Author Topic: Are Ahmadiyya Muslims  (Read 459 times)

centi50

  • Beginner/Inquirer
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Are Ahmadiyya Muslims
« on: April 18, 2018, 09:36:43 AM »
Are Ahmadiyyas Muslims by believe in Ahmad Ghulam as a messenger of God. If not why?

centi50

  • Beginner/Inquirer
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Re: Are Ahmadiyya Muslims
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2018, 07:30:13 AM »
What you mean

Makaveli

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 499
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are Ahmadiyya Muslims
« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2018, 03:15:59 AM »
A muslim (root SLM) is someone free of defects, complete, being in a state of wholeness, as opposite to kafiirun (root KFR), which is a state of confinement. A person who is kafiirun is basically restricted by internal and external factors. External factors, which confine you, include, but are not limited to:

- being restricted in a specific work place or putting too much emphasis on money making and 'breadwinning';

- family and traditions;

- an object of lust and love;

- financial situation;

- being subject to hierarchy involuntary, such as being restricted within the feudal system, hence KFR also refers to farmer or vilage, which is covered by lord's protectionism;

- the rest related.



Internal factors, which confine you, include, but are not limited to:

- personal beliefs and prejudices, such as propagating the  "soundness" while remaining prejudiced and deluded, as some people do; or being a religious zealot and dogmatic, being a patriot or a fascist;

- health factor;

- being subject to hierarchy voluntary, i.e. wish for a raise, believe that upper class is superior, exercise arrogance towards subjects of lower social standing than yourself etc. Also in archaic terms idolatry. A slave and a master play the same game, they interrelate.

- being a consumer of narcotics, an alcoholic, sugar junkie, chronic shoplifter etc. - confined by drug abuse, including adrenaline, erotics or the need to consume specific information, such as fake patriotic news; also not using intoxicants wisely, for fun sake;

- other possible related inner factors.


Being mu'minan (root AMN) means a state of confidence and security, like a baby becoming calm and secure in the hands of mother, but anxious if left alone, hence root AMN also refers to ammina/amma or mother. 

These definitions are all backed by their respective root meanings, which anyone can check for themselves, and are not taken out of the blue.


Amen amen (also root AMN) is a Semitic way of expression, which basically means "Be confident in what I am trying to assure you". Such type of expression is not limited to this respective figure who used it frequently in his speech, namely Isa the son of Miryem, but also seems to be a poetic technique used in the first lines of the Quran, al-rahman, al-raheem, where the same word is expressed twice.

Another example is verse  2:100: Awa kullamaa 'aahadoo ahdan the same root is repeated twice in a poetic manner, to complement what is said before that and after, but it seems that medieval clergy ignored this poetic style of the Quran and basically raped its core meaning, i.e. liberated it of its core message.

Such techniques are common in the Quran and understanding this is also a good methodology in trying to understand the Quranic poetical text. What most of you guys do here, i.e. count words and use fake Arabic gramamar is frankly a waste of time. Your understanding of the Quran is no different than that of Sunni Islam, not at all. One has to be like a kid, i.e. employ abstract perception to understand this text.


براتىشكا و فايحوشى

To contact me use kasnew1 [at] gee-mail (dot) com.

redsulphur1229

  • Beginner/Inquirer
  • *
  • Posts: 65
Re: Are Ahmadiyya Muslims
« Reply #3 on: May 14, 2018, 09:31:56 AM »
I am not an Ahmadiyya.

Ahmadiyya are Muslims because they believe themselves to be Muslims.  No one can call someone a non-Muslim against their own belief.

The view that Ahmadiyya are not Muslims emanates from the view that the Quran precludes prophets from coming after the Prophet Muhammad, and since the Ahmadiyya do, they must be non-Muslim.  It must be kept in mind that only the Qadiani branch of the Ahmadiyya believe on the prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (not the Lahori branch).  Regardless of the Qadiani vs Lahori branch views, the view that the Quran precludes future prophethood is no supported by the Quran itself.  If one tries to read the Quran as supporting such a view, then they are working very hard to deviate from its plain reading.

The view that the Prophet Muhammad is the final prophet comes from an interpretation of the "Khatam-an-Nabiyeen" (Seal of the Prophets) in 33:41.  The view is that "Khaatam" means 'last'.  However, "Khaatam" can have more elaborate meanings, like 'emblem', 'authority' etc.  The full verse reads "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (lakin) he is the Messenger of Allah and the Khaatam-an-Nabiyeen, and Allah has full knowledge of all things."  Due to the term 'lakin', the point of being Khaatam-an-Nabiyeen is as a rebuttal of not having paternity (living sons).  How can this be a rebuttal if the meaning of Khaatam is 'last'?  It must be referring to some sort of paternity/progeny in the future on account of being Khaatam-an-Nabiyeen.  Further, 108:4 states "Surely, it is thy enemy who will be without progeny (abtar)."

Also, 4:70 states "And whoso obeys Allah and this Messenger shall be among those on whom Allah has bestowed His blessings -- the Nabiyeen (prophets), the Siddiqeen (truthful), the Shuhada (witnesses) and the Saliheen (righteous)."  As being Siddiq, Shaheed and Saleh are not precluded by the Quran, but continuing, and being Nabi is included in the list, then being Nabi is not precluded by the Quran.  I have seen the interpretation that emphasizes that the blessing promised in this verse is for those to be "among" people who have been granted these blessings, but not the actual granting of them.  I think this interpretation renders Islam an impotent religion - you can be in the company of the prophets, truthful, witnesses and righteous, and not actually be one yourself - ridiculous.

In Judaism, there are many prophets after Moses, but all of them, never claimed to not follow Moses and his law.  If Judaism can allow for Jewish prophets, then why can't Islam allow for Muslim prophets, especially since the Quran counts prophethood as one of its blessings for following Allah and Muhammad?

Many Muslim scholars over the centuries did not believe that the Quran precludes prophethood.  Amongst them were Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani, Jalaluddin Rumi, Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi and, most famously, Sheikh Ibn al-Arabi (who wrote an entire treatise on the subject).  The notion that the Quran precludes prophethood is very recent in prominence, and just one of the many lies taught by the orthodoxy of today.

Regarding the Ahmadiyya, it should be noted that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's alleged claim to prophethood is not without contraversy.  His writings are not the clearest on the topic, and if they were, his own followers would not have had a schism over it - Qadiani vs Lahori - with both sides quoting from his writings with equal vigour.  That said, as for Qadianis, whether or not Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed prophethood, and whether or not his claim is true, their disqualification as Muslim based on the view that the Quran precludes belief in a future prophet does not hold ground.

The Quran promises all 4 blessings referred to above.  I believe it is quite possible that people like Sheikh Ibn al-Arabi reached such a station, whether or not they claimed it.

Mazhar

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 6794
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are Ahmadiyya Muslims
« Reply #4 on: May 26, 2018, 01:58:17 PM »
I am not an Ahmadiyya.

Ahmadiyya are Muslims because they believe themselves to be Muslims.  No one can call someone a non-Muslim against their own belief.

The view that Ahmadiyya are not Muslims emanates from the view that the Quran precludes prophets from coming after the Prophet Muhammad, and since the Ahmadiyya do, they must be non-Muslim.  It must be kept in mind that only the Qadiani branch of the Ahmadiyya believe on the prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (not the Lahori branch).  Regardless of the Qadiani vs Lahori branch views, the view that the Quran precludes future prophethood is no supported by the Quran itself.  If one tries to read the Quran as supporting such a view, then they are working very hard to deviate from its plain reading.

The view that the Prophet Muhammad is the final prophet comes from an interpretation of the "Khatam-an-Nabiyeen" (Seal of the Prophets) in 33:41.  The view is that "Khaatam" means 'last'.  However, "Khaatam" can have more elaborate meanings, like 'emblem', 'authority' etc.  The full verse reads "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (lakin) he is the Messenger of Allah and the Khaatam-an-Nabiyeen, and Allah has full knowledge of all things."  Due to the term 'lakin', the point of being Khaatam-an-Nabiyeen is as a rebuttal of not having paternity (living sons).  How can this be a rebuttal if the meaning of Khaatam is 'last'?  It must be referring to some sort of paternity/progeny in the future on account of being Khaatam-an-Nabiyeen.  Further, 108:4 states "Surely, it is thy enemy who will be without progeny (abtar)."

Also, 4:70 states "And whoso obeys Allah and this Messenger shall be among those on whom Allah has bestowed His blessings -- the Nabiyeen (prophets), the Siddiqeen (truthful), the Shuhada (witnesses) and the Saliheen (righteous)."  As being Siddiq, Shaheed and Saleh are not precluded by the Quran, but continuing, and being Nabi is included in the list, then being Nabi is not precluded by the Quran.  I have seen the interpretation that emphasizes that the blessing promised in this verse is for those to be "among" people who have been granted these blessings, but not the actual granting of them.  I think this interpretation renders Islam an impotent religion - you can be in the company of the prophets, truthful, witnesses and righteous, and not actually be one yourself - ridiculous.

In Judaism, there are many prophets after Moses, but all of them, never claimed to not follow Moses and his law.  If Judaism can allow for Jewish prophets, then why can't Islam allow for Muslim prophets, especially since the Quran counts prophethood as one of its blessings for following Allah and Muhammad?

Many Muslim scholars over the centuries did not believe that the Quran precludes prophethood.  Amongst them were Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani, Jalaluddin Rumi, Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi and, most famously, Sheikh Ibn al-Arabi (who wrote an entire treatise on the subject).  The notion that the Quran precludes prophethood is very recent in prominence, and just one of the many lies taught by the orthodoxy of today.

Regarding the Ahmadiyya, it should be noted that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's alleged claim to prophethood is not without contraversy.  His writings are not the clearest on the topic, and if they were, his own followers would not have had a schism over it - Qadiani vs Lahori - with both sides quoting from his writings with equal vigour.  That said, as for Qadianis, whether or not Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed prophethood, and whether or not his claim is true, their disqualification as Muslim based on the view that the Quran precludes belief in a future prophet does not hold ground.

The Quran promises all 4 blessings referred to above.  I believe it is quite possible that people like Sheikh Ibn al-Arabi reached such a station, whether or not they claimed it.

For the bold part only.

Nabi and the Messenger are the most important concepts of Qur'aan. They were the spokespersons of Allah the Exalted in time and space.

Every word of any language has semantic components; or we may say irreducible semantic features.

What is conveyed to the reader by the word "Messenger", in Arabic Rasul from Root: ر س ل

Ibn Faris [died 1005] stated:
(مقاييس اللغة)
الراء والسين واللام أصلٌ واحدٌ مطّردٌ مُنْقاس، يدلُّ على الانبعاث والامتداد. فالرَّسْل:السَّير السَّهل
That it leads to the perception of renaissance, reawakening, emergence, resurgence, dispatching, sending, and reaching. Thereby it denotes to move softly, soft pace.


Semantic components: Breaking down-basic elements into which the meaning of a word can be decomposed into components; semantically the term component refers to irreducible feature in terms of which the sense of lexical items can be analyzed.

It is evident from the basic perception that this Root signifies in Form-IV a tri-relationship; the sender, the sent one, and the recipient, destination. And related to it is the Proof - Evidence in support of the claim of being Messenger to establish the credentials for the people towards whom he is sent; and the Message with which he is sent by the Sender.

These are the basics to accept the claim of a person self claiming as Messenger of Allah.

Their status and role - function is also further elaborated in Qur'aan.

centi50

  • Beginner/Inquirer
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Re: Are Ahmadiyya Muslims
« Reply #5 on: June 06, 2018, 02:21:19 PM »
I am not an Ahmadiyya.

Ahmadiyya are Muslims because they believe themselves to be Muslims.  No one can call someone a non-Muslim against their own belief.

The view that Ahmadiyya are not Muslims emanates from the view that the Quran precludes prophets from coming after the Prophet Muhammad, and since the Ahmadiyya do, they must be non-Muslim.  It must be kept in mind that only the Qadiani branch of the Ahmadiyya believe on the prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (not the Lahori branch).  Regardless of the Qadiani vs Lahori branch views, the view that the Quran precludes future prophethood is no supported by the Quran itself.  If one tries to read the Quran as supporting such a view, then they are working very hard to deviate from its plain reading.

The view that the Prophet Muhammad is the final prophet comes from an interpretation of the "Khatam-an-Nabiyeen" (Seal of the Prophets) in 33:41.  The view is that "Khaatam" means 'last'.  However, "Khaatam" can have more elaborate meanings, like 'emblem', 'authority' etc.  The full verse reads "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (lakin) he is the Messenger of Allah and the Khaatam-an-Nabiyeen, and Allah has full knowledge of all things."  Due to the term 'lakin', the point of being Khaatam-an-Nabiyeen is as a rebuttal of not having paternity (living sons).  How can this be a rebuttal if the meaning of Khaatam is 'last'?  It must be referring to some sort of paternity/progeny in the future on account of being Khaatam-an-Nabiyeen.  Further, 108:4 states "Surely, it is thy enemy who will be without progeny (abtar)."

Also, 4:70 states "And whoso obeys Allah and this Messenger shall be among those on whom Allah has bestowed His blessings -- the Nabiyeen (prophets), the Siddiqeen (truthful), the Shuhada (witnesses) and the Saliheen (righteous)."  As being Siddiq, Shaheed and Saleh are not precluded by the Quran, but continuing, and being Nabi is included in the list, then being Nabi is not precluded by the Quran.  I have seen the interpretation that emphasizes that the blessing promised in this verse is for those to be "among" people who have been granted these blessings, but not the actual granting of them.  I think this interpretation renders Islam an impotent religion - you can be in the company of the prophets, truthful, witnesses and righteous, and not actually be one yourself - ridiculous.

In Judaism, there are many prophets after Moses, but all of them, never claimed to not follow Moses and his law.  If Judaism can allow for Jewish prophets, then why can't Islam allow for Muslim prophets, especially since the Quran counts prophethood as one of its blessings for following Allah and Muhammad?

Many Muslim scholars over the centuries did not believe that the Quran precludes prophethood.  Amongst them were Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani, Jalaluddin Rumi, Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi and, most famously, Sheikh Ibn al-Arabi (who wrote an entire treatise on the subject).  The notion that the Quran precludes prophethood is very recent in prominence, and just one of the many lies taught by the orthodoxy of today.

Regarding the Ahmadiyya, it should be noted that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's alleged claim to prophethood is not without contraversy.  His writings are not the clearest on the topic, and if they were, his own followers would not have had a schism over it - Qadiani vs Lahori - with both sides quoting from his writings with equal vigour.  That said, as for Qadianis, whether or not Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed prophethood, and whether or not his claim is true, their disqualification as Muslim based on the view that the Quran precludes belief in a future prophet does not hold ground.

The Quran promises all 4 blessings referred to above.  I believe it is quite possible that people like Sheikh Ibn al-Arabi reached such a station, whether or not they claimed it.

Salaam brother,

Are you implying there will be prophets after Muhammad or messengers or both?

redsulphur1229

  • Beginner/Inquirer
  • *
  • Posts: 65
Re: Are Ahmadiyya Muslims
« Reply #6 on: June 08, 2018, 10:41:02 AM »
centi50,
I am not implying that there will be or there will not be.  Only Allah knows. Who knows whether any will receive such blessings. I am only saying that i do not see how the Quran precludes it.