As an ex-Ahmadi I was always naïve to the organization that I paid 6.25% of my earnings to.  I never once questioned the dynamic of the organization in terms of loyalty to european colonialism or the lack of drive to emancipate the oppressed.  The exodus which led me out of Ahmadiyyat was based on the belief system as well as the character of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian.  Not once did I realize that loyalty to those who crave natural resources was in fact a prerequisite of membership for this business/religion.  After much research, I realized that Ahmadiyyat modeled it’s own economic aspirations in parallel to British Colonialism.  In this quest, MGAQ distorted Quranic verses to fit his business endeavor and disguised it as the revival of the deen through colonial supported prophethood.  Here is what MGAQ wrote on the subject in question:

“The Holy Qur’an commands, ‘Obey Allah and obey His Prophet and obey those in authority among you.’ Believers are to obey those in authority, besides God and His Prophet. To say that ‘those in authority’ does not include a non-Muslim Government would be a manifest error. For, a government-or authority-whose ordinances are in accordance with the Shariah (that is, they are not in conflict with it) is ‘authority from among you.’ Those who are not against us are amongst us. The Qur’an, therefore, is unequivocal on the point. Obedience to governmental authority is one of its imperatives.” (Works and Speeches, Vol. (i), p. 261)

Just recently, an individual by the name of Naseem Mahdi, who is an Ahmadi, made some statements on FOX news to the effect that Muslims needed to stand up and denounce terrorism and in turn support the country in which they lived.  In the same breath he announced that this was a directive of the Quran and the Sunnah.  He was asking all Muslims who live in the USA to support the US foreign policy without question or concern, he wanted Ahmadis to know that he considered it an Islamic directive to support the USA in their foreign policy.  All this stems from the yearnings of MGAQ over 100 years ago.  MGAQ wanted to support the British in any shape or form, this was not a queer perspective that Naseem was presenting, in fact it was the rhetoric that the Islamic world had condemned over 100 years ago. 

MGAQ argued from Chapter 4 verse 60 (in the Ahmadi numbering system).  MGAQ contended that this verse had global appeal inasmuch as it explains that a good Muslim will obey any ruler who is above them in any circumstance and in any country, more specifically British India.  This policy was irregardless if the ruler was just or not, MGAQ presented it as a standing policy of support.  MGAQ didnt care that european colonialism was killing the innocent and stealing gold and diamonds.   This was not part of his formula of faith. 

The Ahmadis have purposely not used the biggest piece of the puzzle in terms of understanding Chapter 4:60.  There is a hadith in the traditions of Imam Bukhari that explains the context of this verse. 

Here it is:

Bukhari

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 108:

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

The Verse: “Obey Allah and Obey the Apostle and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority.” (4.59) was revealed in connection with ‘Abdullah bin Hudhafa bin Qais bin ‘Adi’ when the Prophet appointed him as the commander of a Sariyya (army detachment).

This hadith explains that this verse is conditional inasmuch as it means that if a Muslim is a soldier he should obey the orders of his respective captain or seargent or whoever is in charge over him.  It must be remembered that 99.9% of young Muslim men were in the military in those days, military service was mandatory in the classical period of Islam as well as almost every culture in the earth.  The Ahmadis have distorted this verse (as well as many others) in an attempt to be loyal to the Europeans and receive a kick-back.  It bothers me so much that any “so-called” Muslim would be willing to distort the word of Allah to fit his or her economic needs. 

I then found a paper written by Mirza Bashir Ahmad which was written in the early 1960’s.  In this paper he argued that Ahmadis can kill Ahmadis for the sake of their respective country.  He elaborated on his father’s fascination with connecting their family business/religion with the country that they were in.  Mirza Bashir Ahmad and his brothers considered it essential to the life of Ahmadiyyat that all members of this cult should support the country in which they live.  As Ahmadis spread to different parts of the globe it became essential for the growth and life of Ahmadiyyat to support any and all countries that it was doing business in. 

Here is the quote:

“One imaginary situation is often posed. Two countries, both with Ahmadi populations, go to war, Ahmadis in the two countries profess loyalty to their respective Governments. What are Ahmadis going to do in such a contingency? Will they still side with their respective Governments and engage in mutual killing? The question is not a new one. Neither for us, nor for the rest of the world. Our answer has always been this: Yes, even in such a contingency, Ahmadis will remain loyal to their respective Governments. This belief of ours is not of our making. It is a belief taught by God and explained by His Prophet. It is a belief we cannot alter or dilute. If loyalty to their respective Governments results in the killing of Ahmadis by Ahmadis, well that is there and, there is nothing more to be said or done. It is but a consequence, an obligation entailed by our religious belief. Principles have priority over persons. Persons may be sacrificed for the sake of principles, not principles for the sake of persons. Such mutual killing will be forgiven by the Wise and Merciful God of the Qur’an. It will be the result of His own teaching, of conditions, over which we have no control.”  (The Question of Divided Loyalty Some Parallels from History by Mirza Bashir Ahmad) http://www.alislam.org/jihad/loyality.html

Firstly, the Mirza brothers encouraged Ahmadis to kill one another.  That is just an unbelievable factoid that rips at the fabric of brotherhood in terms of the teachings of Islam.  Here is a hypothetical question: If Mirza Mahmud Ahmad was enlisted in the Indian army and Mirza Bashir Ahmad (his brother) was enlisted in the Pak army. If they met on the battlefield would they try to kill each other for the sake of their country?  I seriously doubt it.  These rules don’t apply to the “royal family”, only the subjects.  It is sickening to read this type of foreign policy.  It is even sickening to see how the Mirza brothers don’t care if Ahmadis begin to start killing Ahmadis.  All they care is that their business investment in all countries continues to thrive. 

After researching the many theories that Ahmadis present as they argue for nationalism, I decided to research this idea myself.  My research results showed that generally Islam is one nation and one culture, a Muslim should never attack another Muslim under normal circumstances.  A Muslim fighting another Muslim should never be encouraged.  This type of lifestyle is frowned upon by the theoretical position of the Quran and Hadith. 

When the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah came to pass.  Allah informed Muhammad (saw) and the other Muslims that it was Allah who had in fact stopped the Muslims from going to war with the Quraysh.  The reason that Allah had stopped the Muslims from engaging in battle with the Quraysh was because Allah did not want Muslims to kill Muslims.  Here are the words of Allah, from alislam.org:

 [48:26] It is they who disbelieved and hindered you from the Sacred Mosque and the offering which was prevented from reaching its place of sacrifice. And had it not been for believing men and believing women whom you knew not and whom you might have trampled down so that harm might have come to you on their account unknowingly, He would have permitted you to fight, but He did not do so that He might admit into His mercy whom He will. If they had been separated from the disbelievers, We would have surely punished those of them who disbelieved with a grievous punishment.

The words of Allah clearly shows that Allah is concerned with Muslims killing Muslims, and Allah even caused the Muslims to turn away from Mecca, just because Allah feared that some innocent Muslims who were living in Mecca might be killed. 

Please be advised that Allah never said that the Muslims of Mecca must support the Quraysh in their battle against Islam.  Allah never authorized Muslims to fight Muslims for the sake of nationalism.  Mirza Bashir Ahmad studied the Quran his entire life, but it seems that he totally missed this point.  I am at a loss for words in terms of how it is possible for someone to read the word of Allah and yet encourage Muslims to kill Muslims. 

The Ahmadis are very keen to point towards Jihad and announce that Jihad is conditional, as if this is some type of new discovery.  In fact, almost every injunction in the Quran has conditions that are attached to it.  A very brief conditional injunction is the eating of swine.  Muslims cannot eat swine, unless there is nothing else to eat.  Similarily, a Muslim must Fast during the month of Ramadhan, unless they have some illnesess that prevent them from doing so, like diabetes. 

The verse that the Ahmadis reference here is conditional.  There are other Quranic verses that must be taken into consideration when understanding this particular verse (4:60).  Here they are:

3:74 “And obey none but him who follows your religion;’ — Say, ‘Surely, the true guidance, the guidance of Allah, is that one may be given the like of that which has been given to you’ — ‘or they would dispute with you before your Lord.’ Say, ‘All bounty is in the hand of Allah. He gives it to whomsoever He pleases. And Allah is Bountiful, All-Knowing.”

3:101 “O ye who believe! if you obey any party of those who have been given the Book, they will turn you again into disbelievers after you have believed.”

3:150 “O ye who believe! if you obey those who have disbelieved, they will cause you to turn back on your heels, and you will become losers.”

6:117  “And if thou obey the majority of those on earth, they will lead thee astray from Allah’s way. They follow nothing but mere conjecture, and they do nothing but lie.”

In conclusion, it is obvious that the Ahmadis have taken 4:60 totally out of context.  If a person studies the entire body of the Quran he will quickly learn that a Muslim should never kill another Muslim.  The verses that I presented in conjunction with 4:60 as well as the authentic hadith lead me to understand that 4:60 is highly conditional.  The first condition is that this is a military order and it was used to remind the soliders that they MUST obey those in-charge over them, we all know how Muhammad (Saw) had lost some teeth towards the end of the Battle of Uhud and the reason was that some soldiers failed to obey the orders of those above them, this verse in Surah Nisa was revealed just after this battle and is a reflection of the military society that Islam was born into.  This is main context of this verse. 

Secondarily, a Muslim must live in an Islamic nation that is just and is Islamic in every way shape or form and has a positive aqeedah.   Allah would never authorize any Muslim to fight with those who plunder and persecute the weak.  Allah would never authorize any Muslim to support a regime that has historically killed innocent men and women for the sake of gold and trade.  Allah would never allow any Muslim to work together with those had a hand in raping innocent women and killing their babies. 

I end this paper with a Hadith that explains Muslim vs. Muslim combat.

Sahih Bukhari

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 354:

Narrated ‘Ubaidullah bin ‘Adi bin Al-Khiyar:

That Al-Miqdad bin ‘Amr Al-Kindi, who was an ally of Bani Zuhra and one of those who fought the battle of Badr together with Allah’s Apostle told him that he said to Allah’s Apostle, “Suppose I met one of the infidels and we fought, and he struck one of my hands with his sword and cut it off and then took refuge in a tree and said, “I surrender to Allah (i.e. I have become a Muslim),’ could I kill him, O Allah’s Apostle, after he had said this?” Allah’s Apostle said, “You should not kill him.” Al-Miqdad said, “O Allah’s Apostle! But he had cut off one of my two hands, and then he had uttered those words?” Allah’s Apostle replied, “You should not kill him, for if you kill him, he would be in your position where you had been before killing him, and you would be in his position where he had been before uttering those words.”