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

August 15th, 2008

English author uses word “apostle” for Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi

Our esteemed friend Abdul Momin submitted a comment which I am presenting as a new post. By a strange coincidence, I was mentioning exactly this reference to someone yesterday while thousands of miles away from him. His post is below.

In his book, “The Indian Musalmans”, W.W. Hunter frequently refers to Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed Barelvi as “the Apostle” or “the Prophet”. This book was first written in 1871. So he could not have been influenced by the writings of HMGA. After several references to Syed Ahmad Shaheed as “the Apostle” or “the Prophet” (which literally mean Rasul and Nabi respectively), WW Hunter explains in a footnote:

By the ‘Prophet’, I invariably mean Sayyid Ahmad. Technically he was an Imam (leader) from the political point of view, and a Wali (favourite of God) from the theological one. Strictly speaking the line of the true Prophets ended with Christ and Muhammad. (The Indian Musalmans page 12, Second Impression 2004 Publisher Rupa Co.)

There are examples given in “The Ahmadiyya Case” book about the South Africa case of followers of Muslim religious leaders refering to the leaders as Nabi. (Links to: Section 7, Section 8)

Now the question arises: how did WW Hunter, an Englishman and non-Muslim, associate the words “Prophet” and “Apostle” with Sayyid Shaheed? He also explains that he was, technically speaking, only an Imam and Wali (Coincidentally HMGA is also referred to as an Imam and Wali in his writings.)

Could it be that at the time of HMGA it was fairly routine for followers to refer to their spiritual leaders as Nabi or Rasul? This seems to be the most likely explanation. Mr Hunter must have learnt about this from Sayyid Shaheed’s followers. Perhaps this tradition is at the root of all this confusion about why some of HMGA’s followers referred to him as “Nabi” and “Rasul” in several of their writings, when in fact they did not consider him as a real prophet as Lahoris believe.

Also every quote I have read attributed to HMGA’s followers in which they have used the word Nabi or Rasul for him are from 1900 or afterwards. This would give us the misleading impression that since HMGA was alleged to have changed his claim from non-prophet to prophet around 1901, therefore his followes referred to him as Nabi or Rasul after this change in claim. But it would not surprise me in the least if they referred to him as Nabi even before the so-called change in his claims took place. In one of his pre-1901 writings, he advises his followers that these terms should not be used in their everyday talk concerning him. Perhaps there was a reason why he said this; maybe these words were used by his followers about him, even though they regarded him as only a Saint.

52 Responses to “English author uses word “apostle” for Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi”

  1. August 15th, 2008 at 6:18 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    1. Hunter’s footnote bears a remarkable, almost uncanny resemblance to HMGA’s own explanations of the use of the same words about himself.

    2. This style of writing can be found in the works of the followers of S.A. Barelvi just prior to HMGA’s time, such as Maulvi Ismail Shaheed (e.g. the books Mansab-i Imamat or Abqaat). Maulvi Ismail Shaheed writes:

    “Bearing in mind the relationship between muhaddasiyyat  and risalat, it should be accepted that a muhaddas is also called a rasul.” (Abqaat, Urdu translation by Manazir Ahsan Gilani, published in A.P., India, p. 402).

    In a poem he writes about his mentor S.A. Barelvi:

    “Joseph has now come to Egypt from Canaan, and a whole world has come for his purchase.
    To give life to the dead the breath of Jesus has now come into the world.
    From Madina my Ahmad has come, from the cave of Thaur, to teach the Ansar.
    Sayyid Ahmad came one day with his companions. You should say that the Khatam-un-nabiyyin came again with his Companions.”

    (Both S.A. Barelvi and Maulvi Ismail Shaheed were killed fighting in a battle in 1831.)

    3. HMGA has himself likened S.A. Barelvi (who was the mujaddid of the century before him) to the prophet Yahya (John the Baptist) who heralded the coming of Jesus:

    “Just as before Jesus, the prophet John the Baptist was martyred while preaching the oneness of God, similarly before me in this very land of Punjab Sayyid Ahmad was martyred while preaching the message of the oneness of God. This was another similarity, which God fulfilled.” (Badr, 7th November 1907)

    “The twelfth khalifa of Islam, who should have come at the head of the thirteenth century, corresponds to the prophet Yahya … Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi is the twelfth khalifa of the system of Muhammadiyya khilafat, and is the like of Hazrat Yahya and is a Sayyid.” (Tuhfah Golarwiya, p. 63. I leave the date of publication of this book as an exercise for the reader).

    The answer to the question, how did W.W. Hunter come to use these words about S.A. Barelvi, is that he must have found it in writings of his followers.

  2. This is what needs to bo done.

    First, it must be borne into the mind that the aaiil(and all other muslims) believe in the continuation of the muhaddassiyyat type of prophethood.  In other words Khalifas.

    The ahmadis(q) believe in the continuation of prophethood as well as muhaddassiyyat.  

    So the ahmadis(q) believe in another type of prophethood that is above muhaddassiyat.    The question is did the saints of the past know of this apparently new type of prophethood????

    This is a book which tries to prove just that

    With that out of the way…….. 

    1.  Collect the references from HMGA books before 1901 and study how he referred to these muslim saints.   Then understand the “type of prophethood” that these saints spoke of.  Obviously all books before 1901 should refer to these muslim saints endorsing a muhaddassiyyat type of prophethood.  Not the prophethood which the ahmadis(q) endorse post-1901.

    2.  Collect the references from HMGA’s books after 1901, then understand if HMGA is claiming that he was wrong, that these saints were referring to some other type of prophethood instead of muhaddassiyyat. 

    3.  Get the books by the saints, and study their claim.   Were they arguing for the continuation of muhaddassiyyat or was it some other type of prophethood.   

  3. I refer everybody on this planet to “The Last Prophet” by M. ali.  M. ali writes in detail on this subject

    HMGA referred to Mujaddid Alf Thani
    This is from before 1901:

    “Let it be known to you, O friend, that God sometimes communicates with a person face to face and such persons are from among the prophets, and sometimes the communication takes place with some of these perfect ones who, although they are not prophets, are their followers. And when a person is honoured with this kind of communication (kalam) in abundance, he is called a muhaddath. And this (divine communication) is not of the kind of inspiration called ilham nor is it that which has been called ‘ilqa fil rau’, which is a sudden suggestion made directly to the heart of the inspired one, nor is it the kind of communication which takes place through the agency of the angel. Such communication is addressed to the perfect person (al-insan al-kamil). And God with his blessing distinguishes whomsoever he pleases.” (Izalah Auham, p. 915, quoted from Maktubat Ahmadiyya, vol. ii, p. 99)

  4. I fully agree with Dr. Zahid Aziz in that followers of earlier saints and also followers of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib used words like prophet, Apostle for their spiritual leaders despite knowing that they were not prophets.

    I want to quote one reference from the book Hayat e Noor written by Abdul Qadir (previously known as Sodagar Mal). The book contains life story of Hazrat Maulana Noor ud Din. It is a long reference and I cannot translate the whole, therefore, I will explain it in my words and will translate only the most relevant sentences.

    Maulana Noor ud Din Sahib describes that a person who was apparently known as a Muslim but did not have respect for the office of prophethood used to have debate with the Maulana. During a debate that person accepted Holy Prophet as Khatam-un-Nabiyyin. Maulana Noor ud Din was surprised by this. He asked that person what made him believe Holy Prophet as Khatam-un-Nabiyyin. He replied that Holy Prophet was very wise and he had realised that people were becoming more and more logical and in future no one will believe any one as Mursal or recipient of revelation. This is why he claimed to be the last prophet. Hazrat Maulana Noor ud Din was hurt by his reply. After some time Hazrat Maulana received an advertisement (I think this was the ad of Brahin e Ahmadiyya) from Hazrat Mirza Sahib through somebody. He suddenly took that advertisement to that person and said to him the following words:

    “your argument was wrong and weak (Zani). Even at this time a person is present who is Claimant of Prophethood and says that God speaks to him”
    Hayat e Noor Page 114 (with the reference of Al-Hakm 22 April 1908
    I do not have access to Al-Hakm to confirm the reference but I hope that it has been quoted correctly in the book I mentioned0.

    To the best of my humble knowledge Hazrat Mirza Sahib had not claimed to be a Mujaddid at the time when Hazrat Maulana Noor ud Din said above words. In these words Hazrat Sahib has been described as a Claimant of Prophethood only on the grounds that he claimed to have received divine revelation.

    This shows that the word prophet was used by the followers of Muslim saints for them but they did not believe them to be prophets. One must think that how it happened that Hazrat Maulana Noor ud Din used words ‘Claimant of Prophet hood’ for Hazrat Mirza Sahib at a time when Hazrat Mirza Sahib had not claimed to be a Mujaddid. People of Qadiani Jammat associate Hazrat Mirza Sahib’s claim of Prophethood with his claim of Promised Messiah. The question is how come someone describes him as a Claimant of Prophethood long before he claimed to be Promised Messiah. The answer is what Dr Zahid Aziz wrote i.e. followers of Saints used word prophet for them even though they believed in them as saints.

    The use of word prophet or messenger for saints was not a controversial matter in Muslim history. Learned Muslims understood this in the correct sense. It is the Qadiani Jamaat who has made it controversial by attaching this word to Hazrat Mirza Sahib exclusively.

  5. August 16th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
    From Abdul Momin:

    What I find odd is that the Qadiani Jamaat’s Khalifa MM Ahmad clearly stated that HMGA’s writings before Aik Ghalti Ka Izala cannot be referred to regarding HMGA’s status because in1901he changed his claim from muhaddas to prophet. Before 1901 he was mistaken in his belief that no prophet could appear after the Holy Prophet.

    Yet in the book that Bashir provided a reference above, more than once the Qadiani author provides references to pre-1901 books like Izala Auham to prove that HMGA believed in the continuation of prophethood. How could HMGA who made statements like “How can there be a prophet after the Last of the Prophets (Anjam Atham), a pre-1901 book, believe in the continuation of prophethood in the same breadth? He was supposed to have been confused during the pre-1901period because he denied the possibility of a new prophet and yet at the same time believed in the continuation of prophethood if the Qadianis are to be believed. What a farce! 

    I suppose the ends justify the means. Write anything to prove a point, however illogical.

  6. August 16th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
    From Tahir Ijaz:

    Qadianis use the writings of Mujaddid Alf Thani (Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi) to show that prophethood may be achieved by a saint.

    These chosen saints who attained the stage of prophetic descent were no less than prophets of previous dispensations. In fact Mujaddid Alf Thani considered such saints as reaching the state of ‘maqam i dawat, i.e the Stage of the Call, but did not bring a new Shariah.  See the book ‘Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi’ by Yohannan Friedman.

    This is close to the Qadiani position, the only addition being one of these informal prophets was also given the public office as Warner and openly called a Prophet, and it was incumbent for all to accept him. This was the Promised Messiah.

    The Promised Messiah (as) in Haqiqatul Wayhi replaced the word ‘muhuddus’ in one of Shaykh Ahmad’s quotes with ‘Nabi’ – whereas before 1901 it was about replacing word ‘Nabi’ with ‘muhuddus’.

  7. August 17th, 2008 at 9:07 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Dr Tahir Ijaz writes: “…the only addition being one of these informal prophets was also given the public office as Warner and openly called a Prophet, and it was incumbent for all to accept him. This was the Promised Messiah.”

    The words “and it was incumbent for all to accept him” need further explanation, as to what exactly is meant. This is the whole controversy.

  8. August 17th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Referring to the comment by Waris (see above on this page), I am making available the passage from Al-Hakam, 22 April 1908, (p. 2, col. 3 and p. 3, col. 1) from an article by Maulana Nur-ud-Din about how he first accepted Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

    See link here. (Opens in new window.)

    I have indicated the relevant part by drawing red lines in the margin, where M. Nur-ud-Din refers to an early Ishtihar of HMGA from the days when Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya was being published. The Maulana says that he said to an objector in those days (close to 1880):

    “Even today there is a man who claims nubuwwat, and he says that God speaks to him.”

  9. Friedman concluded:

    pg. 39 “Thus, though Sirhindi vigorously upholds the Islamic Doctrine according to which Muhammad was the last of the prophets, prophecy is, in a sense, a continuing reality.  The prophetic perfections, which are said to be continously present in the chosen few followers of the prophets, emanate from prophecy, the concept which is deeply influenced by Sufi ideas” 

    Sirhindi believed that prophetic perfection were alive.  HMGA wrote the same thing before 1901(at least until 1901).  If the change did happen, HMGA should have wrote:

    a–Sirhindi was wrong
    b–I didnt understand Sirhindi until 1901

    Neither happened!

    Sirhindi never heard of the ummati nabi(perfect nabi).
    Sirhindi always spoke of the ummati nabi(imperfect nabi).

    The nubuwwat that HMBMA presented, didnt exist until 1914, or as HMBMA explained 1901, remember, HMBMA writes that HMGA discovered a new definition(HN), that means that this idea didnt previously exist, in any type of Islamic thought.

    Hypothetically, if Sirhindi did speak of perfect prophethood, HMGA would have known of it.  HMGA didnt know of this fantastic idea(L).  HMGA always understood the writings of Sirhindi as promoting the muhaddassiyyat type of prophethood, not the HMBMA(as explained by HMBMA after 1914) type of prophethood.

    Chapter 4 “Prophecy and Sainthood”

    Here are some excerpts:

    pg. 38–39

    “the accomplished followers of the prophets can acquire a share in the prophetic perfections through following and inheritance, though prophecy as such came to an end with Muhammad.  


  10. here is some more from the book. 

    pg. 99

    “Sirhindi’s claims to be created from the remnants of the clay used in the creation of Muhammad is critisized.  The millennial revival of prophetic perfections ands Sirhindi’s claim of superiority to Abu Bakr are sharply attacked”.  

    Sirhindi wrote another book in Arabic that appears to have never been researched, it is completly in Arabic, its called “Ihtbat ul Nubuwah”  the contents of this arabic piece must be discovered.

    HMGA only referred to the Maktubat. 


  11. Simple my question to all

    1.Regarding the Kwajja Kamaludin’s note which he was called the prophet to MGA and Sayyid Ahmad kHan in Lahoris article, when was the article made by him? Before 1901 or after?

    2.If Khataman Nabiyin also means the Last Prophet, how come any type of prophet (Muhaddast) still can appears?



  12. Bashir,

    I know that you are interested in researching this theory of (supposed) change in belief in 1901. Have you had a chance to see this:

    Mirza Mahmud Ahmad sahib first declared that the change happened in October 1902 (which btw would mean that in this matter “Aik Ghalati ka Izala” is off the table so to speak) and then changed it to 1901 some months later.


  13. August 19th, 2008 at 4:29 am
    From Abdul Momin:

    In previous discussions with members of the Qadiani Jamaat, one of their contentions has been that since the first head of the Ahmadiyya Jamaat was called a Khalifa after the death of HMGA, and the successors to Maulvi Nuruddin in the Qadiani Jamaat are also called Khalifas, so the Qadianis are the legitimate and true Ahmadiyya Jamaat. And since their Khilafat believes in HMGA as a prophet, this proves -according to them- that at the time of the first Khalifa, Maulvi Nuruddin, the unified Ahmadiyya Jamaat must have believed in HMGA as a prophet too.

    So let us get back to what the the book, The Indian Mussalmans, has to say. After associating the words Apostle and Prophet with Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi Shaheed, Mr Hunter states about him :

    “He further nominated four Caliphs, or Spiritual Vicegerents, and a high priest, by a formal Deed such as the Muhammadan Emperors used in appointing governors of provinces.” (The Indian Mussalmans, Page 5)

    Subsequently in his book, he refers to these people as Khalifs or Apostolic successors.

    Once again this shows that not only the words Nabi and Rasul have been used for non-Prophets in previous religious orders, but their successors have also been called Khalifas. So if Maulvi Nuruddin Saheb was called a Khalifa by the Ahmadiyya Jamaat, it was nothing unusual.

  14. In reply to Hassan:

    1. Why are you asking us which year, when you are the one who posted in this forum the link to the article by Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din? See the link you yourself posted.

    2. Muhaddases can come because it is explicitly stated in hadith reports of the highest authenticity in Bukhari. Such a person is not a prophet, but has the quality of being spoken to by God, a quality which, according to the Quran and hadith in Bukhari, can be possessed by non-prophets.

  15. For Tariq:

    Thanks for the advice.  I have been studying the split for 3 years.  I have read 95% of the data that is in english.  I have surfed the link that you gave me on numerous occasions.  I have read all of M. ali books in terms of the split (the ones in english).  I have had HN and QAF read to me, as well as KK’s book. 

    I have been begging Zahid Aziz to translate KK’s book.  I wish I could read it in english.

    I have been in correspondance with Zahid Aziz and Tahir Ijaz for about a year.  Both are wonderful scholars.  I have asked both of these guys over 1000 questions.  Most of my understanding of the issues comes from these two.  I also read their debate, of which I think Zahid Aziz won. 

    I think that I am one of the first ahmadis(q) to research this topic from a neutral perspective.  I am not happy with my results.  My results show that the majority of the ignorant people sided with HMBMA, meanwhile the intelligentsia sided with m. ali.   

    And yes, I have read about the blunder by HMBMA, intially he wrote in QAF that all books that were published before 1902 were abrogated in terms of prophethood.  But he gave references from EGKI.  M. ali immediately responded with this argument. 

    it seems that HMBMA didnt realize when EGKI was published.  He wrote in HN, that he was just trying to explain the Tiryaq ul Qulub situation.  It’s hard to believe this alibi, but ahmadis(q) believe it. 

    I actually started a point system.  Long, long story.  Maybe I will show it later.  I actually wish that I never studied the ahmadiyya movement.  I wish that I would have remained an ignorant bystander.  I will never understand as to why HMBMA first wrote 1902, then 1901/1900, then 1891–in front of the Munir Inquiry. 

    feel free to contact me

  16. August 20th, 2008 at 1:25 am
    From Tahir Ijaz:

    Mr Abdul Momin, have a look at the book Mirqatul Yaqeen, the bio of Hazrat Khalifa Nuruddin (ra) written in 1912.  In it you will find the statement that Hazrat Umar (ra) was a khalifa of a Prophet and now his son (i.e Nuruddin) is the first Khalifa of a Prophet. This is just above the family tree of Hazrat Nuruddin depicted.

    This is proof that before the split the jamaat considered Hazrat Nuruddin a khalifa of a Prophet just as Hazrat Umar was Khalifa of a Prophet.

    I should also point out that unfortunately when the book Mirqatul Yaqeen was reprinted by your jamaat in the 1950s and again in the 1970s, that important paragraph with this line was deleted.

  17. Dear Zahid,

    1. My question in response and remembered to your above article :

    “But it would not surprise me in the least if they referred to him as Nabi even before the so-called change in his claims took place. In one of his pre-1901 writings, he advises his followers that these terms should not be used in their everyday talk concerning him. Perhaps there was a reason why he said this; maybe these words were used by his followers about him, even though they regarded him as only a Saint. ”

    Kwajja’s article publised on Feb 1913 (long year after 1901) which noted that he called the Prophet to MGA and Sayyid Ahmad Khan.

    did you surprise it?

    2. Yes, Muhadast still could appear according to hadist

    But If you said that the seal of Prophethood (khataman nabiyeen) is meaning the Last of prophet, how could one of type of prophet (incl. Muhadast) stll could appears? 
    also MGA claims that he was the Khatamal Khulafa, will you say that there will no more khulafa after him?



  18. August 20th, 2008 at 6:14 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Regarding the book Mirqat-ul-Yaqeen, and the family tree of Maulana Nur-ud-Din which appears in it (which ends with the names of his sons subsequently expelled from the Qadiani Jamaat), the book refers to Badr, 28 March 1912 as the source of the table.

    At this link is a scanned image of that page from Badr. The words, “and now his son (i.e Nuruddin) is the first Khalifa of a Prophet”, are stated there to be written by the Editor, who was Mufti Muhammad Sadiq.

    But what does Maulana Nur-ud-Din himself say? On the very same page, after the table, there is quoted a statement by him saying:

    “At this time, the God of us all is one, our Book is one, our Rasul is one, our qibla is one, and our Imam is one.”

    That “one Rasul” of ours is the Holy Prophet Muhammad, he is the only Rasul we have, and that “one Imam” is HMGA.

    Then there are the contents of the book Mirqat-ul-Yaqin itself. What beliefs does the Hazrat Maulana himself mention in it? Quite close to the beginning of the book a letter by the Maulana, written in December 1908 (after becoming Khalifa) to the editor of a magazine, is quoted under the heading “Beliefs and creed, in his own words by the Ameer-ul-Mumineen”.

    The first half of the letter deals only with his beliefs about Islam, without mentioning HMGA. In the second half, the claims of HMGA which are mentioned are:

    1. recipient of revelation,
    2. imam and mujaddid and khalifa according to the khilafat verse of the Quran. (This would mean that HMGA is the khalifa according to that verse).
    3. Mahdi
    4. Promised Messiah
    5. Claim that Jesus has died
    6. Claim that Jesus cannot return

    After all this, he comes to the last point 7 which is:

    “He made thousands of prophecies which came true … he believed the Holy Prophet to be Khatam-un-nabiyyin … No doubt he wrote that I am a Nabi in the meaning of one who makes prophecies”.

    It seems he has relegated the use of the word Nabi right to the end, as being the least important, and clearly stated that this word is used only with the meaning of one who makes prophecies.

  19. August 20th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Reply to Hassan:

    1. The writer of that extract is saying that, not only after 1901 but also before 1901 the word ‘Prophet’ was used when he was not (even according to the Qadiani Jamaat) claiming to be a prophet. Therefore the usage after 1901 that is quoted to us is in the same sense as before 1901. So why should I be surprised if Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din used this term after 1901? The fact that he has applied it also to Sir Sayyid shows clearly that he is using it for non-prophets.

    2. A Muhaddas is not a prophet, as stated in the hadith in Bukhari which defines a Muhaddas. That is why they can come after the Khatam-un-nabiyyin.

    As to Hazrat Mirza sahib being “Khatam-ul-khulafa”, he is the last in the line of those particular Khalifas of the Holy Prophet Muhammad who bore similarity to the Israelite prophets. A line of khalifas of the Holy Prophet, from Hazrat Abu Bakr to Hazrat Mizra sahib, bore similarity to the line of successors to  Moses, from Joshua to Jesus. There were no further successors to Moses after Jesus. Hazrat Mizra sahib calls Jesus as the Khatam-ul-Anbiya of the Israelites (what does that mean, please tell us?). So there can’t be any more such khalifas of the Holy Prophet who come in that line.

    But as Hazrat Mirza sahib has pointed out, the religion of Moses was limited in time and came to an end after Jesus, but the religion of the Holy Prophet lasts forever. So khalifas to the Holy Prophet will still continue to come.

    By the way Mr Hassan, we are wondering whether you yourself agree with the Qadiani beliefs or if you simply wish to know why we don’t hiold those beliefs.

  20. August 20th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
    From Abdul Momin:

    This whole Lahori-Qadiani controversy can best be understood if one adopts a holistic approach to this issue. Just by quoting from each other’s books in itself is not likely for us to reach any definite conclusions. HMGA’s books and writings and the periodicals of the unified Ahmadiyya Jamaat are of course central to the issue of whether his claim was that of a Prophet or simply a Saint. But simply relying on what a particular member of each jamaat said is not going to be very helpful to us. In this form of discussion, we could be arguing about this matter for the rest of eternity and still be in the middle of nowhere.

    Dr Zahid Aziz has a background in Mathematics. Mine is in Engineering (Mechanical, Industrial, Manufacturing). What we share in common is a rational approach to determining the issue of whether HMGA’s claim was that of a Saint or a Prophet. However, much as I would like – unlike him – my accumulation of knowledge of the Ahmadiyya controversy has been at a much, much slower pace because I cannot afford to invest too much time in reading all the literature that I want to read. But I have given our contentious issue a lot of thought spanning over three decades and also read a lot of the relevant literature. Over the past 8 years, I have followed the arguments of both sides. Before joining these discussions in the year 2000, I set myself some tough standards. I was not interested in seeing one side prevail in a close contest. What I wanted was to see one side enjoying a clear and decisive advantage in its arguments against the other. I am happy to say that my wish has been granted.

    But as I stated above, this issue can best be understood if one approaches this whole issue with an open mind and considers all the relevant factors involved, such as the culture of Muslims, their intellectual level, prevailing traditions, the attitude of ulema towards Reformers and the issue of Finality of Prophethood, and of course all the relevant writings that are at the heart of the debate between the two jamaats. This is the approach I have tried and this is the reason why I quote from books like The Indian Mussalmans. The goal is to understand all the factors involved in this controversy, not just who said what and to whom. In life I have found out the hard way that language is a far from perfect medium of communication. Depending on one’s background and knowledge level, the same words appear to have different meanings for different people. The current debate amply proves my point. No matter how many quotations are provided by the AAIIL from the relevant literature, these are conveniently ignored or they do not register in some minds. Back comes the argument. So and so said “……………”

  21. What Abdul Momin referred to is exactly my point.  The problem is that ahmadis(q) dont care. 

    Here are some facts that disturbed me:

    1.  Nobody in my family(over 20 people, of which 5 were mini-scholars) knew that HMGA changed his views on prophethood in 1901, they all thought that HMGA claimed “Ummati nubuwwat(perfect nubuwwat)” since 1891.  My dad, brother, uncles etc. etc. etc…….. 

    2.  Nobody at my mosque knew of a change in 1901.  They actually said that it was impossible that this could have happened.  They claimed that HMGA claimed prophethood(perfect type, not muhadass type) circa 1891.  Later they said that they forgot, or something to that effect.  But they reviewed QMN’s book, and I was correct, there was in fact a change in 1901.

    3.  My dad claimed that EGKi was the final writing on prophethood by HMGA.  He said that it wasnt a change.  He even pointed towards the first paragraph to show that there was no change.  I told him that he became a lahori that day. 

    3.a.  Later when i showed him HN by HMBMA he immediatley belived in the “tabdili aqidah” theory.  I told him that his attitudes did not surprise me. 

    4.  Over a period of 3 1/2 years, i have asked 200 ahmadis(q) about the prophethood of HMGA, none ever knew of a change in 1901, but once I explained the AMI belief, they immedialtey accepted this theory, without any research.

    5.  For example, ahmadis read “Truth Prevails” by QMN, but they wont read “Truth Triumphs” by Faruqi.  This is the height of ignorance.

  22. Dear Zahid,

    actually I still learn about difference teaching of Lahore and Qadiani

    and I Think the big issue is status of MGA

    what I read and study from your literate in web, it make me confuse.

    1. You said that MGA only a Muhaddast not Prophet but the one of founder Lahore has said “The Prophet of Qadian”

    Back to Kwajja’s article, did MGA already advised his follower to not used term in their every day talk concerning him. If yes So why did kwajja not obey him?

    2. Yes Muhadast is not Prophet, but one of type prophethood. So If the rank of MGA is only Muhadast how could he said that his rank was higher than the mosaic messiah.

    How come the rank of Muhadast is higher than the Prophet (Isa)?

    According to Lahoris that No prophet will come (any type of prophet) after the Holy Prophet because the Holy Prophet was khataman Nabiyin (The last Prophet)

    confusion with your explanation about Khatamul Khulafa

     “There can’t anymore such khalifas of the Holy Prophet who come in that line (what line?)” but in the other hands you said that “khalifas to the Holy Prophet will still continue to come.” (what kind of type of khalifah to the Holy Prophet will still continue to come if MGA is the last Khalifa)

    my opinion about qadiani is what the qadiani said about MGA status is clearly that he was the prophet (type of prophet who not law bearing)

    and their teach is not make the dilemma each other

  23. Mr Hassan, in my previous replies to you I have answered your questions, except for your question about how could a muhaddas be superior to a prophet. The answer to this is, Yes he can. According to Islam Muslims can excel the prophets before the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Even someone who is not a muhaddas can excel a prophet. This concept has been mentioned by Muslim ulama for centuries.

    You say that our belief about the status of Hazrat Mirza sahib is confusing and the Qadiani belief is clear. But you haven’t said if you consider their belief to be correct. Please do let us know. And if you consider their beliefs to be wrong, then again do let us know, which beliefs and why?

    If I am to argue against Qadiani beliefs I would far prefer to do it with a member of their Jamaat directly, and not with a third party like you. You might be saying things on their behalf which they don’t agree with.

    However, if the Qadiani Jamaat appoint you as their advocate and attorney (who don’t need to agree with their clients but only represent them) then that’s fine by me.

  24. August 21st, 2008 at 4:59 pm
    From Abdul Momin:

    What Bashir has written above does not surprise me at all. In previous discussions, some of the Qadiani members would jump into a discussion with the Lahoris without any idea of what they were even supposed to believe. They would come out swinging (to borrow a term from the sport of boxing). They would read the AAIIL explanation of Aik Ghalti Ka Izala on its website, and get all worked up (How dare the Lahoris suggest that HMGA does not claim prophethood in this tract!). When told that HMGA in the first paragraph of this tract refers to his previous books, and this proves that he is not making any new claim, they would exclaim with righteous indignation that of course HMGA is not making any new claim! So they would be referred to MM Ahmad Saheb’s books in which he stated that in AGKI he first announced his prophethood. Then these posters would start believing that yes in AGKI, HMGA did change his claim to that of a prophet. These posters also had to be told that according to MM Ahmad Saheb, all Muslims who did not believe in HMGA as a prophet were outside the fold of Islam. Many of them were not even aware of this.

    It was eerie and weird (it still is). The AAIIL, whose goal it has been since the Split in 1914 to present the true claims of HMGA, actually has had to educate the Qadiani Jamaat members about the origin of their own beliefs and what they were supposed to believe according to their late Khalifa – beliefs that the AAIIL consider to be patently wrong! I hope people within and outside this movement can better appreciate the magnitude of the task that faces the AAIIL in clearing the name of HMGA.

    Once again I would reiterate that this whole problem of the Split was a created issue to get rid of the close associates of HMGA in order to pave the way for a family khilafat. MM Ahmad Saheb’s speech in 1925 finally let the cat out of the bag. Later he amended his own rules to make sure that the Khilafat remained a family owned enterprise.

  25. August 21st, 2008 at 7:17 pm
    From Tahir Ijaz:

    In regards to the term ‘prophet’ used by an Englishman, it is important to keep in mind that non-Muslims have been more liberal to use the term ‘prophet’ on any religious personage – to them the term means one who had access to the Divine and one who serves as intermediary between God and humankind.  In some Christian denominations even today the head of the Church is called Prophet.  Church of Latter Day Saints comes to mind.

    I would venture to guess that if any previous saint in Islam was asked ‘are you a Prophet’?, the answer would be ‘no’. In the case of the Promised Messiah, the answer is ‘yes’, and indeed the whole of Ek Ghalti ka Izala is about the type of prophethood he is, never saying ‘I am not a prophet’.

  26. For Abdul Momin: 

    I never thought that i would find what it is that I found.  Never in a million years.  It’s almost standard in the AMI (i.e. Qadiani Jamaat), we all belive that M. Ali was/is a liar.  No research is done, whatsover.  I was just like everybody else, nobody talks about the split!  That’s the nature of the beast, so to speak.  The only reason I researched the split was because I saw it as a blemish on the surface.  Intelligent researchers must study controversy, not just the good aspects of any religious system.  The backlash against me has hurt my feelings.  The imam at my mosque always explains the split like this:

    “…… know M. Ali was M.A., in those days that was a very hard thing to do”,  

    “M. Ali was mad that he wasn’t elected as Khalifa”

    When i tried to explain that it was the doctrinal issue of KUFR that caused the split, he didnt believe me. 

    I showed another ahmadi what HMBMA wrote in Ainah-i Sadaqat, in terms of Kufr.  He remarked that the translatin was incorrect.  I exclaimed that this was our book, the translation was done by the AMI.  He insisted that there was some inconsistency in the conveying the message of HMBMA.  He avoided me totally after that.  I was amazed.  I truly began to learn the phsyche of ahmadi muslims, as well the nature of religious people.  I myself am not religious.  I call it as I see it.  I think religious people of any creed have an inclination to follow their leaders, without much research. 

    We also debated that error/blunder of HMBMA, i.e. where he first wrote 1902 as the abrogatory date, then in Haqiqat-un-nubuwwat he changed it to 1900/1901.  This person said he didnt care, it wasn’t a big deal.  I couldn’t understand it.  When I showed him the letter of SMMA that was written after EGKI, he said that SMMA was ignorant. 

    These are just some of my stories of the past 3 years.

  27. August 22nd, 2008 at 2:17 am
    From Tahir Ijaz:

    I may also add that in regards to the title ‘prophet’ used by the orientalists of the 19th century, you can find references where leaders of other faiths are called prophets by these scholars simply because they led a spiritual community.  Max Muller (c 1890) mentions a Hindu leader (Ghasidas) who died in 1850 as an ‘inspired prophet’.

  28. While we are telling stories, it has also been my experience that the rank and file members of AMI (Qadianis) have very little idea of who we are and of our common history.

    On a lighter note here is a recent experience. I met an undergraduate member of AMI at a function. The host had informed her that I was also an Ahmadi but of a different kind and apparently she was anxious to know the story.

    At her insistence I sat her down and gave her my best 20 minute version of the events, making them as straight forward, relevant and intelligible as I could. I made sure that I spoke in a matter of fact way and did not unnecessarily spoke harshly about anyone she considered holy. I was quite happy with my effort.

    However when I was done, she gave me a rather blank look and said (if I remember her words correctly)…”to agar aap Hazur kay paas jain aur maafi maang lain, aur wo aap ko maaf kur dain, to phir aap log jama’at ma aa jain gay?” (so if you go to Hazur and beg for forgiveness and if he forgives you, then will guys come back into the fold?).

    I was dumbfounded and for a few seconds at a loss for words. Obviously my brilliant summary of who we were and our common history, then separation and its cause and effect had apparently gone over her head. This was a very smart and academically gifted individual mind you (as I came to know later). At that time and for a brief moment, I felt the same as I do when I take my son’s pacifier, rinse it, dry it and then present it to him and with one swift movement of his tongue he spits it right out. Perhaps her mind had done the same with my story too. Oh well!

  29. August 22nd, 2008 at 4:37 am
    From Abdul Momin:

    I am very well aware that in western culture, the word prophet is used much more loosely compared to Muslim culture. To provide some examples: there is the weather prophet (or pundit). Then there is the prophet of doom. A Nigerian once sarcastically referred to someone as “the prophet of honesty.” Continuation or termination of prophethood is not an issue in Christainity. Normally I myself would be extremely reluctant to quote an Englishman on this issue. But the context in which Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed is mentioned as a Prophet and Apostle -many times- leaves no room for any doubt in my mind that Mr Hunter had done some research on the Sayyid, and that he was using the same terms that were used for him by his followers. At one place (without referring to Prophethood or Apostleship) he states that one of his disciples has recorded his sayings in a book – (the book Sirat-ul-Mustakim by Muhammad Ismail). At another place, Mr Hunter states that a local Imam in Bengal asked his followers not to listen to a Wahabbi preacher because he is the follower of a false Imam who wrote on the door of the Pure House (I assume he is referring to the Ka’abah), “There is no God but one God, and Saud is his Prophet”. (La Ilaha illa-lah Sa’ud Rasul lillah).
    As for no Saint ever saying that he was a prophet, all one has to do is look up the South Africal Ahmadiyya Case # 1. One of the Saints, Farid-ud-din Shakar Ganj of Pak Patan, says; I am wali, I am Ali, I am nabi. In one book a long time back I saw a quote attributed to Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani: “I have been given the title of Nabi.” Unfortunatley I do not recall the name of that book.
    Many Saints have even inserted their own names in the Kalima; e.g., Sheikh Shibli, Muinuddin Chisty, Sheikh Sadiq Gangohi etc. There are a few more but I don’t remember their names, nor do I have the book where I saw their names. The name of that book is Raza Khani Mazhab.

    Yes no Saint would say that he is a prophet (in the real sense). This is because there is a bar to the appearance of Prophets. But this is in contradiction to what Khalifa II said in front of Justice Munir. “Thousands must have appeared.” Or at the time of the Split: “Not one, but thousands of Nabi can appear.”

    As for EGKI, well, what can I say but:

    1. Ignorant opponents raise the allegation against me that I claim to be a nabi or rasul. I make no such claim.
    2. Hence the person who maliciously accuses me of claiming prophethood and apostleship is a liar and an evil-minded person.

    The above are two quotes out of the many that Maulvi Ahsan Amrohi used in 1901 to refute the notion that HMGA had claimed prophethood in EGKI.

    What kind of a prophethood must it be anyway where the supposed claimant takes great pains to deny his prophethood at the same time that he is claiming his prophethood? And why does he not make his disciples affirm this prophethood by the process of a formal ba’iat? Surely if Saints could insert their name in the Kalima, then a prophet has a much greater right to do that. This way we wouldn’t be going round and round in circles.

  30. August 22nd, 2008 at 5:35 am
    From Abdul Momin:

    For Bashir:

    Much to my dismay, my previous post became so lengthy, I could not respond to you. I am very sorry if you have had to go through some tough times because of your desire to know the truth concerning the Split in the Ahmadiyya movement. In our native country, we too had to go through some very harsh times, especially in 1974 and 1984, when anti- Ahmadiyya laws were passed against us. Slogans like “Mirzais are Kafir (Unbelievers)” would appear around our place of residence or work. Neighbors or friends who normally had very cordial relations with us would all of a sudden look at us with suspicion, and some would even wonder if their faith would remain intact if they invited us to Iftar (breaking of fast) etc. Believe me those were not happy times.

    All I can say is those who have faced persecution, should always keep in mind that they do not subject others to the same kind of treatment. Mistreatment of others is the stuff of bigots, not enlightened people. But we have a good example in HMGA. He had to face a lot of hardships in the cause of Allah. So in Allah let the believers trust.

    As for Maulana Muhammad Ali, if the dispute was just about grabbing the Khilafat, why are we arguing about the Split today, almost a century later? For one thing I don’t much care about the Khilafat in the first place. I think it is a very outmoded system, has a cult like following and does not produces religious intellectuals. I was not even in this world when the Maulana passed away. Why would I care who got the Khilafat in 1914? And why for heaven’s sake would I be against the son of HMGA if he were to become the Khalifa? Saying that Maulvi Muhammad Ali wanted the Khilafat for himself is just a political answer to a religious issue, a fabricated issue intended to impose a family Khilafat. That is all.

  31. Dear Mr. Zahid,

    I ‘m a moslem and standing in neutral possition.

    I knew MGA from your literate and interested with his teaching

    as my previous saying that I still compare both Qadiani and Lahoris teaching.

    I have studied both for two years. During these two years, I never found anything bad against Lahoris from qadiani web. But once I open your web or lahoris blog, I surprised that most of all containing published against qadiani, especially Khalifa MBMA.  It seem Lahoris very hated the qadianis

    The fact in this web that Lahoris still continued to discuss around MGA status and against MBMA while qadiani were very busy with more important doing to spread the MGA message and humanity all arund the world.

    btw how come a Muhadast can excel a prophet while the prophet were closed after the holy prophet.

    MGA was lived after the holy prophet, right?


  32. Dear Mr Hassan

    It is now clear that you are simply advocating the Qadiani viewpoint; hence your statement about the contents of our website. On the Qadiani website there are books in refutation of us. Read “The Truth about the Split”, available in Urdu, English in both text and audio format. In that book, Maulana Muhammad Ali and Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din are called hypocrites.

    The only thing on our website “against” Mirza Mahmud Ahmad relates to his written, published views.

    In your para beginning “The fact that in this web ..” , you have let your mask slip. If you are a neutral Muslim, then you don’t believe in Hazrat Mirza sahib at all. So how can you regard it as important work to spread his message (which you claim the Qadianis are doing)! Moreover, aren’t we spreading his message through our books such as Maulana Muhammad Ali’s writings?

    If you are a neutral Muslim who is not an Ahmadi, and, as it appears, you respect Hazrat Mirza sahib as a Muslim, then we Lahoris regard you as our Muslim brother. But what do you think of the fact that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and the Qadiani Jamaat regard you as expelled from the fold of Islam?

  33. It is not logical for a neutral Muslim to support Qadiani views as Mr. Hassan is doing. We have seen a lot of Muslims (Sunni’s , Ahli Haddess etc) who on becoming aware of the difference between Qadiani Jammat and Lahore Ahmadiyya Jammat show a soft corner for Lahore Jammat. This is because Lahore Ahmadiyya Jammat believes in Finality of Prophethood. We have never seen a Non-Ahmadi Muslim supporting the views of Qadiani Jammat. Mr. Hassan seems to be a unique exception.

    In my opinion only two types of people can support the Qadiani views. Firstly, Qadianis themselves. Secondly, Opponents of HMGA who spread hate against him by saying that he claimed to be a prophet. Please bear in mind that so called claim of prophethood was one of the major reasons for preparing Fatwa Kufar against HMGA in 1891. Opponents of HMGA know that the beliefs of Lahore Ahmadiyya Jammat are acceptable to general Muslims, therefore, it is necessary for them to prove that in the Lahori vs Qadiani controversy Qadianis are on the correct side.

    Its hard to understand the position of Mr. Hassan. I hope he will try to clarify his position in the above context.

  34. August 23rd, 2008 at 4:29 am
    From Tahir Ijaz:

    Abdul Momin,
    It is the Qadiani Ahmadiyya community alone that truly uplifts our ummah. The previous Muslims saints were the same status or even greater than many of the Israelite prophets. We consider most of the Israelite prophets as pygmies compared to a person like Hazrat Abdul Qadir Jilani. There is a special place in Heaven for all Prophets that came into this world, and our Saints who came throughout history are in the same section. 

    For you ‘prophet’  is simply a term of endearment for the saints – we regard it as an actual spiritual status – the summit for a believer.

    What’s different about the Promised Messiah (as) was of course he was the status of prophet, but also given the public office of Warner of the entire world just like his master, the Holy Prophet (sa). That’s one reason why he was openly called a Nabi, among others reasons.

    The argument about  Promised Messiah not putting acceptance of his prophethood in a formal baa’t as a proof he was not an actual prophet is a straw man argument – we don’t envision an ummati nabi in that way.

    The thrust of an ummati Nabi’s message is, “accept my master, the Holy Prophet”.

    And when one reads more one finds out that he too has title of Nabi, represents Holy Prophet, and considers his Muslim deniers as deniers of the Holy Prophet, like Jews and Christians.

  35. Mr. Zahid,
    that book is answering back to  MMA’s Book which containt was  against him. MMA who started to make hostility

    Actually I will take a baiat to one of these party, but as moslem I must be carefully to take the choise, what qadiani say and what Lahoris say about MGA, especially in his status

    Now after I got answering from you, I believe that he is one the messenger of Allah.

    Your believe is fully dilemma, sorry

    How come some one who excel the prophet of Isa is not messenger of Allah?

    now tell me know what punishment if moslem reject the prophet Isa?

    or  reject the burooz (as you believe) of Muhammadiyat?

    so I Think what MBMA said was be base on qur’an,  Qadiani believed that MGA is messenger Allah,

    Thanks zahid for all your answering,

    I realy sorry if my comment has bother you.



  36. Mr Hassan, Maulana Muhammad Ali’s book that you mention deals entirely with matters of belief and refutes only the beliefs of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad. It contains no other attacks upon him, like the ones made on the Maulana in Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s reply.

    As to excelling Jesus, Hazrat Mirza himself wrote, at a time long before he claimed to be a prophet according to you, that he excelled Jesus. So he believed that a muhaddas could excel the prophet Jesus.

    So you now believe that you were a kafir till yesterday and have only now become a Muslim. This means that the membership of the Jamaat you have joined is now more than 200 million. My congratulations to you for becoming a Muslim and to your Jamaat for exceeding 200 million!

  37. August 23rd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
    From Abdul Momin:

    “Abdul Momin
    It is the Qadiani Ahmadiyya community alone that truly uplifts our ummah.”

    I don’t know which world you are living in, but from my personal experience in Pakistan and from the various blogs that one comes across on the internet, the Muslim Ummah hardly feels “uplifted” when they discuss HMGA or the Ahmadiyya movement. “He was a British Agent”. “The Ahmadiyya movement is a creation of the British.” “The British introduced a false prophet in Islam to make Muslims forget Jihad.” These are some of the “uplifting” comments from the ummah concerning HMGA and the Ahmadis.

    You can cloak your Jamaat’s beliefs in any way you like, but at least on the subject of Prophethood, Maulvi Muhammad Ali and Mirza Mahmood Ahmad agreed on one point. If a new prophet were to appear in Islam, Muslims do not have a choice whether they can accept him or not.

    After making a big fuss about the so-called prophethood of HMGA by the late MM Ahmad – which split the jamaat in two -, now one of his followers says:

    “The argument about Promised Messiah not putting acceptance of his prophethood in a formal baa’t as a proof he was not an actual prophet is a straw man argument – we don’t envision an ummati nabi in that way.”

    According to Islam one has to believe in all of Allah’s prophets. Those of the previous prophets mentioned by name in the various Scriptures (especially the Holy Quran), present no difficulty for a Muslim to act on this injunction. However if a new prophet were to appear, Muslims would be required to make a judgement whether such a person is indeed a prophet in the light of the teachings of their scriptures. When Muslims are under such a heavy burden to accept all prophets of Allah, it would also be incumbent on the claimant to ask for a formal ba’iat of recognition of his prophethood. This way both would have fulfilled their obligations. All the follower has to decide is whether the claimant is true about his claim or not. Not whether his claim is that of a prophet or not. The claimant cannot leave his claim to the imagination of his followers.

    Previously (and currently under a different topic) the Qadiani argument has always been that since HMGA claims superiority over previous Israeli prophets, therefore his claim must be that of a prophet. Now one of them says:

    “The previous Muslims saints were the same status or even greater than many of the Israelite prophets.”

    So why aren’t those previous Muslim Saints considered prophets as well by the Qadiani Jamaat? Conversely, if previous Saints could be equal or greater than previous Israeli prophets, this should make clear the Lahori position that HMGA by claiming superiority over previous prophets still remained a Saint!

  38. Tahir Ijaz Says:

    “It is the Qadiani Ahmadiyya community alone that truly uplifts our ummah”

    Qadiani Jammat has declared the whole ummah as “Kafir” and out of “Pale of Islam”. What an uplift!!

    Dr. Tahir Ijaz seems to have reversed the best known argument that Qadiani people have been traditionally using to prove that HMGH was a prophet. MMA has spent a good part of his book Haqiqat un Nubuwat to prove that HMGA was superior to Hazrat Issa, therefore, he must be a prophet (This is exactly what Mr. Hassan has said in this thread). In our numerous discussions with Qadiani Jammat People we have always seen them taking refuge in the so called “superiority argument”. Now Tahir Ijaz says:

    “The previous Muslims saints were the same status or even greater than many of the Israelite prophets. We consider most of the Israelite prophets as pygmies compared to a person like Hazrat Abdul Qadir Jilani. There is a special place in Heaven for all Prophets that came into this world, and our Saints who came throughout history are in the same section”

    It looks like they are going away from the type of arguments that MMA developed. Tahir Ijaz’s opinion is far away from what MMA wrote and what Qadiani Jammat has been believing in the past. Whom we  should consider as correct?

  39. For everyone:

    I have always thought, HMGA didnt need to be a prophet to have “total superiority” over them.  Then why do we(q) claim that he was a prophet on this score.

    Khalifa 4th said that even Hazrat Bilal was greater than many of the jewish prophets.  Bilal, wasnt even a mere muhaddas. 

    My jamaat’s(q) argument on this is confusing.  The fact is HMGA was greater than Jesus, it doesnt matter if he was a prophet or not.  The messiah of Islam is greater than the messiah of the Jews.  Even if HMGA was just a saleh, he’s still greater than Jesus.

    I had written in my notes somewhere that after 1901, HMGA stressed his greatness.  It was linked to his success.  This was not a time to be shy.  HMGA came up with 2 new AOA(angle of attack):

    1.  Call me prophet, dont be scared
    2.  I am totally greater than Jesus as a Messiah

    Obviously, later on HMBMA asserted that HMGA meant perfect prophet, the aaiil maintains that HMGA was stressing his greatness.  —-This is after 3 years of intense reading.

  40. “…the spirituality of our Holy Prophet has always manifested itself at times when the internal crises of Islam became overwhelming, and the ‘essence of Muhammad’ has always made its appearance through some perfect follower. … There have been hundreds of persons in whom the ‘essence of Muhammad’ was established, and with God they had the names ‘Muhammad’ and ‘Ahmad’ by way of reflection (zill).” (Ainah Kamalat Islam, p. 346)

    Here is something further for the Qadianis to reflect on (the bolding is mine). From Al Wasiyyat :

    “God the Most High bestowed the honour of fully perfect, pure and holy revelation upon some persons who had reached the highest degree of annihilation in the Holy Prophet, where no veil remained between them. The significance and meaning of being a follower, and of obedience, reached the most complete and perfect stage in them, so that their very being did not remain their own selves, but rather, the person of the Holy Prophet Muhammad was reflected in the mirror of their state of engrossment. On the other hand, they received Divine revelation in the most complete and perfect sense like prophets.
    So in this way, some individuals, despite being followers, gained the title ‘prophet’, for prophethood in this sense is not separate from the prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad.”

    Al-Wasiyyat (The Will) – p19, 20. Read at:

  41. Bashir,

    If I can put this simply: a non-prophet (no matter how high his rank may be) can never have Total superiority over a prophet, for the simple reason that he is not a prophet.

    HMGA used the phrase “apne tamaam shaan me barh kay” when describing his excellence over Jesus(as). The one “shaan” that he did not have was that of prophethood. Therefore he had total superiority in all of the excellences that he possesed over those possessed by Jesus (as) except one and that excellence was that of prophethood, which Jesus (as) possessed but which HMGA did not.

  42. For Tariq:

    Great point, I understand what you are trying to say.  Trust me, I really do.

    You forget,

    1.  HMGA only had 1/46th of prophethood.  Jesus had 46/46. 
    2.  Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad said that Bilal was greater then many Jewish prophets, muslims have inferiority complex.
    3.  HMGA stated that Abu Bakr was greater than the prophet Joshua, both of these people were similiar, Abu Bakr was the first khalifa of the HP, and Joshua was the first khalifa/prophet of Moses.

    Moreover HMGA meant that he was the greater messiah.  HMGA was announcing this to the christians, not to muslims or anybody else. 

    This partial superiority changed to total superiority in rank and position as messiah.  Jesus is still the better independent prophet.  HMGA was the better messiah.   God spoke to HMGA more.  HMGA showed more signs. etc etc etc.  HMGA was an independent prophet.  HMGA did not bring elements of new law.  Jesus is still better in that respect.  BUT, HMGA is greater OVERALL—-thats the point that is overlooked. 

    I have written this before.  1901 was a time of success for HMGA, it wasnt a time to be shy, it was a time to stress his greatness.  It was a time to say, “….look, I am also a great one sent from GOD, in fact I am totally greater than almost everyone sent before me.”

    Because HMGA stressed his greatness, later on in 1914 this element of HMGA’s claim caused division in the movement. 

    HMBMA asserted that HMGA was so great that his deniers fell out of islam.

    The majority of leadership didnt feel this way.  They gave the HMGA the rank that thety thought he was!!!!

    And here we are 100 years later discussing this inconsistecy in the writings of our noble leader.

  43. For Tariq:

    I actually misunderstood you.  I think we both wrote about the same thing i.e. HMGA was greater than Jesus in everything except prophethood.

    One point, HMGA had more frequent revelation.  HMGA’s 1/46th of prophethood outshined the 46/46 of Jesus.  This was in terms of revelation only.   

  44. Bashir,
    you wrote:
    >>HMGA was an independent prophet.<<

    I presume you mean Jesus was an independent prophet and not HMGA.
    >>One point, HMGA had more frequent revelation.  HMGA’s 1/46th of prophethood outshined the 46/46 of Jesus.  This was in terms of revelation only. <<

    Jesus(as) received wahi-nabuwwat (revelation given to prophets) which HMGA did not. The way HMGA defines his superiority is as far as I like to go. I see no virtue in trying to fine tune this point any further.

    Also, this 1901 business is a red herring, nothing more. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad Sahib was clutching at straws to get some support from HMGA’s writings for his theory of change. In reality, the only thing here is the title of a booklet (Aik Ghalati Ka Izala or Correction of An Error) which is tantalizing only for those who care to just read the title and are in the habit of blindly following their leader. The booklet itself says just the opposite as you yourself have pointed out.

    Note by Zahid Aziz: This “superiority” of HMGA is only a reflection of the superiority of the Holy Prophet Muhammad over other prophets. Its only purpose is to show the superiority of the Holy Prophet. Please see and scroll down to the heading “Quote 12”.

    In the 2nd South Africa case (1987), Dr Mahmood Ahmad Ghazi raised this point as an accusation against HMGA. After our explanation, the lady Judge said to Ghazi: Can’t you understand that what Mirza is saying is that Muhammad is so great that even his followers can excel Jesus?

  45. For Tariq:

    Ooops, I made a mistake, yes I meant that HMGA was not an independent prophet.  And yes, Jesus did receive wahy nubuwwat.  You make alot of sense. 

    In all of my research I have found it hard to prove that HMGA went from non-prophet to prophet after 1901.  I have to admit, it’s hard to believe.  But people believe it.  I consider myself in the circle of the people who believe it.  But i admit, it’s hard to see it, an ahmadi(q) musty rely on faith in HMBMA….

    Two theories developed , one became more popular than the other.  M. ali had better arguments, but HMBMA was supposed to be Musleh Maud, he was untouchable.  This is quite the dilemma……….

    I think HMBMA should have invited M. ali to qadian for a debate on these issues(right after he was elected).  I think that HMBMA didnt care.  He won the khilafat….what else was left.  It bothers me that HMBMA didnt do this.  It bothers me that M. ali asked for some time to choose a khalifa and HMBMA turned down his offer.  Even though 6 months is too long, I think one week should have been enough to decide the matter.

    i think that after HMBMA was elected, HMBMA should have allowed this “kufr” matter to be resolved.  But he didnt, M. ali had to leave qadian for his safety. 

    Then came KK’s book(NOV 1914) which brought everything out into the open.

  46. Maulana Mhhammad Ali went even further and even agreed to accept Mirza Mahmud Ahmad Sahib as the leader of the jama’at provided he did not force existing Ahmadis to take ba’ait at his hands and agreed to put this issue of takfir in front of the community. This was a very principled approach to this issue.

    Please see this link from his biography. (It takes you to the relevant section directly.)

    Years later too, Maulana Muhammad Ali repeatedly invited Mirza Mahmud Ahmad to debates in various forms. For details, please read this section in his biography.

  47. August 27th, 2008 at 1:29 am
    From Tahir Ijaz:

    Bashir, you wrote:

    “I had written in my notes somewhere that after 1901, HMGA stressed his greatness.  It was linked to his success.  This was not a time to be shy.  HMGA came up with 2 new AOA(angle of attack):
    1.  Call me prophet, dont be scared
    2.  I am totally greater than Jesus as a Messiah”

    I’m glad you noted this in your research.  I submit that a true holy man of God does not boast.  It is though constant Divine coaxing through the medium of revelation that such men reluctantly take on new titles.

    It took him twelve years to realize he was Messiah, despite God telling him so through downpours of revelation. A similar change occured in his conception of nabuwwat. In fact he compared this downpour of revelation regarding superiority to Jesus to his previous downpour regarding Messiah-hood.

  48. In response to the suggestion that it took him 12 years (1880-1891 approx.) to realise he was the Messiah, please read from the following two ishtihars by HMGA issued during the publication of Barahin Ahmadiyya about his claim and mission. These are right at the beginning of Majmua Ishtiharat, vol. 1, on pages 20 and 24 respectively.

    Ishtihar 1

    In the first one (above), he opens the ishtihar by declaring that he has been appointed by Allah to reform mankind in the same humble, lowly and meek way in which Jesus performed his mission.

    Ishtihar 1

    In the second one (above), he declares: “The author has been given the knowledge [i.e. by Allah] that he is the Mujaddid of the age and spiritually his qualities resemble those of the Messiah son of Mary, and the two of them bear the most intense resemblance to one another.”

    The words Mujaddid and Messiah are printed in bold in the ishtihar.

    So he knew and announced it to the world in the very early days of 1882-1883 that he was sent as a Messiah like Jesus.

    The only thing was that he believed at this time that Jesus would return in person and do the works prophesied about him in Hadith. Then what he realised in 1890-91 was that Jesus has died, and that therefore it was through he himself (HMGA), who was already Messiah, that the prophecies about Jesus’ coming could be fulfilled.

  49. For Tariq:

    Thanks for the links, I have read this biography a number of times.  I love to re-read, I always find new points that I somehow overlooked. 

    Yes, M. ali tried to debate the “kufr” theory with HMBMA.  The fact emerges HMBMA didnt care, he already won.  It really really bothers me that HMBMA wasnt trying to keep a split from happening.  It’s almost like he didnt care.  That really saddens me. 

    If you notice, M. ali still didnt know that HMBMA believed HMGA to be a perfect prophet.  I think the ahmadis(q) first started saying that HMGA was the object of the Ismuhu Ahmad prophecy, then came the theory of prophethood.  HMBMA didnt have any writings in this period(1914).  KK writes that some maulvis(q) were swaring with the Koran in thier right hand, that HMGA was a mutaqil nabi. 

    I think, thats how the aaiil found out about these two new problems.

    So it wasnt that the aaiil who were promoting that HMGA was not a nabi, or that HMGA was not the object of the Ismuhu Ahmad prophecy, that wasnt the case, the aaiil were not the aggresors in this, ahmadis(q) and not neccesarily HMBMA were promoting that HMGA was a nabi.  And before that they were promoting that HMGA was the true object of the ismuhu ahmad prophecy. 

    When the aaiil heard of these ideas, they responded, KK wrote his book.  KK even wrote that HMBMA probably didnt share the same views.  KK was asking HMBMA to clarify in terms of these views. 

    If you read KK’s book the impression is that of chaos.  Why was the ahmadiyya jamaat in such dissaray???  This was supposed to be the best jamaat.  This was suppose to be a jamaat led by GOD!!!!

    I can’t comprehend why this happened.  I must say.

  50. For Tahir Ijaz:

    What you present is common ahmadi(q) philosophy.  There is nothing new about this argument, HMBMA presented this argument in 1915.  You know that I have seen this argument.  In my opinion, this is a very weak argument.

    Now, it must be investigated.  I started a blog on this website about a simliar problem that exists in ahmadi(q) thought.  The title of this blog was “An unfair parallel”. 

    You wrote, “It took him twelve years to realize he was Messiah, despite God telling him so through downpours of revelation.”

    1.  God told him in 1890/1891 that jesus was dead.  That clinched the idea that he himself was the messiah.  If this revelation didnt happen, HMGA would never have taken on this role of messiah.

    FACT:  There was a “specific revelation” that caused HMGA to change his position.  This revelation was clear and concise.  This revelation was published.  He only wrote one sentence(in BA) pre-1891 that jesus would return from the sky. 

    You wrote, “A similar change occured in his conception of nabuwwat. In fact he compared this downpour of revelation regarding superiority to Jesus to his previous downpour regarding Messiah-hood.”

    FACT:  There is no specific revalation that caused HMGA to change his position in terms of prophethood.  HMGA did not publish a specific revelation that caused this extreme change(alleged) that cut ahmadiyyat from the fabric of Islam.  HMGA wrote in 40 forty books to the effect that GOD told him that he was a muhaddas. 

    In summary the nature of the changes are different.  In the first change, GOD never told HMGA that Jesus was dead(from 1880 to 1890).  GOD waited until late 1890 to reveal this to HMGA.  God ordained it in this manner.  This was GOD’s wish.  This was GOD’s decision.

    In the second change(q), GOD tried his best to explain to HMGA that he was a prophet, did HMGA turn a deaf ear to god???  HMGA didnt listen???  HMGA was defiant to GOD??  That’s hard to believe.  If there was even one revelation in 1900 to the effect that GOD told HMGA that you are a nabi.  That would change things, but that never happened.  I dont think that there is even one revelation in 1900 to 1902 in terms of prophethood.  Check Tazkirah!!!

    M. ali didnt admit that a change occurred in 1901.  THERE WAS A CHANGE!!!!!  It’s the nature of the change that is in discussion.

    1. Was it a change in usage of the word nabi, in other words HMGA said it was OK to use the word nabi for him.  But the definition remained the same.  There was no change in definition.  The change was in usage only.  M. ali statements of 1904 strongly show that this was the change that M. ali observed.

    2.  HMGA seperated from Islam.  He created a name for the community(ahmadiyaa muslims).  He could have opted to be defined as just muslim in the census, but he wanted to be counted as seperate.  He claimed prophethood.  The change wasnt in usage only, it was in usage and reality.  He didnt understand what god meant when god called him prophet, he didnt understand this for 20+ years.  But now he was sure. 

    I must the second conclusion is very hard to believe.

  51. August 27th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Further on the question of when HMGA understood that he was Promised Messiah, the following is from Barahin Ahmadiyya in 1884. Quoting the verse of the Quran prophesying the victory of Islam over other religions, he wrote:

    “This verse, in the sense of physical and worldly rule, is a prophecy about Jesus. The triumph of Islam promised here will take place at the hands of Jesus, and when Jesus comes back into this world the religion of Islam will spread far and wide.

    However, what has been manifested to me is that I, this humble one, in terms of his lack of means, humility, reliance on God, sacrifice, signs and light, am an example of the first life of Jesus. The nature of this humble one and the nature of Jesus are very similar to each other, as if they were two pieces of the same jewel or two fruits of the same tree. There is so much unity between them that the spiritual eye of visions can see only a minute difference.

    Moreover, there is also a resemblance in the outward sense, which is that Jesus was a follower and servant of the faith of a perfect and great prophet, Moses, and his injil is an exposition of the Torah. This humble one too is one of the humblest servants of the great prophet who is the chief of messengers and the head of all messengers, Muhammad…

    As this humble one bears a complete resemblance to Jesus, therefore God has from the beginning included me in the prophecy about Jesus. That is to say, Jesus fulfils the above prophecy in the apparent and physcial sense, and I am the subject of this prophecy in the spiritual and intellectual sense, meaning that the spiritual triumph of Islam, which depends on incontrovertible evidences and strong arguments, is destined to come about through myself, whether in my life or after my death.”

    (Barahin Ahmadiyya, Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 1, p. 593-594)

    It is clear that even at this date he has understood his claim of being the Messiah of Islam and of his close resemblance to Jesus. The only difference between this statement and his later claim of being Promised Messiah is that he discovered that Jesus will not return in person and cannot fulfil this prophecy, while HMGA will fulfil it in the sense mentioned here.

  52. I advise everyone to read M. ali’s comments on this topic in his book “Prophethood in Islam”

    See 45/96.  I have written over and over again, this is the most comprehensive book in terms of the issues of the split.  M. ali gives a detailed explanation of this topic.

    “Anyone who thinks that there is a clear revelation in BA in which the founder was called the PM, that assertion is not correct.” 

    –M. ali wrote more books than HMBMA. Even though M. ali had less sources of income.

Leave a Reply