Blasphemy of Eisa (A.S.): An answer to the false explanations of Qadianees

1 | P a g e

Blasphemy of Eisa (A.S.): An answer to the false explanations of

Qadianees

By: Murtaza Meher

Mirza Ghulam of Qadian was not only the enemy of Prophets of Allah, but also of

humanity. He was the enemy and blasphemer of Jesus Christ (Peace be upon him)

in particular. Since all of his blasphemies are in the name of religion so we may

name him “The Holy Salman Rushdie”. The decree of Allah Almighty is crystal clear

in this regard:

“Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this World

and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment.”

(The Holy Quran 33:57, English Translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali)

The people of knowledge do not approve the lame excuses of Mirza and his

followers that the blasphemy committed by Mirza is not of Eisa (A.S.) but of Jesus

who is not mentioned in the Holy Quran. The scholars of Islam have established the

rule that if someone commits the “Kufr” of any one of the prophets, none of his

“taveels” (Explanation other than the obvious meaning) will be accepted. Therefore

they have said:

“The research in this matter is that, for a word having different meanings, the

committer may say that his intention was not of blasphemous meaning but the other

way round. But for a word having only one meaning from lexicon or common use or

Blasphemy of Eisa (A.S.): An answer to the false explanations of Qadianees

2 | P a g e

Sharia, resulting in a blasphemous or heretical meaning, the intention of the person

cannot be trusted and there shall be no other way except the declaration of heresy of

the person. For example the word “Antaa taliq” (You are divorced) is specific for

divorce both in common use and in sharia. If someone says “Antaa taliq” (You are

divorced) to his wife, the divorce shall be enacted. Now if someone says that from

“Taaliq” his intention was of its meaning from lexicon; that she was tied, not set free

or he uttered the word unintentionally and he did not wanted to divorce her then his

intention shall not be relied upon. Because for specific words, intention cannot be

relied upon.”

So, the saying of Mirza that he is not referring to Eisa but to the Messiah of which

there is nothing mentioned in the Holy Quran is false. Because we know that the

word “Jesus” is commonly referred to Eisa (A.S.) and this fact is also accepted by

Mirza Ghulam which will be justified later.

In the similar way the Islamic Jurists have written that if a person calls “Haram Zada”

(Bastard) to someone else, the former should be penalized. And if the committer

says that from “Haram” he didn’t mean the illegitimate offspring but purification and

reverence or his intention was not to derogate the latter, his intention shall not be

relied upon. Because in common use these words are fixed for illegitimate offspring

(In the similar way, the word of Jesus is fixed for Eisa (A.S.)). In the similar way, if

someone calls the other one “Kafir” (disbeliever) in his rage, the committer shall be

penalized. And if the committer says that his intention was “disbeliever of evil”, his

intention shall not be relied upon. Because in common use the word “Kafir” is fixed

Blasphemy of Eisa (A.S.): An answer to the false explanations of Qadianees

3 | P a g e

for “disbeliever of Allah”.

So in the light of these specifications , if someone utters a word against the Prophet

Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) which is fixed as derogatory remark in common use, the

committer shall be declared a heretic, though he did not had its intention.

Allama Shami writes: “For everything which is a reason of blasphemy, the heresy

shall be declared, though the committer did not have the intention of blasphemy.”

. (Radd ul Mukhtaar Vol. 3, page 392)

Much has become clear after the explanation by the scholars and the Jurists. But in

order to make it clear upon Qadianees, we will prove from the writings of Mirza

Ghulam of Qadian that in his own eyes Jesus and Eisa (A.S.) are the same. There is

no myth of metaphorical or literal one. Mirza Ghulam writes:

“His (Jesus’) family is very pure and chaste. Three of his paternal and maternal

grandmothers were adulterous and prostitutes, whose blood gave birth to him. But

probably, it would be a condition for the divinity. His relations and liaison with

prostitute is probably because of his family’s influence. Otherwise no God fearing

individual can give chance to a young prostitute to touch his head by her unchaste

hands and apply the unchaste perfume on his head brought by her unfair earnings

and touch her tresses upon his feet. So, one can think of the character of such a

person. Ultimately, we write down that we had no interest either in the personality or

in the character of Jesus owned by the priests. They tempted us by abusing our

Blasphemy of Eisa (A.S.): An answer to the false explanations of Qadianees

4 | P a g e

beloved Prophet (Peace be upon him) to reveal some account of their Jesus upon

them.”

(Zameema Anjaam e Atham, page 7, 8 & Rohani Khazain Volume 11, Page 291,292)

I have copied these filthy and heretical sentences reluctantly. Since Qadianees have

lost their religious sense, so I’ve decided to make the truth crystal clear upon them.

Mirza has tried to cover his heresy by stating that he had no interest either in the

personality or in the character of Jesus owned by the priests. They tempted him by

abusing his beloved Prophet (Peace be upon him) to reveal some account of their

Jesus upon them.

His long sentence comprises of two things:

1).What has been written is about the Jesus of Christians.

2). The Christians abused the prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon) so Mirza

Ghulam was cornered into the situation in defense of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be

upon him).

The excuse of Mirza about his writings that he wrote of Christians’ Jesus is a white

lie. Because the reference that I’m going to produce now, will cut the jugular vein of

Qadianism. Because this reference explains that Mirza Ghulam has repeated the

same allegations against Eisa (A.S.) by calling his name that he had made about

Jesus earlier. Here it goes:

“Hazrat Eisa (A.S.) was better than many of his contemporaries. We are being

optimistic in this quote because it is possible for many of his contemporaries to

surpass Eisa (A.S.) in piety and God fearing. How can we say that Eisa (A.S.) who

Blasphemy of Eisa (A.S.): An answer to the false explanations of Qadianees

5 | P a g e

was inferior to Musa (A.S.), follower of his sharia, had no perfect Sharia of his own

was altogether best in piety among his contemporaries? Those who made him God

like Christians or those who, God forbid, have given him the divine attributes like our

and God’s enemies the so called Muslims who elevates him to the heavens or

declare him the creator of birds like God, they are free to do. When an individual

leaves behind the righteousness and justice he is free to do what he wishes. But the

righteousness of Messiah does not prove better than his contemporaries. Rather

prophet Yaha enjoys a superiority over him for he did not take alcoholic liquor and it

was never heard that a prostitute has applied perfume brought from her earnings, to

his hair or touched his body with her hands or tresses or that an unrelated young

woman waited upon him. It is for this reason that the Quran has used the term

Hasoor (One who keeps his carnal desires in check) for Prophet Yaha but it does not

call Jesus by the name because such stories prevented to do so.”

(Daf a-el-Bala page 3, 4 & Rohani Khazain Vol. 18, page 219,220)

So, we have come to know that the things attributed to Eisa (A.S.) are the very

same that were attributed to Jesus, thus a sufficient evidence to prove that Eisa

(A.S.) and Jesus are the same, not the separate individuals. If someone is equipped

with intellect, he will ponder over these points and will renounce Qadianism by

separating the truth from falsehood. God Almighty says in the Glorious Quran:

“Make ye no excuses: Ye have rejected Faith after Ye had accepted it.”

(The Holy Quran 9:66, English Translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali)