The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and MattersSee Title Page and List of Contents

See: Project Rebuttal: What the West needs to know about Islam

Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam

Read: Background to the Project

List of all Issues | Summary 1 | Summary 2 | Summary 3

December 26th, 2010

Are Qadianis non-Muslims?

Post submitted by Rizwan Jamil.

I want to discuss with you on how Qadianis are not kafirs. Can you create a new post with naming “Ain’t Qadianis Kafirs” or anything of the like, in which i may discuss it with you?


10 Responses to “Are Qadianis non-Muslims?”

  1. Whether Qadianis are kafir or they are not kafir is a matter between Allah and the Qadianis. In 1913, when a Maulana of the Sunni Muslims asked Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din if he considered him a Muslim (i.e. if Maulana Nur-ud-Din considered that Sunni Maulana to be a Muslim), Maulana Nur-ud-Din published the following reply:

    “If a man considers himself to be a Muslim, then please tell me what right I have to say to him: You are not a Muslim? Am I ‘Knower of what is in the hearts’? No, certainly not. Do I control entry to paradise and hell? Certainly not. I have in mind the words [of Hadith]: ‘Did you cut open his heart?’”

    Mr Rizwan Jamil, since you have been discussing what kinds of laws an Islamic state can enact, I assume what you mean is whether an Islamic state can make a law in which Qadianis are declared as non-Muslim.

    The issue of ‘Who is a Muslim’ in Islamic law (as applied in this world) can easily be determined from the Holy Quran, Hadith, Fiqh, and the writings of many ancient and modern Ulama. For details please see this link.

    First you argued that an Islamic state must have a law prohibiting blasphemy. Then you widened this to say that an Islamic state must ban other religions from preaching. I presume now you are saying that an Islamic state is duty bound to declare Qadianis as non-Muslim. I am wondering whether your argument will now proceed as follows.

    Since you are asking us “aren’t Qadianis kafir?”, if we say “no”, your argument will be that Lahore Ahmadiyya members are kafir because they don’t consider Qadianis as kafir. Then you will argue that Lahore Ahmadiyya members cannot preach “their religion” in an Islamic state because they are non-Muslims, so their literature must be banned. From that you may well proceed to find some “blasphemy” in LAM literature and argue that Lahore Ahmadi writers including Zahid Aziz should be prosecuted for blasphemy in an Islamic state. Is that your goal?

  2. December 26th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
    From Rizwan Jamil:

    Dear Dr. Zahid!
    I think it would have been better if I had mentioned my viewpoint regarding Lahorei Ahmadis in my post; which is that I consider them Muslims. And I have a reason for that; a criterion which I think is a correct one as it is based upon Quran and Sunnah. And as the Qadianis do not fulfill that, they, according to me should be considered Non-Muslims; which is what I actually want to discuss with you.
    The link you have sent in your post seems to be a good one. I will go through it and compare it with what I currently hold. Then I will get back to you InshaAllah.
    Regarding banning of Lahori Ahmadi literature; I am totally against it. This is mainly due to the fact that I do not consider them Non Muslims. And partially for the reason that I have to go all the way from Rawalpindi to Lahore to get those books from AAIIL. (The custodians of Maktabah and of the library there now know me quite well). Some very important books are not available even there. They are out of print, which is very sad, and that I think is due to the same reason that they are banned. This includes Maulana Muhammad Ali’s Fadhl-ul-Bari and Dr. Abdul Haq Vidyarthi’s “Muhammad in World Scriptures” as well. I think by banning the literature of Maulana Muhammad Ali, Dr. Abdul Haq Vidyarthi, Khawaja Kamaluddin and others scholars of the like, we are preventing our access to some very useful and precious fountains of knowledge.
    See you after a while.

  3. The books you have mentioned are available online. If the pdf files are too large, you can download them once to a local copy.


    Muhammad in World Scriptures, various editions

    “Dr. Abdul Haq Vidyarthi” : He did not have the title “Dr”. This is misunderstanding of those publishers who have pirated this book.

    It is interesting that pirated editions of our books are sometimes openly available in book stores in Pakistan!

  4. December 26th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
    From Rizwan Jamil:

    Thanks for the links. I have already downloaded most of the books from AAIIL.ORG but I purchase those which I want to read but which are also thick and cant be read on computer.
    But besides being out of print, I still managed to get the photocopied version of all three volumes of Fazl-ul-Bari, by the favor and cooperation of the old Qazi Sahib of AAIIL library. But I am still waiting for a hard copy book of “Muhammad in World Scriptures”.
    The availability of your books in pirated form also shows that your books are not banned for their material but for the fact that they bear the name of “Ahmadiyyah” jamat.

  5. December 26th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
    From Rizwan Jamil:

    Coming to the topic… I have read through your link about “Who is a Muslim”. It was a good one and really informative.
    We know that the expressions of faith is of two types; Iman-e-Majmal and Iman-e-Mufassal. The former is simply the Kalima while the latter includes different fundamentals of faith viz. the belief in Allah, in His Messengers, in His Books, in His Angels and in the Hereafter. I also agree that one becomes a Muslim when he expresses his faith in Iman-e-Majmal, but what I also believe is that during this expression of his faith it is assumed for him that he does not also deny any of the fundamentals of Iman-e-Mufassal. So he is called a Muslim by the mere expression of Iman-e-Majmal while the explicit expression of Iman-e-Mufassal is not required for him to become a Muslim (on the assumption that he also does not deny any of the fundamentals contained in it).
    So after becoming a Muslim i.e. expressing his faith in Iman-e-Majmal, when he denies any of the fundamentals of Iman-e-Mufassal, he is called apostate (murtadd) i.e. the one who turns away from Islam after accepting it.

    The belief in prophets or the belief in the concept of prophethood is one of the fundamentals of Islam and includes the belief in the finality of Prophet Muhammad s.a.w as well. The concept of prophethood itself holds the idea that as the religion of Allah i.e. Islam is now complete, Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. is thus the last of the prophets, raised for the unification of the whole of mankind. The Qadianis belief in the continuation of prophethood after Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. is thus a clear violation of this fundamental of faith i.e. the belief in prophethood. This way Qadianis are called apostates, and for that very fact, kafirs.
    What is your opinion on that?
    I also know that Lahori Ahmadis criticize the Sunni’s belief of the “finality of prophethood in the sense that no new prophet can come after Prophet Muhammad s.a.w”. But I would like you to ignore this debate, of the coming of old or new prophet, for this topic that we are discussing right now regarding Qadianis.
    Thank You!

  6. December 26th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
    From Rizwan Jamil:

    And by the way, this is also why I believe Lahori Ahmadis to be Muslims as they do not violate any of the fundamentals of Islam.

  7. I posted a comment sometime ago on this blog from the archived lahore ahmadiyya discussion forum regarding this issue Rizwan has brought up.

    So, if I may, I’d like to restate it here:

    I had once posed the following question (08/23/01)

    “I make a public declaration in this house of God, the mosque, that I believe in the finality of prophethood of the Last of the Prophets(may peace and the blessings of God be upon him), and that I consider the person who denies the finality of prophethood to be a faithless man and one outside the pale of Islam.” (Manifesto, copied in Din al-Haq, p.29)

    Since the Ahmadis of the Qadian Jamaat believe that the Promised Messiah laid claim to prophethood, even if subordinate to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw), would that then make them Kafir according to the Promised Messiah’s own words?

    If this is the position that the Promised Messiah took, do the Lahori Ahmadi’s then today regard the Ahmadi’s of the Qadian Jamaat to be Kafir?

    Brother Zahid Aziz gave the following elucidating reply:

    Not this question, but a similar one regarding those Muslims who believe in the coming again of Jesus, was asked during the course that I gave recently at Columbus after our convention (as the title of my course was “Who is a Muslim according to Islamic Shariah?”).

    The answer is that whether it is those Sunnis who believe that Jesus will come again after the Holy Prophet Muhammad, or the AMI (Qadiani) members, what they say is that they do not deny the finality of prophethood. The former give an expalnation of how Jesus can come without infringing the finality of prophethood, and the latter also explain how HMGA could be a prophet without infringing the finality of prophethood.

    We may disagree with their explanation, but in determining whether someone is a Muslim, what matters is what they themselves say in explicit terms as to what they believe (however illogical it might be), and not what someone else says is the implication of their belief (however right that may be).

    As neither Sunnis nor AMI members say, in explicit words, that they deny the finality of prophethood, in fact they say they believe in it, therefore they don’t come under this stricture by Hazrat Mirza sahib quoted by you.

    I gave another example when answering this question. Many Muslims indulge in some practices (e.g. praying at tombs of saints to those saints) that amount to a denial of “There is no God but Allah”. But they still proclaim with their tongues “La ilaha ill-Allah”. Therefore they cannot be called as unbelievers and outside the fold of Islam. If a person who otherwise calls himself a Muslim but holds a belief or does an act whose consequence is that he denies a teaching of Islam, that is a matter for Allah to judge, and for us to try to correct him. But we are not entitled to expel him from the fold of Islam as he does not directly deny a basic of Islam.

  8. Iman-e-Mufassal, and matters further derived from it, are known as the branches (furu`) of Islam, as contrasted with the root (asal) of Islam. The denial of a branch does not throw a person out of the fold of Islam. Only the denial of the root, and by the person himself, makes him a non-Muslim in Islamic law.

    This is why Islamic Fiqh contains principles such as: (1) Nothing expels a man from Islam except the denial of that by which he entered it, and (2) even if there are 99 grounds for declaring a person as kafir but just one ground which establishes him as a Muslim, then the Mufti must rule according to that one ground. How wise were our ancient authorities!

    Branches are almost endless, and this is why if the denial of a branch throws someone out of Islam then almost all Muslims could be declared kafir and non-Muslim.

    I will illustrate this by showing that Mr Rizwan himself, by his statements here, could be declared kafir by those so minded!

    1. In listing Iman-e-Mufassal he has not mentioned belief in Taqdir, which is included by most Muslims. A few years ago in Egypt a university professor was declared non-Muslim and his marriage as invalid by a court for denying belief in taqdir. He had written a book in which he said that we Muslims attribute all accidents to taqdir (such as, he said, accidents during Hajj and loss of life) and we don’t investigate the causes, and this is wrong. The Ulama went to court, without his knowledge, had him declared non-Muslim and his marriage as invalid. He and his wife learnt of this one morning when they opened their newspaper, and found that their marriage was now invalid!

    2. Mr Rizwan is kind enough to regard us as Muslims. But according to the constitution, law, and various official forms (ID card, passport) in Pakistan, anyone who calls himself a Muslim has to declare that he regards all Ahmadis, whether Qadiani or Lahori, as non-Muslim. So by regarding us as Muslims, he will be declared by our opponent Ulama to be himself non-Muslim just like us.

    These are illustrations of complete absurdities that arise as a result of declaring Muslims as non-Muslim on the grounds of denying some “branch” of Islam.

  9. December 27th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
    From Rizwan Jamil:

    Dear Dr. Zahid!
    Before replying to your post I want to ask you that is Kalima the only “asal” in Islam while everything else is included in “furu”?

  10. I request you to read Section 1.3 which shows that Muslim scholars, ancient and modern, agree that confession by the tongue of the Kalima Shahada gives a person the identity of a Muslim under Islamic law. If he commits a sin relating in a matter of faith, the punishment lies in the hands of Allah. If he commits a sin affecting the rights of other people he can be punished under the law of Islam. Nonetheless he is a Muslim.