Who is the Muslim in Ahmadiyya?!

“Our Holy Prophet Muhammad s.a.w had put a definition of, Who is the Muslim” Ahmadis/Qadianis say!

They refer to the following Hadith:

حَدَّثَنَا عَمْرُو بْنُ عَبَّاسٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ الْمَهْدِيِّ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا مَنْصُورُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ، عَنْ مَيْمُونِ بْنِ سِيَاهٍ، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ مَنْ صَلَّى صَلاَتَنَا، وَاسْتَقْبَلَ قِبْلَتَنَا، وَأَكَلَ ذَبِيحَتَنَا، فَذَلِكَ الْمُسْلِمُ الَّذِي لَهُ ذِمَّةُ اللَّهِ وَذِمَّةُ رَسُولِهِ، فَلاَ تُخْفِرُوا اللَّهَ فِي ذِمَّتِهِ ‏"‏‏

 Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "Whoever prays like us and faces our Qibla and eats our slaughtered animals is a Muslim and is under Allah's and His Apostle's protection. So do not betray Allah by betraying those who are in His protection." {Sahih al-Bukhari 391}

An allegation put by Ahmadis/Qadianis is: why Muslims consider Ahmadis as Kuffar despite our Holy Prophet s.a.w had put a definition of the Muslim as the one who prays like Muslims and faces their Qibla and eats their slaughtered animals?!  They regard themselves as Muslims because they do these things!

Whatever the meaning of this Hadith, I want to ask Ahmadis/Qadinis these questions:

1.  Do you consider deniers of MGA Qadiani as Muslims if they pray like Muslims and face their Qibla and eat their slaughtered animals?!
2.  What about those who accepted him but didn’t enter in the Bai’at?
3. What about those who never ever heard the name of MGA Qadiani? Are they Muslims?

I want my Ahmadi friends to answer these questions before reading the rest of my article.

These Are The Opinions of Ahmadi/Qadiani Leaders About Deniers of MGA Qadiani:

(NB: Highlighted texts are sufficient)

1. MGA Qadiani said:

"God Almighty has conveyed it to me that every person to whom my call is conveyed and who doesn't accept me isn't a Muslim and is accountable to God for his default"

This Qadiani revelation is present in both Arabic and Urdu editions of Tadhkirah, but not present in the English edition in its supposed place!

Kindly follow the following link for scanned pages:

http://ahmadiyyaqadianiyya.blogspot.com.eg/2018/04/a-statement-of-qadiani-revelation-is.html

   2. Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmoud Ahmad (son of MGA Qadiani and second caliph of Ahmadiyya/Qadianiyya) said:

“These changes, according to Maulawi Muhammad Ali, relate to three matters; (1) that I propagated the belief that Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was actually a Nabi; (2) the belief that he was 'the Ahmad' spoken of in the prophecy of Jesusas referred to in the Holy Quran in Al-Saff 61:7; and (3) the belief that all those so-called Muslims who have not entered into his Bai‘at formally, wherever they may be, are kuffar and outside the pale of Islam, even though they may not have heard the name of the Promised Messiah.That these beliefs have my full concurrence, I readily admit. What I deny is the statement that I have been entertaining these views since 1914 or only three or four years before. On the contrary, as I shall presently show, the first and the last of these beliefs were entertained by me even during the lifetime of the Promised Messiah, while the second belief developed soon after the death of the Promised Messiah as a result of the teachings I received from Hadrat Khalifatul Masih Ira, and of the various discourses I had, with him on the subject.” Truth about the Split p. 56,57.

 Mahmoud Ahmad also said:

“As for the question of Kufr (unbelief) of nonAhmadi Muslims, my belief is that Kufr really arises from a denial of God. Hence, whenever there comes any revelation from God of such a nature that its acceptance is obligatory on every man, a rejection of the same leads to Kufr. Belief in such a revelation, however, presupposes belief in the bearer of the revelation. Hence it follows that a belief in the bearer of such revelation is a necessary part of one’s faith. The man who rejects a Prophet thus necessarily becomes a kafir, not because he denies the truth of any particular Prophet X or Y, but such denial will necessarily lead him to reject a revelation of God. To me, the Kufr which arises from the denial of any Nabi has its basis in this principle and not in any personal quality of the Nabi. And inasmuch as the revelation of which the acceptance is obligatory on mankind comes only through Prophets, it is the rejection of such recipients of Divine revelation, and not of others that leads to unbelief. Now, as we hold that the revelation which came to the Promised Messiah are such that their acceptance is obligatory on mankind in general, to us, the man who rejects the Promised Messiah is a kafir agreeably to the teachings of the Holy Quran, although he may well be a believer in all the other truths of religion because the presence even of one of the necessary conditions of Kufr is sufficient to make a man kafir. I may however add that in my opinion Kufr arises from a denial of one or more of the fundamental articles of religion, not because such a denial makes a man the object of unending punishment, but because the denial makes him guilty of rebellion against God and leads to the extinction of his spiritual life. Now, as Islam bases its judgments upon what is patent and not upon what is possible, it cannot but class as kafir such as fail to accept any of the Prophets, even though such failure may be due to their want of information concerning him. In the latter case, they will not, of course, be the objects of Divine punishment. The denial would be due to causes altogether beyond their control. It is in accordance with the same principle that Muslims have so long with one accord designated as kuffar all those who have not accepted the faith of Islam, without taking into consideration the question whether or not such failure is occasioned by want of adequate information concerning the Holy Prophetsa. And the doctor is yet to be born who will class in the category of Muslims the Esquimaux of the North Pole, the Red Indians of America, the Hottentots of Africa or the Maoris of Australia, or those millions of Christians, who living in central Europe or in other out of the way places have not yet heard anything regarding the teachings of the Holy Prophetsa. Such are my convictions. Whether they are right or wrong it is not my present purpose to discuss. I shall discuss their merits later on.” Truth about the Split p.59-61.

 He said also:

“Regarding the main subject of my article, I wrote that as we believed the Promised Messiah to be one of the Prophets of God, we could not possibly regard his deniers as Muslims. It is true we did not consider them to be kafir billah, (deniers of God), but how could we doubt that, they were kafir-bil-ma’mur (deniers of a God’s Messenger)? Those who say that they regarded Mirza Sahib as a righteous person and so did not deserve to be called kuffar, ought to consider whether a righteous person ever spoke an untruth. If Mirza Sahib, was indeed a righteous person, what possible objection could there be to their subscribing to his claim. After this, the article proceeded to quote passages from the writings of the Promised Messiah to show that he regarded his deniers as kuffar. Some of the passages, quoted in the article, are reproduced here in brief: To the apostate Abdul Hakim of Patiala, he wrote: "At any rate, when the great God has revealed to me that every body whom my Call has reached and who has failed to accept my claim, is not a Muslim, and is liable to account before God, how can I at the instance of one individual, whose heart is steeped in a thousand darknesses, ignore the command of God. It is easier to cut off such a one from my Community. Accordingly from this date I hereby exclude you from the Community of my followers." Following this, I proceeded to explain the purport of the above passage in the following words. "The above words apply not merely to those who take an active part in denouncing the Promised Messiah; but every person who fails to accept him is not a Muslim. Further on, I explained, in the words of the Promised Messiahas himself, the meaning he attached to the expression "reaching of Call." This was that the Promised Messiahas had made his Call reach every part of the globe, and hence the whole world might be said to have received his Call. It was unnecessary for this purpose that the information should be carried separately to each individual. After this, I went on to prove from the writings of the Promised Messiah that those who did not explicitly style the Promised Messiah as a kafir but nor did they accept his claim, were to be classed with those who styled him as a kafir; so also were those who only waited for fuller information and put off entering into his Bai‘at. Then in my own words. I summarised the purport of the quotations as follows: "Thus, according to these quotations, not only are those deemed to be kuffar, who openly style the Promised Messiah as kafir, and those who although they do not style him thus, decline still to accept his claim, but even those who, in their hearts, believe the Promised Messiah to be true, and do not even deny him with their tongues, but hesitate to enter into his Bai‘at, have here been adjudged to be kuffar." After this, some more quotations were given in support of the main contention, and the weakness implicit in the overture for friendship was exposed, and the Promised Messiah’s fatwa (pronouncement) which forbade Ahmadis to pray behind non-Ahmadi Imams was quoted. And lastly, it was argued from a verse of the Holy Quran that such people as had failed to recognise the Promised Messiah as a Rasul even if they called him a righteous person with their tongues, were yet veritable kuffar.  Such was my article which was twice read through by Hadrat Khalifatul Masihra, and corrected in several places in his own hand, and regarding the purport of which he remarked that he had no difference whatsoever. Now, after reading the above and after perusing those passages which I have quoted, is it possible for any intelligent person to imagine that Hadrat Khalifatul Masihra could possibly take the article to say no more than that those who did not accept Hadrat Mirza Sahib were only deniers of Hadrat Mirza Sahib?” Truth about the Split p. 146-149.

 3. Mirza Basheer Ahmad (M.A) (second son of MGA Qadiani) said:

 “Every individual who believes in Moosa a.s but rejects Eesa a.s or accepts Eesa a.s but rejects Rasul ullah s.aw, or accepts Rasulullah s.a.w but rejects the Promised Messiah is not only a Kaafir but an obstinate Kaafir and outside the fold of Islam.” (Kalimatul Fas’l Pg110. Included in the Review of Religions Vol.14)

He said in the same book at another place:

“The claim of the promised Messiah that he is appointed by Allah s.w.t and that Allah s.w.t communicates with him can only have two distinct possibilities. Either he is a liar in his claims and he has attributed a great lie upon Allah s.w.t in which case he is a KAAFIR; indeed a KAAFIR of the worst kind, or the promised Messiah is truthful in his claims and Allah s.w.t is indeed in communication with him in which case this title of KUFFAR should be truly attributed to the ones who deny his claim as stated by Allah s.w.t in this verse. Thus you are free to make the choice as to either call the deniers of the promised Messiah “Muslims” or accept the promised Messiah as truthful and call his deniers “KUFFAR”. It is not possible for you to call both of them Muslims at the same time because the verse is explaining itself that if the claimant is not a Kaafir then the rejecter is. So for God’s sake give up your hypocrisy and decide one way or another.” (Kalimatul Fas’l Pg123. Included in the Review of Religions Vol14)