- Question:Please give me explanation about Ahmadiyah movement.
Are they right or wrong or possibly right or possibly wrong? And why?
The Ahmadiya sect was founded in Qadian, Punjab in 1889 by one Mirza Gulam Ahmad.
He claimed not only that he was a Mahdi but also a re-incarnation of Krishna and that he was the Prophet of Islam in succession to the Holy Prophet. Some say that he claimed to be the reappearance (burooz) of the Holy Prophet. On the death of Mirza Gulam in 1908 the Ahmadiya community elected Moulvi Nuru-Deen to be the khalifah. When Nuru-Deen died in 1914 the majority of the community continued to believe that Mirza Gulam was a prophet in succession to the Holy Prophet. There was a minority splinter group in Lahore which declared that Mirza Gulam was a reformer (mujaddid).
As the Ahmadiyas believe that Mirza Gulam was a prophet they cannot be accepted within the fold of Islam. The Muslims, the sunnis as well as the shiahs, universally believe that Muhammad (SAWA) was the last of the prophets of Allah (SWT) as attested by the Holy Qur’an, Chapter 33, Verse 40 where Allah says,
“Muhammad…………is the messenger of Allah and the last of the prophets”.
The expression used literally means the seal of the Prophet “khataman nabiyyin” but there can be absolutely no doubt that even in the context of a seal it has a definite finality.
There are many ahadeeth of the Holy Prophet which leave no doubt that there would be no prophet after him. He is reported as having said : “Bani Israeel had prophets who were leading them. When one died another would succeeded him. But after me there will be no prophet. I am khatiman nabiyyin.”
There can be no doubt that as far as the belief of the Ahmadiyas is concerned it is not only un-Islamic but contrary to the Holy Book.
Are Lahori Ahmadis kafirs even though they reject the belief that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet?
If Lahori Ahmadis are not Muslims, please explain how this is so, since they deny neither the Khatm an-Nabiyeen nor Allah’s Tawheed.
To accept as a leader religious, a person who claimed to be a prophet in succession to the Holy Prophet (SAWA) would place one in the same category as a person who accepts his claim to be true.
The splinter group of the Lahori Ahmadiyyas cannot be distinguished from the juridical point of view from the group which accepts Mirza Gulam Ahmad’s claim to prophethood. Had they chosen another leader, and had they openly denounced Mirza Gulam Ahmad as someone who had falsely claimed prophethood, it would have been a different case. In that case they would not have called themselves Ahmadiyyas.