بسم الله الرحمـن الرحيم
Did Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Claim to be a Prophet?
(His Name is Ahmad: Surah 61:6)
In the previous entry, we examined a Verse of the Quran al-Karim (Surah 3:81), the Covenant of the Prophets, which ‘Qadiani’ polemicists cite as a proof for the Risalah of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. It was revealed in that entry that Ghulam Ahmad himself did not hold such a novel interpretation of the Verse but rather identified the ‘Messenger of the Covenant’ as none other than the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. The Qadianis should bring a single proof from the writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad where he claimed to be the ‘Messenger of the Covenant’ spoken of in Surah 3:81. Their own interpretation obviously carries no weight if the founder of the movement himself never put forward such a claim to being the ‘Messenger of the Covenant’. In this entry we will look at another Verse of the Holy Quran which ‘Qadianis’ cite as proof of the Risalah of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad:
وَإِذْ قَالَ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ يَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ إِنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّـهِ إِلَيْكُم مُّصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيَّ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَمُبَشِّرًا بِرَسُولٍ يَأْتِي مِن بَعْدِي اسْمُهُ أَحْمَدُ ۖ فَلَمَّا جَاءَهُم بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ قَالُوا هَـٰذَا سِحْرٌ مُّبِينٌ
And when said Jesus son of Miriam: “O Children of Israel, I am an Apostle of Allah to you, confirming that which is between your hands of the Torah and giving glad-tidings of an Apostle coming after me, his name is Ahmad.” So when he came to them with the clear evidences they said: “This is manifest sorcery.”
‘Qadiani’ polemicists and missionaries identify Ahmad ﷺ as spoken of in this Verse as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. This despite the fact that all of the scholars of Islam throughout history, all of the exegetes, divines, etc., identify Ahmad ﷺ spoken of in this Verse as none other than the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, whose other name was ‘Ahmad’. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said:
أَنَا مُحَمَّدٌ، وَأَنَا أَحْمَدُ
“I am Muhammad and I am Ahmad”
(Bukhari & Muslim)
In fact, the name Ghulam Ahmad is a compound name and should not be mistaken for the name ‘Ahmad’. Ghulam Ahmad actually means ‘servant-boy of Ahmad’, so how can Ghulam Ahmad himself be Ahmad ﷺ? Nevertheless, the ‘Qadianis’ in their vain attempt to prove that the Ahmad ﷺ spoken of in this Verse is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad cite the subsequent Verse as proof:
وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَىٰ عَلَى اللَّـهِ الْكَذِبَ وَهُوَ يُدْعَىٰ إِلَى الْإِسْلَامِ ۚ وَاللَّـهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ
And who is more unjust than the one who fabricates a lie upon Allah and he is being invited to Islam. And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.
According to the Five Volume Commentary of the Holy Quran published by the ‘Qadianis’ concerning this Verse: “If the prophecy be taken to apply to the Promised Messiah the expression, ‘he is called to Islam,’ would signify that the Promised Messiah would be invited by the so-called defenders of Islam to recant, repent and be a Muslim like them” (p. 2622). A Qadiani murabbi named Rahmatullah used this very argument in his debate with the Ahlul Hadith debater Syed Talib-ur-Rahman Zaidi. In summary, the Qadiani argument is that Ahmad ﷺ who is spoken of in this Quranic passage has to be Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, because the second Verse allegedly means to say that Ahmad ﷺ will be ‘invited to Islam’. Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was obviously never himself invited to Islam, since he was the inviter to Islam. But Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was declared an apostate by the Ulema of British India, who subsequently invited Ghulam Ahmad to recant and return to Islam. But the answer to this absurd argument is two-fold. Firstly, the second Verse (61:7) is general in meaning and not in reference to the Ahmad ﷺ spoken of in the preceding Verse. Secondly, if it is admitted that the one being invited to Islam in Surah 61:7 is Ahmad ﷺ, then it necessarily follows that Ahmad ﷺ is the most unjust and oppressive person and also someone who fabricates lies upon Allah! معاذ الله. After all, the Verse asks rhetorically that ‘Who is more unjust than the one who fabricates lies upon Allah and he is being invited to Islam?’ And the final nail in the coffin for this absurd Qadiani argument is the fact that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself identified the Ahmad ﷺ spoken of in this Verse as none other than the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ:
“Giving glad tidings of an Apostle to come after me, his name is Ahmad (61:6), that is, I give glad-tidings of an Apostle who will come after me, that is, after I die, and his name will be Ahmad ﷺ. Therefore, if the Messiah hasn’t as of yet passed from this corporal world then necessarily our Prophet [Muhammad] ﷺ could not have come into this world either. Because the Text, in its explicit wording, is disclosing the fact that only when the Messiah leaves this corporal world will the Holy Prophet [Muhammad] ﷺ come into this corporal world.”
Reference: Ruhani Khaza’in v. 5, p. 42; A’inah-i-Kamalat-i-Islam p. 42
So when the founder of the Ahmadiyah movement himself identified Ahmad ﷺ whose glad-tidings were given by the Messiah Jesus son of Miriam as none other than the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, then on what basis can the Qadianis argue that the Quranic passage (61:6-7) is a proof for the Risalah of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? To be continued, in sha Allah.