Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of
LANGUAGES and BRANCH WEBSITES: *
* THE LAHORE AHMADIYYA MOVEMENT:
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of
* OTHER LANGUAGES and BRANCH WEBSITES:
* Click to:
It is difficult even to conceive today how all those things could be written in the name of religion. The Masih al-Dajjal by Ramchand (1873), Sirat al-Masih wal Muhammad by Rev. Thakurdas (1882), Andruna Bible by Abdullah Atham, in which an attempt has been made to show that our Holy Prophet was the Anti-Christ and the Dragon of the Revelation, Muhammad Ki Tawarih Ka Ijmal by Rev. William (1891), Taftish al-Islam by Rev. Rodgers (1870), Nabiyy Mathum, published by the American Mission Press of Ludhiana (1884), and dozens of other books and hundreds of tracts, are all strings of abusive epithets heaped upon the Holy Prophet and his Companions, each writer trying to outdo the others in scurrility. To call the Holy Prophet an impostor, Dajjal or Anti-Christ, a deceiver, a dacoit, the slave of his sensual passions whose lust knew no bounds, and to attribute every conceivable crime to him became a habit with these Christian controversialists. Page after page of the writings named above and of others of the same type are full of such descriptions as the following:
"If he [the Prophet of Islam] abrogated the Gospels there is no wonder, for all those who are bent low on the world and are worshippers of lust do like this."
This is only a sample of the writings of the Christian missionaries of those days. In fact, so scurrilous was this literature growing that, when Rev. Imad-ud-Din, a Maulvi who had become a convert to Christianity, published his writings, they were found to be so grossly abusive that even Christians began to complain of them, and the Shams al-Akbar of Lucknow, itself a Christian missionary paper, was compelled to give a warning against the offensiveness of Imad-ud-Dins writings, saying that "if there was again a mutiny like that of 1857, it would be due to the abusive and scurrilous language of his writings."
"As the Rev. Fateh Masih of Fatehgarh in the Gurdaspur district has written to us a very scurrilous letter, and in it he has accused our Lord and Master, the Holy Prophet Muhammad, of adultery, and has used about him many other scurrilous words by the way of abuse, it is, therefore, advisable that a reply to his letter should be published. This pamphlet has therefore been written. I hope that Christian missionaries will read it carefully and will not be offended by its words, for this method is entirely the result of the harsh words and filthy abuse of Fateh Masih. Still, we have every regard for the sacred glory of Jesus Christ, and in return for the abusive words of Fateh Masih, only an imaginary Messiah (farzi Masih) has been spoken of." (Nur al-Quran, p.1)
This position was again and again made clear by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in his writings, but interested persons carry on false propaganda, ignoring the explanation. Thus M. Zafar Ali of Zamindar attributes the following words to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad:
"Jesus Christ was evil-minded and overbearing. He was the enemy of the righteous. We cannot call him even a gentleman, much less a prophet (Anjam Atham, p. 9)."
Anyone who refers to page 9 of the book referred to will find that the writer is guilty of making a false allegation. The passage as met with in the book runs thus:
"In the same way, the impious Fateh Masih has, in his letter to me, called our Holy Prophet adulterer and has abused him in many other ways. Thus this filthy section . . . compels us to write something about their Yasu [Jesus], and let the Muslims know that God has not made any mention of this Yasu in the Holy Quran. The Christian missionaries say that Yasu was that person who claimed to be God and called Holy Moses a thief and a cheat, and disbelieved in the advent of the Holy Prophet, and said that after him only false prophets would come. We cannot call such an evil-minded, overbearing person, and the enemy of the righteous, a gentleman - still less a prophet."
Between the quotation given by M. Zafar Ali and the passage actually found in the book, there is the difference between heaven and earth. The Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement never wrote that Jesus Christ was evil-minded and overbearing. On the other hand, adhering to the principle which he had made clear in the Nur al-Quran, as quoted above, he merely tells his opponent, Fateh Masih, that the imaginary Messiah of the Christians (farzi Masih), who is not the same as the Messiah of the Holy Quran (the real Messiah), may, on the basis of the Christian writings, be described as an evil-minded and overbearing person, if the method of criticism adopted by the Christians in the case of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, whom they called an adulterer, was to be followed in the case of their Christ. It is the imaginary Messiah which the Christian missionary has drawn that is condemned by the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, and not the Messiah himself. Now, according to the Muslim faith, if a man calls himself God and also denounces the righteous servants of God as being thieves and cheats, he is undoubtedly an overbearing and evil-minded man. The Muslims believe, and so did the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, that Jesus Christ never said he was God, and he never denounced the other righteous servants of God; therefore they hold that the picture of the Messiah drawn by the Christians is not the picture of a man who actually lived, but of one who exists only in the Christian imagination. It is this imaginary picture which Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad denounces, and that, too, he did merely because the Christian missionaries would not refrain from abusing the Holy Prophet of Islam.
It should be borne in mind that this method of paying back the Christian missionaries in their own coin was adopted by other recognised Muslim leaders before the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement. Thus, Maulana Rahmat Allah writes in the introduction to his book, Izala Auham:
"As the Christian missionaries are disrespectful in their speeches and writings towards the best of men, our Holy Prophet, and towards the Holy Quran and Hadith of the Prophet . . . so we have been compelled to pay them back in the same coin . . . By no means is it my belief that I should speak of a prophet in disparaging terms."
Very recently, even the official organ of the Jamiat al-Ulama of Delhi, al-Jamiyya, dated 20th Nov. 1932, wrote in reply to certain Christian missionaries:
"The person whom the Christians erroneously take for the Messiah was really the enemy of the Messiah and he has nothing to do with Islam and the Quran. Nor does any Muslim believe in him."