Was Mirza Persian?

by Farhan on November 24, 2008

Narrated in Sahih Bukhari, Book 31, Hadith 6177

“Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: If the din were at the Pleiades, even then a person from Persia would have taken hold of it, or one amongst the Persian descent would have surely found it.

The Ahmadis often argue that this hadith refers to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.  How, you ask?  Because he revived Islam and was of Persian ancestry.  So, does this hadith refer to him?  Lets analyze.

Historically, the Persian people carried the banner of Islam for hundreds of years.  Many of the great scholars of Islam, in its various sciences from Fiqh (codified law), to ‘aqidah (theology), to Arabic grammar, to spirituality were Persian.  For example, Imam al-Ghazali, Al-Zamakhshari (The great scholar of the Arabic language) and many many others.

Now, they argue, that another Persian man has come to revive Islam.  Whether or not he really revived Islam aside, was Mirza Persian?  …was he really?  Lets analyze.

According to the modern definition of nationality, the Ahmadis might have a valid argument.  If they can show that his ancestry hailed from Persia, then he is Persian.  But, this understanding of race and nationality is not in accordance with the Islamic understanding.  It is based off of the nationalistic European understanding of race and ethnicity that crept into the collectively Muslim psyche during the periods of colonization.  But, this is not how Muslims historically understand nationality.

Traditionally, nationality was based on where someone lived, not where their ancestry hailed. For example, the great companion Suhayb ar-Rumi’s background was Arab from the village of al-Thani.  At a young age, he was captured and sold as a slave into the Byzantine empire and lived amongst them, but eventually returned to Arabia.  Even though he was ethnically Arab, he was called a Roman.  Likewise, Ahmad ibn Ibrahim “Ibn Nuhaas” the author of Kitab al-Jihad [not of the pen!], was called Al-Dimashqi (the Syrian) because he was originally from Syria and when he relocated to Egypt, he was called al-Dumyati (a city in Egypt).  His nationality changed based on his area of residence.

Were people cognizant of their ancestory?  Yes, of course.  But, that was less important, more of a minute- a trivial detail.  Nationality was based on your place of birth and/or your place of residence (depending on who you asked).  If your great great grandparents were from Samarqand (modernday Uzbekistan), but you were born and raised in Iraq, you were Iraqi.  If you moved to Al-Andulus (Spain) and settled there, you were Aundulusi.  At most, your ancestry mattered two to three generations back.

How does Mirza measure up to this standard?  Mirza never left India for any significant amount of time [not even to perform Hajj].  He lived and died in India.  His father Mirza Ghulam Murtaza, grandfather Mirza Ata Muhammad and great grandfather Mirza Gul Muhammad were all from India.  He even referred to himself as ” Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani“  Based on this classical understanding, Mirza was 100% Hindi (Indian), not Persian. Therefore, the narrations about the Persian people and how they will revive Islam have nothing to do with him.

And we put our trust in Allah that He made guide the Ahmadis to Islam.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }

islam976 November 24, 2008 at 8:45 pm

Brother, a couple of points.

a. “Mirza” is a prefix used by millions in history who were of Mughal descent. While trying to mention the Promised Messiah (as), atleast have the politeness to mention his name.

b. You missed another famous person who was known by his nationality among the early muslims. The most famous of all; Salman Farsi. Not Salman al-Makki or Salman al-Madani.

Reply

Farhan Khan November 24, 2008 at 9:31 pm

The point was to have a catchy introduction. Shall I refer to him as ‘Ghulam’ for future reference?

I mentioned Salman al-Farisi. Yes, just like Ahmad ibn Ibrahim, who was born in Syria, but moved to Egypt. He was known by those two titles. Salman al-Farisi was known by his place of Birth.

The point of this short article was to show that, according to the understanding of the earliest Muslims, nationality was not “My great great great great great great (more and more) grandfather was from Germany. Therefore, I am German”. Likewise, I am sure the Ahmadis can produce some kind of family lineage showing that he was Persian way back when. But, that doesn’t mean anything after a while.

May Allah guide the Ahmadis to Islam.

Reply

Farhan Khan November 24, 2008 at 10:43 pm

eek! I had mentioned Salman al-Farisi, deleted that paragraph, and forgot to put it back in. np.

But, the argument still stands. MGA was not Persian, he was Indian.

Reply

islam976 November 25, 2008 at 12:49 pm

It will be Ghulam Ahmad, not Ghulam alone. Just like a person who cares for the correct usage of Arabic will dislike the use of “Abdul” instead of full name “Abdullah”, the use of word Ghulam on its own is not proper. Either call him Ghulam Ahmad or Ahmad.

Also, in India of those days, Mughals were a distinct race. They were referred to as Turks and were the direct descendants of Taimur (Tamerlane). Taimur referred to himself as a Turk and had links to the Mongols from his maternal side. This tribe gave rise to what is known as the Persian mughals. Or mughals who spoke persian and followed the persian cultural practices after their settlement in the Persian region. The fact is, that Mughals during the Mughal empire were never referred to as Hindustanis but of Turkic/Persian stock. This was made abundantly clear in the writings of that era. Even the British who executed the princes in Red Fort in 1857 knew that they were killing the remnants of the house of Tamerlane (as quoted in “the last Mughal”).

Reply

Shahid November 26, 2008 at 12:02 am

@Islam976: His name was Ghulam Ahmad, and he signed himself as that, so thanks for the clarification. We can’t in all honesty call him Ahmad by your own argument though, can we?

After all, there are people in the subcontinent called “Ghulam Allah”. Would it be OK by you to call them “Allah”?

Reply

Farhan Khan November 26, 2008 at 2:22 am

@Islam976, Again, you are working in the European paradigm.

By our Islamic definition, he was 100% Hindi (language, culture, place of birth, place of death, family, etc). The Persians are the people from Persia. He was an Indian.

(And, wasn’t it Timur Lang with a G? I love Turkish culture)

Reply

islam976 November 27, 2008 at 9:59 am

The Mughal Emperors were of Turko-Mongol, and later Rajput and Persian, descent, and developed a highly sophisticated mixed Indo-Persian culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire

Reply

Farhan Khan November 27, 2008 at 11:12 am

I don’t understand why you keep repeating the same point, despite my earlier objection.

You are looking at this from the perspective of “Ahmadiyya is right, let me see how I can reinterpret the Sunnah to confirm.”

I sincerely mean this, May Allah guide you.

Reply

Peace October 23, 2009 at 10:23 am

Farhan Khan,
No matter whether we are using European thought or not but the truth cannot be broken that the Promised Messiah was indeed the descendent of the Persians (in terms of genetics), our thought system cannot make some 100% german or 100% Hindi no matter how far back in generations we go!

May Allah guide you! Ameen

Reply

SearchingForTruth December 23, 2008 at 10:02 am

Mirza writes in his book Kitab-ul-Barriyah page 162 (pdf 164 of 368)

“My biography is as such that my name is Mirza Ghulam Ahamd, my father’s name is Ghulam Murztaza, grand father’s name is Ata Muhammad and my great grand father’s name was Gul Muhammad. As it has been stated that our tribe (Qaum/Zaat) is Mughal Barlas. And from my families old document which are still present my ancestors migrated from Samarkand”.

http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/4333/mga4ea5.png

Reply

akbar March 19, 2009 at 4:36 pm

salaam..
the matter here is very difficult. some believes Al-Mahdi must be descended from Persian, and some trying to prove it was.

This argument is being argued for too long until we forgot the other many hadiths that is more utmost than this genealogy matter.

So for those who believe Al-Mahdi is a Persian, they may have to wait..Wait until there is one or you can check on Bahaullah(he claimed prophethood and he is Persian)Just click Bahaullah and you will find one. I hope you will thanked me.-OR

You stick to the hadith In the famous book of Ahadith, Musnad Ahmad by Imam Ahmad bin Hambal, there is one prophetic Hadith narrated by Hadhrat Huzaifa (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be on him.) said:

“Prophethood will remain among you as long as Allah wills. Then khilafat on the lines of Prophethood shall commence, and remain as long as Allah wills. Then corrupt/erosive monarchy would take place, and it will remain as long as Allah wills. After that, despotic kingship would emerge, and it will remain as long as Allah wills. Then, the khilafat shall come once again based on the precept of Prophethood.”

Imam is a must rather than quarrel about others. Unite under one khalifah is better for Muslim. Just look for the Jemaat who has their Imam(Khalifah) or rest for whole life in a forest till you death..

Reply

profitprophet April 4, 2009 at 11:49 am

lol akbar

Your Mirza claimed to be Persian and Chinese both. Your Khalifa are nothing more than puppet. They may be called Qadiani leaders at best. They have no power or authority to rule you by law of Allah[SWT]. Rather your leader is also bound by law of the land. If he go against the law of UK he’ll be punished by Victoria ;) . What kind of Khalifa he is? Are you sure this is kind of Khilafat Prophet Muhammed told us?

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: