1974 -VI Kufr and Islam - Circles and Boundaries

A popular slogan of Takfiris. 'Shia are Kafir-whoever disgarees with it is also a Kafir'.

Yahya Bakhtiyar, Mufti Mahmood and many others maintained that the Ahmadis were declared Non-Muslims because their Khalifa accepted in the Parliament that they consider all others Muslims as Kafir.

Mr. Bakhtiyar confirmed this in an interview with Aatish Fishan, Lahore in their May 1994 publication. He thought that during the cross-examination, Mirza Nasir Ahmad was forced to accept that Non-Ahmadis cannot be true Muslims.

A famous Barelvi Fatwa against M. A. Jinnah. The founder of Pakistan.

This matter was settled by a comprehensive response in the Mahzarnama by the Khalifatul Mashi III, which not only quoted fatwas (edicts) of heresy, apostasy and worst by all major sects of Islam against each other, but also gave a detailed description of the Ahmadiyya opinion on Kufr , Eeman and Islam.

It all boils down to..

The Ahmadiyya point of view on this matter can be summed up by two phrases used by Imam Raghib in his Mufridaat.

Doon-ul-Eeman: Those Muslims who are at a lower standard of faith; i.e., they are Muslims because they profess to be Muslims.

Fawq-ul-Eeman: Those Muslims who are at a distinguished standard of faith. i.e., they try to fulfill all of the criteria set in the Quran to attain spiritual distinction in the eyes of God.

During the cross-examination, the Attorney General kept discussing the labels of Kufr and Islam as a corporation would use it for copyrights purposes. Something that all the Mullahs present in the house could easily relate to. But the fact is, that Quran does not treat the subject of faith as a copyright issue.

Kufr (denial) has many degrees. A person can commit kufr though their actions while still professing to be a Muslim. For example, someone who does not offer his daily prayers becomes a Kafir. Sahih Muslim, the second most authentic book of Hadith has a chapter on this topic. But does this mean that all those who miss a single prayer in their life become Non-Muslims?

Imam Ibn-e-Taimiyyah, a famous Jurist who is held in high esteem by the more orthodox Sunni sects, also held the same belief. The following statement from his book was quoted by the Khalifatul Masih III in his statement.

"One type of Kufr causes the person to be removed from the Millat (Nation/Ummah) whereas the other type of Kufr does not." (Kitab-ul-Eeman, page 171).

Fawq-ul-Eeman and a Joke:

While discussing the 'True Islam' or the faith which entitles someone to be on Fawq-ul-Eeman, Khalifatul Masih III read a quote from the book of the founder of the community (page 820). This quote outlines the view of Hadhrat Ahmad on what he considered to be the pristine form of faith. Yahya Bakhtiya responded with a joke about a simpleton who responds to a Mullah's description of the razor thin bridge leading to the gardens of paradise;

'Why don't you say I can't go to paradise, Maulvi sahib'. Asked the poor soul.

The proceedings do not record if the house was amused by the joke. But one member did not like the passage being quoted and objected by saying that its just an effort to show how pious the Ahmadis are.

But it becomes abundantly clear from reading the Ahmadiyya responses, that Ahmadis consider all those who delcare and consider themselves to be Muslims as Muslims.

Another fake reference:

The questioning committee comprised of representatives from all religious parties. One of their tasks was to support their questions with appropriate references and quotes. The Attorney General appears to be caught short at numerous occasions where a carefully crafted question was sabotaged themselves by a bogus reference. Mr. Bakhtiyar read a sentence from a speech delivered by Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih II in conference in London.

"Ahmadis to form a separate community from outside (the) Musalman(s)." (page 843)

This sentence does not exist in the speech.

Yahya Bakhtiyar's confusion:

What the Attorney General understood as his triumph was actually an indication of his poor grasp of the matters of faith and spirituality. In his concluding remarks he said

'According to Mirza Nasir Ahmad, he (anyone who does not accept the prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) remains within the Millat-e-Muhmmadia, but he is ouside the Dairah or circle of Islam. This was all lost to me.' (page 3037-3038)

Circles and Boundries:

Mr. Bakhtiyar's questions on this issue will give the reader a good indication of his (and the house's) malicious intentions. He pretended not to understand the simple and logical explanation being given by the Khalifatul Masih.

'I thought if he (Mirza Nasir Ahmad) said that we all Muslims and we will said that they (Ahmadis) are Muslims, and ignore these fatwas that have been going on for a long time, but he bluntly said that there were not Haqeeqi Muslims among Non-Ahmadis. It was impossible for a Non-Ahmadi to be a Haqeeqi (True) Muslim.' (page 3039)

One can only express sympathy for the Attorney General's mental capabilities and that of his helpers that they refuse to accept what Quran has made so clear. A verse in Surah Hujrat (49:15) tells the Bedouins that they should not say that are Mo'mins (people of faith), but they are only Muslims.

Even Maudoodi has to accept that certain people

May be counted among the Muslims in the world, may even be treated as Muslims in society, but they cannot be counted as believers in the sight of Allah.

If I understand correctly, Maudoodi's deputies in the Parliament and their friends were trying to play God by their own admission.

Famous Barelvi Fatwa against Shia Muslims. If these are the moderates, imagine the hardliners!

This brings us back to the original objection raised by the Ahmadiyya delegation in the Mahzarnama, that

And most serious of all: it (deliberating and legislating upon such manners) clearly runs counter to the teachings of the Holy Quran and the Ahadith of the Holy Prophet, and can prove to be a harbinger of many ills and disorders in the society. (pages 8-9)

If Ahmadis consider others as Muslims, why don't they pray behind them.

This probably has become the most repeated argument against the Pakistani Ahmadi Muslims that they don't pray behind a Non-Ahmadi Imam and also they do not participate in funeral prayers of any other sect. In fact, this arises because two facts are ignored.

a. All leaders/Ulema of other sects have strictly forbidden their followers to pray behind Ahmadis becuase they are Kafirs and according to them they are the followers of an impostor.

b. Why pray behind a person who considers you an apostate, worthy of death etc?. Prayers are acts of worship, not a social occasion.

Shia Fatwa against Wahabis. 'Wahabis bound for the lowest level of hell!'.

Deobandi leaders are Mushrik and Kafir.

 

After quoting miscellaneous fatwas of all sects agains Ahmadis and against each other (page 147-164) this heartfelt plea follows, which obviously fell on deaf ears;

For God's sake, do some justice! Have a modicum of fear of God. Have some sense of obligation to being the followers of our lord and master Hadhrat Muhammad, the chosen one (saw), who was the personification of justice. Tell us, how far are the atrocities and injustices being perpetrated against Ahmadis by the ulema of the majority of the aforementioned sects, justified? How far such conduct is becoming of a Muslim; how far does it behove any humble follower of the one who was "Mercy for the Universe"? If one does offer prayers behind them, one is branded as kaafir; if one does not offer prayers behind them, one is still branded as kaafir! It is a no-win situation. What is one supposed to do? Is the only way left for one to retain Islam as his faith is to abstain altogether from offering prayer in congregation—as the majority among the generality of Muslim has already done? (page 164)

A link to the fatwa delivered by Rabita-e-Alam-e-Islami against Ahmadiyya Muslims in 1974.


Previous: 1974 and Shia genocide
Next: WikiLeaks and 1974 anti-Ahmadiyya agitation

Kashmir, Pakistan and Ahmadis: Paranoia of Daily Ummat

For the wise and more astute among us, if we spot a blatant lie in a publication, we can safely assume that the writer's opinion cannot be trusted on other matters as well. The website irshad.org has been in the business of slander and abuse for many years now. For those who don't know, this US based website is dedicated to anti-ahmadiyya propaganda. Almost all of the material on this website is a copy-paste job from other existing literature which is not a surprise.

For example, in this translated article from Daily Ummat from 1997, the author Farooq Ali has made some very interesting claims. Now almost 15 years later, let us revisit these claims to see what time and internet have made apparent to us.

Ummat is the propaganda rag of Jamaat-e-Islami, the right-wing religio-fascist movement started by Abul Aala Maudoodi, who was a religious scholar of some merit but much disliked by the orthodox Sunni sects. Maudoodi's religious thought was shaped by rationalist apolgetics of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. But Maudoodi's political thought bound him strongly to Syed Qutb's pan-Islamism which manifested itself in the creation of JI in 1941. JI has been on the forefront of pro-Jihad movements since 1970s which resulted in gross human rights atrocities in East Pakistan through their militant wing. During the soviet invasion, JI was heavily involved in Afghan war and Gen Zia's Islamization. Thanks to their contributions along with Deobandi seminaries and petro-dollars, Daily Ummat was never short of the headlines narrating the heroics of the Mujahideen during the 1980s. After the war, JI was recruited to contribute to the Jihad in Kashmir by Pakistani Military establishment. What was once a genuine indigenous and rightful freedom struggle now became a proxy war. While JI was busy destroying the Kashmir cause, its leadership forgot that their founder had forbidden the Jihad to defend innocent Kashmiris in 1948 and was duly arrested on the orders of then Prime Minister, Liaqat Ali Khan.

The author of the article in question alleges that Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has been busy in subversive activities against Islam and Pakistan. The evidence was apparently a report submitted to then Government of Pakistan about a terrorist cell established in Qadian, India. Such was the authenticity of this report that nothing came of it since. Not a single document, photograph, audio or video recording, confession of a captured miscreant was ever produced by this esteemed newspaper to prove it. Such is the nature of this poisonous propaganda, that due to religious bigotry, its readers believe in such lies. We now know fully well who is behind the brutal murders of Pakistanis, civilians and military persons alike. Daily Ummat may not admit to it, but a number of high value Al-Qaeda targets were apprehended or killed at the properties owned by JI officials. 

The author is obviously addressing the Pakistani establishment or the time to remain paranoid about Ahmadis. And as with every right-wing conspiracy, its convenient to throw in a few RAW references and links to India and NGOs for good measure. I will ignore them as history and our understanding of it has moved on in the past two decades.

The article is ridiculously compilation of lies and twisted facts. To dismiss a conspiracy theory we must treat it like a poorly tailored article of clothing. Lies stick out of it like loose threads. You pick on one of them and it comes undone. For example:

Lie #1: In 1947 the Ahmadiyya Khalifa asked the boundary commission to consider Ahmadis as a separate faith to ensure Gurdaspur district stayed with India.  

The fact is that the Ahmadiyya Jamaat made a separate representation (as a Muslim sect) at the commission to strengthen Pakistan's claim on Gurdaspur. Due to a very slim Muslim majority in the district, it was important that a strong arguments were presented in favour of Gurdaspur's inclusion in Pakistan. With this in mind the Ahmadiyya delegation asked Qadian to be designated a Muslim Holy Site of great importance to its members and thus to be included in Pakistan. This was done because Indian National Congress had made a similar argument to lay claim on Sikh holy sites which are now in Pakistan.

Daily Ummat also ignores the fact that while Maudoodi was adamant to oppose the idea of Pakistan, it was Ahmadiyya Jamaat which supported the Muslim League and Jinnah in all manners possible.

Recently released proceedings of the in-camera sessions of Pakistani Parliament in 1974 also reveal that this question was raised by Yahya Bakhtyar and answered by the Ahmadiyya delegation.

Lie #2: Sir Zafrulla Khan did not represent the Muslim case honestly.

Sir Zafrulla Khan

This matter was settled by the Munir Commission report of 1954 . Justice Muneer was a member of the Muslim League delegation at the boundary commission and he testified to the excellent work done by Sir. Zafrulla in his report.

Lie #3: Kashmir Committee was a conspiracy to claim Jammu and Kashmir for the Ahmadiyya Community.

The author's reasons for this are absurd. He could only think of one fact that Jesus is buried in Srinagar according to the Ahmadiyya belief and somehow Ahmadis deemed it important enough to conspire a Muslim political revival in the region. How ridiculous is this?

The fact is that decades of relentless oppression of Kashmiris was ignored by the Indian Muslim politicians until it was raised by the Khalifatul Masih II. He not only influenced the Indian Muslim leaders to rally around him to inform the country of the human rights situation in the state, but also provided legal help, education and political organization to Kashmiris to defend their rights. Kashmir committee was the reason Kashmiri's have a political voice today.

Sir Zafrulla Khan presented the case for Kashmir at the UN with such force that Indian delegate was considered to be defeated by those present at the security council. Some US diplomatic correspondence on this matter also sheds light on the impact made by Sir Zafrulla in those years.

It is also odd that the author focuses on the tomb of Jesus as a main reason for Ahmadi interest in Kashmir, yet later insists on Christian-Ahmadi conspiracy against Pakistan. If it is about shared beliefs, Christians will find more common grounds with Daily Ummat as both of them believe Jesus to be alive in heavens.

Further reading:

Daily Ummat at it again. Urdu
Ahrari intrigues to derail Kashmir freedom struggle as outlined by Ayesha Jalal

A response to "The Apostates of Pakistan" by Aakar Patel

Aakar Patel's recently published article "The apostates of Pakistan" was penned a couple years ago, but did not see the light of day until now. He states the reason for this delay as reluctance of seemingly liberal Pakistani English language papers to publish some material. Reading through the piece, I could easy spot a number of problems that an editor may see with the article. It mentions the persecution of the Ahmadis in Pakistan, it also tries to explain Ahmadiyya beliefs, history and the bigotry of Pakistani society. The editors may have imagined a backlash from many of their conservative readers. An influential section of Pakistani society has always managed to keep this topic out of public eye for decades. But, as an Ahmadi, I would have sent the article back to Mr. Patel with red lines all over the text. For factual inaccuracies, incomplete research and almost slanderous accusations. 

Let me say that I admire Mr. Patel's attempt to look into the Ahmadiyya history to give a fresh perspective to his readers. I wish more people could go to the source materials and inform and educate their readers. I also hope that they make a better job of it.

Mr. Patel narrates a vision received by Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, which is recorded in in his own writings as follows;

 "I presented the document containing divine decrees for attestation and He, Who was manifesting Himself in the form of a Ruler, dipped His pen in red ink and first flicked it in my direction and with the rest of the red ink which remained at the point of the pen He put His signature to the document. Thereupon, the state of vision came to an end and when I opened my eyes to look at the material world around me, I witnessed several red drops falling on my clothes. 2 or 3 of the drops also fell on the cap of one ‘Abdullah of Sanaur (Patiala State) who was at the time sitting close to me. Thus, the red ink which was part of the vision materialized externally and became visible. Many other such manifestations have been witnessed which it would take too long to 

relate. "

According to the Mr. Patel 

" This message from God qualified Ahmad as a prophet."

The claim of Hadhrat Ahmad as being a prophet did not originate from this experience. In fact such spiritual experiences had started in 1870s when he was still an unknown man, immersed in worship and religious studies. He received many revelations confirming his status as a prophet from 1882. But he did not claim to be the "Promised Messiah" until 1891, when he also revealed that Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) had passed away and he was appointed as the Promised Messiah by God. The status of Promised Messiah according to Quran and Hadith is that of a subordinate (Ummati) prophet. 

Continuing in the very next paragraph Mr. Patel contradicts himself by stating "Despite his visions, Mirza Ahmad personally did not claim prophethood." 

Hadhrat Ahmad, the Promised Messiah and Mahdi (pbuh) wrote a book to remove any misconceptions about his claim to be an Ummati Prophet called "Aik Ghalti ka Izala". He writes 

"Wherever I have denied being a Prophet or Messenger, it has only been in the sense that I have not brought an independent law nor am I an independent Prophet. I am a Messenger and Prophet only in the sense that I have received spiritual grace from the Messenger (pbuh) whom I follow, and, having received his name for myself, and through him, I have received knowledge of the unseen from God. But I have not come with a new law. I have never denied being called a Nabi (Prophet) in this sense. Indeed it is in this very sense that God has addressed me as  Nabi and Rasul; and it is in this sense that I do not deny being a Nabi or Rasul" (A misconception removed, page 10)

The above is just one example of how Aakar Patel has not done justice to his article by including opinions which could have benefited from some proper research. He also states that Hadhrat Ahmad (pbuh) denouced Judaism and Christianity as error. Islam considers both Judaism and Christianity as true faiths corrupted by their followers. Hadhrat Ahmad (as) made his claims at the time when Christian missionary effort in India was at its peak. He held debates with prominent Christian missionaries of his time and showed to the world that Islam was a perfect religion. He also challenged various Hindu revivalists of his time as they also attacked Islam. 

But this is only a minot problem with this piece, easily corrected by a letter to editor. My problem lies with what follows in the last part of the article. According to Mr. Patel, Ahmadis should share some blame for being persecuted in Pakistan. He states that Ahmadis supported the two-nation theory and Sir Zafrullah Khan Islamized Pakistan by supporting the Objectives resolution. 

Do Ahmadis do deserve to be punished for their support of Muslim league? There are many so-called revisionist liberals who may think that the creation of Pakistan was an accident brought about by a mixture of British and feudal Muslim interests. 

Please also note here that the most conservative amongst the Muslims supported Indian National Congress. Same Muslim leaders saw opportunity in Pakistan and started agitations against Ahmadis in 1953. Ahmadis supported Pakistan because the ground realities of British India demanded Muslims to defend their rights. Qaid-e-Azam was right, but unfortunately, Pakistan also inherited the Ahrar, the spiritual forefathers of present day militant outfits. To add to our misery, Maulana Maudoodi also chose Pakistan despite his aversion to its very idea before 1947. The purpose of Ahmadiyya Movement has always been to cleanse Islam of the oppressive and suffocating ideology of such Mullahs. This "war" has been waged since the inception of the community and will carry on until the true Islam is made manifest to the world.

It is obvious that majority of the people who helped create Pakistan including the leadership, were tolerant, democratic and liberal. The very same people accepted Ahmadis in their ranks as their equals and even sought guidance from the Khalifatul Masih on important matters. Kashmir Committee (of 1930s) is one shining example of Ahmadiyya contributions to the Muslim cause in India.

Objectives resolution has also been blamed for Islamization of Pakistan. I can understand that in some circles it causes concerns because of its religious tone. I disagree with the critics. To me, objectives resolution was a document written by idealists who had high hopes for Pakistan. Their Islam was not the totalitarian oppressive Islam that Ahrar and Maudoodi had unleashed in the streets in 1950s. For an Ahmadi scholar and a secular Jurist of Sir Zafrullah's calibre, Islam can only "impose" a secular government which affords full freedom to its subjects. Please also note the emphasis of fundamental rights, freedom and democracy in the text of objectives resolution. 

That brings us finally to the matter of "Furqan Force". A battalion of Ahmadi volunteers which supported the Pakistan Army in 1948 Kashmir conflict. Mr. Patel thinks that this was a religiously motivated move and a betrayal of "Gandhian" non-violence that the Ahmadiyya community followed. First of all, our non-violence is Quranic non-violence. Mr. Gandhi was a respected politician and I admire his achievements and philosophy. But Ahmadi Muslims follow the teachings of Quran, as explained to us by Promised Messiah (pbuh). He also taught us that loyalty to our state is a religious duty. So if Pakistan was at war with India, Pakistani Ahmadis were duty bound to protect their country. Besides, Hindu rule of Kashmir was no Gandhian rule. It was probably the most oppressive and cruel rule in the history of subcontinent. 

I can also clarify here that Jihad as taught by Promised Messiah (pbuh) includes fulfilment of our duties to protect our faith. And loyalty to our homeland is part of our faith. 

Mr. Patel ends his article on a very harsh note. He started the piece with sympathetic statements, included examples of persecutions and his own dismay at the hatred he saw in Pakistan. He then moves to blame the Ahmadis for their own bad karma; for supporting Pakistan movement. Sir Zafrullah, a prominent defender of human rights and freedom of religion on the global stage, becomes the reason for Islamization of the country.  And the article then ends with a statement I can only call a fallacy. Aakar Patel writes;

 "Such bigotry against other faiths usually invites punishment against your own". 

i.e., Ahmadis opposed an oppressive cruel Hindu ruler; they supported equal rights for Indian Muslims etc etc; so they deserved to be punished in their own country for this. What twisted reasoning brought you to this conclusion?

I would request Mr. Patel to review his whole article, but in particular this last statement. He should go and read about the message of universal brotherhood that the founder of Ahmadiyya Muslim community sent out to the whole subcontinent just days before his death. Ahmadis stand by every word our Mahdi and Messiah (pbuh) has said and this is apparent through our actions. In fact, it is our belief that all major religions are based on truth and we give great respect to their founders like Raam, Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster and Baba Nanak (may peace be upon them all). You will see evidence of this respect throughout Ahmadiyya history. 

To Mr. Patel, I can also suggest humbly that having an influence on your readership is a big responsibility. I am sure he will correct the factual errors he has made. I hope his opinions are also altered after these corrections.

As an Ahmadi, I believe that the revival of true Islamic ideals has been ongoing for the past century and Indian subcontinent is its epicentre. It is also my belief that Islam as presented by Promised Messiah (pbuh) will be victorious in this struggle.