THE KAFIR CONTROVERSY
Abdul Hafeez plays upon the sentiments of ordinary Muslims in so much that he manipulates the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's decision not to pray behind non Ahmadi Muslim Imams1 nor marry amongst non Ahmadi Muslims2 He also makes a capital issue of the Pakistan National Assembly's decision to declare Ahmadi Muslims as a non Muslim minority not realizing that the Amendment which he so proudly boasts has declared the entire ummah non Muslim. Nonetheless, one does not expect him to know this since he is even ignorant of the fact that it is not Article No. 2903 of the Constitution but Article 260 which relates to the question of who is a Muslim for the purpose of the Constitution or Law of Pakistan. Had he been aware of that, he would have realized that Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto of whom the mullah in Pakistan demanded that he declare Ahmadi Muslims a non Muslim minority not only appeased them but also made a fool of the entire collection of the conceited Pakistan clergy since he declared them all non Muslims also. This is evident from the fact that the said Amendment placed on Constitution of Pakistan declares:
'A person who does not believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad [peace be upon him] as the last of the Prophets; or claims to be a prophet in any sense of the word; or of any description; after Muhammad [peace be upon him]; or recognizes such a claimant as a prophet or a religious reformer; is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or law.'
But, it is an established fact that a large majority of Muslims traditionally await the second advent of the Messiah, Hadhrat Jesusas prophesied in the Traditions of Hadhrat Muharnmadsa. However, since he was a prophet when he appeared in this world some 2000 years ago, according to the opinion of all non Ahmadiyya Muslim scholars, he shall continue to be honoured as one on his second advent.4 It is also argued by them that a denial of the Prophethood of Hadhrat Jesusas on his second advent, after the Prophet of Islamas, is tantamount to apostasy.5
However, the Constitutional Amendment so boasted by Abdul Hafeez demands that any person who claims to be a prophet in any sense of the word or of any description after Prophet Muhammadsa is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or Law of Pakistan. Now, since this second advent of Hadhrat Jesusas is anticipated after Hadhrat Muhammadsa, Hadhrat Jesusas would either have to deny his station as a prophet or else be considered a non Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution and Law of Pakistan. On the other hand, if he repudiated his prophethood on his second advent to be classified as a Muslim in Pakistan, he would, in the opinion of the Pakistani mullah become an apostate.6
It also needs to be considered that the general run of Muslims would find themselves in a Catch 22 situation. If they accepted Hadhrat Jesusas prophethood on his second advent after Hadhrat Muhammadsa, they would begin to be considered non Muslims since the said Amendment demands that any person who recognizes a prophet in any sense of the word or of any description after Prophet Muhammadsa is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution and Law of Pakistan. On the other hand, if they deny his prophethood on his second advent, they will be considered apostate in view of the edicts by the Pakistani mullah.7
It is not denied that some shrewd maulvis have often argued that since Hadhrat Jesusas would not be a new prophet when he arrives again, him being recognized as one on his second advent would not be in breach of the Constitution of Pakistan. But, a direct reference to Amendment 260 suggests that such a naive excuse does not hold water since it demands belief in an absolute and unqualified finality of Hadhrat Muhammadsa as the last prophet in every sense of the word and of every description. This, in essence, implies that the Pakistani Constitution demands that no exceptions whatsoever be made and hence, it does not leave any room for any kind of a prophet in any sense of the word or of whatever description, whether old or new to arrive after Hadhrat Muhammadsa.
Incidentally, the second advent of Hadhrat Jesusas would not be the only dilemma suffered by Muslims in Pakistan. It is an established fact that Muslims of non Ahmadiyya Muslim persuasion believe that the advent of Hadhrat Jesusas would be followed by that of the Imam Mahdias, who, on all accounts would be a reformer of his age.8 Now, if when he arrives, he claims to be the reformer of his age, which he rightly should in view of the pronouncements of Hadhrat Muhammadsa, then he too and those who accept him as a reformer of that age would find themselves in a Catch 22 situation similar to the one illustrated above in relation to the advent of Hadhrat Jesusas. One states this because the Constitutional Amendment so boasted by Abdul Hafeez demands that any person who claims to be a reformer of Muslims after Prophet Muhammadsa or else any person who recognizes him as such is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or Law of Pakistan.
This, however, is stretching the argument too far in the future and one is not even certain as to what is in store for mankind even unto the next breath. This Constitutional Amendment has already pronounced the entire Muslim ummah as non Muslim in view of the fact that many a venerable Muslim saints have, since after the advent of Prophet Muhammadsa either declared themselves to be the majaddids of their respective age or else honored some other sage with this appellation and Muslims have, by consensus revered, them as such. For instance, it is reported by Hadhrat Hafiz Jalal al Din Suyutirh that Hadhrat Umar ibn 'Abd al Aziz rh claimed to have been the reformer of his age.9 Hadhrat Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal rh is stated to have declared that Hadhrat Umar ibn 'Abd al Azizrh was the majaddid of the first century Hijra while Hadhrat Imam Shafirh of the second.10 Hadhrat Shah Wali Ullah Dehlvirh also claimed to have been honored with the robe of a reformer11 and so did Hadhrat Sayyid Ahmad Shah Barelvirh claim the leadership of the Muslim ummah in the capacity of a mujaddid.12 Hadhrat Sheikh Ahmadrh of Sirhind is popularly known as Mujaddid A1 Thani because of his claim that he was the mujaddid of the second millennium13 and Hadhrat Imam Ghazalirh also alluded to how he came to be a mujjadid of his age.14 Hadhrat Imam Taimiyyarh referred to himself as the mujaddid of his age15 while Hadhrat Imam Jalal ud Din Suyutirh stated that he hoped he was a mujaddid.16 It is now rests with Abdul Hafeez to not only decide as to what his conduct would be if Hadhrat Jesusas and the Imam Mahdias should appear tomorrow but also determine as to whether all the Mujaddids of the previous centuries were rightfully honored so or not as the reformers of their respective age. One would then suggest that he analyses his answer in the light of the demand made by the said Amendment 260 of the Constitution of Pakistan which he boasts has finally declared Ahmadi Muslims as a non Muslim minority.17 One can assure him that whichever option he choose, he would find that in view of this Amendment, he too is declared a non Muslim.
FATWA OF KUFR
One only need to read the edicts of kufr so numerously issued by the leadership of one Muslim sect against the other to realize that Abdul Hafeez, irrespective of which sect he subscribes to, has been pronounced non Muslim by non Ahmadi Muslim scholars. If he is a Wahabbi or a Deabandi, then the Barelvi leader Ahmad Raza Khan stated that both these groups are 'murtadd and kafir according to the unanimous view of Muslims and whoever doubts their being such is himself a kafir.'18 The Barelvi leader had some grounds to state this since such a fatwa was issued against the Deoband and the Wahabbi groups by some three hundred Sunni ulama of the entire Muslim world. They are stated to:
'have given this fatwa unanimously that the Wahabbia/ Deobandi sects are among extreme apostates and infidels. Indeed they are infidels of such hue that any one who does not regard them as infidels is also counted among the infidels and his wife will become automatically divorced in such a situation. Any progeny from such a marriage will be illegitimate and can claim no inheritance under Muslim law.'19
In a similar fatwa issued by the Mufti and Imam of the Ka'aba and the Muftis of Medina, the Wahabbis have been declared disbeliveers and apostates. The edict issued by them declares:
'The Wahabbis, in the unanimous opinion of the divines of Mecca and Medina are disbelievers and apostates from Islam such that anyone who comes to know of their cursed writings and speeches and still doubts in their being disbelievers himself becomes a disbeliever.'20
The Wahabbis and Deobandis have jointly been censured in yet another edict of apostasy and idolatry issued by Muslim divines. It has been stated:
'They stand condemned as the worst and most dangerous, far more dangerous than idolaters and maggians.'21
If Abdul Hafeez subscribes to the Jamait e Islami persuasion, then he ought to know that its leader, Maulvi Abul Ala Maududi has been condemned as a heretic and one of the thirty dadjaals prophesied by Hadhrat Muhammadsa. Hence, an edict issued against him declared:
'There is no doubt that he is amongst those who have been led astray. I strongly urge Muslims to keep themselves aloof from his beliefs and ideology. They should not regard him a servant of Islam and should not be under any illusions. The Holy Prophetsa declared that before the appearance of the Dadjaal, thirty other Dadjaals would be born to pave the way for him. As I understand it, Maududi is one of these thirty dadjaals'22.
However, if he is neither of these but belongs to the other camp, then the Deobandi and Wahabbi ulama have issued similar fatwas against the Barelvis. For instance, Maulvi Sayyid Muhammad Murtaza of Deoband denounced Ahmad Raza Khan, the leader of Barelvi's as 'a murtadd, a dadjaal of the century and a great kafir and excluded him from the pale of Islam.'23 Such fatwas of apostasy and heresy as well as kufr within the Muslim ummah are neither few nor far in between. In fact, non Ahmadi Muslim ulama have demanded social and religious segregation from other sects, namely, the Ahle Hadeeth merely on account of the others saying Amen aloud; raising their hands during prayers or folding arms on the chest and reciting Al Hamd behind the Imam while being led in congregational prayers because they are considered to be misguided sects and their practices alleged to be opposed to the Sunnis.24 On the other side of the coin, the Hanafis or as Abdul Hafeez would like to be called, the Ahnafs have had a fatwa issued against them by the Ahle Hadeeth because their beliefs and practices are stated by the Ahle Hadeeth leadership to be against those of the Sunnis and therefore such as to lead to polytheism.25 In fact, the Ahle Hadeeth leader, Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan of Bhopal was of the opinion that 'the word polytheists can be aptly applied to the Ahnafs as could the word polytheism be applied to their practice.'26 Hence, he stated that since most people are mugallid or conformists, more commonly known as the Hanafis or Ahnaf, the Quranic verse, Most people believe not, they are but polytheists, applies quite aptly to them, i.e., to the Ahnafs.'27
Incidentally, the Ahnafs have also been induded in another edict of kufr which also involves the followers of all four schools of Islamic Jurisprudence - the Hanafi, the Shafi'i the Maliki and the Hanbali as well as the followers of the four Sufi orders - the Chishtiyya, the Naqshbandiyya, the Qadiriyya and the Mujaddiyya.28 How does this pir of Gujjo who professes to belong to the Ahnaf persuasion explain his statement that the 'religious scholars of Ahnafs have labelled the Ahmadi Muslims as Kafirs'29 in the light of the aforementioned pronouncement against the followers of the Hanafi school of Jurisprudence also known as the Ahnaf? If he considers this fatwa against the Ahnaf of no relevance, which one is certain he would want to, then why should the fatwa of the religious scholars of the Ahnaf against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community be of any relevance? Could the author of Two in One explain this in the next edition of his grotesque book?
PRAYER AND MARRIAGE
The author of Two in One also alleges that in the beginning of this century, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas 'labelled all non Ahmadis to be kafirs and asked his followers not to pray behind them nor marry them'30 although Hadhrat Ahmadas is on record for having declared:
'From the beginning, I have been of the view that no one becomes a kafir or a dadjaal by rejecting my claim Such a one would certainly be in error and astray from the right path. I do not call him faithless but he who rejects the truth which God Almighty has disclosed to me would be in error and astray from the straight path. I do not designate anyone who believes in the Kalimah as a kafir, unless by rejecting me and calling me a kafir, he himself becomes a kafir. In this matter, my opponents have always taken a lead. they called me kafir and prepared fatwas against me. I did not take the lead in preparing fatwas against them. They would be prepared to confess that if I am a Muslim in the estimation of God Almighty, then by calling me a kafir, they themselves become one according to the fatwa of the Holy Prophetsa. Thus I do not call them kafir but they themselves fall within the purview of the fatwa of the Holy Prophetsa.'31
This statement should establish that Hadhrat Ahmadas did not consider average Muslims to be kafirs, except if they, through calling him a kafir first fell within the purview of the fatwa of Hadhrat Muhammadsa in which he is reported to have stated that:
'If a Muslim calls another a kafir, then if he is a kafir, let it be so otherwise he is himself a kafir.'32
Why then should Abdul Hafeez shift the blame of the doings of his spiritual predecessors in the subcontinent of India onto the shoulders of Hadhrat Ahmadas against whom nearly 200 maulvis of the Indian subcontinent prepared a fatwa of kufr whereby they fell within the purview of the aforementioned Hadeeth. Hadhrat Ahmadas alluded to this fatwa of the Indian mullah and stated:
'These people first prepared a fatwa of kufr against me and nearly 200 maulvis put their seal upon it, calling me a kafir. In these fatwas, such hostility was shown that some Ulama even wrote that these people are worse in disbelief than the Jews and the Christians. They broadcast these fatwas saying that these people must not be buried in Muslim cemeteries nor saluted with salaam and greetings, and that it is not proper to say prayers behind them because they are kafirs nor must they be allowed to enter mosques because they would pollute them but if they did enter the mosques, then these must be washed. They stated that it is allowable to steal their property and they may also be killed because they reject the impending advent of the bloody Mahdi and deny Jihad.'33
Now, if in view of such fatwas against Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, it decided to respond in a manner which was conducive to the welfare and security of its membership, then where is the harm? Is Abdul Hafeez not aware that within one year of the initiation of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in 1889CE, the ulama of Punjab and other parts of India issued a joint fatwa against Hadhat Ahmadas in which he was addressed in every derogatory word known to religious vocabulary.34 A similar edict was issued by the ulama of Ludhiana in the same year which was no less crude in its language and which also stated in relation to Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas of Qadian and his followers:
'Their marriage contracts are void and anybody is free to enter into matrimonial relationship with any woman in the wedlock of any of them.'35
A year later, Maulvi Abdul Haq Ghaznavi issued a leaflet against Hadhrat Ahmadas in which he stated that on the basis of Ghaznavi's revelations, Hadhrat Ahmadas was, God forbid, 'an infidel and would be thrown into hell.'36 A certain Muhammad Baksh also issued a handbill in the same year in which a campaign of slander and vilification was let loose against Hadhrat Ahmadas by the mullah of Lahore.37 He also used the columns of the Ahle Hadeeth joumal Ishaatas Sunnah to abuse the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and was stated to represent the official view of the Ahle Hadeeth leadership.38 In 1893, the Muhaddith of Delhi, Maulvi Nazir Hussain began to call upon Muslims:
'not to salute the members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community with an Islamic salutation.'39
This demand by the leadership of the Ahle Hadeeth in India also required that Muslims abstain from any social contact with Ahmadi Muslims. It stated that:
'It is unlawful for Muslims to invite an Ahmadi to a meal or to accept an invitation from an Ahmadi.'40
Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi, who at one stage praised Hadhrat Ahmad'sas services to Islam but later became hostile to him issued repeated fatwas of Takfir against Hadhrat Ahmadas in which he falsely accused him of being 'thirsty of the blood of Muslims, disloyal to Islam and traitorous and rebellious towards it.'41 The said Maulvi abused him as 'a kafir, a heretic, an apostate and a dadjaal'42 and instigated Muslims to murder Hadhrat Ahmadas in the interest of their faith.43 He also declared that to 'be a follower of the Ahmadiyya Movement and to lead Muslims in prayer is a contradiction which cannot be reconciled.'44 Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gangohi who issued similar fatwa against Hadhrat Ahmadas and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community declared that it is forbidden to join in a prayer service led by Hadhrat Ahmadas or any of his followers45 and Maulvi Muhammad Abdullah Tonki46 as well as Maulvi Sanaullah Amritsari47 issued edicts which denied the permissibility of prayers with Ahmadi Muslims. Maulvi Abdur Rahman Bihari stated that the Hadhrat Ahmadas was, God forbid:
'a disbeliever and an apostate from Islam and joining prayer services led by him or any of his followers is a useless and a condemnable practice. The obligation of participation in a prayer service is not thereby discharged and such a worshipper incurs a great sin. It amounts to the same thing as joining a prayer service led by a Jew.'48
Maulvi Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri was yet another Muslim leader who issued a fatwa of Kufr against Hadhrat Ahmadas and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. He stated that:
'To have any love for him or to join in a prayer service led by him or any of his followers is improper and strictly forbidden.'49
Yet, despite such pronouncements and hostility against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Hadhrat Ahmadas did all he could to end this controversy and bring it to an amicable solution. He assured Muslims that the gist of their religion was that there is none worthy of worship but Allah and Hadhrat Muhammadsa was a Messenger of God50 and stated that:
'however much our adversary ulama create hatred against us among the people and declare us kafir and devoid of faith and try to make Muslims believe that I, along with my entire following, have deviated from Islamic beliefs and foundations of faith, these are all fabrications af those jealous maulvis. No one with even a grain of the fear of God in his heart dare be guilty of these things. All the five fundamentals of Islam are our faith.'51
He then proceeded to define his faith, which statement, Abdul Hafeez has also quoted in his book Two in One.52 He stated again and again that 'he believed in Allah, the Islamic Kalimah, the angels of God, the apostle of Allah, all the revealed books, the existence of paradise and hell and a1so the Day of Resurrection.'53 Yet, his opponents did not refrain from pronouncing edicts of kufr against him to which he stated:
'Brothers! You know that the pronouncements of disbelief against me are not based on proper investigation and do not contain an inkling of truth. Rather, all these declaration are sheer fabrication based upon deceit, injustice and falsehood, out of personal jealousy . These people know very well that I am a believer and they have seen with their own eyes that I am a Muslim and that I believe in One God with Whom there is no associate; that I profess the Kalimah: There is none worthy of worship except Allah; that I accept the Book of Allah, the Quran and His Messenger Muhammadsa as Khatamal Anbiyya; that I believe in angels, the Day of Resurrection, heaven and hell; that I offer prayers and keep the fast; that I belong to the Ahle Qibla; that I consider unlawful all that the Holy Prophetsa had declared unlawful and lawful all that he had declared lawful; that I have neither added, nor taken away anything from the Shari'ah, not even to the extent of an atom and that I accept all that has reached us from the Messenger of Allahsa whether I understand its secrets or not and that by Allah's grace, I am a believer and a unitarian.'54
In fact, not only did they not refrain from issuing such fatwas of kufr against him and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community but they even succeeded in sowing a seed of hatred in the hearts of ordinary Muslims who began to act upon the fatwas of the Indian mullah and turn Ahmadi Muslims out of mosques as well as deny them burial space in Muslim graveyards. Yet Hadhrat Ahmadas tried to diffuse the situation and wrote a booklet Sulh e Khair addressed to the Muslim clergy in which he appealed to the maulvis for peace between Muslims. But, the response which he received from the mullah in India is indicated by the following statement of Maulvi Abdul Wahid Janpuri who stated:
'Let it not be concealed that the reason for this conciliatory note is that after the Mirzai group in Amritsar was subjected to disgrace; expelled from Friday and congregational prayers humiliatingly thrown out of the mosques in which they used to pray and barred from the parks where they held their Friday prayers, they asked Mirza Qadiani to build a new mosque. Mirza told them that they should wait while he tried to make peace with the people, for in that case there would be no need to build a mosque. They had to bear much humiliation. Their social relations with the Muslims were stopped, their wives were taken away from them, their dead were thrown into pits without burial garments or funeral rites etc. It was then that the Qadiani liar issued this conciliatory note.'55
What should Hadhrat Ahmadas have done under these conditions if not made arrangements to ensure that his followers are able to perform their religious obligations in peace and security and are able to bury their dead with dignity? Hence, nearly eleven years after the initiation of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Hadhrat Ahmadas gave permission to his followers to organize themselves and make provisions of their own although he admonished his Jamaat as late as March 1908 that:
'As the maulvis of this country, due to their bigotry, have generally declared us kafirs and have issued fatwas against us and the rest of the people are their followers, so if there are any persons who, to clear their own position, make an announcement that they do not follow these maulvis who make other kafirs, then it would be allowable to say prayers with them. otherwise, the man who calls a Muslim a kafir becomes a kafir himself. So how can we pray behind him? The Shari'ah does not permit it.'56
Yet, the persecution of Ahmadi Muslims continued. In August 1915, a child of Ahmadi parents died at Cannanore in Malabar but his body was not allowed to be interned in a Muslim cemetery57 while in December, 1918, the remains of an Ahmadi woman of Cuttack in Orissa was disinterred and thrown at her husband's door by the `Muslims'.58 This incident was reported with pride by an Ahle Hadeeth journal which stated:
'The proverb, A hundred stripes for the corpse, is being put into practice here. The situation with reference to an Ahmadi corpse is indescribable. When it is known in the town that an Ahmadi has died, all the graveyards are put under guard with people armed with sticks and the corpse is subjected to all sorts of indignities. A search is made for a coffin but it cannot be procured. Grave diggers refuse to dig graves. Wood and bamboo become scarce. Being disappointed in every direction, when the relatives of the dead decide to bury the corpse inside the house, someone informs the Municipal Authorities and the officials of the authorities appear at the door to frustrate the design.'59
Should Ahmadi Muslims have to justify their decision to segregate their own mosques and graveyards and create distinct identity for themselves after such treatment by their opponents - treatment which continued into the 20's and 30 and thereafter and with greater intensity? In fact, the opponents of Hadhrat Ahmadas would not let Ahmadi Muslims in peace after this decision also. In 1928, Ahmadi Muslims obtained a plot for the purpose of establishing an independent cemetery at Cuttack in Orissa where the remains of an Ahmadi woman had previously been disinterred by the adversaries of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and thrown on the door of her husband's house.60 But, these opponents would not permit the burial of a small child even in this graveyard.61 Such incidents were repeated at Calicut in Malabar62 and Bhadrak in Orissa63 as well as countries across the ocean in Africa. At Meru in Kenya, infant twin cousins of the author of the present publication were denied burial space in the Muslim cemetery by relatives of their own parents and had to be buried on the other side of the cemetery wall in a patch of land offered by an African farmer in his small field. In 1942 also, an infant Ahmadi child had to be buried in the grounds of a flour mill belonging to an Ismaili for the same reason.
STRICTER DEMANDS BY OIHER SECTS
One is at a loss to understand why the publishers of Two in One should take exception to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's policy not to pray behind non Ahmadi Muslims or marry their daughters to them when this decision had been taken as a necessary step to ensure the safety and security as well as the well-being of its members after the general run of the mullah in countries wherever Ahmadi Muslims had spread had shown such hostility towards it and also refused to accept the conciliatory offer of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas. This situation is further aggravated by the fact that much stricter policies have been adopted by all other Muslim sects. Ahmadi Muslims aside, are Dr. Rashid Ali and Abdul Hafeez not aware that according to one fatwa of 300 Sunni ulama, it is not permissible for Sunnis to have any land of a social contact with people of Deobandi persuasion since the edict declared:
'The Deobandis, because of their contempt and insult in their acts of worship towards the saints, prophets and even the Holy Prophet Muhammad and the very Person of God Himself are definitely murtadd and kafir. Their apostasy and heresy is of the worst kind so that if anyone who doubts their apostasy and heresy even slightly is a murtadd and a kafir. Muslims should be very cautious of them and stay away from them. Let alone praying behind them, one should not let them pray behind one, or allow them into mosques, or eat the animal slaughtered by them, or join them on happy or sad occasions, or let them come near one, or visit them in illness, or attend their funerals, or give them space in Muslim grace yards. To sum up, one must stay away from them completely.'64
What opinion would the authors of Two in One express in relation to these three hundred ulama of the Sunni tendency? In another fatwa issued against the Wahabbis, it has been stated by Muslim religious scholars that they:
'are excluded from the Sunnis and are like misguided sects because many of their beliefs and practices are opposed to the Sunnis. It is not permissible to pray behind them; mix with them socially and sit with them and to let them enter mosques at their pleasure is prohibited in Islamic Shari'ah.'65
Incidentally, this fatwa has been issued by the muqallid Muslims which also includes Hanafi scholars against what is called the ghair muqallid Muslims. Since the publishers of Two in One profess to belong to the Ahnaf persuasion66, what judgement would they pronounce against their own spiritual predecessors for the aforementioned edict? Also, would Dr. Rashid Ali who appears to be the actual financier and author of the grotesque book Two in One have the courage to inform the rulers of the United Arab Emirates and its neighbour, Saudi Arabia that he subscribes to a tendency which considers the Wahabbis as excluded from the Sunnis and a misguided sect and which believes that it is not permissible for the people of his persuasion, i.e., the Ahnafs to either mix with the Wahabbis or socially sit with them and even let them enter Ahnaf mosques at their pleasure since it is prohibited in the Shari'ah of Islam?
The Pervezi movement of the Ahle Quran tendency has had a similar fatwa issued against them which states:
'Ghulam Ahmad Pervez is a kafir according to Islamic Shari'ah and excluded from the pale of Islam. No Muslim woman can remain married to him, nor can a Muslim woman enter into marriage with him. His funeral prayer cannot be said, nor is it permissible to bury him in a Muslim graveyard. This applies not only to Parvez but to every kafir. It also applies to any person who is a follower of his in these heretic beliefs. As he has become an apostate, it is not permitted by the Shari'ah to have any kind of Islamic relations with him.'67
Abdul Hafeez's own sect, the subscribers to the Ahnaf tendency have had a similar fatwa issued against them in which it has been stated:
'prayers are not permissible behind the muqallid because their beliefs and practices are opposed to those of the Sunnis. In fact, some of their beliefs and practices lead to polytheism while other spoil prayers. It is not correct in Islamic Shari'ah to allow such muqallids into mosques.'68
How does Abdul Hafeez explain this fatwa against his own sect? Would he state that it is of no significance? If he does, then why should the fatwa of the Ahnaf religious scholars whose beliefs and practices have been condemned by the ghair muqallid scholars as being opposed to Islam and whose beliefs are stated by them to lead to polytheism, be considered of any value?
Finally, one must set the record straight that despite allegations against Hadhrat Ahmadas, he did not, at any point in the brand any person professing the Kalimah as a kafir if that person did not, through his own conduct fall within the purview of the fatwa by Hadhrat Muhammadsa to the effect that if a Muslim calls another a kafir and if that person not be one, then the words would revert back to him.69 This has been clearly recorded by Hadhrat Ahmadas in several of his statements, some of which have been quoted in the preceding pages. As regards the allegation that Hadhrat Ahmadas 'labelled the entire Muslim nation as kafirs thereby reducing the strength of the total Muslim population from 2000 million to a mere few [sic] 100 thousand,'70 while one is not certain as to where from this equally ignorant joint author of Two in One, Abdul Hafeez's, Dr. S. Radhid Ali got this figure of a 2000 million strong Muslim population, the following statement of Hadhrat Ahmadas should sufficiently answer this false charge. He stated:
'Now look at their falsehood. They accuse me of having declared 200 million Muslims and Kalimah professing people to be kafirs. We did not take the initiative from branding people as kafirs. Their own religious leaders issued fatwas of kufr against us and raised a commotion throughout the Punjab and India that we were kafirs. These proclamations so alienated the ignorant people against us that they considered it a sin to even talk to us in a civil manner. Can any maulvi, or any other opponent prove that we had declared them kafir first? If there is any paper, notice or booklet issued by us prior to their fatwas in which we declared our Muslim opponents to be kafirs, then they should bring that forward. If not, they should realise how dishonest it is that, while they are the ones who call us kafirs, they accuse us of having declared all Muslims as Kafirs.'71
Let Abdul Hafeez or Rashid Ali take up this challenge of Hadhrat Ahmadas and prove that he ever called anyone a kufr before the mullah in India began to pronounce fatwas of Takfir against him If they cannot, then let them explain as to why should they take exception to Hadhrat Ahmadas merely responding to the fatwas of his opponents and branding them as those who fall within the purview of Hadhrat Muhammad'ssa fatwa? If one must know, Hadhrat Ahmadas considered those people who were favourable in theiir opinion towards Ahmadi Muslim and also those who were not influenced by the mulla nor joined the maulvis in abusing them as them who fell in the same category as his own, i.e., Muslims.72 Apparently, this would exclude Abdul Hafeez and Dr. Rashid Ali.