Ahmadiyya and Islam: Are Ahmadis Muslims?




Introduction
Many people have asked me in recent days if I was a Muslim given the fact that I used to belong to a sect known as Ahmadiyyat. In case you have not heard of Ahmadis before, they are a peaceful yet heavily persecuted community mostly originating from India and Pakistan. Muslims groups and governments have been persecuting and murdering Ahmadis for decades. The human rights violations continue to this day: last week in Pakistan, for example, a plan to murder many prominent Ahmadis was was brazenly announced in public and has yet to be hindered. You can read about this incident and some other recent occurrences here, here, and here.

That these are human rights violations, at least by Western standards, is beyond doubt. Their plight ought to be our fight. No one should suffer this kind of persecution for their beliefs, least of all peaceful people. It is a tragic irony that the one group of Muslims who denies physical Jihad is so regularly victim to it.

What is less clear to many is whether Ahmadiyyat is actually a sect within the fold of Islam. That is the topic of this brief investigation.

Defining Beliefs and Practices
By my reckoning, a person ought to be categorized into a religious group according to core beliefs and practices. In the case of traditional Islam, the core beliefs are the 6 articles of faith: tawheed, belief in the prophets, belief in the books, belief in the unseen (e.g. angels and jinn), belief in the day of judgment, and belief in the decree of Allah. The core practices are the 5 pillars: reciting the shahada, praying the salaat, paying the zakaat, fasting, and performing hajj.

Ahmadis hold to all 6 articles of faith and all 5 pillars. Some might argue that Ahmadis do not hold to the belief in the prophets or the recitation of the shahada the way orthodox Muslims do, but we will understand the falsity of their claims shortly. In sum, the core beliefs and practices of Ahmadis are those defined by Islamic origins and tradition. This is enough to classify Ahmadis as Muslims.

Islamic Tradition
Another way to determine whether Ahmadis are Muslims is to refer to the Qur'an and ahadith. From the very beginning of the Qur'an, Muslims are defined by what they believe and do (2:3-4). The beliefs and actions listed are always roughly those that are found in the articles and pillars (in this case: belief in the unseen, performance of salaat, payment of zakaat, belief in the books, and belief in the judgment.) So it seems the Qur'an agrees with my system of classification: a person's religious affiliation is determined by their actions and beliefs.

Muhammad more explicitly defines what makes a Muslim in hadith #2526 in Sunan Abu Daud: a person who says "There is no God but Allah" is a Muslim, and no sin he commits can justify his excommunication. Clearly, by Muhammad's standards, Ahmadis are Muslims.

So What's the Problem?
The reason Ahmadis are considered non-Muslims by others is primarily due the doctrine of Khatam-an-nabiyeen, or the seal of prophethood. The Qur'an mentions in 33:40 that Muhammad is the khatam of the prophets. Orthodox Muslims take this to mean that no prophet will come after Muhammad. Ahmadis point out that all Muslims believe in the return of Jesus, so it cannot mean no prophet will come after Muhammad in an absolute sense. They say the word khatam allows for the interpretation that Muhammad's prophethood is the last "law-bearing" prophethood; in other words, prophets coming after him would have to be subordinate to him and teach in his way. This is how they justify their position that their founder and namesake, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, was a prophet.

In addition to the primary disagreement over khatam-an-nabiyeen, Ahmad pointed to the second coming of Elijah in the form of John the Baptist and said that Jesus' return would also be in the form of another human. He then claimed to be that human. This flies in the face of orthodox Muslim eschatology.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's claims and life are an interesting study for another day. What's pertinent for now is this simple fact: orthodox Muslims accuse Ahmadis of being non-Muslim due to disagreements arising from peripheral doctrine. This is not enough to consider them non-Muslim.

Muslim Mormons?
It has been said that Ahmadiyyat is to Islam what Mormonism is to Christianity. As nice as Ahmadis are, and much as I'd like to see them wearing suits with helmets and riding bikes, this is wrong. The reason Mormonism falls outside of Christianity is because it contravenes a defining belief of Christianity: monotheism. Christianity is partially defined by, and has always taught, monotheism. Mormonism teaches that only God the Father should be worshiped, but that humans like you and me can become gods. In other words, Christians are monotheists and Mormons are henotheists.

The disparity between Ahmadiyyat and orthodox Islam is nothing like that; as above, the dispute is over peripheral doctrine. It is true that the implications of the dispute plays out powerfully in the realms of ijtihad and fiqh, but certainly less than the division among sunnis and shias.

Misinformation
Another reason why Ahmadis are so often declared non-Muslim is on account of misinformation and propaganda. Orthodox Muslim imams often tell their congregations that Ahmadis do not pray the salaat, or when they say the shahada, they mean something else. This is patently false, but it does generate fervent finger pointing in the West (and murders in the East).

A slightly more complex problem is that some Muslim apologists will accuse Ahmadis of certain positions and beliefs based on what Ahmad and his close followers said and published (specifically declarations of kufr and the like). The problem with this is that the average Ahmadi has never heard or been taught those beliefs. To call an Ahmadi a non-Muslim by saying he believes something he hasn't even heard of is ridiculous. Of course, even if he had heard of it and believed it, he still wouldn't be a non-Muslim.

Alternative Methods of Categorizing Religious Affiliation
The classification of people into a religion based on their core beliefs and practices is one system of classification (and I think it's the best system). Here are some alternatives and their flaws:
  1. A person is whatever he says he is: In other words, if a person says he's Muslim, then he's Muslim. There's a big problem with this. What if someone who worships Jesus, Buddha, and say... Alex Trebek, calls himself a "Muslim?" I would say he's wrong. His beliefs contradict the core teachings of Islam, and therefore he's extorting the title "Muslim." The same can be said for agnostic "Christians," atheist "Muslims", etc.
  2. A person's religious affiliation is declared by others: In other words, if the majority of followers consider you to be outside their fold, you cannot be a member of their religion. The problem with this (and its converse) is that the criteria of exclusion (or inclusion) might be highly subjective and temporal. In other words, if a large group of adherents does not like you for whatever reason, they can declare you outside their fold. If you were to go on practicing and believing the same things in spite of their declaration, I would argue that you still follow the same religion.
  3. A person's religion is defined by their birth. Some people actually argue that if you are born to Muslim parents, you are Muslim. Although this might be a valid argument for children who have not yet come to full awareness, it is no means to classify adults who may disagree with their parents' religion and might have abandoned its ways.
So if you're asking the question "Are Ahmadis Muslims?" you ought to ask yourself, what is the best way to classify a person's religion?

A Rose by Any Other Name Would Still Smell Muslim
Another issue to consider is why you're asking the question. If you are asking the question as a Christian who wishes to evangelise to Muslims, then you ought to consider the level of the dispute: it is a dispute over minor doctrine in Islam. This dispute in no way affects your ministry to Ahmadis as Muslims.

If you refer to the declaration of ulema and consensus of the ummah as your source of religious conclusions, then no amount of argumentation or explanation would convince you otherwise. There's no point in reading about the matter.

If you're a Muslim who's trying to discredit an ex-Muslim Christian and you really want to hinder his work by some means, well, then declaring him a non-Muslim is a good distraction tactic. You can even point to the opinions of orthodox Muslim scholars for added support; no one will notice the fact that such an appeal is a flawed method of religious classification, as explained by #2 above.

Conclusion
Ahmadis are Muslims. The vehement disagreement by orthodox Muslims has to do with peripheral doctrine, not defining beliefs or practices. It is a symptom of their readiness to label each other kafir at the drop of a hat.

96 comments:

  1. That helps a lot. I was listening to the show you did on Unbelievable recently and your past came up but the explanation didn't make sense. Now it does. Thanks a lot!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. al-Aḥmadiyyah) is an Islamic religious movement founded in British India near the end of the 19th century.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ahmadiyya

      Delete
    2. al-Aḥmadiyyah are non Muslim(kafir) according to constitution of Pakistan.
      if any ahmedia call himself Muslim then he is in violation of constitutions of Pakistan and will be subject to criminal proceedings

      Delete
    3. The Holy Prophet of Islam (pbuh) prophesised that "there will arise 30 imposters in my nation and each one of them will pronounce that he is a prophet, but I am the last in the line of the Prophets and no Messenger will follow me."


      List of imposters / False Prophets:

      HTTP://WWW.RIGHTFULRELIGION.COM/EN130_FALSE-CLAIMANTS-OF-PROPHETHOOD-IN-ISLAM

      Mirza is among those false prophets.

      Delete
  2. Glad it helps - if there's anything else that you feel I should address here, let me know (I'm going to be pointing to this in the future when people ask.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. you liars. nabeel qureshi was not a Muslim ever.he was an AHmedia which believes on a person name Mirza Ghulam Ahmed as second coming of Jesus Christ.i simple word mirza ghulam Ahmed the the Jesus for Group Ahmedia group. so basically he is screwing Christians Ahmedia are Bnned in Pakistan and declared NON mulsim according to constitution of Pakistan. Apparently, our Nabeel Qureshi was an Ahmadi before he converted to Christianity. Thus, he followed the Ahmadiyya faith; a faith which believes in a man named Mirza Gulam Ahmed as a Prophet and the second coming of Jesus Christ. Did Nabeel believe this man (Gulam) to be Jesus and a Messiah? Did he also believe Jesus went to India?

      Delete
  3. Even though I'm not 100% decided on the matter, when I'm dealing with Orthodox Sunni or Shi'a Muslims, I will tend to agree with them just for the sake of argument that Ahmadis are non-Muslim. However, I would still reject the claim that you are lying about your former religious affiliation on the grounds that when you were an Ahmadi, you sincerely believed yourself to be a Muslim. That's just my two cents. :P

    ReplyDelete
  4. Fisher- yes, the claim that I'm lying is false simply because a lie has to be intentional. If a Mormon claims to be a Christian and sincerely believes it, he's not lying, he's just wrong. When it comes to Ahmadis, though, I think the case is pretty solid that they are truly Muslims.

    So you say you're not 100% decided on the matter; I wonder if you can share with me where you find a weakness in my argument? Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Nabeel, as someone who has spent a lot of time discussing Christ with Muslims, I appreciate your work. I happen to also be a Mormon, and I don't agree with your claim that Christianity from the beginning denied the notion you are referring to as "humans like you and me" becoming Gods. This notion, which has been grossly distorted, is simply what is referred to by Paul and by St. John: "Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory." (Romans 8:17) and "Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2).

      Gross ideas about "everybody getting a planet" or such things are not taught in Church and fall under the category of things that others say we believe (like you discussed for Ahmadis above), or at least they are unfounded and foolish daydreaming. I honestly don't know whether that rumor came from somebody in our outside the Church, but regardless, it is not taught. What the teaching of humans "becoming like God" literally means largely falls under the mystery of "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love him." (1 Cor 2:9) We don't know what it means, exactly. For that reason, we hardly ever talk about it. What it certainly doesn't mean, though, is that there are any other beings worthy of worship besides God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, who are so unified in purpose and action that they are one God. There is enough Biblical support, and historical support from early Christianity, to place this non-trinitarian belief within the Christian tradition as well. Anyway, good luck with your work.

      Delete
  5. Nabeel I find your post very compelling as a former shi'a muslim I was always told to stay away from Ahmadis and that they would only corrupt me. I did what I was told and never questioned my Imam and the other men about it. It was never explained to me why or what Ahmadis believed... so just for my input I do agree with you Ahmadis are in fact muslims.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Istilah - thanks for your insight. It does seem like most people I run into who argue that Ahmadis are not Muslims are simply parroting a sectarian fiat. The primary defense I've seen for the position is that "all Muslim scholars declare Ahmadis to be non-Muslim" (which is an exaggeration, begs the question, and is an inappropriate appeal to authority). Thanks for your concurrence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not an exaggeration, bud; even Hamza Yusuf came out and said it recently!

      Delete
  7. It's hard to pin it down. I guess I'm just really used to Orthodox Muslims saying that Muhammad is the last prophet, so that when I hear the Ahmadis saying otherwise I'm inclined to agree with the Orthodox Muslims. Plus I have a book called "Quadianis [sic] are not Muslims" which has a whole bunch of hadith quotes where Muhammad says there will be no more prophet after him. I don't know how the Ahmadiyya get around those quotes.

    Oh yeah, and the rationalist tendency that the Ahmadis have just bugs me. They are borderline Deistic in a lot of what they say, especially when it comes to interpreting metaphorically most of the passages that Orthodox Muslims take literally, and rejecting a lot of miracles that other Muslims would otherwise accept. For example, in Mirza Tahir Ahmad's book on Christianity, he has a naturalistic explanation for the virgin birth. He also disparages the resurrection of Jesus on the grounds that the whole concept of resurrection is ridiculous even though Orthodox Islam affirms the resurrection of the dead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That rationalism bugs you has nothing to do with whether it's right or wrong. In the Sahih Hadith there is not a single saying of Prophet Muhammad that has him categorically saying there is no prophet to come after him, and it is not for no reason that we are able to access the sayings in Arabic, where by it should be fairly clear that many times when translations say that Muhammad (pbuh) said he was the "last prophet", when what he actually said according to the Arabic is that he was the "seal of the prophets". Not to mention, the Quran itself is not only void of a single verse saying that Muhammad is the last of prophets, it categorically states in at least 2 different places that I can think of at present, that Jesus (as) had already died, with there being numerous other verses that should clearly support that notion if a small amount of common sense and understanding is used.
      Additionally, just because Orthodox Islam affirms resurrection of the dead, you should define what "orthodox Islam" actually refers to. Islam itself, as in the Quran, the Word of God, in no way "affirms" this. What you are referring to as an affirmation is only a particular interpretation put forward by the so called scholars of Islam.
      And finally, if you want point out that Ahmadis should look at the sayings you mention, you should also be aware of then the sayings that say that "there will be no Mahdi besides the Messiah son of Mary", and those that say the religious scholars in the latter days will be the worst creation on the face of the planet, and those that say every sect out of 73 will be in the Fire except for one, which will be in paradise. (1974 judgement against Ahmadis interestingly states that "the 72 other sects of Islam declare Ahmadis to be non-Muslim")

      Delete
    2. That rationalism bugs you has nothing to do with whether it's right or wrong. In the Sahih Hadith there is not a single saying of Prophet Muhammad that has him categorically saying there is no prophet to come after him, and it is not for no reason that we are able to access the sayings in Arabic, where by it should be fairly clear that many times when translations say that Muhammad (pbuh) said he was the "last prophet", when what he actually said according to the Arabic is that he was the "seal of the prophets". Not to mention, the Quran itself is not only void of a single verse saying that Muhammad is the last of prophets, it categorically states in at least 2 different places that I can think of at present, that Jesus (as) had already died, with there being numerous other verses that should clearly support that notion if a small amount of common sense and understanding is used.
      Additionally, just because Orthodox Islam affirms resurrection of the dead, you should define what "orthodox Islam" actually refers to. Islam itself, as in the Quran, the Word of God, in no way "affirms" this. What you are referring to as an affirmation is only a particular interpretation put forward by the so called scholars of Islam.
      And finally, if you want point out that Ahmadis should look at the sayings you mention, you should also be aware of then the sayings that say that "there will be no Mahdi besides the Messiah son of Mary", and those that say the religious scholars in the latter days will be the worst creation on the face of the planet, and those that say every sect out of 73 will be in the Fire except for one, which will be in paradise. (1974 judgement against Ahmadis interestingly states that "the 72 other sects of Islam declare Ahmadis to be non-Muslim")

      Delete
    3. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) himself said that he was akhir nabi (last prophet). Also he stated no prophet after me.

      Quran explicitly states that ressurection is a reality that will happen.

      Delete
  8. On that note, I have been reading some of the Ahmadis' writings over the years and they make a lot of odd statements, bad arguments (sign of Jonah seems to be their favourites) and just downright errors. I caught a couple of glaring scientific errors in Ghulam's Philosophy of Islam booklet, which I'll be doing a post on if/when I get the time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would be good if we could read your responses to Ahmadi writings.

      Delete
  9. I hear what you're saying - I think part of the issue is that there is so much contradiction within the Islamic sources themselves. For example, the Orthodox belief about Jesus is that he ascended alive into Heaven and is awaiting his return (3:55), yet the Quran also teaches that all prophets before Muhammad have died (3:144). Whether Jesus is alive in Heaven or not plays into the disagreements regarding whether another prophet can come.

    As far as the disallowing supernaturalism, that is a strange tendency Ahmadis have, but I have seen Ahmadis who disagree on that issue who remain Ahmadis and are not shunned by their community. I therefore think it's one of those peripheral issues that people can disagree about (like calvinism vs. arminianism in Christianity).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, yeah, there are glaring errors in their logic... but you're making it sound like that differentiates them from other Muslims. I find that to be the case for most apologetic works put out by Muslims.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ^Well, we can agree that Islamic apologetic works in general are full of errors, whether they are published by Sunnis, Shi'as, Ahmadis, etc. But the errors in the Ahmadi writings are especially ironic given their tendency to proclaim themselves as the "Rational/Scientific" Muslims.

    For example, go look up a copy of "The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam" by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. On page 5, he claims that not eating meat makes one less courageous and that not eating vegetables makes one less humble. On pages 6-7, he advocates the theory of spontaneous generation which was discredited by Louis Pasteur just mere decades before.

    Anyway, Lord willing I'm gonna be reading more on this issue. Perhaps if you'd like, I'll show you the Sunni book I mentioned which presents seventeen hadith quotes against Ahmadis to the effect that there will not be any prophet after Muhammad. They are in pages 20-25 of this book:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/31789147/Decison-of-Court-Qadyanis-Are-Not-Muslims-by-Muhammad-Bashir

    Would love to get your feedback on this topic, especially since I regularly get into arguments with Ahmadis in addition to regular Sunni/Shi'a Muslims (there are tons of them up here in Canada).

    ReplyDelete
  12. Nabeel, your simply not qualified to say who is a Muslim according to Islam or not. The Ahmadis believe in a Prophet not sanctioned by Islam. They reject the statement of the Prophet where he said that he was the last prophet and this is found in mutawaatir narrations. Rejecting that is major kufr which takes a person outside the fold of Islam.

    A core element of Islam is that Muhammad is the final Prophet and that the revelation has stopped. The Qur'an says "Today I have completed your religion". To believe in a Prophet coming with new revelation and new concepts and beleifs after that is to reject this verse.

    Nabeel, is desperate to convince people that Ahmadis are Muslims so that he could use his "ex-Muslim" label as a tool for his evangelism.

    It's not going to work with educated Muslims Nabeel. Deal with it.

    You were an ex-Qadiani and that's all you will ever be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd like to share with you an incident that happened in lifetime of Prophet Muhammad. In one of the battles, one of the Sahaba was about kill one of the idol worshippers who was part of the opposing army. The idol worshipper, when the Muslim had his sword at his neck suddenly cried the shahadah, so as to escape his imminent death. The Muslim, believing that it was nothing more than a lie to save his skin, killed him anyway. Upon returning from battle the Muslim soldier went to Muhammad to tell him of his act which he thought was admirable. When he told Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), he said that the Prophet simply continued to repeat again and again "did you open his heart to see what he believed/if he was lying?". The Muslim soldier said that Muhammad had become so upset and angry at his act of killing that man, that he wished he had not become a Muslim until after that day so that he would not have been able to commit that deed.
      The mainstream Muslim world has denied the man that was sent to save them from the hands of the Christian missionaries who were essentially killing their soul with arguments. Do some research on the state of Muslims in India at the time of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad(as). Do some research on what even Muslim scholars of that time said of him before he announced that he was revealed by Allah to be the Messiah and a prophet. And most of all, use your brain and mind which God gave you, before that gift is taken back by Allah as a result of it not being made use of.

      Delete
    2. I'd like to share with you an incident that happened in lifetime of Prophet Muhammad. In one of the battles, one of the Sahaba was about kill one of the idol worshippers who was part of the opposing army. The idol worshipper, when the Muslim had his sword at his neck suddenly cried the shahadah, so as to escape his imminent death. The Muslim, believing that it was nothing more than a lie to save his skin, killed him anyway. Upon returning from battle the Muslim soldier went to Muhammad to tell him of his act which he thought was admirable. When he told Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), he said that the Prophet simply continued to repeat again and again "did you open his heart to see what he believed/if he was lying?". The Muslim soldier said that Muhammad had become so upset and angry at his act of killing that man, that he wished he had not become a Muslim until after that day so that he would not have been able to commit that deed.
      The mainstream Muslim world has denied the man that was sent to save them from the hands of the Christian missionaries who were essentially killing their soul with arguments. Do some research on the state of Muslims in India at the time of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad(as). Do some research on what even Muslim scholars of that time said of him before he announced that he was revealed by Allah to be the Messiah and a prophet. And most of all, use your brain and mind which God gave you, before that gift is taken back by Allah as a result of it not being made use of.

      Delete
  13. No matter what was your past but now you are new creature as per the word of God 2 Corinthians 5:17.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thank you for putting your information in writing. That is so much easier for me. (Not that I don't like your videos.)

    I'm glad that you are already getting resistance from Muslims. Not that it is going to be very fun for you, but it will help the rest of us a lot, in understanding their mind-sets

    I personally feel that the Shiite accusation that Aisha murdered Mohammad should cause more debate and controversy, than whether another prophet should come. But that is just me.

    And by the way, you are an excellent speaker!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Fisher-

    You happened to point to one of the things that really upset me while I was still (Ahmadi) Muslim... Ahmad's use of spontaneous generation to make an argument was pretty unsettling to me. I remember taking it to someone I trusted in the jamaat, and his answer was that prophets aren't required to be scientifically accurate 100% of the time, but they must be 100% accurate in repeating Allah's decree and morally infallible.

    Unsettling indeed. I've seen other Muslims make the same argument in response when you start showing them that Muhammad conflated meteorites and stars, thought that an embryo's sex is determined by which parent climaxed first, etc. etc.

    Regarding the 7 hadith quotes, I'll take a look at them real quick if they're online. I might address that while responding to "B" in a moment. Thanks for the feedback!

    ReplyDelete
  16. B-

    Thanks for your opinion, friend. I respect it, but I respect Muhammad's opinion more.

    You can't just say "a core element of Islam is X"; you have to show that it was a core element to the authoritative figures in the religion. Muhammad made it quite clear: you can be wrong as a Muslim, and you can be sinful as a Muslim, but you're still Muslim.

    So Muhammad's position is that the core ingredient that is necessary and sufficient is the first half of the Shahada. The Quranic position is along the same vein. If your position is different -- well, like I said, I'll go with Muhammad on this one.

    Cheers.

    P.S. You said I wasn't qualified to speak on this. If that's what you think, there was a section just for you under "A Rose by Any Other Name..." I hope you found the time to read it. Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Donna-

    Thanks or the feedback! Yeah, I think when it comes to certain topics, I'll write a post as well as make a video. The last video I made (about the languages of Jesus) doesn't merit a full post, so I just put up a video.

    Regarding Muslim resistance, I've seen it before. Anytime an ex-Muslim proclaims Christ, certain Muslims start a smear campaign to discredit him/her. They did it with me (by focusing on the Ahmadiyyat) they're doing it with my friend Negeen (just look on YouTube) and they do it with virtually everyone. That is how they maintain the illusion that no Muslim ever leaves Islam.

    Anyhow, I hope you'll stick around as more videos and discussions come out!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Nabeel, If you want to make " Muhammad is the last prophet" not an essential doctrine in Islam , let's make the Trinity a Doctrine not essential to Christianity. Or why not , let's make Monotheism not essential and include Marcion and his followers as a true Christian, they just interpret the Bible differently.
    And let's ignore these Sahih Hadith in Bukhari and Muslim ( as a devout Ahmadi you sure have known them).
    There will be 30 dajjals among my Ummah. Each one will claim that he is a prophet; but I am the LAST of the Prophets, and there will be NO Prophet after me.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 1MM,

    You missed the point in the video where the Ahmadi argument was explained that neither Ahmadi Muslims nor non-Ahmadi Muslims think Muhammad is absolutely the last prophet. They both expect the return of Jesus (a prophet). So there is potentially leeway in the doctrine of khatam an nabiyeen; neither group would deny it off hand.

    Besides, you are ignoring the hadith in which Muhammad clearly states that anyone who says "there is no God but Allah" is a Muslim and cannot be excommunicated for any reason whatsoever. That much more clearly deals with who is Muslim and who is not. For arguments sake, the Muslim who is misled by a dajjal would still be a muslim according to Muhammad, he would just be wrong and misled.

    You, along with many of your brothers, seem to think "disagreement" or "incorrectness" is tantamount to "heresy". This is incorrect.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hello Nabeel,

    The Prophet Issa (Jesus) will not be returning as a Prophet, but as a man at the end of times. Are you unfamiliar with Islamic canon?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly the point. Issa (as) will return as a human , will get married , have children and will establish peace and prosperity upon this world. Issa (as) will kill Dajjal . I'm not sure if Mirza ghulam Ahmed ever killed a Dajjal in his lifetime and by the way the center point for all this will be Jeruselum and not qadian.

      Delete
  21. Nabeel:
    There is an article on Aljazeera about fueling hatred toward Muslims in Dearborn, your name is there:
    Article

    Muslims do believe that Muhammad is the Last prophet to be sent, Ahmadis DO NOT. Jesus is not a prophet that comes after Muhammad, he is still the prophet who is born 2000 year ago, and STILL ALIVE.

    You citing the Hadith "there is no God but Allah" and ignore all the rest is like a Muslim who cite: The spirit that confesses that Christ has come in the flesh is a spirit from God, therefore Muslims are follower of Jesus according to the bible ( by the way, early Christians believe that Islam are a branch of Christianity). So Be consistent please, and do not isolate one hadith on the expenses of all the others.

    " You, along with many of your brothers, seem to think "disagreement" or "incorrectness" is tantamount to "heresy". This is incorrect.

    You and me know that if Christians did not declared heretical those who disagree, there would be more Christianities than you can number them. Let's consider Apollinarism a disagreement, and why not Arianism, or Montanism?

    The only reason why you call yourself a former Muslim, instead of a former Ahamadi ( Ahamadi call themselves Ahamdi not Muslims), is because of commercial reasons. Former Muslim is far more lucrative than former Ahamadi.

    Finally another blunder you made, is saying that Ahamdis don't consider Sunnis as Muslims because of tensions between the groups !!! Wrong again, MGA himself teaches that Sunnis are not real Muslims until they follow him. But I doubt , as a devout Ahamadi, you have ever read anything thing from MGA books.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 1MM,

    Actually, my reference to the hadith is not out of context; as you know, with ahadith, they are standalone. There is not a whole epistle of context there, so I have ignored nothing. In fact, I think Muhammad is pretty emphatic and exact in what he's saying. The Muslim who quotes one verse of 1 John out of context from the rest IS, in fact, quoting out of context.

    And I don't know if you intentionally ignore/distort what I'm saying, or if you're somehow blinded to my assertions. Regardless, I'm saying there are multiples types of disagreement; those that are minor and those that are heretical. Not all disagreements are heretical, only those that jeopardize the core tenets of the faith. Arians were polytheists by proposing that Jesus was a lower (and therefore separate) deity than the Father. That attacks monotheism, a core tenet of Christian faith. No core tenet of Islam is jeopardized by Ahmadis.

    And you misunderstood me again about Ahmadis in the past calling non-Ahmadis non-Muslim. That was a reference to MGA, but the past two leaders of the Ahmadis have refined his statement. I think their redefinition is bogus and a cover-up, that MGA certainly did call non-Ahmadis kuffar, but that doesn't change the fact that most Ahmadi Muslims today do not think non-Ahmadis are non-Muslim. Perhaps this is too confusing for you to grasp simply by my statements; you should ask some of your Ahmadi acquaintances what they think about this.

    As to your last jab, I read all of MGA's books that had been translated into English. But that is neither here nor there; I will say, though, that your personal attacks lessen your credibility.

    So do I call myself a "former Muslim" for commercial reasons? No, my friend, the reason I call myself a former Muslim is because I formerly called myself a Muslim, when I was a Muslim. May God open and bless your eyes, heart, and mind. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Nabeel:
    The only people that claim that Arianism is polytheistic are just the opponents of Arianism! Arians consider themselves more monotheist then Trinitarian, they believe in One creator the Father, Jesus is a created being. Arians don't believe in more than one God. If you consider Arians polytheists because they pray to Jesus, Then please be consistent and call Catholics polytheists for praying to marry. Ironically, Bible.ca says that Arius got many followers because people view his teachings more in line with monotheism than Trinitarian lip service monotheism, and I agree with them.
    Arians worship Jesus and the Father, but one of them is God. Nabeel worship Jesus and the Father, both of them are God. Trinitarians are practical Polytheists unless they add the nonsensical sentence: Jesus and the father are one in essence (just like human beings; many persons, one essence)

    May I ask, who is the one who makes X a core tenet and Y not a core tenet of a faith?
    Which one of these is a core tenet:
    - Trinity.
    - Jesus' 2 natures ( hypostatic Union).

    "No, my friend, the reason I call myself a former Muslim is because I formerly called myself a Muslim, when I was a Muslim."
    Devout Ahamdis call themselves Ahamdis with no shame. The word ahamadi doesn't appear in your profile at all, and I call that deception or you are ashamed of being one.

    I would prefer "darkness" of one ungenerated , unbegotten God, rather than in the "light" of a generated God, who has no clue about the Hour of his second coming, and who became sin, because he hates Sin.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 1MM,

    The Arians (Arius in particular) believed Jesus was a lower god created by God the Father. Please look into the homoousias vs. homoiousias controversy. Given that they believed he was a second god, that's polytheism (or henotheism at best).

    Once you get your history straight I may address your other points. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Nabeel:
    You are right in saying Get your history right.
    Homoousia and Homoiousia is a debate between Proto-orthodox Christians and Christians who agreed to Nicean creed but misunderstood it, they are called Semi-Arians.
    Arianism teaches heteroousia nothing like Homo or Homoiousia. ( Wikipedia is wrong, if you are getting your History from there) . I personally find the distinction between Homo and Homoi very bogus and nonsensical, Giberish phylosophy at best.
    Now that history is straight, Answer my question: Is Trinity a core tenet in Christianity?

    Note:
    From Historical point of view, Arians are monotheist, you might develop their views and conclude THOELOGICALLY that they are polytheist or henotheist, the same way, Muslims and non-Muslims can develop the Christian Trinity and conclude THEOLOGICALLY that it's straight Polytheism.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 1MM,

    I appreciate your challenges; they force me to go back to my basic research and draw out my sources. I'll cite them and explain them here.

    Those who argue that Arius did not believe Jesus was God usually are relying entirely upon Athanasius' apologetic against Arius (e.g. as found in "Paradise or Garden"). Here, Athanasius was attempting to contrast Arius's position with orthodoxy. In that kind of polemic, we can expect the commonalities to be discarded.

    When we read quotations of Arius, even as found in Athanasius, we see an aspect of Arius which is often left out of the polemic: a clear concession that Jesus is "God", though a created one. For example, in De Synodis we find Athanasius quoting Arius as saying: "the Son who was not (eternal) is only-begotten God."

    We find Arius describing Jesus as "immutable" and distinct from all creation in his letter to Alexander: "By his own personal will he established him to be one who is unchangeable and immutable, a perfect creation of God, but not included among creatures, and offspring, but not like whatever has come to be."

    Most clear of all, Arius said in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia: "the Son is not unbegotten nor from some substratum but that by the Father’s will and counsel he existed before time and the ages as God full, only-begotten, immutable."

    This is why scholars note the complexity of the issue, but concede that Arius himself taught a type of deity for Jesus: "In particular, it should not be forgotten that amid all the statements posing a fundamental difference between the Father and the Son there is also the clear declaration that the Son is God and ’only-begotten’ God at that, a description which must surely bear some important weight. He is ’spirit, power, wisdom, glory of God, truth, image and logos ... splendour and light’. He is a ’great God’." (Colm Luibheid, Finding Arius, Irish Theological Quarterly 1978 45: 81)

    1MM, if you continue to argue that Arius did not teach that Jesus was God, please give me your sources. Note, I have provided primary sources, and you should be as well.

    So I reiterate my statement to you, 1MM. If God has created another God, even if he be a God of much lower substance, then that means there are multiple gods. That is polytheism by definition.

    On the contrary, Christians teach that there is one God. That is monotheism by definition. They teach that the one God is far more complex than any other creation, having a plurality in the Godhead. For this, those who are wont to confound the issue label it polytheism. But the fact remains: the worldview involves one God which is, by definition, monotheism.

    ReplyDelete
  27. NAbeel:

    1) Is the Trinity a core tenet in christianity?
    2) Is the Hypostatic union a core tenet in Christianity?

    You are very swift to label a doctrine " not core of Islam" , but when it comes to your new faith, you evade the answer. One may ask why.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I think it's a rather unfair accusation to say, "Muslims are willing to call other Muslims 'kafir' at the drop of a hat." Islam itself teaches that Muslims are not allowed to label anyone "kafir." You should make a distinction between practices of some Muslims and the religion itself if you want others to do the same concerning your faith.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @1MM,

    I think I have been addressing your concerns for quite some time. I even posted a whole blog post on an issue you raised. Given that it soundly refuted your position, I find it ironic that you are trying to call me out for avoiding evading an answer. I will answer your question here (as I have been consistently doing) ... but will please return the favor and answer this: in light of the information presented above, do you still think Arius taught monotheism?

    1: If we define "core tenet" as an scripturally/authoritatively explicit criterion for inclusion in the faith (which I do) then I have to answer "no". The Scripture does not explicitly refer to the Trinity. However, the deity of Jesus IS a core tenet, as explicitly stated in Rom 10:9-13 and implicitly propounded throughout the NT.

    2: The term "hypostatic union" is loaded with ecumenical connotation; any implications which arise apart from John 1 and Phil 2 concerning this issue are not to be considered imperative upon Christians. But the kenotic component of the union is definitely a core tenet in Christianity, on account of the same reasons provided above.

    I hope that helps and you are satisfied. Before asking for any more clarification (or anything else, for that matter), please answer the question I have posed to you. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Brooke-

    If you are familiar with my work, you will note that I use qualifiers in my speech a great deal of the time. If I missed it once, please do excuse me.

    However, I would say "the practices of 'some' Muslims" does not quite cover the extent of the phenomenon. A great number of Muslims call other Muslims "kafir". These supposed "kafir" are people who claim to be Muslim, follow the Qur'an and Sunnah to the best of their ability, love Islam, and would qualify as Muslim by Muhammad's criteria. This is typified by the history of the Sunni/Shia divide, but also plays out in many contexts today.

    As I have stated before, and please do not miss this, Muhammad did not want division between his people. That is the whole reason he told them not to call each other "kafir" for any reason whatsoever. But Muslims in history have ignored this mandate. That is my position. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Nabeel wants to kick whom he wants from the club of Christianity ( Unitarians) , and he wants Ahamdis part of the Ummah at all costs.

    What is really interesting, is that you seem to say that the deity of the Holy Spirit is not mandatory in Christianity. Meaning that one could deny the deity of the Holy Spirit while being Christian and having the same Holy Spirit dwelling in him, about whom the Bible says: blaspheming is the only unforgivable sin.
    But more importantly, Trinitarians are worshiping the Holy Spirit as God distinct from the Father without any explicit verse, but a mere human interpretation that could be probably wrong.

    About Romans 10, you should review what is an "explicit" statement.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 1MM,

    I will once again draw everyone's attention to the fact that you have asked me many questions, which I have answered, but you continue to evade the one question I am asking you: in light of the information presented above, do you still think Arius taught monotheism?

    Until you are fair-minded enough to admit that you were wrong about certain issues, it seems dialoguing with you would be counter-productive. Since you avoid admitting mistakes, I must conclude that you are not in this discussion to reach the truth, but rather to bring others down. Unfortunately, I don't have time for that.

    May God bless you (and the rest of us) with open eyes and humility. Sincerely,
    -Nabeel

    ReplyDelete
  33. Are Arians Monotheists? Depends on what ground you stand. From Historical ground Arians are explicitly Monotheists, because they believe in one eternal God on
    Trinitarians are explicitly Monotheist because they declare they believe in one God and explicitly Polytheists because they declare 3 distinct entities as Fully God each. Trinitarians redefined Monotheism, from believing in one personal God to a belief in One essence ( Greek philosophical term that no one can define).
    From the Islamic view none of these two sects are Monotheists.

    "I must conclude that you are not in this discussion to reach the truth, but rather to bring others down. "
    I have the same impression when I hear you making blunders against Islam, such as inventing stories that doesn't exist and ignore calls to rectify your statements.

    ReplyDelete
  34. 1MM-

    You have just shown us the reason why I rarely engage in online dialogue, and now regret that I have done so with you. You started by saying that my perception of Arianism was false, which I took seriously. I then provided primary evidence, including the words of Arius himself, which showed that he, indeed, believes in multiple Gods. You ignored this completely and simply reiterated your position.

    You say I make blunders against Islam, but you provide no primary evidence, just your own opinion. That's not Islam, that's your opinion. I'm not ignoring calls to rectify my statement; that would happen if you provided primary evidence and I completely ignored it, such as you have just done. Did you even read Arius's words, which I quoted specifically for you above? You have ignored them in all your responses.

    I think I must bow out from any conversation with you - I cannot have fruitful discourse with someone who ignores the tangible evidence I provide while falsely accusing me of doing just that.

    May God give you eyes to see,
    -Nabeel

    ReplyDelete
  35. Grace to you, a ministry of the very popular Christian apologist John MacArthur, says that Non-Trinitarians are definitely NOT Christians.
    So here the situation:
    The Major Christian authority affirm that Non-Trinitarians are not Christians, Nabeel Qureishi insists that they are.
    The Major Muslim Authorities affirm that Ahamadis are not Muslims, Nabeel Qureishi insists that they are.
    IF you don't want an dialogue on the net, then you shouldn't have started a blog.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I found so many interesting stuff in your blog especially its discussion. I guess I am not the only one having all the enjoyment here keep up the good work. writing jobs

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ahmadiyya are International Human Smugglers. Its a money making Cult of east Indian Punjabi's now Pakistani with first headquarter in Village Qadian & then in India ISRAEL in 1922 & London in 1927. Working for Freemassons, Jews & Indian Raw intelligence. Their motto is to weaken Muslims and promote Muslims as Terrorists, break Pakistan apart. Their followers are Slaves who has to pay 55 types of Taxes to remain in cult accumulative of their 25% of monthly income. They are promised to be given HEAVEN if they pay 10% of their salary, wealth, jewellary, property even dowry in life and at time of death to thier leader who is from Mirza Family. For Details visit MuslimCause channels on social media. www.youtube.com/muslimcause

    ReplyDelete
  38. Founder of Ahmadiyya Cult Mirza Golam Qadiani claimed to be GOD, reincarnation of JESUS, reincarnation of MOHAMMAD, IBRAHIM & MOSES same time. The guy claimed to have sex with GOD & done Blasphemy for Jesus, Mohammaed & Ebrahim. Mirza Golam Qadiani wrote that Jesus grandmothers were prostitutes. Mirza Qadiani used to live with prostitutes in his life and allowed to use prostitution money for publication of his religion. Mirza Golam Qadiani falled in love with a 15 year teen kid Mohammadi Begum at age of 55 and died with his face and body in his own shit. for more details visit www.dailymotion.com/muslimcause

    ReplyDelete
  39. Maybe it's already been addressed but it seems to me that the crux of the matter is what is being implied (in the assertion that Mr. Qureishi is 'pseudo' Muslim), which is that a 'true' Muslim would've remained faithful to Islam. Is that not it? Or am I mistaken?

    If that is the implication, the question is why would that be true?

    Would a true Muslim have come up with a better defense of Islam?
    Would a true Muslim have been guided by answered prayer from Allah?
    Would a true Muslim have been given a feeling of assurance from Allah?

    In Christianity there are two main differing beliefs about those who fall from the faith. They were never true Christians to begin with, or they were Christians but walked away from that relationship with God. (But with both a Christian is ultimately defined as one who has a relationship with the Living God - John 17:3).

    Are true Muslims stating the former regarding Mr. Qureishi? If not, and Allah has no such relationships with men (that would keep them from falling), then what does keep a true Muslim from walking away from his faith?

    My point is, if there is not a supernatural explanation of what keeps a true Muslim from walking away from his faith, it must be a natural explanation. And if it's a natural explanation - simply the differences in the actions or beliefs of men, then please explain what those differences are that would cause a true Muslim to offer a better defense or cling to Islam tighter than what Mr. Qureishi describes.

    In other words, even given that Mr. Qureishi was not technically a 'true' Muslim, how would that disqualify the reasoning he presented?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's being stated is that there does not exist a convert to Christianity from main stream - 'true' islam as you say - worth his name till date. The opposite is true however. Scores of Christian scholars and preachers have converted to mainstream Islam (never Ahmadi version).

      Delete
    2. Attitude,

      It is not a surprise that there are Christian preachers (i.e. teachers) that converted to Islam just like it is not a surprise that Christian disciples (i.e. students) have converted to Islam. Jesus said that there will be false preachers (i.e. teachers) in the Church who will try to corrupt the disciples (i.e. students). Also, Jesus said that many false Christians (whether teachers or students) will be lead away from the Church by the Devil. Furthermore, Jesus said that true Christians (whether teachers or students) can not be lead away from the Church by anyone (once saved, always saved). There have been many Muslims (Sunni and Shia) that have converted to Christianity; so, you are a liar.

      Delete
    3. Thomas Bridges,

      Muslims do not have a relationship with God because they are not children of God but slaves of God. Muslims do not have a "once saved, always saved" teaching. Muslims teach that a Muslim is born Muslim like a Jew is born Jewish; which is absurd because Jews are blood descendants of Jacob (i.e. Israel) and Muslims are not blood descendants of Muhammad like Christians are not blood descendants of Christ. Islam is one of many heretical Christian groups (as per orthodox Christianity). For any Muslim, belief in Islam is a natural matter (a matter of the brain and intellect; physical circumcision) but for a true Christian belief in Christianity is a supernatural matter (a matter of the mind and heart; spiritual circumcision).

      Delete
    4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oCIXEqmlsQ

      Delete
  40. Ahmadis are considered apostate due to their belief in Ghulam Ahmad being a messenger, the pro-western views of Ahmadiyyat combined with its stance against violent Jihad, especially when the British controlled what became Pakistan. Many Muslims believe the Ahmadi sect was founded by British agents as a way of undermining Islam.

    ReplyDelete
  41. The Ahmadis Are Not Muslims:

    A Response to Nabeel Qureshi's Video "Nabeel Qureshi, Ahmadiyyat and Islam: Are Ahmadis Muslim?"

    By

    Bassam Zawadi



    Nabeel's video can be viewed here. We would also be taking a look at some of the things Nabeel has written over here.

    Given that Nabeel used to be an ex-Ahmadi, he is trying really hard to prove to everyone that Ahmadis are in fact considered Muslims. Why is that something so important to Nabeel? The answer is quite obvious. It is because Nabeel is now trying to build a name for himself amongst evangelical apologists/polemicists that he is some sort of expert on Islam (or on his way to be one) and telling people that he used to be an ex-Muslim gives him more credibility. So Nabeel is actually seeking to be labeled as an apostate from Islam, when he in reality isn't one. In the eyes of Muslims, Nabeel merely transferred from one type of kufr to another. As a matter of fact, it could even be argued that Nabeel actually made a gradual "improvement" in his shift to Christianity, since Christians are at least considered as "people of the book" and their status is above that of the rest of kuffar.

    Muslims have been repeating themselves time and time again that Ahmadis are not considered Muslims for a variety of reasons:

    1) The ahaadeeth regarding the literal return of Jesus (peace be upon him) are mutawaatir (see here). To outright reject a mutawaatir belief (which is an established Islamic belief beyond reasonable doubt) for no valid reason is considered major kufr, which takes the person outside the fold of Islam. There is no doubt that rejecting the firmly established statement of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is an act of major kufr.

    2) The Ahmadis violate the definitive Ijmaa' (ijmaa' al-qat'ee) of the Muslims for more than a millennium that Islam teaches that the final prophet is Muhammad (peace be upon him). To violate such an Ijmaa' is again considered a nullifier of faith. Why? This is because such a person would be following a way other than the way of the believers (see 4:115) for at least a millennium.

    3) Mirza Ghulam Ahmad declared non-Ahmadis as kuffar (see here and here) and to declare the true believers as kuffar is to basically declare true faith as kufr and what greater kufr is there other than this? Nabeel argued over here "but that doesn't change the fact that most Ahmadi Muslims today do not think non-Ahmadis are non-Muslim.", however even if one could point to Ahmadis who don't declare non-Ahmadis as kuffar that wouldn't change the fact that they are still kuffar for not declaring those takfeeris such as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as kuffar. For if one does not recognize and concede the kufr of clear kufr is himself a kaafir. If someone is open to the possibility that clear cut kufr could be a valid view then that person is himself a kaafir (similar to how Nabeel wouldn't consider someone a true Christian if he were open to the possibility that Jesus not dying on the cross is a valid view).

    The fact of the matter is that the kufr of the Ahmadis is crystal clear, but again it's clear that people with personal motives such as Nabeel would do whatever it takes in order to convince people otherwise.

    Let's now take a look at some of the claims that Nabeel made in his video.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Nabeel's Claim that the Ahmadis Believe in All the Articles of Faith

    What Nabeel fails to bear in mind is that Ahmadis don't properly adhere to these articles of faith the way they should be. For instance, one of the articles of faith is belief in messengers. If one were to add to this list of messengers someone who clearly shouldn't be added or if this person removed from this list of messengers one who clearly shouldn't be removed, then that person wouldn't be considered as truly adhering to this article of faith.

    Given that Ahmadis believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a messenger, this would imply that they are in violation of this article of faith and hence not considered believers.

    Also, Ahmadis violate the article of proper belief in Allah's books, which is to believe in the accepted clear understanding of the passages of the Qur'an. Seeing that the Ahmadis violate this when it comes to 33:40, this in turn implies that they are in violation of this article of faith as well. One may not argue that the Ahmadis have a valid interpretation of 33:40 from a linguistic point of view because the Qur'an is quite clear that one of the roles of the Prophet (peace be upon him) was to interpret the Qur'an for us (see 16:44, 64). And given that the Prophet (peace be upon him) has clearly stated in multiply attested reports attributed to him (as we shall below) that he is the final prophet, this would imply that we then must understand 33:40 in light of the Prophet's (peace be upon him) words.

    Nabeel's Claim that Both Orthodox Muslims and Ahmadis Believe that Jesus Would Return

    Nabeel said that Ahmadis don't believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) would return literally, but in a different fashion similar to how the coming of John the Baptist was considered be the return of Elijah. Nabeel then makes it appear as if both orthodox Muslims and Ahmadis agree on this general point (i.e. that Jesus would return), despite believing in different methods of Jesus' (peace be upon him) return.

    This is a point which is not even worth addressing. Anyone who reads the hadeeth literature on Jesus' (peace be upon him) return would observe that they are quite literal and they describe things that Jesus (peace be upon him) do would during his return, which Mirza himself didn't fulfill. So again, the Ahmadis are out right rejecting the words of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in how he described the return of Jesus (peace be upon him) would be.

    Nabeel's Claim that Jesus is Truly the Last Prophet

    Nabeel then raises an argument that Jesus (peace be upon him) would be coming at the end of days; hence Muhammad (peace be upon him) cannot be the last Prophet.

    This has already been dealt with over here.

    Nabeel's Claim that the Differences Between Orthodox Muslims and Ahmadis Are Peripheral

    Nabeel says that the Ahmadis have a different system of fiqh and they don't use Ijtihaad. They listen to whatever Mirza Ghulam Ahmed and his successors said and Nabeel says that this is pretty much the difference. Nabeel says that this is an issue of peripheral doctrine and not an essential issue. Nabeel also thinks that it's a peripheral issue how Ahmadis interpret khaatam al-nabiyeen differently from Sunni Muslims.

    It's pretty clear that I have already demonstrated that the violations of the articles of faith under which these so called ?peripheral' issues come under are indeed violations of fundamental principles in the faith.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This dude should have the honesty to at least state that he belonged to something known as Ahmadiyya. If we use his logic, then ISIL is Muslim!!! Ouch. Puts a dent in the logic.

      Delete
    2. ISIL are Muslims, but not exactly flowing Islam by any means.

      Delete
  43. You're Hollywood act could sure get the Muslim virgins begging for more of your fluids from your hidden underwear. God blast you, asshole

    ReplyDelete
  44. According to your reasoning, is ISIL Muslim?

    ReplyDelete
  45. wow that was one hot debate (i'm talking about the comment here) so hi Dr. Nabeel, i saw one of your videos and you said that you are formerly muslim, and now christianity so i wanted to ask that:

    -Do you still believes in Allah and his prophets?
    -Do you still think Qur-an is corrupted?
    -Do you still believes Jesus or Issa is god?
    -Do you still believe that you are muslim up until now?
    -Do you find peace in christianity?
    -Do you hate muslim?
    -Do you love Muhammad?

    Just wanna ask about it, i really wanted to know about you more. And i'm not arguing or anything (i'm bad at arguing). I really appreciate your answer because i need it :D just say yes or no that's all :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. nabeel has been seen on TV burning copy of the Qur'an with his Christian buddys, so that answers 6 of your questions.

      Jesus (ra) is regarded as God by most Christians.

      Delete
  46. Nabeel, I am reading your book "Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus" and I have read a few of your other articles on line, in particular one where you described your visions and dreams that you felt pushed you towards accepting Christianity. Please do not take offense to this what I am saying now, and I apologize if it does cause any offense, but I feel like especially with your dreams and visions, I do believe they were true and from God but I feel you may have misinterpreted them...in any case may you find peace from wherever it comes to you.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Nabeel, I am reading your book "Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus" and I have read a few of your other articles on line, in particular one where you described your visions and dreams that you felt pushed you towards accepting Christianity. Please do not take offense to this what I am saying now, and I apologize if it does cause any offense, but I feel like especially with your dreams and visions, I do believe they were true and from God but I feel you may have misinterpreted them...in any case may you find peace from wherever it comes to you.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I saw the heading "Former Muslim Nabeel Qureshi Converts To Christianity" I was eager to find our why you converted....then I was directed to this link only to find out you were never a Muslim but an Ahmadi! Much ado about nothing I though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I saw the heading "Former Muslim Nabeel Qureshi Converts To Christianity" I was eager to find our why you converted....then I was directed to this link only to find out you were never a Muslim but an Ahmadi! Much ado about nothing I thought. I lost interest because all I what I have known in my life is that Ahmadis are not Muslims.

      Delete
  49. Aḥmadiyyah is an Islamic religious movement founded in British India near the end of the 19th century.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ahmadiyya

    ReplyDelete
  50. Nabil either your were not aware of religious beliefs of your forefathers (Ahmadiyya cult) when you recording this video or you deliberately lied in this video because you want to be known as 'ex-muslim' for more intention and financial support from Christians you just fooled the non Muslims in this video just the way you have been fooling them in your other videos which contain loads of lies. Either you are ashamed of telling people the real belief of your Ahmadi parents and family or you just use this statement to make Muslims look wrong in views of your fan. As you mentioned yourself in this video that Muslims believe that Jesus (peace be upon Him) will return. Yes but this belief of Muslims is not made up by the later Muslims but it was taught by prophet Muhammad (peace be upon Him) and there are over 100 ahadees on this issue of Jesus Return and Imam Mahdi they both will be separate entities. Whereas, Mirza Qadiani the founder of your parent's cult claimed he was Jesus himself and also he was Mahdi and reincarnation of prophet Muhammad and he was also a Hindu deity the Krishna. Jesus being alive in heavens in Quran teaching and as I aforementioned there are many Ahadees, so, one who denies the teachings of Quran and teachings of Hadees if a KAFIR not a muslim. Perhaps you are ashamed of telling people the whole truth about your parent's religion because you don;t want people to know how stupid and foolish they are to believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani is 'The Jesus'..!
    You also forgot to mention tat Mirza also claimed he was Mary in seclusion for two years then he got pregnant with soul of Jesus in his womb then ten months later he gave metaphor birth then thus he became Jesus son of Mary. All these beliefs are completely un Islamic against Quran against Hadees against the belief of Sahaba (the direct followers of prophet Muhammad), so how can one be a Muslim by having such beliefs? just by reciting shahada? well, let me make clear about their shahada as well. Mirza Bashir son of Mirza Ghulam said to his followers in reply to their question why they don;t have new shahada when they follow a new prophet? Mirza Basheer replied if new prophet had come then we would have new Kalima (shahada) but, because Mirza sahab was not a new prophet in fact he was same prophet Muhammad so we don;t need new Kalima (shahada), so in other words when Ahmadi cult followers recite the shahada they believe the Mirza is the prophet Muhammad. Now you see how much you have hidden from your innocent fans to fool them? but hey, sun shine. those who try to fool others are the greatest fools themselves like yourself and like the prophet of your parents Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani the false Jesus of Indian Punjab. I request the readers to do some research on Ahmadiyya then find out how much this dude in this video Mr Nabil Ex-kafir Qadiani has lied to you.
    Rayaz Ahmed London UK

    ReplyDelete
  51. You stated, "Mormonism teaches that only God the Father should be worshiped, but that humans like you and me can become gods. In other words, Christians are monotheists and Mormons are henotheists."



    Your statements are wrong.


    Mormonism teaches that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit should be worshiped. Mormons believe that God is a Trinity but their understanding of the Trinity differs from the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity. The Orthodox believe that the 3 persons are distinct yet one in essence (orthodox Trinitarianism). The Mormons believe that the 3 persons are distinct yet one in purpose (social Trinitarianism).

    Orthodox, like Mormons, believe that humans like you and me can become gods.*

    Augustine of Hippo was a social Trinitarian yet he was and still is considered an orthodox Christian.

    ReplyDelete
  52. *Part 1 Psalm 82:6 reads, “I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’” Jesus quotes this psalm in John 10:34, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I have said you are gods’?” Athanasius, who is considered a very orthodox Christian, wrote, "The Word was made man in order that we might be made gods", in his work, On the Incarnation of the Word of God. "For if He had made him immortal from the beginning, He would have made him God...so that if he should incline to the things of immortality, keeping the commandment of God, he should receive as reward from Him immortality, and should become God...For God has given us a law and holy commandments; and every one who keeps these can be saved, and, obtaining the resurrection, can inherit incorruption" - (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter XXVII) "....there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, the Son, and those who possess the adoption" - (Irenaeus. Adversus haereses, Book IV, Preface, Verse 4)

    ReplyDelete
  53. *Part2 "For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods; although God has adopted this course out of His pure benevolence, that no one may impute to Him invidiousness or grudgingness. He declares, "I have said, You are gods; and you are all sons of the Highest." But since we could not sustain the power of divinity, He adds, "But you shall die like men," setting forth both truths—the kindness of His free gift, and our weakness, and also that we were possessed of power over ourselves. For after His great kindness He graciously conferred good [upon us], and made men like to Himself, [that is] in their own power; while at the same time by His prescience He knew the infirmity of human beings, and the consequences which would flow from it; but through [His] love and [His] power, He shall overcome the substance of created nature. For it was necessary, at first, that nature should be exhibited; then, after that, that what was mortal should be conquered and swallowed up by immortality" - (Irenaeus. Adversus Haereses (Book IV, Chapter 38, Verse 4) Hippolytus wrote, "And you shall receive the kingdom of heaven, you who, while you sojourned in this life, knew the Celestial King. And you shall be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For you have become God..." "And God called man His likeness from the beginning, and has evinced in a figure His love towards you. And provided you obey His solemn injunctions, and becomest a faithful follower of Him who is good, you shall resemble Him, inasmuch as you shall have honour conferred upon you by Him. For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish anything of the divinity of His divine perfection; having made you even God unto His glory!" - (Hippolytus. Refutation of All Heresies (Book X, Chapter 30)

    ReplyDelete
  54. * Part3 "The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and He, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the breath (spirit) of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the layer he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead" - (Hippolytus. The Discourse on the Holy Theophany, Chapter 8). "And now the Word Himself clearly speaks to you, shaming your unbelief; yea, I say, the Word of God became man, that you may learn from man how man may become God" - (Clement of Alexandria . Exhortation to the Heathen Chapter 1) "But both Jesus Himself and His disciples desired that His followers should believe not merely in His Godhood and miracles, as if He had not also been a partaker of human nature, and had assumed the human flesh which "lusts against the Spirit;" but they saw also that the power which had descended into human nature, and into the midst of human miseries, and which had assumed a human soul and body, contributed through faith, along with its divine elements, to the salvation of believers, when they see that from Him there began the union of the divine with the human nature, in order that the human, by communion with the divine, might rise to be divine, not in Jesus alone, but in all those who not only believe, but enter upon the life which Jesus taught, and which elevates to friendship with God and communion with Him every one who lives according to the precepts of Jesus" - (Origen. Contra Celsus, Book III, Chapter 28) "..the man can become God, and a child of God. For we read, "I have said, You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High"- (John Chrysostom. Homily 32 on the Acts of the Apostles)

    ReplyDelete
  55. If anyone has the time to have a listen to this lecture, it is a little bit long but definetely worth it. It is on the prophet of the ahmadiyya sect gulam mirza, and sites his writings, after hearing his history you be your own judge on this man. This one is especially for you dr.qureshi, now knowing this is the religion you came from, its sad you don't know the real Islam. I pray that God gives us all guidance to the straight path and protects us from falsehood. As God is the only one who can give guidance.

    Sincerely, a concerned muslim.
    I look forward to your reply

    https://youtu.be/16V8IwLrU0E?t=1m21s

    ReplyDelete
  56. Mirza ghulam ahmad was not a prophet. Out last prophet is muhammad (pbuh) it's wrong for anyone to say that MGA was a prophet. I'm a sunni and unfortunately married to a man from ahmadiyah family who said he converted to sunni. I do believe that Muslim or non Muslim no one should be judged or killed because of their faith and religion. I don't agree with my in laws beliefs but I still respect them

    ReplyDelete
  57. Mirza ghulam ahmad was not a prophet. Out last prophet is muhammad (pbuh) it's wrong for anyone to say that MGA was a prophet. I'm a sunni and unfortunately married to a man from ahmadiyah family who said he converted to sunni. I do believe that Muslim or non Muslim no one should be judged or killed because of their faith and religion. I don't agree with my in laws beliefs but I still respect them

    ReplyDelete
  58. Dear Mr. Qureshi,

    Thank you for your video. I have been in contact with an Ahmadiyya professor at the technical college where I also work. Could you please tell me if you have anything effective on evangelizing people in this particular form of Islam? I have a work on more general Islam here:

    http://faithsaves.net/quranbible/

    but nothing on Ahmadiyya. Thank you very much!

    ReplyDelete
  59. The main reason I believe the legislature to declare Qadiani/Mirzai/Ghulamis non-muslim is just because of the cult's own belief that main stream muslims who knew and believed that Mirza Ghalim was a liar and not a prophet were infact non-muslims. In this siatuation one group had to be non-muslim and majority rules in democracy. :)

    ReplyDelete
  60. Nabeel you was kafir a known fact. I dont want to sound rude but its a fact. So ill stop hear...

    ReplyDelete
  61. Nabeel you was kafir a known fact. I dont want to sound rude but its a fact. So ill stop hear...

    ReplyDelete
  62. Very interesting reading. I am a muslim following the same religion "Islam" as my beloved Prophet of God , Mohammed (PBUH). The prophet was asked which of the 73 sects were the right followers. He replied those that followed what he followed.

    Qadiani followers teach the meanings of the quran in differing ways from the 1400 years of guidance (Hadith) of our beloved prophet Mohammed (PBUH). I have two copies of the Quran and I will give just one example:-

    Surah 2 Verses 4-5

    "And who believe in the revelation Sent to thee. And sent before thy time. And (in there hearts) Have the assurance of the Hereafter.

    They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is These who will prosper."

    Commentary

    Righteousness comes from a secure faith, from sincere devotion to Allah and from unselfish service to Man.

    Prosperity must be taken as referring to all the kinds of bounty. The right use of one kind leads to an increase in that and other kinds , and that is prosperity.

    So above is from A translation of Quran by Abdullah Yusuf Ali and follows very very similar to many other Qurans I have studied and those that have been translated by varying renowned and acknowledged Scholars from the Muslim World.


    So I now go to the Qadiani Quran translations published under the auspices of Hadrat Mirza Nasir Ahamd third successor to the Promised Messiah 1981 Published and edited by Malik Ghulam Farid

    Surah 2 Verse 5-6 (Qadiani use Bismillah - In the name of Allah the Gracious, The Merciful as Verse 1 in all Surah)

    "And who believe in that which has been revealed to thee and that which was revealed before thee and they have firm faith in the Hereafter.

    It is they who follow the guidance from their Lord and it is they who shall prosper"

    (So pretty similar)

    Now for the commentary which any person reading would refer to if they truly wanted to understand so what I am saying is that commentary plays a significant part of any translation if provided.

    Commentary:-

    Al Akhiraj means (a) the Last Abode i.e. the next life; (b) it may also signify the revelation which is to follow. This second meaning of the word finds further exposition in 62: 3/4 where the quran speaks of two advents of the holy Prophet????? His first advent took place among the Arabs in the 7th Century of the Christian era when the Quran was revealed to him; and his second advent was to take place in the latter days in the person of one of his followers. This prophecy found its fulfilment in the person of Ahmad, the promised messiah and the founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement.

    The verse speaks of such disbelievers as become so indifferent to truth that it does not matter whether they receive a warning or not. Of these it is declared that as a
    long as their present condition continues they will not believe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No they dont, nor has the teaching of Qur'an has changed and stop making up things and assuming stuff. Please learn to respect other religions! I belong to the Ahmadiyyat Muslim Community and have always been taught to respect one and another faith, never go against them, unless they try to drive you away from your faith. you guys try to go into details and get all your facts wrong, it doesn't make sense and say we, qadiani differ the teaching of Qur'an no mate! its you and your mulas that brainwash you and tell you the negatives! not telling you to accept ahmadiyyat but please stop hating its "LOVE FOR ALL HATRED FOR NONE!"

      Delete
  63. So I now go to Surah 62 Verses 3,4 (As per Qadian references)

    He it is who has raised among the unlettered people a Messenger from among themselves who recites unto them his signs and purifies them and teaches them the book and wisdom though before that they were in manifest error;

    And he will raise him among others of them who have not yet joined them. He is the mighty the Wise.

    Commentary from Qadiani is long and extended but again references the second advent of the holy prophet and he was indeed in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed. They cleverly give a true commentary but then provide an alternate meaning as aforementioned as the second advent???


    Going back to my Quran it reads Surah 62 Verses 3,4

    As well to confer all of these benefits upon, others of the who have not already joined them. And he is exalted In might , Wise.

    Such is the bounty of Allah which he bestows on whom he will. And Allah is the Lord of the highest Bounty.

    Commentary reads:-

    Others of them refers to other persons or peoples who may be ignorant. i.e. others than those among whom the holy prophet came as a messenger. In other words, his message is for his Arab people and his non arab contemporaries as well as those who live in other ages, and have no personal contact with him or his companions.





    So what other clever hidden deviations have the Qadians made, which when their missionaries travel the world to non arab speaking persons, pass on these amended Quran text and lead astray our potential muslim bothers and sisters???

    This s the arrogance of this cult that they take our Gods Holy book and interpret in ways that suit their cult movement and the claims of a false prophet from Qadian.

    I would say the translations in my Quran and commentaries are simple and make complete sense. We need to listen to the hadith of our beloved prophet and learn from him his explanations and not those of a false prophet.

    Surah 16 Verse 44,64 is good reference to note for clarification and guidance on the message and word of god .

    Read also the final sermon of our prophet. You can google this easily. No Apostle or prophet shall come after me......

    To day i have perfected for you your religion .......

    ReplyDelete
  64. Try this blog..

    A new reformer who will unite the worlds religions? He could not even unite his own followers including the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement.

    http://exahmadi.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/the-8-sects-of-ahmadiyyat-qadianism.html

    ReplyDelete
  65. You guys have got it all wrong, im sorry but if you just do research online its not enough for you guys to go off and make false opinion on other religions.

    Ahmadiyya muslim community are the 73 sect of islam

    Ahmadis Do Believe in the Holy Prophet (saw) As Khataman Nabiyeen and Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, is The Promised Messiah (stop getting things mixed -up)
    Before talking about other religions or giving your opinion about them please do go learn about yours first, then others and then you have the right to contribute.
    The Promised Messiah and Mahdi, the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam (peace be upon him) says:

    "I swear by the glory of God and His Majesty that I am of the faithful, a Muslim and I believe in Allah, the High, in His Books, and in His Messengers and in His Angels and in Life after death. And I believe that our Prophet Muhammad the Elect of God (peace of Allah be on him and His blessings) is the most eminent of the prophets and the Seal of Apostles." (Hamamatul Bushra, page 6)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Salaam Ahmed. I have no teachings from any mullahs. I am a student of islam. I have quoted you commentaries from your own version of the quran, not that I have made up. Read the sections and commentaries I have referenced in your quran, You cannot say they are the same , as commentaries are very important as they lead persons to understand and believe what they may not fully understand in Arabic due to language constraints. Ahmed - I have contact with many ahmaddis and have access to many of the books incl copies of the quran. I have not given you a blurb of anti hatred. I am merely quoting facts. Look for the truth and may allah show you the right path. The thing with Mullas is a point that all ahmaddis pick up on. I don't follow any mullah. I educate myself through dialogue and reading of materials. Have you read MGA books yourself? I have Thats why I have come to this conclusion. What has MGA bought as a Mahdi? He was a scholar who correctly quoted that Muhammed PBUH was there final prophet and then for many reasons decided to revoke that statement as he aged. Peace be upon you brother. I don't hate any one as all are my fellow human beings. I am only providing some guidance as I see that the Qadianis are portraying the teachings of the quran and our beloved prophet incorrectly. If you choose not to research yourself then that is your choice.

      My advice to you is to read your prayers five times a day and Allah will guide you.

      Delete
    2. Ahmed - If you don't believe me about the commentaries in your quran then I can send you a photograph of the relevant pages. Published by London Mosque. So please don't call me a liar it is very disrespectful.

      Delete
  66. Is this significant? Go to YouTube and view the myriad of testimonies of people that converted,

    From Judaism to Buddhism
    From Atheism to Catholicism
    From Islam to Zoroastrianism
    From Zoroastrianism to Judaism
    From 7th Day Adventist Christian to Baptist Christian
    From sunni Muslim to Shia Muslim
    From Shia Muslim to Ahmadi Muslim
    From Ahmadi Muslim to sunni Muslim
    From Catholic to Nichiren Shoshu Shoko Gokai Buddhism
    From International Society of Krishna Consciousness (Hare Krisnha) to Mormonism
    From Mormonism to Presbyterianism
    From presbyterianism to Lutheranism
    From Lutheranism to Born-again Christianity,

    and ON and ON and ON. And each ACTUALLY feels that there is something wholly unique about THEIR conversion from one box to another box. They feel that GOD HIMSELF placed his "hand" on them, and delivered them to SALVATION, and saved them from HELL.

    As my Jewish friends would say, "Oy vey!"

    The ONLY thing that is very interesting about THIS particular conversion is that Nabeel Qureshi converted from an Islamic sect that spent a TON of energy (using myriad references, too!!) attempting to prove that,

    1. Jesus did not die on the cross
    2. Jesus did not descend into hell
    3. Jesus did not rise from the dead
    4. Jesus is not "sitting," in heaven, at the "right hand" of God
    5. Jesus will not be returning to this earth, because,
    6. Jesus travelled to India, after surviving the crucifixion
    7. In India, Jesus preached, married, had children, and died at the ripe old age of 120
    8. Jesus' dead body lies in a sarcophagus that is buried underground, beneath this building, called the Rozabal:

    http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/4798838.jpg

    Now, what's SUPER INTERESTING (and somewhat FUNNY, I HAVE to say!!!!) is that this man, Nadeem Qureshi, went from THAT to Christianity!! LOL!!!

    I LOVE this world!! It's a laugh a minute!! And, mind you, I'm not laughing at Nadeem. IN FACT, he's MADE MY DAY. What I'm LAUGHING at is how serious we take ourselves, only to find out that we feel pulled to that which we thought we'd never leave.

    The transitory nature of LIFE, we all know about. But we seem not to understand the transitory nature of that which happens WITHIN life--such as the idea transition from religion to NO religion that GOD HIMSELF IS EFFECTING.

    God has placed the responsibility of each person's spiritual (or otherwise) well-being into that person's own hands, and that should probably be the next, and more REAL transition that Nabeel makes in his young life.

    The Revelation today is CONSCIOUSNESS. Allah has TIRED (in my opinion) of religion, because we all destroyed religion. It has no meaning anymore--not Christianity; not Islam; not Judaism, the three religions, by the way, that are CLOSE to sending us all to a firey pit of hell, on THIS earth, due to their wars in the Middle East.

    Religion is DEFUNCT now--DONE. Consciousness is the new "Revelation," sent by God, that guides each INDIVIDUAL now.

    We apparently didn't DESERVE religion, and proved it. So, God took it away.

    But, GOOD LUCK anyway, Nadeem Qureshi, on your spiritual path from Jesus-is-dead-and-buried-in-Kashmir to Jesus-is-alive-in-heaven.

    I repeat: Oy vey!

    ReplyDelete
  67. Shia and Sunni also believe that Jesus will return. Problem with Ahmedi's belief is that Ghulam Ahmed Qadiani made many claims to prove himself Jesus and Imam mehdi at the same time and all have been proven lies alhamdulillah. My detailed arguments are here:
    http://lateef-sagar.weebly.com/challanging-qadianis.html

    ReplyDelete
  68. Nabeel qureshi was not a Muslim ever.he was an AHmedia which believes on a person name Mirza Ghulam Ahmed as second coming of Jesus Christ.i simple word mirza ghulam Ahmed the the Jesus for Group Ahmedia group. so basically he is screwing Christians Ahmedia are Bnned in Pakistan and declared NON mulsim according to constitution of Pakistan. Apparently, our Nabeel Qureshi was an Ahmadi before he converted to Christianity. Thus, he followed the Ahmadiyya faith; a faith which believes in a man named Mirza Gulam Ahmed as a Prophet and the second coming of Jesus Christ. Did Nabeel believe this man (Gulam) to be Jesus and a Messiah? Did he also believe Jesus went to India?

    ReplyDelete
  69. Nabeel qureshi has explained well with the references.
    in my Opinion Nabeel Qureshi was in The TRUE ISLAM (Ahmadiyya) Very pure Islam than that Ordinary Muslims have.
    Please make a depth study before commenting. You are very Lucky Ahmadi Muslims have not yet visited the blog. This space would not be enough. And at the end of the day you will end up finding all Blasphemy slapping your own face.
    AHMADIYYA SECT FOR SURE ARE THE TRUE FOLLOWERS OF PROPHET OF ISLAM (PBUH) and the QURAN

    The Problem is Most people are brainwashed by wicked mindend religious leaders.

    ReplyDelete