Does the Qadiani Jamaat [Movement] consider other Muslims as Muslims?

The Light (UK), July 2010 Issue (pp. 7–8)

On the Qadiani Jamaat TV channel MTA there was a live programme on Saturday 12th June called Raah-i Huda. In this programme, Mr Mujib-ur-Rahman, a prominent member and representative of their Jamaat, was interviewed from Pakistan by telephone at just before 6.00 p.m. U.K. time.

In regard to the allegation that the Qadiani Jamaat does not hold janaza [funeral] prayers of deceased non-Ahmadi Muslims, Mr Mujib-ur-Rahman stated most forcefully that saying janaza prayers is what is called a fard kifaya in Islam, which means that if any other Muslims have held the janaza prayers of a non-Ahmadi then there is no requirement for the Qadiani Jamaat to hold them as well for that person. He added that in the case where there were no other Muslims who could hold the janaza prayers of a non-Ahmadi (for example, in a foreign country with few Muslims), then the Qadiani Jamaat does hold janaza prayers for that non-Ahmadi. He was proud that if there are no other Muslims to hold the janaza prayers for a non-Ahmadi, then the Qadiani Jamaat holds it and fulfils this Islamic duty which other Muslims could not do.

He also stated that if non-Ahmadi Muslims started saying janaza prayers for deceased members of the Qadiani Jamaat, then they would, on their part, start holding the same for non-Ahmadis deceased persons.

He also stated that in the time of the Promised Messiah [Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian], before he was declared kafir [non-Muslim] by the Ulama [clerics], Ahmadis used to pray behind non-Ahmadi imams and join janaza prayers behind non-Ahmadi imams. But after he was declared kafir, then according to Hadith this declaration of takfir reflected back upon his opponents. Mr Mujib-ur-Rahman stated that this was the only reason why his Jamaat members do not say janaza prayers of a non-Ahmadi behind a non-Ahmadi imam.

Fine words indeed. But unfortunately, the position of the Qadiani Jamaat as laid down by their second Khalifa, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, whom they regard as the Promised Reformer, is quite the opposite. We give extracts below from books that are available on the website of their Jamaat,

“Now another question remains, that is, as non-Ahmadis are deniers of the Promised Messiah, this is why funeral prayers for them must not be offered, but if a young child of a non-Ahmadi dies, why should not his funeral prayers be offered? He did not call the Promised Messiah as kafir. I ask those who raise this question, that if this argument is correct, then why are not funeral prayers offered for the children of Hindus and Christians, and how many people say their funeral prayers? The fact is that, according to the Shariah [Islamic Law], the religion of the child is the same as the religion of the parents. So a non-Ahmadi’s child is also a non-Ahmadi, and his funeral prayers must not be said. Then I say that as the child cannot be a sinner he does not need the funeral prayers; the child’s funeral is a prayer for his relatives, and they do not belong to us but are non-Ahmadis. This is why even the child’s funeral prayers must not be said. This leaves the question that if a man who believes Hazrat Mirza sahib to be true but has not yet taken the baiat [pledge], or is still thinking about joining Ahmadiyyat, and he dies in this condition, it is possible that God may not punish him. But the decisions of the Shariah are based on what is outwardly visible. So we must do the same thing in his case, and not offer funeral prayers for him.” (Anwar-i Khilafat, p. 93 of original edition, and pp. 150–151 of online edition. See book no. 5 at: on the Qadiani Jamaat website. The translation into English is ours.)

The book from which we quote below is the Qadiani Jamaat’s own English translation of the Ainah-i Sadaqat by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, published under the title The Truth about the Split. Referring to an article he had earlier written, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad explains:

“The article was elaborately entitled — ‘A Muslim is one who believes in all the messengers of God.’ The title itself is sufficient to show that the article was not meant to prove merely that ‘those who did not accept the Promised Messiah were deniers of the Promised Messiah’. Its object rather was to demonstrate that those who did not believe in the Promised Messiah were not Muslims.” (p. 144; from the 2007 edition online at

“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.” (p. 146)

“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 [non-Muslims], 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 Baiat, have here been adjudged to be kuffar.’ ”

“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 [Messenger] even if they called him a righteous person with their tongues, were yet veritable kuffar.” (p. 148).

Earlier in the same book, he wrote:

“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…” (p. 60)

Before Mr Mujib-ur-Rahman’s statement can be accepted, despite his good intentions, the Qadiani Jamaat must clearly dissociate itself from these views of their second Khalifa. We understand that some years ago when Mr Mujib-ur-Rahman appeared for the Qadiani Jamaat in a court case in Pakistan, these quotations were put to him, and he replied that it is only the writings of the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement that are authoritative in establishing what the Jamaat should believe, and not anyone else’s statements. This response too needs to be widely announced as a basic principle by the Qadiani Jamaat, namely, that if the viewpoint of someone in the Jamaat, even the view of a Khalifa, as to the claims of the Founder, conflicts with the teachings of the Founder himself, then the Founder’s standpoint is to be taken as the authoritative and correct one.