• Contact us
• Search the website

Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote in 1911 that all types of prophethood ended with Prophet Muhammad

The Khalifa of the Qadiani group, Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad (their leader from 1914 to 1965), wrote an article entitled Khatam-un-Nabiyyin which was published both in Al-Hakam, 14 March 1911 (p. 10), and in Badr, 23 March 1911 (p. 2).

Click this link to view the page in Al-Hakam and click this link to view the page in Badr containing the article. (Both are in pdf format.)

Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote in this article as follows about the Holy Prophet Muhammad:

“As a result of this, Allah the Most High, by appointing him to the rank of Khatam-un-Nabiyyin, brought to an end all kinds of prophethood with him.”

(See column 1 in Al-Hakam, 11th and 10th lines from bottom; and foot of column 1 in Badr)

As to who can come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad, he uses the term mamur or one appointed by God. Nowhere does he say that a prophet can come after the Holy Prophet or that Hazrat Mirza appeared as a prophet.

He also writes:

“In fact, it is our belief that the qualities of the Holy Prophet Muhammad reached the highest possible stages of progress so that through the blessing of following him such persons were born who held the rank of the great prophets. Hence the Holy Prophet Muhammad says: ‘The Ulama of my Umma are like the prophets of the Israelites’. His grace will continue in this form till the Day of Judgment.”

(See column 2 in Badr; foot of column 1 and top of column 2 in Al-Hakam.)

It is clearly acknowledged here that it is in accordance with this hadith of the Holy Prophet Muhammad that all the great spiritually-elevated persons in the history of Islam arose, among them Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. They were the likes of prophets, not prophets.

Quote from Hazrat Mirza’s book

After the end of the article in Al-Hakam, the Editor has added a quote from a book by Hazrat Mirza, as if to support the article. The extract has been headed: Belief of the Mahdi about the finality of prophethood.

Although no reference is given, the quote is from the book Anjam Atham, published 1897, and begins as follows:

“The actual fact, to which I testify with the highest testimony, is that our Holy Prophet, may peace and the blessings of God be upon him, is the Khatam-ul-anbiya and after him no prophet is to come, neither an old one nor a new one.”

(See Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 11, pages 27)

This proves that the standpoint of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad about his claim was still accepted in 1911.

For interest, the text in Anjam Atham immediately before the above words is as follows:

“Can a wretched imposter who claims messengership and prophethood for himself have any belief in the Holy Quran? And can a man who believes in the Holy Quran, and believes the verse ‘He is the Messenger of Allah and the Khatam-un-nabiyyin’ to be the word of God, say that he too is a messenger and prophet after the Holy Prophet Muhammad?

Insaf-i Talb [pen-name of the enquirer] should remember that I have never, at any time, made a claim of nubuwwat or risalat in the real sense. To use a word in a non-real sense, and to employ it in speech according to its broad, root meaning, does not imply heresy (kufr). However, I do not like even this much, for there is the possibility that ordinary Muslims may misunderstand it.

However, by virtue of being appointed by God, I cannot conceal those revelations I have received from Him in which the words nubuwwat and risalat occur quite frequently. But I say repeatedly that, in these revelations, the word mursal or rasul or nabi which has occurred about me is not used in its real sense.”

And the text in Anjam Atham immediately after the quote given in Al-Hakam is as follows:

“But it must be remembered that, as we have explained here, sometimes the revelation from God contains such words about some of His saints in a metaphorical and figurative sense; they are not meant by way of reality. This is the whole controversy which the foolish, prejudiced people have dragged in a different direction. The name ‘prophet of God’ for the Promised Messiah, which is to be found in Sahih Muslim etc. from the blessed tongue of the Holy Prophet, is meant in the same metaphorical sense as that in which it occurs in Sufi literature as an accepted and common term for the recipient of Divine communication. Otherwise, how can there be a prophet after the Khatam-ul-anbiya?”

Therefore, this explanation of his claims given by him in 1897 is confirmed as valid and correct in Al-Hakam in 1911, and in fact Al-Hakam quotes this in support of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s article.