Attacking the fundamentals of Islam to defend Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

In one of his works, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani attributes a hadith to Imam al-Bukhari’s collection which does not exist in it. See Rohani Khazain vol.6 p.337 (هذا خليفة الله المهدى)

In their bid to defend Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, his followers take a lot of pain. Malik Abdul Rahman, author of the much celebrated Ahmadiyya Pocket Book, not only clutches at straws but goes even further to put doubt to the very fundamentals of Islam to justify the gimmicks of the false claimant of prophethood.

In the Ahmadiyya Pocket Book, pages 517-518, he comes up with various arguments to dilute the issue and presents the worst possible alternatives.

He alludes to two Ahadith of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم:

Narrations about the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم erring about the number of raka’ahs:

Firstly, there is a narration in which the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم mistakenly said the final salaam of ritual prayers (salaah) at the end of two raka’ahs instead of four raka’ahs..

This much is true. Malik Abdul Rahman attempts to use this to show that prophets can make mistakes, therefore, it is acceptable that Mirza also made a mistake. But this story cannot be used to the end Malik Abdul Rahman attempts to use it. The reason is simple because the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم did not err while preaching or putting forward an argument to those who failed to believe in the things sanctioned by the Almighty. Our scholars have discussed the issue of lapse of the Prophet عليه السلام in detail. The crux is quoted by Imam Badruddin al-‘Ayni (d. 855 A.H.);

قَالَ القَاضِي عِيَاض: وَاخْتلفُوا فِي جَوَاز السَّهْو عَلَيْهِ فِي الْأُمُور الَّتِي لَا تتَعَلَّق بالبلاغ وَبَيَان أَحْكَام الشَّرْع من أَفعاله وعاداته وأذكار قلبه، فجوزه الْجُمْهُور. وَأما السَّهْو فِي الْأَقْوَال البلاغية فَأَجْمعُوا على مَنعه كَمَا أَجمعُوا على امْتنَاع تَعَمّده

“Qadi Iyad said: And scholars have differed about the possibility of a lapse for him (the Prophet) in matters that do not concern the propagation of the faith (directly). And (with regards to) explaining the Islamic rulings through his actions and habits and (in) thoughts of his heart, the majority recognizes the possibility. And as to a lapse in words during preaching they agree on its impossibility just as they agree on the impossibility of its deliberation.”  (‘Umdatul Qari 4/133-139)

A prophet cannot have a lapse while he is preaching the faith and is indulged in a dialogue with the people. No such example can be cited nor is a such a thing possible for if this is recognized the whole rubric of the faith is bulldozed. What else remains if a Prophet can even err while attempting to bring the people to truth?

Let us not forget Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was responding to points of the people with whom he differed and in his imagination sought to bring them to truth. He was clearly propagating his beliefs and he surely ‘had a lapse’- something which is not possible when it comes to the Prophets of Allah.

Did Holy Prophet add some words to Qur’an inadvertently?

His second point is the most filthy one. He quotes a hadith from Jami’ al-Tirmidhi and tries to argue that Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم erred even about the Qur’an and allegedly recited something as if from the Qur’an while it is not from Qur’an. Let’s send this blatant lie to the cemetery.

Below is the Hadith from Jami’ al-Tirmidhi.

عَنْ أُبَيِّ بْنِ كَعْبٍ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ لَهُ: «إِنَّ اللَّهَ أَمَرَنِي أَنْ أَقْرَأَ عَلَيْكَ القُرْآنَ» ، فَقَرَأَ عَلَيْهِ {لَمْ يَكُنِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا} وَقَرَأَ فِيهَا: «إِنَّ ذَاتَ الدِّينِ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الحَنِيفِيَّةُ المُسْلِمَةُ لَا اليَهُودِيَّةُ وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةُ وَلَا المَجُوسِيَّةُ، مَنْ يَعْمَلْ خَيْرًا فَلَنْ يُكْفَرَهُ» وَقَرَأَ عَلَيْهِ: لَوْ أَنَّ لِابْنِ آدَمَ وَادِيًا مِنْ مَالٍ لَابْتَغَى إِلَيْهِ ثَانِيًا، وَلَوْ كَانَ لَهُ ثَانِيًا، لَابْتَغَى إِلَيْهِ ثَالِثًا، وَلَا يَمْلَأُ جَوْفَ ابْنِ آدَمَ إِلَّا التُّرَابُ، وَيَتُوبُ اللَّهُ عَلَى مَنْ تَابَ

Ubayy ibn Ka’b (RA) reported that Allah’ Messenger -peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- said to him, “Allah has commanded me that I should recite the Qur’an to you.” Then he recited to him, “Those who reject (Truth)…” (surah 98) He also recited: Surely, the essence of religion with Allah is upright Islam not Judaism and not Christianity and not Magianism. Whoever performs a good deed, it will not be neglected. He then said, “If the son of Adam has a valley full of wealth, he would crave for a second, and if he had a second, he would crave for a third. Nothing will fill the belly of the son of Adam but dust. And Allah relents to one who repents.” (Jami’ Tirmidhi, Hadith 3898)

He believes the following statement was recited by the Holy Prophet -peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- as a part of Surah Bayyinah.

إِنَّ ذَاتَ الدِّينِ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الحَنِيفِيَّةُ المُسْلِمَةُ لَا اليَهُودِيَّةُ وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةُ وَلَا المَجُوسِيَّةُ، مَنْ يَعْمَلْ خَيْرًا فَلَنْ يُكْفَرَهُ

“Surely, the essence of religion with Allah is upright Islam not Judaism and not Christianity and not Magianism.”

The Truth:

The truth, however, is simply that it was never a part of the Surah al-Bayyinah. And the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم only mentioned these as explanation to words within the surah.

This is clear for two reasons;

1. In Mustadrak al-Hakim, the wording of the same narration testifies to this. There it reads;

عَنْ أُبَيِّ بْنِ كَعْبٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ: قَالَ لِي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «إِنَّ اللَّهَ أَمَرَنِي أَنْ أَقْرَأَ عَلَيْكَ الْقُرْآنَ» فَقَرَأَ: {لَمْ يَكُنِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ وَالْمُشْرِكِينَ} وَمِنْ نَعْتِهَا لَوْ أَنَّ ابْنَ آدَمَ سَأَلَ وَادِيًا مِنْ مَالٍ، فَأَعْطَيْتُهُ، سَأَلَ ثَانِيًا، وَإِنْ أَعْطَيْتُهُ ثَانِيًا، سَأَلَ ثَالِثًا، وَلَا يَمْلَأُ جَوْفَ ابْنِ آدَمَ إِلَّا التُّرَابُ، وَيَتُوبُ اللَّهُ عَلَى مَنْ تَابَ، وَإِنَّ الدِّينَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الْحَنِيفِيَّةُ غَيْرَ الْيَهُودِيَّةِ، وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةِ، وَمَنْ يَعْمَلْ خَيْرًا فَلَنْ يُكْفَرَهُ

Ubayy ibn Ka’b (RA) reported that Allah’ Messenger -peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- said to him, “Allah has commanded me that I should recite the Qur’an to you.” Then he recited , “Those who reject (Truth) among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists … ” (surah 98) and in its description (he said), “If the son of Adam would ask for a valley of riches and is given, he would ask for the second, and if he is given the second, he would ask for the third and nothing fills the belly of son of Adam but dust. And Allah relents to one who repents.” And religion with Allah is uprightness (hanfiyya), not Judaism, and not Christianity and whoever performs a good deed, it will not be neglected.” (Mustadrak al-Hakim, Hadith 2889. Classified as Sahih by al-Hakim and al-Dhahbi)

This clearly states the statement under consideration was never read as a part of  Qur’an even by mistake but only a prophetic description and commentary of a certain point in the Surah.

2. Had the statement in question actually been part of the Qur’anic text, there would not have been any difference on its wording, as is the case with established text of the Qur’an. In the following lines I show variance in the words of the statement allegedly read as a part of the Qur’an.

In al-Tirmidhi’s narration, it reads;

إِنَّ ذَاتَ الدِّينِ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الحَنِيفِيَّةُ المُسْلِمَةُ لَا اليَهُودِيَّةُ وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةُ وَلَا المَجُوسِيَّةُ

“Surely, the essence of religion (dhaat al-deen) with Allah is upright Islam (al-hanfiyya al-muslimah) not Judaism and not Christianity and not Magianism.”

In a narration of Musnad Ahmad it is;

إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِنْدَ اللهِ الْحَنِيفِيَّةُ، غَيْرُ الْمُشْرِكَةِ، وَلَا الْيَهُودِيَّةِ، وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةِ

“Verily the religion (inna al-deen) with Allah is the upright faith (hanfiyyah), not paganism and neither Judaism nor Christianity.” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 21203. Classified as Sahih by Shu’aib Arnaut)

At another place in Musnad Ahmad it goes as;

وَإِنَّ ذَلِكَ الدِّينَ الْقَيِّمَ عِنْدَ اللهِ الْحَنِيفِيَّةُ، غَيْرُ الْمُشْرِكَةِ، وَلَا الْيَهُودِيَّةِ، وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةِ

“And verily this true religion (zalik al-deen al-qayyim) with Allah is the Upright Faith (hanfiyyah), neither paganism (ghayr al-mushrikah), not Judaism nor Christianity.” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 21202. Classified as Hasan by Shu’aib Arnaut)

In yet another collection the wording varies further;

إِنَّ ذَاتَ الدِّينِ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الْحَنِيفِيَّةُ السَّمْحَةُ لَا الْمُشْرِكَةُ وَلا الْيَهُودِيَّةُ وَلا النَّصْرَانِيَّةُ

“Verily the essence of religion with Allah is pliable Uprightness (al-hanfiyyah al-samhah), not paganism (la al-mushrikah) , neither Judaism nor Christianity.” (al-Ahadith al-Mukhtarah, Hadith 1162. Classified as Sahih by the author)

In narration of Mustadrak, it is even different, with no mention of paganism;

وَإِنَّ الدِّينَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الْحَنِيفِيَّةُ غَيْرَ الْيَهُودِيَّةِ، وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةِ

“Verily the religion with Allah is uprightness (al-hanfiyyah) not Judaism or Christianity.” (Mustadrak, Hadith 2889)

This variation shows it was not the Quranic text. The simple fact that verses found in established text of the Qur’an i.e. verses of Surah al-Bayyinah are always reported without variation in all these reports but there is variance in these words shows the statement was never a recited as a part of the Qur’an, not even by mistake.

In some narrations it is “inna al-deen”, in some it is “inna dhaat al-deen”, in some it is “inna dhalik al-deen al-qayyim.” In some narrations it is “al-hanfiyya al-muslimah”, in some it simply “al-hanfiyya”, in yet another variation it is “al-hanfiyya al-samha.” In one narration it says لَا المَجُوسِيَّةُ i.e. “not magianism” in others it is لَا الْمُشْرِكَةُ i.e. “not paganism” and in one narration there is no mention of either of these.

Also note the phrase ذَاتَ الدِّينِ “essence of religion” and the words الْيَهُودِيَّةِ “Judaism”, النَّصْرَانِيَّةِ “Christianity” and المَجُوسِيَّة i.e. “Magianism” have not been used in the Qur’an showing the style is non-Qur’anic.

What point is explained by the statement:

These words actually explain verse 5 of the surah;

وَمَا أُمِرُوا إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ مُخْلِصِينَ لَهُ الدِّينَ حُنَفَاءَ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاةَ وَذَلِكَ دِينُ الْقَيِّمَةِ

“And they have been commanded no more than this: To worship Allah, offering Him sincere devotion, being true (in faith); to establish regular prayer; and to practise regular charity; and that is the Religion Right and Straight (deen al-qayyimah).” (Qur’an 98:6)

The statement is actually the explanation of  ‘deen al-qayyimah’ i.e. Right/Straight Religion.

Answering some possible queries:

1- If one says, that narrations clearly say i.e. “he recited in it” so how can it be an interpretation and commentary? the answer is in putting together all the various forms of the narration. Mustadrak’s version clearly says وَمِنْ نَعْتِهَا i.e. “and in its description.”

The words وَقَرَأَ فِيهَا i.e. “he recited in it” are the words of a later narrator as is evident from the fact that in the same narrations it also reads, وَقَرَأَ عَلَيْهِ i.e. “and he recited to him” i.e. Prophet recited to Ubayy. This shows these were not the words of Ubayy but a later narrator for Ubayy would not refer to himself in third person. In fact one narration (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 21203) explicitly says these interjecting words are those of the narrator Shu’bah. Words of a later narrator which are not even consistently used cannot stand the above mentioned facts. And the Tawatur of the Qur’an is ultimate evidence against this.

2- One may say how this statement can be taken to explain verse 5 when it is mentioned just after initial few words of the surah. The answer is, initial few words are generally mentioned to point towards a surah instead of naming it. This is also evident from the fact that different narrations give different extent of wording to show the surah it refers to.

In al-Tirmidhi’s narration its simply, “Those who reject (Truth) …”

In Musnad Ahmad (No. 21202) it says, “Those who reject (Truth) among the People of the Book …”

In Mustadrak al-Hakim it is, “Those who reject (Truth) among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists …”

These are not even full quotes of verse 1.

In Musnad Ahmad (No. 21203), first 2 verses are given in full

And in al-Ahadith al-Mukhatara it just says, “They are not …”

This is just to show it was only a reference to the surah in general.

3- As regards the fact that in some narrations on the issue the report ends with the words, “And then he read the rest of the Surah” it may be about the verse 6 and 7 i.e. the explanation came after verse 5 and after the explanation the other verses were read.

Note: Here I have only dealt with the points raised by the author of Ahmadiyya Pocket Book. Elsewhere I have dealt the issue in more detail. You can find further details HERE.

What if the Prophet had had a lapse about the Qur’an?

If the Holy Prophet -may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- had ever erred about the Holy Qur’an it would have put to question to veracity of the entire Qur’an and as Qur’an is the foundation of the Islamic faith, the whole corpus of Islamic belief system would have been strained by doubts. And here we see a well known Ahmadi author attacking the very foundations of Islam to defend a false claimant of Prophethood.

There is absolutely no authentic report saying that Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه و سلم ever termed anything not Qur’anic a part of the Qur’an even mistakenly, for that would have been fatal. But the Murabbis fail to understand the simple thing and little wonder they don’t for they did away with Islam the day they consciously believed in a Prophet after the Last of the Prophets of Allah – may Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him.

Summary:

The fact of Malik Abdul Rahman, the infamous Ahmadi author trying to justify the lies of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad even at the cost of sowing the seeds of doubt about the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- and the stability of the Qur’anic text, is a clear evidence that Ahmadiyya religious elite has done away with the very fundamentals of Islam and how Murabbis don’t mind raising questions about the basics of Islam to justify the ‘lapses’ or lies of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Is this a service to Islam?

I will urge common Ahmadis to take exception to such behavior and revert back to the Ummah of Muhammad, the Final Seal of Prophethood –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Be Sociable, Share!

37 thoughts on “Attacking the fundamentals of Islam to defend Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

  1. Nice work Waqar!!!

    It seems that the author of the Ahmadiyya pocket book was trying to defend the confusion that MGAQ had with his own prophethood. MGAQ didnt realize that he was a prophet from 1880 to 1901. He even wrote that a claimant to prophethood was a Kafir….In Nov, 1901 he recanted. His sons later told us that he made a mistake.

    He made mistakes understanding all of his prophecies as well. Or at least that was the alibi that they used when they failed.

  2. Very well written. The ahmadis say when asked why MGAQ didnt go to hajj that did the prophet pay zakat? When you say no, zakat wasn’t binding because the prophet SAW never accumulated any property, they say then conditions for MGAQ weren’t suitable for hajj.
    I mean, come on, how low is that? The man who boasted in every book of his how much Allah was on his side and all the names that had been bestowed on him could not have a prayer of his accepted so a way could be made for him to perform hajj!

    I watched a series on youtube that beautifully explains this tactic of ahmadis, I recommend ex-ahmadis and everyone with an open heart to watch and then judge for themselves:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_68-4ZQh_Y

    May Allah help Ahmadis see what mess they are in and help them recognise the lofty status of Prophet Muhammed SAW

  3. I can see only two reasons for what you people are doing
    1. Either you have some personal score to settle ,or
    2. You are worried and afraid of ahmadiyyat spread.
    As for as claim of the prophethood is concerned by any one , loook at it retrospectively, if any one has the slightest of knowledge of Holy Quran for which you dont have to be Murrabi then you will know what GOD has declared about the fate of a imposter prophet , 120 years on ahmadiyyat is followed in more than 200 countries and is flourishing.

    • @ momin

      We are doing “this” because Ahmadiyyat is robbing our brothers and sisters blind. We are doing “this” because your khalifa gets 30% of the share from auxillories, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. We are doing this because Ahmadiyyat was created as a bi-product of british colonialism and deserves to be shut down.

      I humbly request you to begin researching your own religion. You will be shocked at the results.

      What about Mormonism??? Why is it that it hasnt died off??? They have been around longer than the “A”.

      • 1. One does not require a score to settle to dismantle kufr. In that case, the scholars of Islam of the past had a score to settle with the kuffar who wrote books on the beauty of the Quran?

        2. We are not afraid of Ahmadiyyat, we are worried for people being stuck in a cult that does not allow them to break free. We are not afraid of ahmadiyat, we are afraid of Allah’s wrath so we stick to path of the Prophet PBUH and his companions.

        Proof of the spread of Ahmadiyya is not proof. In the same time period, Islam spread and conquered the world. Ahmadiya “spread” like the spread of the dodo…hardly any penetration. Even in the US you guys are just tiny puddles surrounded by millions of Muslims.

        Please, come back to Islam and Allah will forgive you your sins.

    • Just want to make people (including Ahmadis) aware that Ahmadiyyat is not Islam, but a separate religion founded by Mirza Ghulam Qadiani.

    • Then according to ur ahmadiyya logic

      Bahaullah, Elijah Muhammad, Gohar Shahi etc are truthful as well 🙂

      and all the false messages that are around for centuries are truthful coz they around for centuries and got many followers

  4. well this is very relevant because you are trying to proove a prophet to be an imposter ( nuazobillah ) ,history tells us that every prophet in his time was opposed and subjected to hate if he was to be a true prophet. and if not than he would perish not leaving a trace behind not because he was opposed by a group of people but because GOD decides who and when,
    So you can well imagine who fits in to be kuffar as you trying to prove a true prophet otherwise so certainly you should be afraid of ALLAH’S wrath

  5. lol @momin!

    why is anyone who is trying to expose Ahmadiyyat always someone with a personal grudge???

    grow up…you are so childish!

    nice work brother!

  6. I think it is a very good question which you need to ask your self as the impression from 90% comments are directed to individual rather than about faith , I can very well understand that. You talk about freeing as many ahmadis as with you, well you are right if you expect to go clubbing sunbathing partying than you are sadly mistaken because you will not be allowed that as muslim so rather being thrown out of the jummat its best to get the freedom which you want
    And as far as the three names bahaullah etc are concerned give me an example
    where the so called Ummah is united against one sect in the name of service to islam , give me an example if any of the religion has been forced not to declare themselves what they declare. Have you ever thought why ahmadis are killed in the name of islam why laws has been passed against them why they go to jail by only putting kalima why they cannot call mosque a mosque, I will tell you because your so called ulema are worried about ahmmadiyyat . it is not about Mirza sahib or ahmmadiyyat it is about your own ammal and unfortunately that is why I say you people are a lost tribe you want even the religion to your own liking
    and when told that you are crossing limits than start moaning about it

    • 1. nope, no score to settle
      2. nope, not worried about ahmadiyya spreading
      3. although already answered by xia, the quran doesn’t mention what he’s implying it does.

      now your turn to answer the allegations raised in the post.

    • @ momin

      We are doing this because we still have family in the “A” and we are hoping to salvage their bank accounts. The “A” is robbing people blind!!!!! A good percentage of the money is misappropriated. The Khalifa gets a 30% cut from all auxillories worldwide. Are you ok with this? I hope not.

      And…I have answered the post. Many religions have lasted, its nothing new. We got mormonism, bahais, etc etc etc. You are brainwashed. Those urdu poems that you listen to have rotted your brain fully.

  7. If not worried then why are you bothered about trying to convince people that ahmadiyyat is not Islam, arguing that you are doing a big service to islam.

    Is there an example in any religion where people call themselves belonging to that religion and people from the same religion refuses to accept them in fact not only that but take away their basic right making it punishable to call themselves muslim.Rather than trying to prove other religions wrong, look at your own islam look at the unfortunate Muslim world , look at the moral values of so called ulema, if opposing ahmadiyyat was a best service to Islam then Pakistan as a country and their Ulema are leading the world in that opposition look at them morally.

    • @ optimistic

      Why are you questioning are collective motives??? Everyone is different. I have nieces and nephews that are being lied to thru your Khalifa. Your Khalifa is robbing them blind. Do you see my problem?

      And now you are calling Islam stupid. It was capitalism that led men to abandon their religion and not make part of their lives. Dont blame Islam for not buying into democracy. A famous artist once said: “Lady liberty is a hypocrite, she lied to me”.

      You are complaining to the USA about equality in Pakistan. Do you see the irony? You are basically telling an oppressor that you are oppressed. Do you see how this doesnt make any sense? Ahmadis hope and pray that Pakistan falls and is destroyed, only to be replaced with Ahmadis who will do whatever its global masters tell them.

      Have you even read about the plight of the Native American here in the USA???

      The Rash

    • @optimistic, why dont you be realistic!
      1) We have every right to protect our religion of Islam, from the fraud of Ahmadiyyat.
      2) Mirza Ghulam A. Qadiani was a liar, cheat and a fraud as proved through his own teachings. His religion therefore, cannot be Islam.
      3) His Son Mirza Mahmud’s ugly character is well known.
      4) Your religion is nothing but a family run business of Mirza clan.
      5) Your khilafa system is a joke.
      6) Why are you worried about condition of Muslims & their countries. Leave them alone. You are not their friends anyways, but probably the biggest enemies that are out there.
      7) Your murabbis and missionaries that I have met are evil and cunning liars that do not yet hesitate to use the word of GOD 24/7.
      8) Your cult has distorted the authentic teachings of Islam……..
      Do you want me to say more……….to why we donot consider you as muslims.

      • that is the mentality I am talking about what do you mean by “Islam OUR religion” religion does not belong to indivivuals or groups you want to protect you religion you follow the teaching of islam what Quran teaches you what hadith tells you I salute you for protecting your islam by calling other sects non muslim
        by persecuting other peolple does islam teaches you that.

        Protect your relgion by your deeds not by going after other people religion and faith.

        give me any good example of Islam than ahmadiyyat and I will consider that

        • @optimistic wrote:
          “give me any good example of Islam than ahmadiyyat and I will consider that…..”

          My response:
          Islam has a great history, that none can parallel. Only if you care to read. Muslims are the one of the best people in the World even today. Every society has some bad elements. At least we have the guts to accept that.

          Ahmadiyyat is not Islam but a separate religion founded by its own self proclaimed prophet Mirza Ghulam A. Qadiani. I can write a lot of bad things happening in this cult, but it would be of no use as you do not have the guts to accept the facts.

        • I dont care about what you consider all I know is ahmadis are far more better muslims than the so called muslim like you who are more interested in others, thinking Islam as there territorial right with no obligations to the teaching of Islam,as per Holy Quran “there is no compulsion in religion”

          • @ optimistic
            You cannot say that all Ahmadis are better Muslims, in my experience I have had bad encounters with Ahmadis, yes there are good Ahmadis too but the ones I have come across have no Islamic value at all, in fact it was the Muslims who were there for me when I needed help not one Ahmadi came forward.
            You say that the Muslims feel that they have a territorial right to Islam but it is the Ahmadis who keep claiming to be the real Islam, the saved sect. Off course the Muslims should feel proud to be Muslims they should embrace such a beautiful religion

            I would agree that many Muslims have gone astray and do not act accordingly to the Holy Quran but having said that that also applies to the Ahmadis, how long are you going to keep arguing with the Muslims on how right you are, when MGAQ lied so many times which is obvious with the latest blog.

          • @optimistic,
            I do not argue with people who……!!!
            Sorry if I hurt your feelings. Unto you is your religion (Ahmadiyyat) to me is mine (Islam).

        • @ Optimistic

          Listen….Mirza started a fight with the Arya Samaj in 1878-ish, it led to communal strife. Lekh Ram was murdered in 1897 and MGA was the prime suspect. Furthermore, not one of those hindus converted to any form of Islam. MGA was an embarrasment to Islam, his challenges were childish and “village-stuff”. It proved to be nothing but an attempt at disturbing the peace. Whatever happened to “for me my religion and for you yours”, isnt it in the Quran? Check the back section for you beginnners. That verse actually means something. Think about a diverse Mecca…ding ding ding.

          Then, in 1891, Mirza began attacking Muslims verbally and defending his logic thru arguments. In retrospect, Mirza was against every religion in the Indian subcontinent. The only people he liked were pale skin and smelled funny. And they gave his dad a nice pension.

          So….learn your religion before you start accusing others of defending Islam.

  8. You know they are kuffar when they attack Muhammad (saw) in a vain attempt to try and somehow salvage Mirza shayatan

    These are the same kind of arguments that christian missionaries bring and since they are their slaves and one of them, they reproduce the same lies against Islam, Muhammad (sa), Qur’an al Kareem etc.

    Thanks for confirming your kuffar, itritdad, and blasphemy against Allah and His Rasool (saw) and His Deen.

    • this is exactly the hate and persecution i am talking about but it does not stop there the so called ummah will not stop at ahmadi when it comes to there own interest than they will not hestate to call each other non muslim be it shia, sunni, berlevi, deo bandi but when it comes to ahmadi sect they are all united.

      Who belongs to which religion is not for people, assemblies or constitution to decide, Religion belongs to ALLAH .

  9. @ samia Well I have never said that all ahmadis are angels I have never mentioned indiviuals and no doubt I know some very good nonahmadis .

    You cannot blame religion for indiviual acts,
    if I compare it is the teaching of ahmadiat with other sects

  10. well Ahmadis, so much chatter but nothing on the issue at hand. You seem to be masters of it. Stop following murabbis. Start using ur brains.

    – Why do Ahmadi “scholars” attack the fundamentals of Islam just to defend Mirza?

  11. Some Ahmadis seem to have become so hypnotized by the master of Mirzology (MGAQ) and his cult murabbis……….i.e., to proclaim lies after lies………..to such an extent that they do not even care how big of a lie they are telling and to whom they are saying…….!!!!!!!!!!!!

    If Mirza can claim to have become from a man to Mary p.b.u.h (the mother of Jesus p.b.u.h) and then be was born to himself as Jesus p.b.u.h (nauzobillah) ……….. not to mention that he even claimed to be a Prophet, Mahdi, Messiah, Incarnation of Hindu God Krishna, shadow of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) nauzobillah…….and much more…………….and they believe it, then I think anything is possible in this cult…………!!!!!!!!!!!!

    That is why I think it was a very wise decision to declare them outside the fold of Islam and at best a separate religion altogether.

  12. Questions of the grave:

    ‘Who is your Lord?’
    -Muslim says: ‘Allah.’
    -Ahmedi says: ‘Allah’
    -Christian says: ‘God’
    -Jew says: ‘God’

    ‘What is your religion?’
    -Muslim says: ‘My religion is Islam
    -Ahmedi says: ‘My religion is Qadiyanism/Ahmediyyat’
    -Christian says: ‘Christianity’
    -Jew says: ‘Jewdaism’

    ‘Who is this man who was sent among you?’
    -Muslim says: ‘He is the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad (saw).
    -Ahmedi says: ‘He is Mirza Gullam
    -Christian says: ‘Jesus’
    -Jew says: ‘Moses’

    Looks like the Ahmediyya score about as well as the Jews and the Christians!

  13. My response to refute our Ahmadi friend’s attempt to justify Jesus and Essa are two different persons with different complexions as mentioned in two different Ahadith – one mentioning Red color and the other White color by “skillfully” omitting “REDDISH” from “REDDISH”-white.

    Anonymous said…
    When a Qadiani gives your the reference from Quran or verse, double check his given reference as they are Master of changing words to suit their agreement. The above post this Anon is trying to accuse Prophet Muhammad as he did mention two Essas with different complexions. Now see the proof of his Lie yourself. Here is the complete Hadith and see the features of Essa mentioned.

    http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=88&translator=1&start=64&number=235

    242

    Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar: Allah’s Apostle said. “While I was sleeping, I saw myself (in a dream) performing Tawaf around the Ka’ba. Behold, I saw a “reddish-white man” with lank hair, and water was dropping from his head. I asked, “Who is this?’ They replied, ‘The son of Mary.’ Then I turned my face to see another man with a huge body, red complexion and curly hair and blind in one eye. His eye looked like a protruding out grape. They said (to me), He is Ad-Dajjal.” The Prophet added, “The man he resembled most is Ibn Qatan, a man from the tribe of Khuza’a. ”

    Now again read his mentioned in previous post and compare with above complete Hadith to notice how he/they intentionally omitted “Reddish” from the above mentioned Hadith while describing complexion of Hazrat Essa(as).

    My Rasool was Right in correctly describing the ESSA(as) in both Hadith – and both are same – he omitted “Reddish” to read like it is “White” in one Hadith and “Reddish” in other.

    One describes his Mairaj time seeing of Essa and second in a dream Essa circling Ka’aba.

    Mairaj says – White and circling Kabbas one says Reddish-White – both are describing same – one with more detail – that it is white but Reddish White – The Red & White are two different colors – so he tried one for his Dajjali Messiah

    You try any source from Quran or Hadith or even simple logic, you will miserably fail to CASH YOUR FAKE MESSIAH.

    He was a Total fraud and you are doing Intellectual fraud to distort Hadith to prove your invalid point.

    Mirza Qadiani hurled all abuses and ridiculed Jesus in his books and when Ulema cursed him – he came up with more ridiculous explanation – All my harsh language was for Jesus of Gispels, otherwise I respect Essa ibn e Marium of Quran.

    That is why I call him Prophet of Monkeys – quickly jumping from one tree to another.

    They should feel some shame and regret/repent to ALLAH for their failed pursuit to justify their false prophet by abridging Quran and Hadith.

  14. May ALLAH bless this man. There are still ALLAH-fearing “Good Muslims” among Ahmadis also. They are really innocent and their only bad luck is they were born in Ahmadiyya. They are very sincere with Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) and have no intention of believing a false prophet if they really come to know – it is contrary to Islam’s teaching. They are misled by this Cult Mafia for their own nefarious agenda.

    Anonymous said…
    Anonymous 11:34

    I again say ordinary Ahmadis are unaware of all this. They have no idea of contention between Ahmadiyya Islam and Islam. They discuss with you based on what they are taught and bring Hadith references or Quran references as given on their sites and repeat same arguments given there to counter non-Ahmadi Muslims. I first time came to know here by our books and teaching of Masih Maoud and Musleh Maoud, they are kafirs like hindu sikhs,,,i always wondered why we can’t marry them or pray with them,,,now make some sense,,,but I have myself checked,,,above Hadith is distorted and Reddish word intentionally omitted to make some point to justify Jesus and Masih Maud,,,both are mentioned in Hadith,,,I regret from our side,,,and as Mr. Mohsin suggested,,,repent to Allah Almighty also,,,it is a grave crime to change prophet’s quotes. Very bad,,,,very bad indeed.
    10 November 2011 14:27

  15. Please delete the two previous Posts and replace with this One (combined)

    The following is another example of distorting Hadith to justify Mirza G prophethood. This is from an Exchange of Comments on Findings’ Blog

    http://cultgirlconfessions.blogspot.com/2011/11/where-is-mirza.html#comment-form

    Anonymous said…
    @ Farhan

    I’m sure Ahmadiyya does not have an “obsession” with Zakir Naik or anyone who “claims” that Ahmadis are not muslim. His name was mentioned because he himself claims to be the most popular Muslim preacher in the world (check the Oxford Uni debate video for reference). So it’s a little surprising to not see him on the list. But then again does this list really mean anything?

    Further to the hadith about Messiah and Madhi being one, what about the hadith regarding his appearance?

    The Holy Prophet (saw) in two different ahadith explained the physical features of Jesus of the past and the features of “Jesus” of the future. The two features ARE DIFFERENT.

    1. In the Mi‘raj the Messiah seen with Moses, Abraham and other prophets by the Holy Prophet, was described by him thus:

    [b]“I saw Jesus. He was a man of a reddish complexion.[/b]” (Bukhari, Kitab al-anbiya, ch. 24)

    “I saw Jesus, Moses and Abraham. Jesus had a reddish complexion, curly hair and a wide chest.” (Bukhari, Kitab al-anbiya, ch. 48)

    It is clear from both these Hadith reports that by Jesus, who was seen here along with Abraham and Moses, is meant the Israelite prophet. He had a red complexion and curly hair.

    2. Bukhari has recorded a hadith in which the Holy Prophet relates a dream of his about the future:

    “In a state of sleep I saw myself circumambulating the Ka’ba, and [b]I saw a man of a[b][u] wheatish[/u][/b] complexion[/b] with straight hair. I asked who it was. They said: This is the Messiah, son of Mary.” (Bukhari, Kitab al-Fitn, ch. 22, ‘Mention of Dajjal’)

    Thus, where Jesus is mentioned along with Abraham and Moses, he is described as of a reddish complexion and curly hair; but where he is seen along with the Dajjal in a dream about the future, he is said to have a wheatish complexion with straight hair. Evidently these two different descriptions do not apply to one and the same person. So Jesus, the Israelite prophet, whom the Holy Prophet (saw) saw in the Mi‘raj vision, and the Messiah who was to appear in the latter days to kill the evil Dajjal, are two different persons.
    10 November 2011 09:43

    I will prove you now, how intentionally a key word is Omitted and Changed with Other word to prove Jesus son of Marry and Essa ibn e Marium mentioned in Ahadith who will descend back to earth (come back for Qadianis) in last days are two different persons.

    My response to refute our Ahmadi friend’s attempt to justify Jesus and Essa are two different persons with different complexions as mentioned in two different Ahadith – one mentioning Red color and the other Wheatish color by “skillfully” omitting from the Original hadith the word “REDDISH-White” and changed it with “Wheatish”.

    Anonymous said…
    When a Qadiani gives your the reference from Quran or verse, double check his given reference as they are Master of changing words to suit their agreement. The above post this Anon is trying to accuse Prophet Muhammad as he did mention two Essas with different complexions. Now see the proof of his Lie yourself. Here is the complete Hadith and see the features of Essa mentioned.

    http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=88&translator=1&start=64&number=235

    242

    Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar: Allah’s Apostle said. “While I was sleeping, I saw myself (in a dream) performing Tawaf around the Ka’ba. Behold, I saw a [b][u]“reddish-white man”[/u][/b] with lank hair, and water was dropping from his head. I asked, “Who is this?’ They replied, ‘The son of Mary.’ Then I turned my face to see another man with a huge body, red complexion and curly hair and blind in one eye. His eye looked like a protruding out grape. They said (to me), He is Ad-Dajjal.” The Prophet added, “The man he resembled most is Ibn Qatan, a man from the tribe of Khuza’a. ”

    Now again read his mentioned in previous post and compare with above complete Hadith to notice how he/they intentionally omitted “Reddish” from the above mentioned Hadith while describing complexion of Hazrat Essa(as).

    My Rasool was Right in correctly describing the ESSA(as) in both Hadith – and both are same – he omitted “Reddish” to read like it is “White” in one Hadith and “Reddish” in other.

    One describes his Mairaj time seeing of Essa and second in a dream Essa circling Ka’aba.

    Mairaj says – White and circling Kabbas one says Reddish-White – both are describing same – one with more detail – that it is white but Reddish White – The Red & White are two different colors – so he tried one for his Dajjali Messiah

    You try any source from Quran or Hadith or even simple logic, you will miserably fail to CASH YOUR FAKE MESSIAH.

    He was a Total fraud and you are doing Intellectual fraud to distort Hadith to prove your invalid point.

    Mirza Qadiani hurled all abuses and ridiculed Jesus in his books and when Ulema cursed him – he came up with more ridiculous explanation – All my harsh language was for Jesus of Gispels, otherwise I respect Essa ibn e Marium of Quran.

    That is why I call him Prophet of Monkeys – quickly jumping from one tree to another.

    They should feel some shame and regret/repent to ALLAH for their failed pursuit to justify their false prophet by abridging Quran and Hadith.

Comments are closed.