Qadiyani's

[muslim720]

You have just committed the logical fallacy known as petitio principii or "begging the question",

The logical fallacy I have committed is that I have engaged in a discussion with a Qadiani because I have chosen to reason with an illogical individual who rides high on fallacious positions.  However, I was only giving you a dose of your own medicine.  Much like your lot splits hair over matters that are quite clear, I thought I'd ask you to prove how your excerpt proves that Mirza recited the shahada as his soul was departing.

So when you said: "I will concede that Mirza had the word of Allah (swt) on his tongue (while he was ill), how does that prove that he recited the shahada when his soul departed his body?" you shot yourself in the foot, because the last words of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was not the shahada either.

Thank you very much!  You walked right into my trap, much like your "very intelligent and lovely" brother did years ago.  He used to claim that he loved the Prophet (saw) more after he became a follower of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.  However, it is clear to see that every time a Qadiani is pressed, they equate him with the Prophet (saw).  Knowing the lofty position of the Prophet (saw) and lowly status of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, other than walking into my trap, you have committed the logical fallacy of comparing two unlike things known as "faulty comparison".

Also, what you are ascribing to our Prophet (saw) is the same as believing that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.  Therefore, you are sure that he (saw) did not recite the shahada (although we can get into why one needs to recite the shahada in his or her last moments and we know the Prophet (saw) was promised the highest of high statuses in this world and Paradise and everywhere in between).  However, in the case of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, there is evidence of absence.

"When I reached Hazrat Saheb and saw his condition, then he addressed me and said: 'MIR SAHEB. I HAVE DEVELOPED EPIDEMIC CHOLERA'.  I think after that he (MIRZA) did not say anything clear till he died next day at 10 am."  (Hayat-e-Nasir, p.14)

[muslim720]

Being expelled from Qadianism, to correct your misunderstanding, does not make one murtad.

Thank you for admitting that expulsion from Qadianism does not equate to becoming a murtad.  You have differentiated between Islam and Qadianism which is what I like.  Do whatever you will; don't call yourselves "Muslims" and don't refer to your temples as "mosques" or "masaajid". 

I also like how you are confused; you do not even know whether to engage me as a "Muslim" or Qadiani to save face when in reality (and I wish I had saved the scan of that certificate) one Afghan brother - to expose the conniving lies of your "very intelligent and lovely" brother - had got his hands on an expulsion certificate (which he scanned and posted online) from the highest authority within Qadianism.  It stated that a certain person someone had became murtad (and was excommunicated from Qadianism) because she married a non-Qadiani Muslim.

I said he became an apostate due to his Aqida

My point was that the man rejected your false prophet and outlived him despite your false prophet hoping for him to die in his lifetime.  I am the least concerned with how you define Dr. Abdul Hakim's faith.  If you can make a one-eyed, Dajjal look-alike out to be a (false) prophet (in your own mind at least), I bet you can have unicorns come visit you flying on UFO vessels.

Another lie. Ghulam Dastagir Qasuri, who is highly venerated by the Barelwis and Hanafis of the Indian subcontinent, supplicated to Allah to destroy Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in 1896. But the very next year Ghulam Dastagir himself suddenly died, while Mirza Ghulam Ahmad lived for eleven more years.

....which is why I said, "In the end, Mirza died in the lifetime of Dr. Abdul Hakim as it happened with many others he debated.  Almost all outlived Mirza Ghulam Ahmad."

[ZulFiqar]

Thank you very much!  You walked right into my trap, much like your "very intelligent and lovely" brother did years ago.  He used to claim that he loved the Prophet (saw) more after he became a follower of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.  However, it is clear to see that every time a Qadiani is pressed, they equate him with the Prophet (saw).  Knowing the lofty position of the Prophet (saw) and lowly status of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, other than walking into my trap, you have committed the logical fallacy of comparing two unlike things known as "faulty comparison".

Look now you are running but you have nowhere to run because you are cornered. You cannot answer my questions so you accuse me of not loving the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم because you think I'm comparing him to Ghulam Ahmad. I was not comparing personalities, I was citing a proof from our Religion that reciting the Shahadah as one's last words in this Dunya is not a condition for salvation. Yes it is a condition for salvation that a person remains upon the Shahada and believes in it sincerely until he dies. So unless a person renounces the Shahada before his death (God forbid), you cannot say that a Muslim who died but his last words were not the Shahada is doomed to Hell.

As for your nonsense about "absence of evidence", when sayyida Aaisha رضى الله عنه is testifying that the last words of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was "O Allah put me with the Rafeeq-ul-'Alaa" before he died, then that is evidence that his last words were NOT the Shahada. Please learn simple logic. Either his last words were the Shahada or his last words were اللَّهُمَّ الرَّفِيقَ الأَعْلَى

I let the reader judge for himself or herself.

"When I reached Hazrat Saheb and saw his condition, then he addressed me and said: 'MIR SAHEB. I HAVE DEVELOPED EPIDEMIC CHOLERA'.  I think after that he (MIRZA) did not say anything clear till he died next day at 10 am."  (Hayat-e-Nasir, p.14)

Point #1: Mir Nasir Nawab said "I think" so he was not sure and it is not a definite thing

Point #2: He said "anything clear". Obviously when a person is dying it is hard for him to speak clearly, so he is speaking in a low almost whispery voice. This is absolutely normal for anyone who has seen a dying person on his deathbed in a hospital

Point #3: In Urdu expression, a person will say I have such and such illness, exaggerating the illness though technically it is not that illness. For example even in English people say I have pneumonia but they actually means they have the common cold, etc.

Point #4: In Lahore of 1908 there was no report of any outbreak of cholera. The only way to suddenly catch cholera which is a contagion is if one has come into contact with someone else having the illness. Thus, Ghulam Ahmad obviously did not die from cholera. If he did, all those around him would have become infected too

Point #5: The medical certificate was produced for Ghulam Ahmad in order for his body to be transported by rail back to Qadian according to the British regulation of that time. The medical certificate did not say he died of cholera. If he died of cholera they wouldn't have allowed his body to be transported, because cholera can spread even from a dead body.

Point #6: The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in his final illness while he was dying told sayyida Aaisha:

 قَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ ـ رضى الله عنها ـ كَانَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ فِي مَرَضِهِ الَّذِي مَاتَ فِيهِ ‏ "‏ يَا عَائِشَةُ مَا أَزَالُ أَجِدُ أَلَمَ الطَّعَامِ الَّذِي أَكَلْتُ بِخَيْبَرَ، فَهَذَا أَوَانُ وَجَدْتُ انْقِطَاعَ أَبْهَرِي مِنْ ذَلِكَ السَّمِّ

Narrated `Aisha: The Prophet (ﷺ) in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O `Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison." (Bukhari Sharif)

Now it remains to be seen whether anyone believes that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم actually died from the poison of the meat he had eaten years earlier in Khaibar. Medically this is impossible. Yet the Prophet was complaining during his last illness that he feels as though his jugular vein is being cut by that poison, even though the Holy Quran says:

وَلَوْ تَقَوَّلَ عَلَيْنَا بَعْضَ الْأَقَاوِيلِ ﴿٤٤﴾ لَأَخَذْنَا مِنْهُ بِالْيَمِينِ ﴿٤٥﴾ ثُمَّ لَقَطَعْنَا مِنْهُ الْوَتِينَ
And if Muhammad had made up about Us some [false] sayings, (44) We would have seized him by the right hand; (45) Then We would have cut from him the aorta.
(Surah 69:44-46 Saheeh International translation)

[ZulFiqar]

Being expelled from Qadianism, to correct your misunderstanding, does not make one murtad.

Thank you for admitting that expulsion from Qadianism does not equate to becoming a murtad.  You have differentiated between Islam and Qadianism which is what I like.  Do whatever you will; don't call yourselves "Muslims" and don't refer to your temples as "mosques" or "masaajid". 

"Being expelled from Qadianism, to correct your misunderstanding, does not make one murtad" <<<are these my words or your words? Why are you so brazenly lying on a discussion board where it is so easy to see what every user has written? If you want to lie this is the worst place to do it, you will always be caught red handed.

For your information, the word "Murtad" has a linguistic meaning but also a technical Shari' definition. For example, Mawdudi (founder of the Jama'at-e-Islami party) used to call those people who left his Jama'at as "Murtad" obviously in the linguistic sense of going back or retracing one's steps, not in the technical Shari' sense of leaving the fold of Islam.

And if Mirza Ghulam Ahmad really was a Dajjal and false Prophet as you accuse him, why did Ghulam Dastagir (a Sunni Hanafi Muslim) prayer against him fail and end up rebounding on him? He published his prayer against Ghulam Ahmad in 1896, then suddenly dies the next year in 1897, while Ghulam Ahmad lives on until 1908.

How could Allah refuse the Du'a of a Muslim scholar against a "Dajjal" and "False Prophet"? Do you have any logical answer?

Now even if certain enemies of Ghulam Ahmad survived after his death and outlived him, what does that prove? Didn't Musaylima the Liar and Aswat al-Ansi the False Prophet outlive the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم? In fact, our beloved Prophet saw in a vision that there were two gold bangles on his arms. So he was inspired to blow on them and he did so, causing the bangles to vanish into thin air. He interpreted this Vision of the two bangles as referring to Musaylima and Aswat al Ansi. But both of these liars and false prophets outlived the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, so it is not necessary that if a Prophet makes a prophecy against his enemy it means that enemy will die in his own lifetime.

[muslim720]

Look now you are running but you have nowhere to run because you are cornered. You cannot answer my questions so you accuse me of not loving the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم because you think I'm comparing him to Ghulam Ahmad.

Running away?  Like your "very intelligent and loving" brother who claimed that if not for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, he would not have loved the Prophet (saw) like he did, you walked into the same trap.  When confronted with bitter realities concerning your false prophet, you had to resort to bringing our Prophet (saw) into the equation.  And of course you are comparing him to our beloved Prophet (saw).  After all, Mirza, in his own words, stated that he was on par with Prophet Muhammad (saw).  Now you might bring excerpts where he said something to the contrary but it would be like the famous aged Muslim - Qadiani debate on YouTube which took place in UK in someone's residence where Muslims proved that Mirza believed that anyone who believes that Jesus (asws) died was bound to Hell.  Later, he changed his own aqeedah on the matter and had his blind-followers marching on it.

I was citing a proof from our Religion that reciting the Shahadah as one's last words in this Dunya is not a condition for salvation. Yes it is a condition for salvation that a person remains upon the Shahada and believes in it sincerely until he dies. So unless a person renounces the Shahada before his death (God forbid), you cannot say that a Muslim who died but his last words were not the Shahada is doomed to Hell.

Fine but all said and done, the Prophet (saw) was guaranteed Paradise whereas we must do everything to reserve our place in Paradise.  Did your false prophet recite the shahada?  No!  In fact, he was debilitated due to the dryness of his mouth.

As for your nonsense about "absence of evidence", when sayyida Aaisha رضى الله عنه is testifying that the last words of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was "O Allah put me with the Rafeeq-ul-'Alaa" before he died, then that is evidence that his last words were NOT the Shahada.

I am surprised that unlike when it is time to confirm your own buffoonery, you've chosen one narration in this matter while there are other reports with the one narrated by Aisha (ra) being the most authentic.  I give you that but what you do not understand (or you are trying to evade) is that your false prophet died in a state of humiliation while not having the ability to even recite the shahada.  I will expound on his humiliation in a bit.

Point #1: Mir Nasir Nawab said "I think" so he was not sure and it is not a definite thing

Here is another proof without the use of the phrase, "I think".

"Huzoor (Mirza Ghulam) could not talk two hours before death.  Dr. Mirza Yaqoob Baig and Dr. Syed Mohammad Hussein Shah were the attending physicians. Huzoor asked for paper and wrote on it: 'I have too much dryness.  I can't talk.' and some other words which could not be read." (Al-Fazl, Vol. 25, No. 274, November 24, 1937)

Point #4: In Lahore of 1908 there was no report of any outbreak of cholera. The only way to suddenly catch cholera which is a contagion is if one has come into contact with someone else having the illness. Thus, Ghulam Ahmad obviously did not die from cholera. If he did, all those around him would have become infected too

Are you assuming that you can only get cholera through an outbreak?  You did not know you are dealing with a Biology major so let me assure you that you are wrong to say that the only way to catch cholera is to come into contact with someone else having the illness.  WebMD says, "It is not likely you will catch cholera just from casual contact with an infected person."  It is only when Vibrio cholerae, the bacterium that causes cholera, usually found in food or water contaminated by feces from a person with the infection, enters the body that you get the disease.  (http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/cholera-faq#1)

And are you sure there were no outbreaks of cholera in Lahore in 1908?  How about the 6th cholera pandemic which lasted from 1899 to 1923?  It started in India (surprise)!  Although not a reliable source, Wikipedia states, "The sixth cholera pandemic (1899–1923) was a major outbreak of cholera beginning in India, where it killed more than 800,000 people, and spreading to the Middle East, North Africa, Eastern Europe and Russia".  However, it reports this fact from CBC's website.  You can visit the Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1899%E2%80%931923_cholera_pandemic and check the references there.

On this note, I must remind you that Mirza Ghulam used to say that cholera or plague is Allah's (swt) wrath on mankind for their wrong doing.  A befitting end to a false prophet!  Hopefully now you understand why I was stressing on his inability to even recite the shahada and you have been utterly destroyed on the cholera claim (that there was no cholera outbreak in India in 1908).

Point #6: The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in his final illness while he was dying told sayyida Aaisha

True Qadiani colors on display now!  When the going gets tough, the liars start misquoting and they rely on misinformation spread by the enemies of Islam.  Firstly, the two words do not add up.  The Qur'an uses al-wateen whereas the hadith employs al-abhar.  Secondly, the phrase that the Prophet (saw) uttered was a common Arabic idiom used to denote death in any form, regardless of whether the aorta was literally cut off or not.  Thirdly, we can distinguish between "literal" and "metaphorical" when Mirza's (dis)honor is on the line when he failed to reproduce the miracles of Jesus (asws) thereby lowering Jesus' (asws) status but we must only look at Islamic literature through the Qadiani lens and lower the status of the Prophet (saw) too only to bail out Mirza, again.  Some Muslim you are!

I know your kind.  I am only doing this to cause you to open yourself up to everyone on this forum.

Why are you so brazenly lying on a discussion board where it is so easy to see what every user has written? If you want to lie this is the worst place to do it, you will always be caught red handed.

Here is exactly what you said: "The Truth: Dr. Abdul Hakim was expelled from the Ahmadiyya Jama'at by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad because of his doctrines which constitute apostasy from Islam."  You made the two factors as dependent on each other.  That having outlandish beliefs in respect to Islam can cause one to be excommunicated from Qadianism.  If such is the case then Qadianis should start applying the "murtad" definition (linguistic or technical) to their own selves first.  How the heck can I take you or your one-eyed Dajjal look-alike false prophet seriously for labeling someone murtad for some spurious beliefs you say he had when you and your false prophet have beliefs antithetical to foundational Islam like the finality of the Prophet (saw), the miracles of Jesus (asws), etc?

For Mirza, or you, to declare someone a murtad for having outlandish beliefs with regards to Islam is like the pot calling the kettle black.

And if Mirza Ghulam Ahmad really was a Dajjal and false Prophet as you accuse him, why did Ghulam Dastagir (a Sunni Hanafi Muslim) prayer against him fail and end up rebounding on him? He published his prayer against Ghulam Ahmad in 1896, then suddenly dies the next year in 1897, while Ghulam Ahmad lives on until 1908.

Do you want a list of people that outlived Mirza despite your false prophet claiming that he - via Divine Revelation - was informed that they would die in his lifetime?  I mean, the man was so desperate that when his prophecy time was close by, he distributed sweets among kids bribing them to pray for the death of Atham.  This on top of many attempts made on Atham's life by Mirza's obedient dogs.

Now even if certain enemies of Ghulam Ahmad survived after his death and outlived him, what does that prove? Didn't Musaylima the Liar and Aswat al-Ansi the False Prophet outlive the Prophet

Finally!  After several posts, you have mentioned names that are on the same pedestal as your false prophet, Musaylma and Aswat al-Ansi.  Those two people are of the same category as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.  As for what it proves (that his enemies outlived Mirza)?  Well, Mirza prophesied that they would die in his lifetime.  Like Sanaullah Amritsari, like Atham, etc.  Our Prophet (saw), on the other hand, never said that Musaylma and Aswat would die in his lifetime.  That was too much for a dimwit Qadiani to understand but I hope you get it now that I've broken it down for you.

[ZulFiqar]

The point - and here is where Abu Mussab becomes relevant - is that Abu Mussab is saying that Nouman Ali Khan said such and such without any reference to any of his video clips or publications.  And you thought I did not know your Qadiani tactics?

Now let me expose another one of your deceptions in lying against brother Abu Mussab Wajdi Akkari too! You said that he he said "such and such" without any reference to any of his video clips:

&feature=youtu.be

[muslim720]

Now let me expose another one of your deceptions in lying against brother Abu Mussab Wajdi Akkari too! You said that he he said "such and such" without any reference to any of his video clips

Two points:

1.  Nouman Ali Khan starts by saying, "and then there are some other people......" so he is only quoting them.  What he refers to as "paws" is translated as "forelegs" in more than one translation.  I highly doubt that the word used can only have one rigid meaning or Nouman may have erred.  No one claims he is infallible.

2.  Do you take Abu Mussab as a reliable source of Islamic information?  I am really interested in your answer without deflecting or performing your Qadiani-mandated religious dance a.k.a dancing around the issue, something your "very intelligent and lovely" brother was an expert in!

[ZulFiqar]

Mirza, in his own words, stated that he was on par with Prophet Muhammad (saw).

Bring your proof if you are truthful.

Mirza believed that anyone who believes that Jesus (asws) died was bound to Hell.

Bring your proof if you are truthful.

Fine but all said and done, the Prophet (saw) was guaranteed Paradise whereas we must do everything to reserve our place in Paradise.  Did your false prophet recite the shahada?  No!  In fact, he was debilitated due to the dryness of his mouth.

First prove that if a Muslim's last words are not the Shahada he will go to Hell. What about a mute person who cannot talk? So you are saying anyone who doesn't have the ability to verbalise the Shahadah, despite believing in it in his or her heart, is doomed to Jahannam?

"Huzoor (Mirza Ghulam) could not talk two hours before death.  Dr. Mirza Yaqoob Baig and Dr. Syed Mohammad Hussein Shah were the attending physicians. Huzoor asked for paper and wrote on it: 'I have too much dryness.  I can't talk.' and some other words which could not be read." (Al-Fazl, Vol. 25, No. 274, November 24, 1937)

If it is true what does it prove? I already said it's totally normal for a dying person to have difficulty in speaking. Is that suppose to be a proof that someone is going to Jahannam that his throat is dry? How absurd your ideas are.

Narrated Aisha:I never saw anybody suffering so much from sickness as Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) (Sahih Bukhari, Vol 7 Book 70 Hadith 549)

Are you assuming that you can only get cholera through an outbreak?  You did not know you are dealing with a Biology major so let me assure you that you are wrong to say that the only way to catch cholera is to come into contact with someone else having the illness.  WebMD says, "It is not likely you will catch cholera just from casual contact with an infected person."  It is only when Vibrio cholerae, the bacterium that causes cholera, usually found in food or water contaminated by feces from a person with the infection, enters the body that you get the disease.  (http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/cholera-faq#1)

Why didn't Ghulam Ahmad's companions who were around him when he was dying become infected with cholera? Dr Col Sutherland, a Chief Civil Surgeon of Lahore and Principal of King Edward Medical College, certified the cause of the death as intestinal irritation and not cholera. With this certificate the corpse of Ghulam Ahmad was allowed to be transported by rail from Lahore to Qadian for the burial. Dr. Cunningham; Civil Surgeon Lahore, thus signed that certificate of Dr. Sutherland to testify the authenticity of his diagnosis.

And are you sure there were no outbreaks of cholera in Lahore in 1908?  How about the 6th cholera pandemic which lasted from 1899 to 1923?  It started in India (surprise)!  Although not a reliable source, Wikipedia states, "The sixth cholera pandemic (1899–1923) was a major outbreak of cholera beginning in India, where it killed more than 800,000 people, and spreading to the Middle East, North Africa, Eastern Europe and Russia".  However, it reports this fact from CBC's website.  You can visit the Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1899%E2%80%931923_cholera_pandemic and check the references there.

We are talking about Lahore specifically, not India which is such a vast country. Use some common sense.

True Qadiani colors on display now!  When the going gets tough, the liars start misquoting and they rely on misinformation spread by the enemies of Islam.  Firstly, the two words do not add up.  The Qur'an uses al-wateen whereas the hadith employs al-abhar.

Ever heard of synonyms? Go and look up the meaning of these two words

  Secondly, the phrase that the Prophet (saw) uttered was a common Arabic idiom used to denote death in any form, regardless of whether the aorta was literally cut off or not.

Any proof of that it is merely an idiom?

Here is exactly what you said: "The Truth: Dr. Abdul Hakim was expelled from the Ahmadiyya Jama'at by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad because of his doctrines which constitute apostasy from Islam."  You made the two factors as dependent on each other.  That having outlandish beliefs in respect to Islam can cause one to be excommunicated from Qadianism.

There is no such thing as being "excommunicated from Qadianism". Dr. Abdul Hakim was excommunicated from the Jama'at not from a religion. He was excommunicated from the Jama'at on account of his apostasy from Islam not from "Qadianism". This is like if a father kicks out his son from his house if the son became a Christian and is old enough to live on his own. The father is a Muslim and tells his son 'get out you can no longer live in this house'. The son has been excommunicated from the house because of his apostasy from the religion. It hardly means the house is equivalent to Islam.

For Mirza, or you, to declare someone a murtad for having outlandish beliefs with regards to Islam is like the pot calling the kettle black.

And for someone to say Mirza Ghulam Ahmad denied Finality of Prophethood while believing that Prophet Jesus will come back in the future after the Last Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is what?

Do you want a list of people that outlived Mirza despite your false prophet claiming that he - via Divine Revelation - was informed that they would die in his lifetime?

I've already given detailed answers about Sanaullah Amritsari, Abdullah Atham and Dr. Abdul Hakim Patialvi. Who else is in your "list"? Bring it on you're giving me an opportunity to debunk all the lies of your Mullas. Remember the people reading this discussion are educated English speakers, not some Mullas from Chichawatni

[ZulFiqar]

Nouman may have erred.  No one claims he is infallible.

Not only did Nouman err, you also erred by declaring boldly that Abu Mussab lied about him and there was no video clip. Now that I have brought out the video clip you are tucking your tail between your legs but still don't have the decency to admit that you yourself "erred". Don't you know that the thing Allah hates the most is arrogance?

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Did mirza have a mastery of the arabic language?

Also you didn't respond to my post that mentioned that mirza relied on a weak hadith, changed the dates from the first night (which even by your definition provided on hilal etc should still be the first week at least & not the middle of the month) as you say its impossible for it to occur on the first night.

So either mirza relied upon a lie of shia narrator & then had to extend the lie by altering the dates or if the hadith is still acceptable then mirza again still lied on it.

This is clear proof to me he was fake.
 

[ZulFiqar]

Did mirza have a mastery of the arabic language?

Absolutely. He wrote books in Arabic which astounded even the Arab scholars of his time. He claimed that Allah taught him 40,000 Arabic consonantal roots in a single night. This was in fact one of his Karamaat.

https://www.alislam.org/library/links/80-books.html#chapter-18

Karamatus Sadiqeen (The Miracles of the Truthful)
Written in the Arabic language.
In January 1893, Maulvi Mohammad Hussain published an article in his newspaper Ishaatus Sunna to the effect that Hadhrat Ahmad (as) did not know the Arabic language and that he was also ignorant of the meaning and true interpretation of the Holy Qur'an and therefore did not deserve any heavenly help. He called him a liar and a dajjal.

Hadhrat Ahmad (as) had told Maulvi Mohammad Hussain to draw lots and pick a sura of the Holy Qur'an for writing its commentary in the Arabic language and at the end of this commentary there should be 100 couplets in praise of the Holy Prophet, Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. He had also told him that the Maulvi could call others also to his help - including his teacher, Nazir Hussain.

Maulvi Mohammad Hussain said that he was ready to do so but did nothing about it. His silence really meant that he felt he was not capable of doing so. This being the situation, Hadhrat Ahmad (as) wrote Karamatus Sadiqeen. It contains four Euologies (poems written in praise) and a commentary on the Sura Fatiha.

Khutba Ilhamiyya (The Revealed Sermon)
On 11th April 1900, the day of Eid-ulAzha, Hadhrat Ahmed (as) delivered the sermon in the Arabic language and on his instructions it was noted word for word by Hadhrat Maulvi Nurud Deen and Hadhrat Maulvi Abdul Karim, Hadhrat Ahmad< (as) who knew the nature of this sermon (that it was a revelation), instructed the two of them to ask him at the same time if they missed any word for, once missed, it would be gone (which meant that he would not be able to repeat it).
When Maulvi Abdul Karim was rendering the Khutba into Urdu Hadhrat Ahmad (as) fell down in prostration for offering thanks to God and when he raised his head up he remarked that he had seen the word 'Mubarak' (Blessed) written in red ink and it was an indication of acceptance.

Hadhrat Ahmad (as) says that he got up to deliver the sermon in Arabic and God the Almighty granted him power from Himself and the words were being uttered by him spontaneously, in a way that did not at all lie in his power. 'It was like a hidden fountain gushing forth and I did not know whether it was I who was speaking or an angel was speaking through his tongue. The sentences were just being uttered and every sentence was a sign of God for me.'

Also you didn't respond to my post that mentioned that mirza relied on a weak hadith, changed the dates from the first night (which even by your definition provided on hilal etc should still be the first week at least & not the middle of the month) as you say its impossible for it to occur on the first night.

You got my definition wrong. I quoted Shaykh ul Islam Ibn taymiyya as saying that a lunar eclipse can only occur on the 13th, 14th, and 15th of a lunar month. So the "first of Ramadan" means the first of the nights in which it is possible for a lunar eclipse to occur, i.e., the 13th of Ramadan. And likewise, a solar eclipse is only possible on the 27th, 28th, and 29th of the lunar month, so the "middle of Ramadan" means the middle of those nights in which is a solar eclipse is possible, i.e., the 28th of Ramadan.

[ZulFiqar]

Also you didn't respond to my post that mentioned that mirza relied on a weak hadith, changed the dates from the first night (which even by your definition provided on hilal etc should still be the first week at least & not the middle of the month) as you say its impossible for it to occur on the first night.

The moon for the first night of the month is called Hilal (crescent). But the Hadith doesn't use the word Hilal when talking about the eclipse on the first of Ramadan but rather Qamar, clearly indicating it means the eclipse of the moon on the first of the possible nights in which a lunar eclipse can occur, i.e., the 13th.

https://www.alislam.org/library/articles/new/TruthAboutEclipses.html

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Any proof of his mastery of the arabic language from a non ahmadi source?

Please provide the passage from ibn taymiyyah so we can get a better feel of what he is discussing.

Is he actually explaining the hadith to mean the middle of the month or is he debunking it as a fabrication by citing its error?

Or is his discussion on the matter not related to the particular narration at all?

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Also you didn't respond to my post that mentioned that mirza relied on a weak hadith, changed the dates from the first night (which even by your definition provided on hilal etc should still be the first week at least & not the middle of the month) as you say its impossible for it to occur on the first night.

The moon for the first night of the month is called Hilal (crescent). But the Hadith doesn't use the word Hilal when talking about the eclipse on the first of Ramadan but rather Qamar, clearly indicating it means the eclipse of the moon on the first of the possible nights in which a lunar eclipse can occur, i.e., the 13th.

https://www.alislam.org/library/articles/new/TruthAboutEclipses.html

You yourself cited from lizan al arab etc the defintion being from the 2nd or 3rd onwards.
So even in this setting it would be the first week & not the middle of the month.
To say the 'first of the possible nights', who's words are these? Yours & mirzas or ibn taymiyyah or anyone else?

[ZulFiqar]

Any proof of his mastery of the arabic language from a non ahmadi source?

The proof is in the pudding. All you have to do is read any one his numerous Arabic books, for example, Sirr ul Khilafah, Hammamatul Bushra, Karamat us Saadiqeen, Khutbat ul Ilhaamiyah.

Imam Albani, although he said Ghulam Ahmad was a Dajjal, nevertheless confessed that he was knowledgeable in an audio recording (see from 9:30)

Please provide the passage from ibn taymiyyah so we can get a better feel of what he is discussing.

Is he actually explaining the hadith to mean the middle of the month or is he debunking it as a fabrication by citing its error?

Or is his discussion on the matter not related to the particular narration at all?

I already quoted Ibn Taymiyya's reference, but I think you hastily glossed over it. You can go back and check. It was from his Majmu al Fatawa: Bab Khusuf al Qamar

And I quoted him for the express purpose of showing you that he knew the lunar eclipse can only occur on the 13th, 14th, and 15th on the lunar month, not to quote his comments on the Hadith in question.

I encourage you to read this article from the Ahmadiyya point of view for a detailed analysis with all the evidences on the matter
https://www.alislam.org/library/articles/new/TruthAboutEclipses.html

[ZulFiqar]

You yourself cited from lizan al arab etc the defintion being from the 2nd or 3rd onwards.

Completely false. I did not such thing.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

My bad. Apologies, I mixed you up with another qadiani source I was reading:

http://aaiil.org/text/articles/light/solarlunar_pf.shtml

Which states:

Lisan-al-Arab is another famous Arabic lexicon. Under the term qamar it writes:
[Arabic omitted]
that is, the term qamar is used after the third night up to the end of the month.

So the (weak) hadith would be at least interpreted as the first week if not literally the first night.

As for citing Ibn Taymiyya then we all seem to be in agreement that historically it occurs in the middle of the month.

So this brings us back to the following:

The prophet muhammad SAW would not utter a false prophecy.

So either the shia narrator lied & fabricated this report to mohammad al baqir or if you want to accept the narration then conclude the event has never occurred thus far in history.

Mirza relied upon a weak/fabricated narration by an extremist shia attributed to someone other than the prophet mohammad SAW, which means he was not very well versed in hadith science.

You didn't answer my question who's words are 'the first of the possible nights'?

The narration is weak/fabricated by a shia extremist attributed to someone other than the prophet SAW, its apparent words are the first night, linguistically it could be first week but does not state middle of the month or first possible date the event can occur.

True messiah or a fake imposter?

[ZulFiqar]

My bad. Apologies, I mixed you up with another qadiani source I was reading:

http://aaiil.org/text/articles/light/solarlunar_pf.shtml

Which states:

Lisan-al-Arab is another famous Arabic lexicon. Under the term qamar it writes:
[Arabic omitted]
that is, the term qamar is used after the third night up to the end of the month.

So the (weak) hadith would be at least interpreted as the first week if not literally the first night.

As for citing Ibn Taymiyya then we all seem to be in agreement that historically it occurs in the middle of the month.

So this brings us back to the following:

The prophet muhammad SAW would not utter a false prophecy.

So either the shia narrator lied & fabricated this report to mohammad al baqir or if you want to accept the narration then conclude the event has never occurred thus far in history.

Mirza relied upon a weak/fabricated narration by an extremist shia attributed to someone other than the prophet mohammad SAW, which means he was not very well versed in hadith science.

You didn't answer my question who's words are 'the first of the possible nights'?

The narration is weak/fabricated by a shia extremist attributed to someone other than the prophet SAW, its apparent words are the first night, linguistically it could be first week but does not state middle of the month or first possible date the event can occur.

True messiah or a fake imposter?

I've already answered the objection that this Hadith is weak. It is not fabricated but has weakness for sure. Yet the weakness of the Hadith doesn't mean it is fabricated. The fact that it contains a prophecy is what needs to be focused on. If the prophecy has come true than the hadith should be accepted. Otherwise it may be discarded as false. That is where the discussion should revolve around.

The next issue is whether the prophecy of this Hadith is pointing to something that is astronomically impossible or should be interpreted as being a heavenly Sign that nevertheless does not defy the physical laws of the universe.

For this issue we need to consult the Quran and Sunnah.

لَا تَبْدِيلَ لِخَلْقِ اللَّـهِ
There is no change in the Creation of Allah (Sura 30:30)

وَالشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ حُسْبَانًا ۚ ذَٰلِكَ تَقْدِيرُ الْعَزِيزِ الْعَلِيمِ
The Sun and Moon (are for) calculation. That is the determination of the Mighty, the Knowing. (Sura 6:96)

لَا الشَّمْسُ يَنبَغِي لَهَا أَن تُدْرِكَ الْقَمَرَ
The sun cannot overtake the moon (Sura 36:40)

And there are many Ayaat of Quran which speak of the fact that the moon has been created for calculating the months, and that these laws governing the bodies of the cosmos do not change until Judgment Day.

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم described the solar and lunar eclipse as two Signs from the Signs of Allah, and if we witness them we should offer a special Salat (Bukhari Sharif)

So the lunar and solar eclipse have been described as 2 Signs even though they are not supernatural but natural occurrences. Now it is scientifically known that in the Islamic lunar months, the lunar eclipse can only occur on the 13th, 14th, and 15th of the month, and the solar eclipse during the 27th, 28th, and 29th of the month. This is the decree and determination of Allah. If there is any Hadith which speaks of their eclipses in Ramadan as a Sign of the Mahdi, they have to be understood in this context as signs of nature that are occurring under extraordinary circumstances and a rarity, but not as something supernatural or breaking the laws of physics which is impossible.

https://www.alislam.org/library/articles/new/TruthAboutEclipses.html

As the Promised Messiah as has mentioned, the purpose of the Hadith is not to promise some extraordinary prodigy but to provide a criterion for the recognition of the Imam Mahdi which is not shared by any other person (Zameema Nuzoolul Masih, Roohani Khazain, Vol.19, p.141).

[/size][/font]

[zaid_ibn_ali]

The narrator of the report is a known shia extremist & liar.

Why would a true messiah rely on the words of liars?

You can write a whole essay on the cosmos & astronomy it doesn't change the fact that you have had to change the clear apparent meaning of a report narrated by a liar to support your messiah's claim.

You won't admit the ignorance of mirza in hadith sciences nor admit that the event described in the report has never occurred thus far.

I've asked you twice already who's words are the premise 'the first possible date it can occur'? You seem to keep ignoring this question.

So i'm asking a third time now.

[Rationalist]

I know the scholars that still reject the hadith. A hadith based on some truth is not binding on someone's aqeeda.

You said that you don't consider anything binding unless it has Tawaatur. Does that mean you don't consider the facts of Nuzul al Masih, Adhab al Qabr, Zuhur al Mahdi, Khuruj ad Dajjal, the Mizan, the Sirat, Sun rising from West before Judgment Day, etc., are not part of the Aqida?

Just to give you a background I don't believe in the 73 sects hadith. 
As for those events yes, those even are not binding to on the ummah to be a muslim or even a momin.
As for punishment of the grave, I believe that is in the Quran.