Hazrat Mirza sahib invites Hindus to accept Prophet Muhammad
In December 1907 a lecture written by Hazrat Mirza sahib was presented at a conference organised by the Arya Samaj in Lahore. It is included in his book Chashma-i Ma`rifat, and was also translated into English and published in The Review of Religions at the time. I am providing here a link to a couple of pages from it in pdf format (best viewed at 100% size in Adobe Reader):
Urdu, from Ruhani Khazain, v. 23, pages 384-385.
English translation, from The Review of Religions, January 1908, p. 12-13.
What is noteworthy is that Hazrat Mirza sahib invites Hindus to accept the Kalima of Islam and the Holy Prophet Muhammad. He says to them: As we are prepared to accept your prophets as true on the basis of the teaching of the Quran, in return you should accept our Prophet as true. But if his own claim is also that of being a prophet, why doesn’t he ask them to accept him?
After all, although it is the teaching of the Quran that prophets appeared in all nations and that Muslims must accept them, that teaching is being put forward by Hazrat Mirza sahib, and not by Muslims generally. It is Hazrat Mirza sahib who has especially applied this teaching to recognising the Hindu avatars and rishis as prophets. But he doesn’t say: My movement accepts your rishis as prophets, so you should accept our prophets, including me, in fact, especially me!
This clearly shows that his mission was not to invite people to accept him as prophet, but to invite them to accept the Holy Prophet Muhammad through the Kalima.
The English extract above ends with the words:
“Therefore all we desire of you is that you should believe in the truth of our scriptures and prophets in the same manner as we believe in the truth of your scriptures and prophets.”
And “our prophets” does not seem to include Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
From tahir:
salaam checking
From aaiil:
I have posted your test comment.
From Bashir:
This is not surprising. HMGA’s writings(before and after 1901) are full of statements of this nature.
Griswold wrote that HMGA claimed to be Ismuhu Ahmad, we all know that as un-true. But HMGA is to blame for the confusion. If he was clearer and consistent, then Griswold would never have had this impression. At some places in his writings it appears that HMGA does impress this upon the reader, but was there some other meaning intended????? HMGA writings are very hard to understand at times, it is very easy for a reader to get the wrong impression. I have felt very different impressions over the last 4 years.
HMGA even wrote that the second coming of muhammad was greater than the first. We all know that he never claimed to be greater than the HP. But at times HMGA would confidently boast about his rank. This mostly happened after 1901.
I think all members of the AMI must read the writings of the founder and judge for themselves in terms of his claims.
M. ali wanted this all along, I cant say that HMBMA wanted this debate to happen.
From tahir:
how do you post a new topic?thnx
From aaiil:
Dear Tahir: As this is a “blog” rather than a discussion forum, only the admin, which is myself, can start a new topic technically. But people can post a comment under a topic, which I can then publish as a new topic.
Zahid Aziz