Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote that
the ‘Promised Son’ would not be actual son of Hazrat Mirza
Ghulam Ahmad
“God declares every such person as son of Abraham who
is a Muslim and strives in the way of God, giving the word ‘son’
so broad a meaning …
These revelations did not mean that the Promised Messiah himself
would have a son but that in the future such a man would be born
from his progeny who, in the sight of God, would be as if he were
his son …
So it is evidently clear that those revelations were about
a boy from later descendants, whether it be a grandson, great
grandson, or later still.”
— Mirza Mahmud Ahmad writing in 1908. Please see below for
full details.
Introduction
Shortly after the death of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in May 1908,
Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad wrote a lengthy article in the
magazine of which he was editor, Tashhiz-ul-Azhan (v. 3,
no. 6–7, June–July 1908), answering allegations by the
opponents of the Ahmadiyya Movement that some of the prophecies
of the Promised Messiah had not been fulfilled in his lifetime.
One objection related to the non-fulfilment of the prophecy of the
birth of a noble and glorious son who would bring a great transformation
in the world (the Muslih Mau‘ood). In answering this
objection, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote that the word ‘son’
in this prophecy could apply to a later descendant of Hazrat Mirza
Ghulam Ahmad from some future generation or it could even apply
to any true follower who is not physically related to him in any
way.
After Mirza Mahmud Ahmad became khalifa in 1914, his followers
began to put forward the notion that he was the Muslih Mau‘ood,
till in 1944 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad himself laid claimed to this.
Starting from within that period till now, members of the Qadiani
Movement have been raising the same objection against the Lahore
Ahmadiyya Movement as the opponents of the Ahmadiyya Movement raised
against Ahmadis in 1908, saying: if you believe that the Muslih
Mau‘ood has not yet come then it means that the Promised
Messiah’s prophecy about a great son was untrue. Our answer
is just the same as the answer that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad gave to the
opponents of the Ahmadis so emphatically, in full detail, in 1908
as quoted below.
In this reply Mirza Mahmud Ahmad does not even mention the possibility
that one of the three sons living at that time, including himself,
could in future become the Muslih Mau‘ood. However,
his followers later argued that a part of the prophecy, made in
1886, was that the Muslih Mau‘ood would be born within
nine years, so he had to be born by 1895. But Mirza Mahmud Ahmad
makes no mention of this in his 1908 article!
Extracts from article by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad
Note: Click here to see the extracts
below from the original Urdu magazine, presented as scanned
images.
This point should also be considered that even according to the
use of language the word ‘son’ can also be applied to
a descendant from some future generation. Accordingly, it is used
in this way frequently in Arabic. Thus, many tribes are named after
a forerunner and they are called his sons.
— p. 297-298
Considering that people of the world call one man as the son
of another who passed away several centuries earlier, and thus
Umar ibn Abdul Aziz and Harun Rashid are known as the sons of
Umayya and Abbas respectively, why cannot God the Most High call
a boy from among the future descendants of the Promised Messiah
as being his son? Is God not allowed to do what people can do?
When worldly people can consider a man to be related to one who
passed away long before, even though he does not deserve it, can
God not do the same, Who knows well who deserves to be related
to whom? Today those known as Sayyid, despite being embroiled
in thousands of kinds of evils and sins, … are considered
deservant of being called Al-i Muhammad, but when God the
Most High has, for some purpose, referred to a boy from among
the future descendants of the Promised Messiah as being his son,
this is regarded as unlawful.
… Today, not hundreds but thousands of preachers call out
loudly in their speeches ‘O sons of Adam, refrain from doing
such and such acts’ and ‘do such and such acts’,
but no one asks them: ‘Why are you addressing us by this
title when Adam was not our father?’ So what is the problem
if a boy from among the future descendants of the Promised Messiah
is called his son?
His revelation, kafá háza, proves clearly
that the revelation about son refers to a boy from the future
descendants, and the revelation ‘your descendants will have
fame through your name’ further supports that someone from
future descendants can also be called the son of the Promised
Messiah. God the Most High knows well who deserves to be known
as his son. So what harm is there if a prophecy is given about
a glorious boy who would bring a transformation in the world and
he is called as the son of Hazrat sahib? The Holy Prophet too
said that those among the Persians who accept Islam are included
in the Bani Fatima. So do the Persians themselves become the sons
of Fatima? One should also ponder over the fact that in the Quran
and Hadith this figure of speech is used frequently. So what harm
is there if God the Most High spoke to the Promised Messiah in
this way? For example, in the Holy Quran the Jews are again and
again called the Children of Israel. Although Israel had died
some 2500 years previously, God the Most High still called the
Jews as the Children of Israel. If this had not been a form of
expression used by the Arabs and in the Divine scriptures, the
Jews of that time who raised objections on most things would have
cried out immediately that they were not the Children of Israel
and would have given the names of their fathers. Again, in the
Holy Quran it is said about Abraham “We gave him Isaac and
Jacob”, even though Jacob was not the son of Abraham but
of Isaac. This shows that such expressions occur in the word of
God, and there is no scope for objection in this.
— p. 298-300
By son can be meant grandson or great grandson or some other
descendant. There is no cause for objection in this.
— p. 300
Ponder that it is stated clearly in the Quran:
“And strive hard for Allah with due striving. He has chosen
you and has not laid upon you any hardship in religion — the faith
of your father Abraham. He named you Muslims.” (22:78)
Now does this verse mean that the name of the father of every
Muslim is Abraham? Most certainly not. It means that he who follows
the example of Abraham, walks in the path taught by him and accepts
Islam, is in the sight of God like the son of Abraham. Everyone
knows that there are hundreds of nations among Muslims who are
not descended from Abraham nor is their nation connected with
the family of Abraham in any way. Thus when God declares every
such person as son of Abraham who is a Muslim and strives in the
way of God, giving the word ‘son’ so broad a meaning
that it is not necessary to be from among the Bani Ismail or the
Bani Israel, then where is the difficulty if the same God today
declares someone from the future descendants of the Promised Messiah
as his son? To sum up, not only people of Iran, Afghanistan, India,
China and Japan but even Europe and America can be called sons
of Abraham, and God the Most High calls them sons of Abraham in
the Holy Quran. So what is the problem if a man is declared as
the son of the Promised Messiah?
We also find such figures of speech when we look in Hadith. For
example, on the night of the mi‘raj, when the Holy
Prophet asked Gabriel about Abraham, he replied to him: This is
your righteous father. He said the same about Adam. So when this
is proved from the Quran and Hadith, then why is the objection
raised against the Promised Messiah that he was given the promise
of a son which was not fulfilled. The promises of God never remain
unfulfilled. They always come to pass, and the same will happen
in this case. These revelations did not mean that the Promised
Messiah himself would have a son but that in the future such a
man would be born from his progeny who, in the sight of God, would
be as if he were his son, and would be considered his fifth son,
besides his four sons. Just as Jesus is known as the son of David,
so will he be called the Promised Messiah’s son.
This view of mine is supported by the revelation of the Promised
Messiah that I quoted above, kafá háza, which
meant that he would not have any further male issue. Accordingly,
two girls were born after this, and no boy. The Promised Messiah
himself also believed this because he too applied a revelation
to his grandson which gave news of a son. Otherwise, if he thought
that it would be his son, why should he have applied it to his
grandson? In that case, he would have thought that he would have
a son in the future to fulfil the revelation. So it is evidently
clear that those revelations were about a boy from later descendants,
whether it be a grandson, great grandson, or later still.
— p. 301-303
Our Holy Prophet had given the prophecy of the railway as a form
of transport which has been fulfilled today. Should the people
of the twelve centuries in the middle have given up Islam and
turned to unbelief because the prophecy of the new form of transport
was not fulfilled? As this has been happening to all the prophets,
that they made prophecies about future times, then what does it
matter if the Promised Messiah also gave some news of the future
and foretold that among his descendants would be born a boy possessing
such great awe that it would be as if God had descended from heaven
to help him? This will further prove his truth and people of that
future time will see this prophecy fulfilled and derive pleasure
from it. People of the present time should ponder over the promises
that are for them … As I have written, this prophecy of a
son is about a boy from his descendants who would be a man of
great glory, being accompanied by Divine succour. I have also
proved that it is not only in the revelation of the Promised Messiah
that such metaphorical expressions occur, but they are also found
in the words of the earlier prophets and in the Quran and Hadith.
A person is referred to as son, but a later descendant is meant.
— p. 305
|
Top