Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam
In a speech at the December 1914 annual Jalsa, the first Jalsa after Mirza Mahmud Ahmad became khalifa, he declared:
The above extract carries the heading Has the khilafat become a hereditary seat?, and under it Mirza Mahmud Ahmad says:
“Foolish is he who says that a hereditary seat has been established. I say to such a one on sworn oath: I do not even consider it allowable that the son should succeed the father as khalifa. Of course, if God makes him His appointed one, then that is a different matter. Like Hazrat Umar, I also believe that the son should not be khalifa after the father.” (p. 171)
See the speech at this link.
Everyone can see what happened subsequently in the history of this khilafat.
As the Promised Messiah’s book Haqiqat-ul-Wahy was published in May 1907, mention of it is found in the Ahmadiyya newspapers around that date. In Badr, 8 August 1907, a letter by Dr Basharat Ahmad to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is printed under the title Haqiqat-ul-Wahy. The letters runs as follows:
“Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu-hu!
This servant has been busy in reading Haqiqat-ul-Wahy in recent days and finished it in 15 to 20 days, reading it very carefully by the grace of God. I read the most wonderful secrets of knowledge and my faith was refreshed by ever newer signs. You, sir, have conclusively proved the arguments to the opponents to the highest degree. If they don’t accept them even now, then they are like the bat which does not see the sun on a bright day. You, sir, have made the sun of clear evidences and irrefutable arguments to rise. Now the opponent Maulvis have nothing left but obduracy and prejudice. Signs are pouring down like rain. If a man has the least spiritual taste and faith, he will find an ocean of Divine signs flowing by your hand, sir. But the fact is that the inner nature of these opponent Maulvis has become distorted due to their vehemence, prejudice and ignorance. Otherwise, for men of spiritual taste and faith there are more than enough signs.”
In a talk reported in Badr, 8th August 1907, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad answered an objection of the opponent Ulama that he had not gone to perform the Hajj. He said:
“It is with evil intent that these people raise this objection. The Holy Prophet Muhammad, may peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him, lived in Madina for ten years. It was only a couple of days’ journey from Makka, but he did not perform the Hajj in those years. He was in a position to make arrangements for transport etc. However, the condition for performing the Hajj is not only that you should have enough resources. It is also necessary that there should be no danger of any trouble and there should exist the means for reaching there and performing the Hajj in security.
Considering that the savage-minded Ulama are even in this country issuing verdicts that I deserved to be killed, and showing no fear of the authorities, there is nothing they would not do there. But why are they concerned that I have not performed the Hajj? If I were to perform the Hajj, will they consider me a Muslim? Will they join my Movement? If all these Ulama give a sworn affirmation that if I perform the Hajj they will all repent on my hand and join my Movement and be my followers, then I will go and perform the Hajj. God the Most High will create the means for us which facilitate it, so that the mischief of the Maulvis is removed.
It is not good to raise objections unjustly with evil intent. This objection of theirs applies even to the Holy Prophet because he only performed the Hajj in his last year.”
The Qadiani Jamaat has very recently published a new, revised English translation of Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala, ‘A Misunderstanding Removed’. Their previous translation had been in circulation for many years. The new translation is at this link on their website as a pdf file.
My translation of the same pamphlet, with introduction and notes, has existed on our website for about 5 years. Its formatting needed some improvement. So I have taken this opportunity to improve the formatting (although there is no change in the translation or notes), and have also expanded the introduction which can be read here. One addition to the introduction is to present the original Urdu quotations from Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad’s discussion of this subject. Previously, only the English translation had been given.
In the new Qadiani Jamaat translation, it is written in the Publisher’s Note:
“Apart from resolving once and for all the extremely vital and contentious issue of Khatm-e-Nubuwwat, Eik Ghalati Ka Izala is also the last word in settling the dispute between those who believe the Promised Messiah to be a Prophet of God and those who do not.”
So it is “the last word” in settling this dispute, is it? Interestingly, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote as follows:
“The first evidence of the change in this belief is found in the announcement Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala, which is the first written evidence.” (See my introduction for reference)
“Change in this belief” is, according to him, the change in the Promised Messiah’s belief from considering himself not to be a prophet to claiming to be a prophet. So this pamphlet, according to Mirza Mahmad Ahmad, is the first word on his claim to prophethood but today’s Qadiani Jamaat calls it the last word.
Can any Qadiani Jamaat member in the world explain how what they used to consider as the Promised Messiah’s first declaration of being a prophet can be his last word on the subject?
Mirza Mahmud Ahmad also writes in the same place:
“The issue of prophethood became clear to him in 1900 or 1901, and as Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala was published in 1901, in which he has proclaimed his prophethood most forcefully, it shows that he made a change in his belief in 1901″
There is, of course, no mention in their Publisher’s Note of the above Qadiani standpoint, namely, that in his writings before this pamphlet the Promised Messiah was making the mistake of denying being a prophet, and was now correcting his own misunderstanding. The most likely reason is that the writers of the note are ignorant of the whole background.