Controversies with ‘Ulama / Refutation
of false charges / No claim to prophethood /
Controversies with ‘Ulama
Though his real objective was the spread of Islam in the West, he could
not avoid controversy with the orthodox ‘ulama who opposed him
tooth and nail. Often he would say that, if the ‘ulama left him
alone, he would devote himself, heart and soul, to the cause of the
advancement of Islam, but he had perforce to write a large number of
books, tracts and pamphlets to explain his own position, and to carry
on a number of controversies. The first controversy took place at Ludhiana,
soon after the announcement of his claim to Promised Messiahship, with
Maulvi Muhammad Husain of Batala, his erstwhile admirer, and lasted
from 20th to 29th July, 1891. Particulars of this
controversy are contained in a pamphlet called al-Haqq. From
Ludhiana he went to Delhi, the great stronghold of orthodox ‘ulama,
and there he met with the severest opposition. As far as the claim itself
was concerned, there was nothing in it that could be called heretical.
Every Muslim had a right to interpret the Quran and the Hadith, and
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not for a moment deny those authorities, but
put on them an interpretation different from that which the orthodox
Mullas held, and on that score, no one could find fault with him. He
again and again explained that the Holy Quran repeatedly spoke of the
death of Jesus Christ and did not, on a single occasion, state that
he was alive in heaven or that he was raised up bodily to some upper
region. Therefore, his advent, as spoken of in Hadith, could be taken
only in a metaphorical sense, and the claim to Promised Messiahship
was only an offshoot of his generally recognised claim to mujaddidship.
The ‘ulama could not meet him on that ground - the position was
so clear - and therefore they resorted to misrepresentations, saying
that he denied certain articles of the Muslim faith; for instance, that
he claimed to be a prophet, and thus denied the finality of the prophethood
of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, that he denied the existence of angels,
that he denied miracles and so on.
Refutation of false
charges
These charges were refuted by him again and again. The following manifesto
was issued by him at Delhi on 2nd October, 1891. It is headed,
An Announcement by a Traveller, and opens thus:
"I have heard that some of the leading ‘ulama of this city
are giving publicity to the false charge against me that I lay claim
to prophethood and that I do not believe in angels, or in heaven and
hell, or in the existence of Gabriel, or in Lailat al-Qadr, or
in miracles and the Mi’raj of the Holy Prophet. So, in the interest
of truth, I do hereby publicly declare that all this is complete fabrication.
I am not a claimant to prophethood, neither am I a denier of miracles,
angels, Lailat al-Qadr, etc. On the other hand, I confess belief
in all those matters which are included in the Islamic principles of
faith, and, in accordance with the belief of Ahl Sunna wal Jama’a,
I believe in all those things which are established by the Quran and
Hadith, and I believe that any claimant to prophethood and apostleship
after our lord and master Muhammad Mustafa (may peace and the blessings
of God be upon him), the last of the apostles, is a liar and an unbeliever.
It is my conviction that Divine revelation, which is granted to apostles,
began with Adam, the chosen one of God, and came to a close with the
Apostle of God, Muhammad Mustafa (may peace and the blessings of God
be upon him)."
A few days later, he addressed an assembly in the Jami’ Masjid of Delhi
in the following words:
"Other charges which are advanced against me that I am a denier
of Lailat al-Qadr, miracles and Mi’raj, and that I am also a
claimant to prophethood and a denier of the finality of prophethood
- all these charges are untrue and absolutely false. In all these matters,
my belief is the same as the belief of other Ahl Sunna wal Jama’a
and such objections against my books, Tauzih Maram and Izala
Auham, are only an error of the fault-finders. Now I make a plain
confession of the following matters, before the Muslims in this house
of God - I am a believer in the finality of the prophethood of the Last
of the Prophets (may peace and the blessings of God be upon him) and
I look upon anyone who denies the finality of prophethood to be a heretic
and outside the pale of Islam. Similarly, I am a believer in angels,
miracles, etc."
No claim to prophethood
It is rather strange that he was charged as laying claim to prophethood
in his book Izala Auham, which contains a large number of statements
expressly denying a claim to prophethood and expressing faith in the
finality of the prophethood of Muhammad. I refer here to only one such
statement, which is given in the form of question and answer:
"Question: In the pamphlet Fath
Islam, claim has been laid to prophethood.
"Answer: There is no claim to
being a prophet but a claim to being a muhaddath (one who is
spoken to by God, though not a prophet), and this claim has been advanced
by the command of Allah. Further, there is also no doubt that muhaddathiyya
also contains a strong part of prophethood . . . If then this be called
metaphorically prophethood or be regarded as a strong part of prophethood,
does this amount to a claim to prophethood?" (pp. 421, 422)
Early in the following year, he went to Lahore, where he held a controversy
with Maulvi ‘Abd al-Hakim. That controversy was brought to a close by
the following announcement which Ahmad made in the presence of several
witnesses:
"Be it known to all the Muslims that all such words as occur in
my writings Fath Islam, Tauzih Maram and Izala Auham,
to the effect that the muhaddath is in one sense a prophet, or
that muhaddathiyya is partial prophethood or imperfect prophethood,
are not to be taken in the real sense, but have been used according
to their root-meaning; otherwise, I lay no claim whatever to actual
prophethood. On the other hand, as I have written in my book Izala
Auham, p. 137, my belief is that our lord and master Muhammad Mustafa
(may peace and the blessings of God be upon him) is the last of the
prophets. So I wish to make it known to all Muslims that, if they are
displeased with these words and if these words give injury to their
feelings, they may regard all such words as amended and may read instead
the word muhaddath, for I do by no means wish to create any dissension
among the Muslims. From the beginning, as God knows best, my intention
has never been to use this word nabi as meaning actually a prophet,
but only as signifying muhaddath, which the Holy Prophet has
explained as meaning one who is spoken to by God. Of the muhaddath
it is stated in a saying of the Holy Prophet : ‘Among those that were
before you of the Israelites, there used to be men who were spoken to
by God, though they were not prophets, and if there is one among my
followers, it is ‘Umar’ (Bukhari). Therefore, I have not the
least hesitation in stating my meaning in another form for the conciliation
of my Muslim brethren, and that other form is that wherever the word
nabi (prophet) is used in my writings, it should be taken as
meaning muhaddath, and the word nabi should be regarded
as having been blotted out."
This writing was drawn up in the form of an agreement and signed by
eight witnesses. Certainly there could be no plainer words, and, though
Maulvi ‘Abd al-Hakim withdrew from the debate on receiving this plain
assurance, yet those who had signed the fatwa of kufr
persisted in their false charges, saying that these assurances were
meant only to deceive the public.
|