Mirza of Qadian was a Wahhabi

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام عليك يا خاتم النبيين

وعلى آلك واصحابك يا رحمة للعالمين

One of the malicious lies circulated by the Ghair Muqallidin or so-called Ahli Hadith of the Subcontinent is that the false prophet and antichrist Mirza of Qadian was a Hanafi and a Sufi. They argue that the Qadiani heresy is therefore an offshoot of the Ahnaf and of Sufism. The aim of this false propaganda is to discredit normative, mainstream Islam in the Subcontinent, which is Sunni, Hanafi and attached to Sufism. The notion that Mirza was a Sufi is absurd. Who was his Sufi master and which Tariqa or Silsila was he initiated into? As for being a Hanafi, yes, Mirza was born into a Sunni, Hanafi Muslim family, like the vast majority of Indian Muslims. Though his family were not particularly known for their religiosity and piety, they professed the normative, mainstream Islam which the vast majority of this Ummah adheres to. However, what is significant is that there was a phase in Mirza’s life, between his youth growing up a Sunni Hanafi, and inventing a new sect and movement he called “Ahmadiyya” based on his claim of being the Promised Messiah and Mahdi, in which Mirza fell under the influence of non-Sunni ideologies, namely, Wahhabism, Sir Syed’s naturalism and the Ghair Muqallidin (non-conformists). Mirza married the daughter of a Ghair Muqallid, Mir Nasir Nawab, and the rites of this marriage were consecrated by the greatest Ghair Muqallid, so-called “Ahli Hadith” scholar in India, Nadhir Husain of Delhi. Mirza’s two most senior henchmen, Hakim Nuruddin and Abd ul-Karim of Sialkot (the former became his first successor after his death in 1908), were both Ghair Muqallids prior to swearing fealty to Mirza. Not only were they Ghair Muqallids, they were heavily under the influence of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and his naturalist, modernist ideas. The most prominent of these matters where Mirza and the Qadianis took from Sir Syed is the belief, in opposition to mainstream Sunni Islam, that the Messiah Jesus عليه السلام is deceased and shall not return in person to this world before the Apocalypse. Along with this Sir Syed denied the well-known miracles mentioned in the Holy Quran, and attempted to rationalize them so that they could be understood differently and in tune with the natural laws. This apparently had an impact on Hakim Nuruddin, and is reflected in his commentary of the Quran entitled Haqa’iq ul-Furqan. We also see the unmistakable influence of Sir Syed’s naturalist interpretation in the standard Qadiani commentary of the Quran called Tafsir al-Kabir attributed to Mirza’s son and second successor, Mirza Mahmud. Today, Ghair Muqallid propagandists make much fuss out of the fact that the Qadianis do not make repeated Raf al-Yadain (raising of hands) in the Salah, according to the Hanafi method. Yet they conveniently ignore other features of the standard Qadiani way of offering Salah, such as placing the hands above the navel and considering it incumbent upon the one offering Salah behind an Imam to recite the Fateha. Qadianis recite the shortened version of the Iqama unlike the Ahnaf. They consider it valid to combine the Salah during travel (Zuhrain and Maghribain), offer funeral prayers in absentia, wipe over ordinary socks (Masah), deliver the Friday Sermon in the vernacular language and not necessary that it be delivered exclusively in Arabic, offer eight raka’at of Tarawih rather than twenty, and to verbally say سبحان ربي الاعلى after the Imam recites the first Ayah of Surat al-Ala سبح اسم ربك الاعلى and to verbally say بلى وانا على ذلك من الشاهدين after the Imam recites the last Ayah of Surat al-Tin اليس الله باحكم الحاكمين

This latter practice isn’t even associated with ordinary followers of the Ahli Hadith sect, but the more rigorous among them known as Ghuraba Ahl al-Hadith based in Karachi (Jami’a Sattariyya). And there are countless other masa’il in which the Qadianis adopt the position of the so-called Ahli Hadith or Ghair Muqallidin in opposition to the Hanafis. Mirza Qadiani himself acknowledged that he was a Wahhabi:

اس شخص کا مجھ کو وہابی کہنا غلط نہ تھا

That person calling me a Wahhabi was not incorrect (Malfuzat, 1984 edition, v.9, p.302)

Mirza’s inclination toward Wahhabism is also apparent in his defense of Shah Isma’il’s book Taqwiyat ul-Iman, considered objectionable because of the disrespect it contains toward the Prophets:

اور تمہارے جیسے عقل والوں نے صاحب تقویت الایمان کو بھی اِسی خیال سے کافر کہا تھا کہ بعض کلمات ان کو اس کتاب میں ایسے معلوم ہوئے کہ گویا وہ انبیاء کی توہین کرتا ہے اور چوڑوں چماروں کو ان کے برابر جانتا ہے.ہماری طرح ان کا بھی یہی جواب تھا کہ انما الاعمال بالنیات

(Ruhani Khaza’in, v.9, p.35; Anwar ul-Islam, p.34)

Not only did Mirza praise Shah Isma’il of Delhi, author of Taqwiyat ul-Iman, Mansab-i-Imamat and Sirat-i-Mustaqim, defending those works from the charge of blasphemy, he highly praised Syed Ahmad of Raebareli. Mirza went to the extent of comparing the latter to the Prophet Elias عليه السلام and considered him his forerunner:

کیا تعجب ہے کہ سید احمد بریلوی اس مسیح موعود کے لۓ الیاس کے رنگ میں آیا ہو۔ کیونکہ اس کے خون نے ایک ظالم سلطنت کا استیصال کر کے مسیح موعود کے لۓ جو یہ راقم ہے راہ کو صاف کیا۔ اسی کے خون کا اثر معلوم ہوتا ہے جس نے انگریزوں کو پنجاب میں بلایا اور اس قدر سخت مذہبی روکوں کو جو ایک آہنی تنور کی طرح تھیں دور کر کے ایک آزاد سلطنت کے حوالے پنجاب کو کر دیا اور تبلیغ اسلام کی بنیاد ڈال دی۔

Is it any wonder that Syed Ahmad Barelvi has come in the color of Elias for this promised Messiah. Because his blood cleared the way for the promised Messiah, who I am, by destroying an oppressive empire. The effect of his blood is known; he who invited the British to Punjab and removed such strict religious restrictions which were like an iron oven and handed over a free government to Punjab and laid the foundation for the propagation of Islam. (Ruhani Khaza’in, v.17, p.296, footnote)

Likewise, Mirza of Qadian compared Syed Ahmad of Raebareli to the Prophet Yahya عليه السلام (John the Baptist) and declared him the Twelfth Caliph as prophesied in the Hadith:

سید احمد صاحب بریلوی سلسلہ خلافتِ محمدیہ کے بارھویں خلیفہ ہیں جو حضرت یحییٰ کے مثیل ہیں اور سید ہیں

Syed Ahmad Barelvi is the Twelfth Caliph in the chain of the Mohammedan Caliphate, being the resemblance of Hadrat Yahya and a Syed (Ruhani Khaza’in, v.17, p.194)

And like the so-called Ahli Hadith and Salafi movement, the Qadianis consider many matters practiced by mainstream Sunni Muslims to be Bid’ah (innovative), such as commemorating the Mawlid, offering Esal ath-Thawab for the deceased, collective Du’a after the mandatory, congregational Salah, counting Dhikr and Tasbih on beads and hanging Ta’widh (amulets containing Quranic inscriptions) for protection. Now it is established that neither Mirza of Qadian nor the Qadianis till this day are an offshoot of mainstream Sunni Muslims, nor bear any similarity to the mainstream Sunni Muslims in any way, shape or form. Rather, the Qadiani heresy is clearly an offshoot of Wahhabism and the Ghair Muqallidin so-called “Ahli Hadith” of the Subcontinent. As a matter of fact, Mirza of Qadiani may be considered an extreme Wahhabi for he even denied the Hadith:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ حَرَّمَ عَلَى الأَرْضِ أَنْ تَأْكُلَ أَجْسَادَ الأَنْبِيَاءِ

Verily, Allah has forbidden the Earth from eating the bodies of the Prophets

Mirza taught that the Earth did indeed consume the body of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and that if his grave were to be exhumed only his skeletal remains would be unearthed معاذ الله

اور یہ کس قدر لغو حرکت ہے کہ رسول مقبول کی قبر کھودی جاوے اور پاک نبی کی ہڈیاں لوگوں کو دکھائی جاویں

And how ridiculous an act to exhume the grave of the Rasul and show the Holy Prophet’s bones to the people (Ruhani Khaza’in, v.3, p.478; Izala Auham, part 2, p.701)