Zeeshan Ahmad, Student, Jamia Ahmadiyya UK
The reverence shown by God’s appointees to other chosen ones of Allah Almighty goes beyond the ordinary human scope; it encompasses the preservation of Divine message, acknowledgement of their shared source of spiritual enlightenment, promotion of harmony among their followers, and above all, the continuation of their common mission of guiding humanity. Conversely, it simply diminishes their own divine standing if they disrespect or speak ill of God’s prophets.
Treading in the footsteps of his master-prophet Muhammadsa, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas, the Promised Messiah and Mahdi, manifested a great deal of respect for all the prophets of God, going beyond mere acknowledgment of their divine works to actively restoring their true status and honour in the history of religions. The Promised Messiahas strove for the revival of the original teachings of God’s prophets, especially the Prophetsa of Islam, ensuring that the profound significance of their message was not diminished or misinterpreted.
Deceivingly or being completely unaware of the true honour and respect of God’s messengers, some nominal scholars of today try to disparage the Promised Messiahas and misrepresent his writings. This malevolent approach of opponents is described in the Holy Quran, where God says:
وَمَا يَاۡتِيۡہِمۡ مِّنۡ رَّسُوۡلٍ اِلَّا کَانُوۡا بِہٖ يَسۡتَہۡزِءُوۡنَ
“And there never came to them any Messenger but they mocked at him.” (Surah al-Hijr, Ch.15: V.12)
The Holy Prophetsa prophesied regarding latter-day Muslims that they would become like the Jews and Christians (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 3456), and as is well known, the Jews of Jesusas’ time also rejected the Messiah of their age. We observe that instead of benefiting from the advice of Prophet Muhammadsa, they are determined to make untenable allegations to reject the Promised Messiahas.
Accentuating one of the signs of the People of the Book in the Holy Quran, Allah the Almighty says:
يُحَرِّفُوۡنَ الۡکَلِمَ مِنۡۢ بَعۡدِ مَوَاضِعِ
“They pervert words after their being put in their right places.” (Surah al-Ma’idah, Ch.5: V.42)
In a recent online discourse, some self-professed scholars of Islam accused the Promised Messiahas of insulting Prophet Jesusas. These opponents misrepresent the references from the books of the Promised Messaihas and misguide the ummah with their evil plots. Today, these scholars compromise their faith for some cheap publicity and views, regrettably becoming a testimony to the following hadith of the Holy Prophetsa:
“A time will come when nothing will remain of Islam except its name and nothing will remain of the Quran except its script. Mosques will be full of worshippers, but as far as guidance is concerned, they will be empty and deserted. Their scholars will be the worst of creatures under the canopy of the heavens. Evil plots will originate from them and to them will they return.” (Mishkat al-Masabih, Hadith 276)
However, it is incumbent on each individual to do their own research when it comes to an allegation against a claimant of divine appointment and not blindly follow the scholars. On the other hand, if the scholars would have an iota of academic honesty, they would never take anyone’s writings out of context and deceive their followers.
Did the Promised Messiahas insult Jesusas or accuse him of ill morals?
The references of the Promised Messiahas presented in recent online discourse on the topic under discussion were ex concessis arguments, also knows as arguments from commitment, against the Christian clerics and missionaries of his age, i.e., arguments based on the commitments, assertions, or concessions of the opponents, not the arguer’s own convictions. In other words, these arguments were based on the convictions and the subjective truth of the opponents, not the objective truth or the personal conviction of the Promised Messiahas. These Christian clerics and missionaries spent day and night writing scores of books slandering and insulting the blessed character and life of the Holy Prophetsa. Therefore, it was necessary to give these Christians a taste of their own medicine and silence them by presenting the character of that Messiah of their own Gospels.
At the same time, on many occasions, the Promised Messiahas has clearly recorded his personal views about Jesusas based on the Holy Quran, but these streamers hide the truth to create controversies and spread falsehood.
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas categorically accepts Jesusas as a true Prophet of God
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas writes:
“We inform our readers that our belief concerning Jesusas is extremely noble. We most sincerely believe that he was a true prophet of Allah the Almighty and His beloved. As the Holy Quran tells us, we hold firm faith that he most sincerely believed in our leader and master Prophet Muhammad Mustafa, peace and blessings of Allah be on him, for his salvation, and that he was one of the hundreds of obedient servants of the Law of Moses. Therefore, we hold a great esteem for him in accordance with his exalted status.” (Nurul-Quran, Pt. 2, Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 9, p. 374)
In his book, Jang-e Muqaddas (The Holy War), the Promised Messiahas writes:
“And you are mistaken in your statement that having described the use of an abusive word by the Messiah, it is as if I have disrespected him. I consider the Messiah[Jesusas] a true Prophet and a venerable and beloved servant of God Almighty. That was merely an argument from commitment that was appropriate to your taste, and that accusation falls on you, not on me.” (The Holy War [Jang-e-Muqaddas], p. 122)
After reading the above words of the Promised Messiahas, it would be extremely unfair for an individual to just quote a couple of biased selections from the writings of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas where he is making an argument from commitment against the Christian clergymen, and then present them as the viewpoint of Prophet Ahmadas regarding the Quranic Prophet Jesusas.
Now, we will briefly look into some of the extracts published online to exemplify academic dishonesty.
Did Hazrat Ahmadas describe Jesusas as a drunkard?
The following extract from the Promised Messiah’sas book, Noah’s Ark, was misrepresented and attributed to him as if this was his own viewpoint:
“The degree to which alcohol has harmed the people of Europe is because Jesus himself used to drink [according to the Gospels] – perhaps on account of a malady or out of previous habit. But O ye Muslims! Your Prophet, peace be upon him, was pure and free from every kind of intoxicant. Indeed, he was truly free from all sin. So as Muslims who do you follow? Unlike the Gospel, the Quran does not permit alcohol. On the basis of which scripture do you then deem alcohol to be lawful? Why are you so heedless of death?” (Noah’s Ark [Kashti-e-Nuh], p. 113)
In the above extract, the Promised Messiahas is simply cautioning the Muslims not to follow the Europeans into drinking alcohol because in their Gospel it has been wrongfully stated that Jesusas used to drink. Hence, this cannot be used as an excuse by them. The Promised Messiahas then explains that Muslims have got no excuse because their Holy Prophetsa was purified by God and the Holy Quran testifies to his noble character as he never committed such acts. This is the most sublime method utilised by the Promised Messiahas to admonish the Christians and advise the Muslims. This in no way implies that he insulted the Quranic Prophet Jesusas.
Explaining how Christians justify their consumption of alcohol, the Promised Messiahas says:
“For since the Christian gentlemen have a sure prescription for the remission of sins in their hands, i.e., the blood of the Messiah [Atonement]. It is quite obvious what [bad] results this prescription must have produced among their people and to what extent it would have emboldened the [people’s] self that incites evil to commit sin. I think I need not describe to which extent this prescription has undermined the practical life and purity of Europeans and Americans. Especially since the second ingredient of this recipe, alcohol, has also been added to this prescription, it has become a dangerous and incendiary substance. In support of this practice, it is stated that the Messiahas used to drink wine, so it is the duty of every true Christian to drink wine as well and follow their master.” (Nasim-e Da‘wat, Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 19, pp. 432-33)
Clarifying his own position on Jesusas in the book Noah’s Ark, the Promised Messiahas states:
“Anyone who asserts that I do not revere the Messiah [Jesusas], son of Mary[as], is mischievous and a liar.” (Noah’s Ark, p. 29)
As mentioned by the Promised Messiahas in his writings, alcohol addiction is attributed to JesusChrist in the Gospels, as Matthew writes:
“For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.” (Matthew 11: 18-19)
Another misrepresented extract shown on the live stream was taken from the second part of an article series titled “Trinity and Unity” published in the issues of February, March, and April 1902 of The Review of Religions (Urdu). The misquotation attributed to the Promised Messiahas comes under the sub-heading, “Discussion on the Divinity of the [Biblical] Messiah as per their Evidence of Sinlessness”.
The title of the aforementioned article and the sub-heading clearly substantiates that the Promised Messiah’sas intended audience was the Christians. The Promised Messiahas challenged them to revisit the Evidence of Sinlessness of Jesus Christ present in their own book, and then he admonished the Christians to examine the character of their Messiah of the Gospels as compared to the holy and blessed life of Prophet Muhammadsa. However, the nominal scholars of present age, striving to deceive the general public, handpicked the following statement:
“I have pondered carefully over [the “Evidence of (the Biblical Messiah’s) Sinlessness”] and pondered over it as deeply as possible. As per my [research], Jesus Christ [of the Gospels] did not abstain from wine, and never took a wife, however, I believe that God protected him from evil. What shall I do, my examination [of the Gospels] does not declare that he can be as perfect in chastity as another person who neither drinks alcohol nor lacks lawful wives.” (The Review of Religions [Urdu], March 1902, p. 116)
In the life of the Promised Messiahas,the above statement along with the entire context was published in The Review of Religions (English) of March 1902. Analysing the following complete paragraph along with the statement under discussion simply does not support the allegation on its own:
“It is for this reason that I cherish a far greater love for my Lord and Master, the Prophet Muhammad صلي اللّٰہ عليہ وسلّم than for Jesus Christ, and this is the reason that the former stands on a much higher and firmer rock of purity and innocence than the latter. The causes in which virtue takes its rise and the occasions on which it may be practised, were not granted by the Lord Almighty in the same abundance to Jesus Christ as to our Prophet[sa] and the former far surpassed the latter in these respects. Jesus Christ made free use of wine and never took a wife. Now we believe that Providence protected him from evil, but we cannot admit that under these circumstances he could be as perfect in the purity of heart and in spotlessness of character as the person who remained a total abstainer throughout his life and had also lawful wives.” (The Review of Religions [English], March 1902, pp. 119-20)
The name “Jesus Christ” manifestly shows that the writer is referring to the Messiah of the Gospels and not the true prophet Jesusas mentioned in the Holy Quran, as the Promised Messiahas himself states:
“Therefore, wherever we have used harsh words in our discourse, we have meant the fictitious Jesus of the Christians. The meek servant of God Almighty, Jesus son of Mary, who was a Prophet mentioned in the Quran, is never intended in our severe rhetoric. We have adopted this approach after having heard for forty years abuses [of the Holy Prophetsa] from the Christian clergymen. Some ignorant maulvis – who should be called blind and sightless – excuse the Christian clergymen saying that these poor, helpless people do not utter anything wrong from their mouths and do not disrespect our Holy Prophetsa. But let it be remembered that, in reality, it is the Christian clergymen who are at the forefront in expressing contempt, insults and abuses. We have a repository of books by those clergymen who have filled their writings with hundreds of abuses. Any maulvi who wishes can come and see for himself. And let it be known that in future, whichever clergyman will shun the ways of abuse and speak respectfully, we shall also deal with him respectfully. But at present they themselves are responsible for the attacks on their own Jesus, for under no circumstances can they refrain from abuses and insults. We have grown weary of listening to them.” (Nurul-Quran, Pt. 2, Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 9, p. 375)
The following quote was also shown out of context on the stream and was presented as the viewpoint of the Promised Messiahas:
“Therefore, we cannot consider such an impious, arrogant and enemy of the righteous as a good-natured person, let alone a prophet.” (Zamima Anjam-e Atham, Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 11, p. 293)
It is very surprising to observe how these opponents who have no fear of God present only two lines from a long footnote and refer to it as the Promised Messiah’sas view about Jesusas. If anyone reads the complete context, it will be evident on him that here the Promised Messiahas is making an argument from commitment against an opponent of Islam named Fateh Masih, who not only rejected the prophecy of Promised Messiahas regarding Atham, but also disrespected other honourable prophets and used abusive language for the Holy Prophetsa.
The Promised Messiahas clarified on countless occasions by using the phrases “[we] come to know from the Gospel of Matthew […]” (Ibid., p. 289), “an erudite priest states […]” (Ibid., p. 290), etc., that the said beliefs were held by the Christians and should not be considered his personal views. Moreover, the Promised Messiahas finishes this footnote with a very clear statement against this opponent of Islam. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas addressed Fateh Masih towards the end and said:
“Finally, we write that we had no issue with the Jesus of these Christian clergymen and his conduct. It was they who unjustly abused our Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, which prompted us to expose to them some of the realities of their Jesus. For instance, this very wretched and unworthy Fateh Masih, in a letter to me, called the Holy Prophetsa an adulterer and also hurled many other abuses. Consequently, in the same way, this lifeless and wicked group of people, which worships the dead, has compelled us to write down some of the accounts of their Jesus.” (Ibid., pp. 292-93)
The so-called religious scholars showed many other similar handpicked references accusing the Promised Messiahas, but the truth becomes quite visible to the reader once they read the context with absolute unbiasedness and impartiality.
Did past scholars of Islam insult Jesusas?
We have observed that these streamers rush towards accusing the Promised Messiahas of false allegations; however, if they read the literature of their past scholars, they would find similar techniques used by them to reply to the Christians missionaries and priests.
For example, in his book Izalat al-Awham, Shaykh Rahmatullah Kairanavi (d. 1891), a well-respected Sunni scholar from India who opposed the Christian mission and wrote several pamphlets in Urdu and Arabic against Christianity, wrote:
“And in John 11, 5, it is written that Jesus Christ loved Martha and her sister Lazarus. […]
“Many women would walk around with Jesus Christ. They would serve him with their money and he had Martha and her sister as his friends. He loved them. Now those who reject Jesus Christ can raise the allegation that because he was young and beautiful, women fell in love with him and went after him. Moreover, they served him with their money.
“When this matter has reached the level of certainty that Jesus Christ loved some of the women, and because of alcohol, he would take other benefits from them as well, then why would he need a nikah?” (Izalat al-Awham, Vol. 2, p. 210)
Rahmatullah Kairanavi then mentions the story of a female prostitute who kissed the feet of Jesus Christ and cried in front of him, so much so that he forgave her sins. (Ibid., pp. 210-11)
Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi (d. 1921), a well-known Sunni leader from India, in Fatawa-e Razaviyya under the heading “False gods of Christians”, states:
“Breathing his last, the god of Christians (Jesus Christ) went to his Father due to the cruelty of the people. He honoured his only son in such a way that he exalted the oppressed and innocent [Jesus Christ] by throwing him into the hellfire and roasting him in Hell owing to the [sins] of others.” (Fatawa-e Razaviyya, Vol. 15, p. 539)
Ahmad Raza Khan further states that Christians believe in such a god who was certainly a deceiver and had two female prostitutes as his partners. (Ibid., p. 540)
A famous scholar of Ahl-e-Hadis, Maulvi Muhammad Hussein of Batala (d. 1920), writes:
“Contrary to the miracle of turning [water into] wine by the Messiah of the Gospels, (which legitimised their use of alcohol), the Quran instructed that liquor, gambling, idols and divining arrows are impure and evil deeds, so avoid them in order to be saved. And the commandments of the Quran in rejection to the moral teaching of Jesus Christ have been published previously […].” (Isha‘atus-Sunnah, Vol. 17, No. 7, p. 221)
What was the need for the Promised Messiahas to use such harsh words?
One may ask why would the Promised Messiahas use such harsh words. For this, we need to revisit the situation and events of 19th century in British India. On the one hand the Christians were spreading their teachings, on the other hand they were constantly attacking Islam and the character of the Holy Prophetsa. Christian critics and clergymen would use extremely abusive language for the Holy Prophetsa. Thus, it was necessary to silence them by showing them the Jesus Christ which is mentioned in their Gospels. As Allah the Almighty clearly states:
جَزٰٓؤُا سَيِّئَةٍ سَيِّئَةٌ مِّثۡلُہَا
“The recompense of an injury is a penalty in proportion thereto.” (Surah ash-Shura, Ch.42: V.41)
However, the Promised Messiahas at numerous occasions called on the Christian missionaries and scholars that if they would stop abusing the Holy Prophetsa, he would also stop portraying their Messiah of the Gospels.
Saviour of Islam
In 1898, a Christian missionary, Ahmad Shah, a former Muslim, wrote a book, Ummahatul-Momineen. This book was full of slurs against the character of the Prophet Muhammadsa, slandering his wives and accusing him of various mischiefs. Thousands of copies were published and distributed to the public for free.
In response, the Muslim Anjuman only sent a memorial to the government appealing for the suspension of the book’s publication. However, the Promised Messiahas was of the view that if no book was written from the Muslims’ side, the impression to the public would be that we have no answers. Scholars like Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan agreed with him.
Conclusion
As the Promised Mahdi, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas not only wrote numerous books replying to the Christians but also invited them to public debates and prayer duels for their reformation. Hence, every step the Promised Messiahas took was due to his immense love for the Holy Prophetsa and to present the true teachings of Islam to the world.
Yet we see today that the opponents hide many great works of the Promised Messiahas and present a few words taken out of context accusing him of insulting Prophet Jesusas.
Moreover, the enemies of the Promised Messiahas don’t realise that it is impossible for him to first declare himself as an embodiment of Jesusas and then disrespect him at the same time.
