Sunday, 10 November 2013

Concept of 'zilli' Prophethood and its Falsity


Qadyani people claim that Mirza Ghulam Qadyani  is alike/ ‘maseel’/ ‘zill’/ reflection to  our Nabi (saww). This concept of likeness/ ‘zill’/reflection describes that a person capable of cultivating qualities /characteristics of some other person becomes spiritually alike ‘maseel’/ ‘zill’ to that other person; this alike/ ‘zilli’ person can claim all the attributes specifically associated with the original/ the other person. Such likeness/ ‘zilli’ status is spiritual only; it is not physical one. It means though alike/ ‘zilli’ person (maseel) and the original person have different physical entities, but in terms of spiritual attainments they are similar. If the original person is a prophet, his ‘maseel’/ ‘zill’ will also be a prophet. In line with this concept, Qadyani people claim that Mirza Ghulam Qadyani had attained all spiritual achievements attributed to Muhammad (saww) including prophe-thood; it is in this sense that Qadyani people believe that (maazal Allah) Mirza Ghulam Qadyani is a ‘zill’ to Muhammad (saww) and as such Mirza’s prophet-hood is ‘zill’ to prophet-hood of our Nabi Muhammad (saww). [Refrences: Rohani khazain (by Mirza Qadyani) vol.22, p-521. vol.18, p-212. vol.16, p- 258,259,270. Malfozaat Hazrat Masih Maood (by Mirza Qadyani) vol.3, p-270. Kalmatul fasl (by Mirza Bashir) p-113, p-105].

This concept of likeness/ ‘zilli’ prophet-hood is completely unscientific, totally mythical, and logically baseless.
With advancements in Genetics, scientists are increasingly advocating that human personality/ traits are based on genetic set-up. Two persons can’t have similar genetic set-up (unless they are cloned); it means two persons can’t have similar personality traits; in other words, two persons can’t have completely similar worldly/ spiritual achievements. Not to speak of complete similarity, two persons can’t have any one spiritual quality to the same degree, because the trait/genes composition relating to that quality can’t be the same in two persons. According to science of Psychology, human personality is shaped, to much extent, on the basis of environment he/she is subjected to. Two persons subjected to different environments can’t cultivate completely similar personality. Mirza’s claim to be alike/ ‘zill’/ (maseel) to Muhammad (saww) in terms of spiritual attainments is un-scientific.

Logically too, the concept of likeness is not tenable. The whole mankind has been directed in Quran to follow Muhammad (saw); this direction is forever and compulsory for every human to achieve Allah’s love. It was also compulsory for Mirza Qadyani to follow Muhammad (saw) if he wanted Allah’s love. Now the moment the follower and to be followed are elevated to the same spiritual level, the person to be followed no longer remains a person to be followed. But Muhammad (saw) is the person to be followed forever by whole mankind. It means no one can be a “maseel” to Muhammad (saww) in spiritual attainments. Secondly, Muhammad (saw) has been declared as “universal rehmat” forever; it means primary/basic source of Allah’s “rehmat” among the creations is Muhammad (saww). There can’t be another primary/basic source of Allah’s “universal rehmat” after Muhammad (saww); there can’t be two primary/basic sources of Allah’s universal rehmat. If  two entities are taken as basic sources, it would mean no one is basic source. It means no one can be a “maseel”/ ‘zill’ to Muhammad (saww) in spiritual attainments. Thirdly, all attributes of Muhammad (saww) are not cultivable; they can’t be developed through effort and deeds. Prophethood is also “wahbi”- it is bestowed upon whoever is chosen by Allah ( of course, it was bestowed upon the person who is the best among the people in terms of his deeds); but nobody can make a claim for Prophethood on the basis of his deeds. Similarly out of attributes of Muhammad (saww), which are described through his names, many are “wahbi” and can’t be attained through effort. A few such “wahbi” attributes are: Rasul; Nabi; Muhammad; Ahmad; Mehmood; Aqib; Yasin; Taha; Ha-mim; Tasin; Mujtaba; Mustafa; Qasim; Mansur; Khatam-al-anbiya; Awwal; Akhir; Zahir; Batin; Rasheed; Munji; Mahdi; Fatih; Mutahhar; Hasib; Habib; Murtaza; Sahib; Shafi; Shaheed; and Muhrrim. All these attributes should not be understood with only the literal meanings of these words, because only literal meanings of these words fall short of explaining true nature of these attributes; acctually specific meanings, based on literal meanings, are associated with all these names. For example, Nabi literally means a person telling about unseen; but as per specific meanings-based on literal meanings- “Nabuwwat” is a designation bestowed by Allah upon a chosen person for the guidance of mankind. No one can attain all these “wahbi” attributes through effort and pious deeds. In other words, no one can be “maseel” to Muhammad (saw).

Mirza Qadyani’s claim of likeliness/ ‘zill’ to our Nabi (saww) is marred with so many contradictions. For instance, at one place he says “all spiritual attainments of Muhammad (saw) have been bestowed upon him”. [Ref.Malfuzaat Hazrat Masih Maood (by Mirza Qadyani) vol.3, p-270]. But at other place he says “spiritual quality pertaining to name of “Muhammad” (which is “jalali” in its nature) is not to be manifested; now the spiritual quality pertaining to name of “Ahmad” (which is cool like Moon) has manifested itself in his form. [Ref.Rohani Khazain (by Mirza Qadyani) vol.17, p-445/446]. This way he admits that all spiritual qualities of Muhammad (saw) have not been bestowed on him. It means he himself contradicts his claim of likeliness to Muhammad (saw).
The futility of Mirza’s claim for “Nabuwwat” is even more exposed, when his claim is judged on the basis of his actions/ performance. Islam is based on Quran and Sunnah. The linchpin of Mirza’s argumentation was the argument that Muslims did not understand Quran and Sunnah in the proper context and in the correct manner. But it is amazing to know that he did not write any “tafseer” of Quran so that the “ignorant” Muslims might rectify their understanding of Quran ( he did make interpretation of some verses). He also did not do any work of sifting huge collection of “ahadith” so that the Muslims might know what hadith was correct and what was not (he did make his views about some ahadith). Is it not strange and unbelievable that a person was receiving “Wahi” but he was not separating the right from the wrong out of sources of Islam? The answer is very simple; the sifting of huge collection of ahadith and writing “tafseer” of Quran required lot of knowledge which Mirza Qadyani was lacking in. One may argue that Muhammad (saw) also did not give detailed account of what was right and what was wrong in the previous divine Books. Therefore it is not objectionable if Mirza did not give such detailed account about interpretation of Quran and Books of Hadith. Such a argument would not be valid. Muhammad (saw) did not need to give such detailed account about the previous divine Books, because after coming of Muhammad (saw), Muslims were required to establish “Deen/ Shariah” on the basis of Quran and Sunnah, not on the basis of previous divine Books that is why Muslims were not required to have correct version of previous divine Books. But Qadyanis still require a valid account of ‘ahadith’ and valid interpretation of Quran. 
Quran and 'hadith' clearly state that our Nabi (saww) is the last of the prophets; there will be no prophet/prophethood (in whatsoever form) after our Nabi (saww)/ after our Nabi Muhammad's prophethood.
We can conclude that concept of likeness/ ‘zilli’ prophet-hood is completely unscientific, totally mythical, and logically baseless. There is no concept of 'zilli' prophethood in Islam; this concept has been resorted to by Mirza Ghulam to deceive the Muslims. If he made claim of prophet-hood directly, he would be killed by the Muslims; therefore he resorted to indirect claim of prophet-hood so that he might avoid wrath of the Muslims.

No comments:

Post a Comment