Yuku free message boards

Comments by Zahid Aziz

1. The problem is that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad sahib has himself vehemently rejected the interpretation of his statements that you are giving and called this interpretation as being "devoid of sense" ("The Truth about the Split", p. 127).

In this book (online on the Qadiani Jamaat website), he tells us that after he wrote an article on the question of the kufr of non-Ahmadis in 1911, Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din issued an announcement that what Mirza Mahmud Ahmad means is that: "those who did not accept the Promised Messiah were only deniers of, or unbelievers in, the Promised Messiah and not actually outside the pale of Islam" (p. 127). Mentioning this, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad then ridicules this interpretation, and writes:

"I shall now proceed to give here a summary of the article in question and to quote fully a few passages, in order to enable every reader to judge for himself whether it was possible to read into my article any meaning other than the one it really conveyed. 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."

"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. ... 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. 135-140; on website read the section beginning here )

2. Regarding the quotation from the Promised Messiah (about which you say "if not interpreted correctly, the same kinds of objections can arise") it is Mirza Mahmud Ahmad who has unfortunately not interpreted this kind of statement correctly, which we can see by reading his summary of his article or his original full article mentioned above.

This statement is actually from 17 March 1901, and not 1906, and is included in Malfuzat, v. 2, p. 215-217. It cannot be misinterpreted because the concept of "loss of faith" that he is speaking of, which he says has been mentioned by "bazurgaan-i deen", is that of the loss of faith suffered by those who oppose the auliya of God. This is made further clear at the end of the entire statement: "He who shows enmity towards the wali of God, God declares war against him. The one against whom God wages war, how can he have any faith left?" (p. 217) This is in fact a hadith in Bukhari about auliya. Also, as this statement is dated before November 1901, even according to the Qadiani Jamaat standpoint he was presenting himself here as a wali and not as a prophet, and so the question of calling his rejectors as outside the pale of Islam doesn't arise at all.

3. Regarding who is a momin "in a lower rung" (or "kafir within the four walls of Islam"), there are many possible faults in a Muslim any of which can place him in this category, not just lack of belief in the Promised Messiah. Please read the well-known section in Kishti-i Nuh (Ruhani Khaza'in, v. 19, p. 18-20) where the Promised Messiah says that merely joining his Jamaat by taking the bai'at is nothing, and he then lists several infringements of Islamic teachings, by committing which a person "is not in my Jamaat". So even Ahmadis, whether Qadianis or Lahoris, can also be "kafir within the four walls of Islam", while having taken the bai'at. Also, it seems quite possible that an Ahmadi individual may be committing more of these infringements than a particular non-Ahmadi is committing, making the Ahmadi more of a "kafir within Islam" and less of a true momin than that non-Ahmadi.

The verse of the Quran quoted here by the Promised Messiah about Allah accepting only from the righteous, he has elsewhere quoted the same verse *against* his own Jamaat (Malfuzat, v. 10, p. 136-139), saying that Ahmadis don't fulfil it automatically. He says: "God is not your relative that He should honour and safeguard the people of this Jamaat while He should disgrace and punish the others" (p. 137). All those calling themselves Ahmadis, whether you or I, should read and take note of what he says there.

Zahid Aziz

Comment by Zahid Aziz

I have no intention of "reporting" Dr Tahir Ijaz to his Huzur, since in my view the Dr sahib or other members of his Jamaat have the full right to express their views in a public forum.

He has, apparently, agreed that besides not accepting the Promised Messiah there are other attitudes or behaviour on the part of a Muslim that could constitute what we call secondary "kufr" (or kufr by a Muslim while remaining within Islam). Thus it could apply to an Ahmadi who is an Ahmadi only in the community or social sense, caring not for the religious side, or one who violates Islamic standards.

Note that Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din in his announcement of 1911 had quoted a long statement by the Promised Messiah on this subject, made in May 1908, a few days before his death, which is now found in Malfuzat, v. 10, p. 376-378, in which the Promised Messiah told an eminent Muslim visitor that he did not call any Muslim a kafir unless that Muslim first dubbed him a kafir and thus got that epithet reflected back on him, as stated in a hadith.

In his announcement, the Khwaja sahib had said as follows: "According to me Hazrat sahibzada [Mirza Mahmud Ahmad] has used the word kafir in his writing in the sense of denier. Otherwise if by kafir is meant one who is outside the fold of Islam like a Hindu or a Christian then what value is there in his or my opinion when Hazrat Mirza [Ghulam Ahmad] sahib himself does not call his deniers as kafir in the sense of being outside the pale of Islam."

It is this interpretation of the Khwaja sahib that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad strongly disputes and rejects in "The Truth about the Split".

Comments by Dr Zahid Aziz

I regret to say that at the macro or community level the behaviour of the Qadian-Rabwah Ahmadiyya Movement is far removed from true Islam: for example, issuing falsely-inflated figures of 200 million members, a leadership which demands God-like reverence from the followers and persecutes any dissenters, followers who will do anything, however un-Islamic it may be, in support of their leadership.

In "The Truth about the Split" Mirza Mahmud Ahmad has quoted, from Maulana Muhammad Ali, the interpretation that Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din gave to his article:

"that those who did not accept the Promised Messiah were only deniers of, or unbelievers in, the Promised Messiah and not actually outside the pale of Islam." (p. 127)

Mirza Mahmud Ahmad then goes on to reject and ridicule this statement totally as in any way representing his belief. He does not write anywhere that the second half of this statement (that non-Ahmadi Muslims are "not actually outside the pale of Islam") is in fact in accordance with his belief.

While strongly disagreeing that the above words represent his belief, he expresses his "full concurrence" that the following statement does correctly represent his belief:

"that all those so-called Muslims who have not entered into his 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." (p. 55-56)

Explaining why even those non-Ahmadis are "kafirs and outside the pale of Islam" who have not even heard the name of the Promised Messiah, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad writes that this is just as all those people who have never heard of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (giving as examples Eskimos, Red Indians etc.) are classed by Islam as kafir and not Muslims. He writes:

"Now, as Islam bases its judgement upon what is patent and not upon what is possible, it cannot but class as Kafirs such as fail to accept any of the prophets, even though such failure may be due to their want of information concerning him." (p. 59-60)

Those judgements of Islam that are based on what is patent are the legal, formal judgements of the Shariah applying to this world. According to Mirza Mahmud Ahmad here, all non-Ahmadis are kafir in the legal terms of Islamic law.