Prophecy in Regard to Ismohu Ahmad

This is what we read in the Holy Quran, in regard to this question:

“And remember when Jesus, son of Mary, said, `O children of Israel, surely I am Allah’s Messenger unto you, fulfilling that which is before me of the Torah, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger who will come after me. His name will be `Ahmad’. And when he came to them with clear proofs, they said, “This is clear enchantment.”

Mr. Faruqi’s False Charge

Mr. Faruqi has brought a false charge against Hazrat Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, Khalifatul Masih II, to the following effect:

“But in spite of all these clear facts, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad the `Khalifa’ of Qadian (now Rabwah) made a bold statement when commenting once on this particular verse (LXI. 6) of the Holy Quran (published in the AI-Fazal of 18th April, 1914, Qadian) that this particular prophecy of Jesus Christ does not really refer to the Holy Prophet, but to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, who claimed to be the Promised Messiah, but who himself never claimed to have been referred to in this particular prophecy, as will be shown by his own writings later on.” (Truth Triumphs, page 24)

As far as we can see, this is altogether a false charge against Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, because, after he became Khalifatul Masih, in his first book, entitled Qaul-i-Faisal, he quoted a passage each, from two books of the Promised Messiah, namely, Izala-i-Auham and E’jazul Masih, and wrote:

“From these quotations you must have seen that the Promised Messiah has applied this prophecy to himself. Now remains the question why has he applied it to the Holy Prophet Mohammad as well? The answer is whatever prophecies are to be met with, in regard to the rise and progress of his Ummat, in the first place, they apply primarily to him. If he were not the Ahmad spoken of here, how could the Promised Messiah become that particular Ahmad. Just whatsoever had been received by the Promised Messiah, it has all come to him from the Holy Prophet Mohammad, and through him. If one quality is negated in the Holy Prophet, automatically it has to be similarly negated in the case of the Promised Messiah. If a substance is missing in the fountainhead it must be missing in a glass filled with water from that spring. Therefore, the Holy Prophet is Ahmad, in whom the prophecy was fulfilled in the first instance.” (Qaul-e-Faisal, page 29)

This statement is absolutely clear. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, has quite plainly stated here that the prophecy in question applies, in the first instance, to the Holy Prophet Mohammad, himself, as borne out by the fact that Ahmad was an attributive name of the Holy Prophet. This attributive name has descended to the Promised Messiah from the Holy Prophet, the real Ahmad, the Promised Messiah being an Image of the master, a perfect Image – from all angles, in all respects. Therefore, the statement of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, before the Inquiry Commission is perfectly true that:

“As we think, this prophecy, primarily and properly speaking applies to the Holy Prophet Mohammad. But in a zilli manner, it is also fully applicable to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.”

It is also to be carefully noted that the statement before the Inquiry Commission is perfectly in consonance with the meaning and sense of the passage we have reproduced from Qaul-i-Faisal, probably the first writing on this subject by Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II.

As against this statement, on page 29 of `Truth Triumphs’, Mr. Faruqi has quoted a passage from Anwar-i-Khilafat, a Lecture by Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, later published in book form:

“Thus, in this verse, by implication, a glad tiding has been given in regard to the advent of the Holy Prophet Mohammad. The person to whom it really applies is the Promised Messiah.”

“Therefore, the Prophet, named Ahmad, in regard to whom this tiding has been given, cannot be the Holy Prophet Mohammad.”

Between this passage and the statement before the Inquiry Commission, on the surface, there appears to be a slight difference more in words, than in the meaning and sense. There is no real difference between the two. In the passage quoted above there is not the slightest hint of denial that the Holy Prophet, primarily, was the Prophet, in the first instance, to whom the prophecy applied. Rather, in view of the fact that the Holy Prophet having been the bearer of the name “Ahmad”, in the original and first instance, it is the root of the implication that the prophecy in question applies to him. The negation in the passage quoted goes on strictly to the length that the prophecy applied to him in a manner which could be described as other than `implied’, since, quite obviously, it fits the Promised Messiah far more directly, this being the sense of the passage in question reproduced from Anwar-i-Khilafat. The Promised Messiah himself has written in Ejazul Masih :

“In his words `like verdure putting out the pin points of its germination’, Isa has pointed to the people coming later to join the ranks of the companions of the Holy Prophet with their Imam quite clearly identified by the name `Ahmad’.” (Ejazul Masih, Chapter II, page 22-23)

Therefore, in view of this statement by the Promised Messiah, when Hazrat Isa has openly identified him, giving his name as “Ahmad”, for Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II to have said in his Anwar-i-Khilafat, that the Promised Messiah was the real subject of this prophecy, in the sense that it fitted him in a plain and open manner, and that attributively the Holy Prophet Mohammad, being the mazhar-i-awwal was the object of this prophecy by implication, cannot be held to be unjustified, and wrong.

The Promised Messiah himself has written in Tohfa Golarwia that this prophecy made by Hazrat Isa concerned the second advent of the Holy Prophet Mohammad, which took place in the advent of the Promised Messiah, in a boruzi manner. In the book here under reference the Promised Messiah wrote:

“In short, the period of the first advent of the Holy Prophet Mohammad was the fifth millennium, manifestative of the glory of the name Mohammad. In other words the first advent was to manifest his awe and grandeur. But the second advent, which is pointed out in the verse: `And the other ones, of their number, who have not yet joined them’, is the manifester of the grandeur of the jamali name, as pointed out by the verse: `And I give the glad tiding of the advent of an Apostle, to come after me, whose name is Ahmad.’ The meaning of this verse is just this, that the promised Mehdi, whose name in heaven, in a figurative sense, is Ahmad when he appears the Holy Prophet Mohammad who really deserves this name, would shine forth in beauty, in the mantle of this Ahmad, figuratively so named… Therefore, just as for the Believer, it is essential to yield faith in other commandments, it is essential too, that he should hold, there are two advents of the Holy Prophet (a) the Mohammadi advent characterised by qualities of a great majesty and awe, under the influence of Mars, with reference to the Torah we read in the Holy Quran: `Mohammad’ the Apostle of God, and those with him, hard to be impressed in their dealings with the unbelievers, gentle in their dealings with each other., (b) The second advent, Ahmadi, in a mantle of beauty, under the influence of Jupiter, with reference to the Injeel in respect of which the Quran says `Giving glad tidings of an Apostle to come after me, named Ahmad.’ Since the Holy Prophet, in his own self, and in all the chain of his Successors, bears an evident likeness and similarity with Moses, Allah raised him in the colour and spirit of Moses. The Holy Prophet, however, had a hidden and sensitive likeness with Hazrat Isa as well therefore, in the manner of boruz, he manifested that hidden likeness, to the fullest extent, in his advent as Ahmad, the counterpart of Hazrat Isa”. (Tohfa Golarwia, First Edition, page 96)

In a footnote, which goes with the above, the Promised Messiah wrote further:

“The subtle and extremely sensitive point is worth being well kept in mind, that the second advent of the Holy Prophet, which is the great, the perfect, and the full manifestation, is properly speaking the manifestation of the name `Ahmad’ alone. For the second advent falls at the end of the sixth millenium and the sixth millenium, is connected with Jupiter, among the Khunnas and Kunnas, which is the sixth satellite, and the effective quality of this star is that it debars from bloodshed those entrusted with a mission and it stimulates intelligence, wisdom, and the power of reasoning. Therefore, even though it is true that in the second advent the manifestation of the name `Mohammad’ is a manifestation in qualities of majesty and grandeur, running coincidently with a manifestation in qualities of gentleness and beauty. But that manifestation in terms of majesty and grandeur has turned, or merged, into a close resemblance of the manifestation in terms of a gentleness and beauty, since the active quality, at the time, of the manifestation of majesty and grandeur is not characterised by the power so much of the sword, as by the power of the rational faculty. This is because the influence on the bearer of the mission would be the influence, and the shadow, of Jupiter, not of Mars. This is the reason why it has been repeatedly written down in this book, that the sixth millenium is the open and full manifester of the name Ahmad, basically which calls for a manifestation in beauty and grace.” (Tohfa Golarwia, First Edition, page 96)

It is evident from these quotations, that in the opinion of the Promised Messiah, the glad tiding given by Hazrat Isa, with respect to Ismohu Ahmad, is linked up, in detail, with the second advent of the Holy Prophet Mohammad, which took place in the Promised Messiah in the sixth millenium, under the influence of Jupiter, the Promised Messiah in heaven, who became the figurative Ahmad, the full manifester of the Holy Prophet Mohammad, under the mantle of the name “Ahmad” and this prophecy was fulfilled, in a complete and perfect manner, by the advent of the Promised Messiah, the full manifester of the Holy Prophet. It is in the spirit and colour of the Promised Messiah, alone, that the Holy Prophet, in his second advent conformed to the conditions and qualities outlined in the prophecy with respect to the manifestation of Mohammad under the name of “Ahmad”. This is the sense in which application of the prophecy to the Holy Prophet Mohammad has to be taken as `implied’ in the wording, not mentioned clearly, or directly.

So we find that the statement given by Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, before the Inquiry Commission, was in agreement with the portion of his earlier writings on the question soon after he was elected as Khalifatul Masih II. In that exposition, he had held that the Holy Prophet Mohammad was the object of this prophecy, in the first instance, under the attribute of Ahmad, and the Promised Messiah was held the zilli object of the prophecy, in the second instance, so to say. It is very strange that in the portion of his Truth Triumphs which deals with the prophecy concerning Ismohu Ahmad, Mr. Faruqi is not anywhere admitted that being the second advent, so to say, of the Holy Prophet the Promised Messiah, too, was the object of this prophecy. Not only that. He is in fact, angry why the Promised Messiah has been at all held as the object of the prophecy made in Ismohu Ahmad, even though in Ejazul Masih, the Promised Messiah has stated quite clearly that in the prophecy under reference, Hazrat Isa had given quite clearly the name of the Promised Messiah as Ahmad. Further, the Promised Messiah also wrote in the Al-Hakam :

“These people inquire again and again where, in the Holy Quran, has the name been mentioned. They do not seem to be aware that Allah named me Ahmad. The pledge of bai’at is taken in the name of Ahmad. Is not this name found in the Quran?” (Al-Hakam, October 17, 1905, page 10)

While in Qadian, Maulvi Mohammad Ali, himself wrote in The Review of Religions:

“Who is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? In words of the Holy Quran we make reply, `He will come after me, his name will be Ahmad.'” (The Review of Religions, Urdu, Vol. 12, No. 7, page 236)

Subsequently to his departure from Qadian, in his Tafsir Bayanul Quran, he has not hesitated to write, instead, that by “Ahmad” is intended only the Holy Prophet Mohammad. (Bayanul Quran Tafsir Sura Saf, Vol. III)

Would Mr. Faruqi be pleased to permit, here, that we ask a very simple question? Is there no contradiction between these two statements of Maulvi Mohammad Ali? And just as his first statement lies in open contradiction of what he wrote later, under changed circumstances, in the same way it lies in contradiction of the writings of the Promised Messiah, arbitor and judge, from God over point of dispute.

Unjustified Harshness of Mr. Faruqi

Mr. Faruqi gets irritated in the matter, and he does not see the need for avoiding harsh and unseemly terms of expression, such as:

“So the people, especially the Muslims in foreign countries, should be on their guard, and be warned that when the missionaries of the Rabwah Ahmadiyya Community preach about `Ahmad’ the Prophet, they are deceptively and erroneously attributing the qualifications to Hazrat Ghulam Ahmad, the Promised Messiah, who never made any such claim.” (Truth Triumphs, page 30)

So here we are, Maulvi Mohammad Ali, himself, in his earlier writings, has been presenting the Promised Messiah as an Apostle, and a Prophet, as we have shown already. He has also held that the name of the Promised Messiah, in the Quran is Ahmad. In fact he has been calling him the `Paighamber-i-Akhiruz-Zaman ‘ i.e. `Prophet’ of the Last Days, (Review of Religions, Vol. V1, page 81) He has also called him the Promised Nabi (Review of Religions Vol. V1 page 83) Please mark the following words:

“In the discussion of the prophecy above, it has already been shown that one name for the `Nabi of the Later Times’ is `a stalwart among the sons of Faris.'” (Review of Religions, Vol. VI, page 90)

Again, we have to note that in the discussion with Khawaja Ghulamus Thakalain, and the case of Karmuddin Jehlami, Maulvi Mohammad Ali went on oath in a court of law, to testify that the Promised Messiah was a claimant to Nabuwwat, as we have shown already.

In the Revelations of the Promised Messiah, he has been spoken of under the name `Ahmad’:

1. “O’ Ahmad, you have been made an Apostle.” (Tazkira, page 493)
2. “Ahmad-e-Zaman, Ahmad of these times.” (Tazkira, page 685)

Also, we have to note that while holding him to be an Apostle, Allah said that his enemy would refuse to accept him as an Apostle:

“The enemy would say `you are not an Apostle’.” (Tazkira. page 402)

Dear Mr. Faruqi, take care, by declining to believe in the Nabuwwat and Risalat of the Promised Messiah, lest you become one of his enemies. May God lead you to the truth!

The Promised Messiah says:

“Ye, who are complacent, try to seek, perchance; Allah may have raised a Prophet among you.” (Tajalliat-i-Ilahia page 10-11)

Again he writes:

“Wheresoever I have denied being a Nabi and an Apostle, it is in the sense that I am not, in myself, independently, the bearer of any new Sharia nor, in myself, independently, a Nabi. In the sense, however, that having received the inner blessings from the Leader I follow and having been honoured in so far as having been given his name, through his mediacy, having been favoured by Allah with knowledge of things hidden and unknown, I am an Apostle, and a Nabi but not with a new Sharia. I have, never denied being a Nabi in this sense. In fact, it is exactly in this sense, that I have been called a Nabi, and an Apostle.” (Ek Ghalati ka Izala )

So Mr. Faruqi does not seem to have any right to lose patience with our missionaries working in foreign lands, for, in their fields, they present the Promised Messiah as a Prophet, and an Apostle, in the same meaning and sense, as the Promised Messiah presented himself in this respect.

Mr. Faruqi’s Denial of the Attribute of Ahmad as Applicable to the Holy Prophet Mohammad

Under a denial to hold that the names Mohammad and Ahmad are attributes of the Holy Prophet Mohammad, Mr. Faruqi writes:

“Ahmad is just as much a name of the Holy Prophet as Mohammad is, it is not an attributive name, as some allege.” (Truth Triumphs, page 26)

In his Truth Triumphs, Mr. Faruqi writes himself:

“The meaning of Ahmad is one who praises very much. Another possible meaning is one who deserves excessive praise. It is a jamali name of the Holy Prophet Mohammad and since Hazrat Isa also was a manifestor of the jamali attribute, it was necessary that it should be used in the glad tiding given.”

“The name Ahmad means `one who gives praises (of God) a lot’, or it may signify `one who deserves lot of praises’. This is a name of the Holy Prophet Mohammad, peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him, denoting the beauty aspect of his life. Since the teachings of Jesus Christ are lenient and showing beauty, hence this particular name `Ahmad’ is referred to in his prophecy.” (Truth Triumphs, page 22-23)

When Mr. Faruqi is prepared to concede that “Ahmad” is the jamali name of the Holy Prophet Mohammad, how can it be justified for him to say that it is not an attributive name? As we have seen from various passages in his writings, the Promised Messiah himself holds “Mohammad” to be the jalali name of the Holy Prophet, and “Ahmad” to be the jamali which means that both were attributive names.

Of course, “Mohammad” was also his proper name as well. But “Ahmad”, like his other names, was only an attributive name, this being the reason why it is not to be met with, even in one single report, as forming part of the Kalima, or the Azan, for instance while Hazrat Khalifatul Masih has conceded, and we have shown this to be the case on the basis of his Qaul-e-Faisal, that in respect of being an attributive name, the Holy Prophet, is the first manifestor of the prophecy of Hazrat Isa in regard to the advent of a Nabi named “Ahmad”. From this angle, the prophecy has been fulfilled in the advent of the Promised Messiah, in the zilli sense. Of course “Ahmad” forms an important part of the proper personal name of the Promised Messiah, namely, “Ghulam Ahmad”, wherein “Ghulam” is, so to say, the family name, common between other names of members of the family. We note Mirza Ghulam Murtaza founded two village settlements, which he named after his two sons, Mirza Ghulam Qadir, and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad names he gave to the settlements being Qadirabad and Ahmadabad. Therefore, Ahmad also being the personal name of the Promised Messiah in the eyes of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, the Promised Messiah is the object of this prophecy, in view of the fact that Ahmad is the personal name by which he is known. This, however, is the point which Mr. Faruqi is not disposed to concede. But, since God has spoken of him in the Revelations under name “Ahmad” it is a wrong step on the part of Mr. Faruqi, that in respect of his personal name being “Ahmad”, he does not accept him as the object of the prophecy in question. The Promised Messiah has written very clearly, in Ejazul Masih, that Hazrat Isa had clearly given him the name “Ahmad” in his prophecy. Thus, whosoever accepts the Promised Messiah from the bottom of his heart, he should also be prepared to accept the statement of the Promised Messiah in this behalf. It would be justified to hold that whosoever does not accept this statement, he fails to do so from excessive pride and self-esteem, he shows himself as too far self-willed. It would not be unjustified on our part, if we conclude that a man who holds such views he fails to accept the Promised Messiah as an arbitor by God, appointed to this mission, of authoritatively giving clear cut views on points under dispute among the Muslims. In fact, such a man is virtually to set himself up as an arbitor on the real arbitor appointed by the Lord God himself. May the Lord grant us protection from people of this kind!