This text is a response to the erroneous Ahmadiyya (Qadiani) beliefs about the alleged prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. It discusses in depth the finality of prophethood with Prophet Muhammad in light of the Qur'an and traditions (ahadith). It also refutes the claims that connect Imam Mahdi with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
"Sauti Ya Bilal" a Swahili periodical of Bilal Muslim Mission of Tanzania, has been generally acknowledged as one of the most informative and comprehensive religious periodicals in East Africa. In 1968, the Mission gave a detailed treatment to the subject of 'Khatm an-Nubuwwah' (Finality of Prophethood), in the form of three articles which appeared in three consecutive issues. No wonder the series was well-received by .the readers - learned and laymen alike.
That Muhammad (S), the Holy Prophet of Islam, was the last Prophet, and that nobody was to get Prophethood after him, is a simple yet cardinal belief of every Muslim. The Mission had explained that Islamic belief in those Swahili articles, quoting verses from Qur'an, and traditions from various traditionalists in corroboration.
A Qadiani missionary wrote a long letter in Swahili, making a frustrated attempt to object to the contents of those articles. This letter was answered by Sayyid Sa’eed Akhtar Rizvi, Chief Missionary. As there was no reply forthcoming from the said missionary, silence prevailed. However, a Shia African student later on wrote to Mr. Rizvi seeking clarifications over the belief of Khatm an-Nubuwwah; and in that letter certain passages were found to bear great similarity to the previous letter from the Qadiani missionary.
Obviously, the Qadianis were circulating their letter or perhaps propagating its contents, despite the refutation by Mr. Rizvi. Thus, the Mission was left with no alternative but to circulate Mr. Rizvi's reply, which assumed form of 24 foolscap cyclostyled pages. A copy was sent to the said Shia student, who later on expressed his complete satisfaction.
These events were reported in the Bilal News as usual, and Haji Hasanaly P. Ebrahim (Karachi) requested for a few copies. As the articles were in Swahili, Mr. Rizvi very kindly agreed and promised to translate them into English for the benefit of a wider public. In the meantime, I requested Mr. Rizvi to add and argument certain relevant topics so as to make the endeavor complete.
I am grateful to Mr. Rizvi for having conceded to my request. This booklet is the result of Mr. Rizvi's laudable endeavor, and various topics relevant to the subject of Khatm an-Nubuwwah are amply dealt with. It also gives us an insight into the thinking ways of the distracted, among them the Qadianis. May Allah Accept this, and shower His Blessings upon Mr. Rizvi.
Asgherali M. M. Jaffer
God, in His grace, never left mankind without a religious guide. That guide may be a prophet; a 'Rasul' or an 'Imam '. The first man, Prophet Adam (a.s.), was made a vicegerent of Allah on this earth, so that he might lead his children on the right path.
Since then, prophets and messengers were sent to all the regions and all the peoples. Allah says in the Qur'an:
"And there never was a people without a warner having lived among them". (Qur'an, 35:24)
In all, there came 124,000 prophets from God. Many of the prophets were sent to one or two villages, some even to one family or one man. Others were sent to a bigger area; still others to a whole tribe. But none of them, before our Holy Prophet, was sent to the whole mankind.
Our Holy Prophet was sent to the whole mankind for up to the end of the world. No other prophet is to come after him. He was, and is, the Last Prophet.
It appears from the history of divine religions that God sent from time to time many 'Shari'ahs' (Divine Laws) which were suitable to that particular era. Prophet Noah (a.s.) brought a Shari'ah which was simple to a great extent. And that Shari'ah was followed by other prophets up to the advent of Prophet Abraham (a.s.). Prophet Abraham (a.s.) was given a Shari'ah which was more elaborate and more comprehensive than the previous one.
The Shari'ah of Prophet Abraham remained in force for the children of Israel up to the time of Prophet Moses (a.s.). When Prophet Moses (p.u h.) was given Torah (Law), it was a really comprehensive and fully detailed Shari'ah, which was followed by all the prophets of Bani Israel till Prophet Jesus (a.s.) came. Prophet Jesus (a.s.) perfected the Shari'ah of Prophet Moses (a.s.) and made adjustments according to the time. The, Shari'ah of Prophet Jesus (a.s.) remained valid till the arrival of the Holy Prophet of Islam (S).
Coming to the other branch of the family of Prophet Abraham (a.s.) we find that the children of Ismael were expected to follow the Shari'ah of Prophet Abraham (a.s.) up to the time of the Holy Prophet of Islam, Prophet Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S). When he came, he abrogated and cancelled all the previous Shari'ahs, and brought the final, most comprehensive and most suitable and moderate Shari'ah of all, which can meet the challenge of the changing trines without any difficulty up to the Day of 'Qiyamah (the Day of Resurrection).
It may be asked: Why the changes in Shari'ahs? Why the gradual revelation? And why the separate 'Ulul-Azm' (Prominent) prophets coming one after another? Well, when a child is born, the parents make some garments for him. And as the child continues to grow, the old clothes are discarded, and new ones made according to the growth of the body of the child, this continuous during his childhood, during his adolescence, during his teenage, till a time comes after 25 or 30 years, when the body reaches its maximum height and attains its full growth.
After that, the size which fits him at that time continues to fit him up to the end of his life. Nobody will suggest that as the child at the age of 25 years is expected to be 5 ft. 6 in. tall, he should be given the clothes of that size on the day of his birth. Nor will anybody think that a young man of 30 years should wear the same clothes which he used to wear when he was 10 years old. Likewise, we may suppose that the humanity was a child in the days of Prophet Adam (a.s.) and Noah (a.s.), which reached its adolescence in the days of Prophet Abraham (a.s.) and continued to grow (mentally, socially and spiritually). Accordingly, Allah continued discarding and abrogating old Shari'ahs and sending new ones according to the social, intellectual and spiritual needs of the times.
This continued up to the time of Prophet Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S). This time may be compared as the age of 25 or 30 years of a man when he reaches the full height and the highest peak of his strength. Now there is no chance that he will outgrow his clothes, and the size of what age remains in force till his last day. When humanity reached that stage, Allah sent the final Shari'ah which was to serve the mankind to the last day of the world. After Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) there was no need for any Shari'ah; there was no need for any new Prophet or messenger from God. And it was for this reason that he was declared by Allah to be the last of the prophets.
Question: Admitted that the body does not grow in height after about 25 years; but still there appear changes in the body. A person may gain or lose considerable weight, necessitating some changes in the measurement of his clothes. Therefore, now can you say that there will never be any need for a new Shari'ah after Islam?
Answer: Clothes usually do not adjust themselves according to the build of a body. But Islam has a built-in capacity to cover all the possible situations which a man faces during his life-time. In this respect, we may compare it with those sophisticated electronic devices which automatically adjust to the temperature, light, humidity and other relevant factors of the operating time. If you take a good camera, you will find that its lens makes all the necessary adjustments according to the distance and light without any need for you to make those adjustments manually.
Likewise, Islam has all the rules for all the possible situations, and as soon as a given situation changes, the Shari'ah' automatically recognizes the change and another set of rules applicable to the new situation comes into force immediately and automatically.
This flexibility is the unique feature of Islam which is not found in any other religion. And this feature eliminates the need of a new Shari'ah.
Of course, the need for an interpreter of the Qur'an and protector of the Shari'ah will remain forever. But Allah appointed Imams for this purpose, after the Last Prophet. The chain of the Prophethood came to an end and a new system of religious leadership, known as 'Imamat' was introduced. The Holy Prophet said "Bani Israel, prophets were leading them; when a prophet died another prophet succeeded him. But after me there is no prophet, and surely there will be Caliphs".
The universally accepted idealism believe last Prophet Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) was the last Prophet of God was unfortunately challenged some 70 years ago by one Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian (Punjab, India) who claim to be a prophet.
As this booklet is being written to throw light upon the Muslim belief of "Seal of the Prophethood", it is essential to give a historical background to the birth of Ahmadism.
The famous Muslim thinker, Dr. Iqbal, wrote a booklet "Islam and Ahmadism" and I propose to quote in this chapter some of the paragraphs from his learned discourse.
He writes: "The simple faith (of Islam) is based on two propositions that God is One and that Muhammad is the last in the line of those holy men who have appeared from time to time in all ages to guide mankind to the right way of living".
The question of heresy, which needs the verdict whether the author of it is within or without the fold, can arise, in the case of a religious society founded on such simple propositions, only when the heretic rejects both or either of these propositions. Such heresy must be and has been rare in the history of Islam which, while jealous of its frontiers, permits freedom of interpretation within these frontiers.
And since the phenomenon of the kind of heresy which affects the boundaries of Islam has been rare in the history of Islam, the feeling of the average Muslim is naturally intense when a revolt of this kind arises. That is why the feeling of Muslim Persia was so intense against the Bahais. That is why the feeling of Indian Muslims is so intense against the Qadianis.
"The question of what may be called major heresy arises only when the teaching of a thinker or a reformer affects the frontiers of the faith of Islam. Unfortunately this question does arise in connection with the teachings of Qadianism".
"Theologically the doctrine is that. The organization called "Islam" is perfect and eternal. No revelation the denial of which entails heresy is possible after Muhammad. He who claims such a revelation, is a traitor to Islam. Since the Qadianis believe the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement to be the bearer of such a revelation they declare that the entire world of Islam is infidel.
The founder's own argument is that the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam must be regarded as imperfect if it is not creative of another Prophet. He claims his own Prophethood to be an evidence of the Prophet-rearing power of the Holy Prophet of Islam. But if you further ask him whether the spirituality of Muhammad is capable of rearing more Prophets, than one, his answer is "No". This virtually amounts to saying "Muhammad is not the last Prophet: I am the last".
This is, in fact, the accepted belief of the Qadianis. Really it is astounding that while the distinction of being the last of the Prophets is denied to the Prophet of Islam, it is claimed for the prophet of Qadian. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself says: "I am the last path of all the divine paths, and the last light of all the divine lights". Elaborating on this theme, the "Tash-hizul-azhan"1 writes: "In this 'Ummah' there can be only one prophet, that is, the promised Messiah; and certainly nobody else can come.
The same magazine2 says: "After the Holy Prophet of Islam only one prophet can come. It will disturb many policies and kingdom of God if many prophets came.
The same paper3 declared: 'Thus it is proved that there cannot be more than one prophet. (The Holy Prophet of Islam) has said "La Nabiyva Ba'adi". There is no prophet after me; and thus has clearly declared that in this Ummah no prophet or messenger of God can come after him, except the promised Messiah".
This distorted logic is beyond human comprehension. The Qadiani writer accepts the Holy Prophet's declaration that there would be no prophet after him: and then (instead of refuting the claim of any pretender of prophethood after Muhammad) adds a tail to the interpretation: "except Mirza Ghulam Ahmad."
"Tash-hizul Azhan" was a magazine for Ahmadi children and that is the belief which is taught to their children from childhood.
Thus, the Qadianis have transferred the finality of prophethood from the Prophet of Islam to Prophets: for the Qadianis, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the last of the prophets. But there is one "Khatam un-Nabiyyin" (the Last of the Prophets) in both religions, in the sense of the finality of the prophethood. I think this point of agreement should be enough to end the controversy about the meaning of the phrase "Khatam un-Nabiyyin".
Now, to revert to Dr. Iqbal's writing:
"Far from understanding the cultural value of the Islamic idea of finality in the history of mankind generally and of Asia especially he (i.e., Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) thinks that the finality in the sense that no follower of Muhammad can ever reach the status of prophethood is a mark of imperfection in Muhammad's Prophethood. As I read the psychology of his mind he in the interest of his own claim to prophethood, avails himself of what he describes as the creative spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam and at the same time deprives the Holy Prophet of his "finality" by limiting the creating capacity of his spirituality to the rearing of only one prophet, i.e., the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement. In this way does the new prophet quietly steal away the "finality" of one who he claims to be his spiritual progenitor".
He claims to be 'buruz' 4 of the Holy Prophet of Islam instituting thereby that, being a buruz of him, his finality is virtually the "finality" of Muhammad, and that this view of the matter, therefore, does not violate the finality of the Holy Prophet. In identifying the two finalities, his own and that of the Holy Prophet, he conveniently loses sight of the temporal meaning of the idea of Finality.
It is, however obvious that the word 'buruz' in the sense even of completed likeness, cannot help him at all, for the buruz must always remain the other of its original. Only in the sense of reincarnation a buruz becomes identical with the original. Thus if we take the word 'buruz' to mean 'like in spiritual qualities' the argument remains ineffective. If, on the other hand, we take it to mean reincarnation of the original, in the Aryan sense of the word, the argument becomes plausible but its author turns out to be only a Magician in disguise."
"I dare say the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement did hear a voice; but whether this voice came from the God of Life and Power or arose out of the spiritual impoverishment of the people must depend upon the nature of movement which it has it has created and the kind of thought and emotion which it has given those who have listened to it."
This quotation comes from Dr. Iqbal who has clearly unmasked "the real content of Ahmadism in the light of the history of Muslim theological thought in India at least from the year 1799."
He says: "The year 1799 is extremely important in the history of the world of Islam. In this year fell Tippu; and his fall meant the extinguishment of Muslim hopes for political prestige in India. In the same year was fought the battle of Navarneo which saw the destruction of the Turkish fleet".
Thus in the 1799 the political decay of Islam in Asia reached its climax. But just as out of the humiliation of Germany on the day of Jena arose the Modern German Nation, it may be said with equal truth that out of the political humiliation of Islam in the year 1799 arose modern Islam and her problems. I want to draw the reader's attention to some of the questions which have arisen in Muslim India since the fall of Tippu and the development of European Imperialism in Asia.
Does the idea of Caliphate in Islam embody a religious institution? How are the Indian Muslims and for the matter of that all Muslims outside the Turkish Empire related to the Turkish Caliphate? Is India "Dar-ul-Harb"1 or "Dar-ul-Islam"2?
What is the real meaning of the expression "From amongst you" In the Qur’anic verse "Obey God, obey the Prophet and the masters of the affair, i.e., rulers, from amongst you?" What is the character of the traditions of the Prophet foretelling the advent of Imam Mehdi? These questions and some other which arose subsequently were for Muslims only. European Imperialism, however, which was then rapidly penetrating the world of Islam, was also intimately interested in them."
Mr. M. O. Abbasi of Dar-es-Salaam (Tanzania) writes in "The Mirror" (published by Makki publications): "In order to reach the bottom of this reality, it is necessary as a preliminary, to understand the background in which it became possible for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to advance his claims and to achieve success in his mission."
"The Muslims of India, after leading a life of governance, glory and honor for an approximate period of 700 years, were beset with a variety of calamities and catastrophes owing to their indifference, in action and ignorance:
(1) Internal dissensions and disunion led to internecine quarrels and they became extremely debilitated.
(2) Due to the aggression of their age-old enemies, the infidels, Muslim Blood flowed in profusion at the hands of the Marahtas and the Sikhs.
(3) European Imperialists took undue advantage of this and extended their Imperialist tentacles. They knew that the Muslims were endowed with a spirit of revenge, sacrifice and martyrdom and possessed of a passion for defense of their religion in the fullest degree. It was necessary therefore, to:
(1) Break their collective strength and disorganize them.
(2) Crush their sense of self-respect and their spirit of sacrifice and martyrdom.
(3) Cultivate a spirit of devotion to and expectations from the Imperialist Powers.
(4) Entirely expunge the spirit of 'Jihad', that is readiness to sacrifice and gamble away their lives in defense of religion and community.
"In view of the above, the chess players of Western Imperialism prepared a few peculiar pawns for the political board, the choicest of which were those that entered the field under the cloak of religion and exponents of its technicalities."
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani was such a pawn who served the interests of the British Imperialism using the religion as his tool.
As will be seen afterwards, his tenets were "Obey Allah and Obey the British Imperialism." Those who want a fuller account should read the quotations given by Professor Ilyas Berni in "Qadiani Mazhab Ka Ilmi Muhasiba"3. Here a few quotations are given just as a sample.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani writes:
"In short my father was always hopeful on mercies of the British Government and continued to render services as the need arose, so much so, that the English Government honored him with notes of appreciation and remembered him specially with their gifts and bounties and sympathized with him and favored him and considered him among their well-wishers and sincere supporters.
When my father expired, my brother succeeded him in these qualities, and his name was Mirza Ghulam Qadir, and the favors of the English Government were likewise showered on him just as on my father.
A few years after the death of my father, my brother also expired and after the decease of these both, I stepped into their shoes and followed them in their characteristics.
"But I was not possessed of wealth or property. Therefore, I rose to serve the Government with my hand and my pen, and God was assisting me, and I made a compact with God from that time that I would never write a single volume which does not contain a description of the obligations of the Queen Empress of India. Nay, the volume must contain a narration of all the obligations done to the Muslims of India for which the Muslims of India have to be grateful to her."4
"For the achievement of this object of mine I made it a practice to repeat in every writing of mine (Vide, for example, Baraheene Ahmadiyya, Shahadatul Qur'an, Surmae Chashme Arya, Ainae Kamalate Islam, Hamamatul Bushra, Nurul Haq, etc.) that 'Jihad' against this Government is not at all permissible to the Muslims."
Statement worthy of the attention of the Government, which was published for the perusal of the Empress of India (i.e., Queen Victoria), His Excellency the Governor-General of India and His Excellency Lieutenant Governor of Punjab and other High Officials from the humble Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian; dated 10th December, 1894; recorded in 'Tabligh-e-Risalat'5.
"The second matter to be submitted is this, that from the earliest age till now - and I am sixty years old now - I have been engaged with my tongue and pen in this important task that I should turn the hearts of the Muslims of India towards true love; well-wishes and sympathy towards the English Government and remove from the minds of some senseless ones all ideas of 'Jihad', etc., which stop them from sincerity of heart and honesty of relations and I notice that a tremendous impression has been made on the minds of the Muslims owing to my writings and hundreds of thousands of persons have been converted to a changed attitude."6
"The major portion of my life has passed in support of this English Government and I have written so many hooks on the 'Prohibition of 'Jihad' and 'Obedience to the English' and have issued pamphlets that, if they were gathered together, no less than fifty cupboards could be filled with them. I have sent such books to all the countries like Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Kabul and Turkey.
"I have always endeavored that Muslims should become true well-wishers of this Government and the baseless traditions about Bloody Mehdi and Bloody Messiah which animate and inflame the hearts of fools may be obliterated from their minds."7
The British Government reciprocated this service as Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, the son and second Caliph of Mirza Ghulam 'Ahmad, writes:
"The obligations of the British Government on us are great and we are passing our lives in great comfort and tranquility and accomplishing our object and if we are to go to other countries for 'Tabligh' (propaganda), there, too, the British Government renders us assistance."8
How much Mirza Qadiani served the British Imperialism, is clear from the following declaration:
"Thus, my religion which I do repeatedly declare is only this, that Islam has two parts: One, to obey God, secondly, to obey this Government.
Thus, if we raise our head against the British Government, we are raising our head against Islam, against God and against the Holy Prophet." 9
It would be of interest to see what was their attitude towards the freedom movements of India. There were two organizations endeavoring to get independence: All India National Congress and All India Muslim League. Qadianis attitude towards the Congress can be seen from the lecture of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad (the son and second caliph of the founder of Ahmadism), which· was published in the newspaper 'Al-Fazl'10 dated 29th January, 1935. He said:
"After that whenever the Congress launched any disturbance, we helped the (British) Government. At the time of the last movement of Gandhi, we spent Fifty Thousand Rupees on tracts and advertisement and we can prove it by records. Our men gave hundreds of lectures against that movement. We gave best advices which were appreciated by the High Officials."
About Muslim League: The said 'Al-Fazl' 11 wrote:
'We remember that the real Reformer of the MusIims and the True Guide of the world. Prophet Masih-e-Mawud and Mehdi Akheruzzaman (i.e., Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani) when Muslim League was mentioned before him, he expressed his displeasure at it. Can such a thing, which the Chosen of God and Ordained dislikes, be beneficial and blissful for the Muslims? No, Never."
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani went so far as to turn himself into a spy of the British Government against nationalists. He wrote in 'Government Ki Tawajjuh Ke Laiq' (recorded in Tabligh-e-Risalat):
"Whereas it is expedient that for the well-wishers of the English Government, the names of such Muslims also should be recorded in charts who look upon the British India as Dar-ul-Harb. Therefore, this chart has been drawn up with the single object of preserving therein the names of those ungrateful people who are endowed with such rebellious nature."
"Therefore, for the political sympathy of our benevolent Government, we have thought it proper on this blessed occasion that we should record as far as possible the names of such wicked people whose seditious intentions can be proved by their beliefs. But we respectfully request the Government that such Charts will remain with us as a State secret in any of the Government offices until such time."
We should thank Allah that East Africa was not populated with persons of such servile mentality. Otherwise, these countries would have remained under British yoke forever, and the Union Jack would have been flying over the State Houses of Dar-es-Salaam, Nairobi and Entebbe even now.
Dr. Iqbal says:
To the intensely religious masses of Islam only one thing can make a conclusive appeal, and that is Divine Authority. For an effective eradication of orthodox beliefs it was found necessary to find a revelational basis for a politically suitable orientation of theological doctrines involved in the questions mentioned above.
This revelational basis provided by Ahmadism. And the Ahmadis themselves claim this to be the greatest service rendered by them to British imperialism. The prophetic claim to revelational basis for theological view of a political significance amounts to declaring that those who do not accept the claimant's views are infidels of the first water and destined for the flames of Hell.
In primitive countries it is not logic but authority that appeals. Given a sufficient amount of ignorance and credulity which strangely enough sometimes co-exists with good intelligence and a person sufficiently audacious to declare himself recipient of Divine revelation whose denial would entail eternal damnation, it is easy in a subject Muslim country, to invent a political theology and to build a community whose creed is political servility. And in the Punjab even an ill-woven net of vague theological expressions can easily capture the innocent peasant who has been for centuries exposed to all kinds of exploitation.
As I have explained above the function of Ahmadism in the history of Muslim religious thought is to furnish a revelation basis for India's present political subjugation. (i.e., under British imperialism).
To show how the Qadiani missionaries tried to twist the subject, I quote here from 'A Lively Discussion' published by the 'Ahmadiyya Muslim Mission Of Tanganyika' in 1967. Their Chief Missionary, Sheikh Muhammad Munawwar H.A., trying to refute this blame has written:
"Muslim scholars over the ages have been praising their governments for one reason or the other without being criticized by their fellow-Muslims. Here in Tanzania the Shia Alim, Sayyid Sa’eed Akhtar Rizvi, wrote an article in The Standard dated August 25, 1967 to show that the Arusha Declaration contained certain aspects that went parallel with the Islamic teaching. No finger was pointed at the writer of the article to condemn his "collusion" with the un-Islamic government. Nor was he given the title of a "toady" or a "Quisling".
He is so naive that he does not see the difference between showing that an ideology of a free national government contained certain aspects that went parallel with the Islamic Teachings" and supporting the tyrannical rule of an imperial power and forbidding the wretched 'subjects' to rise against it and making that support an integral part of the religion, next in importance to the belief in the unity of God! If he wants to keep his eyes shut to such clear differences, nobody on earth has any power to make him see.
Dr. Iqbal further writes:
"A similar drama had already been acted in Persia; but it did not lead, and could not have led, to the religious and political issues which Ahmadism has created for Islam in India. Russia offered tolerance to Babism and allowed the Babis to open their first missionary center in Ishaqabad. England showed Ahmadis the same tolerance in allowing them to open their first missionary center in Woking. Whether Russia and England showed this tolerance on the ground of imperial expediency or pure broadmindedness is difficult for us to decide. This much is absolutely clear that this tolerance has created difficult problems for Islam in Asia."
Then Dr. Iqbal winds up his discourse with declaring the Ahmadi movement as being a "strange mixture of Semitic and Aryan mysticism with whom spiritual revival consists not in the purification of the individual's inner life according to the principles of the old Islamic Sufi'ism, but in satisfying the expectant attitude of the masses by providing a 'promised' Messiah.
The function of this promised Messiah is not to extricate the individual from an enervating present but to make him slavishly surrender his ego to its dictates. This reaction carries within itself a very subtle contradiction. It retains the discipline of Islam, but destroys the will which that discipline was intended to fortify."
"Behold! thou didst say to one who had received the grace of God and thy favor: "Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife and fear God". But thou didst hide in thy heart that which God was about to make manifest: thou didst fear the people but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear God.
"Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that in future there may be no difficulty to the believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter had dissolved with the necessary (formality-their marriage) with them. And God's command must be fulfilled.
"There can be no difficulty to the Prophet in what God had indicated to him as a duty. It was the way of God amongst those of old that have passed away. And the command of God is a decree determined.
"(It is the practice of) those who preach the message of God and fear Him, and fear none but God. And enough is God to call (men) to account. Mohammed is not the father of any of your men, but (he) is The Apostle of God and the last of the Prophets. And God has full knowledge of all things". (Qur'an, 33:37-40)
This (verse) is revealed in the fifth Ruku of Chapter Al-Ahzab. In this 'Ruku' Allah has replied to the objections of the unbelievers and the hypocrites, who were ridiculing and slandering the Holy Prophet because of his marriage with Ummul-Mumineen Zainab bint Jahash.
They said that Zainab was previously married to Zaid bin Haritha, who prior to Islam, was adopted by the Holy Prophet as his son. The detractors said, as such Zainab was the daughter-in-law of the Holy Prophet; and when the Holy Prophet married her, after her divorce from Zaid, he married his daughter-in-law which is haram even in the Shari’ah brought by Muhammad (S).
Replying to that, Allah said in verse No. 37 that that marriage was entered into by the order of Allah, and performed by Allah so that the Muslims should be made free to marry the wives of their adopted sons if the said so-called sons were to divorce them.
Verses Nos. 38 and 39 declare that no power can detract a prophet from doing what he was told by Allah to do. And it is not the job of the prophet to be afraid of the masses in performing the commands of Allah. They fear only Allah, and no one else. And it is the way of Allah from ever that makes the prophets to convey the message of Allah without any hesitation, without taking anything else into their consideration.
After that comes this verse; and it cuts at the roots of all such objections of the enemies of the Holy Prophet (S).
Their first objection was that the Holy Prophet had married his daughter-in-law, which is forbidden in Islam. Replying to that, Allah said:
"Muhammad was not father of anyone from among your men folk".
It reminds the unbelievers that Zaid bin Haritha (whose divorcee Zainab was), was not the son of the Holy Prophet, and as such Zainab was not the daughter-in-law of the Holy Prophet. Marrying the divorcee of Zaid therefore cannot be said to be forbidden by any logic. Even his enemies knew that Muhammad was not the father of Zaid.
Second objection: Agreed that Zaid was not the son of the Holy Prophet by birth; but was he not his son by adoption? Agreed that it was not illegal for Muhammad to marry the divorced wife of Zaid. But was that marriage necessary? Agreed that that marriage was legal and lawful. But what was the need of entering into such a marriage which could make Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) the target of ridicule?
Replying to that, Allah said:
"But Muhammad is the messenger of' Allah".
The significance of this answer is that, being a Messenger of Allah, it was essential for him to remove all superstitions and prejudices and all baseless taboos which were choking the life out from the society. It was essential for him to act in such a way that nobody could remain in any doubt about the legality of such marriages and about the fact that an adopted son was not a son at all.
Then comes the phrase:
"'The Last of The Prophets".
The significance of this phrase is that, after the Holy Prophet of Islam not even a prophet is to come (let alone a Rasul whose job is to bring a new Shari'ah). No prophet was to come after him, so that if any deficiency were left unreformed in the legal or social system of the society or religion, the later prophet would remove that defect.
Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) was the last Messenger; he was the Last Prophet. And therefore it was essential for him to effect reforms to all the bad practices of the society, to refute all superstitions during his lifetime, because there was no Nabi to come after him, let alone a Rasul.
Then comes the sentence:"
And Allah has the full knowledge of everything".
Why this assertion? Allah wants to convey the idea that Allah knows that if Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) left this world without reforming the bad elements of the society, no prophet was to come after him to fill that gap; and if Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) without giving effect to all the reforms of the society, no such person was ever to appear who would have such respect, prestige and reverence among the masses that his every word and his every action would have the force of Law.
It was the prerogative of the Holy Prophet of Islam; and nobody had, or was to have, such respect that if he did one thing it became lawful for up to Qiyamah (Resurrection day), and if he forbade one thing, that became unlawful for up to Qiyamah. This prestige was bestowed by Allah upon the Last Prophet and Allah knew that if he did not reform such bad customs no other person would ever be able to give effect to such reforms after the Holy Prophet.
Looking at this verse in this context, it is crystal clear that we cannot accept a new meaning to this verse invented by a homemade claimant of prophethood from Qadian, that 'Khatam un-Nabiyyin' means 'Seal of the prophets" which in its turn means that the prophets coming after the Holy Prophet of Islam would become prophet by the seal of the seal of the Holy Prophet, and by his confirmation. If we were to entertain such idea, all the force and logic will be wiped out. Not only that it will lose its logic - it will be tantamount to refuting whatever was put forward in the preceding phrases and sentences. This verse will become a self-contradictory statement.
We have seen that Allah wanted to reply to the objections of the enemies of the Holy Prophet, by saying that:
1. The Holy Prophet married Ummul-Mumineen Zainab bint Jahash by order of Allah.
2. The aim of that marriage was to remove the prejudice and superstition and traditional taboo of the pagan Arabs and many other nations who treated the adopted sons as the real sons.
3. It was necessary, nay essential for Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) to marry the divorced wife of his adopted son, so that Muslims should not feel shy of such marriages; they should be persuaded by the practical example of the Holy Prophet that such marriages are perfectly lawful, because an adopted son is no son at all.
4. To show the urgency of those marriages, Allah says that Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) is the Messenger of Allah and it was Imperative for him to give effect to that marriage to provide a practical example.
And then the Qadianis say that, Allah says: "Many Prophets will come after Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) who will be made Prophets by the confirmation from him, and who will be in a position to give effect to whatever reforms were needed in their times”.
And what would have been the effect of such declaration?
As soon as the enemies of the Holy Prophet (S) were to learn this they would easily have said:" Then what was the urgency that Muhammad himself should perform this marriage; to show the Muslims legality of such marriages? As other prophets were to come after him, any other prophet could have legalized such marriages by showing his own example! There was no need on the part of Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) to perform that marriage".
Thus, the whole force of the arguments showing the urgent need of that marriage is negated, wiped out and cancelled. Not only this: a weapon is given in the hands of the enemies of the Holy Prophet to attach him and ridicule him saying that "he married the divorced wife of his son while there was no urgency for him to do so. After all, other prophets coming after him could have shown to the world that there was nothing wrong in such marriages”.
It is clear from this explanation, that if the interpretation of the Qadianis is accepted then not only the logic of the replies will be lost, but the verse will become a mass of contradictory statements. Allah says:
"If this Qur'an would have been from other than Allah, then they would have found in it much contradiction." (Qur'an 4:82)
If an interpretation creates contradictions in a verse, it means that that interpretation is not from Allah; it is from other than Allah - it is from Satan.
Another interpretation d the Qadianis is that 'Khatam un-Nabiyyin' means 'Afzal un-Nabiyyin' i.e., Muhammad is the superior to all prophets. In other words, other prophets would come after him, but he is the greatest, most respected and most honored of all prophets.
Apart from the fact, that this interpretation shows that Qadianis themselves are not same what new meaning they should give to the phrase 'Khatam un-Nabiyyin', the same defect of contradiction is inherent in that interpretation also.
How? The unbelievers and the hypocrites could have retorted that when other prophets were to come after Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S), though inferior to him, but prophet of Allah all the same, they could have carried out such reform and that there was no need or urgency for Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) to perform that marriage and put himself in ridicule unnecessarily.
One often hears Qadiani missionaries asserting that the phrase " Khatam un-Nabiyyin "m has not been interpreted as "the Last Prophet" by the Holy Prophet himself. The fact is that the Holy Prophet himself has explained this phrase in these words.
And I am Khatam un-Nabiyyin, there is no prophet after myself. The Tradition (Hadith) is this:
"Thauban said that the Holy Prophet said: (in a long tradition part of which is that) "there will appear in my Ummah thirty imposters each of them will claim to be a prophet while I am Khatam un-Nabiyyin, there is no prophet after me.
This tradition is found in Abu Dawood Kitabul-Fitan; and another tradition of the same meaning from Abu Huraira in Kitab-ul-Malahim. Both traditions are narrated by Tirmizi also.
The Holy Prophet said: "The simile of myself and the other prophets is the simile of a well-built palace in which the place of a brick was left vacant; the sight-seers were roaming around that palace expressing their wonder on its fine construction except the place of that missing brick. Thus, I am that brick and I closed the gap of that place. The construction was completed by me and the messengers of God: were completed by me. So, I am that brick and I am 'Khatam un-Nabiyyin' (the last Prophet)."
This tradition has been recorded in Saheeh Bukhari (Kitab-ul’Manaqib; Bab Khatamun-Nabiyyin) with minor variations in wordings.
It means that after the advent of the Holy Prophet of Islam, the building of Prophethood was complete; there is no vacant place left, so that another Nabi be expected to come and fill that place.
There are four traditions like this one in Saheeh Muslim (Kitabul-Fadhail, Bab Khatamun Nabiyyin) and the last of those traditions has these extra words: "Then I came and I closed the prophets".
The same tradition in the same words is found in Saheeh Tirmizi (Kitab-ul-Manaqib, Bab Fazlin Nabi; and Kitab-ul-Adab, Bab-ul-Amthal).
In Musnad of Abu Dawood Tayalisi this tradition has been narrated by Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari, and its last words are: "The Prophets have been closed by me".
And these traditions with minor differences in the wordings are found in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal narrated by Ubai bin Ka'ab, Abu Said Khudri and Abu Huraira.
The Holy Prophet said: "Qiyamah will not come till many groups from my Ummah follow the idol-worshippers (commit capital sins like the idol worshippers) and till they worship idols; and surely there will be in my Ummah 30 impostors, every one of them will suppose himself to be a prophet; while I am 'Khatam un-Nabiyyin' (last prophet), there is no prophet after me."
Tirmizi has narrated these traditions from Thauban and Abu Huraira, and the second tradition says:
"Till there will be about thirty imposters each of them would claim to be a messenger of Allah".
A. Qadiani missionary wrote to me about this tradition but this prophecy was already fulfilled before Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani. The book 'Al-Bakara' p. 15. says that "If we count all those who claimed Prophethood after the Holy Prophet up to our time, this number has been completed. And it is known to all those who know the history." The writer of this book died in 828 Hijri. Up to this year (i.e., 1390) 562 years have passed since that writing. Do you think that writer was wrong'?"
I wrote to him: "Well, what book is this 'Al Bakara''? Who was its author? This clutching to straws shows how poor your arguments are. Of course, he was wrong, because centuries after him, Nawwab Siddiq Hassan Khan of Bhopal (who died in 1889 A. D.), wrote in his book 'Hujajul-Karamah'.
The prophecy of the Holy Prophet - that there would come 30 Dajjals in this Ummah - is proving correct; and 27 of those Dajjals have already appeared." (page 540).
Remember that this count of 27 was before the claim of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani.
Sometimes, some writers have committed the mistake of counting everyone who claimed prophethood after the Holy Prophet as one of those 30 promised Dajjals. But it is wrong, because in this way we will find hundreds of Dajjal and the number 30 would be exceeded by far.
That is why Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani has written in 'Fat'h-ul·Bari Sharh Saheeh Bukhari (Vol. VI, p455): "It is not the meaning of this tradition to count every person who claimed to be prophet after Muhammad (S); because there were so many of them that they cannot be counted; as mostly such claimants suffer from insanity and·'Sawda.".1 But this tradition means only those who get some strength i.e., whose religion becomes accepted and who gets sufficient followers".
Therefore, if we add one more after 1889, the total comes to 28. There are still two more to come.
Then we come to the public declaration of Amir-ul-Mu'mineen Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.), which is given in Al-Iqd-ul-Farid, Vol. IV, p. 75. In this lecture, Imam Ali (a.s.) said about the Holy Prophet Muhammad (S):
Until Allah honored him (Muhammad) by Ruh-ul-Amin (i.e., Angel Gabriel) and the Bright Light (i.e., Qur'an or Islam) and completed with him the prophets and completed with him the number of the Messengers."
See how the word "completed with him the prophets" has been explained by "completed with him the number of the Messengers".
It should be noted that in the whole Qur'an, the word 'Khatam' has been used only once and that is in this phrase. Also, this phrase; "Khatam un-Nabiyyin" was never used in Arabic language before this verse. It was a new phrase which was used for the first time in the Qur'an in this verse.
And, therefore the only correct way of knowing its real significance is to see how this phrase was interpreted by the Holy Prophet of Islam, because it was revealed to him, and as such no other person can know its meaning better than he. And he himself interpreted in these words:
"And I am Khatam un-Nabiyyin there is no prophet after me".
The saying of the Holy Prophet (S) is a proof in itself. But when that saying is the interpretation of the wording of the Holy Qur'an, then it becomes double proof. The question is: Who has more right to understand Qur'an and to interpret the Qur’an than Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S)? Who can explain the meaning of Khatam un-Nabiyyin better than Muhammad (S)?
And who has any right that we should listen to his claims leaving the wording of the Holy Prophet of Islam aside, the Holy Prophet on whom the Qur'an 'was revealed? Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani himself has said: "Nobody can explain the meaning of Ilham (Revelation) better than the person on whom that Ilham was, sent".2
Now we give here some of the other traditions of the Holy Prophet which show that he himself did claim to be the Last Of The Prophets, using other phrases:
The Holy Prophet said, "Bani Israel, prophets were leading them; when a prophet died another prophet succeeded him. But after me there will be no prophet; there will be Caliphs." (Saheeh Bukhari Kitab-ul-Manaqib).
The Holy Prophet said: "Verily, the Messengership and the Prophet hood have (now) ended; so there is no messenger after me and no prophet," (Tirmizi Kitab al-:R'u'uya, Babu Dhihab al-Nubuwwah; Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal from Anas bin Malik).
This tradition is found in Saheeh Bukhari; Saheeh Muslim, (Kitab-ul-Fadhail; Bab Asmain-Nabi); Saheeh Tirmizi, (Kitab-ul-Adab, Bab Asmain·Nabi); Muwatta (Kitab-ul-Asmain-Nabi); Mustadrak of Al-Hakim, (Kitab-al-Tarikh Bab Asmain-Nabi):
The Holy Prophet said: "I am Muhammad; and I am Ahmad; and I am Mahi, the Kufr will be erased by me; and I am Hashir, i.e., after me people will be gathered in Hashr (i.e., after me there will be no prophet; after me there will be only Qiyamah; and I am Aqib after whom there will be no prophet."
The Holy Prophet said: "God did not send any prophet but He warned His Ummah about Dajjal (But he did not appear among them). And I am the last of the prophets and you are the last of the Ummahs, and he will appear among you anyhow.
(Sunan Ibn Majah, Kitab-ul-Fitan, Bab-u1-Dajjal).
There is another tradition in Saheeh Muslim, Saheeh Tirmizi and Sunan Ibn Majah which says:
The Holy Prophet said: "I have been given superiority over other prophets by six distinctions- (1) I have been given the ability to utter short sentences covering wide range of meanings; (2) I was helped by fear; (3) The booty of war was made lawful for me; (4) The earth has been made for me Masjid .and a means to c1eanliness; (5.)I have been sent as the Messenger of Allah to the whole world; (6) And the chain of the Prophets was finished by me,"
Abdur-Rahman bin Jubair said that he heard Abdullah bin Amr bin ‘As saying that one day the Holy Prophet(S) came out of his house in such a manner as he was taking our leave; and he said three times; "I am Muhammad the unlettered prophet." Then he said, "and there is no prophet after me."
This tradition is found in Musnad Ahmad Bin Hanbal, Nasai and Abu Dawood. The Holy Prophet said: "There is no prophethood after me, except the good tidings."
He was asked: "And what are the good tidings, O' Messenger of Allah?" He said "Good dreams", or he said "true dreams". It means that there was no possibility of revelation after the Holy Prophet. The utmost that anybody will be given as a sign from Allah will be through the true dreams.
Baihaqi in his Saheeh (Kitab-al-Ru'uya) and Tabarani have narrated that the Holy Prophet said:
"There is no Nabi after me and there is no Ummah after my Ummah."
The tradition is found in Saheeh Muslim (Kitab-ul-Hajj). The Holy Prophet said "And I am the last of the Prophets and my Masjid is the last of the mosques."
It should be mentioned here that the Qadianis claim that the Holy Prophet said that his Masjid was "the Last Masjid"; while in fact it is not the last of the mosques, because after that millions of mosques been built and are being built every day in the world; likewise when the Holy Prophet said that he was the "the Last Masjid", he meant that there would be prophets coming after him; though according to the Fadhilah he was the Supreme Most Prophet as his Masjid is Superior to all other mosques.
But these people have lost the ability to understand the words of Allah and his Prophet. This tradition has been narrated in Saheeh Muslim, in the chapter where Prophet Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) has said that there are only three mosques in the world which has superiority over other mosques and the prayers in which is thousand times more rewarding than in other mosques; and it is for this reason that travelling for the purpose of prayers is allowed and lawful to these three mosques only.
Other mosques have no right that a man should travel to pray there leaving the other mosques. First of those mosques is Masjid-ul-Haram, which was built by Prophet Abraham and Prophet Ismael (a.s.); the second mosque is the Masjid-ul-Aqsa which was built by prophet David and Prophet Solomon (a.s.); and the third Mosque is the Masjid of Madina built by the Holy Prophet (S).
The Holy meant that as there is no prophet coming after him there will be no mosque in the world after his mosque which would have more thawab (spiritual reward) and superiority over other mosques. Thus it is the last of the mosques of the prophets and the last mosque to which a man is allowed to travel for the purpose of prayer in it.
This meaning is clear from another tradition where the wording is:
"I am the last of the prophets and my mosques are the last of the mosques of the prophets." This Tradition is narrated Daylami ibn Najjar and Bazzar and is recorded in Kanz-ul Ummal.
'Hadith-ul-Manzila' is the saying of the Holy Prophet (S), which he said at the time of his journey to Tabuk. This tradition is correct without any doubt from any quarter, and innumerable traditionalist and historians have recorded it. Some of them are:
• Saheeh Bukhari, Vol 3. p.58
• Saheeh Muslim, Vol 2, p.323
• Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol 1, p.28
• Mustadrak, Vol 3, p.109
• Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Vol 1, p.173-182
At the time of that journey, the Holy Prophet (S) has left Imam Ali (a.s.), as his successor in Madina. Imam Ali (a.s.) said "You are leaving me behind among women and children." The Holy Prophet (S) replied: "Are you not pleased that you have the same position with me as Aaroon had with Moses, except that there is no prophet after me."
This also is a great proof from the tradition of the Holy Prophet (S) that there would be no prophet after him.
These and other traditions have been narrated by numerous companions of the Holy Prophet and it proves that the Holy Prophet of Islam on different occasions, in different ways and in different words has made it crystal clear that he was the last of the prophets, and there was no Nabi coming after him, that the chain of Nubuwwah (Prophethood) has been completed, that anybody who claimed to be a Rasul or Nabi after him would be Dajjal and Kazzab (liar).
Can there be any other interpretation or meaning of the words of Qur'an ''Khatam un-Nabiyyin' than this?
Also there is the Declaration of Sahaba just after the death of Holy Prophet that from then on there was no Nabi to come.
The famous collection of the lectures, etc. of Imam Ali (a.s.) known as 'Nahj-ul-Balagha' (which has been published in Egypt with foot notes and explanations of Sheikh Muhammad Abduh) reveals on page 269:
Imam Ali (a.s.) said when he was washing the body of Holy Prophet (S): "My father. and mother be your ransom, such a thing has been discontinued with your death which was never discontinued with the death of any other person, (and that thing is) Prophethood, announcement (of Ghaib) and the news of heaven."
Concerning the last tradition mentioned in the previous chapter, the Qadiani missionary had written to me:
"Imam Muhammad Tahir Gujrati has written in his Takmila Majma-ul-Bihar (p.85) that meaning of is that no such prophet will come after me who will abrogate my Shari'ah"
I wrote in reply:
"First of all, all such writers refer to the second coming of Prophet Jesus; son of Mary (a.s.) who's Nubuwwah (Prophethood) was some 600 years before the advent of our Holy Prophet. They mean that if a previous prophet re-appears after the Holy Prophet it is not against the 'Finality of Prophethood', because even when he will come he will follow the Shari'ah of our Holy Prophet.
Not only this; he will refrain even from leading the prayers, and will pray behind the Imam of the Muslims, Thus he will live just like other Muslims - he will not call people to believe in his own Nubuwwah; he will not bring any revelation; he will not establish any new community, separate from all the Muslims. 'Khatam un-Nabiyyin' has closed the door of prophet hood so far as the newcomers are concerned.
But it has not stripped the previous Prophets of their prophethood, this meaning has clearly been written in 'Mishkat-ul-Masabih' in a note under the wording of the Holy Prophet "and the prophets were ended with me" which says "i.e. creation of the prophets; thus no prophet will be created after me. This edition of Mishkat was printed in 1307 A.H., long before the claim of prophethood by Mirza Qadiani.
So you must understand that the Muslim writers do not say that a new prophet can come after the Holy Prophet, calling the people to believe in himself. When they say Isa bin Mariam they do mean Isa bin Mariam; they do not even dream of any Masil (likeness) of Masih or any Ghulam Ahmad bin Ghulam Murtaza of Qadian.
"If, as you believe, Prophet Isa bin Mariam has died and is not to come again, then all the writings of Muslim scholars in this respect would be worthless: you cannot fasten them on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani who surely was not born before the Holy Prophet, and who was not born without father and whose mother was Chiragh bibi and, not Mariam bint Imran.
Look at in this way. Either the writings of these scholars about re-coming of Prophet Isa (a.s.) are correct or are wrong. If they are correct, then they refer to Isa bin Mariam, not to Ghulam Ahmad bin Ghulam Murtaza. And if these writings are wrong, then how can you prove your ideas with a wrong assertion? Frankly speaking, this twisting of the writings of scholars cannot do you any good.
"Moreover, why do you say that no Sahib ash-Shari’ah prophet can come after the Holy Prophet of Islam?" According to your interpretations, there is nothing in the Qur'an to prove that the Holy Prophet of Islam was the Last Prophet; Khatam un-Nabiyyin means just a "seal of the Prophets" or "the supreme most prophet", and shows just the supremacy of the Holy Prophet over all the other prophets, Sahib ash-Shari’ah and non Sahib ash-Shari’ah alike; La Nabiyya Ba'adi means only that no Sahib ash-Shari’ah prophet will come afterwards.
Alright, what is the trouble if a Sahib ash-Shari’ah Nabi, like Prophet Moses (a.s.), comes after the Holy Prophet and whose grade is below that of the Holy Prophet?
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani wrote in several places that "is it not ridiculous to think that in this Ummah Siddiqs, Martyrs, and Pious people will come but no prophet will come? Well, is not prophethood a grace of Allah? Why this grace should be withdrawn from this Ummah which was to be the best of all Ummahs?"
Well, now tell me: Why a Sahib ash-Shari’ah prophet should not come into this Ummah? Is not Sahib ash-Shari’ah prophethood more perfect than the prophethood without a new Shari'ah? Why this superior grace of Allah' has been withheld from this Ummah?"
Once you say that Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) was not the Last Prophet, you cannot say that a Sahib ash-Shari’ah prophet cannot come into this Ummah."
And following your trend of thinking, the idol-worshippers may easily say: 'La Illah IllAllah', does not mean that there is no other god. It just means that there are many other gods, but they're under Allah, their god ship is inferior to Allah; and their inferior god ship is not against the belief in the Unity of God, because these gods are only His followers."
Qadiani also claim that Sheikh Muhyiddin Ibn al-‘Arabi of Spain has said that 'it is possible for a Muslim saint (Wali) to attain in his spiritual evolution prophetic revelations.' Before going further it's necessary to remind the Qadianis that Sheikh Muhyiddin Ibn al-‘Arabi was a believer in 'Wahdat-ul-wujud' (The Unity of Being): he believed that everything is He (i.e., God).
This belief has been termed by Muslim theologians as the biggest paganism, which turns even a dog and pig into a deity. And the second Caliph of the Qadianis, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, said in his Khutba (sermon) of Friday, printed in the Al-Fazl, dated 20th October,1925 (Vo1.13, No.46) about Ibn al-‘Arabi that 'his knowledge was not complete; therefore, Ibn al-‘Arabi went out to the (belief of) Wahdat-ul-wujud.'
Now, is it not astonishing that they want to base their faith on the alleged views of a man whose knowledge was not complete!
Coming to the views of the said Sheikh Muhyiddin Ibn al-‘Arabi, we may quote from 'Islam and Ahmadism' of Dr. Iqbal. It .should he noted that; Tasawwuf' (Mysticism) was the special subject of Dr. Iqbal.
He writes:"I personally believe this view of the Sheikh Muhyiddin Ibn al-‘Arabi to be psychologically unsound; but assuming it to be correct to Qadiani argument is based on a complete misunderstanding of his position. The Sheikh regards it as a purely private achievement which does not, and in the nature of things cannot, entitle such a saint to declare that all those who do not believe in him are outside the pale of Islam. Indeed, from the Sheikh's point of view there may be more than one saint, living in the same age or country, who may attain to prophetic consciousness.
"The point to be realized is that while it is psychologically possible for a saint to attain to prophetic experience his experience will have no social-political significance making him the center of a new organization and entitling him to declare this organization to be the criterion of the faith or disbelief of the followers of Muhammad.
"Leaving his mystical psychology aside, I am convinced from a careful study of the relevant passages of the Futuhat that the great Spanish mystic is as firm a believer in the Finality of Muhammad as any orthodox Muslim. And if he had seen in his mystical vision that one day in the East some Indian amateur in Sufism would seek to destroy the Holy Prophet's Finality under cover of his mystical psychology, he would have certainly anticipated the Indian Ulema (Muslim scholars) in warning the Muslims of the world against such traitors to Islam."
To make Dr. Iqbal's meaning clear, here are some quotations from the Sufis' books. Sheikh Abdul-Wahhab Sha'arani writes in his 'Al-Yawaqit wal-Jawahir' (p.25 ):
"The difference between them (i.e., Nabi and Rasul) is that the Nabi, when the Spirit (i.e., angel) reveals to him anything, the Nabi keeps that revelation to himself reservedly and he is forbidden to convey that (revelation) to another person." And if he is told to "convey what is sent to you" [either to a special group, as was the case with all the prophets; or to one and all - and this universal prophethood was not given to anyone except Muhammad (S)]. He is called Rusul.
" So if he is not given any such order which is to his own self only (not meant for the Ummah) he is called "Rasul" not "Nabi". And that is the"Tashree'i" prophethood which is not for the "Walis" (saints)."
Thus it is clear that in the language of the Sufis even a Wali is supposed to receive the revelations from God and he is called 'Nabi'; but he is absolutely forbidden to convey that revelation to others. Also, it is clear that all the prophets whom the Muslims call "Nabi", irrespective of whether they brought any new Shari'ah or not (i.e., Sahib ash-Shari’ah and Ghair Sahib ash-Shari’ah both), are called "Rasul" in Sufi terminology, because those prophets were told by Allah to convey the revelations to their Ummah.
It is because of this terminology, which gathers all the prophets under the heading "Rasul" and all the Awliya under the heading "Nabi" that the Sufis of Islam said that the Holy Prophet of Islam closed 'Sahib ash-Shari’ah' prophethood (which term includes all the "prophets" of common Muslim terminology).
But as Dr. Iqbal points out, the "Wali" who according to the Sufis claim, receives revelation is expressly forbidden to call anyone to his fold or to start any new religious group.
How can this fit on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani who surely called people to believe in him and started a new Ummah?
Sheikh Muhyiddin Ibn al-‘Arabi al-Andalusi has clearly written in Al-Futuhat-ul-Makkiya, using the common terminology:
"The specialty which is found in a Nabi, and not in a Wali is the revelation bringing a new Shari'ah, Because the revelation of Shari'ah is not, but for the Nabi and Rasul."
Thus he claims the revelations for the Awliya’ (saints) after the Holy Prophet of Islam, but that revelation does not entitle that Wali to call people to himself, or to convey that revelation to others.
Also, as there may be hundreds of Wali" (Awliya’ in one time, the Sufis writings cannot fit on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani who claimed that no one but he himself can become a prophet after Muhammad.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani thought that a new Nubuwwah (Prophethood) would be a Grace of Allah for this Ummah. But in fact such a Nubuwwah would be opposite of Grace; it would be a Curse. How?
Whenever a Nabi would come in an Ummah, there would automatically argue the question of 'Kufr' (blasphemy) and Iman (faith). Those who will believe in him will become the Ummah; those who will reject his claim will be counted another Ummah.
And the difference between these two Ummahs will not be of an unimportant 'branch' of religion. It will be such a basic difference which will not allow them to unite until one of them leaves its faith and accepts the faith of the other Ummah. Further, the sources of guidance and the references of Shari'ah, for all practical purposes will be quite separate for each of these two Ummahs.
Because one group will take its Shari'ah from the revelation and tradition of the new Nabi; and the other group will totally refute the validity and, authenticity of that supposed revelation and tradition, and will not accept them as the source of Shari'ah. Thus practically, it will be impossible for these two groups to unite in one society.
If we look from this angle, it will be clear that the 'Finality' of the prophethood is one of the greatest mercies of Allah upon this Ummah. Because of this Finality of the prophethood, this Ummah has remained an eternal and universal brotherhood which is unparalleled in the annals of religion and civilizations. This Finality of Prophethood has protected the Muslims from every such basic difference which creates a permanent rift amongst them.
Anybody who believes in Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) becomes a member of the brotherhood. This unity could never be achieved if the door of Nubuwwah was not closed, because on the arrival of every new Nabi, this unity would have been shattered to the pieces.
If a man thinks with clear mind he will have to accept that when a Nabi has already been, sent for the' whole world, and when through that Nabi the religion is completed perfectly, and when the directions of that Nabi are preserved, protected completely, then the door of the Nubuwwah must be closed, so that the whole world can unite together by following that prophet and can become one Ummah of the believer which is not to be interfered every now and then with the advent of new prophets.
This interference in the unity was understandable when there was really a need to send a prophet, then it is against the wisdom and mercy of Allah to create unnecessary friction amongst the Ummah of Islam.
Thus it is clear that the Seal of the Prophethood which is proved from the Qur'an, is proved from the traditions of the Holy Prophet, is proved from the unanimity of the whole Ummah, is also proved by the intellect and wisdom.
Thus, Qur'an, Sunah, Ijma'a, and Aql; all four basic foundations of Shari'ah and Iman demand that the door of Nubuwwah must remain closed for ever after the advent of the Holy Prophet of Islam.
There is a very simple and interesting question which the Qadianis should ponder upon. Everybody accepts that the question of prophethood is a very serious question. According to the Qur'an, it is in those basic tenets of Islam upon which depends the true belief or the Kufr of a man. If a certain man is a true prophet and one does not accept him one becomes Kafir. On the other hand, if that claimant is not a prophet and someone accepts him as a true prophet he becomes Kafir.
Nobody can think that Allah Ta’ala would behave carelessly and off-handedly in such a serious matter. If there was a Nabi to come after Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) Allah should nay must, have made the Holy Prophet announce it very clearly in his sayings; and the Holy Prophet of Islam (S) could not have left this world without warning his Ummah in unambiguous terms that there was a prophet to come after him and the Ummah of Islam must accept him.
Naturally Allah and His Prophet had no enmity against the followers of Islam, against us and against our faith; that though the door of Nubuwwah was to remain open after Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S), though there was a Nabi to come after him, still we were kept unaware of that event and that advent. On the contrary; Allah and His Prophet both uttered such sayings which led the whole Ummah, without any sectarian difference and without any exception, to the belief, for fourteen hundred years, that there was no Nabi to come after Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S).
If the door of Nubuwwah is really open, and if a Nabi comes truly from God, still we will refute his claim, we will reject his prophethood without any hesitation, without any fear of reprisal Allah.
When Allah, on the Day of Judgment, will take our account and will ask us why we rejected the prophet sent after Muhammad, we will put the whole record of Qur'an and traditions before Him, and we will say that if we went astray it was because of the book of Allah and traditions of His Rasul. And after the presentation of these records, we are sure Allah cannot mete any punishment to us, because of rejecting a new prophet.
But if the door of Nubuwwah is in fact closed after Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) and still some one, believes in the claim of a claimant of a new Nubuwwah, he should think beforehand what record will he put in the court of Allah on the Day of Judgment when he will be asked as why did he believe in an imposter when Allah in the Qur'an and Rasul in His traditions had clearly declared several times in different wordings that there was no Nabi to come after Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S).
We have just seen that in the context of the Qur'an and according to traditions, according to Ijma'a and according to Reason, the only meaning of "Khatamun-Nabiyyin" which is relevant is 'The Last of The Prophets', 'One who closed the prophethood. Now let us see what the dictionaries say about 'Khatam' or. 'Khatm'.
ختم العمل = (Khatam al-amal) = He finished the, work given to him.
ختم الاناء = (Khatam al-ina'a) = He sealed the mouth of pot (so that nothing comes out of it and nothing enters into it).
ختم الكتاب = (Khatam al-Kitab) = Closed the envelope and sealed it (so that nothing is added into the letter or put into the envelope).
It must be mentioned here that 'seal' in Arabic does not mean the cancellation stamp of post offices which are put on the postal articles before sending them onward. It means the seal of wax which is put on the envelopes to protect it from forgery or additions.
ختم على القلب = (Khatama alal qalb) = He put a seal on the heart (so that no new idea enters into it and no old prejudice is removed from it).
ختام كل مشروب = (Khitamu kulle mashrub) = The last taste felt at the end of a drink.
ختامة كل شيء = (Khatematu kulle shay) = End of everything; and its finish.
ختم الشيء = (Khatamash shay) = To 'khatm' a thing means to come at the end of that thing. And it is in this sense that we use the word 'Khatm ul-Qur'an', i.e., to read the Qur'an up to its end. Also it is for this reason that the last verses of each Sura are called (خواتيم) 'Khawateem'.
ختم القوم = Khatam ul- Qawm = The last man of the tribe or nation.
These meanings are given in all the authentic dictionaries of Arabic language.
The Qadianis say that if someone is said to be 'Khatam ush-Shu'ara' or 'Khatam ul-Mufassireen' or 'Khatam ul-Fuqaha', nobody thinks that after that person no other poet or Faqeeh (religious jurisprudent) or Mufassir (commentator) was born. Everybody thinks that it means that the said person was the most expert in that field of knowledge.
These people forget that if a word is sometimes used metaphorically (in fill allegorical sense) that metaphorical use does not deprive it of its real meaning. If, for example, the word 'Lion' is sometimes used for a brave man, it does not mean that this word cannot be used for the animal, for which it was coined.
Such arguments show the hollowness of their minds and bankruptcy of their thinking. Even if one thousand persons are called 'Khatam ul-Mufassireen' (in the sense of 'the most perfect Mufassir') the real meaning of the word 'Khatam' would remain the same i.e., The Last.
A sample of Qadianis miscomprehension of subject matter may be seen in the following sentence of their Chief Missionary in Tanzania, Sheikh Muhammad Munawwar H.A.
It should be borne in mind that being 'last' of a group of people is no distinction in itself. Sir Richard Turnbull was the last governor of Tanganyika. Does this add to his status as a governor or indicates his superiority over the late Twining?" (A lively Discussion).
He does not pause to think that the Nubuwwah of Prophet Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) is not like governorship of Sir Richard Turnbull. Sir Richard Tumbull was the last governor because the British rule came to an end with him. And a national government ousted him and his masters from the soil of Tanganyika. Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) is the Last Prophet because his prophethood is not to be usurped by any impostor; he is the last prophet because his 'rule' will continue up to Qiyamah; and no one coming after him can use his title and name for himself.
To talk in Sheikh Muhammad Munawwar's language, if Sir Richard Turnbull's governorship were to continue up to the last day of the world, and all representatives of the British crown coming after him were obliged to keep his 'Chair' vacant for him, and not to use the Title of Governor for the themselves but just to sign as the 'Leader of the government', would it not have been a tremendous tribute to Sir Richard Turnbull?
The Qadiani Missionary had written to me:
"Imam Suyuti and Imam Ibn Athil' Al-Jazari were given the title of 'Khatam ul-Huffuz' (The Last of those who remembered traditions); likewise, Abu Tammam at-Tai has been described as ' Khatam ush-Shu'ara' (The Last Poet). Can it be said that there was no 'Hafiz' after Imam Suyuti or Imam Jazari, or no poet after Abu Tammam at Tai?"
I asked him: First of all have those phrases been used in the Qur'an or tradition? As I told you earlier, the phrase 'Khatam un-Nabiyyin' was never used in Arabic before Qur'an; and that the Qur'an has used it for the first time. Thus, the meaning given to this phrase by the Holy Prophet is its real meaning.
If someone else uses such phrases in some other allegorical sense, it does not make that allegory its real meaning. For example, "moon" has a real meaning which all of us know. If someone uses the word 'moon' for the face of a beautiful person it does not mean that 'beautiful face' is the real meaning of 'moon' or that it cannot be used for the terrestrial object for which it was made.
Thirdly, these references, in fact, show the writer's thought (though wrong) that Imam Suyuti (for example) was the last Hafiz. It was their mistaken idea, which has been proved wrong. And no wonder. Those writers did not know what was in future. But can you suppose that Allah also did not know the future when He said that Muhammad (S) was the Last of the Prophets? How can you compare the words of Allah with the writings of some mortals?
At the most you can say that those writers were wrong in believing that the person concerned was the last Hafiz or the last poet. But you cannot change the real meaning of 'Khatam un-Nabiyyin' to make their writings correct.
If you tell an Arab 'Ja'a Khatam ul-Qawm " he will never understand that the most learned man of the tribe has reached; he will always think that the whole tribe has arrived, till the last man.
It is because of this that every writer of the dictionary; and every commentator of the Qur'an, without any exception has written that 'Khatam un-Nabiyyin' means 'Akhir un-Nabiyyin', the Last of the Prophets.
If you look impartially at these proofs from the Qur'an, tradition, dictionary and language, you will have to agree that the Holy Prophet of Islam was the Last Prophet and prophethood ended with him. No prophet will ever come after him up to the day of Qiyamah; and anybody claiming to be a prophet would be an impostor.
The Qadiani missionary had written to me; "There is a tradition in Tafseer Safi (Sura Al Ahzab, Ruku 2) that the Holy Prophet said to Imam Ali: "O Ali, I am Khatam ul-Anbiya’ and you are Khatam ul-Awliya’". Now can anybody say that Imam Ali was the last Wali and no other Wali can come after him?"
I wrote to him: This supposed tradition quoted from Tafseer Safi is not only without any Sanad (chain of narrators) but also it cannot be found in any other book of tradition.
On the other hand, there are some traditions in the books written by the Sunnis as well as the Shias which describe Imam Ali (a.s.) as "Khatam ul-Ausiya’" or "Khatam ul-Wasiyyin" (The Last of the successors of the Prophets). Here are two of the said traditions:
1. Sheikh Suleman al-Balakhi al-Qanduzi, al-Hanafi wrote his book 'Yanabi-ul-Mawaddah' by order of Sultan Abdul-Aziz, the Turkish Caliph of the Sunnis; the book was published under the authority of the Turkish Caliphate in Istanbul, in 1301 Hijra. He quotes in the said book:
"Likewise, Al-Hamwaini has narrated the tradition from Abu Dhar that he said that the Holy Prophet (S) said, 'I am Khatam un-Nabiyyin and you, O Ali, are Khatam ul-Wasiyyin up to the day of Judgment".
2. Ubaidullah Amritsari quotes in his hook, Arjahul-Matalib1, a long tradition from Anas, in which the Holy Prophet (S) described Imam Ali (a.s.) as "Amir-ul-Mu'mineen wa Sayyid ul-Muslimeen wa Khatam ul-Wasiyyin wa Imam ul-Ghurril-Muhajjaleen".
This tradition has been quoted from Ibn Mardwaih. It shows that Imam Ali (a.s.) was "The Commander of the Faithful, Chief of the Muslims; and the Last of Successors (of the Prophets) and the Leader of those who will come on the Day of Judgment with shining faces and illuminated hands and feet".
In fact, these traditions are one more proof of the Finality of the Prophethood. Imam Ali (a.s.) was "the Last of the Successors of the Prophets", because there was no other prophet to come after the Last of the Prophets Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) up to the Day of Qiyamah (Resurrection). Had there been any other awaited prophet, Ali (a.s.) could not have been described as the Last or the Successors of the Prophets.
So you see, the correct tradition is not for you; it is against your belief. Now it appears that some scribes made a mistake in copying Manaqib (from where this tradition has been taken in Safi) and wrote Khatam ul-Awliya’ in place of Khatam ul-Awsiya’. That is why you cannot find this tradition in any other book of traditions, except Manaqib or where it has been quoted from Manaqib. It is one more sign of the weakness of your cause that you have to clutch to such misquoted or wrong traditions!
Qadianis say: "In the book "Kanz ul-Ummal", Vol. 6, p.178, Seyyidana Abbas (uncle of the Holy Prophet (S) has been called "Khatam ul-Muhajireen". Does it mean that he was the Last Muhajir (emigrant)?"
Fact: Yes. He was in fact the Last Muhajir. You must understand that Al-Muhajireen and Al Ansar mentioned in the Qur'an and tradition have a special meaning. In other words, they are special terms. The word ' Al-Muhajireen ' is used only for those who in the earlier days of hardship of Islam left their towns and migrated either to Ethiopia or Medina. And 'Ansar' is used only for those inhabitants of Medina who helped the Holy Prophet (S) and the Al-Muhajireen in those days.
Hijrat (emigration) was discontinued after Holy Prophet entered Mecca in the year 8 of Hijra. Before surrender of Mecca the Muslims of Mecca and other places were required to do Bay'at (allegiance) on Islam and Hijrat. After the surrender of Mecca, Mujalid bin Mas'ud accepted Islam and wanted to do Bay'at on Islam and Hijrat, as was the system.
But the Holy Prophet (S) said: "There is no Hijrat after the capture of Mecca", and Mujalid did Bay'at on Islam only. (See Bukhari Vol. 4, p.92).
Therefore; Abbas was in fact the Last of Al-Muhajireen who left their town for Medina as the word is used in the Qur'an.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar writes about Abbas in his book Al-Isaba Fi Ma'arifatis sahaba (Vol. 3, p.668): "He did Hijrat shortly before capture of Mecca and participated in that capture."
History says that Abbas together with his family left Mecca for Medina; but met the Holy Prophet (S) in the way at Juhfa or Rabigh (who was going to capture Mecca with his army). There upon. Abbas sent his family to Medina and accompanied the Holy Prophet to Mecca.
Naturally when heard the Holy Prophet (S) saying that "there was no Hijrat after capture of Mecca", he was perturbed that perhaps he would not be counted among the Muhajireen. You see Hijrat was being abolished just alter his migration from Mecca, and he had not yet reached Medina before that declaration. When the Holy Prophet (S) came to know of his anxiety he told him not to worry, because he was "the Last Muhajir".
"Do not worry, O uncle, because thou art the last of the Muhajireen".
I know that, according to the dictionary, anybody migrating from one place and going to another may be called 'Muhajir? But he will not be among the 'Al-Muhajireen' of the Qur'an. Likewise anybody conveying the message of one man to another may be called 'Rasul'. But he will not be the 'Rasul' of Allah according to the Qur'an. And anybody bringing a news can be called 'Nabi', but he will not be the 'Nabi' of Qur'an.
Just to show how your argument has no leg to stand, I would like you to tell me how will you interpret the phrase 'Khatam ul- Muhajireen?
Does it mean "Superior to all the Muhajirs"? Impossible, because Abbas was never considered superior to Ali (a.s.), Hamza and many other Muhajirs.
Or does it mean "Seal of the Muhajirs?" If so then does it mean that other people became Muhajir by the seal of Abbas? Or does it mean that he was confirming the Hijrat of other Muhajirs?
Surely, none of these meaning can fit here, except the "Last Muhajir". 'Thus, it is clear that Abbas was called "Khatam ul-Muhajireen" because he was "The Last Muhajir".
Qadiani say: "In chapter 61 (As-Saff) verse 6 prophecy has been made of the advent of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad; and verses 8-10 describe the promise which was given to him."
Facts: This writing is most interesting. Verse 6 is as follows:
And its meaning, according to their English translation, is as follows:
"And remember when Jesus, son of Mary, said, o children of Israel, surely I am Allah's Messenger unto you fulfilling that which is before me of Torah, and giving glad tidings of e. Messenger who will come after me. His name will be Ahmad. And when he came to them with clear proofs they said, 'This is clear enchantment"'.
The translatory of the Qadiani Swahili translation have rendered the word "Sih'r" as "udanganyifu" which means 'cheating'. But the correct translation of "Sihr" is 'magic'· or 'witch-craft', not 'cheating'.
This twisting of the words of the Qur'an has been done intentionally because Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was never called a 'magician' or 'Sihir' for the simple reason that he never showed any extraordinary sign or miracle which could be attributed to 'magic' or 'witch-craft' Of course, he was and is, branded a 'cheater': and that is why their translators have twisted the Swahili meaning of the verse, to 'This is clear cheating! Now we come to the verse itself.
Ahmad was the name of the Holy Prophet (S) of Islam. He himself told that one of his names was "Ahmad"; people during the days of Sahaba referred to him as "Ahmad" in their poems; children were named "Ahmad" after him in the same period; and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani himself said that his followers should be called "Ahmadi" after the name of the Holy Prophet (S) of Islam who had two names Muhammad and Ahmad.
1. Jubair bin Mut'im said that the Holy Prophet (S) said; "I have five names, I am Muhammad, and I am Ahmad…… "
This tradition has been narrated by Imam Bukhari. Imam Muslim, Imam Malik and Imam Tirmizi in their books (all from Sihah as-Sitta).
2. Abu Musa Ash'ari said: The Holy Prophet (S) used to enumerate for us his names; thus he said, "I am Muhammad, and I am Ahmad ………"
This tradition is narrated in Sahih-e-Muslim, Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal and Musnad of Al Bazzar.
3. Also it is narrated: The Holy Prophet (S) said: "Verily I was the Khatamun-Nabiyyin in the presence of Allah when Adam was in the form of the molded clay; and I am telling you its interpretation: (I am) the prayer of Abraham and good tidings of Jesus and the dream of my mother which she was shown ………."
This tradition is written in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Al-Mu'jam-ul-Kabir of Tabarani and Musnad of Al-Bazzar.
And the meaning of the phrase (good tidings of Jesus) is the same verse which the Qadianis shamelessly try to fit on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani.
4. Also, he said: "Abraham prayed for me and Jesus brought my good tidings and my mother saw at the time of my birth a light which brightened for her all between east and west".1
5. Other traditions of the same meaning have been narrated in Mishkatul-Masabih.
6. The Holy Prophet (S) said: "My name in the Qur'an is Muhammad; and in Evangel is Ahmad."
Here are some of the poetries of the Sahaba of the Holy Prophet (S) in which the Holy Prophet (S) has been mentioned as Ahmad:
Imam Ali bin Ahmad al-Wahidi has narrated from Abu Huraira who said...............Then Ali said: "Listen to me." Then he recited telling:
"People surely know that my share in the Islam is much greater than all shares; and Ahmad the Prophet (S) is my brother and father in law and cousin, May Allah bless him".
This tradition is narrated by Qadhi Maybadhi Shafei and Sheikh Al-Qanduzi Hanafi from Imam Wahidi, (Vide Yanabiul-Mawaddah. p.68).
(b) Imam Ali (a.s.), during the days of his Caliphate said, condemning some of the allegations of his enemies:
"Lo, I heard an evil talk, which is a lie on Allah and which turns the color of hair into white; which enters into the ears and covers the eye. Ahmad would not have been pleased if he were informed of it".
Al-Imamah was'siyasah (Vol.I, p.84); Kitab ussiffin of Ibn Muzahim, p.24; Sharh-Ibn Abil Hadid (Vol.2, p.69). .
(c) Amr bin ‘As, before accepting Islam, was one of the greatest enemies of Islam. In those days, he boasted of that enmity. It was in that connection that he said about himself:
"And (I am) the enemy of Ahmad from among them; and am the most out-spoken person, against him" (Tazkira Sibt Ibn Jawzi, p.16; Sharh Ibn Abil Hadid Vol.6, p.292; Jamharatul-Khutub, Vo1.2, p.12).
(d) Hassan bin Thabit Ansari, the famous poet of the Holy Prophet (S) said,
"There are forever from the family of Hashim the· unassailable pillars, of strength in Islam and its pride. The virtuous chiefs, among whom is Ja'afar and his brother Ali (a.s.) and from them is Ahmad, the chosen one". (Al-Iqdul-Farid of lbnu Abde Rahbih Al-Undulusi, Vol.5, p.380, printed in Egypt).
(c.) Name: People from the beginning used to name their children Ahmad after the name of the Holy Prophet (S). For example, Imam Hassan, the grandson of the Holy Prophet (S), (died 50 A.H.) had named one of his sons 'Ahmad'. (Bihar-ul-Anwar, Vol.10).
(d) And Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself writes:
And Ahmad is that name of the Holy Prophet (S) which was mentioned by Prophet Jesus:
"will come after me, his name is Ahmad". The word
'After Me' shows that prophet would come after me without any gap, i.e., no other prophet would come between me and him". (Kitab Malfuzate·Ahmad, i.e., Diary 1901 pp. 4 and 5. Akhbar Al-Hakam dated 31/1/1901).
Ponder seriously upon the italicized sentence which is a complete proof in itself.
Thus Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself accepts that this verse is the prophecy of our Holy Prophet (S), who was to come after Prophet Jesus (a.s.)
"without gap". Remember that this is the qualification of the Holy Prophet (S) of Islam and not of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani.
(e) Again he writes:
"And this sect has been named Ahmadiyya because our Prophet (peace be on him) had two names; 1. Mohammad (S) and 2. Ahmad (S)" (Ishtihar Wajibul Izhar, 4/11/1900).
(f) Again he writes:
"You have heard that our Prophet (S) had two names One, Mohammad (S) and this name is written in Torah the second name is Ahmad (S) and this name is in Evangel….... As appears from this verse:
"And giving good tidings of a Messenger who will come after me whose name is Ahmad". (Arbain No.4, p.13).
(g) And the name of your prophet was Ghulam Ahmad, not Ahmad. And he himself has written its meaning as 'slave of Ahmad', as will appear in these writings:
"Because the Christian missionaries turned Jesus, son of Mary, into god and abused our Chief, Maula and real Shafi (i.e., the Holy Prophet Muhammad S.) and made the earth unclean by abusive books, therefore, in contrast to that Messiah who was called god, God sent in this Ummah a promised Messiah who is far greater in all his glories than the first Messiah (i.e. Prophet Jesus a.s.) and He (i.e., God) named this second, Messiah "Ghulam Ahmad", so that it may be a sign that what type of god was the Messiah of the Christians who cannot compete with even a 'humble slave of Ahmad'. I mean, how is that Messiah who is inferior 'to the 'slave of Ahmad' in his nearness and Shifa'at."
"The Christians were proclaiming loudly that the Messiah also is unique without any partner in his nearness and honor. Now God shows that, 'look, I will create his second who is better than him; (and) who is 'Ghulam Ahmad' i.e., slave of Ahmad'.
If you want to know the true meaning of; trying to extinguish the light of Allah by the puff of mouth look at the Qadianis' attempts which if successful would mean that the Holy Prophet (God forbid) wrongly claimed to be Ahmad!
It is really surprising to see the Qadianis ignoring the meaning of "Ghulam Ahmad" which the holder of the name himself reiterates repeatedly, especially so when that holder is also their prophet. To prove their own view (and, in the process, refuting the meaning given by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani himself) they argue that "Ghulam Ahmad" has no vowel of "possession". Had it been Arabic, it, should have been "Ghulam-o-Ahmad";
or if Persian, then it should have been "Ghulam-e-Ahmad'.
All right, let us talk to them in their own way. It is Persian combination and in Persian language, many possessive phrases whose first part denotes some kind of relation (like 'bin' - son - , 'pisar' - son -, 'saheb' - owner or companion) are used without the possessive vowel. This system is called 'Fakk-e-Izzafat (i.e., omission of possessive vowel).
Examples are: Saheb-dil, Pidar-zan, Pisar-Am, etc. This happens because of the frequency of use. Likewise, because of frequent use, the possessive vowel in such names as "Ghulam Ahmad" is omitted, but the meaning remains the same. Ask anyone having a name like "Ghulam Rasul" or "Ghulam Husain" and he will at once say that his name means "slave of the Prophet" or "slave of Husain".
The Qadiani Missionary wrote: If you have any doubt about Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadianis claim, then show us a single example, since Prophet Adam up to the death of the Holy Prophet of Islam, of such' a man who claimed wrongly to be a prophet and whose claim had been successful. If wrong claimants .of prophethood may succeed then what is the difference between a, genuine prophet and an impostor?
Qur'an says in chapter al-Haqqah , 69, verses 45 to 47:
"If (our Apostle Muhammad S.) had fabricated against us any of the sayings certainly would we have seized him by the right hand; then certainly would we have cut off his aorta".
My Reply: This verse means that those who have been commissioned by God cannot but deliver whatever they are charged with, and God never allows them to forge anything of their own on His behalf.
But it does not mean that the impostors or the self-appointed prophets who falsely claim to have been sent by God must perish because there is no need to expose them. Their ridiculous claims, like those of Bahaullah, or their lack of miracles are enough to expose their falsity.
Perhaps you do not know, but it is the accepted belief of all the sects Sunni and Shia alike, that the only distinctions between true and false prophets are:
l. The standard of their teachings - true prophets taught high morals while false ones gave latitude to their followers;
2. Miracles - which appeared on the hands of the true prophets and not on those of false ones;
3. the Ismat (sinlessness infallibility).
And the Holy Qur’an itself shows in various verses that those who fabricate lies against Allah may get some enjoyment in this world; and that their punishment 'is in Qiyamah. See for example:
"Say, those who invent a lie against Allah will not prosper; some enjoyment in this world; and then to Us will be their return. Then shall We make them taste the severest penalty for their blasphemies". (Qur’an, 10:69·70)
There never was any standard of the length of life or the success or failure of his mission. It is just an arbitrary standard invented by your Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani who wrote that:
"Since the beginning of the world there never was any example of even a single person who got, '23 years like our chief the Holy Prophet (S) and who was wrong in his claim of getting revelation from God…. If you find a person, who claims, to be sent by God and if it is proved that 23 years had passed since the claim of receiving the revelation from God.......... then you should believe that he is from God".
This self-invented standard of the truth or falsity of the claim of prophethood is very amusing. Let us suppose, a man heard our Holy Prophet (S) proclaiming his prophethood in the beginning and said that he would wait 23 years to see whether Muhammad survived that period or not, do you think he would have been excused and pardoned by God? And what if he himself died during the life-time of the Holy Prophet without accepting Islam? What a rubbish!
And remember that many true prophets had been 'killed within one, two or three years of their prophethood. What would have been the position if someone, during the prophethood of Prophet Yahya (John), refused to believe in him, saying that as he did not live 23 years he was, God forbid, a liar".
And also some impostors have lived more than 23 years after their claims. Why make a condition from Adam' up to the Holy Prophet"? If it is a Divine criterion, It would remain true ever after the Holy Prophet of Islam. In fact, "after the Holy Prophet" would have been more appropriate, and a better period for checking, because now we know that no other religion is to come from God.
Still we see that many religions having no connection with Islam have appeared after the Holy Prophet and have prospered. For example, Sikh and Bahai religions. They themselves do not claim any affinity towards Islam and still they have prospered though the Muslims and Qadianis both agree that these religions are wrong.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints (Commonly known as Mormon Church) was founded by Joseph Smith in 1820 A.D., when he claimed to have received divine call for prophecy in the name of the Most High. He claimed to receive divine revelation written upon golden plates which he was able to translate. The first edition of the book of his revelation was printed in 1830.
His associate, Oliver Cowdery, also claimed to be ordained by angelic visitants. Smith was killed in 1844, i.e., 24 years after his claim; but his murder did not stop his Mission. His followers flourished in Utah and three adjoining states and the whole state of Utah is populated by them, and one of them was considered as a candidate for U.S.A. presidency in 1968.
They believe in the 'Book of Mormons' to be the 'Word of God', together with the Bible, just as the (Qadianis believe in Barahin-e-Ahmadiya and many other books of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani as the 'Word of God together with the Qur'an.
Thus Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet, as Mirza Qadiani did; he published his revelation, as Mirza Qadiani did; he established a line of prophets as Mirza Qadiani established a line of Caliphs; and his sect is flourishing to such an extent that is beyond the dreams of the Qadianis till this day; and what is more, he was given more than 23 years to live after that claim, which Mirza Saheb was not given.
Now, I wonder what new excuses the Qadianis will invent to overcome this insurmountable difficulty. Will they say that Mormon Church is from God, so as to maintain the accuracy of the self-invented standard of Mirza Qadiani?
It would be Interesting to you that your Mirza Qadiani had declared in Arbain (No. 3) in two places (p.9; pp.29-30) that God had promised him that he would live 80 years or 2 or 4 years more or less. It means that he was promised to live not less than 76 years and not more than 84 years.
And also he wrote in the same book that God had promised to him to protect him from every 'Khabith' (Dirty) disease. (Arbain No.3, p,9)
The book quoted above is in my library and you are welcome to see it any time.
Well, now let us look at the facts and compare them with these claims:
(1) Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani was born in 1339 or 1840 A.D. and died on 26th May, 1908 A.D. 'It means that his claim of God's promise (80 years or 2 or 4 years more or less) was wrong. As he had made this age of 76 to 84 years as a sign of his truth, his death at the age of 68 years proves him an imposter by his own words."
(2) Up to 1901 A.D. many times he declared that his claim by the word 'prophethood' was not the 'prophethood' as 'understood by the Muslim); but that it's real meaning was 'Muhaddath':
"In the books of this humble man (i.e., Mirza Qadiani himself), - Fat'hul-Islam, Tawzihul-Maram, and Izala-e·Awham - all such words "Muhaddath is a Nabi in one meaning", or " Muhaddathiyyat is a partial Nubuwwah" or " Muhaddathiyyat is an imperfect Nubuwwah" are not used in its true meaning. In my simplicity, I have used them in their literal meaning. Never do I claim the real, Nubuwwah……. Therefore, I want to explain to my Muslim brothers that if they are angry because of these words they should treat them as amended and should read them as ' Muhaddath'……
"My intention, from the beginning as God knows very well, with this word 'Nabi' was not the real 'Nubuwwah', but only ' Muhaddath' which has been· interpreted by the Holy Prophet as 'Mukallam' (with whom angels talk) as he said about Muhaddath: 'There were before you in Bani Israel men who were talked to (by the angels) without them being prophets".
(Ishtihar of Mirza Qadiani, given in Tabligh-e-Risalat, Vol.2, p.95, as quoted in 'Qadiani Mazhab ka Ilmi Muhasiba of Ilyas Barni).
This advertisement was published by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani on 3rd February, 1892, when he was defeated in a 3-day religious discussion (Munazirah) with Muslim scholars.
In the long history of religions, he finds only two claimants of divine revelations who wrote such confessions (or 'resignation') declaring that their claims stood amended -- in other words the original claims were wrong: First, Mirza Ali Mohammad, the founder of Babi; second, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, founder of .the Qadiani religion.
Now, the Qadianis say that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad never said that he was not a Nabi (Prophet). Mr. Abul-Ata Jalandhari, late principal of Jameatul-Mubashslmin, Rabwa, writes in his book 'Tafheemat-e-Rabbaniyya' (pp.44-45; 2nd edition, 1964).
"Yes, he (i.e., Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) did claim to be a 'Nabi' (Prophet) without new Shari'ah; and he never denied this claim, neither before 1901 nor after 1901. As he (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) has written:
"Wherever I have denied to be a prophet or apostle, it is only with this meaning that I am not a bringer of a new shari'ah independently, nor I am an independent 'Nabi'. But I have never denied prophethood in the meaning that, getting spiritual benefits' from my leader apostle, and being given his name for me, I have been given by Allah, through him, the knowledge of unseen, (and) am an apostle and prophet, but without any new Shari'ah. I have never denied to be called such a prophet; but Allah has called me prophet and apostle in this very meaning. (Ek Ghalati Ka Izala)"
First, read again his clear declaration that he was only a 'Muhaddath', and his explanation (in the words of the Holy Prophet of Islam) that 'Muhaddath' means "men who were talked to by the angels without them being 'Nabi' (prophet)".
Then look at this shameless assertion that "I have never denied prophethood in the meaning that …….. I am an apostle and prophet, but without a new Shari'ah."
Compare these two statements and there will be no need of any comment. There is Persian proverb: A liar has no memory.
He writes in his hook "Haqiqatun-Nubuwwah" (page 148-150): .
"The writings of Hudhur (a.s.) (i.e., Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani) of earlier times show that he is not a claimant of prophethood; but the writings and talks of later period prove that he was claiming prophethood.... ........ ........ Our research is that Prophet Masih Maw'ud (a.s.) changed his belief about the question of Nubuwwah about 1901 A.D."
It means that he was not claiming to be prophet till 1901.
Also, he has written that "the question of Nubuwwah became clear on him (Mirza Qadiani) in 1900 or 1901. He changed his belief in 1901. Therefore, all the references of before 1901 in which he had denied his prophethood are now abrogated (cancelled)".
Now, I would like to point out another 3 matters:
First, Allah says in the Qur'an:
"The Messenger (of Allah) believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord and the believers (also believed)". (Qur'an: 2:285)
What kind of the prophet was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani who according to his later claims was given prophethood since 1887 or near that time, and still he continued to disbelieve his own Nubuwwah for 14 years up to 1901? Have you heard anything like this in history or religions?
Second: Anyhow, he began his firm belief in his Nubuwwah in 1901. And he died in 1908. It means that, according to his own standard he was not given 23 years to live after the declaration of his claim, because he was a liar.
Third: He had claimed that God had promised to him to protect him from every Khabith (dirty) disease. But, the disease by which Mirza Qadiani died was cholera according to his own declaration.
This last declaration is found in the writing of Mir Nasir Saheb, father-in-law of Mirza Qadiani and one of his staunch followers. He writes:
"The night when Hadhrat sahib (i.e., Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani) fell ill, I had gone to sleep at my place. When the 'Takleef' (discomfort) increased on him, I was awakened. When I reached Hadhrat Saheb and saw his condition, he said addressing me: 'Mir Saheb, 'I have got epidemic cholera'. Then, so far as I know, he never talked so clearly till he died next day after 10 a.m.'"
(Hayat-e-Nasir, p.14; edited by Sheikh Yaqub Ali Irfani, Qadiani; as quoted in 'Qadiani Mazhab Ka Ilmi Muhasiba' of Professor Ilyas Berni).
Now, according to his own standard Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadianis claim of prophethood proves to be a lie, because God did not protect him from the 'Khabith" (dirty) disease.
The African Qadiani missionary had written to me:
"In the chapter 7 (Al-A'raf), verse 35 it is said, 'O Children of Adam, without doubt will come to you prophets from amongst yourselves, who will inform you of my signs'. It means that the prophets will continue to come without break".
Facts: These people have been misled by their wrong Swahili translation which is a glaring example of interpreting, the Qur'an according to one's own wish. The verse is:
This verse is one 'Conditional sentence' and their own English translation published under the auspices of their second caliph in Pakistan says:
"O Children of Adam, if Messengers came to you from among yourselves, rehearsing My signs unto you, then whoso shall fear God and do good deeds', on them shall come no fear nor shall they grieve".
But the Swahili translators have twisted its meaning to mislead African Muslims. I had written in his reply:
"Here I would like to inform you that 'Imma ' is made of 'In' the 'conditional conjunction' which is an extra addition and which gives the emphasis to the condition, i.e., subordinate clause must follow the principal clause. If any Qadiani is unaware of Arabic, he may see 'Teach Yourself Arabic', Lesson 28 (Conditional and Exceptic Sentences), where it is written follows the same rule as but is often followed by the energetic".
So, is a conditional conjunction which is often followed by energetic as is the case in this verse. But it is a Conditional sentence, not an informative one; "IF" the' condition is fulfilled then the 'Jaza' (subordinate clause) will happen. This statement in the story of Prophet Adam is written in three places in the Qur'an with the same "conditional 'Imma' and energetic or And I am quoting the translations of other two verses from your own translation.
The first verse is in chapter 2 (Al-Baqar'a) verse 38:
Its translation, according to the English translation is:
"We said: Go forth, all of you, from here. And if there comes to you guidance from Me, then whoso shall follow My guidance, on them shall come no fear, nor shall they grieve".
Mark the 'if' and 'then'. The Swahili translation is in conformity with it; and contains the words 'Kama' (If); and 'Basi' (then).
The second verse is in chapter 20 (Taha) verse 123:
The Qadiani English translation is as follows:
He said, 'Go forth, both of you, from here, some of you being enemies of others. And if there comes to you guidance from Me, then whoso will follow My guidance, he will not go astray, nor will he come to grief".
Again the same 'If' and 'Then '. And again in Swahili translation the same 'Kama' and 'Basi'.
The same narration has been repeated in that verse addressed to the "children of Adam". And doubtless after Prophet Adam countless prophets were sent to his children, and without any doubt and those who followed them were successful. But where does this verse say that 'without doubt' prophets will continue to be sent always till the Day of Judgment, and even after the Holy Prophet of Islam?
If you ponder upon these three translations you will have to ask yourself why the same wordings in the same event and same context have been translated in two different ways. Is it not a clear case of twisting the meaning of Qur'an to suit their own purpose? It is amusing to see the Qadiani translators of the Swahili translation trying to satisfy their guilty conscience by writing the following foot-note under this verse of the Holy Qur’an.
"This verse may also be translated as follows 'If (kama) Messengers came to you'. According to this translation, this verse would not show whether prophets may or may not have come. It will be just like the verse 37 of second chapter which says, 'if there comes. to you guidance from me' ……. The word 'Imma' is meant to show that if at any
time a messenger of Allah appears do not fail to accept him".
Also he had written:
"Chapter 4 (An-Nisa’) verse 69 says: "And whoso obeys Allah and this Messenger of His shall be among those on whom Allah has bestowed His blessings, namely, the Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs and the Righteous. And excellent companions are these."
Here also you have gone astray because of the wrong Swahili translation of the Qur'an prepared by your Mission. The word used in the verse is not (In) but which should be translated 'with'. Your translator has written instead 'among' which is wrong. 'To be with the prophets' does not mean 'to be prophet'; otherwise all the companions of the Holy Prophet would have become prophets, because they were with the Holy Prophet.
Or would you say that the companions were not 'obedient to Allah and His Messenger'?
To give another example: If a man lives 'with' his parents, does he become his own parent?
And even supposing that the translation is correct, how can this verse show that the prophethood is to be given to someone after Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S)?
What is the meaning of the continuity of Prophethood?
I would like you to ponder upon this question:
What do you mean by your belief of the "continuity of prophethood?" Does it mean that the world cannot remain for a single moment without a prophet? If so, then who was the prophet after the death of the Holy Prophet of Islam till Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani claimed to be a prophet?
Or does this belief mean that the world cannot remain for a single moment without a religion and Shari'ah brought by a prophet? If so, then of course the prophethood of Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) is continuing and will continue till the last day and there is no need of a new prophet.
The most blatant lie is the Qadianis' assertion that Tafseer Sufi says that Imam Mahdi (a.j.) is a Rasul. No such blasphemous idea can ever enter into the mind of any Shia. But the Qadianis because of their crooked mentality are quite unable to understand any simple talk without getting it distorted. The verse under discussion is:
Its meaning is as follows:·
"It is He Who sent His Apostle with Guidance and Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religions even though the pagans may dislike it", (9:33).
This verse is one of those verses whose complete fulfillment was delayed till the Holy Prophet left this world. There are many verses whose promise or order came into effect after the Holy Prophet.
Take for example, verse No.73 of this same chapter (9, at-Tawbah) which says:
"O Prophet, wage Jihad - religious war - against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be hard on them".
Everybody knows that the Holy Prophet had to wage war against the unbelievers; but he could not do the same with the hypocrites, because of the circumstances. So he, during his life time, acted upon half of the verse; while the next half was fulfilled during the days of Amirul Mu'mineen Ali bin Abi Talib (a.s.), who had to fight against the hypocrites. Referring to this, Imam Ja'afar Sadiq (a.s.) said (and I am quoting from the same Tafseer Safi):
"Thus the Messenger of Allah (S) fought against the unbelievers, and Ali fought against the hypocrites. Thus, Ali did the Jihad of the Messenger of Allah (S)".
Likewise, in this verse a promise was given to the Holy Prophet of Islam (S) (who is mentioned as His Messenger) that Islam would be victorious against all religions in spite of the discomfiture of the unbelievers.
But as everyone knows, this promise was not fulfilled during, the life-time of the Holy Prophet (S) as at that time the Islam had not reached outside Arabia.
The traditions of Tafseer Safi say that that promise will be fulfilled in the days of Imam
Mahdi (a.j.) who is also referred to as 'Qa’im Ali-Muhammad'. Thus Tafseer Safi notes:
"Qummi said: It was revealed in the matter of Qa’im Ali-Muhammad; And (Qummi) said that it is amongst those verses about which we have told that its fulfillment will be delayed from its revelation".
And in Majma'ul-Bayan a tradition is narrated from Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.) concerning this verse that 'this would happen at the time of appearance of Mahdi (a.j.) from the family of Muhammad (S). Thus there would remain none but would accept (the truth) of Muhammad (S) ·
"And there is a tradition from Imam Ja'afar Sadiq (a.s.) about this verse. He said: 'When Qa’im, (Mahdi (a.j.) will appear there will be no pagan or unbeliever but would dislike his appearance'.
And it is recorded in Majma'ul-Bayan that the Holy Prophet (S) said (mentioning the appearance of Imam Mahdi): “There will not remain any house or tent but Allah will bring Islam into it”.
And there is a tradition of Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.) recorded in Ikmal and Tafseer of Ayyashi that: 'Our Qa’im will be helped by fear (his enemies will surrender to him because of fear), restrengthened with the help (from God), the earth will be folded for him (i.e., he will reach at once wherever he want to go), and will show its treasures for him; his rule will reach east and west; and through him Allah will make His religion victorious over all religions, thus, there will be no inhabited area but it will be developed (inhabited); and the Spirit of Allah, Jesus, son of Mary, will come down and will pray behind him".
It is clear that these traditions refer to the fact that the promise given to the Holy Prophet of Islam would be fulfilled during the days of Imam Mahdi (a.j.); not that Imam Mahdi (a.j.) will be sent as Rasul!
This is a very clear example of the cheating, twisting, putting words in other's mouth and crooked tactics upon which the Qadiani faith is based. Anybody who reads their assertions in books and then compares those references with the original books cannot fail to find numerous such examples himself.
I will not be surprised if now, after reading that "Ali did the Jihad of the Messenger of Allah" they start telling us that the Shias believe that Ali (a.s.) was a prophet, especially when the verse begins with the word "O Prophet"!
Now that we have come to the prophecies about the advent of Imam Mahdi (a.j.) and Prophet Jesus, son 'of Mary (a.s.), it is advisable to describe these subjects in some detail, because Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani claimed not only to be a prophet but also to be Imam Mahdi (a.j.) and Jesus - thus giving the world another example of 3-in-1 identities.
In numerous traditions, appearance of Imam Mahdi, then of Dajjal, then of Prophet Jesus have been mentioned as the confirmed signs immediately before the Qiyamah (Resurrection Day).
As the Qadianis are very fond of quoting (out of context, of course) from writings of the Sufis especially from Al-Yawaqeet wal-Jawahir of Sheikh Abdul Wahhab Sha'arani and Al-Futulatul Makkiyyah of Sheikh Muhyiddin Al-Andalusi, I would prefer to quote from these two books only on this subject, to show what these two Sufis believed Sheikh Abdul Wahhab Sha'arani writes in Al-Yawaqeet wal-Jawahir:
Chapter sixtyfifth: to show that all the conditions of Qiyamah (foretold by the Holy Prophet S.) are truth and all of them must appear before coming of Qiyamah.
"And those signs are like appearance of Mahdi, then of Dajjal, then coming down of Jesus and appearance of Dabba and rising of sun from its setting place and the Qur'an being taken up1 and opening of the barrier of Gog and Magog.
Even if there was only one day remaining from (the age of) the world, all of these signs would appear surely.
At that time the appearance of Mahdi (a.j.) should be expected; and he is the off-spring of Imam Hasan Al-Askari; his birth '(peace be on him) was on the night of 15th Sha'ban in the year 255, and he is alive till he meets Jesus, son of Mary (a.s.). 'Thus his (Imam Mahdi's) age at this time (i.e., the year 958 Hijri) is 703 years".
And Sheikh Muhyiddin writes in Al-Futuhatul-Makkiyyah (Chapter 366):
"Know that Mahdi (a.j.) (Allah he pleased with him) must appear. But he will not appear till the world becomes full of tyranny and injustice, then he will fill it with justice and equality; and if there is no more than one day remaining from the (age of the) world. Allah will make that long enough to enable this Caliph to rule. And he (Imam Mahdi) is from the progeny of the Messenger of Allah (Blessings and peace from Allah be upon him) from the children of Fatimah (Allah be pleased with Her); his fore-father is Hussain, son of Ali bin Abi Talib.
His father is Hasan Al-Askari (son of Imam Ali Al-Naqi, son of Imam Muhammad Al-Taqi, son of Imam Ali Al Ridha, son of Imam Musa Al-Kadhim, son of Imam Ja'afar Al-Sadiq son of Imam Muhammad Al-Baqir, son of Imam Zainul Abedeen Ali, son of Imam Husain, son of Imam Ali bin Abi Talib; his name is the name of the Messenger of Allah (i.e. Muhammad); the Muslims will do his 'Bay'at' (will declare their allegiance to him) between Rukn (i.e Yamani) and Maqam (-e·Ibrahim) (i.e., in Ka'aba).
He will be like the Messenger of Allah (Blessing and peace from Allah be upon him) in appearance, and below him in character, because nobody can be like the Messenger of Allah (Blessings and peace from Allah be upon him) in character as Allah says: "Verily thou art on great character" He will distribute the wealth equally and will do justice to the public More people will abstain from sin because of his fear rather than because of the Qur'an.
(Because of his blessings) a man who would be ignorant, coward and miser in the evening would become learned, brave and generous in the morning. Help (from God) will walk in his front; he will follow the footsteps of the Messenger of Allah and he will commit no mistake; there will be an angel supporting him without his seeing him; he will raise up the weary, help the weak.
His action will be according to his words, and his words according to his deeds he will destroy the injustice and unjust and will raise the religion and will put the life back into Islam. Allah, through him, will strengthen the Islam after its dishonor and will make it alive after its death; he will revoke Jaziya (personal tax payable by non-Muslims in an Islamic state) and will call towards Allah with sword.
He will manifest the religion as it is in reality, so that if the Messenger of Allah (Blessing and peace from Allah be upon him) were alive would have confirmed it. Thus, in his time there will not remain hut the religion pure from (the people's) views.
"Jesus, son of Mary (a.s.), will come down to him in the White minaret in the eastern part of Damascus leaning upon two angels (one on his right side, the other on his left) when the people will be in the prayer of Asr (afternoon); Jesus a.s.; will break the cross and kill the swine Mahdi (a.j.) will die clean and pure and Mahdi (a.j.) appeared in the 4th period (i.e. after Tabaeen) then he went into seclusion till comes the known (or appointed time)".
Now, let us compare Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadianis particulars with those of Imam Mahdi:
1. Genealogy: As Sheikh Muhyiddin Ibn al-‘Arabi (and Sheikh Abdul Wahhab Sha'arani in short) wrote, Imam Mahdi (a.j.) is the son of Imam Hasan Al-Askari whose genealogy he has recorded up to Amirul-Mumeneen Ali bin Abu-Talib (a.s.); and all his ancestors (up to Ali bin Abu-Talib) are the well-known figures of history and are the Imams of the Shia Ithna-asheris.
'This specific genealogy does not leave any room for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani to claim that he was the said Mahdi. He was Ghulam Ahmad son of Ghulam Murtaza son of Ata Muhammad son of Gul Muhammad.
So far as his origin is concerned, he seems to make various contradictory statements. Sometimes he claimed to be a Mongol; at others to be a Chinese; sometimes he was of Persian origin, at others of Turk. And the world knows him as a Punjabi Indian.
2. Date and Place of Birth: Imam Mahdi (a.j.) was born on 15th Sha'ban, 255 A.H. in
Samarra in Iraq; and in the year 958 his age· was 703 years.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani was born in 1839 or 1840 A.D., i.e., about 1000 years after the birth of Imam Mahdi (a.j.), and he did not live even up to 76 years as he claimed to be promised by God. He was born in Qadian in India.
3. Removal of Tyranny: Imam Mahdi (a.j.) will remove all the tyranny and injustice from the world, and will fill the earth with justice and equity.
And after the advent of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani injustice and oppression seem to increase day by day in this world.
4. His Appearing: Muslims will do the Bay 'at of Imam Mahdi (a.j.) between Rukn and Maqam of Ka'aba. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not even see the Rukn and Maqam.
5. Distribution of Wealth: Imam Mahdi (a.j.) will distribute so much wealth that nobody will remain needy and no one will accept the charity any more. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, till the last days of his life, depended upon others donations and contributions.
In the beginning it were the Muslims who were approached to contribute towards the publication of his books; in the end it were his followers who were taxed to support him and his family.
6. Infallibility: Imam Mahdi (a.j.) will commit no mistake. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's life is full of the mistakes in deeds and beliefs.
7. Jihad: Imam Mahdi (a.j.) will call towards the path of Allah with sword. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani abrogated and cancelled the Jihad (Holy War) and made the fighting in the cause of religion unlawful.
8. Result of the endeavor: In Imam Mahdi's (a.j.) time, Allah will make Islam victorious over all religions and there will not remain but Islam, pure from all blemishes. Mirza Qadianis life came to an end without fulfilling that important task.
During Imam Mahdi's time, Islam will get strength. By the claim of Mirza Qadiani, Islam became weaker even than before.
9. Coming of Prophet Jesus (a.s.): During the days of Imam Mahdi (a.j.) Prophet Jesus, son of Mary (a.s.) will come down to assist him and will pray behind him. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani could not persuade Prophet Jesus (a.s.) to come down; so he claimed to be Jesus himself.
10. Eclipses: At the advent of Imam Mahdi (a.j.) there will be lunar eclipse on the 1st night of Ramadan and solar eclipse on 15th night of Ramadan. This sign, is yet to appear.
11. Sunrise from West: The almost last of the signs at the time of Imam Mahdi (a.j.) will be the rising of the sun from its setting place. After this sign, the conversion to Islam will not be acceptable, nor will such conversion be of any avail. This sign is yet to appear.
12. Death: Imam Mahdi (a.j.) will die clean and pure. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani died of epidemic cholera which is the dirtiest disease.
13. Imam Mahdi's Concealment and re-appearance: The above quotations make it clear that Imam Mahdi (a.j.) son of Imam Hasan Al-'Askari (a.s.) is concealed from the people after the death of his father; he is living and he will reappear and fill the world with justice and righteousness. His re-appearance is so certain that even if a single day is left before the end of the world, that day will be prolonged by God for him to appear and rule the world.
See: (1) Al-Yawaqeet wal-Jawahir Sheikh Abdul Wahhab Sha'ariini who is (according to him) supported in this respect (a) by two saints viz. Sh. Hasan Iraqi and Sh. Ali-ul Khawas, (b) by Sheikh Muhyiddin Ibn al-‘Arabi in the 336th Chapter of Futuhat; (2) Mukashafat Hashiah Nafahat by Maulana Ali Akhbar Maududi (3) Shawahid-un-Nubuwwah by Maulana Jami; (4) Fasl-ul-Khitab by Khwaja Mohammad Parsa; (5) Hashia of Fasl-ul-Khitab by the author himself;
(6) Kitab Manaqib-wa-Ahwale Aimma-e-At'har by Sh. Abdul Haq Mohaddis Dehlavi; (7) Rawzat-ulAhbab by Jamal-ud-Din Mohaddis; (8) Tazkarah Khawas-ul-Ummah by Sibt Ibn Jawzi; (9) Kitab-ul-Bayan by Mohammad bin Yusuf Kanji Shafii, who has also written arguments against the doubt as to the length of the life of Imam Mahdi;
(10) Al-Fusul-ul-Mohimmah by Noor-ud-Din ibn-Sabbagh Maliki; (11) Matalib-us-Suool by Kamal-ud-Din bin Talha Shafii; (12) Mir'at-ul-Asrar by Maulana Abdur Rahman Sufi; (13) Barahin-e-Sabatiah by Qazi Jawad Sabati.
The full details of the birth of Imam Mahdi (a.j.) are given in the books number (3), (4) and (6) quoted above and the incidents which led to his concealment in number (1), (3), (7) and (11).
Shah Waliullah of Delhi in his two books (1) Musalsalat, well known as Fazl-ul-Mubin and (2) Nawadir, has reported a tradition of the Prophet through "the Imam of the present period, the concealed Imam, Mohammad Mahdi; son of the Imam Hasan Al-Askari".
Obviously, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani cannot claim that any of these details can fit him in any way.
14. Not a Follower of any other Muslim Scholar: Imam Mahdi (a.j.) will neither be a follower in Fiqh (The Islamic Laws) of any other person nor will he act upon analogies. His source of knowledge will be from God and direct communion with the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S).
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, on the other hand, followed the Fiqh of Imam Abu Hanifa till the last day of his life; and so do his followers up till now, Therefore, Mirza cannot claim to be Imam Mahdi.
After the appearance of Imam Mahdi (a.j.) , Qiyamah (The Day of Judgment) will come very soon. The Holy Prophet (S) has said that ten signs will appear before Qiyamah.
Hudhaifa bin Usaid al-Ghifari said that once the Holy Prophet (S) came to us and we were talking. He asked us what we were talking about. They said: "We are talking about Qiyamah". The Holy Prophet (S) said: "Verily, it will not stand (it will not come) until you see ten signs before it. Then the (Holy Prophet (S) described (1) The Smoke; (2) and Dajjal; (3) and Dabbat’ul-Ardh; (4) and Rising of the Sun from its setting place; (5) and Coming Down of Jesus, son of Mary; (6) and Gog and Magog; (7) and three Land-slides, one in the east; (8) and another in the West; (9) and one in the Arabian Peninsula; (10) and the last of these signs will be a Fire which will appear from Yemen and will turn the people towards their Mahshar (the gathering place in the Qiyamah)".
Many of these signs are mentioned in the Qur'an:·
1. Smoke: "So await the day when the sky shall give out a smoke, clearly visible enveloping the people: This will be painful chastisement". (Qur'an,' 44: 10-11)
2. Dabbat’ul-Ardh: "And when the word shall come to pass on them We shall bring forth unto them a walking one from the earth who shall speak unto them that the people believed not in our signs". (27:82)
That Dabbat’ul-Ardh is reported to be 'slapping the Satan' (Tabarani: Mu'jam-ul·Kabir), and branding the people on their noses (Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal from Abu Amama). That branding will be to differentiate between believers and unbelievers (Traditions of the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).
3. Gog and Magog: "Until are let loose the Gog and Magog and they shall hasten forth from every elevation, and the True promise (of Qiyamah) shall draw nigh" (21: 96-97).
4. Rising of Sun from West and Dajjal are included in this verse: "On the day when come some of the signs of thy Lord, its faith shall profit not a soul which believed not before or earned not good through its faith; say 'Wait you; verily we too are waiting'." (6:159).
Abu Huraira said that the Holy Prophet said: "Qiyamah will not come till appear impostors Dajjals nearly 30 in number, every one of them pretending to be messenger of God and till the Sun rises from its present place of setting (West); Thus, when the people will see it, all of them will accept the true faith, and that will be the time when will not benefit any soul its faith which had not believed from before that time or which had not earned good in its belief". (Jame'ul Fawaid).
"There are three signs when they appear, its faith shall profit not a soul which believed not before or earned not good through its faith: Rising of the Sun from its setting place, and Dajjal, and Dabbat’ul-Ardh".
In presence of such clear prophecies which surely have not appeared yet, the pathetic attempts of the Qadianis to twist them, misinterpret them, discredit them, reject them, or in any way to make them mean what they do mean, is really very amusing.
They believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani was the Imam Mahdi; but not a single Signs amongst these ten signs has appeared yet. The Qadianis have not tried to fit the Signs of Smoke, three land-slides and the Fire of Yemen on some incidents so far. But they pathetically try to twist the meanings of all other signs.
For example they say that Dabbat’ul-Ardh (The Walker of the Earth) means 'evil religious scholars of the Muslims' who rejected Mirza Qadianis claim. Perhaps they did not know that Dabbat’ul-Ardh will be a Judge to brand every unbeliever and he also will slap Satan. If the Muslim scholars who branded Mirza Qadiani as kafir (unbeliever) are that 'Walker on the Earth", then Mirza Qadiani was either an unbeliever or the Satan!
Qadianis say: The sign of Imam Mahdi (a.j.) that the sun will rise from the West, does not mean that this sun of our world will rise from West instead of East. It means that the light of Islam will reach the West.
Facts: The tradition says that the sun will rise from west; while this interpretation means that the sun will reach to west. This interpretation would have been correct if the tradition would have said that the sun would reach the west.
Moreover, the, full tradition shows that this will be the last of the signs before the Day of Qiyamah, and that after its appearance, conversion by non-Muslims to Islam would be of no use. So naturally this sign cannot mean the "spread of Islam", as the 'Qadianis pretend.
Qadianis say: The sign of the solar and lunar eclipses in the month of Ramadan were fulfilled in the year 1894 AD. (See Safina e-Nuh).
Facts: The tradition mentioned is this:
"There will be lunar eclipse on the first night of Ramadan and solar eclipse in the middle of the month."
This sign will be an extraordinary sign from God; because moon eclipse always occurs between 13th and 15th nights of the lunar month (but the tradition says that it will occur on the first night), and solar eclipse always occurs at the end of the lunar month, i.e., 28th to 30th days of the lunar month, when moon is not visible (but the tradition says that it will be eclipsed on 15th day of Ramadan, when the moon is fully visible).
Now what was the fact of the eclipses of 1894? The sun eclipsed as usual on the 28th Ramadan, not on the 15th Ramadan (as the tradition says) and the moon eclipse was, as usual, on the 13th night of Ramadan, and not on the first night as the tradition says.
See Zamima-e-Anjame-Atham pages 46-48, which was written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani himself.
If the Qadianis want to believe that 1=13 and 15=28, they are welcome to it. By the way; if '1' can be equal to 13, why can't it be equal to '3', as the believers in 3-in-l say?
Late Molwi Sayyid Barkat Ali, Gosha Nashin, of Wazirabad (India) writes in his book False Prophet of Qadian" (p.135):
"Another point should be noted in connection with this. These eclipses should have taken place before, and not after the advent of the Mahdi. The occurrence of the solar and the lunar eclipses is not an uncommon phenomenon even in the month of Ramadan. Such eclipses have taken place many times even before this.
"Many books as Ghayat.ul-Maqsoud; Ibne· Khallekan, Asl-i-Musaffa, Hidayah Mahdi, Hadith ul-Ghashiah, Mahdi (a.j.) Nama, Tarikh-i-Ahmad and the like, show that in the following Hijri years the solar and the lunar eclipses took place in one and the same month:
62, 63, 85, 92, 107; 108, 132, 152, 241, 242,
285, 286, 308, 508, 509, 531, 553, 554, 687,
688, 731, 732, 776, 911, 954, 959, 1088, 1133,
1134, 1200, 1210, 1222, 1223, 1267, 1312.
"The Mirza proclaimed his so-called divine mission in Hijri 1308, but the solar and the lunar eclipses took place in the month of Ramadan in 1311. These eclipses cannot help the Mirza".
After appearance of Imam Mahdi (a.j.) and that of Dajjal, Prophet Jesus, son of Mary (a.s.) is to come down to help Imam Mahdi (a.j.) .Qadiani missionaries try to mislead the Muslim masses by quoting the traditions in which the reappearance of Prophet Jesus, son of Mary has been foretold.
They say that Prophet Jesus was a Nabi and still his reappearance is not against the belief of the Finality of the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S). Thus the Finality of Prophethood is also a fact, and in spite of that Finality the advent of the prophet Messiah is also a fact.
After that, they say that the promised Messiah does not refer to Prophet Jesus, son of Mary (a.s.) because he is already dead and the traditions which foretell the coming of the promised Messiah' refer to a 'likeness of Messiah'.
The third step is to claim that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani was that 'Likeness of Jesus, son of Mary and therefore, the belief in his Prophethood is not contrary to the belief of the Finality of the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S).
It must be mentioned here that the Claim that Prophet Jesus (a.s.) is dead does not effect the common Muslim belief that he will come again before the end of the world to help Imam Mahdi (a.j.) Akheruz-zaman (a.s.); because even if we accept for the sake of argument that Prophet Jesus (a.s.) is dead, God is Powerful enough to make him alive second time and send him to help Imam Mahdi (a.j.) before the end of the world. As the question of life or death of Prophet Jesus (a.s.) has no material effect on the Muslim belief, I promised to leave this topic out from this small booklet.
Now, let us look at the other supposition of the Qadianis. It will be helpful to look at some traditions from the authentic Sunni books, which have bearing on this topic:
"Abu Huraira said that the Holy Prophet said: 'I swear by Allah in Whose hand is my soul, surely will come down to you the son of Mary, as a just ruler; then he will break the cross and kill the swine and will stop the war (or as in some other traditions, will revoke the Jaziya - the personal tax) and there will be so much wealth that nobody (be needy enough to) accept any charity and for the people, one Sajda (prostration) for Allah will be better than the whole world and its contents.
(Bukhari, Kitab Ahadithil-Anbiya, Babu Nuzule Isa bin Mariyam; Muslim Babu Nuzule Isa; Tirmizi, Abwabul-Fitan, Babu Nuzule Isa; Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Marwiyyatu Abi Huraira).
It is better to explain the significance of breaking the cross, killing the swine and revoking the Jaziya.
As everybody knows the whole structure of Christianity is based upon the belief that God caused the death - a cursed death - on cross to His only son who became a 'Kaffara' (Atonement for the hereditary sin of mankind); and the peculiarity of Christianity among all the religions brought by the previous prophets is that they put the whole emphasis on faith and abrogated the law so much so that they started eating even the pork which was strictly forbidden in Torah.
When Prophet Jesus (a.s.) will come down and will announce that neither was he a son of God nor was he crucified on any cross nor was he made an atonement for anyone's sin, the whole structure of present day Christianity will be demolished. And likewise, when he would explain that he did never allow his followers to abrogate the Law and to eat the pork and treat the Shariah as abrogated, the second peculiarity of Christianity will come to an end.
Thus the words 'will break the cross and will kill the swine' denote the fact that the Christianity as a religion will be abolished; there will be no basis for its peculiar faith nor for its peculiar deeds and behavior. Likewise the words "he will revoke Jaziya mean that the differences of religions will come to an end; everybody will come within the pale of Islam; there will be no need for any war to defend Islam nor anybody will be liable to pay Jaziya. Thus, all these wordings point to the fact that the whole world will come within the circle of Islam.
Abu Huraira said that the Holy Prophet said:
"Qiyamah will not come until Jesus; son of Mary (a.s.) comes down". Then the same things have been mentioned as in the previous tradition (Bukhari Kitabul Malahim, Babu Kasrisalib; Ibnu Majah, Kitabul Fitan, Babu Khurujiddajjal).
"Abu Huraira said that the Holy Prophet said: 'What will be your condition when the son of Mary will come down to you and your Imam will be from amongst you'.
(Bukhari, Kitab Ahadithil Anbiya, Babu Nuzule Isa; Muslim Babu Nuzu1e Isa; Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal Marwiyyatu Abi Huraira).
This refers to the fact that Prophet Jesus (a.s.) will not lead in the prayer, but the Imam of the Muslims who will leading them will lead in the prayers, and Prophet Jesus will follow him.
"Abu Huraira said that the Messenger of Allah said: 'Jesus, son of Mary will come down then he will kill the swine, and will destroy the cross and the prayers will be joined for him, and he will distribute so much wealth that there will remain nobody in need of it, and he will revoke the revenue and rent, and will stay at Rauha (35 miles from Medina), and will do from there Hajj or Umra together. (The doubt is from the Rawi (narrator) who did not remember the exact wording of the Holy Prophet)'.
(Musnad Ahmad, Marwiyyatu Abi Huraira; Muslim, Kitabul Hajj, Babu Jawaz-tamattu fil-Hajje wal-Queran).
Abu Huraira said (after mentioning the appearance of Dajjal) that the Messenger of God said: 'Meanwhile when the Muslims will be making preparation to fight him and will be arranging their lines, and Iqama (establishment of Prayer) will have been recited for the prayer when Jesus, son of Mary will come down and will lead the Muslims in the prayers.
And the enemy of Allah, i.e., Dajjal, will start dissolving as the salt is dissolved in water; and if Jesus (a.s.) were to leave him as he was, he will dissolve by himself, but Allah will kill him on his (Jesus's) hand, and he will show the Muslims his blood in his spear.
(Mishkat, Babul Malahim, with reference to Muslim).
"Abu Huraira said that the Messenger of Allah said: 'There is no prophet between me and him, i.e. between Muhammad and Jesus (a.s.) and he is surely to come down. When you see him you will recognize him: he is a man of middle weight, of blond color between red and white, he will be wearing two robes of yellow color; and the hair of his head will look as though water will drop from it though it will not be wet, he will fight people for Islam, will shatter the cross, will kill the swine, will abolish the Jaziya, and Allah will remove all other religions in his time; he will kill Dajjal, and will remain alive for forty years; then he will die and Muslims will offer prayer over his Janaza (funeral).
(Abu Dawood, Kitabul-Malahim, Babu Khurujiddajjal; Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Marwiyyatu Abi Huraira).
"Jabir bin Abdullah said that I heard the Messenger of Allah saying: 'then will come down Jesus, son of Mary: the Imam of the Muslims will request him to come forward and lead the prayers, but he will say, No, you are the Leaders of one another, because of the honor given by Allah to this Ummah".
(Muslim Bayanu Nuzule Isa bin Mariyam, Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Marwiyyatu Jabir bin Abdullah).
"Jabir bin Abdullah said that Umar bin Khattab requested the Messenger of Allah to allow him to kill him (Ibn' Sayyad). But the Messenger of Allah replied that if this is he (i.e. Dajjal) then you are not the one to kill him; he will be killed by Jesus son of Mary only and if he is not that man then you have no right to kill a person who is protected by us.
(Mishkat, Kitabul-Fitan, Babu Qissati ibn Sayyi'd, with reference of Sharhus-sunnah Imam Baghawi).
Jabir bin Abdullah said that the Messenger of Allah said that then all of a sudden Jesus, son of Mary will come among the Muslims and prayer will be arranged and he will be told, "O Spirit of Allah, come forward". But he will say, "No, your Imam should lead you in the prayers." Then after the morning prayer Muslims will come out to fight Dajjal.
When that liar will see Prophet Jesus (a.s.) he will start dissolving as salt dissolves in water. Then Prophet Jesus will advance towards him and kill him; and at that time even the tree and stone will start calling him, "O Spirit of Allah, this, Jew is hiding behind me". Thus there will be none among the followers of Dajjal but he (Jesus a.s.), will kill him".(Musnad Ahmad, Marwiyyatu Jabir bin Abdullah).
Nawwas bin Sam'an Kilabi says (in the story of Dajjal) that at the time (when Dajjal will be doing his mischief) Allah will send Messiah, son of Mary; and he will come down on the eastern side of Damascus, near the white minaret, wearing two clothes of yellow color, keeping his hands on the arms of two angels; when he will bow down his head, it will seem as though the drops are dropping from his head, when he will raise his head the drops will drop like pearls; whenever his breath will reach to an unbeliever (and that will reach to the furthest limit of his eye sight) that unbeliever will die at once, then the son of Mary will chase Dajjal and will catch him at the gate of Ludd (present day's Lod, near Tel Aviv, Israel, there is an Air Force base of Israel nowadays) and will kill him.
(Muslim, Dhikruddajjal; Abu Dawood, Kitab ul-Malahim, Babu Khurujid Dajjal; Tirmizi, Abwa bul-Fitan, Babu Fitnatid Dajjal; Ibnu Majah, Kitab ul-Fitan, Babu Fitnatiddajjal).
Abu Amama Bahili narrates (in a long tradition about Dajjal) that while their (Muslims) Imam would have come forward to lead the morning prayer, Jesus, son of Mary, will come down among them and the Imam will retreat to get Jesus forward but Jesus will put his hand between his shoulders and will say, "No, you should lead the prayer because it has been established for you". So he will lead the prayer. After finishing the prayer, Prophet, Jesus (a.s.) will say, "Open the door". The door will be opened.
On the outside, Dajjal with seventy thousand well-armed Jews will be present to fight them. 'When Prophet Jesus (a.s.) will look at him, he will start dissolving as salt dissolves in water; and he will flee. Prophet Jesus (a.s.) will say "I have for thee an attack which thou canst escape". Then he will catch him at the eastern gate of Ludd (Lod); Allah will defeat the Jews; the face of Earth will be full of the Muslims, as a water-pot is filled with water. The whole world will recite the Kalemah and none will be worshipped but Allah".
The same events are narrated in other numerous traditions in Musnad Ahmad, Tabarani, Hakimi and everywhere the words used are 'Jesus son of Mary will come down'. And anybody who will read the traditions will see that there is no hint of any 'promised Messiah', 'likeness of Messiah', or 'appearance of Messiah'. And there is no chance for anybody, being born 1810 years after Jesus, son of Mary, from the womb of his mother and loin of his father to claim that he was Jesus son of Mary.
All these traditions in very clear words are "foretelling the advent of Prophet Jesus" son of Mary (a.s.) who was born from the womb of Mary without any father, some 2000 years ago.
As I told earlier, it serves no purpose to argue whether he is dead or alive. Even if he is dead, when Allah wants to bring him down at the time of the appearance of Imam Mahdi Akheruz-zaman (a.j.). He is powerful enough to bring him back to life.
The second thing which should be clear even to a blind is that Imam Mahdi (a.j.) and Prophet Jesus (a.s.) are two persons not one. But Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani claimed to be Imam Mahdi (a.j.) and Jesus, son of Mary, both together.
They always proclaim a supposed tradition that 'There is no Mahdi (a.j.) except Jesus'
But those very authors who have recorded it have declared it to be a forgery, Sheikh Suleiman Barahi Qanduzi quotes in his book "Yanabi-ul-Mawaddah", from Jawahir-ul-Iqdain of Samhudi:
"And the tradition of Hasan Basri from Anas bin Malik: The condition will get from bad to worse; the world will be in the worst state, miserliness will be most prevalent among the, people; Qiyamah will occur when the worst of the people will be existing. Mahdi (a.j.) is no other (person) but Jesus son of Mary has been narrated by Shafei and by Ibn Majah in his Sunan and by Hakim in his Mustadrak; and, he (Hakim) has said: "l have narrated this tradition thinking it ridiculous, not that I think it authentic".
"And Baihaqi has said that: 'This tradition is narrated only by Muhammad bin Khalid; and Hakim said that he was unknown and Nasai has clearly said that he was unacceptable; and Ibn Majah said that nobody has narrated it from Muhammad bin Khalid except Shafei".
Then the author of Yanabi-ul-Mawaddah has given three clear proofs showing that this tradition is nothing but forgery.
Now, the attempts of Mirza Qadiani and his followers to make Mahdi (a.j.) and Jesus one and the same person on the strength of this forged tradition is just pathetic. Those who wrote it in their books refuted it as being unauthentic, forged and based on the authority of someone who is either non-entity or unacceptable.
And compare it with hundreds of traditions which clearly show that Imam Mahdi (a.j.) and Jesus son of Mary are two separate identities. Can anyone in his right senses say that all those hundreds of authentic tradition should be discarded for one forged tradition just to prove that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was Mahdi (a.j.) and Messiah both in one Christians 3-in-l god?
The third thing which is clear to the same degree from these traditions is that Prophet Jesus son of Mary will come in the second appearance as a Nabi. There will not be any revelation to him; he will not bring any new message; nor a new Shariah; he will not add or subtract anything from the Shariah of Muhammad; he will not renew the Shariah of Muhammad in this world; he will not call people to believe in him; he will not make a separate ummah of his followers.
He will be sent down just one special duty; that will be to annihilate the Fitna (sedition) of Dajjal. He will come down for this purpose, in such a manner that the Muslims amongst whom he will come down, will have no doubt that he is the Jesus, son of Mary whose advent was foretold by Prophet Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S).
He will mingle in the Jama'at of the Muslims, and will follow Imam of the Muslims and will keep forward the same Imam Mahdi (a.j.) who will be the Imam of the Muslims at that time, so that nobody may entertain the idea that he has come back in his previous position of an Ulul-Azm Prophet.
When he will come and join the Jama'at of the Muslims as a common Muslim he will automatically demonstrate that he has not come as a prophet to call the people to believe in him. And it was for this reason that all the Muslim authors have expressly said that the second advent of Prophet Jesus, son of Mary is not against the belief in the Finality of the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S).
His second coming will be just like the presence of a previous president of a country in the country during the tenure of the office of the ruling president. If he helps the present president on the order of the latter, nobody will say that the previous president is acting in the capacity of the president of the country. If a previous president helps the ruling president, it is not deemed as challenging the validity of the presidency of the present president.
Of course, if that previous president were to try to usurp the office of the present president, or if somebody was to reject even the previous presidency of the ex-president, it would be tantamount to treason. But if nobody rejects or refutes the previous validity of the ex-president, and if that ex-president is not calling people to swear their allegiance now to him, nobody can say that just by helping the present president, the ex-president is breaking the tenure of the office of the ruling president.
Thus, if Prophet Jesus (a.s.) during his second advent were to call people to believe in him or if somebody was to reject even his previous prophethood, it will be against the Islamic belief. But as Prophet Jesus (a.s.) at that time will not call people to believe in him, the Muslims will not be required to believe in a new Nubuwwah (Prophethood).
They will be required to keep the same belief in his previous Nubuwwah (Prophethood) which they do have even today and which even Prophet Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) had had. Thus his second coming will not affect the Khatm an-Nubuwwah (Finality of the Prophethood) neither today nor in the days to come.
The fourth thing which is clear from these traditions and other numerous similar traditions is that Dajjal, who will be annihilated during the second advent of Prophet Jesus (a.s.), will be from among the Jews, and will present himself as Messiah.
It is necessary to mention that after the death of Prophet Solomon, Bani Israel's history goes from one fiasco to another. At last, after the captivity in Babylonia and Syria, they were scattered everywhere; and their prophets gave them good tidings that a Messiah was to come from God who would save them from dishonor and disgrace.
So, they were awaiting a Messiah who according to their thinking was to be a king, who was to fight wars, conquering countries, gathering Israelites from all over the world, and bringing them within Palestine, establishing a very great, strong and powerful kingdom of the Jews. Against their expectations, Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, came from God; they did not accept him as Messiah as he was not a king, he did not establish any kingdom neither strong nor weak so they refuted his claim and tried to kill him.
Thenceforth, all the Jews in the world are awaiting the expected Messiah, hoping that he would be a martial and political leader who will establish a Jewish Kingdom from Nile to Euphrates and will collect all the Jews in that land which they believe is theirs by inheritance. Now if somebody looks at the condition of Middle East today and studies the above-mentioned prophecies of the Holy Prophet of Islam, he will feel that the stage is well prepared for the appearance of that Dajjal who would claim to be the promised Messiah of the Jews.
Muslims have already been turned out of a bigger part of Palestine and a Jewish state has been established in the name of Israel. The world's Jews are coming to reside in that state and thanks to the Western powers, it is now a power to reckon with. The Zionists have declared openly that they want to reclaim the lands of their inheritance and the maps which they have published of the future Jewish state encircle the whole of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, almost whole of Iraq and some parts of Turkey, Egypt, the delta of Nile and the parts of Saudi Arabia including Khaiber and Medina.
It does not require great intelligence to realize that if in future a world war is started, the Jews will try to capture these lands. At that time Dajjal will appear claiming to be that promised Messiah; and as the Holy Prophet (S) said, at that time Muslims will undergo such hardships and disasters that one day will appear like one year.
For this reason he told his Ummah to seek the refuge with God from this Fitna of Dajjal. And to fight against that impostor Messiah, Allah will not send any likeness of Messiah but the same original Messiah who two thousand years ago was rejected by the same Jews and whom they, according to their thinking he crucified and destroyed; the place of coming down of that original Messiah will not be India, Africa or Pakistan; but Damascus, because it will be at that place that fighting will be going on at that time. And that impostor Messiah will enter Syria with an army of 70,000 Jews, and will reach near Damascus.
Exactly at that crucial time, Prophet Jesus, son of Mary will come down on the eastern part of Damascus near the white minaret. And after the morning prayer, will lead the Muslims to fight against Dajjal and Dajjal will flee away from his attack and at last Prophet Jesus will catch him near the gate of Ludd (Lod) and he will be killed.
Then the Jews will be killed and Judaism will vanish. Likewise the present-day Christianity will come to an end by the declaration of Prophet Jesus (a.s.). All religions will merge into Islam.
So it is clear from all these traditions that the prophecies of the Holy Prophet (S) do not entertain the idea of any likeness of Messiah or the appearance of Messiah; but the same Messiah who was rejected by the Jews and who will bring the Jews as well the Christians to the right path by helping Imam Mahdi (a.j.) Akheruz-zaman; and thus the whole world will gather under the banner of Islam and will recite one Kalema "La Ilaha Illallah Muhammadun Rasulallah".
Apart from that general review, let us compare some of the particulars of Prophet Jesus, son of Mary with those of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani to see what justification he had in claiming to be the 'promised Messiah':
1. Genealogy: Prophet Jesus always been mentioned in these traditions (some of which begin with the oath in the name of Allah) as 'Jesus, son of Mary'. According to Mirza Qadiani himself, "the oath proves that the news is to be taken at its apparent meaning and there is no interpretation or exception". (Vide Hamamat-ul-Bushra, p.14).
It means that these traditions are to be taken at their face-value. When they say Jesus son of Mary they do mean Jesus, son of Mary; they cannot refer to Ghulam Ahmad son of Ghulam Murtaza and Chiragh Bibi.
2. Minaret of Damascus: Prophet Jesus (a.s.) will come down at the eastern minaret Damascus mosque, Mirza Qadiani was born in Qadian, and never set his foot in Damascus1.
3. Following the Imam of the Muslims: Prophet Jesus (a.s.) will not call people to follow him and will not establish any new Ummah. Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani called the people to believe in him and established a separate Ummah of his followers.
4. Killing of Dajjal: Prophet Jesus (a.s.) will kill the Dajjal, at the gate of Ludd (Lod), which is situated in present day's Israel. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani said that Dajjal means the British nation. And then, instead of destroying the British, he made the obedience to their tyrannical rule and integral part of his religion.
5. Hajj and/or Umrah: Prophet Jesus (a.s.) will perform Hajj or Umrah or will combine both. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani did not even see the Kaba, let alone the Hajj or Umrah.
6. Death: Prophet Jesus (a.s.) will die between Mecca and Medina. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani did not even enter the land of Hejaz. He died at Lahore.
7. Burial: Prophet Jesus (a.s.) will be buried in the room in which is buried the Holy Prophet of Islam (S). Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani is buried in Qadian.
8. Two Yellow Robes: Prophet Jesus (a.s.) at the time of his coming down will be wearing two yellow robes. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani says in this connection: "(The Holy Prophet of Islam) had said that Messiah (The word used in the tradition is 'Jesus, son of Mary not Messiah'), at the time of his coming down from sky will be wearing two yellow robes. 'Thus, I have two diseases: one of the upper part of the body; i.e.'Miraq', and another of lower part, i.e., diabetes (Dairy. of Mirza Qadiani; Akhbar Badr, Vol. 2; No; 23, dated· 7/6/1906).
'Miraq' is a type of 'Malikhulia' (Melancholia) which is a type of insanity; and Mirza Qadiani in various places has declared himself Miraq'. It was not an acquisition laid against him by his enemies. It was a fact accepted by Mirza himself. Now let us see what are the symptoms of Malikhulia:
"In some patients this abnormality reaches a stage where he thinks himself to be knowing the future events and unseen things, and many times prophesies of future happenings, and some patients think that they are angels". (Sharh-ul-Asbab wal 'amat by Burhanuddin Nafis).
"Most of the fancies of the patient concern that field of work in which he was engaged during his health. For example, if the patient is a learned man he claims to be a prophet and claims to show miracles, talks of divinity and preaches accordingly. (Iksir-e-A'zam, Vol. 1 p.l88; by Hakim Muhammad Azad Khan).
Dr. Shah Nawaz (one of' the followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani) wrote in Review of Religions (August, 1926):
"If it is proved about a claimant of revelation that he was suffering from Hysteria or Maliklhulia (Melancholia) or Epilepsy, then no other blow is needed to refute his claim; because it is such a blow which knocks out the building of his truth from its foundation". (The reference is taken from Muhammadiyya Pocket Book).
Anyhow, apart from the fact that a person suffering from Miraq or melancholia cannot be a prophet, let us see what other 'likeness to Jesus, son of Mary' this comparison shows:
Prophet Jesus (a.s.) cured the sick people. And that was his miracle. Here Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadian claims to be Jesus, son of Mary by showing that he is suffering from Miraq and Diabetes!
And according to Qadiani interpretation, coming down of Prophet Jesus (a.s.) means the birth of a 'likeness to Messiah'. Well, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was not wearing two yellow robes (or, for that matter, any robe) at the time of his birth.
All these comparisons, explanations and admissions show that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadianis particulars do not fit the particulars of Prophet Jesus, son of Mary (a.s.) which have been mentioned in the traditions of the Holy Prophet.
Thus his claim to be a likeness of Jesus, son of Mary (a.s.) is proved to be as baseless as was his claim to be the Imam Mahdi (a.j.), or a prophet.