A Word from Us
After Pakistan became independent, by around 1953 an intense movement arose in various Pakistani cities demanding that the Qadianis be declared non-Muslims. At that time, Maulana Sayyid Abul A‘la Maududi (may Allah have mercy on him) composed a booklet entitled “The Qadiani Issue” so that the people would not transgress the limits of the law, the educated classes could gain a correct understanding of the Qadianis, and the Qadiani problem could be resolved properly and peacefully. The booklet was widely appreciated in all circles.
Meanwhile, in Punjab, conflict between the government and the people over various issues, including the Qadiani problem, assumed a grave form. In such circumstances, the martial-law authorities arrested Maulana Maududi and the other leaders of the Jamaat without any charge on 28 March 1953. This was essentially a blatant manifestation of the martial authorities’ opposition to Islam and the Jamaat-e-Islami.
After the Maulana’s arrest, he was accused of spreading hatred among the people through the booklet “The Qadiani Issue.” On this charge, the military court sentenced him to death on 8 May. In reality, this was merely a pretext. Their purpose was to kill the commander of the Islamic movement by any means. But in the face of the intense opposition and outrage of the worldwide Muslim ummah, they commuted his death sentence and sentenced the Maulana to life imprisonment. After twenty months in prison, however, the Maulana was released unconditionally.
The interesting point is that although the martial authorities sentenced the Maulana to death on the pretext of producing the booklet “The Qadiani Issue,” they did not confiscate the booklet. While his trial was proceeding in the Lahore military court, the booklet was selling extremely well in Lahore itself. In fact, there was nothing inflammatory anywhere in the booklet. Rather, he opposed direct action in it. It should be noted that at that time all parties except the Jamaat had united and announced a programme of direct action against the Qadianis. The Jamaat’s central Majlis-e-Shura also condemned the announcement of such a programme in its resolution.
This booklet established, through irrefutable arguments and evidence, that the Qadianis are not Muslims. The Maulana’s demand was that the Qadianis be legally declared non-Muslims. The necessary theory and information in support of this demand were supplied in the booklet. To achieve this demand, the Maulana called for a constitutional movement. Finally, in 1973, the Qadianis were declared non-Muslims in Pakistan. The entire body of scholars of the ummah agrees that the Qadianis are non-Muslims.
In January 1953, the leading scholars of what was then Pakistan assembled, considered the recommendations of the Committee for Determining Constitutional Principles, and unanimously adopted an amendment resolution containing several proposals. Particularly notable in it was the demand that those who had accepted Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani as their religious leader be declared a minority community.
The scholars who signed the resolution were:
1. Maulana Mufti Muhammad Hasan Sahib
2. Allama Sulaiman Nadwi Sahib
3. Maulana Abul Hasanat Sahib
4. Maulana Daud Ghaznavi Sahib
5. Maulana Zafar Ahmad Usmani Sahib
6. Maulana Ahmad Ali Sahib?
7. Sayyid Abul A‘la Maududi Sahib
8. Maulana Ihtishamul Haq Sahib
9. Maulana Shamsul Haq Faridpuri Sahib
10. Maulana Abdul Hamid Qadiri Badayuni
11. Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi Sahib
12. Maulana Muhammad Idris Ali Sahib
13. Maulana Khair Muhammad Sahib
14. Haji Muhammad Amin Sahib
15. Haji Abdus Samad Sarbazi Sahib
16. Maulana Athar Ali Sahib
17. Maulana Abu Jafar Muhammad Saleh Sahib
18. Maulana Muhammad Ismail Sahib
19. Maulana Habibur Rahman Sahib
20. Maulana Muhammad Sadiq Sahib
21. Maulana Habibullah Sahib
22. Khalifa Haji Turungjayi Sahib—and others.
Qadiani activities in Bangladesh have recently become quite noticeable. The demand to declare them non-Muslims is also growing stronger. But the government still maintains silence regarding them. Perhaps some people remain doubtful as to whether the Qadianis are non-Muslims. To remove this doubt, we decided to republish the Bengali translation of “The Qadiani Issue” under the title “The Qadiani Problem.” The original book was translated in 1963 in the formal literary style. It had been unavailable in the market for a long time. Along with that translation, we have now added several questions and answers concerning the Qadianis from the Maulana’s famous work “Letters and Issues.” We hope this will give readers a fuller understanding.
Along with this book, we earnestly request interested readers to study the Maulana’s booklet “The Finality of Prophethood.” We also request those who know Urdu to read, in this connection, the Maulana’s work that has not yet been translated from Urdu into Bengali. The Urdu title of the work is “The Qadiani Issue and Its Religious, Political and Social Aspects.” If, through this booklet, Muslims become alert regarding the false interpreters of Islam, our labor will have been worthwhile. Ameen.
Abdush Shahid Nasim
Director
Sayyid Abul A‘la Maududi Research Academy
Introduction
In the name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful
In January 1953, an all-party conference of religious scholars was held in Karachi. For the purpose of reviewing and considering the recommendations of the Committee for Determining Fundamental Principles, thirty-three leading scholars of Pakistan assembled and unanimously adopted an amended report containing several proposals. Particularly noteworthy among them was the demand that the followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani as their religious leader be declared a separate minority community. The proposal also placed particular emphasis on allotting the Qadianis one seat from among the seats reserved for Punjabi Muslims in the Central Legislative Assembly; this too deserves attention.
There is no room for any doubt regarding the soundness of the other proposals adopted at the scholars’ conference. That is why, to this day, no one has protested against them—not to mention uttering a word. Even those hostile to the scholars have been unable to find any fault in this matter. If anyone has said anything anywhere, it is nothing more than the “deep sigh of a disappointed lover.” It has no value in educated society.
Yet although this particular proposal adopted by the all-party conference of scholars was the correct solution to the Qadiani problem, it seems that most educated people have still not fully understood its necessity and rationale. Apart from Punjab and Bahawalpur, the people of other regions of the country, especially the eastern region, have not understood the importance of this problem. For this reason, it is necessary to explain in detail to the people the rationale of the unanimous resolution concerning the Qadiani community adopted at the all-party conference. Through this booklet, I shall make that very attempt.
The Conduct of the Qadianis
It can easily be understood that the demand to regard the Qadianis as a community distinct from Muslims is the natural consequence of the course of action they themselves have voluntarily followed. The first cause of the Qadianis’ conflict with ordinary Muslims is their propagation of a new and contrary interpretation of the “Finality of Prophethood.” For more than thirteen and a half centuries, the entire Muslim world has unanimously accepted the meaning of “Finality of Prophethood” as follows: Sayyiduna, the Honourable Muhammad Mustafa (peace and blessings be upon him), is Allah Almighty’s final Prophet, and no prophet will be sent after him.
A New Interpretation of the Finality of Prophethood
The declaration concerning the “Finality of Prophethood” found in the Noble Qur’an, and the meaning that the Companions understood from that declaration, have been mentioned above. This is the faith and belief of Muslims. Therefore, whenever anyone claimed to be a prophet after the Noble Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), the Companions did not hesitate at all to wage armed campaigns against him. But the Qadianis were the first in Islamic history to devise an unprecedented interpretation of this matter, thereby opening the way for the introduction of new prophets. They interpreted “Khatam al-Nabiyyin” as “the seal of the prophets”—not the final prophet. Thus, any prophet who came after the Noble Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)—Allah forbid—would be considered genuine if his prophethood were endorsed by him.
This claim of the Qadianis is universally known. Numerous proofs can be presented from Qadiani booklets on this subject. By way of example, I shall be content with presenting only three quotations here.
(Urdu**************) [Download the PDF book to view the original Urdu references]
Regarding “Khatam al-Nabiyyin,” Hazrat Masih Mau‘ud (peace be upon him) said: “The meaning of ‘Khatam al-Nabiyyin’ is that no one’s prophethood can be accepted as true without his seal. When the seal is affixed, it becomes authenticated and is regarded as accepted as true. Likewise, the prophethood that has not received the seal of the Honourable Prophet and has not been accepted as true is neither pure nor true.” —“Malfuzat-e-Ahmadiyya,” compiled by Muhammad Manzur Ilahi, vol. 5, p. 290.
(Urdu***********)
“We do not deny that the Noble Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is Khatam al-Nabiyyin. But the meaning of ‘Khatam’ adopted by most people of Ihsan, which is entirely contrary to the exalted status of the Noble Messenger, is that he deprived his ummah of the great blessing of prophethood. This is not correct. Rather, it means that he was the seal of the prophets. Whoever he recognizes as a prophet will be regarded as a prophet. We believe him to be Khatam al-Nabiyyin in this sense.” —Al-Fazl newspaper, Qadian, 22 September 1939.
(Urdu**********)
“‘Khatam’ means a seal. When the Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is the seal, if there is no prophet at all among his ummah, then how is he the seal, or upon what will it be affixed?” —Al-Fazl, Qadian, 22 May 1922.
Thousands of Prophets
This disagreement arising from the interpretation of the Noble Qur’an was not confined to a single word. Rather, the Qadianis went further and openly declared that not merely one but thousands of prophets could come. This is clearly established through their various statements and declarations. A few quotations are given below.
(Urdu*************)
“It has been proved as clearly as daylight that the door of prophethood remains open even after the Honourable Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).”
—Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, “The Reality of Prophethood,” p. 228.
(Urdu***************)
“That is, the Muslims have thought that Allah Almighty’s treasury has come to an end. The sole reason underlying this statement of theirs is that they have failed to appreciate Allah Almighty’s greatness. Otherwise, why only one prophet? I say that thousands of prophets will come.”
—Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, “Lights of the Caliphate,” p. 62.
(Urdu************)
“If swords were placed on both sides of my neck and I were told, ‘Say that no prophet will come after the Honourable Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him),’ even then I would say, ‘You are a liar, an impostor. A prophet can come after the Honourable Prophet; certainly he can come.’” —“Lights of the Caliphate,” p. 65.
The Claim to Prophethood
Thus, after opening the door of prophethood, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself declared his own prophethood. The Qadianis immediately accepted him as a true prophet. Numerous statements of the Qadianis can be cited as proof. For the information of readers, only a few are mentioned here.
(Urdu **********)
“Masih Mau‘ud, that is, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, has explained in detail in his authored books in support of his claim to prophethood. For example, he wrote in one place: ‘I am a prophet and messenger—this is my claim.’ See the Badr newspaper published on 5 March 1908. He also wrote elsewhere: ‘I am a prophet according to God’s command. Therefore, if I deny it now, I shall be sinful. Since God has named me a prophet, how can I deny it? Until I depart from this world, I shall remain firmly established upon this claim.’ See Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s letter sent to the editors of the Lahore newspaper Akhbar-e-Aam. Hazrat Masih Mau‘ud wrote this letter only three days before his death, on 23 May 1908, and it was published in Akhbar-e-Aam on the day of his death, 26 May 1908.” —Mirza Bashiruddin Ahmad, “Kalimat al-Fasl,” and Review of Religions, year 3, issue 14, p. 11.
(Urdu **********)
“Therefore, according to the meaning given to prophet in Islamic law, Hazrat Sahib, that is, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, is in no way a metaphorical prophet; rather, he is a real prophet.” —See p. 147 of “The Reality of Prophethood,” by Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad.
Muslims Are Disbelievers
The natural consequence of claiming prophethood is that if someone does not believe in a prophet, that person must be regarded as a disbeliever. The Qadianis have done precisely this. Those Muslims who did not believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani as a prophet were publicly declared disbelievers through speeches and statements. A few quotations are given here as evidence.
(Urdu **********)
“Those Muslims who did not place their trust in Hazrat Masih Mau‘ud—even those who had not so much as heard the name of Hazrat Masih Mau‘ud—are also disbelievers, outside Islam.” —See p. 35 of “Mirror of Truth,” by Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad.
(Urdu **********)
“Whoever believes in Moses but does not believe in Jesus, or believes in Jesus but does not believe in Muhammad, or believes in Muhammad but does not believe in Masih Mau‘ud, is not merely a disbeliever but a confirmed disbeliever and outside the bounds of Islam.” —Quoted from “Kalimat al-Fasl,” by Mirza Bashiruddin Ahmad; see p. 110 of Review of Religions.
(Urdu **********)
“Since we recognize Mirza Sahib as a prophet, while non-Qadianis do not recognize him as a prophet, if, according to the teaching of the Noble Qur’an, denying even one prophet is disbelief, then those who are not Ahmadis are also disbelievers.” —Statement given by Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad before the Gurdaspur Sub-Judge’s court; see Al-Fazl newspaper, published 26–29 June 1922.
The Qadianis’ God, Islam and Qur’an
The Qadianis differ from ordinary Muslims fundamentally in all matters, not merely on the basis of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s claim to prophethood, but according to their explicit declarations. Of particular note is the speech by the Khalifa entitled “Advice to Students,” published in the 21 August 1917 issue of the Qadianis’ mouthpiece, Al-Fazl. In that speech, he explained to Qadiani students how great the difference was between Ahmadis and other communities.
In the speech under discussion, he said:
(Urdu **********)
“Otherwise, Hazrat Masih Mau‘ud also said that their Islam—that is, the Muslims’ Islam—is different, our Islam is different; their God is different, our God is different; our Hajj is different, their Hajj is different. In this way, we differ from them in every matter.”
Separate Educational Institutions
Another speech by the Khalifa was published in Al-Fazl on 30 July 1931. It mentions discussions held during Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani’s lifetime about establishing a separate religious educational institution for the Qadianis. At that time, a serious disagreement arose among the Qadianis over this question. One group held that there was no need to establish a separate religious educational institution. They said, “Our difference with ordinary Muslims concerns only a few matters, but Hazrat Masih Mau‘ud, peace be upon him, has resolved them. He has provided the evidence concerning all those matters. Education in all other subjects can be obtained in the ordinary madrasas!” One group opposed this view.
Meanwhile, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib arrived there. After hearing everything, he gave his opinion. Regarding that opinion, the Khalifa commented in the following words:
(Urdu **********)
“It is wrong to say that our disagreement with others is confined only to the death of the Messiah or to a few matters. He said that, concerning the essence of Allah Almighty, the Noble Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, the Qur’an, prayer, fasting, Hajj, zakat, and so on—in short, he explained in detail that we differ from them in every matter.”
Severing Relations with Muslims
The ultimate consequence of this extensive disagreement was put into practice by the Qadianis themselves. They severed every kind of relationship with Muslims and devoted themselves to organizing their own society as a separate ummah. The evidence provided by Qadiani writings is as follows:
(Urdu **********)
“Hazrat Masih Mau‘ud (peace be upon him) warned very sternly that no Ahmadi should pray behind another person. Many people from various places repeatedly ask about this matter. I say that whenever you ask, I shall give the same answer: it is not permissible to pray behind non-Qadianis, not permissible, not permissible.” —See “Lights of the Caliphate,” p. 89, written by Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, the Qadiani Khalifa.
(Urdu **********)
“We should not regard non-Qadianis as Muslims. Nor should we pray behind them, because they deny one of Allah Almighty’s prophets.” —“Lights of the Caliphate,” p. 90.
Even Muslim Children Are Disbelievers
(Urdu **********)
“If a young child of a non-Qadiani dies, why should the funeral prayer not be offered for him? The child does not deny Masih Mau‘ud. I would like to ask the person who raises this question: if this is truly the case, why are funeral prayers not offered for Hindu and Christian children? The children of non-Qadianis are also deemed non-Qadianis. For this reason, their funeral prayers should not be offered.” —“Lights of the Caliphate,” p. 93.
Marriage Relations with Muslims
(Urdu **********)
“Hazrat Masih Mau‘ud expressed extreme displeasure regarding any Ahmadi who gives his daughter in marriage to a non-Qadiani. A man repeatedly asked him about this and explained various difficulties. But he told that man: keep the girl seated at home—unmarried—but do not marry her to a non-Qadiani. After the death of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, when that man married his daughter to a non-Qadiani, the First Khalifa removed him from the office of imam and expelled him from the Jamaat; and during the six years of his caliphate, he did not even accept the man’s repentance, although the man repeatedly repented.” —“Lights of the Caliphate,” pp. 93–94.
According to the Qadianis, Muslims and Christians Are the Same
(Urdu **************)
“Hazrat Masih Mau‘ud treated non-Qadianis according to exactly the same principle by which the Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) treated Christians. Our prayer has been separated from that of non-Qadianis. Giving our daughters to them in marriage has been declared unlawful. We have been prohibited from offering their funeral prayers. What remains now? In what matter can we live together with them? The foundation of mutual contact is unity in worship, while the basis of worldly relations is kinship. But both kinds of relations have been made unlawful for us. If you say, ‘Why were you permitted to accept their daughters in marriage?’ the answer is that it is established by hadith that the Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) sometimes returned the greetings of Jews.” —“Kalimat al-Fasl,” Review of Religions, p. 169.
Our Responsibility
This severance of relations between the Qadianis and Muslims is not limited to speeches, statements and writings. Rather, millions of Pakistani citizens will testify that the Qadianis have in practice severed every kind of relationship with Muslims and become a completely separate ummah. They do not pray with Muslims, have no relationship with Muslims in matters of marriage, and do not even offer the funeral prayers of Muslims. When the actual situation is this, what rational reason can remain for keeping Muslims bound to them within the same ummah? When the doctrine of division and distinction has actually been put into practice and this conflict has existed for the past fifty years, why should it not be acknowledged through lawful means?
In reality, the Qadiani movement has provided an opportunity to gain practical experience of the significance of the “Finality of Prophethood.” Previously, it was particularly difficult to appreciate its importance merely as a doctrine. Previously, anyone could ask why the coming of prophets was permanently ended after Hazrat Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). But the actions of the Qadianis have clearly proved how great a mercy and favor of Allah Almighty lies at the root of binding all monotheists together through obedience to one prophet, for the sake of the unity and solidarity of the Muslim nation. Moreover, it has become clear how the existence of a nation is endangered by continual new claims to prophethood. Such claims split a nation into fragments and shatter its various parts.
If our present experience serves any purpose—if it opens the eyes of our understanding, and if we separate this new ummah from Muslim society through constitutional means—then no one will ever again dare to pose as a new claimant to prophethood and create division and disorder in Muslim society. If we once encourage or tolerate such an attempt, it will mean that we are encouraging this kind of activity. Our tolerance will be regarded as a precedent in the future, and attempts to create separation and disorder in national life will not remain limited to a single incident. Rather, our society will continually face new divisions and disorders, and the fear of division will never disappear.
Introducing Specious Arguments
On the basis of the evidence for all these fundamental arguments, we have demanded that the Qadianis be legally separated from the Muslim nation and officially declared a distinct community. No one possesses any satisfactory answer to all this evidence and reasoning. But instead of directly refuting it, several irrelevant questions are being raised so that public attention may shift away from the main issue and become focused elsewhere. For example, it is said that there have long been certain groups among Muslims who declare one another disbelievers. This can still be seen today. If a group is separated from the Muslim nation for this reason, then ultimately the nation itself will have no existence.
It is also said that, besides the Qadiani community, there are several other groups among Muslims that do not merely disagree with most Muslims on fundamental matters; rather, they are forming their own social organizations without maintaining any relationship at all with ordinary Muslims. They too, like the Qadianis, have severed every kind of relationship with ordinary Muslims in religious and social matters. So are they also now to be separated from the ummah? Or for what special reason has this measure been demanded in the case of the Qadianis? What is that special crime of the Qadianis because of which, leaving all other communities aside, such insistence is being made to separate only them from the Muslim nation?
Misconceptions
Many people are firmly convinced that “the Qadianis have consistently protected Islam from the attacks of Christians, Arya Samajists and other aggressors. They are propagating Islam throughout the world. Therefore, it is in no way appropriate to separate them from the nation.” Not only that; recently, through a particularly reliable source, we learned that our statesmen believe that taking such action against the Qadianis would greatly worsen Pakistan’s political situation. For, in their view, the Foreign Secretary’s personal influence and prestige are very great in England and America. If any assistance is to be obtained from there, it is possible only through him!
Our Answer
Since the last point is rather brief, we shall answer it first. We shall discuss the other matters later. If it is true that this is the view of statesmen, then in our opinion the sooner the country is freed from the clutches of such foolish and inert people, the better. Those who think that the future of an entire nation should depend on the whims of one person or a handful of people cannot be entrusted with leadership even for a moment. No British or American politician is so foolish as to disregard the limitless production, opportunities, facilities, geographical importance and other features of a vast country inhabited by eighty million people, attach excessive importance merely to one person, and conduct all dealings with this country solely for the sake of one individual. Thus, as soon as that person is removed, they will sit sulking and complain, “The person in whose honour we are giving you ‘food and clothing’—you have removed him.” No British or American politician is such an utter fool. Rather, if they hear such comments, they will surely laugh unconsciously at the intellectual stature of our statesmen. They will be astonished that such ‘schoolboys’ have been made the rulers of this unfortunate country! They do not even understand this simple fact: whatever esteem our Qadiani Foreign Minister enjoys abroad is founded on his representing Pakistan. This particular Foreign Secretary is not, personally, a cause of Pakistan’s prestige or importance at all.
The Verdict of Unbelief
Now we shall present detailed answers to the foregoing questions one by one. Undoubtedly, this ailment is prevalent in Muslim society. Various sects have declared one another unbelievers. Many people still suffer from this ugly disease. But retaining the Qadiani community within the Muslim nation on the basis of this fact is unjustifiable for several reasons.
Invalid Arguments
First, one cannot adopt the principle that a verdict of unbelief is wrong at all times and in all circumstances merely by presenting a few mistaken and despicable examples of such verdicts. It is not proper to issue a verdict of unbelief against anyone on any matter whatsoever. Indeed, it is not proper to call anyone an unbeliever for minor reasons. Likewise, there is no doubt that failing to apply a verdict of unbelief in the case of openly opposing the fundamental matters of Islam is a grave error. But if someone wishes to conclude from so-called unreasonable verdicts of unbelief that every such verdict is inherently unjust, we wish to ask him: will every person remain a Muslim in every circumstance? If he claims to be God, declares himself a prophet, or openly engages in conduct contrary to the foundational creed or fundamental beliefs of Islam, does that make no difference?
False Slander
Second, the leading scholars of the various Muslim sects whose verdicts of unbelief among Muslims have been cited here as evidence gathered only the other day in Karachi and expressed unanimity on such a serious matter as the constitution. Everyone in the country knows this. By consensus, they formulated the principles of an Islamic system of government. They carried out this work collectively because they regard one another as Muslims. Despite fundamental disagreements, they do not regard one another as outside the bounds of Islam, nor do they say so publicly. Is this incident not sufficient proof? It is therefore clear that the fear being expressed—that after the Qadianis are separated from Muslim society, the various groups will gradually become isolated—is entirely groundless and baseless.
The Distinctiveness of the Qadianis
Third, the unbelief of the Qadianis is entirely different in kind. The Qadianis support a new prophet. Consequently, they are compelled to be regarded as a separate ummah, and all those who do not believe in this new prophet will be included among the unbelieving group. For this reason, the Qadianis are completely agreed on declaring ordinary Muslims unbelievers. Therefore, this kind of fundamental disagreement cannot at all be classified as an ordinary mutual difference of opinion among Muslims.
Other Sects
Apart from the Qadiani community, there are several other groups in Muslim society that hold views opposed to the general body of Muslims on the fundamental matters of Islam. They have established separate organizations in religious and social spheres. Yet for several reasons their position is entirely different from that of the Qadianis. They have separated themselves from ordinary Muslim society and exist merely as distinct groups; they may be compared to small, abandoned plots of land in frontier areas, and for this reason it is possible to exercise patience regarding their existence. But the Qadianis enter Muslim society wearing Muslim dress and propagate their doctrines in the name of Islam. They are constantly occupied, day and night, with controversy and aggressive preaching. They are engaged in destroying the social organization of Muslims in an effort to increase their own group. As a result of their ill efforts, a wholly unwelcome, permanent discord and disorder has raised its head in Muslim society. For this reason, although we are prepared to show a certain degree of patience toward others, this is not at all possible in the case of the Qadianis.
Destruction of Social Order
The question concerning the other sects is merely theological: whether, because they follow particular doctrines, they may be regarded as devotees of Islam or imitators of Islam. Even if they are not regarded as followers of Islam, given the inactive role they currently play, their living together with Muslims in this manner cannot create any danger to Muslims’ faith. They cannot create social, economic or political problems. But the ceaseless propagation of Qadiani doctrine in Muslim society has begun to strike at the very foundations of Muslims’ faith and belief. In reality, whenever the propagation of the Qadianis achieves some success in a Muslim family, social problems are bound to appear there immediately. Thus, in some places husbands and wives have separated, and conflicts have arisen between fathers and sons. Elsewhere, such a division has arisen between brothers that one brother cannot even share in the other’s grief. Above all, in every sphere—government offices and courts, business and trade, agriculture and industry, and so forth—the Qadianis are launching organized attacks against Muslims. Consequently, many other problems besides social problems have raised their heads.
Political Conspiracy
The political views of the sects other than the Qadiani community are not, in any respect, so dangerous to Muslim society that we would be compelled to take immediate remedial measures, or that we would have to remain constantly alert and watchful regarding them. No such situation has arisen so far.
The Qadianis know perfectly well from beginning to end that, after claiming or supporting a new prophethood, it is utterly impossible to survive in an independent and sovereign Muslim society. They believe that the characteristics of the national character of Muslims are extremely vile, and that Muslim society is highly alert and watchful regarding all matters on which being or not being Muslim depends, and which could devastate its social organization by violating the existing boundary between Islam and unbelief. The Qadianis know Muslim history very well, and they are not unaware of how the Muslim nation has dealt with such claimants from the age of the Companions until now. They know well that in territories ruled by Muslims, a new ‘lamp of prophethood’ has never been allowed to burn. There is no reason to fear that this will be different in the future.
They also know very well that it is possible to act according to one’s wishes while remaining within the bounds of religion only in a non-Muslim state, after every citizen has expressed complete obedience to the government and presented reliable evidence of every kind of service and assistance. Let as much religious disagreement and disorder as desired be created in Muslim society; there is no fear that the state will suffer any loss or damage from it. For this reason, new claimants to prophethood have always considered an unbelieving government better and more acceptable than an Islamic state. Yet the Muslim nation is their perpetual target, because they present their claims and demands in the name of Islam. They use the Qur’an and Hadith as weapons. But, in order to protect their own interests, they have adopted as their sole objective keeping Muslims subjugated to an unbelieving state. In this way they can continue their own ‘prophetic drama’ by taking advantage of the helpless condition of Muslims. In exchange for firm, untainted and perfect loyalty to an unbelieving state, they obtain unrestricted opportunity to toy with the faith of Muslims.
An independent and sovereign Muslim state is, for them, like an extremely difficult, inaccessible, stone-strewn field unfit for cultivation. For this reason they have never wholeheartedly supported an Islamic state, nor are they able to do so.
The Benevolence of the British Government
As evidence of this, only a few quotations are given here from among the numerous statements circulated by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib and his group. “In reality, this government has shown us very great benevolence. For if we were to leave here and go elsewhere, we would find no place either in Mecca or in Constantinople. In such circumstances, how could we entertain any adverse opinion of this government? How could such a thing be possible?” —Malfoozat-e-Ahmadiyya, vol. 1, p. 146. “I can conduct my work properly neither in Mecca nor in Medina, neither in Rome nor in Syria, neither in Iran nor in Kabul; but it can continue within the territories of this government, for whose prosperity I am praying.” —Tabligh-e-Risalat, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, vol. 6, p. 69. “Consider for a moment: if you leave the protection of this government, where could you find a place? Name a state that would give you shelter. Every Islamic state is gnashing its teeth at you, because in their view you have been declared unbelievers and apostates. Therefore, take care of this blessing granted by God, and understand with certainty that God has established the rule of the English in this country for your welfare. If any calamity or disaster befalls this government, it will destroy you. Go for a while and live in another kingdom, and see how you are treated there. Listen: English rule is a blessing for you and, from God, a shield for you. Therefore, care for, protect and honour the shield with your lives and souls. They are a thousand times better than the Muslims who oppose us, because they do not regard us as ‘liable to be killed.’ They do not wish to disgrace you.” —Urgent Advice by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib to His Community, Tabligh-e-Risalat, vol. 2, p. 123. “The treatment meted out by the Government of Iran to the founder of the Babi community, Mirza Ali Muhammad Bab, and his helpless disciples because of their religious disagreement, and the oppression and persecution inflicted upon this community, are not unknown to those learned people who are accustomed to studying the history of nations. Moreover, the treatment given by the Turkish state—known as a European state—to the founder of the Baha’i community, Baha’u’llah, and his exiled followers from 1863 to 1893, first in Constantinople, then in Adrianople, and finally in the prison of Acre, is not unknown to those who follow noteworthy events in the world. The three great states known throughout the world—[probably the three Muslim states of Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan]—have all displayed such examples of narrow-mindedness and hostility in the present age of civilization that they have certainly made the Ahmadi nation understand that the freedom of the Ahmadis is inseparably linked with the British Empire. Therefore, those devoted Ahmadis who regard Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian Sahib as sent by God and as a holy great man believe, without flattery or deceit, that the British Government is the shade of God’s mercy for them. Thus they regard and believe the existence of the British Government to be their own existence.” —Al-Fazl, 31 December 1914. The above quotations plainly testify that what is an extreme danger to Muslims—the servitude of unbelievers—is regarded as true mercy and God’s benevolence for claimants to prophethood and their devoted followers. For, while living under this shelter, they are able to obtain unrestricted freedom to create ever-new afflictions of prophethood and discord and disorder among Muslims. Conversely, what is a special mercy of God to Muslims—an independent and sovereign state—is regarded by the persons under discussion as a calamity. For no Muslim society possessing sovereign power can, under any circumstances, tolerate attempts to harm its own religion or tear its social organization into a hundred pieces.
The Desire to Establish a Qadiani Government
The Qadianis did not stop at regarding British tyranny as God’s mercy and the independent sovereign states of Muslims as a calamity. Rather, recently an intense desire has arisen among them to establish the foundation of a Qadiani state in some part of Pakistan. As evidence, we wish to mention here a speech by the Qadiani caliph. This speech was delivered in Quetta on 23 July 1948, before a full year had passed since the establishment of Pakistan, and was published in the following words in the 13 August issue of the Qadianis’ mouthpiece, Al-Fazl. “British Baluchistan, now known as Pak-Baluchistan, has a population of only five hundred thousand. Although its population is much smaller than that of the other provinces, its importance as a unit is considerable. Just as human beings have status in the world, so do units. The American constitution may be cited as an example. There, members of the Senate are elected by the states. It is not considered at all whether a state has a population of ten crores or one crore. Equal numbers of members are taken from all the states. In short, Pak-Baluchistan has a population of only five or six hundred thousand. If the native states of Baluchistan are included with it, the population comes to only eleven hundred thousand. But since it is a unit, its importance is great. It is difficult to initiate the majority of the population into the Ahmadi faith, but it is not so difficult to initiate a small number of people into the Ahmadi faith. Therefore, if the Jamaat gives this matter its full attention, it will soon be possible to make this province Qadiani. Remember that preaching cannot succeed until our base or foundation is strong. If the base or foundation is first made strong, only then does preaching spread. “Now build your own base, wherever it may be. … If we can make the entire province Ahmadi, then at least there will be one province that we can declare our own province. And this can be done very easily.” The quotation given above requires no explanation or analysis. The question now is this: among the other sects that have been presented as examples and on the basis of which Muslims have been advised to tolerate the Qadianis, has even one of them formed a similar plan? Is there any sect among them that regards the dominance of non-Muslims over Muslims as an object of intense desire for the protection of its own religious beliefs? And, simultaneously with the Muslims’ gaining dominance, has any of them become frantically occupied with forming a separate government for itself within the state? If there is truly no such sect, then why are its examples being cited in the case of the Qadianis?
The Rationale for Separation
Now I wish to discuss the third question. Ordinarily, the demand for distinctiveness is made by a minority community. But in the case of the Qadianis, the majority group is putting forward this demand in the opposite manner. This seems very strange. There is not a single person among the questioners who can quote a verse or passage from any political bible of the world and prove the proposition that the demand for separation is permissible only for minorities and that the majority group has no right to make such a demand. Or at least let them tell us where this principle is recorded and who established it. In reality, such a demand is made on the basis of need, and those who have the need put it forward. It must now be considered whether the reason for which this demand has arisen is reasonable. In the case of the Qadianis, the harm caused by following a policy of social integration is confined exclusively to the majority, whereas there is no fear of any harm to the Qadianis. For this reason, the majority group has been compelled to demand that this group be completely separated by lawful means. On the one hand, those who in practice remain separate and enjoy all the opportunities and advantages of distinctiveness are, on the other hand, gaining the opportunity to advance their group interests through unrestricted contact as members of the majority. On one hand, they sever religious and social ties with Muslims, establish their own organization, and collectively make ceaseless efforts to harm Muslims. On the other hand, they again enter the majority group disguised as Muslims, mislead the ignorant, uneducated and inexperienced, even the lightly educated, and increase the strength of their own group. They set fire to division and disorder in Muslim society. Even in government posts, by posing as Muslims they are appropriating far more than their due share. As a result, only the majority suffers, while this particular group increases its own weight by wholly reprehensible means. In such circumstances, if the minority group does not wish to separate, by what logic will it be allowed to grind a millstone upon the chest of the majority, and the demand for distinctiveness presented by the majority be rejected? Basically, in this case the cause of distinctiveness is not the conduct of the majority community; rather, the Qadianis themselves are responsible. They have built a separate society for themselves. They themselves have severed religious and social contact with the majority. It would have been reasonable for them to accept the demand for distinctiveness as the natural consequence of the course of action they have adopted. But if they are unwilling to do so, or wish to evade the central question, then ask them why they wish to evade it. If Allah has given you eyes with which to see, look for yourself and see why they are unwilling to face the natural consequence of the course they have adopted. If they wish to secure their interests through deception and fraud, then where has your intelligence gone, that you are now compelling your own people to remain the targets of their deception?
The Qadianis’ Propagation of Islam
Now it is necessary to answer the final argument. The central argument was that the Qadianis are protecting and propagating Islam; therefore, treating them in this manner is not proper. The idea on which this argument is based is fundamentally founded on error. In fact, many members of our modern educated society have fallen prey to this misconception. For this reason, we request that you read carefully the following quotation from Mirza Sahib, the leader of the Qadianis. Through it, you will easily gain a clear understanding of the purpose and aim of the founder of that religion. In the third appendix of the book Tiryāq al-Qulūb, printed by the Qadianis’ Zia-ul-Islam Press on 28 October 1902, entitled ‘Huzur Government Alia Mein Ek Aajizana Darkhwast’—‘A Humble Petition to the Exalted Government’—Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib says: “For twenty years I have been publishing, with sincere inspiration, enthusiasm and zeal, books in Persian, Arabic, Urdu and English, in which it has repeatedly been written that it is the duty of Muslims—by abandoning which they would become sinners before God—to prove themselves true well-wishers of the present government and wholly devoted to sacrificing their lives for it. In addition, they should abandon such foolish and useless notions as jihad and awaiting the bloodthirsty Mahdi, which cannot in any way be proved from the Holy Qur’an. If they absolutely do not wish to abandon these erroneous beliefs, then it is their duty not to be ungrateful to the present benevolent government and not to become sinners before God through disloyalty.” (p. 307). He wrote again in the same humble petition: “Now I can say with courage in the service of the benevolent Government that this is my service of twenty long years. No other Muslim family in British India can present such an example. It is also quite clear that continuing an unbroken effort for such a long period—an entire age of twenty years—to spread the doctrines and teachings mentioned above is not possible for a hypocrite or a selfish person. Rather, it is possible only for one whose heart contains genuine concern and goodwill toward the present government. Yes, I must certainly acknowledge that I debate other faiths with good intentions. Likewise, I have published polemical books against Christian priests. I also acknowledge that when some writing by priests and Christian missionaries became intolerable and crossed all limits—especially the extremely vile and vulgar writings published in the newspaper Noor Afshan from Ludhiana, in which its authorities attacked our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in highly offensive language—they said of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he was a thief, robber and adulterer (God forbid). In addition, it was published in their numerous newspapers that this man was improperly enamoured of his own daughter (God forbid). Besides this, they said that he was a liar, rioter and killer of men. “After reading these books and newspapers, I feared that their statements might produce an agitated reaction among Muslims, who are an excitable nation. Therefore, in order to reduce their agitation, I considered it proper, in my judgment and according to the correct method, to answer these writings in somewhat harsh language as a tactic for suppressing this general agitation. Thus the anger of those suddenly excitable people might be subdued and no disorder might arise in the country. Accordingly, I wrote several books against works containing extremely harsh abuse, using comparatively severe language. For my conscience had certainly issued this verdict to me: this method would be sufficient to extinguish the anger and fire of resentment of the numerous Muslims who possess, in Islam, an animal-like capacity for agitation.” (pp. 308–309). Only a few lines later he wrote again: “Whatever I have done in confronting the priests amounts to this: through strategy, Muslims of the animal class have been pleased; and I can assert that, among the entire Muslim nation, my position is highest as a well-wisher of the English Government. Three things have brought me to the first rank among the well-wishers of the English Government: first, the influence of my late father; second, the special favour of the present government; third, divine revelation.” (pp. 309–310).
The Patrons of the Qadianis
The sixth edition of Shahadat-ul-Qur’an, printed by the Punjab Press of Sialkot, contains an appendix entitled “Worthy of the Government’s Attention.” In it, Mirza Sahib wrote, (Urdu *************) “Therefore, my religion—which I have always openly proclaimed—is that Islam consists of two parts. First, acknowledging obedience to Allah Almighty. Second, expressing allegiance to the government that established peace, rescued us from the hands of oppressors, and accepted us under its protection. That government is the British Government.” (p. 3) In an application entitled “To His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor Bahadur,” included in the eighth volume of Tabligh-e-Risalat, published in August 1922 (printed at the Faruq Press, Qadian), Mirza Sahib first gave an account of the loyalty of his forefathers and then quoted copies of several letters as evidence. These letters had been presented to his father, Mirza Ghulam Murtaza Khan, by the Commissioner of Lahore, the Financial Commissioner of Punjab, and other distinguished English officials, in recognition of his numerous acts of loyalty to the British Government. He also mentioned the various services rendered to the English by his other ancestors. He then wrote, (Urdu *************) “From my earliest youth until now, when I have reached the age of sixty, through my speech and my pen I have remained engaged in this important work: that I may turn the hearts of Muslims toward sincere love, goodwill, and sympathy for the English Government, and that I may remove from the minds of a class of their unintelligent people the false notions of jihad and the like, which obstruct the removal of their mental disorders and the establishment of cordial relations.” (p. 10) He further wrote, (Urdu *************) “And I have not merely done this—that I have inclined the Muslims of British India toward devoted loyalty to the British Government. Rather, by writing books in Arabic, Persian, and Urdu, I have also informed the inhabitants of Islamic states how we are living happily, peacefully, and freely under the protection of the British Government!” (p. 10) Thereafter he presented a long list of the books he had written. In his view, those books would provide evidence of the loyal services he had rendered to the English. Concerning this he wrote, (Urdu *************) “The Government ought to investigate and see whether this is true: thousands of Muslims who declared me a kafir, and regarded it as their duty to abuse and harm my Jamaat, in which countless people from Punjab and India are included. There is a hidden reason behind this alleged kufr and harm. It is that thousands of leaflets were distributed with all sincerity in order to express gratitude to the English Government against the secret beliefs of those ignorant Muslims, and books of this kind were sent as far as Arabia and Syria. These statements are not without proof. If the Government would only take notice, I possess very clear evidence. I proclaim in a loud voice and declare before the Government with full insistence that, as a matter of religious principle, this new community alone is, among all the communities of Muslims, the Government’s first-class loyal, self-sacrificing, and well-wishing body. None of this community’s principles is harmful or dangerous to the Government.” (p. 13) Again he wrote, (Urdu *************) “And I firmly believe that as the number of my disciples increases, the number of those who support the injunction of jihad will decrease. For to accept me as the Messiah and Mahdi is to deny the injunction of jihad.” (p. 17).
The Secret of Tabligh
For the moment, set aside the question of whether the language and style of composition of all the quotations presented above are those of a prophet. What we wish to draw your attention to here is this: after the founder of this religion himself has described the purpose and reason behind the initiation of its tabligh and the protection of Islam, is his “service to the faith” worthy of any support? Even after all these deeds, if anyone is unable to understand the significance of this kind of “service to the faith,” we humbly request that he read the confessions of the Qadianis with his eyes open: (Urdu *************) “After many days, a book was found in a library which had become rare after being printed. Its author was an Italian engineer who held an important post in Afghanistan. He writes that Sahibzada Abdul Latif (Qadiani) was martyred because he preached against jihad. The Afghan Government feared that this would weaken the Afghans’ desire for independence and establish English domination over them. … The account of such a trustworthy narrator conclusively proves that if Sahibzada Abdul Latif Sahib had remained silent and had said nothing against jihad, the Afghan Government would not have felt the need to martyr him.” —Friday sermon delivered by Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad Sahib, Al-Fazl newspaper, 6 August 1935. (Urdu *************) “The Afghan Government’s Home Secretary issued the following notice: Two men of Kabul—Mulla Abdul Hamid Chahar Asiyani and Mulla Ali—had become devotees of the Qadiani doctrine. By preaching that doctrine, they were misleading the public from the right path. Another charge had also been brought against them. Letters and documents relating to foreign conspiracies against the interests of the Afghan Government were recovered from them, proving that they had sold themselves to the enemies of the Afghan Government.” —Al-Fazl newspaper, received from Afghan sources in Aman, 3 March 1925. (Urdu *************) “Although I went to Russia—that is, to the land of Russia—to preach the Ahmadi doctrine, the interests of the Ahmadiyya movement and the British Government are interconnected. For this reason, wherever I preached my movement, I was compelled to serve the English Government as well.” —Statement of Sahib Muhammad Amin, a Qadiani missionary, published in the 28 December 1922 issue of Al-Fazl. (Urdu *************) “The world considers us agents of the English. Thus, when a German minister took part in the opening ceremony of the Ahmadiyya building in Germany, the Government demanded an explanation from him, saying, ‘Why did you participate in a celebration of a group that are agents of the English?’” —Friday sermon of the Qadiani Khalifa, published in Al-Fazl on 1 November 1934. (Urdu *************) “We hope that, with the expansion of the British Empire, the field for our propagation of Islam will gradually expand, and that, along with converting non-Muslims into Muslims, we shall make Muslims Muslims again.” —Comment concerning Lord Hardinge’s journey to Iraq, Al-Fazl, 11 February 1910. (Urdu *************) “In reality, the British Government is like a shield. Under its protection, the Ahmadiyya Jamaat continues to advance. Move this shield aside even slightly, and you will see how a terrifying shower of arrows mixed with deadly poison begins above your heads. Therefore, why should we not be grateful to this Government? The destruction of the present Government means our destruction; the Government’s progress is also our progress. Our interests are inseparably connected with this Government. Wherever the influence of this Government spreads, the field is prepared there for conducting our tabligh.” —Al-Fazl newspaper, 19 October 1915.
Special Relations with the British Government
“The relationship between the Ahmadiyya movement and the British Government is entirely different from that of the other Jamaats. Our position is such that the interests of the Government and our interests have become one. As the British Government prospers, opportunities arise for our advancement. God forbid—if any harm should come to it, we too shall not be safe from that blow.” —Al-Fazl newspaper, 27 July 1918, declaration of the Qadiani Khalifa.
Characteristics of the Qadiani Movement
A complete outline of the Qadiani movement is presented for the readers’ consideration. Its principal characteristics are these: 1. For more than fifty years—at a time when Muslims were bound in the chains of English slavery—a man in Punjab appeared as a claimant to prophethood. In the midst of the nation which Allah Almighty’s Tawhid (oneness) and the recognition of the Risalat (prophethood) of Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him) had united into one nation, one community, and one society, this man declared: “For becoming a Muslim, it is not enough merely to affirm Tawhid and believe in or place trust in Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him) as the Messenger. Along with this, it is necessary to believe in my prophethood. Whoever does not believe in my prophethood, despite believing in Tawhid and the Muhammadi Risalat (peace be upon him), shall be considered a kafir and outside Islam.” 2. On the basis of this claim, that man created a new boundary between kufr and faith in Muslim society and began organizing those who believed in him as a separate ummah and society. In every matter of belief, doctrine, customs, and rituals, a condition effectively arose between this new ummah and the Muslims resembling the difference between Muslims and Hindus or Christians. In creed and belief, worship, kinship, and joy and sorrow—in short, in no matter did they reach agreement with the Muslims. 3. From the very first day, the founder of the religion himself understood clearly that Muslim society would neither tolerate nor could tolerate this division and disorder. For this reason, he and his followers did not merely adopt complete loyalty, service, and assistance to the English Government as a policy. Rather, as the natural consequence of their adopted course of action, they clearly understood that their interests depended on the dominance of the kafirs. Thus, it was their fervent desire that English domination be established not only in India but throughout the world. In practice, they also attempted to bring about the subjugation of independent Muslim states by the English, so that the path for propagating their new religion might remain unobstructed. 4. For half a century, whenever Muslims attempted to separate this Jamaat, they succeeded each time in frustrating those efforts through collusion with foreign powers. The English Government, too, consistently declared firmly that although this community was unrelated to Muslims in every respect, it would nevertheless remain part of Muslim society. As a result of this arrangement, Muslims suffered double harm and the Qadianis gained double benefit. (a) Despite every possible effort and initiative by the ulema, relentless efforts continued to convince ordinary Muslims that the Qadiani doctrine was itself a part of Islam. In this way, the propagation and spread of the Qadiani doctrine in Muslim society became much easier. For, in such circumstances, when an ordinary Muslim accepted the Qadiani doctrine, he did not realize at all, nor did the slightest apprehension arise in his mind, that he was leaving Islam and entering another social system. The Qadianis benefited by continually having the opportunity to draw people away from Muslim society and strengthen their own group. Muslims, on the other hand, suffered because a completely separate and hostile society within their society was spreading poison to its very core like cancer in the body. As a result, conflicts and extreme disorder arose in thousands of Muslim families. Punjab Province was especially harmed by this, because the disease began in Punjab. Therefore, the greatest agitation against this group appeared among the Muslims of Punjab. (b) After receiving the favor of the English Government, they began placing their people in the military, police, courts, and other government offices. Disguising themselves as Muslims, the Qadianis began appropriating a large portion of the employment quota reserved for Muslims. On the other hand, the Government reassured Muslim society: “Look, such important posts have been given to you.” In reality, a large share of the jobs reserved for Muslims was being given to the Qadianis. Taking advantage of this, the Qadianis, posing as rivals of the Muslims, began strengthening their anti-Muslim organization. The same policy was followed with government contracts, trade and commerce, and land-related matters. 5. Fearing that Pakistan’s Muslim society would not tolerate the Qadianis for long after attaining independent and sovereign power, they set about with great speed strengthening their bases. Those members of this community who held responsible government positions were filling the various departments of the Government with their own people. In the economic sphere too, they were granting the Qadianis as many facilities and opportunities as possible, so that Pakistan’s Muslim society would be unable to resist the Qadianis even after becoming independent and sovereign. On the other hand, they began making desperate efforts to seize Baluchistan and establish a separate government of their own within Pakistan. For all these reasons, all of Pakistan’s religious institutions unanimously demanded that this “Qadiani boil” be cut out immediately and Pakistan’s Muslim social body be freed of the disease, and that Sir Zafrulla Khan be removed from the ministry. For, under his patronage, this “Qadiani boil” was freely spreading poison in Pakistan and other Muslim states. Therefore, it is urgently necessary to remove Qadianis from other important government posts and determine their rate of government employment on the basis of their population.
We Demand an Argument
But the Government of Pakistan is not willing to do so. The Constituent Assembly of Pakistan disagrees with it. More astonishing still is that most of the country’s educated people hold the mistaken notion that this is merely the result of an internal sectarian dispute among Muslims. The question now is whether those opposing the said proposal possess any conclusive and acceptable arguments, evidence, or conclusions with which to support themselves and present their case before the people of the country. We have placed our arguments and evidence before the people. If they too have a reasoned answer, they should certainly present it before the people. Otherwise, it seems most strange to act stubbornly and obstinately in a matter without producing any evidence at all. For those who once loudly accused the mullahs of this very offense are now committing it themselves—people who used to take great pride in not being mullahs. They should, however, remember one thing: the combined force of public opinion and argument and evidence will one day certainly bring them down.
Refutation of Another Qadiani Argument against the Finality of Prophethood
Question: In Tafhim-ul-Qur’an, in note 69 explaining the verse of Surah Aal-e-Imran (Arabic ************), you wrote: “It should also be understood here that, before Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him), this covenant was taken from every prophet, and on this basis every prophet informed his ummah about the prophet who would come after him and instructed them to support him. But whether any such covenant was taken from Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), or whether he informed his ummah of a prophet who would come later and instructed them to believe in him, there is no mention of it anywhere in the Qur’an or Hadith.” After reading these sentences, this thought arose in my mind: It is true that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not say this, but in Surah Ahzab of the Holy Qur’an a covenant is mentioned in these words, (Arabic **************). Here, through the word minka (“from you”), the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) is addressed. And the covenant mentioned here is the one mentioned in Surah Aal-e-Imran. The same covenant mentioned in both Surah Aal-e-Imran and Surah Ahzab was also taken from Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). In fact, this question arose in my mind after reading a book by the Ahmadis. There, the verses cited from those two surahs were used to explain one another. Along with this, a lengthy discussion was made concerning the word minka. Answer: (Arabic *************) If the argument presented by the Qadiani gentlemen from this verse of Surah Ahzab has been presented sincerely, then it displays their foolishness and ignorance. If they have done so deliberately in order to deceive people, then their misguidance becomes evident. They have taken one statement from the verse of Surah Aal-e-Imran (Arabic **********). In it, a covenant was taken from the prophets and their ummahs to obey a prophet who would come in the future. Then they took a second statement from the verse of Surah Ahzab cited above. Here, it is said that a covenant was taken from the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him), along with the other prophets. Thereafter, by joining the two, they themselves fabricated this third statement: that a covenant had also been taken from the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) to believe in and assist a prophet who would come in the future. Yet nowhere in the verse which speaks of a covenant being taken concerning a prophet who would come in the future did Allah Almighty say that this covenant was also taken from Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him). And in the verse which speaks of a covenant being taken from Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him), nowhere is it said that this covenant was connected with obedience to a prophet who would come later. The question, then, is: what justification is there for joining two separate statements and producing a third statement which existed nowhere in the Qur’an? There could have been three arguments or bases for this. First, if after this verse was revealed the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) had gathered the Companions and declared: “O people, Allah has taken a covenant from me that I shall believe in and assist the prophet who will come after me. Therefore, because of your obedience to me, you too should make this covenant.” But nowhere in all the books of Hadith do we find even one Hadith containing such a statement. On the contrary, we find numerous Hadiths from which it is clearly evident that the chain of prophethood ended with the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), and that no prophet would come after him. Can it ever be imagined that such an important covenant was taken from the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), yet he neglected it in this way, and instead said things on the basis of which a large part of his ummah remained deprived of believing in a prophet sent by Allah? If the Qur’an had mentioned only one covenant taken from all the prophets and their ummahs, that could have been the second argument or basis for accepting this statement. That covenant would be belief in the prophet who would come later. If the entire Qur’an had contained no mention of any other covenant besides this one, it could have been argued that the same covenant was referred to in the cited verse of Surah Ahzab. But there is no scope for making this argument here. The Qur’an mentions not one but many covenants. For example, in the tenth ruku of Surah Al-Baqarah, a covenant was taken from the Children of Israel to worship Allah, treat parents well, and refrain from shedding one another’s blood. In the nineteenth ruku of Surah Aal-e-Imran, a covenant was taken from all the People of the Book that they would not conceal the teachings of the Book given to them, but would spread it publicly. In the twenty-first ruku of Surah Al-A‘raf, a covenant was taken from the Children of Israel that they would not say anything in Allah’s name except what was true, would hold firmly to the Book given by Allah, and would remember its teachings. In the first ruku of Surah Al-Ma’idah, the followers of Muhammad (peace be upon him) were reminded of a covenant they had made with Allah: “You have pledged to Allah that you would listen and obey.” The question now is this: since the related verse of Surah Ahzab does not state what the covenant was, why should one particular covenant be selected from among these covenants—especially the covenant mentioned in the ninth ruku of Surah Aal-e-Imran? A basis is certainly needed for this, but no such basis exists anywhere. If someone replies that, since in both places a covenant is said to have been taken from prophets, one verse has been used to explain the other, I would say that none of the other covenants taken from the ummahs of the prophets was taken directly; rather, they were taken through the prophets. Moreover, everyone who studies the Qur’an deeply knows that from every prophet a covenant is taken to hold firmly to the Book of Allah and obey its commandments. The third argument or basis could have been the context of the preceding and following passages of Surah Ahzab. If there had been a clear indication there that “covenant” meant a covenant to believe in prophets who would come later, then accepting this interpretation would have been reasonable. But here the matter is completely opposite. The surrounding context wholly opposes this meaning. Surah Ahzab begins with these words: “O Prophet, fear Allah, do not obey the disbelievers and hypocrites, act according to the revelation sent by your Lord, and place your trust in Allah.” Then the instruction is given to abolish the practice inherited from the Age of Ignorance of taking adopted sons, along with all the related false notions and customs. Then it is said that among non-blood relationships there is only one relationship more honorable than a blood relationship: the relationship between the Prophet and the believers. Because of this relationship, the Prophet’s wives possess the status of their mothers for the believers and are forbidden to them as mothers are. In all other matters, only blood relationship is recognized under Allah’s Book as establishing the prohibition of marriage and the right of inheritance. After prescribing this rule, Allah Almighty reminds him of the covenant that He has always taken from all the prophets, and likewise from the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him). Anyone of ordinary good sense can see that, in this context, where was there any opportunity to remind him of a covenant to believe in a prophet who would come later? At most, there was room to remind him of the covenant by which all the prophets were bound to hold firmly to Allah’s Book, remember its commandments, implement them, and proclaim them publicly. Then, as we proceed a little further, we see that Allah Almighty clearly tells the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) to marry the divorced wife of his adopted son Zayd himself and thereby abolish the ignorant misconception on which people regarded an adopted son as their biological son. When the disbelievers and hypocrites raised objection after objection and engaged in slander against this, Allah Almighty answered them successively. First: Muhammad (peace be upon him) is not the father of any man among you, so that the divorced wife of that man could be forbidden to him. Second: If you say that, even though she was lawful for him, what need was there for him to marry her, the answer is that he is Allah’s Messenger. When Allah wishes to abolish a practice, it is his duty to step forward himself and abolish it. Third: It was even more necessary for him to do this because he was not merely a messenger; he was the last Messenger. If he did not abolish these customs of the Age of Ignorance, no prophet would come after him to abolish them. When this final statement is considered together with the preceding statement, anyone will say with certainty that, in this context, the covenant of which the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) was reminded was certainly not a covenant to believe in a prophet who would come later. Now consider: these three could have been the bases for accepting the meaning stated by the Qadianis from the verse under discussion. Each of the three is unrelated to their claim and, indeed, contrary to it. If they have a fourth argument or basis, ask them about it, and obtain from them answers to these three arguments as well. Otherwise, it will justly be thought that, out of foolishness and ignorance—or after completely removing the fear of Allah from their hearts—they have adopted this interpretation of the verse in order to mislead the simple-hearted public. In any case, I cannot understand this: if Mirza Sahib was a prophet, then the age of his “Companions” has still not ended, whereas his entire ummah has now become included among the “Followers and Followers of the Followers.” Moreover, their condition is such that members of his ummah openly continue to present such erroneous and false arguments from the Book of Allah, yet not a single voice is being raised throughout the ummah against this foolishness. (Tarjuman-ul-Qur’an, Ramadan–Shawwal 1371 AH, June–July 1952)
The Qadianis’ Erroneous Interpretation
Question: The Qadiani missionaries try with all their strength to prove that the door of prophethood remains open. They particularly present the following two verses as evidence and make them the basis of their claim. “And whoever obeys Allah and the Messenger will be with those upon whom Allah has bestowed His blessings: the prophets, the truthful, the martyrs, and the righteous. How excellent are such companions!” (Surah al-Nisa, verse 69) In explaining this verse, they say that four things have been mentioned consecutively here: the prophets, the truthful, the martyrs, and the righteous. According to their understanding, members of the ummah of Muhammad (peace be upon him) have attained three of these ranks. One rank remains to be attained—that of prophethood. They say that this was attained by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani. They argue that if being companions means that the ummah of Muhammad (peace be upon him) will be companions of the above-mentioned classes only on the Day of Resurrection, then this would mean that there are no truthful, martyrs, or righteous people among the ummah of Muhammad. If that is not the case, then since four levels of rank have been mentioned in the verse, on what basis can the presence of the class of prophets among the ummah be excluded? “O children of Adam! Remember that whenever messengers from among yourselves come to you, reciting My verses to you, whoever then guards himself against disobedience and reforms his conduct shall have no cause for fear or grief.” (Surah al-A‘raf, verse 35) They use this verse as evidence, saying that the whole human race has been addressed in it. This verse was revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him). Their argument is that if there were no possibility of the coming of a prophet, why would this verse have been revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him)? Moreover, a word has been used here whose meaning is, “Surely My prophet will come to you.” Thus, they claim that this verse proves that a prophet can come under the obedience of Muhammad (peace be upon him). You are requested to discuss this matter in your magazine with arguments and evidence, so that everyone may benefit from it. Answer: When Allah and His Messenger settle a matter through clear and unequivocal commands, to set aside that clear ruling, derive from unrelated verses and hadith whatever meaning one needs, and hold an article of faith completely opposed to the clear injunctions of the Qur’an and Hadith and act accordingly is the height of misguidance—indeed, the vilest rebellion against Allah and the Messenger. A person who openly adopts a path contrary to Allah and His command commits a comparatively lesser form of rebellion. But distorting the declarations and commands of Allah and His Messenger against their decision and using them for one’s own interests is no minor rebellion. We cannot possibly think of those who do this as sincerely obeying the commands of Allah and His Messenger. To settle the question of whether Sayyiduna Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the last prophet and whether any prophet will come after him, we could have focused on verses such as these if Allah and His Messenger had not answered this particular question anywhere in the Qur’an and Hadith. But when, in the verse concerning the Seal of the Prophets on Allah’s behalf, and in countless sound and reliable hadith on the Messenger’s behalf, we have received an unequivocal answer to this very question, then directing one’s attention to other verses and deriving from them a meaning contrary to the clear injunctions of the Qur’an and Hadith can only be the work of someone who has not the slightest fear of Allah in his heart and does not believe that one day, after death, he will have to answer before Allah. An example may be given from the penal law of a country. One provision of the law declares an act to be a crime in unequivocal language. Yet a person becomes intent on proving that crime to be a lawful act. For this purpose, he sets aside that particular provision and searches through other unrelated provisions of the law for the slightest indication or some minor ambiguous statement. He then stitches these together and attempts to prove lawful the act that the clear provision of the law has declared a crime. If the police authorities and courts of this world are not prepared to accept such evidence, how can one hope that it will be accepted in the court of Allah? Furthermore, after reading the verses from which the Qadianis seek to prove their position, one must be astonished at their method of proof. It becomes clear that those verses do not bear the meaning they seek to force and drag out of them. Let us see the actual meaning of the verses on which they have exerted themselves. The only statement made in verse 69 of Surah al-Nisa is that those who obey Allah and the Messenger will be companions of the prophets, the truthful, the martyrs, and the righteous. How can it be inferred from this that those who obey Allah and the Messenger will themselves become prophets, or truthful, or martyrs, or righteous? Now consider verse 19 of Surah al-Hadid. It says that those who believe in Allah and His messengers are the truthful and the martyrs in the sight of their Lord. It thus becomes clear that through faith a person can attain only the rank of the truthful and the martyrs. As for the prophets, it is enough for believers to be their companions. It is in no way possible for a person to become a prophet as a reward for some deed. Thus, the verse of Surah al-Nisa says that those who obey Allah and the Messenger will remain with the prophets, the truthful, and the martyrs. The verse of Surah al-Hadid says that those who believe in Allah and the Messenger will themselves become truthful and martyrs. As for verse 35 of Surah al-A‘raf, it is connected with a narrative. This narrative continues from verses 11 to 36 of Surah al-A‘raf. If it is judged in the light of the subject matter before and after it, it becomes clear that this address was made to the children of Adam at the first stage of the creation of humankind. How can one read these verses and conclude that they speak of prophets coming after Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)? They concern the time when Adam (peace be upon him) and his wife were expelled from Paradise and brought down to the world. (Tarjuman al-Qur’an, May 1962).
The Qadianis’ Evidence Against the Finality of Prophethood
Question: The Qadianis are trying to use certain verses of the Qur’an and certain hadith as evidence for the finality of prophethood. For example, they interpret the verse of Surah al-A‘raf in such a way that, after Muhammad (peace be upon him) received prophethood and the Qur’an was revealed, the address of this verse can apply only to the ummah of Muhammad. By “children of Adam,” they understand this very ummah. Addressing them, it is said, “Whenever messengers from among yourselves come to you.” According to the Qadianis, this proves not merely the coming of an ummati prophet, but the coming of an ummati messenger. The second verse is the verse of Surah al-Mu’minun that begins with the words, “O messengers.” In their view, this verse also proves the coming of messengers. Similarly, they use the hadith, “Had Ibrahim, the son of the Messenger of Allah, lived, he would have been a prophet,” as evidence for the possibility of the coming of a prophet. Kindly disclose the reality of these proofs. Answer: The proofs of the Qadianis that you have mentioned are founded, like most of their other proofs, on misleading deception. The meaning they derive from this verse by separating it from its context is entirely contrary to the meaning that emerges when it is considered in its proper place. In fact, the chain of discourse in which this verse was revealed is narrated continuously from the second section of Surah al-A‘raf to the middle of the fourth section. First, the story of Adam and Eve is narrated in the second section. Then, in the third and fourth sections, comments are made on the consequences of this story. Keeping this preceding and following discussion in view, it becomes clear upon reading verse 35 that the address made there relates to the beginning of creation, not to the time of the revelation of the Qur’an. In other words, its purpose is to warn the children of Adam, from the very beginning of creation, that their salvation would depend on obeying the guidance sent to them by Allah. Verses containing this subject have been included in three places in the Qur’an. In each place they are introduced in connection with the story of Adam and Eve. The first occurs in Surah al-Baqarah, verse 38, and the second in Surah al-A‘raf, verse 35. Along with the close similarity in the subject matter of these three verses, their similarity of place and time is also noteworthy. The Qur’an’s commentators, like the other verses, regard this verse of Surah al-A‘raf as connected with the story of Adam and Eve. In explaining this verse in his commentary, Allamah Ibn Jarir quotes the statement of Abu Sayyar al-Sulami and writes: “Here Allah addressed Adam and his family together and at the same time.” Imam Razi, in his Tafsir al-Kabir, writes in explaining this verse: “If the Noble Prophet is being addressed, although he is the last prophet, then its meaning is that Allah has described here His practice concerning the communities.” Allamah Alusi says in his Ruh al-Ma‘ani: “What happened with every nation has been narrated here in the form of a story. To understand the ummah of Prophet Muhammad as ‘the children of Adam’ here would be a grave error and contrary to the evident meaning, because the word used is not the singular ‘messenger’ but the plural ‘messengers.’” The final part of Allamah Alusi’s statement means that if the ummah of Muhammad were being addressed here, they could never have been told, “Messengers will come among you,” because no messenger other than one messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him), could possibly come among this ummah. “O messengers! Eat of the pure things and do righteous deeds. Surely I know all that you do.” (al-Mu’minun 23:51) If this verse is not separated from its context, the meaning the Qadianis give it is utterly impossible. The discourse in connection with which this verse was revealed continues uninterrupted from the second section. These verses discuss all the prophets and their peoples, beginning with Noah and ending with Jesus, and state that in every land and every age the prophets taught people one and the same teaching, their method was one and the same, and Allah bestowed similar favors upon them. In contrast, the misguided nations continually abandoned Allah’s path and engaged in evil. In this context, the verse was in no way revealed with the following meaning: “O messengers! You who will come after Muhammad (peace be upon him), eat pure food and do good deeds.” Rather, its meaning is that Allah commanded all the prophets who came from Noah through Muhammad (peace be upon him): eat pure food and do good deeds. The commentators have never understood this verse to mean that the door of prophethood would open after Muhammad (peace be upon him). If you wish to investigate further and attain peace of mind, you may read the discussion of this passage in the various books of tafsir. The hadith meaning, “Had Ibrahim, the son of the Noble Messenger, lived, he would certainly have become a prophet,” is also wrongly used by the Qadianis for four reasons. First, the chain of transmission in the report in which it is narrated as a statement of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) is weak, and no hadith scholar has declared this chain strong. Second, eminent hadith scholars such as al-Nawawi and Ibn Abd al-Barr regarded the content of this hadith as unreliable. Imam al-Nawawi wrote in his Tahdhib al-Asma’ wa al-Lughat: “The statement recorded by some earlier scholars—that if Ibrahim, the son of Muhammad (peace be upon him), had lived, he would have become a prophet—is not true. It is an audacity to speak about the unseen and like uttering a statement without thought.” Allamah Ibn Abd al-Barr wrote in al-Tamhid: “I do not know what kind of proposition this is. Children were born in the family of Noah who were not prophets. If it were essential for a prophet’s son to become a prophet, then everyone in the world today would be a prophet, because everyone is descended from Noah.” Third, in most reports this hadith is presented as a statement of the Companions rather than of the Prophet (peace be upon him). They also clearly stated along with it that, since there is no prophet after the Prophet (peace be upon him), Allah took his son away. For example, a report in Bukhari states: “Isma‘il ibn Abi Khalid said: I asked Abdullah ibn Abi Awfa, a Companion, ‘Did you see Ibrahim, the son of the Prophet (peace be upon him)?’ He replied, ‘He died in childhood. If Allah had decreed that a prophet would be sent after Muhammad (peace be upon him), He would have kept his son alive. But there is no prophet after the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him).’” Hazrat Anas narrated a report with nearly the same meaning. He said: “Had he lived, he would have been a prophet. But he did not live, because your prophet is the last prophet.” (Tafsir Ruh al-Ma‘ani, vol. 22, p. 3.) Fourth, even if the explanation of the noble Companions and the statements of the hadith scholars had not accompanied the report in which this statement is attributed to the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), and even if that report had not been regarded as weak and unreliable, it still could not be accepted. The unanimously accepted principle of hadith scholarship is that if the content of a report conflicts with a large number of sound hadith, it cannot be accepted under any circumstances. Now consider the situation: on one side there are numerous hadith with sound and strong chains, clearly declaring that the door of prophethood was closed after Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him); on the other side there is this single report, which suggests the possibility that the door of prophethood remains open. When these two situations are examined, how can the numerous reports be rejected in favor of this one report? (Tarjuman al-Qur’an, November 1954.)
Regarding the Finality of Prophethood
Question: There is no doubt that the unanimous belief of Muslims is that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is Allah’s last prophet. No new prophet will come after him. Nevertheless, some things about Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani and some statements of the Qadiani community seem good to me. For example, in my view, Mirza Sahib’s face looks innocent and childlike. Could the face of a false, fraudulent person look like that? Apart from the heavenly marriage, nearly all his prophecies have come true. His group is also growing day by day, and among them one observes great zeal and sacrifice in achieving their aims and implementing their decisions. These things have troubled me. I want you to explain this matter clearly so that my heart and mind may be reassured, my anxiety and distress may disappear, and the distinction between truth and falsehood may become clear. Answer: The things concerning Mirza Ghulam Ahmad that have made you anxious have, in reality, no fundamental importance. Nor can the claim of anyone who claims to be a prophet ever be tested on the basis of such things. Even if there were stronger reasons for considering his claim worthy of examination, they would still deserve no attention. The reason is that, in the view of both the Noble Qur’an and the Noble Hadith, prophethood is a fundamental matter of religion. In other words, human faith and disbelief are founded upon it, and on this basis his success or failure in the Hereafter will be decided. If a person rejects a true prophet, he becomes a disbeliever. If he accepts a false prophet, he also becomes a disbeliever. Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him) have never left a matter of such fundamental importance obscure, complicated, or doubtful. Rather, Allah and the Messenger (peace be upon him) have shown the way concerning it in a clear and unequivocal manner. They made provision beforehand so that people’s religion and faith would not be endangered and so that Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him) would not be held responsible for their misguidance. Another important point here is that, before Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), it was never said in the age of any prophet that the succession of prophets had ended and that no prophet would come. This means that the door for prophets to come was then open, and no one had the right to reject the claim of a claimant to prophethood merely by saying that no prophet would come. In those ages, prophets also continued to foretell the coming of prophets who would appear after them. They took pledges from their followers to obey the prophets who would come later. These circumstances further reinforced the idea that, if someone presented himself as a prophet, he could not be rejected outright without any consideration. Rather, people would carefully examine his call, personality, deeds, and circumstances to determine whether he was truly a prophet of Allah or a false claimant to prophethood. But after the coming of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), this matter was completely reversed. The matter did not end merely with the fact that Muhammad (peace be upon him) made no prophecy about the coming of another prophet after him and did not take an oath of allegiance to him from the ummah. On the contrary, the Qur’an declared Muhammad (peace be upon him) to be the last prophet, and in not one or two but countless sound and reliable hadith he stated in clear and unequivocal language that the door of prophethood had closed after him and that no prophet would come now. Whoever now rises with a claim to prophethood will be the Dajjal. The question is: in the view of Allah and His Prophet, is the matter of Islam and disbelief for people today not delicate and important? Were only the believers after the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) entitled to be protected from the trial of disbelief? For this reason, did Allah and His messengers arrange to tell only them, in unequivocal terms, that the door of prophethood would remain open and that the succession of prophets would continue? But have they now knowingly cast us into this danger? In other words, on one side there would remain the possibility of a prophet’s coming, and because of accepting or rejecting him we could become believers or disbelievers. On the other side, Allah and His Messenger would not merely have left us uninformed about the coming of a prophet; they would have gone further and continually said things that make us think the door of prophethood has closed, thereby preventing us from accepting a claimant to prophethood. Does your reason truly say that Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him) could deceive us in this way? The Qadianis may interpret the expression “Seal of the Prophets” however they wish. But at the very least they cannot deny that it can also mean that the succession of prophethood has ended, and that ninety-nine crore, ninety-nine lakh, ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine people among the scholars and ordinary people of the ummah understand the expression in this sense. The question is: concerning such a delicate matter as prophethood, upon which the faith and disbelief of Muslims depend, should Allah have used language from which the entire ummah of Muhammad, except for a handful of Qadianis, understood that no prophet would come now? The statements of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) leave no room whatsoever for a different interpretation on this matter. They state unequivocally that no prophet will come after him. The question is: did Allah’s Prophet harbor some enmity toward us, because of which a prophet would come after him while he instructed us instead not to accept him and thereby become disbelievers and go to Hell? In these circumstances, no matter how attractive a person’s appearance may be, even if all his prophecies were proven one hundred percent true, and despite his thousand accomplishments, we would not consider his claim to prophethood worthy of consideration. It could be worthy of consideration only if there were a possibility of a prophet coming. As soon as we hear the claim of any claimant to prophethood, we will confidently call him a liar and attach no importance whatsoever to the arguments and evidence he brings in support of his prophethood. If this is disbelief, no responsibility for it will fall upon us, because we have the Qur’an and the hadith of the Messenger with which to plead our case before Allah on the Day of Resurrection. [For example, consider the statement of the Pure Prophet in which he compared the succession of prophethood to a building and described every prophet as one brick of that building. Finally, he said that only one place for a brick remained in the building, and, “I am that final brick.”] (Tarjuman al-Qur’an, December 1959.) To learn about the finality of prophethood, read our publications: 1. Appendix to Surah al-Ahzab (Tafhim al-Qur’an, volume 12) 2. The Life of the Master of the World — Sayyid Abul A‘la Maududi 3. The Finality of Prophethood — Sayyid Abul A‘la Maududi The End