Argument from the Parallelism between Ahmadiyyat and Christianity
Truth About the Split
After drawing the attention of my readers to the manner of Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s writing I shall next proceed to meet the points raised by him in his work under review. Maulawi Muhammad Ali has opened his book with the observation that since the Ahmadiyya Movement is a counterpart of Christianity, it was necessary for the maintenance of the parallelism that there should arise in it a party which should depart from the truth and drift to the side of excess. He has laid special stress upon this point and seems to think that this parallelism or analogy is sufficient to decide the issue between us. But he has failed obviously to realise that an analogy is not an identity and that things compared need not necessarily correspond in all points; that when one person admits of comparison with another person, the former may and sometimes does excel the latter both in rank and quality. The Promised Messiah (as) is not, fortunately, the only example we have of a historical parallel. His Master the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) is another example of such a parallelism, for, he had, his prototype in Moses (as). But, nevertheless, the disciples of the Holy Prophet (sa) had not to undergo the same experiences as the disciples of Moses (as), nor did they behave in a similar way under similar circumstances. In the Holy Qur’an, God has described a similarity of the Holy Prophet (sa) to the Prophet Moses (as) in the following words:
"Verily We have sent to you a Prophet, who is a witness to you, in the same way as We sent a Prophet to Pharaoh."
In this verse the Holy Prophet (sa) has been spoken of as the like and counter-type of Moses (as). The Old Testament speaks to the same effect. God said, to Moses (as),
"I will raise them up a Prophet (sa) from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words into his mouth and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." (Deut 18:18).
Thus the Holy Prophet (sa) was no doubt the like and counter-type of Moses (as). But in spite of their many resemblances, we find that the success which attended the Holy Prophet (sa) was far greater than that of Moses (as). Moses (as) had been promised the land of Cana‘an as a permanent home. A similar promise was made to the Holy Prophet (sa) regarding the land of Haram (Mecca). But when Moses (as) advanced to the conquest of the country, his people, in spite of their promises to help him, answered him saying:
"Moses! We will never enter this land so long as there dwell therein its former possessors. Go yourself and your Lord and fight. We shall be sitting here."
Only a few men were left with Moses (as) and the idea of a forcible entry into the promised land had to be abandoned. In contrast with this, we find that when the Holy Prophet (sa) came to Medina the covenant which he received from the Ansar (the citizens of Medina) was to the effect that only in case an enemy attacked him in Medina, would they (the Ansar) be bound to protect him. The covenant was sworn by the Ansar as the Oath of ‘Aqba tendered to the Holy Prophet (sa) some time before the Hijra. The famous historian Ibni Hisham writes that the Ansar had made the following covenant with the Holy Prophet (sa) .
"O Prophet (sa)! we shall not be responsible for your safety so long as you are outside Medina. Our responsibility will commence with your arrival in that city. We will protect you from all such enemies and by all such means as we protect our wives and children."
This meant that just as they sacrificed their lives in order to protect their wives and children from death and imprisonment, even so they would do to protect the Holy Prophet (sa) . After this covenant, when the time came for the battle of Badr, and the Holy Prophet (sa) decided to meet the foe some distance outside the city of Medina viz. at Badr, he felt, writes Ibni Hisham, a certain anxiety lest the Ansar should think that they were bound to help him only in case the enemy attacked him in their city and were under no obligation to assist him in case he wanted to lead them to meet the enemy outside the city. He asked the people about their decision; whereupon Sa‘d bin Ma‘adh stood up and answered, "Prophet (sa) of God! do you ask us regarding our intention?"
"Yes", answered the Holy Prophet (sa). Then said Sa‘d: "O Prophet (sa) of God! we have believed in you, and have testified to your truth and have borne witness that whatever you have brought, is all from God; wherefore we have entered in to an oath and covenant with you to-day and do submit to your command. O Prophet (sa)! lead us wherever you will, we will always be with you. And we swear by the God Who has sent you with His true message, that if you should lead us to the yonder sea (meaning the Red Sea) and enter its bosom, we also will enter the same and not one of us will hold back. We are not unwilling should you lead us even tomorrow to meet the enemy. We shall be patient in battle and steadfast in fight. We believe that in the field of battle you will see in us what will gladden your eyes. Proceed, then, O Prophet (sa)! and may the blessings of God be with you."
If one were to compare this answer with that of the followers of Moses (as), one cannot help noticing a difference of conditions between the two peoples, hardly to be met with between any two other nations. But even more remarkable than the above was the answer given by Miqdad bin Amr who, as a matter of fact, reproduced with necessary adaptation the very words used by the followers of Moses (as). He said "By God we are not going to answer you in the words in which the followers of Moses (as) answered their Prophet (sa) viz. 'Go you and your Lord and fight. We shall only sit and wait.' On the contrary, we answer "Proceed, O Prophet (sa) , with your Lord and fight; we will be with you among the fighters." (Vide Ibni Hisham Vol. I.)
Thus, there was indeed a great difference between the companions of Moses (as) and those of the Holy Prophet (sa) . A similar difference may also be noticed in the dealings of God with each of the two Prophets themselves. Moses (as) did not enter into the promised land. He died while he was camping near it with his followers. The promised entry into the land was effected in the following generation. On the other hand, it was granted to the Holy Prophet (sa) to enter Mecca victoriously and in triumph, surrounded by his Companions, and the land was given to him for all time to come.
Jesus (as) of Nazareth and Ahmad (as) of Qadian resembled each other by reason of their filling similar roles in the Mosaic and Islamic dispensations respectively. They were each the Khatam-ul-Khulafa (Seal of the Apostolic Successors) of their lines. Between them personally and between their followers, however, a similar difference might be perceived as between the original founders of the two dispensations. When, for example, one of the most eminent of the companions of Jesus (as) was questioned by his enemies regarding his master, saying "Surely thou also art one of them, for thy speech betrayeth", the disciple cursed and swore saying, "I know not the man". On other hand, when one of the eminent disciples of Ahmad (as) fell into a similar, nay even a more dangerous situation, he ceased not to confess his faith in his master. The situation in the latter case was more dangerous because the persons who questioned the disciple in the first case were two of them women and the third an Israelite who held no power in the state; while in the latter case the person who examined the disciple was no less a personage than the king of the country; and while in the first case the inquiry was repeated only three times and was answered as often in the negative, in the latter case the examination was held a large number of times and was always replied to in the affirmative. I refer to the martyrdom of Sahibzadah Maulawi Abdul Latif, a very learned and saintly gentleman of Afghanistan. He had heard about the Promised Messiah (as) and had read his books. He believed in him and came down to Qadian to spend some time in his company. When he returned to his country, being a person well-known for his learning and influence, so much so that he had been selected to perform the coronation ceremony of Amir Habibullah, the present Amir, the news of his conversion was soon carried to that monarch. The latter was at the same time besieged by the Maulawis, who urged that the Sahibzadah had turned an infidel and deserved the punishment of death. The Amir was obliged to take action. He at first sent some of his officers and asked Maulawi Abdul Latif to renounce his faith. When he refused to comply with the request, the Amir summoned him to his presence and personally asked him to give up his new faith threatening him with punishment under the fatwa passed by the Maulawis. Maulawi Abdul Latif remained unmoved and the Amir at last sentenced him to be stoned to death according to the fatwa.
When the prisoner was taken to the place of execution, because of the great regard in which he was generally held, the Amir with his chief officers went to the place in order to be present at the execution. The prisoner was half interred in the earth in order to receive his punishment. In that condition the Amir approached him personally and said, "Akhundzada! It is not too late yet. For God’s sake have pity on your own life and upon your wife and children." Maulawi Abdul Latif answered "Protect me God! How am I to gainsay truth? Life, wife and children, what are they worth, that for their sake I should renounce the truth? You must not expect such a thing from me. I am not in the least afraid to give up my life for the sake of my faith." Upon this, a shower of stones was hurled upon him and he was most cruelly done to death. This event took place in 1903, and is typical of the difference that exists between the followers of the first and those of the second Messiah. A similar difference may also be marked in the manner of God’s dealings with the two Messiahs. In the case of the first Messiah, his enemies were allowed to succeed so far as to put him upon the cross, but in the case of the second Messiah, although his enemies tried their best to bring about his discomfiture, charging him at one time with abetment of murder, yet God was pleased completely to confound their machinations, and to destroy many of his enemies during his lifetime.
In short, while there is a remarkable similarity between the dispensations brought by Muhammad (sa) and Moses (as) respectively, there is also a plainly visible difference between the Divine blessings and assistance which accompanied the two. It ought not therefore to be concluded from the mere fact of similarity between the two dispensations, that the followers of the Promised Messiah (as) were sure to commit the error of exaggerating the truth like the followers of the first Messiah. By following such a method of analogy, one might as well prove that the majority of the Companions of the Holy Prophet (sa) were hypocrites, because the Holy Prophet (sa) was a counter-type of Moses (as) and the majority of the companions of Moses (as) did indeed prove to be hypocrites when the moment came for action. (May God protect us from such views). We know, however, how the spiritual power of the Holy Prophet (sa) saved the majority of his immediate followers from following in the footsteps of the Jews except, of course, the few who indeed proved to be hypocrites. Similar also, the spiritual power of the Promised Messiah (as) was to save the majority of his followers from committing the mistake made by the followers of the first Messiah. And this is what has actually happened. The major portion of his followers, with the exception of a small section, have maintained their connection with the centre of the movement and continue to hold to their old beliefs. But, just as in the case of the Holy Prophet (sa) there arose after him a small party, who denied the validity of the Khilafat (Apostolic Succession) and endeavoured to belittle the Prophet’s rank, and who made their public appearance during the time of Hadrat Ali (ra) , the son-in-law or, so to speak, the son of the Holy Prophet (sa) , so also in the present case, when one of the sons of the Promised Messiah (as) came to hold the Khilafat there has appeared a small party like the earlier Kharijites, whose motto was: