Ahmedis Declare Non-Ahmedis KAFIRS

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

From about the year 1911 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad started to put forward the doctrine that it is not sufficient for a person to declare belief in the Kalima Shahada in order to be a Muslim because Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had now appeared as a prophet and belief in him must be acknowledged as well.
According to Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, it is no longer sufficient for the existing Muslims to believe in the Holy Prophet Muhammad and all the prophets before him. Now they must also declare that they believe in the prophet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as well. Otherwise they cannot remain Muslims but become just like those Jews and Christians who believed in the previous prophets but failed to accept the Holy Prophet Muhammad.
In a book which the Qadianis have translated and published in English, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, while acknowledging his beliefs, writes:

“(3) the belief that all those so-called Muslims who have not entered into his [Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s] bai`at formally, wherever they may be, are Kafirs and outside the pale of Islam, even though they may not have heard the name of the Promised Messiah. That these beliefs have my full concurrence, I readily admit.”

(The Truth about the Split, Rabwah, 1965, pp. 55-56. This book was first published in 1924, and is the translation of his Urdu book A’inah-i Sadaqat. See the scanned pages from the original work A’inah-i Sadaqat.)

In this book, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad also gives a summary of his first article expressing these views which had earlier appeared in April 1911. He writes regarding this article:

“The article was elaborately entitled A Muslim is one who believes in all the messengers of God'. The title itself is sufficient to show that the article was not meant to prove merely that those who did not accept the Promised Messiah were deniers of the Promised Messiah’. Its object rather was to demonstrate that those who did not believe in the Promised Messiah were not Muslims.” (pp. 135-136)

He further writes:

“Regarding the main subject of my article, I wrote that as we believed the Promised Messiah to be one of the prophets of God, we could not possibly regard his deniers as Muslims.” (pp. 137-138)

“not only are those deemed to be Kafirs who openly style the Promised Messiah as Kafir, and those who although they do not style him thus, decline still to accept his claim, but even those who, in their hearts, believe the Promised Messiah to be true, and do not even deny him with their tongues, but hesitate to enter into his Bai`at, have here been adjudged to be Kafirs.” (pp. 139 -140)
“And lastly, it was argued from a verse of the Holy Quran that such people as had failed to recognise the Promised Messiah as a Rasul even if they called him a righteous person with their tongues, were yet veritable Kafirs.” (p. 140)

According to these views, the only Muslims in the whole world at any time are those who have taken the bai`at of the Qadiani leader of the time. In the last quotation above, the closing words given as “veritable Kafirs” are “pakkay kafir” in the original Urdu book A’inah-i Sadaqat, of which The Truth about the Split is the English translation. The word “pakkay” conveys the significance of “real, true, absolute and full-fledged”, meaning that all other Muslims are kafir in the fullest sense without the least doubt.

Views of M. Mahmud Ahmad’s brother Bashir.
Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s brother Mirza Bashir Ahmad also expressed the same belief quite plainly. Referring to verses 4:150 -151 of the Holy Quran, which say that those who believe only in some messengers of Allah and refuse to believe in others are “truly kafir”, M. Bashir Ahmad writes in a book:

“Thus, according to this verse, every such person who believes in Moses but does not believe in Jesus, or who believes in Jesus but does not believe in Muhammad (peace be upon him), or believes in Muhammad (peace be upon him) but does not believe in the Promised Messiah, is not only a kafir but pukka kafir and excluded from the fold of Islam.”
(Kalimat-ul-Fasal, by Mirza Bashir Ahmad, published February 1915, p. 20.)

This statement expresses the Qadiani belief that all Muslims who do not belong to the Ahmadiyya Movement are non-Muslims because they do not believe in Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet, just as Jews and Christians are non-Muslims for not believing in the Holy Prophet Muhammad as a prophet. Again the description used is pukka kafir, meaning kafir in the real, true, and fullest sense.

Qadianis disallow funeral prayers for other Muslims.
Since the Qadiani belief is that any non-Qadiani Muslim is a non-Muslim, just like a Christian or a Hindu is a non-Muslim, the Qadiani leader Mirza Mahmud Ahmad forbade his followers from saying the funeral prayer of any non-Qadiani Muslim. This instruction is given by him quite clearly and forcefully in his book Anwar-i-Khilafat, published October 1916. At the end of the section where he deals with this question, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad writes as follows:

Translation of relevant portion:
“Now another question remains, that is, as non-Ahmadis are deniers of the Promised Messiah, this is why funeral prayers for them must not be offered, but if a young child of a non-Ahmadi dies, why should not his funeral prayers be offered? He did not call the Promised Messiah as kafir. I ask those who raise this question, that if this argument is correct, then why are not funeral prayers offered for the children of Hindus and Christians, and how many people say their funeral prayers? The fact is that, according to the Shariah, the religion of the child is the same as the religion of the parents. So a non-Ahmadi’s child is also a non-Ahmadi, and his funeral prayers must not be said. Then I say that as the child cannot be a sinner he does not need the funeral prayers; the child’s funeral is a prayer for his relatives, and they do not belong to us but are non-Ahmadis. This is why even the child’s funeral prayers must not be said. This leaves the question that if a man who believes Hazrat Mirza sahib to be true but has not yet taken the bai`at, or is still thinking about joining Ahmadiyyat, and he dies in this condition, it is possible that God may not punish him. But the decisions of the Shariah are based on what is outwardly visible. So we must do the same thing in his case, and not offer funeral prayers for him.” (Anwar-i-Khilafat, page 93)

It is quite clear and plain from these instructions that the Qadianis regard all other Muslims, including the children of those Muslims and even including those Muslims who believe in the truth of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad but have not taken the pledge to join the Movement, as being kafir and non-Muslim just like Hindus and Christians.

Mr Xtreme

2

Can any Qadiani or Ahmadi come forward and explain to me which movement represents the real teachings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad?. I have posted an excerpt from an article by the Lahore Ahmadi movement which claims that the Qadiani movement has drifted away from the real teachings of Mirza saheb and has made it compulsory to have faith in him as a prophet which was never claimed by him. Ironically enough the splintered Qadiani movement is headed by one of Mirza’s own progeny. Visit the Ahamadi web site at ** www.muslim.org **

[This message has been edited by iqadeer (edited April 18, 1999).]

3

After reading Mr Xtreme's article it is clear that the Ahmadis have been given a free license by their founder to badmouth muslims' beliefs and whoever disagrees with their ideas. Yet when it comes to them, it becomes repression of an "innocent" and "peace-loving" community. It is exactly the kind of irreverent remarks they make against sacred Islamic personalities that stir up anger among the masses and ultimately results in violence. If they have not been successful in containing their inner hatred by publishing blasphemous statements against towering Islamic personalities why then they complain when it comes back around to them?.

4

The Ahmedi Complaint is not against Sunni Perspective. It is against the enforcement of our will upon their lives by the Criminal use of Goverment.

We the Sunnis have hypocriticaly used Goverment legislation to give our opinion a Legal Framework.

The Ahmedi's do not object if we call them Kafir because they are secure with what they beleive.

The Ahmedi's are more concerned about the Legal endorsement given to the persecution they have suffered for the last 30 years in Pakistan.

Mr. Jinnah Clearly Stated that Relegion "Was not the Business of the State".

We the sunnis have betrayed Him, his legacy, and the dream he had for the muslims of India.

Stud

5

A rather confused essay.

What exactly was it about? i mean, what exactly are you trying to prove? Can i take it as you struggling hard to be called a kafir? What exactly was this essay about? When you people yourself have completely refused to call ahmedis other than "kafir", what exactly are you trying to prove from this essay? How exactly are you trying to defame a community for doing something which you yourself have been openly and shamelessly doing aince the past 100 years or so!

I see, that this new respected member is extremely low on reasoning, and is basically inclined towards defaming and degrading the ahmadiyya movement in all possibe ways. Therefore it is evident that our respected friend does not base his articles on reasoning either thru koran or thru common sense, but is more involved in spreading prejudice and bias by such articles like this one!

The only need to post such articles, to make people have a negative opinion about the ahmadiyya movement, arises when logic ends, and reasoning exhausts. Koran and hadith become unworthy of talking about. then comes thru their pens such attempts, as being made in this essay.

first of all, mr. extreme, We ahmedis, as is evident in the history of this forum, have not called anyone whosoever, a kafir before. i have seen many people being happy to be called a muslim, you are the first muslim who is bent upon being called a kafir. So, if you want it like this, then you get it like this!!

For your concern, and for that of i qadeer, i am posting parts of an already posted essay, which will tend to reply to your questions. I will also bring it to the notice of the moderator, and the administration, that i am being brought into this discussion, and have to do so in order to clarify my position. After being warned not to discuss such issues as who is a muslim and who isnt, i do not geel quite good taking part in it, but as stated earler, have to post something to clarify my position. i would most certainly end this discussion, atleast on my part, if i am advised to do so by the administration.

========= The status of the deniers:

As far as the status of the deniers of Mirza ghulam ahmad sahab of qadian is concerned, mirza sahab has repeatedly said that those whom his preachings have reached, and have denied him are answerable to allah. i have posted a reference to his sayings in the related thread. other sayings which could be of interest is:

"Denying me, is not denying me, but denying allah and denying his prophet, prophet mohammad. Because whoever cries lies to me, cries lies to allah! I claim that you would have to leave all the koran from "alhamd" to "wannaas". So think, is it easy to deny me? I dont say on my own, but swear upon the almighty allah, that the truth is, whoso will leave me, and deny me, not from his tongue, but from his actions, will deny the koran, and leave allah!"
( malfoozaat volume 4, page 14 )

"Allah has made it evident on me, that every single person whom my preaching has reached, and has not accepted me, will no longer be a muslim, and is answerable to allah"
( tazkera, page 600 )

=========== Why kalima sayers were regarded as kaafir: suitable for me to answer this question. although the sunni scholars have repeatedly been arguing that "kalima alone is not enough for being a muslim", however, some of the god-fearing readers must be beliving against these so called scholars. SO i feel it necessary to address this question.

As a matter of fact, according to prophet mohammad, "anyone, who calls a kalima sayer, a kaafir, is a kaafir himself". this saying very well tells us, that one some people call other kalima-sayers as kaafirs, they themselves will become kaafir regardless of the fact whether or not they say the kalima themselves!

For a person to be an orthodox non-ahmedi muslim, he must believe that mirza ghulam ahmed and his followers are kaafir. ( this has been also included in the constitution of pakistan ). i repeat, for being an orthodox muslim, one must believe and announce that mirza ghulam ahmad of qadian and all his followers are kaafir!

Please analyze this belief on the basis of the saying of the prophet posted above. and it will become evident how they themselves are making them kaafir!

this has beautifully been explained by mirza sahab:

"So i repeat, it is not easy to deny me. In order to make me a kafir, one would have to be a kafir himself. It would take long to call me faithless and lost, but he would have to believe in his own faithlessness and loss. The one who says i have left koran and hadith, would have to leave koran and hadith himself, and it is just him who would do that. "
( malfoozaat volume 4, page 16 )

=========== The status of deniers of messiah in sunnis:

Here , it would be interesting to inquire the status of the denier of messiah according to the sunni scholars.

Sunnis beleieve in physical descent of the messiah. Once the messiah comes, some of the people will believe in him, while others will reject him. According to sunni scholars, what will those rejectors be? pious muslims?
please explain the status of those who reject your messiah.

Once you do that, will it not be fair of the Ahmedis to give the same status to those who reject their messiah???

I mean, the real issue is not about the status of those who deny the messiah. The real issue is WHO IS THE MESSIAH! once it is established, the status given to the deniers of the messiah, will automatically be associated to those who deny him!

6

Hello Mr Insignificance,

Thank you for your observation on my extremely low level of reasoning.

I am sorry you found my essay confusing. I am surprised to hear that you are cofused as my essay mostly consisted of actual quotations from Mirza Ghulam's works which I assumed, most Qadianis and Ahmedis would understand very well. What point was I trying to prove? What were my motives? You can muse on all these things if you like but at the end of the day, the words in that essay will speak for themselves. I have provided authentic quotes and references, and those reading them can make up their own minds.

As for your misuse of the hadith regarding calling "muslims" kafir, I will address that at another time as this requires a lengthy explanation of what constitutes a muslim and references and context will also have to be provided. Unfortunately I have not the time to go into this immediately, but bear with me and I will get back to you as soon as time permits.

Your musings on the status of the Messiah and implication that in fact it refers to Ghulam Mirza also do not fit in with what is explained in the Hadith. There is no point in entering into a debate on whether this is metaphorical or physical as this will be speculation and Allah has forbidden us from that.

Please look out for future articles I will be posting on a similar theme. I am sure you will find them interesting.

7

Bismihi Ta'la
Assalam o alaikum

I have followed the postings on the issue of the Ahmadies with interest. While I have requested for some answers to some questions, they were not answered, and I'll repeat them again

  1. what is the nature of the allegorical interpretation of these hadiths? the reference to the two pillars is one example. how does Mirza saheb refer to these as being allegorical and what is the understanding?

  2. what is the position of the Ahmadies in their treatment of the revelation to Mirza Ghulam Ahmed of Qadian? What role does it constitute in their faith? does this revelation serve as an explanation to the Quran or does it supplement the Quran?

  3. how do the Ahmadies understand Prophethood? While Mirza Saheb claimed Prophethood, it almost implies that it is a curse, since this would set apart those who reject him, and those who are rejected by Mirza saheb as un-believers. The Ahmadies do not fail to bring and point it out to us, that the ummah has declared them non believers, yet they fail to point out that any bearer of prophethood, and his very presence constitutes a denial of those who reject him: hence rendering one of them as a non-believer. The very implicit and explicit declaration of those who reject one another, the former being the Ahmadies and the later being the ummah, places both of them in the same boat. it does not matter if you are in majority or in minority.

i have yet to see one reference, one quote from their leader, Mirza Ghulam Ahmed of Qadian. why is this so? what does Mirza saheb have to say on these issues? please, i do not wish to make a judgement on your personal opinions, there are plenty out there, give me the facts from the horses mouth, and particularly a book reference that you could so kindly mail me a copy as well.

regards

Ali Abbas

p.s: for mailing address write to me personally.

8

Stud
In my previous posts I have already stated my personal opinion which I hope is the opinion of all fair-minded sunnis that violence against any minority group based upon their beliefs is inexcusible. But have you ever wondered why the sunnis never go out of their way to take action against this legislation. When someone produces literary works that deride your most cherished beleifs and does not stop there but goes on to slander religious figures, you are bound to raise some ire. As far as the merits of these texts go, they have been totally rejected by our scholars on grounds of being absolutely fabricated and insane. May be in your book of ethics it is free speech but majority of muslims do take it seriously. I still do not endorse violence but how far can you go before the dam breaks. People do react and most of the time it results in violence. Can you please show me one example during the times of Rasool Allah (peace be upon him) that he directed his companions to hurl insults upon the revered people of other faiths?. Contrary to that , Allah has given Maryam, mother of Eesa (peace be upon him), an honor which no other lady has been given. She has a whole chapter devoted to her name which speaks of both the mother and son's high place in Islam. What then changed Allah opinion about him so much that Mirza was told to slander hazrat Eesa in this way?. If Ahmadis want freedom of speech they must show some restrain. Even in a court of the U.S. of A you can get contempt for using vile language.