The Bahawalpur Case Against Qadianism (1926 to 1935)

Why the case matters

Obtaining the first court ruling against a claim of prophethood, and in favour of the finality of prophethood, was Ghotvi’s greatest scholarly and religious achievement. Through nine years of tireless effort he won this case and earned from the people the title Fateh-e-Mirza’iyat (فاتحِ مرزائیت), the conqueror of the Mirza’i movement.

The ruling became a lasting reference point. When Pakistan’s National Assembly moved to legislate on the finality of prophethood in 1974 (under Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto), the files of this Bahawalpur case were sent for and drawn upon. Likewise, in 1940, Ghotvi submitted a detailed evidentiary statement in the Dera Ghazi Khan Mirza’i case, which was decided in the Muslims’ favour.

Ghotvi’s able student Qazi Ubaidullah Alvi, Mufti of Dera Ghazi Khan, was among the pursuers of this case. Shorish Kashmiri noted that after the 1935 ruling, the poet-philosopher Allama Muhammad Iqbal demanded that Qadianis be declared a minority, and that only after 1935 did the containment of the movement take the shape of a broad campaign. The whole affair amounted to British colonial power lending support to a claim of prophethood in order to fracture the unity of the Muslim community.

Stage 2/7 · Through the courts· Ahmadpur Sharqia to the Chief Court

How it began: the Ahmadpur Sharqia court

In the town of Mahind, tehsil Ahmadpur Sharqia (احمد پور شرقیہ), a man named Maulvi Ilahi Bakhsh married his daughter Ghulam Aisha to a relative, Abdul Razzaq. Before the marriage was consummated, Abdul Razzaq became a Qadiani. When he later demanded his marital rights, Ilahi Bakhsh refused and filed, on his daughter’s behalf, a suit for annulment of the marriage.

The suit was first filed on 24 July 1926 in the Ahmadpur Sharqia court (since a formal ruling of takfir, تکفیر, requires a court judgment in Islamic law). It stayed there about a year, with Ghotvi attending to pursue and supervise it. Then, at the Qadianis’ request, by an order of Diwan Mehta Odho Das, a judge of the Chief Court of Bahawalpur, dated 7 May 1927, the case was transferred to the District Court of Bahawalpur.

The transfer order shows that Odho Das had two reservations about the Ahmadpur Sharqia judge: that he had set up a two-scholar commission (an amicus curiae of Ghotvi and Maulana Muhammad Sadiq Bahawalpuri) to guide the court on Islamic law, and that he had admitted several scholarly rulings and certificates into the record.

The District Court (1927 to 1928)

When the case reached the District Court in May 1927, Ghotvi founded the Anjuman Mu’ayyid-ul-Islam of Bahawalpur to pursue it, and its members made him its head. On 18 January 1928 he recorded a detailed statement, proving from the Qur’an, tafsir, sound hadith, the consensus of the community, and the lexicographers that denying the finality of prophethood puts one outside Islam, and that a Muslim woman’s marriage to one who holds that Mirza Qadiani was a prophet is invalid.

The District judge, Munshi Muhammad Akbar Khan (of Bhera), following the precedents of the Patna and Lahore High Courts, felt compelled to dismiss the suit on 21 November 1928. Distressed by this, Ghotvi filed an appeal in the Chief Court of Bahawalpur and refused to rest until the case reached its proper conclusion.

The Chief Court appeal (1928 to 1931)

In November 1928 Ghotvi resolved to fight the case with a new line of argument. His student Hafiz Abdul Rahman Jami‘i related that he would say: “I have been commanded by the Prophet ﷺ (محمد) to make manifest the knowledge of the Book of Allah and of the hadith, and by the strength of faith to rout the deniers of the finality of prophethood.”

While the appeal against the Patna and Lahore rulings was pending, the adverse Madras High Court ruling also arrived, and Ghotvi had to contend with it too. He argued that the Mirza’i movement is not a religion like others but “enmity to Mustafa ﷺ,” a trial (fitna) to be uprooted. His key proposal was that, given its special character, the case should be exempted from the High-Court precedents by being referred to the Darbar-e-Mualla (دربارِ معلّیٰ), the state cabinet’s special session sitting as the supreme court of Bahawalpur.

On 10 June 1931, the Chief Court agreed to forward the case for that exemption. Its bench was Chief Justice Abdul Qadir, member Diwan Mehta Odho Das, and member Maulvi Fazl Hussain (whose chain of teachers traced back to Ghotvi). The same day it formally rejected the appeal and upheld Muhammad Akbar Khan’s ruling, but sent the case on to the Darbar-e-Mualla for the exemption.

Stage 3/7 · The special session· the Darbar-e-Mualla

The Prime Minister, and “a certificate for paradise”

It was a hot afternoon when the Chief Court referred the case onward. Some companions wanted to wait until morning to see the state’s Prime Minister, Sardar Nabi Bakhsh (appointed by the British), and request that the special session of the Darbar be convened. But Ghotvi insisted on going at once, saying he would not turn home until he had convinced him.

The Nawab of Bahawalpur was then summering in Britain. The opposing side tried hard to have the special session cancelled or postponed so they could reach the Nawab through their influential figures and their friendship with the British. During this time Nawab Umar Hayat Tiwana (father of Khizr Hayat Tiwana) was also in Britain; when the Nawab of Bahawalpur mentioned the British pressure to quash the case, Tiwana told him: we are loyal to the British, but we have not sold them our religion, our faith, or our love of the Messenger ﷺ; stand firm, and tell them the court may decide as it will. The Nawab accordingly refused to interfere in the religious and judicial matter.

A hundred-page, ten-hour statement

For the special session, Ghotvi prepared a detailed, closely-argued treatise drawing on the Qur’an, hadith, tafsir, hadith commentaries, works of fiqh, kalam (theology), the sayings of the imams, Arabic lexicons, and the books of Mirza Qadiani himself. It ran to about one hundred pages, and his statement spanned some ten hours (as recorded in Ma‘raka-e-Bahawalpur by Pirzada Iqbal Ahmad Farooqi).

Because the state had eight ministers, Ghotvi had his students prepare eight copies so that each minister had one before him. Among the copyists were Maulana Muhammad Sadiq (the supervisor), Hafiz Sahibzada Naseer-ud-Din, Hafiz Abdul Rahman Jami‘i, Allama Rahmatullah Arshad, and others. The special session of the Darbar (the Court of Ministers) opened on 21 December 1931, chaired by Prime Minister Sardar Nabi Bakhsh, with all ministers present.

Proving the finality from the first page of al-Baqarah

The Qadiani side was represented by Jalal-ud-Din Shams and barrister Asadullah Khan (brother of Zafarullah Khan); the Muslim side by Ghotvi. Since the written statement was long, the Prime Minister asked Ghotvi to give one decisive Qur’anic proof of the finality orally. Ghotvi said every page of the Qur’an declares that the chain of prophethood and revelation ended with the Prophet ﷺ. The Prime Minister asked him to prove it from the very first page.

Ghotvi recited the opening of Surat al-Baqarah (al-Baqarah 2:1-4): “…and those who believe in what was revealed to you and what was revealed before you.” He argued: Allah mentions belief in only two kinds of revelation, that sent to the Prophet ﷺ and that sent before him. This shows plainly that there is no room for revelation after him, or Allah would have mentioned it.

The exemption ruling (21 December 1931)

After the ten-hour statement, the members of the Court of Ministers ruled unanimously that the earlier judgments of the High Courts and of the Bahawalpur District and Chief Courts had not properly examined the core question, had not made the essentials of religion the subject of their inquiry, and so need not be followed.

They held that if a person believes, per Qadiani doctrine, that a prophet came after Muhammad ﷺ and received revelation, then since he denies the finality of prophethood, which is an essential of religion, he stands outside the fold of Islam. On that basis, the special session exempted this case from the earlier precedents and empowered the District & Sessions Court of Bahawalpur to re-examine it afresh in light of the scholars’ arguments.

Stage 4/7 · The final court & verdict· scholars, judge, judgment

The final court, and the six scholars who testified

Freed by the exemption, the District & Sessions Court (which heard the case from 25 January 1932 to 7 February 1935) could now rule on Islamic grounds. In early 1932 Ghotvi invited scholars of both the Barelvi and Deobandi schools, without distinction, to Bahawalpur to record their statements. His home became a hub of the defenders of the finality of prophethood; scholars gathered there through the night, and each morning the caravan set off for the court amid cries of takbir. He bore the costs of their hospitality and travel himself.

The Qadiani side was represented by Jalal-ud-Din Shams and Ghulam Ahmad Mujahid; the Muslim side by six scholars who recorded statements:

• Maulana Ghulam Muhammad Muhaddith-e-Ghotvi, head of Jamia Abbasia (statement 21 June 1932; he appeared in the courts for nine years, and the court declared him the victor).
• Maulana Abu Qasim Muhammad Husain Kolotarrvi (Gujranwala): 14 July 1932.
• Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi (Deoband): 21 August 1932.
• Maulana Murtaza Hasan Chandpuri: 21 to 25 August 1932.
• Maulana Sayyid Muhammad Anwar Shah Kashmiri (Dabhel, Surat): 25 to 29 August 1932; he stayed only seventeen days and died on 29 May 1933, before the verdict.
• Maulana Najmuddin, Professor at Oriental College Lahore: 30 to 31 August 1932.

Maulana Muhammad Sadiq recorded that throughout these statements Ghotvi was present in court every day, prompting, assisting, and supervising. His was the first statement recorded, and the defendant Abdul Razzaq and his lawyers dared not cross-examine him.

The judge’s transfer, and barrister K.L. Gauba

The influence of the Qadiani side is shown by this: just as the moment came to write the judgment, the presiding judge, Munshi Muhammad Akbar Khan, was transferred as District Judge to Bahawalnagar. The question was whether Akbar Khan would still write the verdict or a new judge (who would need the whole case re-explained, taking a long time). Ghotvi’s position was that Akbar Khan himself should write it, to spare the Muslim side needless trouble.

A last attempt to block the ruling: the defendant Abdul Razzaq died suddenly on 10 November 1934, before the verdict. Seizing on this, the Qadianis petitioned on 4 December 1934 to have the case shelved since the defendant was dead. But Ghotvi stood firm, showing by precedent that a court must still rule even after a party’s death, because the case carried international importance. The court accepted his arguments.

The historic verdict (7 February 1935), and the reward

On 7 February 1935, corresponding to 3 Dhu al-Qa‘da 1353 AH, Munshi Muhammad Akbar Khan, District Judge of Bahawalnagar, delivered the judgment of this historic case, declaring:

The denier of the finality of prophethood is outside Islam, and his marriage to a Muslim woman is void.

That day was a day of celebration in Bahawalpur; the scholars offered prayers of thanksgiving, and congratulations reached Ghotvi from across the land. From that day the title Fateh-e-Mirza’iyat (conqueror of the Mirza’i movement) became his by common acclaim. Pir Mehr Ali Shah Golarvi also sent a letter of congratulation, which reached Ghotvi in Madinah while he was at the Sacred Rawdah.

Stage 5/7 · The scholarly arguments· the finality of prophethood

False claimants, and the beliefs of Mirza Qadiani

Citing Imam al-Tahawi’s Mushkil al-Athar, the scholars clarified that the reports about the number of false claimants of prophethood are not meant to fix a limit but to indicate a great many: some will be both liars (kadhdhab) and deceivers (dajjal), numbering thirty, while others are only liars; a report of al-Tabarani puts the number at seventy, and at the end of them all the Antichrist (al-Dajjal al-A‘zam) will appear.

The scholars documented, from Mirza Qadiani’s own writings (with references), his beliefs: seeing himself in a dream as “the very self of God” and claiming to have created the heavens and earth (Aina-e-Kamalat); ascribing a son to God (Haqiqat al-Wahy); calling the Qur’an “the words of my own mouth” (Haqiqat al-Wahy, p.84); and disrespect toward the prophets and the family of the Prophet ﷺ.

The essentials of religion, “Ahl al-Qibla”, and the Batiniyya

A central argument in the case was that religion is constituted by its essentials (zaruriyat-e-din, ضروریاتِ دین), so that denying them is a denial of religion itself. Since the finality of prophethood belongs to the mass-transmitted, agreed, and certain matters, it counts among the essentials, and its denier stands outside Islam (references: Fatawa Shami, Durr al-Mukhtar, al-Ashbah wa’l-Naza’ir, Sharh Fiqh al-Akbar).

“Ahl al-Qibla”: the scholars explained that this term means those who believe in all the essentials of religion. One who faces the Qibla in prayer yet denies an essential is not “of the Qibla,” just as the hypocrites, despite facing the Qibla and performing the outward rites, were declared unbelievers, and the Kharijites, despite their prayer and fasting, were outside the religion (Mulla Ali al-Qari, al-Shami, Abd al-Aziz Parharvi, Fatawa Alamgiriyya).

The Batiniyya: in an age of Muslim decline, certain corrupt people kept the words of the Qur’an and hadith but changed their meanings, and through this distortion of meaning belied the whole religion; today, this same sect calls itself “secular and liberal.” In truth the Prophetic hadith, alongside the Qur’an, is a decisive proof and binding (an-Nahl 16:44: “We sent down to you the Reminder that you may make clear to people…”).

From the reports of the Companions (Ma‘ani al-Athar, Fath al-Bari, Kanz al-Ummal), an apostate distorter should first be asked to repent, and otherwise faces the prescribed penalty. Imam Abu Hanifa said: “Whoever denies any of the laws of Islam, no weight is given to his saying the words of faith.”

Mirza’s claim to legislative prophethood, and “ilham is not wahy”

Mirza’s writings were self-contradictory because he changed guise many times: an ordinary Muslim, then a debater for Islam, then a would-be reviver, then (in 1891, at the prompting of Hakim Nur-ud-Din) the “likeness of the Messiah,” then the very Messiah and the Mahdi, then a “shadow/reflective” prophet, then a law-bearing messenger and “seal of the prophets,” and even “the very self of Muhammad” and “the very self of God.”

The scholars argued from Mirza’s own books (Arba‘in, Haqiqat al-Wahy, Dafi‘ al-Bala’, I‘jaz-e-Ahmadi, Fatawa Ahmadiyya) that he claimed legislative prophethood (nubuwwat-e-tashri‘i): he issued commands and prohibitions through his “revelation,” called those who rejected him non-Muslims, forbade marriage and prayer with them, and made contributions obligatory, all marks of a law-bearer.

Ilham versus wahy: when the scholars proved that the door of prophetic revelation (wahy) closed with the Prophet ﷺ, the opposing side claimed Mirza received only “unveiling and inspiration” (kashf wa ilham). Ghotvi and his colleagues defeated this ploy, showing that ilham is neither certain nor a proof against others (al-Nasafi: “inspiration is not among the means of knowing a thing’s validity”); in the technical sense ilham is not called wahy, nor its recipient a prophet, and a legal ruling is established only by the four sources (Qur’an, Sunna, consensus, analogy). Even the Sufis hold that ecstatic utterances (shathiyat) are not to be acted upon.

Reason vs revelation, the return of Isa, and the “colonised mind”

The closing arguments concern the mass-transmitted belief in the raising and return of Isa (Jesus, عليه السلام). Today’s “so-called educated class” deems it unscientific out of its own limitation; but reason and the “law of nature” (which is only incomplete induction) hold weight only until a decisive text from the Lawgiver arrives. Pir Mehr Ali Shah wrote exactly this in reply to Hakim Nur-ud-Din (Mihr-e-Munir, p.209): the Shari‘ah governs the intellect.

The Qur’an itself records a man revived a hundred years after death, the Companions of the Cave alive for over three hundred years, the bodily Mi‘raj, and the raising of the dead; so the return of Isa is no difficulty before the power of God. Pir Mehr Ali Shah’s books Shams al-Hidayah and Saif-e-Chishtiyai are decisive on the life and descent of Isa.

Stage 6/7 · Legacy & 1974· the constitutional amendment

The finality in the constitution: 1974

When Pakistan’s National Assembly passed the law protecting the finality of prophethood on 7 September 1974, the scholars who worked for it in the Assembly had two documentary foundations available to them: first, Pir Mehr Ali Shah Golarvi’s scholarly and spiritual achievement (the “Ma‘raka-e-Lahore”) and his writings; and second, Ghotvi’s achievement, the court judgment of the “Muqadma Mirza’iyya Bahawalpur” (7 February 1935), which gave the Muslims their strongest foundation against the movement.

After the law passed, several delegations came from Islamabad to Golra Sharif and, meeting the Pir of Golra Sharif and Ghotvi’s eldest son, Shaikh-ul-Hadith Mufti Hafiz Muhammad Abdul Hayy al-Chishti al-Qadri, congratulated them that the fruit of their forefathers’ efforts for the finality of prophethood was now being secured as a constitutional clause. Among these delegations were Maulana Mufti Mahmud, Maulana Ghulam Ghaus Hazarvi, and (in a separate delegation) Maulana Shah Ahmad Noorani.

Stage 7/7 · Verse tributes· manqabat & chronogram

Verse tributes

This account closes with a panegyric (manqabat) by Ghotvi’s son, Shaikh-ul-Hadith Mufti Muhammad Abdul Hayy al-Chishti al-Qadri, and a chronogram (qata) marking the year of his passing (1948).

ذات ان کی جامعِ علم و عمل ۔۔۔ مصطفیٰ کے عشق کی ہرگز نہیں ہے کوئی حد(His person joined knowledge with practice; there was no limit to his love of Mustafa ﷺ.)

فاتحِ مرزائیت تھے بالیقین ۔۔۔ علم کے تھے بحرِ ناپیدا کنار(He was surely the conqueror of the Mirza’i movement; in knowledge, a shoreless ocean.)

Frequently asked questions

Qur’anic references

• Qur’an 33:40, Surah al-Ahzab: Muhammad ﷺ is “the seal of the prophets”
• Qur’an 2:1-4, Surah al-Baqarah: the opening from which Ghotvi proved the finality
• Qur’an 16:44, Surah an-Nahl: the Prophet ﷺ appointed to explain the revelation