Debate

P R I V A T E D E B A T E B E T W E E NS U N N I A N D A H M A D I M U S L I M

B R O T H E R S .

Private Debate between an Sunni and Ahmadi Muslim brothers.

ABOUT

February 28, 2014

Debate between FightForTruth (Ahmadi) andAiman_D (Sunni) — Screenshots have been

added as proof of unadulterated conversation.

1) This is the initial message sent to Aiman_D fromFightForTruth.

Screenshot

This is in regards to your post on /r/Islam

I would post on your thread but since I belong a peaceful sect of Islam which livesby the motto “love for all, hatred for none”, my posts are automatically downvoted by the radicals in that subreddit. So I send a pm to anyone who inquiresabout Islam.

There are 73 sects within Islam and I belong to the /r/Ahmadiyya Muslims sect.We are persecuted by the main stream Muslims, yet despite their efforts,Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is the fastest growing sect of Islam. Ourcommunities main website which contains everything you need to know about usis, www.alislam.org

Another thing I would like to mention is that despite their being 73 sects of Islam,the Quran and the Hadiths remain constant throughout all the sects, you will findthey all have the same copy of the Arabic Quran and Hadiths. Their differencesstem from their interpretation of those texts and on how to practice Islam.

This being said, I would like to offer you a copy of the Quran with a commentarywhich can open up the hidden layers of the Quran for you.

http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/guide.htm?region=E1

Just a side note, the commentary is necessary as Islam has two texts of greatimportance, first and foremost is the Quran and second to that are the Hadiths(sayings of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) recorded by his disciples after his death).Consider the Quran as the Law and hadith a guide on how to apply said law. Thecommentary which I provided above, does an excellent job of using both sourcesto relay the hidden meanings of verses for the reader, which only open up after acareful study of both the Quran and Hadith.

Also, I would like to recommend a book for your reading pleasure, it talks of theorigins of almost all major religions of the world and also takes on contemporaryphilosophies and compares them to Islam. It also does an excellent job ofcovering topics such as evolution and other major scientific theories and showshow not one contradicts Islam. Also, everything is backed up by references, sonothing is taken out of thin air.

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

http://theiratitagain.wordpress.com/about/

http://theiratitagain.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/debate-part-1/


http://imgur.com/fl3wYPc

http://www.reddit.com/r/Islam

http://www.reddit.com/r/Ahmadiyya

http://www.alislam.org/

http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/guide.htm?region=E1

http://www.web2pdfconvert.com?ref=PDF


http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/index.html

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to ask and have awonderful day

2) Reply from Aiman_D.

Screenshot

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to ask.

Do you really mean this? I’ve always had questions about Ahmadiyya and yet tofind someone who is actually welling to answer them.

If you are willing to answer then let me know, but If you say yes then just leaveme hanging once I ask and ignore me I’ll know for a fact that your sect is a lie.

3) Reply from FightForTruth.

Screenshot

sure, ask away.


Thank you, I added you so I can PM you later, I’ve been online for more than 7hours straight and too tired to think.. I’ll start tomorrow .. Thanks.


No problem, have a wonderful night. You can always post questions on/r/Ahmadiyya as well, I usually reply once a day or sometimes skip a day or two,due to family and work obligations.


Screenshot

OK first of all let’s agree on the basics.

Do you believe that the quran is the words of Allah, that it can not bechanged and accept everything in it?

Same question about Hadith and Sunna?

What are the basic differences (just the basics)

What proof can you provide for said differences.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, please keep it to thepoint.


Screenshot

Do you believe that the quran is the words of Allah, that it can notbe changed and accept everything in it?

Yes. The only difference between Sunni and Ahmadiyya is the translation.

Same question about Hadith and Sunna?

Yes again. The only Hadith or Sunna Ahmadi’s disregard is the one whichcontradicts the Quran.

What are the basic differences (just the basics)

Ahmadi’s believe that the long awaited Messiah (Jesus (as)) has returned. Wetranslate many hadith and Quranic verses as metaphors and do not hold them


http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/index.html

http://imgur.com/iF8IGQb

http://imgur.com/1ggZ9fj

http://www.reddit.com/r/Ahmadiyya

http://imgur.com/aQJX7In

http://imgur.com/E4oAoGc



literally. We believe that religion should be rational and should not defy logic.

What proof can you provide for said differences.

Quran, hadith and logic.

I hope it’s on point


Screenshot

Thanks for the answers

The only difference between Sunni and Ahmadiyya is the translation.

There are many translations out there, but how does that make a change inreligion, I read the quran in Arabic and so I don’t care about translations, themeeting point is the source, we as sunni don’t take the translation as a source butthe actual quran in Arabic the one that is unchanging since the days of the lastmessenger (PBUH)

The only Hadith or Sunna Ahmadi’s disregard is the one whichcontradicts the Quran.

We translate many hadith and Quranic verses as metaphors and donot hold them literally.

So let me get this straight, you interpret the quran as metaphors basically puttinga piece of your humanly fundamentally flawed mind in the perfect God-sendmessage, disregard what it actually tells you and make it a metaphor that suitsyour ideas, and then disregard authentic well sourced hadith based on YOURinterpretation of said metaphors?

wouldn’t the logical approach to change your humanly flawed ideas and replacethem with what the actual messenger of Allah told us. the one who actuallytaught us the quran would know better what it means, wouldn’t you think?

Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination.(3)It is not but a revelationrevealed,(4)Taught to him by one intense in strength(5) (Surat An-Najm)

Also:

And if Muhammad had made up about Us some [false] sayings,(44) Wewould have seized him by the right hand;(45) Then We would have cutfrom him the aorta.(46) And there is no one of you who could prevent[Us] from him.(47) (Surat Al-Ĥāqqah)

Also, you didn’t actually provide proofs for your claims “Quran, hadith and logic”is not really an answer.

Thank you for your time


Screenshot 1Screenshot 2

There are many translations out there, but how does that make achange in religion,

The translations don’t change Islam, they make the teachings clearer byintegrating them to existing secular knowledge or by showing how the Quran isrelevant in modern times. They also help decipher the metaphorical verses more


http://imgur.com/2xatD3f

http://imgur.com/yu7ekeO

http://imgur.com/BWxRQYw



clearly with newer discoveries and more advance understanding of oursurroundings.

I read the quran in Arabic and so I don’t care about translations,the meeting point is the source, we as sunni don’t take thetranslation as a source but the actual quran in Arabic the one that isunchanging since the days of the last messenger (PBUH)

There in lies the fault which is quite clear from a rational point of view. The Quranas you already know is poetic in nature, it’s text is rich and open to translation, sowhen you say that the translation is not necessary, it worries me because, this isthe root cause of extremism. What I have been tough about Islam and what Iheave learned on my own has led me to strongly believe that a logical and rationaltranslation (tafsir) is absolutely necessary to explain the true teachings of Islam.You should know that the Quran is coded in a way which as society (science)progresses, the Quran also opens up to the reader, staying relevant and aconstant reminder to man that God had mentioned these “new” discoveries 1400years ago. The Arabic in the Quran can never be changed but those verses holdmore value when each letter and word is analyzed, as it’s done in a tafsir.

So let me get this straight, you interpret the quran as metaphorsbasically putting a piece of your humanly fundamentally flawed mindin the perfect God-send message,

No, you are miss interpreting the need of translation. The tafsirs are not compiledby just one persons point of view, they are compiled by using existing secularknowledge to help strengthen the Quranic teachings by providing evidence whichwe know as truth from having tested the results (science). If anything, it helpsclear up misconceptions. For example, since the Quran is designed by Allah to lastthe test of time, and we know the Quran to be the absolute truth then we knowthat it’s still as relevant today as it was 1400 years ago. Yet, explaining modernknowledge to people 1400 years ago would have been next to impossible withoutdisrupting natural evolution, that’s why the Quran uses metaphors to describemany modern marvels (which, if you ask me is the beauty of the Quran, as it wasas relevent to them 1400 years ago, as it is today to us), especially scientificdiscoveries, like the big bang, evolution, start of life, etc. Which science is just nowtrying to tackle, Allah mentioned almost all of of them 1400 years ago, and thosewhich are not found in the Quran haven’t yet been perfected by science.

disregard what it actually tells you and make it a metaphor that suitsyour ideas, and then disregard authentic well sourced hadith basedon YOUR interpretation of said metaphors?

Again no, there is no our own interpretation. It’s one use with secular knowledgeto keep Islam both logical, rational and relevant to our existing times.

What you’re getting at is how we translate (which you and all sunni’s believe) thefinality of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) mentioned in (33:41). Well, other verses ofthe Quran contradict what this verse is saying? Matter of fact,31 of themsupport the continuation of of prophet hood, not to mention some hadithsand other authentic Islamic sources.

wouldn’t the logical approach to change your humanly flawed ideasand replace them with what the actual messenger of Allah told us.

This is what Islam prohibits, what you are asking is to forget all secular knowledgeand just peruse religious knowledge alone. Instead I believe as the AhmadiyyaMuslum Community believes, that there should be a unison between the two.Secular knowledge should support the Quran as still relevant to this and that isonly achievable if you allow the Quran to be translated logically, rationally and inrelation to existing secular knowledge (trusted as truth after having been provento be the truth, ex. gravity, spinning earth etc. etc.).

Also, you didn’t actually provide proofs for your claims “Quran,


http://www.alislam.org/library/books/truthfulness/question_1.html

https://www.alislam.org/books/truth/finality.html



hadith and logic” is not really an answer.

You asked for a simple answer in your questions so I kept everything short. I haveexpanded a bit on this reply, I hope it is to your satisfaction. I would like tocontinue this dialogue if you don’t mind as it helps us both learn from each other.Have a wonderful day and I look forward to your reply.

I forgot to write in there that the tafsir which Ahmadi’s hold dearly is Tafseer-e-Kabeer.



Thank you for your reply. I’m enjoying this one on one discussion immensely, notrolling, distractions or downvotes

Quick question, do you understand Arabic, because I do and If you happen toknow arabic too it would make information exchange much easier without amiddle language, If not then it’s ok, we can continue as is.

I agree with some of what you say and disagree with many things, was planing toquote each part and discuss it further but then you said a few things that wereshocking to me and obviously disagree with what I believe on principle so Idecided to drop the more arguable parts for now and just focus only on thestrongly-disagree-parts, at least for now so we don’t get distracted with the nitti-griity and lose sight of the important stuff. So here we go!

First point:

What you’re getting at is how we translate (which you and all sunni’sbelieve) the finality of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) mentioned in(33:41). Well, other verses of the Quran contradict what this verseis saying? Matter of fact, 31 of them support the continuation of ofprophet hood, not to mention some hadiths and other authenticIslamic sources.

That is a huge claim man, I actually read the first link you provided (will discuss)and scrolled through the second one and didn’t find anything interesting , I’ll addan important foot note about that at the end of this message.

The first link tries to mix the cards together, it quotes verses that are clearly incontext addressing people from previous nations like the people of israel, and thepeople at times of different prophets (Ibrahim, yusef ,isa..etc (PBUT)) and takingabout prophets coming after them, Naturally this is something we sunni believe in,in times of any prophet Allah inform his nation of the next coming prophet sothey would accept them. An example:

And [mention] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, “O children of Israel,indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you confirming what came beforeme of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come afterme, whose name is Ahmad.” But when he came to them with clearevidences, they said, “This is obvious magic. 1

So all of the alleged proofs in your first link are using the same idea, bringing ayatin the context of previous nations being promised future prophets which we assunni obviously agree with since we believe in all of the prophets. and so itcontinues for all the previous prophets and their nations until prophethoodreaches our prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and Allah declares that he is the lastprophet.

Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men, but [he is] theMessenger of Allah and last of the prophets. And ever is Allah , of all


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafseer-e-Kabeer

http://imgur.com/FuK0fo7

http://imgur.com/oy3k50U

http://quran.com/61/6



things, Knowing. 2

The aya is so very obvious and literal that Muhammad is the final prophet. Thereare zero contradictions, each prophet is promised a prophet after him until ourprophet was declared the last.. To quote the verses regarding the previousnations and then claim that they contradict this verse is obvious fraud. there aremany other evidence that support this from authentic Hadith and verses but thisone is so very clear I don’t feel the need to quote them (but I will if you ask want).I mean even the prophet made it very clear times and times again that he is thelast prophet, that many others will come later and claim to be prophets and thatall of them are lying. Some even claimed prophethood in his life and he made thefinality of him abundantly clear.

Second point:

This is what Islam prohibits, what you are asking is to forget allsecular knowledge and just peruse religious knowledge alone…

I asked for no such thing, what I said was exactly: “wouldn’t the logical approachto change your humanly flawed ideas and replace them with what the actualmessenger of Allah told us.” I didn’t mention anything remotely related to secularknowledge, I said that the messenger of Allah(PBUH) knows the meaning of thewords of Allah more than anyone possibly can.. If your ideas and metaphors inthe quran contradict the authentic words of the messenger then YOUR Ideas ofsaid metaphors are false. It’s that simple.

Third point:

Again, you didn’t provide any proof for your claims about Isa(pbuh), but I’lloverlook this as the texts are getting lengthy and the conversation is separatingto many branches.. I’ll just state that I strongly disagree with what you said aboutIsa(Pbuh) and will return to this point later inshallah after we settle the points weare discussing above.

Fourth point:

I forgot to write in there that the tafsir which Ahmadi’s hold dearly isTafseer-e-Kabeer.

it almost sounds like you are making it a divine book which I hope is not what youmean, I mean why this one and not any of the other tafseers. It’s just anotherbook

The foot note! : If you are welling to continue this discussion (hopefully) pleasedon’t just through website links at me, I can do the same and this conversationwould turn into a link sharing PMs and we won’t get anywhere, If you find a partthat is Central and really worth reading please put the relevant parts in the actualmessage and then you can add a link for further information.. This way I can readthe link if I want but I don’t have to, I can just ignore it and the conversationwould continue smoothly.. If you through links to walls of text and then I’ll haveto spend the time reading then writing notes and objections about every part orjust throw links at you and again we go nowhere.. Obviously this rule would applyto me as well.



Hello Brother, hope you don’t mind me calling you brother

Before I begin my rebuttal I would like to address a few points you brought up.First was your question about whether I can speak Arabic or not; I cannot speakArabic, not do I understand what I am reading in Arabic, I can only recite Arabic



http://imgur.com/v0aCg9x

http://imgur.com/Z0CEDWm



and rely on translations. Second was concerning providing links, I only providethem when they are relevant and to the point on which we are having adiscussion. The reason I do this is because the link provides an official answer fromthe Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, and I don’t think my summery can do justiceto the official answer. I will do my best to summarize the point henceforth andprovide the link for further reading.

Thank you for your reply. I’m enjoying this one on one discussionimmensely, no trolling, distractions or downvotes

This is why I use the PM system and avoid unwanted intrusion. It lets us have adiscussion strictly on point without the constant bombardment of “kafir”, whichevidently no Muslim has a right to call another.

The aya is so very obvious and literal that Muhammad is the finalprophet. There are zero contradictions, each prophet is promised aprophet after him until our prophet was declared the last.. To quotethe verses regarding the previous nations and then claim that theycontradict this verse is obvious fraud.

Lets focus on the this one verse and how our translation differs. This is thetranslation I present and prefer to accept, instead of the literal translation. Pleaseread the Arabic translation since you are familiar with Arabic and then thecommentary on this verse. I would welcome your criticism concerning thetranslation I choose to accept. It is verse 33:41 and not 40 because Ahmadi’scount Bismillah as the very first verse of the Quran, just in case you werewondering.

I asked for no such thing, what I said was exactly: “wouldn’t thelogical approach to change your humanly flawed ideas and replacethem with what the actual messenger of Allah told us.” I didn’tmention anything remotely related to secular knowledge, I said thatthe messenger of Allah(PBUH) knows the meaning of the words ofAllah more than anyone possibly can.. If your ideas and metaphorsin the quran contradict the authentic words of the messenger thenYOUR Ideas of said metaphors are false. It’s that simple.

Then we are in agreement, I misunderstood what you meant by there being noneed for translation. I agree wholeheartedly that if the metaphors, ideas, ortranslation contradict what we learn from the Quran and Sunnah then theyshould be discarded as being false. The ultimate source is the Quran, followed bySunnah, the rest is up to us on how we understand both in unisense and applywhat we understand.

Again, you didn’t provide any proof for your claims about Isa(pbuh),but I’ll overlook this as the texts are getting lengthy and theconversation is separating to many branches.. I’ll just state that Istrongly disagree with what you said about Isa(Pbuh) and will returnto this point later inshallah after we settle the points we arediscussing above.

I would like to present two short videos, which touch on this point and explainhow the Ahmadi’s interpret the Hadiths concerning Isa (as) and the dajjal. Part 1 – Part 2. This should give a general idea of what I mean when I say the Ahmadiyyacommunity translates many miracles, prophecies etc. as metaphors and notliteral. This makes complete sense when you consider Islam as the final religion formankind and having been the final book from God, he coded it in such a way thatit’s as relevant today as it was 1400 years ago. The more we learn throughsecular knowledge, the more the Quran opens up to us and we recognize thesigns of Allah. The beauty of the Quran being that it’s a book designed to last thetest of time.

it almost sounds like you are making it a divine book which I hope isnot what you mean, I mean why this one and not any of the other


http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=2125&region=E1&CR=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tOLp2DoUv4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AY9lgE21JY



tafseers. It’s just another book

You are right, I did not intend it to sound like it’s our divine book, what I meant tosay is that this is the translation or tafsir of the Quran the Ahmadiyya MuslimCommunity considers the most accurate and up to date. It’s how we perceiveIslam.

I hope this covered all the points you raised, I look forward to your reply :), Havea nice day brother Aiman_D.


Screnshot 1Screnshot 2Screnshot 3

Hello M*****! That’s a beautiful name by the way, means someone who ischaritable or doer of good, It’s also mentioned in the quranin 31:22 4:125 2:122 and 37:113.

sorry for the delay in reply. The first point will be the main focus of my message,I’ll be using pics uploaded on Imgur to show what I mean because of the languagebarrier so it may look like I’m giving a lot of links but it’s really just the same imagewith different notes, It would probably be much easier to explore if you havereddit enhancement suit plugin installed but that’s beside the point. Allow me tojump straight to the main points:

The First point:

Lets focus on the this one verse and how our translation differs.This is the translation I present and prefer to accept

Let me break down the meanings in the tafseer you provided one by one in noparticular order.

1. Let me start from the end of the page you provided. I noticed that thetafseer you provided does not (and can not) refuse the obvious meaning ofthe aya (Here), it just puts it as ‘secondary/may also mean’. As a nativespeaker I find this to be an obvious deception and kind of an insult to myintelligence. You can open any Arabic to Arabic dictionary or any of thehundreds of tafseers out there and you’ll find this meaning crystal clear. Alsosince this obviously contradicts the fundamentals of Ahmadiya belief you’dthink the writer would bother to prove why this ‘may also mean’ part is notthe true meaning and on what bases did he decide that this isn’t the primarymeaning.

2. Regarding translation as ‘seal’ (Here) this seal, Not this seal: This is a valid andwell known translation and it exists in most (if not all) the sunni tafseers ofthe quran and any arabic to arabic dictionary. This does not contradict orreplace the first meaning, on the contrary it solidifies it. with him Allah hassealed the advent of prophets, such that there is no prophet after him. Theway you seal a message only after it is finished. This is one of the beauty ofquranic linguistics, when I read it I understand the literal meaning (ThatMuhammad PBUH is the last prophet) and at the same time imagine themetaphorical meaning of the prophet-hood being sealed by him.. It paints apicture that makes the meaning solid and twice as clear.

3. Regarding the translation as ornament or embellishment or perfection andsuch (here). First of all I’d like to point out that this is absolutely nonsense. Inno way can it be translated like this, I even questioned myself on the offchance that this is an old meaning or something like that and checked fivedifferent dictionaries (listed here) and didn’t find this to be a valid meaning tothe word in any of them. These words in Arabic are utterly different and areused in many other places in the quran (Examples1, Examples2) Click on any

aya number for full translat ion . So this is obviously not a valid tafseer. Andtranslating it like this is an obvious deception or a severe mistake at the very


http://imgur.com/JfG8rXU

http://imgur.com/PSffsm5

http://imgur.com/yIXJJ0B





http://i.imgur.com/cVy6xZV.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/DGraZwU.jpg

http://lh5.ggpht.com/-xl6muA_NBGU/Ui2Ecjw9VFI/AAAAAAAAFoU/k1wThqx14gU/zeroten_scn25.jpg?imgmax=800

http://imgs.tuts.dragoart.com/how-to-draw-a-cartoon-seal_1_000000002693_5.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/H63y1gx.jpg

http://www.baheth.info/

http://quran.com/search?q=ornament+

http://quran.com/search?q=embellished



least.

4. Regarding the translation as Signet and such (Here). If you take the word inquestion here “ متاخ ” alone and with no context . It can mean a signet or aring Speciffically the ring we wear on a finger not the general word ring in english

which can mean many things like a ring in a chain, it ’s very specific in Arabic, this isbecause in old times the stamps where fixed on rings for the person ofauthority to wear and as time evolved and rings were used separately fromthe seals they kept their name as ‘seals’. But as you know words havedifferent meaning in different context and in Arabic this is more obvious thanin English because not only does the meaning change but also thegrammatical construct of the sentence. I don’t want to go into why thiscan’t be a valid meaning grammatically since you don’t know the language,so I’ll explain why it’s not a valid meaning based on the meaning only. First ofall, if that was the meaning (which it isn’t) the verse would mean“[muhammad (pbuh) is]the ring of the prophets” . The sentence makes zerosense and no Arabic speaker would accept this as a meaning. Even if you tryto pass it off as a ‘metaphor’ which means what’s discussed in 3 it stillwouldn’t make sense because a ring is not the most beautiful perfect thing ofa man obviously. If you see someone with wearing terrible dirty rags andwearing a ring no one would notice it. And if a man is wearing fancy cloths,perfume, nice hair style and such no one would care if he is wearing a ring ornot. so if you accept that meaning, that means that The Prophet(PBUH) isnot the best of prophets but just a ring in their hands. Here’s an example Ifwe say “Picasso is a paint brush of the artists” does that mean that Picasso isthe best of artists? How about if we say “Picasso is the last of the artists”,which statement is more flattering and which one means nonsense?. Andeven if in a purely hypothetical case that this was a valid meaning (which itisn’t), that does not in anyway nullify the meaning discussed in points 1 and2. So to summarize, this doesn’t make any sense on any level as atranslation here. And I can go into more details here if you want but I think Ialready wrote too much on this.

5. If the word “ متاخ ” here doesn’t mean ‘the last’ or ‘the final’, then whydoes Mirza Ghulam Ahmad the founder of Ahmadiyya himself use it in manyplaces in his books to mean exactly that! As you know his words hold novalue to me but I thought it might interest you. Here are some examples Ifound, I kept the source name in arabic in the pictures: One, two. And sinceyou know Urdu and apparently in Urdu have a lot of words similar to Arabichere are some examples: One, Two, Three. As I said his words don’t holdvalue to me either way but I thought it might interest you.

6. Let’s take the whole verse and see how it all means in context as awhole. The first part is talking about the Prophet(PBUH) not being, neverwas and will never be the father of any grown men the second partbut themessanger of Allah and the last of the prophets. The question is, how doesthe two parts as a whole work together? The answer is simple, The prophetnot being the father of any men means there will be no prophets after him!whereas if the verse meant that he is not the father of any of men but theornament or ring of prophets that would make nosense as the two partswould look random and with no connection to each other.

I can write a LOT more about this topic but this is getting too lengthy so I’ll stopfor now and focus on these points for now because they are sufficient enough.The bottom line is, the aya is so very crystal clear. Muhammad (PBUH) is the lastof prophets and whoever wrote the tafseer you sent me is trying desperately totwist the meaning. It is very obvious fraud that goes against the words of Allah,Authentic Hadiths, the basics of language, common sense and all the othertafseers written since the days of Sahaba to this day. and it does all this for anobvious agenda, don’t let it deceive you M******.

The Second Point:

I agree wholeheartedly that if the metaphors, ideas, or translationcontradict what we learn from the Quran and Sunnah then theyshould be discarded as being false. The ultimate source is theQuran, followed by Sunnah


http://i.imgur.com/XLYBO2X.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirza_Ghulam_Ahmad

http://i.imgur.com/kriRPmm.png

http://i.imgur.com/URYCnvx.png

http://i.imgur.com/LqBsAHS.png

http://i.imgur.com/xqOOata.png

http://i.imgur.com/7HwDnCX.png



I’m glad we are in agreement! let’s test this agreement on the obvious clear ayadiscussed in point one, when ahmadiyya’s ‘metaphors, ideas, and translation’ arein obvious contradiction with what has been explicitly stated in the Quran in theverse discussed in the previous point. And contradicts these authentic hadithsand I’m only using authentic ones here:

Abu Hurairh reported Allah’s Messenger (�) as saying: The similitude ofmine and that of the Apostles before me is that of a person who built ahouse quite imposing and beautiful, but for one brick in one of itscorners. People would go round it, appreciating the building, but saying:Why has the brick not been fixed here? He said: I am that brick and I amthe last of the Apostles. Source Source 2

Messenger of Allah (�) said, “The Banu Isra’il were ruled by theProphets. When one Prophet died, another succeeded him. There will beno Prophet after me… Source

I have many names: I am Muhammad, I am Ahmad, I am al-Mahithrough whom Allah obliterates unbelief, and I am Hashir (the gatherer)at whose feet people will be gathered, and I am ‘Aqib (after whom therewould be none), and Allah has named him as compassionate andmerciful. Source

Allah’s Messenger (�) set out for Tabuk. appointing Ali as his deputy (inMedina). Àli said, “Do you want to leave me with the children andwomen?” The Prophet (�) said, “Will you not be pleased that you will beto me like Aaron to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me.” Source

And many many others. So which one do you choose M*****? Do youstill agree wholeheartedly in what I quoted you saying above?

Running out of Text so ending this message in a separate PM.


Screenshot

Sorry for the very long answer, Trust me it took me far more time writing it than ittook you to read it but I’m sorry for it being long anyway, It can’t be helped

I didn’t talk about Isa (as) at all because the first point took all the time and gotreally long no matter how hard I tried to shorten it. Let’s focus on the topic athand and take about that later insha’allah.

Looking forward to your reply M****** take care


Screenshot

AA, brother A*****. Thank you for the refrences from the Quran for the nameM*****, my full name is A***** M***** but everyone just calls me M***** asit’s convenient for them I guess. Also thank you for the detailed reply, it wasdefinently worth the wait, but a bit much for my level of understanding. Which isok as I have access to Ahmadiyya scholars who are more informed than I am andare able to assist me from time to time when I am stuck

I will forward all of the points you have raised and relay their response back to youonce I receive it, it’s usually within a day or two. While we wait for their reply, Iwould like to request from you a analysis of two links, both of which share theAhmadiyya point of Prophet Hood. This is the first one which to me seems like alogical answer for the verse in discussion. The second is, which provides manyother verses from the Quran in support of the continuation of Prophet Hood.


http://sunnah.com/muslim/43/24

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/61/44

http://sunnah.com/riyadussaliheen/1/656



http://imgur.com/L3HrBw4

http://imgur.com/5ne2dc8

https://www.alislam.org/books/truth/finality.html




Both of these links are relevant to the discussion we are having and although theymight appear as walls of text, they are indeed on point. I look forward to yourunderstanding of the links I have shared and I will reply to your concerns as soonas I have the reply from the Ahmadiyya scholar.

Talk to you soon brother A****, take care



I was hoping that you would read and make your own judgment instead ofasking someone to make judgment for you. I thought We are discussing one onone here based on Quran, Sunnah and logic isn’t that what we agreed on? I don’tmind you researching whatever sources you see fit but to forward my PM to athird party to answer it for you is disappointing. I don’t see why we are discussinganymore if you are going to work as a forwarder of messages. I can do the sameand forward your mails to sunni scholars and let them answer you but then it’s nolonger a dialogue between the two of us. I have to admit I’m disappointed at thisturn of events and kind of regret the time I spent writing and researching sinceapparently I’m not talking to you anymore M******. Use your own mindM****** and research the truth for yourself. Take the time you need but If youare not willing to do so please don’t bother forwarding me reply from thesescholars as I’m not interested in a dialog with unknown people I’m here to have adialog with YOU and I’m sure you wouldn’t appreciate me doing the same andbeing a forwarding service too.

Take care

Also I forgot to add that the links you just sent me are a replica of two links yousent in an older message from you and we have already discussed them.. I feellike you are not even reading what I’m writing



Hello again brother, I am sorry, I did not think my asking for assistance on asubject which is above my level of understanding would be offensive to you. I amnot native to Arabic as yourself and so the translation which I provided was logicalenough for my understanding, especially after reading the commentary, whichdelved on the subject in detail. Since you raised concerns on the Arabictranslation of the Quran, which I cannot relate too as I would not know where tobeing to translate, I have to either just accept your word an the ultimate truth ordo my research (which is, consulting with a scholar on the subject).

Use your own mind M****** and research the truth for yourself.

I am using my own mind to apply both logic and reasoning to understand what Iam being told is the truth, the translation the Ahmadiyya present fits with the restof the Quran, where it does give a possibility of there being a prophet afterMuhammad (pbuh). Your literal translation leaves the Quran in contradiction withitself as far as I can see, because other parts as presented in the second link, allowfor the continuation of prophet hood.

Brother, if I do not speak the language then I cannot be expected to understandwhat I am reading. You were quickly able to research points by checkingdictionaries at your disposal to come to your conclusion on the translation, Icannot do the same, so I requested the help of someone who does speak Arabic,who can provide an answer to the points you raised and then we can both judgelogically and rationally, which translation fits the verse….

We can have a dialogue when we are on common ground, when it concerns logic


http://imgur.com/nVigEl7

http://imgur.com/xNHW5CM

http://imgur.com/05KZ6iw

http://imgur.com/BAdpMxT



and understanding. But you know Arabic is not my native language then how canyou expect me to refute the points you raised by myself?

Sorry brother, I am reading what you wrote. You decided not to discuss them indetail as they were a “wall of text” and not relevant at the time as we had manysubjects on the table. This time I asked for your analysis on those links as you didfor the translation of the verse I presented. This allows me to compare youranswers with that of Ahmadiyyat to judge who is correct, since I am not native toArabic, I have to accept the version of truth being presented to me. If you, asyou did with your most recent post can provide an alternative, logical answer tothe points I raise from the Ahmadiyya texts, then it allows me to comparebetween the two.


Screenshot

OK you make a fair point on the language, and as I told you you are free toresearch any way you like. My point is simply that this doesn’t turn into aforwarding waste of time. I want you personally to read what I wrote and I wantyou personally to answer with your words using any help you see fit. Just don’tcopy and paste things back and forth .. I’m having a dialog with you, ask andresearch however you see fit and take your time but eventually I want yourwords on my screen not the words of a mystery man x… Is that fair?

I’m heading to bed now. Good night!


Screenshot

OK will discuss the links later inshaallah, I’m too tired now and have lots to dotomorrow .. Take care:-)


Screenshot

That is more than reasonable. Have a wonderful night

If you have time, please to try to refute the points raised in(http://www.alislam.org/library/books/truthfulness/question_1.html), since youare my non Ahmadiyya Arabic source, I would like to see what answer could beprovided to the author. You can contact one of your scholars if you wish, I justwant to see how it would be answered, so I can use my mind to come to aconclusion on who presents a logical understanding.


Screenshot

Hello brother, I got a reply from the scholar but instead of a tafsir he has asked meto ask you.

Can there be any contradiction in Quran? To elaborate you can alsoask: Is it possible that one verse of Quran says one thing and theother verse quite opposite to it?



sigh. It’s like we hit the reset button and restarted the conversation from scratch.

First Point:


http://imgur.com/v0NMS4D

http://imgur.com/qZqMYWh

http://imgur.com/39MeE6b


http://imgur.com/Ojw75lF

http://imgur.com/I7F35q8

http://imgur.com/1W9Mxx8



Can there be any contradiction in Quran? To elaborate you can alsoask: Is it possible that one verse of Quran says one thing and theother verse quite opposite to it?

No and No. We already discussed this and I already see where this is going. Iassume you will now miss-quote the verses like you did Here to which I hadalready replied to:

The first link tries to mix the cards together, it quotes verses thatare clearly in context addressing people from previous nations likethe people of israel, and the people at times of different prophets(Ibrahim, yusef ,isa..etc (PBUT)) and taking about prophets comingafter them, Naturally this is something we sunni believe in, in timesof any prophet Allah inform his nation of the next coming prophet sothey would accept them. An example:

And [mention] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, “Ochildren of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allah toyou confirming what came before me of the Torah andbringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me,whose name is Ahmad.” But when he came to them withclear evidences, they said, “This is obvious magic. 1

So all of the alleged proofs in your first link are using the same idea,bringing ayat in the context of previous nations being promisedfuture prophets which we as sunni obviously agree with since webelieve in all of the prophets. and so it continues for all the previousprophets and their nations until prophethood reaches our prophetMuhammad (PBUH) and Allah declares that he is the last prophet.

Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men, but[he is] the Messenger of Allah and last of the prophets. Andever is Allah , of all things, Knowing. 2

The aya is so very obvious and literal that Muhammad is the finalprophet. There are zero contradictions, each prophet is promised aprophet after him until our prophet was declared the last.. To quotethe verses regarding the previous nations and then claim that theycontradict this verse is obvious fraud. there are many otherevidence that support this from authentic Hadith and verses but thisone is so very clear I don’t feel the need to quote them (but I will ifyou ask want). I mean even the prophet made it very clear timesand times again that he is the last prophet, that many others willcome later and claim to be prophets and that all of them are lying.Some even claimed prophethood in his life and he made the finalityof him abundantly clear.

Which led to us my long answer which I have yet to receive a reply to. May I alsoremind you of some of the fundamentals we both agreed on for this dialogue:

the messenger of Allah(PBUH) knows the meaning of the words ofAllah more than anyone possibly can.. If your ideas and metaphorsin the quran contradict the authentic words of the messenger thenYOUR Ideas of said metaphors are false. It’s that simple. To whichyou replied:Then we are in agreement

And you said

I agree wholeheartedly that if the metaphors, ideas, or translationcontradict what we learn from the Quran and Sunnah then theyshould be discarded as being false. The ultimate source is theQuran, followed by Sunnah, the rest is up to us on how weunderstand both in unisense and apply what we understand.

The aya I discussed in my yet-to-be-answered-PM is an explicit clear statement on







the end of prophethood. Any misinterpretation of other ayat by this scholar orany other is something YOU need to answer for because we agreed in the tworules above that if the translation or interpretation or metaphor contradicts theQuran and Sunnah then they should be discarded as being false.

Second Point

You just forwarded me the message of the scholar literally a few hours after weagreed that this will not be how this dialogue work. We agreed that you can usescholars or any sources to answer me in your words. And now you are breakingthe agreement M******. I sent you a crystal clear message discussing one verselinguistically, logically and through authentic hadith and now you are avoiding myquestions and trying to steer the conversation elsewhere and start from squareone. Not cool. I didn’t ask you to connect me to the scholar, we agreed hewould help YOU reply to my message not ignore it and start a forwarding PMconversation with me all over again. Come on man!

looking forward to YOUR reply.



Asalam-o-Alaikum brother A****, here is my rebuttal, first part was answered bythe Ahmadiyya scholar and the second is by me:

No and No. We already discussed this and I already see where thisis going. I assume you will now miss-quote the verses like you didHere to which I had already replied to:

You are alleging me of miss-quoting verses. Likewise I can say that you are alsomiss-quoting verses.

The first link tries to mix the cards together, it quotes verses thatare clearly in context addressing people from previous nations likethe people of israel, and the people at times of different prophets(Ibrahim, yusef ,isa..etc (PBUT)) and taking about prophets comingafter them, Naturally this is something we sunni believe in, in timesof any prophet Allah inform his nation of the next coming prophet sothey would accept them. An example:

And [mention] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, “O children ofIsrael, indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you confirming whatcame before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of amessenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad.” But when hecame to them with clear evidences, they said, “This is obviousmagic.

This is mere claim without any evidence. You are not-only misinterpreting theverses but also limiting the message of Quran to previous times whereas Allah hasmade it for all of us. The stories of previous prophets are narrate for us to learn alesson but you are limiting them as mere stories only for pastime.

So all of the alleged proofs in your first link are using the same idea,bringing ayat in the context of previous nations being promisedfuture prophets which we as sunni obviously agree with since webelieve in all of the prophets. and so it continues for all the previousprophets and their nations until prophethood reaches our prophetMuhammad (PBUH) and Allah declares that he is the last prophet.

Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men, but [he is]the Messenger of Allah and last of the prophets. And ever is Allah ,of all things, Knowing. 2


http://imgur.com/j6r8RQC

http://imgur.com/612j3P3



The aya is so very obvious and literal that Muhammad is the finalprophet. There are zero contradictions, each prophet is promised aprophet after him until our prophet was declared the last.. To quotethe verses regarding the previous nations and then claim that theycontradict this verse is obvious fraud. there are many otherevidence that support this from authentic Hadith and verses but thisone is so very clear I don’t feel the need to quote them (but I will ifyou ask want). I mean even the prophet made it very clear timesand times again that he is the last prophet, that many others willcome later and claim to be prophets and that all of them are lying.Some even claimed prophethood in his life and he made the finalityof him abundantly clear.

Again these are mere claims without any evidence. I can show you verses and letyou translate each and every word so that you see by yourself if there is anycontradiction or not with your idea of end of prophet-hood. If you are ready tosee such verses let me know and I’ll show you one by one.

the messenger of Allah(PBUH) knows the meaning of the words ofAllah more than anyone possibly can.. If your ideas and metaphorsin the quran contradict the authentic words of the messenger thenYOUR Ideas of said metaphors are false. It’s that simple.

No hadith, saying of the Prophet (saw) or any of the Companions (ra) can beauthentic which goes in direct conflict with Quran. It is either outrightly wrong ormisinterpreted and misunderstood.

The aya I discussed in my yet-to-be-answered-PM is an explicitclear statement on the end of prophethood. Any misinterpretationof other ayat by this scholar or any other is something YOU need toanswer for because we agreed in the two rules above that if thetranslation or interpretation or metaphor contradicts the Quran andSunnah then they should be discarded as being false.

Fine! This rule applies on both of us. So now I’ll show you a verse withoutinterpretation or even translation. You translate each and every word of thatverse and see yourself if it contradicts your idea or not. Then we’ll go further fromthat point. AGREED?

Now onto the second point you raised.

You just forwarded me the message of the scholar literally a fewhours after we agreed that this will not be how this dialogue work.We agreed that you can use scholars or any sources to answer mein your words. And now you are breaking the agreement M******.

How exactly did I break the agreement? He did not present a wall of text which Iforwarded to you without first reading and understanding. He simply asked aquestion and asked my to have you answer said question.

I sent you a crystal clear message discussing one verse linguistically,logically and through authentic hadith and now you are avoiding myquestions and trying to steer the conversation elsewhere and startfrom square one.

You most certainly did and I thank you. But you have to allow me to compareboth sides of the argument, I can say the same thing that the Ahmadiyya arepresenting clear, logical arguments in their favor and so I should just assume themto be 100% correct. If we were on equal grounds I would not need a scholarsassistance, since we are uneven, I need someone to be the translator from theAhmadiyya prospective, this allows me to judge what you claim against whatAhmadiyyat says. It also provides you with more challenging questions to answerand allows both of us to reach the ultimate truth.




I didn’t ask you to connect me to the scholar, we agreed he wouldhelp YOU reply to my message not ignore it and start a forwardingPM conversation with me all over again.

Look, if I spoke Arabic or was able to translate Arabic as you can then there wouldbe no need for the third party as we can both reach a conclusion after havingdone our research and compared our notes. Since I obviously cannot do myresearch at your pace, I need the assistance of someone who can from theAhmadiyya understanding. Once he has done this then we can compare ournotes and come to the conclusion. I am not asking the scholar to do the thinkingfor me, I am simply asking him to be my translator, so I can compare yourauthentic translation vs the one offered by Ahmadiyya and use my OWN logicalmind to come to the conclusion.


Screenshot

Hello M******, Glad to see your message, Hope you’re having a great day! letme dive right into it.

here is my rebuttal

Let me start by stating the obvious here, you did not in anyway rebut my claims.You answered the message that I sent you to ask you to rebut my claims. Whatyou need to rebut is the message before that. The one where I provided 6 crystalclear point on the explicit aya that settles our disagreement. Even with theassistance of your scholars you have yet to provide a rebuttal of any kind tothese 6 points and the 4 authentic hadiths I provided. Unlike what you seem toinsinuate here I didn’t just provide linguistic proofs but I provided a lot of logicalproofs and Hadiths that doesn’t require you to know Arabic to prove and youdidn’t answer any of them. What you are telling me here is to ignore myknowledge of what the aya clearly states, ignore the words of the prophet, ignorelogic and language, ignore the hundreds of tafseers that were written about itsince the tafseer of Ibn Abas (The prophet’s cousin and the one who the prophethimself made dua’a for him) to this day. You want me to ignore all this close mymind and blindly trust the words of someone in india because he claims he got themeaning right!. Is that even remotely a fair request?!

I’m not a scholar I’m just an engineer and if with the help of your scholar youcan’t answer any of these simple points even though this is a small part of theproofs I can provide on topic, then you are not convincing me you are just tryingto convince yourself.

Do not ignore my message on aya 33:40 Allow me to remind you of the very firstmessage I sent you:

I’ve always had questions about Ahmadiyya and yet to findsomeone who is actually welling to answer them.

If you are willing to answer then let me know, but If you say yesthen just leave me hanging once I ask and ignore me I’ll know for afact that your sect is a lie.

If you can’t answer my simple message with the help of all the sources in yourpossession then be an honest man and admit it. After that we can move on to adifferent aya to discuss if you want.

Even with my limited knowledge I can easily answer everything in your messagehere but I will not because I don’t want us to be distracted on the topic at handand the glaring evidence sitting here like the elephant in the room. Once we settlethis or at least acknowledge that you can’t then we may move on to other ayayou wish to discuss.


http://imgur.com/txUaEKj





Salam M******.


Screenshot

Asalam-o-Alaikum brother A****, sorry for the late reply, I was busy with myfamily and work. Having a three month old is a full time job on it’s own

You are correct, my response was not a rebuttal for your reply highlighting theevidence for the literal translation of the aya. This is so because I and the scholarare willing to accept the literal translation, as is the tafsir as you pointed out, butthe problem is that if we do, then the Quran is contradicting it’s own word. Whichas you and I both agree cannot be the case. If we believe that the Quran is theabsolute truth and cannot, does not contradict it’s teachings then we have tohave a logical translation of 33:40 so that it fits in perfectly with the rest of theQuran.

I am not a scholar either as you already know, but since you have a gift of beingable to translate the Quran for yourself, you and I are not on equal footing. WhatI don’t understand is why you feel threatened by the scholar I reached out forhelp? He raised some valid points and is willing to prove through the Quran whyyour version of translation contradicts the Quran which is not acceptable. If youare in complete confidence as you say you are on the translation then why notaccept his challenge and let him present his proof?

I’ve always had questions about Ahmadiyya and yet to findsomeone who is actually welling to answer them.

I have no problem in answering questions about Ahmadiyyat, the problem I amfacing right now is my lack of education in Arabic. It’s a subject you cannotexpect me to tackle overnight, thus, the request to have the Ahmadiyyatranslation be represented by the scholar was not far fetched.

If you can’t answer my simple message with the help of all thesources in your possession then be an honest man and admit it.

Brother, I admitted my lack of fluency in Arabic way ahead of time so that thereare no misunderstandings.

Even with my limited knowledge I can easily answer everything inyour message here but I will not because I don’t want us to bedistracted on the topic at hand and the glaring evidence sitting herelike the elephant in the room.

Please do answer them as I want to learn the truth as much as yourself. I want tosee how the scholar will respond to your rebuttal, or what he will present inresponse. Only then can I use my logic to compare both versions of thetranslations to see which my rational mind accepts.

Once we settle this or at least acknowledge that you can’t then wemay move on to other aya you wish to discuss.

As I stated earlier, I have no problem with discussing beliefs of Ahmadiyyat, oranswering your questions in regards to Ahmadiyyat. But, as I have pointed outfrom the beginning, when it comes to Arabic translation, I would need assistance.


Screenshot 1Screenshot 2Screenshot 3

Walikum Al salam, I’m glad to see you reply M******! don’t worry about beinglate, we all have our lives that require our attention so I totally understand.


http://imgur.com/8D6CIiV

http://imgur.com/sQ6k4VL

http://imgur.com/N5Z1dCt

http://imgur.com/aze3IdQ



I and the scholar are willing to accept the literal translation, as is thetafsir as you pointed out,

I’m glad we reached this mutual understanding, shows that you are a reasonableman.

the problem is that if we do, then the Quran is contradicting it’s ownword.

This is were we disagree and so I think this is the direction where we shouldcontinue our dialogue. I’ll return to this point at the end of this message to planour next discussion topic.

then we have to have a logical translation

But the alternative translation you provided isn’t even logical, it doesn’t work withlogic and breaks the context as I explained in my long message we are discussinghere. But I see your predicament here since you believe that having the correctinterpretation would contradict the rest of the quran which brings us back to theprevious point about needing to discuss the verses that you think arecontradictory.

What I don’t understand is why you feel threatened by the scholar Ireached out for help? He raised some valid points and is willing toprove through the Quran why your version of translation contradictsthe Quran which is not acceptable. If you are in completeconfidence as you say you are on the translation then why notaccept his challenge and let him present his proof?

I’m not threatened in the slightest by him and I distinctly told you to use him andany other source as you see fit. My issue was him being introduced as areplacement for you and make you as a proxy to forward messages between himand myself. It felt like you and I were sitting at a table having a discussion andthen you suddenly garbed someone’s arm, seated him in your chair and told meto discuss it with him instead and you walked away. You can imagine howfrustrating that can be to press the reset button on the discussion and having tore-establish our points of agreement and start working again to where we disagreefrom scratch. If you really thinks he is providing valid points then adopt thesepoints as your own and integrate them into the discussion so the conversationcan still be between the two of us. In other word use him as your resource not asthe second or third party in this discussion.

the problem I am facing right now is my lack of education in Arabic.It’s a subject you cannot expect me to tackle overnight, thus, therequest to have the Ahmadiyya translation be represented by thescholar was not far fetched.

Again, I didn’t object about asking and using him as a resource. My objection isusing him as a replacement for you.

Regarding Arabic:

I’ve tried to not to use Arabic in our discussion, it was actually you (not me) whointroduced Arabic into the discussion and asked me to answer it. For me to befaced with obvious manipulation of the meaning for an obvious agenda I had torespond specially because I felt (and still feel) that you are being lied to due to youlack of knowledge of the language, and I deliberately tried to limit my linguisticresponse and focus on the logical and contextual response for your sake. Let meremind you of how Arabic was brought into the discussion

This is the translation I present and prefer to accept, instead of theliteral translation. Please read the Arabic translation since you arefamiliar with Arabic and then the commentary on this verse. I would




welcome your criticism concerning the translation I choose toaccept.

about:

I would need assistance.

Use all the assistance you want, just make sure it is assistance for you not areplacement of you.

What’s next?

now that we have discussed 33:40. We should move to our next point ofdisagreement which is: Does this contradict the Quran? I say No , You say yes.Let’s talk about that.

I want you to show me how this crystal clear aya contradict the quran. Pleasequote (and preferably with a link to quran.com like I do) the verse you findcontradictory with this and why you think it is contradictory. Please don’t giveme the whole list in the link you gave me before as the text length hereis not enough to quote them let alone discuss them plus it would be verydistracting. So for the sake of having a constructive conversation pick the onethat you find best to explain your point, tell me how it contradicts 33:40 and we’lldiscuss it. We can move to others if you want later but let’s just do it one at atime. I suggest the following criteria for the aya you pick:

It has to show a clear contradiction with 33:40 because when theinterpretation contradicts the clear statement of quran and hadith. then theinterpretation is false not the clear statement as we’ve agreed previously.

context consideration please make sure that you don’t use an aya in thecontext of Allah informing a prophet of a prophet after him, we both knowthis and that’s not a contradiction. Allah informs every prophet of theprophet after him until we reached Muhammad(PBUH) and Allah told us thathe is the last of prophets. So giving an aya informing a prophet like Zakaria,Ibrahim, Isa..etc (PBUT) of a prophet after them is naturally not acontradiction. To show a contradiction the aya must inform of a prophetafter Muhammad(pbuh) not after any of the other prophets before him.

Name: generally when quran informs a prophet of the prophet coming nextAllah informs him of his name (Eg1, Eg2). I want to know where Allah informsus of the name of the prophet after Muhammad. pretend-prophets areeverywhere for example neither one of us believe in THIS GUY whopretended to be Messiah, Mahdi and prophet. I know that an aya like thisdoesn’t exist so this is more of a point for you to consider than an actualcondition. If Allah wanted us to believe in a prophet after Muhammad (pbuh)he would have told us since we both believe the quran is complete andunchanged.

looking forward to your reply M******, and a late congratulations on the 3months old



It has to show a clear contradiction with 33:40 because when theinterpretation contradicts the clear statement of quran and hadith.then the interpretation is false not the clear statement as we’veagreed previously.

You have been interpreting verses and boastfully presenting your interpretationsas CLEAR STATEMENTS OF QURAN. But I won’t do it. I’ll present a clear andexplicit verse and ask you to understand it. You’ll see that it is in contradiction to






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam#History

http://imgur.com/zU6BfZ3

http://imgur.com/zqfc5dD

http://imgur.com/qsFbZ9q



your interpretation of 33:41

context consideration please make sure that you don’t use an ayain the context of Allah informing a prophet of a prophet after him,we both know this and that’s not a contradiction. Allah informs everyprophet of the prophet after him until we reachedMuhammad(PBUH) and Allah told us that he is the last of prophets.So giving an aya informing a prophet like Zakaria, Ibrahim, Isa..etc(PBUT) of a prophet after them is naturally not a contradiction. Toshow a contradiction the aya must inform of a prophet afterMuhammad(pbuh) not after any of the other prophets before him.

There is no such rule stated in Quran that Allah necessary informs each and everyprophet of a prophet after him. This is your self-fabricated rule you can nevershow from Quran. However, Allah did mention a covenant, taken from all theprophets, about the coming of a testifying Messenger. I am going to quote andexplain it at the end of this post.

Name: generally when quran informs a prophet of the prophetcoming next Allah informs him of his name (Eg1, Eg2). I want toknow where Allah informs us of the name of the prophet afterMuhammad. pretend-prophets are everywhere for example neitherone of us believe in THIS GUY who pretended to be Messiah, Mahdiand prophet. I know that an aya like this doesn’t exist so this ismore of a point for you to consider than an actual condition. If Allahwanted us to believe in a prophet after Muhammad (pbuh) he wouldhave told us since we both believe the quran is complete andunchanged.

Once again there is no such rule in Quran that Allah necessarily tells the name of acoming prophet to a previous prophet. No previous prophet told about the nameof Ibrahim, Moses and many other prophets. Further, Allah says that He has sentprophets to every nation [10:48, 13:8, 35:25] but there are less than 30prophets mentioned in Quran by name. One of the two examples you quoted[3:40] is the acceptance of the prayer of a father for a son. The other example[61:7] is the exceptional case as a good news, not a hard and fast rule.

You also need to know that belief in a Prophet / Messenger relates to unseen. Ifthe name and the full description of a coming prophet is already available, then itis no more belief in the unseen. We also know that previous nations rejected eventhose prophets about whom they found prophecies in their scriptures like Jesus(as), Muhammad (saw), and now Ahmad (as)

Now, I present the verse 3:82 I mentioned earlier:

And when Allah took a covenant of the Prophets, ‘Whatever I give you of theBook and Wisdom and then there comes to you a Messenger, fulfilling thatwhich is with you, you shall believe in him and help him.’ And He said: ‘Do youagree, and do you accept the responsibility which I lay upon you in this matter?’They said, ‘We agree;’ He said, ‘Then bear witness, and I am with you among thewitnesses.*

The bold words, in the above quoted verse, need your particular consideration.

This covenant was taken from “the prophets” and the Prophet Muhammad(saw) is also a prophet. So it MUST have been taken from him, as alsomentioned in 33:8:

“And remember when We took from the Prophets their covenant, and from thee,and from Noah, and Abraham, and Moses, and Jesus, son of Mary, and We indeedtook from them a solemn covenant”

The Prophet Muhammad (saw) was given the Book and the Wisdom.




These two points clearly establish that there had to come a Messenger after theProphet Muhammad (saw) to testify that Book and Wisdom which is given to us,i.e., Quran and Sunnah and that we must believe in that Messenger and help him.We, Ahmadi Muslims, believe that this testifying Messenger is Ahmad (as) ofQadian and, by the Grace of Allah, we can prove his truthfulness according toQuranic criteria of truthfulness of prophets / Messengers.

Now the ball is in your court, as the simple translation of 3:82 is in clearcontradiction of your interpretation of 33:41. As you said, if a clear statement ofQuran is in contradiction of an interpretation, it is the interpretation which is false,not the clear statement of Quran.



Hello M*****! thanks for your message, let me dive right to it.

You have been interpreting verses and boastfully presenting yourinterpretations as CLEAR STATEMENTS OF QURAN.

I’m not presenting an interpretation as a clear statement. IT IS A CLEARSTATEMENT. Why are we debating the basics again? we’ve already discussed thisand you admitted it:

I and the scholar are willing to accept the literal translation, as is thetafsir as you pointed out

Really it’s not that hard to find the meaning, just open any translation of thisverse by anyone who isn’t biased to ahmdiyya , even non muslim translations,even the ahmdiyya translation you sent admits it as I’ve shown you..Hell you caneven learn the 28 letters of Arabic and open a dictionary on your own, it wouldtake you like a week tops.

I’ll present a clear and explicit verse and ask you to understand it.You’ll see that it is in contradiction to your interpretation of 33:41

I appreciate you being upfront, allow me to return the curtsy by being straight tothe point myself.

The aya you quoted is out of context, If you read a few verses before and a fewverses after it will become clear that it is discussing the “People of the Scripture”i.e. the nations before Islam and their rejection to Muhammad(PBUH) even afterAllah taking the covenant from the prophets and they in turn taking the covenantfrom their people. Please read these verses before and after for context.

There’s no contradiction here with 33:40, the contradiction only exist whenyou interpret the verse as talking about Mirza which makes the interpretation falsebecause it contradicts the quran and the numerous authentic hadiths, as yousaid:

if a clear statement of Quran is in contradiction of an interpretation,it is the interpretation which is false, not the clear statement ofQuran.

Now I’d have ended here but since you added commentary after the verse I’mgoing to answer them:

Answering your commentary:

This covenant was taken from “the prophets” and the ProphetMuhammad (saw) is also a prophet. So it MUST have been taken


http://imgur.com/LWj9xYR

http://imgur.com/W5npkDh

http://imgur.com/KNEFffy

http://quran.com/3/64-90




from him

That is not a valid idea because as I said above the context is about the previousnations rejecting The prophet(PBUH). To interpret the prophets as = ALL theprophets from Adam(pbuh) to Muhammad (pbuh) inclusively would bewrong not just because of the context but also because to prove this you haveto prove the validity of the statement for whenever the quran says “TheProphets”. meaning whenever the quran says “The Prophets” it has to mean ALLthe prophets from Adam(pbuh) to Muhammad (pbuh) becauseMuhammad(pbuh) is a prophet. But that’s obviously not the case, sometimes thequran says “the prophets” but doesn’t mean all of them includingMuhammad(PBUH), (Example1 , Example2).

also mentioned in 33:8

33:7 has nothing to do with the end or continuing of prophethood, the onlymeaning you provided is what you projected from your own preconceivedconclusions and you are interpreting them it in a way that contradicts thestatements of the Quran and authentic Hadith which makes it false. Allah’sconvenient is mentioned in 20 verses that I know of (possibly more) and it meansdifferent things in different contexts. I can dive into the tafseer (interpretation) ofthe verse if you want but since it’s not the topic here I won’t unless you ask meto. The bottom line is, it doesn’t state a contradiction with the statementin 33:40 or the numerous authentic hadiths. rather You are projecting ameaning on it that isn’t there. it’s like the black swan effect. The short video I just

linked is not related to religion or our discussion. It ’s just here to explain how people

project meaning where they shouldn’t , feel free to ignore it . but you’ll miss out on a great

video

The Prophet Muhammad (saw) was given the Book and theWisdom.

Yes, and so was the other messengers. again, No Contradictions.

To summarize, what you seem to be doing here is to project a meaning that isn’texplicitly stated and then compare this false interpretation to the literal statementof 33:40 and then accept the interpretation as the truth and the literal words ofAllah as an interpretation while ignoring the authentic hadiths of theprophet(PBUH) all to prove a false agenda.

You have yet to provide a statement from the quran that contradicts the end ofprophethood, let alone that Mirza has even a remote claim to it.

Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men, but [he is] theMessenger of Allah and last of the prophets. And ever is Allah , of allthings, Knowing. [33:40]

Abu Hurairh reported Allah’s Messenger (�) as saying: The similitude ofmine and that of the Apostles before me is that of a person who built ahouse quite imposing and beautiful, but for one brick in one of itscorners. People would go round it, appreciating the building, but saying:Why has the brick not been fixed here? He said: I am that brick and I amthe last of the Apostles. Source Source 2

Messenger of Allah (�) said, “The Banu Isra’il were ruled by theProphets. When one Prophet died, another succeeded him. There will beno Prophet after me… Source source2 Source3

I have many names: I am Muhammad, I am Ahmad, I am al-Mahithrough whom Allah obliterates unbelief, and I am Hashir (the gatherer)at whose feet people will be gathered, and I am ‘Aqib (after whom therewould be none), and Allah has named him as compassionate andmerciful. Source






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo










Allah’s Messenger (�) set out for Tabuk. appointing Ali as his deputy (inMedina). Àli said, “Do you want to leave me with the children andwomen?” The Prophet (�) said, “Will you not be pleased that you will beto me like Aaron to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me.” Source

“The Hour shall not be established until tribes of my Ummah unite withthe idolaters, and until they worship idols. And indeed there shall bethirty imposters in my Ummah,each of them claiming that he is aProphet. And I am the last of the Prophets, there is no Prophet afterme.” Source

I have been given superiority over the other prophets in six respects: Ihave been given words which are concise but comprehensive inmeaning; I have been helped by terror (in the hearts of enemies): spoilshave been made lawful to me: the earth has been made for me clean anda place of worship; I have been sent to all mankind and the line ofprophets is closed with me. Source

To mirror your words. Now the ball is in your court, as the simple translationof 33:40 and the authentic hadiths are in clear contradiction of yourinterpretation of 3:81 . As we agreed, if a clear statement of Quran and authentichadith are in contradiction with an interpretation, it is the interpretation which isfalse, not the clear statement of Quran and Hadith.

looking forward to your reply.



You have been interpreting verses and boastfully presenting yourinterpretations as CLEAR STATEMENTS OF QURAN.

I’m not presenting an interpretation as a clear statement. IT IS ACLEAR STATEMENT. Why are we debating the basics again? we’vealready discussed this and you admitted it:

See! again you are boastfully claiming, without any evidence though, that yourstatement is clear statement.

The aya you quoted is out of context, If you read a few versesbefore and a few verses after it will become clear that it is discussingthe “People of the Scripture” i.e. the nations before Islam and theirrejection to Muhammad(PBUH) even after Allah taking the covenantfrom the prophets and they in turn taking the covenant from theirpeople. Please read these verses before and after for context.

There is no such rule as “context”. It is only your self-fabricated lame excuse todeny Quran. There are so many verses of Quran where the people ofthe book are addressed but they also apply to Muslims. Further, nowhere Allahand His Prophet (saw) said that these verses are meant only for the people of thebook or that we should pondr upon them in context. The Prophet Muhammad(saw) said: ۃیآ ولو ینع اوـغلب convey from me even if it is one aya. He didn’t sayanything about “context” here. Now in compliance of this Prophetic command Iconveyed to you an aya and you are making lame excuses of context, incomplete defiance of the Prophet Muhammad (saw).

Answering your commentary:

This covenant was taken from “the prophets” and the ProphetMuhammad (saw) is also a prophet. So it MUST have been takenfrom him



http://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/33/62




http://imgur.com/BoJ1ZOZ

http://imgur.com/szBEEls



That is not a valid idea because as I said above the context isabout the previous nations rejecting The prophet(PBUH).

No evidence, a mere claim!

To interpret the prophets as = ALL the prophets from Adam(pbuh)to Muhammad (pbuh) inclusively would be wrong not just becauseof the context but also because to prove this you have to prove thevalidity of the statement for whenever the quran says “TheProphets”. meaning whenever the quran says “The Prophets” it hasto mean ALL the prophets from Adam(pbuh) to Muhammad (pbuh)because Muhammad(pbuh) is a prophet. But that’s obviously notthe case, sometimes the quran says “the prophets” but doesn’tmean all of them including Muhammad(PBUH), (Example1 ,Example2).

First of all you are ignorant about the rule of use of لا . Of course there aredifferent usages of this word but if u insist that here in the term نییبنلا قاثیم itdoes not mean that this covenant was taken from all the prophets, then youhave to also accept that in نییبنلا متاخ it does not mean that the ProphetMuhammad (saw) ended all the prophets.

Your two examples of نییبنلا نولتقی again showed your ignorance about Arabiclanguage because in Arabic لتق does not necessarily mean physically killing but toneglect, avoid or cool down the excitement or harshness as Imam Raghib says inhis “Mufridat-ul-Quran”. He quoted a saying ءآملاب رمخلا تلتق I cooed down thewine with water. So نییبنلا نولتقی means that they avoided and neglected all theprophets and tried to suppress their message.

33:7 has nothing to do with the end or continuing of prophethood,the only meaning you provided is what you projected from your ownpreconceived conclusions and you are interpreting them it in a waythat contradicts the statements of the Quran and authentic Hadithwhich makes it false. Allah’s convenient is mentioned in 20 versesthat I know of (possibly more) and it means different things indifferent contexts.

It is you who is projecting preconceived and self-fabricated ideas and thoughtswithout any evidence. In 3:82 Allah is explicitly talking about a covenant of theProphets and in 33:8 Allah is again talking about the same covenant, this timeexplicitly addressing the Prophet Muhammad (saw) that, along with other prophetwhose names are mentioned, this covenant of the Prophets was also taken fromhim.

Of course there are some other covenants taken from other nations and peoplebut we are not discussing them or implying anything from such verses.

The Prophet Muhammad (saw) was given the Book and theWisdom.

Yes, and so was the other messengers. again, No Contradictions.

Hahahhaha! you change the rules so conveniently to suit your interpretations.Once you said that covenant was not taken from all the prophets (though youdid not mention what category of the prophets it was taken from) and now youare changing your stance and saying that the Book and the Wisdom was givenalso to other Messengers. This shift of rule is ironically interesting but that is notthe point. The point is that the the Prophet Muhammad (saw) is a prophet andthat the Book and the Wisdom was given to him. No doubt about it! It is, thus,the necessary and unalterable consequence, stated clearly in 3:82, is that thereMUST come a testifying Messenger after him.

To summarize, what you seem to be doing here is to project a




meaning that isn’t explicitly stated and then compare this falseinterpretation to the literal statement of 33:40 and then accept theinterpretation as the truth and the literal words of Allah as aninterpretation while ignoring the authentic hadiths of theprophet(PBUH) all to prove a false agenda.

This summary is nothing more than your fancy, a claim without any evidence andan allegation without a proof.

You have yet to provide a statement from the quran thatcontradicts the end of prophethood, let alone that Mirza has even aremote claim to it.

I have presented above the firm verses of Quràn crushing your false and self-fabricated interpretations and rules. Now its your turn to present your evidence, ifyou have any. Enough with the boastful claims



Hello again, M*****.

I gotta admit, I’m quite disappointed in the way this once civilized intellectual dialogturned into. I believe this will be the last message I send you, please read it with anopen heart.

See! again you are boastfully claiming, without any evidence though,that your statement is clear statement.

sigh. I did provide evidence, I provided a long message with clear evidenceorganized in 6 points. A message I’ve yet to receive any sort of answer to. andyou accepted that, to remind you you said:

I and the scholar are willing to accept the literal translation, as is thetafsir as you pointed out

If you forgot about the evidence that you couldn’t answer, let me know and I’ll re-send it to you. Now if we are just going to play juvenile argument game wherewe’ll deny what we agreed on when it doesn’t suit us and use passive aggressivemockery Then I have no interest in continuing this dialogue or answering thismessage. It’s like we built the first floor and then we moved on to the second floor,while we are building it you demolished the first floor. so working on the secondbecomes pointless.

Now even though I will not continue answering the message. I will talk shortlyabout a specific part of your message, not for the sake of our dialogue which isover in my eyes, but for your sake because I genuinely believe you have goodintentions but you are being deceived by people exploiting your lack ofknowledge of the Arabic language.

Your two examples of نییبنلا نولتقی again showed your ignoranceabout Arabic language because in Arabic لتق does not necessarilymean physically killing but to neglect, avoid or cool down theexcitement or harshness as Imam Raghib says in his “Mufridat-ul-Quran”. He quoted a saying ءآملاب رمخلا تلتق I cooed down the winewith water. So نییبنلا نولتقی means that they avoided and neglectedall the prophets and tried to suppress their message.

I’m quite accomplished in Arabic, not just because it is my native language but Istudied it academically as well (though I didn’t major in it). In Arabic لتق means tokill, don’t listen to self serving lies of ahmadiyat, grab a dictionary and look it upyourself. In no way shape or form can it ever mean “to neglect”, that’s a flat out


http://imgur.com/H9Dgijp

http://imgur.com/pzKoibO



lie.

As for your saying ” ءآـملاب رمخلا تلتق I cooed down the wine with water.” thiswould be the equivalent of saying in English “Kill the lights” which means ‘switchoff’. Or “Jack killed the conversation” which means ‘stopped it’, or “Did you seethe match yesterday? Messi killed it!”, which means “performed well in it”. Naturallywhen you use the word with inanimate objects it doesn’t mean to end the life ofthe inanimate object because it doesn’t have a life to end. But when you use itwith people or living things then it has one meaning only “Jack killed the robber”, ”The Nazis killed the Jews”. It means to end the life, not to “switch off / Stop/performed well in” of all the argument you’ve provided this one is the mostabsurd by far.

Please please for the love of all that’s holy don’t let them fool you and exploit youlike this, you owe it to yourself and to your 3 months old child to look for the trueanswers yourself. Please be honest with yourself and be skeptical of what you aretold by any one (including myself). There’s just you, me and Allah as our witnesshere. No one to clap for a winner so which one of the three are you fooling?

Please know that it was never my intention to ‘defeat’ you in a debate, only tounderstand and be understood. And that I genuinely liked you as a person andthink you have good intentions and a kind nature which makes it doubly painfulfor me to see you deceived into following one of the thirty or so false prophetthat Allah’s final messenger(PBUH) foretold about and warned us not to be amongthe ones who follow them.

Please please M***** don’t read Allah’s commands and his messenger’s wordsthrough the lenses of the liar of Qadian by letting him tell you what’s real andwhat’s not and what meaning to take from everything. Don’t let him exploit youlike many others to serve himself and the British crown. Be a servant of Allah andAllah alone, read his message and the words of his prophet as he intended you toand don’t be among these:

Say (O Muhammad SAW): “Shall We tell you the greatest losers in respect of(their) deeds? (103) Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life while theythought that they were acquiring good by their deeds!(104) 18:103-104

Who knows, maybe one day Allah will guide you back to the straight path and I’llbe able to call you my brother.

P.S. If there’s ever anything I can help you with anything at all, please let meknow. Just because I don’t see the point of this argument anymore does notmean I hate you personally. I’ll help you with anything I can if you ever neededme.


Screenshot

I do not wish to say anything against whatever you said about me and my faithbecause these are nothing but reflection of your frustration over your clear defeatand helplessness to rebut Ahmadiyya arguments.However, I would like to respondto one point. You wrote and I quote:

“As for your saying ” ءآملاب رمخلا تلتق I cooed down the wine withwater.” this would be the equivalent of saying in English “Kill thelights” which means ‘switch off ’. Or “Jack killed the conversation”which means ‘stopped it’, or “Did you see the match yesterday?Messi killed it!”, which means “performed well in it”. Naturally whenyou use the word with inanimate objects it doesn’t mean to end thelife of the inanimate object because it doesn’t have a life to end. Butwhen you use it with people or living things then it has one meaningonly “Jack killed the robber”, ” The Nazis killed the Jews”. It meansto end the life, not to “switch off / Stop/ performed well in” of all theargument you’ve provided this one is the most absurd by far.”



http://imgur.com/Gdmbrhx



Your boastful claim is once again proved wrong and now I know that you are notonly ignorant about Quràn but also about Arabic language.

Now see the following two examples; one from Quràn and one from Hadith, inwhich the word Qatl is used for animate objects with life, i.e., humans and it is notmeant to physically killing.

[51:10]Accursed be the conjecturers نوصارخلا لتق

یلص یبنلا لئاضف باتک یراخب حیحص ) ہلتق هللا رمع لاقف ةدابع نب دعس متلتق لئاق لاق ہنع یضر هللا رکب یبا لضف باب ملسو ہیلع (هللا

The translation of the verse is taken from “Altafsir.com”. I have not translated thehadith text and left it to you. But you must know the background. At the time ofelection of the first Khalifa after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (saw), oneperson from Ansaar, Saàd bin Abaadah (ra) refused to do baìt of Abu Bakr (ra).Everybody neglected him and did baìt of Abu Bakr (ra). At that time someonesaid what is quoted above. Now you decide if Qatl in it means physical killing orneglect, avoid or suppress!

I am now really and truly convinced that non-Ahmadi Muslims have completelyforsaken Quràn and they do not have any rebuttal of Ahmadiyya argumentswhich are entirely based on Quran and Sunnah. You have no option but to runaway. اقوھز ناک لطابلا نا لطابلا قھز قحلا و ءاج لق



Hello M*****!

Let me start by stating something out of transparency for the reader. Thisdialogue from the beginning to end was private, i.e. each one of us was writingwithout regard for potential other readers. The exception to this rule is thismessage and the one right before it from M***** as they were both sentknowing that they will be public.

Moving on to your message. I’m going to skip your analysis of my ‘frustration andhelplessness’ and leave that for the readers to judge.

I’m amused by how you copied an answer that you probably don’t understandand can’t read yourself since you don’t know Arabic and used it as a ‘proof’ that Idon’t know my own language. and that what you’re trying to ‘refute’ here isn’teven the argument. It is something I commented about saying:

I will talk shortly about a specific part of your message, not for thesake of our dialogue which is over in my eyes, but for your sakebecause I genuinely believe you have good intentions but you arebeing deceived by people exploiting your lack of knowledge of theArabic language.

The central argument is the 6 points message about 33:40 that was never reallyanswered because of your lack of knowledge in Arabic. I find it ironic, but I won’tgo there, let’s let the readers decide on this on their own.

Now to quickly comment on the aya and the hadith you mentioned:

Accursed be the conjecturers نوصارخلا لتق

51:10 The word لتق here is in the form of “ لوھجملل ينبم Mabny lil majhool verb”


http://altafsir.com/Quran.asp?SoraNo=51&Ayah=10&NewPage=0&img=D

http://imgur.com/AeS2Hct

http://imgur.com/kaB919a





what this means is a special use of verbs where you change its pronunciation (as Iindicated by adding the diacritics) and this form is used when deleting the ( لعاف )or the subject who is doing the verb. In short It is a verb without a subject (theperson doing the act of the verb) Here it doesn’t necessarily (though it could inmany other cases) mean ‘to kill’ since there’s no one ‘doing’ the killing. Here theform is used as something along the lines of may they be slain or destroyed oraccursed not the act of slaying or destroying or cursing (though it could be usedto mean that but that’s a whole different discussion) Translation for this verserange from “Slain are the constant conjecturers (Dr. Ghali)” to “Accursed be theconjecturers(Pickthall)” and it is not a standard to measure 2:61 and 3:21 sinceboth have a verb a subject and an object ( هب لوـعفم لـعاف و لـعف و ) to clearlyindicate action.

As for what you mentioned in Sahih al-Bukhari 6830 if anyone is interested. Theword is used as a metaphor here since the sahaba didn’t actually kill Saad binAbaadah but rather killed the attempt to make him a cailph after the prophet. Theuse of the word as a metaphor doesn’t mean that the world will change itsmeaning to mean the metaphor whenever it is used. you can’t seriously considerto change what a word translates to because it has been used metaphorically inanother context.

The bottom line is that anyone who knows Arabic can see right through ourdiscussion here and decide the meaning it’s really basic stuff, you don’t know thelanguage so anything I explain to you would be worthless as you would chooseahmadiyya based interpretations over any other interpretations and similarly I’lltake what I understand myself and what I read in any of the hundreds of otherbooks in tafseer, translations and dictionaries over what you interpret, so I’ll leaveit at that and let the readers decide for themselves what verses like 2:87 and2:154 mean.

I will not end my message with me boastfully proclaiming myself the ultimatevictor that people run away from when faced with my awesome arguments. I’lljust let the readers decide on their own and thank you for participating in thisdialog with me.

kind regards.

A


Screenshot

Bismillah Ir-rahman Ir-rahim

Asalam-o-Alaikum brother Aiman_D,

This is my concluding message to this dialog and it’s for both you and the readers.I would like to thank you for your time, this debate has been informative andeducational. I will try to keep this short and on the point and just lay out myconcluding statements for you and the readers to ponder.

I will not end my message with me boastfully proclaiming myself theultimate victor

You say this, yet you boastfully claim to be the victor in public forums, which isthe main reason for this dialog being made public. Throughout this whole debateyour have done nothing but dance around the concerns that were raised. Youand I both claimed that we were far from scholars, yet you present yourtranslation as iron clad and the only correct translation, leaving no alternative. I,with the help of my scholar have repeatedly shattered your arguments time andtime again, with nothing but the Quran, yet you still remain adamant about yoursuperior Arabic knowledge.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_diacritics






http://imgur.com/oqShB09

http://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/1z5tdo/not_these_guys_again/cfqv6pl



The central argument is the 6 points message about 33:40 that wasnever really answered because of your lack of knowledge in Arabic.

Really? This whole debate has been nothing but the discussion on this very verse.I told you early on in this debate, when I presented the Ahmadiyya understandingof this verse that I am willing to accept the literal translation, if it “doesn’tcontradict the Quran”. You yourself admit that the Quran can never contradictitself, yet when the proof from the Quran is laid before you, that the literaltranslation contradicts the Quran, you dance around the issue. Instead of provingthe Ahmadiyya interpretation wrong by showing me proof from the Quran, likeI have, instead you wrongfully claim that Ahmadiyyat twists the translation to fittheir needs without laying any proof to support your arguments.

As for the concerns you raise in your message, once again these are all mereclaims and nothing but expression of condescending attitude, without anyevidence. Your grammatical rhetoric is not only completely wrong but alsowithout any evidence. Let me quote one example from Quran:

[2:109] لبق نم یسوم لئس امک مکلوسر اولئست نا نودیرت ما

In this verse the verb لئس is لوھجملل ینبم . Do you believe that here this worddoes not mean “questioned” but something else. There are so many otherexamples like this.

I don’t think I need to say much more, if someone was to read through this wholedebate then they would see the clear flaws with your interpretation. May Allahguide both of us on his chosen path, Ameen.



میحرلا نمحرلا مسب هللا

Bismi Allahi arrahmani arraheem

Since this is the closing statement, I want to explain to the reader how I came tothe decision of ending this dialogue between the two of us and why from mypoint of view we can’t reach an agreement.

A. The first reason is a minor reason about our differences in language. Now I’mnot saying that this is a ‘fault’ in you or that you are beneath me no no no Godforbid, it’s just that I can never breakthrough to you if we keep discussinglinguistics. because at the end of the day you’ll not open a dictionary to see foryourself, you’ll not accept any translation not written by ahmadiyya and naturallyyou’ll not take my word for it. This doesn’t necessarily cripple the conversation,but it alienates you from it and makes it unidirectional as you’ll naturally forwardmy reply to your scholar and then take the side of your scholar without beingable to understand and balance the arguments objectively. Which is why I tried toabstain from going in-depth about language and only introduce linguisticarguments when you do so first, like you did in messages numbered 11 and 28and even then I kept it very basic.

Since this is going public, I’m confident that our Arabic speaking readers will beable to see right through our arguments in seconds. and those who don’t speakArabic wouldn’t care about linguistics since naturally they’ll only trust translationsfrom actual reliable scholars not a couple of guys online.

B. The second problem is our fundamental difference in methodology whendealing with hadiths. For me and mainstream muslims, we use Biographicalevaluation to decide the authenticity of hadith (video for more info). After judgingthe authenticity through this systematic method we take the ruling from it. So webasically check the data’s authenticity then derive rulings from it. which is the


http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=2125&region=E1&CR=

http://imgur.com/CsJSDkv

http://imgur.com/7xvfTuU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biographical_evaluation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZlEtV0rDPA



natural, scientific, and common sense approach.

The way Ahmadiyya approach hadith is fundamentally different,they don’tparticularly study the chains of transmissions, they refuse any hadith thatcontradicts their interpretations of the quran as discussed in messages 7, 8 andseen in 22. So basically they make the conclusion first then they refuse thehadiths that contradicts this conclusion and rule them as false. This is the oppositeof a scientific approach to data in my opinion. For me, It’s like a scientist makingthe conclusion of his study first then just removes any data that contradicts hisconclusion and then present his findings as scientific discoveries. Naturally I cannever accept this approach and don’t see how we can have a debate on suchbasis. In messages 12 and 27 I’ve provided six hadiths of the highest levels ofauthenticity from nine sources and all of them has been discarded, naturally Idon’t accept that.

C. The third reason is our different methods when discussing the Quran assomeone who read through our conversation will see. In message 12 I discussedthe verse that should settle our disagreement (33:40) and the ahmadiyyainterpretation in details and repeatedly insisted on getting an answer for it until Ifinally got the answer in 24 saying “I and the scholar are willing to accept the literaltranslation, as is the tafsir as you pointed out, but the problem is that if we do,then the Quran is contradicting it’s own word.” So we moved on to the alleged‘contradiction’ and the other side presented 3:81 as proof of the continuum ofprophethood which I answered in message 27 by asking that the verse be read init’s context 3:64-90 and that its talking about Muhammad(PBUH). and wasanswered in message 28 with the hadith of “Convey from me even an Ayah”(source) and used it to insinuate that we don’t need ponder upon them incontext. Naturally this is also something I can’t accept, I don’t accept picking averse and ignore the context of verses before and after. The hadith invites peopleto convey the quran as much as we can even with one verse, not to cherry picka verse and interpret it as we wish out of context. Any muslim would understandthat conveying two verses is better than one and three is better than two. howthis hadith is used to justify ignoring context is beyond me. Ironically and slightlyoff topic that’s exactly what some terrorists and islamophobics do, pick a verseout of context and present it as ‘evidence’, not accusing or insinuating that theother side is being either one of these two in any way, just think it’s remarkable.So ignoring the literal words of (33:40) because it doesn’t conform with versetaken completely out of context was the last straw for me and that’s when Idecided to end this talk and sent message 29 which was meant to be my farewell.

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, “I have left two matters with you. Aslong as you hold to them, you will not go the wrong way. They are theBook of Allah and the Sunna of His Prophet.” source

Now that I gave my feedback and overall impression of our dialogue, I invite thereader to read through our whole dialog if you skipped to the end for fairness’ssake.

As for your question M*****, about 2:108, it means he “was asked/questioned”in لوھجملل ینبم i.e, there’s no specified ‘subject’ or ( لعاف ) meaning the qurandidn’t explicitly state who questioned him. I didn’t say that removing the subjectmeans changing the meaning necessarily, I said that it can and therefore isn’t anaccurate comparison to use. Anyway, I’m not worried about this in the slightest,as I said in point A of this message anyone who knows the language and readthrough our linguistic arguments would see the truth within seconds and thosewho don’t know the language wouldn’t care about what we say about it. It’s noteven the main topic so I’ll leave it at that as I’m confident the reader will see rightthrough all this.

Finally I want to thank you M***** for discussing ahmadiyya’s beliefs with me, Ilearned a lot about them from you and I appreciate your time.

What I got right is due to the guidance of Allah, and what I got wrong is frommyself and from shaytan. May Allah guide us all to his straight path. Ameen.






http://sunnah.com/urn/516070




Search

RECENT POSTS

Debate between FightForTruth(Ahmadi) and Aiman_D (Sunni) —

Screenshots have been added as proofof unadulterated conversation.

RECENT COMMENTS

ARCHIVES

February 2014

CATEGORIES

Uncategorized

META

Register

Log in

Entries RSS

Comments RSS

Blog at WordPress.com.

Search

RECENT POSTS

Debate between FightForTruth(Ahmadi) and Aiman_D (Sunni) —Screenshots have been added as proofof unadulterated conversation.

RECENT COMMENTS

ARCHIVES

February 2014

CATEGORIES

Uncategorized

META

Register

Log in

Entries RSS

Comments RSS

Blog at WordPress.com.

Search

Blog at WordPress.com. The Manifest Theme.

Leave a comment

THE END

FollowFollow


http://theiratitagain.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/debate-part-1/#respond


http://theiratitagain.wordpress.com/2014/02/

http://theiratitagain.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/

http://wordpress.com/signup/?ref=wplogin

http://theiratitagain.wordpress.com/wp-login.php

http://theiratitagain.wordpress.com/feed/

http://theiratitagain.wordpress.com/comments/feed/

http://wordpress.com/?ref=footer


http://theiratitagain.wordpress.com/2014/02/

http://theiratitagain.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/

http://wordpress.com/signup/?ref=wplogin

http://theiratitagain.wordpress.com/wp-login.php

http://theiratitagain.wordpress.com/feed/

http://theiratitagain.wordpress.com/comments/feed/



http://theme.wordpress.com/themes/manifest/



Documents

Debate