The Shirk of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

Shirk is regarded as a major sin in Islam and the chief major sin among the group. Shirk is the concept of the sin of polytheism specifically, and refers to worshipping other than Allah (SWT), associating partners with Him, giving His characteristics to other than Him, or not believing in His characteristics and Allah (SWT) knows best.

“Surely Allah does not forgive that anything should be associated with Him, and forgives what is besides that to whomsoever He pleases; and whoever associates anything with Allah, he devises indeed a great sin.”(The Holy Qur’an, Surah An-Nisa (4) Ayah 48)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself acknowledges this as he says,

“…God will forgive every sin for whomsoever He wills, but He will not forgive Shirk – associating anything with Him.” (The Essence Of Islam, Volume 1, Page 89)

In 1907, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad gave a ruling on a belief that he considered was shirk.

“…It is rude to say that Jesus didn’t die, and it is indeed major shirk”. (Roohani Khazain, Volume 22, Haqiqat-Ul-Wahi, Page 660)

This is his opinion, his fatwa if you will that if an individual is holding such a belief then s/he is committing a grave sin in the form of shirk. However, earlier in his life in the year 1880, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad says,

“….But as a body of Muslims was firmly of the faith – and I too believed – that Jesus (AS) would descend from heaven… my earlier belief… which I had set down in Brahin-e-Ahmadiyyah… I was (then) convinced by several conclusive verses that Jesus Son of Mary (AS) had indeed died” (The Essence Of Islam, Volume 4, Page 46)

This is reiterated by A.R. Dard in his biography of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

“Ahmad (as) reiterated in the Brahin-e-Ahmadiyya, published in 1884, the popular belief that Jesus (as) was alive in the heavens and that he would come again to this world… It was in 1891, when God informed Ahmad (as) that Jesus (as) had died, that he changed his belief in this respect.” (Life Of Ahmad, Page 50 by A.R. Dard)

These standards of shirk were set by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself, not me, not you, not his opponents or anyone else for that matter. He believed it was shirk that Hazrat Isa (AS) was alive up until 1891. Therefore at least during the first fifty-six years of his life and the first fifteen years after supposedly being assigned as a “prophet”, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad believed Hazrat Isa (AS) was alive and was, in his own words, committing an unforgivable sin in the form of shirk.

If any Ahmadi can prove otherwise, I will remove this blog entry. This does not mean resorting to an ad-hominem argument by insulting me, attempting to belittle me or attacking what I believe and above all trying to find fault with the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) which many Ahmadi do when confronted by such a predicament.

It is as simple as this, did Mirza Ghulam Ahmad commit shirk? Do you believe it is possible for a Prophet of Allah (SWT) to commit shirk, the most heinous of sins, not only for a matter of seconds but a matter of years? If you believe he didn’t, please provide an explanation in light of the information above and I must reiterate, address the argument and the facts not the man.

Above all please do not insult the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) by suggesting guidance on this matter was not available or that he (SAW) erred in his life. In addition to this whether Jesus (AS) is alive or dead is secondary so please do not divert the topic. The matter we are discussing is shirk and the admission of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad that he was indulging in what he considered beliefs comprising shirk.

May Allah (SWT) guide us to the truth. Ameen.

Be Sociable, Share!

33 thoughts on “The Shirk of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

  1. Yes, there is no doubt that Mirza Sahib did commit ‘Shirk,’ according to his own statements. This is what I always mention, that it is the Sunnah of Allah s.w.t (God Almighty) that he proves the liar through is own teachings. Now Ahmadis please open your eyes and study for yourself about Mirza Sahib so that you can protect your Aakhirah (life in the heareafter).

    • Indeed my brother. This evidence proving the falsehood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has been floating around for so long and is so important that it had to be blogged. I’m surprised we didn’t put it up earlier as many brothers have made this point to Ahmadis on numerous forums.

      • Nice work Tahir!!!

        It seems that mirza sahib had a penchant for disrespecting people in general. He instigated the hindus in the early 1880’s..subsequently… in reply to MGAQ, they wrote terrible things about Islam and Muhammad (saw)…Lekh Ram unleashed the worst type of language towards Muhammad (Saw). The ulema didnt engage hindus and sikhs like MGAQ did….

        Mirza sahib’s life was nothing more than starting trouble, his supposed dawah efforts only caused disrespect to Islam. I hope that Ahmadis wake up sooooooon…i want my family back.

  2. “The People of the Scripture ask you to bring down to them a book from the heaven. But they had asked of Moses [even] greater than that and said, “Show us Allah outright,” so the thunderbolt struck them for their wrongdoing. Then they took the calf [for worship] after clear evidences had come to them, and We pardoned that. And We gave Moses a clear authority [Quran 4:154/153]”

    0. I am not here to defend Mr Mirza Ghulam.
    1. Final decision is taken on the day of judgement, not here. But if you die in a state of ignorance, then you’re really scr3wed.
    2. I think believing that Hadhrat Isa physically ascended in heavens towards the location of Allah leads to the concept trinity or duality (if you do not count Jesus as ‘son’. But anyways, you already crossed the deadly boundary IMO).

    • wow. This is unbelievably clear. According to MGA, belief in hazrat eisa being raised in Shirk e AKBAR. I never knew that till I read this post. Shirk e AKBAR mean, that the person is a Kafir outside Islam.

      Hence he himself was a musrik and KAFIR during his mission as Tahir stated. Not only that almost every Muslim and scholar since the prophet was a kafir outside Islam according to MGAs ruling.

      @Tahir, Amazing post Alhamdolillah. They key is Tauheed and Shirk in evaluating any sect. I have a suggestion.

      Do research on Tauheed. Specifically Tauheed of Hakimiyaa of Allah. And research on Taghut and decisions by Taghut. To be a muslim you have to negate all ilah except Allah. Rejection of all Taghut. MGA, essentially accepted Taghut in terms of British Law and hence was a mushrik and all his followers mushrikeen.

        • you are very welcome.

          The incredible significance (Alhamdolillah) of your post in addition to the fact that MGA was mushrik by his own critieria, is that it retroactively preforms takfir going back to the prophet.

          The thing is until now one could say that if anyone did not accept MGA or his teaching after he had come, they would be kafirs from Ahmadi logic.

          However with this piece it seems from an ahmadi law point of view anyone previous to MGA who believed in accession was a Mushrik and a Kafir, thus declaring pretty much every scholar and muslim prior to MGA to be a kafir and outside islam.

          • You are on point brother. In an earlier correspondence over email this morning, brother Rationalist made this exact point to me too. I didn’t want to include it in the body of the article as it would then take away the focus from what we are all trying to convey to Ahmadis regarding this entry, in that MGA is admitting he committed shirk for a number of years during his alleged “prophethood”.

            But, you’re correct and it is a strong valid point. Thus when an Ahmadi quotes the likes of Imam Abu Hanifah (RA), Al-Hasan Al-Basri (RA), Ibn Al-Arabi (RA), Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi (RA), Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani (RA), Jalaluddin Al-Suyuti (RA) and numerous other eminent ulema then they are quoting people they regard mushrik as you pointed out. If they disagree then they are contradicting the belief of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

            This is yet another point for Ahmadis to seriously reflect and ponder. Your religion declares every scholar of the past a mushrik…

    • Brother what relevance does this have to the post? This isn’t about did Hazrat Isa (AS) ascend or did he not argument. This is quite simple. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad believes that this belief is shirk. We are not arguing and do not want to enter dialogue of whether it is shirk or it isn’t shirk or the justification for either side of the argument, it’s irrelevant to the point. He believes it is shirk, that’s the important point. If he believes it is shirk then one has to acknowledge that he himself held this belief and he was opposing the unity of God while he was assigned as a “prophet”. I fail to see the logic in this “prophethood” and that is ultimately what we are trying to convey. Ahmadis, please reflect over this point. How is this possible?

      • Precisely. We can what this means, but that’s not the topic of the post.

        The fact is, Mirza considered it shirk, yet held the same belief. So at one point, this “prophet” was a mushrik.

      • Tahir/ this is just simply like saying you are doing wrong, yet, to your own judgement you are not doing anything wrong, though, others in the opinion that it is wrong you turned around and said
        since you do not set up your own standard, therefore, you are not in the wrong. You cannot argue over the fact, therefore, you think you are clever lot playing with the words.

        Hazrat Ghulam Ahmad was duty bound to inform muslim at large when Allah revealed to him that Jesus(AS) infact had indeed died and to believe so is shirk that does not meant he himself commited shirk prior to that.

        • You are again itching to divert the topic. If you want to discuss anything outside the scope of the article then please join the forum where you will have free range to discuss the topics you desire.

          It was his duty to reveal this? I didn’t say it wasn’t. That’s not what we are arguing.

          Answer me this, prior to having “revealed” to everyone that this belief was shirk, every single person from the time of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) to 1907 who held this belief, were they committing shirk?

          Please give me a straightforward answer. Either they were or either they were not. Of course feel free to justify your answer but include whether that is the case (i.e. they were committing shirk) or whether that is not the case (i.e. none of them were committing shirk).

          • Tahir, who are those people exactly you refering to
            from the time of The Holy Prophet(SAW) held the belief that Jesus(AS) was alive bodily in heaven?
            Abu Bakar(RA), Omar(RA), Othman(RA) or Ali(RA)? or may be you attributed such belief to The Holy Prophet(SAW) himself (NAUZUBILLAH). Non of them held such belief, otherwise, The Holy Prophet(SAW) would not have given different descriptions with regard to the complexion and feature between the former Eisa(AS) and the coming “Eisa” are you ignorant of the hadith or is it your nature to say every hadith produce by Ahmadis as evidence is not aunthantic?

            Are you not ignorant of the Islamic history as well? in case you may have forgotten let me remind you what happened to Omar(RA) when he heard that The Holy Prophet(SAW) had passed away, He(RA) was hysterical coz he did not think that The Holy Prophet(SAW) as normal human being could die, he threatened to beheaded who ever said so, Abu Bakar(RA) managed to calm him down by reciting the Quraanic verse whoever belief in Muhammad indeed He had passed away as those prophets before Him, who ever belief in Allah indeed Allah live forever, now, had Omar(RA) held the belief that the former Eisa(AS) still alive bodily in heaven he would had protest against Abu Bakar(RA) view, the fact He(RA) did not, indicated that the story that Eisa(AS) still alive bodily in heaven is fake. We are not so sure how such corrupted idea managed to creep into the pure teaching of Islam, nontheless, after Allah revealed to Hazrat Ahmad the truth we believe that it is something tanatamount to shirk and must be forsaked that’s what he did when he told muslim at large but that does not meant he commited shirk himself.

          • In reply to the response below (seems to be no reply option)… Why again are you trying to divert the topic? It’s regardless of which people I am referring to, it makes no difference to the question I asked which you conveniently failed to answer.

            The only relevant part to your whole reply was “after Allah revealed to Hazrat Ahmad the truth we believe that it is something tanatamount to shirk and must be forsaked that’s what he did when he told muslim at large but that does not meant he commited shirk himself.”

            Are you trying to say prior to this “revelation” it was not shirk for anyone to hold this belief? P.S. He doesn’t say it is “tantamount to shirk”. He says it is shirk. Please stop trying to divert the topic. I mean I even purposely stated this in the body of the article as we constantly have this problem with Ahmadis who simply cannot answer a question directly and try to take the topic elsewhere.

            This tactic will not work with us. If this was my first dealing with an Ahmadi I would have fallen for it and began naming you people who held this belief and answered your irrelevant comments too. But for umpteenth time of asking will you please stop trying to divert the issue here.

            I’ll don’t want to enter in to a “debate”, especially when you’re failing to even grasp the simplicity of what is being asked. You claim MGA was not committing shirk when he held this belief, why? Also as I asked before was it shirk to hold this belief prior to 1907? Did it therefore only become shirk post-1907? These are simply questions and your reluctant to answer them which is wasting my time and those of whom are reading. If you attempt to divert the topic again then please don’t bother replying.

            We are not going to get in to a debate about who held this belief from the time of the Prophet (SAW), why it is shirk, why it isn’t shirk, does it mean prophethood cannot continue, the meaning of “seal”, is Isa (AS) alive, did he (AS) ascend, the meaning of “raising” or any other irrelevant issue you pick to divert the attention of the point. The topic is shirk in the context of MGA’s comments given in the body of the article and the fact he too held these beliefs. If you want to talk about anything else, join the forum.

    • My mind is almost certain that Mr Mirza cannot be a prophet. He did shirk in his life according to himself which prophets do not do even before their prophetic missions.

      Bukhari Volume 5 : Book 58 : Hadith 169 :

      Narrated by ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar:

      The Prophet met Zaid bin ‘Amr bin Nufail in the bottom of (the valley of) Baldah before any Divine Inspiration came to the Prophet. A meal was presented to the Prophet but he refused to eat from it. (Then it was presented to Zaid) who said, “I do not eat anything which you slaughter in the name of your stone idols. I eat none but those things on which Allah’s Name has been mentioned at the time of slaughtering.” Zaid bin ‘Amr used to criticize the way Quraish used to slaughter their animals, and used to say, “Allah has created the sheep and He has sent the water for it from the sky, and He has grown the grass for it from the earth; yet you slaughter it in other than the Name of Allah. He used to say so, for he rejected that practice and considered it as something abominable.

  3. Tahir Hussain, “These standard of shirk were set by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself, not me, not you, not his opponents or any one else for that matter.” what do you mean by himself? do you mean to say that those muslim at large during his time did not held the same believe that Eisa(AS) was alive bodily in heaven? he said that as a body of muslim (muslim at large) at that time was firmly of faith he too believed that Jesus(AS) would descend from heaven that was his earlier belief before Allah s.w.t revealed to him the truth that Jesus(AS) infact had indeed died, thus, these standard of shirk were set by a body of muslim not by Mirza himself, why are you putting the blame on him alone when those body of muslim at that time also believe Jesus(AS) was still alive bodily in heaven, were they not the one set up these standard of shirk?

    • The Prophet SAAWS lived in a society full of shirk, yet he never engaged in shirk. The society at large has no relevance.

      According to Mirza, he committed shirk. Prophets never commit shirk.
      Ipso facto, Mirza was not a prophet.

    • Sorry for the confusion. I mean he is the one who is saying it is shirk to believe Hazrat Isa (AS) is alive/in heaven. Thus he set that standard. It’s basically like me saying that using the name Yalesh for Allah (SWT) is shirk, that would be me setting a standard for what is shirk (not that I would as I follow the consensus of the ulema not dream up my own interpretations). My motive for the Yalesh related shirk comment would be to then go back and say look Ahmadiyya is this and that, however that would be against my own standard that I set i.e. Yalesh is shirk.

      So what I meant was when Mirza Ghulam Ahmad says it is shirk to believe Hazrat Isa (AS) is alive then he set that standard, no one tried to prove that believing he (AS) is alive is shirk to then go an counter the earlier belief of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in that he too believed he (AS) was alive in heaven. No one forced him to set this precedent of shirk. The point thus being we didn’t set this benchmark of shirk to then go back and point out something from his book. He set the standard himself and thus we are judging him by that standard. Hope that clears it up and makes my sentence which you quoted make sense.

      And brother Farhan has put this in it’s most simplest terms. He (MGA) committed shirk and this is not compatible with his alleged station of prophethood.

      • Tahir Hussain, your whole idea of raising this matter is to prove that Mirza was not the true prophet of Allah, alright, if that is the case am willing to give you a benefit of doubt, let’s agreed that what you have asserted is true, what does it prove then? does it prove that spirituality blessing in the form of prophethood has come to an end? does it prove that the purpose of the advent of the Holy Prophet(SAW) was to close/shut sprituality blessing avenue? does it prove that prophethood that is subjected and being sealed with The Holy Prophet(SAW) prophethood thus is classified as the NEW prophet?.

        Tahir Hussain, pls eleborate further all the questions I posted
        in the light of Quraanic verses :-
        a) Surah Al ahzab verse 40
        b) Surah Nisa verse 69/70
        c) Surah Fatiha verse 6

        Do not just based your argument on something superficial.

        • Your post has absolutely no relevance to the theme of the article. Why are you diverting the topic? Why do Ahmadis do this? Are we talking about the seal? Are we talking about spirituality? No. If you want to make a constructive post, please begin by answering the question asked in the actual article, in light of the evidence provided was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad committing shirk during his alleged period of “prophethood”?

          • @ Syed Adnan

            Remember….Mirza sahib was given a revelation in 1880 wherein he was called Nazir by his God. 21 years later in Eik Ghalti Ka Izala he said that an alternate reading was that his God called his a nabi.

            Here is the quote:

            Then there is this Divine revelation recorded
            on page 557 of Brahin-e-Ahmadiyya (1880-1884):

            ‘A Warner came unto the world.’
            another rendering of which is:
            ‘A Prophet came unto the world.’
            At several other places in Brahin-e-Ahmadiyya, I have similarly been addressed as ‘Messenger’.

          • My dear Brother,

            This is a “slam dunk situation………..” The article has produced a strong proof of Mirza Ghulam Sahib’s mentally confused teachings and lies.

            Anyone who is smart would right away recognize it. However, some others may take time and may want more proof before being convinced. I for sure am convinced that beyond doubt Mirza Sahib was no Prophet or a Messiah.

            Last but not the least, there are others who would not believe no matter how much evidence is provided. Some Ahmadis fall under this category unfortunately. That’s when you say unto you is your Deen………….and we follow what Allah s.w.t. has guided us to.

          • @ MK

            You are soooo right. When we differ with the KUFFAR…we follow the chapter of the Quran that advises on the situation, i.e. Surah Kafirun.

            Instead of following this Quranic principle, the maniac mind of the Mirza issued these strange ‘death-threats’ and insults to the leaders of all religions.

            He called Muslims as Mushriks, he cursed and defamed hindus, sikhs, christians and jews. He should have never dabbled in religion. He was a source of embarrasment for the ulema of India, they had no choice but to call him a Kafir.

  4. Game, set and match. Good post brother Tahir. I can’t remember who first raised this argument, but it’s about time it got a post of its own. jazakallah khayran, may Allah reward you.

  5. Ahh its all about simple logic! The Qadianis need to apply a little logic, with a serving of common sense and voila.. !! You see this also proves there is NO room for any changes, add ons, bolt ons, explanations, warnings, prophecies, more warnings and what not in Islam! The second anyone tries to make any adjustments is when everything and I mean literally everything, is turned upside down! There is no way Allah SWT would allow for this. Islam was completed when the final chapter of the Quran was revealed to Prophet Mohammad (SAW). Simple. Ahmadis use Islamic history to sugar coat their lies but none of them seem to think its the same Islam that is opposed to everything they stand for! This short blog piece proves that. There are no ifs and buts. Period. Excellent Bro!

  6. Tahir, had those muslim body/muslim at large during Hazrat Ahmad time knew it was shirk to held the belief that Jesus(AS) was still alive bodily in heaven they would have certainly forsake it, only people like you insisted that it was not shirk, therefore, you feel
    it is even alright to held such belief till currently.

    [admin: Please respond to the direct question.]

    • This is not a question but rather it is implication, in doing so Tahir Husain tried to display his skill in playing with words, he said Hazrat Ahmad commited shirk
      because he himslef set up the standard while others did not set up the standard,
      therefore, though it was shirk at the same time it was not, what kind of BULLHEADED is this? murder is murder, if someone commited murder he cannot just simply said it is not because he did not set up the standard, will the judge buy this sort of reasoning from him? so, when Hazrat Ahmad reminded those muslim what they had belief so far was shirk, Tahir turned around and implicated Hazrat Ahmad of shirk.

      • What kind of logic are you using? The example of murder is universally accepted not restricted to MGA. The shirk of MGA is according to Ahmadiyya theology. Why are you continually dodging my questions? I didn’t even bother replying to your last post as you are doing nothing but wasting time. You’re not searching for truth, you’re making blind defences based on emotions.

        Answer me two simple questions or please do not bother wasting my time.

        1) Is believing “Jesus (AS) is alive in heaven” shirk?
        2) Did MGA believe Jesus (AS) was alive in heaven for at least the first fifty-six years of his life and the first fifteen years after supposedly being assigned as a “prophet”?

        Do not bother giving me more of your empty rhetoric. This isn’t a play on words, it is the carelessness of your “prophet”. One under the guidance of Allah (SWT) is not careless when it comes to aqida. It’s funny how Ahmadis find it so hard to answer questions related to their “prophet”. Simple logic. Why would anyone want to talk about more serious issues with one who is evasive and clearly has comprehension issues. Answer the questions and then tell me this is an implication. These are the words of your “prophet”, not mine so stop the emotional replies and let’s have a constructive dialogue on this issue otherwise you have your faith and I have mine. May Allah (SWT) guide us to the truth.

        • @ admin

          Adnan is brainwashed to believe that Mirza sahib was an honest person. He just cant get through the blinders that have been installed on his brain. I really feel sorry for the guy.

          My advice to Adnan is to keep reading this blog and the forum. At some point you will figure out that Mirza sahib would fly into bouts of rage wherein he would curse all peoples of all religions uncontrollably. The case as mentioned above is a prime example of the rage of MGAQ.

      • @ Adnan

        I have been intensly studying Ahmadiyyat for the past 4-5 years. You wouldnt believe how much I read.

        Mirza Sahib cursed everyone. He even cursed his own children, the 2 from his first wife that is. Thats yet another techicality you should look up. Then he wrote the 1000 curses and even numbered them.

        I mean…how much longer will you believe this guy to be something other than a psycho… who was incapable of communicating with the same mammal species?

        • haha, I can’t confirm or deny his cursings, but I can affirm that Rationalist is obsessed with reading and research, ma sha Allah.

          • @ Farhan

            When I engage with Ahmadis I like to know what their respective reading level is. I mean, it has taken me yeeeeears to be able to understand the thought process of Mirza sahib. It seems that every month I learn more about him, and trust me, its all negative. Most Ahmadis have no idea of these death threats and incessant cursing when he got frustrated.

            As a child, I was taught Surah Kafiroon (age 5). This is childrens level of learning. Surah Kafiroon teaches us that if you differ with the non-Muslims it is better to avoid them. A Muslim shouldnt poke and annoy the non-Muslims in situations where they are not willing to listen to the truth.

            As I have read about Mirza sahib I have noticed that he didnt have regard for anyone or any religion. He just didnt care. He wanted fame. notoriety and MONEY. Analyzing the case of MGAQ is like surveying the career of a pop star. The motto is bad-press is better than no press. And that was how MGAQ ran his business, i.e. Ahmadiyyat.

            Allah taught Muslims this chapter very early on in Mecca. It seems that MGAQ never read it. Which explains the psychological state of the Mirza.

Comments are closed.