Mirza Masroor Ahmad’s khutba on the “ever-lasting” Qadiani khilafat

Misrepresents Promised Messiah’s writings

Worried by his own elder’s view that khilafat will decline after four khalifas

by Dr. Zahid Aziz

Mirza Masroor Ahmad, the Khalifa of the Qadian/Rabwah Section of the Ahmadiyya Movement, delivered a Friday khutba in London on 27 May 2005 on the topic of their concept of khilafat. This is the day every year when they celebrate the establishment of their khilafat. The original Urdu text of the khutba is published in their weekly Urdu organ Al-Fazl International for its issue dated 10 June, available on their website www.alislam.org.

The main thrust of his speech was that their khilafat is an institution that will last forever. He informs us at the outset that a specific reason for delivering this khutba is that some unknown person in their movement has been circulating an article written some years ago by Mirza Bashir Ahmad, younger brother of the second khalifa Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, in which the author argued that the khilafat in their Jama‘at will not remain in its pure form forever, but will degenerate into a hereditary institution after the first four khalifas. Apparently, Mirza Bashir Ahmad drew a parallel with the history of the early khalifas of Islam, when after the first four khalifas, who were truly worthy of holding this office, the headship deteriorated into a worldly monarchy in which succession was by descent, and not by the true Islamic worth of a person.

As Mirza Masroor Ahmad is the fifth khalifa of his movement, he is naturally anxious to dispel any such suggestion about the decay of their khilafat. He says that this was a personal view of Mirza Bashir Ahmad, and that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad had, at the time this article was published, issued a clarification that there is no Divine law that a khilafat must always suffer the same fate that befell the early Islamic khilafat after the four righteous khalifas. Whatever explanation of the comments of Mirza Bashir Ahmad may be given, the fact remains that a senior-most figure in the Qadian/Rabwah Jama‘at believed that their khilafat institution would not endure in an uncorrupted form beyond four khalifas.

According to Mirza Masroor Ahmad, and also according to the clarification by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad as quoted in this khutba, the decline of the early Islamic khilafat after four khalifas is not a general law but was particular to the circumstances and conditions of that time. Otherwise, true khilafat continues to exist as long as the community remains on the right path. Explaining the meaning of the verse 24:55 of the Holy Quran, Mirza Masroor Ahmad declares:

Later, after giving examples of the devotion shown towards the institution of khilafat by his followers in Africa, Masroor sahib says:

According to Mirza Masroor Ahmad’s interpretation, his present-day community of followers is adhering to such a high standard of religious faith and practice that khilafat continues to be bestowed upon them as a reward, but the early Muslims had fallen below the same standard just thirty years after the Holy Prophet Muhammad’s death so that Allah withdrew from them the blessings of the institution of khilafat. Thirty years after the Holy Prophet’s death many of his distinguished companions were still alive, eminent persons such as his wife Aisha were still alive, and the highly-esteemed tabi‘in (those belonging to the next generation after the companions) were yet reaching their prime. But according to the Qadiani stance, those people were not a good enough Muslim community as compared to today’s Qadiani Jama‘at and hence they were punished by having the blessing of khilafat withdrawn from them, the same blessing which is still with the Qadiani Jama‘at and will continue with it forever! In terms of verse 24:55, the Muslim community thirty years after the Holy Prophet had degenerated into a group of ungrateful sinners (fasiqs) while today’s Qadiani Jama‘at has true faith and does good deeds. Nothing could be further from the truth than this patently absurd, false and outrageous claim.

Misrepresentation of the Promised Messiah

Just before the extract quoted above, Mirza Masroor Ahmad puts forward the following statement from the Promised Messiah’s book Shahadat-ul-Quran to claim that he had written that the khilafat in the Ahmadiyya Movement will last forever:

A reading of the book Shahadat-ul-Quran will show that to present the words “an ever-lasting khilafat in this Umma” as referring to the so-called khilafat in the Ahmadiyya Movement after the Promised Messiah is nothing but deceit and distortion. What he is discussing at length in this book is that the khilafat of the Holy Prophet Muhammad did not end after the four righteous khalifas, as believed by many Muslims, but that it continued throughout the history of Islam in the form of the appearance of mujaddids and saints, and that he is one of those mujaddids and saints. Leaving aside the rest of the book, if we simply continue the above statement, it reads as follows:

He says that because “prophets certainly cannot arise in this Umma”, hence in their place khalifas to the Holy Prophet have been coming throughout all the centuries of Islam, not just for the first thirty years, and he himself is the khalifa of his time. But Mirza Masroor Ahmad says the opposite: that the institution of khilafat of the Holy Prophet Muhammad was closed after the first thirty years, and it was restarted only after the appearance of the next prophet, namely, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

Similarly, only a few lines before the statement quoted by Mirza Masroor Ahmad, the Promised Messiah writes:

It is absolutely crystal clear from a reading of Shahadat-ul-Quran, without the least doubt whatsoever, that the ever-lasting khilafat that the Promised Messiah is writing about is the coming of the mujaddids and auliya throughout the history of Islam, of which he himself is one, and there is no mention whatsoever in this book that it refers to a khilafat to be established after the alleged prophet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

Mirza Masroor Ahmad, explaining the meaning of a hadith, says:

But the position outlined in the book Shahadat-ul-Quran can be expressed as follows:

Observe the contrast between these positions.

In this book Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has discussed at length the khilafat verse of the Quran (24:55), the verse ever being repeated by Mirza Masroor Ahmad and his Jama‘at. The explanation given by the Promised Messiah is that in this verse it is promised that just as after Moses God instituted “a long chain of temporal as well as spiritual khilafat, by way of reward and favour, which continued for about fourteen hundred years, and ended with Jesus” (p. 322), by analogy the same would happen after the Holy Prophet Muhammad:

Then he quotes the khilafat verse, 24:55, indicating that this is the explanation of that verse.

The Promised Messiah claims that he himself has come as a muhaddas and a mujaddid in fulfilment of the promise in the above verse to raise khalifas to the Holy Prophet Muhammad:

Thus it is Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who was raised as khalifa according to the promise in verse 24:55, and not the so-called ‘khalifas of the Messiah’ after him.

Qadiani Jama‘at disagrees with beliefs in Shahadat-ul-Quran

While Mirza Masroor Ahmad quotes from Shahadat-ul-Quran, yet he and his Jama‘at hold totally the opposite beliefs to the beliefs expressed by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in this book about his claims. We list these differences below:

1.    Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad writes that the Holy Prophet Muhammad being the Khatam-ul-anbiya means that no prophet can come after him (p. 323–324), and “prophets certainly cannot arise in this Umma” (p. 355). The Qadiani Jama‘at holds that prophets can most certainly arise in this Umma despite the Holy Prophet Muhammad being the Khatam-ul-anbiya.

2.    Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad writes that the khilafat of the Holy Prophet Muhammad has continued throughout the history of Islam after the righteous khilafat of the first thirty years (p. 323). The Qadiani Jama‘at holds that the khilafat of the Holy Prophet Muhammad came to an end after the righteous khilafat of the first thirty years, and was only re-established after Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in the form of khilafat to the Promised Messiah.

3.    Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad writes that the Messiah to arise among Muslims should be a saint (muhaddas) and reformer (mujaddid) of this Umma, and not a prophet. The Qadiani Jama‘at holds that muhaddas and mujaddid is not a sufficiently high rank for the Promised Messiah and he must be a prophet.

4.    Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad writes that he has come in fulfilment of the khilafat verse of the Holy Quran as a khalifa of the Holy Prophet. The Qadiani Jama‘at holds that he is not a part of the khilafat of the Holy Prophet but is himself a prophet who establishes a khilafat after him.

If Qadiani khilafat is ever-lasting, no prophet can come in future

If the so-called Qadiani khilafat is considered by its adherents as ever-lasting, then this contradicts their own vociferous belief that the door of prophethood is open for all time after the Holy Prophet Muhammad. For, if a prophet arose in future his own khilafat would be established after him. On the other hand, the same Qadiani Jama‘at has been vigorously proclaiming for ninety years that, according to the Quran and Hadith, prophethood continues after the Holy Prophet Muhammad and prophets will always be arising among Muslims. In his book Anwar-i Khilafat, published in 1916, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad argued as follows against those who believe in the finality of prophethood:

(The online edition of Anwar-i Khilafat is on the Qadiani Jama‘at website at the address:
http://www.alislam.org/urdu/au/AU3-5.pdf . The page numbers for that edition have been indicated above.)

Mirza Masroor Ahmad needs to explain what would happen to the khilafat in his Jama‘at if one of these many prophets arose, who can come according to Mirza Mahmud Ahmad.

Does a khalifa know beforehand that he will be elected?

Mirza Masroor Ahmad answers an objection of someone who wrote to him saying: “you have become a khalifa by a great deal of pre-planning”. Within his reply he also mentions:

According to Mirza Nasir Ahmad’s reply, even the thought of becoming khalifa had not occurred to him. For the interest of our readers, I refer to an article in Paigham Sulh by the Lahore Ahmadi missionary Sayyid Akhtar Husain Gilani, published in 1944, some 21 years before Mirza Nasir Ahmad became khalifa. It is written in it:

It appears that it was being publicly discussed for years before Mirza Nasir Ahmad became khalifa that he was being prepared for this office, and yet it is claimed that even this thought had never occurred to him!

In connection with whether a “non-related person” would be eligible for becoming khalifa, Mirza Masroor Ahmad seems to have given an indication of this in his khutba:

Mirza Masroor Ahmad should clarify more explicitly whether he means by this statement that any person belonging to any nation, and far from being related to the Promised Messiah’s family, is eligible for becoming khalifa on the sole basis of righteousness, sincerity and doing of good deeds.

Whose fear?

We are repeatedly told, as Mirza Masroor Ahmad also says in his khutba, that a khalifa arises when the community is in a state of desperate fear and anxiety, and he changes their fear into security. However, from his khutba the reverse appears to be the case. Here it is the khalifa who is in a state of deep apprehension about his position and he appeals to his community to change his fear into security by stopping criticising him and accepting him as worthy of his office. Those who are truly appointed by Allah, whether a prophet or a mujaddid such as Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, do not rely on, or ask for, or even care for, the support of any human beings in order to remain in their Divinely-appointed office.

 Zahid Aziz

6 July 2005.