Personal opposition and enmity, no matter with whom, if the limits are not known, not only does it become a trial for a person’s religion, faith, morals, and character, but it also urges one to cross every boundary of sins and transgressions. A person becomes so entrenched and intense in moral vices such as lying, dishonesty, slander, accusation, prejudice, partisanship, envy, and hatred that holding onto justice and fairness and staying on the path of truth becomes impossible for him.
This personal rivalry and enmity is not necessarily based only on wealth and love of status; it can also be based on intellectual disagreement and scholarly competition beyond material benefits and even pleasures. If this disagreement and rivalry is not for the sake of Allah, then its destiny becomes to wander continuously in the valley of vices, and the self becomes so fond of misguidance and error that it finds no peace of heart by walking any other path. Such a person is like a worm that lives in filth and pollution. Dirt becomes his covering and bedding, filth his natural environment. He lives in mud and throws mud on friends as well. He himself lies and targets others with falsehood. Accusation and slander become his method, but he calls it the way of others. Deception and fraud become his habit, but he accuses his opponents of it. Though he himself is treacherous and dishonest, he attributes this bad act to his rivals. He tries to extract the worst meanings from the words of his opponents by applying logic, no matter how clearly the speaker explains his point. He insists, “No, your real point is not what you yourself say, but what I attribute to you.” It is as if he is a prosecutor who has taken a fee from his client to trap the accused somehow. The irony is that the client is none other than his own evil self, whose fee is nothing but the pleasure of the self, and his entire interest revolves around proving his opponents deserving of hell by any means.
When rulers devoid of fear of God become angry with someone, they arrest him by labeling him an enemy of law and order. Self-interested and selfish political leaders, when they want to humiliate someone, try to topple him by calling him an enemy of the country and nation. But a certain temperament of “Quranic intellectuals,” when angry with someone, try to involve God and the Prophet as parties to the case and prove that “the person we are angry with is indeed an enemy of the Quran, who is spreading the trial of misguidance. Therefore, we are taking all these measures only to protect God’s book from his evil.” Thus, they attribute all their own evils and faults to their opponents so that no one’s gaze turns toward their own faults. Not only do they deny their own defects and attribute them to others, but they go a step further and show others’ virtues and merits as their own and attribute even those achievements to themselves which they never performed.
This is exactly the condition in which we have found “Mufakkir-e-Quran” (Thinker of the Quran), Mr. Chaudhry Ghulam Ahmad Parwez, afflicted throughout his life. He himself used to lie but accused his opponents. He himself was a false worshiper in the name of the Quran but attributed this false worship to his adversaries. He himself was a slanderer but considered others as the perpetrators. He himself was contradictory but called others so. This article mentions some of his falsehoods and fabrications; observe these examples:
“Mufakkir-e-Quran” Mr. Parwez has a book titled “Khatm-e-Nubuwwat aur Tehreek-e-Ahmadiyat” (Finality of Prophethood and the Ahmadiyya Movement). In its fifth edition, published in July 1998, the introduction “About the Author” states: “…You were the first Quranic thinker of the subcontinent whose arguments led to the official declaration of Ahmadis as non-Muslims.” Furthermore, in Tolu-e-Islam, praising this book, it was said:
“In 1926, a case was filed in a court of the former state of Bahawalpur, in which the question was whether a Muslim adopting Mirzaiyyat (Ahmadiyyat) is excluded from the fold of Islam or not. This case remained under trial for nine years and gained nationwide fame. Senior scholars participated but instead of understanding, the issue became more complicated. Finally, in 1935, District Judge Bahawalnagar Muhammad Akbar (late) wrote the judgment, stating that despite long debates, the point of what the status of prophethood is and the importance of the belief in the finality of prophethood in Islam was not clear. (He said) by chance, one day I came across an article by a person named Chaudhry Ghulam Ahmad Parwez in the monthly ‘Maarif’ published by Darul Musannifeen, Azamgarh, which clarified the entire issue. Accordingly, the decision is that one who adopts Ahmadiyyat is excluded from the fold of Islam. This decision is published and available everywhere. Parwez Sahib has also quoted it in his book ‘Khatm-e-Nubuwwat aur Tehreek-e-Ahmadiyat.’ Incidentally, it is necessary to mention that when Ahmadis were declared non-Muslims in 1974, the 1935 case was widely discussed in the country, and you will be surprised to know that our great scholars discussed it but made every effort that Parwez Sahib’s name should not appear in this context. From this, you can estimate their narrow-mindedness, jealousy, and hatred.”
This entire excerpt is a bundle of lies. The first and biggest lie is that the 1935 Bahawalpur decision was based on a statement by Parwez Sahib, whereas this decision was based on the arguments and proofs presented by the eminent and distinguished scholars of the subcontinent (Maulana Ghulam Muhammad Sheikh-ul-Jamia Abbasiya Bahawalpur, Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi, Maulana Murtaza Hasan Chandpuri, Maulana Syed Anwar Shah Kashmiri, etc.), as will be clear from the detailed discussion ahead.
The second lie is the slander against the judge (late) that he wrote in his judgment that despite long debates, the point of what the status of prophethood is and the importance of the belief in the finality of prophethood in Islam was not clear. In fact, these words of the judge are nowhere found in the judgment.
The third lie is also an accusation in which the scholars are labeled as narrow-minded, jealous, and hateful, claiming that “when the 1935 decision was discussed after Ahmadis were officially declared non-Muslims in 1973, they made every effort that Parwez Sahib’s name should not appear in this context.” However, there is no question of mentioning Parwez Sahib in this discussion because the decision was not based on any of his writings or statements.
The Basis of Parvez’s Lies
The question arises as to what is the basis for telling, writing, and continuously publishing such a huge lie? Research reveals that its basis is only that at one place, the honorable judge has implicitly praised an excerpt of Mr. Parvez, and just on this basis, this towering edifice of falsehood has been constructed.
The Quran has described a characteristic of the Jews that they want praise and admiration even for deeds they have never done (یُحِبُّوْنَ اَنْ یُّحْمَدُوْا بِمَا لَمْ یَفْعَلُوْا). Our “Thinker of the Quran” has also, in his desire for fame, attributed unperformed feats to himself and has made this statement of his the foundational brick of this towering palace of lies, saying:
“The honorable judge wrote that the entire crux of this issue depended on what the reality of prophethood is and who is called a prophet.”
At that time, I had before me exactly the same copy and edition (June 1973) of the “Faisla Muqadma Bahawalpur” which Mr. Parvez referenced in “Khatm-e-Nubuwwat aur Tehreek-e-Ahmadiyyat.” Nowhere in it is the honorable judge’s statement mentioned that “the entire crux of this issue depended on what the reality of prophethood is and who is called a prophet.”
The matter is only that the plaintiff in the case was not a religious scholar; in the definition of the prophet she gave, it was only said that “prophethood is an office. It is bestowed by Allah Almighty upon His chosen servants,” and the difference between a prophet and a messenger was explained: every messenger is a prophet, but it is not necessary for a prophet to be a messenger. The second party also stated, with reference to the canal on page 89, that a messenger is a person whom Allah Almighty sends to propagate the commands of Shariah, unlike a prophet who may or may not bring a book. Bringing a book is a condition for a messenger. Thus, one definition of a messenger was also given that a messenger is one who possesses a book or abrogates some commands of Shariah.
After this, the honorable judge says:
“Since these definitions were not sufficient to express the reality, I remained in search of a definition of prophet or messenger that, according to the explanations of the Quran, would encompass all the essentials of prophethood.”
Then he (the judge) says that he studied the reality of prophethood and the definition of prophet in Professor Mahmood Ali’s book “Deen wa Aeen,” but he did not find this definition interesting either.
It is noteworthy here that the honorable judge did not say that this definition was wrong; rather, he said, “I did not find it interesting.”
After this, Mr. Parvez is mentioned, and the honorable judge says:
“Finally, an article titled ‘Mechanical Islam’ by Chaudhry Ghulam Ahmad Sahib Parvez came to my attention.” In it, he has represented the views of the enlightened class of today regarding the religion of Islam and then himself has stated the facts. Regarding the reality of prophethood he has described, in my opinion, no better explanation can be given, and I think neither party can deny it. Therefore, I express this reality in his words; he writes……………
After this, a long excerpt from Mr. Parvez is given. There is no doubt that the honorable judge praised Mr. Parvez’s excerpt, and there is no doubt that Mr. Parvez’s expression is sound, the narration charming, the style lively, the words attractive, and the writing literary and tasteful. But the claim that the honorable judge’s decision is also based on this excerpt is absolutely false, a lie, invalid, and contrary to reality, for which no evidence is found in any line of the 184 pages of the aforementioned book Faisla Muqadma Bahawalpur. It is Mr. Parvez’s literary skill that he has taken the honorable judge’s words of praise for his excerpt and, going beyond mere praise and admiration, made it the entire basis of the decision.
The Fundamental Decision is the Quran and Sunnah
The emergence of Islam and the incorrect and false stance of Mr. Parvez is also evident from the fact that the Bahawalpur case decision was made not solely on the basis of the Quran but on the basis of the “Quran and Sunnah,” as is clear from the following statements.
“The objection raised by the defendant regarding references from books of Tafsir is sufficiently answered by stating that these references have neither been mentioned here nor has the decision been based on these references, and in terms of authority, only the Holy Quran and Ahadith have been considered the standard for resolution.”
On the very next page, the learned judge further clarified that the basis of their decision is not only the Quran but the Quran and the Ahadith of the Prophet.
“The parties have accused each other of betrayal and have also objected that some authors’ books are not considered Muslim by them. Therefore, to determine the extent of betrayal and which authors’ books align with the beliefs of the parties, and further, since it is among the accepted principles of the parties that neither… nor… and whether the conclusions drawn from them are correct or not, and whether the parties can be bound by their opinions or not, a lot of time, extensive study, and considerable effort are required. Moreover, it is not expected that the result will be entirely clear and easily understandable. Therefore, all references have been ignored by restricting to the Holy Quran and Ahadith on one side and the books of Mirza Sahib and his successors on the other.”
A few pages later, it is reiterated that nothing other than the Quran and Hadith was considered authoritative in the decision.
“The distinction made by the defendant regarding the legality of revelation has not been supported by any evidence except the sayings of the elders, and these sayings have been explained and interpreted by the plaintiff, showing what is meant by these sayings of the elders. Other explicit sayings have been presented in which they accept the Messenger of Allah ﷺ as Khatam an-Nabiyyin (the last Prophet) and do not consider the coming of any other prophet after him ﷺ possible. However, there is no need to discuss these because they cannot be considered authoritative against the Holy Quran and Ahadith. The objection raised by the defendant against the plaintiff that no evidence from the Quran or Hadith has been presented regarding the reasons for Takfir being essential to religion primarily applies to the defendant himself, as he has not presented any evidence from the Quran or Ahadith regarding the division of revelation into lawful and unlawful.”
From all these excerpts, it is clear that the Bahawalpur case decision was made not solely on the basis of the Quran but on the basis of the Quran and Ahadith or the Book and Sunnah.
Parvez Sahib’s Misleading Claim and False Accusation Against the Honorable Judge
Suffering from ( یُحِبُّوْنَ اَنْ یُّحْمَدُوْا بِمَا لَمْ یَفْعَلُوْا) and driven by an obsession for fame to the point of madness, our “Thinker of the Quran” makes this misleading claim:
“In the aforementioned judgment, the honorable judge wrote that in his court, prominent and distinguished scholars from (undivided) India appeared, each of whose statements spanned hundreds of pages, but he was not satisfied with any of their statements regarding the reality of Prophethood.”
This claim is devoid of evidence and pure falsehood. Parvez Sahib has drawn this conclusion merely from his selective quotation; otherwise, the honorable judge nowhere wrote that he was not satisfied with any of the scholars’ statements.
On any page or line of the 184 pages, this statement of his is not present.
Is the Decision About the Point of Khatm-e-Nubuwwat or the Reality of Prophethood?
The actual fact is that the decisive point in this case was the meaning of the word “Khatam an-Nabiyyin,” which, according to the proponents of Qadianism, means “Seal of the Prophets,” while for the Ummah of the Prophet Hashmi it means “the Last Prophet.” The former meaning implies the continuation of prophethood, whereas the latter meaning results in the finality of prophethood. As for Mr. Parvez’s “quotation from the Bahawalpur case” spanning pages 107 to 109, it does not contain any explanation of the meaning of the word “Khatam an-Nabiyyin.” Now, both parties in the case undoubtedly agreed on the word “Khatam an-Nabiyyin,” but they differed over its meaning and interpretation. Its final decision, apart from the Quran, could only be possible from some source or entity, and what other source or entity could that be except the Holy Prophet ﷺ and his Ahadith? This is why the learned judge based his decision not solely on the Quran but on “Quran and Hadith” or “Kitab wa Sunnah.”
A Corrupt Foundation on the Corrupt:
After that, Mr. Parvez, devoid of reasoning and based purely on falsehood, further sharpens his corrupt blade on the foundation of his false and mixed claims as follows:
When he (the honorable judge) was satisfied with one of my articles, which was written completely independently of this case, the question arises: what was the special feature of my article that made it so satisfactory? It is evident that as far as the traditional Islamic sciences (Fiqh, Hadith, etc.) are concerned, the status of those scholars who appeared in this court was very high, but the specialty of my article was that it was based purely on Quranic facts. I did not get entangled in discussions based on Fiqh and traditions. The issue of Khatm-e-Nubuwwat (Finality of Prophethood), which has been a continuous subject of debate between Qadianis and non-Qadianis for sixty to seventy years and is like a piece of wood stuck in a whirlpool revolving at the same place, is due to the fact that this debate is based on traditions, and the nature of traditions is such that in their collections, both opponents and supporters find traditions according to their own meanings. The result is that the debate shifts away from the main topic and focuses on whether the Hadiths presented by the parties are authentic or weak, and thus it gets lost in the labyrinth of “Mahmal-e-Laila” and “Ghobar-e-Naqah-e-Laila.” In contrast, the Quran presents what is final, certain, and unequivocal, and it is impossible that regarding any issue, the parties find contradictory verses according to their own meanings. This is why I do not get entangled in traditions; whatever I present is based on Quranic evidence, and I also demand Quranic evidence from the opposing party. The result is that the matter becomes very clear.
In this self-praising excerpt, Mr. Parvez, as usual, asserts his superiority over the scholars in Quranic facts and knowledge, lamenting the contradictions in traditions, and the claim of the Quran being final, certain, and unequivocal is a special tactic of his consistent journalistic technique. The question is: which Hadiths on the issue of Khatm-e-Nubuwwat… “in which Qadianis and non-Qadianis find traditions according to their own meanings, resulting in the debate shifting from the main topic to the authenticity or weakness of the Hadiths presented by the parties, and getting lost in the labyrinth of Mahmal-e-Laila and Ghobar-e-Naqah-e-Laila”? Is there even a single tradition that can be pointed out in which the subject of the continuation of Prophethood (Ijra-e-Nubuwwat) is presented instead of the finality of Prophethood? Forget the debate on authentic or weak, just present a weak tradition in which a belief contrary to the finality of Prophethood is stated. When no such tradition exists, then this nonsense and babble against the Hadiths is nothing but gilding brass with gold to circulate counterfeit coins of his own thought.
Then, by declaring the Quran as “final, certain, and unequivocal,” the person who praises Allah Almighty for His poetry is the one whose views change every year like a measuring instrument. Today this, tomorrow that, here this, there that, sometimes this, sometimes that: women’s veil, songs and music, painting and idol-making, ownership of property, control of reproduction, Khalifatullah and divine caliphate, human nature, determination of time of death, whether religion and faith are synonymous or different in meaning, and whether the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ or the Prophet’s example is the source of Islamic law — in all these and other matters, which one is there in which a single “final, certain, and unequivocal” meaning has been adopted instead of a clear contradiction and inconsistency? And the irony is that these changing meanings and interpretations have been adopted “in the light of the Quran” itself.
Furthermore, to deceive someone, the “Mufakkir-e-Quran” (Thinker of the Quran) declares about the Quran that…
“It is impossible that regarding any issue, the parties find contradictory verses according to their own meanings. The verses have certainly remained the same for fourteen hundred years, but is it not a fact that even among those who accept only the Quran as evidence and proof (the ‘Balaagh-ul-Quran’ group of Samanabad, Lahore, and the ‘Tulu-e-Islam’ group of Gulberg, Lahore), there are differences to the extent that the people associated with Tulu-e-Islam not only belittle those associated with Balaagh-ul-Quran but also consider them enemies of the Quran and those who defame the Book of Allah? Did these two groups not find contradictory verses according to their own meanings? Are these two sects really unanimous on a ‘final, certain, and unequivocal’ stance based on the Quran? Has the matter become completely clear by the Quranic evidence of one group confronting the Quranic evidence of the other? The reality is that each of these two groups finds evidence for their own interests by stretching the Quranic verses, as the ‘Mufakkir-e-Quran’ himself says:
‘When someone sets out to distort the Quran, how can it provide evidence for their own interests?'”
On the other hand, he says… “It is impossible that regarding any issue, the parties find contradictory verses according to their own meanings in it (the Quran).”
And then he claims… “Whatever I present is based on Quranic evidence, and I also demand Quranic evidence from the opposing method. The result is that the matter becomes very clear…” Whereas what becomes clear from the Quranic evidence of the “Mufakkir-e-Quran” is a vast and extensive thorny bush of his new contradictions and inconsistencies. Despite the praise of the “Mufakkir-e-Quran” excerpt on the issue of Khatm-e-Nubuwwat, the honorable judge did not base his decision solely on “Quranic evidence” but made it in the light of the Quran and Hadiths. Perhaps the honorable judge wanted to confuse the matter by entangling it in traditions and Hadiths and lose it in the labyrinth of “Mahmal-e-Laila” and “Ghobar-e-Naqah-e-Laila” instead of clarifying it.
Regarding the scholars (especially those who appeared as witnesses in this case), the above excerpt also hints between the lines that they were unfamiliar with the reality of Prophethood in the eyes of the honorable judge, and this reality is only revealed by Mr. Parvez’s excerpt. However, the honorable judge nowhere wrote in his decision that… “The scholars are unfamiliar with the reality of the Prophet and Prophethood.” What he wrote is only:
“In the present time, many Muslims are unfamiliar even with the reality of the Prophet.”
But observe the mental treachery and literary dishonesty of the “Mufakkir-e-Quran” that he takes “many Muslims” to mean “scholars” and then attributes their unfamiliarity to the fact that “they are entangled in traditions and Hadiths,” while Mr. Parvez boasts that “I do not get entangled in discussions based on Fiqh and traditions.”
The “Mufakkir-e-Quran” did not present the excerpt he praised and admired in his book “Khatm-e-Nubuwwat aur Tehreek-e-Ahmadiyyat” so that it remains hidden from people’s eyes and the impression of its high status and value remains intact because revealing it would dispel this impression. This is because there is nothing unique or extraordinary in it that is not present in the books and writings of the scholars. However, the judge presented its text in his decision in these words:
According to the current rationalists, the concept of the Prophet is that he is a political leader and reformer of the nation who, influenced by the wisdom and misery of his nation, calls them towards welfare and prosperity and, within a few days, instills discipline and sacrifice in them, making them owners of the best lands on earth. His reality is like that of a nation’s wealthy person whose every command must be followed because deviation risks causing disruption in the collective strength of the nation and the worldly blessings obtained through his prudence might be lost. His prudence, intellect, wisdom, and mental capacity are the best links of human elevation; therefore, he is considered the best thinker of his environment. Through much austerity, the forces of evil are removed from him, and the forces of good prominently emerge. These forces are called by him as Iblis and angels, and he refers to them with Quranic verses. The Prophet is undoubtedly a reformer and caretaker of the nation, but his reality is entirely different from worldly reformers and caretakers. Worldly thinkers and caretakers are products of their environment, and their philosophy of reform and welfare is the result of their own intellectual flight, which is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. In contrast, the Prophets are appointed by Allah, and their chain in this world runs under the special will of Allah Almighty. They are neither influenced by their environment nor products of circumstances; rather, their selection is from the divine kingdom, and their source of knowledge and guidance is the knowledge of Allah Almighty, in which there is no room for error or mistake. Their chest is filled with divine knowledge, and their heart is illuminated with eternal light.
Worldly politics and thinking are acquired qualities that increase with practice and skill, but Prophethood is a divine attraction and gift in which acquisition and practice have no role. The progress of the nation and community is also in their view, but the foremost aim is the reform of human morals. Its message transcends the constraints of time and place, and it guides all humans and is their leader. Obedience to it is obedience to Allah, and disobedience to it is disobedience to Allah. The way of life it brings to the world cannot be altered by any worldly power, and wherever there is disagreement among the minds of the world, its decision can only be made by this torch of guidance. They receive the divine message through angels who, although related to the realm of command and superior to humans, are not merely the spiritual powers of humans.
Read this excerpt repeatedly and tell me what among these things is not presented by the scholars in their speeches and writings. In fact, according to the Quran, the reality of Prophethood includes some matters not even included in Mr. Parvez’s excerpt, such as the degree of respect for the Prophet that raising one’s voice in his presence nullifies deeds, the etiquette and reverence for his pure wives, who are like mothers to the believers and with whom marriage is not permissible even after the Prophet’s death, accepting his judgments in such a way that no constriction or distress is felt in hearts about them, otherwise it would cause expulsion from the fold of faith. The Prophet ﷺ was the most righteous person in character and conduct even before the manifestation of Prophethood, and this righteousness of character becomes the proof of his Prophethood. Even after the manifestation of Prophethood, he remains under the strict supervision of Allah Almighty, and if his step wavers even unintentionally from the right path, revelation warns him and sets his foot firmly on the straight path again.
The “Mufakkir-e-Quran” probably did not present this excerpt in his book “Khatm-e-Nubuwwat aur Tehreek-e-Ahmadiyyat” only to hide it from people’s eyes so that he could display his scholarly expertise and declare the scholars unfamiliar with the reality of Prophethood because revealing this excerpt would clarify that there is nothing in it that is not present in the speeches and books of the scholars.
From the evidence, it appears that if the honorable judge himself had tried to understand the reality of Prophethood, he would have found Mr. Parvez’s excerpt; otherwise, if he had asked any scholar in the court, surely some learned scholar would have clarified it for him because the scholars’ books contain much more detail on this subject than what is present in Mr. Parvez’s excerpt.
The “Mufakkir-e-Quran” wrongly concludes from the honorable judge’s praise of his excerpt that his excerpt was the basis of the judicial decision. If it is indeed a principle that the praise and admiration of an excerpt necessarily means that the decision is based on that excerpt, then why not consider the testimonies of the scholars presented in court as the basis of the decision? Whereas this judge not only praised and admired them but also confirmed, supported, and approved their arguments. Consider the following excerpts:
(1) “Regarding Mirza Sahib’s beliefs, Syed Anwar Shah, the plaintiff’s witness, gave a very excellent answer, he says…”
(2) “On behalf of the defendant, some references to Mirza Sahib’s books were given, claiming that Mirza Sahib did not insult any Prophet. Syed Anwar Shah, the plaintiff’s witness, gave a good answer, she says…”
In these statements, Syed Anwar Shah’s answers are praised and admired by calling them “very excellent” and “good,” and their confirmation and approval are also present on pages 155, 157, and 172 of “Faisla Muqadma Bahawalpur.” Furthermore, at some places, the entire group of scholars (who appeared as witnesses) is praised and confirmed. For example, at one point, when the defendant (i.e., the Qadiani husband of the plaintiff) insults the witnesses by saying… “These people are followers of outdated ideas and afflicted with the disease of Takfir,” and that “they have, out of old habit, malice, and hatred, declared the Qadianis as disbelievers,” the honorable judge responds:
“I do not say that scholars do not err or that they are free from human weaknesses, but this does not mean that their opinions should not be taken seriously or that their words should not be listened to. Rather, their statements should be considered calmly and it should be seen how far they are truthful. What they have said about the issue of Prophethood is not devoid of truth.”
At another place, the honorable judge confirms and approves the statements of the witnesses as follows:
“The plaintiff’s witnesses rightly said that if the revelation of Prophethood had continued after the Prophet ﷺ, it would certainly have been clarified in the Quran.”
If Mr. Parvez considers himself justified based on the praise and admiration of only one excerpt and only at one place, thinking that the entire decision and case are based on his excerpt, then the scholars who have had many of their statements praised, admired, confirmed, and approved at many places are even more deserving of this distinction.
A Matter Worth Considering
It is also worth noting here that if the decision of the learned judge was actually based solely on Mr. Parvez’s excerpt, then after that, the statements and excerpts of the scholars would not have been presented, and the judicial decision would have been finalized immediately after Mr. Parvez’s excerpt. However, looking at the “Record of the Bahawalpur Case,” it is evident that the excerpt of Parvez
came up during the discussion in the definition section, and then the judicial discussion (both before and after Parvez’s excerpt) was dominated by the testimonies and statements of the witnesses and parties involved in the case.
The Focus of the Decision: The Reality of Prophethood or the Finality of Prophethood?
The author of “Mufakkir-e-Quran” has convinced his readers and followers that the decision in the Bahawalpur case was made by the learned judge based on the reality of Prophethood as presented in his quotation, whereas the actual fact is that the decision hinged on the true meaning of the word “Khatam-un-Nabiyyin” (i.e., the Last Prophet). Consider the following excerpts from the learned judge:
“After this discussion, to resolve the main dispute, it is clarified which fundamental principles of Islam, if disputed, result in apostasy; that is, which Islamic beliefs, if not followed, can cause a person to be considered an apostate, and whether Qadiani beliefs cause apostasy or not.
From the above discussion, it has been established that the issue of the Finality of Prophethood is among the fundamental principles of Islam, and that not accepting the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ as Khatam-un-Nabiyyin in the sense that he is the last prophet results in apostasy; and according to Islamic beliefs, a person can be declared outside the fold of Islam by saying the Kalima or by disbelief.
The defendant considers Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib a prophet according to Qadiani beliefs and holds the belief that prophethood continues in the Ummah of Muhammad until the Day of Judgment, meaning he does not accept the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ as Khatam-un-Nabiyyin in the sense of the last prophet. The harms that arise from accepting another person as a new prophet after the Holy Prophet ﷺ have been detailed above; therefore, the defendant will be considered an apostate for deviating from this consensus belief. Even if apostasy means complete deviation from the principles of a religion, the defendant will be considered a follower of a new religion for accepting Mirza Sahib as a prophet, because in that case, the interpretation of the Quran and the norm will be Mirza Sahib’s revelation, not the Hadiths and sayings of jurists on which Islam was established until then, and whose authenticity Mirza Sahib himself has admitted.”
Accordingly, while delivering the verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the learned judge stated:
“The plaintiff has proven that Mirza Sahib is a false claimant of prophethood; therefore, the defendant will also be declared apostate for accepting Mirza Sahib. Hence, the preliminary injunctions issued on November 4, 1926, by the Court of Justice Ahmedpur Sharqia in favor of the plaintiff are upheld, and it is declared that the defendant has become an apostate due to adopting Qadiani beliefs. Therefore, the marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant has been annulled from the date of apostasy of the defendant. When the defendant’s beliefs are examined in light of the above discussion, the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that no Ummi prophet can come after the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, and that other beliefs attributed by the defendant to himself are according to general Islamic beliefs. However, he will be considered to follow all these beliefs in the meanings explained by Mirza Sahib, and since these meanings contradict those accepted by the majority of the Ummah until now, he cannot be considered a Muslim. In both cases, he is an apostate, and since apostasy annuls marriage, a decree is issued in favor of the plaintiff that from the date of the defendant’s apostasy, he is no longer her husband. The plaintiff will also be entitled to the costs of the case from the defendant.”
After this, the defendant presented some legal precedents in his favor, which the learned judge rejected on reasonable grounds. The defendant also raised another question, to which the learned judge gave a reasonable answer in his decision. Since the question and its answer are important, it is necessary to record them here for public benefit:
“In this regard, the defendant raised the question that since both parties consider the Holy Quran as the Book of Allah and the marriage with the People of the Book is permissible, the plaintiff’s marriage should not be declared annulled. The plaintiff responded that when both parties consider each other apostates, according to their own beliefs, their mutual marriage cannot remain valid. Moreover, marriage with women of the People of the Book is permissible, not with men. According to the plaintiff’s claim, since the defendant has become an apostate, even as a member of the People of the Book, the plaintiff’s marriage with him cannot remain valid. The plaintiff’s argument is found weighty; therefore, on this basis also, she deserves to obtain the decree.”
This entire discussion regarding the Bahawalpur case decision clarifies that:
(1) The decision was based on evidence from the Quran and Hadith (not solely on Quranic evidence).
(2) The decisive point on which the case was settled was the meaning and interpretation of the word “Khatam-un-Nabiyyin” (not the reality of prophethood itself).
(3) Although the evidence included reliance on the Hadiths of the Prophet along with the Quran, nowhere in the “Bahawalpur Case Decision” is it mentioned that “during the discussion of Hadith narrations, the debate deviated from the main subject and focused on the authenticity or weakness of the Hadiths presented by the parties,” and thus “the discussion got lost in trivial details.” Despite the discussion on Hadith narrations, the conclusion did not remain “like a piece of wood stuck in a whirlpool revolving in the same place,” but based on the Quran and Sunnah, the conclusion became “completely clear (and that too a final, certain, and unequivocal decision)” that adopting Qadianism makes one an apostate and outside the fold of Islam.
However, the author of “Tulu-e-Islam” and “Mufakkir-e-Quran” have falsely claimed this decision as a miracle of their “Quranic arguments,” which reveals that they themselves:
(1) Are extremely skilled in lying.
(2) Have highly advanced mental abilities for twisting matters, distorting facts and events, such that making a mountain out of a molehill is nothing; they are so expert and practiced that they can create a mountain even without a molehill, and no one else can match their level.
(3) To sustain this lie (and make it entirely true), they had to resort to many other falsehoods and slander the learned judge, which exposes that lying is their very nature and their spiritual nourishment.
(4) Then, adding insult to injury, they say: “When Ahmadis were declared non-Muslims in 1974, the 1935 case was also widely discussed in the country, and you will be surprised to know that our great scholars discussed it but made every effort to ensure that Mr. Parvez’s name did not come up in this context. This shows their narrow-mindedness, jealousy, and malice…” This statement reveals as clearly as the midday sun that they never felt even a shred of accountability before God in the Hereafter.
(5) Taking credit for others’ achievements is a very low, mean, and petty act on one hand, and on the other hand, deceiving people by throwing dust in their eyes and keeping them in darkness through deception and fraud is no less despicable.
Just consider that a person of this kind, who does not hesitate to lie, deceive, cheat, slander, and falsely accuse the creation of God, what distortions he cannot bring about under the guise of interpreting the Word of Allah!!!
