A recent news item:
The Ahmadiyya is a minority peace-loving Muslim group that rejects Sharia law — which places women in subservient roles — and has been persecuted in some countries. (http://www.nugget.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1693510)
Ahmadi women cannot become Ameer (national head) or President (local head) or Khalifa (international head) of the Ahmadiyya.
Ahmadi women cannot become Murabbi (spiritual adviser) or hold any other religious rank within the Ahmadiyya.
Wearing the Indian-style burqa is a tradition that the Ahmadiyya have carried to all parts of the world. Every one of their leaders, including the current one, has insisted on women wearing it. When President Sarkozy of France recently denounced the burqa as a tool of oppression, the Ahmadiyya were up in arms.
Before the Ahmadiyya start counting the professions of Ahmadi ladies, a simple question: which of your Khalifas’ wives or close female relatives has been the role model of burqa-less successful Islamic lady? None. So? Hasn’t each and every one been burqa-ed and niqab-ed? Is it not a sign of utter humiliation for them if they are ever caught without the black covering from head to toe? Yes/No will suffice.
Yes, Ahmadi women have their own association which is of little or no consequence apart from fundraising for mosques or bake sales, and they have their own section in the Ahmadiyya national annual gatherings. But where is the substance? The Christian have had nuns for centuries, and Ahmadis stand just ahead of the Taliban, Saudi salafis and ultra-Orthodox Jews when it comes to women’s subservient role — and much behind the rest of the Muslims. How many women have attended the Ahmadiyya Jamia (seminary) recently? Or why has there not been a seminary dedicated for them? Why can’t the National Secretary for Matchmaking (yes, there is such a role!) be a woman?
I will not even go into how your founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, defined the role of women, just out of consideration that he lived a century ago. Or the serial marriages of your ‘Reformer’, his son.
And meanwhile, they are the ‘progressive’ anti-Sharia (their words) Muslims. The only conclusion, the hallmark of the Ahmadiyya, right from their founder onwards: they are consistently confused — in a fantasy world where words have little meaning.
This site is so ridiculous it truly made me laugh. Bravo. What a service you’ve done for Islam with this website, Muslims “who know.”
But in seriousness, thanks for reminding me once again how blessed I am to be a member of the ONLY community who represents the TRUE Islam as brought by our beloved Holy Prophet (pbuh). Your website has truly reminded me of the peace that being an Ahmadi Muslim woman brings in our lives. So thank you for that. and carry on with your “services.” haha.
I’m not sure what point you’ve actually made in your rhetorical comment, but Ahmadiyya is not Islam. Ahmadiyya, specifically Qadianism, relies on your belief in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet. Indeed, look below, and you’ll see a reference to his theft of the title of “khatamanabiyyeen”.
Rasulullah (saw) never used foul language. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad used plenty of foul language.
Rasulullah (saw) said of alcohol that it is not a medicine, but a sickness. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad used it as the primary ingredient in his so-called-cure for bubonic plague. He also asked for tonic wine to be purchased on his behalf.
There are millions of other reasons why Qadianism is not Islam – so please, if you have a point to make, make it.
“This site is so ridiculous it truly made me laugh.”
The same arrogant attitude. How does the Qadiyanees represent true Islam? Doesn’t Islam says that Muhammad S.A.W is Allah S.W.T’s last messenger, and now messenger is coming to this world after him? Did Islam teaches us to abuse Prophets and Sahaba Ajmaaeen?
Your comment doesn’t even answer a single point of the whole post, If the writer has written something wrong about your cult, why don’t you bring some reference and prove him wrong?
You have been taught a few sentences that you keep shouting everywhere, you yourselves don’t even have knowledge of your religion (cult).
You people keep shouting about Love for all, hate for none, you keep saying the we are peace loving. But your comments on Shahid Bhai’s blog and this blog are more than enough to judge how “peace” loving you are.
May Allah give you Hidayaah and you accept the Islam, and stop addressing this religion of lies as Islam.
great post… i discovered this qadiani forum recently.. and wanted to post some stuff there i was wondering if anyone would be interested to help? its http://comparative-religions.org
Akbar C:
Akbar is talking about QADIANIS.
Akbar, Please show HONESTY and make it clear that you are talking about QADIANI JAMAAT or QADIANIS FACTION of Ahmadis.
As Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (LAM) or Lahori Ahmadis does NOT practice subjugation of women like Qadianis, and nonsense “pardah” (covering of body in black Burqa) like Qadiani women.
In LAM women dressed in modest cloths come and address joint sessions of men and women and general gathering on annual Jalsa or other functions.
In LAM women hold the highest positions in organization. E.g. president of LAM-UK is woman. Or Vice president of LAM-USA is woman.
Akbar STOP painting everyone with same brush. Make a habit of clarifying that you do NOT mean LAM, and only mean Qadianis when you use word “Ahmadis”.
Now by your standard:
LAM is ONLY religious organization that does NOT subjugate women, either in their dress covering i.e. or in hierarchy of organization.
You are not even united amongst yourselves. Calling the “pardah” nonsense is denying the Islam and Qauranic verses.
I, myself, am also an ex-ahmadi. I will tell you, I asked the same questions many times over. I just couldnt understand why ahmadis wouldnt allow women to be president or vice president, or even general secretary.
It was just stupid……
First, its fair to say that amongst both Muslims, Ahmadis, Jews, Christians, etc, the average person is usually not a scholar in their respective religion. So, we can’t hold Ahmadis accountable to that.
But, amongst the religiously educated, I have seen several female teachers and students of knowledge. I personally know of several scholarly women, including two of my cousins.
I do not know the level of knowledge amongst the Ahmadi women, so I will not comment, but if they are disbarred from Jamia Ahmadiyya, the missionary training school, then they have a problem. If their separate women-only organization does trivial things, that’s a problem. If they cannot become Murabbis, then that’s a problem.
May Allah guide our Ahmadi friends to Islam
Farhan, I have a question. Does islam permit women to become murrabis? If so, can you provide 1 reference and 1 example from the sunnah?
@Farhan:
your: May Allah guide our Ahmadi friends to Islam
Mine: And may Allah guide our NON Ahmadi friends to Islam, too. Ameen.
In the past 1430 years of Islamic scholarship, there have been thousands of female scholars of the Deen. Suhaib Webb has an excellent CD-set titled “Mothers of the Believers”, where he in the first CD he talks about historic female Islamic scholarship, not just during the time of the Sahaba, and how some of the greatest minds were women.
One prominent example which no one can deny is that ‘Aisha bint Abu Bakr (RA) used to teach men and women at the Ka’ba, and was know for having a loud voice. She is the #4 most prominent narrator of Hadith.
Its a sad reality that the last 200~ years haven’t been to kind to women in Islamic scholarship, but that does not mean it doesn’t exist and Islamic schools even today DO teach women at an advanced level. (ie, my own cousins). Institutions in America such as the Zaytuna Institute has given Ijaza (religious authority) to women, and classes with the Al-Maghrib institute are more than 50% women.
The question is, is Ahmadism, which claims to be a modernist revival of Islam, living up to this or do they lag behind the Muslims of today? Can women attend Jamia Ahmadiyya? Perhaps some of the Ahmadis here can provide insight.
May Allah guide our Ahmadi friends to Islam.
as the ‘proud ahamdi muslim woman’ siad
seeing you people struggling to provide substance to use against us just reinforces my belief and how blessed i am to be a ahmadi muslim
did you know that just 100 years ago the ahmadiya jaamat started out of just 40 people. now that figure has rise to over 80 million.
alot of mullahs and maulvis of yours in the past persecuted us because of their own insecurity. but are you aware that about 20 years ago Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad (rah) challenged the top muslim scholars to a mubhaila.(sort of like a debate)and the results which had been recorded by the non ahmadis were never published. what does this say about all of your depth-less arguments. another thing i would like to note is wherever i have seen these blogs against ahmadiyyat,all non ahmadis use foul language and are very rude whereas the ahmadis are very peaceful thats were u just dont get it. first things first islam means peace.
you need to go back to basics
by the way im only 14 years old
Are you serious? Since when Ahmadis are ‘polite’. As far as i know Ahmadis are some of the most foul mouthed fools I know of, even as bad as Hindus. 80 million? Are you serious? Since when? Most Ahmadiyya are just in the South Asian community; India, out of 100 mill plus muslims only 1 mil ahmadiyya. Where’s 80 mil from? Most Muslims don’t even know who or what an Ahmadiyya is, even religous ones! And yet, Ahamdiyya the so called ‘true’ Islam is only refined more or less to South Asian Communities as i said, if it was the ‘true’ Islam wouldn’t it by now, 100 years later be the majority of Muslims today? Give me a break! If it’s the ‘true’ Islam why are almost all the converts to Islam to Sunni?
Almost all Ahmadis i know of who consider themselves very religious and are active members of their ‘Mosques” yet they drink, fornicate, dance, party, eat pork, eat non halaal meat…and think it’s perfectly OK and not haraam. Is this the true Islam? I think not. Do some NON BIASED research into ur religion and seek truth.
Dear 14 year old “Proud Teenage Ahmadi Muslim”. First of all, allow me to congratulate you on having the guts to come here. I know it’s not easy when you’re a 14 year old to go to a site belonging to a bunch of people that your leaders have tricked you into thinking are scary and irrational.
Spend some time researching, reflecting and praying for guidance though and you too, like many Ahmadis, might be blessed with guidance by Allah (for it is He alone that guides).
I too was in your position once. Many young Ahmadis I knew were also in your position. Many of them have left after learning the truth. If you’ve watched the film “The Matrix”, then you’ll know what I’m saying when I ask you to take the red pill and see how far the rabbit hole goes.
First things first, start with prayer and then start asking some basic questions.
You talk about growth. Yes, Qadianism/Ahmadiyya has grown since it was created as a separate religion by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad over a century ago. The figures, as always, are a gross exaggeration. For example, the Jalsa in the UK, where Ahmadiyya is based, at one time had 40,000 visitors at the time of Mirza Tahir. This year it was less than 30,000. Given organic growth alone, that represents a staggering decline in the numbers. The fact is that Ahmadiyya is shrinking, not growing.
There is no basis for the 80 million figure. Even if true, you should ask yourself why the figures have come down by 120 million from the 200 million claimed only a few years ago. Was there the largest genocide in the history of the world? Come now, let’s be reasonable. There are no more than 2 million Ahmadis in the world and most of them are from the Punjab. Those block converts you have in Africa through missionary work don’t know the true story of Mirza Ghulam’s claim to prophethood. If they did, they’d reject Qadianism at a stroke, as they did recently when 30,000 renounced Qadianism after finding out it was not what they had expected, i.e. Islam.
As far as Mirza Tahir’s “mubahila” is concerned, he took that up against Ilyas Suttar, an ordinary Muslim. And very soon after the challenge, Mirza Tahir lost the power of speech and then died. Feel free to do the research and if you want references, they are all available on request.
You talk about foul language. That is a grotesque lie. Have a look at the comments section of my videos on YouTube to see just how perverted your co-religionists can be. Also, watch my video at Kingston mosque (below) to see just how disgusting Ahmadis can be.
If it’s substance you want, you need only read Mirza Ghulam’s books and compare them to Qur’an and Sunnah – go seek advice from any sheikh, and then compare to your murabbis.
If you earnestly seek the truth, insha’Allah, He (SWT) who created you will grant you guidance.
Peace unto those who follow the guidance.
Sahid sahaib you have lost the battle wiht shaitan. I feel really sorry for you. People like you can leave Islam Ahmadiyya whenever you feel like no one is forcing you to stay. instead Allah(swt) promised the first khalifa(may Allah be pleased wiht him) that if one person leaves Ahmadiyat then Allah(swt) will bring a whole group of people into Ahmadiyyat.
You see everyday more and more people are entering into the Jamaat of the Promised Messiah(as). i will give you one example for now but if you want more i will give you those too.
In Papua new Genia the jamaat is new there but its growing. so the mullahs as usual was jelaous so he came wiht some of his followers and warned the Ahmadis that he is going to burn our mosque down on Friday. so the Ahmadis waited for them and were scared and prayed to Allah(swt) but the mullah and his foolish followers didn’t arrive. and the Ahmadis found out that his own house caught on fire and burnt to the ground. the local president says that after this inncident the molvi has no words and just walks with his head down whenever he goes past our mosque.
What happened, did you burn down the guy’s house?
My little brother don’t worry Allah(swt) is on our side. if you need help wiht any question ask me i will inshallah be able to help you.
As Hazoor has reminded us again and agin keep praying keep praying and keep praying. so i will request you to keep praying and never lose hope in Allah(swt) mercy and help.
Allah (SWT) is not on your side. Yalash, the god of your Mirza, he is on your side.
Farhan: thanks for the insight. You didnt mention if muslim women can or cant be murrabis. Can they lead prayer?
ahmaditeenager: I was just like you when I was your age. Later in my early 20′s(10 years ago), there was something called the internet that allowed mass-researching. I researched ahmadiyyat and had terrible results.
You should focus on the immoral life of Mahmud, then ask your dad why a 70+ year old khalifa would want to marry a 20 something woman.
We are not attacking your religion, we are just presenting it to the world. Without any biases. Me and Shahid are both ex-ahmadis, we know alot. You should heed to our advice.
I have to say that I am disappointed after having read the last post.
I have normally always agreed with what has been posted but this last post is ludicrous.
Leaving Ahmadiyyat is commendable but only if you end up upon the correct Islam.
What would be the point be if had left Ahmadiyyat and started practicing Sufi or Baraeilwi Islam – none whatsoever!
It hurts me to see that some of the brothers who left Ahmadiyyat posting on this blog have still not found the correct Islam according to the Quran and Sunnah.
I would advise all Ahmadis who visit this site to leave Ahmadiyyat just as I and the other people on here did, however I would urge you all to follow the correct Islam according to the Quran & Sunnah sometimes described by the ignorant ones as ‘Saudi salafis’ or ultra-orthodox Islam.
There is only one Islam and that is the Islam that the beloved Prophet Muhammad PBUH came with. Stick to that and only that and we will all be safe Insh’Allah.
To leave Ahmadiyyat and fall upon something else would be like jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire, how sad would that be.
For the benefit of qualifying my statement I would like to present some evidences on what Islam says covering up of women.
Evidence from the Qur’aan
(i)
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer palms of hands or one eye or dress like veil, gloves, headcover, apron), and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms) and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband’s fathers, or their sons, or their husband’s sons, or their brothers or their brother’s sons, or their sister’s sons, or their (Muslim) women (i.e. their sisters in Islam), or the (female) slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants who lack vigour, or small children who have no sense of feminine sex. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And all of you beg Allaah to forgive you all, O believers, that you may be successful”
[al-Noor 24:31]
The evidence from this verse that hijab is obligatory for women is as follows:
(a) Allaah commands the believing women to guard their chastity, and the command to guard their chastity also a command to follow all the means of doing that. No rational person would doubt that one of the means of doing so is covering the face, because uncovering it causes people to look at it and enjoy its beauty, and thence to initiate contact. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The eyes commit zina and their zina is by looking…” then he said, “… and the private part confirms that or denies it.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 6612; Muslim, 2657.
If covering the face is one of the means of guarding one’s chastity, then it is enjoined, because the means come under the same ruling as the ends.
(b) Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “…and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms) …”. The jayb (pl. juyoob) is the neck opening of a garment and the khimaar (veil) is that with which a woman covers her head. If a woman is commanded to draw her veil over the neck opening of her garment then she is commanded to cover her face, either because that is implied or by analogy. If it is obligatory to cover the throat and chest, then it is more appropriate to cover the face because it is the site of beauty and attraction.
(c) Allaah has forbidden showing all adornment except that which is apparent, which is that which one cannot help showing, such as the outside of one’s garment. Hence Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “…except only that which is apparent …” and He did not say, except that which they show of it. Some of the salaf, such as Ibn Mas’ood, al-Hasan, Ibn Sireen and others interpreted the phrase “except only that which is apparent” as meaning the outer garment and clothes, and what shows from beneath the outer garment (i.e., the hem of one’s dress etc.). Then He again forbids showing one’s adornment except to those for whom He makes an exception. This indicates that the second adornment mentioned is something other than the first adornment. The first adornment is the external adornment which appears to everyone and cannot be hidden. The second adornment is the inward adornment (including the face). If it were permissible for this adornment to be seen by everyone, there would be no point to the general wording in the first instance and this exception made in the second.
(d) Allaah grants a concession allowing a woman to show her inward adornments to “old male servants who lack vigour”, i.e. servants who are men who have no desire, and to small children who have not reached the age of desire and have not seen the ‘awrahs of women. This indicates two things:
1 – That showing inward adornments to non-mahrams is not permissible except to these two types of people.
2 – That the reason for this ruling is the fear that men may be tempted by the woman and fall in love with her. Undoubtedly the face is the site of beauty and attraction, so concealing it is obligatory lest men who do feel desire be attracted and tempted by her.
(e) The words (interpretation of the meaning): “And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment” mean that a woman should not stamp her feet so as to make known hidden adornments such as anklets and the like. If a woman is forbidden to stamp her feet lest men be tempted by what they hear of the sound of her anklets etc., then what about uncovering the face?
Which is the greater source of temptation – a man hearing the anklets of a woman whom he does not know who she is or whether she is beautiful, or whether she is young or old, or ugly or pretty? Or his looking at a beautiful youthful face that attracts him and invites him to look at it?
Every man who has any desire for women will know which of the two temptations is greater and which deserves to be hidden and concealed.
(ii)
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And as for women past childbearing who do not expect wedlock, it is no sin on them if they discard their (outer) clothing in such a way as not to show their adornment. But to refrain (i.e. not to discard their outer clothing) is better for them. And Allaah is All Hearer, All Knower”
[al-Noor 24:60]
The evidence from this verse is that Allaah states that there is no sin on old women who have no hope of marriage because men have no desire for them, due to their old age (if they discard their outer clothing), subject to the condition that their intention in doing so is not to make a wanton display of themselves. The fact that this ruling applies only to old women indicates that the ruling is different for young women who still hope to get married. If the ruling on discarding the outer clothing applied to all, there would be no point in singling out old women here.
The phrase “in such a way as not to show their adornment” offers further proof that hijab is obligatory for young women who hope to marry, because usually when they uncover their faces the intention is to make a wanton display (tabarruj) and to show off their beauty and make men look at them and admire them etc. Those who do otherwise are rare, and the ruling does not apply to rare cases.
(iii)
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allaah is Ever Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful”
[al-Ahzaab 33:59]
Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “Allaah commanded the believing women, if they go out of their houses for some need, to cover their faces from the top of their heads with their jilbaabs, and to leave one eye showing.”
The tafseer of the Sahaabah is evidence, indeed some of the scholars said that it comes under the same ruling as marfoo’ reports that go back to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
The comment “and leave one eye showing” is a concession because of the need to see the way; if there is no need for that then the eye should not be uncovered.
The jilbaab is the upper garment that comes above the khimaar; it is like the abaya.
(iv) Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“It is no sin on them (the Prophet’s wives, if they appear unveiled) before their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their brother’s sons, or the sons of their sisters, or their own (believing) women, or their (female) slaves. And (O ladies), fear (keep your duty to) Allaah. Verily, Allaah is Ever All Witness over everything”
[al-Ahzaab 33:55]
Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: When Allaah commanded the women to observe hijab in front of non-mahram men, he explained that they did not have to observe hijab in front of these relatives, as He explained that they are exempted in Soorat al-Noor where He said (interpretation of the meaning): “and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands…”
2 – Evidence from the Sunnah that it is obligatory to cover the face
(i)
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When any one of you proposes marriage to a woman, there is no sin on him if he looks at her, rather he should look at her for the purpose of proposing marriage even if she is unaware.” Narrated by Ahmad. The author of Majma’ al-Zawaa’id said: its men are the men of saheeh.
The evidence here is the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said there is no sin on the man who is proposing marriage, subject to the condition that his looking be for the purpose of proposing marriage. This indicates that the one who is not proposing marriage is sinning if he looks at a non-mahram woman in ordinary circumstances, as is the one who is proposing marriage if he looks for any purpose other than proposing marriage, such as for the purpose of enjoyment etc.
If it is said that the hadeeth does not clearly state what is being looked at, and it may mean looking at the chest etc, the response is that the man who is proposing marriage looks at the face because it is the focus for the one who is seeking beauty, without a doubt.
(ii)
When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) commanded that women should be brought out to the Eid prayer place, they said, “O Messenger of Allaah, some of us do not have jilbaabs.” The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “Let her sister give her one of her jilbaabs to wear.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim.
This hadeeth indicates that the usual practice among the women of the Sahaabah was that a woman would not go out without a jilbaab, and that if she did not have a jilbaab she would not go out. The command to wear a jilbaab indicates that it is essential to cover. And Allaah knows best.
(iii)
It was narrated in al-Saheehayn that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to pray Fajr and the believing women would attend the prayer with him, wrapped in their veils, then they would go back to their homes and no one would recognize them because of the darkness. She said: If the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) saw from the women what we have seen, he would have prevented them from coming to the mosques as the Children of Israel prevented their women.
A similar report was also narrated by ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Mas’ood (may Allaah be pleased with him).
The evidence from this hadeeth covers two issues:
1 – Hijaab and covering were the practice of the women of the Sahaabah who were the best of generations and the most honourable before Allaah.
2 – ‘Aa’ishah the Mother of the Believers and ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Mas’ood (may Allaah be pleased with them both), who were both known as scholars with deep insight, said that if the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had seen from women what they had seen, he would have prevented them from coming to the mosques. This was during the best generations, so what about nowadays?!
(iv)
It was narrated that Ibn ‘Umar said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever lets his garment drag out of pride, Allaah will not look at him on the Day of Resurrection.” Umm Salamah said, “What should women do with their hems?” He said, “Let it hang down a handspan.” She said, “What if that shows her feet?” He said, “Let it hang down a cubit, but no more than that.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.
This hadeeth indicates that it is obligatory for women to cover their feet, and that this was something that was well known among the women of the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them). The feet are undoubtedly a lesser source of temptation than the face and hands, so a warning concerning something that is less serious is a warning about something that is more serious and to which the ruling applies more. The wisdom of sharee’ah means that it would not enjoin covering something that is a lesser source of temptation and allow uncovering something that is a greater source of temptation. This is an impossible contradiction that cannot be attributed to the wisdom and laws of Allaah.
(v)
It was narrated that ‘Aa’ishah said: The riders used to pass by us when we were with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in ihraam. When they came near us we would lower our jilbaabs from our heads over our faces, and when they had passed by we would uncover our faces. Narrated by Abu Dawood, 1562.
The words “When they came near us we would lower our jilbaabs from our heads over our faces” indicate that it is obligatory to cover the face, because what is prescribed in ihraam is to uncover it. If there was no strong reason to prevent uncovering it, it would be obligatory to leave it uncovered even when the riders were passing by. In other words, women are obliged to uncover their faces during ihraam according to the majority of scholars, and nothing can override something that is obligatory except something else that is also obligatory. If it were not obligatory to observe hijab and cover the face in the presence of non-mahram men, there would be no reason not to uncover it in ihraam. It was proven in al-Saheehayn and elsewhere that a woman in ihraam is forbidden to wear the niqaab (face veil) and gloves.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: This is one of the things which indicate that the niqaab and gloves were known among women who were not in ihraam, which implies that they covered their faces and hands.
These are nine points of evidence from the Qur’aan and Sunnah.
The tenth is:
Rational examination and analogy which form the basis of this perfect sharee’ah, which aims to help people achieve what is in their best interests and encourages the means that lead to that, and to denounce evil and block the means that lead to it.
If we think about unveiling and women showing their faces to non-mahram men, we will see that it involves many bad consequences. Even if we assume that there are some benefits in it, they are very few in comparison with its negative consequences. Those negative consequences include:
1 – Fitnah (temptation). By unveiling her face, a woman may be tempted to do things to make her face look more beautiful. This is one of the greatest causes of evil and corruption.
2 – Taking away haya’ (modesty, shyness) from women, which is part of faith and of a woman’s nature (fitrah). Women are examples of modesty, as it was said, “more shy than a virgin in her seclusion.” Taking away a woman’s modesty detracts from her faith and the natural inclination with which she was created.
3 – Men may be tempted by her, especially if she is beautiful and she flirts, laughs and jokes, as happens in the case of many of those who are unveiled. The Shaytaan flows through the son of Adam like blood.
4 – Mixing of men and women. If a woman thinks that she is equal with men in uncovering her face and going around unveiled, she will not be modest and will not feel too shy to mix with men. This leads to a great deal of fitnah (temptation) and widespread corruption. Al-Tirmidhi narrated (5272) from Hamzah ibn Abi Usayd from his father that he heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say, when he was coming out of the mosque and he saw men mingling with women in the street; the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to the women, “Draw back, and do not walk in the middle of the road; keep to the sides of the road.” Then the women used to keep so close to the walls that their garments would catch on the walls because they kept so close to them.
Classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’, 929
Adapted from the words of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) in Risaalat al-Hijaab.
And on the issue of the woman being a Murabbi / Imam
Allaah has singled out men for some virtues and rulings, and He has singled out women for other virtues and rulings. It is not permissible for any man to wish for that which has been granted to women only, nor is it permissible for any woman to wish for that which has been granted to men. This kind of wishing is tantamount to objecting to the laws and rulings of Allaah.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And wish not for the things in which Allaah has made some of you to excel others. For men there is reward for what they have earned, (and likewise) for women there is reward for what they have earned, and ask Allaah of His Bounty. Surely, Allaah is Ever All Knower of everything”
[al-Nisa’ 4:32]
al-Sa’di (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
Allaah forbids the believers to wish for that with which Allaah has favoured others, whether that is in things that are possible or things that are impossible. Women should not wish for the things that have been bestowed uniquely upon men, by which Allaah has favoured them over women, and no poor person or person who has shortcomings should merely wish for the position of one who is rich or perfect, because this is the essence of destructive envy (hasad)… and because that implies displeasure with the decree of Allaah. End quote.
One of the things for which Allaah has singled out men is that the acts of worship which require physical strength, such as jihad, or require a position of leadership such as leading the prayers, etc., are only for men, and women have nothing to do with them.
This is indicated by a great deal of evidence, such as the following:
1 – Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allaah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means”
[al-Nisa’ 4:34]
al-Shaafa’i said in al-Umm (1/191):
If a woman leads men, women and boys in prayer, then the prayer of the women is valid and the prayer of the men and boys is invalid, because Allaah has given men the role of protectors and maintainers of women, and He has not allowed them to be in charge, so it is not permissible for a woman to lead a man in prayer under any circumstances, ever. End quote.
Al-Sa’di (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
Men have been favoured over women in numerous ways, such as the fact that positions of leadership and Prophethood are limited to men only, and many acts of worship, such as jihad and leading the Eid prayers and Jumu’ah prayers, are for men only, and Allaah has favoured them with intellect, wisdom, patience and toughness which women do not share. End quote.
2 – Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And they (women) have rights (over their husbands as regards living expenses) similar (to those of their husbands) over them (as regards obedience and respect) to what is reasonable, but men have a degree (of responsibility) over them. And Allaah is All-Mighty, All-Wise”
[al-Baqarah 2:228]
al-Sa’di (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
“but men have a degree over them” means higher status and leadership, and more rights over them, as Allaah says, “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women”. The position of Prophet and judge, leading the prayers and leading the state, and all positions of authority, are restricted to men. End quote.
3 – al-Bukhaari (4425) narrated that Abu Bakrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “No people will ever succeed who appoint a woman as their leader.”
This hadeeth indicates that it is not permissible for a woman to hold a position of public authority, and leading the prayers is a position of public authority.
4 – Abu Dawood (576) and Ahmad (5445) narrated that Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Do not prevent your women from attending the mosques, although their houses are better for them.” Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Sunan Abi Dawood.
It says in ‘Awn al-Ma’bood:
“although their houses are better for them” means: their praying in their houses is better for them than their praying in the mosques, if only they knew, but they do not know that, and they ask for permission to go out to the mosques, because they think that the reward for them in the mosque is greater. The reason why their praying at home is better is that there is no danger of fitnah. That was confirmed after women began to wear adornments. End quote.
5 – Muslim (440) narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The best rows for men are those are the front and the worst are those at the back, and the best rows for women are those at the back and the worst are those at the front.”
Al-Nawawi said:
The phrase “the rows for men” is to be understood in general terms as meaning that the best of them are those that are at the front, and the worst are those at the back, and that is always the case. As for the rows for women, what is meant in this hadeeth is the rows of women who are praying with men. But if women are praying on their own and not with men, then they are like men and the best rows are those at the front and the worst are those at the back. What is meant by the worst rows for both men and women is that they bring less reward, are lower in status and are further removed from what is required by sharee’ah. And the best rows are the opposite of that. The virtue of the last row for women who are praying with men is that they are farther away from mixing with men or seeing them or becoming attracted to them when seeing their movements or hearing their words and so on. The first rows are condemned for the opposite of that. And Allaah knows best. End quote.
If a woman is enjoined to pray in her house and keep away from men, and the worst rows for women are the front rows, because they are closer to the men, then how can it be befitting for Islam to allow a woman to pray as an imam, leading men in prayer, when it enjoins her to keep away from men?
6 – al-Bukhaari (684) and Muslim (421) narrated from Sahl ibn Sa’d al-Saa’idi that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “Whoever notices anything amiss during the prayer, let him say tasbeeh, for if he does so it will be noticed; and clapping is only for women.”
al-Haafiz said:
It is as if women are not allowed to say tasbeeh because they are enjoined to keep their voices low in prayer at all times, because of the fear of fitnah. End quote.
If women are forbidden to alert the imam by speaking if he makes a mistake, and should clap instead, so that they will not raise their voice in the presence of men, then how can it be allowed for a woman to lead them in prayer and deliver a khutbah to them?
7 – Muslim (658) narrated from Anas ibn Maalik that he prayed behind the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and with him was his grandmother and an orphan. He said: The orphan and I stood in a row behind him, and the old woman stood behind us.
Al-Haafiz said:
This shows that a woman should not stand in a row with a man. The basic reason is that there is the fear of fitnah because of her. End quote.
If a woman should stand on her own behind the rows, and not stand in the same row as the men, how can she stand in front of them and lead them in prayer?
It says in ‘Awn al-Ma’bood:
This indicates that it is not permissible for a woman to lead men in prayer, because if she is not allowed to stand in the same row as them, it is less likely that she should be allowed to stand in front of them. End quote.
8 – According to the actions of the Muslims throughout fourteen hundred years, no woman should be allowed to men in prayer.
Badaa’i’ al-Sanaa’i’, 2/289
Whoever goes against this is following a path other than that of the believers. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believers’ way, We shall keep him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell — what an evil destination!”
[al-Nisa’ 4:115]
There follow some comments of the scholars:
It says in al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah (6/205):
In order to lead men in prayers, it is essential that the imam be a male; it is not valid for a woman to lead men in prayers. The fuqaha’ are unanimously agreed on this matter. End quote.
Ibn Hazm said in Maraatib al-Ijmaa’, p. 27
They are unanimously agreed that a woman should not lead men in prayer when they know that she is a woman. If they do that then their prayer is invalid, according to scholarly consensus. End quote.
It says in al-Muhalla (2/167):
It is not permissible for a woman to lead a man or men in prayer. There is no difference of scholarly opinion on this point. Moreover the text states that a woman invalidates a man’s prayer if she walks in front of him… The ruling of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is that she should definitely stand behind the man in prayer, and the imam must stand in front of the congregation or with one who is praying with him in the same row… From these texts it may be established that it is definitely invalid for a woman to lead a man or men in prayer. End quote.
Al-Nawawi (4/152) said in al-Majmoo (4/152):
Our companions are agreed that it is not permissible for an adult man or a boy to pray behind a woman… the prohibition on a woman leading men in prayer applies equally to obligatory prayers, Taraweeh and all supererogatory prayers. This is our view and the view of all the scholars from the earlier and later generations – may Allaah have mercy on them. Al-Bayhaqi narrated this from the seven fuqaha’, the Taabi’i fuqaha’ of Madeenah. It is also the view of Maalik, Abu Haneefah, Sufyaan, Ahmad and Dawood….
Moreover if a woman leads a man or men in prayer, the men’s prayer is invalid, but her prayer and the prayer of any women who pray behind her is valid in all prayers, except if she leads them in Jumu’ah prayer, in which case there are two views, the most sound of which is that her prayer does not count. The second view is that it does count and it takes the place of Zuhr. This is the view of Shaykh Abu Haamid, but it does not amount to anything. And Allaah knows best.
In al-Insaaf (2/265) it says:
“ A woman’s leading a man in prayer is not valid” –
This is our view in general – meaning the madhhab of Imam Ahmad – it says in al-Mustaw’ib: This is the correct view. End quote.
The Maaliki view concerning this matter is the strictest of all. They do not allow a woman to lead even other women in prayer, and they regard maleness as an essential condition for leading the prayer in all cases. In al-Fawaakih al-Dawaani it says (1/204):
Note that there are conditions for leading the prayer to be valid and complete. The conditions of it being valid are thirteen, the first of which is being male; it is not valid for a woman or an effeminate man to lead the prayer. The prayer of the one who prays behind a woman is invalid but not the prayer of the female who led the prayer. End quote.
Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked about a man who prayed ‘Asr behind his wife. He replied:
It is not permissible for a woman to lead a man in prayer and his prayer offered behind her is not valid, because of a great deal of evidence to that effect, and the man mentioned must repeat his prayer.”
Majmoo’ Fataawa Ibn Baaz, 12/130
Secondly:
With regard to the evidence presented by those who refer to the reports which say that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) gave Umm Waraqah permission to led her household in prayer (narrated by Abu Dawood, 591), they say that she used to lead the people of her house in prayer, among whom were men and boys. The scholars have given several answers to that:
1- The hadeeth is da’eef (weak).
Al-Haafiz said in al-Talkhees (p. 121): Its isnaad includes ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Khallaad who is unknown. End quote.
It says in al-Muntaqa Sharh al-Muwatta’:
This hadeeth is one to which no attention should be paid. End quote.
2- Even if the hadeeth is saheeh, what it means is that she used to lead the women of her household in prayer.
3- That was something that applied only to Umm Waraqah, and it is not prescribed for anyone else.
4- Some scholars quote it as evidence that a woman may lead a man in prayer, but only in cases of necessity, and what is meant by necessity is when there is no man who can recite al-Faatihah properly. Haashiyat Ibn Qaasim, 2/313
See al-Mughni. 3/33.
And Allaah knows best.
I think you missed the point of brother Akber’s post.
May be I have Allah knows best.
Ok, just to clarify. I am a muslim like Muhammad, like Abu Bakr and like Ali. I do not associate with any sect, I am a rogue. I do as I wish. I follw the Koran and the sunnah. But, I think that there is contextual significance in the koran.
When it comes to women covering up their face and other things of that nature, I think this is situational, if a situation arises that women are not safe, then, and only then, do the rules of purdah apply.
I think that it wasnt safe for women to travel in those days, thats why the rules were so stringent. Barbarianism has dwindled in todays day. It was also war-time there in arabia when this injunction was delivered.
In summary, this injunction was a war-time injunction only, and yes it can be used in a non-war era but its up to us to use it.
Also, this injunction was introduced at a time when women were considered as property. in the 21st century the woman has exceeded all expectations of intellectual growth, it is my opinion that women are smarter than men and more responsible than the average man. I predict that by the 22nd century women will be controlling men.
Salams,
Rationalist, to say you follow the Quran and Sunnah and then to contradict it in the same post is most confusing.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad made it up as he went along, to claim to be an ex-ahmadi and then to continue making up the religion is folly.
Forgive me but how did you arrive at the conclusions of your above post?
Did you use your limited knowledge of Islam to dismiss that which the people of knowledge are unanimously agreed upon?
The points you make are not even compelling and go against Islam, if they were not so serious they would be laughable.
According to your flawed methodology would I be right in assuming you would agree that Zakat is no longer an obligation as we now have social security?
Are you not just making up a new interpretation of Islam according to your own intellect?
The Islam brought by the Prophet Muhammad PBUH was eternal not just for a particular time. Its rules and regulations all still apply.
It is an affront that you would imply that the women such as the Mother of the Believers Aisha Radiya’llahu anha was not as intellectual as today’s women.
Give your warped understanding a break my friend.
Women will not be controlling men ever and I’ll tell you why
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allaah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means”
[al-Nisa’ 4:34]
Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
“Allaah says ‘Men are the protectors and maintainers of women’ meaning that the man is in charge of the woman, i.e., he is the leader and head of the household, the one who disciplines her if she goes astray.
‘because Allaah has made one of them to excel the other’ i.e., because men are superior to women and are better than women. Hence Prophethood was given only to men, as was the position of khaleefah, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, ‘No people shall ever prosper who appoint a woman as their ruler.’ This was narrated by al-Bukhaari from the hadeeth of ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Abi Bakrah from his father. The same applies to the position of qaadi (judge), etc.
‘and because they spend (to support them) from their means’ refers to the mahr and the spending on women’s maintenance that Allaah has enjoined upon men in His Book and in the Sunnah of His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). So a man is inherently better than a woman, and he is superior to her because he spends on her. So it is appropriate that he should be in charge of her, as Allaah says, ‘but men have a degree (of responsibility) over them’ [al-Baqarah 2:228].
‘Ali ibn Abi Talhah said, narrating from Ibn ‘Abbaas: ‘Men are the protectors and maintainers of women’ means that men are the leaders of women and they should obey them in areas where Allaah has enjoined obedience. Obedience may mean treating his family kindly and protecting his wealth.”
(Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 1/490)
I’m sorry if this is a little harsh but you need to fear Allah. Do NOT try and apply your own limited, flawed and dangerous understanding to issues relating to Islam.
If you do this it would be the same as that charlatan Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
May Allah forgive you and me and guide us all.
Here you are calling yourself true muslims – killing people in the name of Islam and Jihaad and completing your heinous act by saying aloud Allahuakbar and you call us Ahmadis, non-muslims.
Isn’t that an irony or should I call it sheer ignorance and stupidity.
SB,
you cannot use the example of a few ignorant people to label all Muslims wrong.
If we were to apply this principal then we would say that all Ahmadi’s are suicidal, desperate individual’s hell bent on killing themselves and other people.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1131435_suicidal_boss_drives_wrong_way_on_m60
My sources tell me that, your brother in religion in this article is the President of the Manchester Jamaat. If this is what your leadership is like then we can, say all Ahmadis are like this, if we apply your rationale that is.
However we are Muslims and do not fall into the idiocy of generalising all people of any religion for the actions of a few.
We do however we do say Allahuakbar for making us leave the cult and becoming true Muslims. Alhamdulillah.
Please use some common sense and do not paint everybody with the same brush, and use even more common sense and see that what you are upon is indeed false.
Dear All
I am an Ahmadi Muslim,I am little confused the way all Ex-Ahmadi’s Muslims are trying to enlighten the present Ahmadi Muslims to accept the truth. In the eyes of Non Ahmadi Muslims, Ahmadi’s are non-believers. Fine with us but who gave this authority to them to abuse and use foul language against Ahmadi sect spiritual leaders. As in Quran Allah says that do not use foul language against Non-believers Gods as in reaction they will abuse your true God.
Now read all the comments posted by Non-Ahmadi’s, directly or indirectly you are using abusive and foul language. My suggestion is that if you are sincere in your objective than kindly teach us with kindness.
Another thing which I would like to ask from Shahid, that it seems that you have studied books written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Kindly let us know that did he mention that Prophet Muhmmad is not the last messenger and he is the one.
It still amazes me, with all the evidence proving your little cult false, you still believe in Mirza! It’s sad!
It also amazes me how ‘ali’ is illusioned into believing non-ahmadi muslims. Indeed Hazrat Mirza Ahmad was a true prophet of God, if only you read his books with full Taqwa – righteousness of heart.
assalam alaykum,
To answer your question you have asked shahid im gonna give you some reference to prove that he said that the prophet muhammad (saw)is not the last prophet:
ROOHAN KHAZAIN chapter 3 page 320 he confirm that.
ROOHAN KHAZAIN chapter 3 IZALAT AUHAM page 385 he said the Brahin-E-Ahmadiya book is the book of allah not just that he carry on and said in IZALAT AUHAM PAGE 472 all prophets are liers.and ultimetly his announcement in 15 march 1897 he said quraan is the book of allah and my word and the big one is on the IZALAT AUHAM page 254 he said nabii issa was the son of yussuf najjar it means that mary was not virgin when she gave birth even christian knows that she was a virgin(that why they call her a virgin mary i dont have to give you reference for this do i) and please dont say this to true christian you will regret.
do not expect me to call you a true believer while your book and founder Ghulam Ahmad gave me bad a impression.we get angry because you and your leaders dont respect our prophets and our book while you call yourself a muslim.
ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST.
allah will guide us all inshallah AMIN.
It is ironic how some Ahmadi’s feel that they are being abused yet forget or ignore what their AHMADI Jamaat (cult) is doing to others.
Few Examples:
Who gave the right to AHMADIYYA CULT leaders and Mullahs, the right to openly and secretly, privately and publicly, day and night, all year round to curse, vilify, slander, abuse, plot, against Muslims and their countries and yet hide behind the hypocritical slogan that O, we are very peaceful and we have ‘love for all and hatred for none’ and then try to hijack the religion of ISLAM?
1) Why did MIRZA GHULAM founder of AHMADIYYAT abuse and curse people of other faith especially those who did not believe in his lies, throughout his life and wished death for them…..?
2) Who gave MIRZA GHULAM the self procalimed prophet of AHMADIYYAT the right to make so many false claims that he is Jesus (pbuh), Muhammad (pbuh), Krishna (Hindu God) and so many other revered figures, that does not make any sense to anyone except the ignorant followers?
3) Who gave MIRZA GHULAM AHMAD the founder of AHMADIYYAT the right to abuse those who did not believe in him, as ZURRIYATU BAGHAYA (Children of Prostitutes)?
4) Did any former Ahmadi or any Muslim abuse all people like this?
5) Who gave MIRZA GHULAM AHMAD the founder of AHMADIYYAT, the right to curse and abuse JESUS (Pbuh) which is being hidden by the cult leaders and Ahmadi Mullahs, so that they can continue to fool people in the West and gain monetary or other benefits for their pious fraud?
6) No muslim or former Ahmadi here has ever abused JESUS (pbuh). In fact they respect him and his mother so much since it is mentioned in the Holy Quran to do so.
7) Who gave the Khalifa Sani of Ahmadiyyat the right to call all MUSLIMS as PUCCA KAFIRS and asked Ahmadi’s not to pray behind them?
9) Who gave the right to AHMADI MULLAHS and CULT LEADERS that as soon as a calamity or natural disaster hits a Mulsim nation or people, they shamelessly claim and riddicule that this is due to not beilieving in MIRZA GHULAM the founder of AHMADIYYAT?
Dear All, Assalamo alakium.
Although I have not read the post completely but I have got some understanding and the gist of it. I am an ahmadi by the way.
Can anyone tell me please why any of the wives of Prophet Muhammad Musatafa (SAW) was not elected a khalifa ? Why Hazrat Aisha rta was not elected even after Hazrat Ali rta ?
Please do remember, what ever objection you will raise, that will go against all prophets as it always happens. Please think logically, rationally and remember Prayer is a weapon of the belivers. Use the power of prayers and ask Allah directly.
Wasllam,
M Basit.
I have read all of the above postings packed with lies and not a single verse of Quran is mentioned for your arguments. One lie after the other. I am wondering one day when you will die, what will you answer to GOD?
As every Muslim knows Prophet Muhammad’s full name was “Muhammad Ahmad”.
Allah revealed his glory as “Muhammad” about 1430 years ago and stated in the Quran: “It is Allah, Who has raised among the unlettered people a Messenger (Muhammad) from among themselves, who recites unto them Allah’s Signs, and purifies them, and teaches them the Book and wisdom, although they had been, in manifest misguidance earlier. Allah will raise him again among others, from among them, who have not yet joined them (companions of Muhammad). Allah is the Mighty, the Wise. This is Allah’s grace; He bestows it on whom He pleases; and Allah is the Master of immense grace.[62: 3, 4 & 5]
Allah in the above verse is clearly stating that Allah is going to send Muhammad again with the attributes of “Ahmad” for those people who have not joined them yet (Future).
It is the second coming of Prophet Muhammad with the attributes of “Ahmad”, hence, Allah gave him the name “Ghulam Ahmad”, i.e. Servant of Ahmad.
I must tell you that “Hazrat Ahamd” does not preach any new Islam (GOD forbid). His job is to repeat the original Islam of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Because it is so perfect that there is no need for any new Islam. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a servant Prophet to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). So when your Mullah tells you that Ghulam Ahmad claimed that he is a better Prophet than Prophet Muhammad (GOD forbid), Mullah is an utter liar.
Allah further states: “And whoso obeys Allah and this Messenger (Muhammad) shall be among those on whom Allah has bestowed His blessings, namely, the Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs and the Righteous. And excellent companions are these. This grace is from Allah, the Sufficient, the All Knowing”. [4: 70 & 71]
In the above verses Allah clearly claims that descending Messengers is Allah’s grace and Allah will bestow this grace on whomsoever Allah pleases, and Allah is Master of immense grace. After reading the above few verses I am not sure how, Mullah or people, with little or no knowledge of Quran will stop Allah from descending his grace (Messengers)? Allah will do whatever Allah pleases. (Please learn something from the above verses, if you can).
I hope you get the message. So I pray to Allah to help you all. If Quran’s verses can not convince you or misguided Mullah’s then our job is done as Prophet Muhammad said, he is not appointed as a Guardian on your affairs, his job is to convey the message of Islam. Following Prophet Muhammad’s foot-steps, we Ahmadi Muslims have done our job.
FOR HUMANITY:
Were all the mujadids wrong in interpreting the Koran? Were they? In your opinion Allah never gave any muslim an understanding of the Koran.
Your family khalifas are the only ones that allah blessed. Thats wny Mahmud partied like a rockstar!!
I wish I was MAHMUD!!!!
And agian you are abusive. it shows you your real intentions and whct kind of mind you posses.
The reply from ‘For humanity’ was truly inspiring as opposed to that of rationalist who can’t prevent himself making use of dregatory language. This is an example of the state of muslims today.
QUOTE-rationalist who can’t prevent himself making use of dregatory language-UNQUOTE
Dear Brother Peace,
Could you please reproduce a sentence from Rationalist post that you found derogatory?
On the other hand, please read the following and advise if you find this one derogatory:
Don’t you know that Manliness and Virility are praiseworthy attributes of men. Being eunuch is not a commendable quality just as being deaf and dumb are not commendable. Yes, this objection is indeed very great, that Hazrat Maseeh alaihis-salam being completely deprived of manhood could not leave a practical example of a perfect and upright social life with his wives. (Nur-ul-Quran 17-18, RK 392-393)
I HAVE UNDERSTOOD, YOU HAVE NOT!!
newobserver you haven’t fully understood the concept yourself,
re-read and understand what the following refrence says:
http://www.alislam.org/books/truth/gospels.html
the question to be addressed is that if the Promised messiah(as) was to repel the christian attacks on the holy prophet(saw), then he wouldn’t mention the imaginary jesus next to his repels. Most surely this would otherwise weaken the tactic. Yet he did mention in other texts that how much he respected Jesus(as) so that muslims like you understand that it is only a logical tactic against the christians.
re-read.
The reference you have given says that Mirza Sb used filthy language against an imaginary Jesus. The quote I have given categorically talks about Quran and Hazrat Issa as – it has no mention of an imaginary Jesus.
What did I not understand, please explain.
(by the way you have responded to wrong thread – in this thread I actually questioned about using derogatory language). Anyways, please explain:
1. Do you believe that as per Quran, Hazrat Issa alaihissalam was inferior most of all the prophets?
2. When you say the words Maseeh alaihissalam, it means Hazrat Issa or some imaginary Jesus?
newobserver,
This i did not understand from rationalist but it certainly did not seem like a logical argument but rather a sort of an insult, i suspect:
“Your family khalifas are the only ones that allah blessed. Thats wny Mahmud partied like a rockstar!!”
That is what I meant by deregotary
as for jesus(as), you can return to the original thread.
So you think this is less derogatory:
Yes, this objection is indeed very great, that Hazrat Maseeh alaihis-salam being completely deprived of manhood could not leave a practical example of a perfect and upright social life with his wives.
Please refer to Iqra thread
There is something called Lajna ammullah. Which is for Ahamdi women. They have thier own president, national amla and local amla. They organise their own programs whenever they wish.
This articel is a direct attack on my Islam Ahmadiyyat. Everyone one is equal in Islam. This the rule we live by.
By the way Ahmadi women are more educated then non-Ahamdi womens. The mosque in Germany was designed by a Ahmadi Women. Everyone is equal in Islam.
“By the way Ahmadi women are mre educated then non-Ahmadi womens” – where is your evidence, if you are truthful? You spread nothing but lies and conjecture.
You call yourself “Islam Ahmadiyyat” and then say “Everyone is equal in Islam”. How telling.
Azkov, you totally missed the point my brother.
The point is that Ahmadiyya women have been given a seperate society. They are not to be concerned with the main affairs of the ahmadiyya movement, they are not to br given equal rights.
Until 1920 the US constitution did not allow women to vote. Mahmud Ahmad built this lajna organization around the same time. Obviously he didnt think women should be involved in the main decision making process of the qadianis.
The LAM is different, they allow women total freedom, women are as equals.
How do ALL ahmadis always miss the main points that we raise. Do you guys do this on purpose.
They are deluded cultees who are terrified by their leadership and parents into hating us. We know, because we were once one of them!
I am sure, brother (or sister) Izkov would have not known an important concept of Ahmadi Religion.
If a woman is ugly, man has a write to divorce. On the other hand, if the man is ugly the women has no right to get a divorce.
Check out: http://www.ahmadibeliefs.com/women
You are wrong.
Hi Izkov,
Please revert. I said:
Quote – You want to say MGA is wrong. Because, there is nothing on http://www.ahmadibeliefs.com/women but a copy paste from actual writings of Mirza Sb. – Unquote
You want to say MGA is wrong. Because, there is nothing on http://www.ahmadibeliefs.com/women but a copy paste from actual writings of Mirza Sb.
What is wrong with pardah? If a woman is respecting herself by covering herself, why is it being looked upon so bad?…And if you are trying to say pardah is a bad thing than you shouldn’t even consider yourself a muslim. And by the way, you guys need to read and make yourselves more knowledgable before you make such strong claims. Also, learn to respect other people’s feelings and beliefs.
Thank You