Accusation of change of belief by Promised Messiah
Our friend ‘Bashir’ has submitted the following post.
Review of Religions, November 1914:
Article: The Ahmadiyya Movement and Ahmads place among the prophets, Number 2, By m. ataur rahman (member of Qadiani Jamaat)
“The philosophy of baruz has been clearly expounded in a long letter pregnant with truth and wisdom which in 1892 Ahmad addressed to Nawab Muhammad Ali Khan of Malerkota in order to resolve some of his doubts.”
Then in the very next installment of this series (Review of Religions, December 1914), he writes:
“Thus convinced, Ahmad set forth his philosophy of baruz in some of his later writings, and avowedly laid claim to the prophetic office”
M. ataur rahman contradicts himself in the span of one month. First he writes that HMGA explained the philosophy of baruz in 1892, then all of sudden, he claims that the true theory of baruz was explained by HMGA later in his ministry. What a contradiction!
This is the same time that Kwaja Kamaluddin had returned from England and wrote his book “Adruni Ikhtilaf…..” and after some weeks appeared Al-Qaul-ul-Fasl by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad.
It seems that m. ataur rahman didn’t know of the change in belief of HMGA in terms of prophethood. I don’t think he got the memo, because the memo was Al-Qaul-ul-Fasl.
It seems that Mirza Bashuddin Mahmud Ahmad was the only soul who knew that HMGA changed his theory of prophethood in 1900–1902.
From Khalid:
Assalamo Alaikum
Just a correction. Al-Qaul-ul-Fasl was written on January 21, 1915. So it is not right to call it a memo for an article that was written before it.
Wassalam
From Zahid Aziz:
The letter to Nawab Muhammad Ali Khan of 1892 that Mr Ataur Rahman referred to in his article in the Review of Religions, November 1914, is contained in the Promised Messiah’s famous book Ainah Kamalat-i Islam, published in 1893, from p. 331 to 357.
This is a book in which the Promised Messiah wrote:
Even more interesting is the fact that in the Review of Religions in 1904 (which is after 1901 and within the lifetime of the Promised Messiah), in both the English and the Urdu editions certain extracts from Ainah Kamalat-i Islam appeared. These include the one given above from p. 224 (April 1904 issue, p. 137).
There is also the following:
The Promised Messiah’s claim in this book was that of being a muhaddas and the concept of zill and buruz presented by him in this book was that it is a wali and muhaddas who is the zill and buruz of a prophet. These statements were re-published in the Review of Religions in 1904 when Maulana Muhammad Ali was the editor. And interestingly, even after the split, in the November 1914 issue, the Qadiani Jamaat writer Mr Ataur Rahman is quoting from the same book to show the concept of buruz.
From Bashir:
In regrad to the comment above that:
Please note:
1. Memo=sarcastic term. What i meant was that the author of (“The Ahmadiyya Movement and Ahmads place among the prophets”, Number 2) didnt realize of the change in belief of 1901. QAF explained this theory.
2. The reason that he(m. ataur rahman) didnt know of the change was that HMBMA hadn’t written QAF.
3. QAF appeared 2 months after this article.
4. Somebody explained to m. ataur rahman in DEC 1914 that there was a change in theory in terms of prophethood in the life of HMGA.
5. Once he was told of this alleged change, he changed his story in the very next number. All of a sudden he writes that HMGA understood the true theory of baruz later in his ministry.
6. m. ataur rahman doesnt provide a date. He didnt know when the change happened. HMBMA didnt know either. First in QAF he wrote 1902, then when m. ali objected to this aboragation, HMBMA changed it to 1901(EGKI).
(HMBMA = Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad)
From Bashir:
m. ataur rahman, just like 99% OF THE JAMAAT, HE DIDNT OF THE CHANGE IN BELIEFS IN TERMS OF PROPHETHOOD.
From Abdul Momin:
So at the time of the so-called change in his claim concerning prophethood by HMGA (around 1901), how old was Mirza Mahmud Ahmad Sahib? I have all along wondered why HMGA kept silent about this issue and never confided in his jamaat members about it. Now I must ask the further question, “Why did Mirza Mahmud Ahmad Sahib remain silent about this issue as well?”
Remember this issue of Khatme-Nabuwwat is a very explosive one. This caused a split in 1914. So why is it that no one left the Ahmadiyya Jamaat during the life time of HMGA on account of his changing his claim from non-prophet to prophet?
Reflect, my friends in the “other jamaat”. The biggest asset that Allah Almighty has given you is your brain and the capability to think. Use it or lose it.
From Tahir Ijaz:
Abdul Momin, HMGA was very careful in describing his station of nabuwwat, so there was no question of Ahmadis leaving thinking he was some type of independent prophet.
From Zahid Aziz:
When HMGA claimed to be Promised Messiah in 1891, several people who had entered into his bai`at previously left him rather than accept him as Promised Messiah. This is despite his assuring people that he was not claiming to be a prophet but was a muhaddas. In November 1901, no one at all appears to have left him when, it is alleged, they were required to start accepting him as a prophet.
From Abdul Momin:
All the claims that HMGA made, whether that of Wali, Muhaddas, Mujaddid, Messiah or Mehdi were discussed by him in his various books. Of all his claims, the one most in need of discussion after 1901 (or whatever other relevant date) was his “change” from non-prophet to prophet. This had to be done in such a way as to leave no room for any doubt whatsoever in the minds of his followers. Having previously “misunderstood” his real status, there was no more room for any margin of error. Not only was this necessary, but HMGA was under an obligation to address all his previous denials in detail about laying claim to prophethood-even if he had to spend the rest of his life doing so. Great and humble man that he was, he even owed an apology to all his adversaries for denying what they had been alleging all along for years and years. But Allah Almighty would never subject his Wali (friend) to be subjected to this humiliation. Therefore if ever he had any misunderstanding about his status, Allah Almighty would have nipped that in the bud, instead of letting him deny his true status for years and years.
But is there any evidence of all this? What I have just stated is not something which just cropped up in my imagination. The claim of prophethood is such an issue that it cannot be treated lightly or as just a routine matter. Especially in the Muslim world there are grave consequences involved with the claim of prophethood. Previously the use of the word prophet was accepted by Muslim scholars as applicable to Muslim Saints in a limited sense (the same sense that Lahori Ahmadis apply it to HMGA). But ever since HMGA is alleged to have claimed prophethood for himself by a section of his followers and the falling out of this section of his followers with the general Muslim population, rarely does any Muslim scholar even acknowledge this any more.
Anyway, if this change in his claim was so nicely and neatly accepted by all his followers during his lifetime without batting an eyelid, what was the need to raise this issue after his death? Why try to solve a problem which does not exist? Why the need to establish a date of change in his claims (was it 1891, 1901 or 1902?) These issues were settled in HMGA’s lifetime, weren’t they? Or were they?
From Tahir Ijaz:
I think there is little data about who left the jamaat and for what reasons. It seems though remarkably few people left in 1891 considering the significant additional claims.
A selection phenomenon also occured since his remaining followers (and new ones joining) were open minded enough to accept him as the Isa ibn Maryam, and the Imam Mahdi, (unlike the few who left) with another ten years of major signs and prophecies fulfilled. So the jump from ‘near prophet’ to an actual type of prophet (ummati and nabi) was not taken as a stumbling block.
From Bashir:
Referring to what was written by Abdul Momin.
Everything you wrote is SO accurate. One would think that if HMGA did actually change from ummati nabi(imperfect nabi) to Ummati Nabi(perfect nabi), then he must have had to write a 200 page expose explaining this radiccal change.
Being greater than jesus was a change i admit. But it didnt change Islam. Turning into a perfect nabi–now that changes Islam.
In 1891 he claimed that jesus was dead. This was a huge turnabout from his earlier views. HMGA went at great lengths to explain this strange doctrine. He wrote ove 2000 pages discussing this death of Jesus. It was mandatory that he explained this new theory.
If he did change in 1901, i wish he would have explained it in further detail. I dont see this change in all of my research.
One thing that i found on my own is that just before EGKI,
1. HMGA gained over 100k new members in just 2-3 years.
2. These new members weren’t fluent with the beliefs of the ahmadiyya community.
3. He stressed that new members should read his books of 1891-1893 if they wanted to understand the beliefs of HMGA.
4. Coincidentally the first paragraph of EGKI he echoes the same sentiment.
Question: If he changed his view on prophethood in 1900-1901, then why was he stressing that his new members should read the books of 1891-1893.
5. HMGA wanted to set-up an exam that would be administered yearly. He gave books from 1891-1893 as study material. These exams never took place.
6. During the khilafat of Hazrat Norrudin, somehow this was brought to his attention. HN requested that these exams take place. HN wanted the wish of his HMGA to be completed. HN was also not able to complete this task.
From Tahir Ijaz:
Bashir, (and Lahori brothers can correct me if I am wrong), Lahoris don’t believe HMGA ever changed his views about his relative rank compared to Jesus, for Jesus was a Prophet and HMGA a non-prophet. Qadianis however interpret certain words in Haqiqatul Wahyi and Kishti Nuh as indicating a change occured.
From Bashir:
Maybe Zahid Aziz can clarify the lahori position.
We (qadianis) believe that HMGA was totally superior to Jesus in every faucet of life.
I think the aaiil believe that this was only in the position as messiah.
I think the point that HMGA was trying to stress was that his divine communion surpassed every single non-lawbearing prophet that ever existed. Obviously his divine communion was not more than the HP or Moses. Maybe even more than Abraham (not sure).
Again and again HMGA stressed this point. His divine communion overwhelmingly surpassed Jesus. Jesus was not even close in this respect.
The most glaring statment by HMGA is in Haqiqat-tul wahy(1907)
he writes :
“Prophethood (nubuwwat) has been terminated after our Prophet … And Allah does not mean anything by my prophethood except the abundance of Divine communication … Our Messenger is the Khatam-un-Nabiyyin, with whom the series of messengers has been terminated. … I have been named by Allah as nabi by way of metaphor, not by way of reality (haqiqat).” (Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, Zameema, pages 64, 65; RK, vol. 22, pages 688, 689)
Get the picture ?
From Abdul Momin:
On this blog, the topic: Judgment from “second” Cape Town case, 1990, online, might help. Follow the link to the overall summary of the court case, then scroll down to the following paragraph:
“Another issue which the opposition misrepresented concerns Hazrat Mirza’s claim that he excelled the Israelite Messiah in certain respects. This was no doubt raised to inflame Christians against Hazrat Mirza. However, our Christian advocate said to the Professor:
The lady judge, too, could see what Hazrat Mirza had actually meant, and at one stage she said to the witness:
Hafiz [Sher Muhammad] sahib used to say that even these lawyers and judges, belonging to a different religion, could understand so readily what Hazrat Mirza had said, but our Ulama could not understand after a hundred years.”
From Tariq:
I have a question: did HMGA use the term “ummati-nabi” in his writings when referring to himself, or did he always use a phrase like “aik pehlu say ummati aur aikpehlu say nabi” (or similar wording)?
From Zahid Aziz:
It appears that he did not use the term ummati nabi as such, but expressions such as that quoted by Tariq. At the very beginning of his claim, he had written:
“So the fact that he [the Messiah to come] has been called a follower [of the Holy Prophet Muhammad] as well as a prophet indicates that the qualities of both discipleship and prophethood will be found in him, as it is essential for both of these to be found in a muhaddas. The possessor of full prophethood, however, has only the quality of prophethood. To conclude, muhaddasiyyat is coloured with both colours. For this reason, in [the Divine revelations published in] Barahin Ahmadiyya too, God named this humble one as follower and as prophet.” (Izala Auham, p. 533)
From Tahir Ijaz:
To my knowledge he generally said he was ummati and nabi, but at least in one place he stated he was given this ‘compound name’ – which obviously is ummati-nabi
From Tahir Ijaz:
“In the course of revelations Allah repeatedly call me ummati, as well as prophet. Hearing myself called by these two names gives me joy…I render thanks for having been called by this COMPOUND NAME…”
(Zameema Barahini Ahmadiyya, part V, page 184) year 1905
From Zahid Aziz:
The concept of a Muslim excelling a prophet in some respects, due to being a follower of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, is well established and accepted in Islam. It is, in reality, the superiority of the Prophet Muhammad that the follower is reflecting in his work.
On the topic of “superiority” over Jesus, Hazrat Mirza sahib wrote in a late book, Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, as follows:
One can put forward many analogies. A physicist today knows physics more accurately and better than Newton, because he is a follower of Einstein who perfected Newton’s work. In that sense the physicist is superior to Newton. But still it does not make him a greater physicist or a greater genius than Newton.
An airline pilot today has more flying skills than the Wright brothers or Charles Lindburgh (see the film The Spirit of St Louis starring James Stewart). He flies faster and handles much more sophisticated aricraft. Is he then a greater aviator than the Wright brothers or Charles Lindburgh?
From Bashir:
HMGA never classified himself as an ummati-nabi. It never happened. I have been arguing this point with many people on the internet. He always carefully explained this.
Seems his careful explanations didnt work. A split occurred in his movement. Two groups emerged, both explaining it. I am still not sure which group is correct.
FUN FACT OF THE WEEK: HMGA never called himself an ummati-nabi in EGKI. In fact he didnt even call himself an ummati aur nabi. EGKI seems like an explanation of baruz.
EGKI was for new members of the movement to read. It wasnt for the likes of m. ali, maulvi abdul kareem, Maulvi noorudin etc etc.
Rememeber HMBMA was only 12. We arent even sure if he read this book in 1901 or not. HMBMA never revealed this secret.
I have always thought. Who explained to HMBMA the story of EGKI that he later present in 1915??? HMBA admitted that Maulvi Noorudin taught him some things about the Ismuhu Ahmad prophecy(later, he contracted from this view). But he never revealed his knowledge of EGKI.
Of course m. ali alleged that Zahirrudin was the culprit of most of this. See aaiil.org books section.
The closest he came was in BA vol.5. He writes:
“In the course of the wahyi (revelations) coming down on me, Allah has repeatedly called me an Ummati, as well as a Prophet. Hearing myself called by these two names gives me a great joy and comfort, and I render thanks for having been called by this compound name in which there appears to be this implication that it should strike the Christians like a lash to make them realise that whereas they raised Jesus Christ, son of Mary, to Godhead, our Master, the Holy Prophet Mohammad, was a Prophet of such extraordinary eminence, that even a member of his Ummat could become a Nabi, a Prophet, and come to be called Isa, even though he is an Ummati, a follower of the Holy Prophet Mohammad.” (Zamima Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya, part V, page 184)
From Zahid Aziz:
Both Dr Tahir Ijaz and Bashir have quoted from Zamima Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya, part V, page 184. If we read from the end of page 183 through to the beginning of page 184, the following is found:
This explains what is “an ummati and a nabi”.
Immediately following, he goes on to mention that among the Israelites even women such as the mothers of Moses and Jesus received revelation from God. So this Umma would be wretched if its men were not even as blessed as the women of the Israelites. Thus the revelation he is talking about as continuing among Muslims is the revelation to non-prophets.
In Izala Auham in 1891 he had written the same:
This “becoming the very form of the prophets” is exactly what he discussed in 1901 in Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala:
Whether it is 1891, 1901 or 1905, he said exactly the same thing.
From Tahir Ijaz:
No analogy is perfect, but the Qadiani amendment to the Einstein analogy would be that by following Einstein and learning this thought process, one may become even greater than Newton.
Qadiani theology is very uplifting. Though only one in the ummah was also openly a Nabi, the various saints in Islam, though not actual prophets, were no less than the prophets of the past in stature. M. Ibn Arabi wrote such personages will be ‘resurrected in the row of the Messengers’
From Bashir:
I have to agree. It doesnt appear as HMGA was writing anything new. It doesnt seem like the ummati nabi(perfect nabi) existed yet.
Also, Qazi Muhammad Nazir was the author of Truth Prevails, that is where myself and Tahir Ijaz came across this particular reference.
Its very strange how QMN doesnt show the previous pages.
From Zahid Aziz:
If we take the Newton/Einstein analogy further, we could of course say that a person even greater than Einstein can arise!
My analogy was only meant to illustrate how persons in a lesser category can excel someone in a higher one, or as someone used to put it, the governor of California excels the Presidents of many countries in the resources that he commands, but he doesn’t sit with them at a world summit.
The “only one in the Umma who was openly a Nabi” found that he couldn’t call himself nabi without the addition of several explanations and restrictions such as zilli, buroozi etc., and wrote in his Will that to call him only as nabi “would be derogatory to the completely perfect prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad”.
From Bashir:
Jihad does not mean WAR, it means service. Service for ALLAH. Service with the sword was authorized in medina.
But, this was revealed in mecca:
Chapter 29 about Jihad:
جَاهَدٰ=JA HA DA
its not even pronounced as Jihad.
[29:9] And We have enjoined on man kindness to his parents; but if they strive to make thee associate that with Me of which thou hast no knowledge, then obey them not. Unto Me is your return, and I shall inform you of what you did.
then we have
جَاهَدُ=JA HA DO
[29:70] And as for those who strive in Our path — We will surely guide them in Our ways. And verily Allah is with those who do good.