When I first started reading about Ahmadiyya (2005), I came across an interesting debate between Dr. Tahir Ijaz and Dr. Zahid Aziz. Dr. Tahir Ijaz (the Qadiani-Ahmadi) is still a medical doctor and doesn’t have the proper academic background to discuss highly complicated literature and Dr. Zahid Aziz (the Lahori-Ahmadi) has ran the famous Lahori-Ahmadi blog and their website for many years. He seems to have gotten sick recently and even the Lahori-Ahmadi website has lost lots of documents and etc.
Nevertheless, I have reproduced their debate in the below. You can download some of the PDF’s herein:
Discussion between Dr Tahir Ijaz and Dr Zahid Aziz
From October 2003 to March 2004
on differences between the Qadiani Jama‘at and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama‘at
This discussion was conducted by a series of e-mail exchanges which, while they were taking place, were published on an Internet Discussion Forum by mutual agreement. The discussion is accessible on that Forum through this link. For the record, it is also being made available on this website by means of the links below.
Continuing on from these e-mails, as the responses became longer it was inconvenient to submit them as e-mail messages in text form. Therefore subsequent exchanges were in the form of documents attached to the e-mails. These are given below sequentially.
At this point, Dr Z. Aziz proposed that each one should now submit just a summary of his position, no more than 2 pages in length. Dr T. Ijaz agreed to this.
Closing note to discussion by Z. Aziz, March 22, 2004
From Zahid Aziz, January 5, 2004.
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 1
I. (Your pages 1 to 2)
The whole of your point (I) hinges on your following claim:
“Note he is quoting Sirhindi. Sirhindi wrote nabi, not muhuddus! … So in
summary, he quoted Sirhindi in Haqiqatul Wahyi, who also agreed that indeed
it is supreme abundance of revelation above and beyond other righteous
people that gives one the title nabi from Allah.” (your page 2)
Please refer to Izala Auham, p. 915 (RK, v. 3, p. 600-601) where the Promised
Messiah quotes the actual Arabic wording used by Mujaddid Alif Sani, and refers to
his original book by name, volume and page. That wording says Muhaddas. Then
again in Tuhfa Baghdad, footnote p. 21 (RK, v. 7, p. 28) the Promised Messiah
reproduces the same quotation verbatim, and of course it says Muhaddas. Friedmann
also refers to the same words of Mujaddid Alif Sani as: “Those to whom Allah
frequently speaks face to face are the muhaddathun.” (Prophecy Continuous, p. 90).
He has used nabi in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy because he is referring to the Hadith about the
coming Messiah where the word nabi is used:
“There is a prophecy in Hadith that a man will be born among the followers of
the Holy Prophet, who will be called Jesus and the son of Mary and called by
the name nabi.”
The Promised Messiah knew for certain that the Mujaddid Alif Sani had written
muhaddas, and he confirmed it again several months after publishing Haqiqat-ul-
Wahy. Therefore by using nabi here in place of muhaddas he is showing that nabi in
this hadith is also used in the sense in which we may call a muhaddas as nabi.
To find an occurrence of the word muhaddas, just turn back one page only in
Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, p. 389, footnote. Referring to why some of his prophecies about the
death of certain persons were not fulfilled, he writes:
“The tribulation about which Allah gives information through a nabi or rasul
or muhaddas, that tribulation is more worthy of being cancelled than a
tribulation about which no information is revealed [by Allah].”
This is clear testimony that his revelations were of the kind that is common to nabi,
rasul and muhaddas. That type, which is common to muhaddas and nabi, is wahy
wilayat which the Promised Messiah affirmed as receiving, as opposed to wahy
Receiving more revelations than previous saints of the Umma, and thus being the only
one to be mentioned as nabi in the prophecy in Hadith, still does not take him out of
the category of saints. The Promised Messiah has given another reason why previous
saints were not called nabi. It is as follows:
“As the Holy Prophet Muhammad was the Khatam-ul-anbiya and after him
no prophet was to come, so if all the khalifas had been called by the title nabi
then the finality of prophethood would have become doubtful. But if not even
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 2
one person had been called by the title nabi, the objection would remain as to
the lack of similarity, as the khalifas of Moses were prophets. Therefore
Divine wisdom required that, first, many khalifas be sent, having regard for
the finality of prophethood, and they not be called nabi and given this rank so
that it would be a proof of the finality of prophethood. Then the last
khalifa, that is to say the Promised Messiah, would be called by the title nabi
so that in the matter of khilafat the similarity of the two systems is
established.” (Tazkirat-ush-Shahadatain, RK, vol. 20, p. 45)
In a talk in April 1903, the Promised Messiah also explained the same point:
“Thousands of persons in the Umma of the Holy Prophet Muhammad
received the rank of prophethood, and the effects and blessings of
prophethood were found in them, but they were not openly given the title nabi
only because of the dignity of the prophethood of the Holy Prophet
Muhammad and because of the ending of prophethood … For thirteen hundred
years the word ‘prophet’ was not applied because of respect for the dignity of
the Holy Prophet’s prophethood, and after this, because a long time had now
passed and people were firmly established on the belief that the Holy Prophet
Muhammad is the Khatam-ul-anbiya, so if someone is given the title ‘prophet’
it does not go against the dignity of the Holy Prophet. … Although the
attribute of prophethood and the lights of prophethood existed, and it was
right that these persons should be called ‘prophet’ but that title was not
given to them out of respect for the greatness of the prophethood of the
Khatam-ul-anbiya. But now, in the last days, this fear did not remain, so the
Promised Messiah was called nabi-ullah.” (Promised Messiah’s talk on
evening of 14th April and morning of 15th April 1903. Malfuzat, v. 5, pages
344–345, 349, 350, 351; bolding is mine.)
So a reason for previous saints not being called nabi in Hadith (but as wali, khalifa,
etc.) was to firmly establish the idea among Muslims that the Holy Prophet was the
final prophet. After that idea had been firmly rooted for 1300 years, then the use of
nabi for one person cannot create the misunderstanding that he is a real prophet. That
is what the Promised Messiah has said here.
You write: “Thus 1901 and beyond, you will never find MGA laying claim to only
muhuddas. He insisted ‘nabi’ is the appropriate spiritual title, though an ummati.”
(your page 2, bottom)
He used the word nabi along with muhaddas in his earliest books:
“There is no doubt that this humble one has come from God as a muhaddas for
this Umma and a muhaddas is in one sense a nabi, … for he is spoken to by
God and matters of the unseen are manifested to him.” (Tauzih Maram, p. 18;
RK, v. 3, p. 60)
“… a nabi who obtains light from the lamp of the prophethood of Muhammad
and does not possess perfect prophethood, who is in other words also called
muhaddas,…” (Izala Auham, p. 575; RK, v. 3, p. 410)
An ummati who can be called nabi has been explained by him to be a muhaddas:
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 3
“So the fact that he (the Messiah to come) has been called an ummati as well
as nabi indicates that the qualities of both discipleship and prophethood will
be found in him, as it is essential for both of these to be found in a muhaddas.
The possessor of full prophethood, however, has only the quality of
prophethood. To conclude, muhaddasiyyat is coloured with both colours. For
this reason, in Barahin Ahmadiyya too, God named this humble one as ummati
and as nabi.” (Izala Auham, p. 533; RK, v. 3, p. 386)
In Hamamat-ul-Bushra (1893) he discusses at great length that “the muhaddas is
potentially a prophet, and if the door of prophethood were not closed, he would be
actually a prophet” (RK, v. 7, p. 301).
II. (Your pages 3 to 6)
a) Regarding Tiryaq-ul-Qulub this book is signed off on page 160 by the Promised
Messiah with the date “25 October 1902”. His statement that his superiority over
Jesus “is only in certain respects, and of a kind which a non-prophet can have over a
prophet” (which you consider cancelled) occurs right in the last lines of page 157. The
explanation given by your Jama‘at (see RK, v. 15, introduction, p. 8-10) is that up to
page 158 it had been written in 1899, and in October 1902 just the two pages 159 and
160 were added before publication.
Now the last topic discussed is “Sign 75” which begins on page 154 and runs
continuously and smoothly to page 160. If your explanation is right then when he
resumed writing and started writing pages 159-160 in October 1902 (3 years after
writing pages 157-158) he must have read the preceding pages, including page 157, in
order to continue the same topic. If the statement at the end of page 157 no longer
reflected his status, he would definitely have noted this fact.
Moreover, it so happens that on page 160 he mentions that in his first book Barahin
Ahmadiyya he had expressed his belief that Jesus would return in person but “God
with His continuous revelation declared this belief as wrong and told me that I am the
Promised Messiah”. If he can mention this correction in his belief, then one certainly
expects that he would mention that another of his beliefs, which he expressed only 2
pages earlier, has changed to something different.
This establishes conclusively that in October 1902 the Promised Messiah regarded the
statement on page 157 as valid and correct. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad himself first
considered, in his book Al-qaul-ul-fasl, published January 1915, that the change of
claim took place after October 1902. You have quoted Al-qaul-ul-fasl in connection
with the ‘Ahmad’ prophecy. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad also wrote in it:
“Till the publication of Tiryaq-ul-Qulub, which began in August 1899 and
finished in October 1902, his belief was that he had partial superiority over
Jesus … Therefore it is absolutely unallowable to use as evidence any writing
before 1902 because the Promised Messiah has given the decision that the
belief he expressed in Tiryaq-ul-Qulub about prophethood, later revelation
made him change it.” (p. 24)
This statement makes Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala as one of those books where his ‘old’
claim is still expressed! On the other hand, if Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala is taken as the
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 4
“first announcement of change in claim” then Tiryaq-ul-Qulub (including page 157
containing the cancelled belief) becomes a book where the ‘new’ claim is expressed.
This is the tangle that you and your Jamaat have got into.
b) What you have said about the mistake of the follower mentioned in the opening
lines of Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala is truly remarkable and amazing because that is our
stand-point which we, the Lahore Ahmadis, have been puting to your Jamaat
since the Split! You have accepted our explanation as against the explanation of your
Jama‘at! You write so beautifully:
“His book was a reply to a follower of his who mistakenly thought MGA was
never called a nabi.” (Your page 3; bolding is yours)
Yes, that’s right! I was making my point with reference to the standpoint of your
Jama‘at as presented by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad that:
“He announced that he was a prophet and as to the man who denied that he
was a prophet he reprimanded him, saying: As I am a prophet, why did you
deny my prophethood?” (Haqiqat-un-nubuwwah, p. 124)
Your Jama‘at has always been telling people that the Promised Messiah wrote this
booklet when a follower mistakenly denied that he claimed to be a prophet, so he
wrote it to correct him and say that he does claim to be a prophet. We have always
been replying that the mistake of the follower was to deny that the word nabi had ever
occurred about the Promised Messiah, and that it is this error, i.e. denial of the
occurrence of the word nabi, that he is correcting. So I want to thank you for agreeing
with our view through your own study.
But the point remains that if the Promised Messiah is announcing what you have
called a “complete reversal of his pre-1901 books” (your page 3), then how can he
refer any follower to his previous books? Even those followers who had read and
understood his previous books fully, and knew well that he had been called nabi,
would have been giving wrong answers to the opponents, because according to you he
had been denying being a prophet due to using an incorrect definition of ‘prophet’.
Therefore, as I said in my last response, it is totally absurd for the Promised Messiah
to reprimand some of his followers for not reading his previous books on this issue
carefully when he himself is the one who is announcing that his previous stance was
There is no statement in Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala to the effect that he had been wrong
about his claim. There is no statement that his previous definition of ‘prophet’ was
wrong. It is a “dissertation” on the fact that as one of those persons who are burooz
and zill of the Holy Prophet he is not himself a prophet:
“And as, in the sense of reflection (zill), I am Muhammad, the seal of Khatam
an-nabiyyin does not break because the prophethood of Muhammad remained
limited to Muhammad. In other words, Muhammad, may peace and the
blessings of God be upon him, is the Prophet and no one else. … However, it
is possible that the Holy Prophet, not only once but a thousand times, come
into the world in the sense of burooz and express his prophethood in the
manner of burooz along with his other qualities. And this particular burooz
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 5
was a confirmed promise from God … My own self does not come into it, but
that of the Holy Prophet Muhammad … So prophethood and messengership
did not go to another person. What belonged to Muhammad remained with
Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him.”
You say: “It was in 1901 that MGA realized true breadth of his status. In his books
before 1901 he denied being an actual nabi, despite revelations to this effect. He
would take these revelations, out of modesty, to mean figurative only, since he
believed all prophethood had come to an end,…” (your page 4)
He never wrote that he realized his true status in 1901 and denied being a nabi before
that despite revelations. “Modesty” did not prevent him from claiming to be Promised
Messiah, the second coming of Jesus, Mahdi, and recipient of revelations calling him
nabi and rasul.
Two examples of his challenges about his revelation before 1901
1. In 1897 he issued a challenge to his leading Muslim opponents for mubahila, and in
this challenge he quoted at length his revelations and offered to invoke God’s
punishment upon himself in case of falsely claiming that these revelations were from
God. He also declared in this challenge that it was a calumny against him to allege
that he was claiming prophethood. He announced his own status in it as follows: “God
has bestowed upon me the privilege of revelation and communication and made me
mujaddid of this fourteenth century. Every mujaddid is appointed for a particular
mission according to the conditions of his time.” He then went on to say that
according to his assigned mission for his time, he was the Promised Messiah. (See
Anjam Atham, RK, v. 11, p. 45 onwards)
Such a mubahila would be purposeless and ridiculous if he is wrongly presenting his
own claim, wrongly interpreting his status in the revelations that he is putting
forward, and denying his true status of prophethood. A victory for him in the
mubahila would prove that he was true in putting forward the wrong status for
2. In the year 1900 he challenged his opponents that as he had been claiming
revelation for more than 23 years this proves his claim to be true because a false
claimant to revelation cannot survive for a period equal to the Holy Prophet
Muhammad’s period of prophethood without being destroyed (See Arba‘in, RK, v.
17, p. 386 onwards). Again, it is astonishing that while this length of time of
revelation was sufficient to prove conclusively that he must be a true claimant, yet in
this same length of time he did not correctly interpret the status that those revelations
were bestowing upon him!
In view of the points (1) and (2) above, it is quite incredible that he is issuing
challenges to his opponents about the truth of his revelations and yet he himself is
unaware of what status the revelations are bestowing upon him.
Your quotation that “this ummat will receive all those identical blessings which the
earlier prophets and siddiqs received” is the same as what he had written previously:
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 6
“The Holy Quran in the Sura Fatiha gives us the hope of becoming the likes
of prophets. God exhorts us to pray to Him five times a day and beseech Him
as follows: ‘Guide us on the right path, the path of those upon whom You have
bestowed favours’, meaning O God, grant us the guidance so that we may
become the like of Adam, … the like of Jesus, and the like of Ahmad mujtaba
Muhammad mustafa habib-ullah, and be the like of every siddiq and shaheed
of the world.” (Izala Auham, p. 257; RK, v. 3, p. 229)
“He also wrote (Badr, 1908):” (Your page 4)
Badr reported his talks; he did not write in it. As to the Israelite prophets mentioned
by him, to whom no book was revealed, he wrote in great detail in Shahadat-ul-Quran
that corresponding to these prophets there come mujaddids among Muslims:
“…the critic does not understand that mujaddids and spiritual khalifas are
needed by this Umma in the same way as were the prophets required from
ancient times. … No one can deny that Moses was a prophet and messenger,
and his Torah was complete as the teaching for the Israelite people. … but
despite this, after the Torah there came hundreds of prophets among the
Israelites who brought no new book with them. Rather, the object of the
advent of those prophets was to draw towards the real spirit of the Torah the
people of their times. …” (RK, v. 6, p. 340 onwards)
“If it is said that in the Mosaic order those who were raised for the support of
the faith were prophets, and Jesus was also a prophet, the reply is that the nabi
and the muhaddas are on a par in terms of being sent (mursal). … As our Holy
Prophet Muhammad is the khatam al-anbiya, and after him there cannot come
any prophet, for this reason muhaddases have been substituted for prophets in
this religious system.” (p. 323-324)
III. (Your page 4 to 6)
The Promised Messiah always wrote the same about verse 4:69, that it means that a
believer should try to obtain the qualities found in those who were prophets, siddiq,
shaheed and salih. In Haqiqat-ul-Wahy he writes that the prayer in Sura Fatiha
“O our God, give us the qualities of all the prophets and messengers and
siddiq and salih that have passed away before us” (p. 152, RK, v. 22, p. 156).
“O our God, make us walk on the path of prophets and messengers upon
whom You bestowed favours” (p. 131, RK, v. 22, p. 134).
“This just means that, for our spiritual progress and for the good of humanity,
we seek from God four kinds of sign in the form of four attainments: the
distinctive quality of prophets, of those who are siddiq, of those who are
shaheed, and of those are salih. …A person can only sanctify God when he
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 7
continues to ask God for these four kinds of sign.” (Tiryaq-ul-Qulub; RK, v.
15, p. 515)
“…whenever Almighty God, out of His great grace, bestows upon some
person the robe and status of sainthood, He grants him clear distinction over
his peers and his contemporaries in all of four things. … This verse [1:5-6] has
been explained at the other place in the Holy Quran [4:69] where it is made
clear that by those upon whom God has bestowed favours are meant the
prophets, the siddiq, the shaheed, and the salih. The perfect man has all of
these four qualities combined in him.” (ibid., p. 417)
Everywhere he has explained that these are four qualities, all of which we must try to
acquire. Nowhere does the Promised Messiah say that before 1901 he believed that a
Muslim could only become siddiq, shaheed and salih but after 1901 he came to
believe that a Muslim could also become a prophet. Regarding your statement:
“If an ummati can achieve the three other ranks, why not rank of nabuwwat?”
I quote below the statement of Maulvi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi, one of the
greatest companions of the Promised Messiah, in a famous debate with anti-
Ahmadiyya Ulama held in June 1909 known as Mubahasa Rampur. An official
delegation of Ahmadi scholars, under his leadership, was sent to this debate. An
account of the debate was published in book-form in December 1909. Presenting this
verse, he stated:
“It is established from the consensus of the Ulama of this Umma that in this
‘Best of the nations’ the groups of Siddiq, Shaheed and Salih existed before,
still exist and will continue to exist in the future. Therefore, in exactly the
same way, there have been prophets and there will continue to be
prophets, by which are meant those perfect members of this Umma who
receive revelation and visions in abundance. Accordingly, in this Umma
which is the ‘Best of the nations’ there have been plenty of such recipients of
revelation and will continue to be in the future.” (p. 70)
Without the least doubt he is speaking of the saints of this Umma as those who can be
called ‘prophets’ under this verse. Also note that the topic of this section of the debate
“Debate on partial prophethood (nubuwwat juzwi) in obedience to full
prophethood (nubuwwat kulli)” (p. 57)
This heading clearly shows that the ‘prophethood’ spoken of here is muhaddasiyyat.
Your next statement is:
“The Holy Prophet has said that among the followers of Moses there were persons who
attained the rank muhuddus, a rank lower than prophet. Therefore, if the spiritual example and
influence of the Holy Prophet can result in persons to a status no higher than muhaddas, then
the Holy Prophet cannot be superior to other prophets.” (your page 5)
This is absolutely opposed to what the Promised Messiah writes in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 8
“Leaving aside the prophets, if we look at the rest of the Israelites we find that
they had very little of righteousness and goodness, and the followers of Moses
and Jesus were generally devoid of the existence of auliya” (p. 97; RK, v. 22,
“Apart from the Israelite prophets most other followers of Moses were
deficient. As to prophets, they did not gain anything from Moses but were
made prophets directly. However, in the Umma of Muhammad thousands of
people became saints merely by following him.” (p. 28, RK, v. 22, p. 30)
It is the thousands of auliya that make the Muslim Umma superior. Just having one
prophet in 1300 years (and now, of course, 1400 years) through following the Holy
Prophet, as compared to none among the Israelites by following Moses, cannot be
called any great superiority.
You write in the same paragraph: “But the followers of the Holy Prophet can attain
the status of prophet, due to the superior influence of the Holy Prophet’s example and
teaching. That is what makes the Ummah of Muhammad the best of peoples.” While
talking about followers, you can show only one follower who became a prophet, and
you claim that he is the only one singled out to be called nabi in 1300 years.
Moreover, as the Qadiani belief is that the khilafat in their Jama‘at will last forever, it
would seem that no prophet can come in the future, and not even members of your
Jama‘at should be able to become prophets despite the fact that they claim to obey
two prophets (the Holy Prophet Muhammad and Hazrat Mirza sahib) as well as
obeying the khalifa of the time.
Next you quote from The Will (your page 5), but you ignore the text both before and
after your quotation. Before it, he writes:
“There remains no need to follow separately all the prophethoods and all the
books which have gone before, because the prophethood of the Holy Prophet
Muhammad includes and encompasses them all, and other than it all paths are
closed. All truths which lead to God are contained within it. Neither shall any
new truth come after it, nor was there any previous truth which is not to be
found in it. Therefore, with this prophethood have all prophethoods ended,
and so it ought to have been, because whatever has a beginning has also
an end.” (RK, v. 20, p. 311)
It is after making clear that prophethood has ended that he goes on to speak of the gift
of revelation continuing. Moreover, he says that no new religious truth, not just new
law or Shariah, can come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad.
Just a little after the extract you have quoted he goes on write:
“God bestowed the honour of His full, perfect, pure and holy, communication
and revelation upon some such persons as had reached the stage of fana firrasul
to the highest degree, so that there remained no separation. The concept
of ummati and the meaning of following was found in them to completion and
perfection, so that their very being did not remain their own selves, but rather,
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 9
the person of the Holy Prophet Muhammad was reflected in the mirror of their
state of engrossment. On the other hand, they received Divine communication
and revelation in the fullest and most perfect sense like prophets. So in this
way, some persons, despite being ummati, received the title of nabi.” (p. 312)
Here he is clearly speaking of several persons among Muslims as receiving “full,
perfect” revelation, reaching the stage of following “to the highest degree”, and
receiving the title nabi. These were the great auliya and mujaddids of the Muslims.
Then regarding Hazrat Abu Bakr and Umar you say: “They all shared in the zilliyat,
in varying degrees of perfection … the perfect zilli nabi is MGA” (your page 5). But
the Promised Messiah writes:
“We also believe that those righteous and perfect persons who, by having the
privilege of the company of the Holy Prophet, reached the completion of their
spiritual path, if we have any accomplishments like their accomplishments
then we have them by way of zill. And included in those are certain partial
excellences which we certainly can never attain now.” (Izala Auham, p.
138; RK, vol. 3, p. 170)
When a follower asked him, “Should we not consider you to be superior in spiritual
status to the Shaikhain (Hazrat Abu Bakr and Umar), and close to the Holy Prophet?”,
a part of his lengthy reply was:
“It is a matter of sufficient pride for me that I am their eulogist and the dust of
their feet. The aspects of excellence that God bestowed upon them cannot
be attained by any person till the end of the world. The Holy Prophet
Muhammad cannot be born again into the world so that anyone could get the
opportunity of service that the Shaikhain had.” (Al-Hakam, August 1899;
Malfuzat, v. 1, p. 326)
Some qualities of the Companions of the Holy Prophet are unattainable forever.
You then claim that the Promised Messiah was given “the actual office” of prophet,
“i.e. the responsibility of forming a community under direct revelation from Allah that
he is the Imam of the age, and making it incumbent people accept him, etc.” (Your
page 5, bottom)
But the Promised Messiah started acting on the revelation to form a community in
1888, even before he claimed to be Promised Messiah, and 13 years before he
claimed to be a prophet according to you. He gave the Movement the name
‘Ahmadiyya’ in November 1900, a full one year before claiming to be a prophet
according to you. So he didn’t regard his work of forming a community and having
people enter into his bai‘at, as due to being a prophet! As to “making it incumbent
people accept him”, you have to clarify how incumbent? Is it as incumbent as
accepting the Holy Prophet Muhammad or as incumbent as accepting a true leader of
the Muslims who is preaching and defending Islam?
You go on to say, regarding the claim that 4:69 allows a Muslim to become a prophet:
“Please don’t make “prophets as plural” argument. Divine blessings always remain
open. He can raise prophets.” (your page 6, top).
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 10
I don’t need to make the “prophets as plural” argument, since a man of the high
calibre and standing of Maulana Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi presented the
same argument to Maulvi Sanaullah Amritsari at the Rampur debate, as quoted above.
While you say that Allah can raise prophets, your Jama‘at doesn’t believe that any
prophets came before the Promised Messiah nor that any will come after him, because
they claim that their khilafat or qudrat-i saniyya will last forever.
It is interesting that you quote from Izala Auham (p. 139), because my quotation
above is also from the same passage where he says that we cannot attain certain
qualities of the Companions of the Holy Prophet.
Your terms Zilli muhaddas, zilli wali? (your page 6, from middle)
I am certainly not aware of these terms in any book or statement of the Promised
Messiah. If you have come across them in his books, please do let me know where.
As far as I can see, you first coin these terms yourself, and then say that as these are
also real walis therefore zilli means real! A wali becomes a zill, or image and
reflection, of prophets. He is not a “zilli wali” but known as a prophet by way of zill
or zilli prophet. As the Promised Messiah wrote:
“There have been hundreds of persons in whom the essence of Muhammad
was established, and with God they had the names Muhammad and Ahmad by
way of reflection (zill).” (A’inah Kamalat Islam, p. 346; RK, v. 5, p. 346)
They were zilli Muhammad and Ahmad, not zilli wali. And as quoted above:
“it is possible that the Holy Prophet, not only once but a thousand times, come
into the world in the sense of burooz and express his prophethood in the
manner of burooz along with his other qualities.” (Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala)
They are prophets by way of burooz or buroozi prophets.
You write (your page 6, bottom):
“His previous (pre 1901) writings now made more sense once he got the status
of ummati nabi, which removed inconsistencies and paradoxes.”
So you say that during the ten years 1891-1901 when he was explaining his claims in
detail, his writings contained “inconsistencies and paradoxes” and to some extent did
not make sense as regards his own status! Yet no learned follower questioned him
during this period, asking him about these “inconsistencies and paradoxes”.
Moreover, when he first announced the removal of these “inconsistencies and
paradoxes” by publishing Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala he began this pamphlet by criticising
a follower for not reading those inconsistent writings with full care and making
mistakes as a result!
In his book Ijaz-i Ahmadi, published in November 1902, the Promised Messiah
answers the objection that since a Divine appointee can misinterpret the prophecies
revealed to him, can he also misunderstand his claim?
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 11
“They also say that since some prophecies are untrue or there is error of
judgment regarding them, then how can we rely on the claim to be Messiah.
Perhaps that is also wrong. … Some think that if there is error in
understanding a revelation, then all credibility is lost and doubt arises that that
nabi or rasul or muhaddas may also have misunderstood his claim. This
notion is fallacious …” (RK, v. 19, p. 131, 132-133)
Then, mentioning the errors of interpretation made by Jesus regarding his prophecies,
“The fact is that the faith which is established in a prophet’s heart about his
prophethood is based on proofs that shine like the sun and are of such frequent
occurrence that that matter is very plain. … Prophets and messengers are
shown their claim and their teachings very closely, with so much repetition
that no doubt is left, but some secondary matters not related to important
objectives are seen from afar by the spiritual eye, with no repetition. Therefore
errors are sometimes made in identifying them. The misunderstandings of
Jesus about his prophecies were of this kind. But he was never under a
misconception regarding his claim to prophethood because he was shown the
reality of prophethood from close at hand and repeatedly.” (ibid., p. 135-136)
As he writes, it is not possible that a “nabi or rasul or muhaddas” may have
misconceptions about his own claim. This principle rules out entirely that he himself
misunderstood his claim for ten years as that of muhaddas instead of prophet.
IV. (Your page 7 to 9)
You have misunderstood what I described as “bizarre”. Please read again. What is
bizarre is that when the change allegedly occurred he did not mention it. The only
evidence your Jama‘at presents, where he mentioned changing his claim from nonprophet
to prophet, is the answer in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, p. 148, published May 1907.
Before that time, no one had read anywhere from him that he had changed his claim
from non-prophet to prophet.
As to this question and answer, please note the following points:
1. What the questioner calls as later statements in ROR were actually published some
months before the passage from Tiryaq-ul-Qulub which they are supposed to
abrogate! He is asking: You first wrote this in Tiryaq-ul-Qulub, p. 157 (the book in
which page 160 bears the date October 1902), then you wrote something different in
ROR, June 1902. So the question does not make sense if taken at its face value.
2. The same questioner in question 6 (page 163, RK, v. 22, p. 167) asks about another
contradiction with Tiryaq-ul-Qulub as follows:
“There is a contradiction between this statement and the earlier books. First
you wrote in Tiryaq-ul-Qulub that no one becomes a kafir by not accepting me
and now you write that a person does become a kafir by denying me.”
The Promised Messiah’s answer does not accept that there is any contradiction. He
does not reply: When I wrote Tiryaq-ul-Qulub I did not consider myself as prophet,
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 12
but now I do. In reply he explains how his deniers are in fact also calling him kafir.
He proposes a simple way: if his deniers issue a statement about the Maulvis who call
him kafir saying that they are kafir by calling a Muslim as kafir, then he will call
those deniers as Muslims. In the end he writes: “Even now I do not call the followers
of the Qibla as kafir.” He is clearly trying to show that what he wrote in Tiryaq-ul-
Qulub is consistent with what he wrote later. Thus he confirmed that his statements in
Tiryaq-ul-Qulub about his claim and status were still valid.
3. Again on pages 265-266 of Haqiqat-ul-Wahy (RK, v. 22, p. 277-278) the Promised
Messiah records the incident of a court hearing (which took place in 1904) as follows:
“After this, when we went into the court-room the attorney of the opposite
party asked me the question: ‘Is your rank and status as you have described it
in the book Tiryaq-ul-Qulub?’ I replied: Yes, by the grace of God this is the
status He has bestowed upon me.”
So he confirmed in 1904 in court, and published that confirmation in 1907 in
Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, that his rank and status is as he has described it in Tiryaq-ul-Qulub.
Note that these confirmations mentioned above in (2) and (3) occur after the answer
to the question about ‘superiority over Jesus’. This proves conclusively that that
answer cannot be taken as meaning that he had changed his belief since writing
You have asked: “If MGA made no alteration in his concept of nabuwwat, that nabi
meant only muhuddas, he could have silenced the questioner with the statement again,
that wherever he stated he was superior to Jesus, it was only in limited partial extent,
which an ordinary man can have sometimes over a prophet.” (Your page 7, middle)
Ordinary man? This is not his statement in Tiryaq-ul-Qulub about his superiority. In
the discussion immediately before those words in Tiryaq-ul-Qulub, p. 157 (“Let no
one be misled to imagine that in this address I have held myself to be superior to
Hazrat Masih…”), he writes:
“In this last age God created a man like Adam, who is myself, and called him
Adam. God created this Adam by becoming his spiritual father Himself. …
Jesus too had a similarity with Adam, but the Last Adam who is also a burooz
of Jesus, bears an intense similarity to Adam. … Though there were many
who were burooz of Adam, one of them being Jesus, but this last burooz is the
most perfect and complete.”
Is he claiming the superiority that an “ordinary man” can have? According to you, this
was the time in the beginning when “I believed that I had no comparison with Jesus
son of Mary”! He is saying that as a manifestation of the prophet Adam he excels
Jesus in his manifestation of Adam, yet he is still a non-prophet.
He also issued the following announcements in January 1897:
“If any Christian can prove that the signs shown by Jesus, which are
considered to be evidence of his Divinity, are greater than my signs and
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 13
miracles in terms of strength of proof and abundance of number I will pay him
one thousand Rupees as a reward.” (Majmu‘a Ishtiharat, v. 2, p. 317)
“It is also my claim that, as compared to the prophecies made by Jesus, the
prophecies made by me and the signs shown by me are better proved. If any
Christian religious leader can show that, as compared to my prophecies and
my signs, the prophecies and signs of Jesus are proved by stronger evidence,
then I will pay him one thousand Rupees.” (ibid., p. 314)
Is this a time when he believed that he had no comparison with Jesus!
In the passage in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy he does indicate that he is still talking about
himself as a non-prophet in the footnote in this answer on p. 153 (p. 157 in RK v. 22).
He writes that, as an example, Moses was a very great prophet but “he had to face
embarrassment in the face of the spiritual knowledge of a man living in a wilderness”.
He quotes verse 18:65 of the Quran. This is a well-known example of the superiority
of a non-prophet over a prophet mentioned in Islamic literature.
The Promised Messiah could have answered this question by saying that there was no
such contradiction between the two sources cited by the questioner. But such a change
or contradiction does exist between his earliest views and those after claiming to be
Promised Messiah and the ‘like of Jesus’ in 1891. So he answered the question as to
the existence of such a change. When first claiming to be Promised Messiah in 1891,
“If the objection be raised here that, as the Messiah (Jesus) was a prophet, his
like should also be a prophet, the first answer to this is that the Holy Prophet
Muhammad has not made prophethood a necessary condition for the Messiah
to come. … Besides this, there is no doubt that this humble one has come from
God as a muhaddas for this Umma, and a muhaddas is also in one sense a
prophet. Though he does not possess complete prophethood, nonetheless he is
a prophet in a partial sense …” (Tauzih Maram, RK, v. 3, p. 59-60)
So now he did have a comparison with Jesus as a prophet because “a muhaddas is
also in one sense a prophet”. Then on the next two pages he discusses the “spiritual
characteristic and power in which I and Jesus resemble one another”. He then goes on
“If it is asked that if this is the rank for myself and Jesus, then what is the
rank of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, let it be clear that that is an exalted
station and higher grade … whose nature cannot even be comprehended by
others, let alone that anyone else should attain it.” (ibid., p. 62)
This was written in 1891. Do these words reflect a time when “I believed that I had no
comparison with Jesus son of Mary”!
Your mention of “an ordinary man” sometimes having partial superiority is actually
quite useful in my explanation. Any human being can excel a prophet in an attribute
which is common to all humans including prophets (e.g. worldly knowledge). Above
that, any saint or wali can excel a prophet in an attribute which is common to all saints
including prophets (e.g. acts of worship and sacrifice; it is on this basis that a martyr
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 14
or shaheed is regarded as excelling a prophet). Above that, any mamur and mujaddid
(a saint who is appointed for reform of people but is not a prophet) can excel a
prophet in an attribute which is common to all appointed ones of God including
prophets. In the days that he calls “in the beginning” he considered any excellence he
had over Jesus to be of the kind that any saint can have over a prophet. But after he
was appointed to a reform mission as Mujaddid and Promised Messiah, any
excellence he had over Jesus was that which an appointed one can have over a
prophet. It is still the partial excellence of a non-prophet.
The excellence he has is stated by him in this answer (p. 151; RK, v. 22, p. 155) to be
that he has been given the powers, knowledge and signs necessary “at this time” for
the “reform of the whole world”, and this is his mission because the Holy Prophet
Muhammad came for the whole world, “but it was not necessary that Jesus be given
that knowledge and those signs as these were not required at that time”. He was given
this excellence ever since he proclaimed his mission, and not just since writing
You write (your p. 8): “Thus it is clear that once he realized he was an actual nabi, in
1901, he had no hesitation in saying he was superior in rank to Jesus.”
But he writes within this very answer:
“My prophethood is the zill of the Holy Prophet, not real (asli) prophethood.”
(page 150, footnote; RK, v. 22, p. 154)
You write: “He formerly downplayed the term nabi as only a dictionary term”. In fact,
he stated this right to the end of his life:
“The only reason why I am called nabi is that in Arabic and Hebrew nabi
means one who makes prophecies in abundance after receiving revelation
from God … In view of the fact that people generally have dreams, and some
receive revelation and are informed of knowledge of the unseen but mixed
with impurities, the one whose revelation and knowledge of the unseen is free
from this murkiness and damage should not be confused with other ordinary
men but should be called by some special name to distinguish between him
and others. Therefore, merely to give me a distinctive position, God has
called me nabi, and this is a title of honour bestowed upon me to make clear
the difference between them and myself.” (Letter to the newspaper Akhbar-i
Aam, 23 May 1908)
“In Arabic and Hebrew the word nabi means only one who prophesies
after receiving revelation from God. Since according to the Holy Quran the
door of such prophethood is not closed which a man obtains by having the
privilege of Divine revelation from God through obedience to the Holy
Prophet Muhammad, and he is informed of hidden matters by revelation, why
should not such prophets arise in this umma?” (Barahin Ahmadiyya, vol. 5, p.
181; RK, v. 21, p. 351-352)
You write: “It is with publication of Misunderstanding Removed that he first spoke of
him being ummati and nabi.” (Your page 8, para 3)
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 15
But he spoke of himself as ummati and nabi in Izala Auham in 1891. See the
quotation I gave earlier:
“So the fact that he (the Messiah to come) has been called an ummati as well as nabi indicates
that the qualities of both discipleship and prophethood will be found in him, as it is essential
for both of these to be found in a muhaddas. The possessor of full prophethood, however, has
only the quality of prophethood. To conclude, muhaddasiyyat is coloured with both colours.
For this reason, in Barahin Ahmadiyya too, God named this humble one as ummati and as
nabi.” (Izala Auham, p. 533; RK, v. 3, p. 386)
Your Jama‘at should also explain whose misunderstanding is being referred to in the
title Misunderstanding Removed. According to you it was the Promised Messiah’s
own misunderstanding that he was correcting, since you wrote in your response of 16
“It was a common misconception among the Muslims then (even now) that a
prophet could not be an ummati and prophet at the same time. Even MGA
believed in that mistaken concept at one time.”
But your Jama‘at keeps telling people that it was a follower of his who had
misunderstood his claim and he corrected that follower’s misunderstanding.
You write (your page 8, bottom) that Maulana Muhammad Ali “has tried to show that
since Jesus coming to earth, descending on a minaret, is a metaphor, nabi, too is a
metaphor.” It is in fact the Promised Messiah who wrote this repeatedly, for example:
“The name nabi of Allah for the Promised Messiah, which is to be found in
Sahih Muslim etc. from the blessed tongue of the Holy Prophet, is meant in the
same metaphorical sense as that in which it occurs in Sufi literature as an
accepted and common term for the recipient of Divine communication.
Otherwise, how can there be a prophet after the Khatam al-anbiya?”
(Anjam Atham, footnote, pages 26-28; RK, v. 11, p. 26-28)
You write: “… quoting the Quranic statement of Apostle as support,…” (your page 9,
top). That verse of the Quran (72:26–27), in the passage you quote from Haqiqat-ul-
Wahy, has been referred to by the Promised Messiah in other places as follows:
“The Holy Quran says: ‘He does not make His unseen known to anyone
except a rasul whom He chooses’, i.e. to disclose unseen matters perfectly is
only the work of those who are rasul; others are not given this status. By rasul
are meant those persons who are sent from Almighty God, whether it is a
nabi, or a rasul, or a muhaddas and mujaddid.” (Ayyam as-Sulh, p. 171,
footnote; RK, v. 14, p. 419)
V. (your page 9)
Relating to definition of ‘prophet’ in History of the Prophets, you write:
“Wahyi nabuwwat with respect to new shariah is definitely closed, since
according to the quote from Izala Auham (pre 1901) that you provide, Gabriel
will no longer descend with a new shariah. This is the wahyi nabuwwat you
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 16
The Promised Messiah does not mention a new Shariah in those quotations. I repeat a
quotation I gave in my last response: “…it is impossible that after the Khatam-unnabiyyin
Gabriel should again start coming to the world bearing wahy risalat and a
new book of Allah, even though it conforms to the Quran, should be produced”
(Izala Auham, p. 583, RK, v. 3, p. 414)
Let me add another quotation:
“If you say that Jesus will be told by revelation merely to act on the Quran,
and then revelation will be stopped till the end of his life, and Gabriel will
never descend on him … this is a childish view which is laughable. It is
obvious that even if the coming of revelation is supposed to take place on just
one occasion and Gabriel comes with just one sentence of wahy nubuwwat
and remain silent thereafter, this would still contradict the finality of
prophethood, for when the seal of finality is breached and wahy risalat again
starts to descend, it matters not whether the amount is little or much. Every
wise person can understand that if God is true to His promise, and the promise
given in the Khatam-un-nabiyyin verse, which has been explicitly mentioned
in the Hadith, that now, after the death of the Prophet of God, peace and the
blessings of God be upon him, Gabriel has been forbidden forever from
bringing wahy nubuwwat — if all these things are true and correct, then no
person at all can come as a messenger (rasul) after our Prophet, peace be upon
him.” (Izala Auham, p. 577; RK, v. 3, p. 411-412)
“How could it be permitted that, despite the fact that our Holy Prophet
Muhammad is the Khatam al-anbiya, some other prophet should appear
sometime and wahy nubuwwat commence.” (Ayyam as-Sulh, p. 47)
As the first quotation above says, even one sentence of wahy nubuwwat telling Jesus
to act on the Quran cannot come.
You write: “one form of wahyi nabuwwat is non-shariah.” (your p. 9)
Considering that most of the Holy Quran consists of non-Shariah verses (not
containing any command or prohibition), your belief implies that the Promised
Messiah’s revelations hold the same level and status as those non-Shariah passages of
the Quran. Should we then treat his revelations as the next book of Allah after the
Quran and included among the “books” of Allah mentioned in 2:285 of the Quran?
“The Promised Messiah’s revelations correcting the false beliefs, which the
Muslims adopted in complete violation of Muhammad’s teachings, his words
of peace and tolerance is his kitab.” (your page 9, middle)
I repeat what I said in my last response: I do not think that the Qadiani Jama‘at would
ever publicly endorse your statement. I am willing to be proved wrong if you can get
such a statement published in some publication of your Jama‘at or made by the Head
of your Jama‘at.
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 17
You have the advantage, of course, that you can express any belief you like in this
discussion in order to prove your point. It won’t reflect on your Jama‘at because they
will claim that you were speaking in your personal capacity, and they are not bound
by anything you say.
In his book Kishti-i Nuh, the Promised Messiah has said:
“I believe that there are three sources God has given you for your guidance.
The first is the Quran … The second means of guidance given to the Muslims
is the Sunna … The third means of guidance is Hadith” (RK, v. 19, p. 26 and
There is no fourth source here called: my book which are my revelations correcting
the false beliefs that Muslims adopted in violation of the Holy Prophet’s teachings.
VI. Anjuman Himayat Islam issue (your page 9)
We can certainly leave it to the readers who, I hope, include members of your Jama‘at
as well. But because of your words “which is why the writings of thirty years ago by
Muhammad Ali came up”, I must repeat that the Maulana himself mentioned them in
his answer. There was no mention of them in the question. As to being “right in their
suspicion of doctrinal changes”, Iqbal had similar suspicions about the beliefs of your
Jama‘at when he wrote that it “apparently retains some of the more important
externals of Islam with an inwardness wholly inimical to the spirit and aspirations of
Islam”. His suspicion was that while on the surface your Jama‘at appears to follow
Islam, inwardly it is going opposite to what Islam requires.
VII. (your page 10 to 12)
Your dismissal of some of our arguments as “old news” is hardly a refutation.
Anyhow, I never used the “calling a person a lion” example.
Presenting the quote from Lecture Sialkot, you write:
“The fact is all prophets prior to the advent of the Prophet Muhammad were
‘ummati’ in a sense.”
The Promised Messiah has expressed the following view:
“Anyone who will think over the essence of ummati will instantly realise that
to consider Jesus as an ummati amounts to kufr. … I tell my opponents with
certainty that Jesus cannot at all be an ummati even though he, and in fact all
prophets, believed in the truth of the Holy Prophet, but they were followers of
the various guidances that were revealed to them” (Barahin Ahmadiyya, Part
5, RK, v. 21, p. 364)
As to the quote from Lecture Sialkot, I suggest that you read the lines before it and
after it, which contradict your general beliefs. Before it, he writes about the Holy
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 18
“… the people among whom he arose … they reached the highest levels of
faith, and did such works of truth, faithfulness and conviction as have no
parallel anywhere else in the world … he made them into godly human beings,
breathed spirituality into them and connected them with the True God…” (RK,
v. 20, p. 207)
But despite reaching such spiritual heights at the hands of the Holy Prophet himself,
not one of them became a prophet. Hazrat Abu Bakr became a siddiq and Hazrat
Umar a muhaddas.
Immediately subsequent to your quote, he writes:
“And prophethood ended with him not only in terms of being last in time but
also because all the qualities of prophethood culminated in him.”
A few pages later in the same lecture, speaking of those closest to God, he wrote:
“Such persons are known as nabi and rasul and muhaddas in the terminology
of Islam, and they are privileged with the holy communications and
revelations from God, and miracles are shown at their hands. Most of their
prayers are granted, and they receive abundant replies from God to their
prayers.” (RK, v. 20, p.225)
You write, with reference to your quote from Lecture Sialkot: “Was not Adam the real
Adam, the first prophet?” (your page 10)
The Promised Messiah has not at all stated here that as the Holy Prophet is the “real
Adam” therefore Adam himself was a metaphorical Adam. Remember that your
argument, which you previously also made about Mahdi, is this: (1) the Holy Prophet
is called by him as real Adam, (2) therefore Adam is metaphorical Adam relative to
the Holy Prophet, (3) but as Adam is, of course, the real Adam, therefore being
metaphorical also means being real.
But your jump from step (1) to conclusion (2) is unjustified. Here the Promised
Messiah clearly writes that the Holy Prophet was the “second Adam”, i.e. Adam was
the first Adam and doesn’t become metaphorical relative to the Holy Prophet.
I also showed in my last reply, regarding Mahdi, that in the same volume of Ruhani
Khaza’in as your Mahdi quotation (where he mentions Moses as a Mahdi but of a
lesser degree), he writes:
“So even though the Holy Prophet is the perfect Mahdi as compared to Moses
in every way, but because Moses preceded him in time, he (the Holy Prophet)
is called the like of Moses.” (RK, v. 17, p. 255)
So the Holy Prophet, coming later, is the like of the earlier one. On the next page he
describes the Holy Prophet as a burooz of Moses and Jesus:
“For the completion of giving of guidance the Holy Prophet appeared as two
burooz: one the burooz of Moses and the other the burooz of Jesus” (RK, v.
17, p. 256)
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 19
In A’inah Kamalat-i Islam (see RK, v. 5, p. 342-343) he wrote that the “spirituality of
Jesus” was stirred up and roused at his being so misrepresented by both the Jews and
the Christians and this “spirituality” asked God to send a qa’im maqam (one in his
place) of Jesus to clear him of false charges and this was the Holy Prophet. And he
there describes the Holy Prophet as bearing the names of all the prophets in this
manner. Thus the Holy Prophet is the burooz, the qa’im maqam and the ‘like’ of these
prophets. They were undoubtedly real, and he is the ‘like’ of each of them in
continuing and completing their unfinished missions.
You next write: “Your quotations on the metaphorical meaning of Son of God vs. real
Son of God or real God are irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the concept of zilli
in Islam, as taught by the Promised Messiah” (your p. 10). I think you appear to have
forgotten what we had been discussing at this point. It was his declaration: “I have
been called a nabi by way of metaphor, not by way of reality” in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy. I
will repeat the part of my reply which you are calling “irrelevant” and leave it up to
readers to judge.
In the same book he writes:
“When a clear mirror is placed facing the sun, the light of the sun is reflected
in it so fully that as a metaphor (majaz) and figuratively we can say that the
same sun that is in the sky is also in the mirror. Similarly, God descends upon
such a heart and makes that heart His throne. This is what man was created
for. In the earlier scriptures the perfect, righteous ones have been called sons
of God. This also does not mean that they were sons of God in reality … it
means that God showed Himself in the clear mirror of these perfect righteous
ones as an image … In the books of earlier prophets … our Holy Prophet has
been called God in some prophecies. The real fact is that neither were all
those prophets sons of God nor was the Holy Prophet God.” (Haqiqat-ul-
Wahy, p. 63-64; RK, v. 22, p. 65-66)
So, just as he wrote “I have been called a nabi by way of metaphor, not by way of
reality”, he wrote in the same book, long after 1901, that prophets had been called
sons of God, and in case of the Holy Prophet Muhammad he had been called God, by
way of metaphor, not by way of reality, and he also explained what metaphor
means. In the same way as those prophets were not sons of God or God, the Promised
Messiah was not a prophet. Let the readers judge the value of my argument.
You then write: “One wonders why if you are debating with a person who says there
was a change after 1901 in MGA’s concept of his nabuwwat, you would constantly
appeal to them. MGA wrote no less than twenty-five books after 1901!” (your page
This is why I started my previous response by discussing whether he changed his
beliefs about prophethood in 1901. Note that you yourself have used the word change,
and so the issue is whether there was a change by him in 1901. I am agreeable to a
discussion concentrating solely on this question, which is why I began my previous
response with the words: “A discussion of this issue will therefore clarify all those
points, including the statement of Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din and the writings of
Maulana Muhammad Ali that we are discussing.”
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 20
Regarding the number of books written after 1901, we find that in the 23 volume
series Ruhani Khaza’in there are 21 volumes published after the claim to be Promised
Messiah. Of these, 15 volumes (v. 3 to v. 17), and almost a half of v. 18, are pre-
November 1901, giving a comparison of almost 15.5 volumes pre-1901 to 5.5
volumes post-1901 (more than 70% being pre-November 1901).
“The quote from Mawab ur Rahman, “ God speaks to His auliya in this
ummah. They are given the color of prophets, but they are not prophets in
reality as Shariah is complete” does not present any difficulty. My
commentary: he says they are not “real” as “real” in a manner of speaking,
can be taken as law bearing sometimes. Since the shariah is complete, he said
call them partial zilli nabis, or prophets like those of Israel, but don’t dare
consider them independent, as to give them the authority to modify a shariah.”
(your pages 10-11)
I presented the Mawahib-ur-Rahman quotation to show that it is the auliya who are
said by him to be in the colouring of prophets but not prophets in reality, i.e. this
clearly explains what is meant (if further clarification was even necessary) by being
called “a prophet by way of metaphor, not by way of reality”.
This statement doesn’t just say that auliya cannot change the law of the Quran; it says
they are not made into “prophets in reality” because a prophet is now unnecessary
since the Quran has brought the law to perfection. Note that here he does not write
“not real prophets” but “not prophets in reality” or “not prophets in actual fact”.
Similarly, in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy he does not say “not real prophet” but “prophet by
way of metaphor, not by way of reality”.
You then write:
“No one can touch the Law brought by the only real prophet in the world,
Muhammad. Compared to Muhammad, no previous prophet is even real, and
compared to the Quran, no previous Book is real.” (your page 11)
Your view seems conflict with basic Islamic teachings which require Muslims to
believe in all prophets and books, and they are all mentioned as one group including
the Holy Prophet Muhammad. “(Muslims) believe in … His Books and His
messengers. We make no distinction between any of His messengers” (2:285); “We
believe in … that which has been revealed to us, and that which was revealed to
Abraham, Ishmael, (etc.) … and that which was given to the prophets from their Lord.
We do not make any distinction between them” (2:136). Is only one of these real?
Was Abraham not a real prophet compared to the Holy Prophet, about whom the
Quran says: “Who is better in religion than he who … follows the faith of Abraham
…” (4:125). Then in 60:6 Abraham and his followers are presented as a “good
example” (uswat-un hasana) to Muslims, using the same wording as when presenting
the Holy Prophet as an example in 33:21. In the salat-un-nabi or Darud we mention
the blessings of God granted to Abraham and pray for the same for the Holy Prophet.
How can Abraham be “not even real” compared to the Holy Prophet?
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 21
The whole idea behind declaring other prophets as “not real” is so that when Hazrat
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad says that he is not a real prophet he can still be placed in the
category of prophets.
Regarding your quotation from Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala (your p. 11), he says at the end
of that footnote (from which you have quoted):
“… hence it must be acknowledged that, for this gift, the way of burooz, zill
and fana fir-rasul is open.”
And regarding burooz he says in the same booklet:
“However, it is possible that the Holy Prophet, not only once but a thousand
times, come into the world in the sense of burooz … And this particular
burooz was a confirmed promise from God.”
This coming as a burooz “a thousand times” in the raising up of saints among
In your quote from Chashma-i Ma‘rifat, what he calls as “that nabuwwat which takes
light from his lamp” has been exactly defined by him to be muhaddasiyyat as I quoted
him earlier in this response:
“… a nabi who obtains light from the lamp of the prophethood of Muhammad
and does not possess perfect prophethood, who is in other words also called
muhaddas,…” (Izala Auham, p. 575)
Then in a footnote at this very point in Chashma-i Ma‘rifat he writes as follows about
being called nabi:
“I was given this name by way of zill, not in a real way” (RK, v. 23, p. 340)
And he also writes on that page and the next:
“… when his following (of the Holy Prophet) reaches perfection then God
grants him a zilli prophethood which is zill of the prophethood of Muhammad.
This is so that Islam remain fresh by the existence of such persons and always
remain triumphant over opponents. … The word nubuwwat and risalat have
been used by God about me in my revelation hundreds of times but this word
means only the Divine communications that are abundant and contain the
unseen. It is nothing more than this. Every person can adopt a terminology in
his conversations: wa likullin an yastaliha (‘To each the terms that he uses’).
So this is the terminology of God that He has termed the abundance of Divine
communications as nubuwwat.”
Now exactly this was stated by him in 1897 in Siraj Munir:
“Have you not read that a muhaddas too is a mursal (messenger)? … It is true
that, in the revelation which God has sent upon this servant, the words nabi,
rasul and mursal occur about myself quite frequently. However, they do not
bear their real sense. Wa likullin an yastaliha (‘To each the terms that he
uses’). It is the terminology of God that He has used such words. …
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 22
In a metaphorical sense God can call any recipient of revelation as
nabi or mursal … The Arabs to this day call even the message-bearer
of a man as a rasul, so why is it forbidden for God to use the word
mursal in a metaphorical sense too?” (Siraj Munir, pages 2, 3; RK, v.
12, pages 4, 5).
These two statements, eleven years apart, are remarkably similar. In Siraj Munir he
has told us that these words nabi, rasul occur about him in his capacity as muhaddas.
As to use after 1901, I have already shown in my last response that he continued to
use the expression “such people are nabi and rasul and muhaddas” after 1901.
Regarding Nuzul-ul-Masih let me quote again the text I gave in my last response, with
the addition of the preceding lines:
“Then considering that the mother of Moses received sure revelation, and by
fully believing in it she cast her baby in the place of destruction, and she was
not considered by God to be guilty of the crime of attempted murder, is the
Muslim Umma inferior to the women of the Israelites? Likewise, Mary also
received sure revelation, and by trusting in it she cared not for (the criticism
of) her people. Pity, then, on this forsaken Umma which is inferior to these
women. In these circumstances, this Umma could not be the ‘Best of nations’,
but the worst of nations and the most ignorant of nations. Similarly Khizr, who
was not a prophet, was granted Divine knowledge. If his revelation was
doubtful, and not sure, why did he kill a child unjustly? And if the revelation
of the Companions of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, to the effect that his dead
body ought to be washed, was not sure and definite, why did they act upon it?
To conclude, if a man, due to his blindness, denies my revelation, then if he is
nonetheless called a Muslim, and is not a secret atheist, it should be part of his
belief that there can be sure and definite Divine revelation, and that just as in
previous Ummas many men and women used to receive God’s revelation,
even though they were not prophets, in this Umma too it is essential that
sure and definite revelation should exist, so that it does not become the least of
the nations instead of the best of the nations.” (RK, v. 18, p. 467)
To prove that his revelation is sure and certain, he is showing by examples that the
revelation of non-prophets is sure and certain. Then he writes (in the second para
above that I also quoted in my last response) that if a man cannot believe in his
revelation as a case in point, he must, as a Muslim, at least believe in the general
principle that in this Umma too, like in previous Ummas, men and women who were
not prophets received sure and definite revelation.
In your response to my section entitled “Zilli prophethood”, you write: “…he attained
a reflection of the nabuwwat of Muhammad. Therefore it is fully expected he would
have similarities with all the prophets” (your p. 12)
But I had put forward a quotation in which he mentioned not similarities but that:
“I am Adam … [other names of prophets mentioned here] …, I am Moses, I am
David, I am Jesus, … I am Muhammad and Ahmad by way of zill.” In Ayk Ghalati Ka
Izala he wrote:
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 23
“It is for this reason that his name in heaven is Muhammad and Ahmad. It
means that the prophethood of Muhammad was in the end given only to
Muhammad, though in the manner of burooz, but not to anyone else. …
In short, my prophethood and messengership is in my capacity as Muhammad
and Ahmad, not on account of myself. … I am that same prophet, the
Khatam al-anbiya, in the sense of burooz, and twenty years ago in Barahin
Ahmadiyya God named me Muhammad and Ahmad and declared me to be the
very embodiment of the Holy Prophet.” (RK, v. 18, p. 208 and p. 212)
So if as a zilli or buroozi prophet and messenger he is a prophet and messenger in
actual fact, then it would mean that he is also Muhammad the Prophet, Messenger and
Khatam-ul-anbiya in actual fact.
You quote my argument: “The Holy Prophet was the perfect prophet, excelling earlier
prophets, but still remained a prophet and was not elevated to a category beyond
prophets. Similarly the Promised Messiah even being the most perfect reflection of
the Holy Prophet as compared to other auliya does not go outside the category of
auliya”, and then you respond:
“This is a false analogy since while there is no such thing as a category above
prophets, there is a category above auliya.” (your p. 12)
When you say “there is no such thing as a category above prophets”, what you mean
is that you have chosen to adhere to the belief that there is no higher category than a
prophet. You don’t make the Holy Prophet Muhammad into God (like earlier prophets
were made into gods), even though, according to the Promised Messiah, the Holy
Prophet has been called ‘God’ in prophecies, even though he had reached the stage
where he could perform works of Divine power without praying for them to happen,
and this was a stage where the Holy Prophet excelled Jesus in the Divine works that
Christians claim for him, on account of which they consider him Divine (see A’inah
Kamalat Islam, RK, v. 5, p. 65-67). It is your own adherence to the Islamic belief
that prophets cannot become God which stops you from taking him to be God. But in
case of auliya, you choose to reject the Islamic belief that they cannot become
prophets in reality.
About the Holy Prophet, the Promised Messiah writes:
“At this place (in the Bible), by the coming of God is meant the coming of the
Holy Prophet Muhammad … these are all spiritual ranks which are described
in appropriate words by way of metaphor, not that real sonship of God or real
Godhead is meant here.” (Tauzih Maram, RK, v. 3, p. 65-66)
“… if someone’s Divinity can be inferred from such revelations and
statements then … more than that of anyone, the Divinity of our leader and
master, the Holy Prophet Muhammad, can be established. … God has called
the Holy Prophet’s hand as God’s own hand, and has declared each of his
actions as God’s own action … He has declared all his words to be God’s own
words … at one place He has called all the people his (the Holy Prophet’s)
servants … Hence it is obvious that the Divinity of our Prophet can be
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 24
established so plainly and clearly from these sacred words.” (Kitab-ul-
Bariyya, RK, v. 13, p. 105-106)
Despite all this, you don’t regard the Holy Prophet as actually Divine, because all
these are metaphorical expressions about him. Similarly, when the title ‘prophet’ is
given to the Promised Messiah metaphorically, it can’t make him a prophet in actual
VIII. Izala Auham and Barahin Ahmadiyya, vol. v (your pages 12 to 14)
You cannot deny that you were plainly wrong when you claimed (in your 16th
November response) that: “In Izala I Auham, page 575, MGA wrote about a person
having difficulty understanding how the Messiah for the Muslims can be a prophet.”
The “person having difficulty” turns out to be the Promised Messiah!
You write that his response in Izala Auham “is in complete contrast what he wrote in
Zameema Barahini Ahmadiyya” and “Remember, MGA believed also at one time, an
ummati could not be a prophet” (your p. 12). He never wrote or stated anywhere
that his beliefs as to whether an ummati could be a nabi had changed. If he changed
his beliefs in a way which made him into a prophet from a non-prophet, he would
have a duty to inform people about this clearly. Otherwise the only conclusion anyone
can draw is that he taught contradictory things as it suited him at any time.
Firstly, let me make clear that his views in these two extracts are the same. In Izala
Auham he writes that if Jesus, when he returns, is to be an ummati in the fullest sense
then he cannot be a nabi. In Barahin Ahmadiyya, vol. v, he writes (a part of which I
“Despite being given the name nabi, this Jesus has also been called an ummati
in these Hadith reports. Anyone who will think over the essence of ummati
will instantly realise that to consider Jesus as an ummati amounts to kufr
because an ummati is one who, without following the Holy Prophet and the
Holy Quran, is merely deficient, without guidance and without religion, and
then receives faith and perfection through following them. I tell my opponents
with certainty that Jesus cannot at all be an ummati even though he, and in fact
all prophets, believed in the truth of the Holy Prophet, but they were followers
of the various guidances that were revealed to them. … God gave them
separate books and instructed them to act on those books and to tell others to
act on them. This is what the Holy Quran testifies to.” (Barahin Ahmadiyya,
Part 5, RK, v. 21, p. 364)
So here he says that, as Jesus was a nabi then he cannot become an ummati. In Izala
Auham he said that if Jesus were to appear as an ummati then he could not be a nabi.
The two statements are the same.
You write about Izala Auham: “He stated the Messiah in the ummah of Muhammad
could not be a prophet therefore.” In fact he added:
“However, such a prophet as obtains light from the lamp of the prophethood of
Muhammad and does not possess perfect prophethood, who in other words is
known as muhaddas, he is outside this restriction because due to following the
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 25
Holy Prophet and being fana fir-rasul he is included within the person of the
Holy Prophet, as a part is included in the total”. (Izala Auham, p.575; RK, v. 3,
In your translation of his answer in Barahin Ahmadiyya V you say: “The true meaning
of this word (nabi) is only that he should be one who receives tidings, by means of
wahyi from Allah and have communion with Allah in considerable abundance and
amplitude” (your p. 12, bottom).
If this is the definition of nabi, then what is the position of those members of your
Jama‘at who claimed to be prophets on exactly this basis? (There was Ahmad Noor
Kabali of Qadian, Nabi Bakhsh of Sialkot, and Ghulam Haidar of Jhelum, during the
1920s). Were their claims true? Also, about 4 years ago on our Discussions Forum at
http://www.muslim.org, a member of your Jama‘at wrote that, as prophets can still come, he
accepts a person Muhammad Subuh Sumohadiwidjojo of Indonesia (1901-1987) to be
a prophet. It seems that according to the teachings of the Qadiani Jama‘at its members
may accept anyone whom they so determine as a prophet and messenger of Allah.
The words “in considerable abundance and amplitude” do not occur in the above
sentence that you have quoted. The question he is asked says regarding nabi: “But in
Sahih Muslim he has been named in plain words as nabiullah. So how can we accept
that he will be from this Umma?” In reply he begins:
“The real meaning of nabi has not been pondered over. Nabi means only that
he should receive news from God by revelation and be privileged with Divine
words and communications …” (Barahin Ahmadiyya V, RK, v. 21, p. 306)
He is clearly referring to what the word nabi means in this hadith report in Sahih
Muslim. It is not the definition of nabi. He goes on to write:
“It is not necessary for him to bring Shariah nor is it necessary for him not to
be a follower of a Shariah-bearing rasul. So there is no problem is declaring
an ummati to be such a nabi, especially when that ummati receives benefits
from the prophet whom he follows.”
This is exactly what he wrote in Izala Auham as I quoted just above: “However, such
a prophet as obtains light from the lamp of the prophethood of Muhammad … he is
outside this restriction because due to following the Holy Prophet and being fana firrasul
he is included within the person of the Holy Prophet…”
In my last response I noted: “In the next paragraph he discusses the problems which
arise if the word nabi here is taken as meaning one to whom Shariah is revealed”.
And this is what he says there:
“And if nabi means that Shariah is revealed to him, that is, he brings a new
Shariah, then this meaning will not apply even to Jesus because he cannot
cancel the Shariah Muhammadiyya…” (Barahin Ahmadiyya V, RK, v. 21, p.
So he has discussed the two possibilities of the meanings that nabi could be given in
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 26
He further adds (as in fact I quoted in my last response):
“If nabi is given only the meaning that Allah speaks to him and reveals some
secrets of the unseen to him, then there is no harm if an ummati becomes such
a nabi, especially as God has given the hope in many places in the Holy Quran
that an ummati can be privileged with Divine revelation and God speaks to
and communicates with His auliya.” (Barahin Ahmadiyya V, p. 139; RK, v.
21, p. 307)
His meaning is absolutely clear. If, in this hadith report, you restrict the meaning of
nabi merely to ‘one who receives revelation’ then an ummati can become such a
nabi. And he can become “such a nabi” because God speaks to His auliya. Just
compare here the first text (which you claim is definition of nabi):
“Nabi means only that he should receive news from God by revelation (wahy)
and be privileged with Divine words and communications (sharf mukalima,
mukhabita ilahiyya) …”
with the text above about auliya:
“and God speaks to and communicates with (mukalimat, mukhatibat) His
and they say the same thing. Perhaps this is why in your translation of the first text
you inserted your own words, “in considerable abundance and amplitude”, to create a
difference between his statement about nabi and about auliya!
Continuing the same discussion he writes on page 309-310 that by Divine
communications he means those where the recipient is absolutely certain that they are
from God. In this connection he gives the examples of the non-prophets Khizar and
Moses’ mother as being absolutely sure of their revelation being from God. On the
next page he again mentions Moses’ mother as well as Mary, the mother of Jesus, as
examples of non-prophets receiving revelation. Therefore it is positively and
conclusively established that he is speaking of himself as like them, a non-prophet
who receive sure and certain revelation.
Regarding the question/answer from the same book that I presented, you say first:
“The door to prophethood is wide open, though it will be obtained only through
obedience to the prophet” (your p. 13). It is hardly a wide open door, through which
only one man passed in 1300 years, and no one so far after him, and no prospect of
one in the future since that sole prophet established an ever-lasting khilafat. Then you
“His answer is thus very clear that a muhuddas can be called a nabi, by rising
to an additional notch. That is the question being asked and the answer is in
The question is certainly not whether a muhaddas can become a prophet, nor does he
say in reply anything like, yes, “by rising to an additional notch”. The question is
plainly (to repeat from my last response):
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 27
“In Hadith reports the Jesus to come has been called nabiullah. Can it be
proved from the Quran and Hadith that a muhaddas has also been called
nabi?” (p. 181; RK, v. 21, p. 351-352)
The questioner wants to know how the Promised Messiah can say that a muhaddas is
meant when the Hadith reports say nabiullah. His answer (quoted in my last response)
is that this is so because of the linguistic meaning of nabi in Arabic and Hebrew. The
word nabi in terms of its linguistic meaning is applicable to a muhaddas, and
“Since according to the Holy Quran the door of such prophethood is not
closed … why should not such prophets arise in this umma?”
“Such” prophets are those who are muhaddas, who can linguistically be called
prophets. You then write:
“As further proof, MGA wrote only a few lines later that the door to prophet
that is closed is only law-bearing prophethood. Again, this shows he is
speaking of real prophethood, which is why he felt the phrase ‘non law
bearing’ should be used to qualify the term prophethood.” (your p. 13)
But he hasn’t used the phrase “non law bearing”! From the statement that “only law
bearing prophethood is closed” you jump to the conclusion that therefore its opposite
is “non-law bearing”, and that that is the term to be used for him. But he has clearly
stated both what he is and what he is not. He has said here that the word nabi can be
applied to him in the way in which a muhaddas can be called nabi, and that it cannot
be applied to him as meaning law-bearing. But you are trying to deduce from what he
is not as to what he is. You then add:
“To say a mere muhuddus must be non- law bearing is redundant, since by
definition, they bring no new law!” (your p. 13)
Only a little earlier we were discussing the extract from Mawahib-ur-Rahman where
he says that the auliya are not prophets in reality and adds: “They are given nothing
but the understanding of the Quran; they do not add to the Quran, nor take anything
away from it”. Why say that the auliya cannot add or subtract from the Quran since
by definition they bring no new law!
But what you regard as “redundant” has to be said for the sake of clarity. For
example, in 1893, when even you agree that he was claiming only to be mujaddid and
muhaddas, he wrote in reply to an objection:
“When have we said that mujaddids and muhaddases come into the world to
remove something from the religion or to add to it? … No, they do not come
to abrogate the religion, but to display its shine and brilliance.” (Shahadat-ul-
Quran, RK, v. 6, p. 339, 340)
To say that mujaddids and muhaddases do not come to abrogate religion would also
be “redundant”, but he said it. Also, the Promised Messiah rightly believed that even
this metaphorical use of nabi would spread confusion that it meant law-bearing:
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 28
“The words nabi and rasul are figurative and metaphorical. … However, in
the terminology of Islam, nabi and rasul mean those who bring an entirely
new Law (shariah), or those who abrogate some aspects of the previous law,
or those who are not called followers of a previous prophet, having a direct
connection with God without benefit from a prophet. Therefore, one should
be vigilant to see that the same meaning is not taken here” (Letter in Al-
Hakam, August 1899).
So at a time when, even according to you, he was claiming only to be muhaddas, he
was very concerned to deny that he was a prophet with a law.
In your response to the quote I presented from Barahin Ahmadiyya V (ending in the
words “In this Saying too, the godly savants are on the one hand called ummati, and
on the other hand they are likened to prophets”), you write:
“The godly savants in ummah of Muhammad obtain a taste of it (i.e. zilliyat)
and reflect it in varying degrees of perfection. These partial zilli nabis include
various saints that arose in the ummah of the prophet and some can be likened
to the old Israelite prophets. However, the only perfect zilli nabi is the
Promised Messiah.” (your page 14)
Perhaps you could let me know where the Promised Messiah has used the term
“partial zilli nabi”. What we see is that in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy the Promised Messiah
divides people into three categories as regards revelation, where the auliya are clearly
in the third, the highest, category. He gives this category the following heading:
“Those persons who receive the most perfect and purest revelation from God,
have Divine communication in the most perfect form, … who have a perfect
and complete connection of love with God” (p. 14; RK, vol. 22, p. 16).
Similarly he had written in the Will, as already quoted:
“God bestowed the honour of His full, perfect, pure and holy, communication
and revelation upon some such persons as had reached the stage of fana firrasul
to the highest degree, so that there remained no separation. … the person
of the Holy Prophet Muhammad was reflected in the mirror of their state of
engrossment. On the other hand, they received Divine communication and
revelation in the fullest and most perfect sense like prophets. So in this
way, some persons, despite being ummati, received the title of nabi.”
What you regard as “partial” zilli nabis, he has written about them as follows:
“… the spirituality of our Holy Prophet has always manifested itself at times
when the internal crises of Islam became overwhelming, and the essence of
Muhammad (haqiqat-i Muhammadiyya) has always made its appearance
through some perfect follower. … There have been hundreds of persons in
whom the essence of Muhammad was established, and with God they had the
names Muhammad and Ahmad by way of zill.” (A’inah Kamalat Islam, p.
346; RK, vol. 5, p. 346)
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 29
No mention here that these perfect followers attained these names Muhammad and
Ahmad only partially. He also writes:
“…the door of revelation to saints (wahy wilayat) and Divine communication
is not closed. Since the purpose is only to testify to the truth of the true
religion by means of signs, the signs sent by God, whether through a nabi
or through a wali, are of the same rank because the Sender is the same. It is
utter ignorance and folly to think that if God sends some Divine assistance at
the hands of and through a nabi, then it is greater in power and grandeur, but if
it is sent through a wali it is less in power and grandeur.” (Ayyam-us-Sulh, p.
74; RK, vol. 14, p. 309)
So the auliya in Islam had been showing signs of the same power and grandeur as
IX. Paigham Sulh and other statements (your pages 14 to 16)
You write: “…I would expect some form of retraction or statement of rebuttal …”.
The first editor of Paigham Sulh (Ahmad Husain of Faridabad), who wrote and
published that statement, was dismissed because of this. He was a supporter of Mirza
Mahmud Ahmad and spent the rest of his life in his discipleship. It may be of interest
to note that in 1924 the Qadiani Jama‘at discovered that there were some Baha’is on
the editorial staff of Al-Fazl trying underhandedly to spread their own doctrines
through the Qadiani organs. Baha’is believe that, according to the Quran, prophets
with a Shariah can still come.
As to the 12 February 1914 extract, firstly this is a short poem signed by an individual
and reflects that person’s own beliefs. Secondly, this can also be interpreted to
conform to our beliefs if the “river of nubuwwat” means the flow of prophecies and
revelation in this umma and ‘prophet’ means one who makes prophecies. Certainly
the statement that the “river of nabuwwat” flows in this Umma, and this is how Hazrat
Mirza sahib became a prophet, is not a belief of your Jama‘at since you believe in
only one drop of prophethood continuing to flow! On the other hand, the Promised
Messiah wrote, while denying claiming to be a prophet:
“ ‘He sends down water from heaven, then watercourses flow according to
their measure’ (13:17). In this Umma the streams of wahy will flow till the
Day of Judgment, but according to ranks.” (Izala Auham, p. 422, RK, v. 3, p.
There were also other articles appearing in Paigham Sulh all the time which would
clarify any misconception created by such a poem.
Regarding Mirza Mahmud Ahmad you write that in 1906 “he presented MGA to the
world as a prophet of Allah” (your p. 15). But his statements would have to be
interpreted subject to the writings of the Promised Messiah himself, especially as the
Promised Messiah was himself alive and writing at the time. You agree that at least
until 1901 the Promised Messiah used the words nabi and rasul about himself in the
sense in which these may be used for saints and mujaddids. Even Mirza Mahmud
Ahmad never mentioned before 1915 that this position had changed in 1901.
Therefore any use of these words by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in 1906 must be
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 30
understood in the sense of saint and mujaddid. This is reinforced by the fact that in his
article of April 1910, which I previously quoted, he wrote that after the Holy Prophet
Muhammad auliya can come but no prophet has arisen.
As regards the expressions that you have quoted from Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s 1906
article, please consider the following expressions of the Promised Messiah where he
says that what is happening in my case also happened with prophets:
“If I am abused, is it something new? Were not the holy prophets of God
before this called the same names? If I am slandered, were not accusations
made against the rasuls and righteous ones before this? Was not the allegation
made against Moses …, against David …? Do not the Jews say till today
against Jesus …? Are not all those allegations published by the Christians and
Aryas against the Holy Prophet Muhammad the same as those made against
me? There is no allegation of the opponents made against me which was not
made against the holy prophets of God before me. … I spread my hands in
prayer like the prophet Noah …” (Notice entitled: For the information of my
Jama‘at, dated 5 November 1899, RK, v. 15, pages 513-515)
Calling upon Allah to send signs to prove his truth, he wrote in his prayer:
“Those who say that impostors can be as bold as prophets, and they receive
aid and help from God like the righteous prophets do, they are liars and
want to make the institution of prophethood doubtful. But Your punishment
falls like a sword on the impostors” (Appendix 5 to Tiryaq-ul-Qulub, RK, v.
15, page 512)
Even according to your belief, when he wrote this in 1899 he was not claiming to be a
prophet but a muhaddas. Those who are appointed by God as muhaddas and mujaddid
can be likened to prophets in terms of their mission. As the Promised Messiah wrote
in 1891 about one who is muhaddas:
“He comes as an appointed one of God exactly like prophets. Like prophets, it
is incumbent upon him to proclaim himself openly, and those who reject him
are liable to punishment to a certain extent.” (Tauzih Maram, RK, v. 3, p. 60)
All the statements you have quoted from Mirza Mahmud Ahmad can be taken as of
You are simply repeating yourself (your page 15, lower part) as regards what Maulana
Muhammad Ali wrote. You write:
“Maulana Sahib said in the spiritual scheme envisioned in Islam, when
darkness grips the earth, and evil abounds, Allah sends a Prophet, appoints
him directly for the mission at hand. The system has not changed in our time,
and in the same way Allah sent the Promised Mahdi and Messiah.”
But I quoted him, in my last response, as writing the following exact words in English
in the same year’s Review of Religions:
“To the Muslims is promised a revival in the beginning of every new century
of Hejira, but this revival is in accordance with the Divine law, for of it we are
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 31
told in a tradition of the Holy Prophet that ‘Almighty God will raise in the
beginning of every century one who shall revive for it its faith’. … God’s
way of bringing about a spiritual and moral regeneration in the world is to
raise a prophet, and such a one He has even now raised in the person of the
Promised Messiah” (June 1906, p. 228; bolding is mine)
He is clearly speaking here about mujaddids. Moreover, I also quoted him as follows
from the same year. Comparing Muslim opposition to him when he claimed to be
Promised Messiah in 1891 with general Muslim acceptance of him when he claimed
to be mujaddid, he writes:
“As a Messenger of Heaven, the Muslims submitted to his claims and had
no fault to find with him, but as the Promised Messenger … he was called an
impostor, an arch-heretic and the anti-Christ.” (p. 235; bolding is mine)
Since you accept these writings of the Maulana as correct and valid, you also have to
accept that it is the Promised Messiah’s claim to be Mujaddid which is described as
that of “Messenger of God”, as it was his claim to be Mujaddid which the Muslims
generally accepted at that time.
Other examples from 1906 Review of Religions
In the same article in the Review of Religions, Maulana Muhammad Ali first writes
that the Promised Messiah invited men:
“to accept him as the Promised Messenger” (p. 252).
Then, as an example of such invitation, he refers to a letter he wrote to the Amir of
Afghanistan and says:
“The letter to the Amir was written in Shawwal 1313 A.H., i.e., 1896 C.E. It
invites the Amir to accept him as the Promised Messiah.” (p. 252)
You agree with us that to invite someone to accept him as Promised Messiah in 1896
(before 1901) was to ask for acceptance as a muhaddas and mujaddid who was
denying claiming to be a prophet. Accepting such a non-prophet “Promised Messiah”
is also called here accepting a “Promised Messenger”.
Later, in a paragraph on pages 253-254, Maulana Muhammad Ali tells us how
“unchanged” has been the attitude and the theme of the writings of the Promised
Messiah in various ways from the time of Barahin-i Ahmadiyya till today. He writes:
“His belief with regard to the excellence of the Holy Prophet over all other
prophets has also been the same throughout, and we find it stated in his
earliest writings in poetry as well as in prose that no Divine blessing can be
attained except through the Holy Prophet. This is the doctrine which he
teaches now when he says that no old prophet can come back, but that it must
be a follower of the Holy Prophet who should be raised to the dignity of the
Messiah, because the Divine blessings which an old prophet attained to were
not attained through the Holy Prophet.” (p. 254; bolding mine)
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 32
This is absolutely contrary to your doctrine that before 1901 he considered that an
ummati could rise to the position of, at most, a muhaddas but in 1901 he changed this
to say that an ummati can rise to nabi as well. It is stated here that all that has
happened since the time of Barahin-i Ahmadiyya (the 1880s, before he claimed to be
Promised Messiah) is that now he teaches specifically that Jesus cannot come back (as
he attained Divine blessings from God without following the Holy Prophet) and that
an ummati has come in his place as Promised Messiah. Other than excluding Jesus
from returning on this basis, and claiming himself to be Promised Messiah, everything
else remains the same in 1906 as it was in Barahin-i Ahmadiyya of the 1880s.
In his reply to Khwaja Ghulamussaqalain (see your page 15), Maulana Muhammad
Ali bracketed the Promised Messiah with Jesus rather than with the other categories
because none of those other categories were those of persons personally appointed
with a mission (mamur min-Allah). In terms of Divine protection and help, and in
some other ways as well, those appointed by Allah share certain characteristics, which
are not common to others. Read again the extract I quoted just above from Appendix
5 to Tiryaq-ul-Qulub, RK, v. 15, page 512, where the Promised Messiah said that he
would receive aid and support from God just like the prophets, and that it is wrong to
say that an impostor can receive that kind of support. He wrote this when you agree
that he was not claiming to be a prophet.
The Promised Messiah also discusses two qualities which, he says, are essential in
those prophets, messengers and muhaddaseen “who call the world to God by the order
and revelation of God” and “come with an appointed office from God”, but are not
essential in other auliya (Tiryaq-ul-Qulub, pages 66-68, RK, v. 15, pages 279-285).
“Just as God, in support of our Holy Prophet Muhammad, challenged the
disbelievers by His revelation that this Prophet of mine is of the highest pure
character, and you are unable to find any shortcoming or bad quality in him …
so how can you have any doubt remaining that he is a truthful prophet,
similarly God challenged my opponents and deniers.”
Again, this was written at a time when you believe that he did not consider himself to
be a prophet.
It was in respect of a similar quality that Khwaja Ghulamussaqalain argued that it
doesn’t prove the truth of the Promised Messiah because various categories of people
(as cited by him) such as saints, khalifas, companions of the Holy Prophet, and also
Jesus did not possess this quality. So the reply was that, from among these categories
cited by him, we are only concerned with showing that prophets possess this quality.
This is not because Hazrat Mirza sahib was a prophet, but because this quality is
common to prophets and those saints who are appointed by God (mamur), and is not
shared by them with any of the other categories. You write about the Maulana:
“He actually stated it was irrelevant for Khwaja sahib to compare a prophet,
like MGA with non-prophets like the khalifas or companions of the prophet.”
This is because the quality under discussion is not necessarily possessed by those
righteous persons who are not mamur or raised and commanded by God to perform a
reform mission like a mujaddid.
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 33
X. Mufti Muhammad Sadiq’s statement (your pages 16 to 18)
Here I think we will have to leave it up to the readers to judge, since all I can do is to
repeat what I said in my last response. But here are my brief responses to your
You write: “He allayed the fears of Maulvi Shilbi by saying nabi means in the
dictionary …” In fact he allayed his fears by beginning his reply as follows: “I
replied that our belief in this respect was the same as that of other Muslims, viz., that
the Holy Prophet Muhammad is the Khatam-un-nabiyyin. After him, no other prophet
can come, neither new nor old.” This is the basis that Mufti Muhammad Sadiq laid
down, and the rest of his reply cannot be used to nullify this, as you are doing.
You write: “Sadiq stated that this ummah would receive this gift by a person being
obedient to the prophet, i.e. ummati nabi.” He never said “ummati nabi.” In fact he
said that “the phenomenon of Divine revelation still continues” and “there have been
men among the Muslims who had the privilege of Divine revelation, and in future too
there shall be such.” He placed the Promised Messiah (whom he calls Hazrat Mirza
sahib) in this category.
The letter by Maulana Nur-ud-Din begins with the declaration: “I believe Mirza sahib
to be the Mujaddid of this century.” The rest of his brief reply cannot be used to
nullify this, as you are doing.
You ask: “Otherwise why would he have to specifically say “not one who brings a
This is just as after saying “I believe Mirza sahib to be the Mujaddid of this century”
he goes on to say: “I believe him to be a slave of Muhammad, Messenger of Allah,
and a sincere servant of his Shari‘ah.” What necessity is there to add this when by
definition a Mujaddid is a slave of the Holy Prophet and a servant of the Shari‘ah? It
is to clarify to people the limits of a Mujaddid. The reason for mentioning “not one
who brings a shariah” is that this was the kind of accusation against him, that he is
changing the religion. See my quotation from Shahadat-ul-Quran above (“When have
we said that mujaddids and muhaddases come into the world to remove something
from the religion or to add to it?”).
You say: “Therefore what Sadiq sahib really meant was in light of what Maulvi
Nurrudin sahib wrote, …” . What he really meant was what he told Shibli. He only
quoted Maulana Nur-ud-Din’s letter in his published report in order to support the
explanation he had given to Shibli.
Your paragraph beginning “Mufti Sahib rightly responded…” (your page 16, lower
part) is really a classic piece of Qadiani expediency and self-contradiction. You say:
“… no Ahmadi goes around preaching to non-Ahmadis that the prophet of the
age has arrived, so now accept him! Ahmadis preach MGA is the Promised
Messiah and Mahdi. To preach prophethood is the wrong emphasis, which can
lead to misunderstanding despite the fact he held that spiritual level based on
quality and amplitude of revelation he received.”
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 34
But only one page earlier you wrote:
“Mirza Mahmud did not write in 1906 that MGA was a simply muhuddus or
mujjadid doing the work of a prophet. He presented MGA to the world as a
prophet of Allah…” (your page 15, bolding mine)
Secondly, throughout your responses you have been stressing the importance of belief
in the Promised Messiah as a prophet and telling us that he was a great, perfect and
real prophet. You wrote, for example:
“I have already shown … that the perfect zilli nabi is MGA, and moreover,
given the actual office” (your page 5)
“he had to declare he was superior to Jesus in all glory, equal to him on the
point of being a nabi, but far superior to him in point of the works and signs
shown at his hands. … once he realized he was an actual nabi, in 1901, he had
no hesitation in saying he was superior in rank to Jesus.” (your page 7, 8)
“He stated the term that described his status is nabi, due to quality and
amplitude of his revelations.” (your page 13)
Holding these beliefs, it is impossible to see how you don’t preach to others that
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet. It is also difficult to see why you think
that preaching his prophethood “can lead to misunderstanding”, given that you believe
that “he held that spiritual level”. Truth must be preached in any case. The Promised
Messiah never hesitated to preach the truth, even though it led to misunderstandings
about him (such as the charge of being a British stooge or of insulting Jesus).
Thirdly, only the Head of your Jama‘at or those who train your missionaries are in a
position to say how your Jama‘at presents Hazrat Mirza sahib’s claim. Your view is
purely personal and cannot show us what the policy and approach of your Jama‘at is.
However, there is a sense in which you may be right! That is that your Jama‘at has
admitted people into its membership knowing that they were unaware of your belief
that the Promised Messiah was a prophet, and there are members of your Jama‘at who
have never been told your belief that the Promised Messiah claimed to be a prophet.
Your statement is true in the sense that your Jama‘at practises this kind of
concealment, by keeping people unaware of your belief that he was a prophet in order
to admit them into the Jama‘at.
You then write: “Maulvi Nurrudin did not mention in the letter MGA was the Mahdi
and Messiah either, the most important titles – so was he denying that status of MGA
too and calling him a mere mujjadid?” (your p. 17)
Those who are familiar with the writings of the Promised Messiah know that these are
his titles as a Mujaddid. He explained:
“The question remains as to what is the evidence in support of this claim of
mine to be the Messiah? Let it be clear that it is confirmed by the authentic
reports that, at the time of the mischief spread by Christianity, the man who
would appear as the Mujaddid at the head of the century, in order to uproot the
evil of the worship of Jesus, he is the Mujaddid who has been called
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 35
‘Messiah’. … the real intent of the Holy Prophet Muhammad was that the
Mujaddid, from among the mujaddids of this Umma, who would have to come
to the aid of Islam to defend it against the Christian onslaughts, shall have the
name ‘Messiah’ because of his work of the reformation of the Christian
religion.” (Kitab al-Bariyya, p. 198, RK, v. 13, p. 216)
“The fact is that God Almighty sends a prophet or a mujaddid according to the
nature of every prevailing trouble. … the mujaddid of this century came in the
likeness of Jesus, and was called the Promised Messiah because of intense
similarity.” (Shahadat-ul-Quran, p. 64-65, RK, v. 6, p. 360-361)
“It must be remembered that the claim of being Promised Messiah is not
greater than that of the claim of being a recipient of revelation from Allah and
a Mujaddid from Allah … The reason that the Mujaddid of this age was
named ‘Promised Messiah’ is found to be that the great work of this Mujaddid
is to break the dominance of Christianity …” (A’inah Kamalat Islam, RK, v.
5, p. 341)
‘Messiah’ and ‘Mahdi’ are titles of the man holding the office of Mujaddid of the 14th
Century because of the type of reform work he would do. Thus Hazrat Maulana Nurud-
Din has described the full and correct office of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
You then quote from Tajalliyat Ilahiyya (RK, v. 20, p. 412) what you regard as the
definition of nabi, (receiving sure and certain revelation in considerable volume) but
on the next page he writes within the same discussion:
“Among the Israelites there was such revelation of absolute certainty that
because of it the mother of Moses cast her innocent infant in the river and did
not doubt the truth of her revelation, and Khizar even killed a boy.” (RK, v.
20, p. 413)
Here he gives the instances of two non-prophets falling under his description of what
a nabi is. Only one page further on he mentions the objection of those who say that
there are cases where even ordinary people, including ordinary women, made
prophecies of the same kind as the appointed ones of God (mamur min-Allah), which
came true. They say:
“Should we then take such a woman to be a nabi or rasul or muhaddas of
Again it is clear that he considers a muhaddas as included with a nabi and rasul as
regards receiving knowledge of the unseen and making prophecies.
You then quote from Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in January 1911, calling the Promised
Messiah as nabi, and ask:
“Maulana Muhammad Ali and others who would later form the Lahore faction
were in the audience, and there is no absolutely no historical evidence they
had objections.” (your p. 18)
As far as it was possible, Maulana Muhammad Ali and other (later) Lahore Ahmadi
elders tried to give an interpretation to Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s views to reconcile
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 36
them with the correct beliefs. It appears that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad kept on
expressing differing views at that time. Just two months later, in March 1911, he
wrote an article in Badr, 23 March 1911, in which he said:
“By establishing him (the Holy Prophet Muhammad) on the rank of Khatamun-
nabiyyin, Allah ended every type of prophethood with him. And for the
future, only one door has been kept open for reaching Allah, and that is
following the Holy Prophet … After him, no person can be mamur until he
bears the stamp of following the Holy Prophet … Through the blessing of
following him, many such persons have arisen who held the rank of very
great prophets. Accordingly, the Holy Prophet said: The Ulama of my Umma
are like the prophets of the Israelites” (foot of column 1 to column 2. Bolding
As he writes, after the Holy Prophet the only positions people can attain are reaching
Allah and becoming mamur. Many of them attained ranks equal to great prophets of
the past, according to the Hadith report cited.
When shortly afterwards, in April 1911, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote the article in
Tashhiz-ul-Azhan, entitled ‘Muslim is he who accepts all the mamur of God’, Khwaja
Kamal-ud-Din published a clarification that he was not calling other Muslims as
unbelievers in Islam but as unbelievers in the Promised Messiah. In the book The
Truth about the Split (online on the http://www.alislam.org website), Mirza Mahmud
Ahmad has discussed both his own article and the Khwaja sahib’s clarification of it
(p. 127-128, 140-142). He rejects Khwaja sahib’s clarification as “devoid of sense”
(p. 127) and says that the Khwaja sahib “had tried to undo the effect of my article” (p.
141). He further writes:
“… he could well have declared in plain words that non-Ahmadis were
Muslims. He had no business to try and interpret my article while I was alive
and was well able to interpret it myself” (p. 141-142).
It is quite obvious from Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s furious criticism of Khwaja Kamalud-
Din’s clarification that the later Lahore Ahmadis were indeed trying to correct
Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s wrong beliefs in 1911.
XI. Ahmad prophecy (your pages 18-19)
The statements you are quoting (Review of Religions, Al-Hakam, Ijaz-ul-Masih) do
not express the views that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad expressed in Anwar-i Khilafat,
which I earlier quoted in detail. I repeat what I wrote in my last response:
Mirza Mahmud Ahmad had argued the following points most vehemently, in great
detail, in Anwar-i Khilafat published in 1916, from page 18 to page 52:
• “Hence the messenger named Ahmad, whose news is given in this verse, cannot be
the Holy Prophet Muhammad.”
• This prophecy “contains not a single word” to show that it applies to the Holy
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 37
• “There is no Hadith report of any kind, whether true or false, … which mentions that
the Holy Prophet Muhammad applied this verse to himself or that he declared
himself as fulfilling this prophecy. When that is the situation, why should we apply
the prophecy to the Holy Prophet Muhammad, in contradiction to the contents of the
• “If anyone can prove 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.”
The above are extracted from the quotations that I gave more fully in my response
dated November 7th. These are not like the little snippets that you have quoted. You
quote from Ijaz-ul-Masih: “Isa has pointed out to the people coming later to join the
ranks of the companions of the Holy Prophet with their Imam quite clearly identified
by the name Ahmad”. This book was written before the booklet Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala,
and therefore even according to your own standpoint he could not have been claiming
to be a prophet called ‘Ahmad’ in this book but a saint having likeness to Ahmad. He
also writes in the same book:
“He (Allah) made the companions and those who followed them a
manifestation of the name Muhammad in conditions of glory and beneficence
and gave them triumph and helped them with successive favours. And He
made the Promised Messiah a manifestation of the name Ahmad and He raised
him in conditions of beauty and mercy” (RK, v. 18, p. 110)
“So while the companions inherited the name Muhammad from Allah, the
Great Giver, and they manifested the glory of God and they killed the tyrants
like cattle, even thus did the Promised Messiah inherit the name Ahmad which
is the manifestation of mercy and beauty, and God chose this name for him
and for those who follow him…” (ibid., p. 114)
The Promised Messiah inherited the name Ahmad in the same way that the
companions inherited the name Muhammad, and not as a prophet.
The Promised Messiah himself had presented the ‘Ahmad’ verse as proof that Jesus
had died before the coming of the Holy Prophet Muhammad because the prophecy
said that ‘Ahmad’ would come after me. He wrote:
“The evidence of the Messiah is thus written in the Holy Quran: I give the
news of a messenger who will come after me, that is to say, after I am dead,
and his name will be Ahmad. Therefore if the Messiah has not yet passed
away from this physical life, it necessarily follows that our Prophet, may peace
and the blessings of God be upon him, has not yet made his appearance, for
the text proclaims in open words that when the Messiah shall pass away from
this physical life, then shall the Holy Prophet make his appearance in this
world.” (A’inah Kamalat Islam, RK, v. 5, p. 42)
This verse was presented in the same way in June 1909 (a year after the Promised
Messiah’s death) at the famous Rampur debate with anti-Ahmadiyya Ulama by
Maulana Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi on behalf of the Ahmadis. He said:
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 38
“In this verse Jesus, pointing out to the Israelites, for whom he was appointed,
the prophecy about the Holy Prophet Muhammad as given in the Torah,
himself also gave the good news that a great Prophet would come after him
and that prophet would be the Prophet Ahmad. In this prophecy, which is
about the Holy Prophet Muhammad … another word is worthy of note: ‘a
messenger coming after me’. Jesus has related the coming and the raising of
the Holy Prophet Muhammad to the time after him. … We claim that after
means after the death of Jesus, for if the prophet Ahmad, may peace and the
blessings of Allah be upon him, was to come during the life of Jesus, what
need did he have to say after me?… If after does not mean after death then we
would have to admit that the promised prophet Ahmad has not yet come, and
would have to look for the coming of someone else, and the claims of Islam
would be void, and the coming of the Holy Prophet, his deeds and the
existence of Muslims would be merely something fictitious, having no reality.
Can anyone having a brain and intelligence accept that the Holy Prophet
Muhammad has not yet come?” (pages 34-35 of booklet about this debate,
published December 1909)
You then quote from Maulana Muhammad Ali’s book The Split as follows:
“The mention of the word rasul in the prophecy in the Quran clearly points to
the fact that it contains a reference to the prophecy of Paraclete, and not to the
second advent of Jesus (page 40).”
and claim that “he categorically denied ‘Ahmad’ referred to the Promised Messiah”. I
am amazed that you have missed the entire point of that chapter in The Split, which is
surprising since I e-mailed you the relevant pages at an early point in our discussions.
That chapter refutes the views of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad as quoted by me above. It
begins as follows:
“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.” (p. 18)
The Maulana gives quotations from Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s book that puts forward
the above beliefs and rebuts them. So his statement that you have quoted is in
refutation of the way in which Mirza Mahmud Ahmad suggests that this prophecy
applies to the Promised Messiah. He quotes this concept of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad as
“My belief is that this verse relates to the Promised Messiah and that he alone
is Ahmad, … I hold the belief that the word Ahmad occurring in the Holy
Quran relates only to the Promised Messiah.” (quoted on p. 20 of The Split)
This is the standpoint which he is refuting. As to how the verse refers to the Promised
Messiah, he quotes the Promised Messiah himself and then writes:
“Speaking of himself he simply says that there is a hint, an isharah, in the
verse to his advent, not that it speaks plainly of his advent.” (p. 44)
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 39
The entire point being discussed by the Maulana from page 38 to 40 is that this
prophecy referred to in the Quran is that of “Paraclete” in the Gospels. Since Mirza
Mahmud Ahmad had written that the signs of the Promised ‘Ahmad’ were not found
in the Holy Prophet (quoted in The Split, p. 33), the Maulana writes:
“Another important point in this connection is whether the signs of the advent
of the promised messenger are met with in the Holy Prophet. It should be
borne in mind that these signs are not given in the Holy Quran which merely
refers to the original prophecy of Jesus.” (p. 38)
Having first established that the “the prophecy referred to in the Holy Quran in 61:6 is
the same as that met with in John where the Paraclete is spoken of” (p. 39), then by
comparison with that original prophecy the Maulana says:
“… the prophecy of the Paraclete speaks plainly of the comer as teaching all
those things which even Jesus could not teach, thus plainly showing that he
was to deliver some great message to the world which should bring all the
previous messages to perfection.” (p. 40)
This occurs immediately before your quotation. So the word rasul in the prophecy as
quoted in the Quran, compared with this description in the original prophecy of the
Gospels, shows that this term here can only refer to the Holy Prophet.
Note that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad denied that the Paraclete prophecy was being
referred to in this verse of the Quran. He wrote in his above-mentioned, detailed
treatment of this subject in Anwar-i Khilafat:
“Another argument which our opponents use against us is that they try to
prove the ‘Ahmad’ prophecy from the prophecy of the Paraclete given in the
Gospels and say that the word Paraclete shows the name ‘Ahmad’ … In short,
the ‘Ahmad’ prophecy has no connection with the Paraclete prophecy, which
in any case is about the Holy Prophet” (pages 25-27).
But the Qadiani Jama‘at English translation of the Quran with short commentary
(available online on their website http://www.alislam.org), in its footnote 3037 on this very
‘Ahmad’ verse, devotes more than a half of its discussion to the Paraclete prophecy
and says that it “closely resembles the prophecy in the verse under comment except
that instead of Ahmad the name stated therein is Paraclete”!
You then write about Maulana Muhammad Ali’s views:
“He also insisted, that the Quran words quoting Jesus giving glad tidings of ‘a
messenger who will come after me’, means the next one immediately after,
and thus can only apply to Muhammad, since he is the one who came right
after him, whereas MGA appeared a long time later.” (your page 18)
In fact, it was the Promised Messiah who expressed this view in a talk on 22 January
1901 as follows:
“The name Ahmad of the Holy Prophet is that which Jesus has mentioned: ‘he
will come after me, his name being Ahmad.’ The words after me show that he
must come after Jesus without interruption, that is to say, there shall be
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 40
no other prophet between him and Jesus. Moses did not use these words.”
(Malfuzat, v. 2, p. 208; from Al-Hakam, 31 January 1901)
You write: “What were Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s thoughts on the subject?” (your
page 19). Please read his own following statement from the section in Anwar-i
Khilafat on this topic (running from page 18 to page 52 of that book):
“My belief is that it is only the Promised Messiah who fulfils this verse. It is
true that when I heard this in the beginning from the first Khalifa I did not at
first accept it and many discussions were held about it. But when I
pondered over it, Almighty God expanded my breast concerning it and He
granted me conclusive arguments and shining proofs and I accepted the idea.”
(Anwar-i Khilafat, p. 21; bolding mine)
This plainly shows that, even according to Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s own account, his
interpretation of the ‘Ahmad’ prophecy was not at all an established belief during the
life of the Promised Messiah. Otherwise, why didn’t he know about it before the
period of headship of Maulana Nur-ud-Din, and why did it take many discussions
before he accepted this belief?
You write about Maulana Muhammad Ali: “His book from 1918 flatly contradicts his
previous words from Review of Religions and the words of the Promised Messiah
himself years earlier.” (Incidentally, “years earlier” was previous to Ayk Ghalati Ka
But “the words of the Promised Messiah himself” did not even make Mirza Mahmud
Ahmad realise during the Promised Messiah’s lifetime that he was claiming to fulfil
this prophecy! And when he first heard of it after his lifetime, he says “I did not
accept it at first”.
Let us now see how Mirza Mahmud Ahmad responded to Maulana Muhammad Ali’s
treatment of this subject in 1918 and compare it to your reaction. In his response to
the Maulana’s book The Split Mirza Mahmud Ahmad published his Urdu book
A’inah-i Sadaqat in December 1921, later published in English as The Truth about the
Split, and available online on the website of the Qadiani Jama‘at http://www.alislam.org.
After briefly explaining his views on this subject, he writes:
“But the whole question is one regarding which no decision 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.” (The Truth about the Split, p. 58)
Mirza Mahmud Ahmad here allows that Ahmadis may accept the interpretation of this
verse given by Maulana Muhammad Ali in 1918 in his book The Split, so much so
that he does not regard such a person as any less an Ahmadi. So he clearly does not
consider, as Dr Tahir Ijaz considers, that the Maulana’s 1918 explanation is in flat
contradiction to the writings of the Promised Messiah. Nor does he tell the Maulana
that he is contradicting his own earlier statements. In fact, he wants to end the
discussion by labeling it as a merely academic discussion.
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 41
It may be noted that Maulana Muhammad Ali published a 92-page Urdu book Ahmad
Mujtaba in December 1917 to refute the standpoint of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad on the
‘Ahmad’ prophecy expressed in Anwar-i Khilafat, and then he summarized the same
material in his English book The Split, published January 1918. We believe that his
arguments were so powerful as to make Mirza Mahmud Ahmad retreat to the above
As regards your jibe that:
Remember my “books from thirty years ago are off the table” statement. (your
You have forgotten that I proved that the Maulana said no such thing to the Anjuman
Himayat-i Islam, either directly (as you are implying by your quotation marks) or
indirectly. On the other hand, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s 1916 book Anwar-i Khilafat
became “off the table” just five years later in 1921 when he declined to pursue the
‘Ahmad’ prophecy discussion any further. Please tell us whether the following
challenge by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad is still “on the table”:
“I have arguments by the grace of God which I am prepared to put before the
scholars and learned ones of the whole world, and even offer a reward to
anyone who can disprove my arguments. If anyone can prove 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.” (Anwar-i Khilafat p. 18, 19)
XII. Implications of believing in Promised Messiah as prophet (your page 19)
I am happy to discuss this issue but the need to discuss it has diminished considerably
since your Jama‘at has made the book The Truth about the Split available online
because Mirza Mahmud Ahmad has explained his views most clearly in that book.
When I used to discuss this issue with members of your Jama‘at, which I have done
during the last ten years first on the Internet newsgroup soc.religion.islam, later on at
our own Discussions Forum, and also by e-mail, the problem was that they were
unaware of the views he had expressed in books such as this and had difficulty in
accepting that I was correctly quoting him. With that book online now, I am satisfied
that your members can be referred to it and they can themselves compare the
statements in it with what the late Mirza Tahir Ahmad had been telling them on the
same issue. As long as members of your Jama‘at are aware of the beliefs laid down by
Mirza Mahmud Ahmad on this question, I leave the matter up to them.
You have suggested that the implication of not believing the Promised Messiah as a
prophet is to degrade Islam by not allowing an ummati nabi to appear in this Umma.
Unfortunately, to believe him to be a nabi requires regarding some 70% of his
writings on the prophethood issue as invalid and mistaken. It certainly degrades Islam
when we see that the one ummati nabi who arose after 1300 years did not himself
know for several years what the correct definition of a prophet was, while actually
being a prophet all this time!
Response by Zahid Aziz, 5 January 2004. 42
Final Note: As you can see, our responses are getting longer every time. I suggest
that we could now conclude this entire discussion with each of us summarising, in a
space of no more than 2 pages, the beliefs and views that we have tried to prove in
this discussion. This is only a suggestion in order to avoid this discussion becoming
excessively prolonged, which you may wish to consider.
From Zahid Aziz, November 30, 2003.
Most of the points made by you hinge upon your assertion that the Promised Messiah Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad changed his claim in 1901 from muhaddas to prophet. A discussion of this issue will therefore clarify all those points, including the statement of Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din and the writings of Maulana Muhammad Ali that we are discussing. You agree that he used the word nabi about himself before 1901 as well, but you assert that in 1901 he changed its usage about himself to mean a real prophet. We say that he always used it about himself in the way he did before 1901, in its linguistic or metaphorical sense, as meaning muhaddas, a non-prophet, and that members of the Ahmadiyya community also used it in the same way.
Did Promised Messiah change his claim from muhaddas to prophet in 1901?
In my last e-mail I have already given you an example of a statement about saints that could not be changed in 1901 or at any other time, but you have not responded to it. Historical facts about previous saints that he mentions cannot change in 1901. His statement in 1898 that “the person of Hazrat Umar was, as it were, the person of the Holy Prophet Muhammad by way of zill” (because he conquered over the Persians and Romans) cannot change in 1901. His statement I earlier quoted about Hazrat Abu Bakr’s glory shining like that of prophets (because he saved Islam from destruction) cannot change in 1901. There are general statements about saints, not just about himself, such as:
“the muhaddas is potentially a prophet, and if the door of prophethood were not closed, he would be actually a prophet … God speaks to muhaddases just as He speaks to prophets, and He sends muhaddases just as He sends messengers. The muhaddas drinks from the same fountain, from which the prophet drinks. So there is no doubt that he would be a prophet if the door of prophethood had not been closed.” (Hamamat-ul-Bushra; RK, v. 7, p. 301)
These facts cannot change in 1901.
You write: “From 1901 and beyond, he stated he had the rank nabi, whereas before he specifically told his followers to replace the word nabi with muhuddas in his writings.”
The following are some of the reasons which disprove your assertion.
- In his opening statement inAyk Ghalati Ka Izala, he wrote:
“Some people in our Movement who are not well-acquainted with my claim and the arguments relating to it — not having had the occasion to study my books carefully, nor having stayed in my company for a sufficient length of time to complete their knowledge — in some instances in response to an objection of the opponents give a reply which is entirely against facts. So, despite being on the side of truth, they have to face embarrassment.”
It is totally senseless for him to blame some of his followers for giving wrong answers if it was he himself who had been mistakenly telling them to deny that he was a prophet! Moreover, it is also absurd for him to tell them that they should have read his previous books carefully.
- Mirza Mahmud Ahmad first set the date to beOctober 1902, saying that as Tiryaq-ul-Qulub was published at that date, therefore any writings published before this date do not represent his real claim. If the year 1901 had been known in the Movement as the year of the change, he could not have set the date as October 1902.
- WhenTiryaq-ul-Qulub was published in October 1902, having been largely written in 1899, Hazrat Mirza sahib would certainly have added a note in it, stressing that his claim had changed to prophet in 1901 and that what he had written in this book before 1901 about his status was out of date. Without such a comment by him, this book has to be accepted as valid at the time of publication in October 1902. You have described this book as “pre 1901”. The Qadiani Jama‘at is so desperate to have this book declared as pre-1901 that they have removed the date “28 October 1902” from the original title page of this book in their collection Ruhani Khaza’in.
- The Qadiani Jama‘at has got into such a tangle over this that in one place they say that the bookTuhfa Golarwiya was written in 1900, but in another place they say that the Promised Messiah affirmed in 1904 that this book correctly describes his status.
- You have quoted from the question and answer on page 148 ofHaqiqat-ul-Wahy, where Hazrat Mirza sahib allegedly answered to the effect: I have changed my claim since writing in Tiryaq-ul-Qulub (in 1899) that I was only partially superior to Jesus, because after this time revelation poured down on me like rain to inform me that I am a prophet. It is quite bizarre that Hazrat Mirza sahib did not mention this change in November 1901 in Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala when it had allegedly just occurred, nor did he mention it in October 1902 in any addendum in Tiryaq-ul-Qulub when publishing this book. He only mentioned the alleged change when someone happened to raise a question, the answer to which he published in May 1907!
The fact is that Hazrat Mirza sahib has answered here the issue behind the question as to whether there was ever a change. You quote him writing: “In the beginning I believed that I had no comparison with Jesus son of Mary”. When was that “beginning”? When he claimed to be Promised Messiah and like of the Messiah in 1891, did he bear no comparison with Jesus? When he wrote in Shahadat-ul-Quran in 1893 that “the mujaddid of this century came in the likeness of Jesus, and was called the Promised Messiah because of intense similarity”, did he bear no comparison with Jesus? In 1898 he challenged Christian clergymen to set up a committee to compare his revelations with those of Jesus and then see that “my revelations are a much stronger testimony to my Divinity than those of Jesus are to his Divinity” (Kitab-ul-Bariyya). Did he bear no comparison with Jesus when he issued this challenge?
In his answer, the Promised Messiah first presents, as a similar example, the fact that in Barahin Ahmadiyya he wrote that Jesus would descend from heaven but later, after guidance from God, said that he himself was the coming Messiah. This strongly indicates that in the words “in the beginning” he is also referring to the time before he claimed to be Promised Messiah, some time 20 years previously. The revelations which “poured upon me like rain”, calling him prophet, are mentioned by him long before 1901. In 1897 he wrote:
“It is true that, in the revelation which God has sent upon this servant, the words nabi, rasul and mursal occur about myself quite frequently. However, they do not bear their real sense. …” (Siraj Munir; RK, v. 12, p.5)
- Even after 1901 the Promised Messiah specifically used the wordmuhaddas as meaning one who receives revelation in the way that he himself received it. See Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 19, p. 132; v. 20, p. 414; v. 21, p. 351-352; v. 22, p. 404. As late as 17 May 1908 he used this word (Malfuzat, v. 10, p. 421). He has also referred to the concept of muhaddas by referring to its definition in Hadith of people who receive revelation without being prophets. See Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 18, p. 467; v. 21, p. 310-311.
I have given sufficient evidence above to establish conclusively that no change took place in the claims of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in 1901. Therefore the use of the word prophet about him after 1901, by him or by his followers, is in the same sense as that in which it was used before 1901.
Your points in sequence
Now, having demolished the very foundation that most of your points are based upon, I turn to your points in sequence:
- You are continuing to ignore the positive part of Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din’s sworn declaration where he states what Hazrat Mirza sahib’s office actually is, namely,Mujaddid of the 14th Century. You are also ignoring the point that Mufti Muhammad Sadiq has quoted Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din’s letter in support of his own explanation to Shibli, where he said at the end: “With us, the question of Mirza sahib’s prophethood is not such that it is included in the conditions of the Pledge (bai‘at), nor is it required to be acknowledged when taking the Pledge, nor do we go about preaching it.”
- I have already countered this in my last e-mail by referring you toMalfuzat, v. 10. p. 155, which is about 28 pages later than where the quotation given by you occurs. The Promised Messiah says there, referring to Hazrat Mujaddid Alif Sani, that whoever has dreams and revelations in abundance is called muhaddas.
III. Regarding Maulana Muhammad Ali’s statement in his book History of the Prophets, you appear to have forgotten your own argument, and hence cannot follow my reply. You were trying to show that by the Maulana’s own definition of what is a prophet in the technical language of Islam, the Promised Messiah is a prophet. I responded that the text you have quoted is part of the full definition given by the Maulana, not the whole definition. An important point he made was that: “To every prophet was given a book for the guidance of his people”. The issue under discussion is not how right is his definition, but whether by his definition the Promised Messiah is a prophet.
You have quoted from page 152 of The Religion of Islam as to what a kitab is. On pages 154 to 156 there is a discussion of the types of revelation where he mentions “the third kind, which is peculiar to the prophets of God … It is the highest and most developed form … The revealed books are a record of this highest form of revelation”. This is what he means by ‘book’. This is also known as wahy nubuwwat or wahy risalat in the writings of the Promised Messiah, who writes:
“… a seal has been put upon wahy nubuwwat since thirteen hundred years ago. Will this seal then break?” (Izala Auham, p. 534; RK, v. 3, p. 387)
“… a rasul receives knowledge of religion through the agency of Gabriel, and the coming of Gabriel as bringing wahy risalat has been closed.” (Izala Auham, p. 761; RK, v. 3, p. 511)
Regarding his own revelation he wrote in an Ishtihar in 1897:
“And it is not wahy nubuwwat but wahy wilayat received by the saints (auliya) through the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad due to their perfect following of him, which is what we believe in. If anyone accuses us of going beyond this, he departs from honesty and fear of God.” (Majmu‘a Ishtiharat, v. 2, pages 297-298)
He writes in Izala Auham that if Jesus returned to this world and Allah taught him Islam by revelation then: “the words by which he would be taught all these details would, because of being wahy risalat, be known as a book of Allah” (v. 3, p. 412), “…it is impossible that after the Khatam-un-nabiyyin Gabriel should again start coming to the world bearing wahy risalat and a new book of Allah, even though it conforms to the Quran, should be produced” (v. 3, p. 414)
According to the Promised Messiah, no new book of God can come to the world, even if it consists entirely of Islamic teachings, because the type of revelation that such a book contains came to an end with the Holy Prophet Muhammad.
Your claim that “the Divine decrees and instructions revealed to him to correct the mistaken beliefs of the Muslims and revive the true Islam” constitute a book of Allah (in terms of, say, 2:177 or 2:213 of the Quran) is both wrong and dangerous. I do not think that the Qadiani Jama‘at would ever publicly endorse your statement. If you think I am wrong then please get it endorsed by them!
- The announcement that you have quoted fromPaigham Sulh was made by a supporter of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, and it expressed his own belief. At that time the viewpoints of both sides were being aired within the Ahmadiyya community. His claim that he is speaking for all those connected with the newspaper is simply wrong. The same issue of Paigham Sulh also contained the following quotation of the Promised Messiah from his book Ayyam-us-Sulh:
“The Holy Quran does not mention anywhere the return of Jesus, but the finality of prophethood is mentioned perfectly clearly. To make a distinction between an old and a new prophet is mischievous. Neither the Hadith nor the Quran make this distinction. The negation in the Hadith ‘there is no prophet after me’ is comprehensive. What audacity, boldness and insolence it is that, by pursuing shallow conjectures, one should deliberately depart from the clear meaning of the Quran and believe in the coming of a prophet after the Khatam-ul-anbiya, and recommence the process of wahy nubuwwat after its termination!”
If you find it difficult to understand how a statement opposed to our beliefs could appear in Paigham Sulh then perhaps the following example may help. When Mirza Mahmud Ahmad appeared before the Munir Court of Enquiry in 1954, certain extracts from his own speeches in Al-Fazl were put to him. The questions and answers may be read in the Qadiani Jama‘at Urdu publication Tahqiqi ‘adalat men Hazrat Imam Jama‘at Ahmadiyya Ka Bayan. Regarding a speech in Al-Fazl dated 21 August 1917, he replied:
“When this statement was published I did not have a diarist. So I cannot say for sure that my words were reported correctly or not.” (p. 16)
In another answer he said: “In Al-Fazl dated 5 April 1947 my speech has not been reported correctly. The correct report was published in Al-Fazl dated 12 April 1947.” (p. 18)
When a passage was quoted from Al-Fazl dated 16 May 1947, he replied:
“No. I most certainly did not express my views in these words. What I said has been misrepresented to a great extent. … My real views on this matter were published in Al-Fazl dated 21 May 1947.” (p.19)
He was then asked: “Did you issue a correction to what was published in Al-Fazl of 16 May 1947?” He replied: “What was published in it was in effect corrected by Al-Fazl of 21 May 1947.” (p. 19)
Asked whether he had said certain words reported in Tashhiz-ul-Azhan (a magazine founded by him) in June 1919, he replied: “No. The diarist was inexperienced. What I said was misrepresented by him.” (p. 22)
If, in the very highly-organised Qadiani Jama‘at, the talks printed under the name of its leader can be so badly misrepresented, then it is no surprise that a statement like this could appear in Paigham Sulh, which actually carried no name of any Lahore Ahmadi leader, and which was contradicted later.
At the beginning of your point IV you also write: “You claimed that Mirza Mahmud was involved in perhaps trying to falsely elevate the status of MGA soon after his death.”
Please read the following section of an article by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad himself in his own journal Tashhiz-ul-Azhan in April 1910, given on our website:
He writes in it that as the Holy Prophet Muhammad is the Khatam-un-nabiyyin therefore no prophet can come after him, and that: “however many saints (auliya) there are, and righteous and pious persons, they will get all that they get through service to him.” So only auliya can now come. There is no mention here that apart from those auliya a prophet also came who died just two years ago!
He also writes:
“before the Holy Prophet Muhammad there arose hundreds of prophets in the world that we know about and who had great success. … But thirteen hundred years have passed since the Holy Prophet’s claim, and no one who claimed prophethood has ever attained success.”
The “hundreds of prophets” before the Holy Prophet must obviously include the so-called non-law-bearing prophets that you consider can still come. This statement means that no prophet of any kind (like any of those “hundreds”) can come after the Holy Prophet.
This is why we say that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad tried later on to “falsely elevate” the status of the Promised Messiah.
- Maulana Muhammad Ali’s use of ‘prophet’ that you quote from 1906 is, of course, part of the usage in Ahmadiyya literature that was explained by Mufti Muhammad Sadiq in 1910 when he said that Ahmadis are not required to acknowledge that Hazrat Mirza sahib was a prophet, nor does the Movement preach his prophethood.
I have now read through two lengthy articles by Maulana Muhammad Ali in the Review of Religions for 1906: one is a life of the Promised Messiah and the other is a sketch of the Movement. In both articles, the key claims of the founder are given chronologically as that of Mujaddid of the 14th century, made in the early 1880s, and as that of Promised Messiah, made in 1891. There is no mention whatsoever of any change in claim after 1891. In fact it is 1891 which is the dividing year, as the Maulana writes:
“But the year 1891 was a time of great transition in his life, and it divides his life into two parts” (p. 235).
He uses the word ‘messenger’ for Hazrat Mirza sahib even when he was a mujaddid. Speaking of his claim as mujaddid he writes:
“This claim was at the publication of the Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya generally accepted by the Muslim theologians and laymen, and they rejoiced at the appearance of a reformer among them in accordance with the prophecy which promised a reformer to the Muslims in the beginning of every new century.” (p. 234)
A little later he writes:
“It was the year  in which he announced that he was the Promised Messenger of the last ages, the Promised Messiah and Mahdi. As a Messenger of Heaven, the Muslims submitted to his claims and had no fault to find with him, but as the Promised Messenger … he was called an impostor, an arch-heretic and the anti-Christ.” (p. 235; bolding is mine)
It is absolutely clear and evident that the words ‘Messenger of Heaven’ are being used for mujaddid and a recipient of revelation. Those were the only claims to which the Muslims submitted before 1891. Similarly he writes a little further on:
“… he was hailed as the reformer for the fourteenth century of Hejira, and was even accepted to be a recipient of Divine revelation and a messenger of heaven…” (p. 235; bolding is mine)
It is stated in these extracts that the Muslims accepted him as Mujaddid, as “a messenger of heaven”, but then rejected him when he claimed to be the Promised Mujaddid fulfilling the prophecy of the coming of the Messiah among Muslims.
Regarding the quotation you have given, he writes something very similar in another article in the issue I have cited above, as follows:
“To the Muslims is promised a revival in the beginning of every new century of Hejira, but this revival is in accordance with the Divine law, for of it we are told in a tradition of the Holy Prophet that ‘Almighty God will raise in the beginning of every century one who shall revive for it its faith’. … God’s way of bringing about a spiritual and moral regeneration in the world is to raise a prophet, and such a one He has even now raised in the person of the Promised Messiah” (p. 228; bolding is mine)
Here the Qadiani Jama‘at would, of course, quote just the last sentence, while the text earlier in the same paragraph clearly shows that he is referring to Mujaddids.
Thus Maulana Muhammad Ali’s use of the words ‘prophet’ and ‘messenger’ about the Promised Messiah was in exactly the same sense as that in which the Promised Messiah himself used these terms about himself, from long before 1901, as meaning a mujaddid sent according to the Hadith report about the coming of mujaddids who receives revelation in the manner that saints in Islam receive revelation.
Articles in the Review of Religions also contained quotations from the Promised Messiah’s books before 1901 relating to prophethood. For example:
“If the door of prophethood had not been closed, a muhaddas possessed in himself the power and capability to become a prophet, and according to this power and capability it is allowable to take a muhaddas as a prophet. That is, we can say: the muhaddas is a prophet.” (Review of Religions, 1904, v. 3, p. 117; from A’ina Kamalat-i Islam, p. 238)
“This is the Umma which, though not having any prophets in it, has those who receive the word of God like prophets, and though not having any messengers (rasul) in it, has those who show God’s clear signs like messengers.” (Review of Religions, v. 3, p. 131; from A’ina Kamalat-i Islam, p. 224)
This shows positively that even long after 1901 his pre-1901 statements about his claim were still considered in the community as valid and applicable.
Absolute misunderstanding of Izala Auham
You then imagine a supposed question posed to the Promised Messiah and his answer on page 575 of Izala Auham. The “question” according to you is:
“Jesus, son of Mary, at the time of his coming would be one of the followers of the Holy Prophet, how could he be a full fledged prophet as well, especially as Hazrat Muhammad is the last and final prophet?!”
This is not a question posed by anyone but a statement of the Promised Messiah himself. It is the Promised Messiah who is saying: “As Jesus at the time of his coming would be a perfect follower (ummati), he cannot possibly be a rasul, as the concepts of rasul and ummati are opposite to each other; moreover as our Holy Prophet is the Khatam-un-nabiyyin this prevents the coming of another prophet”. It is highly significant that you have characterised a statement by the Promised Messiah about his own beliefs as being an objection raised by his opponents.
What you are calling as “his answer” is a continuation of this statement, reading:
“However, a prophet who obtains light from the lamp of the prophethood of Muhammad and does not possess perfect prophethood, who is in other words also called muhaddas, he is outside this restriction.”
Barahin Ahmadiyya, vol. 5
Here a question is indeed asked: How can you say that the Messiah is an ummati when he is called nabi in Sahih Muslim?
You say that this arose because Muslims mistakenly believe that an ummati cannot be a prophet, and you claim that: “Even MGA believed in that mistaken concept at one time”, giving an example of this mistaken concept from 1899. The fact is that never did he say, at any time after 1899, that his earlier concept was mistaken. This is a completely false and unfounded claim which you use to misinterpret his reply.
His reply relates to what meaning the word nabi can be given in this Hadith report. In the next paragraph he discusses the problems which arise if the word nabi here is taken as meaning one to whom Shariah is revealed, and then writes:
“If nabi is given only the meaning that Allah speaks to him and reveals some secrets of the unseen to him, then there is no harm if an ummati becomes such a nabi, especially as God has given the hope in many places in the Holy Quran that an ummati can be privileged with Divine revelation and God speaks to and communicates with His auliya.” (p. 139; RK, v. 21, p.307)
So Hazrat Mirza sahib, in answer to this question, certainly has mentioned that persons to whom the word nabi applies in this sense are auliya. Moreover, continuing the same discussion over the next few pages, he gives the examples of the mothers of Moses and Jesus as those “who received sure revelation and communication from God” (p. 143; RK, v. 21, p. 311) without being prophets.
It may be added that later on in the same book he answers a question from an enquirer which was as follows:
“In Hadith reports the Jesus to come has been called nabiullah. Can it be proved from the Quran and Hadith that a muhaddas has also been called nabi?”
This is exactly the question which the Qadiani Jama‘at now asks us! His answer begins as follows:
“In Arabic and Hebrew the word nabi means only one who prophesies after receiving revelation from God. Since according to the Holy Quran the door of such prophethood is not closed which a man obtains by having the privilege of Divine revelation from God through obedience to the Holy Prophet Muhammad, and he is informed of hidden matters by revelation, why should not such prophets arise in this umma?” (p. 181; RK, v. 21, p. 351-352)
If the Promised Messiah now believed that he was not a muhaddas, or that a muhaddas cannot be called nabi, this was the place to give that reply. His answer is clearly that, according to the linguistic meaning of the word nabi, a muhaddas can be called nabi. As he says: “Why should not such prophets arise in this umma?”
Later in the same discussion he writes:
“… provided that the truest and fullest obedience is rendered to our Leader and Master the Holy Prophet Muhammad, one can have the privilege of Divine revelation. For this reason it is recorded in Hadith: Ulama ummati ka-anbiya Bani Israil, that is, ‘the spiritual savants from among my umma are like the prophets of the Israelites’. In this Saying too, the godly savants are on the one hand called ummati, and on the other hand they are likened to prophets.” (pages 183-184; RK, v. 21, p. 354)
Clearly, the prophets arising in the Umma, as mentioned in the first extract, are those persons who are described in this Hadith report as “the ulama of my Umma are like the prophets of the Israelites”. Again, he goes on to give the examples of the mothers of Moses and Jesus, who were not prophets, as recipients of revelation.
- In your point VI you again begin with the assertion that the Promised Messiah was wrong about his status during the ten years 1891 to 1901. I quote:
“There was a time when MGA used to say that whenever his followers were to see the word “nabi” in relation to him, they were instructed to mentally cross it out and replace with “muhaddas”. However later he was to say, the term muhaddas did not do proper justice to his actual rank, and insisted nabi also should be used!”
It wasn’t only to his followers that he gave this instruction but this was a witnessed, public statement addressed to all Muslims to this effect. This statement was issued at the end of a debate he was having with Maulvi Abdul Hakim in Lahore in 1892 on the word muhaddas and whether revelation continues among Muslims. He referred to this debate much after 1901, in a talk on 28 October 1904, as follows:
“I had a debate in Lahore with a Maulvi on the word muhaddas, that it says in Hadith reports that muhaddas is he to whom God speaks, and this was about Hazrat Umar. That Maulvi replied that as Islam is deprived of Divine revelation after the Holy Prophet, therefore Hazrat Umar did not attain this rank. It is as if in this Umma only dajjals can come.” (Malfuzat, vol. 7, p. 229)
The Promised Messiah has here reaffirmed the stance he took in that debate.
The question arises, when did he first announce that the term muhaddas “did not do proper justice to his rank” and that nabi must be used? If it was in Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala, then it is absolutely nonsensical for him to begin that pamphlet by blaming his followers for giving wrong answers to opponents about his claim, because the follower in question was doing only what the Promised Messiah had instructed people to do!
If he “insisted nabi also should be used” then it is surprising that when his gravestone was erected after his death, the inscription upon it described him not as prophet but as Mujaddid of the fourteenth century.
You then write:
“Just as there were prophets before Muhammad perfect and complete within their sphere and times, they were incomplete and imperfect in relation to the prophet. In the same way, all previous auliya in the ummah bore a reflection to their master, Prophet Muhammad, but were imperfect and incomplete in relation to the Promised Messiah.”
As you say, the Holy Prophet Muhammad was the most perfect prophet, excelling the earlier prophets, but he still remained a prophet and was not elevated to a category beyond prophets. Similarly, the Promised Messiah even being the most perfect reflection of the Holy Prophet as compared to other auliya, does not go outside and above the category of auliya and mujaddids.
Quotations from Haqiqat-ul-Wahy
Please be informed that a member of the Qadiani Jama‘at, Mr Dawood Majoka, presented to me in July by e-mail twelve quotations from Haqiqat-ul-Wahy to respond to. These include the quotations you have given (e.g. p. 30, p. 391). In response I compiled a detailed article which I placed on our website, showing that in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy the Promised Messiah has presented the Holy Prophet Muhammad as the Last of all Prophets and claimed himself to be a Mujaddid. That article is at:
Please refer to it as I cannot repeat the arguments for every Qadiani who e-mails us.
Regarding your quotation from Nuzul-ul-Masih, page 3, please turn to page 89 of the same book. There the Promised Messiah mentions examples of revelation to non-prophets, including to companions of the Holy Prophet, and then adds:
“To conclude, if a man, due to his blindness, denies my revelation, then if he is nonetheless called a Muslim, and is not a secret atheist, it should be part of his belief that there can be sure and definite Divine revelation, and that just as in previous religious communities many men and women used to receive God’s revelation, even though they were not prophets, in this Umma too it is essential that sure and definite revelation should exist, so that it does not become the least of the nations instead of the best of the nations.” (RK, v. 18, p. 467)
The text I have placed in bold is the definition in Hadith of a muhaddas.
Regarding your statements that “MGA wrote he was the perfect, full and complete zilli nabi” and “zilli prophethood is real prophethood”, we note that the Promised Messiah writes in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy:
“My prophethood is the zill of the Holy Prophet, not real prophethood.” (page 150, footnote; RK, v. 22, p. 154)
He has explained this concept of zill repeatedly as follows:
“Of course, muhaddases will come who will be spoken to by God, and possess some attributes of full prophethood by way of reflection (zill), and in some ways be coloured with the colour of prophethood. I am one of these.” (Nishan Asmani, p. 28; RK, v. 4, p 390-391)
“Sainthood (wilayat) is the perfect zill of prophethood.” (Hujjat-Ullah, p. 14; RK, v. 12, p. 162)
“The prophet is like the real thing, and a saint is like the zill.” (Karamat-us-Sadiqeen, p. 85; RK, v. 7, p. 127)
If zilli prophethood is real prophethood then you must consider the implications of the following passage in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy for your beliefs:
“God declared me as the manifestation of all the prophets and attributed to me the names of all prophets. I am Adam … [other names of prophets mentioned here] …, I am Moses, I am David, I am Jesus, and I am the perfect manifestation of the name of the Holy Prophet, that is to say, I am Muhammad and Ahmad by way of zill.” (p. 73, footnote; RK, v. 22, p. 76)
If zill is “real” then the Promised Messiah should be considered, according to your interpretation, to be the real Muhammad and Ahmad! Moreover, you have mentioned that he is superior to Jesus, but the above quotation, in the light of your interpretation, would make him superior to all prophets, as he is the only one who combines them all in his person! So you and the Qadiani Jama‘at should declare whether these are the beliefs you hold about his position and status.
Hazrat Mirza sahib himself replaced word nabi by muhaddas
I refer to your comment that the text “I am the only one singled out to be called nabi” would become meaningless if the word nabi is replaced by muhaddas, as per his 1892 instruction. What you have not noticed is that even his pre-1901 statements of this kind become “meaningless” in the same way if the word nabi is replaced by muhaddas in the manner that you have suggested. For example, consider the pre-1901 statements:
“I say it repeatedly that these words rasul and mursal and nabi undoubtedly occur about me in my revelation from God” (Siraj Munir; RK, v. 12, p. 5)
or the statement:
“And it should also be remembered that in Sahih Muslim the word nabi has occurred with reference to the Promised Messiah, that is to say, by way of metaphor.” (Ayyam as-Sulh, p. 75; RK, v. 14, p. 309)
Using your interpretation of ‘replacement’, we can render even those of his statements “meaningless” which were written during the period when his replacement instruction was valid!
What is wrong with your view of ‘replacement’ is that you are replacing nabi by muhaddas where nabi is a quoted term. When he writes “I am the only one singled out to be called nabi”, he is quoting the word nabi from Hadith. In the previous paragraph on page 390 he writes:
“There is a prophecy in Hadith that a man will be born among the followers of the Holy Prophet, who will be called Jesus and the son of Mary and called by the name nabi.”
What his ‘replacement’ instruction says is that the word nabi is meant in the sense of muhaddas. It is the sense which is to be replaced. The Promised Messiah himself has done this replacement of the word nabi in this Hadith by muhaddas in the following manner:
“There is a Hadith in Sahih Muslim that the Messiah will come as a nabi of Allah. Now if, symbolically, by ‘Messiah’ or the ‘son of Mary’ is taken to mean an ummati who holds the rank of muhaddasiyyat then no problem arises because a muhaddas is in one sense also a nabi.” (Izala Auham, page 586)
“A sign of the coming Promised Messiah, which is written, is that he shall be a nabi of God, meaning one who receives revelation from God. However, full and complete prophethood is not meant here because that has been sealed. Rather, that prophethood is meant which is limited to the significance of muhaddasiyya, which obtains light from the lamp of the prophethood of Muhammad.” (Izala Auham, page 701).
Besides this, it turns out that the Promised Messiah himself has done a replacement of nabi by muhaddas in this very section of Haqiqat-ul-Wahy. Immediately before the text I quoted just above from page 390, he writes:
“Mujaddid Sahib Sirhindi has written that although some persons in this Umma are chosen to receive Divine revelation, till the Day of Judgment, but the man who is privileged with this revelation abundantly (bi-kasrat) and has matters of the unseen revealed to him in abundance is called nabi.”
Referring to exactly this text, the Promised Messiah stated, on 6 March 1908, some months after the publication of Haqiqat-ul-Wahy:
“Mujaddid Sahib writes that these dreams and revelation which people have now and then, if someone has them in abundance (kasrat) he is called muhaddas. To sum up, I have explained this in detail in my book Haqiqat-ul-Wahy.” (Malfuzat, v. 10, p. 155)
So the Promised Messiah has himself replaced the word nabi by muhaddas on the very pages referred to by you!
(Your next point about claim of superiority over Jesus has been covered by me near the beginning of my present reply.)
Trying to make metaphorical into real
To nullify the clear statement in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy that “I have been called a nabi by way of metaphor, not by way of reality”, you write:
“He [Holy Prophet Muhammad] is the only real person and his followers are mere images, in varying degrees of perfection. MGA was the perfect, complete zilli nabi, but there have been literally thousands of people … called walis, etc. but can be called partial zilli nabis.”
However perfect an image may be, it still remains one of the images and does not become real.
As the Promised Messiah has explained, very directly, what exactly is “a prophet by way of metaphor (majaz)”, we don’t need to resort to any indirect analogies like the one you are using about Mahdi. He wrote:
“There is no claim of prophethood. On the contrary, the claim is of muhaddasiyya, which has been advanced by the command of God. … if muhaddasiyya, which is described in the Holy Quran alongside prophethood and messengership, and for which there is a hadith in Sahih Bukhari, is declared to be metaphorical (majazi) prophethood, or is called one of the aspects of prophethood, does this imply a claim to prophethood?” (Izala Auham, pages 421-422; RK, v. 3, p. 320-321)
“…the coming Messiah, due to being a muhaddas, is also metaphorically (majaz-an) a prophet.” (Izala Auham, p. 349; RK, v. 3, p. 278)
“We believe and acknowledge that, according to the real meaning of nubuwwat, after the Holy Prophet Muhammad no new or former prophet can come. The Holy Quran forbids the appearance of any such prophets. But in a metaphorical (majazi) sense God can call any recipient of revelation as nabi or mursal.” (Siraj Munir, p. 3; RK, v. 12, p. 5)
“… sometimes the revelation from God contains such words about some of His saints (auliya) in a metaphorical (majaz) and figurative sense; they are not meant by way of reality … The epithet ‘prophet of God’ for the Promised Messiah, which is to be found in Sahih Muslim etc. from the blessed tongue of the Holy Prophet, is meant in the same metaphorical (majazi) sense as that in which it occurs in Sufi literature as an accepted and common term for [the recipient of] Divine communication. Otherwise, how can there be a prophet after the Khatam-ul-anbiya?” (Anjam Atham, footnote, p. 28; RK, v. 11, p. 28)
Thus he has clearly described “a prophet by way of metaphor (majaz)” as being a muhaddas or a saint who receives revelation.
As to one who is a prophet “not by way of reality”, I quote again an extract I gave in my last e-mail, showing that it is auliya who are “not prophets by way of reality”:
“God speaks to, and communicates with, His saints (auliya) in this Umma. They are given the colour of prophets, but they are not prophets in reality” (Mawahib-ur-Rahman, published January 1903, p. 66; RK, v. 19, p. 285)
If you want to search for an analogy then here is a better one from Haqiqat-ul-Wahy (which of course is later than 1901 whereas your reference from Arba‘in is from before 1901 !). He writes on pages 63-64 (RK, v. 22, p. 65-66) that in the scriptures before the Quran various prophets have been referred to metaphorically as sons of God and further that in the prophecies in those scriptures the Holy Prophet Muhammad has been referred to metaphorically as God. He writes:
“It does not mean that they are in reality the sons of God … In actual fact neither were those prophets the sons of God, nor is the Holy Prophet God.”
They were called sons of God, or in case of the Holy Prophet he was called God, by way of metaphor and not by way of reality. Now your interpretation of Hazrat Mirza sahib being “prophet by way of metaphor and not by way of reality” is as follows:
“In relation to the Prophet Muhammad his nabuwwat is only an image or metaphor so to speak, but it does not negate he is a nabi on his own”
If this interpretation is applied here then it would mean that it is only in relation to God that these prophets were metaphorically sons of God, and it is only in relation to God that our Holy Prophet was metaphorically God. Otherwise, when considered “on their own”, these prophets were actually sons of God and our Holy Prophet was actually God!
You could even further support this bizarre interpretation by pointing out that the Promised Messiah goes on to quote a verse of the Quran where the Holy Prophet is commanded to address people as “O my servants”. He writes:
“In this place, instead of ‘O servants of Allah’ (ya ‘ibadullah), it says ‘O my servants’ (ya ‘ibadi), whereas people are servants of God, not servants of the Holy Prophet. But this is in the sense of metaphor.” (RK, v. 22, p. 66)
But you would say that this proves that the Holy Prophet, while not being God in relation to God, is actually God in relation to people.
Regarding the text you have quoted, the words “real and perfect” show that “real” is not being used as opposed to non-real or metaphorical, but as a contrast with imperfect. This is also what he says there. Two pages earlier he writes:
“Although the attribute of being Mahdi is found in all prophets, because they were all taught by God, but in our Holy Prophet it is found particularly and perfectly and completely because the other prophets also had human teachers” (RK, v. 17, p. 358)
In a slightly earlier book in the same volume in Ruhani Khaza’in he writes:
“The Holy Prophet was the perfect Mahdi, and on the next level below him was Moses … There has been only one perfect and real Mahdi in the world … So even though the Holy Prophet is the perfect Mahdi as compared to Moses in every way, but because Moses preceded him in time, he is called the like of Moses.” (RK, v. 17, p. 255)
So “real” here is not as opposed to “metaphorical”, since Moses was also a Mahdi but was one level below the Holy Prophet. In fact, Moses even had the advantage of the precedence of time, so that the Holy Prophet is called the ‘like of Moses’.
Anjuman Himayat-i-Islam (AHI) Questions
VII. Your comments show that you appear not to have read what I wrote. You write:
“You have given more background, which I appreciate, but you have not refuted anything.”
I have not just given “more” background, I have given the background when your Qadiani Jama‘at source had given you none whatsoever. While appreciating this, you should also ask the Qadiani Jama‘at why they committed this gross misrepresentation by quoting only a small part of the Maulana’s reply and by concealing the background.
As to “but you have not refuted anything”, that is for others to judge when our e-mail exchange is published. I have no illusions whatever that anything I say could possibly make the devotees of the Qadiani Jama‘at change their minds.
You write: “When pressed specifically to explain his writings of 30 years ago on the status of MGA and whether he modified them, he ducks away …”
But he was never pressed specifically! The AHI question does not mention his writings of 30 years ago. As I said in my last e-mail, their question number 2 was:
“Has your belief about Mirza sahib been the same from the beginning till today, or has it ever changed, and if so why did it change?”
He referred them to his reply to their question number 1, given immediately above, where his closing words are:
“Hazrat Mirza sahib wrote — Izala Auham page 421 — that his claim was not of being a prophet but a muhaddas. I took the bai‘at upon these beliefs and I still hold the same beliefs now.”
This is a plain and direct answer to their question. The Maulana then expands his answer and himself introduces the mention of his writings of thirty years ago, which according to you he is ducking away from. The Qadiani Jama‘at reasoning is truly unique and remarkable! Maulana Muhammad Ali himself raises this topic, then he himself publishes the questions and answers in his community’s newpaper, which otherwise would have remained unpublished, and according to Qadiani Jama‘at logic he is ducking away from that topic!
Continuing with your invention, you write: “He insisted that the fatwa should simply be based on the writings of the present day that state the Promised Messiah was not a real prophet knowing this would be acceptable to them. His personal writings from thirty years ago were to be off the table.”
He answered in two parts. Firstly, if the AHI is to pass a resolution to amend its rules saying that members of the AAIIL cannot be its members then that resolution must refer to the beliefs of the organization known as AAIIL. Secondly, he begins:
“3. If it is a question of a fatwa about me personally, …”
So he is answering the question about himself. You say: “he answered their question with another question”. Let me repeat his reply, continuing from above:
“… then a fatwa of kufr based on writings of thirty years ago will not prove useful. Especially at this time, when an exalted personality like Iqbal has declared a man to be kafir whom just four years ago he made the president of a Muslim committee. Sir Muhammad Iqbal was in the forefront in making Mirza Mahmud Ahmad president of the Kashmir committee. And the Jama‘at which he declared as a true model of Islamic life some 16 or 17 years before that in his speech at Aligarh, today he calls it kafir. So it is appropriate that whatever fatwa you give, it should be based on writings of the present day.”
Please tell us where do you see the question or question mark in his reply! The Maulana’s writings of thirty years ago will not prove useful to them because he will put forward the opinions and actions of the President of the AHI (Dr Sir Muhammad Iqbal), the very man who has told the AHI to expel Ahmadis from its membership, which show that he regarded all Ahmadis as Muslims all through this time, from well before thirty years ago to even just recently. He is not saying, as you allege, that “his personal writings from thirty years ago were to be off the table”; he is saying that in that case the past statements and actions of the President of the AHI (and indeed those of the AHI itself for the past almost fifty years) should also be on the table.
The allegation against the Maulana on the basis of the thirty years old writings were already well-known before this questioning in 1936. The Qadiani Jama‘at had been publicizing these charges since 1914, and the Maulana had published replies on two occasions, in 1915 and 1918. This was all a matter of public knowledge. As late as 1932, when a man wrote to Iqbal saying that he was considering joining the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama‘at, Iqbal wrote back with the following advice:
“As to the Ahmadiyya Movement, there are many members of the Lahore Jama‘at whom I consider to be honourable (ghairat-mand) Muslims, and I sympathise with their efforts to propagate Islam. To join a movement or not depends very much on one’s personal inclination. You should decide for yourself whether to join the movement or not … But indeed, the passion for the propagation of Islam that is to be found in most members of his [Hazrat Mirza sahib’s] Jama‘at is worthy of praise.” (Iqbal Nama, Part II, Makatib Iqbal, Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Lahore, 1951, pages 230 – 232, Letter no. 87, dated 7 April 1932)
Let Dr Tahir Ijaz and the Qadiani Jama‘at explain why such opinions of the President of the AHI, expressed four years previously, should not be taken into account by the AHI in determining whether Lahore Ahmadis are Muslims or not.
You write: “I strongly disagree with the notion that Maulana Sahib’s previous writings need not be considered. It is impossible. He was not just another Tom, Dick and Harry. He was the religious leader and founder and prominent intellectual.”
Iqbal also was not “just another Tom, Dick and Harry”. He was President of the AHI, as well as being regarded as an intellectual leader of all the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent and a world-famous figure. Why shouldn’t his views be “on the table”?
You also falsely allege that the Maulana wanted the AHI to consider his present day writings because those “would be acceptable to them”. Consider therefore the last question that the AHI put to him, as follows:
“You have been emphasising in your published letter that Ahmadis are Muslims and that they regard non-Ahmadis as Muslims. By ‘Ahmadi’ here do you mean only members of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha‘at Islam Lahore or do you also include the Qadiani group within this term? If the Qadiani group is also included within this term, then is it their belief that non-Ahmadis are Muslims?”
Tricky question, isn’t it? Either he excludes Qadianis from being Ahmadis or he has to explain why they regard other Muslims as non-Muslims. The Maulana’s reply was as follows:
“In my letter I was speaking only of members of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha‘at Islam. However, the Qadiani group also calls itself ‘Ahmadi’ and I consider them to be a sect of the Muslims.
It is a well-known doctrine of the Qadianis that they call other Muslims as kafir. But to my knowledge there are many Qadianis who do not do so. The right way for you or your Anjuman, if you want to give some fatwa, is to enquire from them. But you will not find many Muslim sects who don’t call each other kafir. There are two groups of Hanafis here: Barelvis and Deobandis, both of which have great scholars among them. Each calls the other as kafir. I think that if you want to find a Muslim who has not been pronounced as kafir in a fatwa, it is going to be very difficult.”
He has come to the defence of the Qadiani Jama‘at here. Perhaps Dr Tahir Ijaz and the Qadiani Jama‘at would like to pass their judgment on this reply, whether Maulana Muhammad Ali “ducked away” from the question or if he gave a reply that would be “acceptable” to the AHI.
You wrote at the beginning of your point VII: “On the topic of Muhammad Ali Sahib and his problems with Anjuman H Islam …”
You perhaps are unaware of the problems of the Qadiani Jama‘at with the same people. Dr Iqbal’s campaign to have Ahmadis declared as non-Muslim was primarily directed at the Qadiani Jama‘at. Yet you feel so much sympathy for the AHI that you regard them as having “strong grounds for being suspicious” and as having justified concerns which the Maulana failed to satisfy. Therefore I would like to put to you the “suspicions” and “concerns” expressed by Iqbal, in that same campaign, regarding the Qadiani Jama‘at. In his famous statement entitled Qadianis and Orthodox Muslims, published in those days, he writes as follows about the Qadiani Jama‘at:
that it “must, therefore, be regarded by every Muslim as a serious danger to the solidarity of Islam”,
that it is “harmful to the integrity of Muslim society”,
that it “apparently retains some of the more important externals of Islam with an inwardness wholly inimical to the spirit and aspirations of Islam”,
that Islam “cannot reconcile itself to a movement which threatens its present solidarity”,
and that “heretical movements in Muslim Iran under the pressure of pre-Islamic Magian ideas invented the words buruz, hulul, zill.”
Please tell us whether Iqbal also had strong grounds for these concerns and suspicions about the Qadiani Jama‘at, which he expressed as part of the same campaign in which the AHI was asking Maulana Muhammad Ali those questions.
Finally, I must mention that, far from “ducking away” from this issue, Maulana Muhammad Ali issued sworn statements affirming that his belief regarding the claim of the Promised Messiah was the same after 1901 as it was before 1901, that he was a muhaddas and not a prophet. In 1915, he issued a sworn statement, signed by a total of seventy Ahmadis, that they had joined the Movement before 1901, believing Hazrat Mirza sahib to be a muhaddas and not a prophet, and that they had never heard from any person whatsoever in 1901, or later, that he changed his claim to prophet, until Mirza Mahmud Ahmad propagated this notion in 1915. He challenged members of the Qadiani Jama‘at who were in the Movement since before 1901 to issue a similar sworn statement, to the effect that they had in 1901 changed their belief from regarding him as muhaddas to regarding him as prophet. None of them ever, including Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, made such a sworn declaration.
Later, in 1944 and 1946, he took public oaths about his beliefs in response to demands by certain Qadianis. During 1944 he published a statement in Paigham Sulh continuously in several issues accusing Mirza Mahmud Ahmad of fabricating the theory of change of claim in 1901. The first part of this statement was as follows:
“Mirza Mahmud Ahmad has made a false statement and committed a fabrication against the Promised Messiah that in 1901 he changed his claim in this way that, while previously denying a claim to prophethood and sending curses upon anyone who would claim to be a prophet, he now made a claim to prophethood himself, and cancelled his former writings of several years containing denials of a claim to prophethood.”
He thus confronted this issue head-on. Note that if the Promised Messiah used the word ‘prophet’ about himself in the same way after 1901 as before 1901, as meaning muhaddas, then it is also in the same sense that this word is used in Maulana Muhammad Ali’s writings after 1901.
Your question here is: “since MGA clearly applies the prophecy to himself, why doesn’t Muhammad Ali Sahib say so in his Quran commentary that it can apply to him also?” But he does! The three verses following the one referring to the prophecy mention the work of the propagation and defence of Islam to be done by this Prophet, and the third of these verses is: “He it is Who sent His Messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth that he may make it prevail other all religions” (61:9). In the footnote on this verse, Maulana Muhammad Ali writes:
“The commentators say that this predominance will be brought about through the Promised Messiah.”
The task of bringing about the predominance of Islam in the world, to be done by the Prophet named Ahmad, will be completed in the latter days through a follower of his, namely the Promised Messiah. This is the only sense in which this prophecy of ‘Ahmad’ refers to the Promised Messiah.
In the Qadiani Jama‘at English Quran commentary, the footnote under the ‘Ahmad’ verse is 43 lines long, the first 35 lines being devoted to showing how the Holy Prophet Muhammad fulfils this prophecy (as well as the last 3 lines). There are 5 lines referring to the Promised Messiah, which begin as follows:
“Thus the prophecy mentioned in the verse applies to the Holy Prophet, but as a corollary it may also apply to the Promised Messiah”
(See their website page: http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1132)
These 5 lines out of 43, and the wording “…as a corollary it may also apply …”, hardly constitute a strong application of the prophecy to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad!
The important point I made in earlier e-mails is that what is stated in the Qadiani Jama‘at English Quran commentary is exactly the opposite of the position which Mirza Mahmud Ahmad had put forward most vigorously, in great detail, in Anwar-i Khilafat in 1916, from page 18 to page 52. He wrote:
- “Hence the messenger named Ahmad, whose news is given in this verse, cannot be the Holy Prophet Muhammad.”
- This prophecy “contains not a single word” to show that it applies to the Holy Prophet Muhammad.
- “There is no Hadith report of any kind, whether true or false, … which mentions that the Holy Prophet Muhammad applied this verse to himself”.
- “If anyone can prove 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.”
According to him, this prophecy of the coming ‘Ahmad’ remained entirely unfulfilled until Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad appeared. It was only after it was fulfilled in the person of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad that it became possible to say that it also refers, indirectly, to the Holy Prophet.
The Qadiani Jama‘at has quite obviously abandoned these strongly-expressed beliefs of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, and the reason for this must be to make their views more acceptable to the general Muslims.
Implications of regarding Promised Messiah as prophet
You have repeatedly written that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was “a real prophet” possessing “real prophethood”. The implications of belief in his “real prophethood” have been clearly stated by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in his book The Truth About the Split (available also online on the Qadiani Jama‘at official website). He wrote:
“Now, as we hold that the revelation which came to the Promised Messiah are such that their acceptance is obligatory on mankind in general, to us, the man who rejects the Promised Messiah is a Kafir agreeably to the teachings of the Holy Quran” (p. 59)
“Now, as Islam bases its judgements upon what is patent and not upon what is possible, it cannot but class as Kafir such as fail to accept any of the prophets, even though such failure may be due to their want of information concerning him.” (p. 59-60)
“I wrote that as we believed the Promised Messiah to be one of the prophets of God, we could not possibly regard his deniers as Muslims” (p. 137-138)
“… all those so-called Muslims who have not entered into his Bai‘at formally, wherever they may be, are Kafirs and outside the pale of Islam, even though they may not have heard the name of the Promised Messiah.” (p. 55)
(This book at the link: http://www.alislam.org/library/split)
If Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet then there is no escape from the infamous belief mentioned in these extracts, namely, that all Muslims other than pledged members of the Qadiani Jama‘at are actually not Muslims. But this is the notorious belief that the Qadiani Jama‘at has been trying to get away from for more than forty years now. The only way to escape from it is to declare that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was not a prophet but a mujaddid, muhaddas and wali. _______________________________________________________________________________________________
My response to the Addendum of Dr Tahir Ijaz (26 February 2004)
I asked Dr T. Ijaz by e-mail: Could you please let me know the name and date of the original source in which this statement of Maulana Nur-ud-Din was first published?
His reply: The book by Zafrullah Khan sahib is the source – a compilation of written statements of Maulvi Nurrudin, including letters to Ahmadis. I don’t think that letter was published in a jamaat periodical.
My comments on content of letter
Parts of this 1907 letter are self-contradictory and confusing because either the translation is badly done or possibly the context in which the letter was written is unknown, without which it cannot be properly understood. But most importantly, the key point that Dr Ijaz is making from this letter (that Ahmadis should make no distinction between those who do not believe in the Promised Messiah and those who do not believe in the Holy Prophet Muhammad) is contradicted by the published statements of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Maulana Nur-ud-Din himself, including statements made after 1907, and is also entirely opposite to what the Qadiani Khalifas have been declaring during the last fifty years.
As to the quotation being self-contradictory and confusing, it begins by quoting from the Quran that some messengers were exalted above others. But then he says: “If there were not equality of status between Messengers, …”, meaning that there is equality of status, but the verse he has quoted says the opposite (that messengers were of differing ranks). He goes on: “… there would not be such equality of status as you have in mind between those who do not believe in them”. This is completely confusing. How does the Maulana know what the questioner has in mind from the words of the question? The Maulana appears to be saying that the questioner believes in equality of status between the two sets of rejectors, and yet he is also answering as if he disagrees with the questioner!
What I have called Dr Ijaz’s key point was being contradicted by the Promised Messiah at the very time of this 1907 letter and later. In Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, published May 1907, he protested strongly (p. 119-120), saying that he did not take the initiative in calling his Muslim opponents as kafir but that they were the ones who took the initiative: “…how dishonest it is that, while they are the ones who call us kafir, they accuse us of having declared all Muslims as kafir”. A few days before his death he again declared most strongly that he did not call as kafir those who did not call him so (Malfuzat, v. 10, p. 376-378). Thus those who merely do not accept the Promised Messiah are not regarded by him as kafir. So they are far from being the same as those who do not accept the Holy Prophet Muhammad.
In 1912 Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din was asked “about the instruction in the conditions of the bai‘at 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). Again here the non-Ahmadis are classed as Muslims and are not classed with those who deny the Holy Prophet Muhammad.
In January 1954, the Qadiani Khalifa Mirza Mahmud Ahmad was asked at the Munir commission of enquiry the question: “Does not belief in a new prophet affect the attitude of those who accept him towards other people?” His answer was: “If he is a law-bearing prophet, then the answer is Yes. But if he does not bring a new law then the attitude of those who accept him towards other people depends upon how other people treat them.”
This reply is directly the opposite of Dr Tahir Ijaz’s standpoint that there is no distinction between those who do not believe in a law-bearing prophet and those who do not believe in a non-law-bearing one.
When Mirza Mahmud Ahmad was asked in the same court: “Is it not kufr to deny a true prophet?”, he replied: “Yes, it is kufr, but kufr is of two kinds: one which expels a man from the religion and the other which does not expel him from the religion. Denial of the Kalima is the first kind of kufr. The second kind of Kufr results from wrong beliefs of a lower level.”
This is a very big distinction between those who do not accept the Promised Messiah and those who do not accept the Holy Prophet Muhammad.
When Mirza Nasir Ahmad was Qadiani Khalifa, he stated at a press conference in Europe in 1979, as published in the Qadiani Jama‘at book Daura-i Maghrib, that the difference between his Jama‘at and other Muslims was on a secondary issue, namely, that of acceptance of the Promised Messiah, and that all believers in the Holy Prophet Muhammad are agreed on the fundamental beliefs and practices, and that they (Ahmadis and other Muslims) are all part of the Muslim Umma. He is making a huge distinction between those who don’t accept the Prophet Muhammad and those who don’t accept the Promised Messiah. Those who don’t accept the Promised Messiah are, according to Mirza Nasir Ahmad, part of the Muslim Umma, following the same fundamental religious beliefs and practices as the Ahmadis.
This issue (whether other Muslims become non-Muslim by not accepting the Promised Messiah) is the key point underlying our differences. Hence I have selected it here for rebuttal.
From Dr Tahir Ijaz, November 16, 2003.
- I. Maulvi Nurrudin sahib greatly clarifies what is meant by nabi as applied to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (MGA). He knows non-Ahmadis mistakenly believe that a nabi can no longer appear in the ummah since the Islamic Shariah is final, but explains non-shariah nabis can appear, since nabi is a term of spiritual statuspar excellence, who receive gift of prophecy. He did not use the dictionary to counter the idea MGA is an actual nabi – he is only countering the idea he is aShariah Moreover, there is a similar quote from MGA that I will quote later (point V) that makes Nuruddin’s statement even more clear. That the community believed in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a real prophet is clear even from Paigham-I- sulha, before the split, as I will quote later (point IV).
- II. MGAwasa nabi in the sense former nabis were called nabis, contrary to what you say. MGA states: (The Badr March 5 1908, emphasis mine): “Among the Israelites there have been several nabis to whom no law was revealed. They only announced prophecies which they received from God and which served to establish truth and prestige of the Mosaic religion. It was these prophecies that entitled them to be called nabis. The same is the case with my mission. If I am not to be called a nabi, what other distinctive word is there which will distinguish me from other recipients of divine revelation?”
MGA is saying the term nabi is applied to him not merely in a technical sense, but because he was a nabi in the sense of the word former prophets were called nabis. He was raised as an Imam directly by Allah for a specific mission through Divine revelation, as other nabis. He is also careful to point out that he is not a law-bearer, like many of the Israelite prophets, thus one should not object to him being called nabi on that basis, since the term “nabi” does not automatically imply law-bearer or law modifier.
As I will show later, it is wrong to say he is only a muhuddas. Being in the highest stage does not exclude him from holding other titles. From 1901 and beyond, he stated he had the rank nabi, whereas before he specifically told his followers to replace the word nabi with muhuddas in his writings.
III. Regarding Muhammad Ali’s statement in his book History of the Prophets, I am not clear what your objection is. In the book where he outlines the lives of the prophets, he states true nabi in Islamic parlance has two characteristics: the person is blessed with gift of prophecy by Allah, and raised by Allah directly (i.e informed by Divine revelation) with a mission to revive a community. It is absolutely correct to say that when Allah appoints a person directly, by revelation, and the person is commanded by Allah to deliver the message, (thus also called rasul) and it is made incumbent by Allah that the people should accept the person he has spoken to and form a community around him, that person can only be a nabi. Remember the saying of the Prophet Muhammad, (paraphrasing): “once the Messiah appears you must go to him, even if it means crawling on your knees over glaciers. Convey my salaam to him and pledge allegiance (baaya) at his hands”. The Messiah addressed himself to all Muslims and peoples of the Earth and proclaimed a universal message.
You are right that Maulana Sahib has written that all nabis should bring books. He has quoted Quran 2:213 “ Allah raised prophets…and revealed with them the book…” and 57:25, “We sent our messengers with clear arguments, and sent down with them the book…” If by kitab he meant all prophets brought a Law, then he is wrong based on the Quran and what MGA has said quoted earlier. Nowhere in the Quran does it state that each nabi definitely brought a separate kitab. You can also take the Quranic passages to mean one nabi brought the book (law) and a number of others served and enforced the book. For instance, one verse says: “We gave the Israelites al-Kitab” (45:16). The Book was really only given to Moses, but all Israelites are included because they all followed Moses. Similarly another verse states: “And we bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and We placed Prophethood and the Book among his descendants” (29:27). Another verse states makes it even more clear: “Surely we revealed the Torah, in which was guidance and light, the prophets who submitted themselves enforced it and judged matters by it for the Jews” (5:44). This is proof of the fact that God sent a number of prophets who did not bring any new Law but that they served and enforced the Law of Moses.
In one manner however every prophet did indeed bring a kitab, as long as one realizes the broad meaning of the word. According to Maulana Muhammad Ali in “The Religion of Islam” page 152 (footnote), he states the word kitab signifies Divine revelations, written or not, and freely used to denote Divine decrees. The short letter by Solomon admonishing people is also called kitab in the Quran (27:28). Thus kitab can be considered revelations, and the pronouncements of the nabi based on the revelations are kitab, but not a Law. In this sense, the Promised Messiah was given a kitab since it is clear even from the Quranic usage of the term, it does not always imply new Law. He proclaimed the Divine decrees and instructions revealed to him to correct the mistaken beliefs of the Muslims and revived the true Islam.
- IV. You claimed that Mirza Mahmud was involved in perhaps trying to falsely elevate the status of MGA soon after his death. The facts on the ground and reality is however, a minority of people were trying to “water-down” the status of MGA which lead to this rebuttal inPaigham Sulha(emphasis mine):
“It has been gathered that some people have been involved in creating a misunderstanding that by those at the back of this journal, or one of them, anyway, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Promised Messiah and the Mahdi, is being assigned a position far below the one, in fact which belongs to him. We, all the Ahmadies connected with this newspaper, in one way or other, go on solemn oath, before God Who knows the innermost secrets of what lies in the mind openly and honestly declare that is view being imputed to us is nothing more than gross accusation, a pernicious charge against us. We solemnly hold that the Promised Messiah is the Prophet for this age, a Prophet, and Messenger from God, raised to deliver Muslims and all Mankind from sins and evil” (Paigham Sulha Oct 16 1913)
- V. As mentioned in an earlier email, Muhammad Ali Sahib’s, 1906 statement is powerful evidence that he believed the same. “It has always been the way of Allah that, out of those people themselves, he raises a prophet entrusted with a mission to spread righteous teaching…this is what has come about in our time.” The article was a review of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s article on the fact MGA was a nabi, entrusted with same mission as other prophets. Nowhere in this work of Mirza Mahmud does it state MGA is merely a saint doing the work of a prophet. This is the view Maulvi Muhammad Ali has endorsed.
In the earlier writings of MGA, prior to 1901, as you quote, there are strong statements from MGA that saints would do work of prophets now. His writings post 1901 clearly portray a different story. One example is given here. MGA tackled the question on the rise of a prophet after Prophet Muhammad both before 1901 and after 1901.
Before 1901, In Izala I Auham, page 575, MGA wrote about a person having difficulty understanding how the Messiah for the Muslims can be a prophet. The question posed to MGA was: “Jesus, son of Mary, at the time of his coming would be one of the followers of the Holy Prophet, how could he be a full fledged prophet as well, especially as Hazrat Muhammad is the last and final prophet?!
MGA explained: “one of the believers of the Holy Prophet, who received communications from God, because of his spiritual attainments, can be considered (figuratively speaking) as a prophet whose other name is muhaddas”.
Later, as written in Zamima Barahin I Ahmadiyya, 1905, Vol V, page 138, the same question was asked: Some people say if it is true that in Bukhari and Muslim it is written that Messiah would be a member of this ummat; but in Muslim when it stated that Messiah would be a nabi-ullah, then how can we hold that he would belong to this ummat?
The gentleman was having difficulty grasping how a prophet to come later to revive Islam and be an ummati at the same time. It was a common misconception among the Muslims then (even now) that a prophet could not be an ummati and prophet at the same time. Even MGA believed in that mistaken concept at one time. For example in Al-Hakam (1899, No 29 vol 3), he stated that in Islamic terminology, prophets and messengers imply “they bring shariah or cancel some of the edicts of the previous shariah or they are not called the followers of the preceding prophet and keep in touch with God directly without receiving any benefit from any other prophet”.
Did MGA simply say again it is metaphor, that the future Messiah would be merely a saint doing the work of a prophet?
On the other hand he wrote on his conception of the word nabi and how one can appear in the ummah as a nabi:
“The true meaning of this word (nabi) is only this that he should be one who received tidings, by means of wahyi from Allah and have communion with Allah in considerable abundance and amplitude. That he should be a bearer of a new Shariah is not essential or binding. NOR is it necessary that he should NOT be a follower of an earlier nabi who had a Shariah of his own…therefore there is no harm if an ummati should come to be a nabi of this kind, especially when the nabi received the blessing after loyal obedience to the earlier nabi in question.”
MGA says: Nabi first of all means to have considerable communion with Allah, blessed with revelation and it is not essential that they bring a Shariah. The words NOT ESSENTIAL that he (nabi) brings a Shariah proves that a definition has been sent down of a nabi, in the real sense. Some prophets bring shariah, some don’t. They are still prophets. Once MGA clarifies that point, he explains that the prophet to come now must be a follower of previous prophet with the shariah. Further the nabi would receive the blessing after loyal obedience to the earlier nabi, a different stance than the writing from 1899. Of course, a muhaddas does not bring a new Shariah by definition, proving he is speaking of true prophethood, not a metaphoric nabi to mean saint.
- VI. Your post 1901 quotes and especially your appeal toHaqiqatul Wahyidoes not contradict anything above, and in fact serves to reinforce my position. On page 30 of the book is the quote (context is the superiority of Muslim ummah over Moses’ ummah), that there have been thousands of auliya, who received their position through following Muhammad; however on top of that now we have one who is now ummati and nabi. You are wrong to say therefore he is merely only in the highest group of believers among three levels. He was not a mere muhaddas. There was a time when MGA used to say that whenever his followers were to see the word “nabi” in relation to him, they were instructed to mentally cross it out and replace with “muhaddas”. However later he was to say, the term muhuddas did not do proper justice to his actual rank, and insisted nabi also should be used! As long he believed a nabi could not be ummati, he interpreted rising of a nabi in ummah to be metaphorical, that is, muhuddas in reality, and claimed just that, out of modesty. Later, he realized through Divine revelation an ummati can truly rise to the level of nabi.
For attainment of zilli prophethood, the door remains open, as MGA writes in Haqiqatul Wahyi. Of course thousands of righteous servants of Allah in the past received a share of zilli nabuwwat, though it was not perfect. Just as there were prophets before Muhammad perfect and complete within their sphere and times, they were incomplete and imperfect in relation to the prophet. In the same way, all previous auliya in the ummah bore a reflection to their master, Prophet Muhammad, but were imperfect and incomplete in relation to the Promised Messiah. They were, as you say, at a very high spiritual level, and reminded people of the prophets of the past. The reflection attained by the Promised Messiah however was the highest obtained and thus he rose to spiritual height of nabuwwat by Allah. He was distinct. Thus MGA states: “If the other servants of God, as have gone before my time, had taken an equal share with me in the amplitude of tangible communion with Allah, and knowledge of things unknown, they would have come to deserve being called nabi” P 391, Haqiqatul Wahyi.
MGA wrote he was the perfect, full and complete zilli nabi. In one book he stated: “I am not a rasul and prophet in the sense of having brought a new shariah, a new claim and a new name; and I am nabi and rasul that is with respect of perfect zilliyyat. I am the mirrors in which the qualities and nabuwwat of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, have been perfectly reflected” (Nozul – I- Masih page 3).
As the perfect zilli nabuwwat is true nabuwwat, MGA wrote in “A Misunderstanding Removed”: “It must be borne in mind there is a pledge in favor of this ummat that it will receive all those identical blessings which the earlier prophets and siddiqs received. So, included in these favors and blessings, are the nabuwwats, and prophecies, on the basis of which the earlier prophets came to be known and accepted as prophets”. The quotation from Vol 5, Brahin Ahmadiyya also proves ummati and zilli prophethood is real prophethood.
A quotation from Haqiqatul Wahyi (page 390) shows further he attained the spiritual rank of nabi: “It has been foretold that in the ummat of the Holy Prophet, there shall appear one who will be called Jesus Son of Mary and will be called Nabi which means that he will be getting the excellence of communion and communication and the matters unseen disclosed to him with such abundance that cannot be done except to a prophet. As Allah says ‘Allah does not grant anyone a full power and dominance on matters pertaining to the unknown obtainable on the basis of amplitude and clarity except in the case of His own chosen Apostle.’ And it is a thing established that the amplitude and abundance of communion and the volume of knowledge in regard to the unknown bestowed on me by Allah, in the last thirteen hundred years, has not been granted to anyone else”
Here, MGA says he attained a spiritual state and close communion with Allah, a level only beholden to the prophets. There is nothing metaphoric here. He literally is a nabi. To say, “Because Jesus coming again is metaphoric, so nabi must be also” is truly laughable.
The quotation from Haqiqatul Wahyi goes on: “In short, in point of amplitude of wahyi from Allah and knowledge of things in realms of the unknown, I am the only specific individual; before my time, in the entire number of auliya, abdal, and aqtab, in this ummaat from me, no one has been given this abundance. On the basis I am the only one singled out to be called nabi.” Needless to say, if you replace the word “nabi” with “muhuddus”, the pre 1901 instruction, the passage is meaningless, since he is saying the only muhuddus is himself, and no else ever attained that status in the ummah. Thus, he says, by reaching the rank of nabi, he is superior to all saints and holy personages who previously appeared in the ummah.
That he truly was a prophet of Allah is borne out by his statements on his rank compared to Hazrat Isa, again in Haqiqatul Wahyi. It is not the full truth to say MGA was greater simply because the Muslim Messiah had a greater universal mission than the Jewish Messiah as Prophet Muhammad was the greatest prophet. The fact is as long as he thought that it was necessary for a prophet to bring a Book or attain prophet directly and independently, MGA denied being a prophet and believed he could not be superior to Hazrat Isa, being a prophet of Allah. But when he realized his status as nabi, he had no hesitation to declare his superiority over Jesus. Again, Haqiqatul Wahyi bears this out.
On page 148 of Haqiqatul Wahyi, he writes about a question posed by someone: “on page 157 of Taryaqul Qolub, (pre 1901) a book of which I am the author, it is written: ‘Let no one be misled to imagine that in this address I have held myself to be superior to Hazrat Masih, since this superiority is only in certain respects, and of a kind which a man, who was not a nabi, could have over one who was a nabi’.
Then in later writings, in apparent complete contradiction to the above, MGA goes on to give quotes from his own pen stating (quoting from Review of Religions) the Promised Messiah is categorically greater than the first Messiah.
Thus there was a contradiction in the eyes of the questioner. The answer to this contradiction, as MGA writes, was due to his realization he indeed was an actual nabi now, through constant wahyi to this effect. His words:
“In the beginning I believed that I had no comparison with Jesus son of Mary; he was a prophet and one of the chosen ones of God. If there was disclosed anything indicating my superiority, I considered it as a minor and partial phase. However when revelations from God poured upon me like rain I could not keep this belief. I was clearly given the title of a prophet – in one respect a prophet and in the other an ummati”.
Before I close this section, a comment on the oft repeated quote from Haqiqatul Wahyi: “I have been called a nabi by way of metaphor, not by way of reality”. Metaphor = majaz or zill
It should be borne in mind that in the spiritual scheme of Islam and specifically Ahmadiyya theology, followers can progress spiritually only by obedience to the Prophet Muhammad. He is the only real person and his followers are mere images, in varying degrees of perfection. MGA was the perfect, complete zilli nabi, but there have been literally thousands of people who attained high spiritual ranks through obedience to the Prophet Muhammad, hence called, walis, etc. but can be called “partial zilli nabis”.
That is why MGA wrote, “the real and perfect Mahdi has been only one in the whole world – the prophet Muhammad” (Arabeen II P 16).
Of course, MGA is the real Mahdi, but compared to the Prophet Muhammad he is not the real Mahdi. In relation to the Prophet Muhammad his nabuwwat is only an image or metaphor so to speak, but it does not negate he is a nabi on his own, in the same way being only an image of Imam Mahdi does not negate he truly is Imam Mahdi.
VII. On the topic of Muhammad Ali Sahib and his problems with Anjuman H Islam, the Maulana did not answer their specific questions/concerns on whether his beliefs changed. You have given more background, which I appreciate, but you have not refuted anything. Anjuman H Islam was suspicious because there was an obvious discrepancy between his previous writings from around 1906 and the current views of the organization he leads. Instead of “grabbing the bull by the horns” he answered their question with another question. When pressed specifically to explain his writings of 30 years ago on the status of MGA and whether he modified them, he ducks away from the straight-forward question the Anjuman H Islam were hoping to get clarification on.
He insisted that the fatwa should simply be based on the writings of the present day that state the Promised Messiah was not a real prophet knowing this would be acceptable to them. His personal writings from thirty years ago were to be off the table. I strongly disagree with the notion that Maulana Sahib’s previous writings need not be considered. It is impossible. He was not just another Tom, Dick and Harry. He was the religious leader and founder and prominent intellectual. To understand the founder’s writings and discourses, even prior to the formation of his religious organization, are critical to understanding the organization as this form the edifice of the organization. Anjuman H Islam had strong grounds for being suspicious, but got no real response.
VIII– On “Ahmad” in the Quran, read Nazir’s “Truth Prevails” chapter 4; in it he has quoted MGA from Ejazul Masih, and Tohfa Golarwia. This should be sufficient.
What I don’t understand is since MGA clearly applies the prophecy to himself, why doesn’t Muhammad Ali Sahib say so in his Quran commentary that it can apply to him also? Says MGA:
“These people inquire again and again where in the Holy Quran has the name been mentioned. They do not seem to be aware that Allah named me Ahmad. The pledge of Bai-at is taken in the name of Ahmad. Is not this name found in Quran?” (Al Hakam Oct 17 1905 page 10).
Addendum by Dr Tahir Ijaz, 2nd February 2004
I have added this quotation, which summarizes many of the points already made by me.
In June 1907, in the lifetime of the Promised Messiah, Maulvi Nurrudin was asked these questions:
-Have those who do not believe in the Promised Messiah the same status as that of those who do not believe in the Holy Prophet?
-How should the hadith: ‘no prophet after me’ be construed?
-If a prophet can arise in Islam why were Abu Bakr and others not prophets?
His response was: (emphasis mine)
– “The Holy Qur’an says: Of the Messengers some We have exalted above others (2:254). If there were not equality of status between Messengers, there would not be such equality of status as you have in mind between those who do not believe in them. You may reflect that he who disbelieves in the Messiah of the Khatamal Anbiya is guilty of greater wrong that one who disbelieves in the Messiah of Moses.
The Holy Qur’an affirms that the believers make no distinction between Messengers of Allah in respect to believing in them (2:286). You are seeking to make a distinction between those who do not believe in a law bearing prophet and those who do not believe in a non-law bearing one. I do not appreciate the reason for the distinction.
We have been persuaded to believe in the Promised Messiah by the same process of reasoning as the one whereby we are persuaded to believe in the Holy Quran. To reject the reasoning would be tantamount to rejecting Islam. Do reflect on: When it is said to them: Believe ye in that which Allah has sent down; they retort: We do not believe in that which has been sent down to us; and saying that they reject that which has been sent down after that; yet it has been proved to be the truth by fulfilling that which is with them (2:92). Why does not parity of reasoning entail the same result in both cases?
-The Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, has described the Messiah who was to come as a prophet of Allah. The Promised Messiah has been so addressed in the revelations vouchsafed to him by Allah.
The Ahadith make a distinction between general and particular. Consider the following which are examples of the general, which do not exclude the particular: He who lacks integrity lacks faith, and he who fails in his promise lacks religion; salat is not performed without recitation of the Fatihah; there can be no marriage without the consent of the guardian; there is no room for envy in respect of two persons.
Then in the Holy Quran the Holy Prophet is called Khatam Nabiyyeen (Seal of Prophets) and not Khatim Nabiyyeen (Last of Prophets). The Holy Quran affirms that the Jews were after the slaying the prophets. Does this mean all prophets, or some of them?
-Abu Bakr was not called a Prophet of God, and the Promised Messiah has been so called”.
(Quoted from the book, Hazrat Maulvi Nooruddeen Khalifatul Masih I, pages 94-96, by Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, published by London Mosque, London, U.K)
Thus, according to Maulvi Nurrudin, the Promised Messiah was in the league of prophets, though non-law bearing. We should make no distinction between the messengers, and it is incumbent we accept them all. The hadith of ‘no prophet after me’ does not categorically exclude a prophet arising in the future. Khatam means ‘seal’ and signifies ‘attestor’ or ‘confirmer’, not last. Also there is no denial of Abu Bakr and Promised Messiah attaining spiritual state of nabuwwat, in fact he confirms it. The only difference is the Promised Messiah was openly called ‘Nabi’ while other righteous people in the Ummah were not openly called such. I have already given the reason for this in Section I of my response.
Discussion between Dr T. Ijaz and Dr Zahid Aziz
From October 2003 to March 2004
Initial direct posts to forum
E-mail from Dr T. Ijaz, October 28, 2003:
In the discussion forum on muslim.org, re: book Prophecy Continuous I have a comment. In the book, Prof Friedmann shows that Muhammad Ali Sahib changed his belief on concept of prophethood. Similarly, another book by an outsider, Spencer Lavan, entitled Ahmadiyya Movement, came to the same conclusion. There are a number of additional quotes from Muhammad Ali in the online book "Truth Prevails" on the al-islam.org website that are disturbing in that they show an apparent change in Ali's belief. For instance, the verse of the Quran in which Hazrat Isa relates the advent of a future prophet Ahmad, Muhammad Ali interprets that this can apply to Ahmad, the Promised Messiah, though his commentary on the Quran published later made no mention of this. While I know he himself has dismissed the previous quotes as a misunderstanding, that the term Nabi was only a metaphorical expression, when I read and re-read the various quotes, I find the explanation difficult to accept, and I mean that sincerely.
Dr Zahid Aziz, October 28, 2003:
The two books that you refer to are badly researched, and in case of 'Prophecy Continuous' the author has not made any reference to several of our important publications, which shows that his knowledge of our viewpoint is very limited and is in fact based largely on Qadiani sources. Maulana Muhammad Ali refuted this false allegation (that he ever believed Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a prophet) several times. The following is one of his articles about this:
(Near the very end of this article a quotation has been omitted on this webpage which I can provide you with if you so wish. I will get it filled in on that page as well.) About 3 years ago the Qadiani website www.alislam.org published an article making these same allegations. I compiled a response consisting of two web pages: (1) some general points and (2) dealing with specific quotes presented by them. You can read these two from this link:
In part (2) of my response I dealt with five or so of the quotes presented by the Qadianis. Some time later, before I had finished my reply, I noticed that the Qadianis had removed their article from their website (the link to their article that I give within my reply is broken as a result). As you will see by reading the references given within part (1) of my reply above, it is in fact the Qadiani leaders who changed their beliefs. Moreover, it will also be useful for you to read a section from Maulana Muhammad Ali's biography which is at this link:
This shows how strongly he challenged the Qadiani beliefs and how, in response to Qadiani demands, he even went so far as to take oaths in Allah's name to the effect that he had always held the same beliefs. But Qadiani leaders refused to take a similar oath about their beliefs. As you will see, for several months in 1944, every week he boldly published the same statement accusing the Qadiani leader of lies and fabrication. You write: > For > instance, the verse of the Quran in which Hazrat Isa > relates the advent of a future prophet Ahmad, > Muhammad Ali interprets that this can apply to > Ahmad, the Promised Messiah, though his commentary > on the Quran published later made no mention of > this. This is simply absurd and laughable for the simple reason that even Qadianis had to stop holding this belief (that Ahmad in this verse applied to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) after Maulana Muhammad Ali had refuted this wrong interpretation very strongly. You can read their change of belief on their website. First please read what Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote in his book "The Truth about the Split" about this: [quote] 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. [unquote] (See under: http://www.alislam.org/library/split/part1.html#innovations ) Now read the interpretation of this verse given in their English translation of the Quran. Please go to this link: http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1132®ion=EN which shows footnote 3037 on page 1132. As you see, most of the footnote is devoted to showing that the Holy Prophet Muhammad fulfilled this prophecy. Near the end it is written: "Thus the prophecy mentioned in this verse applies to the Holy Prophet, but as a corollary it may also apply to the Promised Messiah..." In the "Split" book, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad says that the prophecy speaks *directly* about the Promised Messiah and *indirectly* about the Holy Prophet Muhammad. In the Quran commentary they say exactly the opposite, that it actually applies to the Holy Prophet but as a corollary it may apply to the Promised Messiah. This complete turn-about came because the Qadianis could not justify their belief. The change in belief that they are accusing Maulana Muhammad Ali of making, is in actual fact exactly what they did themselves! I hope that just as you have studied the sources that you refer to in your e-mail, you will now go through our material whose links I have given. (I do not wish to overload you but there is another booklet you could look at, when you have time, which is readable at this link: http://www.muslim.org/bookspdf/split/conts.htm but you can also obtain it from us in print.)
Addition to above:
This is further to my earlier reply to you. I have looked up 'Prophecy Continuous'. On page 17 Friedmann writes: "In a book published in 1906, Muhammad Ali clearly supports Ghulam Ahmad's claim to prophethood in the same sense in which Ghulam Ahmad himself advanced it." Of course! The Maulana always, to the end of his life, supported Hazrat Mirza's claim *as he himself advanced it*, and NOT as the Qadiani Jamaat advances it. The claim, as Hazrat Mirza advanced it, was that of being "muhaddas". A muhaddas, according to Hadith, possesses "partial prophethood". (Partial means that he has the one quality which prophets also have, of receiving communication from God, although a muhaddas' communication is of a lower standing than a prophet's.) This is what we have always held, since Hazrat Mirza's time till today. Friedmann further says on the same page in 'Prophecy Continuous' about Maulana Muhammad Ali: "... and explicit acceptance of Ghulam Ahmad's prophetic claim can be found also in his later works" and here, in a footnote, Friedmann refers to the Maulana's Urdu booklet whose title means "Which group is guilty of changing its beliefs?". But this booklet was written by the Maulana in September 1915, more than a year after the Split, in reply to the Qadianis' allegation against him that he had called Hazrat Mirza as "prophet" in his earlier articles in "The Review of Religions". So according to Friedmann, the Maulana was explicitly accepting Hazrat Mirza as prophet in the very booklet that he wrote to refute the charge that he had earlier believed Hazrat Mirza to be a prophet! This is a truly bizarre statement! It just shows that the author of 'Prophecy Continuous' does not understand what claim the Maulana was accepting and what he was denying. However, it proves one thing: the author of 'Prophecy Continuous' sees no difference between what the Maulana wrote in 1906 about Hazrat Mirza's claim and what he wrote after the Split (when actually arguing with the Qadianis) in 1915. This is a point absolutely in the Maulana's favour.
Dr T. Ijaz, October 29th:
yes, I have read the links. But I am not certain it really addresses the quotes in "Truth Prevails": Please see all of chapter 1. http://www.alislam.org/library/books/truth_prevails/chapter_1_section_1.html Also on the topic of "Ahmad in the Quran", Maulana Ali is quoted as saying, "who is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? In the words of the Holy Quran we reply, 'He will come after me, his name being Ahmad" (Review of Religions vol 12, no 7) So his interpretation of the verse is Muhammad only or also include the Promised Messiah? The discussion is in Chapter 4: http://www.alislam.org/library/books/truth_prevails/chapter_4_section_1.html Incidentally, the book as you know is a rebuttal to Faruqi work, "Truth Prevails"; is that book available for purchase? I have not seen it advertised on the web site.
Dr Zahid Aziz, October 29th:
Just a quick response to one point for the moment. I went to chapter 4 of "Truth Prevails", and on the first page it says: [quote] This statement is absolutely clear. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, has quite plainly stated here that the prophecy in question applies, in the first instance, to the Holy Prophet Mohammad, himself, as borne out by the fact that Ahmad was an attributive name of the Holy Prophet. [unquote] This is exactly the opposite of the statement by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in "The Truth about the Split" which I quoted to you in my first reply, and whose link I also gave, as follows: [quote] 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. [unquote] (Capitalisation is mine. See under: http://www.alislam.org/library/split/part1.html#innovations) I can't see how anyone can deny that these two statements are exactly the opposite of each other. It is a fact that the Qadianis were forced to recant this belief (as expressed in the "Truth about the Split") because of the powerful arguments against it given by Maulana Muhammad Ali. The quotation they give from the Maulana's writings about this is so short that we cannot draw any conclusion from it without seeing the whole article itself.
Dr T. Ijaz, October 30th:
Yes, it can be confusing, but I interpret the words to mean though Hazrat Ahmad is mentioned by name in the Quran, which even Hazrat Ahmad admits it applies to him (references given in the chapter), he is only a mirror of the Holy Prophet, on whom be peace. On his own he is absolutely nothing. Thus when Hazrat Ahmad admits the Quranic verse applies to him, it should not detract from the fact the Holy Prophet is the master, and obviously also Ahmad – the original Ahmad so to speak – of which Mirza sahib was only a copy. It is a little less confusing, I think, if one notes and reflects that Hazrat Ahmad himself wrote the Quranic “Ahmad” refers to him , as stated in Al-Hakam magazine, quoted in Nazir’s book. Thus the Qadian Quran commentary is correct to include Hazrat Ahmad as literal fulfillment of the prophecy, BUT need to note Mirza Mahmood Sahib’s words in Qaul-e-Faisal quoted earlier on in Chapter 4 in Nazir Sahib’s book.
Dr Zahid Aziz, October 30th:
I didn't realize that you would be supporting the Qadiani Jamaat's interpretation, since I thought that you were evaluating both sides' viewpoints from a neutral position. For your perusal I am attaching herewith the section of Maulana Muhammad Ali's book "The Split", written just after the Split, dealing with this issue. He quotes Mirza Mahmud Ahmad's pronouncements of the time such as "Ahmad" was not a name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad) and refutes them. Two pdf files are attached which I hope you can read. (1 and 2). As to your earlier question about the quotations from M.M. Ali sahib, one project I have in mind is to get hold of the original articles from "The Review of Religions" and give extended quotes from them to show that he regarded Hazrat Mirza sahib as mujaddid. In fact, what the Qadiani website should do is to make available online the entire articles from which the quotations are drawn, so that everyone can see the quotations in context. Perhaps you can suggest that to them. However, I also believe that my general response is quite sufficient, when I gave you those links. One of those, which I again refer you to, in fact settles the whole issue. It is here: http://www.muslim.org/qadis/sadiq.htm Here Mufti Muhammad Sadiq (later of the Qadiani Jamaat) has explained to a famous Muslim scholar, Maulana Shibli, the sense in which the word "prophet" was being used in the Ahmadiyya Movement for Hazrat Mizra sahib. Further, he has quoted the then Head, Maulana Nur-ud-Din, in his support. So this is like an official explanation. Mufti sahib gave this explanation in 1910, after M.M. Ali's quotations in question had appeared (which are dated 1904 to 1908). So this explanation applies also to those quotes. As that explanation plainly shows, those Ahmadis who used the word "prophet" about Hazrat Mirza sahib also believed that no prophet can come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad and that Hazrat Mirza sahib was a Mujaddid and was one of those Muslims who are gifted with Divine revelation.
Dr T. Ijaz, November 2nd:
I looked at the quote from Mufti Muhammad Sadiq you sent me, and the comments of Maulvi Nurrudin on nabuwwat. Please note the words of Maulvi Nurrudin. This is VERY important. He considers Mufti Sahib's writing a rebuttal to the prevailing and mistaken concept among Muslims at the time that every nabi must bring a shariah. The Promised Messiah himself said in his writings to his opponents that he was not a nabi in the sense they ascribed to the word. He was NOT a law bearing prophet. Please see page 34, 35 for details and quotes, Truth about the Split, Mahmud. Now please note pages 83, 84 of the same book. In 1910, Mufti Sahib and Sadruddin Sahib together went on a missionary tour to preach to a non-Ahmadi maulvi and the comments of Mirza Mahmud. It was a style of tabligh and argumentation to broach the subject of nabuwwat with non-Ahmadis. It was argued that nabis/rasuls DO NOT have to bring a law or book. Nabi means, after all, having the gift of prophecy and has no relationship with necessariy delivering a new shariah. Now, DO NOT make the conclusion that only metaphorical expression of nabi applies to Promised Messiah. That the dictionary meaning AND theologic meaning applies is clear even from the writings of Maulvi Muhammad Ali Sahib. I give two examples (bold emphasis is mine): "The editor of this journal (Tashizul Azhan) is Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, son of the Promised Messiah...the gist of the article is that at times evil spreads in the world and people leave the path of truth and virtue, stray into wickedness...become altogether oblivious of the needs of higher life...IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE WAY OF ALLAH THAT, OUT OF THOSE PEOPLE THEMSELVES, HE RAISES A PROPHET ENTRUSTED WITH A MISSION TO SPREAD RIGHTEOUS TEACHING...these people heap ridicule on what what they hear about him...The prophet declares beforehand that they all would be crushed...THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE WAY OF ALLAH, AND THIS IS WHAT HAS COME ABOUT IN OUR OWN TIME.. (Review of Religions, 1906) See page 69, 70 Truth about the Split for details. If nabi is a metaphor, then in the history of religion, only nabis in the metaphoric sense have been raised! Does this make sense? Another quote is just as remarkable, from Badr, July 1908: "We also have been asked to submit to this wide prayer...We hold firmly hold to the view that Allah can raise prophets; he can bestow siddiq, shahid, saleh..." See Truth Prevails page 35. On this same verse, Maulvi Ali later denied the possiblity and wrote so in his commentary! If it is metaphoric prophets, then it is metaphoric siddiq, metaphoric shahid metaphoric saleh also!
Dr Zahid Aziz, November 4th:
The statements of both Mufti sahib and Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din begin by declaring clearly that Hazrat Mirza sahib was not a prophet. Mufti sahib says this in the words: no prophet can come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad, neither new nor old. Maulana Nur-ud-Din says this by his oath that he believes Hazrat Mirza sahib to be Mujaddid of this century. It is AFTER having made this clear that they then go on to explain how, despite the fact that he is not a prophet, the word prophet can be applied to him. In those days, whenever the word prophet was applied to him, it was done in the clearly understood context that the no prophet can come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad and that Hazrat Mirza sahib was a Mujaddid. It was in that same context that Maulana Muhammad Ali (and of course Hazrat Mirza sahib himself as well) used the word prophet about him. Unfortunately, the Qadiani Jamaat detaches this context away from the use of the word 'prophet'. When Shibli objected that even this literal use of prophet could be confusing to the public, Mufti sahib's reply was to the effect: we neither require Ahmadis to believe that he was a prophet nor do we preach to people that he was a prophet. (He did not say, for example, we tell people he was not a prophet with a shariah but one without a shariah.) One fails to understand how, if someone is a prophet, his prophethood should not be preached, nor should his own followers be required to accept it! I have read the passage you referred to from "The Truth about the Split", pages 83, 84. Regarding the above answer given by Mufti sahib, M. Mahmud Ahmad writes: "It seemed to me undesirable that such a dubious mode of expression should find general currency in the Community." It is clear from this that M. Mahmud Ahmad is concerned that this answer conveys a different impression from his own belief in Hazrat Mirza sahib's prophethood. So even he seems to be supporting, to some extent, our view of this answer. Moreover he writes here: "... the literal significance and the theological connotation of the term Nabi are identical, ..." This is exactly the opposite of what Hazrat Mirza sahib wrote, which is: "And he who discloses news of the unseen, having received it from God, is known as nabi in Arabic. The meanings in Islamic terminology are different. Here only the literal meaning is intended." — Arba‘in, published December 1900, No. 2, p. 18, footnote. He announced in a public declaration addressing Muslims that the words nabi and rasul about him: "are not to be taken in their real sense, but have been used according to their literal meaning in a straight-forward way; otherwise, I lay no claim whatever to actual prophethood." (Majmu`a Ishtiharat, v. 1, p. 312 to 314) As to the quote from M. Muhammad Ali that whenever people leave the path of virtue Allah raises a prophet to spread righteous teaching, please note that according to Hazrat Mirza sahib this function of prophets is performed in the Muslim Umma by saints (muhaddas, wali, etc.), who have replaced the prophets of the past. He has discussed this extensively in his book "Shahadat-ul-Quran" in which he writes: 1. "... mujaddids and spiritual khalifas are needed by the Muslim people in the same way as were the prophets required from ancient times ..." 2. " ... the mujaddid of the time comes with the powers, faculties and qualities upon which depends the reformation of the prevalent evils. God will ever continue to do this, as long as He pleases, so that signs of righteousness and reform remain in the world." 3. "And the mujaddid whose work bears striking similarity to the appointed task of one of the messengers, is called by the name of that messenger (rasul) in the sight of God." 4. "Prophets certainly cannot arise among the Muslims, but if khalifas of the Holy Prophet do not come either, showing the marvels of spiritual life from time to time, then the spirituality of Islam comes to an end." 5. "As our Master and Messenger, may peace and the blessings of God be upon him, is the Khatam-ul-anbiya, and after him there cannot come any prophet, for this reason saints (muhaddas) have been substituted for prophets in this religious system." So when M. Muhammad Ali's statement is applied to pre-Islamic times it refers to the raising of real prophets, and when it is applied to the Muslim Umma it refers to the raising of the saints of this Umma, who have replaced the prophets of the past in performing this function of guidance (as stated by Hazrat Mirza sahib), and may be called 'prophet' in its literal meaning or as a metaphor. Similarly in the July 1908 statement in Badr, the word "prophet" is applied to a Muslim saint in its literal meaning of one who receives revelation. The fact that he says "prophets" in the plural also shows this, because according to Qadiani beliefs only one prophet was raised among the Muslims. The only "prophets", in the plural, who were raised among Muslims are the Muslim saints. I note with interest the source and date of this statement, because in the same paper Badr, in its issue dated 11 June 1908, there is an article by Dr Khalifa Rashid-ud-Din from which it is absolutely clear that Hazrat Mirza sahib was regarded as a Mujaddid and not prophet. Please see it here: http://www.muslim.org/qadis/krash.htm Please notice also that we, as in this case, have reproduced images of complete articles, and not just quoted words taken out of them, to show that we are not quoting out of context. Finally, on the issue of the prophecy about the coming Ahmad, I am reading Mirza Mahmud Ahmad's book Anwar-i-Khilafat where he discusses it from page 18 to page 52. He writes there that the Holy Prophet Muhamamd never claimed that he fulfilled the prophecy of the coming Ahmad, and that Muslims have made a mistake in considering this prophecy to be the same one as the one given in the Gospels about Paraclete.
Dr T. Ijaz, November 5th:
1. Again, I completely disagree with how you interpret Mufti Sahib's statements. Of course, no prophets can come now. But this should be understood in context; Maulvi Nuruddin Sahib does, to his credit, clarify the issue. He states a SHARIAH NABI cannot come anymore, i.e., one who alters or brings in a new shariah: he plainly states: "the dictionary meaning of the word nabi, we believe, is one who gives news, having received knowledge from Allah, NOT ONE WHO BRINGS A NEW SHARIAH". Read Page 35, The Truth about the Split, quoting from Badr March 1908 and Misunderstanding Removed, by Promised Messiah, Mirza Mahmoud Sahib writes: "The promised Messiah says to his opponents that he was not a nabi in the sense they ascribed to that word, but he was a nabi in the sense of the word in which the former prophets were called nabis" Consider this statement from Maulvi Muhammad Ali Sahib, in the Introduction section, of the book entitled "History of the Prophets: "The Arabic word for prophet is nabi, which is derived from naba...the word nabi in its literal significance is applicable to anyone to whom prophecies about the future are revealed, BUT IN THE TECHNICAL LANGUAGE OF ISLAM IT IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO A MAN WHO IS CHOSEN BY GOD TO DELIVER HIS MESSAGE TO MANKIND." Needless to say, the capitalized words apply to the Promised Messiah also. Raised by Allah directly (not by community consensus) and addressing fellow-men to join his community. It is certain though that some elements in the jamaat started to entertain ideas that the Promised Messiah was in a position below what was the reality. That is, perhaps not a real prophet in the Islamic sense. This is clear from Paigham-i-Sulha, 1913, quoted in Truth Prevails Chapter 1 p.3. Please see it. The words stand as a rebuttal. He was real prophet. See also Mirza Mahmud's quotes from 1911, page 84, 85, published in Badr, which was a speech in the presence of Muhammad Ali Sahib. Your rebuttal to Maulvi Muhammad's Ali 1906 admission is feeble. First of all Shahadat-ul-Quran is from 1893. Quotes AFTER 1901 saying specifically saints will do the work for Islamic revival in place of nabi, would be FAR more convincing. Chapter 3 of Truth Prevails by Nazir goes into tremendous detail on the phased revealment of nabuwwat to the Promised Messiah, and in fact serves as an extensive rebuttal for much of the material on your website. Muhammad Ali states quite clearly, in this 1906 quote, paraphrasing, "that's the way it happened in the past, and that's the way it is in this case". In fact, the 1906 writing of Muhammad Ali was a review of one of Mirza Mahmud's booklets, explicitly stating the Promised Messiah was a nabi, and he received revelation from Allah and who raised him for mankind, just like other previous prophets. Therefore to say, a saint would do this in place of a prophet now is absurd. Most astonishingly, there is a quote I found in Nazir's book, regarding a time when Muhammadi Ali was confronted by non-Ahmadis in 1936. He was asked if his views on Promised Messiah had changed (they were rightly suspicious): "the beliefs of our section (Lahore) are available in print...they have no connection with any writing of mine thirty years ago." Paigham--Sulah, Jan 1936, quoted in Truth Prevails, page xi. Thirty years ago, makes it 1906. Thus we find him backing away from his previous writings of the time period in question! Re: issue of Badr quote from 1908. You say "Qadianis believe only one prophet was raised among the Muslims". So far, yes. I am not sure that is actually true for the future. Only Allah knows. Can the door to revelation, and the top rank spiritually, among the four mentioned in the Quran, ever close? If it is, then the Muslims cannot attain siddiq, shahid, saleh either, if you read the text of the Quran! But just to finish for now (yes, getting late!), you wanted a copy of Badr showing Muhammad Ali also believed that "Ahmad" referred to the Promised Messiah. I will try. However, it should be noted, the Promised Messiah said the very same thing, three years before, and thus I have no reason to doubt the authencity and context. The Promised Messiah writes: "These people inquire again and again where, in the Holy Quran, has the name been mentioned. They do not seem to be aware that ALLAH NAMED ME AHMAD. The pledge of baiat is taken in the name of Ahmad. IS NOT THIS NAME FOUND IN THE QURAN? (Al Hakam, Oct 17, 1905, page 10).
Dr Zahid Aziz, November 7th:
1. Maulana Nur-ud-Din declares right at the start, as a sworn statement, that: "I believe Mirza sahib to be the Mujaddid of this century." The question he then proceeds to answer is how a Mujaddid can be called a prophet. The booklet "A Misunderstanding Removed" (Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala) has been translated by us and every point in it explained. See: http://www.muslim.org/noclaim/gh-trans.htm As to your quote from Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, "but he was a nabi in the sense of the word in which the former prophets were called nabis", the Promised Messiah actually wrote to the contrary, as follows: "... we do not mean by prophethood what is meant by it in the former scriptures." (Haqiqat al-Wahy, Supplement, p. 16; Ruhani Khaza'in, v. 22, p. 637) 2. Regarding M. Muhammad Ali's statement in "History of the Prophets", only the most elementary thought and logic is required to see that it is being misrepresented. The words: "applicable only to a man chosen by God..." mean that it (nabi in Islamic technical sense) is NOT applicable to anyone who is NOT chosen by God. It is a statement of the negative, as to when this term does NOT apply technically. It cannot be reversed into meaning that everyone chosen by God to deliver a message is a nabi in the technical sense. Examples abound in everyday life of such statements containing the word "only". To give an example from the Quran, it says: "Only those can accept the truth who listen" (Qadiani Jamaat's translation, 6:36 or 37). This means: those who don't listen certainly cannot accept the truth. It does not mean that all those who listen will accept. 3. You have rejected my quotes from Shahadat-ul-Quran because this book is from before 1901. The issue of whether he changed his claim in 1901 is so fundamental to our differences that it should be discussed as a separate topic, and I would be happy to do so in a new e-mail thread if you wish. The Qadiani Jamaat's belief is that he changed his claim in 1901 from a non-prophet saint to prophet. But this doesn't invalidate his previous general statements about what saints can do. For example, he wrote in 1898: "We can prove to every seeker-after-truth, conclusively and definitely, that from the time of our master and leader, the Holy Prophet Muhammad, till the present day there have been, in every century, godly persons through whom God has shown heavenly signs to other communities to guide them ... the heavenly signs that have appeared and are appearing in Islam through the auliya of this Umma in support of Islam and in witness of the truthfulness of the Holy Prophet have no parallel at all in other religions." (Ruhani Khaza'in, vol. 13, pages 91–92) The historical facts described here could not change in 1901. For your satisfaction, I can give quotes after 1901: "God speaks to, and communicates with, His saints (auliya) in this Umma. They are given the colour of prophets, but they are not prophets in reality because the Holy Quran has completed all the requirements of the shariah. They are given nothing but the understanding of the Quran; they do not add to the Quran, nor take anything away from it." (Mawahib ar-Rahman, January 1903, p. 66) Then in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy (1907) he divides people who receive revelation into three levels, and it is obvious from reading it that the saints are in the third, the highest, level. About the qualities of such a man he writes: "The word of God descends upon him as it descends upon the holy prophets and messengers of God, being free from doubt and absolutely certain" (Ruhani Khaza'in, v. 22, p. 18) In his book "Tuhfah Golarwiya" he has likened Hazrat Abu Bakr to the prophet Joshua and written: "Just as God showed Joshua the same assistance as He previously showed to Moses, similarly God blessed the works of Hazrat Abu Bakr in front of all the Companions, and his glory shone like that of prophets." (RK, vol. 17, p. 186) Note "his glory shone like that of prophets". In the same section he writes that the crisis of rebellion that Hazrat Abu Bakr overcame was worse than that which Joshua had faced: "A storm like this [one faced by Joshua], rather, more severe than it, was faced by Hazrat Abu Bakr ... this storm was much worse than the storm of water that Joshua had to face ... Then just as the word of God gave strength to Joshua ... so did Hazrat Abu Bakr receive strength from God at the time of the storm of rebellion." (pages 187–188) I am not clear whether the Qadiani Jamaat considers the book "Tuhfah Golarwiya" as pre-1901 or post-1901. So I am requesting you to let me know which category you place this book in. So this is the position and the achievement of non-prophets in Islam according to Hazrat Mirza sahib. I am sorry to observe your statement: "Therefore to say, a saint would do this in place of a prophet now is absurd." This comment, regrettably, attributes absurdity to the Promised Messiah's views. 4. You then say: "Most astonishingly, there is a quote I found in Nazir's book, regarding a time when Muhammadi Ali was confronted by non-Ahmadis in 1936." I have consulted the original source, and what astonishes me is the gross misrepresentation that the Qadiani Jamaat has committed. Maulana Muhammad Ali was answering, in writing, a set of questions sent by the Anjuman Himayat-i-Islam, who had been asked by Allama Iqbal to change their rules to declare members of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat Islam Lahore (AAIIL) as non-Muslims and to expel them from its membership. The answers were published by the Maulana himself in our organ Paigham Sulah. The quote you have given is part of his answer to the second question: "Has your belief about Mirza sahib been the same from the beginning till today, or has it ever changed, and if so why did it change?" His reply is in three numbered points: "1. I have answered this in reply to the first question." He writes this because in answer to the first question ("Since the time you took the bai`at of Mirza sahib till today what is your belief about his claim?") he had already stated: "I took the bai`at upon these beliefs and I still hold these beliefs even now." (And those beliefs are stated by him in answer to the first question to be that: Hazrat Mirza sahib claimed to be the coming Messiah mentioned in Hadith, who is a muhaddas, and a muhaddas can be called prophet metaphorically, and that Hazrat Mirza sahib wrote that his claim was not of being a prophet but a muhaddas.) His second point is as follows, from which the Qadiani Jamaat has quoted incompletely: "2. If you want to issue a fatwa about the Ahmadiyya Jamaat Lahore, the published beliefs of the Jamaat are before you. My personal writings of thirty years ago have no connection with it. Give whatever fatwa you wish about them on the basis of those beliefs." This is a perfectly proper point. A fatwa about members of an organisation must be based on that organisation's declared, corporate beliefs, and not on someone's individual writings before that organisation came into existence. Then comes his point (3) as follows: "3. If it is a question of a fatwa about me personally, then a fatwa of Kufr based on writings of thirty year ago will not prove useful. Especially at this time, when an exalted personality like Iqbal has declared a man to be kafir whom just four years ago he made the president of a Muslim committee. Sir Muhammad Iqbal was in the forefront in making Mirza Mahmud Ahmad president of the Kashmir committee. And the Jamaat which he declared as a true model of Islamic life some 16 or 17 years before that in his speech at Aligarh, today he calls it kafir. So it is appropriate that whatever fatwa you give, it should be based on writings of the present day." He is telling them: you are questioning me about my writings of 30 years ago, while the man who has asked you to declare us as kafir (Iqbal) believed us to be Muslims and even good Muslims at that time, and he believed this till even four years ago. The Anjuman Himayat-i-Islam's campaign against Ahmadis only came into existence because Iqbal completely reversed his stance from considering Ahmadis as good Muslims to declaring them as non-Muslims. This Anjuman had also always treated Ahmadis as Muslims and made them its committee members. So this Anjuman and Iqbal must first explain why their belief has changed before they can question whether Maulana Muhammad Ali changed his beliefs. So you see Maulana Muhammad Ali gave a 3 part reply: (1) that his beliefs about Hazrat Mirza sahib's claim were always the same; (2) that the question whether he changed his beliefs is irrelevant in determining whether members of the organisation A.A.I.I.L. are Muslims or not; (3) that Anjuman Himayat-i-Islam is not even justified in seeking an explanation from him about previous beliefs because they regarded him and Ahmadis as Muslims all through this time. 5. You seem to misunderstand when you write: "You wanted a copy of Badr showing Muhammad Ali also believed that "Ahmad" referred to the Promised Messiah." I had said that the Qadiani Jamaat, to support its allegations, should make available the entire article from "The Review of Religions", in each case, where he has used the word "prophet", so that people can see in in context. Regarding the "Ahmad" issue, the question I am posing is whether the following views of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad are supported by the Promised Messiah or even supported by the Qadiani Jamaat for the last so many years. I quote these now from his book "Anwar-i Khilafat": [QUOTE] "I believe that the word Ahmad that occurs in the Holy Quran is about the Promised Messiah. In proof of this, I have arguments by the grace of God which I am prepared to put before the scholars and learned ones of the whole world, and even offer a reward to anyone who can disprove my arguments. If anyone can prove 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) "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; however, the man having the name Ahmad, to whom this news relates, is only the Promised Messiah." (page 20) "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 had been 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 that is not so, as I will prove later on." (page 23) "This prophecy contains not a single word to show that it is about the Khatam-un-nabiyyin, nor does it contain any other 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, [he mentions other types of hadith as well here], which mentions that the Holy Prophet Muhammad applied this verse to himself or that he declared himself as fulfilling this prophecy. When that is the situation, why should we apply the prophecy to the Holy Prophet Muhammad, in contradiction to the contents of the verse?" (page 23) [UNQUOTE] I hope you will reflect on the above. The Promised Messiah or Maulana Muhammad Ali never wrote anything like this. This e-mail has been lengthy, of necessity.
Addition to above, November 13th:
The statement of the Promised Messiah quoted from Badr March 1908 that "he was a nabi in the sense of the word in which the former prophets were called nabis" occurs in Mulfazat, vol. 10, p. 127. If you turn to page 155 of the same volume, the Promised Messiah says, referring to Hazrat Mujaddid Alif Sani, that whoever has dreams and revelations in abundance is called muhaddas. So he affirms being a muhaddas, while using the word nabi about himself. Regarding the quote from Maulana Muhammad Ali's book History of the Prophets about who is a prophet in the technical language of Islam ("chosen by God to deliver His message to mankind"), that is not the only attribute he mentions as being required of prophets. On the next page he writes: "To every prophet was given a book for the guidance of his people", and quotes verses 2:213 and 57:25 in support. So this excludes the Promised Messiah from being a prophet in the Maulana's definition.
From Zahid Aziz, February 16, 2004: Closing Summary
Response by Zahid Aziz, 16 February 2004. Page 1
As stated earlier, almost the entire Qadiani case rests on their assertion that Hazrat Mirza
Ghulam Ahmad changed his claim from non-prophet to prophet in November 1901 by issuing
the pamphlet Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala. If this change cannot be proved to have occurred, then the
Lahore Ahmadiyya position stands established and all his writings from 1891 to the end of his
life can be seen to be consistent throughout, denying claim to prophethood and affirming his
claim to sainthood.
The only evidence put forward for this change is the answer to a question, published in Haqiqatul-
Wahy in May 1907 (p. 148), in which the questioner alleges a change in Hazrat Mirza sahib’s
position subsequent to what he wrote in Tiryaq-ul-Qulub p. 157 regarding his excellence over
Jesus. As Tiryaq-ul-Qulub is dated October 1902 on p. 160, the Qadianis first declared this to be
the date after which his claim changed. But as they also quoted Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala as a postchange
pamphlet, they then altered the date of change of claim to November 1901, and said that
Tiryaq-ul-Qulub (up to p. 158) was written in 1899. Their own muddle over dates shows this
change theory to be utterly baseless. In his reply to the questioner, Hazrat Mirza sahib has
answered the substance behind the question. He has referred to a period “in the beginning” when
he held his earlier belief that he bore “no comparison to Jesus”. It is clear that this was at
sometime before he claimed to be Promised Messiah in 1891. During the 1890s he was even
challenging the Chr istian clergy to compare his revelations and signs with those reported in the
Gospels about Jesus. Further on in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy (p. 163 and p. 265-266) Hazrat Mirza sahib
has confirmed that his status and rank is as he described it in Tiryaq-ul-Qulub, and has also
written that he affirmed this when answering a question in a court case in 1904.
Nowhere has Hazrat Mirza sahib stated either within or after Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala that prior to
this pamphlet his definition of ‘prophet’ was mistaken or that he cha nged his claim in this
pamphlet. According to the Qadianis, Hazrat Mirza sahib wrote this pamphlet because a follower
denied to an opponent that he was a prophet: “The follower responded he was not a real, actual
prophet, not knowing Allah called the Promised Messiah ‘nabi’ … ” (Dr Ijaz’s last response, p.
6). But Hazrat Mirza sahib himself had been giving exactly this response while of course
knowing that Allah called him ‘prophet’! They allege that Hazrat Mirza sahib was saying to the
follower: “Why are you saying I am not a prophet?” (ibid., p. 6). But he cannot say this to
anyone since he himself had been telling the world : “I am not a prophet”.
It is argued that Hazrat Mirza sahib has written, regarding his claim of being Promised Messiah,
that he did not realize for some twelve years (up to 1891) that he fulfilled this prophecy while
Allah was calling him as ‘Messiah’, and consequently it is an acceptable concept that he
similarly did not realize for ten years (1891 to 1901) that he was also a prophet. However, he has
only ever mentioned the first case of non-realization and never mentioned the second, even
though he wrote the quoted extract in 1902 after the second realization would have occurred.
Also, the first case did not result in a change in the office he claimed to hold. His claim was still
of being mujaddid even after realizing that he was Promised Messiah, as he himself writes: “the
claim of being Promised Messiah is not greater than the claim of being a recipient of revelation
from Allah and a mujaddid from Allah” (A’inah Kamalat Islam, p. 341), and that the Promised
Messiah is a “mujaddid from among the mujaddids of this Umma” (Kitab al-Bariyya, p. 198). It
was a matter of recognising the fulfilment of a prophecy (of the descent of Jesus), regarding
which errors of human judgment can be made.
Response by Zahid Aziz, 16 February 2004. Page 2
After 1901 Hazrat Mirza sahib continued to affirm the ending of prophethood with the Holy
Prophet Muhammad, to consider himself as mujaddid of the century, and to write that he had the
spiritual qualities which are common to prophets and saints (muhaddas)— “Allah is the Being
Who … sent messengers, and sent scriptures, and at the end of all of them sent Muhammad,
peace be upon him” (Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, p. 141), “my claim stands proved that the Promised
Messiah who is the Mujaddid of the Last Days is none other than myself” (ibid., p. 194), “…in
Islamic terms such people are called nabi and rasul and muhaddas” (Lecture Sialkot, p. 30).
Both before and after 1901 Hazrat Mirza sahib stated that he applied the words nabi and rasul to
himself in the metaphorical or linguistic sense in which these apply to a saint or mujaddid, and
not in a real sense. Regarding his statement in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, “I have been named by Allah as
nabi by way of metaphor, not by way of reality (haqiqat)”, the Qadiani comment is that all
prophets, in relation to the Holy Prophet Muhammad, were prophets metaphorically and not by
way of reality. No such teaching is found in the Quran and Hadith. According to Hazrat Mirza
sahib, if Jesus returned he would come as “a real (haqiqi) prophet” (Siraj Munir, p. 2-3), and so
Muslims would be accepting a real prophet in relation to the Holy Prophet Muhammad.
It was argued on behalf of the Qadiani Jama‘at that the Promised Messiah’s presentation of the
true teachings of Islam constitutes his kitab or book. On the contrary, the Promised Messiah
considered the Quran as the last revealed Book, and now the only revealed Book, for all
humanity: “Then God sent one book for all the countries and instructed in it that in whichever
time this book reaches various countries they must accept it and believe in it, and that book is the
Holy Quran. … The Holy Quran came after all the books … when the time came to unite all
nations under one book, God sent one Prophet for the whole world” (Chasma-i Ma‘rifat,
published May 1908, p. 67, 68, 136). That “one Prophet” is the Holy Prophet Muhammad.
Maulana Muhammad Ali’s use of the words ‘prophet’ and ‘messenger’ for Hazrat Mirza sahib in
the Review of Religions is exactly like the Promised Messiah’s own use of these words about
himself. The Maulana also wrote in it, translating the Promised Messiah’s writings, as follows
about the Holy Prophet Muhammad: “the Holy Prophet was the last of prophets” (Nov-Dec.
1903 issue, p. 436), “… so that it may be a sign that the Holy Prophet was the last prophet, and
that thus the finality of his prophethood should be established” (ibid., p. 437), and “Prophethood
came to an end with him, not only because he came last of all…” (Nov. 1904 issue, p. 395).
Leading Qadiani figures affirmed before the Split that no prophet could come after the Holy
Prophet Muhammad. The Maulana’s beliefs about the claims of the Promised Messiah remained
the same from when he joined the Movement in 1897 to the end of his life. It is actually the
Qadianis who want him to change from the beliefs that he accepted in 1897!
On the ‘Ahmad’ prophecy, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad eventually stated in 1921 that a person
holding the views expressed by Maulana Muhammad Ali in his book The Split is not “any the
less an Ahmadi” (The Truth about the Split, p. 58). When he wrote this, the Maulana’s English
commentary of the Quran had already appeared four years previously, containing the footnotes
referred to by Dr Tahir Ijaz. As the Qadiani leader thus settled this issue, his later followers
cannot keep on raising it.
From Dr. Tahir Ijaz, January 29, 2004.
Response by Dr Tahir Ijaz Page 1
A response to what some of what Zahid Aziz sahib posted recently is given below. The
purpose is to refute some new material he has presented and to repeat the important
points, with references of course.
I am sure many readers have been following the exchange. I would like to open the floor
to them. I would welcome any questions. My email address is email@example.com.
As a preamble, I would like remind people that it is in the words of Prophet Muhammad
we say the Promised Messiah attained the status of prophethood, who called the Messiah
of the future by the spiritual title Nabi-Ullah.
It is in the words of the Promised Messiah, we ask, “Why are you annoyed and irritated
with the word Nabi?” (Zameema Barahini Ahmadiyya Part V, page 184).
Lahoris want us to believe the Promised Messiah did the works of a prophet, showed
even greater signs than some prophets, experienced revelations of such magnitude only
Nabi can attain, and yet still is a mere wali.
Are these the words of a mere muhuddus, who only resembles a prophet?:
“To prove I am from Allah He has shown through me signs– so many signs that if you
divide them up and distribute them to a 1000 prophets, each can prove the truth of their
prophethood from just those” (Chashma – i –Marifat, RK Vol 23 page 332).
If he is only a wali this is one huge paradox!
The Qadiani thesis I have laid out in a nutshell is that the pathways of progress for an
ummati are mentioned in the Quran, the top level being nabuwwat. These levels are
obtained by zill, in obedience to the Holy Prophet. Thousands in the ummah reached that
level, which is why in one tradition it was stated by the Prophet that many saints were
like the prophets of Israel. They were small ‘p’ prophets so to speak, with the title not
given openly to them. The title ‘Prophet’ was reserved for the Messiah of the future who
attained the rank of nabuwwat. His spiritual stature was far greater than anyone else in
the ummah. The Promised Messiah held the office of Prophethood, a Warner to the
world, in the style of Prophet Muhammad.
I will touch on these themes again and again, and prove this from the writings of the
Response by Dr Tahir Ijaz Page 2
These are my comments on each section, numbering follows yours. Again, readers should
print out, fasten their seat belts and follow along.
I. If you are saying Sirhindi only wrote ‘muhuddus’, and the Promised Messiah replaced
that word with ‘nabi’ in Haqiqatul Wahyi, then that settles it. He replaced the word
muhuddus with nabi. He brought in the term ‘nabi’ to describe the grandeur of his
revelations from Allah, thus his spiritual status.
Nowhere in the discussion under reference here in Malfoozat or Haqiqatul Wahyi he
stated ‘replace nabi with muhuddus’ or ‘nabi is merely a metaphor, a Sufi term for high
rank’ or ‘saints do the work of prophets now’. Readers should reflect that the future
Messiah was bestowed the name ‘Nabi’, not ‘Wali’ or other term of rank, and the
Promised Messiah justified the term and applied it to himself.
If you read his references to Sirhindi on qualities of revelation, MGA evaluated the term
nabi and stated this was indeed the term that described high quality, high volume
revelations he received. That is why he is quoted in Malfoozat just before he quoted
Sirhindi on the very same page:
“There are differences in dreams of ordinary people and dreams and revelations of
Prophets. The dreams and revelations are distinct in terms of quality, amplitude and
nature. I do not claim to be a law bearing prophet”.
He is not a law-bearing prophet and as quoted above he compared himself to the
Israelite non law-bearing prophets who too were called nabis on the quality of revelation
they received. These are his words in Malfoozat on this point:
“Among the Israelites there have been several nabis to whom no law was revealed.
They only announced prophecies which they received from God and which served to
establish truth and prestige of the Mosaic religion. It was these prophecies that entitled
them to be called nabis. The same is the case with my mission. If I am not to be called
nabi, what other distinctive word is there which will distinguish me from other
recipients of divine revelation”?
He did not mean a non-law bearing prophet is another name for muhuddus. He defined
two types of prophethood: law bearing and non-law bearing, and he put himself in the
latter category, the non-law-bearing prophets of the Israelites. You still have not
produced a single reference after 1901 to refute the above and to support your view that
saints do the work of prophets now. I have more to say on this in section VIII.
Response by Dr Tahir Ijaz Page 3
Your quote from Haqiqatul Wahyi, page 389 (footnote) further bolsters my position.
Regarding some of his own prophecies that were not fulfilled, he said, “The tribulation
about which Allah gives information through a nabi or rasul or muhuddus…”
He found it necessary to add in ‘nabi’ as he was conscious of being one, and did not
consider himself just in the category of saints. He always insisted nabi is the appropriate
word that described his spiritual rank and corrected a follower of his who wrongly said he
was not an actual prophet (section II).
Your quotes from Tazkiratush Shahadatain and Malfoozat powerfully support my
position and contradict yours. The readers should look at them again together right now.
You say here that the reason why previous auliyya were not called nabi is that since no
prophet was to come after the Holy Prophet, this would have compromised the belief in
the finality of his prophethood. But the Promised Messiah did not say compromised, he
The Promised Messiah is saying many in the ummah before him have certainly attained
the spiritual rank called nabi, and deserve the title “nabi”; the title was not openly given
to them for a period of time until the advent of the Promised Messiah. As to why they
were not given the title nabi openly I will get to shortly, but this statement of the
Promised Messiah and another similar statement in The Will that some in the ummah
reached the stage of revelation to the highest degree, which is the stage of nabuwwat,
supports, my position and what I have been saying all along.
The Malfoozat quote says it explicitly also, “thousands of persons in the ummah of the
Holy Prophet Muhammad received the rank of prophethood”.
They were blessed with that highest state in accordance as all four pathways open to an
ummati (4:69), which are the pathways we pray for in the Surah Fatihah prayer, as
explained in The Will:
“It is not possible that a nation which has been described thus, and which has been taught
the above prayer (Fatihah) should be entirely deprived of the status of prophethood. If
so the ummat of Muhummad would be deemed imperfect”.
Maulvi Muhammad Ali, commenting on Surah Fatihah, said, “acceptance of this prayer
is a foregone conclusion, no matter how an opponent understood it, and applied
it…Allah can raise prophets whenever and wherever in His wisdom He might
choose to do so. Also he can confer the rank of siddiq, shaheed and saleh on
whomsoever he likes. The only thing needed was a sincere applicant. (Al Hakam July 18,
Thus if siddiq, shaheed, saleh is obtainable, so is nabuwwat.
Response by Dr Tahir Ijaz Page 4
Later, he changed his views, and thus became his own opponent!
For a period of time after Prophet Muhammad, Allah did not give these thousands of
pious souls the title “nabi” though they were in the rank. If all these people had been
bestowed the title, finality would become doubtful says the Promised Messiah, not
compromised. To take it to the next logical conclusion then, theoretically if only a few
people in the ummah before the Promised Messiah who attaining the spiritual station
nabi, were called nabi also, there is no conflict with last prophet!
The fact is although term khatamin nabiyyin has the primary meaning of last in
perfection and not time, it does secondarily embody elements of “no prophet after” and
“finalization” and “completion” in the definition and thus the formal application of the
term became restricted.
For a period of time after Muhammad, the title “prophet” was not used for an ummati
nabi due to one sense of khatamin nabiyyin being finalization of the office of
prophethood. The title was not given openly despite an ummati attaining that high status.
Later, Allah did appoint an ummati prophet, and openly called him a prophet. Thus the
ummah of Muhammad became like the ummah of Moses. The Promised Messiah was
trying to show the similarity of the two dispensations, which is why these questions came
up with Sahibzada Abdul Lateef.
The similarity is only established if in the ummah of Muhammad an actual prophet
arises, a prophet raised by Allah with the office and mission. If in the ummah of
Muhammad no actual prophet appeared and was only metaphorically called such,
then there is no similarity at since khalifas of Moses were actual prophets!
To say Allah called a person in the ummah of Muhammad a nabi, but really was not one
in rank, is a cheap and empty gesture in trying to show “similarity” of the respective
In fact the ummah of Muhammad is far greater than Moses’, as thousands have achieved
the highest level of spiritual status and nearness to Allah called nabuwwat, through prayer
and obedience to the Holy Prophet. They were just not openly called ‘nabi’. That was to
be reserved for the Promised Messiah.
Again, a person attaining the spiritual rank of prophet, then called ‘Nabi’ and then
appointed by Allah as a Warner, who formed a Jamaat and made incumbent to accept him
according to the words of Muhammad can only be a real prophet, in station and office.
MGA was openly called Nabi therefore.
There is another reason why some of the great saints of Islam, though prophets in
fulfillment of 4:69 that the spiritual stage is attainable through prayer, were not openly
Response by Dr Tahir Ijaz Page 5
called prophets. The fact is the definition of “prophet” became completely transformed
with the advent of Prophet Muhammad. The title “prophet” was to be reserved now for
the prophet with the same type of worldwide mission as the Prophet Muhammad had –
the same characteristics. Such was the universal mission of the Promised Messiah,
addressing and challenging the world community.
As long as he thought an ummati could not be a nabi, he interpreted nabi to be mere
muhuddus, as you quote (yawn) from the pre 1901 books, Tauzi Maram, Izala Auham,
and Hamamatul Bushra.
He denied an ummati could be a real prophet since according to him, in Islamic
terminology actual prophets:
“Bring shariah or cancel some edicts of previous shariah or they are not called the
followers of the preceding prophet and keep in touch with God directly without
receiving any benefit from any other prophet” (Al Hakam 1899). Thus an ummati
cannot be a real prophet, only metaphorically.
Divine revelation guided him to the fact an ummati can become an actual nabi. It was on
the point of prophethood he proclaimed himself categorically superior to nabi Jesus:
“In the beginning I believed that I had no comparison with Jesus son of Mary; he was a
prophet and one of the chosen ones of God. If there was disclosed anything indicating
my superiority, I considered it as a minor and partial phase. However when God poured
upon me like rain I could not keep this belief. I was clearly given the title prophet – one
respect prophet and also ummati”.
It is very clear “in the beginning” is the time when he did not appreciate the fact that an
ummati could be actual rank of nabi. He did not gradually realize he was an ummati.
He gradually realized the true meaning of ‘nabi’. Once he became aware of his true
status he called himself categorically superior to Jesus in station. I will go into more
detail in section IV.
His awareness of his rank, an ummati and actual prophet is stated:
“In the course of wahyi coming down on me, Allah has repeatedly called me an ummati
as well as a prophet. Hearing myself called by these two names gives me great joy…our
master the holy prophet was a prophet of such extraordinary eminence, that even a
member of his ummat could become a nabi, called Isa, even though an ummati, a
follower of the holy Prophet (Zameema Barahini Ahmadiyya Part V, page 184).
His words ‘a member of his ummat can become a prophet, even though he is an
ummati’ clearly indicate that the Promised Messiah is a real Prophet, as well as ummati,
not only wali.
Response by Dr Tahir Ijaz Page 6
Remember he had written before in 1895:
“Those who create a link, a communion with God, directly without following a nabi,
they are called prophets. Those who create such a link with God, by following the
teaching given by a prophet are called wali” (Sat Bachan, page 66-7).
And, actual prophets in Islamic terminology cannot “be called followers of a preceding
prophet”. (Al Hakam, 1899)
Thus looking at the quotes together, by following the other prophets one could become a
wali; by following the Holy Prophet Muhammad, in the opinion of the Promised
Messiah, one could not only rise to be wali, one could even rise to be a prophet, although
he was no more than an ummati of the Prophet.
II. Regarding Ek Ghalti ka Izala, what is truly remarkable and amazing to me is the
fact though the follower was being corrected for stating Promised Messiah was not a real
prophet, Lahoris continue to believe in the misguided follower and continue to say he is
not a prophet but mere muhuddus!
Oh, and thank you for calling my words beautiful but regrettably, you have not grasped
my beautiful point.
The opponent criticized the follower that he had pledged allegiance to real, actual
prophet. The follower responded he was not a real, actual prophet, not knowing Allah
called the Promised Messiah ‘nabi’. So the Promised Messiah told his follower, he had
been addressed as nabi, not once or twice but hundreds of times. He is saying: he has
been called prophet so many times, revelations pouring down like rain to this effect. Why
are you saying I am not a prophet?
Nowhere in this book he wrote saints performed the work of prophets now, as you like to
quote again and again from his older works and nowhere he stated replace the word
“nabi” with “muhuddus”. The entire book is about justification of word ‘nabi’ for him. It
makes no sense to write a dissertation if nabi was only a figure of speech, a Sufi
metaphorical expression as he wrote in Anjam i Atham.
He demolished the idea that law bearing is necessarily a feature of prophethood showing
he is speaking of real prophethood. “To bear or bring a new law is no sine qua non of
prophethood.” He put it quite clearly: “The contention that the word muhuddus can
adequately describe the spiritual status of such a person (i.e. himself) receives no support
from any lexicon”. He described the spiritual advancement of an ummati, on the basis of
the verse “Guide us in the right path, the path of those on whom Thou hast bestowed thy
Response by Dr Tahir Ijaz Page 7
blessings”. He became a nabi by way of zill, and I have already defined zill based on the
Promised Messiah’s writings.
He is justifying the word ‘nabi’ because he is one, and this is why the Prophet
Muhammad called the future Messiah ‘nabi’, not ‘wali’.
Your rebuttal to Badr, 1908 that he was a non-law bearing prophet like the Israelite nonlaw
bearing prophets, falls flat using Shahadat-ul-Quran from 1893 that mujaddids do
the work of prophets now among Muslims. He did not say that in 1908. Show me a quote
from his later writings.
Your quotes from the Promised Messiah only a few days before his death that the
dictionary term nabi is the appropriate word for him shows that is his spiritual status.
The quote from Maulvi Nurrudin made it clear. In the exact same way Maulvi Nurrudin
used the dictionary to prove he is a prophet, but without a shariah, to dispel the notion
that a prophet must be a law-bearer or modifier, a concept so entrenched in the minds of
III. Several points to make in this section.
All spiritual ranks that people may obtain in the ummah are by zill. I have already quoted
MGA statement on this.
“No rank of honor, no perfection, no respect and reverence, nor nearness to the Master
can be attained without a complete and implicit obedience to the Holy Prophet. Just
whatsoever is granted to us it is by zill and tufail”. (Izala Auham page 139).
This completely undermines your statement that a reflection, however perfect, is not real.
It is these spiritual heights that people obtain, by obedience to the Prophet that qualify
them for titles we bestow, like auliya, muhuddus, etc. These are real spiritual ranks of
honor. These stations of honor and rank are mentioned in Quran as siddiq, saleh, shaheed
and nabi. I have more to say on this, on my refutation of your majaz quotation.
You criticize my statement that the Promised Messiah for some 10 years did not
understand his status of nabi vs. muhuddus, and you imply that I insult the Promised
Messiah by saying this. You ignore that the Promised Messiah did not even initially
Response by Dr Tahir Ijaz Page 8
understand his claim in regards to Messiahship, so why do you baulk at his gradual
realization of nabuwwat? MGA wrote:
“For nearly 12 years, which is a long time, I remained entirely oblivious of the fact that
with great persistence and emphasis Allah had proclaimed in my Barahini Ahmadiyya
that I am the Promised Messiah; and I remained clinging to the formal, prevailing
belief in regard to the second advent of Hazrat Isa. When a full 12 years had passed,
the time came for the correct position folded, and persistent revelation started to come
down on me that I myself was the Promised Messiah” (Ijaz-i- Ahmady, page 7)
For twelve years the truth remained hidden from the mind of the Promised Messiah.
Though he was called Messiah, he continued to believe in the Isa doctrine of orthodox
Muslims. With persistent revelation, he realized his true status. The exact same is with
his nabuwwat. Though he was called nabi since the beginning, he continued to believe in
the nabi doctrine of orthodox Muslims, that a nabi couldn’t appear now. After all, nabis,
as he had written were either law bearing or independent, not ummati. But due to
persistent revelations, he realized his true status and now insisted nabi is the appropriate
title for his rank! At this point he proclaimed himself superior to Isa, once he realized he
was ummati AND nabi. (Haqiqatul Wahyi).
It was in 1891 he finally claimed to be the Promised Messiah though Allah called him
Messiah repeatedly in revelation for years. Note that when he claimed to be mujaddid in
1885 he did not understand he was indeed the Messiah. Even in 1889, at the time of
formal initiation of people into his movement, he still did not appreciate his true status.
He simply thought Allah had bestowed on him messianic qualities and merely resembled
the first Messiah.
Apparent paradoxes and inconsistencies are always corrected, and it makes perfect sense
he ultimately should have announced to be the Messiah, performing miracles even greater
than the first Messiah. It also makes perfect sense that ultimately he would say he has the
rank of nabi, based on the very nature of his mission and the fact he was greater than
many previous prophets.
He believed that an ummati could become a prophet, nabuwwat being a spiritual gift. I
have quoted from Will the prayer from surah Fatiha, that blessings, including the highest
blessing (nabuwwat) are open to the ummah. Such a nabi will not bring new religious
truths, and is not a new independent prophethood – the latter type of prophethood has
ended as stated, so there is no contradiction to what you quote in The Will.
Also, as MGA states in the Will, and as you quote, many in the ummah reached the
spiritual state of nabi. What made the Promised Messiah distinct from others was Allah
appointed him with a mission, formed a community, and required all people to pledge
allegiance to him. His spiritual height was unmatched by others he writes, since in the
ummah in the past 1300 years, no one matched him in abundance and amplitude of
Response by Dr Tahir Ijaz Page 9
revelations (Haqiqatul Wahyi). He thus was truly a nabi in the sense previous nabis were
called nabis and singled out to be called nabi by Prophet Muhammad in Muslim. While
other righteous servants in the ummah were nabi in their own sphere and bore a perfect
reflection to the Prophet, they were imperfect compared to the Promised Messiah.
You comment on my statement he formed a community and required people accept him
before his realization he was a prophet. The fact is, he was a prophet from the beginning,
and did the works of a prophet. Because realization is always gradual, apparent
inconsistencies are always created, but in the end corrected, as already stated.
Then you say: “you have to clarify how incumbent? Is it as incumbent as accepting the
Holy Prophet or as incumbent as accepting a true leader of the Muslims who is preaching
and defending Islam?”
If you accept Muhammad, it is incumbent to accept all that he says, and he said it is
incumbent for people to accept the Promised Messiah. To accept the Promised Messiah
is to accept Prophet Muhammad.
The Prophet Muhammad says: “convey my salaam to him (Messiah) and go to him even
if you have to crawl on your knees on glaciers. Extend you hand of bai’at to him and
Does that sound like an option? Does Messiah sound like a mere reformer?
Your comment on Maulvi Amrohi that the ulema had prophets in fulfillment of the
Quranic verse that all four stages of progress are open does not refute my point. The
ulema he refers to have reached the spiritual zenith termed “nabi” and he spoke in
reference to the Hadith that some in the ummah are like the prophets of Israel. He is not
disputing they reached the top spiritual state. We already quoted Malfoozat that some
attained prophethood, but just not given the name openly. I have quoted The Will where
prophethood can be attained, and the commentary of Maulvi Muhammad Ali himself.
The problem you are having is, you consider only an appointed person by Allah an actual
prophet. The Promised Messiah’s statement contradicts such a belief. Prophethood is a
spiritual state. Of course, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was also openly called ‘Nabi’, and held
the office in the style of Prophet Muhammad.
IV. You have started this section with factual error. What the Promised Messiah has
written on his inferiority to Isa in the book Tiry-ul-Qulub is from 1899 not 1902!
Response by Dr Tahir Ijaz Page 10
You are completely wrong when you say the Promised Messiah did not admit a
contradiction with his previous writing, he said so clearly there was. Also he did call
himself a prophet in Haqiqatul Wahyi, a status he realized gradually. The evolution of his
self-conception, he compared to his gradual realization of him being the real Messiah,
all on the same page!
The contradiction was, in Tiry-ul-Qulub he stated Isa was superior since he was nabi,
while he was not, despite the fact he had shown greater miracles and signs. In writings
after 1901, the first being Kishti Nuh (1902), he categorically called himself superior,
with no qualifications. The same continues on, with the book Haqiqatul Wahyi. The
reason for the superiority was his realization that he was an ummati and nabi.
His words are: (words in brackets mine):
“Why has this contradiction crept in…this contradiction is of the same kind as in Barahin
i Ahmadiyya. I wrote, at one time that the Messiah, son of Mary could descend from
Heaven. Later on, however, I put forth that I myself am the Messiah to come in later
times. The basis of the contradiction is the same…I watered down the interpretation and
clung to the former view I shared with rest of the Muslims (i.e. not a real Messiah as the
real Messiah is in Heaven)… Revelations came down on me, like rain from heaven, to
the effect I was the Promised Messiah”…
“Similarly, to begin with it was my belief that I was in no way comparable to Jesus, He
was a Prophet…when something occurred which appeared to establish my superiority
over him, I took it to apply some limited and partial preference… later on however, the
wahyi sent down on me by the Lord, like pouring rain, it did not allow me to remain
clinging to this belief (i.e., Promised Messiah is inferior to Isa). I found the title nabi
clearly conferred on me, nabi from one angle and ummati from another”.
Thus the Promised Messiah excelled Isa in miracles and signs (as you quote), but out of
humility he watered down the idea he was an actual nabi. Once he realized through
persistent revelation he was nabi, though an ummati, just as he realized through persistent
revelation he was Messiah, he declared himself categorically superior to Jesus, as he
performed greater miracles.
I have already discussed your quote of the Promised Messiah “my prophethood is the zill
of the Holy Prophet, not real prophethood”. It presents no difficulty. I will review it again
below, section VII.
Regarding dictionary term, nabi, I have already shown it means the religious term; he was
a non-law bearing nabi like the non-law bearing nabis of the Israelites (Badr, 1908). By
Response by Dr Tahir Ijaz Page 11
what other term can he be known by, he states. Maulvi Nurrudin also used the dictionary
term only to counter the idea he was a shariah nabi, not his status of nabi.
The quote from Anjam i Atham (pages 26-8) that Nabi in Hadith for the Promised
Messiah is meant in the metaphorical sense (as in Sufi literature), since the Prophet is
khatam-al anbiyya is pre 1901. This not the explanation given again in Barahin i
Ahmadiyya part V, (see section VIII). There, he has dispelled the notion that a nabi must
bear a law; He was a non law- bearing nabi just as Israelites had non law-bearing nabis.
The verse (72:26-7), in Ek Ghalti ka Izala he takes it mean actual nabi, not mere
In Ek Ghalti ka Izala, speaking of Nabis, he mentions the high spiritual characteristics of
nabis and quoted the verse “He does not vouchsafe knowledge of the unseen, unknown
except to one who has been chosen and selected by Allah as an Apostle”. He then
said if no nabi is raised after the prophet, it “amounts to believing in the total deprivation
of the followers of the holy prophet of revelation and of communion with God because
the definition of nabi applies only to that person through whom the secrets of the
unknown are revealed”
Here, he is obviously answering to objections by non Ahmadi Muslims who believe
nabuwwat has ended. Nabi can come he says, otherwise it is total deprivation of the
greatest blessing for the ummah. If he is just speaking of saints or mujjadids coming or
partial prophethood in relation to the verse, that is hardly a rebuttal, since other Muslims
already believe that.
Also, the Hadith about the descent of the Messiah near a minaret east of Damascus, the
Nabi-Ullah being supported by angels, wearing yellow sheets, is not completely
metaphoric. Muhammad Ali wrote in The Split that all is metaphoric, and therefore nabi
should be taken as a metaphoric term. While there are metaphoric meanings in the
tradition some of it can be taken as literal and one should not paint with a broad brush. In
Chashma-i- Masihi (RK Vol 20, p 377) the Promised Messiah wrote: “Let it be noticed
that Qadian, my place of residence is exactly east of Damascus; today therefore is
fulfilled the prophecy of the Holy Prophet”. In Tadhkirah Shahadatain MGA also stated
the Promised Messiah was to appear east of Damascus, which he identified as India. He
mentioned this fact in also in 1900, in the announcement for collection for funds for
building of Minaratul Masih. He stated that his village is Qadian, situated east of
Response by Dr Tahir Ijaz Page 12
V. Your statement “there is no fourth source here called my book which are my
revelations correcting the false beliefs that Muslims adopted”. The Quran, Sunnah,
Hadith are, I agree all that a Muslim needs. But why even have Promised Messiah at all if
all complete? Why do we need someone appointed directly by Allah again for the
Muslims? The fact his words serve to reinforce existing teachings. You are still stuck in
the mode that kitab means to bring something new to Islamic doctrine. I have quoted
Muhammad Ali himself that kitab has a broad meaning, which he has relegated to a
footnote in his book Religion of Islam. Solomon’s small letter of warning and advice is
called kitab in the Quran.
It is in this sense all prophets brought a book, including the Promised Messiah. However
to claim all prophets brought a book in the law/legal sense to bring or modify an existing
law is completely wrong, and I have quoted relevant passages from the Quran to prove
my point. Readers can see the previous post.
If you think I am out an a limb, at odds with other Qadianis on this, please read A.R
Dard’s Life of Ahmad, chapter 77, entitled “Removes a Misconception” and compare it to
what I have written on the subject of kitab in the posts submitted and tell me if you see a
discrepancy. He was a Qadiani Imam of London Mosque appointed by Mirza Mahmud
I have shown quite clearly from The Will, that the revelations vouchsafed to the Promised
Messiah was at a level the prophets agree is nabuwwat itself.
So I don’t understand why you don’t understand. My position is that his revelations did
not add or subtract anything from the Quran, the final Law. You agree Hazrat Isa and
other Israelite prophets received authoritative revelations; yet, they did not replace or
change the Torah, the book of Law of the Israelites.
VI. Readers can judge for themselves. Answering a question with a question. They were
well aware of the doctrinal shift.
VII. I did not say you used the expression, ‘calling one a lion does not make one a lion’, I
said some people have used that expression in your Lahore Movement to say Promised
Messiah was not a real Nabi. My father, who used to be Lahori and later became Qadiani,
himself heard that in the Lahori gatherings he used to attend. Of course, the analogy of
lion is completely inappropriate.
Lahoris have not understood the meaning of ‘zill’, ‘majaz’, ‘asli’ ‘haqiqi’, and therefore
when the Promised Messiah said he is a prophet by way of zill not reality you become
Response by Dr Tahir Ijaz Page 13
confused. Your response shows you still have not grasped it. When I say previous Books
are not real, you say I am in apparent violation of a basic teaching of Islam, that we
accept all Books. But I am only quoting the Promised Messiah!
“Those books (earlier scriptures) were not real books intended to endure. Rather they
served a temporary passing need. The only real book is the Holy Quran. (Minanur
Rahman, page 7).
The previous books were real, but compared to Quran not real. I have already given other
examples of this expression. The Promised Messiah’s nabuwwat on his own is real, but
relative to the Prophet it is not. The Prophet is the only real Mahdi, not Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad. Relative to the Prophet Muhammad, nothing is real.
It is a wonderful statement of praise for the Holy Prophet, that all, even the Prophets, are
nothing compared to him. The readers can draw their own conclusion.
Your majaz quotation from Haqiqatul wahyi is perfectly correct, but as you have already
quoted from Chashma marifat (RK Vol 23, p 340), the Promised Messiah said in the
identical fashion: “I was given this name by way of zill, not in a real way”. I have already
proven, from the Promised Messiah’s writings, reflection is real. All spiritual attainments
are by way of zill. And those spiritual attainments are real, not artificial. He was a zilli
Thus the words ‘prophet metaphorically not real’ present no difficult at all.
You sarcastically say how could you say the door to prophethood is wide open? Only one
has passed through. Please read Malfoozat again, quoted above. Thousands have attained
the rank of prophethood. They were just not given the name openly. I have already
reviewed why for the benefit of the readers.
Your question to Qadianis, how can a prophet arise if the Qadiani Khilafat is forever?
This question has already been answered in light of the above.
Your have tried to contradict my statement that all prophets before Muhammad were
ummati in a sense. The Hadith is: “Had Moses or Jesus been alive, they would have been
my followers”. We use this quote to prove the death of Jesus in our debates with non-
Ahmadis. The quote from Barahini Ahmadiyya Part 5, that Jesus cannot be an ummati, is
a rebuttal to those non-Ahmadis who believe the same Jesus of 2000 years ago, the Jew,
Response by Dr Tahir Ijaz Page 14
will come back. This clearly shows an ummati can rise to rank of nabi. We don’t need a
nabi of old to do the job, but thanks anyway!
In Chashma-i-Masihi (1906) he has also explained this. He stated:
“The maulvis offer an indignity to our Holy Prophet when they say this ummah cannot
out of their own ranks have the like of Jesus, son of Mary since that is breaking khatme
nabuwwat. They say God will send the same Israelite Jesus…They are guilty of not one
but two sins…they have to hold the belief that while a servant of God called Isa (Hebrew
Yasu) having acted for 30 years upon the law of Moses, the apostle of God, became an
elect of God, and had the honor of being made a prophet; as against this no man can
attain to that honor even if he acts upon the law of the Holy Prophet…They do not
see that it becomes fraudulent on part of God to inculcate the prayer: “The path of
those on whom thou has bestowed thy blessings”… in this ummat too there should
be an ummati from one point of view and a prophet from another…Jesus cannot
combine these two characteristics, for ummati is one who attains to spiritual excellence
by solely following the Prophet – but Jesus was already possessed of that excellence”.
Thus again and again, the Promised Messiah stated the path to the highest stage is open,
the status of nabuwwat in accord with Surah Fatiha and Al Nisa 4:69, by following the
VIII. You state in regards to Barahin Ahmadiyya V (RK Vol 21 p. 306), “nabi in this
hadith report in Sahih Muslim, it is not definition of nabi”. Completely wrong! It is so
clear, I will present it for the readers for them to decide.
The person is asking how can a nabi appear in the ummah of Muhammad? The answer
should have been seven words: “nabi is a metaphor expression for muhuddus” as he
described in Izala Auham. It was not. The Promised Messiah started by saying, the
“meaning of nabi” and said it is not essential they bring a law and he must they be an
ummati. A meaning has been set down. Some nabis bring law some don’t. It is not
essential. To bring a law is an additional feature nabis had. To deny this is to deny the
light of the midday sun. I hope the reader can see it if you can’t.
Here are other quotes, which support my position:
“No Prophet, with a shariah, can come; but a prophet not bearing a new law can most
surely appear.” (Tajalliyati Ilahiya, page 25, RK Vol 20, page 412).
Maulvi Nurrudin said, definition of nabi is one who receives abundant revelations, “not
one who brings a Shariah” (Badr, Oct 27, 1910).
Response by Dr Tahir Ijaz Page 15
“Law bearing is no sine qua non of prophethood” (Ek Ghalti ka Izala).
“Among the Israelites there were several nabis to whom no law was revealed…it was
these prophecies that entitled them to be called nabis…same is the case with my mission.
If I am not a nabi, what other distinctive word is there which will distinguish me from
other recipients of divine revelation?” (Badr, 1908 already quoted before).
Thus in the way some previous nabis were non-law bearing among the Israelites, he was
non-law bearing nabi also.
Readers can decide if a definition of nabi has been set down, or whether your excuses can
stand critical analysis.
I would like to say this is not some kind of Qadiani make-believe. The mujaddid, Shah
Wali Ullah Muhuddus of Delhi has said:
“Prophets have been ended with Muhammad in the sense that there will be found no one
after him who is commissioned by God with Shariat for men” (Tafheemat I Ilahiyya, p
As already shown, your quote from Barahin Ahmadiya part 5, RK Vol 21 p364, is not
against the principle of ummati being a nabi. It is against the principle of the old Jesus,
the Jew, coming back, as the context clearly shows. He followed a different book, the
Promised Messiah argued. The ummati nabi must be a disciple of Muhammad, an Imam
from among you (imam mu kum min kum), as Sahih Bukhari puts it. So your conclusion
is plain wrong.
Regarding the question presented to MGA, can it be shown from Quran or Hadith a
muhuddus be called a nabi? The very question shows he is asking for a definition and
meaning of nabi. The answer should have been simple. “Yes, because in the Sufi books
you will read nabi is a metaphoric term for one close to God. And God forbid a
muhuddus can really be a nabi, for Muhammad is the last prophet”. That is not the
answer! His answer gives you no support whatsoever. It is essentially the same as
before, that the meaning of nabi is a person with certain spiritual status. It is that status
that makes a mere muhuddus a nabi. He also said earlier in an answer to a similar
question, that law bearing is not essential as a function of a nabi. It is merely an extra
feature and position for some prophets, depending on the needs of the people of the time.
Response by Dr Tahir Ijaz Page 16
The quotation where auliyya is mentioned in the same paragraph as nabi, and attempting
to construe auliyya is the same as nabi I have already explained it in the previous post,
and readers can judge. Auliyya can reach the excellences of prophethood and attain that
spiritual stature. I see no contradiction to what I presented.
IX. Bahais? They believe Bahaullah to be a prophet-God, and his teachings replaced the
shariah of Islam as you say. Which Al-Fazl articles state Promised Messiah replaced the
shariah of Islam?
The quotes from Muhammad Ali from 1906, I will touch on in the next section below.
X. There is nothing in Sadiq’s sahib’s words against the belief of the actual prophethood
of the Promised Messiah. He is not saying ‘we don’t preach his prophethood’, he is
saying ‘we don’t go around preaching his prophethood’ (read the Urdu). It is a matter of
responsible speech so as to prevent a misunderstanding an independent prophet, a co-nabi
or replacement nabi has arrived. This is what he wanted for Shilbi to understand, who
may not be familiar with the concept of zill, and Muslims in general took the term ‘nabi’
to mean a type of legislative position. He meant to tell him: Qadianis are not replacing
Ahmad’s prophethood with Muhammad’s prophethood!
There is absolutely no contradiction in Sadiq sahib’s words with the Qadiani belief that
the river of nabuwwat is still flowing, and God speaks to his chosen servants as he has
done in the past. Jamaat publications vigorously and openly expound this, while Lahoris
and Orthodox Muslims sadly, want to believe the greatest Divine gift is now history.
Thus your outrageous comment, steeped in prejudice, that converts to Qadian jamaat are
duped into thinking he was not really a prophet and misled is absurd. Our interpretation
of khatam is world famous, not hidden.
Maulvi Nurrudin statement that the Promised Messiah is a nabi, using a dictionary and
not a person bringing a shariah, is clear proof that the only thing being denied is lawbearing
Also, to say he only said ‘Mujaddid’ in the letter referring to the Promised Messiah, thus
in effect negating actual prophethood is wrong. Prophet Muhammad was called
Mujaddid e Azam by the Promised Messiah himself (Lecture Sialkot, page 4). Thus if a
law-bearer can be called mujaddid, so can a non-law bearing prophet.
Response by Dr Tahir Ijaz Page 17
I have already provided quotes from 1906 and 1911 that show Mirza Mahmud, Mufti
Sadiq and those who later formed the Lahori branch were on the same page on the
spiritual status of Promised Messiah. The information you provide on Kamaluddin and
his interactions with Mirza Mahmud Ahmad is not convincing at all, readers can read it
for themselves online and draw their own conclusions.
To say Mirza Mahmud Ahmad believed the Promised Messiah was not a prophet based
on Badr, March, 1911 is false, since he said clearly no person can be mamur minallah
unless he bears the seal of the prophet’s obedience; this means an ummati and zilli nabi.
He also said many in the ummah attained the rank of prophethood, contradicting what
you are trying to show.
Moreover, his article from 1906, five years earlier is very clear, endorsed by Muhammad
Ali. Readers can refresh their memory by looking at previous posts where I quote the
statements. Nowhere you will find in the writings of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and Maulvi
Muhammad Ali before the split stating saints do the work of prophets now, or that ‘nabi’
is a metaphorical term. In the same way Allah revived communities in the past with
Prophets, he did in the present case also, as Muhammad Ali so beautifully wrote.
Muhammad Ali has used mujaddid interchangeably with prophet, but that is not
necessarily an exclusive term to mean non-prophet. Shah Wali-Ullah of Delhi called
prophets of Israel who served the Law of Moses, ‘mujaddids’, and I have already quoted
the Promised Messiah above.
Your quote of Muhammad Ali from Review of Religions, 1906, pp 253-4 does not help
you. He stated, “No Divine blessing can be attained except through the Holy Prophet”
and “no old prophet can come back and he “must be follower of the Holy Prophet who
should be raised to the dignity of Messiah…” He clearly implied an old prophet is not
required and in fact, an insult. For by following the Prophet Muhammad, an ummati can
attain great spiritual heights, as he himself had written (already quoted). The top category
is nabi. He again repeated it in 1908, in Review of Religions, page 186:
“This movement holds no Prophet old or new, can come as a direct recipient of
Prophethood without a link with the Holy Prophet…all doors leading to prophethood are
closed except for one who should enter in complete obedience to him…for him the door
remains open in Divine discretion”.
If he meant only wali, this was the place to say it.
Unfortunately only seven years later, in 1915 he was to write in Paigham i Sulha:
“As far as I can see, the view that the Promised Messiah was a Prophet is tantamount to
pulling up and destroying Islam by the roots…if you do not close the door to
Prophethood, in my opinion, it is an extremely dangerous path”.
Response by Dr Tahir Ijaz Page 18
In 1912, the entire Jamaat was on the same page on the prophethood of Promised
Messiah. Badr, March 22, 1912 published a highly acclaimed article on family tree of
Maulvi Nurrudin. Recounting he was from the family of Umar the second Khalifa of a
Prophet, it was stated:
“Allah made one from the sons of Umar (i.e. Nurrudin) the first Khalifa of a
Later that year in 1912, a member of the community published a book on the biography
of Maulvi Nurrudin making reference to that article. If anyone wants further information
on the book, they can contact me.
Your comments on Tajalliyat Ilahiyya are meaningless to the discussion. Not all
righteous persons, though status of nabi, are appointed as such. They are non-prophets in
the sense they are not appointed, but their spiritual status is that of nabi. And all nabis are
muhudduses also. Many so-called non-prophets were actually in nabi in stature. One such
person was Mary, mother of Jesus.
But MGA was appointed by Allah and received high-grade Divine communion, which
the prophets agree is nabuwwat (The Will). When a disciple of his said to an opponent
MGA did not have the status of nabi, he was corrected. MGA moreover was instructed to
form a community and the Prophet Muhammad required Muslims to accept Messiah
when he appeared. Thus he was a nabi like other nabis.
XI. Re: Ahmad prophecy in Quran. Readers should look at the Qadiani commentary and
Muhammad Ali’s commentary. To deny that the Ahmad prophecy is related to the second
coming of Isa fulfilled by MGA is ignoring what the Promised Messiah himself wrote
and the words of Muhammad Ali himself.
I have already quoted the words of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in the first book after
becoming khalifa. The readers should see the so-called contradictory words of Mirza
Mahmud in Anwar i Khilafat and the rebuttal in the book Truth Prevails, online chapter
Response by Dr Tahir Ijaz Page 19
The most reasonable conclusion is the prophecy of Ahmad is a dual one as the Qadiani
commentary states, while there remains complete denial in Muhammad’s Ali’s
commentary under this verse that MGA also fulfilled the prophecy of the future rasul. I
can only repeat what I have said before for readers to judge.
The Promised Messiah said (Ijazul Masih Chapter II, page 22-3):
“Isa has pointed out to the people coming later to join the ranks of the companions of the
Holy Prophet with their Imam quite clearly identified by the name Ahmad”.
This is not merely an ishara. He is the Ahmad. The fact that Ijazul Masih was written
before Ek Ghalti ka Izala is not a rebuttal. The quote proves Promised Messiah is also the
object of the prophecy and has applied the prophecy to himself in a plain and open
manner. He is the Imam, i.e. Imam Mahdi and his name is Ahmad.
In revelation he has been addressed such:
“O, Ahmad you have been made an Apostle”. (Tadhkirah)
I have already quoted Al Hakam, 1905, where the Promised Messiah said:
“They do not seem to be aware that Allah name me Ahmad. The pledge of bai’at is
taken in the name of Ahmad. Is not this name found in the Quran?”
Muhammad Ali: (ROR Vol 12 No 7 page 236, 1913)
“Who is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? In words of the Quran we reply, ‘He will come after
me his name will be Ahmad”.
Here he identifies MGA with rasul prophecy of the Quran, quoting the very Quranic
words we are discussing. In his Quran commentary on this verse, he does not write
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad fulfilled the prophecy.
The statement in the Review of Religions is very bold, and if you infer from Mirza
Mahmud Ahmad’s words there was no agreement in the interpretation of this verse, no
one told Muhammad Ali that!
He further stated in his Quran commentary the names Muhammad and Ahmad are of
jalal and jamal names respectively, and both these elements combined in one person, the
Holy Prophet. This is very true, but does not mention MGA as having fulfilled it also.
Yet, the open and full manifestation of Ahmad is in the second coming. Says the
Promised Messiah: “The Holy Prophet had a hidden and sensitive likeness with Hazrat
Isa as well therefore, in the manner of boruz, he manifested that hidden likeness to the
fullest extent in his advent as Ahmad, the counterpart of Hazrat Isa (Tohfa
Golarwiah, page 96).
Response by Dr Tahir Ijaz Page 20
Thus very dogmatically, Muhammad Ali in his Quran commentary under this verse has
denied MGA has fulfilled the prophecy in name, Faruqi, the Lahori author is downright
angry that MGA is made the object of the prophecy and you continue to say in your post,
the word ‘rasul’ can only refer to the Holy Prophet.
Qadianis also say the prophecy applies to Muhammad, who came right ‘after him’, so
that is not an issue. The prophecy also related to a messenger to come in the future, the
second coming of Muhammad, fulfilled in the person of Ahmad, who is also Ghulam of
Your remark about the Promised Messiah not knowing he was indeed a nabi until later I
have already addressed. It doesn’t bother you in the least that MGA did not initially
understand his own status regarding his Messiahship and appointment as Imam Mahdi.
He formally invited people into his community believing Jesus is alive in Heaven and
will come back one day, and then later declared he actually was the Messiah through
down pouring of revelation to that effect.
From Dr Tahir Ijaz, December 9, 2003.
My rebuttal is given below. It is in no particular order in relation to the previous posts,
but all is covered. Readers may want to print it out to cross check with our previous
posts. MGA stands for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Any bolding in the quotations is my own.
I-In your section, “MGA himself replaced word nabi with muhuddas”. I look at it
differently. He replaced the word muhuddus with nabi! If you take these titles as
interchangeable, then he is definitely a nabi, for not all muhuddases are nabi, but all
nabis are muhuddases! A simple reading of the passages in context and in reference to
what he wrote prior to the passages in each book will prove mere muhuddas was not
meant. MGA did not intend to show that nabi should be interpreted as mere muhuddas for
describing his status. Let us analyze this in detail:
The quotes are first from Haqiqatul Wahyi, p 390:
“Mujaddid Sahib Sirhindi has written that although some persons in his ummah are
chosen to receive Divine revelation, till the Day of Judgment, but the man who is
privileged with this revelation abundantly and has matters of the unseen revealed to him
in abundance is called nabi”
This is absolutely correct, abundant revelation with knowledge given in the matters of
unseen is called nabi. In Misunderstanding Removed, he said the same, revelation and
knowledge in abundance is nabuwwat, and the term “muhuddas” did not do justice to his
rank for it is one step down in term of quality of revelation. On the same page in
Haqiqatul Wahyi, I have quoted these statements earlier and in previous postings:
“A nabi means that he will be getting the excellence of communion and communication
and the matters unseen disclosed to him in such abundance that cannot be done except
to a prophet. As Allah says ‘Allah does not grant anyone a full power and dominance
on matters pertaining to the unknown obtainable on the basis of amplitude and clarity
except in the case of His own chosen Apostle’…it is at thing established that the
amplitude and abundance of communion and the volume of knowledge in regard to the
unknown bestowed on me by Allah, in the last thirteen hundred years, has not been
granted to anyone else…in point of amplitude of wahyi from Allah and knowledge of
things in realms unknown, I am the only specific individual; before my time, in the
entire of auliya, abdal, aqtab, in this ummat, no one else has been given this abundance.
On this basis I am the only one singled out to be called nabi.”
Thus as Allah spoke to His chosen apostles in the past in that degree of clarity, quoting
Allah himself on this, MGA reached that spiritual zenith of nabi. He was a nabi in the
sense other nabis were called prophets, which is why he embodied the fulfillment of the
nabi prophecy in Sahih Muslim.
Now this is the quote you present from Malfoozat, p.155:
Mujaddid Sahib Sirhindi writes, that these dreams and revelation that people have now
and then if someone has them in abundance, he is called muhuddas. To sum up, I have
explained this in detail in my book Haqiqatul Wahyi”.
What he meant here was not mere muhuddas at all, but truly muhuddas raised to rank of
nabi. Note he is quoting Sirhindi. Sirhindi wrote nabi, not muhuddus! The terms have
slightly different in meaning. Both quotations of Sirhindi cannot be right – either he wrote
nabi or muhuddas and we know he wrote nabi, and is consistent with MGA’s argument
that nabi conveys the sense of knowledge of unseen.
No further proof is needed, but if you read what is just above the quote of Sirhindi in
Malfoozat, this proves my point without a shadow of doubt.
In the passage from Malfoozat, p 155 he wrote this just before he quoted Sirhindi:
“There are difference in dreams of ordinary people and dreams and revelations of
Prophets. The dreams and revelations are distinct in terms of quantity, amplitude
and nature. I do not claim to be a law-bearing prophet. I believe that has ended with
the advent of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. My claim is to serve the law, with
revelations, prophecies, arguments, speeches.”
Here he refers to the distinct quality and amplitude of revelations of a nabi, which is far
superior to other people in the ummah who may receive revelation. He puts himself into
the league of prophets, but careful to say non-law bearing. The fact that he felt the need
to need make clear he was not a law-bearing prophet is a clear indication he meant a real
prophethood, since a muhuddas does not bring a law anyway, and no qualification should
have been needed!
So in summary, he quoted Sirhindi in Haqiqatul Wahyi, who also agreed that indeed it is
supreme abundance of revelation above and beyond other righteous people that gives one
the title nabi from Allah. MGA said the same in the quote from Malfoozat, that it is
abundance and quality that makes one nabi and careful to point out he brought no
The contexts of each of the Sirhindi quotes in his two books prove only nabi was meant,
not mere muhuddas. The definitive work is Haqiqatul Wahyi, where he refers people for
details. Furthermore, to say he meant only muhuddus would contradict what he wrote in
Misunderstanding Removed, that the term does not do justice to his rank.
Thus 1901 and beyond, you will never find MGA laying claim to only muhuddas. He
insisted ‘nabi’ is the appropriate spiritual title, though an ummati.
Let me review for you and the readers the change in his own conception of spiritual
status, in reference to how he compared with Jesus. I will go through this in detail, since
you claim my points have been “demolished”. If you want to believe this illusion, go
ahead, but I hope and pray the readers will see the points.
II-Before I delve into this let me reply to two issues you raise in your section ‘Did
Promised Messiah change his claim in 1901’.
a) Let me give you information on Taryaqul Qolub. It is from 1899, though published in
1902. At the end of the book is the name Mirza Ghulam Ahmad with the year 1899. The
date of publication is also mentioned in an attached note, and is 1902.
Even you will admit the text of Taryaqul Qolub has not been changed, just that the date
of publication vs. date of writing as been clarified, which is not unreasonable.
b) Another misunderstanding you have is about the first few sentences of
Misunderstanding Removed. What you have written is a gross distortion of facts. His
book was a reply to a follower of his who mistakenly thought MGA was never called a
nabi. MGA wrote:
“Some people in our movement who are not well acquainted with my claim and the
arguments relating to it – not having had the occasion to study my books carefully, nor
having stayed in my company for a sufficient length of time to complete their knowledge
– in some instances in response to an objection of the opponents give a reply which is
entirely against the facts.”
Remember, this follower of his did not even know MGA had indeed been called a
nabi in revelation. That is why MGA wrote immediately following the above passage:
“The fact is that the holy and pure revelation which God vouchsafed to me contains such
words nabi, rasul, not once, but hundreds of times. In the face of these revelations
how can this answer be correct that such words do not appear”?
This completely undermines your take on the first few lines of Misunderstanding
Removed and the meaning is not what you make it out to be. Wherever he denied that no
new prophet could come meant that no new prophet bringing a shariah can come, because
that was the definition of nabi he used to use.
The book Misunderstanding Removed is a dissertation that a nabi can be an ummati, and
that he was nabi in the sense previous nabis were called nabis, and that “muhuddas” as a
title did not do justice to his true rank and eminence, necessitating the word nabi to be
used as his spiritual status, in complete reversal of his pre-1901 books.
It was in 1901 that MGA realized true breadth of his status. In his books before 1901 he
denied being an actual nabi, despite revelations to this effect. He would take these
revelations, out of modesty, to mean figurative only, since he believed all prophethood
had come to an end, since an ummati, a follower of another prophet, could not be a
prophet. That is why he wrote in 1899, (Al Hakam No 29 Vol 3):
Prophets in Islamic terminology “bring shariah or cancel some edicts of previous shariah
or they are not called the followers of the preceding prophet and keep in touch with
God directly without receiving any benefit from any other prophet”.
In the book Misunderstanding Removed, he now stated he was a nabi, and an ummati at
the same time! A nabi in the ummah, he wrote was actually a blessing and had to happen:
“It must be borne in mind there is a pledge in favor of this ummat that it will receive all
those identical blessings which the earlier prophets and siddiqs received. So, included in
these favors and blessings are nabuwwats, and prophecies, on the basis of which earlier
prophets came to be known and accepted as prophets”.
He was thus a prophet in the sense previous prophets were called prophets, but careful to
qualify that he was an ummati.
He also wrote (Badr, 1908):
“Among the Israelites there have been several nabis to whom no law was revealed. They
only announced prophecies which they received from God and which served to establish
the truth and prestige of the Mosaic religion. It was these prophecies that entitled them to
be called nabis. The same is the case with my mission. If I am not a nabi, what other
distinctive word is there which will distinguish me from other recipients of divine
Thus again he points out he was a nabi, but non-law bearer, and called a nabi in the sense
previous non-bearing prophets of Israel were called nabis.
III-If we were not to take MGA as an actual ummati nabi who arose in the ummah of
Prophet Muhammad, then one runs into difficulties when interpreting many statements of
MGA before 1901, statements which otherwise would be demeaning to Islam. Let us
explore this further now.
Before 1901, MGA wrote a brief commentary on the verse 4:69, which described the
levels a believer may attain, by being obedient and following the best they could the
example of the Holy Prophet. The blessings are nabi, salih, siddiq, and shaheed. The
prayer Muslims are taught is, guide us in the path on whom thou has bestowed thy
blessings (Fatiha), and these are the blessings. If an ummati can achieve the three other
ranks, why not rank of nabuwwat? If ma’a means only with and not of them, a Muslim
cannot be a nabi, only be in their company, cannot be truthful, but only sit in their
company of truthful, etc. Thus all spiritual gifts are banned for the followers of the
prophet if you take the verse to be merely “in their company”.
The Holy Prophet has said that among the followers of Moses there were persons who
attained the rank muhuddus, a rank lower than prophet. Therefore, if the spiritual
example and influence of the Holy Prophet can result in persons to a status no higher than
muhaddas, then the Holy Prophet cannot be superior to other prophets. The distinctive
merit is that the followers of the previous prophets could attain at most the status of
muhuddas. The spiritual power of past prophets was no more. But the followers of the
Holy Prophet can attain the status of prophet, due to the superior influence of the Holy
Prophet’s example and teaching. That is what makes the Ummah of Muhammad the best
Thus MGA wrote in The Will, page 17,18:
“The perfect follower can be called an ummati and a prophet together and this will
not be a slight to the perfect prophet hood of Muhammad…when Divine communion
(wahyi, revelation) reaches the stage of perfection, both in terms of quality and quantity,
when it becomes free of impurities and defects, and when it clearly comprehends the
Unseen, that in other words can be termed as prophethood. All the Prophets agree on
this. The followers of Muslims have been described, as ‘you are the best people raised
for the good of mankind.’ They have also been taught the prayer ‘Guide us on the right
path, the path of those on whom Thou hast bestowed thy blessings” It is not possible
that a nation which has been described thus, and which has been taught the above
prayer should be entirely deprived of the status of prophethood, if so, then the ummat
of Muhammad would be deemed imperfect and incomplete, with all members wandering
Thus the four stages, the spiritual ranks of ‘those on whom Allah has bestowed his
blessings” are open. The nabi would be an ummati. The nabuwwat would be continuation
of Muhammad’s nabuwwat in essence, thus there is no question of breaking a seal. In
relation to the Promised Messiah, all such nabis in the ummah can be called “partial zilli
nabis”, though their spiritual status on their own is like the nabis of previous nations.
Thus your quotes about Hazrat Umar and Hazrat Abu Bakr about their likeness to the
prophets and Muhammad make sense, and your quotes pose no difficulty, and make
sense in light of the above. They all shared in the zilliyat, in varying degrees of
I have already shown this in my previous postings, referring to Haqiqatul Wahyi and
other books, that the perfect zilli nabi is MGA, and moreover, given the actual office –
i.e., the responsibility of forming a community under direct revelation from Allah that he
is the Imam of the age, and making it incumbent people accept him, etc.
On what he would do an about face later, Maulana Sahib (1908 in Badr and also in Al
Hakam) wrote, “We have been ordered to offer this prayer (surah Fatiha on receiving
blessings) …we stand on the point that Allah can raise prophets whenever and wherever
in His wisdom He might choose to do so. Also he can confer the rank of siddiq, shaheed
and salih on whomsoever He likes. The only thing needed was a sincere applicant”.
Please don’t make “prophets as plural” argument. Divine blessings always remain open.
He can raise prophets. Needless to say Maulana sahib would later say in Bayanul Quran
that Muslims couldn’t attain spiritual height of nabi through prayer.
Another example of where MGA’s status of actual nabi helps to explain a difficult
situation from a pre 1901 book will be presented:
In Izali-Auham, (page 139), he wrote:
“No rank of honor, no perfection, no respect and reverence, no nearness to the Master
(God) can be attained without a complete and implicit obedience to the Holy Prophet.
Just whatsoever is granted to us, it is zill and tufail”.
He is saying all Muslim believers, whatever spiritual rank they achieve, with titles like
“muhuddus” or “wali”, receive that rank based on zill, a reflection of the Prophet
Muhammad. Thus, the great spiritual personages in Islam are “zilli muhuddas” or “zilli
walis” if you will. Similarly a nabi, the highest stage an ummati can possibly achieve, is
appropriately called “zilli nabi”. To be a zilli wali or zilli muhuddas does not mean
they are not real walis or muhudasses! Similarly, a zilli nabi is also a real nabi. You
are thus completely off the mark when you write:
“However real an image may be, it still remains one of the images and does not become
May Allah protect us from such views, since your words imply no muhuddas in the
ummah of Muhammad is real either!
Therefore, in summary, MGA in Misunderstanding Removed told his followers that an
ummati could be nabi. Nabuwwat was a blessing, added luster to Prophet Muhammad,
that nabis would appear after him, thorough obedience to him, in varying degrees of
perfection, depending on their quality of reflection or zill of the Prophet Muhammad.
His previous (pre 1901) writings now made more sense once he got the status of ummati
nabi, which removed inconsistencies and paradoxes.
I have more comments on zilli, later in this article.
IV-Now, on the issue of his of nabuwwat and his spiritual status, to understand the
evolution of his own understanding, is best appreciated in his writings on his stance on
his stature compared to Jesus who was a nabi.
First let me get something out of the way quickly. It seems bizarre to you why the
Promised Messiah would wait till 1907 until someone asked him a question on his status
vs. Jesus’ status. First of all, he could have addressed it in “Misunderstanding
Removed”, but not everything is necessarily going to be in one book. Secondly, you are
absolutely wrong about him waiting till 1907 till someone asked, since only a few months
later after Misunderstanding Removed in Kishti Nuh he declared in grand terms (in 1902),
that the Muslim Messiah was categorically more exalted than Jesus (Kishti Nuh, page
On page 148, of Haqiqatul Wahyi, the Promised Messiah reproduced a question raised by
“On page 157 of Taryaqul Qolub, a book I wrote, it was written ‘Let no one be misled to
imagine that in this address I have held myself to be superior to Hazrat Masih, since this
superiority is only in certain respects, and of a kind which a man, who was not a nabi
could have over one who was nabi.”
Then quoting from ROR, MGA wrote he was categorically greater than Jesus, with his
miracles and signs, and the entire splendor.
The Promised Messiah then proceeded to explain this contradiction raised by the
questioner. If MGA made no alteration in his concept of nabuwwat, that nabi meant only
muhuddas, he could have silenced the questioner with the statement again, that wherever
he stated he was superior to Jesus, it was only in limited partial extent, which an ordinary
man can have sometimes over a prophet. He did not give this reply! Readers should read
pages 148-150 with care (on line reading is available) and after reading it these points are
He admitted that there was apparent contradiction; that his belief in regard to this own
limited and partial superiority lasted only as long as he had taken Jesus for a prophet,
with no question of a comparison between a nabi and another who was not a nabi, or at
best only a partial nabi. But when he receive abundant wahyi to the effect he was given
the rank of nabi (ummati and nabi), he had to abandon the old idea of partial superiority
over Jesus. When this fact dawned on him, he had to declare he was superior to Jesus in
all glory, equal to him on the point of being a nabi, but far superior to him in point of the
works and signs shown at his hands. So he was certainly like Jesus, performed miracles
like Jesus, but always downplayed this out of modesty, as, after all, Jesus was a prophet,
and his own feats should only be seen limited and partial.
MGA was informed of this status by Divine revelation (Haqiqatul Wahyi, Page 148) He
“In the beginning I believed that I had no comparison with Jesus son of Mary; he was a
prophet and one of the chosen ones of God. If there was disclosed anything indicating my
superiority, I considered it as a minor and partial phase. However when God poured upon
me like rain I could not keep this belief. I was clearly given the title of prophet – one
respect prophet and in the other ummati.”
Thus it is clear that once he realized he was an actual nabi, in 1901, he had no hesitation
in saying he was superior in rank to Jesus. His own belief of spiritual inferiority to
Prophet Jesus evaporated, when revelation poured down on him that he too, was nabi.
Please reflect on his words; he gradually came to realize what nabi really meant, only
after persistent revelation to this effect. He formerly downplayed the term nabi as only a
dictionary term, and regarded the term “nabi-ullah” in Sahih Muslim in that very
restricted sense out of humility, until 1901.
What time period is “In the beginning” you ask is stated right in the quotes I just gave. It
is the period when he used to think an ummati couldn’t be a prophet, i.e. before 1901. It
is with publication of Misunderstanding Removed that he first spoke of him being
ummati and nabi. Your quotations of him resembling Jesus are meaningless to the
discussion. Of course he resembled Jesus, but always considered Jesus superior, Jesus
being a prophet. Any superiority he had he took out of modesty as partial or minor since
he was did not consider himself a prophet – until 1901.
Once it was clear an ummati could rise to be a prophet, an actual prophet, he declared he
was superior to Jesus, equal from point of view of nabi, but superior since his signs and
miracles were greater. Out of modesty, he would downplay even these feats, as partial or
Before I close this section, it is worth reviewing quotation from Haqiqatul Wahyi (p 390)
“It has been foretold that in this ummat of the Holy Prophet, there shall appear one who
will be called Jesus Son of Mary and will be called nabi which means that he will be
getting the excellence of communion and communication and the matters unseen
disclosed to him with such abundance that cannot be done except to a prophet. As Allah
says, ‘Allah does not grant anyone a full power and dominance on matters
pertaining to the unknown obtainable on the basis of amplitude and clarity except in
the case of His chosen Apostle’. And it is a thing established that the amplitude and
abundance of communion and the volume of knowledge in regard to the unknown
bestowed on me by Allah, in the last thirteen hundred years, has not been granted to
Maulana sahib has tried to show that since Jesus coming to earth, descending on a
minaret is a metaphor, nabi, too is a metaphor. To keep his pet theory afloat he had to
make a suggestion like this, but of course, it backfired, since the Promised Messiah was
taking nabuwwat not only in the dictionary sense, but also the religious sense – saying he
really attained a spiritual state and communion with Allah to a level beholden only to
prophets, quoting the Quranic statement of Apostle as support, the true religious
V-In the book History of the Prophets, you brought in the issue of kitab as a way to
counter my argument that Maulana sahib’s definition of a true prophet cannot fit for the
Promised Messiah, since according to you, the Promised Messiah brought forth no kitab
hence negating he was a prophet.
Wahyi nabuwwat with respect to new shariah is definitely closed, since according to the
quote from Izala Auham (pre 1901) that you provide, Gabriel will no longer descend with
a new shariah. This is the wahyi nabuwwat you are describing. But as I quoted from The
Will earlier (see above), one form of wahyi nabuwwat is non-shariah. The ummati
receives wahyi, can go to the perfect degree and grade that the Prophets agree is
nabuwwat itself. Thus the wahyi vouchsafed to the Promised Messiah, the perfect zilli
nabi, who reflects the Prophet Muhammad perfectly, is not the type that embodies a new
Again, as your last paragraph shows, you are continually thinking of kitab as formal
books, or edicts that modify an existing shariah, if not replace them altogether. I am not
saying that so please don’t misrepresent me. The Promised Messiah’s revelations
correcting the false beliefs, which the Muslims adopted in complete violation of
Muhammad’s teachings, his words of peace and tolerance is his kitab. This broad
meaning and application of the word kitab is fully in line with Maulana sahib’s own
definition as set forth in the footnote in his book The Religion of Islam.
I will say this again, a person appointed directed by Allah through revelation, asked to
form a community, telling people that it is incumbent to accept him, as in the hadith,
“crawl to him over glaciers on your knees if you have to”, can only be a nabi.
VI-On the Anjuman H Islam issue let the readers decide. We have made our respective
views clear. I should say here though I have no illusions about the nature of Iqbal. They
were however right in their suspicion of doctrinal changes, which is why the writings of
thirty years ago by Muhammad Ali came up. The discrepancies I have quoted in this post
VII-The statements of ‘calling a person a lion doesn’t make that person a lion’ of some
people I have heard, or ‘a reflection of a prophet remains only that, and not real and thus
MGA is not really a prophet’ or ‘he is a zill of Muhammad, but he is not really
Muhammad’ is old news. It reflects your lack of understanding of zill, and an
appreciation of the spiritual world-view of Islam that the Promised Messiah himself
has explained. I have already shown earlier your interpretation of zill makes Islam look
In Lecture Sialkot (1904) he stated: “In respect of the establishment of a spiritual basis in
human life, the Holy Prophet was the second Adam – in fact he was the only real Adam,
through whose influence and endeavor all the human qualities reached the highest
possible stage of development”.
Was not Adam the real Adam, the first prophet? Of course he was Adam, but in a manner
of speaking he was not the real Adam in comparison to the Prophet. The fact is all
prophets prior to the advent of the Prophet Muhammad were ‘ummati’ in a sense. This
explains the saying of the Prophet, “Had Moses and Jesus been alive, they would be my
followers”, or “I was Khatami nabiyyin before Adam was born”.
As quoted before, the only real and perfect Mahdi is Prophet Muhammad (Arba’een II).
In relation to Prophet Muhammad he is only a reflection, but it does not negate MGA is a
Mahdi on his own
The quotation that he is a ‘prophet by way of zill, not reality’ therefore poses no
difficulty at all. The analogy is crystal clear and perfect. Your quotations on the
metaphorical meaning of Son of God vs. real Son of God or real God are irrelevant, and
has nothing to do with the concept of zilli in Islam, as taught by the Promised Messiah.
Also the majaz nabi equation and his strong and powerful categorical denial of actual
nabi status are from pre-1901 books again. I predicted they were pre 1901, just by
looking at the quotes! You quote books like, Izala Auham, Siraj Munir, and Anjami
Atham, Nishan Asmani, Hujjt-ullah, Karamatus Sadiqin. One wonders why if you are
debating with a person who says there was a change after 1901 in MGA’s concept of his
nabuwwat, you would constantly appeal to them. MGA wrote no less than twenty-five
books after 1901!
The quote from Mawab ur Rahman, “ God speaks to His auliya in this ummah. They are
given the color of prophets, but they are not prophets in reality as Shariah is complete”
does not present any difficulty. My commentary: he says they are not “real” as “real” in
a manner of speaking, can be taken as law bearing sometimes. Since the shariah is
complete, he said call them partial zilli nabis, or prophets like those of Israel, but don’t
dare consider them independent, as to give them the authority to modify a shariah. No
one can touch the Law brought by the only real prophet in the word, Muhammad.
Compared to Muhammad, no previous prophet is even real, and compared to the Quran,
no previous Book is real.
There is nothing to suggest that auliya cannot rise to the spiritual rank of prophet. MGA
is just putting them, and himself, in the proper place – all are ummati, and dependent on
obedience to Muhammad for any blessings. It was an expression of love for his master.
It is not out of place again to give the quote again that he was a real prophet, though in a
zilli manner. In Misunderstanding Removed, he wrote:
“It must be borne in mind there is a pledge in favor of this ummat that it will receive all
those identical blessings which the earlier prophets and siddiqs received. So, included in
these favors and blessings are the nabuwwats, and prophecies, on the basis of which the
earlier prophets came to be known as prophets”.
In Chashma-i –Marifat (page 324) he called zilli nabuwwat a type of prophethood:
“There is a kind of nabuwwat which has not come to an end; the nabuwwat which
comes after the perfect obedience of the Holy Prophet Muhammad; that nabuwwat which
takes light from his lamp, that nabuwwat has not ended, because really speaking, this
nabuwwat is the zill of the nabuwwat of the Holy Prophet.”
He elaborates, as I have quoted before in Nozul-I-Masih, page 3, that he is only denying
being a nabi in the sense of law-bearer. He is a nabi based on achieving perfect zilliyyat.
He thus achieved the status of nabi in the religious sense, and he has also stated in his
other works no one else in the ummah attained that rank to such perfection, and so
therefore he singled out to be called nabi.
Your quote from p 89 of the same book that personages who are non-prophets receive
revelation also, is straw man argumentation, since it does not negate MGA clear claim
that he is above all others in the ummah, and I have not argued that people in the ummah
would not get a share of zilli nabuwwat. The spiritual rank muhuddus is by zill, as is the
rank of nabuwwat.
Thus the quotations you provide in your section “zilli prophethood” or “making
metaphorical into real” pose no difficulty, as long as you realize the spiritual universe of
Islam on attainment of blessings through obedience to the Prophet Muhammad described
by the Promised Messiah, and as long as you don’t keep getting confused with terms
“zilli” and “metaphor”. One can say MGA was Mahdi by way of metaphor, as he was an
image of his master, but do not get confused over such terms.
That is why incidentally you don’t understand the superiority concepts; it not a question
of superiority. MGA was the perfect manifestation of the name Muhammad, a zill of
Muhammad, who himself was the only real prophet in a sense. All prophets came under
Muhammad’s umbrella and any future prophets would attain prophethood only by
obedience to him, and not independently. Thus by MGA being a zill of the prophet,
through obedience to Muhammad, by being his slave to the extent of self-annihilation, he
attained a reflection of the nabuwwat of Muhammad. Therefore it is fully expected he
would have similarities with all the prophets.
In light of the above, once you realize the true concept of zill as conceptualized my MGA
himself, your words describing zill can be looked at critically:
“The Holy Prophet was the perfect prophet, excelling earlier prophets, but still remained
a prophet and was not elevated to a category beyond prophets. Similarly the Promised
Messiah even being the most perfect reflection of the Holy Prophet as compared to other
auliya does not go outside the category of auliya”
This is a false analogy since while there is no such thing as a category above prophets,
there is a category above auliya. You have failed to realize that in the spiritual scheme of
Islam the Prophet Muhammad is at the center, source lamp, and all others reflect him,
with people getting as share of zilliyat. The Promised Messiah, among the righteous
people in the history of Islam, among the muhuddus, was a most perfect zill and thus
attained the spiritual state called nabuwwat and given the office. All spiritual gifts
Muslims receive are by way of zilliyat.
VIII-In your heading “Misunderstanding of Izala Auham” let me clarify. I quoted from it
only to show that prior to 1901, MGA believed that an ummati could not be a nabi at the
same time. He stated the Messiah in the ummah of Muhammad could not be a prophet
therefore. The term nabi should be taken as muhaddus. His response is in complete
contrast what he wrote in Zameema Barahini Ahmadiyya, which I will dovetail into now,
which you have been unable to refute.
The same question was posed, how could the Messiah be an ummati, and is a prophet at
the same time? Remember, MGA believed also at one time, an ummati could not be a
prophet. A prophet had to one to brings a Shariah, modifies a Shariah of a previous
prophet, or is independent.
His response was not that the prophet arising in the ummah would be a muhuddas. It is
very interesting. He states:
“The true meaning of this word (nabi) is only that he should be one who receives tidings,
by means of wahyi from Allah and have communion with Allah in considerable
abundance and amplitude. That he should be a bearer of a new shariah is not essential.
Thus according to MGA, nabi means to have considerable communion with Allah. It is
not essential that nabi bring a Shariah. His words ‘not essential’ prove that some
prophets bring Shariah, some don’t. A definition has been set down. They are real
prophets. Moreover the words prove he is not speaking of muhuddus, since they, by
definition bring no new law. The prophet would be an ummati and cannot be
independent, as MGA claimed. His response also shows he received the nabuwwat
wahyi. There is nothing poetic or metaphoric about this. Thus the Sahih Muslim hadith
speaking of the term nabi arising in the ummah of the prophet is a religious term
describing the spiritual state of MGA as a nabi, the perfect zilli nabi of Muhammad. The
level of wahyi to such a degree, that it was beholden only to the prophets.
Your quote from Zamima Barahini Ahmadiyya that Allah speaks to his auliyya does not
refute anything. All he is said was among the righteous people, the auliya, a person can
arise who obtains the rank of nabi. Obviously an ummati nabi can only arise from auliya,
not from among the sinners! He speaks to his people as he did in the past, and the door to
his greatest gift is always open. Nowhere does he say here that nabuwwat is a poetic
expression that really means sainthood. He also mentioned in Haqiqatul Wahyi, which I
already quoted, that his zilliyyat to Muhammad reached such a degree of perfection that
in no one else in the ummah attained it, not even one auliya, on the basis of amplitude of
wahyi. He thus was given the office of nabuwwat, raised by Allah as an Imam directly –
for the reformation of the world.
Having understood that ummati nabi is really nabuwwat, interpretation of the quote from
Barahin Ahmadiyya you present is very easy, on the question of Jesus being nabi-ullah
and how a mere muhuddas in the ummah of the prophet can deserve this title.
He repeated in essence what I have quoted earlier. He stated the term that described his
status is nabi, due to quality and amplitude of his revelations. He stated he received these
spiritual benefits from obedience to the prophet. It is not essential that a nabi bring a
shariah, as the nabi can be ummati at the same time. Hence this is actual prophethood
according to what he had clearly written earlier in the book. The door to prophethood
is wide open, though it will be obtained only through obedience to the prophet. His
answer is thus very clear that a muhuddas can be called a nabi, by rising to an additional
notch. That is the question being asked and the answer is in the affirmative.
As further proof, MGA wrote only a few lines later that the door to prophet that is closed
is only law-bearing prophethood. Again, this shows he is speaking of real prophethood,
which is why he felt the phrase ‘non law bearing’ should be used to qualify the term
prophethood. To say a mere muhuddus must be non- law bearing is redundant, since by
definition, they bring no new law!
Of course that person will still be a muhuddus, but nabi would be the appropriate
dictionary and religious term that would describe his status.
In response to a similar question pre 1901 already quoted in Izala Auham, MGA said that
Jesus in his second coming would be an ummati, and therefore could not be a prophet.
“Jesus at the time of his coming would be perfect a perfect follower (ummati), he cannot
be rasul, as the concepts of rasul and ummati are opposite to each other”
The concepts “ummati” and “prophet” are opposite to each other, he says in 1891. Now
the quotations in Barahini Ahmadiyya are stating an ummati prophet is exactly what
the Messiah is!
Your last quote from your section Barahin Ahmadiyya is a description of the spiritual
universe of Islam and the blessings given to the ummah by way of zilliyat, by being
obedient to the Prophet. The godly savants in ummah of Muhammad obtain a taste of it
and reflect it in varying degrees of perfection. These partial zilli nabis include various
saints that arose in the ummah of the prophet and some can be likened to the old Israelite
prophets. However, the only perfect zilli nabi is the Promised Messiah. No one ever
matched his level of zilliyat over the past thirteen hundred years in the ummah, and
excelled all others in the ummah in terms of amplitude and tangible communion with
Allah (Haqiqatul Wahyi).
IX-The quotation from Paigham Sulha from 1913 is claimed to be from those connected
with the journal and appears to be clear indication that within Ahmadiyya community, a
small fraction of people were trying to water down the real status of the Promised
Messiah. Again, let the readers of our posts make up their minds. If the writing from Oct
16, 1913 does not reflect the people associated with Paigham Sulha, and the writings
were indeed deemed blasphemous, then I would expect some form of retraction or
statement of rebuttal regarding the persons’ views that he was out of line. Perhaps the
issue published on Oct 23, 1913, if this publication was a weekly, would have given a
condemnation of the specific article in reference, as that person was claiming his views
reflected the people of the journal.
On February 12 1914, a few months later in Paigham Sulha, these words were published:
“What a wonderful perfection has Khatmi Risalat shown to the world. It has made the
river of nabuwwat flow in the ummat. On the basis of this blessing we have achieved the
foremost position, in comparison with the other ummats. What is the harm, among the
followers of the Holy Prophet, if one has appeared among us as a prophet?
The allegation that Mirza Mahmud was falsely elevating the status of MGA after his
death in 1910 is contradicted by the fact, four years earlier in Tashizul Azhan he stated
MGA had the status of nabi, in the lifetime of the Promised Messiah and moreover
Maulana Sahib wrote a glowing review of this article the very same year! Thus statement
of Mirza Mahmud in 1910 refers to closing the appearance of independent prophets, but
does not bar zilli nabis.
Mirza Mahmud did not write in 1906 that MGA was a simply muhuddus or mujjadid
doing the work of a prophet. He presented MGA to the world as a prophet of Allah, who
received revelations (wahyi) and bracketed him with other prophets mentioning Adam,
Noah, Abraham, Jesus and Muhammad. Some relevant quotations are:
“Only few have accepted him, (i.e. MGA), most have rejected him. This has been the
divine rule in the case of all previous nabis; and the same has been the case now”.
“Do you think that because you possess gold and jewels, or because you have a large
following, or because you are a millionaire and king or a scholar or head of pious
foundation or fakir – that there is no need to obey this rasul”
“In short every nation has been expecting a nabi and the time assigned for this advent is
the one we are now in. Our beloved Prophet Muhammad mentioned certain signs that
were to mark the advent of this nabi and in other ways made it easy for us to recognize
him. Such predictions go to prove how high and great the rank is of our prophet”.
Maulana Sahib in glowing terms, endorsed the contents of the book, and said, “It has
always been the way of Allah that, out of those people themselves, he raises a prophet
entrusted with a mission…this has always been the way of Allah, and the same has
happened in the present case”.
Thus, Maulana Sahib said in the spiritual scheme envisioned in Islam, when darkness
grips the earth, and evil abounds, Allah sends a Prophet, appoints him directly for the
mission at hand. The system has not changed in our time, and in the same way Allah sent
the Promised Mahdi and Messiah. This is the scheme you keep asking about in your
previous post. The facts cannot change.
Thus what Maulana sahib wrote in The Split, that the belief of MGA being an actual nabi
was invented around 1914, is simply wrong.
You should not construe from the Maulana sahib’s 1906 ROR statement you provide that
mujjadids have replaced prophets as a matter of principle. MGA was no doubt a
mujjadid, but obtained the rank of nabuwwat in this particular situation. There are other
statements of Maulana Sahib in ROR make it clear, beyond shadow of doubt, that MGA
was an actual nabi and should not be taken as mere muhuddus. Moreover, he has already
described the phenomenon of the rejuvenation of faith in 1906, where men, called
prophets, are raised directly by Allah through revelation. This same phenomenon had
now occurred with the case of Imam Mahdi/Messiah. His words are quoted above.
In a ROR 1908 written debate with Khwaja Ghulamussaqalain, touching on the issue of
Divine protection and help, Maulana sahib wrote at length on the issue of the nabuwwat
of MGA. Maulana sahib again presented MGA as a true prophet, with the consequent
Divine help accorded to him, as compared him to those who were not prophets,
mentioning the khalifas of the Prophet Muhammad among others. He presented MGA as
a nabi, and bracketed him with Jesus. He actually stated it was irrelevant for Khwaja
sahib to compare a prophet, like MGA with non-prophets like the khalifas or companions
of the prophet. Nowhere did he say MGA was merely a muhuddas. (ROR, Vol 4,5, Nazir
sahib in Truth Prevails, has given the details on this).
X-You are continuing to ignore what I have written in response to the writing of Sadiq
sahib and Maulvi Nurrudin’s clear clarification. Sadiq sahib was trying to broach the
subject with a non-Ahmadi, of course very sensitive about the orthodox concept of last
prophet. He allayed the fears of Maulvi Shilbi by saying nabi means in the dictionary
sense someone who gives prophecies and abundant and high quality revelations. Sadiq
stated that this ummah would receive this gift by a person being obedient to the prophet,
i.e. ummati nabi. MGA had already explained in his writings that by being a perfect
reflection of Prophet Muhammad, the perfect zilli is not an independent prophet. The
nabuwwat is not a separate entity. He reproduced a letter from Maulvi Nurrudin Sahib in
support of his claim:
“The dictionary meaning of the word nabi, we believe is, one who gives good news
having received knowledge beforehand by God, not one who gives a Shariah”.
Thus he was only countering the idea that the Promised Messiah was an independent
prophet, with a shariah, not ummati prophethood who by definition would not bring a
sharia. The dictionary meaning as applied to the Promised Messiah, definitely embodied
the religious meaning according the clear words of Nurrudin sahib. Otherwise why
would he have to specifically say “not one who brings a shariah”? This proves he is
talking about real prophethood. Therefore what Sadiq sahib really meant was in light of
what Maulvi Nurrudin sahib wrote, MGA was not a new prophet at all since he was
follower of the previous one, and received blessings by being obedient to Prophet
Muhammad. Thus the seal of Prophethood was not broken by his appearance. He was an
ummati nabi and thus did not own his own nabuwwat. Maulvi Shilbi, not understanding
the true concept of zill, and confusing it with metaphor, wondered why call MGA a
prophet at all? Why invite people to accept MGA cloaked in terms “nabi” and “rasul”?
Such appellations would upset people.
Mufti Sahib rightly responded by saying Ahmadis do not state MGA is a prophet in the
formal pledge form, and no Ahmadis preach to non-Ahmadis for them to accept MGA as
a prophet. This is actually right. The Promised Messiah was an ummati – an Imam from
his people, the Mahdi and Messiah. This is how to invite people. While nabuwwat is
certainly implied in the description of the office of Messiah/Mahdi, no Ahmadi goes
around preaching to non-Ahmadis that the prophet of the age has arrived, so now accept
him! Ahmadis preach MGA is the Promised Messiah and Mahdi. To preach prophethood
is the wrong emphasis, which can lead to misunderstanding despite the fact he held that
spiritual level based on quality and amplitude of revelation he received. The word
ummati must be used as a qualifier. What he meant was Ahmadis are not in any way
replacing Muhammad’s nabuwwat with Ahmad’s nabuwwat; this is purely wrong
conceptualization against the teaching of Islam and the Promised Messiah himself.
Also, to say Maulvi Nurrudin sahib called MGA only a “mujjadid” in the letter and
therefore concluding he did not believe MGA was a nabi is absurd on the face of it.
Maulvi Nurrudin did not mention in the letter MGA was the Mahdi and Messiah either,
the most important titles – so was he denying that status of MGA too and calling him a
mere mujjadid? On the other hand his words clearly show he regarded the Promised
Messiah as a non-law bearing prophet, as given above.
Though one could accuse Mufti Muhammad Sadiq sahib of being vague, and should have
elaborated more, MGA has written quite clearly that the term nabi for him is not to be
used only in the dictionary sense, but also in the religious sense, and he was a nabi in the
sense previous nabis were called nabi. I have given many quotes earlier. Here is another
(Tajalliat-Ilahia), 1906, p 26:
“As far as I can see, nabi is he alone on whom God descends in a manner beyond all
doubt, and descends in considerable volume, embracing a knowledge of things beyond
the ken of men. This is how God named me nabi.
The words “nabi is he alone” proves a definition has been given as definitive and
conclusive. Under this complete and conclusive definition of nabi, the Promised Messiah
said he was nabi.
Sadiq sahib’s statement is greatly clarified in light of Maulvi Nurrudin’s letter, and
historical facts subsequently further clarify this. In response to the dubious elements in
Sadiq sahib’s letter, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, delivered speeches on the spiritual station of
MGA, in 1911. Some quotes from his speech as published in Badr, Jan 11:
“Whoever considers even a single word of the Promised Messiah to be false is rejected of
God, because God does not keep any of His Nabis in error till the time of his death”
Referring to the difference between Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis: “ I have seen two
dealers trafficking in the same article, each averaging with reference to his own goods.
‘Sir, my goods are of a special quality’. But in your case you may even point to an
obvious difference between the two parties. Nevertheless, there are those among you who
will say ‘No, no there is no difference’ What, is it no difference that you follow a Nabi
whereas the other party rejects that Nabi’.”
“Even so, one Nabi came to us from God. If we follow him we shall be the recipients of
the same rewards which were promised to the companions of the Holy Prophet”.
Maulana Muhammad Ali and others who would later form the Lahore faction were in the
audience, and there is no absolutely no historical evidence they had objections.
Thus, Mufti Muhammad Sadiq Sahib, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad Sahib, Maulvi Nurrudin
Sahib, and Maulvi Muhammad Ali Sahib were all on the same page in regards to the
spiritual status of MGA in 1911, and for that matter in 1906 in the lifetime of the
Promised Messiah as previously shown.
XI-On the Ahmad prophecy, Maulana Sahib in his Quran commentary made no mention
Ahmad of the Quran can apply to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Needless to say he changed his
views. He wrote in Qadian:
“Who is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? In words of the Holy Quran we will reply ‘He will
come after me, his name will be Ahmad” (ROR Vol 12 No 7 p 236).
The statement is completely in line with MGA himself wrote (Al Hakam Oct 17, 1905
“These people inquire again and again where in the Holy Quran has the name been
mentioned. They do not seem aware that Allah has named me Ahmad. The pledge of Baiat
is taken in the name of Ahmad. Is not this name found in the Quran?
Also in Ijaz-ul Masih, (chapter II, page 22-3):
“Isa has pointed out to the people coming later to join the ranks of the companions of the
Holy Prophet with their Imam quite clearly identified by the name Ahmad”.
In Maulana Sahib’s book The Split, he categorically denied ‘Ahmad’ referred to the
“The mention of the word rasul in the prophecy in the Quran clearly points to the fact
that it contains a reference to the prophecy of Paraclete, and not to the second advent of
Jesus (page 40).”
He also goes on to write that since a rasul is mentioned, and prophethood has definitely
closed, the prophecy can only apply to prophet Muhammad since there can be is no
messenger after him. He also insisted, that the Quran words quoting Jesus giving glad
tidings of ‘a messenger who will come after me’, means the next one immediately after,
and thus can only apply to Muhammad, since he is the one who came right after him,
whereas MGA appeared a long time later.
His book from 1918 flatly contradicts his previous words from Review of Religions
and the words of the Promised Messiah himself years earlier. Remember my “books
from thirty years ago are off the table” statement. Not a good showing, considering he
calls the topic of “Ahmad” in the Quran the single most important issue as according to
him it is misinterpretation of this verse, that partially lead to the false elevation of MGA’s
status. This is yet more proof that Muhammad Ali and all others in the Lahore faction
demoted the status of the Promised Messiah from nabi to mere muhuddus.
What were Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s thoughts on the subject? In his first book he wrote
after he became khalifa:
“From these quotations you must have seen that the Promised Messiah has applied this
prophecy to himself. Now remains the question why has he applied it to the Holy
Prophet as well? The answer is whatever prophecies are to be met with, in regard to the
rise and progress of this ummat, in the first place, they apply primarily to
him…thus the Holy Prophet is Ahmad, on whom the prophecy was fulfilled in the
first instance (Qaule Faisal, page 29).
Thus in a direct fashion the arrival of Promised Messiah, named Ahmad, fulfilled the
prophecy, as he himself wrote. As he was only a zill of the Prophet Muhammad, his
nabuwwat not even being separate or independent, the root of the implication of the
prophecy is Muhammad, again being a spiritual re-appearance of Muhammad. The
negation of the prophecy applied to Muhammad you see written in Mirza Mahmud’s
book, Anwari Khilafat goes strictly to the length that the prophecy applied to him in a
manner which could be described as other than implied, since the prophecy fits the
Promised Messiah more directly.
Personally, (and I have never seen this written anywhere before) his very name Ghulam
Ahmad is a miracle and prophecy. His personal surname is Ahmad, but yet is also
Ghulam of Ahmad, i.e. his servant!
XII-In the section “implication of believing in Promised Messiah as a nabi”, and what is
means for a Muslim to reject his claim can be discussed as a separate thread if you wish.
It should be discussed thoroughly. Please see my writing above on the ramifications of
the view Promised Messiah was not a nabi; for the ummat of Muhammad never to have
an ummati nabi is degrading Islam.
From Dr. Tahir Ijaz, March 20, 2004: Closing Summary
By Dr Tahir Ijaz, 20 March 2004: 1
The Muslim Ummah, Lahoris included, are in a grips of a severe inferiority complex. We
are the best of peoples yet Lahoris and orthodox Muslims say the greatest spiritual station
open to an ummati is closed shut. While the Ummah of Moses had prophets the Ummah
of Muhammad has produced only saleh, siddiq, and shaheeds, which comprise the saintly
people. Nothing can be so derogatory to us. Our saints are greater if not equal to many of
the Israelite prophets, and prophets of other ummahs. The Promised Messiah himself
said thousands in the Ummah attained rank of prophethood, just that the name nabi was
not openly given, for reasons already mentioned in previous posts. When it is said
Muhammad was like Moses, or saints in the ummah were like the prophets of Israel, we
claim the similarity is in the sense of our superiority, since Muhammad was the greater
When the Prophet Muhammad addressed Messiah of the future as Nabi, when the
Promised Messiah was called nabi hundreds of times, performed miracles and signs
which in his words a thousand prophets combined could not exceed, insisted nabi is the
appropriate term for him, and appointed by Allah as a Warner making it incumbent for all
to accept him, one wonders how anyone can make a conclusion he is not a nabi! In the
words of the Promised Messiah I have asked, why do you get annoyed at the term nabi?
He told us quite clearly that his claim as a prophet, a non- law bearing one, is like the
claim of the non- law bearing prophets of the Israelites, who followed the Law of Moses.
In his older writings, he took ‘nabi’ to mean a partial type in application to him, since he
believed a real nabi brings a law, or can modify a law, or is not a follower of a previous
prophet. A change in his own understanding of his nabuwwat subsequently occurred,
through Divine revelation. That is why Lahoris cannot produce a single quotation in Ek
Ghalti ka Izala and all books afterward, saying he is only a partial nabi or that saints
have replaced nabis now in the system of religion. Not that there is not enough material
for them. About a third of his written pages are after 1901.
He compared his gradual realization of nabuwwat status to the gradual realization of his
messiahship in Haqiqatul Wahyi (HW). Both realizations drew upon him through ‘down
pouring of revelation” over years. It was on the point of prophethood, when he realized
even an ummati can attain nabuwwat, that he proclaimed his spiritual superiority over
Jesus. Accordingly that is why he wrote: “when I have proved…the Messiah to come is I,
and whosoever holds that the first Messiah was better and superior, he should, on the
basis of Hadith and Quran prove the Messiah to come is nothing at all, being neither a
nabi nor an arbitor, the first being everything there was need for him to be” (HW p 155).
The Promised Messiah was asked why there was a contradiction in his writings on his
status with respect to Jesus, saying he is superior (quoting from Review of Religions
1902) whereas elsewhere claiming inferiority since Jesus was a prophet (TQ 1899). He
replied (HW page 148), “how has this contradiction crept in…this contradiction is of the
same kind…as I wrote at one time Messiah will descend from heaven…later I put forth
that I myself am the Messiah…In the beginning I believed I had no comparison with
Jesus; he was a prophet”. When God poured down the revelation like rain, he could not
continue the belief of the superiority of Jesus. He said he was given the title nabi –
By Dr Tahir Ijaz, 20 March 2004: 2
“ummati from one angle and nabi from another”. The fact he specifically pointed out the
term “ummati and nabi” shows there was an amendment in his concept of whether an
ummati can be an actual nabi. In Zameema Barahini Ahmadiyya, he expressed his joy of
this compound name, ummati-nabi and said a member of this ummah can be a prophet,
“even though he is an ummati (halan kai wo ummati hai)”. This shows he was a real
prophet, not mere wali, since it makes no sense to say, “even an ummati can be a wali”,
especially when he said at a previous time a follower of a prophet is a wali (Sat Bachan).
It is no surprise that in the very next major book after Ek Ghalti ka Izala, Kishti Nuh, he
again proclaimed himself categorically greater than Jesus.
Despite what the Promised Messiah taught, Lahoris believe in the incorrect concepts
relating to prophethood. Answering a question on how he, the Promised Messiah, can be
a nabi in the ummah, he set out definitions of prophethood (nabi kai haqiqi mano) and
said for a nabi to bring a book of law is not essential (shariat ka lana uskay layee
zarroori naiyee). Hence he is clearly speaking of actual appointed prophethood as the
status of the Promised Messiah. Some prophets bring Law, others don’t. Prophets do not
have to bring forth a formal kitab. Law bearing is merely an extra feature of some
prophets, based on the needs of the time determined by Allah.
He made this clear in his book Ek Ghalti ka Izala. As already mentioned, the opening
couple of paragraphs in this book are powerful proof that Lahoris are in error. An
Ahmadi responded to an opponent mocking him that he had pledged allegiance to a
prophet – obviously implying a real, actual prophet. To get over this objection by saying
he was not an actual prophet was the wrong answer! The Promised Messiah had started
explaining to his followers some time before Ek Ghalti ka Izala the true nature of his
claim. In this book, the Promised Messiah went on to explain that though he is muhuddus,
the term muhuddus does not do full justice to his spiritual status. He denied nabuwwat
only in the sense of law-bearing nabuwwat, he wrote.
As every nabi is also a saint or muhuddus he has often used both these words together for
himself; the latter term does not negate the status of nabi. Of course, not every saint is
necessarily a nabi. This is why in Ek Ghalti ka Izala and onwards, he insisted the term
nabi be used for him, though ummati, and made a statement to this effect again only a
couple of days before his death, published in a newspaper. He denied law-bearing
Note that the term Mahdi (lit. rightfully guided so they can guide others) does not negate
prophethood. The root of the term is used for prophets in the Quran (21:73). Also, readers
should understand that for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to call himself mujaddid does not
negate the spiritual station of nabi. The Islamic term can be used for a prophet. The
Promised Messiah himself called the Prophet Muhammad Mujaddid – i –Azam (Lecture
Lahoris interpret zill in a most derogatory manner. They fail to realize all spiritual
attainments, according to the Promised Messiah, are by way of zill. Thus to take their
interpretation, all saints in the ummah, all muhuddusses, have a spiritual rank that is not
By Dr Tahir Ijaz, 20 March 2004: 3
real, God forbid! If you reject nabi as a real spiritual station, you reject the stations of
saleh, siddiq, and shaheed. I have shown Muhammad Ali believed at one time an ummati
could rise to the spiritual status of nabi on basis of the Quranic verse 4:69.
The objection that an appointed one of Allah fully understands his claim from the outset
is proven wrong from the quotes I presented. Under the mistaken impression he only
resembled the Messiah, he established a Jamaat. Only later through persistent Divine
revelation for a period of twelve years, he finally realized he was indeed the Messiah and
Imam Mahdi, so eagerly awaited by Muslims. He was a prophet with the same status
from the day he made the initial claim around 1891 to the day of his death. Nabuwwat
was always the content of his claim. His self- understanding of the term changed, though
he was of the same status all along when he wrote all his books, looking back.
The words ‘not prophet in reality’ present no difficulty to the Qadiani thesis. Similar
expressions can be found in the writings of the Promised Messiah. For example he wrote
the only real Mahdi the world has ever seen is Prophet Muhammad, yet Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad and other prophets were also Mahdis. In relation to the prophet Muhammad, they
were not real, but certainly real on their own.
As with the question of nabuwwat, the Ahmad prophecy is another topic where there was
another flip-flop on Maulvi Muhammad Ali’s part. I have shown that Maulvi Muhammad
Ali at one time firmly believed Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was that very Ahmad prophesied
about by Hazrat Isa. The Promised Messiah also applied the prophecy to himself, his
name being Ahmad, given to him by Allah. He told his followers to see his name written
in the Quran. It is remarkable that in Muhammad Ali’s English commentary under the
said verse there is not the faintest hint the prophecy has anything to do with Second
Advent of the Messiah! Yet in the immediate subsequent verses, the theme is about the
eventual triumph of Islam in the latter days according to Muhammad Ali, at the hands of
the Messiah. Of course, the name of that Imam is Ahmad (Ijaz ul Masih).
Mirza Mahmud Ahmad has been consistent on the other hand. In his very first book after
becoming Khalifa, Qaul i Faisal, he considered it a dual prophecy. In Anwar i Khilafat,
Mirza Mahmud Ahmad does state Muhammad can be said to have fulfilled the prophecy
of Paraclete, for Ahmad is an attributive name for Prophet Muhammad. The Promised
Messiah fulfilled it in the direct sense. The Promised Messiah, named Ahmad could not
have fulfilled the prophecy, if the Prophet Muhammad did not have the attributive name
Ahmad. Everything applies to the Prophet Muhammad in the first instance, since the
Promised Messiah’s appearance is only the re-appearance of Muhammad in the latter
days as buruz.
Lahoris take refuge in a statement of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad that having a different view
on this does not make one any less an Ahmadi – true, but the only point I was making
was the change in Muhammad Ali’s position – his effort to dissociate the Quranic word
rasul from the Promised Messiah.
By Dr Tahir Ijaz, 20 March 2004: 4
Now let us look at the questions posed to Maulvi Nurrudin sahib in 1907:
-Have those who do not believe in the Promised Messiah the same status as that of those
who do not believe in the Holy Prophet?
-How should the hadith: ‘no prophet after me’ interpreted?
-If a prophet can arise in Islam why were Abu Bakr and others not prophets?
First, the very nature of the questions show Ahmadis held Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be an
actual prophet. The responses of Maulvi Nurrudin, who Lahoris take as a rightful
successor of the Promised Messiah, are completely contrary to Lahori positions.
If Lahori theology is correct this should have been his answer to question 1:
“We do not believe the Promised Messiah was an actual prophet, so there is no
comparison with respect the status of the people who do not believe in the Promised
Messiah vs. those who do not believe in Prophet Muhammad. The Promised Messiah was
only a reformer, a saintly man while Muhammad was a Prophet of Allah”, to whom
pledge of allegiance was obligatory”.
If Lahori theology is correct this should have been his answer to question 2:
“This Hadith means no prophet can arise after the Prophet Muhammad, since he has
brought the final law. If you read what the Promised Messiah wrote in 1899, a prophet is
necessarily a law-bearer or independent prophet. While the Promised Messiah has been
called ‘nabi’, that is a Sufi metaphorical term for a very righteous person. It should not be
taken literally. A follower of a prophet is called wali or muhuddus. In fact, we have
instructions from the Promised Messiah to replace the word ‘prophet’ with ‘muhuddus’”.
If Lahori theology is correct this should have been his answer to question 3:
“Our sincere belief is no prophets can now appear. Both Abu Bakr and Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad are prophets, which is another name for muhuddus. Partial prophethood is also
prophethood. If you read books of the Promised Messiah, saints and other holy
personages have replaced the coming of real prophets. God forbid, another real prophet
can arise, for that will be against khatam al anbiyya, which has the primary meaning of
khatim, i.e., last prophet”.
Allow me to go into further detail on my interpretation of the words of Maulvi Nurrudin
in regard to question one. He was a holy personage, the most learned man after the
By Dr Tahir Ijaz, 20 March 2004: 5
Promised Messiah. His statements should not be interpreted in a way that is against
common sense and Islamic principles.
To the first question he says the answer is no. The disbelievers of the Promised Messiah
do not have the same status as disbelievers in Prophet Muhammad, though they are both
prophets of Allah. The verse he quotes from the Quran states Messengers vary in degrees
of exaltation (2:253). Maulvi Nurrudin’s words that follow are better translated as “when
there is not equality of status between the Messengers…” (Jub rusul mai musawat naee
rai…), so there is no contradiction and confusion in his words.
As the Messiah of Muhammad is more exalted than the Messiah of Moses, Allah’s
displeasure that is incurred is greater for the Muslim who disbelieves in the Messiah than
it was for the Jews when they rejected their Messiah. A point to consider is Muslims are
held to a higher standard, for they have been given the best spiritual tools for receptivity
to the truth, by following the example of the Prophet Muhammad.
Maulvi Nurrudin made it clear that though prophets differ in status, we should make no
distinction between them, whether they are the more exalted law bearing prophets or nonlaw
bearing. Belief in all the messengers of Allah is essential. He did not particularly like
the line of questioning which kufr is worse, since disbelief is disbelief.
This is the reason why the Promised Messiah has used the word kafir for those who
disbelieve in him, after 1901. The people who call him kafir become kafir themselves on
the basis of Hadith, but those that do not accept him are also kafir. To the Promised
Messiah, they are in the same category (HW page 163).
Kufr is of two kinds. One type is outright rejection of Prophet Muhammad. This makes
one a kafir in the sense of truly non-Muslim. Denial of the second kind is rejection of the
ummati nabi. Since his nabuwwat is indirect, his kufr is also indirect. The Muslim
denying the Promised Messiah remain legal, formal Muslims, though he is a kafir within
the four walls of Islam. The Muslims taken as a whole who have not accepted the
Promised Messiah are in spirit outside the fold of the true Islam.
The expression non-Ahmadis are non-Muslims thus only means they are not true
Muslims in spirit. The Promised Messiah has himself used the expression, telling the
questioner on the same page quoted above in HW, page 163 that anyone who gets his
message and does not accept him, is no longer a Muslim.
As always, if any reader has questions they are free to contact me firstname.lastname@example.org
Dr Tahir Ijaz
Discussion between Dr T. Ijaz and Dr Zahid Aziz
From October 2003 to March 2004
Final Note from Dr Zahid Aziz, March 22, 2004:
Having posted the summary above by Dr T. Ijaz, this debate is now closed. While not re-opening any of the issues, I note that his style in several cases is that first he puts forward a standpoint, then when I refute it he adopts my standpoint, and starts putting it forward as if it were his own and as if I am the one who doesn't accept it! Example: In his first paragraph of his summary he says that Muslim saints are of a greater rank than many of the Israelite prophets and that according to the Promised Messiah thousands of these saints attained the rank of prophethood. In fact, it was I who made these points in refutation of his posts when he kept on highlighting that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was the only one chosen to be called nabi and referring to sainthood as being a "mere muhaddas". Another example is that he first quoted Maulana Nur-ud-Din’s letter to argue that we must not "make a distinction between those who do not believe in a law bearing prophet and those who do not believe in a non-law bearing one", and he highlighted these words. When I showed that his own Jamaat has not been holding this stand for the past fifty years, he now says that Maulana Nur-ud-Din meant that there is a distinction between them and that "the disbelievers of the Promised Messiah do not have the same status as disbelievers in Prophet Muhammad", the opposite of what he was arguing before. Dr T. Ijaz has offered to readers to answer their questions. But his answers carry no authority because he has himself said that he does not speak as a representative of his Jamaat. Nor does he have any personal expertise in these issues, as shown by his changes of stance when he learnt things he didn’t know before.
Links and Related Essay’s
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadiyyat #trueislam #ahmadianswers #ahmadiyyamuslimcommunity #ahmadiyya_creatives #ahmadiyyatthetrueislam #ahmadiyyatzindabad #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiyyamuslim #mirzaghulamahmad #qadiani #qadianism