Lahore-Ahmadi / Qadian-Ahmadi Dialogue
Hypothetical Dialogue between a Lahore-Ahmadi Muslim and Qadian/Rabwah-Ahmadi Muslim
Last update: 5/28/2022
Lahore-Ahmadi: Assalamu alaikum! It's nice to meet you. I'm happy that we will be able to have a conversation today about the two Ahmadi communities in Islam. As you know, I identify with the Lahore-Ahmadi Muslim community, otherwise known as the Ahmadiyya Association for the Propagation of Islam (headquartered in Lahore, Pakistan). It's also known as more colloquially as the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement.
Qadian-Ahmadi: Yes, very pleased to meet you. And as you know, I identify with the Ahmadi Muslim community originally headquarted in Qadian, India. (and generally known as the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community).
Lahore-Ahmadi: Right, so for the sake of this discussion, and for the sake of the general audience let us identify the two groups in Ahmadiyyat as either Lahore-Ahmadi or Rabwah/Qadian-Ahmadi, based on the cities where the headquarters of these respective groups were originally established, though I understand that with respect to your group, the headquarters was later based in Rabwah, Pakistan but is currently established in the district of Morden in London, UK.
Qadian-Ahmadi: Correct. We are currently headquartered in the UK. But yes, for the sake of this discussion, that is acceptable. You may distinguish between the two groups as either Qadian-Ahmadi or Lahore-Ahmadi.
Lahore-Ahmadi: Great! So let's first focus on what we agree on. I think we can do that by answering the following question: What was the need for the Ahmadiyya Movement coming into this world?
Qadian-Ahmadi: That's a wonderful question.
Lahore-Ahmadi: Great, I'll let you begin.
Qadian-Ahmadi: I can say no better than what is mentioned on the alislam.org site:
Lahore-Ahmadi: This is quite true. I may add:
Qadian-Ahmadi: Indeed, this is quite true.
Lahore-Ahmadi: Can we agree then that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was the Mujaddid (spiritual reformer) of the 14th century of the Islamic era, and that particular one that was the Promised Messiah and Mahdi?
Qadian-Ahmadi: Yes, certainly. But, he was no ordinary Mujaddid.
Lahore-Ahmadi: Right. The Mujaddid of the Age, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, came at a most critical juncture in the history of Islam with a most momentous mission, one that called for the reformation of both Muslims and Christians. But a Mujaddid, nonetheless, belongs to the category of saints in Islam. Do you agree with this?
Qadian-Ahmadi: The first part is very true, however, since Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was also the Promised Messiah and the first Messiah (Jesus) was a Prophet, he too must have been a Prophet.
Lahore-Ahmadi: On the surface, that would appear to be the logical conclusion, but then how do you reconcile this belief with the Holy Prophet Muhammad being the Khattam-un-Nabiya (33:40) or the Seal and Last of the Prophets?
Qadian-Ahmadi: It's quite simple. In the Mosaic dispensation, the Prophet Moses was the Last Law-bearing Prophet. All that prophets that came after him in this chain, were thus non-law-bearing. So just as Moses was the Last Law-bearing Prophet, so too was the Holy Prophet Muhammad. And just as Jesus was a non-law-bearing Prophet, so too was the Promised Messiah.
Lahore-Ahmadi: So, Khattam-un-Nabiya means Last Law-bearing Prophet? And aren't you then admitting that your belief is that at least chronologically speaking, that as of right now, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was the last Prophet, law-bearing or not?
Qadian-Ahmadi: Yes, Khattam-un-Nabiya means the last law-bearing prophet. How else could the Prophet Muhammad have said "I am the last prophet and and my mosque is the last mosque" (Hadith Report in Nasai). Obviously, his mosque wasn't the last mosque, so he wasn't the last prophet.
Yes, chronologically speaking, however, I'm not saying Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was more exalted than the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Law-bearing Prophets are naturally considered to be more exalted than non-law-bearing Prophets. The Holy Prophet Muhammad was the last law-bearing Prophet and in fact the most exalted of all the Prophets that came before him as he was recipient of the Holy Quran, a Book for all humanity. So there is a huge difference between non-law-bearing Prophets and law-bearing one's.
Lahore-Ahmadi: OK, in the hadith you mentioned, what do you think "last mosque" signifies then?
Qadian-Ahmadi: It means that his mosque was the most exalted mosque.
Lahore-Ahmadi: More exalted than the Sacred Mosque (Kabah) in Mecca?
Qadian-Ahmadi: Well, no...
Lahore-Ahmadi: Please consider another hadith which clarifies the matter altogether: "I am the last of the prophets and my mosque is the last of the prophets" (Report in Kanz ul-Ummal).
Lahore-Ahmadi: Tell me, what exactly is the difference between a Law-bearing Prophet and a non-law-bearing Prophet? Are they both real Prophets?
Qadian-Ahmadi: Yes, they are real Prophets, law-bearing or not.
You see, a Law-bearing Prophet brings a new Law. Moses was given the Torah, so he was "Law-bearing."
All Prophets that came after Moses in his chain were Non-Law-bearing because they did not bring a new Law or Book. They all followed the Torah, and were thus "follower-Prophets." They did not abrogate the Law.
Lahore-Ahmadi: Of the 25-30 Prophets mentioned in the Quran, aside from Moses, whom else would we consider "Law-bearing"?
Qadian-Ahmadi: Abraham and Noah.
Lahore-Ahmadi: So in the line of Moses, those that came after him -- to inlcude Aaron, David, Solomon, Jonah, Job, Jonah, Elias, Eliasha, John the Baptist and Jesus -- were all 'non-law-bearing' prophets.
Qadian-Ahmadi: Yes. You may refer to the below from our official website:
Lahore Ahmadi: From what I've understood from you a non-law-bearing Prophet has the following characteristics:
(1) They don't come with a new Law.
(2) They don't have a Book.
(3) They are followers of a previous Prophet.
Qadian Ahmadi: Yes, so Hazrat Mirza sahib was a follower-prophet (ummati-nabi) of the Holy Prophet Muhammmad, whom was the most exalted and greatest of all the Prophets.
Lahore-Ahmadi: And so, I see then you believe non-law-bearing Prophets will continue to come?
Qadian-Ahmadi: Yes, of course, but always subordinate to the Holy Prophet Muhammad; "minor prophtets," so to speak.
Lahore-Ahmadi: Then, if that is true, what is the need for the Khilafat system as advanced and promoted by your Jamaat (community)?
Qadian-Ahmadi: Every Prophet has a Khilafat.
Lahore-Ahmadi: Even 'non-law-bearing' Prophets?
Qadian-Ahmadi: Yes. <Quote hadith> You see Khilafat was promised to resume after a long lapse.
Lahore-Ahmadi: So since the death of Hazrat Ali, 1400 years ago, there was no true Khalifa until Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din assumed headship of the Ahmadiyya community?
Lahore Ahmadi: So, if a new non-law-bearing prophet arises, that will end the khilafat system, and a new one will begin under the next new non-law-bearing prophet?
Qadian-Ahmadi: Well... yes.
Lahore-Ahmadi: Thank you taking the time to answer all these questions. Now I'd like you take a few things into consideration based on the writings of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Before I do so, can you let me know if you accept all his writings? Or do you consider some of his previous writings has abrogated with respect to his claims?
Qadian-Ahmadi: Yes, of course I accept all his writings, and yes you may continue.
Lahore-Ahmadi: You said Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad must be a Prophet because the first Messiah was a Prophet.
However, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad rejected this belief. He in fact explained:
How do you explain this statement of his after making his claim of being the Promised Messiah?
You may find this book (in Urdu) on your official Jamaat website: https://www.alislam.org/v/9183.html
Qadian-Ahmadi: He must be referring to Law-bearing Prophethood.
Lahore-Ahmadi: But in the first sentence he is speaking of Prophethood in the same sense as is being applied to Jesus (whom you regard as non-law-bearing).
Qadian-Ahmadi: But you are ignoring the fact that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad referred to himself as a 'prophet without a law.'
Lahore-Ahmadi: In the context of Islamic terminology or the religion of Islam, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has affirmed that prophets are, "those who bring an entirely new shariah, or those who abrogate some aspects of the previous shariah, or those who are not called followers of a previous prophet, having a direct connection with God without the benefit from a prophet." (Al-Hakam, 17 August 1899, page 6).
Qadian-Ahmadi: Then how do we reconcile this with him calling himself a 'prophet without a law (shariah)' or an ummati-nabi (follower-prophet). How could he have called himself that if he were not truly a prophet of Allah?
Lahore-Ahmadi: I will explain. The term “non shariah-bearing prophet” was, like the terms zill, burooz and fana fir-rasul, coined by Sufi writers and saints as referring to one who is not a real prophet but is spoken to by God. It is not a type of prophet. Nowhere do the Holy Quran or Hadith mention a kind of prophethood called “non shariah-bearing”. What the Quran and Hadith refer to as a wali or muhaddas, such a one is sometimes known in the Sufi terminology as a “non shariah-bearing prophet” (ghair tashri‘i nabi).
Qadian-Ahmadi: This is interesting, but you are admitting he was spoken to by God. How can you believe someone who is spoken to God is not a prophet?!
Lahore-Ahmadi: My friend, the Holy Quran has many examples of those who were spoken to by God but were not prophets.
Consider the following verses: ...
Lahore-Ahmadi: Earlier you said the meaning of khatam-un-nabiyyin does not mean the last prophet, but the last law-bearing prophet.
Qadian-Ahmadi: Yes, as I said the term khatam-un-nabiyyin does not make the Holy Prophet the last prophet. He is the seal of the prophets, yes, but not the last prophet. Fine, if not the last law-bearing prophet, I can still argue that as the Prophet Muhammad is the most exalted of the prophets, minor prophets may still arise after him.
Lahore-Ahmadi: Can you show show me anywhere in the writings of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad where he says 'seal of the prophets' (khatam-un-nabiyyin) means the the most exalted of prophets?
Qadian-Ahmadi: No, but can you show me where he says khatam-un-nabiyyin absolutely means the last of the prophets?
Lahore-Ahmadi: Yes, certainly.
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote: "The Holy Prophet had repeatedly said that no prophet would come after him, and the hadith `There is no prophet after me' was so well-known that no one had any doubt about its authenticity. And the Holy Quran, every word of which is binding, in its verse `he is the Messenger of Allah and the Khatam an-nabiyyin', confirmed that prophethood has in fact ended with our Holy Prophet." (Kitab al-Barriyya, p. 184)
"I firmly believe that our Holy Prophet Muhammad is the Khatam al-anbiya, and after him no prophet shall come for this Muslim people, neither new nor old." (Nishan Asmani, p. 28)
Qadian-Ahmadi: I see...
Lahore-Ahmadi: Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has also written:
Qadiani-Ahmadi: No, no... wait.
How is it then that the Quran says Muslims can achieve the rank of prophets (see Quran 4:69/70)?
Those whom "obey Allah and the Messenger" are said to be in the company of those with those whom God bestowed His blessings to include the prophets! So can't you see, prophethood is attainable even now.
Lahore-Ahmadi: Listen, even in Surah Fatihah we pray that Allah guide along that straight path on whom Allah bestowed His favors, which includes the the path followed by prophets and saints of God as they served as the best role models for humanity. But obviously mere companionship with a prophet doesn't put a person in the same category. If that were true, then how is that none of the great companions of the Prophet Muhammad were prophets! Also, if mere companionship can include someone in the same category, then you would have to argue that a person can become God by virtue of God's companionship for Allah says in the Holy Quran, "Surely Allah is with those who keep their duty and those who do good (to others)." (16:128).
Will anyone ever argue that the believers whom have the company of God can now become God themselves by virtue of God's companionship?
Note: See Lahore Ahmadiyya blog discussion about this topic at this link.
Qadiani-Ahmadi: Okay, I acknowledge your point. How about the following verse from the Holy Quran?
Doesn't this verse state messengers/prophets will still arise among humanity for all times?
Lahore-Ahmadi: As you know it is clearly stated in the Holy Quran that the Holy Prophet is the seal and last of the Prophets. When such a clear verse is given on the finality of prophethood, we cannot interpret 7:35 to mean future prophets may arise, whether you call them law-bearing or not.
Qadian-Ahmadi: Then how do you interpret this verse?
Lahore-Ahmadi: 7:35 lays down a general rule of God sending prophets to humanity, just like when Allah says, to Adam, "Surely there will come to you a guidance from Me, then whoever follows My guidance, no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve. (Quran 2:38).
By that same logic used to justify the coming of another prophet, you would have to argue that Allah is saying by means of 2:38 that there is a very real possibility of a new guidance (another revealed Book) arising after the Holy Quran!
Note: See Lahore Ahmadiyya blog discussion about this topic at this link.
Qadiani-Ahmadi: Okay, point taken. I'm not quite convinced. I have another verse for you to consider:
"And when the messengers are made to reach their appointed time." (Quran 77:11)
This verse is talking about the future! How do you explain this?
Lahore-Ahmadi: I can say no better than what Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad said about this verse.
He writes in his book Shahadat-ul-Quran [Testimony of the Holy Quran] that “messengers” here refers to a Mujaddid, and writes that the word rusul can be applied to one who is not a messenger!
The traslator, Dr. Zahid Aziz explains under Translator's Note 6: Rusul is the plural of rasul, the meaning of the latter being messenger. In one place, it is said in the Quran: "O ye messengers (rusul), eat of the good things and do good deeds" (23:51). Here the plural form is said by some, as indicated by the context, to refer to the one prophet Jesus. And in the renowned, classical dictionary of the Quran, the Mufradat of Raghib, it is recorded that ‘messengers’ here means the Holy Prophet Muhammad and his chief Companions. Thus, as Hazrat Mirza says here, the plural word rusul has been used in the Quran to indicate the singular as well as to refer to those who are not prophets. So the application of this word to the Promised Messiah is not in terms of its meaning as prophet, but in terms of its recognised, broad usage as referring to a non-prophet.
So clearly, in Shahadat-ul-Quran he says that “messengers” mentioned in 77:11 refers to a Mujaddid, and further writes that the word rusul can be applied to one who is not a messenger! Elsewhere in another book, Tuhfah Golarwiya, he says it refers to Khalifas of the Holy Prophet.
Qadiani-Ahmadi: Okay, I acknowledge your point. So, tell me, how could the hadith speak of the future Isa as a prophet? In the hadith regarding the 'descent' of Isa, he is repeatedly referred to as a prophet. See https://sunnah.com/muslim:2937a
Lahore-Ahmadi: Yes, this is true, however, why don't you also take the part speaking of his 'descent' literally? So, why should we interpret the mention of him being a prophet literally? Other hadith speak about Jesus descending to break the cross and kill the swine. You obviously don't take that literally.
See this link for blog discussion about Hadith in Bukhari and Muslim on Descent of Jesus
Qadian-Ahmadi: What are you saying? Are you implying that 'prophet' in this hadith for Jesus is to be taken in a non-literal sense? That can't be right.
Lahore-Ahmadi: This line of argument is like those Muslims whom say the hadith is clearly speaking about the same-self Jesus of 2000 years ago! We both know that is not correct. So it's hardly an exaggeration to interpret 'prophet' for Jesus in a metaphorical sense.
You must not be aware that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself interpreted the mention of 'prophet' for Jesus in Sahih Muslim metaphorically. Would you like me to provide you with one such reference?
Qadian-Ahmadi: Well. yes...
"The name ‘prophet of God’ for the Promised Messiah, which is to be found in Sahih Muslim etc. from the blessed tongue of the Holy Prophet, is meant in the same metaphorical sense as that in which it occurs in Sufi literature as an accepted and common term for the recipient of Divine communication. Otherwise, how can there be a prophet after the Khatam al-anbiya?” - Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Anjam Atham, footnote, pages 27-28
Qadian-Ahmadi: After some research, I understand that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be a prophet in 1901 with the writing of his book, Ek Ghalati Ka Izala, so you can't quote him before the year 1901 to prove he didn't claim to be a prophet!
Lahore-Ahmadi: I asked you earlier if you accept all the writings of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and if you consider some of his previous writings has abrogated with respect to his claims. You said you accept all his writings, but now you are telling me differently. Why?
Qadian-Ahmadi: Yes, yes, I was mistaken! After conducting some research on the alislam.org site, I see that he first put forth the claim to prophethood in the year 1901 with the publication of Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala. Now it makes perfect sense.
Lahore-Ahmadi: So you're aware of the following quote from your second khalifa:
“...the issue of prophethood became clear to him in 1900 or 1901, and as Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala was published in 1901, in which he has proclaimed his prophethood most forcefully, this shows that he made a change in his belief in 1901…” -- Haqiqat-un-Nubuwwat, March 1915, p. 121 of the original edition. http://www.alislam.org in the collection Anwar-ul-‘ulum, vol. 2, book no. 10. See pages 444–445 for this extract.)
Now, let me ask you this. If I can't quote Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad before the year 1901, then why does he refer to his previous books in that same book we are now discussing?
Qadian-Ahmadi: Where does he say that? And even so, what is wrong with that? Don't you see, the title itself ("Correction of an Error") indicates he is correcting his error of not realizing that was in fact a prophet of Allah?!
Lahore-Ahmadi: If he were claiming to be a prophet for the first time in the 1901, then why would he refer to his previous books where he most vehemently denies laying claim to prophethood?
On your official website, the first sentence of this book is translated as follows:
"Some members of my Jama‘at, who are less familiar with my claim and its supporting arguments, and who have neither had the chance to study my books in depth, nor have they spent enough time in my company to be fully informed, sometimes counter an objection raised by an opponent with an answer which is entirely contrary to the facts." https://www.alislam.org/library/books/A-Misconception-Removed.pdf
Now, I ask you, why would he refer to his previous books if he is as you believe claiming to be a prophet for the first time?
Qadian-Ahmadi: Well, I don't know. Please give me some time to digest this. But enlighten me, what do you believe is the misconception or 'error' that he is trying to remove then, if not his 'error' of realizing he was a prophet?
Lahore-Ahmadi: Yes, certainly, take all the time you need. Please refer to this translation of Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala with notes: https://ahmadiyya.org/bookspdf/ghalati-izala.pdf
As stated in Note 2: The follower was wrong to answer this objection by only a denial, without further explanation, and further he was wrong to deny that such words (nabi, rasul) even occurred in the revelation to Hazrat Mirza. The right answer was to deny that Hazrat Mirza claimed to be a prophet, and explain that the words nabi and rasul do occur in his revelations, but are meant in a metaphorical and not in a real sense. This was exactly how Hazrat Mirza himself answered such questions in his previous books.
Also take the following into consideration:
Two months prior to the publication of Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala Hazrat Mirza issued an announcement as follows:
The books they have been asked to read in preparation for this examination could only be those published before November 1901. In a further announcement in October, the names of certain of his books were specified for study for the examination. In a column headed “General Announcement”, in Al-Hakam, it is stated:
This proves beyond all doubt that even in October 1901, less than one month before the publication of Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala, Hazrat Mirza regarded his earlier books, going back to 1891, as valid sources for learning about his claims.
Qadian-Ahmadi: This is very interesting and troubling to me all the same. Let us continue our chat at a later date.
Lahore-Ahmadi: That is perfectly fine. While you are thinking this over, also do think about the implications of holding this belief that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad really proclaimed prophethood for the first time in the year 1901. It would mean that 10 or 11 years prior to the publication of Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala (from the years 1891 to 1901), the Ulama were right to accuse him of laying claim to prophethood since they understood his claim while he himself did not, God forbid!
Also, keep in mind, during this period, Hazrat Mirza in fact wrote that he considered any claimant of prophethood a “wretched imposter” and “liar.”
This time you cannot tell me he was only denying "law-bearing" prophethood. You must admit now according to your own belief that all those references prior to 1901 of him stating that the Holy Prophet was the last prophet was meant in the absolute sense.
If the Qadian Jamaat is to believe then he was correcting his *own* error, then by his own words, it would mean he was a "wretched imposter," "liar, "kafir" and one whom "curses" his own self (God forbid!).
This is what the Christians have done to their own Messiah, Jesus (his 'majority' followers ironically), since they by holding the belief that Jesus died on the cross, then per Mosaic Law (see Deut. 21:22-23 and Galatians 3:13), he stands "accursed" of God (God forbid!).
Lahore-Ahmadi: Consider the following as well:
From Zahid Aziz:
Views of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad on the finality of prophethood may be seen at http://www.ahmadiyya.org/noclaim/affirms.htm.
He is the only Muslim scholar in history to have used the following terms about the finality of prophethood (see above link):
“Do you not know that the Merciful Lord has declared our Holy Prophet to be the Khatam-ul-anbiya unconditionally, and our Holy Prophet has explained this in his words: ‘There is no prophet after me’,”
“By saying ‘There is no prophet after me’, the Holy Prophet Muhammad closed the door absolutely to any new prophet or the return of any old prophet”
“This verse also clearly argues that, after our Holy Prophet, no messenger shall come into the world.”
“And the Holy Quran, every word of which is binding, in its verse ‘he is the Messenger of Allah and the Khatam-un-nabiyyin’, confirmed that prophethood has in fact ended with our Holy Prophet.”
“I firmly believe that our Holy Prophet Muhammad is the Khatam-ul-anbiya, and after him no prophet shall come for this Muslim people, neither new nor old”
“bottom of the heart”:
“It should be believed from the bottom of the heart that prophethood has terminated with the Holy Prophet Muhammad, as God Almighty says: He is the Messenger of Allah and the Khatam-un-nabiyyin. To deny this verse, or to belittle it, is in fact to separate oneself from Islam.”
“audacity, boldness and insolence” to deny finality:
“What audacity, boldness and insolence it is to depart from the clear meaning of the Quran, in pursuit of one’s feeble conjectures, and believe in the coming of a prophet after the Khatam-ul-anbiya!.”
“fabric of Islam destroyed” by denying finality:
“how could it be possible that any prophet should come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad, according to the real meaning of prophethood? This would have destroyed the entire fabric of Islam”.
It was none other than a close disciple of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, namely Maulana Muhammad Ali, who wrote the greatest and most comprehensive books ever to prove the finality of prophethood.
PART IV - 3 Month Later
Qadian-Ahmadi: I have been thinking about our previous discussions. I still do not understand how Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad could have used the term prophet for himself if he were not in fact a real prophet. For example, in his book Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala, does he not say:
I do remember you saying that a 'prophet without a law' and a 'follower-prophet' is not a real prophet but from this passage it appears that he is still making a claim to prophethood.
Lahore-Ahmadi: I will explain but before I do so I would like to make sure we have the same understanding of certain concepts, to include:
(3) what it means for a term to be applied in a metaphorical sense.
Qadian-Ahmadi: Examples would help. Can you provide some examples of what you mean?
Lahore-Ahmadi: Certainly. Take for example, the words "force, power and energy," in the fields of physics, which have been precisely defined in the scientific field of physics. So if I am to use those words in science in this sense that we now have in mind, then I must use these terms exactly as defined in that field (e.g., power = work/time, force = mass of object x acceleration). Would you agree?
Qadian-Ahmadi: Yes of course! This makes sense.
Lahore-Ahmadi: Now, in everyday language (the linguistic sense) the same words, "power, force, and energy," are not at all the terms defined in physics.
Qadian-Ahmadi: Hmm yes, that is true.
Lahore-Ahmadi: Or another example the term salaat. In the religion of Islam, how do we define salaat? This term in of itself precisely refers to the regular prayer conducted five times a day when one assumes certain standing, bowing and sitting postures while saying prescribed prayers. But in the linguistic sense, salaat just means prayer. In the religion of Islam it has taken on a whole different meaning. The same can be said for the terms hajj and zakat. Or take for example, the Arabic word saum, which in everyday language means to keep away from something, i.e., fast, but in the religion of Islam it has a a very precise definition in terms of what fasting entails.
Lahore-Ahmadi: As for the third point, I'm sure we are all familiar with metaphors, so if I am to remark, "he is a lion," what is clearly meant is that this person, "he" shares some attributes of a lion in terms of its qualities of courage and fierceness. No one would take that literally.
Qadian-Ahmadi: Yes, yes but what is the point of telling me all this?
Lahore-Ahmadi: You presented a quote to me from Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala. Did you notice, that he says, "I have never denied being called a prophet in this sense." So this begs the question, what sense is he speaking about.
You will see the Promised Messiah used the term ‘prophet’ in three distinct senses: (1) the full Islamic theological sense to mean a real prophet like Moses, Jesus, etc. (2) the linguistic everyday sense and (3) the metaphorical/figurative sense. However, you will see he only ever applied the term ‘prophet’ to himself in the the latter two senses as applicable to one whom was a muhaddath or saint; but never in the full theological sense.
Ask yourself, in which sense is he using the term nabi and rasul for himself in the quote you presented?
Just consider the following statement from the same book:
Clearly, he says he is speaking about prophethood in the sense of burooz. Which prophethood do you think his opponents have in mind when they accuse him of laying claim to prophethood?! No doubt, they are accusing him of laying claim to real prophethood as precisely defined by Islamic (i.e., the theological sense). But he is saying, no he only claims it in the sense of burooz.
Qadian-Ahmadi: Can you please explain what burooz is. Why isn't a prophet in the sense of burooz a real prophet?
Lahore-Ahmadi: Because burooz is Sufi term that could only ever be applied to one's person in a metaphorical way! Let me no go no further than providing you an explanation by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad:
Baruz refers to a person in whom the prophethood of another person is manifested in a symbolic way. “The whole Muslim nation is agreed that a non-prophet takes the place of a prophet as a baruz. This is the meaning of the hadith: Ulama ummati ka-anbiya Bani Israil (‘The godly learned ones of my community are like the prophets of Israel’).” - Ayyam as-Sulh, p. 163 (RK, vol. 14, p. 411)
Qadian-Ahmadi: Fascinating. Brother, I can't argue with what you're saying but my mind is still not settled. Why even apply these words to himself in the first place if it only creates confusion?
Lahore-Ahmadi: Brother, you yourself believes the Promised Messiah fulfills the 'second coming' of Jesus in a symbolic way! You very well know, Jesus, the first Messiah, used symbolic language and for good reason. Surely, you can accept the Promised Messiah had a purpose behind his use of symbolic language.
Please consider this slide of Sufi metaphorical expressions used for saints whom resembled prophets.
Qadian-Ahmadi: This is fascinating. Enlighten me. So how exactly does a saint resemble a prophet?
Lahore-Ahmadi: Consider again the following statement by Hazrat Mirza sahib which I presented to your earlier:
Both a saint and prophet are recipient of divine communication. That is their commonality. But one still belongs to the category of saints and other still belongs to the category of prophets.
A muhaddas or saint, according to the Hazrat Mirza Sahib has qualities of both “follower” (ummati) and “prophet,” (nabi); In other words, a Muslim that follows the Holy Prophet so perfectly and closely, becoming annihilated, so to speak, in his person, may receive the gift of divine communication, divine communication and prophecy being a characteristic or quality of prophethood.
Qadian-Ahmadi: So the Promised Messiah was a saint, but not a prophet. Can you provide any references in Sufi literature where saints were regarded as prophets metaphorically?
Lahore-Ahmadi: In Rumi's famous life work Masnawi of the 13th century, he wrote:
Explaining this statement, a Muslim scholar and opponent of the Ahmadiyya Movement wrote: "The Maulana [Rumi] refers to every spiritual guide who follows the Sunna as metaphorically a prophet.” (Allama Khalid Mahmud).
I may add that Rumi no doubt known to be one of the greatest saints in the history of Islam.
Qadian-Ahmadi: This is very interesting. So, why do you think there is so much emphasis on Sufi literature when the Sufism of today is not what it was in the past?
Lahore-Ahmad: Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote: “This humble servant is the reformer [mujaddid] of both the Shari‘ah and the Tariqat [Islamic Sufi-ism]” ( Letter in the newspaper Al-Hakm, 24 June 1900).
Qadian-Ahmadi: Interesting. Can you elaborate?
Lahore-Ahmad: This meant that just as Hazrat Mirza Sahib came to clear up certain common misconceptions regarding Islamic terminology, beliefs and practices, even amongst Muslims themselves, similarly, he too came to clear up misconceptions regarding Sufi writings, expressions, terminology and wrongful practices that became synonymous with Sufism.
Qadian-Ahmad: Can you provide some examples?
Certainly. As you very well know, there were and are still are grave misconceptions regarding:
the meaning of jihad
who is Muslim according to the Shariah
the way Islam spread in this world (in that there are those whom believe it was spread by force)
the 'second coming' of Jesus.
Then, there is the false notion that Islam warrants death sentences for those who leave Islam or commit blasphemy.
In terms of Sufism, Hazrat Mirza helped paved the way for better appreciating and understanding the life and works of the great Sufi saints that came before him, such as with regard to their figurative and metaphorical use of referring to saints as prophets and writings about spiritual rank they achieved with God. So it should come to no surprise then that Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, recipient of saintly revelation, used Sufi terminology in describing his status and claims, but more clearly than anyone had had done previously.
Qadian-Ahmadi: I had never considered this before, but did he actually say he was recipient of saintly revelation as opposed to prophetic revelation?
Lahore-Ahmadi: Of course. He claimed to be recipient of saintly revelation, a lower form of revelation common to the saints of God which come in the form of visions, true dreams and inspiration but not a claimant to prophetic revelation exclusive to the prophets whom receive divine law and instruction.
As he said:
“It is not the ‘revelation of prophets’ (wahy nubuwwat), but the ‘revelation of saints’ (wahy wilayat) which is received by the saints under the shadow of the prophethood of Muhammad by perfect obedience to him, peace be upon him.” (Majmu‘a Ishtiharat, vol. ii, no. 151, p. 297).
Elsewhere, he wrote:
“There is no claim of prophethood. On the contrary, the claim is of sainthood (muhaddasiyyat) which has been advanced by the command of God.” (Izala Auham, 1891, pp. 421–422; RK 3: 320).
Qadian-Ahmadi: Brother, let me digest this and think about all you have put before me. Let's chat soon.
Lahore-Ahmadi: Yes of course. In the mean time I suggest you read through this this recently published article: An Assessment of the Claim of Prophethood Attributed to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement: https://www.muslim.org/light/2021/Light2020-1.pdf
PART V - 6 months later
Qadian-Ahmadi: I have many questions to ask you brother. I don't doubt what you say is true, since you took the time to provide me such clear evidence and arguments from the writings of the Promised Messiah, but my question now is, is this the reason there was a split in the community in that one group regarded the Promised Messiah as a saint and the other as a prophet? I was always under the impression that it had to with the acceptance of khilafat or lack thereof.
Lahore-Ahmadi: It had nothing to do with khilafat but yes, everything to do with one group wrongly perpetuating the wrong belief that Hazrat Mirza Sahib claimed prophethood in the real sense, while the other upheld the status of his true claims and status as a muhaddas (saint) and Mujaddid. And borne out of the belief that he claimed real prophethood was the belief that all those whom denied Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad were outside the pale of Islam, i.e., full-fledged disbelievers (kafirs).
Qadian-Ahmadi: I don't know any Ahmadi (of the Qadian community) that says non-Ahmadis are not Muslims.
Lahore-Ahmadi: Brother, it is the natural implication of holding the belief that Hazrat Mirza sahib claimed real prophethood, whether one admits to it or not. Besides, it was the belief of the second khalifa of the Qadian Jamaat. He openly spread the belief that all non-Ahmadis were not Muslims because to reject even one prophet would take a person outside the religion of Islam. So, the split was the result of these dangerous ideas that had gripped the community.
Qadian-Ahmadi: But I remember reading somewhere (in a court case) that he did not really regard non-Ahmadis as non-Muslims.
Lahore-Ahmadi: I know what you are referring to. To be fair, I will present you the reference:
“When I use the word ‘disbeliever’, what I have in mind is the other kind of disbeliever, about whom I have already provided an explanation, in that I do not exclude them from the Muslim community. When I say that they are outside the pale of Islam, the view in my mind is what is expressed on page 240 of Mufradat Imam Al-Raghib, where two categories of ‘Islam’ have been expounded: Firstly, substandard faith [dun-al-iman] and superior faith [fawq-al-iman]. A ‘substandard faith’ does include those Muslims who possess a lower level of faith, and a ‘superior faith’ refers to those Muslims who are so distinguished in their level of faith that they are far above a lower level of faith. Therefore, when I said that certain people are outside the pale of Islam, I had in mind those Muslims who fall under the category of superior faith. There is also a narration in Mishkat in which the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, states, ‘A person who helps an oppressor and supports him is outside the pale of Islam.’” (Mubahathah-e Rawalpindi, pp. 238-239 [Court transcript following 1953 Punjab disturbances])
Qadian-Ahmadi: Yes! That's the reference I was thinking of. What do you make of it?
Lahore-Ahmadi: Brother, he made that statement after the 1953 Punjab disturbances. The split occurred in 1914. For almost 40 years prior to this statement, he continued to perpetuate the belief that non-Ahmadis were full-fledged kafirs. What happened is in these very public circumstances, Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad had no choice but to fall back on 'Lahori' beliefs on the issue of kufr in Islam.
Consider this, why did Maulana Muhammad Ali and senior members of the Movement ever accuse him introducing certain innovations, including that on the very issue of takfir some 40 years earlier in the first place, accusations to which he plainly said: “That these beliefs have my full concurrence, I readily admit."?
Qadian-Ahmadi: Do you have references of those accusations?
Lahore-Ahmadi: I most certainly do. Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad makes reference to these accusations he is being charged with in his book Truth about the Split (which was originally written under the Urdu title A’inah-i Sadaqat and published in the year 1921). Right away, you can see that he writing that book as a response and rebuttal to The Split, penned and published by Maulana Muhammad Ali in the English language in the year 1918.
Qadian-Ahmadi: And what exactly were those ‘false doctrines’ that Maulana Muhammad Ali believed Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud was perpetuating?
Lahore-Ahmadi: Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud tells us. Under the heading of “Alleged Innovations” in Truth about the Split, he writes it is Maulana Muhammad Ali that accuses him of introducing certain innovations with regard to the teachings and claims of the Promised Messiah. He says:
There’s no disagreement here. These were indeed the pivotal issues that Maulana Muhammad Ali discusses in his book, The Split. You may view Maulana Muhammad Ali's book at this link.
So, would you agree that it’s only fair to see what Maulana Muhammad Ali has actually said on in the issue of kufr in Islam?
Qadian-Ahmadi: Yes, of course.
Lahore-Ahmadi: Maulana Muhammad Ali writes in the beginning of this chapter:
Also, I may add that Maulana Muhammad Ali said in 1914 right before the time of the Split:
So can there be any doubt Maulana Muhammad Ali accused him of labeling non-Ahmadis as kafirs in the fullest sense of the word? What was Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Ahmad’s response to this? As I said, he wrote quite plainly in his book after mentioning these ‘alleged innovations’:
Qadian-Ahmadi: Do you have any other references where he says non-Ahmadis are not Muslims?
In the same book he has written in unmistakable terms:
"Regarding the main subject of my article, I wrote that as we believed the Promised Messiah to be one of the Prophets of God, we could not possibly regard his deniers as Muslims." (p. 146)
"not only are those deemed to be kuffar, who openly style the Promised Messiah as kafir, and those who although they do not style him thus, decline still to accept his claim, but even those who, in their hearts, believe the Promised Messiah to be true, and do not even deny him with their tongues, but hesitate to enter into his Bai‘at, have here been adjudged to be kuffar." (p. 148)
"One party regarded the Promised Messiah as a Nabi and his deniers as kuffar while the other party refused to subscribe to any such doctrine." (p. 191)
Qadian-Ahmadi: Which article is he referring to me when he speaks of "the main subject of my article..."?
Lahore-Ahmadi: Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad wrote an article in April 1911 titled: “A Muslim is one who believes in all the messengers of God?” and this is precisely what he makes reference to in this book, Truth about the Split.
"The article was elaborately entitled—'A Muslim is one who believes in all the Messengers of God.' The title itself is sufficient to show that the article was not meant to prove merely that those who did not accept the Promised Messiah were deniers of the Promised Messiah'. Its object rather was to demonstrate that those who did not believe in the Promised Messiah were not Muslims." (p. 144)
So, you can see the argument put forth by some in your Jamaat that he was merely referring to non-Ahmadis as kafirs of the Promised Messiah and not full-fledged kafirs is totally rejected by Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad.
The fact is Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, after being questioned about this article by some non-Ahmadis, issued an announcement in 1911, approved by Maulana Nur-ud-Din, that reciters of Kalima can not be labeled kafir, and only those that take the initiative of calling others kafir have that kufr reflected back on them. And he clarified that what Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud must have meant in his article was that he “used the word kafir in his writing in the sense of denier” and that the Promised Messiah “does not call his deniers as kafirs in the sense of being outside the fold of Islam.” But Mirza Bashir-ud-Din rejected this interpretation, and thus devoted several pages to explaining that in his article he did in fact mean that those who reject the Promised Messiah are non-Muslims, and that Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din was absolutely wrong to present a different interpretation of his article.
Qadian-Ahmadi: Incredible, so you're telling me that a person by the name of Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din tried to put up a defense of these statements made Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, and this criticism is actually reflected in this book, Truth about the Split?
Lahore-Ahmadi: Brother, not only did he criticize him, he in fact wrote that his interpretation
“is so devoid of sense that it can hardly fail to surprise the intelligent reader. What sense can there be in the statement that those who did not accept the Promised Messiah were deniers of the Promised Messiah?” (p. 135)
You may wish to review the article, Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din’s announcement on Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s 1911 article calling other Muslims as kafir: https://www.ahmadiyya.org/qadis/takfir-1911.htm
If this is not evidence enough, then in another book, he writes:
“It is our duty that we must not consider non-Ahmadis as Muslims, and we must not pray behind them, because we believe they are denying a prophet of Almighty God.” (Anwar-i Khilafat, 1916, p. 90.)
Also, I may add that Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad's own brother Mirza Bashir Ahmad wrote a book called Kalimat-ul-Fasal and is available to read in Urdu at www.alislam.org/urdu/pdf/Kalma-tul-Fasal.pdf in which he styled non-Ahmadis as pakkay kafirs.
Mirza Bashir Ahmad writes at one place:
A few pages later he writes:
“Thus, according to this verse, every such person who believes in Moses but not in Jesus, or believes in Jesus but not in Muhammad (peace be upon him), or believes in Muhammad but not in the Promised Messiah, is not only a kafir but a staunch [Urdu word is pakkay] kafir and is excluded from the fold of Islam.” (p. 110)
Also just consider that if for forty years a false belief could have been promulgated but suddenly reversed course (at least on the issue of kufr in Islam in a very public way), then all Ahmadis of the Qadian Jamaat must also consider what other falsehoods could have been perpetuated in his name. And by that I mean namely the false idea that he claimed real prophethood which we have discussed, and then also the present system of hereditary khilafat (misconstrued as divinely appointed) which is being perpetuated in his name by the Qadian community. This has caused enormous, permanent damage to the mission of the Promised Messiah.
PART VI - Khilafat
Qadian-Ahmadi: Brother, then help me understand, what is your view on khilafat? Didn't Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad speak of khilafat?
Lahore-Ahmadi: Yes, he did speak of khilafat, but what is being perpetuated today in his name by the Qadian Jamaat is a complete misrepresentation of what khilafat truly is. For the sake of our discussion, let it be understood there is (1) the divinely appointed khilafat spoken of in chapter 24:55 of the Holy Quran which was promised to the Holy Prophet Muhammad, and then there is (2) khilafat in the Ahmadiyya Movement that does not at all fall under the purview of chapter 24 verse 55 in the Holy Quran. The two are simply not one and the same.
I'm more than happy to explain what the divinely ordained khilafat is in light of the writings of the Promised Messiah as well as the khilafat or system of governance he not only envisioned but had practically put into effect before he passed away.
Qadian-Ahmadi: Then who are the divinely ordained khalifas that succeeded the Holy Prophet Muhammad?
Lahore-Ahmadi: Brother, have you considered that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself was one such divinely appointed khalifa of the Holy Prophet Muhammad?
Qadian-Ahmadi: I don't understand. Can you explain?
Lahore-Ahmadi: Every muhaddath (saint) and Mujaddid (saint-reformer of the age) fulfills the promise of the khilafat spoken of in chapter 24 verse 55. They are indeed the spiritual khalifas of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. The belief put forth by the Qadian Jamaat that there was a one thousand plus year lapse in khilafat is simply not true.
Qadian-Ahmadi: What about the hadith that speaks of the re-emergence of khilafat?
Lahore-Ahmadi: Well, first of all, this report ought to be interpreted in light of the Quranic verse (24:55):
By “those before them” are meant the Israelites. The Holy Prophet Muhammad said in explanation: “The Israelites used to be led by prophets; whenever a prophet died, another came after him. After me there is no prophet, but there will be khalifas and there will be many.” (Bukhari, book 60, ch. 50)
Also, notice in the hadith you referenced, it says, "God will bring about its end," i.e., prophethood will end. There is no mention of a new prophet arising. So, to interpret the re-emergence of “khilafat on the precept of prophethood,” to mean khalifas will be raised with the coming of a new prophet [law-bearing or not as the Qadian Jamaat may argue], doesn't hold true at all
Qadian-Ahmadi: Then what does the reemergence of “khilafat on the precept of prophethood,” mean in this hadith?
Lahore-Ahmadi: What it means is that the criteria for the standards of morality of these future khalifas should parallel the great standards of morality upheld by the immediate successors to the Holy Prophet Muhammad. For example, they must be upright, honest, just, equitable and must have a high regard for being held accountable for all their actions, not only before God but also the public.
Qadian-Ahmadi: Then let me ask, who first person to fulfill this criteria after the era of the early caliphate and subsequent tyrranical monarchy that could have been regarded as a true spiritual khalifa of the Holy Prophet Muhammad?
Lahore-Ahmadi: I'm glad you ask. One such person came at the turn of the first century. He was none other than Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (b. 680/82, d. 720), the first Mujaddid in Islam whom had the combined role as a physical ruler and spiritual guide like the early khalifas (though it is not a requirement for spiritual khalifas of the Holy Prophet Muhammad to have temporal power).
In the Hadith collection of Miskhat we find that very same hadith was quoted to Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, and one of the narrators is reported to have said:
Here's the hadith for your reference:
"So this hadith was applied at the turn of the first century Hijrah to Umar ibn Abdul Aziz who is regarded as the first mujaddid. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself considered the chain of mujaddids to be a continuation of the khilafat of the Holy Prophet." (Dr. Zahid Aziz: https://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2013/11/25/nadeem-f-paracha-on-ahmadiyya-issue/)
Note: This insertion "This caliphate refers to prophet Easa and Mahdi in the last days." appears to be the interpretation of the commentator. Yet as we clearly, see, this hadith in question was nonetheless applied to Umar ibn Abdul Aziz. So we may say the reemergence of “khilafat on the precept/pattern of prophethood,” began with him. In another hadith we in fact read: The Caliphs are five: Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘Ali and ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-Aziz [Hadith collection, Sunan Abi Dawud, Ch. 42 – Kitab al-Sunnah].
Qadian-Ahmadi: Is there any particular writing of Hazrat Mirza where he speaks of the divine khilafat being applicaable to the Mujaddids?
Lahore-Ahmadi: Yes, this has been fully explained by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in his book, Shahadat-ul-Quran: https://ahmadiyya.org/books/testi-hq/tstimony.htm
Please read through it so we may discuss this book during our next chat.
As you do, keep in mind the following extracts:
"As our Master and Apostle, may peace and the blessings of God be upon him, is the last of the prophets [khatam al-anbiya’], and after him there cannot come any prophet, for this reason saints have been substituted for prophets in this religious system.”
“…the perfect and complete likeness between the khilafat to the Holy Prophet Muhammad and the successorship to Moses renders imperative the coming of the Promised Messiah, as is understood from the following verse: ‘God has promised to those of you who believe and do good that He will surely make them successors [khalifas] in the earth as He made those before them to be successors’ (24:55). This clearly conveys that a mujaddid must come bearing the name of the Messiah in the fourteenth century (Hijra), ... among the Muslim people too, in their last days which are close to the Day of Judgment, there must come a khalifa like Jesus”.
“…the critic does not understand that mujaddids and spiritual khalifas are needed by the Muslim people in the same way as were the prophets required from ancient times.”
Qadian-Ahmadi: I see now that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Claimed to be a Spiritual Khalifa and Mujaddid (with title of Messiah) in the Khilafat of Holy Prophet Muhammad.
Lahore-Ahmadi: Precisely. Do you also see that Divine khilafat according to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is everlasting so the notion that were was a lapse in khilafat for 1400 years as advanced by the Qadian community simply cannot be true?
Qadian-Ahmadi: Do you happen to have those extracts handy?
Lahore-Ahmadi: Yes, you may refer to Chapter 2: Promised Messiah in the Quran, Part (d): Summary of Argument. https://ahmadiyya.org/books/testi-hq/ch2d.htm Take note of the following extracts:
“Given that God had explained by use of an analogy that He would raise khalifas among the Muslim people in the same manner as He raised successors after Moses, one should see what course did God follow after the death of Moses: did He send successors for only thirty years, or did He extend this series for fourteen hundred years?”
Qadian-Ahmad: So this means spiritual khalifas will continue to arise even after the Promised Messiah. I still don't understand something. Why can't the immediate successors (khalifas) of the Promised Messiah be part of that perpetual khilafat?
Lahore-Ahmadi: Brother, that is like asking if a divinely ordained khalifa (the Promised Messiah) can have a divinely ordained khilafat. Does that make sense to you when we have just established that the divinely ordained khalifas can only be khalifas of the Holy Prophet Muhammad?
That's like believing that after some of the divinely ordained successors of Moses died (whom in this case were prophets), their followers themselves created their own divinely ordained khilafat, even though new divinely ordained khalifas (prophets) would arise in the future. Can you imagine if the followers of every successor after Moses started perpetuating the belief that they should start having their own divinely ordained successorship?
Qadian-Ahmadi: But you're asking me to believe that the Promised Messiah's own family, meaning some of his closest blood relations, went astray. How could they have gone astray?
The Promised Messiah foretold:
There could be no greater warning or condemnation than this!
Qadian-Ahmadi: Please read this article regarding the quotation you have given.
The author of the article says the first part should be translated as: “And I do not say this [above] except after being informed by my Lord. And my tribe shall return once more to disorder, and they shall increase in foulness and adversity."
He also says this cannot possibly include the progeny of the Promised Messiah.
Lahore-Ahmadi: The beginning part says that his asheer (Arabic for nearest relations/kindred/relatives/clan) will return to fasad. (Arabic for depravity/wickedness/corruption, etc.). The Holy Quran uses this same word asheer a few times to refer to "relatives." So, even if the Arabic word asheer is to be translated as "tribe," then quite obviously it can still refer to one's family, relatives and/or extended family!
Yes, he had family relatives that refused to accept him and vilified him in his life time. The difference is, we now have those whom say they accept him but nevertheless vilify him by perpetuating false beliefs about him (namely that he claimed to be a real nabi and that his deniers were as a consequence deemed to be pakkay kafir). Not only that, in the name of khilafat countless misdeeds have been committed too horrible to even mention. So his relatives have indeed "once again returned to corruption" and "increased in falsehood and exaggeration." The argument that this prophecy automatically excludes the progeny of the Promised Messiah simply because they are somehow deemed to be inherently "righteous" is just absurd.
If the descendants of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Holy Prophet Muhammad himself could have become misguided, then so too can the family of the Promised Messiah. If someone as close as a son and the wife of the Prophet Noah (and in particular his wife is condemned in the Quran as being "treacherous" - 66:10 as is Lot's wife) could have become misguided, so too can the family of the Promised Messiah. In fact, if the majority of those that claim to follow the first Messiah, Jesus son of Mary can perpetuate a belief about him that is untrue (him being God or the literal divine son of God), then it's not an impossibility that the untrue beliefs could have arisen and been perpetuated by the majority community that claims to follow the teachings of the Promised Messiah. So it's hardly a strong or convincing argument to state 'family' or progeny can't go astray.
Qadian-Ahmadi: Then what do you make of the statements of the Promised Messiah that speak of the greatness/righteousness of his ahli (family) and progeny and the great future of his Jamaat?
Lahore-Ahmadi: Yes, the Promised Messiah received prophetic news about the grand future of his Jamaat, and the good news regarding the future of his progeny and all the good that would be done in advancing his Movement. But to suggest a family's morality is automatically guaranteed is preposterous! This kind of dangerous thinking is like some Christians whom believe they are guaranteed paradise so long as they believe in Jesus and some whom Jews who believe the promises of God extend to them unconditionally. It's take away all accountability from the said person/s and gives a license for someone to commit egregious crimes based on this misguided belief. This notion "family can do wrong," is the like the medieval mentality that "the King can do no wrong!"
The Promised Messiah always gave precedence to the spiritual aspects concerning prophecies. He spoke of the prophecy of the Holy Prophet for example concerning the Mahdi arising from his 'family' ("he shall be from me") need not necessarily be taken literally nor fulfilled literally. And so it's hugely ironic that the Qadian jamaat will have you believe the promises and prophecies regarding "progeny" and "sons" must be taken literally. When the Promised Messiah said he is the "son of Mary," do we take that literally! No it means he's a spiritual son, a spiritual heir to Jesus that came in his likeness and one whom would imbue his spiritual qualities. When the hadith speaks about the Messiah to come as breaking the cross, putting any end to Jizya, and killing the swine, do we take that literally? The Jews rejected their own Messiah on account of taking their prophecies too literally, and the Muslims do the same, awaiting someone to literally to descend from the heavens. The Qadian Jamaat has unfortunately taken up that very same mentality now is completely blinded by the khilafat sysetem. Even in the Quran we read that when Allah promised Abraham, "Surely I will make thee a leader of men," Abraham asked: And of my offspring? Allah said, "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers." So, physical descent means nothing in the eyes of God. Yes, the promise may extend to his physical offspring, but only if they act rightly and their deeds are like his. No one is automatically protected due to descending from someone who is good and noble. So to give such an interpretation to the words of the Promised Messiah is an insult to the teachings of the Holy Quran, the Holy Prophet Muhammad and the Promised Messiah. History tells us time and time how dangerous such thinking is.
Qadian-Ahmadi: I had not considered this.
Lahore-Ahmadi: Also consider this:
According to the Quran, "family" need not be taken literally. When one of Noah's sons transgressed, out of love Noah whom wanted to save him from the flood, cried out, "My Lord, surely my son is of my ahli [family], and your promise is true, and You are the most just of the judges," but Allah said to him, O Noah, he is not of your ahli [family]; he is (an embodiment of) unrighteous conduct. (see Quran 11:45-46).
Qadian-Ahmadi: What is the "promise" spoken of in 11:45?
Lahore-Ahmadi: It is the promise that God would protect and save his family [ahli]! So here we have an example of where Noah was told much beforehand that his family would be saved/protected. But as we know, that protection was conditional.
In the 5 volume commentary published by the Qadian Jamaat, the following explanation is given as follows:
The commentary here is right on. So this just goes to show how the Qadian Jamaat has neglected such a most fundamental principle of Islam by declaring his family can't go astray!
Qadian-Ahmadi: This is most interesting. What about the revelation, "O Masrur, I am with you." What do you make of that?
Lahore-Ahmadi: One may wish to speculate that the revelation, "O Masrur, I am with you," is referring to the present Head of the Rabwah/Qadian Jamaat. However, there can be no speculation about what the Promised Messiah himself stated directly about Maulana Muhammad Ali.
Please read through the following: http://www.ahmadiyya.org/m-ali/hmviews.htm
The last quote mentioned in the article can be found in Tadhkira on page 676 as published by the Rabwah/Qadian Jamaat. See the following link: https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Tadhkirah.pdf
Future of Islam & Ahmadiyyat
Role of Lahore Ahmadiyya