بسم الله الرحمـن الرحيم
Did Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad Claim to be a Prophet?
(Hadith of Sahih Muslim)
As alluded to in the first part
of this series, the controversy over whether Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian claimed to
be a prophet resulted in the split of his Jama’ah (congregation) after his
death and the death of his first successor and right-hand man, Nuruddin (d.
1914) into two factions, the Lahoris and the Qadianis. The latter quickly became
the dominant group, led by Ghulam Ahmad’s talented son, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad (d.
1965), while the former were led by the educated Maulana Muhammad Ali, yet consistently
remained a marginal group with a very insignificant following. Although I have,
through research, come to the conclusion that Ghulam Ahmad did not claim
prophethood, let not the reader think that I belong to the Lahori faction, who
call themselves the Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Ishaat-i-Islam, Lahore (AAIIL), and are
currently led by a certain Dr. Abdul Karim Saeed. It should also be noted that the split between the Qadiani and Lahori
factions around 1914 were also due to difference in ideology and method of
administration of the religious-based community founded by Ghulam Ahmad. While
the Lahoris argued that Ghulam Ahmad had bequethed that his community should be
administered by a council or ‘Anjuman’ and that the elected Khalifah,
al-Hajj Maulana Hakim Nuruddin, was merely in a symbolic position, the Qadiani
faction asserted the critical importance of the institution of Khilafah and
regarded the elected Khalifah as the supreme head of the movement, with the
Anjuman being subordinate to him. While the Lahoris seem to be closer to
accurately representing the position of Ghulam Ahmad regarding the issue of the
finality of Prophethood, the reader should note that the Lahoris have several
other beliefs and tendencies on the basis of which it can be said that they too
are a misguided sect. For example, the Lahore Ahmadiyah reject the belief in
the virgin birth of Jesus of Nazareth (peace be upon him), and have published
books entitled Wiladat-al-Masih putting forward their heretical view
that Joseph the Carpenter was Jesus’s biological father (God forbid). Ghulam
Ahmad of Qadian, like all orthodox Muslims, affirmed the virgin birth of Jesus,
a fact which the Lahoris themselves admit. In denying the miracle of the virgin
birth, the Lahoris reveal an altogether naturalist streak that
characterizes their thought and approach to Islam. The Lahoris may also be characterized
as modernist and excessively liberal, though Ghulam Ahmad, based on an elementary
study of his writings, was clearly opposed to many of the fundamental ideas of ‘modern’
and ‘liberal’ interpretations of Islam.
Coming back to the issue of Prophethood,
the Qadiani faction, it may be noted, due to their position that Ghulam Ahmad
was a real prophet albeit not a law-bearing one but subordinate to the Shari’ah
of Muhammad, refer to Ghulam Ahmad as ‘Prophet’ and ‘Messenger’ casually and
frequently in their writings and discourse. They also eagerly participate in
debates and discussions with other Muslims regarding the issue of ‘Finality of
Prophethood’ with the aim of persuading their opponents that Prophecy has not
ended but continues until Judgment Day. Qadiani missionaries and polemicists
often quote Verses of the Holy Quran to prove the possibility of future
prophets after sayyidina Muhammad ﷺ, for example, the well-known Ayat-al-Mithaq (Surah
3:81). It should be noted that Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian himself never engaged in
such debates to prove the ‘continuation’ or ‘possibility’ of Prophethood after
sayyidina Muhammad ﷺ,
especially by casting novel interpretations on Quraanic verses, but rather
repeatedly and emphatically affirmed his belief in the finality of Prophethood.
Nevertheless, the Qadianis argue that because Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be the
promised Messiah spoken of in the Hadith as descending before Judgment Day, he
is in a special and unique category apart from other saintly figures and
reformers that have previously come and will continue to appear in the Ummah.
The Qadianis cite a Hadith from the Sahih of Imam Muslim b. al-Hajjaj
al-Nishapuri in which Jesus son of Mary, during his second advent, is named as نَبِيُّ اللَّهِ (Prophet of God) four times
upon the tongue of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. Since Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be the fulfilment of the second
coming of Christ, he necessarily made a claim to real and literal Prophethood,
since the second coming of Jesus has been referred to as ‘Prophet of God’ no
less than four times in the Hadith of Sahih Muslim. But here I shall quote the
words of Ghulam Ahmad himself in explanation of that Hadith which will refute
the ‘Qadiani’ argument decisively
آنے والے مسیح موعود کا نام جو صحیح مسلم وغیرہ میں زبان
مقدس حضرت نبویص سے نبی اللہ نکلا ہے وہ انہیں مجازی معنوں کے رو سے ہے
جو صوفیہ کرام کی کتابوں میں مسلّم اور ایک معمولی محاورہ مکالمات الہیہ کا ہے۔
ورنہ خاتم الانبیاء کے بعد نبی کیسا۔
Translation: “The name ‘Prophet
of Allah’ given to the coming promised Messiah in Sahih Muslim, etc., out of
the tongue of the Prophet [Muhammad] ﷺ is from the angle of these metaphoric meanings which are established
in the books of the Sufis, and is an ordinary expression in the divine
converse. Otherwise, how can there be a prophet after the Seal of the Prophets
[Muhammad ﷺ]?”
(Ruhani Khaza’in v. 11 p. 28; Anjam-i-Atham p. 28 footnote)
In other words, Ghulam Ahmad
interpreted the reference to the coming Messiah as ‘Prophet of God’
metaphorically, aligned to the type of metaphoric ‘Prophethood’ spoken of and
described in the books of Sufism. His rhetorical question ‘otherwise how can
there be a prophet after the Khaatam-al-Anbiyaa?’ demonstrates that an
understanding that the coming Messiah will literally be a prophet in the real
sense is an erroneous doctrine. Throughout the writings of Ghulam Ahmad, we
find him, quite ironically, assaulting the traditionalist and folk Muslim
belief in a literal return of Jesus of Nazareth to this world on the basis that
such a belief contravenes the notion of sayyidina Muhammad ﷺ being the last and final Prophet full stop. Ghulam Ahmad’s
contribution to Islamic thought was in fact out of a sincere concern for the
upholding of the doctrine of Finality of Prophethood, and not, God forbid, out
of careless disregard for it. He attempted to reconcile the Finality of
Prophethood with the belief in the coming of the Messiah by interpreting the
coming Messiah’s ‘prophetic experiences’ as belonging to that genus of ‘prophecy’
described by the Sufis. Ghulam Ahmad repeatedly asked that how could the
mainstream Ulema believe that Jesus, a prophet in his own right, would not only
return to this world in the future, but remain for forty years and throughout
that duration receive divine revelation from God, while simultaneously feigning
allegiance to the doctrine of the Finality of Prophethood of Muhammad ﷺ. To be continued, in sha Allah.
No comments:
Post a Comment