Mirza Mahmud Ahmad retreats
from his belief about the “coming Ahmad” prophecy
Stand-point abandoned
after Maulana Muhammad Ali disproves it
Introduction
In this article we raise an interesting episode that has been lost
sight of in the course of time. It fell out of view because, on
this particular new-fangled doctrine of theirs, the Qadiani Jama‘at
capitulated several decades ago after the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement
refuted their stand-point.
The Holy Quran makes mention of a prophecy which, it says, was
made by Jesus who foretold that a prophet would come after him “his
name being Ahmad” (Ch. 61, v. 6). This prophecy was fulfilled
by the appearance of the Holy Prophet Muhammad — may peace
and the blessings of Allah be upon him.
However, at the time of the Split in the Ahmadiyya Movement around
the year 1914, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad (2nd Head of the Qadiani Jama‘at)
loudly proclaimed that this prophecy was, in fact, fulfilled by
the coming of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and did not apply
to the Holy Prophet Muhammad. This heretical interpretation was
strongly refuted by Maulana Muhammad Ali in his writings.
Then Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, in a response published in 1921, performed
one retreat from his previous stand by writing that this prophecy
applies “directly” to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and “indirectly”
to the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Some thirty years later he performed
a complete retreat by writing in his commentary on the Quran
that “This verse contains a prophecy about the Holy Prophet
Muhammad” (Urdu commentary) and “Thus the prophecy mentioned
in the verse under comment applies to the Holy Prophet, but as a
corollary it may also apply to the Promised Messiah, Founder of
the Ahmadiyya Movement” (English commentary).
Details are discussed below.
Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s view at
time of Split
In his book Anwar-i Khilafat, published in 1916, which is
the text of a speech delivered by him at the December 1915 annual
gathering of his followers, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad has argued most emphatically
that the prophecy of Jesus about the coming Ahmad, referred to in
the Quran in 61:6, does not apply to the Prophet Muhammad but to
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. In this book, he deals with the points
of difference between his followers and the Lahore Ahmadis. The
first issue that he raises in this connection is the interpretation
of the prophecy about the coming Ahmad. We quote below some of his
statements on this issue from Anwar-i Khilafat.
Quotation 1:
“The first issue is whether Ahmad was the name of the Promised
Messiah or of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, and whether the verse
of Sura Al-Saff which mentions the prophecy about a messenger
whose name would be Ahmad, applies to the Holy Prophet Muhammad
or to the Promised Messiah.
My belief is that this verse applies to the Promised Messiah,
and he is the one who is Ahmad. … The more I ponder, the
more my conviction grows, and I believe that the word Ahmad that
occurs in the Holy Quran applies to the Promised Messiah. In proof
of this, I have evidences by the grace of God which I am prepared
to put before the scholars and learned ones of the whole world.
So much so that I am prepared to offer
a reward: if anyone can disprove my evidences and show from the
Holy Quran and authentic Hadith that Ahmad was the name of the
Holy Prophet Muhammad, and not his attribute, and that the signs
about Ahmad given in the Holy Quran apply to the Holy Prophet,
and that the Holy Prophet applied this prophecy to himself, I
will pay that person a monetary penalty as mutually agreed between
the two parties.”
— pages 18-19, original edition, Anwar-i
Khilafat. See here for Urdu text.
Quotation 2:
“I have read out the verses of the Holy Quran giving the
news about Ahmad, in which Ahmad is mentioned. Now I will explain
by the grace of God that in these verses the real person meant
by Ahmad is the Promised Messiah, and the Holy Prophet Muhammad
only fulfils it because of his attribute of being Ahmad; otherwise,
the man having the name Ahmad, to whom this news relates, is only
the Promised Messiah.”
— pages 20, original edition, Anwar-i
Khilafat. See here for Urdu text.
Quotation 3:
“Hence the messenger named Ahmad, whose news is given in
this verse, cannot be the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Of course, if
all those signs of this messenger called Ahmad were fulfilled
in his time then we could undoubtedly say that since by the name
Ahmad in this verse is meant the messenger having the attribute
of Ahmad, why should we apply it to someone else? But even this
is not the case, as I will prove later on.”
— pages 23, original edition, Anwar-i
Khilafat. See here for Urdu text.
Quotation 4:
“This prophecy does not contain any word to show that it
is about the Khatam-un-nabiyyin, nor any word to cause
us to apply this prophecy necessarily to the Holy Prophet Muhammad.…
There is no Hadith report of any kind, whether true or false,
weak or strong, of whatever standard of authenticity, mentioning
that the Holy Prophet Muhammad applied this verse to himself and
declared himself as fulfilling this prophecy. When that also is
not the case, why should we apply the prophecy to the Holy Prophet
Muhammad, in contradiction to the subject-matter of the verse?”
— pages 23, original edition, Anwar-i
Khilafat. See here for Urdu text.
Quotation 5:
“Why should the meaning of this verse be distorted to apply
it to the Holy Prophet Muhammad just in order to prove that no
messenger can come after him? Has the fear of Almighty God departed
from the hearts of the people so much that they alter His word
in this way and distort its meaning by misinterpreting it so blatantly?
As long as truth had not come, people had no choice. But now that
events have proved that by Ahmad is meant a servant of the Holy
Prophet Muhammad, it is not the way of true believers to be stubborn.”
— pages 24, original edition, Anwar-i
Khilafat. See here for Urdu text.
Quotation 6:
“To sum up, it is not proved in any way that the name of
the Holy Prophet Muhammad was Ahmad. So this leaves only two choices.
One is that this prophecy applies to some other man having the
name Ahmad. The other is that the prophecy does not mean that
his name would be Ahmad but rather that his attribute would be
Ahmad, and as the Holy Prophet Muhammad had the attribute Ahmad
hence this prophecy can be applied to him in this sense. However,
this [second choice] does not work because the signs of the person
having the name or the qualities of Ahmad that are given here
are not fulfilled in the Holy Prophet Muhammad, as will be shown
later. This leaves only one way, that the prophet whose name or
whose attribute is Ahmad, as the case may be, shall be someone
after the Holy Prophet Muhammad, from among his servants. Our
claim is that it is the Promised Messiah who is that messenger,
the prophecy about whom is given in this verse.”
— pages 31, original edition, Anwar-i
Khilafat. See here for Urdu text.
Quotation 7:
“Now I present evidence from the Holy Quran that the one
who fulfills this prophecy can only be the Promised Messiah and
no one else.”
— pages 33, original edition, Anwar-i
Khilafat. See here for Urdu text.
Maulana Muhammad Ali refutes
this wrong interpretation
Maulana Muhammad Ali refuted these ideas and arguments most forcefully
in his Urdu book of some 90 pages entitled Ahmad Mujtaba,
published in December 1917. He also covered the same subject in
English in his book Split in the Ahmadiyya Movement, published
in January 1918. Both these books are available online:
In Anwar-i Khilafat Mirza Mahmud Ahmad had referred to the
issue of who is the prophesied Ahmad as “the first issue”
(see quotation 1 above). So Maulana Muhammad Ali in his book Split
in the Ahmadiyya Movement has treated this as the first issue
of difference, as he writes:
“I shall now take the three doctrines which M. Mahmud is
promulgating and which are opposed to the teachings of the
Promised Messiah. I take first the question whether Ahmad was
not a name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad and whether the prophecy
of Jesus relating to the appearance of a messenger named Ahmad
was not fulfilled by the advent of the Holy Prophet. I give it
precedence over the other questions, both because the idea that
the prophecy of the advent of the messenger named Ahmad was fulfilled
by the appearance of the Promised Messiah seems to have been the
nucleus about which the doctrine of his prophethood was formed,
this being the first question brought into prominence by M. Mahmud
after the dissension of 1914, and because it illustrates how it
was after the death of the Promised Messiah that these doctrines
grew up.” (p. 18 of the reprinted edition of 1994)
First stage of retreat
In response to the above book Split in the Ahmadiyya Movement
by Maulana Muhammad Ali, an Urdu book A’inah-i Sadaqat
by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad was published in December 1921. It was translated
into English as The Truth about the Split, published in 1924
and later reprinted from Rabwah in 1965. Replying to Maulana Muhammad
Ali, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad now expressed his belief as follows:
“Regarding the prophecy Ismuhu Ahmad contained in
the Holy Quran (61:6), my opinion is that the passage contains
a double prophecy, relating to two persons, one a counter-type
and the other his prototype. The counter-type of course is the
Promised Messiah, while the prototype is the Holy Prophet. The
passage under reference speaks directly about the counter-type.
A reference to the prototype of course comes in, but only indirectly
in as much as the counter-type of a prophet necessarily presumes
the existence of his original.”
— pages 57–58 of the 3rd edition. Available
online at the Qadiani Jama‘at website: www.alislam.org/library/split/
Here he admits at least that the prophecy applies “indirectly”
to the Holy Prophet Muhammad, while applying “directly”
to the Promised Messiah. But he goes on to say:
“For these reasons and on certain
other grounds, I hold the opinion that the subject of this prophecy
is primarily the Promised Messiah who is the reflex of the Holy
Prophet and the counter-type of Jesus Christ. But the whole question
is one regarding which no decision on the basis of revealed authority
has been left by any of the prophets. Any discussion of the question
therefore has little more than mere academic interest. If any
person holds a different view regarding the interpretation of
the verse, all that I shall say is that he is mistaken, but I
shall never deem him, on that account, any the less an Ahmadi, and much
less shall I deem him a sinner. In short, the question as to who
is the proper subject of this Quranic prophecy is not at all of
such moment as to make it a problem of any great religious importance.”
In Anwar-i Khilafat he had claimed that he had evidences
which he was “prepared to put before the scholars and learned
ones of the whole world” and to offer a reward to those
who could disprove them and show that the signs about Ahmad apply
to the Holy Prophet (see quotation 1 above). He
had questioned why the fear of Almighty God had departed so much
from the hearts of the people that they distorted the meaning of
this verse in order “to apply it to the Holy Prophet Muhammad”.
But now, in A’inah-i Sadaqat, he describes this
issue of who is Ahmad as merely academic and unimportant, and allows
even his own followers to hold that it was the Prophet Muhammad.
Final retreat
The final Qadiani Jama‘at retreat on this point came in their
translations of the Quran some thirty years later. They have published
a 5-volumed English translation of the Quran with commentary by
Mirza Mahmud Ahmad or taken from his writings. His commentary on
the verse about the Ahmad prophecy consists of a total of 129 lines
of print, out of which 122 lines are devoted to showing that the
Ahmad of this prophecy is the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Having exhaustively
argued that the Holy Prophet Muhammad fulfilled this prophecy, he
writes in this footnote:
“Thus the prophecy mentioned in the verse under comment
applies to the Holy Prophet, but as a corollary it may also apply
to the Promised Messiah, Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement…”
— continuation of footnote 4226 on page
2622. (This work is available online at
this link on the Qadiani Jama‘at website.)
Almost the same comment is found in their 1-volume
English Translation of the Quran with Short Commentary. We have
copied the image of the page from this short commentary on which
this entire footnote occurs and display it at
this link. It can be seen that almost 90% of the content of
the footnote establishes that this prophecy applies to the Holy
Prophet Muhammad.
The statement that this prophecy applies to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad as a “corollary” is the exact opposite of
what Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote in his book The Truth about the
Split at his first stage of retreat. Let us compare the two
side by side:
| The Truth about the Split |
Footnote in translation of Quran |
| “The passage under reference speaks directly
about the counter-type [Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad]. A reference
to the prototype [Holy Prophet Muhammad] of course comes in,
but only indirectly…” |
“Thus the prophecy mentioned in the verse
under comment applies to the Holy Prophet, but as a corollary
it may also apply to the Promised Messiah…” |
In the first statement above, the prophecy is said to apply directly
to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and indirectly or consequently
to the Holy Prophet Muhammad. In the second one, the same prophecy
is said to apply to the Holy Prophet Muhammad in the first place
and then consequently or as a corollary to Hazrat
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
In his Urdu Quran commentary Tafsir-i Sagheer the footnote
under this verse is clear and brief:
“This verse contains a prophecy about the Holy Prophet Muhammad.
… Hence in this verse there is news directly about
the Holy Prophet Muhammad and indirectly about a spiritual
image of his who is mentioned in the next Sura.”
— page 743 of Tafsir-i Sagheer; bolding
is ours. (This book is available online at
this link on the Qadiani Jama‘at website.)
This may be compared with his following
statement in A’inah-i Sadaqat (which has already been
quoted above from the English translation
of this book The Truth about the Split):
“For these reasons and on certain other grounds,
I hold the opinion that the subject of this prophecy is primarily
the Promised Messiah”
— A’inah-i Sadaqat,
p. 36
Answers own challenge! Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of this complete about-turn is
that in his original book of 1916, Anwar-i Khilafat, Mirza
Mahmud Ahmad had thrown a challenge, as already
quoted above:
“I am prepared to offer a reward: if anyone can disprove
my evidences and show from the Holy Quran and authentic Hadith
that …the signs about Ahmad given in the Holy Quran apply
to the Holy Prophet, and that the Holy Prophet applied this prophecy
to himself, I will pay that person a monetary penalty as mutually
agreed between the two parties.”
Thirty years or so later, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in effect answered
his own challenge by proving that the prophecy in this verse applies
to the Holy Prophet Muhammad directly! This represents a triumph of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama‘at
and Maulana Muhammad Ali. The issue of who is the Ahmad in this
prophecy was considered as the “first issue” of the difference
about prophethood between the two groups of the Ahmadiyya Movement.
On this very first issue, the Qadiani Jama‘at was forced to
recant on its belief.
|
Top