New Tadhkirah vs. the old–they play games with books

In the old version of Tadhkirah (2004 edition) there was an ilham on page 346:

God almighty has conveyed it to me that every person to whom my call is conveyed and who does not accept me is not a Muslim and is accountable to God for his defult (Letter addressed to Dr. Abdul Hakeem)(April 1906).

In the new version of the Tadhkirah this revelation does not exist!!! It seems that Masroor is at again, he has purposely re-published a new version of this book so that some controversial revelations might be suppressed.

On a side note, MGA had denied ever making this statement.

In Haqiqatul Wahy(1907) p. 178 he writes:

Dr. Abdul Hakim in his pamphlet MASIH AL-DAJJAL and other writings accuses me of having written that anyone who does not believe in me, even if he has not heard my name or is living in a country beyond the reach of my call, is an unbeliever and shall go to hell. This is a patent fabrication by the Doctor. I have never said so in any book or poster of mine. It is binding on him to produce such writings of mine in which I have said so!

MGA must have forgot what he wrote in that letter to Dr. Hakeem Khan, a year after writing the letter he totally denied it.

The first edition (of Tadhkirah) was compiled by a committee, headed by Mirza Bashir Ahmad, appointed by Khalifatul Masih II and was published in 1935 (see the preface of the current edition).

After the death of MGA his followers must have accidentally uncovered the truth. And now Masroor is trying to suppress this information.

Takfīr – Declaring others Kāfir

Bismillah,

This is one of the most touchy topics between Muslims and Ahmadis, inspiring the most enmity and ill-feelings between the two religions. But, I think that this important topic that should be discussed in a civil, respectful yet firm manor.

First, a definition. Roughly speaking, Takfīr (تكفير) means to declare someone not a Muslim. This dangerous task is only done to save the Muslims from falling into deviant or otherwise corrupted interpretations of Islam which would render them non-Muslims.

I do not call individual Ahmadis kāfir. I never have and, in sha Allah, I never will. The reason I do not is because I personally know Ahmadis who are only Ahmadi by-name, but in reality they are Muslims. They only bear the title “Ahmadi” because they were born into the faith. I do not claim to know what is in the hearts of Ahmadis. Instead, I declare the religion itself to be Kufr. Meaning, the religion Ahmadiyya is not Islam. I judge the religion, not the individual adherent of the religion. This is why we call Ahmadis from Ahmadiyya and to Islam.

Lets compare this to the writings of Mirza Bashir-ud-Deen Mahmood Ahmad, the second “khalifah” of Ahmadiyya. In his book The Truth about the Split, he wrote about the issue of Takfīr. The following are three quotes, starting from his highly questionable quote moving to his most extreme declaration.

On page 74 of the book, he wrote:

Now, as we hold that the revelation which came to the Promised Messiah are such that their acceptance is obligatory on mankind in general, to us, the man who rejects the Promised Messiah is a kafir agreeably to the teachings of the Holy Quran, although he may well be a believer in all the other truths of religion because the presence even of one of the necessary conditions of Kufr is sufficient to make a man kafir.

In this quote, Mahmood Ahmad declares Muslims who do not believe Mirza Ghulam is the Maseeh as kaafirs. Now consider the following quote. On page 162, he wrote:

Then in my own words. I summarised the purport of the quotations as follows: “Thus, according to these quotations, not only are those deemed to be kuffar, who openly style the Promised Messiah as kafir, and those who although they do not style him thus, decline still to accept his claim, but even those who, in their hearts, believe the Promised Messiahas to be true, and do not even deny him with their tongues, but hesitate to enter into his Bai‘at, have here been adjudged to be kuffar.

In this quote, Mahmood Ahmad re-declares Muslims to be kufār, but then takes the additional step to even declare those Ahmadis who have not formally given him the Bay’ah (pledge) are not Muslims. This quote is more aggressive. Lets now look at the most extreme quote. On page 70, he wrote:

These changes, according to Maulawi Muhammad Ali, relate to three matters; … (3) the belief that all those so-called Muslims who have not entered into his Bai‘at formally, wherever they may be, are kuffar and outside the pale of Islam, even though they may not have heard the name of the Promised Messiah.

In this most extreme statement, Mahmood Ahmad declares 1.2 billion Muslims to be kufār, even if they have not heard the name Mirza Ghulam. Ironically, most Ahmadis become upset that the religion itself has been declared a separate religion, distinct and unique from Islam.

(There are other statements of this nature by Mirza Ghulam himself, but I’ll save those for another post)

To my Ahmadi readers, do not accept this aggressive declaration of Kufr from those whom you invest your faith in. Instead, leave this false prophet and his misguidance and embrace the traditional path of Islam. Islam is in your blood, take back what Mirza Ghulam stole from you. I would be honored to call you my brother- not in Ahmadiyya- but in Islam.

Some Reflections on the Ahmadiyya / Qadiani Movement

Excerpts from the book: Qadianism: A Critical Study, by Syed Abdul Hasan Ali Nadvi © 1967

One of the illusions about Qadianism is that its emergence merely signifies the addition of one more sect to the large number of already existing sectarian and juristic schools of Islam, and that the followers of Qadianism are, at the most, a new sect. Thus, Qadianism is not a unique phenomenon in the history of Muslim sects and schools.

A careful study of Qadianism is bound to shatter this illusion and to force upon every fair-minded student the conclusion that Qadianism is a religion by itself, and the Qadianis a separate community (Ummah), parallel to Islam and the Ummah of Islam.

Among the different anti-Islam movements which have arisen in our history, Qadianism is unique. For, if other movements had been directed against Islam as a whole, Qadianism is a conspiracy which is specifically directed against the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be on him), and challenges the finality of Islam and the unity of Muslims. By repudiating the finality of prophethood, Qadianism obliterated the very borderlines which distinguished this Ummah from all other.

Moreover, it is also to be noted that the Mirza raised the standard of his prophethood and declared all those who did not accept his claim as Kafirs in a Muslim world which was already torn by dissension. By so doing, however, the Mirza raised an iron wall between himself and the Muslims. On the one side of this wall there are a few thousand followers of the Mirza, and on the other side is the rest of the Muslim world which stretches from Morocco to China and has great personalities, virtuous movements of reform, and valuable institutions. They stand isolated from and opposed to the whole of this world. Thus he unnecessarily added to the difficulties of Muslims, further aggravated their disunity and added a new complication to the problems facing them.

The Mirza has made no worthwhile contribution to the intellectual and religious heritage of Muslims which would call for his recognition and because of which he might deserve the gratitude of the present generation of Muslims. Nor did he initiate a broad-based movement for the revival of Islam which could profit the Muslims as a whole, nor help Muslims to solve any of the major problems facing them, nor did his movement contain any message for the contemporary civilization which is in the grips of major crisis and is interlocked in a life and death struggle. Nor can he even be credited with any significant achievement vis-a-vis the expansion of Islam either in India or Europe. His message remained addressed to the Muslims and of necessity could only lead to mental confusion and unnecessary religious squabbles within the Muslim community. If the Mirza can be considered successful, it is only in so far as he bequeathed to his family the legacy of spiritual leadership and worldly prosperity, the legacy of a kind of theocracy in which respect he is comparable to the Agha Khan and his ancestors.