TwelverShia.net Forum
Off Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rationalist on July 08, 2017, 03:01:36 AM
-
In your last post your said 'My point is not to deny that Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is the Last of the Prophets. Of course he is the Last.'
So my question is how do Qadianis differ from Lahoris?
Also, why do the Qadianis use the 73 sects hadith when they themselves split into two?
-
In your last post your said 'My point is not to deny that Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is the Last of the Prophets. Of course he is the Last.'
So my question is how do Qadianis differ from Lahoris?
Also, why do the Qadianis use the 73 sects hadith when they themselves split into two?
Your last point was put to Ansar Reza in his debate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHA6kJi9iHQ) with Sadat Anwar of the Muslim Debate Initiative
Ansar Reza answered by saying that his Jama'at consider the Lahori faction as part of the 72 misguided sects.
The difference between the Qadiyan/Rabwah group (which is 99% of Ahmadis) and the tiny Lahore faction is not theological but difference over policy and administration of the movement. However, the Lahore faction believe that sayyidina Eisa عليه السلام had a biological father and reject belief in the virgin birth. They have written many books on this topic such as Wiladat al Masih despite the fact that Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani affirmed belief in the virgin birth of Jesus.
Regarding the issue of Finality of Prophethood, the difference between the two branches is in reality semantic and not substantial. The Lahore group made a hue and cry over this issue in order to justify the split as having a theological basis.
As I said, the split was due to a difference of interpretation regarding the Khilafa. Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani wrote his al-Wasiyyat (the Will) in 1905 predicting his near death on the basis of Ilham. You can read the English translation of that book
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/thewill/the_will.pdf
Now in this book Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani says that after his death Allah will manifest His Qudrat al-Thaniya (Second manifestation of His Power) and re-establish and strengthen the community which will obviously be in a state of disarray and weakness at the time of the death of its founder. He gives the example of the death of Moses and the death of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, and states how Allah protected the Umma in that sensitive time by raising up sayyidina Abu Bakr رضى الله عنه as the first Khalifa. This is what he calls "Qudrat al-Thaniya". So he says something similar will happen for his Jama'at when he dies. And this is why Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani did not name an individual successor to succeed him. But in the book al-Wasiyyat he says that the committee he set up consisting of the senior members of his movement called the Anjuman is responsible for administration of certain affairs, such as taking care of the cemetery Beheshti Maqbara, and being a trust to have custody over the funds donated by the members, etc.
Now when Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani died, the community recognised his senior disciple and right hand man Hakim Nooruddin as his first successor. Then when Nooruddin died 6 years later in 1914, the community split. The Lahore faction, let by Maulana Muhammad Ali, claimed that Nooruddin was simply a figurehead and spiritual leader of the community, but he wasn't a Khalifa in the sense of the Khulafa al Rashidin. The Lahore faction argued that the true executive leadership of the community is not vested in a single individual but in the Anjuman (a council). However, the Qadian branch elected Ghulam Ahmad's son Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, as the second successor and considered him the executive of the Jama'at.
You can also read Mirza Mahmud Ahmad's book Truth about the Split which explains in detail the events and causes that resulted in this schism
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Truth-about-the-Split.pdf
-
Your last point was put to Ansar Reza in his debate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHA6kJi9iHQ) with Sadat Anwar of the Muslim Debate Initiative
Ansar Reza answered by saying that his Jama'at consider the Lahori faction as part of the 72 misguided sects.
So Qadianis say they are the 73rd sect, but how did Lahoris go back into the 72? The split came after.
The difference between the Qadiyan/Rabwah group (which is 99% of Ahmadis) and the tiny Lahore faction is not theological but difference over policy and administration of the movement. However, the Lahore faction believe that sayyidina Eisa عليه السلام had a biological father and reject belief in the virgin birth. They have written many books on this topic such as Wiladat al Masih despite the fact that Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani affirmed belief in the virgin birth of Jesus.
Do they believe its Joseph\Yusuf? Also, do they believe Mary had a secret marriage?
Regarding the issue of Finality of Prophethood, the difference between the two branches is in reality semantic and not substantial. The Lahore group made a hue and cry over this issue in order to justify the split as having a theological basis.
In their view you don't believe in the finally of Prophethood because Mirza is a Prophet. Yet they take Mizra to be a saintly figure.
As I said, the split was due to a difference of interpretation regarding the Khilafa. Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani wrote his al-Wasiyyat (the Will) in 1905 predicting his near death on the basis of Ilham. You can read the English translation of that book
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/thewill/the_will.pdf
Now in this book Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani says that after his death Allah will manifest His Qudrat al-Thaniya (Second manifestation of His Power) and re-establish and strengthen the community which will obviously be in a state of disarray and weakness at the time of the death of its founder. He gives the example of the death of Moses and the death of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, and states how Allah protected the Umma in that sensitive time by raising up sayyidina Abu Bakr رضى الله عنه as the first Khalifa. This is what he calls "Qudrat al-Thaniya". So he says something similar will happen for his Jama'at when he dies. And this is why Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani did not name an individual successor to succeed him. But in the book al-Wasiyyat he says that the committee he set up consisting of the senior members of his movement called the Anjuman is responsible for administration of certain affairs, such as taking care of the cemetery Beheshti Maqbara, and being a trust to have custody over the funds donated by the members, etc.
Now when Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani died, the community recognised his senior disciple and right hand man Hakim Nooruddin as his first successor. Then when Nooruddin died 6 years later in 1914, the community split. The Lahore faction, let by Maulana Muhammad Ali, claimed that Nooruddin was simply a figurehead and spiritual leader of the community, but he wasn't a Khalifa in the sense of the Khulafa al Rashidin. The Lahore faction argued that the true executive leadership of the community is not vested in a single individual but in the Anjuman (a council). However, the Qadian branch elected Ghulam Ahmad's son Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, as the second successor and considered him the executive of the Jama'at.
You can also read Mirza Mahmud Ahmad's book Truth about the Split which explains in detail the events and causes that resulted in this schism
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Truth-about-the-Split.pdf[/size][/font]
The example of Abi Bakr is not valid. The reason is we have some Ansaar, Hashimis, and even Saad ibn Utbah who opposed the Calipahate of Abi Bakr. However, this again will go into another topic.
-
So Qadianis say they are the 73rd sect, but how did Lahoris go back into the 72? The split came after.
The split came afterward, but the beliefs and theology of the Lahore faction is such that it is simply a continuation of the way and beliefs of the 1 of the 72 deviated sects. As you know the Ulama have explained the Hadith of the 72 deviated sects as meaning 72 branches of deviation, or 72 major innovations. Obviously there are thousands upon thousands of little sects and subsects, but if they from the Umma, all of their deviations can be traced back and branching off from 1 of the 72 major deviations.
Do they believe its Joseph\Yusuf? Also, do they believe Mary had a secret marriage?
Yes, the Lahoris believe that Yusuf al-Najjar, i.e., Joseph the Carpenter, was the biological father of sayyidina Eisa (معاذ الله)
You can read some of their books:
Birth of Jesus by Dr. Basharat Ahmad (2005 edition)
http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/others/basharatahmad/birthjesus2005ed/birthjesus2005ed.pdf
In their view you don't believe in the finally of Prophethood because Mirza is a Prophet. Yet they take Mizra to be a saintly figure.
No one believes that Mirza is a prophet just like that. It is more nuanced than that. The Lahori branch prefer the term "Prophet in a metaphorical sense" and the Qadiani branch prefer the term "Ummati Nabi" and "Ghair Tashreei Nabi" or non-Law bearing Prophet. Both accept the terms Zilli and Buroozi Nabi (Shadow or Reflective Prophet) which Ghulam Ahmad used about him. The discussion about these terms and what they mean is quite technical. But essentially, the difference between these 2 groups is nothing substantial it is only semantic and difference over terminology and preference for certain terms of the others.
Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani basically viewed himself as a Prophet in the sense of being the reflection of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم through Fana fil Rasul, and in the sense of receiving frequent Ilham and Visions from Allah, i.e. in the same sense that is acceptable to the Sufis. He did not say he was a Prophet in a real sense or independently of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم like the previous prophets (Adam to Jesus).
The example of Abi Bakr is not valid. The reason is we have some Ansaar, Hashimis, and even Saad ibn Utbah who opposed the Calipahate of Abi Bakr. However, this again will go into another topic.
It was Saad b. Ubada al-Ansari (not Utba) who did not pledge allegiance to sayyidina Abi Bakr رضى الله عنها but as for the Bani Hashim and rest of the Ansaar, they all eventually pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr and recognised him as the first successor. And that is a fact of history that Abu Bakr was the Prophet's first successor, whether people think it was illegitimate is another story, but it is a historical fact that he did lead the community after the Prophet's death.
-
[
The split came afterward, but the beliefs and theology of the Lahore faction is such that it is simply a continuation of the way and beliefs of the 1 of the 72 deviated sects. As you know the Ulama have explained the Hadith of the 72 deviated sects as meaning 72 branches of deviation, or 72 major innovations. Obviously there are thousands upon thousands of little sects and subsects, but if they from the Umma, all of their deviations can be traced back and branching off from 1 of the 72 major deviations.
The Qadianis say they are the 73rd sect, wouldn't the Lahoris then become sect number 74?
Birth of Jesus by Dr. Basharat Ahmad (2005 edition)
http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/others/basharatahmad/birthjesus2005ed/birthjesus2005ed.pdf[/size][/font]
I am not even going to bother. To me Joseph did not even exist.
No one believes that Mirza is a prophet just like that. It is more nuanced than that. The Lahori branch prefer the term "Prophet in a metaphorical sense" and the Qadiani branch prefer the term "Ummati Nabi" and "Ghair Tashreei Nabi" or non-Law bearing Prophet. Both accept the terms Zilli and Buroozi Nabi (Shadow or Reflective Prophet) which Ghulam Ahmad used about him. The discussion about these terms and what they mean is quite technical. But essentially, the difference between these 2 groups is nothing substantial it is only semantic and difference over terminology and preference for certain terms of the others.
I think you guys use the term subordinate Prophet. Do you believe there were any suborinate Prophets? Also, did Mizra Prophesize any other suboridinate Prophets to come? Or can another subordinate Prophet come?
Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani basically viewed himself as a Prophet in the sense of being the reflection of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم through Fana fil Rasul, and in the sense of receiving frequent Ilham and Visions from Allah, i.e. in the same sense that is acceptable to the Sufis. He did not say he was a Prophet in a real sense or independently of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم like the previous prophets (Adam to Jesus).[/size][/font]
Do any of the Sufi saints qualify as Subordinate Prophets in the Qadiani view?
-
The split came afterward, but the beliefs and theology of the Lahore faction is such that it is simply a continuation of the way and beliefs of the 1 of the 72 deviated sects. As you know the Ulama have explained the Hadith of the 72 deviated sects as meaning 72 branches of deviation, or 72 major innovations. Obviously there are thousands upon thousands of little sects and subsects, but if they from the Umma, all of their deviations can be traced back and branching off from 1 of the 72 major deviations.
The Qadianis say they are the 73rd sect, wouldn't the Lahoris then become sect number 74?
Birth of Jesus by Dr. Basharat Ahmad (2005 edition)
http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/others/basharatahmad/birthjesus2005ed/birthjesus2005ed.pdf[/size][/font]
I am not even going to bother. To me Joseph did not even exist.
No one believes that Mirza is a prophet just like that. It is more nuanced than that. The Lahori branch prefer the term "Prophet in a metaphorical sense" and the Qadiani branch prefer the term "Ummati Nabi" and "Ghair Tashreei Nabi" or non-Law bearing Prophet. Both accept the terms Zilli and Buroozi Nabi (Shadow or Reflective Prophet) which Ghulam Ahmad used about him. The discussion about these terms and what they mean is quite technical. But essentially, the difference between these 2 groups is nothing substantial it is only semantic and difference over terminology and preference for certain terms of the others.
I think you guys use the term subordinate Prophet. Do you believe there were any suborinate Prophets? Also, did Mizra Prophesize any other suboridinate Prophets to come? Or can another subordinate Prophet come?
Also can you comment on these saying from MGA?
"I do not claim that I am the same Mahdi who will come according to (words of Hadith) 'from the son of Fatima and from my progeny' etc." (Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya V, Roohani Khazain vol.21 p.356)
"We admit this that several Mahdis may have come before and possibly will come in future as well and probably someone by the name of Imam Muhammad may also appear." (Roohani Khazain vol.3 p.379)
·"It is possible and quite possible that at some time in future such Messiah may appear upon whom the literal words of Hadith(of Holy Prophet) fit, because this humble self has not come with the Reign and Command of this world, but with poverty and humility." (Izala-e-Auham, Roohani Khazain vol 3 p.197)
·"It is possible that in future no Messiah may come. It is possible 10,000 more Messiah may come and one of them may descend in Damascus." (Izala-e-Auham, Roohani Khazain vol 3 p.251)
Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani basically viewed himself as a Prophet in the sense of being the reflection of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم through Fana fil Rasul, and in the sense of receiving frequent Ilham and Visions from Allah, i.e. in the same sense that is acceptable to the Sufis. He did not say he was a Prophet in a real sense or independently of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم like the previous prophets (Adam to Jesus).[/size][/font]
Do any of the Sufi saints qualify as Subordinate Prophets in the Qadiani view?
-
The Qadianis say they are the 73rd sect, wouldn't the Lahoris then become sect number 74?
Sir you didn't understand what I said or at least make an attempt to. 72 sects are 72 deviated ideas that every deviated sect past present and future are included in. One of the innovations that would characterise one of those 72 deviated ideas is to reject Khilafa and to separate from the Jama'ah. The Lahori party falls into this innovation and deviation. Not just them, but all sects and groups which fell into this mistake they constitute 1 of the 72 deviated sects.
For example, another 1 of the 72 deviated sects are all those sects and groups which reject the Karamat of the Awliya, such as the Mu'tazila. The Lahoris, who reject the virgin birth of Jesus, are included in this category too. So it doesn't matter how many sects appeared in past or will appear in future, if there is similarity in their ideas they are included within the same category.
To me Joseph did not even exist.
On what basis do you say that? He was not the father of Jesus but nevertheless a historical figure. So what is your proof that he didn't exist?
I think you guys use the term subordinate Prophet. Do you believe there were any suborinate Prophets? Also, did Mizra Prophesize any other suboridinate Prophets to come? Or can another subordinate Prophet come?
Ghulam Ahmad did not predict the coming of any specific subordinate Prophet after him, but he mentioned generally that the window to this type of Nubuwwah is open.
Also can you comment on these saying from MGA?
"I do not claim that I am the same Mahdi who will come according to (words of Hadith) 'from the son of Fatima and from my progeny' etc." (Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya V, Roohani Khazain vol.21 p.356)
"We admit this that several Mahdis may have come before and possibly will come in future as well and probably someone by the name of Imam Muhammad may also appear." (Roohani Khazain vol.3 p.379)
Ghulam Ahmad recognised that Mahdi is a title and there could come several Mahdis. He claimed to be that Mahdi concerning whom Imam Baqir said the sun and moon would be eclipsed during the month of Ramadan as one of his signs (Daraqutuni sharif). He did not claim to be that Mahdi who will be from the progeny of Sayyida Fatima رضى الله عنها. Mahdi simply means "guided one". In some Hadith Jesus himself is called Mahdi and in 1 Hadith the Prophet named his Khulafa al rashidin as "Mahdiyeen"
·"It is possible and quite possible that at some time in future such Messiah may appear upon whom the literal words of Hadith(of Holy Prophet) fit, because this humble self has not come with the Reign and Command of this world, but with poverty and humility." (Izala-e-Auham, Roohani Khazain vol 3 p.197)
·"It is possible that in future no Messiah may come. It is possible 10,000 more Messiah may come and one of them may descend in Damascus." (Izala-e-Auham, Roohani Khazain vol 3 p.251)
[/b]
Yes he is talking about possibility, but not making an actual prediction. He is saying it is possible that a man named Eisa bin Mariam will be born and come from the east of Damascus and thus fulfill the signs of the Hadith literally.
Do any of the Sufi saints qualify as Subordinate Prophets in the Qadiani view?
According to the Ahmadiyya, Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani is the superior saint of the Umma who was ever born and none can come after him who can reach his level. The previous great Sufi saints like Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani رحمة الله عليه could be included in the same category. Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani is reported to have said:
اني كنت فنانا في رسول الله ولم يكن في ذلك الوقت فلا انا وانما كنت محمدا
“I was annihilated in Rasulullah Sallallahu alaihi wasallam, so at that time I was not myself, but I was Muhammad.”
Reference: Saif al-Rabbani, p.100
http://islamsalvationfromhell.blogspot.ca/2015/08/sufi-shaikh-abdul-qadir-al-jilani-claim.html
-
On what basis do you say that? He was not the father of Jesus but nevertheless a historical figure. So what is your proof that he didn't exist?
I don't trust the Israeliyath narrations.
Also these verses show there was no Yusuf.
19:18
She said, "Indeed, I seek refuge in the Most Merciful from you, [so leave me], if you should be fearing of Allah ."
19:19
He said, "I am only the messenger of your Lord to give you [news of] a pure boy."
19:20
She said, "How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?"
According to the Ahmadiyya, Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani is the superior saint of the Umma who was ever born and none can come after him who can reach his level. The previous great Sufi saints like Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani رحمة الله عليه could be included in the same category. Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani is reported to have said:
By definition who else is defined as a Suborinate Prophet by Qadianis who isn't just a high level saint? Is Mirza the only one?
-
I don't trust the Israeliyath narrations.
Also these verses show there was no Yusuf.
19:18
She said, "Indeed, I seek refuge in the Most Merciful from you, [so leave me], if you should be fearing of Allah ."
19:19
He said, "I am only the messenger of your Lord to give you [news of] a pure boy."
19:20
She said, "How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?"
The verses you quoted only prove that Mary was a virgin and unmarried until that point. There is no explicit or even implicit denial of the fact that she did not get married later on after the birth of Jesus. Why is it so hard for you to believe that Mary married Joseph the Carpenter and even had other children with him? There is mention of this in the New Testament. In fact there are inferences in it that Jesus himself married. Marrying is an act of piety.
By definition who else is defined as a Suborinate Prophet by Qadianis who isn't just a high level saint? Is Mirza the only one?
Here there is the reality of manifesting an aspect of Nubuwwah or partial Nubuwwah which thousands of Awliya did, and the particular issue of being called a Nabi. Ghulam Ahmad and the rest of the Awliya are alike in the sense that they all manifested something of Nubuwwah, but Ghulam Ahmad is unique according to the Ahmadiyya in alone being named as a Nabi because he claimed to be the promised Messiah who has a proof for being named as a Nabi in the Hadith of Sahih Muslim. Thus they were all characterised as having the rang or color of subordinate Nubuwwah, but only Ghulam Ahmad, according to the Ahmadiyya interpretation, can actually be named as a subordinate Nabi.
Another way to explain this is that the subordinate Nubuwwah is not a fixed value. It is a range that within it there is a lot of fluidity. This is because this type of Nubuwwah is Qasbi instead of the independent Nubuwwah which is Wahbi. So the Awliya of Allah are all in different degrees depending on their level of piety and worship. Conceptualize it as if there are two ladders one on top of the other vertically. The lower ladder represents Wilaya and the top ladder represents Nubuwwah. In between these two ladders, there is the highest rung of the lower ladder and the lowest rung of the highest ladder. The Ahmadiyya believe that Ghulam Ahmad occupies that position where Wilaya blends and intersects with Nubuwwah, but is still a position that is technically not independent Nubuwwah. The rest of the Awliya all occupy the rungs of the lower ladder, some higher than others. But Ghulam Ahmad is at the top of the ladder of Wilaya and at the bottom of the ladder of Nubuwwah.
-
The verses you quoted only prove that Mary was a virgin and unmarried until that point. There is no explicit or even implicit denial of the fact that she did not get married later on after the birth of Jesus. Why is it so hard for you to believe that Mary married Joseph the Carpenter and even had other children with him? There is mention of this in the New Testament. In fact there are inferences in it that Jesus himself married. Marrying is an act of piety.
I replied in the context of what you said about the Lahori group.
Yes, the Lahoris believe that Yusuf al-Najjar, i.e., Joseph the Carpenter, was the biological father of sayyidina Eisa (معاذ الله).
As for the aftermath, I am only worried about what is in the Quran. What happened other than that will not effect my aqeeda. Maybe someone like Reza Aslan can give you an analysis what happened after. Also, as I stated, I wish the Israeliyat did not make its way into our hadith. It has caused a big issue when it comes to hadith.
As for the rest of the information I need to give a background. I had a debate with an Ahmadi girl years ago. This was back in 2002. To be honest, your view shows that there is not much difference between the Lahori view and the Qadiani view.
Also, this girl actually said that Qadianis are the 73rd sect in a literal sense and no sect will come in the future. When I pointed out Lahori, she ignored me. When I presented views from the Lahori sect about the finally of Prophethood, she again ignored me.
So this is the reason I made these points. Let me read up more about this topic, and I will ask more questions.
-
I replied in the context of what you said about the Lahori group.
Yes, the Lahoris believe that Yusuf al-Najjar, i.e., Joseph the Carpenter, was the biological father of sayyidina Eisa (معاذ الله).
Well you said that you doubted the very existence of Joseph the carpenter:
To me Joseph did not even exist.
Also, as I stated, I wish the Israeliyat did not make its way into our hadith. It has caused a big issue when it comes to hadith.
This too is a strange statement because there is no mention of Joseph the Carpenter in any Hadith.
So what do you mean that there are Israeliyat in the Hadith? Are you referring to Marfoo Hadith of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم when you say "Hadith"?
-
I replied in the context of what you said about the Lahori group.
Yes, the Lahoris believe that Yusuf al-Najjar, i.e., Joseph the Carpenter, was the biological father of sayyidina Eisa (معاذ الله).
Well you said that you doubted the very existence of Joseph the carpenter:
To me Joseph did not even exist.
Also, as I stated, I wish the Israeliyat did not make its way into our hadith. It has caused a big issue when it comes to hadith.
This too is a strange statement because there is no mention of Joseph the Carpenter in any Hadith.
So what do you mean that there are Israeliyat in the Hadith? Are you referring to Marfoo Hadith of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم when you say "Hadith"?
Since there is no hadith it would be equal to accepting an Israeliyath narration.
-
Since there is no hadith it would be equal to accepting an Israeliyath narration.
There's 2 sides to that coin. We neither affirm nor deny the Israeeliyat. And you denied the existence of Joseph Carpenter. Should have just said "I don't know"
-
There's 2 sides to that coin. We neither affirm nor deny the Israeeliyat. And you denied the existence of Joseph Carpenter. Should have just said "I don't know"
This is like a 12er Shia forcing me to believe in the possibility of the 12th Imam existing. On top of that he will also be able to reference many Sufi Saints who confirmed his existence. Yet I still say I don't believe in it. Likewise, I am not going to say I don't know about Joseph, I am going to say he doesn't exist.
-
This is like a 12er Shia forcing me to believe in the possibility of the 12th Imam existing. On top of that he will also be able to reference many Sufi Saints who confirmed his existence. Yet I still say I don't believe in it. Likewise, I am not going to say I don't know about Joseph, I am going to say he doesn't exist.
Flawed analogy. If there is documentation to the contrary, as is in the case of the 12th Imam, that is the reason why people doubt his existence.
-
This is like a 12er Shia forcing me to believe in the possibility of the 12th Imam existing. On top of that he will also be able to reference many Sufi Saints who confirmed his existence. Yet I still say I don't believe in it. Likewise, I am not going to say I don't know about Joseph, I am going to say he doesn't exist.
Flawed analogy. If there is documentation to the contrary, as is in the case of the 12th Imam, that is the reason why people doubt his existence.
This is like a 12er Shia forcing me to believe in the possibility of the 12th Imam existing. On top of that he will also be able to reference many Sufi Saints who confirmed his existence. Yet I still say I don't believe in it. Likewise, I am not going to say I don't know about Joseph, I am going to say he doesn't exist.
Flawed analogy. If there is documentation to the contrary, as is in the case of the 12th Imam, that is the reason why people doubt his existence.
When Mirza's own right man Shaikh Qamar-ud-Din had another conclusion, Mirza said he will wait for a revelation. Since, he didn't know, instead of saying 'I don't know', he said I will follow the majority of Muslim view.
“Once Hazrat Mirza asked Shaikh Qamar-ud-Din of Jhelum to show him the verses of the Quran from which the Shaikh had concluded that Jesus had a father. At first, the Shaikh sahib, out of respect for Hazrat Mirza, remained silent. But upon Hazrat Mirza repeating the question, he mentioned the arguments from the Quran that he knew. Hearing the arguments, Hazrat Mirza said: ‘Your arguments are certainly strong, but until God gives me to understand this point, I will follow the views of the majority of Muslims’. ... Hazrat Mirza said to Hakim Fazal Din [who had complained about Shaikh sahib’s belief]: ‘How can you declare as heretic someone who bases his arguments on the Quran?’” (Mujaddid Azam, Life of Hazrat Mirza, vol. ii, p. 1342)
-
“Once Hazrat Mirza asked Shaikh Qamar-ud-Din of Jhelum to show him the verses of the Quran from which the Shaikh had concluded that Jesus had a father. At first, the Shaikh sahib, out of respect for Hazrat Mirza, remained silent. But upon Hazrat Mirza repeating the question, he mentioned the arguments from the Quran that he knew. Hearing the arguments, Hazrat Mirza said: ‘Your arguments are certainly strong, but until God gives me to understand this point, I will follow the views of the majority of Muslims’. ... Hazrat Mirza said to Hakim Fazal Din [who had complained about Shaikh sahib’s belief]: ‘How can you declare as heretic someone who bases his arguments on the Quran?’” (Mujaddid Azam, Life of Hazrat Mirza, vol. ii, p. 1342)
Why do you think I'm arguing that Jesus had a father (God forbid)?
We are discussing the existence of Joseph Carpenter whom you denied exists. Does the existence of Joseph Carpenter automatically mean he was Jesus's father? Your username is "Rationalist" but it seems you didn't study basic logic.
And the Muslim majority view is based on evidence. There is no evidence to deny the existence of Joseph Carpenter
-
so why did Mirza say the argument is strong?
-
so why did Mirza say the argument is strong?
Because it is a strong argument if you actually acquaint yourself with it, especially their arguments from the Holy Qur'an. But a strong argument doesn't mean it is definite or conclusive. The fact that sayyidina Eisa al Nasiri عليه السلام was born without the agency of a father is based on not only stronger but definite evidence from the Quran and Sunna. This is why Ghulam Ahmad, being an open minded person so he considered their argument, but finally dismissed it and remained upon the belief of the rest of the Umma in this regard.
And as for a rational and scientific basis in defending the virgin birth, no one has come close to the excellent arguments presented by Ghulam Ahmad's fourth successor and grandson Mirza Tahir Ahmad in his beautiful book Christianity: A Journey from Facts to Fiction (https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Christianity-A-Journey.pdf)
-
I did a search through the Christian view, and most of them are in an agreement with Lahori sect that Joseph was already married to Mary. So why would you argue that it happened after? Is this a Qadiani belief?
-
We, Afghans, have a saying which I cannot help but apply to this topic. With my apologies in advance to the original poster! Take dog poop and split it in half. One half is Qadiani, the other half is Ahmadi. That is the difference.
-
Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti was well known for saying "Love for All, Hatred for None!"
-
Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti was well known for saying "Love for All, Hatred for None!"
He also claimed to be the Second Jesus
دم بدم روح القدس اندر معینی می دمد
من نمی دانم مگر عیسیٰ ثانی شدم
http://islamsalvationfromhell.blogspot.ca/2014/10/khwaja-moinuddin-hasan-chishti-claims.html
So I find it interesting that when Moinuddin Chishti claims to be the second Jesus he becomes a Saint and his tomb in Ajmer is worshiped as an idol by the so called Muslims. But when Ghulam Ahmad claims the exact same thing he is declared a Dajjal
-
I did a search through the Christian view, and most of them are in an agreement with Lahori sect that Joseph was already married to Mary. So why would you argue that it happened after? Is this a Qadiani belief?
We are talking about the existence of Joseph Carpenter, nor whether he was married to Mary or even when they became married. Suppose, for the sake of argument, they were married before Jesus was born, that doesn't prove that Joseph was Jesus's father or that Mary wasn't a virgin when Jesus was born. It is possible that marriage doesn't equate consummation of marriage.
-
The violent reaction of the traditionalist Muslim community, under the influence of the Ulema to the Ahmadiyya movement of Ghulam Ahmad should not be understood as purely a reaction to heterodoxy. After all, there have been many more serious departures from Islamic orthodoxy which threaten the very structure of the Religion as has been practiced by the vast majority of Muslims generation to generation going back to the Prophet ﷺ and his Companions. Recently, I came across certain individuals whose conception of Islam is so radically different than that of the mainstream that there is no option but to say that they are adhering to an altogether different religion. To such an extent that it can be said that the followers of a distinct world religion, Judaism, are closer to the practice and conception of traditional Islam, than some of these modern sects claiming to be "Islamic". Keep in mind that generally speaking the Jews acknowledge the Nubuwwah of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم but say he is the Prophet sent by Allah for everyone except Jews. In fact, the adherents of the radically new approaches to Islam accuse the mainstream, traditionalist community of approaching the Religion under an unmistakably Judaic influence. Hence, consider some of the radical new doctrines that are invading the spiritual marketplace; 1. Salat is not a ritual act of worship but a system of government of justice or government that needs to be established 2. The purely lunar calendar of Islam for calculating the months has no basis in the Quran, which hints at a lunosolar calendar when it says both the sun and moon are for calculating time. 3. The Medinese Verses of the Quran were only meant for the time of the Prophet ﷺ. It is the Meccan verses that constitute the universal message of Islam (this idea was propagated by Mahmud Taha who was executed by the Sudanese government for apostasy in 1985 - nevertheless, his ideas are carried on by the political party he founded) 4. The Quran is an interpolated text (belief of the Akhbari Twelver Shi'a in particular) 5. Deification of Ali b. Abi Talib كرم الله وجهه (belief of Nusairi and Ghulat sects) 6. Sects that believed in Tanasukh (reincarnation) 7. "Muslims" who believe the universe is eternal (the philosophers) 8. Sects which believed that Allah incarnated in a human form 9. Sects which believed that Allah is a flesh and blood body (belief of the Mushabbihah and Mujassima) 10. The Sunnah and Hadith have absolutely no value and are to be rejected wholesale (belief of the Hadith rejecters and so called "Quranists")
All of these and many others which have been described are departures from fundamental and essential Articles of Faith in Islam, beliefs that have come to define Islam. Yet we see that none of these ideas, and those who cling to them even till this day, have faced as great of an aggressive response as that of the Ahmadiyya, officially declared as a non-Muslim minority by way of amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan. Yet in Pakistan or any other Muslim country the Hadith-rejecters, followers of G. A. Pervez, the Ghaali and Nusayri sects (deification of sayyidina Ali b. Abi Talib), and any other clearly heretical group (Zanadiqa) have not officially been declared as non-Muslim despite presence of their followers claiming to be Muslim. In Pakistan, there are present the followers of G. A. Pervez, the Zikri sect (who reject practice of Salat), the Aga Khani sect, the Akhbari sect (who believe in tahreef of the Qur'an), yet none of them have officially been declared as non-Muslim.
As for the Ahmadiyya, they are considered non-Muslims due to their alleged rejection of the Finality of Prophethood. Yet upon closer inspection of their actual creed it becomes clear that the Ahmadiyya interpretation of Finality of Prophethood matches precisely with the traditional Sufi conception and even the mainstream Sunni concept of the possibility of the advent of pious men from the Umma who receive inspiration from Allah while upholding the supremacy and limits of the Shari'a, nor questioning the fundamental Articles of Faith, such as Tawhid, Risala, and Akhira.
We come to realise that the motivation for considering the Ahmadiyya as a separate, non-Muslim religion is primarily political and also born out of a sense of rivalry between the mainstream Ulama and their fear of the influence of Muslim individuals claiming to receive divine inspiration, and thus not subject to their influence. It is in fact the latest manifestation of the classic rivalry in the medieval history of Islam between the Ulama and the Sufiya mystics. The latter for the most part did not drift from the essentials of Islam and the mainstream from among them always upheld the supremacy of the Shari'a as the Final Divine Law until Judgment Day. Yet, a sense of jealousy and rivalry resulted in the narrow minded Ulama opposing the Sufiya and all those individuals who asserted that they were conversant with Allah and therefore on a higher plane than the Ulama.
-
The Ahmadiyya are distinguished from the Muslim mainstream in two particular issues: 1. The belief that Jesus of Nazareth is deceased 2. The belief that the prophecies in the Hadith regarding the coming Messiah were fulfilled in the person of Ghulam Ahmad
Because the Messiah Son of Mary is called a Prophet of Allah in the Hadith concerning his second advent, Ghulam Ahmad, a skilled theologian, produced the theory that the coming Messiah, though named as a Prophet, will be a Prophet in the sense understood by the Sufis, and not a real Prophet in the Shari' sense. He in fact produced this theory with the intention of upholding the doctrine of Finality of Prophethood, that no Prophet can come after sayyidina Muhammad ﷺ. In his view, the mainstream Muslim belief that Jesus, a Prophet in his own right independent of Muhammad Rasul Allah ﷺ would come back after him could not be reconciled with the doctrine of Finality of Prophethood. Hence he formulated this theory that the coming Messiah will in fact be an Ummati (follower) of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ acting as an Imam for the Muslims, and though the Hadith has called him a Prophet, he is not a Prophet in the real or technical sense, but in the sense understood as possible by the mystics of Islam.
How ironic is it then that Ghulam Ahmad and his followers were expelled from Islam in the name of defense of Finality of Prophethood doctrine, the very doctrine that Ghulam Ahmad was motivated to uphold in formulating his theory regarding the reality of the second coming of Messiah!
So apart from these 2 differences, the Ahmadiyya are like the orthodox Muslims in both practice and conception of Islam. The Ahmadiyya are generally adhering the the mainstream Hanafi school of jurisprudence and the orthodox creed of Islam as elucidated by the great Sunni Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal. They are strict in their practice of the 5 Pillars of Islam and observing the rules of the Shari'a, and uncompromising regarding the Articles of Faith.
Now if we briefly analyze the distinct and salient doctrines of the numerous contemporary Muslim sects today, we see that their beliefs are a much more serious and fundamental departure from the orthodox conception of Islam, despite the fact that none of these sects have officially been declared as non-Muslims by any Muslim government;
1. The Imamiya Shia who believe that 12 Imams are Infallible like Prophets and even superior to all the Prophets with the exception of Muhammad Rasul Allah ﷺ
2. Those among them, especially the Akhbaris, who openly confess their belief that the Holy Qur'an was not preserved but the text we read from today is distorted and interpolated!
3. The Alawis or Nusairis who believe that sayyidina Ali b. Abi Talib is God incarnate or a demigod.
4. The Barelwis who believe the Prophet ﷺ is the Knower of the Unseen, Omnipresent, is literally Light (Nur) in substance, and call upon the deceased for assistance and granting of prayers (grave worship)
5. The Deobandis who believe it is possible for Allah to Lie and do any conceivable thing since "He has power over all things" (Imkan al-Kidhb)
6. The Hadith-rejecters who say only the text of the Quran and not the Sunnah is the primary source of the Religion. Some of them reject the 5 times daily Salat and other Pillars of Islam, or practice them in an altogether unrecognisable manner.
*The 5 times daily Salat is considered the main symbol of Islam without which there is no Islam
-
Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti was well known for saying "Love for All, Hatred for None!"
He also claimed to be the Second Jesus
دم بدم روح القدس اندر معینی می دمد
من نمی دانم مگر عیسیٰ ثانی شدم
http://islamsalvationfromhell.blogspot.ca/2014/10/khwaja-moinuddin-hasan-chishti-claims.html
So I find it interesting that when Moinuddin Chishti claims to be the second Jesus he becomes a Saint and his tomb in Ajmer is worshiped as an idol by the so called Muslims. But when Ghulam Ahmad claims the exact same thing he is declared a Dajjal
The Sufi saints do not make their claims binding on ummah, whereas Mirza did. His claim that he is the lowest level Nabi is kufr. On the contrary I have seen some scholars accept the Lahoris to be Muslim.
-
I did a search through the Christian view, and most of them are in an agreement with Lahori sect that Joseph was already married to Mary. So why would you argue that it happened after? Is this a Qadiani belief?
We are talking about the existence of Joseph Carpenter, nor whether he was married to Mary or even when they became married. Suppose, for the sake of argument, they were married before Jesus was born, that doesn't prove that Joseph was Jesus's father or that Mary wasn't a virgin when Jesus was born. It is possible that marriage doesn't equate consummation of marriage.
No u did mention the idea when u wrote:
There is no explicit or even implicit denial of the fact that she did not get married later on after the birth of Jesus.
-
The Sufi saints do not make their claims binding on ummah, whereas Mirza did. His claim that he is the lowest level Nabi is kufr. On the contrary I have seen some scholars accept the Lahoris to be Muslim.
This is tantamount to saying that the claims of Ghulam Ahmad, in their essence, are not Kufr. For you the only thing which is Kufr is to make such claims "binding on the Ummah".
Yet all of those Ulama who issued Fatawa of Kufr against Ghulam Ahmad did so on the premise that his claims, in their essence, are Kufr.
-
I don't know why I am put in a position to defend the Sufi saints.
MGA on the other hand himself claimed he is a Prophet and this is accepted by the Qadianis. This is where the Kufr lies.
Saying he is not a law bearing Prophet makes no difference. He is kaffir by claiming the title Nabi.
-
I don't know why I am put in a position to defend the Sufi saints.
MGA on the other hand himself claimed he is a Prophet and this is accepted by the Qadianis. This is where the Kufr lies.
Saying he is not a law bearing Prophet makes no difference. He is kaffir by claiming the title Nabi.
Can you explain on what basis is a claim to non-law bearing Prophethood in its essence considered Kufr?
-
Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani said:
وسُمِيّتُ نبيّا من الله على طريقة المجاز لا على وجه الحقيقة
"I have been named as 'Nabi' from Allah by way of metaphor (figuratively), and not upon face value (literally)" (Zamima Haqiqat-ul-Wahi pp. 64-65
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3Xu08sMI7PM/WWlnhDJqoRI/AAAAAAAACjA/gj1p9ZlW7t0qECPvIlDbn9B3XKeidXe3QCLcBGAs/s1600/I%2Bhave%2Bbeen%2BNamed%2Bas%2BProphet%2Bby%2Bway%2Bof%2BMetaphor%2B%2528Al%2BMajaaz%2529%2Band%2Bnot%2Bin%2BReality%2B%2528Zameema%2BHaqeeqat%2Bul%2BWahy%2Bp.%2B64%2Band%2B65%2529.bmp)
-
Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani said:
جھوٹے الزام مجھ پر مت لگاؤ کہ حقیقی طور پر نبوّت کا دعوی کیا
"Do not lie upon me and accuse me of claiming Nubuwwah in the literal sense." (Siraaj-e-Muneer, p.2)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-t68qFwo64bU/WWltPWE7CvI/AAAAAAAACjM/lxggMDzXgG4UNA9AuEQuecyIaTTEyj2_ACLcBGAs/s1600/Do%2Bnot%2Blie%2Bupon%2Bme%2Bthat%2BI%2Bhave%2Bclaimed%2Breal%2BNabuwwat%2Bfor%2Bmyself%2B%2528Siraj%2Be%2BMunir%2Bp.2%2529.bmp)
-
Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani said:
اس جگہ کسی کو یہ وہم نہ گذرے کہ اس تقریر میں اپنے نفس کو حضرت مسیح پر فضیلت دی ہے کیونکہ یہ ایک جزئی فضیلت ہے جو غیر نبی کو نبی پر ہوسکتی ہے اور تمام اہل علم اور معرفت اس فضیلت کے قائل ہیں
"At this juncture no one should be under the illusion that in this speech I have given excellence to myself over the Messiah; because this is a partial excellence which a non-Prophet may have over a Prophet, and all of the people of knowledge and gnosis accept this (partial) excellence." (Tiryaaq-ul-Quloob, p.157)
*In this quote, Ghulam Ahmad has clearly stated that as a non-Prophet he does not have excellence over sayyidina Eesaa alaihis salaam, but only a partial excellence, because it is possible that a non-Prophet has partial excellence over a Prophet, and this is something which all of the people of knowledge and gnosis are aware of.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ovEmwjY2d50/WWlzftp9MyI/AAAAAAAACjU/-gLfznoqCnkFmwsj-dp3nCv_E7ku0HZtwCLcBGAs/s1600/Dont%2Bhave%2BExcellence%2Bover%2BJesus%2Bbut%2Bonly%2Bpartial%2Bexcellence%2Bwhich%2Ba%2BNON%2BPROPHET%2Bcan%2Bhave%2Bover%2Ba%2BProphet%2B%2528Tiryaq%2Bul%2BQulub%2Bp%2B157%2529.bmp)
-
In addressing the false prophet John Alexander Dowie (1847-1907), regarding whom Ghulam Ahmad accurately predicted his demise (http://forum.twelvershia.net/general-discussion/qadiyani's/msg16606/#msg16606) on the basis of true Ilhaam, Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani said:
وانك تفترى على الله في دعوى النبوة والنبوة قد انقطعت بعد نبينا صلّى الله عليه وسلّم
"ِAnd verily you lie upon Allah in claiming Nubuwwah; and Nubuwwah has been terminated after our Prophet peace be upon him" (Zamima Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, p.64)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PWcN6N7xXTU/WWl5svGPWvI/AAAAAAAACjg/Q6E6wHPa8s0Xr5EfRnb-hXwkWUhm1ZAUwCLcBGAs/s1600/Addressing%2BDowie%2BYou%2Bare%2BLying%2Bupon%2BAllah%2Bclaiming%2Bprophethood%2Bwhich%2Bhas%2Bterminated%2Bafter%2Bour%2BProphet%2B%2528a.s.%2529%2B%2528Zameema%2BHaqiqatul%2BWahy%2Bp%2B64%2529.bmp)
-
Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani said:
بعد آنحضرت صلعم کوئی نبی نہیں آسکتا اس لۓ اس شریعت میں نبی کے قائم مقام محدّث رکھے گۓ
"After Prophet MuhammadSWS no Prophet can come because in this Shari'ah the Muhaddath has been put in the place of a Prophet." (Shahaadat-ul-Quraan, p.28)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DMn0qbqRwdI/WWl8Avtr-FI/AAAAAAAACjo/cRUV7MUacmkDbIsqmGqdgfZPBYavU6mxwCLcBGAs/s1600/After%2BKhatam%2Ban%2BNabiyyen%2Bno%2Bprophet%2Bcan%2Bcome%2Bthis%2Bis%2Bwhy%2BShariah%2Bhas%2BMuhaddath%2Bin%2Bplace%2Bof%2Bposition%2Bof%2BProphet%2B%2528Shahadat%2Bul%2BQuran%2Bp.28%2529.bmp)
-
I don't know why I am put in a position to defend the Sufi saints.
MGA on the other hand himself claimed he is a Prophet and this is accepted by the Qadianis. This is where the Kufr lies.
Saying he is not a law bearing Prophet makes no difference. He is kaffir by claiming the title Nabi.
Can you explain on what basis is a claim to non-law bearing Prophethood in its essence considered Kufr?
I believe you guys differ on the definition of Nabi.
For the mainstream Muslims a Rasool (Messenger) is one who bring the law and a Nabi is the one who follows that law. On top of that all Rasools are Nabi, but not all Nabis are Rasools. So the Seal of Prophethood means no Prophet (Nabi) will come after Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Remember Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was both a Rasool and a Nabi.
-
Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani said:
وسُمِيّتُ نبيّا من الله على طريقة المجاز لا على وجه الحقيقة
"I have been named as 'Nabi' from Allah by way of metaphor (figuratively), and not upon face value (literally)" (Zamima Haqiqat-ul-Wahi pp. 64-65
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3Xu08sMI7PM/WWlnhDJqoRI/AAAAAAAACjA/gj1p9ZlW7t0qECPvIlDbn9B3XKeidXe3QCLcBGAs/s1600/I%2Bhave%2Bbeen%2BNamed%2Bas%2BProphet%2Bby%2Bway%2Bof%2BMetaphor%2B%2528Al%2BMajaaz%2529%2Band%2Bnot%2Bin%2BReality%2B%2528Zameema%2BHaqeeqat%2Bul%2BWahy%2Bp.%2B64%2Band%2B65%2529.bmp)
Again there is no such thing as a metaphorical Nabi. You even admitted in your beliefs despite of what saints have said there was no other man in history that was Prophet in a metaphorical sense. In your view even Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jillani did not become this.
-
Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani said:
وسُمِيّتُ نبيّا من الله على طريقة المجاز لا على وجه الحقيقة
"I have been named as 'Nabi' from Allah by way of metaphor (figuratively), and not upon face value (literally)" (Zamima Haqiqat-ul-Wahi pp. 64-65
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3Xu08sMI7PM/WWlnhDJqoRI/AAAAAAAACjA/gj1p9ZlW7t0qECPvIlDbn9B3XKeidXe3QCLcBGAs/s1600/I%2Bhave%2Bbeen%2BNamed%2Bas%2BProphet%2Bby%2Bway%2Bof%2BMetaphor%2B%2528Al%2BMajaaz%2529%2Band%2Bnot%2Bin%2BReality%2B%2528Zameema%2BHaqeeqat%2Bul%2BWahy%2Bp.%2B64%2Band%2B65%2529.bmp)
What is a metaphorical non literal prophet?
-
I believe you guys differ on the definition of Nabi.
For the mainstream Muslims a Rasool (Messenger) is one who bring the law and a Nabi is the one who follows that law. On top of that all Rasools are Nabi, but not all Nabis are Rasools. So the Seal of Prophethood means no Prophet (Nabi) will come after Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Remember Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was both a Rasool and a Nabi.
Can you cite the evidence that is the basis for this distinction, i.e., that a Rasool is the one who brings the law and a Nabi is the one who follows the law? Is this distinction based on an Ayah of the Quraan or an authentic Hadeeth?
The Holy Qur'an says that IliyaasAS was a Messenger (Sura 37:123) LootAS was a Messenger (37:133), and YoonusAS was a Messenger (37:139)
What Shari'ah or Law did these three Messengers bring?
IliyaasAS was a Prophet of Bani Israaeel who was upon the Sharee'ah of sayyidina MoosaaAS, and the same is true of Yoonus bin MattaaAS.
-
Again there is no such thing as a metaphorical Nabi. You even admitted in your beliefs despite of what saints have said there was no other man in history that was Prophet in a metaphorical sense. In your view even Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jillani did not become this.
I said that there was no saint who can be named as a Nabi apart from that saint who is the Messiah, because the Messiah has a Nass for being named as a Nabi as per the Hadith (https://www.sunnah.com/muslim/54/136) of Sahih Muslim.
So the Saints, particularly the Siddiqeen and Muhaddatheen, are Prophets in a metaphorical sense, but only the Messiah can be named as Prophet (in a metaphorical sense). This is a very subtle distinction which perhaps you missed and didn't understand.
Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani said:
آنے والے مسیح موعود کا نام جو صحیح مسلم وغیرہ میں زبان مقدس حضرت نبوی ص سے نبی اللہ نکلا ہے وہ انہی مجازی معنوں کے رو سے ہے جو صوفیاء کرام کی کتابوں میں مسلّم اور ایک معمولی محاورہ مکالمات الہیہ کا ہے۔ ورنہ خاتم الانبیاء کے بعد نبی کیسا؟
"In Sahih Muslim, etc., the coming Promised Messiah has been named as "Prophet of Allah" upon the holy tongue of Prophet Muhammad(S). But it is with this metaphorical meaning which is understood from the books of the Sufis, and is an ordinary expression of divine communication [Mukaalamaat-e-Ilaaheeyya] with them. Otherwise, how can there be a Prophet after the Khaatam al-Ambiyaa?" (Anjaam-e-Atham, p.28)
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-npAxBxnYDwA/WWn6VkDmCoI/AAAAAAAACj4/VUasZKExXhY2jMPZzGo4a2IbNXkZ297awCLcBGAs/s1600/NABIUL%257E1.BMP)
-
Can you tell me what a metaphorical/non literal prophet is?
-
What is a metaphorical non literal prophet?
It is someone who is a Prophet from a purely linguistic sense but not in the Shari' or technical sense. In the linguistic sense, a Nabi is someone who receives news of the unseen through inspiration (Mutannabi). Similarly, a Rasool is someone who is sent. This broad linguistic definition encompasses many individuals who were technically neither Prophets nor Messengers of Allah. But in the Shari' terminology such a person is called Muhaddath.
In the Quraan al Kareem, Umm-e-Moosaa salaamun alaihaa, Sayyidina Mariyam salaamun alaihaa, and the three 'Mursaleen' mentioned in the Soora Yaa Seen were technically neither Prophets nor Messengers. Perhaps Dhul Qarnayn falls in this category too. As for the three Mursaleen in Soora Yaa Seen, though they are called 'Messengers', most Mufassireen say that they were disciples of Sayyidina Eesaa alaihis salaam, and it is well known that there were no real Prophets or Messengers between Sayyidina Eesaa alaihis salaam and Sayyidina Muhammad Sallallahu alaihi wasallam. Hence they have been called 'Mursaleen' (Messengers that are Sent) in a linguistic and figurative sense and not in the technical or real sense.
-
I can understand someone being a messenger in different contexts & linguistically, but how can someone be a prophet only linguistically but not literally a prophet????
-
I can understand someone being a messenger in different contexts & linguistically, but how can someone be a prophet only linguistically but not literally a prophet????
Because as I said a Nabi in the linguistic sense means someone who is disclosed with news of the unseen. Therefore, the Muhaddath, someone who is inspired by Allah, is a Nabi in a purely linguistic sense but not literally a Prophet.
Take for example the prophecy of Sayyidina Abi Bakr (Radi Allahu anho) that his slave girl will give birth to a girl and not a boy. The girl was born shortly after Abu Bakr (Radi Allahu anhu) passed away (Sharh Usul Itiqad of Imam Lalikaai)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WDgkc17A4Ls/WWoEOzEXGnI/AAAAAAAACkE/_Nlk-I-5QAs1bAQgupLjNiXYadOeU1GrACLcBGAs/s640/Untitled.png)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-b4nQT_Wmorw/WWoEXxfVPjI/AAAAAAAACkI/Fv6yLsU0AqEGXjtikTw5XLOUVnqcgd6BgCLcBGAs/s1600/Abu%2BBakr%2Bpredicting%2Bslave%2Bgirl%2Bgive%2Bbirth%2Bto%2Ba%2Bgirl%2B%2528Sharh%2BUsul%2BItiqal%2BLalikaee%2BKaramat%2BAwliya%2BAllah%2Bp.117%2529.png)
And if you study the Holy Quraan, you will see that Allah revealed news of the unseen to the Mother of sayyidina Moosaa that He will return her baby (Moosaa) to her (Sura 28:7)
And He revealed news of the unseen to Virgin Mary that she will give birth to a son (Jesus)
So these two honored ladies were technically not Prophets, but in the linguistic or figurative sense they were Prophetesses because they were inspired from Allah with news of the unseen.
-
Regarding the Muhaddath, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani wrote in his Fath al Baari:
قوله : ( قال ابن عباس : من نبي ولا محدث ) أي في قوله تعالى : وما أرسلنا من قبلك من رسول ولا نبي إلا إذا تمنى الآية ، كأن ابن عباس زاد فيها ولا محدث أخرجه سفيان بن عيينة في أواخر جامعه ، وأخرجه عبد بن حميد من طريقه وإسناده إلى ابن عباس صحيح ، ولفظه عن عمرو بن دينار قال " كان ابن عباس يقرأ : ( وما أرسلنا من قبلك من رسول ولا نبي ولا محدث ) . والسبب في تخصيص عمر بالذكر لكثرة ما وقع له في زمن النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - من الموافقات التي نزل القرآن مطابقا لها ، ووقع له بعد النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - عدة إصابات .
Ibn Abbas used to recite the Verse of Quraan:
وَمَآ أَرْسَلْنَا مِن قَبْلِكَ مِن رَّسُولٍ وَلاَ نَبِيٍّ إِلاَّ إِذَا تَمَنَّىٰ أَلْقَى ٱلشَّيْطَانُ فِيۤ أُمْنِيَّتِهِ فَيَنسَخُ ٱللَّهُ مَا يُلْقِي ٱلشَّيْطَانُ ثُمَّ يُحْكِمُ ٱللَّهُ آيَاتِهِ وَٱللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ
And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he spoke [or recited], Satan threw into it [some misunderstanding]. But Allah abolishes that which Satan throws in; then Allah makes precise His verses. And Allah is Knowing and Wise. (Sura 22:52)
as
وما أرسلنا من قبلك من رسول ولا نبي ولا محدث
"And We did not send before you any Messenger or Prophet or Muhaddath..."
So he included the word "Muhaddath" in the category of those sent by Allah in explanation of this Ayah.
Similarly, it is mentioned in Durr al Manthur of Imam Suyuti:
أخرج عبد بن حميد وابن الأنباري في المصاحف، عن عمرو بن دينار قال: كان ابن عباس رضي الله عنه يقرأ " وما أرسلنا من قبلك من رسول، ولا نبي ولا محدث ".
وأخرج ابن أبي حاتم، عن سعد بن إبراهيم بن عبد الرحمن بن عوف قال: إن فيما أنزل الله { وما أرسلنا من قبلك من رسول ولا نبي } [ولا محدث] فنسخت محدث والمحدثون: صاحب يس ولقمان وهو من آل فرعون، وصاحب موسى.
Here it is mentioned that the word "Muhaddath" was abrogated from the recitation of this Ayah, and the examples of Muhaddathoon from the previous nations are the Messengers mentioned in Surah Ya Sin, Luqmaan, and the Companion of Moosaa (Khidr).
Interestingly, in the book Usul al-Kaafi, this recitation وما أرسلنا من قبلك من رسول، ولا نبي ولا محدث is considered the recitation of Imam Baaqir and the Ahl-al-Bayt:
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CC9XnhgEGiM/WWoSGn9RBHI/AAAAAAAACkg/04ToIPOW2GIv5zoWOSq9dEs3TrSZAt35ACLcBGAs/s1600/Distortion%2Bof%2BQuran%2BSurah%2B22%2BAyat%2B52%2B%2528Usul%2Bal%2BKafi%2529%2BSending%2Bof%2BMuhaddath.bmp)
-
We can only confirm someone was or is a prophet, messenger, or messiah if there is an explicit text from the Quran or hadith mentioning them by name right?
-
We can only confirm someone was or is a prophet, messenger, or messiah if there is an explicit text from the Quran or hadith mentioning them by name right?
Yes. We can only confirm them as a Literal Prophet or Messenger.
-
I did mention messiah too.
So one can only be confirmed as a messiah if mentioned by name in a text from the Quran & authentic hadith right?
-
I did mention messiah too.
So one can only be confirmed as a messiah if mentioned by name in a text from the Quran & authentic hadith right?
Messiah is a term which is much more ambiguous when you study the text of Quraan and Sunnah as compared to the terms Nabi and Rasul. The terms Nabi and Rasul are throughout Quraan and Sunnah, but the term Messiah is rarely used and never clearly defined. Therefore I do not want to delve into this question, but in short will say that Ghulam Ahmad's claim to be the Messiah is essentially him saying that he is the resemblance of Jesus Son of Mary and is therefore Messiah in a figurative sense مثيل المسيح
-
Regarding the Virgin Mary (peace be upon her), she was technically not a Prophetess, but because she was disclosed with news of the unseen and visitation by the Angels, she was of the rank of Siddeeqa (from the Siddeeqeen, a category which also includes sayyidina Abi Bakr). Qadi Thana Ullah Panipati, in his Tafsir al-Mazhari, says that she possessed the attributes of Nubuwwah by way of ظلّ (reflection) - a similar claim made by Ghulam Ahmad that he is a ظلّى نبى ("shadow Prophet"):
http://islamsalvationfromhell.blogspot.ca/2015/09/hanafisufi-scholar-qadi-thanaullah.html
وَ اِذۡ قَالَتِ الۡمَلٰٓئِکَۃُ یٰمَرۡیَمُ اِنَّ اللّٰہَ اصۡطَفٰکِ وَ طَہَّرَکِ وَ اصۡطَفٰکِ عَلٰی نِسَآءِ الۡعٰلَمِیۡنَ
And when the Angels said to her: “O Mary! Indeed, Allah has chosen you and purified you, and has chosen you above all the women of the worlds.” (3:42)
Qadi Thanaullah Panipati commented on this verse in his classic Tafsir Mazhari:
صوفیہ نے تجلیات ذاتیہ کی تعبیر کمالت نبوّت سے کی ہے جو انبیاء کو باذات بلاواسطہ حاصل ہوتے ہیں اور ذیلی طور پر انبیاء کی وساطت سے صدیقین کو ملتے ہیں۔ حضرت مریم صدیقہ تھیں اللہ نے فرمایا ہے وَ اُمُّہٗ صِدِّیۡقَۃٌ
اس لئے آپ کو کمالت نبوّت حاصل تھے
Translation: The Sufis have interpreted the personal divine manifestations as being the Kamalat-e-Nabuwwat (perfections of Prophethood), which are directly attained to by the Prophets, and attained to by the Siddiqeen through the intermediary of the Prophets by way of reflection. Mary was a Siddiqah as per the saying of Allah “And his mother was a truthful woman” (5:75) because she had within her the Kamalat-e-Nabuwwat (perfections of Prophethood).
Reference: Tafsir Mazhari; v.2 p.160
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-T-I4zfTqnnc/VgZ-_nq2k2I/AAAAAAAABEk/TYAN8e3_IUs/s1600/title.bmp)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hZAnAmqPkm0/VgZ_BYVAQDI/AAAAAAAABEs/349_nFrIzAQ/s1600/O%2BMary%2BAllah%2Bhas%2Bchosen%2Byou%2B%25283.42%2529%2BMary%2Bhad%2BKamalat%2Be%2BNabuwwat.%2BProphets%2Bhave%2Bdirectly%2Band%2BSiddiqeen%2Bby%2Bway%2Bof%2BZill%2B%2528Tafsir%2BMazhari%2Bv.2%2Bp.160%2529.bmp)
-
So he's not actually, literally speaking, a messiah?
-
So he's not actually, literally speaking, a messiah?
Look at his own words:
"This humble one (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) who has claimed to be the resemblance of the Messiah, which people of little understanding imagine to be the Promised Messiah (Jesus)...I absolutely did not claim to be Messiah son of Mary. That person who puts this allegation on me is clearly a liar. Rather, I have been publishing for the last seven or eight years that I am the resemblance of the Messiah (Matheel-e-Maseeh), that is, some of the spiritual peculiarities, habits and characteristics, etc., of Jesus peace be upon him were put in my own Nature (Fitrah) by God Most High." (Ruhani Khaza'in v.3 p.192)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dD5HudbLPjw/WWomSkqnE2I/AAAAAAAACkw/XUcOwNu_FKgMTopuEhUHOYGnFS3kL_zhwCLcBGAs/s1600/People%2Bof%2BLittle%2BUnderstanding%2BUnderstand%2Bthat%2BI%2Bam%2BPromised%2BMessiah%2B%2528Jesus%2529%2Bbut%2BI%2Bam%2BMaseel%2BMaseeh%2B%2528Roohani%2BKhazain%2Bvol.3%2Bp.192%2529.bmp)
-
Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani said:
لست بنبي ولكن محدث الله وكليم الله لأجدد دين المصطفى
"I am not a Prophet, but rather a Muhaddath of Allah and Kaleem of Allah, to renew the Religion of al-Mustafaa"
(Aina Kamalat-e-Islam, p.383)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Ct0FBIGFoAQ/WWoqTzyrLFI/AAAAAAAACk0/I37L6u2JKI0HL1viaHEUItp7gx30ml6EACLcBGAs/s1600/I%2Bam%2Bnot%2BProphet%2Bbut%2BMuhaddath%2Band%2BKaleem%2Bof%2BAllah%2Bso%2Bthat%2BI%2Bmay%2Breform%2Bthe%2BDeen%2Bof%2BMustafa%2B%2528SAW%2529%2B%2528Aina%2BKamalat%2Be%2BIslam%2Bp.383%2529.bmp)
-
So according to you he was neither a prophet, messenger nor messiah.
So then I do not need to believe in him or follow him to be on the correct path?
-
So according to you he was neither a prophet, messenger nor messiah.
So then I do not need to believe in him or follow him to be on the correct path?
Do you need to believe in or follow Shaykh Abdul Qadir al Jilani to be on the correct path? But you can benefit from his teachings and be inspired by his example of piety. There is a Hadith Qudsi that if someone has enmity to one of the Awliya of Allah, Allah will wage war against him!
The Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam) said there will come a Mujaddid at the beginning of each century. So we should believe in the Hadith and prophecy, not the personality of his own essence, who we acknowledge on the basis of the Hadith and prophecy.
-
A mujadid would at least be able speak arabic correctly?
-
A mujadid would at least be able speak arabic correctly?
You're grasping for straws brother. A true believer can see the Light and blessings of a Wali, but those that are spiritually blind will always find some reason to hurl blame and make objections, no matter how lame and pitiable it is.
-
I notice you've switched from your normal intellectual/scientific proofs to a plea for just blind faith now.
-
I notice you've switched from your normal intellectual/scientific proofs to a plea for just blind faith now.
I'm not asking for blind faith at all. But people who are blind no matter how many signs and evidences you show them it's of no use. This theme is repeated throughout the Quraan. Look how many proofs and signs in favor of Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam) clearer than daylight, but yet the people afflicted with blindness cannot perceive the Truth. The objections you make against Ghulam Ahmad that he could not pronounce certain letters of the Arabic language correctly are just lame and silly objections. You resemble the Mushrikeen who used to make such lame and silly objections to the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam) and all other Prophets.
-
A prophet/messenger/messiah/mujaddid who couldn't even speak fluently the language of the Quran i.e arabic?
-
A prophet/messenger/messiah/mujaddid who couldn't even speak fluently the language of the Quran i.e arabic?
Most Prophets couldn't speak Arabic at all, so what's your point? Ghulam Ahmad wasn't an Arab.
-
Lets not confuse prophet's of previous scriptures with Islam post final revelation.
Every true mujadid since the Quran was revealed could speak the language fluently.
Mirza couldn't.
-
Lets not confuse prophet's of previous scriptures with Islam post final revelation.
Every true mujadid since the Quran was revealed could speak the language fluently.
Mirza couldn't.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad could speak and write Arabic fluently.
But what proof do you have the all the previous Mujaddideen, especially the non-Arabs from among them, could speak Arabic fluently? What is your proof for Mujaddid Alf Thani Ahmad Sirhindi for example? And who according to you is the Mujaddid of the 14th and 15th centuries?
-
How fluent? Your own leader admitted he couldn't pronounce certain arabic properly.
I don't know who the mujadids were.
What is ironic is that you wrote the following in another thread:
" This Dr. Zakir Naik used to impress people back in the day with how he could so quickly quote the chapter and verse of the Quran and Bible. But apart from that he is nothing. He cannot even recite the Quran properly, and he has no in depth knowledge of Islam or even science. "
That was about zakir nail a basic speaker. So what about a prophet/messiah like mirza??
-
How fluent? Your own leader admitted he couldn't pronounce certain arabic properly.
I don't know who the mujadids were.
What is ironic is that you wrote the following in another thread:
" This Dr. Zakir Naik used to impress people back in the day with how he could so quickly quote the chapter and verse of the Quran and Bible. But apart from that he is nothing. He cannot even recite the Quran properly, and he has no in depth knowledge of Islam or even science. "
That was about zakir nail a basic speaker. So what about a prophet/messiah like mirza??
If you don't know who the Mujaddids are how did you claim "Every true Mujaddid since the Quran was revealed could speak the language fluently" ??
The quotations you brought forward did not say that Ghulam Ahmad could not speak Arabic fluently.
I said that Dr. Zakir Naik cannot recite the Quran properly, not that he cannot speak Arabic fluently (which obviously he can't).
-
Its an assumption.
An obvious one.
Is there any documented report of anyone who is reliably considered a mujaddid who couldn't speak the language fluently?
Mirza was so fluent that he couldn't pronounce arabic properly??
-
Its an assumption.
An obvious one.
Is there any documented report of anyone who is reliably considered a mujaddid who couldn't speak the language fluently?
Mirza was so fluent that he couldn't pronounce arabic properly??
Why assumptions? Where's your proof? And Mirza Ghulam Ahmad could pronounce Arabic properly, though he obviously spoke with a non-Arab accent. There are different accents in speaking Arabic even among the Arabs.
-
I need to provide proof that none of the mujajjids messed up on speaking arabic?
I think you're losing the plot now asking me to prove something that I don't believe existed.
I don't believe in Santa so now I have to prove he doesn't exist?
mirza didn't speak in any arabic accent. Thats my point. He spoke desi arabic. If you know arabic properly you will speak & pronounce correctly in at least one accepted form of arabic dialect.
Unfortunately desi mangee is not an accepted form of arabic dialect.
-
I need to provide proof that none of the mujajjids messed up on speaking arabic?
I think you're losing the plot now asking me to prove something that I don't believe existed.
I don't believe in Santa so now I have to prove he doesn't exist?
mirza didn't speak in any arabic accent. Thats my point. He spoke desi arabic. If you know arabic properly you will speak & pronounce correctly in at least one accepted form of arabic dialect.
Unfortunately desi mangee is not an accepted form of arabic dialect.
You said all Mujaddideen spoke Arabic fluently and flawlessly. You make a claim so substantiate it.
-
My proof is that no scholar has ever objected to any mujaddid as not being fluent in arabic.
Unless you bring proof that a mujaddid couldn't speak fluent arabic then its good enough for me that no single person ever objected to a mujaddid under such circumstances.
Mirza ghulam ahmed couldn't even speak arabic properly & got caught out.
Some messiah!!!
-
My proof is that no scholar has ever objected to any mujaddid as not being fluent in arabic.
Unless you bring proof that a mujaddid couldn't speak fluent arabic then its good enough for me that no single person ever objected to a mujaddid under such circumstances.
Mirza ghulam ahmed couldn't even speak arabic properly & got caught out.
Some messiah!!!
That is not proof that no one objected to them not speaking Arabic fluently. That is your premise that every Mujaddid spoke Arabic flawlessly. You have committed the logical fallacy of petitio principii or begging the question. If you claim every Mujaddid spoke Arabic flawlessly, you have to prove that first, because it is based on that assumption you are basing your second claim that no one objected to their Arabic.
-
I could pick an arab as the mujaddid of each era.
Anyway to me its clear that you're deflecting from the nain issue that mirza messed up & got caught out.