Calling Muslims
as kafir
Refutation
of a repugnant belief
by Maulana Muhammad
Ali
(The Light & Islamic Review: Vol. 70;
No. 6; November-December 1993; p. 6)
Introduction / Promised Messiah
never called Muslims as kafir / Opponents called
Promised Messiah as kafir / Expressed same belief
days before his death / Promised Messiah's declaration
in court / His practice towards friendly Muslims
/ Grave consequences of Qadiani beliefs.
(In 1918 Maulana Muhammad Ali
wrote an English book entitled The Ahmadiyya Movement - IV: The
Split, fully discussing how Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad
had coined entirely wrong and dangerous beliefs, which were totally
repugnant to the teachings of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Founder
of the Ahmadiyya Movement. Mirza Mahmud's followers are now led
by Mirza Tahir Ahmad, based at present in England. We give below
extracts from near the close of this excellent work by the Maulana.
Editor.)
The full force of the new doctrines taught by M. Mahmud would be
felt by a Muslim in the strange announcement according to which
all Muslims except the Ahmadis are really non-Muslims. So strange
and paradoxical does the announcement - the Muslims being
non-Muslims - appear that hardly any body would believe that
a sane person could make this statement, but this is the actual
consequence of the new doctrine taught by M. Mahmud relating to
the prophethood of the Promised Messiah. Nor are we left to draw
that inference on our own account, for the doctrine that all those
who have not entered into the bai'at of the Promised Messiah
are outside the circle of Islam, i.e., non-Muslims, has been openly
and incessantly preached by M. Mahmud for a number of years, and
so persistent is he that he openly declared in a meeting of his
friends convened in December 1913 that he would rather die than
forsake the preaching of the doctrine which taught that all those
who were not Ahmadis were kafirs pure and simple, absolute
unbelievers outside the circle of Islam, with whom all relations
such as saying their funeral prayers, intermarriages, etc., were
to be shunned in the same manner as in the case of non-Muslims.
In other words, the duties which a Muslim owes to a Muslim according
to the plain teachings of the Holy Quran and the reports of the
Holy Prophet, an Ahmadi Muslim does not owe to his Muslim brother.
Here then a dissension has been created in Islam, the like of which
has not been experienced by this religion of unity - of the
unity of God and the unity of humanity - during the thirteen
hundred years since its birth. And were it not for this grave consequence
of the doctrine of the prophethood of the Promised Messiah, that
doctrine would have passed off as an innocent heresy which might
have been left alone to die a natural death. But the serious dissension
to which it gives rise requires every true Muslim - and every
Ahmadi must be a true Muslim - to raise his voice against
this mighty insult to the holy religion of Islam. It not only divides
the camp of Islam into two, which in principles has remained completely
united for the last thirteen hundred years, but lays the basis of
further divisions, which, if they should find their way into Islam,
must result in the shattering of its unity to pieces.
It is necessary to explain first, in a few words, what has been
said above. M. Mahmud's argument for declaring the Muslims to be
infidels is that as a new prophet has appeared in the world, therefore
those who do not believe in that prophet are unbelievers, for it
is only belief in the latest prophet that can bring a man within
the category of Islam. Therefore, while the appearance of the Promised
Messiah as a prophet divides the camp of Islam into two parties,
each thinking the other to be outside the pale of Islam, the appearance
of the thousands of prophets which M. Mahmud believes must yet appear
would hopelessly divide Islam into thousands of camps, each thinking
the other to be non-Muslim. And just as the millions of Muslims
who are even ignorant of the name of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the new
prophet of the age according to the doctrine of M. Mahmud, have
become kafirs simply because a prophet has appeared in India,
even the Ahmadi followers of M. Mahmud are not safe from being turned
into kafirs because a prophet might appear in Africa of whom
they know nothing, just as their African brethren know nothing of
the Promised Messiah. Indeed so hideous is this doctrine that it
is an insult to the sane reader to offer a rejection of it, but
as M. Mahmud tries to attribute it to the Promised Messiah, I deem
it my duty to show that that great reformer of the age never thought
of preaching this hideous untruth for a moment. He is absolutely
clear of the charge.
Promised
Messiah never called Muslims as kafir.
Because the Promised Messiah is a prophet, we are told, therefore
all those who have not entered into his bai'at are kafirs.
M. Mahmud may be right or wrong, but the question I ask is, did
the Promised Messiah even once say or write those words? Do the
thousands of the pages of his diaries and writings but once contain
the statement that he being a prophet those who did not enter
into his bai'at were kafirs? If he never made that
claim even once, is it not a hateful guilt to attribute that doctrine
to him? Hundreds of times did he speak and write on questions of
Kufr and Islam, but not once did those words escape
his tongue or pen. How cruel, then, to declare to the world that
he was responsible for teaching a doctrine which he never dreamt
of.
Opponents
called Promised Messiah as kafir.
How did then the question of kufr arise in connection with
the Promised Messiah at all? When he first claimed to be the Promised
Messiah, the Maulvis exerted themselves to their utmost in pronouncing
him a kafir because his claim clashed with their cherished
doctrines which were really opposed to the Holy Quran and the sayings
of the Holy Prophet. In their fatwas, however, they were
not content with declaring him a kafir but advised the Muslims
to cut off all their connections with him, just as M. Mahmud is
doing today with respect to those who do not follow the Promised
Messiah. The Promised Messiah gave no answer to these fatwas
except that he went on assuring the public that the charges on which
he was declared a kafir were absolutely false, that he did
not claim to be a prophet, nor did he deny the existence of angels
or miracles and so on.
But these assurances had no effect, and it became clear that the
Maulvis intentionally persisted in declaring a Muslim to be kafir,
notwithstanding that he repeatedly explained that he did not swerve
a hair's breadth from the principles of Islam. Now there is a saying
of the Holy Prophet according to which if any one calls his Muslim
brother a kafir, the kufr reverts to himself. It was
about four years after his claim to Promised Messiahship that an
opponent asked him to have a mubahala with him (i.e., praying
for the destruction of the party in error). The Promised Messiah's
reply was that though his opponent might call him a kafir,
yet as he looked upon his opponent as a Muslim, he could not pray
for his destruction.
But when at last it became manifest that the opponents quite unjustly
persisted in calling him a kafir, the Promised Messiah wrote
that after that he was entitled to treat those opponents as kafir
who declared him to be a kafir or imposter, in accordance
with the saying of the Holy Prophet. This is all that the Promised
Messiah has ever said, viz., that kufr reverted to those
who declared him to be a kafir or imposter and to this he
stuck to the last, never going against this principle.
It is not necessary for me to explain why the saying of the Holy
Prophet makes kufr revert to him who declares a Muslim to
be a kafir. The Holy Prophet had laid the basis of a great
brotherhood and he did not like that such dissensions should exist
in this brotherhood as should destroy the unity of Islam. Hence
it was necessary to have a safeguard against the creation of such
dissensions. But the only safeguard could be the infliction of some
punishment on the person who should dare to violate the unity of
the Muslim brotherhood. Thus a person who called a Muslim brother
a kafir did not deserve to be called a member of the brotherhood
and hence the words of the Holy Prophet that kufr reverted
to him who called his brother Muslim a kafir.
Expressed
same belief days before his death.
That the Promised Messiah went no further than this is evident
from his latest pronouncement. He was at Lahore in May 1908 when
about two weeks before his death Mian Fazl-i-Husain, Bar-at-Law,
put to him the question whether he called the Muslims kafir.
The conversation is thus recorded in the Badr newspaper dated
24th May 1908:
"Mr. Fazl-i-Husain said that if all non-Ahmadis were
called kafir, there remained nothing in Islam.
"(The Promised Messiah) said: 'We do not declare
anyone to be outside Islam unless he himself becomes a kafir
by calling us kafirs. It is not perhaps known to you that
when I first claimed to have been appointed by God, Maulvi Abu
Said Muhammad Husain of Batala prepared a fatwa with great
effort in which it was written that I was a kafir, etc.
. . . Now it is accepted on all hands that anyone who calls
a believer a kafir himself becomes a kafir."
Further on, it is again affirmed in clear words:
"He who does not call us a kafir, we do not
call him a kafir at all."
It would be seen from this that the Promised Messiah never declared
a single Muslim to be a kafir. Further proof of this is met
with in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy where we find him thus accusing his
opponents for bringing false charges against him, one of which is
that they charged him with declaring the Muslims kafirs:
"Again consider this falsehood that they bring this
charge against us that we have declared two hundred million Muslims
to be kafirs. . . . Can any Maulvi or any opponent or
any sajjada nashin give proof that we first declared these
people to be kafirs. If any leaflet or manifesto or pamphlet
was published by us before their fatwa of kufr in
which we declared our Muslim opponents to be kafir, they
should bring it forward; otherwise they should think how dishonest
it is that they themselves call us kafir and then charge
us with having declared all the Muslims to be kafirs. How
offending is this great dishonesty and lie and false charge."
(p. 120)
Promised
Messiah's declaration in court.
The plainest statement regarding this is, however, contained in
Tiryaq-ul-Qulub which was published in 1902. The incident
arose out of a case in which both Maulvi Muhammad Husain of Batala
and the Promised Messiah signed an agreement, the former undertaking
not to call the Promised Messiah a kafir or liar in future,
and the latter giving the same undertaking with regard to Maulvi
Muhammad Husain. Reference to this is contained in Tiryaq-ul-Qulub
on p. 130 in the following words:
"The third aspect of the fulfilment of the prophecy
of 21st November 1898 is this that Mr. J. M. Douie, late Deputy
Commissioner and District Magistrate, Gurdaspur district, in his
order dated 24th February 1899 made Maulvi Muhammad Husain sign
the agreement that he would not call me anti-Christ and kafir
and liar in future. . . . And he promised standing in
the court that he would not call me a kafir in any assembly,
nor give me the name of anti-Christ, nor would he proclaim me
a liar among the people. Now consider after this agreement the
fate of his fatwa (of kufr) which he had prepared
by (travelling all over the country) going so far as Benares.
If he had been in the right in giving that fatwa, he ought
to have given this answer before the Magistrate that as he (the
Mirza Sahib) was a kafir in his opinion, therefore he called
him a kafir, and as he was a dajjal (anti-Christ),
therefore he called him a dajjal, and as he was certainly
a liar, therefore he called him a liar, particularly when I, by
the grace of God, still adhere to those very beliefs, and shall
do so to the end of my days, which Muhammad Husain gave out to
be words of kufr. What honesty is this then that from fear
of the Magistrate he destroyed his own fatwas. . . . It
is true that I have also signed that notice, but by signing it
I am under no blame in the sight of God and the just, nor is this
signature a cause of my disgrace, for it is my belief from the
beginning that no one can become a kafir or dajjal
on account of denying my claims; aye, he would be going astray
and erring from the right path."
This is plain enough. Not only he never said that as he was a prophet
therefore those who denied him were kafirs, but he held from
the beginning that no one could be a kafir on account
of denying his claims. A footnote is added which lays further stress
upon this point:
"It is a point worth remembering that to call a denier
of one's claims a kafir is the right of those prophets
who bring a law and new commandments from God, but as for the
inspired ones and Muhaddasin other than the givers of law,
however great their dignity in the sight of God, and however much
they may have been honoured by being spoken to by God, no one
becomes a kafir by their denial."
Such a clear statement from the pen of the Promised Messiah should
have set all doubts at rest; for to hold that the Promised Messiah,
when he published these views, did not really entertain them is
to hold him in meaner estimation than even Maulvi Muhammad Husain.
If it was disgraceful on the part of the latter to sign an agreement
contrary to his belief for fear of punishment, it was much more
disgraceful on the part of the Promised Messiah to assure people
that he did not look upon his deniers as kafirs while he
actually did so. Would this not be declared as the meanest attempt
to deceive the public? I do not think any one who calls himself
an Ahmadi would take that view of the character of the Promised
Messiah.
His practice
towards friendly Muslims.
Even if the Promised Messiah had not left these plain statements
in his writings, his practical life was a sufficient guarantee that
he did not look upon a mere denial of his claims as kufr,
nor did he regard those who had not entered into his bai'at
as kafirs. Khwaja Ghulam Farid of Chachran, the spiritual
leader of the Nawab of Bahawalpur, held the Promised Messiah in
great honour, though he never entered into his bai'at.
Now according to the verdict of M. Mahmud, published in his monthly,
the Tashhiz-ul-Azhan for April 1911:
" . . . even he who from his heart believes him (i.e.,
the Promised Messiah) to be true, and does not deny him even with
the tongue, but he postpones bai'at, is looked upon as
a kafir." (p. 141)
Khwaja Ghulam Farid should be ranked as a kafir, but the
Promised Messiah speaks of him in terms of great respect in his
book Siraj Munir, as "a man of truth", as "one
who receives light from God", as "one helped by the Holy
Spirit" (page e, supplement) and he addresses him as
"one matchless in truth and purity" (page g).
Grave
consequences of Qadiani beliefs.
But the gravest of all the consequences of the teaching of M. Mahmud
is that in recognising the truth of these doctrines, the Promised
Messiah is to be accepted as the teacher of a new religion altogether,
not of Islam as it was taught by the Holy Prophet Muhammad. The
basis of the religion taught by the Holy Prophet Muhammad is the
simple formula of faith: la ilaha illa-Allah-u-Muhammad-ur-rasul
ullah, i.e., there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Apostle
of Allah. When a non-Muslim accepts Islam, he has to confess his
faith in the above formula. This formula is, therefore, the basis
of the religion of Islam, the foundation on which the superstructure
of Islam is erected, and for the last thirteen hundred years it
has served that purpose. But according to M. Mahmud no one can now
enter Islam who simply professes his faith in that formula; a new
prophet has arisen and faith in him only can make a man enter into
the circle of Islam. Even those old Muslims who professed the formula
of faith have been turned, bag and baggage, out of the circle of
Islam. Therefore, according to M. Mahmud, the very basis of the
faith of Islam which he preaches has been changed. And if the foundation
is gone, the superstructure cannot remain. Therefore the Islam he
preaches is altogether a different faith from the Islam which has
been preached for the last thirteen hundred years. To give an illustration,
we are told by M. Mahmud that just as after the appearance of the
Holy Prophet Muhammad faith in Jesus Christ and the earlier apostles
did not avail, so now after the appearance of a prophet, Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad, faith in Muhammad and the earlier prophets does not avail.
Is it not clear from this that just as Islam supplanted Christianity,
the new Islam of M. Mahmud supplants the old Islam of the Holy Prophet
Muhammad, though it might contain the old law? Could heresy go beyond
that?
It is time our brethren should ponder on these matters, and rally
round the true doctrines of the Promised Messiah before the false
doctrines gain a prevalence, as the false doctrines attributed to
the first Messiah gained ground and a great part of the world was
involved in an error which is almost the gravest of religious errors.
In the same manner, these novel doctrines of M. Mahmud will be the
cause of the gravest dissension in Islam if they are not checked
in time. I hope the good sense of the community will come to the
rescue of the movement.
|