The Evidence
Section 15:
Dignity of Jesus
|
Translators Note:
This Section refutes at length the wide-spread propaganda
against Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad that he used abusive language
about Jesus. Hazrat Mirzas writings are quoted to show the
high reverence in which he held Jesus as a prophet accepted in Islam
(15.1). Then, referring to the highly-charged polemical
controversies between Christians and Muslims in India in the late
nineteenth century, the style of reply which Hazrat Mirza was forced
to employ, in order to rebut some nasty Christian literature against
the Holy Prophet Muhammad, is explained by quoting from his writings
(15.2). Finally, the views and practice of other
Muslim theologians, both before and after his time, are given, showing
that they adopted exactly the same approach as did Hazrat Mirza
(15.3). Indeed their language and tone of writing
was much stronger than his. |
15.1: Hazrat Mirza honours Jesus as
Prophet of God
One of the allegations advanced against Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is that
he insulted Jesus Christ and used offensive words about him.
The first point which belies this allegation is that, if he had criticised
Jesus, how would it have been possible for him to call himself similar
to Jesus? The very claim of Hazrat Mirza was that, in accordance with
the Holy Prophet Muhammads Saying, The righteous learned ones
of my followers will be like the prophets of Israel, he had come
in the likeness of Jesus. Had Hazrat Mirza abused Jesus, would
it not have reflected on his own person equally! Referring to this very
point, he wrote:
Muhammad Husain, at the time he prepared the ruling that it
was permissible to kill me, levelled the false charge against me that
I have insulted Jesus, and therefore I deserve to be killed. This
is sheer fabrication of Muhammad Husain. Considering that my claim
is that I am the Promised Messiah and that I bear resemblance to Jesus,
everyone can understand that if, God forbid, I decry Jesus, how can
I speak of my resemblance to him, since it would imply that I myself
am bad. (Majmua Ishtiharat, footnote, vol. iii,
p. 78)
In the Mosaic order, the son of Mary was the Promised Messiah,
and in the order established after the Holy Prophet Muhammad, I am
the Promised Messiah. So I honour him bearing whose name I have come.
That person is a mischief maker and fabricator who says that I do
not honour the Messiah, son of Mary. (Kishti-i Nuh, p.
16)
In principle, just these two quotations are sufficient to refute this
allegation. However, we give below some further extracts from Hazrat Mirzas
books, showing clearly and conclusively that he did not offer any insult
to Jesus (peace be upon him), but that he honoured him and declared belief
in him (Jesus) to be a basic requirement of faith.
- Since we people believe Jesus, peace be upon him, to be a
true prophet of God, and a holy and righteous person, how could our
pens write words derogatory to his dignity. (Kitab al-Barriyya,
p. 93, under the caption Most important point for the attention
of the Government)
- I have been sent by God also for the purpose that I should
believe Jesus, peace be upon him, to be a true, holy and righteous
prophet of God, and repose faith in his prophethood. There is not
even a word in any book of mine that detracts from his dignity, and
anyone who thinks that there is, is mistaken and a liar. (Ayyam
as-Sulh, Title, p. 2)
- By his words and his deeds, Jesus, peace be upon him, showed
himself to be humble and helpless, not possessing any attribute of
God. He was a weak mortal, though undoubtedly a prophet and true messenger
of God. (Jang Muqaddas, p. 50)
- I swear by Almighty God that He has clearly revealed to me
that Jesus, peace be upon him, was a human being like other human
beings. But he was a true prophet, messenger, and chosen one of God.
(Hujjat al-Islam, p. 9)
- Jesus, peace be upon him, was undoubtedly a prophet beloved
of God, possessing the highest qualities. He was righteous, venerable,
and one who had found God. But he was not God. (Majmua
Ishtiharat, vol. ii, p. 376)
- As the Holy Quran has testified to the prophethood of Jesus,
peace be upon him, we call Jesus a true prophet and believe him to
be so, and we declare the denial of his prophethood to be clear heresy.
(Zia al-Haq, p. 41)
- And if the objection is that some prophet has been insulted
[by me], and that this constitutes heresy, the answer is simply, May
the curse of God be upon the liars! We believe in all the prophets
and honour them. Some words, which are fitting in their proper context,
are not by way of abuse, but by way of supporting the doctrine of
Gods uniqueness. Actions are judged by intention. People such
as you had declared the author of Taqwiyyat al-Iman [Sayyid
Muhammad Ismail Shaheed] to be kafir because they found such
words in this book which they took as being insulting to prophets
and equating them with thieves. His answer, like mine, was also that
Actions are judged by intention. (Anwar al-Islam,
p. 34)
- God has also informed me that Jesus was in reality one of
His most beloved and righteous servants, and of those who are chosen
by God, and of those whom God purifies with His own hand and keeps
under the shadow of His light. But he is not God, as has been imagined.
He is, however, a person who attained to God, and of those perfect
ones who are few. (Tuhfa Qaisariyya, pp. 20 21)
- I believe that no person who abuses a righteous man like
Husain or Jesus can survive even one night, but is overtaken by the
Divine threat [contained in Hadith, see Bukhari 81:38]: Whoever
opposes a saint of Mine, I declare war on him. (Ijaz
Ahmadi, p. 38)
- Jesus, peace be upon him, is not God but only a prophet,
and not a whit more. And, by God, I have such true love for him as
you do not have. I see him with the light with which you cannot. There
is no doubt that he was a beloved, chosen prophet of God, and of those
who receive His special grace, and who are purified by Him. But he
was neither God nor the son of God. (Haqiqat al-Wahy,
under announcement entitled Dawat-i-Haq, p. 5)
- The intensity of love which Christians claim to have for
Jesus is also claimed by Muslims, as if his person is a heritage common
to both Christians and Muslims, and I have the greatest right [to
this claim] because my nature is absorbed in that of Jesus, and his
in mine. Heavenly signs are appearing in support of this claim, and
everyone has been invited to satisfy himself about this claim through
a sign. I have dared to write this much here because the true love
and honour I have for Jesus in my heart, and all the things I have
heard from his lips [in visions], and the message he gave me, all
these things prompted me to respectfully address her majesty the Queen
[Victoria], as an emissary from Jesus, that just as God has made her
a guardian over the lives and properties of millions of human beings,
nay, she has made laws even for the welfare of animals and birds,
how well it would be if your majesty could turn your attention to
the covert abuse that is offered to the dignity of Jesus [by Christians
asserting that he was accursed for three days].
(Tuhfa Qaisariyya, p. 23)
The above writings of Hazrat Mirza make it quite clear that he believed
Jesus to be a holy and righteous person and a true prophet of God. In
the light of these extracts, how could it be alleged that he insulted
Jesus?
15.2: Hazrat Mirzas reply to
Christian attacks
If the opponents of the Ahmadiyya Movement were to see the prevailing
atmosphere during the time of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and the vituperative
writings of the Christian missionaries, in reply to which he was forced
to use strong language, they would not raise this objection against him.
At that time, Christian preachers used to write such abusive, offensive
and filthy words about the Holy Prophet Muhammad that no decent person
could bear to hear or read them. Hazrat Mirza told them repeatedly to
give up this foul technique and not to pain the hearts of the Muslims,
but the missionaries grew bolder and bolder. The writings of Revs. Imad-ud-Din,
Thakar Das, and Fathi Masih deeply wounded the Muslims. And when Rev.
Fathi Masih wrote a letter to him reviling the Holy Prophet Muhammad,
Hazrat Mirza was forced to give a retaliatory reply based on the Bible.
He made it plain that his reply was merely by way of retaliation against
Fathi Masihs letter, while he actually believed Jesus to be a true
prophet with the high rank given to him by the Holy Quran.
As a Muslim with a sense of honour and self-respect, was it not the
duty of Hazrat Mirza, in replying to a foul-mouthed man who had deliberately
hurled such abuse to hurt him, that he should not only refute the allegations
but retaliate against the slanderers own beliefs to stop him writing
such falsehood and filth in the future. Even in this retaliation, Hazrat
Mirza took great care to explain that he was not criticising that prophet
Jesus who had been mentioned in the Quran, but was directing his criticism
at that Jesus whom Christians call God and the son of God, not
the real Jesus but the one who existed only in their imagination. Thus
he wrote:
- What I have written is a retaliatory reply based on the Gospels.
Otherwise, I respect Jesus and believe him to be a righteous, honourable
prophet. (Faryad-i Dard, footnote, p. 79)
- Whatever has come from my pen about Jesus which appears to
go against his dignity is by way of a retaliatory reply. In fact,
we have quoted the words of the Jews. If the Christian preachers behave
in a civilised, God-fearing manner, and not hurl abuse at our Holy
Prophet, the Muslims for their part would be twenty times more respectful
than they. (Chashma Masihi, footnote, p. 2)
- Everywhere in our writings [of this sort] the imaginary Messiah
of the Christians is meant. The humble servant of God, Jesus son of
Mary, who is mentioned in the Quran, is not meant. And this technique
we adopted after listening to abuse from Christian preachers over
a period of full forty years. ... It should be remembered that in
future those reverends who give up the technique of hurling abuse,
and speak with good manners, we too will deal with them respectfully.
... We were tired of listening to their abuse. If someone swears at
a persons father, does not that wronged person have the right
to return in kind against his father. (Nur al-Quran,
Part II, p. 2)
- I give you notice by this letter that if you again use such
foul language and utter filthy slander in the honour of the Holy Prophet
Muhammad, I will retaliate against your imaginary and fake god. O
fool! Do you accuse the Holy Prophet of adultery in your letter, and
call him evil and wicked, and hurt our heart. We do not turn to any
court, nor will we do so, but warn you for the future to refrain from
such filth. Fear God, and do not abuse the Messiah, for certainly
what you will say about the Holy Prophet Muhammad will be applied
to your imaginary Messiah. However, we believe the true Messiah to
be holy, venerable and pure. He claimed neither to be God nor the
son of God, and gave the news of the advent of the Holy Prophet Muhammad
and believed in him. (Nur al-Quran, Part II, p. 13)
- I have not said anything disrespectful about Jesus. This
is all a fabrication of the opponents. However, as there has not been
a Messiah in reality who claimed to be God, called the coming Last
of the Prophets a liar, and branded Moses as a thief, I did say about
him hypothetically that a Messiah who were to say such things could
not be righteous. But our Messiah, the son of Mary, who called himself
a servant and messenger of God, and testified to the Holy Prophet,
we believe in him. (Tiryaq al-Qulub, footnote, p. 77)
- If the Christian preachers change their policy even now,
and resolve not to hurl abuse at our Holy Prophet in future, we too
will resolve to use mild language in our replies. Otherwise, whatever
they say, they will hear the answer to that. (Anjam Atham,
footnote on footnote, Supplement, p. 8)
- Our contention is with that Jesus who claims to be God, not
with that chosen Prophet of God mentioned along with the details concerning
him in the Holy Quran. (Majmua Ishtiharat, vol.
iii, p. 332)
- It should be remembered that this view of ours is about that
Jesus who claimed to be God, and called the former prophets as thieves,
and said nothing about the Last of the Prophets except that only false
prophets would come after him [i.e. Jesus]. Such a Jesus is not mentioned
anywhere in the Quran. (Anjam Atham, p. 13)
- The readers should note that we had to speak in the same
manner about the Christian religion as that which they use towards
us. Christians in reality do not believe in our Isa [Jesus],
peace be upon him, who called himself only a servant and a prophet,
believed the former prophets to be righteous, believed in the Prophet
to come, the Holy Prophet Muhammad, and had prophesied about him.
They believe in a man called Yasu who is not mentioned in the Holy
Quran, who, they believe, claimed to be God and used to refer to the
former prophets as thieves. They also say that this man belied our
Holy Prophet Muhammad, and prophesied that all claimants coming after
him would be liars. ... The readers should remember not to take our
strong words as applying to Isa [Muslim name for Jesus],
but they have been written with regard to Yasu, not a trace
of whom is to be found in the Quran or Hadith. (Arya
Dharm, Title page, last, under caption For the attention
of the Readers)
- Since Rev. Fathi Masih has sent us an extremely filthy letter,
in which he has accused our Holy Prophet Muhammad of adultery, and
besides this, has used many words by way of abuse and vituperation,
it was, therefore, advisable to publish a reply to his letter; hence
this booklet has been written. It is to be hoped that Christian preachers
will read it carefully and not be pained by its words, because it
is all a consequence of the harsh language and exceedingly filthy
abuse by Mr Fathi Masih. Nonetheless, we take account of the holy
dignity of the Messiah, peace be upon him, and, in return for Fathi
Masihs strong words, an imaginary Messiah has been mentioned.
Even this is out of dire necessity because this fool has heaped a
great deal of abuse upon the Holy Prophet Muhammad, and has hurt our
feelings. (Nur al-Quran, Part II, p. 3)
- If God were to grant you good manners, we would explain things
to you with kindness and mercy, as one does to children, and satisfy
you on all scores with love and courtesy. But you are falling upon
us like wild beasts, and are using harsh words, not out of anger or
emotion, but to cause hurt. If you are prepared to employ good morals
and to abandon this brute-like behaviour, we too are ready to show
love, courtesy and respect. (Maktubat Ahmadiyya, Vol.
iii, p. 33)
- There remains the matter of using strong words occasionally
in reply to Christians. It is very simple: when our sentiments are
very badly hurt by the undeserved attacks of all kinds upon the Holy
Prophet Muhammad, then as a warning only, retaliatory replies are
given based on their acknowledged scriptures. These people should
see if they can show any point we have made about Jesus by way of
retaliation which is not from the Gospels. We certainly cannot remain
silent on hearing insults heaped upon the Holy Prophet Muhammad. This
type of reply is to be found in the Holy Quran itself, as for instance,
Are the males for you, and for Him the females [53:21],
and Now ask them whether thy Lord has daughters and they have
sons [37:149]. Those people used to call the angels daughters
of God. God says, Do you have sons and I have daughters? In short,
giving retaliatory replies is a technique of debate. Otherwise, we
believe Jesus to be a messenger of God and a chosen, venerable human
being. (Ruhani Khazain, No. 2, vol. ix, pp. 479
480)
- Sometimes retaliatory replies have to be given, as the occasion
may demand. When feelings are badly hurt, then in order to warn Christians
that if this is what constitutes criticism, we too can give like replies,
these points are presented out of their own scriptures. This type
of reply is also to be found frequently in the Holy Quran. Our replies
are only intended to warn the Christian preachers, otherwise we believe
Jesus to be a messenger and chosen one of God. (ibid., pp. 470
471)
- I am accused of having insulted Jesus, peace be upon him,
and Imam Husain, whereas I believe them to be righteous and holy.
It is objected that I speak disrespectfully of Jesus and abuse him,
whereas I believe him to be a great prophet and righteous servant
of God. (ibid., p. 442)
- If it had been true that Jesus was indeed the son of God,
or God, I would have been the first to worship him. I would have preached
his divinity throughout the land, and even though I had to bear persecution
or face death and be cut to pieces in his cause, I would not have
refrained from calling people to him. But, O dear ones, may God have
mercy on you and open your eyes, Jesus is not God, but only a prophet,
not a whit more. And, by God, I have such true love for him as you
do not have. I see him with the light with which you cannot. There
is no doubt that he was a beloved, chosen prophet of God, and of those
who receive His special grace, and who are purified by Him. But he
was neither God nor the son of God. (Majmua Ishtiharat,
vol. iii, p. 574)
- I inform you that actually, in the case of Jesus, the Christians
and the Jews went to two opposite extremes. The Christians exaggerated
his position so much that a helpless human being, who was born of
a woman like ordinary mortals, was considered to be God. Then they
brought him down so low as to make him accursed and enter hell [for
three days]. The Jews denigrated him so much as to dub him
God forbid as illegitimate, which some English authors have
accepted, and put the entire blame on Mary. But the Holy Quran came
to correct both these peoples. It told the Christians that Jesus was
a prophet of God, not God, and he was not accursed but exalted spiritually.
It told the Jews that he was not illegitimate, but rather that Mary
was a righteous woman who became pregnant through guarding her
chastity. This going to opposite extremes has also happened
in this age and God has sent me to restore his honour. Muslims, through
ignorance, make the mistake of giving him higher than human attributes,
and are unaware of the fact of his death. Christians regard him as
crucified, and therefore accursed. The time has now arrived to remove
all these allegations regarding Jesus, which were removed once before
by the Holy Prophet Muhammad. I hope you will give full consideration
to these points. (Ruhani Khazain, No. 2, vol. iii,
pp. 110 111)
The references given above show the great honour in which Hazrat Mirza
held Jesus, believing him to be a prophet and messenger of God. As to
the writings to which objections are raised, they were retaliatory replies
to Christian vituperation against the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Hazrat Mirza
made it plain that, for the purpose of these rejoinders, the Jesus mentioned
in the Holy Quran and the Jesus of the Christian conception were different.
Not to distinguish between the actual and the imaginary Messiah, when
Hazrat Mirza has clearly differentiated between the two, is contrary to
honesty and fairness.
It is this fact, due to not understanding which, it is alleged in
order to incense the masses that Hazrat Mirza insulted Jesus and used
offensive words about him. This technique of giving retaliatory replies
was not invented by Hazrat Mirza, but, in fact, before him as well as
after him many Muslim theologians and writers of the Ahl as-Sunna
and Ahl al-Hadith adopted the same method against Christian abusive
literature.
15.3: Muslim Ulama criticise Jesus
of the Gospels
1. Maulavi Rahmat-ullah Mahajar Makki:
- Since Christian preachers are using rude words about the Holy
Prophet Muhammad, the Holy Quran and the Hadith, in speech as well
as writing, and are not afraid of the consequences in the Hereafter,
and give deceitful arguments, we have been compelled to give them
retaliatory replies in the same coin and to quote stories from their
scriptures by way of example. But it is not a part of my beliefs to
criticise and scold any prophet, nor is it my aim to ridicule their
religious injunctions. I reject such ideas a thousand times. It is
a part of our faith to believe in the true messengers of God.
(Izalat-ul-Auham, Preface, p. 5)
- It appears from these passages [of the Gospels] that Jesus
opponents believed him to be voracious and to like drinking. A woman
used to kiss his feet, rub fragrance on them ... and whenever he used
to come, she would carry on kissing his feet and not stop. Seeing
this the Pharisees and others became disgusted with him. Because of
these actions of hers, he forgave this loose woman her sins. Many
women were friendly with him. Hence a critic could say that, as he
was a handsome young man, women used to keep company with him out
of love, and serve him with their possessions. His love for many of
them was a known fact, and owing to his drinking he used to serve
their needs. He had no need to marry, just as there are thousands
of recluses sitting by the rivers Ganges and Jumna who, adopting this
fashion, have no need to marry.
(ibid., p. 368)
2. Maulavi Aal Hasan:
- May God keep one away from abusing and belying the prophets,
but I write this only to answer the allegations of Christian preachers.
(Istiftar, p. 419)
- The Christian preachers believe that God entered Marys
womb as a foetus, and stayed in the menstrual discharge for many months.
He then developed into a lump of flesh, and his bones grew. After
this, he emerged from the outlet. He used to pass stools and water,
till having grown up he became a disciple of John the Baptist. At
last he spent three days in hell as an accursed one.
(ibid., p. 350)
- From the second and third verses of the eighth chapter of
the third Gospel, it appears that many harlots used to help him with
their possessions. So if the Jews, out of wickedness and malice, allege
that Jesus was a handsome young man with whom harlots kept company
for immoral purposes, and this was why he did not marry, but used
to pretend that he had no inclination towards women, what answer can
be given?.
(ibid., p. 391)
- Why can Marys son be God, but Kosliyas son, i.e.
Ramchandra, and Deokis son, i.e. Kahniya, not be God, whom the
Hindus believe to be God as you consider Jesus to be.
(Istiftar, footnote to Izalat-ul-Auham, p. 21)
3. Shah Abdul Aziz
He was a son of Shah Wali-ullah and a scholarly theologian in his own
right. His reply to a Christian is recorded as follows:
Once a Christian preacher came to the Shah and asked, Is your
prophet the beloved of God. He said, Yes. The Christian said, Why
did he not then entreat God to save Imam Husain, or was his plea not
heard! The Shah replied, The Prophet did indeed entreat God, but he
received the reply: Your grandson has been unjustly martyred by your
people, but at this moment I am remembering the crucifixion of My
own son Jesus.
(Raud Kausar, Urdu history of Islam in the Indian subcontinent,
by Shaikh Ikram, p. 590)
4. Maulavi Muhammad Qasim Nanotavi
He was the founder of the Deoband School. He wrote:
Christians who claim to love Jesus so much do not in reality
love him because their love is based on his being considered to be
the son of God. But this is only in their imagination, and they worship
a fictitious image of him and that is what they love. God has kept
Jesus away from being their mediator.
(Hadyat al-Shiah, p. 244)
5. Maulavi Sana-ullah of Amritsar
This opponent of the Ahmadiyya Movement edited the newspaper Ahl-i
Hadith which carried the following comments:
- Making a thing like wine which is the root of all evil, then
serving it at a wedding feast, and participating in that feast of
drinking people along with his mother, is recorded in the Gospel of
John, while the Old Testament books had strictly prohibited wine.
(Ahl-i Hadith, 3 March 1939)
- The Messiah by his own admission was not a good person. ...
The Gospel shows that he got strange women to rub fragrance on him
Matthew 26:6, Mark 14:3, John 12:6.
(ibid., p. 9)
- When the Messiah, by insulting his mother and treating her
contemptuously, went against the emphatic commandments of the previous
religious law as well as his own teachings, what doubt could possibly
remain in his not being sinless. ... The Gospels also show that he
used harsh and strong language in respect of the Jewish elders, see
Matthew 23.
(ibid., p. 9)
6. Sana-ullahs Tafsir Sanai
In his Urdu commentary of the Quran, Maulavi Sana-ullah wrote:
To liken the Torah and the Gospels to ... is on account of
their present condition, containing stories such as Lot getting drunk
and committing incest with his daughters Genesis ch. 9
and the Messiah showing the miracle of increasing the amount of wine
at a feast when it ran out John ch. 2. Otherwise, the actual
Torah and Gospel contained light, guidance and mercy.
(Tafsir Sanai, vol. ii, p. 17)
7. Maulana Sayyid Abul Ala Maudoodi:
The fact is that these people [the Christians] do not believe
in the historical Messiah who actually arose, but in their minds they
have created an imaginary Messiah whom they have made God.
(Tafhim al-Quran, Idara Tarjuman-ul-Quran, Lahore, 4th edition,
1984, vol. i, p. 491, under verse 5:75)
8. Maulavi Ahmad Din Gakharwi:
- Readers should note that we believe Jesus to be a true prophet,
and honour him like other messengers of God. We believe it to be clear
heresy to abuse him or any other prophet. Hence the example of the
Messiah which we shall set forth as a retaliatory reply to objections
[against Islam] must not be taken to be our belief. For, our accusatory
reply will be based on the Gospel as it is today.
(Taqdees Sayyid al-Abrar an Mutaan al-zina, p. 4)
- It is requested of the Christian preachers that they should,
in future, refrain from hurling abuse at the Founder of Islam, lest
their own religion be exposed. Ones honour lies in ones
own hands.
(ibid., p. 47)
9. Hafiz Qamar-ud-Din
He was the spiritual leader at Sayyal Sharif, Punjab. He wrote:
A boy from amongst them was called Perez, who was an ancestor
of David, Solomon and Jesus. This Tamar [mother of Perez, called harlot
in Genesis Ch. 38] was an ancestor of the Israelite prophets and Jesus.
(Book Isaee Mazhab, pp. 4 5, published by Dar al-Tabligh,
Sayyal Sharif)
10. Maulavi Abul Mahmud:
Three female ancestors of Jesus were adulteresses and immoral
women, and four male ancestors were also of bad character. ... What
can remain of the character and position of a man who comes after
so many adulterers and adulteresses.
(Islam Aur Isaeeat, p. 73)
11. Maulavi Abdul Haqq Haqqani
In his commentary of the Quran, he wrote:
Young women used to accompany Jesus and his disciples, making
the Jews suspicious.
(Tafsir Haqqani, vol. i, Preface, p. 69)
When people objected to the above words, Maulavi Abdul Haqq Haqqani added
the following footnote at this point:
A covert Christian who, under the false names of Muhammad
Salih and Muhammad Sadiq, makes false prophecies in order to ridicule
Islam, has made the allegation on the above words, in order to discredit
this writer, that I call Jesus an adulterer. Anyone who has even a
slight acquaintance with Urdu writing can immediately belie this secret
Christian and say that this is a false allegation.
(ibid., footnote, book published by Kutub Khana Naeemiyya
of Deoband)
12. Mr Aziz, B.A., editor, Madina:
The Messiah in whom one is invited to believe [in the Holy
Quran] does not bear even a distant relation to the Messiah portrayed
in the Gospels, about whom both Christians and Jews have made the
worst type of allegations.
(Madina, 21 December 1932)
13. Maulavi Muhammad Usman Farqleet
- In Al-Jamiat, the official organ of the Jamiat
al-Ulama Hind (Council of the Ulama of India), he wrote:
The aim of the above discussion is to show that the Christians
are trying to prove the superiority of the crucified Messiah over
the Holy Prophet Muhammad from the Quran. On the other hand, the
Quran has neither mentioned nor described any superiority of the
crucified Messiah, for the Christians have mistakenly thought the
crucified man to be the Messiah. However, the Quran does speak of
the Messiah who was not crucified. Hence every intelligent and fair-minded
person can see that, as there is no mention of the crucified Messiah
in the Quran, how can Christians prove his superiority from the
Holy Quran.
(Newspaper Al-Jamiat, 20 November 1932)
- In a debate with the Christian missionary Ahmad Masih, Maulavi
Muhammad Usman Farqleet told him:
There are three Messiahs: the Quranic Messiah, the Gospel
Messiah and the Dajjal Messiah [Anti-Christ]. Why do you
give arguments to show the excellences of the Quranic Messiah? Give
proofs to show the excellences of your Gospel Messiah. The Quranic
Messiah is one person, and the Gospel Messiah is someone else.
At this, Rev. Ahmad Masih replied:
When Mirza Ghulam Ahmad distinguishes between the Quranic
and the Gospel Messiah, he is declared by you people to be a kafir,
but when you say the same thing, you are declared a hero of Islam.
Why should you not be declared kafir for copying Mirza sahib?
(Paigham Sulh, 3 March 1933, p. 5)
Do the critics still have doubts regarding the method employed by Hazrat
Mirza? If they consider it right to accuse him of insulting Jesus, and
therefore to pronounce all sorts of verdicts against him, they had better
first exclude from Islam their own recognised leaders who, like Hazrat
Mirza, distinguished between the Quranic and the Gospel Messiah, and referred
to the latter as the crucified Messiah, and accepted all the
worst allegations imputed against him.
It may be noted that Hazrat Mirza was the man who wrote innumerable
articles on the sinlessness of the prophets and declared all prophets
to be free of sin (while many commentaries of the Quran had attributed
the commission of sins to many prophets, for example, David).
|