Iqbal's Book Islam and Ahmadism Refuted...Part 4

In the Name of Allah; the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful

Continuing from my last entry, let us now examine what Iqbal states regarding the concept of Buruz :

“He [Mirza Ghulam Ahmad] claims to be a buruz (بروز) of the Holy Prophet of Islam insinuating thereby that, being a buruz of him, his “finality” is virtually the “finality” of Muhammad; and that this view of the matter, therefore, does not violate the “finality” of the Holy Prophet. In identifying the two finalities, his own and that of the Holy Prophet, he conveniently loses sight of the temporal meaning of the idea of Finality. It is, however, obvious that the word buruz , in the sense even of complete likeness, cannot help him at all; for the buruz must always remain the other side of its original. Only in the sense of reincarnation a buruz becomes identical with the original. Thus if we take the word buruz to mean “like in spiritual qualities” the argument remains ineffective; if, on the other hand, we take it to mean reincarnation of the original in the Aryan sense of the word, the argument becomes plausible; but its author turns out to be only a Magian in disguise.” (Islam and Ahmadism ; pp. 22-23)

One is simply astonished as to how Iqbal sneaks in a sentence that so obviously misrepresents the position of Ghulam Ahmad and then proceeds to refute that strawman argument. Iqbal wrote: “In identifying the two finalities, his own and that of the Holy Prophet…” but failed to reference when or where Ghulam Ahmad identified “two finalities”. The whole point is that Ghulam Ahmad, in the capacity of being a Buruz (projection) of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) does not possess a “finality” in his own self or essence. His “finality” is identical and synonymous with the finality of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). There is only one finality as there is only one final Prophet, and that is Muhammad not Ghulam Ahmad. The latter is simply acting as a projection of the image of the former.

Iqbal postulates that since a buruz necessitates oneness of identity it is only possible to understand it as reincarnation! Again, we are simply unaware of the basis upon which Iqbal has made such an obviously false presumption. The concept of Buruz is a Sufi concept, formulated and elucidated upon by the eminent Sufis of the Ummah. They have never understood it as reincarnation. For example, the great Mujaddid Alf Thani Ahmad Sirhindi (Rahimahullah) (1564-1624) writes:

بروز (پوشیدہ ہونا اور ظاہر ہو جانا) جو بعض مشائخ نے بیان کیا ہے اس کا تناسخ سے بالکل کوئی تعلق نہیں ہے کیوںکہ تناسخ میں نفس کا تعلق دوسرے بدن کے ساتھ اس لئے ہوتا ہےکہ اس کے لئے حیات و زندگی ثابت ہو اور اس کو حس و حرکت حاصل ہو۔ اور بروز میں نفس کا تعلق دوسرے بدن سے اس غرض کے حصول کے لئےنہیں ہوتا بلکہ اس کا مقصود یہ ہوتا ہےکہ اس بدن کو کمالات حاصل ہوں اور درجات وصول ہو جائیں۔

Translation: “The burooz spoken of by some spiritual Shaikhs has nothing to do with re-incarnation. In re-incarnation, a soul forms a connection with another body as the means of its life, and to give it sensation and movement. In burooz a soul forms a connection with another body, not for this purpose, but to make that body acquire attainments and reach high grades.”

Reference: Maktubat Imam Rabbani; Daftar II, Letter no. 58

A good analogy to understand the concept of burooz is seeing the image of one’s face reflected in a mirror. The original face has an independent existence, but the reflection of the face in the mirror does not have an independent existence, it is only a projection or reflection. In this way one realizes that there is only one face, but that face can be projected from another direction with the use of a mirror. In the same way, there is only one Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), he is the last and final Prophet of God. The projection of his image through Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who is the mirror or repository of that image, is what is an example of Burooz.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself clarifies this point quite explicitly:

جاہل مخالف میری نسبت الزام لگاتے ہیں کہ یہ شخص نبی یا رسول ہونے کا دعوی کرتا ہے مجھے ایسا کوئی دعوی نہیں۔ میں اس طور سے جو وہ خیال کرتے ہیں نہ نبی ہوں نہ رسول ہوں۔ ہاں میں اس طور سے نبی اور رسول ہوں جس طور سے ابھی میں نے بیان کیا ہے۔ پس جو شخص میرے پر شرارت سے یہ الزام لگاتا ہے جو دعوی نبوّت اور رسالت کا کرتے ہیں وہ جھوٹا اور ناپاک خیال ہے۔ مجھے بروزی صورت نے نبی اور رسول بنایا ہے اور اسی بنا پر خدا نے بار بار میرا نام نبی اللہ اور رسول اللہ رکھا مگر بروزی صورت میں۔ میرا نفس درمیان نہیں ہے۔ بلکہ محمد مصطفے صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم ہے۔ اس لحاظ سے میرا نام محمد ص اور احمد ص ہوا۔ پس نبوّت اور رسالت کسی دوسرے کےپاس نہیں گئی۔ محمد ص کی چیز محمد ص کے پاس ہی رہی۔

Translation: My ignorant opponents accuse me of claiming to be a Prophet or Messenger, I myself make no such claim. I am neither a Prophet nor a Messenger as they think. But I am a Prophet and a Messenger in the way that I have just explained. Therefore, false and evil is the thinking of the one who mischievously accuses me of claiming to be a Prophet and Messenger. It is only by way of Buruz that I have been made a Prophet and a Messenger, and it is on this very basis that Allah has repeatedly named me His Prophet and His Messenger, but only by way of Buruz. My own self comes nowhere in between, rather it all belongs to Muhammad Mustafa (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam ). Thus it is that I have been called Muhammad (S) and Ahmad (S). Hence, Prophethood and Messengership have not been transferred to anyone else. What belonged to Muhammad (S) remains with Muhammad (S).

Reference: Eik Ghalati Ka Izala; p. 12

To be continued…