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

Freedom of Speech and the Islamophobes.

Harris Zafar of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association, USA is an excellent writer and a Jihadist in the true sense of the word. His Jihad is to spread the true and peaceful teachings of Islam to his homeland and to the wider world through his writings.

In this struggle, he has invited many critics. Some from within the Muslim community who consider his Ahmadi faith as heretical, but the most vocal and hateful criticism comes from the American Ultra-Conservative Islamophobes. One of them, Andrew E. Harrod writes that in his latest article, that Harris fails to make any sense. To Harod, Islam is a unique case of a false faith which invaded, forcibly converted and occupied almost half of the world for a whole millennium. Harris Zafar's attempts to explain the misdeeds of despots and extremist clerics as unislamic are futile.

The tragedy with this type of Islamophobia is that it does not recognize reform within Islam as a genuine phenomenon. Their hateful propaganda has unfortunately been supported by the actions of the medievalist Islamists. For people like Harris and me, and all the other moderate Muslims the cult of Robert Spencer and the cult of Suicide bomber share the same view of history. Both of them see stories of violence in some history books as true and both of them reject reform and tolerance.

Harrod repeats the same distorted historic 'evidence' of killing of blasphemers and apostates during the time of the Prophet which is so common in Islamophobe literature. He also cites the same injustices being carried out in countries where despotic regimes are in control.

We cannot deny that some history books do mention events where alleged blasphemers and apostate were killed. At least this is how the orthodox Muslims understand them. As is the case with any scripture or historic narrative, readers can super-impose their own whims on the text to interpret it as they wish. So if OBL or Robert Spencer want to read the story of Kaab ibn Ashraf as an example of killing of a blasphemer, they will make every effort to ignore the fact that Ibn Ashraf was in direct contact with the leaders of Quraish and was posing a direct threat to the lives of the inhabitants of Medina. Similarly, Mr. Harrod, Spencer et al., will be happy to accept the story of Asma bint Marwan several others as true whereas Islamic scholars of Hadith have declared those narrations as fabricated or weak.

Fabricated events cannot become real just because Saudi Arabia is beheading and Iranian regime is condemning people for apostasy and blasphemy. There were hoardes of crucaders killing innocent women and children in the name of Christ. There are Jews killing unarmed civilians in the name of David and Moses. Can I start being disrespectful of these Prophets of God? Should a cartoonist be asked to portray these evil acts with Jesus, Moses and David as the subjects of these images? I am sure someone, somewhere is capable of doing this. But as a decent human being, I will abhor such 'art' as disrespectful, unfair and slanderous.

As human beings, we need laws and rules to regulate how society should behave. A line needs to be drawn where freedom of speech can turn into a license to cause offence, to stir up hatred and eventually violence in a society.

There is no confusion in Islam about freedom of conscience and expression. The real confusion is in the minds of Islamophobes who feel that their only weapon will be taken away if a law was enforced to curb their bigotry and naked hate.

I wish Harris all the best in his struggle against Islamophobia in the USA. It is the struggle for the triumph of real Islam, which will put an end to all persecution, war and bloodshed InshaAllah.