Protest in New York!

As I pointed out in my earlier post (post# 185) that my reason to engage in a religious discussion was to establish the fact that we were discussing two completely different yet inter-related issues throughout this thread i.e:

1. Are Ahmadi and Muslims one and the same or are they completely different people. Understanding this fact will lead us to understand issue no.2.

2. State`s interference in the religion.

I think now it is safe for us to draw conclusions, as regards to point#1, from the discussion so far. I also think that any fair minded individual will accept the fact that Muslims are in no way willing to accept that the Ahmadiat is an off-shoot of Islam, or an un-orthodox version, or a radical version or any version whatsoever. As a matter of fact we are talking about two different religions with certain similarities. The two religions have irreconcilable differences that cannot be settled with any number of arguments, any quotations from the scriptures, hadiths, logic, or philosophy. The core set of believes of one religion is in direct contrast with the others.
Understanding this fact will then lead us to investigate the interference of State in the religion. The first question that will come to our mind is that whether these two religions co-exist in a civil society. What will be the nature of the social contract between these two segments of the society? What is the nature of give-and-take in that contract?

Any thoughts, friends?

Pakistan in the hockey semi-finals; India ousted from medal contention. Let all Ahmadis, Christians, Hindus, Sunnis and Shias of Pakistan cheer the thrilling 2-0 victory over Netherlands. Theological discussion aside, all non-Muslims and Ahmadis have served Pakistan at least as good, if not better, than the majority Sunni and Shia communities. From seving in the defense forces, Nobel Prize winner, fine academecians and essentially no feudals, not many in the corrupt politicians and bureaucracy and not creating obscurantism and disorderness through zealous and violent defense of their faiths.

I, a Sunni, am proud of services of Ahmadis, Christians and Hindus of Pakistan. period.

Urstruly #188

My dear Urstruly,

Your statement:

``your rebuttal that ``Qurra`n uses multi-layered symbolic language`` does not apply to the set of basic believes on
which Ummah has an Ajmah (agreement). The finality of Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) is one of the core set of believes. It is one of those specifics that are specific down to comma, period and semi-colon. No set of arguments can and will change those specifics. Ummah is not even allowed to have Ijtehad on
these specifics.``

There is no attempt of rebuttal in my post. However, given the nature of the subject under discussion, I can understand your somewhat emotional response. I was merely trying to throw some light on how and why claim of Prophet hood by one Mirza Ghulam Ahmed sahib was at all possible. How was he able to convince so many of his followers that he was indeed a Prophet of God. As you said in one of your posts, it is important to understand the nature of the beast. In my view, claims of Prophet hood, Messiah, Mehdi etc. are primarily due to, as I said in my last post, the eloquent and symbolic language of Quran. It is irrelevant wthether or not this language applies to ``the set of basic beliefs on which ummah has an Ijmah``. It doesn`t stop people from embarking on creative interpretations of Quran on any matter they wish to challenge -claim of Prophet hood by Mirza sahib is an excellent example. Do you get my point?

Please understand that I am not challenging the Ijmah of Muslim ummah on the question of finality of Prophet Mohammed (S). What I am saying is that if Quran was written in expository language, there would be less possibility of creative interpretations by anybody. However, the dilemma is that if Quran were written in expository language, the attraction and beauty of the message would not last forever. I hope this clarifies my position on this matter.

Your statement:

``In other words Qurranic Arabic is the household language of the Arab world. It is not like Shakespearean English that is incomprehensible to ordinary folks.``

This is preposterous. Not a soul in the Arab world ever heard such eloquent language. Arabs were awestruck when Mohammed spoke such eloquent words. It was this eloquence, which is mentioned in many places (in Quran, & Hadiths) as the proof of authenticity of the message of Quran. There are verses in Quran itself which challenge the human kind to write a verse as eloquent as the verses of Quran. I urge you to reconsider your above statement.

Perhaps, it would be best if we make it absolutely clear that we are not here to challenge anybody`s personal beliefs. This might keep the discussion focused on the issue at hand (i.e. blasphemy laws) with greater objectivity.

As I said before, there is a fine line between fanaticism and vision of greater ideal. Onece this line is crossed in the flood of emotions, we`ll end up with fatwas of kufur etc. against each other.

Re: #190

When this whole discussion of the religious status of Ahmadis started on this board i stated in my post that for ease of reference for the discussion, they were grouped with other religious minorities as non-muslims, for the purpose of discussion here, since the majority considers them as such.

Keeping this in mind it would be an improper construction of #190 to suggest that i mean that they should be protected as ``non-muslims`` in the Constitution of Pakistan. I think its clear that i meant that ALL religious beliefs should be protected by law. Not that a constitutional ammendment should declare Ahmadis non-muslims in extending them/all religious beliefs equal protection! That would be the very abnegation of the Quaid`s ideals! And certainly not consistent with his admonition that religion is ``not the business of the state.``

Once again, i would like to make it perfectly clear that i am nobody`s `official spokesman`. My opinions are my own entirely.

The question that bothers me of late is why Pakistanis celebrate the death Anniversary/Birth of the Quaid e Azam M.A Jinnah, when they have chosen to completely disregard his ideals and everything he stood for in his life? Why build him a Mausoleum, if they have chosen to disregard his advice? Why make a mockery of everything he believed in? The way the country is today, it would be better not to celebrate any event related to his personal life and simply state unambigiously that Pakistan repudiates everything the man stood for, once and for all. That would be closer to the truth at least.

just my well considered, informed, and honest opinion.

O.M

pardon me Zahra ... i should have said, not what Pakistan`s priorities ARE, but what they SHOULD BE. There`s quite a difference between the 2 ... hyuck. Anyway, you`re most certainly entitled to your opinion, wish you would tell us why you disagree with the 3 i listed and the `correct` order as you see them?

respectfully,

O.M

Re fairdinkum,

You made some very interesting and thought provoking comments. I burst out laughing when you mentioned that sattar will produce even more Hadiths and Quranic verses. You seemed to have read my mind.

You are right in stating that sattar and urstruly are not qualified representative of their communities and thus their arguments deserve some skepticism. Your point is well taken. I hope that others also keep this in mind when trying to decide on this issue.

Re mithuna,

Your interest and objectivity in this subject in admirable, and I much appreciate it.

Re Urstruly,

In the spirit of objectivity, let’s set aside our biases for awhile. Making obnoxious, rash statements is not going to help. It will only compromise the quality of this discussion. With all due respect to your point of view on finality of prophethood, I am attempting to explore the alternate aspect on this subject. You are entitled to your views, but this name-calling business has to end. This behavior is not becoming of a gentleman.

As an Ahmadi, I believe that Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is the most pure, righteous prophet that will ever be sent to the humanity. We consider him (peace and blessings be upon him) to be the leader of all prophets, and that the following prophets can gain prophethood only by holding Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings be upon him) in the highest regard, as their spiritual leader. I hope my regard for Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) is clear. If not, please re-read this paragraph.

Moving on to other issues. After reading your responses, here are some of my thoughts:

You have quoted a list of hadiths in favor of finality of prophethood. Your point is well taken. These hadiths are worth considering. What also needs to be considered is the context of these hadiths. That’s where interpretation of the hadiths becomes somewhat fluid and subject to further examination.

You pointed out the meaning of word “khatam” and quoted several hadiths and other scholars in support of your arguments. I am not much familiar with Arabic language, but for every scholar you point out, I can also point out a scholar who supports my view. Also, could it be that the Arabic word “khatam” in these hadiths is being translated as the English word “last”? If that’s the case, then in essence you are translating “khatam” as “last” to show that “khatam” means “last”. This will result in circular reasoning, and therefore needs further looking into before we go too far.

But let’s hold that thought for a moment. In any case, what also needs to be considered is the context of these hadiths. When prophet (peace be upon him) spoke of being the “last prophet” (as you quoted), could it be that he was referring to the last “law-bearing” prophet, or the last “immediate” prophet (for, say next 1000 or so years). How do you know that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was not responding to an earlier discussion he had had with his companions regarding completion of the Law, or regarding coming of another prophet immediately after himself (peace and blessings be upon him)?

Let’s take these thoughts further. Prophets have come immediately one after another, as in the case of Prophet Abraham followed by Prophet Ishmail, followed by Prophet Issac. This is but one such example. Just imagine, if after the death of Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings be upon him), anyone had falsely claimed to be a prophet … what havoc it could have played within the Muslim community! Without there being any successful claimants of immediate prophethood, Muslim community was split apart, 3 out of 4 Khalifaa’s were murdered, and opposing armies were led by people who used to be companions (even involving the wife) of Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings be upon him). And all this happened within 30 years of the Prophet’s demise. Add to this a few false claimants of prophethood, and you may get the picture. Complete chaos.

Also, after the death of Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings be upon him), Quran existed in bits and pieces for several years. If a person had immediately claimed to be a law-bearing prophet and decided to add to or nullify a few verses of the Quran, imagine the impact this could have on the entire Muslim community. How do you know “with certainty” that Prophet Mohammad’s comments were not related to the issue of an immediate, law-bearing prophet that he had earlier discussed with his companions? I do not think the context of these hadiths is “bullet-proof”.

You may be thinking … ok sattar, since you are raising this issue, how do you know the exact context of these hadiths? Part of the answer is that that’s precisely why hadiths need to be interpreted with a lot of caution since it is impossible to capture the exact context, sequence of statements and events, matters being discussed, and circumstances etc. This is more so the case since, as I understand it, 80-90 years had elapsed between the prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings be upon him) making these statements, and these statements being recorded. Note that 80-90 years is about 3-4 generations. This is likely to be one of the reasons why the Prophet stated something to the effect that if a saying of his contradicts Quran, teachings of the Quran are to be followed, rather than his saying. That is not to say that hadiths have no importance at all. To test the validity of a hadith, it needs to be checked against teachings of the Quran, and also against common sense. If a hadith satisfies the two criteria (i.e. consistency with Quran, and common sense), then it becomes closer to being an authentic hadith.

To illustrate this point I’ll use one of the hadiths that you quoted. Here Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said, ``I am the last in line of the prophets of God and my Masjid is the last Masjid (referring to the holy Masjid of the Prophet).``

As it turns out, this is precisely what Ahmadis believe. You know that the Prophet’s mosque was surely not the last mosque. Many more mosques have been built since then, but these mosques were a reflection of the Prophet’s mosque. Prophet’s “last mosque” is the last model for the mosques to follow. Similarly, more prophets will follow, but their prophethood will be a reflection of the Prophet Mohammad’s prophethood. That is, the following prophets will hold Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings be upon him) as the model Prophet, in the highest regard, and consider themselves as humble slaves to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). To be quite honest, I am not sure why you quoted this hadith at all!

While we are on the subject of hadiths, I would like to quote a few sayings of Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and others. Albeit the exact context is missing (before I bite my tongue), but that precisely may lend support to my argument. Here we go:

- Prophet is reported to have said, “Abu Bakr is the best of my followers, except anyone who might be a prophet” (Dalmay Quoted by Kanazul Haqaiq of Imam Monadi”)

- On the death of his son, Ibrahim, Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings be upon him) stated, “If Ibrahim had lived, he would have been a prophet”. It is worth noting that Prophet’s son Ibrahim died approximately 5 years after the “Khatamun Nabiyeen” verse of Surah-e-Ahzab was revealed.

A few more quotes worth mentioning here are as follows:

- On the topic of Khatamun Nabiyeen, Hazrat Ayesha (may Allah be pleased with her) is reported to have said, “O ye people, you should say that the Holy Prophet is Khatamun Nabiyeen, but do not say that there will be no prophet after him”

- Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) is reported to have said, “the Holy Prophet is Khatamun Nabiyeen and I am Khatam-ul-Auliya”. This saying implies that even though more “wali” will come, I (Ali) am of the highest status, similarly more prophets will follow, but Prophet Mohammad is of the highest status.

There are several similar quotes from Muslim scholars throughout the history, but I’ll stop here for now. Next, I would like to use a few references form Quran to make the point:

1. The first reference is verse 40 from Surah-e-Ahzab, the one that you quoted:

“O people! Muhammad has no sons among ye men, but verily, he is the Apostle of God and Khatamun Nabiyeen. And God is Aware of everything”.

It is a well-known fact that Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings be upon him) did not have a male surviving child. Kuffar of Mecca used to mock the Prophet that after he (peace and blessings be upon him) passes away, no one will be left to carry his name. As it becomes apparent from the first half of this verse (O people! Muhammad has no sons among ye men, but verily …), it was revealed by Allah to mainly provide consolation to the prophet. This first half of the verse sets up the context for the 2nd half of the verse.

If the 2nd half of the verse is to be interpreted as “ … he is the Apostle of God and last in the line of prophets”, it is quite evident that, for a prophet, being last in the line of prophets is not much of consolation at all. However, if the 2nd half of the verse is interpreted as “…he is the Apostle of God and ‘Chief’ of all Prophets”, then it is quite a consolation!

Here it is evident that the first half of the verse provides the context for the 2nd half. To console the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), calling him “last in the line of prophets” does not mean much. However, calling him the “Chief” of all prophets has concrete meaning and consolation.

2. I mentioned this in my earlier post, but did not get any input from you:

Muslims recite Surah-e-Fathia several times in daily prayers. A few of the verses from this surah state:

“… Guide us along the right path; the path of those on whom Thou has bestowed Thy favors …”

Explaining these “favors”, Quran states in verses 70-71 of Surah-e-Nisa:

“Whoso obeys Allah and the Messenger, shall be among whom Allah has bestowed His favors – the Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs, and the Righteous; and excellent companions these are. This is Allah’s grace and Allah is all comprehending”.

We Ahmadis believe that this verse gives the believers glad tidings that if we follow Allah and His Messenger, Allah will continue to bless us with Prophets, among other virtuous people.

Contrast the above mentioned verse from the verse 20 of Surah-e-Hadeed, where reward of followers of other prophets does not mention grant of prophethood, and restricts bounty and blessings to other categories, namely the Truthful, the Martyrs. In other words, whereas followers of other prophets can expect to be blessed with the Truthfuls and the Martyrs, followers of this Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) can expect grant of prophethood as well.

3. In Surah-e- A’araf is stated:

“O children of Adam! If Messengers come to you from among yourselves, rehearsing my signs unto you ...”

Here possibility of arrival of other prophets is kept open.

4. It is a common Muslim belief that a false claimant of prophethood does not flourish and does not escape divine punishment. This principle is explained in the Quran, and in reference to Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is stated: “If he had fabricated any saying and attributed it to Us, We would surely have seized him by the right hand and then surely We would have severed his life artery, and not one of you could have held Us from it” (69:39-48). Here Lord Almighty has promised that He’d square off the account with anyone who fabricates lies against Him.

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam of Qadian openly, in no uncertain terms, claimed to be a prophet (a non-law bearing prophet, I might add). He claimed that Allah has revealed to him that he is the long-awaited Promised Messiah and the Imam Mahdi for his age. If he was a fake, how come he escaped divine punishment?

Mirza Sahib (peace be upon him) (1835-1908) died at the age of 72, of natural causes, after claiming prophethood for more than 25 years. At the time of his death 400,000 individuals had converted to Ahmadiyyat. Today, there are more than 50 million Ahmadis worldwide. We are blessed with Khilafat, we have our own satellite channel system (called MTA, for Muslim TV Ahmadiyya) through which Ahmadis all over the world are able to listen to the Friday cermon, Quran classes, and religious educational programs headed by our beloved Khalifa, Mirza Tahir Ahmad. All this is funded by the chandaa (donations) by the Ahmadis. Our jamaat has set up missions in almost all the countries of the world - in Africa, in Europe, in Asia etc. All this is consistent with the Promise Allah Almighty made to the Promised Messiah, “I will spread thy message to the four corners of the world”. Our jamaat has been blessed with people like Chaudhry Zafarullah Khan and Dr. Abdus Salam, and enjoys an almost 100% literacy rate. Three most notable “kings” who vehemently opposed us, namely King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, and General Zia, all died despicable deaths. This is the divine support our jamaat enjoys. All praise belongs to Allah.

Think about it. Open your mind to the possibility that you may be taking a stance against the Promised Messiah, the much-awaited Imam Mahdi of the age. Do you really expect that Prophet Issa (peace be upon him) physically ascended to the sky, two thousand years ago, and will came down at a later day? These thoughts are completely irrational and make a fairy-tale out of religion.

These are my comments. Your input, without your bias, will be much appreciated. Thoughtful comments from anyone will also be appreciated.

Best regards,

Asad

Faridinkum# 186

I don`t know that.

But you see how J.I etc unashamedly utilize our sentiments.

Some Ayah in Koran are Mohkamat. i.e clear. Like believe in one God, Prophet PBUH, BOOK, etc. Same with Haram and halaal.

Muslims are not unanimous on eating of lizard for example, but they are unaminous on prohibition of pork and liquor and interest.

The Fiqh of Islam, basically came after many centuries in its form, which utilizing many sources including Koran, Hadith and Qiyas etc made laws according to the condition of that society. Which we now term as RIGID LAWS of Islam.

And people trained not only in those laws, but in the same tradition like Ilm-ul-Kalam (a Greek Tradition) are called Mullahs.

Koran says. WE taught knowledge by pen. They believe oral tradition is more important.

Islam is dynamism. As infightings among early Muslims suggests):. They restricted Islam to ``Khankhah``.

The minimum definition of Muslim is relatted to belief 1- In one God 2- All prophets (Mohammed as final). 3- All BOOKS (Koran as final) 4- Angrels 5- Day of judgement 6- And all good and bad are from God.

RaJanjua!

I fully understand that Umar RZAH or Uthman RZAH are not in need of my defence):. Neither did I stated it.

What I said was that, it was basically a political struggle, and in no way Islamic and non-Islamic.

The more I read both versions, the more I tend to see it like this.

One day Abu Musa Asshari is a pure Momin and next day he is a pure Hypocrite.

Any attempt at reading history without taking into account the society of that time will lead to erroneous conclusions.

I am not denying facts. I just want to see what is the meaning of those.

Omar Mirza #174

As long as majority remains Jahil, the things will not change.

But everybody for that matter is born Jahil.

It is society which keeps one to remain Jahil for life.

And the same society makes some into scholars so as to perpetuate Jihalat of Jahils.

Can you inform me of all enlightened people, how much percentage is being educated by them and how much percentage is being educated by Jahil Mullahs.

If you see the statistics in Pakistan, you will know who is the real Jahil.

Omar Mirza #190

Religious tolerance, rights of minorities etc are interlinked with much broader rights of all people.

Who cares about 2% when the problem is faced by majority.

If you help in getting people their rights, you will also get your right.

Or you are just interested in your share to do injustice with rest of ruling class.

Why would they share with you, when they can do the same thing without you.

Post 190:

I disagree with the order of your suggested pointers in line 2. In fact, I strongly disagree with the points you`ve brought up. They `LACK` insight!!

It is exactly the same thing: You take a loud speaker[if you haven`t yet] and start giving speeches without thinking of the outcome. Oh, at least you raised the voice. You should certainly be given a credit for the bold and positive step. [Sarcasm Intended]

What are Pakistan`s priorities today?

Attracting Investment, education, economic development.

What do these legitimate state interests have to do with the personal religious beliefs of citizens?

Why is the state bent on declaring various groups `minorities` and endorsing `kafirhood`? Can`t people see that it has led to bloodshed in the streets as various groups think they can take control of the state and use it to impose their fanatical religious beliefs on the losers?

Shia-Sunni killings, Killing of Ahmadis periodically by bigots, second class citizenship for everyone who is not Sunni or Shia? Why should this be acceptable? Mullah Omar style of governance is the ultimate objective of the Sunni religious parties (I am a Sunni Muslim and they have absolutely no claim to speak for me as far as i am concerned). They pronounce it daily in the newspapers. They don`t even want a Constitution, religious or not. As for `human rights`, they simply deny their existence.



Why do you think so many people are simply leaving Pakistan? Its not just for economic reasons. Its much more than that. There is no rule of law, no security of life, and this is the true legacy of Zia, who it can be truthfully said in this context, is the real father of modern day Pakistan, sadly.

The protection of religious minorities must be of Constitutional dimensions to insure equal rights of citizenship, so that a religious majority cannot simply pass discriminatory/popular laws by a simple majority. And an independent judiciary free from political pressure, is required to insure that the laws are fairly enforced.

O.M

RE : Mithuna # 187

You wrote:

I found the details from the web-site of the Lahori group at

http://www.aaiil.org/text/qadi/intro/cmprsn.shtml

where they clearly state their doctrinal differences with the ``Qadiani`` group. They explicitly state that they only consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmed to be a reformer only. So I`ll throw this question right back at the forum. Why is the Lahori group considered non-muslim? Why is merely respecting Mirza Ghulam Ahmed as a reformer considered enough to throw them out of the fold?````

The answer is with in your statement. Mr. Ghulam Ahmad is neither a Prophet nor a reformer (according to Muslim beleif). I would rather say that he is a ``deform-er``. Unless one denounces him in all actual and implied meanings, he can not be brought back into the (Muslim) fold.

RE: Fairdinkum # 186
and Mithuna

Fairdinkum, your rebuttal that ``Qurra`n uses multi-layered symbolic language`` does not apply to the set of basic believes on which Ummah has an Ajmah (agreement). The finality of Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) is one of the core set of believes. It is one of those specifics that are specific down to comma, period and semi-colon. No set of arguments can and will change those specifics. Ummah is not even allowed to have Ijtehad on these specifics. (That goes for everybody, Fairdinkum, Sattar, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Dr. Ali Shariati, Urstruly, all humans, angels, and all other creatures.)

There are two things that needs to be mentioned here:

1. The Holy Qurra`n is the only book in the universe that has remained the same as it was 1500 years ago; same to the extent of zer, zabr, paish, period, comma, semicolon, language, metaphors, and context.

2. The Arabic language that was spoken about 1500 years ago is still spoken in the original meaning and context. This character of Arabic makes it a unique language on this planet. In other words Qurranic Arabic is the household language of the Arab world. It is not like Shakespearean English that is incomprehensible to ordinary folks.

It is also worth noting that, throughout the history attempts have been made to change the words, meanings, and the context of the language of Holy Qurran. Ahmadiat is not the first attempt.

The following excerpt is from Dr. Ali Shariati`s pamphelet- Surah Al Rum (The Romans). Dr. Shariati has explained it most eloquently.

QUOTE:
To date, the Qur`an is the only document that has been safe from (major or minor) changes or distortions by the enemies of Islam. Although the internal and external enemies, which included the ruthless superpowers, the caliphs, the kings and the evil `ulama did everything in their power to counteract or destroy the Qur`an, their attempts failed. Their fear of the Qur`an persisted until they resorted to distorting the interpretation of the Qur`an for the Muslims. Furthermore, the enemies of Islam have tried to remove the Qur`an as a frame of reference from the Muslim`s way of life and pattern of thinking (even for the theology students). For those who were steadfast in their interest in the Qur`an, the enemies wholeheartedly sought to attract attention to the beauty of the cover, print or proper recitation of the Qur`an, but not to its contents.

Regardless of past plots to undermine the Qur`an or the endurance of the differences among Muslims, all Muslims of the worldyold or young, illiterate or literate, Shi`i or Sunni, Eastern or Western and from every cultural backgroundyall firmly agree that the Qur`an is the foundation of Islam. And, in spite of centuries of efforts to prevent the Qur`an from being exposed and considered, the holy book has survived and remained uncorrupted. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the conscientious Muslims to focus on reintroducing the Qur`an to the Muslim society……………………… However, for a better understanding of the Qur`an, attention to the traditions and history of the Prophet and his righteous followers must accompany Qur`anic study.

The holy Qur`an should always remain with Muslims to the degree that its light may pulsate and enlighten the heart. Under such circumstances, sects and differences will disappear, and unity will emerge under the shade of the Qur`an. In the final analysis, the language and arbitration of the Qur`an will cause pessimism and misunderstanding to be replaced by optimism and understanding.

END QUOTE

Please note the last sentence of the second paragraph. Muslim Ummah has an Ajmah that Hadith (Prophet`s words and actions) are actually an attempt to explain the Qurranic verses by example. So whenever you are in doubt look into his (pbuh) life.

So Fairdinkum, I request you not to use this line of logic. We can argue with each other to death but the specifics will not change their meanings. Muslims and myself have absolutely no problem with Ahmadi`s interpretations of Qurran. The only problem is that they present their interpretations as Islamic while violating the specifics and claim to be Muslims.