The Qadiani Funeral
Maulana Muhammad Yusuf Ludhianvi
Authentic religious rulings (Fatawa) issued in the light of the Islamic Shari'at in reply to questions as to how the MuSlims should conduct themselves in their dealings with the Qadianis/Ahmadis/Mirzais.
2. Muslim girls are living in Qadiani households as wives. Their Muslim parents are maintaining son/father-in-law relations with these Qadianis. Will the children born from such wedlocks be regarded as legitimate or illegitimate children in thee light of the Shari'at of the holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW).
3. The Muslim communities in general do not treat the Qadianis like other Kafirs (infidels); they treat them like Muslims. They freely mix, eat and drink with the Qadianis and participate in their joys and sorrows and bid them Assalamu alaykum (peace on you), when they meet one another. Likewise, they invite them to their funeral and marriage feasts and take part in Fatihas. Are they (the Muslims) accountable for such acts and do they remain as Muslims in the light of the Shari'at?
Majlis-e-Tahaffuz-e-Khatm-e-Nubuwwat. District Mansahra.
Before stating the answers, I mention a few points by way of introductory remarks.
First, if there is anyone who holds beliefs of infidelity and yet claims to be a Muslim and presents his beliefs of infidelity in the name of Islam, by placing wrong interpretations on the texts of the Shari'at, he is called a Zindeeq. In the chapter on "Zindeeq" (The Apostate), Allama Shami writes:
"....because a Zindeeq camouflages his infidelity ana desires to popularise his false beliefs and presents them in an apparently plausible form, this is what is called camouflaging infidelity". (Shami Vol. 4, p.246, New Edition).
In Musawwa, an Arabic commentary on Muwatta Imamul Hind, Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlavi writes:
"It may be explained that a person who is opposed to the true Faith and does not believe in Islam, nor does he acknowledge the religion of Islam, either outwardly or inwardly, is called a Kafir. If he believes in the Faith only verbally, but offers such interpretations of some fundamentals of the Faith as contradict the views of the Sahabah, the Tabi'een and the consensus of the Ummah, then such a person is called a Zindeeq".
By way of explaining the difference between a correct interpretation and a wrong interpretation, Shah Waliullah further writes:-
"Moreover, there are two kinds of interpretations: Onethat does not contravene a decision that stands finally established under the authority of the Qur'an and the Sunnah; the other one is that interpretation which contravenes a decision that stands proved under a finally established evidence (based on the Qur'an and /or the Sunnah). Such an interpretation is Zandaqah".
Citing examples of interpretations that involve Zandaqah, Shah Waliullah further writes:
"... or some person says that although the noble Prophet (SAW) is undoubtedly the last of the Prophets, yet this only means that after him none will be given the name of a Prophet, but the concept of prophethood--viz., the sending down by Allah of some person who must be obeyed as a matter of obligation and who has been protected from persevering in sins and faults -- continues in the Ummah even after the noble Prophet (SAW) then such a person is a Zindeeq." (Musawwa, Vol. 2, p.l30)
In short, one is called a Zindeeq who presents his beliefs of infidelity in the garb of Islam, interprets the Qur'an and the Sunnah in a way that is contrary to the finally confirmed Islamic beliefs handed down through uninterrupted authority.
Secondly: a Zindeeq falls within the purview of an apostate. In one respect a Zindeeq is worse than an apostate, because if by expressing repentance, an apostate re-embraces Islam, there is consensus of opinion that his repentance is acceptable, but opinions differ about the acceptability or the unacceptability of the repentance of a Zindeeq.
It occurs in Durr-i-Mukhtar: '... in the same way the repentance of a person who becomes a Kafir on account of his Zandaqah is not acceptable. He has been described in Fathul Qadeer as Zahirul Mazhab (professing the Faith only outwardly), but the Fatwa given in the book of Fatawa Qazi Khan in the chapter "Al- Hazr" lays down: If a magician or a Zindeeq, who is well-known and preaches (his beliefs), is arrested before expressing repentance and repents after his arrest, his repentance is not acceptable. He shall be executed. On the other hand, if he has expressed repentance before arrest, his repentance will be accepted. (Al-Shami, Vol. 4, p.241, New Edition)
It occurs in Bahrur Ra'iq:-
"In the case of Zahirul-Mazhab (outward profession of faith), the repentance of a Zindeeq is not acceptable--Zindeeq being a person who follows no religion. It is mentioned in Fatawa Qazi Khan: If a Zindeeq, before being arrested, confesses willingly, that he is a Zindeeq and then expresses repentance there for, his repentance will be acceptable; but if he expresses repentance after his arrest, then his repentance will not be accepted and he will be executed." (Bahrur Raiq, Vol. 5, p. 136).
Thirdly: That the Qadianis are Zindeeq is quite obvious, because their beliefs are totally opposed to the tenets of Islam. By placing wrong interpretations on the texts of the Qur'an and the Sunnah, they try to delude the ignorant into the belief that they themselves (Qadianis) are staunch, true Muslims and besides them the entire Muslim Ummah is misguided, Kafir and faithless. This is according to what the late Mirza Mahmud, the second Head of the Qadianis, has written:-
"All Muslims who did not swear allegiance tothe promised Masih (i.e. Mirza) are Kafirs (infidels) and out of the pale of Islam, even if they may not have heard the name of the promised Masih." (Ai-eena-i-Sadaqat, p. 35).
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad says:-
"We believe that a religion in which thesuccession of prophet hood stands closed is dead. We call the Jewish, the Christian and the Hindu (religions) dead, because they have no prophets. If Islam, too, were like them, then we are no more than story-tellers. Why do we claim that it (Islam) is superior to other religions? Islam should have some distinction to justify this claim... For many years I have been receiving wahi (revelations) and many signs of Allah have borne witness to this. I am, therefore, a Prophet. No secrecy should be maintained in conveying the truth". (Malfoozate Mirza, Vol. 10, pp. 127 -128).
2. It is the finally confirmed belief of Islam that the door of Prophethood has been closed after the departure of the noble Prophet (SAW) and he who claims to (receive) prophetic revelations stands expelled from the pale of Islam. However, the Qadianis believe in the self-invented revelation of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani and recognise it like the Qur'an. The Tazkirah is one of the various names of the Qur'an. The Qadanis have compiled the revelations of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in the form of a book and have given it the name of Tazkirah, as though it were the Qadiani Qur'an--Allah forbid. Further, the Qadiani revelation is not an ordinary llham (inspiration) which divine men also receive. To them (the Qadianis) it is at par with the Qur'an. Just see:
(i) "... and I believe in the open wahi of Allah which I have received, precisely in the same way as I believe in the verses of the Qur'an. (Ek Ghalati ka Izalah, p.6.).
(ii) "I believe in my wahi in the same way as I believe in the Torah, the Injeel and the Qur'an . " (Arba'een, p.112).
(iii)"... I swear by God that I believe in these revelations in the same way as I believe in the Qur'an and other divine Scriptures. I believe that the word that descends on me is the word of God, just as I believe that the Qur'an is surely and decidedly the word of God." (Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, p.220).
3. It is an Islamic belief that it is Kufr to claim that one is able to show a miracle after the departure of the noble Prophet (SAW) because the display of miracles is the exclusive privilege of a prophet. As such, one who claims the ability to show a miracle is a Kafir, because one (thus) claims to be a prophet.
Allama Mulla Ali Qari (Allah's mercy on him) writes in Sharh-i-Fiqh Akbar on page 202:
"The claim to the ability to show a miracle is a branch of the claim to prophethood and the claim to prophethood after our noble Prophet (SAW) is deemed as Kufr by unanimous consensus.
On the contrary, the Qadianis, along with their faith in the revelations of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, also put faith in his miracles. They regard the miracles of the noble Prophet as mere stories and tales--Allah forbid. They are prepared to believe in the noble Prophet (SAW) as a prophet only when Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is also believed to be a Prophet, otherwise neither they consider the noble Prophet as a Prophet, nor Islam as a religion.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad writes:
"Neither that religion is a religion, nor that Prophet a Prophet by following which/whom a human being does not attain such closeness to Allah as confers on him the honour of conversation with Allah. That religion is a curse and an object of contempt which teaches that human progress depends on a few narrated anecdotes (i.e. the Islamic Shari'at which is narrated from the noble Prophet (SAW) - Compiler) and that divine revelations have lagged behind instead of going ahead... hence such a religion deserves to be called Satanic rather than divine". (Zameema-i-Baraheen-i-Ahmadia, Part V. p.l39).
"How silly and false a belief it is to think that after the Prophet (SAW) the door of divine revelation is closed for ever and no hope of it is left for the future till the Day of Resurrection, except that one should worship only stories. Can such a religion be regarded as religion as offers no direct line of approach to God? I swear by God that these days none is more disgusted with such a religion than I. I name such a religion Satanic rather than Divine". (Zameema-i-Baraheen-i-Ahmad ia, Part V, p.l83).
"To tell the truth, we have come to believe in the Qur'an and the noble Prophet (SAW) through this very source (Mirza). We believe in the Qur'an as God's Word, because this proves his (Mirza's) prophethood. The ignorant one objects to our believing in the promised Masih (Mirza) as a prophet and his word as the word of God. He little knows that our faith in the Qur'an and in the Prophethood of Muhammad (SAW) is due to his (Mirza's) prophethood. (Mirza Mahmud's speech pub- lished in Al-Fazl, Qadian, vol. 13/3, dated July 11,1925, Qadiani Mazhab, Fifth Edition, Fifth Chapter, No. 74).
It is now quite clear from the above-cited statements of Mirza that, if it is denied that he received revelations and that he was a prophet, then in his (Mirza's) opinion the belief in the Prophethood of Muhammad (SAW) becomes (Allah forbid) null and void and the religion of Islam is no more than a collection of stories. Declaring such Islam as cursed, satanic and contemptible, Mirza expresses his disgust with it, rather proclaims himself to be the greatest of all atheists. The Muslims should take this as a warning. Can there be a more heinous form of infidelity, heresy, Zandaqah and atheism than to revile the noble Prophet (SAW) and the religion of Islam to one's fill?
4. The Muslims believe that Muhammad (SAW) is the Prophet of Allah. But in his pamphlet, Ek Ghalati ka Izalah, the Mirza has, on the basis of his "revelations", declared that he himself is --Allah forbid--Muhammad, the Prophet of Allah. As the Qadianis have firm faith in the wahi of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, they believe that the late Mirza was Muhammad, the Prophet of Allah, and they regard as Kafir all those who do not believe that Mirza was Muhammad, the Prophet of Allah.
5. On the basis of the Qur'an and the Traditions (Ahadith) of uninterrupted narration, the Muslims believe that Hazrat Isa (Christ) (AS) was raised up to the heavens alive and that when the Day of Resurrection draws near, he will come down and kill Dajjal (Anti-Christ). The Mirzais, on the contrary believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani himself is Isa and the prophecies mentioned in the Qur'an and the Traditions about the descending of Hazrat Isa (AS) apply to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani.
Thus, the Qadianis profess countless Zindiqana (heretic) beliefs about which scholars of the Ummah have compiled many books which make it abundantly clear that the Qadianis are Kafirs, apostates, heretics and Zindeeq.
Fourthly: Funeral prayers are offered only for Muslims. It is not lawful to offer funeral prayer for a non-Muslim. The Qur'an says: :..and never (O Muhammad) pray for one of them who dies, nor stand by his grave, for they disbelieved in Allah and His Messenger, and they died while they were evil-doers". (HQ 9.84) All jurists (of Islam) are unanimous on the point that funeral prayer is lawful on the condition that the deceased was a Muslim. There is consensus of opinion that funeral prayer is not lawful for a non-Muslim, nor is it permitted to pray for his salvation and bury him in the graveyards of the Muslims.
After these introductory remarks answers to the questions are given seriatim:-
If they offered funeral prayer for him, despite their knowledge that the man believed in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's so-called prophethood, had faith in his 'wahi" (revelation) and denied that Hazrat Isa (AS) will come down (to earth), then they (the Muslims) should all renew their Iman (belief) and Nikah (marriage contract), because it is Kufr to consider the beliefs of an apostate as Islam. Their Iman and Nikah both became null and void. If anyone of them had performed the HaiJ, it is incumbent on him to perform the HajJ again.
It must be mentioned here that the Qadianis do not consider it lawful to offer funeral prayer for a Muslim, so much so that according to their belief even the funeral prayers for innocent Muslim children are unlawful. Mirza Mahmud, the second vice regent of the Qadianis writes in his book, Anwar-i-Khilafat:
"Another question remains (to be answered): The non-Ahmadis (i.e. the Muslims) deny the promised Masih, (Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani) so we: should not offer funeral prayers for them; but if a small child of a non-Ahmadi dies, why should funeral prayer not be offered for him when he is not guilty of denying the promised Masih?
"I put this question to the inquirer: If this is correct, then why are no funeral prayers held for the children of Hindus and Christians? How many are there who offer funeral prayers for them? The fact remains that the Shari'at considers the children to be of the same faith which their parents follow. Thus, the child of a non-Ahmadi is also non-Ahmadi. Therefore, his funeral prayer should not be offered. I further say that a child is not a sinner and needs no funeral prayer. The funeral prayer for a child is really an invocation for the benefit of his survivor; and his survivors do not belong to us. As such, funeral prayer should not be offered even for a child". (Anwar-i-Kh~lafat, p.93).
A Fatwa by Mirza Mahmud was published in Al-Fazl, dated 23rd October, 1922, to the effect that: "Just as no funeral prayer can be offered for a Christian child, although he is innocent, in the same way no funeral prayer can be offered for a non-Ahmadi child". (Qadiani Mazhab, 5th Edition. 13th Chap. No. 56).
As such. following the beliefs of his religion, Choudhry Zafarullah Khan the then Foreign Minister), did not participate in the funeral prayer of the Quaid-i-Azam. When he was asked to account for this before the Munir Enquiry Tribunal, he replied:
"Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, the leader of the funeral prayer, has declared that the Ahmadis are Kafirs and liable to be executed. So I could not decide to join a prayer which was being conducted under the Imamat of the Maulana". fReport of the Enquiry Tribunal, Puniab, p.212).
When he was asked outside the Tribunal:
"Why did you not join the Quaid-i-Azam's funeral prayer?" He replied, "You may take me to be the Musalman Minister of an infidel Government or the infidel employee of a Muslim Government". (Zamindar, Lahore, dated 8th February, 1950).
When the Press published reports about this adamant attitude of Choudhry Zafarullah Khan, then the Rabwah Association of the Ahmadis issued the following reply to this:
"An objection is being raised against Choudhry Zafarullah Khan as to why he did not join the funeral prayer of the Quaid-i-Azam. The entire world knows that the Quaid-i-Azam was not an Ahmadi. As such. there is nothing objectionable, if any member of the Ahmadia Jamaat did not join his funeral prayer". (Tract 22, Ahrari Ulama ki rastgoi ka number, Publishers, Manager Publication and Propaganda, Anjuman Ahmadia, Rabwah, District Jhang.)
Likewise, the Qadiani newspaper Al-Fazl gave the following reply:
"Is it not a fact that like the Quaid-i-Azam, Abu Talib also was a great well-wisher of the Muslims, yet neither the Prophet of Allah nor the Muslims offered funeral prayer for him?" (Al- Fazl, Rabwah, dated 28th October. 1952).
How shameful it is that while the Qadianis, considering the Muslims as Kafirs like Hindus, Sikhs and Christians, do not join the funeral prayer of their (the Muslims') great men, nor of their innocent children--Is it lawful for a Muslim to join the funeral prayer of a Qadiani apostate? Can his sense of honour tolerate this?
"In my opinion a person is not Ahmadi who marries his daughter to a non-Ahmadi. No one can marry his daughter to a person whom he considers to be a non-Muslim".
Question:- "What is the injunction about a Nikah Khwan (solemniser of marriage) who solemnises such a Nikah?"
Answer:- "About such a Nikah Khwan we shall pronounce the same Fatwa which can be pronounced about a person who has performed the marriage contract of a Muslim girl to a Christian or a Hindu boy".
Question:- "Can a person who has married his daughter to a non-Ahmadi, invite other Ahmadis to the marriage celebration?"
Answer:- "It is also not lawful to participate in such marriages." (Al-Fazl, Qadian, Dated 23rd May, 1921).
Just as, according to Mirza Mahmud, the man who marries his daughter to a Muslim gets outcast from Mirza's community, in the same way that Muslim is Outcast from Islam who, despite his knowledge about the beliefs of the Qadianis, considers that it is lawful to give his daughter in marriage to a Mirzai. Just as, according to Mirza Mahmud, marrying a Mirzai girl to a Muslim boy is like marrying her to a Hindu or Christian, in the same way, I say that making a Mirzai apostate a son-in-law is like making a Hindu, a Sikh or an untouchable (low-caste Hindu) one's son-in-law.
The Qur'an says:-
...You will not find folk who believe in Allah and theLast Day loving those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even though they be their fathers or their sons or their brethren or their clan. As for such, He has written faith upon their hearts and has strengthened them with a Spirit from Him, and He will bring them into gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide. Allah is well pleased with them, and they are well pleased with Allah. They are Allah's party. Behold! It is Allah's party who are successful. (HQ 58.22)
It is also necessary to menton in the end that the Qadianis have been declared a non-Muslim miniority in the Constitution of Pakistan. However, the Qadianis have neither accepted this decision nor concluded to live in Pakistan as non-Muslim citizens (zimmis). They do not, therefore, enjoy the status of zimmis, but their position is like that of belligerent Kafirs and it is not allowed in Shariat to have any sort of dealings with the belligerent.
And Allah knows best.
Signed Muhammad Yusuf Ludhianvi
The answer is correct:
Karachi - Pakistan.
Note: If a Muslim
has married his daughter to a Mirzai, because of his ignorance and unawareness,
it is his obligatory duty that, after becoming aware of this position,
he should repent his sin and get his daughter rescued from the claws of