Search results


Shiekh Ahmad Sirhindi did Takfir on Shia’s and said that all prophethood was law-bearing

Some silly #ahmadis think that Sirhindi supported the prophethood of MGA, that is a total fabrication, Sirhindi believed that 1/46th of prophethood remained and =muhadas, which was exactly what MGA claimed from 1880 to 1900. However, in 1901, MGA claimed to be an Ummati Nabi and back dated it to 1880. Nevertheless, we have an important study on Sirhindi Hwand have archived it in the below for future discovery. He wrote about Shia’s and how he thought they were Kafirs, he wrote about the 73-sect hadith. Sirhindi also holds that the
Q ur‘an, the Sunnah o f the Prophet, the Ijtihad and Ijm a‘ (concensus of opinion o f the jurists) are the only means to determine what things are halal (legal) or haram (illegal) and what acts are right or wrong.

The data
n the previous chapter, Theological Thought-I, Sheikh
Ahmad Sirhindi’s concept o f God, Universe and Man was
discussed. In the present chapter Sirhindi’s thought about the Shari‘ah, the
Prophethood and the Muslim Sects will be discussed.
Sirhindi’s thought,, which is basically revivalistic in
character, emanates from the Qur‘an and the Sunnah, and attempts at the
revival o f the doctrines o f Faith and social practices o f the community. It
aims at curbing the greatest menace o f the time by re-asserting the abiding
truth o f the shari‘ah and restoring conviction in the Prophethood of
Muhammad(s). As a serious scholar o f his time, he explains the truth o f
the Shari‘ah as he belonged to the age, where the trend was to overlook or
rather reject the shari’ah over tariqah. The former was supposed to
sub-serve the latter, as ‘India being the home o f yoga and asceticism there
was no dearth o f misguided mystics who had blended mystic practices
with philosophical meditation reposing trust in self-mortification, spiritual
ecstasy and direct intuition.’1
Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi being a qualified scholar (‘alim) o f
his time was expected to write on the Islamic subjects like the shari‘ah
etc., but there were other reasons behind the elucidation o f the concept o f
shari‘ah by him. At his time, there was a common misunderstanding o f the
concept (o f shari‘ah), either due to the ignorance o f the ‘Ulum al-Q ur‘art
or due to the wrong experiences or interpretations o f sufis. The common
views prevalent at that time can be encapsuled as follows:
1. That the shari‘ah is essentially a code o f law that seeks to regulate
external behaviour only. It is concerned with the outer structure o f
religious life but not with the inner reality;
2. That the shari‘ah is for common man only;
3. That captives o f reality (griftaran-i-haqiqat) attended to reality
(haqiqah) only, as they thought it out o f the purview of the
4. Others sought the synthesis o f the shari‘ah and tariqah.
We may say that some looked at it (shari‘ah) from a juristic
point o f view only and others from a sufi-outlook. Thus responding to the
‘ Nadwi, op. cit., p. 194.
situation and amidst such conflicting views about the shari‘ah, Sirhindi in
all seriousness elaborates the concept o f shari‘ah in Islam, which forms an
essential part o f his revivalist thought.
Sirhindi deals with the concept o f shari‘ah at two different
levels, micro and macro-level. At the micro level he defines the shari‘ah
in the usual sense of the rules and regulations o f the Qur‘an and the
Sunnah concerning worship and rites, morals and society, economy and
government, along with the elaborations and applications o f these rules by
scholars which agree with the Qur‘an and the Sunnah. Here he considers it
from the point o f view o f a traditional jurist and gives his opinion on
certain points o f law. For instance, in a letter to Abdul Rahim KaniKhanan, a high official o f the Mughal court, he tries to convince the
recipient that Islamic law is not difficult but easy to practice.1 Islam does
not impose difficult duties on the believers. For instance, only seventeen
daily rakahs were prescribed and these can be performed in less than an
hour. If a Muslim finds rukus and sajud to be difficult, he can comply
with the law by performing them symbolically.2 Only one-fortieth o f the
property was fixed as zakat and even then not all kinds o f property are
taxable.3 Pilgrimage has only to be performed once in lifetime4. God has
permitted every man to wed four wives and have an unlimited
concubines.5 Sirhindi continues in the same vein, while dealing with
1 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. I, Letter No. 191.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
matters such as clothing and food and concludes saying, that if anyone
finds the shari‘ah onerous, despite all this, he doubtlessly suffers from an
affliction o f the heart (maraz-i-qalbi).‘ Discussions o f such juridical
problems are rare in Maktubat.
At the macro level Sirhindi defines and uses the term in
wider sense. Along with the rules and laws, the shari‘ah also includes
faith and belief, values and ideals, as well as Prophet’s way to cultivate
piety and achieve God’s pleasure. Shari‘ah in this sense is a
comprehensive system o f faith and practice, including everything, which
God has prescribed (shara‘a) directly or through the Prophet(s).2 Thus to
Sirhindi shari‘ah is self-sufficient, when he writes, ‘it embraces all the
realities o f this world and the next, leaving nothing out for which one
should have to go beyond the shari‘ah.3 Let us elucidate this statement o f
Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi, which is pivotal aspect o f his thought.
As outlined, the faith (iman) is the first part o f the shari‘ah,
which means conviction in transcendental realities— God, Angles, the
H ereafter, revelation, prophecy^etc. According to Sirhindi, only way to
know these articles o f faith is the wahy (revelation) o f the Prophet.
1 Ibid
2 In the eighteenth verse of Surah al-Jathiya (45th) of the Qur‘an, the term shari‘ah is used
in its wider sense. Abdullah Yousuf ’Ali, commenting on the verse, writes that,
‘Shari‘ah is best translated the “right way of Religion”, which is wider than the mere
formal rites and legal provisions (p. 1536).
3 Sirhindi Maktubat, Vol. I, Letter No. 36.
Neither reason nor mystic k a sh f is capable o f revealing them. Reason on
its own cannot ascertain these realities. Sirhindi writes, ‘Everything that
we know through the prophets regarding God’s existence and attributes,
prophets and revelation, the impeccability o f angles, resurrection,
Paradise and Hell, Eternal happiness and damnation, and other similar
truths which the shari‘ah has revealed to us, are impossible to know
through reason. Before hearing from the prophets, reason is incapable o f
establishing them by itse lf.2 Here his views regarding the shortcomings
o f the reason are not different from some o f the important thinkers like
Ghazzali. However, on the position o f mystic kashf, Sirhindi has a
different view.
To Sirhindi, kasf is not an independent source o f knowledge
parallel to wahy. It can only act as an interpreter of the prophetic revelation
concerning matters o f faith. He says, ‘inspiration (ilham) only brings out the
non-apparent truths o f religion; it is not to add upon its truths. As ijtihad
reveals rules that are implied (in the shari‘ah), similarly, ilham, reveals the
hidden truths (of faith) which ordinary people are not able to see.’3 Sirhindi
then says, even in this capacity of interpreter, kashf is not infallible; like the
ijtihad o f a mujtahid the kashf o f a sufi may be right or wrong. Inspiration is
uncertain (Zanni) and the revelations o f kashf do not generate truth.4
1 Kashf literally means to reveal or uncover. It is the knowledge acquired through
mystical means, e.g., vision, audition, dream, inspiration, insight, etc.
2 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. Ill, Letter No. 23.
3 Ibid., Vol. II, Letter No. 55.
4 Ibid., Vol. I, Letter No. 209 and 266.
Explaining his ideas on kashf Sirhindi goes on to say that the
opinion o f the theologians o f Ahl al-Sunnah is the measuring rod o f
ascertaining the validity o f the ideas of a mystic in the light of his kashf
In case the mystical ideas are contradictory, they should be treated as the
product o f sukr (intoxication) o f the mystic and rejected as false. He
writes, ‘there are mystical ideas which conflict with the views o f the
Ahl-i-Haqq (i.e., theologians o f Ahl al-Sunnah), in such cases the truth is
with the ‘ulama’ of the A hl-i-H aqq’.1 At another place he writes, ‘the
criterion o f the validity o f mystical ideas ( ‘Ulum ladunniyah) is that they
should agree with the clear ideas o f the disciplines {‘’Ulum) o f the
shari‘ah; if there is a hair’s breadth o f divergence, it is due to sukr. The
truth is what the ‘ulama o f the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jam a’ah have
established. All else is zandaqah (blasphemy), ilhad (heresy) and the
result o f sukr (intoxication) and ghalbat al-hal (ecstasy).2 To sum up, we
can say that the kashf o f sufi should pass the test o f the Qur‘an and the
Sunnah and their interpretation by theological reason.3
1 Ibid., Vol. I, Letter No. 112,
2 Ibid., Vol. I, Letter No. 31.
3 When the views of Sirhindi on kashf are compared with those of Imam Ghazzali, they
are quite different. According to al-Ghazzali, wahy (Prophetic revelation) is ambiguous
about metaphysical realities of faith, and uses the language of symbols and metaphors.
To know its real meaning, one has to interpret this language, and to do that theological
reason is quite incapable. (Al-Ghazzali, Ihya’Ulum al-Din, Vol. I. Cario, 1939,
pp. 10-11). Hence for al-Ghazzali kashf is the most reliable instrument of interpretation.
It is not at all subject to theological reason. On the contrary theology has to submit to
mystical revelations. (Al-Ghazali, al-Munqidah min al-Dalal, ed., Dr. Ab. Hamid
Mahmud, Cario, 1964, p. 13). In his writings al-Ghazzali plays down the theological
reason and extols kashf. (Muhammad ‘Abdul Haq Ansari, ‘The Doctrine of Divine
Command: A Study in the Development of Ghazzali’s view of Reality’, Islamic
Studies, Vol. XXI, No. 3, 1982, pp. 22-24). Ibn al-‘Arabi in comparison to al-Ghazali
gives reason a greater role but puts kasf at a higher position. Contd. on p. 129…..
According to Sirhindi, shari‘ah not only means belief in
transcendental realities but also defines what religious life truly is
(haqiqah), what are its constituents and what they really mean. Shari‘ah is
not just a code o f rules and regulations that govern external action. It also
explains what faith, Tawhid, trust, gratitude, patience, worship, dhikr,
jihad, taqwa, and ihsan are, and shows how to realize these realities. It is
concerned with outer behaviour as well as with internal state o f mind and
will; with faith and virtue, motive and intention, feelings and emotions.
Thus shari‘ah is a complete unity o f surah (form) and haqiqah (essence or
reality).1 In other words it has an outward (zahir) and an inner aspect
(batin).2 The outward form o f the shari‘ah involves compliance with the
clear Qur‘anic commandments (Muhkamat) and the inward or essence of
the Shari‘ah (haqiqat-i-shari’ah) can be arrived at by properly
understanding the ambigious verses o f the Qur‘an (mutashabihat).3
The sufi tariqah, on the other hand, is only a means to
achieve the realities o f religious life and confirms without any addition, to
what the shari‘ah says.4 There are no realities outside the shari‘ah and the
…..Contd. from p; 128.
Baha’ al-Din Naqashbandi’s view is similar to that of Sirhindi. When the former
was asked, ‘what is the purpose of sulukfl He replied: ‘The purpose is to know in brief,
and to perceive in vision what you know through arguments.’ (Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol.
I, Letter No. 84). Commenting on these words, Sirhindi says, ‘The shaykh did not say
that the purpose is to acquire truths beyond the truths of the shar‘. Shihab alSuhrawardi (d. 1234) is of the same view (see his book ’’Awarif al-Ma ‘arif).
1 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol., I, Letter No. 276.
2 Ibid.
3 Al-Qur‘an, III/7.
4 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. I, Letter No. 36.
sufi tariqah is only a further help to attain those realities. And tariqah is
always subservient to the shari‘ah.’
In Sirhindi’s view it is ‘hersy and infidelity’2 to consider
that the shari‘ah is to be followed only till the m a’arifah3 is achieved.
There was a group o f sufis (though small) who believed that the shari4ah
is for common man who does not know or cannot know the truth
(m a’rifah); but those who have known the truth do not need it any longer.
But to Sirhindi, the truth is just opposite.4 Sirhindi also holds that the
Q ur‘an, the Sunnah o f the Prophet, the Ijtihad and Ijm a‘ (concensus of
opinion o f the jurists) are the only means to determine what things are
halal (legal) or haram (illegal) and what acts are right or wrong. They
also specify the degree o f obligation, i. e., whether a thing is wajib
(obligatory) or haram (forbidden), mandub (commendable), makruh
(undesirable), or mubah (permissible). He writes, ‘it is commonly agreed
that in determining the ahkam (rules) o f the shari‘ah, what counts is the
Q ur‘an, the Sunnah o f the Prophet, the qiyas o f the qualified jurist
(mujtahid) and the Consensus^ o f the Ummah. No other principle apart
from these four is to be taken into consideration to determine the legality
o f rules’.5 Sirhindi also believes that the ilham (inspiration) or the kashf
o f the sufi has no role in determining the legality o f things or fixing the
1 Ibid., Vol. I, Letter No. 261.
2 Ibid., Vol. I. Letter No. 276.
3 Mctrifah means knowledge. In tasawwuf it is particularly that knowledge which is
acquired through mystical means, gnosis.
4 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. I., Letter No. 276.
5 Ibid., Vol. II, Letter No. 55.
degree o f their obligation. He writes, “ilham (inspiration) does not
determine whether something is right or wrong, and the kashf o f a sufi
does not establish the degree o f a rule, whether it is obligatory or
desirable.” 1 He clearly gives superior position to the jurists against sufis
and treats the later at par with the common men. He again writes, “the
aw liya’ (saints) have to follow, like an ordinary Muslim, the opinion of
mujtahids. Their K ushuf (revelations) and ilhamat (inspirations) do not
elevate their status and relieve them from following the judgments o f the
fuqaha (jurists). Dhu al-Nun, al-Bistami, Junayd and al-Shibli are just like
ordinary men, Zayd, ‘Umar, Bakr and Khalid. They have to follow the
judgments o f the mujtahidin (jurists) in matters o f ijtihad’?
Besides, Sirhindi also believes that the shari‘ah deals with
the matters like what is the ideal life or ultimate goal o f man. He is o f the
view that the shari‘ah has its own system o f values and priorities, which
can only be revealed by contemplating over its structure, not by kashf or
philosophical speculation.
Three Components of Shari‘ah*
Shari‘ah, according to Sirhindi comprises o f three parts: ‘/7m
(Knowledge), ‘ami (action) and ikhlas (sincerity). For the complete
obedience o f shari‘ah, all the three parts have to be accomplished. He
writes, ‘The shari‘ah has three parts-knowledge, action and sincerity o f
1 Ibid. Ibn al-‘Arabi’s view on the shari‘ah is essentially same. He says, “ the shari‘ah has
been fixed and what is incumbent (fard) or obligatory (wajib), desirable (mandub),
permissible (mubah) or undesirable (makruh) has been defined.”
2 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. II, Letter No. 55.
motive; unless you fulfill the demands o f all these parts, you do not obey
the shari‘ah. The tariqah and haqiqah for which the sufis are known, are
subservient to the shari‘ah, as they help to realize its third part, namely
sincerity. Hence they are sought in order to fulfill the shari4ah, not to
achieve something beyond the shari‘ah. The purpose o f traversing the
stages o f tariqah and haqiqah is nothing other than the realization of
ikhlas, which involves the attainment o f rida (satisfaction). Only one out
o f thousand sufis is graced with the three illuminations (tajalliyat sih
ganah) and gnostic vision, given ikhlas and elevated to the stage o f rida
Shari‘ah Superior to Tariqah
In Sirhindi’s view Sunnah and shari‘ah are the most
important components o f Islamic culture.2 On the day o f Resurrection,
says Sirhindi, people will be questioned about their adherence to the
shari‘ah, not about tasawwuf.3 He urges his disciples to read books on fiqa
and affirms that sufi experience is inferior to the shari4ah and not viceversa, because shari‘ah is based on incontrovertible proof, while sufi
experience is result o f fallible speculation only.4 One o f his disciples
recalls that when he was overwhelmed by hal, Sirhindi used to tell him,
“Go study your lesson, because an ignorant sufi is fool o f satan”. Any sufi
experience that is rejected by shari‘ah is heresy5, says Sirhindi, and the
1 Ibid., Vol. I. Letter No. 36.
2 Friedmann, op. cit., p. 41.
3 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. I, Letter No. 48.
4 Badr al-Din Sirhindi, op. cit., p. 37
5 Ibid.
Maktubat contains countless exhortations to follow the Sunnah and
comply with the shari‘ah.
Shari‘ah, he regarded as all comprehensive, embracing all
the realities o f this world and the next, and the possibilities o f true
mystical experience. Shari‘ah has two appearances, an external and a real
one. The external appearance is based on whatever is unambigiously
enjoined in the Qur‘an and the Sunnah; it is the sphere o f knowledge o f
the formal ‘ulama ( ‘Ulama-i-Zawahir).’ Whatever has been left ambigious
and unexplained in the Qur‘an and in Sunnah is the sphere o f the
speculation o f the profound ( ‘Ulama-i-Rasikhin). These ‘ulama who
follow the lead o f the Prophet(s) are superior to the saints, as prophethood
is superior to sainthood.2 Thus to Sirhindi, the observance o f single
religious commandment is more profitable for emancipation from sensual
desires than ‘a thousand years’ o f self-imposed penance or spiritual
concentration and from this point o f view all the exercises o f a Hindu
yoge are an absolute waste.3
Sirhindi’s Approach Towards>2?i</‘aA (Innovation)
Sirhindi’s approach to the issue o f innovation is also
relevant to the description o f his views on the Islamic law. He generally
exhorts to follow Sunnah and avoid Bidah. He unlike a jurist, rearly
speaks o f innovations which are peculiar to Muslims o f India as a result of
1 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. I. Letter No. 276.
2 Ibid., Vol. Ill, Letter No. 55.
3 Ibid., Vol. I, Letter No. 52.
their life in the midst o f the Hindu people. He deals with the problem on
theoretical level.
In several places in the M aktubat he launches vigorous
attack against the distinction between b id ‘ah hasanah (good innovations)
and bid’ah sa yyi‘ah (bad innovations), asserting that either of them is
certain to do away with a Sunnah and should, therefore, be scrupulously
avoided.1 He cites examples. It has been said, for instance, that the use of
the turban as a part o f the shroud is a good innovation. It is clear,
however, that this contravenes the Sunnah by using an additional piece of
cloth beyond the three prescribed ones.2 To place the turban-sash on the
left side has also been considered good innovation, though it is evidently
inconsistent with the Sunnah, which demands that the sash be allowed to
hung between the shoulders.3 The opinion o f those ‘ulama who maintain
that it is laudable to express the prayer-initiation (niyat-i-nimaz) aloud,
though the Prophet and his Companions never did it in this manner, is also
unacceptable. In case this recommendation is followed, most people are
satisfied with the words and are not concerned with the intention o f the
heart (irada-yi-qalb); a Sunnah is thus abrogated.4 Therefore, all
innovations are bad and ought to be shunned. The Qur‘an says: ‘Today I
have perfected your religion for you and bestowed upon you all my
1 Ibid., Vol., I, Letter No. 186.
2 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
favour, and I have approved Islam as your religion”. Islam is thus perfect
and does not require any modification or addition.
To conclude we may say that for Sirhindi shari‘ah is all
comprehensive, encompassing minutest detail o f this world and the next.
Shari‘ah and tariqah are, on the one hand, two expressions o f the same
reality; 1 on the other hand, tariqah is the servant o f the shari‘ah whose
service is essential to making the shari‘ah complete. The relationship
between shari4ah and tariqah is parallel to that between prophecy and
sainthood: shari‘ah is superior to tariqah in the same way that prophecy is
superior to sainthood.3 Sirhindi thus speaks o f al-fana f i al-Shari‘ah.
There is no disagreement among the Muslim scholars about
Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi, being ‘the Renovator o f the Second Millennium’
(Mujaddid alf-Thani). But there is difference o f opinion as to what was
the single greatest achievement among a series o f his brilliant revivalistic
accomplishments. The differences fall into three categories, which can be
summarized as follows.
The first category o f scholars highlight that the emphasis o f
Sirhindi in advocating the superiority o f shari‘ah over tariqah, is the
central point o f his wide ranging revivalistic endeavour, and therefore, he
deserves to be called the M ujaddid Alf-i-Thani. No one before him had
1 Ibid., Vol. I. Letter No. 36.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid., Vol. I, Letter No. 95 and 108; Vol. II, Letter No. 46.
laid stress on the issue in such a forceful, confident and authoritative
manner as was done by Sirhindi. He outrightly made it clear that the
tariqah was meant sub-serve the shari‘ah and this checked the tendency to
overlook or reject the shari‘ah.’
To the second category of scholars, Sirhindi’s sturdy attack on
the popular mystic philosophy of wahdat al-wujud was his main revivalistic
effort.2 He unlike traditional ‘ulama‘ not only criticized the doctrine but also
gave an alternative philosophy of wahdat al-shuhud, which is thought to be
more close to the conception of Tawhid. In their view nobody had launched
out so forcefully against that misguided doctrine of sufism before him. He
succeeded in stemming it so effectively that nobody raised his voice in its
favour in the succeeding generations.
According to the third group of scholars, Sirhindi regained India
for Islam, which was about to slip into the hands of religious eclecticism,
which was flourishing under the patronage o f Akbar.3 They believe that
Sirhindi saved Indian Muslims from immediate danger o f comprehensive
religious, intellectual and cultural’apostasy, which had been made virtually
unavoidable by Akbar’s passionate drive and iron will and the intelligence of
his sharp-witted advisers like Mulla Mubarak, Faizi and Abul Fazl. Thus he
guarded the Millat in India from such unwarranted developments.4
1 Nadwi, op. cit., p. 194.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid., p. 193.
4 Ibid.
But, according to a modern and acclaimed scholar o f the
contemporary Muslim world, Syed Nadwi, Sirhindi’s main achievement as
the Mujaddid was his re-emphasising the need and importance o f the
Prophethood (Nabuwah). The essence o f his message was to ‘back away
from everyone and attend only to your master (Muhammad)’. After
examining the other achievements o f Sirhindi, he writes, “ but the fact that
the greatest achievement o f the Mujaddid which is the nucleus o f his
entire endeavour or the focal point o f his multi-dimensional reformatory
programme was his success in creating a trust in the need and abiding
nature o f Muhammad’s prophethood.”1 His was really the call, “Back to
Muhammad”,2 the focal point o f his reformative activities. It was this
principle o f reform and renovation, which struck at the root o f perversion
threatening to subvert the religious, spiritual and intellectual basis o f the
Muslim society.
Thus prompted by the need o f the hour, Sirhindi took up the
responsibility o f the re-assertion o f the principle o f Prophethood, and
elucidated its theoretical importance and practical relevance. It was the
task never taken before him by any one, perhaps, as the need was not felt
by the scholars and reformers o f the preceeding generations. But, Sirhindi
was compelled by the circumstances to respond to the distortions spread
consciously or unconsciously about the institution o f Prophethood.
1 Ibid., p. 195.
2 Burhan Faruqi, op. cit., p. 31.
The institution o f Prophethood was under scrutiny as a group
o f men propagated the philosophy that the religion o f Prophet(s) has
completed the term of one thousand years, and therefore needs to be
replaced. The followers o f these distorted ideas were known as
‘N aqtawis’1 and their idealogy as ‘ideology o f second millennium’
(Nazriya A lf Thani).2
The Naqtawis claimed that the new millennium needs a fresh
ideology, which was furnished by Mahmud Basikhawni, the founder o f the
Naqtawi movement. They contested the Prophethood o f Muhammad(s) by
claiming that the new age required a fresh principle o f human action based
on reason and philosophy. Din-i-Illahi o f Akbar can be treated as an
outcome o f such ideas. Under such influences Akbar introduced ‘Alfi
coins’ in his domain.3 Hijrah calendar was replaced by ‘Alfi Calendar’4.
The repurcussions o f Akbar’s ‘new order’ and his claims o f mujtahid did
not ceased here. Purely religious devotions and rituals like Salat, Saum,
Haj were influenced by the un-islamic practices. Usury, gambling and
drinking became lawful. The worship o f sun became prevalent.5 In short,
an inevitable outcome o f Akbar’s religious policy was that the
monotheistic way o f life and system o f belief which had taken four
hundred years’ labour of the most virtuous and spiritually illuminated
1 The Naqtawi movement has been discussed in detail in Chapter I, p.24-25.
2 Maulana Manzoor Nu’mani, Tazkirah Mujaddid Alf Thani, Lucknow, 1986, p.44.
3 Ibid, p.44.
4 Ibid., p. 45.
5 For detail see Chapter I, pp.39-40. For more details of impact of Akbar’s religious
policy, also see, Nu’mani, op. cit., pp. 63-102.
persons to take root in the country, were laid open to a comprehensive
danger o f religious, intellectual and cultural apostasy.
The institution o f Prophethood was also being challenged by
the followers o f Imamiyah sect. They believed in the divine and
indefeasible right o f the laima to lead the Muslims, and venerated them as
divinely appointed leaders in the same way as the prophet s o f God. The
author o f the Kita Tarikh al-Mazhib al-Islamiyah (Vol.I), Abu Zahra,1
writes that all the scholars o f Imamiyah sect are agreed on the equality of
an imam and a prophet. Under the extending influence o f the sect, the
Muslim society o f India was gradually accepting the thought and customs
o f the Imamiyah creed. Then, in the continuation o f these false
pretensions, the mystic theory of wahdat al-wujud, consciously or
unconsciously tried to assert itself as a doctrine antagonistic to the
concept o f Prophethood and revealed guidance. The more it took root in
the Muslim society, the more Muslim community lost its conviction in the
infallibility o f Islam as the only saving principle. All these developments
were posing a challenge to the Prophethood o f the Muhammad(s) and the
way o f life taught by him.
To counteract this trend, Sirhindi wrote his first book,2
Athbat-i-Nabuwah (Defence o f Prophecy), wherein he elucidated the
essence o f the Prophethood in Islam. In the introduction o f the book he
mentions the factors that prompted him to write the monumental work. He
1 Quoted by Nadwi, op. cit., p. 197.
2 Written in 1582-83.
writes, I found the people o f my age wanting in faith about the real
concept o f Prophethood, antipathy being shown towards the prophet’s
names, and the persons bearing the prophet’s name were even changed.1
He further writes, having interacted with scholars well-versed with Greek
philosophy and claiming scholarship having read the science o f infidels, I
found them misleading the people and having themselves gone astray
about the very concept o f Prophethood.2 They went to the extent o f saying
that the Prophethood is concerned with the external aspects o f man only,
and has nothing to do with the Salvation in the next world.3 Having
observed all this, I found myself obliged to write in ‘Defense of
The Institution of Prophethood
In order to explain out the importance and to re-assert the
trust in the Prophethood, Sirhindi starts on the note that the knowledge
gained through intellectual process as well as spiritual intuition is
imperfect. Their incompetence lies in the fact that they cannot penetrate
the metaphysical truths, such’as, the gnosis o f God, His attributes, the
ultimate truth and reality of existence, etc.4 He says that the knowledge
gained through either o f these sources was neither beyond doubt nor free
from mistake. In regard to intellect he writes that, it ought to be kept in
1 Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi, Athbat-i-Nabuwat, tr., Gh. Mustafa Khan, Karachi, 1963,
pp. 5 0 -5 1.
2 Ibid
3 Ibid.
4 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. Ill, Letter No. 23.
mind that it is not self-sufficient to perform its functions o f knowing,
analysing and reasoning, since it has to depend on other subordinate
faculties i.e., sensory organs, which by themselves are insufficient to
supply the information to the intellect, and operate within a limited
com pass.1 The true knowledge o f God could be had through relevation
vouchsafed to the prophets, for it occupies a higher place in comparison to
intellect in the same way as intellect was superior to sensory perceptions.2
Thus the knowledge o f God and the correct way o f divine worship could
be known from the prophets alone.
According to Sirhindi, the ancient Greek philosophers had
committed grevious mistake in understanding the true nature and attributes of
God. This was because there was nothing like pure or abstract intellect nor
there existed any pure and unmixed spiritual intuition or ecstatic inspiration,
free from all intrinsic and extrinsic influences.4 The mystics and theosophists
had also blundered, explains Sirhindi, like the philosophers, because they
failed to recognize that intellect and theosophy5 were both equally
incompetent to get at the knowledge pertaining to God.
1 Ibid.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Theosophy is a method of attaining the knowledge of God. Its guiding principle is that
intellect, learning and reasoning faculties block the way instead of opening the door to
the discovery of ultimate truth. It considers the vision of ultimate reality necessary for
attaining the knowledge, and this can be had through self-purification, illumination of
the spirit and developing an inner sense which can perceive the spiritual realities and
metaphysical truths in the same way as eyes can see material objects. This sense is
developed, according to them, when the earthy nature of man and his outer faculties or
sense are completely suppressed and subdued.
The metaphysical questions are outside the reach o f
mysticism just as philosophy cannot be expected to solve them .1
Theosophy or illuminism affords a glimpse o f the spiritual world but leave
many questions unanswered as/ what is the Will and Pleasure o f
God, the divine law etc. The fact o f the matter is that philosophy and
theosophy are cast in the same mould: the spirit underlying both o f them
is one and the same. Both want to attain the ultimate reality without the
agency o f Prophethood. The distinction o f both is same: one wants to
reach it with the wing o f its imagination while the other desires to get at it
through a spiritual tunnel o f inner faculties but both fail to reach the
Truth.2 This meant that the Prophethood remains as the only trust-worthy
medium o f obtaining knowledge about God and His attributes and
Prophethood Transcends Intellect
Prophethood transcends intellect and the methods o f
reasoning.3 Matters, which are beyond the ken o f intellect or human
perception, are proved by the’prophetic method. Had human intellect been
sufficient to show light o f guidance to man, there would have been no
need for God to send His apostles, nor the chastisement in the hereafter
would have been prescribed as punishment for rejecting them.4 Reason
furnishes a proof, no doubt, but its testimony is neither final nor perfect.
1 Sirhindi, Maktrubat, Vol. Ill, Letter No. 23.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid, Vol. Ill, Letter No. 36; Vol. I, Letter No. 266.
4 Ibid
Authenticated attestation is provided only by Prophethood after which
there remains nothing more to be searched for.1
Prophetic teachings are not verifiable by intellect. In fact the
prophetic procedure is beyond intellect and irrationality.2 The line o f
action adopted by intellect cannot approach the Divine Person without
following the lead o f the prophets. To be against the reason or intellect is
something quite different from that which cannot be comprised by the
intellect. Irrationality o f any thought can be judged only after the intellect
has comprehended its nature.3
Prophethood Indispensable
Prophets are indispensable for guidance o f humanity,
asserts Sirhindi. The Tasfiya (purification) and Tazkiya (embellishment)
o f soul which depend on the divinely approved virtuous deeds are
unattainable w ithout the help o f the prophets4. Human intellect is, in his
view, inadequate to lead man to the divine presence. He writes,
‘apostleship is a blessing for mankind; for, w ithout their assistance who
could have enlightened it about the nature and attributes o f God and
made it to see the difference between the evil and the virtue.’5 It is
Prophethood which drew a line o f dem arcation betw een the truth and
1 Ibid
2 Ibid., Vol. I., Letter No. 266.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
untruth and distinguished between what was fit to be paid divine
reverence and what was unfit for it.1
Gnosis o f God (Ma ‘rifat) is a gift o f Prophethood, according
to Sirhindi. As the call and message o f the prophets came to be known to
the world through their continued preaching, even the most ignoramus
doubting the existence o f the Creator realized their mistake and found
credence. Their acceptance o f God as the Creator o f all things and beings
was brought about by the light and knowledge spread by God’s
Prophets Teach Methods of Worship
The prophets also provide guidance in the matter o f thanksgiving to the Great Benefactor and teach man how to pay homage to Him
in the way He desires.3 Divine service not performed in accordance with
the direction given by Him is unbecoming o f His great Majesty and Power
but the faculties endowed to man are incapable o f finding out its correct
method. As man can even commit the mistake o f being disrespectful in
place o f returning Him thanks, it becomes the duty o f the prophets to let
man know how to lift up his heart in adoration o f God. The inspirations of
the saintly persons are also drawn from the prophets on whose imitation
depends all the blessings and divine grace dispensed to thanks.4
1 Ibid.
2 Ibid., Vol. Ill, Letter No. 23.
4 Ibid.
Prophethood Superior to Intellect
Prophethood is superior to intellect, concludes Sirhindi.
Intellect occupies a position higher to senses because it can comprehend
things not perceived by the senses. In a similar manner Prophethood is
superior in position and quality to the intellect since it can discern things
not apprehended by the latter.1
Prophethood and Sainthood
The prophet in his faith and knowledge, virtue and piety,
experience and attainment, marks the ultimate perfection o f man, and sets
the highest example to be followed. He is the criterion on which the wali
and walayat is to be judged. There are walis who are occupied exclusively
with God and are lost in Him, and care little for themselves or for others.
They are inferior to those who attend to the duties towards God as well as
the duties towards men.2 The distinction o f prophet’s ‘contact with G od’
and his ‘contact with people’ is that they are not two different phases of
his life, one coming after the other, as the sufi does. They are rather two
moments o f his life. For he does not undergo experience o f fa n a ‘3 and
baqa‘ 4 as the sufi does. He does not experience self-annihilation or selfdissolution union or merger into God. He never feels ecstasy and
2 Ibid., Vol. I, Letter No.22; Vol. II, Letter No. 93.
3 Fana means to die or disappear. It is the mystical experience of losing the self in God.
4 Baqa means to survive or abide. It is the mystical experience of subsistence or living by
and in God after dying (fana) to oneself.
intoxication, does not lose control over his reason, or indulge in shath.1
He has no unification or no separation, no ascent or no descent. He is
never so absorbed in God as to lose sight o f himself and the world, and
never so occupied with the world as to forget God. ‘In prophecy’, says
Sirhindi, ‘the prophet does not face the creation only, he faces God along
with facing the world’.2
The experience o f a prophet and the wali are, thus, different,
however, they share a lot o f experience with each other. The wali sees
dreams (r u ’ya ) and vision (waqi<at), receives ideas directly in the heart
(ilham), hears voices, and talks to appearances. These extraordinary forms
o f revelation, which together are called kashf, are common between the
wali and the prophet.
However, two things distinguish the revelation o f the
prophet from the revelation of wali. One, the prophet has a particular form
o f revelation, namely, revelation through an angel called wahy; the wali
does not have it. Wahy in this sense is specific to the prophet, and is the
real basis o f prophecy. Second, all the revelations o f the prophet, whether
wahy in the special sense, or in the form o f a dream, vision, audition and
inspiration are true and certain, but the revelations o f the wali are fallible
and uncertain.3 The third difference, which is actually a corollary o f the
second, is that, the revelation o f the prophet is binding on people, whereas
1 Ecstatic utterances of the sufis.
2 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. I. Letter No. 95.
3 Ibid., Vol. I, Letter No. 41 and 112.
the kashf o f a wali is not. K ashf is not an independent and sufficient
argument, it needs to be confirmed by the prophetic revelation. ’
The two moments o f prophet’s life viz., contact with God—
his reception o f wahy, his perception o f Divine rule, angels, his dhikr and
contemplation, his turning to God for mercy and assistance, his
thanksgiving and submission etc., and contact with people—his recitation
o f wahy, his preaching and mission, his instruction to his followers in
self-purification and piety, his struggle against his opponents, etc., form
one whole, intertwined with one another. The Companions and their
successors never made any distinction between them and never raised the
question, which aspect was higher and which was lower. But such
distinction was made only when sufism came into being and consequently
the life o f poverty and renunciation, dhikr and meditation, fa n a ‘ and
baqa ‘, ka sf and illumination came to be applauded as the highest and most
sublime life. The first aspect o f the Prophet’s life was called his walayat,
and was extolled over the second aspect which was called nubawat and
risalat, and therefore, some people held that the wali is superior to the
But Sirhindi contests the whole thought and asserts that the
nabi is superior to wali, and even his nubuwat is superior to his walayat}
He defends his argument by saying that, it is not true, first o f all, that in
1 Ibid., Vol. I., Letter No. 48; Vol. III. Letter No. 91.
2 Although the ummah and the sufis in general have always held that the prophet is
incoporably superior to the wali, but when comparing walayat of a nabi with his
nubawat, many a sufi have extolled the former over latter.
nubawat the prophet’s attention is turned away from God and centered on
people. The prophet does not experience an opposition between ‘attention
to God’ and ‘attention to people’. That opposition, rather conflict, is part
o f a w a li’s life; he experiences it particularly in the first stage o f his
suluk1. The prophet does not follow the sufi tariqah, consequently he does
not experience the conflict. His attention to the people, therefore, does not
imply distraction from God, nor does his occupation with God mean
disconcern with people.2 Secondly, in attending to the people, the prophet
in fact attends to God, because he does not attend to them o f his own will.
He attends because God commands him to attend. Therefore, when he
attends to them he attends to God.3 Finally, to attend to people on the
command o f God in order that they believe in Him, obey Him and come
close to Him, is a hundred times better than to occupy oneself with God
and concentrate on Him. This life should better be devoted to carrying out
His will and bring the people near to Him, argues Sirhindi.4
Sirhindi, thus, gives a wider view o f prophet’s mission. He
starts his mission with the preaching o f the shari‘ah, which includes both
his religion and laws. The believers, who accept his religion, are taught
how to act upon his teachings by the prophet. He shows them how to
worship God and remember Him, how to avoid sin and purify oneself,
how to cultivate virtues and piety, and how to feel for humanity and work
1 Traveling the sufi path.
2 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. I., Letter No. 108.
3 Ibid., Vol. II, Letter No. 46.
4 Ibid.
for their happiness. He tells them that the purpose o f man’s life is to serve
God, and show them how to attain God’s pleasure. He preaches religion as
well as demonstrates how to practise and live it.
The struggle to build a new society and create a new world
for his followers, is also a component o f prophetic mission, says Sirhindi.
He tries to demolish the old society and fights to establish the rule o f God
on earth. Sirhindi does not discuss this aspect at length, but he leaves
none in doubt that for him it is an integral part o f prophet’s mission. He
refers to it in letters which he wrote to men in pow er,1 where he
underscores the role o f the ruler in Islam, his responsibility to implement
the laws o f shari4ah, to establish its institutions and to defend them
against attacks from within and from without. Thus, Sirhindi gives the
broader view o f the institution o f Prophethood in Islam.
Maqam (Station) of Prophethood
To conclude, we can say that the view that Sirhindi tries to
demonstrate is that the Prophets were intellectually and spiritually the
acme o f perfection, among the entire creation o f the God.2 He explains
that their spiritual affinity with God was never severed by their diversion
o f attention to any matter whatsoever because their responsive hearts were
opened by God to the secrets o f truth and reality. This was a characteristic
singular to them since the great task with which they were charged
1 For instance, in a letter addressed to the governor of a province he writes: ‘4If along with
your administrative work, you could implement the shari4 ah, you would be doing the
work of prophets”. (Ibid, Vol. Ill, Letter No. 54.)
2 Ibid., Vol. I, Letter No. 95.
required brilliance and alertness o f mind along with large heartedness and
fortitude not possessed by the illuminists and ecstatics. The prophet o f
God made the start where mystics and saints ended their journey o f spirit.1
The former enjoyed nearness o f God by virtue o f the performance o f
duties allotted to them whereas the latter strived to approach it through
voluntary devotions and prayers but could never attain that stage.2 The
perfection o f sainthood as compared to the quintessence o f Prophethood
was like a drop beside the ocean.3 Sainthood is a fraction o f what
Prophethood represents as a whole. The Prophethood is thus superior to
In the letter 80 o f the first volume o f the Maktubat, Sirhindi
writes that among the seventy three groups4 o f Muslims, the righteous is
that o f ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jam a‘a 5 He defends himself by quoting a
hadith o f Prophet(s) that, ‘among the groups only that will achieve
Salvation (najat) who will obey me and my Companions (Ashab).6 As
obedience o f Prophet(s) is obligatory for obedience o f Allah,7 argues
Sirhindi, so is obedience of Companions o f prophet(s) compulsory, for the
1 Ibid. Vol. I, Letter No. 266.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 The reference here is to the well-known hadith wherein Prophet(s) has predicted of
division of Ummah in seventy-three groups, in the age of its downfall.
5 Also see Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. II, Letter No. 67
7 Al-Qur‘an, IV/80. Jji ^ ^ ^
obedience o f Prophet(s). Since, only ahl al-Sunnah xva al-Jam a‘a fulfill
this condition, therefore they are the righteous group. The other groups
like Khawarajites, accuse the Sahaba as slanderers, which tantamounts to
the accusing the Prophet(s) o f the same, therefore, they have gone astray.
There are isolated references to such groups in the writings o f Sirhindi.1
But, the only Muslim sect that Sirhindi discusses in detail is ahl alTashi’a (Rawafiz).
Sirhindi’s Account of Shi‘as
The Shi‘ah is the only Muslim sect to which Sirhindi pays
full attention in his works, because there were enough factors for him to
do that. A campaign o f vilification against the Companions o f Prophet(s)
had been launched by the Shi‘as throughout India with renewed vigour.2
The campaign was particularly against the K hulafa‘-i-Thalatha for
depriving Hadhrat ‘Ali, as they claimed, o f the right to succeed the
Prophet(s); and against ‘Aiysha, Talha, Zubayr and M u‘awiyah who
opposed and fought ‘Ali afterwards.3 Except ‘Ali’s family and his
supporters, the entire community o f Companions ultimately came under
their condemnation. The Shi‘a scholars at Agra court published a book,
refuting the criticism leveled against them by the sunni scholars o f Central
Asia (Mawara al-Nahr) and vindicating their position.4 In reply to the
1 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. I, Letter No. 80.
2 Ibid., Vol. II, Letter No. 36; Nu‘mani, op. cit., p. 180.
3 /A/J.(Numani), p. 181.
4 Ikram, Rud-i-Kauthar, p. 243.
issues raised by Shi‘a scholars in the book, Sirhindi wrote Radd-iRawafiz1 (Refutation o f the Shi‘as).2 The importance o f the book can be
gauged from the fact that the scholar o f the caliber o f Shah Wali-Ullah
Dahlawi later wrote a commentary on it.’
In the beginning o f Radd Sirhindi explains that his decision
to write the refutation o f the Shi‘a doctrines was prompted by the
Prophetic tradition demanding that ‘the learned refute heretical ideas
whenever they appear’.4 He decided to fulfill this duty when he observed
that ‘some o f the followers o f shi‘a, who frequented these regions, boasted
and were proud o f these fundamental principles (of the Shi‘a faith) and
spread these fallacies in the councils o f the princes and the kings’.5
In the Radd and Maktubat, Sirhindi maintains and
substantiates the stance o f ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama ‘a, about the Shi‘as.
After describing the Shi‘a takfir o f the Companions o f the Prophet(s),
Sirhindi then launches an attack upon the doctrines o f the shi‘a.6 He
argues that it is not true that the Prophet(s) nominated ‘Ali to succeed him
1 The epistle was written in 1592 A.D. Maulana Sher Muhammad Khan published it in
1871 from Delhi, with the title Radd-i-Rawafiz Raddiya. But in 1877 Nawal Kishore
deleted Raddiya from the title (Abul Fazl Faruqi, Al-Majmu’tu al-Saniyah, Delhi, 1983,
pp. 7-8)
2 Friedmann, op. cit., p. 51.
3 Nu‘mani, op. cit, p. 181
4 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. I, Letter No. 252.
5 Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi, Radd-i-Rawafiz, Delhi, 1983, p. 10; Ikram, Rud-i-Kauthar, p.
6 Ibid.,(Sirhindi), p. 11.
and the so-called ahadith telling o f his nomination are forged.1 Their
adoration o f ‘Ali is similar in its excesses to the Christian attitude towards
Jesus.2 It is against the known practice of the first three Caliphs to violate
the Prophet’s decree, as it is against the dignity o f ‘Ali to subject himself
to their authority and falsify thereby his claim, if the Prophet(s) had
nominated him.3 He maintains that there is consensus o f opinion among
the Sahaba and T ab‘ieen o f the superiority of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and
‘Uthman over Hadhrat ‘Ali.4 The Shi‘a books are unreliable and must be
considered to be as corrupted (muharrafah) as the Torah and the Injil.5
The Shi‘as do not refrain from adding spurious passages to the Q ur‘an
while accusing ‘Uthman o f concealing Qur‘anic verses, which had
allegedly been revealed in praise of the Prophet’s family.6 According to
Sirhindi, a serious affect o f accepting the Shi‘a position about the
Companions is that it puts in doubt the credibility o f the Q ur‘an, which
they (Companions) have collected.7 It also undermines the authenticity o f
the whole corpus o f Hadith, which they have transm itted.8 It will also
discredit the mission o f the Prophet(s) who spent his whole life educating
men, and on their turn after his demise, en masse violated his instructions.
1 Ibid., p. 12.
2 Ibid., p. 15.
3 Ibid., p. 18.
4 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. II, Letter No. 67, 15 and 36.
5 Sirhindi, Radd, p. 21.
6 Ibid.
7 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. I, Letter No. 251; Vol. II, Letter No. 96.
8 Sirhindi, Radd, p. 17.
In the disputes between ‘Ali and his opponents, Sirhindi clearly states that
the truth was with ‘Ali and his opponents were w rong.1 But the wrong
stand taken by ‘Ali’s opponents was a result o f an error in judgment made
in good faith and cannot, therefore, be reason for their exclusion from the
Muslim Community.2 Hence the opponents like ‘A‘ishah, Talha and
Zubair are not to be condemned but to be excused.3 About Amir
Mu‘awiyah who among the Companions is most vilified by the Shi‘as,
Sirhindi maintains that though being wrong, cannot be deemed as Kafir or
Fasiq (as Shi‘as believe)4. If it is accepted, then it is also to be shared by
about half o f the Companions who supported M u‘awwiyah and
consequently half o f the religious corpus transmitted through them will
become doubtful.5 Sirhindi also rejects the Shi‘a view that the
Companionship o f Prophet (Suhbat-i-Rasool) is not o f great importance.
He says that the Companionship o f Prophet(s) is superior than any other
virtue or merit.6 And for that reason likes o f Ovais Qarni and ‘Umr bin
‘Abdul ‘Aziz, who though match the Companions in their virtues, are
inferior to them on account o f latter’s association with the Prophet(s).7
And for the similar reason errors in*judgment (Khata-i-Ijtihadi) committed
1 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. II, Letter No. 251 and 36.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid., Vol. II, Letter No. 36.
4 Ibid., Vol. I., Letter No. 251.
5 Ibid., Vol. II, Letter No. 36.
6 Ibid., Vol. I. Letter No. 120.
1 Ibid.
by M u‘awiyyah and ‘Umr bin al-‘Aas are superior than the sane
judgments o f Ovais Qarni and ‘Umr bin ‘Abdul ‘A ziz.1
To Sirhindi, Taqiya (to conceal truth in a given situation) the
approved practice o f Shi‘as, is cowardice and timidity, and a state o f
hypocracy (nifaq).2 And to consider A sad-U llah ( ‘Ali) to have resorted to
such practice and to emphasize that he remained in the state o f nifaq, that
• • • 3
too for thirty long years, is ridiculous, absurd and irrational.
The opinion o f Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi about the Shi‘as
reaches its climax when he declares that they must be considered infidels
( kufar).4 He writes, “to say o f a believer that he is an infidel is a cause o f
infidelity. A sound tradition runs as follows: “whoever accuses a man o f
infidelity and says [to him]: ‘Enemy o f G od’, and if it is as he said [then
all is right]; if not, it [the curse] will come back upon him”.5 Sirhindi then
argues that ‘we know certainly that Abu Bakr and ‘Umr are faithful, are
not enemies o f God, and have been promised paradise. Their takfir, thus
comes back upon those who pronounced it. According to this tradition,
therefore, the Shi‘a must be pronounced infidels’.6 Sirhindi also quotes
with approval a legal opinion issued by group o f Transoxianian ‘ulama
1 Ibid
2 Ibid., Vol. II, Letter No. 36;
3 Ibid.; Sirhindi, Radd, p. 29.
4 Sirhindi does not agree to the views of Imam Ghazali and Abul Hasa al-Ash‘ari, who do
not consider Shi‘as as infidels, because before than the vilification of the Companions
does not tantamount to kufr. (Sirhindi, Radd, p. 30).
5 Ibid., p. 30.
6 Ibid., pp. 30-31.
who ruled: ‘Since the Shi‘a permit cursing Abu Bakr, ‘Umr and ‘Uthman
and one o f the chaste wives [of Prophet], which in itself constitutes
infidelity, it is incumbent upon the Muslim ruler, nay upon all people, in
compliance with the command of the Omniscient king, to kill them and to
oppress them in order to elevate the true religion. It is permissible to
destroy their buildings and to seize their property and belongings.1
Sirhindi’s vigorous denunciation and refutation o f the Shi‘a
doctrines and to decree them as infidels has to be seen in the historical
context, as the various fallacies disseminated by them both within and
without the court were damaging the cause o f Islam in India. It is,
however, important here to point out that somewhat hostile attitude of
Sirhindi towards the Shi‘a expressed in the Radd seems to have lessened
as depicted in the Maktubat written in the later part o f his life. Though
still maintaining that their (Shi‘a) view of early Islamic history and their
hatred for the first three khulafa are unacceptable, but in most cases he
refrains from declaring them infidels. In the Maktubat, however, he
condemns these acts as fisq apd b id ‘at.2 Thus, in comparison with the
attitude in the Radd, Sirhindi’s approach to the Shi‘a in the M aktubat is
mild.3 Friedmann attributes this change in the attitude o f Sirhindi, to his
joining the sufi suluk later.4
1 Ibid, pp. 29-30.
2 Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. II, Letter No. 36.
3 Ansari, op. cit., p. 143.
4 Friedmann, op. cit., p. 53.
Sirhindi has also described the various Shi‘a sects and their
beliefs in his writings.1 Some o f these beliefs contradict the established
beliefs o f Islam, such as ‘Ali is a god; or that the revelation was in fact
sent to ‘Ali, but Gabriel made a mistake and gave it to Muhammad; or that
human souls are born again and again in different bodies. Major Shi‘a
sects do not hold these beliefs but some very insignificant extremist sects
do. They have been condemned as infidels by the Ummah.
To sum up, Sirhindi does not substantiate to the theology of
Shi‘a – the major Muslim sect, and upholds the view that the theology o f
ahl al-Sunnah-wa-al-Jam a‘a is sound and in accord with the injunctions
o f the Qur‘an and the Sunnah, and the consensus o f A sla f (previous
generation of Muslims).
1 Sirhindi, Radd, pp. 12-15. The Shi‘a sects mentioned in the Radd are Sabayiya,
Kamliyya, Bayaniya, Mughairya, Janahvya, Mansuriya, Khatabiya, Ghurabiya,
Imamiyya, Yunusiyya, Mufawwaza, Isma ‘iyiliyya, Zaidiyya and Imamiyya. Also see,
Sirhindi, Maktubat, Vol. II, Letter No. 36.

Links and Related Essay’s

Click to access eng%204%20Humayun%20Abbas%20Shams%20Newv10.pdf

Click to access 10_chapter%204.pdf

Finality of Prophethood

English author uses word “apostle” for Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi

Click to access A-Misconception-Removed.pdf

#ahmadiyya #ahmadi #sirhindi

Review of Religions of July 1935, pages 241-282 (Ahmadiyya Takfir and Quetta)

In July of 1935, the Ahmadiyya Khalifa felt the need to clarify his position on Ahmadiyya Takfir. From 1911 to 1922, the Mirza family had categorically called all Muslims who denied MGA (even silently) as Kafirs without any further clarification. This attitude of the Mirza family led to the split of 1914. After the Split, Muhammad Ali and the Ahmadiyya Khalifa argued over this topic extensively. However, after 1922-23, the Ahmadiyya Khalifa adopted a new attitude, he simply called Ahmadi’s as true Muslims, and called Muslims Kafir’s only in this strange and new terminology. In all of his writings and his brother’s (Mirza Bashir Ahmad) writings, they had never wrote that Ahmadi’s were “true muslims” and the rest of the Islamic world were Kafir’s as such. We then jump to 1935, even Lavan quoted this essay in his book. In the PDF you will find the Friday Sermon of April 26th, 1935 at Qadian by the Khalifa. In this speech, he clarifies that Muslims are only Kafir’s since Ahmadi’s are true Muslims. This edition of the ROR also contains data on the Quetta earthquake.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________The PDF

Review of Religions, 1935 July pages 241-282
Another quote
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.”
In a private letter to Dr. Khan, MGA wrote: 

“God almighty has conveyed it to me that every person to whom my call is conveyed and who does not accept me is not a Muslim and is accountable to God for his default” (Letter addressed to Dr. Abdul Hakeem). See all urdu editions of Tadhkirah, and the 1976 english edition of Tadhkirah (page 346). 
___________________________________________________________________________________________ Links and Related Essays


Al Hakam – 6 September 2019

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #Ahmadiyyatakfir #takfir

Ahmadiyya Takfir in 1919

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.
In a private letter to Dr. Khan, MGA wrote: 

“God almighty has conveyed it to me that every person to whom my call is conveyed and who does not accept me is not a Muslim and is accountable to God for his default” (Letter addressed to Dr. Abdul Hakeem). See all urdu editions of Tadhkirah, and the 1976 english edition of Tadhkirah (page 346).

The quote
Question: How was it possible for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib[as] to attain a status after the demise of the Holy Prophetsa that was not achieved by any other person?  Which way or mode was adopted by Mirza Sahib that by following it, he was able to unite with earlier prophets and the rest of the people were deprived of this? What method can be followed for every person to become a prophet in the future?

Answer: Hazrat Mirza Sahibas neither adopted any new mode, nor any new way; in fact, he attained knowledge and divine wisdom from God Almighty by issuing all those teachings revealed in the Holy Quran upon his soul and acting upon them to perfection. Eventually, God appointed him to reform the world and granted him that rank which was never achieved by any other person in this ummah.

It all happened because he comprehended the essence of the Holy Quran to the utmost extent, more than any other in this ummah and practiced it significantly, greater than anyone else in this ummah. It was not that he discovered any hidden way that led him to attain such nearness to God. Even the earlier prophets did not achieve prophethood by finding out various particular ways. In fact, they attained the rank of prophethood by excelling in righteousness as compared to other people.

Did the Holy Prophetsa offer other types of prayers and keep fasts which were different from ours? Was he awarded the status of prophethood because he used to glorify God in some other manner? The fact is that they were the same prayers, the same fasts, the same charity and the same glorification of God which the Holy Prophetsa carried out like every other Muslim.  Despite of all that, he was a prophet and the rest of the people were his disciples and followers.

Regarding Abu Bakr[ra], the Holy Prophetsa said:

“Abu Bakr does not offer more prayers than you [people] and the rank that has been awarded to Abu Bakr is not because of his prayers, but in fact it is due to that which is present in his heart, i.e. divine wisdom and fear of Allah.”

Hence, as various companions embraced the rank of martyrdom following the same way, other people were not able to achieve that status. Likewise, as certain people became saints, holy men and the beloved ones of God in this ummah by offering the same prayers and charity, other people – despite offering the same prayers and offering much more supererogatory prayers, keeping fasts in a similar manner (rather excelling in fasting), performing similar Hajjes (rather
carrying out more pilgrimages), offering charity in a similar way (rather expressing much more generosity) – were not only deprived of these ranks, but in fact some of them were the most impure on the face of the earth and the recipients of the utmost wrath.

Such people continue to exist from the early period of Islam and they are still around. The Holy Prophetsa said that there would be a group of people among us who would recite the Quran and offer more prayers than us, but faith would not enter their hearts. Did those people, who questioned the Holy Prophet’ssa act [of distributing the spoils of war] that he had not kept in mind the pleasure of God while distributing the riches and that he had given preference to
his kin with respect to it, not offer prayers? They were, however, hypocrites, regarding whom Allah the Almighty states that they shall be in:

الدَّرْکِ الْاَسْفَلِ مِنَ النَّارِ
[“in the lowest depth of the Fire”]. Hence, it is not necessary to find out a new way to achieve a special rank. There are so many ranks for a person acting upon the teachings of Islam and practicing them with true intent and pious inclination that one person can achieve prophethood by carrying out only these practices; another person can become a siddeeq [truthful] by performing these very actions; another can become a wali [beloved of God] following them and
another person can become a simple momin [believer] through the same practices, yet not achieve any significant rank of nearness.

You study in a college. If a student achieves such high grades as compared to others and it is said that they beat the record, it is not because they studied a new course or studied in a new college. Moreover, those who pass in first, second or third divisions are not given such awards because of a new course. Some of them are awarded scholarships, while others are not, but they are not given that award owing to new courses. Studying similar courses, some students pass in first, some in second, while others in third division. Several students achieve scholarships from among them, whilst some not only excel the students taking exams in their time but their marks exceed even the earlier records.

The same thing applies to faith. In fact, the distinction in ranks results from the differences of understanding and the differences of action, not because of different courses or syllabi.

Mirza Sahibas, under the blessing and mercy of Allah, comprehended the Holy Quran and acted upon it to a degree that no one else in this ummah understood or practiced it. Thus, God Almighty granted the status of prophethood to Mirza Sahib and did not give it to others.

Hazrat Mosesas, Hazrat Jesusas, Davidas, Solomonas and the Holy Prophetsa were all the followers of same path. God says to the Holy Prophetsa:

فبھداھم اقتدہ

[“Follow thou, their guidance.”] In spite of this, was it possible for everyone to become Khatamun-Nabiyyin [Seal of all the Prophets]?

Question: Is it a disgrace to term someone as mujaddid or muhaddis who progresses from the status of mujaddid [reformer] and muhaddis [a recipient of God’s word] to complete prophethood, or not?

Answer: No doubt, it is a disgrace for someone to call a prophet only a mujaddid or a muhaddis, but in speech or writing, if there arises a need to mention that a prophet is also a mujaddid and muhaddis, then it is not at all disgraceful for him in mentioning that. This is a manifestation of truth. What is insulting for a prophet is when the discourse expresses and intends denial of his prophethood.

Question: If a person (non-Ahmadi) says “Assalamo alaikum” [peace be upon you] to you in an Islamic way, then what should be our reply to him?

Answer: Our reply to such a person shall be “Wa alaikumussalam” [peace be upon you also].
The Holy Prophetsa used to say [the same] to the Jews. In fact, we will precede [in saying Salam] to those non-Ahmadis who are not in denial as it is a custom. This is not as exclusive as it was before. We say Salam to that nation which has the custom of Salam.

Question: If a person, who does not call Mirza Sahib a kafir [disbeliever] but acknowledges him as a momin [a true believer] and considers those people bad who called Mirza Sahib a kafir, does not take Bai‘at only because of not being able to understand a few matters, what do you think about them? Are they a Muslim or not?

Answer: There are only a few matters of dispute which can make Mirza Sahibas either a prophet or a “kafir”. When they are verified, Mirza Sahibas becomes a prophet and if denied, he is considered a kafir.

What do you mean by a few [matters]? Saying the word “few” does not decrease [the importance of matters]. A person can even become kafir [denier of truth] by not believing in one God. A person becomes a kafir by denying a single prophet. A person becomes a kafir by merely not believing in the resurrection after death.

Hence, one should look at the significance of those few matters before stating that it is not right to consider someone a kafir just because they deny only a few issues.

The one who does not accept these few matters, denies Mirza Sahibas. The one who
does not accept Mirza Sahibas, denies God …

How is it possible that they do not accept a few matters and still consider Mirza Sahibas to be a momin? If a person thinks like that, then their mind is deceiving them. If they ponder over it, then they will surely understand.

How is it possible that a person who claims to be a false recipient of divine revelation and regarding whom God Almighty states that he is a great kafir, there exists another person who considers him a momin and then also believes that he does not receive revelation from God
Almighty? If that person does so, then let alone Mirza Sahib, God’s denial comes into effect because God Almighty declares him to be a kafir while that person considers him a momin.

If you mean to say that such a person does not use foul language by saying that they are not bad, then their faith has nothing to do with that. A noble person does not use abusive words.

(Transcribed originally in Urdu by Hazrat Rahim Bakhsh, also known as Hazrat Maulana Abdur Rahim Dardra)

Links and Related Essays

Al Hakam – 6 September 2019

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #Ahmadiyyatakfir #takfir

Al-Fazl, September 1917, proves Ahmadiyya Takfir towards all Sunni’s/Shia’s

Ahmadiyya takfir is a tricky subject, most people haven’t properly understood it.  Feel free to read all our entries on this topic here:

We found an Al-Fazl article from 1917–the scan


Summary and translation
Mirza Mahmoud (the Khalifa) says and calls his denial as denial of “bani Isreal” as denial of Mirza qadyani is denial of other prophets.  He says his denial is denial of messenger of God.  His denial is denial of Maseeh maoud.  22 sep-1917 Al fazal page 2.

After 1923, Ahmadi’s were told stop Takfir outwardly

Links and Related Essays


Al Hakam – 6 September 2019

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #Ahmadiyyatakfir #takfir



Muhammad Ali, the eventual Lahori-Ahmadi was always against Takfir, whereas the family of MGA was not (1914)

Ahmadi’s are trained to misrepresent the truth, plus they are brainwashed. I have been engaging Ahmadi’s for 10+ years and they all play dumb when it comes to Ahmadiyya Takfir. We have always argued that MGA and his family did open Takfir from 1906 to 1923, then they began to do silent Takfir, as they invented the term “true-islam” and began to outwardly call Muslims as kafirs only in the literal sense, however, hiding their true beliefs, which are that Muslims and the Lahori-Ahmadi’s are Kafirs. Nonetheless, we have found a quote from Muhammad Ali, which is quoted in the Pagham e Sulh of March 1914. This quote is from March 19, 1914, the Khalifa had died less then a week prior.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________The quote

“””“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.””””
— Paigham Sulh, 19 March 1914.
This was quoted in the Light magazine as of 2007

Click to access light-apr07.pdf

In a private letter to Dr. Khan, MGA wrote: 

“God almighty has conveyed it to me that every person to whom my call is conveyed and who does not accept me is not a Muslim and is accountable to God for his default” (Letter addressed to Dr. Abdul Hakeem). See all urdu editions of Tadhkirah, and the 1976 english edition of Tadhkirah (page 346).

Links and Related Essays


Al Hakam – 6 September 2019

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #Ahmadiyyatakfir #takfir


A fake Ahmadiyya response to our essays which expose Ahmadiyya Takfir from

Firstly, this website is an unofficial source of information on the Ahmadiyya Movement. Ahmadis are not allowed to give official answers to any questions.  Even the Ahmadi-Mullahs that we have encountered on social media always have a disclaimer on their accounts, which specify that these views are “theirs”, and not of the Ahmadiyya Movement.  This is a legal complication that Ahmadis are taught to avoid.  Thus, any and all answers from this website or any Ahmadi in particular are invalid.  The only official answers are from the Ahmadi-Khalifas or in an official book by an Ahmadi Mullah aka cleric.  MGA on 2:62.

The author purposely overlooks all of our main points
I have posted the link to the essay in the above paragraph.  The author of this website is dishonest and academically biased.  A fair person would go through our main arguments and tackle them with fairness.  Instead, he has totally avoided most of the data that we have presented.

For example:

1.  He fails to even mention MGA’s comment from 1906, wherein MGA clearly tells Dr. Khan that his deniers arent Muslim.

2.  He fails to even acknowledge that he is quoting Tiryaq ul Qulub of which 98% of that book was written in 1899, this was before MGA even claimed prophethood.  MGA views of Takfir changed after the 1905 era.

3.  He fails to acknowledge that in 1911, the young Mahmud Ahmad had written that A Muslim is only he who believes in the prophethood of MGA.  Nooruddin had to edit this essay, he even held it back before publishing.  Moreover, Kwaja Kamaluddin wrote a clarification of Mahmud Ahmad’s essay, which was also approved by Nooruddin, that clarification seemed to tone down Mahmud Ahmad’s aggressive position on Takfir, which was opposed to the position of the Khwaja, who eventually split with Muhammad Ali and created the aaiil.

4.  He doesnt know that in this 1911 essay by Mahmud Ahmad, he quoted MGA’s letter to Dr. Khan and confirmed and agreed with what MGA had written.  Noorudin tried to water it down, however, Noorudin was on his deathbed, and couldnt do much, he was dying a slow and painful death.  Noorudin even told his inner circle that Mahmud Ahmad hadn’t understood Takfir and needed more training.

5. then refuses to even acknowledge what his Khalifa wrote from 1914 to 1923 on Takfir.  His Khalifa exclaimed in this era, that all of those Muslims who hadn’t accepted MGA were Kafirs.

6. then refuses to even acknowledge that the Khalifa’s brother, Mirza Bashir Ahmad, he also wrote that all Muslims who had rejected the prophethood of MGA were Kafirs.  Technically, the Lahori-Ahmadi were also included in this category.

7.  He continues ignoring the fact that the split happened on this very topic, Muhammad Ali and the Ahmadi Khalifa and many other Ahmadis argued on and on about Takfir.

8.  He then goes on to ignore the fact that by 1923, the Ahmadi Khalifa had began to tell Ahmadis to stop calling Muslims as Kafirs.

9.  He doesnt know that by 1924, and in the Khalifa’s book on the split, the Khalifa admitted that Muslims were Kafirs, however, he was willing to call them as “Non-Ahmadi-Muslims”.

10.  He doesnt know that in 1935, the Ahmadi Khalifa again quoted MGA’s famous quotation of 1906 wherein he tells Dr. Khan that all Muslims who reject him (MGA) are non-Muslim.

11.  He wont admit that in 1953, while in court, the Ahmadi Khalifa totally denied ever writing that Muslims were Kafir, and totally avoided all questions on this topic, he even went so far as to deny that he had written his own diary.  He even denied that the Al-Fazl was an official Ahmadi newspaper.  MGA had done the same in the late 1890’s, he denied that the Al-Hakam was an Ahmadi newspaper.

The first reference that needs to be evaluated?
Ahmadis need to look at a certain statement by MGA in terms of those Muslims who have rejected him, the quote is from 1906.  This specific quote is from the letters that were exchanged between MGA and an Ahmadi (Dr. Khan, he was a follower of MGA for 20 years) who was asking MGA about salvation.  He was asking MGA in terms the Quranic verse 2:62, which indicates that ALL Jews, Christians and Sabians that were living in those days had the opportunity to make it to heaven, hence, their was no compulsion to join Islam.

An important quote

“Any person who believes in the coming, after the Holy Prophet Muhammad, of a prophet the rejection of whom makes one a kafir, is excluded from the fold of Islam. If the Qadiani Jama’at holds this belief, it too is excluded from the fold of Islam.” (Al-Fazl, 11 April 1916).

Links and Related Essays


Al Hakam – 6 September 2019

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #Ahmadiyyatakfir #takfir

In 1923, Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad, the Ahmadi Khalifa, ordered Ahmadis to stop doing Takfir on Muslims

As we all know, nowadays, the Ahmadi-trolls on social media are running around and denying that Ahmadis had ever done Takfir on anyone. The truth is, the soon to be Qadiani branch of Ahmadis began doing open Takfir on all Muslims (shias. sunnis, sufi’s, all muslims), in 1911, at that point they weren’t “qadianis” yet, since the split happened in 1914. The Split happened in 1914, and the Lahoris vs. Qadiani’s arguments began. They debated each other on a few topics, Prophethood, Takfir, Khilafat and Ismuhu Ahmad, the birth of Esa (As) was never an issue. The Lahori-Ahmadi position on Takfir was via Muhammad Ali in 1918 (See “The Split in the Ahmadiyya Movement”, page 124), he essentially said the deniers of MGA were not Kafir’s, whereas, the Khalifa, Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud and his brother and family believed MGA to be a full fledged Prophet and thus deniers of the prophethood was Kafirs per the Quran (even the Lahori-Ahmadi’s via their denial of MGA’s prophethood). In Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s 1911 essay, he wrote plainly that any deniers of MGA were Kafir’s, even those who hadn’t heard of MGA (he even quoted MGA’s letter to Dr. Khan of 1906). Muhammad Ali quoted Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s famous essay of 1911 (which was initially revoked by the Khalifa, Noorudin), Khwaja Kamaluddin had also immediately written a response/clarification in 1911 wherein he asserted that the deniers of MGA were not Kafir. In 1914, the Al-Hilal of March-1914, (which was edited by the famous Maulana Abu Kalamazad, who also wrote an obituary on MGA wherein he stated that MGA died of cholera) claimed that Qadiani-Ahmadi’s seriously believed that deniers of MGA are kafirs absolutely. While Muhammad Ali was still at Qadian (March of 1914), he got published in the Pagham-e-Sulh and was against declaring Muslims as Kafirs in contrast to the group of Ahmadi’s who followed the new Khalifa.

About a year after the split, in March-April of 1915, Mirza Bashir Ahmad wrote one of the most controversial essay’s in Ahmadiyya history, it would later be called Kalimatul-Fasl, in this book, he did Takfir on all Muslims and Lahori Ahmadi’s. Muhammad Ali responded to this in 1918 in his book, ‘The Split in the Ahmadiyya Movement”. Muhammad Ali argued that MGA was not a prophet and thus his deniers could never be Kafir’s. Even in 1919, the Khalifa continued to do open Takfir. However, by 1922, 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. A year later (1923), he strictly forbade Ahmadi’s to call Muslims as Kafir’s openly, and most Qadiani-Ahmadi’s complied (see the ROR of 1923). Qadiani-Ahmadi’s would secretly consider Muslims as Kafir’s for the next 25+ years. In 1935, the Al-fazl published an essay which seems to quote MGA’s Takfiri comments of 1906, thus confirming that Qadiani-Ahmadi’s were still doing silent Takfir in their hearts.

This topic would flare up again in 1953, during the Munir inquiry. 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.

In 1974, at the National Assembly, Mirza Nasir Ahmad confirmed that Ahmadi’s consider Muslims as Kafir’s. In 2006, Ahmadi editors on edited the PDF version of the 2004 english edition of Tadhkirah and removed the famous quotation from 1906 wherein MGA tells the famous Ahmadi apostate, Dr. Khan that his deniers are non-Muslim. 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 quote
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

The full PDF of ROR, 1923
A letter from His Holiness Khalifa tul Masih
In a private letter to Dr. Khan, MGA wrote: 

“God almighty has conveyed it to me that every person to whom my call is conveyed and who does not accept me is not a Muslim and is accountable to God for his default” (Letter addressed to Dr. Abdul Hakeem). See all urdu editions of Tadhkirah, and the 1976 english edition of Tadhkirah (page 346).
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 Muslims Kafirs simply because they call Ahmadi’s as Kafirs.
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.

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

Al-Fazl, September 1917, proves Ahmadiyya Takfir towards all Sunni’s/Shia’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.


The Al-fazl quoted MGA’s letter of 1906 wherein he did Takfir in his private letter to Dr. Khan.

“God has revealed it to me that the person who did not believe in me after having heard about me is not a Muslim.” (Al-Fazl , Qadian, Jan 15, 1935 – Al-Hukum , 4:24, Mirza Ghulam Qadiani

This book(Political Solidarity of Islam) was a Friday khutba delivered by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad on 26th April 1935. An article appered 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)

“The True Succession”: Founding of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement a century ago

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

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.


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.”
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 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 discussed his father’s and uncle’s statements on Takfir in 1974 at the National Assembly hearings.

In 2006, the Ahmadiyya movement made a PDF version of Tadhkirah, dated as 2006. 
This is important to note. Just 2 years after mass publishing this new english translation of Tadhkirah, they edited out MGA’s comments of Takfir and wherein MGA calls his cousins widow as a prostitute.  Download the Full 2004 english edition of Tadhkirah here: Tadhkirah 2006 PDF version

In the new version of the Tadhkirah (2009)
This revelation does not exist!!! It seems that Mirza Masroor Ahmad ordered that some controversial revelations be totally deleted.

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.

2018 online english edition of Tadhkirah

The 2018 online english edition of Tadhkirah is also missing the quote.

Links and Related Essays


Al Hakam – 6 September 2019

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #Ahmadiyyatakfir #takfir

Mirza Nasir Ahmad discussed his father’s and uncle’s statements on Takfir in 1974 at the National Assembly hearings

Ahmadis are trained to lie about everything. I mean everything. Mirza Nasir Ahmad was forced to talk about his father’s, grandfathers and uncles statements wherein they did Takfir on the whole Muslim community. This happened in 1974, at the NA hearings on Ahmadiyya.  In the below, my team and I have translated and collected an interesting exchange wherein Mirza Nasir Ahmad goes to call all Muslims as Kafirs.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________Read other essays on Ahmadiyya Takfir here
_____________________________________________________________________________________________The exchange

Yahya Bakhtiar. Mirza sb reply to my question has not been clear yet. I asked about a man to whom the message of Mirza Ghulam Qadiani sb has been conveyed but he is not convinced,in which category would you place him? Is he a kafir.?

Mirza Nasir . In what sense?

Yahya Bakhtiar. In the sense that he do not believe in a prophet. Although he says he is Ummati of Muhammad saw and says i have complete faith in Him (pbuh). For such person U said yesterday that he is a kafir but not out of the circle of islam.

Mirza Nasir. Yes I stated that today with references of hadis.

Yahya Bakhtar. Those who did not hear of Mirza, are they kafir and of which category or not kafir according to your teaching and writings.?

Mirza Nasir. In which category would u place those who do not believe in Moosa and Eissa a.s ?

Yahya Bakhtiar. Mirza sb I am asking to u about this?

Mirza Nasir. He would fall in the same category as that of the one who do not believe in Moosa and Essa a.s.

Yahya Bakhtiar. Because Mirza Bashir had said he is kafir even if he has not heard of Mirza sahib. So U are saying both are in same category of kufar, the one to whome Mirza sb,s message reached and the one who has not heard of him.

Mirza Nasir . Category is not the same. But decree will be issued on prima facie. We say kafir in limited sense.
Yahaya Bakhtiyar . Even if he is not aware of the name of Mirza sb.?

Mirza Nasir . If a man born in Moscow 7 years ago he is not aware of the name of Moosa Essa a,s and Muhammad s.a.w. He has no Iman.

Yahya Bakhtiar. Mirza sb you have just said that when i say I am a musalman, it is not for Mufti Mahmood and Molana Modoodi, to say that I am not.

Mirza Nasir. I am saying this too now.

Yahya Bakhtiar . Then why do U say if i decide then no body has to interfere . Mirza sb.

Mirza Nasir . No no i have to decide it for myself and others would have to decide for themselves.

Yahya Bakhtiar. But the point is this that you are deciding for others
Mirza Nasir. No I am not.

Yahya Bakhtiar. U r deciding that so and so class is a kafir of this category and so and so is a kafir of that category. In that case U have to give this right to others too.

Mirza Nasir. I did not say that.

Yahya Bakhtiar. I am talking of a criteria you laid down. What i said yesterday was, if we acquire certain right for us we have to concede the same for others too.

Mirza Nasir , of course I am not a man of superior race. I am a humble person.

Yahya Bakhtiar. Mirza sb If u claim to be muslim u have the right to claim that . Similarly if Mufti Mahmood says he is a Muslim he has the right to say that. U have no right to stop him from claiming to be muslim.

Mirza Nasir. Yes absolutely.

Yahya Bukhtiar Now here a question arises as to which category u place Mufti Mahmood as per your writings and teachings. U say he falls under that category of Kufar.

Mirza Nasir. No no i don,t say that. I said muslim of a certain category.

Yahya Bakhtiar. Kafir of a certain category. So in that case they have the right to call u muslim of certain category. Or not muslim at all.

Mirza Nasir. Yes absolutely. But they do not have the right to negate our claim of being muslims

Yahya Bakhtiar . See you have made three categories.
Certain category of people are out of islam and ummat,

Mirza Nasir. Yes like the category of Abu jahal and many more.

Yahya Bakhtiar. The other category is un-sincere who will get more punishment than other and they are kafir too.

Mirza Nasir . I did not say they will get more punishment, it is upto Allah swt.

Yahya Bakhtiar. Words like Sinful and hell bound were used.

Mirza Nasir . That has been said with reference to Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahab and Ibn e Temiya. I had said this has been said in earlier books like “Mufridat e Raghib” which tell us that there are different kinds of Iman and different types of Kufar.

Yahya Bakhtiar. Mirza sb plz tell us again what you said is that word kufar was used for few sinners. Do the words out of Islam has also been used for such persons?

Mirza Nasir Ahmad. “Kharaja minal islam”( he went out of Islam)was used .

Yahya Bahtiar. And still u think they r muslims

Mirza Nasir . Those who said like this are also of this opinion.

Yahya Bakhtiar. Of course we need the reference which says such class of person is muslim and still out of fold of Islam.

Mirza Nasir. U can not understand this until u have deep study of Quraan and Ahadis.

Yahya Bakhtiar. Here i am saying that Mirza sb (Mgaq) saying out of fold of Islam and Kafir. And u say!

Mirza Nasir. I say Nabi Pak saw saying that.

Yahya Bakhtiyar. Mirza sb (mgaq) using both kafir and out of fold of islam at a time what does that mean? He is using these words intentionally not superfluous.

Mirza Nasir. No.

Yahya Bakhtiar. One way he says kafir and out of fold of islam!

Mirza Nasir. Who says that?

Yahya Bakhtiar. Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood.

Mirza Nasir. Both words have been used in same sense.
Yahya Bakhtiar. In that case one part has become superfluous.

Mirza Nasir. All right take it as superfluous.

Yahya Bakhtiar. I would not take it as superfluous because I think he is very carefully using these words. He would not use a superfluous word.

Mirza Nasir. Even if it is against your faith.

Yahay Bakhtiar. No i want interpretation of your faith when  Mirza sb says for non ahmadi muslims that they are kafir and out of fold of islam. And still you say that they are Muslim.

Mirza Nasir . Of course I say that.

Yahya Bakhtiar. Well my understanding is that he (MBM)is clearly declaring non Ahmadi muslims are kafir and out of fold of islam.

Mirza Nasir. I have been raised and part of that family i say he never took that meaning.

Yahya Bakhtiyar. Didn,t he (mbm) say kafir.?
Session adjourned.



The scans

Links and Related Essays


Al Hakam – 6 September 2019

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #Ahmadiyyatakfir #takfir

Ali Rizvi mentions the lies of Qasim Rashid in his book, in terms of Takfir from Ahmadis to Muslims


The lies of Ahmadi people continue day by day. Ahmadi’s dont care, they are loyal to the Mirza family and gladly lie on their behalf. I recently came across an ex-Ahmadi’s video on the subject of Takfir and Ahmadiyya and felt moved to post it.  In this video, the famous ex-Muslim, Ali Rizvi’s book “The Atheist Muslim”, is discussed, in his book Ali Rizvi mentioned his exchange with Qasim Rashid, and in terms of a specific quotation from MGA, wherein MGA clearly called all Muslims that reject him as non-Muslim.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________Qasim Rashid initially authenticated the quote

Most people havent done the extant of research as me and my team, as a result, as they engage Ahmadis, they only have a few quotes, whereas I have a full catalog of supporting references in this case. In fact see here:

In a private letter to Dr. Khan, MGA wrote: 

“God almighty has conveyed it to me that every person to whom my call is conveyed and who does not accept me is not a Muslim and is accountable to God for his default” (Letter addressed to Dr. Abdul Hakeem). See all urdu editions of Tadhkirah, and the 1976 english edition of Tadhkirah (page 346).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________Qasim Rashid then denied the quote altogether and called it a clerical error

Ahmadis get away with this type of behavior, since in this case, Ali Rizvi didnt have the supporting quotes. In 1911, Mahmud Ahmad, the soon to be Khalifa, he quoted MGA as saying exactly what we know he said, i.e., all Muslims who reject MGA are non-Muslims.  Further, the Lahori-Ahmadis cited this quote vs. the Qadianis almost 10 times from 1914 to 1965, further, in 1935, the Al-Fazl newspaper (the official organ of Ahmadiyya), quoted it again. Then, the 2004 edition of Tadhkirah also had the quote, it was only in 2009, when a new edition of Tadhkirah was published, thats when they removed the quote.

Enjoy the video!!!!

Links and Related Essays


Al Hakam – 6 September 2019


#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #Ahmadiyyatakfir #takfir


Up ↑