Yes, I’ll explain that. First of all, let’s first clarify the term mujaddid and its relationship to that of khalifa. There are two different terms used in Islam. The khalifa, the term khalifa is found in the Holy Quran, and the institution of khilafat has been described at length in Holy Quran, but you don’t find the mention of mujaddidiyat anywhere in the Holy Quran. From that it may be safely inferred that Hazrat Rasul-e-Karim sallallahu alayhi wa sallam was in fact discussing the shape of khilafat in absence of the real khilafat which was left behind by Hazrat Rasul-e-Karim sallallahu alayhi wa sallam himself. When he mentioned mujaddidiyat, as I see things, what he meant was that khilafat will not continue beyond a period which would reach the turn of the century, next century.
So khilafat had to be finished before that. So some sort of substitute of khilafat had to be there, under the general term of khilafat of course, but not the one type of khilafat which was left behind by Hazrat Rasul-e-Karim sallallahu alayhi wa sallam himself. So that substitute is mujaddidiyat. If the original is there, there is absolutely no need for any substitute. When you have water for wudu, you don’t go for tayammum.
So I feel that it is impossible, inconceivable for the institution of mujaddidiyat to have started at the time when khilafat-e-rashida was intact. What would be the relationship between a mujaddid and a khalifa? And why to call a khalifa a mujaddid additionally? That aspect I’ll discuss later. Now that is one way of looking at things. In support of this view, we find a tradition of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, who prophesies the appearance of mujaddidin at every century, yet when he informs us that Masih-e-Maud would appear, then he says, Then he doesn’t repeat the institution of mujaddidiyat at all, in any way. He only prophesies that after Masih-e-Maud has appeared, then khilafat ala minhaj-e-nabuwat, khilafat of the type which prophets leave behind, would continue, would start again.
So that means that my inference that mujaddidiyat is just a substitute for khilafat at the time of khilafat’s absence has weight, because this tradition also supports this view. But there is another way of looking at mujaddidiyat, which has a different meaning altogether, and Hazrat Masih-e-Maud has used that meaning as well. He says the mujaddid-e-azam was Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa, peace be upon him. The greatest of mujaddideen was Huzoor-e-Akram himself. So he was in that sense the mujaddid of the first century as well as the greatest of all mujaddideen of all times. So that means a person who is appointed for a particular reform or a wide reform, an unlimited reform as well.
So this meaning would be applicable to Huzoor-e-Akram sallallahu alaihi wa sallam alone. He was sent by Allah for an unlimited reform in every field, in every direction, for all times to come. So because he was a consummate perception of the mujaddidiyat, so Hazrat Masih-e-Maud called him mujaddid-e-azam. And in this respect it may happen that at many a time, during the institution of Khilafat, things appear which have to be attended to particularly. Some sort of errors may creep in, errors in views or malpractices and so on. So if Allah gives opportunity to a certain Khalifa to fight against those evils, in that sense of the word he would be a mujaddid as well.
But the institution of Khilafat is higher and more permanent and is fundamental. And the institution of mujaddidiyat as we see, which appears in the absence of Khilafat, that is definitely a subordinate phenomena. Hope you understand this point.
