Welcome, Dopers. Please have a seat. This will be a long lecture. Today, We will discuss what and who are the Ahmadis, a peculiar sect of Hanafi Sunni Muslims.
Let’s begin with “Hanafi” and “Sunni.” Islam is usually divided into two major divisions: Sunni and Shia. Sunnis follow the sunnah of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, and Muhammad’s companions, people who were close to Muhammad. The Shia belong to Shi’at 'Ali or the Party of Ali, and believe that Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, should have become the leader of the Muslims instead of a companion. They also hold a belief in the Imamate - that certain descendants of Ali are sinless, pure, infallible, the God-appointed leaders of Muslims, authoritative expounders of Islam, and interceders with God on behalf of their followers. According to Ithna Ashari or Twelver Shias (“Ithna Ashar” means “Twelve” in Arabic), the last Imam was Muhammad al Mahdi, who went into occultation; he is still alive but in hiding, and will reappear at some future time to once again lead the Muslims. All Muslims owe to the Imam Mahdi their allegiance, and there is also the belief that a Muslim may enter heaven only if he or she recognizes the authority/identity of the Imam of the Time (Imaam uz-Zamaan in Arabic, Imam-e-Zamaan in Farsi).
The Sunni are divided into four schools (madhahib, sing. madhhab) of religious jurisprudence (fiqh) (Islam is concerned primarily with orthopraxy): Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi’i, and Maliki. The dominant madhhab in South Asia is Hanafi.
In the city of Qadian, during the British Raj, a man was born whose name was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. He would later claim to be a reformer of Islam (he said every century a reformer comes to renew and purify Islam), the Promised Messiah, the Imam Mahdi, and prophet. I will deal with these claims, along with the establishment of the Caliphate, below.
-
Reformer (Mujaddid in Arabic and Urdu). Ahmad Sahib taught that ever so often, Islam needs a reformer to throw away false accumulations, update Islamic practice, and bring people back to the correct practice of Islam. Ahmad Sahib taught that Islam has a reformer about every century. Islam was due a reformer, and he was it. Other Muslims deny the need for any reformer or reformation. According to orthodoxy/orthoprax Sunni Islam - according to all four madhahib, if I remember correctly - because the doors of ijtihad (independent reasoning or promulgation of new fiqh) are closed, there can be no reformation, there can only be going back to what’s been determined before (as Hanbali Wahhabis attempt to do today).
-
The Promised Messiah. Ahmad Sahib taught that Isa (Jesus) was not crucified, which other Muslims accept as well. However, he taught that Isa travelled, ended up in what is now Kashmir, and died there. Other Muslims believe that Isa ascended into heaven and will one day, towards the end of time, return to earth to lead and guide Muslims. Isa is alive but in heaven, according to them. Not so, according to Ahmadis. What was construed as prophecy, as it were, that Isa will return really meant that someone like Isa will come forth; that someone was Ahmad Sahib, according to Ahmadis. God and Muhammad promised this figure (hence the Promised Messiah) to come and lead and guide Muslims. Indeed, one of the main titles used for Ahmad Sahib is Masih, “Messiah” in Arabic/Farsi/Urdu/Hindi.
-
Imam Mahdi. As mentioned above, Shias believe that the Imam Mahdi is in hiding; he is alive, but hiding. What makes South Asian Islam unique is that Muslims, Sunni and Shia, await the deoccultation of the Imam Mahdi. Yes, even Hanafi Sunnis in South Asia believe in the Imam Mahdi. They do not accept the concept of Imamate in its totality, nor do they accept the centrality of the figure of the Imam to Islam or Muslimhood, but they do believe in a special person known as the Imam Mahdi, a descendant of Muhammad through Imam Ali through Imam Hussein (yes, these South Asian Hanafi Sunnis even call Hussein “Imam” and lament the tragedy of Karbala), who will reappear to lead and guide Muslims. (Whether, in South Asian Hanafi Sunni outlook, this will happen before, during, or after Isa’s descent I have been unable to discern.) Ahmad Sahib announced that he is the Mahdi reappeared. This is not a very contentious point, since Shias ignore and reject Ahmadis (because they’re Sunni and on the wrong path from the beginning) and Sunnis aren’t too focused on this point. Ahmad Sahib doesn’t make this one of his main points, but it is a claim nonetheless: according to Ahmadis there is no one else who will descend, deoccult, reappear, appear, or otherwise manifest himself to lead and guide Muslims. The promised and awaited figure - whether Messiah or Mahdi - is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
-
Prophet (Nabi). This is the most contentious point/claim of them all. This is also where Qadiani and Lahori Ahmadis diverge. According to the Qadiani Ahmadis, Ahmad Sahib claimed to be a prophet (specifically, nabi; the term “rasul,” which has connotations to the shahadah, has not been used so far as I can tell). Ahmad Sahib made a differentiation between law-giving prophets (such as Moses and Jesus and Muhammad) and non-law-giving prophets (such as Solomon and himself). (From here on I will state what I have heard and read Qadianis state: I am not sure if Ahmad Sahib himself taught these points or not.) Muhammad, as all Muslims are bound to believe, was the last law-giving prophet. The Qur’an, sunnah, and shari’ah are supreme, paramount, and irreplaceable. Not even Ahmad Sahib can promulgate a new law or bring forth a new book. Such revelation is final. However, God desires to keep communication with humanity and so, in His mercy, chooses prophets with whom to communicate. These non-law-bringing prophets receive revelation and guidance and orders from God. Such prophets are a level down from law-bringing prophets, whom the other prophets must obey. The tenet of the finality and supremacy of Islam and Muhammad and his revelations are central to Ahmadi Islam.
Furthermore, Qadianis teach that Muhammad is, indeed, the Seal of the Prophets. They claim that Muhammad was designated as the Seal of the Prophets before God sent any prophets. If Muhammad was set as the seal, does this mean that all prophets that came before him (Adam, Moses, Jesus, David, Solomon, John, etc.) were invalid? No. Prophets came before Muhammad, prophets will come after Muhammad, but the supreme of all prophets is Muhammad. Muhammad is/was God’s main prophet. There is no way Ahmad Sahib could possibly supplant Muhammad. Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets. He is the Last of all Prophets in that a) his revelation exceeds all else, and b) he is the last law-giving prophet.
In short, Ahmad Sahib was a prophet only in that he received revelation from God, but the nature of his revelations were very, very different from what Muhammad received. Additionally, Ahmad Sahib’s prophethood was very, very different from Muhammad’s prophethood. Like comparing a broken-down shack (Ahmad Sahib) with the Taj Mahal (Muhammad). (Analogy is mine.)
A few observations on this point:
- Qadianis never apply the term rasul to Ahmad Sahib. It seems, therefore, that in Qadiani theology Muhammad is rasul and nabi while Ahmad Sahib is only a nabi.
- The main title used for Ahmad Sahib by both Qadianis and Lahoris, is not Nabi (Prophet), despite his claim to such a position, but Masih (Messiah). More on this in the section dealing with the Caliphate.
What sets Qadianis and Lahoris apart is that Lahoris deny that Ahmad Sahib ever claimed to be a prophet. Messiah, yes. Reformer, yes. Mahdi, yes. But prophet, no. They also do not accept the Caliphate of Ahmad Sahib’s successors.
- Caliphate (Khilafat in Arabic/Farsi/Urdu/Hindi). In order that Muslims may still be guided and led by one in touch with God, God through Ahmad Sahib established a Caliphate. The title of the original caliphs (Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman, 'Ali) was “Khaleefat ur-Rasul Allah” or “Successor to the Prophet of God.” The caliphs now are titled “Khaleefat ul-Masih” or “Successor to the Messiah.” Due to persecution in Pakistan, the headquarters are in London. One becomes a Qadiani, officially, by pledging allegiance (making baiat) to the current caliph.
According to one Qadiani leader in Pakistan, Qadianis believe that all Muslims owe their allegiance to the caliph. Muslims in the times of the first caliphs owed their allegiance to those caliphs; Muslims in today’s time owe their allegiance to the current caliph instituted by God. According to this Qadiani, the only true Muslims are those who have pledged their allegiance to the caliph, effectively making Qadianis the only true Muslims, casting all other Muslims into the category of either non-Muslims or apostates. However, a Qadiani leader here in Chicago believed differently. He stated that anyone who calls himself or herself a Muslim is a Muslim, and should be considered a true and valid Muslim. Only God can tell who is a true Muslim. Of course, the Qadiani caliphate has the complete truth of Islam thus far revealed, unlike others, who are misguided.
-
Jihad. Like all Muslims, Ahmadis accept that jihad is a compulsory tenet of Islam. However, Ahmad Sahib has rejected violent jihad (except in self-defense), saying that instead a Muslim must focus on internal or spiritual jihad. Lahori Ahmadis go even further: they say that jihad has been abrogated, and so is no longer a part of Islam for today. The age of martial jihad is over. (Nonetheless, both factions look fondly upon Islam’s early expansionist military campaigns.) This has caused other Muslims to condemn them for rejecting jihad and adding this point to their list of reasons why Ahmadis are not Muslim.
-
The English. Ahmad Sahib did not agitate for independence during the British Raj. This caused Muslims then to accuse him of being a British agent. This also causes Muslims today to say that Ahmadism was an invention of the British, not a legitimate Islamic movement.
(I should add that according to Jonah Blank in Mullahs on the Mainframe, the Dai al-Mutlaq (supreme leader) of the Daudi Musta’li Ismaili Shias forbade his people from agitating for independence. He prayed for the welfare of the British Raj. Once independence occured, he began praying for the welfare of the new Indian government. However, the Daudi Musta’lis have not been accused of being British agents, even though there was some friction soon after independence between Indian politicians and the Daudi Musta’li community due to the latter’s apolitical nature and, thereby, their lack of participation in independence efforts.)
Anyway, a few closing observations:
-
I think the whole “Ahmad was a prophet” vs. “there is prophet after Muhammad” is entirely a semantic issue. After all, Ismailis (Nizari and Musta’li) attribute greater stuff to their Imams (and the Dai al-Mutlaq in the Daudi Musta’li case): Muhammad revealed the Qur’an, the Imam (or Dai al-Mutlaq) explains it. Furthermore, salvation practically comes through the Imam/Dai al-Mutlaq, not Muhammad. The firmans (directives) of the Imam/Dai al-Mutlaq are studied and obeyed with greater zeal than Muhammad’s ahadith.
-
In the Qadiani literature I have, Muhammad is quoted far, far more often than Ahmad Sahib. Muhammad is given far, far more reverence than Ahmad Sahib. And this was internal literature - by and for Qadianis.
-
Ahmadis of both camps have had to undergo a lot of undeserved persecution. It is true that because of Ahmad Sahib’s prophet status Muslims worldwide declare that Ahmadis are non-Muslims, this is not as clear-cut a debate as it may at first seem. It all depends on how one defines “prophet.” In any case, this is not something for civil and constitutional law to become involved. The Ahmadi movement, even without official persecution and prosecution, faces significant hurdles amongst the Muslim people. They do have an active emphasis on missionary work, but presenting the message is difficult: people reject them from the get-go, without giving them a chance to say even a word. There is, therefore, no thread whatsoever of Ahmadis, of either camp, taking over Pakistan, polluting Islam, corrupting Muslims, or otherwise being a threat to the alread-entrenched factions of Islam.
-
Thanks to the secularism and relative freedom of religion, Ahmadis seem to do well in countries other than Pakistan. At least, they operate without any major official hindrance.
In interest of full disclosure: I am somewhat personally affected by this in that one of my father’s closest friends is a Qadiani (married to a non-Qadiani Sunni, whose children have not joined the Qadiani caliphate). I went with him to a Qadiani jamatkhana in Pakistan (Qadianis and Lahoris are forbidden by Pakistani law to call their houses of worship a mosque or masjid; they are also forbidden by Pakistani law to use or display the shahadah inside or outside their buildings.) I am quite disheartened by this persecution, but there seems to be no solution forthcoming.
Any questions? Ask. Corrections? Correct.
WRS - Disclaimer: forgive any mistakes of any sort. These are my comments and observations and according to my research on the Internet, through books official and otherwise and through contact with a few Qadianis: these should not be taken to be an official explanation by a Qadiani or Lahori Ahmadi. For the official word, please refer to their official websites: Qadiani Ahmadis and Lahori Ahmadis.