Alleged Innovations
Truth About the Split
These changes, according to Maulawi Muhammad Ali, relate to three matters; (1) that I propagated the belief that Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was actually a Nabi; (2) the belief that he was 'the Ahmad' spoken of in the prophecy of Jesus (as) referred to in the Holy Qur’an in Al-Saff 61:7; and (3) the belief that all those so-called Muslims who have not entered into his Bai‘at formally, wherever they may be, are kuffar and outside the pale of Islam, even though they may not have heard the name of the Promised Messiah (as).
That these beliefs have my full concurrence, I readily admit. What I deny is the statement that I have been entertaining these views since 1914 or only three or four years before. On the contrary, as I shall presently show, the first and the last of these beliefs were entertained by me even during the lifetime of the Promised Messiah (as), while the second belief developed soon after the death of the Promised Messiah (as) as a result of the teachings I received from Hadrat Khalifatul Masih I (ra) , and of the various discourses I had, with him on the subject.
I shall speak first of the question of prophethood. My arguments on the subject will be stated at length in their appropriate place later on. For the present I only deem it necessary to state in brief that, in my opinion, the fact that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) , who was the most truthful of all men and the most jealous guardian of the honour of Islam, repeatedly gave the name of Nabi to the Messiah that was to come, is ample evidence of the fact that the expected Messiah was to be actually a Nabi. But since it has been claimed by the Holy Qur’an that its teachings are for all countries and for all ages, it follows that no new Prophet could be expected who may bring a new Law. The saying of the Holy Prophet (sa) with reference to himself—"Ana Akhirul Ambiya" (I am the last of the Prophets) goes also to prove the same thing, viz. that after the Holy Prophet (sa) no other Prophet is to appear who should attain the rank of prophethood except through obedience to him. In other words, whoever should after the Holy Prophet (sa) attain the rank of Nabi must be one from among the followers of the Holy Prophet (sa) and must achieve the rank through the spiritual grace of the Holy Prophet (sa) .
Regarding the prophecy Ismuhu Ahmad contained in the Holy Qur’an (Al-Saff, 61:6), my opinion is that the passage contains a double prophecy, relating to two persons, one a counter-type and the other his prototype. The counter-type of course is the Promised Messiah (as), while the prototype is the Holy Prophet (sa) . The passage under reference speaks directly about the counter-type. A reference to the prototype of course comes in, but only indirectly inasmuch as the countertype of a Prophet necessarily presumes the existence of his original. Thus the verse does furnish a prophecy regarding the original Prophet from whom the immediate subject of the prophecy derived his dignity. The prophethood of the Holy Prophet (sa) was not a derived one. He was an original Prophet who was not indebted to any human teacher for the grace of prophethood, but was himself a dispenser of grace to others. To consider him as a recipient of spiritual grace from any human teacher is in my view a detraction from his proper dignity. For these reasons and on certain other grounds, I hold the opinion that the subject of this prophecy is primarily the Promised Messiah (as) who is the reflex of the Holy Prophet (sa) and the counter-type of Jesus Christ. But the whole question is one regarding which no decision on the basis of revealed authority has been left by any of the Prophets. Any discussion of the question therefore has little more than mere academic interest. If any person holds a different view regarding the interpretation of the verse, all that I shall say is that he is mistaken, but I shall never deem him, on that account, any the less an Ahmadi and much less shall I deem him a sinner. In short, the question as to who is the proper subject of this prophecy in the Holy Qur’an is not at all of such moment as to make it a problem of any great religious importance.
As for the question of Kufr (unbelief) of non- Ahmadi Muslims, my belief is that Kufr really arises from a denial of God. Hence, whenever there comes any revelation from God of such a nature that its acceptance is obligatory on every man, a rejection of the same leads to Kufr. Belief in such a revelation, however, presupposes belief in the bearer of the revelation. Hence it follows that a belief in the bearer of such revelation is a necessary part of one’s faith. The man who rejects a Prophet thus necessarily becomes a kafir, not because he denies the truth of any particular Prophet X or Y, but such denial will necessarily lead him to reject a revelation of God. To me, the Kufr which arises from the denial of any Nabi has its basis in this principle and not in any personal quality of the Nabi. And inasmuch as the revelation of which the acceptance is obligatory on mankind comes only through Prophets, it is the rejection of such recipients of Divine revelation, and not of others that leads to unbelief. Now, as we hold that the revelation which came to the Promised Messiah (as) are such that their acceptance is obligatory on mankind in general, to us, the man who rejects the Promised Messiah (as) is a kafir agreeably to the teachings of the Holy Qur’an, although he may well be a believer in all the other truths of religion because the presence even of one of the necessary conditions of Kufr is sufficient to make a man kafir. I may however add that in my opinion Kufr arises from a denial of one or more of the fundamental articles of religion, not because such a denial makes a man the object of unending punishment, but because the denial makes him guilty of rebellion against God and leads to the extinction of his spiritual life.
Now, as Islam bases its judgments upon what is patent and not upon what is possible, it cannot but class as kafir such as fail to accept any of the Prophets, even though such failure may be due to their want of information concerning him. In the latter case, they will not, of course, be the objects of Divine punishment. The denial would be due to causes altogether beyond their control. It is in accordance with the same principle that Muslims have so long with one accord designated as kuffar all those who have not accepted the faith of Islam, without taking into consideration the question whether or not such failure is occasioned by want of adequate information concerning the Holy Prophet (sa) . And the doctor is yet to be born who will class in the category of Muslims the Esquimaux of the North Pole, the Red Indians of America, the Hottentots of Africa or the Maoris of Australia, or those millions of Christians, who living in central Europe or in other out of the way places have not yet heard anything regarding the teachings of the Holy Prophet (sa) .
Such are my convictions. Whether they are right or wrong it is not my present purpose to discuss. I shall discuss their merits later on. My object here is only to present in brief only a statement of my convictions as they are, for the benefit of the reader.
After this statement of my convictions, I wish next to make certain observations on the account of the course of events which, according to Maulawi Muhammad Ali, led up to the split in the Ahmadiyya Movement. I hope, to make clear to every fair minded reader, who will care to weigh the facts without bias or prejudice, how Maulawi Muhammad Ali in his narration of the events has intentionally departed from truth and dispensed with the fear of God. For it is possible that a wrong exposition of doctrine, or a wrong use of argument may be attributed to some misunderstanding on the part of the writer, but what if we find him perverting not one or two but a long series of events to suit a premeditated purpose? In the latter case we are constrained to attribute the action to a conscious design of deceiving the unwary reader.
Eleven Misstatements in Maulawi
Muhammad Ali’s account of Dissensions
Maulawi Muhammad Ali has related the story as follows: (1) The first man who promulgated belief in the Promised Messiah’s (as) Nubuwwat was one Zahiruddin, a clerk in the Canal Department at Gujranwala, and his writings containing the belief may be traced as far back as 1911. The first of these writings was entitled Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur or The Appearance of a Prophet of God, which was published in April 1911 and must have been written towards the close of 1910 or in the early months of 1911. In this book the writer tried to prove that Muhammad (sa) was not the last of the Prophets but that Prophets would continue to appear after him. (2) Much notice of this book was not taken by the Ahmadiyya Community. But probably the contents of the book or some other leaflet on the same subject was brought to the notice of Khalifatul Masih I (ra) . Upon this there was some correspondence between the Khalifa and Zahiruddin and as a result an announcement was made by the Khalifa to the effect that as Zahiruddin was promulgating new beliefs he was not to be considered to have any connection with the Ahmadiyya Community. This was followed by repentance on the part of Zahiruddin. (3) But the repentance was not long-lived. On the 20th April 1913, he published another pamphlet in which he sought to reply to the objection taken by the Ahmadis that he had started a new formula of faith. The reply was nothing but an admission of what was alleged. Upon this the Ahmadiyya Community again cut off all connection with him and although the ostensible ground for his ostracism was his alleged claim to Khilafat but—as he himself disowned making any such claim—the real reason was no doubt the promulgation of these new beliefs.
No direct refutation of the latter was published by the Community although an indirect refutation of them was to be found in the saner views which found expression in the newspapers of the Ahmadiyya Community and in some books. (4) In 1909 Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan brought out a book on the subject of a controversy held at Rampur, between himself and Maulawi Sanaullah of Amritsar, under the auspices of the Nawab of Rampur. On page 67 of the book under the heading "Discussion relating to partial prophethood in subordination to complete prophethood," Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan wrote: "By following the Holy Prophet (sa) one can be granted partial prophethood in subordination to complete prophethood for helping the cause of the religion of Islam. "Later on, the same learned old man wrote an article in the monthly journal Tashhidhul Adhhan edited by me (the writer of this book) under the heading "Prophethood among the followers of Muhammad," in which he showed that the only prophethood which could be granted to Muslims was Nubuwwati Juzwi i.e. partial prophethood. (5) While Zahiruddin was circulating his peculiar views, I (the writer of this book) broached the question of Kufr of those who did not formally accept the Bai‘at of the Promised Messiah (as). This article, it was stated, was shown to Khalifatul Masih I (ra) , but in what sense he understood the article is clear from a later announcement issued by Khwaja Kamaluddin and signed by the Khalifa.
In this announcement it was explained that the article written by me could be accepted only if it was interpreted as signifying that those who did not accept the Promised Messiah (as) are only deniers of or unbelievers in the Promised Messiah (as), and not actually outside the pale of Islam, for otherwise the article would be opposed to the plain teachings of the Promised Messiah (as). (6) Towards the end of the life of Khalifatul Masih I (ra) , the question again came into prominence, and towards the close of 1913, once again, I made the announcement that the deniers of the Promised Messiah (as) were all kuffar. I also found fault with the fatwa of the first Khalifa allowing Ahmadis to pray behind non-Ahmadi
Imams, though in the pilgrimage which I performed in 1912, I myself said prayers in congregation behind a non-Ahmadi Imam and so did all the Ahmadis who performed the pilgrimage at that time. When the news of the renewal of the question reached the Khalifa, being seriously ill himself, he asked Maulawi Muhammad Ali to enlighten the Ahmadiyya Community on this question and gave him some notes regarding the same. (7) He even warned me (the present writer) that I had not realised the true significance of the question of Kufr and Islam. (8) Accordingly Maulawi Muhammad Ali wrote a pamphlet and read it out to the Khalifatul Masih who approved of views expressed therein. This pamphlet, however, although written in the lifetime of Khalifatul Masih I (ra) could not be published before his death. (9) People had accepted me (the present writer) as their Khalifa under a misconception and now many of them were openly expressing their aversion to my doctrines. Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan of Amroha, the oldest and the most learned living companion of the Promised Messiah (as), was one of the adherents of the present writer at the time of the dissension of March 1914, but in 1916 he published a handbill declaring that I was not fit for the position to which I had been elected, as I was misleading the