CHAPTER 12: AIK GHALATI KA IZALA PAMPHLET (CORRECTION OF AN ERROR)

Reason for Publication

On November 5, 1901, Hazrat Mirza published a three-page tract enti- tled Aik Ghalati Ka Izala (Correction of an Error). The rationale for its publication was a verbal altercation between a disciple and an opponent of Hazrat Mirza in which the disciple had denied, contrary to facts, that the words prophet and messenger had been used in some of Hazrat Mirza’s rev- elations. What the disciple should have done was to acknowledge that the words prophet and messenger did indeed appear in some of Hazrat Mirza’s revelations, but simultaneously he should have provided the interpretation and explanation that Hazrat Mirza had given in hundreds of places in his books – explanations that showed that the use of these words in no way did any damage to the seal of the finality of prophethood. These explanations were such as to fully satisfy the objections of any sincere seeker of truth. Accordingly, Hazrat Mirza started the pamphlet AikGhalati Ka Izala by stat- ing these facts:

Some people in our Movement who are not well-acquainted with my claim and the arguments relating to it — not having had the occasion to study my books carefully, nor having stayed in my company for a sufficient length of time to complete their knowledge — in some instances in response to an objection of the opponents give a reply which is entirely against facts. So, despite being on the side of truth, they have to face embarrassment.

Thus it happened a few days ago that a person faced from an opponent the objection that “the man whose pledge you have taken claims to be a prophet (nabi) and a messenger (rasul).”

This was answered by only a denial, while such an answer is not correct. The fact is that the holy revelation of God Almighty which descends upon me contains words such as rasul, mursal and nabi, not once but hundreds of times. So how can the reply be correct that such words are not present?

The following deductions can be made from the above passage:

  1. The error that Hazrat Mirza was setting out to correct through this pam- phlet was an error of his disciple and not his own error.
  2. The reason why his disciple erred was that he had not studied carefully the published books and writings of Hazrat Mirza. Had he studied those books, he would have been duly familiar with Hazrat Mirza’s claims and arguments and would not have committed that error.
  3. The error was that the words prophet and messenger did occur in Hazrat

Mirza’s revelations, but the disciple had denied this fact.

Careful study of previous books and writings

In accordance with the exhortation of Hazrat Mirza, there is a need to peruse his previous books and writings to see whether hementions the words prophet and messenger, and if he does indeed mention the words, then how does he explain the use of these words. It is imperative to undertake such a study so that his disciples may not make the same mistake in the future. At this juncture, I present forconsideration a few references from Hazrat Mirza’s own writings:

•        Reference Number 1:

(Letter of Hazrat Mirza written in his own hand in reply to a query in August 1899 and published in full in the newspaper Al-Hakamin its issue dated August 17, 1899.)1

The fact is that for the last twenty years this humble person has been receiving revelations. Many times, these revelations have contained the word rasul (messenger) or nabi (prophet)… However, anyone who considers this prophethood or messengership tomean real prophethood or messengership that gives a person the authority to dispense Divine law is in error. By the word messenger is just meant “one who is sent by God” and by prophet only “one who prophesies based on knowl- edge from God” or “explainshidden truths.”

Since even the metaphorical use of such words leads to strife among Muslims — a most reprehensible outcome — these words should not become part of the ordinary parlance and day-to-day phraseology of the Movement. And one must believe with firmconviction that prophet-

hood has terminated with the Holy Prophet as Allah has stated, “…but he (Muhammad) is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of theprophets” (33:40). To negate this verse or to look upon it lightly is in fact to part company with Islam. A person who exceeds the bounds in denial puts himself in a dangerous situation in the same manner as the Shias who exceed the limits of faith. It should be clearly understood that God has terminated all His prophethoods and messengerships with the Quran and the Holy ProphetMuhammad. I have been sent into this world and have come only to serve the religion of Islam and not for the purpose of relinquishing Islam to form another religion. Always protect yourself from the Devil’s insinuations, maintain true love of Islam, and never forgetthe greatness of the Holy Prophet. I am the servant of the religion of Islam, and to serve Islam is the real reason for my appearance.

The words prophet and messenger are only in the nature of metaphor and figure of speech. In the Arabic lexicon, the word risalatmeans “one who is sent” and nubuwwat means “to explain hidden truths and knowl- edge after receiving knowledge from God.” Sokeeping only this meaning of these words in one’s mind, and believing accordingly in one’s heart is not blameworthy. However, inthe terminology of Islam, the meaning of prophet and messenger is one who brings a comprehen- sive revealed law, or abrogates partsof previously revealed law, or who is not a follower of another prophet but has direct communion with God without the benefit of another prophet. Hence, one should remain alert that this latter meaning is not understood in the present context; for our Book is none other than the Quran, and our religion is none other besides Islam, and we believe that our Holy Prophet is the Seal of prophets, andthe Quran is the final revealed Book. Religion should not be turned into child’s play. Remember, that my claim is nothing besides thatof being a servant of Islam, and whoever imputes anything besides this, fabricates against me. I receive grace and blessing through our Holy Prophet and I get the bounty of knowledge from the Quran. It is proper that no one should keep anything in their heart contrary to this guidance; otherwise he would be answerable to God. If I am not a ser- vant of Islam, my entire work is of no avail, God would reject it and I would be held accountable.

May your welfare increase; And peace be with you, Dated: August 17, 1899

A perusal of Hazrat Mirza’s letter above reveals that while the words prophet and messenger are certainly to be found in Hazrat Mirza’s revelations, but the words do not bear the technical meaning in which they are used in the revealed law (shariah). Instead, these words are usedonly in the sense of their dictionary meaning in which a prophet means “a person who proph- esies on the basis of knowledge received from God and who disseminates hidden truths,” and a messenger means “one who is sent.” In the terminology of the revealed law (shariah), a prophet and messenger is a person who (1) brings a new revealed law or modifies an existing one, (2) is not considered a follower of a previous prophet, and (3) has direct communion with God without the benefit of any other prophet.

Because Hazrat Mirza possessed none of these distinctive characteris- tics of a messenger and prophet, he is certainly not a Messenger or Prophet in the terminology of the revealed law (shariah). He is merely a prophet and messenger in the lexical meaning of the words. Anyone who believes more than this makes a mockery of the Quranic verse about the finality of prophet- hood, and as aconsequence severs his ties to the faith of Islam. Such a person has truly been misled by the devil, and has turned his religion into child’splay. He has distorted Hazrat Mirza’s Movement from a position of being a servant of Islam to being a separate faith. He alone is responsible for this wrongdoing; Hazrat Mirza is absolved of any responsibility for the acts of such a person.

•        Reference Number 2:2

I say it repeatedly that these words rasul (messenger) and mursal (one sent) and nabi (prophet) undoubtedly occur about me in my revelation from God, but they do not bear their real meanings. And just as these do not, similarly the Promised Messiah being called nabi in Hadith3 is not meant in a real sense. This is the knowledge that God has given me. Let him who will, understand. It has been disclosed to me that the doors of real prophethood are fully closed after the Khatam an-nabiyyin (the Seal of the prophets)peaceand blessings of Allah be upon him. According to the real meaning, no new prophet or an ancient prophet can now come. Ouroppressive opponents however do not consider the doors of prophethood to be fully closed. Instead, in their view, a win- dow is still open for the return of the Israelite Messiah. Then say, when a real prophet appears after the Quran and the cycle of prophetic reve- lation restarts, what becomes of the finality of prophethood? Would the revelation to that prophet be called prophetic revelation or something else?

Conclusions similar to the first reference follow from the second reference:

  1. No prophet — either new or a previous one — can appear after Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in thereal sense of the word, but people can appear who may be called prophets in the lexical or metaphorical sense.
  2. This knowledge was granted to Hazrat Mirza by God. Let him who will understand.
  3. If a prophet in the real sense was to come, his revelation would be prophetic revelation. However, such an eventuality is precluded by the fact that prophetic revelation cannot restart after the revelation of the Holy Quran.

•               Reference Number 3:4

Can a wretched imposter who claims messengership and prophethood for himself have any belief in the Holy Quran? And can a man who believes in the Holy Quran, and believes the verse He is the Messenger of God and the Khatam an-nabiyyin (the Seal of theprophets) (33:40) to be the word of God, say that he is a messenger and a prophet after the Holy Prophet Muhammad.

Anyone who is fair-minded should remember that I have never, at any time, made a claim of nubuwwat or risalat (prophethood or messenger- ship) in the real sense. To use a word in a non-real sense, and to employ it in speech according to its broad, root meaning, does not imply heresy (kufr). However, I do not like even this much, for there is the possibility that ordinary Muslims maymisunderstand it.

However, by virtue of being appointed by God, I cannot conceal those revelations I have received from Him in which the wordsnubuwwat and risalat occur quite frequently. But I say repeatedly that, in these revela- tions, the word mursal or rasul or nabi which has occurred in reference to me is not used in its real sense.5 The actual fact, to which I testify with the highest testimony, is that our Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is the Khatam al-anbiya and after him no prophet is to come, neither a previous one nor a new one. “And whoever says after our Messenger and Chief, ‘I am a real Prophet and Messenger,’ he certainly lies and forsakes the Quran and the commandments of Shariah; he is an unbeliever and a liar…” But it must be remembered that, as we have explained here, sometimes the revelation from God contains such words about some of His saints in a metaphorical and figurative sense; they are not meant by way of reality. This is the whole controversy which the foolish, prejudiced people have dragged in a different direc- tion. The name “prophet of Allah”6 for the Promised Messiah, which is to be found in Sahih Muslim etc. from the blessed tongue of the Holy Prophet, is meant in the same metaphorical sense as that in which itoccurs in Sufi literature as an accepted and common term for the recip- ient of Divine communication. Otherwise, how can there be a prophet after the Khatam al-anbiya?

The conclusions that follow from the preceding reference are as follows:

  1. The words prophet and messenger are not used in Hazrat Mirza’s reve- lations in the real sense but have been used in the metaphorical and figurative sense; much in the same way that these words are commonly used to describe communion with God in the books of revered Sufi saints.
  2. The metaphorical use of the words prophet and messenger do not make a person an unbeliever, but the use of the words prophet and messenger in the real sense do make a person an unbeliever in the opinion of Hazrat Mirza. Such a person does not exhibit faith in the Quran; hence anyone who claims to be a real prophet or messenger is a fabricator and an unbe- liever.
  3. Hazrat Mirza did not like the use of the words prophet and messenger, even in their metaphorical sense, in ordinary conversationsbecause such usage created potential for confusion in the minds of ordinary Muslims. However, Hazrat Mirza had been appointed by God. So he could not conceal his revelations, and perforce had to narrate them to the public. However, he took care to explain that the words prophet and messenger had been used only in their metaphorical and figurative sense, and not in their real sense.

I confine myself here to only three references from Hazrat Mirza’s earliest writings, though his written work is replete with such references. Hazrat Mirza’s purpose in Aik Ghalati Ka Izala pamphlet was to instruct his disciples that they should not deny the use of the words prophet and messenger in Hazrat Mirza’s revelations because that would be contrary to the facts. In accordance with the Quranic directive of “Speakstraight words” (33:70), they should state in a straightforward and unambiguous manner that the words prophet and messenger do indeedoccur in Hazrat Mirza’s revelations but that they do not bear their real (theological) meaning and have only been used metaphorically andfiguratively in accordance with their lexical meaning. The word prophet means a person who prophesies or who disseminates hidden truthsand realities after receiving knowledge from God, and the word messenger means a person who has been sent. This is a metaphoricalprophet- hood, which is simply another name for sainthood, and is obtainable by a true believer by following perfectly the example of theHoly Prophet.

The way of attaining metaphorical prophethood has been shown in Aik Ghalati Ka Izala pamphlet

In Aik Ghalati Ka IzalaHazrat Mirza emphasized that the words prophet and messenger did appear in the Divine revelationsreceived by him, but that these words were employed solely in their metaphorical sense. After this, he described the process by which this metaphorical prophethood could be achieved.

Metaphorical prophethood is the culmination of a process of spiritual development in which a saint after passing through the intervening stages of spiritual development, attains the stage of perfection called sid- diquiat (the path of Siddiq, the literal meaning of Siddiq being a faithful witness of the truth), which is the stage of fana fil Rasul (self-effacement in the Holy Prophet). In this stage, the saint partakes of the knowledge, morals and spirituality, hence all the qualities of Prophet Muhammad. Another way to express this idea is through the analogy of a mirror; the saint’s spiritual existence is like a clean mirror which reflects the spirituality of Prophet Muhammad.

A saint who has achieved this stage of spiritual development is called a zill (reflection) and burooz(manifestation) of Prophet Muhammad in the terminology of Sufism, and in the heavens he is named Muhammad and Ahmad in areflective sense.

This in fact is the basis for the hadith according to which the Mahdi (rightly-guided one) would be given the name of Prophet Muhammad7, and that the Mahdi would be buried in the grave of Prophet Muhammad.8 The meaning of this hadith is simply that the Mahdi would be the most excellent exemplar of perfect devotion to Prophet Muhammad. It is a common obser- vation that when the image of a person is reflected off a mirror, the image has all the features of that person, such as his face, clothes, etc. Similarly, a per- fect follower of the Holy Prophet, who has effaced his entire being in that of the Holy Prophet i.e., has reached the stage of fana fil rasul, reflects, like a clean mirror, the two premier qualities of the Holy Prophet which correspond with the Holy Prophet’s two names i.e., Ahmad (one who praises Allah much) and Muhammad (one who is praised). When this stage is reached, the aspects of prophethood and messengership that are not part of the office of prophethood but are merely the reward for the perfection of the soul are clearly manifested in the saint. Among these rewards is the gift of prophecy, which is an integral part of the blessing of prophethood and messengership and quite inseparable from the attributes of Muhammad and Ahmad.

Thus, just as the attributes of Muhammad and Ahmad are reflected in the existence of the saint who has completely effaced himself in the being of the Holy Prophet so too is reflected the reward of prophethood and messen- gership. And just as such a person becomesdeserving of being named Muhammad and Ahmad in a metaphoric or reflective sense in the heaven, likewise he may be called a prophet and a messenger in a metaphoric or reflective sense.

However, the reflection of an object in the mirror does not duplicate that object; in the same way, the reflection of the attributes of Muhammad and Ahmad in the perfect saint does not create two Muhammads and two Ahmads; nor does the reflection of prophethood and messengership create two prophets and two messengers. It is Prophet Muhammad’s own prophethood and messengership that is reflected in the mirror of a perfect disciple’s existence. The disciple is neither Muhammad norAhmad in reality nor is he a prophet or messenger in actuality; he is only a follower.

But by virtue of being a perfect follower, his existencebecomes the reflection of the attributes of Muhammad and Ahmad and a manifestation of that aspect of prophethood and messengership that is a reward for the perfection of the soul. This includes inter alia disclosure of the unknown. Just like we can metaphorically call such a person as Muhammad and Ahmad so too can we call him metaphorically as a prophet and a messenger. But such a person is neither Muhammad nor Ahmad in reality; nor is he a prophet or messenger in actuality. Prophethood and messengership, whatever it is, is only that of Muhammad and Ahmad, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. The prophethood and messengership of the Holy Prophet cannot be separated from him. 

It follows that reflective prophethood and messengership cannot be found in people who do not exhibit the attributes of Muhammad and Ahmad. In other words, the prophethood and messengership of Muhammad and Ahmad stays with the Holy Prophet and cannot be transferred to a person other than him. The disciple has no individual existence of his own. When such a person is called a prophet or messenger in Divine revelation, the addressee is not really that person but in actuality Muhammad and Ahmad whose reflection is being cast on the person of that disciple. When a perfect saint who has completely effaced himself in the Holy Prophet i.e., has reached the stage of fana fil rasul is cloaked metaphorically in the mantle of Muhammad and Ahmad, it becomes permissible to refer to him metaphori- cally and reflectively as a prophet and a messenger. 

However, since in reality this is a perfect sainthood that can be called prophethood and messengership in the metaphorical sense, therefore this disciple’s revelations are known as saintly revelations, and not as prophetic revelations.

Some excerpts from Aik Ghalati Ka Izala

Some excerpts from the pamphlet Aik Ghalati Ka Izala are given below. The concept of burooz or the reflective manifestation of properties is associated with Sufi mysticism, and is a subtle and recondite concept. The explanation given in the previous paragraphs will hopefully aid in under- standing the following passages from Hazrat Mirza’s Aik Ghalati Ka Izala:

•               Excerpt Number 1.

If it be said that the Holy Prophet Muhammad is the Khatam an- nabiyyin, so how can another prophet come after him, the reply is that there certainly cannot come any prophet, new or old, in the way in which you people consider Jesus, may peace be on him,to descend in the latter days and believe him in those circumstances to be a prophet. In fact, it is your belief that wahy nubuwwat (revelation exclusive to prophets) shall then continue for forty years, exceeding even the term of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Such a belief is undoubtedly a sin, and the verse “he is the Messenger of God and the Khatam an-nabiyyin” (the Quran, 33:40) along with thehadith “there is no prophet after me” is conclusive proof of the absolute falsity of this view.

I am strongly opposed to such beliefs, and have true and full faith in the statement “he is the Messenger of God and the Khatam an-nabiyyin.” This verse contains a prophecy which our opponents know not. It is that God Almighty says in this verse that, after theHoly Prophet Muhammad, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, the doors of prophecies have been closed till the Day of Judgment, and it is not possible now for a Hindu or a Jew or a Christian or a nominal Muslim

to apply the word nabi to himself. All the windows of prophethood have been closed, but one window, that of the path of Siddiq, is open, viz., fana fil-rasul. The person who comes to God through this window is made to wear, by way of zill, that same mantle of prophethood which is the cloak of the prophethood of Muhammad.

•               Excerpt Number 2.

If you do not accept me, then understand it in this way that it is written in your hadith that the Promised Mahdi is to be akin to theHoly Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, in creation and nature, and his name is to correspond to that of the Holy Prophet, i.e., his name too shall be Muhammad and Ahmad, and he is to be from his line (ahl bait).9

In some hadith reports, it is said that “he shall be from me.”10 This is a profound indication of the fact that, from a spiritual view-point, he shall be an offspring of the Prophet and an image of his spirit. A very strong evidence supporting this is that the words in which the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, has described the rela- tionship — so much so that the names of the two have been made into one — clearly show that he wanted to convey that this promised one would be his burooz, just asJoshua was a burooz of Moses. It is not nec- essary for the burooz to be a son or maternal grandson of the original person. However, it is necessary that, in terms of spiritual relationship, the burooz must be his offspring, and from the very beginning there must be mutualattraction and connection between them. It is, therefore, total- ly derogatory to the status of the Holy Prophet’s knowledge to think thathe would leave aside the description which is necessary to express the significance of burooz, and instead declare that he would be hismaternal grandson. What has being a maternal grandson conceivably got to do with burooz? If such a connection was necessary for being a burooz, why was the imperfect relationship of being merely a maternal grandson required? It should have been son. However,God Almighty in His Holy

Word has negated the Holy Prophet being a father of anyone, but has given the news of a burooz. If burooz is not meant, how could the com- rades of this promised one have been considered as companions of the Holy Prophet in the verse “others from among them”? (62:3) Denial of burooz implies a rejection of this verse.

People who think in physical terms have variously considered this prom- ised one to be a descendant of Hasan, or of Husain, or ofAbbas. But the Holy Prophet only meant that, like a descendant, he would be his heir — heir to his name, heir to his nature, heir to hisknowledge, and heir to his spirituality — displaying his image within himself from every aspect. Not of his own self but from the Holy Prophet would he acquire every- thing, and would reflect his face through annihilation in him. Just as he shall receive his name, his nature and his knowledge in the sense of reflection (zill), in the same manner shall he receive his title nabi, because the burooz image cannot be complete if it does not possess the qualities of its original in every respect. Hence, as prophethood also is a quality of a nabi, it is essential for it to be manifested in the burooz image. All prophets have held that the burooz is a perfect image of itsoriginal, so much so that even the name becomes one. Therefore, it is obvious that, just as by being named Muhammad and Ahmad in the sense of burooz, there are not two Muhammads and two Ahmads, simi- larly by using nabi and rasul in the sense of burooz is notmeant that the seal of Khatam an-nabiyyin has been broken, because the burooz does not have a separate existence. In this way, the prophethood bearing the name Muhammad remains limited to Muhammad, may peace and bless- ings of Allah be upon him.

All prophets, peace be upon them, have agreed that there is no duality in

burooz, for the station of burooz is as described in the following saying:

“I become thou and thou become me, I become the body and thou become the soul, So no one can thereafter say: I am one and thou art another.”

If, however, Jesus returned to the world, how could he do it without break- ing the seal of Khatam an-nabiyyin? In other words, the term Khatam an-nabiyyin is a Divine seal which has been put upon the prophethood of the Holy Prophet. It is not possible now that this seal could ever break. However, it is possible that the Holy Prophet, not only once but a thousand times, comes into the world in the sense of burooz and expresses his prophethood in the manner of burooz along with his other qualities. And this particular burooz was a confirmed promise from God, as He says: “Others from among them who have not yet joined them.” (62:3)

The prophets do not feel their dignity violated by their burooz because such a one is their very form and image, but they would certainly feel it in case of someone else. Consider how Moses, when he saw the Holy Prophet Muhammad on the night of miraj rise higher than his station, wept to show his sense of self-esteem. So, considering that God has said that “no other prophet shall come after you,” if He were to send Jesus against His own word, how very hurtful this act would be to the Holy Prophet!

In brief, prophethood in the sense of burooz does not make any differ- ence to the finality of prophethood, nor is the seal broken. But the coming of another prophet does undermine Islam, and it is a big insult to the Holy Prophet Muhammad that the great task of slaying the Dajjal (Antichrist) be accomplished by Jesus and not by him. And the holy verse “but he is the Messenger of God and the Khatam an-nabiyyin” (33:40) is, God forbid, falsified by it. There is a hidden prophecy in this verse, namely, that a seal has been put upon prophethood till the Day of Judgment. And except for a burooz, which is the being of the Holy Prophet himself, none has thepower to receive knowledge of the unseen from God in a clear and open manner like prophets. As the burooz of Muhammad which was promised of old is myself, prophethood in the sense of burooz has been bestowed upon me. The whole world is now helpless inthe face of this prophethood because a seal has been put upon prophethood. A burooz of Muhammad, having all his qualities, was des-tined for the latter days, and therefore he has appeared. Except for this window, there is no other window left for obtaining water fromthe foun- tain of prophethood.

•        Excerpt Number 3.

Finally, Hazrat Mirza presented the essence of this proclamation in the following words:

Now by all of this writing, I mean to say that ignorant opponents accuse me of claiming to be a prophet and messenger. I make no such claim. I am neither a prophet nor a messenger in the sense which they have in mind. However, I am a prophet and a messenger in the sense which I have just explained. Hence the person who maliciously accuses me of claiming prophethood and messengership is a liar and evil-minded. It is the form of burooz which has made me a prophet and a messenger, and it is on this basis that God hascalled me nabi and rasul again and again, but in the sense of burooz. My own self does not come into it, but that of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, may peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him. It was on this account that I was called “Muhammad” and “Ahmad.” So prophethood and messengership did not go to another per- son. What belonged to Muhammad remained with Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him.

The following conclusions are evident from Hazrat Mirza’s preceding excerpts:

  1. The Quranic verse “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of theprophets” (33:40) puts the Divine seal of finality on the prophet- hood of Prophet Muhammad. It is not possible for this seal to be broken till Judgment Day. No prophet, whether a new or a previ- ous one, can appear after Prophet Muhammad.
  2. The return of Jesus into this world or the appearance of any prophet, whether a new or a previous one, breaks the seal of thefinality of prophethood. This would be contrary to God’s prom- ise to Prophet Muhammad, as stated in the aforementionedQuranic verse, that no prophet would be appointed after Prophet Muhammad. Such a proposition is disrespectful of the HolyProphet and possibly a source of great distress for him.
  3. However, as Hazrat Mirza states: “There is a hidden prophecy in this verse, namely, that a seal has been put upon prophethoodtill the Day of Judgment. And except for a burooz, which is the being of the Holy Prophet himself, none has the power toreceive knowledge of the unseen from God in a clear and open manner like prophets.” In other words, it is not possible for a person to be appointed as a prophet now, but it is still possible for a person to obtain knowledge of the unknown from God in the manner of a prophet by becoming an image of the Holy Prophet. This is known as manifested prophethood (buroozi nubuwwat). Since the lexical meaning of prophet is one who receives knowledge of the unknown from God, it follows that the manifested prophet- hood is synonymous with lexical prophethood. One is named after the mode of acquisition of prophethood and the other after its lexical meaning.
  4. To become the manifestation of the Holy Prophet, it is necessary for a person to achieve the stage of fana fil rasul (self-effacement in Prophet Muhammad). When a person achieves this status, his spirituality reflects the attributes of Muhammad and Ahmad on account of his perfect obedience to the tradition of the Holy Prophet. He then becomes the recipient of those rewards of prophethood and messengership that are the result of the perfec- tion of the soul, but he does not receive thoserewards that are associated with the office or station of messengership and prophethood. Included in the former is the knowledge of theunseen that God vouchsafes to saints. This is known as manifest- ed prophethood (buroozi nubuwwat).
  5. If a person reflecting the attributes of Muhammad is called a prophet or messenger in a Divine revelation, this does notconfer on him the office of a messenger or prophet because the real addressee is Prophet Muhammad himself on account of the fact that the addressee has completely effaced himself in the Holy Prophet. In this way, the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad stays with him and is not granted to someone else.
  6. It is sheer ignorance and mischief to call a person as a claimant of prophethood or messengership when in fact the claim of the person is only that of manifested prophethood or messengership. The person who makes such an allegation is, in Hazrat Mirza’s own words, “a liar and one who holds impure thoughts.”
  7. Manifested prophethood or messengership is a status granted solely to those saints who attain a stage of complete devotion to Prophet Muhammad; the Divine revelation granted to such peo- ple is called saintly revelation and not propheticrevelation because the recipient is solely a saint, and not a prophet or mes- senger.

Maulana Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi’s elucidation of Aik Ghalati Ka Izala pamphlet

When Aik Ghalati Ka Izala pamphlet was published, Maulvi Muhammad Yusuf of Amritsar, an ignorant opponent who had only superfi- cial knowledge, raised an objection because of his lack of understanding of the concept of manifested prophethood. He objected that a claim to prophet- hood had been made in the aforementioned Proclamation. Since Maulana Amrohi had a long acquaintance with Maulvi Muhammad Yusuf, he invited Maulvi Muhammad Yusuf to visit Qadian. However, Muhammad Yusuf replied that no usefulpurpose would be served by his visit to Qadian because Maulana Amrohi’s religious mentor had claimed to be a prophet in theannouncement Aik Ghalati Ka Izala.

Maulana Amrohi showed this letter to Hazrat Mirza who responded that Maulvi Muhammad Yusuf had failed to grasp the concept of burooz (manifestation). There is no duality in burooz; it is merely an image of the blessings of prophethood in the existenceof a disciple whose life mirrors that of his mentor prophet. Hazrat Mirza further elucidated by stating that if Maulvi Muhammad Yusufwas standing before a mirror and his wife came by would she consider his image in the mirror as a stranger and veil herself? Certainly not! The image of the blessings of prophethood in a disciple who follows perfectly his mentor prophet and reaches the stage of fana fil rasul is called buroozi prophethood. It is not right to call such a person as a claimant of prophethood. In accordance with the wishes of Hazrat Mirza, Maulana Amrohi wrote a detailed letter to Maulvi Muhammad Yusuf. The letter was also published in the November 24, 1901 issue of the Qadian-based newspa- per Al-Hakam. In this letter, following a detailed prelude, Maulana Amrohi made the following remarks:

Sir, the pamphlet on the basis of which you assert that Hazrat Mirza has claimed prophethood, also contains the followingpassages in which there is a clear and explicit denial of such a claim. Alas, you have understood neither his (actual) claim, nor the refutation of the (alleged) claim.

Maulana Amrohi then copied nineteen references from Aik Ghalati Ka Izala pamphlet in which there were clear denials of any claim to prophethood. Following this, Maulana Amrohi stated:

Sir, if you posses any piety, and if there is any fear of God in your heart, can you say with regard to a person whose tract of three pages contains such a large number of passages that clearly deny any claim to independent prophethood, that he is a claimant ofindependent prophethood? Or can any sane person say that this fana fil rasul (one self-effaced in Prophet Muhammad) has claimed the kind of prophet- hood and messengership about which there is a consensus in the Islamic community that it has cometo an end? We are both nearing the age of death. How then could you have had the audacity to make such an unjust allegation?

Further on in that letter, Maulana Amrohi wrote:

He (Hazrat Mirza) declares himself to be the manifestation of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) — the Seal of the prophets — in the same way that there is an image of the original in a mirror.

Maulana Amrohi then wrote:

If, in the reflective sense, even the most worthy and complete disciple of the Prophet is not granted the blessings of the Seal of the prophets, how then can the reformation of the Islamic community and the rein- vigoration of the Islamic faith possibly take place? Then what would be left of the miracles of the Seal of the prophets, the Chief of the Messengers? For in that case, all the doors of Divine favors and bless- ings that were open to the Israelites would be closed, and all the blessings originating from Prophet Muhammad would, God forbid, come to an end.

Then, while discussing the blessings of the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad, Maulana Amrohi stated:

The favors of messengership and the blessings of the seal of prophet- hood shall continue till Judgment Day. In accordance with the truism that a son is the likeness of his father in terms of appearance and char- acter, the perfect followers of Prophet Muhammad, who are really like his children, shall partake of the favors of messengership and the bless- ings of the seal ofprophethood — i.e., partial prophethood and reflective messengership — till Judgment Day.

Further in that letter, Maulana Amrohi wrote:

Now I shall relate the sayings of some great personalities of the ummah (Islamic community or nation) who have claimed to be the manifesta- tion of Muhammad. First, there exists the following hadith pertaining to reflective prophethood: “The ulama(religious scholars) of my Ummat shall be the like of Israelite prophets.” 

When the scholars of the ummah (Islamic nation) are likened to the prophets of the Israelite nation, then the lofty status of the Mahdi (rightly guided one) and Promised Messiah ismuch higher than that of those scholars. … Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) called Hazrat Ali the manifestation of the Messiah.11 It is written in the work Tazkirat-ul-Auliya that Hazrat Bayazid Bastami stated about himself:“I am Adam; I am Shoaib; I am Noah; I am Abraham; I am Moses; I am Jesus; I am Muhammad.” An important point to remember here is that Bayazid Bastami made this claim of being a manifestation of these prophets on his own accord, although no reference exists to show that Prophet Muhammad gave any such glad tidings specifically for him. 

However, Prophet Muhammad himself named the Promised Mahdi as Muhammad and Ahmad as stated in the hadith: “His name will be after my name….”12Muhiyy-ud-Din al-Arabi has stated in his book Fatuhaat: “I saw in a dream that Imam Abu Muhammad Ibn-Hazm embraced Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and the one disappeared into the other, and besides ProphetMuhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), the other could not be seen.” 

All these aforementioned affairs have been verified by Maulvi Muhammad Husain Batalvi in his favorablereview of Barahin Ahmadiyya. It is God’s grace when an opponent witnesses an assertion, and gives it unanimity. The claimant of burooz (manifesta- tion of a prophet) can likewise be a mujaddid (reformer) who has completely effaced himself in the HolyProphet.

There is no claim of prophethood in Aik Ghalati Ka Izala pamphlet

I have myself presented excerpts from Aik Ghalati Ka Izala pamphlet to show that Hazrat Mirza undoubtedly acknowledged thatthe words prophet and messenger do appear in his revelations. But in accordance with his previous practice, Hazrat Mirza explainedthat these words were used for him in a lexical sense – prophet as meaning “one who receives knowledge of the unseen,” and messengeras meaning “one sent.” 

He further explained that this status belongs to one who has completely effaced himself in the Holy Prophet i.e., one who is fana fil rasul. Upon reaching this status, a perfect disciple manifests the attributes of Muhammad and Ahmad and also thatfacet of prophethood that is comprised of glad tidings i.e., knowledge of the Unseen. The knowledge of the Unseen is a reward for spiritual excellence and cannot be divorced from the attributes of Muhammad and Ahmad.

Thus, wherever the attributes of Muhammad and Ahmad are exhibited, there too would be exhibited the gift of the knowledge of the Unseen. It is because of the manifestation of the prophethood of Muhammad in a person who has completely effaced himself in the Holy Prophet (fana fil rasul) that he ismetaphorically referred to as a prophet and messenger. This is what is known as reflective (zilli) prophethood or manifested (buroozi) prophethood.

In other words, when the word prophethood is used in its lexical sense, the pur- pose is to emphasize an essential aspect of prophethood i.e., the knowledge of the unseen or the abundance of Divine communion which is one part of the full and complete prophethood. When the words manifested (buroozi) or reflective (zilli) prophethood are used, the objective is to indicate the manner of acquiring this prophethood which is to achieve the status of fana fil rasul (effaced in the Prophet) and thus become the manifestation (burooz) of the Prophet whom you followed.

The concept of the manifested prophethood is an established one among the Sufis

The concept of burooz, i.e., manifestation, is not a novel concept; it is well-established and well-known among the great saints and Sufis. As an example, I present below an excerpt from the work Maktubat-e-Imam Rabbani (Book Number 54, volume 2). HazratMujaddid Alf-e-Sani Sirhindi (Allah’s mercy be upon him), who was the Reformer of the eleventh century Hijrah and the author of the above cited book has stated therein:

At this stage (i.e., the stage of burooz – author), the follower forges such a similarity with the one followed that the concept offollowing loses its meaning. The distinction between the follower and the followed vanish- es and it appears as if the follower has taken the place of the one followed and is acquiring the benefits directly from the fountainhead. It is as if both drink from the same brook, have embraced each other and have become intimate friends. Who is the follower now, and who is the one followed? Andwho is the one being obeyed? Their unity brooks no difference. The strange thing at this point is that no matter how keenly onelooks, one fails to discern a relationship of a follower and a leader, and it is not possible to recognize who is the subordinate andwho is the superior. Yes, it is true however that the follower considers himself as a beneficiary, and finds himself to be the heir ofhis prophet.

From the above excerpt, it becomes abundantly clear that Hazrat Mirza’s description of burooz is couched in much more guarded language as compared to the description given by Hazrat Mujaddid Sirhindi. Nevertheless, Maulvi Muhammad Yusuf of Amritsar failed to understand the concept of manifestation (burooz), and misconstrued that perhaps a claim of prophethood had been made in Aik GhalatiKa Izala pamphlet. Hazrat Mirza had provided a gist of the concept of burooz in Aik Ghalati Ka Izala pam- phlet by stating: “…ignorant opponents accuse me of claiming to be a prophet and messenger. I make no such claim.” 

Notwithstanding that, Hazrat Mirza directed Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi to provide a detailed explanation of the concept of burooz so as to expel any misunderstandings on the issue. Accordingly, Maulvi Amrohi, explained this concept in detail and used nineteen citations from Hazrat Mirza’s Aik Ghalati Ka Izala to show that Hazrat Mirza’s position was that of “partial prophethood and reflective messengership.” And all this took place on the directive of, and in consultation with Hazrat Mirza. In view of these facts, it is inappropriate for anyone tomake unjust and slanderous allegations that Hazrat Mirza claimed prophethood in Aik Ghalati Ka Izala.

Wrong conclusion drawn from Aik Ghalati Ka Izala by those who exag- gerate his status

When Hazrat Mirza’s opponents erroneously argued from this pam- phlet that he had claimed to be a prophet, Hazrat Mirzarefuted these allegations through Maulana Amrohi. Unfortunately, six years after the demise of Hazrat Mirza, his son Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, for reasons of personal expediency, asserted that Hazrat Mirza had actually claimed that he was a prophet! When he could not find, after groping about everywhere, any statement claiming prophethood from any of Hazrat Mirza’s writings, he too, like Hazrat Mirza’sopponents, presented Aik Ghalati Ka Izala pamphlet to support his contention.

Therefore, in the spirit of the directive given by Hazrat Mirza to Maulana Amrohi to refute the false allegation that he, Hazrat Mirza, had claimed prophethood, Hazrat Mirza’s disciples based in the city of Lahore stepped forward to render this service. It is appropriate to present some of those details here, which are asfollows:

In the year 1915, Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad cited Aik Ghalati Ka Izala and claimed that prior to this pamphlet, Hazrat Mirza unquestionably considered himself as a Reformer (mujaddid) and muhad- dath (a saint who has communion with God), and denied being a prophet. However, in November of 1901, Hazrat Mirza finally understood his real status, admitted his prior error, and forcefully claimed to be a prophet in the pamphlet Aik Ghalati Ka Izala

This claim of Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad was wrong then, and is wrong now. The truth is that, prior to this pretentious claim and incendiary announcement by Mirza Bashir-ud-DinMahmud Ahmad, even the thought had not crossed the mind of any disciple of Hazrat Mirza that Hazrat Mirza had altered his claim in the year 1901, or that Hazrat Mirza had made any error regarding his claims in his writings predating 1901, or that prior to that date Hazrat Mirza did not fully comprehend the meaning of nabi (prophet) and muhaddath (saint) and had erroneously used the word muhaddath instead of nabi.

In fact, the notion that Hazrat Mirza changed his claim in the year 1901 evolved slowly in the mind of Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad. Evidence of this is provided by the fact that when he started emphasizing the issue of prophethood in the year 1915, he first of all wrote in his book Al Qaul ul Fasl on page 24 as follows:

In short, it is clearly proven from the above mentioned citation that up to the publication of Tiryaq-ul-Qulub (whose writing was begun in August of 1899, and completed on October 25, 1902), his (Hazrat Mirza’s) belief was that he possessed partialsuperiority over the Messiah, and when he (Hazrat Mirza) was called a prophet, it was a kind of partial prophethood andimperfect prophethood. However, afterwards…he (Hazrat Mirza) was informed by God that he was superior to the Messiah in every aspect. And he was not the recipient of some partial prophethood but was a prophet — albeit a prophet who had received his prophethood through the grace of the Holy Prophet (Muhammad), may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. So it is

totally unacceptable to argue on the basis of (Hazrat Mirza’s) writings prior to the year 1902.

When a principle is contrived for the sake of expediency, the contriver often forgets to apply it in all situations. This happened inthe case of Al Qaul ul Fasl as well. Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad had established the principle in this book that it wascompletely unacceptable to argue using ref- erences taken from Hazrat Mirza’s writings prior to October of 1902. But in the same book, he himself based his arguments in four different places on a tract written by Hazrat Mirza that predated the year 1902. To be precise,this was a tract that had been published on November 5, 1901. Mirza Bashir-ud- Din Mahmud Ahmad completely forgot that, in doing so,he had contradicted his own principle.

God decreed the affairs such that one of Hazrat Mirza’s closest disci- ples, Maulvi Muhammad Ali, read the book Al Qaul ul Fasl and drew Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad’s attention to the violation of the principle that he (Mirza Mahmud) himself had crafted, and questioned why he had based his reasoning upon a tract dated prior to October of 1902. This made Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad suddenly realize his mistake, and in order to maintain his arguments he directed his attention to the 1901 procla-mation Aik Ghalati Ka Izala

I would like to submit that had Maulvi Muhammad Ali not pointed out the contradiction in Al Qaul ul Fasl, Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad and his disciples would have continued to hold the belief that Hazrat Mirza had altered his belief in 1902, and that it was only in that year that he began to understand the meaning of muhaddath and prophet. The proclamation Aik Ghalati Ka Izala of 1901 would in that case have counted among those writings of Hazrat Mirza that were consid- ered unacceptable for basing their arguments.

However, Maulvi Muhammad Ali’s objection changed the entire complexion of the affair, and the date for the alteration-in-claim fell back from the year 1902 to the year 1901. Accordingly, Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad did not rest comfortably until he had officially altered the change of claim date in his second book Haqiqat-al Nabuwwat.

It must be admitted though that Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad had the right to change the date because a person who invents a thing has the authority to do with it as he wills. Since Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad had invented the creed about the change of claim and prescribed 1902 as the year of the change, he had the right toalter the year to 1901 on his own volition. I reiterate that the allegation that Hazrat Mirza altered his claim was a pure figment of MirzaBashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad’s imagination. In the entire literature of the Ahmadiyya Movement, be that in the form of books,proclamations or journals, nobody can point to a single sentence prior to the date of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s self-invented creed that states that Hazrat Mirza altered his claim in the year 1902 or 1901, or thatprior to 1901 Hazrat Mirza erroneously called himself muhaddath instead of a prophet because he did not understand the meaning of the word nabi or muhaddath. In addition, it is highly lamentable that not even a single member from the entire Ahmadiyya community realized that their spiritual leader had altered his claim in 1902 or 1901 as a result of which all previous denials of claimingprophethood had been abrogated.

When Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad announced that it was not permissible to accept the evidence from any of HazratMirza’s writings prior to 1902, his disciples in a show of blind conformity accepted this creed. Not even one of them saw that Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad himself had based some of his arguments on a tract Hazrat Mirza had written before 1902. When Maulvi Muhammad Ali pointed this out, Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad stated two months subsequently in a book that it was the writings of Hazrat Mirza prior to the year 1901 that could not be used as evi- dence. Instantly, his entire following changed their creed and accepted that Hazrat Mirza’s writings prior to 1901 were void and could not be used as evidence of his creed. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote the following in his book Haqiqat-al-Nabuwwat (page 121):

This shows that he (Hazrat Mirza) made a change in his belief in 1901. The year 1900 is an intermediary period that, like thepurgatory (barza- kh), provides the dividing line between the two views. Hence … it is proved that the references dating prior tothe year 1901 in which he has denied being a prophet are now abrogated and it is an error to use them as evidence.13

Accordingly, from the date of the above statement of Mirza Bashir-ud- Din Mahmud Ahmad, the writings of Hazrat Mirza prior to 1902 no longer stood abrogated but the writings prior to the year 1901 now stood rescinded.

  • It is regrettable that Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, in his effort to make Hazrat Mirza into a real prophet, did not consider its consequences. If it is conceded that prior to 1901 Hazrat Mirza was a prophet but that he continued to deny this status, then does this not make him the first kafir (disbeliever) of his own prophethood? When the rejection of the prophethood of a prophet is kufr (disbelief), and the prophet himself is obligated first of all to believe in his prophethood, then does this not make Hazrat Mirza the first kafir (disbeliever)? (I seek God’s protection from making such a statement). In fact, (andI seek God’s protection from making such a statement) it makes him the biggest kafir because ordinary men are spoken to by other men on the issue of prophethood, but the prophet is spoken to by God.

Sworn oath of seventy Ahmadis that Hazrat Mirza did not alter his claim in the year 1901

Mian Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad wanted to convince the world that the statements of Hazrat Mirza regarding prophethood prior to 1901 stood abrogated. In 1901, Mian Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad was a mere lad of twelve or thirteen years. The mosttelling argument in the debate about the change of creed must necessarily come from the disciples of Hazrat Mirza regarding what they understood about his claim at the time the pam- phlet was published.

Was there any disciple in 1901 who on publication of Aik Ghalati Ka Izala thought: “From today Hazrat Mirza has become a prophet?” This would conclusively answer the question whether the changeof creed is an invention of Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, and whether his disciples are simply subscribing to this creed because it is the edict of their spiritual leader. The other questions such a testimony would answer are: Is it not true that Hazrat Mirza did not correct any error on his part in this proclamation, but the error of another person who was affirmed by him as being unfamiliar with his books and writings and who had not spent time in his company? In Aik Ghalati Ka Izala, did Hazrat Mirza con- firm the statements in his previous books or did he rescind them? Did he say in this proclamation that he did not previously understand themeaning of the words nabi and muhaddath but now he understood their meaning? It is worthwhile to examine the evidence that theevents provide.

I present below the sworn testimony of seventy disciples of Hazrat Mirza. This sworn testimony appeared in a tract published bythe Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat Islam Lahore shortly after the publication of Mirza Bashir-ud- Din Mahmud Ahmad’s book Haqiqat-al-Nabuwwat. All of these people providing the sworn testimony had taken pledge at the hands of Hazrat Mirza prior to November of 1901. These pious people testified in their statement appearing below that they did not discern any change in Hazrat Mirza’s claim in the year1901, nor did they consider any of Hazrat Mirza’s previous writings in which he had denied any claim to prophethood as having been abrogated. There are other testimonies as well, but this one is sufficient to prove the point:

We, the undersigned, declare on oath that when Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, the Founder of the AhmadiyyaMovement, announced in 1891, that Prophet Jesus was dead according to the Holy Quran, and that the “son of Mary” whose advent among the Muslims was spoken of in the Books of Hadith was none other than Hazrat Mirza himself, he did not lay claimto prophethood. However, the cler- ics misled the public, and issued a fatwa of kufr against him by alleging that he claimedprophethood. After this, the Promised Messiah declared time after time in plain words, as his writings show, that to

ascribe to him a claim of prophethood was a fabrication against him, that he considered prophethood to have come to a close with the Holy Prophet Muhammad, and that he looked upon a claimant to prophet- hood, after the Holy Prophet, as a liar and a kafir. And that the words mursal, rasul, and nabi which had occurred in some of his revelations, or the word nabi which had beenused about the coming of the Messiah in Hadith, do not denote a prophet in actual fact, but rather a metaphor- ical, partial or zilli prophet who is known as a muhaddath. After the Khatam an-nabiyyin (Seal of the prophets), may peace and blessings of Allah beupon him, no prophet can come, whether new or old.

We also declare on oath that we entered into the pledge of the Promised Messiah before November 1901, and that the statements of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, the head of the Qadian section — that though in the beginning Hazrat Mirza Sahib did not claim prophethood, but that he changed his claim in November 1901, and laid claim to prophethood on that date, and that his previouswritings of ten or eleven years deny- ing prophethood are abrogated — all this is entirely wrong and absolutely opposed to facts. We do swear by Allah that the idea never even entered our minds that the Promised Messiah made a change in his claim in 1901or that his previous writings, which are full of denials of a claim to prophethood, were ever abrogated; nor, to our knowledge, did we ever hear such words from the mouth of even a single person until Mirza Mahmud Ahmad made these statements (in 1914/1915).

  • Signatories:
    1. Maulvi Syed Muhammad Ahsan (Amroha)
    2. Maulvi Muhammad Abdullah Khan (Patiala)
    3. Maulvi Muhammad Mubarak Ali (Sialkot)
    4. Maulvi Ghulam Hasan, Sub-Registrar (Peshawar)
    5. Maulvi Hakim Mirza Khuda Baksh, Author of ‘Asl-e-Musaffa
    6. Maulvi Muhammad Ali (Lahore)
    7. Maulvi Muhammad Yahya (Debgaran)
    8. Maulvi Muhammad Yaqub (Debgaran)
    9. Sheikh Rahmatullah, Trader (Lahore)
    10. Dr. Mirza Yaqub Baig (Lahore)
    11. Sheikh Zia Ullah, Former Headmaster of Madrasah Talim-ul- Islam (Qadian)
    12. Maulvi Muhammad Hasan Qureshi (Qila Daar)
    13. Baba Hidayat Ullah, Punjabi Poet (Lahore)
    14. Mian Nabi Baksh, Government Pensioner (Lahore)
    15. Dr. Syed Tufail Husain (Lahore)
    16. Mirza Jamal-ud-Din, Calligrapher (Lahore)
    17. Sheikh Din Muhammad (Lahore)
    18. Master Faqir Ullah (Lahore)
    19. Dr. Nabi Baksh (Bhaati Darwaaza, Lahore)
    20. Hafiz Fazal Ahmad (Baddo Malhee)
    21. Hafiz Ghulam Rasul, Merchant (Wazirabad)
    22. Chaudhry Ghulam Hasan, Former Station Master (Laveeriwala)
    23. Sheikh Ghulam Husain Siddiqui Ahmadi (Sialkot)
    24. Sheikh Muhammad Jaan, Merchant (Wazirabad)
    25. Sheikh Abdur Rahman (Wazirabad)
    26. Maulvi Aziz Baksh, B.A. (Dera Ghazi Khan)
    27. Wali Muhammad, Reader (Dera Ghazi Khan)
    28. Master Ghulam Muhammad, B.A., Headmaster (Rawalpindi)
    29. Hakim Sardar Khan, Brother of the late Hakim Shahnawaz (Rawalpindi)
    30. Seth Ahmad-ud-Din, Former Municipal Commissioner (Jhelum)
    31. Sheikh Qamar-ud-Din, Merchant (Chashma Jhelum)
    32. Mistri Abdus Sattar (Jhelum)
    33. Sheikh Ghulam Muhiyy-ud-Din, Appellant’s scribe (Jhelum)
    34. Maulvi Muhammad Ibrahim, Imam of Mosque (Jhelum)
    35. Dr. Hayat Muhammad, Dentist (Rawalpindi)
    36. Babu Allah Baksh, Officers’ Munshi (Jhelum)
    37. Babu Abdul Haq, Clerk (Jhelum)
    38. Mistri Abdus Sattaar (Jhelum)
    39. Mistri Yaqub Ali (Jammu)
    40. Master Muhammad Ramzan (Jammu)
    41. Malik Sher Muhammad Khan, B.A., Personal Assistant (Jammu)
    42. Mufti Fazal Ahmad (Jammu)
    43. Mistri Shahab-ud-Din (Jammu)
    44. Muhammad Shah (Jammu)
    45. Nawab Khan, Branch In-charge (Jhelum)
    46. Syed Masood Shah, Teacher (Jammu)
    47. Mistri Nizam-ud-Din (Jammu)
    48. Syed Ameer Ali Shah, Pensioner Sub Inspector
    49. Sheikh Hidayat Ullah (Peshawar)
    50. Ramzan Ali (Peshawar)
    51. Mian Muhammad Makki (Peshawar)
    52. Syed Laal Shah Barq (Peshawar)
    53. Sheikh Fazal Kareem (Peshawar)
    54. Munshi Nawab Khan, Sub Inspector Police (Gujranwaala)
    55. Sheikh Maula Baksh (Sialkot)
    56. Hakim Shams-ud-Din (Sialkot)
    57. Mian Bora (Sialkot)
    58. Allah Din (Sialkot)
    59. Sheikh Muhammad Jaan, Merchant (Sialkot Cantonment)
    60. Babu Ata Muhammad, Overseer (Sialkot)
    61. Mirza Hakim Baig (Sialkot)
    62. Mistri Muhammad Akbar, Contractor (Sialkot)
    63. Mistri Abdullah (Sialkot)
    64. Muhammad-ud-Din (Sialkot)
    65. Haji Fazal-ud-Din (Sialkot)
    66. Syed Amjad Ali, Court Inspector
    67. Dr. Hasan Ali
    68. Muhammad Sarfaraz Khan, Treasury officer (Baddo Malhee)
    69. Sheikh Muhammad Naseeb, Formerly Head Clerk (Qadian)
    70. Abdul Haq (Rawalpindi)

Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad claimed that ninety eight or ninety nine percent of the members of Hazrat Mirza’s Organization were loyal to him. The proper response upon the publication of the above announcement, therefore, should have been forhim to present the sworn tes- timony of at least seven thousand people to the effect that they understood Hazrat Mirza to have claimed prophethood on the day of the publication of Aik Ghalati Ka Izala and that they considered his previous writings denying any claim to prophethood as abrogated on that same day.

If not seven thou- sand, then Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad should have presented the sworn testimony from seven hundred people, and if not that, then at least sev- enty people, who had taken the pledge prior to 1901. These people should have testified unambiguously that when Aik Ghalati Ka Izala was published in November of 1901, they had understood immediately that Hazrat Mirza had altered his claim regarding prophethood and had now claimed real prophethood, and that his previous writings denying any claim to prophet- hood stood abrogated.

Many years have passed since the publication of this announcement, and despite repeated demands that a sworn statement to counter the above statement be published, one has not been forthcoming. On the contrary, Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad hastily published a decree in the newspaper prohibiting his followers from making a statement in the matter on oath. This was done so as not to get exposed.

However, it is a conclusive refutation of this creed that not one person out of those who had taken the pledge at the hands of Hazrat Mirza prior to November 1901 came forward to provide sworn testimony that at the time of the publication of Aik Ghalati Ka Izala he had felt that Hazrat Mirza had changed his claim and had now become a claimant to prophethood.

Hazrat Mirza’s own affirmation that his writings prior to 1901 did not stand rescinded

I would now like to present excerpts from Hazrat Mirza’s writings, postdating the year 1901, in which he has repeated and reaffirmed the same claims that are to be found in his books predating 1901. Hazrat Mirza’s book Tiryaq-ul-Qulub is one of those books in which he has not only clearly dis- avowed the claim to prophethood, but wherein he has also plainly stated that the rejection of his claims did not make anyone a disbeliever (kafir); Hazrat Mirza wrote as follows in Tiryaq-ul-Qulub (page 130):

My belief from the beginning has been that no person becomes a kafir or Antichrist by denying my claim.

Hazrat Mirza further elucidated this idea in a footnote:

Remember that only prophets bringing law (Shariah) and new com- mandments from Allah enjoy the privilege of calling their deniers unbelievers. But other than these prophets (Sahib-i-Shariah), the denial of any inspired ones (mulham) and those spoken to by Allah (muhaddath), however elevated they may be in the sight of Allah and blessed with Divine communication, does notincur kufr.

The above excerpt has been taken from a book at the end of which Hazrat Mirza has penned the date October 25, 1902 with his own hand, and the title page bears the date of October 28, 1902. This book very clearly con- tains the exact same claim that Hazrat Mirza had made in his books prior to 1901. There was no way Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad could avoid the inescapable verdict of this book except to declare this book abrogated as well.

That is precisely what he did — Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad claimed that although this book was published in October 1902, but the ref- erenced passages were written by Hazrat Mirza well before 1901. But it is an established fact, one that is acknowledged by all intelligent people, that with the exception of a posthumous publication, the author is the one who is responsible for verifying the authenticity of his written work at the date ofpublication, and not at the time of the actual writing of the manuscript. 

When the issue under consideration was so important that HazratMirza had become a prophet from being a non-prophet, and he was about to declare dis- believers only those who rejected his claim as disbelievers but the whole Muslim nation, as Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud claimed, then even if he had to publish a book that had been written before the change in his claim, he should have suitably modified, before publishing, the passages in which he had denied claim of prophethood. Or else, he should have simultaneously published an announcement stating that in the period since the writing of the manuscript, he had understood that he was a prophet and his deniers were disbelievers; therefore, readers should not be misled by what he had written in this book.

It is the height of injustice that a book which the author published for the public and never rescinded in his lifetime was declared abrogated, and the door was opened for prophethood after Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). However, Allah has His own ways of pro- tecting His chosen ones.

The manner in which Allah gave the lie to Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad’s bold and unlawful assertion was through the inclusion of a statement in Hazrat Mirza’s book Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, pub- lished in1907, in which Hazrat Mirza himself verified the authenticity of his book Tiryaq-ul-Qulub. In Haqiqat-ul-WahyHazrat Mirza had statedthe fol- lowing under the heading titled Sign Number 118:

Sign Number 118… I was staying in Gurdaspur in connection with a criminal case (brought against me by Karam-ud-Din of Jhelum). I received a revelation: “They will ask you about your dignity. Say: (it is from) Allah. Then leave them sporting in their idle talk.” That is, they will ask what is your dignity and your status. Say, it is Allah who has bestowed this status on me. Thenleave them in their sport and idle talk. I related this revelation to my companions who were not less than forty in number including Maulvi Muhammad Ali and Khwaja Kamal- ud-Din. Later, we went into the court where the counsel for the complainant asked the same question: “Is your status and dignity the same as has been written in Tiryaq- ul-Qulub?” I replied: “Yes, it is so by the grace of Allah. He it is who has granted me this dignity.” So it was that the revelation received from God in the morning wasfulfilled at approximately the time of the Asr (late afternoon) prayers. This resulted in strengthening the faith of the members ofmy Organization.

This then was the book that Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad declared as void with respect to the status and dignity of Hazrat Mirza with one stroke of the pen, despite the fact that it had been published after 1901, in October of 1902. It is worthwhile to stop and ponder here for a moment. Does not this written statement of Hazrat Mirza clearly prove that while appearing in a court of law in 1904, he testified to the truthfulness of the book Tiryaq-ul-Qulub, in a sworn statement. In addition to this authentica- tion, Hazrat Mirza further verified the book Tiryaq-ul-Qulub in 1907 when he sat down to write Haqiqat-ul-WahyHazrat Mirza verified hisdignity and status as given in Tiryaq-ul-Qulub in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy and published and disseminated the latter book widely.

It remains to be seen as to what is the dignity and status that is men- tioned in Tiryaq-ul-Qulub, and that is verified by Divinerevelation. For this purpose, the reader is referred to the quote from Tiryaq-ul-Qulub given earlier. A perusal of that reference clearly establishes the following two points:

  1. Notwithstanding the high spiritual status of Hazrat Mirza on account of being a mulham (one receiving Divine revelations) and muhaddath (a saint who has communion with God), he still remained a non- prophet.
  2. The rejection of the claims of Hazrat Mirza did not make a person a disbeliever (kafir).

In response to these facts, the supporters of Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad responded that Hazrat Mirza’s memory had erred, and the book regarding which he had been questioned in court was Tuhfa Golarwiyya, and not Tiryaq-ul-Qulub. The simple answer to this in the first instance is that when Hazrat Mirza had stated himself, in his writings, that he was questioned in court regarding the book Tiryaq-ul-Qulub, then state- ments to the contrary by others are of no consequence. 

Supposing that we do accept, for the sake of argument, that it was Tuhfa Golarwiyya regarding which Hazrat Mirza was questioned in court, the matter would still restwhere it did previously. This is how: In the year 1907, while writing the book Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, if Hazrat Mirza had deemed Tiryaq-ul-Qulub as a rescind- ed book, then it could not possibly have entered his mind that what he had stated during his sworn testimony in court, regarding his dignity and status, was recorded in Tiryaq-ul-Qulub. Does this not clearly demonstrate that at the time of the writingof Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, the thought had never entered the mind of Hazrat Mirza that Tiryaq-ul-Qulub was a rescinded book?

If he had really considered Tiryaq-ul-Qulub as being rescinded, and if he had indeed altered his claims in 1901, then he could not possibly have writtenin Haqiqat-ul-Wahy that his dignity and status was the same as he had recorded in Tiryaq-ul-Qulub. Did he even forget such a momentous event that he had changed his claims in 1901; that previously he considered anyone who claimed to be a prophet as being an accursed person, but that now he was himself claiming to be a prophet? Could he possibly have forgotten that he had not claimed to be a prophet in Tiryaq-ul-Qulub, and that now he had become such a claimant, and that therefore his dignity and status as recorded inTiryaq-ul-Qulub could not possibly be the same?

It is obvious that if a person changes his claims radically to make them totally opposite of what they were previously then he is going to exercise extreme caution after the change not to state his dignity and status as being the same as they were previous to the change. Is it not true that today Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad or even his most ordinary disciple cannot make such a mistake? The first question they ask if any reference is given to them on the issue of Hazrat Mirza’s alleged change of creed is: “Is this citation from the period prior to 1901 or after that?” They would not make the mistake even in their sleep of quoting a citation from a pre-1901 book of Hazrat Mirza on the issue of prophethood. In fact, it would not be surprising if even in their graves when questioned byMunkar Nakir (the names of the two angels cross-questioning the dead in the grave) these disciples might say, “Which creed do you askme about – the one prior to 1901 or the one after?” 

So are we to assume that, God forbid, Hazrat Mirza alone was such a carelessperson that he would forget the events of the past and would pen down his writings in a mindless manner? A momentary lapse ofmemory while presenting a statement before the magistrate in a court of law is a pos- sibility, but can we also say that, God forbid,Hazrat Mirza’s memory blundered regarding his own claims? If that can happen, then all trust in his claims would thereby beshattered. For the first twelve years, according to Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad’s assertions, Hazrat Mirza did notunderstand his own claims. Finally, in 1901 when he began to understand his claims, his memory started faltering so that, in writingHaqiqat-ul-Wahy in 1907, Hazrat Mirza erroneously gave the reference of a publication predating 1901 and declared his dignity and status given therein as being correct.

In fact, this is an insult to Hazrat Mirza of a magnitude that a bigger insult is difficult to conceive. Consider the actions attributedto Hazrat Mirza by Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad and his followers — did not under- stand his claims for twelve years; then did such a turnaround in his claims that he became a claimant of what he previously considered to be an accursed act i.e., claimingprophethood after Prophet Muhammad; then after changing his claim, wrote statements that contradicted his changed claims. If one wereto accept these assertions where would that leave the position and status of Hazrat Mirza? However, the fact is that there is no truth in these assertions and they are only false imputations against Hazrat Mirza.

Hazrat Mirza’s beliefs as expressed in Tuhfa Golarwiyya

I have shown earlier that Hazrat Mirza described his status and dignity as that of a mulham and muhaddath in his book Tiryaq-ul-Qulub, published in October of 1902, and stated clearly that he was a non-prophet. He further verified the dignity and status mentioned in Tiryaq-ul-Qulub in Haqiqat-ul- Wahy, published in 1907. This shows clearly that Hazrat Mirza neither altered his claim in 1901, noris Tiryaq-ul-Qulub an invalidated book. However, since Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad’s supporters contend that the book regarding which Hazrat Mirza gave the statement in court was Tuhfa Golarwiyya, I consider it necessary here to quote Hazrat Mirza’screed regarding prophethood expressed in Tuhfa Golarwiyya so that the argument against the followers of the false creed is completedby showing that even in this book there is no indication of any change in Hazrat Mirza’s creed.

Hazrat Mirza states in Tuhfa Golarwiyya (page 83):

The Holy Quran has clearly ended prophethood with Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as is apparent from the verse “This day have I perfected your religion for you,” (5:3) and the verse “But he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the prophets,” (33:40). But those who bring Jesus back to this world believe that he would return with his prophethood and that Gabriel would be descending on him continuously for forty-five years with prophetic revelation (wahynubuwwat). What is left then of the Finality of Prophethood (Khatam-i Nubuwwat) and the finality of prophetic revelation with such a belief? Rather, in that case, Jesus would be the last of the prophets (khatam al-anbiya).

Then on page 84 of Tuhfa GolarwiyyaHazrat Mirza writes:

If, in fact, the Messiah has to return to this world and Gabriel is to descend on him for forty-five years with prophetic revelation, then do not such beliefs completely undermine the faith of Islam? And will it not besmirch the Finality of Prophethood and the finality of prophetic revelation with the completion of the Quran?

The preceding references from Tuhfa Golarwiyya indisputably estab- lish the following results:

  1. The Holy Quran clearly terminated prophethood with Prophet Muhammad in the verse “But he is the Messenger of Allah and theSeal of the prophets,” (33:40).
  2. So if a person now appears who claims to be a prophet, and who receives prophetic revelations, then neither the finality ofProphet Muhammad survives nor does the finality of the Holy Quran whose completion brought prophetic revelation to an end. In short, such a creed shatters the very foundations of the religion of Islam.
  3. It follows that Hazrat Mirza who clearly laid down the principle in number 1 and 2 above could neither be a claimant of prophethood nor a recipient of prophetic revelation.

This was the same creed that Hazrat Mirza had presented prior to the year 1901 as well. He writes:14

May it be clear to them, we also curse the claimant to prophethood and believe that “There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” We believe in the finality of the prophethood of Hazrat Muhammad, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him,and in the termination of the apostolic revelation (wahy nubuwwat). We accept (however) that saintly revelation (wahy wilayat) isgranted to followers of Prophet Muhammad who follow him perfectly. Anyone who alleges more than this against us strays from righteousness and honesty… hence there is no claim of prophethood from my side but only that of being a saint (wilayat) and arevivalist (mujaddidiyyat).

In addition, I present four more references from the period after 1901 to show that Hazrat Mirza kept the same belief about prophethood right up to the end. The allegation of a change in belief in 1901 is a fabrication and a slander.

1.  Mawahib-ur-Rahman

In his book Mawahib-ur-Rahman, published in 1903, Hazrat Mirza wrote the passage reproduced below under the title“Violation of My Beliefs.” In this passage, Hazrat Mirza stated that the saints of the Muslim community are colored in the coloring of prophethood, but they are not prophets in reality because religious law (shariah) has reached its perfection in the Quran. Since there is no scope for any addition or deletion in the reli- gious law, hence no prophet can come now. It is obvious that just as the completion of religious law is an impediment for other saints to become a prophet, so too is it an impediment for Hazrat Mirza to become a prophet.Thus, the following passage from the period after 1901 provides definitive, certain, and clear evidence that Hazrat Mirza did not accept the coming of a prophet after Prophet Muhammad. Hazrat Mirza states:

I am a Muslim and I believe the Quran to be the book of Allah and our master Hazrat Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allahbe upon him, to be the Prophet and Messenger of Allah and his religion to be the best of all religions. I also believe that he (the Holy Prophet) is Last of the Prophets, and there is no prophet after him but the one nurtured by his beneficence and who appears in accordance with his promise. Allah communicates with His friends (auliya) in the ummah who bear the color of the prophets, though in reality they are not prophets, because the Quran has perfected the Shariah, and the world does not stand in need of any other Shariah. They (the auliya) are gifted with the knowledge of the Holy Quran but they neither add nor subtract anything from it. Anyone who adds or subtracts anything from the Holy Quran is a wrong-doer and a devil.

2. Haqiqat-ul-Wahy

Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, published in 1907, was one of the last written works of Hazrat Mirza. Accompanying this book was an addendum titled Istifta (Request for a legal opinion). In that addendum, Hazrat Mirza stated his belief regarding the finality of prophethood and messengership with great clarity, and stated that the words prophet and messenger appearing in his rev- elations or prophecies had been used in a metaphorical sense and not in the real sense. He stated:

Prophethood has admittedly been terminated with the advent of our Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.There is now neither any book besides the Quran, the best of the Scriptures nor any Shariah other than the Shariah of Muhammad.The Holy Prophet, who is the best of all creation, has given me the name prophet which is by way of reflection, due to the blessingof his faithful obedience. I do not find any excellence in my soul; whatever I have received is because of the holy power of Prophet Muhammad. What Allah the most High means by my prophethood is only a profusion of communication with Him and nothing else. Let the curse of Allah be upon him who claims anything beyond this, or who sees excellence in his own soul, or whoretracts allegiance from the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad. Our Messenger, (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), isundoubtedly the Khatam al-Anbiya and with him has terminated the chain of mes- sengers; so no one can now claim perfectprophethood after our Messenger. Nothing is now left after him except abundance of com- munion and communication and that too solely through obedience to the Holy Prophet. I swear by God that whatever I have achieved, I have achieved through the lightof his obedience, and that I have been called a prophet by God only metaphorically and not in reality.

The preceding reference clearly proves the following:

  1. Prophethood and Messengership have ended with Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
  2. The use of the word prophet for the Promised Messiah by Prophet Muhammad was meant to indicate only the reflection of the blessings of prophethood and stood for nothing more than the profusion of com- munion with God.
  3. Reflective prophethood, which refers to abundant communion with God, does not connote actual prophethood in the terminologyof Islam. However, it is a part of complete and perfect prophethood. In the preceding reference Hazrat Mirza stated: “After him(Prophet Muhammad) nothing else remains (of prophethood) except an

abundance of communion with God.” Now if the profusion of com- munication with God alone is taken to be prophethood thenit is meaningless to say that nothing has remained of prophethood with the exception of abundant communion with God. It will be tantamount to saying nothing remains of prophethood except prophethood!

  • So when the word prophet is used in reference to a person who is grant- ed this partial prophethood, or in other words an abundanceof communion with God, it is used in the metaphorical sense and not in the real sense.
  • After the Seal of the prophets, any person who considers the word prophet to mean more than just abundant communion with God is deserving of the curse of God.

3. Another reference from Haqiqat-ul-Wahy

Another reference from the addendum of Hazrat Mirza’s book Haqiqat-ul-Wahy is presented below. The quotation is taken from pages 67 and 68 of the book:

What ignorance, folly, and departure from truth, to say that prophet- hood has been claimed. O foolish people! “prophethood”here does not mean that, God forbid, I stand against the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and lay claim to prophethood or I have brought a new Shariah. By prophethood I mean only the abun- dance of Divine communion andcommunication, which I have received by following Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). The existence of communion and communication is also admitted by you. It is thus merely a verbal dispute.

Does the preceding reference not indisputably lead to the following results?

  1. Hazrat Mirza used the word prophet only in the sense of abundance of communion with God, and nothing more than that.
  2. All Ahl-e-Sunnat Muslim scholars acknowledge that saints can be blessed with abundant communion with God. The entire controversy is, therefore, just a matter of semantics.
  3. To call a claimant of this kind of prophethood, i.e., one who claims only abundance of communion with God, as a claimant to realprophet- hood is, in the words of Hazrat Mirza, “ignorance,” “folly” and “departure from truth.”
  • One more reference from Haqiqat-ul-Wahy

Yet another quotation from Hazrat Mirza’s book Haqiqat-ul-Wahy is given below (Addendum page 44):

I was informed by the God who sent our Prophet, may peace and bless- ings of Allah be upon him, after all other prophets so that He may gather all nations under his flag.

In the presence of all these statements, if people do not give up their stubbornness, and despite all these clarifications, allege that Hazrat Mirza claimed real prophethood then I can only repeat the words of Hazrat Mirza that the action of such a person is great “ignorance, folly and departure from truth.”

Hazrat Mirza’s belief regarding the finality of prophethood was based on a revelation

Finally, I consider it appropriate to reproduce an excerpt from Hazrat Mirza’s book Minan-ur-Rahman. This book wasundoubtedly written prior to 1901, but was published after Hazrat Mirza’s death. Its publication shows that the creed of Hazrat Mirza contained in this book was not considered abrogated by his disciples and by the Central Anjuman Qadian — the organ- ization set up by Hazrat Mirza as his successor. Nor could the book have been considered abrogated because Hazrat Mirza termed his creed statedtherein as revelation, and it cannot be said about Divine revelation that God erred in the matter of prophethood. Hazrat Mirza stated on page 20 of this book:It has been revealed to me that Islam is undoubtedly the only true faith, and the Messenger, without a doubt, is Mustapha(Prophet Muhammad), the Messenger and the chief of all the people of the world. He is unlettered and he is trustworthy. Just as our Lord is One and is alone deserving to be worshipped, likewise our Prophet, whom we obey, is also one. There is no prophet after him, nor does he have a partner, and without a doubt, he is the Seal of the prophets.

Footnotes

  1. Siraj-i Munir: Page 3
  2. Hadith – Muslim #7015, Narrated An-Nawwas ibn Sam’an: “…Then Eisa (Jesus) the Prophet of Allah and his companions will be besieged, until the head of the bull of one of them will seem better than one hundred Dinar to one of you today. The Prophet of Allah, Eisa and his companions will beseech (Allah), and Allah will send worms in their necks, and in the morning, they will all perish as one. Then the Prophet of Allah, Eisa(as) and his companions will come down tothe earth, and they will not find a spot the size of a handspan on earth that is not filled with their putrefaction and stench, The Prophet of Allah, Eisa (as), and hiscompanions will beseech Allah, and Allah will send birds like the necks of Bacterian camels, which will carry them and throw them wherever Allah wills…”
  3. Anjam Atham: Footnote pages 27-28.
  4. Footnote to footnote in Anjam Atham by Hazrat Mirza: “Such words have not occurred only now, but have been present in my published revelations for sixteenyears. So you will find many such revelations about me in the book Barahin Ahmadiyya.
  5. Hadith – Muslim #7015, Narrated by An-Nawwas ibn Sam’an.
  6. Sunan Al Tirmizi, #36 Book on Fitan (Trials and Afflictions) Chapter 52: About MahdiSayyidina Abdullah (RA) reported from the Prophet (SAW) that he said, “A man of my house, his name being as my name, will follow (to rule over the world).”
  7. Mishkat, Page 480: “Hazrat Masih (Messiah) will die after completing the duration he was destined to pass in the world and that Muslims would offer his funeral prayers and bury him next to the grave of the Holy Prophet (SAWS), Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) and Hazrat Umar (RA).”
  • Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 36, Number 4276A: Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: Abu Ishaq told that Ali looked at his son al−Hasan and said: This son of mine is asayyid (chief) as named by the Prophet (peace be upon him), and from his loins will come forth a man who will be called by the name of your Prophet (peace be upon him) and resemble him in conduct but not in appearance. He then mentioned the story about his filling the earth with justice.
  • Sunan Abu Dawud, Kitaab al-Mahdi, 11/375, hadith Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri said: The Messenger of Allah (Peace & Blessings of Allah be upon Him) said: “The Mahdi is of my lineage, with a high forehead and a long, thin, curved nose. He will fill the earth with fair- ness and justice as it was filled with oppression and injustice, and he will rule for seven years.”
  • Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 35, pp. 318-319, no. 14
  • Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 36, Number 4276A
  • Proclamation dated April 1897.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s