The majority of prophecies of MGA failed. As a result of this, after MGA died, Ahmadi’s scrambled to clean up the mess. Noorudin tackled the failure of the Muhammadi Begum prophecy directly, but there are many other cases, in fact, we are all late to the party, so to speak. This entire story and references is taken from the Lahori-Ahmadi website. This is basically the son of MGA saying that he isn’t the Musleh Maud, however, after he became Khalifa, almost every edition of the ROR was claiming that he was actually the Musleh Maud. Years later, the Lahori-Ahmadi’s would opine that MGA’s son that died was the Musleh Maud. Finally, Hani Tahir recently made a video about this entire story herein (at the 4:49 mark). Hani Tahir quotes a speech of the Khalifa, Mirza Basheer-uddin mahmud Ahmad from the annual jalsa of 1939 wherein the Khalifa argues that he cannot deny the Khilafat like Hassan did, or else he would die and cause his whole family to be killed, like Hasan. This speech was given on the 25 year anniversary of his Khilafat. Its Urdu edition was first published by Al-Shirkatul Islamiyyah in 1961 and has now been included in Anwarul ‘Ulum Vol. 15. The first english edition was published in 2009.
Why so many contradictions?
The sons of MGA contradict each other all the time, this is nothing new. In fact, Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad would always publicly say that a son of a Khalifa should not be a Khalifa, however, behind the scenes he was prepping Mirza Nasir Ahmad to be the 3rd Khalifa. In fact, after 1956 or so, the Khalifa, Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad stopped making public appearances and never led Salaat, Mirza Nasir Ahmad did all of that, and thus acted like a Khalifa as early as 1956 or 1957. One more point, Mirza Nasir Ahmad was the President of Majlis Khuddam ul Ahmadiyya since its inception in 1939, and thus all the youth of Ahmadiyya knew who Mirza Nasir Ahmad, the Khalifa seems to have taken the president-ship for about 5-6 years (officially) upto 1954, he was also the principal of the Talim ul Islam Highschool at Qadian and the new college in 1944 to 1965. Other then this, he didn’t seem to write any essays in his daddy’s magazines and newspapers, nor are any of his speeches recorded or written out from the 1950’s. Interestingly enough, Mirza Bashir Ahmad opined that the Ahmadiyya Khilafat would end (in the 1950’s he wrote about it).
Shortly after the death of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in May 1908, Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad wrote a lengthy article in the magazine of which he was editor, Tashhiz-ul-Azhan (v. 3, no. 6–7, June–July 1908), answering allegations by the opponents of the Ahmadiyya Movement that some of the prophecies of the Promised Messiah had not been fulfilled in his lifetime. One objection related to the non-fulfilment of the prophecy of the birth of a noble and glorious son who would bring a great transformation in the world (the Muslih Mau‘ood). In answering this objection, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote that the word ‘son’ in this prophecy could apply to a later descendant of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from some future generation or it could even apply to any true follower who is not physically related to him in any way.
After Mirza Mahmud Ahmad became khalifa in 1914, his followers began to put forward the notion that he was the Muslih Mau‘ood, till in 1944 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad himself laid claimed to this.Starting from within that period till now, members of the Qadiani Movement have been raising the same objection against the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement as the opponents of the Ahmadiyya Movement raised against Ahmadis in 1908, saying: if you believe that the Muslih Mau‘ood has not yet come then it means that the Promised Messiah’s prophecy about a great son was untrue. Our answer is just the same as the answer that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad gave to the opponents of the Ahmadis so emphatically, in full detail, in 1908 as quoted below.
In this reply Mirza Mahmud Ahmad does not even mention the possibility that one of the three sons living at that time, including himself, could in future become the Muslih Mau‘ood. However, his followers later argued that a part of the prophecy, made in 1886, was that the Muslih Mau‘ood would be born within nine years, so he had to be born by 1895. But Mirza Mahmud Ahmad makes no mention of this in his 1908 article!
Extracts from article by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad
Note: Click here to see the extracts below from the original Urdu magazine, presented as scanned images.
This point should also be considered that even according to the use of language the word ‘son’ can also be applied to a descendant from some future generation. Accordingly, it is used in this way frequently in Arabic. Thus, many tribes are named after a forerunner and they are called his sons.
— p. 297-298
Considering that people of the world call one man as the son of another who passed away several centuries earlier, and thus Umar ibn Abdul Aziz and Harun Rashid are known as the sons of Umayya and Abbas respectively, why cannot God the Most High call a boy from among the future descendants of the Promised Messiah as being his son? Is God not allowed to do what people can do? When worldly people can consider a man to be related to one who passed away long before, even though he does not deserve it, can God not do the same, Who knows well who deserves to be related to whom? Today those known as Sayyid, despite being embroiled in thousands of kinds of evils and sins, … are considered deservant of being called Al-i Muhammad, but when God the Most High has, for some purpose, referred to a boy from among the future descendants of the Promised Messiah as being his son, this is regarded as unlawful.
… Today, not hundreds but thousands of preachers call out loudly in their speeches ‘O sons of Adam, refrain from doing such and such acts’ and ‘do such and such acts’, but no one asks them: ‘Why are you addressing us by this title when Adam was not our father?’ So what is the problem if a boy from among the future descendants of the Promised Messiah is called his son?
His revelation, kafá háza, proves clearly that the revelation about son refers to a boy from the future descendants, and the revelation ‘your descendants will have fame through your name’ further supports that someone from future descendants can also be called the son of the Promised Messiah. God the Most High knows well who deserves to be known as his son. So what harm is there if a prophecy is given about a glorious boy who would bring a transformation in the world and he is called as the son of Hazrat sahib? The Holy Prophet too said that those among the Persians who accept Islam are included in the Bani Fatima. So do the Persians themselves become the sons of Fatima? One should also ponder over the fact that in the Quran and Hadith this figure of speech is used frequently. So what harm is there if God the Most High spoke to the Promised Messiah in this way? For example, in the Holy Quran the Jews are again and again called the Children of Israel. Although Israel had died some 2500 years previously, God the Most High still called the Jews as the Children of Israel. If this had not been a form of expression used by the Arabs and in the Divine scriptures, the Jews of that time who raised objections on most things would have cried out immediately that they were not the Children of Israel and would have given the names of their fathers. Again, in the Holy Quran it is said about Abraham “We gave him Isaac and Jacob”, even though Jacob was not the son of Abraham but of Isaac. This shows that such expressions occur in the word of God, and there is no scope for objection in this.
— p. 298-300
By son can be meant grandson or great grandson or some other descendant. There is no cause for objection in this.
— p. 300
Ponder that it is stated clearly in the Quran:
“And strive hard for Allah with due striving. He has chosen you and has not laid upon you any hardship in religion — the faith of your father Abraham. He named you Muslims.” (22:78)
Now does this verse mean that the name of the father of every Muslim is Abraham? Most certainly not. It means that he who follows the example of Abraham, walks in the path taught by him and accepts Islam, is in the sight of God like the son of Abraham. Everyone knows that there are hundreds of nations among Muslims who are not descended from Abraham nor is their nation connected with the family of Abraham in any way. Thus when God declares every such person as son of Abraham who is a Muslim and strives in the way of God, giving the word ‘son’ so broad a meaning that it is not necessary to be from among the Bani Ismail or the Bani Israel, then where is the difficulty if the same God today declares someone from the future descendants of the Promised Messiah as his son? To sum up, not only people of Iran, Afghanistan, India, China and Japan but even Europe and America can be called sons of Abraham, and God the Most High calls them sons of Abraham in the Holy Quran. So what is the problem if a man is declared as the son of the Promised Messiah?
We also find such figures of speech when we look in Hadith. For example, on the night of the mi‘raj, when the Holy Prophet asked Gabriel about Abraham, he replied to him: This is your righteous father. He said the same about Adam. So when this is proved from the Quran and Hadith, then why is the objection raised against the Promised Messiah that he was given the promise of a son which was not fulfilled. The promises of God never remain unfulfilled. They always come to pass, and the same will happen in this case. These revelations did not mean that the Promised Messiah himself would have a son but that in the future such a man would be born from his progeny who, in the sight of God, would be as if he were his son, and would be considered his fifth son, besides his four sons. Just as Jesus is known as the son of David, so will he be called the Promised Messiah’s son.
This view of mine is supported by the revelation of the Promised Messiah that I quoted above, kafá háza, which meant that he would not have any further male issue. Accordingly, two girls were born after this, and no boy. The Promised Messiah himself also believed this because he too applied a revelation to his grandson which gave news of a son. Otherwise, if he thought that it would be his son, why should he have applied it to his grandson? In that case, he would have thought that he would have a son in the future to fulfil the revelation. So it is evidently clear that those revelations were about a boy from later descendants, whether it be a grandson, great grandson, or later still.
— p. 301-303
Our Holy Prophet had given the prophecy of the railway as a form of transport which has been fulfilled today. Should the people of the twelve centuries in the middle have given up Islam and turned to unbelief because the prophecy of the new form of transport was not fulfilled? As this has been happening to all the prophets, that they made prophecies about future times, then what does it matter if the Promised Messiah also gave some news of the future and foretold that among his descendants would be born a boy possessing such great awe that it would be as if God had descended from heaven to help him? This will further prove his truth and people of that future time will see this prophecy fulfilled and derive pleasure from it. People of the present time should ponder over the promises that are for them … As I have written, this prophecy of a son is about a boy from his descendants who would be a man of great glory, being accompanied by Divine succour. I have also proved that it is not only in the revelation of the Promised Messiah that such metaphorical expressions occur, but they are also found in the words of the earlier prophets and in the Quran and Hadith. A person is referred to as son, but a later descendant is meant.
— p. 305
Links and Related Essays
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #atifmian