No Compusion?

[wn123455]

A large number of Muslims would strongly disagree with that. The verse is recited in the mosques during prayer and when people do their own individual recitation of the Qur'an. It has not been expunged in any way. Some salafis and other extremists may see it differently and consider it abrogated, but salafis and such like do not represent all the Muslims.

Even if so, compulsion would mean forcing them to become Muslims. Requiring citizens of the state to pay tax is something which every government does, and which Jesus also told the Jews to do to Rome (give unto caesar what belongs to caesar). So if you criticise the Qur'an, why don't you condemn Jesus in the same breath? Were the Jews not 'subjugated' by the Romans and 'second class citizens'? Was Jesus ignorant of these facts?

The fact is that Islam gave them complete religious freedom, and did not even require them to do military service in defence of the state. In lieu of this military service, all those who were capable of military service (able bodied men) except priests etc., were required to pay tax to the state so that others may do such service instead of them. So these second-class citizens lived at peace in their homes whilst others (Muslim men) took the pains of doing military service to protect all the citizens of the state.

If however, the dhimmi citizens were willing to do military service and were given the opportunity to do so i.e. there was no fear that they would use those weapons against the state), as did happen at times, they were exempt from the jizya. In contrast, Muslims were required to pay zakat to the state even when they did military service, and those Muslims who didn't do military service were still required to pay zakaat (if applicable to them under religious rules), which was set at a higher rate than jizya anyway. So, the rules were more taxing on the Muslims. There was not even an incentive to become Muslims to avoid the jizya.

So, clearly, the verse on jizya affirms that there is to be no compulsion in religion, even further strengthening the directive. If you think jizya means someone has second class status, you can believe so, but paying jizya instead of zakaat is a sign of the justice of Islamic teachings, giving people their right to believe whatever they wish of their own free will.

Perhaps some extremist and terrorist organisations try to give it that misinterpretation, but waging war against Allah and His Messenger s.a. is without doubt referring to physical warfare and bloodshed, and a very large number of Muslims would say so.

Peace.

Here is what lovebeingamuslimah thinks of Ahmadiyya muslims.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7748420/#post63155079

 

[WoodrowX2]

Here is what lovebeingamuslimah thinks of Ahmadiyya muslims.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7748420/#post63155079

And that has to do with What?`

Most of us do not consider the Ahmadyya and NOI as following Islam. That is our opinions. As to if they are Muslims that is known only to Allaaah(swt). We are not expected to be perfect, but we are expected to follow Islam to the best of our ability.

I will say that neither Ahmadyya nor NOI follow Islam as I understand it to be. It may be my opinion they are not Muslim, but only Allaah(swt) knows if they are following Islam to the best of their ability.

I would not reccommend either as a source to learn about Islam, but that does not mean they should be harmed or persecuted.

I do not see any place where my sister lovebeingamuslimah has advocted harming them either. But, like her, I believe it should be pointed out that their practices do differ considerably from most people who wear the name of Muslim.

 

[Zoness]

Jabhat al-Nusra's Damascus Suicide Bombings Kill 50+ Civilians & Injure 230+ Others (18+) - YouTube

I was looking for information specifically against Christians but point taken; they're still a dangerous group.

 

[seashale76]

Some people are intentionally missing the obvious here, especially concerning the kidnapped nuns. Did you miss the part where they were kidnapped? Whether or not the kidnappers treated their kidnappees (made that up) well is actually irrelevant. You assume they treated them well because you have a video of the nuns- whose lives are defined by prayer and forgiveness in the first place- being compassionate toward those who wronged them. To quote the Power Puff Girls, "It's what we do! Duh!" Does that magically make the kidnappers' vile deeds nonexistent or justified?

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

I'm pleased to say that a cursory search does not indicate to me that Jabhat an-Nusrah has harmed non-combatant Christians intentionally.

Unfortunately too many people think that's what the "Islamist" groups are doing.

That said I think my primary point stands: this is a group that is allied with al-Qaeda, its convenient enough now to be nice to non-combatants because frankly the rebels need all of the PR they can get. Though if we talk about the possibility of an ISIS or Jabhat an-Nusrah ran Syria, I doubt that hospitality towards Christians will last if they want to install Sharia law and a Caliphate as they claim. (Source)

1.) Isn't that guilt by association? I believe that the group should be judged based on their consistent actions. They seem to be a pretty independent group as are most of the other rebel factions.

2.) You're assuming that they're being insincere in being nice to the non-combatants but what is the evidence of this beyond your dislike of the group? The reality on the ground seems to be that they and most other "Islamist" groups are pretty well-liked (except by maybe the most secular of the opposition activists). They're the ones who maintain a lot of order in their groups, too (no looting or stuff like that unlike some of the more secular parts of the FSA).

3.) It's just an assumption that they'll stop being nice if they implement shari'ah. Shari'ah is not meant to be cruel, it is meant to instill the best form of justice. If you call a group "Islamist" (which is what I assume you would call JN) what do you mean? That they're only "Islamists" as a PR stunt but after they gain control they'll become non-Islamists and go against principles of Islaam in their treatment of non-combatants?

So when it comes to Jabhat an-Nusrah, maybe they aren't as bad as the media makes them out to be; I'd have to do a lot more research before I committed to believing that.

Sounds like they're guilty until proven innocent.

I was looking for information specifically against Christians but point taken; they're still a dangerous group.

Except that Jabhat an-Nusrah didn't claim responsibility (which they usually do if they did something) nor do I think it's still known who did it more than a year later. The person who put that video up and ascribed it to them is a secular Syrian regime supporter. They didn't provide the evidence that it was Jabhat an-Nusrah.

 

[Dialogues]

And that has to do with What?`

It seems to be his way of saying:

'I cannot counter your refutation, but you are not even considered Muslim by Muslims, so deal with that instead.'

Most of us do not consider the Ahmadyya and NOI as following Islam. That is our opinions.

The NOI have the belief that Allah was a man named Master W. Fard Muhammad. Ahmadis do not hold such a belief (despite such an unsubstantiated allegation made by LoveBeingaMuslimah in the old thread whose link was given by wn123455).

The problem with holding the opinion that Ahmadis are non-Muslim however, is that involves a clear denial and rejection of the Prophet Muhammad s.a., who defined a Muslim thus in Sahih al Bukhari, deemed the most authentic book of ahadith by Sunnis:

"The Holy Prophet s.a. said (for the purposes of a census): 'Write down for me the name of every such individual who claims to be a Muslim by the word of his own mouth.'"[Bukhari, Kitabul Jihadi Wassiyar, Babu Kitabatil Imaminna sa, Hadith No. 3060. See also Sahih Muslim, Kitabul Iman, Babu Jawazil Istisrari Bil Imani Lil Kha’ifi, Hadith No. 377.]

The Holy Prophet s.a. said: “Whoever testifies that there is no god but Allah, and faces our Qibla, and prays as we pray, and eats the meat slaughtered by us, he is a Muslim who has the rights of a Muslim and the duties of a Muslim.” (Bukhari, Book of Prayer; Book 8, ch. 28; vol. i, p. 222)

"Whoever observes Prayer in the same way as we do, and declares our qibla to be his qibla; one who eats from our dhabiha such a one is a Muslim. To protect such a person is a matter of obligation for Allah and His Messenger. So, [O Muslims!] make sure that you do not violate the obligation from Allah."[Sahih Bukhari, Kitabus Salat, Babu Fadli Istiqbalil Qiblati, Hadith No. 391.]

So Sunnis throw themselves out of the pale of Islam by rejecting the words of the Prophet s.a. and alleging Ahmadis are non-Muslim despite these clear definitions of a Muslim given by the Holy Prophet s.a. himself.

Now the Shi'as may think they have escaped because they don't believe in Bukhari as authentic. Not only in books of Hadith accepted by the Ahl Sunna, but also in the collections accepted by the Shiahs a very similar definition of a Muslim is given. Ali, the fourth Caliph, announced during his rule: “He who faces our Qibla, and eats the meat slaughtered by us, and believes in our Prophet, and testifies our testimony [i.e. the Kalima], and enters our religion, we shall apply to him the law of the Quran and the Islamic limitations, and no such person shall be superior to another one [in rights].” (Faruh Kafi, vol. iii, Book of rejection, p. 166)

So, there is no escape for shi'as either, as the definition in their book of hadith attributed to Ali r.a. is much the same as that given by the Prophet s.a. in sunni books. If they insist Ahmadis are non-Muslim despite fulfilling these criteria, then they cannot be deemed Muslims by virtue of the same criteria. And on top of this they reject and deny the Prophet s.a. and Ali r.a., and place themselves and their scholars above them.

After the anti-Ahmadiyya agitations and riots of 1953 in Pakistan, there was a government inquiry. Non-Ahmadi scholars from various sects were asked by the judges to give their definition of a Muslim. The definitions they came up involved a complete rejection of the definition of the Prophet s.a., and also meant that some non-Ahmadi groups would become non-Muslim according to the definition given by the scholars of other groups.

When this was pointed out to them, they asked for some more time to frame a definition of a Muslim. The judges told them they already had 1400 years to come up with a definition and so they could not be given any more time on this! Such is the absurdity that arises when a deviant people want to invent a new meaning of Islam to suit their own whims and fancies!

As to if they are Muslims that is known only to Allaaah(swt).

Ahmadis accept it when non-Ahmadis declare themselves Muslim, and do not deny non-Ahmadis this right to call themselves Muslim, because we adopt the definition of a Muslim as given by the Prophet s.a. We do question whether non-Ahmadis are true Muslims however, as rejection of the Mahdi and Messiah also involves rejection of Allah who sent him, and Rasul s.a. who prophecied about him, and such a rejection is not a true submission to Allah.

I will say that neither Ahmadyya nor NOI follow Islam as I understand it to be.

That seems to be a truthful and honest statement.

It may be my opinion they are not Muslim, but only Allaah(swt) knows if they are following Islam to the best of their ability.

This is a more humble statement, Alhamdulillaah.

I would not reccommend either as a source to learn about Islam, but that does not mean they should be harmed or persecuted.

I think you have some misunderstandings and misconceptions about Ahmadiyya belief and teachings, but am glad that you are against harm and persecution of Ahmadis.

I do not see any place where my sister lovebeingamuslimah has advocted harming them either. But, like her, I believe it should be pointed out that their practices do differ considerably from most people who wear the name of Muslim.

Which practices do you have in mind?

Peace.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

LBaM,

Christians in Muslims countries always downplay their plight publically. They are intimidated- this is well known.

What does that have to do with what I posted? Syrian Christians for Peace are humanitarians and are pro-opposition/anti-regime. Are they going against the regime because they are intimidated (even though a lot of other Syrian Christians are supporting the regime)? Are they speaking out against fabricated stories, including from Christians who defend the regime, because they're intimidated?

This is why the nun in question could only speak up when she is out of Syria.

That wasn't the point. She said she personally witnessed it. When and where did she witness it? And what about the other questions Syrian Christians for Peace brought up? I think those are fair questions to be asked and they should've been asked by the so-called journalists who spread this story as fact.

The regime has put up Christians to lie on their behalf (and defend them whenever possible). One of these nuns (Mother Agnes Mary) has been exposed, partly by Syrian Christians for Peace and they actually asked for her to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church. What do you think about what they have to say here?

Secondly, just because one group is nice ot them doesn't mean all of them are.

But the article you linked to was focusing on Jabhat an-Nusrah.

Some people are intentionally missing the obvious here, especially concerning the kidnapped nuns. Did you miss the part where they were kidnapped?

Actually, Jabhat an-Nusrah and the nuns both said that the nuns were not kidnapped - that they were being protected from the government vs. rebel clashes that were going on in the village.

Secondly, even if they were kidnapped, you can agree or disagree with what happened, but during an all-out slaughter of the Sunnis where people are accusing the Sunni rebels of being terrible to the Christians (and somehow saying that makes it understandable to support the regime), the tender treatment of the nuns runs contrary to that narrative.

You assume they treated them well because you have a video of the nuns- whose lives are defined by prayer and forgiveness in the first place- being compassionate toward those who wronged them. To quote the Power Puff Girls, "It's what we do! Duh!"

I "assume" they treated them well because of multiple videos and statements:

a.) the video I posted where the nuns and the rebels are talking in a respectful, non-tense manner. There is ease in the conversation and their body language. Honestly, if you didn't know the context of the video, wouldn't you think it was more like friends/family?

Near the end of the video, one of the nuns thanks them and their leader and says that their leader is a good person.

b.) if I recall correctly, in the video of the nuns while they were still with Jabhat an-Nusrah before the swap (not the video I posted here), the nuns said they were being treated well.

c.) There is also this video (press CC for English captions)

[youtube]vq1jdYKMmzE[/youtube]

So are you prepared to say that the nuns make a habit (ha! pun not intended) of lying and it's what they do? We already know Mother Agnes was dishonest by defending the regime, but what about these nuns? She even said that she is telling the truth because one day she will have to face God.

She must've guessed that what she was about to say wasn't going to go over very well with the regime supporters (including Christians) but she said it anyway. Kudos to her.

 

[WoodrowX2]

It seems to be his way of saying:

'I cannot counter your refutation, but you are not even considered Muslim by Muslims, so deal with that instead.'



The NOI have the belief that Allah was a man named Master W. Fard Muhammad. Ahmadis do not hold such a belief (despite such an unsubstantiated allegation made by LoveBeingaMuslimah in the old thread whose link was given by wn123455).

The problem with holding the opinion that Ahmadis are non-Muslim however, is that involves a clear denial and rejection of the Prophet Muhammad s.a., who defined a Muslim thus in Sahih al Bukhari, deemed the most authentic book of ahadith by Sunnis:

"The Holy Prophet s.a. said (for the purposes of a census): 'Write down for me the name of every such individual who claims to be a Muslim by the word of his own mouth.'"[Bukhari, Kitabul Jihadi Wassiyar, Babu Kitabatil Imaminna sa, Hadith No. 3060. See also Sahih Muslim, Kitabul Iman, Babu Jawazil Istisrari Bil Imani Lil Kha’ifi, Hadith No. 377.]

The Holy Prophet s.a. said: “Whoever testifies that there is no god but Allah, and faces our Qibla, and prays as we pray, and eats the meat slaughtered by us, he is a Muslim who has the rights of a Muslim and the duties of a Muslim.” (Bukhari, Book of Prayer; Book 8, ch. 28; vol. i, p. 222)

"Whoever observes Prayer in the same way as we do, and declares our qibla to be his qibla; one who eats from our dhabiha such a one is a Muslim. To protect such a person is a matter of obligation for Allah and His Messenger. So, [O Muslims!] make sure that you do not violate the obligation from Allah."[Sahih Bukhari, Kitabus Salat, Babu Fadli Istiqbalil Qiblati, Hadith No. 391.]

So Sunnis throw themselves out of the pale of Islam by rejecting the words of the Prophet s.a. and alleging Ahmadis are non-Muslim despite these clear definitions of a Muslim given by the Holy Prophet s.a. himself.

Now the Shi'as may think they have escaped because they don't believe in Bukhari as authentic. Not only in books of Hadith accepted by the Ahl Sunna, but also in the collections accepted by the Shiahs a very similar definition of a Muslim is given. Ali, the fourth Caliph, announced during his rule: “He who faces our Qibla, and eats the meat slaughtered by us, and believes in our Prophet, and testifies our testimony [i.e. the Kalima], and enters our religion, we shall apply to him the law of the Quran and the Islamic limitations, and no such person shall be superior to another one [in rights].” (Faruh Kafi, vol. iii, Book of rejection, p. 166)

So, there is no escape for shi'as either, as the definition in their book of hadith attributed to Ali r.a. is much the same as that given by the Prophet s.a. in sunni books. If they insist Ahmadis are non-Muslim despite fulfilling these criteria, then they cannot be deemed Muslims by virtue of the same criteria. And on top of this they reject and deny the Prophet s.a. and Ali r.a., and place themselves and their scholars above them.

After the anti-Ahmadiyya agitations and riots of 1953 in Pakistan, there was a government inquiry. Non-Ahmadi scholars from various sects were asked by the judges to give their definition of a Muslim. The definitions they came up involved a complete rejection of the definition of the Prophet s.a., and also meant that some non-Ahmadi groups would become non-Muslim according to the definition given by the scholars of other groups.

When this was pointed out to them, they asked for some more time to frame a definition of a Muslim. The judges told them they already had 1400 years to come up with a definition and so they could not be given any more time on this! Such is the absurdity that arises when a deviant people want to invent a new meaning of Islam to suit their own whims and fancies!

Ahmadis accept it when non-Ahmadis declare themselves Muslim, and do not deny non-Ahmadis this right to call themselves Muslim, because we adopt the definition of a Muslim as given by the Prophet s.a. We do question whether non-Ahmadis are true Muslims however, as rejection of the Mahdi and Messiah also involves rejection of Allah who sent him, and Rasul s.a. who prophecied about him, and such a rejection is not a true submission to Allah.

That seems to be a truthful and honest statement.

This is a more humble statement, Alhamdulillaah.

I think you have some misunderstandings and misconceptions about Ahmadiyya belief and teachings, but am glad that you are against harm and persecution of Ahmadis.

Which practices do you have in mind?

Peace.

Peace,

the practices I have issue are more like beliefs and attitude primarily the view of Mirzā Ghulām Ahma

 

[wn123455]

Unfortunately too many people think that's what the "Islamist" groups are doing.

1.) Isn't that guilt by association? I believe that the group should be judged based on their consistent actions. They seem to be a pretty independent group as are most of the other rebel factions.

2.) You're assuming that they're being insincere in being nice to the non-combatants but what is the evidence of this beyond your dislike of the group? The reality on the ground seems to be that they and most other "Islamist" groups are pretty well-liked (except by maybe the most secular of the opposition activists). They're the ones who maintain a lot of order in their groups, too (no looting or stuff like that unlike some of the more secular parts of the FSA).

3.) It's just an assumption that they'll stop being nice if they implement shari'ah. Shari'ah is not meant to be cruel, it is meant to instill the best form of justice. If you call a group "Islamist" (which is what I assume you would call JN) what do you mean? That they're only "Islamists" as a PR stunt but after they gain control they'll become non-Islamists and go against principles of Islaam in their treatment of non-combatants?

Sounds like they're guilty until proven innocent.



Except that Jabhat an-Nusrah didn't claim responsibility (which they usually do if they did something) nor do I think it's still known who did it more than a year later. The person who put that video up and ascribed it to them is a secular Syrian regime supporter. They didn't provide the evidence that it was Jabhat an-Nusrah.

Christian and Jews are given dhimmmi status in Shariah law. But how will shia muslims, alawite muslims, Druze, Atheists and other religions that are not sunni islam, Christianity and Judaism be treated under Shariah law?

 

[wn123455]

And that has to do with What?`

Most of us do not consider the Ahmadyya and NOI as following Islam. That is our opinions. As to if they are Muslims that is known only to Allaaah(swt). We are not expected to be perfect, but we are expected to follow Islam to the best of our ability.

I will say that neither Ahmadyya nor NOI follow Islam as I understand it to be. It may be my opinion they are not Muslim, but only Allaah(swt) knows if they are following Islam to the best of their ability.

I would not reccommend either as a source to learn about Islam, but that does not mean they should be harmed or persecuted.

I do not see any place where my sister lovebeingamuslimah has advocted harming them either. But, like her, I believe it should be pointed out that their practices do differ considerably from most people who wear the name of Muslim.

lovebeingamuslimah did not have to resort to using derogatory words like Qadiyanis.

 

[WoodrowX2]

lovebeingamuslimah did not have to resort to using derogatory words like Qadiyanis.

While it probably is considered Derogatory by Ahmadyya, it is the official name used by the Pakistan government.

 

[wn123455]

While it probably is considered Derogatory by Ahmadyya, it is the official name used by the Pakistan government.

And?

 

[WoodrowX2]

And?

For many people of Pakistan heritage it is the only name they are are aware of calling them.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

I do not see any place where my sister lovebeingamuslimah has advocted harming them either. But, like her, I believe it should be pointed out that their practices do differ considerably from most people who wear the name of Muslim.

jazakAllaahu khayran 'Amo. You're far more patient than I. May Allaah grant you the best in this dunya and in the akhirah, Ameen.

The NOI have the belief that Allah was a man named Master W. Fard Muhammad. Ahmadis do not hold such a belief (despite such an unsubstantiated allegation made by LoveBeingaMuslimah in the old thread whose link was given by wn123455).

1.) I said you are like the NOI in our eyes in terms of being outside of Islaam.

2.) Did he not write that he and Allaah were one in a dream he had? I seek refuge with Him.

“I saw in my dreams that I am Allaah and I believed, no doubt, we were the same.” [Aaina-e-Kamaalaat]

So Sunnis throw themselves out of the pale of Islam by rejecting the words of the Prophet s.a. and alleging Ahmadis are non-Muslim despite these clear definitions of a Muslim given by the Holy Prophet s.a. himself.

Funny, we say that you throw yourselves out of the pale of Islaam by rejecting the words of Allaah in the Qur'aan when you say that there is another prophet after the Prophet Muhammad. You can try to defend the false belief that there can be one, but you cannot convince us that you are right because we have more than enough proof to know that the finality of the Prophethood means that Prophet Muhammad is the last of the Prophets (no ifs, ands, or buts).

 

[ContraMundum]

What does that have to do with what I posted? Syrian Christians for Peace are humanitarians and are pro-opposition/anti-regime. Are they going against the regime because they are intimidated (even though a lot of other Syrian Christians are supporting the regime)? Are they speaking out against fabricated stories, including from Christians who defend the regime, because they're intimidated?

Absolutely. It's called survival. This is very common.

That wasn't the point. She said she personally witnessed it. When and where did she witness it?

Obviously when she was in Syria.

The regime has put up Christians to lie on their behalf (and defend them whenever possible). One of these nuns (Mother Agnes Mary) has been exposed, partly by Syrian Christians for Peace and they actually asked for her to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church. What do you think about what they have to say here?

Interesting propaganda war. Not sure I'm convinced.

 

[Dialogues]

Peace,

the practices I have issue are more like beliefs and attitude primarily the view of Mirzā Ghulām Ahma

When the word practices is used, it brings to mind prayer, fasting, zakat, hajj etc.

You seem not to have completed your sentence. If you mean that your sole objection is the Ahmadi belief that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad a.s. is the Mahdi and Messiah and a subbordinate follower prophet prophecied by the Holy Prophet Muhammad s.a., then it all boils down to whether the claim is right or false, and this verse becomes applicable:

[40:28] And a believing man from among the people of Pharaoh, who concealed his faith, said, “Will you slay a man because he says, ‘My Lord is Allah,’ while he has brought you clear proofs from your Lord? And if he be a liar, on him will be the sin of his lie; but if he is truthful, then some of that which he threatens you with will surely befall you. Certainly Allah guides not one who is a transgressor, and a liar.

This verse is a warning that if he is truthful, then some of his warnings and threats, i.e. prophecies of punishment for his enemies, will befall them. The reason the word some is used rather than the word all is that people at times repent when warned, and the punishment is subsequently averted, as happened in the case of the people of Ninevah to whom Jonah a.s. was sent [10:98].

So, one can apply this criterion to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad a.s., and there are over 300 of his prophecies which were published and fulfilled in his lifetime, many of them warnings to his enemies, such as this one:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/engrmhk/3302912161/

This is just one of many Christian newspapers which published the prophecy before it was fulfilled, as Dowie was very famous in the western world in those days, and then they felt compelled to admit that the prophecy was fulfilled even though it was the prophecy of a Muslim Messiah.

Now, this is just one of such prophecies, and if a person is sincere in his quest for truth, he or she cannot fail to investigate this matter further. It is not possible for the prophecies of a false claimant to be fulfilled in such manner again and again. The following online booklet mentions just a few of such fulfilled prophecies:

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Prophecies-of-HadhratAhmad.pdf

Peace.

 

[Dialogues]

2.) Did he not write that he and Allaah were one in a dream he had? I seek refuge with Him.

“I saw in my dreams that I am Allaah and I believed, no doubt, we were the same.” [Aaina-e-Kamaalaat]

A dream? Is that the best you can bring as evidence? Is there nothing in his writings where he literally claims to be God? If there was, it would have been quoted on all anti-Ahmadiyya sites and in books and propaganda pamphlets etc. Ever wondered why it is completely missing?

Surely, he must have related the dream in a context and also stated how he understood the dream? Why do his enemies omit his explanation and understanding of the same dream and the context in which it was related? Do dreams not have interpretations? Are dreams not symbollic?

According to a book on interpretation of dreams of the famous dream interpreter Ibn Sirin:

If someone sees in a dream that he has become God, the interpretation is that he has been guided to the right path. (Ta‘tirul-Anam fi Ta‘biril-Manam, by Ibn-e-Sirin, Egypt, page 9)

Why do the enemies of Ahmadiyya deliberately mislead people and ignore the interpretation of this dream as stated in books on dreams? This is known as mischief and deliberate deception.

You might ask that this may be the interpretation of the dream, but how did Ahmad a.s. himself understand it? Well, his explanation of his own dream is recorded in his own book when and where he related the dream:

“We do not interpret this experience according to the meanings in the books of the believers in wahdat-ul-wujud nor according to the beliefs of the Hulul. On the contrary, this experience is in accordance with the hadith of the Holy Prophet Muhammad contained in Bukhari explaining the rank of nearness to God that is attained by His righteous servants.” (A'inah Kamalate-Islam p. 566)

He also went on to say:

In a state of vision I saw that I had created a new earth and a new heaven and then I said: Now let us create man. At this the ignorant maulavis raised a cry: Watch now, this man claims to be God. Actually, the meaning of the vision was that God will bring about through me such a change as if the heaven and the earth had been renewed and true men will come into being. [Chashma-e-Masihi, p. 58 footnote, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 20, pp. 375–376 footnote]

So can there be any doubt left that the anti-Ahmadiyya maulvis are not only ignorant, but also deliberate deceivers?

In addition to this, he related the dream in the context of the claim to divinity ascribed to Jesus a.s., and was arguing that other persons would have a greater claim to divinity than Jesus a.s. on the basis of such passages. He is responding to the Christian belief that certain statements of Jesus in the Gospels prove that he was claiming to be God, and in this connection he writes:

“Is it not true that if someone’s Divinity can be inferred from such revelations and statements then from these revelations of mine my Divinity — I seek refuge with God — will be better established than that of Jesus? And more than that of anyone, the Divinity of our leader and master, the Holy Prophet Muhammad can be established. For, his revelation does not only contain the verse “those who swear allegiance to thee do but swear allegiance to Allah”, and not only that the Exalted God has called the Holy Prophet’s hand as God’s own hand, and has declared each of his actions as God’s own action, and by saying “Nor does he speak out of desire, it is naught but revelation that is revealed” He has declared all his words to be God’s own words, but at one place He has called all the people his (the Holy Prophet’s) servants, as He has said: “(O Prophet) say (to people): O my servants”.

Hence it is obvious that the Divinity of our Prophet can be established so plainly and clearly from these sacred words that the Divinity of Jesus cannot possibly be established to the same degree from the statements in the Gospels. Let alone this chief of the two worlds, the Holy Prophet, whose status is so great, the Christian clergymen should consider with justice even these revelations of mine, and then be judges themselves and decide whether it is not true that if such statements can establish Divinity then my revelations are a much stronger testimony to my Divinity than those of Jesus are to his Divinity.” (Aina Kamaalaate-Islam)

He is clearly refuting claims to divinity, and seeking refuge in Allah from making an actual claim to divinity. So, only deliberate mischievous liars and deceivers would allege that he is attributing divinity to himself and to the Holy Prophet Muhammad s.a. on the basis of these writings.

Ahmad a.s. is clearly arguing against a claim to divinity by anyone other than Allah Himself, and refuting the Christian claim that Jesus a.s. is divine. Why do anti-Ahmadiyya propagandists deliberately lie and deceive so much? I would not want to be associated with such a bunch of liars, why are you? Allah says: Koonu ma3as-Saadiqeen, i.e. be with the truthful, the righteous ones [9:119]. The fact is anti-Ahmadiyya mullahs have no legs to stand on, so they invent artificial legs, which nevertheless remain shaky and fall apart with even a slight push.

What use will be this bogus allegation of a claim to divnity infront of Allah when asked about the rejection of the Masih and Mahdi He sent for our guidance? Anti-Ahmadiyya propagandists are like the Jews who opposed their Messiah and were punished by Allah for their hostility, just as the non-Ahmadis are being punished in the world, with the condition of the so-called Muslims deteriorating from bad to worse on a daily basis.

Funny, we say that you throw yourselves out of the pale of Islaam by rejecting the words of Allaah in the Qur'aan when you say that there is another prophet after the Prophet Muhammad. You can try to defend the false belief that there can be one, but you cannot convince us that you are right because we have more than enough proof to know that the finality of the Prophethood means that Prophet Muhammad is the last of the Prophets (no ifs, ands, or buts).

We do not reject anything in the Qur'an. In [33:40] khaatam is ism aala (noun of instrument - i.e. the stamp, one whose attributes are transferred onto others) and we understand it to be precisely what it is. You take it to be ism faa'il (khaatim - i.e. the one who ends), which is not what it actually is. So, it is actually you who is rejecting the words of Allah by using it in a sense in which Allah did not use it.

And the Holy Prophet Muhammad s.a. is reported to have stated that AbuBakr r.a. is the best person in this ummah except if a prophet should arise, and that his son Ibrahim would have been a prophet if he had lived. So, without doubt, the Prophet s.a. believed that a prophet could come after him. There is no problem with such an occurrence so long as such a prophet is from this ummah and a follower of Prophet Muhammad s.a. What is barred is law-bearing prophethood, or the coming of a prophet who is against anything brought by Prophet Muhammad s.a., or is a member of a different ummah. And you yourselves add ifs and buts by saying that yes, Isa a.s. will come after Muhammad s.a., but he is an old prophet, so it doesn't break the seal. So you argumentation against Ahmadiyya beliefs is patently false.

PS: One more thing. You had previously asked for a reference to an Arabic lexicon which gives the meaning of khaataman nabiyyeen other than as the last of the prophets. However, this is not a valid argument. For example, in Al-Munjid, which is a famous and much used Arabic dictionary, it refers to the trinty as tathleeth muqaddas, i.e. holy trinity. I am sure non-Christians would not accept that it is correct to describe the concept of trinity as holy or muqaddas.

Al-Munjid was written by two (Catholic) Christians who merely introduced their aqeedah on this (and other) matter(s) in the dictionary. Likewise, those Arabic lexicons which mention and then translate khaataman nabiyyeen as the last of the prophets are simply stating an aqeedah which is actually contrary to the proper Arabic usage of the expression. All anti-Ahmadiyya arguments are similarly weak, and tend to fall apart with the exercise of a bit of reasoning.

Peace.

 

[smaneck]

While it probably is considered Derogatory by Ahmadyya, it is the official name used by the Pakistan government.

The problem is that there are two different sects of Ahmadis. Is there a way of distinguishing between then that both sects would accept?

 

[smaneck]

but Assad is at least as awful as the rebels.

He hasn't been as awful to Christians, however. Neither was Saddam Hussein. You have to remember that the Baath Party to which both men belonged was started by a Christian.

 

[smaneck]

I doubt that hospitality towards Christians will last if they want to install Sharia law and a Caliphate as they claim.

Nearly all Muslims would have a problem if they tried to establish a Caliphate for the simple reason they would never agree as to who the Caliph should be.