Archive for FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT BREAK THE CHAINS OF IGNORANCE AND FEAR
 


       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Islam
David

Are Ahmadis considered Muslims?

If not, why not?
arildno

By most Muslims, no.

There are numerous reasons:
1. Generally, they reject all hadiths as unreliable
2. They have an extremely metaphorical reading of the Quran, rather than a literalist approach.
They reject, for example, jihad as a principle of action, and only regard it as a call for individual spiritual transformation (battling with your sins/inner demons)

3. The position of Ahmad Khan within the movement is, for practical purposes, a break with the concept that Mohammad was the Seal of the Prophets (i.e, Ahmad Khan supplants Mohammad as a Prophet)

4. They called for appeasement with the British colonial government; other Muslims haven't forgiven them that.
David

arildno wrote:


There are numerous reasons:

1. Generally, they reject all hadiths as unreliable  


I didn't know that.

I think most mainline Muslims do regard some hadiths as unreliable too.  They seem to pick and choose and they sometimes disagree with each other.  Anything that puts Islam or Muhammad in a poor light or contradicts the Quran would be discarded.

arildno wrote:


2. They have an extremely metaphorical reading of the Quran, rather than a literalist approach.

They reject, for example, jihad as a principle of action, and only regard it as a call for individual spiritual transformation (battling with your sins/inner demons)  


Then they refuse to fight under any circumstances?

arildno wrote:


3. The position of Ahmad Khan within the movement is, for practical purposes, a break with the concept that Mohammad was the Seal of the Prophets (i.e, Ahmad Khan supplants Mohammad as a Prophet)  


Yes, I thought this would be a very important objection from mainline Muslims.  I wonder how the Ahmadis get around that one.  Do you know?

arildno wrote:


4. They called for appeasement with the British colonial government; other Muslims haven't forgiven them that.


I see.  Maybe that is one reason some mainline Muslims are persecuting them?

Do they use the same Quran as other Muslims?

I know they think Jesus died at the age of 120 years in Kashmir and that is not in the Quran.

This brings up another question:

Just what does a person have to believe and do in order to be called a "Muslim"?

The 5 pillars are:

1) Shahadah (profession of faith)
2) Salat (ritual prayer five times each day)
3) Sawm (fasting during Ramadan)
4) Zakat (Islamic tax or tithing)
5) Hajj (Pilgrimage to Mecca at least once during life).

They would also have to believe:

1.  There is only one God
2.   Muhammad was his messenger.

So, we can conclude that it would not be enough for the Ahmadis to do all of the above.  They would still be rejected by mainstream Muslims.

Thank you for your reply.
Baal

David wrote:
arildno wrote:


There are numerous reasons:

1. Generally, they reject all hadiths as unreliable  


I didn't know that.

I think most mainline Muslims do regard some hadiths as unreliable too.  They seem to pick and choose and they sometimes disagree with each other.  Anything that puts Islam or Muhammad in a poor light or contradicts the Quran would be discarded.

arildno wrote:


2. They have an extremely metaphorical reading of the Quran, rather than a literalist approach.

They reject, for example, jihad as a principle of action, and only regard it as a call for individual spiritual transformation (battling with your sins/inner demons)  


Then they refuse to fight under any circumstances?

arildno wrote:


3. The position of Ahmad Khan within the movement is, for practical purposes, a break with the concept that Mohammad was the Seal of the Prophets (i.e, Ahmad Khan supplants Mohammad as a Prophet)  


Yes, I thought this would be a very important objection from mainline Muslims.  I wonder how the Ahmadis get around that one.  Do you know?

arildno wrote:


4. They called for appeasement with the British colonial government; other Muslims haven't forgiven them that.


I see.  Maybe that is one reason some mainline Muslims are persecuting them?

Do they use the same Quran as other Muslims?

I know they think Jesus died at the age of 120 years in Kashmir and that is not in the Quran.

This brings up another question:

Just what does a person have to believe and do in order to be called a "Muslim"?

The 5 pillars are:

1) Shahadah (profession of faith)
2) Salat (ritual prayer five times each day)
3) Sawm (fasting during Ramadan)
4) Zakat (Islamic tax or tithing)
5) Hajj (Pilgrimage to Mecca at least once during life).

They would also have to believe:

1.  There is only one God
2.   Muhammad was his messenger.

So, we can conclude that it would not be enough for the Ahmadis to do all of the above.  They would still be rejected by mainstream Muslims.

Thank you for your reply.

I always assumed the first pillar (corner) of islam to be "Istihbal" - Playing Dumb but anyways, you only need to prove how a group is opposing One of the above points to declare a group to be a Mushrik/Kaffir/Zindiq/Munafiq/Murtad/Mal-Oon/Najis/Ragis/Jew.

I believe Ahmadi allow for their head to make fundamental changes to the doctrine, like the Ismailis, or they might be waiting for a mahdi which would make them Mushriks. I am did not read up on the Ahmadis for a long time but this was the conclusion I came to back then when I did look them up.
arildno

Yes, the tradition of "bitani", i.e, allegorical interpretations of the Quranic messages rather than the literalist mainstream approach of Sunnis and Shiites characterizes both the Ismailis and the Ahmadis (along with Sufis and Indian mystics groups like the Dawoodi Bhorat).

A main difference between the Ahmadis and the Ishmaelites is that the position of the Aga Khan in the Ishmaelite sect is that of a "Pope", who are entitled to establish current doctrine, whereas the Ahmadis are "egalitarian" and emphasizes the individual's right and obligation to develop his own views.
AhmedBahgat

Re: Are Ahmadis considered Muslims?

David wrote:
If not, why not?


well, no sect follower in Islam is a Muslim, the Quran calls them Mushrikoon
AhmedBahgat

arildno wrote:
By most Muslims, no.

There are numerous reasons:
1. Generally, they reject all hadiths as unreliable


BS, many of them acceot manh hadith by their cult leader and conman Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiani

arildno wrote:

2. They have an extremely metaphorical reading of the Quran, rather than a literalist approach.


Not just them, many so called Quran aloners (free-mid.org) do the exact same, for me both are confused

arildno wrote:

They reject, for example, jihad as a principle of action, and only regard it as a call for individual spiritual transformation (battling with your sins/inner demons)


Johad must cover both, spiritual fight  with the self and physical fight with the enemy

arildno wrote:

3. The position of Ahmad Khan within the movement is, for practical purposes, a break with the concept that Mohammad was the Seal of the Prophets (i.e, Ahmad Khan supplants Mohammad as a Prophet)


every messenger is a prophet but not everu prophet is a messneger, this means, if Mohammed is the last prophet and becauuse no more prophets as the Quran told us and because a messenger must be a prophet then there will be no more messnegers after Mohammed as well , got it sir?

arildno wrote:

4. They called for appeasement with the British colonial government; other Muslims haven't forgiven them that.


I don't give a fuk about that nor I need it to classify them as Mushrikoon
Psycho Bunny

Surely, isn't the only main obstacle to viewing the Ahmadi/Qadiani as true Muslims based upon their belief that Ghulam Ahmed is their prophet? The other "distinctions" are minor.

Believing in a prophet after Mohammed contradicts the shahada.

       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Islam
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Home|Home|Home|Home|HomeHome|Home|Home|Home|Home