Who is a Muslim?

romair,

.............sir ji, indeed, you are a very thoughtful person ............``I consider Muhammad to be a prophet because the Quran says he is. Otherwise I wouldn`t consider him one. I obviously never met him. Had the Quran stated that Abu-Bakr was a prophet, I would have considered him one. ``

.............. i will let you in on a little secret - it was winnie the pooh !.............. yup, winnie the pooh was the real prophet ..........it says so in 14:37.................

zahraj and sadna,

............ why don`t you wmen butt out .........can`t you see we men are discussing important stuff ......... go back to your knitting - when we need some tea we will let you know .......... miserable women!

sattar mian,

.......... i am seriously thinking about declaring my prophethood - would you like to be my disciple..... or are you stuck with this mr ghulam ahmed? ............

.............. i have given up on the sunnis who are fixated on mr abdullah`s grandson and the shias who are smitten with mr muhammad`s grandson............ it is awfully hard for an aspiring prophet now days ............ in the good old days every noah, jonah and moses was a prophet ................all you had to do was convince a few bedouins high on wild mushrooms that you had been eaten by a fish or had talked to an angel in a cave and you were in .................... nowdays it would be awfully difficult to get past cnn and bbc cameras.......... maybe i can have romair as my disciple - he will believe anything ............

sattar2 #126: ``Back to the original question … how was an Israelite, two thousand years ago, supposed to know that Jesus was a prophet? You may ask this about Lot, Noah, or any other prophet of Allah. The point remains the same ``

Yes. This is my point exactly. What is the criteria?

I have described what I feel to be the criteria for the Quran, and its description of prophets. And how I think it could be validated. I think there should be a lot of research done in those areas - science and anthropology and history - with respect to the Quran.
I don`t enough about Christianity or Judaism, to know how they could validate their teachings; specifically the ones that contradict the Quran.

And I don`t know what criteria could be used for individuals who appear after the Quran, to validate whether they actually are prophets or Mahdis. And how to distinguish between someone who is genuine and someone who thinks he is genuine, but may not be. I do agree that Ahmedis did not raise Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to the status of prophethood. And that he himself claimed it.

But we must return to the question (in a manner completely outside of whether someone is a Muslim or non-Muslim) and describe a criteria. If we cannot describe a criteria, then we have to accept the fact that there will be people at different times, who will believe in different individuals to be prophets. And we must then accept all of their claims to be accurate. Or figure out, through some manner, which one is accurate and which one is not.

Urstruly …

… when you meticulously explained the Islamic system … the qazi, the mufti, the sultan’s concubines … you basically insisted that such a system once existed in the name of Islam … and that’s good enough. You failed to validate such pronouncements from Quran … where Allah Himself uses the term Muslim for believers, without authorizing anyone to overrule this verdict.

You also failed to mention … Ahmadis were declared non-Muslim behind closed doors. The trial … Ahmadi explanations … all remain under wraps. Is this the Islamic system of justice? No one can explain why Ahmadis are non-Muslims. You did not even know that Shah Waliullah and Ibn-e-Arabi professed continuation of prophethood. I had to educate you … and then what? Are these two also non-Muslims now?

Contributions of Ahmadis …?

For these to count to you, we’d have to kill some apostates on july 4th … beat some white women into wearing hijab … blow up the headquarters of jewish corporations … carry out suicide bombings in children’s parks … carry a lotta to work in our briefcases … and get sadna to accept differences between men and women …

… I hope you see why Ahmadis flunk your criteria of “progress” (including the last one … although that one was worth trying …). So why bother … ? Your time would be better spent chasing an adulteress woman down the road as you reload your shotgun … if nothing else, it will make you feel good about yourself …

Romair (#122):

You have asked a pertinent question. However, before asking “how do Ahmadis know if Mirza Sahib was a prophet” … you must ask … “how was an Israelite, two thousand years ago, supposed to know that Jesus was a prophet”. This is a serious question … and must be pondered over before going further.

And a small note: Ahmadis ascribe to Mirza Sahib what Mirza Sahib himself claimed. It is not a case of Ahmadis raising Mirza Sahib to prophethood without his own claims, after his death.

Back to the original question … how was an Israelite, two thousand years ago, supposed to know that Jesus was a prophet? You may ask this about Lot, Noah, or any other prophet of Allah. The point remains the same ...

Urstruly:

Mustansar Hussain writes in his Famous novel ``Rakh`` ``Yaar ai dus, kadhi Punjabi wi Nabi ho sakda hai?!``

That is a valid question I tell you.

sattar #116: ``Adopting your line of reasoning, one can also argue that … Muhammad should not have claimed prophethood … he should have simply preached honesty and forthrightness … and let the coming generations decide whether he was a prophet, a Messiah, or what. Muhammad, by integrating his prophethood into the message of Islam … in essence tried to claim ownership of religion beyond his own personal sphere.``

I think the interesting word in the comment is, ``should.`` I am no one to state what anyone should have done. In fact, all my arguments are against interpreting what anyone should do. Hence I cannot be the final decision-maker on what Mirza Ghulam Ahmad should have done. I can just make a decision on it for my personal sphere.

However, your comment does point to the gist of a very basic question, that I have never quite found an answer for, i.e. How exactly does one decide who is and isn`t a prophet? What is the criteria?

I consider Muhammad to be a prophet because the Quran says he is. Otherwise I wouldn`t consider him one. I obviously never met him. Had the Quran stated that Abu-Bakr was a prophet, I would have considered him one.

This brings us to the question on whether the Quran is a genuine word of God or not. If it is man-made, i.e. made by a man named Muhammad, then the whole religion of Islam goes out the door, since Quran is its foundation. So there should be a lot of research done on the genuineness and authenticity of the Quran, itself. That could be done by trying to find, in the Quran, thoughts, science, history, etc., which would have been impossible to have been known to man at the point, when it was written. Hence proving it is not a work of man, but of a superior entity.

Similarly, research should be carried out to prove that the Quran has not been changed, since being written, even it is proven to be the work of God i.e. people have not added stories to it to benefit themselves. For example, Abu-Bakr`s name has not been replaced with Muhammad`s etc. This could be done through carbon-dating, excavation finds etc.

Assuming everything is kosher, i.e. Quran is not the work of man, and has not been changed, then we know for certain that a man named Muhammad was a prophet, and Abu-Bakr wasn`t. Because, God Himself, directly stated it.

But what about people who come after Muhammad and the Quran? What criteria do we apply to them? Obviously, their exact name cannot have been mentioned in the Quran. The Quran does not name a specific person to be Mahdi. How do we know, the one we consider to be the genuine one, is actually genuine? How does that person know himself that he is actually the Mahdi? What if two people declare themselves to be the Mahdi, and are genuinely convinced that they are the real one?

These are questions that, at least in my opinion, need to be debated - starting from the Quran itself to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and anyone who comes after him. Unfortunately, they are only debated to declare someone to be Muslims or non-Muslims.

As for me, as I have stated, I do not consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be the Mahdi, because, so far, no one has been able to provide enough reason to me, to justify it. If they could provide enough reasoning, then I would actually become an Ahmedi.

At the same time, I obviously cannot say with 100% certainity that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is not the Mahdi. Maybe he is the real Mahdi. We cannot really know, since there is no set criteria, that I know of, to decide the correctness or incorrectness of such claims.

Based on this, I think people need to live and let live. They have a right to have a firm belief on who they consider to be a Mahdi or not. But they cannot apply their understanding as a law onto others. Since, their views could always turn out to be wrong.

The other option is to take the easy way out, and follow the hamidm school of thought, and throw religion out the door, all together. But I have yet to reach that stage.

RizwanAhmad #112: ``This is a little, not clear to me, so I just want to make sure, that you are not disagreeing on this.......If not, then please elaborate what is the part of this statement you disagree.``

I agree with the part you have stated about sufferings of many prophets. The part I disagree with concerns your views about Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, having the status in Islam that Ahmedis give him. Again, it is my personal opinion. Not an attempt to declare anyone a Muslim or non-Muslim

If I didn`t disagree with that, then I would be an Ahmedi. The same rule applies to everyone, who is not an Ahmedi. Similarly, you would disagree with me, on not giving Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, that status.

As for the question I asked:

How exactly does one decide who is and isn`t a prophet? Suppose, someone, today, genuinely feels that they are a prophet. They are not faking it. They, themself, are 100% convinced that they are a prophet of Islam. They declare it, and then suffer for it. And they have a following and are simultaneously prosecuted by the majority.

Now, would you consider that person a prophet? If the answer is yes, then anyone who fits the above criteria, can declare themselves to be a prophet of Islam. If the answer is no, then isn`t that the criteria used by Ahmedis in giving Mirza Ghulam Ahmad a high status in their understanding of Islam?

That is the concept, under which I disagree with Ahmedis on their interpretation of Islam.

This board is full of little babies hitting each other with their ``teer-kaman.``

Where are the adults ? Can anyone please control these babies ?

What happened to the thought that was raised by Mr. Gill ?

When will ``we`` learn to address a concern without resorting to personal insults and below the belt remarks?

What are we ? uncouth barbarians? educated but crude fellows??

I detest this remark about thick skin and other nonsense. That`s just an excuse.

In order to inculcate a pleasant and sweet environment, we have to make an effort to do so. Well, those who are interested in delving into the nuances of below the belt expressions and thoughts should certainly look into Chowk`s Unplugged Section. It has a lot of variety in that regard.

This topic has to evolve to provoke the desire to acquire a better understanding than to just pick the old stones/phrases/concepts and start hitting right and left. How many people lost their lives in Minaa` ? Again, doing what and how ? Points to ponder.

Thank You!

Then read this also for comments:-
Sunnan Abudaud, Book 38, No.4348.
`` Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:
A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet
(peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He
rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander
the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it
on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs
was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet
(peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.
He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this
action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping
over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.
He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am
her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she
did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two
sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to
abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed
it till I killed her.
Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation
is payable for her blood``.

---

The above Hadith does not seem to be consistent with the Seer-atun-Nabi as `Rehmatulalimin`. If cosidered so such Ahadith which tarnish the name of Islam may not be cancelled when even a number of Quranic versis are treated to have been cacelled.

---

Rizwan:

Got it. Now can we get back to the original question. My intent is just to seek the truth - I agree that information about Mirza Sahib is available on either extreme. I want a middle of the road approach to show what was it all about.

… Urstruly

… and on my desire to hurt innocent people … you did not get the joke since the joke was on you. Or maybe you did not like it when I called the imam of the detroit mosque fat and smelly …

… in any case … if a believing woman ever did get a boyfriend … you’d be the first one to tie her to a pole and stone her to death … now tell me … who is cruel and insecure …

… as for your invitation to arms … my only condition is that you shave your underarms first, apply some deodorant … and use mouthwash. I know shariah opposes using products made by jews … and that’s one more reason why I’d prefer to stay away from you … nothing personal … just that the smell would kill me before the shariah-ordained trial for apostasy …

plats #108 Yes indeed. The Lord certainly will not win any Academy Awards for Best Producer, given the miserable plot so far of ``The Planet of the Hairless Apes``. He might win the award Best Comedy perhaps.

The sequel is expected to be better (we hope!).

Urstrully, You asked about what change or reform is/was done by Mirza Shahib.

Before I answer you this, I should point out, this is a very relative question. it depends upon the lens you use to judge a person. For example Holy Prophet is regarded very highly by Muslims, but He is not placed at such a high place by Non-Mulsims. There are some Non-muslim who attributes a lot of false stuff to Holy Prophet. Then there are even fair Non Muslims, for example Michael Hart, who wrote in The 100, a ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History

My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world`s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels.

This is alluded to in Quran by ``Hussan Zan`` that is thinking good of others, if you dont know if somone has said or done certain thing, then assumeing that he would have done some good thing or would have said some thing. Opposite of it is ``Bad Zan`` which is always assuming others would have done bad things without proper knowledge. This is in fact root-cause of several social problems.

Romair,

I think what Rizwan is trying to say … is what I also wanted to mention (about your post #31). You wrote:

He (Mirza Sahib) could have just preached a version of religion, and then let the coming generations decide whether he was a Mahdi or a prophet. Rather than inculcating that into a version of the religion. In this sense, he tried to claim ownership of a religion, beyond his own personal sphere .

As an Ahmadi-Muslim, my understanding is that … Allah revealed to Mirza Sahib that he is the Issa-ibne-Marriam foretold by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), the Mahdi of his age, and a prophet of Islam. It was not Mirza Sahib’s decision as to how, what to preach. He followed divine guidance as it was revealed to him.

Adopting your line of reasoning, one can also argue that … Muhammad should not have claimed prophethood … he should have simply preached honesty and forthrightness … and let the coming generations decide whether he was a prophet, a Messiah, or what. Muhammad, by integrating his prophethood into the message of Islam … in essence tried to claim ownership of religion beyond his own personal sphere.

I hope you see the point … although, largely, I concur that the mullah forcing their interpretation of Islam … violates the very message of Islam. And that’s the travesty the ummah fails to see …