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).
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 Mirzas 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
(See Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 11, pages
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 Ahmads article.