“A Present to Kings” by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad
The above book has been placed online at the Qadiani Jamaat website. See books listed on the page: www.alislam.org/books/.
It is an English translation of a lengthy letter addressed by him to the Nizam of Hyderabad Deccan (Muslim ruler of that state).
I request our blog contributors to go through this 85-page book, which discusses at length the claims of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. It was written shortly after the author became Khalifa, probably in 1914 (it says on page 45 that 30 years have passed since the year 1300, and no one has claimed to be mujaddid of the century except Hazrat Mirza sahib; this would make it 1914 when this book was written).
I wonder if someone could find a place in this book where the claim of Hazrat Mirza sahib is given as that of prophet, or where it is said that prophets can come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad.
On page 2, in his “self-introduction”, he says that upon the death of Maulana Nur-ud-Din, God appointed him to be the second khalifa of the community. He then adds:
“I am not aware to which family God may choose to transfer this office after me.”
Note added on 10th December:
Here is the link to this book in Urdu, entitled Tuhfat-ul-Muluk.
Leaving aside Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s brief mention of himself as the second khalifa, this book is hardly any different from what a writer of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement might have written, then or now.
From Bashir:
This is what I got:
17/86 bottom of the page
“…Islam does not need a prophet for its accomplishments”
34/86 he talks about some muslim saint that had khalifas.
37/86 he talks about how GOD sends mujadids into the world.
THIS IS A MAJOR CONTRADICTION
39/86 he talks about how divine revelation is open forever, and that mujadids fullfil this!!!!!!!
WOW, what an error…..
41/86 he writes that if ISLAM was deprived from Mujaddids than Muhammad was a liar…. OR GUILTY OF A MISSTATEMENT
THIS IS A MUST READ
From Bashir:
82/86 It may be possible and is natural that some small section of the community should be weak…….
84/86 Since the claim of being the PM is a question of grave moment….
85/86 Another time will come when powerful kings will enter the following of this Messenger of God.
HMBMA called him rasul at the end of the letter!!!
From Zahid Aziz:
That lone mention of “this Messenger of God” hardly constitutes presenting a claim of prophethood, since that claim is not stated or discussed anywhere while inviting this Muslim potentate to accept the Promised Messiah.
About 10 or 12 lines earlier on the same page 84 he refers to joining the Ahmadiyya Movement as “this rare blessing of following the vicegerent of the seal of prophets” (bolding is mine).
From Bashir:
Was anybody able to figure out when this was written???
HMBMA presented HMGA as a mujadid. HMBMA made arguments for mujadids. Later on his life he wrote/said the opposite.
Ahmadis(q) today believe that mujadids will not come in the future. Hazrat Mirza Nasir Ahmad wrote a book on this topic.
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Khilafat-and-Mujaddidiyyat-20080517MN.pdf
I think he called it an evil thing, i.e. the concept of mujadids in Islam.
I find it strange that HMBMA wrote rasul at the end of this letter. That misleads the reader. A writer must present a claimant in his total claim, to present a writer differently is either “particular vagueness” or bad writing abilities.
Faruqi also showed this event in his book:
http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/others/mumtazahmadfaruqui/truthtriumphs/truthtriumphs.pdf
61/70
In a letter addresses to Muhammad Osman of Lucknow
HMBMA wrote:
“I want to tell you this about prophethood that all ahmadis regard the Pm as an honorary prophet(or the shadow of a prophet). But, as people have degraded the Promised Messiah from his real position nowadays, hence it has become expedient to inform the community about his high rank. Otherwise I myself do not like to use the word prophet so casually or commonly. Not, because he was not a sort of prophet, but by the common use of this word people may not in course of time come to consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a permanent full-fledged prophet. So my use of the word is for a limited period and is remedial in nature.
A photostat of this was published in the Pagham-sulh 16 August 1914
From Tariq:
Bashir wrote:
>>A writer must present a claimant in his total claim, to present a writer differently is either “particular vagueness” or bad writing abilities.<<
Bashir, I appreciate where you are coming from overall. I however approach the issue of the split from a different place. I believe it was the blind ambition of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad sahib to become the leader of the Ahmadiyya jama’at, and that too at all costs: no matter how wrong, shortsighted and damaging the approach and evil the consequences.
I don’t believe that he had a completely thought out package of views from the get go, as it was more about grabbing power first and then figuring out how to deal with the consequences. As and when Maulana Mohammad Ali sahib and others poked holes in his views, he (and his cohorts) began to change, elaborate and adapt his ideas to whatever was necessary to plug those holes, no matter how absurd the arguments.
From Zahid Aziz:
I have a copy of the July 1914 Paigham Sulh which I obtained some years ago in which a facsimile of that letter was published which Bashir refers to.
The letter starts with a defence of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad entering into a second marriage. He begins by saying that ever since he has understood the Quran he has believed that to have more than one wife is an order to be carried out if possible and is not just a permission of the Quran. Then he says that Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din also believed the same and actually held that a Muslim man can marry nine women at the same time (this figure being 2+3+4, since the verse says: two, three and four). He then adds that the Hazrat Maulana also said that he himself wished that he had been able to marry nine women, and had advised his son to do so.
When I first read that sometime in the 1990s, by chance we were just about to visit the home of a Qadiani friend. When we arrived there, our hosts were wacthing a Quran dars by Mirza Tahir Ahmad on MTA. And he was saying: Islam neither originated polygamy nor ordered it! What an amazing coincidence, I thought.
From Bashir:
Thanks for the feedback. I would love to have that edition of the pagham-e-sulh.
I am particularly upset with QMN. Why did he not explain this quadrant of the split??? It was this type of behavior that made me look deeper. I am so glad that I researched the split, I learned alot about religion.
The AMI should explain this error…
From Zahid Aziz:
In my main blog post I have now added the link to the original Urdu book.
I looked up the Urdu for the word “messenger” used in the English version close to the end of the booklet, and it is mursal. The word mursal, while being synonymous with rasul, is used even more for non-prophets. The mursaloon mentioned in the Quran in 36:13 and 36:16 are generally taken as being apostles of Jesus appointed by him for preaching his mission after him, i.e. non-prophets.
From Bashir:
Mursal??? Mursal means “sent one”, not Messenger.
So when was this letter written??? Is there an introduction in the urdu version.
From Zahid Aziz:
In the Urdu collection of his writings Anwaar-ul-Uloom, in which these are arranged chronologically, this book is vol. 2, no. 5. The book immediately after this (no. 6) is dated 9th November 1914. The book after this (no. 7) consists of his speeches at the December 1914 Jalsa. The books immediately before it are not dated but seem to be from about April 1914.
Thus it was certainly published in 1914.
Also, in the Review of Religions of June 1914, Mirza Bashir Ahmad (the younger brother) has described being Mujaddid of the 14th century as the mission of Hazrat Mirza sahib. See this link.
From Bashir:
What was the first book ever written by HMBMA???
The AMI really needs to get all of these books translated into english. Especially Anwar-i-khilafat, Haqiqut tun Nubuwwat and Qaul Al Fasl , not to mention Kalimatul Fasl.
From T. Ijaz:
“A Present to Kings” is from June, 1914
Bear in mind that when a lecture is delivered or a book or letter is composed for the purpose of education of jamaat or tabligh or dawah, the thrust and content of the introductory message can differ depending on the target Muslim audience, which was diverse. In that same era you will also find aggressive ‘in your face’ material.
From Bashir:
After reading Tahir’s submission, I just remembered something.
HMBMA critisized KK for not preaching Ahmadiyyat (this is an allegation). HMBMA claimed that KK was not mentioning the name of HMGA in any of his speeches.
What if KK was preaching to a particular audience? What if this particular audience needed to learn what Islam was? Let us not have double standards.
I have written over and over, all researchers must drop their biasness.
In review, HMBMA was writing to a particular audience, he didnt mention the prophethood of HMGA. I am at a loss of words to explain WHY. KK was preaching to a particular audience, he didnt mention ahmadiyyat much… or it is alleged.
By the way, KK when he arrived in England, the balkan wars had erupted, KK published a revelation(I cant remember what publication) of HMGA, then KK wrote about fulfilling a prophecy of HMGA…the prophecy was from Izala Auham…something about HMGA’s mission reached london, and somebody catching some white birds. KK claimed that he fulfilled that prophecy… this was published in the Al-fazl–I think.
So, was KK purposely not mentioning the name of HMGA, I think not.
HMBMA’s motives in Tuhfat tul Muluk are unknown!
From Tariq:
Huh!? Please also bear in mind that before June 1914 the Ahmadiyya movement had split on some of these very issues. So what was contentious enough to tear Ahmadis apart was now ok to flip flop on.
I must say that the Qadianis have perfected the art of verbal gymnastics. You must all be avid students of Bruce Lee. He famously said:
“Be like water making its way through cracks. Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way round or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves.”
I wonder what the silent readers of this blog think about it.
From Bashir:
Tariq:
The split happened because of two reasons. Khilafat or Anjuman and the status of the deniers of HMGA.
IA was stressed in the al-fazl shortly after the split. But. prophethood is impossible to pinpoint. I have always tried to pinpoint these other two…its almost impossible.
From Tariq:
Bashir, you don’t think the two were closely related?
From Bashir:
Tariq, they are all related. But Kufr came first, then Ismuhu Ahmad, then prophethood…
That’s what my research shows. During the life of Noorudin it was only KUFR. When he passed, it advanced to IA, then to prophethood.
From Ali:
Can anyone on this forum explain why MGA did not attend the funeral of his eldest son Mirza Fazal Ahmad?
Was it due to his denial of MGA’s prophethood?
From Zahid Aziz:
There had been a family rift since before Hazrat Mirza sahib claimed to be Promised Messiah and he had broken off relations with some relatives including Mirza Fazl Ahmad.
As to the general question of funeral prayers for people who were not Ahmadis, Maulana Muhammad Ali has challenged anyone to deny that “before 1914, in Lahore, in Simla, in Sialkot, in other towns and cities, and in Qadian itself, funeral prayers for non-Ahmadis were not held.”
He goes on to say:
“Mirza Mahmud Ahmad himself, standing right next to me, joined the funeral prayers of Maulana Nur-ud-Din’s niece in Qadian who was not an Ahmadi. The Promised Messiah himself said such funeral prayers in Qadian.”
From Bashir:
He goes on to say:
“Mirza Mahmud Ahmad himself, standing right next to me, joined the funeral prayers of Maulana Nur-ud-Din’s niece in Qadian who was not an Ahmadi. The Promised Messiah himself said such funeral prayers in Qadian.”
I don’t recall ever reading this story, can you provide a reference?
From Zahid Aziz:
That reference about funeral prayers is in a short Urdu booklet by Maulana Muhammad Ali published in 1940. Here is the link.
From Bashir:
I have noticed that there are a whole bunch of new books written by M. ali that are available online. Many of them are directed at Mahmud Ahmad Sahib, I wish I could read them.
Misri also has a bunch of new books available online, the translation department should be working around the clock at this point.
I am sure that the next generation of ahmadis (q and L) will not be able to read urdu…..preperations must be made to counteract this.