This article of mine relates to the allegation that the Ahmadi Muslims too declare other Muslims of being kufaar (disbelievers), and hence it often gives birth to the question as to why we complain about others declaring us the same. Before I proceed, I must give here a tremendous amount of credit to our brother @StudentOfAhmad (from Twitter) and his website https://ahmadianswers.com/ and the article over there explaining the same point. It is important here that we first bring in the clarifications from the writings of our leaders themselves who, it is alleged, have done the same thing as what our opponents do, especially the Mullahs.
"It has been said that we forfeit our right to be Muslims by styling other people as Kafirs. But our calling other people Kafirs only means that we consider ourselves alone as true Muslims. Is it then possible for anyone to turn really true Muslims out of Islam? Our only offence, if offence it can be, which makes us forfeit our right to be part and parcel of the Muslim Community is that we do not regard other people to be as true and good Muslims as we regard, ourselves. We are sought to be expelled from the Muslim Community on this plea. But what an absurd plea! If that is the offence which renders us liable to expulsion and excommunication, then I would say with all the emphasis at my command, that this is an offence which is very freely committed by all the Muslims. Is there any sect of Muslims which has not been styled as Kaafir by the other sects and vice versa?..... Moreover there is a great deal of difference between our definition of kufr and theirs. They understand by kufr to mean the denial of Islam, which is the meaning we do not ascribe to this term when using it about the non-Ahmadis. Our view is that if a person conforms to the tenets and teaching of Islam to a given extent, he is entitled to be called a Muslim. But when he falls below even that point, then although he may be called a Muslim, he cannot be regarded as a perfect Muslim..... He who calls another person a kaafir without rhyme or reason hurts his feelings and provokes a quarrel. We never do that. It is only when we are asked by a person as to what we think of him and we are compelled to give an answer that we say we take him to be a kaafir in the sense in which this term has been explained above" - Political Solidarity of Islam, page 7, 9 and 10.
The above are excerpts from the writings of Hadhrat Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad Sahib, the second Caliph of our community. In 1953, the he was asked whether a person can be considered a Muslim if he has rejected the Promised Messiah and he himself stated, "Yes indeed, in common terms, he will still be considered a Muslim." Shedding light on the earlier writings by him on this topic, the following is what he´d to say.......
"It is evident from this statement itself that the people here I have in mind I take as Muslims. Therefore, when I use the word kaafir, I have in my mind kaafirs of the second kind which I have defined already, i.e., they are not driven or thrown out of the Millat. When I say they are outside the pale of Islam I have in my mind the view, by Mufradat-e-Raghib on page 240, where Islam has been shown to be of two kinds: one lower than the stage of Imaan; the other above the stage of Imaan. In Dunal Imaan, in the stage of lower than common Imaan, are included people whose Islam remains at a level lower than a proper Imaan and in the stage of higher than the common Imaan are Muslims who stand at a level of distinction in their faith, higher than the common level. This is why I said that some people fall outside the pale of Islam, I had in my mind people who come under the category of Dunal Imaan" - Hadhrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad Sahib´s statement in front of the Enquiry Commission in 1953.
But did Hadhrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad Sahib change his stance on this issue later on in his life?
Now, following these very convincing explanation by the man himself, it is alleged by some, especially by those of our brothers belonging to the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement, that Hadhrat Musleh Maoud actually changed his opinion on this and took a complete U-turn on this, hence later on giving explanations succumbing to the pressure put on him by other Muslims. Their allegation is that such an explanation or even a hint of it is found nowhere in his earlier writings from years ago. This though isn´t quite true. In fact, the propaganda done against him is such that even I wasn´t aware that a hint of such an explanation indeed exists in one of his earlier, in fact, very early writings on this topic. I unearthed a relevant reference on a day last November whilst reading an Urdu book of his.
"..... haa´n mei´n iss farq ko zaroor tasleem karta hoo´n jo Hadhrat Maseeh Maoud ney 'Tiryaq-ul-Qulub' mey´n likha hai, aur 'Haqeeqat-ul-Wahi' mey´n isski mazeed tashreeh farmaayi hai, aur wo ye ke sahib-e-shariat nabi chonke shariat ke laaney waaley hotey hai´n, iss liye unnka inkaar insaan ko bila´waasta kaafir bnaa deyta tha. Lekin hammaarey Hadhrat Maseeh Maoud ko chonke jo kuchh bhi mila hai Aanhadhrat Sal´Allahu Alaihi wa´Sallam ke tufail aur aapke zareeya se mila ha, iss liye aapka inkaar bhi ussi waastey se kufr hota ha, yaani aapka inkaar Aanhadhrat Sal´Allahu Alaihi wa´Sallam ka inkaar hai, pus jis qadr farq nabboowat ke hasool ka hai, wohi farq mukhaalfeen par sazzaa ka hai. Jo nabi kisi doosrey nabi ka mutaabey nahi´n unnke mukhaalfeen par bhi kufr ka fatwa bila´waasta aaed hota hai, lekin Maseeh Maoud chonke Aanhadhrat Sal´Allahu Alaihi wa´Sallam ke darbaar ka ka eik ohda´daar hai, issliye usske kufr ka fatwa darbaar Khaatam´un´Nabiyyeen se jaari hota hai aur usski waasta se mukhaalfeen ko pohnchta hai. Isski tarf Hadhrat (Sahib) ney 'Haqeeqat-ul-Wahi' mey´n irshaad farmaaya hai ke 'Jo mera inkaar karta hai darr´haqeeqat mere Sardaar Aanhadhrat Sal´Allahu Alaihi wa´Sallam ka inkaar karta hai' " - Al-Qaul-ul-Fasl, Anwaar-ul-Uloom, volume 2, book number 8, page 293.
The gist of this statement by Hadhrat Musleh Maoud is that we don´t associate the kufr to our opponents of standing in direct denial of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) - hence of Islam itself - but an indirect kufr of denying a Subordinate Prophet of the Holy Prophet. As is evident, he has stated that a direct kind of kufr is that which is as a result of the denial of a Law-bearing Prophet (like Prophet Moses and the Holy Prophet himself) because he brings a law, or that by denying an Independent Prophet (like Prophet David, Solomon, Isaiah etc.). Hence, since the Prophethood of Promised Messiah (peace be upon him) is totally dependent upon Prophet Muhammad, the denial of him too is totally dependent upon him, and hence the rejection of the Promised Messiah results in an indirect kind of kufr. So we don´t say that other Muslims stand in a denial of Islam itself. It´s like a Muslim who doesn´t offer prayers. His act is of kufr and stands in an indirect denial of Prophet Muhammad, because he´s not following a very essential part of the religion that was perfected through the Holy Prophet, but since he still professes faith in him, he doesn´t stand in a denial of Islam itself, or the Prophet itself.
This book was published towards the end of year 1914. So we cannot anymore say that Hadhrat Musleh Maoud changed his opinion on this and that the later explanation by him are just an attempt to cover up for his earlier statements. In the above passage, he has referred to two books of the Promised Messiah. To have a clearer picture of this whole idea, we must turn to these books.
"..... my belief from the beginning has been that no person becomes a kaafir or anti-Christ by denying my claim. it is in fact my belief that I do not consider any Muslim to be a kaafir" - the Promised Messiah, in his book Tiryaq-ul-Qulub.
"...... Kufr is of two kinds: (First) the kufr that a person rejects even Islam and does not accept the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, as the Messenger of God. (Second) the kufr that a person, for example, does not accept the Promised Messiah, and despite the sufficient evidence of his truth, considers him to be an 'impostor', although belief in him and his truthfulness has been emphasized by Allah and His Messenger and by the looks of earlier Prophets too and hence, since he repudiates the imperative of God and the Messenger, he is a kaafir. On closer examination, the two kinds of kufr are essentially of the same nature. The reason is that if a person, after recognizing the truth, does not accept the injunction of God and the Messenger, then, he, in accordance with the explicit verdict of the Holy Qur´an and Hadith, also does not accept God and His Messenger. Without doubt, anyone against whom the argument vis-à-vis the first or the second kind of kufr has been incontrovertibly established in the estimation of Allah, will be culpable on the Day of Judgment. However, one to whom sufficient evidence has not been furnished in the estimation of God, and who is a disbeliever and a denier - and even if the Shariah (based as it is upon what is overt) calls them a kaafir, and we, too, in our subservience to - the Shariah, call them a kaafir - he will not be deemed culpable in the estimation of God..... " - Haqeeqat-ul-Wahi (The Philosophy of Divine Revelation), page 223-224 of the English version.
Apart from this long passage, there´s found another long from page 201 to 204 which discusses the same question, in which the Promised Messiah explains the kufr that his opponents bring upon themselves by rejecting him, by considering him a liar and by declaring him as a disbeliever. There too, it is obvious that he doesn´t attribute to other Muslims the kufr of denying Islam itself or the Holy Prophet Muhammad altogether. So the above passages from the two books of the Promised Messiah clarify further as to what kind of kufr Hadhrat Musleh Maoud attributed to non-Ahmadis. It´s regrettable that our opponents throw around passages from our books without understanding them and also without giving any consideration to the context and the background that they carry.
*Note: it´s worth adding here that there exists a difference in the opinion of our community and the Lahore Movement on the meaning of the above passage from the Promised Messiah´s book 'Tiryaq-ul-Qulub'. Our stance on this is that he hadn´t back then claimed any kind of Prophethood, so he meant to say thereby that deniers of law-bearing (or also independent Prophets) alone are kufaar. The claim of him being a subordinate Prophet, and thus to acquire a Prophethood through the medium of the Holy Prophet, hadn´t yet been become clear to him. Later on, he himself commented on that passage in his book 'Haqeeqat-ul-Wahi' and shed light on the aspect of direct and indirect kinds of kufr. All this though is a discussion for another day and place. I just added the note lest there should rise any misunderstanding.*
But what exactly is indirect kufr and how can it be proved from the Islamic sources?
This is a question that would rise in the minds of many, and justifiably so I´d think. So this needs an explanation. We must first turn to the relevant Ahadith on this.
"Where a man sallies forth to give support to an unjust person, knowing that he is unjust, the supporter thereby throws himself outside the bounds of Islam" - Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him), as quoted in Mishkaat, Volume 2, Kitaab-ul-Adaab, Baab-ul-Zulm, page 555.
"The covenant that distinguishes between us and them is the prayer, and whoever neglects it has disbelieved" - Prophet Muhammad, as quoted in Musnad Ahmad, Sunaan Abu Dawood, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nisaai and Ibn Maajah. *The online source of this Hadith is https://islamqa.info/ *
"Narrated Abu Huraira, 'The Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'The one who commits an illegal sexual intercourse is not a believer at the time of committing illegal sexual intercourse and a thief is not a believer at the time of committing theft and a drinker of alcoholic drink is not a believer at the time of drinking. Yet, (the gate of) repentance is open thereafter' " - Sahih Bukhari, Kitaab-al-Hudood.
"Abu Hurairah narrated that the Prophet said; 'Whoever engages in sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman, or a woman in her anus, consults a soothsayer, then he has disbelieved in what was revealed to Muhammad' " - Jamia at´Tirmidhi, the Book on Purification.
Alongside this set of Ahadith, there exists another very, very powerful Hadith.
"Narrated Anas bin Malik, 'Allah´s Messenger said, 'Whoever prays like us and faces our Qibla and eats our slaughtered animals is a Muslim and is under Allah´s and His Messenger's protection. So do not betray Allah by betraying those who are in His protection' " - Sahih Bukhari, Kitaab-as´Salaat.
In this beautiful Hadith, the Holy Prophet has laid a strict ruling on us all Muslim to refrain from issuing edicts of kufr on each other. The Hadith leaves absolutely no room for what kind of actions give us a permission to label another Muslim as a kaafir, absolutely no room. So the obvious meaning is that as long as someone professes faith in Islam, and hasn´t by declaration apostatised from it altogether, he´s still to be considered a Muslim by others and as someone who´s still part of the Ummah. His profession of faith is still to be respected and fully accepted. It should be beyond any sane Muslim to even conceive the idea that the Holy Prophet has given us contradictory instructions, therefore the first set of Ahadith only refer to an indirect kind of kufr, which in other words means being incomplete in terms of faith. So, for example, if your brother or a friend (even if he´s an Ahmadi) doesn´t offer prayers or let´s say consults soothsayers or even stands, knowingly, in support of a very unjust ruler, he stands in indirect denial of Islam for he is not following instructions the non-compliance of which clearly renders a person into a kaafir according to the Prophet of Islam himself, but such a person is still to be considered a Muslim and as a part of the Ummah as long as he still professes faith in Islam. In fact, there´s a hint of it even in the Holy Qur´an.
"The Arabs of the desert say, 'We believe.' Say, 'You have not believed yet; but rather say, 'We have accepted Islam,' for the (true) belief has not yet entered into your hearts.' But if you obey Allah and His Messenger, He will not detract anything from your deeds Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful" - Qur´an 49:14.
This verse so beautifully draws a distinction, for a group of people, whose profession of having accepted Islam is accepted, but yet on the other hand it is stated that their belief lacks the depth for them to be counted amongst true believers. So the Ahmadiyya theory on this is not alien to Islam at all.
But hasn´t the Promised Messiah written that both are "Essentially the same thing"?
Let´s first turn to the relevant passage again.....
"..... On closer examination, the two kinds of kufr are essentially of the same nature. The reason is that if a person, after recognizing the truth, does not accept the injunction of God and the Messenger, then, he, in accordance with the explicit verdict of the Holy Qur´an and Hadith, also does not accept God and His Messenger..... " - Haqeeqat-ul-Wahi (The Philosophy of Divine Revelation), page 223 of the English version.
This passage too is quite self-explanatory. Exactly the same can be said for example for a person who´s a thief. His outward profession of faith is to be accepted, and his case is with Allah, but it stills means that his faith isn´t complete. It is this what the above passage means. A person who reads the Kalimah, has taken the pledge to follow to the Messenger of Allah, and yet for example believes in soothsayers, his this lack of complete faith is as good as the rejection of the Holy Prophet altogether. When I say that I respect and love my mother a lot, and yet on the other hand raise my hand at her, it is as good as if I don´t respect and love her at all - and it is a must that such a thing be said to make me realise the magnitude of my act, which is deplorable in every way.
But the denier of a Messenger of God is an outright kaafir, wherefrom then comes this theory of indirect kufr?
"Surely, those who disbelieve in Allah and His Messengers and desire to make a distinction between Allah and His Messengers, and say, 'We believe in some and disbelieve in others,' and desire to take a way in between, These indeed are veritable disbelievers, and We have prepared for the disbelievers an humiliating punishment" - Qur´an 4:150-151.
Instead of opposing our interpretation, this verse on the contrary supports our theory and belief on this, for it is based on a verse like this that we attribute the kufr of the denial of a Prophet God to other Muslims, as we do believe the Promised Messiah to be a Prophet. So this verse for example makes it binding upon us to attribute a some sort of kufr with other Muslims, for it´ll be hypocrisy and a clear hiding of facts of our beliefs if we overlook this altogether and say that no kind of kufr is committed by others. Now, it demands an explanation on how then it can be an indirect kind of kufr.
"..... This day have those who disbelieve despaired of harming your religion. So fear them not, but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour upon you and have chosen for you Islam as religion..... " - Qur´an 5:3.
"Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allah has full knowledge of all things" - Qur´an 33:40.
"And whoso obeys Allah and this Messenger of His shall be among those on whom Allah has bestowed His blessings, namely, the Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs, and the Righteous. And excellent companions are these. This grace is from Allah, and sufficient is Allah, the All-Knowing" - Qur´an 4:68-69.
These four are very important verses.
1. The first one states very clearly that religion has been completed, and that Islam as a religion and as a way of life is to stay unaltered till the end of times, also that no new religion, law or book can come to follow it up or to replace it.
2. The second verse declares the Holy Prophet Muhammad of being the Seal of the Prophets, which, according to the Ahmadiyya interpretation, means that he has attested to the truth of the earlier Prophets of God, also that Prophethood has reached its highest possible rank through his Advent and hence that he´s the greatest Prophet of God, and also that the Prophets to come will have to bear the burden of this Seal, hence they´ll have to be subordinate Prophets to him. After his Advent, any direct access to Prophethood, without the medium of our Holy Master, is forbidden and debarred till the Last Day. *This is a very brief and incomplete sketch of our interpretation on this. Anyone interested for deeper details is welcome to read our literature on this.*
3. The third set of verses makes it very clear, again the point, that no honour or rank of nearness to Allah, including Prophethood, can now be attained except through complete obedience to the Holy Prophet.
So it is due to the belief in the last and final religion, book and law of Allah, and in the Seal of the Prophets that other Muslims cannot to said to be standing in a direct denial of Islam itself. Such a ruling or a condition did not exist in the case of any previous Prophets of Allah, due to which Prophets raised before the Holy Prophet Muhammad were raised in an independent capacity - even if they brought no new law. The only kind of Prophethood which is continued now is through the medium of the Seal of the Prophets - the Holy Prophet. Anyone who believes in him, in common terms he´ll still be accepted as a Muslim, irrespective of his own actions or being weak in faith due to some shortcoming or the other.
A few questions for our non-Ahmadi brothers.....
Our opponents are quick to throw in our faces references from the writings of the Promised Messiah, or his sons (Hadhrat Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad Sahib and Hadhrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad Sahib), to prove that we too call others kaafir, completely taking them out of context and also (perhaps deliberately) overlooking the background behind them. Even a respected man like the former minister of Pakistan, Khawaja Asif, once raised this point in a talk show and even claimed that edicts of kufr were first given from our side (I wasn´t able to find the video clip on YouTube but I do remember very strongly it being posted on Twitter where he said this)! Our scholars have clarified our stance on this many times, even Hadhrat Musleh Maoud himself did, and this article of mine too sheds light on this. So the above are our explanations on this, what then is the explanation provided by your Muftis and Ulema? I know well that apart from "Ahmadis are kufaar!", there´s no explanation on this.
Also, the Fiqah-e-Ahmadiyya not only allows it but considers it mandatory upon Ahmadis to perform the funeral prayers of a non-Ahmadi in case no non-Ahmadi comes forward to claim the dead body or in case no non-Ahmadis are available to perform the funeral prayers of the deceased. Why would we do that if we were to consider the the same as what they consider us to be? Even in our literature, speeches, gatherings etc., other Muslims are always referred to as Muslims as opposed to disbelievers. So you can never equate our opinion on this issue with that of our opponents. In a country like Pakistan, the law itself discriminates against us. We´re treated like animals as we can´t identify ourselves as Muslims. We can´t call our mosque a "Masjid", neither recite the Kalimah or even the Holy Qur´an, and the sentiment of the general masses needs no citing here I guess.
If any lack of clarity still exists, then here´s a task for every non-Ahmadi reader: go to any mainstream scholar or Imam, even if he be from your local mosque, and ask him whether any Muslim who´ll deny the Imam Mahdi or Jesus Christ in his Second Coming will be automatically turned into a kaafir or not, and you´ll have your answer. Whereas we´ve never declared others to be apostates from Islam itself, the majority of the scholars are agreed that he who won´t accept the Imam Mahdi will in fact turn into an apostate altogether. So despite ourselves having recognised the Imam Mahdi and having come to believe in him, our stance on the kufr of others is much lighter and toned down in comparison to what others believe about the Imam Mahdi who hasn´t even appeared yet according to them! You´ll never see Ahmadiyya scholars running around labelling X, Y or Z as a kaafir, and we never hurt the beliefs of others. We still accept others as Muslims.
Warm regards,
R.A. (Twitter: @The_Traveller27).
