• Contact us
• Search the website

Views of Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din

Held same beliefs as Lahore Ahmadis

We reproduce below some views expressed by Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din during the time when he was head of the Ahmadiyya Movement (1908 to 1914), which clearly show that he did not believe in the doctrines later advanced by the Qadiani leader Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, but on the contrary he held the same views as those of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement.

He considered Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a mujaddid, he regarded other Muslims also as being Muslims and not unbelievers, and he considered the Anjuman to be the supreme executive of the Movement, and did not believe in the concept of a khilafat within the Movement as advocated by the Qadianis.

(Note: The Urdu texts of the statements quoted below are at this page.)

1. Hazrat Mirza was a mujaddid

Maulana Nur-ud-Din wrote a letter to one Sardar Muhammad Ajab Khan in October 1910, making a sworn declaration of his beliefs. In this letter, which was published at that very time, he writes:

“To cut open the heart and look into it, or make others look into it, is beyond human power. If one relies on oaths, I see no oath equal to: By Allah, the Great. Neither you nor anyone else will accompany me after my death, except my faith and deeds. As this matter will be presented before Allah Almighty, I swear by Allah, the Great, by Whose leave heaven and earth exist, I believe Mirza sahib to be the Mujaddid of this century. I believe him to be righteous. I believe him to be a slave of Muhammad, Messenger of Allah, and a sincere servant of his Shari‘ah. And Mirza too considered himself to be a life-sacrificing slave of the Arabian Prophet, Muhammad ibn Abdullah.

The dictionary meaning of the word nabi, we believe, is one who gives news, having received knowledge beforehand from Allah Almighty, not one who brings a shari‘ah. Both Mirza sahib and I consider any person who rejects even an iota of the Holy Quran or the shari‘ah of the Holy Prophet Muhammad to be a kafir and an accursed one. This is my belief, and this was also I consider the belief of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib. If anyone rejects this, refuses to accept it, or calls us hypocrites, his affair is with God. — Nur-ur-Din, in his own hand, 22 October 1910.”

(Badr, 27 October 1910. See Urdu text.)

2. Forbids adding the name of Hazrat Mirza sahib in Darood

Darood is the Urdu and Persian term for the Salat-un-Nabi, the prayer which Muslims frequently repeat asking that Allah may exalt and bless the Holy Prophet Muhammad and his followers (aal) as He did exalt and bless Abraham and his followers. It was reported in the Ahmadiyya community newspaper Badr:

“A man asked Hazrat Khalifat-ul-Masih [Maulana Nur-ud-Din] whether it was permissible to say the Darood for the Promised Messiah during the Namaz [i.e. regular Salat]. He replied:

You can consider the word aal as including the Imam. But you must not at all make a change in the words of the prayer; this is a strict instruction. Of course, before closing the prayer with salam, you may say any dua of your own, as much as you like and in any language you like. However, you must not, on any account, make a change in the fixed words of the Namaz.

Nur-ud-Din, 9 August 1908.”

(Badr, 17 September 1908, page 6. See Urdu text.)

Therefore Maulana Nur-ud-Din strictly forbade anyone from adding the name of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to the Darood within the salat and told the questioner to regard Hazrat Mirza as included among the followers of the Holy Prophet Muhammad.

3. The Anjuman is collectively the khalifa-tul-Masih

During his period as head of the Ahmadiyya Movement, Maulana Nur-ud-Din considered the Anjuman as being the khalifa of the Promised Messiah for governing the Movement. During the course of his khutba on the occasion of ‘Id-ul-Fitr on 16th October 1909, he re-iterated the position and the powers given to the Anjuman by the Promised Messiah. Referring to the booklet Al-Wasiyya, he said:

“In the writing of Hazrat sahib [i.e. the Promised Messiah] there is a point of deep knowledge which I will explain to you fully. He left it up to God as to who was going to be the khalifa. On the other hand, he said to fourteen men: You are collectively the Khalifat-ul-Masih, your decisions are final and binding, and the government authorities too consider them as absolute. Then all those fourteen men became united in taking the bai‘at (pledge) at the hand of one man, accepting him as their khalifa, and thus you were united. And then not only fourteen, but the whole community agreed upon my khilafat.

“… I have read Al-Wasiyya very thoroughly. It is indeed true that he has made fourteen men the Khalifat-ul-Masih, and written that their decision arrived at by majority opinion is final and binding. Now observe that these God-fearing men, whom Hazrat sahib chose for his khilafat, have by their righteous opinion, by their unanimous opinion, appointed one man as their Khalifa and Amir. And then not only themselves, but they made thousands upon thousands of people to embark in the same boat in which they had themselves embarked.”

(Badr, 21 October 1909, p. 11, col. 1. See Urdu text.)

4. ‘Muslim’ in bai‘at conditions means all Muslims

The following brief extract appeared under the title Those who deserve our special sympathy:

“A letter from a man was presented before Hazrat Khalifat-ul-Masih asking about the instruction in the conditions of the bai‘at (Pledge) to show sympathy to Muslims: Does it mean Ahmadi Muslims or non-Ahmadis as well? He replied:

This means all Muslims, whether they are Ahmadis or non-Ahmadis.”

(Badr, 18 July 1912, p. 8. See Urdu text.)

This shows that Maulana Nur-ud-Din directed that those Muslims who were not Ahmadis should be treated by Ahmadis as being their Muslim brethren. This is unlike and opposed to the belief, and indeed the actual practice, later established by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in the Qadiani Jamaat that other Muslims are to be regarded as non-Muslims.

5. Refusal to call other Muslims as kafir

(a) We quote below a short note from Badr, 6 March 1913 (p. 4, bottom of column 2 and top of column 3) which reports Maulana Nur-ud-Din’s refusal to call other Muslims as kafir.

“ Mas’ala-i Takfir [Calling Muslims as Kafir]

Maulvi Abdul Majid had asked Hazrat Khalifat-ul-Masih the question: Do you consider non-Ahmadi Muslims as being kafir, and do you regard me as kafir? In reply the Hazrat had written: We do not consider any Muslim, one who professes the Kalima, as kafir. In response to this reply, Maulvi Muhammad Abdul Majid sent a letter to Hazrat Khalifat-ul-Masih, written in the hand of Muhammad Asmatullah, Head Maulvi School, in which it is stated: It is said with deep regret that your writing could not be read clearly; please inform us of your real opinion. In reply, Hazrat Khalifat-ul-Masih wrote:

Maulana, assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuhu. Here is the respectful reply. If a man considers himself to be a Muslim, then please tell me what right I have to say to him: You are not a Muslim? Am I ‘Knower of what is in the hearts’? No, certainly not. Do I control entry to paradise and hell? Certainly not. I have in mind the words [of Hadith]: ‘Did you cut open his heart?’ Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds. My reply is perfectly clear. As to your regret, your deep regret, I say that there must be thousands of people who express regret about me. It causes me no surprise if you are one more added to them.

You do not need my opinion. Muslims today are useless and ineffectual, and consider such things as important while they do not turn towards the real purpose [of Islam]. This writing is by my hand, I cannot write better than this. ”

(Badr, 6 March 1913, p. 4. See Urdu text.)

The words translated above as ‘Knower of what is in the hearts’ are the Quranic expression ‘alim-um bi-dhat-is-sudur, which refer to Allah as the only one Who knows what a person has in his heart. The words ‘Did you cut open his heart?’, hal shaqaq-ta qalbhu, are from a Hadith report in which the Holy Prophet Muhammad scolded a Muslim for doubting the sincerity of the verbal claim of a person to be a Muslim and asked him whether he was able to open up and look inside that person’s heart.

(b) An brief, oral statement by him appeared two years earlier as follows:

“Non-Ahmadis

Hazrat Khalifat-ul-Masih said: We call non-Ahmadis as non-Ahmadis. Those who apply the verdict of kufr to us, their kufr applies to them according to the Hadith. We do not apply anything to them ourselves.”

(Badr, 23 March 1911, page 5, col. 3. See Urdu text.)

Here he has refused to call other Muslims as kafir, and said that even those who call Ahmadis as kafir receive the same verdict against them from the hadith of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (that one who calls another kafir has the same epithet reflected back upon him), and not from us.

6. What is the ‘second power’ (qudrat saniyya)?

In his Will, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has elaborated that after his death his community would be assisted by a second manifestation of Divine power and support, just as it was assisted by a first manifestation during his life. The Qadianis have interpreted this ‘second power’ to mean the establishment of their khilafat. However, the reply of Maulana Nur-ud-Din, when questioned as to what was meant by the ‘second power’, was published as follows:

“When the founder of a community is completing his work, then in order to accomplish that work the manifestation of the power of God takes place, as it says in the Holy Quran: ‘This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favour upon you’. Its manifestation took place in the time of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. But after him, this continued in the times of his khalifas, deputies and mujaddids. They were all the ‘second power’. The second power cannot be limited to a particular form. Whenever any nation becomes weak, then Allah the Most High, out of His wisdom, sends the second power in order to strengthen it.”

(Badr, 22 May 1913, pages 3 – 4. See Urdu text.)

He does not say here that there is a chain of khalifas after Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in the Ahmadiyya Movement who are the manifestation of the second power, and I am the first one of these. Rather, he says that this is Divine support for the cause of truth in a general sense.

Therefore it is the Divine support that this Movement receives in various forms which is the qudrat saniyya.

Also, according to what is stated by Hazrat Maulana here, Hazrat Mirza sahib himself is a part and parcel of the ‘second power’ granted to the Holy Prophet Muhammad. The members of the Qadiani Jamaat should answer the question whether they believe that the second power to the Holy Prophet Muhammad is still being manifested and shall exist forever, or do they believe that it has been replaced and superseded by a new second power which came after Hazrat Mirza sahib?

7. Describes work of Hazrat Mirza as work of one of the mujaddids

Very shortly after the death of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad on 26th May 1908, Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din wrote a lengthy article about him entitled Wafat-i Masih-i Mau‘ud (‘Death of the Promised Messiah’). This was published in the Urdu edition of The Review of Religions, June-July 1908, as well as a booklet. In it he writes:

“In our country, or from our country, (1) Sayyid Muhammad Jaunpuri, (2) Shaikh Abdul Haqq Muhaddith of Delhi, (3) the Mujaddid Alif Sani, (4) Shah Waliullah, and (5) Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi, are the men who claimed to be mujaddids, and people accepted them as mujaddids. Their achievements, praise be to Allah, are not hidden from us, but as regards what this man achieved, may Allah forgive him, only the wise people can make a comparison.”

(The Review of Religions, Urdu edition, June-July 1908, p. 261. See Urdu text.)

He then goes on to number the services of Hazrat Mirza sahib. It is obvious that he considers his services to be those of a mujaddid.

8. Calls it a miracle that a non-family member is chosen as successor to Promised Messiah

In the article cited above, Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din also writes:

“Even though there exist not one but four sons of Hazrat Mirza and a grandson, there exists Mirza’s son-in-law who combines the names Muhammad and Ali [Nawab Muhammad Ali of Malerkotla] and is able and worthy, and there exists Mirza’s father-in-law who is like a father, yet the entire community took the pledge at the hand of an outsider.”

(The Review of Religions, Urdu edition, June-July 1908, p. 260. See Urdu text.)

He repeats the same statement three pages later, adding that it shows the miracle of the spiritual advancement of the community brought about by Hazrat Mirza sahib that they united around a man as leader who does not bear even a tribal or ethnic relationship to Hazrat Mirza sahib, despite the fact that there exist four sons, one grandson, one able son-in-law and a father-in-law who is a sayyid. (The Review of Religions, Urdu edition, June-July 1908, p. 263. See Urdu text.)

According to Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din, it was a miraculous doing of God that He made the whole community united on one person who was in no way related to the Promised Messiah’s family. Does the Qadiani Jama‘at regard this as a miracle?

9. Exonerates and defends Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din in his last khutbas

In two of his last Friday khutbas that Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din delivered before his death, he defended Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din against the allegations of the supporters of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad. Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din was in Woking (England) at the time, establishing the Woking Muslim Mission.

(a) In the khutba delivered on 17 October 1913, Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din said:

“You think ill of others. Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din does not work out of hypocrisy. He works only for Allah. This is my belief about him. Of course, he can make mistakes. I am happy with his works. There is blessing in them. Those who spread mistrust about him are the hypocrites.”

(Khutbat Nur, p. 622, from Al-Fazl, 22 October 1913. See Urdu text. Khutbat Nur is available online at: www.alislam.org/urdu/pdf/Khutbaat-e-Noor.pdf.)

(b) In the khutba delivered on 7 November 1913, Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din said:

“Kamal-ud-Din is a good man. He is doing religious work. If he makes a mistake, [remember that] only God is pure, none besides Him, the only One free from all defects and weaknesses, and possessor of all perfect attributes. He is engaged in a good work. None of you can compete with him. Ignore mistakes, and look at goodness. He calls me his master again and again.…

Kamal-ud-Din has not gone there [to England] for personal ends. He has not cared even for his family. Someone wrote that Kamal-ud-Din has shaved his beard [in England]. The other day I saw his photo. The beard is there. I think that even if he had shaved his beard, I would still say about the work for which he has gone there, that it is good. If there is some fault, I myself overlook it. There is no one who is free from faults.”

(Khutbat Nur, p. 631, from Al-Fazl, 12 November 1913. See Urdu text.)

(c) The report of the above khutba ends as follows:

“(After this, the Huzoor sat down. He felt weak. He then rose and said.) Can any of you do the work which Kamal-ud-Din is doing? If he commits a fault, what does it matter? He is a man who used to earn thousands. I teach the Quran. Many new points of understanding have occurred to me. How can it be known that I did not teach it insincerely? I taught it with sincerity before and do so now as well.”

(Khutbat Nur, p. 632, from Al-Fazl, 12 November 1913. See Urdu text.)

This report shows that although Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din felt so physically weak that he had to sit down, yet he rose again merely to continue defending Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din and concluded his khutba at that point.

In his final comment, the Maulana has indicated that just as some people question Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din’s sincerity, they might as well question his own sincerity. He has thus placed the proof of Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din’s sincerity on an equal level with proof of his own sincerity.

10. Maulana Nur-ud-Din’s belief that Jesus was not born without a father

This is also the interpretation given by Maulana Muhammad Ali in his translations of the Quran, and expressed by other Lahore Ahmadiyya scholars, that Jesus was born like every other human being and had both a mother and a father. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad held the belief of the majority of Muslims, that Jesus was conceived by his mother without the involvement of a male to make her pregnant. Maulana Nur-ud-Din’s expression of this belief is discussed on a separate page (see link).