Children Of Adulterers

This allegation is often raised by the non Ahmadi Muslims and is one of the most famous allegation against Ahmad^as. The allegation is that Ahmad^asclaimed that those who do not accept his claim of being the Messiah an Mahdi are Dhuriyyatul Baghaya. This portion is in Arabic which the opponents translate themselves as “children of adulterers”. To understand this we need to read the passage and everything itself becomes clear.

Our opponents claim that Ahmad^as stated: “Every Muslim accepts me and affirms the truth of my claim (as being the Promised Messiah and Mahdi) except those who are the children of adulterers.”

However, such a translation is completely incorrect and contradicts what Ahmad^as is saying. Firstly this is not referring to the Muslims. This passage is not referring to the claim of Ahmad^as and is rather speaking in regards to his will to serve Islam. Ahmad^as on page 547 of Aina-e-Kamalat-e-Islam states “From a young age I have always possessed the desire to defend Islam and fight a war of argumentation and debate against the Hindus and Christians.”

This further proves he is not addressing the Muslims as he is mentioning his debates against Hindus and Christians. Why would Ahmad^as state that he has strived since he was young to debate these religions and then call the Muslims Children of adulterers? This is a misinterpretation of his writings and there is no possible relation between both statements.

He then gives examples of his books Barahin-e-Ahmadiyyah, Surmah Chashm-e-Arya, Taudhi-e-Maram, Izala-e-Auham, Fath-e-Islam, and Dafu’ul Wasawis. He then states:

“It is these books to which every Muslim sheds a glance of love and affection and they (the Muslims) benefit from the deep wisdoms hidden within these books. Everyone accepts and testifies the truth of my invitation (i.e my invitation to Islam), except those who are Dhuriyyatul Baghaya; those upon whose hearts Allah has set a seal” (Aina-e-Kamalat-e-Islam, Page 547-548)

It is clear that the words Dhuriyyatul Baghaya are not even attributed to the Muslims here. This fact is further supported by page 535 in the same book where Ahmad^as states:

“In the end, O Queen! I advise you that the Muslims are your distinct helpers; And they possess distinction in your sovereignty. Hence, look towards the Muslims with an exclusive glance and grant them the means of the delight of their eyes; And reconcile their hearts and make them your near ones; And honour them with the highest of positions.”( A’ina-e-Kamalat-e-Islam, Page 535)

He is telling the Queen to respect the Muslims and honor them as well. How can it be possible that Ahmad^as calls the Muslims Children of adulterers and ten pages right after, he asks the Queen to respect the Muslims and take care of them? Muslims were not being referred to at all. On top of this the Arabic word da’wati does not refer to the claim of Ahmad^as rather refers to the invitation of Islam for the Christians and Hindus. This is further proven by another passage of Ahmad^as which states:

“By God! Allah knows well that I am a lover of Islam and I am a sacrifice for the Holy Prophet^saw the Best of Creation, and I am a servant of Ahmad^saw the Chosen ever since I attained the age of maturity and I was enabled to write a book, it was my heartfelt desire to invite the opponents to Islam to the radiant religion of Allah. So I dispatched a letter to every opponent and invited the young and old to Islam.” (A’inah-e-Kamalat-e-Islam, p. 388-389)

Now since the meaning of whom the word da’wati refers to has been made clear, let us move on to the passage and give its true meaning. The correct translation of the passage should be:

“Everyone accepts my invitation to Islam (among the non-Muslims, who are the ones being addressed here) except for those who are Dhurriyatul Baghaya.”

It is clear that it has nothing to do with the Muslims. In fact, he is addressing those Christians and Hindhus who mock the Holy Prophet Muhammad^saw. Now comes the word Dhurriyatul Baghaya and its meaning. Firstly, it does not refer to the Muslims as we have already proven and secondly it is an Arabic phrase, and therefore should be looked at from the view of Arabic lexicons.

According to Tajul Urus for example, al Baghy is the opposite of ar-rushd which means guidance. Therefore, dhuriyyatul baghaya also has the meaning of one who rejects the truth and is devoid of guidance, and this meaning would apply in the statement of Ahmad^as.

According to Lisan ul Arab, under baghaya, it is written that a woman can be called baghy and it can be for a non insulting purpose.

Allah States in the Qur’an:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا سَوَاءٌ عَلَيْهِمْ أَأَنْذَرْتَهُمْ أَمْ لَمْ تُنْذِرْهُمْ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ {7} خَتَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ وَعَلَىٰ سَمْعِهِمْ ۖ وَعَلَىٰ أَبْصَارِهِمْ غِشَاوَةٌ ۖ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ {8}

Those who have disbelieved – it being equal to them whether thou warn them or warn them not – they will not believe. Allah has set a seal on their hearts and their ears, and over their eyes is a cover; and for them is a great punishment.”(Chapter 2 verse 7-8)

It is the same people whom Ahmad^as refers to as dhuriyyatul baghaya. Furthermore, Allah States in the Qur’an:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْمُرُ بِالْعَدْلِ وَالْإِحْسَانِ وَإِيتَاءِ ذِي الْقُرْبَىٰ وَيَنْهَىٰ عَنِ الْفَحْشَاءِ وَالْمُنْكَرِ وَالْبَغْيِ ۚ يَعِظُكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَذَكَّرُونَ {91}

Verily, Allah enjoins justice, and the doing of good to others; and giving like kindred; and forbids indecency, and manifest evil, and wrongful transgression. He admonished you that you may take heed.(Chapter 16 Verse 91)

This verse is read in every single Friday Prayer and no one translates the word Bagh as adulterers. Why do the anti Ahmadis mistranslate the writings of Ahmad^as but when the same word is used in the Qur’an they translate it otherwise? It is obvious that the context is key, and both contexts suggest a translation of one who lacks guidance.

There is also a attributed hadith which states that Abu Wael said: “Most of the followers of the Dajjal are the Jews and the offsprings of the rebellious” (Kitab al Fitan, Nuaim bin Hammad, 1534)

Ahmad^as has also himself referred to the Arabic word   ابنبغاء and has translated it as a rebellious man rather than the son of an adulterer.It is stated in regards to Sadullah of Ludhiana in a Qasidah that:

اذيتنى خبثافلست بصادق ان لم تمت بالخرى ياابن بغاء

“You have given me grief by your wickdness; If now you are not destroyed in disgrace, I am false in my claim O rebellious man! (Al-Hakam, Volume 11, No. 7, 24 February 1907, p. 13).

Some have raised the allegation that in  Anjam-e-Atham the words Ibnul Bigha have been translated as Nasl-e-Bad Karaan but this was not a translation done by the Promised Messiah^as, rather by his companion Maulvi Abdul Kareem^ra. The translation done by Ahmad^as is the correct way he had translated his words and therefore it takes precedence over the translations done by his companions.

Never has this word been used for the Muslims. It was used in Noorul Haq as well, for Padre Imam ud Din, who was a Muslim who apostated and would swear at the Holy Prophet Muhammad^saw and had crossed all decency. In response to him, the Promised Messiah^as used this word for him as well. These people would swear at the Qur’an, Allah and the Holy Prophet Muhammad^sawdaily. People raise the allegation of why it meant bad women in this passage, but they ignore the context of who he was addressing.Anjam-e-Atham gives us the translation as a transgressor and in the context, only such a translation would make sense.

Now the next question which arises is how do the Arabs use the word Dhurriyatul Baghaya? For example, the word shaytan is used and is something or a being which takes one to evil. If we say Dhurriyatul Shaytan which means the children of Satan, does this mean that satan has a wife and gives birth to children? This would be the literal translation but in reality means someone who is misguided and does evil things. The word Abu is also used in this sense and we see a famous example from the companion Abu Hurairah^ra.The Holy Prophet^saw gave the companion the name Abu Hurairah^ra but this does mean that the companion was the physical father of cats? Of course not. Secondly, Abu Jahal is another name of a opponent of the Prophet^saw but this refers to the qualities of the person, it does not mean that he was literally the father of ignorance. It does not mean that he physically gave birth to ignorance at all. In the same way, an allegation of such nature should not be raised against the Promised Messiah^as. The term Dhuriyyatul baghaya means someone who follows satan and is far from guidance and this is how the Arabs have used it.

According to common sense, one has to translate the Arabic of Promised Messiah^as in the most appropriate as well. He has clearly praised the Muslims and told the Queen to be nice to the Muslims and therefore the translation of the non Ahmadi Muslims is completely illogical. Logical also tells us that a person would not ask people to accept him, if he is declaring them children of adulterers.

Allegations were raised against Imam Baqir^rh who stated in Furu-e-Kafi, that “by God all those people are the children of Baghaya except us Shia people”. He also stated similar as recorded in al Kafi, Volume 8, Pages 285-287:

 والله  يا أباحمزة  إنالناس كلهم أولاد بغايا ماخلا شيعتنا  

Now in Ahrari Maulvi, a newspaper of his, he stated Waladul Baghaya, Ibnal Haram and all of these idioms are used in Arabic for one who leaves good deeds and follows the path of misguidance despite knowing the truth. It always applies to their misguidance. Imam Baqir^rh also used the words in the same way. The word Dhurriyatul baghaya used in the Arabic language as an idiom. This word has been used against those who used foul language against the Holy Prophet^saw. These are harsh words but they are not curse words and this will be proven by the words of the Holy Prophet^saw as well.

Imam Novi has stated:

“One should not be the first to embark upon severity or ridicule of the pagans, so that Muslims should safeguard their tongues against undesirable language. But when the other side embarks upon abuse and there should be need of defense against their mischief, it is permissible, as the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, directed.”

The people who raise allegations against Promised Messiah^as and claim that this word is a horrible word, forget that it is used in the Qur’an many time. Here are some examples:

فَلَمَّا أَنْجَاهُمْ إِذَا هُمْ يَبْغُونَ فِي الْأَرْضِ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ ۗ يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّمَا بَغْيُكُمْ عَلَىٰ أَنْفُسِكُمْ ۖ مَتَاعَ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا ۖ ثُمَّ إِلَيْنَا مَرْجِعُكُمْ فَنُنَبِّئُكُمْ بِمَا كُنْتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ {24}

But when He has delivered them, lo! they begin to commit excesses in the earth wrongfully. O ye men, your excesses are only against your own selves. Have the enjoyment of the present life. Then to Us shall be your return; and We will inform you of what you used to do. (Chapter 10 Verse 24)

And:

وَلَوْ بَسَطَ اللَّهُ الرِّزْقَ لِعِبَادِهِ لَبَغَوْا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَلَٰكِنْ يُنَزِّلُ بِقَدَرٍ مَا يَشَاءُ ۚ إِنَّهُ بِعِبَادِهِ خَبِيرٌ بَصِيرٌ {28}

And if Allah should enlarge the provision for His servants, they would rebel in the earth; but He sends down according to a proper measure as He pleases. Indeed, He is All-Aware and All-Seeing with regard to His servants.(Chapter 42 Verse 28)

These are only two instances of the usage of this word in the Qur’an. It has been used much more times and to say that it is an abusive word would be calling the Qur’an abusive.

Ahmad(as) in Izala Auham has stated:

“Abuse is one thing and a correct description, however bitter and harsh, is quite another, It is the duty of every speaker of truth to convey the truth to an erring opponent even though he might thereby.”

He also states:

My words had assumed some severity against my opponents in my writings, but I was not the one to start such severity. Those writings were undertaken in reply to the severe attacks of my opponents. They had used such harsh and abusive language as called for some severity. This can be perceived by the comparison which I have instituted between the harsh language used by my opponents – and that used by me in the foreword of my book which I have called Kitabul Bariyyah. As I have just stated the harsh language used by me was by way of retort. It was my opponents who first used such language against me, I could have endured their harsh language without making a retort to it but I had recourse to a retort on account of two reasons: One, so that my opponents, being faced with severity in reply to their harsh strictures, might change their tactics and might revert in future to the use of civil language; and two, that the general Muslim public should not be aroused by the defamatory and provocative language used by my opponents.”( Kitabul Bariyyah, pp. 10-11)

Again Ahmad(as) states:

“We seek refuge with God against defaming righteous divines and civilized respectable people, whether they are Muslims or Christians or Aryas. We consider all of them worthy of honor. We are not concerned even with foolish people. Our severe language is employed only against those who have become notorious on account of their vile language and foul-mouthed utterances. We always mention in good terms those who are good and are not given to abuse and we honor them and love them like brothers.( Lujjatun Nur, p. 61)

And further:

“All ulema are not the same: Some of them are God-fearing while others are wrongdoers. Those who fear Allah, we always think well of them; Allah will soon guide them and they shall perceive the truth. When they are told to declare this man a kafir who is claiming to be the Messiah, they say ‘We will not say anything without full knowledge, and we fear Allah((Al-Huda, Ruhani Khazain Vol. 18, p. 320)

Ahmad(as) also states in Izala Auham:

“I say truly, absolutely truly, that I have not, to the best of my knowledge, used even one word which can be called abusive. A misconception arises because most people fail to differentiate between hurling abuse and narrating the truth, and consider them to be the same. They regard what is the relating of a fact in its proper place to be abuse, solely because of a degree of harshness in it which is unavoidable when speaking the truth. Actually, the definition of abuse and offensive language is that it is something which is against facts and false, and used merely to cause hurt. If we label every harsh and hurtful statement as abuse solely because of its bitterness, unpleasantness and hurtfulness, then we shall have to admit that the entire Holy Quran is filled with foul language. The harsh words used in the Holy Quran to degrade the idols and to disgrace the idol-worshippers, and to curse and condemn them, are not such as would please the idol-worshippers. On the contrary, they would undoubtedly further spark off their rage. When God the Most High addresses the unbelievers of Makka and says:

“Surely you and what you worship besides Allah are fuel of Hell (Chapter 21 verse 99)

is it not included in abusive language according to the criteria coined by the critic? Likewise, is it not abuse in the opinion of the critic when in the Holy Quran God the Most High calls the unbelievers “the worst of creatures” [98:7], and says that they are even worse than the most disgraced and filthy of creations. Has not God the Most High said in the Holy Quran: “be firm against them” [9:74]? Has it not been stated to be a sign of the believers that they are “hard against the disbelievers” [48:30]?”(Izala Auham Pages 13-14, Ruhani Khazain Volume 3, Page 109)

Furthermore Ahmad(as) explains an example of Isa(as)

“When Jesus calls the respectable religious lawyers and Pharisees of the Jews as swine and dogs, and their most honourable leader Herod a fox, and compares their respectable priests and jurists to whores, and as regards the revered leaders, who were accorded the highest respect by the Roman rulers and made to sit with honour in the Roman courts, he speaks of them in these offensive, very hurtful and uncivil words, calling them illegitimate, adulterous, evil, dishonourable, faithless, fools, hypocrites, satanic, doomed to hell, serpents and brood of vipers — are not these words very serious, filthy abuse in the opinion of the critic? From this it becomes evident that the objection of the critic does not only apply to me and my books but in reality he has attacked all the Divine scriptures and prophets with a burning heart.” (Izala Auham Pages 14-15, Ruhani Khazain Volume 3, Pages 109-110) (The references are in Gospel of Matthew Chapter 12 verse 39, Chapter 21 verse 31, Chapter 23 verses 13,15,17, and 33)

And:

“How openly the Holy Quran uses harsh language cannot remain unknown even to the most unintelligent and ignorant of people. For example, the civilized people of today consider it the height of abuse to curse someone. But the Holy Quran pointedly curses the unbelievers. It says: “These it is on whom is the curse of Allah and the angels and men, of all of them, abiding therein” [2:162-163], and: “These it is whom Allah curses, and those who curse, curse them too” [2:160]. Similarly, it is obvious that to liken a human being to a beast is a form of abuse. However, the Holy Quran not only calls them beasts but declares that the unbelievers and deniers are worse than all the creatures on the face of the earth, as it says: “Surely the vilest of beasts in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve” [8:55]. In the same way, it is clear that it is against the manners of present day culture to make a particular person a target of abuse by taking his name or by referring to him, but in the Holy Quran God the Most High has applied to some the name Abu Lahab, and to some the titles dog and swine. Then Abu Jahal is well known as such.

Similarly, regarding Walid Mughira the harshest possible words are used which apparently are terms of filthy abuse, as it says: […Here the Quran 68:9–17 is quoted in Arabic…]. In other words, do not follow what these unbelievers say, who wish from the bottom of their hearts that you abstain from abusing their gods and disgracing their religion, so that then they shall also apparently approve your religion. Do not be misled by the slickness of their tongues. This man who has appealed for compromise is a man who takes false oaths, is of weak opinion, and a degraded individual. He indulges in fault-finding in others and causes division among people by back biting. He hinders from the path of goodness, is guilty of illicit sexual acts, in his character he is a man of the worst morals, and besides all that he is of illegitimate birth. Very soon We shall brand his snout, which has grown long like that of swine. By a long snout is meant adherence to the customs and codes of honour of society which are a hindrance to the acceptance of the truth.”

(Izala Auham Pages 25-29 Ruhani Khazain Volume 3 pages 115-117)