Ahmadiat vs. Mainstream Islam

My email to an Ahmadi friend after we agreed to discuss Ahmadiat....

Dear Friend,

Thanks for your email. Before I embark upon anything with regards to discussion at hand, I would like to say a few words about my intentions. The reason to declare my intentions are that you wanted to inquire that whether I am doing so out of my fascination or do I have hunger to find the truth. Well to answer it, I would say that I am doing it out of pure curiosity which is the precursor of all inquiries and pursuits of knowledge. When one treads on such a path, the truth itself puts itself at the feet of pursuer, even if this truth sometimes conveys nothing but the futility of specific path chosen. So my fascination is pure curiosity and nothing else, and hunger to find the truth has no relevance to it. The reason is that such hunger presupposes that my current position with respect to religion is erroneous, which I refuse to accept because of its irrelevance and being out of place. Second reason is that until one has not walked the path, one cannot say anything about the quality of fruits that wait at the end of journey. To do so would mean entering any debate with preconceived notions, which is nothing but intellectual dishonesty. If you are thinking on the same lines, then I do pray to drop such a mental position, otherwise we'll end up no where except wasting our time, which is a precious commodity nowadays. I am sure that I have made myself clear on the point of intentions, and I also believe that you are also on the same wavelength.

The second point was regarding the position of Quran and Ahadiths. You rightly pointed out that Quran is the ultimate source, and I do acknowledge that. For Ahadiths, you said that only those Ahadiths will be considered which do not contradict Quran. Well, here a problem will arise, which is that to know whether a particular Hadith contradicts Quran or not can also be disputed due to the simple reason that Hadith will be compared with some interpretation of Quran, and there might be dispute regarding the interpretation itself. You will agree with me on this point as one of the main dispute between Ahmadiat and mainstream Islam is due to the interpretation of Ayat regarding the finality of prophet hood. Further, there is always a dispute regarding the sehat of Ahadiths when two opposing parties present Ahadiths in support of their opposing point of view. Let us see what the founder of Ahmadiat Mirza Ghulam Ahmed sahib says about Ahadith. Second Khalifa of Ahmadiat, Mirza Mahmood Ahmed said:

"Promised Masiha (i.e. Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Sahib) used to say that the books of Ahadiths are like a patari of a magician. The magician takes out of it (patari) what he wants, in the same way one can get out of them (books of Ahadith) what he wants [Ref: Friday sermon reported in Akhbar al Fazl dated 15th July, 1924]"

In the same way, the founder of Ahmadiat Mr. Ghualm Ahmed himself wrote about Ahadiths that:

"…and the person who is ordained, he has the right to choose after getting knowledge from God whatever segment he accepts out of the repository of Ahadiths, and reject whatever after he has gotten knowledge from God [Ref: Toufahe Golarriya – Page 10]"

In the same way, one of renowned scholar of contemporary scholar of Islam, Allama Moudidi writes that:

"The person who has studied most of the repository of Ahadiths can attain the standard to judge the Ahadiths. Abundant study (of Ahadiths) and (mental) effort get a person to a point where he becomes recognizer of the personality traits of Rasool Allah …… his condition becomes like an old jeweler whose wisdom can recognize the most subtle properties of the jewel………….. when he reaches this stage, he does not remain in the need of any evidence ( asnad). He does get help from evidence, but his decision is without regard to the evidence. He sometimes accept a hadith as valid even if it is weak, without continuous chain of communicators, and considered invalid by consensus, because his wisdom can recognize vein of jewel in the stone. And sometime he rejects a hadith which is considered valid, with proper chain of communicators, and accepted as valid by consensus because the substance of the hadith is something which according to him is against the traits of Islam and not in accordance with the personality traits of Prophet Muhammad ( P.B.U.H) [ Ref : Tafheemat, Volume 1, pages 202, 324]

So we see that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed bases the authenticity of any Hadith on his own judgment, which he says is given to him by Allah, and Allama Moududi bases the same authenticity on his own judgment due to his overwhelming knowledge about the personality of Prophet Muhammad ( P.B.U.H). What is common is both the cases is that both base the authenticity of any hadith on their own judgment, which is subjective and individualistic (please do not argue here that in case of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed, it is divine guidance because this is the whole point of discussion and difference). So to conclude, I would say that in both cases it is not objective.

Further, if we dig out the history of Ahadiths, we see that Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) and his sahaba did not left any collection in compiled form after their authentication, and this compilation of Ahadiths started much later; as a matter of fact after about two centuries into the Hijra calendar. So, what does that mean? It means that for matters regarding the basic principals of Imaan, Quran is sufficient, and Prophet Muhammad ( P.B.U.H) did not consider it necessary for us to have a collection of Ahadiths. So, the Ahadiths are a significant part of our history and even for guidance also, but not something without which the core principals of Islam cannot be understood.

So, in all my discussions I will not present any Ahadiths to support my claim nor I will accept it in the support of any counter claim, as otherwise the discussion would be on a shaky ground and will not go anywhere.

Now, we come on the actual debate and you mentioned that there are only three differences between Ahmadiat and mainstream Islam. Following is the relevant portion of your email:

"…….there are ONLY three points of conflicts, contrary to what Mullah says, which are

1. Death or life of Jesus

2. Interpretation and meaning of Aya Khatam un Nabiyeen…as in Quran and possibility that any prophet can come or not.

3. Truthfulness of Claim of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as Promised Messiah/Mehdi/Prophet as indicated in prophecies of Hadhrat Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him). "

Now before I go further, I would like to quote from a Friday sermon of second Khalifa of Ahmadiat, Mirza Mahmood Ahmed. He said:

"the words uttered by Promised Masiah are still resonating in my ears. He said that it is wrong to assume that our differences with others are only about the death of Jesus and some other matters. He said, `the entity of God, Prophet Muhammad ( P.B.U.H), Quran, Prayer, Fasting, Hajj, Zakat, in each of these things we differ from them`. [Ref: Reported in Al Fazl dated 30th July, 1931]

So, it seems that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib is also in the same league of those Mullahs that you mentioned before enumerating the three main differences between Islam and Ahmadiat.

The differences that you mentioned are theological in nature and important one, but in my opinion all three of them boil down to one core point of conflict viz. the finality of prophet hood and all others are secondary issues and stem from the main conflict regarding finality of prophet hood. Now, this I will term as theological dimension of Ahmadiat vs. mainstream Islam conflict.

But before I go on discuss the theological dimension, there is another dimension to this conflict, which is of sociological nature and demands more urgent attention from the parties having stakes in it. This relates to the issue of identity of Ahmadiat or if I use the marketing terms the branding of Ahmadiat. I will discuss the issue of identity of Ahmadiat first and then will move on to the issue of theological differences.

Why I am giving priority to sociological aspect by discussing identity issue first is because of its urgency. There has been a constant stream of accusations throughout the world by the champions of human rights that Ahmadis are being persecuted in Pakistan, and are denied their fundamental freedom. This has spread so much that whenever there is some discussion regarding the religious freedom in Pakistan, issue of Ahmadiat persecution is brought up as irrefutable argument and the matter is closed. The reason for this is mostly the shallowness of intellect and lack of knowledge about Ahmadiat both by the champions of human rights and by the people debating out of their patriotism of Pakistan. The issue is not that simple, as I will demonstrate below.

Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) left this world in 632 A.D., and the people following him are known as Muslims. Though, we Muslims believe in the religious continuity of our faith right from the first Prophet Adam (Aleh-e-Salam) through Prophets Moses, Jesus and so on till Prophet Muhammad ( P.B.U.H), yet this community started calling itself Muslims and called its religion as Islam. We did not say that we are Jews or Christians, although if we claim the same spiritual continuity, it seems that we should be. But we did not and the reason is that we are different; different because of perhaps the degradation of previous people of book, and we claim that we are right. Even the position of right and wrong does not have any relevance here and the simple thing is that we are different. To approach someone as Jew or Christian while being the follower of religion Islam would be insult to those who are Jews or Christians and would be like encroaching on their fundamental human rights and religious space and will be total stupidity. And here it does not matter at all whether we the Muslims are true followers of Jesus or Moses.

In the same way I believe that Ahmadis are different from us. Again there is no question whose position is right or wrong; the thing is that there is such a difference at core fundamental level that all the apparent similarities do not matter at all. Now, we non Ahmadis consider that from the death of Prophet Muhammad ( P.B.U.H) in 632 A.D. till almost the start of 20th century (almost thirteen centuries), we called ourselves Muslims and our religion Islam. Now at the beginning of 20th century a person comes and tells us that he is Prophet (his being right or wrong does not matter), and his followers still want to claim Islam as their religion. Question here is; who has the right to the title of calling themselves Muslims, and their religion Islam. Old community which is in overwhelming majority with thirteen century of use of the title or the new one whose members on whatever bases are not accepted as their own by the old community. Remember the democratic rule. One can imagine who will be the winner, if such a case goes in any court of any country in the world. This question is as simple as knowing the difference between one's right hand from the left. I am sure, even a drunk man can differentiate his right from the left.

To conclude the sociological dimension, I would like to say that Ahmadis are different from main stream Muslims, so they do not have any right to be called so and use the name of our religious symbols as their own. To call themselves part of us will be deceiving all especially those non Muslims whom they approach for preaching, and would be far below the level of integrity, justice and fair play (some of the golden rules of all religions irrespective of their being divinely inspired or man made).

After saying this, I would also like to add that at my level and at the level of my country as well, we are in full support of Ahmadis having their freedom of religion and whatever secondary activities in consequence thereof provided that they clearly identify themselves as non-Muslims. If your community agrees with it then I would be the first person to defend you right of religious freedom in Pakistan, and I am sure I will not be alone. I also have immense respect for the Ahmadi sons of Pakistan who served our country in their respective fields of expertise. History of Pakistan would not be complete without mentioning Sir Zafarullah Khan (the great diplomat), General Akhtar Hussain Malik (hero of 1965 war), and of course the legendary Dr. Abdul Salam (Pakistan's only Nobel Prize Winner).

As can be construed from above that the distinctness of Ahmadis from mainstream Muslims is independent of any theological differences, however, just to add weight to my argument, I would like to add some quotes at the end of my discourse regarding the sociological dimension.

Sahibzada Bashir Ahmad says while addressing to ahmadis,

"now that the issue is clear that without believing in promised masiah, there is no salvation, so why efforts are being made to prove non ahmadis as muslims." [Ref: Kalmatul Fazl reported in Review of Religions. No.3, Vol. 14, page 148]

In the same way, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib tell his jama'at,

"practice patience, and do not pray behind anyone who is outside the jama'at. [Ref: Saying of Mirza sahib reported in akhbar al hukm qadian dated 01 August, 1901]

In the same way marriage is not allowed with non Ahmadis, and in this regard non ahmadi Muslims are given the same status as mainstream Muslims give to other people of book.

At another place Sahibzada Bashir Ahmed Sahib sums up by saying that,

"our prayers are different from non ahmadis, we are not allowed to marry our girls to them, we are forbidden to participate in the funerals of non ahmadis; so what is there that we can do together? There are only two types of relations: one religious and other worldly; religious relations govern the prayers, while worldly relations are heavily dependent on matrimony; so both of them are forbidden with non ahmadis……… now if one says why we say salam to non ahmadis, then I will say that it is proven from Ahadiths that Prophet Muhammad ( P.B.U.H) used to return salutations of Jews. But promised masiah never said salam to bitter rivals nor saying of salam to them is allowed. So, we can see that promised masiah has made us separate from others and there is not a single relation which is specific with Muslims and then is not forbidden to us. [Ref: Kalmatul Fazl reported in Review of Religions. No.3, Vol. 14, page 169].

At the end I again draw your attention to the fact, after establishing distinctiveness of Ahmadis from the writings of your own writers, that who has the right to be called Muslims. Old community who called themselves Muslims from the time of Prophet Muhammad ( P.B.U.H) till the start of 20th century, or the one that is different from the previous one. Even if the population measure is taken as yardstick and democratic concepts applied, then I am sure the whole world will vote that Ahmadis are not entitled to be called Muslims.

So, in Pakistan and other places, it is not mainstream Muslims who are in any way depriving Ahmadis of their basic human rights, but it is the opposite case. It is Ahmadis who out of stubbornness, the most polite word I can find though fraud can be used more appropriately as by identifying themselves with us is beneficial to them not to us, are bent upon calling themselves Muslims and thus encroaching on our religious space, which is fundamental right enshrined in the UN charter of human rights. The same stubbornness is the reason that so much life is lost over the years due to this issue, and declaration of Ahmadis as non Muslims has to be codified in the law of the land. There would have been no need of it, had the Ahmadis respected our right and their distinctiveness.

Dear Friend,

In today's email I have mostly addressed the sociological dimension of Ahmadiat vs. mainstream Islam conflict. In the next email and after getting your feedback on this email, I will address the theological aspects of this conflict.

At the end, I would like to end this email with the prayer to God that please bestow upon us the knowledge to see right from wrong. This is inspired by the story of Prophet Solomon ( A.S) where he chose knowledge over power and wealth, and got everything in the end.

Thanks and Regards,



Khalid Bhatti