Ata-ul-Haye Nasir and Iftekhar Ahmed, Ahmadiyya Archive & Research Centre
The 19th century was an era that saw a rising tide of opposition to Islam. In particular, Christian clergymen, supported by their press, were running a malicious campaign. They were objecting to the teachings of the Holy Quran and attempting to malign the blessed character of the Holy Prophetsa.
One of the major debates they ignited was about the sinlessness (‘isma) of the Prophets. The Christians propagated that no prophet was sinless except Jesusas. In an attempt to prove the “sinfulness” of the Holy Prophetsa, the Christians quoted various Quranic verses and ahadith. One of those Quranic verses is as follows:
فَاعۡلَمۡ اَنَّہٗ لَاۤ اِلٰہَ اِلَّا اللّٰہُ وَاسۡتَغۡفِرۡ لِذَنۡۢبِکَ وَلِلۡمُؤۡمِنِیۡنَ وَالۡمُؤۡمِنٰتِ ؕ وَاللّٰہُ یَعۡلَمُ مُتَقَلَّبَکُمۡ وَمَثۡوٰٮکُمۡ
“Know, therefore, that there is no God other than Allah, and ask forgiveness for thy frailties, and for believing men and believing women. And Allah knows the place where you move about and the place where you stay.” (Surah Muhammad, Ch. 47: V. 20)
They also put forward verse 4 of Surah an-Nasr, which uses the word:
وَاسۡتَغۡفِرۡہُ
“and seek forgiveness of Him.”
Islamic theology and the concept of ‘isma
This article does not intend to delve into much of the theological debate, but rather, to present a chronology of the discussion revolving around the ‘isma of the Prophets. However, it is important to briefly mention the Islamic view on this subject.
The concept of prophetic infallibility, particularly in relation to sinlessness (‘isma), constitutes a fundamental tenet of Islamic theology. A consensus exists among Classical scholars, representing a range of schools of thought, that Prophets are divinely protected from committing major sins (kaba’ir) after receiving their prophetic commission. This protection is considered to be vital for maintaining the integrity of their prophetic status and their role as conduits of divine revelation. The fundamental premise is that the essence of prophethood, substantiated by supporting miracles, demands an unblemished moral and ethical disposition.
While the concept of the Prophets’ immunity from major sins is widely accepted, the possibility of minor sins (sagha’ir) or lapses remains a topic of debate among non-Ahmadi Muslim scholars, as some of them consider minor sins to be a theoretically possible but nevertheless improbable occurrence. Others acknowledge the potential for minor errors but emphasise that these do not constitute moral degradation (fasad). The prevailing view is that Prophets may commit minor errors, but these are promptly rectified by God, thus preventing any further consequences.
The theological discourse surrounding prophetic sinlessness also addresses scriptural accounts of prophetic errors. Scholars offer interpretations of these narratives that preclude any suggestion of deliberate sin. Instead, they are viewed as manifestations of the Prophets’ humanity, rather than as examples of moral failings. The “disobedience” of Adamas and the temporary abandonment of his people by Jonahas are interpreted within the context of a divine plan, with their subsequent repentance serving as exemplary models. Similarly, the Holy Prophet’ssa seeking of forgiveness is interpreted as an expression of humility, rather than as an admission of sin.
Scholars have emphasised the utmost importance of distinguishing between minor errors and major sins in order to gain an insight into the Islamic perspective on prophecy. Even when the Prophets err, their mistakes are promptly corrected, thereby ensuring the continued efficacy of their role as divine emissaries. This perspective acknowledges the Prophets’ humanity and relatable nature while upholding their moral and spiritual purity.
The debate also extends to whether this infallibility is divinely bestowed or inherent within the Prophets themselves. The majority of scholars favour the latter, arguing that it is an inherent quality of the prophets themselves. This nuanced understanding of sinlessness differentiates between innocent human limitations and culpable faults, thereby upholding the Prophets’ position as the ultimate moral exemplars for their communities.
In the presence of varying views of the Muslim scholars in relation to ‘isma and the Christian attacks on the Holy Prophet’ssa blessed life, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas, Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat, took a definitive stance and aptly warded off these attacks. He particularly highlighted the blessed character of the Holy Prophetsa and in general, defended all Prophets of Allah.
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas stated that one “must believe the Prophets to be holy, virtuous and perfect so that the Books that descended upon them may also be regarded as holy, for how could the Holy Books be revealed to impure hearts?” (Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya, Part II [English], Footnote No. 6, p. 112)
He also emphasised, “When Prophets are urged to do istighfar, it is total foolishness to conclude that this means they have to seek forgiveness like ordinary sinful people. In their case, it is a confession of their insignificance, humility, and weakness and is a respectful way of seeking His help.” (The Light of the Holy Quran Number One [Nur-ul-Quran Number 1], p. 27)
He categorically declared, “No Prophet has ever been referred to as a sinner in the Book of God.” (The Honour of Prophets [Ismat-e-Anbiya], p. 31)
Christian attacks on Islam and views on sinlessness (1820s-1880)
An anti-Islamic atmosphere had been building up since the early 19th century. Speaking about the Christian attacks on Islam in India, particularly Punjab, the Promised Messiah, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas, stated in 1899:
“Who does not know that all these excesses are being perpetrated in India and Punjab for at least 45 years?” (The Light of the Holy Quran Number Two [Nur-ul-Quran Number 2], p. 95)
Counting back 45 years from 1899 takes us to 1854, when anti-Islamic sentiment began intensifying in British India. However, this was not the beginning of such sentiment, nor was it confined to India. Historical sources indicate that Christian missionaries had been developing anti-Islamic rhetoric globally since the early 1800s.
The Christian narrative on the subject of sinlessness mainly revolved around two points:
1) Propagating their perspective on the sinlessness of Jesusas
2) Objecting to the blessed character of the Holy Prophetsa
In addition to the Christian books and tracts, their newspapers fueled the anti-Islam rhetoric and included statements that attempted to degrade the Prophetsa of Islam.
In 1828, there emerged an essay in the German periodical Theologische Studien und Kritiken, titled “Ueber die Unsündlichkeit Jesu” by D.D. Carl Ullman (1796-1865). This was a small essay that focused on the sinlessness of Jesusas and was later expanded and given the form of a book in 1833, entitled Ueber Die Sündlosigkeit Jesu: Eine Apologetische Betrachtung. Its English translation was first rendered by E. A. Park in 1841, as An Apologetic View of the Sinless Character of Jesus. Ullman made further additions to this work which was rendered into English as The Sinlessness of Jesus: An Evidence for Christianity.
Ullman attacked Islam and the Holy Prophetsa and stated that neither Mosesas nor Muhammadsa laid claim to freedom from sin. He asserted that neither they themselves rose to this conception, nor did the adherents of their faith ever honour them as sinless beings. He further wrote that the Holy Prophetsa, God forbid, himself confessed his moral defalcations and that the Holy Quran also attested to his sins. He implied that the idea of perfect holiness is an advantage that distinguishes Christianity from other religions. (Ueber Die Sündlosigkeit Jesu: Eine Apologetische Betrachtung, 1833, Hamburg, pp. 63-65; The Sinlessness of Jesus: An Evidence for Christianity, 1858, Edinburgh, pp. 135-137)
The late 1820s and early 1830s saw an interesting aspect of this debate around the alleged sinlessness of Jesusas when a dispute arose among the Christian clergymen regarding the “sinful flesh”, “sinful human nature” and “fallen human nature” of Jesusas.
A Scottish clergyman, Edward Irving (1792-1834) – regarded as the main figure behind the foundation of the Catholic Apostolic Church – was deposed from the ministry of the Church of Scotland because of his claim that Jesusas had taken on fallen human nature, including “sinful flesh” and that he had remained free from actual sin only. Various Christian authors wrote books in refutation of his views.
The Morning Chronicle of London, dated 13 June 1829, mentioned the public speeches of Edward Irving wherein he expressed his beliefs about the sinful nature of Jesusas.
An Irish newspaper, Saunders’s News-Letter of 15 April 1829, mentioned Jesusas as the one “who was made a sinless offering through the will of God.”
W. H. Colyer, a member of Eynsford Baptist Church, responded to Irving’s views in December 1829 and stated, “Mr. Irving manifestly makes Christ’s Human Nature to have been the very Essence of all sinfulness – and Christ Himself, through having a Nature so exceedingly sinful, ‘through the faculties of the Human Soul, to have held communion’ with every Sin in every Sinner! And yet, Mr. Irving asserts, the Christ did No Sin!” (Animadversions on That Pestilent Heresy […], 1830, London, pp. 11-12)
Another Scottish missionary, Rev. Warrand Carlile, expressed somewhat similar views and in response, John Rodman M.D. wrote that “when you state your belief, that the well-being of our Established church calls loudly for your propagating doctrines such as you have published, I, as a medical man, am alarmed for the state of your mind under such delusions.” (A Friendly Letter to Warrand Carlile, Esq., 1831, Paisley, p. 13)
Rev. R Meek authored The Sinless Humanity of Christ Vindicated Against the Irving Heresy, in response to Irving’s views, and then wrote another book, wherein he mentioned that Irving and his supporters contended that “if Christ had come in a sinless and unfallen nature, he could not have died!” (The True Nature of Our Lord’s Humanity and Atonement, 1833, London, p. 11)
Irving expressed, “Death being the proper penalty of sin,” cannot be reached “by any person otherwise than through the way of sin.” He further stated that “the death of the clean and innocent Lamb of God” as a redemption or atonement, “could not otherwise be reached but through His taking humanity, fallen, sinful, and under death.” (The Religious Controversies of Scotland, Rev. Henry F. Henderson M.A., 1905, Edinburgh, pp. 132-133)
Another book emerged on this matter, titled The Sinless Perfection of Christ’s Human Nature Vindicated, by William Seaton – Incumbent of St. Thomas’, Lambeth. He presented Jesusas to be sinless and stated, “Had there been in his nature the slightest propensity to sin, he had wanted redemption himself, and consequently could not have redeemed others.” (The Sinless Perfection of Christ’s Human Nature Vindicated, 1833, London, p. 24)
He further asserted that Jesusas was the perfection of mankind, and wrote that in the personage of Jesusas “was no sin” and that “his flesh which he took of the virgin was generated pure.” (Ibid., p. 29)
The Drogheda Journal of 27 January 1838 quoted a statement from a Christian author, Caroline Fry, who wrote that “Christ never wilfully exposed himself to temptation, pure and sinless as he was, and all-powerful to resist it, as he knew himself to be.”
In 1839, the subject of sinlessness was discussed by another German author, Carl Friedrich Gerock, who expressed that in the Holy Quran, Jesusas is indeed held up to imitation as a moral example, but necessarily without the predicate of sinlessness, since even Muhammadsa, who is greater than Jesus, confesses to the commission of mistakes and precipitate actions. (Versuch einer Darstellung der Christologie des Koran, Hamburg, 1839, pp. 100-101; The Sinlessness of Jesus: An Evidence for Christianity, 1858, Carl Ullman, Edinburgh, p. 135)
In his letter to Rev. Jas. Morgan – dated 13 April 1843 – Rev. James Glasgow, a well-known Christian missionary in the East Indies, wrote about his recent conversations with Muslims and stated that he told a Muslim the following:
“The necessity, therefore, of someone to die for sin is obvious. Mahomed did not die for sin—that is never alleged, neither could he, as he was himself a sinner; nor is it alleged that any of the Hindu gods died for sin. If Jesus Christ did not die for sin, then who did?” (The Belfast News Letter, 23 June 1843, p. 1)
Rev. Carl Gottlieb Pfander (1803–1865) was another Christian missionary who wrote books against Islam and the Promised Messiahas has mentioned Pfander’s anti-Islam writings while narrating the Christian attacks on Islam. In one of his books, Mizan-ul-Haqq, Pfander attempted to prove Jesusas as the only source of salvation.
In the third part of his book, Pfander particularly attacked the blessed character of the Holy Prophetsa and implied that he was sinful as per the Holy Quran and that his moral conduct was not suitable for the mantle of prophethood. Pfander further asserted that, God forbid, he was “full of sensual desires.” (Mizan-ul-Haqq, Third Edition, 1862, p. 265)
Miftah-ul-Asrar was another book by Rev. Pfander. It was written in 1837 and the second edition was published from Akbarabad in 1850.
In its Introduction, he urged upon the “Muslim reader the importance of his considering the exalted dignity of Jesus, His miraculous birth, His wonderful miracles, His sinless character, His marvellous teaching, His exaltation in Glory.” (The Muslim Controversy, Rev. E. M. Wherry, 1905, The Christian Literature Society, p. 9)
Another Christian author, Rev. Sydney William Skeffington – Fellow of University College, Oxford – asserted in one of his sermons (1872) that “the sufferings of our Blessed Lord were the sufferings of one who was perfectly sinless. He suffered the just for the unjust. He endured, indeed, in His own Person the whole condemnation of sin, but remained all the time free from the slightest taint of that evil, the penalty of which He was enduring.” (The Sinless Sufferer, 1872, London, p. 6)
On 8 April 1878, Rev. F.W. Farrar, the Canon of Westminster, delivered a sermon at the All Saints’ Church, titled The Foundation Truths of Christianity. Speaking about the sinlessness of Jesusas, Farrar said that he was the only human being who had ever claimed to be sinless and his sinlessness was even acknowledged by his opponents. (The Northampton Mercury, 13 April 1878, p. 6)
In December 1878, E. M. Wherry wrote a Paper, titled “The Sinless Prophet of Islam” which was published by The Indian Evangelical Review in December 1879. In the beginning, he named the Prophets that have been mentioned in the Holy Quran and stated that six of them “are regarded by Moslems as the heads of dispensations, and were dignified by special titles,” and that “these are the Nabi-ul-A’zim or Great Prophets, and are said to be permitted by God to intercede for their followers in the day of Judgment.” He then raised a question, “Why such intercession is needed, or on what grounds the permission to intercede was given to the Great Prophets above mentioned does not appear. If guilt be a disqualification, the Quran clearly disqualifies all of the Great Prophets, excepting Jesus, and, on the contrary, if sinlessness be a sine qua non to authoritative intercession or mediation, then Jesus alone is the intercessor of God’s people, the Quran being witness!” After presenting some verses from the Holy Quran, he asserted, “These passages might be considered sufficient to establish the fact that the Quran does admit that Muhammad was a sinner.” (The Indian Evangelical Review, Vol. 6, No. XXIII, April 1879, pp. 283-287)
According to a Dutch newspaper, a Christian missionary, M. Hoog, delivered an address on 20 November 1880 about the life of Jesusas as narrated by the four Gospels. He stated that “the impression that the four Gospels make on us,” in relation to Jesusas, “shows us a personality, in whom everything that is glorious is united.” The article further mentioned that the speaker refuted the “objections to the sinlessness and the miracles performed by Jesus Christ,” and asserted that “faith in the Christ of the Gospels is a power of God for salvation.” (Schiedamsche Courant, 22 November 1880, p. 1)
1880-1899: Defender of Islam amidst the rising tide of Christian attacks
The above-presented glimpse – ranging from 1828 to 1880 – reveals that there was a campaign to prove Christianity’s superiority over Islam and to malign the blessed character of the Holy Prophetsa.
Hence, according to the need of the time, Allah the Almighty sent Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas of Qadian to defend the religion of Islam and its Holy Foundersa. In Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya (1880), he addressed the doctrine of Jesus’as sinlessness and the denunciations of other Prophets by Christians. He stated:
“In addition to the personal grudge these people harbour against Hadrat Khatamul-Anbiya’ [the Seal of the Prophets], may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, they also do not revere any of the Prophets, apart from Hadrat Masih [Jesus], may peace be on him, the way they ought to be revered.”
After mentioning the Christians’ assertion that all Prophets, except Jesusas, did commit sins, the Promised Messiahas raised a pertinent question: If “the hearts upon which holy revelation descended were not holy, how could they be deemed fit to receive the holy revelation? Maligning God’s chosen ones is nothing but a cruel attempt at deception.” Thus, he categorically stated that one “must believe the Prophets to be holy, virtuous and perfect so that the Books that descended upon them may also be regarded as holy, for how could the Holy Books be revealed to impure hearts?”
The Promised Messiahas continued, “Just think whether these holy people, who act as bridges between God and man and spread heavenly light in the world, ought to be perfect or imperfect, truthful or liars? If the Prophets themselves failed in their final objective—which was to establish people on true doctrines and appropriate conduct—who would have listened to them and how could their words have had any effect?”
The Promised Messiahas highlighted that “since purity is the essential requirement, it has to be conceded that the Prophets are the purest of mankind, such that no higher station of purity can be conceived for a human being.”
Further, the Promised Messiahas stated that the Christians not only “ridicule other Prophets, but also consider Hadrat Masih [Jesus] to be the best of all Prophets—in addition to believing him to be God, that is. This is another one of their false beliefs. In actual fact, the greatest among the Prophets has to be the one who proves himself to be the greatest reformer of mankind.”
Mentioning the high status of the Holy Prophetsa, the Promised Messiahas wrote:
“History tells us, heavenly scripture testifies to it, and every discerning eye can see that, in the light of this criterion, the one who stands superior to all Prophets is none other than Hadrat Muhammad Mustafa [the Chosen One], may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.” (Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya, Part II [English], Footnote No. 6, pp. 111-114)
The Christian attacks on Islam were rapidly intensifying. On 28 December 1885, D.D. George Henry Rouse (1838-1909) – a Christian missionary who had served in India for more than 20 years – delivered an address in Plymouth, England and mentioned one of his tracts, titled The Sinless Prophet of Islam. He asserted that “there was not one of the Prophets which the Koran accepted, except Jesus, who were not admitted to be sinners.” (The Western Morning News, 29 December 1885, p. 3)
This Christian missionary wrote multiple tracts in the Bengali language that were later translated into English as Tracts for Muhammadens. In one of his tracts, he asserts:
“Jesus Christ was sinless. In the Koran the proof of this may be obtained. All the other prophets whose names are found in the Koran sought for pardon from God, they were therefore certainly sinners. But the Koran does not give the account of a single sin of Jesus Christ.” (Tracts for Muhammadens, The Christian Literature Society for India, 1897, p. 14)
He made harsh attacks on the Holy Prophetsa and asserted that he was sinful, God forbid, and that since Jesusas was sinless, only he could grant salvation. He implied that “Muhammad confessed himself a sinner,” however, Jesus Christ “never in thought, word or deed committed sin.” He further stated, “Brethren, upon whom then will you put your trust? On the sinner Muhammad or the sinless Jesus? Which of these can give us salvation? How can he who is himself a sinner give you deliverance from sin? Can the blind lead the blind? Can one debtor become surety for another debtor? Only He who never sinned can give you deliverance from sin.” (Ibid., p. 19)
The Introduction of the above-quoted compilation states that the proofs of this publication were revised by Rev. M. G. Goldsmith – a missionary of the Church Missionary Society, Madras. Interestingly, we find that in October 1886, this very missionary delivered a sermon in Thyamagondlu, South India. According to the Mission’s report, he emphasised on “the sinlessness of Jesus,” and the assertion that he was “the only sinless prophet of Islam.” (The Methodist Times, 30 December 1886, Vol. II, No. 105, p. 867)
During the same year, Rev. GL Thakur Das – a staunch opponent of the Promised Messiahas – wrote Risala Sirat-ul-Masih wa-l-Muhammad and attempted to prove that Jesusas was pure from any sin, while the Holy Prophetsa was, God forbid, sinful. It was asserted that Jesusas was holy in his birth, untainted by Adam’s sin, whereas Muhammadsa was born by an ordinary lineage, inherited a sinful nature and committed sins, God forbid. (The Muslim Controversy, Rev. E. M. Wherry, 1905, The Christian Literature Society, p. 87)
At that time, many other books and periodicals, particularly in British India, propagated such notions to tarnish the image of Islam. In Kitab-ul-Bariyyah (Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 13, pp. 120-121), alluding to the curse words and expletives in Christian books against the blessed life of the Holy Prophetsa, the Promised Messiahas also mentioned the above-quoted book of Rev. Thakur Das.
On 17 October 1887, a Christian missionary from North India, Rev. H Williams, delivered an address and stated that the Muslims “knew a great deal about the Lord Jesus Christ, and honoured him to a certain extent. They would talk about him as the sinless prophet, and say he never died at all, but was still living.” (Faringdon Advertiser, 22 October 1887, p. 4)
The Christian missionaries continued their campaign to mislead the Muslims by asserting that the only sinless prophet in view of Islam was Jesusas.
Moving forward to the 1890s, we find this subject attracting more interest. On 8 June 1890, D.D. Rev. Principal Cairns delivered an address at a Presbyterian Church in Gateshead, England, and said that “he desired to notice some of the present opinions in regard to Jesus Christ, taking only those in favour of him yet not favourable enough. The first opinion favourable but not sufficiently favourable was that which looked upon Christ as the best of men, yet not entirely sinless. That view ran counter altogether to Christ’s own claims. Christ claimed to be morally perfect, absolutely sinless.” (The Newcastle Daily Chronicle, 10 June 1890, p. 8)
During a meeting of the Church Missionary Society on 12 December 1895, Rev. E. Sell, B.D. of Madras, delivered a speech and “explained that [in Islam] Christ was represented as one of the prophets, but it was a singular fact that there was not in the pages of the Koran a single sentence attributing a single fault to the Lord Jesus Christ. He and He alone was the one sinless prophet of Islam.” (The Huddersfield Daily Chronicle, 13 December 1895, p. 3)
The Christian missionaries in British India were actively highlighting the sinlessness of Jesusas, besides the topics of salvation and atonement. For this reason, the Promised Messiahas did not hesitate to tackle these notions and stated:
“The Christian doctrine that Divine justice would not be fulfilled without atonement is utterly absurd. They believe that in his human aspect Jesus was sinless and yet their God burdened him without cause with the curse of the whole world and had no regard for His own justice. This shows that their God cares not at all for justice. What a spectacle is this that what was sought to be escaped was adopted in its worst form. The great concern was that somehow justice should not be contravened and mercy may also be fulfilled. But by the slaughter of an innocent one, neither justice was established nor was mercy fulfilled.” (Kitab-ul-Bariyyah, Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 13, pp. 72-73; The Essence of Islam, Vol. 2, pp. 282-283)
In 1899, while the Christian attacks on Islam and its Holy Foundersa were rising, the Promised Messiahas declared the superiority of the Holy Prophetsa and mentioned the harsh attitude of Christian missionaries towards Islam in the following words:
“Our lord and master, Khatamul-Anbiya’ [the Seal of the Prophets], Sayyidul-Mutahharin [the Leader of the Pure], Afdalul-Awwalin wa-l-Akhirin [Superior to all the Earlier and Latter ones], Muhammad, the Chosen One, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, has been targeted with such vile abuse, and the Noble Qur’an is attacked with such wanton derision and mockery that no one has used such words even for the lowest and most contemptible person in the world. Such books are not just one or two, rather they have mushroomed into thousands. […]
“Do bear in mind that many of these books are from before the days even of my adolescence, and no one can prove that they were written because I or some other Muslim vilified the Messiah, peace be upon him, as a consequence of which Padre Pfander and Safdar Ali, and Padre Thakur Das and Imad-ud-Din and Padre Williams Rivary were outraged and wrote those books. If the abuse and scorn contained therein were all collected, they would form a book spanning one hundred juzw.” (The Light of the Holy Quran Number Two, pp. 95-96)
1900-1901: Bishop Lefroy and FW Farrar
In 1900, the tide against Islam continued to grow and a lecture was delivered by the Bishop of Lahore, Dr Lefroy, on “The sinless Prophet”, asserting that the Holy Quran states that the only person to whom the character of a sinless Mediator is ascribed is Jesus Christ. (The Civil and Military Gazette, 26 May 1900, p. 9)
Amongst those Muslims present at the lecture, only Hazrat Mufti Muhammad Sadiqra stood up to respond to the Bishop. He presented references from the Bible and presented various proofs with regards to the Holy Prophet’ssa blessed character and sinlessness. He explained that the meaning of istighfar and dhanb is often mistranslated. Upon reaching Qadian on 24 May 1900, he informed the Promised Messiahas about this whole episode and that the Bishop would deliver another public lecture on the next day on the “Living Prophet”.
The Promised Messiahas published a tract (ishtihar) on 25 May 1900, titled Bishop Sahib Lahore se Aik Sachay Faislay ki Darkhast (“A plea to the Bishop of Lahore for an honest decision”). The Promised Messiahas pointed out that the concept of sin was so very different in various religions that discussion was not of much use. Therefore, the subject for discussion should have been as to who is the superior prophet. The Promised Messiahas also mentioned that if the Bishop was sincerely interested in seeking the truth, he should hold a public discussion with Muslims as to who, Jesusas or Muhammadsa, is the superior prophet. (Majmu‘ah-e-Ishtiharat [2019], Vol. 3, pp. 22-28)
De Locomotief – a newspaper of Dutch East Indies – mentioned on 12 July 1900 that some Indian Muslims have asked the Bishop of Lahore to conduct “a theological duel with the best representative of Islam in their eyes, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad[as] Qadiani, the chief of Qadian, who calls himself the Messiah promised by God.”
However, the Bishop declined to engage in a debate with this defender of Islam on this particular subject and offered various reasons for his non-participation. This whole episode in itself requires a separate article, so we will not go into details here. A detailed article was published in September 1902 by The Review of Religions, entitled “The Promised Messiah & Dr. Lefroy Or Islam and Christianity”.
During the same year, another anti-Islam book emerged, titled The Life of Lives, by D.D. F. W. Farrar – Dean of Canterbury and Deputy Clerk of the Closet of the Queen – wherein he discussed the topic of sinlessness and attacked the Holy Prophetsa. He asserted that there was no comparison between the Holy Prophetsa and Jesusas, as the Holy Quran itself allegedly suggested that the Holy Prophetsa had committed sins, God forbid. (The Life of Lives, 1900, New York, pp. 24-25)
The Bishop of Lahore delivered a lecture in 1901 too and according to the Christian periodical North Africa, he asserted that “the Quran and the Muslim Traditions are united in teaching the absolute sinlessness of Jesus” and, God forbid, they “are equally united in testifying to the sinfulness of all other prophets, and especially of Muhammad.” (North Africa, No. 155, July 1901, p. 77)
1902: Intercession, sinlessness and the Promised Messiah’sas book
The year 1902 saw a huge spike in the debate on the topic of sinlessness and intercession. The Christians were using these topics to attack Islam and hence, the Promised Messiahas spoke in detail about the Christian belief in relation to intercession and sinlessness.
For instance, on 15 January 1902, the Promised Messiahas stated that he was amazed as to how the Christians could demand sinlessness for intercession, when they themselves held a belief that mere sinlessness cannot be the cause of intercession, but rather, intercession can only take place once the interceder is not only sinless, but also the son of God and then be accursed as result of crucifixion as well. The Promised Messiahas highlighted the self-contradiction of their views.
Narrating about this Christian belief, William Seaton – Incumbent of St. Thomas’, Lambeth – has written in one of his works published in 1833:
“When the illustrious sufferer was suspended on the accursed tree, with bleeding heart, as well as bleeding hands, the impious multitude, in malicious scorn, ‘wagged their heads, and reviling him, said, he saved others, himself he cannot save.’ Whereas, the truth was, himself he would not save, in order that others might be saved. For this was that very ‘joy set before him, in consideration of which he endured the cross and despised the shame.’” (The Sinless Perfection of Christ’s Human Nature Vindicated, 1833, London, p. 40)
The same author has elaborated on the topic of intercession and atonement in his sermon delivered on 27 April 1862 at the St. Thomas’ Church in Lambeth, wherein he stated:
“We rejoice to know that in the intercession which Christ now makes in heaven—in the incense He presents before God in the holiest of all, an infallible proof is given that the vicarious offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all upon the altar of sacrifice was truly acceptable to God. It tells us, as by a voice from heaven, that the Divine Father is well-pleased with His beloved Son for His righteousness’ sake—that in accomplishing the saving work entrusted to His hands, He did meritoriously, and in a legal way, make an end of sin, and bring in an everlasting righteousness, which is unto all, and upon all, them that believe.” (The Atonement Made, and the Plague Stayed, 1862, London, p. 23)
As for the true interceder for humanity, the Promised Messiahas made a categorical statement and said:
“The true and perfect interceder [shafi’] is the Holy Prophetsa who turned his nation into a highly civilised one by bringing them out of idolatry and the filthiness and impurities of all kinds of indecency and vice.” (Malfuzat [1984], Vol. 3, pp. 216-217)
During the same year, a book, The Sinless Christ (1902), was published in America, authored by a Christian missionary, George Tybout Purves. He was Pastor of the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church in New York and Professor at the Princeton Theological Seminary. This was a collection of his sermons, wherein he attempted to prove the sinlessness of Jesusas and that he was the greatest prophet of all times.
Considering the Christian emphasis on the topic of sinlessness at that time, the Promised Messiahas wrote a lengthy treatise titled ‘Ismat-e-Anbiya’ [The Honour of Prophets], published in The Review of Religions in May 1902.
In this treatise, which has now been published as a book, the Promised Messiahas maintained that the questions of salvation and intercession occupy a pivotal position in a religion and all limitation of a religion ends with this subject. The touchstone of truth and reality of a religion is visible from a clear and open sign reflecting how the religion approaches this important subject. This is how one can find a satisfactory answer as to whether the religion is true and is from God.
The Promised Messiahas also dealt with the phenomenon of sin, frailties and forgiveness (istighfar), and offered an insightful commentary of verse 20 of Surah Muhammad that states:
فَاعۡلَمۡ اَنَّہٗ لَاۤ اِلٰہَ اِلَّا اللّٰہُ وَاسۡتَغۡفِرۡ لِذَنۡۢبِکَ وَلِلۡمُؤۡمِنِیۡنَ وَالۡمُؤۡمِنٰتِ
“Know, therefore, that there is no God other than Allah, and ask forgiveness for thy frailties, and for believing men and believing women. And Allah knows the place where you move about and the place where you stay.” (Surah Muhammad, Ch. 47: V. 20)
The Promised Messiahas stated that the “true meaning of istighfar is not that a sin has occurred, but stems from the desire that no sin should occur. Human nature finding itself weak naturally seeks strength from God, as a child seeks milk from its mother.”
The Promised Messiahas elaborated that this verse means that “the Holy Prophetsa was directed to supplicate: pray to God that He may safeguard your nature against human weakness and that He may strengthen your disposition with His own strength, so that this weakness does not become manifest. Pray also by way of intercession for those men and women who believe in you so that they may be saved from punishment for faults they commit on account of the weakness of their nature and so that their subsequent course of life may be safeguarded against sin. This verse comprises the sublime philosophy of protection against sin and intercession.”
The Promised Messiahas emphasised that “perfectly sinless” is the one “who draws divine power to himself through istighfar and occupies himself without fail in passionate and humble prayers so that light continues to descend upon him.”
The Promised Messiahas further mentioned the difference between dhanb (frailty) and jurm (sin), and stated that “the word dhanb applies to Prophets due to their human weakness, but the word jurm is never applicable to them. No Prophet has ever been referred to as a sinner in the Book of God.” (The Honour of Prophets [Ismat-e-Anbiya], pp. 28-31)
Christian response to The Honour of Prophets
When the Promised Messiahaspresented a belief that upheld the honour of the Prophets and more importantly highlighted the blessed character of the Holy Prophetsa, the Christian clergymen and press could not bear it and initiated a harsh rhetoric against him. This included magazines, books and articles, both in Urdu and English.
The Epiphany published an article on “The Sins of the Prophets” in its 19 July 1902 issue, which was followed by another article on 20 September 1902, by Arthur Thomas Upson (1874-1959), an Egyptian Christian missionary. This article was reproduced by another Christian newspaper, The Nur Afshan [English] of Ludhiana, on 17 October 1902.
The Nur Afshan’s editorial note agreed with the author’s statement that he has disapproved Mirza Sahib’s “contention expressed, in his Review of Religions, that the sin for which, Muhammad was enjoined to ask pardon was only zanb, ‘which does not mean sin, but only human imperfection not amounting to sin.’” Upson’s article presented some oft-quoted Quranic verses, such as 6:7, 14:11, 26:15, 28:79, 67:12 and 91:15, and attempted to refute the Promised Messiah’sas arguments on this subject. (The Nur Afshan, Vol. 6, No. 42, 17 October 1902, pp. 1-2)
In its issue dated 26 September 1902, The Nur Afshan highlighted the fact that the Promised Messiahas was defending the Holy Prophetsa, and wrote:
“Some time since the Mirza Sahib of Qadian came out with a learned statement in defence of the Arabian Prophet of whom the Quran tells us repeatedly that [God forbid] he was a sinner, who had need of forgiveness. Many passages have been cited in proof. But the Mirza was not satisfied. He came gallantly to the defence and announced that the Arabic word (zanb) used in the passages alluded to above was never used in the sense of actual transgression, but only of the bias to evil which belongs to human nature.” The editor then quoted some Quranic verses, including verse 20 of Surah Muhammad and verse 3 of Surah al-Fath, and asserted, “These passages are sufficient to disprove the claim that the word zanb does not connote actual sin. Many passages can be cited to show that its ordinary meaning is that of actual transgression of law.” (The Nur Afshan, Vol. 6, No. 39, 26 September 1902, p. 2)
The verse 3 of Surah al-Fath, quoted as an argument by The Nur Afshan in its rhetoric against the Holy Prophetsa, states:
لِّیَغۡفِرَ لَکَ اللّٰہُ مَا تَقَدَّمَ مِنۡ ذَنۡۢبِکَ وَمَا تَاَخَّرَ
The preceding verses states:
اِنَّا فَتَحۡنَا لَکَ فَتۡحًا مُّبِیۡنًا
In Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya Part 4 (p. 394), the Promised Messiahas has mentioned that in 1883, he received the following revelation:
اِنَّا فَتَحۡنَا لَکَ فَتۡحًا مُّبِیۡنًا۔ لِّیَغۡفِرَ لَکَ اللّٰہُ مَا تَقَدَّمَ مِنۡ ذَنۡۢبِکَ وَمَا تَاَخَّرَ
The same words have come in the above-mentioned verses of Surah al-Fath. Commenting on the true meaning of the word dhanb, in this particular context, the Promised Messiahas wrote:
“Here a question arises as to what the connection between victory and the forgiveness of sins is, for the two sentences do not seem to be related to each other. In reality, however, these two sentences are intimately connected to each other. The explanation of this divine revelation is that God’s appointees, Prophets, and Messengers are subjected to objections and accusations in this blind world. Such criticisms are perpetrated in relation to their eminence and works; and so many slanders and suspicions are hurled against them, as have no parallel in the world. God has – indeed – willed it to be so, that they be kept concealed from the view of the wretched people and those who view them worthy of criticism. They are a great treasure and a great treasure is better kept hidden from the unworthy. This is why Almighty God causes the eternally unfortunate to harbour all kinds of doubts about His chosen ones so that they may be deprived of the treasure of acceptance.
“This is the way of Allah in relation to those who come from Him as Imams, Messengers, and Prophets. It is the very reason for the magnitude of various criticisms and various kinds of fault-finding carved out by the enemies of truth against Hadrat Musa [Moses], may peace be upon him, Hadrat ‘Isa [Jesus], and our Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him – such allegations that were never fabricated against any ordinary righteous person. What slander is there that hasn’t been hurled at them, and what criticism is there that they haven’t been made the target of? […]
“Therefore, in keeping with His eternal practice, God Almighty also vouchsafed the very same revelation to me, which is recorded in the earlier parts of Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya and has been cited above, the meaning of which is that God would manifest great victories and magnificent Signs in my favour in order to refute all the objections that the blind-hearted people of the world had raised with respect to my earlier or later life. This is because there is no testimony greater than that pertaining to the realm of the unseen.
“The word dhanb [sin] has been used to indicate that the objectors and fault finders who attack the Messengers believe in their own hearts that what they are accusing them of is a sin. So what this means is that the ‘sin’ that has been attributed to you is what is being talked about and not that in reality a sin has been committed; otherwise, it would be irreverent to take this revelation to mean that there was actually a sin committed that God has forgiven. On the contrary, it means that [in regard to] the false objections that have been raised and propagated against them in the name of sin, their great publicity will be covered up by a very great Sign. Ignorant people do not realize the sense in which God attributes dhanb – that is, ‘sin’ – to His elect. For, real sin, which is disobedience to Almighty God, merits punishment, unless one repents; not that God Himself should become anxious to show a Sign to cover up and conceal the accusations of sin and imputation of faults, and to disgrace the one who perpetrates them. This is why the Imams and Sufis have written that to speak disrespectfully of the lapses made by the Prophets, may peace be upon them, that have been mentioned by God – such as Adam’s eating of the grain – leads to disbelief and loss of faith, for the Prophets are God’s chosen people and are innocent of what people regard as ‘sin’.” (Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya Part 5 [English], pp. 113-116)
At another place, the Promised Messiahas mentioned that the above-mentioned verses mean, “We have granted you a great victory as a magnificent Sign from Us, so that all the sins attributed to you [by your enemies] may be covered by the shining adornment of this manifest victory, and so that I may prove the critics wrong.” (Arba‘in [English], p. 156)
The Promised Messiah’sas words make it crystal clear that The Nur Afshan failed to comprehend the context of these verses and thus, misinterpreted them just to use as an argument for their anti-Islam narrative.
On 21 October 1902, during a sitting with the Promised Messiahas, some Muslim’s article was read out from The Epiphany on the topic of istighfar, which implied that the commandment of seeking forgiveness was not attributed to the Holy Prophetsa, but rather, it was intended that his ummah seek forgiveness. The editor of The Epiphany objected to it that if this command was given to the Messengersa of Allah in order to teach his people, then it was enough to let him recite it in front of them. However, what was the benefit of asking for forgiveness 70 or 100 times in a day and then doing it in solitude?
Upon this, the Promised Messiahas said that such people do not understand the true essence of istighfar due to their ignorance and these individuals had provided the opportunity to the Christians for an objection. Further, another Muslim’s article was narrated from the same newspaper on the topic of dhanb that quoted an excerpt from the Promised Messiah’sas book Ismat-e-Anbiya. Upon learning this, the Promised Messiahas expressed that it surely served as a means to spread his message. (Malfuzat, 1984, Vol. 4, pp. 104-105)
Indicating the above-mentioned articles of Muslim individuals, The Nur Afshan wrote on 30 October 1902 that the viewpoint regarding dhanb finds a new illustration in the articles of Abdul Kuddoosie and Timur Muhammad in The Epiphany, as they have “come forward with the plea that the Quran does not address Muhammad but people in general. But if in general, surely everyone in particular is intended. […] It is simply amusing to read the special pleadings of Timur Muhammad, that admitting that Zanb means sin (which however the Qadiani distinctly denies) the word has other meanings also.” The Nur Afshan’s article also mentioned the Promised Messiah’sas viewpoint and stated, “The Qadiani came out with a learned statement to the effect that the word Zanb was never used to express the idea of actual transgression but only of a sinful bias inherent in human nature. The articles of J. M. and Mr. Upson proved beyond all question that the word Zanb means sin in the sense of actual transgression even to the extent of Kufr (blasphemy or infidelity) shirk (idolatry) and murder.” (The Nur Afshan, Vol. 6, No. 44, 30 October 1902, pp. 2-3)
A Christian missionary, James Monro (1838-1920), wrote articles in response to the Promised Messiah’sas book The Honour of Prophets (Ismat-e-Anbiya). Monro’s articles originally appeared in The Epiphany and were later published in book form with the title “The Teaching of Moulvies as to the Sinlessness of Mahomed”. In the beginning of his book, he wrote:
“When therefore the prophets ask pardon for their zanb, they do not ask pardon for their sinfulness or sinful acts: they merely, according to the Mirza, ask to be protected from the weaknesses or imperfections of human nature. The Mirza is reticent in the way of defining the weaknesses or imperfections with reference to which protection is to be asked; his general contention is embodied in the following passages, taken from an article in the issue for May 1902 of The Review of Religions. […]” (The Teaching of Moulvies as to the Sinlessness of Mahomed, p. 2)
In one of his pamphlets, James Monro had asserted that Noahas, God forbid, sinned “in having interceded for his son.” This objection was presented to the Promised Messiahas in a sitting on 19 October 1902. Upon this, the Promised Messiahas gave an apt response and also shed light on the true meanings of istighfar. (Malfuzat, 1984, Vol. 4, pp. 87-88)
Ignorance of Muslim youth and The Epiphany
On one hand, the debate concerning the topic of sinlessness and Christians attacks on the Holy Prophetsa continued, and on the other, some Muslim youngsters were becoming prey to their rhetoric. Even if any Muslim would attempt to respond, their lack of comprehension of this subject caused more harm than benefit.
On 13 November 1902, during a sitting with the Promised Messiahas, the topic of discussion was those Muslims who had deviated from the Islamic teachings under the influence of materialism. It was stated that a student of the Aligarh Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College wrote an article for The Epiphany of Calcutta – a publication of the Oxford Mission in Calcutta – and asserted that even the Holy Prophetsa was not saved from committing sins, though he was superior to other prophets who committed greater sins. Upon this, the Promised Messiahas said that these people have in fact gone astray from the faith and have no fear of God Almighty. (Ibid., p. 202)
The above-stated article was published in The Epiphany on 8 November 1902. Mentioning it, The Nur Afshan [English] wrote on 21 November 1902:
“The desperation of educated Muslims receives illustration from the letter of one signing himself ‘Nawab Ali’ in The Epiphany of Nov. 8 ult. The writer starts out to give some of his views as to the sinlessness of Jesus Christ. He begins as follows:–
“‘The prevalent Islam is a series of questionable doctrines set forth by Abu Hanifa, Hambal and Melik. The only dogmas firmly believed are those that relate to Hoories and Kosar of the other world. Do not judge of Mahomed or his teachings from the present state of things.’
“He then goes on to make the following statement:
“‘Now I think Mahomed was not sinless. Alcoran frequently says that Mahomed is exactly a man like us, with the addition that he is a messenger of God. […] The greatest being on earth is a prophet, Mahomed for instance. He was the greatest thinker, the greatest general, equally great in every noble department of life, the greatest prophet. He was not faultless. He had his drawbacks—those drawbacks do not corrupt his authentic teachings. His teachings are inspiration, and inspiration we contend is something divine, holy, faultless.’
“‘Muhammad was not sinless,’ ‘He was not faultless.’ ‘He had his drawbacks.’ Such are the admissions of this writer, and yet he says no one can prove that he sinned!” (The Nur Afshan, Vol. 6, No. 47, 21 November 1902, p. 1)
This makes it more clear as to why there was a dire need for the advent of Hakam and Adl in that era!
In a sitting on 3 December 1902, a newly converted Muslim who pledged allegiance to the Promised Messiahas, read aloud a critical article from The Epiphany in the presence of the Promised Messiahas. The article argued against the interpretation of the Quranic term dhanb and critiqued the Promised Messiah’sas nuanced approach to its meanings. According to the article, the term dhanb in the Holy Quran is associated with major sins (kaba’ir) and, as the argument went, the Promised Messiahas had allegedly broadened its meaning. The critique posited that the Promised Messiahas interpreted the term differently depending on its application—assigning one meaning when it related to Prophets and another when it applied to ordinary people. The article further claimed that istighfar inherently implies past transgressions, and thus, the Prophets, including the Holy Prophetsa, must have committed sins to require such prayers.
In response, the Promised Messiahas presented a detailed refutation. He stated that if istighfar were limited solely to seeking forgiveness for past sins, then one must question what prayer or terminology would be appropriate for seeking protection from future sins. He argued that istighfar means seeking divine protection against the manifestation of inclinations that lead to sin. He elaborated that humans require divine assistance not only for the absolution of past sins but also for safeguarding against potential wrongdoing. Such a comprehensive understanding of istighfar, he contended, aligns with human needs and the Quranic view. He stated that if the New Testament lacks an equivalent guidance on seeking protection from future transgressions, then it is flawed. He pointed out that the New Testament itself enjoins believers, “Ask, and it shall be given you” (Matthew 7:7), but fails to adequately address the dual aspects of forgiveness and divine safeguarding.
The Promised Messiahas further presented a comparative analysis of the Holy Prophetsa and Jesusas. He highlighted that the Holy Prophetsa sought istighfar and attained divine favour, whereas Jesusas – according to the Biblical narrative – neither sought forgiveness nor achieved it. Additionally, he noted the historical account of Jesusas being baptised by John the Baptist as an act of repentance, however, the Holy Prophetsa did not commit any comparable act that could imply sinfulness. The Promised Messiahas questioned that if Jesusas was sinless in the meanings that the Christians claimed, then why did he need to perform this act and why did the divine manifestations – such as the descent of the Holy Spirit – not accompany him from the outset?
To substantiate his interpretation of istighfar, the Promised Messiahas cited relevant Quranic verses demonstrating that istighfar is fundamentally a prayer for protection from future sins. Moreover, through rigorous study, he identified passages from the New Testament suggesting that Jesusas himself prayed for protection from future sins, further challenging the Christian critique. (Malfuzat, 1984, Vol. 4, pp. 261-262)
The Nur Afshan of 26 December 1902 objected to the Promised Messiah’sas viewpoint and wrote:
“Recently, he ventured into the linguistic arena with the assertion that the word Zanb, used in the Quran in connection with the sins of the prophet, for which he was commanded to repent, did not mean sin in the ordinary sense of the word, but only that ‘natural bias to evil’ in human nature, which is not sin until it be voiced in overt act. The letters of the Rev. Mr. Upson and ‘J. M.’ to The Epiphany have riddled that claim.” (The Nur Afshan, Vol. 6, No. 52, 26 December 1902, p. 1)
As the debate revolving around the istighfar and the ‘isma of the Prophets was gaining momentum, the Promised Messiahas elaborated on this subject during another sitting. Shedding light on the true essence of istighfar, he stated:
“The Christians foolishly argue that istighfar shows that the supplicant has been sinful. The true meaning of istighfar is that no sin should be committed. If Istighfar means forgiveness of sins committed, then what is the phrase for suppressing sins in future? Ghafara and kafara have the same connotation. All Prophets needed istighfar. The more a person supplicates by way of istighfar the more innocent he is. Its true meaning is that God saved him. To call someone innocent means that he has been forgiven.” (Malfuzat, 1984, Vol. 4, p. 255)
Zarbat-e-Iswi: Akbar Masih’s book
Another Christian author, Akbar Masih, wrote a response to the Promised Messiah’sas book The Honour of Prophets. His articles were published in The Epiphany on 29 November and 6 December 1902, which were reproduced in the Moslem Teaching – an English magazine of James Monro. Thereafter, Akbar Masih translated his articles into the Urdu language and published them in parts in the magazine Taraqqi of Lahore in 1903. The Urdu articles were later compiled in a booklet, titled Zarbat-e-Iswi, also known as Ibtal-e-Mirza, printed by the Punjab Religious Book Society, Anarkali, Lahore.
In the beginning of the book he presented a comparison between the Christian and Muslim beliefs about the ‘isma of the Prophets and wrote that the Christians believe that except Jesusas, all prophets have at times committed disobedience to God’s commands and hence became sinful. He quoted the following Biblical verse:
“For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.” (Hebrew, 7:26, KJV)
He further stated that “just like the People of the Book have generally denied the sinlessness of the Prophets, based on their heavenly books, similarly, there have been researchers among the Muslims – both of the past and the present – who had to deny the sinlessness of the Prophets in obedience to the Quran and Hadith.” (Zarbat-e-Iswi, 1926, p. 1)
He presented some examples from the writings of certain Muslim scholars and then mentioned that the Promised Messiahas held a unique view:
“We are unaware as to why he is being so favourably disposed towards the Prophets that he deems all of them ma‘sum [sinless], except Jesus. Maybe in this way, he wishes to prove his own honour.” (Ibid., p. 4)
Akbar Masih used a harsh tone against the Promised Messiahas and wrote, “If you are the ‘greatest Imam’ and the reformer of the fourteenth century, then there is no good for Islam.” (Ibid.)
These words are in fact depicting the desperation and agony of the Christians of that time, since they recognised that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas is the true defender of Islam and hence they were trying to undermine him.
Further in his book, under the chapter titled Tahqiq-e-Ma‘na-e-Istighfar-e-Dhanb, literally Investigation into the Meaning of Seeking Forgiveness for Sin, he mentions the meanings of verse 47 of Surah Muhammad, as presented by the Promised Messiahas, and writes:
“He states the meaning of this verse in the following complex statement:
“‘Pray to God that He may safeguard your nature against human weakness and that He may strengthen your disposition with His own strength, so that this weakness does not become manifest. Pray also by way of intercession for those men and women who believe in you so that they may be saved from punishment for faults they commit’ [The Honour of Prophets, p. 28], etc.” (Ibid., p. 32)
Akbar Masih then quoted that part of the Promised Messiah’sas book wherein he has narrated the true meanings of istighfar. After quoting various other excerpts he attempted to refute the arguments presented by the Promised Messiahas.
1903: The Promised Messiahas, The Epiphany and The Nur Afshan
The Nur Afshan [English] reproduced James Monro’s article that was published in The Epiphany on 17 January 1903, wherein he mentioned the Promised Messiah’sas view on the subject of dhanb and then attempted to refute his arguments and used very harsh language. (The Nur Afshan, Vol. 7, No. 5, 30 January 1903, p. 3)
A day after the publication of this article, during a sitting on 18 January, the Promised Messiahas stated, “The secret behind the sinlessness of the Prophets, meaning as to why they are ma‘sum, is that they are sinless due to them being immersed in the love of Allah.” (Malfuzat [1984], Vol. 9, p. 15)
The January 1903 issue of The Review of Religions commented on the views of The Epiphany on dhanb, and stated:
“Much discussion has been going on in this paper as to the signification of zanb and istighfar, as given in the May [1902] number of the Review. The sense in which these words are used in the Holy Quran is fully explained by their use in the holy book itself. Its religious terms are its own and not borrowed from any other book. In fact the nice distinctions which it has kept in the use of various words have no parallel in any other language.”
Mentioning the Christian stance on this, the article continued:
“Some correspondents have adopted a different line of reasoning. They take up some commentaries and enumerate the sins of the prophets as related in them. To attack the Quran and base their objections on commentaries is not an honest mode of carrying on a controversy. They must produce the words of the Quran and give them the interpretation which they can bear. The pity is that they do not hold themselves responsible for the” inappropriate statements “contained in the commentaries of the Bible and the pages of Christian writers. Those who like to proceed upon this line of reasoning, must first meet the similar objections against Jesus.” (The Review of Religions, Vol. 2, January 1903, p. 37)
On 27 March 1903, The Nur Afshan [English] mentioned the ongoing debate and claimed that The Nur Afshan and The Epiphany had refuted the Promised Messiah’sas arguments. This editorial, as usual, had a very aggressive tone.
Shedding more light on the true meaning of istighfar, during a sitting on 15 June 1903, the Promised Messiahas emphasised that the istighfar of the Prophets only means that they may remain under the shadow of God Almighty’s grace. Otherwise, if one depends on their own self, one can never be ma‘sum (sinless) and protected. (Malfuzat, 1984, Vol. 6, p. 21)
In an article published in the June 1903 issue of The Review of Religions, Hazrat Maulvi Sher Alira highlighted the fact that The Epiphany was not publishing his response to their views on the subject of sinlessness, since according to them this controversy had allegedly been closed. Hence, he stated, “I have written the reply rather at length, trusting that you will kindly allow me more space that is generally allowed to Muslim correspondents in The Epiphany.” This was then followed by his above-mentioned article with the title “Controversy on the Sinlessness of the Prophets.” (The Review of Religions, Vol. 2, No. 6, June 1903, pp. 226-247)
Earlier, we mentioned the writings of a Christian missionary, James Monro. His views were aptly refuted by The Review of Religions in July 1903, in an article, titled “Monro on Sinlessness”. In response, Monro wrote a letter to The Review of Religions and expressed his views. The views and objections raised in his letter were convincingly answered in an article, published in the September and the November/December 1903 issues of The Review of Religions.
Meanwhile, speaking about the Christian missionaries and their views on sinlessness and salvation, the Promised Messiahas stated:
“The advocates of Christianity rely for salvation on two dogmas solely, viz., the sinlessness of Jesus and atonement through his blood. Salvation according to them is the necessary and sole result of the belief that Jesus, son of Mary, was the Son of God and, therefore, free from sins, and that he died on the cross for the salvation of mankind. But the days are gone when people could find any consolation in these erroneous doctrines which are the invention of some ingenious brain. The hidden eyes of truth are now fast opening and no power can close them. It would have been much better if these people had themselves bid farewell to the antiquated doctrines of Trinity and Atonement and not opposed the mighty host of truths that is coming down from heaven. It is surprising indeed that even in this age of reason the Christian Missionaries have the boldness to preach these childish doctrines which on account of their absurdity are rejected by every sensible person. (Ibid., No. 9, September 1903, p. 325)
1904: Attacks from The Epiphany, The Nur Afshan and Rev. Tisdall refuted
Another Christian author, H. Golaknath, wrote a review on Ibtal-e-Mirza, which was published as a series of articles in Nur-i-Afshan of Ludhiana in September and October 1904. In these articles, the author used very abusive language against the Promised Messiahas.
Then, in its 18 March 1904 issue, The Nur Afshan [English] wrote under the heading “The Sinlessness of Prophets”:
“We have been requested to reproduce in The Nur Afshan an article published in two numbers of The Epiphany (Feb. 13 & 20) on the subject of the Sinlessness of Prophets. We have great pleasure in doing so because the writer completely overthrows the contention of the Mirza of Qadian, defeating him on his own ground.” (The Nur Afshan, Vol. 8, No. 11, 18 March 1904, p. 3)
This was followed by the reproduction of The Epiphany’s article that attempted to prove the sinfulness of the prophets.
Christians would emphasise a point that “since Jesus did not seek forgiveness, hence he proves to be sinless”. As a refutation to this notion, during a sitting on 21 August 1904, the Promised Messiahas shed light as to why the Prophets seek istighfar and said that it is because “they fear losing the protection of nur [divine light] that has been granted to them. The ignorant people, due to their lack of understanding, say and boast that ‘Jesus did not ask for forgiveness.’ Whereas, this is not a thing to boast about, rather, a point of regret and remorse. If he did not ask for forgiveness, it means that he was completely deprived of the nur that Allah the Almighty bestows on His chosen ones. The status of a Prophet elevates and increases in proportion to the amount of istighfar he seeks.” (Malfuzat [1984], Vol. 7, p. 124)
In 1904, a book emerged, titled A Manual of the Leading Muhammadan Objections to Christianity, authored by Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall (1859-1928) – a missionary of the Church Mission Society in Julfa, Persia. He presented a supposed dialogue between a Muslim and a Christian, with an aim to educate Christian missionaries as to how to argue with the Muslims. One of the major topics dealt with in this book is the alleged sinlessness of Jesusas and the sinfulness of other Prophets. At one place, while presenting an argument from the Christian side, he asserted that the Holy Quran “mentions sins as committed by all the prophets except Jesus, regarding whom alone it is never said that he sinned or asked pardon for having sinned.” (A Manual of the Leading Muhammadan Objections to Christianity [1904], London, p. 104)
This Christian missionary had also written a book on Islam in Persian language that William Muir translated into English as The Sources of Islam: A Persian Treatise and into Urdu by Akbar Masih as Yanabi‘ul-Islam. The Urdu book was aptly responded to by the Promised Messiahas in his book Chashma-e-Masihi (Fountain of Christianity).
1905-1906: Attacks from Thakur Das and Rev. C.M. Sheldon refuted
In 1905, Rev. G.L. Thakur Das wrote a book, Risalah-e-Zunub-e-Muhammadiyyah Ba-Jawab-e-Khiyalat-e-Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, published by the American Tract Society. He quoted verse 47 of Surah Muhammad and asserted:
“It is evident from this verse that in view of God, Muhammad and his believers are equally sinful and in need of forgiveness. However, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani has given two different meanings of the word dhanb in this verse:
“(1) The word dhanb means sin when used for other people.
“(2) As a concession for Muhammad Sahib, it means the weakness of human nature.
“Mr Akbar Masih Sahib has argued on the meaning of dhanb in his booklet Ibtal-e-Mirza from pages 29 to 52 and has explained in light of Arabic lexicons and the Quran that dhanb means sin and the one who commits it is guilty and hell-bound. Though Mirza Sahib does not deny this meaning of dhanb, however, he has given the following meanings of the above-mentioned verse:
“‘Pray to God that He may safeguard your nature against human weakness and that He may strengthen your disposition with His own strength, so that this weakness does not become manifest. Pray also by way of intercession for those men and women who believe in you so that they may be saved from punishment for faults they commit.’ [The Honour of Prophets, p. 28].
“This interpretation cannot be attributed solely to Mirza Sahib’s own originality, as the Muslims have fabricated an overly reverent opinion regarding all Prophets, including Muhammad[sa], claiming that all Prophets are ma‘sum. Under the pressure of this opinion, they interpret istighfar-e-dhanb [literally seeking forgiveness for sin] in a way that does not do justice to the text.” (Risalah-e-Zunub-e-Muhammadiyyah, pp. 1-2)
Thakur Das wrote that “Mirza Sahib declares the weakness of human nature to be a form of dhanb”, and thereafter attempted to refute the Promised Messiah’sas arguments. (Ibid., p. 3)
He went on to state:
“We Christians also acknowledge the natural weakness of mankind and as per his statement that the word ‘dhanb is applicable also to human frailty’ [The Honour of Prophets, p. 31], the Mirza also agrees to this Christian teaching that mankind is inherently sinful and Muhammad[sa] is not exempt from it, meaning he is inherently sinful.” (Ibid., p. 8)
After this, Thakur Das presented some verses of the Holy Quran and attempted to assert that, God forbid, the Holy Prophetsa did commit sins. (Ibid., pp. 10-16)
Thakur Das concluded that the belief Muslims have held in relation to the ‘isma of the Prophets, has merely been fabricated as an overly reverent opinion regarding them.
Another Christian missionary, D.D. Charles M. Sheldon (1857-1946), spoke on the subject of sinlessness during one of his sermons in 1905, he stated:
“The missionary of the Cross of Christ can go to any country, any people, and calmly say, ‘All that is good in your religion is caught up and made perfect in the Person of Christ. If Buddha contained many elements of goodness, if Confucius taught many maxims of righteousness, if even Mahomed had some truth with vast error, Christ Himself, the Sinless One, contains all that these possess, and far more.’” (The Western Chronicle, 18 August 1905, p. 3)
Here, the missionary attempted to assert that whatever good all prophets have taught, including the Holy Prophetsa, was collectively found in Jesusas. Such a claim was expressed in Yanab‘iul-Islam as well, wherein the author implied that the Holy Quran did not contain any new teaching and that the Holy Prophetsa merely copied the narratives from past scriptures, God forbid. The Promised Messiahas responded to this objection in his book Chashma-e-Masihi (published in 1906), wherein he wrote:
“Through thousands of signs, He has proved to me that the True God is He Who revealed the Holy Quran and sent the Holy Prophetsa. I do not at all consider Jesus to be superior to me in these matters. Just as the Word of God was revealed to him, so is it revealed to me; and just as he is said to have shown miracles, so have I been granted miracles, though in greater numbers. All this honour has been conferred upon me solely by virtue of being a follower of the Prophet whose spiritual station and high standing is largely hidden to the world, and he is none other than Muhammad, the Chosen Onesa.
“It pains me to hear ignorant people say that Jesusas is alive in heaven, whereas it is in the Holy Prophetsa that I see the signs of life. It is through him that we have found the God Whom the world does not know; it is through him that the door of Divine revelation—which remains closed to other people—has been opened for us; it is through him that we have been shown miracles which other people relate only as tales; and we have found his status to be so high that there is no status beyond it. How strange that the world should be unaware of all this! People ask me how I could have claimed to be the Promised Messiah. Let me tell them that, through complete obedience to the Holy Prophetsa, one can attain a status even higher than that of Jesusas. The blind call this heresy, but I say: How do you know what heresy is when you are yourselves devoid of faith and heresy is inside you?” (Fountain of Christianity [Chashma-e-Masihi], p. 26)
Conclusion
This subject of the ‘isma of the Prophets was among many contentious issues Christian missionaries exploited in their attempts to attack Islam and its Holy Foundersa. However, the Promised Messiahas rose to the challenge, standing at the forefront to refute their objections and effectively thwarting their efforts to undermine the dignity of Islam.
The fact is that whenever the opponents of Islam raised any objection against Islam, the Promised Messiahas, being the divinely designated Sultanul-Qalam (the Master of the Pen), zealously responded to them with the power of his pen, as this is the requirement of this era as has been prophesied. Despite an unprecedented storm of opposition, the Promised Messiahas continued his efforts in defence of Islam with divine help and succour with him at all times. Hence, he continued to succeed in his mission of proving the magnificence of Islam and highlighting the blessed character of the Holy Prophet Muhammadsa.