Indian guru Sai Baba
Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.
While going through online news reports about death of Indian guru Sai Baba. One thing that caught my attention was claim that his birth was result of “immaculate” conception just like Jesus (BBC Urdu online).
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib in absence of any divine guidance regarding birth of Jesus continued to keep the belief held by rest of Muslims. He held belief that Jesus had “immaculate” conception. In his opinion, which is absolutely justified, proving human intervention in birth of Jesus does not defeat propagation of Christianity. Where as proving death of Jesus does stop propagation of Christianity. But at the same time HMGA did not stop his followers for holding belief that a human fathered Jesus.
My question to opponents of Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib and other Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement elders and members, who criticize us for holding such belief:
What stops you from accepting Indian guru Sai Baba birth as result of Immaculate Conception?? Remember Sai Baba had millions of followers (including Muslims) in his life that believed in his claim, unlike Jesus who had only few followers during his stay in his native land.
If God allowed Immaculate Conception in case of Jesus then why can’t He allow it in case of Sai Baba??
BBC Urdu online link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/india/2011/04/110424_guru_sai_baba_ra.shtml
Al Jazeera English online link:
(Please pay attention to photo of Muslim follower of Sai Baba)
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2011/04/201142452416203714.html
From Mohammed Iqbal:
@Rashid,
Kindly tell us who besides LAM rejects the Immaculate Conception. Is it true that Maulana Nooruddin Saheb had recanted his earlier belief in the normal birth of Jesus, when scolded by HMGA?
From Mohammed Iqbal:
As for Sai Baba, it is not the mere number of followers, but their quality that is truly astounding! Eminent people from all walks of life were or are his followers.
From Zahid Aziz:
Please see our submission on this topic in the Cape Town court case at: http://www.ahmadiyya.org/sa-case/evidence/s16.htm, in particular the part dealing with beliefs of other Muslims at: http://www.ahmadiyya.org/sa-case/evidence/s16.htm#3
Hazrat Mirza sahib never “scolded” Maulana Nur-ud-Din, nor any other of his prominent followers, for differing with him on some interpretation of the Quran relating to a point of history.
As to the term “Immaculate Conception”, the Christian doctrine of Immaculate Conception is that Mary conceived Jesus “without any stain of original sin” because it was without the agency of a human father. According to Islam, being conceived through the agency of a human father does not, absolutely not, pass sins on to the child. So according to Islam, and all Muslims, every conception is immaculate (literally meaning, without sin).
From Zahid Aziz:
Maulana Nur-ud-Din wrote a book entitled Nur-ud-Din in refutation of the arguments of a Muslim who had become an Arya and published a book Tark-i Islam raising a large number of objections against the Quran which were the reasons for his leaving Islam.
One reason for leaving Islam (no. 74) given by the apostate was that Islam teaches that a woman can become pregnant without a man, as happened in case of the birth of Jesus.
The Maulana replied:
“i. The Islam taught to us by that Divine Scripture, the Holy Quran, does not say anywhere that to become a Muslim you need to believe that Jesus had no father.
“ii. The Holy Prophet has not told us that a part of Islam is to believe that Jesus had no father.
“iii. Our beloved holy Companions, our four leaders of jurisprudence, and other great Imams, have nowhere instructed us that it is necessary to believe that Jesus was born without a father.
“iv. Our respected Sufi saints have not exhorted us anywhere in their teachings that to attain the ranks of Divine nearness, to accomplish self-reform, and to acquire noble morals, it is necessary to believe that Jesus had no father.
“v. Besides Jesus, how many prophets, messengers and appointed ones of Allah, have there been! Is the genealogy of any one of them recorded in the Holy Quran? In fact, Allah says, ‘None knows the hosts of thy Lord, save He’. So it is not necessary to know of the existence of everyone, let alone how they were born.
“Then in the Christian religion, the birth of Jesus without a father is not an evidence of his Divinity, because they believe that Melchizedek and Adam were also born without a father. Again, this teaching is not a part of Islam, so how did this teaching make you leave Islam? This is one of those issues which are matters of general investigation.”
(p. 181-182).
As to the date of this statement, note that on p. 184, in connection with something else, he writes: “Today is 11th December 1903”. According to Zafrullah Khan’s book about the Maulana’s life, after Hazrat Mirza sahib wrote his book Mawahib-ur-Rahman, mentioning that Jesus was born without a father, Maulana Nur-ud-Din forthwith changed his belief to the same. But Mawahib-ur-Rahman was published almost a year before this in January 1903.
Years later Maulana Nur-ud-Din said:
“There is another debate, as to whether the Messiah was born without father or not. I say: Did 124,000 prophets have fathers or not? The Shariah has not laid upon us the obligation to make investigation about the mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers of prophets. These matters are not a part of your spiritual progress.” (Badr, 24th August 1911)
From ikram:
To add to the pragmatism of Nooruddin Sahib, apparently Jesus had a full flock of brothers and sisters (4 + 2), see this link.
If Mary needed Joseph (-husband) to conceive six children after Jesus, then why the exception for Jesus himself? Doesn’t this exception cast a doubt about chastity of Mary? Can Islam tolerate such a doubt about a pious figure of her stature? Even if we suppose that Jesus was born without a father as manifestation of Allah’s miracle then what did Allah and humanity gain by it? Shouldn’t had two thousand years of debate settled this issue by now? Does not such beliefs cast doubt on Divine Intelligence? When Muslims believe in immaculate birth of Jesus aren’t they in cahoots with Christian doctrine? I am sorry to think like that, but I am a victim of my god given curiosity. Such queries are only there to remove the dross that corrodes the image of the Most High and puts His “intelligence” to shame.
I too am somewhat flabbergasted like Mr. Iqbal for his observation: “As for Sai Baba, it is not the mere number of followers, but their quality that is truly astounding! Eminent people from all walks of life were or are his followers.”
But at the same time if we cast a look at the world history, billions believed before and still do in mythologies of the ancient under the guise of major religions that unfortunately includes present day main stream Islam as well. It only tells us that man since immemorial is in search of some spiritual connection that mythologies cater to. But it is separate question, do mythologies serve any good or just numb out the pain of the spiritual void?
From Zahid Aziz:
A friend has pointed out that the doctrine of “immaculate conception” is that Mary was by nature free from the taint of “original sin”. Here is the entry in the Catholic encyclopaedia about it:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
We are confusing this doctrine with that of Mary conceiving Jesus without a male.
However, as the above article shows:
“…that the Blessed Virgin Mary “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.” ” (underlining mine).
For Jesus to be saviour of mankind, hence sinless, Mary too was declared naturally free from sin.
Interestingly, Hazrat Mirza sahib regards the virgin birth of Jesus as due to weakness of the Israelites. It was a portent that prophethood was about to be transferred away from the Israelites, by giving them a prophet who was not fully an Israelite because of not having a father. The next prophet (Holy Prophet Muhammad) was not at all an Israelite. Hazrat Mirza sahib also wrote, arguing with Christians, that not having a father implied that Jesus was lacking in certain powers. So the miracle highlighted weaknesses rather than strengths of those for whom it happened.