Here is how different scholars defined a “muslim”, while being questioned by justice muneer, in the 1953 case against ahmadis:
================== part 1, the definition ==========
-) maulana abu-ul-hasnaat mohammad ahmed qadri:
" should believe on
(1) oneness of god,
(2) mohammad’s prophethood,
(3) accept mohammad as the last prophet,
(4)believes that koran was revealed from allah thru prophet mohammad,
(5) should accept the orders given by prophet mohammad, and
(6) believe in the doomsday."
( maulana sahab has not told us what verses of koran he used to make this definition. also note that he did not mention
(a) beleif in ALL divine books,
(b) beleif in ALL prophets,
(c) beleif in the angels.
- jewels)
-) maulana ahmed ali saheb, ( jamiat ulma-e-islam )
“if someone
(1) believes in the koran
(2) hadith of prophet mohammad
then he is a muslim, even if he does not believe in anything else.”
( maulana sahab, have just cleaned off ALL other aspects of islamic faith. -jewels)
-) maulana ( so called )“abu-ul-ala”, modoodi:
“the one who believes in
(1) oneness of allah,
(2) believes in ALL prophets,
(3) believes in ALL divine books,
(4) believes in angels, and
(5) believes in the doomsday,
is a muslim.”
( note that this definition does not hold ANY valid point to call ahmadis as nonmuslims. -jewels)
question: " is this all enough for being called a muslim?"
reply: “yes!”
question: " if someone believes in all five of these points, does someone have a right to call him a non muslim? "
reply: “no! but anyone who does not accept these five values, is a non muslim”
( note that according to this statment of modoodi, the previous scholars i mentioned, become non muslims!!! -jewels)
-) ghazi siraajuddin:
" the one who says the kalima and follows prophet mohammad is a muslim!"
despite repeatedly being questioned, he said that anyone who does not FOLLOW mohammad in ALL walks of life is a nonmuslim.
-) mufti mohammad idrees ( jamia ashrafiya ):
he, after a long speech said,
" a muslim is the one who believes in all needs of the religion"
when questioned about those needs of religion, he replied, " they are so many, that it is almost impossible for me to tell all of them.
-) maulana ali kandhalwi:
he said that someone who "acts upon the needs of religion in the light of the sayings of prophet mohammad " is a muslim.
( note that he talked not about BELIEVES but about ACTING UPON the believes.)
question: " what are those needs of religion?"
answer: " the needs of religion are those needs which all muslims know, whether or not they are scholars!"
( as if this is all a JOKE! shame for the molvis! -jewels)
question: " please count us all those needs of religion."
answer: " i do not know! i am not capable of counting them all!"
( note what these molvis are saying. and keep in mind that they are the ones who are the CREAM of the anti-ahmadiyya agitation! - jewels)
-) maulana mohammad ahsen islaahi:
" there are two types of muslims
- true muslims
- political muslims
political muslims should believe in:
- oneness of allah,
- the finality of prophethood
- all good and bad is from allah
- the “aakhirat”
- koran as the last book
- hajj
- zakaat
- namaaz
- the other laws of islamic society
- fasting
( maulana sahab has eaten up the belief in angels, or probabaly didnt feel it necessary! - jewels)
question: " do we only have to BELIEVE in them?"
answer " yes, mere BELEIF in them is enough for being a political muslim. those who act upon them are “true muslims”.
======================= part 2, the law =================
once this had taken place, it must be noted that after that
- there has been no new divine book
- there has been no change in the koran
- there has been no new hadith discovered
but still, the final definition of a muslim made in 1974 was made of two parts:
- the muslim should believe in the kalima
- the muslim must not believe in any promised messiah ( i.e. mirza ghulam ahmad sahab of qadian)
it is thus clear to any neutral reader about the whole conspiracy. this definition clearly tells us of the political game that was played by the molvis, in the name of religion!
============================== part 3, self-contradiction ===========
in this law, no ahmadi is allowed to say the kalima, because this will mean he is pretending to be a muslim!
( ina lillahe wa inna ilaihe rajeoon! -jewels)
any ahmadi who says the kalima, (if not killed by the local molvi), will be punished for three years in jail, and a heavy fine.
the question is,
HOW is saying the kalima, pretending to be a muslim?
the translate a muslim as the one who
- says the kalima
- disbelieves in mirza ghulam ahmad.
so in order to pretend to be a muslim, an ahmadi has to fulfill BOTH the above points! it is their own opinion that saying of kalima is NOT enough for being a muslim! a muslim must deny mirza ghulam ahmad too! so if an ahmadi says a kalima but DOES NOT deny mirza ghulam ahmad, how can they say he is pretending to be a muslim?
thus making a law, that saying the kalima is similar to being a muslim, they themselves have made it clear, that KALIMA alone is the definition of a muslim!
so this law contradicts itself!
So be on watch for a day when heaven shall bring a manifest smoke
covering the people; this is a painful chastisement. ‘O our lord remove thou from us, the chastisement; we are believers.’ How should they have the reminder? seeing a clear Messenger has already come to them, then they turned away from him, and said,’ A man, tutored, possessed!"
( the koran, verse 11-14, chapter 44, Smoke, the nuclear explosion.)