Introduction

Ever since God Almighty has instituted the system of prophet-hood for the guidance of mankind, the opponents of these holy prophets, peace be on them, have always charged them with falsehood and untruth. They were called sorcerers and madmen and were described as disorderly and rebellious. Every prophet and God's elect was treated in that manner. The same was the case with the Promised Messiah, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, peace be on him. when he put forth his claim of being the Reformer of the age and the Promised Mehdi, not only Muslim divines, but the leaders of other religions also, rose up against him and assailed him with false charges and insupportable objections. Muslim divines proclaimed that his teaching was opposed to Islam and the practice of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and showered false charges upon him. These were the vicious divines concerning whom our Lord and master, Hazrat Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, had prophesied thirteen hundred years in advance that is:

The Muslim divines of the latter days would be the worst of creation under heaven (Mishkat, Kitabul Ilm).

Many eminent Muslim saints had predicted that the Mehdi would be opposed bitterly by the Muslim divines.

(1) The Reformer of the second millennium, may Allah have mercy on him, wrote, concerning the Mehdi:

It is most likely that the superficial divines would reject him and would regard him as opposed to the Holy Book and the practice of the Holy Prophet.(Maktoobat Imam Rabbani, Vol.11, p. 55)
The same will be the case of the Mehdi, peace be on him. All the muqallids will become his bitter enemies and will conspire to assassinate him, alleging that he is corrupting their faith. (Iqtrabas Saat, p.244)

(2) Hazrat Shaikh Mohyuddin ibn Arabi recorded:

When Imam Mehdi appears the divines and the jurists will be his bitter enemies. (Futuhati Makkiyyah, Vol.11, p.242)

(3) Nawab Siddique Hasan khan wrote:

When the Mehdi, peace be on him, starts his campaign for the revival of the practice of the Holy Prophet, and to put down innovations, the contemporary divines, who are committed to following the jurists and are devoted to their leading men of the past and to their ancestors, will say that he seeks to ruin their faith and the Muslim community. They will rise up in opposition to him and according to their custom they will declare him a disbeliever. (Hujajul Karamah,p.363)

Thus it is clear that the treatment accorded to the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, by the superficial divines was in exact accord with the prophecies of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and of Muslim saints and with the practice of the opponents of previous prophets. Their opposition and their false statements proved them to be the vicious divines against whom the Holy Prophet had warned the Muslims and also confirmed the truth of the Promised Messiah.

It is a fact that the charges that were put forward against the Promised Messiah, peace be upon him, by his opponents, were of the same type as had been put forward against previous prophets by their opponents. The Holy Quran states:

Nothing is urged against thee but that which was urged against the Messengers before thee. (41 :44)

Then why do not the opponents of Ahmadiyyat judge the Promised Messiah, peace be upon him, by the same standard that they apply to the previous prophets, and why do they urge against him the very objections that were urged against them? The fundamental fact is that the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, claimed to be the Mehdi in accord with the prophecies of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. If his claim was true the objections raised against him must be false and untrue; but if his claim was not true then it would not be necessary to investigate the charges made against him. Therefore, it would be more appropriate for a seeker after truth, instead of becoming involved with the objections raised against him, to investigate whether Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, peace be on him, was or was not true in his claim. Once his truth is established all objections raised against him become irrelevant.

To investigate his claim we should keep in mind the principles that the Holy Quran has laid down with reference to the truth of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. Accordingly, to start with, we would draw attention to the following verses of the Holy Quran:

Tell them: Had Allah so willed, I would not have recited the Holy Quran to you nor would Allah have made it known to you. I have spent a whole lifetime among you before this. Will you not, then, understand? (10:17)

This verse affirms that Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was righteous in his claim and that the proof thereof is that before claiming to be a prophet he had lived for a long time among those who were now his opponents and if before his claim to prophethood at forty years of age he had to their knowledge been righteous and truthful and had never been guilty of falsehood or imposture, then how was it possible that he would suddenly invent a great lie against God Almighty? Applying this standard to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, we discover that according to the testimony of friend and foe alike, his life, before he put forward his claim, was absolutely pure and stainless. After he put forward his claim of being the Mehdi his principal opponent was Maulvi Muhammad Husain of Batala who left no stone unturned in opposing him. He had known Hazrat Ahmad since his childhood and had been his class-fellow. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote his epoch-making book Braheen Ahmadiyya in 1879. At that time he had not put forward any claim. He announced his claim in January 1889. In the course of a review of Braheen Ahmadiyya, Maulvi Muhammad Husain wrote as follows:

The author of this book has proved his devotion to Islam by such help with money, life, pen, tongue, conduct and writings, the like of which has seldom been found among the Muslims... The author belongs to our neighborhood and in our early life when we were studying Qutbi and Sharah Mulla, he was our class-fellow. Ever since then we have been continuously in touch with each other through correspondence and meetings. Therefore, it is no exaggeration to affirm that we are intimately acquainted with his circumstances and ideas... The author of Braheen Amadiyya has upheld the honor of the Muslims. (Ishaatus Sunnah, Vol. VII)

Hazrat Sufi Ahmad Jan of Ludhiana, who was a spiritual preceptor having thousand of followers and who had died before the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, had put forward his claim, stated:

The Mirza Sahib is about forty or fifty-five years of age. The original home of his ancestors appears to have been Iran. He is extremely courteous, is beneficent and modest, is handsome and his countenance displays his love of the Divine. I state it most honestly and with complete truthfulness that without the least doubt the Mirza Sahib is the Reformer of the Age, and is a sun for the seekers of the way, and is a Khizar for the misguided, and is a sharp sword for the opponents of Islam and is a conclusive proof for the envious. Be sure that such a time will not recur. Be warned that the time of trial has arrived and divine proof has been established and a perfect guide has been sent with conclusive arguments, bright as the sun, so that he might bestow light upon the truthful ones and lead them out of darkness and error and confound the false ones. (Tassurate Qadian, p.69)

Maulvi Sirajuddin, father of Maulvi Zaffar Ali Khan, editor of the Zamindar, stated:

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib was a clerk in Sialkot about 1860 or 1861. At that time he would have been twenty-two or twenty-three years of age. I testify as an eye-witness that in his youth he was most righteous, pious and exalted. (Zamindar, 8 June 1908)

The Promised Messiah, peace be on him, challenged his opponents in respect of the purity of his life in the following words:

You cannot point to any defect or imposture or falsehood or deceit in my early life on the basis of which you might hold that a person who had been given to falsehood and imposture has put forward his claim falsely. Is there anyone from among you who can point to any fault in my life? It is the pure grace of God that from the beginning He kept me firm in righteousness and this is a proof for those who reflect. (Tazkaratus Shahadatain, p. 62)

Before his claim also he led a pure life and was truthful and enjoyed communion with God. Every fibre of his being was devoted to God. Then how was it to be expected that in putting forward his claim he would invent such a great lie against God Almighty that He speaks to him and disclosed to him part of the unseen?

Another criterion of the righteousness of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is put forward in the Holy Quran in the following words:

If he had fabricated any saying and attributed it to Us, We would surely have seized him by the right hand, then surely We would have severed his large artery, and not one of you could have kept Us from it. (69:45-48)

This means that if the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, had (God save us) been guilty of inventing a falsehood against God, he would have been destroyed by God. In other words, an impostor is frustrated in his purposes and is soon destroyed and suffers torment. On the same basis of these verses there has been a consensus in Islam that an impostor cannot survive for twenty-three years after putting forward his claim of being a recipient of revelation. When we apply this criterion to the life of the Promised Messiah we find that he was a prophet of high resolve and was highly successful and that the Movement founded by him has flourished continuously in the world. He enjoyed Divine help throughout. He was alone and was given a devoted Community. He was poor and helpless and God Almighty enriched him. He was unknown and God Almighty made him known to the ends of the earth. Every day of his life augmented his blessings and carried him forward. Has not his truth then been established according to the Quiranic criterion that we have just set out? Had he been an impostor, God Almighty, in accordance with that criterion, would have destroyed him utterly. But what happened was the reverse of it and is a clear proof of his truth.

We would draw attention to an earnest Supplication of his which he expressed in Persian verse as follows:

O Almighty God,
Creator of heaven and earth,
Merciful, Compassionate and Guide,
Who looks into the hearts and from Whom nothing is hidden,
If Thou seest me full of disobedience and mischief;
If in Thy estimation I am an ill-fated creature,
Then do Thou break into pieces this vile one and give pleasure to my enemies.
Shower Thy blessings upon them and fulfil all their designs by Thy grace.
Cast a flame of fire on my household,
Be my enemy and ruin my enterprise.
But if Thou knowest that I am of Thy sincere servants And Thy threshold is my qibla
And Thou findest that my heart is flooded with such love for Thee as is hidden from the rest of the world, Then deal with me out of love and disclose somewhat of these mysteries. (Haqeeqatul Mahdi, p. I)

Could an impostor stand before God and supplicate Him in these moving terms? Keep them in the forefront of your minds and then observe the limitless support and help that God Almighty bestowed upon him, which is overwhelming proof of his truth. Thus while he flourished and went ever forward, anyone who put himself in opposition to him and challenged his claim was destroyed and ruined. This alone is sufficient proof of his truth.

The Promised Messiah, peace be on him, states:

Seldom does a night pass in which God does not comfort me with the assurance that He is with me and that His heavenly hosts stand in my support. Those who are pure in heart will see God after death, but I call His countenance to witness that I see Him even now. The world does not recognize me but He Who has sent me knows me. It is a mistake of my opponents and it is their misfortune that they desire my ruin. I am a tree that the True Master has planted with His own hand. He who seeks to cut me down merely makes himself an heir to Korah, Judas Iscariot, and Abu Jahl. I daily desire it with tears that someone should come into the field and should seek a decision with regard to me on the criteria of prophethood and thus find out which of us enjoys divine support. But to come into the field is not the business of anyone who lacks manhood. One Ghulam Dastagir who was a combatant of the disbelieving host in the Punjab came forward and suffered ruin. It is now impossible for even one like him to come forth from among them. 0 ye people! Be sure that I am supported by the Hand that will keep faith with me till the end. If your men and your women, and your youths and your old ones, and your little ones and your elders, all combine and occupy themselves with supplications begging my ruin, so much so that through long and frequent prostration's their noses should be rubbed away and their hands should be palsied, even then God will not hear your supplications and will not withdraw His hand till He fulfills His design. If no one from among men should be with me, God's angels will stand with me. If you conceal your testimony, stones would well-nigh bear witness for me. Then do not wrong your souls. Those who are false exhibit one type of countenance and those who are true exhibit another. God does not leave any matter undetermined. I call a curse on a life that is given to falsehood and imposture. (Zameenah Tohfa Golarviak, p. 49)

Dare an impostor express himself in such emphatic and powerful words?

Another criterion that the Holy Quran has put forth for judging the truth of a prophet is:

He is the Knower of the unseen; and He reveals not the unseen to anyone, except to him whom He chooses from among His Messengers. (72:27-28)

This means that a prophet is bestowed knowledge of the unseen through revelation to the degree determined by God, and he prophesies accordingly. His prophecies are not open to doubt; they are certain and conclusive and they are all fulfilled without exception. They reveal a good deal of the unseen and are evidence of the support and help of God.

This criterion also establishes the truth of the Promised Messiah. He disclosed a good deal of the unseen, hundreds of his prophecies were fulfilled during his lifetime, many have been fulfilled since and many await fulfillment. It is not possible within the space of this booklet to set them out in detail. For that it is necessary to study his books. By way of illustration we mention some of them here.

At a time when there was intense opposition to him and he was the subject of attack from all directions, not only Muslim divines, but also Christians and Arya Samajists were all active in opposition to him, and it appeared that his mission was likely to be frustrated, he wrote:

Hearken, all of you! This is a prophecy of Him Who has created the heavens and the earth that He will spread this Community in all regions and will make it supreme over all through arguments and proofs... The days are coming, indeed that are near, when there will be only one religion that is honored in the world. He will bless this Movement abundantly and will frustrate everyone who seeks to destroy it. This supremacy will endure forever till the Judgment is held.(Tazkaratus Shahadatain, p. 64)

In 1891 he received the revelation:

I shall make thee known with honor to the ends of the earth and shall exalt thy name.

At the time when he received this revelation he had sent no missionaries outside India, nor were his books generally known beyond the confines of India. Today the message of Ahmadiyyat has reached the farthest regions of the earth. Ahmadiyya missions have been established in most countries of the world and Ahmadi missionaries are scattered around the globe. Islam which appeared in his time as fighting a rearguard action against Christianity is, through his tremendous efforts, now looked upon again with honor and respect in contrast with other religions, and Christianity is on the retreat. It is a matter for reflection what was the power which, many years ago at a time of great weakness and utter helplessness, caused him to make these predictions of Islamic victories and has fulfilled them? Is there any instance of a false one making such prophecies which were fulfilled so splendidly? God Almighty never lends His support to one who is false. As the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, has said:

An impure person never receives help from the Divine Master and He never lets His pure servants be frustrated.

The Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, had announced a definite sign about the advent of the Mehdi. He had said:

The truth of our Mehdi will be attested by two signs which have never appeared in support of any other claimant since the beginning of the world. These are that in the month of Ramadhan the moon will be eclipsed during the first of the nights during which it is subjected to an eclipse and the sun will be eclipsed on the middle one of the days during which it is subject to an eclipse. (Dar Qutni, Vol. I, p. 188)

This prophecy was fulfilled very clearly in 1894. In the month of Ramadhan of that year the moon was eclipsed on the night of 13th, which is the first of the nights on which it suffers an eclipse, and in the same month the sun was eclipsed on the 28th of the month, which is the middle one of the days on which the sun is liable to an eclipse. This Sign was exhibited in India and other Asiatic countries and it was exhibited in America in exactly the same way in the following year on the dates specified in the hadees. This sign was fulfilled so clearly that no one has raised any objection or doubt concerning it. The Promised Messiah, peace be on him, has drawn attention to it most emphatically.

The Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, had proclaimed that God Almighty would at the beginning of

every century raise a Reformer from among the Muslims who would revive the faith (Abu Daud, Vol.11, p.241; Mishkat, Kitabul Ilm).

This has been acknowledged unanimously by Muslim divines throughout. The Promised Messiah, peace be on him, appeared at the beginning of the 14th century of Islam and announced his claim that he was a Reformer and the Promised Mahdi. The 14th century is now drawing to a close and no other reformer has made his appearance among the Muslims in the course of the century. If he is not accepted as a Divinely appointed Reformer, the prediction of the Holy Prophet, peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him, would (God save us) be falsified. As the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, has said:

The time demanded the Messiah and no one else. Had I not come, someone else would have come in my place.

We would urge the Muslims not to be guilty of denying the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, by denying the Promised Messiah, peace be on him.

There are hundreds of proofs that can be cited in support of the truth of the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, but we have, out of considerations of space, restricted ourselves to only a few by way of illustration.

We pray that God Almighty might bestow upon our non Ahmadi brethren the insight to recognise the truth and might enable them to become true Muslims and believers by accepting the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, in whose advent were fulfilled the prophecies of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. Amen.

Read more »

Ahmadiyyat and the British

An objection that is raised is that the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement described himself as a tree planted by the British and that he flattered the British and praised them unduly, which shows that his claim to prophethood had been sponsored by the British.

This charge is entirely false. The Promised Messiah, peace be on him, used the expression 'a tree planted by the British' concerning his forebears with reference to the services rendered by them to the British. He has not employed this expression anywhere concerning his claim, or his status. He wrote:

It is not possible to silence those people who seek to cover up the devoted services rendered by my father, Mirza Ghulam Murtaza, and my brother, Mirza Ghulam Qadir, extending over half a century, which are mentioned in Government letters and in Sir Leppel Griffin's book Chiefs of the Punjab, and the service rendered in my writings extending over eighteen years and to create a misunderstanding in the minds of the British authorities and to raise a doubt concerning a family that has been loyal to the Government and has wished it well. Some people are determined to convey to the Government false allegations on account of religious differences; or out of jealousy, or spite, or some personal motive. It is requested that the authorities should act with wisdom and caution and after due investigation and attention towards a family whose loyalty and devotion have been well established and concerning whom high officials of Government have always expressed the view in their letters that its members are the well wishers and loyal servants of the British Government and which is a tree planted by itself. (Tableegh Risalat, Vol. VII, pp.19-20)

It is quite clear that the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, did not describe his claim as 'a tree planted by the Government', but has used this expression concerning the services rendered by the members of his family and himself in the past. Concerning his claim, he had recorded in the same letter addressed to the Lieutenant Governor:

I claim to be the Promised Messiah under Divine behest and having been honored by Divine revelation and inspiration.

With regard to his own advent he announced emphatically that he was a tree planted by the hand of God Almighty. He wrote:

I am not a tree that can be uprooted by them. If their first ones and their last ones, and their living ones and their dead ones, should all combine together and should pray for my death, my God would reject all their prayers and would throw them back at them as a curse. (Arbain, Nos. 4-7)

In a Persian verse he has said:

O thou who runnest towards me with a hundred hatchets! 
Have fear of the gardener,
For I am a fruit-bearing branch!

It can be asked why did he in any case express his loyalty and praised the British repeatedly in his books? The answer is that some people continuously reported to the Government that he was a dangerous person, even more dangerous than the Sudanese Mahdi. For instance, Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Sahib of Batala wrote concerning him:

His deception is proved by the fact that in his heart he considers it lawful to put an end to the authority of a non-Muslim government and to plunder its belongings... Therefore, it would not be proper on the part of the Government to rely on him and it would be necessary to beware of him, otherwise such harm might be suffered at the hands of this Mahdi of Qadian as was experienced at the hands of the Sudanese Mahdi. (Ishaatus Sunnah, Vol. VI, 1893)

To counter this propaganda, he had to state time after time in books that his community was loyal to the British Government.

Regarding the charge that he flattered the British, attention might be drawn to some of his writings. For instance, he says:

Some ignorant people have raised the objection, among them the Editor of Al-Manar, that as I live in a country ruled by the British, I, therefore, forbid Jihad. These stupid ones do not consider that if I had wished to please the Government with false declarations, why should I have affirmed repeatedly that Jesus, son of Mary, was delivered from the cross and died a natural death in Srinagar and that he was neither God, nor Son of God. Would not such of the British who are devoted to their religion be disgusted by this affirmation of mine? Then attend to this, ye stupid ones, that I offer no flattery to this Government. The truth is that according to the Holy Quran, it is forbidden to go to war against a government which does not interfere in any way with Islam or its practice, nor uses force against us in order to promote its own religion. (Kishti Nuh, p.68)

He states further:

This Government safeguards the lives and the properties of the Muslims and provides them with security against the attack of every wrongdoer... I have not embarked upon this enterprise out of any fear of Government or in the hope of any reward from it. All I have done is in accordance with the divine command and the command of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. (Nurul Haq, Part I, p.30)

He also states:

I have never desired that I should mention my continuous services to government officials, for I consider it my duty to declare the truth, not out of my desire for any return or award. (Tableegh Risalat, Vol. VII, p. 10)

Another statement of his is:

I do not flatter the Government as some ignorant ones imagine because I desire a return from the Government. On the contrary, I consider it just and a duty on account of my faith to express gratitude to the Government. (Tableegh Risalat, Vol. X, p.123)

Thus, whenever he praised the British, it was not out of flattery but was out of obedience to the direction of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, that he who is not grateful to man is not grateful to Allah. To call a justice-loving government a just government is an Islamic quality and is not open to objection.

It is surprising that when the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, pointed out some of the good qualities of the British he was charged with flattering them, but when numberless Muslin divines, both those who were his contemporaries and those who came after him, praised the British in exaggerated terms, no one raised a voice against it. Is that Islamic justice?

We set out below, by way of illustration, some of the declarations of Muslim divines and leaders who described the British Government as a divine blessing.

(i) Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Sahib of Batala, who was one of the divines and leaders of the Ahle Hadees, wrote:

It is not permissible for Muslim subjects to fight, or to help with men and money those who fight, against a government, whether Christian, or Jewish, or of some other faith, under whom the Muslims carry out their religious duties and obligations freely. For the Muslims of India it is forbidden to oppose or rebel against the British Government. (Ishaatus Sunnah, Vol. VI, No. 10)

He has also stated:

Brethren, this is not the time of the sword; at this time it has become necessary to use the pen in place of the sword. (Ishaatus Sunnah, Vol. VI, No.12)

(ii) Syed Ali-al-Hairi Sahib, the well-known Shia mujtahid, has stated:

We take pride in being subject to a Government under which justice and religious freedom are the law, the equal of which is not to be found in any other government of the world. Therefore, I declare that in return for this beneficence every Shia should be grateful to the British Government with a sincere heart and appreciate its beneficence. (Mauiza Tahreef Quran, April 1923)

(iii) Hazrat Syed Sahib Brelvi declared:

Our true purpose is the propagation of the Unity of God and the revival of the practice of the Chiefs of the Prophets, and that we carry out without hindrance in this country. Then why should we fight the British Government and shed the blood of both sides contrary to the principles of our religion. (Biography of Hazrat Syed Ahmed by Maulana Muhammad Jaafar Thanesar)

(iv) An-Nadwah, the organ of the Nadwatul Ulama, wrote:

The true purpose of this institute of learning is to produce clear-minded divines and it is the duty of such divines that they should be familiar with the blessings of the Government and should propagate loyalty to the Government in the country. (An-Nadwah, Vol. V, July 1908)

Again, the same organ wrote:

One day was observed as a holiday in celebration of the fifty years' Jubilee of the British Government and a telegram of felicitations was dispatched on behalf of the Nadwah to His Excellency the Governor-General. (An-Nadwah, November, 1908)

It is against this background that the Promised Messiah expressed his gratitude to the British Government. He set forth his reasons thus:

The Government has provided freedom for every people to propagate their religion and thus the people have gained the opportunity to investigate and reflect upon the principles of each religion and the arguments in support of them... That is the reason that we mention the beneficence of the British Government repeatedly in our writings and speeches. (Roedad Jalsa Dua)

Many of the Muslim divines and leaders obtained grants and awards from the British Government in return for their praise of the Government and their service to it. The Promised Messiah, peace be on him, did all this for the purpose of the propagation of the true Islamic teaching and sought or obtained no advantage of any kind from the British Government. Can the opposing Muslim divines point to a single instance in which the British Government conferred any benefit upon him in return for his praise of the Government? There is no such instance. He was a resident of Qadian and during his lifetime no facility, like the telegraph, or telephone, or railways, was provided by the Government. He lived in perpetual danger on account of the provocative writings and speeches of the opposing divines, but the Government never took any step towards his security, nor rendered him any financial assistance. There was no police or military unit in Qadian. He was repeatedly prosecuted on false charges but the Government showed him no favor. Would that be the attitude of a government towards one who, as has been alleged, was put up by government and was its spy?

When the Promised Messiah, peace be upon him, put forward his claim, the opposing divines for many years continued to charge him with being the agent of the Government and on the other hand reported to the Government that he was disloyal and intended to bring about a rebellion.

On one occasion he received a revelation in Persian to the effect that the British Empire would last only for eight years and that thereafter a period of weakness and disorder and decline would set in. He communicated this revelation only to some members of his Movement. When Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Sahib of Batala, who was always in search for something on the basis of which he might be able to establish that the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, was disloyal to and a rebel against the British Government, learnt of this revelation from a member of the Movement, he at once wrote an article justifying his assertion that he was a rebel who desired to bring about the end of the British Government and Empire.

In any case, is it not surprising that a person who, according to his opponents, had been put up by the British Government should convey to his followers that the days of that Government had been numbered? Had he been put up by the British he would have propagated in support of the strength and permanence of the Government rather than make a prophecy that the Government would not last for much longer.

Another matter that is worthy of note is that the British Government spent millions of pounds in the effort to establish Christianity in its colonial possessions. They published a vast literature in support of this effort and helped to train thousands of missionaries for that purpose. Under the auspices of the Bible Religious Society millions of copies of the Bible were printed in local languages and were published freely and nothing was left untried for the propagation of Christianity and its firm establishment. Then does it stand to reason that on the one hand an intelligent Government should carry on such a tremendous effort for the propagation of its religion and on the other hand should put up a person who applied the ax to the roots of Christianity? Christianity is founded on the death of Jesus upon the cross whereby, it is alleged, he atoned for the sins of mankind. The Promised Messiah, peace be upon him, proved that Jesus did not die upon the cross and thus demolished the very foundation of Christianity. He challenged the principal Christian missionaries in India and established their falsehood. Can such a person be the agent of a Christian government?

All Christian missionaries were united in their opposition to the Promised Messiah, peace be on him. If they knew that he was one of their own men, why should they have opposed him so strenuously? One of his well-known Christian opponents was Padre Thakurdas, He wrote and published books like the Review of Braheen Ahmadiyya, Izalatul Mirza Qadiani, Zunub Muhammadjyya, against the Ahmadiyya Movement. Padre S. P. Jacob wrote and published a book against him called The Promised Messiah. The Rev. Dr. Griswold wrote and published a book titled Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani against him. Leading missionaries like Fateh Masih, Waris Masih, Imadud-din, Sirajuddin, Abdullah Atham, and Henry Martyn Clark, worked their utmost in their Opposition to him. Abdullah Atham was an Extra Assistant Commissioner. If the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, had been put up by the British, was it for them to instruct one of their senior officers to oppose him? Dr. Henry Martyn Clark instituted a false prosecution against him charging him with conspiracy to murder. Was this the type of treatment which was to be expected from the Christians against an agent of the Government?

Till two years before his death the name of every visitor to Qadian was noted down by police agents. Most of the leading British officials looked upon the Ahmadiyya Community with suspicion and were opposed to it. The Governor of the Punjab, Sir Herbert Emerson, was well-known for his hostility towards the Ahmadiyya Movement. He encouraged the Ahrar in their Opposition to the Movement and backed them up. Does all this show whether the British officials were the friends of the Ahmadis or were opposed to them?

The Opponents of the Ahmadiyya Movement describe as an agent of the Christian British Government, one who dubbed Christian missionaries as Anti-Christ (Chashmai-Maarifat), and who proclaimed:

All Christians are without faith and as such they have no right to argue with anyone in the matter of faith, until they first prove their own faithfulness. Their condition bears witness that on account of the lack of those qualities which Jesus prescribed as the qualities of faith, either they are without faith or he was false who set down such qualities for them which are not found in them. In either case it is established that the Christians are utterly far away from and are deprived of truth. (Karamatus Sadiqeen, p.55)

Can one who wrote this be an agent of the British Government? The Promised Messiah, peace be on him, was the person who blocked the advance of Christianity, who proved the death of the god of the Christians, who established the truth of the Holy Quran in contrast with the Bible, whose missionaries are busy demolishing Christian citadels around the globe and who invited the Queen of Great Britain, who was the greatest sovereign of her age, to give up Christianity and to accept Islam. Addressing her he said:

Honored Queen and Empress of India, with humble respect we submit that in this time of joy, which is the time of your Diamond Jubilee, you should endeavor... to rescue the honor of Jesus from the stain that has been put upon it. (Tohfa Qaisariyah)

Can any reasonable person accept that one who had been put up, as alleged by his opponents, by a Christian Government to uproot Islam, should stand up and invite the mightiest sovereign of his time, Her Majesty Queen Victoria, to accept Islam?

Read more »

Ahmadis and the State of Israel

Now that British rule has been brought to an end, the opponents of Ahmadiyyat have invented a new charge that the Ahmadis are the agents of Israel.

In this context it is worthy of note that the first voice raised against the establishment of Israel was the voice of the Ahmadiyya Community, yet its opponents feel no compunction in charging it with being the agents of Israel. When the question of Palestine was raised in the United Nations, Chaudhry Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, a devoted Ahmadi, was enabled by divine grace to deliver a powerful speech on 9 October 1947 in the Committee of the United Nations Assembly that was dealing with the problem, in which he put forward the case of the Palestine Arabs with great ability. The Nawai Waqt of October 12 1947 commented:

The special correspondence of Reuter has reported that after the speech of Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, the Pakistani delegate, the Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations dealing with the question has been confronted with an awkward situation. Till the delegation of the United States declares its position with reference to the problem, other delegations are not prepared to speak. The United States delegate is not ready to speak till President Truman and the Secretary of State, Mr. George Marshall, and the U.S. delegation itself agree upon a united stand. The Chairman of the Committee, Dr. Herbert Evatt, of Australia, expressed his uneasiness at the debate appearing to have arrived prematurely at its end. The U.S. delegate remained sitting silent as if his lips had been sealed. Such a situation is unprecedented in the United Nations. The Pakistani delegate expressed the view of other delegations when in his annoyance he suggested that as leading delegates were reluctant to speak the general debate on the question of Palestine might be closed.

The same organ wrote:

The speech delivered by Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, leader of the Pakistan delegation, in the Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of Palestine was most outstanding in every respect. He spoke for one hundred and fifteen minutes. When he finished his speech an Arab representative said that this was the best speech on the case of the Arabs and that he had not so far heard any such outstanding statement of their case.

Muhammad Zafrulla Khan devoted the greater part of his speech to arguing against the partition of Palestine. During the course of his speech the faces of Arab representatives shone with pleasure. At the end of the speech the delegates of Arab countnes shook him by the hand and felicitated him on his glorious speech. A British delegate sent a message to Zafrulla Khan that his speech was outstanding and that he would request to be furnished with a copy of it so that he might study it with great care.

This historic speech of Ch. Muhammad Zafrulla Khan presented the true aspects of the problem of Palestine before the United Nations and the delegations of several member countries made up their minds in pursuance of it to vote against the partition of Palestine, but thereafter some of them changed their minds under pressure from the great powers.

On 9 December 1947, Ch. Muhammad Zafrulla Khan delivered an address on the subject of Palestine in the Government College Lahore which was reported in theNawai Waqt of 11 December in the following terms:

Ch. Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, leader of the Pakistan delegation to the Assembly of the United Nations, spoke at length on all aspects of the problem of Palestine. He condemned the resolution of the UN General Assembly recommending the partition of Palestine as entirely unjust. Speaking at the Government College Lahore, he expressed great regret that the United States Government procured the recommendation of the United Nations in support of the partition of Palestine by exercising undue pressure on some of the small Powers, members of the United Nations. He said that Palestine had been made a pawn in the election politics of the United States. He pointed out that in the proposed Jewish State to be set up in Palestine, not only will a large Arab minority be subjected to Jewish domination but the economy of the country will pass under international control which would be an illegal development.

He explained that on 26 November it was certain that the resolution could not be carried and its supporters were convinced that it would be defeated) but that at the last moment the voting was unnecessarily postponed to 28 November so that pressure could be exercised on some of the member states that they should give up their opposition to the resolution and vote in support of it. He mentioned that on 28 November the representative of Haiti met him after the voting and with tears literally running down his cheeks made his apology that he had not been left free to vote in accordance with his original instructions. Several other delegates confessed that they had been compelled to vote in support of the resolution under great pressure.

In view of the powerful advocacy of the Arab cause by Ch. Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, not only on this occasion but on every occasion when the question was subsequently raised in the United Nations, can any just person charge the Ahmadiyya Community with being the agents of Israel?

The problem of Palestine entered on a new phase after 1 December 1947 when, through the joint efforts of the United States and the USSR, the General Assembly most unjustly adopted its resolution recommending partition of Palestine. Hazrat Mirza Bashirud Din Mahmud Ahmad Sahib, Khalifatul Masih II, Head of the Ahmadiyya Movement, wrote two strong articles revealing the background of the partition of Palestine. The first of these was published on 28 November and the second on 11 December 1947. In these articles he established clearly that Jewish settlement in Palestine had been carried out under a conspiracy to which the USSR, USA and Britain were parties. He pointed out that these great powers appeared to be opposed to each other in pursuit of their political objectives but that they were united in their hostility towards the Muslims and that they had no sympathy with the Arabs and Muslims. He urged the Muslims to stand upon their own legs and that they should put forth every effort to do so.

These revolutionary articles of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II made a great stir in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and other Arab Countries. 'The Syrian radio broadcast a special summary of them and thus conveyed their purport to all corners of the Arab world. Leading Arab newspapers like the Al-Yaum, Al-Akhbar, Al-Qabas, Al-Nasr, Sautul Ahrar and AI-Urdon etc. published extracts of these articles and unanimously praised and upheld the stand of the writer.

In June 1948 Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II delivered an address in Lahore in which he strongly urged the Muslims to unite so as to rescue Palestine from the grip of the Zionists. With reference to this address the AI-Shura of Baghdad in its issue of i8 June 1948 observed:

An address by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad
We have received a tract which has been published in Baghdad in which a powerful address off Hazrat Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, Head of the Ahmadiyya Movement, Qadian, is set out which he delivered in Lahore after the setting up of the so-called State of Israel. This address is captioned 'The disbelievers are all one community'. We appreciate the Islamic indignation and Islamic efforts of the people who have published this very useful tract.

The AI-Nahzah of 12 July 1948 wrote:

We have received a tract which comprises an address of Al-Syed Mirza Mahmud Ahmad Sahib which he delivered in Lahore. In this address he has urged the Muslims to unite and has drawn attention to the need of solid and effective efforts towards rescuing Palestine from the grip of Zionist criminals and has asked the people of Pakistan to render immediate help to the Palestine Arabs. Reminding the Muslims of their common allegiance to the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and arguing from verses of the Holy Quran the speaker has urged them to organize themselves to with-stand the onsets of the Zionist criminals who are being supported by the United States and Communist Russia in pursuance of their interests and special purposes. He has asked the Muslims not to display weakness or distress, but to keep in mind their obligations of Jihad for the upholding of Islam and Muslims.

This is a passing glimpse of the great effort that the Head of the Ahmadiyya Movement, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II and the devoted member of the Ahmadiyya Movement, Ch. Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, put forth in opposing the setting up of the State of Israel. Indeed the truth is that except the Ahmadiyya Community no one else did any solid work in this sphere. Yet, instead of appreciating this effort, our Pakistani Muslim brethren have charged us with being the agents of Israel. Is this Islamic justice? How will these people face God?

in this context one argument that is put forward by our opponents is that as the Ahmadiyya Movement maintains a missionary center in Israel, the Ahmadis are agents of Israel. If this has any substance in it then it is not only the Ahmadis who are to be blamed. Even today in Israel there are several hundred thousands of Muslims. They would also have to be declared agents of Israel. Then there are several Christian missions that are active in Israel. They will also have to be denounced as agents of Israel. The number of Ahmadis in Israel is very small in comparison with the number of Christians and other Muslims in Israel.

The fact is that the Ahmadiyya Mission in Palestine was established before the coming into existence of the State of Israel. At the time of partition it was decided by the Ahmadiyya Movement to continue its mission in Israel for the propagation of Islam and the education and training of the Palestinian Ahmadis who had been left in Israel along with other Muslims. The Ahmadis believe that it would be difficult to resolve the problem of Palestine satisfactorily in the end without converting all the Jews to Islam. Besides, it is the duty of all Muslims to present the message of Islam to every non-Muslim. In respect of the non-Muslim population of Palestine, the Ahmadis alone are discharging this obligation. The Holy Quran and the ahadees nowhere forbid inviting the Jews to accept Islam or lay down that Muslims should not enter their territory for the purpose of informing them of the excellencies of Islam. It should be remembered that Islam is a universal faith and its message is addressed to all mankind alike. Under the directions of the Holy Quran, the Ahmadiyya Community carries out its obligation of propagating Islam all round the world including the State of Israel. This cannot be open to any objection.

The Holy Prophet, peace and blessing of Allah be upon him, addressed letters to Christian rulers, inviting them to accept Islam. He sent a delegation of Muslims to Ethiopia and directed them to settle there and carry on the propagation of Islam. The Ahmadiyya Community is following in the footsteps of its master, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. If for doing this they are described as disloyal and agents of the enemies of Islam they entertain no grievance about it.

Read more »

Jesus of the Gospels

One objection that is raised against the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement is that he was disrespectful towards Hazrat Isa, peace be on him, and reviled him.

In this connection it should be clearly understood that one of the claims of the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, was that he was the like of Hazrat Isa. He claimed that he had perfect spiritual resemblance to the Messiah. Then how is it possible that a person who claims to be the like of another and his reflection should defame him or should be disrespectful towards him, for that would amount to defaming himself, as the reflection must correspond to the original. It is, therefore contrary to reason that the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, should have said anything derogatory concerning the Messiah, As he has said:

Claiming as I do, that I am the Promised Messiah and that I bear a resemblance to Hazrat Isa, peace be on him, every one would understand that were I to revile him, I would not claim any resemblance to him, for by reviling him, I would confess that I myself was vicious. (Announcement of 27 December 1898)

In his books and writings, the Promised Messiah has repeatedly used expressions of honor, love and affection for Hazrat Isa. For instance he says:

1. There is no doubt that Hazrat Masih, peace be on him, was a true Prophet. (Arbain, No.2)
2. I call Allah, the Glorious, to witness that in the revelation vouchsafed to me He has dearly informed me that Hazrat Masih, peace be on him, was without a doubt, a human being, like other human beings; that he was a true Prophet of God and was His Messenger and His Elect. (Hujjatul Islam, p. 9) 
3. It is my belief that the Messiah was a true Prophet and Messenger and was beloved of God but was not God. (Hujjatu1 Islam, p. 3)
   
   
4. Hazrat Isa, peace be on him, was, no doubt, a beloved Prophet of God and possessed the highest qualities. He was virtuous and a chosen one and had communion with God but was not God. (Announcement of 22 March 1877) 
5. I have been commissioned by God Almighty to profess that Hazrat Isa, peace be on him, was a true and pure and righteous Prophet of God and to believe in his prophethood. (Ayyamus Solh, first title page) 
6. The Messiah was an accepted one of God and was beloved of Him. Those who utter calumnies against him are wicked. (Ijaz Abmad, p.15) 
7. I state on oath that I bear that true love towards the Messiah which you do not possess and that you have not available to you the light with which I recognize him. There is no doubt that he was a dear and chosen Prophet of God. (Dawate Haq, attached to Haqeeqatul Wahi)

This puts it beyond doubt that the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, believed that Hazrat Isa, peace be on him, was a dear and chosen Messenger of God and that he loved him sincerely. It was, therefore, not possible that he should have applied any derogatory terms to the Messiah.

Let us now examine the background which the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, has employed certain harsh expressions concerning Jesus. In this connection it should be clearly understood that according to the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, the Isa of the Holy Quran and the Jesus of the Gospels are two different and distinct personalities. The Isa, son of Mary, peace be on him, mentioned in the Holy Quran was a Prophet of God and was loved by Him and was a chosen one, but the Jesus of the Gospels was a fictitious personality and from the accounts contained in the Gospels his life was stained and unmoral. The Promised Messiah, peace be on him, has explained this in the following terms:

I desire to make it clear to the readers that my faith in Hazrat Masih, peace be on him, is a very good faith. I believe sincerely that he was a true prophet of God and was loved by Him and I believe that, as indicated by the Holy Quran, he had, as a means of his salvation, perfect faith in our lord and master, Muhammad Mustafa, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. He was one of the sincere servants of the law of Moses. I respect him according to his station. But the Jesus who is presented by the Christians, who claimed to be God and condemned everyone else except himself, both those who had gone before and who were to come after, as accursed, as having been guilty of vices the recompense of which is a curse, is regarded by us as deprived of Divine mercy. The Holy Quran makes no reference to this impertinent and foul-mouthed Jesus. We are surprised at the conduct of one who considered that God was subject to death and himself claimed to be God and who reviled such righteous ones as were thousand times better than him. In our writings we have had this fictitious Jesus of the Christians in mind. The humble servant of God, Isa, son of Mary, who was a Prophet and is mentioned in the Holy Quran, is not the object of our harsh condemnations. We have had to adopt this method after having endured for forty years the abuse of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessing of Allah be upon him, by the Christian missionaries. (Nurul Quran, No.2)

Again he has said:

It should be remembered that I hold this view concerning the Jesus who claimed to be God and held previous prophets to be thieves and robbers and has said nothing about the Khatamul Anbya, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, except that he, Jesus, would be followed by false prophets. Such a Jesus is nowhere mentioned in the Holy Quran. (Anjam Aatham, p.13)

At another place he states:

I have uttered no word of disrespect concerning the Messiah, it is all a calumny of my opponents. It is true, however, that as there has not in fact been a Messiah who claimed to be God and who held the Khatamul Anbya, who was to come, as an impostor and who called Moses a robber, I have as a matter of argument certainly stated concerning such a Jesus that he who might have expressed himself in this manner could not be held to be righteous. But I believe in the Messiah, son of Mary, who describes himself as a servant of God and Messenger and affirms the truth of the Khatamul Anbya. (Taryaqul Qulub, p.77)

These statements make it clear that wherever the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, has employed any harsh expression concerning Jesus, it has reference to the fictitious Jesus of the Gospels and not to Isa, son of Mary, peace be on him, who is mentioned in the Holy Qpran and whose like and reflection he himself was.

It might be asked why did the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, write against the fictitious Jesus of the Gospels and employed harsh expressions with regard to him? The reason was that at the time of the advent of the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, and during a short period before his advent Christian missionaries had been in the habit of uttering vile abuse and making false charges against the blessed person of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, such as a sincere Muslim dare not even repeat. The Promised Messiah, peace be on him, as has been mentioned, had endured this torment for forty years. It was an unsupportable torture for him that anyone should be impertinent towards his lord and master, Muhammad Mustafa, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. His utter devotion to the Holy Prophet compelled him to adopt this method in defense of his master, in this manner, and thus to put an end to the vile attacks of the enemies. Such a refutation is a recognized method of defense to which recourse was held by previous divines and eminent personages in the faith, many instances of which are to be found in the history of Islam.

The Promised Messiah has explained:

I declare it with regret that we have had to issue this number of the Nurul Quran in answer to a person who, instead of adopting a civil method, has had recourse to vile abuse of our lord and master the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and out of his vileness he has uttered such calumnies against that Leader of the pure and Chief of the righteous, that the heart of a pious one trembles at hearing them. This reply is a refutation of the utterers of such abuse. We wish to declare that our belief concerning the Messiah, peace be upon him, is a very good belief and that we have sincere faith in that he Was a true Prophet of God and was loved by Him.(NuruI Quran, No.2)

He also states:

Padre Fateh Masih of Fateh Garh, District Gurdaspur, has addressed a vile letter to me in which he has charged our lord and master Muhammad Mustafa, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, with adultery and has, besides this, uttered vile abuse of him. I have, therefore, considered it necessary to reply to it and hence this booklet. I trust the Christian padres will study it carefully and will not be aggrieved at its language as the tone that has been adopted in it is in consequence of the harsh language and vile abuse employed by Mian Fateh Masih, Yet, it is necessary to uphold the holy station of the true Messiah, peace be on him. In reply to the harsh language of Fateh Masih, a fictitious Jesus has been portrayed and that also under great compulsion for this foolish one has abused the Holy Prophet peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, in a vile manner and has wounded our hearts. (Nurul Quran, No.2)

He further states:

We wish to record that we had no concern with the Jesus of the Christian missionaries and his conduct. Their purposeless abuse of our Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, has provoked us that we should set forth somewhat of the circumstances of their Jesus. This vile and wicked Fateh Masih has in his letter that he has addressed to me called the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, an adulterer and has heaped other vile abuse on him. In the same way this dead and wicked sect that worships the dead has compelled us that we should set forth somewhat of the circumstances of their Jesus. The Muslims should remember that God Almighty has made no mention of Jesus in the Holy Quran as to who he was, but the Christian missionaries believe that Jesus was a person who claimed to be God and called Moses a thief and a robber and denied the coming of the Holy Prophet and said that he himself would be followed by prophets who will all be false. We cannot accept such a vile thinker and arrogant man and an enemy of the righteous as a good human being let alone that we should accept him as a prophet. These foolish missionaries would be well advised to abandon this method of abuse lest God's jealousy be aroused. (Zameemah Anjam Aatham, p. 8)

The extracts cited above establish that the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, under extreme provocation and out of his devoted love for the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was roused to silence the Christian missionaries with this refutation. To him alone is due the credit that he adopted a firm stand against falsehood and frustrated the mischievous plans and impostures of the Christian missionaries against the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, for which the Muslims should be grateful to him rather than stand up in opposition to him. After all, if he pulled down into the dust the fictitious Jesus of the Christian missionaries, was it because they had any personal enmity towards him? Indeed not. He had recourse to this method as the safeguarding of the honor and reputation of his lord and master was dear to him and for this purpose he was ready to make any sacrifice. He had declared in a Persian verse:

I am ready to lay down my life in the cause of the faith of Mustafa; this is my sincere purpose which I hope to achieve. Every fibers and muscle of my being is charged with his love. I am empty of my own self and am filled with anxiety on behalf of that beloved.

He states:

So many books full of vile abuse and defamation of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, have been printed and published the perusal of which makes one's body tremble. Our heart is so much in tribulation that if these people were to slaughter our children before our eyes and were to cut to pieces our sincere and beloved friends and were to kill us with great humiliation and were to take possession of our belongings, we call God to witness that even in such case we would not suffer so much grief and our heart would not be so severely wounded as we have suffered and endured under this abuse and defamation which has been directed against the Holy Prophet, peace and blessing of Allah be upon him. (Ayena Kamalat-e-Islam, p. 51)

In short, the Promised Messiah, peace he on him, has not in the slightest degree defamed Hazrat Isa, peace be on him, who as a dear Prophet and Elect of God Almighty. He has only, by way of refutation, condemned the Christians on the basis of the Gospels. In doing this, his only purpose was that the Christian missionaries should refrain from abusing and defaming and uttering false charges against the Leader of the righteous, Muhammad Mustafa, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. It is a fact that his adoption of this method of refutation silenced the Christian missionaries forever and the missionaries who, till the adoption of this method of defense by the Promised Messiah, peace he on him, did not refrain from leveling utterly baseless charges at the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, thereafter confined themselves to their own defense and the stream of poison that had been issuing from their pens against the Holy Prophet was blocked, and the purpose of the Promised Messiah was achieved.

Another aspect of this question is: How far were the charges made by the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, against the Jesus of the Gospels in fact justified? For he would have been held guilty of abuse only if he had invented those charges himself. But if it is established that he merely repeated with reference to the Jesus of the Gospels that which is set out in the Gospels concerning him and which is admitted by the Christians, he cannot be blamed in any respect.

If we examine his writings for this purpose, we discover that there are three allegations which he made against the Jesus of the Gospels, namely:

1. He pointed out that the Jesus of the Gospels indulged in liquor; 
2. That some of his grandmothers were guilty of adultery; and 
3. That his mother was charged with adultery by his enemies.

With regard to the first charge the Promised Messiah states:

The damage that liquor has done to the people of the West is due to the fact that Jesus indulged in liquor, possibly on account of some disease or on account of habit. (Kishti Nuh, p. 65)

In this connection it is worthy of note that the very first miracle of Jesus that is mentioned in the Gospels is that on the occasion of a wedding he converted water into wine and thus the drinking of wine is a part of the Christian faith. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Promised Messiah charged Jesus falsely. He attributed the drinking of wine to him according to the statements of the Gospels.

Secondly, during his time the drinking of liquor had not been forbidden. That is why among the Christians the drinking of wine on the occasion of the Last Supper is a religious ceremony which they imagine was initiated by Jesus.

Thus whatever way we look at it, the Promised Messiah did not make any false charge against Jesus in this respect. On the contrary, he stated, by way of extenuation that Jesus might have taken wine on account of some chronic disease.

The second objection is that the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, has written that some of the grandmothers of Jesus were guilty of adultery.

The Christians have charged members of the holy family of the Holy Prophet with all sorts of faults. They contend that as the Holy Prophet was descended from Hagar, who according to the Christians was a slave of Abraham, peace be on him, and according to them the descendants of a female slave have no right of spiritual succession, therefore, the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be on him, cannot be accepted as a Prophet. Christian writers have advanced several false charges against the Holy Prophet himself and the members of his family. In reply to all this. the Promised Messiah showed from the Bible that as

a bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation (Deut. 23:2)

the Jesus of the Gospels could not enter into the congregation of the Lord inasmuch as in his genealogy three women are mentioned who were guilty of adultery. These women were Tamar, Rachab and the wife of Uriah. Padre Imaduddin, in his commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, has observed:

This shows that Lord Jews did not disdain to he born in the chain of sinners.

Thus the Promised Messiah refuted from Christian sources the calumny that the ancestors of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, were not sinless people. There is no such allegation concerning him in any standard Islamic book or history, while the Bible contains statements to the effect that we have mentioned which are admitted by Christian scholars. Whatever the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, wrote about the Jesus of the Gospels was not from himself but was drawn from Christian sources which he cited. No objection can, therefore, be taken to whatever he wrote in this context.

The calumny against the mother of Jesus is well known. It is the Holy Quran that cleared her of it.

Read more »

Finality of Prophethood

The principal charge leveled against the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, is that (God save us), he repudiated the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, being the Khataman Nabiyyeen.

This is an utterly false charge. The Promised Messiah, peace be on him, has repeatedly affirmed in his writings that he believes that every word and vowel point of the Holy Quran is from God and that this is part of his faith. He was the first person in Islam who proclaimed that not one word of the Holy Quran is abrogated. He challenged those who believe that a certain number of verses of the Holy Quran have been abrogated, to come forth in opposition to his declaration and that he would establish that not a single word of the Holy Quran has been abrogated. To say concerning such a person that (God save us) he repudiated a whole verse of the Holy Quran (33:41) is a monstrosity.

He has stated:

I call Allah, the Glorious, to witness that I am not a disbeliever. My doctrine is that there is no one worthy of worship save Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah . I believe concerning him that he was the Messenger of Allah and theKhataman Nabiyyeen. I affirm the truth of this statement with as many oaths as are the Holy names of Allah and as are the letters of the Holy Quran and as is the number of the excellencies of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. No belief of mine is contrary to the commands of Allah and His Messenger. He who imagines anything contrary to this labors under a mis-conception. (Karamatus Sadiqeen, p.25)

Again he has stated:

The person who was above all, and was a perfect man, and a perfect prophet, and who came with the fullness of blessings, through whom, on account of his spiritual advent and the spiritual resurrection that he brought about, the first judgment manifested itself and a whole universe that was dead was revived, that blessed prophet Khatamul Anbiya, Leader of the elect,Katamul Mursileen, Pride of the Prophets was Muhammad Mustafa, peace and the blessings of Allah by upon him. (Itmamul Hujjah, p.28)

He claimed:

Allah is Glorious, Allah is Glorious; what a high station was that of the Khatamul Anbiya, the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. Glory be to Allah, what high degree of light was his. (Braheen Ahmadiyya, p.246)

My belief that I hold in this life and with which, by the grace of Allah, I shall pass on from this world is that our lord and master, Muhammad Mustafa, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was Khataman Nabiyyeen and the best of Messengers. (Izala Auham, part I, p.137)

He declared:

I believe in the Khatam-i-Nabuwat of the Khatamul Anbjya, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and consider one who denies the Khatam-i-Nabuwat as faithless and outside the pale of Islam. (Taqreer Wajabul llan, 1891)

He has stated:

My belief is that our Holy Prophet is better and more exalted than all the Messengers and is Khataman Nabiyyeen. (Ayenah Kamalat Islam, p.327)

He has declared:

I believe that our Holy Prophet, Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is more exalted than all the Messengers and is the Khatamul Anbiya. (Hamamatul Bushra, p.8)

He has affirmed:

I believe truly and perfectly in the verse which says: 'But he was the Messenger of Allah and Khataman Nabiyyeen'. (Ek Ghati Ka Izala)

All this makes it clear beyond doubt that the Promised Messiah, peace be upon him, had perfect faith in the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be on him, being the Khataman Nabiyyeen, and that he considered anyone who repudiated this as being outside the pale of Islam. It is, therefore, the height of injustice to allege that he denied the Khatam-i-Nabuwat of Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

It is true, however, that the Ahmadiyya Community differs with some of the Muslim divines in the true meaning and interpretation of the relevant verse (33:41). The Ahmadis have firm faith in the verse itself and a difference of view regarding its meaning and interpretation does not import disbelief. In the history of Islam great Imams and divines have differed with each other in the matter of interpretation on several questions. Despite those differences they were all considered Muslims and are worthy of honor by all Muslims. Such Imams and high authorities have interpreted this particular verse (33:41) exactly as the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement has interpreted it. Will they all, God forbid, be held to be non-Muslims? It would be obviously unjust that if X interprets a verse in one way he should be held to be a Muslim but if Y interprets it in the same way, he should be held to be a disbeliever. We set out, by way of illustration, the interpretations of this verse (33:41) by some of the outstanding divines.

Hazrat Mulla Ali Qari (mercy of Allah be upon him), who died in 1014 A.H. and was a great research scholar and a master of Hanafi jurisprudence and was a great Imam, has stated in his book Mauzuat Kabir, with reference to the saying of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him:

Had Ibrahim (the Holy Prophet's infant son) survived, he would have been a true prophet, that if Ibrahim had survived and had become a prophet he would still have been a follower of the Holy Prophet; and he has interpreted the verse (33:41) as meaning that there would be no prophet after the Holy Prophet who would abrogate his law and who would not be one of his followers.

In the same way, Hazrat Shah Waliullah, Muhaddas of Delhi (mercy of Allah be upon him), who has been acclaimed as the Reformer of the 12th century of Islam, has stated in his book Tafheemat IIahiyyah:

The prophets came to an end with the Holy Prophet, meaning that there can be no divinely inspired reformer after him who would be commissioned by Allah, the Glorious, with a new law.

Thus there can be a difference in the interpretation of the verse, but so far as faith in the verse is concerned it is not open to any doubt that the Promised Messiah, peace be upon him, had full faith in it.

The verse is as follows:

Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets. Allah has full knowledge of all things. (33:41)

Our opponents say that the expression Khataman Nabiyyeen, which has been employed in this verse, relating to the Holy Prophet, means that by his advent prophethood has been closed and that he was the last prophet in every sense. This interpretation is not correct. The word Khatam means seal and thus the expression Khataman Nabiyyeen means the Seal of the Prophets. The verse states that Muhammad is not the father of any man but is the Messenger of Allah and is the Seal of the Prophets. The question, therefore, is what is the true meaning of the expression 'Seal of the Prophets' in this context? Our opponents contend that the phrase Khataman Nabiyyeen does mean the Seal of the Prophets but that its interpretation is that the Holy Prophet was the last prophet, for the purpose of a seal is to close a document.

It is well known, however, that the purpose of a seal is not to close a statement but to certify it as correct. That is why often a seal is affixed to a document at its top and in other cases it is affixed at its bottom or at its end. Its purpose is to certify the genuiness and correctness of the contents of the document. It is well known that after the truce of Hudaybiyyah, when the Holy Prophet decided to address letters to the rulers and chiefs of surrounding territories inviting them to the acceptance of Islam, he was told that rulers and chiefs do not attach any significance to a communication addressed to them unless it bears the seal of the writer. Thereupon the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, had a seal prepared which was thereafter used for the attestation and certification of documents (Bokhari and Muslim).

The purpose of a seal being attestation and certification, the interpretation of the verse in question would be that though the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, had no male issue, yet being the Messenger of Allah he is the spiritual progenitor of his followers. He is, therefore, not without issue but has a large progeny. It is added that he is not merely a Divine Messenger but is also the Seal of the Prophets, that is to say, he is not only the progenitor of the generality of the believers but is the spiritual progenitor of the prophets and messengers also and thus he occupies the exalted position which imports that no prophet or messenger can now appear unless he bears with him the confirmatory seal of the Holy Prophet. This means that the Holy Prophet is not only the spiritual progenitor of the generality of believers but is also the spiritual progenitor of prophets and messengers.

If this verse is construed as meaning that the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was absolutely the last prophet, the verse becomes meaningless. In that case its meaning would be: 'Muhammad had no son but he is the last prophet.' In Arabic idiom the word 'but' which has been used here is employed for the purpose of introducing an explanation in modification of what has gone before, or for the purpose of clearing a doubt which the previous statement might raise. The use of the word 'but' in this verse entails that it should be followed by a statement which modifies or clarifies that which has gone before. In view of this the interpretation put forward by our opponents makes the verse meaningless, for it would then amount to a statement that though the Holy Prophet has no issue, no prophet will come after him. This would constitute no praise of the Holy Prophet.

The interpretation of the verse adopted by the Ahmadiyya Community is in exact accord with that attributed to it by great Imams and the elect in the past. For instance, Hazrat Ayesha (may Allah be pleased with her) is reported as having said:

Say he was Khataman Nabiyyeen, but do not say that there will be no prophet after him. (Durre Manshur, Vol. V of Jalaludin Suyuti)

Hazrat Mohyuddin ibn Arabi has stated in his book, Futuhat Makkiyyah:

Prophethood will continue among men till the Judgment Day, though a new law is barred. Law is a part of prophethood.

Hazrat Imam Muhammad Tahir has stated in his book, Majmaul Bihar:

The saying of Hazrat Ayesha that Muslims should call the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be on him, Khataman Nabiyyeen, but should not say that there would be no prophet after him, had reference to the advent of the Promised Messiah. The direction given by Hazrat Ayesha is not in contradiction with the hadees: 'There will be no prophet after me'; for the meaning of the Holy Prophet was that there would be no prophet after him who would abrogate his law.

Hazrat Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi (may Allah have mercy on him) Reformer of the second millennium, who is held in great honor, has stated:

The achievement by the followers of the Holy Prophet by way of obedience and inheritance of the excellencies of prophethood after the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is not inconsistent with his being the Khatamar Rusul (Maktubat Ahmadiyya, Vol. I)

Hazrat Shah Waliullah, Muhaddas of Delhi, may Allah have mercy on him, who was a great divine and was the Reformer of the 12th century of Islam, has stated in his book Tafheemat Ilahiyyah that the meaning of prophethood having come to an end with the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is that there will be no one who will be appointed by God Almighty with a new law.

These are only a few out of hundreds of statements made by eminent Muslim divines and righteous people who have interpreted the expression Khataman Nabiyyeen in the same way as the Promised Messiah, peace be upon him, has interpreted it. If despite differences in interpretation they were Muslims and were accepted as believers in the Holy Quran, why should the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, be penalized for having the same belief? Such an attitude would be the height of injustice.

There is a serious contradiction involved in the stand taken by the divines who are opposed to the Ahmadiyya Movement. On the one hand they pronounce the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, a disbeliever because in their estimation his claim of prophethood is contradictory of the verse which pronounces the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, as being Khataman Nabjyyeen; and on the other hand they believe that Jesus, son of Mary, who is a Prophet, would come a second time. If the Seal of Prophethood is disrupted by the claim of the Promised Messiah that he is a prophet by reflection, then how is it that it would not be disrupted by the second advent of Jesus who was a Prophet in his own right? The bulk of the Muslims believe that Jesus would descend from heaven in his earthly body and would be a prophet.

For instance, Maulana Maudoodi Sahib has stated:

The second advent of Jesus is a question on which the Muslims are all agreed. This belief is based upon the Holy Quran,hadees, and consensus ... This is a certainty and admits of no doubt that the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, has announced the second advent of Jesus. This is established by irrefutable testimony. If such testimony can be rejected, no historical event of the world can be accepted. (Answer to ten questions on behalf of Jamaat Islami, p.24)

In a hadees of Muslim, the Messiah who was to come has been described as the Prophet of Allah. The stand of the Ahl-i-Hadees sect in this matter is that there is a consensus among the Muslims and it is supported by the ahadees that the Promised Messiah would be a prophet. (Ahl-i-Hadees, 29 November 1966).

Imam Sayuti, Ibn Arabi, and Ibn Hajar have all clearly affirmed that in his second advent, the Messiah would be a prophet. Basing himself on a statement by Imam Sayuti, Nawab Siddique Hasan Khan Sahib wrote:

He who asserts that Hazrat Isa, when he comes down will not be a prophet and would be deprived of his prophethood is certainly a disbeliever as Imam Jalaludin Sayuti has clearly affirmed, inasmuch as Hazrat Isa is a Prophet and a prophet is not deprived of his quality of prophethood either in his lifetime or after his death. (Hujajul Karamah, p.431)

Shaikh Ibn Arabi has said:

There is no difference of opinion on the question that Hazrat Isa is a Prophet and a Messenger and it is agreed that he would appear in the latter days and his prophethood is well established (Futuhat Makkiyyah, Vol.II, p.3)

Shaikh Ibn Hajar wrote:

Hazrat Isa is an honored Prophet. After he comes down he would still be a Prophet and Messenger. An affirmation by a person of no account that he will be only a member of the Muslim community is not correct, inasmuch as he being one of the Muslims and his giving effect to the Islamic law is not inconsistent with his being a Prophet and a Messenger. (Alfatawa Alhadisiyyak,p.129)

Thus, it is the united stand of the Muslims that at the time of his second advent the Messiah will still be clothed with the robe of prophethood and that this would not be inconsistent with the verse which describes the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, as Khataman Nabiyyeen (33:41).

How unjust, therefore, it is that despite the belief that Jesus of Nazareth will descend from heaven in his capacity of the Messiah of Israel and that he will be a Prophet and that this would not disrupt the Seal of Prophethood, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, who claimed to be a follower of the Holy Prophet and a Prophet by way of reflection and declared his purpose to be perfect obedience to the Holy Prophet, should be held to have been outside the pale of Islam on account of this claim.

Here are some instances of the use of the expression Khatam in the connotation of high, eminent, excellent etc. but not meaning the last:

1. Abu Tayyub was pronounced Khatamus Shuara. (Introduction to the Divan of Mutanabbi p. 5)
2. Hazrat Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, was Khatamul Aulia. (Tafseer Safi, Surah Ahzab)
3. Hazrat Imam Shafai was Khatamul Aulia. (At Tuhfatus Sunnia, p. 45)
4. Shaikh Ibn Arabi was Khatamul Aulia. (Title page of Fatuhat Makkiyyah)
5. Shah Abdul Aziz was Khatamul Muhaddaseen Wal Mufassireen. (Hadyatis Shia, p.7)
6. Maulvi Anwar Shah Sahib Kashmiri was Khatamul Muhaddaseen. (Raisul Ahrar, p. 99)
7. Habib Shirazi is considered Khatumushuara in Iran. (Hayate Saadi, p.87)
8. Imam Suyuti was Khatamul Muhaddaseen. (Hadyatis Shia, p.210)
9. Hazrat Ali was Khatamul Auwsia. (Minar-ul Huda, p. 106)
10. Maulvi Muhammad Qasim was Khatamul Muffasireen. (Asrar-e-Qurani, title page).

Read more »