Qadianis are not Muslim

[Ilias Ahmad]

I have noticed that many people claiming to represent Islam on this board are in fact Qadianis. This is a very dangerous and unfortunate thing. They are easily identified by their slogan: "Love for all, hatred for none" which they put in their avatars, signatures, etc.

Qadianism is a new religion that was started by an Indian Muslim in 19th century British India, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. He is basically the "Joseph Smith of Islam". He claimed to have some revelations that God has made him the Imam Mahdi, the awaited Imam of the Muslims who according to Islam will appear in the latter days to rejuvenate and strengthen Islam. He later claimed that Jesus Christ is dead and buried and the prophecies of the reappearance of Jesus point to him. But his greatest deviation was to claim to be a full fledged Prophet and Messenger of Allah, despite the fact the Holy Quran teaches that Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) is the Last and Final Prophet and no new prophet can come after him. Not only that, our Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) said that thirty individuals will arise from the Muslim ummah (community) each and everyone claiming to be a Prophet, but all of them would be liars and deceivers, because he (Muhammad) is the last and final prophet and La Nabiyya Ba'dee "There is no prophet after me". Mirza Qadiani was doubtless one of these false prophets forewarned by our beloved Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salam).

Mirza claimed that Islam teaches that Jesus has already died a natural death. He made this interpretation so he could justify claiming Messiahood for himself. However, the saying of our Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) is clear: "By Him in whose Hand my soul is (meaning by Allah), the Son of Mary (meaning none other than Jesus himself) will shortly descend among you as a just ruler and will break the cross and kill the swine."

This one saying of our Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa salam) is sufficient to refute the Qadiani claims decisively and conclusively. First of all, our Prophet said the "Son of Mary" will descend. Mirza is not the son of Mary, he is the son of Chiragh Bibi (his biological mother's name). Ibn Mariam (son of Mary) always refers to Jesus himself throughout the Quran and Sunnah, without any exception. Usually, people are referred to as son of their father's name, but because Jesus didn't have a father, he was from a virgin birth, therefore in Islam he is referred to as son of Mary.

Secondly, our Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) said Jesus will come as a Hakam, which means a ruler, somebody who enforces a law, in a position of governmental authority, controlling a state, etc. Therefore, this prophecy eliminates Mirza Qadiani as a possible candidate for fulfilment because throughout his life Mirza was a subject of the British government of India, which ruled by English Common law, not the Shariah of Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wa salam).

And finally, our Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa salam) said Jesus would literally break all the crosses and slaughter the entire breed of swine, thus effectively putting an end to the false pretenses of Christianity with such a miraculous act. The only thing Mirza managed in the cause of refuting Christianity was become humiliated in a few obscure public debates and bring a bad name to our religion.

Judge for yourself, are Qadianis the true Muslims or outside the pale of Islam? According to the constitution of Pakistan and the High Courts of many countries, including South Africa, they are NOT Muslim.

[bernee51]

I have noticed that many people claiming to represent Islam on this board are in fact Qadianis. This is a very dangerous and unfortunate thing. They are easily identified by their slogan: "Love for all, hatred for none" which they put in their avatars, signatures, etc.

Qadianism is a new religion that was started by an Indian Muslim in 19th century British India, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. He is basically the "Joseph Smith of Islam". He claimed to have some revelations that God has made him the Imam Mahdi, the awaited Imam of the Muslims who according to Islam will appear in the latter days to rejuvenate and strengthen Islam. He later claimed that Jesus Christ is dead and buried and the prophecies of the reappearance of Jesus point to him. But his greatest deviation was to claim to be a full fledged Prophet and Messenger of Allah, despite the fact the Holy Quran teaches that Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) is the Last and Final Prophet and no new prophet can come after him. Not only that, our Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) said that thirty individuals will arise from the Muslim ummah (community) each and everyone claiming to be a Prophet, but all of them would be liars and deceivers, because he (Muhammad) is the last and final prophet and La Nabiyya Ba'dee "There is no prophet after me". Mirza Qadiani was doubtless one of these false prophets forewarned by our beloved Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salam).

Mirza claimed that Islam teaches that Jesus has already died a natural death. He made this interpretation so he could justify claiming Messiahood for himself. However, the saying of our Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) is clear: "By Him in whose Hand my soul is (meaning by Allah), the Son of Mary (meaning none other than Jesus himself) will shortly descend among you as a just ruler and will break the cross and kill the swine."

This one saying of our Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa salam) is sufficient to refute the Qadiani claims decisively and conclusively. First of all, our Prophet said the "Son of Mary" will descend. Mirza is not the son of Mary, he is the son of Chiragh Bibi (his biological mother's name). Ibn Mariam (son of Mary) always refers to Jesus himself throughout the Quran and Sunnah, without any exception. Usually, people are referred to as son of their father's name, but because Jesus didn't have a father, he was from a virgin birth, therefore in Islam he is referred to as son of Mary.

Secondly, our Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) said Jesus will come as a Hakam, which means a ruler, somebody who enforces a law, in a position of governmental authority, controlling a state, etc. Therefore, this prophecy eliminates Mirza Qadiani as a possible candidate for fulfilment because throughout his life Mirza was a subject of the British government of India, which ruled by English Common law, not the Shariah of Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wa salam).

And finally, our Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa salam) said Jesus would literally break all the crosses and slaughter the entire breed of swine, thus effectively putting an end to the false pretenses of Christianity with such a miraculous act. The only thing Mirza managed in the cause of refuting Christianity was become humiliated in a few obscure public debates and bring a bad name to our religion.

Judge for yourself, are Qadianis the true Muslims or outside the pale of Islam? According to the constitution of Pakistan and the High Courts of many countries, including South Africa, they are NOT Muslim.

Does a 'true scotsman' put sugar on his porridge?

[alexdocherty]

I have noticed that many people claiming to represent Islam on this board are in fact Qadianis. This is a very dangerous and unfortunate thing. They are easily identified by their slogan: "Love for all, hatred for none" which they put in their avatars, signatures, etc.

Qadianism is a new religion that was started by an Indian Muslim in 19th century British India, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. He is basically the "Joseph Smith of Islam". He claimed to have some revelations that God has made him the Imam Mahdi, the awaited Imam of the Muslims who according to Islam will appear in the latter days to rejuvenate and strengthen Islam. He later claimed that Jesus Christ is dead and buried and the prophecies of the reappearance of Jesus point to him. But his greatest deviation was to claim to be a full fledged Prophet and Messenger of Allah, despite the fact the Holy Quran teaches that Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) is the Last and Final Prophet and no new prophet can come after him. Not only that, our Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) said that thirty individuals will arise from the Muslim ummah (community) each and everyone claiming to be a Prophet, but all of them would be liars and deceivers, because he (Muhammad) is the last and final prophet and La Nabiyya Ba'dee "There is no prophet after me". Mirza Qadiani was doubtless one of these false prophets forewarned by our beloved Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salam).

Mirza claimed that Islam teaches that Jesus has already died a natural death. He made this interpretation so he could justify claiming Messiahood for himself. However, the saying of our Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) is clear: "By Him in whose Hand my soul is (meaning by Allah), the Son of Mary (meaning none other than Jesus himself) will shortly descend among you as a just ruler and will break the cross and kill the swine."

This one saying of our Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa salam) is sufficient to refute the Qadiani claims decisively and conclusively. First of all, our Prophet said the "Son of Mary" will descend. Mirza is not the son of Mary, he is the son of Chiragh Bibi (his biological mother's name). Ibn Mariam (son of Mary) always refers to Jesus himself throughout the Quran and Sunnah, without any exception. Usually, people are referred to as son of their father's name, but because Jesus didn't have a father, he was from a virgin birth, therefore in Islam he is referred to as son of Mary.

Secondly, our Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) said Jesus will come as a Hakam, which means a ruler, somebody who enforces a law, in a position of governmental authority, controlling a state, etc. Therefore, this prophecy eliminates Mirza Qadiani as a possible candidate for fulfilment because throughout his life Mirza was a subject of the British government of India, which ruled by English Common law, not the Shariah of Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wa salam).

And finally, our Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa salam) said Jesus would literally break all the crosses and slaughter the entire breed of swine, thus effectively putting an end to the false pretenses of Christianity with such a miraculous act. The only thing Mirza managed in the cause of refuting Christianity was become humiliated in a few obscure public debates and bring a bad name to our religion.

Judge for yourself, are Qadianis the true Muslims or outside the pale of Islam? According to the constitution of Pakistan and the High Courts of many countries, including South Africa, they are NOT Muslim.

What if Muhammad was just saying he was the last one so his word would have a lasting impression and power? If you know you're going to be replaced in the future then you find a way to make sure you don't. Claiming to be the last ever Prophet prevents any future voices from over-speaking his.
I think it was just a method for Muhammad to retain control even after he died. Personally, I don't believe in any prophets, I just think they create these titles as a means of control over the masses, particularly over women and sexuality.

[Bigmo]

Muhammad said no such thing. The probablem many here do is they judge Muhammad according to what Muslim people say and not the Koran. Muhammad never claimed anything but to follow the koran and reminded the followers of the previous scriptures to follow what the scriptures are saying and not what they want it to say.

The definition of Islam submitted by Muslims is not Koranic but based on hadiths. Hadiths are oral traditions compiled centuries after Muhammad. Meither the prophet nor his companions ever compiled anything but the Koran. The hadiths are what for the basis of Sunni and Shioa Islam with each accusing the other of compiling lies. Hadiths are the supposed sayings and acts of Muhammad. It was Imam Al Shafi who argued for a second source of Islam along with the Koran which he called the Sunnah. Shafi lived over 150 years after muhammad.

Here is AlShafi laying the claim of the Sunnah, it is identical to the Judaic claim of an alternative revelation compiled in the Talmud.

29. Someone asked me: What is [legal] knowledge and how much should men know of it?

30. Shafi’i replied: Legal knowledge is of two kinds: one is for the general public, and no sober and mature person should be ignorant of it.

31. He asked: For example?

32. [Shafi’i] replied: For example, that the daily prayers are five, that men owe it to God to fast the month of Ramadan, to make the pilgrimage to the [Sacred] House whenever they are able, and to [pay] the legal alms in their estate; that He [God] has prohibited usury, adultery, homicide, theft, [the drinking of] wine, and [everything] of that sort which He has obligated men to comprehend, to perform, to pay in their property, and to abstain from [because] He has forbidden it to them.

This kind of knowledge may be found textually in the Book of God, or may be found generally among the people of Islam. The public relates it from the preceding public and ascribes it to the Apostle of God, nobody ever questioning its ascription or its binding force upon them. It is the kind of knowledge which admits of error neither in its narrative nor in its interpretation; it is not permissible to question it.

33. He asked: What is the second kind?

34. Shafi’i replied: It consists of the detailed duties and rules obligatory on men, concerning which there exists neither a text in the Book of God, nor regarding most of them, a sunna. Whenever a sunna exists [in this case], it is of the kind related by few authorities, not by the public, and is subject to different interpretations arrived at by analogy.

35. He asked: Is [legal knowledge on this kind as obligatory as the other, or is it not obligatory so that he who acquires such knowledge performs a supererogatory act, and he who neglects it falls not into error? Or, is there a third kind, derived from a narrative (khabar) or analogy?

36. [Shafi’i] replied: There is a third kind [of knowledge].

37. He asked: Will you explain it, give its source, and state what [portion] of it is obligatory, and on whom it is binding and on whom it is not binding?

38. [Shafi’i] replied: The public is incapable of knowing this kind of knowledge, nor can all specialists obtain it. But those who do obtain it should not all neglect it. If some can obtain it, the others are relieved of the duty [of obtaining it]; but those who do obtain it will be rewarded.

ON THE OBLIGATION OF MAN TO ACCEPT THE AUTHORITY OF THE PROPHET

A Declaration Concerning the Duty Imposed by God, as Laid Down in His Book, [Ordering Men] To Follow the Prophet’s Sunna

86. Shafi’i said: God has placed His Apostle—[in relation to] His religion, His commands and His Book—in the position made clear by Him as a distinguishing standard of His religion by imposing the duty of obedience to Him as well as prohibiting disobedience to Him. He has made His merits evident by associating belief in His Apostle with the belief in Him. For God, Blessed and Most High, said:

So believe in God and His Apostles, and do not say: “Three.� Refrain; [it will be] better for you. God is only one God. Glory be to Him. His having a son is something alien to him [Q. IV, 169].

And He said:

The believers are only those who have believed in God and His Apostle, and who when they are with him on some common affair do not go away until they ask his permission [Q. XXIV, 62].

Thus [God] prescribed that the perfect beginning of the faith, to which all other things are subordinate, shall be the belief in Him and then in His Apostle. For if a person believes only in Him, not in His Apostle, the name of the perfect faith will never apply to him until he believes in His Apostle together with Him.

So the Apostle laid down the sunna [of reciting the Prophet’s name together with that of God] for testing the faith of every man [as the following tradition indicates]:

Malik b. Anas told us from Hilal b. Usama from Ata’ b. Yasar from Umar b. al-Hakam, who said:

I went to the Apostle of God with a slave-girl and I asked him: ‘I have taken an oath [to free a slave]; may I free her?’ ‘Where is God?’ the Apostle asked her. ‘In heaven,’ she answered. ‘And who am I?’ asked he. ‘You are the Apostle of God,’ she answered. ‘You may free her,’ [the Prophet] said.

[The transmitter’s name, Umar b. al-Hakam — Shafi’i says—should read Mu’awiya b. al-Hakam, for Malik, I believe, has not correctly reported the name, as others did.

87. Shafi’i said: God has imposed the duty on men to obey His divine communications as well as the sunna of His Apostle. For He said in His Book:

O our Lord, raise up amongst them an Apostle, one of selves, to recite to them Thy signs and to teach them the Book and Wisdom and to purify them. Verily Thou art All-mighty, All-wise [Q. II, 123].

And He, glorious be His praise, said:

And also we have sent among you an Apostle, one of yourselves, to recite to you our signs, and purify you, to teach you the Book and the Wisdom, and to teach you what you did not know [Q. II, 146].

And He said:

God bestowed a favor upon the believers when He raised up amongst them an Apostle, one of themselves, to recite His signs to them, to purify them and to teach them the Book, although they had formerly been in manifest error [Q. III, 158].

And He, glorious be His praise, said:

It is He who has raised up an Apostle among the untutored people, one of their number to recite to them His signs, to purify them, and to teach them the Book and the Wisdom, though formerly they had been in manifest error [Q. LXII, 2].

And He said:

But remember the goodness which God has shown you and how much of the Book and the Wisdom He has sent down to you to admonish you thereby [Q. II, 231].

And He said:

God has sent down to thee the Book and the Wisdom, and has taught thee what thou did not know before; the bounty of God towards thee is ever great [Q. IV, 113].

And He said:

And call to mind the signs of God and the Wisdom which are recited in your houses; verily God is gentle, well-informed [Q. XXXIII, 34].

So God mentioned His Book—which is the Qur’an—and Wisdom, and I have heard that those who are learned in the Quran—whom I approve—hold that Wisdom is the sunna of the Apostle of God. This is like what [God Himself] said; but God knows best! For the Quran is mentioned [first], followed by Wisdom; [then] God mentioned His favor to mankind by teaching them the Qur’an and Wisdom. So it is not permissible for Wisdom to be called here [anything] save the sunna of the Apostle of God. For [Wisdom] is closely linked to the Book of God, and God has imposed the duty of obedience to His Apostle, and imposed on men the obligation to obey his orders. So it is not permissible to regard anything as a duty save that set forth in the Quran and the sunna of His Apostle. For [God], as we have [just] stated, prescribed that the belief in His Apostle shall be associated with the belief in Him.

The sunna of the Apostle makes evident what God meant [in the text of His Book], indicating His general and particular [commands]. He associated the Wisdom [embodied] in the sunna with his Book, but made it subordinate [to the Book]. Never has God done this for any of His creatures save His Apostle.

From Al Risala by Al Shafi

Western historians always questioned the validity of many of these hadiths.

[Truth_Teller]

I have noticed that many people claiming to represent Islam on this board are in fact Qadianis. This is a very dangerous and unfortunate thing. They are easily identified by their slogan: "Love for all, hatred for none" which they put in their avatars, signatures, etc.

First of all let me make it clear that it´s not necessarily Qadianis´ slogan but for other peaceful people (whether Jew, Christian etc) as well. As far as I know even Muhammad was a very peaceful person and he also taught us to love all and hate none. If you trying to say that it´s only Qadianis´ are identified by this slogan, is it possible that you are trying to show all Posters on The Forum that Muhammad´s slogan is "Hate or all, love for none"???

My appeal to all other Posters is that such brainwashed people are organ who hardly know a thing about their religion and they just put anyone outside the pale of Islam who preaches peaceful teahings of Islam.

Qadianism is a new religion that was started by an Indian Muslim in 19th century British India, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian.

So you are accepting that this religion was started by a Muslim? Good. Atleast you accept him as a Muslim.

He is basically the "Joseph Smith of Islam".

What if I call you the Jew who didn’t accept Jesus as The Massiah?

He claimed to have some revelations that God has made him the Imam Mahdi, the awaited Imam of the Muslims who according to Islam will appear in the latter days to rejuvenate and strengthen Islam. He later claimed that Jesus Christ is dead and buried and the prophecies of the reappearance of Jesus point to him.

So what if he declare him to be Imam Mahdi? He fulfilled all the prophecies made for Mahdi. (If you want to go in detail we can discuss on it my, dear friend).

But his greatest deviation was to claim to be a full fledged Prophet and Messenger of Allah, despite the fact the Holy Quran teaches that Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) is the Last and Final Prophet and no new prophet can come after him.

He never claimed himself to be a Prophet. He was the only Muslim who said that "NO PROPHET" can come after Muhammad (peace be upon him). That’s why he also proved that Jesus has died because if he will be back then Muhammad (peace be upon him) will not remain the Last Prophet..

Not only that, our Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) said that thirty individuals will arise from the Muslim ummah (community) each and everyone claiming to be a Prophet, but all of them would be liars and deceivers, because he (Muhammad) is the last and final prophet and La Nabiyya Ba'dee "There is no prophet after me". Mirza Qadiani was doubtless one of these false prophets forewarned by our beloved Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salam).

Where are the rest of 29? How long would you wait for other 29 to claim to false prophethood to welcome your Mahdi???

Mirza claimed that Islam teaches that Jesus has already died a natural death. He made this interpretation so he could justify claiming Messiahood for himself. However, the saying of our Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) is clear: "By Him in whose Hand my soul is (meaning by Allah), the Son of Mary (meaning none other than Jesus himself) will shortly descend among you as a just ruler and will break the cross and kill the swine."

So you mean he will come halding a sword in his hand and kill all the swine??? And will he march along all the Churches like Superman and break the Cross made all over the Churches??? Man "The Breaking of Cross" only meant that he will defeat Christians and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad also defeated many Christians in debates (this is not what I´m saying ask your Imam Israar Ahmad who also claimed that Mirza defeated comprehensively the Christians in debates on ARY Digital TV. And the word Isa Ibn-e Maryam was used because Mirza sahib was compared to Isa, as Isa was the Jewish Messiah so was Ghulam Ahmad the Messiah of Muslims. There are actually many reason why he was describes with the name of Isa Ibn-e Maryam because he had a lot of similarities with Isa like:

According to Wikipedia
Affinity with Jesus of Nazareth
Numerous similarities between Jesus of Nazareth and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad are drawn in Ahmadi writings, some of which relate to their person while others relate to the circumstances of their appearance, the deposition of the people of their age, and the nature of their mission. they include the following:
At the birth of both there was the appearance of a Comet. In the case of Jesus, a supernova occurred near the time of his birth and a "darkening of the sun" at the time of crucifixion. In the case of Ahmad, there occurred the "falling of stars" ( which his followers claim occurred as fulfillment of the sign mentioned for the second coming in Matthew 24:29). Ahmad's followers point out enormous meteor showers that occurred just before his birth in 1833, the appearance of Halley's Comet in 1835 (the year Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was born) and the meteor showers that occurred just before his claim in 1885.
Both appeared under a foreign, occupying government, Jesus within the eastern part of the Roman Empire and Ahmad within the eastern part of the British Empire.
Ahmad appeared around the same time after Muhammad as Jesus appeared after Moses. A significant point as Muhammad is compared to Moses in Islamic Hagiography.[51]
One of the reasons of Jesus's rejection was that the Jews were expecting the physical return of Elijah himself with the coming of the Messiah. Jesus answered this idea of a literal, physical return by identifying John the Baptist as fulfilling the second coming of Elijah. Similarly to the Jews of Jesus' time, one of the main reasons of Ahmad's rejection was that Muslims were/are awaiting the physical descent of Jesus himself. Ahmad gave the same example as did Jesus by stating that the 'second coming' would be of a spiritual and metaphorical nature and comparison, not a literal fulfillment.
The Jewish people believed their prophesied messiah will establish a physical Kingdom and will deliver Israel from Roman rule.[52] The Muslims believe their Mahdi to be a physical ruler who together with Jesus will deliver the Muslims from the disbelievers.[53]
Jesus appeared to be contrary to the physical expectations of the prophesied Messiah within Judaism and in contrast preached a message of humility, love, forgiveness and charity according to Christian tradition. Ahmad also appeared to be contrary to the physical expectations of the prophesied Messiah and Mahdi within Islam, did not advocate armed Jihad and preached the message of humility, forgiveness, charity, and prayer according to Ahmadiyya tradition.
Both were conspired against by their adversaries.
Disciples of both had left them at some point because of a failure to understand their teachings.
Both were accused of blasphemy by the current religious authorities.
Both had to face trials within the courts, though their trials differ in some respects.
Both were alleged to have died an 'accursed death'. �

This one saying of our Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa salam) is sufficient to refute the Qadiani claims decisively and conclusively. First of all, our Prophet said the "Son of Mary" will descend. Mirza is not the son of Mary, he is the son of Chiragh Bibi (his biological mother's name). Ibn Mariam (son of Mary) always refers to Jesus himself throughout the Quran and Sunnah, without any exception. Usually, people are referred to as son of their father's name, but because Jesus didn't have a father, he was from a virgin birth, therefore in Islam he is referred to as son of Mary.

I have explained already why he was named Isa Ibn-e Maryam because he had the similarities of Isa who was the son of Maryam. If you really think that the Messiah who will come must be the son of Maryam than read Qur´an that stats that Isa was foretold about the coming of Ahmad and we all know Muhammad name wasn´t Ahmad. Why wasn´t his name Ahmad???? If you want to take the exact meaning of the names then Why Muhammad´s name wasn´t Ahmad??? He claimed to be Ahmad after this revelation from God.

Secondly, our Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) said Jesus will come as a Hakam, which means a ruler, somebody who enforces a law, in a position of governmental authority, controlling a state, etc. Therefore, this prophecy eliminates Mirza Qadiani as a possible candidate for fulfilment because throughout his life Mirza was a subject of the British government of India, which ruled by English Common law, not the Shariah of Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wa salam).

Well how could Mirza Ghulam ahmad rule??? He brought back Caliphate that you so called Muslim lost after Hazhrat Ali. Man you are making the same mistake as jews did. They were waiting for someone who will rule and kill the other but when Isa (PBUH) came his teachings were loving, he never killed anyone, He never ordered anyone to lift sword. but he ruled the hearts of people and gave them the real Judaism.

By the way, as he didn’t killed anyone in the first coming how will he kill every non-Muslims in the second coming (according to your faith). In the first coming he was even hanged to cross but he didn’t ordered his followers to lift sword and fight. so loving are the messiah.

Judge for yourself, are Qadianis the true Muslims or outside the pale of Islam? According to the constitution of Pakistan and the High Courts of many countries, including South Africa, they are NOT Muslim.

Now I tell you something very interesing ( you might not be aware of it): the Land where MMhammad came is Saudi Arabia. There is ShariaH Law. And in Saudi Arabia you Sunnis are not allowed to preach as Salafism is the only religion allowed in Saudi arabia. And unfortunately you Sunnis are also not considered to be Muslim there (otherwise they would have not stopped you from preaching?.

Sidenote: The one who introduces people to other religion will always be the one to whom it´s simply unacceptable. If you really know a lot about your own religion then introduces that to us so that we can argue over it. Why introduce others´??? Are you Mirza Ghulam Ahmed´s spokesperson or what???

[Ilias Ahmad]

First of all let me make it clear that it´s not necessarily Qadianis´ slogan but for other peaceful people (whether Jew, Christian etc) as well. As far as I know even Muhammad was a very peaceful person and he also taught us to love all and hate none. If you trying to say that it´s only Qadianis´ are identified by this slogan, is it possible that you are trying to show all Posters on The Forum that Muhammad´s slogan is "Hate or all, love for none"???

"Love for all, hatred for none", was a slogan invented by that filthy man, Mirza Nasir Ahmad. This slogan goes completely against the teachings of the Holy Quran:

"Fainna Allaha la yuhibbu alkafireen" (For verily, Allah loves not those who are disbelievers (non-Muslims)) (aali Imran, 3:32)

And there are many examples of the Quran where Allah mentions that He loves such and such people because of a certain good quality, and He loves not such and such people because of their evil qualities. Tell me, does love for all and hatred for none include Satan? Should we love him as well (God forbid). Should we love the evildoers? Should we love Abu Lahab? You see how stupid Qadiani philosophy is, it has nothing to do with Islam.

So you are accepting that this religion was started by a Muslim? Good. Atleast you accept him as a Muslim.

Do not quote me out of context. I said the Qadiani religion was started by a man who was a Muslim. Definitely, Mirza was born into a Muslim family, and he was a Muslim until he began to preach his evil ideas. Thus Mirza was a murtad (apostate), meaning before he was a Muslim but than he became a disbeliever.

So what if he declare him to be Imam Mahdi? He fulfilled all the prophecies made for Mahdi. (If you want to go in detail we can discuss on it my, dear friend).

He may have fulfilled one or two prophecies, but the real Imam Mahdi will fulfill all the prophecies without exception. Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) said that Imam Mahdi will be his descendant, from the line of Fatima, his daughter. Mirza, however, was a descendant of Mirza Hadi Baig and his origin is from samarqand. Mirza himself admitted he is not the Mahdi: "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 vol. 5, Roohani Khazain vol.21 p.356)

So Mirza is contradicting himself, sometimes he says he is Imam Mahdi, other time he writes he is not same Imam Mahdi mentioned in the authentic ahadeeth.

Also, the real Imam Mahdi will rule the Arabs for seven to nine years, one of his signs is that he will give out so much money to the people without even counting it, and people will not be able to give zakat because no one will accept it!
However, your Mirza was such an opposite of Imam Mahdi, he was always begging his followers in newspaper to give him money to continue his anti-Islamic activities.

The real Imam Mahdi's name will not be "Mirza Ghulam Ahmad". According to authentic prophecy of Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salam), his name will match exactly his name, and his father's name will match exactly his father's name. Thus Imam Mahdi's name will be Muhammad, son of Abdullah. However, Mirza's name is neither Muhammad, and his father's name was Mirza Ghulam Murtaza (not Abdullah).

He never claimed himself to be a Prophet. He was the only Muslim who said that "NO PROPHET" can come after Muhammad (peace be upon him).

You are such a wretched liar like your master, Mirza Qadiani. But than what can one expect from Qadianis except lies and deceptions.

Look what your Mirza wrote in his book

[McCulloch]

Moderator Action

Please review the Rules.
1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. Comments about another poster that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.
14. In general, all members are to be civil and respectful.

You are such a wretched liar like your master, Mirza Qadiani. But than what can one expect from Qadianis except lies and deceptions.

If you cannot disagree in a civil manner then refrain from comment.

When the moderators feel the rules have been violated, a notice will frequently occur within the thread where the violation occurred, pointing out the violation and perhaps providing other moderator comments. Moderator warnings and comments are made publicly, within the thread, so that all members may see when and how the rules are being interpreted and enforced. However, note that any challenges or replies to moderator comments or warnings should be made via Private Message. This is so that threads do not get derailed into discussions about the rules.

[Ilias Ahmad]

...continued from above

Mirza Qadiani writes: "Only a few days ago, one of them (members of my Jamaat) was confronted with an objection that the person to whom he has sworn allegiance claimed to be a Prophet and Messenger, and the reply given was mere denial, which was not correct. The fact is that in divine revelations of which I am a recipient, words such as 'Messenger', 'Apostle', and 'Prophet' appear not once, but hundreds of times." (Ek Ghalati ka Izala)

So it is very clear that Mirza disapproves of people like you who deny that he is a prophet, because according to Mirza, he is a prophet and receives revelation from God to this effect. Of course we regard Mirza as a filthy liar and if he did have revelations, they were revelations from satan, not Allah.

Where are the rest of 29? How long would you wait for other 29 to claim to false prophethood to welcome your Mahdi???

Many, many people have risen from this ummah pretending to be prophets, but Mirza Qadiani is the most notorious of them. Perhaps you know about Musaylma the Liar. He arose during the life of our Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wa salam) and was killed during the khilafat of Hazrat Abu Bakr (razi Allahu anhu). He was killed because he claimed to be a prophet, and the blessed Sahaba can never tolerate such an evil thing, because they believe as we do that Muhammad is the Last and Final Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa salam).

Some of these false prophets include Rashad Khalifa, Mirza Hussain Ali ("Bahaullah" of Iran), Elijah Muhammad, and many others. Maybe all 30 of these liars have already come, or maybe some more are yet to come in the future. Allah knows best.

So you mean he will come halding a sword in his hand and kill all the swine??? And will he march along all the Churches like Superman and break the Cross made all over the Churches???

Yes, why not? After all, according to Holy Quran, the same Jesus returned vision to the blind, cured the lepers, fashioned a bird out of clay breathed into it and it came to life, and he even brought dead people back to life! All of these are miracles of the real Messiah (Jesus). Miracles are a sign of a true prophet. For example, Moses when he dropped the staff it turned into a serpent and exposed the magic of Pharoah's magicians. God also brought about the miraculous plagues which ravaged Egypt during the prophethood of Moses. And the moon was split in two for our beloved Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salam). These are all called miracles. These are all acts of Allah which He manifests through the hands of His prophets and saints.

However, Mirza Qadiani had a major dilemma. He claimed to be a prophet, but because he was a liar, Allah gave him no miracles. So he came up with a clever idea to deny the reality of miracles. For example, he accused Jesus (alaihi salam) of being a trickster (God forbid)!

In a footnote to his book "Shahadatul Quran", Mirza writes that Jesus just made a toy of a bird because he was a carpenter, and it was not really a miracle. Nor, according to Mirza, did Jesus raise any dead people to life. Thus Mirza tried to convince the people that miracles don't exist and twisted the clear meaning of the Holy Quran. What a wretched liar and deceiver, curse upon such an antichrist.

If you really think that the Messiah who will come must be the son of Maryam than read Qur´an that stats that Isa was foretold about the coming of Ahmad and we all know Muhammad name wasn´t Ahmad. Why wasn´t his name Ahmad???? If you want to take the exact meaning of the names then Why Muhammad´s name wasn´t Ahmad??? He claimed to be Ahmad after this revelation from God.

Ahmad is a title, ibn Maryam is not. Why can't you understand such a simple thing. Ahmad is basically the same meaning as Muhammad, it is one of his many names and titles, like Mahmood, Qasim, Mustafa, all of these are the names of Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salam).

However, ibn Mariam is a proper name, not a title. Ibn Mariam means son of Mary, but we all know Mirza was not son of Mary, he was son of Ghulam Murtaza and Chiragh Bibi.

Well how could Mirza Ghulam ahmad rule???

That is not my problem, it is yours. The prophecies clearly state that the Imam Mahdi will be a ruler, and so will the Promised Messiah. There are so many prophecies your Mirza didn't fulfill. He didn't even go for hajj, one of the five pillars of Islam which is obligatory on each and every Muslim! But the prophecies clearly state that when Isa ibn Mariam (alaihi salam) comes back he will go for hajj, and furthermore he will be buried next to the grave of Rasoolullah (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) in Madinah. Mirza is buried in Qadian, not Madinah.

Also, look how ugly Mirza Qadiani was, can you honesty say this is the face of a Prophet?



Look at his eyes. He was possessed.

[Ilias Ahmad]

Now I tell you something very interesing ( you might not be aware of it): the Land where MMhammad came is Saudi Arabia. There is ShariaH Law. And in Saudi Arabia you Sunnis are not allowed to preach as Salafism is the only religion allowed in Saudi arabia. And unfortunately you Sunnis are also not considered to be Muslim there (otherwise they would have not stopped you from preaching?.

First of all, I am a Salafi. And alhamdulillah, Saudi Arabia is a blessed land, and the Saudi government is the best government on the face of the Earth. there is no difference between Salafi and Sunni, rather Salafis are the true Sunnis, the true sect of Islam is Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat.

Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) said that there will come 73 sects in Islam, all of them are in the fire except for one. His companions asked which one is that (the saved sect). He answered: "that which I and my companions are upon". So the true Islam is Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah, the people who follow the sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) and adhere to the Jamaat, the way of the Companions.

Mirza Qadiani started his own sect called "Ahmadiyyah" and he forbade his followers to pray behind the orthodox Sunni Muslims. Is there any question Mirza was trying to start his own religion? Everything we Muslims hold dear he trashed to pieces. He replaced the position of Muhammad as prophet, he replaced the sanctity of Madinah with the sanctity of Qadian, he replaced Zakaat with his 10% chanda, he replaced Jannatul Baqi cemetary with his own cemetary "Beheshti Maqbara". He replaced Hajj with "Jalsa Salana". He changed everything in our religion. May Allah give him what he truly deserves. (Ameen).

[JoeyKnothead]

So some dude named Joseph Smith starts up his own version of a previously existing religion, and we can use this to compare to some dude who starts up a new version of Islam.

But in no way are we to think that good old Muhammed did the same thing. Oh heck no, he was the real deal, he says so in this book he wrote. Oh, and by the way, if you don't believe the version of religion dear old Muhammed wrote, then we will make you pay a tax, or we'll kill you, or we will punish you in innumberable other ways.

But ours is the one religion, out of all that you can think of, that loves you. No really. No, it says so. Why are you laughing? Quit laughing at me!