Intro
Most Ahmadi’s haven’t read enough to understand MGA’s prophethood. In the BA1-2, which was published in 1880, MGA was indirectly claiming prophethood. In fact, in the BA2 (see page 118), MGA quoted 18:109 (18:110, in the Ahmadi quran)(see also 31:27, the verse is identical) and says that “”Say, ‘If the ocean became ink for the words of my Lord, surely, the ocean would be exhausted before the words of my Lord came to an end, even though We brought the like thereof as further help.’. Thus, MGA was arguing from the Quran that Allah will continue talking (prophethood) to Muslims until the Day of Judgement and this Islam was superior to all other religions.
In BA-3 (See page 157), MGA quoted 9:32 and was discreetly claiming prophethood for himself. In fact, MGA’s first argument in the BA was that of the continuation of divine revelation, however, MGA wasn’t being clear (it was supposed to be 300 arguments). Many ulema responded by sending fatwa’s of Takfir in 1884. This was quoted again by MGA in 1901 via “Eik Ghalti Ka Izala” (See page 2, online English edition).
Even Nawab Siddiq Hassan Khan tore of the Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya and sent it back to Qadian in that condition, which enraged MGA. MGA was also accused of claiming prophethood by the Ahl-e-Hadith, only Batalvi defended him. I have written a full review of BA3 herein. By 1884, MGA was openly being called a Kafir by most of the Ahl-e-hadith Muslims of North India. Nevertheless, after BA-4 (1884), MGA only published 2 books in 6-7 years (directed at the Hindus, and silent on his prophethood). He did publish the green announcement (sabz ishtihar) in 1888 wherein he argued that the prophecies of prophets and messengers failed all the time (or were misunderstood), thus, his failed prophecy (about the Musleh Maud) was common for prophets and messengers.
In 1890, via Izala Auham, MGA and his team of writers alleged that for the coming Messiah, the condition of prophethood is not necessary by Muhammad (saw)(naozobillah)(See Izala Auham, RK-3, page 59 and Bro Imtiaz, 3:15:13)(See also Izala Auham, part 1 RK, V-3 page 249).
In 1891, as MGA claimed to be the Messiah, he denied prophethood (See Elucidation of Objectives, pages 9-10, and via Muhammad Ali, Prophethood in Islam, 1915 edition). MGA denied prophethood an additional 40+ times in subsequent books from 1891 to 1901.
MGA also quoted the famous hadith from Sahih Muslim wherein Eisa (as) has repeatedly been called “Nabi-Ullah” and called it fabricated.
In 1900, via his book Arba’in, MGA alleged that his followers were already calling him as (SAW)(or a version of it) and that this wasn’t objectionable (see page 12). Then, on page 133-134, MGA claims to be a law-bearing prophet in a strange way.
On Nov-5-1901, MGA and his team of writers published “Eik Ghalti Ka Izala” and thus, the official claim of prophethood was made.
In the Al-Hakam of Nov-30-1901, after the publishing of “Eik Ghalti Ka Izala”), MGA alleged that he was Muhammad (Saw)(naozobillah), and since Muhammad (Saw) has come again, that doesn’t mean a new prophet showed up (via Malfuzat-Urdu, page 375 and Al-Hakam, vol. 5, no. 44, 30 November 1901, pp. 1-4, via Malfuzat-4-English, pages 102-106).
Continue reading “From 1891 to 1900, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad denied his own prophethood 50-100 times”