In the Name of Allah;
the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful
Continuing from my
last entry regarding Iqbal’s book Islam and Ahmadism, we will now move
on to Iqbal’s arguments regarding the issue of the Finality of Prophethood.
Iqbal correctly
states: “The cultural value of the idea of Finality in Islam I have fully
explained elsewhere. Its meaning is simple: No spiritual surrender to any human
being after Muhammad who emancipated his followers by giving them a law which
is realisable as arising from the very core of human conscience. Theologically,
the doctrine is that: the socio-political organisation called “Islam” is
perfect and eternal. No revelation the denial of which entails heresy is
possible after Muhammad.” (p. 21)
We are in agreement
that the significance of Khatam-un-Nubuwwah (Finality of Prophethood) is
that the law of Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is final and
universal, and there cannot come after him another law-bearing prophet, another
Shari’ah (divine law), or another Revelation from God the denial of which
entains Kufr (infidelity or disbelief).
However, Iqbal goes on
to state that “Since the Qadianis believe the founder of the Ahmadiyyah
movement to be the bearer of such a revelation, they declare that the entire
world of Islam is infidel.” (ibid)
We have already
refuted Iqbal’s false allegation that either the Ahmadiyyah movement or its
revered founder declared “the entire world of Islam is infidel” in our previous
entry in this series here. Specifically, the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement
penned his own statement that “I do not declare anyone who rejects my claim to
be either a disbeliever or dajjal. ” (Ruhani Khaza’in; v. 15, p. 432)
Iqbal goes on to admit
the brilliance of the Ahmadiyyah understanding of the Finality of Prophethood: “The
founder’s [Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s] own argument, quite worthy of a mediaeval
theologian, is that the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam must be
regarded as imperfect if it is not creative of another prophet. He claims his
own prophethood to be an evidence of the prophet-rearing power of the
spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam.” (Islam and Ahmadism ; p. 21)
Thus far Iqbal has
indeed correctly understood the founder of the Ahmadiyyah movement concerning
the advent of a Prophet from within the Ummah of Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Rather than detracting from the high status of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be
upon him), the advent of a “prophet-like” figure from among his own followers
is actually a testament to his excellence and the “power of his spirituality”.
This is especially true if one considers the fact that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did
not at all claim to be a prophet in his own right or independently of Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him). Rather, Ghulam Ahmad asserted that the type of
Prophethood he had attained was through strict adherence to the laws and
teachings of Prophet Muhammad, and through utmost devotion and love of him.
Ghulam Ahmad based his claim on the Sufi concept of Fana fil-Rasul which
means a follower of the Prophet Muhammad annihilates his own self or ego and
through strict emulation infuses himself with the persona of Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him). This is illustrated through one of Ghulam Ahmad’s divine
inspirations:
جَرِيُّ اللّهِ فِىْ حُلَلِ الْاَنْبِيَآءِ
Allah’s Messenger in
the garb of Prophets
Although it is evident that Iqbal
understands this concept, he is unable to refute it on principle. Instead,
Iqbal resorts to turning the tables by stating: “But if you further ask him
[Mirza Ghulam Ahmad] whether the spirituality of Muhammad is capable of rearing
more prophets than one, his answer is “No”. This virtually amounts to saying: “Muhammad
is not the last Prophet; I am the last.” (pp. 21-22)
The answer to this allegation of Iqbal
requires a more detailed clarification. Firstly, the spirituality of Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him) has reared thousands and thousands of eminent
pious and saintly individuals within the Ummah. Beginning with many of the
Prophet’s senior companions, such as Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, his wife A’ishah,
his daughter Fatimah, his two grandsons Hasan and Hussayn, the sword of God
Khalid b. Walid, Salman the Persian, Bilal b. Rabah, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, and
literally thousands of others (may Allah be pleased with them all). Then there
are those who are generally referred to as the Awliya, the very pious
saintly figures that arose from within the Ummah, the likes of Shaykh Abdul
Qadir al-Jilani (Rahimullah), and thousands upon thousands of others. Mirza
Ghulam Ahmad did not see himself in an altogether separate category from these
thousands of other saintly figures who all obtained their greatness and high
status through emulation of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Rather,
Ghulam Ahmad simply regarded himself as the climatic figure in whom the
greatest example of such a saintly figure following in the footsteps of the
Prophet is personified. Until Judgment Day such saintly and eminent figures
will continue to arise from within the Ummah, but according to Ghulam Ahmad,
they will not reach higher than the status he attained. And Ghulam Ahmad has
described the status he attained as the highest and most eminent position that
is possible to attain in following the footsteps of the Prophet Muhammad (peace
be upon him). That status, if not Nubuwwah in the real or technical
sense, must at least be considered as Nubuwwah in a figurative sense.
It is also noteworthy that Ghulam Ahmad
claimed to be the promised Mahdi and Messiah. The coming of such a figure is
accepted by the Muslim mainstream. The personality of the promised Messiah in
particular is described as being endowed with Nubuwwah and, due to
spiritual resemblance, given the name of Jesus son of Mary. Keep in mind that
no other figure from within the Ummah has a Nass (textual proof) to be
called as a Prophet or Messenger of God apart from the coming Messiah. This is
the significance of the Hadith reported from the Prophet (peace be upon him):
كَيْفَ تُهْلِكُ أُمَّةً أَنَا أَوَّلُهَا وَالْمَسِيحُ آخِرُهَا
How can the Ummah be destroyed when I
[Muhammad] am at its beginning and the Messiah is at its end?
This Hadith indicates that the Messiah is,
chronologically, at the end of the Ummah, but this chronological “end” does not
entail in it of itself any kind of virtue or excellence. In fact, there is no
virtue or excellence in being the first, second, third, last, etc., in terms of
birth or appearance for a Prophet, at least in a chronological sense.
Therefore, Iqbal’s objection is void and
based on a failure to understand the true significance of the Prophet Muhammad’s
Finality.
No comments:
Post a Comment