Section 3

Part 1

The unity of Calcutta in an article written on the death of Mirza Sahib fixed the number of his adherents at 20,000 (Seerat i-MehdiVol. 1, page 265; No. 290).

When Mirza Sahib had some little following he called his followers for bay't by a pamphlet dated 1^st December, 1888 (Hayat-e-Tayyiba, pages 97, 98). According to the article 'Quadian' in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (Vol. 10), the number of such followers was 313 in 1896.

After collecting some sizable number of followers Mirza Sahib took the second step of declaring himself the promised Messiah and the promised Mehdi in 1891. The apprehension of Muslim Ummah that he was on the road to becoming a Prophet was partly proved correct. In fact Mirza Sahib had already laid the foundation of being the promised Messiah in Baraheen-i-Ahmadiyya in which he claimed to be Maseel-i-Maseeh (like Messiah).

Mirza Sahib declared in Fath-e-lslam (published 1891) that he was one who had been sent for the reform of the people so that he may revive the religion and establish it in the hearts of the people. He had been sent in the same manner as the one who was sent after Moses whose spirit after many trials and tribulations was raised. Then another one who communicated with God (like Moses) and who is really the chief of all the Prophets came to defeat the Pharoahs regarding whom it was said (Q 73 : 15)

Thus he who in his actions was Maseel (double or second) of Moses but was superior to him in rank was also promised a double or second (Maseel) of Messiah (Jesus) and as Jesus son of Mary came in the fourteenth century after the first communicator with God (Moses) so after the same period after the second communicator with God alighted the second of the Messiah (See Fath-e-lslam printed in Roohani Khazain, Vol. 3, page 8). The language after the words "first communicator with God" is ambiguous but I have given the purport of the theory of Mirza Sahib as has been clarified by him at other places as well as in other books.

Mirza Sahib wrote that "the Messiah who had to come has come" (page 9). This was not a new theory that Mirza Sahib had been sent in the name of Messiah. It was stated in Baraheen-i-Ahmadiyya that he had a particular resemblance with Messiah in nature and for this reason he had been sent in the name of Messiah. The theory was later developed that Jesus had died and he died a natural death in Kashmir and once his spirit went to paradise it could not return to this world.

He further said in Tauzihul Maram (published 1891) (see Roohan-i-Khazain, Vol, 3, page 60) that the door of revelation was not completely closed nor had revelation been sealed in all manners. The door of partial prophethood and revelation was still open and would always remain open. But this is not a complete prophethood. It is only partial prophethood which is known by the name of Mohaddasiyyat which is obtained by following the perfect man. Mohaddas was explained at another place as a person who is in communication with God. In Baraheen-iahmadiyya he had called Mohaddas like a Prophet but now he called him a partial Prophet. The exact words in Baraheen-i-Ahmadiyya are that his position is nearer the position of a Prophet (page 46). He gave the illustrations of Mary mother of Jesus, mother of Moses, apostles of Jesus and Khizr none of whom was a Prophet. In fact he maintained his position about the absolute finality of prophethood upto 1890 but changed it later as stated above.

He kept the door open for advent of Prophets without Shariah by formulating his faith in the words that 'now no such inspiration or revelation from God is possible which may amend or abrogate Injunctions of the Quran or may have the effect of changing even one Injuction. Whoever believes to the contrary is beyond the pale of the Muslim Ummah and is an unbeliever and infidel (Izala-i-Auham, page 138).

Upto 1891 the Muslims of the Indian Subcontinent only ridiculed Mirza Sahib whenever his prophecy was falsified. It has already been seen in the episode of Mohammadi Begum that his own family members called him an imposter, Musailma and by such other epithets; they probably knew him better.

But the claim of Messiah and Mehdi shook the Muslims. The flood-gates of criticism, resentment and anger were opened. Mirza Sahib was quick to retrace his steps a little obviously in order to appease the Muslims.

But before taking up this subject it would be advisable to explain the words Nabi (Prophet), Rasool or Mursal (Messenger).

Every Rasool (Messenger) is a Nabi (Prophet) and it is not necessary that each Prophet (Nabi) may also be a Rasool (Messenger). The difference in the two is that Nabi (Prophet) is one to whom come revelations from God and the angels come to him with revelations. Rasool (Messenger) is one who brings new Sharia or abrogates some injunctions of the previous Sharia. No distinction, however, is recognized generally between Rasool (Messenger) or Mursal except that according to Karamiyyah Rasool (messenger) is a person sent by God while Mursal is a person sent by any sender (Usul-ul-Din by Abdul Qadir Baghdadi, page 154).

At a later period the distinction between Rasool (Messenger) and Nabi (Prophet) evaporated. However, if any one made a distinction it is as mentioned above (Urdu Dairat-ul-Maaraf-i-Islamia, Vol. 10, page 253 on word 'Rasool'). According to Al-Aqaidul Nasafia by Abu Hafas Umar Nasafi there is no difference between the two words. But in that book the word Rasool (Messenger) is used in the sense of one bringing Sharia (ibid).

Mirza Sahib used all the three words Nabi (Prophet), Rasool (messenger) and Mursal in Izala-e-Auham, page 534. He said while refuting the second coming of Jesus as Messiah "how it was possible that any other Nabi (Prophet) who is perfect according to the conditions of the perfect Nubuwwat (Prophethood) could come after Khatimun-Nabiyyin. The essentials of the perfect Nubuwwat (Prophethood) of such a Nabi (Prophet) are revelations and the coming of Gabriel which are inevitable. According to the clarification in the Quran Rasool (Messenger) is the same person who has obtained the injunctions and the belief of the religion through Gabriel but a seal was put about thirteen centuries ago upon the revelation of Nubuwwat (Prophethood), will this seal break at that time "(It means that according to him the seal must not break)".

It would be seen that the words Nabi (Prophet) and Rasool (Messenger) have been used interchangeably and not distinctively.

At page 761 it is said "fourthly Quran has not made lawful for any Rasool (Messenger) to come after the Khatimun-Nabiyyin (last of the Prophets) whether he be a new Rasool (Messenger) or old because the knowledge of religion which is imparted to a Rasool (Messenger) by way of revelation through Gabriel cannot be sent now and it is not understandable that a Rasool (Messenger) may come but the revelation of Risaalat (Messengership) be extinct."

At page 614 of Izala-e-Auham referring to verse Q.33 : 40

(Muhammad is not the father of any one amongst you but he is Rasool (Messenger) of God and Khatimun-Nabiyyin (seal of the Prophets) .

He explained the latter portion of the verse as meaning 'but he is messenger of Allah and the one who put an end to the Prophets "He then said that" this verse clearly is proof of the fact that after our Nabi (Prophet) no Rasool (Messenger) will come in this world. It is also clear from it that Jesus son of Mary, Messenger of God cannot come in this world because he is Rasool and this is essential for Rasool (Messenger) that the religious knowledge may have been obtained by him through Gabriel. "But he added that the revelation of Risaalat however, is not determined till the day of judgment."

It would be seen that from the words Khatamun-Nabiyyin in which the word Nabi (Prophet) has been used, he has drawn the conclusion that there shall be no Rasool (Messenger) till the day of judgment (page 714). Earlier his position in Baraheen-i-Ahmadiyya was that the prophetic revelation was at an end with the Holy Prophet (P.B.H.) but now he again made an aperture in the finality of Prophethood by saying that the Revelation of Risalat (Prophetic revelation) is not determined.

In a handbill dated 2nd October, 1891 reproduced in Tableegh-i-Risalat (Vol. 2, page 20) he said "I believe in all those things which are included in the Islamic faith and believe what is believed by Ahl-e-Sunnat-wal-Jamaat ·

I believe in all those matters which are definitely proved from the Holy Quran and the Hadis and consider a claimant to Nubuwwat and Risalat (Prophethood and Messengership) after the Holy Prophet (P.B.H.) who was 'Khatam-ul-Mursaleen ' () (the last of the Prophets) to be an imposter, false claimant and infidel ( ). it is my faith that the Wahi (revelation) of Prophethood which started with Adam terminated on Prophet Muhammad (P.B.H.) This last one again is a position different from what is discussed above.

In an other handbill published on the 23rd October,1891 and distributed in a meeting held in Jamia Mosque Delhi and reproduced at page 44 of Tableegh-i-Risalat, Vol. 2, he stated

"In all these matters my religion is the same as that of Ahle-Sunnat-wal-lamaat. I now acknowledge about the following matters in this House of Allah () that I believe in the finality of the Prophethood of the last of the Prophets (Muhammad P.B.H.) and I consider one who denies the finality of the Prophethood to be irreligious () and outside the pale of Islam."

In the first handbill dated the 2nd October, 1891, it was stated that Mirza Sahib treated a claimant of either Prophethood to be an imposter or a false Prophet and heretic. In the second handbill he used the word the finality of the Nubuwwat but obviously in the sense as including a Nabi as well as a Rasool.

In his book Anjam-e-Atham () (end of Atham) printed 1897, page 24 Margin.Mirza Sahib said:

(Is there any unfortunate imposter who believes in the Holy Quran and the verse

(but he is the Messenger of Allah and the seal of the Prophets) and can yet say that I am a Prophet and Messenger () after the Holy Prophet (P.B.H.)

Reproduce Freely