The Opponents of the Promised Messiah

One of the objections raised against the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement is that he reviled his opponents, he called them zurrayatul bagbaya and other harsh names which is inconsistent with the dignity of a prophet.

This is an entirely false charge and has no substance. The Promised Messiah, peace be on him, has not reviled anyone, but in certain cases he confronted some of his opponents with their true picture and that only when those opponents raised a storm of vituperation against him and reviled him and his followers in vicious language and issued declarations against him in terms of vile abuse. He then drew their attention to their vileness. To describe a blind person as sightless is not harsh or abusive. In the Holy Quran, the Jews and the Christians have been described as the vilest of creatures and have been called apes and swine and the worshippers of Satan (5:61). The Jews have been compared with a donkey carrying a load of books (62:6). A certain personality has been compared to a dog (7:177). It cannot be said that God Almighty has reviled these people or has used abusive language with reference to them. These expressions were employed against them in view of their moral and spiritual condition.

In the same way the Promised Messiah has not reviled anyone. For instance, at one place addressing the maulvis he described them as the vile sect of maulvis(Anjam Aatham, p. 21) whereupon a clamor was raised that he had abused them, whereas he had only applied to them an expression employed in a hadees in which it is reported that the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, had said that the divines of the latter days would be the vilest of creation under heaven (Mishkat, Kitabul Ilm). The Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, having called the divines of the latter days the vilest of creation, how could the Promised Mahdi and Messiah be blamed for addressing them in those terms?

Abuse is one thing and a correct description, however bitter and harsh, is quite another, It is the duty of every speaker of truth to convey the truth to an erring opponent even though he might thereby (Izalah Auham).

At another place he states:

My words had assumed some severity against my opponents in my writings, but I was not the one to start such severity. Those writings were undertaken in reply to the severe attacks of my opponents. They had used such harsh and abusive language as called for some severity. This can be perceived by the comparison which I have instituted between the harsh language used by my opponents -and that used by me in the foreword of my book which I have calledKitabul Bariyyah. As I have just stated the harsh language used by me was by way of retort. It was my opponents who first used such language against me, I could have endured their harsh language without making a retort to it but I had recourse to a retort on account of two reasons: One, so that my opponents, being faced with severity in reply to their harsh strictures, might change their tactics and might revert in future to the use of civil language; and two, that the general Muslim public should not be aroused by the defamatory and provocative language used by my opponents. (Kitabul Bariyyah, p. 10,11)

So far as genuine divines and respectable people were concerned, the Promised Messiah has referred to them in his books in very good style. He states:

In this book and in my other books there is no harsh word or indication against those respectable people who do not descend to abuse and meanness. (Ayyamus Solh, title page)

He states further:

We seek refuge with God against defaming righteous divines and civilized respectable people, whether they are Muslims or Christians or Aryas. We consider all of them worthy of honor. We are not concerned even with foolish people. Our severe language is employed only against those who have become notorious on account of their vile language and foul-mouthed utterances. We always mention in good terms those who are good and are not given to abuse and we honor them and love them like brothers. (Lujjatun Nur, p. 61)

By way of illustration of the type of language used against the Promised Messiah we set out one specimen out of hundreds. Maulvi Muhammad Hussain of Batala described him as a secret enemy of Islam, a second Masailmah, Anti-Christ, confirmed liar, black-faced. He said:

A rope should be drawn around his neck and he should be decked out with a garland of shoes round his neck and should in this condition be paraded in the cities of India. He is a satan, evil-doer, wicked, shameless, worse than Anti-Christ, a descendant of Hulaqui. (Ishaatus Sunnah)

Confronted with hundreds of such abusive and offensive declarations, if the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, set up a mirror before their authors by way of illustrating their low morals, how is he to be blamed? He made no false charge against them, nor did he abuse them but only applied to them in its true import the prophecy that the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, had made concerning them.

Let us now examine the specific charges of defamation and abuse of the divines which have been urged against the Promised Messiah, peace be on him.

It is objected that he castigated the divines by applying to them the expression zurrayatul baghaya which, it is alleged, means `the progeny of prostitutes'. The sentence from which this term is taken occurs in “Ayena Kamalat Islam” and runs as follows:

Every Muslim will accept me and will confirm my claim except the zurrayatul baghaya whose hearts will have been sealed up by God Almighty.

This is a prophecy that a time will come when all Muslims will accept him and confirm his claim except such wicked ones whose hearts might be sealed by God Almighty. Thus it is clear that it is not the divines who are referred to in this sentence. Therefore, their clamor that they have been abused by the use of this expression is entirely without cause. The well known lexicon, Tajul Urus, has given the meaning of baghy, which is the singular of baghaya, as a female slave whether of ill conduct or not. Accordingly, the meaning of the expression zurrayatul baghaya would be the progeny of female slaves, that is to say, those who do not possess the manly quality of accepting the truth.

The Tajul Urus further states that to call a person `son of a baghayyah' means that he is deprived of guidance.

The Promised Messiah himself has interpreted the term as meaning a wicked person. On Saadullah of Ludhiana being mentioned, the Promised Messiah observed that in his poem in Anjam Aatham, he had said concerning Saadullah:

You have persecuted me out of your vileness and now if you do not die in disgrace, 0 wicked one ibn bagha I will not have been proved truthful in my claim.

Thus according to the Promised Messiah, the expression zurrayatul baghaya meant the progeny of the wicked and not the progeny of prostitutes as is alleged by his opponents. The, Promised Messiah, peace be on him, has applied to his opposing divines the same expressions that the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, applied to them as a prophecy.

He said:

There will arise a great turbulence among my people and in their terror they will have recourse to their divines and suddenly they will find them in the guise ofapes and swine. (Kanzul Ummal, Vol.VII, p. 90)

The Promised Messiah, peace be on him, desired peace with the divines and employed some harsh words against some of them under grave provocation. He addressed the following invitation to his opposing divines:

It has occurred to me again today that I should once more approach you for peace ... Both sides should make a firm promise that they and all those who are under their influence would refrain from the use of every type of harsh language, which would include the use of expressions like Anti-Christ, faithless, wicked for the other side. . . The honor of the other side should not be assailed expressly or implied-ly. If someone from one side should visit the other side he should be received with civility and courtesy ... I have arranged that no one from my Community will publish anything orally or in writing which might be defamatory or contemptuous of any of you, This arrangement would go into effect when you announce that you will be responsible for seeing that all those who are under your influence, or are deemed to be under your influence, will refrain from the use of any type of abuse, defamation or vituperation. If such an agreement is put into effect it would be quite easy to determine in future which of the two sides has been guilty of aggression. (Tabligh Risalat, Vol. 1, p. 8)

The fact is that the Arabic expressions like waladul baghaya, ibnal haram, ibnal halal, and bintal halal etc. are all idiomatic expressions connoting evil-doers and do not mean illegitimate descent.

It should be kept in mind that the use of harsh language against the enemies of truth and to ridicule them and to make a harsh retort in answer to their harshness has been a characteristic of religious polemics through the ages. There is a hadees related on the authority of Hazrat Ayesha, may Allah be pleased with her, that the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, directed his Companions to compose satires against the Quraish as a satire would be more painful for them than arrows shot against them. He sent for Ibn Rawaha and asked him to compose a satire against the Quraish, which he did, but the satire did not please the Holy Prophet. He then sent for Kaab bin Malik and then for Hasaan bin Sabit. The latter composed a long satire the first verse of which was:

You have satirized Muhammad and I proceed to answer you on his behalf looking to Allah for a reward. (Muslim, Part 2, chapter 'Fazail Hasaan bin Sabit')

In a comment upon this hadees, Imam Novi has written:

One should not be the first to embark upon severity or ridicule of the pagans, so that Muslims should safeguard their tongues against undesirable language. But when the other side embarks upon abuse and there should be need of defense against their mischief, it is permissible, as the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, directed.

Another objection that is raised against the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, is that he had called some of his opponents waladul haram. This expression occurs in a statement of the Promised Messiah, peace be upon him, which is as follows:

He who indulges in nonsense against this clear decision and out of wickedness goes on repeating that the Christians have achieved victory and continues immodest and shameless and without replying justly to our decision will not refrain from denial and the use of loose language and will not admit our victory will make it clear that he is eager to be considered a bastard and is not legitimate. (Anwarul Islam, p. 30)

It should be remembered that a study of the Holy Quran reveals that by the progeny of the prophets is meant their spiritual progeny. A person who does not believe in the prophets and is un-righteous in his conduct can be told metaphorically that his conduct is not of those legitimately born, meaning, that if he had loved the prophets he would have acted like them and would have been called their spiritual descendant. This is illustrated by the son of Noah whom the Holy Quran did not accept as such. When he was about to be drowned Noah supplicated on his behalf and pleaded:

'Lord, my son is a part of my family.' God responded: 'He is surely not of thy family, Noah, for he is one of un-righteous conduct.' (11:46-47) Thus, though he was physically the son of Noah, God Almighty did not accept him as such on account of his wickedness. In the same way, it is said in the Holy Quran that the wives of the Holy Prophet are the mothers of the believers (33:7) and this also means that they are their mothers in a spiritual sense. Their being the mothers of the believers entails that the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is the father of the believers, though physically they are not his progeny. The Holy Quran thus establishes that by the progeny of the Holy Prophet is meant his spiritual progeny, and if a person calling himself a Muslim is pleased when Islam is insulted and supports the enemies of Allah and His Messenger, he would cease to be the progeny of the Holy Prophet.

The passage of the Nurul Islam relied upon by the opponents of the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, clearly relates to a person who, calling himself a Muslim, declared Christianity as being victorious against Islam and persisted in this assertion. Such a one cut himself asunder from being the progeny of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and proved that he was metaphorically a bastard as he had repudiated his spiritual father, the Holy Prophet, and had attributed himself to someone else.

The Promised Messiah explained further:

Some people calling themselves Muslims, who should be called semi-Christians, were so pleased that Abdullah Aatham had not died within fifteen months that they could not restrain their joy. They made announcements in which, according to their habit, they expressed themselves in intemperate language and on account of their personal rancor against me they even attacked Islam inasmuch as my controversy with the Christians was in support of Islam and did not involve the question of my being the Promised Messiah. They might have considered me a disbeliever, or satan, or Anti-Christ, but the discussion related to the truth of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and the superiority of the Holy Quran. A truthful one is he who believes sincerely in theKhatamul Anbiya, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and accepts the Holy Quran as the Word of God. He who considers that Jesus was God and rejects the prophethood of the Khatamul Anbiya, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is a liar. I had cited a revelation of mine in support of this, but I have to affirm in sorrow that in order to prove me false the opposing divines did not keep in mind the honor of Allah and His Messenger and did not in the least mind the conclusion which the enemy would draw from defeat of the Islamic side. Mian Sanaullah, Saadullah, Abdul Haq, and others, having conceded the victory of the Christians, why do they complain about the Christians that they use their alleged victory as an argument against Islam, when the whole controversy was about the truth or falsehood of Islam and Christianity and not about any particular doctrine of mine. (Anwarul Islam p. 48)

This shows that the expression to which exception is taken was applied by the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, to those who were in effect semi-Christians, who declared the victory of the Christians and thus attacked Islam, who joined the Christians in celebrating their alleged victory, who cursed the righteous and had no regard for the honor of Allah and of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

The opponents of the Promised Messiah construe the expression used by him as meaning that persons to whom it was applied were the issue of adultery but it is clear that that was not his meaning as is explained in his following statement:

For proving himself legitimately born it was necessary for such a one if he considered me false and the Christians as victorious to meet effectively the argument that I have set forth ... It is a sign of the bastard that he does not adopt the straight path and continues to love the ways of wrong and injustice. (Anwarul Islam, p. 30)

This expression has been metaphorically used by many eminent persons before the Promised Messiah, peace be on him. For instance, Hazrat Imam Abu Hanifa,may Allah have mercy on him, has said:

A person who charges Ayesha, may Allah be pleased with her, with adultery is himself the issue of adultery.

It is clear that by this expression is meant a person who is extremely wicked and vicious and not that he was begotten unlawfully.

Imam Fakharuddin Razi has stated:

An evil sperm drop produces an evil child. (Tafsir Kabir, Vol. VIII, p. 188)

In the same way the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, pointed out the viciousness of the people who had adopted the way of the wicked and like Imam Abu Hanifa, called them misbegotten on account of their wickedness.

In concluding we would draw attention to the following verses of the Holy Quran:

But yield thou not to any low swearer, backbiter, slanderer, forbidder of good, transgressor, sinner, unmannerly lout and misbegotten knave, because he is wealthy and has a number of children and retainers. (Quran 68:11-15)

Read more »

Reflection of all the Prophets

It is objected that the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement claimed to be the manifestation and like of all prophets and had arrogated their names to himself saying that he was Adam and Noah and Ibrahim etc. He had even called himself Muhammad and Ahmad and had thus defamed the prophets.

In this connection we would draw attention to a statement by the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, which explains his claim of being the manifestation of the prophets and the champion of Allah in the mantles of the prophets. He states:

This revelation means that I have been bestowed some portion of the special circumstances or special qualities of all the prophets, peace be on them, who have appeared from God beginning with Adam till the end, whether they were Israelis by descent or non-Israelis. There has not been single prophet of whose qualities or circumstances I have not been bestowed a portion ... In this there is an indication that many people of this age resemble the bitter enemies and opponents of the prophets, peace be on them, who had exceeded the limits in their rancor and who were destroyed by various types of torments ... There has also been displayed and will be displayed in the future the various types of aid and support which God Almighty had displayed in the case of the previous prophets. (Braheen Ahmadiyya, Part V, p. 89)

In pursuance of this explanation and in support of it we cite the statements of some of the eminent personalities of Islam.

Hazrat Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jeelani, may Allah have mercy on him, has said:

A person rises till he arrives at a station where he becomes the heir of every messenger, prophet, and siddique. (Futuhul Ghaib, Maqalah 4, p. 23)

He has also stated:

This is not the person of Abdul Qadir but the person of Muhammad. (Guldastah Karamat p. 10)

Hazrat Bayazid Bistami, may Allah have mercy on him, has said:

I am Ibrahim, Moses, and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be on him. (Tazkaratul Aulia, the Tazkarah of Bayazid Bistami)

Imam Baqar, may Allah have mercy on him, has stated:

The Imam Mahdi will say: 'O ye people, if any of you wishes to behold Ibrahim and Ishmael, then let him note that I am Ibrahim and Ishmael. If any of you desires to behold Moses and Joshua, then let him note that I am Moses and Joshua. If any of you desires to see Isa and Simon, then let him note I am Isa and Simon. If any of you desires to behold Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa, peace and blessings of Allah be on him, and Ameerul Momineen Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, then let him note that I am Muhammad Mustafa, peace and blessings of Allah be on him, and Ameerul Momineen Ali, may Allah be pleased with him. (Baharul Anwar, Vol. XIII, p. 209)

The Promised Messiah, peace be on him, has called himself the like of the prophets, peace be on them, in the same sense. He states:

No one should be troubled with the idea how a humble follower of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, could become a sharer in his names and qualities or praises. Without a doubt it is true that even a prophet cannot become a sharer in an equal degree in the holy excellencies of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. Even the angels cannot be his equals, let alone that anyone else should have any share in his excellencies. But, 0 seeker after truth, may Allah guide you, listen to this with attention, that God Almighty, desiring that the blessings of the Holy Prophet should continue to be manifested throughout and that the perfect rays of his light and of his acceptance by God should continue to confound his opponents and to silence them, has, of His mercy and wisdom, ordained that He manifests the blessings of His accepted Messenger through the humble personalities of some of his followers who obey him completely, with utter humility and lowliness and by falling on the threshold of servitude they are completely lost to themselves. They are so honored as God finds them utterly devoted to the Holy Prophet, so much so that they become like a clear mirror for the reflection of those blessings. The praise bestowed on them by Allah and the signs and blessings and effects that are manifested by them in reality belong to the Holy Prophet himself and issue from him. In truth and in its perfection that praise is appropriate only to the Holy Prophet and he is its perfect example, but as he who completely follows the practice of the Holy Prophet becomes a reflection of that illumined personality on account of his complete obedience and utter devotion, the divine lights that are manifested in that holy personality are also exhibited in his reflection. The manifestation in a reflection of all that characterizes the original is a matter that is not hidden from anyone. It is true, however, that the shadow is not established in itself and does not possess any excellence in reality. Whatever is found in it is a picture of the original which is reflected through him. It is necessary, therefore, that no one should imagine that this phenomenon is derogatory of the Holy Prophet that his inner lights are reflected in his perfect followers. It should be understood that this is a reflection of the lights of the Holy Prophet which is manifested as a continuous grace in the pure personalities of the followers of the Holy Prophet. (Braheen Ahmadiyaa, Part III, p. 242)

Read more »

Suspension of Jihad

One misunderstanding that is being spread abroad is that the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement forbade Jihad to please the British Government and to procure worldly benefits from it. Before we enter upon a refutation of this misleading propaganda it would be helpful to set forth the meaning of the concept of Jihad. The root of the Arabic wordJihad is jahd which connoted endurance of rigorous conditions. Thus Jihad means to strive to the utmost for the achievement of a purpose and to leave nothing undone in pursuance of it. The well-known lexicon Tajul Urus says: The true meaning of Jihad is not to hold back anything and to put forth every effort and to achieve the purpose in view by forcing one-self. Jihad is of three types, namely, to oppose the enemy with full effort, to employ all one's faculties in opposition of Satan and to strive to the fullest that satanic designs should be altogether frustrated in the world, and to strive to the utmost in the struggle with oneself. The verse of the Holy Quran: 'Strive in the cause of Allah a perfect striving'; comprises all these three types of Jihad. Thus Jihad is of three types. One, the Jihad against oneself which in Islamic idiom is called the greatest Jihad (Jihad Akbar). Two, the Jihad that is waged against Satan and satanic teachings and designs, and is called the great Jihad (Jihad Kabeer). Three, the Jihad that it waged against the enemy of freedom of conscience; this is called the lesser Jihad (Jihad Asghar). The Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, has described the striving against self as Jihad Akbar. It is mentioned in the hadees that returning from an expedition (Tabuk), the Holy Prophet said: We are returning from the Jihad Asghar (fighting) to Jihad Akbar (struggle against self). (Kashaf) He also said: The mujahid who is exalted above other mujahids is the one who strives against his own self. The life of the Holy Prophet was divided into two parts, his life in Mecca and his life in Medina. During the Meccan period, he and his Companions were subjected to every kind of persecution, but they were not permitted to undertake Jihad by the sword. After the migration to Medina, God Almighty granted permission to the Muslims to oppose the aggression of their enemies by the sword. Now it is clear that every moment of the Holy Prophet's life was devoted to Jihad. It would be wrong to say that he did not carry out Jihad in the Meccan period and carried it out only during the Medina period. The truth is that every moment of his life and of the lives of his Companions was devoted to some type of Jihad. Jihad was carried on in the Meccan period, though there was no fighting and no killing of the enemy. In the Medina period, Jihad was continued in the same way but here Jihad by fighting was also added. Let us now consider the attitude of the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, towards Jihad by fighting. During his time British rule had been established over the subcontinent of India, also comprising what today is Pakistan. Before the British this part of the country was subject to the rule of the Sikhs who had abolished all religious freedom, especially for the Muslims, for whom it became difficult even to carry out Divine worship freely. In this connection the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, has stated: The Muslims have not yet forgotten the time when, at the hands of Sikhs, they were condemned to a blazing oven and not only was their world in ruins but their religion was even in worse case. It was difficult for them to carry their religious obligations, so much so that on one occasion a Muslim was killed for calling out the Azan (call to Prayers). (Announcement of 10 July 1900) It has been observed that the Sikhs were inspired with great hatred of the Muslims. Muslim men, women and children were mercilessly slaughtered; their villages were ruined; their women were dishonored and thousands of mosques were demolished. (Encyclopedia of Sikh Literature, p.1127). After British rule replaced Sikh rule in this part of the country a darbar was held in Allahabad on I November 1858 in which it was announced on behalf of Queen Victoria: We proclaim that it is our royal will and pleasure that no one of our subjects shall be persecuted or granted any favor on account of his religious beliefs or practices, nor shall any person be deprived of his security. In the eye of the law all people shall be equally entitled to impartial protection. In these circumstances, when unlike the Sikhs the British Government did not consider the Muslims as deserving to be killed and they were granted complete religious freedom of profession and practice, the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, announced: Government has granted to every people full freedom for the propagation of their respective faiths and in this way people have been provided with an opportunity to study and reflect upon the principles of every religion... that is the reason why we, in our writings and our speeches, make mention of the beneficence of the British Government. (Roedad Jalsa Dua) In his booklet Tohfa Qaisariyya, the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, explained the doctrine of Jihad as follows: The second principle on which I have been established is the clarification of the doctrine of Jihad which has been misinterpreted by some ignorant Muslims. I have been made to understand by God Almighty that those practices that are currently regarded as Jihad are entirely opposed to the teachings of the Holy Quran. There is no doubt that the Holy Quran permitted the Muslims to fight under directions that were more reasonable than those relating to the battles of Moses and were more attractive than those related to the battles of Joshua, son of Nun. They had their origin in the fact that those who had taken up the sword unjustly against the Muslims and committed murder and carried on their tyranny to the extreme deserved to be punished by the sword. Nevertheless, this punishment was not so severe as was inflicted upon the enemy in the battles of Moses. A person who accepted Islam or agreed to pay the poll tax was exempt from punishment and this method was in accord with the law of nature... In short, at the time of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, the basis of Islamic Jihad was that God's wrath had been roused against the tyrants. But living under the rule of a benign government, as is the Government of our Queen and Empress, it is not Jihad to entertain rebellious designs against it but it is a barbaric idea which is born of ignorance. To entertain ill-will against a government under whom life is lived in freedom and there is complete security and religious obligations can be discharged to the full is a criminal step and not Jihad... Thus, God Almighty had established me on the principle that sincere obedience and gratitude should be rendered to a benign government such as the British Government. My Community and I are bound by this principle. I have written several books in Arabic, Persian and Urdu on this question and have expounded in them in detail how the Muslims of British India lead their lives in comfort under the British Government and how they can freely propagate their faith and discharge their religious obligations without let or hindrance and how wrongful and rebellious it is to entertain any idea of Jihadagainst this blessed and peace-loving Government. (Tohfah Qaisariyya, pp. 9-10) This makes it clear that in the view of the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, there was no ground for undertaking Jihad by the sword against the Government in India as none of the conditions of Jihad operated in India. The Promised Messiah, peace be on him, was not alone in holding the view that Jihad by the sword was not permitted against the British Government in India. All the eminent divines of his time made declarations to the same effect and in accordance with them refrained from any activity which might be construed as Jihad by the sword and thus confirmed their declarations by their conduct. By way of illustration we set out some of these declarations. (1) Maulvi Muhammad Husain Sahib of Batala, one of the outstanding leaders of the Ahle Hadees, declared: 'It is not permissible for the Muslims to fight, or to help with men and money those who fight, against a Government of whatever religion, whether Jewish, Christian, or other, under whom they live in security and are free to discharge their religious obligations, Accordingly, for the Muslims of India, Opposition to or rebellion against the British Government is forbidden.' (Ishaatus Sunna, Vol. VI, No. 10) The same divine urged: Brethren, this is no longer the time of the sword. It has now become necessary to use the pen in place of the sword. (Ishaatus Sunnah, Vol. VI, No.12) (2) Maulvi Muhammad Jafar Sahib of Thanesar, has recorded in his well-known biography of Hazrat Syed Ahmad Sahib Brelvi, the Reformer of the 13th century of Islam: It is a correct statement that when he was proceeding on Jihad against the Sikhs someone asked him why did he propose to go so far to carry out Jihadagainst the Sikhs? Why did he not start Jihad against the British, who are the rulers of this country and deny the truth of Islam? He could fight them at home and take over India from them. He would have the support of hundreds of thousands in this enterprise. To travel to Afghanistan through hundreds of miles of Sikh territory and to remain there for years for fighting the Sikhs is a design so difficult that the people are not willing to adopt it. To this Syed Sahib made answer that he did not desire to take over any country from the British or from the Sikhs and to rule over it himself. The only reason why he designed to carry out Jihad against the Sikhs was that they oppress the Muslims and obstruct them in the performance of their religious obligations like calling out the Azan. If at this time or after the establishment of his supremacy the Sikhs refrain from persecuting the Muslims, he would no longer have any cause to fight them. The British are non-Muslims but they do not oppress the Muslims in any way, nor do they obstruct them in the performance of their religious obligations and worship. The Muslims openly propagate their faith and practice their religion under them. They not only do not forbid or obstruct the Muslims in any of this but are ready to punish anyone who might commit any aggression against the Muslims. He affirmed that his real purpose was the propagation of the Unity of God and the revival of the practice of the Chief of the Messengers, and that under the British he carried out this purpose without any hindrance. Then why should he start Jihad against the Government and should shed the blood of both sides contrary to the principles of religion. On hearing this reply, his interrogator held his peace having understood the true purpose of Jihad. (Biography of Hazrat Syed Ahmad, p.71) At another place Maulvi Muhammad Jafar Sahib has stated: It is also correctly related that while Maulana Ismail Shaheed was delivering a sermon during his stay in Calcutta, someone asked him whether it was proper to carry out Jihad against the British Government. In reply the Maulana said it was not permissible to carry on Jihad against such an impartial and non-bigoted Government. On the other hand, the tyranny of the Sikhs in the Punjab had reached a stage where it called for Jihad against them. (Biography of Hazrat Syed Ahmad, p.57) (3) Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Sahib of Batala wrote: At this time all the conditions of Jihad are nonexistent. Therefore, in India, from Calcutta to Peshawar, and from Sindh to the Deccan, no one is at liberty to carry on jihad against the British Government. (Ishaatus Sunnah, Vol. IX, No. I) (4) Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Founder of the Aligarh College, wrote in 1885: The vigorous conspiring of the Muslims and their consulting together that they should unite in carrying out Jihad against non-Muslims and should win their freedom from the Government is an utterly baseless thing. The Muslims enjoy complete security under the Government and can in no wise carry on Jihadagainst it. Twenty or thirty years ago a very well-known Maulvi, Muhammad Ismael, preached Jihad in India and urged people to join in it. At that time he stated quite clearly that the people of India who live in security under the British Government have no cause to carry on Jihad against that Government. (Causes of the Indian Rebellion, p.104) (5) Maulvi Murtaza Ahmad Khan Sahib has recorded that the Khalifatul Muslimeen Sultan Abdul Hameed II of Turkey communicated a declaration to the British that the Muslims of India should not fight the British as they had proved to be the allies of and in sympathy with the Islamic Khilafat. (History of the Nations of the World, p.639). (6) Maulvi Syed Nazir Hussain Sahib Delhvi declared: As the conditions of Jihad do not exist in this country it would be ruin and sinful to carry on Jihad here. (Fatawa Naziriyya, Vol. IV, p.472) He also declared that the rebellion of 1857 was not Jihad under the Islamic law but was a faithless proceeding involving a breach of covenant and disorder and rancor and that participation in it or any assistance rendered towards it was sinful. (Ishaatus Sunnah, Vol. VI, No. 10) (7) Maulana Maudoodi Sahib declared: When the Muslims were defeated and the British Government was established and the Muslims were content to live in this country with freedom to practise their personal law, this country ceased to be a country at war. (Book on Interest, p. 1) All this shows that all serious minded Muslims have been grateful to the British Government who rescued them from the oppression and religious persecution of the Sikhs and gave them complete religious freedom. Muslim divines were united in declaring that it was not permissible to enter upon Jihad against the British. They did not confine themselves to declarations, but confirmed them by their conduct that the conditions of Jihad did not exist in India and Jihad was not permissible against the British. Had that not been so, the Muslim divines of India would surely have raised the banner of Jihad against the British. If our opponents believe that Jihad had become obligatory against the British in India, then they are guilty of the charge that they failed to carry out this obligation. According to the Ahmadiyya Community the causes and conditions of Jihad were non-existent in India and therefore Jihad was not obligatory on them and by not embarking on it they were not guilty of any default. But those who believe that they are under an obligation and then commit a default in respect of it are certainly sinners. The Promised Messiah, peace be on him, set forth the true Islamic teaching concerning Jihad. He states: Without a doubt the causes of Jihad do not exist in this country in these days. Therefore, the Muslims of this country are today forbidden to fight in the name of religion and to slaughter those who reject the Islamic law. God Almighty has clearly forbidden Jihad by the sword in a time of peace and security. (Tohfah Golarvia, p. 82) It is obvious that no divine can hold Jihad lawful at a time when its conditions do not exist. It must be remembered that the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, did not forbid Jihad absolutely. He argued his Community to carry Jihad all the time. He states: The Jihad of this age is to strive in upholding the word of Islam, to refute the objections of the opponents, to propagate the excellences of the Islamic faith, and to proclaim the truth of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, throughout the world. This is Jihad till God Almighty brings about other conditions in the world. (Letter addressed to Mir Nasir Nawab Sahib) In this letter the words: Till God Almighty brings about other conditions in the world, are worthy of note. They clearly indicate that he did not reject the concept of Jihad by the sword but believed that the obligation of such Jihad had been postponed in this age on account of the absence of the conditions that call for it. He did not abrogate Jihad by the sword, nor could he do so as he was bound by the Holy Quran. He merely declared its postponement. He cited the hadees that the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, had prophesied that the Promised Messiah would not fight with the sword as his age would be a time of religious freedom. Finally, we would draw attention to a statement of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II which explains the attitude of the Ahmadiyya Community towards Jihad. He states: As the salat is obligatory so, when the need arises, is fighting for the faith obligatory... It should be remembered that of the matters which have prescribed as the principal constituents of faith, one is Jihad... He who turns away from Jihad when it becomes obligatory is condemned to hell. (Report of the Majlis Mushawarat, 1950) At a time when the conditions for Jihad by the sword did not exist the Ahmadiyya Community eagerly carried out Jihad with the Holy Quran, which has been called the Great Jihad, and Jihad against their own selves, which has been called the Greatest Jihad. They continue to refute the Christian and Arya Samajist opponents of Islam. After the establishment of Pakistan, when the Dogra forces and the Indian army were suppressing the Muslims of Kashmir, the Ahmadiyya Community of Pakistan was the only one that raised a volunteer corps called the Furqan Force to fight in Kashmir along with the army of Pakistan and thus carried out Jihad by sword in practice. Several young men of the Furqan Force became martyrs in this fighting. Thus, when the time came for Jihad by the sword the Ahmadiyya Community participated in it at once and should the conditions of Jihad by the sword arise again, the Ahmadiyya Community will, God willing, not hesitate to discharge the obligation of Jihad by the sword.

Read more »

Prophecy relating to Muhammadi Begum

One of the objections of the opponents of Ahmadiyyat is that the Founder of the Movement had made a prophecy that Muhammadi Begum, daughter of Mirza Ahmad Beg, would be married to him, but that the marriage did not take place and this prophecy was proved false.

The background of this prophecy was that some of the relatives of the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, were atheists and mocked at Islam. God Almighty designed to show them a sign so that those who might take advantage of it may be saved and those who might reject it may be punished. Their condition is depicted by him as follows:

God Almighty found my cousins and other relatives a prey to irreligious thinking and given to misconduct. They were held in the grip of their passions, denied the existence of God and were disorderly. (Ayenah Kamalat Islam, p. 566)

He states further:

It so happened that one evening a person came to me weeping and I became apprehensive and asked him whether he had received the news of the death of anyone. To this he replied in the negative and said that the matter was graver than that. He explained that he had been sitting with those people who have become apostates from the divine faith and one of them uttered vile abuse against the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, such as has not been heard even from the mouth of a disbeliever. He mentioned that these people dishonor the Holy Quran and utter things that one dare not repeat. They assert that there is no God and that the concept of God is an imposture. Having heard him I reminded him that I had already warned him against keeping company with such people. (Ayenah Kamalat Islam, p. 568)

The Promised Messiah, peace be on him, further states:

These people wrote a letter to me in which they reviled the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and denied the existence of God and demanded proofs of my truth and of the existence of God. They published this letter and supported the non-Muslims of India and exhibited extreme wickedness. (Ayenah Kamalat Islam, p. 568)

On their demanding a sign, the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, turned to prayer and supplicated earnestly for a Divine sign to be exhibited in respect of them. God Almighty responded to him and he received the revelation:

I have observed their misconduct and wickedness and I shall soon destroy them under heaven through different types of calamities and you will soon see how I shall deal with them. I have power to do all that I will, I shall make their women widows and their children orphans and shall ruin their homes so that they might be punished for their misdeeds. I shall not destroy them at one stroke but gradually so that they might turn back and repent. My curse will descend upon the walls of their homes, on their elders and their young ones, on their women and on their men and on their guests. All of them will be accursed except those who believe and cut asunder from them and keep away from their company. They will be under divine mercy. (Ayenah Kamalat Islam, p. 569)

About that time the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, was approached by one of these relatives of his to procure his consent on deed of gift, the details of which are set out by him as follows:

At that time Mirza Ahmad Beg, father of Muhammadi Begum, made up his mind to procure from his sister, whose husband had not been heard of for several years, a gift of her land in favor of his son. The husband of his sister was a cousin of ours and under the customary law she could not transfer her land without our consent as we were the collateral's of her husband. Mirza Ahmad Beg, therefore, turned to me and humbly and respectfully requested me to indicate my consent to the transfer proposed by him and I became inclined to put my signature to the deed of gift. But, as was my habit, I prayed for guidance, whereupon, I received a revelation to the following effect:
'Tell him to establish a relationship with you by giving his elder daughter in marriage to you and thus to obtain light from your light. Tell him that you would agree to the transfer of the land as he has requested and show him other favors in the event of this marriage taking place. Tell him that this would be a covenant between you and that if he accepts it he will find you the best acceptor on your side and that if he does not accept it and his daughter is married to someone else that marriage would not prove a blessing either for his daughter or for himself. Tell him that if he persists in carrying out any different design he will become subject to a series of misfortunes, the last of which would be his death within three years of the marriage of his daughter to someone else. Warn him that his death is near and will occur at a time when he does not expect it. The husband of his daughter will also die within two years and a half. This is a divine decree.'
I told him that he could now proceed to do whatever he might wish and that I had warned him. (Ayenah Kamalat Islam, p.572)

This was the prophecy, which was conditional upon repentance. In fact every prophecy that warns of punishment is conditioned with repentance. That this was so in this case also is clear from the revelation that the Promised Messiah received on seeing Muhammadi Begum's maternal grandmother in a vision and in which he addressed her:

Woman, do thou repent. Repent, for misfortune is about to overtake thee and thy progeny and their progeny. A person wilt die but many critics will remain who will indulge in wild language. (Announcement of 10 July 1888)

The real purpose of the prophecy appears from the following statement of the Promised Messiah, peace be on him:

I had no need to request this relationship. God Almighty had fulfilled all my needs. He had bestowed children upon me and had promised that He would bestow upon me, within a short period, a son who would serve as a lamp for the faith and would be named Mahmud Ahmad. He would prove to be of high resolve in his endeavors. The request for this relationship is merely as a sign so that God Almighty might demonstrate His wonderful power to the dissidents of this family; so that if they accept, God might bestow signs of blessings and mercy upon them and might avert the misfortunes that are approaching and that if they reject it He might warn them through His wrathful signs. (Announcement of 15 July 1888)

It is clear, therefore, that the misfortune that threatened Muhammadi Begum's maternal grandmother and Muhammadi Begum herself could be averted by repentance, as is indicated by the opening words of the revelation: Repent, Repent.

So it happened that Muhammadi Begum's father gave her in marriage to another person and in accordance with the prophecy died within six months of the marriage and his death deeply affected the other members of the family. Muhammadi Begum's husband repented and turned to God and thus his death was averted. As the prophecy was conditioned with repentance and on his repenting, the death of Muhammadi Begum's husband was averted, her marriage to the Promised Messiah was canceled and did not take place.

It might be asked what is there to show that Muhammadi Begum's husband, Mirza Sultan Muhammad, had really repented and had turned to God. In reply to this the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, states:

The determination of this is quite easy. Ask Sultan Muhammad, the son-in-law of Ahmad Beg, that he should publish a denial. Thereafter, if he should not die within a period that God Almighty might specify, I would be proved false... Such death would be withheld from him till he becomes defiant. Thus if you are in a hurry then arise and make him announce his denial and then witness the power of God Almighty. (Anjam Aatham, p.32)

If, after this challenge Mirza Sultan Muhammad had exhibited any defiance or had, at the urging of others, announced his denial, his death within the period that might have been appointed would have been absolutely inescapable and Muhammadi Begum's marriage to the Promised Messiah would have taken place.

On the publication of the challenge of the Promised Messiah set out in Anjam Aatham, some Christians approached Mirza Sultan Muhammad and promised to pay him a large amount of money so that he might prosecute the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, in respect of his challenge. But they were unable to persuade him to take any such step, despite the tempting offer made to him.

In 1912 Mirza Sultan Muhammad wrote in a letter, a photostat of which has been published several times by the Ahmadiyya Community:

I have always held the late Mirza Sahib, and still hold him, as a righteous and respected person who was a servant of Islam, had a noble spirit and was constant in his remembrance of God. I entertain no opposition to his followers and regret that for certain reasons I was not able to have the honor of meeting him in his lifetime.

Hafiz Jamal Ahmad Sahib, a missionary of the Ahmadiyya Movement had, on one occasion, an interview with Mirza Sultan Muhammad, husband of Muhammadi Begum, which was published in the AI-Fazal of 9-13 June 1921, in the lifetime of Mirza Sultan Muhammad. Hafiz Ahmad Sahib states as follows:

If you would not mind, I would like to ask you about the prophecy of Hazrat Mirza Sahib concerning his marriage. He replied: 'You can ask me freely'; and on my putting the question to him he stated: 'My father-in-law, Mirza Ahmad Beg Sahib, died in accordance with the prophecy, but God Almighty is Forgiving and Merciful and hears the supplications of His servants and has mercy on them.'

He was asked: 'Have you any comments on the prophecy of Mirza Sahib, or did it raise any doubts in your mind?' to which he replied:

'The prophecy raised no doubts in my mind. I state on oath that the faith and belief that I have in Hazrat Sahib are, I conceive, stronger than that of those of you who have entered into a covenant of allegiance with him.'

Thus the turning back of Mirza Sultan Muhammad Sahib is clear and obvious. As the prophecy was conditional, its remaining portions were averted through repentance after the death of Mirza Ahmad Beg. These included Muhammadi Begum's marriage to the Promised Messiah after the death of Mirza Sultan Muhammad. As his death was deferred, the question of any other marriage did not arise. As the Promised Messiah has stated:

When these people fulfilled the condition and the son-in-law of Ahmad Beg became afraid and repented, the marriage was canceled or postponed. (Tatimmah Haqeeqatul Wahi, p.32)

He has stated further:

Everyone is aware of the events of the people of Jonah where there was no condition and yet the punishment decreed for them was averted by repentance and asking of forgiveness. In the present case there was the clear admonition: 'Repent, repent, for the calamity is on thy heels'; which meant that everything would be averted through repentance. They were put in fear and thus a part of the prophecy was averted. (Badar, 13 April 1908)

The effect of the prophecy was that God Almighty delivered a large number of the members of that family and brought them into the Ahmadiyya Movement and made them devoted Muslims. Out of a long list of those members of this family who have joined the Movement, we call attention to a statement made in a letter by Mirza Ishaq Beg, son of Muhammadi Begum, who, by God's grace, is a member of the Ahmadiyya Movement. He has said:

In accordance with this prophecy, my maternal grandfather, Mirza Ahmad Beg, died and the rest of the family was put in fear and became inclined towards reform, the irrefutable proof of which is that most of them joined the Ahmadiyya Movement in consequence of which God Almighty, being Forgiving and Merciful, changed His wrath into mercy. (Al-Fazal, 26 February 1923)

One objection that is raised in connection with this prophecy is that the Promised Messiah stated in Izalah Auham in 1891:

God Almighty will in any event bring Muhammadi Begum to me as a virgin or a widow and will remove all obstructions. He will certainly fulfill this and no one can obstruct Him. (Izalah Auham, p.296)

Then how is it possible that God Almighty did not remove the intervening obstructions and the marriage did not take place? The answer is that this statement was an interpretation of the prophecy, though it does not mention the condition to which the prophecy was subject. This condition was expressly laid down as has already been pointed out, If after his repentance Mirza Sultan Muhammad had rescinded from it then all intervening obstructions would have been removed. But, as in the event, Mirza Sultan Muhammad fulfilled the condition of repentance and adhered to it throughout, the remaining portions of the prophecy could not come into operation.

Read more »

Health of the Promised Messiah

It is objected that the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, has said that he suffered from hypochondria (Badar, 7 June 1906), and that Hazrat Bashir Ahmed Sahib inSeeratul Mahdi, Vol. 1, p. 13, wrote that he was subject to hysteria and it is argued that a person suffering from hypochondria cannot be a prophet.

The Promised Messiah has nowhere stated himself that he suffered from hypochondria or hysteria. The statement in Badar of 7 June 1906 does not set out his own words. It is a statement by the diary writer, the accuracy of which could be open to doubt. There is a very clear statement by the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, concerning the Divine safeguarding of his health which is as follows:

In the same way God Almighty knew that if I were to be afflicted with some objectionable disease like leprosy, lunacy, blindness, epilepsy etc., my opponents would conclude that I was the subject of Divine wrath. Therefore, He gave me the good news in advance, as is mentioned in the Braheen Ahmadiyya, that He would safeguard me against every objectionable disease and would complete His favor unto me. (Arbaeen, No. 3, p. 30)

Thus, he was not at all afflicted with hypochondria, or hysteria, or epilepsy, or any such disease. It is true that Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmed Sahib mentioned in theSeeratul Mahdi that the Ummul Momineen had mentioned that the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, suffered from hysteria, but the Ummul Momineen was not a physician and she described migraine, to which the Promised Messiah was liable, as hysteria. No argument can be based on her mistaken use of this expression.

It is true that he was subject to migraine and in this connection it is worthy of note that there is high medical authority for the statement that the subjects of migraine are nearly always of an active, capable, and intelligent type (Price's text book of medicine, p. 1502). Thus there is nothing objectionable about migraine.

This kind of objection is not new. Bigoted Christian ministers have been guilty of charging the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, with epilepsy. The Holy Quran has repeatedly mentioned that the opponents of the Prophets called them insane and sorcerers, etc. It was, therefore, necessary that the Promised Messiah, like other true prophets, should have been made the subject of such charges, which are a proof of his truth and righteousness.

Read more »

Challenge to Maulvi Sanaullah

One objection is raised that the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement had offered a prayer in opposition to Maulvi Sanaullah Sahib that of the two, the one who was in the wrong should die in the lifetime of the one who was in the right and as the former died in the lifetime of the latter it follows that he was in the wrong.

The truth of the matter is that among the divines who had been challenged to a prayer duel (mubahilah) by the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, in his bookAnjam Aatham, Maulvi Sanaullah Sahib's name was also included. He was, however, afraid to take up the challenge and never indicated any inclination towards accepting it; but possibly under some pressure on the side of the non-Ahmadi public, he challenged the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, to a prayer duel(mubahilah) in his paper the Ahle Hadees of 29 March 1907. With reference to this challenge the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, wrote in his book Ijaz Ahmadi:

I have seen the announcement of Maulvi Sanaullah of Amritsar in which he claims that has a sincere desire that he and I should pray that the one of us who is in the wrong should die in the lifetime of the one who is in the right.

He added:

He has made a good proposal, I trust he will keep to it. (Ijaz Ahmadi, p.14)

The Promised Messiah, peace be on him, accepted this challenge of Maulvi Sanaullah Sahib and announced:

If he is sincere in his challenge that the untruthful one should die before the truthful one then surely he will be the first to die. (Ijaz Ahmadi, p.36)

When Maulvi Sanaullah Sahib found that the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, had accepted his challenge to a prayer duel (mubahilah) he was overcome by fear and began to make excuses. He wrote:

I neither am nor do I claim like you that I am a prophet, or a messenger, or a son of God, or a recipient of revelation. I cannot, therefore, dare to enter into such a contest. Your purpose is that if I should die before you, you will proclaim that as a proof of your righteousness and if you pass on before me (a good riddance), then who will go to your grave to call you to account? That is why you put forward such stupid proposals. I regret, however, that I dare not enter into such controversy and this lack of courage is a source of honor for me and is not a source of humiliation. (Ilhamat Mirza, p. 116)

This declaration by Maulvi Sanaullah Sahib came as a great shock to his followers and he was subjected to heavy adverse criticism, whereby he was moved to proclaim:

Followers of the Mirza, if you are truthful, come forward and bring your leader with you. The same place, namely, the Idgah of Amritsar, where you have previously experienced heavenly humiliation in a prayer duel with Sufi Abdul Haq Ghaznavi, is still there. So bring him who has challenged us to a prayer duel in his book Anjam Aatham and confront him with me, for so long as there is no final decision with the prophet nothing can bind all his followers. (Ahl-i-Hadees, 29 March 1907)

Maulvi Sanaullah Sahib might have hoped that the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, would pay no attention to his hyperbolic boast and that he would thus extricate himself from an unpleasant situation. However, when the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, read this announcement of his, he directed the Editor ofBadar to announce:

In reply to his challenge I wish to convey to Maulvi Sanaullah Sahib the good news that Hazrat Mirza Sahib (the Promised Messiah) has accepted his challenge. (Badar, 4 April 1907)

This announcement upset Maulvi Sanaullah Sahib and being frightened he announced:

I have not challenged you to a mubahilah, I have only declared my willingness to take an oath, but you call it a mubahilah, whereas a mubahilah involves the parties taking oaths in a contest against each other. I have declared my readiness to take an oath and have not issued a challenge to a mubahilah. Taking an unilateral oath is one thing and mubahilah is quite another. (Ahle Hadees, 19 April 1907)

Perceiving that Maulvi Sanaullah Sahib was not prepared to take a definite stand, the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, published an announcement under the heading:

Final decision concerning Maulvi Sanaullah Sahib, and concluded it with the statement:

Now Maulvi Sanaullah Sahib may write in response whatever he pleases. In case he accepts the challenge to a mubahilah he should record his acceptance of it over his signature.

In answer to this, Maulvi Sanaullah Sahib wrote as follows:

The Quran says that the evil-doers are granted respite by God. For instance, it is said: 'The Gracious One grants respite to those who are in error' (19:76); and: 'We grant them respite so that they might multiply their sins' (3:97); 'God will leave them to flounder on in their transgression' (2:16); and: 'The fact is that We provided for them and their fathers and they remained in enjoyment of Our provision for a long time' (21 :45). All these clearly mean that God Almighty, grants respite and bestows long life on liars, deceivers, disturbers of the peace and disobedient ones, so that during the period of respite they should add to their evil deeds. (Ahle Hadees, 26 April 1907)

Thus Maulvi Sanaullah Sahib not only rejected the challenge of the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, to a mubahilah, but also put forward a principle that liars, deceivers, disorderly people and disobedient ones are granted long life. Thereupon God Almighty granted long life to Maulvi Sanaullah Sahib according to the principle which he had put forward and brought about the death of the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, thus confirming that according to his own declaration Maulvi Sanaullah Sahib was a disorderly and disobedient person and was a liar and a deceiver.

Read more »

Prayer Services led by a non-Ahmadi Muslim

Imam B. A. Rafiqn

Truth About Ahmadiyyat

One of the objections that is raised against the Ahmadiyya Community is that they do not join the prayer services of the non-Ahmadi, nor do they participate in the funeral prayers for a non-Ahmadi and that for this reason they are not Muslims.

In approaching this question it is necessary to keep in mind its history. It is well known and cannot be denied that it was the non-Ahmadis and their divines who debarred the Ahmadis from joining their Prayer services and even forbade their entry into their mosques. If an Ahmadi was found saying his prayers in a mosque of the non-Ahmadis, he was beaten up and often the floor of the mosque where an Ahmadi might have said his prayers was washed and thus the mosque was purified from the pollution which, according to them, had been inflicted upon the mosque by the entry of an Ahmadi into it. The Ahmadis were regarded as a pollution. It was in this situation that the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement directed his followers to arrange to hold their prayer services separately and thus avoid all occasion of disorderliness in mosques. It is worthy of note that no non-Ahmadi has ever been stopped from joining the prayer services of Ahmadis or from saying his prayers separately in an Ahmadi mosque.

It was not till 1900, eleven years after the foundation of the Movement, that the Ahmadis were directed not to join the prayer services of the non-Ahmadis. Non-Ahmadi divines had throughout this period continued the condemnation of the Ahmadis as non-Muslims and outside the pale of Islam. It will thus be realized that the non-Ahmadis first forbade the entry of Ahmadis into their mosques and then charged them with failure to join the prayer services.

Attention may be drawn, by way of illustration, to a few of the declarations of non-Ahmadi divines in this context.

1. Maulvi Nazir Hussain Sahib of Delhi declared that neither the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement nor any of his followers should be greeted with the Islamic Salutation or invited to a meal, nor should their invitation to a meal be accepted, nor should prayers be said in the leadership of any of them. (Fatwa published in 1892 in the Ishaatus Sunnah, Vol. XIII, p. 85) 
2. Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Sahib of Batala declared that to be a follower of the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement and to lead the Muslims in prayers is a contradiction which cannot be reconciled. (Sharai Faislah, p.31) 
3. Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Sahib Gangohi declared that it is forbidden to join a prayer service led by the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement or any of his followers. (Sharai Faislah, p. 31) 
4. Maulvi Sanaullah Sahib of Amritsar declared that whatever the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement did was all done for worldly purposes and that it was not permissible to join a prayer service led by him. (Fatwa Shariat Gharra, p. 9) 
5. Mufti Muhammad Abdullah Sahib Tonki of Lahore declared that it was not permissible to join a prayer service led by the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement or any of his followers. (Sharai Faislah, p. 25)
6. Maulvi Abdur Rehman Sahib Bihari declared that the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement was a disbeliever and an apostate from Islam and that joining a prayer service led by him or any of his followers was a useless and condemnable practice. The obligation of participation in a prayer service was not thereby discharged and such a worshipper incurred a great sin. It amounted to the same thing as joining a prayer service led by a Jew. (Fatawa Shariat Gharra, p. 4) 
7. Maulvi Khalil Ahmad Sahib of Saharanpur declared that the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement repudiated the Holy Quran and was outside the pale of Islam. To enter into a covenant of allegiance with him or to have any love for him or to join in a prayer service led by him or any of his followers was improper and was strictly forbidden. (Fatawa Shariat Gharra, p. 7) 
8. Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan of Bareilli declared that to join a prayer service led by a member of the Ahmadiyya Movement, or to join his funeral prayer, or to enter into a matrimonial alliance with him, or to eat the meat of an animal slaughtered by him, or to keep company with him, or to talk to him, was subject to the same discipline as applied to the apostates from Islam. (Hissamul Haramain, p. 95)

These declarations were widely published and were read out in the mosque of cities, towns and villages throughout the subcontinent and thus the entry of Ahmadis into the mosques of the non-Ahmadis was forbidden and condemned. If in consequence of all this the Ahmadis were directed by the Head of the Movement that they should not join the prayer services of non-Ahmadis, such action was only perfectly appropriate but was called for in the interest of avoiding disorderliness in the mosques.

The same was the situation with regard to the funeral services and burial of deceased Ahmadis. Numerous declarations were made by non-Ahmadi divines that non-Ahmadis should not join the funeral prayers of an Ahmadi and should not permit an Ahmadi to be buried in their graveyards. The bodies of deceased Ahmadis awaiting burial were shamefully treated, and in many cases they were disinterred after burial and thrown away. There is scarcely any disgrace or dishonor that could be inflicted upon a dead body to which the dead bodies of the Ahmadis were not subjected. Having suffered such indignities it is not a matter for surprise, far less of condemnation, that the Ahmadis refrained from joining in the funeral prayers of non-Ahmadis. This was also appropriate in order to avoid disorderliness and provocation.

By way of illustration here are some instances of the sort of treatment which has been accorded by non-Ahmadis to the dead bodies of members of the Ahmadiyya Movement:

1. On 20 August 1915, a small child of K. S. Hasan, an Ahmadi of Cannanore, Malabar, died and the local ruler directed that as the local Qazi had issued a declaration against the Ahmadis, that they were disbelievers, the dead body of the child could not be interred in any graveyard of the Muslims. The child could not be buried that day and at the end of the following day was buried in a plot of land more than two miles distant from the Muslim graveyard. (Al-Fazal, 19 October 1915).
2. In December 1918, the wife of an Ahmadi of Cuttack, Orissa, died and the Ahmadis buried the dead body in the Muslim graveyard. When the non-Ahmadis learnt of this they disinterred the body and carried it and threw it at the door of her husband's house. (Al Fazal, 14 December 1918)
   
   
   The situation in Cuttack might be appreciated from the following extract from Ahle Hadees, a non-Ahmadi paper, which said:
   
   
   The proverb 'A hundred stripes for a corpse' is being put into practice here. The situation with reference to an Ahmadi corpse is indescribable. When it is known in the town that an Ahmadi has died all graveyards are put under guard with people armed with sticks and the corpse is subjected to all sorts of indignities. A search is made for a coffin but it cannot be procured, gravediggers refuse to dig the grave, wood and bamboos become scarce. Search is made for a place for burial and none is found. Being disappointed in every direction when the relatives of the dead person decide to bury the corpse inside the house someone goes and informs the municipal authorities of this design and they appear immediately on the scene and frustrate the design. (Ahle Hadees, as quoted in Al-Fazal of February 9, 1918)
3. In April 1928, the opponents of the Ahmadiyya Movement in Cuttack stopped the burial of the small child of an Ahmadi even in the graveyard which the Ahmadis had established in a plot obtained from the government for the purpose, and the local officials rendered no assistance to the Ahmadis in carrying out the burial. (Al-Fazal, 13 April 1928)
4. On 16 March 1928, the daughter of Shaikh Sher Muhammad, an Ahmadi of Bhadrak, Orissa, could not be buried in the graveyard on account of the opposition offered by non-Ahmadis who had gathered in large numbers and were bent upon using violence to stop the burial. In the end the father arranged to place the dead body in a coffin and buried it in the compound of his house. (Al-Fazal, 27 April 1938)
5. On 29 January 1934, an Ahmadi died in Calicut, Malabar and non-Ahmadi opponents made a great propaganda in the town that the dead body should not be permitted to be buried in the Muslim graveyard. Thousands of excited opponents collected around the house of the deceased and created so much disturbance that it became difficult for the Ahmadis to enter the house or to emerge from it. With great difficulty at about 5 p.m. one person was sent to the graveyard to spy out the situation there, and on his return he reported that thousands of people armed with sticks etc. had gathered at the graveyard and were proclaiming that they would under no circumstances permit the dead body of the deceased Ahmadi to be buried in the grave-yard. The local officials were approached, but they pleaded their helplessness in the situation. Finally, on the following day, at 10.30 p.m., the corpse was buried at a great distance from the town in a plot of land that was subject to inundation in the rainy season. (Al-Fazal, 25 February 1934).

Hundreds of such instances can be cited but considerations of space forbid further citation. The indignities offered to the dead bodies of Ahmadi martyrs in various places in Pakistan during the disturbances in 1974 are fresh in the memory of all.

In view of all this does it lie in the mouths of our opponents that they should consider us blameworthy in that we do not join them in the funeral prayers of non-Ahmadi deceased?

This question has another aspect. Non-Ahmadi divines argue that as Ahmadis do not join non-Ahmadis in prayer services they thereby put themselves outside the pale of Islam. Now there is no sect of Muslims which has not been condemned as disbelievers by Muslim divines and joining whose prayer services is not regarded as contrary to Islam. Thus this is not a new situation which has arisen only with reference to the Ahmadis. Apply the same reasoning to other Muslim sects and consider the situation that would result therefrom. If the Ahmadis become disbelievers by not joining the prayer services of the non-Ahmadis, the same would apply to other sects who declare it contrary of Islam and forbidden to join the prayer services of each other other.

Here are some illustrations. The principal non-Ahmadi divines have declared concerning the Devbandees as follows:

Those of the Devband sect are absolute apostates from Islam and are disbelievers because in their worship they defame and dishonor all prophets and saints and even the Holy Prophet of Islam, on whom be the peace and blessings of Allah, and God Almighty Himself... The Muslims should avoid them altogether and not only should they refrain from joining them in their prayer services but they should not permit them to participate in their own prayer services, nor should they permit them to enter their mosques or eat the meat of animals slaughtered by them or take part in their marriage celebrations or funeral services. They should not visit them in illness and should not participate in their burial after death, nor permit the corpses of those of them who die to be buried in Muslim graveyards.
Those of the Devbandee sect are thus confirmed apostates and disbelievers, such that those who doubt in their being disbelievers would themselves become disbelievers, with the consequence that their marriages would be automatically dissolved and if they continue their association with their wives, any children born of such association would be illegitimate and would not inherit from them under the law. (Fatwa of Maulvi Muhammad Ibrahim Sahib of BhagaIpur, printed in the Hasan Barqi Press, Luknow)

In view of this, are Ahmadis under any obligation to join the prayer services of the Devbandee sect or should they join the prayer services of the Brelvis, concerning whom it has been declared:

He who attributes the knowledge of the unseen to anyone except God Almighty or considers anyone as possessing the same degree of knowledge as is possessed by God Almighty is undoubtedly a disbeliever. His leadership in prayer, association with him, love and friendship for him are all forbidden. (Fatawa Rashidiyyah Kamil of Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Sahib Gangohi)

Or is it desired that the Ahmadis should join the prayer services of the Ahle Hadees, concerning whom is the declaration:

The Wahabis, in the unanimous opinion of the divines of Mecca and Medina, are disbelievers and apostates from Islam, such that anyone who comes to know of their cursed writings and speeches and still doubts in their being disbelievers, himself becomes a disbeliever. It is not permitted to join a prayer service led by any of them. The meat of an animal slaughtered by them is forbidden. Their wives are no longer married to them and these women cannot marry a Muslim or a disbeliever or an apostate. (Fatawa Sanaiyyah, Vol.11, p.409)

There are scores of other declarations in which the divines of various sects have declared the followers of other sects disbelievers and have forbidden joining in prayer services led by them. In this situation what objection can be taken to the Ahmadis following their own Imam in their prayer services so as to obviate every kind of mischief and disorder.

In approaching these and all similar questions it should be kept in mind that the Ahmadis are those who have accepted the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, in whose person have been fulfilled the prophecies of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and thus they have become momins and are entitled to be described as righteous. A person who denies the truth of one who has been commissioned by God Almighty cannot be called a momin and it is obvious that the first condition for a person to lead the prayer service is that he should be a momin and righteous. Now if this is the true situation, and the Ahmadis sincerely believe that such is the case, then how can it be required that a momin (Ahmadi) should join in prayer services led by a non-momin (non-Ahmadi). This situation has been made quite clear by the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, who has said:

Those who, in their haste, have adopted an attitude of ill thinking and are indifferent to the difficulties with which this Movement is faced, have not acted righteously. God Almighty in His Holy Word says:
'Allah accepts only from the righteous' (5:28).
This means that it is only the prayer of the righteous that is accepted by God. That is why it has been directed that one should not join a prayer service led by one whose own prayer is not likely to find acceptance. It has ever been the stance of those honored in the faith that a person who opposes the truth is gradually deprived of his faith. He who does not believe in the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be on him, is a disbeliever, but he who does not accept the Mahdi and Messiah will also lose his faith, and the end is the same. There is first opposition, and finally faith is lost. This is not a small matter but is a matter involving faith and is a question of heaven and hell. To deny me is not merely to reject me but is the denial of Allah and His Holy Prophet, on whom be the peace and blessings of Allah. He who denies me, before denying me considers God Almighty (God save us) a liar. He sees that internal and external disorders have exceeded the bounds and he conceives that God Almighty, despite His promise:
'We Ourself have sent down this Exhortation and We shall surely safe guard it' (15:10)
has not taken any measure of reform. On the surface he believes that in verse 56 of Chapter 24 of the Holy Quran, God Almighty promised that He would establish a line of successors among the followers of the Holy Prophet as a line of successors was established among the followers of Moses but thinks that (God save us) He has not fulfilled that promise, and there is no Khalifa at present among the followers of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be on him. Not only this, but such a one will also have to adopt the position that (God save us) it is not true, as the Holy Quran has said, that the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was a Prophet like Moses, inasmuch as for a perfect resemblance between Moses and the Holy Prophet, it was necessary that at the beginning of the fourteenth century of Islam there should have appeared among the Muslims a Messiah in the same way as in the Mosaic dispensation there came a Messiah in the fourteenth century after Moses. Further, he who denies me would also have to deny the vase of the Holy Quran:
'And among others from among them who have not yet joined them' (62:4)
which prophecies the advent of a reflection of Ahmad in the latter days. In the same way there are many verses of the Holy Quran which such a one will have to deny. I go further and claim that he who denies me will have to repudiate the whole of the Holy Quran from beginning to end. Consider, therefore, whether my denial is an easy matter. I do not say on my own authority but call God Almighty to witness that the truth is that he who forsakes me and denies me, even if he does so only by his conduct and not by his tongue, rejects the whole of the Holy Quran and forsakes God. (Alhakam, 17 March 1906)

The Holy Quran describes those who reject one sent by God as being dead. How then can one who is alive join in a prayer service led by one who is dead?

Read more »

The establishment of a heavenly graveyard

One objection that is raised in that the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement instituted a heavenly graveyard (Bahishti Maqbarah) and that he laid it down that whoever contributed one tenth of his property for the purpose of the Movement would enter Paradise and thus he opened the way to Paradise through a financial contribution.

It should be clearly grasped that the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, certainly did not prescribe a financial contribution alone as a means of securing burial in this graveyard. For that purpose he laid down other conditions also such as purity of life and righteousness etc. For instance, he said:

The third condition is that a person who seeks burial in this graveyard should be righteous and should refrain from all that is forbidden and should not indulge in anything which has a smattering of associating others with God or of an innovation. He should be a true and plain Muslim. Every righteous person who possesses no property and can render no financial assistance can be given burial in this graveyard if it is proved that he had devoted his life to the faith and was in every way a righteous .......
It would not he enough to contribute one tenth of moveable and immovable property but it would be necessary that the testator should, as far as is possible for him, act upon Islamic commandments and should strive after righteousness and purity and should have sincere faith in the Holy Prophet and should not contravene the rights of his fellow creatures. (Al-Wassiyyat, p.24)

These extracts show clearly that the Promised Messiah, peace be on him, laid it down as conditions for the burial of a person in the heavenly graveyard that he should be a servant of the faith, should he righteous, should be entirely free from any paganism, or indulging in innovations, should be a Muslim, should believe in the Unity of God, should have sincere faith in the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and should discharge his obligations towards his fellow creatures.

It is mentioned in the ahadees that the Promised Messiah will expound to his followers their grades in Paradise (Muslim, chapter on Anti-Christ). This prophecy was, by Divine grace, fulfilled by the institution of the Bahishti Maqbarah.

There is nothing objectionable to convey the good news of paradise to people having regard to their conduct and efforts. Prophets in the past have been conveying such good news to people from among their followers. The Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, conveyed such good news to those Companions of his who had participated in the Battle of Badar (Bokahri, chapter on Battles). Then he conveyed this good news to ten particular Companions who became known as theAshrah Mubasharah. He also instituted a graveyard and named it Jannatul Baque which in effect means heavenly graveyard.

The Promised Messiah, peace be on him, in accord with the Divine will and command instituted a graveyard and laid down certain conditions for burial therein which are in accord with the Holy Quran and the hadees and announced that whoever fulfilled those conditions would be admitted to Paradise by Divine grace. What objection could there be to that?

Read more »