Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, born in 1835 in Qadiani, India, founded the Ahmadiyya movement and claimed to be the Promised Messiah and Mahdi. Some of his followers consider him a prophet, while mainstream Muslims firmly reject this claim. The rejection is based on the central Islamic principle that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the last prophet of Allah, a belief known as the finality of prophethood or Khatam-un-Nabiyyin.

This article explores the theological, historical, and scriptural reasons why mainstream Muslims do not accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet, while maintaining a respectful and scholarly perspective.

The Principle of Finality of Prophethood

The Quran clearly affirms the finality of prophethood in Surah Al-Ahzab (33:40):

"Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets."

The term Seal of the Prophets (Khatam-un-Nabiyyin) signifies that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the last prophet. In Islam, prophethood is a divinely ordained mission, and no new prophet can arise after Muhammad (peace be upon him). This principle is universally accepted among Sunni and Shia scholars and is considered a core part of the Muslim faith.

The finality of prophethood ensures the completeness and perfection of Islam. If a new prophet were recognized, it would imply that the guidance brought by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was incomplete or insufficient, which contradicts Quranic teachings.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s Claims

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad declared that he was the Promised Messiah and Mahdi, claiming a spiritual mission to revive Islam and guide people towards true faith. Some Ahmadis interpret his role as a prophet, though subordinate to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Mainstream Muslims reject these claims because Islam teaches that no prophet—law-bearing or otherwise—can succeed Muhammad (peace be upon him). Accepting such a claim is viewed as contradicting the Quranic principle of finality, the Hadith, and centuries of Islamic scholarly consensus.

Theological Reasons for Rejection

1. Contradiction with Quranic Teachings

The Quran explicitly states that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the Seal of the Prophets. Any claim to prophethood after him contradicts this fundamental principle. Scholars argue that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s assertions, regardless of his intentions, are inconsistent with the Quran’s clear guidance on finality.

2. Absence of True Prophetic Characteristics

Prophets in Islam are divinely appointed, receive revelation, perform miracles, and bring guidance directly from Allah. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s followers view him as fulfilling these roles in a limited or metaphorical sense, but mainstream scholars assert that these claims do not meet the established criteria for prophethood.

3. Historical Consensus of Scholars

Since the Ahmadiyya movement’s inception, Islamic scholars from all schools—Sunni, Shia, and others—have unanimously rejected Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s claim to prophethood. This scholarly consensus, known as Ijma, is based on Quranic evidence, Hadith, and theological reasoning. The consensus highlights the centrality of Khatam-un-Nabiyyin and reinforces why mainstream Muslims cannot accept his claim.

4. Theological Implications

Accepting Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet would imply that Islam is incomplete and requires additional guidance. Mainstream Muslims maintain that the Quran provides complete guidance and that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) delivered the final message for humanity. The introduction of a new prophet after him would undermine this foundational principle.

Sunni and Shia Perspectives

Both Sunni and Shia scholars uphold the finality of prophethood as a non-negotiable tenet.

  • Quranic Evidence: The Quran explicitly calls Muhammad (peace be upon him) the Seal of the Prophets.

  • Hadith Evidence: Multiple Hadith reinforce that no prophet will come after Muhammad (peace be upon him).

  • Scholarly Consensus: The Ijma of Muslim scholars through history has consistently rejected any claims to prophethood after him.

This unified position underscores the doctrinal foundation for rejecting Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s claims.

Historical Context

The Ahmadiyya movement emerged during the British colonial period in India, a time of religious and social upheaval. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sought to counter Christian missionary activities and reform Islamic practices. While his movement attracted followers and contributed to missionary work, mainstream Muslims emphasize that revival and reform do not require new prophethood. Islam, according to orthodox scholars, is already complete and perfect, and spiritual reform can be achieved without introducing new prophets.

Legal and Social Implications

In Pakistan and some other countries, constitutional amendments reflect the mainstream Muslim belief in the finality of prophethood. Ahmadis are prohibited from identifying themselves as Muslims or claiming prophethood. These laws highlight the importance of Khatam-un-Nabiyyin in both religious and social frameworks.

Despite legal measures, scholars stress that respectful dialogue and coexistence remain essential. Differences in belief should be addressed through education, scholarly discussion, and peaceful engagement rather than hostility or animosity.

Respectful Religious Dialogue

Islamic teachings emphasize knowledge, debate, and respectful engagement when discussing theological differences. Mainstream Muslims reject Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s claim based on scripture and scholarship, but Islam teaches that differences of belief should not lead to violence or hatred. Constructive discourse and education are the proper means to clarify theological distinctions.

Conclusion

The rejection of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s claims by mainstream Muslims is grounded in Quranic injunctions, Hadith, and centuries of scholarly consensus. The finality of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is a fundamental principle of Islam, making any claim to prophethood after him incompatible with orthodox belief.