The Qādiyānīs are followers of Mirzā Ghulām Aĥmad Qādiyānī. Mirzā claimed that he was a prophet [of Allah]. He also insulted the noble Prophets of Allāh by spewing profanities and hurling vile abuses at them, especially upon Sayyidunā Ýīsā عليه السلام – The Spirit from Allāh [rūĥ-Allāh] and the Word of Allāh [kalimatullāh] and his virtuous, chaste and honourable mother: the Şiddīqah, Lady Mary.
He has insulted them with such invectives that a Muslim’s heart would tremble at the mere mention of those words; however, the need of the age compels us to present a sample of his abusive language to warn people about him.
Mirzā’s claim of being a prophet was itself enough for him to be declared an apostate and destined for punishment in Hell forever, but he also rejected the verses of the Qur’ān by refusing to believe that our Master Muĥammad ﷺ is the Seal of Prophets (khātam al-nabiyyīn).
He went even further and belied Prophets عليهم السلام and insulted them (takdhīb, tawhīn) and committed hundreds of blasphemies and brought damnation upon his own head, as belying any of the Prophets عليهم السلام is a discrete kufr (disbelief), even if he bears belief in all others and accepts other necessary aspects of religion (đarūrīyāt).
Disbelieving a single Prophet of Allāh is equivalent to belying them all, as Allāh ﷻ has said:
كَذَّبَتْ قَوْمُ نُوحٍۢ فَٱلْمُرْسَلِينَThe people of Nūĥ belied the Messengers.
Mirzā also claimed to be superior than a Prophet of Allāh عليه السلام, which leaves no doubt in a Muslim’s mind that Mirzā and his followers are indeed disbelievers (kāfir). If someone does not consider Mirzā or his followers to be kāfir, even after being informed of his blasphemies, or has doubt in their disbelief, will himself become a kāfir.
BLASPHEMOUS SAYINGS OF MIRZĀ
On page 533 of Izālah e Awhām, he has said: God Most High has named this humble person as both a ‘follower’ [ummatī] and a ‘prophet’ [nabiy] in Barāhīn e Aĥmadiyyah.
In Anjām e Aātham, page 52, he has said: O Aĥmad! Your name will be completed before My name is completed.
On page 55 of the same book he has said: Glad tidings to you my Aĥmad! You are my objective [murād] and you are with me!
And verses that praise the Messenger ﷺ of Allāh were misapplied by Mirzā, who claimed them to be his own praise; on page 78 of the same work [Anjām] he says that the below verses in the Qur’ān refer to himself:
وَمَآ أَرْسَلْنَـٰكَ إِلَّا رَحْمَةً لِّلْعَـٰلَمِينَAnd we have not sent you except as a Mercy to the Worlds.
وَمُبَشِّرًۢا بِرَسُولٍ يَأْتِى مِنۢ بَعْدِى ٱسْمُهُۥٓ أَحْمَدُAnd giver of glad tidings of a Messenger who will come after me whose name is Aĥmad.568, who does not consider such a blasphemer as an apostate, after he is informed of the blasphemies, becomes an apostate himself. In Al-Durr al-Mukhtār: رفك هرفكو ھباذعكش نمو %‘One who doubts in the punishment and disbelief of a blasphemer is himself a kāfir’.
See the following refutations of Mirzā by Alahazrat: Al-Sū’u wa’l Íqāb ála’l Masīĥ al-Kadh’dhab, Qahru’d Dayyān álā Murtadd bi Qādiyān, Al-Jurāz al-Dayyānī ála’l Murtadd al-Qādiyānī and also by Mawlānā Ĥāmid Riđā Khān al-Baraylawī: Al-Şārim al-Rabbānī álā Isrāf al-Qādiyānī. A list of refutations of Qādiyānīs is given in Appendix I: Further Reading.
On page 6 of Dāfiý al-Balā’a it is written:
Allāh, most high has told me: “You are in the place of my son; you are from me and I am from you”.
On page 688 of Izālah e Awhām: The revelation and inspiration [ilhām, waĥy] of the Messenger ﷺ of Allāh proved to be incorrect.
On page 8 of the same book, he has written: The prophecies of Sayyidunā Mūsā did not also come true as Sayyidunā Mūsā expected in his heart to occur. The furthest extent in this matter is those [prophecies] of Sayyidunā Masīĥ (i.e. Sayyidunā Ýīsā) were incorrect the most.
On page 750, he has written: In Sūrah Al-Baqarah is the mention of a murder; related to this was [the Divine Command to sacrifice a cow and to] hit the dead body with the piece [of flesh] of the [sacrificed] cow and the dead man came to life and he identified the murderer. This was [not real and] only a threat that Mūsā gave; [what people saw was] mesmerism.
On page 753, he has written: The mention of Sayyidunā Ibrāhīm’s miracle of the four birds in the Noble Qur’ān is also a product of mesmerism.
On page 629, he has written: In the [bygone] age of a king, four hundred prophets prophesised that he would be victorious; they all turned out to be false. The king was not only defeated but was also killed in the same battle.
On page 26 and 28, he has written: The Qur’ān is filled with filthy profanities [gandhi gāliyāñ] and the Glorious Qur’ān uses harsh language
And about his own composition he named Barāhin e Aĥmadiyyah, he has written thus in the same Izālah, on page 533: Barāhin e Aĥmadiyyah is the Speech of God.
In his Arbaýīn #2, page 13, he has written: Neither Mūsā nor Ýīsā were perfect guides. Not only did Mirza reject these eminent personalities as being from Ulu’l Ázm (the most Prominent Messengers), Mirza did not even consider them to be properly guided themselves!
Below are some of Mirzā’s blasphemies [specifically] against the Prophet of Allāh, Sayyidunā Ýīsā عليه السلام. In Miý-yār, he has written on page 13: O Christian Missionaries! Do not say ‘The Messiah [Jesus] is our God’. Look, today there is one amongst you who is greater than that Messiah.
In the same work, on pages 13-14 God has sent from within this nation, a Promised Messiah [masīĥ mawúūd], who is far greater than the earlier Messiah in every aspect. And He has named this second Messiah as Ghulām Aĥmad. So that an indication be made as to what kind of a Messiah is that of the Christians, who cannot compare with even a lowly servant of Aĥmad.
That is, what kind of a Messiah is he, who in his nearness and intercession, is inferior in rank to the servant of Aĥmad!
In Kashtī e Nūĥ, on page 13, he has written: The counterpart of Mūsā is greater than Mūsā; the counterpart of the Son of Mary is greater than the Son of Mary. On page 16 he has written: God has informed me that the Muhammadan Messiah is superior to the Mosaic Messiah. In Dāfiý al-Balā’a, on page 20 he has written: Now, God is telling you: Look, I will create a second [Messiah] who will be even better than him.
He will be Ghulām Aĥmad, meaning servant of Aĥmad. Leave the mention of Son of Mary Ghulām Aĥmad is better than him! This is not just a poetic statement; rather it is the reality. In experience, if the Divine Aid of God given to me is not greater than the aid given to the Messiah [Jesus] son of Mary, then I am a liar.
In Dāfiý al-Balā’a, he has written on page 15: Indeed, God has power to do all things, according to His Promises. However, He will never send to this world once again, such a person whose mischief has destroyed the world after his first stint.
In Anjām e Ātham, he has written on page 41: The Son of Mariyam does not have more eminence than the Son of Kaushalya.
In Kashtī e Nūĥ, he has written on page 56: I swear by Him, in whose Hand my life rests; if Messiah, the son of Mary was present in my time, he would certainly be incapable of doing things that I can do. And the signs that are being manifest through me, he would never be able to demonstrate, and would find that the Grace of God was more upon me, than upon him.
In Iýjāz e Aĥmadī, he has written on page 13:
The Jews have such strong objections regarding the prophecies of Sayyidunā Ýīsā that we too are perplexed and unable to answer. The only thing that we can say is: “Indeed Ýīsā is a prophet, because the Qur’ān has deemed him a prophet. Apart from this, there is no other proof to establish his prophethood; rather, there are many proofs to invalidate his prophethood”.
In the above statement, he has attested to the objections of the Jews (against Sayyidunā Ýīsā عليه السلام) and together, he has alleged that the Qur’ān teaches us a belief that can be proven to be invalid. On page 14 he has written: Where the Christians weep for his godhood, over here, we do not even have proof for his prophethood...
In the same book, he has written on page 24:
that he [Jesus] would sometimes receive Satanic inspirations.
O Muslims! Do you know who receives Satanic inspirations? The Qur’ān tells us:
تَنَزَّلُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ أَفَّاكٍ أَثِيمٍSatans descend upon every atrocious slanderer and extreme sinner Mirzā has said further on the same page: For example, the Messiah, who was made into a god – most of his prophecies are full of mistakes;
On page 13 he has said: ...we will have to admit with much regret that the Jews raise such strong objections concerning him [Sayyidunā Ýīsā عليه السلام] and his prophecies, that we too are perplexed and unable to refute them.
He has written again on page 14: Alas! Where can we take our tale of sorrow! Three prophecies of Hazrat Ýīsā عليه السلام have turned out to be patently false.
This is a clear rejection of the prophethood of Sayyidunā Ýīsā عليه السلام because he has himself written in Kashti e Nūĥ, on page 5: It is not possible that the prophecies of Prophets prove to be false.
He has described the above (false claim of failed prophecies) in Dāfiý al-Waswās (p.3) and Zamīmah Anjām e Aātham (p.27) as: a disgrace, greater than any other disgrace or humiliation.
On the title page of his book, Dāfiý al-Balā’a he has written: We believe that Masīĥ ibn Mariyam [Messiah, son of Mary] was undoubtedly an upright and truthful man, as he was better than most people in his time in any case – Allāh knows best. However, he was not a true saviour. It is a false claim about him that he is the true saviour.
The true saviour in reality, who has always been and will be until Judgement day, the one who gives the fruits of salvation, is he who was born in the land of Ĥijāz, and had come for the entire world and for all times – and even now [he has come] but as a manifestation. May Allāh spread his munificence over the entire earth. Amen. Humbly, Mirzā Ghulām Aĥmad from Qādiyān.
He then declares his own judgement about the righteousness of the Prophet in the following words: Remember, when we say that Hazrat Ýīsā عليه السلام was ‘better than many others in his time’ - this is merely on the basis of our good opinion about him.
Otherwise, it is possible, that in the time of Hazrat Ýīsā عليه السلام, on the face of this good earth of Allāh táālā, there might have been upright and righteous men far more superior and loftier than Ýīsā عليه السلام in their righteousness and relationship to Allāh táālā.
In the same book on page 4: The righteousness of the Messiah [Masīĥ] cannot be proven to be greater than other righteous people of his time.
Rather, the prophet Yaĥyā has one aspect of superiority upon him – because he would not drink wine; nor has it ever been heard about him that a harlot applied perfume, bought from the income of her prostitution, to his head, or that such a woman touched his body with her hands or with the hair of her head. Or that an unrelated woman was ever in his service.
It is therefore, that Allāh named him ‘Celibate’. But He did not give Masīĥ this name because such stories were a barrier to this name.
In his book Anjām e Aātham, page 7 he has written:
His inclination towards prostitutes and keeping their company was probably inherited from his grandparents. Otherwise, no righteous and pious man would grant an opportunity to a young prostitute to touch his head with her filthy hands, or permit her to apply the dirty perfume she had purchased from the income of fornication upon his head; or rub her hair beneath his feet.
An astute person can understand what kind of a person a man of such a character could have been.
In this abominable book, Mirzā has made exceedingly ugly and atrocious attacks upon the hallowed and sinless Messenger of Allāh [Sayyidunā Ýīsā عليه السلام] and used despicable words such as: mischief-maker, deceiver, evil mind, profane, abusive, liar, thief, mentally unsound, wretched, outright fraud, follower of Satan, etc.
He even said: His lineage was also very pure and chaste. Three of his paternal and maternal grandmothers were harlots and professional prostitutes, whose blood brought him into existence.
Everybody knows that dādī means a paternal grandmother; i.e. mother of one’s father. This odious statement thus assigns a father to Sayyidunā Ýīsā عليه السلام, which contradicts the Qur’ān. In his Kashtī e Nūĥ, on page 16, he has said this explicitly: Jesus the Messiah [yesu masīĥ] had four brothers and two sisters. All of these were the real brothers and sisters of Jesus.
That is all of them were children of Joseph and Mary [yūsuf aur mariyam] Mirzā denied and belied the miracles of Sayyidunā Masīĥ; in his book Anjām e Ātham, page 6, he has written: ...but the truth is that he did not perform any miracle On page 7 of the same book he has written: ...there was a miraculous lake in that age from which many great signs were seen.
One can imagine that he might have used the mud from this lake. The reality behind his miracles is exposed by this lake; it is this very lake which has resolved the matter that, if at all a miracle has been performed, then it was due to this lake – and not because of him [i.e. Jesus]. For there was nothing in his hand except treachery and deceit.
On page 4 of Izālat al-Awhām, he has written: Other than this, if one looks at the major actions of Messiah, by ignoring peripheral actions, it will be apparent that apart from calumny or a misunderstanding, he has never demonstrated a miraculous feat.
Rather, the objections and doubts concerning the miracles and prophecies of the Messiah (i.e Jesus عليه السلام) are so many that I don’t think that such doubts have ever befallen any other prophet’s miracles or prophecies. Does not the story of the lake take the sheen off the miracles of Masīĥ?
He denigrated the miracles of Sayyidunā Ýīsā عليه السلام and described them as a key-wound toy or the effect of mesmerism. If this humble person did not have a dislike for such actions and considered them abominable – then by the grace of Allāh and His guidance, he had a strong hope that in exhibiting miracles, he would be no less than Masīĥ, the son of Mariyam. Talking about mesmerism, he said:
One who busies himself with it becomes weak and incompetent in possessing and dispensing spiritual influences that cure spiritual diseases. This is the reason why the Messiah could cure physical diseases by this method, but in the matter of establishing guidance and tawĥīd and religious steadfastness in hearts, his score was so low that he was almost a failure.
The profanities of this evil liar [dajjāl] are too many to enumerate. A few of his heresies were mentioned in this section to warn Muslims of the dangers of this heretic.
Even though he brazenly attacks and abuses one among the prominent Messengers of Allāh [ulu’l ázm] whose greatness is mentioned in the Qur’ān, surprisingly, [some among] simple Muslims are becoming his followers; whereas Mirzā cannot even be considered a Muslim!
Even more shocking is that some literate fools are deliberately falling in the pits of Fire along with him. Can a Muslim harbour a sliver of doubt concerning such a vile person, that he is an infidel, a disbeliever and an apostate? Allāh forbid!
Whoever has a doubt in the punishment and disbelief of such a person, after being informed of his heresies and vile speech, is himself a kafir [Note: See Appendix I for a list of refutations of Mirzā and Qādiyānīs]
Footnotes
See Appendix F: Biographies.
The Urdu idiom used is şad-hā, literally, ‘hundreds of’ and it means ‘numerous blasphemies’. In fact, the blasphemies in Mirzā’s works, may even run into thousands.
Sūrah al-Shuárā, 26:105.
The Rāfiđīs also claim that the Imāms of Ahl al-Bayt are superior to Prophets. This is patent kufr. Unfortunately, shīáh inclined opportunists claiming to be Sunni scholars, are trying to push the envelope by trying to ignore this and normalise this kufr. We seek Allāh’s refuge.
Among the fundamental precepts and necessary aspects of religion is that one should respect all the Prophets. Insulting any Prophet is blasphemy, and the person committing blasphemy is an apostate. Anyone 98
Mirzā wrote many books and pamphlets, which are published by Qādiyānīs of our time as collected works in 23 volumes, under the name Rūĥānī Khazā’in, in addition to his letters and sayings. All the books cited here such as Anjām e Aātham, Izālatu’l Awhām, Dāfiý al-Balā’a etc. are found in this collection.
This, according to Mirzā, is revelation to him by the Almighty.
Sūrah Al-Anbiyā’a, 21:107.
Mirzā claims this in Tawđīĥ al-Marām, p.163; vide Rūĥānī Khazā’in 11/78. 99
See A58 earlier for definition of Ulu’l Ázm.
A paper listing the blasphemies of Mirzā and insults against Sayyiduna Ýīsā عليه السلام is released by Riđawī Press. 101
Kaushalya, according to Hindu Mythology, is the first wife of Dasaratha and the mother of Rama, who is regarded as a god incarnate by Hindus. 102
Sūrah al-Shuárā, 26:222. 103
Masīĥ or Messiah in the Qadiani’s works refers to Sayyidunā Ýīsā عليه السلام.
Ĥaşūr: Celibate, chaste, one who abstains from sexual relations.
Anjām e Ātham, p. 27; vide, Rūĥānī Khazā’in, vol. 11, p. 291
Mirzā is trying to be sarcastic here.
This is an open denial of the Qur’ān. Paternal grandmother would mean that Hazrat Ýīsā عليه السلام had a father. Even though it is necessary to believe that he was miraculously born of only a mother, without a father. This blasphemy is apart from other abuses he has hurled at the lineage of the Prophet Ýīsā عليه السلام. Al-íyādhu billāh. 105
Izālah e Awhām, p. 310; vide Rūĥānī Khazā’in, vol.3 pp. 258. 106
Lit. “He scored so low marks, that he was almost a failure”.
His writings are collected in 23 volumes as Rūĥānī Khazā’in; his ramblings are collected in 10 volumes as Malfūżāt; his letters are collected in 8 volumes as Maktūbāt. All of these works are filled with filth and obscenities and blatant disbelief which no Muslim can bear to hear or read.
Some scholars and Muftīs of that age were hesitant in proclaiming Mirzā or his followers as kāfir; the author is rebuking them for their laxity.
Al-Durr al-Mukhtār, On Apostates. 107