A question about accepting Hazrat Mirza sahib and my reply
After receiving the following question by e-mail, I asked the enquirer’s permission to reply to it on this blog. He agreed to this. So here is the question:
It being really informative to visit your site. I have a question in my mind. If Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani is considered only a Mujadid and not an Umati Nabi then it is not incumbent upon us to accept his teachings as it is only the Being of Nabi that we are bound to obey according to ArkanE Aiman.
Waiting for ur reply
Thanks in anticipation!
Tahir Mahmood Advocate
My reply is as follows.
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib issued the ten conditions of the bai`at in 1888. No follower or opponent believes that he had claimed to be a prophet at that stage. Yet he was taking people into his discipleship, who no doubt had to accept him as teacher. In 1900 he announced that his followers would be known as Muslims of the Ahmadiyya Sect. Even those who consider him as a prophet acknowledge that at that time he had not claimed to be a prophet. Yet he had many followers who accepted his teachings.
And what are his teachings which they must accept? He declared:
“I instruct my Jama‘at that they should believe in this Kalima Tayyiba from the bottom of their hearts: La ilaha ill-allah Muhammad-ur Rasulullah, till they die, and that they believe in all the prophets and all the books whose truth is established from the Quran Sharif, and that they accept as being obligatory: saum, salat, zakat and hajj and all that has been prescribed as obligatory by Allah Ta`ala and His Rasul, and that they accept as being forbidden all that has been forbidden, and follow and adhere to Islam in a correct and proper way.
To sum up, it is obligatory to accept all those matters regarding belief and practice on which there was consensus (Ijma) by the pious ones of the olden times, and which are considered to constitute Islam by the consensus opinion of the Ahl as-Sunna.” (Ayyam-us-Sulh, p. 86-87)
If by his teachings you mean the main differences between him and other Muslims, then please remember that he proved his different interpretations on the basis of the Quran and Hadith, and not on the basis that because he is a prophet therefore he must be accepted. Regarding the death of Jesus and his own claim to be Promised Messiah, he declared to the Ulama:
“I admit this myself that if my claim to be Promised Messiah is against the clear rulings of the Quran and Hadith, and in fact Jesus is bodily alive in heaven, and will descend to the earth at some time, then even if my claim is supported and confirmed by thousands of my revelations, and I show not just one but one hundred thousand signs in support of it, all these are worthless because no claim or sign is acceptable if it is opposed by the Quran and authentic Hadith.” (Majmua Ishtiharat, v. 1, p. 242, as on the alislam.org website)
Regarding another main difference with other Muslims, that of the continuity of revelation, he wrote:
“Those who deny ilham coming in this Umma have not pondered over the Quran nor met those who receive ilham. You read many verses in the Book of Allah, the Holy Quran, that Allah spoke to some men and women, and commanded them and prohibited them but they were not prophets or messengers of the Lord of the worlds. …
If people doubt my ilham and wonder how Allah can speak to someone in this Umma who is not a prophet, why do they not make the Quran the judge in this dispute, and refer the matter to Allah and His Messenger if they are believers?” (Hamamat-ul-Bushra, p. 283-284)
He also wrote in the above book:
“Non-Quranic sources must be judged on the basis of the Quran, whether it is a hadith of the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu alaihi wa sallam, the vision of a holy man (wali) or the revelation of a saint (qutb), for the Quran is a book whose authenticity is guarded by Allah and He said: ‘We have revealed the Quran and We are surely its guardian’.” (p. 121)
Therefore he made people accept his teachings by proving them from the Quran, and not by saying that they must be accepted because he is a prophet.
We accept his teachings on the basis of the following verse of the Quran (which he has alluded to above):
“O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day.” (4:59)
We consider him as included in the category of “those in authority from among you”. Perhaps you could clarify whether you take him to be the “Messenger” referred to above in the words “obey Allah and the Messenger”.
Zahid Aziz
From Tariq:
I assume that the inquirer belongs to the Qadiani jama’at.
From Bashir:
Tahir Mahmood is a victim of circumstance. Most ahmadis dont understand the views of the aaiil. Its not their fault. My jamaat doesnt promote discussion with the aaiil. Most members have never read a book by M. ali. Some of these members are doctors, engineers, etc. But they just dont have a knack for un-biased research.
Before 1999 it was almost impossible to read about the views of the aaiil. I think aaiil.org has been around for about 10 years. My point is that pre-2000 it was hard to read about the aaiil. But now the information is abundant, thanks to zahid aziz and company.
Just think, in 1990 if you wanted to read a book by m.ali you would have to go Lahore. Now you can go to aaiil.org.
I implore Tahir Mahmood to read all the books of M. ali. I guarantee that if if he reads all of the literature in connection with the split, he will agree that the aaiil won almost every argument.
The aaiil lost in the biggest battle………… the hearts of men.
I bet Tahir can read urdu. I wish i could.
From Bashir:
I forgot to answer his question.
Here are the facts.
a. In 1899-1902 HMGA wrote a book called Tiryaq ul Qulub. In this book he wrote that denial of a prophet(which bring new commandments) makes a man a Kafir, which puts that man outside Islam. Denial of a muhaddaas was not something that turned a muslim into a non-muslim.
b. All prophets bring new commandments. Some more than others. As is the case with Moses and the HP. Also all prophets have the ability to change law. Anyhow, the person who doesnt believe in these prophets is a Kafir and is not a muslim.
c. HMGA wrote in TQ ,since he was a muhaddas(non-prophet) his deniers were not Kafirs. He wrote something to the effect that his deniers die a death of ignorance.
d. Up until 1900(at least) both sides agree that the deniers of the Messiah were still muslim.
e. Later in Haqiqatul Wahy(1907), HMGA decided to class his deniers into a new group.
HMGA described Kafir as falling into 2 groups. I dont know why he waited until the last year of his life to describe this.
GROUP A: Deniers of allah and the HP were Kafirs that were outside Islam.
GROUP B: Deniers of HMGA were Kafirs that were inside Islam.
HMGA also made a vague statement. He wrote that there was no difference between the two groups in the eyes of Allah. This statement caused so much confusion.
Moving on…………
Tahir, the aaiil also believe that HMGA was an ummati nabi.
I bet you dont even know the change in EGKI. Please reveal your level of reading.