The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Archive for the ‘Ahmadiyya issues’ Category

Tahir Hussen writes to our blog: 

“(II) Question: A claim to prophethood has been made in Fath-i Islam?

Answer: I have not claimed prophethood. I have only claimed to be a muhaddath (one spoken to by God) and this, too, under the divine command. Muhaddathiyyah undoubtedly contains a strong element of prophethood. Now when true vision is admittedly forty-sixth part of prophethood, what is the harm if muhaddathiyyah, which has been spoken to in the Quran along with prophethood and messengership, and about which an authentic report exists in Sahih al-Bukhari, is styled metaphorical prophethood or an integral element of the excellences of prophethood. Does it amount to a claim to prophethood? After all a complete seal has never been set on the divine revelation after the perfection of the prophethood . . .. O ignorant people! Rivulets of revelation are to flow in this ummah till the day of Resurrection subject, of course, to one’s status.”

(Izalah Auham, September 1891, pp. 421, 422)

When the promised messiah wrote:

“I have not claimed prophethood. I have only claimed to be a muhaddath (one spoken to by God)”,

I wonder why the rabwah make of him a prophet. Are they blind lovers of Mirza Bashir-ud-din Mahmud Ahmad to the extent of accepting a fabrication that brings humiliation to the promised messiah ?!

Please see details of an Essay Competition being organised by the Central Anjuman of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement in Lahore at this link. It is a pdf file.

In a speech at the December 1914 annual Jalsa, the first Jalsa after Mirza Mahmud Ahmad became khalifa, he declared:

The above extract carries the heading Has the khilafat become a hereditary seat?, and under it Mirza Mahmud Ahmad says:

“Foolish is he who says that a hereditary seat has been established. I say to such a one on sworn oath: I do not even consider it allowable that the son should succeed the father as khalifa. Of course, if God makes him His appointed one, then that is a different matter. Like Hazrat Umar, I also believe that the son should not be khalifa after the father.” (p. 171)

See the speech at this link. 

Everyone can see what happened subsequently in the history of this khilafat.

The Qadiani Jamaat has very recently published a new, revised English translation of Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala, ‘A Misunderstanding Removed’. Their previous translation had been in circulation for many years. The new translation is at this link on their website as a pdf file.

My translation of the same pamphlet, with introduction and notes, has existed on our website for about 5 years. Its formatting needed some improvement. So I have taken this opportunity to improve the formatting (although there is no change in the translation or notes), and have also expanded the introduction which can be read here. One addition to the introduction is to present the original Urdu quotations from Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad’s discussion of this subject. Previously, only the English translation had been given.

In the new Qadiani Jamaat translation, it is written in the Publisher’s Note:

“Apart from resolving once and for all the extremely vital and contentious issue of Khatm-e-Nubuwwat, Eik Ghalati Ka Izala is also the last word in settling the dispute between those who believe the Promised Messiah to be a Prophet of God and those who do not.”

So it is “the last word” in settling this dispute, is it? Interestingly, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote as follows:

“The first evidence of the change in this belief is found in the announcement Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala, which is the first written evidence.” (See my introduction for reference)

“Change in this belief” is, according to him, the change in the Promised Messiah’s belief from considering himself not to be a prophet to claiming to be a prophet. So this pamphlet, according to Mirza Mahmad Ahmad, is the first word on his claim to prophethood but today’s Qadiani Jamaat calls it the last word.

Can any Qadiani Jamaat member in the world explain how what they used to consider as the Promised Messiah’s first declaration of being a prophet can be his last word on the subject?

Mirza Mahmud Ahmad also writes in the same place:

“The issue of prophethood became clear to him in 1900 or 1901, and as Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala was published in 1901, in which he has proclaimed his prophethood most forcefully, it shows that he made a change in his belief in 1901″

There is, of course, no mention in their Publisher’s Note of the above Qadiani standpoint, namely, that in his writings before this pamphlet the Promised Messiah was making the mistake of denying being a prophet, and was now correcting his own misunderstanding. The most likely reason is that the writers of the note are ignorant of the whole background.

Apart from “trick” arguments, it is also to be regretted that members of the Qadiani Jama`at spread arguments based on complete fiction. Here is an example about Sahibzada Abdul Latif shaheed. About a year ago a friend of mine told me that Qadiani Jama`at members had told him:

“Just before Sahibzada Abdul Latif was killed he was asked to renounce his prophet Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. He refused, hence his death. This news reached HGMA and he did not rectify this omission regarding his prophethood.”

This is absolute and total fiction, as I explained to my friend in detail, as below.

The whole account of this incident is in the book Tazkirat-ush-Shahadatain by Hazrat Mirza sahib. Sahibzada Abdul Latif accepted him as Mujaddid and as Promised Messiah. This is repeatedly stated in that book. I quote:

1. “Sahibzada Abdul Latif told me this: … I could see that the time had
   come when a Mujaddid of the Deen should be sent by Allah … then I
   heard that a man in Qadian, Punjab, was claiming to be the Promised
   Messiah” (Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 20, p. 11)
2. “During this period of imprisonment the Amir made him an offer several
   times that ‘if you repent from the belief that the Qadiani man is
   truly the Promised Messiah, you will be released’ ” (p. 51).
3. “All during the imprisonment the Amir advised him not to accept the
   Qadiani man as Promised Messiah and repent from this belief” (p. 52)
4. “The Amir and the Maulvies knew well that the Qadiani who claims to be
   Promised Messiah was against Jihad” (p. 53)
5. “Even if millions of posters were circulated in that country to prove
   with strong arguments that I am the Promised Messiah, they would not
   have been as effective as the blood of this martyr” (p. 53)
6. “At the end of the debate with the Maulvies, the Shaheed was asked, if
   this Qadiani man is the Promised Messiah then what do you say about
   Jesus? He replied that Jesus has died and will definitely not be
   returning … then those people became enflamed, started abusing him
   and said: what doubt is there now in his Kufr?” (p. 54)

So the chief reason for the Sahibzada being declared kafir and killed was his belief in the death of Jesus and his acceptance of Hazrat Mirza sahib as the Promised Messiah. His debate with the Maulvies did not discuss at all any claim to prophethood by Hazrat Mirza sahib. Another reason given by Hazrat Mirza sahib as to why the Sahibzada  was declared kafir is that he accepted his concept of jihad and thus rejected the Maulvies’ concept of a war-like Jihad.

It is interesting to note that Hazrat Mirza sahib further says:

“The Amir at least ought to have asked his Maulvies: For what kind of kufr have you given the verdict of death by stoning? Why is this difference a matter of kufr? Why didn’t the Amir say to them: Your own sects have great differences among them. Should all of them, except one, be stoned to death?” (p. 56)

Hazrat Mirza sahib says here that the difference of belief for which they declared the Sahibzada as kafir and deservant of death was a difference of the same kind as other sectarian differences of interpretation between various Muslim sects. In other words, differences of beliefs between Ahmadis and other Muslims are of that sort of level.

Also, in his account of the Sahibzada’s stay in Qadian, Hazrat Mirza sahib says he told him about his claim of being a khalifa of the Holy Prophet and he writes:

“I told him that as the Holy Prophet Muhammad was the
khatam-ul-anbiya, and no prophet was to come after him…”
(p. 45).

This was the teaching about prophethood that the Sahibzada was given by Hazrat Mirza sahib.

Here is just one example of a “trick” argument used by the Qadiani Jama`at missionaries. A member of our Jama`at had a dream in which Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad appeared and said: You belong to my Umma.

Our member mentioned this dream to a Qadiani missionary. He immediately said: “What more do you need! This proves to you that Hazrat Mirza sahib was a prophet because you belong to his Umma.”

The trick in this argument is, of course, that the Qadiani Jama`at members themselves do not believe that they belong to an Umma started by the prophet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. While themselves not believing this, they are presenting it as an argument to convince one of our members. This is a typical trick. From their mighty Khalifa down to their most subservient member, not one of them would ever say to the general Muslims: We are the Umma of the prophet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

As to this term itself, I said to our member that the Umma mentioned in the dream could be the Umma of this verse:

“And from among you there should be an Umma who invite to good and enjoin the right and forbid the wrong. And these are they who are successful.” (3:104)

Umma here means a party from among the Muslims, and not an Umma founded by a prophet. This, I said, is the Umma to which you belong, founded by the Mujaddid Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

I could also say that dreams or visions cannot override established beliefs (apart from the fact that the dream of an ordinary person is unreliable in any case). As Hazrat Mirza sahib himself declared, even if he had thousands of revelations that Jesus has died, they would have no value whatsoever if the Quran said the opposite.