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

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

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

Ahmadi’s believe that the long awaited Messiah (Jesus (as)) has returned. We translate many hadith and Quranic verses as metaphors and do not hold them literally. We believe that religion should be rational and should not defy logic.

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 in religion, 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 the translation as a source but the actual quran in Arabic the one that is unchanging since the days of the last messenger (PBUH)

The only Hadith or Sunna Ahmadi’s disregard is the one which contradicts the Quran. We translate many hadith and Quranic verses as metaphors and do not hold them literally.

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

wouldn’t the logical approach to change your humanly flawed ideas and replace them with what the actual messenger of Allah told us. the one who actually taught 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 revelation revealed,(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) We would have seized him by the right hand;(45) Then We would have cut from 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 🙂

9) Reply from FightForTruth.

Screenshot 1

Screenshot 2

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

The translations don’t change Islam, they make the teachings clearer by integrating them to existing secular knowledge or by showing how the Quran is relevant in modern times. They also help decipher the metaphorical verses more clearly with newer discoveries and more advance understanding of our surroundings.

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 the translation as a source but the actual quran in Arabic the one that is unchanging since the days of the last messenger (PBUH)

There in lies the fault which is quite clear from a rational point of view. The Quran as you already know is poetic in nature, it’s text is rich and open to translation, so when you say that the translation is not necessary, it worries me because, this is the root cause of extremism. What I have been tough about Islam and what I heave learned on my own has led me to strongly believe that a logical and rational translation (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 a constant reminder to man that God had mentioned these “new” discoveries 1400 years ago. The Arabic in the Quran can never be changed but those verses hold more 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 metaphors basically putting a piece of your humanly fundamentally flawed mind in the perfect God-send message,

No, you are miss interpreting the need of translation. The tafsirs are not compiled by just one persons point of view, they are compiled by using existing secular knowledge to help strengthen the Quranic teachings by providing evidence which we know as truth from having tested the results (science). If anything, it helps clear up misconceptions. For example, since the Quran is designed by Allah to last the test of time, and we know the Quran to be the absolute truth then we know that it’s still as relevant today as it was 1400 years ago. Yet, explaining modern knowledge to people 1400 years ago would have been next to impossible without disrupting natural evolution, that’s why the Quran uses metaphors to describe many modern marvels (which, if you ask me is the beauty of the Quran, as it was as relevent to them 1400 years ago, as it is today to us), especially scientific discoveries, like the big bang, evolution, start of life, etc. Which science is just now trying to tackle, Allah mentioned almost all of of them 1400 years ago, and those which 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 suits your ideas, and then disregard authentic well sourced hadith based on YOUR interpretation of said metaphors?

Again no, there is no our own interpretation. It’s one use with secular knowledge to 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) the finality of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) mentioned in (33:41). Well, other verses of the Quran contradict what this verse is saying? Matter of fact,31 of them support the continuation of of prophet hood, not to mention some hadiths and other authentic Islamic sources.

wouldn’t the logical approach to change your humanly flawed ideas and 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 knowledge and just peruse religious knowledge alone. Instead I believe as the Ahmadiyya Muslum Community believes, that there should be a unison between the two. Secular knowledge should support the Quran as still relevant to this and that is only achievable if you allow the Quran to be translated logically, rationally and in relation to existing secular knowledge (trusted as truth after having been proven to be the truth, ex. gravity, spinning earth etc. etc.).

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

You asked for a simple answer in your questions so I kept everything short. I have expanded a bit on this reply, I hope it is to your satisfaction. I would like to continue 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.

10) Reply from Aiman_D.

Screenshot 1

Screenshot 2

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

Quick question, do you understand Arabic, because I do and If you happen to know arabic too it would make information exchange much easier without a middle 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 to quote each part and discuss it further but then you said a few things that were shocking to me and obviously disagree with what I believe on principle so I decided to drop the more arguable parts for now and just focus only on the strongly-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’s believe) the finality of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) mentioned in (33:41). Well, other verses of the Quran contradict what this verse is saying? Matter of fact, 31 of them support the continuation of of prophet hood, not to mention some hadiths and other authentic Islamic 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 add an 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 in context addressing people from previous nations like the people of israel, and the people at times of different prophets (Ibrahim, yusef ,isa..etc (PBUT)) and taking about 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 so they 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 before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad.” But when he came to them with clear 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 promised future prophets which we as sunni obviously agree with since we believe in all of the prophets. and so it continues for all the previous prophets and their nations until prophethood reaches our prophet Muhammad (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

The aya is so very obvious and literal that Muhammad is the final prophet. There are zero contradictions, each prophet is promised a prophet after him until our prophet was declared the last.. To quote the verses regarding the previous nations and then claim that they contradict this verse is obvious fraud. there are many other evidence that support this from authentic Hadith and verses but this one 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 the last prophet, that many others will come later and claim to be prophets and that all of them are lying. Some even claimed prophethood in his life and he made the finality of him abundantly clear.

Second point:

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

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

Third point:

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 the conversation is separating to many branches.. I’ll just state that I strongly disagree with what you said about Isa(Pbuh) and will return to this point later inshallah after we settle the points we are discussing above.

Fourth point:

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

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

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

11) Reply from FightForTruth.

Screenshot 1

Screenshot 2

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 speak Arabic, not do I understand what I am reading in Arabic, I can only recite Arabic and rely on translations. Second was concerning providing links, I only provide them when they are relevant and to the point on which we are having a discussion. The reason I do this is because the link provides an official answer from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, and I don’t think my summery can do justice to the official answer. I will do my best to summarize the point henceforth and provide the link for further reading.

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

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

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

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

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

Then we are in agreement, I misunderstood what you meant by there being no need for translation. I agree wholeheartedly that if the metaphors, ideas, or translation contradict what we learn from the Quran and Sunnah then they should be discarded as being false. The ultimate source is the Quran, followed by Sunnah, the rest is up to us on how we understand both in unisense and apply what 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 the conversation is separating to many branches.. I’ll just state that I strongly disagree with what you said about Isa(Pbuh) and will return to this point later inshallah after we settle the points we are discussing above.

I would like to present two short videos, which touch on this point and explain how 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 Ahmadiyya community translates many miracles, prophecies etc. as metaphors and not literal. This makes complete sense when you consider Islam as the final religion for mankind and having been the final book from God, he coded it in such a way that it’s as relevant today as it was 1400 years ago. The more we learn through secular knowledge, the more the Quran opens up to us and we recognize the signs of Allah. The beauty of the Quran being that it’s a book designed to last the test of time.

it almost sounds like you are making it a divine book which I hope is not what you mean, I mean why this one and not any of the other 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 to say is that this is the translation or tafsir of the Quran the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community considers the most accurate and up to date. It’s how we perceive Islam.

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

12) Reply from Aiman_D.

Screnshot 1

Screnshot 2

Screnshot 3

Hello M*****! That’s a beautiful name by the way, means someone who is charitable or doer of good, It’s also mentioned in the quran in 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 language barrier so it may look like I’m giving a lot of links but it’s really just the same image with different notes, It would probably be much easier to explore if you have reddit enhancement suit plugin installed but that’s beside the point. Allow me to jump 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 no particular order.

Let me start from the end of the page you provided. I noticed that the tafseer you provided does not (and can not) refuse the obvious meaning of the aya (Here), it just puts it as ‘secondary/may also mean’. As a native speaker I find this to be an obvious deception and kind of an insult to my intelligence. You can open any Arabic to Arabic dictionary or any of the hundreds of tafseers out there and you’ll find this meaning crystal clear. Also since this obviously contradicts the fundamentals of Ahmadiya belief you’d think the writer would bother to prove why this ‘may also mean’ part is not the true meaning and on what bases did he decide that this isn’t the primary meaning. Regarding translation as ‘seal’ (Here) this seal, Not this seal: This is a valid and well known translation and it exists in most (if not all) the sunni tafseers of the quran and any arabic to arabic dictionary. This does not contradict or replace the first meaning, on the contrary it solidifies it. with him Allah has sealed the advent of prophets, such that there is no prophet after him. The way you seal a message only after it is finished. This is one of the beauty of quranic linguistics, when I read it I understand the literal meaning (That Muhammad PBUH is the last prophet) and at the same time imagine the metaphorical meaning of the prophet-hood being sealed by him.. It paints a picture that makes the meaning solid and twice as clear. Regarding the translation as ornament or embellishment or perfection and such (here). First of all I’d like to point out that this is absolutely nonsense. In no way can it be translated like this, I even questioned myself on the off chance that this is an old meaning or something like that and checked five different dictionaries (listed here) and didn’t find this to be a valid meaning to the word in any of them. These words in Arabic are utterly different and are used in many other places in the quran (Examples1, Examples2) Click on any aya number for full translation . So this is obviously not a valid tafseer. And translating it like this is an obvious deception or a severe mistake at the very least. Regarding the translation as Signet and such (Here). If you take the word in question here “خاتم” alone and with no context . It can mean a signet or a ring 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 is because in old times the stamps where fixed on rings for the person of authority to wear and as time evolved and rings were used separately from the seals they kept their name as ‘seals’. But as you know words have different meaning in different context and in Arabic this is more obvious than in English because not only does the meaning change but also the grammatical construct of the sentence. I don’t want to go into why this can’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 of all, if that was the meaning (which it isn’t) the verse would mean “[muhammad (pbuh) is]the ring of the prophets” . The sentence makes zero sense and no Arabic speaker would accept this as a meaning. Even if you try to pass it off as a ‘metaphor’ which means what’s discussed in 3 it still wouldn’t make sense because a ring is not the most beautiful perfect thing of a man obviously. If you see someone with wearing terrible dirty rags and wearing 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 or not. so if you accept that meaning, that means that The Prophet(PBUH) is not the best of prophets but just a ring in their hands. Here’s an example If we say “Picasso is a paint brush of the artists” does that mean that Picasso is the 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?. And even if in a purely hypothetical case that this was a valid meaning (which it isn’t), that does not in anyway nullify the meaning discussed in points 1 and 2. So to summarize, this doesn’t make any sense on any level as a translation here. And I can go into more details here if you want but I think I already wrote too much on this. If the word “خاتم” here doesn’t mean ‘the last’ or ‘the final’, then why does Mirza Ghulam Ahmad the founder of Ahmadiyya himself use it in many places in his books to mean exactly that! As you know his words hold no value to me but I thought it might interest you. Here are some examples I found, I kept the source name in arabic in the pictures: One, two. And since you know Urdu and apparently in Urdu have a lot of words similar to Arabic here are some examples: One, Two, Three. As I said his words don’t hold value to me either way but I thought it might interest you. Let’s take the whole verse and see how it all means in context as a whole. The first part is talking about the Prophet(PBUH) not being, never was and will never be the father of any grown men the second partbut the messanger of Allah and the last of the prophets. The question is, how does the two parts as a whole work together? The answer is simple, The prophet not 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 the ornament or ring of prophets that would make nosense as the two parts would 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 stop for 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 last of prophets and whoever wrote the tafseer you sent me is trying desperately to twist 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 other tafseers written since the days of Sahaba to this day. and it does all this for an obvious agenda, don’t let it deceive you M******.

The Second Point:

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

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

Abu Hurairh reported Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: The similitude of mine and that of the Apostles before me is that of a person who built a house quite imposing and beautiful, but for one brick in one of its corners. 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 am the last of the Apostles. Source Source 2

Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “The Banu Isra’il were ruled by the Prophets. When one Prophet died, another succeeded him. There will be no Prophet after me… Source

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

Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) set out for Tabuk. appointing Ali as his deputy (in Medina). `Ali said, “Do you want to leave me with the children and women?” The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Will you not be pleased that you will be to 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 you still agree wholeheartedly in what I quoted you saying above?

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

13) Reply from Aiman_D.



Screenshot

Sorry for the very long answer, Trust me it took me far more time writing it than it took 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 got really long no matter how hard I tried to shorten it. Let’s focus on the topic at hand and take about that later insha’allah.

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

14) Reply from FightForTruth.

Screenshot

AA, brother A*****. Thank you for the refrences from the Quran for the name M*****, my full name is A***** M***** but everyone just calls me M***** as it’s convenient for them I guess. Also thank you for the detailed reply, it was definently worth the wait, but a bit much for my level of understanding. Which is ok as I have access to Ahmadiyya scholars who are more informed than I am and are 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 you once I receive it, it’s usually within a day or two. While we wait for their reply, I would like to request from you a analysis of two links, both of which share the Ahmadiyya point of Prophet Hood. This is the first one which to me seems like a logical answer for the verse in discussion. The second is, which provides many other verses from the Quran in support of the continuation of Prophet Hood. Both of these links are relevant to the discussion we are having and although they might appear as walls of text, they are indeed on point. I look forward to your understanding of the links I have shared and I will reply to your concerns as soon as I have the reply from the Ahmadiyya scholar.

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

15) Reply from Aiman_D.

Screenshot 1

Screenshot 2

I was hoping that you would read and make your own judgment instead of asking someone to make judgment for you. I thought We are discussing one on one here based on Quran, Sunnah and logic isn’t that what we agreed on? I don’t mind you researching whatever sources you see fit but to forward my PM to a third party to answer it for you is disappointing. I don’t see why we are discussing anymore if you are going to work as a forwarder of messages. I can do the same and forward your mails to sunni scholars and let them answer you but then it’s no longer a dialogue between the two of us. I have to admit I’m disappointed at this turn of events and kind of regret the time I spent writing and researching since apparently I’m not talking to you anymore M******. Use your own mind M****** and research the truth for yourself. Take the time you need but If you are not willing to do so please don’t bother forwarding me reply from these scholars as I’m not interested in a dialog with unknown people I’m here to have a dialog with YOU and I’m sure you wouldn’t appreciate me doing the same and being a forwarding service too.

Take care

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

16) Reply from FightForTruth.

Screenshot 1

Screenshot 2

Hello again brother, I am sorry, I did not think my asking for assistance on a subject which is above my level of understanding would be offensive to you. I am not native to Arabic as yourself and so the translation which I provided was logical enough for my understanding, especially after reading the commentary, which delved on the subject in detail. Since you raised concerns on the Arabic translation of the Quran, which I cannot relate too as I would not know where to being to translate, I have to either just accept your word an the ultimate truth or do 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 I am being told is the truth, the translation the Ahmadiyya present fits with the rest of the Quran, where it does give a possibility of there being a prophet after Muhammad (pbuh). Your literal translation leaves the Quran in contradiction with itself as far as I can see, because other parts as presented in the second link, allow for the continuation of prophet hood.

Brother, if I do not speak the language then I cannot be expected to understand what I am reading. You were quickly able to research points by checking dictionaries at your disposal to come to your conclusion on the translation, I cannot 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 judge logically and rationally, which translation fits the verse….

We can have a dialogue when we are on common ground, when it concerns logic and understanding. But you know Arabic is not my native language then how can you expect me to refute the points you raised by myself?

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

17) Reply from Aiman_D.

Screenshot

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

I’m heading to bed now. Good night!

18) Reply from Aiman_D.

Screenshot

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

19) Reply from FightForTruth.

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 you are my non Ahmadiyya Arabic source, I would like to see what answer could be provided to the author. You can contact one of your scholars if you wish, I just want to see how it would be answered, so I can use my mind to come to a conclusion on who presents a logical understanding.

20) Reply from FightForTruth.

Screenshot

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

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

21) Reply from Aiman_D.

Screenshot 1

Screenshot 2

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

First Point:

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

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

The first link tries to mix the cards together, it quotes verses that are clearly in context addressing people from previous nations like the people of israel, and the people at times of different prophets (Ibrahim, yusef ,isa..etc (PBUT)) and taking about 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 so they 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 before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad.” But when he came to them with clear 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 promised future prophets which we as sunni obviously agree with since we believe in all of the prophets. and so it continues for all the previous prophets and their nations until prophethood reaches our prophet Muhammad (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 The aya is so very obvious and literal that Muhammad is the final prophet. There are zero contradictions, each prophet is promised a prophet after him until our prophet was declared the last.. To quote the verses regarding the previous nations and then claim that they contradict this verse is obvious fraud. there are many other evidence that support this from authentic Hadith and verses but this one 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 the last prophet, that many others will come later and claim to be prophets and that all of them are lying. Some even claimed prophethood in his life and he made the finality of him abundantly clear.

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

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

And you said

I agree wholeheartedly that if the metaphors, ideas, or translation contradict what we learn from the Quran and Sunnah then they should be discarded as being false. The ultimate source is the Quran, followed by Sunnah, the rest is up to us on how we understand 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 or any other is something YOU need to answer for because we agreed in the two rules above that if the translation or interpretation or metaphor contradicts the Quran 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 we agreed that this will not be how this dialogue work. We agreed that you can use scholars or any sources to answer me in your words. And now you are breaking the agreement M******. I sent you a crystal clear message discussing one verse linguistically, logically and through authentic hadith and now you are avoiding my questions and trying to steer the conversation elsewhere and start from square one. Not cool. I didn’t ask you to connect me to the scholar, we agreed he would help YOU reply to my message not ignore it and start a forwarding PM conversation with me all over again. Come on man!

looking forward to YOUR reply.

22) Reply from FightForTruth.

Screenshot 1

Screenshot 2

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

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

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

The first link tries to mix the cards together, it quotes verses that are clearly in context addressing people from previous nations like the people of israel, and the people at times of different prophets (Ibrahim, yusef ,isa..etc (PBUT)) and taking about 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 so they 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 before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad.” But when he came to them with clear evidences, they said, “This is obvious magic.

This is mere claim without any evidence. You are not-only misinterpreting the verses but also limiting the message of Quran to previous times whereas Allah has made it for all of us. The stories of previous prophets are narrate for us to learn a lesson 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 promised future prophets which we as sunni obviously agree with since we believe in all of the prophets. and so it continues for all the previous prophets and their nations until prophethood reaches our prophet Muhammad (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 The aya is so very obvious and literal that Muhammad is the final prophet. There are zero contradictions, each prophet is promised a prophet after him until our prophet was declared the last.. To quote the verses regarding the previous nations and then claim that they contradict this verse is obvious fraud. there are many other evidence that support this from authentic Hadith and verses but this one 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 the last prophet, that many others will come later and claim to be prophets and that all of them are lying. Some even claimed prophethood in his life and he made the finality of him abundantly clear.

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

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

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

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 or any other is something YOU need to answer for because we agreed in the two rules above that if the translation or interpretation or metaphor contradicts the Quran and Sunnah then they should be discarded as being false.

Fine! This rule applies on both of us. So now I’ll show you a verse without interpretation or even translation. You translate each and every word of that verse and see yourself if it contradicts your idea or not. Then we’ll go further from that point. AGREED?​​

Now onto the second point you raised.

You just forwarded me the message of the scholar literally a few hours after we agreed that this will not be how this dialogue work. We agreed that you can use scholars or any sources to answer me in 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 I forwarded to you without first reading and understanding. He simply asked a question 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 my questions and trying to steer the conversation elsewhere and start from square one.

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

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

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

23) Reply from Aiman_D.

Screenshot

Hello M******, Glad to see your message, Hope you’re having a great day! let me 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. What you need to rebut is the message before that. The one where I provided 6 crystal clear point on the explicit aya that settles our disagreement. Even with the assistance of your scholars you have yet to provide a rebuttal of any kind to these 6 points and the 4 authentic hadiths I provided. Unlike what you seem to insinuate here I didn’t just provide linguistic proofs but I provided a lot of logical proofs and Hadiths that doesn’t require you to know Arabic to prove and you didn’t answer any of them. What you are telling me here is to ignore my knowledge of what the aya clearly states, ignore the words of the prophet, ignore logic and language, ignore the hundreds of tafseers that were written about it since the tafseer of Ibn Abas (The prophet’s cousin and the one who the prophet himself made dua’a for him) to this day. You want me to ignore all this close my mind and blindly trust the words of someone in india because he claims he got the meaning 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 you can’t answer any of these simple points even though this is a small part of the proofs I can provide on topic, then you are not convincing me you are just trying to convince yourself.

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

I’ve always had questions about Ahmadiyya and yet to find 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 leave me hanging once I ask and ignore me I’ll know for a fact that your sect is a lie.

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

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

Salam M******.

24) Reply from FightForTruth.

Screenshot

Asalam-o-Alaikum brother A****, sorry for the late reply, I was busy with my family 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 the evidence for the literal translation of the aya. This is so because I and the scholar are willing to accept the literal translation, 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. Which as you and I both agree cannot be the case. If we believe that the Quran is the absolute truth and cannot, does not contradict it’s teachings then we have to have a logical translation of 33:40 so that it fits in perfectly with the rest of the Quran.

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

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

I have no problem in answering questions about Ahmadiyyat, 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, the request to have the Ahmadiyya translation be represented by the scholar was not far fetched.

If you can’t answer my simple message with the help of all the sources 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 there are no misunderstandings.

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

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

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

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

25) Reply from Aiman_D.

Screenshot 1

Screenshot 2

Screenshot 3

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

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

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

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

This is were we disagree and so I think this is the direction where we should continue our dialogue. I’ll return to this point at the end of this message to plan our 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 with logic and breaks the context as I explained in my long message we are discussing here. But I see your predicament here since you believe that having the correct interpretation would contradict the rest of the quran which brings us back to the previous point about needing to discuss the verses that you think are contradictory.

What I don’t understand is why you feel threatened by the scholar I reached out for help? He raised some valid points and is willing to prove through the Quran why your version of translation contradicts the Quran which is not acceptable. If you are in complete confidence as you say you are on the translation then why not accept 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 and any other source as you see fit. My issue was him being introduced as a replacement for you and make you as a proxy to forward messages between him and myself. It felt like you and I were sitting at a table having a discussion and then you suddenly garbed someone’s arm, seated him in your chair and told me to discuss it with him instead and you walked away. You can imagine how frustrating that can be to press the reset button on the discussion and having to re-establish our points of agreement and start working again to where we disagree from scratch. If you really thinks he is providing valid points then adopt these points as your own and integrate them into the discussion so the conversation can still be between the two of us. In other word use him as your resource not as the 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, the request to have the Ahmadiyya translation be represented by the scholar was not far fetched.

Again, I didn’t object about asking and using him as a resource. My objection is using 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) who introduced Arabic into the discussion and asked me to answer it. For me to be faced with obvious manipulation of the meaning for an obvious agenda I had to respond specially because I felt (and still feel) that you are being lied to due to you lack of knowledge of the language, and I deliberately tried to limit my linguistic response and focus on the logical and contextual response for your sake. Let me remind you of how Arabic was brought into the discussion

This is the translation I present and prefer to accept, instead of the literal translation. Please read the Arabic translation since you are familiar with Arabic and then the commentary on this verse. I would welcome your criticism concerning the translation I choose to accept.

about:

I would need assistance.

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

What’s next?

now that we have discussed 33:40. We should move to our next point of disagreement 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. Please quote (and preferably with a link to quran.com like I do) the verse you find contradictory with this and why you think it is contradictory. Please don’t give me the whole list in the link you gave me before as the text length here is not enough to quote them let alone discuss them plus it would be very distracting. So for the sake of having a constructive conversation pick the one that you find best to explain your point, tell me how it contradicts 33:40 and we’ll discuss it. We can move to others if you want later but let’s just do it one at a time. I suggest the following criteria for the aya you pick:

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

because when the interpretation contradicts the clear statement of quran and hadith. then the interpretation is false not the clear statement as we’ve agreed previously. context consideration please make sure that you don’t use an aya in the context of Allah informing a prophet of a prophet after him, we both know this and that’s not a contradiction. Allah informs every prophet of the prophet after him until we reached Muhammad(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. To show a contradiction the aya must inform of a prophet after Muhammad(pbuh) not after any of the other prophets before him.

please make sure that you don’t use an aya in the context of Allah informing a prophet of a prophet after him, we both know this and that’s not a contradiction. Allah informs every prophet of the prophet after him until we reached Muhammad(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. To show a contradiction the aya must inform of a prophet after Muhammad(pbuh) not after any of the other prophets before him. Name: generally when quran informs a prophet of the prophet coming next Allah informs him of his name (Eg1, Eg2). I want to know where Allah informs us of the name of the prophet after Muhammad. pretend-prophets are everywhere for example neither one of us believe in THIS GUY who pretended to be Messiah, Mahdi and prophet. I know that an aya like this doesn’t exist so this is more of a point for you to consider than an actual condition. 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 and unchanged.

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

26) Reply from FightForTruth.



Screenshot 1

Screenshot 2

Screenshot 3

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

You have been interpreting verses and boastfully presenting your interpretations as CLEAR STATEMENTS OF QURAN. But I won’t do it. 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

context consideration please make sure that you don’t use an aya in the context of Allah informing a prophet of a prophet after him, we both know this and that’s not a contradiction. Allah informs every prophet of the prophet after him until we reached Muhammad(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. To show a contradiction the aya must inform of a prophet after Muhammad(pbuh) not after any of the other prophets before him.

There is no such rule stated in Quran that Allah necessary informs each and every prophet of a prophet after him. This is your self-fabricated rule you can never show from Quran. However, Allah did mention a covenant, taken from all the prophets, about the coming of a testifying Messenger. I am going to quote and explain it at the end of this post.

Name: generally when quran informs a prophet of the prophet coming next Allah informs him of his name (Eg1, Eg2). I want to know where Allah informs us of the name of the prophet after Muhammad. pretend-prophets are everywhere for example neither one of us believe in THIS GUY who pretended to be Messiah, Mahdi and prophet. I know that an aya like this doesn’t exist so this is more of a point for you to consider than an actual condition. 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 and unchanged.

Once again there is no such rule in Quran that Allah necessarily tells the name of a coming prophet to a previous prophet. No previous prophet told about the name of Ibrahim, Moses and many other prophets. Further, Allah says that He has sent prophets to every nation [10:48, 13:8, 35:25] but there are less than 30 prophets 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. If the name and the full description of a coming prophet is already available, then it is no more belief in the unseen. We also know that previous nations rejected even those 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 the Book and Wisdom and then there comes to you a Messenger, fulfilling that which is with you, you shall believe in him and help him.’ And He said: ‘Do you agree, 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 the witnesses.*

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 also mentioned 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 indeed took 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 the Prophet 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) of Qadian and, by the Grace of Allah, we can prove his truthfulness according to Quranic criteria of truthfulness of prophets / Messengers.

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

27) Reply from Aiman_D.



Screenshot 1

Screenshot 2

Screenshot 3

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

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

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

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

Really it’s not that hard to find the meaning, just open any translation of this verse 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 can even learn the 28 letters of Arabic and open a dictionary on your own, it would take 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 to the point myself.

The aya you quoted is out of context, If you read a few verses before and a few verses 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 after Allah taking the covenant from the prophets and they in turn taking the covenant from their people. Please read these verses before and after for context.

There’s no contradiction here with 33:40, the contradiction only exist when you interpret the verse as talking about Mirza which makes the interpretation false because it contradicts the quran and the numerous authentic hadiths, as you said:

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

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

Answering your commentary:

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

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

also mentioned in 33:8

33:7 has nothing to do with the end or continuing of prophethood, the only meaning you provided is what you projected from your own preconceived conclusions and you are interpreting them it in a way that contradicts the statements of the Quran and authentic Hadith which makes it false. Allah’s convenient is mentioned in 20 verses that I know of (possibly more) and it means different things in different contexts. I can dive into the tafseer (interpretation) of the verse if you want but since it’s not the topic here I won’t unless you ask me to. The bottom line is, it doesn’t state a contradiction with the statement in 33:40 or the numerous authentic hadiths. rather You are projecting a meaning 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 the Wisdom.

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’t explicitly stated and then compare this false interpretation to the literal statement of 33:40 and then accept the interpretation as the truth and the literal words of Allah as an interpretation while ignoring the authentic hadiths of the prophet(PBUH) all to prove a false agenda.

You have yet to provide a statement from the quran that contradicts the end of prophethood, 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] the Messenger of Allah and last of the prophets. And ever is Allah , of all things, Knowing. [33:40]

Abu Hurairh reported Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: The similitude of mine and that of the Apostles before me is that of a person who built a house quite imposing and beautiful, but for one brick in one of its corners. 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 am the last of the Apostles. Source Source 2

Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “The Banu Isra’il were ruled by the Prophets. When one Prophet died, another succeeded him. There will be no Prophet after me… Source source2 Source3

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

Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) set out for Tabuk. appointing Ali as his deputy (in Medina). `Ali said, “Do you want to leave me with the children and women?” The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Will you not be pleased that you will be to 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 with the idolaters, and until they worship idols. And indeed there shall be thirty imposters in my Ummah,each of them claiming that he is a Prophet. And I am the last of the Prophets, there is no Prophet after me.” Source

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

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

looking forward to your reply.

28) Reply from FightForTruth.

Screenshot 1

Screenshot 2

You have been interpreting verses and boastfully presenting your interpretations as CLEAR STATEMENTS OF QURAN. I’m not presenting an interpretation as a clear statement. IT IS A CLEAR STATEMENT. Why are we debating the basics again? we’ve already discussed this and you admitted it:

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

The aya you quoted is out of context, If you read a few verses before and a few verses 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 after Allah taking the covenant from the prophets and they in turn taking the covenant from their people. Please read these verses before and after for context.

There is no such rule as “context”. It is only your self-fabricated lame excuse to deny Qur an. There are so many verses of Qur an where the people of the book are addressed but they also apply to Muslims.​ Further, nowhere Allah and His Prophet (saw) said that these verses are meant only for the people of the book or that we should pondr upon them in context. The Prophet Muhammad (saw) said: بلغوا عنی ولو آیۃ convey from me even if it is one aya. He didn’t say anything about “context” here. Now in compliance of this Prophetic command I conveyed to you an aya and you are making lame excuses of context, in complete defiance of the Prophet Muhammad (saw).

Answering your commentary: This covenant was taken from “the prophets” and the Prophet Muhammad (saw) is also a prophet. So it MUST have been taken from him That is not a valid idea because as I said above the context is about 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 because of the context but also because to prove this you have to prove the validity of the statement for whenever the quran says “The Prophets”. meaning whenever the quran says “The Prophets” it has to mean ALL the prophets from Adam(pbuh) to Muhammad (pbuh) because Muhammad(pbuh) is a prophet. But that’s obviously not the case, sometimes the quran says “the prophets” but doesn’t mean all of them including Muhammad(PBUH), (Example1 , Example2).

​First of all you are ignorant about the rule of use of ال​. Of course there are different usages of this word but if u insist that here in the term میثاق النبیین it does not mean that this covenant was taken from all the prophets, then you have to also accept that in خاتم النبیین it does not mean that the Prophet Muhammad (saw) ended all the prophets.

Your two examples of یقتلون النبیین again showed your ignorance about Arabic language because in Arabic قتل does not necessarily mean physically killing but to neglect, avoid or cool down the excitement or harshness as Imam Raghib says in his “Mufridat-ul-Quran”. He quoted a saying قَتَلْتُ الْخَمْرَ بِالْمَآءِ ٰٰI cooed down the wine with water. So یقتلون النبیین means that they avoided and neglected all the prophets 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 own preconceived conclusions and you are interpreting them it in a way that contradicts the statements of the Quran and authentic Hadith which makes it false. Allah’s convenient is mentioned in 20 verses that I know of (possibly more) and it means different things in different contexts.

It is you who is projecting preconceived and self-fabricated ideas and thoughts without any evidence. In 3:82 Allah is explicitly talking about a covenant of the Prophets and in 33:8 Allah is again talking about the same covenant, this time explicitly addressing the Prophet Muhammad (saw) that, along with other prophet whose names are mentioned, this covenant of the Prophets was also taken from him.

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

The Prophet Muhammad (saw) was given the Book and the Wisdom. 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 you did not mention what category of the prophets it was taken from) and now you are changing your stance and saying that the Book and the Wisdom was given also to other Messengers.​ This shift of rule is ironically interesting but that is not the point. The point is that the the Prophet Muhammad (saw) is a prophet and that 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 there MUST 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 false interpretation to the literal statement of 33:40 and then accept the interpretation as the truth and the literal words of Allah as an interpretation while ignoring the authentic hadiths of the prophet(PBUH) all to prove a false agenda.

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

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

​I have presented above the firm verses of Qur`an crushing your false and self-fabricated interpretations and rules. Now its your turn to present your evidence, if you have any. Enough with the boastful claims 🙂

29) Reply from Aiman_D.

Screenshot 1

Screenshot 2

Hello again, M*****.

I gotta admit, I’m quite disappointed in the way this once civilized intellectual dialog turned into. I believe this will be the last message I send you, please read it with an open 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 evidence organized in 6 points. A message I’ve yet to receive any sort of answer to. and you accepted that, to remind you you said:

I and the scholar are willing to accept the literal translation, as is the tafsir 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 where we’ll deny what we agreed on when it doesn’t suit us and use passive aggressive mockery Then I have no interest in continuing this dialogue or answering this message. 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 second becomes pointless.

Now even though I will not continue answering the message. I will talk shortly about a specific part of your message, not for the sake of our dialogue which is over in my eyes, but for your sake because I genuinely believe you have good intentions but you are being deceived by people exploiting your lack of knowledge of the Arabic language.

Your two examples of یقتلون النبیین again showed your ignorance about Arabic language because in Arabic قتل does not necessarily mean physically killing but to neglect, avoid or cool down the excitement or harshness as Imam Raghib says in his “Mufridat-ul-Quran”. He quoted a saying قَتَلْتُ الْخَمْرَ بِالْمَآءِ ٰٰI cooed down the wine with water. So یقتلون النبیین means that they avoided and neglected all the prophets and tried to suppress their message.

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

As for your saying ” قَتَلْتُ الْخَمْرَ بِالْمَآءِ ٰٰI cooed down the wine with water.” this would be the equivalent of saying in English “Kill the lights” 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 when you use the word with inanimate objects it doesn’t mean to end the life of the inanimate object because it doesn’t have a life to end. But when you use it with 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 most absurd by far.

Please please for the love of all that’s holy don’t let them fool you and exploit you like this, you owe it to yourself and to your 3 months old child to look for the true answers yourself. Please be honest with yourself and be skeptical of what you are told by any one (including myself). There’s just you, me and Allah as our witness here. 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 to understand and be understood. And that I genuinely liked you as a person and think you have good intentions and a kind nature which makes it doubly painful for me to see you deceived into following one of the thirty or so false prophet that Allah’s final messenger(PBUH) foretold about and warned us not to be among the ones who follow them.

Please please M***** don’t read Allah’s commands and his messenger’s words through the lenses of the liar of Qadian by letting him tell you what’s real and what’s not and what meaning to take from everything. Don’t let him exploit you like many others to serve himself and the British crown. Be a servant of Allah and Allah alone, read his message and the words of his prophet as he intended you to and 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 they thought 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’ll be able to call you my brother.

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

30) Reply from FightForTruth.

Screenshot

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

“As for your saying ” قَتَلْتُ الْخَمْرَ بِالْمَآءِ ٰٰI cooed down the wine with water.” this would be the equivalent of saying in English “Kill the lights” 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 when you use the word with inanimate objects it doesn’t mean to end the life of the inanimate object because it doesn’t have a life to end. But when you use it with 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 most absurd by far.”