Iftekhar Ahmed, Ahmadiyya Archive & Research Centre
Following an earlier article on the path from reasoned belief to divine certainty through striving, we now consider the principles of divine judgement. How does Allah Almighty, the All-Knowing and Just, weigh human belief and disbelief? What is the significance of sincerity, honest intent and capacity compared to doctrinal correctness?
This article examines these questions using the Holy Quran and guidance from the Promised Messiahas and his Caliphs. It looks at the link between heartfelt conviction, the establishment of conclusive divine proof (itmam al-hujja) and accountability before God. Is salvation solely based on correct doctrine or are the integrity and honest effort of the seeker primary factors in divine assessment?
The Islamic view, especially within the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat, centres judgement on God’s perfect insight into the heart. We will examine the status of those who sincerely strive but may not reach established truths, contrasted with the wrong of hypocrisy. Disbelief (kufr) is not always viewed as definite damnation, but as a state judged finally by divine mercy. The aim is to show how Islam upholds both the pursuit of truth and the centrality of good faith, affirming God’s grace in judging His creation.
Sincerity: The foundation of divine assessment
A fundamental aspect of divine justice is that Allah Almighty primarily assesses the inner condition of hearts – sincerity, honesty and good faith – rather than just outward correctness of beliefs and actions. This internal reality is the basis for reward and punishment.
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IIra was asked about those holding incorrect beliefs, but do so honestly. He replied, shifting the focus to inner integrity:
“Question: In your opinion, will Allah Almighty punish those people who hold incorrect religious ideas or beliefs, but do so honestly?
“Answer: In my opinion, the principle of punishment and reward is based on honesty and sincerity or good faith, not on the correctness of the belief.” (Tahqiqati adalat mein Hazrat Imam Jamaat Ahmadiyya ka bayan, Anwar-ul-Ulum, Vol. 24, p. 362)
This clarifies the principle: reward and punishment depend on honesty and good faith, not correct belief. The earnestness of the seeker matters greatly.
This principle extends to actions. Accountability depends on personal belief and intent. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IIra explained:
“There is no doubt that a person who deems a good act to be against the sharia, but performs it anyway, will still be considered sinful, even if the act itself is intrinsically good. This is because he performed it believing it to be a sin and thus resolved to act in opposition to God Almighty.” (Hazrat Masih-e-Maudas ke karname, Anwar-ul-Ulum, Vol. 10, p. 188)
Therefore, one is held responsible for acting against what one sincerely believes to be God’s will, even if that belief is mistaken. A good act becomes wrong if one firmly believes it wrong. This applies to beliefs too, centring judgement on the individual’s sincere perception of truth.
Accountability: Conclusive proof and capacity
While sincerity is essential, accountability for rejecting truth arises only when proof is conclusively established (itmam al-hujja) in a way accessible to the God-given capacity of the individual. The perfect justice of Allah means that He does not hold accountable those for whom conviction was unclear or beyond their reach.
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa explained this requirement, linking it to the fundamental Islamic principle that God holds no one accountable beyond their personal capacity:
“[I]f the argument has not been conclusively established (itmam al-hujja) for someone, and because Allah the Exalted does not hold anyone accountable (mukallaf) for anything beyond their capacity, therefore, that person for whom the argument has not been conclusively established will not be held accountable (qabil-e-mu’akhadha).” (Friday Sermon, 29 May 2009; Khutbat-e-Masroor, Vol. 7, p. 247)
This principle – God “does not hold anyone accountable (mukallaf) for anything beyond their capacity” – comes directly from the Holy Quran. The Promised Messiahas cited this verse when explaining the difference between the outward sharia designation of disbelief (kufr) and the final judgement of God, which rests on sufficient proof relative to individual means:
“[O]ne to whom sufficient evidence has not been furnished in the estimation of God, and who is a disbeliever and a denier – and even if the sharia (based as it is upon what is overt) calls them a kafir, and we, too, in our subservience to the sharia, call them a kafir – he will not be deemed culpable in the estimation of God in the context of the verse:
لَا يُكَلِّفُ ٱللَّهُ نَفۡسًا إِلَّا وُسۡعَهَا
[Allah burdens not any soul beyond its capacity (Surah al-Baqarah, Ch.2: V.287)]”. (Haqiqatul-Wahi [English], pp. 223-224)
Accountability thus relates to capacity, meaning the standard varies. People are called to account according to their intelligence. The Promised Messiahas noted different expectations:
“If it is asked, what about the salvation of those who had no access to a revealed book. The answer is, if they are totally uncivilized and deprived of human intelligence, they will not be called to account in any way […]. But those who possess some degree of intelligence and awareness will be called to account according to the degree of their intelligence.” (Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya [English], pt. 3, p. 105)
Divine justice, in applying this principle of capacity, considers the various complex factors that can influence human action beyond simple volition. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IIra highlighted several such factors:
“(1) There is no doubt that good and bad influences are received through inheritance. (2) There is also no doubt that specific habits arise from food, drink and climate – as is apparent from the habits of different nations […]. Such national characteristics indicate that food, drink and climate play a role in habits. For concerning these specific actions, it cannot be said that all people there adopt particular faults or virtues solely by their own choice. (3) There is also no doubt that upbringing and belief have a specific effect on a person […]. (4) There is also no doubt that the circumstances prevailing at the time a person undertakes an action too have a specific effect on them. […] In short, there are many factors that influence human actions.” (Hazrat Masih-e-Maudas ke karname, ibid., p. 184)
Recognising these potential constraints, the definition of culpable action becomes significant. Based on the teachings of the Promised Messiahas, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IIra clarified that accountability is tied to knowing and wilful action:
“[S]in is that act which is done knowingly and wilfully. That which is not done knowingly and wilfully, but rather results from compulsion, is not sin to the extent that compulsion exists. […] On this basis, he [the Promised Messiahas] stated that if a person cannot avoid sin resulting from inheritance, it is not sin. If a person cannot avoid sin resulting from habit, it is not sin. If the effect of teaching and upbringing upon them is such that it is naturally impossible for them to avoid sin, then it is not sin. If natural weaknesses are such that they cannot overcome them no matter what they do, then it is not sin. If there is a constraint to the extent that a person cannot overcome it, it is not sin. […] And to the extent that a person is compelled (majbur), to that extent they must be considered excused (ma‘dhur) and innocent”. (Ibid., pp. 184-185)
This directly explains how the principle of capacity functions in judgement: God’s perfect knowledge encompasses the degree to which factors like those mentioned – inheritance, environment, ingrained habits, upbringing, beliefs, weaknesses or circumstances – might create a state of compulsion or impose a constraint that renders an individual unable to comply or accept truth knowingly, even if external proof exists. Where such genuine compulsion negates volition, accountability is lifted to that specific extent.
Someone sincerely searching for truth but not finding it, perhaps due to limited capacity or circumstance preventing the hujja, receives divine consideration. The Promised Messiahas said of such a person:
“Should there be such a person who could not arrive at the truth of Islam, despite complete good faith and despite every effort such as he puts forth in seeking the world, his matter rests with God”. (Haqiqatul-Wahi [English], pp. 217-218)
Deciding if sufficient proof was furnished for any soul rests solely with God. Rejecting truth after established proof is serious, but only He knows when this point is reached. This calls for humility in judging others and affirms the perfect justice of God.
The role of prophets in establishing divine proof
Since accountability rests on sufficient proof according to capacity, how is definitive proof usually given? The path of faith begins with reasoned assessment, but deep certainty often surpasses unaided intellect. Islamic teaching, stressed by the Promised Messiahas, holds that the most conclusive evidence for God and His will comes via divine revelation and His chosen Prophets.
Observing the cosmos or philosophical thought may suggest the existence of a Creator but might not yield the undeniable conviction needed for full divine proof (hujja). The Promised Messiahas distinguished between the tentative findings of reason and prophetic certainty:
“An astronomer cannot provide credible proof of the existence of God Almighty by merely reflecting upon celestial objects etc., or the solar system. Certainly, a possibility can arise that God should exist. The assertion that there is a God and He definitely exists has always been proven by the very tenets put forth by the Prophets. If people like myself did not appear in this world, then there would never ever be any factual and conclusive means of the proof of God in the world.
“At the most, should someone be of a just mindset and possessed of a noble character, then the only conclusion that can be deduced from the absolute perfection, the inviolable design, the solar system, etc. is that there ought to be a God. Other than that, the fact that God actually exists and He is the Master, Possessor and Sovereign of the universe cannot be possible without those who reveal God, having [themselves] come from God. Those people are the ones who enable the witnessing and by presenting fresh and invigorating Signs, it is as if they are ‘revealing’ God.” (Malfuzat [English], Vol. 10, pp. 455-456)
This shows that reason might deduce God ought to exist, but Prophets, with “fresh and invigorating Signs” from God, allow witnessing the reality that God actually exists. They bridge intellectual possibility and experiential certainty, establishing the hujja for accountability.
This suggests that without exposure to compelling prophetic evidence, God may not consider someone fully accountable for rejecting the truth.
Rejecting a prophet after awareness of their claim and signs, which, as per God’s assessment, have been adequately presented, is grave. It means rejecting God’s chosen way of giving conclusive proof. The seriousness was noted by the Promised Messiahas:
“He who has heard the call of the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and has become aware of his advent and who, in the estimation of God, has been furnished with sufficient evidence regarding the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and dies as a disbeliever, he would be condemned to eternal Hell.
“The knowledge whether sufficient evidence has been furnished lies with God Almighty alone.” (Haqiqatul-Wahi [English], p. 222)
This highlights the function of Prophets in divine guidance and accountability, serving as primary channels for God to manifest His truth clearly.
Sincere error vs. hypocrisy: A clear distinction
The emphasis on sincerity and established proof (itmam al-hujja) shows that one genuinely unable to recognise truth, despite effort or due to circumstance, differs before God from one who knowingly rejects or pretends acceptance. Rejecting what one sincerely believes to be false, especially lacking sufficient evidence, in God’s view, rather than from stubbornness, is not the worst state.
Islamic teachings sharply distinguish sincere, perhaps mistaken, conviction from hypocrisy. Far worse is outwardly professing belief while inwardly holding it false. This deliberate division between inner reality and outward claim, a conscious deception, is strongly condemned in the Holy Quran:
إِنَّ ٱلۡمُنَٰفِقِينَ فِي ٱلدَّرۡكِ ٱلۡأَسۡفَلِ مِنَ ٱلنَّارِ وَلَن تَجِدَ لَهُمۡ نَصِيرًا
“The hypocrites shall surely be in the lowest depths of the Fire; and thou shalt find no helper for them.” (Surah an-Nisa, Ch.4: V.146)
The gravity of hypocrisy stems from its inherent dishonesty. Unlike sincere disbelief, which may stem from limitations, lack of exposure or a failed search, hypocrisy involves knowing betrayal – presenting a false front, often for gain or due to pressure, while the heart doubts or rejects. It corrupts the integrity of the soul.
This contrast reinforces the importance of the inner state. Sincere error may find divine mercy based on capacity and lack of proof, but the deliberate duplicity of the hypocrite incurs severe divine displeasure because it involves consciously rejecting and hiding the truth that is known or suspected within.
The meaning of kufr in Ahmadi Muslim thought
The points about sincerity, capacity and divine proof (itmam al-hujja) lead to clarifying the term kufr, i.e. disbelief or denial, particularly within the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat. The Ahmadi Muslim definition of kafir differs from the common understanding and affects views on divine mercy and salvation.
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IIra noted this difference:
“Besides, there is also a significant difference between us and them [i.e., Ahmadi Muslims and non-Ahmadi Muslims] in the very definition of kufr. These people [i.e., non-Ahmadi Muslims] understand kufr to mean the [outright] denial of Islam, whereas we do not ascribe this meaning to it, nor do we define kufr in this way. We believe that once Islam is found [in a person] to a certain extent, they can be considered deserving of being called a Muslim. However, when they fall even below this standard, although they might still be called a Muslim, they cannot be considered a perfect or complete (kamil) Muslim. This is the definition we give of kufr and Islam. And based on this definition, we never claim that every kafir is destined for eternal Hell. We do not even consider Jews and Christians to be kafir in that sense [i.e., automatically hell-bound].” (Friday Sermon, 26 April 1935; Khutbat-e-Mahmud, Vol. 16, pp. 287-288)
This frames kufr not always as absolute rejection leading to damnation, but often as imperfection or falling short of the full Islamic ideal. It implies degrees of faith, not a strict binary. So, being termed kafir in this sense does not preclude salvation through God’s grace, especially if rejection was not based on deliberate stubbornness.
This contrasts with views that calling someone kafir implies consignment to Hell. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IIra explained further, discussing non-Ahmadi views:
“When non-Ahmadi scholars call us non-believer or infidel (kafir), they also mean by it that we are destined for Hell (jahannami). However, we hold the belief that Hell is for those people who deny truths knowingly and out of malicious mischief (didah danistah shararat). Reciting the declaration of faith certainly brings a person much closer to the truth. Even someone who denies the Prophets and the Books, if their denial is based on sincerity (diyanatdari) and God’s proof (hujja) has not been established upon them, then according to us, such a person is deserving of mercy. And according to the Islamic ideology we have described earlier, this is the resulting conclusion.” (Ma’asla wahi-o-nubuwwat ke muta‘allaq Islami nazariyya, Anwar-ul-Ulum, Vol. 23, p. 351)
The key factor for culpability towards Hell is denying truth “knowingly and out of malicious mischief (didah danistah shararat)”. This aligns with the emphasis on sincerity and established proof (hujja). Without knowledge and malicious intent, even denial does not automatically close the doors to divine mercy. This view sees kufr through the lens of divine justice, assessing the heart’s true state and circumstances.
Salvation and accountability: Beyond labels
This view of kufr, focusing on deliberate denial, leads to a wider concept of salvation. Entering Paradise or Hell is not automatic based on declarations alone; it involves faith, deeds, sincerity, circumstance and established divine proof (itmam al-hujja).
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IIra stated that both Paradise and Hell have prerequisites:
“Paradise is not merely the result of verbal affirmation. Paradise is attained as a result of fulfilling many responsibilities. Similarly, Hell is not merely the result of verbal denial. Rather, there are many conditions for becoming subject to Hell. No person can go to Hell unless the argument has been conclusively established (itmam al-hujja) against them, even if they deny the greatest of truths.” (Ahmadiyyat ka paigham, Anwar-ul-Ulum, Vol. 20, p. 569)
The conclusive establishment of the argument (itmam al-hujja) shows the depth of divine justice; accountability follows clarity. Islamic tradition confirms that the mercy of God ensures fairness even for those unable to receive the message. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IIra mentioned:
“The Holy Prophet Muhammadsa himself states that those who die in childhood, or those who live on high mountains, or […] jungles, or those who are so old that their understanding has failed, or the insane […] – these people will not be held accountable. Rather, God Almighty will raise a prophet again for these people on the Day of Judgement, […]. Then, whoever the argument is established against will go to Hell, and whoever accepts guidance will go to Paradise.” (Ibid.)
This illustrates extended divine fairness, ensuring hujja is established suitably. Outward religious identity is not a final guarantee. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IIra explained:
“Otherwise, it is entirely possible that a person may die in a state of kufr, yet God Almighty, owing to some goodness in them, admits them into Paradise, reasoning that they did not know the true religion […] Conversely, it is entirely possible that a person seemingly within the fold of Islam might be cast into Hell by God Almighty as punishment for not acting upon the religious teachings.” (Khutbat-e-Mahmud, ibid., p. 288)
Ultimately, distributing mercy is God’s decision. Forgiveness remains possible even when culpability seems established by human standards. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IIra affirmed God’s absolute authority:
“[E]ven such a person can be forgiven if God Almighty so wills. The distribution of His mercy is not in our hands. […] God Almighty is our Master, […]. If His wisdom, His knowledge, and His mercy wish to forgive even such a person whose forgiveness seems impossible according to normal circumstances, then who are we to restrain His hand […]?” (Ahmadiyyat ka paigham, ibid.)
This broad view opposes rigid judgements and confirms that the final assessment rests solely with the All-Knowing, Most Merciful God, Who sees beyond human perception.
The ultimate scope of divine mercy and reformation
The Islamic view of divine justice and mercy, as explained within the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat, offers a hopeful outlook on humanity’s final destiny. While accountability for knowingly rejecting the truth is real and serious, the overall picture is that divine grace ultimately covers all. Hell is conceived not as endless punishment itself, but as a necessary, perhaps painful, purification for those needing it.
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IIra expressed this vision, pointing to the inherent purpose of humanity:
“Islam, on the other hand, teaches that every human being has been created with the purpose that he or she will ultimately attain perfect salvation. The most rabid disbeliever and wrongdoer after being subjected to certain kinds of reformatory treatment, one of which is the torment of Hell, would ultimately attain salvation and would enter Paradise.” (Introduction to the Study of the Holy Quran, p. 279)
This presents universal salvation as the eventual aim of God. The path may involve correction, like the spiritual pain of Hell, but the Merciful Creator’s intended destination is His nearness in Paradise.
Central is the weighing and balancing of actions. Effort and sincerity, even amid imperfection, weigh significantly. Death during sincere effort does not negate its value. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IIra used an analogy:
“In this connection the Quran emphasises the doctrine of weighing and balancing of actions. It teaches that the preponderance of good actions in a man’s life is proof of sincere effort on his part to attain salvation and that a person who dies while making a sincere effort […] is like a soldier who is killed before victory is achieved. […] If such a person dies in the middle of this struggle, he becomes deserving of the Grace and Mercy of God and not of His wrath and punishment. No nation has ever condemned its warriors for being killed before victory was achieved.” (Ibid.)
Sincere striving (mujahada) is valued; early death does not disqualify one from Grace. Accountability exists for rejecting truth after the argument is established (itmam al-hujja) in God’s view, but it operates within a larger framework aiming at reformation and salvation. Even those deemed responsible will face correction meant to purify, not endless punishment without aim. This hopeful view shows God’s boundless mercy, ultimately seeking to bring creation back to Him.
Conclusion: Striving with sincerity and hope
Building on a previous article about belief, this analysis has explored the principles of divine judgement, linking objective truth and personal conviction. The Islamic viewpoint, shown via the Holy Quran and explanations from the Promised Messiahas and his Caliphs, reveals divine assessment based on perfect justice and boundless mercy, carefully weighing the sincerity and capacity of each soul.
The path towards God is judged fundamentally by inner honesty, not just correct beliefs or outward actions. Sincere intention is primary. Honest error from genuine effort, falling short due to personal limitations, challenging circumstances or because conclusive proof (itmam al-hujja) was never established, does not automatically incur divine displeasure.
Accountability depends on clear divine evidence established according to individual ability. Only Allah Almighty knows if this point is met, urging humility in judging the fate of others. While the sharia guides on observables, the judgement of God sees the unseen. Certainty often requires the “fresh and invigorating Signs” of Prophets; rejecting them after clear presentation is serious, as it turns from the chosen revelation method of God.
This contrasts sincere non-acceptance with the grave wrong of hypocrisy – deliberately hiding disbelief behind faith, earning severe condemnation. It also shapes the view of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat on kufr, distinguishing technical terms from damnation pronouncements, seeing the potential corrective role of Hell within a divine plan for universal salvation.
The Islamic vision affirms the overarching grace of God. While believers must strive for truth and follow commands, the final assessment is by a Merciful Lord judging based on sincere effort, capacity and given opportunities. Even accountability works within this mercy, aiming for purification and reconciliation.
The path of faith demands continuous searching, striving and reliance on divine guidance. We must pursue truth diligently and sincerely, act on convictions with integrity yet stay mindful of our knowledge limits and the vast wisdom and mercy of God. It is undertaken with responsibility and deep hope in the ultimate justice and grace of our Creator. May Allah grant us the sincerity, perseverance and humility needed. Amin.
