Ahmadiyyah?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LutheranScholar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LutheranScholar

Guest
What is the difference between the Ahmadiyyah and other Muslims? Are they like the Baha’i, or are they a third branch of Islam, alongside the Sunni and Shi’a? I understand that they’re pretty unpopular in Pakistan and I was wondering why.
 
They are Islam’s version of Mormonism. Considered a heretical sect that’s why other Muslims don’t like them. They believe this guy, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, is a prophet in the likeness of Jesus. And this is a problem in mainstream Islam as they vehemently believe that Muhammed was the seal/final prophet.

Anyway, they are actually some of the nicest Muslims I have ever encountered, tbh.
 
The Ahmadiyyah movement is a heretical offshoot of Islam. It’s kind of like how Mormonism is when compared to Christianity. Obviously the Ahmadiyyahs claim to be muslims just as the mormons claim to the christians, but they both introduced herecies that left them outside the fold that they claim to be in. Ahmadiyyahs believe that Jesus [peace be upon him] was not only crucified, but also that he survived it. There is no historical source that I’m aware of that says that someone went on to make a full recovery after being crucified. It’s just not there.

Moreover, they believe that their founder is the Mahdi and Jesus. That’s strange because there is never any evidence in Sunni Hadith that the two can be fused into one person (so to speak). The Messiah and the Mahdi are two seperate persons. If their founder was the Mahdi, he did a pretty sloppy job because the Mahdi is supposed to fill the world with justice and this world is still filled with injustice.

Their founder claimed to be the Messiah, but unfortunately for him, the Qur’an gives that title exclusively to Jesus (in surah 3:45). Claiming to be the Messiah is where they go off the deep end (i.e. it disqualifies them from being muslims because you cannot disbelieve in a prophet and remain a muslim). Prophet Muhammad warned us that many Dajjals would arise and I believe the founder of the Ahmadiyyah is one of them (a Dajjal is a false messiah).

Yeah, they’re very unpopular in certain parts of the world. Salafis persecute them.
 
They are Islam’s version of Mormonism. Considered a heretical sect that’s why other Muslims don’t like them. They believe this guy, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, is a prophet in the likeness of Jesus. And this is a problem in mainstream Islam as they vehemently believe that Muhammed was the seal/final prophet.

Anyway, they are actually some of the nicest Muslims I have ever encountered, tbh.
Oh, okay. Thanks for letting me know. Interesting that Islam has a bit of sectarianism in it. I thought that except for the Sunni/Shi’a divide, they were more monolithic.
 
The Ahmadiyyah movement is a heretical offshoot of Islam. It’s kind of like how Mormonism is when compared to Christianity. Obviously the Ahmadiyyahs claim to be muslims just as the mormons claim to the christians, but they both introduced herecies that left them outside the fold that they claim to be in. Ahmadiyyahs believe that Jesus [peace be upon him] was not only crucified, but also that he survived it. There is no historical source that I’m aware of that says that someone went on to make a full recovery after being crucified. It’s just not there.

Moreover, they believe that their founder is the Mahdi and Jesus. That’s strange because there is never any evidence in Sunni Hadith that the two can be fused into one person (so to speak). The Messiah and the Mahdi are two seperate persons. If their founder was the Mahdi, he did a pretty ****** job because the Mahdi is supposed to fill the world with justice and this world is still filled with injustice.

Their founder claimed to be the Messiah, but unfortunately for him, the Qur’an gives that title exclusively to Jesus (in surah 3:45). Claiming to be the Messiah is where they go off the deep end (i.e. it disqualifies them from being muslims because you cannot disbelieve in a prophet and remain a muslim). Prophet Muhammad warned us that many Dajjals would arise and the founder of the Ahmadiyyah is one of them (a Dajjal is a false messiah).

Yeah, they’re very unpopular in certain parts of the world. Salafis persecute them.
Oh, so they’re pretty much out of the Muslim fold with those extra beliefs and considered more of a cult, then. I guess that would explain the hostility some might feel for them.
 
Oh, okay. Thanks for letting me know. Interesting that Islam has a bit of sectarianism in it. I thought that except for the Sunni/Shi’a divide, they were more monolithic.
Yeah, you also have “Quran-only” Muslims who do not rely on hadith at all. Those are found mainly in places like the US and UK.
 
Love for all - hatred of none, is their saying.

I remember way back we had 2 Ahmadi muslims on here, their postings/replies were so much different than the Sunni/Shia reply’s.
 
The Ahmadiyyah movement is a heretical offshoot of Islam. It’s kind of like how Mormonism is when compared to Christianity. Obviously the Ahmadiyyahs claim to be muslims just as the mormons claim to the christians, but they both introduced herecies that left them outside the fold that they claim to be in. Ahmadiyyahs believe that Jesus [peace be upon him] was not only crucified, but also that he survived it. There is no historical source that I’m aware of that says that someone went on to make a full recovery after being crucified. It’s just not there.
But doesn’t the Qur’an itself, not some random Hadiths, say that Jesus merely appeared to be crucified, and it was one of his disciples? (Christians would compare this to Docetism.) That would just be a flat-out violation, and even further proof against Ahmadiyyah claims: why would they follow this man if he violates the Qur’an in his teachings?
 
Yeah, you also have “Quran-only” Muslims who do not rely on hadith at all. Those are found mainly in places like the US and UK.
Lol, it’s like Protestant Muslims. 😃 Jews have those too, called Karaite Jews (but that movement is much older, from about 200 BC).
 
Lol, it’s like Protestant Muslims. 😃 Jews have those too, called Karaite Jews (but that movement is much older, from about 200 BC).
:rotfl:

Reminds me of a joke…the Sadducees did not believe in the ressurection…that’s why they are SAD-you-see 😉
 
But doesn’t the Qur’an itself, not some random Hadiths, say that Jesus merely appeared to be crucified, and it was one of his disciples? (Christians would compare this to Docetism.) That would just be a flat-out violation, and even further proof against Ahmadiyyah claims: why would they follow this man if he violates the Qur’an in his teachings?
Not necessarily as Quran is very vague. Says they crucified him not, it only appeared to them to be so. I’ve heard Muslims claim it was actually Judas on the cross.

Anyway, Ahmadi’s say Jesus “swooned”…basically played possum but wasn’t really deceased. His followers used some sort of special ointments to revive him on the brink of death.
 
:rotfl:

Reminds me of a joke…the Sadducees did not believe in the ressurection…that’s why they are SAD-you-see 😉
Hah! 👍
Not necessarily as Quran is very vague. Says they crucified him not, it only appeared to them to be so. I’ve heard Muslims claim it was actually Judas on the cross.

Anyway, Ahmadi’s say Jesus “swooned”…basically played possum but wasn’t really deceased. His followers used some sort of special ointments to revive him on the brink of death.
There was a now-deceased American author named Sylvia Browne who made the exact same claim, adding that Jesus then left, got married, and had children. She has a society of people called the Society of Novus Spiritus and they claim themselves to be “Gnostic Christians.” It’s a lousy revival… (their website is here).
 
Hah! 👍

There was a now-deceased American author named Sylvia Browne who made the exact same claim, adding that Jesus then left, got married, and had children. She has a society of people called the Society of Novus Spiritus and they claim themselves to be “Gnostic Christians.” It’s a lousy revival… (their website is here).
Oh yeah, the psychic lady.
 
:rotfl:

Reminds me of a joke…the Sadducees did not believe in the ressurection…that’s why they are SAD-you-see 😉
And that’s how Iremember the difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees. Also, this thread has created a new problem for me: I keep getting “Karaite” confused with “karaoke”. If it taint one thing it’s the udder, dash nabbit.
 
And that’s how Iremember the difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees. Also, this thread has created a new problem for me: I keep getting “Karaite” confused with “karaoke”. If it taint one thing it’s the udder, dash nabbit.
:tiphat:
 
Yeah, you also have “Quran-only” Muslims who do not rely on hadith at all. Those are found mainly in places like the US and UK.
Well! After reading all of this, a lot of the whole " one Muslim Ummah" thing just flew right out the window. I’ve taken a little time to study both the Ahmadiyyat ( www.alislam.org) and the Qu’ran Only group ( quran-islam.org/introduction_(P1122).html) and I can see why the Sunni and the Shi’a might be perturbed at some of their claims.
 
What is the difference between the Ahmadiyyah and other Muslims? Are they like the Baha’i, or are they a third branch of Islam, alongside the Sunni and Shi’a? I understand that they’re pretty unpopular in Pakistan and I was wondering why.
Baha’is are not Muslims and don’t claim to be. We have our own revealed Writings and practices, Holy Places and our own calendar. Ahmadis still consider themselves Muslims.
 
Couple of other things to add…

Ahmadi Muslims are a bit different from other Muslims in some other ways. One is that the structure and unity of the movement is truly global and not territorial, meaning that every Ahmadi (with the exception of a truly tiny splinter group) is truly one, in a way that’s similar (but not exactly the same) as the Catholic Church and its global unity, compared to other Christian churches that have a bit less of that, or quite a lot less of that. I can’t recall all the relevant terms off the top of my head, but it is one thing they like to talk about.

Ahmadi Muslims are unique among Muslims in that they have absolutely no desire for Islamic law to be the actual law of any country. They are universally on board, really on board, with freedom of religion and separation of church and state and all the rest. Truly on board, in a way that mainstream/moderate Muslims are for the most part very much not, even if they are living as a tiny minority in a very secular country. In this sense, Ahmadis are the most secular of all Muslims if you want to call them Muslims, and they are the only Islam-ish group that is truly and consistently this way through and through. Basically, they are pro-West in several very large ways, and this is one of the main ones.

Ahmadi Muslims have always been far more committed to missionary work than any other kind of Muslim. There was a concerted effort early on, still in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when they made a point of sending some missionaries to every country in the world. Literally every one. Because of that, to this day, there are some hard-to-reach countries where the entire Muslim population is something like 12 and they are all Ahmadi. It’s also worth pointing out that they are totally against gaining and keeping adherents by way of coercion, which means they had better be very good at persuading and inviting on a regular basis. This is not much of a winning strategy in an environment where your competition is being incredibly coercive, but overall on a global scale it is working quite well in certain places. For the most part, those certain places are in Africa, where there’s a significant Muslim minority or even a majority, but those Muslims are relatively peaceful and tolerant, and they may even be fairly pro-West, so the Ahmadis have been making a fair bit of progress. Nigeria, Kenya, west Africa- actually, if you look at any of the west African countries that were hardest hit by Ebola, those are going to be your main African countries where Ahmadis have claimed a really substantial share of Muslim populations, although we’re generally looking at Muslim-minority populations where they’re having the most success.

Just one more thing- it seems to be incredibly difficult to pin down exactly how many Ahmadis are in the world, even in Pakistan estimates vary by a range up 5 million or so. It’s absurd, and there’s plenty of countries where nobody has any clue at all. Based largely on estimates though, it probably is the fastest-growing sect of Islam as a percentage of itself, unless you want to count non-denominational Islam which also seems to be quite a thing as well. The last time I remember seeing an approximation of their numbers within a list of all Muslim sects, I recall that they were just behind the Zaydis on that list, which is one of the groups currently being slaughtered and running out of drinkable water in Yemen. I think that’s the minority group, those are the Shia in Yemen, and…is the US backing them or fighting them? I’m pretty sure Iran is backing them, and the US is probably backing the other side. If I recall correctly. Of course Zaydis have absolutely nothing to do with Ahmadis, except for the fact that there are (probably) fairly similar numbers of people in each group, although Ahmadis are way more spread out.
 
Well! After reading all of this, a lot of the whole " one Muslim Ummah" thing just flew right out the window. I’ve taken a little time to study both the Ahmadiyyat ( www.alislam.org) and the Qu’ran Only group ( quran-islam.org/introduction_(P1122).html) and I can see why the Sunni and the Shi’a might be perturbed at some of their claims.
I honestly do not know how Quran-only can work for a Muslim since that book lacks any context or chronology. You absolutely need hadith to make sense of everything.🤷
 
I honestly do not know how Quran-only can work for a Muslim since that book lacks any context or chronology. You absolutely need hadith to make sense of everything.🤷
I do not understand what type of context and chronology is lacking. The Psalms do not seem to lose value for lack of clear chronological arrangement, nor the Proverbs for context. I like to think I recognize contexts and chronologies in the Book, some inherently and some by virtue of historical comments. I have read the Quran several times, but now I wonder if I am reading something into it that is not there?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top