............
The Ahmadis are said to believe in the Buddha to be one of the Islamic prophets, but as far as I can tell, Siddhārtha Gautama don't accept in belief in any god, let alone the Abrahamic notion of the One God.
Peace be on all.
Such understaning about Buddha were not hollow claims:
""The erroneous popular belief in the Godless origin of Buddhism was spread largely by the Western scholars of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Their knowledge of Buddhism was largely based on the translations of Buddhist literature from the Pali language by Buddhist scholars who had permitted their own biased, godless philosophy to influence their translations. Few among them understood the Pali language, which is the language of the source material. Moreover, instead of drawing their own inferences directly from a study of reliable Buddhist sources, they leaned entirely on the beliefs about Buddhism prevailing among the major Buddhist sects.
Contrary to this general trend of Western scholars, a solitary voice in India was raised by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadasof Qadian (1835–1908), who presented a diametrically opposed view. He maintained that Buddhaas had firm belief in the existence of God who Himself had raised him as His messenger with a specific mission to perform. He demonstrated that Buddhaas, like all other prophets of God, also believed in the existence of Satan, as well as in heaven and hell, in angels and in the Day of Resurrection. Hence, the allegation that Buddhaas did not believe in God is pure fabrication. What Buddha rejected was Vedanta (i.e. doctrines and beliefs found in the Hindu sacred books, the Vedas). He rejected the belief in corporeal manifestations of gods as found in Hinduism. He was severely critical of the Brahmans and regarded them to have corrupted their Divine teaching through their distorted interpretation.
The voice of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas was not to remain solitary for long. Soon, other voices from among the second generation of Western scholars and researchers on Buddhism began to follow suit. The most prominent among them was the great French scholar Dr. Gustav Le Bon (1841–1931) who writes:
Unfortunately, the study of Indian monuments has been completely neglected by European scholars. The specialists of Indian studies, through whom we have come to learn of Buddhism, had never visited India. They had only studied this religion in books; an unfortunate twist of fate made them chance upon the works of philosophical sects written five or six centuries after the death of Buddha, these being absolutely alien to the religion practised in reality. The metaphysical speculations which had so astonished Europeans by their profoundity were in fact nothing new. Ever since the books of India have been better known, these have been found in the writings of philosophical sects which had developed during the Brahmanic period.* 1 ""
Ref:
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_2_section_2.html
........ Confucius don't believe in any god, so he didn't worship this Allah that people (Muslims) who follow Islam or your sect Ahmadiyya. He didn't god, but he did do ancestor worship.
Again we have solid reasons to negate your idea:
""From in-depth study of classical Confucian literature, it is not difficult to prove that Confucianism is not a man-made philosophy at its origin. It did embrace the idea of one immortal God, from Whom its teachings originated and Who is believed to govern the universe. "Heaven" is a manifestation of that God, and as such sometimes He Himself is referred to as Heaven. Confucianism considers true knowledge to consist of understanding the attributes of God and adopting them in one's own conduct. This brings man closer to eternal truth and serves as a source of knowledge for his benefit.""
Details in
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_2_section_3.html
Personally, I think Mirza Ghulum Ahmad is nothing more than attention-seeking quack, by trying to associate his personal religion with very wise or not so-wise sages, turning them into prophets, like the Buddha, Confucius, Zoroaster and Krishna, and each one have no association with Islam.
Your personal thinking is wrong because Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (on whom be peace) did not need any attention, this job was well done by fanatics who passed verdicts of infidelity against him and took these to various countries outside India........His argument was based on teaching of Holy Quran which said God sent Prophets in each nation. He argued that God do not let spread honour of false for so long in so many people [though current teachings of their religions are corrupted]......All these Holy men of God brought the same message of One God worship Him and pay rights of His creation. This is the core message of all religions.
====
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (on whom be peace) wrote in his book
A Gift for the Queen :
""He established me upon utmost pristine principles which are beneficial to humanity. One of the principles upon which I have been established is the following: God has informed me that of the religions which have spread and are firmly established in the world through Prophets, holding sway over a part of the world and achieving survival and long life, none was false in its origin. Nor were any of those Prophets false, because it is the eternal practice of God that a false prophet who lies against God—who is not from God, but dares to forge things from him—never prospers. God destroys such an audacious person who says that he is from God while God knows full well that he is not from Him. All his machinations are shattered, all of his followers are disbanded, and his future is worse than his past because he told a lie against God and brazenly maligned God. God does not give him the honour that is given to the righteous, and neither does He grant him the acceptance and stability, which is reserved for the true prophets.
The question may arise that if this is the case then why did those religions spread in the world in whose books creatures—such as humans, stones, angels, sun, moon, stars, fire, water or air, etc.—have been accepted as deities?
The answer is that such religions are either from people who did not claim to be prophets and recipients of divine revelation and communication, but were inclined towards creature-worship through the falsity of their own thinking and understanding; or there were some religions whose foundation was in fact laid by a true prophet of God but their true teachings were forgotten with the passage of time.
The followers of the latter turned to creature-worship by taking some similes or parables literally. The fact is that those prophets did not teach such a religion. It is not the fault of those prophets, as they brought a wholesome and pure teaching; rather, the ignorant followers assigned perverted meaning to their statements.
...
...
Therefore, this law is part of the eternal practice of Almighty God that He does not grant respite to a false prophet. Such a person is soon seized and suffers his punishment. In view of this, we shall honour and accept as true all those who claimed to be prophets at any time, and their claim was established and their religion became widespread and flourished over a long period. If we should discover mistakes in the scriptures of their religions or should observe the misconduct of their followers, we should not attribute these faults and shortcomings to the founders of these religions, inasmuch as the perversion of scriptures is possible and it is possible that mistakes of interpretation might find their way into the commentaries.
..
..
Therefore, this principle is an ultimate truth and endless blessing, and withal lays the foundation for conciliation, in that we affirm the truthfulness of all prophets whose religion has been well-established, has survived for a long time period and has had millions enter its fold.
...
...
Therefore, this principle lays down the foundation of love, peace and harmony, and supports moral values, in that we consider all those prophets true who appeared in the world—whether in India, or Persia or China or any other country. God instilled their respect and grandeur in the hearts of millions and made firm the roots of their religion, which remained established for centuries. This is the principle that the Qur’an teaches us. In light of this principle, we honour all religious founders who fall under this description whether they are the founders of the religion of the Hindus, or the religion of the Persians, or the religion of the Chinese, or the religion of the Jews or the religion of the Christians. Unfortunately, our adversaries cannot treat us this way, and they do not bear in mind the pristine and unalterable law of God that He does not give that blessing and honour to a false prophet that He bestows upon the true one.
...
...
Therefore, people subscribing to this kind of belief—who defame the prophets of other nations by declaring them false—are always enemies of peace and harmony, because there is no greater mischief than abusing the elders of other nations. Sometimes a person would rather die than hear disparaging words for his elders. If we have an objection over the teaching of a religion, we should not attack the honour of the prophet of that religion or mention him in an unseemly manner. Rather, we should object only on the current practices of that nation.""
Ref:
http://www.reviewofreligions.org/8304/respect-for-all-religions-and-holy-personages/
