Ata-ul-Haye Nasir, Al Hakam
During his concluding address at the Jalsa Salana UK 2024, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa stated that in this era, we witness incidents where the opponents of Islam attempt to disrespect the Holy Prophet Muhammadsa and the Holy Quran, and “the same was the case during the time of the Promised Messiahas as well. In this regard, the Christian missionaries of that time were at the forefront.”
Hazrat Amirul Momineenaa has very beautifully summarised the circumstances of the late 19th century. When Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas of Qadian stood as a lone defender of Islam amidst the anti-Islam rhetoric, an unprecedented storm of opposition erupted and it was as if the whole world had turned against him. In addition to the Christian clergymen, it was unfortunate that even the Muslim clergy began opposing him. The Muslim and Christian press also joined in a harsh onslaught against the Promised Messiahas.
One of the prominent Christian missionaries, who fueled the anti-Islam rhetoric that was prevalent towards the later part of the 19th century was Rev. Imad-ud-Din Lahiz (1830–1900) who had converted to Christianity from Islam. He wrote various books against Islam, which consisted of harsh and disrespectful language against the Holy Quran and the Holy Prophet Muhammadsa. He was among those religious leaders to whom Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas had invited in 1885 to come and witness the truthfulness of Islam at Qadian. A response from Imad-ud-Din was published in the 19 March 1885 issue of Nur-i-Afshan, though he did not accept the invitation.
For more details, see “Hazrat Ahmad’s claim to be the Promised Messiah and opposition from the religious clergy and press”, at alhakam.org (19 April 2024)
The current article endeavours to shed light on Imad-ud-Din’s opposition to the Promised Messiahas in his book Tauzin-ul-Aqwal, and some articles of Nur-i-Afshan based on this book’s content.
Tauzin-ul-Aqwal and Nur-i-Afshan’s articles
Rev. Imad-ud-Din wrote a book called Tauzin-ul-Aqwal in 1893, wherein he objected to the claims of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas, particularly his claim to be the Promised Messiah. Rev. EM Wherry has given a detailed review of this book in The Muslim Controversy, published by The Christian Literature Society in 1905.
In his book, he commended all the Muslim clerics who were opposing the Promised Messiahas, particularly Muhammad Hussain of Batala. For instance, at the beginning of his book, he mentioned the edicts of kufr that were issued against the Promised Messiahas by the Muslim clerics, and wrote:
“Recently, I happened to see a major edict in regard to Mirza Sahib from those scholars of Islam who are in reality Muslims in accordance with the Quran and Hadith, and respectables of the time, that has been compiled by Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi with great hard work and diligence for the betterment of Islam.” (Tauzin-ul-Aqwal, p. 4)
On 5 January 1894, a Christian newspaper, the Nur-i-Afshan of Ludhiana, published an article that mentioned the claims and writings of the Promised Messiahas. The article was heavily based on Tauzin-ul-Aqwal and included harsh language against the Promised Messiahas.
It was stated that the Muslims were awaiting a Mahdi, and thus some Muslims of Punjab have accepted Hazrat Ahmad’sas claim to be the Promised Messiah and Mahdi.
The article then referred to Rev. Imad-ud-Din’s book Tauzin-ul-Aqwal, and mentioned various excerpts from the Promised Messiah’sas books Fath-e-Islam, Izala-e-Auham and Taudhih-e-Maram.
It was mentioned in this article that Hazrat Ahmadas has also claimed to be a Prophet, and then the following excerpt from Fath-e-Islam was quoted:
“He [God] informed me at the time of establishing this jamaat [community]:
زمین میں طوفانِ ضلالت برپا ہے تو اس طوفان كے وقت میں یہ كشتى طیار كر جو شخص اس كشتى میں سوار ہو گا وہ غرق ہونے سے نجات پا جائے گا اور جو انكار میں رہے گا اس كے لئے موت درپیش ہے۔
“The earth is covered with the flood of error. You should prepare this ark in this time of flood so that whoever boards this ark would be delivered from being drowned and whoever will persist in denial will face death.” (The Victory of Islam [Fath-e-Islam], p. 18)
The article further wrote that the Muslims have excluded him from Islam due to his above-mentioned claims and writings, but Hakeem Maulvi Noor-ud-Dinra, Ghulam Qadir Fasih and Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi, in fact, 21 individuals who were present at the debate between Hazrat Ahmadas and Abdullah Athim in Amritsar, have accepted his claims. Towards the end, the article stated that the Muslim clerics, such as Maulvi Muhammad Hussain of Batala, have issued edicts of kufr against Hazrat Ahmadas, in order to reject his claims. (Nur-i-Afshan, 5 January 1894, pp. 2-3)
The article published in the next issue also consisted of very harsh language against the Promised Messiahas. In the beginning, it quoted two verses of the Bible, which state:
“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever. Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:16-17)
It was stated that the Muslims believe that in these verses the advent of the Holy Prophet Muhammadsa was prophesied. And for this reason, it has been stated in the Holy Quran:
وَاِذۡ قَالَ عِیۡسَی ابۡنُ مَرۡیَمَ یٰبَنِیۡۤ اِسۡرَآءِیۡلَ اِنِّیۡ رَسُوۡلُ اللّٰہِ اِلَیۡکُمۡ مُّصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَیۡنَ یَدَیَّ مِنَ التَّوۡرٰٮۃِ وَمُبَشِّرًۢا بِرَسُوۡلٍ یَّاۡتِیۡ مِنۡۢ بَعۡدِی اسۡمُہٗۤ اَحۡمَدُ ؕ فَلَمَّا جَآءَہُمۡ بِالۡبَیِّنٰتِ قَالُوۡا ہٰذَا سِحۡرٌ مُّبِیۡنٌ
“And [remember] when Jesus, son of Mary, said, ‘O children of Israel, surely I am Allah’s Messenger unto you, fulfilling that which is before me of the Torah, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger who will come after me; his name being Ahmad.’ And when he came to them with clear proofs, they said, ‘This is manifest sorcery.’” (Surah as-Saff, Ch. 61: V. 7)
The article asserted that these Biblical verses did not prophesy about the Holy Prophet Muhammadsa, and wrote that there have been many Muslims who have declared themselves to be the “Ahmad” mentioned in the above-mentioned Quranic verse, and said that Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas of Qadian has also claimed to be that “Ahmad”.
The article goes on to refer to Rev. Imad-ud-Din’s book Tauzin-ul-Aqwal and stated that it is evident from that book that between the 15th and 19th centuries, there have been four Ahmad who emerged in India and focused on the revival of Islam, including Hazrat Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindirh – Mujaddid-e-Alf Thani, Hazrat Syed Ahmad Shaheed Barelvirh, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, and Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas of Qadian.
The article asserted that following in the footsteps of Hazrat Syed Ahmad Shaheed Barelvirh, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas claimed to be a Prophet and the Messiah.
The article continued by stating that the Promised Messiahas teaches the Muslims that “Islam cannot be revived merely by disseminating the superficial disciplines and translations of the Quran and Hadith, but rather, they ought to pay heed to the heavenly dispensation. Meaning that he has been divinely appointed as a Prophet and Messiah. The revival of Islam will take place through his obedience, not through their customary traditions.” (Nur-i-Afshan, 12 January 1894, p. 3)
The article was referring to the following excerpts from Fath-e-Islam, where the Promised Messiahas has written:
“Tajdid-e-Din [Revival of the Religion], in its complete and true sense, cannot be said to consist of such activities as disseminating translations of the Holy Quran merely in the manner of superficial formality and custom, or simply translating and publishing religious books and ahadith of the Prophet in Urdu or Persian, or teaching the empty rituals—abounding with heretical innovations—that are becoming the norm of most religious leaders of the present time. On the contrary, the last-mentioned activity is actually a revival of satanic ways and is subversive to the Faith. Disseminating the Holy Quran and authentic ahadith throughout the world is undoubtedly a noble feat, but to do this work as ritual and formality through rational thought and deliberation, without truly submitting one’s ego to the Hadith and Quran, is such an empty and ostentatious service as can be rendered by any learned man. They have been rendered continually, but have nothing whatsoever to do with Mujaddidiyyat [i.e. the position of an Islamic Reformer].” (The Victory of Islam [Fath-e-Islam], p. 8 [footnote])
The Promised Messiahas further announced:
“I am the very one who was sent at the appointed time for the reformation of mankind so that the Faith might be firmly planted afresh within the hearts.” (Ibid., p. 10)
The article of Nur-i-Afshan further asserted that “the Sunni Muslims who rejected the Mirza have wisely acted in accordance with their religion, and Muhammad Hussain of Batala is commendable. Those who have joined Mirza Sahib in his ideas, act contrary to their religion and sane mind.” (Nur-i-Afshan, 12 January 1894, pp. 3-4)
Promised Messiah’sas response to Imad-ud-Din’s attacks on Islam
On 17 March 1894, the Promised Messiahas published an ishtihar titled “Ishtihar Mi‘yar al-Akhyar wa al-Ashrar”, in which he addressed the Christian missionaries, particularly Rev. Imad-ud-Din. Huzooras wrote that Imad-ud-Din has always claimed that the Holy Quran is not an eloquent Word, God forbid, and asserts in his books that it is no miracle and holds no eloquence at all:
“He is nowadays writing a commentary too, in which he will mention the same things and will make some other attacks as well based on his own knowledge and understanding. Those who read the books of the said Padre Sahib can testify as to how much he has disrespected the Holy Prophetsa and the Holy Quran in his writings. Is there any abuse that has not been given? Is there any kind of mocking that has not been expressed? Is there any heart-wrenching word that has not been uttered by him? In fact, he has done everything. […] The Padre has recently published another book, titled Tauzin-ul-Aqwal, and in that too, he could not refrain from abusive language. He has mocked the eloquence of the Holy Quran. […] Moreover, he has claimed in his magazine — which has recently been sent for the Parliament of the World’s Religions in America [Chicago Conference of 1893] and has been published now — that all of the prominent maulvies of Islam have joined the religion of Christianity, and this conversion is continuing further. […] Unfortunately, I could not get this magazine on time, nor did the author send it to me. I was informed about it a few days ago. So, it is essential to respond to this storm as soon as possible. […] For this, I have recently written an Arabic magazine, Nur-ul-Haq. In this magazine, there is narration of the blessings of the Holy Quran and the Holy Prophetsa, and refutation to some of the objections raised in Tauzin-ul-Aqwal.” (Majmu‘ah-e-Ishtiharat [2019], Vol. 1, pp. 476-480)
This response from the Promised Messiahas is another testimony to the fact that he was always at the forefront in defending Islam, its Holy Foundersa and the Holy Quran.
Response from Nur-i-Afshan
In response to the Promised Messiah’sas ishtihar, the Nur-i-Afshan published an article on 11 May 1894, authored by Rev. Fateh Masih, titled “Jawaab Ishtihar Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib Qadiani”, wherein he used very vile language. (Nur-i-Afshan, 11 May 1894, pp. 6-7)
The same issue published another response from an unnamed person, titled “Janaab Mirza Qadiani Sahib ke waastay aik mufeed salaah”, in which he used inappropriate language, and then wrote:
“Mirza Sahib, you may strive hard and make every possible effort, but no one will acknowledge your Messiahship in India at least.” (Ibid., p. 7)
The author claimed that no one will accept Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas to be the Promised Messiah. However, in this era, the opponents of Hazrat Ahmadas and the progeny of that author – if there is any – are witnesses to the fact that there are millions of people all over the world who follow Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas as the Promised Messiah and Mahdi.
What was the need to respond to Imad-ud-Din?
Mentioning about the bitter attacks on Islam by Rev. Imad-ud-Din and the need to respond to them, the Promised Messiahas has stated:
“The books written by Reverend Imad-ud-Din, Reverend Thakar Das, and Safdar Ali, the book Ummahatul-Mo’minin, as well as the journal of Reverend Riwarhi are all of this type. Any Muslim who does not possess a high degree of patience and forbearance will become emotional upon reading this literature because the harsh language it uses in place of scholarly discussion is difficult to tolerate. One honourable priest has written in his Lucknow-based newspaper that if the events of 1857 were to recur, it would be due to the books of Reverend Imad-ud-Din. It is worthy of note that Reverend Imad-ud-Din’s literature is inflammatory enough for an honourable missionary to have expressed this opinion. In light of the high emotions among Muslims, I recently wrote a somewhat stern response to these books so that Muslims might derive some comfort by seeing that their grievances had been redressed. This did benefit Muslims and their pain was eased with these rebuttals.” (The British Government and Jihad [Government Angreizi aur Jihad], p. 38)
Conclusion
It was just a glimpse of how the early 1890s saw an unprecedented rise in the efforts from the Christian clergymen and press in opposition to the Promised Messiahas, and unfortunately, the Muslim clergymen were unable to recognise this great defender of Islam and caused great harm to Islam in those days. However, divine help and succour were with him at all times; hence, he continued to succeed in his mission to prove the magnificence of Islam and highlight the blessed character of the Holy Prophet Muhammadsa.
