Recently, an Ahmadi notified me concerning the comment section. I had no idea it was disabled all this time, so from now on, it should be open for anyone to comment (I doubt Ahmadis would though).
Now, this is probably the saddest and most miserable topic in the history of Ahmadiyyat. Twisting the Quran, sharia and the hadith to suit the whims and passions of men is certainly not the right path to take. Whether you want to blow yourself up in the case of ISIS, or call yourself a prophet in the case of MGA, you’re always going to fall into trouble due to short and inadequate thinking.
The example of prophethood is just that, it’s a mess, and a mess that’s really hard to get out from. MGA messed up big time, and his son didn’t disappoint by adding even more confusion to the mess already left by the deviant.
Just like the deceit seen in the episode of prophesies, the same applies with his claim to prophethood. He wanted to be a prophet, but at the same time, avoid the wrath and Takfeer of Muslims. And although a lot of Muslims might be upset by what I’m going to say, but I do believe MGA never actually proclaimed he was a prophet. I don’t think he changed in 1901, that doesn’t mean I’m a Lahori. I despise anyone who sees MGA as a moral being, let alone seeing him as good or noble. This has to be the most complicated topic I have come across, and I spent hours comparing Lahori and Ahmadi text to see whose right, but fortunately, they’re both wrong. Ahmadis are more wrong for believing he was an actual prophet like Jesus (as), but Lahoris are just as bad for thinking he never wanted people to think or take him as an actual prophet.
On either side, the story isn’t complete and it doesn’t work. For Lahoris, why did MGA claim prophethood in the first place if he wasn’t really one? Didn’t he say it was metaphorical, or that it doesn’t mean anything, and even said to delete the word ‘nabi’ in response to Shaykh Abdul Kareem? Why did he then keep on calling himself a prophet?
The Ahmadi case is a lot more complicated. Here’s how the story went
This the official stance of Ahmadiyyat on the matter from Mahmud Ahmad himself
“The issue of prophethood became clear to him in 1900 or 1901, and as Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala (misconception removed) was published in 1901, in which he has proclaimed his prophethood most forcefully, it shows he made a change in his belief in 1901, and the year 1900 is a middle period which is like a boundary between the two views….It is proved that the references dating prior to the year 1901 in which he denied being a prophet, are now abrogated and it is an error to use them as evidence.” ( Haqiqat-un-Nubuwwat, p.121)
It’s also claimed by Lahoris that Mahmud Ahmad couldn’t get the right date fixed, either in 1902, or in 1901, but the fact that he’s not sure in the above narration, and there being a middle phase before this huge transition is worrying, and why didn’t he reference MGA’s apparent change of claim? The fact and the matter is, MGA just kept on playing with words, neither can he claim prophethood, nor can he keep his mouth shut about his prophethood. Although Ahmadis say MGA claimed prophethood in his book misconception removed, there is no clear indication of this in the book, it’s not any different from his previous writings. MGA never said ‘my previous writings have now been abrogated, and therefore everything I said about prophethood previously should not be taken.’That is totally false and built on fairy tales, which is why I lean towards the interpretation of Lahoris.
Let’s suppose for a second that he changed in 1901, even though the evidence to that is near zero. In 1897, less than five years before he claimed prophethood, he called claimants to prophethood Kuffar
“Can a wretched imposter who claims messengership and prophethood for himself have any belief in the Holy Quran? And can a man who believes in the Holy Quran, and believes the verse ‘He is the Messenger of Allah and the Khatam an-nabiyyin’ to be the word of God, say that he too is a messenger and prophet after the Holy Prophet Muhammad? (Anjam Atham, pages 27 – 28, published January 1897)
He also said this less than two years before his supposed claim in 1901
“As these words, 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”(published in Al-Hakam, vol. iii, no. 29, 17 August 1899)
I’ll yet provide more evidence to back up my theory. He first of all epically writes this in the footnote of the book Noor Al Quran in 1895
“and if someone says that also this age doesn’t lessen in corruption, wrongful Aqeeda and the committing of sins, so why wasn’t a prophet sent? The answer is that the age (time of Muhammad (pbuh)) had been emptied of tawheed and truthfulness, but in this age, there are 400 million people who say the shahadah of la ilah illa allah, and even with this, Allah has not stopped sending reformers (Mujadids) in it too.” (Noor Al Quran, 1895)
So it turns out there was no need for a prophet after all, and before Ahmadis jump out and say ‘oh, but he’s not a shar’i prophet, and there is no need for that, but a non-shar’i is acceptable’. It has to be taken into account that according to MGA, he’s the highest rank after Muhammad (pbuh), so how can the second best prophet be sent when there are 400 million (the correct number was 200 million) saying the shahdah? It just might turn out that MGA was playing games with his followers.
So after his strong stance in not claiming prophethood just years before 1901, let’s examine some sources after 1901 to see if there was a change; if he actually proclaimed prophethood
They say….you have claimed prophethood, but I say: This is only a verbal expression. The prophet is he who prophesies, so what should we call the one who has communication with Allah? (Al Hakam, volume 9, number 39, 10/11/1905, page 3)
The questioner: Do you claim prophethood?
MGA: The righteous salaf all kept on believing the chain of divine communication is continuous in this Ummah…So I am a nabi from that perspective.
The questioner: So if it was possible for a prophet to come in Islam, then who came before you?
MGA: This question should not be raised to me but to the prophet (Muhammad (pbuh)) because the name nabi was given to one person only, and this name wasn’t given to someone before, so I am not responsible in responding to this question. (Bdir, volume 2, number 23, page 2-3, 7/6/1906)
So like in my previous blogs where I pointed out how Ahmadis always blame Islam for their messed up theology, MGA does the same, by first making stuff up and attributing it to Islam, and then when asked, points the finger at our beloved Muhammad (pbuh) and says ask him.
Nonetheless, if he had actually claimed prophethood, he would have an entirely different attitude to the questioners. When a person asked him in 1905 about claiming prophethood, he didn’t say ‘yes’, or ‘yes, I’m a prophet just like Isa (as) was a prophet’, or even ‘Didn’t you read misconception removed, I claimed prophethood there in front of everyone’ and that in itself is enough to debunk this theory as a whole. If he had changed his belief and claimed prophethood in 1901, then he’s obliged to first say that all his previous sayings are abrogated and therefore should not be used, his claim should be clear and decisive, not the odd quote presented by Ahmadis of him saying ‘it has become clear to me the word nabi’, and finally, he has to call everyone who doesn’t believe in him a Kafir and outside of the fold of Islam. So all in all, there’s no clear evidence to back up the 1901 theory.
MGA played it very nicely, if someone calls him a prophet from his community, it’s a win win, and he gets that honour. If an outsider comes and questions him, he says, this is only metaphoric, and only to do with prophesies, so he may also convince another person who doesn’t believe in his prophethood. This is exactly why the split took place in 1914. This whole thing about people receiving prophesies of future event is a Sufi thing. I even read it in Imam Al-Ghazali’s ‘Deliverance from error’ where he talks about how one can receive knowledge of the unseen upon his closeness to Allah. Now, whether that’s true is questionable, but does that mean Imam Al-Ghazali believed there could be another prophet after Muhammad (pbuh), definitely not. Even two weeks before the death of MGA, he says in yanbo’ Al Ma’rifa “but because of their ignorance, they don’t utter the word “prophethood” on communication containing many prophesies, but the purpose of prophethood is prophesies regarding future events, and the wahi and ilham only.” So even when he was nearing his death, he was trying to convince Muslims that he’s not really a prophet; but only in the sense of prophesies.
It’s interesting because Ahmadis are still torn by this concept till today. Some Ahmadis are actually Lahori in both prophethood and Takfeer, Ahmadis say to me ‘where are all the Lahoris’, I just reply with ‘Where are all the Qadyanis’, because a number of Ahmadis don’t believe in the prophethood of MGA, and certainly don’t believe we Muslims are Kuffar, even though the official position of Ahmadiyyat is that of us being Kuffar outside of the fold of Islam, but only Muslim by name. I read an interesting piece on Al Islam of a person who converted to Ahmadiyyat after being Lahori. This person was confused because both groups were quoting from the founder. However, it’s interesting to note that although this person became an Ahmadi, he/she kept their Lahor belief on prophethood after becoming an Ahmadi. Unfortunately, throughout this entire quest, this person couldn’t figure out the problem was rooted in MGA. Anyway, here is the take on prophethood from the article.
“My belief in the prophethood of the Promised Messiah did not change in any way. Only my attitude towards this prophethood has changed. As before, I did not take it as a separate or independent prophethood. I understood it to be an image of the Holy Prophet’s prophethood. As if a person is standing in front of a mirror and looking at his image. The image is not the real person. It does not have a separate or an independent entity. If the person does not exist, then his reflection in the mirror will also not exist. So this is the prophethood of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad – a reflection.”
To conclude this long entry; I would like to say that if MGA had the chance to publicly and openly claim prophethood, he would have, and he did by the way, not in accordance with the 1901 change, but because he wanted his followers to treat him like a prophet without exception, but avoid the wrath of Muslims at the same time. But as it is with liars onto Allah, he spent is entire life in deceit and hypocrisy. Such is the example of the disgraced. If the Dajjal has come, it was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad without doubt.
والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته