A Survey of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement

History, Beliefs, Aims and Work

by Dr. Zahid Aziz

Text of pages 20 to 28:

Real Spirit of Religion:

The last point we mention regarding the reform work of Hazrat Mirza is that he presented Islam as a religion which enables contact to be attained with the Living God, thus allowing man to free himself from sin and reach a high moral plane through a true, heart-felt belief in God. The acts of worship prescribed by Islam had generally come to be performed as mere mechanical rituals. People laid the greatest stress on fulfilling meticulously the minute details of the outward forms, but they generally neglected the true spirit which should be in the heart, nor did they care much for achieving the real aim and purpose of these devotions. Likewise, there would be intense discussions on whether some small and insignificant thing was lawful or unlawful, while the committing of much greater wrongs would just be ignored. This was one of the stark similarities between the condition of Muslims in Hazrat Mirza’s time and the state of the Jews in the time of Jesus. He also advanced this as an evidence of his being the Promised Messiah:

“Just as in the last days of the Mosaic law a prophet arose named Jesus, in a time when the moral condition of the Jews had deteriorated completely, they had strayed very far from real virtue, … their knowledge and thought was confined merely to formalism and worship of the letter … similarly it is necessary that among the Muslim people too there should arise a muhaddath (i.e., inspired saint) in the likeness of that prophet and of his time, when they have also degenerated in the same manner as that in which the Jews had in the time of Jesus.”¹

Note that while claiming to have come in the likeness of the prophet Jesus, he explains his position as that of being a muhaddath, which is a term in Sahih Bukhari meaning

“one to whom God speaks but who is not a prophet”.

Hazrat Mirza wrote, stressed and stated, again and again, that mere lip-profession and performance of rituals is not accepted by God unless it is accompanied by an actual transformation in one’s character and behaviour, and the giving up of low desires and bad habits and their replacement by purity of thought and sincerity of action. He believed that the effect of faith and religious practices upon anyone should be measured by an observable reform in their behaviour and dealings with others. If no positive change takes place in a man who says his prayers, does fasting, etc., then this is proof that there is something wrong with the way in which he carries out these obligations, no matter how much attention he may be paying to the details of the outward forms. Hazrat Mirza once explained his mission of Muslim reform as follows:

“Our religion is the same Islam. It is not new. There are the same prayers, the same fasts, the same pilgrimage, and the same zakat. But the difference is that as these duties are now performed in outward form only, without any true spirit in them, we want to infuse in them the spirit of sincerity. We want these duties to be performed in such a manner that they are effective.”²

He urged Muslims to make these observances, especially the daily prayers, as the means of realising the existence of God in their lives, by performing them from the heart and mind, and not with the body only. He warned against the false satisfaction and self-deceiving sense of achievement which a person feels when he fulfils the external form of a religious duty, deluding himself that his past sins have been washed off by merely performing a mechanical ritual.

To followers of other religions too, he argued that salvation, which is promised by all faiths, cannot simply be deliverance from punishment in the next life, but its signs must be observable in the “saved” person in this life in terms of the Divine assistance which he receives.

Name ‘Ahmadiyya’:

For about twelve years after the Ahmadiyya Movement was founded, it had no name. Its members were often referred to by others as ‘Mirzaees’ (or followers of Mirza). When the census for the year 1901 was to be taken, and Hazrat Mirza learnt that on the census form a person could indicate his sect in addition to his religion, he issued an announcement giving his movement the name Muslims of the Ahmadiyya Section.

The rationale for this name, he explained, was that ‘Ahmad’ was one of the two main names of the Holy Prophet, the other name being ‘Muhammad’. These two names, ‘Ahmad’ and ‘Muhammad’, stood for the qualities of the Holy Prophet which he displayed in his life at Makkah and at Madinah respectively. The name ‘Ahmad’ symbolised the inner beauty of Islam, and the name ‘Muhammad’ its outward glory. At Makkah Islam was devoid of political rule, and spread by means of pure preaching; at Madinah Muslims possessed physical power and rule, and they overcame their enemies by responding to their aggression with force. The condition of the Muslims in the present age and the way forward for them, said Hazrat Mirza, corresponded to the Holy Prophet’s life at Makkah. Therefore it was appropriate that the Movement which believes that Islam’s mission in the present age is to show the beauty of its teachings by peaceful preaching, in the circumstances when Muslims are devoid of worldly power, should be named after the Holy Prophet Muhammad’s name Ahmad.

Finality of Prophethood:

As there are very serious misconceptions about the claims of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, we now turn to this topic. Because of his claim that the Messiah prophesied in Hadith was himself, and not Jesus, he was accused by his opponents from among the Muslim Ulama of claiming to be a prophet and denying that the Holy Prophet Muhammad was the last and final prophet of God. In reply, he issued repeated denials of having made this claim and he affirmed that he believed the Holy Prophet Muhammad to be the Last Prophet. In fact, one argument he advanced in support of his own claim, and against the belief that Jesus would return to this world, was that Jesus being a prophet cannot come after the Prophet Muhammad. Referring to the Holy Prophet’s description in the Quran as the ‘Seal of the Prophets’ (Khatam-un-nabiyyin), he wrote:

1. “The Holy Quran does not permit the coming of any messenger after the ‘Seal of the Prophets’, whether he would be a new messenger or a former one.”

2. “By saying ‘There is no prophet after me’, the Holy Prophet Muhammad closed the door absolutely to any new prophet or the return of any old prophet.”
3. “The real fact, to which I testify with the highest testimony, is that our Holy Prophet is the ‘Seal of the Prophets’, and after him no prophet will come, neither any old one nor any new one.”³

Thus, neither a previous prophet and messenger such as Jesus, nor a new prophet and messenger, could arise after the Holy Prophet Muhammad.

Denying the allegation against himself of claiming to be a prophet, he wrote:

1. “Those people have fabricated a lie against me who say that I claim to be a prophet.” 

2. “I have not claimed prophethood, nor have I said to them that I am a prophet … I did not say anything to the people except what I wrote in my books, namely, that I am a muhaddath and God speaks to me as He speaks to those who are muhaddath. … It does not befit me that I should claim prophethood and leave Islam and join the disbelievers. … How could I claim prophethood when I am a Muslim?”
3. “I also curse the person who claims prophethood, and I believe that ‘There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger’, and I have faith in the finality of prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. … there is no claim of prophethood on my part either, only a claim of sainthood (wilaya) and reformership (mujaddidiyya).”⁴

The position held by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was that of a saint (wali), one who receives revelation as a non-prophet (muhaddath), and the reformer of his time (mujaddid), all of which are recognised spiritual ranks among Muslims. In his capacity as mujaddid, he received from Allah the title ‘Messiah’, reflecting the kind of work he was appointed to do.

Metaphorical Application of the Word ‘Prophet’:

In the writings of the spiritual savants of Islam, terms such as prophet (nabi) and messenger (rasul) are sometimes used to refer to Muslim saints in a metaphorical sense when it is necessary to show the likeness of a saint’s work to that of a prophet. When Hazrat Mirza claimed to be the Promised Messiah, his opponents raised the objection that the Messiah to come must be a prophet because he is so described in the Hadith prophecies; so how, they asked, could he be the Messiah as a non-prophet? The reply given by Hazrat Mirza, over a number of years repeatedly, was that the term “prophet” in Hadith should be taken metaphorically, not in a real sense, and that a Muslim saint may be metaphorically called prophet and messenger. He cited instances of such clear metaphorical usage, even in the Quran and Hadith. He explained:

Thus the terms ‘prophet’ or ‘messenger’ as referring to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, whether when applying the Hadith prophecies to him or occurring in his own spiritual experiences, are used metaphorically. He himself has stated again and again that these terms:

• “do not bear their real sense”
• “are not meant by way of reality”
• “are used by way of metaphor”
• “are meant in a metaphorical and figurative sense”⁶

And he wrote in one of his last books:

“I have been called a prophet by God by way of metaphor, not by way of reality.”⁷

Those of his statements which are frequently quoted by the anti-Ahmadiyya propagandists, as well as by the Qadiani group, to try to prove that he claimed to be a prophet, must be read in the light of his own explanations; and by doing so it will be easily discovered that his claim is not of being a prophet, as is commonly alleged.

Tributes upon Death:

When Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad died in May 1908, after a life devoted to the service of Islam, he was paid the highest tributes by many Muslim religious leaders and journalists, from which some short extracts are given here:

“The services of the deceased which he rendered to Islam in its confrontation with Christianity and the Arya Samaj deserve the highest praise.”⁸

“…justice requires that one should condole the death of such a resolute defender of Islam, helper of the Muslims, and an eminent and irreplaceable scholar.”⁹

“Undoubtedly the deceased was a great fighter for Islam.”¹⁰

“Such people who produce a religious or intellectual revolution are not born often. … In spite of our strong differences with Mirza sahib in respect of some of his claims and beliefs, his separation forever has convinced the educated and enlightened Muslims that one of their very great personages has left them. … he acted against the enemies of Islam as a victorious general … this service rendered by Mirza sahib will place the coming generations under a debt of gratitude, in that he fulfilled his duty of jihad by the pen, and he left behind him as a memorial such literature as will last so long as Muslims have blood flowing in their veins.”¹¹

Spread of Islam in the West:

In his capacity as the Promised Messiah who was to combat the dajjal, as mentioned earlier, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad considered it a most vital and essential part of his mission to present the teachings of Islam to the Western world. Such great importance did he attach to this that when he established the annual conference of the Ahmadiyya Movement, to be held for three days every December, he announced one of its permanent objects as being that:

“…one of the essential requirements of this gathering will be to consider plans for the spiritual well-being of Europe and America, for it is now established that the good-natured people of Europe and America are getting ready to accept Islam.”¹²

He expressed the deepest conviction that Islam, in its true and original form, was the religion that would satisfy the spiritual needs of the modern West, despite the fact that the modern world appeared to be rejecting religion as an anachronism, and despite the fact, of course, that Islam was looked upon in the West at that time with the greatest detestation and abhorrence. Indeed, he saw visions of Western people accepting Islam, and described the British of his times as

“the eggs from which the young of Islam shall hatch in the future”.¹³

Referring to the Western countries, he wrote:

“I would advise that … writings of an excellent kind should be sent into these countries. If my people help me heart and soul I wish to prepare a commentary of the Quran which should be sent to them after it has been rendered into the English language. I cannot refrain from stating clearly that this is my work, and that no one else can do it as well as I or he who is an offshoot of mine and thus is included in me.”¹⁴

‹MENU›

Footnotes:

1. Testimony of the Holy Quran (Shahadat-ul-Quran), p. 67. ↩︎
2. Talk on 12 July 1907, reproduced in Malfuzat, vol. 9, p. 312. ↩︎
3. For these three references, see his books Izala Auham, p. 761, Ayyam-us-Sulh, p. 152 and Anjam Atham, p. 27, footnote. ↩︎
4. For these three references, see his book Hamamat-ul-Bushra, p. 8 and p. 79, and his announcement of January 1897 in Majmua Ishtiharat, vol. 2, pp. 297–298. ↩︎
5. Anjam Atham, footnote, p. 28 and Mawahib-ur-Rahman, pp. 66–67. ↩︎
6. For these four extracts, see: Siraj Munir, pp. 2–3; Anjam Atham, pp. 27–28, footnote; Arba‘in, No. 2, p. 18, footnote; Arba‘i n, No. 3, p. 25, footnote. ↩︎
7. Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, Supplement, p. 64. ↩︎
8. Curzon Gazette, Delhi, 1^st June 1908. ↩︎
9. Sadiq-ul-Akhbar, Rewari, May 1908. ↩︎
10. The editor, Aligarh Institute Gazette, June 1908. ↩︎
11. Wakeel, Amritsar, edited by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. ↩︎
12. Announcement, December 1892. Majmua Ishtiharat, v. 1, pp. 340–341. ↩︎
13. Nur-ul-Haq, Part I, published 1894, p. 44. ↩︎
14. Izala Auham, p. 773. ↩︎

Top