Recommend UsEmail this PageeGazetteAlislam.org
Review of Miscellaneous Allegations
n order to stress the demand to declare the Ahmadis as a non-Muslim minority—and to make this demand appear rational and legitimate—an assortment of other allegations have also been levelled. Two among these are particularly noteworthy:
(1) Ahmadis neither pray behind other Muslims, nor do they offer the latter's funeral prayer or enter into the relationship of marriage with them, and
(2) Ahmadis have been guilty of interpolation in the Holy Quran, both textually and exegetically.
About the first allegation, we respectfully submit that the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama‘at is the aggrieved party in this matter; it has been the target of religious edicts (fatwa) by Muslim divines, since its inception. For instance, as early as 1892 A.D., Maulvi Nazeer Hussain Dehlvi issued this fatwa against the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama‘at:
"… do not take the initiative in saying [sic. customary] salutation to him … nor must you observe daily prayer behind him…." [Isha’at us-Sunnah vol. 13, No. 6, p. 85]
Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi issued the following fatwa:
"To remain a follower of [sic. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad] Qadiani and, at the same time, lead Muslims in prayer are mutual contradictions in terms and cannot co-exist." [Shara‘ee Faisalah, p. 31]
Maulvi Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi issued the following fatwa:
"To allow him or any of his followers, to be your prayer-leader is unlawful (haraam)." [Shara‘ee Faisalah, p. 31]
Maulvi Sana Ullah Amritsary issued this fatwa:
"… behind him, performance of prayer is not legitimate…." [Fatwa Shariat-e-Gharr'aa, p. 9]
Maulvi Abd-us-Sam'ee Bedayuni issued this fatwa:
"Observance of daily-prayer behind any Mirza'i [sic. pejorative term for Ahmadi] is definitely illegitimate. Praying behind Mirza'is is no different from praying behind the Hindus, the Jews or the Christians. The members of Ahle Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah denomination and other persons of Islamic faith must never let Mirza'is to enter our mosques for either offering daily prayers or for any other religious observances." [Saa'iqa-e-Rabbani ber Fitna-e-Qadiani, published in 1892 A.D, p. 9]
Maulvi Abdur Rahman Behari issued the following fatwa:
"The daily-prayer which is offered behind him, or his followers, is simply null and void, and worthy of being rejected… their prayer-leadership is the same as the prayer-leadership by a Jew…." [Fatwa Shariat-e-Gharr'aa, p. 4]
Mufti Muhammad Abdullah Tonki issued this fatwa:
"… it is certainly not permissible to offer daily-prayer behind him or his followers…." [Shara'ee Faisalah, p. 25]
Maulvi Abdul Jabbaar Umar Puri issued the following fatwa:
"Mirza Qadiani is outside the pale of Islam… certainly not wrothy of leading the daily-prayers…." [Shara'ee Faisalah, p. 20]
Maulvi Aziz-ur-Rahman, Mufti of Deoband issued the following fatwa:
"Whichever person espouses Qadiani doctrine, it is unlawful (sic. haraam) to make him your prayer-leader." [Shara'ee Faisalah, p.31]
Mushtaq Ahmad Dehlvi issued this fatwa:
"A person who has a good opinion of Mirza, and those who share his creed, he himself is severed from the body of Islam, and it is illegitimate to make him your prayer-leader…." [Shara'ee Faisalah, p. 24]
Maulvi Ahmad Reza Khan Barelvi issued the following fatwa:
"… the [sic. punitive] sanction concerning [sic. the offense of] praying behind him is identical with the sanction regarding the apostates…." [Hisaam-ul-Hermann, p. 95]
Maulvi Muhammad Kifayat Ullah Shahjahaan Puri issued the following fatwa:
"…. There is no doubt in their being kaafir, their Bai'at is haraam, and their leading the prayer is certainly not legitimate." [Fatwa Shariat-e-Gharr'aa, p. 6]
Fataawa about Observing Funeral Prayer
Maulvi Nazeer Hussain Dehlvi issued this fatwa:
"… avoid such duplicitous liar [dajjaal, kazzaab] … nor must you offer his funeral prayer…." [Isha'at-us-Sunnah, vo. 13, no. 6]
Maulvi Abdus Samad Ghaznevi issued this fatwa:
"… his funeral prayer is not to be offered…." [Isha'at-us-Sunnah, vol. 13, no. 6, p. 101]
Qazi Obaidullah bin Sibghatullah Madrasi issued this fatwa:
"…. whoever obeyed him, he too has become kaafir and apostate (murtad) … and if such a murtad dies unrepentant, then you must not offer his funeral prayer." [Fatwa der Takfeer-e-Munkir-e-Urooj-e-Jismi wa Nozool-e-Hadhrat-e-Isa Alaihis Salaam]
Mufti Muhammad Abdullah Tonki of Lahore issued the following fatwa:
"Whoever has deliberately offered the funeral prayer of any Mirza'i, he must publicly repent and it would be befitting for him to renew his marital vows." [Fatwa Shariat-e-Gharr'aa, p. 12]
Going much further than the aforementioned strictures, the fataawa were given that Ahmadis should not even be allowed to be buried in the graveyard of Muslims. According to Maulvi Abdus Samad Ghaznevi, an Ahmadi must not be buried in a Muslim graveyard so that:
"… those resting in their graves may not be tormented by him…." [Isha'at-us-Sunnah, vol. 13, no. 6, p. 10]
Qazi Obaidullah Madrasi issued this fatwa that the Ahmadism:
"… must not be buried in the graveyards of the Muslims—instead, without giving him funeral ablutions and a shroud, dump him in a pit, like a dog…." [Fatwa, 1893 A.D., quoted from Fatwa der Takfeer-e-Munkir-e-Urooji-e-Jismi wa Nozool-e-Isa Alaihis Salaam]
Similarly, they also issued fataawa that it is not legitimate for any Muslim to give his daughters in marriage to Ahmadis. So, it was recorded in Shara'ee Faisalah that —
"If it is factually determined about a person that he is a follower of Qadiani, then staying in marital relationship with him is illegitimate." [Shara'ee Faisalah, p. 31]
Another fatwa which went even further was as under:
"…. Those who believe in this, they are kaafir and their marriages have, consequently, become annulled: whoever so desires might just take their women in marriage…." [Fatwa Maulvi Abdullah and Maulvi Abdul Aziz, Ludhiana, quoted in Isha'at-us-Sunnah, vol. 13, p. 5]
In other words, forcibly marrying the wives of Ahmadis was quite in keeping with Islam, according to these scholars. In the same vein, another fatwa was issued:
"… whoever follows him, he too is a kaafir and murtad (apostate), and according to the Shariah the marriage of a murtad becomes annulled and his wife is unlawful (haraam) for him; so whoever has sexual intercourse within forbidden degree he commits fornication. And the children born out of this union would be bastards." [Fatwa der Takfeer-e-Munkir-e-Urooj-e-Jismi wa Nozool-e-Hadhrat-e-Isa Alaihis Salaam; published in 1311 Hijra]
The Muslim divines opposed to Ahmadiyyat did not simply issue the fataawa but were always keen to ensure their strict enforcement, as evidenced by the following inflammatory excerpt from the book Mukhadi'at-e-Musailmah Qadiani (p. 2, published in 1901 A.D.) written by Maulvi Abdul Ahad Khan Puri—a disciple of Pir Mehr Ali Shah Golarhvi:
"The Mirza'i faction was extremely insulted and humiliated. They were thrown out of Friday observance and congregation. Whichever mosque they used to gather in and offer congregational prayers, they were ignominiously expelled from the same mosque; wherever they were preforming their Friday prayers, they were barred from there under compulsion … there were numerous other kinds of humiliations which they had to bear. Their economic and social interaction with the Muslims came to an end. Their formally married women were snatched from them on account of their Mirzai-ism. Their dead bodies lay without funeral-ablutions, in a shroudless state, and dumped into pits, without getting a funeral prayer."
The honourable Members of the Assembly can well imagine that after being victims of persecution and hardships for a number of years if the members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama‘at had to take any steps, under duress, to avert further tribulation and disorder, then it may be an indicator of their miserable and painful predicament, but it cannot be used as an argument in support of their being allegedly "non-Muslim." There are further aspects of this issue, the details of which comprise an already published pamphlet which is reproduced verbatim as under:
Why Do Ahmadi Muslims Not Pray Behind Non-Ahmadis?
The most popular pastime of the Muslim divines in Pakistan these days is to somehow have the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama‘at declared to be a non-Muslim minority. To this end, a plethora of such literature is being published which is short on arguments and very long on inflammatory and baseless allegations and unmitigated invective.
It entirely consists of a reiteration of the allegations which were publicised in 1952-1953 among the simple-hearted common citizens, to gravely provoke them. Dr. Ghulam Jilani Burq had the following to say, in his book Harf-e-Mahrimana, about this kind of literature:
"Whatever literature the scholars of Islam have produced on the subject of Ahmadiyyat, upto now, consists of hardly any arguments but a plenty of abusive language. Who would want to read this literature which is full of foul expletives, and who would want to hear such filthy invective." [Harf-e-Mahrimaana, p. 12]
In 1953, when this filthy invective and foul expletives inflamed the sentiments of common people, then suddenly Maulana Maudoodi tried to take advantage of this situation, and in order to employ this flammable stock for his own selfish ends, he threw a burning match-stick at it which he entitled, Qadiani Mas’ala [sic. The Qadiani Issue]. The purpose behind the publication of this booklet was the same as that of the aforementioned literature, but an attempt was made to make it appear as if this booklet contained relatively less instances of "filthy invective," and "foul expletives," and more arguments. It may have been accepted as true by the simple-hearted common people who do not have the ability to appraise the arguments—just as they are hoodwinked into buying coloured water, mistaking it for a health-giving elixir, at the hands of publicly-hustling apothecaries—so, perhaps, they may have received this booklet too as a well-reasoned presentation, but the judgement of some well-known non-Ahmadi scholars concerning the worth of these "arguments" is reflected in the following quotation from Mr. Ghulam Ahmad Pervez, editor of Tuloo'-e-Islam:
"…. The greatest importance is given to Maudoodi Sahib's booklet Qadiani Mas’ala. In my view, the arguments advanced in this booklet are so flimsy that, upon analytical scrutiny, they tend to be arguments in favour of Ahmadis." [Mizaaj Shenaas-e-Rasool, p. 443]
Today we will select one important and fundamental objection from among those which have been raised in the aforesaid booklet, and which is again being constantly reiterated these days, viz. Why do Ahmadis not observe daily prayer behind non-Ahmadis? What is implied thereby is that since they do not do so, therefore it "proves" that they constitute a different ummah, and are worthy of being declared a non-Muslim minority.
We are presenting a concise reply to this allegation which, in fact, encompasses the rejoinder to most of the allegations contained in Qadiani Mas’ala. In fact, if a fair-minded reader does not let go of the Islamic principles of justice, he would inescapably concede that if the "arguments" of Qadiani Mus’ala, or sundry literature of this sort, are to be given credence then, not to speak of "Qadianis," every other sect will have to be declared a non-Muslim minority as a pressing obligation, to serve the purpose of justice. Anyhow, this was only an incidental observation. The real question before us, at this time, is: Why do Ahmadis not pray behind non-Ahmadis?
So, let it be known that, out of dozens of important reasons for not praying behind others, one reason is provided by a number of fataawa issued by the eminently regarded, renowned, high-ranking non-Ahmadi religious scholars, in which the Muslims have been passionately forbidden from praying behind one another.
1. You be the judge: should we pray behind the Deobandis about whom the fatwa (not of Ahmadis but) of the top-ranking non-Ahmadi religious scholars holds the following:
"Wahhabis - Deobandis are decisively murtad (apostate) and kaafir (disbeliever) on account of profaning and blaspheming, in their writings, all the saints and Prophets, including even the Chief of the Earlier ones and the Latter onessa, and particularly for doing the same to God, the Exalted and Glorious. Their apostacy has degenerated to such a great, great, great degree of utmost kufr (disbelief) that if someone were to even slightly doubt the apostacy and disbelief of these apostates and disbelievers, then he himself qualifies as an apostate and a disbeliever—and a person who has a doubt about the consequent disbelief of the said doubter, such a one, too, will become an apostate and a disbeliever. The Muslims will be well-advised to completely avoid them and abstain from associating with them altogether. There is obviously no question of praying behind them, you must not even let them pray behind you, nor must you allow them to enter your mosques. Do not eat any meat from an animal slaughtered by them; do not participate socially in their festivities or mourning occasions; do not allow them to visit you; do not visit them to enquire about their health if they fall sick; do not participate in committing their dead bodies to the burial ground, in the event of their death; do not give them any space in the graveyards of Muslims. In other words, you must completely avoid and shun them….
"So the Wahhabis - Deobandis are great, great murtad and kaafir of the utmost degree, such that if one does not call them kaafir such a one shall himself turn into a kaafir—his wife will no longer remain in valid marriage with him and the children born of this union, if any, shall be deemed illegitimate and disqualified from being the beneficiaries of inheritance in accordance with the Shariah…." [sic. It is as sickening as it can be!]
There are numerous ulema who are named as signatories to this published edict, e.g., Sayyed Jama‘at Ali Shah; Hamid Reza Khan Qadri, Noori Rizvi Barelvi; Muhammad Karam Din Bheen; Muhammad Jameel Ahmad Badayuni; Umar al-Naeemi Mufti-e-Shar'a; and Abu Muhammad Deedaar Ali Mufti Akbarabad, etc. etc.
"The issuers of these fataawa are not just the ulema of India. In fact when the writings of the Wahhabis -Deobandis, were translated and sent abroad, the ulema of Afghanistan, Khewa, Bukhaara, Iran, Egypt, Rome, Syria, Mecca Mu'azzamah, Medina Munawwarah, etc., the entire Arabian lands, and Koofa and Baghdad Shareef, in other words the ulema of the Ahle Sunnah denomination from all over the world, have unanimously given the same aforementioned fatwa."
[From: Muhammad Ibrahim Bhagal Puri; published under the auspices of Sheikh Shaukat Hussain, manager, Hasan Burqi Press, Ishtiaq Manzil, No. 63 Hewett Road, Lucknow. The year of publication is not mentioned on this fatwa which originated before the creation of Pakistan in 1947]
Fataawa issued by Maulvi Abdul Karim Naji Daghistani, from Haram Shareef, Mecca:
"They are immoral kaafirs. A Muslim monarch, who has the judicial punitive authority to award capital punishment, is under obligation to kill them—their execution being preferable to killing a thousand kaafirs, because these indeed are the truly accursed ones, who fall in line with the evil ones. So, therefore, the curse of God be on them and may God's blessings and mercy be on those who abandon them due to their perversities."
[From: Fazil-e-Kamil, Neko Khasa'il, Sahib-e-Faiz-e-Yazdani, Maulvi Abdul Karim Naji Daghistani, Haram Shareef, Mecca. Quoted in Hisaam-ul-Hermayin ala Munhar al-Kufr wa al-Mayn, pp. 176-179, authored by Maulana Ahmad Reza Khan Barelvi; published by Ahle Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah, Barelvi, 1324-1326 Hijra, 1906-1908 A.D.]
2. Then, do you expect us to pray behind the Ahle Hadith, about whom the Barelvi Imams have warned us in unequivocal terms that:
"The Wahhabis etc., the contemporary Moqallideen, are kaafir and murtad by the consensus of the ulema of Hermayen Shareefayen [sic. Mecca and Medina], of such a degree that, after being apprised of their accursed statements, if someone still does not consider them to be kaafir—or even if he as much as doubts it—then he himself is a kaafir. Any prayer offered behind them is without any validity, whatsoever. Eating from the meat of an animal slaughtered by them is haraam (unlawful). Their wives have fallen out of wedlock with them. They cannot marry any Muslim, kaafir, or murtad. Socialising with them, having meals together, giving them company, uttering common salutations —these are all unlawful (haraam) acts. Detailed injunctions about these are contained in the valuable book, Hisaam-ul-Hermayin Shareef. And Allah, the Exalted knows most of all.
[Fataawa Sanaiyya, vol. 2, p.409; compiled by Al-Haaj Maulana Muhammad Daood Raaz, Khateeb Jami'a Ahle Hadith; published by Maktebah Isha'at-e-Deeniyat, Mohanpura, Bombay, India]
Furthermore, refer to the following:
"One who considers taqleed to be haraam and calls the Muqalladeen "mushrik" [sic. One who associates partners with God] he himself is a kaafir, or rather murtad, according to Islamic Shariah … and it is obligatory upon Muslim government authorities to put him to death. And if the excuse for not doing so is: "I had no knowledge of it," it is not tenable in the Shariah. Such a one must necessarily be put to death even after he has repented, i.e., even though repentance will qualify him to be considered a Muslim again, however the punishment for such a person, according to the Shariah is still that the Muslim government authorities must put him to death. Just as the punishment prescribed for fornication is not quashed in consequence of repentance, similarly the aforesaid punishment is also not removed. It is incumbent upon the ulema and the Muftis of the time that, immediately after hearing about such a matter, they must not hesitate in issuing the fataawa about such a person's kufr (disbelief) and apostacy, otherwise they themselves will enter the category of apostates." [Intezaam-ul-Masaajid ba-Ikhraaj Ahl-ul-Fitn wa al-Makaa'id wa al-Mafaasid, pp. 5-7; printed at Ja'afri Press, Lahore. Author: Maulvi Muhammad ibn Maulvi Abdul Qadir Ludhianvi]
3. Now, do you expect us to pray behind the Barelvis—and become kaafirs!—about whom the Deobandi ulema remind us of the following injunction of the Shariah:
"Whosoever attempts to prove the knowledge of the unseen (gheyb) with respect to anyone other than Allah, the Glorious—and one who equates anyone else's knowledge with the knowledge of Allah—then such a person is undoubtedly a kaafir. His prayer-leadership; social interaction with him; treating him with love and affection—all these acts are haraam (unlawful)."
[Fataawa-e-Rasheediyya, kaamil, mubawwab, by Maulvi Rasheed Ahmad Gangohee, p. 62. Publisher: Muhammad Sa'eed and Sons, taajiraan-e-kutub, Qur'an Mahal, opposite Maulvi Musaafir Khana, Karachi, 1983-1984]
Or, those Barelvis about whom the renowned Deobandi scholar Maulvi Sayyed Hussain Ahmad Madni, former Senior Professor, Daar-ul-Uloom Deoband, has informed us as under:
"All these issuances of the edicts of disbelief and the invocations of curses will boomerang upon Barelvi, and his followers, at their time of death in order to commence their torment in their graves, and be the cause of the nullification of their faith and effacing of their earlier affirmations of truth and certitude. Because the angels will say to the Holy Prophetsa:
[sic. Thou certainly knowest not what hath they wrought in thy absence]. And the Holy Prophetsa shall say about Dajjaal Barelvi and his followers: Grind them to dust! And he will deny them access to the renowned Pond (sic. of Kauthar) and also to his benevolent intercession and will spurn them as creatures even lower than dogs. And they shall be deprived of the spiritual reward and recompense of the Muslim ummah, and its degrees of ranks and Divine favours."
[Rojoom-ul-Muznibeen ala Ro'oos-al-Shayateen, a.k.a. Al-Shahaab-us-Saa'qib ala al-Mustariq-ul-Kaazib, p. 111, by Maulvi Syyed Hussain Ahmad Madni, Publisher: Kutub Khaana I'azaaziyya, Deoband, District Saharan Pur, India]
4. Or, should we pray behind the Pervezis and Chakrhalvis, concerning whom the unanimously held fataawa of the ulema of Barelvi, Deobandi, and Maudoodi orientation are as under:
"The Chakrhalvi school of thought is sworn enemy of the blessed Ahadith of the Holy Prophetsa, and negates his status and rank, and his position in the Shariah. These unabashed rebels against the Messenger of God have established a strong front against the Messenger. Do you not know what is the punishment for one who is guilty of high-treason? Only a bullet!"
[Weekly, Rizwaan, Lahore (Chakrhalviyyet Number)—a religious organ of Ahle Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah, p. 3, February 21-28, 1953. Printer: Syeed Mahmood Ahmad Rizvi, Co-operative Capital Printing Press, Lahore. Office of Rizwaan, interior Dehli Darwaaza, Lahore, Pakistan]
Maulana Wali Hasan Tonki has the following to say about the rules of Shariah which apply to the aforesaid group:
"Ghulam Ahmad Pervez is a kaafir according to the Shariah of (Hadhrat) Muhammad, and he is outside the pale of Islam. Neither a Muslim woman can continue to remain in valid marriage with him, nor can any Muslim woman now marry him. Neither his funeral prayer will be held, nor shall it be legitimate to bury him in a Muslim graveyard. And this decision is applicable not only to Pervez but to all the kaafirs; and it would also apply to every one of his followers who affirms the former's tenets of disbelief (kufr). And since he is determined to be a murtad, therefore it is illegitimate, according to Shariah, retain any kind of Islamic affiliation with him."
[Wali Hasan Tonki, ghafar Allah, Mufti and Professor, Madrasa Arabiyya Islamia, New Town, Karachi, and Muhammad Yusuf Binori, Sheikh-ul-Hadith, Madrasa Arabiyya Islamia, New Town, Karachi, Pakistan]
An organ of Jama‘at-e-Islami, Tasneem, contained this fatwa:
"…. If those who give this advice imply that Shariah only comprises of the Holy Quran, and the rest is not Shariah then this is definitely kufr (disbelief), and very much like the kufr of Qadianis—albeit much more hardened and intense."
[Article by Maulana Ameen Ahsan Islaahi; the Daily Tasneem, Lahore, 15 August, 1952, p.12]
5. Or, should we pray behind the Shi'as about whom the ulema of the generality of Muslims have warned in the following hair-raising words:
"The definitive, unequivocal, degree by general consensus against these Raafizis and Tabarra'is is that these are, in general, kaafir and murtad; the animal slaughtered at their hands (sic. for consumption) is to be considered carrion. Inter-marriage with them is not only unlawful (haraam) but unmitigated fornication. God forbid, if the man is Raafzi and the woman (sic. married to him) is Muslim, this exemplifies the wrath of God. If the man be Sunni and the woman involved belongs to these despicable evil ones, even then marital accord will not be legitimate in fact it will be only formalized fornication, and the resulting progeny will consist of bastards—to be deprived of receiving inheritance from the father, because even though the resulting progeny will be Sunni but, according to the Shariah, it cannot be the beneficiary of the father's inheritance. As to the woman, she will neither be the beneficiary of inheritance nor receive her dower-money (mehr) because there cannot be any mehr for an adulteress. A Raafzi cannot receive inheritance from anyone whosoever, not even from his father.
Not to speak of being the beneficiary of any Sunni's left over inheritance, a Raafzi cannot inherit from any Muslim at all, not even from a kaafir; so much so that a Raafzi cannot have any right, in principle, to inherit anything from his own co-religionist Raafzi. Social interaction, or offering customary salutation to any of their men or women, scholar or ignorant, is an unlawful (haraam) act of the highest order. Anyone who, after being apprised of their accursed set of beliefs, still considers them to be Muslim—or entertains any doubt about their being kaafir—such a one is himself a kaafir and an irreligious one, according to the consensus of all Imams of our religion, and all the provisions of the aforesaid decree are equally applicable to such a person. It is obligatory on every Muslim to conscientiously pay heed to this fatwa and become true and devoted Sunni by carrying out this fatwa."
[Fatwa by Maulana Shah Mustafa Reza Khan, quoted in booklet Radd-ur-Rafazah, p. 23, published by Noori Kutub Khana, Bazaar Daata Sahib, Lahore, Pakistan; printed by Gulzaar-e-Aalam Press, outside Bhaati Gate, Lahore, 1320 Hijra]
"Contemporary Raafzis, in general, are disbelievers in the essentials of Faith and are certainly murtad. None of their men, or women, can be married to anyone else. Similarly placed are the Wahhabis, Qadianis, Deobandis, Naturists, Chakrhalvis, these are all murtads, such that if any of their men or women were to marry anyone else in the whole world—whether it be with a Muslim or a kaafir, a genuine believer or a murtad, a human being or an animal—such a marital union will be simply null and void; it would constitute unmitigated fornication, and the resulting progeny will consist of bastards."
[Al-Malfooz, Part Two, p.97-98, Compiled by: Mufti-e-A'azam of India]
6. Do you really think that we Ahmadis can keep our Islam safe if we prayed behind the people of Jama‘at-e-Islami about whom the Barelvi and Deobandi ulema, alike, have given definitive fataawa of the following kind:
"After perusing the excerpts from the books of Maudoodi Sahib, it became apparent that his ideas consist of blaspheming the leaders of Islam as well as the venerable Prophets. There is no doubt about his being one who has strayed (dhaall) and also the misleader (mo'dhill). I implore all the Muslims to stay away from his beliefs and ideas, and not regard him as a servant of Islam, and not be in any doubt concerning him.
The Holy Prophetsa prophesied that prior to the appearance of the real dajjaal, thirty other dajjaals will be born who will clear the way for this dajjaal. In my opinion, Maudoodi is one of those thirty dajjaals.
Wassalam, Muhammad Sadiq, afi an'ho, Manager, Madrasa Mazher-ul-Uloom, Mohalla Khadda, Karachi, 28 Zil Hijjeh, 1371 Hijra, 19 September, 1952. [Quoted in: Haq Parast Ulema ki Maudoodiyyat say Naaraazgi kay Asbaab (sic. "The Reasons for the Righteous Ulema's Disenchantment with Maudoodian Creed," p. 97; compiled by Maulvi Ahmad Ali, Anjuman Khuddaam-ud-Din, Lahore]
Furthermore, giving a clear verdict affirming the illegitimacy of offering daily-prayer behind the aforesaid group, the President of Jamee'at-e-Ulama-e-Islam, Hadhrat Maulana Mufti Mahmood, stated:
"I hereby issue this fatwa in the Press Club, Hyderabad, that Maudoodi is one who has strayed (gum raah), kaafir, and outside the pale of Islam. it is illegitimate (na jaa'iz) and haraam for anyone to pray behind him, or behind any Maulvi who belongs to his group. Having any affiliation with his group is certainly kufr (disbelief) and going astray (dhalaalah). He is an agent of America and the capitalist forces. He has now reached the precipice of death, and no power can now save him: his death-knell will necessarily sound shortly."
[Quoted in the Weekly Zindegi, 10 November, 1969, from Jamee'at Guard, Lyallpur]
7. Should we, then, pray behind the Ahrari ulema about whom the "insider's-account," given so eloquently by Maulvi Zafar Ali Khan, proclaims that these people are not simply "averse to Islam": they are indeed the "traitors to Islam." Please read on (sic. translated from Urdu poem):
Averse they are to the understanding of Divine Laws;
[Newspaper, Zameendaar, 21 October, 1945, p.6]
Maulana Maudoodi, while, in a way, bearing out the position taken by Maulvi Zafar Ali Khan, stated:
"…. These actions clarified two things for me: firstly, the real objective, in front of the Ahrar, is not the protection of the Finality of Prophethood (tahaffuz-e-Khatm-e-Nubuwwat); rather, their real aim is self-advertisement and taking selfish credit. And that these people want to gamble away the lives and property of the Muslims for gaining their selfish objectives in exchange. Secondly, that after unanimously adopting a resolution the night before, some conspirators hatched a plot in isolation and produced a different resolution of their own composition….
“I felt that a task which is performed with such intentions and by the use of such tricks cannot contain any goodness. And those who are exploiting the name of Allah and the Holy Prophetsa for achieving their own selfish ends—and who use the heads of Muslims as if they are manoeuvering chess-pieces—such people can never be granted support by Allah."
[Daily Tasneem, Lahore, 2 July, 1955, p.3, pp. 4-5]
The foregoing pages consisted of only a few excerpts from numerous lengthy edicts (fataawa) for illustrative purposes only. Now you have read these fataawa. May Allah have mercy on the Muslim ummah—you must have clutched at your heart, or held your head in your hands. But do allow us to pose only this question to you at this point: In the presence of these heart-rending fataawa, can there be any reason—however far-fetched—to raise an objection against Ahmadis as to why do they not offer daily-prayer behind the prayer-leaders of any of the aforementioned sects?
For God's sake, do some justice! Have a modicum of fear of God. Have some sense of obligation to being the followers of our lord and master Hadhrat Muhammad, the chosen onesa, who was the personification of justice. Tell us, how far are the atrocities and injustices being perpetrated against Ahmadis by the ulema of the majority of the aforementioned sects, justified? How far such conduct is becoming of a Muslim; how far does it behove any humble follower of the one who was "Mercy for the Universe"? If one does offer prayers behind them, one is branded as kaafir; if one does not offer prayers behind them, one is still branded as kaafir! It is a no-win situation. What is one supposed to do? Is the only way left for one to retain Islam as his faith is to abstain altogether from offering prayer in congregation—as the majority among the generality of Muslim has already done?
The sum total of the decrees issued by the ulema of this age seems to be: give up offering daily-prayers, if you want to retain your identity as a Muslim; otherwise, regardless of who you pray behind, you will be determined to be a certified kaafir and Hell-bound. The sole escape-route was to not offer prayer behind any of the aforesaid groups—but, with reference to Ahmadis, even this route has been closed by issuing fataawa to this effect that: those who do not offer prayer behind any other Muslim sect, are declared as kaafirs. A "non-Muslim minority" is kaafir even if it offers daily-prayers; but if it does not offer daily prayers, it still is kaafir! What can one do? Where can one go? As Aatish, the poet, remarked:
Unless one courts one’s early death,
Some wise-man wrote the following sardonic fable to illustrate such a notion of "justice." A little lamb was once drinking water at a stream when he was approached by a wolf who had come from upstream. The wolf chided the little lamb: "Didn't you know that I was also drinking water, then how did you dare to muddy the waters I was drinking from?" Poor lamb managed to say, "Sir, I was drinking at the downstream, so I could not have muddied your waters upstream which is where you were drinking." The wolf became enraged and said, "You have the nerve to talk back and call me a liar? It will serve the purpose of justice if I tear you to pieces and eat you up."
You should instill some fear of God in the minds of these ulema. When you read this fable of the wolf and the little lamb, you are sometimes moved to pity for the little lamb and sometimes you get angry at the action of the wolf. But right now, in front of your very eyes, it is not lambs but human beings who are being subjected to the same treatment. This is not happening in any fable, this persecution is being re-played in the form of a tragic reality, in everyday life, in your own society. But you do not utter a single word of protest against it!
For God's sake at least do this much: tell these ulema that if they are determined to stay this course of coercion, and adhere to this Law of the Jungle, and if your apparent material strength has proudly decided to recklessly trample the injunctions of justice laid down by God Almighty, then they must at least have the sense of decorum to not embroil the sacred name of Islam in this matter. At least have the courtesy of not implicating the honour and integrity of the Holy Prophetsa in this conflict. The position of pride—characterized by power and numerical strength—does not need to rely upon the crutches of such flimsy "arguments," does it?
When you are barred from drinking-bar,
When you are bent upon achieving your self-styled objectives—even at the cost of compromising Islamic values of equity and justice—then forget about your so-called "arguments," and clutching at the straws. Have the audacity to enter the arena of Karbala and relentlessly carry out whatever suits your fancy. And see for yourselves on whose side the God of Islam is, and also the Messenger of Islam? And who it is that would emerge out of this mill of trials and tribulations and would be proven to be the true, sincere and completely devoted servant of Hadhrat Muhammad, the chosen onesa, who is infused with his boundless love?
Insha Allah, you will see, and time will bear the testimony, that every Ahmadi is true in his claim that: Yes indeed: O, Holy Prophetsa, O, dearest mine —
If writ goes forth that on thy street,
Another cruel and completely fabricated allegation has been levelled against us that the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama‘at as well as his followers have (God forbid) effected interpolations in the Holy Quran—both of textual as well as exegetical nature. This flies in the face of the fact that it is only the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama‘at, and his followers, whose article of belief it is that no verse, or even a single word of the Holy Quran can be abrogated, or modified; and that the Holy Quran is the eternally secured and safeguarded Book.
It is deplorable that some contemporary ulema, out of their wanton desire to arouse hostility, have brought the allegation of interpolation in the Holy Quran against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama‘at. In this respect they have gleaned some verses of the Holy Quran which were quoted in various books in the Ahmadiyya literature but which, unfortunately, contained some printing errors. By presenting the aforesaid instances they have made a regrettable attempt to show that the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama‘at has (God forbid) been guilty of interpolation in the Holy Quran. But they conveniently forget that the kind of printing errors on the basis of which they have alleged interpolation against us, is found in the books of nearly every author.
In various issues of Al-Fazl, an organ of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama‘at, instances have been presented with reference to the books published by the following ulema which contain verses of the Holy Quran in which such printing errors do exist:
If printing errors can be called "interpolation in the Holy Quran," then are you prepared to declare all the aforementioned ulema as the interpolators in the Holy Quran?
The allegation of "exegetical interpolation," too, is equally baseless. The ulema have done several different translations of the Holy Quran, and written its commentaries and exegeses. If these differing expositions are to be labelled as interpolation, then all the commentators, exegetes, and ulema will have to be held guilty of interpolation.
It must be remembered that the fine points and deeply perceptive meaning of the Holy Quran are unfolded for the comprehension of those who are motahharoon (the purified ones). Allah, the Exalted, says:
None shall touch it except those who are purified. (56:80)
If the exposition of spiritual verities and fine points is to be confounded with ‘interpolation' then all the saints of Muslim ummah will have to be declared as interpolators. God forbid!