Did Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad (RA) call all non-Ahmadi Muslims Kafir?

Introduction

Anti-Ahmadis allege that the 2nd Khalifa of Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat, Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad, called all non-Ahmadi Muslims Kafir. They use this allegation to prove that since Ahmadis call others Kafir, non-Ahmadis can also declare Ahmadis as kafir. This argument is really immature for a number of reasons because non-Ahmadi ulema were the first to declare Promised Messiah (AS) as Kafir, long before Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmood was even born.¹Haqiqatul-Wahi, pg. 142

Anyways, for this article, we will only refute the allegation and explain the absurdities in their argument at some other time.

Below is the excerpt that the non-Ahmadis use to make this allegation:

Alleged Innovations
These changes, according to Maulawi Muhammad Ali, relate to three matters; (1) that I propagated the belief that Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was actually a Nabi; (2) the belief that he was ‘the Ahmad’ spoken of in the prophecy of Jesus as referred to in the Holy
Quran in Al-Saff 61:7; and (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 as. That these beliefs have my full concurrence, I readily admit.

[Truth about the Split, pg. 55-56]

Refutation

Khalifatul Masih II has himself explained what he meant by “Kuffar” and “outside the pale of Islam”. He was asked this question at the Court of Inquiry of 1954:

سوال:۔ کیا آپ اب بھی یہ عقیدہ رکھتے ہیں جو آپ نے کتاب ’’آئینہ صداقت‘‘ کے پہلے باب میں صفحہ ۳۵پر ظاہر کیا تھا۔ یعنی یہ کہ تمام وہ مسلمان جنہوں نے مرزا غلام احمد صاحب کی بیعت نہیں کی خواہ انہوں نے مرزا صاحب کانام بھی نہ سُنا ہو وہ کافر ہیں اور دائرہ اسلام سے خارج؟

جواب:۔ یہ بات خود اس بیان سے ظاہر ہے کہ میں ان لوگوں کو جو میرے ذہن میں ہیں مسلمان سمجھتاہوں۔ پس جب میں ’’کافر‘‘ کا لفظ استعمال کرتا ہوں تو میرے ذہن میں دوسری قسم کے کافر ہوتے ہیں جن کی میں پہلے ہی وضاحت کر چکا ہوں یعنی وہ جو ملت سے خارج نہیں۔ جب میں کہتا ہوں کہ وہ دائرۂ اسلام سے خارج ہیں تو میرے ذہن میں وہ نظریہ ہوتا ہے جس کا اظہار کتاب مفردات راغب کے صفحہ ۲۴۰پرکیا گیا ہے۔ جہاں اسلام کی دو قسمیں بیان کی گئی ہیں۔ ایک دُوْنَ الْاِیمان اور دوسرے فَوقَ الْاِیمان۔ دُوْنَ الْاِیمانمیں وہ مسلمان شامل ہیں‘جن کے اسلام کا درجہ ایمان سے کم ہے۔ فَوقَ الْاِیمان میں ایسے مسلمانوں کاذکر ہے جو ایمان میں اس درجہ ممتاز ہیں کہ وہ معمولی ایمان سے بلند تر ہوتے ہیں۔اس لئے جب میں نے یہ کہا تھا کہ بعض لوگ دائرۂ اسلام سے خارج ہیں تو میرے ذہن میں وہ مسلمان تھے جو دُوْنَ الْاِیمان کی تعریف کے ماتحت آتے ہیں۔ مشکٰوۃ میں بھی ایک روایت ہے کہ رسول اﷲ ﷺ نے فرمایا ہے کہ جو شخص کسی ظالم کی مدد کرتااور اس کی حمایت کرتا ہے وہ اسلام سے خارج ہے‘‘۔۔

Question: Do you still hold the belief that… all those Muslims who have not pledged allegiance to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib—even if they have not heard the name of Mirza sahib—that they are Kafir and outside the pale of Islam?

Answer: The quotation itself is proof that I call those who I am considering Muslims. Hence, when I use the term ‘Kafir’, I am considering them as the second type of ‘Kafir’ regarding which I have already elaborated, that is, those who are not outside the Millat. When I say that they are ‘outside the pale of Islam’, I am thinking from the perspective that has also been taken in the book Mufridaat-e-Raghib, page 240, where two kinds of Islam are mentioned. One is Doonal Iman (without true faith) and the other is Fauqal Iman (with true faith). Doonal Iman includes those Muslims whose level of Islam is less than (true) faith. Fauqal Iman refers to those Muslims who are at a distinguished level of faith such that they are higher than the ordinary level of faith. That is why when I said that some people are outside the pale of Islam, I was thinking of them as compared to those Muslims who are under the definition of Fauqal Iman. Mishkat also has a narration that the Holy Prophet^(sa) said that the person who assists an unjust person and favors him leaves Islam”

[Tehqiqati Adalat mein Jama’at Ahmadiyya ka bayan]
[Anwarul ‘Ulum, vol. 24, pg. 367-368]

After reading the above passage, some Anti-Ahmadis allege that Khalifatul Masih II changed his view in fear of the trials and the government. They claim that he lied in front of the public to evade any repercussions, God forbid.

To answer that allegation, we will now quote another excerpt from 1935 where he says exactly the same thing. This is 2 decades before the above reference:

Moreover, there is a great deal of difference betweeen our definition of Kufr and theirs. They understand by Kufr to mean the denial of Islam, which is the meaning we do not ascribe to this term when using it about the non-Ahmadis. Our view is that if a person conforms to the tenets and teachings of Islam to a given extent, he is entitled to be called a Muslim.

But when he falls below even that point then although he may be called a Muslim, he cannot be regarded a perfect Muslim. We never allege on the basis of this definition that every Ka/fr is doomed to hell-fire for ever. We do not call even the Jews and the Christians to be Kafirs of that description.

[Political Solidarity of Islam, pg. 9]