(Source: Al Qur'an 33:40)
The phrase "last in the line of Prophets" means there will be NO more. This is "The foundation" of Islamic faith and an honest question can be asked without being hateful against followers of Mirza Gulam Ahmad.
Again I have spent many hours with his followers in Bangladesh and have nothing more to add than, we have some theological differences.
(Abu Dawood Vol 2 p. 228; Tirmidhi Vol 2 p.45)")
The problem starts when these people try to "Convert" Muslims to their ways. Which begs the question that, IF they were Muslims to start with why do they need to establish separate mosques?
As I said earlier, there are some genuine issues but that does NOT justify violence against them. Rather I have to admire them for standing up against Christian missionaries during colonial era in the sub-continents.
I have given link to "Foundations of Islamic faith", click on it to see why Muslims are careful NOT to admit any "new" prophets after the "Final messengers of Allah" (PBUH).
Again, you asked a very good question and unless you have some basic information, it is easy to get confused.
Brother, it basically boils down to who can scream louder. Even Shias might not be considered as true Muslims according to some idiots and hence, they can be legitimate target for elimination. Look, Islam has taken a totally wrong path. It wants to purify itself from something that might not be even pure? Sad to say that it has totally failed to deliver anything to its followers in its own backyards.
>>>>>>>>> I actually agree with you. The shias do not have "Religious differences" with me rather the sect started based on "Political difference". After prophet Muhammad (PBUH) died, his followers were divided about his successor. One group wanted to next leader to be from his family (Hazrat Ali bin Abi Talib) and a great number wanted to honor prophet's wish the make the best Muslim among them to be the next leader. There were no confusion about how devoted Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) was. They wanted to negate him because he was not from "Family of prophet Muhammad"(PBUH).
Eventually Hazrat Ali Bin Abi Talib was nominated as leader of the Muslims but before that, there were three leaders. So this story shows Muslims were very progressive for that time (1400 years ago!) and they elected a leader based on his merit rather than his last name or who he married. According to most historians even Hazrat Ali (RA) was not so keen to be the leader but it was some Muslims who eventually established sect based on this "POLITICAL" difference.
Therefore, from outside the Ahmedi issue and shia issue may look the same BUT they are not!
Having said that, I agree that some gulf countries make too much out of this "Political difference" and it is NOT worth fighting over among Muslims. Right now Shia led Iran and Sunni lead Saudi Arabia are engaged in proxy wars to increase their respective sphere of influence. At personal level, I fail to see any "Religious" significance in such "Conflict". Current Syria conflict is one fine example of this sick mentality among Muslims leaders.
Bottom line is, Islam calls Muslims to spread peace among humanity and many Muslims falls short of this teaching because of their hunger of power, ego and arrogance. Nothing justifies violence against Ahmedia people or conflicts among shia and sunni (AKA Sunnah) population.
My two cents....
Shalom!
From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Oct 19, 2012 7:53 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] : Shah Abdul Hannan--রামু, সাম্প্রদায়িকতা ও অসাম্প্রদায়িকতা ---Ramu, Communalism and Noncommunalism
-SD
From: Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] : Shah Abdul Hannan--রামু, সাম্প্রদায়িকতা ও অসাম্প্রদায়িকতা ---Ramu, Communalism and Noncommunalism
Sent from my iPhone
Like member Shubimal, I know people from this group and have no personal issues with them. As Muslims it is a per-condition to have faith in "One unseen God" and His "Last messenger Muhammad (PBUH)". This is part of our "Shahada" and fundamental issue of the faith.
Ahmedi followers do agree with One God but they also feel like there are other messengers after "The last messenger of God". They have some different narrative about how Jesus left this world and how they perform Namaz.
I strongly believe in freedom of picking any faith of our choices and Ahmedi group should be protected by this value from any violence. If someone has an issue with them claiming "Muslim", they can file a case against it to examine the claim.
My personal feeling is, we can have a win-win solution by calling them "Ahmedi-Muslim". That way rest of the world would know what they stand for and will not confuse them with "Islam preached by prophet Muhammad (PBUH)" and they will retain the right to have a claim as "Muslims".
Once upon a time, I have a very detail discussion/debate on the issue with one of their members and he agreed with my point of view. Since there are "Fundamental" differences between "Islam practiced by 1.7 billion Muslims" and what "Ahmedi" group follows and preaches.
A simple "Truth in labeling" concept can satisfy both parties and I strongly oppose any violence against such groups. This attitude of picking up laws in our own hands is NOT an Islamic concept. We have media, we have cyberspace and we have court system to sort it out. NO need to attack any places of worship or any followers of that group.
Since we do have many "Common grounds", we can work as "Partners" like we do with Christians, Hindus, Jews, etc.
Those from non-Muslim back ground probably do not know these finer details and violence (Pakistani style) does not help it either.
There are some merit to those who question of Ahmedi followers should be considered as Muslims or not, however there is NO reason to resort to violence over it.
It is counter productive and UN-Islamic. All differences should be settled by discussing the problem.
Shalom!
From: Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Oct 16, 2012 10:39 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] : Shah Abdul Hannan--রামু, সাম্প্রদায়িকতা ও অসাম্প্রদায়িকতা ---Ramu, Communalism and Noncommunalism
Sent from my iPhone
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 7:41 PM
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Cc: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] : Shah Abdul Hannan--রামু, সাম্প্রদায়িকতা ও অসাম্প্রদায়িকতা ---Ramu, Communalism and Noncommunalism
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 13, 2012, at 10:06 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com>
Subject: FW: [mukto-mona] : Shah Abdul Hannan--রামু, সাম্প্রদায়িকতা ও অসাম্প্রদায়িকতা ---Ramu, Communalism and Noncommunalism
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:46 PM
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 11:52 AM
To: ' mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com '
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] : Shah Abdul Hannan--রামু, সাম্প্রদায়িকতা ও
__._,_.___
****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration:
Call For Articles:
http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68
http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585
****************************************************
VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/
****************************************************
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
-Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Re: [mukto-mona] : Shah Abdul Hannan--রামু, সাম্প্রদায়িকতা ও অসাম্প্রদায়িকতা ---Ramu, Communalism and Noncommunalism
Interesting. So Ahmadiyaas do not recite or believe in "La ilaha illalahu .,,,,."! I know I messed up. But you know which sura I am talking about.
>>>>>>>>> Actually they claim to have faith in one God like all Muslims. However they feel after the final messenger of Allah (SWT), there was another one sent AFTER prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Which is kind of difficult for Muslims to understand. Since the noble Qur'an (words of God!) stated there would be NO new prophets after Muhammad (PBUH).
"O people! Mohammed has no sons among ye men, but verily, he is the Messenger of Allah and the last in the line of Prophets. And Allah is aware of everything."
## "In My Ummah (Islamic Nation), there shall be born Thirty Grand Liars (Dajjals), each of whom will claim to be a prophet, But I am the Last Prophet; there is No Prophet after Me.
"Narrated Ubaida: Ali said (to the people of 'Iraq), "Judge as you used to judge, for I hate differences (and I do my best ) till the people unite as one group, or I die as my companions have died." And narrated Sad that the Prophet said to 'Ali, 'Will you not be pleased from this that you are to me like Aaron was to Moses?'
(Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 57, Companions of the Prophet, Volume 5, Number 56)"
"Narrated Sad: Allah's Apostle set out for Tabuk. appointing 'Ali as his deputy (in Medina). 'Ali said, 'Do you want to leave me with the children and women?' The Prophet said, 'Will you not be pleased that you will be to me like Aaron to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me.'
(Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 59, Military Expeditions led by the Prophet (peace be upon him) (Al-Maghaazi), Volume 5, Number 700)"
-----Original Message-----
Brother, it basically boils down to who can scream louder. Even Shias might not be considered as true Muslims according to some idiots and hence, they can be legitimate target for elimination. Look, Islam has taken a totally wrong path. It wants to purify itself from something that might not be even pure? Sad to say that it has totally failed to deliver anything to its followers in its own backyards. Muslims are migrating in droves to the West that they hate so much. Isn't it paradoxical?
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
Mr. Rahman
Interesting. So Ahmadiyaas do not recite or believe in "La ilaha illalahu .,,,,."! I know I messed up. But you know which sura I am talking about.
We have discussed the Ahmedi issue before. I think this issue has very simple solution. As citizens of this country, they deserve full protection of the state in practicing their faith. As far as if they are Muslims or not, it is not very important to me (At personal level). HOWEVER, do understand that, there are some fundamental differences between mainstream "Islamic ideology" and what is preached and practiced by Ahmedi groups.
-----Original Message-----
The father of Jamaat Islami Mowdudi was tried for instigating anti-Ahmadi riot in Pakistan. Several years ago there were troubles in Bangladesh too. The State of Pakistan declared the Ahmadies non-Muslims. I am sure Jamaat Islami and other so called Islam Pasand parties gave strong support to the move by the Pakistani govt. Denial of Jamaat Islami involvement on this will be big lie. I have Muslim friends belonging to the Ahmadi sect. I know how much proud they are to be identified as Muslims. Why should the State, Islamic clerics and Jamaat Islami decide their religious identity? Any way with the kind of ideological belief and mindset you have you guys will make life of these people unsafe.
A secular and democratic country tries to allow maximum individual rights. It also includes all the great and universal teachings from all religions and cultures. A State does not need to be religious explicitly. A religious State I'd divisive which is not good for world peace and progress.
I will be looking forward to hearing from you more on this issue.
Ahmadies are non-Muslims whether they are declared to be so by the state or not..Jamaat Islami has nothing on Ahmadi issue in the manifesto of theirs.
I think basic Hindu code is what Bed has taught. As for Christians, it is the moral lessons preached by Jesus found in four gospels.
Shah Abdul Hannan
From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Subimal Chakrabarty
I have humble questions for Mr. Hannan. If Jamaat-i-Islam comes to power in Bangladesh, will they try to declare the Ahamadiyas non-Muslims? What is Indian constitution lacking now and how can these lackings be fixed by Hindu religious teachings? What Hindu religious teachings has he in his mind? Caste-ism or teachings of Manu? What are the Christian moral codes that the Christians in the West are not following? No abortion at all?
Mr. Hannan,
I heard from many others before, but - you are consistent in your views; that's quite interesting.
Thanks.
correcyed
From: S A Hannan [mailto:sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com]
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional