Islam, Emaan and Qadyaniat

One of the objections raised against declaring Qadyanis as non-Muslims, is that “Emaan” is something really personal, something hidden in the heart, not likely to be judged by a third person. To put it in other way, whether or not a person has faith or ”Emaan” is something to be judged only by that very person or by Allah Almighty. Therefore no person can be declared a non-Muslim, if that person himself claims to be a Muslim. Let us analyze this viewpoint in the light of Quran and Sunna. First, we will dwell on concept of Islam and “Emaan”. Secondly, we will describe concept of Qadyaniat and its critical analysis, and lastly, we will focus on how far it is justifiable to declare Qadyanis as non-Muslims.

At the first stage, we need to clarify that Islam and “Emaan” or faith in terms of Quran are two sides of the same coin. "Emaan" is to believe in Islam, and Islam is to practice "Emaan". “Deen” is nothing more than practicing certain beliefs. Islam is reflection of “Emaan”. When belief aspect of “Deen” needs to be emphasized, word “Emaan” is used; when deeds aspect of “Deen” requires to be stressed upon, word “Islam” is used. That is why both actions and beliefs are enjoined in Quran to people having faith; whenever these people having faith are addressed, duties are assigned to them both in the form of actions and beliefs. It means “ahl-e-emaan” are supposed to perform enjoined actions and entertain enjoined beliefs simultaneously to be labeled as “ahl-e-emaan”. According to the Holy Messenger (saw), “Emaan” enhances with good deeds, and decreases with bad deeds; this saying also manifests the fact that “Emaan” is to believe in Islam, and Islam is to practice “Emaan”; Islam is “Emaan” in the form of actions. In other words, “Emaan” is included in Isalm; and Islam is included in “Emaan.” However, on the basis of Hujurat-14, Islam and “Emaan” have been described by some scholars as different things. This verse (Hujurat-14) states “The bedouins say, "We have believed." Say, "You have not [yet] believed; but say [instead], 'We have submitted,' for faith has not yet entered your hearts. And if you obey Allah and His Messenger, He will not deprive you from your deeds of anything. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." The scholars who describe Islam and “Emaan” as different things on the basis of this verse, they give to word “aslamou” the meaning of “embracing Islam”. But actually word “aslamou” in this ayah means “ to be submissive ( to Islamic state); it does not mean “embracing Islam”. It means in this ayah mention has not been made about the Muslims, rather it is about rural Arabs which had not embraced Islam by that time, but which had become subservient to Islamic state. Hence, we can conclude that, for a Muslim, Islam and “Emaan” are not exclusively different things rather they are included in one another in Quranic terminology. However if a non-Muslim adopts Islamic system, he can do it without embracing 'Eman'; but in order to become a Muslim, a person has to adopt both 'Eman' and Islam as two things included into one another. But it does not mean every Muslim has equal level of 'Eman' in his/her Islam; every Muslim has distinct 'Eman' which is different from that of other Muslims.

After ascertaining that Islam and “Emaan” are included into one another, we now dwell on what Islam or “Emaan” is. Briefly speaking, Islam is what has been ordained to do or not to do in the Quran. Our Nabi (saw) has stated five organs of Islam - to witness that there is no worthy of being worshipped except Allah; to offer prayers; to pay zakat; to have fasting in the month of Ramadhan; and to perform Hajj. To profess that no one is worthy of being worshipped except Allah means all injunctions and commandments ordained in the Quran have to be complied with. The Quran says “he who obeys the Messenger (saw), obeys Allah (Nisa-80). In this verse, the way of obedience to Allah has been described. In other words, Islam is nothing more and nothing less than our Nabi’s Sunnah which is the best interpretation of the holy Quran, and a Muslim is he who believes in and act upon our Nabi’s Sunnah. More does a person follow our Nabi’s Sunnah, the greater Muslim he/she becomes. The holy Quran says “those who have faith, enter in Islam fully (Baqra-208). It means all Muslims do not follow our Nabi (saw) fully; every person is the Muslim to the extent he follows Sunnah of our Messenger (saw).

The opposite of word “ Muslim / having faith” is word “ kafir / not having faith”. A non-Muslim/ kafir is he who does not have faith in our Nabi’s Sunnah. Here it is important to note that not having faith in Sunnah is something different from not acting upon the Sunnah. A person may not act upon a certain portion of Sunnah due to laziness, greater indulgence in worldly matters, or due to suspicion whether or not certain “ahadith” have been rightly attributed to the Messenger (SAW); but, in spite of all that, he may not be termed as disbeliever/ not having faith in Sunnah, as long as he believes in righteousness of sayings and actions of the holy Messenger (saw). Disbelievers or persons not having faith in Sunnah are those who disbelieve in the truthfulness/ righteousness of Sunnah, knowing it that what they disbelieve has been rightly attributed to the Messenger (saw). There is no second opinion that the holy Quran is also the Sunnah of the holy Messenger (saw). Sunnah is the best interpretation of the holy Quran. In other words, the Messenger’s (saw) Sunnah is the second name of Islam. We may conclude that Disbelievers are those who do not have faith in Quran or authentic Sunnah.

Qadyanis don’t have faith in our Nabi’s authentic Sunnah; they reject all those ahadith which run counter to Mirza’s claims of prophethood though these ahadith are found to be rightly attributed to Muhammad (saw) when judged on the same authenticity criteria which is approved by Qadyanis in case of some other ahadith accepted by Qadyanis. In other words, Qadyanis use the same authenticity criteria selectively. In other words, they don’t have faith in lot of authentic ahadith.

Our Nabi’s Sunnah is the only way to achieve Allah’s love (Al-Imran-31). Our Nabi (saw) has to be focused on as the only center of following for the Muslims; anybody else may be followed by the Muslims, only if the Messenger’s authentic Sunnah endorses such following. In other words, following to anybody other than Muhammad (saw) has to be subordinated to the Muhammad’s (saw) authentic Sunnah. Whoever choses a person - other than the Messenger (saw) - as the center of following and does not subordinate such following to the Messenger’s (saw) authentic Sunnah, is a non-Muslim.

Qadyanis have chosen Mirza Ghulam Qadyani as the center of following; and such following is not subordinated to our Nabi’s Sunnah. Whenever a conflict arises between our Nabi’s Sunnah and Mirza’s views, Qadyanis follow Mirza’s views. The examples are numerous. Our Nabi (saw) has stated “Jihaad” as his “khulq/ conduct”, whereas Mirza Qadyani banned “Jehaad”. Our Nabi (saw) and Quran state that he is the last of prophets, but Mirza claims he was also called by Allah a prophet because he is alike (maseel) to Hazrat Isa (as), and alike to all other prophets(as) including our Nabi (saw). [Refrences: Rohani khazain (by Mirza Qadyani) vol.22, p-521. vol.18, p-212. vol.16, p- 258,259,270. Malfuzaat Hazrat Masih Maood (by Mirza Qadyani) vol.3, p-270. Kalmatul fasl (by Mirza Bashir) p-113, p-105].

This concept of likeness describes that a person capable of cultivating qualities /characteristics of some other person becomes alike (maseel) spiritually to that other person; this alike person (maseel) can claim all the attributes specifically associated with the original person. Such likeness is spiritual only not physical one. It means the alike person (maseel) and the original person have different physical entities, but in terms of spiritual attainments they are similar. If the original person is a prophet, his “maseel” may also be a prophet. In line with this concept, Mirza Ghulam Qadyani claims to have attained all spiritual achievements attributed to Muhammad (saw) including prophethood which is alike (maseel) to prophethood of Muhammad (saw). This concept of likeness is completely unscientific, totally mythical, logically baseless.

With advancements in science of Genetics, scientists are increasingly advocating that human personality/ traits are based on genetic set-up. Two persons can’t have similar genetic set-up (unless they are cloned); it means two persons can’t have similar personality traits; in other words, two persons can’t have completely similar worldly/ spiritual achievements. Not to speak of complete similarity, no two persons can have even one spiritual quality to the same degree, because the trait/genes composition relating to that spiritual quality can't be same in two persons.

According to science of Psychology, human personality/ traits are shaped, to much extent, on the basis of environment he/she is subjected to. Two persons subjected to different environments can’t cultivate completely similar personality traits. Mirza’s claim to be alike (maseel) to Muhammad (saw) in terms of spiritual attainments is un-scientific.

Logically too, the concept of likeness is not tenable. The whole mankind has been directed in Quran to follow Muhammad (saw); this direction is forever and compulsory for every human to achieve Allah’s love. It was also compulsory for Mirza Qadyani to follow Muhammad (saw) if he wanted Allah’s love. Now the moment the follower and to be followed are elevated to the same spiritual level, the person to be followed no longer remains a person to be followed. But Muhammad (saw) is the person to be followed forever by whole mankind. It means no one can be a “maseel” to Muhammad (saw) in spiritual attainments. Secondly, Muhammad (saw) has been declared as “universal rehmat” forever; it means primary source of Allah’s “rehmat” among the creations is Muhammad (saw). There can’t be another primary source of Allah’s “rehmat” after Muhammad (saw); there can’t be two primary sources of Allah’s rehmat. It means no one can be a “maseel” to Muhammad (saw) in spiritual attainments. Thirdly, all attributes of Muhammad (saw) are not cultivable; they can’t be developed through effort and deeds. Prophethood is also “wahbi”- it is bestowed upon whoever is chosen by Allah ( of course, it is bestowed upon the person who is the best among the people in terms of his deeds); but nobody can make a claim for Prophethood on the basis of his deeds. Similarly out of attributes of Muhammad (saw), which are described through his names, many are “wahbi” and can’t be attained through effort. A few such “wahbi” attributes are: Rasul; Nabi; Muhammad; Ahmad; Mehmood; Aqib; Yasin; Taha; Ha-mim; Tasin; Mujtaba; Mustafa; Qasim; Mansur; Khatam-al-anbiya; Awwal; Akhir; Zahir; Batin; Rasheed; Munji; Mahdi; Fatih; Mutahhar; Hasib; Habib; Murtaza; Sahib; Shafi; Shaheed; and Muhrrim. All these attributes should not be understood with the literal meanings of these words; rather specific meanings are associated with all these names. For example, Nabi literally means a person telling about unseen; but as per specific meanings, “Nabuwwat” is a designation bestowed by Allah upon a chosen person for the guidance of mankind. No one can attain all these “wahbi” attributes through effort and pious deeds. In other words, no one can be “maseel” to Muhammad (saw).

The futility of Mirza’s claim for “Nabuwwat” is even more exposed, when his claim is judged on the basis of his actions/ performance. Islam is based on Quran and Sunnah. The linchpin of Mirza’s argumentation was the argument that Muslims did not understand Quran and Sunnah in the proper context and in the correct manner. But it is amazing to know that he did not write any “tafseer” of Quran so that the “ignorant” Muslims might rectify their understanding of Quran ( he did make interpretation of some verses). He also did not do any work of sifting huge collection of “ahadith” so that the Muslims might know what hadith was correct and what was not (he did make his views about some ahadith). Is it not strange and unbelievable that a person was receiving “Wahi” but he was not separating the right from the wrong out of sources of Islam? The answer is very simple; the sifting of huge collection of ahadith and writing “tafseer” of Quran required lot of knowledge which Mirza Qadyani was lacking in. One may argue that Muhammad (saw) also did not give detailed account of what was right and what was wrong in the previous divine Books. Therefore it is not objectionable if Mirza did not give such detailed account about interpretation of Quran and Books of Hadith. Such a argument would not be valid. Muhammad (saw) did not need to give such detailed account about the previous divine Books, because after coming of Muhammad (saw), Muslims were required to establish “Deen/ Shariah” on the basis of Quran and Sunnah, not on the basis of previous divine Books that is why Muslims were not required to have correct version of previous divine Books. But Qadyanis still require a valid account of ahadith and valid interpretation of Quran.

Briefly speaking, Qadyani concept of likeness (maseel) is logically baseless.

The foregoing discussion may be summarized by stating that Islam and “Emaan” are two sides of the same coin; they are one and the same thing. Our Nabi’s Sunnah is the second name of Islam. One who does not have faith in authentic Sunnah is a non-Muslim. Not having faith in Sunnah means disbelief in Sunnah which has been rightly attributed to Muhammad (saw). Qadyanis are the people who don’t have faith in Muhammad’s (saw) authentic Sunnah. They have chosen Mirza Qadyani as the center of following and such following is not subordinated to Muhammad’s (saw) Sunnah. Whenever there is conflict between Muhammad’s (saw) authentic Sunnah and Mirza’s views, they follow Mirza’s views. We have also seen that Qadyani concept of likeness (maseel) runs counter to Quran and Sunnah and is untenable logically.

It is evident from this discussion that Qadyani religion is based not only on particular beliefs but also particular practices; when they follow in their actions Mirza Qadyani as compared to Muhammad (saw), they show their disbelief in Islam. Because Islam is reflection of “Emaan/ beliefs”, we can say that Qadyani religion has nothing to do with Islamic beliefs/ Emaan.

Emaan/ belief is not always something to be judged only by the concerned person and Allah; it is not always a personal thing- hidden in heart, not likely to be judged by a third person. Emaan/ beliefs are always translated into practices, and when practices are made public, they can’t be labeled as personal and hidden matters. When Qadyanis made their un-islamic beliefs and practices public, such beliefs and practices no longer remain private. Such beliefs and practices which are made public can be judged by third person, by the society. Qadyani “Emaan” may also be judged by the “Ulema” and the society.According to Muhammad (saw)"Emaan" increases with good deeds, and decreases with bad deeds". It means Emaan is based on deeds.

Because deeds when made public can be judged by public, Emaan can also be judged by

public.

Once Hazrat Khalid bin Walid was about to kill a non-believer in a battle. That non-believer started reciting “kalma”. Hazrat Khalid bin Walid killed him, assuming that non-believer was reciting “Kalma” just to save his life. When our Nabi (saw) came to know this incident, he did not approve it. The recitation of “kalma” was an act; this was the last act of that person after which he did not make any act which refuted his 'Emaan'; basing on his last act, “Emaan” of that person was presumed by the Messenger (saw). In Islam, “Emaan” is always based on practices; in other words, lack of “Emaan” is also based on practices. Qadyanis’ practices are un-islamic; they don’t have “Emaan”. Recitation of “kalma” by Qadyanis is just like recitation of “kalma” by “munafqeen” of Madina. In other words, Qadyanis can be rightly declared non-Muslims and they have been rightly declared non-Muslim.