Numb:
Quote:
|
Even though being a Ahmadi I had no Idea we were allegedly following Imam Abu Hanifa.
|
Which shows why people follow Ahmadiyyat. Ignorance.
Quote:
|
They modified it, but took the fiqh of Imam Abu Hanifa?
|
They only modified teachings of Abu Hanifa which were in contradiction to Ahmadi beliefs. Otherwise Qadiani followed all his other teachings, and advised his followers to do the same.
Read page 13 of the book one Ahmadi cited in the earlier posts. Qadiani asked his followers to follow Imam Abu Hanifa in fiqh.
I understand Ahmadis now downplaying importance of fiqh. They have no choice left when they find out that their "prophet" followed a non-prophet. But did Qadiani himself downplay fiqh? If he did not do that then you have no right to do it yourself. It's only your personal opinion, which does not matter in the matters of religion.
If fiqh really is unnecessary than why wasting time on writing books about fiqh Ahmadiyya?
Quote:
|
what is the reason of fiqh anway? What is fiqh? The Understanding, the awareness. Which Understanding? The awareness of slaughtering Islam
|
Is this what people writing books on fiqh Ahmadiyya trying to do? Slaughter Islam?
Quote:
|
We have a caliph, what do you have?
|
Good for you. Butthen Catholics have pope, Buddhists have Dalai Llama, Nazaris have Agha Khan. So what's the point you are trying to make, and how does that point relate to the topic of thread??
Qadiani called himself a prophet and yet followed a non-prophet. That's plain laughable for a person proclaiming to be Jesus, Mahdi, Prophet's image and what not.