|| aaiil.org || || aaiil.org || || aaiil.org || || aaiil.org || || aaiil.org || || aaiil.org ||
Kindly click on 'File' on the browser's menu bar, and select
'Print...' to get a print-out of this page.
This page was printed from the 'Official Website of the Ahmadiyya
Anjuman Isha'at-e-Islam Lahore (Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement for
the Propagation of Islam)'
located at http://aaiil.org
or http://www.aaiil.org
Click on the above links to go to our homepage, if you reached this
page through a search engine.
This is a 'printer-friendly' page, to see the original version of
this page kindly click
here.
Books Section > The Ahmadiyya Movement by Maulana Muhammad Ali
> Mahdi
Chapter 2: Claims of the
Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement:
Section 3:
Mahdi:
In Spite of the Weakness and Discrepancies
of the Reports about Mahdi their Collective Evidence cannot be
Rejected:
There is a clear distinction between
the two sets of reports, one relating to the advent of Messiah and
the other to the appearance of Mahdi. The reports about Messiah have
been accepted by all the great authorities of Hadith, whereas the
reports relating to Mahdi have been rejected not only by Imam Bukhari
and Imam Muslim, but also by many eminent scholars of Hadith. There
is no doubt that all these reports have been greatly tampered with
for various reasons, so much so, that even those who believe in the
coming of Mahdi only accept the fundamental fact of his advent.
Because of the extreme differences and discrepancies found in their
details they refuse to approve of these reports in toto.
Nawab Siddiq Hasan (an Ahl Hadith scholar of India) who was
expecting an early advent of Mahdi, even during his lifetime wrote:
There is no doubt in it that the bases of these
reports are very often defective [Nawab
Siddiq Hasan Khan, Hujaj al-Kiramah (Shah Jahan
Press, Bhopal), p. 365.]. At
another place, in the same book, he has written that all the details
about the reports of Mahdi only show this much that he would
certainly appear, though his appearance may occur in any form. The
question here naturally arises: when al-Bukhari and al-Muslim have
not accepted these reports and other scholars of Hadith have also
regarded their bases as defective, why should not these be considered
as absolutely weak or fabricated and be rejected entirely? The
attitude that if there is discrepancy in details, the basic fact
itself should be rejected does not only go against all the principles
of accepting Hadith but also of history. On the other hand, the
difference in the details show that there is somewhere a fundamental
reality behind all this. If in reports relating to Mahdi different
parties for their own ulterior motives have mixed up false reports,
this is quite feasible, although this again proves that behind these
reports there is something substantial which both the parties had
wanted to seize upon to serve their own ends. The original is,
therefore, grossly distorted. When historical reports (and even a
non-believer in ahadith gives at least this much status to
them) differ in details, the common factor among them is at least
accepted as true. In reports concerning Mahdi, the appearance of
Mahdi himself is such a common factor; therefore this at any rate
cannot be put aside. The reason why Bukhari and Muslim did not accept
them is the weak and defective way of their reporting. But when weak
and defective reports have at least gained historical status, then
according to the rules of history we are forced to consider and
accept their common and collective testimony as true. Besides that we
cannot reject the possibility of different persons being referred to
in these reports and that some signs may be fulfilled in one person
and others in another, as the word mahdi is also used in a
very broad sense. It means one who is guided and the heir to all
truths and in whom the attribute "Guide" for God is fully
represented, and thus this word can be applied to every guided person
as for instance the first four righteous successors of the Holy
Prophet had also been called Mahdis. In his Tarikh, Imam
Suyuti has reported a saying of Wahb ibn Munabih: "If
there has been any Mahdi in this ummah it is `Umar ibn `Abd
al-`Aziz [Al-Shaikh
Jalal ud-Din Sayuti: Tarikh al-Khulafa (Sarkari Press, Lahore,
1870 C.E.), ch. ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, p.
234.]." In view of this wide
significance if different signs are fulfilled in different persons
they can all be called Mahdis.
Common Factors in the Reports about
Mahdi:
Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi
mention a report by Ibn Mas'ud that The world will not come to an
end unless a person from the people of my house becomes the ruler of
Arabia whose name will be identical to mine
[Sunan Abu Dawud:
Kitab al-Malhim (Mujtabai Press, Delhi, 1318 A.H.) Vol. 2, Dhkir
al-Mahdi, p. 239.]. A report
from Umm Salmah reads thus: Mahdi is from me, having a
bright forehead, high nose and will fill this earth with
equity and justice as it was filled with oppression and violence
[Ibid., p.
240]. In Abu Dawud it
has been again mentioned that Hazrat `All looked towards his
son Hasan and said: A person will be born from his seed whose name
will be the name of your Prophet and he will resemble him in
disposition but not in outward form [Sunan
Abu Dawud, p. 241]. In
Musnad of Ahmad it is again reported from `Ali that the Holy
Prophet said: Mahdi is from the people of my house
[lmam Abu `Abd Allah
Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, vol. 1, p.
84.]. In another report we
find: Even if a day is left from the age of this world, God will
certainly raise a person from among us who will fill the whole world
with justice as it was filled with oppression
[Ibid., p.
99]. In another report by
Ibn Mas'ud it has been mentioned that: There will be no
Qiyamah unless there is a person from among the people of my
house who is raised as a ruler, whose name will be my name
[Ibid., p.
376]. There are many reports
by Abu Said Khudri. In one of them we find: Mahdi will be
from my ummah ... will fill the earth with fairness and
justice [Ibid., vol.
3, p. 26], and in another :
I give you the glad tidings of Mahdi who will be raised in
my ummah at a time of digression and distress of people. He
will fill the earth with equity and justice as it was filled with
oppression and violence [Ibid.,
p. 37]. Yet in another it
has been stated: He said that we feared that new things
would crop up after the Holy Prophet, then we asked him and he said:
Mahdi will be raised in my ummah, five, seven or nine
(years) [Ibid.,
p. 21]. Similarly Ibn `Asakir has
reported in his Tarikh : A person from the family of Hasan will
appear from the Eastern countries. Even if mountains stood in his way
he will demolish them and make his way through
[Hujaj al-Kiramah,
p. 355.]. And in
Tibrani and Abu Na'im the following report occurs: I
swear by my Lord Who appointed me with truth, that Mahdi of this
ummah will be of these two, i.e., of Hasan and Husain
[Ibid., p.
356]. And it is reported
from Dar Qutni that: Mahdi will be from the family of my uncle
`Abbas [Ibid., p.
355]. Yet there is another
report which reads : O 'Abbas! God started this matter with me and
will end it with a young man of your progeny who will fill this earth
with justice as it was filled with violence
[Kanz al-`Ummal
(Da'irat al-Mu'arif al-Nizamiyyah Press Hyderabad, 1314 A.H.) vol. 7,
p. 188; Hujaj al-Kiramah, p. 356.].
And there is a report in Ibn Majah: There is no Mahdi except
`Isa [Abu 'Abd Allah
Muhammad ibn Yazid ibn Majah Qazwini, Sunan Ibn
Majah, ch. Al-sharat al-Sa`ah, p.
302.].
Now the common factors in these reports are reduced to this, that a Mahdi would appear in this ummah in the later ages having a strong resemblance with the Holy Prophet filling the earth with equity and justice. But these reports differ as to which family he would belong. He might be "from me" (i.e., the Prophet) or from the people of his house, or from the seed of Hasan and Husain or of ibn 'Abbas and it has also been mentioned that he might be only a person from the nation of Muhammad. The reports of his being from the seed of Hasan, Husain or `Abbas, definitely contradict one another. Therefore, this part of the reports has to be given up, but the reports which contain expressions such as "from me", "from the people of my house", "from my ummah" can easily be reconciled, for they may imply his spiritual resemblance to the Holy Prophet, as the Prophet is reported to have said about Salman of Persia: Salman is from the people of my house [Zurqani, vol. 2, p. 126.]. Similar expressions have been used as well for other persons. Thus a member of this ummah having strong resemblance to the Holy Prophet can be regarded as from him or from the people of his house. The common factor in these reports, therefore, is that Mahdi will be a person belonging to the nation of Muhammad. This view is supported by the report in Ibn Majah where only `Isa has been called Mahdi.
Another important point which is clear from these reports is about the Divine appointment (bi'that/bay-sut) of Mahdi. Now the word appointment for human beings (in Islamic terminology) is used either for prophets or for mujaddids. But as prophethood has come to an end with the Holy Prophet, therefore Mahdi can be raised in this nation only as a mujaddid. As to the reports in which his equity and justice have been mentioned, it must be borne in mind that one type of law and order is the responsibility of the government of the day and the other type of justice is connected with the appointed ones (mamureen) of God whether they are in possession of temporal power or not. What type of justice has been referred to in these reports will be discussed later. Oppression and violence which have been particularly mentioned here are the same which have been spread by the followers of the Religion of the Cross. On the one hand, they have raised a humble servant of God to the pedestal of Divinity as the Quran says: The heaven may almost be rent thereat, and the earth cleave asunder, and the mountains fall down into pieces, that they ascribe a son to the Beneficent! [The Quran: 19:90-91] and, on the other, they have inflicted sufferings on their fellow beings by their peculiar philosophy that it is only the white people who have the right to rule over other nations; the latter being created for the service of the white.
Whether Mahdi will Spread Islam by
the Sword:
Strangely enough, a common
misconception prevalent among Muslims about Mahdi - that he would
spread Islam at the point of the sword - has not been mentioned at
all in these reports. Not only the Muslims, but the non-Muslims as
well, have come to associate the very name of Mahdi with bloodshed
and fighting. The book Iqtarab al-Sa'ah, supposed to be
written by the son of Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan, contains the
following words about Mahdi: He will call people towards
God with the sword. The one who refuses will be killed
[Nawab Sayyid
Nur al-Hasan Khan, Iqtarab al-Sa'ah (Mufid `Am Press,
Agra, India, 1301 A.H.), p. 94.].
When we look into the ahadith we find only the words yamlik al-'Arab i.e., he will be the ruler of Arabia, and for the spread of equity and justice the earth has also been mentioned in these reports. The words yamlik al-`Arab which confine his territory to Arabia are either an interpolation of a reporter or meant for another person whose kingdom will be limited to Arabia [Apparently these words seem to apply to 'Abd Allah ibn Zubair who did not enter into bai'at of Yazid. When Yazid died in 64 A.H. 'Abd Allah ibn Zubair was elected as the khalifah. The people of Hijaz, Yemen and Iraq also submitted to his rule. Mu'awiyah ibn Yazid's rule was limited to Egypt and Syria, but after his death the people of these countries also took bai'at of Zubair, but soon after they revolted and separated themselves from him. Thus Zubair's kingdom remained confined to Arabia. In 73 A.H. during the reign of 'Abd al-Malik, Zubair was attacked by Hajjaj and was martyred by him. Thus his reign was spread over a period of nine years. Reports concerning Mahdi mention seven or nine years of his rule. These words, therefore, may refer to 'Abd Allah ibn Zubair. If it is kept in view that these ahadith have been greatly tampered with, the part mentioning the period of Mahdi’s kingdom for seven or nine years can be applied to him as well.]. Reference to his kingdom on one side and the abundance of wealth on the another may have led people to believe that Mahdi would propagate Islam with force. This view is supported by a statement in Iqtarab al-Sa'ah which says that: Wars will be waged at his hand, treasures will be dugout, city after city will be conquered from East to West [Nawab Sayyid Nur al-Hasan Khan, Iqtarab al-Sa'ah, p. 64.]. It seems that on account of such conjectures the wrong conception of a warrior Mahdi gradually got its way among Muslims. Some reports might have also been fabricated in this connection. But Sihah Sittah (six authentic collections of hadith): and Musnad of Ahmad which refer to the benevolence of Mahdi do not mention any report to show that Mahdi will wage wars or conquer the whole world or convert unbelievers to Islam at the point of the sword. How was it possible when the coming of such a Mahdi was decidedly against the clear verdict of the Qur'an that: There is no compulsion in religion [The Quran, 2:256]. How could indeed such a Mahdi come who would act against this injunction and wield the sword to convert the people to Islam?
This Wrong Conception was Removed by
the Mahdi himself:
May God bless Hazrat Mirza
Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian who has completely rooted out the false
conception of Mahdi's spreading Islam with the sword, which has
opened the eyes of Muslims and has made them realise that the story
which was forged by their enemies to stem the progress of Islam was
unwittingly accepted by Muslims themselves. Had there been no other
argument for his being a Mahdi, this alone was sufficient to prove
that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's claim of being the guided one (mahdi)
of God was correct. The greatest obstacle today in the progress
of Islam is the world-wide misconception that Islam was propagated at
the point of the sword. The enemies of Islam made full use of this
weapon to scare the people away even from the name of Islam. As for
Muslims themselves, instead of removing this blot from the beautiful
face of Islam, they lent a helping hand to its opponents by their
wrong belief in a warrior Mahdi. No doubt there had been other Muslim
scholars also who had rejected the reports, about the advent of
Mahdi, or doubted their authenticity such as Ibn Khaldun
[Muqaddamah]
and the Mu'tazalites, but it had no general effect on Muslims. There
was also a reason for this attitude, because the complete rejection
of these reports meant the rejection of a fundamental reality as
well, i.e., the coming of Mahdi himself, which was basically
true and was a prophecy of the Prophet Muhammad
[Hujaj al-Kiramah,
p. 386.]. It was necessary,
therefore, that unless the truth had manifested itself and the
Promised Mahdi had come, the total rejection of this prophecy should
not have any effect on the general body of Muslims. When the real
claimant appeared he sifted out the truth from falsehood and showed
in what way the true part of the prophecy was fulfilled. The rest he
showed was added either by the carelessness of the reporters or by
wilful interpolation. There have been, of course, several other
claimants to Mahdihood also but every one of them was
interested in his own person and claim and cared nothing about making
Islam free from false objections. Everyone picked up certain words
and expressions from the reports and tried to apply them to himself
but paid no attention to the removal of this false belief that Islam
was propagated by the sword. There had been some pious persons from
among these claimants as well and they might have identified their
own temporal victory with the victory of Islam but the extermination
of this outlandish conception of a warrior Mahdi who would wield the
sword for the spread of Islam was destined at the hands of Mirza
Ghulam Ahmad, and thus a great obstacle was removed which stood in
the way of the progress of Islam. His claim of being a Mahdi showed
to the world that the secret and glory of Islam was correlated with
such a claim.
Not one, but let hundreds of such claimants appear for the glory and success of Islam, and Muslims should welcome them with open arms. To obstruct their cause, under suspicions and misunderstandings, is to obstruct the cause of Islam and the Muslim nation. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was no doubt a claimant to Mahdihood but he made his claim a source of the onward march of Islam. The prophecy relating to Mahdi has been fulfilled today with such clarity that the fundamental fact behind it has been gradually accepted by all Muslims. The conception that Islam was, or will be, thrust upon non-Muslims with the sword is loosing its hold on their minds. Islam has never stood in need of violence for its progress, and never shall a time come when such a course will be applied for its propagation. Even non-Muslims have also started releasing that the advancement of Islam was simply due to its spiritual force and not to the use of any sword. And it is indeed a fact that the real success of Islam was brought about not by a powerful emperor but its conquests were mainly due to its dynamic spiritual force. The following passage by an American scholar confirms this view:
"The other great religions won their way slowly, by painful struggle, and finally triumphed with the aid of powerful monarchs converted to the new faith. Christianity had its Constantine, Buddhism its Asoka, each lending to his chosen cult the mighty force of secular authority. Not so in Islam. Arising in a desert land sparsely inhabited by a nomad race, previously undistinguished in human annals, Islam sallied forth on its great adventure with the slenderest human backing and against the heaviest material odds [Lothorp Stoddard, The New World of Islam, p. 1.]."
In short, the real Mahdi of Islam is he who has clarified the real meaning of Mahdihood and has shown to the world that the Mahdi of Islam is a spiritual Mahdi and that Islam's success depends on its intrinsic spiritual values and not on outward force.
Messiah and Mahdi are
one:
There was yet another great
misunderstanding about Mahdi which the Founder of the Ahmadiyyah
Movement [Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian] removed.
Messiah and Mahdi were considered to be two separate persons,
although it was indicated in a report of Ibn Majah: There
is no Mahdi except Isa (Laa Mahdi Ila Eesaa)
[Sunan Ibn Majah
(Matbah Nizamiyyah, Delhi.) 1905 C.E., ch. AI-sharat al-Sa'ah,
p. 302.]. There is a
positiveness about these words that there is no other Mahdi. This can
only be interpreted that the Promised Mahdi is another name of the
Promised Messiah. If the name Mahdi in some other reports has been
given to some one else, it is to be accepted in a general way, as for
instance, the first four Khalifahs have also been called Mahdis.
`Umar ibn `Abd al-`Aziz, too, has been given this name. Now this
report of Ibn Majah could not be untrue as it was
against the general conception among Muslims about Mahdi, and such a
thought could not have occurred to the reporters. On the other hand,
this hadith supports the reports by Bukhari and Muslim as they
also mention the coming of only one person in later ages and that is
Jesus. The coming of any other person is not at all mentioned in
these two authentic collections (Sahihain). Thus the report of
Ibn Majah has made it clear that if in some reports the
appearance of Mahdi is suggested besides the coming of Jesus Christ,
this also refers to Jesus. Now here we should stop and think that if
we do not try to solve the difficulties involved in the reports about
Mahdi in the light of this hadith we shall have to admit that
besides al-Bukhari and al-Muslim other works of
Sihah Sittah (six authentic collections of reports) have
incorporated a lot of fabricated matter in their collections. And if
these reports were not fabricated, why did Bukhari and Muslim reject
a prophecy of such magnitude and did not even care to mention it in
their works? The report of Ibn Majah: There is no Mahdi except
`Isa solves both these difficulties. Al-Bukhari and
al-Muslim have only reported the second name of this reformer
and other books of Sihah have mentioned both the names of `Isa
and. Mahdi.
This is not the only hadith which shows that Messiah and Mahdi are one, but if we carefully study other reports, they also point towards the same conclusion. Evidently, there cannot be two Amirs (leaders) or Khalifahs at one and the same time. Hazrat Abu Bakr immediately after the death of the Holy Prophet gave a reply to the Ansar (helpers) who said: One leader from us and one from you [Al-Bukhari, Kitab Fadail Ashab Al-Nabi, H. No. 1638a.] that this was not possible and there could not be two leaders at the same time. If this report is true, how could there be two leaders, i.e., the Promised Messiah and Mahdi, simultaneously? If it is said that one will be an assistant to another we do not find it mentioned in the reports. Both Messiah and Mahdi have been called imams. In al-Bukhari: and al-Muslim: imamu-kum minkum and amma-kum minkum occur for the Promised Messiah who has also been called Arbiter and judge. Hakam and imam are identical. In Musnad of Ahmad he has been clearly referred to as "Arbiter, judge and imam." [Imam Abu `Abd Allah Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, vol. 2, p. 394 and p. 272.] About Mahdi it is a wide-spread belief, that he will be an imam and some think that he will be a king also. In this case Messiah must be his wazir (aider, assistant). But, on the other hand, this is also acknowledged that the Messiah will be superior to Mahdi as Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan quotes in his book a saying by imam Shaukani: There is no doubt that Jesus is superior to Mahdi [Nawab Sayyid Nur al-Hasan Khan, Hujaj al-Kiramah, (Shah Jahan Press, Bhopal), p. 385]. At any rate there can be only one imam at a time and when Jesus and Mahdi are both called imam then it necessarily follows that Jesus and Mahdi are also one.
The third argument in favour of this view is that the Promised Messiah has also been called Mahdi in the reports. Accordingly, there is a hadith from Abu Huraira to the effect that: Whoever lives from among you shall meet Jesus, son of Mary who is imam, Mahdi, arbiter and judge [Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, vol. 2, p. 411.]. Besides all this if we look deep into the matter we observe many other similarities to show that these are only two different names of one person. The time of their advent is the same, they shall have the same office, the same work and the same complexion, then how could they be two separate persons? That the time of their appearance is the same is acknowledged by all. About their office I have discussed above that both of them have been called Imam, Amir, Khalifah and Mahdi. Their work and duty is also the same. The making of Islam dominant over other religions is the work of the Messiah and the same has been assigned to Mahdi as well. So much so that the breaking of the Cross and killing the swine, thought to be the special duties of the Messiah, have also been attributed to Mahdi as has been mentioned in Hujaj al-Kiramah:
"The religion of Islam in his time will be established as it had been in the age of grace of the Prophet Muhammad. He will be a ruler over all the world and shall break the Cross and kill the swine. All these signs have been briefly discussed by Ibn Hajar in connection with the coming of Mahdi [Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan, Hujaj al-Kiramah, p. 363.]."
Spreading of peace and justice has also been assigned to both. It is frequently reported about Mahdi that he will fill the earth with justice and the Messiah has also been called arbiter and judge. Their complexion is also the same. The coming Messiah is of wheatish colour, quotation has been given before [Kanz al-'Ummal, vol. 6, p. 126.]. Mahdi is of the same complexion as is found in report by Na'im ibn Hammad that: He will be of wheatish complexion from among the people (of the land) [Kanz al-'Ummal, vol. 7, p. 262.].
A Prophecy becomes a Great Miracle
after its Fulfilment:
The prophecy about the advent of Mahdi
is from among those prophecies which are related to this age. The
Mujaddid of this century has shed such light on them that all
the darkness which surrounded them has been dispelled and they have
become a manifest sign for the truth of the Prophet. These prophecies
were buried under so many obscurities that there were many who denied
their authenticity and even those who believed in them were also
bewildered (at the great contradictory mass of such reports) and were
at times inclined almost towards its rejection. Accordingly it was
said: We admit that Mahdi will not appear. What harm is there if
he does not? [Hadith
al-Ghashiyyah, p. 343.]
Or: Leave Mahdi aside. The descent of Jesus is
at least unanimously agreed by Christians and Muslims alike. Let him
descend [Ibid.].
And in another book it has been mentioned that: We
admit that Mahdi may not come. This does not contradict any
important belief of the people of Islam. But the son of Mary
will indeed appear according to all of them. May God bring him soon,
for his coming as well will serve the same purpose for which we
expect the advent of Mahdi [Nawab
Nur al-Hasan Khan, Iqtarab al-Sa`ah, p.
147.]. That person has
indeed rendered a great service to Muslims who has removed all the
cobwebs from these prophecies and has thus placed before us a clear
evidence of the truthfulness of the Holy Prophet. It is easy to say
what difference does it make to Islam whether Mahdi comes or not, but
the first advantage of Mahdi's advent has been that it has brought to
light a new testimony in favour of Islam, or in other words, a
miracle of Islam has manifested itself in this age. The miracles of
all the prophets have come to an end with their death, but the
miracles of the Prophet Muhammad have continued to manifest
themselves ever since and will remain so till the Last Day. As a
matter of fact, the faith which the fulfilment of a prophecy creates
in one's heart is not even created at the occurrence of a great
miracle, because a miracle may contain some elements of doubt in it,
but the fulfilment of a prophecy is in fact a ‘talking
witness’ which stands before friends and foes alike. Moreover,
at the occurrence of a miracle there are only a few persons present
who witness its truth, but a prophecy after its fulfilment does not
stand in need of another evidence. It becomes an evidence itself. Has
that person not done any service to Islam who has explained the
hidden truths behind these prophecies and has thus helped to
strengthen our faith in Islam? Hazrat Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad's interpretations concerning the prophecies about Mahdi do
not seem to be the result of his intellectual investigations, but
were the work of Divine light given to him which helped him to
discover the truth underlying these reports. This discovery consisted
of two great facts. Firstly, it was wrong to associate the
name of Mahdi with the sword and to believe, as the opponents did,
that Islam was spread at the point of the sword - the authentic
reports being devoid of any such mention - and, secondly, that
Jesus and Mahdi were not two separate persons but two names of the
same reformer.
The Significance of the Two
Names:
As has been discussed above, there was
a profound reality hidden behind these two names, therefore the
mujaddid of this age was assigned two great tasks which
entitled him to receive the names of Messiah and Mahdi. On the one
hand, Islam had a big encounter with Christianity, - for, according
to the Quran and Hadith, Christianity was going to attain great power
in the world, - and, on the other, the present age was particularly
suited for the propagation of Islam among Christians. Islam had won
the hearts of millions of people of other religions before, but
Christianity had not offered its due quota to Islam. It was, however,
destined that the sun of Islam should rise over Eastern countries
first. Therefore, it was mostly in the East that the light of Islam
spread in the beginning, but then according to the law of nature this
sun was going to shine over the Western countries as well. In a
report of the Prophet this had been described as the rising of the
sun in the West. Again, it is to the same effect that the Holy
Prophet has referred to: I have been given two treasures; one red
(Eastern nations) and another white (Western nations)
[Sunan Abu
Daud, Kitab al-Fitan, Vol. 2, p. 233.].
As encounter with Christianity and the propagation of Islam in
Christendom were the two tasks of the mujaddid of this age,
therefore, the title Ibn Maryam or `Isa was given to him. He mentions
that fact in the following couplet: As I have been given light for
the Christian people, the name of the son of Mary has been given to
me for this reason. Again, because he was commissioned to
strengthen the inner solidarity of Islam, save Muslims from going to
immoderate extremes, cure them of the habit of takfir
(denunciation of Muslims as heretics) and place before them the
sublime object of preaching of Islam, which was in fact the object of
the life of the Prophet Muhammad, therefore the name Mahdi was also
given to the mujaddid of this age. The only reality behind all
this is that the perfect mujaddid of the fourteenth century
was like the full moon that was going to shine in the world. For
shedding the light of Islam in the Christian world he was called
Messiah or son of Mary, and for illuminating the hearts of Muslims
with the light of Islam he was called Mahdi. That is why the Holy
Prophet declared that: He has been given my name
[Ibid., Kitab
al-Malahim, Vol. 2. p. 239.].
The point that Mahdi is superior to Jesus, though Jesus was a prophet
of God, only means that, as a Mahdi, he will manifest the truth of
Muhammad and, as a Messiah, the truth of Jesus, the former being
superior to the latter; it is because of this that Mahdi is superior
to Jesus.
Other Prophecies about
Mahdi:
Prophecies about the advent of Messiah
and Mahdi have been discussed by me elsewhere. Here I should only
like to mention about the place of his advent. There is no doubt in
it that some reports also suggest Makkah or Madinah as the place of
his appearance and the sanctity of these places might have turned the
attention of the reporters towards these towns. But there are reports
which not only indicate the place of his advent in the East but even
his companions are also reported to be from among the Eastern people.
The reporters' own imagination in normal circumstances could not have
gone to that extent. Accordingly, following are the words of the
reports of Abu Na'im and Ibn `Asakir : From the offspring of Hasan
ibn 'Ali, a person (i.e., Mahdi) will appear from the East. If
mountains are in his way he will demolish them and make his way
through [Hujaj
al-Kiramah, p. 355; Najm al-Thaqib, vol. I, p.
51.]. Here the reference to
his being the offspring of Hasan ibn `All has been due to the wrong
impression that Messiah and Mahdi were considered to be two different
persons. A report in Ibn Majah says: Some people will come
out from the East and will support Mahdi, i.e., they will help him in
his domination [Sunan
Ibn Majah, ch. Khuruj al-Mahdi, p.
310.]. Nawab Siddiq Hasan
Khan also writes:
"Men of Divine gnosis will enter into fealty with Mahdi by God's guidance and Divine visions. Holy people will be with him to strengthen his message and to support him ....These will be nine persons in the footsteps of the Companions (of the Prophet); they would prove their covenant true which they made with Allah. They would all be non-Arabs ('ajami) and none would be an Arab from among them [Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan, Hujaj al-Kiramah.]."
If the companions and supporters of Mahdi are non-Arabs, it clearly shows that the place of his advent is not Makkah, but some other country outside Arabia, and it has been just stated that his companions would be coming from the East. Undoubtedly, in view of this, the place of Mahdi's advent should also be an Eastern country as has been mentioned in one of the reports: Mahdi will appear in a village the name of which will be Kadi'ah [Jawahir al-Asrar, p. 55. The original name of Qadian was Islam Pur Qadi Majjhi which was gradually shortened to Qadi, being generally pronounced as Kadi. If it is kept in view that the form of foreign words in the Arabic language undergoes a little change, for instance, London is altered into Landarah, the change of Kadi into Kadi'ah is easy to understand.]. This name is so identical with Qadian (or Kadi, with which Qadian was formerly known) that, if read with the reports of the general signs of Mahdi, it becomes clear that such reports are only applicable to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian.
Some of the Signs are only in the
form of Metaphors in the Prophecy about
Mahdi:
There are some signs of course about
Mahdi's advent which do not apply in their literal sense to the
Founder of the Ahmadiyyah Movement. For instance, that he will be a
king for seven years or that he will possess large treasures. This
is, however, accepted on all hands that prophecies are couched in
metaphorical language, because the future events are shown in the
form of visions and dreams which are subject to interpretation like
other prophecies. The Quran has also called ru'ya' and
kushuf as God's speaking from behind a veil
[The Quran:
42:51], therefore the
apparent expressions should not mislead a person. About the Promised
Messiah, for instance, it has been mentioned in a report that he
would come with two yellow mantles [Abu
'Isa Muhammad ibn 'Isa Tirmidhi, al-Jami‘ al-Tirmidhi,
vol. 1, p. 38.]. A yellow mantle is
interpreted with a disease and this in fact pointed to two diseases
with which the Promised Messiah was going to suffer. It is surprising
to note that about Mahdi it has also been mentioned that: On him
there will be two shining mantles as if he is from among the men of
Israel [Abu Na'im,
Iqtarab al-sa`ah, p. 128; Hujaj al-Kiramah, p.
360.]. About possessions of
kunuz (treasures) as well the same mistake is committed and
kunuz is taken to mean treasures of gold and silver. But when
the Holy Prophet says: I have been given two treasures, red and
white [Sunan
Abu Dawud, Kitab al-Fitan, vol. 2, p.
133.], no one takes them to
be treasures of gold and silver and it is only interpreted as
signifying two groups of people. Similarly a saying of Hazrat
`Ali has been recorded in Hujaj al-Kiramah that:
Blessings of God be upon the renouncers (taliqan) that at that
place are treasures of God, but these are not of gold and silver but
consist of people who have recognised God as they should have and
they would be the helpers of Mahdi [Nawab
Siddiq Hasan Khan, Hujaj al-Kiramah, p.
396.]. When in such reports
treasures of Mahdi have been considered as his helpers, there should
be no difficulty in interpreting metaphorically the expression
kunuz appearing in other traditions. It has also been
mentioned in a hadith that: La hawla wa la quwwaw
(there is no power except His power) is a treasure from among
the treasures of paradise [Ibn
al-Athir, al-Nihayah fi Gharib 'l-Hadith wal-Athari, vol. 4,
p. 36.]. Now this is not a
treasure of gold and silver but only, as it is stated in
al-Nihayah, the reward which has been stored
[Ibid.].
Again, it has been mentioned in some of the reports that Mahdi
will also dig out treasures from under the Ka'bah. Now gold and
silver are not buried under this holy place. On the other hand, it is
the riches of knowledge and wisdom which were manifested by the
Prophet Muhammad and have been concealed from the eyes of the world
with the lapse of time. The real treasure is, in fact, the wisdom and
Divine gnosis which were lost in the Age of Corruption and only
letter and form-worship was left with the Muslims. Thus, whoever
restores the lost glory of wisdom, it is he who really digs out
treasures and distributes them among the people. The istikhraj
kunuz (i.e., the digging out of treasures from earth)
therefore, in the case of Mahdi does not mean digging of gold and
silver, but it is only a metaphorical expression which implies the
imparting of knowledge and wisdom by Mahdi to his people, which is
indeed the task of all God-sent reformers. Their kingdom is also a
spiritual one, and, if God wills, He may favour them with temporal
power as well. But their actual kingdom is always spiritual. Now, if
a person insists on the literal meanings of these reports, it would
be impossible for him to accept all the reports which are so
contradictory in their details that even those who generally believe
in them also entertain doubts as to their literal fulfilment. The
contradictions in them are so great that either the whole lot have to
be rejected under the principle when two things contradict, they
cut each other, or only their general and collective testimony
should be accepted. A part of them should be interpreted
metaphorically and a part, of course, has to be left aside. When we
follow this principle these reports invariably apply to Hazrat
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, the Founder of the Ahmadiyyah
Movement. That Mahdi will not spread Islam with the sword and that he
and the Messiah are one, these two points have made it definitely
clear that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is indeed the Promised
Mahdi. It does not make any difference if a ruler Mahdi may also
appear at some future time, but, just for the sake of mere
possibility, it is not right to reject the sayings of the Prophet
Muhammad which have been fulfilled.
This page was printed from the 'Official Website of the Ahmadiyya
Anjuman Isha'at-e-Islam Lahore (Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement for
the Propagation of Islam)'
located at http://aaiil.org
or http://www.aaiil.org