Researching Ahmadiyyat

[Dawud]

Asalaam-o-Alaikum,

I have been studying Ahmadiyyat for a short while. I started a few years ago but I never actively pursued it until late last year. I've been doing a lot of research and alhamdulillah it is really starting to pay off and my understanding is starting to grow. I would like to post an excerpt from an email I sent to an Ahmadi friend of mine that has been guiding my studies. He replied and I really appreciate what he had to say. However, I would like to see if any Ahmadi's on this forum would have anything to say about my thoughts.

Some background: I embraced Islam when I was 14 years old. By default, I was a Sunni. Unfortunately, because of my naivety, I got sucked into extremism. I was a member of a certain Muslim forum that has a heavy Deobandi and Ahl e Hadith presence. My local masjid was Deobandi oriented. I became a really rather hateful person. Fast forward a few years and after I had grown tired of the hatred that this community had, I began to research the Shia version of things. I didn't exactly do so of my own free choice, honestly. I was a huge Shia-hater (thanks to my Deobandi surroundings) and I got into some arguments at school over this. My high school had a heavy Shia presence (well, not particularly heavy, but the majority of Muslims there were Shia). Eventually one of them got angry enough at my ignorance that she told me to "read a f-cking book" instead of basing my opinions on false information. So I did just that. And I never stopped reading. I became a Shia when I was 17 or so years old. Now, however, I have grown tired of all the arguing that happens withing the Shia mazhab. After a brief period of confusion were I didn't know exactly what to believe, I embraced an ideology that was somewhat a mix of Akhbarism and the ideology of Sayed Sadiq al-Shirazi and his family. To this day, I maintain that this ideology is true Tashayyu' as it is what the earliest scholars held. However, there have been a few things that have made me doubt this position. They will, inshaAllah, be explained in the excerpt below.

First of all, the anti-Ahmadi propaganda is rubbish. I've read most of it that is out there. There are really two types. The first is an attack on the theology of Ahmadiyyat such as the belief in a Prophet after the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) These attacks are based on misunderstandings, as far as I can tell. The second type of attack is that on the organizational structure of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. I also find this to be quite ignorant. One of the biggest attacks on the organizational structure is that of the collection of Chanda. As you explained it to me, as well as from what I have read, I see absolutely nothing wrong with Chanda. Shi'a clerics collect Khums (even though it isn't their right to) and Sunni clerics often ask for constant donations from their followers. Chanda, in my opinion, is superior to both systems. There are, of course, other attacks, but most of them are either unfounded or inconsequential. I have seen attacks on Huzoor (r.a.) cautioning the use of Facebook. I have seen his speeches where he states that he has never banned Facebook but that he merely wishes us to exercise caution with it. I see nothing wrong with this. I have, personally, deleted my Facebook account because I found it to be a huge waste of time as well as a breeding ground for fitna and fisq.

Secondly, as I read historical events from both Sunni and Shi'a perspectives, I can't help but feel that both sides are wrong. When I was a Shi'a, there were many things that I merely ignored because thinking about them would require me to reconsider a lot of my other beliefs. For example, my hatred towards Bibi `Aisha (r.a.) and the first 3 Khalifas (r.a.) One event that I recall is at the end of the Battle of Jamal, Hazrat Ali (r.a.) sent `Aisha (r.a.) back to Madinah with dignity. I asked myself why would he do this. At other times, Hazrat Ali (r.a.), as well as other Khalifas, had people put to death for fighting against them. `Aisha (r.a.) fought against Hazrat Ali (a.s.), yet he did not punish her. Clearly he knew something that we did not know. If, as some Shi'a claim, `Aisha (r.a.) poisoned the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and then fought the Imam of her time (r.a.), then Ali (r.a.) would have been well within his right to kill her. But he didn't; rather he sent her back to Madinah in a dignified manner. In addition to this, he gave his bay'at to the first 3 Khalifas (r.a.) For a long time, I thought that this was forced. Umar (r.a.) had burned down his house and killed his wife and child before he gave his bay'at. Why, then, did he also give his bay'at to Uthman (r.a.) after Umar (r.a.) had died? If the threat of violence was no longer there, why did he continue to align himself with the Khalifat? According to Hadeeth al-Thaqalayn, we are to follow the Qur'an and the Ahlulbayt. Hazrat Ali (r.a.), a member of the Ahlulbayt, gave his allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman (r.a.), therefore, who am I to question this? To believe the Shi'a version of events, I would have to believe that Ali (r.a.) was weak and cowardly not to defend his wife and himself. That is something that I cannot accept. Also, when Uthman (r.a.) was besieged by the Khawarij, it was Hazrat Hassan and Hazrat Hussain (r.a.) that defended him. He (Uthman) ordered those two to leave for their own protection but they refused. If Uthman (r.a.) was an enemy to the Ahlulbayt, why was the Ahlulbayt defending them with their lives? It just does not add up.

On the other hand, I can't accept the Sunni version of history either. Most of the Sunnis that I know (apart from a few fringe Sufis) believe that Yazeed was a righteous person and that Hazrat Hussain (r.a.) was in error by fighting him and that he got what he deserved during the Battle of Karbala. This, to me, is completely wrong. As mentioned above, we are to follow the Qur'an and the Ahlulbayt, and, Hazrat Hussain (r.a.), as a member of the Ahlulbayt, stood up against the tyrant Yazeed. Therefore, we should support him in this.

All in all, I think that both perspectives are completely missing the mark. I am disgusted by how violent and hateful a lot of Sunnis seem to be. Likewise, I am disgusted by how superstitious and illogical a lot Shi'a seem to be. Both sides have clearly departed from the teachings of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.)

That leads me to Ahmadiyyat. I am finding, more and more, that the teachings of Hazrat Ahmad (a.s.) are both incredibly honest and logical. When I read about his life and the way he interacted with others, I can't help but draw a parallel to the life of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) They both spent a lot of time in seclusion praying. They both were incredibly gentle and kind. They both faced extreme persecution and they both turned the other cheek for as long as they could. They both accepted all human beings regardless of how bad their past was. And they both left an incredible mark upon history that even non-Muslims have good things to say about them.

I am not sure where this leaves me. On one hand, the more research I do, the more convinced I become of the claims of the Promised Messiah (a.s.) On the other hand, I am not worthy to become a murid. I am a vile sinner and it would be wrong of me to defame Ahmadiyyat by aligning myself with something so pure and holy. Iltemas-e-Dua.

I thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope that I have not offended anybody with this post. I realize that I have generalized both Shias and Sunnis an awful lot and I certainly don't mean to say that all Sunnis and all Shias are this way. I also apologize of any of the information I have on Ahmadiyyat is false or misrepresented; I'm still learning. I would appreciate any responses if you have anything to say.

Wa'salaam,

Dawud

P.S. I wasn't sure which section to put this. I decided not to put it in the Ahmadiyya DIR because I think perhaps that DIR is only for Ahmadi's to discuss and I am not (yet) an Ahmadi. Also, I wouldn't mind if a non-Ahmadi replied to my thoughts. I'm always open and willing to hear multiple perspectives.

P.P.S. I joined this forum because I can't find anywhere else that I can openly discuss Ahmadiyyat. Nearly every Muslim forum (Sunni/Shia/Quranist/Etc) I have seen has an extreme bias towards Ahmadiyyat and I'd really prefer not to be cursed. (Note: I'm not saying that all Shias and Sunnis curse Ahmadis! I just know that I would have cursed them back when I was a Shia/Sunni.)

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

p.p.s. I joined this forum because i can't find anywhere else that i can openly discuss ahmadiyyat. nearly every muslim forum (sunni/shia/quranist/etc) i have seen has an extreme bias towards ahmadiyyat and i'd really prefer not to be cursed. (note: I'm not saying that all shias and sunnis curse ahmadis! I just know that i would have cursed them back when i was a shia/sunni.)

.سلام. جب کوئی آدمی تم پر گلتی سے الزام لگاتا ہے، تو مجھکو بتاؤ. فقر مت کر

 

[Dawud]

.سلام. جب کوئی آدمی تم پر گلتی سے الزام لگاتا ہے، تو مجھکو بتاؤ. فقر مت کر

Ka kya matlab hai? Kya aap angreezi bolti hain?

Sorry ya akh. I'm just a simple gora. My Urdu is so very limited to only a few phrases. Maybe I'll pick more of it up if I become an Ahmadi

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Ka kya matlab hai? Kya aap angreezi bolti hain?

Sorry ya akh. I'm just a simple gora. My Urdu is so very limited to only a few phrases. Maybe I'll pick more of it up if I become an Ahmadi

I was saying that if someone falsely blames you for something, let me know. I apologize though, I should not have so hastily assumed that you knew urdu (the way you were writing made it seem like you were a native urdu speaker; for example, mazhab would sound more like maddhab in Arabic). BTW, I'm not Muslim, I'm Hindu, but I was born in Pakistan and so urdu is my native language [although I currently live in the US]. Also, I'm a guy (so it should be boltA, not boltI) and you mean "yA akhi," right (Akh means eye)? I'm too picky, aren't I?

 

[Pastek]

Asalaam-o-Alaikum,

I thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope that I have not offended anybody with this post. I realize that I have generalized both Shias and Sunnis an awful lot and I certainly don't mean to say that all Sunnis and all Shias are this way. I also apologize of any of the information I have on Ahmadiyyat is false or misrepresented; I'm still learning. I would appreciate any responses if you have anything to say.

Wa'salaam,

Dawud

P.S. I wasn't sure which section to put this. I decided not to put it in the Ahmadiyya DIR because I think perhaps that DIR is only for Ahmadi's to discuss and I am not (yet) an Ahmadi. Also, I wouldn't mind if a non-Ahmadi replied to my thoughts. I'm always open and willing to hear multiple perspectives.

P.P.S. I joined this forum because I can't find anywhere else that I can openly discuss Ahmadiyyat. Nearly every Muslim forum (Sunni/Shia/Quranist/Etc) I have seen has an extreme bias towards Ahmadiyyat and I'd really prefer not to be cursed. (Note: I'm not saying that all Shias and Sunnis curse Ahmadis! I just know that I would have cursed them back when I was a Shia/Sunni.)

Wa alikom esalam Dawud

Nobody will curse you here, it would be stupid to do so.
I don't hate Ahmadi, shia, soufi or anyone who choose a different sect than me.

I've never joined any religious group, and never met in my life someone hating this or that muslim.

Thanks for sharing your experience and thoughts.

Can i ask what was your religion before Islam ?

 

[Shia Islam]

Asalaam-o-Alaikum,

I have been studying Ahmadiyyat for a short while. I started a few years ago but I never actively pursued it until late last year. I've been doing a lot of research and alhamdulillah it is really starting to pay off and my understanding is starting to grow. I would like to post an excerpt from an email I sent to an Ahmadi friend of mine that has been guiding my studies. He replied and I really appreciate what he had to say. However, I would like to see if any Ahmadi's on this forum would have anything to say about my thoughts.

Some background: I embraced Islam when I was 14 years old. By default, I was a Sunni. Unfortunately, because of my naivety, I got sucked into extremism. I was a member of a certain Muslim forum that has a heavy Deobandi and Ahl e Hadith presence. My local masjid was Deobandi oriented. I became a really rather hateful person. Fast forward a few years and after I had grown tired of the hatred that this community had, I began to research the Shia version of things. I didn't exactly do so of my own free choice, honestly. I was a huge Shia-hater (thanks to my Deobandi surroundings) and I got into some arguments at school over this. My high school had a heavy Shia presence (well, not particularly heavy, but the majority of Muslims there were Shia). Eventually one of them got angry enough at my ignorance that she told me to "read a f-cking book" instead of basing my opinions on false information. So I did just that. And I never stopped reading. I became a Shia when I was 17 or so years old. Now, however, I have grown tired of all the arguing that happens withing the Shia mazhab. After a brief period of confusion were I didn't know exactly what to believe, I embraced an ideology that was somewhat a mix of Akhbarism and the ideology of Sayed Sadiq al-Shirazi and his family. To this day, I maintain that this ideology is true Tashayyu' as it is what the earliest scholars held. However, there have been a few things that have made me doubt this position. They will, inshaAllah, be explained in the excerpt below.


...

Hi,

I responded here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ber-questions-regarding-shia.html#post3643230

 

[Bismillah]

As-salaam alaikum

You put it in the Islam DIR for all to discuss so I'm going to give the perspective of Muslims, Sunni and Shi'ite, who agree on this matter. There is no belief in Islam of another Prophet after the Prophet Muhammad. To declare yourself to be a Prophet is kufr. Mirza Ghulam was a kafir then for claiming to be a Prophet of Allah and the teachings he spread are kufr. For added references see below.

The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is the Seal of the Prophets, whom Allah has determined that there shall be no prophet (nabi) after, or any prophetic messenger (rasul). Allah says:

‘Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets’ (Qur’an 33:40),

where the word khatim or ‘seal’ in Arabic, when annexed (mudaf) to a series, as in the expression ‘Seal of the Prophets’, can only mean the final member of that series through which it is complete and after which nothing may be added. This is the only possible lexical sense of the word in the context. Were there any doubt about this, it is also unanimously agreed upon by scholarly consensus (ijma‘), and explicitly stated by the Prophet himself (Allah bless him and give him peace) in many rigorously authenticated (sahih) hadiths, such as that in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad:

‘Prophetic messengerhood (risala) and prophethood (nubuwwa) have ceased: there shall be no messenger after me, nor any prophet’ (Ahmad (c00), 3.267: 13824).
The hadith master (hafidh) Ibn Kathir says that corroboratory versions of this hadith are, like the Qur’an itself, mutawatir or related through so many intersubstantiative and rigorously authenticated channels of transmission that they are incontestable (Tafsir al-Qur’an (c00), 6.2823).”

Further below is a list of the "consensus that Muhammad ﷺ is the Last Prophet: Statements of the fuqaha', mufassireen, sufis, and theologians"

"Every claim to prophethood after Him is falsehood and deceit." (al-'Aqidah at-Tahawiyyah[4] )

"Thus it is obligatory to profess all these things, and it becomes evident that the presence or continuity of the office of Prophethood after our Prophet is not valid, and is rather a nullity." (al-Fisal fi al-Milal wa'n-Nihal, Vol. 1, p. 77[5] )

"The Ummah has fully comprehended this term. They understand that no Nabi (Prophet) shall ever appear, nor shall any Rasul (Messenger) ever appear after the Prophet Muhammad. There is no room for it for ta'wil (interpretation) or takhsis (particularisation). (al-Iqtisad fi'l-I'tiqad, p.178[6] )

"And the first of the prophets is Adam and the last of them is Muhammad ﷺ." (al-'Aqa'id an-Nasafi)

"In this context, the reason for saying Khatam an-nabiyyin is that, a prophet after whom another prophet is to be raised, leaves the work of admonition and explanation of injunctions somewhat incomplete, and the one coming after him can complete it. But the Prophet [Muhammad] after whom no other Prophet is to be raised, is far more compassionate to his Ummah and gives them explicit guidance, for he is like the father who knows that after him his son has no guardian and patron to take care of him." (Tafsir al-Kabir, 33:40[7])

"The Messenger has informed (us) that dreams are one of the parts of Prophethood. Of Prophethood there shall remain for the people only this part, and nothing more than that. In spite of this, the term 'Prophethood' shall not be applicable to anything, nor the term 'Prophet' be applicable to anyone other than the one endued with a Shari'ah. Thus 'Prophethood' has been banned on account of this particular characteristic." (al-Futuhat al-Makkiyah, Vol. 2, p. 495)

"This Ayah clearly states that there will be no Prophet after him. If there will be no Prophet after him then there will surely be no Messenger after him either, because the status of a Messenger is higher than that of a Prophet, for every Messenger is a Prophet but the reverse is not the case. This was reported in many Mutawatir Hadiths narrated from the Messenger of Allah via a large number of his Companions, may Allah be pleased with them... [He narrates several ahadith]... And there are many other Hadiths on this topic. Allah has told us in His Book, and His Messenger has told us in the Mutawatir Sunnah, that there will be no Prophet after him, so that it may be known that everyone who claims this status after him is a liar and fabricator who is misguided and is misguiding others. Even if he twists meanings, comes up with false claims and uses tricks and vagaries, all of this is false and is misguidance as will be clear to those who have understanding." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 33:40[8] )

Since his prophetic office has been established, his speech and the Speech of Allah which descended on him having indicated that he is the seal (khatam) of the Prophets, and the one sent to all mankind, nay rather to al-Jinn and mankind too, it has been established that he is the last of the Prophets." (Sharh al-'Aqa'id an-Nasafi, New York, 1950, p. 131[9]).

"... and salat and salam upon whom there is no prophet after."(al-Insan al-Kamil, Beirut, 1997, Introduction, p. 11[10])

And God has knowledge of all things, among these is the fact that there will be no prophet after him, and even when Sayyidina Jesus descends [at the end of days] he will rule according to his [Muhammad’s] Law. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn, 33:40[11])

"Khatim an-nubuwwah (with a kasrah under the ta') signifies one who does the job of closing or bringing it to an end, i.e. 'completion or termination of something'. And khatam (with a fathah over the ta') means one who seals anything, and it indicates that there shall not come after him any Prophet." (Majma' Bihar al-Anwar, Vol I, p.329[12])

"One who holds the continuity of the Wahi (Revelation) after Muhammad ﷺ he is a kafir according to the Ijma' (consensus) of the Muslims."

To claim Prophethood after our Prophet is kufr according to the Ijma'." (Sharh Fiqh al-Akbar, p.202)

"If someone should not hold the notion that Muhammad ﷺ is the last of the Prophets he ceases to be a Muslim" (Fatawa-i 'Alamgiri, Vol. 3, p.263)

"Whoever states that the Prophet is the seal of Prophethood - while this term means that no one after him can be named a prophet, and as for the meaning of prophethood it is a human sent by Allah to the people, obedience to whom is required, protected from sins and from remaining in error - that this (meaning of) prophethood can still be found in the leaders of the Community after him; then this person is a heretic (zindiq). Furthermore, the majority of the later Hanafi and Shafi'i scholars are unanimous in agreement that such a person deserves capital punishment, and Allah knows best."(al-Musawwa Sharh al-Muwatta', Vol. 2, p.269, "The Ruling of the Khawarij, the Qadariyah, and their likes"[13])

[quote='Abd al-Ghani an-Nabulusi (d. 1143 AH)]"The corruption of their madhhab and faith needs no description. But it is itself a testimony of its corruption. Their madhhab leads to a false and mischievous notion that there shall come after our Prophet a new Prophet. This goes a long way to denying the truths contained in the Qur'an. The statute of the Qur'an is clear, that he is the last of the Prophets (33:40) and the last of the Messengers (sent unto mankind). In Hadith we find: "I am the 'Aqib and there shall not come a Prophet after me." Again the whole of the Islamic Ummah have reached the consensus on the perpetual truth of this speech to be taken in its external and obvious (zahiri) sense. This is one of the doctrines - too well-known - whereby we have been able to declare the philosophers and (modern) thinkers kafirs." (Sharh al-Fara'id)[/quote]

"That the Prophet is the last of the Prophets is a doctrine which has explicitly been mentioned in the Divine Books and fully explained by the Sunnah, and the whole of the Ummah have unanimously agreed in its validity. Therefore anyone who shall claim against this doctrine shall be declared a kafir and be executed if he at all insists in it." (Ruh al-Ma'ani, 33:40, Vol. 22, p.41[14])

 

[Shia Islam]

As-salaam alaikum

You put it in the Islam DIR for all to discuss so I'm going to give the perspective of Muslims, Sunni and Shi'ite, who agree on this matter. There is no belief in Islam of another Prophet after the Prophet Muhammad. To declare yourself to be a Prophet is kufr. Mirza Ghulam was a kafir then for claiming to be a Prophet of Allah and the teachings he spread are kufr. For added references see below.
...

Another great post by Bismillah!

Let us all frubalize him

 

[Rational_Mind]

Walaikum Asalam Dawud

Here are my thoughts:

First of all, the anti-Ahmadi propaganda is rubbish. I've read most of it that is out there. There are really two types. The first is an attack on the theology of Ahmadiyyat such as the belief in a Prophet after the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) These attacks are based on misunderstandings, as far as I can tell. The second type of attack is that on the organizational structure of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. I also find this to be quite ignorant. One of the biggest attacks on the organizational structure is that of the collection of Chanda. As you explained it to me, as well as from what I have read, I see absolutely nothing wrong with Chanda. Shi'a clerics collect Khums (even though it isn't their right to) and Sunni clerics often ask for constant donations from their followers. Chanda, in my opinion, is superior to both systems. There are, of course, other attacks, but most of them are either unfounded or inconsequential. I have seen attacks on Huzoor (r.a.) cautioning the use of Facebook. I have seen his speeches where he states that he has never banned Facebook but that he merely wishes us to exercise caution with it. I see nothing wrong with this. I have, personally, deleted my Facebook account because I found it to be a huge waste of time as well as a breeding ground for fitna and fisq.

Here is how I understand the propaganda:
1. Attacks against the character of a Prophet.
The strength of these attacks only profess the truthfulness of a Prophet. They begin in the life of the Prophet (as) and continue even until his community shows clear signs of divine support. Those who reject the Prophet (as) state that the end of his community is just around the corner, yet it never comes. For example Jesus (as)'s character is assassinated by Jews when clearly their community grew and the strength and size of Jewish communities perished.

You will also note that Non-Ahmadi's clearly state that Ahmadis are the greatest threat. I do not know of any incident in history where a false Prophet's community was the greatest threat as his community essentially perished as it is the responsibility of Allah (swt) to take care of those who falsely claim to be sent by him.

[69:44] It is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds.
[69:45] And if he had forged and attributed any sayings to Us,
[69:46] We would surely have seized him by the right hand,
[69:47] And then surely We would have severed his life-artery,
[69:48] And not one of you could have held Us off from him.

In fact many of the allegations raised against Ahmad (AS) are directly parallel the allegations against Holy Prophet (SAW) which further profess his truth. This parallel is not found among other claimants who are not even focus of this Ummah's discussion as God destroyed them and their communities. Sadly many times Anti-Ahmadiyya try to draw comparisons to the Mahdi of Sudan to display their own ignorance.

[43:8] But there never came to them a Prophet but they mocked at him.

I was born an Ahmadi Muslim and grew up quite sheltered from Non-Ahmadis. In general Canada does not have such sectarian hate sentiment as you would find in the UK. I had little to no real interest in religion and simply believed Ahmadiyyat was the truth because I was born into it. Going to University and finding international students with their hate on display changed me completely. First it felt like everything fell apart, I started reading Anti-Ahmadiyya Propoganda and didn't know anything about it. But finally this arose an interest in Religion in me and I question what the chances were I was born into the right religion. And as this verse explain below these enemies of Ahmad (as) fulfilled their purpose as Allah (swt) had intended so that I began to read more about Islam and the books of Ahmad (as). Soon after my heart converted to Ahmadiyyat. As a result I learned more about different sects in Islam and also many other Religions. Alhumdollillah

[6:113] And in like manner have We made for every Prophet an enemy, evil ones from among men and Jinn. They suggest one to another gilded speech in order to deceive — and if thy Lord had enforced His will, they would not have done it; so leave them alone with that which they fabricate —

2. Attacks on the Organizations Structure of Ahmadiyya Jamaat
Quite simply these attacks are the handy work of ex-Ahmadis many of whom were kicked from the Jamaat (organizational structure) for wrongdoings. By being removed from the organization they are not allowed to attend Jamaat Events and other members are not allowed to keep close relations with them. It can be a variety of reasons such as fraud, theft, abuse, etc. It is a punishment given for severe misconduct. So they have a personal dispute which they use to feed Anti-Ahmadiyya. The reality is that being close to this system you know that such Propoganda can only deceive Non-Ahmadi who don't know anything about the system. Such as the attack on Chanda made me realize how honest our Jamaat is with money as I compared it to stories shared by my Sunni friends, one of whom complimented our Chanda organization. He complained that they aren't given receipts and 20 yrs of collection donations they built a one small room sized mosque. Nobody is answerable in this system and they have mosque competitions and conflict on a new mosque opening up a Madrassa in the same region (taking away their gains from fees).

3.Theological Differences
All I can say is there is nothing really here. I have found that 99.9% of theological disputes on the basis of which we are Non-Muslim make at least one other sect Non-Muslim and at least one Scholar whom they hold to high respect a Non-Muslim. Here Ahmadis come armed with the Quran and along the Anti-Ahmadiyya bring a long list of so and so scholars said this on the topic. Soon in utter loss they redirect the discussion to character assassination of Ahmad (as). You will note the more respected Non-Ahmadi Scholars among them such as Shiekh Hamza Yusuf, Nouman Ali Khan, etc will always steer away from this discussion and just say their is a consensus that Ahmadis are "Kafirs". Careful study shows their insecurities in their statements which is also why they shy away from any debate that will put them in the public eye. They have learned by seeing what has happened to their "elders" who attempted and what happens to the foolish ones.

Unfortunately if more Non-Ahmadi Muslims spent time studying from the Quran and less time studying from these Scholars alone they would come to Ahmadiyyat as many others have. I always find that the Ummah is largely ignorant and not interested in reading nor interested in question the religion of their forefathers. If they had been born in any other religion whether Hinduism or Christianity they would have defended it in ignorance. But there are many like yourself, some whom were born Muslims, most of whom accepted Ahmadiyyat and few who acknowledge the truth of it but aren't ready yet or lack the courage to make the sacrifices. I have heard many Arabs who have gone underground as they witness how those who converted were tortured. Many Muslims who accept Ahmadiyyat lose their families who persecute them within their homes. It is quite a sacrifice.

Will need more time to address the rest.

Asalamo Alaikum

P.S I think this should have gone to Ahmadiyya DIR. As Non-Ahmadi can question there.

 

[Dawud]

Bismillah.
Asalaam-o-Alaikum to everybody. I finally have access to a computer at the library. I'm just a poor college student so I don't have one of my own (sold my old one to pay rent a while ago) anymore but in sha Allah I will be getting a new one maybe within the next month or so. My apologies for late responses to everything.

I was saying that if someone falsely blames you for something, let me know. I apologize though, I should not have so hastily assumed that you knew urdu (the way you were writing made it seem like you were a native urdu speaker; for example, mazhab would sound more like maddhab in Arabic). BTW, I'm not Muslim, I'm Hindu, but I was born in Pakistan and so urdu is my native language [although I currently live in the US]. Also, I'm a guy (so it should be boltA, not boltI) and you mean "yA akhi," right (Akh means eye)? I'm too picky, aren't I?

Oh okay, thanks for the translation akhi. And thank you for letting me know. If I do see something, I will let you know in sha Allah. I'm just remembering from the past when I would ask people about Ahmadiyyat and they would insult the religion. I was just shocked. Why can't we all get along?

And yeah, I can see how someone would think that. My apologies agha. I only know a few phrases of Urdu but I type like a Pakistani because way back when I was first learning about Islam, I learned mostly from Pakistani Deobandis and their way of spelling has stuck with me. I promise, I don't sound like a fob in real life. As for "ya akh", I think it depends. Akhi is the proper word for brother, yes. But I thought that in the accusative case it changes to akh. If not, I'm so sorry. In case you can't tell, I'm just a weird white guy that likes to throw around foreign words to sound smart. :run:

Wa alikom esalam Dawud

Nobody will curse you here, it would be stupid to do so.
I don't hate Ahmadi, shia, soufi or anyone who choose a different sect than me.

I've never joined any religious group, and never met in my life someone hating this or that muslim.

Thanks for sharing your experience and thoughts.

Can i ask what was your religion before Islam ?

Thank you so much for your kind words Agha Pastek. I know that nobody here will curse me. Alhamdulillah this website seems very progressive and tolerant. I'm just recalling some experiences on other web forums (that claim to be Muslim websites) that were very unislamic. I won't name them, but some communities out there are rather hateful. But you're right, I've never met anybody personally that holds such hatred (except some weird uncles from the Deobandi masjid, but I never associated with them much). People are a lot braver behind a computer screen.

I was a Christian.

Hi,

I responded here:

(Link removed)

Hello Jaza ko mullah for your response. I will in sha Allah share my thoughts in that thread.

As-salaam alaikum

You put it in the Islam DIR for all to discuss so I'm going to give the perspective of Muslims, Sunni and Shi'ite, who agree on this matter. There is no belief in Islam of another Prophet after the Prophet Muhammad. To declare yourself to be a Prophet is kufr. Mirza Ghulam was a kafir then for claiming to be a Prophet of Allah and the teachings he spread are kufr. For added references see below.

Further below is a list of the "consensus that Muhammad ﷺ is the Last Prophet: Statements of the fuqaha', mufassireen, sufis, and theologians"

Wa alaykom asalaam.

Yes, of course! Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I posted it in the Islam DIR (instead of Ahmadiyya DIR) so that I could get responses from people in other Mazhabs.

As for no belief in Islam of another prophet; up until recently, I would have agreed with you. However, I can't help but disagree right now. At the very least, the matter of a future Prophet is left silent and could go either way. At most, it is explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an. Different tafasir have different interpretations, but I have an Ahmadi tafsir that shows several places in the Qur'an where future Prophets may be implied. Whether Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a kafir or not, I do not know. But I will never declare anybody to be a kafir, personally. It's too big of a risk. There is a hadeeth that says if you do takfir and you're wrong, you become an automatic kafir. I don't want to risk it. Plus, I am not God so it's not my place to judge other peoples' religious beliefs.

Forgive me agha, but I don't give much weight to what "scholars" say. I mean absolutely no disrespect to any scholars in particular or in general, but the scholars themselves disagree on a lot and have occasionally made takfir of each other. I would rather see clear proofs from the Qur'an and ahadeeth.

Thank you very much for your response akhi

Bro Rational Mind: I'm running out of time! I'm so sorry akhi. I will try to respond in a little bit. I have more time here at the library, but I've also got other responsibilities. So in sha Allah I'll be back within an hour to respond to you and to Shia Islam.

 

[Bismillah]

Wa alaykom asalaam.

Yes, of course! Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I posted it in the Islam DIR (instead of Ahmadiyya DIR) so that I could get responses from people in other Mazhabs.

As for no belief in Islam of another prophet; up until recently, I would have agreed with you. However, I can't help but disagree right now. At the very least, the matter of a future Prophet is left silent and could go either way. At most, it is explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an. Different tafasir have different interpretations, but I have an Ahmadi tafsir that shows several places in the Qur'an where future Prophets may be implied. Whether Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a kafir or not, I do not know. But I will never declare anybody to be a kafir, personally. It's too big of a risk. There is a hadeeth that says if you do takfir and you're wrong, you become an automatic kafir. I don't want to risk it. Plus, I am not God so it's not my place to judge other peoples' religious beliefs.

Forgive me agha, but I don't give much weight to what "scholars" say. I mean absolutely no disrespect to any scholars in particular or in general, but the scholars themselves disagree on a lot and have occasionally made takfir of each other. I would rather see clear proofs from the Qur'an and ahadeeth.

Thank you very much for your response akhi

As salaam alaikum,

Dearest Dawud let me preface by saying that I did not post before or continue to post this out of hatred for you or other Ahmadis. I wish upon you the blessing, peace, and mercy of Allah insha allah.

You have said you mistrust scholars, but then yo say you have read an Ahmadi tafsir? So it seems to me you have a preference for certain scholars Now my question to you then is thus: why do you disregard the scholastic rulings and opinions on Islam from the people who lived among the Prophet Muhammad, from the people who learned from these companions, and from the people who learned from al taba tabiin? Why is it that for centuries upon centuries the greatest scholars, Imams, sufis, and fuqaha from among the Sunni and Shi'ite agree that the Prophet Muhammad is the last Prophet? How could it be that it took until the 20th century for a certain group of men to get it right? Sorry brother the Qur'an itself, aside from the hadith, are pretty clear about this subject. It has been understood that the Prophet Muhammad is the final messenger of Allah. That is why we are Muslims and are considered the nation of Muhammad. On Judgement day it won't be Mirza Ghulam or anyone else who will look after us, it will be the Prophet Muhammad. There is a reason why we are his ummah. Do you honestly feel that Islam, the Qur'an, and the Prophet Muhammad was not enough to be the final guidance? That we need another person to step in and fill in the shoes of our own beloved Prophet Muhammad and as if anyone could come in and we could call him worthy enough to be a Prophet after our own Mustafa sal allahu alayhi wa salaam.

Secondly how come you dismiss the scholars of Islam, have you ever sat at the feet and learned from them? Let me tell you they are among the most humble people and most God conscious. The scholars are the people who devote their entire lives to Islam brother and trying to attack them like this is silly. I pray namaaz read Qur'an and think of Allah, but I also think of the dunya and things outside of Islam. For the scholars they eat, breathe, and live Islam it is their most important purpose.

Have you read a book on them? On Imam Shafi'i or Imam Abu Hanifi or Malik or Ja'afar? Subhanallah brother you can feel their piety from the pages. I encourage you read a biography, spare more than just a though, article, or web page which pushes an agenda. Get to know the people you are dismissing before you attack them. I think that is what a fair and honest person would do.

Another thing I want to bring up is how people, Sunni Sh'ite and Ahmadi, bring up a verse and a hadith to prove a point But I also don't think it's wise to take or isolate instances of what the Prophet said or did and then try to derive what his actual teaching or message was. We should either approach the hadith with a scholar or base the teachings and messages of the Prophet from what learned ullema have said were the teachings and messages of the Prophet.

This piecemeal approach to hadith and the Qur'an is something I disagree with because not every instance sheds light on either the context or the obvious implication or meaning is not always the correct one. Each hadith needs to be balanced with revelation from the Qur'an and from earlier and later periods of the Prophet's life. Be honest, how well do you understand and remember what the Qur'an says and how it relates to each other? How well do you remember instances and implications of what the Prophet did, or saw, or said, or sanctioned?

For example there is a hadith which says that if an Imam is hungry then feed him. The obvious understanding would be to feed the Imam correct? However the meaning itself is actually to do with prayer, if the Imam makes a mistake while reciting salah then correct him. See the problems of taking things at face value and reaching the obvious conclusions?

We simply haven't devoted ourselves to Islam from an academic perspective. The vast majority of us understand little to nothing because we haven't even made the most basic attempts. Then a smaller minority of us have put in the effort to read the Qur'an and learn of the Prophet do so for our betterment, our mastery and understanding might be of a benefit to us but to say that it is academic or comparable to the process by which students of knowledge learn is ridiculous.

I think this will be my last post in this thread, I have been keeping it as a mutual dialogue between you and me but fear that others might be insulted or start to debate and argue in the Islam DIR which is against the rules.

 

[DawudTalut]

Peace be on you Dawud.

1-
First of all, best wishes and prayers for your spiritual journey and for reaching to destination [which Holy Prophet s.a.w. said (in terms of "even if going through mountains of snow.......")].

Allah says in Holy Quran:

[ch 29 : v 70]
Translation
"And (as for) those who strive in Our path — We will surely guide them in Our ways. And verily Allah is with those who do good."
https://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=2051&region=E1&CR=EN,E2&CR=EN,E2


In this regard there are many examples: one example, this humble has mentioned in one of the his posts, about struggles and related aspects in the path of Allah and seeking direction from Allah, who is Al-Hadi [The Guide].

Quote from http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...narrates-progeny-parents-who-loved-allah.html

"" His [Prof. Abdus Salam's] pious father writes in his diary [Gist]: When I was a student in college and living in dormitory with other students [some time before March 1914], a person came at preaching tour and asked us to join his and his friends’ new organization against the one who had claimed to be The Promised Messiah. I said what if the claimant was correct? He insisted that the claimant was wrong. I said: No, we should seek guidance from Bestower God in this matter. I gave the argument that if we ask way to railway station from a common person he guides us, then how it is possible that if we seek guidance from The Most Gracious and The Most Bestower God, He will not guide. So I started to pray for forty days: “Guide us in the right path” [Holy Quran, ch 1 : v 6] standing, sitting and lying…. One day I saw in dream that an exalted pious man is sitting in our house. A known man named Allah Dad [which means Given by Allah] tells me that this is the Holy man you are looking for. I joined him in eating food. It was indicated that he is from Qadian ----- Latter, I went there. I was told that Hazrat Khalifah tul Messiah - The First [may Allah be pleased with him] was coming in his clinic. I went there. About thirty people were waiting for him. I found a place at the end. Soon, Hazrat Khalifah I arrived, he was being supported by two people. Graciously, he came straight to me and greeted me as if he already knows me. I recognized him too [from dream]. He asked me if I wanted to do Bai'at. I was speechless. Then he took my hand and said the words of Bai'at [He had said, if there was any un-agreeable word, I should withdraw my hand, I thought what could be better than that.] .. All present people and I repeated the words of Bai'at after him……Then on, I was opposed but my faith grew strong. Fanatics passed 82 fatwas against me…. We two brother were only Ahmadiyya Muslims in the whole town. We faced severe opposition but we showed patience. ""


No complusion, choice is yours, everyone is free to choose. Allah is yours, you are His. He is enough for you.


2-
Here, in the original post, you have mentioned:
Quote:
"...I have seen attacks on Huzoor (r.a.) cautioning the use of Facebook. I have seen his speeches...."

i-- Very humbly saying [keeping in mind, you are in quest of knowledge]: Plz note that, with the name of Huzur, (r.a.) is not used. Customarily (r.a.) is used for passed away companion of Prophet. [radhi Allaho anho = May Allah be pleased with him]

ii-- A variation of (r.a.) is also used as (ra) = [rahimahullah = May Allah have mercy on him] = This is used for very pious passed away beloveds of Allah [who were not physical companions of Prophet] eg, after the names of 3rd and 4th passed away Ahmadiyya Khulafa [plural of Khalifah] (ra) is used.

iii-- For the present Khalifa tul Messiah, (a.t.) is used, [a.t. = aiyyadahullah = May Allah help him (or... May Allah the Exalted help him with His Mighty help = aiyyadahullaho Ta'ala benasrayhil aziz) ].


3-
In these posts, at # 10, you have used a word 'agha' for two males and one female.
Obviously, you are using it by thinking it is word of honor, like Sir/madam etc.
But to be specific, it is for males and here is more about it
Agha (Ottoman Empire) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


4-
Surely, I am not trying to entangle your spiritual journey in the net of words and their uses, just thought it will be helpful.


Please remember in your prayers.

May Allah bless everyone.

 

[Rational_Mind]

That leads me to Ahmadiyyat. I am finding, more and more, that the teachings of Hazrat Ahmad (a.s.) are both incredibly honest and logical. When I read about his life and the way he interacted with others, I can't help but draw a parallel to the life of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) They both spent a lot of time in seclusion praying. They both were incredibly gentle and kind. They both faced extreme persecution and they both turned the other cheek for as long as they could. They both accepted all human beings regardless of how bad their past was. And they both left an incredible mark upon history that even non-Muslims have good things to say about them.

I would advise you to read the book of Promised Messiah (as) entitled The Need for An Imam. Here is an excerpt covering the importance of Bai'at or pledging of allegiance. I feel it directly answers your misconception that one can be unworthy of pledging allegiance.

I have already written at length about the true Imam who is entitled to accept Bai‘at, now I will say something about the true concept of Bai‘at. The term Bai‘at is derived from Bai‘, which means a transaction carried out by mutual agreement, in which something is bartered for another. The sine qua non of Bai‘at is that one who enters into it, sells his being, with all its wherewithal, at the hands of a spiritual guide, in order to acquire in exchange the knowledge of spiritual verities and perfect blessings which lead to Divine knowledge, salvation and favour of the Almighty. This shows that repentance is not the sole object of Bai‘at, for a person can have recourse to it on his own. The true object of Bai‘at is to acquire the spiritual knowledge, blessings and signs which brings about true repentance. The real purpose of Bai‘at is to enslave oneself to the spiritual leader and guide, and to acquire, in exchange, the knowledge, spiritual insight and blessings which help to fortify the faith and sharpen the spiritual vision and establish a pure relationship with God. Likewise, it offers salvation from the hell of this world and, consequently, of the hereafter. And, having cured the blindness of this world, it makes one immune from the blindness of the hereafter. In the presence of such a man who offers these fruits of Bai‘at, it would be the height of misfortune to turn away from him knowingly. My dear friend! as for ourselves, we are hungry and thirsty for spiritual knowledge, for truths and verities and for heavenly blessings, and even an ocean of knowledge is not enough to satisfy us. (The Need for An Imam, pg 44-45)

I would also request you to ponder upon these Hadith, and most important of all pray to Allah to seek guidance in such an important matter.

Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) is reported to have said:

"One who dies without accepting the Imam (Appointed by Allah) of the time, his death is a death in disbelief". [53]

​

Regarding Imam Mahdi, our beloved master said:

"When you see him (Imam Mahdi) then certainly perform bait to him even if you have to crawl over your knees through the mountains of snow because he (Imam Mahdi) will be the Khalifa of God." [54].

"One who obeyed Imam Mahdi obeyed me, one who disobeyed him disobeyed me" [55].

"One who rejected Imam Mahdi he did kufr" [56].

53. Masnad Ahmad ibn Hanble Vol. 4 p96.
54. Mastadarrak Hakim Kitab al-Fitn Wal Malaham Chapter Khuroojal Mahdi.
55. Biharul Anwaar Vol. 13 p17.
56. Hajj Al-Kiramah p351, as well as Lawaih Al-Anwaar Al-Baheema Vol. 2 p88.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Bismillah.
Asalaam-o-Alaikum to everybody. I finally have access to a computer at the library. I'm just a poor college student so I don't have one of my own (sold my old one to pay rent a while ago) anymore but in sha Allah I will be getting a new one maybe within the next month or so. My apologies for late responses to everything.


Oh okay, thanks for the translation akhi. And thank you for letting me know. If I do see something, I will let you know in sha Allah. I'm just remembering from the past when I would ask people about Ahmadiyyat and they would insult the religion. I was just shocked. Why can't we all get along?

And yeah, I can see how someone would think that. My apologies agha. I only know a few phrases of Urdu but I type like a Pakistani because way back when I was first learning about Islam, I learned mostly from Pakistani Deobandis and their way of spelling has stuck with me. I promise, I don't sound like a fob in real life. As for "ya akh", I think it depends. Akhi is the proper word for brother, yes. But I thought that in the accusative case it changes to akh. If not, I'm so sorry. In case you can't tell, I'm just a weird white guy that likes to throw around foreign words to sound smart. :run:

I meant that in Urdu, we would use akhi. Even if you were speaking in Arabic though, why would it be akh and not akhihi (wouldn't you use idafa rather than mansuub)? I'm not very good at Arabic, lol. Also, aaghaa is a turkic or dari word I think, in urdu we use aaqaa, . Also, you were once a deobandi; aren't they radical salafi, ahl-al-hadith followers?