Ahmadis believe Non-Ahmadi Muslims are INFIDELS


If this doesn’t sound like me, don’t worry because I wrote this five months ago. I was just waiting for the right time innit 🙂

This blog will show how Qadyani Jamat, stemming out from the Lahoris in 1914 believed that we Muslims are Kuffar and outside the pale of Islam (i.e non-Muslims).

To understand this issue, you have to study a bit of background because it’s quite complicated. The followers of Mirza split into two groups in 1914. The current Ahmadis follow Mahmud (2nd Khalif) and an increasingly dying group had Muhammad Ali as their leader called ‘Lahoris’. The split occurred due to two intertwined reasons. The second Khalifa said Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (his father) was a prophet, and so whoever rejects him is essentially a disbeliever. The more intellectually bright led by Muhammad Ali denied that Mirza ever said he was a real prophet and therefore belief in him was not obligatory. Later on, the second Khalifa changed his mind as a coward would do under pressure, but I’ll write about that next week.

Part one: The split and why it happened

This is what Muhammad Ali had to say of why he wanted to divert from the Ahmadiyya community in a booklet entitled The Split

Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, a son of the Founder of the movement, who is the present head of the Qadian section of the community, began to drift away from the basic principles of the Islamic faith about three years after the death of the Promised Messiah, going so far as to declare plainly that the hundreds of millions of Muslims, living in the world, should be no more treated as Muslims.

Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, misled into a wrong belief by some youthful members of the community, began to promulgate the doctrine that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was actually a prophet, that he was in fact the Ahmad spoken of in Jesus’ prophecy referred to in the Holy Quran in 61:6, and that all those Muslims who had not entered into his bai`at formally wherever they might be living in the world were kafirs, outside the pale of Islam, even though they may not have heard the name of the Promised Messiah.” (pp. 9,10)

Alislam (for Ahmadis) website has a book written by Mahmud Ahmad ‘Truth about the split’ online for everyone to read. They have tried to distance themselves from that book as much as possible but because they are generally dumb, they put it up online. Indeed, that move has led to their destruction as it disapproves everything the proponents of Ahmadiyyat call for today. Mahmud Ahmad says in reply to the aforementioned quote:

“These changes, according to Maulawi Muhammad Ali, relate to three matters; (1) that I propagated the belief that Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was actually a Nabi; (2) the belief that he was ‘the Ahmad’ spoken of in the prophecy of Jesus as referred to in the Holy Quran in Al-Saff 61:7; and (3) the belief that all those so-called Muslims who have not entered into his Bai‘at formally, wherever they may be, are kuffar and outside the pale of Islam, even though they may not have heard the name of the Promised Messiah as.”  P.56

And so Mahmud Ahmad (2nd khalif) follows it by

“That these beliefs have my full concurrence, I readily admit. What I deny is the statement that I have been entertaining these views since 1914 or only three or four years before.” P.57

So in this book of over 400 pages, the second khalifa sets out to prove why he believes Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (MGA) a prophet, his name to be prophesised in the Quran as Ahmad, and that everyone in the world who doesn’t accept MGA are disbelievers outside of the fold of Islam wherever they are. The first issue is still a belief held by Ahmadis, he changed his mind about the verse of the Quran which is fair play; he can make mistakes, but the last one seems an issue that Ahmadis unfortunately till today aren’t able to grasp.

Part two: Mahmud Ahmad justifies why non Ahmadi Muslims are not Muslims

Let’s jump right into it and let our boy Mahmud (2nd Khalif) define who is a Kafir and who isn’t.

“As for the question of Kufr (unbelief) of nonAhmadi Muslims, my belief is that Kufr really arises from a denial of God. Hence, whenever there comes any revelation from God of such a nature that its acceptance is obligatory on every man, a rejection of the same leads to Kufr.” P.59

Which is readily understandable right; a prophet comes and those who reject god-sent revelation are deemed rejecters of God.

Furthermore, Mahmud wrote an article in the name of ‘Kufr-o-Islam’ in the pursuit of

“The reason why in March 1911, I wrote an article on the subject of the Kufr of those who did not accept the Promised Messiahas, was that at that time some Ahmadis, under the influence of non-Ahmadis, had begun to write in some non-Ahmadi papers that there was no material difference between Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis, both being Muslims. I was afraid lest this erroneous view should find currency in the Ahmadiyya Community. P.137

See ‘both being Muslims’, he was so careful in the way he distinguished the two groups.

Here, Mahmud explsins further about another article he wrote

“I shall now proceed to give here a summary of the article in question and to quote fully a few passages, in order to enable every reader to judge for himself whether it was possible to read into my article any meaning other than the one it really conveyed. 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 Messiahas were deniers of the Promised Messiahas’. Its object rather was to demonstrate that those who did not believe in the Promised Messiahas were not Muslims.

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, who openly style the Promised Messiahas 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 Messiahas to be true, and do not even deny him with their tongues, but hesitate to enter into his Bai‘at, have here been adjudged to be kuffar.”…… it was argued from a verse of the Holy Quran that such people as had failed to recognise the Promised Messiahas as a Rasul even if they called him a righteous person with their tongues, were yet veritable kuffar. P.144-148

In this article ‘A muslim is he who believes in all the prophets’, he writes ‘The Shariah deals with issues by the face of it (what is outwardly clear), so we must call them Kafir. So when the citizens of Switzerland and Tibertan are Kuffar for rejecting the prophet of Allah peace be upon him (Muhammad sas), so how can the people of India be held believers without their belief in the promised Messiah’

I believe the verse he was referring to is that of making no distinguish between prophets, Ahmadis are more than welcome to correct me if I’m wrong, but you have to admit his takfeer here is as clear as the sun.

And just to make it even more clear, picking a statement from a different book in 1916, he writes

“It is our duty that we must not consider non-Ahmadis as Muslims, and we must not pray following them, because we believe that they are denying a prophet of Almighty God.” (Anwar-i Khilafat p. 90)

Now it’s important from all this to note that the second Khalifa was explicitly making takfeer on those who fail to accept a prophet of Allah. Not only was that mentioned in the beginning of the book for the reason of the split, but he goes on for pages to explain how he held this position from the beginning. Its not a case of whether it’s Kufr outside of the pale of Islam (even though that’s what he said in the first passage of the argument) as Ahmadis will have you believe; he defines a Muslim not as the one that proclaims the kalima but one who believes in all the prophets including MGA, and says more than once that non Ahmadi Muslims are not Muslims. Not that they are committing Kuffr, but that they are not Muslims. Should I repeat that one more time!

Ahmadis would often try and get away with it by saying that Mahmud Ahmad meant they were not true Muslims or not fully Muslims. Not only are they trying to put words into his mouth, but are in direct contradiction with the whole argument. We Muslims actually distinguish or at least say that some beliefs or acts take you outside of the fold of Islam, whereas Ahmadis think a smoker and a denier of a prophet are somehow the same. There’s a difference between denying a revelation of Allah and being ignorant of it, i.e. ‘I don’t pray’ versus ‘I don’t believe in prayer’. So if I decline and reject the fact that Allah sent Moses (as) or Jesus (as) or the day of judgement. I immediately fall outside of the pale of Islam. No two Muslims have ever disagreed on this, and I’m only reiterating what the second Khalifa said himself.

And just for the Ahmadis sitting on the fence and can’t believe what they’re reading, I will make it easier for you to understand. Under Islam, we Muslims pray the janaza of Muslims but of course can’t, or just don’t pray or lead a funeral ceremony of a Christian as he’s a disbeliever right? So in the same way, Mahmud Ahmad makes it even clearer what he means by Muslims not being Muslim.

“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, 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…” (Anwar-i-Khilafat, page 93)

Question: “Is it permitted to say May God Bless the departed soul, forgive him and send him to Paradise for a person who was not included in Ahmadiyyat?”

Answer: “The KUFR of non-Ahmadis is proven by evident signs and it is not permitted to ask for forgiveness for non-believers (KUFFAR).”
(Al-Fazl Qadian vol.8, No. 59, 7th Feb 1921)

Is there a way out of this? The argument is simple, either believe in a new prophet, and regard those who disbelieve in him Kuffar, or go down the Lahori path and say he wasn’t a prophet and so belief in him is not obligatory.

I’ve spoken to Ahmadis who discuss theology on social Media, some know we Muslims are Kuffar but they’re too afraid to say it. Kashif Chaudhry in reply to Dawah Man said Ahmadis believe Muslims are Muslims as long as they say the Kalim. This is a lie, and completely false. Imagine this though, he might be reading this right now and won’t say anything, he wouldn’t retreat and say I was wrong, or release a statement or a video. He’ll carry on with his life without questioning anything he’s been ordered to do. Such is the example of cowardice in these people who favour the worldly life over the next. And by the way, your persecution doesn’t suffice you, or will not cover the sins of your lies on the day of judgement.

And let’s just cut the rubbish because I don’t want to reiterate what I said above again to some stupid Ahmadi in the comment section. When Hani Tahir brought this up, Ahmadis released an official video outlining their belief on Kuffr. Simply saying we are Kuffar like the second Khalifa said above



But those who don’t believe in the promised Messiah, whether they know or didn’t know of him, they are among the visibly disbelievers, even if they were called Muslims. Because he is a divine messenger, and the disbelief in him is no different to the disbelief in any prophet. And we should warn them of the severity of the situation they are in.

Just a quick note on this though. This ideology is worse than the Takfiri Jihadi, because at least the Takfeeri Jihadi says ‘hujja’ has to be given on you, i.e. you have to be told that what you are doing is Kuffr before they declare you a Kafir. Not with Ahmadis though, as soon as MGA said he was the promised Messiah in 1891, with a blink of an eye, all Muslims became Kuffar.

إنا لله وإنا إليه راجعون


10 thoughts on “Ahmadis believe Non-Ahmadi Muslims are INFIDELS

  1. Good essay. We need that 1911 essay by Mahmud Ahmad fully translated into english.

    Did you know that Nooruddin edited it heavily and even delayed its publication, from his “Manjee”..since he couldnt walk, since his leg was amputated.

  2. Yeh. I read that in the book ‘the truth of the split’

    But what absolute jokers. None of them knew what the hell was going on.

    Since Noor uddin was practically dead, and couldn’t think straight, both Muhammad Ali and Mahmud Ahmad kept on sending him letters supposedly one in the favour of prophethood, and the other not. But what he used to do was just sign off everything he used to get.

    So Mahmud Ahmad says he agreed with him that Muslims are Kuffar, but Muhammad Ali also claims Noor uddin was not in favour of prophethood.

    Such is the tale of the fools, who went out of their way to trick and deceive the weak minded.

  3. salam brother, i posted original pages of mirza mehamoud sahib book on kashif facebook to ask for clarification about mirza mehamood sahib TAKFEER fatwaas, it was under the video where kahif was complaining about pakistan law about ahmedis. he blocked me and deleted my post, i send him apology message and just very humbly request for the clarification till now i have not received no reply. he has seen my message on his facebook messenger but never felt to even say a single word.

  4. Jazakallah for your concern

    Unfortunately, this is the situation these people have led themselves into.

    It’s not only this, but the numbers at the time of the fourth khalifa. We can excuse him in the example of the Takfeer, but we can’t excuse him in the example of the number lie because he was there, and he witnessed the lie. He tasted it, he breathed in the lies, and became a walking talking lie among a community of brainless, heartless dead individuals.

    They will do anything to protect their clan. And this is nothing. They would go to the extent of killing someone with ease, just to protect their fallacies and fairy tales.

    All of them are liars. Every single one of them. He blocked me on Twitter from my first comment on his tweet. Same with Qasim. All they do is deceive their following.

    But we Muslims have failed them as well. They have been, and continue to survive and exist only due to the persecution they face in Pakistan. Shias get persecuted more than them, but they never complain as much as these losers do.

    But we Muslims are also to blame. If we didn’t tarnish them with straw man arguments, and treated them with respect, they would have died long ago.

    So far, I’ve seen three ex ahmadis at university. Most of them leave when they go to uni, because they realise that Muslims here in the UK aren’t going to kill them, or aren’t on a conspiracy against them.

    Like I said, they all know it’s false. They raise these Ahmadis on complete obedience, they make them as stupid as possible, get them married at young age, and give them 60 worthless posts to waste their time with, so that by the time they get to the age of 50, and even if at that time they have the time to search the books of MGA, they’ll basically be stuck because their entire family is Ahmadi along with all their children.

    They thought this could work with Arabs like Hassan Odeh or Hani Tahir, but it failed miserably.

    The first thing they said to me when I left was ‘how can u bite the hand that fed you?’ Which is basically a one line answer that sums up Ahmadiyyat.

    As long as they are fed, and they have their family as Ahmadi, they won’t dare think to leave or betray the clan.

    And that’s the situation of every senior Ahmadi. They know it’s all hoax. They know it’s a joke.

    But who has the courage to return to his Lord with an open heart?

    Not many

  5. Exactly…their Khalifa almost died in 1910, he was dragged by his horse so bad that one of his legs was amputated. He thus became the bed-ridden Khalifa.

  6. Salam.

    We do not believe that all non-ahmadi muslims are infidels. When we turn to the writings of the Promised Son, Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad (ra), we notice that he also addressed the Muslims as Muslims rather than non Muslims. You do quote some writings out of context but do not understand that he is referring to non ahmadi muslims as being true Muslims and is referring to them as disbelievers in the spiritual sense. He did not take away the right of any one to call themselves Muslims. In 1953, the Promised Son was asked whether a person can be considered a Muslim if he has rejected the Promised Messiah and he himself stated “Yes indeed, in common terms, he will still be considered a Muslim”. You have taken his writings out of context and misinterpreted what he meant by non Muslim or kaffir. Everything he stated in regards to the non Ahmadi Muslims being non Muslims was in regards to spiritual sense rather than a theological sense.

    Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad (ra) states:

    ” It is evident from this statement itself that the people here I have in mind I take as Muslims. Therefore, when I use the word kafir, I have in my mind kafirs of the second kind which I have defined already, i.e., they are not driven or thrown out of the Millat. When I say they are outside the pale of Islam I have in my mind the view, by Mufradat-i-Raghib on page 240, where Islam has been shown to be of two kinds: one lower than the stage of Iman ; the other above the stage of Iman. In Dunal Iman, in the stage of lower than common Iman, are included people whose Islam remains at a level lower than a proper Iman and in the stage of higher than the common Iman are Muslims who stand at a level of distinction in their faith, higher than the common level. This is why I said that some people fall outside the pale of Islam, I had in my mind people who come under the category of Dunal Iman. There is an authentic Hadith in Mishkat as well, where the Holy Prophet said: `Whosoever helps a man who is unjust, he puts himself thereby out of the
    pale of Islam.’”

    Many have sadly misunderstood the view of Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmadra, but this above statement should be enough for one who is a seeker of the truth.

    He also stated:

    “Moreover there is a great deal of difference between our definition of kufr and theirs. They understand by kufr to mean the denial of Islam, which is the meaning we do not ascribe to this term when using it about the non Ahmadis. Our view is that if a person conforms to the tenets and teaching of Islam to a given extent, he is entitled to be called a Muslim. But when he falls below even that point, then although he may be called a Muslim, he cannot be regarded as a perfect Muslim.”(Political Solidarity of Islam, Page 9)

    He further states:

    “It is being emphasised nowadays that the Ahmadis call non-Ahmadis Kafirs. If this allegation is honestly made, then let the Ahrars come forward and prove that it is we that took the offensive in this respect. The fact is that it is they that began the battle and they were the first to call us Kafirs. They are morally bound to find out who threw down the challenge and took the initiative in issuing Fatwas of Kufr. Even now they are daily saying and writing in their newspapers .that Ahmadis are Kajirs. Can they prove that any Ahmadi newspaper has been guilty of thus calling the Ahrars Kafirs? He who calls another person a Kafir without rhyme or reason hurts his feelings and provokes a quarrel. We never do that. It is only when we are asked by a person as .to what we think of him and we are compelled to give an answer that we say we take him to be a Kafir in the sense in which this term has been explained above.”(Political Solidarity of Islam, Page 10)


    ” When a person takes Islam as his religion and accepts the Quranic injunctions and teachings as his guide of action, he is entitled to be called a Muslim. But if he denies a basic principle of the faith of Islam then although he may be called a Muslim yet in reality he is not so. We do not therefore take Kafir to mean that such a person denies the Holy Prophet Muhammad {peace be upon him). Who can say to a person who says that be believes in the Holy Prophet that in reality he has no such faith ? Nor do we take this term to mean the denial of the existence of God. One who says that he has belief in God, who can dare say that he has none? According to our definition of Kufr the denial of a fundemental doctrine of Islam renders a person Kafir. On the other hand only belief in all the essentials of lslam can make a person a true Muslim in the real sense of the word. But we do not at all regard a Kafir to be foredoomed to hell. A Kafir according to our belief could go fo heaven. We will call a person Kafir who, for instance, has throughout his .life remained unacqqainted with Islam, but God will not send him to hell on that account only because through no fault of his he did not come to know of Islam and God is not so cruel as to punish an ignorant person. So when we use the term Kufr we use it in the above sense only. But we never go about calling a person Kafir. It is only when we are compelled in answer to the enquiry of a person to say what we think of him. that we have to give expression to our belief. But with the definition of Kufr as given by the nonAhmadis as our basis of judgment we would not regard as Kafirs even the Hindus, the Jews, the Christians or the other non-Muslim communities, because we believe that there exists no
    such community whose every member is foredoomed to everlasting hell.” (Political Solidarity of Islam, Page 12)

  7. Wassalam o alaikum

    I hope you are sincerely writing this out of genuine concern, and that you are truly seeking the truth. If not, then you’ve wasted my time replying here when I could be revising for my forth coming exam.

    I also advise you to read this blog, along with the one after it with an open mind, because if you read the blog after this one where I explained how Mahmood Ahmad changed his mind, you would’ve known that what you referenced here, is exactly what I presented against him.

    One more point, don’t say ‘True Islam’ Because there is no ‘false Islam’ yeh. I know you Ahmadis are all about clickbait, and inflated egos, but the word ‘True Islam’ is just wrong. So please don’t use it ever again.

    Firstly, nobody misunderstood him. You have to first understand that in every possible way you can call a Muslim disbeliever, he went so far to say that. He called Muslims non-Muslims, he said we are Kuffar, and he said we are outside of the pale of Islam. There is no other way he could have called us non-Muslims, and if you have a suggestion as to how he could, please respond and embarrass yourself even more. In Islam by the way, you are either inside the pale of Islam, or outside it, and what we mean by outside the pale of Islam (outside of the Pakka as your second khalifa calls it) is ceasing to be a Muslim, therefore you are not a Muslim. After that is clarified, you can imagine what Mahmood Ahmad meant when he said Muslims are outside of the pale of Islam.

    What you reference here, the book ‘Political Solidarity of Islam’. Please check when this was published. This was after the court case, in fact, I think its part of what he said in the court (If you read my other blog, you would’ve known)

    If you can bring me a reference before 1954, before facing court, where he calls Muslims Muslims. I will shut this entire website down tomorrow. But you can’t, and the reason why you can’t is because he lied in court. You know why he says ‘What I have in my mind here’, its because he never identified Muslims as Muslims before that time in his writings. And I don’t know why you still find it hard to believe. Many Ahmadis have called me kafir based on this.

    And why am I wasting my time here, look kid, if you have the balls, send an email to an Ahmadi official and ask him why they declared Muslims infidels in an official statement here:

    But those who don’t believe in the promised Messiah, whether they know or didn’t know of him, they are among the visibly disbelievers, even if they were called Muslims. Because he is a divine messenger, and the disbelief in him is no different to the disbelief in any prophet. And we should warn them of the severity of the situation they are in.


    And are you seriously kidding me. Allah (the creator of the heaven and the earth) sends his messenger, with glad tidings, and revelation, and yet the rejecters of this prophet are still seen as Muslims in the eyes of Allah, are you kidding me?

    And if you wanna see your prophet in action again, take a closer look at this here

    “Question: Huzoor-e-aali (Respected Mirza Ghulam) has mentioned in thousands of places that it is not at all right to call Kafir a Kalima-go (someone who recites the Kalima) and an Ahle-Qibla. It is quite obvious that except those Momineen who become Kafir by calling you (Mirza Ghulam) a Kafir, no one becomes a Kafir by merely not accepting you. However, you have now written to Abdul Hakeem Khan that anyone who has received my message and has not accepted me is no longer a Muslim. There is contradiction between this statement and your statements in previous books. Earlier in Tiriaq-ul-Quloob etc you had mentioned that no one becomes Kafir by not accepting you; now you are writing that by rejecting me he becomes a Kafir?!
    Answer: This is strange that you consider the person who rejects me and the person who calls me Kafir as two different persons, whereas in the eyes of God he is the same type; because he who does not accept me is because he considers me a fabricator… apart from this, he who does not accept me, he does not believe in God and His Prophet as well, because there is God’s and his Prophet’s prophecy regarding me.” [Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 22, P. 167)


    Anyway, I hope this wasn’t too harsh. But know that you only have one chance in this life, and if you turn a blind eye to the truth, you know what happens……

  8. Hadith on Animals: Allah has forgiven a prostitute because of her kindness to a dog
    Abu Amina Elias • September 30, 2012
    Abu Huraira reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Allah had once forgiven a prostitute. She passed by a dog panting near a well. Seeing that thirst had nearly killed him, she took off her shoe, tied it to her scarf, and drew up some water. Allah forgave her for that.”

    Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 3143, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2245

    Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi (authenticity agreed upon) according to Al-Bukhari and Muslim

    عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ غُفِرَ لِامْرَأَةٍ مُومِسَةٍ مَرَّتْ بِكَلْبٍ عَلَى رَأْسِ رَكِيٍّ يَلْهَثُ قَالَ كَادَ يَقْتُلُهُ الْعَطَشُ فَنَزَعَتْ خُفَّهَا فَأَوْثَقَتْهُ بِخِمَارِهَا فَنَزَعَتْ لَهُ مِنْ الْمَاءِ فَغُفِرَ لَهَا بِذَلِكَ

    3143 صحيح البخاري كتاب بدء الخلق باب خير مال المسلم غنم يتبع بها شعف الجبال

    2245 صحيح مسلم كتاب السلام باب فضل سقي البهائم المحترمة وإطعامها

    It is Allah who decides who goes to heaven or hell, no matter what religion you follow or weather you are an atheist. Who are mere mortals to determine who is a kafir and who is not, when the follower of the true religion can be put to hell for not following it properly..

  9. Nobody said anything about anyone going to heaven and hell.

    Grab a dictionary, go find your glasses, and read the article before spamming messages here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s