The Qadiani Problem in the Court of Enquiry of Pakistan

The Third Statement of Maulana Syed Abul A’la Mawdudi in the Court of Enquiry, Pakistan: Regarding the Qadiani (Ahmadiyya) Movement

[From the Book: The Qadiani Problem, by Syed Abul A'la Maududi]

(Various stages through which the Movement launched by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad passed; various claims put forth by Mirza during these stages; and the impact of these claims on the Qadiani beliefs and conducts).

In the year 1880, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad appeared among the Muslims as a preacher and champion of Islam. Before we describe various beliefs and ideas propounded by the Mirza during the various periods of his life from 1880 to the year of his death (26 May, 1908), it is necessary to arrange these periods in chronological order, so that the beliefs and ideas relating to one period may be easily distinguished from those of the other period.

Chronological Order

From 1880 to 1888 – In this period, the Mirza was a preacher of Islam and a champion of the Faith who defended the religion of Islam from the attacks of non-Muslims. Mirza insisted that his beliefs in regard to all matters were the same as the beliefs held by the general body of the Muslims. Although the Muslims were startled even then by various claims latent in his writings, yet the Mirza always managed to pacify the Muslim sentiment by offering various interpretations for his claims.

In December, 1888 A.D., he published an advertisement inviting people to render allegiance to him. In 1889 A.D., he started receiving oaths of allegiance. At that time, he claimed himself to be only a ‘Mujaddid-i-Waqt’ (Renovator of the Age) and one ‘Appointed by God’. He set up a comparison between himself and Masih (peace be upon him) on the ground that as Masih lived in poverty and humility, so was the Mirza carrying out his task in a state of destitution. In those days, the Muslims thought of the Mirza in favorable terms. However, they felt uneasy about the Mirza’s claim that he was superior to all the venerable saints of Islam.
(Seerat-ul-Mehdi by Sahibzada Bashir Ahmad Part I, Pages 14, 31,8; Tabligh-i-Risalat, Volume I, Pages 11, 12, 15).

In 1891, Mirza pronounced that Masih (peace be upon him) was dead, and he put forth his own claim to be the Promised Messiah and the Promised Mehdi. This caused great unrest among the Muslims (Serrat-ul-Mehdi, Page 31 and 89). In the early part of this period, Mirza wrote: “For about twelve years, which is a long period of time, I remained completely unaware that God had appointed me the Promised Messiah in the Burahin (i.e. Burahin-i-Ahmadiya) with great emphasis. I had adhered to the traditional belief in the second coming of Christ (peace be upon him). After the passage of twelve years, the time came for the truth to be revealed to me. A continuous chain of revelations descended on me proclaiming that I was the Promised Messiah.” (Ijaz-i-Ahmadi, Appendix to Nazul-i-Masih, Page 7).

Mirza wrote in another place: “Although in the Burahin-i-Ahmadiya, God has name me ‘Isa and had affirmed that He and His Apostle (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had foretold my advent, yet since a group of Muslims held steadfast to the belief which I also shared with them that Hadrat ‘Isa (peace be upon him) would descend from heaven, so I did not wish to contradict the obvious meaning of the Quran and the Hadith. I gave a different interpretation to this revelation and continued to share the belief held by the general body of the Muslims and published it in Burahin-i-Ahmadiya. Subsequently, however, revelations descended on me like a torrent proclaiming that I was the Messiah whose advent had been promised“
(Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, Page 149).

In 1900, some leading disciples of the Mirza started proclaiming him a prophet in unambiguous terms. They raised him to that status which according to the Holy Quran, is reserved only for the Prophets (peace be upon them). Sometimes, Mirza affirmed their statements; at other times, he would interpret these statements by calling himself an incomplete prophet, a partial prophet, or an innovator merely to win over those who showed some hesitation in reposing their faith in his claim to prophethood. During the same period, Maulvi `Abdul Karim, a leading disciple of the Mirza, delivered a sermon to the Friday congregation on 7th August, 1900. Mirza himself was present at that congregation. In the course of his sermon, Maulvi `Abdul Karim exhorted the Ahmadis: “If you do not follow the lead of the Masih Mau`ud (Promised Messiah) in all matters and if you do not affirm in him even as the companions believed in the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), then you shall stand guilty of discriminating among God’s Prophets just as the non-Ahmadis do“. At the conclusion of Friday Prayers, Mirza affirmed the above statement in the following words: “You have given a faithful description of my religion“. (Kalimat-ul-Fasl, Sahib-zada Bashir Ahmad, Page 167). Yet, in spite of this affirmation, Mirza abstained from putting forth in clear terms his claim to prophethood. According to Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad, the Mirza’s creed in those days was that “He was partly superior to Hadrat Masih (peace be upon him) and that he claimed to be a kind of ‘Prophet in part’ and his prophethood was imperfect“. (Al-Qaul-ul-Fasl, Page 24. For a further detailed clarification please refer to Munkarin-i-Khilafat Ka Anjam by Jalal-ud-Din Shams, Page 19).

In 1901, Mirza, openly and unreservedly claimed himself to be a prophet and a messenger. He ceased qualifying his ‘prophethood’ with expressions like ‘incomplete prophethood’, ‘prophet in part’, or an ‘innovator prophet’ etc. in most of his writings. (Seerat-ul-Mehdi, part I, Page 31). Jalal-ud-Din Shams, in his book, Munkarin-i-Khilafat Ka Anjam, explains: “In some of his writings before the year 1901, the venerable Hadrat (i.e., the Mirza) denied his prophethood and said that he was not a prophet but an innovator. But, in his writings after the year 1901, he did not call his ‘prophethood in part’, nor did he style himself an ‘Innovator’. Instead, in his writings, he always referred to himself as a ‘prophet’ in positive terms” (Page 19). In this same connection, Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad [Mirza's son] states: “He effected a change in his creed in 1901. The year 1900 should be regarded as an interim period, which forms a boundary line like Barzakh (a barrier) between the two concepts… Hence, it is certain that the reference, which date prior to 1901, in which he denied his prophethood, stand abrogated now and it is wrong to base any arguments on those references.” (Haqiqat-ul-Nubuwwat, Page 121).

In the year 1904, among other claims, the Mirza also claimed himself to be Krishna. (Lecture by the Mirza delivered at Sialkot, November 2, 1904).

Let us trace through the above periods different statements of the Mirza and the policy adopted by his community with regard to matters of dispute between the Ahmadis and the Muslims. These statements and viewpoints of policy are grouped below under different headings:

Khatam-i-Nubuwwat
(Finality of Prophethood)

1. Basic Concept

Initially, Mirza believed in the concept of the Finality of Prophethood exactly as the Muslims do, i.e., the line of prophethood came to an end in Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and that no prophet shall come after him. Explaining this, in several of his works, he writes:

“Are you not aware that the Munificent and High Lord bestowed upon our Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) the name of ‘Khatam-um-Nabiyyin’ (the Last of the Prophets) without any exception, and our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) explained it clearly by the saying: ‘No prophet will come after me’, for the benefit of the skeptics. If we permit the advent of a prophet after our Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as lawful, it is tantamount to regarding as lawful the opening of the door to the office of the prophethood when once it has been closed by the Command of God. And this, as is clearly believed by every Muslim, is certainly wrong. How can a prophet succeed our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), when the chain of revelation came to an end with his death and God sealed the line of the Prophets in him (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)?” (Hamamatul Bushara, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 34).

The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had repeatedly observed that no prophet would come after him. The tradition, ‘No prophet will follow me‘, was so well-established that nobody ever doubted its authenticity. The Holy Quran, in which every word is absolute and final, also affirmed in the verse. “He is the Messenger of Allah and he is the Last of the Prophets“, that prophethood has ended in our Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)”. (Kitab al Barria, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 184).

It is certain that no person can attain the office of prophethood after our Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)“. (Izala-i-Oham, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 577).

The Holy Quran does not permit as lawful the advent of any prophet, old or new, after the Last of the Prophets (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). (Izala-i-Oham, Page 761).

Hence, what a bold audacity, recklessness and insolence it is to follow evil notions and willfully ignore the stark reality presented by the Quran and to accept the idea of the coming of a new prophet after the Last of the Prophets (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). (Ayyam al-Sulh, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 146).

I believe in all those precepts which form part of the Muslim creed and in which the Sunni sect believes. I accept all the tenets which are authenticated beyond doubt by the Quran and the Traditions. I regard anyone who claims to be a prophet or a messenger after our Master and the Last of the Prophets, Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), as an impostor and infidel“.
(Proclamation issued by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, dated October 2, 1891 [the print in the book says 1861, but I think this is a typo], and reproduced in Tabligh-i-Risalat, Vol. II, Page 2).

Before this congregation of the Muslims present in this House of God (Jami’ Masjid, Delhi), I declare without any reservation that I am a believer in the Finality of the Prophet hood of the Last of the Prophets (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and I regard anyone who refutes the Finality of Muhammad’s Prophethood as a pagan and outside the pale of Islam.
(Written statement of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad which was read out in Jami’ Masjid, Delhi, on October 23, 1891., reproduced in Tabligh-i-Risalat, Vol. II, Page 44).

2. Explanation of Earlier Claims

In order to set at rest the suspicions which some of his writings had aroused in the minds of Muslims that he claimed to be a prophet or he was about to lay claim to prophethood, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad offered the following explanations:

“We also condemn the claimant to the prophethood with curses and we believe in the creed ‘There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.’ We believe in the Finality of the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). We do not profess to be the recipient of Prophetic revelations. We only acknowledge to receive revelations on behalf of and under the protection of the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the revelation which is transmitted to the friends of God who are faithful followers of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). I do not lay claim to the status of Prophethood. I only claim friendship with God and profess to be a Renovator”. (Proclamation of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Reproduced in Tabligh-i-Risalat, Vol. VI, Page 302).

“This humble individual is neither a Prophet nor a Messenger, but only an inferior servant and follower of the innocent Prophet Muhammad Mustafa (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)”.
(An observation of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Reproduced in Qamar al-Mehdi, by Qamar-ud-Din Jhelumi, Page 58).

“It is true that in the Inspiration revealed to this person from God, this person has been frequently addressed as Prophet, Messenger, and Envoy. But, these words have not been used in their real sense. It is our conviction and belief that in the real sense of the word ‘Prophet’, no new or old Prophet will come after the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). But, it lies in the power of God to address an inspired person as a Prophet or a Messenger in the metaphorical sense”.
(Siraj-i-Munir, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib, Page 302).

“For twenty years, this humble person has constantly received inspirations from God in which often the word ‘Prophet’ or ‘Messenger’ has been used for him. But, the man who infers that this prophethood or ministry is real would be guilty of a grievous error… These words which have been used with regard to my person in a metaphorical sense only create a schism in Islam and entail evil consequences. Hence, the community should avoid the use of these words in common parlance.”
(Letter addressed by the Mirza to Akhbar al-Hukm, Qadian, dated August 17, 1899. Reproduced in Mashih Mau’ud and Hatm-i-Nubuwwat by Maulvi Muhammad Ali, M.A., Page 4).

I am not a prophet, but I am the bearer of a divine message from God (Innovator) and I am the One with whom God holds communion (Interlocutor)”. (A’ina Kamalat-i-Islam, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 383).

“I have certainly laid no claim to prophethood nor have I said that I am a Prophet. But, these people showed haste and erred in comprehending my saying… I have conveyed to people nothing except what I have written in my books and that is that I am an Innovator (a bearer of a message) and God holds communion with me in the same manner as He does with Innovators”.
(Hamamatul Bushra, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 96).

“I am an Innovator, who among the Messengers is both the follower of a Prophet and an imperfect prophet himself”.
(Azala-i-Auham, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 569).

“In one sense, an Innovator (Muhaddith) is also a Prophet. Though not a perfect prophet, he is, nevertheless, a prophet in part as he enjoys the privilege of holding direct communion with God. Things that are hidden from ordinary people are revealed to him, and just as the revelations transmitted to the Prophets are exempt from interference by the Devil, so are the inspirations revealed to him”.
(Tozih-i-Maram, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 18).

“This humble individual has never at any time claimed to be a Prophet or a Messenger in the real sense of the word. It is no heresy to use a word in its metaphoric sense or to use it in speech in its lexicographic connotation. But, I disapprove even of this lest it should cause misunderstanding among the general body of Muslims”.
(Anjam-i-Atham, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 27).

“So, this is only a question of semantics. In other words, what you call a ‘dialogue’ or an ‘address’, by the command of the Almighty, I call the same phenomenon, when it occurs frequently, as prophethood. Everybody has his own terminology to use”.
(Tamta Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 68).

“This humble individual wishes to bring to the notice of all Muslims that all the expressions used in my Risala Fateh al-Islam, Tauzeeh al-Maram and Azala-i-Auham, such as ‘In one sense an Innovator is a Prophet’ or ‘To be an Innovator is to be a Prophet in part’ or ‘Muhadithiat’ (Innovation) is a sort of imperfect Prophethood are not used in their real sense. These have been used in their literal sense for the sake of simplicity. Otherwise, in no way, do I lay claim to real Prophethood… Therefore, I wish to make it clear to all Muslim brethren that if they are incensed over these words and if those words are shocking to their hearts, they should consider all the above expressions as amended and regard me only as an Innovator, because I would not in any cause schismatic strife among the Muslims. At every point, in place of the word ‘Prophet’, please substitute the word ‘Innovator’ and consider the word ‘Prophet’ as deleted”.
(Written statement read out at a Public Meeting, dated February 3, 1892. Reproduced in Tabligh-i-Risalat, Vol. II, Page 95).

3. Various Claims to Prophethood

Then, the Mirza laid claim to being a Prophet and this claim was not presented in a single form, but in many different forms on various occasions:

An ‘Ummati’ Prophet: “Later, the revelations from God descended on me like a torrent. This occurrence dislodged me from the present creed and the title of a Prophet was definitely conferred on me in such a way that on the one hand I was a Prophet and on the other a faithful follower of the Prophet, “
(Haqiqatul Wahi, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 149).

A Prophet Without a Mandate: “All prophethoods save that which is authenticated by Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) are abolished. No Prophet bearing a mandate will come. And none can become a Prophet without carrying a mandate, save the one who is already a faithful follower of the Prophet (Ummati). Hence, on this basis, I am a faithful follower as well as a Prophet”.
(Tajalliyat-i-Ilahia, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 24).

A Prophet Bearing the Canonic Law: “Try to understand the real nature of ‘Shariat’ (The Canonic Law). He, who is inspired by divine revelation, sets up a code of injunctions and prohibitions and gives a law to his followers, becomes a mandate-bearing Prophet… My mandate contains both injunctions and prohibitions…and if you think that a mandate invariably contains original commandments, this is a fallacy. God affirms: …, i.e., The teachings of the Quran are also contained in the Torah”.
(Arba’in, No. 4, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Pages 7-83).

A Shadow Prophet or Incarnation of Prophet: “Even as Real and Permanent Prophethoods are types of Prophethood, so the shadow or incarnate Prophethood represents another type. The Promised Messiah’s status as a Shadow Prophet does not dispossess him of his status as a Prophet; it represents merely a type of Prophethood… The Shadow Prophet enjoys the same privileges as are bestowed upon real and permanent Prophets, for the substance of Prophethood is one and the same”.
(Kalimat-ul-Fasl, Page 118).

Incarnation of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): “On the authority of the Quranic verse…I am the incarnation of the same Last Prophet. Twenty years ago, God addressed me in Burahin-i-Ahmadiya as Muhammad and Ahmad and created me an Incarnation of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)“.
(‘Ek Ghalti Ka Izala--Clearing a Misunderstanding by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad).

A Composite Prophet Embracing All Prophets: “No Prophet came into this world whose name was not given to me. In Burahin-i-Ahmadiya, God has affirmed me as Adam, Noah, Ibrahim, Ishaque, Ya’qub, Isma’il, Moses, Dawud, ‘Isa, son of Mary, and Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). I am the incarnation of all these Prophets“.
(Tatimmah Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 84).

Prophethood Ends in the Mirza: “In this Ummat, the distinction of being called a Prophet was bestowed upon me alone and all others are undeserving of this appellation.”
(Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 391).

“In no case can more than one Prophet be appointed from among the followers of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Hence, the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) foretold the advent of one Prophet of God from among his followers and that Prophet is the Promised Messiah. None save the Promised Messiah has been addressed as the prophet of God or the Messenger of God, nor did the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) prophesy the coming of anyone else. On the other hand, he refuted the others by saying, ‘No Prophet will follow me’, and explained it clearly that ‘no Prophet and no messenger will come after me save the Promised Messiah’.
(Tashhiz-ul-Azhan, Vol. 9, No. 3, Pages 30-32).

Different Interpretations of the Finality of Prophethood

In order to provide grounds for their various claims, Mirza and his community gave numerous interpretations to their idea of the finality of Prophethood on different occasions, which are reproduced below:

First Interpretation

“If a follower, who receives divine messages and revelations and attains to the status of a Prophet on the basis of his faith in and obedience to the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), is honored with the title of a Prophet, the seal of prophethood is not thereby violated, for this man is a follower. However, the advent of a Prophet who is not a follower is a violation of the Finality of Prophethood”.
(Chashma-i-Masihi, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 41).

“The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is the “Seal of the Prophets” in the sense that in the first place, all the accomplishments of prophethood have been concentrated in him and, secondly, no Messenger bearing a new mandate will come after him nor will follow any Prophet who is not a follower of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)”.
(Chashma-i-Ma’arifat, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Appendix, Page 9).

Second Interpretation

The Magnificent Lord appointed the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as the Seal of the Prophets. In other words, the Lord bestowed upon him the Seal which was denied to the other Prophets in order to raise him to the highest order of excellence. It is for this reason that the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is called ‘the Seal of the Prophets’. Adherence to him blesses one with the excellence of Prophethood and his spiritual guidance does not carve out a Prophet. (Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 96).

“In respect of ‘the Seal of the Prophets’, Hadrat Masih Mau’ud (the Promised Messiah) observed, The Seal of the Prophets’ means that no Prophethood can be authenticated without his seal. When the seal is affixed, the paper becomes authentic and is considered valid. Similarly, the Prophethood which is not authenticated and confirmed by the Seal of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is not genuine“. (Malfuzat-i-Ahmadiya, by Muhammad Manzur Elahi, Part V, Page 290).

Third Interpretation

“Through His Wisdom and Bounty, God so willed that for thirteen centuries after the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), Prophethood became extinct among his followers, so that the dignity of his Prophethood may be established (in other words, his Prophethood may not be sullied by the advent of successor Prophets just after him). But, then in order to maintain the glory of Islam, certain persons were required who could be addressed as ‘Prophets of God’ after the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and further God willed to complete resemblance with the series of the Prophets of yore (from the series of Moses). So, God enjoined upon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) towards the close of his life to utter the term ‘Prophet of God’ in reference to the Promised Messiah”.
(Statement of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Published in Akhbar-ul-Hukm, Qadian, dated 7th April, 1903. Also produced in the pamphlet entitled ‘Khatm-i-Nubuwwat by Fakhr-ud-Din Multani, Page 10).

Fourth Interpretation

“I am the shadow of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Hence, the Seal of Prophethood does not stand violated. Muhammad’s Prophethood is contained in Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him); in other words, none other than Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is the Prophet. As I am the incarnation of the Prophet and all excellent traits of Muhammad, including his Prophethood, have been reflected in the image of my shadow; how could I be regarded as a separate person claiming prophethood distinct from Prophethood of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)“. (Ek Ghlti Ka Azala, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad).

Revelation

As in the case of ‘Khatm-i-Nubawwat’ (‘Finality of Prophethood’), Mirza’s position with regard to ‘Revelation’ and ‘the visitations of the Archangel Gabriel’ has been constantly shifting through various stages. A survey of Mirza’s changing outlook is given below:

Initial Position

“To believe in the advent of a new Prophet after our Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is tantamount to believing in the doctrine that the door to the office of prophethood will open after having been closed; but this is certainly false, as is known to all Muslims. How can a Prophet come after our Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) when the chain of Revelations was completed at his death?” (Hamama-tul-Bushra, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 34).

“Even if it be supposed for once that the transmission of divine revelation is open and that Gabriel will convey but a single sentence from God to man, it would clearly negate the idea of the Finality of Prophethood. If the Seal of Finality is broken and the transmission of divine messages opens, it makes no difference whether it is a single sentence or more thus transmitted… After the demise of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), Gabriel has been forbidden to convey Prophetic Revelations for all time to come.“ (Azala-i-Auham, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 577).

“The Holy Quran does not admit the advent of any Prophet, old or new, after the last of the Prophets. A Prophet receives his knowledge of Divine Law through the agency of Gabriel, but the office of Gabriel is now defunct as far as the transmission of divine revelations is concerned. And the advent of a prophet in the absence of divine revelations is impossible”.
(Azala-iAuham, Page 761)

“To be the recipient of Divine Law through revelations transmitted by Gabriel is a necessary attribute of the Messenger. And it is now established that the series of Prophetic revelations has been closed till Doomsday.”
(Azala-i-Auham, Page 614).

“Hence how audacious, bold and insolent it is to pursue evil notions and willfully neglect the clear injunctions of the Quran and to admit the advent of a new Prophet after the last of the Prophets and to open the series of Prophetic revelations when God has closed it, for he who holds the dignity of a Prophet is also the recipient of Prophetic Revelation”.
(Ayyam-us-Sulh, Ghulam Ahmad, Page 146).

Second Position

“We also condemn the claimant to Prophethood with causes and believe in the creed, ‘There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah’. We believe in the Finality of Muhammad’s Prophethood (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and we are convinced that one who is a follower of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) may, under the shadow the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) receive ‘Revelation by inheritance’ rather that ‘Prophetic revelation’”. (Proclamation published by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, vide Tabligh-i-Risalat, Vol. 6, Page 302).

“Is it necessary that one who claims to receive divine messages should also lay claim to Prophethood?”
(Jang-i-Muqqadas, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 67).

“I am not a Prophet, but God has appointed me an Innovator and an Interlocutor”.
(Aina Kamalat-i-Islam, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 383).

Third Position

What an absurd and erroneous fallacy it is to believe that the series of divine revelations has been closed forever after the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and there is no possibility that the chain of revelations will be resumed until Doomsday. Shall we worship mere legends? Is such a religion worth the name in which direct communion with God is extinct?“
(Appendix to Burahin-i-Ahmadiy, Part V, Page 183. It must be pointed out that part V of Burahin-i-Ahmadiya, came out in the year 1908).

Persian Verses: [Translation]
“Whatever Wahi (revelation) I receive from God
I swear I will know it to be free from mistakes;
Just as I do with Quran, I will hold dear my Wahi
It is my belief to know it is pure from errors;
I swear by God this Word is great
From the mouth of a Pure and Knowledgeable God.”

“Just as I believe in the verses of the Holy Quran, in the same measure, without an iota of difference, I believe in the truth of the divine message which has been revealed to me in a constant chain of signs. I can swear in the House of God (Baitullah) that the sacred revelations received by me have been transmitted by the same God who conveyed His Divine Word to Hadrat Moses, Hadrat ‘Isa (peace be upon them) and hadrat Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)”. (Ek Ghalti Ka Azala, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad).

“I believe in the truth of the divine Messages revealed to me in the same measure as I believe in the Torah, the Bible and the Holy Quran”. (Arba’in, No. 4 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 25).

Persian Sentences: [Translation]
“Gabriel^(AS) came to me and chose me by pointing to me with his finger; and said that God will protect you from your enemies.”

Christ (peace be upon him) and the Question of His Reappearance

In respect of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) and his reappearance and Mirza’s own claim to be the promised Messiah, the viewpoint of Mirza has been changing through different stages. An outline of his varying positions is given below:

First Position

“This humble person’s claim to be an incarnation of the Promised Messiah, which some dimwitted people have misunderstood as ‘the Promised Messiah’ is not a novelty which people have heard from me only at the present time… I have certainly not claimed to be Christ, son of Mary (peace be upon him). The person who alleges that I have made such a claim is a disruptionist and a liar. On the other hand, over a period of seven or eight years it has been constantly published in my behalf that I am an Incarnation of Christ”. (Azala-i-Auham, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 190)

“It is possible, quite possible, that in some future age a Masih should appear who would appear true to all the apparent meanings of certain words contained in the Traditions”. (Azala-i-Auham, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 199)

“It has been revealed to this humble person that this insignificant creature by virtue of his poverty, humility, reliance upon God, self-denial and signs and lights represents an image of Christ’s earlier existence on this earth. The nature of this humble person is akin to the nature of Christ (peace be upon him)”. (Burahin-i-Ahmadiya, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 499).

“It has been revealed to the author that he is the Renovator of the Age and his spiritual excellence matches the spiritual excellence of Christ, son of Mary (peace be upon him)”. (Proclamation by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, vide Tabligh-i-Risalat, Volume I, Page 15).

“If an objection is raised that an Incarnation of Christ must be a Prophet, for Christ (peace be upon him) was a Prophet of God, the answer, in the first place, is that our master and prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not set Prophethood as a necessary attribute of the Promised Messiah. It is clearly recorded that the promised Messiah would be a Muslim and would follow the Shariat (the Canonic Law) like the other Muslims, and he will offer nothing more”.
(Tauzih al-Maram, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 19).

Second Position

“And this is ‘Isa whose advent was awaited. In the revealed texts, the names Mary and Christ have been used in reference to me. It was said of me, “We will make him the Image”, and further it was said, “This is Christ, son of Mary, whose advent was awaited”. That which the people doubt is Right and this is the one who awaited and doubt arises from lack of perception”.
(Kishti-i-Noah, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 48).

“In the third part of Burahin-i-Ahmadiya, God addressed me as Mariam. Then, as is evident from Burahin-i-Ahmadiya, I was reared in the image of Mariam for two years and continued to grow behind the veil… Later, as was done in the case of Mary, I was filled with the sould of ‘Isa and I was made pregnant in a metaphorical way. At last, after a period of many months (which is not of more than ten months’ duration), I was delivered from Mary in the form of ‘Isa by a divine message which is contained at the end of Part IV of Burahin-i-Ahmadiya. It is thus that I was created the sone of Mary and at the time when Burahin-i-Ahmadiya, was written, God did not reveal to me this hidden mystery”.
(Kishti-i-Noah, Page 46).

“Hence be convinced that he who has descended is the son of Mary. He, like ‘Isa, son of Mary, did not find a learned man, a spiritual father in his time who could become an agent for his spiritual birth. So, the Omnipotent HImself became his guardian and took him to His bosom and instructed him and name his servant ‘the Son of Mary’… Hence, in a metaphorical way, this is ‘Isa, son of Mary, who was born without the agency of a father. Can you prove that he has any spiritual father? Can you furnish a proof that he is included in any of your four series? Hence, who else is he but the Son of Mary”?
(Azala-i-Auham, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 659).

“We should know that the word ‘Damascus’, which appears in the Tradition of ‘Muslim’, or, in other words, as it is mentioned in the text of ‘Sahih Muslim’, which says that ‘Hadrat Masih (peace be upon him) will descend near the white tower in the eastern part of Damascus has always been a puzzle to the research scholars [see note below]… Be it know that God has revealed to me the interpretation of the word ‘Damascus’ in this way: in this place, Damascus is the name of a town where live people who possess traits like those of Yazid and follow the perverse habits and thoughts of Yazid… God has conveyed to me through Revelation that since a majority of its residents possess traits like those of Yazid, this town of Qadian has some connection with and bears similarity to Damascus”. (Hashia Azala-i-Auham, Page 63-73)

[Note: It may be pointed out that no scholar before the time of Mirza was ever perplexed over the word 'Damascus'. There is hardly any trace of amazement in the writing of all the exponents of the 'Science of Hadith'. However, surely Mirza must have been sorely perplexed as to how he could establish himself as the Promised Messiah in the presence of this clear reference in the Traditions to a well known place.]

“I swear by God Who has appointed me, and only the accursed ones dispute over the actions of the Lord, that God has deputed me as the Promised Messiah”.
(Ek Ghalti Ka Azala, Tabligh-i-Risalat, Vol. 10, Page 18).

Qadiani Community Constitutes an ‘Ummat’

Mirza himself clearly affirmed the principle that a Prophet creats an ‘Ummat’. He, then, proceeded on to call his community an ‘Ummat’. A few extracts from his writings given below to substantiate the point:

“The person who claims to be a Prophet will certainly affirm his Faith in the existence of God. Furthermore, such a man will proclaim that he is the recipient of Divine Revelation… In addition to this, he will relate to the people the Word of God which has been revealed to him. He will unite his followers to an ‘Ummat’ (body of the faithful) which believes in him as a Prophet and regards his book as the revealed Book of God”. (Aina Kamalat-i-Islam, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 344).

“You should comprehend the real nature of ‘Shariat’. He who sets out a number of Injunctions and Prohibitions through Revelation received by him and establisheds a canon for his ‘Ummat’ becomes an Apostle bearing the Canonic Law (Shariat). My revelations include both Injunctions and Prohibitions”. (Arba’in, No. 4, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Pages 7-83).

“The former Masih was limited to being a Masih. Hence, his ‘Ummat’ was led astray and the chain of Moses came to an end. If I were also confined to being a Masih, the end would not have been dissimilar. But, I have also been appointed a Mahdi and, in addition, I am an incarnation of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Hence my ‘Ummat’ will be divided into two sects. Those who will succumb to the influence of Christianity shall be obliterated. The other sect will enter the fold of Mahdwiat“. (Statement by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, published in Al-Fazl, dated January 26, 1916).

Consequences of Refuting Mirza from the Standpoint of Belief

Initial Position

“This humble person has been deputed by God to act as a Muhaddith (one who renews or reinterprets the law) among this ‘Ummat’ (community of the faithful). A Muhaddith (Innovator) is a Prophet in one sense. Although his Prophethood is not perfect, yet he is a Prophet in part. It is obligatory on the Muhaddith (Innovator), as it is obligatory on all Prophets that he should proclaim his credentials loudly and the person who denies the credentials of the Muhaddith (Innovator) is to some extend liable to punishement”. (Tauzih-i-Maram, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 18).

“From the start, it has been my creed that no person can become an infidel or a Dajjal (Antichrist) on the grounds of refuting me. Nonetheless, he will be the one led astray and deviated from the right path, and I do not call him faithless, devoid of religious faith”. (Marginal Note) “It should be born in mind that only such Prophets as bring Shariat (the Canonic Law) and fresh mandate from God are vested with the privilege of denouncing their refuters as infidels. With the exception of the bearer of a divine mandate, the denier of all the Innovators and the Inspired Ones, however, exalted a position they may be holding in the favour of God and in spite of enjoying the privilege of holding communion with the Almighty, does not become a heretic”. (Taryaq-ul-Qulub, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 130).

“Every Muslim to whom my message has been propagated, and who does not hold me as the final arbiter in all matters nor does he accept me as the Promised Messiah, nor does he believe in the divine origin of my revealed mandate, is liable to be held accountable in heaven irrespective of his being a Muslim”. (Tuhfat-un-Nadwah, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 4).

“The person who refutes the Promised Messiah or is indifferent to the necessity of believing in him is absolutely ignorant of the true spirit of Islam and the nature of Prophethood and the purpose of Divine Ministry. Such a person does not deserve to be called a true Muslim and a true obedient servant of God and His Apostle… ‘Transgressor’ is the term for those who do not believe in the Promised Messiah and drift away from his creed”. (Hujjatullah — Address delivered in Lahore by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Reproduced here from An-Nubuwwata Fi Islam, by Maulvi Muhammad Ali, M.A., Page 214).

Final Position

“The person who does not follow thee does not pledge allegiance to thee and remains thy adversary is a denizen of Hell, for he disobeys God and His Apostle”. (Proclamation Ma’yar al-Khyar, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, dated May, 25, 1900. Reproduced here from Kaltmat-ul-Fasl, by Sahibzada Bashir Ahmad, Page 129).

“Now when there is no doubt in the matter that salvation cannot be attained without affirming in the Promised Messiah, why are needless efforts he made to establish that the non-Ahmadis are Muslims? (Kalimat-ul-Fasl, Page 129).

“Whenever Hadrat Mirza has addressed the non-Ahmadis as Muslims, he has done so because they profess to be Muslims. Otherwise, the Mirza, by an express command of God, did not look upn his deniers as Muslims“. (Kalimat-ul-Fasl, Page 126).

(After making a reference to a writing of Mirza, the text proceeds as follows): “This writing of Hadrat Masih Mau’ud (the promised Messiah) provides answers to several questions. In the first place, God conveyed to the Hadrat through inspiration that his denier was not a Muslim, and not only did God reveal this information, but also commanded the Hadrat to look upon his deniers as outside the pale of Islam. Secondly, the Hadrat expelled ‘Abdul hakim Khan from the community on the ground that he addressed the non-Adhmadis as Muslims. Thirdly, to hold the view that the deniers of the Promised Messiah are Muslims is adhering to an absurd belief. Fourthly, God’s blessing is withheld from the person who adheres to the above belief”. (Kalimat-ul-Fasl, Page 125).

“Heresy is of two types. Firstly, a person who refutes Islam and disbelieves in the Divine Ministry of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is a heretic, an infidel. Secondly, for example, a person denies the Promised Messiah and in spite of the provision of proofs denounces him as an imposter… When considered closely, both types form the single kind of Heresy”. (Hadiqat-ul-Wahi, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Page 179).

“All those Muslims who have not pledged allegiance to Hadrat Masih Mau’ud, including even those who may not have heard his name, are infidels and outside the pale of Islam“. (Aina-i-Sadaqat, by Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad, Page 35).

“Every man who believes in Moses (peace be upon him), but refutes Christ (peace be upon him) or acknowledges Christ (peace be upon him), yet disbelieves in Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) or believes in Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), but refutes the Promised Messiah, is not only a heretic, but a confirmed infidel and is outside the pale of Islam”. (Kalimat-ul-Fasl, Page 110).

“God sent Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) again in Qadian in order to fulfull His Promise“. (Kalimat-ul-Fasl, Page 110).

“So, the Promised Messiah himself is the Prophet of God who has appeared in the world a second time to carry out the Propagation of Islam”. (Kalimat-ul-Fasl, Page 155).

“Now, the matter is quite clear. If the denial of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) entails heresy or infidelity, a denial of the Promised Messiah must also amount to heresy, for the Promised Messiah is not other than the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) himself; they are one and the same”. (Kalimat-ul-Fasl, Page 147).

“The person who takes up a neutral positon with regard to us is in reality our refuter, and he who does not affirm faith in us and yet speaks well of us is also our adversary“. (Statement by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, published in the newspaper Badr, dated April 24, 1903. Reproduced from Munkarin-i-Khilafat Ka Anjam, Page 82).

Consequences of Refuting the Mirza from a Practical Point of View:

“Subsequently, Hadrat Masih Mau’ud clearly enjoined upon us: We should avoid all contacts with the non-Ahmadis in matters of bereavement and marriage. How can we say their funeral prayers, when we do not share their grief?” (Al-Fazl, June 18, 1916).

“The venerable Mirza observes: It is not forbidden to take the daughter of a non-Ahmadi in marriage, for it is lawful to marry women from the people of the Book”. (Al Fazl, December 16, 1920).

“It is notified for public information that to marry Ahmadi girls to non-Ahmadi men is unlawful. Particular care should be taken in this regard in the future”. (Notification by the Secreatry, Public Affairs, Qadian, published in Al-Fazl, February 14, 1933).

“Hadrat Mirza abstained from saying funeral prayers for his son (the late Mirza Fazal Ahmad) on the ground that he was a non-Ahmadi”. (Al-Fazal, December 15, 1921).

“So, bear in mind, as God has revealed to me, it is unlawful, definitely unlawful, for you to say prayers behind a person who charges us with apostasy or one who refutes us or one who wavers. Your leader in prayer should be one of your own community”. (Arba’in, No. 3, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad).”

“My belief is that it is unlawful to say funeral prayers for those who pray behind the non-Ahmadis, for in my view such people are outside the pale of Ahmadiyat. Similarly, it is unlawful to say funeral prayers for those who give their daughters in marriage to the non-Ahmadis and die without offering repetance for this sin”. (Letter of Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad, published in Al-Fazl, April 13, 1926).

“Hadrat Mau’ud has permitted only such dealings with the non-Ahmadis as were held lawful with regard to the Christians by the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Our prayers were segregated from the prayers of the non-Ahmadis. It was forbidden to marry our daughters to them. We were enjoined upon not to say their funeral prayers. What else is there that we can share with them? There are two types of relationship–Religious and Worldly. The principal link in religious relationship is joint worship and the chief means of worldly relationship is matrimony. But, both of these relationships are forbidden to us. If you ask, ‘are we at liberty to take the daughters of the non-Ahmadis?” My answer is, ‘the daughters of the Christians are also permitted to us”. And if you enquire, ‘why do we extend salam to the non-Ahmadis’? The answer is, ‘it is established from the Tradition that on certain occasions the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) returned even the greetings of the Jews’. (Kalimat-ul-Fasl, Page 159).

[We are very grateful to brother Hammad Ahmad Awan for having taken the time to reproduce the text of this Historic Statement in electronic format. May Allah^(SWT) reward his service to Islam and Muslims.]