An exploration of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s death-prophecy concerning claimant to divinity, John Hugh Smyth-Pigott. Twitter conversations with Ahmadi Muslims on this topic are cited and expanded upon to illustrate that we who maintain this prophecy was a failure, have solid reasons for arriving at this conclusion.

John Hugh Smyth-Pigott (left) and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (right). The latter prophesied that Pigott would die in his own lifetime should Pigott not repent. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad died in 1908. Smyth-Pigott died in 1927.

Background .

In late 2018, Umar Nasser and I began discussing the Pigott prophecy of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Umar and his brother co-founded the Rational Religion video channel and website. Their focus? To respond to the atheist critique of religion through the lens of Ahmadiyya Islam.

An Undercurrent of Doubt . From early Islamic source material, it was foretold that the messiah of the latter days would demolish Christianity. This messiah would literally “break the cross”. Ahmadi Muslims believe that their founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (d. 1908), was that promised messiah. More pressing than the ideological threat of Christianity, however, non-belief within their own ranks appears to be a rising priority for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community to contend with—at least here in the West. Drifting away (apathy) as well as doubting the faith (apostasy) appear to be the next frontier. We can easily infer that this is so by observing the growth in this community’s social media initiatives aimed at addressing doubts with respect to Islam. Consider The Conviction Project podcast, whose motto is literally, “where we leave you with no doubts about Islam”. This religious community in particular, prides itself on being one of the most rational sects of Islam. As a former member and one who was born into this group, I can vouch for there being some truth to that characterization—with some caveats. See my article The Ahmadiyya: Beliefs and Practices for an overview on this messianic Islamic sect. Interestingly, the desire to be the most rational denomination within the diaspora of Islam leaves this community’s newest generation poised to embrace reason over hearsay…err ‘revelation’. This opportunity is ever present for those Ahmadi Muslims who’ve grown up in the West. Most of them quietly disagree with the homophobia and gender segregation explicitly woven into the very fabric of their religion. This is a religion that they did not choose, but which they’ve nonetheless, inherited. Increasingly, this demographic is tuning out the religious prescriptions of their parents’ generation and are drifting away from Islam. Whenever we see people raised in the West volunteering under the banner of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, this participation is often (though not always) realized through the application of emotional, social, and familial pressures to stay involved. Sometimes of course, volunteering is simply a way to feel like one belongs…somewhere. Most of the community’s public initiatives, however, tend to be staffed by first-generation immigrants hailing from the Indian subcontinent. Most of them have not yet had the opportunity to explore critiques of Islam from sources other than the defensive polemics and proselytization literature produced by their community’s own apologists. For more on the constraints that keep would be apostates in the closet, see my essay, Reasons Why Many Muslims Haven’t Left Islam—Yet.

In this article, I’ll take you through some of my dialogue with Umar Nasser, as well as some points where his brother Tahir Nasser, chimed in. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s prophecy concerning John Hugh Smyth-Pigott (herein “Pigott”) was our focus.

Beyond follow up to conversations on social media, this article will evaluate specific arguments presented by other Ahmadi Muslim apologists made in writing and through video. Namely, material from Ahmadi Muslims Asif M. Basit and Rehan Qayoom. We’ll evaluate changes in Tadhkirah translations and triangulate expectations telegraphed by Jama’at publications from as late as April 1907.

Conversation on this topic with Umar began when the discussion segued into prophecy. I took that opportunity to pivot into what I believe to be Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s failed death prophecy against Pigott.

You mean like the failed Pigott prophecy? You can’t get out of this one.https://t.co/BNaEpiigAW — Reason on Faith (@ReasonOnFaith) December 31, 2018

[archived screenshot]

In the above tweet, I cite the excellent article by author Marmuzah, entitled Ahmadiyya and The Case of John Hugh Smyth-Pigott.

For a proper background to this prophecy and why non-Ahmadis (whether Muslim or not) believe it was a failure, readers are encouraged to read Marmuzah’s article in full. It provides the background and context for understanding the rest of this article.

A Warning to a Pretender to Divinity . The Pigott prophecy was widely published in English as a tract entitled, A Warning to a Pretender to Divinity. It has been reproduced below for your ready reference. You can peruse a scan of the original, as well as the transcript. Note: The transcript has been reformatted with additional paragraph breaks for easier readability. show scanhide scan





show transcript hide transcript Revd. J. H. Smyth Pigott, Pastor of the “Ark of the Covenant,” who lives at the Cedar Lodge, Clapton, London, has recently announced himself as God. This announcement is contained in two church handbills, entitled “The Ark,” issued by Mr. Pigott on the 7th and 14th September 1902, and sent to us by his Private Secretary. In these announcements he asserts his Godhead in the most insolent words. He does not only utter the blasphemy of calling himself the very “Lord Jesus” who suffered and died before but with excessive arrogance and presumptuousness styles himself as “the Lord of the whole earth,” “the Lord from heaven,” “the Judge of all men,” and “alive for evermore.” These irreverent and extravagant assertions are insulting even to Jesus Christ whose name has been assumed by the imposter. The jealousy of God has come into motion on account of the insult offered to His sacred name and to his messengers by the haughty assertion of a man who calls himself God and the Lord of earth and heavens, and my true, pure, perfect and powerful God has, therefore, commanded me to warn him of the punishment that awaits him. So far as human beings are concerned, I now refrain from warning them of their evil fate because they have seen many such warnings clearly fulfilled and because I have made a solemn promise to that effect but Mr. Pigott reveals himself to his congregation as God and not as a man. A letter containing these boastful and blasphemous claims has also reached the Secretary of our Office from Mr. Pigott’s Private Secretary. The person to whom this warning is given, is not a man but a pretender to Divinity who claims an Everlasting Life and Lordship of the earth and heavens. I, therefore, warn him through this notice that if he does not repent of this irreverent claim, he shall be soon annihilated, even in my life-time, with sore torment proceeding from God and not from the hands of a man. This warning of punishment is from the God who is the God of earth and heavens. His jealousy shall consume the pretender so that none may again defile the earth with such false and arrogant claims. It should also be borne in mind that I am the true Messiah come to declare the glory of God upon earth. I am come in the spirit and character of Jesus Christ. I am a man and with me are innumerable blessings of God, within and without, in the beginning and in the end. God has borne witness to my truth with heavenly signs shown in thousands. I have more than a hundred thousand followers who have been brought to purity of life through me. Thousands of heavenly signs which they have witnessed have worked a pure transformation in their lives. The death of Mr. Pigott within my life-time shall be another sign of my truth. If I die before Mr. Pigott, I am not the true Messiah nor am I from God. But if Almighty God makes me a witness of Mr. Pigott’s death which shall be brought about by the efficacy of my prayer, let the whole world bear witness that I am the true Messiah and that I come from God. We are both under the control of a higher power, and that powerful God shall bring the false Messiah to destruction within the life-time of the true one. I am over sixty-five years of age and Mr. Pigott is, I believe, at least fifteen years younger than myself. In giving this warning I do not publish any prophecy about the death of a Muhammadan, a Christian or a Hindoo, for Mr. Pigott does not belong to any one of these religious systems. Nay he claims to be the very God, the Lord of earth and heavens. The death of this god shall, no doubt, be a wonderful thing and more wonderful still his burial in dust. How soon shall his everlasting life end! May God, the perfect, powerful, living and supporting God, soon show this sign to the world. Amen. THE PROPHET MIRZA GHULAM AHMAD Qadian, Punjab: 24th November 1902.

A Timeline .

This article will make reference to several events and publications spanning over a century, which are also presented in the following timeline.

A timeline of events and publications relevant to the Pigott prophecy issued by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. [Popout Timeline]

Conversations with an Ahmadi Muslim .

My Twitter conversation with Umar Nasser spans multiple tweet-threads. Unfortunately, there isn’t a single link that presents the entirety of our conversation. Such is often the case with conversations on Twitter. The following links, however, should help you navigate through the multiple threads of which our dialogue is comprised.

With this background, we can produce a summary of Umar Nasser’s key contentions.

Umar Nasser’s Key Contentions . The following points reflect my attempt to steel man Umar Nasser’s position. Original Claims. Pigott made strong claims to ‘full’ divinity, i.e. God the Father styled claims, in both 1902 and 1909. Strong divinity claims were not made during the intervening years. Second Hand Reports. Pigott’s statements of being Jesus the Messiah during this intervening period are from newspaper reports sourced from unnamed participants of his congregation. The statements are not proclamations issued from Pigott himself. They were not issued on church handbills, for example, as was Pigott’s public proclamation in 1902. Strong Divinity the Issue. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was not concerned with Pigott’s claims of simply being Jesus for the purposes of this formal prophecy. From an Islamic perspective, claiming to be Jesus is, although blasphemous if a lie, still just claiming to be a man. The claim doesn’t have the divine connotations that Christians associate with being Jesus. It was Pigott’s strong divinity claims with which Mirza Ghulam Ahmad took issue. Failed Life and Mission. Once Pigott returned to making statements of full divinity in 1909, Pigott was publicly disgraced. Pigott lost the love and allegiance of the people closest to him. His church movement fizzled out. All the while, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s Ahmadiyya Muslim Community grew. This growth continues into the present day, with millions of adherents. Mubahila Never Accepted. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad viewed the entire Pigott prophecy as a mubahila challenge; one which Pigott would have to formally accept in order for the death prophecy to be activated. A letter was sent to Pigott in 1902 that accompanied the public warning proclamation inviting Pigott to “come and compete with me”. Pigott never accepted the challenge. Hence, the death prophecy had never been activated. Character and Faith. Some prophecies are easier to follow, and some have more complex layering to them, such as those involving repentance, retreat, and mercy. As long as there’s nothing false about such prophecies, they should be accepted on faith, taking in the wider picture of a prophet’s track record and character. This approach is what God rewards.

I have to commend Umar Nasser in this particular conversation. We were able to exchange ideas without degenerating into ad hominem. After much back and forth, seeing that we were both making assertions that the other was not accepting, I decided to save both of us going in circles. For this reason, I suggested that I would try to revisit the topic in the future in a longer form medium. This is that promised follow-up.

Ok, thanks, until then! — Umar Nasser (@UmarN91) January 4, 2019

[archived screenshot]

Having both made our points; we cordially agreed to leave it there. At least for the time being.

I’m sure Umar feels confident about the points he made in our dialogue. As do I. We were brief, but key points that needed to be made, were made.

For those of you who felt Umar’s responses were adequate in salvaging Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s prophecy, I encourage you to continue reading. I will endeavor to unpack the layers of defense used in Ahmadiyya apologetics with regards to the Pigott prophecy.

Parting Shots .

Before we dive into an exploration of the prophecy and my conversation with Umar, I’d like to address the parting shot I received from his brother.

Having wrapped up this cycle of our dialogue, Tahir Nasser decided to chime in with a sanctimonious tweet:

Umar you might as well stop. This conversation more than any I have read highlights the nature of disbelievers: ‘whether you warn them or warn them not, they will not believe’. No answer you can give will satisfy him or his compatriots. They are determined to reject. — Tahir Nasser (@TahirNasser) January 4, 2019

[archived screenshot]

Umar you might as well stop. This conversation more than any I have read highlights the nature of disbelievers: ‘whether you warn them or warn them not, they will not believe’. No answer you can give will satisfy him or his compatriots. They are determined to reject. tweet from Tahir Nasser

Tahir Nasser suggests that my objections to the fulfillment of this prophecy, in light of Umar Nasser’s arguments, amounts to some kind of deficiency in my nature. This accusation is actually quite revealing—about the accuser. Implicated here as well, is the doctrine to which he subscribes.

Tahir Nasser should really consider that I could make the equivalent counterclaim:

No matter how many objections I present to Ahmadi Muslims, they choose gullibility over reason. Obvious failures by their messiah have been published by many. Why don’t Ahmadi Muslims ever heed these clear sign? Are they obstinate by nature? hypothetical counterclaim

Instead, I believe that it’s best for people to simply lay out their arguments. Far superior an approach than to pass judgment on people’s ‘nature’. It does not follow that because we disagree with another’s argument, that we must therefore belong to a category of people who suffer from some manner of mental infirmity.

What Tahir Nasser also fails to realize, is that just as I accept that Nostradamus had some prophetic hits, I grant Mirza Ghulam Ahmad the same. While I haven’t performed a formal comparison between the two, my cursory intuitions would posit that Nostradamus was probably much more impressive in his predictions than Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

I also don’t believe it to be an “Islamophobic” conspiracy that History Channel documentaries abound exploring the predications of Nostradamus but none have been made introducing the world to the predictive genius of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. The same goes for the Discovery Channel.

What Ahmadi Muslim apologists should take note of is that I have never asserted that every prophecy of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had failed. For example, I haven’t bothered to dispute the Dowie prophecy and its outcome.

If those of us who reject the Pigott prophecy were mindless disbelievers with sealed hearts, we’d be rejecting every positive insight or contribution from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Yet many of us ex-Muslims of the ex-Ahmadi variety applaud without reservation Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s strong rebuke of the Islamists of his time, for example.

The fact that many of us former Ahmadi Muslims are particularly interested in the Pigott prophecy should give Ahmadi Muslim apologists pause. We believe failed prophecies are false prophecies. And false prophecies can only come from false prophets. Gullibility is not a virtue.

Writing off the whole thing . One of Ahmadiyya Islam’s own formally trained imams, Ayyaz Mahmood Khan, in his 2015 dialogue with Dr. Arif Ahmed, had indicated that if even one thing was proven false about Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, then the entire lot of his claims would have to be thrown out. This is the boldness with which Ahmadiyya Islam prides for itself. Consider this transcript of their exchange at time index ~ 1:01:36 to 1:02:16: Dr. Arif Ahmed and Ayyaz Mahmood Khan discuss the need for every prophecy to be true for those who would make a claim to prophethood. Arif: “An example would be Nostradamus. You know, who made a very large number of prophecies. You know, which were fulfilled, by the sounds of it with as much of evidence as the ones that you describe. Then he made other ones about the future that turned out not to happen.” Ayyaz: “But that’s my point, right. That’s exactly my point. That’s the difference between Nostradamus and a true prophet of God, is that he made a plethora of prophecies, some of them perhaps have been fulfilled. But even if one is unfulfilled or is false, then that’s enough to say that the person is a liar. But in the case of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and I believe in the case of other prophets. Each and every prophecy has to be true otherwise it’s enough to warrant you writing off the whole thing.” Ayyaz Mahmood Khan makes an excellent point here—that if even one prophecy is demonstrated to have failed—it warrants writing off the entire thing. This is why a failed prophecy is so important to study. It doesn’t reflect a deranged or diseased mind. It doesn’t imply irrationality. Nor is it indicative of a “sealed heart”. Given, however, that many defenders of the faith would prefer to curb the drift, dissent, doubt, and apostasy growing within their own ranks, such imputations are to be expected.

Exploring the Prophecy .

I’m certain that both Umar and I could fill dozens of pages expanding on the points touched upon in our conversation. My review, however, limits the discussion to what I believe to be the most salient points raised.

The main points of defense offered by apologists for why Pigott did not die within Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s lifetime:

Pigott retreated for a time. His punishment was kept in abeyance while he went quiet. Pigott never accepted Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s challenge of mubahila.

Only a decade ago, the apologetics from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community looked more like this:

Pigott retreated for a time. His punishment was kept in abeyance while he went quiet.

The following video provides a succinct critique of the Pigott prophecy based on the apologetics that were current back in 2010. That is, prior to the mubahila apologetic gaining popularity as the reason for why Pigott didn’t die before Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

The video was produced by Farhan Yusufzai, who adheres to a more normative understanding of Islam. Even those viewers not interested in the video’s invitation to Islam (the last thirty seconds) should find the rest of the video a compelling synopsis on why the Pigott prophecy has come under so much scrutiny.

5-minute video: A counter-apologetics video by a mainstream Muslim who critiqued Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s death prophecy against Pigott. This video was produced in 2010, prior to the mubahila apologetic gaining popularity among Ahmadi Muslim apologists. See original video of which this is a mirror.

In addition to their explanations for why Pigott was spared, Ahmadi Muslim apologists have consistently made broader observations about Pigott’s life and legacy:

Pigott’s health, relationships, and church movement began to fall apart after his 1909 profession of divinity. Therefore, Pigott received his promised punishment. He was humiliated in his own lifetime. Pigott’s Agapemonite movement died out, while Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s Ahmadiyya Muslim Community continues to grow around the world.

These ancillary observations are used more generally as a vindication of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. See the sidebar from this article entitled Prophetic Red Herrings for some additional commentary on how these outcomes do not address the actual prophecy that was issued by Ahmad.

Glossary . Tadhkirah: The compilation of all of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s claimed revelations. Originally in Urdu, it can also be accessed in English. The English rendering, however, has some controversial bits missing. Generally speaking, each claimed revelation has a reference to the publication in which it originally appeared. Malfoozat: The compilation made in 1960 of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s statements, written down over half a century after Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had already died. Generally speaking, entries are not traced back to any contemporaneous written records. Mubahila: A religious prayer duel where both parties formally invoke the curse of God upon the party that is lying or who is otherwise in the wrong. Derived from Qur’an 3:61, it requires by default that both parties agree to the duel. See Wikipedia entry. Shirk: The Arabic term for associating partners or equals to Allah. Polytheism is a form of shirk, as is belief in the Trinity. In modern times, this concept has been expanded to capture, in a metaphoric sense, how some people “worship” money, fame, hedonism, etc. Jama’at: In this article, the term is synonymous with the leadership of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. In a general sense, it can refer to the entire membership of the Community. The generic term ‘jama’at’ can apply to a gathering, congregation, or religious movement. In south Asian circles, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is often referred to as the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at, or just “the Jama’at” for short.

This article will, for the most part, ignore the rejoinder that Pigott’s life was a mess after 1909 as that is nowhere prophesied in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s warning proclamation containing the death-prophecy.

Although dialogue had on social media is rarely linear and compartmentalized, I will attempt to focus discussion on one apologetic defense at a time. There is, however, a natural interplay and drift between the two arguments which will also be reflected in this article. As a result, some restatement of pivotal arguments and concepts will be unavoidable.

The Repentance Argument .

The traditional defense offered by Ahmadi Muslim apologists for the events surrounding this prophecy is that Pigott wasn’t killed because his behavior after Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s warning proclamation amounted to an effective repentance and retreat. Some apologists even use the word ‘retract’ in a manner that implies a retraction might have been issued, to describe Pigott’s behavior during his first few years in Spaxton.

Prior to ~ 2010, articles and dialogue on the Pigott prophecy emphasized Pigott’s lack of public proclamations of divinity in the years leading up to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s death. That was the reason given for Pigott having been spared God’s wrath.

Repentance, however, was the only condition offered in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s warning proclamation that could have given Pigott an out.

Umar Nasser and I do touch on Pigott’s behavior and notions of retreat and repentance. However, our conversation began with the second and more modern defense of the prophecy now offered by Ahmadi Muslim apologists—the challenge of mubahila.

The Mubahila Argument .

Umar Nasser claims that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s warning proclamation to Pigott was always contingent on Pigott accepting his challenge. Umar Nasser cites a footnote in Tadhkirah claiming that a letter from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad accompanied Ahmad’s original warning to Pigott. This letter apparently included the phrase, “If you have the power, come and compete with me.”

– The lifetime challenge is a mubahila challenge, as made clear in this statement given with the announcement to Piggott – “Come and compete with me.” This was not accepted formally, so the lifetime challenge did not happen + Piggott backed down from strong divinity claims. pic.twitter.com/wtvXp75Ewr — Umar Nasser (@UmarN91) January 1, 2019

[archived screenshot]

– The lifetime challenge is a mubahila challenge, as made clear in this statement given with the announcement to Piggott – “Come and compete with me.” This was not accepted formally, so the lifetime challenge did not happen + Piggott backed down from strong divinity claims. tweet from Umar Nasser

According to this line of argumentation, all of the bold talk in the warning proclamation issued by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s was subordinated by the very letter which (allegedly) accompanied it. That is, the death-prophecy would only be operative if Pigott were to formally opt-in and agree to compete with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

Defense 1: Repentance .

Did Pigott repent in the intervening years (1903-1908)? Some Ahmadi Muslim apologists suggest that he did. They suggest that when Pigott transitioned into simply claiming to be Jesus the Messiah, this constituted an implicit repentance. Before we go further, here’s a refresher on what it means to repent..

repent Pronunciation: /rɪˈpɛnt/ verb [NO OBJECT] 1 Feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one’s wrongdoing or sin. ‘the Padre urged his listeners to repent’ ‘he repented of his action’ 1.1 [with object] View or think of (an action or omission) with

deep regret or remorse. ‘Marian came to repent her hasty judgement’ ‘he repented of his action’ 1.2 (repent oneself) archaic Feel regret or penitence about. ‘I repent me of all I did’ Origin Middle English: from Old French repentir, from re- (expressing intensive force) + pentir (based on Latin paenitere ‘cause to repent’).

Oxford Dictionary: British and World English

A reduction in Pigott’s pretentiousness postponed punishment, suggest Ahmadi Muslim apologists. It was God’s mercy. No longer was Pigott making claims synonymous with being God the Father. No longer were any of his blasphemous pronouncements made in public.

In Umar Nasser’s tweet presenting a passage from Tadhkirah (November 20, 1902) we see that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to receive a revelation, which, among other possibilities, stated that “Pigott…would not repent in future”.

Pigott Already in Retreat . Pigott made his bold public proclamation of divinity in London on Sep 07, 1902. Pigott received a lot of pushback for it and had no choice but to retreat to the group’s private enclave in Spaxton. It was already evident that Pigott had upset a lot of people with his claims by the time Mirza Ghulam Ahmad received his revelation (Nov 20, 1902) and issued his subsequent proclamation (Nov 24, 1902). In fact, on September 15, 1902, Pigott had an alleged trail of 3000 protestors following him. The Telegraph provides an overview of Pigott’s announcement and how it backfired: It was there that Smyth-Piggot declared himself to be the “second coming of Christ” in September 1902, before a 6,000 strong crowd. Contemporary reports detail how, while his followers abased themselves, many of the crowd reacted so angrily to his claim that he was run out of town under police escort and afterwards retreated to the sect’s Somerset base. When Mirza Ghulam Ahmad received his revelation regarding Pigott, it was already apparent that Pigott’s present condition was “not good” and that Pigott’s ability to safely make professions in public of such a blasphemous nature were going to be difficult. Neither facts about Pigott’s current situation required revelation to deduce. It should also be borne in mind that Pigott’s original public claim never made an explicit reference to ‘God the Father’. The only person of the Trinity whom Pigott had named explicitly, was Christ. The grandiose attributes of divinity asserted by Pigott in September 1902 to which Mirza Ghulam Ahmad took exception—“the Lord of the whole earth,” “the Lord from heaven,” “the Judge of all men,” and “alive for evermore.”—have always been consistent with the Christian concept of Jesus as God.

If we accept the death prophecy was averted because Pigott repented, then the revelation in Tadhkirah indicating that Pigott would not repent in the future, was falsified.

In this next tweet, Umar Nasser advises that the passage in Tadhkirah sheds light on why the prophecy was made.

– I hope the highlighted segments of the announcement help. – The Tadhkirah passage makes it clear it is claiming outright divinity which Ahmad (as) spoke out against. [See attached & highlighted] pic.twitter.com/jla84iYW2M — Umar Nasser (@UmarN91) January 1, 2019

[archived screenshot]

– I hope the highlighted segments of the announcement help. – The Tadhkirah passage makes it clear it is claiming outright divinity which Ahmad (as) spoke out against. [See attached & highlighted] tweet from Umar Nasser

With regards to the claim to be God, this requires a discussion of whether claiming to be Lord Jesus from a Christian context is the same as making a claim to divinity. This point is discussed in a later section entitled, Levels of Divinity.

To be sure, this particular revelation captured in Tadhkirah is all over the map. It’s a classic example of hedging with multiple possibilities in order to claim a “win” no matter the eventual outcome. For this revelation, the possible interpretations given for Pigott’s current and future state were that:

The present condition of Pigott is not good Pigott would not repent in the future Pigott will not believe in God Pigott telling a lie and planning against God is not good.

Of these four explanations, all are quite worthless, except the second option: that Pigott would not repent in the future.

Let’s explore why the other possibilities add nothing of value to our understanding.

Option 1: The present condition of Pigott is not good

Any revelation about Pigott’s present condition isn’t actually a “revelation”. Perhaps if we came to know by some verified means that on the same day that this revelation was published in India, Pigott had experienced an unexpected stroke over in Britain, we might then concede that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad possessed some impressive and prophetic insights on Pigott’s condition. But no such event occurred.

Given that Pigott had no choice but to retreat to Spaxton after his public proclamation in September 1902 had generated significant protest, anyone following the story in November of that same year would already know that Pigott was not living through the best of times.

As such, we can toss out this piece of non-information from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s revelation.

Option 3: Pigott will not believe in God

One could assert that by knowingly making a false claim about God, a person must already not believe in God. It could also mean that perhaps one day, Pigott would publicly declare that he no longer believes in God. But this too, never happened. Pigott never declared himself to be an atheist. Again, no actual insight for us here.

Option 4: Pigott telling a lie and planning against God is not good

This statement is not even prophetic. It’s a religious axiom; a given. Believers across the panoply of world religions would find this to be a true statement regardless of the time or person to whom it was directed. In fact, this statement borders on tautology. It adds nothing to our understanding.

So, what are we left with? We’re left with this:

Pigott would not repent in the future

Remember, this is Tadhkirah. This is what Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claims to be his revelations from God. Knowledge from the Knower of the Unseen.

The possibilities given in this revelation are all rounded out with the words “Allah is severe in retribution”. This is taken to show that Pigott’s end:

will be doomed and he will be afflicted with God’s chastisement

This is from the November 20, 1902 entry. It states that Pigott will not repent. And yet, so many Ahmadi Muslims claim that Pigott only outlived Mirza Ghulam Ahmad because Pigott had downgraded his divinity claims from God-the-Father in public to (at most) God-the-Son in private.

Some Ahmadi Muslim apologists suggest that these changes in behavior amount to Pigott having effectively repented.

So no, you’re wrong. He did repent because we know he went silent and stopped making his claims. The punishment was then held in abeyance and the prophecy inapplicable. The PM a.s died. He then returned to his claims and was humiliated without following. — Tahir Nasser (@TahirNasser) February 5, 2019

[archived screenshot]

Repentance is to stop committing an action and feel sorry for them. God then deals with you on the basis of your present condition, not his knowledge of your future condition of returning to sin. To do so would be to deny humans of free will. So no, you’re wrong. He did repent because we know he went silent and stopped making his claims. The punishment was then held in abeyance and the prophecy inapplicable. The PM a.s died. He then returned to his claims and was humiliated without following. tweet from Tahir Nasser

None of the reports which describe Pigott’s life in the years intervening 1902-1908 indicate any heartfelt remorse. We have no information to conclude that Pigott ceased to present himself as a Christian Messiah to his private flock in Spaxton. Curious readers are encouraged to read the extracts from McCormick’s book Temple of Love. The linked passages provide insight into how Pigott presented himself to his congregation.

Returning to Tadhkirah, the 1902 entry, duly distilled, is telling us that Pigott would not repent in the future. Ahmadi Muslim apologists insist, however, that Pigott’s behavior during the 1903-1908 period constitute an implicit repentance.

So, which is it? Did Pigott repent in the years prior to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s death, or didn’t he? Or are we to believe that he ultimately did both? How does Pigott’s initial repentance not falsify the Tadhkirah revelation of November 20, 1902 indicating that Pigott would not repent in the future?

To explore these questions, you best pack your spandex. We’re about to engage in some mental gymnastics—Ahmadiyya style.

Perhaps we’re meant to take the phrase “Pigott would not repent in the future” to mean that after Pigott repents in the future, he’ll stop repenting in the more distant future after that. He’ll both repent and not repent. First he’ll repent, and then he won’t.

Had Tadhkirah captured this flip-flop duality in Pigott’s trajectory, perhaps we could be more impressed. Perhaps if Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had left us an entry in Tadhkirah in 1903 to indicate that Pigott was repentant and that the prophecy had thus gone into abeyance until further notice, this line of apologetic could be accepted. Instead, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad doubled down on Pigott’s death as a sign for the people. Not convinced? Then read the August 23, 1903 announcement from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad entitled, “Predictions concerning Pigott and Dowie”. We’ll explore that announcement more closely in a later section of this article. You’ll witness how Mirza Ghulam Ahmad gave us no indication that Pigott’s death prophecy had been suspended. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Through Ahmadiyya Islam, we’ve been introduced to a God who seems to enjoy trolling believers. He rarely says what He means. Pigott will pause his more extreme blasphemy just long enough for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to die, and then Pigott will resume his unrepentant behavior, just as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had prophesied. This line of argumentation implicitly puts the emphasis on Pigott’s suspension of public blasphemy as what had ultimately saved him; not on his having ignored Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s alleged invitation to mubahila.

On this line of argumentation, we don’t even need to cite the mubahila in order to give Pigott an out. By invoking the repentance angle, however, even if temporary, we are negating Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s revelation recorded in Tadhkirah from November 20, 1902 which stated with knowledge from the Divine, that Pigott would not repent.

Tadhkirah Revised .

The first edition of Tadhkirah in English was published in 1976. It was translated by Sir Chaudry Muhammad Zafarullah Khan—a highly educated and accomplished native Urdu speaker. As of this writing, the version of Tadhkirah in English available at the official website of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is the 2009 edition. It is this latter edition from which Umar Nasser provided screenshots in his tweets.

Tadhkirah Revisions: A Closer Look . As compared to the 2006 edition, the 2009 edition of Tadhkirah has among other changes, a November 20, 1902 entry which received some fine-tuning edits and an additional commentary. 2006 editionhide

The entry on Pigott as presented in the 2006 English edition of Tadhkirah. Notice that the wording from this earlier edition of Tadhkirah is more definitive in presenting Pigott as one who would not repent in the future. It makes perfect sense that with renewed interest in the Pigott prophecy, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community felt compelled to soften and walk back the clarity with which Mirza Ghulam Ahmad foretold of Pigott’s non-repentance. Fortunately for the apologists, the underlying Urdu in Tadhkirah did lend itself to the revision with an “or” before the clause about repentance. 2009 editionhide

The entry on Pigott as presented in the 2009 English edition of Tadhkirah. The 2006 English edition used the word “and” to connect Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s various interpretive segments of his revelation. The 2009 English edition replaced these with an “or”. Native Urdu speakers may wish to consult the earliest editions of the original in Urdu to review. In the current Urdu edition of Tadhkirah, the first occurrence of a joining phrase is ‘aur ya’, which does literally translate to “and/or”. Tahir Nasser has correctly pointed this out. The subsequent segments, however, are joined with the Urdu ‘aur’—which means “and”—but these joining bits have been translated in the latest 2009 edition as “or”. Introducing more “or” segments has the effect of increasing the surface area for a possible match when culling for a particular narrative. In other words, this is an effective way to introduce greater ambiguity. Now this particular Tadhkirah entry has more to pick from. It appears to claim less of anything with certainty. To be clear, changing the first “and” in the 2006 version to an “or”, as was done in the 2009 edition, is a defensible correction. While it’s technically “and/or” in that first case, it is idiomatically equivalent to simply writing “or”. There was legitimate room to make the no-repentance clause (void of context) look like a possible interpretation and not simply the interpretation. The other changes where “and” has been changed to “or” appear to be revisions of convenience not borne out by the original Urdu source text.

Consider, however, that even if we read all of these segments of the revelation’s interpretation as being joined with an “or”, all of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s interpretations of this revelation amount to noise, save the claim that Pigott would not repent in the future. This is the only meaningful non-tautological item of information given to us among the four possibilities presented.

Setting up the statement about Pigott not repenting in the future to be just one of many possibilities from the revelation provides Ahmadi Muslim apologists an out. They can claim that Pigott had in fact, repented. Or, if they feel like overreaching, that Pigott recanted.

Ahmadi Muslim apologists can then offer this repentant behavior as the reason for why Pigott wasn’t struck down in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s own lifetime. To not clash with the revelation in Tadhkirah, however, Ahmadi Muslim apologists are usually careful to avoid using contested terminology. Instead of ‘repent’, they usually, though not always, opt for words like ‘retreat’ and ‘retract’.

In 2010, an Ahmadi Muslim writer took exactly this approach for his article in the Ahmadiyya Gazette Canada:

Unlike the case of Dowie, where he continued making false claims and angrily responded back to the Promised Messiahas through the media, Reverend Smyth-Pigott totally retracted public claims and retreated. It is perhaps for this reason he did not die in the lifetime of the Promised Messiahas. Indeed, he lived on and died in 1927. , M.D., FRCP, San Diego, California, USA.

Smyth-Pigott – A Fake Messiah from England Ahmadiyya Gazette Canada

March-April 2010 Edition, pp. 28-29. archived screenshots] Tahir IjazMarch-April 2010 Edition, pp. 28-29.

Author Tahir Ijaz speculates that having shifted his preaching out of the public eye, God may have elected to show mercy on Pigott. While I disagree with the author’s framing that Pigott “retracted public claims”, I commend Tahir Ijaz for acknowledging that it’s nothing more than speculation as to why Pigott was spared.

Consider that to retract implies to take back. However, Pigott never took back his words. He only retracted in the manner of “cease and desist”. He stopped making public claims of divinity in the way that he once had. If the author had instead written that Pigott had, “retracted from making public claims” the phrase would no longer give the mistaken impression that Pigott had apologized or formally changed his claim and/or underlying beliefs.

Even more interesting is that if one reads the entire article from the Ahmadiyya Gazette Canada, nowhere can one find any mention of a mubahila.

An Ahmadi Muslim apologist shouldn’t need to speculate as to why Pigott was spared if a mubahila had been offered to Pigott, yet nowhere does this article mention that Pigott hadn’t accepted the alleged invitation to “come and compete”.

Perhaps the reason for the missing mubahila reference is that much of the mubahila apologetic comes to us from passages in Malfoozat—a compilation of books not published until the 1960s—and even then, only in Urdu. As a result, many apologists in the Jama’at for whom English is their main language, wouldn’t have even known about this innovative line of apologetic.

Of course, if a mubahila was proposed to Pigott back in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s own lifetime, you’d think we’d at least have one article defending the prophecy on those grounds in say, 1908, 1909 or 1910.

Ahmadi Muslim readers are encouraged to look for such an article from the period. Try the Review of Religions archives from both the Qadian and Lahore branches of Ahmadiyya Islam. Did you find a candidate article? If so, does it provide authenticated evidence from before Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s own death, that a mubahila was issued? If not, why did we have to wait until the 1960s for this evidence to surface? Food for thought.

Contrasting Retreat, Retract, Recant, and Repent .

How do we distinguish whether one can be said to have retreated, retracted, recanted or repented?

To Retreat

One can retreat by withdrawing as a result of being overpowered. To retreat is to move back or to withdraw.

With Pigott being run out of town and no longer making public professions of divinity, his move to Spaxton most definitely qualifies as retreat.

To Retract

One can retract one’s hand. By doing so, it is plain to see that it is no longer outstretched. That’s the verb form. The noun form, retraction, telegraphs something much more definitive. Generally speaking, a retraction is something that explicitly acknowledges the change in position, such as a formal retraction. These are most often issued in writing.

Insofar as both a retreat and the act of retracting represent a withdrawal from a previous position, Pigott can be said to have retracted from making public claims to divinity until 1909. The act of retracting tactically (verb), should not, however, be confused with issuing a formal and clear retraction (noun). Pigott never issued a retraction.

Furthermore, the word retract is misleading in the context of Pigott’s claims. If one retracts one’s hand back to one’s body, the new position is self-evident. Retracting a claim is ambiguous without also providing an explicit statement to indicate that the old claim no longer holds, or alternatively, stating what the new position is, with an explicit and contrasting reference to the old claim. Pigott provided us with neither of these .

To Recant

Stronger than a withdrawal—i.e. the verb forms of retreat and retract—is the act of recanting. To recant is to state that one no longer holds an opinion or belief, especially one considered heretical. One way for a person to recant is to issue a formal retraction.

Pigott, however, never issued a formal retraction. Pigott is nowhere on record as having ever recanted for his blasphemy.

To Repent

As discussed earlier, to repent is to feel or to express sincere regret or remorse about one’s wrongdoing or sin.

The multiple reports available from different newspaper outlets between 1904 and 1908 demonstrate that Pigott continued the charade of being Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God, and the Lamb of God—but in private. Pigott allowed his congregation to continue worshipping him. Such conduct is not compatible with repentance—which is, remember—a sincere regret or remorse for one’s wrongdoing.

The Death Prophecy

No doubt, Pigott’s claims from September 1902 upset Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

But did the Indian Messiah ever give Pigott respite from his death-prophecy for merely retreating? Was there a provision of leniency for merely desisting? Did ceasing to make blasphemous claims of the highest order get one released from the death prophecy? The answer to all of these question is no.

States Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in his November 24, 1902 proclamation:

I, therefore, warn him through this notice that if he does not repent of this irreverent claim, he shall be soon annihilated, even in my life-time, with sore torment proceeding from God and not from the hands of a man.

A Warning to a Pretender to Divinity Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, November 24, 1902

We’re back to the only means of escape: repentance. Furthermore, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s revelation in Tadhkirah states that Pigott would not repent in the future. But let’s entertain the position that Pigott not repenting in the future was just one of several possible interpretations for the November 20, 1902 revelation. How might we ascertain whether Pigott did or did not repent?

To retreat to Spaxton because he was run out of Clapton doesn’t suggest heartfelt remorse or regret. That was simply a life preserving tactical necessity.

Moreover, for the purposes of prophecy, those of us who are meant to judge success or failure cannot look inside another man’s heart. The only type of repentance the rest of us can assess is the style of repentance that demonstrates a reversal in clear and unequivocal terms. A public retraction, for example, would have sufficed. A congregation that didn’t appear to be a cult, treating their leader as one worthy of worship, would have also worked toward establishing the repentance narrative.

In Pigott’s case, we have neither.

Levels of Divinity .

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s Warning proclamation explains that beyond the “utter blasphemy” of claiming to be “Lord Jesus”, Pigott claimed to be “Lord of the whole earth”. However, this inferred Son of God vs. God the Father distinction in describing Pigott’s arrogance is never made a condition for the activation or deactivation of the death prophecy, as outlined in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s warning proclamation.

The only condition which can be inferred from the original proclamation, is that of repentance. We see this condition about halfway through the warning proclamation:

I, therefore, warn him through this notice that if he does not repent of this irreverent claim, he shall be soon annihilated, even in my life-time, with sore torment proceeding from God and not from the hands of a man.

A Warning to a Pretender to Divinity Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, November 24, 1902

Pigott never issued a retraction for his claims. In Marmuzah’s article, we see news clippings from 1904, 1905, 1906, and 1908 where Pigott is reported by his own congregation as having made claims of divinity. Pigott is the “Messiah”, the “Lamb of God”, and “Lord Jesus”.

From an Islamic perspective, this can be seen as an imperfect downgrade of sorts from implicit God the Father claims to those more akin to Jesus the Messiah styled prophethood. Yet from a Christian perspective—which better represents the context from which Pigott and his followers would have understood it—Lord Jesus is but one person of the Trinitarian Godhead. Jesus is still divine.

Claiming to be Jesus the Messiah in your local congregation may be a downgrade for some, but it doesn’t constitute repentance. It certainly doesn’t qualify as Pigott having recanted, as some Ahmadi Muslim sources have styled it in what is without a doubt a clear overreach. In any event, simply downgrading a bigger lie to a smaller one isn’t the same as having repented for making that bigger lie in the first place.

On the distinction between God-the-Father and God-the-Son, this tweet illustrates how I’ve been making the case that no contingent punishment was laid out for shifting between these two persons of the Trinity:

Respectfully, I don’t find these highlights address my query. They don’t make a contingent distinction. They are simply descriptions of being aghast at the blasphemy of it all. Happy for readers of this thread to come to their own conclusions, of course.https://t.co/tvtJWvpA9e — Reason on Faith (@ReasonOnFaith) January 2, 2019

[archived screenshot]

I offered these comments in response to a tweet from Umar Nasser who had highlighted passages of the death prophecy. His aim was to demonstrate that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was making a distinction: not only was Pigott claiming to be Jesus—he was claiming to possess attributes which belong to God exclusively:

– I hope the highlighted segments of the announcement help. – The Tadhkirah passage makes it clear it is claiming outright divinity which Ahmad (as) spoke out against. [See attached & highlighted] pic.twitter.com/jla84iYW2M — Umar Nasser (@UmarN91) January 1, 2019

[archived screenshot]

– I hope the highlighted segments of the announcement help. – The Tadhkirah passage makes it clear it is claiming outright divinity which Ahmad (as) spoke out against. [See attached & highlighted] tweet from Umar Nasser

Umar Nasser is correct insofar as these descriptive distinctions were made in the warning announcement. But there’s a catch: the punishment prescribed wasn’t made contingent on these descriptions and the gradations of outrage which they engender. The only lever specified as having the capacity to disengage the prophecy was that of repentance.

Indeed, there’s no problem posed by acknowledging that Pigott’s claim to being God himself is what Mirza Ghulam Ahmad originally took exception to. The passage from Tadhkirah highlighted by Umar—“Indeed, it is a very daring thing to claim to be God”—does not somehow subvert the death prophecy into letting Pigott escape if only he would desist from blaspheming. Pigott had to repent.

To salvage the prophecy, Ahmadi Muslim apologists need to read between the lines and insert new opportunities for Pigott to have gained leniency. It may very well be the case that had Pigott claimed only to be Jesus, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad might not have even taken notice. But once Pigott had made these claims to the godhead, a mere downgrade wasn’t going to get him off the hook. Nowhere in his prophecy did Mirza Ghulam Ahmad make this distinction relevant for clemency.

I addressed this specific point in my conversation with Umar:

The “not only” bit in that tract is descriptive of the outrage. It isn’t tied into the contingency of the punishment to follow. To be clear, I still don’t think the prophecy was fulfilled. My reference to it being sloppy is in how it was framed, even despite not being fulfilled. — Reason on Faith (@ReasonOnFaith) January 2, 2019

[archived screenshot]

The “not only” bit in that tract is descriptive of the outrage. It isn’t tied into the contingency of the punishment to follow. To be clear, I still don’t think the prophecy was fulfilled. My reference to it being sloppy is in how it was framed, even despite not being fulfilled. tweet from Reason on Faith

Religious prophecies like this are often crafted with generous servings of ambiguity. This prophecy just happened to be clear about why Pigott was targeted (divinity claims), and what should happen to him if he didn’t repent (die in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s lifetime).

Ambiguous prophecies, as well as those purposely obfuscated by followers (“it was a challenge, though the challenge aspect was not mentioned in the proclamation”), leave dozens of ways for false claimants and their apologists to spin results after the fact.

The Art of the Spin . There are so many scenarios where the Pigott prophecy would have been deemed a failure by the rest of us, but where Ahmadi Muslim apologists would have nonetheless, claimed victory. Consider the following hypotheticals. Scenario 1 The Hypothetical: Pigott makes God-the-Father styled divinity claims on public church handbills in say, 1905, and still outlives Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

Pigott makes God-the-Father styled divinity claims on public church handbills in say, 1905, and still outlives Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Apologist Defense: Pigott never formally accepted Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s invitation to a mubahila. Scenario 2 The Hypothetical: Pigott formally accepts a mubahila challenge, but then doesn’t die before Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

Pigott formally accepts a mubahila challenge, but then doesn’t die before Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Apologist Defense: Pigott only made weak divinity claims in private congregations, and so the Merciful Allah delayed his death, seeing as how Pigott had effectively downgraded his blasphemous claims. Why do you complain that Allah in the Qur’an is full of vengeance but then deny the opportunities for Him to show mercy when someone shows the slightest of improvements in their behavior? Scenario 3 The Hypothetical: Pigott doesn’t formally accept any mubahila challenge. Pigott retreats to Spaxton where scattered news reports about him reveal that Pigott is still claiming to be Lord Jesus. The reports indicate that Pigott’s congregation prostrate before him in worship. Then, suddenly, Pigott dies of a heart attack in early 1908, months before Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s own passing.

Pigott doesn’t formally accept any mubahila challenge. Pigott retreats to Spaxton where scattered news reports about him reveal that Pigott is still claiming to be Lord Jesus. The reports indicate that Pigott’s congregation prostrate before him in worship. Then, suddenly, Pigott dies of a heart attack in early 1908, months before Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s own passing. Apologist Defense: There’s nothing to defend—Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was victorious. Pigott died in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s lifetime, just as prophesied. There was no need for Pigott to respond to the warning prophecy and no formal mubahila was ever issued. In fact, it was Pigott who implicitly accepted an unstated and informal mubahila by continuing to make rival claims. In a Christian context, claiming to be Lord Jesus is in fact, claiming to be God. Pigott made such claims when he preached in Spaxton. How do we know this? Because we have reports of Pigott professing as much. These second hand reports didn’t stay private—they leaked out. Newspaper reports published between 1904 and 1908 attest to this fact. The only reason they aren’t direct statements from Pigott himself is because he was careful not to speak to the press while the nature of what his congregation got up to was mostly kept secret. By making claims to divinity out of the public eye, Pigott mistakenly believed that God would spare him. But Allah is a witness to all things and Allah who is jealous, keeps His Word. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad prophesied that Pigott would die even in his own lifetime, and that’s exactly what happened. Praise be to Allah! Great is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad! Ahmadiyyat zindabaad! Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his followers often draw upon events outside the text of a prophecy in order to explain away digressions. Did the core prophecy fail? Well, actually, some vague revelation from last year can be interpreted as an out, and thus, the prophecy didn’t truly fail. It was, you know, fulfilled metaphorically. When confirmation bias drives how events are filtered, there’s an answer for everything.

No Stranger to Failed Prophecy . Ahmadiyyat is no stranger to spinning failed prophecies. The unusually clear language of the outrageous Muhammadi Begum prophecy is a perfect example. Readers are encouraged to search for and carefully review both the critiques and the defenses of this prophecy. Learn just how bizarre religious prophecy can get when issued by old men seeking to justify pursuing a young girl whose family wasn’t even interested.

larger version] Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s explanation and revealed prophecy regarding the young girl he believed he was to marry. It’s a shame that innocent girls are often caught up in the religious cross hairs of self-styled prophets; men who are well past their prime but who have in mind a special young lady to give that amazing honor to, of being their second (or third) wife. This is only so that such a prophet may fulfill God’s wishes and seek His pleasure, of course.

Contrasting Pigott with Dowie .

Consider the apologetic that it was only the claim to be God which impelled Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to issue his warning to Pigott. As a jealous God who wanted his Messiah to succeed, Allah then stepped in as the omnipotent underwriter for this daring prophecy of death.

To this line of apologetic, we can learn much by contrasting Pigott’s case with that of John Alexander Dowie. Dowie was an evangelical preacher in America against whom Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had also locked horns. Though, to be fair, Dowie never much cared for engaging Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. For the most part, Dowie ignored him.

Dowie claimed to be Elijah, the forerunner to Jesus Christ. His claims put him at odds and effectively in competition with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Similarly, Pigott’s claim to be the Lamb of God, Lord Jesus, the Messiah, etc., also put him at odds and in competition with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

Despite their differences, it was only Dowie who was subject to a death prophecy without ultimately needing to accept the mubahila which was issued to him—that is, if we even grant that the alleged mubahila for Pigott was real, and not some later fabrication to cover up the fact that Pigott had outlived Ahmad.

Pigott’s claims were an order of magnitude more shirk-laden than Dowie’s. Yet, Pigott’s punishment was allegedly contingent on his formal acceptance of an invitation to come and compete with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

In contrast, Dowie’s punishment for only claiming to be a mortal prophet who also despised Islam was that he had the formal acceptance requirement eventually waived off. That made Dowie the target of a unilaterally activated mubahila. Allah was apparently more jealous that someone had sneered at Islam while claiming to be a lowly human prophet (Dowie) than that someone had claimed to be God Himself (Pigott). So much for the apologetic that claiming to be God is the kind of catalyst that escalates a death wish:

Indeed, it is a very daring thing to claim to be God. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, November 20, 1902

Tadhkirah, 2009 Edition, p. 567

Eventually, Dowie had his mubahila triggered without ever claiming to be divine. His crime beyond claiming to be a prophet? He simply and openly dismissed both Islam and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. The latter he couldn’t even be bothered to mention by name, but had only referred to as the “foolish Messiah” and sometimes as the “Indian Messiah”.

The article Fate of a False Prophet by Syed Hasanat Ahmad, confirms that Dowie never did accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s challenge of mubahila. This bears repeating: Dowie never formally accepted Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s challenge.

According to the aforementioned article, John Alexander Dowie stated in his December 27, 1902 publication Leaves of Healing, that:

“In India, there is a foolish Messiah who writes to me often telling me that the tomb of Jesus Christ is in Kashmir and the people sometimes say to me, why do you not reply to this and that or other things. Reply! Do you think, that I shall reply to these gnats and flies. If I put my foot on them, I would crush out their lives. I give them a chance to fly away and live.”

from “Leaves of Healing” as quoted in Fate of a False Prophet John Alexander Dowie, December 27, 1902“Leaves of Healing”

This same Review of Religions article presents an August 23, 1903 announcement from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad stating that:

… But, if Dr. Dowie can not even now gather courage to appear in the contest against me, let both the continents bear witness that I shall be entitled to claim the same victory as in the case of his death in my life-time. If he accepts the challenge, the pretension of Dr. Dowie will be settled. Though he may try hard as he can to fly away from the death which awaits him, yet his flight from such a contest will be nothing less than a death to him and the calamity will certainly overtake him in Zion for he must face the consequences of either acceptance of the challenge or its refusal.” Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, August 23, 1903

Announcement “Predictions concerning Pigott and Dowie”

cited in Fate of a False Prophet

Here, we see evidence that a challenge from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad need not be formally accepted in order for it to have been activated. It’s also peculiar that the challenge to Dowie had only been issued two months prior to the warning to Pigott, yet they were treated so differently by the summer of 1903.

Dowie’s challenge received a reprieve of seven months within which Dowie was to decide and respond. But regardless, Dowie would face calamity. Pigott was given no such time frame. There wasn’t even a hint that a mubahila had even been issued. Just a straight-up restatement of the expectation that Pigott would die in Ahmad’s lifetime.

Religious prophecies are notorious for throwing out several partially conflicting statements that can later be selected from to construct a desired narrative of events. Religious apologists will construct the most convenient narrative after-the-fact to recover from any eventuality.

This is why prophecies like the warning to Pigott and their related revelations offering numerous “outs” are always meaningless. Such prophecies appeal to people who are susceptible to the post-designation fallacy

Drawing a conclusion from correlations observed in a given sample, but only after the sample has already been drawn, and without declaring in advance what correlations the experimenter was expecting to find. This is related to the multiple comparisons fallacy. entry on Post-Designation Fallacy

website Logically Fallacious

The Boston Herald Not Corrected .

What’s even more telling is that this same Review of Religions article relays that the Sunday Herald of Boston of June 23, 1907 published a statement from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad affirming:

A sign of evidence of God in my favor will appear in the death of Mr. Pigott, the arrogant pretender to divinity, who shall be brought to destruction within my lifetime. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, August 23, 1903

Announcement “Predictions concerning Pigott and Dowie”

cited in The Sunday Herald of Boston, June 23, 1907.

[archived screenshot]

Notice how the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community didn’t intervene to correct the Boston Herald?

Shouldn’t the Jama’at have advised the Boston Herald that the excerpt from August 23, 1903 which makes mention of Pigott is for a prophecy that is currently suspended?

Shouldn’t the Jama’at have sent in corrections to newspapers to advise that Pigott has been in retreat for several years now and as such, the prophecy is currently in abeyance?

Why didn’t the Jama’at step in to clarify to the public that as Pigott hasn’t formally accepted Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s challenge, the prophecy is not yet active?

The Lamb of God is Still Divine .

According to a news report from July 8, 1904 published in The Cambrian, Pigott’s congregation fell to their knees and worshipped him.

The last paragraph of this highlighted newspaper report entitled The Mad Messiah, is particularly relevant:

On Monday the Agapemonites held a service at which Pigott again declared, “I am the Lamb of God,” at which the congregation fell on their knees and worshipped him.

Please see Marmuzah’s article on the Pigott prophecy for a full set of newspaper citations from the period.

Worship is an act reserved for the divine. Christians would not fall to their knees to worship Moses or Abraham. The events described in the report from The Cambrian contradict speculation by some Ahmadi Muslim apologists that Pigott was repentant for having made strong divinity claims in the past.

An entry on Pigott in The Cambrian from July 8, 1904 . Pigott is reported to have declared himself the “Lamb of God”. This profession was followed by Pigott’s congregation falling to their knees in worship. See also, close-up

It’s worth pondering what evidence might be sufficient to establish actual repentance. I contend that it might come to us as reports detailing how Pigott’s congregation were no longer prostrating before him in worship or where Pigott gave a public sermon stating that he was in fact, nothing more than a man.

Indeed, a clear and public retraction would have provided the best evidence that Pigott had repented—even had such repentance later proven to have been short lived.

In response to the presence of newspaper reports which reveal that Pigott was still claiming to be the Messiah, “The Lamb of God”, “Lord Jesus”, etc., Umar Nasser defended his position stating:

There are literally a handful of sensationalist reports which at maximum said he privately occasionally claimed to be Messianic. Even IF they are true, (no actual first hand accounts until 1909) that was not what Promised Messiah wrote against, nor were they public or consistent — Umar Nasser (@UmarN91) January 1, 2019

[archived screenshot]

Publicly, Pigott stopped his claims. He literally downgraded from making public announcements in London that reached India to an enclave in Spaxton which didn’t allow in strangers. He didn’t make any more public announcements. He went around town and registered as a Priest! There are literally a handful of sensationalist reports which at maximum said he privately occasionally claimed to be Messianic. Even IF they are true, (no actual first hand accounts until 1909) that was not what Promised Messiah wrote against, nor were they public or consistent tweet from Umar Nasser

Regarding Pigott having registered as a priest outside of Spaxton, why should we believe that a con man would willingly create further complications for himself with no discernible upside? Does writing ‘God’ or ‘Lord Jesus’ under the occupation field of a document confer upon the applicant easier access to services than writing ‘priest’? A prudent con man wouldn’t write ‘God’ on such paperwork unless he was hoping to court additional headaches for whenever he had to interact with people outside of his closed community.

At this stage, Pigott was acutely aware of how public professions of divinity could and would backfire. He had already experienced this back in Clapton in 1902. Maintaining a pretense of divinity in front of his own congregation of committed followers, however, was an entirely different and much more viable charade.

My sentiments on the issue are captured by the following tweet:

Making claims within his congregation, within his city, or dispatching them to Asia is nowhere a condition of MGA's prophecy. There was never a formal retraction. Where did he register as a priest that would have accepted occupation "Jesus the Lord" on the form? The NHS? — Reason on Faith (@ReasonOnFaith) January 1, 2019

[archived screenshot]

Making claims within his congregation, within his city, or dispatching them to Asia is nowhere a condition of MGA’s prophecy. There was never a formal retraction. Where did he register as a priest that would have accepted occupation “Jesus the Lord” on the form? The NHS? tweet from Reason on Faith

I contend that misleading people through silence is not a marker of repentance; heartfelt or otherwise. Neither can repentance be gleaned from a preacher who, among his own congregation, presents himself as divine. After having been run out of town, such behavior only shows that Pigott had gained a modicum of logistical prudence.

It’s a gross conflation of proceedings to suggest that Pigott’s operational retreat amounted to a heartfelt, personal repentance.

For Umar Nasser to assert that these intervening newspaper reports are unreliable and void of any meaningful claims to divinity, is his prerogative. Such assertions, however, do not change the fact that there’s not a single report to indicate that Pigott had ever repented or issued a retraction. Not one.

Next, let’s consider the defense, “that was not what [the] Promised Messiah wrote against”, where Umar Nasser suggests that Pigott’s messianic claims in these various newspaper reports are nowhere near as blasphemous as the strong “I am God” claims issued from Pigott in 1902. Such a change— viz. a suspension of the most blasphemous of one’s prior claims—is nowhere a condition for clemency in Ahmad’s warning proclamation. Nowhere is a downgrade in degrees of blasphemy identified as an available escape route to what is otherwise a fait accompli. In fact, the only exculpatory option offered to Pigott in the warning proclamation was that he repents.

That’s right—repentance. Straight up.

The newspaper report from The Cambrian in 1904 is one of a handful of accounts from the period. Reports that congregations bowed down to worship Pigott are simply not compatible with apologists who speculate that Pigott was repentant.

Marmuzah’s article cites many of the newspaper reports from the years intervening 1904 through 1908. You can also see them on the timeline prepared for this article. None of these reports portray events that are mutually incompatible. Rather, when taken together, they provide us with an even better insight into Pigott’s behavior. Simply put, Pigott never ceased with the con that he was divine.

We can grant that Pigott’s claims may well have shifted in emphasis between persons of the Trinity. We can grant that Pigott made these claims to a smaller and more exclusive congregation as compared to Pigott’s prior and public profession at Clapton in 1902.

We must also grant, however, that these reports show no evidence of Pigott having been repentant; nor do they contain a single statement of retraction from Pigott. The only picture established by these reports is that Pigott’s private claims to divinity were still very much alive, though moderated and more carefully worded than before.

Repentance Recap . Claiming to be Lord Jesus is still a claim to divinity. Preaching that one is the Lord to a small and private congregation does not constitute repentance for having made prior public claims to even stronger conceptions of divinity. We cannot dismiss reports of Pigott’s behavior because several papers provide accounts which are very much compatible with one another, spanning the period 1904 through to 1908. A retreat is not repentance. Neither is refraining from making further claims in pubic. Suggesting Pigott did repent, even temporarily, falsifies the Tadhkirah revelation from November 20, 1902 which stated that, “Pigott…would not repent in the future”.

Defense 2: Mubahila .

The second defense gaining popularity with Ahmadi Muslim apologists is that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had invited Pigott to a challenge of mubahila which Pigott had ignored. Without Pigott’s formal sign-off, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s warning announcement lay dormant. According to this line of apologetic, Ahmad’s death prophecy was technically never activated.

This mubahila argument has recently become the go-to defense for Ahmadi Muslim apologists. Its rise in popularity over the past decade correlates well with renewed interest in the Pigott prophecy. Tahir Nasser summarized this approach as it incorporates the mubahila apologetic.

The words of the Promised Messiah a.s are correct. He repeated his claims after the death of the PM a.s in 1909 and was further disgraced but never repented. He was never killed because: 1. His claim was to be God

2. He never accepted the challenge of mubahila. — Tahir Nasser (@TahirNasser) February 4, 2019

[archived screenshot]

…He was never killed because: 1. His claim was to be God

2. He never accepted the challenge of mubahila. tweet from Tahir Nasser

Of the two defenses presented, the first relates to the nature and expression of Pigott’s God claims. That topic has been addressed in the previous section of this article on repentance. The second condition points to what we’ll explore next: the challenge of mubahila.

On November 20, 1902, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad received a revelation regarding Pigott. It was recorded in Tadhkirah. With regards to punishment, the entry states:

…[ Pigott’s] end will be doomed and that he will be afflicted with God’s chastisement. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, November 20, 1902

Tadhkirah, 2009 Edition, p. 567

Four days later, on November 24, 1902, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad issued his bold warning proclamation wherein he tells us precisely what Pigott’s eventual fate would be should Pigott not repent.

The death of Mr. Pigott within my life-time shall be another sign of my truth. If I die before Mr. Pigott, I am not the true Messiah nor am I from God.

A Warning to a Pretender to Divinity Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, November 24, 1902

Noteworthy in this entire mubahila defense is the fact that the Jama’at has never published the alleged letter of invitation. The letter inviting Pigott to the mubahila. A letter which would fundamentally subvert—through its power of activation—an otherwise plain reading of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s death-prophecy.

This is so important, it bears repeating:

No rendering of the alleged letter of mubahila has ever been published by any organ of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.

We have nothing to demonstrate what it was that Pigott would have received beyond the November 24, 1902 announcement entitled, “A Warning to a Pretender to Divinity”.

Of course, such a letter, if produced, would have to be authenticated back to 1902 in order to be taken seriously.

The only item released to the public by the Jama’at was Ahmad’s warning proclamation wherein he prophesied that Pigott would die within in his lifetime if Pigott did not repent. That proclamation made no reference to Pigott having to accept a mubahila before the death prophecy could be set in motion.

Prophetic Red Herrings . Some apologists rationalize that Pigott outliving Mirza Ghulam Ahmad by almost two decades was still a win for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad because Pigott’s health, relationships, and religious movement were all in decline. These outcomes, however, are nowhere to be found in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s very public death-prophecy. Pigott’s gloomy golden years can only be reconciled with the revelation in Tadhkirah foretelling of generic “doom” and “chastisement” if we elect to remove Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s more specific warning proclamation from the picture. Remember, a specific mention always outranks a more general precept. Furthermore, shepherding a comparatively more successful new religious movement (NRM) was never part of the prophecy to begin with. With respect to evaluating the success or failure of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s specific prophecy regarding Pigott, the failure of the Agapemonite Church relative to Ahmadiyyat is a red herring. It is mere comfort food served to appease believers looking for some redemptive sugarcoating to more easily swallow the bitter pill of prophetic failure. For one to be lulled into accepting this comparison—as if it salvages the prophecy against legitimate critique—is to take one’s eye off the ball: the actual text of prophecy.

Had a challenge of mubahila been truly operative, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad would have worded his prophecy accordingly. The segment of Ahmad’s proclamation on the particulars of who dies when, would have instead, read something like this:

The death of Mr. Pigott within my life-time shall be another sign of my truth. If I die before Mr. Pigott, I am not the true Messiah nor am I from God. These signs will only be shown, however, should Mr. Pigott publicly accept this challenge to compete with me. Thereafter, the challenge can only be invalidated and dissolved should Mr. Pigott tender a public retraction of all claims to divinity; be they of the ‘Lord Jesus’ variety or of the even more blasphemous ‘God the Father’ variety. hypothetical better wording

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s original words are in boldface text

Remember, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to enjoy the support of the Creator of the Universe. Yet this All-Knowing deity did not wish for Ahmad’s prophecy to be worded very well. This deity did not wish to furnish Ahmad’s prophetic announcement with the clarity that my simple rendering provides.

In light of this lost opportunity, I urge readers to contemplate: What is more likely?

God is testing your faith by making the prophecy’s fulfillment look like a failure. The proclamation never mentioned a challenge because a formal mubahila was never part of the package to begin with.

I submit to you that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s proclamation was rather meaningless because it never alluded to the presence of a mubahila. Any letter of mubahila to Pigott should have been:

Made in 1902 Translated into English Widely published Alluded to within the announcement, “A Warning to a Pretender to Divinity”.

The death-prophecy proclamation was daring and it was published for the world to see. Isn’t it rather convenient that none of us get to confirm for ourselves, a critical piece of the evidence defending this prophetic challenge?

A notable omission in the case of John Hugh Smyth-Pigott is that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s warning proclamation makes no mention of the death prophecy being inoperative if not formally accepted by Pigott.

In neglecting to mention any challenge of mubahila, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s warning proclamation was worded rather ineptly. As a result, the prophecy against Pigott was effectively rendered dead on arrival.

If, however, the alleged requirement to a mubahila is the very cover-up it appears to be, we’re left with a clear prophecy and its remarkably clear failure.

The Challenge of Mubahila in the Qur’an . A mubahila isn’t just for Muslims. Its defining example comes from the Qur’an. The original motivation for its mention in the Qur’an was for resolving a theological dispute between Muslims and Christians: Qur’an 3:61 translation: Sahih International Then whoever argues with you about it after [this] knowledge has come to you – say, “Come, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves, then supplicate earnestly [together] and invoke the curse of Allah upon the liars [among us].” Notice here that the curse of God and the need to be a willing party to the challenge are both present, together, in this one verse. In fact, the Qur’an has modeled for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad the method by which a Muslim should author such a challenge. Yet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s own rendering in his warning proclamation included no requirement that Pigott be a willing participant to the duel.

Does a Mubahila Require Formal Acceptance? .

It’s worth pausing for a brief digression. Specifically, the apparent need for a combatant to formally accept a challenge in order for any of the parties to claim victory. Consider the case of the former military dictator of Pakistan, Zia-ul-Haq. He died in a mysterious plane crash, just days after Mirza Tahir Ahmad had called him out in one of his Friday Sermons.

Can we really attribute Zia-ul-Haq’s death to Mirza Tahir Ahmad’s earlier warnings of punishment, given that Zia-ul-Haq never formally accepted any challenge of mubahila?

Proponents of Ahmadiyya Islam continue to weave post hoc rationalizations around every failed prophecy in order to claim a win. No doubt, apologists will propose that persistent opposition serves as an implicit acceptance to a mubahila. This would explain the case of both Dowie and of Zia-ul-Haq.

What it does not explain, however, is why in August 1903 Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had still awaited Pigott’s death as a sign. It doesn’t explain why the Jama’at continued to cite this 1903 announcement in 1907, knowing that newspaper outlets continued to do so as well. All the while, the Jama’at offered no contextual commentary advising people that the Pigott prophecy had gone into abeyance (given that Pigott had long since retreated and gone quiet).

It seems that a challenge of mubahila need only be accepted by an opponent as perceived by Ahmadiyyat, if insisting that this is so will serve the desired conclusion that Ahmadiyyat is true.

Motivated reasoning can trap us all. Proponents of the Pigott prophecy, however, should ask themselves: Who is reading in layers of conditions, contingencies, and exceptions? Who is making rationalizations to defend this prophecy from the most obvious reading of contemporaneous documents, reports, and events?

Malfoozat and the Invitation Letter .

In October of 2018, Ahmadi Muslim @Luqman255 (herein just ‘Luqman’) joined a discussion about the Pigott prophecy. Luqman claimed that the prophecy was part of a formal mubahila prayer duel and that as such, it had to be formally accepted in order to take effect.

Here is the reference I was referring to. I’ve done a rough English translation, but you can get it verified elsewhere as well. The English tract is referenced as well and you can see clearly the intent of the Promised Messiah (as). pic.twitter.com/B2mXX2gjxo — Luqman لقمان (@Luqman255) October 31, 2018

[archived screenshot]

The English translation of the Urdu Malfoozat entry, as rendered by Luqman in this tweet, is as follows:

Talking about Piggot [sic], the Promised Messiah (as) said: We should definitely send a letter to Piggott. If he competes, it will have a massive influence and people will also pay attention. Mufti Sahib said that a letter has already been written. The Promised Messiah (as) said: In comparison to US (referring to Dowie), we are much more connected with Britain. If he accepts this competition and this is properly documented, we hope that Allah will show a sign. Malfoozat, 1960

informal translation by Luqman

I then responded to Luqman with a series of follow up tweets:

Consider also, that Malfoozat wasn’t even published until 1960. What written work of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s was this snippet available in, when the announcement was made? And until today, it was only ever in Urdu. Can you see how even if this tract supported your supposition, it would be suspect, since neither Pigott nor the contemporary audience would have seen it to know this was even remotely a condition? Neither you nor I would be so incomplete in formulating a prophecy of importance. tweets from Reason on Faith

Marmuzah then chimed in with tweets of his own to put Malfoozat in context:

Malfuzat was not only published in the 1960s, but it is not even written by Mirza. It is accounts of what he said & did that were later recorded by his followers. Naturally a secondhand account after the Prophecy had failed is different then the words of the man himself Considering such a statement only appears 33 years after Piggott’s death (which is itself many years after Mirza’s death), and is not written by Mirza, while also being in opposition to stuff that *was* written by him, it seems like a fabrication to cover up an obvious failure. tweets from Marmuzah

Malfoozat and the Missing Mubahila . The Ahmadi Muslim defense of the unrequited mubahila hinges on one piece of information we’ve not yet been given any authenticated, contemporaneous evidence for. We are missing the letter to Pigott that allegedly accompanied the prophetic warning announcement. We’re missing the letter where Mirza Ghulam Ahmad allegedly invited Pigott to “come and compete with me”. It’s rather convenient that a pivotal piece of evidence to defend Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from the charge of issuing a failed prophecy is simply not available. Can any Ahmadi Muslim apologist produce a copy of this letter sent to Pigott? If so, and more importantly, can they authenticate it back to 1902 by some independent means? Alternatively, though not nearly as evidentiary, a step in the right direction would be to furnish an authenticated note from 1902 that backs up the Malfoozat entry on there having been a letter sent to Pigott accompanying the warning announcement. Specifically, backing evidence for the Malfoozat entry claiming Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had commented on Pigott’s hoped for acceptance of a mubahila challenge as something that would lead to the manifestation of a great sign for the people. Given that we’re dealing with Malfoozat, however, we shouldn’t expect the Jama’at to be able to produce such corroborating evidence from 1902. Consequently, we’re back to looking for the “come and compete with me” letter itself. Tadhkirah Commentary In the 2009 English edition of Tadhkirah, the entry for November 20, 1902 contains a footnote from Maulana Jalal-ud-Din Shams which states that a letter inviting Pigott to “come and compete with me” was sent. Curiously, this wording is nowhere to be found in the earliest publications of this revelation (from before Ahmad’s death), nor is it present in the accompanying explanation of the revelation produced by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself. This footnote, and more importantly, the explanation that a letter accompanied the original announcement, are simply insertions into the narrative of events. They show up only after the prophecy had already failed. Jalal-ud-Din Shams wouldn’t have written this footnote from first-hand experience, as Jalal-ud-Din Shams was himself only born in 1901. His commentary on revelations received by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad would have been written well after the events they purport to describe. Newspaper Clippings: 1904-1908 We do have dated newspaper clippings (see Marmuzah’s article) describing Pigott’s followers worshipping him in the years intervening 1904-1908. These citations were sourced from a variety of papers. They are, however, conveniently dismissed by Ahmadi Muslim apologists as ‘sensationalist’. We must keep in mind that reports detailing the blasphemous utterances of an already disgraced preacher from members of his private congregation (which number only ~100 people) are not going to be featured in The Daily Telegraph. They will however, be newsworthy for smaller newspapers. Especially regional papers like the Taunton Courier and Western Advertiser. In contrast, second-hand reports of what Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is alleged to have said, compiled over half a century later are implicitly given more credence by Ahmadi Muslim apologists. In short, the Ahmadi Muslim apologist rests their argument on an alleged letter having been written to Pigott from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in 1902. A letter for which no authenticated copy has ever been produced. Take note of this double standard as it relates to the acceptance of second hand reports as evidence.

The Review of Religions, April 1907 .

To maintain a belief that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was from God, one most hold fast to the claim that Pigott did not die before Mirza Ghulam Ahmad because Pigott did not accept Ahmad’s challenge of mubahila. However, we can best understand the original expectations around this prophecy by examining what Ahmadiyya literature itself had to say, prior to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s death.

To that end, we’ll examine how editors at the Jama’at’s prestigious Review of Religions magazine referred to the Pigott prophecy in their April 1907 edition. For context, Dowie had just died the month prior (March 1907). Ahmadi Muslims were declaring victory, and understandably so.

The Review of Religions published an article entitled, “Divine Judgment in Dowie’s Death”. Here, the magazine reprinted excerpts from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s bold announcement and prayer of August 23, 1903 regarding the anticipated future deaths of both Dowie and Pigott. By their deaths, both men would serve as a sign for the people. While John Alexander Dowie was the focus of the April 1907 Review of Religions article, the editors did also shed light on the Pigott prophecy. The two men, Dowie and Pigott, were often mentioned in the same breath.

An analysis of the aforementioned article from the Review of Religions is instructive. The challenge to Dowie is referred to as a mubahila, i.e. a formal challenge, while no such language is used with respect to Pigott.

Predictions concerning Dowie and Pigott never mention the need for Pigott to accept anything. Predictions regarding Pigott’s doomed fate and death in Ahmad’s lifetime, however, were still published without qualification.

The article’s editors were not simply relaying what Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had written in August 1903. They captured for us what the prevailing beliefs of the time were, as held by the Jama’at’s most senior intellectuals. If there was something misleading about the reprinted excerpts from the 1903 announcement, the Review of Religions editors would have identified it in that very same article. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself would have called it out—he was still alive in April 1907, and would not die until May of 1908.

How do we know that these editors were mindful enough to comment on quoted content in need of correction or clarification? Simple. In that very same article, “Divine Judgment in Dowie’s Death”, we see precisely this; a diligent attention to detail regarding quoted content. These editors had included a footnote of correction on page 120 regarding a cited passage from an American newspaper. The American newspaper mistakenly assumed that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s claim to messiahship was also a claim to divinity (as it normally would be in a Christian context). The Review of Religions article made it a point to correct the newspaper’s mischaracterization of Ahmad’s claims.

In the year prior to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s death, there was no indication that Pigott’s retreat had somehow shielded him from the death prophecy. It’s certainly not a conclusion one could draw from reading the Review of Religions magazine in April 1907. Nor were there any mentions at the time of a still awaited mubahila response in order to activate the death-prophecy.

The Review of Religions: Excerpts from 1907 . What follows are snapshots of pages from the aforementioned April 1907 edition of the Review of Religions magazine. Tap the numbered page button to reveal the scanned graphic. page 119 show page 119hide page 119

The Review of Religions, April 1907 issue, p.119. Archived at web.archive.org A challenge of mubahila was made to Dowie as published in the Review of Religions, September 1902 edition. It was also published in numerous English and American newspapers. Notice how the invitation to mubahila for Pigott is nowhere published in any Review of Religions article? Further, a “challenge” requiring formal acceptance from Pigott has not been published in any newspaper; be it British, American, or otherwise. Readers should reflect on why that is. page 119-120 show page 119-120hide page 119-120

The Review of Religions, April 1907 issue, pp.119-120. Archived at web.archive.org This page confirms that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had originally published his announcement, “Predictions concerning Pigott and Dowie” on August 23, 1903. page 120-121 show page 120-121hide page 120-121

The Review of Religions, April 1907 issue, pp.120-121. Archived at web.archive.org Here on page 120, we have Mirza Ghulam Ahmad referencing Pigott and Dowie both, in the same breath. Their deaths are both awaited. In the case of Dowie, it was still conditional at this stage. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad would later go on to waive the need for Dowie to formally accept. The footnote at the bottom of page 120 demonstrates that the editorial team at the Review of Religions felt it important to point out a correction. The American newspaper excerpts being shared mistakenly refer to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as having made a claim to divinity. Yet, this same article from 1907 makes no such clarification that (a) Pigott has repented, retreated, or retracted, or that (b) Pigott’s challenge has yet to activate as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is still waiting for Pigott to accept. Notice how for Dowie, there’s frequent reference to a “challenge” and anticipation of Dowie accepting. This treatment is conspicuously absent with regards to Pigott. page 121-122 show page 121-122hide page 121-122

The Review of Religions, April 1907 issue, pp.121-122. Archived at web.archive.org In 1907, editors at the Review of Religions felt it required no clarification or walking back the statement and prayer of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, that a judgment against Pigott was earnestly sought and expected. This strongly telegraphs that at the time, Ahmadi Muslim intellectuals fully expected Pigott to die within Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s own lifetime. None of them felt the need to qualify that Pigott’s acceptance of some alleged mubahila, was still awaited.

No Anticipation in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s Own Lifetime .

One might surmise that in 1907, the editors at the Review of Religions magazine were focused on the Jama’at’s recent victory over Dowie. We might excuse them for not being overly concerned with pedantic details regarding the Pigott prophecy they just happened to reprint.

But what of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? He was alive for a full year after this Review of Religions article was published. Surely it would have been brought to his attention that the Pigott death-prophecy had just been revived in print, and that this might cause many people to mistakenly believe that its fulfillment was still to be expected. Why didn’t Mirza Ghulam Ahmad issue any statement to reset expectations?

In fact, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had lived for a full five (5) years after having originally issued his death-prophecy concerning Pigott. Can anyone produce a single statement from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in this time, authenticated from before he died, which indicates that Pigott’s response to a mubahila was awaited? I’m no Jama’at librarian, but I strongly suspect that statements to this effect do not exist. If they did, they would have already surfaced in defense of this mubahila apologetic.

When you compare the frequent mention of a mubahila in the case of Dowie with its complete absence whenever Pigott is referenced, the contrast becomes undeniable.

It isn’t simply that the Review of Religions editors made no mention of a mubahila for Pigott; it’s the fact that conspicuously, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself, failed to do so.

For context, a challenge to Dowie was issued in September 1902. The prophecy concerning Pigott was issued in November 1902—just two months later.

A full nine (9) months after publishing “A Warning to a Pretender to Divinity” targeting Pigott, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad published his announcement of August 23, 1903 entitled, “Predictions concerning Pigott and Dowie”. The 1903 announcement was heavily referenced in the April 1907 issue of the Review of Religions. In it, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad fully expects Pigott to die. There’s not even a hint that any response was awaited from Pigott. But for Dowie? Things will get rolling once he accepts Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s challenge.

A sign of the evidence of God in my favor will appear on the death of Mr. Pigott, the arrogant pretender to Divinity, who shall be brought to destruction within my life-time. Another sign will appear on Dr. Dowie’s acceptance of my challenge. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, August 23, 1903

Announcement “Predictions concerning Pigott and Dowie”

cited in The Review of Religions, April 1907, page 120.

[archived screenshot]

Between November 24, 1902 and August 23, 1903 spans 273 days—a full nine months. Pigott hadn’t responded during this time, nor had he uttered any follow-up claims to divinity in public. Given these facts, why is it that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad would speak so directly of Pigott’s destruction? Did God not inform Mirza Ghulam Ahmad that Pigott had effectively retreated? Did Mirza Ghulam Ahmad think it reasonable to expect Pigott’s destruction any day now, despite Pigott having not yet accepted his (allegedly issued) mubahila? It makes no sense.

What does make perfect sense, however, is that Pigott’s relative inconspicuousness (“retreat”) was never deemed a sufficient reason to remove him from the clutches of the death prophecy. After all, Pigott had yet to issue a clear and public retraction. Nor was the death-prophecy ever contingent on Pigott having to formally respond and accept. Anyone who reads Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s public proclamation can confirm this point for themselves.

In fact, this key point is most clearly illustrated with a thought experiment. Imagine that Pigott had died on August 24, 1903—the day after Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s announcement. Is there any question that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad would have claimed victory? On what basis could anyone at the time have deemed the prophecy a premature failure? What statement of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s would one have pointed to in order to make the case that the death-prophecy for Pigott wasn’t even operative?

In June 1907, the Jama’at yet again missed an opportunity to submit a correction. This time, to the Boston Herald. They published a flattering victory synopsis of Ahmad defeating Dowie. Once again, we see some bold talk from Ahmad regarding Pigott’s destruction:

A sign of evidence of God in my favor will appear in the death of Mr. Pigott, the arrogant pretender to divinity, who shall be brought to destruction within my lifetime. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, August 23, 1903

Announcement “Predictions concerning Pigott and Dowie”

cited in The Sunday Herald of Boston, June 23, 1907.

[archived screenshot]

Why didn’t the Jama’at advise the Boston Herald that the Pigott prophecy hadn’t even been activated yet and that as a result, the 1903 statement they published without comment was misleading? If we deploy Occam’s razor, we soon realize that no such clarification came because Pigott’s prophecy was deemed by everyone at the time to be every bit as operational as the prophecy against Dowie—and Dowie was now dead.

Remember, for a prophecy to have any value, it has to be falsifiable. There have to be clear indications not only of which outcomes denote success but more importantly, of which outcomes constitute failure.

Mubahila Recap . No mention in the 1902 warning announcement. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s widely publicized announcement from November 24, 1902 entitled, “A Warning to a Pretender to Divinity” makes no mention of a mubahila. No mention in the 1903 predictions announcement. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s August 23, 1903 follow-up announcement entitled, “Predictions concerning Pigott and Dowie” also makes no mention of a mubahila for Pigott. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad awaits Pigott’s death as a sign and yet Pigott hadn’t even responded to the alleged mubahila. For Dowie, the very same announcement makes explicit mention of the mub