WHO IS A QADIANI !!!!!
Parvez
On 28 Oct 1997, Ehmadhh wrote:
> >That fellow, Ehmad,
>
> Who, me?
Yes.
> Typical case of double-standards.
How?
>
> You continue to call us Qadianis, and this is *offensive* to us because
This is a established name for your faith and not your regional identity.
Ask Shakil. He himself wrote here that he is a Quadianie Ahmady few days
ago. Did you feel offended then? You are not from Quadian. Are you?
> some Qadianis are Hindus and others are Sikhs. I have repeatedly explained
> that the term Qadiani has nothing to do with belief, and more to do with
> residence.
See the sense of understanding!
Ehmadh! That is a refernce to a group or a doctrin. Not a personal
assault. What you had been doing is to personally attack and assault
people by calling Mulla. I asked you to stop this kind of personal attack.
You didn't. You forced me to launch similar assault on you. I hope after
this fuss, you will understand what a personal assault means.
> Why son't you confirm with your fellow Palestinian student (the ultimate
> source of your reliable knowledge of CLASSICAL Arabic) as to what the term
> *mullah* means?
Why should I? I know what it means. I speak subcontinental dialect. Why
should I go to someone who doesn't speak my dialect? Trying to escape
through loophole Ehmadh?
>
> Fact is that the term *baghaaya* is used for a female slave, according to
> reknown Classical Arabic dictionaries like Tajul Uroos, which ofcrouse
> cannot compete with your Palestinian student source as regards Classical
> Arabic!!
Fact is that Baghaya very well means Prostitute. It could bear another
*SIMILAR* but less offensive meaning too but that doesn't make much
difference. The meaning your mirza ghulam implied is *PROSTITUTE* and I
showed it from mirza's book. Why are you trying to play with it still?
> And again Tajuluroos will probably buckle under pressure from your
> elite palestinian student as regards the meaning of *zurriyatul baghaaya*
Your mirza himself wrote the translation. Why are you unnecessarily
hunting Tajul Uroos? Don't you think that you are defying your prophetic
assertion?
> to be *devoid of guidance*.
How dare you distort the meaning of your prophet's word? He himself wrote
the meaning of Baghaya as *ZANAN FAHISHA*. That clearly means prostitute.
I am again accusing you deception.
> Perhaps you can now also ask your Palestinian student authority as
> regards what the word *zaneen* means?
I will. I bet you will not have any ground. I guess it means greedy or
intruder but I shall make a double check and post in SRI soon Inshallah.
> >Such imagination was not really necessary to give a message. Was it?
>
> *Imagination*??
>
What else?
You are completely out of it. Aren't you? I was talking about a Muslim
giving a message to another Muslim and not a Quadianie.
>
> >As I understand, you don't mean 'absolutely' by using the word
> >'necessarily'. However Abu Bakar(ra) didn't follow this philosophy and he
> >attacked Musailama Kazzab. Believe me that was a physical military attack.
> >Will you call it a mistake?
>
> Musaylama Kazzab initiated hostilities against the Muslims, first by
> dismembering LIMB by LIMB, and then burning the remains of a sahaaba,
> Habeeb bin Zaid r.a., and then advancing towards Medina and initiating the
> attack.
Mirza ghulam didn't do that.
Right?
Anyway, i would also agree. I still can't verify your information.
However, I don't trust you. I have to check before I go with it.
The fact is that Prophet (pbuh) himself ordered from death bed that
Musailama be punished for his lies. In any case, Hazrat Abu Bakar(ra)
simply carried out the order. The same step should have been taken against
mirza ghulam but there was no real Muslim administration in those days.
So are you trying to say that because mirza ghulam didn't attack the
Muslims, he should not be attacked? This is good that you brought a
parallel comparison of mirza and musailama. They were brethren infact.
>
> Was AbuBakr r.a. supposed to have responded by verbal abuse?
No. He did the right think. But our forefathers couldn't do the right
think with mirza. Hence we are all having problem now. If someone is
calling mirza a liar, he is not abusing. He is telling the truth. See!
Musailama is still called a liar and Hazrat Abu Bakar(ra) obviously
called him so. That was not abuse.
> I know that's what the mullahs might have done. And as far as verbal
> abuse goes, the mullahs would win the battle on that front any day.
If that is abuse, Mullahs will be very happy to abuse the Kafirs and
Liars.
Parvez
Dept. of Mech. Eng.
Queen's University at Kingston
Kingston K7L 3N6
Ontario, Canada
E-mail: 7k...@qlink.queensu.ca
im...@me.queensu.ca
7k...@jeff-lab.queensu.ca
ct...@freenet.toronto.on.ca
Tel: 1-613-549-9979 (Home)
1-613-545-6000 Ext 4628 (School)
Fax: 1-613-545-6489 (School)
Ehmadhh
In article <637vod$l8a$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>, Kavosh Soltani
<kav...@erols.com> writes:
>
>As if Mirsza Ghulam knew anything about "Calssical Arabic". If it
>weren't
>for his associates who knew the Arabic language 100 times better than
>him,
>he would never have any "revelations" (read fabrications) in Arabic
>language.
>
The same sort of allegation was made against Muhammad s.a.w. that he had
people who taught him. The Qur'an refuted this allegation.
Sunat-e-Kaafiriyya is always the same. By rejecting the Imam mahdi, the
same allegation has resurfaced. Clearly, the writings were so good, that so
as to deflect the credit for it away from Ahmad a.s., such a charge had to
be fabricated. You keep shooting yourself in the foot, so much so that you
now have none to stand on.
Wasalaam alaaa man ittebaa alhudaa.
Love For All, Hatred For None! [Nasir Ahmad r.a.]
"There is to be no compulsion in matters of religion" [2:256]
[PS: If possible, please also directly email to me any responses to this
message. Thanks.]
Ehmadhh
Is there something wrong with this thread?
Different topics seem to have been posted here.
Kerai N
On 4 Nov 1997, Ehmadhh wrote:
> In article <637vod$l8a$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>, Kavosh Soltani
> <kav...@erols.com> writes:
> >As if Mirsza Ghulam knew anything about "Calssical Arabic". If it
> >weren't
> >for his associates who knew the Arabic language 100 times better than
> >him,
> >he would never have any "revelations" (read fabrications) in Arabic
> >language.
> The same sort of allegation was made against Muhammad s.a.w. that he had
> people who taught him. The Qur'an refuted this allegation.
I do not wish at this stage to get into a debate about mirza halam ahmad
qadiyani, but just want to make a point. Before a person can derive rules
from the Qur'aan and Sunnah, one must have certain qualifications. Knowing
classical Arabic is one of these. Now for one to learn this science, which
is known as sarf and nahw, he or she must a teacher whose is also a master
of this science. The student must have learnt from a teacher and then this
teacher has to give him or her ijaazah (permission) to use this knowledge
to derive rules (ahkaam). So to say that mirza qadiyani knew classical
Arabic, one must show who his teacher(s) was/were.
As far as I know, he didn't have any and hence he does not hold
qualifications to derive rules from the Qur'aan and Sunnah.
As for what was written about revelation (wahi), it is a fundamental
belief of a Muslim, that their is no wahi after the coming of our master,
Sayyidunaa Muhammadinil-Mustafaa sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam.
> Sunat-e-Kaafiriyya is always the same. By rejecting the Imam mahdi, the
> same allegation has resurfaced. Clearly, the writings were so good, that so
> as to deflect the credit for it away from Ahmad a.s., such a charge had to
> be fabricated. You keep shooting yourself in the foot, so much so that you
> now have none to stand on.
It is strange that those who accuse others of calling people kuffaar, do
it themselves and label the acts of Muslims as "Sunat-e-Kaafiriyya" - this
statement has not even been constructed properly in the Arabic language.
> Love For All, Hatred For None! [Nasir Ahmad r.a.]
I do not know who nasir ahmad is and say only what Allaah subhaanahoo has
taught: Love is only for the sake of Allaah and hate is only for the
sake of Allaah.
> "There is to be no compulsion in matters of religion" [2:256]
This aayat has nothing to do with the discussion, ie calling someone
kaafir or accusing someone of committing an act.
salaam
Parvez
On 2 Nov 1997, AbdulraHman Lomax wrote:
> as-salamu 'alaykum.
Walaikum Assalam.
>
> Parvez <7k...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
>
> >Because it cane as the question of mirziite revelation in Arabic, I
> >remember an interesting thing. Mirza once received a revelation in English
> >where Allah(swt) allegedly told him, "You must go to zilla Peshawar. I
> >shall help you". I was amazed to see it. Because 'Zilla' is a
> >subcontinental word that means Dsitrict. Couldn't Allah(swt) tell him
> >correctly as "You must go to Peshawar district"?
>
> What I am noting here is that the objection is rather silly.
Because you probably couldn't read between lines.
> The Qur'an uses words which are either foreign or were borrowed
> from foreign languages (it is argued that they thereby became Arabic
> words).
But Koran didn't use a native word in a sentence in a foreign language.
Infact Koran was not revealed in any foreign language at all. Rather some
foeign words came contextually.
> The purpose of a message from God is to convey a message, not,
> in general, to be an example of some pure language.
So what is your message here?
What language God always chose for giving message? Foreign or native? God
didn't ever chose a foreign language and mess it with a native word that
could be expressed in that foreign language in rather strong means.
> It appears that
> "zilla Peshawar" conveyed a certain meaning to Ahmad.
If that "Certain Meaning" could really exist!!
Fact is that the alleged revelation came in context of mirza's supposed
travel to Peshawar ( a city still existing in Pakistan) for a debate where
Allah (swt) allegedly promised him to help. Now, Peshawar is not a special
terminology that Allah will have to have a mixed wording to convey a
special meaning to mirza.
So my brother, let me tell you the rest of the story. Open the
'Tadkira' and see what mirza continued after this peculiarly mixed
revelation. He went on to say that some of the revelation he couldn't
understand because the angel Tichi Tichi was too fast. Yet some more was
missing because it came in a language that he didn't know.
So shall wew assume that those missing revelations were also meant for
some special meaning for miza ghulam ?
> Is there some
> rule that Allah can not use "subcontinental words," mixed in with
> English? (If he chose to speak to a person for whom such a dialect was
> appropriate.)
That kind of wording is completely funny in subcontinental culture and
conveys no sense. Shall I expect Allah to send some defective Wahi?
Are you going to tell us that mirza was such a person with whom such a
dialogue would be appropriate? The reality is that such a dialogue is
completely naive and funny in the subcontinent. If mirza was that special
person with whom such a funny dialogue would work, please tell us the
reason. We could be enlightened.
> Does Parvez not know that the Qur'an recounts an objection to
> Muhammad, that the revelations were in his language?
That is the question my brother. That is what I was implying from the
beginnig but you couldn't read between lines. Mirza was not a native
English speaker. There is no question for him to receive revealation in
English or "Language that he doesn't understand" or "Too fast to
understand".
> >"District" on the way. Probably the angel was native Urdu speaker and so
> >he messed up. The only such angel could be mirza himself and he used the
> >urdu style wording per his day to day conversation. This is how
> >fabricators are caught!!
>
> The fallacy here is a presumption that an angel would not speak in
> dialect, such as would speak a "native Urdu speaker."
The utter fallacy here is to assume a "presumption".
If you were not looking for a fallacious presumption, you vould probably
see something different here.
I speak English. Does that make me a native speaker?
> It is a false presumption.
Granted, It would be so but that is not the case.
You, apparently, were looking for a false presumtion.
> Revelation comes, as we know it, in the language of the recipient.
And that was not in his native language.
> This is the norm of revelation, and we do not trust revelation which is
> other than that.
If that is what you understand, then what are all these fuss about?
>
> Ahmad was not a prophet, but this is not the proof.
This is a proof of fabrication.
Ahmad definitely was not a prophet even if he would have got it in Urdu.
> And, while I affirm that he was not a prophet, it is not impossible
> that he received guidance from Allah, and this guidance might be in
> the form of words in his own dialect.
After explicitly showing what this man wrote about Jesus(pbuh) (I am
forgetting all other thiongs for the time being), can he be considered
divinely guided? It could be guidancebut from Iblish only.
Anyone who believes in his guidence can go and get some of that guidance
from his Barahin-e-Ahmadiya. He left if for those who believes in his
divine guidance and want to ensure their Jannah....
I believe and it is believed by scholars that he received his guidance
from Satan.
Wassalam-
Ehmadhh
In article <63qskq$f...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, Kerai N
<zb...@city.ac.uk> writes:
> I do not wish at this stage to get into a debate about mirza halam ahmad
> qadiyani, but just want to make a point. Before a person can derive rules
> from the Qur'aan and Sunnah, one must have certain qualifications. Knowing
> classical Arabic is one of these.
Agreed.
> Now for one to learn this science, which
> is known as sarf and nahw, he or she must a teacher whose is also a master
> of this science. The student must have learnt from a teacher and then this
> teacher has to give him or her ijaazah (permission) to use this knowledge
> to derive rules (ahkaam). So to say that mirza qadiyani knew classical
> Arabic, one must show who his teacher(s) was/were.
Who did Muhammad s.a.w. learn Classical Arabic from? As for Ahmad a.s., he
did have teachers when he was young, and the name was Fadhal/Fazal, but
this is besides the point. Ijaazah may be required for Saudi Mullah
Madrassahs etc, but there is no such criteria laid down in the Qur'an, or
by Muhammad s.a.w. One does not a degree in Classical Arabic from Medinah
University to be able to understand the Qur'an. Infact, many such people do
not understand the deeper meanings of the Qur'an anyway.
Ahmad a.s. received immense knowledge of Classical Arabic and the Qur'an
from Allah Himself. There is no question regarding his knowledge of
Classical Arabic. Perhaps you should read his books in Arabic if you can.
There is a khutbah referred to as khutbah ilhamiyyah. I would suggest that
you read it if you can; and then pass comments on the level of Arabic in there.
> As far as I know, he didn't have any and hence he does not hold
> qualifications to derive rules from the Qur'aan and Sunnah.
I guess this just means that he wasn't anything like your ordinary mullah.
He was able to produce a masterpiece lecture on the Wisdom of the Islamic
teachings in the Qur'an, which the mullahs can't match.
> As for what was written about revelation (wahi), it is a fundamental
> belief of a Muslim, that their is no wahi after the coming of our master,
> Sayyidunaa Muhammadinil-Mustafaa sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam.
Sahih Muslim states that the Masih to come will receive wahi from Allah.
It may be a fundamental belief of some sects, but this belief is not
supported by the Qur'an, or Muhammad s.a.w. If it is, prove it so that I
may believe it.
> It is strange that those who accuse others of calling people kuffaar, do
> it themselves and label the acts of Muslims as "Sunat-e-Kaafiriyya" - this
> statement has not even been constructed properly in the Arabic language.
Acts of real Muslims are not the same as acts of kafirs. The accusation
made was the same as that made by kafirs against Muhammad s.a.w., and this
is a fact. And I never said it was a construction of Classical Arabic.
> > Love For All, Hatred For None! [Nasir Ahmad r.a.]
>
> I do not know who nasir ahmad is and say only what Allaah subhaanahoo has
> taught: Love is only for the sake of Allaah and hate is only for the
> sake of Allaah.
Actually, Muhammad s.a.w. said this, to my knowledge, and not Allah. In
any case, the point being made is that you do not hate anyone out of some
prejudices. And you hate the evil, not the person, as Lut a.s. said to his
people. Nasir Ahmad r.a. was the 3rd Khalifa of Ahmad a.s.
> > "There is to be no compulsion in matters of religion" [2:256]
>
> This aayat has nothing to do with the discussion, ie calling someone
> kaafir or accusing someone of committing an act.
I have this at the bottom of all my posts. It is part of my *signature* on
these newsgroups.
Wasalaam.
Love For All, Hatred For None! [Nasir Ahmad r.a.]
"There is to be no compulsion in matters of religion" [2:256]
[PS: If possible, please also directly email to me any responses to this
message. Thanks.]
Parvez
On 8 Nov 1997, Ehmadhh wrote:
> In article <63qskq$f...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, Kerai N
> <zb...@city.ac.uk> writes:
>
> Who did Muhammad s.a.w. learn Classical Arabic from? As for Ahmad a.s., he
> did have teachers when he was young, and the name was Fadhal/Fazal, but
> this is besides the point.
I am trying to bring it in poitn Ehmadh.
See Ehmadh, there really is a big problem with it.
Mirza boasted- 'Mahdi is not anyones student. No one taught me Koran.'
Then he again wrote in some other place-'At the age of seven, my father
employed a Maulavi for me. His name was Ustad Fazal Ahmed. He taught me
Arabic, Farsi and the Koran'. I didn't use double quotation mark since
wordings are mine. I can check the reference for you. However, as a
follower of mirza, you can quote the exact thing and explain this self
bashing fallacy of mirza. Will you please do that for us?
Fazsk
Assalamu Aleikum to all.
Kerai N<zb...@city.ac.uk> writes:
>As for what was written about revelation (wahi), it is a fundamental
>belief of a Muslim, that their is no wahi after the coming of our master,
>Sayyidunaa Muhammadinil-Mustafaa sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam.
There seems to be some misunderstanding on Kerai N's part as to
the nature of Revelation from Allah. In Islam, the doors of revelation are
standing open for all time. It is an erroneous idea to believe that the door
of revelation was closed with Prophet Muhammad because it is stated in the
Holy Quran that he is the last of the prophets. It is an error to confuse the
discontinuance of PROPHETHOOD with the discontinuance of REVELATION ! The Holy
Quran describes three types of divine revalation to
man:
"And it is not vouchsafed to a mortal that Allah should speak to him
except by REVELATION or FROM BEHIND A VEIL, or BY SENDING A MESSENGER AND
REVEALING BY HIS PERMISSION WHAT HE PLEASES;" (42:51).
The first of these is called "WAHY" and is an inspiration of an idea into the
heart. It is an idea put into the mind, as distinguished from
revelation proper, which is a message conveyed in words. This type of
Revelation is common to both prophets and those who are not prophets.
The second mode of God's speaking to man is said to be "from behind a veil"
which includes dreams, visions, and "ilham". This form of Revelation is also
common to both prophets and non-prophets. The Holy Quran tells us
of a vision of a king who was apparently not a believer in God (12:43) - a
vision which had a deep underlying significance.
The third kind, which is peculiar to the prophets of God only, is that in which
angel Gabriel brings divine message in words. This is the highest and most
developed form or revelation; it was in this form that revelation was granted
to all Prophets which now ceases to exist!
Thus, when it is said that no Prophet shall appear after the Holy Prophet
Muhammed, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the door has been
closed on that highest form of revelation; but by no stretch of words can
revelation itself be said to have come to an end.
The doctrine of the continuance of Revelation is clearly upheld in the Quran
and the Traditions. The Quran states:
"Those who believe and guard against evil, for them is good news (bushra) in
this world's life and in the hereafter" (10:63,64). The bushra granted in this
world's life are "good visions which the Muslim sees or which are shown to
him," according to a saying of the Prophet. And according to one of the most
reliable traditions, "bushra" or "mubashshirat" - both words having the same
significance - are a part of prophethood. Thus, the
Prophet is reported to have said: "NOTHING REMAINS OF PROPHETHOOD BUT
MUBASHSHIRAT" (Bukari 92:5). Being asked what he meant by "mubashshirat", he
replied "good (or true) visions" (Bukari 92:5).
According to another tradition the Holy Prophet is reported to have said: "The
vision of the believer is one of the forty-six parts of prophethood" (Bukari
92:4). And furthermore, the Holy Prophet also said: " There used to be among
those who were before you persons who were spoken to (by God) though they
were not prophets; if there is such a one among my people , it
is Umar" (Bukari 62:6).
All of these traditions and Quranic verses quoted above afford enough proof
that revelation in some of its lower forms is continued after the Holy Prophet
Muhammed, and it is only the highest form of revelation - that brought by
Angel Gabriel - which has been discontinued with the termination of
prophethood.
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad received saintly revelations not prophetic (as the
Qadianis would have you believe)! Mirza Sahib was the Mujadid (reformer) of
the 14th Century Hijra and denied the claim of prophethood all his life.
Unfortunately, now the Qadianis have accepted the false accusations of the
opponents of Hazrat Sahib (much like the Christians had accepted the
accusations of the Jews that Jesus truly meant he was the Son
of God in the Real sense) even though he denied this status vehemently all his
life!
For the true teachings of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad please refer to:
*www.muslim.org*; and also visit: *http://tariq.bitshop.com/misconceptions*
for additional information.
May Almighty Allah guide us all to the truth,
Yours in Islam
Fazeel Sahukhan (Fa...@aol.com)
Kavosh Soltani
Svend White wrote:
>
> Kavosh:
>
> > Another problem is that the "revelations" given to him in
> > languages other the ones he was familiar with resembled
> > those written by an individual who was not well rehersed
> > in those languages.
>
> That's funny. I was just talking to an Arab this weekend who said that
> one of the reasons for his becoming a Lahori Ahmadi was the eloquence
> and *grammatical perfection* of Hazrat Mirza's Arabic writings!
And you want us to believe your very weak bluff?! We know
you too well... On the other hand, you might want to know
that several high level Qadianis (from the time of Mirza
until the present time) have given up Qadianism after they
have been shown the actual writings of Mirza. Many of them
are Arabs who were never told the full story about the
teachings of Mirza Ghulam and were only given selected
writings to hook them up and make sure his children would
blindly become faithful Qadianis (Ahmadis)? Sounds like
anyone you know?
> Perhaps *Kavosh* is the one "not well rehersed [sic] in those
> languages"?
Now, you should read my original posting again. Mirza Ghulam
knew a little Arabic. But, it is a fact that his knowledge
of Islam and Sharia was very elementary and he never wrote
a book without discussing the issues to death with his paid
assistants (like Muhammad Ali and others) and even had them
proofread and modify his books. Since you mentioned Arabic,
I let you read what his son, Mirza Bashir Ahmad wrote:
"Indeed, his holiness used to send manuscripts of his Arabic
books to his first Caliph, Nuruddin, and also to Ustad Mohammad
Ahsan Amrohi for improvement and correction. The first caliph
used to return the manuscripts as he took them. As for Ustad
Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi, he exerted his utmost in correction and
change." (Seerat-ul-Mahdi, Vol. 1, P. 91)
Now, what kind of a Prophet, Messiah, Mahdi, Mujaddid, Saint,
great Scholar, ... was Mirza to ask other people opinion on
Islam? Also, if he was such a great scholar of Arabic language,
how come he had others proof his writings and correct his
confusing and mistaken statements?
As I said before, these statements of yours only may impress
those who do not know the truth... You make a mistake
everytime you try it on Muslims who know the truth and
only disclose what Qadianis themselves have written...
A Muslim.
Kavosh Soltani
Ehmadhh wrote:
>
> As for Ahmad a.s., he did have teachers when he was young, and the
Once Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, to explain why his father was so poor in
Sharia and Islamic knowledge, said that Mirza Ghulam's teachers
where addicts (to drug and alcohol) and that we should not have
expected too much from the poor Mirza...
> Infact, many such people do not understand the deeper meanings of
> the Qur'an anyway.
Of course, this "deeper" meaning often comes after using drugs!
By the way, didn't Mirza Ghulam prescribed for himself a homemade
medicine which had intoxicants as its main ingredient?
> Ahmad a.s. received immense knowledge of Classical Arabic and the Qur'an
> from Allah Himself.
Your word against his record. To see his knowledge, you should look
into his Baraheen-i-Ahmadiyya Vol. 1-3 and his speeches. At that
time, he did not have people like Hakim Nuruddin and others in his
camp to give him a hand. These guys did indeed have a deep knowledge
of Arabic langauge and where schooled (yes, even in Medina), but the
knowledge of Arabic without faith does not do people good; case and
point: many Arab Jews who lived during the time of the Holy
Prophet(SAAW)...
> There is a khutbah referred to as khutbah ilhamiyyah. I would suggest
> that you read it if you can; and then pass comments on the level of
> Arabic in there.
Yes, one that no doubt he could not have been the sole author of. All
one needs to do is read Sirat-ul-Mahdi, the account of life of Mirza
Ghulam, written by his own son. Even though Mirza Bashi Ahmad has tried
to clean it up, he never suspected that by writing how Mirza used to
ask religious advice from his paid assistants, or the fact that he had
others proof, correct, and improve his writings, or that someone helped
with his persian translation, the falsehood of the Qadiani claims would
be exposed. But, Allah is the best of the planners and Qadianis
often expose their true nature...
> He was able to produce a masterpiece lecture on the Wisdom of the Islamic
> teachings in the Qur'an, which the mullahs can't match.
Again, your opinion. He did not even produce a masterpiece in Urdu or
Persian...
> Sahih Muslim states that the Masih to come will receive wahi from Allah.
> It may be a fundamental belief of some sects, but this belief is not
> supported by the Qur'an, or Muhammad s.a.w. If it is, prove it so that I
> may believe it.
You are telling us this was not another "metaphore" for - let's
see... - a phone call?!!! If you check the hadith you see Mirza
was not Messiah... If Mirza could receive Wahi from Allah, then
Bab and Bahaullah could have also received them. They all came
up with pretty much the same claim and very similar arguments...
As if the same poppettier was pulling their rope.
> > It is strange that those who accuse others of calling people kuffaar, do
> > it themselves and label the acts of Muslims as "Sunat-e-Kaafiriyya" - this
> > statement has not even been constructed properly in the Arabic language.
I suspect Ehmadhh must have learned his Arabic knowledge from books
written by Mirza Ghulam.
> > I do not know who nasir ahmad is and say only what Allaah subhaanahoo has
> > taught: Love is only for the sake of Allaah and hate is only for the
> > sake of Allaah.
>
> Actually, Muhammad s.a.w. said this, to my knowledge, and not Allah...
In Quran we are told that the Prophet(SAAW) did not speak of his own
mind...
If Mirza Ghulam Qadiani could claim to only speak/write revelations,
why couldn't the holy Prophet(SAAW) of Islam? Do you also believe what
Mirza claimed? That (God forbid) he was superior to the Holy
Prophet(SAAW)?
Now, this is Kofr, if I ever heard one.
Wassalam to Muslism.
Svend White
Good response.
> For the true teachings of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad please refer to:
> *www.muslim.org*
You should remember to add "http://" to the website so that it'll be a
hyperlink in people's emails.
Wasalaam.
a k r a m
--
****Svend|A|White**************>
****4401|W|Street|NW***********>
****Washington|DC|20007********>
****+1|202|338|6498************>
****sv...@erols.com************>
*****http://www.erols.com/svend>
"Hated by Fools and Fools to Hate.
Be that ever my Motto and my Fate."
- - - Jonathan Swift
Kerai N
as-salaamu `alaykum
On Fri, 7 Nov 1997 Ehm...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 05/11/97 13:37:14 EST, you write:
> > Now for one to learn this science, which
> > is known as sarf and nahw, he or she must a teacher whose is also a master
> > of this science. The student must have learnt from a teacher and then this
> > teacher has to give him or her ijaazah (permission) to use this knowledge
> > to derive rules (ahkaam). So to say that mirza qadiyani knew classical
> > Arabic, one must show who his teacher(s) was/were.
> Who did Muhammad s.a.w. learn Classical Arabic from?
I have 2 points to make about this question:
1. During his sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam's time, Arabic was at its most
elequent and beautiful state. Hence the Arabs learnt this "classical"
Arabic from birth.
2. The Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam only said what was wahi
(revelation) and hence, his Arabic is definitely the best. His Arabic was
not taught by any human. He was taught by Allaah directly! During his
time, he was around to explain the Qur'aan to his companions and this
knowledge was transmitted generation after generation - also being
compiled in millions of books, some volumous. So for one to understand the
Qur'aan, they must have the guidence of the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa
sallam. The Qur'aan states: "One is not a true believer, until they make
you, O beloved Muhammad, judge (hakeem)..."
This status of the Holy Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam is also
stated in the following verse:
"Qad jaa akum minallaahi nooru(n)w-wa kitaabum-mubeen" (5:15)
"Undoubtedly, from Allaah has come to you a light (Muhammad sallallaahu
`alayhi wa sallam) and a book manifest."
So without the knowledge given by the Holy Prophet one cannot possibly
understand the Qur'aan. The Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam is not
living in this world today, for him to teach us. So we have to gain this
knowledge from people who have authentic asaaneed (chains) going back to
the Prophet to gain this.
It is not possible for us to compare ourselves to the Prophet and say
something as though we are Prophets.
> As for Ahmad a.s., he
> did have teachers when he was young, and the name was Fadhal/Fazal, but this
> is besides the point.
This is not besides the point. Now you must provide fafhal/fazal's isnaad
(chain) back to the Holy Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam for the
knowledge he taught to be regarded as reliable. Also, you must provide
material written by ghulam qadiyaanee to prove that he knew classical
Arabic.
> Ijaazah may be required for Saudi Mullah Madrassahs
> etc, but there is no such criteria laid down in the Qur'an, or by Muhammad
> s.a.w. One does not a degree in Classical Arabic from Medinah University to
> be able to understand the Qur'an. Infact, many such people do not understand
> the deeper meanings of the Qur'an anyway.
I am not defending the saudi government teachers, but the Qur'aan does lay
down this criteria:
"Ask the people of knowledge of what you do not know"
> Ahmad a.s. received immense knowledge of Classical Arabic and the Qur'an from
> Allah Himself. There is no question regarding his knowledge of Classical
> Arabic. Perhaps you should read his books in Arabic if you can. There is a
> khutbah referred to as khutbah ilhamiyyah. I would suggest that you read it
> if you can; and then pass comments on the level of Arabic in there.
Muslims accept ilhaam as it is proven from the Qur'aan and Sunnah.
However, it is explicitly mentioned by all of the scholars who wrote on
this that ilhaam which contradicts the Qur'aan and Sunnah is not ilhaam,
but is from Shataan (See an-Nawawee's al-MaqaaSid). And i have several
references showing that ghulam qadiyaanee did not understand even the
verses with the most clear and explicit meanings. Hence he can't have
learnt from Allaahu ta'aalaa. And further evidence for this is the
challenge he made to Peer Mehr `Alee Shaah Saahib raheemahullaahu ta'aalaa
wa raDaa. This resulted in the humiliating death of mirza qaadiyaanee in a
toilet.
Please send me peices of Arabic which you concider prove his status in
understanding the Qur'aan.
> > As far as I know, he didn't have any and hence he does not hold
> > qualifications to derive rules from the Qur'aan and Sunnah.
> I guess this just means that he wasn't anything like your ordinary mullah. He
> was able to produce a masterpiece lecture on the Wisdom of the Islamic
> teachings in the Qur'an, which the mullahs can't match.
This is not the right attitude to take. We should fear Allaah and realise
that our discussion is to get the pleasure of Allaah.
I ask you, have you read any books by the great classical scholars of the
past? The answer is no, and hence you can't come so late and say that they
are this and that.
> > As for what was written about revelation (wahi), it is a fundamental
> > belief of a Muslim, that their is no wahi after the coming of our master,
> > Sayyidunaa Muhammadinil-Mustafaa sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam.
>
> Sahih Muslim states that the Masih to come will receive wahi from Allah. It
> may be a fundamental belief of some sects, but this belief is not supported
> by the Qur'an, or Muhammad s.a.w. If it is, prove it so that I may believe
> it.
I have not come across such a Hadeeth in SaHeeH Muslim. Maybe you could
provide some REAL references so that i may check it.
WaHee comes only to Prophet's and the Qur'aan states:
"Maa kaana MuHammadun abaa aHadun wa laa kir-Rasoolallaahi wa
khaataman-Nabiyyeen wa kaanallaahu bikulli shay-in aleemaa."
(al-Ahzaab, 40)
"MuHammad is not the father of any man, he is the Messenger of Allaah and
the seal of all the Prophets. And Allaah knows all things."
Hence no-one can claim waHee after MuHammad Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam.
> > > Love For All, Hatred For None! [Nasir Ahmad r.a.]
> > I do not know who nasir ahmad is and say only what Allaah subhaanahoo has
> > taught: Love is only for the sake of Allaah and hate is only for the
> > sake of Allaah.
>
> Actually, Muhammad s.a.w. said this, to my knowledge, and not Allah.
This is why i wrote, "Allaah subhaanahoo has TAUGHT..."
> In any
> case, the point being made is that you do not hate anyone out of some
> prejudices. And you hate the evil, not the person, as Lut a.s. said to his
> people. Nasir Ahmad r.a. was the 3rd Khalifa of Ahmad a.s.
This means that it is not known that he had knowledge of the Qur'aan or
Sunnah because his teachers go back to ghulam qaadiyaanee and it is not
known that he was qualified. And if he claimed waHee, he goes against a
clear belief shown by the Qur'aan.
> > > "There is to be no compulsion in matters of religion" [2:256]
> >
> > This aayat has nothing to do with the discussion, ie calling someone
> > kaafir or accusing someone of committing an act.
> I have this at the bottom of all my posts. It is part of my *signature* on
> these newsgroups.
ok, no problem:)
Ehmadhh
In article <6476e6$4...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, Kavosh Soltani
<kav...@erols.com> writes:
>Of course, this "deeper" meaning often comes after using drugs!
In that case, I would suggest that you present straight out of your
tafseer books, the commentary on ayah [27:44]. We wil lthen compare what
Ahmad a.s. said in relation to this, and what your scholars wrote, and we
will see who was intoxicated by worldliness, and who was intoxicated by
godliness.
>Yes, one that no doubt he could not have been the sole author of.
That's what the non-Muslims say about Muhammad s.a.w. - that he was taught
by others; and this is recorded in the Qur'an.
>> He was able to produce a masterpiece lecture on the Wisdom of the Islamic
>> teachings in the Qur'an, which the mullahs can't match.
>
>Again, your opinion. He did not even produce a masterpiece in Urdu or
>Persian...
I have previously posted the comments of various reporters who attended
the conference of world religions, and compared the lecture of Ahmad a.s.
"Islami usool kee filosfi" with those by the other mullahs, and described
these as *banal mullahisms*, and that of Ahmad a.s. as the best lecture,
replete with Qur'anic wisdom etc. I could ofcourse, post those reviews
again, insha'allah.
>> Sahih Muslim states that the Masih to come will receive wahi from Allah.
>> It may be a fundamental belief of some sects, but this belief is not
>> supported by the Qur'an, or Muhammad s.a.w. If it is, prove it so that I
>> may believe it.
>
>You are telling us this was not another "metaphore" for - let's
>see... - a phone call?!!!
Having realised that the argument is irrefutable, Kavosh, having no proof
whatsoever, resorts to being shamelessly silly rather than accept it, or
even shut up.
> If Mirza could receive Wahi from Allah, then
>Bab and Bahaullah could have also received them. They all came
>up with pretty much the same claim and very similar arguments...
>As if the same poppettier was pulling their rope.
As a Baha'ee has already corrected you elsewhere, the baab was shot by a
firing squad. And the BahaUllah actually claimed to be the "Promised One"
by Baab etc, and never once claimed prophethood. He rather claimed
divinity, and those who claim divinity, and that the Kitaab Aqdas proceeded
from himself, and hence he did not attribute anything to Allah; rather he
claimed divinity, not prophethood, for himself. And such people do not come
under the purview of sura al haaqah.
>I suspect Ehmadhh must have learned his Arabic knowledge from books
>written by Mirza Ghulam.
I never said it was an Arabic expression. It was perfectly accurate in
urdu. In Arabic, we say *Al Jamaa'atul Ahmadiyya*, whilst in urdu we say:
Jama'at-e-Ahmadiyya.
>In Quran we are told that the Prophet(SAAW) did not speak of his own
>mind...
Yes, I know, in sura najm. But this is mere polemics. The statement was
made by Muhammad s.a.w., and that fact is what I was stating.
>That (God forbid) he was superior to the Holy Prophet(SAAW)?
>Now, this is Kofr, if I ever heard one.
Yes, kufr is to deny the truth, and the truth is that Ahmad a.s. did not
claim to be superior to Muhammad s.a.w., whom he considered as the Most
Exalted of the Prophets. It kinda rules out anybody else being superior to
him!!!!
Wassalam 'alaa man ittebaa alhudaa.
Love For All, Hatred For None! [Nasir Ahmad r.a.]
"There is to be no compulsion in matters of religion" [2:256]
[PS: If possible, please also directly email to me any responses to this
message. Thanks.]
Svend White
Ehmad wrote:
> fa...@aol.com (Fazsk) writes:
>
> >Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad received saintly revelations not prophetic
>
> what was the point of writing the booklet *Aik Ghalati ka Izaala*, i.e. a
> misunderstanding removed? And it was written after an Ahmadi made the
> mistake of denying the claim to prophethood.
Whether he realizes it or not, Ehmad is gravely misrepresenting the
clear message AIK GHALATI KA IZALA here.
Rather than repeat myself til I'm blue in the face, I will direct
people's attention to 2 URLs which undeniably refute this claim:
My page has a short but pithy essay on the matter
(http://www.erols.com/svend/misunderstanding.htm). In this essay, a
Lahori scholar responds to another Qadiani who used this argument.
For a more comprehensive examination of the document which includes the
Urdu original, see http://tariq.bitshop.com/misconceptions/aik/aik.htm.
Wasalaam.
s v e n d
Ehmadhh
In article <64adso$qcm$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>, Kerai N <zb...@city.ac.uk>
writes:
> 1. During his sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam's time, Arabic was at its most
> elequent and beautiful state. Hence the Arabs learnt this "classical"
> Arabic from birth.
I would say that this is a rather exaggerated statement. Muhammad s.a.w.
learnt Spoken Arabic. He did not necessarily know all the roots of the
entire Classical Arabic. His knowledge was given to him by Allah. This was
his pride, and the miracle of the Qur'an, that he was an illiterate person
who otherwise could not have composed such a book. Now, if his knowledge of
Classical Arabic was so good, then it is immaterial whether he knew how to
read or write, or not, because he could have dictated his own composed
verses to scribes. No, the fact is that the Qur'an was revealed by Allah,
the All-Knowing.
> So for one to understand the
> Qur'aan, they must have the guidence of the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa
> sallam.
Agreed.
> So without the knowledge given by the Holy Prophet one cannot possibly
> understand the Qur'aan.
Whilst I understand the basic point, the above statement is not entirely
true. How then do you explain [3:7]? Who are the ar-raasikhouna fil 'ilm,
and the 'ulul al baab?
> It is not possible for us to compare ourselves to the Prophet and say
> something as though we are Prophets.
Okay; agreed.
> This is not besides the point. Now you must provide fafhal/fazal's isnaad
> (chain) back to the Holy Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam for the
> knowledge he taught to be regarded as reliable.
These scholars were immaterial; in that they only taught him the basics of
Arabic language and Islamic knowledge, which many others would know anyway.
Ahmad's a.s. gifted knowledge was given to him by Allah's Grace/Fadhl.
> Also, you must provide
> material written by ghulam qadiyaanee to prove that he knew classical
> Arabic.
His books written in Classical Arabic as well as the famous Khutbah
Ilhaamiyyah, are evidence for this, and can be sought from the Ahmadiyya
Jama'at.
> "Ask the people of knowledge of what you do not know"
Allah Himself is the source of all True and Correct Knowledge. And we can
refer to those who are grounded in knowledge [3:7]
> And i have several
> references showing that ghulam qadiyaanee did not understand even the
> verses with the most clear and explicit meanings. Hence he can't have
> learnt from Allaahu ta'aalaa.
Why don't you show such references as cause a problem for you? As regards
verses he didn't understand, let us chose an ayah for comparison purposes.
Please tell me the tafseer of the ayah 27:44 given by non-Ahmadi scholars,
and I will give you the one by Ahmad a.s. for comparison.
> And further evidence for this is the
> challenge he made to Peer Mehr `Alee Shaah Saahib raheemahullaahu ta'aalaa
> wa raDaa. This resulted in the humiliating death of mirza qaadiyaanee in a
> toilet.
Please provide evidence for this allegation. How do the mullahs know that
he died on the toilet? There was no mullah around when he passed away
sometime after fajr salaat, on his bed, with the name of Allah on his lips.
What is the name of the mullah that was perhaps peeping into Ahmad's a.s.
house from the outside, andperhaps saw someone go into the toilet? What was
his name? Was it this Peer Mehr 'Alee Shaah Sahib who was the *Peeping
Mullah*? You see, anyone can make ridiculous allegations, but as there is
no proof, one has no choice but to throw it away as rubbish and nonsense.
Infact, this allegation prooves that though Ahmad a.s. claimed to receive
revelations from Allah, he was not killed, as sura al haaqah states would
happen to false prophets, i.e. death by loss of blood, due to a severance
of an artery. Ahmad a.s. died a natural death, proving that his claim to
have received revelation from Allah was true. Do you see my point?
> Please send me peices of Arabic which you concider prove his status in
> understanding the Qur'aan.
I will give you his tafseer of ayah 27:44, but only after you have given
me the tafseer from non-Ahmadi scholars.
> I ask you, have you read any books by the great classical scholars of the
> past? The answer is no, and hence you can't come so late and say that they
> are this and that.
For a start, I have read some of the writings of previous Islamic
scholars, whom I respect, as did Ahmad a.s., but my comparison was not with
them, rather it was with the contemporary opponent mullahs, who denounced
him as a liar etc.
> I have not come across such a Hadeeth in SaHeeH Muslim. Maybe you could
> provide some REAL references so that i may check it.
Well, I have read it myself, and it is also recorded in Riyadhus Saaliheen
by Imam Nawawi. In Riyadh, it is in the section on the latter days etc, as
it is also in the Sahih Muslim. And others on the board have accepted that
the hadeeth exists.
> WaHee comes only to Prophet's and the Qur'aan states:
Where is this rule given? I know it is not stated in the Qur'an.
> "Maa kaana MuHammadun abaa aHadun wa laa kir-Rasoolallaahi wa
> khaataman-Nabiyyeen wa kaanallaahu bikulli shay-in aleemaa."
> (al-Ahzaab, 40)
> Hence no-one can claim waHee after MuHammad Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam.
Even if I was to accept that this ayah means that there is no prophet to
come after Muhammad s.a.w., this verse does not state that no other person
other than a prophet can receive wahi. Wahi does not necessarily mean
shariat wahi anyway. Besides, as I said, the masih to come was prophecied
to receive wahi from Allah anyway.
Wasalaam.
Love For All, Hatred For None! [Nasir Ahmad r.a.]
"There is to be no compulsion in matters of religion" [2:256]
[PS: If possible, please also directly email to me any responses to this
message. Thanks.]
Chairul Bahri
Assalamo alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatohu,
I appreciate Br. Svend's effort to bring readers' attention to the
original (Urdu text) and the English translation of Eik Ghalti Ka Izala.
Just a comment on the translation in
http://tariq.bitshop.com/misconceptions/aik/aik.htm
that it would be fair for non-Urdu lettered readers if the translator,
Mr. Zahid Aziz, or the owner of the page does not include the
translator's own personal notes. Hence I would like to invite the
readers to http://ahmadiyya.org/pm/ghalati.html.
Urdu-lettered readers are especially invited to judge the interpretation
between the two
1) Jamaat Ahmadiyya, who believe in the prophethood of Hazrat Mirza
Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian with the understanding that his prophethood is
derived from the prophethood of the Seal of the Prophets, Muhammad
Mustafa (SAS). Nevertheless, the revelation he received was from the
same God who revealed His Word to Moses, Jesus (Alahimussalam), and the
Holy Prophet, Muhammad (SAS).
2) Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat Islam, who believe that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad of Qadian is not a prophet.
Nevertheless both believe that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the Promised
Messiah and Mahdi who was prophecied by the Holy Prophet, Muhammad
(SAS).
Wassalam,
Chairul Bahri
PS: I am not an Urdu-lettered person.
Svend White
Ehmad wrote:
> So, we see that the accuser now finds himself on trial as the accused, as
> usual. What is the point of making such ludicrous subject titles, when the
> reality is the reverse, as is so obvious now? Svend has just shot himself
> in his own foot. Sooner or later, if he continues with his strange twist
> of other people's statements, he will find that he has no foot of his own
> to be shot!
Ever the consumate sportsman, Ehmad is playing games with us here.
He accuses me of misrepresenting him, when he is in fact misrepresenting
himself. Let's review recent history:
1) In a recent message, Fazeel reiterated his (and my) view that Hazrat
Mirza was not prophet in anything beyond the literal sense. In his
message, Fazeel obviously employed the word "prophet" in this Sunni
sense.
2) Ehmad then rebutted Fazeel's message, using the word "prophet"
without noting any difference of nomenclature.
3) I then rebutted Ehmad's claim that Hazrat Mirza was a "prophet",
using the word in the same sense as Fazeel's original message.
4) Now, Ehmad accuses me of malicious misrepresentation, saying that he
meant "prophet" in another sense!
Who says Usenet is boring?!?
I think the facts speak for themselves.
Moving right along...
> [...]Svend has just shot himself
> in his own foot. Sooner or later, if he continues with his strange twist
> of other people's statements, he will find that he has no foot of his own
> to be shot!
Ehmad has been completely unable to explain away Mahmud Ahmad's
blatantly un-Islamic takfir pronouncements and the shocking habit of
Qadiani translators of adding "clarifying" words to the writings of
Hazrat Mirza. In other words, he's been unable to refute the criticisms
we've made.
What's Ehmad's counterattack to this string of blows to Qadiani
credibility? Name-calling!
I'm tempted to call this *ad hominem* rebuttal "character assasination",
but that would be quite unfair, as the attempt on my life was
spectacularly unsuccessful. None of his personal attacks against me are
actually supported with any cogent arguments, so I don't think my
reputation has been put in much danger.
So, if I've "shot myself in the foot", then it seems to me that Ehmad
has amputated his whole leg, as the palpable desperation of that message
only reveals how completely unable he is to disprove our "lies".
> And I would recommend all interested persons to read the original document
> for themselves, if they can, and not someone elses distorted essay on it.
> Given your inability to state the truth about what statement of Fazsk's I
> was responding to, your essay on what Ahmad a.s. wrote in his booklet loses
> all credibility. Sorry.
> And I would recommend all interested persons to read the original document
> for themselves, if they can, and not someone elses distorted essay on it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, then you'd better stay clear of your own website, as your
translation one-ups our "distored essay" by DISTORTING THE ORIGINAL
TEXT!
I note with interest how, even when you thunder your loudest, you don't
dare challenge the word-for-word accuracy of Dr. Aziz's translation.
My my, how the cocky have fallen...
Svend White
AA everybody,
Chairul Bahri wrote:
> Just a comment on the translation in
> http://tariq.bitshop.com/misconceptions/aik/aik.htm
> that it would be fair for non-Urdu lettered readers if the translator,
> Mr. Zahid Aziz, or the owner of the page does not include the
> translator's own personal notes. Hence I would like to invite the
> readers to http://ahmadiyya.org/pm/ghalati.html.
I thank Br. Chairul for his contribution, even if I'm a little puzzled
by it.
I mean no disrespect, but--Life's too short to beat around the bush
here--I don't think this criticism makes any sense for 2 reasons.
1) If you go to http://tariq.bitshop.com/misconceptions.aik/aik.htm and
look at Dr. Aziz' translation of CORRECTION OF AN ERROR (aka "AIK
GHALATI KA IZALA") [*], you will see that his "personal notes" are
nothing more than endnotes! Within the text, his notes are merely
denoted by numbers (e.g., "[1]"), so I don't see how his commentary
could interfere with an objective examination of CORRECTION OF AN ERROR.
[*] This is a pamplet written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in 1900. Despite
the fact that, in the very same book, Hazrat Mirza repeatedly stresses
the need to understand his present claims on prophethood by examining
his *previous* writings, Qadianis claim this work was where Hazrat Mirza
reversed himself, claiming full prophethood for the first time and
repudiating his own teachings from the last decade. Lahori Ahmadis
believe, to the contrary, that this work is a clear (if often
misrepresented) reaffirmation of his numerous previous denials of being
a prophet in anything other than the *literal* sense (i.e., one who
receives visions from Allah).
Notice the above 2 paragraphs. Did my asterisk distract the reader
from the message of the 1st paragraph? Hardly.
That is exactly how Dr. Aziz' "own personal notes" are!
In conclusion, this is definitely the first time I've seen a translation
criticized NOT for the actual translation, but for the fact that the
translator has inserted helpful footnotes.
> it would be fair for non-Urdu lettered readers if the translator,
> Mr. Zahid Aziz, or the owner of the page does not include the
> translator's own personal notes.
I notice that Br. Chairul has not challenged the substance of any
SPECIFIC footnote Dr. Aziz, so I assume that his disapproval is based on
a philosophical difference, a general desire to let the text speak for
itself.
In my other message, we'll see how this is a VERY ironic complaint,
coming from a Qadiani.
Ehmadhh
In article <64ipfd$7rj$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>, fa...@aol.com (Fazsk) writes:
<<P.S. Ehmadhh, as it has been some time now, I think it is appropriate to
ask why you haven't replied to my posting (Did Ghulam Ahmad claim
prophethood - A Reply) which was directed specifically towards you and in
response to one of your postings. Instead you disappeard for about a week,
and now seem to have pushed it aside. If you want I can repost it to
refresh your memory. >>
I see, so you object if I avoid quick replies to your posts, whereas you
have avoided answering numerous postings of mine in the past? You are the
ones who disappear for weeks, and now you try to level the same argunment
against me. It indicates to me that you are aware that you avoided numerous
posts of mine.
I am not interested in playing your silly games of cat and mouse. And I am
glad that my delayed response to just one of your posts has given you half
an opportunity to throw back the allegation at me, indicating to me that
you are consciously aware of your own avoidance of many of my posts.
I will post a declaration of Ahmad a.s. made just the day prior to his
demise, and I would like to see you comment on this very writing,
apparently the last one he made on this subject. The quote will be posted
in the new folder entitled:
*Ahmad a.s. Refutes the Propaganda of Lahoris & Non-Ahmadis.*
Ehmadhh
> Wow, quite another ignorant attempt to hide from the truth from the infamous
> Ehamdhh. Quite honestly, this is becoming pretty comical because of
> Ehmadhh's shamelessness.
I could retort back with equal vehemence, but I will refrain from it. Any
reasonable person who reads my reply to you and to Svend's posting, will
agree that you had stated falsehood.
<<How many times will it take explaining this same point over and over
before you will accept the fact, from Hazrat Mirza's own writings may I
add, that all of the terms indicated above refer to metaphorical
prophethood. Hazrat Mirza has clearly explained that one who is
*"fana-fir-rasul"* and the *"Buruz"* and *"Zilli"* of a prophet is a saint
(muhaddas) and non-prophet. SUCH A ONE IS NOT A PROPHET. For instance he
writes:>>
What you do is pick and chose passages out of context, and missing out his
own definition of the terminology, and try to misrepresent the writings of
Ahmad a.s. I have shown this many times before, but whenever I do so, you
guys disappear for some weeks and come back again with the same old
nonsense, having evaded the reply to my posting. This only goes to show
every reasonable readers of these posts, your own dishonesty.
To close this matter once and for all, I am going to post a recorded
statement of Ahmad a.s. written just the day prior to his demise. I would
ask you to comment on this statement, not by posting apparently
contradictory ones (taken out of context and in isolation), but by trying
to explain what he actually said. I will provide his rather conclusive
statment in a new folder, entitled:
*Ahmad a.s. Refutes the Propaganda of Lahoris & Non-Ahmadis.*
<<Can it not be seen by the Hadith Report itself in which the Promised
Messiah is referred to as "Nabi" that it is meant in a metaphorical sense?
... IF ALL THESE NAMES AND DESCRIPTIONS ARE METAPHORICAL, WHY NOT THE WORD
"PROPHET"??? >>
In the same hadeeth, it is mentioned that the *Isa ibn Maryam* to come,
will receive revelation from Allah (after which he is described as
NabiUllah). By your argument, the revelation will be a METAPHORICAL
REVELATION FROM A METAPHORICAL ALLAH!!!!! Do you subscribe to such an
absurd belief? Now, I have put forward this argument previously, but there
was silence from you guys to it. Yet you go on repeating the same absurd
illogical argument. Who are you trying to fool, other than yourselves?
The fact is that it is pretty clear from the hadeeth that upon receipt of
revelation this prophecied *Isa ibn Maryam* will become a NabiUllah. This
in itself proves that this Muslim Masih will advance to the status of
prophethood, and hence cannot be the self same Isa ibn maryam of the past,
as he was given the status of a prophet of God then, and will not have to
achieve the status of prophet again.
<< Even though Hazrat Mirza has explained that the word prophet is to be
taken METAPHORICALLY (such as in Tazkirat-ush-Shahadatain, p.43; and also
in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, p.390) >>
Again the same absurd point, which has been refuted many times previously,
but you remained silent. In these places Ahmad a.s. defined real and
metaphorical prophethood as full-fledged shariat bearing prophethood
(real), and non-law bearing prophethood (metaphorical). But you are fond of
quoting passages OUT OF CONTEXT OF THE DEFINITIONS Ahmad a.s. himself
provided for the terminology he used. Again, who are you trying to fool,
and what are you trying to achieve?
<< And interestingly enough, the word "prophet" does not occur concerning
the Promised Messiah in any other report in the numerous prophecies
concerning his appearance except in this report, not a single word of which
can be interpreted other than metaphorically. >>
I guess you believe in a metaphorical Allah, and in a metaphorical
revelation too? Well, good luck to you then.
>Ehmadhh further states (once again!!!) that Hazrat Mirza only denied being an
> independent shariat bearing prophet. Yes Ehmadhh, we got your point already,
Oh thank goodness for that. Perhaps you are not a thick brick wall after
all. Yet your false statement to which I replied did not state that, did
it? You said that he kept denying prophethood all his life, whereas he
himself stated that what he denied was independent law-bearing prophethood.
> but try for once to understand that a dependent (follower) non-law bearing
> prophet, from Hazrat Mirza's own writings, is given the title *Mujadid*.
On the contrary, a Mujaddid is not a prophet. His status is below that of
a Khalifa-Raashid. And the status of Imam Mahdi/Promised Messiah is that of
a NabiUllah and Khalifatullah (prophet).
<<Ehamdhh, in your response, you have made a startling comparison between
the true followers of Isa a.s. (ebionites/nazerens) and the Lahore
Ahmadiyya Jamaat. I should thank you because I really never realized such a
similarity before.>>
On the contrary, you are trying to put words into my mouth, and I object
because this is blatant falsehood. The ebionites refused to gravitate
towards the majority erroneous beliefs, which Paul had corrupted the
teachings of Jesus with. And like Paul who gravitated towards majority
beliefs, Lahori Ahmadis have also compromised truth with the falsehood of
the majority mullahs. Whereas the Ahmadiyya Jama'at has maintained its
truthful stand from the beginning.
<< You even referred to the fact that these true followers even denied the
virgin birth theory attributed to Isa a.s. >>
The ebionites believed that Jesus was son of Joseph, and this was wrong,
as the Qur'an tells. As for unity amongst Muslims, this is not going to be
acheived by some false and sentimental ideas, but by basing it on truth.
Wasalaam 'alaa man ittebaa alhudaa.
Svend White
Ehmad wrote:
> As for unity amongst Muslims, this is not going to be
> acheived by some false and sentimental ideas, but by basing it on truth.
A rather euphemistic way to put it! Don't you really mean by
"submitting to my khalifa"?
Just like any other religious sect, you want to take over and make
everybody else follow your idea of the "truth". You'd even impose your
version of the truth on other Muslims!
This "unity" based on a papal goosestep is un-Islamic, as it eliminates
the individual's relationship with God.
Wasalaam.
sv e n d
Ehmadhh
> 1. During his sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam's time, Arabic was at its most
> elequent and beautiful state. Hence the Arabs learnt this "classical"
> Arabic from birth.
I would say that this is rather an exaggerated statement. Muhammad s.a.w.
learnt Spoken Arabic. He did not necessarily know all the roots of the
entire Classical Arabic. His knowledge was given to him by Allah. This was
his pride, and the miracle of the Qur'an, that he was an illiterate person
who otherwise could not have composed such a book. Now, if his knowledge of
Classical Arabic was so good, then it is immaterial whether he knew how to
read or write, or not, because he could have dictated his own composed
verses to scribes. No, the fact is that the Qur'an was revealed by Allah,
the All-Knowing.
> 2.......... So for one to understand the
> Qur'aan, they must have the guidence of the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa
> sallam. The Qur'aan states: "One is not a true believer, until they make
> you, O beloved Muhammad, judge (hakeem)..."
Agreed.
> It is not possible for us to compare ourselves to the Prophet and say
> something as though we are Prophets.
Okay; agreed.
>
> > As for Ahmad a.s., he
> > did have teachers when he was young, and the name was Fadhal/Fazal, but
> > this is besides the point.
>
> This is not besides the point. Now you must provide fafhal/fazal's isnaad
> (chain) back to the Holy Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam for the
> knowledge he taught to be regarded as reliable.
These scholars were immaterial; in that they only taught him the basics of
Arabic language and Islamic knowledge, which many others would know anyway.
Ahmad's a.s. gifted knowledge was given to him by Allah, by Allah's
Grace/Fadhl.
> Also, you must provide
> material written by ghulam qadiyaanee to prove that he knew classical
> Arabic.
His books written in Classical Arabic as well as the famous Khutbah
Ilhaamiyyah, are evidence for this, and can be sought from the Ahmadiyya
Jama'at.
> I am not defending the saudi government teachers, but the Qur'aan does lay
> down this criteria:
> "Ask the people of knowledge of what you do not know"
Allah Himself is the source of all True and Correct Knowledge. And every
group considers their own Imams to have the right guidance. Do you accept
shi'a Imams as infallible?
> And i have several
> references showing that ghulam qadiyaanee did not understand even the
> verses with the most clear and explicit meanings. Hence he can't have
> learnt from Allaahu ta'aalaa.
Why don't you send me such references as cause a problem for you? As
regards verses he didn't understand, let us chose an ayah for comparison
purposes. Please tell me the tafseer of the ayah 27:44 given by non-Ahmadi
scholars, and I will give you the one by Ahmad a.s. for comparison.
> And further evidence for this is the
> challenge he made to Peer Mehr `Alee Shaah Saahib raheemahullaahu ta'aalaa
> wa raDaa. This resulted in the humiliating death of mirza qaadiyaanee in a
> toilet.
Please provide evidence for this allegation. How do the mullahs know that
he died on the toilet? What is the name of the mullah that was perhaps
peeping into Ahmad's a.s. house from the outside? Was it this Peer Mehr
'Alee Shaah Sahib who was the *Peeping Mullah*? You see, anyone can make
ridiculous allegations, but as there is no proof, one has no choice but to
throw it away as rubbish and nonsense. Infact, this allegation prooves that
though Ahmad a.s. claimed to receive revelations from Allah, he was not
killed, as sura al haaqah states would happen to false prophets, i.e. death
by loss of blood, due to a severance of an artery. Ahmad a.s. died a
natural death, proving that his claim to have received revelation from
Allah was true. Do you see my point?
> Please send me peices of Arabic which you concider prove his status in
> understanding the Qur'aan.
I will give you his tafseer of ayah 27:44, but only after you have given
me the tafseer from non-Ahmadi scholars.
> I ask you, have you read any books by the great classical scholars of the
> past? The answer is no, and hence you can't come so late and say that they
> are this and that.
For a start, I have read some of the writings of previous Islamic
scholars, whom I respect, as did Ahmad a.s., but my comparison was not with
them, rather it was with the contemporary opponent mullahs, who denounced
him as a liar etc.
> I have not come across such a Hadeeth in SaHeeH Muslim. Maybe you could
> provide some REAL references so that i may check it.
Well, I have read it myself, and it is also recorded in Riyadhus Saaliheen
by Imam Nawawi. In Riyadh, it is in the section on the later days etc, as
it is also in the Sahih Muslim. And others on the board have accepted that
the hadeeth exists. Perhaps someone will give a reference to it.
> "MuHammad is not the father of any man, he is the Messenger of Allaah and
> the seal of all the Prophets. And Allaah knows all things."
> Hence no-one can claim waHee after MuHammad Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam.
Even if I was to accept that this ayah means that there is no prophet to
come after Muhammad s.a.w., this verse does not state that no other person
can receive wahi. Wahi does not necessarily mean shariat wahi anyway.
Besides, as I said, the masih to come was prophecied to receive wahi from
Allah anyway.
Wasalaam.
Love For All, Hatred For None! [Nasir Ahmad r.a.]
"There is to be no compulsion in matters of religion" [2:256]
[PS: If possible, please also directly email to me any responses to this
message. Thanks.]
Fazsk
Assalamu Aleikum to all.
Ehmadhh writes:
>I see, so you object if I avoid quick replies to your posts, whereas you
>have avoided answering numerous postings of mine in the past? You are the
>ones who disappear for weeks, and now you try to level the same argunment
>against me. It indicates to me that you are aware that you avoided numerous
>posts of mine.
Ehmadhh, it is quite obvious that you are losing it, if you haven't completely
lost it already. First off, my posting was dated nearly a month ago. Secondly,
it was directed specifically to you (had your name as the Recipient). Thirdly,
it was in response to one of your postings (you would naturally have the
burden to reply).
I have never avoided answering any posts that were directed to me specifically.
Sure, I don't reply to all of your posts, I don't think I have any reason to.
Anyways, most of the time, someone replies to your postings before I even get
a chance to put my two-bits in. Furthermore, as I have already stated, I would
be obligated to answer posts that were specifically directed to me or in
response to one of my posts (*as my post was in response to yours*), but not
to every one of your, usually quite absurd, articles.
As I have mentioned to you before, I only get time about once a week to reply
to any articles, and it is quite discouraging to reply to you simply because
you repeat yourself over and over and always attempt to divert the issues at
hand - I guess that this was your motive and a quite successful one at that,
so far.
Ehmadhh, how can you state that your postings were not addressed? Which
postings are you referring to? I know for a fact that Svend and Tariq have
both responded to your postings numerous times! Are you referring to your
allegations against Maulana Muhammad Ali? If this is it, then you are in luck.
Here's the web address which you can go to and read the response to your
allegations and fanciful stories:
http://tariq.bitshop.com/sri/mali1.htm
Enjoy!
May Almighty Allah Guide us all to the Truth
Yours in Islam
Fazeel
Fazsk
Assalamu Aleikum to all.
Oh, Ehmadhh, give it up! This is pitiful indeed.
>What you do is pick and chose passages out of context, and missing out his
>own definition of the terminology, and try to misrepresent the writings of
>Ahmad a.s. I have shown this many times before, but whenever I do so, you
>guys disappear for some weeks and come back again with the same old
>nonsense, having evaded the reply to my posting. This only goes to show
>every reasonable readers of these posts, your own dishonesty.
Mere boasting isn't going to cut it, buddy. Can you support any of these
absurdities? On the contrary, we have shown numerous times from a
chronological perspective what the views of Hazrat Mirza was and how he
consistently defined certain terms (such as baruz, zilli nubuwaat....etc.).
You do not even attempt to refute the quotations which I posted and yet have
all these baseless things to say. Try focussing on the evidence and the proof
in your responses and then people might start taking you seriously.
>By your argument, the revelation will be a METAPHORICAL
>REVELATION FROM A METAPHORICAL ALLAH!!!!! Do you subscribe to such an
>absurd belief?
How far will you go to try to evade from the real issues? It is quite apparent,
I think to all readers, what I am referring to in this passage. The
descriptions of the Promised Messiah (all of them) are to be taken
metaphorically, is my point. Naturally, as prophecies are related to future
events, one sees them through their spiritual eye and not physical. The
revelation of Allah as well as Almighty Allah is not part of any prophecy or
about any future event. On what basis would that be taken in a metaphorical
sense? Almighty Allah, as well as revalation from Him, is the past, present
and future - it does not come within the issue of the prophecy. The prophecy
is about the descriptions of the Promised Messiah, and as it is a prophecy, it
should be given a metaphorical meaning, rather than literal, as most
prophecies are (eg. the sun rising from the west, the description of the
Dajjal, the conditions at the end of times in the last days ...etc.).
Furthermore, who or what gives you the authority to pick and choose which parts
of the prophecy relating to the descriptions of the Promised Messiah should be
taken metaphorically or literally? As a Qadiani, you believe that the terms
Isa ibn Maryam are metaphorically describing Hazrat Mirza (as he possessed the
qualities of Hazrat Isa) and you also believe the descriptions of the Masih
Mauood's arrival (eg. by the minaret in Damascus with two angels on his
side...etc.) to be metaphorical. How can you now present such an argument
without first looking at your own beliefs? The very same argument can be put
to you by someone who is not an Ahmadi. What if someone asks you: will the
revelation be Metaphorical and from a metaphorical Allah. You have no
reasonable answer for this because you are accepting only some of the parts of
this prophecy as metaphorical and not others. Remember, I clearly believe
*ALL* the descriptions of the Promised Messiah in this prophecy to be taken
metaphorically!
>The fact is that it is pretty clear from the hadeeth that upon receipt of
>revelation this prophecied *Isa ibn Maryam* will become a NabiUllah. This
>in itself proves that this Muslim Masih will advance to the status of
>prophethood, and hence cannot be the self same Isa ibn maryam of the past,
>as he was given the status of a prophet of God then, and will not have to
>achieve the status of prophet again.
Where do you get this from? If you are going to attribute things to someone (in
this case Hazrat Mirza), present your proof from the person himself. Did
Hazrat Mirza ever give such an interpretation to the term "NabiUllah*? Can you
back up such bold statements?
>Again the same absurd point, which has been refuted many times previously,
>but you remained silent. In these places Ahmad a.s. defined real and
>metaphorical prophethood as full-fledged shariat bearing prophethood
>(real), and non-law bearing prophethood (metaphorical). But you are fond of
>quoting passages OUT OF CONTEXT OF THE DEFINITIONS Ahmad a.s. himself
>provided for the terminology he used. Again, who are you trying to fool,
>and what are you trying to achieve?
Ehmadhh, give me a break! This is what I meant when I was referring to your
shamelessness. You state these absurd notions without any proof. You can go on
blowing your own trumpet till you turn blue in the face, but this will never
support your falsehood. Instead of merely accussing me of such things, why
don't you present your proof? Show me if I am being dishonest in any way. I
pray Almighty Allah will bring about the truth as He wills.
>On the contrary, you are trying to put words into my mouth, and I object
>because this is blatant falsehood. The ebionites refused to gravitate
>towards the majority erroneous beliefs, which Paul had corrupted the
>teachings of Jesus with. And like Paul who gravitated towards majority
>beliefs, Lahori Ahmadis have also compromised truth with the falsehood of
>the majority mullahs. Whereas the Ahmadiyya Jama'at has maintained its
>truthful stand from the beginning.
You unfortunate soul; you can not see your hypocracy even when its staring
right at you. As I had stated, you can not compare the Lahore group to the
Christians in any way because we accept the lower, but true, status of the
founder. You can only compare a group to the Christians who have falsely
elevated the status of a person (just as the Christians falsely refer to
Prophet Jesus as son of God and even God, and the Qadianis refer to Hazrat
Mirza as a Prophet). Futhermore, even using your analogy, you would still be
likened to the Christians. If the Christians had gravitated towards the
majority erroneous beliefs, so to have the Qadianis done so by accepting the
false notion that the Promised Messiah to come would HAVE to be a prophet!!!
This was and still is the view of most Muslims, and you my friend have also
fallen within this group!
May Almighty Allah Guide us all to the Truth
Yours in Islam
Fazeel.
Kavosh Soltani
[This article originally posted on Sunday]
Ehmadhh wrote:
>
> In article <647625$4...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, fa...@aol.com (Fazsk) writes:
>
> >Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad received saintly revelations not prophetic...
I don't think So! One of his claims was that he was the
superior second advent of the Holy Prophet(SAAW):
"And Allah sent down upon me the bounty of the Holy Prophet and
made it perfect; and he drew towards me the kindness and generosity
of the merciful Prophet, so that I became one with him. Thus, he
who joins my group, joins the group of the companions (Sahaba)
of my Leader, the best of messengers. It is not hidden from those
who have the ability to think that this is what the words "Akhareen
Menhom" (others of them) mean. The person who makes a difference
between me and the Mustafa has neither seen me nor recognized me."
(Khutba-e-Ilhamiah, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 16, P. 258-259)
Many many more revealing quotes are at:
http://www.irshad.org/idara/qadiani/mzomuhd.htm
and
http://www.nl-marketing.com/netlink/rashid/anti_ahmadiyya.html
Not only Mirza claimed to be a Prophet superior to hazrat
Muhammad(SAAW) and called created a new faith; but, he called
his religion "Islam" and called "Islam of Muhammad Dead"...
Thus, he is the only way one can achieve salvation:
"Blessed (is) he who has recognized me. Of all the paths of
God I am the last path, and of all His lights I am the last
light. Unfortunate is he who forsakes me, because without
me all is darkness."
(Kashti-e-Nooh, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 19, P. 61)
> The fact is that the sort of prophethood he denied was the non-Ahmadi
> mullah concept of prophethood, i.e. shariat-based prophethood.
We have seen how Qadianis/Ahmdis keep changing their story and
come up with new excuses why Mirza's claims should not be
viewed as unIslamic. Islam does not allow for any new Prophet.
Once more, Sharia and no-Sharia is just another smoke screen
to divert our attention from the Kofr they are advancing.
But, I think you might like one reference from Mirza to
see what he thought of his "revelations":
"On top of it you must realize what Shariat (religious law)
really is. Simply it orders proper conduct and forbids
indecency. One who lays down certain commands and prohibitions
(i.e. Amr bil Maroof and Nahi an-ilMunkar) is an ordinate of
Shariat and I am the ordinate of Shariat, because my revelations
contain both commandments (awamir) and prohibitions (Nawahi).
It is wrong that Shariat should decree totally new orders as
there is much teaching in the Quran which is also found in the
Torah. That explains why, in the Quran, there is much reference
to it in the following verse: 'This has been revealed in the
former books - those of Moses and Ibrahim.'"
(Arbain, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 17, P. 435-436)
First he defined what Sharia is and said he does not need
to bring completely new Sharia, then he says:
"My teachings contain orders as well as prohibitions and
renovations of important injunctions of the Shariah. For
this reason, God has named my teachings and the revelations
(Wahi) that comes to me as "Falak" (Boat).... Thus see, God
has declared my revelations, my teachings and my allegiance to
be Noah's Ark and as the basis of salvation for all human
beings. Let him who has eyes see and him who has ears hear."
(Arbain, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 17, P. 435)
Is this good enough, Ehmadhh? Now, you need to once more
change your story and come up with some other excuse. Those
who know (or think) to know Quran and reject true Islam for
Kofr of Qadianism and try to misguide people from the path
of Allah, will receive the worst pubnishment from Allah...
Just a reminder from a Muslim.
> And I have to say that whilst the members of the Ahmadiyya Jama'at resist
> the allegations made by the mullahs, and affirm that Ahmad a.s. was
> inferior to Muhammad s.a.w....
It is very unfortunate that Ehmadhh (and all Ahmadis) seem
to be suffering from selective memory loss and partial
blindness. When we put the truth in front of their
eyes, they just ignore it and go on with their own ideas.
As far as what top Qadiani scholars (I know this is an
oximoran) have written in regard to Ehmadhh's claims:
"O dear ones, Our Imam in this world is Ghulam Ahmad in the
"Darul Aman" (Qadian).
Ghulam Ahmad is the Throne (Arsh) of the Great Lord (Rabbe Akbar).
This is as if his rest-house is situated in a place which knows
no bounds (La Makan).
Ghulam Ahmad is the true Prophet of Allah (Rasul Allah).
He has been elevated with honor among mankind and Jinn.
Muhammad has been reincarnated among us; enhanced is he in his
dignity and rank.
O Akmal, it anyone longs to see Muhammad, he should see Ghulam Ahmad
in Qadian."
(Al-Badr, Vol. 2, No. 25, October 25, 1906)
We should not expect unbelievers to fear Allah... They will
continue to argue, because they enjoy arguing...
Peace.
Svend White
AA,
In a recent posting which I no longer have, Ehmadh took me to task for
supposedly being rude and unnecessarily confrontational. He also
complained about my tendency to change thread headings.
I have been blunt and direct in my criticisms--as is my preferred
way--but nothing I have said has been impolite or untrue. In other
words, my "impoliteness" has been no more than my
harsh-but-politely-worded criticisms.
Instead of whining about how allegedly rude I/we have been, I suggest
that Ehmad actually give substantive responses to our criticisms.
Regarding headings, I readily admit that I'm an inveterate tinkerer for
the following reasons:
1) I think headings should--get this--reflect their messages' content;
2) I post messages for them to be read (which requires that they be
noticed); and
3) It doesn't necessarily cause confusion (in my Netscape Mail, renamed
postings appear in their original threads).
Finally, I called Ehmad's recent message a "bizarre outburst" from a
"defeated opponnent" because
1) his message was exceedingly strange; and
2) he has refused to really debate the issues, which I consider a tacit
admission of defeat.
It's blunt and confrontational, yes. But is it unfair or dishonest?
I don't think so.
Wasalaam.
s v e n d
Ehmadhh
In article <64sm5f$3...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, Svend White <sv...@erols.com>
writes:
>Ehmad wrote:
>> As for unity amongst Muslims, this is not going to be
>> acheived by some false and sentimental ideas, but by basing it on truth.
>
>A rather euphemistic way to put it! Don't you really mean by
>"submitting to my khalifa"?
No, that's not what I said or meant. One submits to Allah. One also submits to
a Khalifatullah [e.g. Adam a.s.]. One also accepts the Khalifas made by Allah
[24:55], e.g. AbuBakr r.a., Umar r.a. Are you telling me that to refuse to do
the baiyat of the khulafaa-e-raashideen is no big deal?
The speech of AbuBakr r.a. when he was appointed Khalifa included the message
that if any of his instructions contravened the word of Allah or His Prophet,
the people were not duty bound to follow it.
Similarly, the baiyat and pledge to khilaafat within the Ahmadiyya Jama'at also
states that we shall follow them in every decision which is *ma'roof*, and
according to the Islamic *shariat*. Even prophets are not *infallible* [e.g.
Adam a.s.], then how can khalifas be so?
>Just like any other religious sect, you want to take over and make
>everybody else follow your idea of the "truth". You'd even impose your
>version of the truth on other Muslims!
This is nonsense, Svend, and are the mere ramblings of a paranoid mind. Get a
grip.
>This "unity" based on a papal goosestep is un-Islamic, as it eliminates
>the individual's relationship with God.
Again, this is mere rhetoric and paranoia which you are expressing. If the
Khalifa contravenes the Qur'an, or Muhammad s.a.w., no one is obliged to follow
him in that. However, this hardly ever/never happens in rightly guided
khilaafat. A Khalifa may make a human mistake, but Allah turns it into
something good. Subhaanallah.
Ehmadhh
> You do not even attempt to refute the quotations which I posted and yet have
> all these baseless things to say. Try focussing on the evidence and the
>proof in your responses and then people might start taking you seriously.
I have never denied that Ahmad a.s. claimed to be a wali, mujaddid, muhaddith,
mahdi, masih. This he was, but these were not his only claims. By virtue of
being mahdi and masih, and more importantly, by virtue of receiving Divine
revelation, as well as by virtue of the fact that Allah Himself described him
as a Nabi, as did Muhammad s.a.w., Ahmad a.s. claimed to be a Nabi and Rasul. I
accept ALL his claims.
As for evidence, I have posted this many times before, but as I said, you
continue to ignore it. I have recently presented further evidence in the
folder: *Ahmad a.s. Refutes the Propaganda of Lahoris and Non-Ahmadis*.
> *ALL* the descriptions of the Promised Messiah in this prophecy to be taken
> metaphorically!
Fine, and Ahmad a.s. distinguished in real/haqiqi prophethood from metaphorical
prophethood, by reference to shariat prophethood being the real (haqiqi)
prophethood, whilst he defined metaphorical prophethood as being dependent,
non-shariat prophethood, as I have shown before, from his own writings in
Haqeeqatul Wahy. Now, this definition was given by him in the passage just
prior to his claim of being a metaphorical prophet, yet when you gave the quote
you left out the defining portion. I am not blaming you for it as such, but the
person who dishonestly provided the incomplete reference to make his misguided
point.
>Where do you get this from? If you are going to attribute things to someone in
> this case Hazrat Mirza), present your proof from the person himself. Did
> Hazrat Mirza ever give such an interpretation to the term "NabiUllah*? Can
>you back up such bold statements?
To my knowledge Ahmad a.s. did not state such a thing, but it is derived from
the hadeeth itself, something which you cannot deny. So, you resort to ask for
proof whether Ahmad a.s. stated this or not. Ahmad a.s. did not need to have to
state such a thing. Its a logical point arising out of the hadeth itself. Do
you deny it? If so, why? Because it goes against your views??
> You can go on
> blowing your own trumpet till you turn blue in the face, but this will never
> support your falsehood. Instead of merely accussing me of such things, why
> don't you present your proof? Show me if I am being dishonest in any way. I
> pray Almighty Allah will bring about the truth as He wills.
I did present the proof, but you disappeared for some weeks, only to come back
repeating the same points. Yet you accused me of being *shameless*. Thanks a
lot, but sorry to say buddy, it reverts back onto you. I have no intention of
trying to bang my head repeatedly against thick brick walls.
>You unfortunate soul; you can not see your hypocracy even when its staring
> right at you. .... and the Qadianis refer to Hazrat Mirza as a Prophet).
Again, a false allegation which only reverts back onto you. Ahmad a.s. claimed
in his writings to be a prophet. I accept ALL his claims. If I reject even one
of them, which is kufr, I might as well deny all of them, which is also kufr.
Ahmad a.s. as well as Mirza Mahmud r.a. were both right about this. The
*unfortunate souls* are the ones who decide to reject/deny/kufr these truthful
claims.
Ehmadhh
In article <651i9j$l...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, Kavosh Soltani
<kav...@erols.com> writes:
>I hate to use this analogy, but if he walked like a duck
>and talked like a duck, what was he?
I hope that the aversion to using that analogy indicates something, though you
nevertheless stated it. The fact is that it is only the word of God Himself
which is free from contradictions. This is an argument used in the Qur'an
itself. The word of man varies from situatin to situation, and one has to
understand the background of the word of man. Muhammad s.a.w. sometimes gave
two different answers to the same question by two different people; because
different answers were better suited to the individual cases.
This rule also applied to the writings and discourses of Ahmad a.s. When you
read his writings about Isa a.s. written to Muslims, you find a lot of praise
in it for Isa a.s., as he even likened himself to Isa a.s. When he responded to
Christian propaganda against Muhammad s.a.w., taken from fabricated narrations
etc, he wrote about the fictitious image of Jesus presented by the Bible, and
criticised the false depiction of Jesus in the Bible. Yet, non-Ahmadis present
such quotes taken out of context, and attempt to prove that Ahmad a.s. insulted
a prophet of God, which is totally untrue. So, one has to understand the
context of the writings first, which does not come from partial quotes and
misquotes, but from reading the relevant writing in full.
One added factor to consider in the writings of Ahmad a.s. was that his own
understanding of his status also changed with time, as did the associated
matters. He stated what he knew to be the truth at different times. As I said
before, I may have truthfully stated that I was 15 years old some years back,
but ten years later, I would also be correct to have stated that I was 25 yrs
old. Both statements were truthful when made. I grew up physically. The same
sort of thing applied to Ahmad a.s. His spiritual status grew as he got closer
and closer to God. To quote his earlier writings as contradicting his later
ones, or to misquote or partially quote any of his writings, to try to prove a
contradictory notion, is dishonest.
>Mirza claimed to be a Prophet (I quoted several passages
>today),
Yes, this was indeed one of his claims.
>he claimed to have new Sharia, he cancelled Jihad,
No, he did not claim to have a new shariah. Nor did he cancel Jihad, but the
false notion of Jihad, and the Masih was meant to come and abolish religious
wars, and jizya with it.
>he used his "Wahi" as the method he used to interprete
>Quran
Yes, Allah guided him in his understanding of the Qur'an.
> he called anyone who does not believe in him unbelievers, he ...
Should he have referred to them as *believers*, despite their belief?
Be reasonable, and get a grip on common sense.
>" ... Answer: This is strange that you consider the person who rejects
>me and the person who calls me Kafir as two different persons,
>whereas in the eyes of God he is the same type; because he who
>does not accept me is because he considers me a fabricator..."
> (Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 22, P. 167)
Thanks for the quote. I have checked and it does exist. I wonder what Svend and
his Lahori accomplices have to say about this in view of the charge of takfeer
against Mirza Mahmud r.a. More than likely, they will avoid this quote. But
that we are yet to see.
>Because none of it has to be methaphorical. The Holy Prophet
>had met Jesus(pbuh) on the night of his journey; he described
>him physical features, etc.
Yes, and the description of the Masih of the past differs from that of the
Masih to come.
Wasalaam 'alaa man ittebaa alhudaa.
Love For All, Hatred For None! [Nasir Ahmad r.a.]
Ehmadhh
In article <651i99$l...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, Kavosh Soltani
<kav...@erols.com> writes:
>"And Allah sent down upon me the bounty of the Holy Prophet and
>made it perfect; and he drew towards me the kindness and generosity
>of the merciful Prophet, so that I became one with him. Thus, he
>who joins my group, joins the group of the companions (Sahaba)
>of my Leader, the best of messengers. It is not hidden from those
>who have the ability to think that this is what the words "Akhareen
>Menhom" (others of them) mean. The person who makes a difference
>between me and the Mustafa has neither seen me nor recognized me."
>(Khutba-e-Ilhamiah, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 16, P. 258-259)
This verse does not show the superiority or even equality of Ahmad a.s. in
relation to Muhammd s.a.w., but rather the inferiority of Ahmad a.s. in
relation to Muhammad s.a.w., and hence the pride in being united with Muhammad
s.a.w.
Just like in Sura Najm, where it is stated that Muhammad s.a.w. drew close to
Allah, it does not imply that Muhammad s.a.w. is superior or even equal to
Allah.
> and called "Islam of Muhammad Dead"...
He NEVER stated that. He stated that it is the deen of Muhammad s.a.w. which is
the only one alive.
>"Blessed (is) he who has recognized me. Of all the paths of
>God I am the last path, and of all His lights I am the last
>light. Unfortunate is he who forsakes me, because without
>me all is darkness." (Kashti-e-Nooh, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 19, P. 61)
Without the moon (Ahmad a.s.) which spreads the light of the sun (Muhammad
s.a.w.) at night, there is indeed darkness.
>I am the ordinate of Shariat, because my revelations
>contain both commandments (awamir) and prohibitions (Nawahi).
He did receive some Qur'anic revelation as well, by virtue of being a
subbordinate and burooz of Muhammad s.a.w. The shariat remains the shariah of
Islam, even if some of it may be repeated in separate direct revelation.
>"My teachings contain orders as well as prohibitions and
>renovations of important injunctions of the Shariah. For
>this reason, God has named my teachings and the revelations
>(Wahi) that comes to me as "Falak" (Boat)....
The quotes in no way prove your point.
>"O dear ones, Our Imam in this world is Ghulam Ahmad in the
> "Darul Aman" (Qadian). ....
Yes, he was the Imam Mahdi prophecied by Muhammad s.a.w.
Wasalaam 'alaa man ittebaa alhudaa
Thomas Crescenzi
Ehmadhh wrote in message <65cccs$s...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>...
>according to the Islamic *shariat*. Even prophets are not *infallible*
[e.g.
>Adam a.s.], then how can khalifas be so?
if prophets are fallible, then why follow them at all? how do we know if
they're telling the truth and doing things the right way, or if they are
mistaken and doing bad things?
Kavosh Soltani
Ehmadhh wrote:
>
> When (Mirza Ghulam) he responded to Christian propaganda against
> about the fictitious image of Jesus presented by the Bible, and
> criticised the false depiction of Jesus in the Bible.
I have several questions:
1. Mirza Ghulam made volgar comments against Mary(RA),
Grandmothers of Jesus, and Jesus(pbuh). Where are
such statements written in the Bible?
2. Explain to us why your Prophet, Mirza Ghulam, attacked
Jesus(pbuh), even questioned his truthfulness,
and accused him of false Prophecies and magic tricks
(instead of miracles), ... Where are these written
in the Bible?
3. Mirza accused Jesus(pbuh) of immoral acts; particularly
when he wrote about the prostitute who asked Jesus(pbuh)
for forgiveness... How come his account does not match
any version of the Bible?
4. He referred to Jesus(pbuh) as Eisa ibn Mariam, leaving no
doubt who he was talking about. Why use his Muslim name?
5. He blamed Jesus(pbuh) for all the troubles of the West;
and said he wished he(pbuh) was never sent. Where is
this recorded in the Bible?
Now, was he fabricating these things? Was your "prophet"
resorting to the strategy the unbelievers attacking our
Prophet(SAAW) were using? He attacked another Prophet of
Allah and uttered blasphemy to get even? He made
non-Muslims and ignorant Muslism think it was acceptable
to attack another Prophet? Is this how he was going to
unite the humanity and bring peace and understanding
between all people?
=========================================================
A Muslim does not utter blasphemy against Prophets, even
after he is warned that his behavior is anti-Islamic...
Svend White
Ehmad wrote:
> Again, this is mere rhetoric and paranoia which you are expressing. If the
> Khalifa contravenes the Qur'an, or Muhammad s.a.w., no one is obliged to follow
> him in that. However, this hardly ever/never happens in rightly guided
> khilaafat. A Khalifa may make a human mistake, but Allah turns it into
> something good. Subhaanallah.
How ironic that Ehmad should call me paranoid, etc., in this way for
questioning the validity of the Qadiani khalifat. It seems that my
family history is repeating itself in a way:
When my father was a new Qadiani recruit in the 1960s, he asked his
missionary about the Khalifah's authority, asking: "Do I have to obey
him in EVERYTHING?" The missionary answered: "No, of course not! You
must only obey him in that which is good." Not satisfied, my father
followed up: "How do I know when he has told me to do something which
is not good?" The missionary stunned my father with the following
circular response: "The Khalifa would never tell you to do anything
that was wrong!" and berated him very harshly for his rebelliousness.
Though I doubt many Qadianis are quite so blunt, the fact is that the
Qadiani belief that "hazoor" is divinely guided makes him infallibale
for all practical purposes. In such a context, the above exchange
becomes unsurprising.
But the story gets better! The missionary who attacked my father for
his doubts himself ended up not only rejecting the khilafat a decade
later, but even challenged Nasir Ahmad (3rd khalifa) to mubahullah!!!
[BTW, I can document this last part with a newspaper article from a
Qadiani newspaper. I'm not making this up.]
> him in that. However, this hardly ever/never happens in rightly guided
> khilaafat. A Khalifa may make a human mistake, but Allah turns it into
> something good. Subhaanallah.
I see. If Allah looks out for your khalifahs so much, why did Mahmud
Ahmad end up a bed-ridden invalid for the last decade of his life? How
could a "rightly guided khalifa" AND divinely ordained son be struck so
low?
Keep in mind that his grisly fate (with a piece of a knife blade stuck
in his throat) is eerily similar to the fate promised by the Quran for
those who misrepresent Allah.
So Allah's guidance prevents him from making serious doctrinal errors,
but it doesn't protect him from a chilling, ignomious death?!? [*]
s v e n d
[*] Please, before you start accusing me of "sinking to Kavosh's
level", be aware of the fact that this is the historical record, based
on your jamaat's own publications (including the memoirs of Zafrullah
Khan). Unlike the mullahs' charges re: cholera, these are verifiable
facts based on Qadiani testimonials.
Kavosh Soltani
> AltWay <ha...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> A muslim is asked to submit to no one and no thing but
> Allah (7;163-166),
Indeed. Allah had also told us what he wants us to do:
Worship Him, believe and follow His Word delivered
by hazrat Muhammad(SAAW), set the Messenger(SAAW)
as our example, and obey and follow him.
> AltWay <ha...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> and not follow anything except that which is inspired in
> him (6:107) and
The way you wrote it sounds like each person should only
believe what he/she receives as "revelation". This is
obviously false. Also, if you read the verses before and
after this ayah, you will see Allah is telling us to follow
what is inspired to the prophet.
> AltWay <ha...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> that of which he has knowledge through hearing, sight and
> the heart (17:36-37).
" (O man), follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge.
Lo! the hearing and the sight and the heart - of each of these
it will be asked." (Quran, 17:36)
It is true that even our own organs will bear witness against
us, on the day of judgment. But, I do not see where you are
trying to go with this! We should not follow things about
which we have no knowledge (no proof from Allah); As
Muslims, we have absolute clear knowledge of what Allah
has ordained and we should stick to it.
> AltWay <ha...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> This excludes hearsay and tradition, but requires your own
> understanding of the message, not attachment to the
> messenger.
"Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom
they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the
Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them
what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and
prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them
from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them.
So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow
the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper."
(Quran, 7:157)
Svend White
Ehmad wrote:
> Thanks for the quote. I have checked and it does exist. I wonder what Svend and
> his Lahori accomplices have to say about this in view of the charge of takfeer
> against Mirza Mahmud r.a. More than likely, they will avoid this quote. But
> that we are yet to see.
Interesting how you have time to look up quotes when you think they
support your case, but not when it appears that you have mistranlated
Hazrat Mirza's words.
Please let everybody see the whole quote, so that we can know what he is
really saying.
If not the whole page, can we not at least see the whole paragraph?
Tariq and I have posted the whole of AIK GHALATI KA IZALA in both URdu
and English for people to see.
Given that you have the work, please quote more of the passage.
We all know how incomplete quotes can misrepresent the author, so please
give us a little more so that we can get to the bottom of this.
Wasalaam.
s v e n d
--
AltWay
In article <65fam6$jl6$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>, Kavosh Soltani
<kav...@erols.com> wrote:
"AltWay <ha...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
" (O man), follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge.
Lo! the hearing and the sight and the heart - of each of these
it will be asked." (Quran, 17:36)
"It is true that even our own organs will bear witness against
us, on the day of judgment. But, I do not see where you are
trying to go with this! We should not follow things about
which we have no knowledge (no proof from Allah); As
Muslims, we have absolute clear knowledge of what Allah
has ordained and we should stick to it."
You have got it. But what is the meaning of Quran 17:36
How do you know that the Quran is from Allah and that you have understood it
correctly. Where from and how do you get this understanding? Or do you
merely accept the word of your fathers or teachers etc?
"Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom
they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the
Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them
what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and
prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them
from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them.
So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow
the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper."
(Quran, 7:157)
That is the way you get your understanding. I have verified what it says
in this verse. I would also like to draw your attention to the following ;-
"The wandering Arabs say:We believe. Say: Ye believe not, but rather say:we
submit, for the faith has not yet entered into your hearts. Yet if you obey
Allah and His messenger, He will not withold from you aught of the rewards
of your deeds. ..." 49:14
You gain your faith only through practice. There is no mention here of
obedience to anyone but Allah and His Messenger.
H.S.Aziz
--
_ ___ _ _____________________________________________
|_| | | | | |_| \ / /
| | |_ | |/\| | | | /... Read "The Alternative Way" for more info
_______________________/ ha...@argonet.co.uk - www.argonet.co.uk/education/haziz
Ehmadhh
In article <65ccbl$s...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, Svend White <sv...@erols.com>
writes:
>2) he has refused to really debate the issues, which I consider a tacit
>admission of defeat.
Whilst I thank you for your *explanations*, I object to such a statement. I
have debated the issues, now as well as previously (when you guys disappeared
from the scene), and I have no intention of going round and round debating the
same issues over and over again. I liked merry-go rounds as a kid, but I've now
outgrown such pleasures.
Besides, thanks to the quote from Haqeeqatul-Wahy regarding the takfeer issue
(quoted below), at least we should not hear that sort of charge again from you
guys. Moreover, if Ahmad a.s. considered those who didn't accept him, as
*kafirs*, then is he still a muhaddath, or a nabi whose denial leads one to a
violation of basic Islamic articles of faith (we do not make a distinction [as
regards belief] between the messengers).
Ahmad a.s. wrote:
" ... This is strange that you consider the person who rejects me and the
person who calls me Kafir as two different persons, whereas in the eyes of God
he is the same type; because he who does not accept me is because he considers
me a fabricator..." (Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 22, P. 167)
Wasalaam.
Fazsk
Assalamu Aleikum to all.
Ehmadhh writes:
> By virtue of
>being mahdi and masih, and more importantly, by virtue of receiving Divine
>revelation, as well as by virtue of the fact that Allah Himself described him
>as a Nabi, as did Muhammad s.a.w., Ahmad a.s. claimed to be a Nabi and Rasul.
Ehmadhh, this is your interpretation (and the distorted Qadiani view). Why
don't you present any proof in support of these absurd statements of yours?
I can present (and already have as well as other Lahori Ahmadies for that
matter) Hazrat Mirza's writings in which he clearly states:
1) The Masih to come can not be a prophet for that would not be in accordance
with the finality of prophethood.
2) The one who recieves revelation from Almighty Allah is a Muhaddath and that
prophetic revelation has come to an end.
3) The term Nabi used in Hadith reports is only metaphorical and in no way
should be taken in the real sense.
Now, Ehmadhh, you can go on stating baseless things, but dont think the
readers of SRI are not noticing your avoidance tactics. If you are going to
make such statements you better have some proof; as I stated before, merely
boasting isn't going to cut it.
>As for evidence, I have posted this many times before, but as I said, you
>continue to ignore it. I have recently presented further evidence in the
>folder: *Ahmad a.s. Refutes the Propaganda of Lahoris and Non-Ahmadis*.
Again mere boasting! And as for your recent evidence, I did reply to it. I did
not reply to the first quote, as I stated in the article, because Brother Svend
had asked you a question regarding it - I thought it would only be fair not to
comment on it until you responded.
But instead of responding to the rest of the article I did address, you simply
shyed away. I am asking you seriously, Ehmadhh, do you deny the evidence from
Hazrat Mirza's own writings which I presented? Do you deny that a prophet can
never be a follower from the testimony of Hazrat Mirza? Do you deny that one
who is a follower-prophet is a MUHADDATH according to Hazrat Mirza?
Why dont you present the evidence, you are so fond of speaking of, now in
response to this issue? Remember, you put these quotes in your article to
further support your view. Are you going to simply push them aside now?
>Fine, and Ahmad a.s. distinguished in real/haqiqi prophethood from
>metaphorical
>prophethood, by reference to shariat prophethood being the real (haqiqi)
>prophethood, whilst he defined metaphorical prophethood as being dependent,
>non-shariat prophethood,
Ehmadhh, how can you state the truth without even considering your own claims?
If you truly believe this, why don't you from now on state clearly to everyone
who asks you whether Hazrat Mirza was a prophet or not that:
NO HE WAS NOT A REAL PROPHET, AND ONLY IN THE METAPHORICAL SENSE CAN HE BE
CONSIDERED ONE.
I ask you with all sincerity, will you do this or not?
>To my knowledge Ahmad a.s. did not state such a thing, but it is derived from
>the hadeeth itself, something which you cannot deny. So, you resort to ask
>for
>proof whether Ahmad a.s. stated this or not. Ahmad a.s. did not need to have
>to
>state such a thing. Its a logical point arising out of the hadeth itself. Do
>you deny it? If so, why? Because it goes against your views??
Ehmadhh, this is clear hypocracy! I asked you whether Hazrat Mirza stated such
a thing because I knew that he never did. He in fact argued against it
consistently. I wanted to show you how your absurd beliefs were contrary to the
clear teachings of Hazrat Mirza.
Tariq, I notice, has presented these quotes of Hazrat Mirza in a new folder
entitled: Qadiani interpretation of Nabiullah contrary to Mirza Sahibs view. Do
you deny these clear teachings of Hazrat Mirza? Will you still hold your
"Mahmudian Perspective" even though the truth from Hazrat Mirza himself is
right infront of you?
>Ahmad a.s. claimed
>in his writings to be a prophet. I accept ALL his claims. If I reject even
>one
>of them, which is kufr, I might as well deny all of them, which is also kufr.
Ehmadhh, I hope you take the time to read this statement of yours, so you will
see how lame it really is. Do you not see how similar your approach is to that
of the Christians? Just because Jesus a.s referred to himself as the son of God
on certain occasions, the Christians feel that is obligatory to accept this as
a true status of him. So to have you and the Qadianis made it obligatory to
accept these metaphorical statements of Hazrat Mirza even when shown that it
was not in the real sense. Again, I must warn you, by attributing such false
qualities to one who is sent by Almighty Allah is an act which is condemned in
the Holy Quran; you will become like the Christians - become far astray.
May Almighty Allah Guide us all to the truth
Yours in Islam
Fazeel
Svend White
Fazeel wrote:
-------------------------------
Ehmadhh, I hope you take the time to read this statement of yours, so
you will
see how lame it really is. Do you not see how similar your approach is
to that
of the Christians? Just because Jesus a.s referred to himself as the son
of God
on certain occasions, the Christians feel that is obligatory to accept
this as
a true status of him. So to have you and the Qadianis made it obligatory
to
accept these metaphorical statements of Hazrat Mirza even when shown
that it
was not in the real sense. Again, I must warn you, by attributing such
false
qualities to one who is sent by Almighty Allah is an act which is
condemned in
the Holy Quran; you will become like the Christians - become far astray.
Fazeel makes an excellent point here. Even though there are a host of
statements ("Can a Messenger be greater than the Sender?"; "Why dost
thou call me good? There is none good but God!"; "Worship the Lord your
God and serve him only."; ...) and implied beliefs (e.g., if Christ--who
practiced Judaism like any orthodox Jew in his day--indeed came "not to
break the Law but to fulfill it", then he must have approved of the
kosher prohibitions and similar halakhic regulations) which paint the
image of an ORTHODOX Jew, St. Paul presented Christ as a heretic by
over-emphasizing and misrepresenting a few phrases.
History has repeated itself, with Christ being betrayed by a high-level
disciple after his death, and his original teachings being (temporarily)
eclipsed by heresy.
Even the most rabid anti-Ahmadi zealot must admit that there are
interesting parallels between the early histories of the two men's
followers. Both groups were quickly riven by splits. Just as the early
Christians were divided on the issue of preaching to gentiles, so were
the early Ahmadi Muslims divided on their approach to outsiders.
In both cases (Qadiani and Christian), doctrine depends on a number of
crucial apriori assumptions about Christ's mission and claims,
assumptions which are by no means unambiguously supported by the man's
actual statements, which for the most part have an air of orthodoxy.
This doesn't prove they're wrong, but it certainly disproves the
widespread assumption that their version of the story is objectively
grounded in the scriptures involved. Just as many of Christ's
statements seem to indicate a very orthodox Jewish mentality, so do many
of Hazrat Mirza's statements seem to indicate a very "Sunni"
understanding of Islam.
If people actually momentarily put aside their assumptions and read the
two men's writings with an open mind, they would see that it isn't
self-evident that the numerically dominant groups (mainstream
Christianity and Qadiani) accurately represent the Founder's teachings.
Wasalaam.
s v e n d
--
****Svend|A|White**************>
****4401|W|Street|NW***********>
****Washington|DC|20007********>
****+1|202|338|6498************>
****svend@ erols.com************>
*****http://www.erols.com/svend>
"Hated by Fools and Fools to Hate.
Be that ever my Motto and my Fate."
- - - Jonathan Swift
[Remove the space from the email address. (An anti-SPAM measure.)]
Ehmadhh
Assalamu 'alaikum.
Svend, why do you think Ahmad a.s. at first considered himself to be inferior
in status to Isa a.s., whom he considered to be a nabi (whilst he considered
himself to be a mere muhaddath), and then later, after Allah revealed to him
repeatedly that he was a NABI, he changed his position and stated that he was
superior to Nabi Isa a.s?
Ahmad a.s. wrote:
"... In the same way, initially, I held the view that I have no similarity with
the Masih ibn Maryam, in that he is a Nabi/Prophet, and of those granted
nearness to God. And if any matter appeared to indicate my superiority, I
considered it to be a partial superiority. However, afterwards, revelation from
God which descended upon me like rain, DID NOT ALLOW ME TO REMAIN ON MY
PREVIOUS BELIEF, and I was addressed clearly as Nabi/Prophet, but in the manner
that on the one side, a nabi/prophet, and on the other side, an
ummati/follower....." [Haqeeqatul Wahi, p 150]
Ehmadhh
>Ehmadhh, this is your interpretation (and the distorted Qadiani view). Why
>don't you present any proof in support of these absurd statements of yours?
You need to answer some questions based upon quotes given by myself and Kavosh
recently:
[1] Why did Ahmad a.s. consider those who labelled him as kafirs, and those who
merely rejected his claims, as being in the same category, of kafirs? Here's
the quote:
" ... Answer: This is strange that you consider the person who rejects me and
the person who calls me Kafir as two different persons, whereas in the eyes of
God he is the same type; because he who does not accept me is because he
considers me a fabricator..." (Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 22, P.
167)
[2] Why do you think Ahmad a.s. at first considered himself to be inferior in
status to Isa a.s., whom he considered to be a nabi (whilst he considered
himself to be a mere muhaddath), and then later, after Allah revealed to him
repeatedly that he was a NABI, he changed his position and stated that he was
superior to Nabi Isa a.s?
I quoted this before, and here it is again:
"... In the same way, initially, I held the view that I have no similarity with
the Masih ibn Maryam, in that he is a Nabi/Prophet, and of those granted
nearness to God. And if any matter appeared to indicate my superiority, I
considered it to be a partial superiority. However, afterwards, revelation from
God which descended upon me like rain, DID NOT ALLOW ME TO REMAIN ON MY
PREVIOUS BELIEF, and I was addressed clearly as Nabi/Prophet, but in the manner
that on the one side, a nabi/prophet, and on the other side, an
ummati/follower....." [Haqeeqatul Wahi, p 150]
[3] Do you consider a Nabi to be inferior in status to a mere Muhaddath?
Kavosh Soltani
[Some unsupported comments about Mirza Mahmud, the
son, joy of life, and true followers of Mirza's
teaching cut to save space.]
Svend White wrote:
> [*] Please, before you start accusing me of "sinking to Kavosh's
> level", be aware of the fact that this is the historical record, based
> on your jamaat's own publications (including the memoirs of Zafrullah
> Khan). Unlike the mullahs' charges re: cholera, these are verifiable
> facts based on Qadiani testimonials.
Well, I see Svend is back to his old games. I know he
has had occassion to read the quotes from Qadiani own
books on this topic several times (I posted them here
and on alt.religion.islam). He never refuted any of
them, yet he likes to make baseless personal attacks...
I for one do not believe that the manner of death of
someone is a testimony to Allah's anger. However, the
death of Mirza Ghulam and Mirza Mahmud become significant,
only because of the claims they had made.
For instance, Mirza Ghulam had made many prophecies which
where proven false upon his death. In this light, his
death is significant because he had claimed:
"To Judge my truthfulness or lies, there is no better test
than my prophecies." (Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 19, P. 288)
In addition, he never got to visit Mekkah, which we know Mahdi
and Messiah are supposed to do. What can we conclude? That
both Qadianis and Lahoris are following a false claimant to
being Mahdi, Messiah, and Prophet.
The way Mirza died is academic for me and I only mention
it because Lahoris/Qadianis like to advance a made up version
of a peaceful death. Muslims do not like untruthful
statements and will expose falsehood time and time again.
I hope Svend understands: nothing personal, just the truth.
Those interested to read more about Mirza's death and his
failed prophecies may visit:
http://www.irshad.org/idara/qadiani/dtmirza.htm
http://www.irshad.org/idara/qadiani/prophecy.htm
Brothers have done a decent job with quotes and facts.
As you read those pages, remember what Mirza had said
about his prophecies:
If what I have said does not happen exactly, "I am
prepared for every punishment. My face should be
blackened and I should be hanged. I swear by the
Mighty Allah that what I have said will happen. It
must happen. It is possible that the earth may be
changed for another earth and the sky may be replaced
by another sky, but it is not possible for God's word
to change -- prepare for me a cross if my falsehood is
exposed and curse me more than the Satans and the evil
persons are cursed."
(Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 6, P. 293)
I hope Svend stops with his little games, rcognizes
the truth and begins to fear Allah as He should be
feared. Svend is no longer a little boy and will be
held accountable for his actions.
Thomas Crescenzi
Ehmadhh wrote:
> Ahmad a.s. wrote:
>
> PREVIOUS BELIEF, and I was addressed clearly as Nabi/Prophet, but in the manner
> that on the one side, a nabi/prophet, and on the other side, an
> ummati/follower....." [Haqeeqatul Wahi, p 150]
i have a question..
did mirza ghulam qadiani's claims of prophethood come before or after he
started taking opium? also, what is the ahmadi view of using opium?
afaik, all muslims concur that taking opium is haraam.. but i am
curious to know what the ahmadi view of opium is, especially in light of
mirza ghulam qadiani's habit..
reza
w...@cris.com
Ehmadhh
Peace.
All sorts of lies have been heaped upon the chosen ones of God by the kafirs,
as a reading of the Qur'an confirms, and hence there is no reason to imagine
that the Imam Mahdi a.s. would be spared from such ridicule and mockery.
Hadrat Ahmad a.s. never ever took opium. He was even averse to taking it for
medicinal purposes (which incidentally, many Muslim scholars say is ja'iz),
when suggested to him by someone that it may be used to alleviate some symptoms
of his diabetes.
He was averse to taking recourse to even for medicinal purposes, because he
realised that some ignoramuses may use this as an excuse to criticise him. They
criticise him even though he never took any, what would they have done if he
had indeed taken it??
May Allah guide us to the truth, and open the ears and eyes and hearts of
those who presently oppose the truth.