This allegation is extremely famous and comes up a lot by the non Ahmadi Muslims who hate the jamaat and want to deceive people about it. The allegation is that Ahmad(As) said that the non Ahmadi Muslims who do not accept his claim as the Messiah(As) and Mahdi are Dhurriyatul Baghaya. This portion is in Arabic which the opponents translate themselves to mean children of adulterers. They God forbid say that Ahmad(as) used inappropriate language for Muslims. To understand this we need to look at the entire passage.
Our opponents claim that Ahmad(as) stated : “Every Muslim accepts me and affirms the truth of my claim (as being the Promised Messiah and Mahdi) except those who are the children of adulterers.”
However, this translation is definitely incorrect as it completely contradicts what Ahmad(As) is saying. Firstly this is not even referring to Muslims. Ahmad(As) here is not even talking about his claim rather is speaking about his will to serve Islam. Ahmad(As) on page 547 of Ainah-e-Kamalat-e-Islam that “From a young age I have always possessed the desire to defend Islam and fight a war of argumentation and debate against the Hindus and Christians. Ahmad(as) gives examples of his books Brahin-e-Ahmadiyya, Surmah Chashm Araya, Taudih-e-Maram, Izala-e-Auham, Fath-e-Islam and Dafu’ul-Wasawis. Then Ahmad(As) states:
“It is these books to which every Muslim sheds a glance of love and affection and they (i.e., the Muslims) benefit from the deep wisdoms hidden within these books. Everyone accepts and testifies to the truth of my invitation (i.e., my invitation to Islam), except those who are Dhurriyyatul- Baghaya; those upon whose hearts Allah has set a seal.(A’inah-e-Kamalat-e-Islam, p. 547-548)
The context makes it clear that the Muslims are not even being addressed here rather only the Christians and Hindus. Why would Ahmad(as) state that he has strived since he was young, to debate against the Christian and Hindu faith and then suddenly say the the Muslims are Children of Adulterers? There is no relation between both statements.
Another proof that Muslims were not being addressed here is that in the same book on page 535 Ahmad(As) states:
“In the end, O Queen! I advise you that the Muslims are your distinct helpers; And they possess distinction in your sovereignty. Hence, look towards the Muslims with an exclusive glance and grant them the means of the delight of their eyes; And reconcile their hearts and make them your near ones; And honour them with the highest of positions.”( A’inah-e-Kamalat-e-Islam, p. 535)
He is telling the Queen to respect the Muslims and honor them also. How can it be that Ahmad(As) calls Muslims children of adulterers and 10 pages right after he asks the Queen to respect the Muslims and take care of them? Muslims were not being referred to at all. On top of this the Arabic word Da’wati does not refer to the claim of Ahmad(As) rather refers to the invitation to Islam for the Christians and Hindus. Another proof which shows that da’wati refers to the invitation of Islam is :
“By God! Allah knows well that I am a lover of Islam and I am a sacrifice for the Holy Prophet (sa) the Best of Creation, and I am a servant of Ahmad (sa) the Chosen ever since I attained the age of maturity and I was enabled to write a book, it was my heartfelt desire to invite the opponents to Islam to the radiant religion of Allah. So I dispatched a letter to every opponent and invited the young and old to Islam.” (A’inah-e-Kamalat-e-Islam, p. 388-389)
Now let us move on to the passage. The correct translation of the passage would be : “Everyone accepts my invitation to Islam (among the non-Muslims, who are the true addressees in this instance) except for those who are Dhurriyyatul-Baghaya” . It has nothing to do with Muslims.
Now let us see the meaning of Dhuriyyatul Baghaya. Firstly it does not refer to Muslims in this statement. Secondly its an Arabic phrase so we should look at the Arabic lexicons.
Tajul Urus, a famous dictionary, defines Al Baghy as: refers to a slave girl whether she is an adulteress or not
It is clear that al baghy is the opposite of ar-rushd which refers to guidance. Dhuriyyatul-baghaya here refers to someone who rejects the truth and is far from guidance. Allah states:
Those who have disbelieved – it being equal to them whether thou warn them or warn them not – they will not believe. Allah has set a seal on their hearts and their ears, and over their eyes is a cover; and for them is a great punishment.”(Chapter 2 verse 7-8)
It is these people whom Ahmad(as) has referred to when saying dhuriyyatul baghaya.
Furthermore in the Qur’an we read that Allah has stated:
Verily, Allah enjoins justice, and the doing of good to others; and giving like kindred; and forbids indecency, and manifest evil, and wrongful transgression. He admonished you that you may take heed.(Chapter 16 Verse 91)
Even here Bagh has been used. Would the anti Ahmadis use their same false translation for the Qur’an and accuse Allah?
Ahmad(As) also has himself referred to the Arabic word Ibnul Bigha as a rebellious person. Once Ahmad(As) stated about Sadullah that: “You have given me grief by your wickedness; If now you are not destroyed in disgrace, I am false in my claim O rebellious man!” Ahmad(As) himself translated it as a rebellious man and not the son of adulterer. Some anti Ahmadi state that the Persian translation under Anjam-e-Atham Ruhani Khazain Volume 11 pg 282 Ibnul Bigha is translated as Nasl-e-Bad karaan however this is done by Hazrat Maulvi Abdul Kareem of Sialkot(ra). The translation presented here was done by Ahmad(As) who originally wrote the statement, so his translation is which we should accept over the companions.
Some also quote Noor-ul Haq where Dhuriatul Baghaya has been used as Bad women but it was addressed to a Christian priest named Imam Ud Din and others who insulted Muhammad(Saw). This has nothing to do with Muslims. Ibn Bagha in Anjam-e-Atham has been translated as a transgressor so we should stick to the book under discussion. Towards the end Ahmad(As) also shows so much respect for Muslims which clearly shows this has nothing to do with Muslims.
This has been used many times in the Qur’an as well and here are some examples:
فَلَمَّا أَنْجَاهُمْ إِذَا هُمْ يَبْغُونَ فِي الْأَرْضِ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ
Here is the Non Ahmadi translation for Chapter 10 verse 24:But when He delivered them, behold! They rebel (disobey Allah) in the earth wrongfully
Again Allah states:
وَلَوْ بَسَطَ اللَّهُ الرِّزْقَ لِعِبَادِهِ لَبَغَوْا فِي
And if Allah should enlarge the provision for His servants, they would rebel in the earth (Chapter
As we see the Non Ahmadis translate this word as rebel themselves and it has been used in the Qur’an many times.
Ahmad(as) has also stated in the Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam:
“In the same way, misuse of benevolence would take on a form which would be repelled by reason and conscience; and in the same way graciousness between kindred would become transgression. The Arabic word for transgression is baghi, which connotes excessive rain which ruins crops. A deficiency in the discharge of an obligation or an excess in its discharge are both baghi. In short, whichever of these three qualities is exercised out of place becomes tainted. That is why they are all three qualities conditioned by the due observance of place and occasion. It should be remembered that equity or benevolence or graciousness between kindred are not in themselves moral qualities. They are man’s natural conditions and faculties that are exhibited even by children before they develop their reason. Reason is a condition of the exercise of a moral quality and there is also a condition that every moral quality should be exercised in its proper place and on its proper occasion. ” (Philosophy of The Teachings of Islam, page 67)