Did Ghulam Ahmad Claim Prophecy (Part 8) Law-Bearing Prophethood?

بسم الله الرحمـن الرحيم

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Claimed Law-Bearing Prophethood?

In the eighth part of this series I shall examine one of the more malicious but absurd allegations levelled against Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. Being forced to admit that the Sufis and elders of the Religion did not preclude the possibility of non-law-bearing prophethood for this Ummah, the bigoted mullas decided to use a new tactic and allege that Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be a law-bearing Prophet, a claim which is indisputably kufr. To this end the mullas present an isolated quote from the writings of Ghulam Ahmad, that too woefully out of context, ignoring the multitude of explicit and clear statement of the latter proclaiming in unequivocal terms the absolute cessation of law-bearing prophethood after Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. For example, Ghulam Ahmad says:

ہمارا تو یہی ایمان ہے کہ آنحضرت صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم وہ معصوم نبی ہیں کہ جن پر تمام کمالات نبوت کے ختم ہوگۓ ہیں اور ہر ایک طرح کا کمال اور درجہ انہیں پر ختم ہوگیا ہے اور ان پر وہ کامل اور جامع کتاب نازل کی گئی جس کے بعد قیامت تک کوئی اور شریعت نہیں آۓ گی۔

“This is our belief that the eminent Muhammad ﷺ is that innocent Prophet through whom all of the perfections of Prophethood find their culmination and in him every kind of perfection and degree sealed. And upon him was that perfect and comprehensive Book sent down, after which no other Shari’ah will come until the Resurrection.” (Malfuzat v.5 p.365)

 

Similarly, he writes:

اور یاد رہے کہ ہمارا ایمان ہے کہ آخری کتاب اور آخری شریعت قرآن ہے اور بعد اسکے قیامت تک ان معنون سے کوئی نبی نہیں ہے جو صاحب شریعت ہو یا بلا واسطہ متابعت آنحضرت صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم وحی پاسکتا ہو بلکہ قیامت تک یہ دروازہ بند ہے اور متابعت نبوی سے نعمت وحی حاصل کرنے کیلئے قیامت تک دروازے کھلے ہیں۔ وہ وحی جو اتباع کا نتیجہ ہے کبھی منقطع نہیں ہوگی۔ مگر نبوّت شریعت والی یا نبوّت مستقلہ منقطع ہو چکی ہے

“And remember that our belief is that the final Book and final Shari’ah is the Qur’an, after which, until the Resurrection, there is no prophet in the sense of being a law-bringer, or who gets divine revelation without following the Holy Prophet ﷺ as a means to it. Rather, until the Resurrection, this door is closed, while through following of the Prophet the doors to attaining the gift of divine revelation are open until the Resurrection. That divine revelation which is as a result of Ittibaa will never cease. But law-bearing prophethood or independent prophethood has been cut off.” (Ruhani Khaza’in v.19 p.213; Review Mubahisah Batalwi-o-Chakralwi p.6)

 

So these and many other explicit statements of Ghulam Ahmad make it clear without a shadow of a doubt that he affirmed as a matter of faith the absolute and unqualified cessation of law-bearing prophethood. Yet the mulla has the audacity to allege that Ghulam Ahmad ended up claiming law-bearing prophethood for himself! They bring forward a statement of his out of context which is actually a hypothetical response to the argument of his opponents:

اور اگر کہو کے صاحب الشریعت افترا کر کے ہلاک ہوتا ہے نہ ہر ایک مفتری۔ تو اول تو یہ دعوی بے دلیل ہے۔ خدا نے افترا کے ساتھ شریعت کی کوئی قید نہیں لگائی۔

“And if you say that only a law-bringer is destroyed by lying and not every liar, then firstly this claim is without any evidence. God did not restrict the destruction of the one who lies to [a claim to] Shari’ah.”

In other words, Ghulam Ahmad is informing his opponents that God destroys a person who lies upon Him, someone who claims to receive revelations from God but actually receives nothing. But if the opponents were to argue that the destruction of someone who lies against God claiming to receive revelation from him is only concerning those liars who claim to bring a Shari’ah, then Ghulam Ahmad answers this argument by saying its premise is without any evidence. So this is the background which you as the reader need to keep in mind as we examine what proceeds. Next Ghulam Ahmad gives a hypothetical response to the faulty premise of his opponents for the purpose of illustrating its error:

ماسوا اس کے یہ بھی تو سمجھو کہ شریعت کیا چیز ہے جس نے اپنی وحی کے ذریعہ سے چند امر اور نہی بیان کۓ اور اپنی امت کے لۓ ایک قانون مقرر کیا وہی صاحب الشریعت ہوگیا

“Notwithstanding this, understand this also that what is Shari’ah. Whoever, through his divine revelations, proclaimed some imperatives and prohibitions and established a rule for his followers is a law-bringer.”

Now here Ghulam Ahmad is saying that notwithstanding the fact that the premise of his opponents that God only destroys a false claimant to Shari’ah is baseless, even if were to be accepted for the sake of argument, it would have to be admitted that from a linguistic point of view anyone who claims revelations from God which contain do’s and don’ts is a law-bringer. Remember, this is from a linguistic point of view which is why Ghulam Ahmad draws the attention of his opponents to the definition of Shari’ah. He then continues:

پس اس تعریف کے رو سے بھی ہمارے مخالف ملزم ہیں کیونکہ میری وحی میں امر بھی ہیں اور نہی بھی۔

“Therefore, according to this definition too our opponent stands accused because my revelations contain imperatives and also prohibitions.”

In other words, Ghulam Ahmad’s opponents have trapped themselves in their own net because according to the linguistic definition of Shari’ah as consisting of do’s and don’ts, Ghulam Ahmad’s revelations will have to be considered legislative since they contain do’s and don’ts. But always remember this is from the linguistic definition of Shari’ah, not the technical definition in Islamic terminology. This point will be made clear when Ghulam Ahmad gives an actual example of one of his inspirations which contain ‘legislation’, and also when we look at the footnote which Ghulam Ahmad himself wrote in explanation of this quote which the bigoted mulla alleges is the former’s explicit claim to being a law-bearing prophet. First let us see the example Ghulam Ahmad brings of his inspiration which contains ‘legislation’:

مثلاً یہ الہام قل للمؤمنين يغضوا من ابصارهم ويحفظوا فروجهم ذالك الزكى لهم۔

“For example, this inspiration: Say to the Believers to avert their vision and protect their private parts [chastity], that is purer for them.”

So this is the example of the ‘legislative’ content of Ghulam Ahmad’s inspirations. They are simply a restatement and reaffirmation of what has already been revealed to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ in the Holy Quran and nothing new! Hence Ghulam Ahmad wrote in the footnote to the controversial quote which has riled the mullas:

چونکہ میری تعلیم میں امر بھی ہے اور نہی بھی اور شریعت کے ضروری احکام کی تجدید ہے

“Because my teachings also contain commands and prohibitions and the Tajdid [renewal] of the mandatory laws of the Shari’ah.”

Finally, Ghulam Ahmad, after all of this hypothetical argumentative response to his opponents, in order to leave no room for confusion, reaffirms his belief that Prophet Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets and the Quraan is the final scripture and law, absolutely demolishing the false accusation against him that he claimed to be a law-bearing prophet:

ہمارا ایمان ہے کہ آنحضرت صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم خاتم الانبیاء ہیں۔ اور قرآن ربّانی کتابوں کا خاتم ہے تا خدا تعالی نے اپنے نفس پر یہ حرام نہیں کیا کہ تجدید کے طور پر کسی اور مامور کے ذریعہ سے یہ احکام صادر کرے کہ جھوٹ نہ بولو۔ جھوٹی گواہی نہ دو۔ زنا نہ کرو۔ خون نہ کرو۔ اور ظاہر ہے کہ ایسا بیان کرنا بیان شریعت ہےجو مسیح موعود کا بھی کام ہے۔

“Our belief is that the Holy Prophet [Muhammad] ﷺ is the Seal of the Prophets and the Quran is the Seal [last] of the divine scriptures. That’s why God Most High didn’t forbid upon Himself to send someone to proclaim laws, in the sense of Tajdid [renewal], ‘don’t lie’, ‘don’t bear false witness’, ‘don’t commit adultery’, ‘don’t spill blood’, and obviously to make such proclamations is to proclaim the Shari’ah, which is also the work of the promised Messiah.” (Ruhani Khaza’in v.17 pp.435-436; Arba’in No.4 pp.6-7)

 

In conclusion, Ghulam Ahmad explained the linguistic meaning of Shari’ah or legislation as merely proclaiming do’s and don’ts, and based on this essential linguistic definition, his inspirations can be said to be ‘legislative’. But the reality is that the do’s and don’t in his inspirations do not constitute a new Shari’ah, but rather a restatement of the laws which were revealed to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, a reaffirmation of the Muhammadan Shari’ah. Can any reasonable and unbiased person say that for Ghulam Ahmad to legislate laws such as “don’t lie”, “don’t murder” and “don’t commit adultery” he has claimed to be a law-bearing prophet? The truth is that Ghulam Ahmad explained that he was sent in the capacity of a Mujaddid whose objective is to renew and refresh the teachings of Islam and the Shari’ah, not to abrogate or amend them in even an iota! Consider also the fact that this single quote which the mullas have made such a fuss over was proceeded by numerous statements of Ghulam Ahmad where he explicitly denies being a law-bearing prophet (see for example the two quotes at the beginning of this entry which proceeded this one chronologically), so decide for yourself why the mullas so shamelessly lie!