Concept of Infallibility of Prophet and 'Qadyaniat' (1).

       

It is a well established creed among all Muslims that a prophet is always infallible. Infallibility means no mistake can be done in the way one intends to do it. Qadyanis do not believe in this concept of infallibility of prophet to justify wrong statements made by Mirza Qadyani in various books, which were later on declared as mistakes by Mirza Qadyani himself. Qadyanis think that prophets are likely to commit mistakes. Let us analyze this issue in the succeeding lines in the light of Quran and Sunnah.

From the outset, it may be clarified that mistake which cannot be committed by a prophet is a mistake which is done in the way one intends to do it; the mistake which lacks in element of ‘intent’ cannot be categorized as mistake liable to be compensated for. 

Mistake with intent is a mistake which is committed in the way one intends to commit it; mistake without intent is a mistake which is committed not in the way one intends to commit it. For instance, a person fires a bullet at a lion. The lion moves away from the target place, and the bullet hits and kills a boy standing behind the lion. This mistake is a mistake without intent because the shooter did not commit this act in the way he intended to commit it. The shooter’s intent had two parts- i. to shoot; ii. and to kill the lion. The first part of shooter’s intent was completed as per his intent; but the second part could not be completed as per his intent. That is why this mistake- i.e. killing of boy is a mistake without intent. Similarly, suppose a writer writes a statement in the way he intends to write it. If the statement is not factual (if it is a wrong statement), such a mistake is a mistake with intent because the writer has written the statement as he intended to write it. Even if, at the time of writing the statement, the writer could not appreciate that the statement was not factual one, this mistake is a mistake with intent because the writer has made the statement in the way he intends to write it. However if the writer’s intention was not to write the statement in the way he wrote it, this mistake would be called mistake without intent. But if he has written the statement in the way he intended to write it, the mere fact that he could not appreciate the fallacy of the statement at the time of writing it cannot make this mistake a mistake without intent. It is mistake with intent. However if the writer makes a statement knowing the fallacy of statement, such a mistake is not only wrong with intent but also a wrong which is to be punished/ compensated for. In this case, the writer’s intent has two parts- i. to write; ii. and to make statement in the way he intends to make it. Both parts of writer’s intent are completed when he writes statement in the way he intends to write it. That is why this mistake is a mistake with intent, if the writer does not know the fallacy of the statement; but if the writer knows the fallacy of statement at the time of writing it, it is a wrong punishable/ compensable for.

Prophets are infallible in the sense that they cannot make a mistake with intent; mistake with intent is a mistake which is committed by one in the way he intends to commit it though the doer does not know the fallacy of the act at the time of doing the act.

Qadyanis do not believe in the concept of infallibility of prophets; Qadyanis believe that prophets may commit mistakes. Actually Qadyanis disbelieve in concept of infallibility of prophets to justify the wrongs done by their prophet-Mirza Qadyani; Mirza Qadyani has adopted so many views and statements which, later on, are declared by him as wrong ones. It is a common practice of Mirza qadyani to adopt a view/statement at one time and then, later on, to refute that previous statement/view. All such wrongs/mistakes done by Mirza Qadyani as a so called prophet cannot be justified, if the concept of infallibility of prophets is adopted; that is why Qadyanis have not adopted the concept of infallibility of prophets. From so many wrongs done by Mirza Qadyani, the author will quote only one example to make the case.

Mirza Qadyani states: “ previously I wrote that Hazrat Masih (a.s) will descend from the heavens; but, later on, I wrote that I was Masih (a.s). The real cause of this contradiction/wrong was that, though I had already been  named as Isa (a.s) (in a ‘wahi’) from Allah…………but, because a group of Muslims, and I had the creed that Masih (a.s) will descend from the heavens; that is why I did not want to believe in ‘wahi’ [received by me about Isa (a.s)] with its apparent meanings, and I interpreted this ‘wahi’ in accordance with my previous creed [that Isa (a.s) will descend from the heavens] which was also creed of common Muslims…..But, later on, I continuously received ‘wahi’ that I was the Masih (a.s) which was to come” (“Haqeeqat ul wahi” by Mirza Qadyani; p.149). 

This above stated statement by Mirza qadyani clearly states that Mirza received a so called ‘wahi’ but he did not want to accept and believe  it as it is; rather he preferred to interpret this so called ‘wahi’ in accordance with creed of other common Muslims and his own creed which ran counter to the meanings of the so called ‘wahi’. Mirza’s creed was that Masih (a.s) will descend from the heavens but the so called ‘wahi’ was that he himself was Masih who obviously did not descend from the heavens. In other words, this so called prophet adopted common people’s and his own creed and did not adopt so called ‘wahi’ received by him though his creed was contradictory to his so called ‘wahi’.  Later on Mirza backed out from his creed, and called himself Masih in order to rectify his wrong.

This above stated wrong committed by Mirza Qadyani is much more than a simple wrong; in this wrong, he admits he preferred his own creed to Allah’s ‘wahi’ (so called ‘wahi’) and did not adopt ‘wahi’; rather he adopted his own creed. This is a clear wrong which cannot be committed by a prophet; the prophets are infallible in the sense that they cannot commit any wrong intentionally. As has already been mentioned, if a writer has written a statement in the way he intended to write it, the mere fact that he could not appreciate the fallacy of the statement at the time of writing it cannot make this mistake a mistake without intent. It is a mistake with intent. But if the writer knows the fallacy of statement at the time of writing it, it is a wrong likely to be compensated/ punished for. In such case, the writer’s intent has two parts- i. to write; ii. and to make statement in the way he intends to write it. Both parts of writer’s intent are completed when he writes statement in the way he intends to write it.

 In the  Mirza Qadyani’s case, he commits a wrong intentionally  (knowingly that his creed was contradictory to the so called ‘wahi’, he adopted his creed; he did not adopt ‘wahi’). It is a clear wrong likely to be punished for. Prophets cannot commit such a wrong. Even if Qadyanis argue that Mirza did not adopt the so called wahi, because he could not understand his wahi (i.e. he did not know the fallacy of his statement/view at the time of making the statement), he has committed mistake with intent because he made the statement in the way he intended to write it. secondly if Mirza wrongly understood his so called wahi, how it can be believed that his so called other wahi was rightly understood by him. Such a person cannot be called a prophet. Infallibility of prophets is a corner stone of concept of prophet-hood. Because prophets are essentially to be obeyed by the people, they are not prone to make wrongs/mistakes intentionally; a personality committing intentionally wrongs/mistakes cannot be made obey-able/ follow-able by the people. 

 

We may conclude that it is to justify the mistakes and wrongs committed by Mirza Qadyani that Qadyanis have refuted the concept of infallibility of prophets; infallibility is the corner stone of the concept of prophet-hood (continued).

Note: In the second part we will discuss Qadyanis' arguments against concept of infallibility.

Concept of 'Nabuwwat' and 'Qadyaniat' (2)

       

In the part (1) of this article, we have seen that, according to Mirza Qadyani’s concept, ‘nabuwwat’ is a compulsory ultimate outcome of pious deeds and as such can be attained by any person who performs pious deeds up to a certain level. We have also seen this concept of ‘nabuwwat’ propounded by Mirza Qadyani is contradictory to Quran  which states that ‘nabuwwat/resalat’ is a ‘fazl’ which is NOT ultimate compulsory outcome of pious deeds committed by any person and as such ‘nabuwwat/resalat’ cannot be claimed as of right by a person performing even the most pious deeds of the highest level among his people.  

Now we would see why ‘nabuwwat/resalat’ is not compulsory ultimate outcome of pious deeds.

First, we need to understand the implications of concept that ‘nabuwwat/resalat’ is compulsory ultimate outcome of pious deeds. One of the most important implication of this concept is that the person, in the beginning, is not pious upto the required level of ‘nabuwwat/resalat’; he would be committing many sins in various stages of his life. But ultimately he reaches a stage where he avoids sins and performs pious deeds to such an extent that he is granted ‘nabuwwat/resalat’; after attaining the stage of ‘nabuwwat’, he does not perform any sin. This is the Qadyani concept of ‘nabuwwat/resalat’. But this Qadyani concept of ‘nabuwwat’ implies that such a person who reaches the status of so called ‘nabuwwat’ after passing through many life stages full of sins cannot become a role model/ worthy of being followed by the people in all stages of his life. Suppose if such a so called ‘nabi’, reaches at the stage of so called ‘nabuwwat’ in his middle age, he will not be role model for the young people who will have a very good excuse NOT to follow such a so called nabi in the young age, because, in the young age, such so called ‘nabi’ would himself be committing sins.

Because Allah has sent ‘rusul’/ ‘nabis’ to be obeyed in all stages of their life (And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by permission of Allah (al-nisa-64), that is why Allah has saved all ‘Nabis’/ ‘rusul’ from sins in all stages of their life; because a ‘nabi’/ ‘rasool’ is made role model/ worthy of being followed in all stages of his life, a ‘nabi’/ ‘rasool’ is always by birth a ‘nabi’/ ‘rasool’ (plz see my article “ Prophethood-always by birth”); that is why ‘nabuwwat’/ ‘resalat’ has not been made something a natural and compulsory ultimate outcome of pious deeds.

A person is tried by Allah in this world either through ‘sher’/ bad things/situations or through ‘khair’/ good things/situations. If a person involved in bad things/ ‘sher’ proves his disliking for those bad things/ ‘sher’, he is declared successful and absolved of those bad things. If a person involved in ‘khair’/ good things, proves his liking and worth for those good things/ ‘khair’, he is declared successful and worthy of those good things. ‘Nabis’ / ‘rusul’ are the persons which are tried through ‘khair’/ good things and they have to prove their worth for such ‘khair’/ good things in order to be declared successful. It may be noted that a ‘nabi’/ ‘rasool’ is already successful in his worldly trial in the knowledge of Allah; that is why a ‘rasool’/ ‘nabi’ is made by birth a prophet, and in his life he proves his capability to avoid sins in all stages of his life. Therefore when we say that ‘nabis’/ ‘rusul’ are saved from sins in all stages of their life, we mean to say that ‘nabis’/ ‘rusul’ have the capability to avoid sins in all stages of their life. That is why they are made role model/ worthy of being followed by the people in all stages of their life; that is why they are made ‘nabis’/ ‘rusul’ by birth.

Therefore we may conclude that qadyani concept of ‘nabuwwat’ is not only contradictory to Quran but also does not fulfill the requirements of ‘nabuwwat/ rasalat’.

Taliban-pro-shariah or anti-shariah group

The policy of killing innocent Pakistani citizens, adopted by Taliban, is one of the biggest hurdle in the way of enforcement of shariah. The genuine Taliban should decide they are pro-shariah or anti-shariah. Genuine Taliban cannot enforce shariah by adopting anti-shariah policies/tactics. Taliban should not adopt anti-shariah policies even as a reaction to Pakistani authorities' anti-shariah policies because Taliban's professed ideology is to enforce shariah which cannot be enforced by adopting anti-shariah tactics. Taliban should ponder over the fact that they cannot succeed without matching their professed ideology with their tactics/policies; if Taliban are able to become synchronized over these two things-i.e. ideology and practice/policy- they will be considered as pro-shariah; otherwise, they will be declared as anti-shariah group.

Concept of Nabuwwat and Qadyaniat (1)

          

According to Qadyani concept of ‘nabuwwat’, ‘nabuwwat’ can be earned through pious deeds; it is something ‘iktisabi’ which is a natural and compulsory ultimate outcome of pious deeds. It is not something ‘wahbi’ which cannot be achieved through pious deeds, and which is not natural and compulsory ultimate outcome of pious deeds. Let us analuze qadyani concept of ‘nabuwwat’ in the light of Quran. 

Mirza Qadyani, the founder of qadyani/ahmadiya community, explains his concept of nabuwwat as follows: “wahi is the basis of finding ultimate Truth. That is why ‘wahi’ is continuing in the Muslim ummah…. ‘Zilli’ nabuwwat means to avail wahi through Muhamma (saww); such ‘nabuwwat’ will continue till qiyamah so that possibility of ultimate spiritual accomplishment may not be closed to human beings….. He further says: “the way to obtain such ‘nabuwwat’ is to do pious deeds following our Nabi (saww)” (‘Haqeeqat ul wahi’ by mirza ghulam qadyani; p.28). (It may be noted that Qadyanis consider Mirza Qadyani is a complete copy/maseel of our Nabi (saww) [khutba ilhamia by Mirza Qadyani; p.171];rather they consider Mirza is even better than our Nabi (saww) [khutba ilhamia by Mirza Qadyani; p.182]. Therefore they basically follow Mirza Qadyani; they follow our Nabi (saww) only to the extent Mirza Qadyani allow them. So in order to attain status of so called nabuwwat, they believe in  following Mirza Qadyani, not in following our Nabi (saww)). 

 Many other references, having similar meanings, may also be found from writings of Mirza Ghulam qadyani. From all such references, it becomes clear that Mirza considers ‘nabuwwat’ as something likely to be achieved through pious deeds; in other words, ‘nabuwwat’ is the natural and compulsory ultimate outcome of pious deeds.

This qadyani concept of ‘nabuwwat’ is contradictory to Quran which states:     

“It is He who has sent among the unlettered a Messenger from themselves reciting to them His verses and purifying them and teaching them the Book and wisdom - although they were before in clear error. And [to] others of them who have not yet joined them. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise. That is the bounty (fazl) of Allah , which He gives to whom He wills, and Allah is the possessor of great bounty (fazl)” (Jummah 2,3,4).

These Quranic verses mentioned above clearly state that gracing someone with ‘resalat’ is an act of ‘fazl’. ‘Fazl’ is something which cannot be achieved through pious deeds; which is not natural and compulsory ultimate outcome of pious deeds. Rather ‘fazl’ is something which is granted by Allah to whomsoever he wills; it is something ‘wahbi’/uncultivable not ‘iktisabi’/cultivable.But, of course, whenever nabuwwat and resalat was granted, it was granted to a person standing at the top in terms of pious deeds among the people to whom his nabuwwat or resalat applied. But such person could not claim nabuwwat or resalat as a claim on the basis of pious deeds because nabuwwat or resalat is not something natural and compulsory outcome of pious deeds.  Even a person most pious among his people and standing at the top in terms of following our Nabi (saww) cannot claim nabuwwat. Nabuwwat or resalat is Allah's 'fazl' which is granted to whomever Allah wills; but of course whenever it was granted, it was granted to a person most pious among the people to whom he was sent as the Nabi or Rasool.

From the foregoing, it becomes clear that qadyani concept of ‘nabuwwat’ is contradictory to Quran (continued).