A few years ago, Khurram Shah told Kashif Shehzada that MGA’s revelations weren’t binding for Muslims to accept (39:55 mark), check out the clip on twitter herein. It seems that Khurram Shah didn’t know what MGA wrote in 1902, nor did he know the full breadth of comments by MGA on those who deny his prophethood. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did in-fact do aggressive Takfir vs. 1 billion Muslims, we have posted the full timeline in the below. We leave you here with one quote from 1902:
“””All Muslims are obligated to obey me in matters of religion and to accept me as the Promised Messiah. Those who have received my message but do not accept me as their arbiter or as the Promised Messiah nor believe in the Divine origins of my revelation will be accountable for this in the heavens even if they are Muslims. For they have rejected that which they should have accepted at its proper time.””” (see page 15, online english edition).
They also discussed 3:45 of the Quran and how Allah named Eisa (as), as the messiah, son of mary.
MGA is called a Kafir by the Ahl-e-Hadith ulema of Ludhiana. Since MGA claimed to have fulfilled all the conditions of the second coming of Eisa (As) in his own person. Syed Muhammad Hussain Batlavi famously defends him in his review.
MGA claims to be the Messiah is called Kafir by the ulema of North India, or all Muslim imams who heard of MGA’s claims. Obviously, the majority of the world never heard MGA’s claims in MGA’s lifetime.
MGA declares any Muslim a Kafir who believes in the continuation of prophethood or abrogation.
MGA writes over 10 times and 10+ different books that any claimant to prophethood is a Kafir.
See Essence of Islam, Vol. 3, online english edition
A’ina-e-Kamalat-e-Islam, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 5, p. 332
Divine Permission for Mubahalah against Maulavis
“””In the early days I had thought that I was not at liberty to challenge Muslims to a Mubahalah, because Mubahalah involves calling down a curse on each other, and it is not permissible to call down a curse on a Muslim; but my opponents from among the Muslims persist in denouncing
me as a disbeliever, and, under the Islamic dispensation, he who denounces a true Muslim as a disbeliever himself becomes the subject of such denunciation. I have, therefore, been commanded to challenge to a Mubahalah those who denounce me as disbeliever and
possess sons and daughters and are the originators of the denunciations directed at me.”””
Tiryaq ul Qulub, p. 130, via Muhammad Ali, “Prophethood in Islam“
MGA claims that a Muslim only become a Kafir by rejecting law-bearing prophets, not non-law bearing prophets.
“It has been my firm belief from the very beginning that he who denies my claim is not a kafir (non-Muslim) or dajjal (anti-Christ).*…I do not name the reciter of the kalimah a kafir until he takes the backlash himself by declaring me kafir and an impostor.”
*It is worth remembering that to call a denier of one’s claim a kafir is the privilege of those prophets alone who bring Shari’ah and new commandments from God, but as to the inspired ones (mulhams) and those spoken to by God (muhaddathin) other than the possessors of Shari’ah (sahib al-shari’ah), however great their dignity may be in the sight of God and however much they may have been honoured by being spoken to by God, denial of their claim does not make anyone kafir. .. .”
[RK, v. 17, p. 64; marginal note; Appendix of Tohfa-e-Goldrawiyah](via Nuzhat Haneef).
“””Those who do takfeer [deny Mirza Ghulam Ahmad or call/consider him a kaafir] and those who adopt the path of takzeeb [calling/considering Mirza Ghulam Ahmad a liar] are a perished nation; therefore, they are not worthy [of the status] that any person from my Jama`at perform namaaz behind them [i.e., with one of them leading the namaaz]. Can a living [person] perform namaaz behind a dead [person]? Hence do remember that, as God has informed me, it is forbidden to you and entirely forbidden, that you perform namaaz behind any ‘mukaffar’ [one who calls/considers Mirza Ghulam Ahmad a kaafir] and ‘mukazzab’ [one who calls/considers Mirza Ghulam Ahmad a liar] or ‘mutaraddad’ [one who is hesitant/wavering in accepting Mirza Ghulam Ahmad].”””
“””All Muslims are obligated to obey me in matters of religion and to accept me as the Promised Messiah. Those who have received my message but do not accept me as their arbiter or as the Promised Messiah nor believe in the Divine origins of my revelation will be accountable for this in the heavens even if they are Muslims. For they have rejected that which they should have accepted at its proper time.””” (see page 15, online english edition)
MGA writes in a letter to Dr. Khan how any Muslim who rejects him is a non-Muslim. MGA is also covering a verse of the Quran which states that belief in all prophets isn’t quite necessary for salvation, i.e., Christians/Jews and others can still go to heaven if they do good works.
In Haqiqatul Wahy, MGA denies writing the letter to Dr. Khan in 1906 wherein he said that all of those who reject him are non-Muslim.
MGA also presents the famous hadith about the consequences of calling a Muslim a Kafir. MGA argued that since many Muslims have called him (MGA) as a Kafir, they have become Kafir themselves, since MGA is a Muslim. This is a silly argument, since MGA is a confirmed Kafir since 1891.
—On May 6th 1908, MGA and his team of writers commented on Takfir (See “Haqiqat-i-Ikhtilaf” (Reality of our Differences, pages 43-44). See Al-Hakam, vol. 12, No. 31, pages 3-6, May 6th, 1908).
—(See “Haqiqat-i-Ikhtilaf” (Reality of our Difference, see page 58). See Al-Badr, May 24, 1908,
–(See “The Split in the Ahmadiyya Movement”, paged 129-120). Sir Fazl-i-Hussain was there.
This meeting seems to have been recorded in Malfuzat, Vol.5, pages 283–285, 635–636, see also pagham-i-Sulh, vol. 23, page 488. On 15th May at 10.00 a.m. two Barristers-at-Law came to see Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, one of them being Mian Fazl-i Husain (d. 1936).
Mian Fazl-i Husain, Bar-at-Law, submitted:
“If all nonAhmadis are called as kafir (unbelievers), then nothing will remain of Islam.”
The Founder replied:
“We do not expel anyone from Islam who accepts the Kalima unless he calls us kafir,
thereby making himself a kafir. Perhaps you don’t know that when I claimed to have been sent by God, then Maulana Muhammad Husain of Batala took great pains in obtaining a religious edict stating that I am a kafir, Dajjal (anti-Christ) and misguided; that no funeral prayer should be held for me, and that whoever accosts me with the Islamic greetings Assalamu Alaikum, or shakes hands with me, or considers me a Muslim, shall also become a kafir. Now it is an agreed principle that anyone who calls a believer as a kafir becomes a kafir himself. How can we deny this principle? You should tell us what way is left for us in these circumstances? We did not issue any edict against them first. Now that they are called kafir, it is only the result of their declaring us as kafir. Once a man challenged me to enter into a mubahila (to invoke curse of Allah on one who is the liar). I replied that a mubahila between two Muslims was not permitted. He replied: We consider you as a full-fledged kafir.”
Mian Fazl-i Husain submitted:
“If they call you kafir, let them do it. What is the harm if you do not call them kafir? The holy Founder said: “He who does not brand us as kafir we never call him kafir.”
— Badr, 24th May 1908; Malfuzat, vol. 10, pp. 376, 377.
Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad (MGA’s son) writes a controversial article that the Khalifa holds on to and edits, wherein it is stated that all Muslims who reject MGA are Kafirs. Khwaja Kamaluddin immediately issues a response and claims that the son of MGA is mistaken. Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad quoted MGA’s famous letter of 1906 to Dr. Khan.
The topic of the status of Muslims who deny MGA is suppressed. Noorudin even says that the son of MGA hasn’t understood the topic properly.
When Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad returned from Hajj he gave a speech which was quoted in the Al-Badr and had never been quoted or commented upon by any Ahmadi. Nevertheless, in that speech Mirza B. Mahmud Ahmad explains how Ahmadi’s don’t consider other Muslims as Kafir based on their belief that Jesus is alive, instead, Ahmadi’s consider Muslim’s as Kafirs simply because they call Ahmadi’s as Kafirs.
The Lahori-Ahmadi refuse to call Muslims as Kafirs, however, the Qadiani-Ahmadi are eager to do so.
Al-Hilal, dated 25 March 1914, edited by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad)
“For some time, there had been two parties in this Movement over the question of takfir. One party believed that non-Ahmadis are Muslims even though they may not believe in Mirza sahib’s claims. The other party, however, declared openly and clearly that those people who do not believe in Mirza sahib are kafir absolutely — inna li-llahi wa inna ilai-hi raji‘un. The head of the latter party is Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, and this faction has now made him khalifa but the first group does not accept this. The writing published in this connection by Maulana Muhammad Ali, and the wonderful and admirable courage he has shown in expressing these views while staying in Qadian, where the heads of the other party live, is truly an event which shall always be regarded as a memorable event of this year.” (See Al-Hilal, dated 25 March 1914, edited by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad) (Also See “A Mighty Striving” by Mumtaz Ahmad Faruqi, page 111, online edition).
— Paigham Sulh, 19 March 1914
This was quoted in the Light magazine as of 2007
“””“I have an urge in my heart that compels me to speak out even if I have to accept all manner of tribulation. Calling the followers of the Qibla as being kafir is the crime which Hazrat Mirza
Ghulam Ahmad bitterly accused his opponent Maulvis of committing. But alas! Today we
ourselves are doing what we accused others of. I shudder at the thought of calling those who
recite the Kalima, ‘There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah’, as
being kafirs and excluded from the fold of Islam. … I am prepared to face whatever consequences I may have to bear, and I pray to Allah to give me the strength to be steadfast
upon the truth and grant me patience in adversity.””””
Khwaja Kamaluddin writes “Ikhtalayfaat-e-Silsilaa-e-Ahmadiyya kay Usbaab” (The Causes of Internal Dissensions in the Ahmadiyya Movement), it was published just before or during the 1914 Qadian-Jalsa. He confirms that Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud was doing Takfir against all of those who rejected the prophethood of MGA.
The Khalifa, Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad publishes “Qaul al-Fasl”. In this book, he seems to only discuss the prophethood of MGA and MGA’s connection with the Ismuhu Ahmad verse of the Quran.
The Khalifa, Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad publishes “Haqiqat-un-Nubuwwat” (Reality of Prophethood) wherein he openly calls all deniers of MGA’s prophethood as Kafirs.
Muhammad Ali publishes an annoucement wherein he claims that he will refute the Khalifa’s books.
Mirza Bashir Ahmad writes his first series of essay’s at age 22 which are published in the Urdu version of the Review of Religions. This ends becoming a book called Kalimatul-Fasl, which is one of the most controversial books in Ahmadiyya history.
Reference: Al-Fazal 15th July 1915
According to Mirza Bashiruddin Ahmad, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad referred to Muhammad (ﷺ) as “hilal” and to himself as “badr”. So it’s compulsory that the person who denies the second coming (i.e. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) is a GREATER disbeliever than the one who denies the first coming (i.e. Muhammad ﷺ).
“”As per the decree of Minhum (per Quran 62:3), it has been established that similar to the followers of previous prophets being Naaji (heavenly group), all others are Naari (hellfire group), Kuffar and outside the realm of Islam. And, to include the deniers of the first coming of Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) within the fold of Islam is an insult to him and a mockery of the Quranic verses. Hazrat Masih Maud drew a comparison between the first and second coming, likening them to Hilal and Badr in his Khutbah Ilhamia. This makes it mandatory to acknowledge that the Kuffar of the second coming have surpassed in their kufr those kuffar who rejected the first coming.””
“”Pas minhum ke ammar se yeh bhi wazeha ho gaya ke jaise pehle nabi ke sahabi sab naaji groh hain or dosre sab naari firqay kaffir or daira e islam se khaarij thehre. Or anhazarat saw ki baas e awwal main aap ke munkro ko daakhil e islam samjhna yeh anhazrat ki hatak or ayatullah se istahzaa hai. Halanke khutbah ilhamia main hazrat masih e maood ne anhazrat ki baase ahwal or saani ki bahmi nishat ko hilal or badr se nisbat se taabir farmayaa hai. Jis se laazam aata hai ke baas e saani ke kaffir kuffr main baas e awwal ke kaffiro se bohat badh kar hain.”””
Muhammad Ali responded with “Prophethood in Islam”, a huge book, which was published in December of 1915. In this book, Muhammad Ali discussed his opposition to the Tafkir of the Qadiani-Ahmadi’s. In summary, Muhammad Ali writes that Muslims who deny MGA are not Kafirs, since MGA was not a real prophet (instead just a metaphorical one).
December–Late, During the 1915 Qadian Jalsa
Anwar-i Khilafat is a book which is the text of a speech delivered by the Khalifa, Mirza Basheer-ud Din Mahmud Ahmad at the December 1915 annual Jalsa at Qadian. It was published a few months later in 1916. In this book, the Khalifa argued most emphatically that the prophecy of Jesus about the coming Ahmad, referred to in the Quran in 61:6, does not apply to the Prophet Muhammad but to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. He also continues to deal with the points of difference between his followers and the Lahore Ahmadis. The first issue that he raises in this connection is the interpretation of the prophecy about the coming Ahmad. This book is available online at the Qadiani website in the collection Anwar-ul-‘Uloom, v. 3, no. 5 from the link http://www.alislam.org/urdu/au/?j=3.
The Khalifa’s brother, Mirza Bashir Ahmad does open Takfir on Lahori-Ahmadi’s and all other Muslims.
The Ahmadiyya Khalifa does open Takfir. The ROR of April-May-1917, Maulvi Sher Ali clearly explains how MGA’s beliefs on his deniers changed over the years and eventually, landed on the idea that all non-Ahmadees were infidels (Kafir’s).
Maulana Muhammad Ali refuted these ideas and arguments most forcefully in his Urdu book of some 90 pages entitled Ahmad Mujtaba, published in December 1917. He also covered the same subject in English in his book Split in the Ahmadiyya Movement, published in January 1918. In summary, Muhammad Ali argued that MGA was not a prophet and thus his deniers could never be Kafir’s per islamic law.
We have found a reference to the Al-Fazl of 1919 wherein the Khalifa, Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad expressly calls all deniers of MGA’s prophethood as Kafirs and deniers of God. Its from a recent online edition of Al-Hakam.
The Khalifa finally responded to Muhammad Ali in his famous book, “Aenas Sadaqat” (The Mirror of Truth)(December of 1921)) in english as “Truth About the Split”(1924). In this book, the Khalifa admitted to doing Takfir, however, he seems to have been softening his stance and referred to Muslims as “ghair-ahmadi-musalman” in english as non-ahmadi-muslims.
Muhammad Ali responds to Aenas Sadaqat, with “Haqiqat-i-Ikhtilaf” (Reality of our Differences) and explains how the Khalifa at Qadian is running a family business. However, Muhammad Ali didn’t catch how the Khalifa was slowly moving away from open Takfir to silent Takfir.
See Freidman, “Prophecy Continous” (2003) edition, see page 161
“Mahmud Ahmad wrote in 1923, that though it is true that the non-Ahmadis are infidels, one should not speak about it needlessly 56.”
56—Review of Religions,–22 (1923), page 51
However, by 1931, the Khalifa was still saying that the Qadiani-Ahmadi version of Islam differs with all Sunni’s/Shia’s.
The ROR of March-1933 tells the world that he Qadiani’s see Muslims as Kafir’s, this is in terms of an essay entitled, “Ahmadiyya Movement as Viewed by a Christian Writer”.
The ROR of Sep-Oct 1934 discusses Ahmadiyya Takfir.
MGA’s famous letter to Dr. Khan wherein MGA does open Takfir is quoted in Al-Fazl, see Essence of Islam.
April 26, 1935, pg.14
“We believe that the term Kafir applies to a person after he has passed beyond a prescribed limit. When a person takes Islam as his religion and accepts the Quranic injunctions and teachings as his guide of action, he is entitled to be called a Muslim. But if he denies a basic principle of the faith of Islam then although he may be called a Muslim yet in reality he is not so. We do not therefore take Kafir to mean that such a person denies the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Who can say to a person who says that he believes in the Holy Prophet that in reality he has no such faith? Nor do we take this term to mean the denial of the existence of God. One who says that he has belief in God, who can dare say that he has none? According to our definition of Kufr the denial of a fundamental doctrine of Islam renders a person Kafir. On the other hand only belief in all the essentials of Islam can make a person a true Muslim in the real sense of the word.”
Al-Fazl , Qadian, Jan 15, 1935 – Al-Hukum , 4:24, Mirza Ghulam Qadiani
“God has revealed it to me that the person who did not believe in me after having heard about me is not a Muslim.”
This book (Political Solidarity of Islam) was a Friday khutba delivered by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad on 26th April 1935
An article appeared in Paigham Sulh in its issue of 11th May 1935 by Maulana Umar-ud-Din Shimlavi commenting on this khutba. And in Paigham Sulh dated 15 May 1935 the Friday khutba of Maulana Muhammad Ali delivered on 3rd May 1935 (i.e. the next Friday after Mirza Mahmud Ahmad gave his khutba) is published responding to Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s khutba. Read at this link Maulana Muhamamd Ali’s khutba of 3 May 1935.
Maulana Muhammad Ali also deals with Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s absurd claim on p. 11 that: “It was the late Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, who by his speeches and writings, at first, started this question of Kufr and Islam in our Community.”
After 1935, the controversy between the Lahore and Qadiani Jamaats continued on the same issues, and was very fierce between 1940 and 1946. See this link.
Nevertheless, See page 9 and many other pages…
“Moreover, there is a great deal of difference betwreen 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. On the other hand, we believe, that every Hindu, Sikh or Christian or even an atheist will ultimately find the grace of God and finally God will say to him, “go and enter heaven”. So there lies a vast difference between the two view-points. Under their definition of Kufr they consign a person to everlasting perdition. Spiritually it grinds to atoms the person to whom it applies. For him there is no hope, no salvation. But we call others Kafirs only technically. According to our definition of Kufr it is quite possible that a person who dies a Kafir may….” (p. 9)
To the strange allegation by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in this booklet that:
“It was the late Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, who by his speeches and writings, at first, started this question of Kufr and Islam in our Community. We have never felt the need or necessity to raise it. It is the Lahore Seceders to whom the late Khwaja Sahib belonged who sometimes feel irresistibly inclined to revert to this question…” (p. 11 of https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Political-Solidarity-of-Islam.pdf)
Maulana Muhammad Ali gives the following reply in his khutba of 3rd May 1935:
“It is a pity that the Khalifa sahib did not mention why the late Khwaja sahib raised this question. What was the fault of Khwaja sahib, about whom it is now being alleged that the question of takfir arose because of him? It was that he was giving a series of lectures [i.e., to the general Muslims in India] in which he stated that all those who profess the Kalima hold to the same principles of Islam and are Muslims. The current Khalifa, who was not then the Khalifa, did not like this. He wrote an entire pamphlet to say that the Khwaja sahib was wrong, and that all those who profess the Kalima but have not joined the bai`at of Hazrat Mirza sahib are kafir. So the Khwaja sahib’s fault was that he called Muslims as Muslims, and the Khalifa sahib is therefore helpless in having to call them as kafir because the Khwaja sahib called them Muslims. If the Khwaja sahib had not committed this mistake, of calling those who profess the Kalima as Muslims, the Khalifa sahib would not have needed to declare them as kafir!
What a curious logic? And now it is the ‘Lahore Seceders’ who enjoy raising this question, and they are in reality responsible for why the Khalifa sahib declares Muslims as kafir! Why? Because when they declare those who profess the Kalima to be Muslims, the Khalifa sahib is annoyed and says: No, they are all kafir.”
I mentioned above (link) that an article appeared in Paigham Sulh in its issue of 11th May 1935 by Maulana Umar-ud-Din Shimlavi commenting on this khutba by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, referred to by Bilal above. I must admit that I was remiss and negligent in not actually reading this article! It doesn’t only comment on that khutba, it notes the attempt to back peddle.
So I have made this two page article available at this link.
Its title is: “Kufr collapsed after much hope and prayer” (Kufr toota khuda khuda kar ke), su
In Paigham Sulh of 14 September 1935, Dr Basharat Ahmad has commented on the 1935 khutbah of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad being discussed above. Here is a link to his article.
In brief, the following is what he writes:
Some people have misunderstood that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad has in this khutbah changed his belief that other Muslims are kafir. In fact, he has not shifted one inch. What he has done is to tell other Muslims: “Just as your Ulama call us as kafir, we call you as kafir. So why are you unhappy with us? Let us both love each other because we both love calling other Muslims as kafir.” The other reason he has given is: “Your Ulama believe that all kafirs will necessarily go to hell, but we don’t believe that all kafirs will necessarily go to hell.” So Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s calling them kafir is not as bad as their calling Ahmadis as kafir, because he is not despatching them to hell, as they are despatching Ahmadis to hell. But this is also his belief about all non-Muslims such as Jews and Christians, that a Jew or a Christian is not necessarily doomed to hell. So there is no difference between his belief about non-Muslims and about other Muslims. On the issue of takfir he has not moved one inch. What he has said relates to punishment in the hereafter. In this world, he treats other Muslims as kafir and excluded from the fold of Islam.
The ROR of July-1935 also discusses Ahmadiyya Takfir in full detail. This is an english translation of a Friday Sermon that the Khalifa gave on April 26th, 1935.
The ROR of March-1936 has an extensive write up vs. Muhammad Iqbal, in this write-up they talk about Ahmadiyya Takfir and claim it’s different than it sounds.
The ROR of Oct-1936 discusses Takfir.
The ROR of May-1937 discusses the Ahmadiyya theory on Takfir, quotes Muhammad Iqbal and his concerns, and downplays ahmadiyya takfir.
There is a khutba by Maulana Muhammad Ali on 26 April 1940 (Paigham Sulh, 3 May 1940), entitled: “Khalifa of Qadian refuses to enter conclusive debate. The issue of Kufr and Islam is the real root of our difference.”
In it he states:
“Everyone knows that for long an argument has been going on about this, and the world knows only that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad considers non-Ahmadis as kafir and excluded from the fold of Islam. He has himself written in his book Ainah-i Sadaqat: … [here he quotes Ainah-i Sadaqat, p. 35] If he has now changed his belief, who is stopping him from declaring this and announcing his new belief that non-Ahmadis have committed kufr of the lower kind and are not excluded from the fold of Islam? … Qadianis consider the khalifa to be infallible. … So Mirza Mahmud Ahmad could say that in 1917 it was correct that non-Ahmadis are kafir and excluded from the fold of Islam even if they have never heard the name of the Promised Messiah, but today in 1940 it is correct that they are not excluded from the fold of Islam, because the khalifa appointed by God cannot commit an error.”
The ROR of June-1941 quoted an older edition of Malfuzat and alleges that MGA claimed in 1901, that his rejectors are Kafir, since Muslims believe that anyone who rejects the Messiah or Mahdi will be a Kafir.
The ROR of Nov-1941 has Malfuzat from MGA wherein MGA claims that his denial is like denying Muhammad (saw).
The ROR of Dec-1941 also talks about Takfir and the status of those who reject MGA.
The Mirza family played a shrill game of politics in terms of the partition of India. Zafrullah Khan and the Mirza family single handedly split up India per the British Governments request. The Ahmadi’s were promised compensation and received it promptly when the govt. of Pakistan allowed the Mirza family to buy rabwah and run it as a state within a state, as well as a 99-year lease. Interestingly enough, outwardly, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad (The Khalifa) was against the creation of Pakistan. However, he was lying, and most likely just trying to keep the heat off of him, behind the scenes, he knew everything about the partition and was planning for it, in fact, he got a military escort as he fled from Qadian to Lahore during partition. In 1974, Mirza Nasir Ahmad urged Bhutto to declare Ahmadi’s as non-Muslims and he did just that, its all a big conspiracy. The Mirza family always wanted to move out of Pakistan, since its a 3rd world country. Mirza Tahir Ahmad completed the plan in 1984 as he got Ord-XX passed.
At the Munir Enquiry Commission, the Khalifa claimed that when he wrote Kafir for Muslims in 1921 and before, he only meant small-Kafirs, Muslim-Kafirs essentially. Here is the quote:
“It is evident from this statement itself that the people here I have in mind I take as Muslims. Therefore, when I use the word kafir, I have in my mind kafirs of the second kind which I have defined already, i.e., they are not driven or thrown out of the Millat. When I say they are outside the pale of Islam I have in my mind the view, by Mufradat-i-Raghib on page 240, where Islam has been shown to be of two kinds: one lower than the stage of Iman ; the other above the stage of Iman. In DunalIman, in the stage of lower than common Iman, are included people whose Islam remains at a level lower than a proper Iman and in the stage of higher than the common Iman are Muslims who stand at a level of distinction in their faith, higher than the common level. This is why I said that some people fall outside the pale of Islam, I had in my mind people who come under the category of Dunal Iman. There is an authentic Hadith in Mishkat as well, where the Holy Prophet said: `Whosoever helps a man who is unjust, he puts himself thereby out of the pale of Islam.’”
In court, the Ahmadiyya Khalifa, Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad claims that when he did Takfir against Lahori-Ahmadi’s and Muslims, he didn’t really mean it.
In 1965, the Lahori-Ahmadi’s published “Truth Triumphs”, in this book, they accused the Khalifa of changing his position on Takfir in 1953 and adopting the Lahori position, however, the Lahori-Ahmadi’s missed the main point here, i.e., the qadiani-Ahmadi’s had been practicing silent Takfir since 1923, and the statements of the Khalifa in 1953 were simply an extension of that.
The Qadiani-Ahmadi’s responded with “Truth Prevails”, which was ordered by Mirza Nasir Ahmad via Qazi Muhammad Nazeer, (the Principal of the Jamia-Ahmadiyya at Rabwah) it was published on 10-4-1966 (See page xiv). They argued that the Khalifa, and MGA, only meant Kafir in terms of “small kufr” or kufr wherein someone remains a Muslim.
Mirza Nasir Ahmad claims that when his grandfather and father used the word Kafir for Muslims they didn’t mean outside of Islam. This was at the 1974 NA, Mirza Nasir Ahmad was cornered, and lied about his father and grandfathers words.
The 2004 english edition hard copy of Tadhkirah is published. The quote in terms of Takfir towards Dr. Khan is there.
The PDF version of the english tadhkirah is edited to remove the revelation of MGA in terms of Takfir. Essence of Islam, Vol. 4 is published, the quote is still there.
Download the Full 2004 english edition of Tadhkirah here:
Tadhkirah 2006 PDF version
The 2009 english version of Tadhkirah is published with massive edits. The revelation of Takfir is totally removed.
By the 2010’s, Qasim Rashid and other famous Ahmadi spokesmen totally deny Takfir against Muslims and call the quotation of 1906 as a clerical error of sorts.
The arabic only version of Tadhkirah is published. The sentence of Takfir is purposely mis-translated per the order of Mirza Masroor Ahmad.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________2018 online english edition of Tadhkirah
Links and Related Essay’s
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadiyyat #trueislam #ahmadianswers #ahmadiyyamuslimcommunity #ahmadiyya_creatives #ahmadiyyatthetrueislam #ahmadiyyatzindabad #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiyyamuslim #mirzaghulamahmad #qadiani #qadianism