Reasons why the Qadianis don't say prayers behind all other muslims.
tariq
Assalam-o-alaikum
Dr. Ijaz Rauf wrote:
>>>Now coming to the question of Ahmadi Muslims not praying with non-
Ahmadis. First of I must clarify that Ahmadi Muslims do pray with non-
Ahmadis it only that they do not pray behind a non-Ahmadi Imam. The
reason has much deeper theological roots. All the Ahmadi Muslims
consider that Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) is Imam Mahdi for the
argument's sake assume that he is. Then remember what is the criteria
prescribed by Holy Prophet (SAS) for choosing an Imam? Muslims should
choose an Imam who is best in Taqwa and most learned. Now how could be
one who rejects the Imam Mahdi better in Taqwa than the one who accepts
him? Now believing a person to be Imam Mahdi and then making an Imam who
reject that person as an Imam Mahdi is intentional disobeience to the
Holy Prophet (SAS)And Allah Commands in the Quran, "Obey Allah and His
prophet" so intentional disobedience to prophet (SAS) amounts to
intentional disobedience to Allah which in a way is Kufr. So Ahmadi
Muslims in not praying behind an Imam who rejects the claims of Hadhrat
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) try to follow in their humble way the command of
the Holy Prophet (SAS). <<<
That's a rather neat spin on why the Qadiani Jama'at does not pray
behind any other muslim. I am sorry but this is NOT the reason why Mirza
Ghulam Ahmad Sahib prohibited prayers behind CERTAIN SPECIFIC Muslims.
Now if I compare his teachings to that of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad (former
Qadiani khalifa), I can see the evolution of the statements quoted
above. I also think I understand the Qadiani predicament, as there is no
way that they can defend Mirza Mehmud Ahmad's statements today, other
than either coming out clearly and starting a new religion, or, avoid
talking about him and hoping that everyone else swollows their nice
little explanation. Lets see where Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself stood on
this matter of saying prayers behind other Muslims.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib never prohibited Ahmadis from praying behind
other Muslims on the grounds that the latter do not believe in his
claims. For several years after he laid claim to he the Promised Messiah
and Mahdi, he himself and other Ahmadis said prayers following other
Muslim imams. However, the general Ulama continued to denounce Ahmadis
as kafir and to subject them to severe maltreatment and humiliation in
mosques, with ever-increasing hostility as time went on. Therefore, the
he eventually instructed his followers to refrain from praying behind
ANY SUCH maulvis who called Ahmadis as kafir and those who were the
followers of these maulvis.
Mirza Sahib made his position very clear shortly before his death. He
received a letter from a non-Ahmadi in Baluchistan, dated 17th March
1908, saying that a good Ahmadi friend of his did not join the
congregational prayers with non-Ahmadis friends, and asking Mirza Sahib
to instruct him to pray with them. Mirza Sahib directed that the
following reply be sent to this letter:
"As the maulvis of this country, due to their bigotry, have generally
declared us as kafir, and have written fatwas, and the rest of the
people are their followers, so if there are any persons who, to clear
their own position, make announcement that they do not follow these
maulvis who make others kafir, then it would be allowable [for Ahmadis]
to say prayers with them. Otherwise, the man who calls a Muslim as
kafir, becomes a kafir himself. So how can we pray behind him? The holy
Shari'ah does not permit it."
(Ahmadiyya newspaper Badr, 24-31 December 1908, p 5.)
The reason given here by the Mirza Sahib for not praying behind other
Muslim imams is not that they do not believe in him, but that they call
him and the Ahmadis as kafir, and one who calls any Muslim as kafir has
the same epithet reflected back on him according to the Holy Prophet
Muhammad. He clearly allows Ahmadis to say their prayers behind such
other Muslims who openly dissociate and separate themselves from those
who call Ahmadis as kafir.
Now lets compare Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's position to the instructions which
Mirza Mahmud Ahmad (the former Qadiani Khalifa) gave to his followers:
"I say that no matter how many times you ask me, I will always give the
same reply: it is not allowed to pray behind a non-Ahmadi. It is not
allowed, it is not allowed."
(Anwar-i Khilafat, p.89.)
"It is our duty that we must not consider non-Ahmadis as Muslims, and
we must not pray behind them, because we believe that they are denying
a prophet of Almighty God."
(ibid., p.90.)
The Qadiani belief, as expressed here, is that it is unlawful to pray
behind other Muslims because they do not acknowledge Mirza Sahib to be a
prophet of God. This belief is entirely opposed to the teachings and the
statements of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib.
In a speech delivered many years later in 1950, covering what he called
"several aspects" of this issue, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad (the former Qadiani
Khalifa) admitted the "historical" reason why Mirza Ghulam Ahmad stopped
his followers from praying behind other Muslim imams. He said:
"This issue also has a historical aspect. For many years after being
called a kafir by the Ulama, the Promised Messiah did not prohibit
prayers behind them. In fact, he himself continued to pray behind them.
However, the Ulama continued to increase the severity of their
fatwas, so much so that they put up notices in their mosques saying that
Ahmadi 'dogs' were not allowed to enter therein. The floor on which an
Ahmadi stepped was declared polluted and had to be washed with
water. In many mosques prayer mats were burnt because an Ahmadi had
prayed on them. When they took their opposition to the utmost limit,
then God too forbade praying behind them. ...
"For several years our Jama 'at prayed behind them, but these people
kept on repeating that Ahmadis were so impure that if they even entered
a mosque it had to be cleansed. Consequently, God ordered the
prohibition of praying behind them. Therefore, as the Ulama have
themselves issued fatwas against us, which even till now they have not
retracted, how can any blame be put against Ahmadis?"
(AL-Fazl, 9 August 1950. Also quoted in Paigham SuIh, 13 September
1950.)
It is obvious that if, as Mirza Mahmud Ahmad admits above, "for many
years after being called a kafir by the Ulama, the Promised Messiah did
not prohibit prayers behind them" and in fact himself "continued to pray
behind them", then his stopping Ahmadis from prayers behind other
Muslims could not have been because of their rejection of his claim. Had
that been the case, he would have stopped prayers behind other Muslims
as soon as he claimed to be the Promised Messiah and the Mahdi.
Based on the above facts, It is quite clear to me that Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad Sahib never prohibited his followers from praying behind other
Muslims on the basis that the latter do not accept his claims or
acknowledge him as prophet (as the former Qadiani Khalifa Mirza Mahmud
Ahmad claims) or for that matter as the Promised Messiah or the Mahdi.
This course of action was forced upon him by the unrelenting hostility
of the Ulama towards the Ahmadis, and was not a consequence of his own
claims or the position which he claimed to hold.
I have tried to maintain my focus on one specific issue in this posting.
I would encourage all to go to the following website, where there is a
summary of all that we, Lahori Ahmadis, see as the Qadiani Violations of
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib's teachings:
http://tariq.bitshop.com/misconceptions/violations/Qadiani.htm
Regards,
Tariq
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Some thoughts on Ahmadiyyat-Islam
From: "Dr. Ijaz A. Rauf" <ir...@Phys.UAlberta.Ca>
Date: 1997/10/27
Message-ID: <632m51$iuc$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
[More Headers]
On 21 Oct 1997, AbdulraHman Lomax wrote:
> as-salamu 'alaykum.
wa-alaikum Assalam wa Rahmatullah,
> ehm...@aol.com (Ehmadhh) wrote:
> >Just because sometone appoints you on a post does not mean you are
obliged to
> > compromise your beliefs. Imam mahdi a.s. forbade praying behind
non-Ahmadi
> > Imams.
>
> It is this kind of evidence, presented by the Qadianis themselves,
> which convinces me that Ahmad was not the Mahdi and the Messiah, but
> just another innovator, who, like many innovators, considers his own
> opinions the true Islam, and himself as the center of the religious
> universe.
The arguments are presented by Ahmadis and you draw conclusions about
the
claims of somebody else. To me it is exactly same if a christian says
that
looking at the arguments presented by Lomax I am convinced that
Naoozubillah
Muhammad was not a prophet. And Ahmadi may not be well versed in
presenting
arguments or may not have the wealth of knowledge on the topic to
clarify
the point in a convinceing manner. But taking such things as a proof to
label someone else as an innovator without a proof reflect a disease in
one's own heart.
Now coming to the question of Ahmadi Muslims not praying with
non-Ahmadis.
First of I must clarify that Ahmadi Muslims do pray with non-Ahmadis it
only that they do not pray behind a non-Ahmadi Imam. The reason has much
deeper theological roots. All the Ahmadi Muslims consider that
Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) is Imam Mahdi for the argument's sake
assume that he is. Then remember what is the criteria prescribed by
Holy Prophet (SAS) for choosing an Imam? Muslims should choose an Imam
who is best in Taqwa and most learned. Now how could be one who rejects
the Imam Mahdi better in Taqwa than the one who accepts him? Now
believing
a person to be Imam Mahdi and then making an Imam who reject that person
as an Imam Mahdi is intentional disobeience to the Holy Prophet (SAS)
And Allah Commands in the Quran, "Obey Allah and His prophet" so
intentional disobedience to prophet (SAS) amounts to intentional
disobedience to Allah which in a way is Kufr. So Ahmadi Muslims in
not praying behind an Imam who rejects the claims of Hadhrat Mirza
Ghulam Ahmad (AS) try to follow in their humble way the command of
the Holy Prophet (SAS).
However, Ahmadi Muslims can and do pray behind an Imam who is
not and AHmadi Muslim but does not reject the claims of Hadhrat
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) and is sincerely investigating them for
the satisfaction of his heart and is good in Taqwah and knowledge.
Now coming to the point of doing it for a good purpose (which you
addressed in another post), I know many
believe that doing something bad for a good purpose is allowed. some
even believe that telling an intentional lie is also allowed while
the Quran catagorically says La'Natullahe Alal Kazibeen (Curse of
Allah be on liars) and makes no exception. And this is why you see
people like Mullah Rashid Ali Syed, Soltani, Ganges Khan and their
likes even fabricating things and distorting everything for a (in
their opinion) good purpose. Let me give you an example consider
that you know a couple who are happily married and very much in
love, but the man is infertile. The woman is so deep in love with
the man that she does not want to leave him, but at the same time
she has an equally great desire for children. Would that justify
comitting adultry? It will be for an apparant good purpose, it will
keep the family togather as well fulfill a great desire of the
woman. I hope your answer is no. BTW, Ahmadi Muslims consider sperm
donation equivalent to adultry.
> >The question really is:
>
> >WHY do Lahoris disobey the express instructions of the Imam Mahdi
a.s.
> > regarding Imamate?
> Perhaps they do not consider Ahmad infallible, and his rulings to be
> commands to be inflexibly applied beyond his time.
I do not believe prophets are infallibe and I don't think any Ahmadi
Muslims believes that Hadhrat Ahmad (AS) was infallible. It is not
a default of prophethood to be infallible. Was Adam (AS) infallible?
Was Hadhrat Younas (AS) infellible? Was Hadhrat Moses (AS) infallible?
Did he not kill a man? Then how can you say that Ahmadi Muslims
believe that Hadhrat Ahmad (AS) is infallible because they believe
him to be a prophet?
> I think the Lahoris are mistaken about Ahmad; he is not only not a
> prophet (and they agree with this), but he was sadly mistaken about
> many things; on the other hand, I can respect people who will follow a
> man in what they find to be good about his teaching, and who will set
> aside or disregard the rest. This is, in fact, a characteristic of
> true faith, and is to be applauded. But sectarians hate it.
Am I understanding it correctly here. Are you pleading that modern
muslim women who have developed this idea of no need for Hijab are
still at a true characteristic of faith and should be applauded as
they follow what they find good in Islam and disregard the rest. Or
do you consider them also a muslim displaying a characteristic of
true faith who feel that the pork was prohibited because in olden
days it was difficult to save its meat and farming was not done with
clean scientific ways, they still follow the other things which they
find good in Islam (I have met some like that, in fact one is here
at the UoA)? The question is not of good. Muslims followed the command
of not eating pork for centuries, because they believed it is from
God wether there is good in it or not they did not care. The moment
the commandment for prohibiting the Alcohol came Muslims stopped
drinking despite the fact that Allah Himself told them that there is
some good in it. They did not care for what is good in it. So it all
boils down to if Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) was from God or not.
And I would again like to point out that name calling is prohibited
by Allah and your calling Ahmadi Muslims sectarian comes under that
so please refrain from it if you can. Ahmadi Muslims are not
Sectarians. And all the prophets were labelled with such titles
most of All our beloved master Muhammad (SAS) was labelled to have
divided the Arabs, caused division among father and son, brothers
etc. But was he NaoozuBillah a Sectarian?
> AbdulraHman Lomax
> mar...@vom.com
> P.O. Box 423
> Sonoma, CA 95476
> USA