Pak Tea House » Pakistan » I Never Really Cared For The Ahmadis…
I Never Really Cared For The Ahmadis…
By Fasi Zaka (Courtesy Express Tribune)
I have never really been vocal about rights for Ahmadis, even privately, but my compassion trigger is easily pulled if there are atrocities against Pakistani Hindus and Christians. Part of this can be ascribed to my belief in the prejudice that the Ahmadis are a relatively well-off community, making the Christians and Hindus of Pakistan uniquely guilty of a double crime, first for not being Muslims and second for being poor. These two communities seem especially vulnerable.
I have changed my mind. And it’s not because of the attack in Lahore that killed so many Ahmadis. The whole country, Muslim and non-Muslim, is under attack by the Taliban.
What really helped me see the inhuman treatment of the Ahmadis in Pakistan is the absence of condemnation for it. Nawaz Sharif in his condolence message said Ahmadis were our brothers; it’s been enough to get the Pakistani religious world on his case. While sympathy is not outlawed for Ahmadis, it may as well be.
Those of us with a passport have declared that “I consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani to be an impostor prophet and an infidel and also consider his followers, whether belonging to the Lahori, Qadiani or Mirzai groups, to be non-Muslims.” Most of us do not believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani was a prophet, but do we have to rub it in? Imagine if the UK put in that sort of column for a prophet of another faith.
We have declared not just that we don’t believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, but added the connotation that he was an imposter. People who follow imposters must be crooks, right? Let’s stop the pretence that they are equal, or human.
But no, we are a peaceful people, right? Of course we are. I read a very poignant anecdote in columnist Mosharraf Zaidi’s article recently; he described how an old friend would never say salaam to him in return. His friend is an Ahmadi, he can go to jail for that. I cringe when I see Pakistanis stumbling over one another to felicitate a white westerner who chooses to say salaam when greeting us in our country. Why not put him in jail too? He could be an atheist, whereas at least the Ahmadis believe in the oneness of God.
But, you see it’s not about that. Ahmadis are a secretive people up to no good. They won’t even tell you they are Ahmadis. But who wouldn’t be secretive if they could go to jail for saying they are Muslim, or responding in kind to a salutation of salaam. Or for that matter having a Quran in their home, the same kind you and I have.
Sunnis don’t believe in the imam of the Shias. What about Barelvis and Bohris? Its time their special treatment ended. If anything we have been too moderate. We need to cut diplomatic relations with Indonesia because they refuse to declare Ahmadis non-Muslim as it may open a Pandora’s Box of declaring other groups the same. Why is the amir of the Jamaat-i-Islami, Munawar Hassan, silent on this? He could address this diplomatic issue, after all he did want to cut off diplomatic relations with many countries over the Facebook fiasco.
Pakistani Ahmadis aren’t allowed to go for Hajj, but Ahmadis from other countries are. Maybe we should cut off relations with Saudi Arabia too. Also, since we Muslims believe in equality, I would suggest all non-Muslim countries make it mandatory that we wear special collars to identify us as Muslim when we visit. Or is that going too far since we haven’t, obviously, in the case of the Ahmadis?
The truth is the bulk of this country doesn’t like Ahmadis. They are Pakistan’s Palestinians. Their humane treatment and acceptance
will decide whether we are a people who can move forward in the future, or if we will become a fragmented warlord state divided on sectarian lines.
And yes, Ahmadis are worse off in Pakistan than Christians and Hindus. We want to forcibly convert Christians and Hindus. But Ahmadis shouldn’t exist. Period.
Published in the Express Tribune, June 15th, 2010.
Filed under: Pakistan
117 Responses to "I Never Really Cared For The Ahmadis…"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- real muslim
said tahir is jews agent. we can sacrifice millions of... - Dark Knight
said @Sachbol (May 18, 2012 at 12:19 am)
//...There is... - Rex Minor
said @Kalchakra
Very well said! But do you have any... - Sachbol
said Parliament-Certified Muslim
Ahmadis are not p... - Milestogo
said There is no such thing as Sunni Islam. There is on... - kaalchakra said Not sure what the problem is with seeing Pakistan...
- tajender
said Pak hindus were hoping that saeed will protect the... - Parliament-Certified Muslim said @ Majumdar
According to Article 2 of the Constitu...
- tajender said AHEM,u people preapre a story far away from ground...
- Parliament-Certified Muslim said @ Sachbol
Aha so you think that Ahmadis are not...
@m ali3 u sound lahori party budd i can ask same question to u why u dont say prayer behind us or offer janaza with us rule is simple if u dont offer janaza and pray with us then we not oblige to as well simple budd
second post u said mirza mahmood shahib left qadian at parttion to lahore by the way lahore was mojority with hindu and sikh too so if u have threat u can have in lahore too i still say qadian darul aman in 1947 alot of muslim like ur fore fathers they moved to qadian at partion so stop bigtory with distortion if u have logic then talk budd
last if in 1914 mirza mahmood become 2nd caliph where his party now and where is lahori party so who progress and who left in denial budd remeber system works not deserter like lahori group so have logic come up .
@m lai 3 budd why u yr molvi mahmood ali & company did bait with caliph 1 ? deserter have no place budd like u so ur non muslim budd tell me where is lahori group in garden town lahore and where is mirza mahoods all around the world budd that is progress
main kabi musa kabi isa kabi haroon
nasleen hainmeri bayshumar
but only happen with hand of mirza mahmood ahmed not mohammad ali &company lahori party .
@ m ali3
Your circumambulatory questioning methods are unique indeed. You will ask “what comes after A?”. The reply will be “B”. Then you will ask “what comes after B? The reply will be “C”. And then you will ask “but what comes after A?”. The reply will again be “B”. Then you will argue “but you just said that C comes after B”.
Dear Insight Incarnate, please make sure this is the last circuit.
Congregational prayers is not a social activity. It is a spiritual one, in which one would most certainly like to have a certain degree of mutual conformity on the religious plane, before conducting this exercise. There are a thousand and one other occasions available, for establishing social contact. It does not have to be the prayer mat.
@Bin Ismail
In the context of “Kufr” the reference I read appeared to define it differently than what you have said. However, you may be right when you say I may not have read all the relevent references. If you tell me the one reference for “defining” kufr in the context of Muslims who do not believe that HMGA was a prophet, then I can see if I am correct in saying that the said definition contradicts what I have read. Of course I can also point out the contradiction to you and maybe you can clarify.
It is as evident as a shining sun that we Pakistanis are rotten hypocrite to the core. On one hand we champion the cause of Palestine and Kashmir, while on the other hand we are so so cruel, unfair and unforgiving to our own people who rightly or wrongly differ with us on any issue, thats wanton hypocracy. According to the Holy Quran the hypocrites will be at the bottom end of the fire, well its for all to see where Pakistan stands at the moment!!
@Majumdar
Zafrulla’s speech in defence of Objectives Resolution is one of the great ironies of history….
Can you reproduce MZK’s speech in favour of OR? Why was it an irony?
If I could point out the obvious answer to your second question, it was ironic that Zaffarullah Khan argued for the Objectives Resolution, as it began the slide towards sectarianism, not merely the disenfranchisement of non-Muslims, but also the attempts at narrow definitions of Muslims themselves. This slide, among other things, ensured that Ahmadis should be declared as not Muslim. It was an irony because the result of Zaffarullah Khan’s speech and all other speeches in favour of the OR was that Ahmadis, of whom he was one, were declared non-Muslim.
OMLK: “But my conception of what the Qadiani Ahmadis think about non-Ahmadi Muslims is based on the what your Caliphs have written in their books. I have tried to understand them in context, and have come to the conclusion that their position is totaly at odds with yours over the “kufr” of Muslims who do not accept HMGA as a Prophet.”
OMLK, may I humbly suggest that you’ve been hoodwinked? What has happened is that opponents of the Ahmadi Caliphs have trawled through their volumes of writings and found a handful of statements suggesting that non-Ahmadis are “kafirs”, and then presented this as evidence that we think of non-Ahmadis as kafirs, therefore the non-Ahmadis are justified in whatever they think or do with us.
I’ve grown up as a child in Jamaat Ahmadiyya, my father was born in Qadian, I grew up in London so I’ve met and listened to the Ahmadi Caliphs numerous times. Not once have I heard them or my father or any other Ahmadi refer to non-Ahmadis as kafirs. I’m not denying that there’s some tiny (very tiny) element of truth in what you think, but I’m just telling you that generally we consider any person who says “Laa ilaaha illallaah muhammad arrasoolullaah” as a Muslim. It’s a fact. There are numerous Ahmadis who have posted here, not one of them says you’re not a Muslim. If not a single Ahmadi says that non-Ahmadis are not Muslims, then commonsense suggests that these statements from the Second Caliph are being misrepresented to you.
Now if you want an evidence, then just read this book written by the Second Caliph: “An Invitation to Ahmadiyyat”. Chapter Two is titled: “The name Ahmadiyyat to distinguish Ahmadi Muslims from other Muslims”. You can find the online link here: http://www.alislam.org/books/invitation/content.html
There are numerous evidences, but even if you watch to the weekly khutbas from the Fifth Caliph every Friday, he keeps on saying, “ghair ahmadi musulmaano”… You can find all these khutbas online on the Ahmadi website, and they are broadcast in realtime on the MTA satellite TV channel. I mean, the statements “ghair ahmadi musulmaano” are overwhelming in number, and yet some enemies ignore all of this, but instead choose to focus on a few statements which suggest we think you’re non-Muslims. This is intellectual dishonesty on their part.
Now the correct position is as Bin Ismail has stated. The Ahmadi position is as follows:
1. Islam was defined by Prophet Muhammad (saw) as: kalima, salat, saum, zakat, hajj [Sahih Bukhari, Muslim]. Any person who follows these five practises is a “muslim” by definition.
2. Imaan was defined by Prophet Muhammad (saw) as: faith in Allah, His angels, His books, His meeting, His messengers, and His resurrection [Sahih Muslim, kitab ul imaan]. Any person who has these 6 beliefs is a “mu’min” by definition.
3. Note there’s a big difference. A “muslim” is NOT the same as a “mu’min”. “Islam” is mostly about practise, whereas “Imaan” is mostly about faith and a person’s spiritual convictions. Hence a person can practise Islam, be a “muslim” but yet have little or no faith and not be a “mu’min”.
4. The question is: what happens when a person says he rejects one messenger but accepts the other messengers? The consensus of most non-Ahmadi ulema is that such a person becomes a “kafir” because Prophet Muhammad (saw) and in fact also the Holy Qur’an categorically state that a “mu’min” must accept all the messengers. For instance, the non-ahmadi ulema have said that any person who rejects Jesus (as) when he comes down from heaven in the future, will be a “kafir”. Then if that is the position of your own ‘ulema, and it’s the position of the Holy Qur’an and of Prophet Muhammad (saw), then what is your objection if we hold the same position that every Muslim holds?
5. Even then, the Ahmadi Caliphs hold a softer position than the non-Ahmadi Muslims. Please go to this link where the Fourth Ahmadi Caliph answered your exact question: http://www.askislam.org/religions_and_beliefs/islam/sects/question_263.html
He says, “When we say ‘kafir’, we say them ‘kafir’ of Hazrat Masih Maud (as). And that is to say… when we say ‘kafir’ of Hazrat, this is understood when you deny Hazrat Masih Maud (as), in true essence you are not ‘mu’min’, because all the people you believe in have been left in the past. The only trial which came your way, in your lifetime, you failed in that trial.”
I hope inshaAllah that clarifies matters.
Wassalam,
Moosa
@ OMLK
I tried to send you a detailed evidence and explanation but for some reason Pak Tea House won’t publish it, perhaps it was too long.
Anyways, to cut things short, here’s an official answer to your question with regard to whether non-Ahmadis are Muslims: http://www.askislam.org/religions_and_beliefs/islam/sects/question_263.html
@OMLK (June 18, 2010 at 10:41 am)
“…..If you tell me the one reference for “defining” kufr in the context of Muslims…..”
Thank you. Let’s examine this issue more closely. When there are more than one references, why limit ourselves to one.
1. The term “eeman” can be translated as “belief” as well as “faith”. The antonym of “eeman” is “kufr”. The term “Kufr”, which signifies the partial or total absence of “eeman”, can be translated as “denial”, “disbelief” or “ingratitude”. “Eeman” and “kufr” are antonyms and “kufr” is not the antonym of “Islam”. “Islam” and the absence of “eeman” can indeed coexist.
Ref#1: God says in the Quran: “The Arabs of the desert claim ‘we hold eeman’. Tell them “You do not hold eeman, thus instead you should claim only ‘we accept Islam’. Belief has not even entered your hearts”. (Quran 49:14). In this verse, God tells the tell the Arab Bedouins to give up their claim to “Eeman” because they lack it, but recognizes their claim to “Islam”. This verse tells us clearly that “Islam” and the lack of Eeman or “kufr” can indeed coexist.
Ref#2: The Holy Prophet said “man tarakas salaata muta’ammidan faqad kafara”, meaning ‘whoever abandons prayer willfully, has committed kufr’. This does not mean that if a Muslim does not pray, he becomes a non-Muslim. It simply means that while remaining a Muslim, such a person is deprived of his state of eeman thereby becoming a kafir.
2. Non-Ahmadi ulema judge Ahmadis as being both “kafirs” and “non-Muslims”. Ahmadis on the other hand have never judged non-Ahmadis as non-Muslims. So the edict of the other being non-Muslim, is clearly one-sided and has never been reciprocated by the Ahmadis. With respect to “kufr”, Ahmadis ascribe a “kufr” to non-Ahmadis that corresponds precisely with their openly professed denial of the claims made by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. Non-Ahmadis deny the claim of Ahmad of Qadian and Ahmadis consider non-Ahmadis “kafirs” of the claims of Ahmad of Qadian. In short, Ahmadis consider non-Ahmadi Muslims as Muslims, who are kafirs of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian.
@ Vajra
It could indeed be termed an “irony of fate”. However, the fact remains that the sole reason for Sir Zafrulla to speak in favour, was that he was trying to put across the point that a constitution based on Islamic principles will only protect and safeguard the rights of the non-Muslim citizens of the state.
What perhaps ZK could not predict,was that those who called Quaid-e Azam “kafir-e azam”, would so soon be in the driving seat of the very country he founded.
http://www.askislam.org/religions_and_beliefs/islam/sects/question_263.html
a constitution based on Islamic principles will only protect and safeguard the rights of the non-Muslim citizens of the state.
The problem was not the Islamic principles but the urge to slap on the Islamic label. This chest-beating kind of urge compromised the law’s ability to “only protect and safeguard the rights of the non-Muslim citizens of the state”. For the state to own or recognise one religion more than others in its laws is at the very least a clear appearance of bias (whether intended or not) and, therefore, dangerous and harmful. It often leads to disaster.
would so soon be in the driving seat of the very country he founded.
The OR was tantamount to putting a label “maulvis enter here” on the driver’s door
@Bin Ismail
Extrapolating further from BCiv, it seems in hindsight that Zaffarullah Khan’s statement was terribly indiscreet, completely blind to the possibility of a future monster like Zia.
LET’S KEEP BIN ISMAIL HONEST
Mian Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad on page 35 of his book Aaina-i-Sadaqat admits that his beliefs are:
“That I have spread the idea about Hazrat Masih-i-Mauood that he is, in fact, a prophet. … Thirdly that all Muslims who have not entered the baiyat [pledge] of Hazrat Masih-i-Mauood, although they have not heard even his name, are kafirs and outside the pale of Islam.”
Again during the Annual Jalsa of December 1913, Mian Sahib called his party of Ansaarullah. Other people also attended this meeting. In this meeting he stated: “If someone places a sword on one side of my neck and asks me not to call non-Ahmadis as kafirs, even then I shall reply that they are kafirs and I shall certainly call them kafir.” (Paigham-i-Sulh, 21st September 1947, page 5).
LET’S KEEP BIN ISMAIL HONEST–PART2
So strongly held and argued was this standpoint of the Qadiani Jamaat (i.e. that they must not hold janaza prayers for other Muslims) that in 1940 Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote a brief booklet on this issue addressed to Qadiani Jamaat members. He asked if any single one of them could testify that:
‘In the time of the Promised Messiah and the time of Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din, that is before 1914, saying funeral prayers for non-Ahmadis was considered to be prohibited as it is now, and no Ahmadi community ever held the funeral prayers of a non-Ahmadi.’
A few months later in 1941, Mirza Bashir Ahmad wrote a book in reply which was more than 200 pages long, entitled Mas`ala Janaza ki Haqiqat. The standpoint in this book was that when the Promised Messiah wrote that janaza prayers of non-Ahmadis were allowed, he put such conditions on it that such a non-Ahmadi would in effect have to be an Ahmadi!
Mirza Bashir Ahmad wrote about these conciliatory statements of the Promised Messiah that: “The Promised Messiah gave people a bitter pill to swallow which he coated with sugar, but Hazrat Khalifat-ul-Masih 2 has given them the pill directly without sugar coating.”
@bciv
Sir Zafrulla Khan’s primary defense was against the accusation that Islam does not guarantee the rights of non-Muslims. Zafrulla Khan never contended that even with the Mullah in the driving seat, the state would still function on the lines of justice. His arguments were in defense of Islam – not in defense of the mullah.
@ Vajra
“…..completely blind to the possibility of a future monster like Zia…..”
We are talking about 1948. Yes, back in 1948, such an eventuality was certainly not foreseeable. Most people would have hoped that the party leadership would certainly be able to keep the bitterest of Jinnah’s enemies and their influence out the party.
Zafrulla Khan, inspite of being the foreign minister of Pakistan, was not among the decision-makers of the party. Jinnah’s firm anti-mullah resolve was not maintained by the latter party leadership and pro-theocracy elements soon began to creep in. So, yes, it can indeed be inferred that Zafrulla Khan was not foreseeing a Zia in the offing.
Monster like Zia was clearly predicted by one of the legislators opposing Objectives Resolution. It was almost as if the gentleman was looking through a crystal bowl.
@ Keeping Honest
I am grateful to you from the depths of my heart, both your uphill task of keeping honest, as well as for your additional task of keeping Bin Ismail honest.
Keep honest. I mean keep it up.
Erratum: Bin Ismail (June 19, 2010 at 8:16 am)
…..both [for] your uphill task of keeping honest…..
@ yasserlatifhamdani (June 19, 2010 at 8:12 am)
“…..Monster like Zia was clearly predicted by one of the legislators opposing Objectives Resolution. It was almost as if the gentleman was looking through a crystal bowl…..”
This gentleman was either looking through or into a crystal bowl, or was possibly privy to the covert change in stance of the ML top brass, a luxury that Zafrulla Khan evidently did not enjoy, and for obvious reasons.
In any case hats off to the perceptive gentlemen.
@Bin Ismail
Thanks for your reply. The references I was asking for were in response to your statement that, “If a certain author has used a certain term, say twenty times, but has defined it only once, it would only be fair to first consider the definition and then proceed with a study of those twenty references.” Since I had earlier stated that I have read writings of the Qadiani Ahamdi leaders that contradict your assertions, I could only assume that you are referring to the definition of Kufr which has been defined by such leaders and which should be applied to the same term whereever it is used in thier writings. I also said that I am asking this because certain things I have read written by Qadiani Ahamdi leaders do not seem to imply the limited kufr that you have described but seem to decalre non-Ahmadis as complete Kafirs or non-Muslims. Now, to clarify this situation the only way out is to point out the definition of “Kufr” as articulated by Qadiani Ahamdi leaders that I should apply to their writings. If I still find a contradiction I will point out.
@ylh
“Monster like Zia was clearly predicted by one of the legislators opposing Objectives Resolution”
Who was this person?
@ Keeping Honest
Thank you once again for your untiring efforts to keep Bin Ismail honest. Bin Ismail honestly feels indebted.
During the proceedings of the Inquiry Commission of Justice Munir and Justice Kayani, in 1953, the following questions and answers took place. The questions were put forth by the Honourable Court and were answered by Mirza Mahmood Ahmad, then Imam of the Ahmadiya Jamaat. Some questions were also from Chaudhry Nazeer Ahmad Advocate (representative of Jamaat Islami). You will find the following references in the recorded proceedings of the Munir-Kayani Inquiry Court of 1953.
#1: Question [Court]: If a Muslim, after superficially examining the claims made by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib, arrives in all honesty at the conclusion that his claims were not correct, would such a person still remain Muslim?
Answer [Mirza Mahmood Ahmad]: Yes indeed. In the general sense of the word, he would still be considered a Muslim.
#2: Question [Court]: In your opinion, would Allah punish such people, who hold wrong beliefs, but do so in honesty?
Answer [Mirza Mahmood Ahmad]: In my opinion, reward and punishment are based upon the degree of honesty and the real intention, not on the correctness of one’s belief.
#3: Question [Nazeer Ahmad Advocate]: Do you still maintain your point of view, which you expressed in your book “Aa’ina-e sadaqat” chapter 1, page 35, that all “Muslims” who have not entered the bai’at of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib, even if they have not heard even his name, are kafirs and outside the circle of Islam?
Answer [Mirza Mahmood Ahmad]: It is evident from my words that I consider such people Muslims. When I use the term “kafir”, I have the second category of kafirs in mind, whom I have defined earlier. When I use the phrase “outside the circle of Islam” with reference to those who are within the Ummah, I have in mind the concept mentioned on page 240 of Mufridaat-e Raghib. According to this concept, there are two categories of “Islam” – one is termed “doon-al eeman”, while the other is termed “fauq-al eeman”. The “doon-al eeman” class includes those Muslims whose “Islam” falls short of “eeman”. The “fauq-al eeman” class includes those Muslims who transcend the level of “eeman”. Thus when I say that some people are outside the circle of Islam, it is with reference to being “not within the circle of fauq-al eeman”.
Dear “Keeping Honest”, notwithstanding that I feel grateful for your efforts in keeping honest yourself and also in keeping Bin Ismail honest, may I humbly conclude this debate, before it gets boring for the rest of the participants, on the note that the point of view of the Ahmadiyya Jamaat is very clear and very consistent.
Goodbye.
IN WHICH CATEGORY BIN ISMAIL AND HIS ELDERS BELIEVE?
ACTION SPEAKS LOUDER THAN WORDS!
So it is obvious Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and those who hold him in high esteem, such as people like Bin Ismail, believe in that category of ‘Kafir’ regarding Muslims and Lahori-Ahmadis which is the absolute, pure, 100% ‘Kafir’. This is the reason Qadianis do NOT offer prayer behind Muslim and Lahori-Ahmadis, or offer their funeral paryer, or give their daughters in marriage.
I guess in logic of Bin Ismail and Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, ‘pregnancy’ in a woman does mean woman is pregnant. (Unlike physicians when they say lady is pregnant then she is pregnant, as there is no such thing as ‘half-pregnant’).
@ OMLK
OMLK: “But my conception of what the Qadiani Ahmadis think about non-Ahmadi Muslims is based on the what your Caliphs have written in their books. I have tried to understand them in context, and have come to the conclusion that their position is totaly at odds with yours over the “kufr” of Muslims who do not accept HMGA as a Prophet.”
OMLK, may I humbly suggest that you’ve been hoodwinked? What has happened is that opponents of the Ahmadi Caliphs (eg “Keeping Honest”… lol, what a hilariously deceptive name)have trawled through their volumes of writings and found a handful of statements suggesting that non-Ahmadis are “kafirs”, and then presented this as evidence that we think of non-Ahmadis as non-muslims, therefore the non-Ahmadis are justified in whatever they think or do with us.
I’ve grown up as a child in Jamaat Ahmadiyya, my father was born in Qadian, I grew up in London so I’ve met and listened to the Ahmadi Caliphs numerous times. Not once have I heard them or my father or any other Ahmadi refer to non-Ahmadis as kafirs in the sense that you use the word “kafir”. I’m not denying that there’s some tiny (very tiny) element of truth in what you think, but I’m just telling you that generally we consider any person who says “Laa ilaaha illallaah muhammad arrasoolullaah” as a Muslim. It’s a fact. There are numerous Ahmadis who have posted here, not one of them says you’re not a Muslim. If not a single Ahmadi says that non-Ahmadis are not Muslims, then commonsense suggests that these statements from the Second Caliph are being misrepresented to you.
Now if you want an evidence, then just read this book written by the Second Caliph: “An Invitation to Ahmadiyyat”. Chapter Two is titled: “The name Ahmadiyyat to distinguish Ahmadi Muslims from other Muslims”. You can get free access to that book on the official Ahmadi website, I’d like to provide you the link but for some reason Pak Tea House won’t allow me to post messages with weblinks on it.
There are numerous evidences, but even if you watch to the weekly khutbas from the Fifth Caliph every Friday, he keeps on saying, “ghair ahmadi musulmaano”… You can find all these khutbas online on the Ahmadi website, and they are broadcast in realtime on the MTA satellite TV channel. I mean, the statements “ghair ahmadi musulmaano” are overwhelming in number, and yet some enemies ignore all of this, but instead choose to focus on a few statements which suggest we think you’re non-Muslims. This is intellectual dishonesty on their part.
Now the correct position is as Bin Ismail has stated. The Ahmadi position is as follows:
1. Islam was defined by Prophet Muhammad (saw) as: kalima, salat, saum, zakat, hajj [Sahih Bukhari, Muslim]. Any person who follows these five practises is a “muslim” by definition.
2. Imaan was defined by Prophet Muhammad (saw) as: faith in Allah, His angels, His books, His meeting, His messengers, and His resurrection [Sahih Muslim, kitab ul imaan]. Any person who has these 6 beliefs is a “mu’min” by definition.
3. Note there’s a big difference. A “muslim” is NOT the same as a “mu’min”. “Islam” is mostly about practise, whereas “Imaan” is mostly about faith and a person’s spiritual convictions. Hence a person can practise Islam, profess to be a “muslim” but yet have little or no faith and not be a “mu’min”.
4. The question is: what happens when a person says he rejects one messenger but accepts the other messengers? The consensus of most non-Ahmadi ulema is that such a person becomes a “kafir” because Prophet Muhammad (saw) and in fact also the Holy Qur’an categorically state that a “mu’min” must accept all the messengers. For instance, the non-ahmadi ulema have said that any person who rejects Jesus (as) when he comes down from heaven in the future, will be a “kafir”. Then if that is the position of your own ‘ulema, and it’s the position of the Holy Qur’an and of Prophet Muhammad (saw), then what is your objection if we hold the same position that every Muslim holds?
5. Even then, the Ahmadi Caliphs hold a softer position than the non-Ahmadi Muslims. There is another online link where the Fourth Ahmadi Caliph answered your exact question, but again I can’t post it because Pak Tea House won’t let me post links. Just google “AskIslam”, then go to “religions and beliefs”, then go to “islam”, then go to “sects”, then click on “question 263″ and you’ll hear a recording of the Fourth Ahmadi Caliph answering your question. He says, “When we say ‘kafir’, we say them ‘kafir’ of Hazrat Masih Maud (as). And that is to say… when we say ‘kafir’ of Hazrat, this is understood when you deny Hazrat Masih Maud (as), in true essence you are not ‘mu’min’, because all the people you believe in have been left in the past. The only trial which came your way, in your lifetime, you failed in that trial.”
There is a huge huge difference between what the non-Ahmadi ulema and the Ahmadi ulema say:
1. Non-Ahmadi ulema: Ahmadis are not Muslims although they follow the definition of Islam given by Prophet Muhammad (saw). Therefore we will put them in jail if they say they are Muslims.
2. Ahmadi ulema: Non-Ahmadis are Muslims, but they do not have imaan in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) as a prophet, therefore they have kufr of believing in Ghulam Ahmad (as).
Last but not least, the Holy Qur’an itself says: ” 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.” [Surah al Hujurat, verse 15]. If the Holy Qur’an says that people accepted Islam but they did not have the status of “mu’min”, then what is your problem with that?
I hope inshaAllah that clarifies matters.
Wassalam,
Moosa
I’d like to make a further point because I feel quite aggrieved at what I’m seeing on this community, I had previously heard second-hand about the conduct and motivation of our Lahori brothers/sisters, but this is the first time I have seen evidence myself.
The Qadiani/Lahori split happened when the vast majority of Ahmadis freely elected and supported Mirza Mahmud Ahmad as the Second Caliph. He was very young at that time, aged in his mid-20s. A small group of respected scholars of the Ahmadi community decided that Khilafat was not a correct way of leadership for the community, and they broke away to form a community ruled by a Committee. The principal protagonist was Muhammad Ali, he essentially led the splinter group in Lahore, hence the name “Lahori”.
The problem was that Muhammad Ali couldn’t justify his decision as himself not accepting the leader who was preferred by the huge majority of the Ahmadi Community, because this would suggest he simply wanted to be the leader himself and could not bring himself to accept a young inexperienced man as his leader. Therefore suddenly, after the Qadiani/Lahori split, he and the Lahoris sought to: 1) develop, highlight and accentuate some religious differences between the two communities, and use those differences to justify the split, 2) bring into disrepute the character of the Second Caliph.
Most of you will have noted that almost all the Lahori posts are vitriolic attacks against the Second Caliph and the Ahmadi Caliphs in general. Moreover, they seek to turn the general population of Muslims against Ahmadis. Not only this, but rather than offer condolences to the Ahmadis who were martyred recently, again they have sought to blame everything on the Ahmadi Caliphs. For any fair-minded person, this behaviour makes it clear that the Lahori community have become blinded by their enmity to the Ahmadi Caliphs, to the point where they have lost essential basic Islamic qualities such as justice, love, compassion, etc.
Now here is the crux of the matter: the Lahoris are angry, they are literally biting their fingers with anger. Why? The reason is that for over 80 years they have compromised their beliefs for the sake of acceptance by the Muslims of Pakistan. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) clearly wrote in his books, “I am a zilli nabi (reflected or shadow prophet)” and the Lahoris chose to present this as “He’s saying he’s reflected prophet, so that means he’s not really saying he’s a prophet himself, he’s only a reflection of prophethood”. Regardless of whether this presentation is rational (I’d argue it’s not), but the Lahoris did all this in the hope that they would be accepted by the majority Muslims of Pakistan. But the most awful thing they did, was that they sought to vilify the Qadiani community in order to make other Muslims think that Lahoris were “good Muslims”. This is why the Lahoris bang on about, “The Qadianis believe he’s a prophet but we believe he was only a spiritual reformer, so please continue to say they’re not Muslims, but please we beg you, we beg you, we beg you to accept our Islam”. But what is causing them so much pain, is that after all these efforts on their part, after compromising to the extent of becoming ethically bankrupt, they are still not accepted by the Pakistani Government as Muslims.
I’m not asking anybody here to make any judgment based on religious beliefs. I’m simply talking about the practical conduct of the Lahoris on this blog, and to evaluate it on purely ethical (not religious) grounds.
Peace,
Moosa
@Moosa and Bin Ismail
Thanks for the references. FYI though, my view so far was not based on what “keeping honest” etc. have written but what I have myself read from original works. In fact to properly contextualise what I have read I did ask for refernces for definition of Kufr. So far what I have is the Q&A from the Munir Inquiry (quoted by Bin Ismail) and some weblinks you have suggested that I intend to check out. After doing that, I will definately then revisit what I read and understood earlier in the light of new material/information.
Also I am a bit confused over the assertion that belief in all messagers is required to only be a Momin and not a Muslim. So, with the obvious exception of Muhammad (SAWS), one can dis-believe in a messanger of God whom Quran has mentioned and still be a Muslim, while being a “limited” Kafir to the extent of dis-belief in that particular messanger. Let me say though that I have yet to explore all the references you have given, so may be my confusion will be clarified after I have done so. If you think that the case, feel free not to reply.
MOOSA, WHERE IS THE BEEF?
Qadianis neither offer prayer behind Muslims and Lahori-Ahmadis, nore offer their funeral prayer and then say, ‘we consider you Muslim”. LOL.
Now to know what was the reason for split in 1914, it becomes quite clear, as later proved by facts, that Lahori-Ahmadi elders disputed with Qadianis issue of FINALITY OF PROPHETHOOD. Qadianis hold belief prophethood continues. Lahoris-ahmadis hold belief prophethood ended. Lahori-Ahmadis have TONS of literature on this subject available online!
Printer-friendly Version
Mirza Nasir Ahmad:
Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Ahmad:
The following writing appears on pages 216-217 of the Third Khalifa of the Rabwah Jamaat, Hafiz Mirza Nasir Ahmad Sahib’s, Daura-i-Maghrib 1400 Hijra ki Roo-i-dad, in reply to a correspondent’s question:
“In such a case no one has the right to tell a person who calls himself a Muslim that you are not a Muslim. If one has to act according to the Quran, then he has to be accepted as a Muslim. Those people who do not consider us Muslims are violating the Quran. But we accept their right to call themselves Muslims and according to us they are part of the Muslim Ummah.”
At this the correspondent said:
“They do not accept you as Muslims. Will you call them Muslims in spite of this?”
His Eminence replied:
“Yes, we consider them Muslims in spite of this. If they are violating the Quran by not calling us Muslims, it does not follow that we should also violate the Quran. Let anyone do as he likes, but we cannot violate the Quran.” Mian Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad on page 35 of his book Aaina-i-Sadaqat admits that his beliefs are:
“That I have spread the idea about Hazrat Masih-i-Mauood that he is, in fact, a prophet. … Thirdly that all Muslims who have not entered the baiyat of Hazrat Masih-i-Mauood, although they have not heard even his name, are kafirs and outside the pale of Islam.”
Again during the Annual Jalsa of December 1913, Mian Sahib called his party of Ansaarullah. Other people also attended this meeting. In this meeting he stated:
“If someone places a sword on one side of my neck and asks me not to call non-Ahmadis as kafirs, even then I shall reply that they are kafirs and I shall certainly call them kafir.” (Paigham-i-Sulh, 21st September 1947, page 5).
Now, members of the Rabwah Jamaat can decide for themselves whether Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad holds the correct beliefs or Mirza Nasir Ahmad. They are both their “Rightful Imams”. Inna lillahi wa inna elaihi rajeoon.
Now, members of the Rabwah Jamaat can decide for themselves whether Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad holds the correct beliefs or Mirza Nasir Ahmad. They are both their “Rightful Imams”. Inna lillahi wa inna elaihi rajeoon.
@ OMLK
I don’t mean to say that directly you’ve learned from people such as ‘Keeping Honest’. I mean to say that I doubt you’ve read the entire corpus of the writings of the Ahmadi Caliphs. You’ve read specific quotations or references, and the question is: who directed you to those specific quotations?
I can find you thousands of references from the Ahmadi Caliphs where they clearly refer to non-Ahmadis as “Muslims”. So the question is: who has pointed you towards the very few references which suggest otherwise?
@ Keeping Honest.
Please stand back and look at yourself. I’m saying unambiguously that I think you’re a Muslim, OMLK is a Muslim, and anybody who says “laa ilaaha illallaah muhammad arrasoolullaah” is a Muslim. If despite this, you insist that I think you’re not a Muslim, then what can I do?
You’ve taken a handful of quotations out of context, due to your enmity and hatred against the Ahmadi Caliphs, and you’re doing your level best to ignore every reasonable explanation of those quotations which is presented to you. This is a sign that your mind is closed, you’ve made your decision, and hence discussion with you cannot be fruitful.
For the benefit of other people who may be reading this, the fact that Ahmadis don’t pray behind other Muslims has nothing to do with whether a person is a Muslim or not. Firstly, Ahmadis have been declared non-Muslims by all the non-Ahmadi ‘ulema, therefore how can we accept them or their followers as our imams?
Secondly, there are reasons which are philosophical and based on principle. We believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) is the Imam Mahdi, meaning he is the “imam” (leader) and “mahdi” (guided one) appointed by Allah (swt) Himself. The Lahoris seek to pretend that it’s almost inconsequential if a Muslim accepts/rejects the Imam Mahdi, but even they believe that Ghulam Ahmad (as) was the Imam Mahdi. Prophet Muhammad (saw) commanded the Muslims that when Imam Mahdi comes, they must pledge allegiance at his hand. Therefore acceptance/rejection of the Imam Mahdi is not a small matter, it’s a matter of obedience to Allah (swt) and Prophet Muhammad (saw). Our position of principle is that if a Muslim does not accept the Imam appointed and sent by Allah (swt), then how can we accept that Muslim as our imam (in prayer)?
I’m sure that those with open minds will understand the essential logic of our stand.
Peace & love to all,
Moosa
Let us solve this issue. Technically speaking if a Shia Muslim didn’t consider Ahmadis non-muslim… could you pray behind him.
If the answer is yes… all your detractors are merely engaging in technicalities that don’t make sense.
@ Y L H
I personally would not pray behind an imam who has not accepted the Imam appointed by Allah (swt). This has nothing to do with whether a person is Muslim or not. It has to do with Ghulam Ahmad (as)’s status as the Imam Mahdi. If a person has not accepted the Imam sent by Allah (swt), then what right has he to expect me to accept his own imamat?
My father is a devout Ahmadi (far more devout than myself) and he has told me he would pray behind a non-Ahmadi who doesn’t say Ahmadis are non-Muslims. Therefore this is not a clear-cut issue. However, my position is as described above, and I think it’s a fair position. If you have a problem with it, then I’d appreciate if you can point out to me the intellectual flaw in my position (rather than an emotional refutation).
I dont know why this drama over whom not to pray behind. If at all I wud be bothered about something, I wud be bothered who is praying behind me, not who I am praying behind.
Regards
IMAM MAHDI ISSUE AND LAHORI-AHMADIYYA!
Lahori-Ahmadi hold belief that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a MAHDI, but NOT a bloody Mahdi. His mode of ‘Quatil-i-Khanzeer’ and ‘Quatil-i-Saleeb’ was with ARGUMENTS and PEN, and NOT with sword.
CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG!
For Moosa a person does NOT become a Muslim just by reciting Kalima-i-Shahada. he needs more like ulema needed in Munir Commission.
This puts Moosa (and Qadianis) together ulema. Both calling other kafir.
GOOD COP. BAD COP.
Moosa:”I’m not asking anybody here to make any judgment based on religious beliefs. I’m simply talking about the practical conduct of the Lahoris on this blog, and to evaluate it on purely ethical (not religious) grounds.”
Have you heard of Good Cop, Bad Cop strategy to get the truth out of suspect?
MOOSA DEMAND MORE QUOTES FROM WRITINGS OF QADIANI ELDERS.
Just to oblige you:
“The fifth tenet that is binding upon my sect in this erase is that you should not give your daughters to non-Ahmadis. He who gives his daughter to a non-Ahmadi does not know what Ahmadiat is. Do you find non-Ahmadis giving their daughters to Hindus or Christians? Non-Ahmadis are, according to our faith Kafir, but they are better than you in this respect. In spite of being Kafirs themselves, they do not give their daughters to Kafirs but you, in spite of being Ahmadi, give your daughters to non-believers.”
(Malaika-tullah; by Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud)
“Any person who believes in Moses but does not believe in Christ, or believes in Christ but does not believe in Muhammad or believes in Muhammad but does not believe in the Promised Messiah, is not only a Kafir, but he is a confirmed (Pakka) Kafir, and out of the fold of Islam.”
(Kalimatul Fasl, By Mirza Bashir Ahmad Qadiani)
“It is incumbent upon us that we should not regard non-Ahmadis as Muslims, nor should we offer prayers behind them, because according to our belief they deny one of the messengers of Allah. This is a matter of faith. None has any discretion in this.”
(Anwar-e-Khilafat, by Mirza Mahmood Ahmad Qadiani)
1) “So whatever has been ordained in the Holy Quran about non-belief in a Prophet, the same applies in the case of Mirza Sahib.” (Al-Qaul-al-Fasal, p. 33).
2) “If we don’t believe in him as a Prophet then a dangerous flaw occurs (in iman [faith]) which is enough to render one a ‘kafir’.” (Haqeeqat-un-Nabuwwat, p. 204).
3) “It is obligatory for us not to consider non-Ahmadis as Muslims.” (Anwaar-e-Khilafat, p. 90).
4) “… and one who does not believe in the Promised Messiah, whatever his reasons for this non-belief, he is kafir.” (Zikar-e-Illahi, p. 22).
5) “The third matter to which he (Maulana Muhammad Ali) calls my attention is the issue of ‘kufar and Islam’. He says the path of peace is that we consider non-Ahmadis as Muslims, but I say ‘the path of peace is that we accept the decision of the Holy Quran. The Holy Quran calls the non-believers in a Prophet a kafir, and the same Allah calls Mirza Sahib a Prophet’.” (Haqeeqat-ul-Amar, p. 17).
6) “Is there any such irreligious non-Ahmadi who will marry his daughter to a Christian or a Hindu? You call them kafir but in this matter he is better than you in spite of being a kafir, but you even being Ahmadi marry your daughters to kafirs.” (Maliakatullah, p. 46).
7) “We met a person in Lucknow who is a great scholar. He said ‘many of your adversaries falsely propagate about you that you call us kafir. I cannot believe that a person of your vast capacity would be saying so.’ Sheikh Yaqub Ali was talking to him. I told him, ‘you tell him that we in fact call him a kafir.’ On hearing this he was much astonished.” (Anwar-e-Khilafat, p. 92).
8. All such Muslims who have not entered in the Baiat of the Promised Messiah, whether they have not heard the name of the Promised Messiah, are kafir and out of the pail of Islam. That these beliefs have my full concurrence. I readily admit. (Aaina-e-Saddaaqat. p. 35).
His younger brother Mirza Bashir Ahmad, M.A., surpassed him when he wrote:
“Every such person, who believes in Moses but does not believe in Jesus, or believes in Jesus but does not believe in Mohammed, or believes in Mohammed but does not believe in the Promised Messiah, is not only a kafir but a confirmed kafir and out of the pail of Islam.” (Kalamatul-Fasal, p. 110)
lol @ majumdar, that was a good one.
@ Keeping Honest: i’ve given my opinion and my understanding. i can’t explain any better. if you’re not satisfied, then you have a right to your opinion.
going back to the topic of the original article written by Fasi Zakar, one of the most poignant sentences in this article is: “What really helped me see the inhuman treatment of the Ahmadis in Pakistan is the absence of condemnation for it.”
why do i say this is poignant? because many people (including myself) have been arguing about whether ahmadis are kafirs or believers or muslims, but at the end of the day: this is a horrific crime against a peaceful group of civilians who were engaged in prayer. whatever our interpretation of islam (or if we’re christians, agnostics, atheists, etc), at the end of the day we’re human beings. we have basic rights as human beings, and also duties to our fellow human beings. it seems sad to me that a person writes an article about the murder of almost 100 civilians, and some people start to say that ahmadis think non-ahmadis are non-muslims. the question is: does this justify murdering ahmadis in large numbers? is this relevant to the atrocity we’re discussing? are we proposing: “ahmadis think we’re non-muslims, therefore we can murder them freely”?
i apologise for myself being sucked into the argument regarding ahmadis’ views of non-ahmadis, i simply wished to speak against what i felt was a misrepresentation. i hope that everybody here at least agrees on one thing: that the large-scale murder of peaceful law-abiding civilians is an unacceptable atrocity, whatever is their religious belief. i hope that we don’t permit anybody to turn this into a sectarian or political point-scoring exercise.
peace.
HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF
TO REMIND MOOSA OF ANOTHER HORRIFIC CRIME
May I remind you of another Lahore High Court Judgment:
Decision of Honorable Lahore High Court F. W. Ckemp , Honorable Judge of Lahore High Court. Dated September 23, 1937.
The honorable judge gave decision in murder trial of Fakhar ud Din Multani Shaheed. Because the victim questioned some “holy” personality in India.
MOOSA GET TO THE ROOT OF THE CONFLICT
If someone insults your father and mother, i’m sure you will like to beat the shiit out of him. Howcome you don’t understand if other get angry with Qadianis when they feel their beloved prophet Muhammad pbuh, his family, and companions are insulted by Qadianis?
MUNIR INQUIRY COMMISSION REPORT
Please read in Munir Report, in the section on allocating responsibility, the page about Qadiani Jamaat which concludes:
“We are, therefore, satisfied that though the Ahmadis are not directly responsible for the disturbances, their conduct did furnish an occasion for the general agitation against them. If the feeling had not been so strong against them, we do not think that the Ahrar would have been successful in rallying round themselves all sorts of heterogeneous religious organisations.”
PAGE 260
@Keeping Honest
‘their conduct did furnish an occasion for the general agitation against them’
just like the claim of the first Muslims that there is only one God furnished an occasion for agitation against them by the idol-worshiping overlords of Qureish.
MAKE IT SIMPLE AND SAFE. START A NEW RELIGION.
“just like the claim of the first Muslims that there is only one God furnished an occasion for agitation against them by the idol-worshiping overlords of Qureish.”
Accept you’re is NEW religion. period.
No ones feelings will hurt.
BTW above Munir Commission inquiry report quote is from Qadiani affiliate website ‘persecution’.
@yasserlatifhamdani (June 19, 2010 at 6:40 pm)
“…….Let us solve this issue. Technically speaking if a Shia Muslim didn’t consider Ahmadis non-muslim… could you pray behind him. If the answer is yes… all your detractors are merely engaging in technicalities that don’t make sense…….”
Technically speaking, these “detractors” as you rightly call them, are neither dying to pray behind Ahmadis, nor are exactly eager to have Ahmadis pray behind them.
Our most worthy interlocutor “Keeping Honest”, inspite of having a tough time keeping honest, not to mention rational, was finally able to come up with something useful in his post of June 20, 2010 at 2:43 am:
“…..If someone insults your father and mother, i’m sure you will like to beat the shiit out of him…..”
May I very humbly submit to all, that following the kind of insults that are extended everyday to the Imams of the Ahmadiyya Jamaat by non-Ahmadis and Lahoris, would it make any sense at all, to pray behind them?
Erratum: “…May I very humbly submit to all, that following the kind of insults that are extended everyday to the Imams of the Ahmadiyya Jamaat by non-Ahmadis and Lahoris, would it make any sense at all, [in praying] behind them?…”
BIN ISMAIL DOGGED YLH QUESTION
YLH question:
“…….Let us solve this issue. Technically speaking if a Shia Muslim didn’t consider Ahmadis non-muslim… could you pray behind him. If the answer is yes… all your detractors are merely engaging in technicalities that don’t make sense…….”
BI answer:
“Technically speaking, these “detractors” as you rightly call them, are neither dying to pray behind Ahmadis, nor are exactly eager to have Ahmadis pray behind them.”
Sawal Gandum. Jawab Channa!
Cat is jumping out of the bag. Rather, inside the bag.
The issue here is that it doesn’t matter if Ahmadis don’t pray behind others or consider others non-Muslims…every sect considers every other sect non-Muslim but that the state doesn’t have any locus standi determining it.