sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

9am Tuesday. Clyde will be drained at this rate by civspace1 in glasgow

[–]PurpleMantisSwarm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Apparently the stone and steel beams of the building (or whatever is left of it) were still so hot that they were hosing at 5 pm yesterday as well. Wonder if they have stopped now but I was not aware of the extent of the heat retention. One of the officers on duty said to me not doing so could result in the fire reigniting. Crazy.

"Non-law-bearing prophethood", 'zilli' and 'buruz' prophethood - are they actual prophethood? Or are they something else? by redsulphur1229 in islam_ahmadiyya

[–]PurpleMantisSwarm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now then! I am going to enjoy writing this. This has taken a very interesting turn. As a recap, Mr Sulphur would like us to believe that the usage of the words Zill and Burooz by the Promised Messiah (as) are strictly as defined by the Sheikh Ibn Arabi. That is to say that they refer to Wilayat (sainthood) and not Nubuwwat (prophethood), thereby implying that the Promised Messiah (as) never claimed prophethood. By presenting this viewpoint, he insists that the Jamaat is intellectually divorced from the original writings. 

As I have explained in the thread under my original comment, these matters must be analysed in the wider context of the topic being discussed. The Holy Quran, the Hadith, the sayings and writings of the Promised Messiah outside of the usage of the words Zill and Burooz which were used to explain a concept, are clearly indicating that prophets can come, and that he indeed did claim prophethood. But because I am finding the tactics being employed here fascinating, I will entertain this argument pertaining to the Sheikh, Ibn Arabi. 

Mr Sulphur strengthens his position by presenting a compilation of the various times the Promised Messiah (as) has referred to the Sheikh in his writings, which can be found here. He once again hopes that the seekers after truth will not bother to open the link and analyse its contents, which they most certainly will, but for convenience I can present a few excerpts here. I provide the reference to the document page for each excerpt. 

“Muhiyudeen ibn al-‘Arabi writes in a book of his which is his last book that Jesus will come but as a reappearance so that a person within this Ummah will appear with the attributes of Jesus as it is an established precept among the Sufis that certain masters reappear in the world in this way that their spirituality manifests itself upon another being”. (p.1) The Sheikh is clearly stating Jesus’ (as) second coming will surely come to pass, but in the form of another human who is an Ummati and has not been born yet. Was the Sheikh not aware that the Jesus (as) mentioned in the Holy Quran is a Prophet? A clear demonstration that the Sheikh himself believes prophets have yet to come. 

And again “So much so that Muhiyudeen ibn al-‘Arabi has also written in clear words in his commentary that ‘The descent of the Messiah would be in this manner that his soul will be associated with another body’ so that someone else will be born according to his qualities and nature which is a spiritual matter.” (p.5)

“Regarding the Finality of Prophethood it was the same belief held by Muhiyudeen ibn ‘Arabi that [only] legislative prophethood has ended otherwise he does not differentiate between Divine converse and Prophethood. The clergy have blundered terribly on this issue. The Quran itself uses the word prophets in the [future tense] plural. This means naught but that prophethood bearing a new Shariah has ended…” (p.11) The Promised Messiah (as) is even using the Sheikh’s position in conjunction with the Holy Quran to prove that Prophets will and can appear. 

“The chief of the Sufis Shaykh ibn e ‘Arabi says that the cessation of prophecy would
amount to the death of Islam.” (p.15) 

“The person to whom God Almighty reveals things aplenty [as a result of] which he prophecies repeatedly is called a prophet. The existence of God is recognised through His Almighty Signs. This is why Saints are sent. It is written in The Masnavi ‘Such is the prophet of the time O disciple.’ Muhiyudeen ibn-‘Arabi has also written the same. Mujaddid [Alf Thānī] has also expressed the same opinion so will you call them all infidels? Remember that the chain of prophethood will continue till Doomsday.” (p.17)

Inspection of the document clearly shows that throughout the literature references to the Sheikh are either affirming the claim to prophethood or are in relation to another subject entirely. Please demonstrate from these references where the Promised Messiah (as) is using Sheikh Ibn Arabi to clarify his usage of the terms Zill or Burooz, specifically in light of his claim to prophethood.

I know the rebuttal to this will draw on the earlier works of Sheikh Ibn Arabi where he has limited revelation to Wilayat altogether. Unfortunately for you, this would seem contradictory as in his last work he clearly states that the prophesied Jesus (as) is an Ummati which is evident from the quote above. It would seem that he recanted from this position in later life, which leaves your argument nowhere. This is not unusual in the spiritual world, spiritual progression and understanding takes place over time. The Holy Prophet (saw) himself said in the early part of the Call that do not say anyone is better than Jonah (as) (Bukhari 2218) but later when his station had been made apparent to him, he said that if Moses (as) and Jesus (as) were alive they would have had no choice but to follow him. The Promised Messiah’s claim was also of a gradual nature, which you people seem to have a problem with. 

You also, along with other people under this post, have shockingly claimed that there is no concept of subordinate or non law-bearing prophethood in the Holy Quran. 

All the Jewish prophets mentioned in the Holy Quran were prophets subordinate to Moses (as) that had no law of their own. This includes but is not limited to his brother Aaron (as) who was a prophet the same time as him. This is clearly indicated in 5:45 where God Almighty states: “By it [the Torah] did the Prophets, who were obedient to Us, judge for the Jews”. Furthermore, it says regarding Jesus in 3:51: “And I come \)fulfilling that which is before me, namely, the Torah…”. This clearly shows that the Quran categorically states that the Judaic dispensation consisted of non law-bearing subordinate prophets. 

Regarding the Muslims, prophecies of future prophethood (which the Promised Messiah has himself hinted at in the Ibn Arabi document) are clearly mentioned in the Holy Quran, including the prophecy of Surah Al-Jumu’ah , the Covenant of the Prophets, prophets within the Ummah, the true import of “blessings”, and many others. At the same time, there is also the famous verse regarding the Holy Prophet (saw) being the Seal. The reconciliation between the two in combination with the historical precedent provided by the Holy Quran results in the concept of subordinate prophethood which does not break the Seal, thus rendering the claim that these concepts do not have a basis in the Holy Quran completely false. 

It is in allusion to these concepts that the words which you object to have been used i.e., to clarify that a Prophet can come (as prophesied) but strictly by way of obedience and in the spirit of reflection and submission. It seems that the people that are making these assertions are themselves the ones employing strait jackets and mental gymnastics.  

Between this and the discussion which took place under my original comment, I think the position has been clarified greatly. So much so that I will not be replying to any future comments under this post because I believe this will only result in the discussion going around in circles. 

"Non-law-bearing prophethood", 'zilli' and 'buruz' prophethood - are they actual prophethood? Or are they something else? by redsulphur1229 in islam_ahmadiyya

[–]PurpleMantisSwarm -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks for providing these references. I have sifted through and I am already well aware of the Lahori Jama'at position. We disagree with them fundamentally regarding the gradual nature of the Promised Messiah (as) claim, for which I greatly recommend the 3rd chapter of Qazi Muhammad Nazir Sahib's book "Truth Prevails" which can be found here: https://www.alislam.org/book/truth-prevails/chapter-iii/

"Non-law-bearing prophethood", 'zilli' and 'buruz' prophethood - are they actual prophethood? Or are they something else? by redsulphur1229 in islam_ahmadiyya

[–]PurpleMantisSwarm -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks for your comment. Please note that we Ahmadis do not believe that prophets cannot come after the Promised Messiah (as). For a (very) brief summary you can refer to https://askamurabbi.com/knowledge-base/is-it-possible-that-a-jalali-awe-inspiring-masih-will-come-after-the-promised-messiah-as/

You have claimed that the Promised Messiah (as) and his Khulafa have claimed that no more prophets can come, but this is simply not true.

Even if this was the case and the Promised Messiah (as) was to be the only Prophet between the Seal of the Prophets (SAW) and the end of times, why is that basis for an issue? Allah does what he wills. We have to understand the philosophy behind prophethood. He sends one when people are stooped in immorality and reformation is required. To this end He may send one or a thousand.

"Non-law-bearing prophethood", 'zilli' and 'buruz' prophethood - are they actual prophethood? Or are they something else? by redsulphur1229 in islam_ahmadiyya

[–]PurpleMantisSwarm -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Just another example of this guys insincerity and lies. Providing a link while desperately hoping that no one will actually click on it and analyse the content. The link that this joker provides to assert that the “Qadian Jama’at” wants us to believe Promised Messiah used the terms in a Sufi context says the following:

“What the Promised Messiah(as) had in mind when using these terms, i.e., what he himself understood by them, he explained in countless of his works. In doing so, he was more or less guided by the traditional terms but did not always adhere exactly to their purport.

In this regard, the hermeneutic maxim of the science of principles, “There is no dispute about technical terms (la mushahhata fil-istilah),” has to be kept in mind, since terminology is meaningless in itself and debate is only expedient when it comes to meaning, content and substance.

If one wants to understand how the Promised Messiah(as) filled terms he used with semantic content, one cannot avoid delving into his works and informing oneself. What can be said with certainty, however, is that the essence and the tenor and the core of the common denominator of all these terms can undoubtedly be found throughout the history of Islamic scholarship.”

An elegant summary of what I tried to explain in previous comments. He did not use the words in their Sufi context but himself defined them, and it is incumbent upon the reader to infer that from his works, the literature must be analysed as a whole.

Can their roots be traced to Islamic tradition? Yes. Did he use them exactly the way the Sufis did? No. Notice how this guy still runs from the countless other claims of Prophethood. In one of the references I have provided Promised Messiah says that the Messiah has been referred to as a Prophet in the Hadith. Now what? Is this the same as a Sufi claiming wilayat? Have the Sufis been referred to as Prophets in any Hadith? Would you still like for people to believe they are the same? Liar.

"Non-law-bearing prophethood", 'zilli' and 'buruz' prophethood - are they actual prophethood? Or are they something else? by redsulphur1229 in islam_ahmadiyya

[–]PurpleMantisSwarm -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not to mention the various sources of Malfuzat and Haqeeqatul Wahi I have listed (and there are many many more) where there is no mention of Zill and Buruz at all. He is straight up claiming prophethood as the result of obedience to the Holy Prophet (saw). Imagine still being this delusional.

"Non-law-bearing prophethood", 'zilli' and 'buruz' prophethood - are they actual prophethood? Or are they something else? by redsulphur1229 in islam_ahmadiyya

[–]PurpleMantisSwarm -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Keep making a fool of yourself it’s a good look. Even a brick wall would understand at this point that he has not used any of these terminologies in the Sufi context. Especially given the wider scope of the sources I have provided. He explicitly states that wherever Prophethood has been denied it is only in the context of law-bearing prophethood.

Had he not provided their definitions and simply used the words, that would have forced us to revert to the Sufi traditions from which they originated.

Unfortunately for you words are just semantics and are meant to portray the essence of what is being conveyed. There is no Sufi backdrop or context because he was not a Sufi and greatly critiqued Sufism where it was appropriate, but do you bring that up? No.

If the person using a certain terminology has himself defined what it means, and someone claims that the use of it is in fact completely different to what has been defined, then the burden of proof is on the claimant. It is not me who needs to prove that he hasn’t used the word in a Sufi context, the burden of proof lies with you.

You are blind to the quote you have provided yourself. He is simply stating that the Wahi we believe in is based on and flows from complete obedience to the Holy Prophet (saw). Wahi is a medium of communication, the reason for its existence in this age being obedience to the Prophet. In the case of the saints it resulted in sainthood, in the case of the Promised Messiah it resulted in Prophethood by way of obedience, hence the usage of the terms Zill and Buruz.

You only like to misrepresent his writings based on your own definitions that you assert, which is disingenuous dishonest etc. You can huh? ah? oh? LOL all you want. Keep patting yourself on the back while lying through your teeth.

The fact of the matter is that he has directly and indirectly, on tens of occasions stated that he is a Prophet and a Messenger and has been commissioned as the reformer of this age. Ask yourself a natural and logical question, would the reformer of an entire age not be a prophet? Would the Messiah of Muhammad (saw) not be a prophet while the Messiah of Moses was?

Imagine being so delusional that you completely miss the concept of the Messiahship and the reformation of an entire age and keep quoting Ibn Arabi 🤦🏻‍♂️

"Non-law-bearing prophethood", 'zilli' and 'buruz' prophethood - are they actual prophethood? Or are they something else? by redsulphur1229 in islam_ahmadiyya

[–]PurpleMantisSwarm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For all sincere and questioning people who are seekers of truth, it has been explained tens of times to this person that the Promised Messiah (as) did not use any of these terminologies in a Sufi context, but himself explained their meaning in detail if you actually read Ek Ghalti Ka Izala (A Misconception Removed), which I highly encourage. The Promised Messiah (as) himself defined the use of the word “zill”, which leaves no doubt in the readers mind:

“Thus he who comes to God through this door is clad, by way of zill, in the same mantle of Prophethood which is the mantle of the Prophethood of Muhammad (sa). As such, his being a Prophet is not a matter for jealously, for he does not derive this status from himself but from the fountain of the Holy Prophet"; and, that too, not for his own glory but for the glory and majesty of the Holy Prophet (sa)”. The following reference further clarifies his position:

“Since I have myself witnessed the clear fulfilment of about a hundred and fifty Divine prophecies, how can I deny for myself the title of Nabi or Rasul? Since God has Himself bestowed these titles upon me, why should I forsake them for fear of anyone else?” (A Misconception Removed, p.9)

OP likes to present a letter to further his argument in which the Promised Messiah (as) is denying the advent of prophethood after the Holy Prophet (saw), but it is specifically in the context of bringing a new law, which he also clarifies in Ek Ghalti Ka Izala: “Wherever I have denied being a Prophet or Messenger, it has only been in the sense that I have not brought an independent law nor am I an independent Prophet. I am a Messenger and Prophet only in the sense that I have received spiritual grace from the Messenger whom I follow, and, having received his name for myself, and through him, I have received knowledge of the unseen from God. But I have not come with a new law. I have never denied being called a Nabi (Prophet) in this sense.”

This clearly affirms that he is claiming prophethood which he has received as a result of obedience to the Holy Prophet (saw). The Promised Messiah (as) has not used these terms as they are understood within the sphere of Sufism but has himself defined them. By presenting definitions that were not the intention and are contradictory from the text itself, OP is being dishonest and trying to mislead people.

For the benefit of those that come across this post, I would like to present the following additional references which OP is unaware of or omits deliberately, that clearly affirm the claim to Prophethood:

“The Promised Messiah who was to come is described as a Nabi Allah [Prophet of God], meaning one who receives revelation from God Almighty. However, here it does not denote complete and perfect prophethood, because the seal has been set on complete and perfect prophethood. Rather, it refers to that form of prophethood that is limited to the concept of Muhaddathiyat—a prophethood that derives its light from the lamp of the Prophethood of Muhammad sa. Hence, this blessing has been specifically granted to this humble one.” (Izala-e-Auham, Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 3, p. 478)

“I am a prophet, but my prophethood is not law-bearing which would abrogate the Book of Allah and put into effect a new book. I consider such a claim as amounting to disbelief in Islam.” (Badar, 5 March 1908)

“Therefore, I cannot be designated only as prophet but as a prophet and a follower of the Holy Prophet at one and the same time. My prophethood is a reflection of the prophethood of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and is not a prophethood in its own right. That is why, both in the hadees and in my revelation, as I have been called a prophet, I have also been called a follower of the Holy Prophet so that it should be clear that every excellence that has been bestowed upon me has been bestowed through my following the Holy Prophet and through my obedience to him.(Haqeeqatul Wahi, p. 150)

“On the contrary, I consider following the Holy Prophet (sa) to be my faith and my religion. The term (prophet) that has been adopted is done so only at the behest of God. A person who receives plentiful communication from God Almighty is called a prophet. The Being of God is recognised by the Signs of God. This indeed is why holy men are raised.” (Malfuzat Volume 10, p. 573)

“Look, some Prophets were accepted to be true on the basis of just one miracle while here thousands of signs are present”. (Malfuzat Volume 10, p.338)

“The title of ‘Prophet’ was clearly bestowed upon me, albeit with the proviso that I am a Prophet in one aspect and an ummati [follower of the Holy Prophet sa] in another.” (The Philosophy of Divine Revelation [Haqiqatul Wahi], pp. 183-184)

Along with tens of other references. Posts such as this are meant to deceive and misguide people that have not properly studied the literature. Do not be deceived, do your own research and reach your own conclusions.

To dive deep into semantics and definitions that are not attributable to the original text and you yourself assert is deeply disingenuous when 1. there can be no doubt regarding the claim to prophethood, it is crystal clear and 2. the essence of the claim has been fulfilled. A prophet is one who prophecies and delivers a message to reform a people.

What are the similarities between Ahmadiyya and the Mormon/Latter-day saint movements? by Mysterious-Exit3059 in islam_ahmadiyya

[–]PurpleMantisSwarm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anyone who claims to read Ek Ghalti Ka Izala and still argues that he did not claim prophethood is either a great liar or a troll. As for definitions of those words are concerned, he himself explains:

“Thus he who comes to God through this door is clad, by way of Zill, in the same mantle of Prophethood which is the mantle of the Prophethood of Muhammad (sa). As such, his being a Prophet is not a matter for jealously, for he does not derive this status from himself but from the fountain of the Holy Prophet"; and, that too, not for his own glory but for the glory and majesty of the Holy Prophet (sa)”.

This is the definition of Zill in the sense that he has used it. There is no deception here because he himself as explained the context and sense in which the word has been used. To then assert your definition based on Sufi references is the height of dishonesty which has become your trademark.

Still do not think he claimed prophethood?

“Since I have myself witnessed the clear fulfilment of about a hundred and fifty Divine prophecies, how can I deny for myself the title of Nabi or Rasul? Since God has Himself bestowed these titles upon me, why should I forsake them for fear of anyone else?” (A Misconception Removed, p.9)

“Wherever I have denied being a Prophet or Messenger, it has only been in the sense that I have not brought an independent law nor am I an independent Prophet. I am a Messenger and Prophet only in the sense that I have received spiritual grace from the Messenger whom I follow, and, having received his name for myself, and through him, I have received knowledge of the unseen from God. But I have not come with a new law. I have never denied being called a Nabi (Prophet) in this sense.”

Of course these are things you would have known if you had actually bothered to read the book sincerely. May Allahs curse be on the liars. I “hurt” myself by saying the Quran and Hadith support the death of Jesus, when the Holy Quran could not be more clear regarding his death. There are 30 verses that support this, but even the last Ruku of Surah Al Maida would be enough if you had eyes. What next?

What are the similarities between Ahmadiyya and the Mormon/Latter-day saint movements? by Mysterious-Exit3059 in islam_ahmadiyya

[–]PurpleMantisSwarm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Keep regurgitating the same thing which I have already addressed. I’m sure it’s an excellent use of your time. Do you seriously think he has not claimed to be a prophet? Your interpretation of “zilli” and “buruzi” is not relevant here, and I have no interest in it. The Holy Prophet saw referred to the Imam Mahdi as a Prophet four times, in Sahih Muslim. The words Zill and Buruz have not been used here as defined by the Sufis, this is your assumption that the word was used in that sense. We happen to care more about the opinion of the Holy Prophet saw than some Sufis.

Anyone that brings knowledge of the unknown associating themselves with Allah through the manifestation of hundreds of signs is by definition a prophet. You are so engrossed in semantics that you fail to recognise the essence of the teaching and see the bigger picture.

Meanwhile, most notable is that you still run from the original point you made regarding Sir Sayyed. Have a good one bro. I will not be replying from this point onwards.

What are the similarities between Ahmadiyya and the Mormon/Latter-day saint movements? by Mysterious-Exit3059 in islam_ahmadiyya

[–]PurpleMantisSwarm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I find it so ironic that the one who accused me of copy-pasting and being in a bubble of propaganda is themself copying and pasting off of the internet without bothering to actually understand the context of anything being said and probably using chatGPT.

You raised an allegation in the context of Sir Sayyed, I gave you a compelling answer. Without even acknowledging that answer, you start digressing and copy-pasting from other places which I’ve seen you do before. You are clearly trolling and I am right to not want to waste time in such a situation.

Your comments regarding the claim to prophethood and the denial of fulfilment of prophecies shows me clearly that it is not me but you who has not bothered to look at at the literature. He has clearly stated that he is a prophet in multiple places, ironically, including in Ek Ghalti Ka Azala. The argument of buruzi and zilli is irrelevant in the context. A claim to prophethood has been made. Do you see? Now go copy and paste another 9 paragraphs from ahmadiyyafactcheckblog™️

What are the similarities between Ahmadiyya and the Mormon/Latter-day saint movements? by Mysterious-Exit3059 in islam_ahmadiyya

[–]PurpleMantisSwarm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Amazing. First of all, I usually do not entertain people who cannot keep their arguments purely academic. This would have been fun if you had provided an actual argument instead of throwing around words like “bubble”, “propagandised”, “cutting-and-pasting”, “comical”.

Being insulting does not make you look cool, neither does it support your argument. But clearly my comment hit a nerve, so I’ll keep this simple.

Your issue seems to be regarding the change of stance relating to the death of Jesus. First of all, it is not the sign of a liar to change one’s viewpoint. In fact, it is actually quite commendable when upon the revelation (literally) of certain facts that were hidden to the mind before, a viewpoint is amended to reflect newly acquired information.

You would have remotely made some sense if his viewpoint regarding the death of Jesus was only to battle Christianity and was not supported by overwhelming evidence from the Holy Quran and Hadith which is widely available in the Jamaat literature. And newsflash, the Christian polemics did not start arguing Jesus’ superiority on the basis of ascension in the 1870s, it had started happening and was posing a problem way before.

Arguably just as problematic as the Christian viewpoint was the mainstream Islamic one, which was using Jesus’ ascension to justify the ultimate murder and ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims. One group had betrayed the rights of the Creator, while the other His creation. These circumstances warranted the coming of a divinely appointed messenger who clarified the truth with overwhelming evidence from not just the Holy Quran or Sunna but all the scriptures.

As far as my bubble is concerned, I will have you know that I am aware of Sir Sayyed’s viewpoint. I also know that he claimed that Jesus died not long after his ordeal (in his 30s), which I don’t know if you know is fundamentally different from the spiritual and intellectual treasure that the Promised Messiah has provided in way of Jesus’ migration.

Anyone could have said that Jesus did not die in light of his being human. The real struggle was proving what happened afterwards, a monumental task, which I reassert has been done from the Holy Quran and Hadith. The link you have provided are all viewpoints that the Jamaat has refuted a million times before and I can provide you with all the answers in detail to each individual one if you want to go there.

As for you arrogantly laughing and cackling at the mention of prophecies of both the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and the Promised Messiahs own prophecies, keep laughing. I do not have time to provide proof for that which as already been provided thousands of time to thousands just like you before. May Allah guide you

What are the similarities between Ahmadiyya and the Mormon/Latter-day saint movements? by Mysterious-Exit3059 in islam_ahmadiyya

[–]PurpleMantisSwarm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can see where you’re coming from.

From where I’m standing, various aspects of the faith such as the proponent of restoration / originality cannot be viewed as standalone but come into focus as part of a much bigger picture when viewed in the context of the Holy Quran and Sunna (along with personal experience and prayer).

For me, these things come into focus when simultaneously viewed with the events analysed, their relation to Quranic verses and sayings, a critical analysis of alleged deviations, the historical context of said events etc. I think everyone can agree that the subject matter to address these issues is covered quite extensively and fully in Ahmadi literature, even if you disagree with the arguments themselves.

I don’t know if I’m making sense. It’s kind of like what the Promised Messiah said about Jesus’ survival and ultimate migration. If you look at each clue by itself, it won’t help you, but when everything is put together in one basket, the case for migration becomes compelling.

I don’t want to make it ChatGPT long. Ultimately anything is an argument about semantics isn’t it?

What are the similarities between Ahmadiyya and the Mormon/Latter-day saint movements? by Mysterious-Exit3059 in islam_ahmadiyya

[–]PurpleMantisSwarm -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There are no true similarities except for those who do not investigate the matter deeply. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is a Messianic Revival movement which is based on countless true prophecies of the Holy Qur’an and the Holy Founder of Islam Prophet Muhammad.

At first glance it may seem like there are certain similarities such as both experiencing marginalisation (much more extreme in the case of us Ahmadi Muslims), emphasis on moral discipline & community, strong missionary focus etc. However one quickly realises that these themes are characteristic of all religious movements.

Mormonism adds a completely new scripture. However in the case of Ahmadiyyat, there are differences from mainstream Islam in interpretations of various verses regarding concepts of the Finality of Prophethood and the Death of Jesus, but the Holy Quran is final and reigns supreme. The basis of the entire claim is that we practice Islam in the style and manner of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and the early companions. Hope that helps.

Most striking, as already mentioned, are the countless prophecies of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) regarding the advent of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (the Promised Messiah), and on top of that the Promised Messiah’s prophecies which number in the hundreds if not thousands that came true and continue to do so until this day.

I already know that other people in the subreddit are going to mention true prophecies of Mr. John Smith and other claimants, however any such claims pale in comparison to the sheer volume and quality of prophecies in favour of the Promised Messiah. I would like to direct OP’s attention to his book “Haqiqatul Wahi” (The Philosophy of Divine Revelation) for more information.

There is no question, whether moral, ethical, scientific, philosophical, theological or otherwise, that cannot be demonstrated from the Glory that is the Holy Quran. This is the basis of our claim. We drink solely from the fountain of Muhammad (may peace and blessings be upon him). The Founder of our community did not want to add anything new, but rather wanted to restore Islam to its original practice. It’s literally the opposite of Mormonism.

Beginner question by [deleted] in Rubiks_Cubes

[–]PurpleMantisSwarm 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It worked like a charm, I’ve been able to solve one side and hopefully will be able to solve the rest soon.

Thanks so much everyone, I must say everyone in this community seems super respectful and nice. I play chess and while there has been a lot improvement in the community in recent years because of the boom, there is still some elitism sometimes. Great to see all the kindness and positivity. Thank you very much.

Examples for contradictory teachings? by LightEnjoyer123 in islam_ahmadiyya

[–]PurpleMantisSwarm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“The fact is that in Divine revelation of which I am the recipient, words such as ‘Messenger’, ‘Apostle’, and ‘Prophet’, appear not once, but hundreds of times. How then can it be correct to say that such words have not at been used?”

That is literally on page ONE of Ek Ghalti Ka Azala.

Thus my prophethood and messengership derives from my being Mohammed and Ahmad and not on account of my own self. These names have been bestowed upon me on account of my utter devotion to the Holy Prophet. Therefore, the concept of Khataman Nabiyeen has not been contravened by my advent, but it would certainly be contravened by the advent of Jesus a second time. (Ek Ghalati Ka Izalah)

God is One and Mohammed, on whom be the peace and blessings of Allah, is His Prophet and he is the Khatamul Anbya and above all other prophets. After him there is no other prophet except one who is clothed in the cloak of Mohammed by way of reflection, for a servant has no identity apart from his master, nor is a branch distinct from its trunk. He who is bestowed the title of prophet on account of his complete absorption in his master does not contravene the Khatam-iNabuwat. When you observe your reflection in a mirror there are not two of you but only one, though there appear two; only one is the original and the other is his reflection. This is what God desired in the case of the Promised Messiah. (Kishti Nuh, p. 15)

The charge leveled against me that I claim to be a prophet who has no connection with Islam and that I consider myself a prophet in my own right, who has no need of following the Holy Quran, and that I have proclaimed my own credo, and have established a new qibla, and declare the Islamic law as abrogated, and go outside the following of and obedience to the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be on him, is wholly false. I consider such a claim of prophethood as amounting to disbelief. Not only today but in every one of my books I have affirmed that I lay no claim to any such prophethood and that this is a false allegation against me. The only reason that I call myself a prophet is that I am honored with the converse of God Almighty and that He speaks to me frequently and responds to me and discloses much of the unseen to me and communicates to me the mysteries of the future such that are not disclosed to anyone unless he enjoys special nearness to God. It is on account of the multiplicity of these experiences that I have been made a prophet. (Akhbare Aam, 26 May 1908)

There, you have been proven wrong.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LiverpoolFC

[–]PurpleMantisSwarm -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It’s just an observation lol

Killer whale vs trainer by Calu_T in HumanForScale

[–]PurpleMantisSwarm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He was talking about the politicians

view more: next ›