Are Ahmadis Not True Muslims?

ARE AhmadiS NOT TRUE MUSLIMS?
A response to the allegations made in the Urdu booklet entitled Qadianio n aur D u srei K a firo n kei Darmiy a n Farq — [ The Difference between Qadianis and Other Disbelievers ] A.S.Musa Islam International Publications LTD.Tilford, Surrey

Are Are Are Are Ahmadi Ahmadi Ahmadi Ahmadis s s s Not Not Not Not True Muslims? True Muslims? True Muslims? True Muslims? An English rendering of: Kiy a Ahmad i Sachchay Musalm a n Nah in? Written by: A.S.Musa Translated from Urdu into English by: Dr.Tahir Ijaz First published in Urdu: 1991 First English translation published in UK: 2016 Reprinted in India, 2017 © Islam International Publications Ltd.Published by: Nazarat Nashro Isha‘at Qadian 143516 District Gurdaspur (Punjab), India Printed in India at: Fazl-e-Umar Printing Press Qadian - 143516 (Punjab) For further information you may visit www.alislam.org ISBN 978-1-84880-070-0 10 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Contents Foreword..........................................................................v Are Ahmadis Not True Muslims? Are Ahmadis Not True Muslims? Are Ahmadis Not True Muslims? Are Ahmadis Not True Muslims?............................................................................................................................1 1 1 1 General Overview...........................................................................1 Rationale Given for the Opposition of Ahmadis.............5 Widespread Fat a w a of Apostasy.........................................7 Deoband i Fatw a against Barelav i s...............................................7 Deoband i Fatw a against Shiahs...................................................7 Deoband i Fatw a against Ahl-e- H ad i th......................................8 Deoband i Fatw a against Jam a ‘at-e-Isl a m i..................................8 Fatw a of Barelav i Ulema against Deoband i s.............................9 Fatw a of Ulema from the Two Holy Mosques Regarding Deoband i s.................................................................................9 Fatw a of Ahl-e-Sunnat Ulema against Wahh a b i s and Deoband i s..............................................................................10 Dangerous Type of Kufr.....................................................12 Fatw a to Murder Members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community...........................................................................13 Has Prophethood within the Ummah been Discontinued?15

iv are Ahmadis Not true muslims? Is There No Prophet after Holy Prophet Muhammad saw ?.16 Who is Most Honourable?........................................................21 Seal of Prophethood Indicates that No New Shariah will Come after the Holy Prophet saw........................................27 Nubuwwat of the Promised Messiah as.............................33 Knowledge of What is in the Hearts of People.............38 The False Accusation of Adopting a New Shariah........49 ‘Concessions’ Accorded to Ahmadis...............................60 Playing a Different Tune from the Tune of Heavens....63 Another False Accusation..........................................................65 Sayings of the Promised Messiah as............................................66 A Crude Example Presented by Maulav i Ludhi a nav i..........69 Publisher’s Note...............................................................73 Glossary............................................................................77 Index...................................................................................81

Foreword From the time that Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as of Qadian announced under divine guidance that he is the Promised Messiah and Mahdi, whose advent had been prophesied by the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), he faced severe opposition by a large section of the Muslim ulema.These opposing ulema called him a disbeliever and an antichrist and, in doing so, they were forced to resort to lying and distorting facts.This ignoble pattern continues to this day.An example is the booklet, Qadianio n aur D u srei K a firo n kei Darmiy a n Farq (published in English as Qadianis: Difference with Other Non-Muslims ), which was based on the speech given by Maulav i Muhammad Yousuf Ludhianav i in Shuy u kh Mosque, Dubai, on 1 October 1985.Maulav i Ludhiana vi starts with a pre-conceived notion that Ahmadis are disbelievers and proceeds to list his ideas about the difference between Ahmadis and ‘other disbelievers’.Are Ahmadis Not True Muslims? is an English translation of the Urdu book Kiy a Ahmad i Sachchay Musalm a n Nah in?, which was written as a rebuttal to Maulav i Ludhianav i ’s booklet.Our response shows very clearly that the writings of Yousuf Ludhianav i are completely misleading.It also gives a brief historical account of how the so-called ulema, like Ludhianav i, have been using such tactics throughout the history of Islam to malign highly revered personalities

vi ? of Islam.Indeed, it is almost impossible to find any sect of Islam that has not been branded as ‘ k a firs ’ [disbelievers] by the so-called ‘ulema’ of some other sect.The publication of our response, as outlined in this book, demands attention in light of these recent events.In April 2016, copies of an English translation of Ludhianavi’s very same booklet entitled Qadianis: Difference with Other Non-Muslims were found along with other hate literature in a mosque in London.The BBC and other news outlets reported it widely, which now has many asking, both within and without the Muslim community, whether or not Ahmadis are indeed true Muslims.We pray this book helps clarify this issue, and sheds light on the dangerous practice of takf i r (labelling Muslims as disbelievers).Thanks are due to all those who have contributed towards the English translation of this book.The translation was completed under the supervision of Additional Wak a lat-e-Ta s n i f by Dr.Tahir Ijaz, assisted by Chaudhry Nuruddin Ahmad and Sadaf Ijaz.We are grateful for the valuable assistance provided by Munawar Ahmed Saeed, Abdul-Wahab Mirza, Syed Sajid Ahmad, Abdul-Quddus Arif, Ayyaz Mahmood Khan, Naser-ud-Din Shams, Naveed Ahmed Malik, and others.May Allah the Almighty reward them all.Munir-ud-Din Shams Additional Wak i lut-Ta s n i f London, June 2016

1 ? General Overview The booklet Qadianio n aur D u srei K a firo n kei Darmiy a n Farq, by Maulav i Muhammad Y u suf Ludhi a na vi is based on his speech which he delivered in Shuy u kh Mosque, Dubai, on 1 October 1985.He starts with a pre-conceived notion that Ahmadis are k a firs [disbelievers] and goes on to list his notions about the difference between Ahmadis and ‘other k a firs’.After reading Maulav i Ludhi a na vi ’s booklet, any person who has even some elementary knowledge of the Holy Quran and Sunnah will agree that his language is filthy and his so- called arguments are entirely baseless.The booklet is a collection of vile and false accusations levelled upon the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.It is this type of abusive speech of Maulav i Ludhi a na vi that is a manifestation 1 In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.We praise Him, and invoke blessings on His Noble Messenger saw.[Publisher]

2 ? of the truthfulness of the following prophecy of the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw :               ! " #.%&' ( ) *+" ,  -+&./ 1 2  -+345 64/ - 7 8.-+&9 : ; 7?@" ABC.A time will come upon the world that nothing would be left of Islam except its name and nothing would be left of the Holy Quran except its text.Mosques, though full of worshippers, will be empty of guidance.Their ulema will be the worst creation under the canopy of Heaven.Every fitna [mischief] will begin with them and will revert to them.( M ish ka tu l-M a sabih , vol.1, p.91, Ki t ab ul-‘Ilm, part 3, Hadith No.276, published by al-Maktabul-Isl a m i , Beirut, 1979) In fulfilment of this prophecy, many so-called religious leaders around the world have started an unparalleled tirade based on lies and falsehood against Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Promised Messiah and Mahd i —the Im a m of the Age.When the general body of Muslims witnesses this abusive attitude on the part of their religious leaders against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, they are bewildered.The question arises: ‘Why are Ahmadis the only target of the hatred of the ulema, and not the multitude of other religions and communities, such as the Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists?’ The fact is that these others are not only non- Muslims according to the ulema, but also openly and proudly

? 3 profess their opposition to Islam.The Christians, in particular, have been very active in their propagation and have converted thousands and thousands of Muslims in Islamic countries, yet this does not give these so-called Muslim divines of this age any concern.Maulav i Ludhi a na vi has raised this very question in his booklet and has tried to devise an answer.Before we consider a rebuttal to Maulav i Ludhi a na vi ’s arguments, it is necessary to understand the nature of the question: ‘Why Ahmadis and not others?’ The world population is estimated to be five billion.Out of this, Muslims constitute nearly one billion.A large segment of the non-Muslim world is anxious to annihilate Islam from the world.According to the Focus journal published from England, 2 the Christian Church has devised a plan to convert half of the world population to Christianity in the next eleven years and all means are being adopted to implement it.The fact is that the Islamic world is the target of the enemies of Islam at this time.However, the ulema are paying no heed to it.A grave situation is also arising due to the decline of educational, moral, and spiritual standards in Muslim societies.This, again, is of no concern to the ulema.A reputable periodical states: At present the Muslim population around the world is nearly one billion.Of these about 600 million are illiterate and un- informed.A large number cannot even read the script of the 2 As quoted in Weekly Lahore , July 15, 1989, p.4, vol.38, no.28 [Publisher]

4 ? Holy Quran.The ulema need to attend to this matter.( Weekly Science magazine, 16 June 1989, p.8) However, the attention of the ulema is focused elsewhere.They savour declaring people out of the fold of Islam and promoting persecution and murder.According to them, Islam is not in danger from any satanic forces but from the reciters of the Kalimah.3 This is why they are pursuing the devoted followers of the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw and, in that effort, are eager to declare their eviction from the fold of Islam.They wish to erase these valiant followers of Islam from the face of the earth, even though these valiant followers have sacrificed their life, property, body, and soul for the cause and glory of Islam in the world.A noted and prominent historian, Maul a n a Ra’ i s Ahmad J a ‘far i states: Who are the people that are supporting the creation of Pakistan as an independent Islamic nation, and who are concerned about the uncertain future of the Muslims, are trying to bring about reformation of the Muslim people, and are agonizing over the lack of unity among Muslims? Is it the group that claims to be the promoter of righteousness? Are these people members of the community of Hezbollah and the Im a mul-Hind? No! Then are they the followers of Shaikhul-Hind and the Shaikhul- H ad i th of Deoband? Not them either.Then who are they? It is those 3 The Creed of the Islamic faith,            , meaning: ‘There is no one worthy of worship except Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah’.[Publisher]

? 5 people who have a heap of fat a w a [edicts] of kufr [disbelief] against them.Everyone is talking about them being non- Muslim.Their faith and belief is being questioned and doubted.A poet has described it very well: None of the self-righteous ever made the grade; The few who did were labelled ‘faithless drunkards’.( H ay a t-e-Muhammad ‘Al i Jin ah , by Ra’ i s Ahmad J a ‘far i, pp.481–482, ch.A sha b-e-Qadian Aur Pakistan, published by Sheikh Nadh i r Ahmad, proprietor Kutab Kh a nah Bombay) Let us examine the accusations levelled by Maulav i Ludhi a na vi against these devoted and zealous servants of Islam.Rationale Given for the Opposition of Ahmadis A summary of differences between Ahmad i s and ‘other k a firs’ [disbelievers] as described by Maulav i Ludhi a na vi is that the Ahmadis do not accept being called k a firs in spite of the fact that they have been declared as such.We (Ahmadis) insist that we be called Muslims.If this is the only reason for starting a

6 ? worldwide campaign against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, then these opponents should remember that there are 73 sects in Islam and many of the major sects call their adversaries infidels.However, none of them is willing to accept itself as infidels, and they all proclaim themselves to be Muslims.If the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community does the same, why should it be treated differently? Accusations of apostasy abound in the Islamic world and are so widespread that no sect or class has been spared.A well- known Muslim journalist of the Indo-Pak subcontinent, Maul a n a Abdul-Majeed Salik, has critically examined this problem and has written, quoting page 2 of the book, J a mi‘ush- Shaw a hid : All great and eminent Muslims in the history of Islam as well as all the sects in the Muslim world are considered to be disbelievers, apostates, and outside the pale of Islam according to one or the other group of religious leaders.In the realm of the Shariah [religious law] and t ar i qat [path of devotion], not a single sect or a single family has been spared the accusations of apostasy.( Musalm a no n k i Takf i r k a Mas‘alah, by Maul a n a Abdul-Majeed Salik, pp.7–8, printed by Naqoosh Press Lahore, Anjuman Ta h affu z -e-Pakistan Lahore)

? 7 Widespread Fat a w a of Apostasy It is impossible to narrate this entire heart-rending and painful history in a booklet as small as this.However, as an example, some religious fat a w a are presented here which will explain, to a certain extent, the gravity of the problem.Deoband i Fatw a against Barelav i s According to Deoband i religious leaders, all Barelav i s are idolaters and disbelievers.For example, it has been written: According to the H anaf i school of jurisprudence, any person who believes that the Holy Prophet saw has knowledge of the unseen is without doubt an idolater and k a fir.( T a l i f a t-e- Rash i diyyah Ma‘a Fat a w a Rash i diyyah Mukammal Mubawwab, p.91.published by Id a rah Isl a miy a t, Lahore) Deoband i Fatw a against Shiahs Noted religious leaders of Deoband have given the following unanimous fatw a against the Shiahs: Not only are they apostates, disbelievers, and outside the pale of Islam, but they are also the enemies of Islam to an extent

8 ? that has no comparison with other sects.Muslims should not have normal Islamic relations with them, particularly marrying into them.( ‘Ulam a -e-Kir a m k a Muttafiqah Fatw a Darb a ra-e-Irtid a d-e-Sh i ‘ah Ithn a ‘Ashariyyah.published by Maulav i Muhammad ‘Abdush-Shak u r, Lucknow, India, S afar 1348 AH) Deoband i Fatw a against Ahl-e- H ad i th Seventy religious leaders of the Deoband have issued a fatw a with their signatures asserting that the Ahl-e- H ad i th are k a firs.They have also written that keeping contact with them and allowing them to enter mosques is prohibited according to their version of ‘Shariah laws’, a grave risk, and a source of possible mischief.(For details, see: Ishtih a r [Announcement], published by Abul-‘Al a’i Electric Press, Agra, India) Deoband i Fatw a against Jam a ‘at-e-Isl a m i D a rul-‘Ul u m Deoband i has issued the following fatw a against Jam a ‘at-e-Isl a m i :

? 9 This Jam a ‘at is even more dangerous to the Islamic faith than their predecessors (that is, the Mirz a ’ i 4 ).( Istift a’ i D ur u r i , p.37, published by Muhammad Wa hi dullah Kh a n, Ziy a rat H alqah W a l i R a m Pur, India, 1375 AH) Fatw a of Barelav i Ulema against Deoband i s The Ulema of Bareilly issued the following fatw a mentioning each and every religious leader of the Deoband by name: They are absolute disbelievers and apostates.Their disbelief and apostasy is so severe and has reached such an extent that if someone has the slightest doubt about their disbelief and apostasy, then he is also categorised like them, as a disbeliever and apostate.(Poster Ulema-e-Bareilly, Daily Afaq ,18 November 1952) Fatw a of Ulema from the Two Holy Mosques Regarding Deoband i s A fatw a is extant concerning the Deoband i s and others: 4 The terms Mirza’ i and Mirza’ iyy at were concocted by opponents to refer to an Ahmadi Muslim and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, respectively.[Publisher]

10 ? They are all apostates.The consensus of the Muslims is that they are all out of the pale of Islam.They are the evil leaders of all heretics.They are worse than even the most heretical, noxious, stubborn, and seditious person.These people, due to their extreme misguidance, may well-nigh be worse k a firs than the most evil k a firs...they pose like learned men, the Sufi and the pious, but internally they are full of evil.( H us a mul- H aramain ‘al a Man h aril-Kufr i wal-Mayn, pp.73–74, by Maul a n a Ahmad Ra da Kh a n, published by Ahl-e-Sunnah wal-Jam a ‘at Press, Bareilly, India) Fatw a of Ahl-e-Sunnat Ulema against Wahh a b i s and Deoband i s The fatw a is quoted here: In this age, all false sects put together have caused less damage and injury to Islam than just one group of Wahh a b i s / Deoband i s.[...] This group, even after departing from Islam, is still posing as a Sunn i H anaf i sect with the result that the Sunn i H anaf i brethren who do not have full knowledge are deceived.Considering them as their co-religionists, they mingle with them and they are caught in the web of Wahh a b i s, Deoband i s.( Ishtih a r [Announcement] Muhammad Ibr a h i m Bhagalp u r i , published by Barq i Press, Lucknow, India) In 1953, the Pakistani Court of Inquiry investigated the Punjab disturbances [against Ahmadi Muslims] and made an

? 11 astute legal assessment of the entire affair.In their report, the honourable justices gave the following decision, which may be regarded as the last word on this issue:...the claim that a certain person or community is not within the pale of Islam implies on the part of the claimant an exact conception of what a Muslim is.The result of this part of the inquiry, however, has been anything but satisfactory, and if considerable confusion exists in the minds of our ulama on such a simple matter, one can easily imagine what the differences on more complicated matters will be.( Report of the Court of Inquiry, constituted under Punjab Act II 1954 to enquire into the Punjab Disturbances of 1953, p.215, Lahore, printed by the Superintendent, Government printing, Punjab, 1954) Thereafter the honourable justices made the following remarks, after recording the definition of a Muslim, as given by the top 10 ulema of different sects: Keeping in view the several definitions given by the ulama, need we make any comment except that no two learned divines are agreed on this fundamental.If we attempt our own definition as each learned divine has done and that definition differs from that given by all others, we unanimously go out of the fold of Islam.And if we adopt the definition given by any one of the ulama, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim but kafirs according to the definition of every one else.( Ibid., p.218)

12 ? Dangerous Type of Kufr Maulav i Ludhi a na vi proceeds to describe three kinds of disbelievers.These are: k a fir [a disbeliever], mun a fiq [a hypocrite], and zind i q [an infidel].He has placed the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in the third category, i.e.zind i q, and has declared their kufr to be the most dangerous.(For details, see, Qadianio n aur D u srei K a firo n kei Darmiy a n Farq, by Maulav i Muhammad Y u suf Ludhi a na vi , p.5) This is exactly what the ulema of other sects have said about the Deoband i s, the sect to which Maulav i Ludhi a na vi belongs.Maulav i Ludhi a na vi has used the term zind i q.It is utter nonsense and nothing else can be said.It appears that Maulav i Ludhi a na vi did not consider the fatw a of other sects regarding his own sect; otherwise, he would not have taken this path.The term zind i q has already been applied to their sect by the ulema of the two Holy Mosques.The book entitled, H us a mul- H aramain ‘al a Man h aril-Kufr i wal-Mayn (by Maul a n a Ahmad Ra d a Kh a n, published by Ahl-e-Sunnah wal-Jam a ‘at Press, Bareilly, India, 1326 AH /1908 CE, see pages 73–76) contains an elaborate and distinct fatw a , in view of which Ludhi a na vi should not have dared to declare Ahmadis as zind i q.

? 13 Fatw a to Murder Members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community After declaring Ahmadis as zind i qs [infidels] , Maulav i Ludhi a na vi issues another fatw a, declaring that Ahmadis should be put to death.We should remember that this is not a new fatw a.The history of the Ummah, spread over hundreds of years, bears witness to the fact that people like Maulav i Ludhi a na vi and ulema of his disposition have not only declared other sects as murtadd [apostates] but have also declared them liable to be beheaded.This fatw a has been issued not only against the various sects but, tragically, also against great ulema of Islam.The most painful of all is the occurrence at Karbala [a city in Iraq, best known as the location of the Battle of Karbala in 680 CE], which can never be erased from our minds until eternity.The justification for spilling the blood of Hadrat Im a m H usain ra by Q adi Shurai h , a person in the same league as Maulav i Ludhi a na vi , indicates that muft i s of the nature of Maulav i Ludhi a na vi are not just a product of present times.By way of illustration, we give a list of some pious people from the Ummah who have been branded as k a firs, or called zind i qs, or against whom fat a w a have been issued to be put to death.5 5 The list is given as following: serial number, name, year of death, and the reference of the document containing an account of the fatw a.[Publisher]

14 ? 1.Hadrat Im a m Ab u H an i fah rta , 150AH ( Ab ati l-e- Wahh a bi yy ah, p.17, by H ak i m Muhammad Ma h m u d, Electric Press Amritsar) 2.Hadrat Muhammad Al-Faq i h rta , 193AH ( Mu‘jamul- Mu’allif i n, by Ra d a Ka hha lah, vol.11, p.167, published by Daro-I h y a ’-at-Tur a th, al-‘Arab i, Beirut) 3.Hadrat Dhun-N u n Mi s r i rta , 245AH ( Al-Yaw a q i tu wal- Jaw a hir, by Sehikh ‘Abdul-Wahh a b, vol.1, ch.2, p.35, published by Daro-I h y a ’-at-Tur a th, al-‘Arab i, Beirut) 4.Hadrat Ahmad R a wand i rta , 89AH ( Mu‘jamul- Mu’allif i n, by Ra d a Ka hha lah, vol.2, p.200, published by Daro-I h y a ’-at-Tur a th, al-‘Arab i, Beirut) 5.Hadrat Ibn-e- H ann a n rta , 297AH, (Weekly Khursh i d Sand i lah , February 25, 1938) 6.Hadrat Man su r H all a j rta , 309AH ( Q a m u sul-Mash a h i r , vol.2, p.234, by Na za m i Bad a y u n i , published in Na za m i Press Badayun, 1926) 7.Hadrat Im a m Ghaz a l i rta , 505AH ( al-Ghaz a l i , p.22, by ‘All a mah Shibl i No‘m a n i , published by Ma’ a rif A‘zam Garh, 1928) 8.Hadrat Shaikh Abul- H asan Sh a zil i rta , 654AH ( Al- Yaw a q i tu wal-Jaw a hir, by Sheikh ‘Abdul-Wahh a b, ch.2, p.36, published by Daro-I h y a ’-at-Tur a th, al-‘Arab i, Beirut) These are only a few names, out of hundreds of oppressed ulema, who had been targeted after being labelled zind i q.Otherwise, there is not a single pious man who is safe from the accusations of being a k a fir.

? 15 Has Prophethood within the Ummah been Discontinued? Another reason that Maulav i Ludhi a na vi has stated for declaring members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community as zind i qs is that Ahmadis believe that non-law-bearing prophethood within the ummah of the Holy Prophet saw is not closed.Maulav i Ludhi a na vi knows very well that if this is the definition of zind i q then those pious persons of the Ummah are also at fault who, according to him, are honourable and well-respected.Here is a list of such ulema, who hold the same views as the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community:
Hadrat ‘All a mah H ak i m Tirmidh i rta
Sayyad ‘Abdul-Kar i m J ila n i rta
‘All a mah Ibn-e-‘Arab i rta
‘All a mah ‘Abdul-Wahh a b Shi‘r a n i rta
‘All a mah Qumm i rta
Hadrat ‘Abdul-Q a dir J ila n i rta
Mull a ‘Al i Q ari rta
‘All a mah Tu r Basht i rta
‘All a mah ‘Abdur-Ra hma n Jami rta
Ha d rat Mujaddid Alf Th a n i rta Maul a n a Q a sim N a n o tv i rta is the founder of the Deoband i sect, and no Deoband i has any doubt about his nobility or piety.He wrote regarding his belief:

16 ? If a prophet appears after the time of the Prophet Muhammad saw , even then it would not affect the concept of the finality of Prophethood.( Ta h dh i run-N a s , p.25–26, by Maul a n a Q a sim N a n o tv i , published by Sohail Printers, edn.3, Lahore, 2001) Maulav i Ludhi a na vi should consider this! Why does the definition of zind i q given by him not apply to Maul a n a Q a sim N a n o tv i , founder of the Deoband i sect? According to the beliefs of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, it is neither applicable to Q a sim N a n o tv i nor to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.Maulav i Ludhi a na vi has made the mistake of cutting the very branch upon which he is sitting.Is There No Prophet after Holy Prophet Muhammad saw ? Maulav i Ludhi a na vi states: There is no prophet after Prophet Muhammad saw.Prophethood will not be conferred on anyone after Prophet saw [Muhammad saw ].This does not mean that a previous prophet is not alive.Even if we suppose that all previous prophets were to appear in the era of Prophet saw [Muhammad saw ] and submit to him, the Holy Prophet saw [Muhammad saw ] would still be the last of the prophets, because nobody would be conferred prophethood after him.The name of Prophet saw [Muhammad saw ] was the last in the

? 17 list of prophets, which was in God Almighty’s scheme.The list of prophets has been completed with his advent.( Qadianio n aur D u srei K a firo n kei Darmiy a n Farq, by Maulav i Muhammad Y u suf Ludhi a na vi , p.10) Maulav i Ludhi a na vi is not ashamed of attributing his immature and convoluted thinking to God Almighty.He thinks that the conferment of prophethood on anyone after Holy Prophet Muhammad saw is contrary to the honour and glory of the Holy Prophet saw.However, if any previous prophet were to re-appear and to exercise his prophethood, it would have no effect on the honour and status of the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw.This concept of Maulav i Ludhi a na vi shows complete ignorance and should be rejected.If the definition of the last prophet is only in the sense that the rank of prophethood will not be awarded to anybody after the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw , in spite of the fact that the need for a prophet admittedly exists, it does not confer any honour upon the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw.It would amount to saying that Holy Prophet Muhammad saw was supposedly the last person to attain the rank of prophethood.However, since the necessity of prophethood still exists, in order to retain this so-called ‘last prophet’ status of the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw , God Almighty bestowed a long life to a previous prophet so that the necessity of commissioning a new prophet may not arise.According to their theory, in such a situation, all new requisites will be met through the previous prophet.

18 ? To attribute such a baseless theory to the eternal wisdom of Allah can be expected only from Maulav i Ludhi a na vi’ s deficient reasoning.The real question is whether there is a need for prophethood after the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw.If anyone asserts that there is a need for a law-bearing prophet, all Muslims—whether Ahmadis or non-Ahmadis—will definitely respond in the negative.The Shariah has been perfected and is unchangeable.Its protection has been guaranteed until the end of time.Thus, there is absolutely no necessity for any other shariah.The next question is whether there is a need for a non-law- bearing prophet.In reply to this, not only Ahmadis but even Maulav i Ludhi a na vi and his associates are compelled to respond in the affirmative.In order to improve the deteriorating condition of the Muslims, and for the spread of Islam, it is not possible for maulav i s , holy men, or saints to undertake this task.It is imperative that a prophet sent by God should perform this stupendous task.There is no difference of opinion on this issue.The only matter of contention that remains is that whoever is commissioned by God should be one who does not diminish the status of the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw , but should rather manifest the honour that is due for the status of the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw.The solution to this problem, as suggested by Maulav i Ludhi a na vi and his associates, is that, keeping in view the status of the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw , no one from his ummah— no matter how devoted to the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw he may be—will attain the rank of prophethood.Instead, some prophet from some past ummah should be recalled and

? 19 commissioned for the necessary requirements of the present age and all affairs should be managed through him.The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community considers this ‘solution’ to be highly objectionable—indeed, laughable.It does not bestow any glory or honour upon the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw.Indeed, it does the opposite.A simple and rational solution is reflected in the following verse of the Holy Quran:...whoso obeys Allah and this Messenger of His shall be among those on whom Allah has bestowed His blessings, namely, the Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs, and the Righteous...( S u rah an-Nis a ’, 4 :70) The robe of ummat i prophethood will be bestowed only upon the perfect servant who, in the sight of Allah, can best carry out the task of the revival of the Faith within the ummah of the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw.The Muslim ummah does not need the favour of a prophet from outside.Both of the possible alternatives are before us.Any intelligent person can understand without hesitation that for a previous prophet, alien to this ummah, to reappear in the world to fulfil the requirements of the Muslims is evidently a violation of the status of Khatm-e-Nubuwwat [Seal of Prophethood].A prophet from the past cannot enter the fold of Islam without breaking the seal of Khatm-e-Nubuwwat.Moreover, such a presumed second coming would be extremely degrading for the ummah, because it would show that no one was found competent from the ummah of the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw to save Islam

20 ? from satanic onslaughts.Rather, it became imperative that a prophet from the Mosaic dispensation be outsourced to fulfil religious requirements.Thus, the problem boils down to this: it is settled that, in reality, a prophet is needed for this age but God Almighty already sent the last of the prophets, despite there being a need for another prophet after him.Every sensible person would agree that such a belief amounts to contempt of not only the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw , but also of God Almighty.To close the door of non-law-bearing prophethood prematurely, when there was still a need, is against the wisdom of God.Similarly, to continue law-bearing prophethood—which had culminated into its perfection by the advent of the Holy Prophet saw —is equally against His perfect wisdom.Thus, when it is settled that everyone, including Ahmadis, agree that a new shariah is not required, then the necessary and rational conclusion is that the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw was the last law-bearing prophet.Any thinking contrary to that is not acceptable to us.Since the shariah brought by the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw is perfect, obviously he is the last law- bearing prophet.This is a rational position and stands up to reason; to even consider another law-bearing prophet after him is obviously unacceptable.The rational approach would be to think of the last [law- bearing] prophet in terms of who fulfils the needs of mankind up to the end of times—not in terms of who was born earlier or later, nor in what sequence the prophets were commissioned.Whoever fulfils the needs of shariah for all times to come should alone be entitled to bear the honour of being the last [law-bearing] prophet.

? 21 According to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, simply being the last prophet in time is not a distinction.What is a distinct honour is to be the last law-bearing prophet, because it means that that the shariah bestowed upon the last law-bearing prophet is the one that is complete and perfect for all time, and obedience to him will remain the duty of all for eternity.It is thus a great honour to be the last law-bearing prophet, since this prophethood will continue until the Day of Judgement.There cannot be a prophet who can ignore or amend the final shariah.From this perspective, which is the view of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, it is definitely honourable to be the last.However, Maulav i Ludhi a na vi and his associates believe that it is an honour to be last in point of time.This is an absurd view.If they care to reflect, they would realise that, although he received prophethood before the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw , according to their belief Hadrat ‘ I s a as [Jesus] would be the last prophet.The reason being that he would fulfil the need of prophethood that arose after the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw.Who is Most Honourable? Maulav i Ludhi a na vi states: The child who is born last is categorised as the last child of his parents.This means that he was born after all his siblings and no other child was born thereafter.It is not necessary that the last child should also live longer and should die after

22 ? all his older siblings.It may happen at times that the youngest dies before the rest.However the last born is still considered as the last of the progeny.You may have heard someone say: ‘the child who died was my last.’ ( Qadianio n aur D u srei K a firo n kei darmiy a n Farq, by Maulav i Muhammad Y u suf Ludhi a na vi , pp.10–11) This analogy—made by Maulav i Ludhi a na vi by quoting an example of a child born first or lastccan be refuted in many ways.There are many ways to look at this, and interpreting it literally would be ridiculous.The analogy with birth order does not hold when applied to status in an office.For example, Bah a dur Sh a h was undeniably the last king of the Mughal dynasty, but it would be a foolish historian who would question this fatw a on the basis of first determining his date of birth.This would be true for other eminent offices of stature, such as the last h ak i m and physician, philosopher, or commentator.It is based with respect to when they died and not when they were born relative to others in the chain.The critical mistake that Maulav i Ludhi a na vi is making is his obsession with being last in time without placing the issue in proper context.We do not consider being last to be of any significance, honour, or glory.So the above-mentioned example of a child being born first or last or dying first or last is of no consequence.The real question would be: ‘In what sense is his time of birth or death a source of honour and distinction for him?’ Instead of dwelling upon abstract examples, let us be specific.Let us look at the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw and Hadrat ‘ I s a as

? 23 and then make a comparison of our respective views.Anyone with even some sense will realise that, in contrast to the childish perspective of the said Maulav i , the point of view that we [Ahmadis] present truly honours the status of the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw.Maulav i Ludhi a na vi believes Hadrat ‘ I s a as was born long before the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw and was bestowed prophethood long before him but will die long after the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw.So, Hadrat ‘ I s a as will be the one that the world will see as the final prophet discharging the duties of prophethood.No other conclusion can be derived from the position taken by Maulav i Ludhi a na vi.We believe that it is derogatory to the status and dignity of the Holy Prophet Mu h ammad, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, to believe that being born earlier or dying later is of any significance, because, in that scenario, all earlier prophets would be entitled to greater honour than the Holy Prophet Mu h ammad, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.Actually, according to that distorted concept, Hadrat ‘ I s a as would have twice the honour over the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw since he was born earlier than, and will die after, the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw.The Holy Prophet Muhammad saw would be considered to be the prophet for only the Muslims, whereas Hadrat ‘ I s a as would receive the honour of being a prophet not only for the Mosaic dispensation but also for the Muslim ummah.It is our belief that the Holy Prophet Mu h ammad, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is the only prophet commissioned to convey the message of God to all mankind.

24 ? No one shares that universality, except for his devoted servants who are dedicated to spreading his message of Islam all over the world.The views held by the opponents of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community imply that Hadrat ‘ I s a as is not only a mere partner of the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw , but is also of higher status than the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw (God forbid).In other words, he is not only                     [a Prophet for the Israelites], but also                   !"  # [a Prophet for the Muslims and the whole world].According to the position taken by Ludhi a na vi , the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw receives the honour of being neither the first nor the last.People who entertain those ideas should fear Allah and use common sense.What justification would they offer in the presence of God Almighty for holding such beliefs? The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community does not give any significance to the order of being first or last, so there can be no objection to it.According to our belief, it makes no difference to the status of the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw whether there were millions of prophets before him or just 124,000.From the point of view of excellence and supremacy, he is the first and will ever remain the last.Even if all these prophets had come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw it would have made no difference in his status of being the Seal of prophethood, since it would have been necessary for them all to be subordinate to him.The Holy Prophet Muhammad saw would thus remain the last prophet.Maulav i Ludhi a na vi believes that, in spite of the second coming of Hadrat ‘ I s a as , he will not break the seal of prophethood, since he will only be a subordinate and servant of

? 25 the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw.It should thus be clear to any rational person that he also concedes that a certain order merely based on time is not significant.Instead, the status and excellence is what is important.If this is still not clear, we shall try to explain with another example.There was definitely one person in the human race who was born first.Can we say that the first person ever to be born was also the most excellent among human beings? Similarly, before Doomsday there will definitely be one or more people who will be the last to die on earth.Will those who are alive to the end be categorised as the last and, therefore, be considered the best out of all those human beings who preceded them? It is obviously not true.The Holy Prophet Muhammad saw has said that Doomsday will dawn on the most wicked, and they will be the last to breathe in this world.Obviously, there is no honour in being the last.The dates of birth and death have never been the determining factor in assessing one’s status and position in life.For instance, the last khal i fah [caliph] of Ban u Umayyah was Marw a n Th a n i bin Muhammad bin Marw a n.Can he be declared as the Kh a tamul-Khulaf a ’ [Seal of the Successors] of Ban u Umayyah by Maulav i Ludhi a na vi ? Similarly, can Mu‘ta s im Bill a h, the last khal i fah of Ban u ‘Abb a s be declared as the Kh a tamul-Khulaf a ’ by any scholar? Certainly not! This is because the word kh a tam demands the position of dignity, excellence, and high rank.If applied otherwise, it would mean that Doomsday will not dawn on the wicked.Instead, it would

26 ? dawn on those with the highest stature and such persons would be declared the kh a tam of all humanity.Let us consider another example.Whenever we read about the moral excellences of the companions and khulaf a ’ of the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw , people raise the issue of who was the first—was it Hadrat ‘Al i ra or Hadrat Ab u Bakr ra ? Similarly, when we discuss accomplishments or glory, we have never read or heard which companion or khal i fah was the last to appear.Consider what the great religious elder and founder of Deoband, Maul a n a Q a sim N a n o tv i rta has said and ponder over it: The meaning of kh a tam in the eyes of the general public is that the reign of the Holy Prophet commences after the former prophets and H u du r is last of the prophets.It will dawn on the learned that to be at the beginning or the end does not carry any weight.Therefore, appreciation of the Holy Prophet saw cannot be expressed by interpreting the following verse in terms of time only:.On the other hand, if the title is not considered to be a title of honour and appreciation, then the end of prophethood can be taken as the valid meaning of kh a tamiyyat.However, I am certain that this position will not be acceptable to any of the followers of Islam.( Ta h dh i run-N a s , p.41–42, by Maul a n a Q a sim N a n o tv i , published by Sohail Printers, edn.3, Lahore, 2001)

? 27 Please note what Maul a n a Q a sim N a n o tv i has written: ‘This position will not be acceptable to any followers of Islam’.Please follow the advice of your religious elder and accept the exalted status of the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw , which is the view of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.Therein lies your salvation.Seal of Prophethood Indicates that No New Shariah will Come after the Holy Prophet saw Maulav i Ludhi a na vi states: Qadian i s 6 say that Kh a tamun-Nabiyy i n 7 does not mean that the Holy Prophet was the last prophet with whom the door of prophethood was closed.According to them it means that future prophets will appear with the seal of the Holy Prophet.( Qadianio n aur D u srei K a firo n kei darmiy a n Farq, by Maulav i Muhammad Y u suf Ludhi a na vi , p.11) This is a very crude and misleading presentation of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community’s perspective.Anyone with 6 The term ‘Qadian i ’ has been coined by the opponents of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community to refer to it, because the name of the city in which the Promised Messiah as was born and lived is Qadian.[Publisher] 7 Seal of the Prophets, a title bestowed upon the Holy Prophet Muhammad sa in the Holy Quran— S u rah al-A h z a b , 33:41.The noun form of the concept is: Khatm-e-Nubuwwat.[Publisher]

28 ? even a speck of intellectual honesty, would have considered our interpretation of the meaning of Kh a tamun-Nabiyy i n [Seal of the Prophets] to be exactly in accord with what Hadrat ‘ A’ ishah ra who stated:                                                    .O people say the Holy Prophet is Kh a tamun-Nabiyy i n [Seal of the Prophets], but do not say there is no prophet after him.( Kit a bul-Adab, vol.6, p.259, by Ibn-e-Ab i Shaibah) According to Ahmadis, Hadrat ‘ A’ ishah ra was correct in stating that Kh a tamun-Nabiyy i n does not mean that no prophet of any type will appear after him.It means only that Kh a tamun- Nabiyy i n holds the highest rank of position of prophethood as far as dignity and excellence is concerned.Just being the last does not hold any significance.Maul a n a Q a sim N a n o tv i , quoted above, holds the exact same view.Ludhi a na vi should have said that the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has exactly the same view as his religious elder, and should have had the courage to state what the Maul a n a Q a sim N a n o tv i had said, as follows: The meaning of kh a tam in the eyes of the general public is that the reign of the Holy Prophet commences after the former prophets and H u du r is last of the prophets.It will dawn on the learned that to be at the beginning or the end does not carry any weight.Therefore, appreciation of the Holy Prophet saw cannot be expressed by interpreting the following verse in terms of time only:

? 29 On the other hand, if the title is not considered to be a title of honour and appreciation, then the end of prophethood can be taken as the valid meaning of kh a tamiyyat.However, I am certain that this position will not be acceptable to any of the followers of Islam.( Ta h dh i run-N a s , p.41–42, by Maul a n a Q a sim N a n o tv i , published by Sohail Printers, edn.3, Lahore, 2001) The words of ‘Im a mul-Hind’, mujaddid [reformer] of the 12 th century, Hadrat Sh a h Waliyyull a h Mu h addith Dehlv i rta , are also worth pondering:   ! "#$%&  ' () * $+,# -+  .#  /0 12 ' &.The meaning of the Holy Prophet being Kh a tamun- Nabiyy i n is that no one after the Holy Prophet will be raised by God with a new shariah for mankind.( At-Tafh i m a tul- I la hiyyah, by Sh a h Waliyyull a h Dehlv i, vol.2, p.85, printed in, Ma t ba‘ al- H aidar i 1387 AH, 1967 AD) Seal of all Prophets Maulav i Ludhi a na vi goes on to make this cynical remark: The Holy Prophet saw makes prophets after affixing his seal on the deeds of their prophethood.It used to be that prophethood was conferred solely by God.However, it seems now this department has been entrusted by God to the Holy Prophet saw —that he may affix his seal on anyone and declare him to be a prophet.( Qadianio n aur D u srei K a firo n kei

30 ? Darmiy a n Farq, by Maulav i Muhammad Y u suf Ludhi a na vi , p.12) Maulav i Ludhi a na vi should remember what the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw said, addressing Hadrat J a bir ra : * 13 $.# 4  5 6 7 89 : ;< =.O J a bir! God Almighty created the light of your Prophet before he created anything else.( Al-Maw a hibul- Ladunniyyah bil Mina h il-Mu h ammadiyyah , vol.1, p.71, Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Qas t al a n i , al-Maktabul-Isl a m i , 2004) We firmly believe that prophethood was bestowed through the blessings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw on all prophets who appeared before him, and in the future, too, he would continue to be the source of that light.Maulav i Ludhi a na vi , in his opposition to Ahmadiyyat out of hatred, has gone to such an extent that he does not even consider that, in effect, he is showing contempt for the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw.According to Ahmadis, it is a false allegation that the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw was a kh a tam [seal] for only his devoted servants who followed him in time.Ahmadis have firm and unshakeable belief that the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw was kh a tam for all, now and forever, whether there was a prophet before him or after.However, Maulav i Ludhi a na vi ’s writings would imply that the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw cannot be a kh a tam for those who come after him.Moreover, he also implies that

? 31 he was never kh a tam in the beginning, since no past prophet received his seal.He is simply targeting the word kh a tam [seal] by being sarcastic and has utterly forgotten the true significance of this term.The Holy Prophet Muhammad saw was declared the Seal of the Prophets in the Holy Quran.It is an all-encompassing seal and leaves no prophet out.Thus, his belief that all prophets before the prophethood of the Holy Prophet saw are outside the sphere of kh a tamiyyat exposes his complete ignorance.The fact of the matter is that the word kh a tam not only carries the meaning of being the most excellent, but it also means the authenticator.Similarly, ‘seal’ does not mean that the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw was just like a post office stamp, God forbid, as per the thinking of the maulav i s of the modern age.Instead, the imprint of the prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw has been given the title of kh a tam.This means that any prophet who deviates in any way from the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw will not be authenticated as being a prophet by the Holy Prophet, whether he came before or after.On the other hand, any prophet who has the imprint of the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw in varying degrees, will receive authentication by the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw according to his rank.Keeping these meanings in view, the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw is kh a tam for all times.Even those prophets from the past can be called prophets if they bear his seal of prophethood.This is corroborated by the following saying of the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw :

32 ?   >3      ?  *   @  A0  B  &C     D     13    A  EF G H  I     J   @   K '&L.Indeed I, the servant of God, was the Seal of the Prophets even at a time when Adam was being wrought out of clay.( Masnad Im a m Ahmad bin H anbal , Hadith no.17295, vol.5, p.846–847, ‘ A limul-Kutub, Beirut, 1998) Maulav i Ludhi a na vi should take into consideration the beliefs of his religious elders before presenting his own inadequate version of the Ahmadiyya point of view.At least his leader presented the Ahmadiyya viewpoint with greater honesty.Ahmadis hold exactly the same views as some of his religious leaders.For instance, regarding the belief under discussion, it can be said without any fear or contradiction that Ahmadis hold the same belief as the learned Maul a n a Ma h m u dul- H asan and ‘All a mah Shabb i r Ahmad ‘Uthm a n i [renowned scholars of the Deoband i school of thought].The following was written in the book Tafs i r-e-‘Uthm a n i : In this regard, we can say that he was Kh a tamun-Nabiyy i n both in respect of rank as well as in respect of time scale.And whoever became the recipient of prophethood did so in consequence of receiving the impress of the Holy Prophet’s Seal of Prophethood.( Tafs i r-e-Uthm a n i , by Maul a n a Shab i r Ahmad ‘Uthm a n i , under verse 33:41, p.1276) It can be honestly stated that the Ahmadiyya belief has been explained from the point of view of these two learned sages, as it appears in the margin of their translation of the Holy Quran.However, some learned scholars have taken it further.They

? 33 hold the belief that anyone with requisite ability can attain prophethood by coming into the focus of the Holy Prophet saw.This is what Maul a n a Q a r i Muhammad T ayyab, Muhtamim D a rul-‘Ul u m, Deoband, has said: The grandeur of the Holy Prophet does not just exhibit itself in terms of his prophethood, but equally so with respect to his capacity to generate prophets ( Nubuwwat Bakhshi ) viz.whichever individual—imbued with the potential for prophethood—came within the focus of the Holy Prophet, was raised to be a prophet.( A ft a b-e-Nubuwwat , p.82, Maul a n a Q a r i Muhammad T ayyab, N a shir Id a rah Isl a miy a t Lahore, under the auspices of Ashraf Brothers, first edition 1980, printer: Waf a q Press, Lahore) Nubuwwat of the Promised Messiah as Maulav i Ludhi a na vi , interfering with divine prerogative, says: Who has granted Qadian i s the right that they may consider Ghul a m Ahmad Qadian i a prophet and messenger and still claim that they are within the fold of Islam? ( Qadianio n aur D u srei K a firo n kei Darmiy a n Farq, by Maulav i Muhammad Y u suf Ludhi a na vi , p.13)

34 ? This is a right that God has bestowed upon Ahmadis.It is God Almighty who confers this right on a person—whether he should accept or reject a prophet.No maulav i has this right, including Maulav i Ludhi a na vi.The very same God who conferred on all human beings the right to accept His messengers has also granted this right to Ahmadis, that they may accept Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as , as the Messiah and Mahd i, within the ummah of the Holy Prophet saw.Maulav i Ludhi a na vi needs to take a moment here to reflect and answer that, if he has the belief that when Hadrat ‘Is a as will reappear in the Ummah, hundreds of years after the passing of the Holy Prophet Muhammad saw , will he accept him as a prophet of God, and still call himself a Muslim? If he had paid heed to the following statements, he would have refrained from asking this question.This is what Hadrat Mu h iyyudd i n ibn-e- ‘Arab i rta wrote: AMN '