What is the best method to explain to non-Ahmadis that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani A.S. is the same Imam Mahdi and Prophet Messiah who was prophesied by Hazrat Muhammad S.A.W.? The best method would be first to find out the expectations of the person you are addressing, because you must speak the same language and you must stand on the same platform, otherwise no meaningful dialogue can be held at all.
So instead of giving you one answer which should work as a sort of panacea for everybody, I tell you the principal approach that you should adopt. You know, each man has his own concept about the coming of the Promised One, be he the Messiah or be he the Mahdi. So because in fact the whole Muslim world has not one uniform standard concept. The concepts vary from sect to sect and because of ignorance of the people about their own religion, also from person to person. Some people have heard a part of a tradition, another part of a tradition, some have heard a full tradition and so on and so forth.
So generally when they ask questions, they are themselves confused and they are not sure. So I don’t know what sort of person he is going to address. It all depends on his own first expectations, how he expects the Promised One to be judged. He is to be satisfied, so we can only satisfy him either first by finding out from him what are his expectations and trying to satisfy him on his own ground, or alternatively we can find fault with his expectations and analyse the case before him and tell him that these expectations are just imaginary, they have no foundation, no roots, and if you are expecting someone to come as you expect, then nobody would ever come. That sort of approach. Or later on then you can prepare the ground for a discussion on fundamentals, which is the most important thing in such discussions.
Forget about the Mahadi, forget about the title of Messiah etc. Just first find out from the Holy Quran, then that is where you should ultimately bring such a person to, you must bring it to your own ground, that is the ground of the Holy Quran. So you should gradually try to convince him that whoever it is, if he is from God, he must have some common, similar proofs, if not exactly the same type. And the Holy Book being a perfect and a complete book, it must give us a guideline as to how we should judge a person who claims to be from God. That is the most positive way of determining the truth of a claimant. If you leave that alone and start addressing the problem from the hearsay angle, we have heard that the Imam would be like this and we have heard that the Imam would be like that, then the matter will never be resolved.
Because the expectations are so different and the authorities to which they are related are in most cases so unreliable, and there is so much internal contradiction in the prophecies, not the prophecies but the prophecies as related to us, as they have reached us, that it is impossible to decide the issue. For instance, the Shia expectations of the Imam Mahdi are completely different from the Sunni expectations in general. And the Sunni’s expectations then begin to differ within, and the Shia expectations also begin to differ within them.
The concept of the Imam Mahdi as held by the Breivis sect, for instance, among the Sunnis, is very different from the concept as held by the Wahabis. The concept of Imam Mahdi there is completely without fantastic miracles and things. They just go and stress the names, the name of the father, the name of the parents and this and that. The mother would be Amna, the father would be Mohammed, called Mohammed, you know that sort of thing, and he would be buried there and do this and that. That sort of limited, materialistic, earthly concept belongs mostly to the Wahabis and the similar sects. And the expectations of an Imam Mahdi held by the Breivis are bordering upon supernatural, completely miraculous things. I mean miraculous is all right, but supernatural, and they live mostly in the world of fantasy.
So this is why it is difficult to suggest one single answer. You can point out, of course, to the differences and then say, first tell us the criterion, how we should judge between these expectations and be of some certainty, reach a measure of certainty about which expectation is right and which is wrong. So it is a problem like that. The other day I was reading a book on the concept of Imam Mahdi in Shi’ism, and the book is one of the most authentic books produced by any Indian scholar on this subject.
He was not an Iranian scholar, but anyway Shi’ism is not a monopoly of Iran. The Indian subcontinent scholars of Shi’ism were, you know, in many things even more devout and more staunch in their belief than Shi’as of other countries. So this book goes on building the case for Imam Qaim Muhammad Mahdi. Qaim Aal-e-Muhammad. Qaim Aal-e-Muhammad. No, no, Muhammad Mahdi was the name, I know that. He was supposed to be the son of Hazrat Imam Hassan Asghari. Why supposed to be? Because many other Shi’as differ with that. They believe that he left no son at all.
But according to those who are called Asnashari, or Isnashari, which is the Isna or Asna? Correctly speaking it should be Isnashari, but they are called Asnashari. They themselves introduced themselves as Asnashari. Anyway, you know what I mean. The Asnasharis believe that he left a son who was five years old when the father died. And immediately he started doing, as they say, doing Amamat, which was a miracle in itself. He performed all the rites, you know, at the burial ceremony and everything and suddenly he knew everything and he took the leadership in his hands and then disappeared.
So their expectation in a cave, first I thought it was 65 years or so, but in this book it says it was for 73 years that he disappeared and that is Zaybubat-e-Sughra, for 73 years. Then he disappeared more completely, that is to say he broke the contact with the intermediary deputies who were representing him and keeping contact with the people and collecting money from them and handing over to him and spending it as he desired and so on. So he disappeared from sight, but he’s bodily alive.
That is what they stress. He’s not gone back to God in spirit, but he’s alive bodily and he’s kept out of circulation by God for such time as Allah would deem it proper for him to reappear. Where he is nobody knows. According to some he may descend from heaven, according to some he may appear from Ghar and Takya and so on and so forth. So their expectations are completely different. And they also quote traditions of the Holy Prophet to prove their point. And they say even to the extent that the pharaoh who was the pharaoh at the time of Yusuf a.s. he also predicted about Imam Muhammad Mahdi and very clearly he stated that he would appear in such and such days and this would happen and that would happen.
Now the authenticity of that book can be measured by some example which I am going to give, illustration which I am going to give to you. He raises the question of longevity himself. I said, Bashir, move aside a little. You were fine. Bashir, come this way. Because you cover a lot of space and you know between you and, between me and some others, you know there is a complete break. Now he says that some stupid so-called modernists express wonder and even disbelief that Imam Muhammad Mahdi could live for so long. You know he disappeared in the end of 3rd century. No, I think in the 4th century. 365 or thereabout. So they say that that means about, he is still alive for about, when he wrote the book it was about 100 years ago. It’s a very authentic book according to Shias. He said about 900 years he has lived and people are wondering that this is something unnatural and it could not happen.
So he says that to discuss religiously would be, you know, below dignity with these people. So I am going to use a language which is which is their own language. And he is going to convince them from the material evidence which I am going to produce then which no sane man can deny. And then the evidence he produces is this, that according to the authentic historical documents, there was one person whom somebody met in Iraq or somewhere and at that time he was 800 years old. And he remembered everything. He belonged to the age of Jahiliyyah and it was his elder brother who took him to Rasul-e-Karim sallallahu alaihi wa sallam and he accepted Islam at his hand. And then he remembered all this and he was a very, very, very, you know, pakka sahabi, companion of the Holy Prophet.
And when this gentleman approached him and met him, he was so old that the hair on the eyebrow had covered his eyes, so he had to lift the eyebrows and then started, you know, seeing him eye to eye and then started telling him that Rasul-e-Karim sallallahu alaihi wa sallam did this and then did that and then did that. And so he said, what other proof do you require? You see, such a strong evidence from history I am producing. And then he goes on, you know, quoting one after the other such incidents where many sahaba, many companions of the Holy Prophet of Islam seem to be roaming the streets of Basra or Kufa or this place or that place or meeting people during the Hajj and from all parts of the world, even from Tunisia.
And they were either, you know, at different times, they were either 300 years old or 900 years old and this and that. So after finishing the list of such people, the maximum age he gives to a Muslim is about 900 some years. Then he says, but previously people lived much longer. And he says the pharaoh, whom he has quoted, that he prophesied about the coming of Imam Muhammad Mahdi, he says he lived for 3000 years. And you are surprised that Imam Muhammad Mahdi is 900 years old? He says, this is authentic. He quotes some books, I don’t know where he got hold of such books. He was quoting, I don’t know the names either. But he gives the full list. After making this introduction, then he begins to quote traditions of the Holy Prophet of Islam, peace be upon him.
So what would be the reliability of those traditions which are presented after this introduction? If this is historical evidence, if this is irrefutable evidence, what would be the value of those traditions which are related to the Holy Prophet of Islam after this absolutely, you know, hocus-pocus and total falsehood and audacity of attributing things to the Holy Prophet of Islam by a person 900 years after and considering it an authentic hadith?
So what would be the authenticity of the other traditions which he relates? That is what I mean. You may come across people who would be believing in this myth and they would expect you to prove that the Promised Messiah, peace be upon him, fulfilled all these expectations. You can’t. Like once I, you know, when I was a child, I visited a Sikh village along with a few friends. I was about, you know, I think I was studying in 8th class at that time in school. And we had a very interesting debate with some Sikhs in their own village, Dhapai.
So people seemed to be influenced. You know, they started, first of all they were very, very hostile, but gradually they softened down and ultimately they became sympathetic. So one gentleman present didn’t like all this. So he, to, you know, break, to destroy the impression, he got up and said, look here, tell me, did Mirza Sahib have bones in his body? I said, yes, he had. He said, all the bones complete? I said, yes. He says, how could he be a guru then? Our gurus did not have bones. I said, none of them? He said, no, none. No bones whatsoever.
So you say he’s a guru? How could a guru have bones? I said, how could they walk straight, you know, how could they keep the human shape without bones? He said, that is the trick. He did, they did not have bones, but they appeared as if they had bones. So I said, all that we know of Mirza Sahib is the same. He always appeared as if he had the bones, nobody knows. So I rectify my statement, I don’t know. That is the sort of things you will come across when you probe into the minds of the people whom you address, and there would be so many. I have a long experience of discussing things with non-Ahmadi enquirers, and every time I was surprised to find that he had built his own concept of some imam, having learned his Islam from some mullah, who according to his own taste, you know, built a fantastic imam. Fantastic imagination.
So anyway, ultimately, you have ultimately to draw him to the most dependable ground, that is the ground of the Holy Quran, and convince him, and prove to him, that if it is a complete book, it must have a positive, dependable system in it, described in this, as to the, you know, verification of claims by anybody who says that he has been sent by God. So there must be some authentic system described. And generally people listen to this, and they respond well, because the Holy Quran of course is the Holy Quran, everybody is overawed by the mention of the Holy Quran.
So then you begin to tell him, these are the verses of the Holy Quran, and they are verses of universal application. They are not limited in time, they are not limited in space. These verses speak of claimants who make people believe that they are from God, they are commissioned, they have to deliver a message. They may be law-bringers, or they may not be law-bringers. But whoever says that he is from God and he must listen to me, on the authority of my being from God, he should be judged, and the Holy Quran gives you the criterion for that.
So then take one criterion after the other, and then start applying it to the Messiah, and it will fit in just as if it were made to measure. That is the only way of deciding the issue. But occasionally there would be some, of course, who would agree to your proposal, that if you must judge the issue according to the traditions, why not the tradition concerning the eclipse of the sun and the moon in certain particular dates, in a particular month and so on. Because in Punjab in particular, this tradition is so well-known that almost everybody has heard of this. S
o on that issue, you can convince many, and I know many who just became Ahmadis later on with the grace of Allah, because of the force of this argument. In Gujarat, I think, this tradition is very well-known. Because that verse by Maulvi Muhammad Lakhokewale, he was a Gujarati, wasn’t he? You would know better, Asif Saheb. Maulvi Muhammad Lakhoke, have you heard of Lakhoke? He was a great mu’alim who was before the time of Hazrat Musleh Maud, the founder of the Ahmadiyya Community, and he wrote a book under the title of Ahwal-e-Akhrah, in which he describes this particular prophecy about the sun and the moon, that they would be eclipsed. When the true claimant to Mahdi would appear, and to stand witness to his claim, they would be eclipsed according to the tradition. His words, which I remember, are He says that it would be the 13th of the moon nights and 27th day of the sun, when both of them would be eclipsed in the month of Ramadan, at the time of Mahdi, as it is reported by one reporter of traditions.
These are his words, a little translation of this verse. And this is a very important book from the Ahmadiyya point of view, because he refers to the tradition exactly in the same way as an Ahmadi interprets it. The tradition never mentions the 13th of moon at all, or any date of the sun. The tradition simply says, the words of the Prophet are that when it begins with this, it appears in some traditions in the beginning and some at the end, so in both ways it is correct. I mean, there’s no harm. According to some traditions, The meaning is that for our Mahdi, there would be signs. The first one would be that the moon would be eclipsed on the first night, not the 13th night.
And the sun would be eclipsed in the middle, not the 27th. So how could Maulvi Muhammad Lakho Kailasaheb refer to the same tradition and quote wrong dates? That is the most important question. Because he was a holy man, because he was a righteous person and he knew the meaning of the tradition. You know, the first of night is a night when moon can never be eclipsed. It is impossible scientifically for anybody even to expect. Because those who know the phenomenon of eclipse, they also know that the moon eclipse is always caused when the earth is between the moon and the sun, and partially or completely obstructs the passage of light from the sun to the moon. On the first of the moon night, they are at sharp angles making a triangle.
It is impossible for the shadow to travel that way and fall upon the moon. But Maulvi Lakho Kailasaheb did not know this geography, yet he knew the meaning was not first but something else. Because at least by common observation he knew moon had never eclipsed on the first night. And he also knew that moon could not eclipse for reasons other than this, because moon is so thin, such a flake, that in itself it is doubtful. While the people are raising fingers, there the moon is, the moon disappears. So how could that be a sign? If it had eclipsed, it would disappear totally and completely. And nobody would believe that there was any moon.
So how could poor Imam Mahdi convince the opposing mullahs that there was a moon but it got eclipsed so you couldn’t see? So the debate would start on and on and there would be no conclusion. But even apart from that, I guess Maulvi Muhammad Lakho Kailasaheb judged what Rasul-e-Kirsa meant was from the fact that he used the word Qamar and not Hilal. And Maulvi Sahib knew Arabic very well. Whether he knew geography or science or not, that is debatable. But one thing is beyond doubt that he knew Arabic very well.
And according to him, as he must have understood, the Arabs never referred to the first three moons, the moons of the first three nights, as other than Hilal. When they have a definite concept of the first or second or third moon, then they always refer to such a moon as Hilal, never as Badr or Qamar or any other name. So how could Rasul-e-Kirsa, who knew Arabic better than any man on earth, according to even the western scholars, the quality of his language was next only to the Holy Qur’an, how could he commit such a blunder as to refer to the first night moon and refer to it not as Hilal but as Qamar? No Arab could do that. You even find similar incidents nowadays in the form of Royate Hilal committees. Have you ever heard Royate Qamar committee?
Anyone, ever heard? It is impossible. The moment you say, they would mock at you and say, what do you mean? Have you come from a small village where people have no concept of Arabic? What do you mean by Royate Qamar? It is Royate Hilal and always Royate Hilal because Hilal is the first night moon and it is always referred to as Hilal and as nothing else, even the second night moon, the third night moon. So Maulana Lakhaukesar knew it well that Rasul-e-Kirsa did not mean the first three nights of the moon. So what is left to us? The nights of the eclipse. The only thing which he could be referring to would be the first night of the eclipse of moon.
When the moon is eclipsed, there are definite nights, everybody knows. There are just three nights in a month when the moon is eclipsed. And there are three nights. Nobody on earth can change that. Not even all the might of America and Russia together can change this universal phenomena that moon can be eclipsed only in the 13th, 14th and 15th of a month. And what is the first night of the night of eclipses of moon? 13th? That is what Maulana Lakhaukesar said. 13th moon, 7th sun. Now in 7th he made a mistake. Because he didn’t know geography much, he didn’t say it was 15th. He should have said if it was the middle of the month he should have said 15th, but he deviated by a large margin and said it would be 27th. Then what he should have said was 28th of sun. Because the sun also eclipses only in
