Our friend Bashir has posted the following conclusions he has reached after study.
HMGA was a contradicting author. Hence his followers were left to explain his(HMGA) teachings and prophecies. That’s why the split happened. HMBMA interpreted HMGA’s writings in his own way. M. Ali did the same. So whats the true interpretation. One thing is for sure, HMBMA accused m. Ali of believing that HMGA was a perfect prophet(ummati and nabi) from 1901 to 1911. That is totally incorrect. M. ali wrote this in 1904:
“If the doors of Prophethood had not been closed, then a Muhaddath has elements and potentials of becoming a Prophet and with reference to these elements and potentiality application of word Prophet on a Muhaddath is permissible, i.e., we can say that ‘A Muhaddath is a Prophet’. (Review of Religions, Urdu edition, Vol. 3, 1904, p. 117)
HMBMA had his followers (500k) believe an un-true allegation. It is ironic how HMBMA never commented on this reference. He knew it existed, but he turned a cold shoulder to it. Also, the letter by Syed Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan(written after EGKI) should seal the case. But once again HMBMA never commented on this article. Fact is 95% of 400k people were illiterate. They followed the son of HMGA, irregardless of the issues. HMBMA was able to use the donations from this large body and multiply his jamaat, while M. Ali started from scratch. My estimations show 4 out 5% of literate people joined M. ali. They read about the issues between the two groups. M. ali won the argument. HMBMA won their hearts. When the vietnamese beat the USA in the vietnam war, the vietnamese commented that they didnt win the war in vietnam, they won the political war in the USA. Get the picture?????
At this link, you can access the special issue of The Light (U.K. Edition), commemorating the 100th anniversary of the death of the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. (Link opens a PDF file in a new window.)
It is reported in Badr, 30th April 1908 (p. 6) that an Eid Milad-un-Nabi function was held at Ahmadiyya Buildings, Lahore. This was, of course, long before the split in the Ahmadiyya Movement, and near the end of the life of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
Also to be noted is that the function is not called Eid Milad-un-Nabi. In those days the term used by Muslims in India was Bara Wafat, meaning “death on the 12th”. Below I translate the report, which is entitled Life of the Holy Prophet:
“A respected friend reports from Lahore that, on the previous day, a Tuesday, on the occasion of Bara Wafat, and for the benefit of the residents of Lahore, a grandly organised lecture was held at Ahmadiyya Buildings, where houses of our Khwaja [Kamal-ud-Din] sahib are located. The ground was very large and was decked with a marque and other necessities. It had been widely advertised in the city.
The poem in praise of the Holy Prophet written by Huzoor [presumably meaning the Promised Messiah] was read out by brothers Abdul Aziz, son of Mian Chiragh Din, and Ghulam Muhammad. Maulvi Sadr-ud-Din gave an explanation of the Surah Fatiha with great zeal and pure sincerity, and went over the events of the life of the Messenger of God, may peace and the blessing of Allah be upon him. Then brother Dr. Mirza Yaqub Baig spoke on the life of the Holy Prophet in a fine speech. The audience included Hindus, Muslims and members of the Brahmo Samaj. All the leading men of Lahore who could come were in attendance. The whole gathering listened patiently and attentively to the highly effective speeches of these young men, who were preaching using this new technique and method, and they went away expressing much praise.
This meeting was also reported in other newspapers and was generally much liked. Hence the newspaper Watan wrote:
“Just as there was great regret that there were no arrangements in Lahore for holding this great occasion of remembrance, there was equal pleasure that on 14th April, corresponding to 12th Rabi-ul-awwal 1326 A.H., on behalf of the Anjuman-i Ahmadiyya Lahore a magnificent meeting was organised by Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, lawyer, High Court. Capable speakers delighted the audience by telling them about the life of the Holy Prophet and his excellent and praise-worthy qualities. It is hoped that in future many people in Lahore will organise events for such a sacred remembrance.”
The newspaper Sada-i-Hind expressed a similar opinion.
Comment by Editor Badr: It is indeed essential that the general public should be fully informed about the life of the Holy Prophet. We cannot complain about non-Muslims when most Muslims themselves are utterly unaware of the life of their beloved master. When such ignorant people realise how much we owe to the Holy Prophet, they will want to shed tears uncontrollably. But I do not consider it right to fix one particular day forever, like Bara Wafat, for this purpose.”
This idea was then taken up by other Muslims and led to the development of the Eid Milad-un-Nabi function.
In a report in Badr, 26th March 1908, the Editor (I presume) gives an account of his visit to Bhera, where Dr Basharat Ahmad was stationed in his medical employment. He records here an event showing Dr Basharat Ahmad’s integrity, truthfulness, fairness and service of humanity in the course of his work.
In Badr, 26th December 1907 on page 5, there is a report about the arrival of members in Qadian for the annual gathering and the preparations for this gathering.
At this link you can view, in pdf format, the scanned image of the page from Badr where this report is printed.
Many of us knew a person who attended this Jalsa! This was Hazrat Dr Saeed Ahmad Khan, late Head of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement, who was either 7 or 8 years old at the time. He came to Qadian with his father, Maulvi Muhammad Yaqub, and they stayed in Qadian till March 1908.
On page 9 of the same issue it outlines the purposes of the Jalsa and the general form that it usually takes.
At this link you can view that part of page 9 in pdf format. (In this scanned image the first two paragraphs are rather light but still legible.)
In Badr, 31st October 1907, pages 5-6, there is an article by an Ahmadi answering the question “Why did you accept Hazrat Mirza sahib?”.
The scanned image of this article is at this link as a pdf file.
The author repeatedly refers to Hazrat Mirza’s claim as mujaddid in accordance with the Hadith report about mujaddids and seeks to prove the truth of this claim.
For example, he writes:
“If someone … argues that the first fifty years of a century constitute the head of the century, so it is not necessary to accept Mirza sahib as mujaddid at the very beginning of the century, the answer is as follows. Since the teaching of Mirza sahib is consistent with the Quran and authentic Hadith, and thousands of signs have appeared in its support, it would be foolish to wait for fifty years for a mujaddid. However, if his teaching had been against the Quran and Hadith, then this objection would have been worthy of acceptance. …
No opponent can raise a valid objection against the teaching of Mirza sahib. The objection is only on his claim to be Messiah and Mahdi. The opponents say: if Mirza sahib had not made this claim to being Messiah and Mahdi, the Muslims would generally have accepted him as the mujaddid of the time, but these claims have prevented us from accepting him as mujaddid. In reply, we say respectfully that if you accept Mirza sahib as mujaddid of the time, this will not harm your faith in Islam. Considering that all other prophets died, what is the wonder in the death of Jesus? And since all those sent by God have been appointed in this way, and none descended from heaven, what is the wonder in Mirza sahib being appointed as such a time of need?”
It is plain from this that the claim of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is being presented in this article, just seven months before his death, as that of mujaddid of the century. Other Muslims are said to take exception to his claim of being Messiah and Mahdi, and this is why they do not accept him as mujaddid. However, the author argues that the claim of being Messiah and Mahdi should not prevent his acceptance as mujaddid. Therefore it is clear that mujaddid is his real claim.
In Badr of 21 November 1907, a letter by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is printed in connection with the receiving of dreams and revelations by ordinary people, and whether they can be considered to be inspired by God or not.
I have uploaded the original Urdu page to this blog in pdf format.
I hope to translate it into English later.
In Badr of 7th November 1907, under the title What is meant by progeny of God? Hazrat Mirza sahib is reported as saying the following:
Allah has said, addressing me, “You are to me in the place of My progeny”. He has not said here: “You are My progeny”, but said “in place of My progeny”, in other words, “like My progeny”. This is, in fact, a rejoinder to Christians who believe Jesus to be the son of God in the real sense, while God has no progeny.
God has not brushed away in totality the claim of the Jews that “we are the sons of God and His beloved ones” (the Quran, 5:18), but said that they do not deserve these titles. It is, in fact, a figure of speech whereby God uses such terms to honour his chosen ones. It is just as it is stated in hadith reports that God becomes the eyes or the hands of the man whom he loves, or that God says: “O My servant, I was thirsty and you did not give Me water. I was hungry and you did not feed Me”. Similarly it is written in the Torah that Jacob is the son of God, even his prince. All these are figurative expressions which are found generally in all the books of God and in Hadith.
God has used such words about me as well, as a rejoinder to Christians, because despite these words I never make such a claim that, God forbid, I am the son of God. In fact, I regard making such a claim as an act of heresy.
As regards such words which God has applied to the prophets, the most excellent and the highest ranking title has been given to the Holy Prophet Muhammad. For, God said to him: “Say: O My servants” (the Quran, 39:53). Now it is obvious that the people thus addressed were the servants of God, not servants of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. These words show how broad is the scope of application of such words by way of metaphor.
Hazrat Mirza sahib here declares unequivocally that despite being called by God as “like My progeny”, he does not claim to be the son of God, as this title is only by way of metaphor. The same explanation applies to his being called “prophet” by God.
In Badr, 7th November 1907, the following conversation in the company of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is reported:
The new balloons to be used in wars were being mentioned and it was said that some Englishmen proposed to communicate with the inhabitants of Mars. Hazrat Mirza sahib said: Earlier prophecies about these people are being fulfilled, that they will shoot arrows towards the sky. God has given these people the power to do anything. Let us see what is the final consequence.
1. The “balloons” would be an early form of aerial warfare.2. Hazrat Mirza’s statement here about a prophecy (presumably in Hadith) that these nations would shoot arrow towards the sky was made before the invention of rockets. The launching of rockets for space travel resembles exactly the shooting of arrows towards the sky.
Khwaja Ghulam Farid of Chachran (Bahalwalpur state, now Pakistan) was a renowned Muslim saint, with a large following, in the time of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and passed away before the Promised Messiah in 1904. Much to the chagrin of the Promised Messiah’s opponent ulama, the Khwaja refused to denounce him and openly declared that he was a true and sincere servant of Islam. He was not, of course, an Ahmadi, yet the Promised Messiah declared him in a poem as “the peerless one of this age in truthfulness and purity”. In Badr of 10th October 1907 a news is printed about a disciple of the Khwaja as follows:
“Hazrat Khwaja Ghulam Farid, upon whom be mercy of Allah, had true love for the Promised Messiah. This is why his disciples, when expressing love and loyalty towards the Promised Messiah, mention that they are following their late leader, may Allah have mercy on him. Recently, an honourable sufi, Khalifa Muhammad Sadiq Ali, has entered into the bai`at of the holy Hazrat. We reproduce two of his letters which will be a source of guidance for our readers.”
The words of this note shows that Khwaja Ghulam Farid, while not being an Ahmadi, is nonetheless being regarded here as a great Muslim saint
The first letter is translated below:
“O true Mahdi and true guide! assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh. Today I saw the Review of Religions, which proved and showed me that the declarations against you which appear in newspapers are written by misguided people. You are teaching us the Islam which we have forgotten. Far from being a denier and falsifier of the khatam-ur-rusul Muhammad, peace be upon him, you are one who supports and propagates his religion. You belong to that group regarding whom our Holy Messenger said that in his umma there will be ulama who will excel the prophets of the past. In a partial sense, messengership continues and will continue till the Day of Judgment. …
O true Mahdi who has been sent by God, I sincerely believe you to be true and God the Glorious is witness to it. …
O Mahdi sent by God, guide and mentor, I accept that the Holy Quran is the highest guide and teacher of Islam. However, to understand it, when knowledge and reason are not enough then a guide is required. So I take you as my guide. Teach me and show me the right path. …”
The words used by the letter writer, “You belong to that group regarding whom our Holy Messenger said that in his umma there will be ulama whom will excel the prophets of the past”, clearly show that he considers Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as one of the saints of Islam. That is the only group spoken of thus in Hadith. The next words, “In a partial sense, messengership continues and will continue till the Day of Judgment”, equally clearly refer to the concept of muhaddasiyya, since “partial messengership” is a recognised term for that concept (based on the hadith that the true visions of a believer are a part of prophethood).