Claiming that the Paighami Ahmadis (Lahori Ahmadis) had been declared as disbelievers is one of the consistent accusations that have been levelled against Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad (M.A) R.A. This allegation is generally grounded in a quote of Kalmatul Fasl in which Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad R.A. stated that those who accept Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad A.S. merely as a reformer and who deny his person as the Promised Messiah cannot be considered Muslims.

یہاں مسلمانوں میں ایک ایسا گروہ بھی پیدا ہو گیا ہے جو کہتے ہیں کہ ہم مرزا صاحب کو بڑا بزرگ مانتے ہیں اور ور یہ کہ مرزا صاحب نے اسلام کی بڑی خدمت کی ہے بلکہ بعض تو یہاں تک کہنے لگ گئے ہیں کہ ہم مرزا صاحب کو اس صدی کا مجدد ماننے کے لیے تیار ہیں مگر مسیح موعود کا دعویٰ نہیں مانتے ایسے لوگ یا تو لا مذہب ہیں اور یا منافق کیونکہ یہ کس طرح ہو سکتا ہے کہ مرزا صاحب کو ایک طرف تو مجدد مان لیا جائے اور دوسری طرف انکو مسیح موعود کے دعویٰ میں مفتری علی اللہ سمجھا جاوے ظلمت اور نور جمع نہیں ہوسکتے اگر مرزا سچا ہے اور مسلمان ہے تو وہ اپنے تمام دعاوی میں صادق ہے ورنہ وہ نعوذباللہ مفتری علی اللہ اور دائرہ اسلام سے خارج ہے۔ دو ہی راہیں ہیں، یا تو مرزا صاحب کو مسیح موعود مانکر انکی بیعت میں داخل ہونا چاہئیے اور یا پھر ان کو مفتری علی اللہ قرار دیکر کافر سمجھا جاوے- تیسری راہ تو کوئی ہے نہیں۔ یہی وجہ ہے کہ حضرت مسیح موعود نے حقیقت الوحی میں لکھا ہے کہ جو مجھے نہیں مانتا وہ مجھے مفتری علی اللہ قرار دیکر کافر ٹھہرتا ہے۔
Among the Muslims here, there has arisen a group who say that, indeed, we regard Mirza Sahib as a great saintly figure, and that Mirza Sahib rendered great service to Islam. Rather, some have even gone so far as to say that we are ready to acknowledge Mirza Sahib as the Mujaddid (Reformer) of this century, yet we do not accept him as the Promised Messiah. Such people are either irreligious or hypocritical, for how can it be that on the one hand Mirza Sahib is accepted as a Mujaddid, and on the other hand, in his claim to be the Promised Messiah, he is considered an inventor of lies against Allah? Darkness and light cannot be combined. If Mirza Sahib is true and a Muslim, then he is truthful in all his claims; otherwise, God forbid, he is a fabricator against Allah and outside the pale of Islam. There are only two paths: either one must accept Mirza Sahib as the Promised Messiah and enter into his allegiance, or else declare him a fabricator against Allah and a disbeliever. There is no third way. This is precisely why the Promised Messiah wrote in Haqiqatul-Wahi that whoever does not accept me, in reality, declares me to be a fabricator against Allah.

[Kalmatul Fasl page 174]

Allegation

Critics argue that: In Kalmatul Fasl Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad R.A. mentioned the Paighamis. For this reason, he viewed Paighamis as disbelievers because they did not accept Hazrat Mirza Mirza Ghulam Ahmad A.S was the Promised Messiah.

The Reality

The accusation is baseless. Text quoted from Kalamtul Fasl did not even mention the Paighamis. What he wrote was aimed at a still other category of people, those who were respectful of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad A.S, who recognized his reformative work, and who even believed that he was a Mujaddid.

Who Were These People?

They were people who publicly acknowledged Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad A.S as a reformer of Islam but did not accept him as the Promised Messiah. Such scholars include:

Maulana Shibli Nomani
Allama Muhammad Iqbal

Clarifying the Principle

It was a straightforward principle as demonstrated by Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad R.A., Islam must believe all the claims of a divinely appointed one. Semi acceptance – the recognition of the service of a prophet or of an inquisitor, and the rejection of his own assertion, are irreconcilable with the real needs of the faith.

Conclusion

The imputation that Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad R.A. gave takfir against the Paighami Ahmadis is altogether untrue.

Opponents are trying to divide Ahmadis by misrepresenting his words. The reality, however, is evident Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad R.A. never did takfir of the Paighamis.

Prophet Muhammad (SAW) prophesied that in the latter days, Muslims would split off into 73 sects. Out of all these, one sect will be heaven-bound while the rest (72) will be Hell-bound. This Heaven-bound sect will be a Jama’ah which has one leader (Imam). Today that sect is the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’ah.

Hadith #1

You would tread the same path as was trodden by those before you inch by inch and step by step so much so that if they had entered into the hole of the lizard, you would follow them in this also. We said: Allah’s Messenger, do you mean Jews and Christians (by your words)” those before you”? He said: Who else (than those two religious groups)?

[Sahih Muslim 2669a]

Hadith #2

Narrated Abu Hurayrah:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: The Jews were split up into seventy-one or seventy-two sects; and the Christians were split up into seventy one or seventy-two sects; and my community will be split up into seventy-three sects.

[Sunan Abi Dawud 4596]

Hadith #3

Abu `Amir al-Hawdhani said:

Mu`awiyah b. Abi Sufiyan stood among us and said: Beware! The Apostle of Allah (ﷺ) stood among us and said: Beware! The people of the Book before were split up into seventy two sects, and this community will be split into seventy three: seventy two of them will go to Hell and one of them will go to Paradise, and it is the united community.

[Sunan Abi Dawud 4597]

Hadith #4

Narrated Abu Hurairah:

that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “The Jews split into seventy-one sects, or seventy-two sects, and the Christians similarly, and my Ummah will split into seventy-three sects.”

[Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2640]

Hadith #5

It was narrated from ‘Awf bin Malik that the Messenger of Allah(ﷺ) said:

“The Jews split into seventy-one sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy in Hell. The Christians split into seventy-two sects, seventy-one of which will be in Hell and one in Paradise. I swear by the One Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad, my nation will split into seventy-three sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy-two in Hell.” It was said: “O Messenger of Allah, who are they?” He said: “The united community.”

[Sunan Ibn Majah 3992]

Hadith #6

It was narrated from Anas bin Malik that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:

‘The Children of Israel split into seventy-one sects, and my nation will split into seventy-two, all of which will be in Hell apart from one, which is the united community.”

[Sunan Ibn Majah 3993]

Hadith #7

Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr:

that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “What befell the children of Isra’il will befall my Ummah, step by step, such that if there was one who had intercourse with his mother in the open, then there would be someone from my Ummah who would do that. Indeed the children of Isra’il split into seventy-two sects, and my Ummah will split into seventy-three sects. All of them are in the Fire Except one sect.” He said: “And which is it O Messenger of Allah?” He said: “What I am upon and my Companions.”

[Jami` Tirmidhi 2641]
[Sahih by Shuaib Al Arna’ut]
[Hasan by Albani]

When Will 73 Sects Form?

As per ahadith, this great division will happen at the time of the Messiah & Dajjal:

“The one-eyed Dajjal, the misguided messiah, will emerge from the direction of the east in a time of division and conflict among the people.”

_{[Musnad Sahih]}

Stick To Jama’ah & Leave The Sects

The Prophet ﷺ stated that during the time of Ad-Dajjal, Muslims ought to pledge allegiance and faithfully stick to the one Jama’ah and leave all other hell-bound sects:

Narrated Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman:

The people used to ask Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) about the good but I used to ask him about the evil lest I should be overtaken by them. So I said, “O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)! We were living in ignorance and in an (extremely) worst atmosphere, then Allah brought to us this good (i.e., Islam); will there be any evil after this good?” He said, “Yes.” I said, ‘Will there be any good after that evil?” He replied, “Yes, but it will be tainted (not pure.)” I asked, “What will be its taint?” He replied, “(There will be) some people who will guide others not according to my tradition? You will approve of some of their deeds and disapprove of some others.” I asked, “Will there be any evil after that good?” He replied, “Yes, (there will be) some people calling at the gates of the (Hell) Fire, and whoever will respond to their call, will be thrown by them into the (Hell) Fire.” I said, “O Allah s Apostle! Will you describe them to us?” He said, “They will be from our own people and will speak our language.” I said, “What do you order me to do if such a state should take place in my life?” He said, “Stick to the group of Muslims and their Imam (ruler).” I said, “If there is neither a group of Muslims nor an Imam (ruler)?” He said, “Then turn away from all those sects even if you were to bite (eat) the roots of a tree till death overtakes you while you are in that state.”

_{[Sahih al-Bukhari 7084]} 

Definition of Jama’ah According to Scholars

This can be read in detail here: https://whiteminaret.org/khilafat/after-messiah/#Definition_of_Jamaah_According_to_Scholars

ONLY JAMA’AH IS JAMA’AH AL-AHMADIYYA

By definition of the word, the only “Jama’ah” on earth is the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community i.e. the only group with an Imam/ Khalifa. 

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’ah that fits this definition of Jama’ah, as it is the only Jama’ah today united under one single Imam. Thus, Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’ah is in essence the true Ahlus Sunnah Wa’l Jama’ah.

Hazrat Khalīfatul Masīh I, Maulānā Ḥakīm Maulwi Nūrudīn (RA ) states:

“In this age, there is no Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah on the face of the earth except [for] the Aḥmadīyyah. The Jama’ah will only be the one with an Imām. If we were to line up our opponent Muslims in one row, would they be able to have one Imām? Absolutely Not! [However], yes, it is the unique characteristic of the Aḥmadīyyah Jama’ah that it has an Imām. Thus, at this time, except for Ahmadis no one [else] is from Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah.“

_{[Al Hakam, Feb 21, 1910, pg. 3]}

Conclusion

• Ahadith of Prophet (SAW) make it clear that the Muslim Ummah will be divided into 73 sects.
• The division will happen during the time of Ad-Dajjal.
• The heaven-bound sect will be united under a single leader/Imam.
• The Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’ah represents the heaven-bound sect of the latter days that Muhammad (SAW) prophesied.

Related Articles

An Anti-Ahmadi by the name of ReasonOnFaith alleged that Ahmadiyya Jama’at fabricated Malfuzat to add the Mubahala challenge to Pigott, 60 years after the death of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani (AS).

Let’s enjoy the absolute ignorance of this ‘intellectual’.

Malfoozat: The compilation made in 1960 of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s statements, written down over half a century after Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had already died. Generally speaking, entries are not traced back to any contemporaneous written records.

…

Perhaps the reason for the missing mubahila reference is that much of the mubahila apologetic comes to us from passages in Malfoozat—a compilation of books not published until the 1960s—and even then, only in Urdu.⁹ As a result, many apologists in the Jama’at for whom English is their main language, wouldn’t have even known about this innovative line of apologetic.

Of course, if a mubahila was proposed to Pigott back in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s own lifetime, you’d think we’d at least have one article defending the prophecy on those grounds in say, 1908, 1909 or 1910.¹⁰

Ahmadi Muslim readers are encouraged to look for such an article from the period. Try the Review of Religions archives from both the Qadian and Lahore branches of Ahmadiyya Islam. Did you find a candidate article? If so, does it provide authenticated evidence from before Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s own death, that a mubahila was issued? If not, why did we have to wait until the 1960s for this evidence to surface? Food for thought.

[Link]

There are countless sensational claims like this, alleging that the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community fabricates new references to counter the attacks of its opponents. For the sake of brevity and to spare the little dignity left for the anti-Ahmadis, we will leave it at that.

Refutation

Malfuzat – A fabrication of the 1960s?

Malfuzat is a collection of all the oral sayings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) that were published in Al-Hakam and Al-Badr newspaper, during the lifetime of the Promised Messiah (AS). This is literally mentioned in the preface of every volume of Malfuzat.

In the preparation of this most recent typeset edition, the original sources from Al-Hakam and Al-Badr Qadian were studied and every effort was made to include any spoken words of the Promised Messiah, on whom be peace

[Link]

Every single reference in Malfuzat has the reference of the corresponding Al-Hakam and Al-Badr newspaper’s date and year. Here is 1 simple example from English Malfuzat.

Similarly, Urdu Malfuzat has the exact same references with each narration from Promised Messiah (AS). It is absurd to claim that Ahmadis invented the references and attributed them to Ahmad (AS) to answer the critics.

Pigott Mubahala in Al-Hakam?

After knowing the absolute ignorance of the Anti-Ahmadi, we will now show proof of the reference from Al-Hakam where the Promised messiah (AS) sends a challenge of Mubahala to Pigott.

We should definitely send a letter to Piggott. If he competes, it will have a massive influence and people will also pay attention.

Mufti Sahib said that a letter has already been written.

The Promised Messiah (as) said: In comparison to US [Dowie], we are much more connected with Britain. If he accepts this competition and this is properly documented, we hope that Allah will show a sign.”

The original scan for this particular passage in Malfuzat, vol. 2, p. 439 is found in Al-Badr, Nov 7, 1902, p. 14.

Conclusion

Almost every non-Ahmadi who attacks the Jama’at or the Promised Messiah (AS) displays the same level of ignorance. They do not engage in objective research or genuine learning; rather, their sole motive is to satisfy their ego and push a personal agenda.

Unfortunately, despite repeatedly reminding ReasonOnFaith, the article on his website remains unchanged even after three years. This only reinforces that their attacks on the community are not based on truth or sincerity. May Allah guide every enemy of Jama’at-e-Ahmadiyya. Ameen.

Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (RH) (d. 241H) is one of the greatest scholars of Islamic history. He is the founder of the Hanbali school of thought and is widely known as 1 of the 4 most prominent Imams of Sunni Islam. More importantly though, Imam Ahmad (RH) is a shining example of steadfastness in faith during times of severe trials. He lived through the infamous Mihnat Khalaq al-Qur’an: a period when the ruling authorities (Abbasid Caliphate) tried to force the belief that the Qur’an was created, a clear deviation from the truth.

During this time, the majority of people, including judges, muftis, and even the caliph and his followers, sided with falsehood under pressure. Imam Ahmad (RH) stood alone, refusing to compromise on the truth, and his small group of followers remained steadfast with him.

This was the reality: Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (RH) himself was the Jama’ah, together with his small band of loyal followers, while the so-called ‘majority’ had fallen into misguidance.

The Reality of Modern Sunni Islam

Sunni muslims today claim to be part of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah, often boasting of being a large, unified community. They proudly say that because they are the majority, they are upon the Haqq. However, these Non-Ahmadis choose to live in blissful ignorance as countless sects exist within Sunni Islam – all of whom constantly accuse one another of deviation and openly declare takfir.

Where is the unity in this? There is no single Imam guiding them with authority, no central leadership, and no consensus even on core issues of faith. The Qur’an itself makes clear that the majority is not a measure of truth [Quran 6:117], and Prophet (ﷺ) prophesied that in the latter days the majority would be misguided, not guided. So how can mere numbers be used as proof of being the Jama’ah? How can this be called Jama’ah?

Scholars Affirm: Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal Alone Was the Jama’ah

Both Imam Ad-Dhahabi (RH) and Ibn al-Qayyim (RH) explicitly affirm in the following statements that Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (RH) and his small band of followers were the true Jama’ah. These statements by two of the most renowned scholars in Islamic history make it clear: the Jama’ah is not determined by the majority. Being part of the true Jama’ah does not mean being part of the largest group; it means following the truth, even if only a few remain steadfast.

Imam Ad-Dhahabi (RH) (d. 748H)

“All the people deviated during the time (Mihnat Khalaq al Qur’ãn) of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal except for a small group, they were the Jammah, at that time the Judges, Muftis, the Caliph and his followers were all deviant and Imãm Ahmad alone was the Jamã’ah.”

_{[إعلام الموقعين عن رب العالمين, p. 389]}

Ibn Al-Qayyim (RH) (d. 751H)

“All the people went astray during the time of Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, except for a few individuals; thus, they were the Jamāʿah (the main body of the Muslims), while the judges, the Muftīs, the Khalīfah, and his followers were the ones who deviated and Imām Aḥmad alone was the Jamāʿah.”

_{‏[ 4/399 معلومات للذين يكتبون نيابة عن رب العالمين]}

True Jama’ah as Explained by the Sahaba

Abdullah Ibn Mas’ūd رضي الله عنهما (d. 32 AH), one of the closest and most knowledgeable companions of the Holy Prophet ﷺ, repeatedly emphasized in various accounts that true Jama’ah is not determined by the majority:

Abdullah Ibn Mas’ūd رضي الله عنهما said:

“The Jamā’ah is (whatever agrees with) the Book and the Sunnah, even if you are alone.”

In another narration:

“The Jamā’ah is the people of the truth, even if you are alone.”

_{[al-Faqīh wa’l-Mutafaqqih, Dār Ibn al-Jawzī edition, p. 303]}

ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd said,

“The Jamāʿah is whoever obeys Allāh, even if they are a single person.”

_{[Aitaqad Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah, p. 181]}

Ibn al-Qayyim reported: Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him, said,

“The united community is that which adheres to the truth, even if you are alone.”

Nuaym ibn Hammad said,

“If the community becomes corrupted, you must adhere to its practice before it became corrupt. Even if you are alone, you by yourself would be the united community.”

_{[3/308 إعلام الموقعين عن رب العالمين]}

‘Amr ibn Maymun reported: Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him, said,

“Verily, the majority of groups have left the united community. The united community is only the one that conforms to the obedience of Allah, even if you are by yourself.”

_{[Sharḥ Uṣūl I’tiqād Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamā’ah 160]}

True Jama’ah in the Words of the Scholars

Ibn Al-Qayyim (RH) (d. 751H)

Ibn al-Qayyim (RH) is again on record saying that you can be upon the truth even if the entire ummah is against you or opposes you, therefore, you should not be fooled by the majority:

“Do not be deceived by the large number of this kind of people, for thousands upon thousands of them are not equal to one person of knowledge. And a single scholar is equal to the whole earth full of them. Know that consensus, proof, and the true majority is the scholar who possesses the truth—even if he is alone, even if the people of the whole world oppose him. […] Then I accompanied after him the most knowledgeable of people, ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd, and I heard him say: “Hold fast to the community (al-jamāʿah), for indeed the Hand of Allah is with the community.” […] He said: “O ʿAmr ibn Maymūn, I used to think you were among the most knowledgeable people of this village. Do you know what the community (al-jamāʿah) is?” I said: “No.” He said: “The majority of people have in fact separated from the community. The community is whatever agrees with the truth—even if you are alone.” In another wording: He struck my thigh and said: “Woe to you! The majority of people have separated from the community, and the community is that which accords with obedience to Allah, the Mighty and Majestic.” And Nuʿaym ibn Ḥammād said: “If the community becomes corrupt, then hold to what the community was upon before they became corrupt—even if you are alone, for you are then the community.” Both al-Bayhaqī and others narrated this.“

_{‏[ p.396-398, معلومات للذين يكتبون نيابة عن رب العالمين]}

Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab (RH) (d. 1206H)

Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab (RH) also stated will return to being “strange,” upheld only by a few. He particularly warned against relying on the large number of people or their consensus as a proof of truth, noting that such reasoning was used by the disbelievers of the past to reject the messengers:

[…] the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and his Companions described it before it occurred, warned people against it, and informed that none would adhere to the religion except one after another, and that Islam would become strange as it began. You have known that when ‘Amr ibn ‘Abasah asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in the early days of Islam: “Who is with you in this?” He said: “A free man and a slave,” meaning Abu Bakr and Bilal. So if Islam returns as it began, how ignorant is one who argues based on the multitude of people and their consensus, and similar arguments, when faced with doubts that are great in the eyes of their adherents but insignificant before Allah and those of knowledge among His creation, as Allah says: “Rather, they say like what the former peoples said” [Al-Mu’minun: 81]. I know of no argument you use except that Allah has mentioned in His Book that the disbelievers used it to deny the messengers, such as the consensus of people, obedience to the elite, and other such things.

_{[Al-Durar Al-Saniyyah, vol 1, pg. 41]}

Sunni Claims of Majority ≠ True Jama’ah

The above statements of scholars and Sahaba completely dismantles the claim made by many Sunnis today that “we are the majority, therefore we are the Jama’ah.” If size and numbers truly defined truth, then the corrupt Khilāfah of Imam Ahmad’s (RH) time, backed by scholars, judges, and the masses of the time, would have been the true Jama’ah. Yet history tells us the exact opposite: a single Imam and a handful of followers held the truth, while the majority was astray. Unfortunately, this is the sad reality – most reject the Imam of the age, only to recognize him when it is too late.

True Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah: The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

The example of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (RH) shows that true Jama’ah can be small, rejected by most, and steadfastly loyal to the truth. This is exactly the reality of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community today, founded by the Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) in 1889.

A single Imam, Mirza Masroor Ahmad (ABA) – 5th successor of Messiah and Mahdi, leads the Jama’ah today. Followers remain loyal to him, despite widespread opposition around the world. Ahmadis around the world adhere to the Qur’an and Sunnah, just as Imam Ahmad (RH) and his small group exemplified centuries ago during the time of a monarchial caliphate.

Hazrat Khalīfatul Masīh I, Maulānā Ḥakīm Maulwi Nūrudīn (RA ) states:

“In this age, there is no Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah on the face of the earth except [for] the Aḥmadīyyah. The Jama’ah will only be the one with an Imām. If we were to line up our opponent Muslims in one row, would they be able to have one Imām? Absolutely Not! [However], yes, it is the unique characteristic of the Aḥmadīyyah Jama’ah that it has an Imām. Thus, at this time, except for Ahmadis no one [else] is from Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah.“

_{[Al Hakam, Feb 21, 1910, pg. 3]}

In a forthcoming article, we will take a deeper look at how renowned scholars have defined Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamā‘ah — and demonstrate, with references from scholars and Jama‘at literature, how Jama‘at Al-Ahmadiyya uniquely fulfills this title.

Conclusion

• Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (RH) and his small group of followers were the real Jama’ah, while the majority were in deviation.
• True Jama’ah is NOT determined by the majority. Sunni belief that majority equals Jama’ah has been refuted by both the Sahaba and Scholars.
• Sahaba and Scholars taught that true Jama’ah is defined by steadfastness to the truth, not numbers.
• The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community exemplifies the real Jama’ah today: faithfulness, loyalty, and guidance from a true Imam are what define Jama’ah, not size, popularity, or majority opinion.

Related Article(s)

There is a famous Anti-Ahmadiyya book circulated on the internet. It is titled: “An Unequivocal Clarification – Exposing the Qadiyani Ahmadiyya Sect“¹. The author was a renowned Sunni scholar and the Imam of the Masjid Haram in Mecca. The book is filled with blatant lies and absolute filth about Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS).

In this article, we will expose many of the lies from this book.

Author’s Introduction

I will post the introduction of the author as written in the book itself.

This should be enough to show that no matter the ‘high’ caliber of these so-called ‘scholars’, they are no different than the ignorant laymen on social media.

He is the scholar and Imām, Shaykh Abū ‘Abdillāh Muḥammad bin ‘Abdillāh as-Subayyil b.
He was born in 1345 AH (1924 CE), and he passed away in 1434 AH (2012 CE).

» HIS POSITIONS:
• Imām and Khaṭīb at Masjid al-Ḥarām in Makkah
• Member of the Permanent Committee of Scholars
• Member of the Islamic Fiqh Academy
• President of General Affairs in Masjid al-Ḥarām and Masjid an-Nabawī in Madīnah.

» HIS DA’WAH EFFORTS:
Shaykh Muḥammad as-Subayyil authored numerous works and had many great efforts in da’wah, visiting more than 50 countries to teach and spread Islām, such that many people accepted Islām by way of Allāh and then though his da’wah and gentleness.

» HIS SCHOLARS:
Shaykh Muḥammad as-Subayyil studied with a number of scholars, among them:
• Shaykh ‘Abdul-‘Azīz as-Subayyil (his brother), the judge of Bekeriyah
• Shaykh ‘Abdullāh as-Subayyil (his father)
• Shaykh Muḥammad bin Muqbil al-Muqbil, the judge of Bekeriyah
• Shaykh ‘Abdullāh bin Ḥumayd

» HIS STUDENTS:
Shaykh Muḥammad as-Subayyil had many students, among them:
• Shaykh Ṣāliḥ al-Luhaydān
• Shaykh Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān
• Shaykh Muqbil bin Hādī al-Wādi’ī

Blatant Lies

In this section, we will only list the very blatant lies mentioned in the book

Death on toilet

The Indian newspaper also published a piece on the death of Ghulām Aḥmad. They stated that, when Ghulām Aḥmad al-Qādiyānī—the false prophet—was stricken with cholera, there was filth exiting from his mouth prior to his death. And he died while sitting on the toilet, defecating in the bathroom.

[Pg 11232321]

This is a blatant lie without any citation. No newspaper has this and there is no proof of this anywhere.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) died exactly like the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), surrounded by his family, in remembrance of Allah and after prophesying his own death. Full article can be read here.

Death after hitting on the bed

The next lie he makes up is that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) dies because he hit his head on the bed post. So what is true? He died because he hit on the bed post or that he died on the toilet? This ignorant Mawlavi can’t even make up his mind.

When he stopped vomiting, he wanted to lie down, but he fell down on the bed and hit his head against the wooden bedpost and died.
Reference: Mirzā Bashīr ad-Dīn. Biography of the Mahdī, 1/11, narration #12.

[Pg 11232321]

He quotes a reference but no such reference exists in the book, Seeratul Mahdi that says Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani (AS) died after hitting his head on the bed post. Full article can be read here again which contains the narrations from the same book.

Deny Virgin Birth of Isa (AS)

» THEY DENY THAT JESUS  WAS BORN WITHOUT A FATHER
They deny that Jesus (‘Īsā) was born from a mother without a father. They say that he has a father; thus, they accuse Allāh of lying in His statement:

Verily, the likeness of Jesus with Allāh is the likeness of Ādam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: “Be!” and he was.
[Sūrah Āli ‘Imrān 3:59]

[Pg 11232321]

This is again a blatant lie and no reference from any book of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) is quoted. Ahmad (AS) has numerous times mentioned that Isa (AS) was born without a father. Full article with references can be read here.

Deny Miracles of Prophets

» THEY REJECT THE MIRACLES OF THE PROPHETS
They reject the miracles of the prophets, even though these miracles are narrated through reports with numerous chains of narration; and they are stated in several places in the Qur’ān, such as in the stories of Ṣāliḥ, Moses (Mūsā), Jesus, and Muḥammad.

[Pg 14]

Another lie and again without any reference or citation.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) never denied any miracle of any prophets. On the contrary, he showed numerous miracles throughout his life, like healing the sick, death prophecy of many individuals, miracles through acceptance of dua and many more. These can be read under the section of our website called, Sign of Messiah.

Ahmad (AS) even challenged his enemies that they can throw him into a live burning hell fire and God would save him like he saved Ibrahim (AS).

Abrogated Jihad

» THEY CLAIM THAT JIHĀD HAS BEEN ABROGATED
They claim that jihād has been abrogated, even though the Qur’ān, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the scholars [all agree] that it remains.

[Pg 14]

No citation or reference again!

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) never claimed that Jihad is abrogated. He even rejected the theory of abrogation (Naskh Mansukh) that Sunnis believe in. They believe that there commandments and verses in Quran that are abrogated (are useless) and can never be used for legal rulings or otherwise. Full article here.

Get Money from British and British Spies

» THEY HAVE ANIMOSITY & ENMITY TOWARDS THE MUSLIMS
Their enmity towards the Muslims is immense while they have allegiance towards the non-Muslims, especially Britain, from whom they receive large amounts of money to disseminate their false beliefs. For this reason, you will rarely find a country that England has colonized except that the Ahmadiyya have centers and preachers within it. They even established a center in Israel, where they are given complete support and assistance such that they publish a monthly magazine there called Al-Bushra. All of this—and other matters, as well, which will be mentioned during this analysis—proves that they have evil intentions against the Muslims, and their destructive principles clearly oppose the religion of Islām and contradict the foundations and principles of this religion.

[Pg 14]

Again no citation or reference. What is wrong with this ‘scholar’? Why can’t he ever provide any proof of his claim?

This is absolutely absurd. Ahmadi Muslims are probably the only group of Muslims who never receives monetary favors from any country or any other group. Unlike the Sunni Muslims who get government funding from the British government and other governments around the world. This has been the case since the British were in India. Just one example is the famous Salafi Sunni Green Lane Masjid in UK receiving multi million dollar donation from the government.²Birminghammail.co.uk]³

Lastly, Arab Sunnis converted to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community settled in Palestine, long before the Sunnis lost it to the Zionists. Just like many Sunni Muslims, they have been living in the Palestine since decades. Claiming that Ahmadis get any special favors from Israel is completely absurd, that too without citing any source.

No Miracles from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS)?

His followers answered his call and believed in him without any evidence or clear proof from him; rather, they followed
him simply because he appealed to them. They complied with his wishes without scrutinizing his statements or examining his claim. If they’d had any knowledge about the rules of the religion, the verses from the Qur’ān, and the miracles of the prophets and messengers, they would have never accepted his fallacious claim; they would have never accepted his fabrication. Surely, it is a must that prophets bring miracles and evidence to substantiate their prophethood, miracles that will necessitate the people to believe in them [because they can do] things man is not able to do.

If only these Qādiyānis would have requested their alleged prophet to perform any such miracle so they would have proof of his truthfulness.

[Pg 23]

I am tired of repeating but again, he cites no proof or a reference.

I have already mentioned the numerous miracles of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS). These can be read under the section of our website called, Sign of Messiah.

The rest is childish tantrums saying people believe in him without evidence and so on. Unlike the ‘Giant scholar’ of Sunnis, we will stay academic.

Qadian greater than Mecca and Madina?

» GHULĀM AḤMAD CLAIMED THAT HIS HOMELAND OF QADIAN IS GREATER THAN MAKKAH & MADĪNAH
He said: “Verily, the Noble Qur’ān mentions the names of three towns with reverence and veneration: Makkah, Madīnah,
and Qadian.”11

He said: “Verily, Qadian is the Mother of Towns; whoever cuts it off will be cut and shredded. Thus, fear lest you be cut and shredded. The fruits of Makkah and Madīnah have ceased, but the fruits of Qadian continue to be fresh.”12

—-

11 Notes on Dispelling Illusions, p. 34
12 The Reality of Dreams, p. 46

[Pg 34]

Finally, he gave some references to his lies.

The first reference does not say Qadian is greater than Mecca and Medina. Rather, it is placed third, after Mecca and Medina. Moreover, the statement is from Kashf (vision) of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS). Read more here.

The second reference is not from any book of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS). There is no book named The Reality of Dreams by Ahmad (AS).

There are many more lies and misquotes in the book but it will be added to this article over a period of time.

References

To justify the persecution of Ahmadis, Anti-Ahmadis use an excuse that the Ahmadi Muslims consider all non-Ahmadis Kafir (non-Muslim). They use this allegation to further incite hatred and violence against the community whose members are already killed, imprisoned, their mosques destroyed and graves desecrated.

In this article, we will expose the hypocrisy of the Anti-Ahmadis and show the authentic belief of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community regarding the status of non-Ahmadi Muslims.

Implication of the Takfir of Sunnis and Shias

When the ‘Sunnis’ and Shias declare someone a Kafir, this is what it implies:

1. They have become apostates. Thus, their blood is Halal and must be killed.
2. They will burn in Hell for eternity,

The takfir of the Sunnis and Shias is a disgusting murder tool through which they have spilled the blood of hundreds and thousands. This takfir causes murder of innocents even today and the prime example for this is the murder of 100s of innocent Ahmadis in the recent decades, all across the world, especially Pakistan.

This severity of the Takfir of ‘Sunnis’ was mentioned by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) more than a century ago.

About 200 maulawis put their seals of affirmation on it and I was declared a kafir [disbeliever]. These edicts were so harsh that some of the clerics even declared that my followers and I are worse than the Jews and Christians in our kufr. In general, edicts were issued stating, ‘These people should not be buried in Muslim graveyards, nor greeted with the greeting of peace, nor should a handshake be extended to them.’ Also, they declared that since we are kafirs, it is not permissible to offer prayers behind us. Rather, we should not be allowed to enter the mosques because we are disbelievers; mosques become defiled by us and if we do enter, the mosque ought to be thoroughly washed. Moreover, it is permissible to steal our goods, and we deserve execution because we deny the coming of a murderous Mahdi and repudiate jihad [with the sword].

[Haqiqatul Wahi, pg. 142]

Ahmadi Muslims reject such filthy beliefs. These are not proven from either the Holy Quran or the words and actions of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (SAW). The 2nd Khalifa of Ahmadiyya Islam, Mirza Basheerudin Mahmud Ahmad (RA) clarifies that we do not hold such unislamic beliefs:

Moreover, there is a great deal of difference between 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 Kafir 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]

Who initiated Takfir first?

It was the Sunnis and Shias who first declared Takfir of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani (AS) and his followers. In 1891, when the Promised Messiah (AS) claimed to be the Messiah and proved that Isa (AS) has died, Muhammad Hussain Batalvi travelled throughout the Indian subcontinent to gather signatures of 100s of scholars on the Fatwa of the Takfir of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS).¹

Over the next decades, these scholars also continued to publish numerous such articles and pamphlets that incited the mobs for the murder of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) and his followers. This continues till this day and these references are posted elsewhere for the brevity of this article. [Add ref]

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) challenged them to prove he takfired non-Ahmadis first. He says:

Can any maulawi, or any other opponent, or any custodian of a shrine prove that we were the first to issue edicts of apostasy against them? Let them produce any document, announcement, or treatise published by me prior to their own edicts of apostasy against us, in which I had pronounced my Muslim antagonists to be kafirs; otherwise, they should consider how dishonest it is that they are the ones who declared us to be kafirs, yet accuse us of denouncing all Muslims as kafirs.

[Haqiqatul Wahi, pg. 143]

Takfir of a Muslim renders one a Kafir

So it is a hypocrisy of the Anti-Ahmadis to complain that we Takfir them when they were the ones who initiated it. For argument’s sake, even if Ahmadis did Takfir Sunnis and Shias, it would still be okay as the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) said that if a Muslim Takfirs another Muslim, he himself becomes a Kafir:

إِذَا قَالَ الرَّجُلُ لأَخِيهِ يَا كَافِرُ فَقَدْ بَاءَ بِهِ أَحَدُهُمَا

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “If a man says to his brother, O Kafir (disbeliever)!’ Then surely one of them is such (i.e., a Kafir). “

[Sahih al-Bukhari 6103]

And lastly—even if Ahmadi Muslims did declare the Sunnis and Shias as Wajib-ul-Qatl (liable to be killed) and eternally hell-bound in the same vicious manner that they do—it’s surprising to see them play the victim. We are only repeating the Fatwa of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW). But we don’t even do such a thing.

Khalifatul Masih II (RA) mentions this as well:

غیر احمدیوں نے جب احمدیوں پر فتویٰ لگایا تو انہوں نے انہیں دائمی جہنمی قرار دیا لیکن احمدیوں نے جب کسی پر فتویٰ لگایا تو ساتھ ہی یہ کہہ دیا کہ اول تو اس فتویٰ کے یہ معنی نہیں کہ اسلام کی جامع و مانع تعریف سے وہ نکل گئے ہیں۔ دوم لفظ گفر کا اگر کسی معنوں میں بھی اُن پر اطلاق ہو تو اس کا یہ مطلب نہیں کہ وہ خدا تعالیٰ کے نزدیک بھی قابل مواخذہ ہیں۔ اللہ تعالیٰ کا مواخذہ محض بد نیتی اور اتمام حجت پر ہوا کرتا ہے۔ اگر اُن کی نیت نیک ہے اور اگر اُن پر اتمام حجت نہیں ہوا تو وہ کسی سزا کے مستحق نہیں۔

When non-Ahmadis issued a fatwa against Ahmadis, they declared them to be eternally destined for hell. But when Ahmadis issued a fatwa against anyone, they simultaneously stated that firstly, this fatwa does not mean that they have been expelled from the comprehensive and exclusive definition of Islam (Millat-e-Islam).

Secondly, if the word kufr applies to them in any sense, it does not mean that they are also accountable before Allah the Almighty. Allah the Almighty’s accountability is solely based on ill-intention and the completion of proof (itmam-e-hujjat). If their intention is good and if the proof has not been completed against them, then they are not deserving of any punishment.

[Anwarul Ulum, vol. 23, pg. 372, Masala Wahi-e-Nabuwat ke Mutaliq Islami Nazariya]

Definition of a Muslim

Before we can define who is a Kafir, and who is not, we need to look at the definition of a Muslim as per the Quran and Hadith and we need to look who has the right to call himself a Muslim? Luckily, our beloved Prophet, Muhammad (SAW) has made it extremely simple for us.

When doing a census of Medina, the Prophet (SAW) did not ask individual Muslims for their Aqeedah (belief) breakdown. All he requested was to ask people if they claim to be Muslim.

The Prophet (ﷺ) said (to us),

“List the names of those people who have announced that they are Muslims.”

So, we listed one thousand and five hundred men.

[Sahih al-Bukhari 3060]

Notice, that he did not ask each person to detail their Aqeedah. He did not ask if that person believes Allah is above the Arsh or He has 2 eyes or rejects a certain belief and so on, something that Muslims do today. Similarly, the Prophet (SAW) defines who is a Muslim in another hadith. He says:

“Whoever prays like us and faces our Qibla and eats our slaughtered animals is a Muslim and is under Allah’s and His Apostle’s protection. So do not betray Allah by betraying those who are in His protection.”

[Sahih al-Bukhari 391]

In summary, anyone who claims to be a Muslim has the full right to call himself a Muslim. Anyone who prays like a Muslim and eats the Zabiha (slaughtered meat) like a Muslim, has the full protection of a Allah and his prophet. This further refutes the unislamic and disguting belief of the ‘Sunnis’ and Shias that calls for the murder of those who are declared Kafir.

The 2nd Khalifa of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Mirza Basheerudin Mahmud Ahmad (RA) says the following after mentioning the above ahadith:

From all these references, it is proven that for inclusion in the Islamic community (Millat-e-Islam), merely reciting the Kalima (declaration of faith) is sufficient. There is no other matter that is necessary for inclusion in the Islamic community.

[Anwarul Ulum, vol. 23, pg. 348, Masala Wahi-e-Nabuwat ke Mutaliq Islami Nazariya]

Status of non Ahmadis in an Ahmadi state

Finally, one may ask that if Ahmadi Muslims did not initiate the Takfir of the non-Ahmadi Muslims and the Ahmadis don’t call for the murder of non-Ahmadis, then what is their status?

The answer is that anyone claims to be a Muslim will be given the rights of a Muslim. That person is far more closer to Ahmadi Muslims than anyone else. They are closer to us than the Jews and Christians. They will be given the same status within an Ahmadi Muslim state as any Ahmadi Muslim. No Jizya will be taken from them nor any other discrimination will be done to them.

This is contrary to how Ahmadi Muslims are treated in the Sunni and Shia countries. For example, in Pakistan, it is illegal for us to even say Islamic terms like Asslam-o-Alaikum, Alhmadulillah etc. Our mosques are destroyed, graves desecrated and Ahmadi Muslims murdered and jailed regularly.

Non-Ahmadi Muslims are not True Muslims

As explained in the previous sections, Ahmadi Muslims believe that anyone who calls themselves Muslim will have the right to do so. No one can take that right from them or force them to do otherwise. But just like all the sects of Muslims, we also believe that no one else is a true Muslim except us.

Honesty requires that we be truthful. It was the prophecy of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) that in the latter days, Muslims will become just like the Jews and divided into numerous sects. Only 1 of them will be right while the rest would be Hell-bound. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is that 1 Heaven-bound sect.

It was narrated from ‘Awf bin Malik that the Messenger of Allah(ﷺ) said:

“The Jews split into seventy-one sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy in Hell. The Christians split into seventy-two sects, seventy-one of which will be in Hell and one in Paradise. I swear by the One Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad, my nation will split into seventy-three sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy-two in Hell.” It was said: “O Messenger of Allah, who are they?” He said: “The united community.”

[Sunan Ibn Majah 3992]

Moreover, we cannot dare say that those Muslims who do all of the following are true Muslims just like us:

• Istagatha (Asking Dua from the dead saints/prophets)²
• Believe that Quran has abrogated (useless) verses³
• Believe that Isa (AS) will murder innocent women/old/men for merely rejecting Islam ⁴
• Believe that Isa (AS) will abrogate many more verses of Quran when he returns⁵
• Believe that Allah has literal 2 eyes, fingers and other body parts⁶
• Reject ahadith completely (Quranists)
• Believe in Imams/Prophets/Saints who have all knowledge of unseen and control every atom of the universe⁷
• Believe that sex/sexual pleasures with pre-pubescents is allowed⁸

There are many, many more unislamic beliefs that are widespread amongst all the Muslims but for the sake of brevity, we only posted a few.

In short, Ahmadi Muslims are the only only Muslims who follow the true Islam that was followed by the Prophet (SAW) and Sahaba (RA). This is because it is only the Ahmadi Muslims that have accepted the Messiah and Mahdi of the age, whose job was to bring back Muslims to the pure Islam, as taught by the beloved Prophet, Muhammad (SAW).

The rest of the Muslims are only Muslims by name and have full rights to identify themselves as Muslim. This is the summary of the “Takfir” done by the Ahmadis.

Rejection of prophet of Allah deems one a Kafir?

Some ask that denial of any prophet of Allah deems one a Kafir. Since Ahmadis believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani (AS) is the Messiah and has the status of a Prophet, then how come his denial does not render the non-Ahmadi Muslims as Kafir?

A simple answer to this is that yes, this is exactly why Ahmadi Muslims consider non-Ahmadis to be Kafir i.e they are not true Muslims (Momin) and only Muslims by name.

But again, our takfir does not imply that we kill them or declare them eternally hell-bound or that we stop them from praying Salat or jail them for merely saying “Asslam-o-Alaikum” or “Alhamdulillah”. Or that we consider them to be outside the nation of Islam (Millat-e-Islam). Khalifatul Masih II (RA) explains the same in the Munir Enquiry Commision in 1954

Question: Do you count Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib among those commissioned ones (divinely appointed figures) whose acceptance is necessary to be called a Muslim?

Answer: I have already answered this question before. A person who does not believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib cannot be declared outside the circle of Islam (Millat-e-Islam).

[Anwarul Ulum, vol. 24, pg. 383, Tehqiqati Adalat mein Jama’at Ahmadiyya ka bayan]

Why Takfir is important?

Another question that’s often asked is: why do even Ahmadis do Takfir in the first place? What’s the benefit of it? It’s understood that the Sunnis are calling for the murder of Ahmadis by declaring them disbelievers, and that they were the first to initiate the Takfir. But still—why can’t Ahmadis be the “bigger person” and just ignore it?

Firstly, Ahmadis only bring up the topic of Takfir when asked—either by curious individuals or hostile attackers. We don’t go around labeling people Kafir the way many non-Ahmadi Muslims do, including Sunnis and Shias. They’ve made it into a national sport. We haven’t.

This can be easily confirmed by reviewing any Sunni and Shia books, websites, articles, social media posts, and videos. Each of them will declare us kafir without question. Then check the literature of the Ahmadis and you will notice that those same Sunnis and Shias have been called Muslims repeatedly.

Secondly, the Takfir of non-Ahmadis has been specifically mentioned in our literature addressed to the Lahori Ahmadis. It was never addressed to non-Ahmadi Muslims. So the term Kafir has been used in a way that both Ahmadi groups understand, i.e, it only means they are not true Muslims (Momin), but they still have the right to identify as Muslim and are part of the Millat-e-Islam.

Thirdly, the answer to the question as to why takfir is important lies in understanding the status of the Messiah. According to Sunni and Shia belief, the Messiah who appears in the latter days will hold the rank of a Prophet (Nabi), and his rejection will lead to eternal Hell. In their own theology, rejecting him is no light matter. They also declare the rejectors of that Messiah and Mahdi to be Kafir, worthy of death and eternally Hell-bound.

Ahmadis simply apply that same principle but not the same implication. The rejection of the Promised Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani (AS), is no trivial act. When a person denies him, they’re not just disagreeing with a scholar or ignoring a random saint—they are rejecting the very Messiah and Mahdi prophesied in the Quran, Ahadith, and supported by hundreds of living signs from Allah. Rejecting him is a major sin, and everyone will be accountable before Allah based on their intellect, sincerity, and effort in seeking the truth.

And because the rank of the Messiah is so high, it becomes necessary to state the consequences of denying him. Silence in the face of that would be dishonesty.

Conclusion

The following is the summary of all the points in the article.

1. The non-Ahmadis first initiated Takfir of the Ahmadis.
2. The non-Ahmadis also have the same Takfir fatawa against each others
   • Barelvi Sunni vs Deobandi Sunni vs Salafi
   • Sunni vs Shia
   • Shia vs Shia
3. When non-Ahmadis Takfir, it means:
   • The accused has left Islam entire
   • The accused cannot legally claim to be Muslim or follow any Islamic commadments
   • The accused is Wajib-ul-Qatal (liable for death) as he is an apostate
   • The accused is eternally Hell-bound
4. When Ahmadis used the hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) to put a Fatwa of Kufr on the non-Ahmadis, even then they were cautious. Non-Ahmadis:
   • Are not outside the Millat-e-Islam (nation of Islam)
   • Are not eternally Hell-Bound
   • Are not Wajib-ul-Qatl (liable for death)
   • Can still identify as Muslim
   • Have all the rights of a Muslim
5. Non-Ahmadis proudly Takfir Ahmadis even today while Ahmadi Muslim literature continues to address all non-Ahmadis as Muslims.

I will end with the following summary by Khalifatul Masih II (RA):

یادر ہے کہ احمدی تمام مسلمان کہلانے والے لوگوں کو اُمتِ محمدیہ میں سمجھتے ہیں اور اگر انہوں نے کسی جگہ پر کافر کا لفظ استعمال بھی کیا ہے تو اس کے صرف یہ معنے ہیں کہ وہ مرزا صاحب کی صداقت کے منکر ہیں یہ معنے نہیں کہ رسولِ کریم صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کی امت میں نہیں یا اصولِ اسلام کو نہیں مانتے۔کافر کے معنے عربی زبان میں منکر کے ہیں۔جب کوئی شخص مرزا صاحب کو نہیں مانتا تو عربی زبان اس کے لئے کافر کا لفظ ہی استعمال کیا جائے گا لیکن اگر کوئی یہ لفظ بولے تو اس کے معنے کھینچ تان کر یہ کر لیں کہ وہ اسے خدا اور رسول کا منکر کہتا ہے یہ سخت ظلم کی بات ہے۔کبھی احمدیوں نے مسلمانوں کو امت محمدیہ سے خارج نہیں سمجھا۔کبھی احمدیوں نے مسلمان کہلانے والوں کو کلمہ کا منکر قرار نہیں دیا، کبھی احمدیوں نے مسلمانوں کو خدا اور قرآن اور محمد رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم اور حشر و نشر اور تقدیر کا منکر قرار نہیں دیا۔جب بھی کہا یہی کہا ہے کہ ان سے غلطی ہوئی ہے کہ انہوں نے ایک بڑی بھاری صداقت کا انکار کیا ہے۔یعنی حضرت مرزا صاحب کو جو خدمت دین اور اشاعت کے لئے آئے تھے نہیں مانا اور اس طرح اسلام کی ترقی میں روک بنے۔

It should be remembered that Ahmadis consider all people who call themselves Muslims to be part of the Ummah of Muhammad. And if they have used the word ‘kafir’ (disbeliever) anywhere, it only means that they are deniers of Mirza Sahib’s truthfulness – it does not mean that they are not part of the noble Prophet’s (peace be upon him) Ummah or that they do not accept the principles of Islam. The meaning of ‘kafir’ in the Arabic language is ‘denier.’ When someone does not accept Mirza Sahib, then in the Arabic language the word ‘kafir’ will be used for them. But if someone utters this word and its meaning is stretched and distorted to suggest that they are calling them deniers of God and the Prophet, this is a matter of grave injustice. Ahmadis have never considered Muslims to be outside the Ummah of Muhammad. Ahmadis have never declared those who call themselves Muslims to be deniers of the Kalima (declaration of faith). Ahmadis have never declared Muslims to be deniers of God, the Quran, Muhammad the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), resurrection, or divine decree. Whenever they have spoken, they have only said that they (non-Ahmadis) have made an error in that they have denied a great truth – namely, they have not accepted Hazrat Mirza Sahib who came for the service and propagation of the religion, and thus have become an obstacle to the progress of Islam.

[Anwarul Ulum, vol. 24, pg. 26, Mawlana Maudidi ke Risala “Qadiani Masala’ ka Jawab]

References

Introduction

In the realm of Islamic theology, few topics have generated as much discussion and controversy as the fate of Isa (Jesus) after his earthly mission. While many Muslims today believe in the physical ascension and future return of Isa, a closer examination of historical scholarship reveals a more complex and nuanced debate. This article aims to challenge the notion of a unanimous consensus (ijma) on Isa being alive in heaven, exploring the diverse views held by classical scholars and the evolution of this belief over time.

The narrative surrounding Isa’s fate has undergone significant changes throughout Islamic history. While some contemporary Muslims assert a unified stance on this issue, historical evidence suggests a rich tapestry of interpretations among early and classical scholars. From Ibn Abbas to Imam Malik, and from Imam Bukhari to Ibn Hazm, respected figures in Islamic scholarship have presented alternative views on Isa’s earthly conclusion.

This article will delve into the suppression of dissenting opinions, the development of a majority view, and the recent revival of the debate sparked by various movements and scholars. By examining primary sources, academic research, and the contributions of both classical and modern thinkers, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of this theological question. In doing so, we hope to encourage a more nuanced understanding of Islamic scholarship and foster open dialogue on this significant aspect of Islamic eschatology.

The concept of Isa’s natural death, though often attributed to the Ahmadiyya movement, has roots in classical Islamic scholarship. Renowned figures such as Ibn Abbas, Imam Malik, Imam Bukhari, and Ibn Hazm held views compatible with this interpretation.

Over time, Sunni Islam developed an pseudo-ijma (consensus) on Jesus’s residence in heaven.

It was the Promised Messiah, founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, who revived this debate in the late 19th century. He provided a vast array of Hadith and Quranic evidence supporting the concept of Isa’s natural death. This effort was continued by his followers, the Ahmadi Muslims, who have worked to recover and highlight the opinions of earlier scholars on this matter.

The Ahmadi perspective on Isa’s death should be distinguished from that of modernist scholars like Syed Ahmad Khan or Ghulam Ahmad Parwez. While modernists often reject core Islamic beliefs such as the virgin birth or the coming of any Messiah, the Ahmadiyya view aligns more closely with classical scholars in affirming these fundamental aspects of Islamic faith while differing on the specific issue of Isa’s fate.

In Sunni Islam, belief in Isa’s return is considered of utmost importance. Disbelief in his return or his mission as a Prophet is often viewed as going against the Islamic articles of faith. The coming of the Masih is seen as marking the beginning of the end times and the final victory of Islam.

Some Sunni ulema from Al-Azhar, like Mahmud Shaltut, briefly entertained the Ahmadi concept of Jesus’ death. However, this caused outrage and pushback. Shaltut’s fatwa, issued in response to an Ahmadi Muslim’s question, was disagreed with by other Al-Azhar teachers. They published counter-fatwas, with Al-Ghumari’s being particularly significant in reaffirming the belief in the physical return of a living Isa as a fundamental principle of Sunni Islam.

Promised Messiah AS: There is No Ijma on Isa (AS) being Alive

اگر یہ سوال ہو کہ اس امر پر اجماع ہوا ہے کہ ائمہ اربعہ کے مذاہب کے خلاف عمل نہ کیا جائے تو ہم اجماع کی حقیقت خوب کھول چکے ہیں … امام احمد بن حنبل جو خدا سے ڈرتے تھے اور اس کی اطاعت کرتے تھے اُن کے اس قول کو یاد کرو کہ جو اجماع کا دعویٰ کرے وہ کا ذب ہے۔ بہت سے اختلافات جزئیہ ائمہ اربعہ میں موجود ہیں اور ائمہ کے اجماع سے خارج ہیں اور اگر تم سمجھتے ہو کہ حیات عیسی” پر سند صحیح سے اور واضح بیان سے اجماع ہو چکا ہے تو یہ تمہارا اور تم جیسے دوسرے لوگوں کا افتراء ہے

‘۔ اتمام الحجة – روحانی خزائن جلد 8 صفحه 280 ترجمه از عربی عبارت )’۔ اتمام الحجة – روحانی خزائن جلد 8 صفحه 280 ترجمه از عربی عبارت )

If the question arises that there is a consensus on not acting against the religions of the four Imams, then we have explained the reality of consensus very well… Remember the saying of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, who feared God and obeyed Him, that whoever claims consensus is a liar. There are many minor differences among the four Imams, and they are outside the consensus of the Imams. And if you think that there is a consensus on the life of Jesus based on authentic narration and clear statement, then this is your fabrication and that of others like you.

Itmam-e-Hujjah Completion of the Proof – Roohani Khazain Volume 8, page 280 , Urdu Translation [Itmam-e-Hujjat p. 17-18]

“It would, therefore, be a daring invention to say that the bodily ascent of Jesus to heaven and his expected descent has been a matter of consensus.”

(Kitab-ul-Bariyyah, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 13, pp. 221 footnote)

We are merely told through coercion and authoritarianism that there is consensus of the entire ummah on this matter. But when we see that there is no agreement between the predecessors and successors on any single matter, why should we accept that there is indeed consensus? Well, if there is consensus on the life of the Messiah, then show one statement in which the predecessors have declared the Messiah’s life as a worldly life and accepted the necessities of worldly life for him while excluding others from it. In fact, the truth is that there seems to be consensus among all predecessors and successors that the Messiah has left this world and joined the people of another world, and his life is in accordance with their life without any addition or subtraction. Although some have ignorantly denied the death of the Messiah, they have nevertheless accepted that he has left this world like those who die and has joined the group of those who have died, becoming entirely like them. Well, any wise person should ask them that if this is not death, then what is it when someone has left the world of this life and reached another world, left the people of this world and become one of the people of the other world. If we don’t call this deceased, then what should we call it?”

Ruhani Khazain volume 3, p. 507-508

Proof that there is No Ijma on Isa AS being Alive

Ibn Hazm RH states:

They [The Ummah] differed regarding Jesus (peace be upon him), whether he will come before the Day of Judgment or not

Maratib al-Ijma p. 173

See our article showing how Tabari showed that the Salaf had 4 different views on the Death and Life of Isa.

No Ijma on Future Events in Hanafi Madhab

AL-BAHARI (d. 1119H) & AL-ANSARI (d. 1325H)

According to the Hanafiyyah there can be no Ijma’ about future events like Signs of the hour and matters of the hereafter because in matters of Ghaib (unseen) there is no role of Ijtihad. This is refutes non Ahmadis who say that there is an Ijma’ that Nuzul (descend) of Isa AS will happen in the literal physical sense.

“As for future matters like the signs of the Hour and affairs of the Hereafter, according to the Hanafis there is no consensus. This means there is no need to use it as proof, not that it is not a proof for them. How could it not be when the evidences are general? Because the unseen has no room for ijtihad (juristic reasoning) and opinion since conjecture is not sufficient for it. There must be a definitive proof indicating it. In that case, there is no need for consensus as proof. The truth is that it is valid to use it as proof for these matters as well, to support the evidences. It is possible they all heard it individually, so they reached consensus on what they heard but did not narrate it due to the existence of this agreement. Therefore, this consensus benefits us, but that definitive proof does not benefit due to the lack of its continuous mass transmission. So the truth is that future matters from reports are like religious rulings in being proven by consensus.” (This) and Allah speaks the truth and guides to the path.”

[Fawātih̩u r-Rah̩mūni, vol 2, pg. 296]

The belief of Jesus being Alive or Death was a Furui (non-fundamental) Issue

Although Promised Messiah AS and Hadhrat Musleh Maud RA said the first topic that to debate with Non-Ahmadi Muslims is on the Death of Isa(AS) however this belief is non a fundamental issue until the rise of the Promised Messiah AS

Promised Messiah AS states in Izala Auham:

اول تو یہ جاننا چاہیے کہ صبح کے نزول کا عقیدہ کوئی ایسا عقیدہ نہیں ہے جو ہماری ایمانیات کی کوئی جز یا ہمارے دین کے رکنوں میں سے کوئی رکن ہو بلکہ صد ہا پیشگوئیوں میں سے یہ ایک پیشگوئی ہے جس کو حقیقت اسلام سے کچھ بھی تعلق نہیں ۔ جس زمانہ تک یہ پیشگوئی بیان نہیں کی گئی تھی اُس زمانہ تک اسلام کچھ ناقص نہیں تھا اور جب بیان کی گئی تو اس سے اسلام کچھ کامل نہیں ہو گیا اور

First, it is important to understand that the belief in the descent of the Messiah is not a belief that is an integral part of our faith (Imaniyyat) or one of the pillars of our religion. Rather, it is one of the many prophecies, and this prophecy has no real connection to the true essence of Islam. Until the time this prophecy was not stated, Islam was not incomplete in any way, and when it was stated, it did not make Islam any more complete

[Ruhani Khazain vol. 3 p. 171]

What Promised Messiah AS means here is that it is not in the 5 pillars of Islam nor the six articles of faith. However he also states that rejection of the Nazul of Masih makes an individual a Mulhid as they are rejecting Mutawatir Ahadith.

Promised Messiah AS states:

میں نہیں چاہتا کہ چند الفاظ طوطے کی طرح بیعت کے وقت رٹ لیے جاویں اس سے کچھ فائدہ نہیں ۔ تزکیہ نفس کا علم حاصل کرو کہ ضرورت اسی کی ہے۔ ہماری یہ غرض ہرگز نہیں کہ مسیح کی وفات ، حیات پر جھگڑے اور مباحثہ کرتے پھرو۔ یہ ایک ادنی سی بات ہے اسی پر بس نہیں ہے۔ یہ تو ایک غلطی تھی جس کی ہم نے اصلاح کر دی لیکن ہمارا کام اور ہماری غرض ابھی اس سے بہت دور ہے اور وہ یہ ہے کہ تم اپنے اندر ایک تبدیلی پیدا کرو اور بالکل ایک نئے انسان بن جاؤ اس لیے ہر ایک کو تم میں سے ضروری ہے کہ وہ اس راز کو سمجھے اور ایسی تبدیلی کرے کہ وہ کہہ سکے کہ میں اور ہوں۔ میں پھر کہتا ہوں کہ یقیناً یقیناً جب تک ایک مدت تک ہماری صحبت میں رہ کر کوئی یہ نہ سمجھے کہ میں اور ہو گیا ہوں اسے فائدہ نہیں پہنچتا۔

I do not want that a few words are merely recited like a parrot at the time of initiation (bai’at). That is of no benefit. Acquire the knowledge of self-purification, as that is the real need. Our purpose is never for you to go around quarrelling and debating about the death or life of the Messiah. That is a minor issue, and it is not everything. That was merely a mistake which we have rectified, but our work and aim is still far beyond that. It is for you to bring about a transformation within yourselves and become entirely new persons. Therefore, it is essential for each one of you to understand this secret and undergo such a transformation that you can say, “I have become someone else.” I repeat, undoubtedly, undoubtedly, unless one stays in our company for some time and understands that “I have become someone else,” he does not derive any benefit.

[Malfuzat V. p. 478 (2022 Urdu Edition), Al-Hakam July 28, 1902 p. 5-16]

Prior to the advent of the Promised Messiah AS the life and Death of the Promised Messiah AS was indeed a furui issue but after his advent it indeed became an usuli Issue as he also states his purpose was to “kill a prophet” which can be seen below.

Proof from ‘Sunnis’ that Death of Jesus was originally Furui and there was No Ijma

Ahmad Raza Khan states:

“Qadiani was a denier of hundreds of essential aspects of religion, and his followers raise the debate about the life and death of our master Jesus, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon our noble Prophet and upon him). This is a secondary (Furui) issue that is itself a matter of disagreement among Muslims, the affirmation or denial of which is not even considered misguidance, let alone disbelief.

(4) At present, the issue of the life and death of Jesus (peace be upon him) has been a matter of disagreement since ancient times, but there is no dispute about his return in the end times and his killing of the accursed Dajjal. This is undoubtedly the unanimous belief of Ahl al-Sunnah. So what benefit did the death of Jesus give to Qadiani, and how could a Mughal child become Jesus, the Messenger of Allah, born without a father, the son of Mary? Qadianis present this disagreement, but do they have any proof that before this Punjabi’s innovation in religion, Muslims believed that Jesus himself would not descend, but someone similar to him would be born, and this was called the descent of Jesus, and he was called the son of Mary? And when this is against the belief of common Muslims, then the verse…”

Fatawa Ridhawiyyah Vol 15. p. 613-615

Ahmadi Muslims Believe in the Nuzul of the Messiah

As for the descent itself, it is true and we do not argue with them about it, nor do we reject it. Rather, we believe in it as they believe, and we are not deniers. We have nothing but submission in this matter.

Whoever denies it has disbelieved in what has come in the traditions and the Book, and they are among the Mulhideen[Atheists]. However, we interpret this descent in a way that is safe from contradictions and free from objections.

It is the manifestational descent, which has been God’s way since the time of the ancients. Our denial is only of the personal descent of Christ from the heavens, for it contradicts God’s ways and the clear signs of the verses.

Indeed, the Quran has made it obligatory for us to believe in the death of Masih and to consider him among the dead.

Therefore, the belief in Masih’s life [on earth] is contrary to the tradition of Allah and the clear verses of the Quran.”

“And his return to the mortal world necessitates denial of the Quran and its clear, decisive verses. None would speak such words except those whose hearts are veiled, who are like the concealed ones and among those who turn away.

The life of Masih and his return to the world necessitates denial of the Quran and its decisive verses. Therefore, only those will speak such words whose hearts are veiled, who are like the concealed ones and among those who turn away.

Should we abandon [the truth] for weak assumptions?”

Ruhani Khazain Volume 11, p. 148-149

Pseudo-Ijma on the Death of Isa

The first thing you should debate with Non Ahmadi Muslims is the Death of Isa (AS)

“Remember that the determination of truth and falsehood between us and our opponents hinges on the life and death of Isa (as). If Isa (as) is truly alive, all our claims are false, and our evidence is futile. However, if he has indeed died according to the Quran, then our opponents are in error. Now, place the Quran between us and contemplate it.”

(Ruhani Khazain Vol 17 Tufa Golarviya P.264

And the matter under discussion will be the death or life of Jesus. Because this humble one’s claim is based on this very foundation. When the foundation breaks, this claim will automatically fall apart. This is the core issue.”

“Sir, you know well that the main issue in this debate is the death or life of Jesus, son of Mary, and this is also established as the core matter in my revelation. Because the revelation states that “the true son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah, has died, and in accordance with the promise, one has come in his likeness.”

This is the primary and fundamental matter that has been established in the revelation – that Jesus, son of Mary, has died. Now, it’s obvious and any intelligent person can understand that if you prove Jesus to be alive, then just as the first part of the revelation will be invalidated, so will the second part. This is because Allah the Almighty has stated that the condition for the validity of my claim is the death of Jesus.

And according to the principle ‘When the condition fails, the conditional fails,’ with the proof of Jesus’s life, my second claim will automatically be nullified.”

[Maktubat-e-Ahmad vol 1. p. 231-232]

“You already know this and in your view, it’s a trivial matter that Jesus has died, and you have achieved victory using this point. Actually, my existence is for two things, First to KILL ONE PROPHET, and second is to kill Shaytan”

Malfuzat 10 p. 51

The very first point that should be remembered is the issue of the death of the Messiah; the importance of the issue of the death of the Messiah. These people sometimes deceive by saying that there is no need for a discussion on the death of the Messiah, whereas this is the very root of the matter. Through this issue, all Christian actions are nullified, the divinity of حضرت مسیح is broken, and the greatness of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) is established in the world. This is why the Holy Quran has placed great emphasis on the issue of the death of the Messiah, unlike the deaths of other prophets. It has mentioned this subject in more than three verses, as it is clearly mentioned in verses like “O Jesus, I will cause you to die” (یا عیسیٰ انی متوفیک) and “When You took me up” (فلما توفیتنی).

These fools say that he did not die but that God raised him to heaven. These are errors that people have created on their own against the Book of Allah to corrupt the religion. God Almighty does not want His attributes to be given to a helpless human. Then, based on what show of arrogance do they claim to be Muslims? Is Islam the name of this, that it is accepted that some of creation belongs to God and some to the son of God? I say truthfully that by creating such beliefs, these people have corrupted Islam. They have insulted the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and opposed God Almighty. Alas! Was it this blessing that Islam came into the world with? Was this the name of the completion of the favor?

Malfuzat Vol 3 p.53-54

Musleh Maud RA states:

“Never leave your spot. Don’t believe that if they don’t believe in this, then they will believe in this way. In this manner they have not lost, you have because you could not prove your point and left it. There are many people who say that Non-Ahmadis get irritated by the topic of Death of Isa, let’s leave this topic of Death of Isa and make them accept some other topic. This is wrong. First make them accept the Death of Isa, then present ahead. Present in Sequence.

Anwar-ul-Uloom

Introduction

The martyr from UK Syed Taalay Ahmed (Shaheed) wrote a poem for his love for Khilafat, this article explains each couplet.

Poem

“I love my Caliph more than the others

“They only love, I’m only his lover

The secret of Taalay Ahmed Shaheed’s heart was that he loved Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa (saw) in the extreme, from a young age. Taalay Shaheed understood that the Khalifa of the time in the Ahmadiyya Jamaat is in reality carrying on the message of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) – this is why Taalay Shaheed loved his Khalifa more than the others, others only loved while he was only the Khalifa’s lover.

Taalay Shaheed’s heart was always keeping religion over all worldly things, this primal reason caused him to love the Khalifa of the time more than all others.

“They crawl to his hand from far icy coasts 

An allusion to the famous hadith about the Imam Mahdi in which people must come to do their pledge of allegience even if they have to crawl on icy snow. It applies to the Khulufa of the Imam Mahdi as well.

“A wonderful host, supported by hosts

‘A wonderful host’ means Huzur, ‘supported by hosts’ means angels.

“As mountains migrate for prophets and kings

By ‘mountains’ is meant powerful people, chiefs, leaders etc.

“When heaven comes near they see him and sing

By ‘heaven’ here its meant Huzur, when people see the Khalifa they are joyously singing.

“My silence might grate but I love him more

“My silence might grate” means that Taalay Shaheed kept his silence, he never said he loved Huzur, the Khalifa of the time, this may make it seem like he loves the Khalifa less – that’s the meaning of “grate”, but the reality is that Taalay Shaheed love Khalifa of the time more.

“Whole with holiness as my soothed soul soars

The obedience to Khilafat made Taalay Shaheed’s soul completely purified and holy, soaring high in spirituality.

“When they see his face they weep and they cry

“My heart beats to tears by my eyes are dry

When others see Huzur they become emotional and cry, but when Syed Taalay Ahmad Shaheed saw Huzur he did not let himself cry, his eyes were dry. But he carried an ocean of emotion in his heart which others did not know.

“But by God’s promise I’m able to boast

“I swear I can prove I love him the most

This is not arrogance, when a person becomes so spiritually charged that their love for Khilafah reaches its peak, they are only mentioning the truth saying this. And Taalay Ahmad Shaheed says he can prove his love through action.

“They truthfully tell, disclosing their love

“Humble, he blushes, embarrassed enough

Though people truthfully tell Huzur their love for him, this only makes Huzur shy and embarrassed due to his immense humility.

“For his weary ears, here surely prefer

“Durood and takbirs, Allahu Akbar!

Huzur would rather hear the praises of Allah and blessings on Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa (saw) rather than his own.

“So their cue of lovers ends at this line

“I keep my secret for his sake, not mine

“Their cue of lovers ends at this line” This means that the other people who disclosed their love for the Khalifa of the time, their love ends at verbal profession – which is no doubt true, however Taalay Shaheed secret is his immense silent love.

““I keep my secret for his sake, not mine” Taalay Shaheed wants to profess his love for the Khalifa of the time like all others, but for the sake of the Khalifa Taalay Shaheed kept silent! He knew that showing love through following Islam is the greatest way to show love to the Khalifa of the time/

“The lamp in my night, forever aglow

“I love my Caliph, but he’ll never know”

‘Lamp’ refers to Huzur. “I love my Caliph, but he’ll never know” Taalay Ahmad Shaheed was at peace with the fact that the Khalifa of the time may never know his love, he will willing to keep his secret until the end. It should also be kept in mind that during his dying breaths, Taalay Ahmed Shaheed’s dying wish was for someone to tell Huzur, that he truly loved him.

Conclusion

Syed Taalay Ahmed Shaheed, kept an immense secret in his heart, this article was a dissection of his poem, to see a window into his heart. But God Almighty has revealed it for the entire world to see – in fact God Almighty has revealed for all the coming generations to see, millions if not billions of people in the future who will be Ahmadi Muslims.

But look at how God Almighty has caused him to be martyred, God has done so that now Taalay Ahmed Shaheed is a model for how to apply the teachings of Islam in this technological age, how to make faith have precedence over the world in this modern age. For the youth!

So it is the kindness of God Almighty that he has made things easier for us, we can now learn from the life of Taalay Ahmed Shaheed, and become him.

It is often the case that God Almighty sends the best of men, closest to him, to guide others that are far away, as if God Almighty is saying, “O Spiritual Man! You have become close to me! It is true. Now bring those of my servants who do not know me, I want them to be guided, I want to also forgive and love them”

The martyrdom of Taalay Shaheed, is a window for many others like him to be born, made, and moulded – no matter their background, when they become like Taalay Shaheed they will also become the “children” of the Promised Messiah (as) and the Prophet Muhammad (saw). There is no distinction.

Non-Ahmadi Muslims frequently assert there is a consensus (ijma) labelling Ahmadi Muslims as non-Muslims. They also assert there is an ijma against the beliefs held by Ahmadi Muslims. However, Sunni scholars throughout history have limited consensus to what the companions RA (sahaba) agreed upon. Additionally Sunni scholars have said that there is no consensus on the very definition of consensus. A point which is further proven through the many different definitions of ijma presented by scholars, which will be shown in this article.

Hence, claims of ijma against Ahmadis ought to be rejected as their alleged formulation is after the time of the companions RA. Furthermore, to substantiate a consensus against Ahmadis, there first must be clarity and unanimity on the very definition of ijma, a requirement lacking among non-Ahmadi Muslims.

IMAM AHMAD BIN HANBAL (d. 241H)

“1587 – Narrated to us, saying: I heard my father saying: What a man claims as a consensus is a lie. Whoever claims consensus, he is lying.”

[Masa’il-ul-Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal RH narrated by his son Abdullah bin Ahmad RH, pg. 438-439]

SHAYKH UL-ISLAM IBN TAYMIYA (d. 728H)

Ibn Taymiyyah RH explains the above quote:

“Our Sheikh said: I said: What Ahmad rejects is the claim of consensus of the dissenters after the Companions, or after them and after the Successors, or after the three praiseworthy centuries. Hardly can any argument in his speech be found that relies on consensus after the era of the Successors or after the three centuries. Even though the younger Successors lived until the third century, his speech about the consensus of every era is only about the Successors. Then, this is from him a prohibition against claiming general verbal consensus, which is like silent consensus, or the consensus of the majority without knowledge of the dissenter.”

[al-Musawwada fi usul al-fiqh, pg. 316]

SHAYKH UL-ISLAM IBN TAYMIYA (d. 728H)

Ibn Taymiyyah RH clarifies his stance below, where he defines consensus as what the Companions RA agreed upon:

The fourth source is consensus (ijmaa’) which is agreed upon among the general body of Muslims – the jurists, Sufis, hadith scholars, theologians and others collectively. However, some deviant groups like the Mu’tazilites and Shia rejected it. But the well-known consensus is that of the Companions. As for after that, knowing it with certainty is mostly impossible. This is why the scholars differed regarding the mentioning of consensus events after the Companions, and they differed on some of its issues like the consensus of the Successors on one of the sayings of the Companions, and the consensus whose era did not end until some dissented from it, and silent consensus, and others.

[Qa’idah fi al-Mu’jizat wa al-Karamat, vol 7, pg. 42]

IBN HAZM (d. 456H)

In various instances, Ibn Hazm RH expressed his belief that ijma refers to what the companions RA agreed upon:

“And the Ijma’ is that about which it is certain that Sahabah knew it and asserted their belief in it and not one from them differed.”

[Al-Muhalla bi’l Athar, vol 2, pg. 127]

IBN HAZM (d. 456H)

“It is not permissible for anyone to claim the validity of a consensus of the people from the time after the Companionsra, about [a matter on] which the Companionsra themselves had no consensus. Anyone who claims otherwise is undoubtedly a liar, for the generations that came after the Companions, from the tabi‘un and those who followed them, it is impossible to document and enumerate the statements of all of them, for they filled the world, praise be to Allah.”

[an-Nubdha al-kafiya fi ahkam usul ad-din, pg. 20]

IBN HAZM (d. 456H)

Ibn Hazm RH reiterates his belief of ijma being entwined with the companions. He further states that many scholars from the Zahiri school held this position:

“Abu Sulayman [Dawud az-Zahiri] and many of our fellows [from the Zahiri school] said: There is no consensus except the consensus of the Companions RA.”

[Al-Ahkam fi Usul al-Ahkam, vol 4, pg. 147]

FAKHR AD-DIN AR-RAZI (d. 606H)

“In fairness, there is no way for us to know of the existence of a consensus, except during the time of the Companions RA, when the believers were few and could all be known specifically.”

[Al-Mahsul Fi ‘Ilm ‘Usul Al-Fiqh, vol 4, pg. 34-35]

IMAM AL-JUWAYNI (d. 478H)

Al-Juwayni RH was the teacher of Imam al Ghazali RH, he said:

“Whoever thinks that the occurrence of consensus on some speculative question of law is easily conceivable in our time despite the absence of unifying motives does not know what he is talking about. The fact is that most of the questions on which there is a consensus go back to the Companionsra of the Messengersa of Allah, when they were united and close together.”

[Al-Burhan Fi Usul al-Fiqh, vol 1, pg. 261]

IBN HIBBAN (d. 354H)

“And consensus according to us is the consensus of the Companions who witnessed the descent of revelation and the sending down [of the Quran], and took precaution against distortion and alteration”

[Sahih Ibn Hibban, vol 5, pg. 471]

AS-SARKHASI AL-HANAFI (d. 483H)

“Some scholars said: “The consensus that necessitates knowledge can only come from the consensus of the Companions, who were the best of people after the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him. This is because they accompanied him and heard from him the knowledge of the revelation and interpretation.”

[‘Uṣūl As-Sarakhsī, vol 1, pg. 313]

SHAMS AD-DIN AL-ISFAHANI (d. 688H)

“The truth is that it is impossible to know of consensus except in the case of the consensus of the Companionsra, where the establishers of consensus – and they were the scholars among them – were few. Now, however, after the spread of Islam and the increase of scholars, there is no prospect of knowing it.”

[al-Bahr al-muhit fi usul al-fiqh, vol 4, pg. 439]

MUHAMMAD B. ISMA‘IL AS-SAN‘ANI (d. 1182H)

“Our certain opinion, however, is that the occurrence of ijma‘ is impossible, since the ummah of Muhammadsa has filled the horizons, and is now in every territory and under every star; therefore, its [the community’s] established scholars are innumerable, and it is not feasible that anyone would be able to know their whereabouts. So, one who claims that there is consensus after the expansion of the religion [of Islam], and despite the profusion of the Muslim scholars, would be making a false claim.”

[Tat’hir al I’​tiqad min Adran al-Ilhad, pg. 80]

MUHAMMAD IBN SALIH AL-‘UTHAYMIN (d. 1421H)

Muhammad ibn al-Uthaymin asserts that Ibn Taymiyyah RH held the belief that ijma applies to what the first three generations adhered to. This contradicts an earlier quote attributed to Ibn Taymiyyah RH, where he limited ijma to the first generation. Whether this discrepancy arises from differing views of Ibn Taymiyyah or an error on the part of ibn al-Uthaymin, it remains a rebuttal to many non-Ahmadi Muslims who claim a consensus against Ahmadi Muslims. As such assertion of an alleged consensus is nonetheless wrong as its formulated beyond these specified timeframes.

“Concerning his statement: “And the regulated ljma (consensus), is what the righteous Salaf were upon; since after them, disagreement increased, and the Ummah spread out.”

Meaning, the Ijma’ (consensus) which it is possible to regulate by, and be inclusive with, is what the righteous Salaf were upon, and they are the first three generations; the Companions, the Tabi’in and their followers.
Then, the author gave the reason for that, in his saying: “since after them, disagreement increased, and the Ummah spread out.” Meaning that, the differences became as numerous as the desires; because the people separated into groups, and not all of them intended the truth. So, the opinions differed, and there were diverse categories of sayings. “And the Ummah spread out:” So, including them all became among the most difficult of matters.

So it is as if Shaikh Al-Islam, may Allah have mercy upon him, was saying: “Whoever claims Ijma’ (consensus) after the righteous Salaf, who are the first three generations, then his claim to a consensus is not correct, because the consensus that can be a guidline is that of the righteous Salaf.” Is it possible to find a consensus after the differing? We say: There is no Ijma’ (consensus) with the existence of preceding differences, and there is no use for differences after the Ijma’ (consensus) has been verified.”

[Commentary On Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah’s Al-Aqidah Al-Wasitiyyah, vol 2, pg. 465-466]

HAZRAT MIRZA GHULAM AHMAD AS (d. 1326H)

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad AS, in alignment with several Sunni mujtahids mentioned previously, held a similar perspective on ijma.

“The valid argument per the law of the Shari‘a is only the ijma’ of the Companions (ra).”

[Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya Part V, pg. 540]

HAZRAT MIRZA GHULAM AHMAD AS (d. 1326H)

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad AS further states, there is no consensus on the definition of ijma.

[Urdu]

“His statement: You did not give any answer regarding what is meant by consensus (ijma’), which clearly proves that you cannot understand academic questions. The definition of consensus is that at one time, all the mujtahids (scholars qualified to practice ijtihad), without a single dissenting person, agree upon a Shari’ah ruling. If even one mujtahid opposes, then consensus is not achieved.

My statement: My straightforward statement contained the essence of the definition of consensus. Yes, I did not express it in the contrived and complex manner of the legal theorists, which is not free from intricacy, so that the general public is not deprived of understanding the discourse. However, you claimed to give the technical definition of consensus, but then betrayed it and did not state it completely. This will make you apprehensive that none of your accepted cases of consensus can be considered valid consensus in light of all the conditions that the legal theorists have stipulated for verifying consensus. Or it may mean that any matters in it that serve my beneficial purpose should be kept concealed, and that consensus along with its conditions has been stated in this manner.

[Arabic]

Consensus (ijma’) is the agreement of qualified mujtahids (scholars capable of exercising ijtihad) from the Ummah of Muhammad, peace be upon him, in a single era, whether it is on a verbal or practical matter in every era. It has two pillars:
1) Decisive (azima): This is when they verbally state their agreement by saying “We have reached consensus on this,” if it is a verbal matter, or commence the action if it is a practical matter.

2) Concession (rukhsa): This is when some of the mujtahids verbally state or perform an action, while the rest remain silent and do not object to it for three days or a period in which it is usually known that if there was any opposition, it would have been expressed. This is called silent consensus (ijma’ sukuti).

For consensus to be valid, agreement of all is required, contrary to the view of some. Adhering to the hadith of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him. Some like al-Baqillani have said that the statements of the common folk are sufficient for the formation of consensus. It is not a condition that the mujtahids be from the Companions or the Ahl al-Bayt. Some have said consensus is only for the Companions, while others have restricted it to the relatives of the Prophet. According to some, being from the people of Medina, meaning the city of the Prophet, is a necessary condition. According to others, the extinction of their era is a condition for the realization of consensus. Ash-Shafi’i stated that the condition is the extinction of the era and the passing of all mujtahids, for their consensus is not a proof until they have died, as retraction is possible beforehand, and with possibility, inductive conclusion cannot be established. For the transmission of consensus, consensus itself is required. A latter consensus is permissible despite an earlier difference of opinion. The optimal approach is that consensus should continue in every era. Some Mu’tazilites have said that consensus is formed by the agreement of the majority, based on the evidence “Whoever deviates, deviates into the Fire.” Some have said that consensus does not exist and its conditions cannot be realized.

[Urdu]

Meaning, consensus (ijma’) is the name given to the agreement that occurs among the qualified mujtahids of the Ummah of Muhammad in a single era, and it is better if it is found in every era. And it makes no difference whether the matter agreed upon is verbal or practical. And there are two types of consensus: one is called ‘azima (decisive), and ‘azima means that those forming the consensus explicitly acknowledge their consensus by saying “We have reached agreement on this statement or action.” But for an action, the condition is that they must commence performing that action. The second type of consensus is called rukhsa (concession), and it means that if the consensus is on a statement, some verbally express their agreement while others remain silent. And if the consensus is on an action, some commence performing it while others abstain from practical opposition, even if they do not perform the action themselves. And they do not express their opposition verbally or practically for three days, or for a period in which it is normally understood that if there was any opposition, it would have been expressed. And this consensus is called ijma’ sukuti (silent consensus). And it is necessary in this that there is agreement of all, although some do not consider the agreement of all to be necessary, so that the hadith “Whoever deviates…” remains applicable and is not nullified. And some have gone towards the view that being mujtahids is not a necessary condition, rather the statements of the common folk are sufficient for the formation of consensus, as is the view of al-Baqillani.

And according to some, a necessary condition for consensus is that it should be of the Companions, not of others. And according to some, consensus is only that of the Ahl al-Bayt, meaning relatives of the Messenger of Allah. And according to some, it is a necessary condition that those forming the consensus should specifically be residents of Medina. And according to some, for the realization of consensus, it is a condition that its era should pass. Thus, according to al-Shafi’i, it is a necessary condition that the era of consensus should end and all those who formed the consensus should pass away. And as long as all of them do not die, the consensus will not be considered valid, because it is possible that someone may retract his statement. And it is necessary to establish that no one has retracted, and for the transmission of consensus, consensus itself is required. Meaning, there should also be consensus among those who consider consensus on a matter valid. And a latter consensus along with a previous difference of opinion is permissible, meaning if people did not reach consensus on an issue earlier, but consensus emerged in a later era, then that consensus is also valid. And it is better in consensus that its continuity persists in every era. And according to some Mu’tazilites, the agreement of the majority can also constitute consensus, based on the evidence “Whoever deviates, deviates into the Fire.” And some have said that consensus is nothing and cannot be realized along with all its conditions. See the books of principles of jurisprudence of the four Imams. Now from this whole discourse, it is evident that there is no consensus among the scholars on the definition of consensus itself, and the doors of denial and acceptance are both open.”

[al-Haqq Mubahatha Ludhiyana, pg. 116-118]

SHAYKH OF AL-AZHAR MAHMUD SHALTUT (d. 1383H)

Mahmud Shaltut in agreeance to the point mentioned by the Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad AS half a century prior, affirms that there is no consensus on the definition of ijma.

“I can hardly think of anything that has become commonplace among people as a fundamental principle of Islamic legislation, and then opinions have befallen it and different schools of thought have differed about it from all sides, like this principle called consensus. They differed in its reality: […]. And those who said it includes everyone differed: […]. And those who said it is possible and its occurrence is imaginable differed: […]. And those who said it is possible to know it and ascertain it differed: […]. And those who said it is a legal proof differed: […]. And just as they differed in its reality and its proof, they differed in the rulings it contains: […]. Perhaps the scholars’ differing views on consensus in this way explains the widespread phenomenon in their books, which is the narration of consensus on many issues that have been proven to be subject to disagreement among scholars. This is because everyone who narrated consensus on an issue that is subject to disagreement has based their narration on what they understand or what their Imam or sect they belong to understand about the meaning of consensus and what is sufficient to confirm it.”

[al-Ijma‘ wa-thubut al-‘aqida. In: ar-Risala, pg. 464]

SHAH WALIULLAH DEHLAWI (d. 1176H)

Shah Wali Allāh RH entwines ijmā’ with the Caliphate. To begin with, he severely criticizes the classical definition of ijmā’, stating that by ijmā’ it is not meant that the community in toto agrees upon a point, and not a single person disagrees with this decision as such a type of ijmā’ is impracticable, indeed impossible. Clarifying his point of view about ijmā’, Shah Wali Allāh RH states that ijmā’ is reached in the community when the Caliph issues his edict after consulting the men of opinion. This edict should be enforced in such a way that it spreads widely and is estbalished in the entire Muslim world.

This is a good example which showcases there is no ijma on the definition of ijma as Shah Wali Allāh RH gives an unique definition of ijma. This also refutes non-Ahmadi Muslims who claim there is an ijma against Ahmadi Muslims when according to Shah Wali Allāh RH the formulation of an ijma is impossible without a caliph.

“You must have heard the term ‘ijma’ (consensus) from the religious scholars. This does not mean that all jurists, such that not one of them remains separate and they unanimously agree on an issue in one time period, because this situation has neither occurred nor can occur. Rather, what is meant by ijma is that the Caliph (in particular), after consulting with the advisors or without consultation, issues a decree which becomes enforceable to the extent that it spreads across the entire Islamic world and becomes possible in the whole of the Islamic world.”

[Izālat al-Khafā’, vol 1, pg. 100]

SHAYKH ‘ABDUL MANNAN AN-NURPURI (d. 1433H)

Scholars have held varying definitions of ijma, with some outright rejecting its concept. For instance, Abdul Mannan An-Nurpuri, a prominent Ahl-e-Hadith Sunni scholar, completely denies the validity of ijma. This rejection further shows the the lack of unanimity among scholars regarding ijma’s legitimacy. Without unanimity even on the very basis of the ijma, let alone on the definition between scholars, the claim of ijma against Ahmadi Muslims becomes futile.

“Ijma’ and Qiyas as a foundation for legislation is not proven from Qur’an and Hadith. The being of Ijma’ of the companions and the Ijma’ of the Aimmah Mujtahidin as a Hujjah in religion is not proven from Qur’an and Hadith.”

[Maqalat-e-Nurpuri, pg. 85]

AL-GHAZALI (d. 505H)

Imam al-Ghazali RH asserted that the accusation of takfir against al-Nazzam is unwarranted due to the speculative nature of ijma. As such Imam al-Ghazali RH did not even believe ijma to be definitive proof (hujjat-i qat‘iyya). Therefore, if there was to be an ijma in existence today, it would still have no bearing according to Sunni scholars.

“We don’t charge someone with infidelity if he opposes what has been agreed upon. We have an opinion regarding imputing infidelity to an-Nazzam who rejected the principle of consensus. For there are many doubts about whether consensus is a decisive argument”

[Al-Iqtisad Fi Al-I’tiqad, pg. 307]

SHAYKH MUQBIL IBN HADI AL-WADI’I (d. 1422H)

The great Yemeni Muhaddith, the father of the Salafiyah Da’wah in Yemen – Shaykh Muqbil ibn Hadi Al-Wadi’i explains how the Quran and Sunnah are Hujjah alone. As for ijma’ he does not consider it as independent proofs in of themselves. However, if there is already evidence from the Quran and Sunnah on an issue, and there is also consensus of scholars supporting that view, then that adds strength and weight to the position. But ijma’ alone, without a basis in Quran or Sunnah, cannot stand alone as a proof. Therefore, Shaykh Muqbil ibn Hadi Al-Wadi’i like Imam al-Ghazali RH accepts that consensus can not be considered definitive proof (hujjat-i qat‘iyya). Hence, even if one were to acknowledge the validity of ijma, it cannot be wielded as an argument against Islam Ahmadiyya, given its speculative nature.

“As for us, we say the sources of evidence are the Quran, Sunnah, consensus, and analogical reasoning. But the sources of evidence are not just the Quran and Sunnah..As for consensus (ijmaa’), that by which the religion of Allah has no proof, it is not an authoritative evidence, but it may be used for supportive evidence just as analogical reasoning (qiyas) is used for supportive evidence..we have evidence, and by evidence we mean other than consensus (ijmaa’). However, consensus adds strength to the evidence. A matter upon which people have reached consensus and for which there is evidence from the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his family, is not like a matter upon which people have not reached consensus. So consensus adds strength to the evidence. But relying solely on consensus is not sufficient.”

[Ijabat As-Saail ‘alaa aham al-masaail, pg. 624-625]

AL-BAHARI (d. 1119H) & AL-ANSARI (d. 1325H)

According to the Hanafiyyah there can be no Ijma’ about future events like Signs of the hour and matters of the hereafter because in matters of Ghaib (unseen) there is no role of Ijtihad. This is refutes non Ahmadis who say that there is an Ijma’ that Nuzul (descend) of Isa AS will happen in the literal physical sense.

“As for future matters like the signs of the Hour and affairs of the Hereafter, according to the Hanafis there is no consensus. This means there is no need to use it as proof, not that it is not a proof for them. How could it not be when the evidences are general? Because the unseen has no room for ijtihad (juristic reasoning) and opinion since conjecture is not sufficient for it. There must be a definitive proof indicating it. In that case, there is no need for consensus as proof. The truth is that it is valid to use it as proof for these matters as well, to support the evidences. It is possible they all heard it individually, so they reached consensus on what they heard but did not narrate it due to the existence of this agreement. Therefore, this consensus benefits us, but that definitive proof does not benefit due to the lack of its continuous mass transmission. So the truth is that future matters from reports are like religious rulings in being proven by consensus.” (This) and Allah speaks the truth and guides to the path.”

[Fawātih̩u r-Rah̩mūni, vol 2, pg. 296]

Anti-Ahmadis lie and mistranslate a passage of Hazrat Musleh Maud (RA), Mirza Basheerudin Mahmud Ahmad. They allege that he wanted to attend an Opera to look at naked women. Those who claim this, only expose the vulgarity of their minds. The phrase that Musleh Maud RA stated is:

جہان یوروپین سوسائٹی عریانی سے نظر آئے

“On the way back, when we arrived at France, I asked Chaudhary Zafarullah Khan sahib to take me where the European society can be seen unconcealed.”

[Khutbat-e-Mahmood, 17 January 1934]

They claim that by this, Khaliufatul Masih II wanted to see naked women when there is no mention of such a thing in the source provided. They can only mistranslate the passage and claim it is saying “…show me a place where I can see European society ‘naked’” but it would not make sense grammatically. It is absurd!

1) Context of the Khutba (Sermon)

For the context of the non-Urdu speakers, we have translated the whole passage of the Khutba and added summary regarding what the Khutba was about.

Hazrat Musleh Maud RA is answering the question that some people pose i.e. if all religions and societies are very similar then what is the need to declare one superior over the other? He shows that despite apparent similarities, the differences in each culture and religion are polar extremes. He further clarifies that his intention for visiting such gatherings was to understand the state of affairs in European society, specifically that of the upper class. It was to show that even the so-called “most civilized” of societies has no comparison to an Islamic community.

[Translated by ChatGPT]

“If it is observed, there is no difference in Islamic teachings and those of other religions. Therefore, those who have not considered the details and their significance assert that all religions are the same and there is no difference among them. They see that all have given the command of remembering God, obedience, goodness, and piety. All have instructed prayers, fasting, pilgrimage, and almsgiving. So why ask one to be followed and not the other, call someone a liar and someone truthful, declare someone imperfect and someone perfect? Although everyone has imparted the same general teachings, there is a difference in the details, just as there is in the earth and the heavens.“

[Khutbat-e-Mahmood, 17 January 1934]

Musleh Maud RA further states the reason why Chaudhry Zafarullah Khan RA took him to the Opera.

“Chaudhry Sahib stated: ‘This is a place [of gathering] of the upper class society where, by looking, you can estimate how these people are.'”

[Khutbat-e-Mahmood, 17 January 1934]

Moreover, regarding his motives for traveling to Europe, he states:

“…for the purpose of personally assessing the religious situation in Europe, so that I can correctly evaluate it and help create a permanent scheme for the propagation of Islam in those countries.”

[Tareekh Ahmadiyyat page 9]

It is very clear that it was, in no way, for personal entertainment nor was it his desire to be entertained by such vulgarity. Simply put the purpose was to learn about the culture of different countries so that he can create specific tabligh missions in those countries.

2) Did Musleh Maud RA see Naked Women?

Once we expose the lies of Anti-Ahmadis, they take a step back and make another allegation. They claim that even if Khalifatul Masih II did not intend to see naked women, he did see them at the end of the day. This is yet another lie.

Musleh Maud RA states: “Since my vision is weak, I cannot see distant things well. When I looked, it seemed that there were hundreds of women sitting. I asked Chaudhary Sahib if they are naked? He replied that they are not.”

[Khutba-e-Mahmood 17 January 1934]

In the next sentence, Musleh Maud RA also describes the attire that he refers to as ‘naked’.

“In the same way, the evening dresses of those people are gowns. It is called a garment, but from it, every part of the body is seen [as if it’s] completely naked.”

It also shows that he went to the Opera to observe the attendees. There is no mention of any music, stage show or performers.

3) Prophecy of Muhammad (SAW) fulfilled

Zafarullah Khan RA explained that although they are dressed, they appear to be naked. This is in line with the prophecy of the Holy Prophet ﷺ:

صِنْفَانِ مِنْ أَهْلِ النَّارِ لَمْ أَرَهُمَا قَوْمٌ مَعَهُمْ سِيَاطٌ كَأَذْنَابِ الْبَقَرِ يَضْرِبُونَ بِهَا النَّاسَ وَنِسَاءٌ كَاسِيَاتٌ عَارِيَاتٌ مُمِيلاَتٌ مَائِلاَتٌ رُءُوسُهُنَّ كَأَسْنِمَةِ الْبُخْتِ الْمَائِلَةِ لاَ يَدْخُلْنَ الْجَنَّةَ وَلاَ يَجِدْنَ رِيحَهَا وَإِنَّ رِيحَهَا لَيُوجَدُ مِنْ مَسِيرَةِ كَذَا وَكَذَا ‏”

Two are the types of the denizens of Hell whom I did not see: people having flogs like the tails of the ox with them and they would be beating people, and the women who would be dressed but appear to be naked, who would be inclined (to evil) and make their husbands incline towards it. Their heads would be like the humps of the bukht camel inclined to one side. They will not enter Paradise and they would not smell its odour whereas its odour would be smelt from such and such distance.

[Sahih Muslim 2128]

4) Musleh Maud RA views on the Cinema

There are multiple fatawa of Musleh Maud RA where he expresses his displeasure about going to the cinema and singing. This also shows that his visit to the Opera wasn’t for entertainment purposes.

[Translated by ChatGPT]

The cinema’s purpose is having such a destructive impact on the morals of the nation that I believe even if there were no opposition from my side, every child and sincere believer would still avoid its influence. Some Ahmadis ask if there is anything objectionable in English films, and they request permission to watch them, although there is no English film that does not involve music, and playing music is strictly prohibited in Islam. This is evident from the following verse of the Holy Quran, which states that a person cannot become a true servant of Allah until they separate themselves from gatherings where music is played.

[Tafsir Kabir, Volume Six – Surah Al-Furqan – Pages 586, 587]

[Translated by Chat GPT]

Cinema business: Running a cinema is not inherently a bad thing. If it shows educational and factual films, then it is a useful entity. However, engaging in the profession of showcasing cinemas becomes highly undesirable and reprehensible when it involves the exhibition of morally corrupt films.

[Al-Fazl, August 6, 1963, Page 3]

[Translated by ChatGPT]

The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “The person who claims that I have given permission to watch historical pictures is a liar. I have never said such a thing, nor is it mentioned in this letter. The wording is ambiguous. The permission I have given is to watch educational or scientific pictures produced by pure scientific institutions. For example, maps of jungles, rivers, or factories, or images of war that are informative and appropriate for children are permitted because they constitute knowledge.”

[Al-Fazl, April 25, 1943, Volume 31, Number 98, Page 2]

5) Character of Zafrullah Khan RA

The testimony of Dr. Javed Iqbal exonerates Zafarullah Khan RA from the vulgar allegation that he would take Musleh Maud RA to an indecent gathering.

Son of Allama Iqbal, Dr Javed Iqbal writes:

“Every evening, one had to attend some diplomatic party or dinner and spend a good time because this life was also a kind of luxurious life. After work, ambassadors and other dignitaries would get busy with drinking and revelry. Sir Zafarullah Khan was the only person who did not appear in such gatherings, but instead used the UN’s meditation room for his worship. Perhaps no one else used this worship room except him.”

[Apna Gareeban Chaak, pg. 105]

6) Perfect Islamic Jama’at

Under the Ahmadiyya Khilafat, Qadian was known for its exemplary Islamic society.

Allama Iqbal stated:

“In Punjab, the pure example of Islam has appeared in the shape of this Jama’at whose name is Qadiani sect.”

[Millt-e-Baiza Par Ek Imrani Nazar Page 18]

Conclusion

Anti-Ahmadis are not just liars but also have a hard time reading basic sentences. They are trying to attack the character of Khalifatul Masih II when even his enemies testified to the exemplary Islamic society that he created in Qadian.