Our Motto : 'In-Allah-ha-Ma'anaa' ("Be not grieved, for surely Allah is with us." - The Holy Quran 9:40). We find spiritual strength, courage and comfort, in the times of trials and  hardships, from this Divine Quranic revelation that descended upon the pure heart of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him), so as to console and compose him during one of the most perilous moments of his life. <Please click the 'Our Motto' link on our homepage for more details>

The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement for the Propagation of Islam (A.A.I.I.L. - Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at-e-Islam Lahore)

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian (the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement; the Mujaddid (Reformer) of the 14th Century Hijrah; and, the Promised Messiah and Mahdi) <Please read his biography in the 'Biography' section>

Please click here to SUBSCRIBE to this site!

Please click here to SEARCH this site!

list

Home

What's New

* ISLAM:

Allah

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

Other Religions

My 1st Muslim Site for Children

Accusations Answered

Becoming a Muslim

* THE LAHORE AHMADIYYA MOVEMENT:

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian

Joining Our Movement

What Others Say About Us

Our Foreign Missions & Contact Info

Accusations Answered

News & Info

Other Ahmadiyya Sites

Photos

Qadiani Beliefs Refuted

* LITERATURE:

Quran

Hadith

Books

Articles & Magazines

Auto(biographies)

True Stories

Prayers

Poems

Dreams, Visions & Prophecies

Glossary

Questions & Answers

Sounds

Videos

* OTHER LANGUAGES and BRANCH WEBSITES:

Arabic

Dutch [Netherlands]

Dutch [Suriname]

French

German

India [Hindi/Urdu]

Indonesian

Italian

Persian

Punjabi

Spanish

Trinidad

UK

Urdu

* MISC.:

Muslim Names

Muslim Prayer Times

Quizzes

Screen Savers

Wallpapers

FREE E-mail Accounts:
name@ahmadiyya.ws
name@muslim.sh
name@islam.lt

* Click to:

[1] 'Subscribe' to this site!

[2] 'Recommend' this page to a friend!

[3] 'Search' this site!

[4] 'Send a Greeting Card'


* FREE CDs *

..


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


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:

  1. “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) 
  2. “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) 
  3. “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) 
  4. “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:

  1. 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) 
  2. “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) 
  3. “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:

  1. “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) 
  2. “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:

  1. “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) 
  2. “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:

  1. “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) 
  2. “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:

  1. “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) 
  2. “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) 
  3. “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) 
  4. “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:

  1. “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) 
  2. “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) 
  3. “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:

  1. “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) 
  2. “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) 
  3. “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:

  1. “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) 
  2. “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:

  1. “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) 
  2. “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) 
  3. “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:

  1. “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) 
  2. “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) 
  3. “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) 
  4. “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:

  1. “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) 
  2. “There is no doubt that this humble one has come from God as a muhaddas for the Muslim nation.” (Tauzih Maram, p. 18) 
  3. “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) 
  4. “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:

  1. “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) 
  2. “I cannot be called only ‘prophet’, but a prophet from one aspect and a follower from another.” (Haqiqat al-Wahy, footnote, p. 150) 
  3. “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) 
  4. “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:

  1. “The word rasul is a general term and includes the messenger, the prophet (nabi), and the saint (muhaddas).” (Ainah Kamalat Islam, p. 322) 
  2. “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) 
  3. “By rusul [plural of rasul] are meant those who are sent, whether a messenger, or prophet, or saint.” (Shahadat al-Quran, p. 23) 
  4. “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) 
  5. “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:

  1. “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) 
  2. “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) 
  3. “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) 
  4. “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) 
  5. “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) 
  6. “Sainthood (wilayat) is the perfect reflection (zill) of prophethood (nubuwwat).” (Hujjat-Ullah, p. 24) 
  7. “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:

  1. “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
  2. “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) 
  3. “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) 
  4. “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) 
  5. “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
  6. “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:

  1. “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) 
  2. “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) 
  3. “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

Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at-e-Islam Lahore (Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement for the Propagation of Islam)

Thank you for visiting us at aaiil.org or ahmadiyya.ws or muslim.sh or islam.lt !