is your
> opinion. An opinion for which you given no reason for others to accept.
> You must first show why Ahmadi beliefs are not Islamic. We believe the
> entire Holy Quran and believe it to be a perfect book. We believe in the
> Oneness of God, and Hadiths, Sunnah, etc...
Entirely NEW prophet is a major "breakthrough". Whenever a new prophet came
the people split away from their "parent" religion to give them a Identity.
Jews-Christianity, Christianity-Islam, Nation of Islam and Islam, many of the
Buddhist religions and others.
Yes, Christianity grew out of Judaism, and for a number of decades (until 70 AD,
ie for nearly 40 years) the early Jewish believers in Christ worshipped in the
Jewish tempel together with the Jews who did not accept Jesus as their Messiah.
And they met with the other Jews in the Synagoges and had the regular synagoge
service in many places. Then the tension became bigger and bigger and finally
the Christians were expelled by the synagoge as 'heretic' group. So you
are right about 'splitting' away. But it was the 'excommunication'
at the hand of the Jews, not the Christians who said, they don't want to have
anything to do with the Jews anymore. The general hatred for the Jews (which
is anti-biblical and sinful) came later. [that is what I think to know from
my limited historical knowledge of that time]. And for maybe 20 years nearly
all Christians were Jews.
But Islam did not split away from Christianity. Nuhammad did win a few converts
from Christianity, but in general he was not very well accepted in the Jewish
or Christian groups around him. Most all of his followers have never been
Christians at any time of their life. I don't think that 'splitting away' is
a correct term to use in this respect. Though Islam claims some kind of
continuity from Judaism and Christianity, Islam came into being outside those
religions just on its own.
Jehova's Witnesses or Mormons could be termed split aways.
But not (IMO) Muslims.
I am not sure about Islam and Nation of Islam. Were the early members of
NOI muslims who found a new leader? I think from what I heard, that it rather
was some 'outside movement' which 'claimed' some connection to Islam, but
did not become 'born' inside. And as it seems, the movement of most people goes
the other way around. Few Muslims become NOI members, but many NOI members
eventually 'convert' to Orthodox Islam.
But Ahmediaya came out of Islam (and the discussion is whether they are already
OUT or still IN) and also Bahai might have come 'out of' Islam, as most
Bahai originally have probabably been Muslims, although that might no longer
be true of their current membership. And they definitely are 'out' (in the
above sense) by now and a seperate religion.
In 1989 Christian Missionaries working in Ethiopia spent $35 million to
publish distribute free Qadiani Literature in West African countries
Would you mind substantiating those claims? I can not imagine any Christian
missions agency being so stupid to advertise a non-Christian religion, nor
having as much money as to be able to do so.
And then, I am not even sure the Ahmadiya movement would like that. I think
I heard they have higher levels of integrity and do not accept funding from
'outside of their community'. But I am not sure about that.
You ignorance is overwhelming. Adam was created from Allah. He was not born.
He had no "belly button".
Hey, does the Qur'an SAY he had not belly button? The Bible does not.
Yes, I agree, he was created 'directly' and not born. But what does prevent
God to create him WITH a belly button? Arguments from silence are always
dangerous. This is a case where I would like to use the phrase
"But God knows best".
Regards,
Jochen Katz
Jochen Katz
<opt...@buttercup.cybernex.net> writes:
Jochen, we have "excommunicated" them. There was already a conference on this
with Muslim scholars and imams where Ahamdi's were present. They defended
their stance, but they were decided to be, "Not Muslims". They continue to
make this claim in order to confuse Uneducated Muslims in Africa, India and
other places in the world. We would accept them as lovingly as we accept
other religions if they changed their name. Even those scuh as the Nation of
Islam and Christian sects.
Only that Christians just do some information on the 'unchristianness' of the
'christian' sects instead of trying to get governments to force them to drop
that name or even to stamp it into their passports.
And, though in general I just observe and am not interested to get between the
firing lines on the 'inner Islamic' battles, I do have to agree, that for
fairness sake the documents of this 'excommunication conference' should be made
public, so that people can judge for themselves WHY they are supposedly not
Muslims as one Ahmediya poster remarked recently.
Christians do tell publically WHY those are not considered Christians, though
there was no council that decided so, and most probably never will be any
such gathering. What is the point of it? What would it change? Even in the
Ahmediya case, you had your council and as it seems, on the grass root level
the discussion hasn't changed much. You are still debating if they are Muslims
or not. I guess the only thing that has changed, is now, the non-Ahmediya group
has one more argument in the debate and can point to an unaccessible document.
Not a very strong extra argument in my opinion. What then has really been
accomplished by this conference?
> But Islam did not split away from Christianity. Nuhammad did win a few
converts
> from Christianity, but in general he was not very well accepted in the
Jewish
> or Christian groups around him. Most all of his followers have never been
> Christians at any time of their life. I don't think that 'splitting away'
is
> a correct term to use in this respect. Though Islam claims some kind of
> continuity from Judaism and Christianity, Islam came into being outside
those
> religions just on its own.
Well, the Byzantine empire accepted Islam and it was a Christian land. He
married a former Jewess and I believe a Christian.
The reasons for this 'acceptance' and how voluntary it was might be debatable,
but I do not want to get into that here. But even if large groups of nominal or
even knowledgable Christians convert to Islam, that does not change the fact
that hardly any early Muslim (until Muhammad's death for example), hardly any
leader in the Muslim community was a former Christian.
All the Apostles, and also Jesus, were Jews. So, Christianity DID come out of
Judaism. Muhammad never was a Christian and called the central Christians
beliefs blasphemy. Islam did not originate within Christianity, it was a
seperate entity altogether. That at a later time some or many Christians
convert to it, does not change this in any fashion.
Also, the Jewish scriptures are 'as found in the Jewish faith' our own
scriptures. The Jewish scriptures are taken without change as the first part of
the Christian scriptures.
Muslims in the contrary do not accept either the Jewish nor the Christian
scriptures as authentic. They are so different that they can't help but declare
them 'corrupted' and 'it is better to just forget about them' and the Qur'an is
not a FURTHER revelation it is REPLACING the other revelation.
That is a VERY different approach.
> But Ahmediaya came out of Islam (and the discussion is whether they are already
> OUT or still IN) and also Bahai might have come 'out of' Islam, as most
> Bahai originally have probabably been Muslims, although that might no longer
> be true of their current membership. And they definitely are 'out' (in the
> above sense) by now and a seperate religion.
They are not "out" that is the problem.
You didn't read my paragraph correctly. The 'out' referred to the Bahai, not
the Ahmediya.
> In 1989 Christian Missionaries working in Ethiopia spent $35 million to
> publish distribute free Qadiani Literature in West African countries
>
> Would you mind substantiating those claims? I can not imagine any Christian
> missions agency being so stupid to advertise a non-Christian religion, nor
> having as much money as to be able to do so.
How do I substantiate it in a Newgroup. Look it up in the Record books. It's
there.
That is an impressive reference, I have to say. It is like me saying to you, in
a manuscript in the library in a little town in Southers Siberia I found the
proof that the whole of Islam is a fraught. Go look it up but don't ask me
which town.
I have read and heard reports from dozens of missions agencies but never heard
anything like it. And it would be termed 'abuse of entrusted money' by about
all Christians I know and who are active in missions. It is just a ridiculous
thought. But since you put this into your posting as FACT not as a question,
I would like to see the reference. And now that you have said it is in the
RECORDS, not just something you heard somewhere but there are actual records of
it, so please give the reference. And, I might accept as an answer if you would
just tell the name of the missions agency who supposedly did so. Then it is
still some work to find their records, but it is 'do-able'.
$35 million, my foot, hardly any missions agency has that as their total budget,
let alone as surplus to give away to senseless causes (from a Christian missions
perspective, not a statement in order to offend Ahmediyas).
> And then, I am not even sure the Ahmadiya movement would like that. I think
> I heard they have higher levels of integrity and do not accept funding from
> 'outside of their community'. But I am not sure about that.
They are EXTEREMLY generous for their religion, but still even they do not
have enough money to do what they are doing. They are recieving help from
different unnamed sources.
I am sure Ahmediyas would appreciate more careful references to that too.
I don't care very much about it, as long as you don't tell that it is Christians
who sponser Ahmediya missions, which is basically saying that Christians are
plain stupid and have nothing better to do than sponsering Muslim sects.
> You ignorance is overwhelming. Adam was created from Allah. He was not born.
> He had no "belly button".
>
> Hey, does the Qur'an SAY he had not belly button? The Bible does not.
> Yes, I agree, he was created 'directly' and not born. But what does prevent
> God to create him WITH a belly button? Arguments from silence are always
> dangerous. This is a case where I would like to use the phrase
> "But God knows best".
There are references to Adam as the "one without the belly button" from a few
different sources.
Again, please do point to just one source that is identifyable. 'Different sources'
is to me just the same as 'no source'. And I am even happy with the answer:
I heard/read it somewhere but I forgot where. I also 'know' a lot, where I can't
remember the source of. There is absolutely no problem with admitting so.
But 'pretending' knowledge really is a non-answer in so far increasing my
knowledge is concerned, since I still can't "use" this "information" anywhere.
Regards,
Jochen Katz
Yursil Kidwai
>
> This is historically not correct.
>
> Yes, Christianity grew out of Judaism, and for a number of decades (until
70 AD,
> ie for nearly 40 years) the early Jewish believers in Christ worshipped in
the
> Jewish tempel together with the Jews who did not accept Jesus as their
Messiah.
> And they met with the other Jews in the Synagoges and had the regular
synagoge
> service in many places. Then the tension became bigger and bigger and
finally
> the Christians were expelled by the synagoge as 'heretic' group. So you
> are right about 'splitting' away. But it was the 'excommunication'
> at the hand of the Jews, not the Christians who said, they don't want to
have
> anything to do with the Jews anymore. The general hatred for the Jews
(which
> is anti-biblical and sinful) came later. [that is what I think to know from
> my limited historical knowledge of that time]. And for maybe 20 years
nearly
> all Christians were Jews.
Jochen, we have "excommunicated" them. There was already a conference on this
with Muslim scholars and imams where Ahamdi's were present. They defended
their stance, but they were decided to be, "Not Muslims". They continue to
make this claim in order to confuse Uneducated Muslims in Africa, India and
other places in the world. We would accept them as lovingly as we accept
other religions if they changed their name. Even those scuh as the Nation of
Islam and Christian sects.
> But Islam did not split away from Christianity. Nuhammad did win a few
converts
> from Christianity, but in general he was not very well accepted in the
Jewish
> or Christian groups around him. Most all of his followers have never been
> Christians at any time of their life. I don't think that 'splitting away'
is
> a correct term to use in this respect. Though Islam claims some kind of
> continuity from Judaism and Christianity, Islam came into being outside
those
> religions just on its own.
Well, the Byzantine empire accepted Islam and it was a Christian land. He
married a former Jewess and I believe a Christian.
> Jehova's Witnesses or Mormons could be termed split aways.
> But not (IMO) Muslims.
>
> I am not sure about Islam and Nation of Islam. Were the early members of
> NOI muslims who found a new leader? I think from what I heard, that it
rather
> was some 'outside movement' which 'claimed' some connection to Islam, but
> did not become 'born' inside. And as it seems, the movement of most people
goes
> the other way around. Few Muslims become NOI members, but many NOI members
> eventually 'convert' to Orthodox Islam.
Yes, it was "born" from outside Islam, but they hold a new Prophet. But that
does not matter. Shias Sunnis and most other schools of though have declared
them un Islamic.
> But Ahmediaya came out of Islam (and the discussion is whether they are
already
> OUT or still IN) and also Bahai might have come 'out of' Islam, as most
> Bahai originally have probabably been Muslims, although that might no
longer
> be true of their current membership. And they definitely are 'out' (in the
> above sense) by now and a seperate religion.
They are not "out" that is the problem.
> In 1989 Christian Missionaries working in Ethiopia spent $35 million to
> publish distribute free Qadiani Literature in West African countries
>
> Would you mind substantiating those claims? I can not imagine any Christian
> missions agency being so stupid to advertise a non-Christian religion, nor
> having as much money as to be able to do so.
How do I substantiate it in a Newgroup. Look it up in the Record books. It's
there.
> And then, I am not even sure the Ahmadiya movement would like that. I think
> I heard they have higher levels of integrity and do not accept funding from
> 'outside of their community'. But I am not sure about that.
They are EXTEREMLY generous for their religion, but still even they do not
have enough money to do what they are doing. They are recieving help from
different unnamed sources.
> You ignorance is overwhelming. Adam was created from Allah. He was not
born.
> He had no "belly button".
>
> Hey, does the Qur'an SAY he had not belly button? The Bible does not.
> Yes, I agree, he was created 'directly' and not born. But what does prevent
> God to create him WITH a belly button? Arguments from silence are always
> dangerous. This is a case where I would like to use the phrase
> "But God knows best".
There are references to Adam as the "one without the belly button" from a few
different sources.
God could have created him with a belly button, but that would not signify
him from other men. He was the first man, he was not much like us. He was not
of one race. His Gene pool was very different. That is how the rest of the
human race was created, from "weakened" genes.
> Regards,
> Jochen Katz
RA...@qucdn.queensu.ca
I can't believe how low these Mullah can sink in an effort to destroy
what they believe to be wrong. You and almost every sane person know
that lies are wrong and truth never needs to fabricate lies against a
lie. It is lie which has always fabricated lies against the truth and
remember what Allah says in the Quran "La'antullah Alal Qazibeen"
Curse of Allah on those who lie. Also do you know the Hadith which
says (not the exact words I am writting from the top of my head) that
A person who believe everything he hears and spreads is a munafiq
another hadith "Alkhabru Kal Mo'ainate" a heard story can never be
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
An unintentional mistake has been mad here as I was writing this of
the top of my head. The underlined arabic should read "Laisal Khabrukal
Mo'ainate" Readers please make this correction while refering to this.
The translation goes with this corrected arabic.
equal to what you see with your own eyes. Please, don't just spread
and believe whatever lie you hear against Ahmadi Muslims go and do
your own investigation. The Mullahs you believe in their status is
mentioned in the Following Hadith.
It is related by Hadhrat Ali (may God be pleased with him):
The Prophet of Allah (peace and bleesing be upon him) said:
Shortly there will come a time when nothing will be left of Islam
but its name, and nothing of the Quran but its words, and the mosques
will be full of people but empty of guidance and their ulema will be
the worst creatures under the sky. Mischief (fitna) will start from them
and return to them.
This is related by baihaqi in She'b al-eemaan.
Wassalam,
Dr. Ijaz A. Rauf, E-Mail: Ra...@QUCDN.QueensU.Ca
Department of Physics, Queen's University, Ph: (613) 545-6000 ext. 7264
Kingston, Ontario, CANADA, K7L 3N6 Fax: (613) 545-6463
**** LOVE FOR ALL ** HATRED FOR NONE **** I Express My Openions Only ****
** Ahmadiyyat, in fact, is the true Islam revealed to Muhammad (PBUH) ***
*** You can watch for yourself on Sattellite TV, KU band G7 Chanel 10 ***
Virk Shakeel
: Virk Shakeel wrote:
: You want a example... ok
I believe that the examples given by Yursil Kidwai are not ones he thought
of on his own. I believe that he has obtained these false accusations
from some anti-Ahmadi source.
I believe that Yursil Kidwai is a victim of anti-Ahamdi propoganda.
Yursil Kidwai is not only a victim, unfortunately he has also caused
himself to become a liar. Although he may believe what he has written
to be the truth he is still a liar because a Hadiths attributed to the
Holy Prophet states:
"It is enough to make a man a liar that he should go on repeating all
that he might hear."
Yursil Kidwai should keep in mind Chapter 17 verse 37 of the Holy Quran:
"Follow not that of which thou hast no knowledge. Verily, the ear and
the eye and the heart - all these shall be called to account."
Yursil Kidwai you should realize that it takes Ahmadis much time and
effort to look up your false accusations and correct them. I believe
this is not fair for Ahamdis to have to do this. It is your
responsibilty to ensure that your accusations against Hazrat Ahmad are
indeed true. It is not the responsibilty of Ahmadis to go around correcting
false accusations. It takes much time and effort. I hope you will agree
with this.
I also hope that after reading what is below you will see how evil these
anti-Ahmadi groups are, and the levels they sink too.
I have taken the time to correct some of the false accusations, I hope
you will appreciate this.
You wrongly attribute the following quote to Hazrat Ahmad:
: "Holy Quran is full of filthy words."
: (Izala-e-Auham, Roohani Khazain vol 3 p.115-117)
These evil anti-Ahamdi groups are aware that Muslims believe the Holy
Quran is a perfect book, and that it is the direct word of God. They
also know that Muslims will be against anybody who speaks ill of the Holy
Quran.
So what better way to make Muslims hate Hazrat Ahmad then to claim he
wrote "Holy Quran is full of filthy words" ?
Do you now see how evil and cunning these people are ? They knew you and
every other Muslim would be agianst Hazrat Ahmad if he spoke ill of the
Holy Quran. Do you see how they play with your mind ? They are very
cunning people.
This accusation against Hazrat Ahmad is a blatant lie. Hazrat Ahmad did
not ever make such a statment in Izalah Auham or any of his other works.
These anti Ahamdi groups made it up to trick Muslims into hating Hazrat
Ahmad. You are victim of there evil plans.
Although this false accusation is no laughing matter, I cannot help to find
it funny how an intelligent person could every believe such stupidity.
Look at the page numbers of the book you quote Yursil Kidwai.
You falsely quote Hazrat Ahmad as writing "Holy Quran is full of filthy words"
Now look at the page numbers. You state this quote comes from pages 115
to 117 ?? I must ask how an intelligent person can believe it took
Hazrat Ahmad 3 pages 115, 116, and 117 to write 7 words ? Or do you
believe that he decided to fill 3 pages with these 7 words ? Or do you
believe he wrote these 7 words on 3 consecutive pages ?
The quote is obviously not from Hazrat Ahmad and anybody can check this for
themselves, especially you Yursil Kidwai. The quote is anti-Ahmadi
propoganda, and unfortunately many Muslims are victims to this propoganda.
These groups claim Ahmadis are not Muslims yet they are the ones
spreading falsehood.
Another false quote was:
: "Prophets are liars."
: (Izala-e-Auham, Roohani Khazain vol 3 p.472)
: Woo.. prophets are liars? I dont think so.. unless Mirza was a liar too.
Now think Yursil Kidwai, why would anti Ahmadi groups make this false
accusation against Hazrat Ahmad ?
These evil groups know that Muslims love the Prophets, and strive to be
like the Prophets, and hence anybody insulting the Prophets will be
disliked by Muslims.
So what better way to make people hate Hazrat Ahmad then to falsely
accuse him of calling Prophets liars ?
Hazrat Ahmad did not, at any point in time, in ethier Izalah Auham or any
other book written by him, every make any such statement.
The noble Quran declares prophets of God incapable of disobdience to Him
(Quran 21:28) and, therefore, incapable of commiting a moral offense of
falsehood. It is therefore inconceivable that Hazrat Ahmad would ever
make any such statement which contradicts the testimony of the noble Quran.
What Hazrat Ahmad stated in this passage of his book was that "prophets
and apostles of God are also likely to commit errors in the comprehension
of the true purport of Divine will revealed unto them."
He did not even remotely, suggest that they are liars or even capable of
lying. The recorded history of religion indicates that prophets of God
have, on occasions, been subject to understanding differently, the true
purport of His divine will revealed unto them. The Holy Quran
indicates that Hazrat Noah (pbuh) had misunderstood God Alimight's
promise of security in favour of his progeny (Quran 11:46-47) and so had
Hazrat Jonah made such an error in understanding the true purport of
God's divine will vouchsafed unto him in relation to the destruction of
the people of Nineveh (Quran 21:88).
Are the anti Ahmadi groups prepared to assert that these facts recorded
by the Holy Quran in relation to Hazrat Noah's and Hazrat Jonah's
misunderstanding of the true purport of these revelations vouchsafed unto
them are, God forbid, not correct ? If not, then what error has Hazrat
Ahmad committed in merely acknowledging the truth that the prophets of God
are also subject to commit an error in the ture comprehension of the
revelations vouchsafed unto them ?
Shakeel Virk
P.S some of the information above comes directly from Naeem Osman Memon
books.
Virk Shakeel
: Virk Shakeel (3s...@qlink.queensu.ca) wrote:
: If we, as muslims, agree that Allah did reveal the Quran to Mohammed
: (SAW), and that Mohammed (SAW) is indeed the Prophet of Islam, and that
: Allah created the heavens and the earth, the sky and stars - then why is
: it so difficult to beleive that Jesus (AS) is still alive?
For one reason the Holy Quran states Jesus died a natural death.
"And I (Jesus) was a witness over them as long as I remained among them, but
since Thou didst cause me to die, Thou has been the Watcher over them
and Thou art Witness over all things." (5:118)
Non Ahmadis argue that this is not the correct meaning of the verse.
But the word 'twaffa' is used, which has been used no less then 25 times in
the Holy Quran, 23 of these times its meaning was death. Non Ahmadis say
that in the above verse the meaning is not "cause to die".
The question is why ?
It definitely has nothing to do with the wording of the Quranic verse,
because non Ahmadis agree that the exact same words when applied to the
Holy Prophet mean "cause to die". We have the following Hadiths:
The Holy Prophet states:
On the day of Judgement, some people from my Ummah will be taken towards
Hell, and God will say: do you (Muhammad) not know of what they
did after you. I will say the same thing Jesus said: and I was a witness
of them, but when THOU DIDST CAUSE ME TO DIE Thou wast the watcher over them.
(Fa kaula kamaa kala abdus saleh wa kunto alaihim shahidam ma dumto feehim
falamma tawaffaitani kunta antar rakeeba alaihim)
Bukhari (60 (The Book of Prophets) 8:3349)
No non-Ahamdi would argue that the use of the words in the above mean
something other then death. So why is it that the same words have a
different meaning when applied to Jesus (pbuh) compared to the Holy
Prophet (pbuh) ?
I believe the reason non Ahmadis give the verse a different meaning is
becasue of the preconcieved notion that Jesus was phyically raised to
God.
As for you comments about evolution I will discuss them in another post
called Evolution and Islam.
Thank you.
Shakeel Virk
RA...@qucdn.queensu.ca
<opt...@buttercup.cybernex.net> says:
>> In 1989 Christian Missionaries working in Ethiopia spent $35 million to
>> publish distribute free Qadiani Literature in West African countries
>>
>> Would you mind substantiating those claims? I can not imagine any Christian
>> missions agency being so stupid to advertise a non-Christian religion, nor
>> having as much money as to be able to do so.
>
>How do I substantiate it in a Newgroup. Look it up in the Record books. It's
>there.
Wow what a reference? which record books? would you mind putting a name
to that record book? Is it the one fed to you a Mullah desparately trying
to defame Ahmadis?
I can't believe how low these Mullah can sink in an effort to destroy
what they believe to be wrong. You and almost every sane person know
that lies are wrong and truth never needs to fabricate lies against a
lie. It is lie which has always fabricated lies against the truth and
remember what Allah says in the Quran "La'antullah Alal Qazibeen"
Curse of Allah on those who lie. Also do you know the Hadith which
says (not the exact words I am writting from the top of my head) that
A person who believe everything he hears and spreads is a munafiq
another hadith "Alkhabru Kal Mo'ainate" a heard story can never be
equal to what you see with your own eyes. Please, don't just spread
and believe whatever lie you hear against Ahmadi Muslims go and do
your own investigation. The Mullahs you believe in their status is
mentioned in the Following Hadith.
It is related by Hadhrat Ali (may God be pleased with him):
The Prophet of Allah (peace and bleesing be upon him) said:
Shortly there will come a time when nothing will be left of Islam
but its name, and nothing of the Quran but its words, and the mosques
will be full of people but empty of guidance and their ulema will be
the worst creatures under the sky. Mischief (fitna) will start from them
and return to them.
This is related by baihaqi in She'b al-eemaan.
>
>> And then, I am not even sure the Ahmadiya movement would like that. I think
>> I heard they have higher levels of integrity and do not accept funding from
>> 'outside of their community'. But I am not sure about that.
>
>They are EXTEREMLY generous for their religion, but still even they do not
>have enough money to do what they are doing. They are recieving help from
>different unnamed sources.
Let me name that unnamed source for you. IT IS ALLAH WHY DON'T YOU SEE
WHATEVER HUMBLE EFFORTS WE PUT FORWARD HE MULTIPLY THAT WHIT HIS MURCY
AND GRACE AND PROVIDES US SO BIG AND SWEET FRUITS THAT YOU AND OTHER
OPPONENTS OF AHMADI MUSLIMS REMAIN BITING THEIR FINGURES. DESPITE
THEIR EVERY EFFORT TO DESTROY AHMADIYYA MOVEMENT IT KEEPS ON GROWING
AND YOU CAN'T SEE THAT THAT'S WHY YOU FABRICATE LIES AND POST THEM
THAT YOU MAY STOP AHMADI MUSLIMS FROM SPREADING THE TRUTH. LET ME TELL
YOU THOSE WHO HAVE ALLAH WITH THEM DO NOT NEED ANYTHING ELSE AND NO
ENEMY COULD DESTROY THEM OR STOP THEM.
Dr. Ijaz A. Rauf, E-Mail: Ra...@QUCDN.QueensU.Ca
Department of Physics, Queen's University, Ph: (613) 545-6000 ext. 7264
Kingston, Ontario, CANADA, K7L 3N6 Fax: (613) 545-6463
**** LOVE FOR ALL ** HATRED FOR NONE **** I Express My Openions Only ****
** Ahmadiyyat, in fact, is the true Islam revealed to Muhammad (PBUH) ***
*** You can watch for yourself on Sattellite TV, KU band G7 Chanel 10 ***
Khalid Jan
is out of the fold of Islam: Muslim, non-Muslim, or anyone
else. The last and the final messenger of God is Muhammad:
I know this testimony agonizes your brains, but that is the
truth!
You have a problem with that? Let me know...
Khalid Jan, an enemy of the falsehood!!!
Parvez
: In article <4cu5kb$b...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, Yursil Kidwai
: <opt...@buttercup.cybernex.net> says:
:
: I can't believe how low these Mullah can sink in an effort to destroy
: what they believe to be wrong.
What is wrong is always wrong.
This does not essentially any relationship with the Mullahs.
However, they are an obstacle for preaching Kadiani falsehood.
: You and almost every sane person know
: that lies are wrong and truth never needs to fabricate lies against a
: lie.
Good.
Lies are wrong and thus your Mirza Shahib is wrong.
And now is the time to throw him off.
: equal to what you see with your own eyes. Please, don't just spread
: and believe whatever lie you hear against Ahmadi Muslims go and do
: your own investigation. The Mullahs you believe in their status is
: mentioned in the Following Hadith.
Hello Kadinie Shahib, What is left for us to investigate ?
I am not a Mullah.
I had enough investigation and found bunch of lies and falsehood in the
writings of Mirza Kadianie. I am convinced that all his said revelations
are from Satan and he was a messanger of Satan instead of Allah (swt).
So are his followers! Mirza was a prophet ! And he was dragged to the
court for drinking ! He was a prophet ! He gets revealation in languages
he himself doesn't understand !!
: The Prophet of Allah (peace and bleesing be upon him) said:
: Shortly there will come a time when nothing will be left of Islam
: but its name, and nothing of the Quran but its words, and the mosques
: will be full of people but empty of guidance and their ulema will be
: the worst creatures under the sky. Mischief (fitna) will start from them
: and return to them.
I understand. This is a very old Kadiani technique to make twisted use
of Hadiths and Koranic verses to defend their satanism. The most
dangerous and Kufar fitnah in the Muslim world till date came as
Kadianie Kufarism.
May Allah curse those liers who are propagating Kufari Fitnah in the
Ummah to misguide us.
: ** Ahmadiyyat, in fact, is the true Islam revealed to Muhammad (PBUH) ***
Ahmadiyat is infact the satanic teaching which came to Mirza Kadianie
from his master Iblish.
: *** You can watch for yourself on Sattellite TV, KU band G7 Chanel 10 ***
What to see there ? The very golden face of Taher Kadianie ? Or what ?
Better people should use the time for some creative work or for the sake
of the true deen of Allah (swt).
--
Rasheed A. Khalid
>Virk Shakeel (3s...@qlink.queensu.ca) wrote:
>
>: Where did you obtain this information from ? From what chapter and verse
>: of the Holy Quran ? From which Hadiths ?
>
>Sallam Alaikum,
>
>This message is not intended to flame or offend anyone however, I would
>like to ask a question.
>
>(SAW), and that Mohammed (SAW) is indeed the Prophet of Islam, and that
>Allah created the heavens and the earth, the sky and stars - then why is
>it so difficult to beleive that Jesus (AS) is still alive?
This is an interesting question raised by Brother Mohamed (I normally
spell this name as "Muhammad", but am using what the poster himself used
'coz he knows his name better). It is certainly logical that if Allah (swt)
*can* do a certain thing, why not believe that He actually did it. It's
also true that it is impossible to deny His having done so, however,
merely His ability to do a certain thing does not mean that He actually
does that. For instance, it is completely in His Power to make the sun
rise in the west; to reverse the rotation of the earth, to reverse the
process of evolution which Brother Mohamed talks about later, and so on;
or more seriously, to have raised the rank of Abu Jahl, the ark enemy
of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) above all other men, BUT, we all
know that this does not/did not happen. Why? Because, LAN TAJIDA
LISUNNATILLAHI TABDEELA, Allah does not change/alter his ways/set
principles. Allah does things which make sense, according to His own
rules. So, while it is quite possible logically speaking, that Allah
might have kept Jesus (pbuh) alive, it is equally arguable using the
same logic that he might have let him die, just as he let all other
prophets do. So this is a non-issue, which I think that Br. Mohamed
will also come to understand, once he rereads his post - just a slip -
quite excusable, no problema :-)
>Even if he was not alive, it says in the Quran that Allah will bring the
>dead back to life (can't quote, as I don't have a Quran here...).
Thought of the possibility that that reference might have been to life
after death in another world? that includes us all, not just Jesus (pbuh)
- this makes more sense to me.
>To me, it seems that you want tangible proof of something while at the
>same time you want to beleive in relegion.
Sorry, but I beg to differ here again from what is implied (imho).
I have read repeatedly, non-believers being challenged in the Holy
Quran with: HAATOO BURHAANAKUM IN KUNTUM SAADIQEEN (bring your PROOFS,
if you are truthful) - Burhaan's translation is arguments and proofs, so
I believe one can stay within the vast domain of religion while at the
same time relying on (tangible) proofs. This is what I think, if I
understand Br. Mohamed correctly, as to what he implied.
>It is very difficult for
>relegion and science (some types) to co-exist.
I both agree and disagree with Brother Mohamed here, and I guess the correct
solution to this issue/problem would have to deal with the approach
rather than the very existence itself, of both of these disciplines. In
a way, it is true that the approach of religion is that of: ALLAZEENA
YU'MINOONA BILGHAIBI ... (those who believe in the UNSEEN...), meaning
that of following a certain guidance or believing in the existence of
certain things without apparent physical or visible proof, such as that
of the existence of Allah (we can't see Allah as we see each other with
our physical eyes). However, there is no ban on reflecting on the beauty
of nature or the contents of the verses of the Holy Quran, as Allah, the
Almighty himself commands us to do: AFALAA YATADABBAROONAL QURAANA -
don't they ponder the Quran? implying that it is important to think,
ponder, investigate (via research/science?) the signs of the Gracious
God - all that He has given us without our asking - we didn't even ask
to be born, and yet, what a favor of His upon us, that we were born
(hence the science of embryology, which, IMO, leads directly to the idea
of evolution).
A famous Indian poet, Ghalib, well composed:
JAAN DEE, DEE HUWEE USSEE KEE thEE;
HAQ TO YEH HAI KEH HAQ ADAA NAH HUWAA.
(Sacrificed one's life (for Allah)?, not that big a deal -
it was life which was bestowed by Him in the first place; so by the
standards of justice, the favor wasn't quite returned, by so-doing)
Excuse my poor translation (from Urdu), for poetry cannot be translated
easily. I sometimes think that if (the late) Ghalib has been successful
in securing a place in paradise by now, recognition of Allah's favors with
such expressions might very well have contributed to his salvation, at least
in part. So anyway, what I was trying to say is that while in religion
we do, in some cases, believe in the Unseen, we do need proofs when it
comes to understanding the Shari'at and Fiqah, as examples. So for the
argument of whether or not Jesus (pbuh) is alive or dead, proof(s) ARE,
indeed, needed when you want to convince someone, barring those rare ones
who have direct communion with Allah and can find out by His revelation.
>For example, do you
>beleive that Allah created man or do you beleive in the theory of
>evolution? You can't have both, you must beleive in one or the other.
I, for one, believe that Allah created man, and I also believe that
evolution occurred. Putting the two together, I believe that:
ALLAH CREATED MAN THROUGH THE BEAUTIFUL PROCESS OF EVOLUTION,
so beautiful that it has become a large discipline of science. Some time
ago, I wrote a lengthy article on this newsgroup about evolution as I
understand it from the Holy Quran, and later, it was also published in an
Australian religious magazine: Al-Huda, the editor of which, Mr. Chohan,
picked it up from s.r.i. If s.r.i. readers/moderators so advise, I can
repost it here, or alternatively, you can get a copy (for a song - a
Muslim song it would have to be ;-) ), by e-mail, feel free.
>Sallam Alaikum,
>
>Mohamed
Wassalam,
Rasheed A. Khalid.
(kha...@biology.bu.edu)
Virk Shakeel
: Anyone who proclaims that a new messenger from God has come,
: is out of the fold of Islam: Muslim, non-Muslim, or anyone
: else. The last and the final messenger of God is Muhammad:
: I know this testimony agonizes your brains, but that is the
: truth!
: You have a problem with that? Let me know...
Assalam Khalid,
You state very clearly, and I quote "The last and final messenger
of God is Muhammad". I must ask what your opinion is on the second coming
of Jesus, peace be upon him. If the Holy Prophet (pbuh) is the "last and
final messenger" why do Muslims believe that another Messenger is yet to come
ie. Jesus (pbuh) ?
The Holy Prophet (pbuh) brought the final and perfect message for
mankind, that is no new laws will be given to mankind. However this does
not mean no other messengers can come. Do you believe that the second
coming of Jesus is to occur ? Do you believe that when Jesus returns he
will be a Messenger ? If yes, then you agree with Ahmadis that a
Messenger will (or has) come after the Muhammad (pbuh). The only thing
left is to determine how Jesus (pbuh) will return!
: Khalid Jan, an enemy of the falsehood!!!
Thank you.
Shakeel Virk
Audil...@knot.queensu.ca
Asalamo alaikum,
>Anyone who proclaims that a new messenger from God has come,
>is out of the fold of Islam:
I claim that, I believe a new messenger has come, his name is Mirza
Ghulam Ahmad. I have read what he has to say, and I am convinced
that he is the Mahdi. I have seen his community and am convinced
they are on the straight path.
If you say this takes me out of the fold of Islam, then say it a thousand
times over, it will not affect my conviction. You can say it till your
face is blue.
Also, it is only Allah who will accept me as a Muslim or reject me, your
words are meaningless. I put my trust in Allah.
>Muslim, non-Muslim, or anyone
>else. The last and the final messenger of God is Muhammad:
Muslim, non-Muslim, or anyone else, I believe Muhammad (pbuh) is not
the last messenger, but the Seal of the Prophets. I believe
Muhammad (pbuh) is the greatest and the most exalted of all the Prophets,
but alas Allah is Rahman, the Gracious, and he would certainly guide
the Muslims when they are in His need by sending another messenger who
would guide them to the truth of Islam, that is There is no God but
Allah and Muhammad (pbuh) is His Messenger.
Or will Allah forget His way and send a man floating down from the clouds
with angels ?
>I know this testimony agonizes your brains, but that is the
>truth!
I hope it causes me even more agony, as I wish to suffer on your account
and get an even greater reward from Allah.
>You have a problem with that? Let me know...
Ofcource, if it agonizes my brain, I would have a problem.
I am trying to let you know, but you refuse.
To me it is the case of a child who refuses to take his medicine out
of ignorance.
Was-Salam
Audil Virk (my opinions)
Syed Kamran A. Bukhari
> I claim that, I believe a new messenger has come, his name is Mirza
> Ghulam Ahmad. I have read what he has to say, and I am convinced
> that he is the Mahdi. I have seen his community and am convinced
> they are on the straight path.
And I thought that Ahmedis consider Gulam Ahmed Qadiani to be Jesus...
>From one guys post it seems that Mirza is Jesus
Another Guy says that he is Mohammed
and yet a new thing comes over and someone says that Mirza is Mehdi
Cant You guys just decide over and tell us your results, or you want to
make up your own trinity of Jesus-Mohammed-Mehdi?
Walaikum
Syed Kamran A. Bukhari
> You state very clearly, and I quote "The last and final messenger
> of God is Muhammad". I must ask what your opinion is on the second coming
> of Jesus, peace be upon him. If the Holy Prophet (pbuh) is the "last and
> final messenger" why do Muslims believe that another Messenger is yet to come
> ie. Jesus (pbuh) ?
What Muslims believe in is that Jesus has already come once and was
RAISED by Allah in a dimension which is time and space free. When Jesus
will return, he will not be a NEW prophet but a prophet who CAME before
Prophet Muhammed (SAWS) but out-lived him. That is Jesus came before
Mohammed, and is alive whereas Mohammed died. This makes Jesus as a
prophet BEFORE Mohammed (SAWS) and not a new prophet. Moreover, he will
not bear any new laws but will follow the laws of Prophet Mohammed since
the job of a Prophet is to bring in law until all the laws are laid. With
Mohammed (SAWS), all the laws have been laid down and Jesus is going to
follow the same laws.
It is not a Muslim belief that Jesus will be 2000 years old if he return
today. Jesus is living in a timeless dimension, like the existence of
hell and heaven, which is an everlasting entity, and no one grows old and
die there.
Ajaz Siraj
I have one question for the Ahmadies:
If you are true believers in Allah (swt) and his Rasool, our beloved
Muhamad (pbuh), then why do you need to refer to anybody else for your
guidance in iman? Because to do so would imply that the religion (Islam)
as revealed in Qu'ran and the al-hadits of our Rasool (pbuh) had some
shortcomings. Allah (swt) reveals in Qu'ran that "I have perfected
your religion". So for anybody to doubt that is, in my opinion, outside
the fold of Islam.
Wa'Asalam
~ajaz
The Fire and The Mercy
>
>
> What Muslims believe in is that Jesus has already come once and was
> RAISED by Allah in a dimension which is time and space free. When Jesus
> will return, he will not be a NEW prophet but a prophet who CAME before
> Prophet Muhammed (SAWS) but out-lived him. That is Jesus came before
> Mohammed, and is alive whereas Mohammed died. This makes Jesus as a
> prophet BEFORE Mohammed (SAWS) and not a new prophet. Moreover, he will
> not bear any new laws but will follow the laws of Prophet Mohammed since
> the job of a Prophet is to bring in law until all the laws are laid. With
> Mohammed (SAWS), all the laws have been laid down and Jesus is going to
> follow the same laws.
Is Jesus dead or not? (verses from Yusuf Ali translation)
19.33: "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall
be raised up to life (again)"!
19.34: Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they
(vainly) dispute.
The phrase "the day that I die" doesn't necessarily imply that
Jesus HAS died, but rather that he WILL die eventually. But by what evidence
do Muslims claim that Jesus is still alive?
And when is Jesus going to die? Why would he have to die if God intends
to ressurect him? Why not just leave him alive? These questions prompt
me to believe that Jesus is in fact dead, but I would be interested
to know where Muslims who believe that Jesus is still alive get their information.
--
--Zaid
--Somewhere in the Land of the Yahoos
--http://csis.ee.virginia.edu/~zks3d
Parvez
> You state very clearly, and I quote "The last and final messenger
> of God is Muhammad". I must ask what your opinion is on the second coming
> of Jesus, peace be upon him. If the Holy Prophet (pbuh) is the "last and
> final messenger" why do Muslims believe that another Messenger is yet to come
> ie. Jesus (pbuh) ?
I wonder how long do we have to see such circular arguments from the
Mirziites !! This is very clear from the traditions that Jesus will
descend once again before dooms day. This doesn't necessarily mean that
he will arrive as a prophet. Prophet is not a person. Instead it is a
ministry given to some one chosen by God. The ministry of Jesus was
given before Muhammed (pbuh) and in his second arrival, he will not
assume this ministry. If I remember correctly, only in Muslim do we find
the word 'The prophet of Allah' with the name of Jesus in connection
with his second arrival and not in any other books. Secondly, the most
authentic traditions say that Jesus (pbuh) will not lead the prayer. This
once again confirms that he will not be a prophet since no one can lead
prayer in presence of a prophet. Even he will pray toward Kaaba which is
a further confirmation that he will not be a prophet.
Shawki Hamdan
the faith of various sects in Islam. It is not up to people to decide
whether a certain group is Muslim or not. This judgment rests with
God. Regardless of your sect, the Qur'an is very clear about this
issue. All we have to do is read and understand it without any
interference from man-made teachings.
Verse 6:159 tells us: " Those who have divided their religion and
became sects, you are not a part of them. Their affair belongs to God.
He will inform them about what they were doing."
Verses 30:31 & 30:32: " Do not be among idolators * Those who divided
their religion and became sects, each party rejoicing what they have"
and finally in verses 23:52 and 53 we see: "This is your nation; one
nation. And I am your Lord, so worship me * But they tore themselves
into factions, each party rejoicing what they have."
Do we need other than God to clarify matters for us ? He has sent down
the Qur'an clear and fully detailed to help guide us to His straight
path. Those of us who choose to label themselves and deny other sects
are in violation of God's basic teachings.
Shawki Hamdan
sha...@earthlink.net
sha...@ix.netcom.com
Ahmad Farid
As-Salamo Alaikum,
: What Muslims believe in is that Jesus has already come once and was
: RAISED by Allah in a dimension which is time and space free.
If Muslims believe this, it must be mentioned somewhere. Correct ?
Then please explain from which Islamic source this alleged raising
to a space and time free dimension is cited from ?
It is certainly not from the Holy Quran. Neither have I read of any
hadith which state this. A dimension that is time and space free in
which Jesus (pbuh) resides ? For almost 2000 years ?
Is anyone else with him ?
The remaining article gives no proof, but merely makes statements based
off the premise that Jesus is still alive, and never died, and is living
in some place that is time and space free.
Now if Jesus (pbuh) is physically in this place, which is space free, how
is he there if there is no space. It can't be physical. Then where
is Jesus's body ?
Can a soul survive with out a body ?
Was Jesus (pbuh) given a new body ?
Will he come back with the same body which is now aprox. 2000 years old,
or will he get a new one ?
Please let's be serious, we should accept that the hadith referring to
the coming of Jesus (pbuh) are not literal, but refer to someone who
would be the Messiah for the Muslims, just like Jesus (pbuh) was the
Messiah for the Jews. This makes sense.
Do you not see that the return of Elijah was John the Baptist ?
Jesus said in the Bible, that the Elijah you wait for is actually
John the Baptist. But the foolish Jews would not accept Jesus's (pbuh)
answer and put him on the cross, from which Allah saved him.
Now, if you can understand this, then also understand that the present
day Muslims are playing out the same game as the Jews when it comes to
Hazrat Ahmad. Hazrat Ahmad claims that he is the Messiah that was
Prophesised by Muhammad (pbuh), but the Jew like Muslims of today demand
a literal coming of Jesus (pbuh) of 2000 years ago. Is this reasonable ?
Do you not see the resemblance ?
This is but one resemblance, there are so many.
It has been predicted in hadith that at the time of the Messiah the Muslims
would be like the Jews.
Do you not know the hadith which states that a time will come when the
Muslims will imitate the Jews so much that if a Jew were to go into the
hole of lizard the Muslims would follow.
Ahmad Farid
: Asalamualekum,
As-Salamo Alaikum,
: I have one question for the Ahmadies:
: If you are true believers in Allah (swt) and his Rasool, our beloved
: Muhamad (pbuh), then why do you need to refer to anybody else for your
: guidance in iman?
We do not. Where have you got the information that we do ?
Let me state what Ahmadi Muslims believe is the source of guidance for
Muslims. There are three sources of guidance for Muslims.
Firstly, the Word of God, the Holy Quran, there is no doubt in it.
This is our foremost source of guidance.
Secondly, the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), Sunnah should
not be mistaken for hadith, Sunnah are those practices of Muhammad (pbuh)
which he initiated and continue to this day.
Thirdly, the Hadith of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Hadith are the
collections of the sayings of Muhammad (pbuh) recorded about 100-150 years
after his passing away.
If there is any contradiction between the hadith and Holy Quran, we should
try out best to interpret the hadith in accordance with the Holy Quran, if
it is not possible, then we can not take the hadith over the Word of God and
we should dismiss those hadith which contradict the Holy Quran.
This is the Ahmadi Muslim belief as I have understood it.
: Because to do so would imply that the religion (Islam)
: as revealed in Qu'ran and the al-hadits of our Rasool (pbuh) had some
: shortcomings.
And certainly it does not. Allah proclaims in the Holy Quran as you have
mentioned below that Islam is a perfect religion. Ahmadi Muslims believe
fully in the truth of Islam and that it is a perfect religion.
: Allah (swt) reveals in Qu'ran that "I have perfected
: your religion". So for anybody to doubt that is, in my opinion, outside
: the fold of Islam.
Whether a doubt places them outside of the fold of Islam is a delicate issue,
which I am not the judge of. Allah is the Master of the Day of Judgement.
However, it makes no difference in connection to Ahmadi Muslims, because
Ahmadi Muslims do not doubt it anyhow.
Was-Salam
Audil Virk (my opinons only)
Virk Shakeel
: Virk Shakeel wrote:
: I wonder how long do we have to see such circular arguments from the
: Mirziites !!
^^^^^^^^^^
"O ye who beleive! Let not one people deride another people, who may be
better than they, nor let women deride other women, who may be better
than they. And defame not your own people,
nor call one another by nick-names. Bad indeed is evil reputation after
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the profession of belief; and those who repent not are the wrongdoers."
(Quran 49:12)
: This is very clear from the traditions that Jesus will
: descend once again before dooms day. This doesn't necessarily mean that
: he will arrive as a prophet. Prophet is not a person. Instead it is a
: ministry given to some one chosen by God. The ministry of Jesus was
: given before Muhammed (pbuh) and in his second arrival, he will not
: assume this ministry.
Are you saying Jesus (pbuh) will not be a Prophet when he returns ???
: If I remember correctly, only in Muslim do we find
: the word 'The prophet of Allah' with the name of Jesus in connection
: with his second arrival and not in any other books.
Okay wait one minute. You are fully aware of evidence from a very
reliable source of Hadiths (Muslim) that when Jesus (pbuh) returns he
will be a prophet, yet you claim he will not be a prophet ???
[snip]
Maybe you might find the following Hadiths of some interest:
Nawas ibn Sam'an relates that the Holy Prophet mentioned..(snip)...Then the
Prophet of Allah, the Messiah, and his companions will turn to Allah, the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Exalted, and suppplicate Him so that Allah will create... (snip)
(Muslim)
Thank you.
Shakeel Virk
Parvez
: : I wonder how long do we have to see such circular arguments from the
: : Mirziites !!
: ^^^^^^^^^^
: "O ye who beleive! Let not one people deride another people, who may be
: better than they, nor let women deride other women, who may be better
: than they. And defame not your own people,
: nor call one another by nick-names. Bad indeed is evil reputation after
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: the profession of belief; and those who repent not are the wrongdoers."
: (Quran 49:12)
This is out of context quotation.
The word 'Mirziite' should not hurt you.
First of all, you are not our own people.
You are followers of Mirza and thus Mirziites. Is this your nick-name ?
I doubt. What's the true name anyway ? Kadianie ?
What should I call you ?
After all you are not Muslims no matter how much strugle you put in your
pretension to be Muslims with sheer kufar in your faith.
The whole of the problems will be solved once you choose a definite name
for your faith and stop your hypocritic mallicious activities inside
Islamic fold while you are completely out of the fold of Islam.
:
:
: : This is very clear from the traditions that Jesus will
: : descend once again before dooms day. This doesn't necessarily mean that
: : he will arrive as a prophet. Prophet is not a person. Instead it is a
: : ministry given to some one chosen by God. The ministry of Jesus was
: : given before Muhammed (pbuh) and in his second arrival, he will not
: : assume this ministry.
:
: Are you saying Jesus (pbuh) will not be a Prophet when he returns ???
Was my comments too dificult to ask me here ?
Or just trying to start that circular arguments (which is the root of
the Mirziism) ?
Yes, he will not be a prophet.
:
: : If I remember correctly, only in Muslim do we find
: : the word 'The prophet of Allah' with the name of Jesus in connection
: : with his second arrival and not in any other books.
:
: Okay wait one minute. You are fully aware of evidence from a very
: reliable source of Hadiths (Muslim) that when Jesus (pbuh) returns he
: will be a prophet, yet you claim he will not be a prophet ???
I am not infact aware of any such thing that Jesus will return as a
prophet even from Muslim like Mirziites often try to fabricate. I
simply said that the words 'prophet of Allah' was included with the name
of Jesus in Muslim but it doesn't say that he will return as a prophet.
Since this can not be found in other books, obviously this is the
refernce of the narrator to Jesus. Narrators may have their own style.
The same traditions in other books doesn't contain these words that
makes it clear that these words are refernces to his previous status and
not his future status during his second coming.
:
: [snip]
:
: Maybe you might find the following Hadiths of some interest:
:
: Nawas ibn Sam'an relates that the Holy Prophet mentioned..(snip)...Then the
: Prophet of Allah, the Messiah, and his companions will turn to Allah, the
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: Exalted, and suppplicate Him so that Allah will create... (snip)
: (Muslim)
Please quote the whole thing and also tell the hadith number. Don't just
play around in accordance to the typical tradition of the Mirziites and
their founder Mirza Kadianie to produce partial and distorted quotation
from Koran and Hadith to satisfy Kadianie Kufariat. I shall check it
out. I am sure the actual sense of the Hadith is somewhat different
which you are trying to distort here by yout (snip), (snip) and .......
:
: Thank you.
More than welcomed with honesty.
:
: Shakeel Virk
:
Virk Shakeel
: Greetings:
: Yes Messiah will come back and the key word is "COME" He is NOT
: ANOTHER MESSIAH or another person He is THE SAME PERSON.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: Please look up the words SECOND COMING, it refers to a RETURN OF
: SOMETHING or SOMEONE, MIrza did NOT RETURN FROM ANYWHERE he was born
: as a normal person and he died as a normal person.
Dave you seem to be a fairly logical person, maybe you would then care to
explain the following:
When the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary first came, did the Jews readily
accept him as the true Messiah ?
Obviously they did not. Why did they reject the Prophet of God, Jesus,
son of Mary ? What arguments did they use to convince others that Jesus
was not the true Messiah ?
The weak objections raised by the Jew's of that time are very similar to
the objections raised by Muslim's against Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
According to the Jewish scriptures [Old Testament]:
"Elijah ascended to heaven in a chariot of fire and horses of fire" [2
King 2:11]
Which is very similar to the Muslim claim:
'Jesus was raised to heaven, and is now living their.'
The objection that the Jews raised is similar to the one raised by the
Muslims of today. The Jews argued against the claims of Jesus on the
ground that their Messiah was expected to come after, the second coming
of Elijah. Not before.
And the Jews were correct, the second coming of Elijah was to occur
before the coming of the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary. How then did Jesus
expain this problem ? Where the Jews, God forbid, correct, was Jesus,
God forbid, an imposter as they claimed ?
Did Elijah float down from the sky, as many Muslims expect Jesus too
today ?
No Never. How then did the Messiah, Jesus, explain the
second coming Elijah, which was to occur before, and not after his coming ?
Jesus gave an excellent answer, and we find it recorded in the New Testament.
His answer is as follows:
We read in Matthew 17:10-13, the following:
"Then the disciples asked Jesus, 'Why do the teachers of the Law say that
Elijah has to come first ?'
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
'Elijah is indeed come first,' answered Jesus,
'and he will get everything ready.
But I tell you that Elijah has already come and people did not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
recognize him, but treated him just as
they pleased. In the same way they will mistreat the Son of Man.'
Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about
John the Baptist."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[Matthew 17:10-13]
How could Elijah equal John the Baptist, argued the Jews. Similarily
how could Jesus equal Ahmad argue the Muslims.
The Traditions report that our beloved Prophet compared the latter-day
ulema of this Ummah to the Pharisees of the Jewis nation. [Shah, Hazrat
Wali Ullah: Al Fauzal Kabir Ch 1 p 9]
This is clear proof, direct from Jesus, himself that "second coming" does
not mean the same person will come from the sky 2000 years later, but
rather someone in his spirit will come. The coming of John the
Baptist according to Jesus himself fulfilled the second coming of
Elijah, in the very same way, the coming of Hazrat Ahmad fulfilled the
second coming of Jesus.
Could this not be a possibility ? Why does second coming have to be the
same person, when Jesus himself declared the second coming of Elijah was
fulfilled in the personage of John the Baptist ? Was Jesus wrong to say,
what he said ?
Please Dave don't put up another lengthy article, before
explaining this, and the other points I have already put foward to you.
I will be waiting. :)
You also still have not answered my very first question, that is:
What religion do you belong to ?
(Should I expect an answer ? If not why ?)
Thank you.
Shakeel Virk
nobody
I would be very grateful if you could answer the following allegations
made by someone earlier
thanks
-----------------------
from: kh...@hkursc.hku.hk (Parvez)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Are Ahmadis Muslims? Consider this..
Date: 22 Jan 1996 00:18:26 -0800
Organization: Virtual Studio and Workshop
Message-ID: <4dvh8i$1...@shellx.best.com>
Ibrahim Shafi (ibra...@smarty.smart.net) wrote:
:
:
: / | _ \ | | |
: _o_\_,_;_(_ ,o _\;__,_,_,_; :
: ( .. (
:
: As-salamu-'alu'alykum-wa-rahmatullaahi-wa-barakatuh
:
Walaikum Assalam.
: * "Verse "No doubt we have revealed it near Qadian (Inna Anzalnaho
: Qareeban min alQadian) is mentioned in Quran." (Izala-e-Auham,
: Roohani Khazain vol 3 p.140)
: * "Names of Makkah, Madina and Qadian are mentioned with respect in
: Holy Quran." (Izala-e-Auham, Roohani Khazain vol 3 p. 140)
These were what I had been asking those Kadianies to show me since the
very long time. However, they prefer a bubbling over producing rational
proof about the truthfulness of their mirza. This mirza even passed of
false Hadith aswell. Some of those are in the name of Bukhary which
infact doesn't exist in Bukhary at all !!
If these Kadianies can prove that these verses do exist in the Koran, I
shall accept hundred lashes and be a Kadinie. But what if these don't exist?
Will they recant and renounce this Iblish mirza ? I am skeptic about it.
They will probably still prefer to go behind the accursed arc satan of London.
May Allah punish those liars and devils who are misleading the Ummah and
corrupting the teaching of Allah (swt) and his true prophet.
: * "Tanasukh (Transimmigration of soul - a hindu belief) is true."
: (Sat Bachan p.84)
That is why he claimed to be Hindu god Krishna. He claimed to be
everything. Muslim Masih, Christian Jesus, Hindu Krishna, Shikh Abatar and all
what he could.
: * "......for the sake of British Government, I have published &
: distributed 50,000 leaflets in this country (India) and other
: Islamic countries (against jehad)..... the result is that hundreds
: of thousands of people have given up their filthy ideas about
: Jihad." (Roohani Khazain vol 15 p. 114)
Kadianie Masih Mawood did not stop at issuing Fatwa against
anti-British Jehad, but also sent preachers to Afghanistan to dissuade
the Muslims who were preparing to fight against the British. Enraged
Afghans, angered by the fallacious and pro-British activities of the
satanists, hanged two of his missionaries. Kadianie Krishna thereafter
took his filthy pen and described the Afghans and Pathans as *Jews*. He
put forth around 10 facts why they are Jews that ranges from their look
to their genealogy.
: "Except for the Children of Prostitutes, whose hearts have been sealed
: by God, everyone else believes in my Prophethood."
: (Aina-e-Kamalate Islam, Roohani Khazain vol 5, p.547)
His own son Fazal Ahmed was then a son of prostitute and he was the
husband of prostitute since Fazal Ahmed denied his pseudo-prophet father.
Jochen Katz
I hope this posting will be appreciated by most Muslims because it shows
that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad can not possibly be who he claims to be, and by
the followers of Mr. Ahmad because they might experience some healthy
disillusionment and it might help them to find the real and trustworthy
truth.
And it also shows how to use and how to not use the Bible for Muslim
arguments.
In article <4e8m28$4...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, 3s...@qlink.queensu.ca
(Virk Shakeel) writes:
[On the question of "How will Jesus come back?"
and the claim that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is Jesus who came back.]
When the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary first came, did the Jews readily
accept him as the true Messiah ?
Obviously they did not. Why did they reject the Prophet of God, Jesus,
son of Mary ? What arguments did they use to convince others that Jesus
was not the true Messiah ?
The weak objections raised by the Jew's of that time are very similar to
the objections raised by Muslim's against Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
According to the Jewish scriptures [Old Testament]:
"Elijah ascended to heaven in a chariot of fire and horses of fire"
[2 King 2:11]
Which is very similar to the Muslim claim:
'Jesus was raised to heaven, and is now living their.'
The objection that the Jews raised is similar to the one raised by the
Muslims of today. The Jews argued against the claims of Jesus on the
ground that their Messiah was expected to come after, the second coming
of Elijah. Not before.
And the Jews were correct, the second coming of Elijah was to occur
before the coming of the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary. How then did Jesus
expain this problem ? Where the Jews, God forbid, correct, was Jesus,
God forbid, an imposter as they claimed ?
Did Elijah float down from the sky, as many Muslims expect Jesus too
today ?
Nice straw man argument you have built up so far. :) And now you will go
on to knock the straw man down quite skillfully I admit. The only problem
is, that it is dangerous to argue with Biblical parallels when you don't
know all that the Bible says. But let's be patient and wait until we come
to the main point before the argument will collapse before our very eyes.
No Never. How then did the Messiah, Jesus, explain the
second coming Elijah, which was to occur before, and not after his coming ?
Jesus gave an excellent answer, and we find it recorded in the New Testament.
His answer is as follows:
We read in Matthew 17:10-13, the following:
"Then the disciples asked Jesus, 'Why do the teachers of the Law say that
Elijah has to come first ?'
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
'Elijah is indeed come first,' answered Jesus,
'and he will get everything ready.
But I tell you that Elijah has already come and people did not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
recognize him, but treated him just as
they pleased. In the same way they will mistreat the Son of Man.'
Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about
John the Baptist."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[Matthew 17:10-13]
How could Elijah equal John the Baptist, argued the Jews. Similarily
how could Jesus equal Ahmad argue the Muslims.
The problem is that you seem to have forgotten the very passage used on the
Ahmadiya web page (and posted by Audil Virk about 10 days ago) to "prove"
that Muhammad is "the prophet who is to come" and not Jesus).
Let me requote it for you.
John 1:19-21
19 Now this was John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests
and Levites to ask him who he was.
20 He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely,
"I am not the Christ."
21 They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?"
He said, "I am not." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No."
So it seems the Jews did NOT necessarily think that Elijah would come back
on chariots of fire but could have been born among them and grown up among
them as John obviously did. Otherwise they wouldn't even have asked him this
question. I think you create a pseudo-difficulty in order to force a parallel
which just doesn't exist.
And, yes, Elijah did go up to heaven directly without dying. And yes, the
Prophet Maleachi says that "Elijah will come". But it is not specified
how Elijah would come. And though it is a 'reasonable' guess, that he might
come similar as to how he left, it is a guess only. And the Jews as seen in
the above passage knew that and thought it to be possible that John was
indeed Elijah.
So, since the 'how' of Elijah's coming was never prophecied about, that was
open and could happen in any way God chose to make it happen. But, exactly
here is the second flaw of your argument: It was _very_clearly_ said how
Jesus would come back. Jesus himself speaks about his second coming and
says (recorded in the Gospel according to Matthew 24):
23 At that time if anyone says to you, `Look, here is the Christ!' or,
`There he is!' do not believe it. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
24 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
signs and miracles to deceive even the elect--if that were possible.
25 See, I have told you ahead of time.
26 "So if anyone tells you, `There he is, out in the desert,'
do not go out; or, `Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it.
27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
29 "Immediately after the distress of those days "`the sun will be
darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall
from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'
30 "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and
all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Can you honestly say that sounds like Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? I have not seen
him come with the clouds from the sky nor in great power and glory and with
his angels. He sounds more like vers 26: "out there in the desert" in some
remote part of the world at least in respect to Israel where Jesus was
speaking his prophecy about his return. And to my knowledge he didn't even
perform any miracles. So, in a sense he doesn't even qualify to be counted
among the more deceptive false Christs. And I don't think any Christian
who knew the Bible was ever remotely in the temptation of mistaking Mirza
G. Ahmad for Jesus. And had Muslims known better the very teaching of
'their' prophet Jesus, I think the movement of Mr. Ahmad might never have
gotten off the ground. Dear Muslims, if you don't manage to refute the
Ahmadiya movement from the Qur'an you might consider to read more in the
Bible and you will have no problem in refuting them. :)
And then there is the annoucement of two angels at the time when Jesus was
taken up into heaven(Acts 1):
10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when
suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them.
11 "Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the
sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So, the prophecy of Jesus and the anouncement of the angels is in harmony
and they both say, Jesus will come back from heaven, visibly, just as he
ascended to heaven on the clouds. And there are more passages in the Bible
which say the same thing. There is no other man coming in the 'spirit of
Jesus' but it is the SAME Jesus and he is coming the SAME way he left.
The Traditions report that our beloved Prophet compared the latter-day
ulema of this Ummah to the Pharisees of the Jewis nation. [Shah, Hazrat
Wali Ullah: Al Fauzal Kabir Ch 1 p 9]
This is clear proof, direct from Jesus, himself that "second coming" does
not mean the same person will come from the sky 2000 years later, but
rather someone in his spirit will come.
Now I think this "clarity" has thoroughly evaporated. And Jesus says exactly
what you say he did not mean.
The coming of John the
Baptist according to Jesus himself fulfilled the second coming of
Elijah, in the very same way, the coming of Hazrat Ahmad fulfilled the
second coming of Jesus.
You are 'more or less' right about the Elijah interpretation. But your
conclusion just doesn't follow, because the two have completely different
prophecies given about their return.
Could this not be a possibility ? Why does second coming have to be the
same person, when Jesus himself declared the second coming of Elijah was
fulfilled in the personage of John the Baptist ? Was Jesus wrong to say,
what he said ?
No, Jesus was exactly right.
Please Dave don't put up another lengthy article, before
explaining this, and the other points I have already put foward to you.
I will be waiting. :)
Sorry for not being Dave, but I hope he appreciates me explaining it in
his place. And I hope you appreciate it also as someone who desires to
follow the truth even if it turns out to be different from what you
believed. Disillusionment is very healthy because we get rid of our
illusions though it might be a bitter pill to swallow at first.
You also still have not answered my very first question, that is:
What religion do you belong to ?
(Should I expect an answer ? If not why ?)
Thank you.
Shakeel Virk
Thank you (plural, all readers!) for your patience in reading this
longish explanation. I hope it brings some clearity in the question
around the claim of Mr. Ahmad to be the Messiah.
Warm regards,
Jochen Katz Email: jk...@math.gatech.edu
Webpage "Christian Answers to Islam":
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gt6125c/Islam/
Muhammad-Amjad Tariq
si...@Intellistor.COM$B$5$s$O=q$-$^$7$?!#(B
>> Asalamualekum,
>>
>> I have one question for the Ahmadies:
>>
>> If you are true believers in Allah (swt) and his Rasool, our beloved
>> Muhamad (pbuh), then why do you need to refer to anybody else for your
>> guidance in iman? Because to do so would imply that the religion (Islam)
>> as revealed in Qu'ran and the al-hadits of our Rasool (pbuh) had some
>> shortcomings. Allah (swt) reveals in Qu'ran that "I have perfected
>> your religion". So for anybody to doubt that is, in my opinion, outside
>> the fold of Islam.
>>
>> Wa'Asalam
>> ~ajaz
Dear Ajaz Sahib,
Wa Alaikum Salam WW.
Thank you very much for raising an important question. We
desparately need the answer of this question. I like to
invite all the SRI reader to think this question seriously
and reply according to your understanding.
Here is what I like to say about this very important question;
The purpose of revelation, and the role that revelation plays in
rectifying society needs to be understood. Are the Books by themselves
sufficient to reform a society, or do they they need to be supplemented?
This is a fundamental question to be asked. If a Book by itself was enough,
only Books should have been sent from heaven, as people were demanding.
Whenever a prophet came, according to the Holy Qur'an, people said : 'Why
not bring the Book right from Heaven, that is the most essential part. If
the Book had descended from the Heaven, and we could see it, that would have
been enough for us.' But the Book is not enough. The purpose of revelation
is the institution of prophethood, which has been described in the Holy
Qur'an very clearly, and the Book only makes one part of that.
In Surah Jum'ah for instance, the Holy Qur'an tells us: 'Huwallathee
Ba'aathaa Fil Ummi Na Rasulum Minhum Yatlu Alayhim Aayaatihi' , that is, the
revelation of the Book is being conveyed to others. 'Wa Yuzakkeehim', it is
the prophet who performs the purification. 'Was Yuallimu Humul Kitab', the
Book is there but a teacher is needed. 'Wal Hikmu', and the underlying
philosophy also needs to be explained.
So these are the purposes of a prophet. If a Book remains intact, and the
teaching is heard by ignorant teachers who interfere with the meaning of the
Book, if the philosophy is lost or new philosophy arises in the world to
challenge the bona fides of that Book, then some teacher is required,
because three of the duties of a prophet, as mentioned here are over and
above the revelation of the book. They do concern the Book, of course, and
revolve around the Book. But a Book by itself is not sufficient. This
hypothesis can immediately be put to the test. Those who believe that the
Book should be enough know that The Holy Qur'an, revealed to Hadhrat
Muhammad Mustapha (peace and blessings of God be upon him) was exactly the
same then as it is today. Is there any difference in the Book, or not? None
whatsoever! But are there differences in the Muslims of his time and the
Muslims of today? They are obviously different, so much so that if they were
Muslims, the present day Muslims do not appear to belong to the same Islam.
In fact at the time of Hadhrat Ali (peace be on him), somebody asked him why
so much discord was in evidence. The retort he gave was beautiful. He said
'because Hadhrat Muhammad Mustapha (peace and blessings of God be upon him)
had people like me to follow him, and I have people like you to follow me'.
You can see the difference in generations and in their quality of sacrifice.
So the Holy Qur'an did not change by the time of Hadhrat Ali (peace be on
him), it has not changed even today, but the difference between the quality
and the character of people is immense. Obviously it is wrong to say that
the Holy Qur'an by itself should suffice in the sense that it should enforce
itself upon the characters of the people, their attitudes, their values and
run into their blood automatically. A reformer is required. One who has
direct contact with Allah, who practises the Book and turns it into a living
reality; who by his conduct transforms the Word into a practical way of
life. And then people begin to follow. When they see things in their own
kith and kin, in their own blood and flesh, they follow the practical
examples set forth to them.
So the Book is essential because the entire philosophy and the way of life
and the teachings are contained in the Book, that is the Word of Allah. But
to practise that Word, to make it understood, to speak about it's lasting
values and to meet challenges arising at various times regarding that Word,
all these factors demand a man from Allah, who has been guided by Allah.
Take that man out and the result will be decline and decadence. Bring that
man back into the picture and things will begin to change amongst those who
follow him of course, not those who reject him.
So that is the difference. The Holy Qur'an is still today the same as it has
always been, but Hadhrat Muhammad Mustapha (peace and blessings of God be
upon him) is missing. That loss can never been fulfilled unless somebody,
who is subordinate to him of course, is raised from Allah in the same
pattern. Allah speaks to him, He gives him strength, power and guidance. The
reformer is capable enough, with the help of Allah, of bringing people back
to the same spirit of sacrifice as was created by Hadhrat Muhammad Mustapha
(peace and blessings of God be upon him). He is so well guided by Allah that
he is capable of meeting the challenges of modern times, and of new
philosophies which have erupted from all corners of the earth, challenging
the validity of the Book. Unless that happens, the revival of Islam is just
a dream, or the revival of Christianity for that matter if the questioner
was a Christian.
Amjad Tariq, Japan.
rafiq
to be good Muslims ourselves and (2) preach the beauty of Islam to
others rather than fight among ourselves.
May Allah be our Guide allways!