|
|
|
The Evidence
Section 11:
No claim to prophethood — Summary
|
Translator’s Note:
Largely as summary of the arguments given in the
last few Sections, this Section enumerates twenty reasons which
show that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not claim to be a prophet.
Each reason is supported by some quotations as examples.
|
1. First Argument
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad always denied the allegation levelled against
him that he claimed to be a prophet (nabi). Had he been a claimant
to prophethood (nubuwwat), he could not have made denials such
as those quoted below:
- “There is no claim of prophethood; on the contrary, the claim
is of sainthood (muhaddasiyyat) which has been advanced by
the command of God.” (Izala Auham, p. 421)
- “In conclusion, there is no claim of prophethood on my part
either. The claim is only of being a saint (wali) and a Reformer
(mujaddid).” (Majmu‘a Ishtiharat, vol. ii,
p. 298)
- “By way of a fabrication, they slander me by saying that I
have made a claim to prophethood. ... But it should be remembered
that all this is a fabrication. Our belief is that our master and
leader Hazrat Muhammad mustafa, peace and the blessings of God be
upon him, is the Last of the Prophets. We believe in angels, miracles,
and all the doctrines held by the Ahl-i Sunna.” (Kitab al-Barriyya,
footnote, p. 182)
- “In confronting the present Ulama, this humble one has ...
sworn many times by God that I am not a claimant to any prophethood.
But these people still do not desist from declaring me as kafir.”
(Letter to Maulavi Ahmad-ullah of Amritsar, 27 January 1904)
2. Second Argument
If Hazrat Mirza had been a claimant to prophethood, he could not have
given the following interpretation of the title Khatam an-nabiyyin
(Seal or Last of the prophets) applied to the Holy Prophet Muhammad in
a famous verse (33:40) of the Holy Quran:
- “Ma Kana Muhammad-un Aba ahad-in min rijali-kum wa lakin
rasul-Allahi wa Khatam an-nabiyyin [Quran, 33:40]. That is to
say, Muhammad, peace and the blessings of God be upon him, is not
the father of any man from among you, but he is the Messenger of God
and the one to end the prophets. This verse too clearly argues that,
after our Holy Prophet, no messenger (rasul) shall come into
the world.” (Izala Auham, p. 614)
- “The Holy Quran, every word of which is absolute, confirms
in its verse wa lakin rasul-Allahi wa Khatam an-nabiyyin that,
as a matter of fact, prophethood has ended with our Prophet, peace
and the blessings of God be upon him.” (Kitab al-Barriyya,
pp. 184 – 185, footnote)
- “Allah is that Being Who is Rabb-ul-‘alameen [Lord
of the worlds], Rahmaan [Beneficent], and Raheem [Merciful],
Who created the earth and the heavens in six days, made Adam, sent
Messengers, sent Scriptures, and last of all made Hazrat Muhammad
mustafa, peace and the blessings of God be upon him, who is
the Last of the Prophets and Best of the Messengers.” (Haqiqat
al-Wahy, p. 141)
3. Third Argument
Those Sayings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad in which occur the words la
nabiyya ba‘di (There is to be no prophet after me), have been
mentioned by Hazrat Mirza in a number of places. If he had claimed to
be a prophet, he could not have referred to these words as follows:
- “The Holy Prophet, peace and the blessings of God be upon him,
had said repeatedly that no prophet would come after him, and the
Saying la nabiyya ba‘di was so well-known that no one
had any doubt regarding its authenticity.” (Kitab al-Barriyya,
footnote, p. 184)
- “Similarly, by saying la nabiyya ba‘di, he closed
the door absolutely to any new prophet or a returning prophet.”
(Ayyam as-Sulh, p. 152)
4. Fourth Argument
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to be a prophet, he could not have written
that the ‘revelation of prophets’ (wahy nubuwwat or wahy
risalat) terminated with the Holy Prophet Muhammad. This, however,
was exactly what he wrote:
- “It is my belief that the ‘revelation of prophets’
(wahy risalat) began with Adam and ended with Muhammad mustafa,
peace and the blessings of God be upon him.” (Majmu‘a
Ishtiharat, vol. ii, p. 230)
- “We believe in the finality of prophethood of the Holy Prophet,
peace and the blessings of God be upon him. And it is not the ‘revelation
of prophets’ (wahy nubuwwat), but the ‘revelation
of saints’ (wahy wilayat) which is received by the saints
under the shadow of the prophethood of Muhammad by perfect obedience
to him, peace be upon him. In this we do believe. Any person who accuses
us of going further than this, departs from honesty and fear of God.”
(Majmu‘a Ishtiharat, vol. ii, no. 151, p. 297)
5. Fifth Argument
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to be a prophet, he could never have written
that, after the Holy Prophet Muhammad, the revelation-bearing angel Gabriel
cannot ever bring further ‘revelation of prophets’:
“Every sensible person can understand that if God is true to
His promise, and the promise given in the Khatam an-nabiyyin
verse, which has been explicitly mentioned in the Hadith, that now,
after the death of the Prophet of God, peace and the blessings of
God be upon him, Gabriel has been forbidden forever from bringing
‘revelation of prophets’ (wahy nubuwwat) — if
all these things are true and correct, then no person at all can come
as a messenger (rasul) after our Prophet, peace be upon him.”
(Izala Auham, p. 577)
6. Sixth Argument
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to be a prophet, he could not have written
that he was a recipient of ‘revelation of saints’ (wahy wilayat
or wahy muhaddasiyyat). This, however, was exactly what he wrote:
- “Has it ever happened in the world that God should have so
helped an imposter that he could be speaking a lie against God for
eleven years, to the effect that His wahy wilayat and wahy
muhaddasiyyat [revelation as granted to saints] comes to him,
and God would not cut off his jugular vein.” (Ainah Kamalat
Islam, p. 323)
- “I have noticed that at the time of revelation, which descends
on me in the form of wahy wilayat, I feel myself in the hands
of an extremely strong external force.” (Barakat-ud-Dua,
p. 21)
7. Seventh Argument
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to be a prophet, he would never have tested
his revelation by the Holy Quran. In actual fact, he never accepted any
revelation of his unless it agreed with the Holy Quran, because while
wahy nubuwwat (the revelation granted to a prophet) is absolute
and does not require verification, wahy wilayat (the revelation
to a saint) is subordinate to the revelation of the Holy Prophet Muhammad
and must be verified from the Holy Quran. Hazrat Mirza wrote:
- “I do not confirm any of my revelations but only after testing
it by the Holy Quran, for I know that anything opposed to the Quran
is falsehood and heresy.” (Hamamat al-Bushra, p. 79; new
edition pp. 282 – 283)
- “It was not until I had tested my revelations by the Holy
Quran and authentic Sayings of the Holy Prophet, and had supplicated
humbly and tearfully at the door of the Almighty Lord of the worlds,
that I brought this matter on my tongue.” (ibid., p. 13; new
edition p. 55)
- “I have made it an essential rule that I do not rest content
with my visions or revelations unless the Quran, the Holy Prophet’s
example, and his authentic Sayings support them.” (Malfuzat,
part iv, p. 203)
- “A revelation of a saint, or revelation of believers generally,
is not an argument unless it accords and agrees with the Holy Quran.”
(Izala Auham, p. 629)
8. Eighth Argument
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to be a prophet, he would not have called
himself a follower and subordinate of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, as he
has written:
- “Almighty God says [in the Holy Quran]: wa ma arsal-na min
rasul-in illa li-yuta‘a bi-izn Allah. That is, every messenger
(rasul) is sent to be a master and leader, not to be a disciple
and subordinate of someone else.” (Izala Auham, p. 569)
- “No messenger (rasul) comes into the world as a disciple
and subordinate. Rather, he is a leader, and follows only his revelation
which descends on him through angel Gabriel.” (Izala Auham,
p. 576)
- “I have not made any claim to prophethood (nubuwwat).
This is your mistake, or perhaps you have some motive in mind. Is
it necessary that a person who claims to receive revelation should
also be a prophet (nabi)? I am a Muslim, and fully follow Allah
and His Messenger.” (Jang Muqaddas, p. 67)
9. Ninth Argument
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to be a prophet, he could not have written,
as he has done, that because Jesus was a prophet he cannot now return
to this world after the Holy Prophet Muhammad:
- “Apart from these arguments, the second coming of Jesus is
also barred by the verse: wa lakin rasul-Allahi wa Khatam an-nabiyyin
[i.e. Muhammad is the Messenger of God and Last of the Prophets];
and also by the Holy Prophet’s Saying: La nabiyya ba‘di
[There is to be no prophet after me]. How could it be permitted that,
despite our Holy Prophet, peace and the blessings of God be upon him,
being the Khatam al-anbiya [Last of the Prophets], some other
prophet should appear sometime and the ‘revelation of prophets’
commence.” (Ayyam as-Sulh, p. 47)
- “In the verses al-yauma akmal-tu la-kum dina-kum [‘This
day have I perfected for you your religion’], and wa lakin
rasul-Allahi wa Khatam an-nabiyyin, God has clearly terminated
prophethood with the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace and the blessings
of God be upon him, and has stated unequivocally that the Holy Prophet
is the Last Prophet. ... But those people who would have Jesus return
to this world believe that he shall come with his prophethood, and
for a full forty-five years the angel Gabriel shall come to him with
the ‘revelation of prophets’. Now tell us how, under this
belief, anything would be left of the finality of prophethood and
the ending of the ‘revelation of prophets’? In fact, one
would have to believe that Jesus is the last of the prophets.”
(Tuhfa Golarwiya, p. 83)
- “Our unjust opponents do not consider the doors of the termination
of prophethood to be fully closed. In fact, they believe that a window
is still open to enable the Israelite prophet Jesus to return. If,
therefore, a real prophet came into the world after the Holy Quran,
and the process of ‘revelation of prophets’ (wahy nubuwwat)
commenced, what would happen to the doctrine of the termination of
prophethood? Would the revelation of a prophet be known as anything
other than wahy nubuwwat?‘ (Siraj Munir, pp. 2
– 3)
10. Tenth Argument
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to be a prophet, he could not have written
that there is no need of a prophet now, after the Holy Prophet Muhammad,
because the Holy Quran has brought religious laws to perfection. He wrote:
“God speaks to, and communicates with, the saints in the Muslim
nation, and they are given the colour of the prophets. However, they
are not prophets in reality because the Quran has fulfilled all the
requirements of a perfect religious law. They are given but the understanding
of the Quran. They neither add to, nor subtract from, the Holy Quran.”
(Mawahib ar-Rahman, pp. 66 – 67)
11. Eleventh Argument
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to be a prophet, he would not have considered
the words ‘prophet’ (nabi) and ‘messenger’
(rasul or mursal), as occurring about him in his revelations,
to be in a purely metaphorical and linguistic sense, as opposed to their
technical sense. He wrote:
- “Do not level false allegations against me that I have claimed
to be a prophet in the real sense. ... It is true that, in the revelation
which God has sent upon this servant, the words nabi, rasul
and mursal occur about myself quite frequently. However, they
do not bear their real sense: ‘To each the terms he uses’.
So this is the terminology of God, that He has used these words. We
believe and acknowledge that, according to the real meaning of nubuwwat
[prophethood], after the Holy Prophet Muhammad no new or former prophet
can come. The Holy Quran forbids the appearance of any such prophets.
But in a metaphorical sense God can call any recipient of revelation
as nabi or mursal. Have you not read those Sayings of
the Holy Prophet in which occur the words rasulu rasul-illah
[‘messenger of the Messenger of God’]? The Arabs to this
day call even the message-bearer of a man as a rasul, so why
is it forbidden for God to use the word mursal [messenger]
in a metaphorical sense too? Do you not even remember from the Quran
the words: ‘So they [some non-prophets] said, We are messengers
to you’? Consider justly whether this is a basis for takfir
[calling a Muslim as kafir]. If you were questioned by God,
what argument would you have for declaring me to be a kafir.
I say it repeatedly that these words rasul and mursal
and nabi undoubtedly occur about me in my revelation from God,
but they do not bear their real meanings.” (Siraj Munir,
p. 3)
- “By virtue of being appointed by God, I cannot conceal those
revelations I have received from Him in which the words nubuwwat
and risalat occur quite frequently. But I say repeatedly that,
in these revelations, the word mursal or rasul or nabi
which has occurred about me is not used in its real sense. (Such words
have not occurred only now, but have been present in my published
revelations for sixteen years. So you will find many such revelations
about me in the Barahin Ahmadiyya.) The actual fact, to which
I testify with the highest testimony, is that our Holy Prophet, peace
and the blessings of God be upon him, is the Last of the Prophets,
and after him no prophet is to come, neither an old one nor a new
one. ... But it must be remembered that, as we have explained here,
sometimes the revelation from God contains such words about some of
His saints in a metaphorical and figurative sense; they are not meant
by way of reality.” (Anjam Atham, footnote, pp. 27 –
28)
12. Twelfth Argument
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to be a prophet, he would not have denied
in his books and speeches making a claim to real prophethood, taking the
words nabi (prophet) and rasul (messenger) as being in a
metaphorical sense, for the metaphorical cannot be real. He wrote:
- “This humble one has never, at any time, made a claim of nubuwwat
or risalat [prophethood or messengership] in the real sense.
To use a word in a non-real sense, and to employ it in speech according
to its broad, root meaning, does not imply heresy (kufr).”
(Anjam Atham, footnote, p. 27)
- “When God speaks to someone very frequently, and reveals to
him His knowledge of hidden matters, this is prophethood (nubuwwat),
but it is not real prophethood.” (Malfuzat Ahmadiyya,
vol. x, p. 421)
- “God has called me nabi by way of metaphor, not by
way of reality.” (Al-Istifta, Supplement to Haqiqat
al-Wahy, p. 64)
13. Thirteenth Argument
A famous Saying of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, narrated by Nawas ibn Sam‘an
and recorded in the Hadith collection Sahih Muslim, refers to the Messiah
to come as nabi (prophet) of God. If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to
be a prophet, he would not have considered this occurrence of the word
nabi to be metaphorical, as he wrote:
- “The epithet ‘prophet of God’ for the Promised Messiah,
which is to be found in Sahih Muslim etc. from the blessed
tongue of the Holy Prophet, is meant in the same metaphorical sense
as that in which it occurs in Sufi literature as an accepted and common
term for [the recipient of] Divine communication. Otherwise, how can
there be a prophet after the Last of the Prophets?” (Anjam
Atham, footnote, p. 28)
- “And it should also be remembered that in Sahih Muslim
the word nabi has occurred with reference to the Promised Messiah,
that is to say, by way of metaphor.” (Ayyam as-Sulh, p.
75)
- “These words are by way of metaphor, just as in Hadith also
the word nabi has been used for the Promised Messiah. ... And
he who discloses news of the unseen, having received it from God,
is known as nabi in Arabic. The meanings in Islamic terminology
are different. Here only the linguistic [root] meaning is intended.”
(Arba‘in no. 2, p. 18, footnote)
- “Similarly, the Promised Messiah being called nabi
in Hadith, is not meant in a real sense. This is the knowledge which
God has given me. Let him understand, who will. This very thing has
been disclosed to me that the doors of real prophethood are fully
closed after the Last of the Prophets, the Holy Prophet Muhammad.
According to the real meaning, no new or ancient prophet can now come.”
(Siraj Munir, p. 3)
14. Fourteenth Argument
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to be a prophet, he would not have considered
himself as a muhaddas (a Muslim saint who receives Divine revelation),
because they are not prophets, nor would he have limited the significance
of the word nabi (prophet) about himself to extend only as far
as sainthood. He wrote:
- “I firmly believe that our Holy Prophet Muhammad is the Last
of the Prophets (Khatam al-anbiya), and after him no prophet
shall come for this nation (umma), neither new nor old. Not
a jot or tittle of the Holy Quran shall be abrogated. Of course, muhaddases
will come who will be spoken to by God, and possess some attributes
of full prophethood by way of reflection (zill), and in some
ways be coloured with the colour of prophethood. I am one of these.”
(Nishan Asmani, p. 28)
- “There is no doubt that this humble one has come from God
as a muhaddas for the Muslim nation.” (Tauzih Maram,
p. 18)
- “The muhaddases are those persons who have the privilege
of Divine communication, and their souls bear the utmost resemblance
to the souls of the prophets. They are living reminders of the wonders
of prophethood, so that the subtle issue of Divine revelation may
not become a mere tale in any age, due to being devoid of proof.”
(Barakaat-ud-Dua, p. 18)
- “As our Leader and Messenger, peace and the blessings of God
be upon him, is the Last of the Prophets (Khatam al-anbiya),
and no prophet can come after him, for this reason muhaddases
have been substituted for prophets in this Shari‘ah.” (Shahadat
al-Quran, p. 24)
15. Fifteenth Argument
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to be a prophet, he would not have called
himself ‘a follower and a prophet’ or ‘a follower from
one aspect and a prophet from another’, because these two aspects
are combined only in a muhaddas (Muslim saint), a prophet only
having the aspect of prophethood. He wrote:
- “So the fact that he [the Messiah to come] has been called
a follower [of the Holy Prophet Muhammad] as well as a prophet indicates
that the qualities of both discipleship and prophethood will be found
in him, as it is essential for both of these to be found in a muhaddas.
The possessor of full prophethood, however, has only the quality of
prophethood. To conclude, sainthood (muhaddasiyyat) is coloured
with both colours. For this reason, in [the Divine revelations published
in] Barahin Ahmadiyya too, God named this humble one as follower
and as prophet.” (Izala Auham, p. 533)
- “I cannot be called only ‘prophet’, but a prophet
from one aspect and a follower from another.” (Haqiqat al-Wahy,
footnote, p. 150)
- “There is no need now to follow each prophet or Book separately
that came before the Holy Quran because the Prophethood of Muhammad
comprises and comprehends them all. ... All truths that take man to
God are to be found in it, no new truth shall come after it, nor is
there any previous truth which is not in it. Hence, upon this Prophethood
[of Muhammad] end all prophethoods. ... Rendering obedience to this
Prophethood takes one to God very easily, and one receives the gift
of God’s love and His revelation in a much greater measure than
people used to before [the time of the Holy Prophet Muhammad]. However,
its perfect follower cannot be just called ‘prophet’ because
it would be derogatory to the perfect and complete prophethood of
Holy Prophet Muhammad. But both the words ummati [follower
of the Holy Prophet] and nabi [prophet] can jointly be applied
to him, because that would not be derogatory to the prophethood of
the Holy Prophet Muhammad.” (Al-Wasiyyat, pp. 27 –
8)
- “Islam is the only religion in the world having the virtue
that, provided the truest and fullest obedience is rendered to our
Leader and Master the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace and the blessings
of God be upon him, one can have the privilege of Divine revelation.
For this reason it is recorded in Hadith: Ulama ummati ka-anbiya
Bani Israil, that is, ‘the spiritual savants from among my
followers are like the prophets of Israel’. In this Saying too,
the godly savants are on the one hand called followers, and on the
other hand they are called the likes of prophets.” (Supplement
to Barahin Ahmadiyya Part V, pp. 182 – 184)
(Note: Extracts i and iv above make it explicitly
clear that the words “a follower from one aspect and a prophet from
another” are exactly equivalent to muhaddas or spiritual savant
of the Muslim community, and do not mean a prophet.)
16. Sixteenth Argument
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to be a prophet, he could not have written,
regarding the use of these terms for him, that the word rasul (messenger
or apostle) is a general term used not only for prophets but also for
saints (muhaddas) and Divine reformers (mujaddid), and that
the word nabi too is applied to saints. He wrote:
- “The word rasul is a general term and includes the messenger,
the prophet (nabi), and the saint (muhaddas).”
(Ainah Kamalat Islam, p. 322)
- “By rasul are meant those persons who are sent by God,
whether a prophet (nabi), or messenger (rasul), or saint
(muhaddas), or Divine Reformer (mujaddid).” (Ayyam
as-Sulh, footnote, p. 171)
- “By rusul [plural of rasul] are meant those
who are sent, whether a messenger, or prophet, or saint.” (Shahadat
al-Quran, p. 23)
- “In terms of being sent by God (mursal), the prophet
and the saint are on a par. And just as God has named prophets as
mursal [‘sent ones’], so has He also named the saints
as mursal.” (Shahadat al-Quran, p. 27)
- “My intention from the beginning, which God knows well, is
that this word nabi does not mean real prophethood, but denotes
only a saint (muhaddas).” (Majmu‘a Ishtiharat,
vol. i, p. 97)
17. Seventeenth Argument
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to be a prophet, he would not have called
himself a zilli nabi (a reflection or shadow of a prophet) because
the shadow or reflection is not the actual thing itself. He wrote:
- “My prophethood is a reflection of the Holy Prophet Muhammad,
peace and the blessings of God be upon him. It is not actual prophethood.”
(Haqiqat al-Wahy, footnote, p. 150)
- “This title [nabi] was bestowed upon me in the sense
of reflection (zill), not in the real sense.” (Chashma-i
Ma‘rifa, footnote, p. 324)
- “Remember well that the fruits of perfect obedience [to the
Holy Prophet] are never wasted. This is an issue of Tasawwuf.
If the rank of zill had not existed, the saints of the Muslim
nation would have died. It was exactly this perfect obedience, and
the rank of burooz and zill [becoming a reflection or
image of the Holy Prophet], due to which Bayazid [famous Muslim saint,
d. 874 C.E.] was called ‘Muhammad’. Upon his so saying,
the verdict of heresy was pronounced against him seventy times over,
and he was exiled from the city. In brief, the people who oppose us
are unaware of these facts.” (Badr, 27 October 1905)
- “The shadow itself has no independent existence, nor does
it possess any quality in a real sense. Whatever is in it, is only
an image of the original person that is being manifested through it.”
(Barahin Ahmadiyya, Part I, p. 243)
- “It is just as when you see yourself in the mirror, you do
not become two, but remain only one, though there appear to be two.
The only difference is that between the real thing and the image.”
(Kishti Nuh, p. 15)
- “Sainthood (wilayat) is the perfect reflection (zill)
of prophethood (nubuwwat).” (Hujjat-Ullah, p. 24)
- “The prophet (nabi) is like the real object, while
the saint (wali) is like the reflection (zill).”
(Lujjat an-Nur, p. 38)
18. Eighteenth Argument
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to be a prophet, he would not have called
himself a buroozi nabi (image or manifestation of a prophet) because,
according to the spiritual savants of Islam, being a burooz implies
a complete negation of one’s own existence. He wrote:
- “All prophets have believed that the burooz is a full
picture of its original, so much so that even the name becomes one.”
(Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala)
- “The Sufis believe that the nature, disposition and moral
qualities of a person from the past come again in another. In their
terminology, they say that so and so is in the footsteps (qadam)
of Adam, or the footsteps of Noah. Some also call this as burooz.”
(Mulfuzat, Part I, p. 239)
- “It is customary with Muslim religious scholars that they
call burooz as qadam [footsteps], and say, such and
such a person is in the footsteps of Moses, such and such is in the
footsteps of Abraham.” (Lujjat an-Nur, p. 1)
- “The whole Muslim nation is agreed that a non-prophet takes
the place of a prophet as a burooz [image]. This is the meaning
of the hadith: Ulama ummati ka-anbiya Bani Israil, that is,
the savants from among my followers are the likes of the prophets.
See that the Holy Prophet, peace and the blessings of God be upon
him, has likened the godly savants to prophets.” (Ayyam as-Sulh,
p. 163)
- “Being a burooz implies the negation of its own existence.
Hence prophethood and apostleship by way of burooz does not
infringe the seal of the finality of prophethood.” (Ayk Ghalati
Ka Izala)
- “As a person’s face is seen in the mirror, though that
face has its own independent existence; this is called burooz.”
(Tafsir Surah Fatiha, p. 330)
19. Nineteenth Argument
After the death of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in May 1908, the headstone
fixed over his grave in Qadian by his followers bore the inscription given
below:
Janab Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib Qadiani, Chief of Qadian, the
Promised Messiah, Mujaddid of the Fourteenth Century, date of death
26 May 1908
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to be a prophet, his followers would never
have inscribed the words Mujaddid (Reformer) of the Fourteenth Century
on his gravestone. This inscription stayed as such for about twenty-five
years, but was then altered by deleting the words Mujaddid of the Fourteenth
Century. The word ‘prophet’, however, was still not added.
20. Twentieth Argument
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to be a prophet, he certainly would never
have instructed his followers to refrain from using the word ‘prophet’
(nabi) for him, or told people at large to regard this word as
deleted wherever it occurred about him. In fact, this was exactly what
he did:
- “I wish to make it clear to all Muslim brothers that if they
are displeased with these words, and if these words give injury to
their feelings, they may regard them as amended ... and in every place
instead of the word nabi, the word muhaddas should be
understood, and the word nabi should be regarded as having
been deleted.” (Majmu‘a Ishtiharat, vol. i, p. 313)
- “This humble one has never, at any time, made a claim of nubuwwat
or risalat [prophethood or messengership] in the real sense.
To use a word in a non-real sense, and to employ it in speech according
to its broad, root meaning, does not imply heresy (kufr). However,
I do not like even this much, for there is the possibility that ordinary
Muslims may misunderstand it.” (Anjam Atham, footnote,
p. 27)
- “As these words [nabi, rasul], which are only in a
metaphorical sense, cause trouble in Islam, leading to very bad consequences,
these terms should not be used in our community’s common talk
and everyday language. It should be believed from the bottom of the
heart that prophethood has terminated with the Holy Prophet Muhammad,
may peace and the blessings of God be upon him, as God Almighty says:
‘He is the Messenger of God and the last of the Prophets’.
To deny this verse, or to belittle it, is in fact to separate oneself
from Islam. ... It should be remembered that I make no claim contrary
to that of being a servant of Islam. The person who ascribes to me
the contrary is making a fabrication against me.” (Letter dated
17 August 1899; published in Al-Hakam, vol. 3, no. 29, August
1899)
Conclusion
If Hazrat Mirza had claimed to be a prophet, how could he have:
- declared that the Holy Prophet Muhammad was the Last of the
Prophets.
- explained the Holy Prophet Muhammad’s Saying La Nabiyya
Ba‘di as meaning that no prophet, new or old, can come after
the Holy Prophet.
- denied being a prophet in the real and actual sense of the word.
- written that his revelation was of the type granted to Muslim saints
(i.e. wahy wilayat), not the type granted to prophets (wahy
nubuwwat).
- taken the words prophet (nabi) and messenger (rasul)
to be used in a metaphorical sense when referring to himself.
- forbidden his community to apply these words to him in common usage.
- denied strongly ever having made a claim to prophethood (nubuwwat).
And how could the tombstone erected over his grave by his followers immediately
upon his death contain the inscription Mujaddid of the Fourteenth Century?
|
|
|
Top