The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog


New area: Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and MattersSee Title Page and List of Contents

latest, 9th July 2018: Can Muslims (-women) marry Non-Believers


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


February 7th, 2014

“Insult” to Jesus

This, as you know, is a common charge against Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, that in his writings he has used insulting language when speaking of Jesus.

I was reading the book Taqwiyyat-ul-Iman by Shah Ismail Shaheed (d. 1831), the right hand man of Syed Ahmad Barelvi, and found that commenting on the verse of the Quran "The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger; messengers before him had indeed passed away. And his mother was a truthful woman. They both used to eat food" (5:75), he writes:

"At this point both Baidawi and the author of Jalalain [commentators of the Quran] have written that Jesus and Mary were like other animals, that just as animals are dependent on food, weak and helpless, so were these two venerable persons. By this statement, these two commentators did not mean to be insulting to their dignity and to ignore their high status. May Allah guard us from wrong understanding." (Urdu translation of Taqwiyyat-ul-Iman, p. 256-7).

Baidawi and Jalalain (the latter by Jalal-ud-Din Suyuti) are two well known, classical commentaries of the Quran, and are among the sources referred to by Maulana Muhammad Ali and other commentators of the Quran. This shows that classical Islamic works also contain statements which can be misread or misrepresented as insulting to Jesus. It is also possible that such accusations were actually made against these two renowned commentators and Shah Ismail Shaheed is writing in their defence.

4 Responses to ““Insult” to Jesus”

  1. HMGA only humanizes the ‘God’ Jesus and removes the lens of Bible from the eyes of the world. Ironically, the only difference between Christians and Mullah indoctrinated Muslims is that former call him God and the latter as Prophet, but the imaginative attributes advocated by both are the same, which if not rebutted are ‘godly’ in their nature. No wonder, HMGA's humanizing of a god is quite unsettling to believers of such a god, be they Christian or Muslims.

    If anyone disputes HMGA’s efforts, then they have to read some of his many master pieces where he distinguishes Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) for his merits. In his writings the Holy Prophet comes out so pristine that myths spread by Old Scriptures of their not so holy figures only fall to ground from their own illogic:

    “The Light of the Quran & Tabloid on Criterion for Religions” by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, English translation of Noor-ul-Quran, Vols. 1 & 2; and, Miyar-ul-Mazhab. English translation by Uzma Abdul Majeed – link.

    “Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya” by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian Complete English Translation of the Main Text [Excluding the Footnotes] by Mirza Masum Beg – link.


  2. March 22nd, 2014 at 7:48 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    In my post above I was partly wrong.

    (Note: Perhaps I have learnt to confess my mistakes from the example set by the anti-Ahmadiyya posters who immediately admit to any mistake they make!)

    I was wrong in saying that Shah Ismail Shaheed had written the passage that I quoted and attributed to him. I found upon re-reading the book that this passage occurs in a section added after the end of his book, and it is written by some follower of his (of his time) who is defending him against certain charges. So while I said that in this passage Shah Ismail Shaheed is defending some earlier commentators against accusations of insulting prophets, in fact it is a follower of Shah Ismail Shaheed who is defending Shah Ismail Shaheed against the same.

    The accusation was that he had insulted all prophets and saints by writing, in denunciation of shirk, that everything created, whether great or small (meaning whether prophet or saint), has the most degraded status (zaleel), and is the lowest of the low, when compared to the glory of God. His defender writes that the Shah sahib wrote this to condemn saint worship by the Muslim public.

    The defender quotes the verse "Say: Who then could control anything as against Allah when He wished to destroy the Messiah, son of Mary, and his mother and all those on the earth?" (5:17) and writes:

    "Obviously the Messiah and his mother are not worthy of the punishment of being destroyed, but God has refuted the wrong belief of their devotees using this technique that they may repent from their false beliefs and make no one a partner with God. In the same way, Shah Ismail Shaheed has told those people who consider saints to have in their hands all kinds of control over the world that every human being, great or small, in comparison with God, is more degraded than the lowest caste person [in Hindu eyes]. Remember that there are two relative positions here: firstly, the created one's position relative to the Creator, and secondly, the created one's position relative to other created beings. Shah sahib speaks only about the first relation." (p. 349)

    Further on he quotes the verse "There is none in the heavens and the earth but comes to the Beneficent as a servant (abd)" (19:93), and writes:

    "The word abd means zaleel and helpless. The author of Jalalain [commentator Jalal-ud-Din Suyuti] has explicitly mentioned Ezra and Jesus here. Did he also insult the prophets." (p. 353)

    Here he quotes an Urdu verse of poetry:

    Hum ah bhi kartay hain to ho jatay hain badnaam,
    Woh qatal bhi kartay hain to charcha nahin hota.

    Meaning, "We only have to sigh, and we are blamed for it, while they can commit murder and no one makes a fuss".

    Anyhow, this follower's defence of Shah Ismail Shaheed shows that Muslim reformers before Hazrat Mirza sahib faced the same sort of accusations from their opponents among the Muslims as he faced. This poetic verse just sums up how he is treated (or we are treated) compared to the lattitude given to others.

    The next accusation answered is that Shah Ismail Shaheed wrote that the Holy Prophet Muhammad is the "elder brother" of Muslims, and this is an insult to the Holy Prophet as it means that he is just one of us.

    Within his reply the defender has quoted also the verse "the believers are brethren" (49:10), and says that they are all the sons of the father who is "Islam", and "believers" includes the Holy Prophet. He is the most senior brother and ought to be respected in that human capacity, and not revered like God. He says that Shah sahib wrote this to expose the false beliefs of some sufis who assign Divine attributes to the Holy Prophet.

    In today's Pakistan, Shah Ismail Shaheed (and this defender) would be lynched, and he would be treated as the opposite of a shaheed.


  3. The followers of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) are cautioned about the extent of their love for the prophet, which at times can be unlimited. The object of worship of a Muslim is Allah, neither Muhammad nor any saint:

    39:44. Say, `All intercession belongs to Allâh entirely. To Him belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth, then towards Him you shall (all) be brought back.'

    39:45. When (the name of) Allâh alone is mentioned, the hearts of those who do not believe in the Hereafter shrink with aversion but when (the names of) those who are below His high station are mentioned, behold they are at once filled with joy. [Nooruddin]

    The verse 39:45 is a bull’s eye reference to the zealot speeches, writings, poetry (Naat) and songs (Qawalis) in which the prophet is depicted beyond a human in a literal sense. Human station is elevated to that of God when ‘Ya Muhammad’, ‘Ya Ali’ or others are not only spoken with fervor for their intercession and help but are also believed to be as such.


  4. March 28th, 2014 at 10:12 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Maulana Nur-ud-Din said:

    "As soon as I become able to understand things, I read the books Nasihat-ul-Muslimeen, Taqwiyyat-ul-Iman and Rawayat-ul-Muslimeen by Maulvi Khurram Ali, Maulvi [Shah] Ismail [Shaheed] and Maulvi Ishaq, and I learnt from them such a concept of Tauhid that it kept me safe from every kind of error."

    (See this link).

    The first two books mentioned here are in the volume which I referred to in this topic.


Leave a Reply