|
list
|
..
|
Twenty
Reasons why Members of the Lahore Ahmadiyyah Movement
Believe that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib did not Claim
to be a Prophet:
1. First
Argument:
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
always denied the allegation levelled against him that he
claimed to be a prophet (nabi). Had he been a
claimant to prophethood (nubuwwat), he could not have
made denials such as those quoted below:
- “There is no claim
of prophethood; on the contrary, the claim is of
sainthood (muhaddasiyyat) which has been advanced
by the command of God.” (Izala Auham, p.
421)
- “In conclusion, there is no
claim of prophethood on my part either. The claim is only
of being a saint (wali) and a Reformer
(mujaddid).” (Majmu‘a Ishtiharat,
vol. ii, p. 298)
- “By way of a fabrication,
they slander me by saying that I have made a claim to
prophethood. ... But it should be remembered that all
this is a fabrication. Our belief is that our master and
leader Hazrat Muhammad mustafa, peace and the blessings
of God be upon him, is the Last of the Prophets. We
believe in angels, miracles, and all the doctrines held
by the Ahl-i Sunna.” (Kitab al-Barriyya,
footnote, p. 182)
- “In confronting the present
Ulama, this humble one has ... sworn many times by God
that I am not a claimant to any prophethood. But these
people still do not desist from declaring me as
kafir.” (Letter to Maulavi Ahmad-ullah of
Amritsar, 27 January 1904)
2. Second
Argument:
If Hazrat Mirza had been a
claimant to prophethood, he could not have given the
following interpretation of the title Khatam
an-nabiyyin (Seal or Last of the prophets) applied to
the Holy Prophet Muhammad in a famous verse (33:40) of the
Holy Quran:
- “Ma Kana
Muhammad-un Aba ahad-in min rijali-kum wa lakin
rasul-Allahi wa Khatam an-nabiyyin [Quran,
33:40]. That is to say, Muhammad, peace and the
blessings of God be upon him, is not the father of any
man from among you, but he is the Messenger of God and
the one to end the prophets. This verse too clearly
argues that, after our Holy Prophet, no messenger
(rasul) shall come into the world.” (Izala
Auham, p. 614)
- “The Holy Quran, every word
of which is absolute, confirms in its verse wa lakin
rasul-Allahi wa Khatam an-nabiyyin that, as a matter
of fact, prophethood has ended with our Prophet, peace
and the blessings of God be upon him.” (Kitab
al-Barriyya, pp. 184 – 185,
footnote)
- “Allah is that Being Who is
Rabb-ul-‘alameen [Lord of the
worlds], Rahmaan [Beneficent], and
Raheem [Merciful], Who created the earth
and the heavens in six days, made Adam, sent Messengers,
sent Scriptures, and last of all made Hazrat Muhammad
mustafa, peace and the blessings of God be upon
him, who is the Last of the Prophets and Best of the
Messengers.” (Haqiqat al-Wahy, p.
141)
3. Third
Argument:
Those Sayings of the Holy
Prophet Muhammad in which occur the words la nabiyya
ba‘di (There is to be no prophet after me), have
been mentioned by Hazrat Mirza in a number of places. If he
had claimed to be a prophet, he could not have referred to
these words as follows:
- “The Holy Prophet,
peace and the blessings of God be upon him, had said
repeatedly that no prophet would come after him, and the
Saying la nabiyya ba‘di was so well-known
that no one had any doubt regarding its
authenticity.” (Kitab al-Barriyya, footnote,
p. 184)
- “Similarly, by saying la
nabiyya ba‘di, he closed the door absolutely to
any new prophet or a returning prophet.” (Ayyam
as-Sulh, p. 152)
4. Fourth
Argument:
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to
be a prophet, he could not have written that the
‘revelation of prophets’ (wahy nubuwwat or
wahy risalat) terminated with the Holy Prophet
Muhammad. This, however, was exactly what he
wrote:
- “It is my belief
that the ‘revelation of prophets’ (wahy
risalat) began with Adam and ended with Muhammad
mustafa, peace and the blessings of God be upon
him.” (Majmu‘a Ishtiharat, vol. ii, p.
230)
- “We believe in the finality
of prophethood of the Holy Prophet, peace and the
blessings of God be upon him. And it is not the
‘revelation of prophets’ (wahy
nubuwwat), but the ‘revelation of saints’
(wahy wilayat) which is received by the saints
under the shadow of the prophethood of Muhammad by
perfect obedience to him, peace be upon him. In this we
do believe. Any person who accuses us of going further
than this, departs from honesty and fear of God.”
(Majmu‘a Ishtiharat, vol. ii, no. 151, p.
297)
5. Fifth
Argument:
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to
be a prophet, he could never have written that, after the
Holy Prophet Muhammad, the revelation-bearing angel Gabriel
cannot ever bring further ‘revelation of
prophets’:
“Every sensible person
can understand that if God is true to His promise, and
the promise given in the Khatam an-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 ‘revelation of prophets’
(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)
6. Sixth
Argument:
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to
be a prophet, he could not have written that he was a
recipient of ‘revelation of saints’ (wahy
wilayat or wahy muhaddasiyyat). This, however,
was exactly what he wrote:
- “Has it ever
happened in the world that God should have so helped an
imposter that he could be speaking a lie against God for
eleven years, to the effect that His wahy wilayat
and wahy muhaddasiyyat [revelation as granted
to saints] comes to him, and God would not cut off
his jugular vein.” (Ainah Kamalat Islam, p.
323)
- “I have noticed that at the
time of revelation, which descends on me in the form of
wahy wilayat, I feel myself in the hands of an
extremely strong external force.”
(Barakat-ud-Dua, p. 21)
7. Seventh
Argument:
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to
be a prophet, he would never have tested his revelation by
the Holy Quran. In actual fact, he never accepted any
revelation of his unless it agreed with the Holy Quran,
because while wahy nubuwwat (the revelation granted
to a prophet) is absolute and does not require verification,
wahy wilayat (the revelation to a saint) is
subordinate to the revelation of the Holy Prophet Muhammad
and must be verified from the Holy Quran. Hazrat Mirza
wrote:
- “I do not confirm
any of my revelations but only after testing it by the
Holy Quran, for I know that anything opposed to the Quran
is falsehood and heresy.” (Hamamat al-Bushra,
p. 79; new edition pp. 282 – 283)
- “It was not until I had
tested my revelations by the Holy Quran and authentic
Sayings of the Holy Prophet, and had supplicated humbly
and tearfully at the door of the Almighty Lord of the
worlds, that I brought this matter on my tongue.”
(ibid., p. 13; new edition p. 55)
- “I have made it an essential
rule that I do not rest content with my visions or
revelations unless the Quran, the Holy Prophet’s
example, and his authentic Sayings support them.”
(Malfuzat, part iv, p. 203)
- “A revelation of a saint, or
revelation of believers generally, is not an argument
unless it accords and agrees with the Holy Quran.”
(Izala Auham, p. 629)
8. Eighth
Argument:
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to
be a prophet, he would not have called himself a follower
and subordinate of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, as he has
written:
- “Almighty God says
[in the Holy Quran]: wa ma arsal-na min
rasul-in illa li-yuta‘a bi-izn Allah. That is,
every messenger (rasul) is sent to be a master and
leader, not to be a disciple and subordinate of someone
else.” (Izala Auham, p.
569)
- “No messenger (rasul)
comes into the world as a disciple and subordinate.
Rather, he is a leader, and follows only his revelation
which descends on him through angel Gabriel.”
(Izala Auham, p. 576)
- “I have not made any claim to
prophethood (nubuwwat). This is your mistake, or
perhaps you have some motive in mind. Is it necessary
that a person who claims to receive revelation should
also be a prophet (nabi)? I am a Muslim, and fully
follow Allah and His Messenger.” (Jang
Muqaddas, p. 67)
9. Ninth
Argument:
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to
be a prophet, he could not have written, as he has done,
that because Jesus was a prophet he cannot now return to
this world after the Holy Prophet Muhammad:
- “Apart from these
arguments, the second coming of Jesus is also barred by
the verse: wa lakin rasul-Allahi wa Khatam
an-nabiyyin [i.e. Muhammad is the Messenger of
God and Last of the Prophets]; and also by the Holy
Prophet’s Saying: La nabiyya ba‘di
[There is to be no prophet after me]. How could
it be permitted that, despite our Holy Prophet, peace and
the blessings of God be upon him, being the Khatam
al-anbiya [Last of the Prophets], some other
prophet should appear sometime and the ‘revelation
of prophets’ commence.” (Ayyam as-Sulh,
p. 47)
- “In the verses al-yauma
akmal-tu la-kum dina-kum [‘This day have I
perfected for you your religion’], and wa
lakin rasul-Allahi wa Khatam an-nabiyyin, God has
clearly terminated prophethood with the Holy Prophet
Muhammad, peace and the blessings of God be upon him, and
has stated unequivocally that the Holy Prophet is the
Last Prophet. ... But those people who would have Jesus
return to this world believe that he shall come with his
prophethood, and for a full forty-five years the angel
Gabriel shall come to him with the ‘revelation of
prophets’. Now tell us how, under this belief,
anything would be left of the finality of prophethood and
the ending of the ‘revelation of prophets’? In
fact, one would have to believe that Jesus is the last of
the prophets.” (Tuhfa Golarwiya, p.
83)
- “Our unjust opponents do not
consider the doors of the termination of prophethood to
be fully closed. In fact, they believe that a window is
still open to enable the Israelite prophet Jesus to
return. If, therefore, a real prophet came into the world
after the Holy Quran, and the process of ‘revelation
of prophets’ (wahy nubuwwat) commenced, what
would happen to the doctrine of the termination of
prophethood? Would the revelation of a prophet be known
as anything other than wahy nubuwwat?‘
(Siraj Munir, pp. 2 – 3)
10. Tenth
Argument:
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to
be a prophet, he could not have written that there is no
need of a prophet now, after the Holy Prophet Muhammad,
because the Holy Quran has brought religious laws to
perfection. He wrote:
“God speaks to, and
communicates with, the saints in the Muslim nation, and
they are given the colour of the prophets. However, they
are not prophets in reality because the Quran has
fulfilled all the requirements of a perfect religious
law. They are given but the understanding of the Quran.
They neither add to, nor subtract from, the Holy
Quran.” (Mawahib ar-Rahman, pp. 66 –
67)
11. Eleventh
Argument:
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to
be a prophet, he would not have considered the words
‘prophet’ (nabi) and ‘messenger’
(rasul or mursal), as occurring about him in
his revelations, to be in a purely metaphorical and
linguistic sense, as opposed to their technical sense. He
wrote:
- “Do not level false
allegations against me that I have claimed to be a
prophet in the real sense. ... 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: ‘To each the terms he uses’. So
this is the terminology of God, that He has used these
words. We believe and acknowledge that, according to the
real meaning of nubuwwat [prophethood],
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 sense God can call
any recipient of revelation as nabi or
mursal. Have you not read those Sayings of the
Holy Prophet in which occur the words rasulu
rasul-illah [‘messenger of the Messenger of
God’]? 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
[messenger] in a metaphorical sense too? Do you
not even remember from the Quran the words: ‘So they
[some non-prophets] said, We are messengers to
you’? Consider justly whether this is a basis for
takfir [calling a Muslim as kafir].
If you were questioned by God, what argument would you
have for declaring me to be a kafir. I say it
repeatedly that these words rasul and
mursal and nabi undoubtedly occur about me
in my revelation from God, but they do not bear their
real meanings.” (Siraj Munir, p.
3)
- “By virtue of being appointed
by God, I cannot conceal those revelations I have
received from Him in which the words nubuwwat and
risalat occur quite frequently. But I say
repeatedly that, in these revelations, the word
mursal or rasul or nabi which has
occurred about me is not used in its real sense. (Such
words have not occurred only now, but have been present
in my published revelations for sixteen years. So you
will find many such revelations about me in the
Barahin Ahmadiyya.) The actual fact, to which I
testify with the highest testimony, is that our Holy
Prophet, peace and the blessings of God be upon him, is
the Last of the Prophets, and after him no prophet is to
come, neither an old one nor a new one. ... But it must
be remembered that, as we have explained here, sometimes
the revelation from God contains such words about some of
His saints in a metaphorical and figurative sense; they
are not meant by way of reality.” (Anjam
Atham, footnote, pp. 27 – 28)
12. Twelfth
Argument:
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to
be a prophet, he would not have denied in his books and
speeches making a claim to real prophethood, taking the
words nabi (prophet) and rasul (messenger) as
being in a metaphorical sense, for the metaphorical cannot
be real. He wrote:
- “This humble one has
never, at any time, made a claim of nubuwwat or
risalat [prophethood or messengership] in
the real sense. To use a word in a non-real sense, and to
employ it in speech according to its broad, root meaning,
does not imply heresy (kufr).” (Anjam
Atham, footnote, p. 27)
- “When God speaks to someone
very frequently, and reveals to him His knowledge of
hidden matters, this is prophethood (nubuwwat),
but it is not real prophethood.” (Malfuzat
Ahmadiyya, vol. x, p. 421)
- “God has called me
nabi by way of metaphor, not by way of
reality.” (Al-Istifta, Supplement to
Haqiqat al-Wahy, p. 64)
13. Thirteenth
Argument:
A famous Saying of the Holy
Prophet Muhammad, narrated by Nawas ibn Sam‘an and
recorded in the Hadith collection Sahih Muslim, refers to
the Messiah to come as nabi (prophet) of God. If
Hazrat Mirza had claimed to be a prophet, he would not have
considered this occurrence of the word nabi to be
metaphorical, as he wrote:
- “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 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 Last of the
Prophets?” (Anjam Atham, footnote, p.
28)
- “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)
- “These words are by way of
metaphor, just as in Hadith also the word nabi has
been used for the Promised Messiah. ... 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
linguistic [root] meaning is intended.”
(Arba‘in no. 2, p. 18,
footnote)
- “Similarly, the Promised
Messiah being called nabi in Hadith, is not meant
in a real sense. This is the knowledge which God has
given me. Let him understand, who will. This very thing
has been disclosed to me that the doors of real
prophethood are fully closed after the Last of the
Prophets, the Holy Prophet Muhammad. According to the
real meaning, no new or ancient prophet can now
come.” (Siraj Munir, p. 3)
14. Fourteenth
Argument:
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to
be a prophet, he would not have considered himself as a
muhaddas (a Muslim saint who receives Divine
revelation), because they are not prophets, nor would he
have limited the significance of the word nabi
(prophet) about himself to extend only as far as sainthood.
He wrote:
- “I firmly believe
that our Holy Prophet Muhammad is the Last of the
Prophets (Khatam al-anbiya), and after him no
prophet shall come for this nation (umma), neither
new nor old. Not a jot or tittle of the Holy Quran shall
be abrogated. 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)
- “There is no doubt that this
humble one has come from God as a muhaddas for the
Muslim nation.” (Tauzih Maram, p.
18)
- “The muhaddases are
those persons who have the privilege of Divine
communication, and their souls bear the utmost
resemblance to the souls of the prophets. They are living
reminders of the wonders of prophethood, so that the
subtle issue of Divine revelation may not become a mere
tale in any age, due to being devoid of proof.”
(Barakaat-ud-Dua, p. 18)
- “As our Leader and Messenger,
peace and the blessings of God be upon him, is the Last
of the Prophets (Khatam al-anbiya), and no prophet
can come after him, for this reason muhaddases
have been substituted for prophets in this
Shari‘ah.” (Shahadat al-Quran, p.
24)
15. Fifteenth
Argument:
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to
be a prophet, he would not have called himself ‘a
follower and a prophet’ or ‘a follower from one
aspect and a prophet from another’, because these two
aspects are combined only in a muhaddas (Muslim
saint), a prophet only having the aspect of prophethood. He
wrote:
- “So the fact that he
[the Messiah to come] has been called a follower
[of the Holy Prophet Muhammad] as well as a
prophet 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, sainthood
(muhaddasiyyat) is coloured with both colours. For
this reason, in [the Divine revelations published
in] Barahin Ahmadiyya too, God named this
humble one as follower and as prophet.” (Izala
Auham, p. 533)
- “I cannot be called only
‘prophet’, but a prophet from one aspect and a
follower from another.” (Haqiqat al-Wahy,
footnote, p. 150)
- “There is no need now to
follow each prophet or Book separately that came before
the Holy Quran because the Prophethood of Muhammad
comprises and comprehends them all. ... All truths that
take man to God are to be found in it, no new truth shall
come after it, nor is there any previous truth which is
not in it. Hence, upon this Prophethood [of
Muhammad] end all prophethoods. ... Rendering
obedience to this Prophethood takes one to God very
easily, and one receives the gift of God’s love and
His revelation in a much greater measure than people used
to before [the time of the Holy Prophet
Muhammad]. However, its perfect follower cannot be
just called ‘prophet’ because it would be
derogatory to the perfect and complete prophethood of
Holy Prophet Muhammad. But both the words ummati
[follower of the Holy Prophet] and nabi
[prophet] can jointly be applied to him, because
that would not be derogatory to the prophethood of the
Holy Prophet Muhammad.” (Al-Wasiyyat, pp. 27
– 8)
- “Islam is the only religion
in the world having the virtue that, provided the truest
and fullest obedience is rendered to our Leader and
Master the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace and the blessings
of God be upon him, 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 followers are
like the prophets of Israel’. In this Saying too,
the godly savants are on the one hand called followers,
and on the other hand they are called the likes of
prophets.” (Supplement to Barahin Ahmadiyya Part
V, pp. 182 – 184)
(Note: Extracts i and
iv above make it explicitly clear that the words
“a follower from one aspect and a prophet from
another” are exactly equivalent to muhaddas or
spiritual savant of the Muslim community, and do not mean a
prophet.)
16. Sixteenth
Argument:
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to
be a prophet, he could not have written, regarding the use
of these terms for him, that the word rasul
(messenger or apostle) is a general term used not only for
prophets but also for saints (muhaddas) and Divine
reformers (mujaddid), and that the word nabi
too is applied to saints. He wrote:
- “The word
rasul is a general term and includes the
messenger, the prophet (nabi), and the saint
(muhaddas).” (Ainah Kamalat Islam, p.
322)
- “By rasul are meant
those persons who are sent by God, whether a prophet
(nabi), or messenger (rasul), or saint
(muhaddas), or Divine Reformer
(mujaddid).” (Ayyam as-Sulh, footnote,
p. 171)
- “By rusul [plural
of rasul] are meant those who are sent,
whether a messenger, or prophet, or saint.”
(Shahadat al-Quran, p. 23)
- “In terms of being sent by
God (mursal), the prophet and the saint are on a
par. And just as God has named prophets as mursal
[‘sent ones’], so has He also named the
saints as mursal.” (Shahadat al-Quran,
p. 27)
- “My intention from the
beginning, which God knows well, is that this word
nabi does not mean real prophethood, but denotes
only a saint (muhaddas).” (Majmu‘a
Ishtiharat, vol. i, p. 97)
17. Seventeenth
Argument:
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to
be a prophet, he would not have called himself a zilli
nabi (a reflection or shadow of a prophet) because the
shadow or reflection is not the actual thing itself. He
wrote:
- “My prophethood is a
reflection of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace and the
blessings of God be upon him. It is not actual
prophethood.” (Haqiqat al-Wahy, footnote, p.
150)
- “This title
[nabi] was bestowed upon me in the sense
of reflection (zill), not in the real sense.”
(Chashma-i Ma‘rifa, footnote, p.
324)
- “Remember well that the
fruits of perfect obedience [to the Holy Prophet]
are never wasted. This is an issue of Tasawwuf. If
the rank of zill had not existed, the saints of
the Muslim nation would have died. It was exactly this
perfect obedience, and the rank of burooz and
zill [becoming a reflection or image of the
Holy Prophet], due to which Bayazid [famous
Muslim saint, d. 874 C.E.] was called
‘Muhammad’. Upon his so saying, the verdict of
heresy was pronounced against him seventy times over, and
he was exiled from the city. In brief, the people who
oppose us are unaware of these facts.” (Badr,
27 October 1905)
- “The shadow itself has no
independent existence, nor does it possess any quality in
a real sense. Whatever is in it, is only an image of the
original person that is being manifested through
it.” (Barahin Ahmadiyya, Part I, p.
243)
- “It is just as when you see
yourself in the mirror, you do not become two, but remain
only one, though there appear to be two. The only
difference is that between the real thing and the
image.” (Kishti Nuh, p. 15)
- “Sainthood (wilayat)
is the perfect reflection (zill) of prophethood
(nubuwwat).” (Hujjat-Ullah, p.
24)
- “The prophet (nabi) is
like the real object, while the saint (wali) is
like the reflection (zill).” (Lujjat
an-Nur, p. 38)
18. Eighteenth
Argument:
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to
be a prophet, he would not have called himself a buroozi
nabi (image or manifestation of a prophet) because,
according to the spiritual savants of Islam, being a
burooz implies a complete negation of one’s own
existence. He wrote:
- “All prophets have
believed that the burooz is a full picture of its
original, so much so that even the name becomes
one.” (Ayk Ghalati Ka
Izala)
- “The Sufis believe that the
nature, disposition and moral qualities of a person from
the past come again in another. In their terminology,
they say that so and so is in the footsteps
(qadam) of Adam, or the footsteps of Noah. Some
also call this as burooz.” (Mulfuzat,
Part I, p. 239)
- “It is customary with Muslim
religious scholars that they call burooz as
qadam [footsteps], and say, such and such
a person is in the footsteps of Moses, such and such is
in the footsteps of Abraham.” (Lujjat an-Nur,
p. 1)
- “The whole Muslim nation is
agreed that a non-prophet takes the place of a prophet as
a burooz [image]. This is the meaning of
the hadith: Ulama ummati ka-anbiya Bani Israil,
that is, the savants from among my followers are the
likes of the prophets. See that the Holy Prophet, peace
and the blessings of God be upon him, has likened the
godly savants to prophets.” (Ayyam as-Sulh,
p. 163)
- “Being a burooz
implies the negation of its own existence. Hence
prophethood and apostleship by way of burooz does
not infringe the seal of the finality of
prophethood.” (Ayk Ghalati Ka
Izala)
- “As a person’s face is
seen in the mirror, though that face has its own
independent existence; this is called
burooz.” (Tafsir Surah Fatiha, p.
330)
19. Nineteenth
Argument:
After the death of Hazrat
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in May 1908, the headstone fixed over his
grave in Qadian by his followers bore the inscription given
below:
Janab Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
sahib Qadiani, Chief of Qadian, the Promised Messiah,
Mujaddid of the Fourteenth Century, date of death 26 May
1908
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to be a
prophet, his followers would never have inscribed the words
Mujaddid (Reformer) of the Fourteenth Century on his
gravestone. This inscription stayed as such for about
twenty-five years, but was then altered by deleting the
words Mujaddid of the Fourteenth Century. The word
‘prophet’, however, was still not
added.
20. Twentieth
Argument:
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to
be a prophet, he certainly would never have instructed his
followers to refrain from using the word ‘prophet’
(nabi) for him, or told people at large to regard
this word as deleted wherever it occurred about him. In
fact, this was exactly what he did:
- “I wish to make it
clear to all Muslim brothers that if they are displeased
with these words, and if these words give injury to their
feelings, they may regard them as amended ... and in
every place instead of the word nabi, the word
muhaddas should be understood, and the word
nabi should be regarded as having been
deleted.” (Majmu‘a Ishtiharat, vol. i,
p. 313)
- “This humble one has never,
at any time, made a claim of nubuwwat or
risalat [prophethood or messengership] in
the real sense. To use a word in a non-real sense, and to
employ it in speech according to its broad, root meaning,
does not imply heresy (kufr). However, I do not
like even this much, for there is the possibility that
ordinary Muslims may misunderstand it.” (Anjam
Atham, footnote, p. 27)
- “As these words [nabi,
rasul], which are only in a metaphorical sense,
cause trouble in Islam, leading to very bad consequences,
these terms should not be used in our community’s
common talk and everyday language. It should be believed
from the bottom of the heart that prophethood has
terminated with the Holy Prophet Muhammad, may peace and
the blessings of God be upon him, as God Almighty says:
‘He is the Messenger of God and the last of the
Prophets’. To deny this verse, or to belittle it, is
in fact to separate oneself from Islam. ... It should be
remembered that I make no claim contrary to that of being
a servant of Islam. The person who ascribes to me the
contrary is making a fabrication against me.”
(Letter dated 17 August 1899; published in
Al-Hakam, vol. 3, no. 29, August 1899)
Conclusion:
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to
be a prophet, how could he have:
1. declared that the Holy
Prophet Muhammad was the Last of the Prophets.
2. explained the Holy Prophet Muhammad’s Saying
La Nabiyya Ba‘di as meaning that no prophet,
new or old, can come after the Holy Prophet.
3. denied being a prophet in the real and actual sense of
the word.
4. written that his revelation was of the type granted to
Muslim saints (i.e. wahy wilayat), not the type
granted to prophets (wahy nubuwwat).
5. taken the words prophet (nabi) and messenger
(rasul) to be used in a metaphorical sense when
referring to himself.
6. forbidden his community to apply these words to him in
common usage.
7. denied strongly ever having made a claim to
prophethood (nubuwwat).
And how could the tombstone erected
over his grave by his followers immediately upon his death
contain the inscription Mujaddid of the Fourteenth
Century?
Top
Books
Section
> Clear
Evidence re Ahmadiyyah by Hafiz Sher
Muhammad
> Twenty Reasons why Members of the Lahore Ahmadiyyah
Movement Believe that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib did
not Claim to be a Prophet
footer
|
'E-mail'
this page to a friend!
|
E-mail
Us!
This website is designed,
developed and maintained by the members of:
The Lahore
Ahmadiyya Movement for the Propagation of
Islam
(Ahmadiyya
Anjuman Isha'at-e-Islam, Lahore
-- A.A.I.I.L.)
and is being managed in the Netherlands.
The responsibility of the content
of this website lies with the respective
authors
You may print-out and spread this
literature for the propagation of Islam provided our website
[aaiil.org]
is acknowledged
|
