Family Background and Early Life
The exact date of birth of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is not known. However, according to Ahmadi literature, he was born on 13 February 1835 in the village of Qadian, district Gurdaspur, Punjab, which now lies in Indian Punjab.
His family traced its lineage back to the Mughal emperors, which is why he was given the title Mirza. It should be noted that in India and Pakistan, people belonging to Mughal families are usually called Mirza. His father’s name was Mirza Ghulam Murtaza, and his mother’s name was Chiragh Bibi.
Spencer Lavan, in his book The Ahmadiyya Movement, writes that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s father, Mirza Ghulam Murtaza, along with his brothers, formally joined the army of Raja Ranjit Singh of Punjab in 1818. They fought alongside Ranjit Singh’s forces and captured nearby villages in Kashmir. In 1823, when Ranjit Singh conquered Peshawar, Mirza Ghulam Murtaza also played an active role in it. Later, Murtaza began working at the court of Ranjit Singh and succeeded in gaining his favor. As a reward, Ranjit Singh granted him five villages in the Qadian area between 1834–35. It was during this period that Murtaza’s second son, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, was born.
Childhood and Education
Belonging to a wealthy family, his father appointed a tutor, Fazal Ilahi, to teach him at home when he was seven years old. Fazal Ilahi was from the Hanafi school of thought. He taught him the Qur’an as well as the Persian language. In 1845, another teacher, Fazal Ahmad, who was influenced by the ideas of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the leader of Wahhabi Islam, began to teach him Arabic. At the same place, Batala, a boy named Muhammad Husain also studied with Mirza, who later became the renowned Ahl-e-Hadith scholar, Maulvi Muhammad Husain Batalvi. When Mirza turned seventeen, he was also taught by a Shia teacher named Gul Ali Shah.
Personal Life & Relations with Indian Brithish Government
In the same year, Mirza was married, in a simple ceremony, to his cousin, Hurmat Bibi. According to Spencer Lavan, while the marriage of his elder brother had been celebrated with great pomp — for which his father had even invited twenty-two dancing girls — Mirza’s own marriage was conducted with simplicity. He had two sons with Hurmat Bibi, but the marriage failed, and he eventually divorced her. It is said that Hurmat Bibi and her two sons Mirza Sultan Ahmad and Mirza Fazal Ahmad did not accept Mirza Ahmad’s claims of Massieh, Mahdi and Zili Prophet. Later, in 1884, when Mirza Ahmad was about fifty years old, he married for the second time.
During the War of Independence in 1857, when the British were taking control of India, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s father, Mirza Murtaza, sided with the British forces. He feared that the Crown might confiscate his estates, as after 1857 Muslims were particularly under British suspicion. Spencer Lavan writes that, in order to please the Queen of Britain, Mirza Murtaza enlisted many young men from his village, including his elder son Mirza Ghulam Qadir, into the British army, who joined General
Nicholson’s 46th Native Infantry, and also presented fifty horses as a gift.
Mirza Murtaza wanted his son, Ghulam Ahmad, to attain a high position either in the legal profession or as a civil servant.
In 1864, he sent Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to work as a reader (court clerk) in a court at Sialkot, not far from Qadian. It is believed that in this way he wished to demonstrate loyalty to the British so as to safeguard his property.
During his stay in Sialkot, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad attempted to learn the English language in order to manage his office work. As Adil Hussain Khan notes in his book From Sufism to Ahmadiyya, Mirza Ahmad was only able to complete two levels of English instruction before abandoning the course. Upon finishing these levels, he had acquired sufficient ability to recognize the English alphabet and read a few simple sentences.
However, Muslim critics of Mirza claim that it was in this very environment that he was groomed to create divisions within Islam. As Pakistan’s national poet, Allama Iqbal, asserted, Sialkot was the very place where Mirza was prepared for the task of creating a fissure within Islam.
Initial Religious Inclinations
It should be remembered that, after the failure of the 1857 War of Independence, many Muslim movements emerged in India, each seeking to restore the lost glory of the Muslims in their own way. Among the most significant were the movements formed between 1850 and 1900: the establishment of Darul Uloom Deoband, the movements led by scholars from Bareilly and Khairabad, the rise of the Ahl-e-Hadith movement, the educational reforms of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and Aligarh, the founding of Farrangi Mahal seminary, as well as the Ahmadiyya community of Qadian.
It should be noted that under British rule, religious debates (munazaras) began to spread widely. These debates were not only held between different religions, but also within religions between their various sects. Interestingly, deputy commissioners and judges of the towns would often participate in these debates as special guests.
Muslim analysts describe such factors as part of the British “Divide and Rule” policy. A close study of post-1857 history shows that many religious, sectarian, and linguistic movements emerged in India. These movements were not confined to Muslims alone, but could also be seen among Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, and others. The scholar Barbara Metcalf has described these movements in detail in her book Islamic Revival in British India.
With the arrival of the British in India, Christian missionaries also came, who not only preached Christianity but also some of their priests began to criticize local religions such as Islam and Hinduism. Similarly, Hindu organizations such as the Shuddhi movement also targeted Islam and Muslims.
At this juncture, while living in Sialkot, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad began a study of Islam and engaged in debates with Christian missionaries. His contemporary and former study companion, Maulvi Muhammad Husain Batalvi, also supported him at this stage. But it must be noted that this was the period when Mirza had not yet claimed to be the Mahdi or a prophet.
During this time, Mirza Ahmad was also deeply influenced by the writings of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. However, initially Mirza Ghulam Ahmad criticized Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s position that Jesus had passed away and was no longer alive in heaven. However, in later years, he not only came to endorse this very view regarding the death of Jesus but also advanced his own claim to being the Messiah. This doctrinal shift ultimately became a defining tenet of the Ahmadiyya movement and continues to be regarded as one of its central theological points.
Afterwards, he resigned from his court position and, upon the advice of his childhood friend Muhammad Husain Batalvi, he began a detailed study of comparative religion. Following this, he wrote his renowned book Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya. This book was intended as a response to the questions raised by Hindus and Christian missionaries regarding Islam. The book was highly appreciated by the Muslims of the subcontinent. Through his successful debates with Hindus and Christians, and his defense of Islam, he soon gained popularity among the Muslims of India.
Claims of Messiah and Mahdi
In 1876, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s father, Mirza Murtaza, passed away. After his death, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s life began to change. He claimed that from the time of his father’s death, he began to receive intense revelatory messages.
To strengthen his claim, he further stated that he was receiving divine revelations at the very same age at which the first revelation had descended upon the Prophet Muhammad. Because of this claim, many Muslims in India began to call him misguided (dhal), doomed to hell (jahannami), and even an infidel (kafir).
Mirza wrote that Muslims calling him an infidel and a dweller of hell was in fact a sign that God intended to manifest a great matter through him.
He also claimed that many prophets and great saints of the past appeared to him in his dreams.
Later, he claimed that while he was fully awake, the Prophet Muhammad himself, accompanied by his grandsons Imam Hasan and Imam Husain, his daughter Fatimah, and Hazrat Ali, came to meet him.
He further claimed that Jesus also appeared to him in a visionary state (kashf).
Between 1880 and 1884, he wrote a book titled Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya, the purpose of which was to defend Islam against the criticisms of Christianity and Hinduism.
After the publication of this book, Mirza Ahmad issued a public notice in which he claimed that he was the Mujaddid (Reformer) of the age and that his spiritual qualities resembled those of Jesus, the son of Mary.
In 1884, he married for the second time, from which he had four sons and two daughters. Among these sons was Mirza Bashir al-Din, who later became the second caliph of the Ahmadiyya community.
In 1885, Mirza began writing letters to one of his devoted followers, Hakim Nur al-Din, telling him that he was receiving revelations and visionary unveilings (kashf). It should be noted that kashf is largely associated with Sufi Islam.
In 1888, Mirza claimed that God had commanded him to establish his own community. Accordingly, on 23 March 1889, the Ahmadiyya community was formally established in the city of Ludhiana, where forty-one people pledged allegiance (bay‘at) to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
In 1890, Mirza Ahmad declared that through kashf (revelation) it had been revealed to him that Jesus had died. He further argued that the Messiah promised to return to the Muslims would in fact be a reformer (mujaddid), and that he would appear from India.
In 1891, his close disciple Hakim Nur al-Din advised him that, leaving aside the hadith about Damascus, all other qualities of the Messiah were present in him.
In that very year, 1891, Mirza Ahmad openly claimed that he was indeed the Promised Messiah foretold to the Muslims.
On this matter, Mirza Ahmad further wrote:
“He has come with the spirit and power of Jesus, and his person and character bear a close resemblance to Jesus.”
He declared himself to be the Promised Messiah as well as Muhaddath min Allah (one endowed with qualities of prophethood).
Jesus in India: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s Claim of the Roza Bal Tomb in Kashmir
In March 1891, Mirza Ahmad proclaimed that he had appeared as the Imam Mahdi for the Muslims. At the same time, he attempted to appeal to followers of other religions in India. He claimed that he was not only the Muslims’ Imam Mahdi but also the Christians’ Jesus and, for the Hindus, the manifestation of Krishna.
Regarding the death of Jesus, Mirza Ahmad stated that Jesus had fallen unconscious on the cross, survived, and then migrated from Palestine to Kashmir, where he eventually died.
In his book Masih Hindustan Mein (Jesus in India), written in 1899, he claimed that the tomb at Roza Bal in the Khanyar district of Srinagar, Kashmir, was in fact the tomb of Jesus. It should be noted that local Kashmiris traditionally believed this tomb to be that of a saint named Yuz Asaf. However, in his book, Mirza Ahmad argued: “I have investigated, and Yuz Asaf is in fact another name for Jesus.”
In 1894, during the month of Ramadan, solar and lunar eclipses occurred in India, particularly in Punjab. In the following year, during the same month of Ramadan, similar eclipses took place in Western countries. Mirza Ahmad interpreted these celestial events as divine signs confirming that he was the Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi.
Concept of Zilli Nabi (Shadow Prophet)
By 1901, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad began to openly proclaim that he was a zilli (shadow) and baroozi (manifested) prophet.
It should be clarified that zilli means “shadow” or “reflection,” by which Mirza Ahmad concluded that he was so deeply immersed in Islam that the shadow of the Prophet Muhammad’s prophethood fell upon him. Baroozi means to be manifested in the likeness or form of another.
In 1902, Mirza Ahmad wrote a pamphlet titled Tohfa-e-Nadwah (Gift for Nadwa), in which he made the following claim regarding his prophethood and divine revelation:
“This speech that I deliver is without doubt the Word of God, just as the Qur’an and the Torah are the Word of God. I am a prophet of God in the sense of zill (shadow) and barooz (manifestation). Every Muslim is religiously bound to obey me in matters of faith. Whoever receives my message yet does not obey me, does not accept me as the Promised Messiah, and does not believe my revelation to be truly from God, will be held accountable in the heavens.”
Some scholars, such as Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, argue that in these statements Mirza Ahmad was declaring those who rejected him to be outside the fold of Islam (a form of takfir).
Regarding zilli prophethood, Mirza Ahmad also made the unique claim:
“This perfect form of prophethood which I have received — no one before me has attained it, and no one after me shall ever receive it.”
In other words, he declared himself to be the first and last zilli prophet.
Defense of Claims in Light of Quran and Hadith
Since Mirza Ahmad claimed to have occupied the important religious offices of key Islamic figures — such as the Promised Messiah, the Mahdi, and a shadow or representative prophet — Islam had already laid down commandments and important signs for attaining these offices.
Let us now examine Mirza Sahib’s three important and sensitive claims — namely Messiah, Mahdi, and shadow or representative prophethood — in the light of the important Islamic teachings.
Messiahship and the Teachings of Islam
According to both Muslims and Christians, Jesus was raised alive to the heavens from the cross, and he will return near the end of times. Muslims believe that when he returns, he will bring about the revival of Islam. However, Mirza Sahib claimed that it was revealed to him in a vision that Jesus not only passed away but is in fact buried in Srinagar, a city in Indian Kashmir.
The collection of hadith Sunan Abu Dawood, which is considered a reliable source of traditions in Sunni Islam, in hadith number 4321 contains a narration regarding the return of Jesus. Part of that narration, known as the Damascus Hadith, states:
“Then Jesus son of Mary will descend at the white minaret to the east of Damascus.”
This hadith mentions four signs: Jesus son of Mary, Damascus, the East, and the white minaret. Mirza Ahmad explained these four signs as follows:
Mirza Ahmad claimed that it was not Jesus son of Mary himself who was to return, but rather a person who embodied his qualities and would come spiritually. That person, he said, was himself.
Regarding the city of Damascus in Syria, Mirza Sahib wrote in his book Izala-e-Auham that the reality or revelation that became clear to him was that Damascus in the hadith does not mean the actual city of Damascus in Syria. Instead, it refers to a place where people of Yazid’s nature live — Yazid being the Umayyad ruler who ordered the killing of Imam Hussain. Such people, he explained, are like the Jews, and it is necessary that among such people a man of Husain’s spirit would arise, who in fact was himself in the form of Messiah. The city of Damascus was also the capital of Yazid’s rule. Therefore, Mirza Sahib declared the town of Qadian to be “Damascus,” describing its inhabitants as Yazidi or Jewish in temperament, while portraying himself as Husaini in nature and thus the Promised Messiah. Yazid was born about fifteen years after the passing of Prophet Muhammad, and he assumed kingship in Damascus approximately forty-eight years later.
The next point in the hadith refers to the direction east of Damascus. Here, Mirza Ahmad interpreted Damascus in its literal sense, saying that India, especially Qadian, lies to the east of Damascus. However, in the previous point, he had taken Damascus spiritually to mean India itself. His opponents strongly criticized this interpretation of Mirza Ahmad.
After this, the hadith regarding the Messiah mentions the white-minaret mosque. To fulfill this, Mirza Ahmad collected donations from his followers and had a grand mosque built in Qadian with a large white minaret. This mosque was named Masjid Aqsa, while its white minaret was called Minarat-ul-Masih. Instead of interpreting this sign metaphorically or spiritually, it was fulfilled in a literal sense.
In some hadiths about the Messiah, it is narrated from Prophet Muhammad that when the Messiah comes to the earth, he will be wrapped in two yellow garments. On this, Mirza Sahib wrote in volume 17 of Ruhani Khazain that according to the science of visions — also called the knowledge of dreams — these two yellow garments symbolically point to two illnesses that the Messiah would suffer from upon his arrival. Along with this, Mirza Sahib claimed that he himself had two such illnesses. As he wrote in his book:
“One garment is upon my upper body, meaning I always suffer from headaches. The other garment is below, meaning I suffer from diabetes, because of which I urinate a hundred times during day and night.”
In this way, by interpreting his two illnesses, he likened them to the Messiah’s two yellow garments and presented them as signs of his being the Messiah.
Mahdihood in the Light of Hadith
Regarding Imam Mahdi, the Prophet Muhammad said in a hadith:
“The world will not come to an end until a man from among my household (Ahl al-Bayt) appears. His name will be like my name and his father’s name will be like my father’s name. He will fill the earth with justice and fairness, just as it had been filled with oppression and tyranny.”
In the book Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya, written between 1880 and 1884, Mirza Ahmad initially presented the traditional belief about Imam Mahdi as it is described in the hadith: “In the last times, Imam Mahdi will come, he will be from the household of the Prophet, and he will establish the dominance of Islam in the world.”
Some time later, however, he claimed that the Mahdi who was to come would not perform jihad with the sword, but with the pen and arguments.
After a while, he declared that Allah had directly informed him that he himself was the Mahdi.
In response, Muslim scholars objected that according to hadith, the Mahdi’s name would be Muhammad bin Abdullah, and he would belong to the Ahl al-Bayt, that is, from the descendants of Fatima, and he would also be of Arab origin. Whereas Mirza’s name was Ghulam Ahmad bin Murtaza, he was not from the Ahl al-Bayt, but rather from a Mughal family of Punjab, and he was an Indian Punjabi.
On this hadith, Mirza Ahmad offered an interpretation, saying:
“The statement ‘The Mahdi’s name will be Muhammad bin Abdullah’ is only a symbol of possessing Muhammadan qualities. It is not an actual condition that his name must literally be Muhammad bin Abdullah.”
Regarding jihad, he said that he was the true Imam who must now perform jihad not with the sword but with the pen and arguments. He claimed that the solar and lunar eclipses that occurred in the month of Ramadan were in fact a sign and message from God, through which God appointed him as Mahdi. This, he said, was the true sign.
As for the Mahdi being of Arab origin, Mirza interpreted this metaphorically, saying that in the hadith the word “Arab” does not mean ethnic Arab but “spiritual Arab” — that is, one who is an expert in the Arabic language and who possesses a deep knowledge of the Qur’an and Hadith. Such a person, he argued, falls under the category of “a man from Arabia.”
He then said:
“Although I am not an Arab by lineage, God has made me the leader of Arabic sciences and granted me such mastery over the Arabic language that even Arabs themselves do not possess. Thus, I am spiritually an Arab.”
In this way, by offering interpretations of the Prophetic traditions, Mirza declared himself to be that Mahdi who had been promised to the Muslims.
Prophethood in Light of the Qur’an and Hadith
In the Holy Qur’an, Surah al-Ahzab, verse 40, it is stated:
“Muhammad (peace be upon him) is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets. And Allah has full knowledge of all things.”
All Muslims believe and are convinced that this verse of the Qur’an clearly declares that with Prophet Muhammad the chain of prophethood has come to an end, and that he is the last of the prophets.
But Mirza Ghulam Ahmad interpreted the words khatam al-nabiyyin in this verse of Surah al-Ahzab differently. He said that its real meaning is not that the chain of prophethood ended with Muhammad and that he is the final prophet. Rather, he argued, the words were used metaphorically, and by “seal” it is meant that all excellences were completed in Muhammad. In simple terms, Allah granted Prophet Muhammad greater perfections than all other prophets.
In his book Ikhṭilāf ka Izālah (“The Removal of a Misunderstanding”), Mirza Ahmad wrote that one meaning of khatam al-nabiyyin is also that Prophet Muhammad is the last law-bearing prophet. After him, the door to a shari‘ah-bearing prophethood is closed forever.
According to Mirza, there are two kinds of prophethood:
Legislative Prophethood (tashri‘i nubuwwat): a prophethood that brings a new law or shari‘ah. This, he said, has ended permanently.
Non-legislative or shadow/reflective prophethood (ghayr-tashri‘i, zilli or ummati nubuwwat): a form of prophethood that can continue under the obedience of Muhammad. Mirza claimed that he himself was such a shadow prophet.
Ahmadi writers explain this metaphor with examples. For instance, the famous Indian poet Mir Taqi Mir once said about his contemporary poet Jigar Moradabadi that “poetry has ended with Jigar Moradabadi.” By this, he did not mean that no one would ever compose poetry after Jigar, but rather that Jigar was such a consummate poet that no one else could equal his poetry.
In a similar way, Ahmadi authors defend Mirza Ahmad’s claim of shadow prophethood through metaphor, symbolism, and figurative expressions.
The renowned Islamic scholar Javed Ahmad Ghamidi comments that most of Mirza Ahmad’s claims are based less on reality and more on metaphor, symbolism, and allegory. Ghamidi says that the phrase khatam al-nabiyyin means “seal of the prophets,” not “end.” And the meaning of this verse of Surah al-Ahzab is that with Muhammad, the seal has been placed upon prophethood, and after him, no kind of prophet can appear.
Ghamidi further points out that the Prophet Muhammad said about the continuation of revelation after him:
It is narrated from Abu Huraira that he heard the Messenger of Allah say: “Nothing of prophethood remains except glad tidings.” The Companions asked: “What are glad tidings?” He replied: “Glad tidings are good dreams.”
Ghamidi comments that such dreams can only be good dreams, not actual prophethood.
Final Days and Succession
In 1906, when Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was about seventy-one years old, Spencer Lavan writes that Ahmad had already become aware of the political struggle that would emerge after his death.
Therefore, he established the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya, which would serve as an executive body until his death and later select his successor.
In 1908, Ahmad traveled to Lahore, where he suffered from a severe attack of dysentery, which left him gravely ill.
Thus, on 26 May 1908, he passed away.
Later, his body was brought back to Qadian and buried there.
The cemetery in Qadian where he was buried was named Bahishti Maqbara (“Heavenly Graveyard”).
After his death, a debate arose within the community regarding succession.
Some argued that the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya should govern the movement, while others insisted that a caliph should be appointed.
Finally, on 28 May 1908, the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya appointed Ahmad’s closest disciple, Hakim Nuruddin, as the first caliph.
In 1914, when Hakim Nuruddin died, a new leadership crisis emerged within the Ahmadiyya community.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s son, Mirza Bashiruddin, who was also Nuruddin’s son-in-law, not only declared himself the next caliph but also issued the decree that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a Zilli Nabi (shadow prophet).
He further declared that anyone who heard Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s message but refused to believe in him was outside the fold of Islam.
This declaration sparked strong opposition from within the community itself.
A separate faction, under the leadership of Maulana Muhammad Ali, rejected both Mirza Bashiruddin’s assumption of the caliphate and the claim that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet, as well as the excommunication of non-Ahmadis from Islam.
This faction formed its own organization called the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha‘at-e-Islam, Lahore, which later became known as the Lahori Group.
In the next section, we will explain how the period from Mirza Bashiruddin’s era up to 1974 unfolded, what debates took place in Pakistan’s Parliament in 1974 regarding the Ahmadiyya movement, and which key points astonished the parliamentarians—leading to the unanimous decision to declare the Ahmadiyya community outside the fold of Islam.
All this will be covered in the next part.
References
- Spencer Lavan, The Ahmadiyah Movement: Past and Present (Amritsar: Guru Nanek Dev University, 1976),
- Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Ruhani Khazain, 23 vols. (Rabwah: Nazarat Nashr-o-Isha‘at, Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya, 1984).
- Simon Ross Valentine, Islam and the Ahmadiyya Jamaʿat: History, Belief, Practice (London: Hurst & Company, 2008.
- Adil Hussain Khan, From Sufism to Ahmadiyya: A Muslim Minority Movement in South Asia (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2015).
- Yohanan Friedmann, Prophecy Continuous: Aspects of Ahmadi Religious Thought and Its Medieval Background (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).
- Metcalf, Barbara D. Islamic Revival in British India: Deoband, 1860–1900. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982.