Who is the real Imam Mahdi? Is he still to come?

[paarsurrey]

Not all. Hinduism gives freedom for people to think on their own. It's not some block of people all thinking exactly the same way. That's a beauty of Hinduism that other faiths don't have so much of. So you'd have to go around and ask each person what they truly believed.

Do the Ammadiyas believe that Mirza Akmad was Kalki, in the same way the Baha'is believe Baha'u'llah was?

Yes, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 did claim not only to be the end time Krishna but the end time reformer of all the religions of the world as they have prophecy for him though we prominently remember him as the Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi as per the prophecies of Muhammad. It is for everybody to research and to find the truth, no compulsion, however, please. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 did claim not only to be the end time Krishna but the end time reformer of all the religions of the world as they have prophecy for him though we prominently remember him as the Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi as per the prophecies of Muhammad. It is for everybody to research and to find the truth, no compulsion, however, please. Right, please?

Regards

Thank you. As you know I don't believe in messiahs of any kind, but it's good to know your belief parallels that of the Baha'i faith. It's easier to understand faiths that have so much in common, because if you understand one, you understand many.

 

[paarsurrey]

Not all. Hinduism gives freedom for people to think on their own. It's not some block of people all thinking exactly the same way. That's a beauty of Hinduism that other faiths don't have so much of. So you'd have to go around and ask each person what they truly believed.

Do the Ammadiyas believe that Mirza Akmad was Kalki, in the same way the Baha'is believe Baha'u'llah was?

Vinayaka wrote, " Do the Ammadiyas believe that Mirza Akmad was Kalki
As asked by one ,I give here a write-up from the official website of the Ahmadiyya Islam on the issue:
Quote.
"Krishna – `I am the Beginning and the End’
Questioner: My question is about Lord Krishna(as). We Hindus treat Lord Krishna(as) as the creator, the preserver and the destroyer of all beings. As he himself said, ‘of all the creations, I am the beginning and the end and the middle. I am unborn and without beginning. Though I am the Lord of all sentient beings, I still appear every millennium in my original transcendental form.’ My question is, how far does this religious philosophy conform with the philosophy of Islam?
Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad: First of all, I beg to differ with you as far as the interpretation of these lines is concerned. I have been a student of comparative religion. I found that every religion, however idolatrous it may appear to us today, was fundamentally a monotheistic religion because if one does not accept this universal principle then arguments between religions will have no end whatsoever and each religion will be understood to have emanated from a different source, from a different God.
Now, as against the understanding of the Vedas which you have presented to us, you should have remembered also that this is exactly what Jesus Christ(as) said, that I am the Alpha, I am the Omega, and this is not only said by Jesus Christ(as) but also in the Holy Qur’an there is mention of this truth that the Holy Prophet Muhammad(sa) is the source and means of people reaching God and when you say Khatemun Nabiyyeen (i.e. the `seal of all the Prophets’) then it can be understood as Omega. But in another `Hadith’ (tradition of the Holy Prophet(sa)) he claims himself to be the very first, the Alpha and according to all the Muslim sects together, in view of some Qur’anic verses and declarations of the Holy Prophet(sa), he was the first to be born.
Now, the question here is that there are some translations made by yourself or somebody else, which indicate that Krishna(as) claimed that he was never born, that he is eternal. I have read the Bhagawat Geeta myself with deep attention and I have discovered only evidence of the truth and unity of God, and Krishna(as) himself only claimed to be a Messenger, no more. For instance, his being called `murli dhar’ (flute player). Apparently, the flute is singing the song or creating the music but there is breath behind it. Then he has more hands than ordinary people and he has a body, a well defined body, but instead of two hands he has four hands and he is also known to have possessed wings. Now, what do these symbols, or if they are not symbols, the literal facts indicate, that is the question! As you said, he gave us the glad tiding that every one thousand years `I will reappear in my original form’. Is this the original form of God? Is this the space of human stature, with four arms, he can be confined and then disappear somewhere and then begin to rule from there. This is a very, very limited understanding of the nature of God which he has created. How could Lord Krishna(as) say that? There has to be some misunderstanding of his message or misinterpretation of his words. Such misunderstandings do appear in every religion because of the specific religious terminology. Take, for instance, the use of the word `wings’. The Holy Qur’an also uses the word `wings’ in relation to angels. But the Holy Qur’an makes it specifically clear that these are not the `wings’ used to fly with, only that the `wings’ are indicative of attributes. So, if there are `two arms’, the attributes are half the number possessed by a person who has four arms. The angels grew in attributes and in this world, according to the Holy Qur’an, they have four wings. But in the hereafter they will have eight ‘wings’ and these are all metaphorical terms and figures, let’s say. For instance, the Holy Prophet Muhammad(sa) himself is told to lower his ‘wing’ of mercy over those who believe him. Then the people are told to lower their ‘wings’ over their parents. So these usages of the same word ‘wing’ elsewhere in the Qur’an makes it very clear to us that they are just terms which have been misunderstood and misapplied.
In short, according to the Ahmadiyya belief, Hazrat Krishna(as) was a holy Messenger of Allah. He used a language of symbols to convey to the world of that time some truths and if you read the Bhagawat Geeta in detail, it is not just an account of war between two factions. It is, in reality, a masterpiece of description of goodness pitched against evil, or evil pitched against goodness. A battle between darkness and light.
Now, turn to Zoroastrianism, what Zoroaster says is again the same thing in different terms. He speaks of fire against darkness, and makes fire the symbol of truth which is God and darkness a symbol of falsehood which is the devil. One finds similar symbolic statements in the Bible and in the Holy Qur’an, but there they do not mean that evil had a separate entity in itself and emanated from a God who was independent of the God of goodness.
So, these are symbolic terms and the use of similar terminology is found in every religion. It is our duty not to be confused by them but to come to a reasonable, sensible understanding whereby we could reconcile the world religions as have emanated from the same single source that is God.
I hope this will be sufficient as I don’t think it will be very profitable to go much further into a debate on this issue. "Unquote.
Lord Krishna and Jesus Christ | Islam Ahmadiyya
Right, please?

Regards

 

[Vinayaka]

Vinayaka wrote, " Do the Ammadiyas believe that Mirza Akmad was Kalki
As asked by one ,I give here a write-up from the official website of the Ahmadiyya Islam on the issue:
Quote.
"Krishna – `I am the Beginning and the End’
Questioner: My question is about Lord Krishna(as). We Hindus treat Lord Krishna(as) as the creator, the preserver and the destroyer of all beings. As he himself said, ‘of all the creations, I am the beginning and the end and the middle. I am unborn and without beginning. Though I am the Lord of all sentient beings, I still appear every millennium in my original transcendental form.’ My question is, how far does this religious philosophy conform with the philosophy of Islam?
Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad: First of all, I beg to differ with you as far as the interpretation of these lines is concerned. I have been a student of comparative religion. I found that every religion, however idolatrous it may appear to us today, was fundamentally a monotheistic religion because if one does not accept this universal principle then arguments between religions will have no end whatsoever and each religion will be understood to have emanated from a different source, from a different God.
Now, as against the understanding of the Vedas which you have presented to us, you should have remembered also that this is exactly what Jesus Christ(as) said, that I am the Alpha, I am the Omega, and this is not only said by Jesus Christ(as) but also in the Holy Qur’an there is mention of this truth that the Holy Prophet Muhammad(sa) is the source and means of people reaching God and when you say Khatemun Nabiyyeen (i.e. the `seal of all the Prophets’) then it can be understood as Omega. But in another `Hadith’ (tradition of the Holy Prophet(sa)) he claims himself to be the very first, the Alpha and according to all the Muslim sects together, in view of some Qur’anic verses and declarations of the Holy Prophet(sa), he was the first to be born.
Now, the question here is that there are some translations made by yourself or somebody else, which indicate that Krishna(as) claimed that he was never born, that he is eternal. I have read the Bhagawat Geeta myself with deep attention and I have discovered only evidence of the truth and unity of God, and Krishna(as) himself only claimed to be a Messenger, no more. For instance, his being called `murli dhar’ (flute player). Apparently, the flute is singing the song or creating the music but there is breath behind it. Then he has more hands than ordinary people and he has a body, a well defined body, but instead of two hands he has four hands and he is also known to have possessed wings. Now, what do these symbols, or if they are not symbols, the literal facts indicate, that is the question! As you said, he gave us the glad tiding that every one thousand years `I will reappear in my original form’. Is this the original form of God? Is this the space of human stature, with four arms, he can be confined and then disappear somewhere and then begin to rule from there. This is a very, very limited understanding of the nature of God which he has created. How could Lord Krishna(as) say that? There has to be some misunderstanding of his message or misinterpretation of his words. Such misunderstandings do appear in every religion because of the specific religious terminology. Take, for instance, the use of the word `wings’. The Holy Qur’an also uses the word `wings’ in relation to angels. But the Holy Qur’an makes it specifically clear that these are not the `wings’ used to fly with, only that the `wings’ are indicative of attributes. So, if there are `two arms’, the attributes are half the number possessed by a person who has four arms. The angels grew in attributes and in this world, according to the Holy Qur’an, they have four wings. But in the hereafter they will have eight ‘wings’ and these are all metaphorical terms and figures, let’s say. For instance, the Holy Prophet Muhammad(sa) himself is told to lower his ‘wing’ of mercy over those who believe him. Then the people are told to lower their ‘wings’ over their parents. So these usages of the same word ‘wing’ elsewhere in the Qur’an makes it very clear to us that they are just terms which have been misunderstood and misapplied.
In short, according to the Ahmadiyya belief, Hazrat Krishna(as) was a holy Messenger of Allah. He used a language of symbols to convey to the world of that time some truths and if you read the Bhagawat Geeta in detail, it is not just an account of war between two factions. It is, in reality, a masterpiece of description of goodness pitched against evil, or evil pitched against goodness. A battle between darkness and light.
Now, turn to Zoroastrianism, what Zoroaster says is again the same thing in different terms. He speaks of fire against darkness, and makes fire the symbol of truth which is God and darkness a symbol of falsehood which is the devil. One finds similar symbolic statements in the Bible and in the Holy Qur’an, but there they do not mean that evil had a separate entity in itself and emanated from a God who was independent of the God of goodness.
So, these are symbolic terms and the use of similar terminology is found in every religion. It is our duty not to be confused by them but to come to a reasonable, sensible understanding whereby we could reconcile the world religions as have emanated from the same single source that is God.
I hope this will be sufficient as I don’t think it will be very profitable to go much further into a debate on this issue. "Unquote.
Lord Krishna and Jesus Christ | Islam Ahmadiyya

Right, please?

Regards

Yes it's the same as with Baha'i. The leader claims to know far more than the Hindus themselves. It's insulting, but they don't know it. Why am I not surprised.

You are right, and I am wrong. lol

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 did claim not only to be the end time Krishna but the end time reformer of all the religions of the world as they have prophecy for him though we prominently remember him as the Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi as per the prophecies of Muhammad. It is for everybody to research and to find the truth, no compulsion, however, please. Right, please?

Regards

With all due respect, what is there to research? What proof did he provide for making such a bold claim? Did he have a completed mission? Did he have scriptures? Did he fulfill any prophecies of those religions? Did he fulfill any Bible prophecies?

If not, all he had was a claim. Baha'u'llah made two very bold claims:

1. He declared he was God’s messenger for the next one thousand years, having the same divine authority, the same Holy Spirit, the same divine power, as Moses, Christ, Muhammad, and the other founders of the major world religions:

2. He declared he was the promised world messiah foretold in all the prophecies, in all the holy books, of all the religions of the world – the one promised to come on the Day of Judgment, the Day of God, the Time of the End, the End of the World, to establish the kingdom of God on Earth.

When asked for evidence that supports these claims, I posted the evidence on this thread:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes it's the same as with Baha'i. The leader claims to know far more than the Hindus themselves. It's insulting,

That is absolutely false. Baha'u'llah never even commented on Hinduism or Krishna.
You can blame the know-it-all Baha'is if you want to, but don't drag Baha'u'llah into the fray, because that is unfair.

As you might know, followers of any religion often veer away from what the Prophet founder actually said.

Moreover, having done a web search I cannot find anything where the UHJ commented on Hinduism. Individual Baha'is have written articles on Hinduism, but that is another matter. For example:

Hinduism and the Bahá'í Faith

I have no idea how accurate these articles are because I am not versed in Hinduism. There is nothing in the Baha'i Faith that precludes people from writing articles about religion or anything else, as that would be oppressive.

 

[paarsurrey]

With all due respect, what is there to research? What proof did he provide for making such a bold claim? Did he have a completed mission? Did he have scriptures? Did he fulfill any prophecies of those religions? Did he fulfill any Bible prophecies?

If not, all he had was a claim. Baha'u'llah made two very bold claims:

1. He declared he was God’s messenger for the next one thousand years, having the same divine authority, the same Holy Spirit, the same divine power, as Moses, Christ, Muhammad, and the other founders of the major world religions:

2. He declared he was the promised world messiah foretold in all the prophecies, in all the holy books, of all the religions of the world – the one promised to come on the Day of Judgment, the Day of God, the Time of the End, the End of the World, to establish the kingdom of God on Earth.

When asked for evidence that supports these claims, I posted the evidence on this thread:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

Trailblazer wrote, " what is there to research?"

If one is in the right mood, there is always a lot to search and research.
There are people who take it in the wrong way. If somebody invites me to his religion/faith/or no-faith, I take it as a mark of respect and honor for me, I never get angry or annoyed with such a person. It is up to me to search/research and find the truth for myself, that's all. Is it wrong, please?
Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer wrote, " what is there to research?"

If one is in the right mood, there is always a lot to search and research.
There are people who take it in the wrong way. If somebody invites me to his religion/faith/or no-faith, I take it as a mark of respect and honor for me, I never get angry or annoyed with such a person. It is up to me to search/research and find the truth for myself, that's all. Is it wrong, please?
Right friend, please?

Regards

No that is not wrong, but I did not know I was being invited to your religion. I thought Islam was your religion, but I guess those Muslims who believe the claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad are a sect of Islam:

You said: "Yes, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 did claim not only to be the end time Krishna but the end time reformer of all the religions of the world as they have prophecy for him though we prominently remember him as the Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi as per the prophecies of Muhammad."

I was not angry or annoyed, I just wondered if you could point me in the direction of where I might search for more information.

However, given I believe that Baha'u'llah was the Promised Messiah, I could never believe in the claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, since both of them cannot be the Messiah.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yes, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 did claim not only to be the end time Krishna but the end time reformer of all the religions of the world as they have prophecy for him though we prominently remember him as the Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi as per the prophecies of Muhammad. It is for everybody to research and to find the truth, no compulsion, however, please. Right, please?

Regards

Thank you. As you know I don't believe in messiahs of any kind, but it's good to know your belief parallels that of the Baha'i faith. It's easier to understand faiths that have so much in common, because if you understand one, you understand many.

No that is not wrong, but I did not know I was being invited to your religion. I thought Islam was your religion, but I guess those Muslims who believe the claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad are a sect of Islam:

You said: "Yes, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 did claim not only to be the end time Krishna but the end time reformer of all the religions of the world as they have prophecy for him though we prominently remember him as the Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi as per the prophecies of Muhammad."

I was not angry or annoyed, I just wondered if you could point me in the direction of where I might search for more information.

However, given I believe that Baha'u'llah was the Promised Messiah, I could never believe in the claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, since both of them cannot be the Messiah.

What has to be consider is that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his successor were taught the Baha'i Faith and the teachings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad began to reflect that of the Bahai teachings after those meetings.

Interaction with The People of Bahá: A response to Ahmadi Answers

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Trailblazer wrote, " what is there to research?"

If one is in the right mood, there is always a lot to search and research.
There are people who take it in the wrong way. If somebody invites me to his religion/faith/or no-faith, I take it as a mark of respect and honor for me, I never get angry or annoyed with such a person. It is up to me to search/research and find the truth for myself, that's all. Is it wrong, please?
Right friend, please?

Regards

How can we ever be angry with you paarsurrey, you heart is gentle and pure.

Yes there is a lot to research, if you choose, please read the link.

Interaction with The People of Bahá: A response to Ahmadi Answers

If you read the articles available at that link, we're you aware of any of this?

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

Both sides would be fair, no? Here is a link to a book giving the Ahmadiyya views on the Baha'i faith. If you have the Baha'i views on the Ahmadiyya sect, then it seems fair.

The Babi and Baha'i Religion | Islam Ahmadiyya

 

[paarsurrey]

No that is not wrong, but I did not know I was being invited to your religion. I thought Islam was your religion, but I guess those Muslims who believe the claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad are a sect of Islam:

You said: "Yes, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 did claim not only to be the end time Krishna but the end time reformer of all the religions of the world as they have prophecy for him though we prominently remember him as the Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi as per the prophecies of Muhammad."

I was not angry or annoyed, I just wondered if you could point me in the direction of where I might search for more information.

However, given I believe that Baha'u'llah was the Promised Messiah, I could never believe in the claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, since both of them cannot be the Messiah.

I did not invite one to my faith/religion, kindly don't take me wrong, please.
I was just informing one that when Bahaism people in the forum presented their posts consistently with a lot of fervor and enthusiasm about Bahaullah and his truth or otherwise, I took it as a matter of respect from them and got to search and research as per the method of search and research I understand to be "Religious Method". Bahaullah did not fit to be true with that method, so sorry I could not accept him.
Can't one do the same , please? Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

How can we ever be angry with you paarsurrey, you heart is gentle and pure.

Yes there is a lot to research, if you choose, please read the link.

Interaction with The People of Bahá: A response to Ahmadi Answers

If you read the articles available at that link, we're you aware of any of this?

Regards Tony

Well that is not my way/methodology of search and research, please. I search from the root book of a religion of the same size or about the same size as is Quran. Right friend, please?
I did the same with Bahaullah under the "Religious Method" and studied "Kitab-e-Iqan" "Book of Certitude" and discussed it in these forums, please. Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Both sides would be fair, no? Here is a link to a book giving the Ahmadiyya views on the Baha'i faith. If you have the Baha'i views on the Ahmadiyya sect, then it seems fair.

The Babi and Baha'i Religion | Islam Ahmadiyya

Sure you can get from the post what you wish. We all get that choice.

Did you read what was offered?

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Well that is not my way/methodology of search and research, please. I search from the root book of a religion of the same size or about the same size as is Quran. Right friend, please?
I did the same with Bahaullah under the "Religious Method" and studied "Kitab-e-Iqan" "Book of Certitude" and discussed it in these forums, please. Right friend, please?

Regards

All good dear friend, I only ask if you do see the significance that many writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah were made available and were studied?

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

Sure you can get from the post what you wish. We all get that choice.

Did you read what was offered?

Regards Tony

No I'm not interested. I suppose I might some day, if I have nothing better to do, I only posted it to let you and others know that there are always two sides to every story. There are a great many parallels to the two faiths, and those can be seen by the Wikipedia articles. Missionary zeal, widespread, a single prophet, letters to world leaders, the world population of each, origins in Islam, both claiming to be superior to previous versions, very similar about the nature of God, but both considered heretic by mainstream Islam as well.

One difference is the succession of power, as the Ahmadiyya leadership remains in one man, whereas the Baha'i is in 9 men. On this forum, only one is represented by several people. As far as I know, Parsurrey is alone here.

It's also interesting to me that each side is unlikely to read the other side's POV. Such is the very nature of confirmation bias. But I will be out. None of my business, really.

Take care.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

No I'm not interested. I suppose I might some day, if I have nothing better to do, I only posted it to let you and others know that there are always two sides to every story. There are a great many parallels to the two faiths, and those can be seen by the Wikipedia articles. Missionary zeal, widespread, a single prophet, letters to world leaders, the world population of each, origins in Islam, both claiming to be superior to previous versions, very similar about the nature of God, but both considered heretic by mainstream Islam as well.

One difference is the succession of power, as the Ahmadiyya leadership remains in one man, whereas the Baha'i is in 9 men. On this forum, only one is represented by several people. As far as I know, Parsurrey is alone here.

It's also interesting to me that each side is unlikely to read the other side's POV. Such is the very nature of confirmation bias. But I will be out. None of my business, really.

Take care.

If you did read, you may have considered your reply was not needed.

My link showed that many writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah were given to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, that he did read them, he did study them, say that he had mastered them and quoted them in his books.

The great thing is, he never said one bad thing about the Bab or Baha'u'llah, though he did write against many faiths.

He was also asked a couple of times in the early 1900's to attend debates about the Mahdi with a Baha'i and he turned them down.

Thus even Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not produce the material that you linked.

Baha'u'llah on the other hand asked of the divines of his day for the debates, so that the truth could be distinguished from error and it was others that turned that down.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

I did not invite one to my faith/religion, kindly don't take me wrong, please.
I was just informing one that when Bahaism people in the forum presented their posts consistently with a lot of fervor and enthusiasm about Bahaullah and his truth or otherwise, I took it as a matter of respect from them and got to search and research as per the method of search and research I understand to be "Religious Method". Bahaullah did not fit to be true with that method, so sorry I could not accept him.
Can't one do the same , please? Right, please?

Regards

I did do the same. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not fit to be true with that method, so sorry I could not accept him.
I would have to reject Baha'u'lllah in order to accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad because there cannot be two Messiahs. Moreover, I believe what Baha'u'llah wrote because I believe He is infallible.

“Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor. We pray God that He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate such claim. Should he repent, God will, no doubt, forgive him. If, however, he persisteth in his error, God will, assuredly, send down one who will deal mercilessly with him. Terrible, indeed, is God in punishing! Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things. Fear God, and follow not your idle fancies. Nay, rather follow the bidding of your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Wise.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 346

 

[paarsurrey]

I did do the same. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not fit to be true with that method, so sorry I could not accept him.
I would have to reject Baha'u'lllah in order to accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad because there cannot be two Messiahs. Moreover, I believe what Baha'u'llah wrote because I believe He is infallible.

“Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor. We pray God that He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate such claim. Should he repent, God will, no doubt, forgive him. If, however, he persisteth in his error, God will, assuredly, send down one who will deal mercilessly with him. Terrible, indeed, is God in punishing! Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things. Fear God, and follow not your idle fancies. Nay, rather follow the bidding of your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Wise.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 346

Gleanings is a collection from Bahaullah's writings, not an original book from him, so sorry, it doesn't fit my criteria, please. Right friend, please? If one wants to quote please quote from "Kitab-e-Iqan" for ""claim and "reason", please. Right friend, please?

Regards

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I did do the same. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not fit to be true with that method, so sorry I could not accept him.
I would have to reject Baha'u'lllah in order to accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad because there cannot be two Messiahs. Moreover, I believe what Baha'u'llah wrote because I believe He is infallible.

“Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor. We pray God that He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate such claim. Should he repent, God will, no doubt, forgive him. If, however, he persisteth in his error, God will, assuredly, send down one who will deal mercilessly with him. Terrible, indeed, is God in punishing! Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things. Fear God, and follow not your idle fancies. Nay, rather follow the bidding of your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Wise.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 346

It is OK and fine with me, please.
There is no compulsion from me to accept him, please.
In a way it is good if as Bahaism claim that Bahaullah was an Imam Mahdi or an End-time- Reformer, it affords others an alternative for comparison and research, please. Nevertheless, at least it authenticates the office of Imam Mahdi. Right friend, please?

Regards