DENIALS OF PROPHETHOOD
BEFORE QUOTING Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib, it is
very relevant to repeat what Hazrat Shaikh Mohiyuddin ibn
Arabi said:
'From some of the sayings of a Muhaddath a stranger (to
such things) thinks that the former is claiming to be a
prophet and is canceling the Shari'at of Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him). And that stranger then
brands him a kafir (heretic). We have seen much of this in
our own time and we have ourselves tasted of it at the hands
of Ulema of our time' (Futuhat-e-Makiyya, Part 2, page 79).
Exactly the same thing happened to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad Sahib - perhaps more remorselessly as he had, by
proclaiming the death of Jesus Christ and his own
appointment as the Promised Messiah, shocked and upset the
Ulema more than his preceding Muhaddathin. So he spent his
life-time denying the charge that he had claimed to be a
prophet. Some of his emphatic denials have been quoted in
the Foreword under 'Articles of Faith.' Some more may be
quoted to show the clarity and emphasis with which he
categorically denied the charge:
'I have not claimed prophethood but I claim to be a
Muhaddath, which I do under Divine orders' (Izala-e-Auham,
page 421).
'Those people have forged a lie on me that I say that
this man claims to be a prophet' (Hamamat-ul-Bushra, page
8).
'I do not in any way claim prophethood. That is a mistake
on your part' (Jang-e-Muqaddas, page 67).
'And if the objection is that I have claimed prophethood
É then what can I say except that the curse of Allah may
fall on those who tell lies' (Anwar-ul-Islam, page 34).
'It is an absolute fabrication against me which they
attribute towards me ... that I claim prophethood for
myself' (Anjam-e-Atham, page 45).
'As a fabrication they levy the false charge against me
that I have claimed prophethood' (Kitab-ul-Bariyya, page
182).
In the sanctity of Jamia Masjid, Delhi, Hazrat Mirza
Sahib said during a speech:
'The other charges made against me that I do not believe
in Lailat-ul-Qadr or miracles or the Mi'raj (Ascension of
the Holy Prophet), and that I claim prophethood for myself,
and that I disbelieve in the finality of prophethood in the
Holy Prophet, these are all false charges and pure
falsehood. In all these matters my faith is the same as that
of other Ahle-Sunnat wal Jamaat believers. And the charges
drawn from my books Tauzih-e-Maram and Izala-e-Auham are
absolute mistakes on the part of the fault-finders. Now I
honestly profess before the Muslims in the sanctity of this
mosque, the House of God, that I believe in the finality of
prophethood in the Last of the Prophets (may peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him), and that I consider a man
who disbelieves in the finality of prophethood (in the Holy
Prophet Muhammad) to be irreligious and outside the pale of
Islam. Similarly, I believe in the angels, miracles,
Lailat-ul-Qadr etc.' (Din-ul-Haq, page 29).
In 1892, in a debate in Lahore with Maulvi Abdul Hakim,
who charged that Hazrat Mirza Sahib had claimed prophethood,
the latter gave a written statement dated 3 February 1892
which was witnessed by eight witnesses and which terminated
the debate:
'From the beginning it has been my intention, which Allah
the Exalted, the Majestic, knows fully well, not to use the
word nabi to mean the real prophethood but to mean only
Muhaddathiyyat, which the Holy Prophet has interpreted to
mean one to whom Allah speaks; so I have no hesitation, for
the sake of setting the minds of my Muslim brethren at rest,
to put this word in another way. And that way is that the
word Muhaddath should be substituted for the word nabi in
every place and to consider it (the word nabi) to be cut
out.'
'The Promised Messiah, being a Muhaddath, is a prophet
metaphorically' (Izala-e-Auham, page 349).
'Metaphorically speaking, Allah has the privilege to call
anybody who receives revelation by the word nabi or rasool'
(Siraj-e-Munir, page 3).
Referring to the name nabi occurring in his revelations
or in a Hadith (the saying of the Holy Prophet being based
on revelation from Allah), Hazrat Mirza Sahib wrote:
'I have been given the name nabi by Allah in the
metaphorical sense, not in the real sense' (Supplement to
Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, page 65).
'We also invoke the curse of Allah upon him who claims to
be a prophet' (Majmu'a Ishtiharat, page 224).
'I consider anybody who claims to be a prophet or Rasool
after Sayyidana-wa-Maulana Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa, the last
of the Messengers of Allah, to be a liar and a kafir
(heretic)' (Declaration dated 2 Oct. 1892).
'How is it permissible for me to claim prophethood and
thus throw myself outside the pale of Islam and join the
party of kafirs?' (Hamamat-ul-Bushra, page 79).
'Can an ill-starred impostor who claims messengership or
prophethood for himself have faith in the Holy Qur'an? Or
can a person who believes in the Holy Qur'an say that I too,
after the Holy Prophet Muhammad, am a Rasool or a Nabi?'
(Anjam-e-Atham, page 27, margin).
'I have firm faith that our Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace
and blessings of Allah be upon him) was the Last of the
Prophets, and that after him in the Ummat no prophet shall
come-whether old or new É But Muhaddathin will come who are
spoken to by Allah' (Nishan-e-Asmani, page 48).
And so on. One could quote many more disavowals of
prophethood by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib but they will
become monotonous for the reader. We can say with certainty
that no other saint in Islam, who was accused of claiming
prophethood, issued such clear and categorical denials so
often.
Qadiani (Now Rabwah) Jamaat
It is unfortunate that some years after the death of
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib, his son Mirza Mahmood Ahmad
claimed that his father was really a prophet! How did he
explain away the clear denials of his father? By making a
curious statement that up to the year 1902 (which he later
changed to 1901), although Allah was telling his father that
he was a prophet, the latter did not understand Him! His
father was claiming to be a Muhaddath although what he wrote
or said amounted to prophethood! But in 1902 (later changed
to 1901) the light dawned on him and he understood that he
was really a prophet!
Can history produce another example of such a
self-repudiation by a prophet or even a Muhaddath? And when
Mirza Mahmood Ahmad was challenged by Hazrat Maulana
Muhammad Ali Sahib, who along with majority of the leading
followers of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib broke away from
the Qadian group in 1914 on that issue (and on the
consequential issue whether those who disbelieved in Hazrat
Mirza Sahib became kafirs), to prove the strange theory put
forward by him, he could not do so. While he said that his
father's writings before 1902 (later changed to 1901) could
not be relied upon to determine his father's status, he
could not produce a single word of his father's repudiation
of those writings. On the other hand his venerable father
relied upon his pre-1901 writings and statements even up to
his death in 1908, even in courts of law on oath. Again,
some of the denials of prophethood quoted above were made
after 1901.
Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Ali Sahib issued a solemn
statement given on oath by him and seventy other senior
followers of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib who had joined
him before 1901, that they had noticed no change whatsoever
in 1901 in the claim of the Promised Messiah, who remained
true to his rightful position till his death. And Mirza
Mahmood Ahmad Sahib was challenged to issue a
counter-statement on oath by himself and seventy of his
followers, but the challenge has remained unanswered ever
since it was vigorously made in 1916, with not even a single
person coming forward. Mirza Mahmood Ahmad Sahib had written
a few years earlier (in April 1910), commenting on the
Qur'anic verse that Muhammad was the last of the prophets,
that no person who claimed to be a prophet after the Holy
Prophet Muhammad had gone unpunished even in this world, and
had, in fact, perished. A few years later, when he claimed
prophethood for his father, his earlier writing of 1910 was
put to him. But there was no comment by him. Much later, in
1953, appearing before the Commission headed by Chief
Justice Muhammad Muneer, Mirza Mahmood Ahmad Sahib (perhaps
overawed by the anti-Qadiani riots which the Commission was
investigating) went back on his categorical claims about his
father and about the alleged heresy of those who disbelieved
in him. Later, if he changed his views once again -or his
successors did- back to the old ideas, it is typical of
those who go astray from the straight path of
truth.4
Hazrat Mirza Sahib had been very democratic and, when his
end was near, he appointed the Anjuman (a collective body of
the senior members of his Jamaat) to be his successor or
heir. But Muslims, including his followers, were unused to
such democracy and were used to the gaddi, i.e., the sons
and posterity of the saint succeeding him on a hereditary
basis. They are called Khalifas. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad Sahib
was shrewd enough to sense that a Khalifa proper, or a
Khalifa par excellence, is of a Prophet only. So he raised
his father to prophethood, established a gaddi on a
hereditary basis, becoming the first such Khalifa, above the
law, himself. And the masses even among the Ahmadis fell for
it as they were used to this through centuries of saints
being succeeded by their progeny on a hereditary basis. But
the enlightened minority broke away, with Hazrat Maulana
Muhammad Ali Sahib, and formed a new Jamaat called the
Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at Islam, Lahore, to which we belong.
In all this there was a curious parallel between the
Promised Messiah's followers and those of the original
Messiah, Jesus Christ. The majority of the followers of
Jesus Christ raised him from prophethood to godhood. The
vast majority of the followers of the Promised Messiah
raised him from the position of Mujaddid to that of a
prophet. A minority group among the followers of Jesus
Christ, called the Unitarians, did not go wrong. A minority
of followers of the Promised Messiah, called the Lahori
Ahmadis, also did not go wrong. Similarity between the two
Messiahs was destined to be so complete!
But there are two interesting things to say before we
close this chapter:
(1) Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, an eminent religious
non-Ahmadi scholar of the sub-continent wrote:
'What the followers of a person say need not be paid
attention to (to determine his real position), for whomever
a people take for their religious leader they would raise
him to no less a dignity than that of Godhood, and even if
they are very careful they would not keep him below the
position of a Prophet É it occurred to me that in our own
days a big section of the followers of the Mirza Sahib of
Qadian entertains an exactly similar belief about the Mirza
Sahib' (Tazkirah, page 30-31).
(2) The author was present when a very outstanding Arab
non-Ahmadi religious divine said in Karachi, in the presence
of the ambassador of his country and the late Maulana
Muhammad Ali, who had shown him Hazrat Mirza Sahib's denials
of prophethood: 'I understand. Since Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
Sahib was accused of claiming prophethood in his life-time
and he repudiated it so clearly and categorically, it is not
open to his opponents or to his own son to persist in saying
that he had claimed prophethood.'
How true and how honest to say so!
|