The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog


Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and MattersSee Title Page and List of Contents


See: Project Rebuttal: What the West needs to know about Islam

Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam

Read: Background to the Project

List of all Issues | Summary 1 | Summary 2 | Summary 3‎ — completed, 28th June 2013


January 31st, 2009

1904 court case statement

The following has been submitted by Bashir.


This short article discusses a topic of the split which was divulged by Qazi Muhammad Nazir in a book entitled Truth Prevails.

He writes on page 4:

In 1904, Maulvi Karamdin of Jehlum had a law suit of libel against the Promised Messiah that the latter had defamed him by calling him a ‘Kazzab’. In this suit Maulvi Karamdin cited Maulvi Mohammad Ali as a Prosecution
witness in the court on a solemn oath, Maulvi Mohammad Ali deposed:

1. “In regard to a man who claims to be a Nabi (Prophet), where a man denies this claim, he becomes, thereby a ‘ Kazzab ’. The Mirza Sahib claims he is a Prophet.”

2. “The Mirza Sahib, in many of his works, puts forth this claim which is to the effect that he is a Prophet from God, though he is not the bearer of a new Sharia. Where a man denies a claim of this kind, he becomes, thereby, a ‘ Kazzab ’.” (File of the law-suit, page 362)

M. ali wrote an article in which he explained the court case. I don’t have that article off-hand. Maybe ZA can post that for us, and maybe even translate it into English. In summary, M.ali mentioned in this court case that HMGA claimed to be a “wali-type of prophet” and there was another statement which he gave to the same effect.

QMN shows the reader that there weren’t any other statements that were made by M. ali of any significance in terms of the prophethood of HMGA. He presented only the part that would prove his point. He knew about M. Ali’s book “How I used the word prophet in my writings”. He knew about the reference from ROR 1904, where M. Ali described Nabi=muhaddas. But he still presented this story in a biased manner.

QMN only repeated what the AMI had been saying one-sidedly for years, without referring to or dealing with the replies given by M. Ali and others. That is a sad state of affairs for a book entitled Truth Prevails.

7 Responses to “1904 court case statement”

  1. 1. What testimony did the Promised Messiah himself give in the same court case? This is what he wrote:

    “Sign no. 118. Once when I was in Gurdaspur due to a court case that Karam Din of Jhelum had instituted against me … when we went into the courtroom the lawyer for the opposite party asked me this same question: ‘Is your rank and status as stated in the book Tiryaq-ul-Qulub?’ I replied: Yes, by the grace of God this is my status, and He has bestowed it upon me.”
    (Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 22, p. 277-278)

    In the book Tiryaq-ul-Qulub Hazrat Mirza sahib had described his claim as that of a person who is not a prophet. This is why the Qadiani Jamaat classifies this book among the pre-1901 ones, of a time before he changed his claim to that of prophet according to them.

    2. Maulana Muhammad Ali gave his court testimony in May 1904. It is then strange that in the April 1904 issue of the Review of Religions (one month before) he had published extracts from a book by the Promised Messiah, among which are the following:

    “This is the Umma which, though not having any prophets (nabi) in it, has those who receive the word of God like prophets, and though not having any messengers (rasul) in it, has those who show God’s clear signs like messengers.” (Urdu edition of The Review of Religions, April 1904, p. 131)

    “…if the door of prophethood had not been closed, every muhaddas possessed in himself the power and capability to become a prophet. It is according to this power and capability that it is allowable to apply the word nabi to a muhaddas. That is, we can say: the muhaddas is a prophet.” (Urdu edition, p. 117)

    “Such a man becomes the inheritor of the blessings granted to the prophets and he is their vicegerent upon earth. What is termed mujiza in the prophets is termed karamat in him, and what is termed ismat (sinlessness) in the prophets is called mahfiziyyat (protection) in him, and what is called nubuwwat (prophethood) in the prophets is designated muhaddasiyyat in him.” (English edition of The Review of Religions, April 1904, p. 120-121)

    The stage that Hazrat Mirza sahib claimed to have attained is described as follows:

    “What is walayat (saintship) but the attainment of such a nearness to, and dignity in, the presence of the Almighty Lord as brings to one the gift and favour of having his prayers accepted most of all? The wali or the saint is the friend of God, and it is a test of sincere friendship that his requests be granted on most occasions.” (English edition, p. 122)

    3. Was the issue in dispute in the court case that the Promised Messiah had called Maulvi Karam Din Kazzab for denying his claim? This is certainly the impression that Qazi Nazir’s book gives. Those who believe this, should read the Promised Messiah’s ishtihar dated 14th June 1904 to find the real reason why he called him kazzab.


  2. Questions for ZA:

    1.  When will you translate the article by M. ali in which he explained his statements in the 1904 court case?

    2.  In ROR APril 1904 the translation to the book “Blessings of Islam” are presented.  When was this book initially published?  I didnt find this book on aaiil.org or alislam.org.


  3. Questions for the AMI:

    1.  Who added the note in HW which explained that HMGA forgot what book was asked?  What year was this note attached?

    2.  What evidence led the AMI to the conclusion that HMGA forgot?

    3.  Why is that everytime there is a roadblock put in the way of ahmadi theology, why do you claim that HMGA forgot (1907), or a made a mistake (1901)? 

    4.  Why have you misled the ahmadis (q) in terms of the 1904 court case? 

    5.  Did M.A. Faruqi willfully withhold any data in his book, if so, is that the reason for QMN withholding?

    The title “Truth Prevails” should be changed to “My arguments will Prevail” by QMN, funded by the AMI”


  4. In answer to question (1) that Bashir has asked me, Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote an article in Paigham Sulh, 3 June 1942, p. 4, saying that he had written to the editor of Al-Fazl asking for his complete court statement to be published as he thought that there must have been some other explanatory words present. The editor had replied that his statement consisted of 17 pages but the only part relating to the prophethood of the Promised Messiah is what has been published in the Qadiani Jamaat literature.

    The Maulana then writes that he obtained an official copy of his statement and he was astonished to read that it concludes with the words:

    Mirza sahib nabi honay ka, saint ya`ni wali honay ka da`wa kartay hain

    “Mirza sahib claims to be a nabi, a saint, that is to say, a wali.

    He goes on to say that in that court case the book at issue was Mawahib-ur-Rahman, as that is the book which contains the term kazzab about Maulvi Karam Din, on the basis of which he launched his legal action, and questions in court related to that book. In that book, under the heading of Our Beliefs, the Promised Messiah had written:

    “God speaks to, and communicates with, His saints (auliya) in this Umma. They are given the colour of prophets, but they are not prophets in reality because the Holy Quran has completed all the requirements of the shariah. They are given nothing but the understanding of the Quran; they do not add to the Quran, nor take anything away from it.” (p. 66)

    2. “The Blessings of Islam” is not a book of this title but a section of this title from the book A’inah Kamalat-i Islam, first published 1893. Whatever highest stage Islam could lead a man to reach in 1893, it was the same stage in 1904.


  5. ZA:  This is exactly my point.  The AMI either didnt do the research on  M. ali’s statements properly, or they held them back.  Any religious community has the responsibility to do  full research, before nailing their opponent to a cross,  so to speak.

    The AMI showed that M. ali was guilty until proven innocent, this is  wrong methodology.  When M. ali proved his innocence, the AMI ignored it.  Later, QMN ignored it as well.  I am extremely confused by the statements of QMN.  The other members of the AMI could say that they didnt know in terms of the extent of the statements made by M. Ali, that alibi could work!  But what was QMN’s alibi, other than general ignorance? 

    The fact of the matter is that M. Ali didnt even remember what he said in that court case.  But he was sure that he didnt refer to HMGA as a prophet (in the perfect sense of the word).  So when M. ali himself obtained the 17 pages of the court case he saw exactly as to what he said.   It seems that the AMI wanted to defame the character of M. ali.  The AMI hasnt officially responded to M. ali in 66 years. 


  6. SOME INTERESTING REFERENCES
    http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Tadhkirah.pdf.

    629/970

    In my dream I said to Maulvi Muhammad Ali (Urdu): You were also righteous and meant well, come and sit down with us (Badr Vol. III, No. 29, Aug. 1, 1904, p. 4).

    624-625/970

    (a) Revelation (Arabic): We have softened for you, the iron (Persian): We do not approve of any other meaning (AlHakam, Vol. VIII, No. 17, May 24, 1904, p. 2).
     
    (b) In the case brought against me by Karam Din at Gurdaspur, Karam Din insisted that the word laeen meant bastard and that the word kazzab meant one who always tells lies. The court of first instance accepted his contention. In those days I received the revelation (Persian): We do not approve of the other meaning; which I understood as indicating that the interpretation of the first court would not be upheld on appeal; and so it happened. The Divisional Judge rejected all the arguments advanced on behalf of Karam Din and held that laeen and kazzab were appropriate for Karam Din, who was deserving of even worse. (Hageegat-ul-Wahi p. 380).

    630-631/970

    In Karam Din’s case against me Atma Ram, Magistrate,
    did not pay full attention to the merits and made up his mind to
    sentence me to imprisonment. Thereupon God conveyed to me that
    Atma Ram would be afflicted with the deaths of his children. I
    communicated this vision to the members of my Movement and it so
    happened that within 20 or 25 days he lost two sons. In the end,
    though he had laid the foundation in his judgment of sentencing me to
    imprisonment, God held him back from that design, yet he imposed
    upon me a fine of 700 rupees. I was then honorably acquitted on
    appeal by the Divisional Judge. But Karam Din’s conviction and
    sentence were maintained. My fine was remitted but Atma Ram’s sons
    did not come back. According to the Divine prophecy which had been published already in my book Mawahibur Rahman, I was acquitted, my fine was refunded, Atma Ram’s order was set aside and the Appellate Court rebuked him for an improper order, but Karam Din was convicted and punished and the judgment of the court confirmed his being a liar (Hageeqatul-Wahi pp. 121-122).

     
     


  7. SOMETHING ELSE I FOUND
    26/117

    http://www.alislam.org/library/books/MyMother.pdf

    Some time thereafter he(HIS FATHER) was summoned to appear as a defence
    witness in the court of a Magistrate at Gudaspur in a criminal case
    in which Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Founder of the Ahmadiyyah
    Movement, was being tried for defamation of one Maulvi
    Karam Deen, one of his bitter and virulent opponents. This afforded
    him an opportunity of meeting the illustrious personage and he was
    much impressed with his gracious personality and his very high
    spirituality. He was now studying the Movement earnestly, had
    become a regular subscriber to the weekly Al-Hakam and started
    attending the daily lesson of the Holy Quran given by Maulvi Abdul
    Karim, an eminent disciple and devoted companion of the Promised
    Messiah. He had at no time been opposed to the Movement, but he
    possessed a deliberate temperament and made up his mind after
    careful and deep reflection.


Leave a Reply