Blog RSS Feed
Via E-mail
Twitter
Facebook
.jpg)
In his crude ridicule of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Abdul Hafeez first states that Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad'sas 'visions and hallucinations assure him that God in heaven glorifies him and invests him with the highest decorations'1 and then appends a grotesque cartoon in which he cites numerous claims allegedly made by Hadhrat Ahmadas.2 He also includes a caption to this tasteless cartoon to the effect: 'I may be unstable, but believe me, I am versatile enough to fit any frame all in one.'3 However, despite his own statement that 'for every claim there has to be some proof,'4 the author of Two in One follows the wont of his lying colleagues to accuse Hadhrat Ahmadas of proposing to establish a claim to be God or the son of God and even the father of God etc., etc., without actually furnishing any conclusive proof to support his foul accusations.
In absence of any supporting evidence to substantiate the foul charges made against Hadhrat Ahmadas, one would have been inclined to ignore these allegations but since such false assertions have been made often by many authors hostile to Hadhrat Ahmadas, one would refer to these and illustrate the extent of falsehood and deception to which the adversaries of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community have resorted in their hostile propaganda. One is certain that at the end of this exercise, those who possess a noble and a pious disposition would acknowledge that any person accusing Hadhrat Ahmadas of these obnoxious charges could only be an advocate of the accursed Satan.
CLAIM OF DIVINITY
In evidence of their false allegation that Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas of Qadian claimed to be God Almighty, some of his adversaries quote him from his bookKitabul Barriyah to state that he declared:
'I saw in one of my contemplative visions [Kash] that I am God myself and believed that I am the same. His Godhead penetrated and infused in me. My personal edifice collapsed and that of God appeared distinctly and divinity subdued me completely.' He further writes 'and in this state, I submitted that we need a new system and a new sky. So, first of all, I vaguely created the earth and the sky but there was no order and no system therein. Then according to the will of God, I put them in proper order and appropriate arrangements and I saw that I was capable of creating things. Then I originated the sky of the earth and said [sic]. Then I asserted that now We should beget man with the essence of clay. Then the state of contemplative vision converted into inspiration and I started muttering "These are the inspirations I am enlightened with by God Almighty." Kitab al Bana pp. 85 to 87; A'ina Kamalat i Islam p. 5645
While one does not accept that this is a perfectly accurate translation of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas original statement, one still calls upon every honest and sincere person to read this passage, albeit not a faithful reproduction of the original and truly determine if there is any claim of Divinity contained herein. In the first instance, one draws one's attention to the following passages of this citation:
1. I saw in one of my contemplative visions [kashf] that I am God myself and believed that I am the same.
2. In this state I submitted that we need a new system and a new sky.
3. Then the state of contemplative vision converted into inspiration and I started muttering: 'These are inspirations I am enlightened with by God Almighty'.
These passages in the hostile publications are an admission that this entire scenario was being observed by Hadhrat Ahmadas in a state of vision. Now, every rational human being, whether a believer or not, would accept that a person who sees something in a dream or a vision cannot be held responsible for it since at that precise moment when a dream or vision is being observed, one's faculties are not in one's possession at all. If Abdul Hafeez refuses to accept this explanation then one would ask him as to how would he reconcile Hadhrat Muhammad'ssa dream or vision in which he saw himself wearing two gold bangles on his wrist6 when Muslim men have been forbidden to wear gold. Would he care to state that God forbid, the Prophet of Islamsa contravened the laws of Islam contrary to the explicit command of God?
There is other evidence contained within this citation which establishes that Hadhrat Ahmadas did not claim any Divinity with this vision. As for instance, he stated that 'he saw in his vision that he was God himself' which admits the fact there is a God Who is not Hadhrat Ahmadas. The sentences in relation to the penetration of the Almighty's Godhead; the collapse of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas edifice and it being subdued with God's divinity; his submitting to God that a new system and sky was needed; his putting things in proper order with the will of God and his being enlightened with such inspirations by God Almighty are all admissions of the fact that there is no claim of Divinity but that there is a God Who is not Hadhrat Ahmadas. It is however ironic that in order to prove their false allegations against Hadhrat Ahmadas, his adversaries cite incomplete quotations from his books since such an exercise assists them in hiding true facts and creating some doubt in the minds of simple minded people whose intellectual capacity often limits them from reading between the lines. For instance, when one refers to Hadhrat Ahmad'sas original work, one finds that this passage quoted by his adversaries reads:
'In a vision I saw that I myself was God and believed myself to be such. I felt that I had no will or thought or action of my own left, and that I had become like something which was being completely overpowered by something else that had absorbed me wholly so that my own being had completely disappeared. I saw the divine spirit envelop my soul and covering my body hide me completely in itself so that not a particle of me remained. I beheld myself as if all my limbs had become His, my eyes had become His eyes, my ears had become His ears and my tongue had become His tongue. My Lord seized me with such great force that I disappeared in Him and I felt that His power was surging in me and that His divinity was coursing through me. The Lord of honor then set His camp around my heart and the Lord of power ground down my soul so that there was no more of me nor any desire of mine left. My whole structure was demolished and only the structure of the Lord of the universe remained visible.
The Divine overcame me with such force that I was drawn to Him from the hair of my head to the nails of my toes. Then I became all spirit which had no body and became an oil which had no dregs. I was separated completely from my ego and I became like something which was not visible or like a drop which had become merged in the ocean so that the ocean comprehended it in its vastness. I no longer knew what I had been before nor what my being was. Divinity coursed through my veins and muscles. I was completely lost to myself and God Almighty employed my limbs for His purpose and took possession of me with such force that nothing exceeded it. By this seizure I became non existent. I believed that my limbs had become God's limbs and I imagined that I had discarded my own being and had departed from my existence, and that no associate or claimant had remained as an obstruction. God Almighty entered wholly into my being and my anger and my gentleness, and my bitterness and my sweetness and my movement and my inertness all became His. In this condition I said: I desire a new universe, a new heaven and a new earth.'7
One would observe from this complete statement that the hostile citation of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas statement has expunged a large section of the original vision recorded by him only because it proves that he did not claim Divinity but that in a state of vision the Glory of God descended upon him and none can object to such a phenomenon - a phenomenon totally acceptable to Islamic thought as for instance acknowledged by Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamirh who stated:
'If a man be totally lost in God, since God is everything he will see in himself everything.'8
This statement by the revered Persian saint is in strict conformity with Islamic teachings since Hadhrat Muhammadsa has stated that God Almighty declared:
'My servant who offers optional prayers constantly increases in grade of nearness to me so much so that I also begin to love him. Then I become his ears with which he hears and his eyes with which he sees and his hands with which he holds things and his feet with which he walks.'9
To a person of Abdul Hafeez's caliber, this statement by Hadhrat Muhammadsa may suggest that God literally becomes the ears and eyes and hands and feet of a person who offers optional prayers constantly. But, this does not alter the fact that in truth, it proposes to establish that those people who engage in such spiritual exercises are drawn closer to Him so much that they become a part of Him as He becomes a part of them and since they are totally lost in Him, they begin to see Him in themselves. This phenomenon has often been experienced by the saints of Islam. Hence, Hadhrat Ali ibn Talibra declared:
'l am the dot under the letter b of Bismillah. l am that aspect of God about which you have been indifferent. I am the Qalm. I am the Luh, I am the 'Arsh, I am the Kursi, I am the Seven Heavens and the Earths.'10
Such expressions as Luh and Qalm to which Hadhrat Alira laid claim are attributes of God Almighty. Similarly, Hadhrat Imam Ja'far Sadiqrh, a descendent of Hadhrat Muhammadsa and the sixth Imam of the Shi'ah Muslims declared:
'we are the face of God.'11
Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamirh was much more explicit with his claim when he declared:
'There is no one like me in heaven, nor anyone of my attributes on earth. My attributes are hidden in the Unseen. How can such a one be man? Nay, he is the tongue of Truth, and the speaker of the Truth Himself. For Me he speaks, for Me he hears, from Me he sees. Therefore, it is God Who speaks through the tongue of Abu Yazid.'12
The revered Persian saint claimed to be a 'God of great glory'13 and he also declared:
'There is none worthy of worship besides me, so worship me.'14
Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh, who was a disciple of Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamirh wrote an ode in the honor of his spiritual preceptor and stated that:
'That glorious sage Abu Yazid came to the disciples and said: I am God. This perfect spiritual leader, in the state of spiritual intoxication declared: There is no God but me, serve me; In other words, in my robe there is none but God, so how long will you search Him in heaven and earth.'15
Hadhrat Sheikh Muhiy ud Din Ibne Arabirh also declared in relation to himself:
'I am the spirit of spirits not the spirit of vessels.'16
Hadhrat Sultan Bahuth, a revered sufi of the Punjab claimed to be God in his poetic verses:
'I know only the Truth, I see only the Truth, I cry only the Truth. Truth is in me and I am the Truth, this is the Truth.'17
Hadhrat Abu al Hasan Kharganirh another venerable sage of his time announced:
'I am the God of my age.'18
Hadhrat Sheikh Farid ud Din Attarrh was also extremely explicit in his claim and declared:
'I am free from spite, arrogance and greed; I am God, I am God, I am God.'19
Hadhrat Hussain ibn Mansur al Hallajrh was asked if he claimed to be a prophet of God to which the revered sage replied:
'I am sorry for you that you have reduced my worth. I claim Divinity for myself and you ask me of a claim to prophethood.'20
In the height of his intensity of love for his Creator, he declared in a state of ecstasy
'I am the Lord.'21
Hadhrat Abu Bakr Shiblirh was also extremely explicit in his pronouncermnt and stated in relation to himself.
'It is I who speaks, it is I who listens. In the two worlds, there is none but I myself.'22
Muslim saints have also been referred to as God in Person by their followers as for instance Sheikh Sabir Kalyari stated in relation to Sufi Sayyid Abid Mia Uthman Naqshbandi:
'I call him Ka'aba or Quran or Prophet or God.'23
Allama Muhammad Iqbal who in recent times has become the patron saint of most anti Ahmadiyya Muslim elements stated in relation to Hadhrat Nizam id Din Auliarh:
'What the angels read, that is your name. Great is your status, widespread is your Grace.'24
These are but a few sample illustraffons of the pronouncements of some of the greatest sufis known to the history of Islam, generally revered for their piety by the larger majority of the Muslim ummah or else of Muslim scholars in relation to their spiritual mentors. One has to but read through the colossal Islamic literature to gauge the extent of such pronouncements made by Muslim saints and scholars. Yet, one observes that whereas Hadhrat Ahmadas did not at any point in time claim to be God, numerous venerable saints and scholars of the ummah of Islam made a claim to be Him in Person or else were called God by their followers and admirers.
One would now ask Abdul Hafeez as to what is his opinion in relation to all these aforementioned saints and scholars of Islam who claimed Divinity for themselves or attributed it to their spiritual predecessors? Does he consider them unstable and versatile enough to fit in any frame and would he similarly accuse them of suffering from hallucinations which assured them that they were God in heaven? Would he also condemn them as mad as he does Hadhrat Ahmadas although he made no such claim to Divinity as the aforementioned saints of the Ummah did?25 Would he call these pronouncements of all the saints and scholars as their doldrums as he does in case of Hadhrat Ahmadas who incidentally, unlike them, never made any such specific claim?26 Would he caricature cartoons of all these sufis of the ummah, Hadhrat Ali ibn Talibra, Hadhrat Ja'far Sadiqrh, Abu Yazid Bustamirh, Hadhrat Sheikh Muhiy ud Din ibne Arabirh, Hadhrat Sultan Bahurh, Hadhrat Abu al Hasan Kha~anirh, Hadhrat Sheikh Farid ud Din Attarrh, Hadhrat Hussain ibn Mansur al Hallajrh and Hadhrat Abu Bakr Shiblirh who claimed to be God Almighty in some form or the other and include this in the future editions of his book Two in One? If not, then would he not prove himself to be a hypocrite? A liar Abdul Hafeez has been already proved since it has been shown that Hadhrat Ahmadas did not, ever, claim divinity for himself and an enemy also he has proved himself to be by accusing Hadhrat Ahmadas of a false charge. Why then should a hypocrite, a liar and an enemy of the righteous take exception to being branded a disbeliever?
SON OF GOD
The. second false charge often alleged against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas is that he claimed to be a son of God in the literal sense of the word27 which once again is argued on gross misrepresentation of some of his revelations. In this instance, his adversaries quote three alleged revelations in evidence while the third of these 'Listen my son'28 or 'Listen! O my son'29 stated to have been quoted from Al Bushra is not a revelation vouchsafed unto him. Apparently, an Arabic journal Al Bushra quoted a revelation vouchsafed unto Hadhrat Ahmadas - the original recorded by him in his own works being
'The host will be scattered and they will tum their backs. Fear not My servant, I hear and see. See you not that We are reducing the earth from its borders? See you not that Allah has power to do all that He wills. Call down blessings on Muhammad and the people of Muhammad, Chief of mankind and Seal of Prophets.'30
However, due to some negligence on the part of Al Bushra's copyist, the expression Asm'aa wa Araa meaning I hear and see was incorrectly printed in the journal as Asm'aa Wa 'lade meaning Listen My Son. Anyone minutely conversant with Arabic language would know that such an error is easily made considering the characters of the language. In this instance, Asm'aa wa Araa is written as while Asm'aa Wa'lade is written as . However, due to the negligence of the copyist, the alphabet I which stands for 'alif or its equivalent a in English and ra or r happened to be mistakenly joined together as a result of which these assumed the shapes of Jla'm and dal and hence what should have been 'Ar became la'd. Consequently, Araa assumed the shape of 'lade whereby what should have been Asm'aa wa Araabecame Asm'aa Wa'lade.
This unforumate error in the columns of Al Bushra was immediately detected and the editor of the journal took necessary steps to publish a correction in its following issue. He also sent a notice to the official journal of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community at Qadian to the effect:
'ln line 10 of page 49 of Al Bushra. vol. 1, the revelation of the Promised Messiah Asm'aa wa Araa has been incorrectly written as Asm'aa Wa'lade. lt is regretted that so far none of our friends was able to point out this error and I am indeed grateful to a kind friend for drawing my attention to it. When compared with the original copy' it was found that the correct revelation was Asm'aa wa Araa. All those friends who possess a copy of this issue of Al Bushra may kindly make the necessary correction.'31
It may not be unreasonable to state that during the course of any publication either the author or the copyist is extremely likely to commit some genuine errors which despite proof reading and revision may sometimes not be detected until after the material has been printed. Such mistakes have appeared in the best of publications and neither the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community nor its adversaries can claim immunity to such misprints. One, for instance, observes that Abdul Hafeez's spiritual preceptor Ehsan Elahi Zaheer claims Hadhrat Ali ibn Talibra to be God Almighty in one such printing error.32 Would it then be fair to assert that in the opinion of Abdul Hafeez's spiritual preceptors, Hadhrat Alira is God forbid, God Almighty?
As regards the other two citations, 'You are, of Me, like My son' and 'You are, of Me, like My offspring', had these antagonists exercised similar honesty which same of their colleagues have inadvertently done in the translation of these revelations, they would not have discovered anything objectionable. For instance, one hostile author translates this particular revelation as 'you are unto me as my son.'33 This indicates that whereas the original revelations contain the preposition to - it has been substituted with of by some critics which gives the revelations a totally different meaning from what was originally revealed unto Hadhrat Ahmadas by God Almighty and also what was intended by Him since it is one thing to state that 'you are of me like my son' or 'you are of me like my offspring' and another to state that 'you are to me like my son'34 or 'you are to me like my offspring'35 But, God Almighty does not have a son and this fact had been acknowledged by Hadhrat Ahmadas who stated that one:
'of the attributes of God to which the Holy Quran calls us is that Allah is Single and He begets not, nor is He begotten.'36
In another such expression of his beliefs, he stated that 'God is not anyone's son, nor is anyone His son.'37 Therefore, the only conclusion one can draw from these revelations is that these Divine words have been spoken in a figurative sense and should not be an occasion to either take exception or else accuse Hadhrat Ahmadasof making a claim to Divine sonship in the literal sense. In fact, Hadhrat Ahmadas appended a footnote to this revelation in relation to him being called like a son to God and stated:
'Holy is God Almighty from having sons and this expression has been used as a metaphor.'38
The use of the expression Son of God abounds in religious vocabulary and such terminology has also been found perfectly acceptable and permissible in Islam Hadeeth reports that Hadhrat Muhammadsa stated:
'The creatures of God Almighty are His children and whosoever shows kindness unto His family is indeed His most beloved servant.'39
This statement does not propose to suggest that the creatures of God are His children in the literal sense. It merely demonstrates the regard in which Allah holds His creation and no one dare suggest that with this statement, Hadhrat Muhammadsa committed blasphemy of attributing children to God Almighty. Hence, the question which one needs to consider in the light of this statement is that if God holds His ordinary creatures in such high regard that Hadhrat Muhammadsa considered them to be the children of Allah, then how high a regard does He have for His commissioned apostles. This question has often been answered by some of Islam's most venerable personages. The renowned mystic sage, Hadhrat Maulana Jalal ud Din Rumirh declared:
'The apostles of God are symbolically His sons.'40
The revered Muhaddith of Delhi, Hadhrat Shah Wali Ullah Dehlvirh discussed the use of this appellation in religious vocabulary and stated:
'if God employs the word son for His beloved then one should not be surprised since it is not meant in the literal sense.'41
Hadhrat Maulana Muhammad Qasim Nanautvirh, the founder of the Nidawatul Ulama, the famous seminary at Deoband defended the permissibility of such vocabulary and explained:
'If God calls a pious man His son, it only means that He is graciously inclined to him and is kind to him. lt would be totally wrong to interpret such a statement literally.'42
Therefore, there is absolutely no cause to take exception to Hadhrat Ahmadas being given the appellation of being 'the like of the son of God' in these revelations which are often manipulated to allege that he claimed to be the son of God in a literal sense. Hadhrat Ahmadas explained this appellation used in relation to him and stated that:
'God Almighty is far above having any sons and neither has He an associate and therefore no one has a right to claim that he is the son of God. But this sentence has been stated as a reflection and metaphorically.'43
He also made it quite clear that his 'being called a son of God was a mere statement of spiritual grade that had been bestowed upon him and that a son of God in a literal sense was not meant by this revelation'44 He discussed the figurative use of this expression at great length and stated:
'Those people who efface their identity in the love of God are called the sons of God. But this does not mean that they are His sons in the literal sense since such an assertion would be positively blasphemous as Holy is He, far above having any sons. They are figuratively called the sons of God because like children, they remain in constant remembrance of God with complete devotion. God refers to this kind of supplication in the Quran when He states: Remember Allah with such love as children love their father. This is why God has been called the father in the Arya scriptures and has also been figuratively compared to a mother in so much that as a mother nourishes a child from her womb, God nourishes His creatures in the lap of His love and hence they are able to discard an evil nature and achieve a pious one. Therefore, when the saints are called sons of God by the pious, it is meant in a figurative sense only otherwise God is far above having any sons and He begets not, nor is He begotten.'45
These statements should therefore dispel any such contention that Hadhrat Ahmadas ever claimed to be the son of God. In fact, he stated quite dearly that he was a human being and had been commanded by:
'God Almighty: Say, l am only a human being like you all.'46
He explained the reason as to why this expression 'you are to Me like My son' had been used in relation to him and stated:
'God is far above having any sons and this expression has been used metaphorically because in this age, ignorant Christians have deified Jesus on account of such expressions and Divine wisdom demanded the use of an even stronger expression with regard to this humble one so that Christians should realise that stronger expressions than those on the basis of which they deified Jesusas have been used with regard to the followers of the Holy Prophetsa of lslam.'47
The aforementioned statement should condclsively establish that God Almighty had no occasion to bestow this appellation upon Hadhrat Ahmadas except to honour Hadhrat Muhammadsa far above Hadhrat Jesusas whom Christians had literally deified as a physical son of God. Why then should such a Divine act which proposes to establish the superiority of Hadhrat Muhammadsa be a matter of annoyance to Abdul Hafeez?
FATHER OF GOD
The third unsubstantiated allegation made against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas is that he claimed to be the father of God. In this instance, his critics misquote another of his revelations:
'We reveal to you the glad tidings of a son who would be the manifestation of Elevation and the Truth [Haq] as if God would himself descend from heaven.'48
While one does not necessarily accept that the above citation is a perfectly faithful and linguistically correct translation of the passage in Hadhrat Ahmad'sas original work, one still fails to see on what basis even a novice of languages and science of logical deduction could come to such a conclusion that on the basis of this revelation, albeit incorrectly cited, the son of Hadhrat Ahmadas is claimed to be God and therefore Hadhrat Ahmadas has to be the father of God.49 If the author of this extremely naive deduction would have referred to the text of his own misquoted citation, he may have yet discovered that, in the first instance, the son spoken of in this revelation was not to be God in Person but 'the manifestation of Elevation and the Truth' - i.e., someone who, in his own person, exhibits the attributes of God. Hence, the son in question is not being called God but merely a manifestation of Him. This is also indicated by the use of the words as if in the antagonist's own citation which, once again, establishes that the Promised Son was not called God. On the contrary, it was stated that his advent would be as if God Himself had descended from heaven.
A claim of such manifestation of God Ahmghty in the person of His righteous servants has not been unknown to religious vocabulary. The figurative descent of God in the person of His chosen servants is a part of the Biblical vocabulary. Hence, the descent of Hadhrat Muhammadsa has been described as the advent of God Almighty in the Torah:
'And he said' The Lord came from Sinai and rose from Seir unto them; he shined forth from Mount Paran, and he came with ten thousand of saints; from his right hand went a fiery law for them.'50
In a similar prophecy in relation to the advent of Hadhrat Muhammadsa, Biblical scriptures once again figuratively proclaim his advent as that of God Almighty
'God came from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran. Saleh. His glory covered the heavens and the earth was full of praise.'51
Yet while Muslims believe that these prophecies refer to Hadhrat Muhammadsa, no sane person has ever dared argue that he is God Ahmghty in Person. Such metaphoric language has also been employed in revelations vouchsafed to Hadhrat Jesusas and while the parable of the vineyard proclaims the advent of Hadhrat Muhammadsa as that of God Almighty,52 no sane Muslim believes that he was God.
Islamic literature has also found the use of such terminology permissible. Therefore, throughout the history of the Ummah, men of exceptional piety have either claimed to be the manifestation of God Almighty themselves or have honoured other saiints and called them as such. Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamirh claimed:
'There is no one like me in heaven, nor anyone of my attributes on earth. My attributes are hidden in the Unseen. How can such a one be a man? Nay, he is the tongue of the Truth and the speaker is the Truth Himself. From Me he speaks, from Me he hears, from Me he sees. Therefore, it is God who speaks through the tongue of Abu Yazid.'53
The renowned sage and mystic poet of the Punjab, Hadhrat Sultan Bahurh also claimed to be the manifestation of God Almighty, nay, God Almighty in person:
'I know only the Truth [Haq], I see only the Truth [Haq], I cry only the Truth [Haq], Truth [Haq] is in me and I am the Truth [Haq], this is the Truth [Haq].'54
Hadhrat Imam Ja'far Sadiqrh claimed to be the face of God55 and Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh stated in relation to Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamirh that:
'in his robe there was none other but God.'56
Hadhrat Farid ud Din Attarrh claimed to be God not once but three times in the space of one sentence57 and so did Hadhrat Hussain ibn Mansur al Hallajrh claim to be God58 while Hadhrat Abu Bakr Shiblirh declared that there is none but himself in the two worlds.59 Yet, in every one of these instances, the authors of these words merely proposed to suggest that they were manifestations of God Almighty and not Him, a concept perfectly permissible in Islam since according to Islamic beliefs:
'sainthood is the reflection of prophethood and prophethood is the reflection of Divinity.'60
Why, then, should a revelation vouchsafed to Hadhrat Ahmadas, proposing the same concept be construed to suggest that the son to be born of him was claimed to be God in Person and therefore, he had to be the father of God?
Although Hadhrat Ahmad'sas critics falsely accuse him for such alleged blasphemy and sacrilege of the Divine, this does not alter the fact that a direct reference to the actual passage of his book from whence this revelation has been misquoted indicates that he did not at any point in time state that the son to be born would be the manifestation of Elevation and Truth, Elevation and Truth being suggested as meaning God Almighty on account of the use of capital letters by his adversary.61 On the contrary, the actual passage in his original work reads:
'We give thee glad tidings of a humble boy who will be characterized with truth and grandeur as if God Himself has descended from heaven.'62
The fact that the aforementioned translation of the revelation under discussion is positively the correct one is verified by its citation in another hostile publication which quotes it to read:
'He gives you tidings of a boy, the exponent of truth and spiritual altitude, as if God descended from Heaven.'63
How could these words be construed to imply that according to this revelation, the son to be born is God in Person and therefore, Hadhrat Ahmadas would certainly be the father of God particularly when the adversaries themselves admit that all that is being stated by this Divine revelation is that the child shall be 'the exponent of truth and spiritual altitude as if God had descended from heaven.'
This revelation, which has been subjected to such cruel subreption, did not at any point in time propose to attribute Divinity to Hadhrat Ahmad'sas son nor did Hadhrat Ahmadas
61. Irfani, Abu al Bashir. The Cunning Chameleon, p. 13
62. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Anjam Atham, p. 62; Ruhani Khazain, vol. xii, p. 62
63. Zaheer, Ehsan Elahi. Qadiyaniat, ed. May 1973, p. 116
himself make any such statement which could even remotely be construed as attributing Divinity to his son. On the contrary, he declared quite categorically that:
'the coming of this son would be a great blessing from God Almighty.'64
Hence, in Hadhrat Ahmad'sas own mind, this son in relation to whom the revelation under discussion was vouchsafed was to descend from God and was therefore not God Almighty Himself. Hadhrat Ahmadas also stated that this son:
'would be like a light anointed by God with His perfume and pleasure.'65
This is also a clear indication that the child was to be extraordinarily blessed by God and was not to be Him in Person. Nevertheless, if these antagonists still insist that their criterion of logical deduction is positively correct, despite an intentional mistranslation of the revelation vouchsafed unto Hadhrat Ahmadas, then one would ask them as to what they make of the following verse of the Ouran:
'It is not ye who slew them; it was God: When thou threwest [a handful of dust]. it was not thy act, but God's: in order that He might test the believers by a gracious trial from Himself.'66
This Quranic passage refers to the incident at the battle of Badr when Hadhrat Muhammadsa threw a handful of pebbles and sand at the Meccan army which started a sand storm as a result of which the forces of the infidels were routed and the enemy decimated.67 Now, if someone not too favourably disposed to Islam was to adopt the criterion of logical deduction adopted by these antagonists, he could argue that:
'although the handful of dust at Badr was thrown by the Prophet of lslamsa and the enemy slain by Muslims yet because the Quran says that the dust was not thrown by the Prophet Muhammadsa but that it was an act of God and also that the Muslims did not slay the enemy but God did, then the Prophet of Islamsawould certainly be God Himself and so would the Muslims.'
How would the proponents of this naive system of logical deduction answer such a vile charge against the Quran? A similar inference could be made from the Quranic passage:
'Lo! those who swear allegiance unto thee [Muhammad], swear allegiance only unto Allah. The hand of Allah is above their hands.'68
A person hostile to Islam could find inspiration in the criterion of logical deduction established by these adversaries and manipulate this Quranic passage to assert that:
'when those who swear allegiance unto the Prophet Muhammadsa swear allegiance only unto Allah and His hand is above their hands, then the Prophet of lslamsa would certainly be Allah Himself.'
How would these antagonists explain such an assertion? Such vile inferences could be made on several other Quranic passages but since Ahmadi Muslims abhor any such vile deductions as propose to grant Divinity to human beings and insult the dignity of God and His blessed servants, one would refrain from indulging into this topic at length and also advise these naive critics to get their own act right and appreciate that God Almighty does not take kindly to such frivolous academic pursuits as tend to hold His dignity in contempt.
Nonetheless, one thing which is certain from the study of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's literature is that Hadhrat Ahmadas did not at any time during his life make any such statement or claim to have received any such revelation on the basis of which a sane person could ever justifiably deduce that a status of Divinity was being bestowed upon his son, the glad tidings of which were vouchsafed unto him in this revelation. On the contrary, he stated that 'God Almighty had given him the glad tidings that he shall soon be blessed with a son who would one day become His beloved and through whom God would remove darkness in this world.'69
While Hadhrat Ahmad'sas critics indulge in such frivolous deductions to prove their naive hypothesis, he abhorred any such belief which even remotely proposed to subject God to the indignity of human birth. He censured the followers of Vedantic philosophy for their belief that 'their Paramesvara, at one time or the other, by way of transmigration, was born in the shape of a human being and therefore became involved in all the ills and vices of mortal life - to be subjected to, like other mortal beings, hunger and thirst, pain and hurt, fear and sorrow, disease and death, humiliation and disgrace and helplessness and weakness.'70 He stated that such belief
'negates the high qualities of God Almighty and reduce His etemal and lasting glory and majesty.'71
The abstruse Christian dogma of the human birth of God Almighty in the person of Christ was also held in extreme contempt by Hadhrat Ahmadas. He considered this essential belief of the Christian faith abominable blasphemy and stated:
'To imagine that God was a word in the beginning and that the same word that was God descended into the womb of Mary and acquired a body from her blood and was born in the usual manner to suffer all the ailments of childhood and when he grew up, he was seized and put to the cross is abominable blasphemy whereby man has been deified. God is above descending into a womb and acquiring a body and being seized by His enemies. Human nature rejects that God should undergo such suffering and that He Who is the Master of all Greatness and the Fountainhead of all honour should permit such humiliation for Himself.'72
He also insisted that 'God has never been known to have been established in the womb of a woman like the sperm nor has He ever been bom of a woman like a human child.'73 He censured the Christian dogma of Christ's alleged divinity and stated:
'That to which they call us is a low and shameful doctrine. Can reason accept that a humble creature who possesses all the qualities of a man should be called God? Can any heart draw comfort from the idea that God should spend nine months in a womb and be nourished on blood and should be bom wailing through the usual channel? Can any reasonable person accept that after an etemity of time God should assume a body?'74
It is therefore thoroughly wicked of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas adversaries to mistranslate, misrepresent and manipulate his statements in a manner in which these critics are seen to have done. Nonetheless, irrespective of the allegations contained in these hostile publications, he held an absolute faith that:
'God Almighty is neither anyone's son nor is anyone His son.' but 'He is Self-Sufficient and needs neither father nor son.'75
How does Abdul Hafeez propose to respond to these recorded facts against his unsubstantiated allegations?
THE APPELLATION OF MARY AND JESUS
Abdul Hafeez's attempt to ridicule Hadhrat Mitza Ghulam Ahmad'sas statement that God Almighty has bestowed upon him the appellations of Mary and Jesus76 is, once again, evidence of his thorough ignorance of Islamic thought. It is somewhat ironic that rather than try and understand this beautiful and spiritually charged phenomenon, he has ridiculed the entire concept and questioned if it is not evidence that Hadhrat Ahmadas was an imbecile.77 However, before one proceeds to expose his ignorance of such spiritually charged concepts, it may be pertinent to refer to Hadhrat Ahmad'sas original statement which has been distorted to direct this vulgar abuse. He states in one of his books:
'In the Braheen e Ahmadiyya, God first named me Mary and then stated that I have breathed the spirit of Truth in this Mary and named it Jesus. Hence, in this state of possessing the qualities of Mary, Jesus came into being and in the Word of God, I came to be called the son of Mary. There is an indication of this in the Quran also which to me is a prophecy, that is, the Quran has given some people from amongst this ummah a similitude of Mary.'78
It should be evident from this original statement that Hadhrat Ahmadas did not claim that he was Mary but that he was named her. Therefore, it is perfectly dishonest of the author of Two in One to allege that on the basis of this statement, he was Mary.79 Secondly, Abdul Hafeez may, in his extremely confined intellectual capacity to understand matters of such spiritual elegance, consider this statement to be an evidence of imbecility. But, this does not alter the fact that the system of naming people according to their characteristics, qualities and accomplishments is acknowledged as a perfectly normal and valid practice in Islam.80 The Holy Quran itself speaks of two kinds of believers - the first among these being those that are pursued by the devil who tries to mislead them but they engage in prayer and supplicate the Lord for protection. These are likened to Assiya, wife of Pharaoh who remained steadfast in her faith. Hence, the Holy Quran states:
'And God sets forth, as an example to those who believe, the wife of Pharaoh: Behold she said: ''O my Lord! build for me, in nearness to Thee, a mansion in the Garden, and save me from Pharaoh and his doings, and save me from those that do wrong.'81
The second type of believers to which the Holy Quran alludes are those who are pure from the beginning and protected against any attack from Satan. These are likened to Hadhrat Maryas:
'And Mary, daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity; and We breathed into [her body] of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His Revelations, and was one of the devout [servants].'82
Since there is not a third category of believers to be found in the Holy Quran, every believer is, according to the wisdom of God, either identifiable with Hadhrat Maryas or else the wife of Pharaoh. Therefore, Hadhrat Ahmadas, being a believer of the highest order, was named after Hadhrat Maryas by God Almighty. Why should anyone consider this to be an evidence of imbecility when Islamic literature indicates that Hadhrat Muhammadsa declared:
'There is none born among the offsprings of Adam but Satan touches him when he is born. A child therefore cries loudly at the time of birth because of the touch of Satan, except Mary and her son.'83
Apparently, this statement is stated by Hadeeth literature to have been made by Hadhrat Muhammadsa in his explanation of the Quranic verse 3.36 and scholars of Islam have maintained that it refers, not to the historical Hadhrat Maryas or her son Hadhrat Jesusas but to believers who possess their qualities. Hence, Hadhrat Imam Mahmud ibn Umar al Zamaksharirh stated that:
'its meaning is that the devil attempts to mislead every child except Mary and her son because they were both pure. The same applies to every one who has their qualities.'84
Now, if Abdul Hafeez considers this Divine act of a righteous servant of God being given the name Mary and identified with the first category of believers a sign of imbecility, then one would assume that the author of Two in One would not like to be given her name or identified with her in any way whatsoever. In that event, may one suggest that he, at least, not take exception to being identified with the wife of Pharaoh and be given her name - that being the only other category of believers known to the Holy Quran. Failing this, one would be correct in assuming that he considers himself outside the realm of either of these two identifications of believers which God has set forth as examples in the Holy Quran. This would consequently lead one to the conclusion that Abdul Hafeez must fall within the realm of either of the other two categories of human beings mentioned in the Holy Quran which are:
'the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot. They were [respectively] under two of our righteous servants, but they were false to their [husbands], and they profitod nothing before God on their account, but were told: Enter ye the Fire along with [Others] that enter.'85
One leaves Abdul Hafeez to decide on this question as to which of the categories of human beings known to the Holy Quran he wishes to be identified with. One also hopes that in his next edition of Two in One, he would declare his intent so that the world may know of his decision. In the event that he decides to decline being identified with either of the four categories of human beings known to the Holy Quran, then one would be interested in knowing whether he considers himself to be at all a human being or not since there is not a fifth category of the species known to the Holy Quran.
As regards the question of Hadhrat Ahmadas being called Jesus, Abdul Hafeez appears to be ignorant of the fact that according to Islamic thought, every perfect believer is a Jesus of his time. This is indicated by Hadhrat Khawaja Mir Dardrh statement:
'Every perfect man is the Jesus of his time due to the all encompassing power of God. And every moment he faces for his own self the affairs of the soul of Jesus.'86
It is in view of such universal acceptance of this concept that Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh stated:
'If the Holy Spirit continues bringing its help, every day in the world the Mary of the time would give birth to a Jesus.'87
Hence, he claimed to be Jesus and declared in relation to himself:
'Every moment, the Holy Spirit breathes into Mu'in. So it is not Iwho says this, but in fact I am the second Jesus.'88
Hadhrat Shams Tabrizrh whom the spiritual predecessors of Abdul Hafeez accused of heresy and skinned alive and whose body they threw into a wel1 because he believed that singing of hymns was quite lawful in Islam89, declared in relation to himself:
'I am the spirit that was breathed into Mary, l am the soul that was the life of Jesus.'90
Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh, whom the spiritual predecessors of Abdul Hafeez had previously denounced as an apostate91, stated that 'if the veil be lifted from the souls, every one of them would say, I am the Messiah.'92 He also proceeded to claim that this veil had been lifted from him and he was Jesus93 while Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamirh, whose claims to Divinity have previously been stated, claimed to be Jesus beside declaring that he was Abraham and Moses.94
Islamic literature also indicates that other venerable saints of the Ummah had been given the appellation of Jesusas by God Almighty. Hence, Hadhrat Sheikh Muhiy ud Din Arabirh, whom the spiritual predecessors of Abdul Hafeez denounced as an infidel and dubbed as an apostate95 declared that his spiritual mentor was named Jesus, son of Mary. He recorded the statement:
'It happened with our spiritual guide, when it was said to him: You are Jesus, son of Mary, so heal him.'96
The bestowal of such appellation upon their spiritual mentors by their followers has also been an established practice amongst Muslims. Hadhrat Shah Ismail Shaheedrh stated in relation to Hadhrat Sayyid Ahmad Shah Barelvirh:
'Joseph has now come to Egypt from Canaan, and the whole world has come for his purchase. To give life to the dead, the breath of Jesus has come into this world.'97
Similarly, Faqir Muhammad Chishti stated in relation to the patron saint of Ajmeer, Hadhrat Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh:
'Your soul is the soul of Jesus, O Khawaja!'98
Such claim of beiing Jesus was also put forward by a saint of Delhi, Shah Niyaz Ahmad99 while Abdul Hafeez's own spiritual mentors, the leaders of the Nidawatul ul Ulerna were named after the son of Mary by the scholars of Deoband. For instance, the Deoband leadership stated in relation to Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gangohi:
'One like the founder of lslam has departed from the world. The Messiah of the age has gone to the sky.'100
Maulvi Mahmud al Hasan also stated in relation to Maulvi Gangohi:
'He raised the dead to life, and let not the living die. Just look at his Messianic work, O son of Mary.'
What opinion would Abdul Hafeez express in relation to the mental state of Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh who claimed to being Jesus; Hadhrat Shams Tabrizrh who stated that he was the spirit breathed into Mary and the soul that was the life of Jesus; Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh for declaring that the veil had been lifted from his soul and he was Jesus; Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamirh who believed that he was Jesus as well as Moses and Abraham; Hadhrat Ibne Arabirh who proclaimed that this spiritual mentor was named Jesus, son of Mary and Hadhrat Sayyid Muhammad Ismail Shaheedrh who stated that in Hadhrat Sayyid Ahmad Shah Barelvirh, Joseph had come from Egypt to Canaan and the breath of Jesus had come to this world; Faqir Muhammad Chishti for calling the soul of Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh as that of Jesus; Shah Niyaz Ahmad of Delhi for putting forward such a claim and the Deobandi leadership for believing that Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gongohi of Nidawatul Ulema was the like of Hadhrat Muhammadsa and the son of Mary? Would he state that these claims by some of the most respected saint known to Ummah of Islam or scholars of his own school of thought, were signs of madness? If so, would he pronounce a verdict of imbecility upon them for their statements as he had the audacity to pronounce this upon Hadhrat Ahmadas for claiming that he was named Mary and called Jesus?
One would also ask Abdul Hafeez if, in view of the aforementioned statements by numerous saints and scholars of Islam, he considers them all to be suffering from hallucinations and unstable as well as versatile enough to fit any frame all in one? Does he then propose to include their caricatures in the future publications of Two in One considering that they claimed to be Jesusas or the son of Mary? If not, then would he not be leaving himself open to being branded a hypocrite and an enemy of Hadhrat Ahmadas - and rightly so? Why should he then object to the appellation of an enemy being stated on the cover of the Mubahala?
KRSNA AND KING OF ARYANS
The advent of a Messianic prophet in the latter age of strife and irreligiousness has been recorded by nearly all religions of the world. The Judaeo Christian scriptures contain several prophecies in relation to the coming of the Messiah as in the Book of Daniel101 and the Gospel according to St. Matthew.102 Buddhist literature alludes to the advent of the Maitreya or Shakyamuni Buddha103 while Vedic scriptures contains a prophecy in relation to the advent of an avatara in the age ofKaliyuga:
'Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice. O descendants of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion, at that time I descend myself. To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to re-establish the principles of religion, l myself appear, millennium after millennium . '104
Islam also records a prophecy in relation to the Messiah in its books of Hadeeth105 in which it is clearly indicated that he would be the judge who would abolish Jizya106 and an impartial leader who would judge with justice.107 It is also stated in Hadeeth literature that he would be a leader amongst men108 who would lead them according to the Book of Allah and His Apostle'ssa Sunnah109 and the one who would rid the world of spite, hatred and jealousy.110 In view of this prophecy contained in Hadeeth literature, Muslim scholars have generally expressed the view that this is an indication of the fact that the Shari'ah of all earlier prophets before the advent of Islam would stand abrogated111 since no other religion will remain acceptable to Allah112 and the entire human race would eventually come to accept Islam.113 It has also been argued that mankind would be judged by him according to the Shariah of Islam114 and apparently, none would object to it since it would bring faith in Hadhrat Muhammadsa as an apostle of God115 whereby their hearts would be purified of such evil which breeds spite, hatred and jealousy.116
The question which arises now is that if people of every religion expect the advent of a prophet in the latter age who would arrive to deliver them from irreligiousness and rid the world of spite, hatred and jealousy and also save it from the mischief of the Dadjaal of whom Hadhrat Muhammadsa declared every prophet had warned his followers117, what would come of this world if all these various prophets, prophesied in the literature of various religions arrived amongst different nations considering the marked divisions that exist between the beliefs and philosophies of these numerous religions?
It needs wisdom and sagacity which people like Abdul Hafeez are denied to appreciate that all these various prophecies in relation to the advent of the prophesied prophet of the latter age refer to one single person who would arrive in the spirit of all the earlier prophets, to unite mankind under one banner of the ultimate religion, Islam. Hence Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas stated that:
'God Almighty has disclosed to me repeatedly in my visions that a person of the name of Krsna, who appeared among the Aryas, was a chosen one of God and was a Prophet. The expression avatara which is current among the Hindus is, in its essence synonymous with Prophet. There is a prophecy in Hindu scriptures that in the latter days an avatara will appear who will possess the qualities of Krsna and will be his reflection. lt has been conveyed to me that I am that person.'118
He stated this on the authority of a Divine revelation vouchsafed unto him and even predicted that ignorant Muslims would object to his claim to be Krsna.119Nonetheless, without fear of censure by people of Abdul Hafeez's ilk, he declared:
'I am the Krsna whose advent the Aryans are waiting for in these days. l do not make this claim on my own, but God Almighty has conveyed to me repeatedly that l am Krsna, king of Aryas, who will appear in the latter days.'120
Alas! were the author of Two in One aware that such claims by Hadhrat Ahmadas, rather than being proof of imbecility are an evidence of his truthfulness as the prophesied Messiah and Mahdi of whom it was stated:
'The Imam Mahdi will say: O people, if any of you wishes to behold Abraham and Ishmael, let him note that I am Abraham and Ishmael; if any of you wishes to behold Moses and Joshua, let him note that I am Moses and Joshua; if any of you desire to behold Jesus and Simon, let him note that Iam Jesus and Simon; if any of you wishes to behold Hadhrat Muhammad Mustaphasa or the Ameerul Momineenra, let him note that I am Muhammad and Ali, may Allah be pleased with them all.'121
JAI SINGH BAHADUR
One is not certain whether this Sindhi pir, Abdul Hafeez's next objection in relation to the revelation vouchsafed unto to Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad'sas in which the expression Jai Singh Bahadur was employed is yet another instance of his sly manipulation of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's literature or his sheer ignorance of the Punjabi language since he has translated this expression to read 'a sikh name meaning victorious Lion'122 whereas Jai in Punjabi is an expression of applause Singh means a lion and Bahadur means courageous. Hence, when translated in its proper context, the revelation should read: 'Hurrah! for the courageous Lion!'
Incidentally, if the author of Two in One had been fully conversant with Hadhrat Ahmad'sas writings, he may have yet discovered that these words which sound an evidence of imbecility to Abdul Hafeez are a part of a revelation to the effect:
'People came and made all sorts of claims but the Lion of God seized them and the Lion of God became victorious. Hurray! for the courageous Lion!'123
In the preceding pages of this book we have already illustrated how, in the opinion of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas contemporaries and sincere Muslim scholars, he came to the defence of Islam at the time when Muslims faced degradation and shame at the hands of other religions124 and were lying flat on their faces, sobbing in the aftermath of their shortcoming, either doing nothing or able to do nothing125 because the greatest of their ulema did not dare face the enemies of Islam.126 Accordlng to them, at this precarious time when Islam stood at the crossroads with the foundation of Islamic life and society shaken and when Muslims were generally in the grip of frustration and despair and their mmds seriously in grip of confusion and perplexity because they had fallen prey to defeatism, Hadhrat Ahmadas arrived on the scene with his unique message and movement.127 It has also been proven that according to these Muslim scholars, Hadhrat Ahmadas appeared in the front line of the devotees of Islam128 and stood in the field like a brave lion129 to champion the cause of Islam.130 He proved to be a cutting sword against false religions131 and shattered the foul criticism of the opponents of Islam and silenced them for ever.132 He also smashed to bits the influence of Christianity and put its clergy to flight133and routed the Christians. He blew the talisman of Christianity to smoke while at the same time, crushed the poisonous fangs of Hinduism134 . Hence, he was acclaimed as a resolute defender of Islam135; a great fighter for Islam136; a victorious general137; a brave lion138; an illustrious general and pride of Muslims as well as an accepted one of God.139 These tributes to Hadhrat Ahmadas by the non Ahmadiyya Muslim intelligentsia are a fulfilment of the revelation vouchsafed unto him which Abdul Hafeez considers an evidence of imbecility. Hence, it is a proof of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad'sas truthfulness since what was revealed unto him by God was also fulfilled by His grace.
EVEREADY BATTERY
In the opening pages of his book Two in One, Abdul Hafeez excuses his decision to become involved in this controversy which he would have rather avoided on account of what he calls 'startling titles for Muslims like enemies, disbelievers and liars on the cover page of the Mubahala publication issued by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.'l40 He therefore addresses the Preface of his book to Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and states that the purpose of his writing his grotesque book is to:
'with full honesty, prove to you and your Jamaat as to who is a disbeliever and a liar.'141
This full honesty with which Abdul Hafeez proposes to prove to Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community as to who is a liar, includes an assertion by him that among the various titles which Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas claimed to have been invested with by God Almighty, one was that of an 'Eveready Battery.'142 Nonetheless, although he insists within the context of his book that 'for every claim' there has to be some proof,'143 he not only fails to substantiate the allegations discussed in the preceding pages of this book, namely that he claimed to be God or the son of God and also the father of God as well as Mary which have already been proved false, but he fails to furnish proof of this allegation also. The reason as to why he has not been able to furnish any proof is because Hadhrat Ahmadas neither made any such claim in his entire mortal life of three score and ten years nor has any such claim been recorded by him in any of his written work whether published or not. One challenges Abdul Hafeez to prove this statement false if he dare and provide evidence that Hadhrat Ahmadas ever made any such claim as alleged by him. Failing this, one would be justified, yet once again, in asserting that the author of Two in One has not only given suffident evidence of his being a personified liar but his prayer
'O God! Which ever party is a liar and slanderer, bring down your [sic] anger upon him in one week'144
has been heard and he has been proved a liar and a slanderer by God Almighty. And so has his other prayer been heard where he stated that if he is:
'wrongly accusing them [i.e., Ahmadis] or writing for worldly gain, O Allah trap every liar and accuser with Your curse and reveal such signs which will dedde between true and false.'145
All praise belong to Allah! He has revealed such a sign of Abdul Hafeez's falsehood that He has caused this personified liar and accuser to attribute yet another claim to Hadhrat Ahmadas in his book Two in One146 of which if Abdul Hafeez was to spend his entire mortal life, he would not find substantiative evidence. This incidentally, is the standard of the full honesty of this pir of Gujjjo with which he proposes to illustrate to Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community as to who is a liar.147 Yet he takes exception to the title of a liar on the cover page of the Mubahala challenge148 when it aptly applies to him. Need one say more or is it now not evident that Abdul Hafeez is a personified liar? If he wishes to claim that he is not and this conclusion is unjustified, then let him provide proof that Hadhrat Ahmadas ever claimed to have been invested with this appellation. If he can, then the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community will stand corrected and if not then the author of Two in One stands condemned as a liar.
CLAIMS BY MUSLIM SAINTS AND SCHOLARS
On account of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad'sas claim that God Almighty has given him various appellations, Abdul Hafeez accuses him of suffering from hallucinations and being an imbecile and appends an extremely tasteless and vile caricature with the caption: 'I may be unstable. But, believe me, I am versatile enough to fit any frame. All in one.'149 Without going into a lengthy discussion to expose his thorough ignorance of Islamic philosophy, one would merely present, for his information, some of the claims made by several revered and venerable personalities in the history of Islam and put a question to him as to how versatile does he think these sages and saints of Islam are, and what in his opinion was the mental state of mmd of these revered personalities.
It has already been shown that Hadhrat Ali ibn Abi Talibrh, the fourth Caliph claimed to be 'the dot under the letter Bismillah, the Qalm, the Luh, the 'Arsh, the Kursi the Seven Heavens and the Earths'150 while Hadhrat Imam Ja'far Sadiqrh claimed:
'We are the prayer mentioned in the Book of God. We are the Charity, we are the Fasting, we are the Pilgrimage, we are the Sacred Months, we are the Holy Land, we are the Ka'aba, we are the Qibla, we are the face of God, we are the Signs and we are the clear Signs.'151
The famous Persian saint Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamirh has also been shown to have stated that his 'attributes are hidden in the Unseen and he was not a man but the tongue of Truth and the speaker of the Truth Himself, ie., God in Person.'152 He also claimed to be the 'God of great glory'153 and stated that 'there was none worthy of worship beside him.'154 According to Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh, the Persian saint claimed that he was God and there is no God but him'155 while Hadhrat Farid ud Din Attarrh states in his famous memoirs of Muslim saints that Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamirh was asked by someone:
'What is 'arsh. He said, I am that. He asked, what is Kursi. He replied, I am that. People said that there have been many righteous servants of God such as Abraham, Moses and the Holy Prophet. He said, I am all of them. They, then, asked about the angels Gabriel, Michael, Israfeel and Izraeel. He said, I am all of them as well.'155
Hadhrat Sheikh Muhiy ud Din Ibn Arabirh stated in relation to himself that he is 'the Quran and the Fatihah and the spirit of spirits, not the spirit of vessels'157 while Hadhrat Shams ud Din Tabrizrh claimed that he was 'the spirit that was breathed into Mary; the soul that was the life of Jesus and his breath; one before whom the saints prostrated; who was with Noah in the ark and Joseph in the well as well as the one who was with Moses when Pharaoh was drowned and who existed before Adam or the world was created.'158 He also declared:
'I am Nuh' I am Adam, I am Isa, son of Mary'159
Hadhrat Sultan Bahurh claimed to be the Haq 160 and Hadhrat Abu al Hasan Kharqanirh the God of his age.161 So did Farid ud Din Attarrh declare that he was God162 and Hadhrat Hussain Mansur al Hallajrh claimed that he was the Lord.163 Hadhrat Abu Bakr Shiblirh also claimed to be the only God in the two worldsl64as well as Muhammad, the Messenger of God.l65 Hadhrat Sayyid Abdul Qadir Jilanirh claimed to be Prophet Muhammadsa and declared that had Hadhrat Mosesas been alive, he would have obeyed himl66 . He also stated that he was the door of the Kaa'ba and if one wished to perform the pilgrimage, one ought to go to him.167 Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh claimed to be the Ark of Noah168 as well as Jesus.l69 He declared:
'I am Isa, but he who is raised to life by my breath will live forever. The dead raised by Isa died again, fortunate is he who gives himself up to this lsa.'170
Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh claimed to be Jesusl71 as well as the Messenger of Allahl72 as did Hadhrat Sheikh Ahmadrh of Sirhind who stated:
'I am the disciple of God and also His intention. My devotion to God is linked directly to Him without any intermediary. My hand is the representative of God's hand. Glory be to Him!'173
The revered Mujjadid Alf Thanirh is also stated to have written that:
'during spiritual progress, l reached the station of Uthman and, passing beyond it, reached the station of Farooq. Passing beyond that, l reached the station of Siddiq and, passing beyond that I reached the station of being the beloved of God, and saw in himself the reflection of all the light and biessings of this station.'174
Similarly, Hadhrat Parid ud Din Shakar Ganjrh of Pak Patan claimed:
'I am Wali, I am Ali, Iam a Nabi.'175
Hadhrat Khawaja Habibullah Attarrh of Kashmir claimed to be a Messenger of Allah176 while Hadhrat Sayyid Wali Ullah Shahrh Delhvi stated in relation to himself:
'The teaching which was given to Adam was me, the Divine help which Nuh received during the flood was me, the fire that cooled for Abraham was me, the Torah revealed to Moses was me, the miracle of the rising of the dead granted to Jesus was me, the Quran given to Muhammad the Holy Prophet was me.'177
It is also stated in relation to Hadhrat Said Ameerrh of Koth that he received a revelation:
'O Prophet, Keep your duty to God and obey not the disbelievers and hypocrites; surely, God is ever knowing and wise.'178
Hadhrat Shah Niaz Ahmadrh of Delhi also declared in relation to himself:
'Sometimes I am Enoch, sometimes Seth, sometimes Noah, sometimes Jonah, sometimes Joseph, sometimes Jacob and sometimes Hud. Sometimes I am Salih, sometimes Abraham, sometimes lsaac, sometimes John the Baptist, sometimes Moses, sometimes Jesus and sometimes David. I am Ahmad Hashmi and Isa of Mary.'179
Beside such personal claims by the saints of the ummah, Islamic literature indicates that the followers and admirers of numerous Muslim saints and scholars bestowed such appellations unto their spiritual mentors. For instance, Hadhrat Sayyid Muhammad Ismail Shaheedrh stated in relation to Hadhrat Sayyid Ahmad ShahrhBarelvi:
'Joseph has now come to Egypt from Canasn, and the whole world has come for his purchase. To give life to the dead, the breath of Jesus has come into the world. From Medina my Ahmad has come, from the cave of Saur, to teach the Ansar. Sayyid Ahmad came one day with his companions. You should say that the Last of the Prophets came again with his Companions.'180
Sheikh Sabir Kalyari is stated to have called Sayyid Abid Mian Usman Naqshbandi 'the Kaa'ba, the Quran, the Prophet or God'181 while it was stated in relation to Hadhrat Maulana Muhammad Qasimrh of Nanauta and Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gangahi of Deoband:
'Qasim the good and Rashid Ahmad, both possessed of glory, the two of them were the Messiah of the age and Joseph of Canaan. They saved the faith from the corrupters of religion of this age. I say that the two of them were like Moses and Amran. To be in their company and to serve them was for the dead hearts nothing than being commanded by Isa to arise.'182
Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gangohi was also declared to be one like the Founder of Islam and the Messiah of his age as well as the son of Mary by the Deoband scholars.183
The question which one need ask the author of Two in One is that if, in view of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas claim that he had been named Mary and called Jesus he considers Hadhrat Ahmadas to be suffering from hallucinations and an imbecile184, then what does he think of the mental state of all these saints and scholars of the ummah whose pronouncements in relation to themselves or their spiritual predecessors hardly differ from those of Hadhrat Ahmadas? If, in view of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas statement that he was given the title of Krsna and the king of the Aryas whose advent the Hindus awaited, Abdul Hafeez considers him to be suffering from hallucinations and alleges that he was mad185, then what does he think of all these other saints and scholars of the ummah who claimed such a large number of appellations for themselves or else attributed these to their spiritual mentors? Would he allege that they al1 suffered from hallucinations and would he denounce them as mad men? One would also enquire of him as to what extent do these saints and scholars of the ummah who claimed such a large number of appellations for themselves or their spiritual mentors fit within Abdul Hafeez's realm of instability and versatility186? Would he then caricature cartoons of these revered personalities in the next edition of his book Two in One as he has done in this edition187? If not, then would his singular prejudice against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas not prove his enmity towards him? Why then should he take exception to the title of an enemy being applied to him?188
APPELLATIONS BESTOWED UPON
HADHRAT MUHAMMADsa
Alas! had Abdul Hafeez been conversant with the Quran and known of the number of appellations with which our beloved Prophet, Hadhrat Muhammad Mustaphasa was honoured by God Almighty, he may have yet refrained from being engaged in such obnoxious exercise to revile another one of God Almighty's apostle, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas for being honoured with a comparatively insignificant number of appellations. The Holy Quran establishes that Hadhrat Muhammadsa has been honoured with the names and appellations of Muhammad189 and Ahmad190; Rasulallah and Khataman Nabiyeen191; Shaahid, Mubashshir and Naziir192; Hadi and Mundhir193; Da'i 'ilallah and Siraj e Munir194; Muzakki and Muhumul Kitaba wal Hikmah195; Nur196 and Ummi197; Shahiid198 and Muhyii199; Ta Ha200 and Ya Sin20l; Muzzammil202 and Muddaththir203; 'Abd Allah204 and 'Awwal ul Muslimiin205; Rahmatal ul 'aalamiin206 and Burhan207; Hudaanwwa and Rahmatul ul Mu'miniin208; Khuluq e 'Aziim209 and al Kauthar210; 'Asraa bi-'Abdihii211 and Qaaba-qawsay-ni212 and also Hariisun, R'auff and Rahim for his people.213
How does Abdul Hafeez look at these multiple appellations bestowed upon our beloved Prophet, Hadhrat Muhammad Mustaphasa by God Almighty in the light of his assertions against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas?214 What does the author of Two in One think of this God in heaven Who bestowed such glory upon Hadhrat Muhammadsa and adorned him with such multiple decorations?
NAMES OF HADHRAT MUHAMMAD IN
HADEETH LITERATURE
It may also interest the author of Two in One to know that beside the names and appellations bestowed upon Hadhrat Muhammadsa by God Almighty in the Holy Quran, our beloved Prophetsa also mentioned several other such honours which he had been invested with by God. According to Hadhrat Jubair ibn Muteimrh, the Apostle of Allahsa stated that he had been given the names al Mahi, al Hashir and al Akib.215 Hadhrat Abu Musa al Asharirh has stated that Hadhrat Muhammadsaalso declared that he had been called al Mukaffa, Nabi ur Rahma, Nabi ut Tauba and Nabi ul Malhama.216 According to a report by Hadhrat Abi Saidrh, Allah's Messengersa stated that he had been given the appellations of Sayid e wald e Adam and Shafi.217 Hadeeth literature also indicates that he claimed to have been called the Wasilah and also Hamila e Lawaal Hamd as well as Akramul Awalen wal Akhiraeen.218 Another report states that Hadhrat Muhammadsa declared that he had been honoured with the title of Akhirul Anbiyya219 as well as Muhill and Muharrim. 220
One rests one's case on the question of the names and appellations bestowed upon God Almighty's apostles by Him. But before one proceeds any further to discuss the next issue in Abdul Hafeez's grotesque publication, one must stress that in the opinion of Ahmadi Muslims, every one of these names which were bestowed upon Hadhrat Muhammadsa and the appellations with which he was honoured further enhance the glory of our beloved Prophet'ssa status. However, it is ironic that such Divine acts which propose to honour God Ahmghty's chosen apostles are, in the opinion of Abdul Hafeez an evidence of imbecility.
7. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Kitabul Bariyyah, p. 85/87, Ruhani Khazain, vol. xiii. pp. 103/105
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.