History of Religions
The Qadiani Missionary wrote: If you have any doubt about Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad Qadianis claim, then show us a single example, since Prophet Adam
up to the death of the Holy Prophet of Islam, of such' a man who claimed
wrongly to be a prophet and whose claim had been successful. If wrong
claimants .of prophethood may succeed then what is the difference
between a, genuine prophet and an impostor?
Qur'an says in chapter al-Haqqah , 69, verses 45 to 47:
أَخَذْنَا مِنْهُ بِالْيَمِينِ
** ثُمَّ لَقَطَعْنَا مِنْهُ الْوَتِينَ
** فَمَا مِنْكُمْ مِنْ أَحَدٍ عَنْهُ حَاجِزِينَ
"If (our Apostle Muhammad S.) had fabricated against us any of the sayings certainly would we have seized him by the right hand; then certainly would we have cut off his aorta".
My Reply: This verse means that those who have been commissioned by God cannot but deliver whatever they are charged with, and God never allows them to forge anything of their own on His behalf.
But it does not mean that the impostors or the self-appointed prophets who falsely claim to have been sent by God must perish because there is no need to expose them. Their ridiculous claims, like those of Bahaullah, or their lack of miracles are enough to expose their falsity.
Perhaps you do not know, but it is the accepted belief of all the sects Sunni and Shia alike, that the only distinctions between true and false prophets are:
l. The standard of their teachings - true prophets taught high morals while false ones gave latitude to their followers;
Miracles - which appeared on the hands of the true prophets and not on those of false ones;
the Ismat (sinlessness infallibility).
And the Holy Qur’an itself shows in various verses that those who fabricate lies against Allah may get some enjoyment in this world; and that their punishment 'is in Qiyamah. See for example:
"Say, those who invent a lie against Allah will not prosper; some enjoyment in this world; and then to Us will be their return. Then shall We make them taste the severest penalty for their blasphemies". (Qur’an, 10:69·70)
There never was any standard of the length of life or the success or failure of his mission. It is just an arbitrary standard invented by your Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani who wrote that:
"Since the beginning of the world there never was any example of even a single person who got, '23 years like our chief the Holy Prophet (S) and who was wrong in his claim of getting revelation from God…. If you find a person, who claims, to be sent by God and if it is proved that 23 years had passed since the claim of receiving the revelation from God.......... then you should believe that he is from God".
This self-invented standard of the truth or falsity of the claim of prophethood is very amusing. Let us suppose, a man heard our Holy Prophet (S) proclaiming his prophethood in the beginning and said that he would wait 23 years to see whether Muhammad survived that period or not, do you think he would have been excused and pardoned by God? And what if he himself died during the life-time of the Holy Prophet without accepting Islam? What a rubbish!
And remember that many true prophets had been 'killed within one, two or three years of their prophethood. What would have been the position if someone, during the prophethood of Prophet Yahya (John), refused to believe in him, saying that as he did not live 23 years he was, God forbid, a liar".
And also some impostors have lived more than 23 years after their claims. Why make a condition from Adam' up to the Holy Prophet"? If it is a Divine criterion, It would remain true ever after the Holy Prophet of Islam. In fact, "after the Holy Prophet" would have been more appropriate, and a better period for checking, because now we know that no other religion is to come from God.
Still we see that many religions having no connection with Islam have appeared after the Holy Prophet and have prospered. For example, Sikh and Bahai religions. They themselves do not claim any affinity towards Islam and still they have prospered though the Muslims and Qadianis both agree that these religions are wrong.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints (Commonly known as Mormon Church) was founded by Joseph Smith in 1820 A.D., when he claimed to have received divine call for prophecy in the name of the Most High. He claimed to receive divine revelation written upon golden plates which he was able to translate. The first edition of the book of his revelation was printed in 1830.
His associate, Oliver Cowdery, also claimed to be ordained by angelic visitants. Smith was killed in 1844, i.e., 24 years after his claim; but his murder did not stop his Mission. His followers flourished in Utah and three adjoining states and the whole state of Utah is populated by them, and one of them was considered as a candidate for U.S.A. presidency in 1968.
They believe in the 'Book of Mormons' to be the 'Word of God', together with the Bible, just as the (Qadianis believe in Barahin-e-Ahmadiya and many other books of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani as the 'Word of God together with the Qur'an.
Thus Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet, as Mirza Qadiani did; he published his revelation, as Mirza Qadiani did; he established a line of prophets as Mirza Qadiani established a line of Caliphs; and his sect is flourishing to such an extent that is beyond the dreams of the Qadianis till this day; and what is more, he was given more than 23 years to live after that claim, which Mirza Saheb was not given.
Now, I wonder what new excuses the Qadianis will invent to overcome this insurmountable difficulty. Will they say that Mormon Church is from God, so as to maintain the accuracy of the self-invented standard of Mirza Qadiani?
It would be Interesting to you that your Mirza Qadiani had declared in Arbain (No. 3) in two places (p.9; pp.29-30) that God had promised him that he would live 80 years or 2 or 4 years more or less. It means that he was promised to live not less than 76 years and not more than 84 years.
And also he wrote in the same book that God had promised to him to protect him from every 'Khabith' (Dirty) disease. (Arbain No.3, p,9)
The book quoted above is in my library and you are welcome to see it any
Well, now let us look at the facts and compare them with these claims:
(1) Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani was born in 1339 or 1840 A.D. and died on 26th May, 1908 A.D. 'It means that his claim of God's promise (80 years or 2 or 4 years more or less) was wrong. As he had made this age of 76 to 84 years as a sign of his truth, his death at the age of 68 years proves him an imposter by his own words."
(2) Up to 1901 A.D. many times he declared that his claim by the word 'prophethood' was not the 'prophethood' as 'understood by the Muslim); but that it's real meaning was 'Muhaddath':
"In the books of this humble man (i.e., Mirza Qadiani himself), - Fat'hul-Islam, Tawzihul-Maram, and Izala-e·Awham - all such words "Muhaddath is a Nabi in one meaning", or " Muhaddathiyyat is a partial Nubuwwah" or " Muhaddathiyyat is an imperfect Nubuwwah" are not used in its true meaning. In my simplicity, I have used them in their literal meaning. Never do I claim the real, Nubuwwah……. Therefore, I want to explain to my Muslim brothers that if they are angry because of these words they should treat them as amended and should read them as ' Muhaddath'……
"My intention, from the beginning as God knows very well, with this word 'Nabi' was not the real 'Nubuwwah', but only ' Muhaddath' which has been· interpreted by the Holy Prophet as 'Mukallam' (with whom angels talk) as he said about Muhaddath: 'There were before you in Bani Israel men who were talked to (by the angels) without them being prophets".
(Ishtihar of Mirza Qadiani, given in Tabligh-e-Risalat, Vol.2, p.95, as quoted in 'Qadiani Mazhab ka Ilmi Muhasiba of Ilyas Barni).
This advertisement was published by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani on 3rd February, 1892, when he was defeated in a 3-day religious discussion (Munazirah) with Muslim scholars.
In the long history of religions, he finds only two claimants of divine revelations who wrote such confessions (or 'resignation') declaring that their claims stood amended -- in other words the original claims were wrong: First, Mirza Ali Mohammad, the founder of Babi; second, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, founder of .the Qadiani religion.
Now, the Qadianis say that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad never said that he was not a Nabi (Prophet). Mr. Abul-Ata Jalandhari, late principal of Jameatul-Mubashslmin, Rabwa, writes in his book 'Tafheemat-e-Rabbaniyya' (pp.44-45; 2nd edition, 1964).
"Yes, he (i.e., Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) did claim to be a 'Nabi' (Prophet) without new Shari'ah; and he never denied this claim, neither before 1901 nor after 1901. As he (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) has written:
"Wherever I have denied to be a prophet or apostle, it is only with this meaning that I am not a bringer of a new shari'ah independently, nor I am an independent 'Nabi'. But I have never denied prophethood in the meaning that, getting spiritual benefits' from my leader apostle, and being given his name for me, I have been given by Allah, through him, the knowledge of unseen, (and) am an apostle and prophet, but without any new Shari'ah. I have never denied to be called such a prophet; but Allah has called me prophet and apostle in this very meaning. (Ek Ghalati Ka Izala)"
First, read again his clear declaration that he was only a 'Muhaddath', and his explanation (in the words of the Holy Prophet of Islam) that 'Muhaddath' means "men who were talked to by the angels without them being 'Nabi' (prophet)".
Then look at this shameless assertion that "I have never denied prophethood in the meaning that …….. I am an apostle and prophet, but without a new Shari'ah."
Compare these two statements and there will be no need of any comment. There is Persian proverb: A liar has no memory.
He writes in his hook "Haqiqatun-Nubuwwah" (page 148-150): .
"The writings of Hudhur (a.s.) (i.e., Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani) of earlier times show that he is not a claimant of prophethood; but the writings and talks of later period prove that he was claiming prophethood.... ........ ........ Our research is that Prophet Masih Maw'ud (a.s.) changed his belief about the question of Nubuwwah about 1901 A.D."
It means that he was not claiming to be prophet till 1901.
Also, he has written that "the question of Nubuwwah became clear on him
(Mirza Qadiani) in 1900 or 1901. He changed his belief in 1901.
Therefore, all the references of before 1901 in which he had denied his
prophethood are now abrogated (cancelled)".
Now, I would like to point out another 3 matters:
First, Allah says in the Qur'an:
"The Messenger (of Allah) believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord and the believers (also believed)". (Qur'an: 2:285)
What kind of the prophet was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani who according to his later claims was given prophethood since 1887 or near that time, and still he continued to disbelieve his own Nubuwwah for 14 years up to 1901? Have you heard anything like this in history or religions?
Second: Anyhow, he began his firm belief in his Nubuwwah in 1901. And he died in 1908. It means that, according to his own standard he was not given 23 years to live after the declaration of his claim, because he was a liar.
Third: He had claimed that God had promised to him to protect him from every Khabith (dirty) disease. But, the disease by which Mirza Qadiani died was cholera according to his own declaration.
This last declaration is found in the writing of Mir Nasir Saheb,
father-in-law of Mirza Qadiani and one of his staunch followers. He
"The night when Hadhrat sahib (i.e., Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani) fell ill, I had gone to sleep at my place. When the 'Takleef' (discomfort) increased on him, I was awakened. When I reached Hadhrat Saheb and saw his condition, he said addressing me: 'Mir Saheb, 'I have got epidemic cholera'. Then, so far as I know, he never talked so clearly till he died next day after 10 a.m.'"
(Hayat-e-Nasir, p.14; edited by Sheikh Yaqub Ali Irfani, Qadiani; as quoted in 'Qadiani Mazhab Ka Ilmi Muhasiba' of Professor Ilyas Berni).
Now, according to his own standard Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadianis claim of prophethood proves to be a lie, because God did not protect him from the 'Khabith" (dirty) disease.